The United States:
American policy must be divided into two broad phases, before and after the Cold War. During the cold war era, Pakistan was an important ally , the first line of defense against advancing communist and Soviet influence. 1956 the U.S. entered into mutual defense agreement with Pakistan. This adversely affected Indo-U.S. relations. India became a vociferous critic of America's Cold war policy and opposed the massive American support for Pakistan. The Pro- Pakistan position of the U.S. and Europe kept the Kashmir dispute alive in the international arena. It is imp to note that the U.S. need for Pakistan waned with detente. South Asia was not regarded as strategically important. Int eh 1965 war and subsequent talks at Tashkent, the U.S. did not object to the Soviet mediation. This was tantamount to all but writing off South Asia and Kashmir from the U.S. policy agenda. The second Cold War, the advent of the Reagan administration once again revived the ties. U.S. committed a massive modernization of Pakistan armed forces and to the Afghan liberation struggle waged from camps in Peshawar Pakistan. This lasted until 1988 when Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan and subsequently collapsed in 1990. The United States had diplomatically supported the idea of a plebiscite in kashmir during the 1950 and early 1960s. Between 1960s and 1970s it lost interest int eh issue due to preoccupation with Vietnam. In the Bangladesh war Nixon administration belatedly thought of sending a naval aircraft carrier tot eh bay of Bengal to deter India from expanding the war and in support of its erstwhile ally, Pakistan. Between 1972 and 1992, it generally supported the Simla agreement and bilateral resolution of the Kashmir dispute. During first Clinton administration, the U.S. took a radical position on Kashmir, insisting on self-determination for the Kashmiris, criticizing India for human right violations and providing pro-kashmir lobbies full play in Washington. It even questioned India's legal claims to Kashmir and the instruments of accession of 1947. Indo-U.S. ties went down steadily. This position came under severe criticism because many in Washington argued that since the Cold war was over, Pakistan was not important. Int eh new balance of international forces, a large, democratic, powerful Asian state such as India would be far more imp. Also there was mounting and undeniable evidence of large scale Pakistani interference in Kashmir, kidnaping of while tourists by mercenary Afghan Mujahideens active in the proxy war of Kashmir.Currently the U.S. supports the bilateral resolution of the dispute that would take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people but it does not call for a plebiscite, not self-determination of the Kashmiris. It supported the Lahore initiative by Vajpayee and condemned Pakistan for the Kargil war. U.S. main objective is to get India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT and NPT. It knows that as long as the Kashmir dispute simmers, neither will give up the option of nuclear deterrent.
Soviet Union and Russia:
Soviet Union opted to support India and cast its veto in the Security Council to protect India from pro-Pak western insistence on plebiscite in Kashmir. From 1955 until 1980s, Soviet Union provided India large amounts of weapons, and industrial assistance, technological knowhow for heavy industrial project and defense production. Kremlin had two purposes in doing this: to counter western and American influence in the subcontinent, advance its own cause by cooperating with larger and more important non-aligned countries such as India, and second to counteract Chinese ambitions in the region. The Chinese had challenged Soviet leadership of the thrid world and communist bloc of nations. They had also forged close ties with Pakistan after 1962, In 1962 they had attacked India over a border dispute. The Indo-Soviet ties became closer in the 1960s. Moscow mediated the talks following the cease-fire agreement in the 1965 Kashmir war. Prior to the 1971 war it signed a treaty of mutual defense with India, int eh event China activated the Indo-China border simultaneously with the hostilities in Bangladesh. Int eh 1970s Soviet interest was diverted by the detente and middle East. India demurred when Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan on a flimsy excuse. New Delhi ought to exercise quiet diplomacy and privately protest invasion of a non-aligned country. But throughout the Soviet continued to cast a veto in favor of India on Kashmir and support it with military assistance.Generally however, it too wants to avoid escalation of tensions in Kashmir, it recognizes Indian claims as the legal and legitimate and condemns Pakistan for covert operations. It has not however threatened Pakistan not broken off diplomatic ties with that country. Since the break up of Soviet Union, Russian policy has been driven by a mixture of fears and anxiety to retain some hold over its former sphere of influence. This include the fear of Islamic fundamentalism spread by Taliban in Tajiikistan, Uzbekistan and into Muslim dominated areas of Russian caucuses. Russia supports the NPT and CTBT but does not seek to pressure India in the way America seeks to do. Is internal preoccupation and but desire to retain a degree of independence from the U.S. in the post-Cold war era has Russia performing a juggling act.
