The United States Ambassador to Bharat, Sergio Gor, calling Jammu and Kashmir an “important part of Bharat” during his first visit to the Union Territory is certainly welcome. But should Bharat chest-thump over an American diplomat acknowledging what is an established constitutional and national position? Certainly not.
Gor’s statement is diplomatically significant, particularly because Washington has historically viewed Kashmir through the prism of its own strategic interests. He also indicated that the US may review its travel advisory for Jammu and Kashmir, acknowledging the improvement in security and the efforts of the Centre and the J&K government.
But that is precisely why New Delhi must read the development with maturity rather than triumphalism.
American foreign policy is transactional. Washington can call Bharat a great friend today and disagree with New Delhi tomorrow when American interests demand it. The US has its own calculations involving Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, trade, defence and the wider Indo-Pacific. Therefore, those already declaring Gor’s statement a “tight slap” on Pakistan are jumping the gun. Bharat does not require an American certificate to establish that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Bharat.
There is another important dimension to Gor’s visit. He met Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and described the meeting as warm and productive, with discussions on deepening engagement. That naturally raises the question: how far can a foreign government engage directly with a Union Territory on matters that may touch upon its political, economic or security interests?
To be fair to Omar Abdullah, he had already made the correct constitutional distinction before meeting Gor: J&K’s internal problems have to be resolved by New Delhi, not Washington. There is therefore no reason to presume sinister intent merely because the Chief Minister met a foreign ambassador.
But the reaction of a section of the media is more disturbing.
A television editor who routinely projects himself as an uncompromising nationalist reportedly argued during a debate that Omar Abdullah was elected by the “people of Jammu and Kashmir” and not by “Bhartiya’s”. If that was indeed the formulation, it is an astonishingly misplaced argument.
Who are the people of Jammu and Kashmir if not Bhartiyas?
Yes, Omar was elected by the voters of Jammu and Kashmir. But those voters are Bharatiya citizens. Omar is a Bharatiya constitutional office-holder. He took the oath under the Constitution of Bharat. Jammu and Kashmir is a Union Territory of Bharat. To artificially distinguish its people from “Bharatiyas” is not nationalism; it is a constitutional absurdity.
The BJP spokesperson was therefore justified in questioning the propriety of any direct foreign engagement with a Union Territory when matters of sovereignty and national security are involved. That does not mean Omar Abdullah cannot meet foreign diplomats. It means the constitutional chain of authority must never be blurred.
And this is where Gor’s statement should be placed in perspective.
It is welcome. It is encouraging. It is diplomatically useful. But it is not an American endorsement that changes Bharat’s position on Kashmir.
Indeed, would Washington permit Beijing, Moscow or New Delhi to engage one of its states on sensitive matters without the involvement of the federal government? Would China accept such foreign engagement with one of its provinces? The answer is obvious.
New Delhi must therefore welcome every positive signal from Washington while remaining strategically cautious. The peace that has returned to much of J&K cannot be allowed to become an invitation for external players to exploit political fault lines. Pakistan-occupied Kashmir continues to face unrest, and external forces will inevitably look for opportunities.
The bottom line is brutally simple: Kashmir is Bharatiya, the people of J&K are Bhartiya’s, Omar Abdullah is a Bharatiya constitutional office-holder—and Washington is a foreign power.
Gor can acknowledge Bharat’s position. Omar can meet him. America can review its travel advisory.
But Bharat’s sovereignty over Kashmir is not Washington’s to certify, negotiate or redefine.
