Counterview: G20 Meet in Srinagar Rooted in India’s Constitutional Position

Pakistan's strong objection to India hosting G20 in Jammu and Kashmir did not find resonance among member states.

Image used for representation only.  

(Photo: The Quint)

(A key G20 meeting, scheduled to be held in Srinagar from 22 May onwards, has ignited a debate about the choice of venue, given the political sensitivities surrounding Kashmir. While this piece argues in favour of the choice of venue, the arguments against it can be found here.)

India is hosting a meeting of the G20 working group on tourism on 22-24 May in Srinagar. This is part of the process of convening G20 meetings on different issues and subjects in different parts of the country. The Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are parts of India and it is, therefore, entirely appropriate, as a general proposition, to hold G20 meetings in these Union Territories.

At the same time, the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has been subjected to decades of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Hence, the security situation in the union territory has to be taken into account while organising such meetings. It is apparent that the government is confident that it can ensure security for G20 officials and hence, there should be no reluctance in organising such meetings in the Kashmir valley.

Predictably, Pakistan strongly objected to India hosting the G20 tourism working group meeting in Srinagar.

In a press release issued on 11 April, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry expressed "strong indignation” at India holding this meeting. It dubbed it as an "irresponsible” move and as "part of self-serving measures to perpetuate its illegal occupation of J&K”. There is nothing new in these Pakistani objections nor Pakistan calling J&K an "internationally recognised dispute”.

The fact is that the international community is tired and disdainful of Pakistan’s constant harping on Jammu and Kashmir.

That became evident after Pakistani objections to the constitutional changes in J&K evoked no real response despite its strenuous efforts in the United Nations system in 2019.

With China’s help, it was able to have two informal consultations with the UNSC on the J&K situation but these clearly revealed that the UNSC members wanted India-Pakistan to settle their differences bilaterally. The international community simply does not want to get involved in this issues so long as there is no danger of a conflagration.

Pakistan’s G20 Response Lost on Other Countries

The international community’s message to Pakistan on J&K has not sunk into its leadership. Not only did the previous government led by Imran Khan but also the present PDM government headed by Shahbaz Sharif continues to harp that till the constitutional changes are reversed, there can be no India-Pakistan engagement.

That does not impact India at all for it has continued to—and rightly—link the normalisation of India-Pakistan bilateral ties to Pakistan abandoning terrorism as an instrument of its strategic policy against India.

Pakistan’s ire against the G20 meeting in Srinagar was also evident in Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s response to a question during his visit to Goa for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s Foreign Ministers meeting in the first week of May. The young Pakistani minister said, “Obviously we condemn it." He then went on to exuberantly add, “At the time we will give such a response that it will be remembered." The implications of Bilawal’s comment do not leave much to the imagination because of recent terror attacks undertaken by Pakistan-based terrorist organisations in J&K.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry tried to do damage control. It stated, “Any insinuation, associating foreign minister’s remarks with a threat of violence is not only mischievous but also highly irresponsible. It is an attempt to shift focus from the foreign minister’s key message of conflict resolution through dialogue and in accordance with international law and UNSC resolutions”. This writer in almost four decades of diplomatic experience does not recall any foreign minister seeking “conflict resolution through dialogue” by threatening the other side with a “response that will be long remembered!"

Certainly, if Bilawal and the Pakistani Foreign Ministry thought that India will "remember” its response by Pakistan succeeding in ensuring that the Srinagar meeting will be boycotted by the G20 member states, it has failed. The latest indications are that at least 18 of the 20 countries have indicated their willingness to take part in the meeting.

Perhaps, only Turkey may heed Pakistan’s request to avoid the G20 meeting. In a cruel cut to Pakistan even its iron-brother, China, is most likely going to take part in the meeting. Pakistan may well continue to fulminate but most countries, including G20 states, would be more concerned with Pakistan dealing with the 'perfect storm’ (Bilawal’s words) that has engulfed it than in focusing attention on J&K.

UN’s Resistance Aside, Security Issues Need Addressal

Apart from Pakistan, Fernand de Varennes who is the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues has opposed the G20 Srinagar meeting because it would detract from the human rights situation in J&K. Varennes's comments on the human rights realities in J&K are highly exaggerated. They would not be taken seriously by any country.

The period of blanket communications ban and curfews is over though the security situation does cause immense problems for the people. Significantly, de Varennes had nothing to say on the activities of the terrorists and their impact on the people. Also, the idea of any deep demographic change in the Kashmir valley or a danger to its customs and faith is simply untenable.

Naturally, while Varennes should be ignored, the security forces in J&K should continue to make every endeavour to make the life of the ordinary citizen more comfortable. Also, the Supreme Court has still not taken up the constitutional challenge to the changes in the erstwhile state.

As the manner—as distinct from the substance of the changes— in which these changes were done can have wide and long-term implications for India’s polity, the court should hear the matter even if the government has given a commitment to restore statehood to J&K at an appropriate time.

The Growth in Tourism

The past two years have witnessed a growth in tourism in the state.

It is one of the most beautiful places on the planet and its tourist potential is enormous. That stated, was it wise to hold the working group on tourism in J&K when the predominant concern will be on the maintenance of the security of the participants?

It is not the best way to impress the tourist potential of a place on the persons taking part in such a meeting if their movement is severely restricted. After all, the first requirement of tourism is the free movement of tourists to places of natural beauty or marketplaces. Guided tours in a sanitised environment are not the best advertisement for tourism.

Was there at all any thinking given to this point? A different G20 event could have been considered to be held in Jammu and Kashmir.

(The writer is a former Secretary [West], Ministry of External Affairs. He can be reached @VivekKatju. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)