India News Online » News Analysis » Foreign Policy Opinion » 

Kashmir : Third-party involvement is increasing

	February 04, 2002

J.N. Dixit, former Foreign Secretary & Chairman, Editorial Board



International concerns have been focussed on Afghanistan as well as South Asia, particularly Pakistan and India, since the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States and the December 13 strike against the Indian Parliament. A consequence has been an incrementally activist role adopted by the United States and other major powers on India-Pakistan relations.

The attack on the Indian Parliament and the government’s firm political and decisive operational response have palpably heightened tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, almost to the levels that existed in the weeks preceding the India-Pakistan war of 1971.

The visits of a number of leaders of foreign governments since mid-December to defuse India-Pakistan tensions have not been mere advisory exercises. They were, in fact, exercises in generating direct diplomatic and political pressure on India and Pakistan to prevent their standoff from deteriorating into a military conflict.

In objective terms, these exercises are a third-party intervention while New Delhi continues to reiterate that it will not accept any third party mediation or intervention in India-Pakistan relations, particularly on the Kashmir issue. The Indian stand is also that United Nations resolutions passed from 1947 onwards have no relevance for resolving the problems related to Kashmir because the situation in Jammu and Kashmir has undergone profound constitutional and political changes in terms of the integration of the state with the Indian Union.

The basic reason for this attitude is India’s disappointment at the partisan manner in which the major powers have dealt with the Kashmir issue in the United Nations and in their bilateral interactions with India and Pakistan. Their objective has been rooted in their respective geo-strategic interests and not on the merits of the case - the constitutional validity of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India and the repeated attempts of Pakistan to undo this by aggression and violence.

Conversely, Pakistan’s policy is to advocate the implementation of the U.N. resolutions and to emphasise the need for third party mediation and intervention because the issue has not been resolved bilaterally. Pakistan also bases its policy on the argument that the U.N. resolutions question the Indian thesis about the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.

At the formal level, there is this fundamental impasse between India and Pakistan on the question of third party involvement on Kashmir. The political reality, however, is that it is third party interests which created the dispute and it is India which took the initiative in bringing about third parties to the dispute.

The colonial British government, while determining the legal framework for the future political status of the princely states of India, had hoped that the larger princely states would remain independent, that the sub-continental empire would consist of the dominions of India and Pakistan and that a number of large princely states would constitute the third geo-political ingredient of the South Asian sub-continent.

The British government further expected that these princely states and Pakistan would maintain close links with Britain to ensure a long-term politico-strategic influence in the sub-continent.

When the majority of princely states acceded to India, the British plans went awry. The aspirations of Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir to convert his state into an independent country was a sort of last opportunity which the departing British rulers wished to utilise to strengthen their influence and create a strategic equation with Pakistan to meet this purpose.

The likelihood of international involvement or intervention, particularly by the US, is now on the cards for the following reasons:

First, whatever India’s convictions, the international community considers the problem of Jammu and Kashmir to be a territorial dispute in which Pakistan has a status and stake. Neither the accession of the state to India nor the issue of Pakistani aggression forms part of its perceptions.

Second, despite the passage of more than 50 years, the dispute remains unresolved and has sparked off major conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Third, the anxiety about such conflicts has qualitatively increased in the international community because of the acquisition of nuclear weapons and missile capacities by India and Pakistan over the last decade. The Kashmir issue is thus perceived as a nuclear flashpoint.

Fourth, the phenomenon of cross-border terrorism and pan-Islamic militancy has become a matter of international concern after the attacks on the US The assessment is that this pernicious phenomenon finds fertile ground in disputes like those of Jammu and Kashmir. There is also speculative assessment that stability in Afghanistan is indirectly dependent on the resolution of the Kashmir issue and the normalisation of India-Pakistan relations.

These considerations have been compounded by the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament and the consequent military and political pressure generated by India on Pakistan. An important factor in third party intervention is the consensus among the major powers on preventing a conflict situation rooted in the Kashmir issue. Also, India does not have the leverage any more of its special equation with the former Soviet Union.

What is happening now is incremental third party involvement in the Kashmir issue. The United States and other major powers continue to affirm that they have no desire to mediate between India and Pakistan unless both countries agree. They say that they are willing to play the role of a facilitator, if agreed upon, for cosmetic purposes.



The factual position is different

The insistent advice to New Delhi to remain restrained and moderate vis-a-vis Pakistan and the pressure generated on Islamabad to desist from sponsoring terrorism against India manifest third party involvement.

The active political and physical monitoring of the evolving political and military situation in the sub-continent by the major powers - through the visits of their leaders - is another manifestation of the phenomenon.

Unconfirmed reports about India having moved out the commander of a strike corps of its Army, apparently on the suggestion of the United States, because he orchestrated a high military stance on the Pakistan border, is indicative of U.S. activism in India-Pakistan relations.

New Delhi must clearly understand that there is every possibility of the U.S. intervening in the sub-continent, not just politically but operationally, if there is an impending nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. The U.S. will have the support of the international community in such an exercise. India has to be responsive to this particular possibility.

If New Delhi wants to avoid third party involvement, India must give the highest priority to resolving the internal dilemmas of Jammu and Kashmir.