Editorial 2: The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues

Context

Several controversial ideas in the United Nations can weaken India's efforts to fight terrorism that is being supported from across its borders.

Introduction

Operation Sindoor and later events show the failure of diplomacy—both bilateral and multilateral—in solving India-Pakistan issues. A tangle of outdated ideas, shaped by the Cold War and post-WWII politics, blocks progress. Even sincere efforts are limited by old UN resolutions and global policies. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s rigid stance that Kashmir is the core issue lets it hide behind terms like terrorism, self-determination, and peaceful settlement, used for over 70 years.

Challenges in Gaining International Support on the Jammu & Kashmir Issue

• After Operation Sindoor, India sent out seven teams of special envoys to different countries.
• These envoys were told to strongly assert that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is an integral part of India.
• However, most countries—especially those not closely following the issue—refer to UN maps and documents.
• These maps often carry an inscription about the India-Pakistan border in the J&K region.
• The UN map states: "Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties."
• Some maps also carry a general disclaimer, saying: "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."
• Due to such disclaimers, most countries avoid taking a clear stand on the border issue.
• At most, they suggest that a bilateral solution, as stated in the Simla Agreement, would be the best path forward.

India’s stand on terror

The UN’s approach

• UNSC Framework on Terrorism
  • The UN Security Council (UNSC) has established several mechanisms to combat international terrorism, primarily through resolutions.
  • These resolutions mandate member states to implement economic and security measures to prevent terrorist activities.
  • The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) of the UNSC oversees the implementation of these obligations.
• Legal Basis for Counter-Terrorist Action
  • Article 51 of the UN Charter permits the right to self-defence if a member-state suffers an armed attack.
  • Though complex in the context of terrorism, this article can justify actions against terrorist groups responsible for attacks.
  • India’s surgical strikes on terror camps will be evaluated on:
    • Proportionality
    • Compliance with international humanitarian law
• UNSC’s Holistic Approach
  • The UNSC advocates a “whole-of-society” approach to counter-terrorism.
  • This includes:
    • Respect for human rights and rule of law
    • Promotion of international cooperation
    • Addressing the root causes of terrorism
    • Preventing and countering violent extremism
• Challenges to India’s Position
  • Despite raising issues of terrorism at the UNSC, India faces difficulty in obtaining clear international support for its doctrine.
  • The Counter-Terrorism Committee has not endorsed the idea that terrorist attacks equate to acts of war— a view promoted by India.
• Strategic Restraint and Diplomatic Context
  • India’s restraint along the Line of Control (LoC) and its adherence to the ceasefire agreement, even during crises, impact international perceptions.
  • These actions are significant in UNSC deliberations and bilateral discussions, including with friendly nations, where India's strategic choices are often scrutinised.

The issue of hyphenation

• UN Intervention: When India initially brought Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir to the UN, it should have been addressed as an act of aggression under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
• Misclassification: Instead, the issue was categorized under Article VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), which allowed for the inclusion of unrelated matters and led to Western countries consistently linking India and Pakistan on various issues.
• Nuclear Hotspot: The acquisition of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan has led to Kashmir being labeled a nuclear hotspot.
• Doctrinal Contrast: India maintains a "no-first-use" nuclear doctrine, while Pakistan has threatened to escalate its conventional military capabilities.
• Bilateral Focus: India's consistent stance is that any bilateral discussions with Pakistan should be limited to terrorism and the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).
• Diplomatic Futility: Given this, both bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts are unlikely to be effective.
• Avoid External Support: While Pakistan will likely continue to internationalize the Kashmir issue, India should avoid seeking international intervention or support.
• Historical Precedent: Past experiences, particularly the history of the "India-Pakistan question" in the Security Council, suggest that such international efforts are futile.

Conclusion

India has nothing to gain by raising its concerns at the international level because its viewpoint has become trapped in several controversial ideas at the United Nations. India’s only option is to ensure its security through suitable military action, as long as Pakistan continues its strategy of causing repeated attacks to try and capture Indian territory.