I still disagree with your assessment as India's own interests have remained consistent and has not transformed with it's upswing, if you see the actions of foreign policy from military interventions to strategic escalations and recalibrations, most of them happened when India's stature was at it's lowest standings. Thus proving even so more the consistency of defense of our self interests. As far as India's reclusiveness in the international forum and it's non aligned stance coupled with it's aggressive diplomatic cadre's regimen, all are direct products of it's inherent nature of protecting it's self interests. India chose not to be an active member of the either blocks in the cold war, not because of higher sense of integrity but purely due to to it's self interests of avoiding international confrontational attitude towards it's trade and diplomatic relations. It was a strategic move, and it paid off then and and still yielding results today, back then we had open access to weapons, machinery and infrastructure from most of Europe and USSR, today we have access to technology from any country of our choosing. Non- Aligned movement was nothing but preservation of our independent foreign policy that leverages our markets to ensure our state policy don't receive diktats from D.C or Moscow. If this is not strategic positioning , then I don't know what is. You can see the exact opposite approach from your subsequent governments and the results are out there for you to review.
The consistency of India's interests have nothing to do whatsoever with whether its advocating military interventions or strategic escalations or not. For India's interests have always remained consistent in that regard in the sense that it has continued to envision herself as the dominant power in South Asia and one that should be heard regardless of whether its interests means trampling over the interests of others - That is, by definition, hegemonic considering that we're dealing with disproportionately sized states dealing with each other. Furthermore India recognizes that in today's world it is not strategic escalations nor military interventions that determine whether a country has clout or not - it is economics and leverage. Additionally, unlike in the past, now it does not have to deal with an introverted China but one that increasingly looks to increase its sphere of influence so a much more calibrated response is required.
So far as the non-alignment thing is concerned; no one argued that India aligned herself as such because of some moral urges. It simply aligned herself as such because it allowed ambiguity whereby India could be in the Soviet camp without ever appearing to be as such. Consequently whether a country follows another's diktats or not does not account for the fact that a fortuitous alignment of strategic considerations gives the impression that one is doing the other's bidding; which is precisely why no serious student of international relations ever passes such blatantly sweeping statements about something as complex as interstate relations.
I am not sure what you mean as per the time line of transformation, In my opinion brasstacks and searchlight ensured there is no scope to move forward on the UN Resolutions, till then there was still time for pakistan to have completely evacuated the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and notify UN to start the process of plebiscite, but it instead chose to violate the UN security council resolutions. Pakistan presented a real and present threat to India in form of operation searchlight and operation brasstacks, which forced Indian force deployments in kashmir. With military deployments in civilian areas, there are certain revocations for civil liberties. Instead of resolving the situation, pakistani deep state took this gap in civil liberties in Kashmir to instigate a full blown insurgency with external support after failing to do the same in punjab. That to me was the prime mover in transforming India's stated position on the kashmir dispute.
The demilitarization of Kashmir agreed upon in the '48 resolution is not nearly a simple matter of Pakistan withdrawing or India withdrawing but a much more contentious issues which is precisely why it went through numerous proposals and counter-proposals beginning by the one floated by the president of the UN security council General McNaughton who proposed gradual demilitarization, the disbandment of both the J&K militia as well as the forces in AJK, the continuation of the local administration of the Northern Areas under the supervision of the UN and the appointment of a UN representative to supervise the process of demilitarization. Pakistan accepted the proposal but India rejected it. (
Islam, Women and Violence in Kashmir: Between India and Pakistan by Nyla Ali Khan)
After that it was Sir Owen Dixon's turn to solve the demilitarization issue. He called for the unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces followed by a request to both countries to enable the demilitarization of Kashmir. Then the PM Liaquat Ali Khan agreed to this proposal but this request, which would have enabled the maintenance of law and order, was denied by India. (
Islam, Women and Violence in Kashmir: Between India and Pakistan by Nyla Ali Khan) (And also noted by the Jozef Korbel the Czech representative at the UN in his book Danger in Kashmir)
In fact in the end Sir Own Dixon lamented in his own words: None of these suggestions commended themselves to the PM of India. In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite maybe imperiled.
