Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, was a man on a mission at the UnitedNations, imploring members last week to persuade India to lift its siege ofKashmir, a longtime flash point between the two nations, which both havenuclear weapons.
He warned in a speech before the General Assembly on Friday, could resultin war between the neighbors if Kashmiris push back against the suffocatingpresence of thousands of Indian troops.
Since Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist prime minister of India, revokedthe semiautonomous status of the Muslim-majority state on Aug. 5, hisgovernment has imposed a curfew and detained nearly 4,000 peoplelink,including lawyerslink and journalistslink.There have been serious allegations of torture and beatingslink. India cut phone andinternet service, leaving millions of people isolated.
While Mr. Modi didn’t address the issue in his United Nations speechlink,at a rally in Houstonlink a fewdays earlier he said that revoking the constitutional clause on Kashmiriautonomy meant “people there have got equal rights” with other Indians now.That’s an absurd assertion to make about a state in the world’s largestdemocracy that’s essentially under martial law.
ADVERTISEMENT
“If the U.N. doesn’t speak about it,” Mr. Khan told The Times editorialboardlinktheday before his speech, “who is going to speak about it?”
He may need to keep looking. Resting any hopes on the United Nations seemsfutile, given the approach it has taken to the dispute in recent decades.
At one time, the United Nations made an effort to play peacekeeper inKashmir. The Security Council tried to mediate tensions between India andPakistan within months of their independence and partition in 1947.
While the United Nations still has an observer grouplink to report on cease-fireviolations in Kashmir, it has stepped back since the 1970s, when, after thetwo nations went to war, they agreed to take care of future differencesthrough bilateral negotiations.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pressure from India — which has long resisted outside intervention inKashmir — helped keep Kashmir off the Security Council’s agenda untilAugust, when China backed Pakistan‘s request for a discussionlinkofMr. Modi’s power grab. The session, held out of view of the media andpublic, accomplished little, though. The council couldn’t even agreeafterward on a common message.
Read Top Stories
The United Nations’ lack of resolve is a sad sign of the dysfunction ininternational diplomacy as American leadership declines and divisions amongworld powers grow. President Trump has offered to mediate, but his warmrelations with the increasingly autocratic Mr. Modi — Mr. Trump attendedthe Houston fan festlink—hardly make him an honest broker.
Countries are unwilling to risk crossing Mr. Modi and losing access toIndia’s huge market. Pakistan is economically weaklink.It also damaged its standing, and its position on Kashmir, by supportingmilitant groups that have attacked Indian troops, stirring a conflict thathas torn Kashmir apart for decades.
Mr. Modi claims his clampdown would resolve that conflict and bringnormality and development to Kashmir. But it seems more likely that it willonly heighten tensions and make life more miserable for Kashmiris.
ADVERTISEMENT
He could avoid disaster by lifting the siege, relaxing movement across theborder between zones of the Kashmiri region that are held by India andPakistan, releasing political prisoners and allowing independentinvestigators to look into alleged human rights abuses. Perhaps India’sSupreme Court, responding to various legal petitions, could even order himto reinstitute autonomy.
Those hopes are almost certainly vain.
At least, in their last few crises, India and Pakistan demonstratedrestraint. But it is easy to see how tit-for-tat actions can begin toescalate.
The Security Council should make clear that it opposes Mr. Modi’s brutaltightening of India’s control on Kashmir. While Mr. Modi may think he cancontrol this volatile conflict on his own, he almost certainly cannot. -The New York Times
