This mess we’re in now, is due to the reason that New Delhi has taken it for granted that Kashmir can't be resolved — helped make it a delayed and unsettled issue. It wasn’t also surprising that Prime Minister Modi’s only problem is that he lacks a political aide with sufficient heft to take the conversation forward.
This impression of not accepting a third party mediation by India was extremely peculiar. This in itself reflects a grim picture of the Indian approach to resolving the issue and maintaining bilateral relations.
Also, it raises questions on why the neighboring India is unable to make any progress on the dialogue process and what are the factors that are largely stalling this process or failed diplomacy in resolving the Kashmir issue? It’s all cloaked in secrecy.
The on-and-off resumption of dialogue process has become more of a pattern between the strained India-Pakistan relations. With the recent rejection it also raises that whether India is trying to play an upper hand by blocking the peace dialogue between the two nations? Vested interests that can go horribly wrong.
The ostrich has its head firmly in the sand.
Back then, it is not the first time, India, which has been steadfastly against any third-party intervention, also has refused numerous offers from Pakistan in developing peace since its emergence and continually snubbed the offer.
Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solve a problem, nonetheless, New Delhi wants to live in perpetual denial. Number of events have come in line where India continuously rejected peace talks;
Similarly, the Lahore Declaration which Vajpayee signed with Nawaz Sharif in 1999 said the two countries would intensify efforts to resolve all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. Pursuant to the directive given by their respective Prime Minister to adopt measures for promoting a stable environment of peace, and security between the two countries -- But today, India pretends there is no final settlement to be made.
Interestingly, India’s confrontational policy regarding Pakistan is also visible in the provocative statements at the BRICS Summit in Goa and, later, at the Heart of Asia Conference in Amritsar.
At a rally in Goa this year, Parrikar reportedly said: “If someone looks at the country with an evil eye, we will gouge his eyes out and put them back in his hand; we have that much power.”
Last year, on May 22nd, he publicly announced that “India needs to employ a ‘thorn to remove a thorn’ counter-insurgency tactics in Kashmir”. The Indian media reported Parrikar as saying, “You have to neutralize terrorists through terrorists only.”
Apart from the above factors importantly former R&AW chief A.S. Dulat talks about the need for communication and respect for resolving the Kashmir dispute. His views in advocating low military presence in Kashmir presented in his book Kashmir: The Vajpayee Years, co-authored with senior journalist Aditya Sinha, created a lot of ripples. He also argued the need for India to build confidence amongst Kashmiris through humanitarian measures. The book narrates the story of contemporary Kashmir.
It is crucial to mention the Kashmir issue continues to remain at the heart of all debates between the two countries, however, India has set the fires of war alight instead of dealing with the situation through negotiations. For India, it is a matter of domestic concern and does not seek any external interference where a resolution on that front seems like an impossible dream.
Finally, I believe that solving Kashmir dispute is a million dollar question, where continuous use of force or gun is not the answer. I believe dialogue is the only way forward even it’s from a third party mediation? But most importantly dialogue between who? Those who always reject the proposals? I believe that in current situation we need some kind of mediation or arbitration because dialogue can only proceed with a partner with which we have normal relations and a certain level of mutual trust? Henceforth, Kashmir has been and shall remain a sensitive issue, crucial to the relationship that the two nations share.