KARACHI, Dec 22: Political analysts from South Asian countries have expressed concern over the escalation of acrimonious rhetorics between India and Pakistan and urged both of them to use maximum restraint and keep the channels of negotiations open.
They also urged the extra-regional stakeholders to use their influence and if possible to mediate for resolving the cause of tension and instability in the region.
The emphasis was on avoidance of military conflict or war between countries of South Asia in a two-day workshop on “Paradigms of conflict resolution in South Asia” which opened at the University of Karachi on Saturday.
The workshop has been organized by the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi, in collaboration with the Regional Institute of Peace and Security Studies, Karachi, under a programme on peace studies and conflict resolution.
The presentations were made in the context of developments following the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and its aftermath. This included the escalation of Israeli terrorist attacks on the Palestinians and the Indian threats of hot pursuit in Kashmir.
Dealing with the explosive nature of India-Pakistan relations owing to the Kashmir dispute, Ms Shaheen Akhtar of the Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad, emphasized that the two countries needed to initiate trust and confidence-building measures (CBMs) on the Kashmir issue.
The latest deterioration in India-Pakistan relations caused by mutual accusations and threats in the wake of the attack on the Indian Parliament only accentuated such fears. It had again led to active American intervention to defuse the tension and avert a military flareup between India and Pakistan.
The present situation only reinforced that there was a great need to harmonize the divergent Indian-Pakistani perspectives on CBMs, to the extent possible, as diametrically opposite positions had only undermined the relevance and utility of CBMs in the region. A parallel approach addressing both the CBMs on Kashmir and economic and cultural CBMs would help in initiating a substantive peace process in the region. Conflict avoidance measures needed to be formalized to avoid any escalation of tension on the LoC. She also referred to the interim measures Pakistan had proposed to avoid violations of the LoC, improve the situation in the valley and avert the threat of war, she said.
On the question of violations of LoC and alleged Pakistani support to “cross-border terrorism,” she referred to Islamabad’s offer of a “verification mechanism through the strengthening of the UNMOGIP, or the stationing of a neutral force on both sides of the LoC.”
In this context, she said, relocation of heavy weapons, which were considered a major cause of tension-escalation across the LoC, could be considered.
Such measures should also ensure that exercises along the LoC and working boundary might not exceed one division involving 12,500-15,000 troops and the number of combat vehicles did not need to exceed 100 combat vehicles and 50 artillery pieces.
She also recalled the proposal for continuous scheduled and unscheduled visits to forward areas by national and other journalists, representatives of national and international human rights organizations, diplomats, defence and UN military observers.
She also emphasized the need for a commitment not to violate air space across the LoC/working boundary and that military commanders of India and Pakistan should meet and explore the reduction of troops from IHK, AJK and NT. Parallel meetings between the heads of intelligence services (ISI & RAW) should take place to ensure peace in areas of their jurisdiction.
The urgent need for a structured dialogue on Kashmir was also emphasized. The resolution of the Kashmir issue must be based on the principle of mutual respect on the part of India and Pakistan for each other and dignity and justice for the Kashmiri people. The pursuit of solution around a zero-sum game needed to be avoided.
Meanwhile, the events of Sept 11 had fundamentally shifted the parameters of world politics, from multi-dimensional threats to the issue of “terrorism” and “religious extremism.”
The anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan and the derailed peace process in the Middle East were deeply inter-linked and would have a profound impact on the CBMs and peace process in South Asia. India had already linked the global fight against terrorism to the situation in Kashmir and, especially after attacks on the J&K State Assembly on Oct 1 and on the Indian Parliament on Dec 13, had threatened to cross the LoC in “hot pursuit.”
Pakistan had condemned both the attacks, but India, going by the “right of self-defence” used by the US and Israel, was trying to build up pressure on Pakistan and the world to get the freedom struggle in Kashmir declared “Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.” This had certainly derailed the prospects of dialogue in South Asia, especially when the Saarc summit was drawing closer.
The Sept 11 attacks on the WTC and the ensuing global campaign against terrorism in which Pakistan acquired a frontline status led to a verbal dual between the two countries, culminating in “punitive strike” by India on the LoC and working boundary. Shortly, an attack on the Indian Parliament (Dec 13) was construed by Prime Minister Vajpayee as “an attack on the entire nation” and he pledged a “do-or-die battle” against terrorism. The two incidents reflected the high state of tension between the two countries, focusing on the issue of Kashmir. In view of the threatening statements by India, Pakistan put its troops on high alert again. Apprehending any Indian action on the LoC President Musharraf strongly warned that any “adventurism against Pakistan will lead to serious repercussions.”
The Indian moves both at the domestic and the regional/global levels clearly pointed to the fact that the situation in Kashmir remained highly explosive and needed urgent attention to institute CBMs to reduce tension that might result in a miscalculated misadventure.
