President Obama's Take on the Indo Pak Dispute: Is Self Determination being Sacrificed at the Altar of Power Politics?

President Barack Obama, the United State’s president, has stated that the disputes between arch rivals, India and Pakistan should be resolved by the two countries. This coincides with what can be termed as ‘cricket diplomacy’ between India and Pakistan. Both have decided to resume cricketing ties suspended after tensions reached a peak between the two countries. The former would constitute a healthy development from the perspective of powers that be in India but would be viewed with a jaundiced eye by the Pakistani establishment. Pakistan, by encouraging and supporting a low intensity proxy war in Kashmir, has been assiduously trying to ‘internationalize’ the Kashmir issue and catalyze outside (read US) mediation over the issue. This hope now stands dashed given the United State’s clear cut stance on bilateral resolution of disputes between the two countries.

This raises a whole host of questions, the salient of which are: what accounts for this shift in the United State’s approach and perspective towards the subcontinent? Is the reorganization and reshuffling of the grand chessboard of international politics the reason for this shift? What are the implications? Where does this leave Kashmir, Kashmiris and their aspirations? Are lofty principles like self determination, pioneered by the United States being sacrificed at the altar of geopolitics and raison d’etat?

It would appear that a recognition of the structural shifts in world politics accounts for the United State’s new stance. That is to say, unipolarity-the aberrant condition and interlude in world politics- is giving way to what may be called ‘loose multipolarity’. In this new world, the United States appears to be cultivating India as partner or even an ally. This also is reflective of India’s putative shift from an emerging power to a power that has finally emerged. While one of the goals to facilitate India’s long awaited entry into the halls of power may to balance (not contain) China, the reasons for the warming up and deepening of ties between the United States and India are deeper. These relate and pertain to the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity and the democratic nature of India. It may, in the United State’s schema be more prudent to ally with a democracy than a non democracy and thus widening and deepening the arc of democracies. This may then explain, what will surely be seen in Pakistan , as the United State’s ‘tilt’ towards India.

Whether it constitutes a tilt or is the consequences of the shift in the distribution of power and system polarity, it should serve as a sober lesson for Pakistan. It’s ‘arch enemy’ India, is growing in stature and prominence-economically and politically, but it is in the midst of a profound structural and existential crisis. Pakistan’s value to the international community lies in its potential drift into a failed state, the status of its nukes and nuisance value. This denouement of the so called home of South Asian Muslims is sad. However, the good news is that it can be reversed. Bold and beautiful leadership by the power structure of Pakistan which leads to course correction and the review of the conceptual dynamic undergirding Pakistan could potentially morph Pakistan into a salubrious, healthy and valued member of the comity of nations. This would inevitably lead to peace, within and without.

 It is then the shifts in the international distribution of power that is catalyzing a fresh approach to South Asia. The power structure of Pakistan should read the fluid international political game as it is and eke out honorable space for itself in this new world. Whether Pakistan will re-orient itself or continue with its sterile policies is a million dollar question. What is pertinent and germane here is the fate of a people caught in the crucible of animus between India and Pakistan. The reference here is to Kashmir. Is the distribution of power and the attendant geopolitical reshuffling giving short shrift to their aspirations? Is the concept of self determination now passé?

 President Obama’s statement indicates that Kashmir or broadly speaking self determination of peoples is no longer on the agenda of the nation that introduced this concept. This is both good and perhaps bad. Good because while the concept is fine and great in theory and principle, it has in practice led to gratuitous murder and rapine. State power , in the final analysis wins out and states hardly cede their remit over territories which they deem their own.  It is bad because it leaves people’s aspirations out in the cold and sacrifices these on the altar of power politics.  Resolving the tension between self determination and raison d’etat is a poser. How can this be resolved? The trick perhaps  is to find the golden mean between people’s aspirations , geopolitical compulsions and reasons of state. What does this mean in the context of Kashmir?

India is craving validation and recognition as a great power and Pakistan maneuvering to eke out geopolitical space for itself. Both need the United States for these respective reasons. The sole superpower should recognize this and lean on both. In the context of India, it means talking privately and quietly to powers that be in India and asking them to focus on improving the life chances of Kashmiris, according them greater autonomy or self rule and focusing on a human security approach instead of the narrow national security one. Insofar, Pakistan is concerned; President Obama should ask Pakistan to focus on obviating the structural and existential problems that Pakistan is facing and strengthen its sovereign remit over territory it holds. He should discourage Pakistan from recidivism.

This means astute and sagacious diplomacy. The United States should dig deep into its reservoirs of diplomatic talent and impress upon the two antagonists that these are the only viable options that will bring peace and stability to the subcontinent. And that this is in the interests of both. It is, in the final analysis doable and constitutes a win win solution for all parties and stakeholders. The alternative or the politics of the status quo is fraught with danger and peril. It is about time then that the sole super power takes recourse to tact, diplomacy , creativity and imagination. It is only the United States that can make this happen. Let the sole superpower correspond to this role and make powers that be see sense and sensibility and draw that fine line between geo politics, international relations, raison d’etat and self determination. Let us play cricket in the meantime.