The rise of Indian clout has an overwhelming influence on the West’s policy towards Kashmir, which until recent times favoured a resolution taking Kashmiri aspiration into account. Iftikhar Gilani reports.
US President Barak Obama’s November 6-8, India sojourn has once again raised hopes of American mediation for an early settlement of Kashmir issue. Unlike Palestine, West was always inclined to support Muslim majority view in Kashmir. Coupled with the end of cold war and host of factors including 9/11, US began losing interest.
Of late, standard position in the Western democracies had been to discourage redrawing boundaries and support to secessionist movements to maintain stability. But, with Afghanistan consuming West’s patience and Al-Qaeda knocking doors, their diplomacies have focused on preventing Islamic flashpoints bubbling out of proportion. A Carnegie Endowment paper recently mentioned Kashmir as a challenge for the United States, which it can neither avoid not resolve. Professor George Perkovich, award wining author and director of nuclear policy programme at the think-tank, believes that successive American administrations have recognised that India has the power to rebuff unwelcome US involvement.
His panacea is that while US should ask the Pakistan military to prevent infiltrations across the LoC, shut jihadi centres, Indian leaders must correct mis-governance and human rights abuses.
“Indians may reasonably expect the United States to heed their demand not to try to mediate in the Kashmir issue with Pakistan, but they should not expect it to stay silent about large-scale human rights violations committed by India or other policies that undermine conflict resolution,” he believes.
Describing the US strategic interests in urging both India and Pakistan to explore all prospects for normalizing Indo–Pak relations as legitimate, the think-tank maintains that it was imperative to reduce the threat of violent extremism in South Asia and elsewhere. Pakistani elite are adapting to the reality that Pakistan cannot wrest the valley from India, and that it must negotiate a formula to recognize the territorial status quo and improve the quality of life of Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control.
One reason why Pakistanis are turning their attention away from Kashmir is that many in that country see Afghanistan as a hotter front for Indo–Pak competition. Pakistanis, especially the military, perceive Indian efforts to extend its influence in Afghanistan as being at Pakistan’s expense. The United States is caught in the middle. Pakistan demands that Washington use its influence on its “new best friend” India not to use Afghanistan as the western side of a vise to squeeze Pakistan.
India demands that the United States fight the Pakistani-backed
Taliban more robustly and eschew temptations to negotiate with the Taliban. India is particularly emphatic about Pakistan’s not being granted a seat in any possible negotiations. Pakistan is willing to fight until the last Taliban or coalition foot soldier falls in order to pursue its interests in Afghanistan, while India is willing to fight to the last American to keep Pakistan from exerting indirect control over a future Afghan government.
President Obama cannot avoid disappointing either Pakistan or India, or both. Afghanistan therefore demonstrates the limits of US partnership with India and Pakistan.
Notwithstanding, this predicament, US had been supporting Kashmir as a national struggle for right to self-determination to the annoyance of India in the past. Its ambassadors in New Delhi had made frequent trips to Kashmir meeting separatist leadership.
In September 1993, India was annoyed by the then President Bill Clinton who referred to Kashmir as a major trouble spot in his address to the United Nations General Assembly. He also said that his country shared Pakistan’s concern about human rights abuses in Kashmir. In 1992, Clinton had referred to Kashmir in the same breath as Bosnia in his speech to the UN General Assembly.
American envoy Frank Wisner, Richard Celeste and Robert Blake visited Kashmir too often, meeting Hurriyat leaders. Former US president George Bush senior (when out of office) had a long meeting with Shabir Shah in Delhi, whom both Delhi and West wanted to project as a leader at one time. When US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael was in India in November 1994, she met Farooq Abdullah and reportedly offered full US support for reverting to the pre-1952 situation. Abdullah is on record saying that the US backed his party’s demand for greater autonomy and the conversion of the existing line of control into a “soft border” between India and Pakistan. Raphael had hinted in her meetings in Delhi that a political package must be made known to the Kashmiris. She had, earlier gained the eternal ire of the Indians by questioning the accession to India.
