Kashmir: Conflict Resolution?

The timeline of the Indian and Pakistani conflict has spanned from the 1940’ up until today. The main issue of divergence is territorial over the Kashmir region which geographically lies between India and Pakistan. Militants of Afghani, Arab and Pakistani origin have proliferated and have since occupied the region waging conflict against the Indian Military. Amidst accusations of mass genocide and war crimes perpetrated by India, there have been more Kashmiris who are rallying for unification with Pakistan or the creation of a new Kashmiri state. In recent times it seems as though both camps are prepared to negotiate after waging one of the longest conflicts in modern history. The Prime minister of India has even commented positively by saying that anything could be negotiated and that the sky was the limit .

Old diplomacy has played a role in getting to this stage and is still relevant today , I say this because there was an element of secrecy as reports suggest that the spirit of negotiation between the two was hastened by secret back channel talks between the two countries that begun during General Musharraff’s tenure. The New Yorker claims that for several years envoys from both countries met secretly in London, Bangkok and Dubai negotiating the end of conflict in Kashmir which has now resulted in open talks between the two countries, mediated by President Obama. White clearly argues that there are many reason why secrecy is important by stating that “No good card or chess player reveals his or her hand in advance, and diplomatic negotiations are similar to these games in important respects” (White :2005:Page 390)

The bilateral element of the talks between India and Pakistan also show the relevance of old

diplomacy today. It is relevant in that Kashmir is a sensitive issue for both countries and to protect the negotiation process and avoid humiliation at home over possible solutions ,secrecy and exclusivity were essential at that time. One of the tenets of Old diplomacy is that the subject matter is often about high politics, the idea that war or open conflict might occur. In the case of Pakistan and India the posibble end to the conflict was discused, as the escalation of conflict caused by jihadists during the Mumbai bombings 2008 and pressure to retaliate had to be diffused. The fact that both of these countries are nuclear powers is a threat to regional and global peace in the event that these hostilities escalate to war.

However in as much as traditional diplomacy is still very much an important feature in international relations, in modern diplomacy there exists a space where governments have to gain the support at home and abroad so as to secure stability in the event of an agreement. Riordan further explains by stating that “Within the postmodern world, the breakdown of the division between domestic and foreign policy, the increasing importance of the media(both electronic and interactive)… mean that the public matter more than before”(Riordan 2003 :Pg123) . Already this expectation is being brought to bear on the Indian government as the Indian parliament are demanding accountability, openness and also public engagement in any concession in the Jammu –Kashmir region . It’s a very tight rope to walk on for any government involved In potential volatile negotiations of this nature, but it does reflect the relevance of old diplomacy in modern international relations.
Links and Sources:
http://www.newyorker.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233419
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
The New Diplomacy:Sean Riordan 2003
Diplomacy: Brian White in The Globalization of World Politics 3RD Edition by J. Bayliss and S. Smith 2005