U.

S involvement in the resolution of Kashmir Issue:

This paper looks at the Kashmir issue since its inception. It brings forth the initial positions of India and Pakistan on the crisis. It sheds some light on what has been done for the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue and what further needs to be done. Obamas recent visit to India and his relevant steps in the regard have also been mentioned
The territory of Kashmir has been an issue of contention between India and Pakistan ever since partition. It was a princely state under British India with a majority Muslim population but a Hindu ruler. It was a state that held enormous importance for both India and Pakistan I terms of its strategic location and in terms of the water sources that flowed out of this region into India and Pakistan. Both countries held onto their strong claims to the region and the status of the region remained undecided upon the partition of subcontinent in August 1947. The Radcliffe Award that became the basis for partition plan was heavily engineered in favor of India because of the close association between the then viceroy, Mountbatten and Nehru. He made sure Pakistan was deprived of any links to the region. Wirsing in his book, India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir dispute talks about how the claims of different countries to disputed territories have historically been grounded in a diverse array of factors, including territorial contiguity and proximity, natural geographic barriers, preservation of territorial contiguity and proximity, natural geographic barriers, preservation of territorial integrity, economic linkages, military conquest, physical presence, strategic requirements, compensation for past injury, treaty obligations, ethnic similarity, and popular difference .(Wirsing 10) Even

through the lens of an outside, neutral observer most of these factors made Kashmir more likely to accede to Pakistan but then it was these very factors that the newly created India did not want Pakistan to have it because despite the partition, animosities have remained high between the two countries till the present day. India and Pakistan have fought wars and have come very close to wars over the contentious issue of Kashmir on numerous occasions in history. Pakistan does not accept the legality of the accession agreement that India claims, the Mahraja of Kashmir signed while India continues to blame Pakistan for causing insurgency in a region that they claim to be theirs. However, despite this are having claimed hundreds and hundreds of lives, it remains a conflict ridden zone till the present day. Neither country is ready to accept the claims of the other. UN mediation has not worked successfully. Ceasefires have happened, so called referendums and plebiscites have taken place in the region but it still continues to be a disputed territory. Many experts claim that in addition to other issues, South Asia cannot be a stable region unless a permanent solution is sought to Kashmir issue. His issue has gained immense importance in the international context as well. More and more countries have shown their interest in having this issue resolved. Most importantly, now that India and Pakistan are nuclear weapon states, the big hegemonies of the world want to maintain peace in this region because the current world is so interconnected that one regions security has direct impact on another region. For all this to happen, Kashmir issue has to be resolved. Many argue that the only solution to Kashmir issue lies in third party intervention because the two viscerally opposed countries are too adamant to accept

the others view point without much consideration being given to the right of selfdetermination of the indigenous Kashmiris. Agreements like Simla Accord between Indira Gandhi and Bhutto were efforts on part of both countries to use other peaceful means for Kashmir issue but many in India do not hold much value to the Accord. (Ajithkumar 3) Both India and Pakistan did, however, agree in 1972 that they would solve the dispute mutually and would not resort to third party intervention for the purpose. (Wirsing 239) But with changing global context and changed internal dynamics of the two countries, it has become glaringly clear that outside interference is necessary to bring about peaceful solution to the issue. U.S, the global hegemony should and has been intervening into the issue and it should assure its resolution. Dr. Subhash Kapila in his article on United States Obsession with Kashmir Issue talks about how U.S has been the second most obsessed nation with Kashmir issue after Pakistan. It has been interested in the issue ever since the partition took place. Though India has been vehemently opposed to third party intervention for the resolution of Kashmir issue, it has not been objecting to the involvement of U.S in this regard. In the last fifty years, the United States has applied different labels to the Kashmir issue from self- determination to aspiration of the Kashmiri people to being a nuclear flash-point endangering international security'. The constantly

changing stand of the United States is reflective of the fact that the United States stand on the Kashmir issue is flexible and can be said to be dependent on two factors at a given point in time: (1) Tenor of India-United States relations and; (2) The strategic utility of Pakistan for any intended United States strategic moves in South West Asia. (Kapila 1). Therefore, it would not be wrong to assert that though U.S has no real concern for the Kashmir issue but it has become a strategic tool for all powers

