Author: Bulbul Roy Mishra
Publication: BJP Today
Date: August 16-31, 2002
Kashmir is on the international
agenda," remarked Colin Powell on 28 July during his recent visit to India,
" and the US and other countries are going to take an active interest in
encouraging a resolution." About Kashmir poll he observed, " If we have
enough observers there, you can see what is taking place..." The above
statements understandably have given rise to suspicion in our mind as to
whether the US and their allies notably the UK, are hinting at the foreign
monitoring of ensuing Kashmir poll, thereby complicating the issue further,
going by their track record in this regard. Let us retrace briefly the
history of Kashmir issue and the role played so far by the British and
the Americans "in encouraging a resolution".
Within two months of our independence,
Pakistani tribesmen overran a large portion of Kashmir with Pak support.
At that time, Governor General Mountbatten and General Lockhart, the British
Officer in charge of Indian army, played a dubious role. They were informed
in advance of the intended movement of armed Pakistani tribesmen toward
Kashmir by General Messervy, the Army-chief of Pakistan and also by Admiral
Cunningham, the governor of NWFP. They did not report the matter to the
Indian government though the British government was kept apprised. When
it came to the notice of Indian government finally, General Lockhart and
Governor General Mountbatten made sure that Nehru refrained from any military
action against the tribesmen or Pakistan, even though by that time Kashmir
legally acceded to India. The ground for such passivity as mischievously
advocated by both was that the Indian army was too weak to drive out the
tribesmen. Mountbatten eventually persuaded Nehru to take the issue to
the Security Council and Nehru committed the Himalayan blunder by lodging
a complaint with the Security Council on 1 January, 1948. And this gave
both the British and the Americans a locus standi in Kashmir so as to pursue
their own diplomatic and strategic interests.
"We must be particularly careful
to avoid giving Pakistan (the) impression," advised Attlee, the British
premiere, to Noel-Baker, his Minister of State, on 10 January, 1948, "
that we are siding with India against her. In view of (the) Palestine situation
this would carry the risk of aligning the whole of Islam against us." The
British as also the US were quite engrossed with the Palestine issue at
the time Nehru took the Kashmir matter to the Security Council in the hope
that the Council would chastise Pakistan and permit India to send her force
into Pakistan. This, according to Noel-Baker, was a dangerous political
miscalculation. The lucid analysis of contemporary British and US diplomacy
on the Kashmir issue by C. Dasgupta in his book "War and diplomacy in Kashmir
(1947-48)," now reveals that their Kashmir policy was primarily governed
by their diplomatic interest in Palestine and the middle east. The British
foreign office found in Kashmir a chance of retrieval of their lost ground
with the Muslims by betraying their inclination toward Pakistan. What followed
thereafter was an open and abject pro- Pakistan approach of both the UK
and the US government. Thus instead of addressing the issue of Pak-sponsored
tribal invasion of Kashmir, the UN resolution prescribed a plebiscite under
the UN supervision. The absurd logic put forth in support was that the
tribesmen could not be persuaded otherwise to retire from Jammu and Kashmir.
Subsequent mobilization of the Pak army into Kashmir and forcible occupation
of a sizeable part were deliberately ignored by the Security Council. The
US officials initially found it difficult to deny the legal validity of
Kashmir's accession to India, as is evident from the U.K State department
Memorandum of Conversation, dated 27 February, 1948. However, the US later
yielded to British persuasion in the background of Palestine imbroglio
and their common interest in the Middle East. Besides, proximity of Pakistan
to the Gulf had its natural geopolitical importance. These were precisely
the reasons why they tilted toward Pakistan ignoring the merits of India's
claim.
Between 1991 and 2001, according
to official estimate, a total of 10,000 civilians and 3000 troops have
been killed by Islamic terrorists in Kashmir. Approximately 4,00,000 Hindus
have been driven out from Kashmir, rendering them refugees in their own
country. The suicide attack on 14 May had its toll of 30 innocent lives
at Kaluchak near the Jammu-Pathankot highway, with 48 people wounded, 4
of them critically. It is also learnt that after the banning of some notorious
terrorist outfits such as Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad etc.
which were hitherto patronized by Pakistan, members of the banned terrorist
groups have changed their names. They have set up 73 terrorist camps in
Pak-occupied Kashmir under close and secret supervision of the ISI. After
intensive training, these terrorists have been infiltrating in Kashmir
to take the lives of innocent civilians.
While terrorist attacks in Kashmir
continue unabated, the double standard of the USA and the UK in their so-called
crusade against terrorism becomes more and more evident. The Bush government
did not hesitate in bombarding Afghanistan as it sheltered Laden, the suspect
mastermind behind the suicidal terrorist attacks on 11 September. The same
Mr. Bush preaches self-restraint for India when Vajpayee government talks
about retaliation against Pakistan that has sheltered, funded, trained
and directly patronized operating in Kashmir. In 1948, the USA had no direct
interest that they now have in Pakistan in connection with their Afghan
operation to flush out terrorists. Hence, Musharraf must be kept in good
humour. This explains why the USA has promised a large sum to Pakistan
as an aid for their development, the possibility of its diversion to cross-border
terrorism notwithstanding.
The tension prevailing now in Palestine
is no better than that in 1947-48 and, therefore, there is no reason to
believe that Bush and Blair will act differently on the question of Kashmir,
except for pressurizing Musharraf to neutralize Islamic terrorists, in
their self-interest. Their double standard is patently clear when they
preach restraint to Vajpayee despite grave provocation, and lend moral
support to Ariel Sharon's hard-line policy of retaliation (only 14% Americans,
as per the report in the Time of May 6, back the Palestinians). Bush supported
Israel's military action as he said on March 30: "I can understand why
the Israeli government takes the actions they take. Their country is under
attack..." Again Bush commanded Sharon on 18 April: " I do believe Ariel
Sharon is a man of peace". What moral right does Bush have in preaching
self-restraint to Vajpayee while he justifies retaliation by Israel in
similar circumstances?
The British role on the question
of Palestine is not any different from that of the USA. With the deepening
of Palestinian crisis they are likely to tilt more toward Islamic Pakistan
rather than secular and democratic India. This is evident from Blair's
devious remark during his recent visit to India that Pakistan had a strong
case in Kashmir, and also that Bush shared his perception. It mattered
to them in the least that all the preconditions for a plebiscite, as stipulated
by the Security Council, had been flouted by Pakistan. It hardly concerns
them if India bleeds incessantly under attack from Pak-sponsored terrorists.
In the above backdrop, it will be foolhardy on our part to think that a
peaceful Kashmir poll alone will tilt the West in India's favour.
