third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Times of India Publications
Should India trade the Valley for a permanent UN Security Council seat
Jug Suraiya
Would you trade a concession on Kashmir for a permanent UN Security Council seat Such a hypothetical trade-off might not be as farfetched as it sounds.When US President Barack Obama comes to India later this year,one of the items on his agenda will be Kashmir.New Delhis position continues to be that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that the K-word is out of bounds for any third party.However,whether New Delhi likes it or not,Kashmir has acquired international ramifications,being one of the components of Washingtons so-called AfPak policy.Having announced a pullout date for Iraq,a White House increasingly embattled with a host of domestic social and economic problems would like to chalk out a withdrawal plan from Afghanistan as well.
In order to do that,however,it has first to somehow induce Pakistan to be a more reliable accomplice in the US-led anti-terrorist operations.The huge sums of money doled out to Islamabad by Washington have reportedly largely been spent on a clandestine promotion of the terrorism Pakistan ostensibly has been enlisted by the US to combat.
As cash bribes havent done the trick with Islamabad,Obama might have to try and pull another rabbit out of his hat to seduce Pakistan into cooperation.That rabbit could well be Kashmir,which Islamabad keeps underlining as its core issue vis-a-vis India.
The five-month-long ongoing azadi agitation in Kashmir,which has claimed more than a hundred civilian lives,could be a cue for Obama to put the Valley on the table,much though this will cause New Delhis hackles to rise.But perhaps South Block need not be so predictably prickly about the K-word.Perhaps,for once,the taboo word could be used as a bargaining chip to gain a larger objective: a permanent seat in the UN Security Council which Jawaharlal Nehru historically turned down in deference to China.
Give away Kashmir Not for all the world! And certainly not for some poxy Security Council seat which India is getting anyway from January 2011 for a two-year period.No Indian government could even think of giving away Kashmir without committing immediate political suicide,with no hope of reincarnation.But what about making some token concession on Kashmir: not azadi,not an India-Pakistan plebiscite,but a restoration of the autonomy that the state enjoyed till 1953,and which is within the framework of the Constitution.
Such a concession would not satisfy Pakistan.But it just might be enough to nudge Washington which is very keen on selling billions of dollars worth of arms to India to throw its weight behind New Delhis ambition of securing a permanent and not just a two-year Security Council seat.
Of the 15-member Security Council,five are permanent members: the US,Britain,Russia,France and China.These are the big boys,the P-5,who sit at the high table.Its in New Delhis larger interests to go all out to turn the P-5 into the P-6 by including itself in an elite group that shapes global policies.Indeed,India has been a beneficiary of the P-5 s clout,with Russia formerly the USSR having consistently used its veto to keep Kashmir off the international agenda.
Making a concession on Kashmir the restoration of pre-1953 autonomy,say is not going to mollify Islamabad,which will remain hostile to India.But if New Delhi can become the 6 in P-6,it will have gained a measure of parity with China,the biggest kid on the Asian block.Pakistan will remain a painful thorn in Indias heel,no matter what.But whom should India measure itself against: the virtually failed state of Pakistan,or the economic and military giant that is China
If it were your choice to make,which would you choose ?
Should India trade the Valley for a permanent UN Security Council seat
Jug Suraiya
Would you trade a concession on Kashmir for a permanent UN Security Council seat Such a hypothetical trade-off might not be as farfetched as it sounds.When US President Barack Obama comes to India later this year,one of the items on his agenda will be Kashmir.New Delhis position continues to be that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that the K-word is out of bounds for any third party.However,whether New Delhi likes it or not,Kashmir has acquired international ramifications,being one of the components of Washingtons so-called AfPak policy.Having announced a pullout date for Iraq,a White House increasingly embattled with a host of domestic social and economic problems would like to chalk out a withdrawal plan from Afghanistan as well.
In order to do that,however,it has first to somehow induce Pakistan to be a more reliable accomplice in the US-led anti-terrorist operations.The huge sums of money doled out to Islamabad by Washington have reportedly largely been spent on a clandestine promotion of the terrorism Pakistan ostensibly has been enlisted by the US to combat.
As cash bribes havent done the trick with Islamabad,Obama might have to try and pull another rabbit out of his hat to seduce Pakistan into cooperation.That rabbit could well be Kashmir,which Islamabad keeps underlining as its core issue vis-a-vis India.
The five-month-long ongoing azadi agitation in Kashmir,which has claimed more than a hundred civilian lives,could be a cue for Obama to put the Valley on the table,much though this will cause New Delhis hackles to rise.But perhaps South Block need not be so predictably prickly about the K-word.Perhaps,for once,the taboo word could be used as a bargaining chip to gain a larger objective: a permanent seat in the UN Security Council which Jawaharlal Nehru historically turned down in deference to China.
Give away Kashmir Not for all the world! And certainly not for some poxy Security Council seat which India is getting anyway from January 2011 for a two-year period.No Indian government could even think of giving away Kashmir without committing immediate political suicide,with no hope of reincarnation.But what about making some token concession on Kashmir: not azadi,not an India-Pakistan plebiscite,but a restoration of the autonomy that the state enjoyed till 1953,and which is within the framework of the Constitution.
Such a concession would not satisfy Pakistan.But it just might be enough to nudge Washington which is very keen on selling billions of dollars worth of arms to India to throw its weight behind New Delhis ambition of securing a permanent and not just a two-year Security Council seat.
Of the 15-member Security Council,five are permanent members: the US,Britain,Russia,France and China.These are the big boys,the P-5,who sit at the high table.Its in New Delhis larger interests to go all out to turn the P-5 into the P-6 by including itself in an elite group that shapes global policies.Indeed,India has been a beneficiary of the P-5 s clout,with Russia formerly the USSR having consistently used its veto to keep Kashmir off the international agenda.
Making a concession on Kashmir the restoration of pre-1953 autonomy,say is not going to mollify Islamabad,which will remain hostile to India.But if New Delhi can become the 6 in P-6,it will have gained a measure of parity with China,the biggest kid on the Asian block.Pakistan will remain a painful thorn in Indias heel,no matter what.But whom should India measure itself against: the virtually failed state of Pakistan,or the economic and military giant that is China
If it were your choice to make,which would you choose ?
