Topics Covered:
- Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.
Scope for third party mediation in Kashmir
What to study?
For Prelims: Various bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan.
For mains: Mediation in Kashmir issue- do we need it? India’s opposition and what is the way out?
Context: India has reiterated that there is no scope for third party intervention in the Kashmir issue.
What is mediation?
Both in international law and diplomacy, mediation often denotes a ‘friendly interference’ of a neutral state in the controversies of other nations, with the objective of using its influence to ‘adjust their difficulties’.
Previous instances of mediation:
- Indus Water treaty: Both nations were able to reach agreements through third party mediators in case of the Indus Waters Treaty and the negotiations on the Rann of Kutch dispute.
- Rann of Kutch Accord (mediated by British Prime Minister Harold Wilson) persuaded the combatants to end hostilities and establish a tribunal to resolve the dispute.
- During the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war,the then USSR led mediation efforts paved the way for India and Pakistan to withdraw forces from each other’s territories while agreeing to discuss all future matters. This was followed by signing of the Tashkent Declaration in Uzbekistan.
Why India’s reluctance to third-party intervention on the issue is justified?
Mediation has no chance of working better than bilateral agreements, like the Simla Agreement of 1972 that both sides agreed to respect.
From India’s stand point Kashmir remains an internal problem.
Third parties could use their might to impose a solution on Kashmir that might go contrary to India’s stated position.
Conclusion:
Principles of state sovereignty and non-interference dictate that mediation needs not be imposing. It can be beneficial, non-coercive and compatible with the structures of international system. We already have a historical precedent to it.
Sources: the Hindu.
