April 27, 2003

After weeks of talking about preemptive strikes, the Indian leadership is now playing it cool ahead of a planned trip to the region by senior US officials. The ground realities, however, remain unchanged

AT the Wagah border on Lahore’s outskirts, troops on both sides of the frontier lower their national flags amidst a colourful ceremony each evening at sunset. This is attended by dozens of tourists. Whereas the soldiers posted along the fence share a common language, a common culture and a common fondness for cricket commentary heard huddled over radio sets, the gulf dividing them, and the people of both countries, has widened in recent years to a huge chasm.

The angry rhetoric heard from both sides of the border over the past year makes the possibilities of bridging this divide seem increasingly arduous. After an intense spell of sabre-rattling over the last few weeks, there was a bit of a dip in the tension in the wake of somewhat conciliatory remarks made by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, in what has become a routine hawk-and-dove approach on the part of Indian leaders.

On a visit to Kashmir last weekend, Vajpayee spoke of possible talks with Pakistan, even while repeating allegations of ‘cross-border terrorism’. The positive response from Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri is, too, a favourable sign. But it needs to be kept in mind that such ‘peace gestures’ have been made before, only to be put aside in a hurry.

It is significant, too, that the remarks come only days ahead of a planned visit to the region by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. There can be little doubt that at least partially, the softer diplomatic language being used comes in response to the increasing pressure exerted on the two subcontinental nuclear powers by Washington, and the desire to open any meetings with Armitage on a positive note.

For the moment though, people from both nations have been pushed apart further than ever before as a result of the hostilities spurred on by the recent spate of irresponsible statements speaking of preemptive strikes and nuclear weapons.

Despite the latest, more rational proposals for talks, the possibility of existing restrictions on travel and other curbs being relaxed seem increasingly unlikely until there is further improvement in relations.

Alarmingly too, at least some of the phrases that have been bandied about by politicians who should know better, appear to have gained currency directly as a consequence of recent global events. The military strike launched by the US, the world’s most powerful nation, militarily and economically, against one of the most impoverished, Iraq, has sent out new ripples disturbing the existing order around the world. The justification for its action by Washington as a means to preempt a possible threat by Iraq’s former leaders is one that sets in place a hugely dangerous precedent. If other nations choose to follow the example set by the US, the risk of true international chaos becomes very real.

The hostile posturing from India’s hardline leaders conforms to this pattern. It can for the present only be hoped that the words are not followed by actions. But with tensions heightened to breaking point, despite the recent exchange of friendlier statements, the risk remains that even the most minor incident could trigger off a skirmish, which, in the present climate, could swiftly assume more menacing proportions.

This is especially true given the already volatile situation in Kashmir, with militants based in Pakistani-controlled portions of the territory, according to reports, already initiating a resumption of activities across the Line of Control (LoC). Last summer, measures taken by Pakistan government to rein in militancy, in some cases by using its troops to ensure compliance from reluctant commanders, helped ensure there was indeed a reduction in levels of insurgency. This year, there can be no such guarantees, with militants no longer willing to comply.

Still more ominously, even as India and Washington renew their references to ‘cross-border insurgency’, there are elements in Islamabad who are repeatedly pointing out that the efforts made by President General Pervez Mushrraf to raise the flag of peace in the region have had limited impact. As such, they maintain, it is time to resume the militancy in Kashmir that has for so many decades had at least the tacit support of Pakistani establishment.

While it is clear to most observers, including Washington, that a final solution to the regional tension between Pakistan and India can be effectively addressed only by resolving the Kashmir conflict, the solutions available are limited.

Influential voices representing Kashmiris, with access to the corridors of power in Washington, have long held that some kind of territorial re-division is vital to achieve this. The extent of the impact of such lobbying most visibly came to the forefront nearly two years ago.

Ahead of the July 2001 summit in Agra between Musharraf and Vajpayee, even arch-conservatives such as Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the Jamaat-e-Islami were heard favouring a solution involving autonomous status for both the Indian and Pakistan controlled portions of the Kashmir Valley, with other disputed territories being split up among the two nations. Other think-tanks in the US, with considerable influence of their own, continue to insist that converting the LoC into a permanent border is the only realistic solution.

Sadly, the people of Kashmir remain totally removed from such a debate. Aside from the grainy newspaper pictures of grieving families or of Indian forces, guilty over the past decade of many atrocities, standing guard in towns and villages, it often seems that they have been virtually forgotten by all parties locked in the complex territorial conflict. They are mere pawns on a board where two more powerful players remain locked in battle.

It is also clear that before any attempt can begin to unravel the deeply entrenched issue of Kashmir, measures aimed at building confidence and trust must be initiated. Pakistan’s insistence on placing Kashmir at the top of any agenda for talks is understandable, but, under the present circumstances, a bit unrealistic.

A climate of greater trust and understanding must be carefully constructed, stage by stage, before more convoluted matters can be tackled. In the past, so-called confidence building measures, or CBMs in diplomatic jargon, have formed a basis of most dialogue between India and Pakistan.

