As the South Asian region grows more intense with a sudden change of geo-political dynamics post abrogation of Article 370, The Logical Indian tries to explore what does the future have in keeps for India. In conversation with Vappala Balachandran, a former intelligence specialist for Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and a former Indian police officer who has served for 19 years in foreign intelligence service and retired as a Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government Of India in 1995.
Interviewer: What do you think about the escalating tension between India and Pakistan where both the countries were found taking international platforms to criticize each other under the pretext of the abrogation of Article 370?
Balachandran: There is nothing unusual about it. India says that both countries have agreed to settle all disputes bilaterally. Hence the dispute should not be internationalized. However, both countries have been flouting the Simla Accord of July 2, 1972, by speaking against each other during every September UN General Assembly session.
Both India and Pakistan complain against others during high-level visits to foreign countries also. Pakistan quotes Clause 1 sub-para 2 of Simla Accord stating that both countries would settle the disputes through bilateral negotiations or any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Taking advantage of this, Pakistan justifies third-party mediation since India does not want to talk with them. India does not want to engage in bilateral talks on grounds of terrorism. Pakistan appeals to the international community to advise India to talk to them.
After India’s unilateral abrogation of Article 370, Pakistan is complaining that India has flouted Clause 1 sub-para 2 of Simla Accord which says that neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation. By altering the status of Kashmir and separating Ladakh from it, India has also flouted UN Resolutions Nos 39(1948) and 47(1948).
Interviewer: What future does the Kashmir hold after the abrogation and remained paralysed for 70 days of communication blackout in the Valley?
Balachandran: I feel that it would fizzle out due to global outrage.
Interviewer: Do you think the move will only further push more people to join the militant outfits?
Balachandran: Yes. To put it bluntly, NDA (2) government has achieved for Pakistan what their ISI could not, by alienating the common Valley public against India.
Interviewer: What is the fate of sectarian politics in Kashmir that many separatist leaders who are now incarcerated, pedalled on?
Balachandran: This is yet to be seen. We shall see the reaction only when they are released.
Interviewer: How do you see international politics fanning out on Kashmir as US-backed India’s decision whereas Labor Party UK condemned it?
Balachandran: This is a major worry. The US State Department had issued a strong statement even when President Donald Trump had appeared along with our PM at the “Howdy Modi” event at Houston. Presidential hopefuls like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren had protested at the human rights violations in Kashmir. Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman, Chairman of the US House Subcommittee on Asia held a hearing on human rights in South Asia on October 22 particularly in the Valley, Sri Lanka and of Muslims in Assam.
Interviewer: What could be the probable repercussions for the whole South Asian region including China, who have claimed parts of Jammu Kashmir, post the abrogation as one cannot ignore the geographical placement of India, Pakistan, and China?
Balachandran: The status quo will remain. The recent visit of President Xi Jinping to India has revealed a desire to ensure that differences would not become disputes. The confusion regarding the boundaries with China is as a result of two maps: the Johnson line (1865) which put Aksai Chin with Jammu & Kashmir (India’s claim) and the McCartney- Macdonald line (1899) which showed Aksai Chin as claimed by China. This will need prolonged negotiations with China and cannot be resolved so early.
Interviewer: If you were to compare the security policies of the incumbent government to that of the former, what differences can you draw?
Balachandran: NDA (1) government’s policy on Pakistan has had so many twists and turns. First was Modi’s offer of friendship when he invited Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his swearing-in ceremony on 26 May 2014. That was good neighbourhood diplomacy although Modi had bitterly criticized his predecessor PM Manmohan Singh on 29 September 2013 for being weak-kneed on Pakistan. Then from August 18, 2014, onwards, he deliberately decided to traverse through a thorny path by calling off foreign secretary-level talks. Since then we saw only hostile rhetoric from both sides.
Then suddenly in July 2015, both PMs met at Ufa on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Summit. Interpretations of what was agreed upon differed. It was clear that Pakistan’s…
