India, Libya and the Kashmir Paradox

 India, Libya and the Kashmir Paradox

India has vehemently opposed the imposition of a no-fly zone in strife-torn Libya. Though New Delhi supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970, authorizing ecomonic sanctions against Col. Moammar Gadhafi and referring Libya to the International Criminal Court, India has made it clear that it stands against any kind of military intervention in the troubled state.

However, New Delhi's aversion to intervention is far from consistent: When it comes to South Asia, in particular, intervention in the internal matters of other states has long been part and parcel of India's foreign policy. In 1971, India fought a war with Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh. It sent a peacekeeping force to strife-torn Sri Lanka in 1987. Maoists in Nepal blame their political misfortunes on India's interventionist policies there, and Bhutan exists as a virtual Indian protectorate.  

Three other factors further complicate the picture. First, unlike during the Cold War, India no longer locates itself at the fringes of international politics. Today, it seeks its rightful place at the heart of the global order, based on its meteoric rise over the past few decades. By consequence, the old tropes of anti-imperialism and third-world solidarity do not figure in India's contemporary foreign policy rhetoric. Second, unlike China, India bases its claim to global prominence not only on its increased economic power, but also on its respect for the rules and norms of appropriate global conduct. Finally, India is a democracy and has much in common with the values and ethics of Western nations. The rule of law and fundamental rights constitute the basic edifice of the Indian state.

All of these factors would seem to put India's reluctance to go along with Western powers on Libya at odds with its national character. Why, then, is New Delhi so resistant to intervention in Libya?

In fact, India's policy is directly influenced by the present turmoil in Kashmir, India's Achilles' heel. Sixty years after gaining its independence, India has failed to integrate Kashmiris into the national mainstream. India's national government has bestowed political autonomy on the state of Jammu and Kashmir and showered it with economic largesse -- but to no avail.  

The summer of 2010 was particularly discouraging for India. Unlike years past, when unrest in the Kashmir Valley could be blamed on Pakistan-trained terrorists, the violence in Kashmir last year was the result of an indigenous rebellion. Surprisingly, the revolt was not led by the Kashmiri separatists' aging leadership but by technologically savvy, highly organized young men and women of the Kashmir Valley.  

The Indian establishment's handling of the situation was unfortunate. At least 112 youths are estimated to have died in five months of unrest. Thousands of others were detained by security forces and kept in prison without trial. The Indian government seemed to have no response other than imposing an indefinite curfew and pleading with the restive youth for peace and order. For India's political leaders, the current unrest in the Middle East bears an uncanny resemblance to the Kashmiri uprising.

With the success of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Indian establishment is again on tenterhooks. There is a real chance that the youth of Kashmir may rise again, and the news from the Middle East will surely add fuel to the fire. Since the Indian government has done hardly anything to contain the simmering discontent in the region, in all probability the next confrontation will also be bloody.

Nonintervention in internal matters has therefore become a convenient strategy to ward off the prying eyes of the international community. During the height of the anti-government protests in Kashmir, the U.N. secretary-general expressed his concern over the killings, unlawful detentions and virtual lockdown of the region. New Delhi called it "gratuitous advice" and made clear that the U.N. has no mandate in its domestic affairs. By contrast, the U.S. and European Union, in a nod to India's growing global clout, refrained from making any direct reference to the Kashmir crisis. When it comes to relations with Western states, nonintervention as a policy has served India well.

By maintaining the narrative of nonintervention, India is buying insurance against global pressure on Kashmir. Any relaxation of the norms of nonintervention would quickly undermine India's interests in the Kashmir Valley and provide a powerful weapon to Pakistan, which will leave no stone unturned in attempting to internationalize the issue. Moreover, if India acquiesces to a Western intervention in Libya, it will lose all moral and legal authority to keep the Kashmir issue away from international scrutiny.

India would do better to address the fundamental grievances being expressed by Kashmiri youth. First, draconian laws such as Armed Forces Specials Power Act providing blanket impunity to security forces should be immediately revoked. This will make security forces more vigilant against human rights abuses, the most important cause of the recent unrest. Second, Kashmiris' disillusionment with the façade of autonomy and dysfunctional governance needs to be addressed. Blatant intervention by successive Indian governments in the internal affairs of Jammu and Kashmir state has prevented the emergence of a cohesive governance structure, resulting in underdevelopment and unemployment. Real devolution of power that can cater to the needs of Kashmiris is needed. Third, India needs to face the reality in Kashmir, rather than hide from it. For too long, India's approach to Kashmir has suffered from a culture of procrastination with regard to serious dialogue with all stakeholders, including separatists and Pakistan.

Addressing the situation in Kashmir more resolutely will have the added advantage of allowing India's position on nonintervention to evolve, in order to reflect its newfound global status. If New Delhi is to leave behind its post-colonial anxieties and live up to its image as a beacon of democracy and freedom, it must embrace the responsibility to protect people whose rights are being trampled upon. When a people is targeted by its government with violence, as in Libya, it is incumbent upon the international community to intervene. And that means India, too.