Sadly, the agreements reached have not always been honoured, and this, too, will need to change if long-term improvements in relations are to be attained. The military hotlines, re-established between India and Pakistan in 1990 for the first time after the 1971 conflict, were intended to help diffuse tension. It was also agreed between both countries in 1990 that a weekly exchange of information would take place over these hotlines, simply to keep the channels of communication open.

Over the past decade, this hotline has been used only sporadically. Important information has not been communicated at times when it was perhaps most required. For instance, during the Kargil conflict, the use was limited and unreliable. It is, however, understood that during the recent massive buildup of troops from both countries on the Indo-Pak border, the military hotline was used at least occasionally to help convey information and keep the other side posted on broad troop movement plans, a factor that some military sources maintain, was ‘extremely useful’ given the degree of tension along the frontier.

The hotline between the prime ministers, set up for the first time in 1989 between the then prime ministers of the two countries, the late Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto, has been used equally intermittently over the last 13 years, although it was utilized during the Kargil conflict of 1999. Over the past three or four years, it is said to have fallen into increasingly limited usage.

Other agreements have met an even bleaker fate, with the protocols on non-harassment of diplomatic staff and the violation of airspace repeatedly ignored. Indeed, the start of 2003 saw some unprecedented acts of harassment against diplomats, with the tit-for-tat measures taken as a result leading to sharp cuts in staffing at the High Commissions of both India and Pakistan at Islamabad and New Delhi respectively.

Other issues date back to Partition, with the Indus Water treaty of 1948 still a matter of some conflict. Indeed, whereas a working solution to the need to provide vital river water to Pakistan was found in 1948, the search for a more permanent solution continued, with the World Bank eventually brokering a water-sharing plan in 1960. Fortunately, this most crucial of all CBMs has survived the many difficulties in Indo-Pak relations since that time.

However, over recent years, India’s construction of a large dam upstream, against the spirit of the treaty, has brought new tension over the issue and increasingly vocal complaints from Pakistan. This has placed the water treaty as a pivotal issue on the agenda for any talks between the two nations.

The fact that both India and Pakistan today possess nuclear weapons means the need for workable agreements on attacks on nuclear facilities and use of these weapons are also more crucial than ever before. At the Agra Summit, the issue was taken up again, but it is clear that the matter needs to be brought into much sharper focus if future safety and stability in the region are to be guaranteed.

There is, however, evidence that light is still visible through narrow chinks in the dark clouds that have been hovering over the subcontinent. In spite of the very high tension existing between the two countries, with their forces standing face-to-face on the borders, Pakistan recently agreed to allow a gas pipeline from Kazakhstan for India, which Pakistan feels shall also be beneficial to its own interests.

The sale of excess electricity from Pakistan to India is also under discussion. The proposal made a few days ago to open a visa office on the Wagah, coming quickly after the offer of talks by the Indian prime minister, also signals a step forward. Though the office would primarily benefit Sikh pilgrims, who Pakistan welcomes annually, it would also signal greater access to each other’s countries for people in both Pakistan and India, easing the difficulties of many who have to wait for months, even years in certain cases, for a visa. This would enable them to more easily undertake visits to relatives, or to one of the several health centres in India that are attracting people from around the globe for heart surgery on children at low costs or offering non-traditional treatment for various life-threatening conditions.

It must also be kept in mind that while the rhetoric heard over the past year from the two capitals focuses chiefly once more on the issue of Kashmir and the militancy within the Valley, for most people in both countries the issue is low down on their list of priorities. Even if the latest antagonism has inevitably led to increased hostility for India among many in the country, press surveys and opinion polls by independent organizations conducted over the last five years suggest that most people concentrate on far more immediate problems.

For them, increasing poverty, unemployment, the lack of access to education or healthcare and in some parts of the country, issues such as water scarcity, hold more significance than does Kashmir. It is these problems that they would like to see alleviated, while the ongoing turmoil amid the picturesque mountains of Kashmir is for them only a distant reality.

It is true, too, that such economic issues can move towards some resolution only if greater regional harmony can be established. Given Pakistan’s huge debt burden, it is obvious that more funds can be diverted towards development only if defence expenditure can be reduced. And this, in turn, can happen only when greater calm prevails along the country’s eastern border, and leaders in both New Delhi and Islamabad are able to adopt more moderate language when raising issues of concern or referring to their problems with each other.

Sadly, amid the current situation prevailing in an increasingly unipolar world, where the power dominating it apparently seems willing to stage armed action against helpless nations with growing unabashedness, voices calling for dialogue and negotiation remain unheard. Yet, as the peace movement seen around the world has shown, this unwillingness to heed their calls has not made them grow any fainter.

Certainly, for Pakistan and India, hope for the future can lie only in the forging of greater harmony, and a beginning of talks aimed at reaching a settlement on issues such as Kashmir, rather than any further exchange of hostilities that can only increase the considerable dangers in the region and expose people across it to still greater perils.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)