In fact, soon after top separatist leadership was released from jails in 1993, US diplomats in Delhi and Washington played a major part in cobbling them under an umbrella of Hurriyat Conference. Even, before the alliance took shape in Srinagar, to the heartburn of various leaders, Abdul Gani Lone announced its formation in Washington during his trip.
In 1995, Home Minister S B Chavan had openly accused the US of harbouring “evil designs” on and hampering the political process in Jammu and Kashmir, and seeking to gain a “foothold” there. The American response to Chavan’s accusation was swift. Terming the charge “nonsense”, the Americans said their policy on Kashmir was to encourage an end to the violence and a resolution of the dispute through negotiations between India and Pakistan, taking into account the wishes of the people. Another US official in Washington was more harsh: “Chavan pops off like that once a month or so on his own. He is an embarrassment to his colleagues in the Government.”
On Feb 14, 2005, during a discussion on the extension of President’s rule in Kashmir, Chavan’s speech featured a broadside against the US in the Lok Sabha. A “third party”, he said, wanted independence for Kashmir. He claimed to be in “possession” of a document prepared by the Republicans in America stating that “the Democrats are creating problems in India and they are trying to encourage Pakistan to that extent”.
Almost a decade and a half later, it is not surprising that President Obama has dropped Kashmir from his vocabulary after assuming office, even when he raised the issue two days before election day. American diplomats would still tell you in private that Washington guides India and Pakistan’s strategic dialogue from behind the curtains, trying to keep the two in line and from colliding.
James Gundun, an American political scientist draws parallels between Palestine and Kashmir, two deadlocked states. He recalls that India’s lobby is beginning to rival Israel’s, and thus hampering US actions accordingly. Now, just like Palestinians and Arabs have grown impatient with Washington and are taking their cause to the UN, he believes it was the only way in Kashmir as well to pry America’s silent grip off Kashmir’s neck.
Jakarta based political commentator Laura Schuurmans believes that with an eye on India’s economic clout and growing consumer market, Americans are keeping away from ruffling feathers. A senior US government official in Delhi recently mentioned rise of India, its middle class and its role at global stage as three major areas that President Obama would touch during his visit to India. Growing middle class along with consumerism is the main focus of recession hit American companies.
Many believe that Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s economic liberalisation paved the way for the West to change its perception towards India. Significantly, architect of those policies and economic diplomacy is the current prime minister.
In early Oct. 1994, during her one-day visit to Mumbai, Robin Raphael had stated that she was not convinced with the credibility of the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. But, just few months later in May 1995, the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher stated that India’s willingness to hold elections in Jammu and Kashmir was an important step towards the resolution of the conflict. Christopher stated that certain steps taken by India encouraged US administration.
Coinciding his statement in Delhi, Frank Wisner openly started campaigning and asking Hurriyat leadership to participate in the assembly elections to prove their representative character. Abdul Gani Lone contested Wisner, even pushed Hurriyat to boycott his meetings and call a general strike during his visit to Srinagar. He even prevailed leadership to expel Shabr Ahmed Shah, who had defied Hurriyat executive decision and hosted Wisner. Instead of using art of diplomacy, the political brazenness of Lone, later cost separatist leadership its support in the West. Wisner never forgot this snub.
In January 1998 a senior US congressional delegation led by Mike Ennis visited Srinagar to get acquainted with the latest political, security and strategic situation. In April 1998, US Army chief General Dennis J Romier had two day visit to the border areas, signifying the start of military-to-military relations between India and the US. He visited the headquarters of the Northern Command in Udhampur town in Jammu and Leh town in the border areas of Ladakh. The US army chief was accompanied by a high-level defence delegation.
President Bill Clinton effectively intervened during Kargil war forcing Pakistan to withdraw its forces. In July 1999, a congressional panel overwhelmingly rejected plebiscite as a possible solution. By a vote of 20 to 8, the House International Relations Committee defeated an amendment sought by the Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabachar. The Amendment wanted the US to urge India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 1948.
