New Delhi
19 November 2010
India summoned Iran's acting ambassador Friday to convey its deep
disappointment over Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's remarks on
Kashmir.
In a related development, India broke from tradition and abstained from voting on a
United Nations General Assembly resolution which was critical of the human rights
situation in Iran.
India, which has voted against the resolution in the past, sought to explain its abstention
during the vote in New York on Thursday by citing "unpalatable" remarks on Kashmir
emanating from Iran.
India regards the Iranian comments -- made on three occasions in the past five months --
as questioning of India's territorial integrity and being insensitive to India's "core"
concerns.
Khamenei is reported to have said in his recent message to Hajj pilgrims: "Today the
major duties of the elite of the Islamic Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation
and the besieged people of Gaza, to sympathise and provide assistance to the nations
of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir, to engage in struggle and resistance against
the aggressions of the United States and the Zionist regime[.]"
While India's abstention has confounded some observers because India has been
seeking to engage Iran bilaterally and regionally (in the context of Afghanistan), New
Delhi has not made any attempt to deny a link between its abstention and the Iranian
remarks on Kashmir.
Sources said Khamenei's latest remarks on Kashmir follows similar remarks made by
him on July 21, 2010, and an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman's comments on
September 18, 2010 in which he regretted the deaths of people in Jammu and Kashmir in
a protest against the proposed desecration of the Quran in the US.
A source insisted that the Iranian remarks could not be accepted as a slip of the tongue.
Another source maintained that New Delhi's decision to abstain was taken after due
deliberation, and that the abstention should be seen as a calibrated response to drive
home India's message that Iran needs to be mindful of India's core concerns and
territorial integrity.
It was pointed out that India's abstention was in keeping with the trend of more numbers
of countries voting for the resolution on the human rights situation Iran. Also, within an
organisation such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), there was no
consensus; for instance, Saudi Arabia voted for the resolution in 2009 but abstained this
year.
In Thursday's resolution, piloted by Canada and co-sponsored by Israel, the US and
others, 80 countries voted for it; 44 against; and 57 abstained. The corresponding figures
in 2009 was 74 for, 48 against and 59 abstentions; while in 2008 70 voted in favour, 51
against and 60 abstained.
Notwithstanding New Delhi's explanation, the abstention can prove troublesome for its
ties with Tehran. India's vote against Iran in the IAEA remains in the Iranian
consciousness, and it remains to be seen how Tehran chooses to respond to New
Delhi's abstention.
No comments:
Post a Comment