Virginia Review of Asian Studies
Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistan
IMPEDIMENTS TO PEACE BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
Nasreen Akhtar International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan[1]
Abstract
Relations between Pakistan andIndia are laced with suspicion and mistrust, and pose a serious challenge to peace and stability in South Asia”.[2]Since 1947 these two neighboring states have failed to resolve issues that are obstacles to normalizing relations. Both India and Pakistan have long-lasting unresolved issues. The Kashmir issue is vital for the normalization of relations between these two states and is the most contentious issue causing tension between the two countries.[3] During decades of political engage-ment, they have tried various formats of negotiation. However, they have failed to resolveany of the bilateral issues that separate them.In the past there were moments when after successful rounds of talks, the two countries were on the brink of sealing a deal over Kashmir valley. However, unwilling to accept a changed reality, both sides continue to blame each other for the failure of talks. India, however, has not negotiated at all seriously when it comes to the Kashmir dispute and other issues.[4]
Introduction:
In a decision to move beyond their conventional forms of negotiation in 1997, India and Pakistan agreed to have a “(Composite) Dialogue” instead of issue specific negotiations. This paper is an attempt to look into dialogues between these two countries. I will describe the status of progress made on issues under the (composite) dialogues which have been made by the state actors.
The current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has a different policy toward Pakistan than its predecessor. Since Modi assumed power in 2014, both countries have brought their forces to high alert on their borders. Provocative statements by Prime Minster Modi and his ministers have increased tensions in South Asia and have created a war-like situation on its borders. At the 70th sessionof United Nations Assembly Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif proposed four points for peace between India and Pakistan but India rejected them.Why India refused to accept Pakistan’s proposal will be discussed later.
In addition to bilateral issues the actions of China have also irritated India, and the Indian leadership has openly criticized Chinese investment in Pakistan. China and Pakistan have close economic ties, and the Chinese president’s visit to Pakistan was perceived as a security threat by the Indian governmentwhich openlycriticized Pakistani-China economic agreements. India-Pakistan both claim legitimate rights in Afghanistan. After 9/11, Afghanistan became an important country strategically and politically to both nations. India and Pakistan have both supported Afghanistan, but each with different interests.After NATO’s departure, both India and Pakistan have their security agencies (ISI & RAW) protecting their respective interests in this troubled state.
Pakistan is playing a critical role in bringing the Taliban and the Afghan government to the conference table, and this might irritate India. However, this paper will focus on the challenges and impediments responsible for failure of the series of bilateral dialogues between India and Pakistan.
Historical background of dialogues
Since 1947 both India and Pakistan have been engaged or disengaged in adialogue process, but efforts to attain lasting peace have come to naught. There have been some minor gains, but major tensions persist. Historically, India and Pakistan have come close to reaching some pacts:the first pact was endorsed between the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan: Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan and Prime Minister Nehru signed an agreement in 1950 and both states secured their convergence interests under this pact.[5]Unexpectedly, for the first time, India accepted the role of mediator on the Indus Water Treaty under the aegis of the World Bank and treaty was signed by the President of Ayub Khan and Prime Minister Nehru in Karachi in 1960.Later India started to construct dams on Pakistani Rivers and ignored Pakistan’s concerns.[6]Thus conflicts over water and water rights haveincreased even more tension between two rival countries.
As we know the two countries agreed to an exchange of information about nuclear weapons in 1988. On the Kashmir dispute, issue-specific discussionbrought moments in 1954, 1963, 1972 and 2007[7]when the a deal wasalmost completed, but sadly each attempt was
derailed by the actors, who were ultimately unwillingto abandon or modify their claims over the Kashmir valley.[8]Overall, bilateral dialogues betweenIndia and Pakistan did not progress ina positive direction. One of the majorreasons for failure of many rounds oftheir bilateral dialogue was that duringnegotiation over some other specificissue, both parties would raise their concernover Kashmir. That isa bone of contention and a nuclear flashpoint in South Asia that neither will giveup. Most of the time, the Kashmir issue has beendeliberately raised to terminate any otheron-going bilateral dialogue.