Ironically, when most of the Western countries are cutting their defence budgets, they are coaxing India to purchase arms worth billions of dollars to keep their companies breathing. Ahead of US President Barak Obama’s visit, global arms companies are engaged in intensive lobbying to bag the biggest ever military contract worth US $12 billion for 126 multi-role fighter jets from Indian Air Force (IAF).
American aerospace giant Lockheed Martin arranged a press briefing to hard sell, its F-17, super viper, explaining virtues of this single-engine fighter, the entire board of its competitor the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company NV (EADS), manufacturers of Eurofighter is in India to stem any chances of American companies getting the contract, who may have a political edge on eve of the visit of their President.
Analysts here also agree that the deal has now attained more political overtones and predict it may go to the US, if President Obama announces or indicates some major concessions to India, say offering support to India’s bid for UN Security Council permanent seat and removes some more glitches in India-US defence purchases.
Addressing India’s concerns viz-a-viz Pakistan, Lockheed Martin, Director Michael R Girswold assured to provide more advanced F-16IN Super Viper fighters to India. “It is a unique 4th generation fighter and is ready for integration into India’s military force,” he said. “Our engine, avionics and radars are sophisticated,” he added.
Referring to the radar system, his associates claim that they can detect a plane just when it takes off from a Pakistani base. Unlike our competitors, radar system on F-16 IN is already in operation and tested and has been inducted in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) air force. The single engine of 32,000 pounds of thrust, also gives greater maneuverability during dog fights unlike the twin engine aircrafts.
However, its competitor EADS is offering to shift manufacture of some of its components to generate 20,000 jobs in India to address Indian leaders politically as well as emotionally.
Batting for the US companies recently, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert Blake estimated that 27,000 jobs would be created in the US, if they clinch this deal. The F/A-18 Super Hornet from Boeing is also in the race and they are also leaving no stone unturned to procure the contract. Most other contenders MiG-35 from Mikoan of Russia, the Rafele from Dassault Aviation of France, JAS 39 Gripen from Sweden have more or less lost hopes either losing at the technical evaluation stage or in absence of a political clout.
European defence giant has denied that its shifting of operations to India was anyway linked to bidding for the multi-billion contract, saying it was only interested in procuring cheap and economic technical manpower. But, analysts here say, the move was aimed at putting indirect pressure on government to award this contract and even future contracts to this company.
“We will transfer some of our development projects, which we have in Europe for Eurofighter or other military aircraft to India. We have already set up a military research and development (R&D) centre in Bangalore,” EADS chief executive (defence & security) Stefan Zoller recently told Indian journalists in Bonn.
German Ambassador in India Thomas Matusik believed that rules of engagement did make Europeans different from Americans. “Purchase of defence and security related equipment requires an end user certificate. All over the world exporters insist on this. But we will not insist on monitoring and on-spot inspections. For example, we have sold you communication equipments. That distances us from our competitors,” he said.
Europeans further say, they have an edge as New Delhi was uncomfortable over US proposals to sign a Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA) and a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA). Defence Secretary Pradip Kumar recently admitted this discomfort, saying the government was consulting the armed forces about the benefits and utility of these (agreements). The LSA will allow US warships, military aircraft and personnel to access Indian military bases for refuelling, rest and recuperation, and turnover on a reciprocal basis. It would allow the US to replenish its military platforms on a barter basis, meaning that the US would allow similar access and facilities to the Indian armed forces. The CISMOA is designed to ensure that equipment transferred to the Indian armed forces are encrypted, secure and compatible with US military systems.
Despite India’s growing economic clout, stability of its democracy and the purchasing power that entices the West, Indian Foreign Policy mandarins also believe that a stable and secure neighbourhood as well as peace within was necessary to maintain such supremacy in growth. And that is not possible without the resolution of Kashmir problem.
Much depends on the leadership of Pakistan as well as within Kashmir to persuade Indian leadership as well as the West to accommodate aspirations of people in Jammu and Kashmir lest the situation goes out of control.
