External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar very clearly articulated India’s stand on J&K at a Chatham House event during his ongoing visit to the UK. For a long time after independence, the Indian policy was more wishful thinking than realistic. The decision to take the matter to the United Nations reflected then Prime Minister Nehru’s idealism that placed greater trust in others than was warranted. Keeping the matter in limbo provided Pakistan political and diplomatic space to continually attempt to acquire the territory, first through war and then by sponsoring terrorist activity, which extended even to Indian Punjab. Any kind of talks only strengthened the belief in other countries that there was some legitimacy in Pakistan’s claims. This impression has not been completely erased even now.
Learning from this experience the Indian government under Prime Minister Modi no longer expects any kind of mature or realistic polity from Pakistan. Every avenue for Pakistan to take advantage of India in any sphere has been closed, and the present condition of that country, be it economic, strategic, diplomatic, or security wise, is at a dismal level. Just an overall disengagement was enough, no aggression was required.
This was stated by Jaishankar very clearly when asked what India was doing to ‘resolve’ the Kashmir issue. He described the steps taken to improve conditions in J&K – removal of Article 370, providing social justice to deprived sections, boosting the economy and holding elections. All that is now required is return of POK – period. This is not just closing the doors but also denying Pakistan what has become its only raison d’etre – as every other logic for that country’s existence has failed. Having rejected the civilisational values that would have ensured cohesion among the provinces, it is now beset with the very same conflict that it had sought to export to India. India’s cold-shoulder has been enough to achieve that.
It is only in expatriate communities in western countries that the outdated concepts of theocratic nationhood continue to find followers. Radicalisation is now not so much homegrown in the sub-continent as it is an export from the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union, with deep state patronage. The ‘breach of security’ by a handful of Khalistan supporters at EAM Jaishankar’s event is an example of what remains of General Zia ul Haq’s grand design. Overall, however, pragmatism has achieved what lazy idealism could not.