In an attempt to address this problem,India and Pakistan decided to engage into composite dialogue insteadof issue-specific dialogue. This was initiated in May 1997, at Male, thecapital of the Maldives. Then Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujraland his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif suggested the composite dialogueprocess[9] that would enable the two countries to discuss all issuesincluding Jammu and Kashmir, simultaneously. India wanted satisfactionon terrorism before talking about other issues, though Nawaz Sharif madeit clear that Pakistan wants a dialogue that is comprehensive even if not“composite.”[10]As India reduced its focus to a single issue, ‘terrorism,’[11] itgave Pakistan the excuse to revert to its own single issue that is Kashmir[12] Itproduced a compromise in the sense that while India agreed to includeKashmir in the agenda for talks, Pakistan relented to include terrorism,the two major irritants in bilateral relations. The first round of compositedialogue was begun in 1998, but it failed due to a limited war betweenIndia and Pakistan in the Kargil border sector in 1999 that divides the two countries.[13]
In 2004 the composite dialogue process was re-established, followinga statement by then the Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee thatall subjects, including Kashmir, could be discussed. From 2004 to 2008four rounds of composite dialogue were held, but then paused, due to the terroristsattack in Mumbai on November 26, 2008. Later on, as a result of a meetingbetween Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and then PakistaniPresident Asif Ali Zardari, in the sidelines of the SAARC summit at Thimpuin April 2010,[14] and upon subsequent limited actions by Pakistan, Indiaannounced in April 2010 that it wouldnot insist that Pakistan had to fully satisfyIndian demands on terrorism as aprecondition for talks. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani went to watch a cricket matchto normalize relations. The Zardari govern-ment tried to develop trade relations but due to trust deficit efforts were not successful.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif adopted a rational policy to bring peace between the two countries but Prime Minister Modi would not accept ‘peace talks’ and negotiations. The Modi government is not ready to talk on the Kashmir issue,rather pursuing a ‘blame policy’ and has increased attacks on LOC.India-Pakistan have some historical issues to be resolved. All these issues were included in ‘dialogues’ in 1997. These issues include Siachen,SirCreek, WullerBerage, Kashmir, and Terrorism. International factors also playing a role and create hurdles between India and Pakistan.
World’s Highest Most Remote Battlefield: The Siachen Glacier
SiachenGlacier in the high mountains where Indian and Pakistani forces face each other every day has become the highest battlefield in the world. Among all others, this issue is considered to be the easiest one to resolve because both countries favor the de-militarization of Siachen. Yet, it has not been resolved because India has never really been ready to withdraw its forces. Siachen glacier is one of the most inhospitable and glaciated regions in the world. It receives 6 to 7 meters of the annual total (10 meters) snow in the winter. Blizzards can be of wind speeds up to 170 miles per hour (280 km/hr). The temperature drops routinely to 40 degrees (F) below zero.[15]
Both states maintain military forces on the glacier and are spending huge amounts to retain their strategic interests. The freezing temperature immensely affects the soldiers psyche and health making it hard for them to stay there.[16]Since 1984, more than 2,000 military personnel have been killed and many have been critically injured.[17] The 1949 ceasefire agreement delineated the Line of Control until point NJ 9842, after which, it said it would run “thence north to the glaciers”. In 1984, fearful of adverse Pakistani moves, Indian soldiers moved north and eventually occupied the highest points on the glaciers. The “Siachen conflict” was born.[18]
India and Pakistani territorial claims are based on their interpretations of the vague language contained in the 1949 and 1972 agreements. Pakistan draws a straight line in a north-easterly direction from NJ 9842 right up to the Karakorum pass on its boundary with China. India prefers a north-north west line from NJ9842 along the watershed line of the Saltoro Range, a southern offshoot of the Karakorum Range.[19]
To address the problem, at a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Pakistan’s President General Zia-ul-Has,on December 17, 1985, an agreement was reached to hold defense secretary-level talks on the Siachen issue. The first round of talks was held January 10-12, 1986 at Rawalpindi.[20]
After a series of talks in 1992, Pakistan and India had reached a near agreement on the Siachen dispute after Islamabad assented to recording the existing troop positions in an annex, but the deal never became operational because the Indian leadership developed cold feet. Pakistan’s proposal that the armed forces of both sides would vacate and redeploy had found immediate acceptance among Indian officials. The Indian delegation was led by Narinder Nath.Vohra, was then the defense secretary. “We had finalized the text of an agreement at Hydrabad House by around 10 pm on the last day,” N.N.Vohra,who is now the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, told the Hindu. “Signing was set for 10 am, but later that night, instructions were given to me not to go ahead the next day but to conclude matters in our next round of talks in Islamabad in January 1993.” “Of course, that day never came,” Nath Vohra added.[21] After that lost opportunity, up until 2014, many more fruitless rounds of talks, at various levels, over Siachen have taken place between the representatives of two countries.