that have some stake in South Asia. Over the years, the two countries of India and Pakistan have so evolved that both are inherently and intrinsically dependent on U.S for their progress. India is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful actors of the region economically, militarily etc and is constantly dependent on U.S for the purpose of techniques like leap frogging that will make its journey on the road to development an even speedier one. Pakistan, on the other hand has been facing numerous challenges to its security and stability internally in addition to the economic depravity of its people and the constant political turmoil it faces. Pakistan too is therefore heavily reliant on U.S aid and mediation for the solving of its internal crisis. But most importantly, U.S too wants to maintain its strong presence in the region for strategic reasons and to counter any other powers from becoming too powerful in the region like China. All these factors make set the base for involvement of U.S in the resolution of Kashmir issue. U.S involvement in Kashmir issue has changed over the years. From its initial stance of Indian claim to the region to an absolute necessity of plebiscite in the region in view of the right of self determination if the Kashmiris, it has showed some inclination towards acceptance of Pakistans claims to the region. Warren Austin, the United States Representative to the United Nation asserted in the United Nations on February 4, 1948: "The external sovereignty of Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja.... With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India....."(Kapila 1) This statement shows that U.S did accept the legality of the accession agreement at the time of partition and did not accept the claims of Pakistan to the region. However, it is easily understandable that as the Cold war changed the face of world events U.S stand on the issue also changed. It was that Pakistan that became the most allied ally of U.S

during their fight against communism that U.S began showing some interests in the claims of Pakistan. Though U.S view on Kashmir has been mostly constant, the changing scenario of South Asia changed the stance of U.S on Kashmir too. The issue came to limelight during 1990 when tensions heightened between India and Pakistan at the time when most of the world was aware of the possible nuclear capability of Pakistan and India had already tested their nuclear weapons. Clinton administration intervened for peace mediation. Asstt Secretary of State, Robin Raphael who on October 23, 1993 declared that: "We (USA) do not recognize the legal validity of Kashmirs accession as meaning that Kashmir is forever an integral part of India... The people of Kashmir have got to be consulted in any kind of final settlement of the Kashmir dispute." It was a strange reversal from what Warren Austin had declared in 1948. (Kapila 2) If peace was possible then with a due consideration towards the aspirations of Kashmiris, U.S can surely assure that in the present times. Kapila very rightly asserts that Kashmir is an obsolescent issue now and needs to be given a dignified burial, which can best be done by the United States.( Kapila 2) A number of solutions are available to U.S for the resolution of this issue that has lingered on ever since partition and has gory details to its history. U.S diplomat Howard B Schaffer who has decades of experience on South Asia explained that Beginning with the presidency of George H. W. Bush, crisis management, rather than conflict resolution, became the chief challenge for U.S. diplomacy. U.S cannot afford to move away from India but at the same time can put pressure on both regions to reach some sort of negotiation by threatening to withdraw its support if both the regions do not comply. Pakistan in the past did agree to have a special envoy for mediation of peace between the two countries. It was during the time of Clinton and it did succeed in bringing international attention to the issue. Steps like these in the

future can assure pressure on both nations to reach some common grounds but what is important in this regard is the fact that India should agree to the fact that any likely steps towards the resolution of the crisis will only happen if third party intervention is allowed. Even when Pakistan welcomed the role of 40 peace envoys, India perceived it as the continued distancing of U.S from the Kashmir issue. (BBC) The indigenous people of Kashmir, numerous studies have shown are also not in favor of outside intervention in the crisis. Though U.S has taken steps to assure peace between India and Pakistan, it needs to tackle the problem at grass root level by sending peace missions through United Nations to condition the locals to accept outside intervention especially the role of U.S to make them believe that steps are being taken in their interests in the long run. Any positive future prospects for the crisis lie in the fact that India needs to realize that Kashmir issue is in fact a crisis. It cannot go on claiming the region to be an integral part of India according to the accession agreements whose legality comes in with a question mark. Pakistan needs to adopt a bargaining attitude. Both these outcomes can only take place if U.S that has important stakes in the region places the neutral referees role. It needs to move beyond looking at its own benefits in the region and come up with peace agreements that satisfy both the aggrieved parties but most importantly it should place due consideration on the rights of the Kashmiris to their own land. On most of the previous occasions U.S stance on the situation has not been a neutral one and has been biased in favor of the more powerful party. It needs to take in to view the considerations of all the parties and threaten the parties to comply with its view point to ensure greater peace in the region in the long run. Contentious issues and disputes have a shelf-life and cannot be flogged adnauseum. This reality must dawn on the United States. More importantly it must

manifest itself in American official pronouncements. (Kapila 2) U.S needs to take crucial steps in this regard and that too in the near future keeping in view its status as the biggest hegemon that needs to assure stability in the world order especially in regions where it has stakes.

