HVK Archives: The task in Kashmir
The task in Kashmir - The Financial Express
G M Telang
()
14 October 1996
Title : The task in Kashmir
Author : G M Telang
Publication : The Financial Express
Date : October 14, 1996
For once, the US Assistant Secretary of State, Robin
Raphel, has openly deplored Pakistan's intransigence on
Kashmir. Her sharp reaction to Benazir Bhutto's denun-
ciation of the assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir as
a sham is a far cry from her vigorous espousal of the
Pakistani cause since the beginning of the Clinton admin-
istration. It was Raphel who, as Clinton's trouble-
shooter in South Asia, found it essential to reassure
Islamabad from time to time that it need not be worried
by signs in Clinton's predecessor's last year in office
about a possible review of the American policy to the
detriment of Pakistan. Clinton had taken over just when
Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir was assuming
dangerous proportions. At such a critical juncture,
Washington's diplomatic support to Pakistan in the form
of Raphel's frequent utterance about the existence of a
'dispute' over Kashmir seemed to have been calculated to
justify Pakistan's proxy war in Kashmir.
Is Clinton's chief aide on Kashmir now advocating an
entirely new policy, one, say, favourable to India? Far
from it. What is beyond dispute, however, is that even
she can no longer ignore two glaring facts. One is that
the Indian security forces have adequately met the chal-
lenge posed by Pakistani instigation of mayhem for over
five years in the valley. The second, as amply il-
lustrated by the impressive turnout of voters in the
assembly polls, i.e. over 50 per cent (barring a few
urban constituencies where the fear of bullets from
Pakistani partisans kept them away), is that the Kash-
miris in general have had enough of the havoc caused by
the cult of the gun imported from across the border.
There is overwhelming evidence that they are longing for
the return of peace and normal tenor of life. Their
response to the revival of the political process has been
strikingly favourable. The situation was indeed apt to
have made it possible for the Americans' innate pragma-
tism to demand a policy shift.
Robin Raphel's forthright criticism of Pakistan's at-
tempts to dismiss the assembly elections as a farce, a
proforma exercise judging by past experience, confirms
the signs available a little earlier of an on-going
American reassessment of the latest developments in
Kashmir. This was indicated first by Frank G Wisner, the
US Ambassador in India, in July. That was when he deliv-
ered a remarkably balanced address on the Indo-Pak-US
triangle to the Command and Staff College in Quetta,
Pakistan. The core of his speech was an emerging new
outlook on Kashmir even before the elections were held
and was reflected in the observation: "Elections that
could now take place for a state government in Jammu and
Kashmir represent an alternative to the conflict that has
provided six years of suffering and improvement for the
people of Kashmir." He then went on to emphasise that "a
binding solution in Kashmir can flow only from an under-
standing reached between India and Pakistan, one reached
by taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri
People." His overriding plea was; Accept reality as it
exists". This, it need hardly be mentioned, is in total
conflict with Pakistan's basic policy of annexing Kashmir
even by bloodbath.
Two months later, in September, it was the turn of Thomas
W Simons Jr., the US Ambassador to Pakistan, to continue
the American bid to try and prepare the ground for an
eventual, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir problem.
He did so in an address to the Association of Retired
Ambassadors in Islamabad. Appropriately enough, the theme
he elaborated was: "The Evolving American Approach to
World Affairs and the Emerging Pakistan-US Relationship".
It was indeed time that someone in authority from the
American side publicly reminded Pakistanis that the main
factor that was responsible for large-scale American
military assistance to Pakistan and consistent American
diplomatic support to its case on Kashmir in the past 40
years was the US's anti-Soviet strategy. Ambassador
Simons, of course, took care not to put this nexus in
such stark terms. That was understandable. But the
unmistakable thrust of his address was to impress his
distinguished audience with the logic of a re-evaluation
of Pak-US ties in a context so different from the one in
which they were nurtured so far.
Will this long-overdue exercise be inevitably inimical to
Pakistan's best interests? While Pakistan's benefactor of
the cold war era will try hard to convince its leaders,
by involving higher ideals such as reconciliation and
peace, that it need not be so; they can only be expected
to assume that they may be the losers. Which means that
they will pursue their objective of seizing Kashmir by
means other than America's indulgence. Wisner, for in-
stance, cited the Shimla Agreement, inter alia, as a
sign-post towards,a solution of the Kashmir conflict.
Simmons, too, urged direct India-Pakistan negotiations as
the best way forward. But in the Pakistani lexicon,
Shimla Agreement and direct negotiations envisaged by it
have long been virtual equivalents of treason. This
indeed is why, just a week ago, Benazir Bhutto proposed a
small international conference to go into the Kashmir
problem.
This, as is well-known, has been Pakistan's way of repu-
diating the idea of direct negotiations. So long as even
half a dozen Islamic countries, including, of course,
Saudi Arabia, are more than willing to play the Pakistani
game, Islamabad will seek to torpedo American-sponsored
moves for an India-Pakistan understanding on the future
of Kashmir. Unlike in the past, Benazir's latest trick
to skirt bilateralism evoked a prompt and adverse reac-
tion from a US official spokesman. Does this, taken
together with Robin Raphel's new-found candour in criti-
cising Pakistan, foreshadow an increasing US-Pak fric-
tion, open or behind-the-scenes? The prospect is unlike-
ly to cause undue dismay to Pakistan's rulers. Haven't
they dared the US to apply sanctions prescribed in its
anti-proliferation laws and proceeded to acquire nuclear
weapons technology through diplomatic subterfuge, apart,
of course, from plain piracy?
While instinctively sticking to its guns on Kashmir,
Pakistan must be expected to exploit the American inter-
est in dabbling in Central Asian affairs. The least
costly way of achieving this purpose will obviously be
effective coordination with Pakistan which, too, nurses a
similar ambition. Islamabad is also aware of American
collateral interest in forestalling Iran's bid to gain a
foothold in Central Asia. Will Washington be able to
maintain its pressure on Pakistan to give up its confron-
tationist stand on Kashmir and at the same time get its
cooperation in a Central Asian venture? The record of
American diplomacy in other parts of the world does not
encourage optimism on this score.
Conceivably, a more challenging task awaiting the Ameri-
cans will be to ensure that the Kashmiri opponents of the
new Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah
- with many of whom Washington has maintained a close
liaison - will not be subverted by Islamabad. It has
always been hard to ascertain whether the anti-Indian
factions in the valley are more pro-US than pro-Pakistan
or the other way about.
Back
Top
|