Pakistan agreed to talk on Siachen after a tragic incident in May 2012 which killed 135 soldiers, but India did not show any change in her previous policy about the glaciers.[22] Recent-ly, ten Indian soldiers died due to an avalanche in Siachin[23] Pakistan offered help but India refused to accept.Indian minister ruled out troop’s withdrawal from Siachen[24] both sides are not ready to move their troops but glacier is moving due to climate change.[25]Sadly nothing is ever resolved because both nations are worried about “the security of the nation.”[26]
The Unresolved Sir Creek Dispute
The Sir Creek is a 100 km long estuary in the marshes of the Rann of the Kutch, which lies on the border between the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani province of Sindh. In 1965, the tribunal, under the judge of a Swedish Court, Gunnar Lagergren, was set up to demarcate only the northern border of the Kutch-Sindh sector between India and Pakistan. The Sir Creek dispute was a part of the dispute, but was left out of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal announced its verdict on February 19, 1968 in Geneva.[27]Later on both sides had resolved to settle this dispute in a speedy manner, given their obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Any delay in the delineation of the maritime boundary could lead to the continental shelf of both countries coming under the purview of the International Seabed Authority.[28] Then it was discovered that underneath Sir Creek estuary there is alarge quantity of oil and gas available. This discovery further complicated the dispute.
Both sides want to control more areas themselves to get these natural resources. Surveyors from both countries held various rounds of talks but failed to agree over demarcation of the marshy land. It is a unique issue because the disputed boundary is located in the sea and due to tide water levels demarcation cannot be made according to the Indian demands since the level of water goes up and down.[29]
Critical Issue: Terrorism
Terrorism is not defined, but it is one of the major irritants between India and Pakistan. Thesedays it has become a major source of conflict between the two countries, and dialogues and development are linked with this emotional and troubling issue between the two nuclear states. Terrorism has affected both political and economic relations. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the region. It developed in South Asia after the end of Afghanistan war of 1989,[30] and it is increased after the 9/11 incident that led to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Sectarianism and Talibanization have badly affected peace efforts in thePakistan-Afghanistan region.Terrorism has had graver impacts on Pakistan than India. Many Pakistanicitizens have lost their lives in sectarian and religious attacks by terroristgroups.[31]In 2006, from the sidelines of the Non-Alignment Movement’s meeting in Havana, Cuba, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhand President General Parvez Musharraf met, and issued a joint statement for creatingAnti-Terror Institutional Mechanism (ATIM), in which both countriespledged to cooperate in dealing with terrorism.[32]The ATIM cannot beoperationalized because of persisting differences between the institutionsfrom both countries. Prime Minister Modi’s policy has created obstacles and security concerns and both countries have ceased dialogues. Prime Minister Modi’s policy towardPakistan is not based on peace negotiations. During his visit to Kashmirand Kargil on August 12, 2014, the Indian prime minister said, “India willnot talk with Pakistan. However, it will use power‘goli not boli (bullet not talk).”[33] This openly threateningannouncement escalated tension between Pakistan and India and thedialogue process was cancelled.
In Pakistan several terror attacks have killed innocent people and security personnel. The turning point came when an Army Public School (APS) at Peshawar was attacked in December 2014, killing 150 children and seriously injuring many others.[34] Though the Taliban accepted responsibility for this heinous act, the Indian defense minister’s statement increased security concerns at the state level in Pakistan. This tragic incident has exposed India’s state policy toward its rival Pakistan.[35] India’s official statement increased the level of hostility, and the Pakistani government and the army both developed a consensus that India was involved in FATA and Balochistan’s insurgency to destabilize Pakistan. India also provided funds to Baloch separatists and terrorists.[36]A recent BBC documentary shows that one of Pakistan’s political parties, MQM, has been receiving funds and training from the Indian intelligence agency RAW.[37]India’s policy appears to be to destabilize Pakistan through proxy wars by the non-state actors.
Jammu and Kashmir: A Very Long-Standing Dispute
The real and fundamental root of conflict is Kashmir.Kashmir is an historical and long standing bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Both of them use this as an excuse to move further in their bilateral relations. The Kashmir dispute is an ideological, rather than a territorial dispute.[38]The two countries have fought three total wars and one limited war to decide fate of Kashmir, yet it remains a disputed territory. Since 1990 there has emerged a third group, which demands freedom from both India and Pakistan.In 1954, 1963, and 1972 there were moments when this conflict couldhave been resolved, but was not. More recently, in 2007, the two leaders were almost agreed on the draft over Kashmir issue, but at the last moment they backed off.[39]
Any formula to resolve this conflict needs compromises and adjustments from both sides. The two countries are not yet ready forthat, therefore it is difficult to move ahead over this issue, at least, in near future. “Both countries blame each other for not responding to any ofthese CBMs (Confidence Building Measures). The Pakistan Army blames India for deliberately flouting theCBMs as a part of its current policy. Frequent volatility on the LoC andthe Working Boundary is symptomatic of the deeper grievances and theunfortunate history that the two countries share and are unable to shed fora better future.”[40] India is worried that Pakistan supports Kashmiri fightersand it puts pressure on the borders instead of political and diplomaticresolutions.