In search of a bilateral solution
Swaraj is unfortunately not ready to accept that Delhi is responsible for the collapse of the dialogue process
Only time will tell whether Pakistan can take the issue of Kashmir to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and seek a settlement of this long-festering dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi. But for now India’s External Affairs Minister has dismissed the possibility altogether, arguing that the fate of the Himalayan territory could only be decided bilaterally, as determined by the Simla Accord and Lahore Declaration. Since the government of Pakistan itself has not threatened to go to the ICJ over Kashmir, it would appear that Swaraj issued the remarks to quell domestic fears — fuelled by India’s ex-judge Markandey Katju’s comments that Delhi had made a huge blunder by going to the ICJ for consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav. Katju had warned that it would encourage Pakistan to approach the same court on the issue of Kashmir.
Swaraj, however, insists that the Kashmir conundrum can be solved only through direct talks between India and Pakistan — a window that has been shut by Delhi itself for the last many years. What has made the dispute more intractable is India’s continued refusal to accept third-party mediation. And in recent years there hasn’t been a shortage of such offers. None other than the UN chief and the president of Turkey have made these overtures recently but these were rebuffed by India.
Indian objections to any ICJ arbitration rest on three grounds: existing agreements that rule out settlement of the row by any party except India and Pakistan, Islamabad has never ruled over the territory and that the country has been the “aggressor” each time the two neighbours have been at war. The last two of these three claims are highly contentious.
Swaraj is unfortunately not ready to accept that Delhi is responsible for the collapse of the dialogue process while claiming credit for initiating negotiations with Islamabad. In the same breath, she blamed Pakistan for the Pathankot attack and vitiating the environment for talks by describing a slain Kashmiri youth leader as a freedom fighter. If India is really serious about resolving the conflict bilaterally, it will have to show more commitment to the negotiations.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2017.
Swaraj, however, insists that the Kashmir conundrum can be solved only through direct talks between India and Pakistan — a window that has been shut by Delhi itself for the last many years. What has made the dispute more intractable is India’s continued refusal to accept third-party mediation. And in recent years there hasn’t been a shortage of such offers. None other than the UN chief and the president of Turkey have made these overtures recently but these were rebuffed by India.
Indian objections to any ICJ arbitration rest on three grounds: existing agreements that rule out settlement of the row by any party except India and Pakistan, Islamabad has never ruled over the territory and that the country has been the “aggressor” each time the two neighbours have been at war. The last two of these three claims are highly contentious.
Swaraj is unfortunately not ready to accept that Delhi is responsible for the collapse of the dialogue process while claiming credit for initiating negotiations with Islamabad. In the same breath, she blamed Pakistan for the Pathankot attack and vitiating the environment for talks by describing a slain Kashmiri youth leader as a freedom fighter. If India is really serious about resolving the conflict bilaterally, it will have to show more commitment to the negotiations.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 7th, 2017.