President Clinton last month expressed his concern about the world’s trouble spots when he addressed the general assembly of the U.N. He specifically mentioned Kashmir, among other spots. Simultaneously, the U.N. secretary general offered his mediation and help to resolve the dispute between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, A few months ago, the U.S. representative for southeast Asia, John Mallot, visited Delhi and Islamabad basically in connection with the Kashmir problem. The U.S. administration, once again, underlined through a background briefing by Raphel last week that the Kashmir issue must be settled expeditiously which, in the opinion of the U.S. administration, remained unresolved and that the U.S. government never recognized the 1947 instrument of accession,

There is no doubt that the U.S. administration has all along held the view that Kashmir’s status has still to be determined which remains a source of tension between India and Pakistan and a potential trouble spot capable of even provoking an Indo Pak war. There is considerable sympathy in the U.S. for the people of Kashmir who have been suffering at the hands of Indian security forces. The U.S. media has repeatedly carried stories of human rights abuses by Indian security forces. But the timing of the latest U.S, salvo on the Kashmir issue remains to be analyzed and explained. The U.S. administration obviously has the Rao government’s welfare in its mind. It could not have been oblivious of the adverse effect on the Congress (I)’s prospects in the forthcoming elections to five of the 23 Indian states. Then, why did it make the statement on the eve of the election in India? Could it be intended to ward off possible Indian attack on the Hazratbal shrine currently besieged by Indian troops. Such a thinking is indicated by the reported details of the briefing by the U.S. official. She mentioned the 1984 “Operation Blue Star” in Amritsar and its long-term implications. In fact, the U.S. administration went far immediately after the troops began their encirclement of the shrine and held talks with the Indian army chief of staff. Raphel’s background briefing followed the diplomatic efforts to ward off the possible repetition of the operation “Blue Star” at Hazrathal.

Reactions in India have been just to the opposite of what evidently the U.S. administration intended to achieve. India’s foreign minister Danesh Singh said that the U.S. official’s statement stood in the way of a resolution of the shrine standoff issue. The Indian government’s reactions have been milder than the mainstream Hindu Attitude towards the U.S. stand. India’s Brahman dominated media went hammer and tongue at the U.S.A. dubbing it an international policeman and meddler in other’s internal affairs. It is obvious that the immediate aim of the Indian government was to appease the Hindu public opinion to gain electoral ascendancy over the rival Hindu party, the BJP. The long-term aim of the confrontation was to scuttle the proposed talks with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. It is well known that the U.S.A. had been pressing India to open direct talks in terms of the Shimla agreement, The Indian response was that it would do so with an elected government in Pakistan. When the election was over and Benazir Bhutto took over as prime minister, there was an opportunity for the prime ministers of the two countries to meet in Cyprus at the commonwealth heads meeting. But India shied away on the ground that prime minister was busy at home.

Holding direct, high level talks was not in India’s interest because it had nothing to discuss On the Kashmir issue, India’s domestic scene is dominated by ultra-national is ticchouvenistic psyche, The country does not have even any set of reformist measures for Kashmir in mind much less proposing an opinion poll to ascertain the views of the people of Kashmir as to what they wanted. The BJP’s immediate agenda for Kashmir, in fact, is abrogation of article 370 which offers some sort of assurance of internal autonomy for the state with in the Indian union. The Congress (I) under Rao has been in competition with the BJP to show who more orthodox Hindu is.

Evidently, the immediate aim of the U.S. administration was to warn Delhi about is reckless course on Kashmir. The medium term aim of the administration was to press Indian government to hold meaningful talks with Rawalpindi keeping in mind the wishes of the people of Kashmir, It is difficult to imagine that either of these Stipulations will be attained by the administration. Keeping in view India’s fascist military Hindu polity, the Congress (I) will suffer by defeats in the forthcoming Assembly elections if it does not force an anti-Muslim confrontation at Hazratbal to its logical end. In that case, the BJP will have an upper hand and, in due course, the Indian central government headed by Rao will have to go. In that scenario, bigger confrontations in Kashmir will be on the agenda. The BJP is in favor of an army solution to the Kashmir problem. In any case, a weak Indian central government will not be in a position to hold any talks with Pakistan. All said and done, India is in no position to either avoid a confrontation with the people of Kashmir or hold any meaningful talks with Pakistan. That being so, India, whose facts will continue to be on the course of militarization, including nuclear armament. President Clinton’s thinking broadly indicated by Stephen Solarz according to which the administration is assessing the implications of the possible secession of Kashmir from India is unrealistic, India cannot give up Kashmir peacefully. There is bound to be a bloodbath for Indian Muslims. India’s polity is fully geared to that eventuality. Parting of ways peacefully happens in democratic countries but not in a country like India. Secondly, whether the President likes it or not, India is bound to disintegrate sooner or later, Kashmir’s continuous integration with India cannot stop that prospect. Nor its secession will make any difference, The determining factor is the Hindu polity which stands for aggression on and enslavement of its non-Hindu communities. And in today’s world, no community is willing to remain slave. Inevitably, therefore, India’s disintegration into a dozen odd countries.

Article extracted from this publication >>  November 5, 1993