(The Statesmen, 15th Sept, 1950)
Afterwards in 1951/52 a joint Anglo-US draft under Sir Gladwyn Jebb that proposed the presence of a neutral force to see our the plebiscite. This was accepted by Pakistan but rejected by India.
(Kashmir through the Ages, S.R. Bakshi)
In fact on the 16th of Dec, 1952, the then FM of Pakistan Sir Zafarullah Khan agreed to withdrawing Pakistani forces and permitting India to station the 28,000 force it has requested to Dr.Frank Graham during his UN appointed mission, needed to maintain law and order. Provided that those 28,000 would be without armor, artillery and would include the J&K armed forces. And that as soon as Pakistan withdraws at that stage the UN plebiscite administrator takes over. India rejected this proposal as well.
(Kashmir through the Ages, S.R. Bakshi)
Then later in 1957 the UN again attempted to break this deadlock by appointing Sweden's Gunnar Jarring - the president of the security council - who proposed a temporary UN force in Kashmir. Pakistan accepted it whereas India rejected it.
(Kashmir and the UNO, S.R. Bakshi)
So the way I see it Pakistan tried to resolve the situation numerous times only to be rebuffed by India which was never serious about conducting a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir and that much was even noted by Sir Owen Dixon.
And yes, you are absolutely right that India is a product of long struggle for right to self determination and freedom, but the philosophy of India has and will remain to be an inclusive state with constitutional equality for all. Now with such constitutional framework there is absolute space in the constitution to demand what ever you need, even a state if chose to, but the constitutional framework is inclusive of all of India, and as it not a colonial power thrust upon the state of J&K, people have the space to fight thier battle within the space of the constitution. Infact the first prime minister of india and his subsequent progeny belonged to the kashmiri origins. But if the instrument of terror is used as a mode of struggle then you are basically going up against the interest of India, and by my previous narrative, it must be clear that, "India first" policy comes into effect. Once that plays, it doesn't matter if it's pakistan or USA or the combined might of the rest of the world, India won't give an inch!
India can define herself as the second coming of the Holy Roman Empire for all its got to do with my point for I'm simply highlighting the grave hypocrisy whereby a state that was conceived through the exercise of the right of self-determination trying to deny it to others and using every legal trick in the book to do so whether it be a fixation with demilitarization . This duplicity was noted by Sir Owen Dixon as far back as the '50s.
I think you are conveniently forgetting that for the purpose of CBM when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was visiting your state, what exactly transpired, To most of the ministry of external affairs that was the end of any hopes in pakistani relation, now it is just an exercise of containment of terrorism for us.
I think you too are conveniently forgetting that for every Kargil there is a Siachen and if contentious issues stopped us from talking to each other than the dialogue during the Musharraf era would not have been revived with both sides claiming that the back-channel diplomacy where all issues were discussed bore fruitful results.
Today, there is nothing to negotiate with pakistan on kashmir in m opinion. The returns on investment on diplomatic capital with pakistan yields extremely small results, bilatral trade relations has better prospect in other regions, then might as well ignore pakistan for now, until the political system doesn't need blessing from other entities whose objectives are quite different from that of a democratic progressive state.
The problem with speculation, sweeping statements and conjecture is that with all this rhetoric 'facts' are lost and the fact of the matter is that whether the so-called deep state in Pakistan has different objectives or not or whether the Indian establishment put its foot down on the demilitarization of Siachin or not is mere 'conjecture' and anyone can make anything out of it.
@Secur @HRK @DESERT FIGHTER @Icarus @Xeric - I am not that knowledgeable about the Kargil conflict so care to add something to MilSpec's point about Vajpayi coming here and Kargil ?
