Why India rejects mediation on Kashmir
This position has been reinforced by a long history of disillusionment with international mediation efforts, particularly those involving the United States. In the early years after independence, India watched warily as the United Nations' involvement appeared to internationalise a matter it regarded as a bilateral concern.
In the 1960s, especially after the Sino-Indian war, India was pressured into talks with Pakistan under US and British mediation. The role of US Ambassador J K Galbraith, who even floated proposals to divide the Kashmir Valley, deeply upset Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, leading to a complete breakdown in talks.
Later, during the 1971 war, the US, under President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, openly sided with Pakistan, even deploying the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in an act of intimidation toward India. This alignment with Pakistan in a time of regional upheaval—and when India was supporting the liberation of Bangladesh—further entrenched Indian skepticism toward American neutrality.
By the 1990s, attempts to revive international interest in the Kashmir issue only served to reinforce India's resolve. When U S Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel questioned the legality of Kashmir's accession to India in 1993, India responded with uncharacteristic firmness. According to then Joint Secretary (Americas), now Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, India 'read the riot act' to the U S administration and issued a strongly worded protest. This became a defining moment in India's foreign policy, drawing a clear red line around Kashmir: no outside interference would be tolerated. That line has held firm, even during the most turbulent episodes in India-Pakistan relations. In the Kargil War of 1999, when Pakistani forces crossed the LoC into Indian-held territory, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sought U S intervention. But this time, the United States, under President Bill Clinton, declined to mediate and instead asked Pakistan to withdraw unconditionally. While India welcomed the support, it continued to avoid crediting any resolution to external actors.
Similarly, after the 2001 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the United States helped de-escalate tensions, primarily to prevent war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. But even in these cases, India rejected any suggestion of mediation. The US role was tolerated—if not welcomed—only because it occurred quietly, behind the scenes, and did not impose a formal framework for dialogue.
In more recent years, particularly under the Narendra Modi government, India's position has become more pronounced. The official line is that there is no room for negotiation over the status of Jammu and Kashmir. Any talks with Pakistan, if they are to take place at all, will be exclusively on the issue of terrorism and the return of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). This marks a significant shift as the focus for New Delhi now firmly is on cross-border terrorism and national security. The Trump administration tested these boundaries when the President, in his characteristic style, offered to mediate on Kashmir. Despite his claims that India had requested such involvement—a claim India flatly denied—New Delhi responded firmly. Indian officials, including Jaishankar, reiterated that there is no room for third-party involvement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
‘We Are Ready': Iran's Cryptic Post Amid Reports Of Possible Israeli Strike On Nuclear Sites
Last Updated: The brief but charged statement from Tehran has added to growing fears of a broader regional confrontation. As tensions rise in the Middle East, US intelligence has reported that Israel is preparing for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, the Islamic Republic of Iran posted a cryptic message on social media platform X, saying: 'We are ready." The post has added to mounting concerns over a possible escalation between the two nations. The United States, anticipating potential retaliatory action from Iran, particularly against American assets in neighbouring Iraq, has advised some US citizens to leave the region as a precaution. The brief but charged statement from Tehran has added to growing fears of a broader regional confrontation. The United States is anticipating potential Iranian retaliation against American sites in neighboring Iraq, prompting the State Department to order non-emergency government personnel to leave the country due to 'heightened regional tensions," CBS News reported. The advisory to American citizens to exit the region came earlier on Wednesday amid growing concerns of escalation. Despite the tensions, former President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is expected to proceed with a sixth round of talks with Iran in the coming days over its nuclear program. Speaking at the Kennedy Center during a performance of Les Misérables on Thursday, Trump said US military personnel are being relocated from certain Middle Eastern countries due to safety concerns. 'They are being moved out… because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens… We have given notice to move out," he said. Trump reiterated his administration's stance: 'Iran cannot have nuclear weapons." The remarks follow another failed round of U.S.-Iran negotiations.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access
The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and the opening of all Israeli border crossings for deliveries of desperately needed food and other aid. The resolution, drafted by Spain and obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, 'strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.' Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas. Last week, the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly, where the resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created U.S. aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and south of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding U.N.-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order. The draft resolution being voted on Thursday references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement. When the U.S. vetoed last week's Gaza resolution, acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea said it would have undermined the security of Israel and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground.' Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution to be voted on Thursday also does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are U.S. demands. The Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage. About 55 hostages are still being held. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It says women and children make up most of the dead, but doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel says it has killed more than 20,000 militants, without providing evidence.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Decode Politics: ‘Bharat Mata', ‘Mother India', ‘Vande Mataram': As another row erupts, what lies beneath
