Pakistan - India - The old chorus and a false note

India’s response to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s latest comments at the United Nations General Assembly marks a shift in the government’s strategy in dealing with the periodic references to Kashmir that Pakistan has made it a practice to make at UN fora. To begin with, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear that he intends to stick to his ‘red lines’ on Kashmir. So any talks between the two countries will not be on terms set by Pakistan, which seeks to make Kashmir the central point of such exercises. That Mr. Modi and Mr. Sharif stayed in New York at the same hotel and attended the same conference along with world leaders, and yet did not make the time for a bilateral meeting — they settled for a simple hand-waving gesture while at the peacekeeping summit — indicates that there has been no diplomatic headway since National Security Adviser-level talks between the two countries were cancelled in August. Later, in its sharp response to Mr. Sharif’s speech at the General Assembly, India demonstrated a major shift in its approach on Kashmir at the UN. In a point-by-point reply to Mr. Sharif’s reference to Kashmir as a land “under foreign occupation”, India brought up the condition of Kashmiris in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), saying it was up to Pakistan to vacate Kashmir and not the other way round. Consequently, India dismissed Mr. Sharif’s four-point formula that included points on demilitarising Kashmir and the Siachen glacier. It was delivered not directly to India but to the UN, in yet another attempt to internationalise the issue rather than offering a sincere solution.

However, India’s decision to reply to the Pakistani line on Kashmir with counter-allegations on the PoK seems to be a false step. Despite all its attempts over the years, Pakistan has been unsuccessful in getting the United Nations or the P-5 Security Council members to consider any reference on Kashmir; the subject was last discussed by the UNSC in 1971. All of its references and pleas to UN committees to take up the dispute have been disregarded, and every P-5 nation has counselled both countries to resolve the issue bilaterally. At a time when India’s position on this question is actually being upheld, it is puzzling why New Delhi wished to take this new line at the UN; it would only invite the multilateral spotlight back on to the Kashmir issue. As an active aspirant to a permanent seat in the Security Council, India’s stature would be enhanced internationally if it instead sets in motion a bilateral process to resolve issues with its neighbour, with a view to ending the decades-old dispute. That will need the bricks-and-mortar of sustained discussions on the basis of common interests. Such a process cannot possibly be replaced by a simple wave between the two Prime Ministers across a crowded floor at a UN meeting.