Lay down the law; act like tin Gods

By: Nauman Illahi

Since, simple is an established truth that the disputed territory of an Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) is an international and, more specifically, a bilateral issue. The Government of India, however, pursued an illogical demarche.

As on one hand, India, to do away with the special status of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), constantly claims to have informed US’ Government of its avowed intentions, most importantly, in February-2019, just two days before the Pulwama-Attack happened.

But, on the other, Straightway after this, the Government of India, solitary, condones itself of universal ethical and moral liabilities and self-formulates a self-centered statement put forward by a veteran Indian diplomat KC Singh that, “There has been no international reaction yet on this issue, which shows that India has done its calculations in advance. And US being an important and crucial member of the P-5, it is imperative to see how it reacts”.

The equation is as simple that “for every action, there’s a reaction”.

For who else responds to a mere implicit ideologue? As on account of the degree of sensibility of the matter, certain reactions do not happen to be simultaneous—most probably, the reaction will be evident, but on the right-time, if India had formally channelized the transaction of striking the international-bilateral-settlement through presenting such proposals before the General Assembly in coming UNSC annual summit-2019.

While, Pakistan, thus far, concurred with being in harmony to the US’ mediation-offer, it was the extremity, where both the parties, India and Pakistan, considered to be legally binding to acknowledge the bona fide adjudication, hitherto.

But India’s state junta, being afraid of the irrevocable prospects, miscalculated, and deliberately overlooked the phenomenon.

Recently, in July-2019, just after conclusion of the PM Imran Khan’s visit, the US’ President Donald Trump offered to mediate the IOK-issue: and, at once, the Government of India U-N-I-L-A-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y underwent annexing disputed-territory of the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)—But Why?

Four questions arise at the moment.

First, that, is not it the appropriate time for President Donald Trump to take on an offer to mediate the sustained conflict and try to reach a reasonable solution? When both the parties, one after the other, have successfully outreached and convinced President D. Trump that the international community should play its role in resolving the sole matter of conflict between the two states, which has largely served as a proponent of grave violation of the human rights.

Second, what was the reason behind this haste? Like, Aren’t they retain a certain degree of awareness that this such unilateral move would devoid the local inhabitants of their natural and fundamental rights and would serve to prompt the international reaction against the resolutions that still stands unaffected and recognized at the international forum of United Nations Security Council on the corresponding issue.

Third, if they consider it a bilateral issue saying that no other international state would intervene, then, whether they have pursued any formal track-one diplomatic procedure to take the other opposite-party—Pakistan, into their confidence?

 Or, have they provided any chance for the respective responsible leaders of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) to come forth and participate along with their formulated reservations? Which must be given acute consideration?

Forth, Have the current Indian Government practiced the traditional concept of issuing “White Paper”, even as a formality, regarding Government of India’s information and proposals on striking down article-35(A) and article-307 in giving special status to “Indian Occupied Kashmir(IOK)”?

Thus, the Government of India undertook the matter in an excessively belligerent way.

Let’s say it is a bilateral issue, but to look at it in a broader perspective that intra-continental and regional interests have considerably larger impact than inter-continental interests; the former ensure socio-economic and geo-political stability, while the latter would devoid both the neighbored-states of their regional sovereignty, which would duly result in cultivating the dire consequences of providing the proxy-wars to evolve from sponsoring radical-groups to that of radical-states: and in the end the preferences can be assumed to be altered in their entirety, and would savor only and already determined interests of leading global powers: the victims might be us—the neighbored-states.

Thus the time has arrived to develop a newer and broader perspective of geo-economic stability rather offering an old rotten narrative imbibed with  envy and rivalry of long remained uncertain traditional geopolitics: ensuring no favorable outcome but only the damage and disguise, which might result in relocating the geographical-boundaries, that happened to exist centuries back, and back to the medieval times, but today the cost that can be assumed to be far greater than that of the one we both have paid in earning the recent degree of geographical sovereignty.

Make sure that the foreign policies should be amenable to severe the geo-economic interests of both the states, which inhabit the same region and turn foes into the friends: it is because at certain points, when we want others to compromise their ego and pride, we must honor, on our part, the intra-continental-geographical-Sovereignty to get benefited and not to be limited within the diameter of confined boundaries. It must be the purpose of economic development and stability to be instrumental in determining the future of the region because the only self-centric policies will prove to be a failure.

The writer is a freelance columnist, he can be reached at [email protected]

From Our Print Edition