IN THE SPACE of a week, Kerala has seen two rows break out over a portrait of 'Bharat Mata'. First, the LDF state government relocated its World Environment Day celebrations from the Raj Bhavan, claiming that the photo of Bharat Mata on display at the event was 'one used by the RSS'. But, days later, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar paid tributes to the same image during Goa Day celebrations at the Raj Bhavan. Objecting to the use of the image at Raj Bhavan, CPI leader and Agriculture Minister P Prasad said, 'A seat of a constitutional body should not be using this.' Arlekar, who recently took over as Governor after a long period of fractious relationship between the LDF government and Raj Bhavan, hit back, saying, 'Whatever be the pressure from whichever quarters, there will be no compromise whatsoever on Bharat Mata.' State BJP leader N Hari also attacked the LDF, claiming 'they are afraid to say Bharat Mata… due to vote bank politics'. While the symbolic icon of Bharat Mata, or Mother India, has often been depicted in art, there is no official version of the portrayal. The image used at the Kerala Raj Bhavan, for instance, depicted Bharat Mata holding a saffron flag in front of a relief map of India. The Left objected to this. Another image, used by the CPI for a local party event in the middle of the row incidentally, showed Bharat Mata carrying the Tricolour. As the BJP celebrated the Left's use of the image, the party hastily withdrew the same. In the history of modern Indian art, Bharat Mata has adorned the canvas of only two artists of repute. The first was the product of the Bengal Renaissance, Abanindranath Tagore, who first visualised the Indian nation as the Mother. The second was the modernist M F Husain, whose painting of Bharat Mata was banned and trashed – and he was forced to spend his last years outside his country. The imagery first appeared in the works of artists and writers in Bengal, much before it was used elsewhere in the context of India's national movement for Independence. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's 1882 novel Anand Math contained the hymn to the motherland Vande Mataram, which became the mantra of the freedom movement, and the official song of India after Independence. The novel depicts the three faces of Bharat Mata as Goddesses Jagaddhatri, Kali and Durga. Two decades later, in 1905, after partition of Bengal under Lord Curzon, Abanindranath painted his iconic Bharat Mata, a woman in saffron robes, with a serene face and halo around her head, beads and scriptures in her hands. The revolutionary Aurobindo Ghose wrote in a letter to his wife Mrinalini Devi in August that same year: 'I look upon my country as the Mother. I adore her, I worship Her as the Mother. What would a son do if a demon sat on his mother's breast and started sucking her blood?' Mother India retained her symbolic force through the national movement, even though the metaphor often changed with the speaker who employed it. In The Discovery of India, written by him in jail in the 1940s, Jawaharlal Nehru recounted his experience when people greeted him with slogans of 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'. 'Who was this Bharat Mata, Mother India, whose victory they wanted?… Mother India was essentially these millions of people, and victory to her meant victory to these people,' he wrote. The first major enunciation of the Mother India concept came in the writings of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya. 'The foundation of our nationalism is Bharat Mata,' he wrote. 'Remove Mata, Bharat will be reduced to just a piece of land.' However, this was merely a paraphrasing of what Bankim had written nearly a century ago, when he elaborated on the notion of Mother India as a woman having the characteristics of Sujala, Suphala (overflowing with water and laden with fruits) and Dashapraharana Dharini Durga (Goddess Durga with her 10 weapons), Lakshmi and Saraswati. The imagery was also used in popular media and Hindi cinema – the iconic frame of actress Nargis, with a yoke and two babies, was an unforgettable cultural intervention, in 1957's film Mother India. Several historians have pointed out that the Bharat Mata visualised by its pioneers was more a 'Banga Mata', or Mother Bengal, with the deities they invoked being Kali and Durga, often their family deities. In Vande Mataram, Bankim called upon only the 'sapt koti' or seven crore people of Bengal. The first critics of the metaphor too came from among its inventors. Fifteen years after the Partition of Bengal, in August 1920, Aurobindo underlined the limits of the slogan and sought a greater mantra: 'We used the Mantra Bande Mataram with all our heart and soul… (but) the cry of the Mantra began to sink and as it rang feebly, the strength began to fade out of the country… A greater Mantra than Bande Mataram has to come.' The first two paragraphs of Bankim's Vande Mataram were adopted as the national song after Independence. The government did not retain the verses that mentioned either 'sapt koti', or the eulogies to the Goddesses Durga and Lakshmi. The obvious reference to Bengali nationhood was removed. Almost up to Independence, few underlined the religious overtones of the slogan, and it remained an essential mantra of an occupied country, a rallying call for its people. It found little resistance from other communities until 1947, when during the Partition riots, 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' was perceived as a communal slogan, the same as 'Allah-o-Akbar'. But, barring some isolated voices against Vande Matram, Mother India remained a largely benign concept that did not attract controversy. During the Ram Janmabhoomi movement of the late 1980s, however, 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' was used for communal mobilisation. Now Bharat Mata was an aggressive image, carrying swords and other weapons, and sometimes riding a tiger. The Anna Hazare movement of 2011, one of the biggest mass mobilisations of recent decades, which shook the Central government and paved the way for the emergence ultimately of Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party, used the image of Bharat Mata as the rallying point for an anti-corruption crusade. More recently, in February 2023, the Indian Council for Historical Research, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, faced 'objections' over a photo of Bharat Mata in its office, alongside pictures of President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In early 2016, after allegedly anti-India slogans were raised at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, leading to a sedition case against its then students' union president Kanhaiya Kumar, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said that youth should be taught to chant 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi shot back, saying he would not chant 'Bharat Mata ki Jai' even if a knife were put to his throat, prompting the Shiv Sena to tell Owaisi to 'go to Pakistan'. RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale then referred to Owaisi as 'anti-national' and a 'traitor'. Later, in March 2016, AIMIM MLA Waris Pathan was suspended from the Maharashtra Assembly for refusing to say 'Bharat Mata ki Jai', even as he said he was willing to chant 'Jai Hind'. At the time, the BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena and NCP together backed a resolution to suspend Pathan for the remainder of the Budget Session. However, weeks after the controversy, BJP veteran L K Advani called the row over the slogan 'meaningless', while Bhagwat said nobody should be 'forced' to say 'Bharat Mata ki Jai'. In 2020, in the aftermath of the Delhi riots, former PM Manmohan Singh said the slogan was 'being misused to construct a militant and purely emotional idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens' while speaking at the launch of a book titled 'Who is Bharat Mata'.
