Monish Tourangbam
The perennial India-Pakistan tangle over contentious Kashmir issue gained currency at the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly thanks to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari yet again. Asserted he, “We will continue to support the right of the people of J&K to peacefully choose their destiny in accordance with the UN Security Council’s long resolutions on this matter. Kashmir remains a symbol of the failures, rather than strengths of the UN system.”
Predictably, this was strongly rebutted by Foreign Minister Krishna who countered, Zardari’s remarks were “unwarranted and unexpected. Our principled position on the issue has been consistent and is well known. The people of J&K have chosen and reaffirmed their destiny repeatedly through India’s well established democratic processes. We wish to make it abundantly clear that J&K is an integral part of India,” he robustly emphasized.
Undeniably, this verbal jostling at the UN amidst efforts towards diplomatic rapprochement underscores the distrust and uncertainty which defines Indo-Pak ties. Notwithstanding New Delhi and Islamabad’s latest intent to explore an area to set ground conditions for adding more comprehensive content to their talks. Specially post Krishna’s Islamabad visit which despite low expectations did manage to engineer a liberalised visa agreement.
But, it is easily discernible that an effective diplomatic meeting of minds is an uphill task given innumerable issues that plague ties including territorial contentions and divergent security perceptions. Pakistani leaders often try to rally international support against India at the UN and lose no chance to rake up Kashmir to earn brownie points. In fact, pro and anti Kashmir arguments continue even beyond the UN podium with Islamabad refusing to let the issue subside easily. Pakistani officials openly seek to highlight that J&K is a disputed territory.
Besides, Islamabad has also sought third parties entry to resolve the Kashmir question to tilt the balance in its favour. Towards that end it often tries to amplify the issue at various international forums including UN. On the other hand, India believes that all matters between the neighbours should be resolved bilaterally, a view to which erstwhile meddlers like US now subscribes to.
Pertinently, negating Foreign Minister Krishna’s rebuff of President Zardari’s comments, Pakistan’s Deputy Permanent Representative Raza Tarar in his Right of Reply argued that Zardari raking up Kashmir was “not unwarranted” as claimed by India. “Let me also make absolutely clear that J&K is neither an integral part of India nor has it ever been,” Ambassador Tarar underlined.
Indeed, following a mild thaw of ties, Krishna reiterated that New Delhi was not expecting Kashmir being raked up again at the UN. “I did not expect that President Zardari would make a reference to Kashmir and once a reference from Pakistan at the highest level in the UN is made, then it is certainly the responsibility of India to state its stated position.”
Moreover, the Foreign Minister also stressed that he was merely restating India’s long held position on Kashmir as a response to what Zardari said. Besides, it was unfortunate that the Pakistani President ignited a needless tit-for-tat over Kashmir especially at a time when both sides are trying to find some leeway to reassesses bilateral issues and turn-around troubled relations which has seriously scuttled effective intra-regional development in South Asia.
But, when asked if the UN diplomatic wrestling over Kashmir would hamper newly re-energized efforts to normalize ties, Krishna replied “We will continue our dialogue with Pakistan, the road map has been drawn and we will try to stick to it and let us see how it goes.”
Undoubtedly, terrorism remains the major nemesis to any real efforts towards rapprochement, which is a pity as Pakistan faces an existential threat from Islamic militants. Whereby, it continues to dilly-dally in helping give justice to hundreds who died in the 26/11 attacks.
Importantly, it is time Pakistan starts looking at economic content and sees the benefits that would accrue to it vis-à-vis establishing a more sustainable and vibrant economic relationship with India. For New Delhi, bringing the Mumbai perpetrators to book is a vital component of ties whereby there could be no better confidence building measure than Islamabad finally moving on it.
Towards that end, India has decided to be more patient when it comes to dealing with Pakistan on 26/11 thereby indicating a desire to bet on the prospects of normalising ties. “The international community must adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ approach towards terrorism and focus on efforts to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism including its invidious network of epicenters, training facilities and financing,” said Krishna.
Also, while reiterating India’s unwavering commitment to Afghanistan’s stable future, Krishna indirectly targeted Pakistan’s safe havens of terrorism averring, “The continuing existence of safe havens and sanctuaries for terrorists beyond Afghanistan’s borders is the major impediment to the restoration of peace and security in Afghanistan.”
Clearly, India-Pakistan ties and many other contentious issues woven into this most-troubled of relationships fabric determines a lot of what New Delhi does in South Asia. Given that India has newly acquired the status of a global player in various issues and its trajectory is at a different pedestal from that of Pakistan. Amply proved by Krishna’s at the UN.
In sum, India’s foreign policy priorities extend well beyond its immediate region. As it stands, it views itself as a deserving candidate for a permanent seat of an expanded UN Security Council, whenever that happens. Indisputably, New Delhi’s response to global challenges besides the ones in its immediate backyard would determine the future of India’s status at the UN and in the world at large. INFA
Follow our WhatsApp channel