 |
|
The article delves into the complexities surrounding the resolution of issues between India and Pakistan, particularly concerning Kashmir, and argues against seeking international intervention. It asserts that bilateral and multilateral diplomacy has consistently proven ineffective, primarily due to a deeply entrenched web of historical events, frozen perspectives, and the influence of international bodies like the United Nations. The author, T.P. Sreenivasan, a former Indian Ambassador specializing in multilateral diplomacy, draws upon his extensive experience to illustrate the challenges India faces in garnering international support for its position on key issues such as Kashmir and terrorism. The piece argues that India's narrative has become entangled in controversial concepts within the UN framework, making it difficult to achieve a favorable outcome through diplomatic channels. The author advocates for a more assertive approach, suggesting that India should prioritize its security through appropriate military action, especially given Pakistan's continued policy of destabilization.
One of the central arguments presented is the futility of relying on the United Nations and other international organizations to resolve the Kashmir issue. The author highlights that the UN's involvement in the matter dates back to the early days of the conflict, and the resolutions and literature produced over the past 70 years have inadvertently complicated the situation. For instance, the inscription on UN maps depicting the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, which states that the final status of the region has not yet been agreed upon, undermines India's claim that J&K is an integral part of the country. This ambiguity allows other nations to avoid taking a definitive stance on the issue, often deferring to the Simla Agreement, which emphasizes a bilateral solution. The author also points out that Pakistan has strategically exploited these international frameworks to its advantage, using them as a 'smokescreen' to promote its agenda regarding Kashmir, terrorism, and self-determination.
The article also scrutinizes the international community's response to terrorism, particularly in the context of India's concerns. It notes that India's efforts to push for a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism at the UN decades ago were largely unsuccessful, with many viewing it as an anti-Pakistan move. The UN's struggle to define terrorism, due to the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' dilemma, has further hindered effective international action. While the 9/11 attacks brought terrorism to the forefront of global attention, the subsequent focus shifted to military intervention in Afghanistan, which ultimately failed to eradicate the problem. The UN Security Council's counter-terrorism mechanisms, centered around various resolutions, are deemed inadequate, as they require a comprehensive 'whole-of-society' approach that respects human rights and the rule of law. This makes it difficult for India to secure a clear endorsement of its actions against terrorism, especially given the international community's emphasis on proportionality and adherence to international humanitarian law.
Furthermore, the author discusses the concept of 'hyphenation,' where India and Pakistan are treated as equals on every issue, even when one party is clearly the aggressor. This stems from India's decision to take the issue of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir to the UN, which was initially a case of aggression that should have been considered under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, it was instead discussed under Article VI on Pacific Settlement of Disputes, leading to the incorporation of extraneous ideas and the normalization of the India-Pakistan equation. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by both countries further heightened concerns, with Kashmir being viewed as a potential nuclear flashpoint. Despite India's 'no-first use' doctrine, Pakistan's threat to enhance its conventional military capabilities adds to the instability in the region.
The author concludes that India should refrain from seeking international intervention or support on the Kashmir issue, as its narrative has become entangled in controversial concepts within the UN framework. He suggests that India's only viable option is to ensure its security through appropriate military action, as long as Pakistan continues its policy of 'inflicting a thousand cuts' to gain Indian territory. This implies a more assertive and proactive approach, where India takes decisive action to protect its interests, rather than relying on the often-ineffective mechanisms of international diplomacy. The article's central thesis is that the historical context, the complexities of the UN system, and Pakistan's strategic maneuvering have created an environment where international intervention is unlikely to yield a favorable outcome for India. Therefore, India must prioritize its own security and be prepared to take unilateral action when necessary. The analysis emphasizes the long-standing challenges in India-Pakistan relations and the limitations of multilateral diplomacy in addressing these issues, ultimately advocating for a more self-reliant approach to national security.
Source: The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues