Raju Korti
I have been following closely the international ferment ever since the Indian government abrogated Article 370 and 35 A of the Constitution scrapping the special status granted to Kashmir. For the world of me I have still not been able to figure out what is the tangible outcome of these steps beyond the stated position of the Indian Government on Kashmir. True, the government has done something which has always remained in the realms of a fiercely debated political issue and the ground reality, as of now, has not ramified into anything major. However, given the perennial volatility in the state, it always is a distinct possibility that state and non-state players from across the border could make this moment of hush lapse into the bloody chaos the Valley is used to.
Watching India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and repeatedly saying that the "matter relating to Article 370 remains an entirely India's internal matter with no scope for external ramifications," Syed Akbaruddin sounded articulate and refreshingly different from the otherwise banal-speak most diplomats resort to. Somehow, he reminded me of James Baker, former US Secretary of State minus his subtle wit. The one significant observation Akbaruddin made at the UN was the opinion of China was not the opinion of the world and to that extent, he effectively blanked out another attempt at internationalizing the issue. To his credit, he didn't do badly at all looking to the United Nations Security Council's marked reluctance on Beijing's push to get the world body hold a closed door meeting on the issue. There is little doubt that New Delhi has done its home work well and has virtually slammed doors on any external mediation in Kashmir but then if Pakistan's past record is anything to go by -- including that on the historic Shimla Agreement of 1972 -- any hopes of a peaceful settlement are tenuous. Akbaruddin, did well to present that New Delhi was prepared to go the extra mile by reconstructing the Agreement in tune with the changed situation in Kashmir. As of now, the posturing of majority UNSC members that there should not be any outcome issued after the closed door deliberations on Kashmir has forced China's hand into making a statement in its individual capacity. In effect, that is a tacit admission that status quo persists in Kashmir. As for Pakistan customarily raising the issue in UN has been without any traction and doesn't look like it will have any in near future.
I am sure Delhi will not even bother to think about the Chinese perception that the Constitutional amendment by India has changed the status quo by India. Akbaruddin couldn't have been more pre-emptive when he said he would present Delhi's national position too "if national statements try to masquerade as the will of the international community" in an obvious reference to China and Kashmir. The diplomatic master-stroke here was how could a Constitutional matter become a threat to peace and security as claimed by Pakistan. A federal arrangement cannot and does not have any implications beyond the country's borders. Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi asking Security Council to revoke the special status to Jammu and Kashmir didn't cut any ice as it had to.
In the midst of this regulation debate even the government's worst detractors back home have not said anything about that the amendment was a clever beginning to alter the demographics of the new union territory. My apprehension is it could be only a matter of time before this turns out a cause for bigger debate within the country than outside it. My personal take is one is entitled to his opinions but not facts.
When President Richard Nixon had appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as US Ambassador to India, the latter -- who followed a neoconservative American foreign policy -- had infamously remarked that South-East Asia was the most dangerous place in the world. I remember him having said something to the effect fact sometime in 1975 that Pakistan in future would be over-run by army generals who would demand Kashmir back with nuclear weapons.
Had Moynihan been alive today, he would have smirked behind his thick-rimmed spectacles for that small piece of prophecy.
Watching India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and repeatedly saying that the "matter relating to Article 370 remains an entirely India's internal matter with no scope for external ramifications," Syed Akbaruddin sounded articulate and refreshingly different from the otherwise banal-speak most diplomats resort to. Somehow, he reminded me of James Baker, former US Secretary of State minus his subtle wit. The one significant observation Akbaruddin made at the UN was the opinion of China was not the opinion of the world and to that extent, he effectively blanked out another attempt at internationalizing the issue. To his credit, he didn't do badly at all looking to the United Nations Security Council's marked reluctance on Beijing's push to get the world body hold a closed door meeting on the issue. There is little doubt that New Delhi has done its home work well and has virtually slammed doors on any external mediation in Kashmir but then if Pakistan's past record is anything to go by -- including that on the historic Shimla Agreement of 1972 -- any hopes of a peaceful settlement are tenuous. Akbaruddin, did well to present that New Delhi was prepared to go the extra mile by reconstructing the Agreement in tune with the changed situation in Kashmir. As of now, the posturing of majority UNSC members that there should not be any outcome issued after the closed door deliberations on Kashmir has forced China's hand into making a statement in its individual capacity. In effect, that is a tacit admission that status quo persists in Kashmir. As for Pakistan customarily raising the issue in UN has been without any traction and doesn't look like it will have any in near future.
I am sure Delhi will not even bother to think about the Chinese perception that the Constitutional amendment by India has changed the status quo by India. Akbaruddin couldn't have been more pre-emptive when he said he would present Delhi's national position too "if national statements try to masquerade as the will of the international community" in an obvious reference to China and Kashmir. The diplomatic master-stroke here was how could a Constitutional matter become a threat to peace and security as claimed by Pakistan. A federal arrangement cannot and does not have any implications beyond the country's borders. Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi asking Security Council to revoke the special status to Jammu and Kashmir didn't cut any ice as it had to.
In the midst of this regulation debate even the government's worst detractors back home have not said anything about that the amendment was a clever beginning to alter the demographics of the new union territory. My apprehension is it could be only a matter of time before this turns out a cause for bigger debate within the country than outside it. My personal take is one is entitled to his opinions but not facts.
When President Richard Nixon had appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as US Ambassador to India, the latter -- who followed a neoconservative American foreign policy -- had infamously remarked that South-East Asia was the most dangerous place in the world. I remember him having said something to the effect fact sometime in 1975 that Pakistan in future would be over-run by army generals who would demand Kashmir back with nuclear weapons.
Had Moynihan been alive today, he would have smirked behind his thick-rimmed spectacles for that small piece of prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment