Kashmir and the international community
by Inayatullah

It was because of the Indian decision to carry out nuclear tests last year that after decades of neglect, Kashmir came to be highlighted as an international issue. It figured, much to India's dislike and disappointment, in all the resolutions passed by P-5, G-8 and the Security Council. The Kashmir dispute was recognised as a core issue, to Delhi's discomfiture, and many senior Opposition leaders publicly condemned the Vajpayee government for generating something which Pakistan had failed to achieve on its own. For Pakistan, the reference made to Kashmir in the Security Council Resolution of June 6, 1998 was a windfall of great significance and value. We, however, failed to derive any milage out of it. Even when the UN Secretary General sent a special envoy in pursuance of the Security Council deliberations and India refused to accept him, Pakistan diplomatically was found wanting and did not capitalise on India's defiance of the United Nations.

Here was an opportunity not only to effectively project the reactivated Kashmir question and pursue it with vigour and imagination in the world's major capitals and at the United Nations, but also to pointedly draw the attention of the international community to India's misconduct. This also could have been construed as another point for neutralising India's claim to a seat in the Security Council. A country which refuses to abide by a unanimous UNSC resolution and its follow up by the Secretary General was indeed utterly unfit to be considered a suitable candidate for a permanent place in the Council.

All that Pakistan came down to, was to enter into an agreement to move towards a normal relationship with India and to "intensify" the discussion of "outstanding issues", including Kashmir. No mention of the Security Council Resolutions, not even the one passed in June 1998! Much was made of Vajpayee not mentioning at Lahore that Kashmir was India's Atoot Ang. His statements on return home shattered this illusion and we stood pushed back to "square one" again. If India's stand on Kashmir as its integral part could thus be reiterated, what can a roundabout and a hardly serious series of meetings on the issue yield? So India won hands down. Pakistan accepted its agenda on further steps on culture and trade and gained little by way of return on the "core question". The hotting up of the conflict - India using air-power to dislodge the Mujahideen in the Kargil area and Pakistan having shot down two enemy military aircraft - has failed to induce the international community to react sharply and take a meaningful initiative, in spite of the region having become a dangerous nuclear flash point! Why? Because we have on our own agreed to bilateralise the issue and have reinforced the Simla Agreement approach at the expense of the international commitments enshrined in the UN records. Also because we have not risen to the demands of our internationally recognised position of being a "party" to the dispute, more or less agreeing with the American interpretation that any active involvement on our part with the freedom fighters in the Occupied Valley was inappropriate and wrong, thus abdicating our obligations as a "party" to address what India has been doing to people living in the "disputed territory".

That is why James Rubin, the US State Department's official spokesman, in his statement on May 29 described the Kashmiri freedom fighters as "infiltrators". All that he on behalf of Washington could offer was advice for restraint and to "urge both sides to work together to reduce tensions". In other words no meaningful initiative by the US or UN. Let the matter be settled bilaterally. All that Kofi Annan has done is to show "deep" concern over the continuing hostilities between Pakistan and India over Kashmir.

According to a UN official, Mr Annan was "encouraged" by the willingness of the leaders of the two countries "to pursue the dialogue process." Why is it that Pakistan has not taken the matter to the Security Council? Pakistan's airspace was violated by the Indian Air Force and Indian planes were attacked and destroyed in self-defence. There is every possibility of escalation of operations. India may have already planned further action. The situation could get out of control. A real war can begin between the two countries.
"I am treating it as near-war," said Lt.-Gen Hari Mohan Khanna, Chief of India's Northern Command, to the reporters on Saturday last. "They are not just infiltrators," he added, "they are Pakistani soldiers supporting the highly trained mercenaries of Taliban."
General Sharma, a former Indian Army Chief, is reported to have observed: "The silver lining is that the participation of the Pakistan army is emerging and this factor will swing the support of the international community to India which so far has shown restraint by not crossing the Line of Control."
Khanna's conclusion: "There was a qualitative upgradation of the proxy war and it demands a qualitative response."

Pakistan will have to brace itself to face the Indian retaliatory operations. Last year Advani had talked about the legitimacy of "hot pursuit". There could be incursions in Azad Kashmir or surprise occupation of territory in the Northern Areas. This could spiral into a full-fledged war. Will the US and UN continue to cling to their role of "concerned" bystanders with their own hidden understanding of the denouement and the consequences? Will China in some way exert its weight as an old and staunch friend of Pakistan?

Is Nawaz Sharif prepared for a war imposed by Indian belligerence? Will he, at some stage, consider the use of the weapon of last resort? Is the nation being prepared for the cost of the clash? The probability is that nuclear deterrence, after a few more sensational skirmishes, will pull the two sides back from the brink, Mr Sartaj will tete-a-tete with Jaswant Singh, the Mujahideen will continue their struggle against the diabolical Indian repression, peaceniks will go on chanting their mantras and Pakistan will get more and more enmeshed in the bilateral rigmarole. It is time Pakistan asserts its legitimate position as a "party" to the resolution of a "disputed territory" question so that the world once again recognises and accepts the fact that Kashmir is not an integral part of India and the Indians cannot be allowed to brutally suppress the movement for self-determination which finds its rationale in even pre-partition history and derives its legitimacy and strength from the repeated assurances of the international community as recorded in UN resolutions passed in the late 40s and 50s.

Now that the USA and the other world powers have conceded and have again come to consider Kashmir as the root cause of conflict between two nuclear powers (as late as June 1998), it is for Pakistan to convince them that bilateral talks means ploughing the sand and therefore the US and UN have to sooner or later involve themselves in a speedy settlement of this burning issue.

Complements: Daily The Nation, July 2, 1999