“S Jaishankar’s speech at the SCO summit was high on rhetoric but glossed over the Kashmir conflict as well as the implications of BJP’s majoritarian politics, from Kashmir to regions like Northeast India, where minorities face discrimination and violence.”
Altaf Hussain Wani*
The recent speech delivered by India’s Foreign Minister Dr S Jaishankar at the 23rd SCO Council of Heads of Government meeting in Islamabad has garnered attention for its emphasis on cooperation, development, and the need to combat “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.”
While the Foreign Minister’s rhetoric may appear theoretically sound, it ultimately falls short of addressing the complex realities of regional dynamics, particularly concerning the Kashmir issue. By failing to acknowledge the historical roots of these so-called “evils,” the speech misses a crucial opportunity for genuine dialogue and resolution.
The Foreign Minister’s address was marked by diplomatic finesse, as he sought to communicate India’s stance without directly naming Pakistan. This approach reflects a calculated strategy to maintain decorum while addressing perceived threats. However, this diplomatic posturing reveals a reluctance to engage in an honest conversation about the underlying issues that plague Indo-Pak relations and hinder regional cooperation.
His emphasis on “mutual trust, friendship, and good neighbourliness” is commendable in theory, but it rings hollow in the context of a relationship marred by decades of conflict and mistrust. For any meaningful dialogue to take place, it is imperative to acknowledge the historical grievances that have shaped the current landscape.
The Kashmir issue, in particular, is not merely a bilateral concern; it is a matter recognized by the United Nations Security Council and is deeply rooted in the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
The Foreign Minister’s identification of “terrorism, separatism, and extremism” as the three evils facing the region is a simplistic analysis that ignores the complexities surrounding these phenomena. While these issues pose significant challenges, it is essential to understand how they emerged.
Kashmir & Majoritarianism
The Kashmir conflict, for instance, has its origins in historical injustices, political disenfranchisement, a lack of genuine dialogue among stakeholders, and above all, the non-implementation of UNSC resolutions.
By labeling the legitimate resistance of Kashmiris as terrorism and separatism, the Indian government perpetuates a narrative that seeks to delegitimize the voices advocating for self-determination. This framing not only alienates those with legitimate grievances but also undermines India’s credibility in advocating for peace and stability in the region.
The international community increasingly recognizes that the Kashmir issue cannot be resolved through military might or unilateral actions; it requires sincere engagement and a willingness to address the underlying causes of conflict.
In his speech, the Foreign Minister failed to confront the reality that the ideology he represents has often been associated with extremism of the worst kind.
The rise of majoritarian nationalism in India, characterized by the marginalization of Muslim communities and the erosion of democratic norms, has drawn criticism from various quarters, including the international community. Policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) have raised alarms about the disempowerment of Muslims in India, further exacerbating societal divisions.
Moreover, the heavy militarization of Kashmir, coupled with draconian laws overriding all fundamental freedoms, has created an environment of fear and repression. The human rights situation paints a stark picture of a region where dissent is systematically silenced.
In this context, the Foreign Minister’s call for cooperation and development appears disingenuous, as it overlooks the need for a peaceful and just resolution to the Kashmir conflict.
The Foreign Minister’s speech also glossed over the implications of majoritarian politics, which extend beyond Kashmir to regions like Northeast India, where Christian communities face discrimination and violence. The rise of majoritarian nationalism has led to policies that marginalize not only Muslims but also other religious and ethnic minorities. This environment fosters resentment and conflict, further complicating the prospects for regional stability.
The focus on sovereignty and territorial integrity appears as a veiled opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), highlighting India’s stance against regional projects linked with Pakistan.
The call for UN Security Council reforms aligns with India’s global ambitions, to extend its influence.
Dispute Resolution As the Pivot
For cooperation and development to flourish at the SCO level or any other regional level, a foundation of bilateral trust and a commitment to dispute resolution is essential.
The Kashmir issue is not merely a territorial dispute; it is a matter of human rights and the will and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
The Foreign Minister’s failure to acknowledge the importance of bilateral trust and dispute resolution is a significant oversight.
Without addressing the root causes of conflict and engaging in meaningful dialogue, any talk of cooperation is likely to be superficial. The last seven decades of regional history reveal that sustainable peace in South Asia and regional cooperation among South Asian nations cannot be achieved without addressing the Kashmir issue comprehensively.
In conclusion, the Indian Foreign Minister’s speech at the SCO summit represents a missed opportunity for genuine dialogue and resolution of the complex issues facing the region. While the rhetoric of cooperation and development is commendable, it must be accompanied by a sincere acknowledgment of the historical and political realities surrounding the Kashmir conflict.
The simplistic framing of “terrorism, separatism, and extremism” fails to address the root causes of these phenomena and undermines the voices of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of Line of Control. Furthermore, the ideology represented by the Indian government must be critically examined in light of its implications for democracy and human rights.
For meaningful progress to occur, India must demonstrate a willingness to engage with the complexities of the Kashmir issue and commit to a process of dialogue that prioritizes the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Only then can the region move toward a future characterized by genuine cooperation, trust, and stability.
The path forward requires more than diplomatic rhetoric; it necessitates a courageous confrontation with uncomfortable truths and a commitment to justice for all.
*The writer is the chairman of the Kashmir Institute of International Relations and can be reached at: saleeemwani@hotmail.com and X @sultan1913
—–
Have you liked the news article?