The Clinton administration last week undertook to formulate what appears t0 be its political initiatives with regard to the developing situation in the Indian subcontinent with special reference to Kashmir, Some of the initiatives were reflected in the officials’” statements made in the course of congressional hearings and others in media briefings. A careful analysis of the utterances made and the expressions used by officials makes it evident that the new administration is virtually following in the footsteps of its predecessor with minor modifications here and there; A Statement made in one breath has been contradicted in another. A thrust on a point is followed immediately with a counterthrust. All the formulations lend themselves to varying interpretations by different contenders in the region. A calculated effort seems to have been made to please every party to the disputed issues. This required a tightrope walk. The result could perhaps be nothing but a lack of initiative, a status quo or, at best, patchwork solutions that could not endure. Take, for instance, some of the statements made by John Malott, state departments.
spokesman for southeast Asia, during congressional hearings, on a plebiscite in Kashmir, “I would say we are neither accepting nor rejecting the plebiscite in Kashmir,” But, then, Malott proceeded to talk of the need to ascertain the views of the people of Kashmir, Here, the thrust on “views of the people” was neutralized when the spokesman said that the views of both “Muslims and non-Muslims” should be ascertained. The official could reasonably have emphasized the need for providing for certain protections to minorities with in Kashmir in any new political setup that could be worked out. It is not the same thing as seeking the “views” of “non-Muslims,” Asif to neutralize this formulation, too, the spokesman added: “We have not specified how one doc that (ascertaining the views of non-Muslims.” The only redeeming feature of the “new U.S. policy” towards Kashmir is the administration’s acceptance of the Kashmir territory being “disputed,” the entire territory of it and not the Indian part of Kashmir only. But the solution offered is in reality no solution at all. “India and Pakistan should discuss and the views of all Kashmiris should be taken into account.” Assuming that the people of Kashmir want freedom, what is left for India and Pakistan to discuss? The whole world is by now convinced that the people of Kashmir are in favor of “azadi” (freedom) and they give expression to their feelings daily by making countless sacrifices for the cause of freedom. Why should the U.S. administration fight shy of recognizing the Kashmiris’ right to freedom cither straightaway or by ascertaining it through an International arrangement? Then will arise the question of appropriate safeguards for non-Muslims which could be provided for without breaking up Kashmir. President Clinton must make his choice on the basic political issue of freedom for the people of Kashmir of their domination by an imperial India as at present. Expression of concern about violation of Kashmiris human rights by India could hardly be a substitute for a proper U.S. policy towards Kashmir. Even in this limited sphere, regrettably, the U.S. policy is not one of intolerance of the violations. It is one of tolerance, “Human rights has become an important issue in our dialogue with the Indian government,” Malott told Congressman Gary Ackerman, “but I would be hard pressed to state why the poorest of the poor in India should be made to pay the price of human rights abuses that are being committed by the security forces?” In other words, the U.S. administration rules out support to Congressman Dan Burton’s initiative seeking a linkage between the grant of U.S. financial help to India and its record on the human rights front, The poorest of the poor argument is weightless because while the international monetary help may fund an individual good project, the Indian government does the balancing by progressively stepping up allocations of build up its impressive war machine. In this the international community provides for human rights assistance, India’s own internal resources are wasted disproportionately on projects that are antithesis of human rights, The least the U.S. administration should insist on is that India cut down its level of allocations to the military so that poor country matches the international concern for the poorest of the poor with corresponding allocations from internal resources, That way, at least indirectly India would be compelled to think of political solutions rather than military solutions to some of its soluble problems. Here, unfortunately, the U.S. administration presses into its service the “internal political compulsions” of the Indian government. It seeks to keep out of a sharp focus even India’s nuclear development program “because, otherwise, any such government as ends the nuclear program, will have to go.” India, in tum, argues further that it must keep the present level of military machine not only intact but considering the growing threat perceptions from Pakistan and China should actually strengthen it, The U.S. administrations overriding concern for stability in the region leads it practically to appreciate India’s stand provided India does not use any nuclear weapon. All said and done, the Clinton administration is concerned about Kashmir, is concerned about violations of human rights by Indian security forces in Kashmir and Punjab, is concerned about India’s nuclear program. Bui, it is even more concerned about stability in Southeast Asia. The administration is also worried on account of intellectual property rights of Americans vis a vis India, So the dialogue with India should go on and on, Financial help to India, as the argument B0es, cannot be stopped because that would interfere with the cause of human nights. The administration is also laying much store by the so called liberalization of the Indian economy, all these factors together $0 against the U.S. taking any meaningful and result-oriented action on the Kashmir issue. It is forgotten that the Kashmir problem is also intimately linked with the Punjab problem, In view of the limitations imposed on itself by the U.S., we are doubtful about any practical utility of the joint Russo American “study mission” on Kashmir, Pursuit of such a “mission” requires a great deal of statesmanship on the part of President Clinton and the Russian Leadership. It is premature to make the final assessment of the promised initiative on Kashmir.
Article extracted from this publication >> May 7, 1993
