Confrontation to Cooperation

The Mumbai terrorist attack in November 2008 once again brought to the fore the fragility of India-Pakistan relations and shattered prospects of peace in the region. In fact the terrorist could claim a strategic victory as India blamed Pakistan for the incident, suspended dialogue and put the peace process in a freeze. No doubt, the last two years of the peace process had already lost momentum as India remained deeply pre-occupied embracing U.S. in a strategic partnership and Pakistan was in a state of anarchy as Musharraf's military rule kept unraveling.  

In the five years from 2004 to 2009 the composite dialogue had helped in improving the political environment between India and Pakistan. Several useful military, economic and cultural confidence building measures were introduced. CBMs included advance notification of ballistic missiles flight tests, establishment of a dedicated fiber optic communication link between the foreign secretaries of two countries to serve as nuclear risk reduction measure. One other significant success was that cease fire on the LoC was maintained. The two sides also agreed to the establishment of a communication link between Pakistan's Maritime Security Agency and the Indian Coast Guard. Moreover, bus travel between the two sides of J&K and revival of air and rail links between India and Pakistan allowed the people to engage, albeit in a limited way due to bureaucratic impediments. There was of course no progress on any of the substantive issues. Although both sides claim progress in back channel diplomacy but it has to be seen whether its gains could be taken forward.    

With this background people were hoping that the recent meeting between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan in July 2010 would at least help in improving the political ambiance between the two countries and dialogue would resume. Hopes were also raised by the positive statements that had come from the two prime ministers when they met on side lines at Sharm-el-Sheikh and later in Thimpu (Bhutan). Regrettably the foreign minister's meeting turned out to be a throw back of the past ending in a war of words and the usual blame game. Subsequent salutary remarks made by External Affairs Minister of India Mr. Shankar and Pakistan's political leadership however, helped in damage control. More importantly, both countries committed to remain engaged in future even though structured dialogue seemed a remote possibility as of now.

Conflict resolution of Kashmir from a Pakistani perspective has been an essential ingredient of durable peace. Progress on finding a solution has been blocked by India's intransigence of retaining the status-quo and insisting that Kashmir is its internal matter. Islamabad showed considerable flexibility during General Musharraf's period when he even abandoned Pakistan's principled position of relying on UNSC resolutions for determining J&K's future through a plebiscite.

Several proposals about Kashmir have remained the subject of discussion by various think tanks and policy analysts, but the governments have never formally or at least seriously addressed them at the bilateral level. Among those that that have been widely discussed include plebiscite under the UN auspicious, conversion of LoC into international border, independence of the whole or part of Kashmir, division on the basis of religious or geographic lines. It was expected that if India and Pakistan resume a broad based dialogue after the recent foreign ministers conference they could have looked at any of these proposals or come out with any new ideas or concepts of resolving the conflict. For India it would have been a great opportunity to break the deadlock on Jammu and Kashmir. Recent events have once again demonstrated that even an elected government has failed to establish normalization. Currently, a reenergized indigenous uprising is in full swing and despite repression and gross violation of human rights by Indian security forces has failed to suppress the movement. For durable peace to be established New Delhi will have to involve the APHC and indigenous militant groups seriously in any future dialogue. Marginalization of the APHC will only breed greater militancy in the state and further hold back any solution of the Kashmir problem.

Resolution of allied issues prior to the resolution of Jammu & Kashmir dispute can create a favorable environment and greatly reduce tension between the two South Asian rivals.

India and Pakistan had twice come close once in 1989 and then in 1992 to finding a solution to the Siachen dispute but had to set aside for political reasons. It is unfortunate that Indian position on Siachen has hardened over the years and their military seems to be responsible for this change in attitude. The issue needs to be reactivated and its settlement could precede the overall settlement of Kashmir dispute. It is unfortunate that despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's sound proposal of converting Siachen into a peace park or a mountain of peace to be jointly undertaken by both the countries has ironically been scuttled by New Delhi's own inflexibility.

Sir Creek has given rise to friction between India and Pakistan on matters of territory and limits of economic zones. Pakistan's position is the boundary should be along the eastern bank of Sir Creek, whereas the Indian side claims that the boundary runs through the center of the creek. Regrettably, it is the fishermen who get arrested on both sides on charges of trespassing "territorial waters" and subject to great hardships. The matter has acquired importance due to potential of oil reserves in the region. Bilateral negotiations should have been able to resolve this problem and sufficient progress was made in demarcation of land boundary but has since stalled. The other alternative is that both sides should agree to international arbitration.

Water shortages in Pakistan have become a forceful slogan of contention with India. The Wullar Barrage construction was unilaterally undertaken by India in the disputed Kashmir area. Pakistan has serious concerns about the way India is going about building dams on Pakistan's western rivers and adversely impacting on the capacity of our dams and generation of hydro-power. Kashmiri leaders of Indian occupied Kashmir have recently also become very vocal with their criticism of the Indus Water Treaty, although this still remains perhaps the most enduring and useful CBM between the two countries. Given political resolve and more honest approach all these problems related to water can be resolved.              

India and Pakistan have long competed for influence in Afghanistan. The competition has further sharpened as the time for the withdrawal of U.S. and ISAF forces gets closer. Pakistan's insecurities heighten when U.S. provides political, economic and strategic space to India in Afghanistan. Pakistan fears that it is being strategically encircled with Indian forces facing it on the eastern front and its growing influence in Afghanistan on the western border. Investments of India in Afghanistan exceed 1.2 billion dollars. New Delhi is against any change in the power structure at this stage and bitterly opposed to any reconciliation efforts. The interest of both countries would however be best served through a cooperative approach rather than using proxies to countervail each other, but this is only possible if the overall relationship improves.    

Another major factor of instability is the growing conventional military imbalance between India and Pakistan. India today is on the brink of access to a wide range of sophisticated weaponry, military command and control systems, early warning capabilities, and missile defense technology.

India's robust and sustained economic growth (8% and above) has given it a new level of confidence. Its military plans and ambitious modernization program are gradually acquiring a wider regional and global dimension much beyond the India-Pakistan security dynamic. The U.S.-India nuclear deal and enhanced cooperation in defense, space and high technology commerce has altered the power dynamics of the region.

India's Cold Start doctrine too has serious implications if operationalized. It would invariably escalate into a full fledge conventional and at worse a nuclear war with dire consequences at the regional and global level. The current practice of using terrorist incidents for whipping up nationalist sentiment for gaining domestic political advantage is short sighted and counter productive. Nonetheless, it is crucial that Islamabad demonstrate its sincerity and commitment to prosecute the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime. It is important to establish an institutional mechanism that can jointly put in place more creative thinking in response to terror. With increasing radicalism in the region it is not possible to rule out future attacks.

What is needed is a genuine shared vision for the stability and progress of the region. Dangers emanating from spread of extremism and terrorism, poverty and other challenges of development demand that India and Pakistan move toward resolving disputes and, find maximum areas for economic cooperation, political linkages and cultural exchanges.

Talat Masood is a retired lieutenant-general of the Pakistan army. He writes on security, political and atomic issues and is a prominent commentator on national and international media. 

Talat Masood is a 3-Star retired Lieutenant General in the Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers. General Masood holds a Masters degree in Defense and Strategic Studies and has also served as a visiting fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, D.C.  He was a consultant for the leading U.S. defense manufacturer United Defense, Limited Partnership (UDLP) for five years. He currently writes on national security, weapons proliferation, and has been covering Pakistan and India's nuclear program.

Facebook | Twitter | Email

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form