The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states, third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India’s implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India’s strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.
Bercovitch, Jacob (2004). “International Mediation and Intractable Conflict.” in GuyBurgess and HeidiBurgess, editors, Beyond Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. At <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/med-intractable-conflict>.
Biswas, B. and A.Goel (2014). “In Kashmir, They Disappear: Civilians, Militants, and Democracy.”Foreign Policy: The South Asia Channel. At <http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/11/07/in_kashmir_they_disappear_civilians_militants_and_democracy>.
Crocker, C. A., F. O.Hampson, and P.Aall (2007). “Introduction: Mapping the Nettle Field,” in Chester A.Croker, Fen OlserHampson, and PamelaAall, editors, Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. 3–32.
Grono, Magdalena Frichova (2010). Georgia’s Conflicts: What Role for the EU as Mediator. Initiative for Peacebuilding. At <http://georgica.tsu.edu.ge/files/05-Security/Frichova-2010.pdf>, Accessed December 8, 2016.
Human Rights Watch (2012). “Between Two Sets of Guns”: Attacks on Civil Society Activists in India’s Maoist Conflict.At http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/india0712ForUpload.pdf, accessed January 16, 2013.
Obama, Barack (2010). “Remarks by the President to the Joint Session of the Indian Parliament in New Delhi, India.”Speech, New Delhi, November 8, 2010. At <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/08/remarks-president-joint-session-indian-parliament-new-delhi-india>.
Padder, Sajad (2012). “The Composite Dialogue Between India and Pakistan: Structure, Process and Agency.”Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, 65. At <http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/13143/1/Heidelberg_Papers_65_Padder.pdf>.