Introduction

With the formation of a new United Front (UF) Government in India in June this year, Indian rulers initiated a fresh series of moves regarding Kashmir with the stated intent of bringing 'peace to the troubled Valley' and to the region as a whole. The most important UF leaders including V P Singh, the Indian Prime Minister Deve Gowda, CPM Chairman Harkishan Singh Surjeet made high profile visits to the occupied land and declared their intent of bringing 'peace' by holding 'elections' and restoring 'maximum autonomy' to Jammu and Kashmir. A similar climate prevailed on the other track--- the Indo-Pak track. Rulers of both the countries exchanged warm greetings. Pakistani rulers expressed new hopes and offered to negotiate with India if Kashmir was put on the agenda of talks. On yet another track, which we prefer to call 'Master track', things were more visible and 'phenomenal'. This track is the one relating U.S in three separate sub-tracks to India, Pakistan and Kashmir. There was high drama on this track and the U.S ambassador to India Frank Wisner was the main hero playing a dazzling and youthful title role of Mr Peace in the 'peace-drama'. He made jaunts to Srinagar, Islamabad and went on lecturing on the importance of 'peace' and of the political process that must get initiated in Kashmir now, as a step towards 'peace'.

These political developments on all these tracks created a sort of euphoria. An impression was sought to be created that the 50-year old Kashmir problem was about to be solved overnight by the new rulers who have descended on the Indian throne. The truth is that there was nothing in real terms--- no word or deed--- from Indian rulers that could suggest such a prospect. There was not an iota of change in India's basic positions: Kashmir is an integral part of India, elections in Kashmir will normalise the situation there, Pakistan is creating problems in Kashmir--- all these positions remained entirely unchanged--- indeed these were clearly reiterated by the new rulers. However, the basis on which euphoria was built, was that a new government with a new thinking (with almost everything 'new' by this logic) had assumed power in Delhi. But all this was questionable. what after all was new with the UF government or its approach? For the sake of argument if one would concede that there was something new and a 'new beginning' in Kashmir was made and it was due to a 'new' government in Delhi even then the euphoria that was generated concealed a very simple fact that UF Kashmir moves were not an independent initiative of this regime; this regime owed its existence to the support of Congress and was dependent on that. If UF government had to seek Congress approval on all the important matters of the state, how come it could act on its own on such a uniquely vital matter as that of Kashmir. So the euphoria was basically misplaced and for very obvious and simple reasons.

However, the activism evidenced on all the tracks did point to something very important. It pointed to a highly significant truth that India was really meaning to do 'something' about Kashmir, it was somehow finding it necessary to do so. Hardening of the basic positions on one hand and activism on the other--- the two facts taken together indicated that Kashmir issue was not going to be resolved--- nothing of that sort was attempted and no step towards that direction was being taken--- but, nevertheless, India was in a way very desperate to do 'something' about it as if to get rid of it. The question arises why? Because of the ongoing movement, could be an easy answer but that is too simplistic to account for what in reality is a complex matter. For it suggests that India is in a way doing a mere fire-fighting exercise: it is caught in a difficult situation in Kashmir from which it is trying to come out and that's the end of it. Things, however, are not that simple and one has to look beyond. India is trying to 'normalise' the situation in Kashmir--- O.K, but what is India's interest in doing that; 'normalisation' per se cannot be nor can be the 'return of peace and prosperity' in Kashmir as a result of 'normalisation', so what can be India's interest in making any move regarding Kashmir? And if it were mere fire-fighting, why should U.S be involved the way it is? In the recent activism on Kashmir, what, therefore, needs to be explored is the question of real interest--- wider and long-term--- that motivates India's Kashmir moves and the U.S support of these moves. It is mainly this task that is being undertaken in this paper. We explore this question of real interest in the conceptual framework of the New World Order--- the new international system evolving under this Order and India's place and role in it. It turns out that as in the New World Order an international system comprising many 'great powers' as opposed to the old system comprising mainly two 'great powers', U.S and the Soviet Union, coming up, India is perceiving itself as one of the 'great powers' in the emerging system and it is being propped up as such by the predominant powers in the New World Order. Accordingly, India is now trying to 'disengage' itself from all those immediate-regional issues, conflicts and involvement which work as drags on its global activism. Kashmir is the chief drag. The whole discussion also provides a wider/global perspective in which one should view or analyze in an integrated way, all Kashmir related activism on the above mentioned tracks not only with reference to what's currently going on but in general as well. This perspective appears to be the correct frame of looking at things, when towards the end of this paper we take a brief analytical view of what India is currently doing in Kashmir, for example elections etc. etc. . We close our discussion with conclusions and recommendations for various concerned quarters.