The U.S. ambassador in India, Frank Wisner, publicly stated in a speech he delivered in Washington last week that India was prepared for a “different dispensation” in Kashmir than in the past, He regretted that India’s plan to *hold elections in Kashmir had not found favor with Pakistan, The tone and tenor of Wisner’s observations reveal that the Clinton administration is increasingly becoming tolerant of India’s Kashmir policy, if not its admirer, and that it has high hopes on the present Indian government.
It is true that Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao has assumed direct control of the Kashmir affairs. This was earlier in the hands of the home minister. The home minister made policy statements. He issued instructions to the Indian officers posted in Kashmir; Officers were posted or transferred by the home minister. Now all these jobs would to be performed by the prime minister. The immediate provocation for the change is said to be contradictory statements on Kashmir by home minister Chayan and his deputy Rajesh Pilot. Those who are in the know of the ways of India’s crafty politicians assert that the contradictory elements in India’s Kashmir policy were deliberately introduced by Rao to divert the home minister of the Kashmir affairs and to assume direct responsibility of the problem state.
It is not very easy for the U.S. diplomats and officers to understand the minds of the Indian ruling politicians and their machinations.
Be that as it may, the real issue here is to fathom the intentions of Prime Minister Rao in respect of Kashmir. Those officers who had been traditionally dealing with Kashmir continue to do so even now. The ouster of ministers from the scene cannot possibly symbolize a big change in India’s Kashmir policy. There is nothing to show that the Indian government is set to introduce any radical new thinking in its Kashmir policy. No such indication has come either from the prime minister or from the ruling Congress (I). It is possible that Frank Wisner may have been privately assured by senior Indian officers of “a new deal for Kashmir.”
It is naive on the part of the U.S. ambassador to take at its face value Indian assurance of a new dispensation on Kashmir. In the first instance, one would like to know what exactly it is that Wisner would regard as a “new dispensation.” Does an election in Kashmir constitute” a new dispensation?” Several times elections had been held in the past. Holding an election is nothing new in Kashmir. In the words of Janata Dal leader V.P. Singh, even Hitler held elections in Germany. Does the U.S. ambassador really believe that the holding of an election without bringing about any constitutional changes is a new development? In any case, the U.S. administration appears to have given up the demand for plebiscite in Kashmir. Mere elections cannot possibly constitute a new element in Kashmir. This will ‘be a fake dispensation which has been rejected by even pro India politicians like Farooq Abdullah and others. They want at least internal autonomy for Kashmir. This demand, of course, is no longer being raised by an overwhelming majority of the people of Kashmir who are now in favor of complete freedom from India. ‘The Indian state is in no position even to introduce such a minor political reform as the grant of internal autonomy for Kashmir or Punjab. In Punjab, a majority of Akalis will be content if internal autonomy is allowed to Punjab. The pro Khalistan militancy has been crushed, but political discontent persists in Punjab. India insists that it has “resolved” the Punjab problem with the use of force. The Similar approach is now being applied to Kashmir where thousands of Kashmir youths have been killed. Minor political reforms like the granting of internal autonomy supported not only by Akalis but also by a section of the ruling Congress (I) are not on the agenda of the Indian state. The reason basically is that the Indian State its political parties, the Parliament, the executive, the media, the Supreme Court and the intelligentsia are not ready for it. In fact, the state is totally averse to any change, however minor, and then what is the basis of Ambassador Wissler’s optimism? If he expects Rao to redeem the assurance, then perhaps Wisner is mistaken. Rao is neither committed to any basic change in Kashmir even within the Present setup nor is he in a position to do so. After all, he has a precarious majority in India’s parliament and ruling Congress (I)’s mass base is getting eroded as the election results from Andhra and Karnataka would indicate. It is evident that India is misleading the U.S. and World public opinion, U.S. businessmen are investing billions of dollars in India and the administration is no longer interested in anything else than business with India, Statements on Kashmir are a mere hobbyhorse for the U.S. politicians to ride on.
Article extracted from this publication >> December 9, 1994
