Kashmir: Deft diplomacy, internal challenges
The Kashmir issue may have been handled deftly at the global politico-diplomatic level, but the abiding challenge for India remains domestic. This relates to the manner in which the anger and anguish in the valley is addressed, as and when the clampdown is lifted and the local population give vent to their feelings over the historic decisions of August 5
The G7 meeting of the world’s seven most industrialised nations in Biarritz, France, had a special relevance for India since Prime Minister Narendra Modi was one of the special invitees to this summit and the bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was deemed critical in relation to the troubled Kashmir issue.
It may be recalled that Trump had stirred the Kashmir issue in a startling manner when he indicated that he had been asked to mediate over Kashmir by Modi – a claim that was unambiguously rejected by Delhi. This remark was made when Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan was on his maiden visit to Washington and there was a concerted attempt by Islamabad to portray this as a case of the successful internationalization of the Kashmir issue.
The Indian decision to radically alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir by revoking is ‘special status’ and reducing it to a union territory and the continuing clampdown in Kashmir has elicited non-committal global attention, except for China. While the Modi government has asserted that the security situation warranted such an initiative and that Kashmir is an internal affair, the G7 meeting was the first such interaction for Modi with his global peers. The Trump meeting acquired greater salience given the ‘mediation’ statement.
Hence the Trump-Modi media interaction received second-by-second TV coverage in India and every word and gesture was monitored and analysed. What began as a dour and tense engagement soon became more informal with the friendly banter between the leaders of the world’s oldest and largest democracies. The Indian sub-text was one of deft diplomacy by Modi who stated unambiguously in relation to Kashmir that: “All issues between India & Pakistan are bilateral in nature, that is why we don’t trouble any other country regarding them.”
In what would be deemed as very satisfying to Delhi, Trump also added that Modi had spoken to him about Kashmir at length and “the Prime Minister really feels he has the situation under control.” And in trademark Trump style, he elliptically added : “They (India) speak with Pakistan and I’m sure that they will be able to do something that will be very good.”
The Kashmir issue may have been handled deftly at the global politicodiplomatic level, but the abiding challenge for India remains domestic. This relates to the manner in which the anger and anguish in the valley is addressed, as and when the clampdown is lifted and the local population give vent to their feelings over the historic decisions of August 5.
Persuading the aggrieved and often alienated Indian Kashmiri citizens that their identity and aspiration will be accommodated under the Indian democratic ethos will be the benchmark for assessing the political acumen of the Modi government in its second term.
It is instructive that the G7 leaders backed Hong Kong’s ‘autonomy’ as spelt out in the 1984 agreement between UK and China and called for “avoiding violence”, an advisory that will anger Beijing. The USChina trade war, the divergence over the Iran nuclear issue and the lack of consensus over ‘burning’ global environmental issues (dramatically symbolised by the Amazon forest fires) reflected the prevailing discord and turbulence in the global order. This is the leitmotif of Biarritz.
The inability (and incompetence ?) of the current global leadership to move beyond the short-term transactional negotiation template and the compulsions of their domestic electoral cycles was illustrated by the fact that this G7 did not even seek to issue a joint statement.
The current global flux offers potential opportunities for India to review and rewire its external linkages and here the bilateral with France is encouraging.
What shape the EU will take after Brexit finally reaches the ‘Johnsonian’ finale is moot but Modi’s meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron points to the possibility of greater India-France engagement across a wider spectrum, including the maritime domain.
Navigating the dissonances with both the USA and China will test the prudence and pragmatism of the Modi government. This is a perennial dilemma that goes back to the days of the India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. And the immutable principle that the ability to deal with the external challenge is predicated on domestic resilience remains as valid.