The recent visit of US president was seen as a ray of hope by government of Pakistan and Kashmir population towards the resolution of Kashmir conflict. However, as will be shown later, all the hopes waned away when president left India without putting forward any viable mechanism to resolve the crisis. However, as Barack Obama, at various instances, has said that Kashmir is a long standing critical issue between India and Pakistan and its resolution is in the long term interest for both the countries; He in his recent visit to India mentioned it while addressing a joint conference at Delhi along with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He expressed his desire to see both India and Pakistan resolve their differences over a period of time as they both have an inclination towards reducing the tension. Was this statement enough to fulfil the desire of Kashmir population, Pakistani government and US stance to see Kashmir conflict resolved? The following comments by foreign office spokesperson Abdul Basit shows the expectations of Pakistans government from the visit.

We hope that President Obama, during his visit to India, would take up this matter, particularly now that we are seeing every day peaceful protests in Jammu and Kashmir,"(3) On the other hand, India has so far been successful in silencing any voice that has been raised in international arena to resolve the Kashmir dispute and Obamas visit was another episode of it. Strategic cooperation between Pakistan and India is deemed necessary for the containment of rising insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Therefore the Kashmir issue is essential for the greater stability and regional cooperation. The valley of Kashmir witnessed severe spate of violence in its history during this summer after the announcement of Obamas recent visit to India. The Kashmir population gave signals to the US president as to the severity of the issue and the longing desire of the Kashmiris to be liberated. They were very hopeful about the visit and as they considered US to be the only power on the earth that could end their long standing subjugation and this visit was seen as an opportunity in this regard. However all the hopes were severed and vanished as the president left the country without even discussing the issue except at an instant where he to an answer to a question mentioned the significance of the issue. Was this mentioning enough to fulfil the aspiration of the Kashmir population? There are different views of the analysts on the issue, as some perceive it to be a positive step towards the resolution of the conflict as even the mentioning by the president of a superpower of the world means it is ready to take steps to resolve the crisis. As the other superpowers like UK and Russia dont even mention the conflict given their growing interest in India .On the other hand some view this statement as mere

rhetoric or lip service(Assad,2010) of president of a country which is responsible for creating havoc in Muslim countries. Considering the importance of the issue the continued lack of attention and engagement of US in the resolution of Kashmir issue may be harmful for the success of US in diplomatic, military and development operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. As mentioned before the third intervention is essential for the resolution of long standing Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. Obama even during his presidential campaign appraised the need of resolution of Kashmir issue for the greater role of region in the Americas war on terror. So the discouragement of India and Pakistan as being loggerheads is essential for US willingness to deployment of greater resources and troops in FATA to fight Taliban.

Works Cited

1) 2009.

Kapila, Subhash. "Kashmir the War of Mind and Brains." Kashmir Hindu. 19 Aug. Web. <http://kashmirihindu.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/united-states-

obsession-with-the-kashmir-issue-an-analysis/>.

2) "United States Obsession with the Kashmir Issue: An Analysis." South Asia Analysis Group. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.southasiaanalysis.org//papers5/paper403.html>. 3) Wirsing, Robert G. Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. Print. 4) "SECRET OF SHIMLA AGREEMENT." Scribd. Web. 19 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/982320/SECRET-OF-SHIMLA-AGREEMENT->

5)Assad, Bashir. "Hopes Disappear in Kashmir as Obama Fails to Provide Solace to Region." Editorial. Punjabnewsline. India News, 9 Nov. 2010. Web.

<http://punjabnewsline.com/content/hopes-disappear-kashmir-obama-fails-provide-solaceregion/25840>. 6)Siddiqi, Shahid R. "Obama Can Help Resolve Kashmir Issue." Dawn. 7 Nov. 2010. Web. <http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/07/obama-can-help-resolve-kashmir-issue.html>. 7)Zahid, hameed, By. "US Ready to Play Role on Kashmir Issue: Obama." Breaking News, Current Events, Latest News and World Events at Allvoices.com. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. <http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7267513-us-ready-to-play-role-on-kashmirissue-obama/content/62358639-kashmiri-protesters-take-part-in-an-anti-india-protestorganised-by-the-jammu-kashmir-liberation-front-a-separatist-party-in-srinagar>.