India must counter the UK’s negative approach
They have always taken the Pakistani side on J&K. Why are we so generous on issues that are close to them?
The British are desperately trying to downplay the virtually anti-Indian positions they took during the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) informal consultations on the IndiaPakistan question on August 16 in New York. Interestingly, they are refraining from making on-the-record statements. Instead, they hope that they can create sufficient confusion through background briefings so that influential sections of Indian public opinion give them, if nothing else, the benefit of doubt.
During the consultations, the British representative’s remarks amounted to saying that the legal steps taken by India in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) should be in keeping with its international obligations. Does Britain feel that the constitutional steps undertaken by India on August 5 are not exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction, subject to Indian political and legal processes? If that is the case, let it say so on the record.
The British representative also reportedly spoke of India’s need to ensure that the human rights of the people of J&K are not violated. No one in India can ever believe otherwise; all the people of J&K are Indians and the need to uphold their identity, religious traditions, customs and rights is the duty of government. However, the British representative’s comments cannot be construed as innocently just endorsing that. They were made in the context of Pakistani complaints of India violating the human rights of people in J&K, and, therefore, the remark clearly implied a negative reference to India.
China wanted an outcome statement to be issued after the consultations. Initially, the British are reported to have gone along with China. It is only when they realised that not one of the 13 other UNSC members were willing to support the Chinese that they kept quiet, leaving the Chinese alone in their demand. Was the initial move indicative of a desire to maintain, as the British claim, a neutral position on J&K?
The fact is that the British have always taken the Pakistani side on J&K, either explicitly or implicitly. This has been so since 1947. It was Louis Mountbatten who
persuaded Jawaharlal Nehru and his ministerial colleagues to agree that the people of J&K would be consulted on the accession. It was also Mountbatten who urged that India should go to the United Nations (UN), complaining about Pakistan’s aggression. Nehru had initial misgivings, but later agreed to the UN move. That was a terrible mistake, and India is still paying the price. Naturally, Nehru cannot be absolved from giving in to Mountbatten’s advice on referring Kashmir to the UN.
At the UN, the British helped convert what was an issue of Pakistani invasion through the tribal raiders into a far more complex and intricate issue. It did so to ensure that it retained a foothold in the Indian subcontinent. It felt then that India could not be depended upon for it was determined to chart its own course. On the other hand, Pakistan became a close Western ally. This was in keeping with the close linkage between the British imperialism and Muslim separatism, from the early years of the last century to the creation of Pakistan.
In 1997, important sections of British political opinion again, openly, made proPakistani comments in the J&K context. Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral was particularly irked by seeming British offers of mediation. He is believed to have remarked in a conversation with Egyptian intellectuals about Britain’s real third-rate position in the world’s power calculus. Now, the pitiable state of British politics in the past few months over the Brexit issue raises questions about the validity of its continuation as a permanent member of the UNSC.
Why does India continue to overlook Britain’s negativity on India’s core issues? Why is it so generous on issues which are close to Britain? Indian magnanimity was evident when it did not oppose Queen Elizabeth’s desire that the Prince of Wales should succeed her as the head of the Commonwealth. Certainly, as the largest country of the organisation, India’s concurrence carried special weight. Is it not time that India makes countries understand that reciprocity is the foundation of inter-State ties?
Has Britain been able to throw off its colonial approach towards South Asia? It would seem not, from the former British Prime Minister Theresa May’s remarks on the eve of the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy’s centenary. She did say that it was a “shameful scar” on British Indian history, and recalled Queen Elizabeth’s 1997 remarks that is was “distressing”, and “we deeply regret what happened and the suffering caused”. But the British simply cannot, even after a 100 years of Dyer massacring hundreds of innocents, including children, squarely condemn him and apologise for his monstrous action on that Baisakhi day. What is also strange is that the Indian political class did not, in one voice, demand a full and unconditional apology from Britain. India can no longer adopt a chalta hai approach to Britain’s disregard of India’s concerns.
THE PITIABLE STATE OF BRITISH
POLITICS, ESPECIALLY IN THE BACKDROP OF BREXIT IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF ITS CONTINUATION AS A PERMANENT UNSC MEMBER