KASHMIR: THE CONVERGENCE OF DIVERGENCES!
“The Ministers held discussions on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to the need for continued discussions, in a purposeful and forward looking manner, with a view to finding a peaceful solution by narrowing divergences and building convergences.”
– Text of Joint Statement after Indian and Pakistan Foreign Ministers’ Meet
(08 September 2012)
If the events which have unfolded after the recent Indo-Pak Foreign Ministers’ meet are any indicators of the steps being taken by both India and Pakistan to ‘narrow divergences’ on the Kashmir issue, then either their approach is seriously flawed or perhaps it is form of some advanced and very complex form of diplomacy which is still alien to ordinary people like us. The joint statement on culmination of the Foreign Ministers’ meet refers to finding a “peaceful solution” to the Kashmir issue by “narrowing divergences and building convergences.” So, sample this and try to spot the ‘convergences’:
· 22 September 2012– Indian Defence Minister AK Antony asserts “We have friendly relations with Pakistan and China and we always talk to them but this does not mean that anything can be done to change the map of India.”
· 26 September 2012– Pakistan’s President says that “We will continue to support the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to peacefully choose their destiny in accordance with the UN Security Council’s long-standing resolutions on this matter. Kashmir remains a symbol of the failures, rather than strengths, of the UN system”.
· 27 September 2012– Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai responds to President Zardari stating that, “The people of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India, have peacefully chosen their destiny in accordance with democratic practices. They continue to do so.”
· 01 October 2012– Indian Foreign Minister reiterates that “We wish to make it abundantly clear that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India" and calls the mention of Kashmir by the President of Pakistan "an unwarranted" reference.
· 01 October 2012– Pakistani Deputy Permanent Representative, Raza Bashir Tarar, states that Jammu and Kashmir had never been a part of India and countered the Indian FM statement by saying that that the mention of the Kashmir issue by President Zardari was "not unwarranted".
The only convergence that I could find from the statements being made by both India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir is that there appears to be some tacit understanding between the two countries that they should leave no stone unturned to ensure that the Kashmir issue is not resolved. I may be accused of being a pessimist, sensationalising this issue or charging at windmills, but then what else should one make out of such announcements which are blatantly detrimental to the cause of “building convergences”?
It is the timing of this tirade over Kashmir that raises many questions but provides few answers. So, is it actually my paranoia that makes me suspect that there is something amiss? Does the first part of the joint statement regarding Kashmir stating that both the countries have recogonised the “need for continued discussions, in a purposeful and forward looking manner” hold a possible clue? Could this “continued discussions” as well as “purposeful and forward looking manner” be discreet references to the possible adoption of the ‘back burner’ policy on Kashmir? Or could this be part of a diplomatic strategy to just talk for conveying the impression that the Kashmir issue is ‘under active consideration’, but simultaneously articulate their historically stated positions on the issue in order to pacify the ‘domestic hawks’ as well as scuttle the scope of any agreement?
Suspicion of something being amiss is strengthened by the fact that the negative utterances on Kashmir are not only sporadic but also so mechanical that they make no diplomatic sense. For if the two nations seriously desire to resolve Kashmir, they must first find ways to unravel the Gordian knot created by uncompromising attitudes of the past. And this is not what I am saying- it is exactly what the Pakistan FM meant when she said that, “As a part of the broader vision, India and Pakistan have decided to move forward. We will not be held hostage by history.” But are the statements made after the Indo- Pak FM meet by both countries indicative of their commitment in “not being held hostage by history”? The sudden resurgence of old viewpoints certainly does not seem to suggest so!
And while President Zardari’s “symbol of failure” statement may have brought cheers within the ‘azadi’ camp, I am not so enthused. Though President Zardari’s statement concerning Kashmir starts on a high note (“Kashmir remains a symbol of the failures, rather than strengths, of the UN system), it peters out into a whimper (“We feel that resolution of these issues can only be arrived in an environment of cooperation).” In short, President Zardari has conveyed that though Pakistan fully supports the Kashmir cause, it will not play the role of a torch bearer by taking any fresh initiative on this issue and resolution of the Kashmir problem will have to wait till “an environment of cooperation” is created. And with the ongoing spat between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the million dollar question is that, when will we such an environment?
So, once again we stand at the cross road of uncertainty. But then, if we are disappointed with the sorry state of affairs, the fault is entirely ours since we not only tend to take the statements made by politicians and diplomats very seriously and at their face value, but also read too much into them. William James Durant, an American philosopher had once said that, “To say nothing, especially while speaking, is half the art of diplomacy.” And if we ponder over this dictum and realise the profound wisdom it contains, perhaps we will be spared the recurring bouts of dejection that we experience after each round of Indo- Pak talks!