Q.1. Why is India opposed to mediation on Kashmir?

India is a sovereign state and J&K is an integral part of it. India’s firm position against mediation on the Kashmir issue has historical roots dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. Several factors contribute to this stance:

1. Historical Suspicion: Mediated talks by various entities, including the United Nations, World Bank, United States, United Kingdom, and Russia, have been unsuccessful in resolving the longstanding issues between India and Pakistan. While these attempts have sometimes diffused tensions, they haven’t led to a comprehensive resolution of the rival claims over Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Red Line: India has consistently opposed third-party mediation. In 1993, when the U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed interest in mediating the Kashmir issue, India issued a strong protest. Since then, no U.S. leader has publicly crossed that line for 25 years. India remains committed to discussing all issues with Pakistan bilaterally.

3. Bilateral Commitments: The 1972 Shimla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration emphasize the commitment of both India and Pakistan to resolve their issues through bilateral channels. India firmly believes that any solution to the Kashmir dispute must be reached directly between the two nations.

Despite offers from leaders like South African President Nelson Mandela and UN Chief António Guterres, India maintains its position against external mediation. The recent U.S. offer, which was swiftly denied by India, underscores this unwavering stance.