Iran:
The Islamic Republic of Iran is caught between the rock and a hard place when it comes to kashmir. One the one hand it needs to support the cause of Islam and Islamic majority in kashmir- to project itself as the preeminent Islamic state supporting the just cause of Muslims everywhere. On the other hand, it does not like the Talibanization of kashmir, the hold of Taliban version of Islam on Kashmiri struggle. In this it sees, Pakistan as the main culprit. The real objections come from the fact that Pakistan and Taliban represent the Pushtun ethnic people in the region who have been at odds with the Shia Hazaras and Tajik people of Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia. Also, polarization makes Turkey's influence stronger in Central Asia because of the natural affinity of Central Asian ethnic populations with turkey. Above all, it strengthens Saudi Arabia and Wahabi Islam which the Saudi have tried to promote int eh region through money and weapons. Iran has therefore carefully treaded the in between position: it supports the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination if not independence, it criticizes India for human right violation but it also criticizes Pakistan for fomenting trouble and benefitting from it and of course it condemns Taliban who have perpetrated the wrong message of Islam. Iran has continued to cultivate trade and economic ties with India, diplomatic visits and other collaborative projects. It seeks to break its won isolation and get access to global markets and technology through India. India responds in kind and underscores Iran's criticism of Pakistani support for trans-border subversion.
China:
China has taken a pro-Pakistan position on Kashmir since the 1962 Indo-China war. It signed an agreement with Pakistan in which Pakistan ceded- the Wakkhan corridor, a part of Kashmir to China. India has protested against the agreement. It has become ( as Siachin int eh 1980s) an additional bone of contention between India and pakistan. China has been however careful about taking extreme positions on kashmir partly because it does not want escalation of tensions in a region so close to its borders, second, it is worried about the implications for its own position in Tibet. But China has provided Pakistan with sophisticated weapons and nuclear and missile technology. This enabled Pakistan to become a nuclear capable state with delivery system that has already been tested by china. The Kargil crisis however provided the limits of china's support for Pakistan's proxy war in kashmir. China refused to support Nawaz Sharif even through he went to Bejing prior to meeting with Clinton. China has also supported the CTBT and NPT. It has been guardedly careful about resolution of kashmir. Islamic fundamentalism also troubles China and it does not support the adventurism of likes of Bin Laden. That brings war too close to China's borders. Still China dos not want the balance to tilt too much in favor of India, to that end it continues to see Pakistan as a break on India. China then continues to harp on India's allegedly hegemonic ambitions, arrogance and belligerence. It suggests that to be the main obstacle to the resolution of dispute in Kashmir.
United Nations:
Long involvement in kashmir. India brought the dispute in 1948 to the U.N. hoping that the UN would be objective. But It was disappointed because the Security Council was dominated by the western countries that were pro-Pakistan. But the first was had brought UN observers to the border. The UN had suggested: Cease-Fire, withdrawal of Pakistan troops from the Azad kashmir, withdrawal of Indian troops from the Jammu and valley of Kashmir. Pakistan refused to do so, India refused to hold a plebiscite until Pakistan withdrew. As a result the situation has remained frozen a the Cease-fire line. The UN has appointed several commissions to propose a solution. The most imp being: Separate plebiscite in the different regions of Kashmir. But that has not been acceptable to anyone. Int eh meanwhile each country has consolidated its hold on the part of kashmir it occupied.The UN observers have laid the blame for the 1948, 1965 war on Pakistan although it carefully apportioned blame for the whole on both. The period leading to Simla and thereafter, at least for a while the UN had little to say about kashmir except become a forum for Pakistani attempts to focus attention on it and keep the dispute alive. The UN has been a forum where India commanded considerable support from the non-aligned bloc of nations including Arab countries mainly because India supported them against Israel. Since the 1989 insurgency, kashmir has become a regular topic of heated debate in which human rights violations have commanded increasing attention. The UN does not have an independent position on kashmir. Its observers must leave when individual countries ask them to. They are stationed on the Pak side because India considers kashmir to be an integral part of its territory. In the Kargil, Kofi Annan offered to negotiate but India rejected it on the grounds that it did not require third party mediation, that would violate the Simla agreement between it and pak. Currently the questions is 1. Can UN become a useful forum for resolution of Kashmir? Will the UN intervene on the grounds of Human rights abuse? What will the UN do about cross border intervention? Intervention in a crisis situation however mens long term commitment. Do the member countries have the stamina to remain there? Un will have to decide on the correct solution to kashmir before it can undertake intervention. What would such a solution look like. Return to the status quo?, partition of Kashmir? Recognition of the cease-fire line as de jure boundary? Plebiscite to decide the future? What kind of plebiscite? Who will administer it and who will impose the solution? Will all the current permanent members- Russia, China- agree? What about the Hindu pandits who were driven out? Who will guarantee their safe return? How do you disarm the militants? What about partition, and then soft boundary ? What about a loose confederation in which each part retains wide autonomy, an easy connection but a nominal suzerainty of India and Pakistan over their parts? What about an independent Kashmiri state?
