India scoring diplomatically over Pakistan
Reading between the lines of these bland statements made it clear that states were politely refusing to take sides in the matter. And Pakistan had little say.
Photo: Reuters
By Aditi Bhaduri
It has been barely six months and Pakistan is once again failing the diplomatic war with India. In February – March this year Pakistan failed to drum up enough diplomatic support after India’s airstrike in Balakote, deep within Pakistani territory on what India alleges was a terrorist camp. The attack came days after a suicide strike inside Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir on a paramilitary convoy claiming the lives of more than 40 Indian security personel. Pakistan based terror group the Jaish e Mohamed, which is also proscribed by the UN claimed the attack.
Five months later, Pakistan finds itself in a similar situation. The raison d’etre of Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach against India is the Indian government’s most recent act to revoke a constitutional provision which granted the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim majority state, special privileges. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have both assured that Jammu and Kashmir would be granted statehood again, with its own legislature, at an appropriate time. While analysts have argued that the legalese were correct – these constitutional provisions – Article 350 and Articles 35 (A) – which had for decades marked the relationship between India and the state – were meant to be interim measure, never to exist in perpetuity, the method in which the provisions were enacted – amidst a complete shut down in the valley replete with curfew – have been questioned.
India, which has always maintained that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of its territory termed the act as a purely domestic affair. Pakistan, which occupies the other half of the territory of the erstwhile princely state, and lays claims, on religious grounds, to Indian Kashmir, however, has gone ballistic.
Using belligerent language, seldom heard from heads of governments, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government decided to downgrade diplomatic ties with India, expel the Indian Ambassador Ajay Bisaria to India, suspend bilateral trade, halt bus and train services between the two countries, and called for a boycott of all cultural ties with India.
It has also been upping the diplomatic ante while ruling out a military action against India. While Khan held a series of phone calls with heads of governments, foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi rushed to Beijing. Pakistan threatened to take the matter to the UN Security Council, citing legalese as Kashmir was ‘disputed territory’. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged all parties to “exercise restraint,” his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. He added that over the past few days the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan “has observed and reported an increase in military activity” along the highly militarized LoC. The UN, however, poured cold water on Pakistan’s intentions, as the spokesman refered to “the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, also known as the Shimla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means”. The Shimla Agreement rejects any third part mediation on the issue of Kashmir.
Pakistan has also reached out to the US. The issue of Kashmir, amongst others, has been discussed when Prime Minister Khan recently visited the US, which he cited was a success. Analysts see this as a trade-off for Pakistan’s consent to facilitating a peace deal between the US and the Taliban for an honourable US exit from Afghanistan, where it has been fighting its longest war. US President Donald Trump raised hackles in New Delhi with his offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue during Khan’s visit. India has always maintained that only bilateral channels would work with Pakistan.
However, India’s own diplomatic outreach is turning out to be more successful than Pakistan’s. It reached out to all the P5 members immediately after the Presidential ordinance was passed. Therefore most major powers have desisted from taking any strong stand against India. The US said in a statement, “We are closely following the events in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. We take note of India’s announcement revising the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s plan to split the state into two union territories.” US state department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said the US was “concerned about reports of detentions and urge respect for individual rights and discussion with those in affected communities” and called on all parties “to maintain peace and stability along the Line of Control.”
Russia, which has been recently deepening its relations with Pakistan, has unequivocally backed India’s stand. With an arms deal of $5.5 billion underway, Russia has stood with its traditional ally, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that “We proceed from fact that the changes associated with the change in the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and its division into two union territories are carried out within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of India.”
There has been mixed responses from the UK, where large Kashmiri diaspora resides. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) spokesperson said “We are following developments closely and support calls for the situation to remain calm,” the Press Trust of India reported on August, 6th. The statement was made in reference to the issue which has led British MPs to express both “grave concern” and “strong support”.
Only China, Pakistan’s all weather friend, has taken a rather strong stand. However, much of China’s response has to do with the Ladakh sector, which has been made into a union territory to be governed directly by the central government in Delhi. In reponse to written queries the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said “We call on the two sides to peacefully resolve relevant disputes through dialogue and consultation and safeguard regional peace and stability,” she said. Asserting that China’s position on Kashmir was “clear and consistent”, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said the issue is a legacy of history between India and Pakistan, which is also the consensus of the international community.
