|
Round The World
New
Delhi, 5 October 2015
India-Pak Spat In UN
FRESH TROUBLE IN BILATERAL TIES
By Amrita Banerjee
(School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi)
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif’s recent jibe over ‘Kashmir’, in the United Nations General Assembly,
has called for some fresh trouble in the bilateral ties between India and its
neighbour. Misusing the world platform, Pakistan
has once again lived up to its old habit of internationalising and sensitising
various issues of dispute with India,
‘Kashmir’ being it’s most favourite.
Not only this, Islamabad
is seen upping the ante on a host of irritants with India at various other global
summits too. Where on one side, Sharif entertained the world audience in the
UN; his National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz sulked about the same while
addressing a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
While Sharif in his 15-minutes
address in the UNGA referred to Kashmir as a land under ‘foreign occupation’,
accusing India for alleged rights violations, for firing at the Line of Control
(LoC), and rejecting the composite dialogue process agreed to in 1997; his
trusted adviser peppered swipes at India for ‘unprovoked and indiscriminate’
ceasefire violations, holding sham elections in J&K and trying ‘to quell
the Kashmiri struggle by use of brute force’.
Sharif stressed the fact that the
non-resolution of the Kashmir issue reflected the failure of the UN and further
proposed a 4-step peace plan with India (which bears resemblance to the one
proposed by former Pakistan President, Parvez Musharraf) namely--formalising
the ceasefire, demilitarising Kashmir and the Siachen Glacier, and agreeing to
end the use of force. To pressurise New Delhi
further, Pakistan’s
Ambassador to the UN also handed over dossiers to UN Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon that included allegations of ‘Indian interference and support of
terrorism’ and ‘intelligence agency links with the Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan’.
The severity of Pakistan’s attack in the UN seems to be linked
to the shift in the Indian strategy towards bringing up Pakistan’s human rights violations in
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), including
Gilgit and Baltistan. India
has come a long way where it always used to play on the defensive with
reference to Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra
Modi has reiterated this change when he stated that he intended to stick to his
‘red lines’ on Kashmir and so any talks between the two countries will not be
on terms set by Pakistan alone.
That Modi and Sharif stayed in New York at the same
hotel and attended the same conference along with world leaders, and yet did
not make the time for a bilateral meeting indicates that there has been no
diplomatic headway since National Security Adviser-level talks between the two
countries were cancelled in August.
While responding to Pakistan, India has rejected the allegations
levelled against it and recalled its earlier position that the OIC had no locus
standi in the matter. Using its right to reply External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj described Pakistan as ‘the occupier in question’ in J&K, rejected
Sharif’s 4-point peace proposal and instead stressed on only one point, i.e.
Pakistan end support to terror groups as talks can happen only in an atmosphere
free from terror and violence.
This ugly spat, however, has raised
certain important issues. First, it has again exhibited Islamabad’s
lack of sincerity in solving the Kashmir issue
bilaterally. Over the years, Pakistan
has had numerous failed attempts in trying to get the UN or the P-5 Security
Council members to consider any reference on Kashmir
(the subject was last discussed by the UNSC in 1971). However, all of its
references and pleas to UN committees to take up the dispute have been
disregarded, and every P-5 nation has counselled both countries to resolve the
issue bilaterally. Recall that in the Simla Agreement (1972), both countries
had resolved to settle their differences through ‘bilateral negotiations or any
other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them’.
Secondly, this recent jibe can also
be yet another tactic by Islamabad to draw world
attention to an unresolved issue so that India’s chances of becoming a
permanent member in the body in future (in an event of reforms) get marred.
Many critical voices have also claimed that New Delhi’s
decision to reply to the Pakistani line on Kashmir with counter-allegations on
the PoK seems to be a misplaced step as it would only invite the multilateral
spotlight back on to the Kashmir issue.
In fact, as an active aspirant to a
permanent seat in the Security Council, India’s stature would be enhanced
internationally if it instead sets in motion a bilateral process to resolve
issues with its neighbour. But the reality is that being too idealistic does
not help in international affairs. India
can enhance its stature internationally by placing the right facts before the
world as Pakistan
attempts to distort reality and portray a false picture of the challenges in
our region.
Thirdly, the heart of the matter is
that Pakistan
today is unable to control the menace of terrorism it once created. Even as
Sharif pointed fingers at India for the instability in Pakistan the reality
remains that terrorism in Pakistan is home grown, it uses terrorism as a
legitimate instrument of statecraft, continues to be a ‘prime sponsor of
terrorism’ and ‘a victim of its own policies of breeding and sponsoring
terrorists’. As it becomes increasingly difficult for it to fight against it, Islamabad prefers to
shift the responsibility on others.
Fourthly, Islamabad is least serious in dealing with
terrorism either. It can be manifested by the fact that it allows the
mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks to ‘roam free’. Alluding to the recent
attacks in Gurdaspur and Udhampur, it can be said with conviction that Pakistan continues to send terrorists into India, two of
whom were arrested recently in J&K. In this regard, Sharif’s demand for
demilitarisation of LoC without a commitment to end cross-border infiltration
sounds disingenuous.
Fifthly, this issue has given rise
to different shades of opinion in India’s domestic front. While the
separatist groups in Kashmir have hailed Sharif for demanding complete
demilitarisation of J&K, former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah criticized the
Sharif government for ‘fudging facts’ and further reminded Pakistan that
according to the UNSC Resolution 47 of 1948, Islamabad was supposed to vacate
all of J&K first.
In this regard, Sushma Swaraj’s call
to the world to unite on the challenge of terror, saying that the UN must pass
the Comprehensive Convention on International Terror in the current 70th
year of the world body, is indeed laudable. Apart from giving Islamabad a fitting reply, she also gave the
world a larger picture by touching on the real issue. In the long run, however,
New Delhi’s concerns can be addressed by
following a three-pronged strategy: Firstly, it clearly and consistently
articulates the steps it wishes Islamabad
to take to root out this menace. Secondly, seizing the initiative for future
talks and spelling out what it wants to talk about and when and thirdly, acting
tough with Pakistan by
giving it a fitting reply diplomatically and militarily whenever required
without maintaining a dignified silence over Pakistan’s allegations as it used
to do in the past. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