India:
Legal position: instrument of accession by the Maharajah in accordance with the India independence Act of 1947 by which the subcontinent was divided. A secular state: does not recognize religion, ethnicity and caste or gender as a basis for territorial division. Essential to India's Unity: division of kashmir on the basis of Islam will lead to disintegration of India, a home to 170 million Muslims.Political position: The state of Jammu and kashmir has held several election to form state governments and has chosen its own leaders that is an endorsement of India's claims. Security position: Kashmir vital to India's defense ( China, the US and Pakistan). Pakistan has repeatedly used force to take kashmir. This has ben foiled but the threat remains. US weapons for Pakistan makes Kashmir more dangerous and triggers an arms race between India and Pakistan.
Treaties: The Simla agreement between India and pak in 1972 bound both countries to find a solution to the dispute within a bilateral frame work. India will not therefore accept any third party intervention The agreement also bound both not to use force to alter the cease-fire line which was then accepted as the line of actual control.
Since 1989, Pakistan has stepped up efforts to foment militancy by offering sanctuaries. Arms and money to Kashmiri militants. India will repel any attempt to compromise its territorial integrity although it does not want to go to war over Kashmir. It seeks to legitimize the de facto partition of kashmir and move on with the rest of the Indo-Pak agenda. It tested nuclear weapons to deter china not Pakistan . The strategic balance of power int eh region had shifted decisively against it. And India needed to correct that since none of the Nuclear club nations were willing to pay much attention to India's concern over china's nuclear expansion and Pak China clandestine military collaboration. The Kargil war proved Pak's nefarious design and its willing ness to go to any length, lie, cheat, and even plunge the region into a war with possibilities of nuclear weapons being used. Pak had turned into a rogue nation and needed to be brought to book for violating the basic international law: Not to interfere in the domestic matters of other countries. Under the circumstances, Pakistan would have to assure India that it will cease cross-border infiltration and mobilizing clashes at random before India can talk to them pak betrayed India by encouraging the Lahore initiative while preparing for a war in Kargil and then denying it was involved.
Pakistan:
India's claims based on fraud and chicanery. The Maharaj was pressured to sign the instruments of accession under threat of armed force. The raiders were Kashmiris opposing the Maharajah. India is the oppressor using its large size and army to dominate the smaller Pakistan. Its belligerence and refusal to negotiate on kashmir left Pak with no option but to alter the status quo. But it is well to remember that Indian claims to kashmir are illegitimate. Kashmir really oblongs to pak. So every clash or armed conflict is pak trying to rightfully trying to defend itself. Because of India's position and prestige, the world community has not supported pak or forced India to do the democratic thing and hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. They have done a lip service but allowed India to consolidate its hold over 2/3 of kashmir. In this part, India has abused Muslims, violated their political and human rights and imposed an armed and police oppression on its people. Elections were a sham, the Kashmiri desire for independence was never permitted to be expressed. And even that sham was abandoned in naked use of power and brutality int eh 1980s. It is that which led to the insurgency in 1989 and the Kashmiri people have bravely fought since then. The pak governments has strictly adhered to the cease-fire line but it can not stop people in Azad kashmir from sympathizing with the Kashmir is in the Valley. They have on their own, without any encouragement from pak government gone to fight the people's war. But the bulk of militants are really people in the valley. The same was true in Kargil. The Mujahideens fought a bitter war against Indian army and drove the Indian oppressor back but eventually their bravery was not enough. They were isolated and surrounded by India's superior military power. No pak solider was involved in it. The world has been too tolerant of India's hegemonic designs and its pretensions to great power status. Pak can not however give up the fight to take what rightfully belongs to them. Pak can not compromise with its won national integrity. Pak is incomplete without kashmir. It does not wish to use nuclear weapons but India's testing drove it to answer in kind. India wishes to annihilate pak, and swallow kashmir forcibly. It wants to undo the creation of pak. Hindus and Muslims can not live in harmony because Hindus are historical enemies. Pak needs to defend itself from this threat.