In a separate statement, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson responded to the formation of Ladakh as Union Territory: “China always opposes India’s inclusion of Chinese territory in the western section of the China-India boundary under its administrative jurisdiction,” she said. “This position is firm and consistent and has never changed. The recent unilateral revision of domestic laws by the Indian side continues to undermine China’s territorial sovereignty, which is unacceptable and will not have any effect.” She urged the Indian side “to be cautious in its words and actions on the boundary issue, strictly abide by the relevant agreements reached between the two sides and avoid any move that further complicates the boundary issue.”
India and China have 3,488-km long Line of Actual Control (LAC) between them and have held 21 rounds of Special Representatives talks so far to resolve the boundary dispute.
From amongst SAARC nations, of which Pakistan is a member, Buddhist majority Sri Lanka has hailed the move to make Ladakh a separate federal entity which will have a majority Buddhist population, while Muslim Maldives maintained that it was India’s domestic matter.
A little further away, BIMSTEC member Thailand’s Ambassador to India Chutintorn Sam Gongsakdi said that the annulment of special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating Article 370 is an “internal affair” of India and that “Thailand does not interfere in the internal affairs of our friendly countries.”
The greatest let down for Pakistan perhaps has come from the Muslim world, relations with which it has always tried to leverage to get the better of India. In a season where the annual Islamic pilgrimage of Haj takes place, Pakistan has been screaming itself hoarse calling out to the ummah or the global Islamic community to intervene.
Except for Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran, however, no other state has responded strongly to India’s actions. On the very second day of India’s move, the UAE ambassador to India Dr. Al Banna was quoted by the UAE publication Gulf News as saying that from his understanding the reorganisation of states is not a unique incident in the history of independent India, and viewed this latest decision related to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as an internal matter, adding that “We expect that the changes would improve social justice and security and confidence of the people in the local governance and will encourage further stability and peace.”
Saudi Arabia released a statement only on Thursday after Khan posted multiple times about his phone call with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Kashmir. The Saudi Press Agency carried a statement which said that the Kingdom is following up the situation in Jammu & Kashmir resulting from India’s abolition of Article 370 of the Constitution which guarantees the region’s autonomy.
“While expressing its concern over the latest developments, the Kingdom affirms that the settlement of the conflict is through peaceful settlement in accordance with the relevant international resolutions, and calls on the parties concerned to maintain peace and stability in the region and to take into account the interest of the people of the region,” the statement said.
The UAE too officially released another statement by its Minister of Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash which repeated the same homilies to the necessity of maintaining peace in the region, to look after the welfare of the people concerned and to settling differenced through dialogue. He also affirmed his trust in the wisdom of the leaderships of both India and Pakistan and their ability to “overcome this crisis through communication and constructive dialogue, away from escalation and confrontation.”
Reading between the lines of these bland statements made it clear that states were politely refusing to take sides in the matter. And Pakistan had little say, dependent on both KSA and the UAE for loans, investments, and much needed remittances to tide over its financial emergency.
On 12th August the Kingdom of Bahrain announced that it was cracking down on a group of Pakistanis who had protested against India’s move in Kashmir in the Kingdom following Eid prayers.
A visibly frustrated Khan questioned on twitter if the world would “watch & appease as they did Hitler at Munich?” Foreign Minister Qureshi has summed up the situation well, stating in a press conference in Muzaffarabad that the UN Security Council was not waiting ‘with garlands’ to resolve the Kashmir issue, and warning that any of the P5 nations could play spoiler, and that Muslim countries, especially Arab countries, had financial interests in India.
This however is only one of a number of factors. However, it is also Indian diplomacy and Pakistan’s image problem that has contributed to India’s diplomatic edge. Pakistan’s backing for terror groups, acknowledged by Khan on his recent visit to the US, including those like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, can be credited with the reluctance of world capitals to side with it. India, on the other hand, is increasingly importing its soft power, even as its economic clout increases.
At the Muslim world has far more pressing matters to attend to, plagued as it is with sectarian and ethnic conflicts. With its maximalist position, therefore, Pakistan only seems to have put itself in the corner. For India is not about to revoke its decisions on Jammu and Kashmir.
