It is not always possible to distinguish rhetoric on Kashmir from a country's actual policy on this dispute. However, when the US president makes a pledge to play his role in resolving the conflict, it ought to be taken seriously. Entering the final year of his second term in the White House, Bill Clinton views Kashmir as one of "the two places" where he had been "stymied" since he became president. As Greece and Turkey have agreed to soon start talks on Cyprus, the other problematic place for Mr Clinton, is Kashmir. He said at a fundraiser Wednesday,"that leaves Kashmir" for him to make a "real stab at...next year".
President Clinton did not expand on the "hopeful signs" he sees for a Kashmir solution. Then, while the US stance is clearly conveyed through its various agencies and officials, the Clinton administration has not been seen taking any measures to work towards its immediate policy objective: engaging Pakistan and India in substantive talks, hopefully, to find a mutually agreeable formula to settle Kashmir's status. India, which had thus far flatly refused to entertain any third party presence, now seems repugnant to the idea of even talking at all with the new Pakistani government.
Against this background, unless a major power like the United States or an international body like the United Nations underwrites future negotiations, not much can be expected from them.
The tragedy of Kashmir originates from the fact that the political status of the Muslim-majority Himalayan state remains to be determined according to the will of the Kashmiri people. Domestic conditions in both India and Pakistan also require that no proposed solution should infringe upon the right of the Kashmiris to get a fair chance to decide their territory's political future. How to do it has been an intractable proposition, mostly because of India's intransigence. When Mr Clinton follows up his pledge with a diplomatic initiative on Kashmir, he must bear in mind that the onus of giving Kashmir a fair deal lies on India.
Go To Page: 1
