INDO-PAKISTAN RELATIONS
Balraj Puri on Indo-Pakistan Relations
Today, whatever be the degree of alienation of the Muslims of the Valley with India, their rejection of Pakistan is categorical since it rules out the third option of Azadi to them. Basically, it is an ethnic and not a Muslim upsurge, confined to less than half the population of the state which, too, does not favour joining Pakistan. If ethnic unrest in the Pok (or Azad Kashmir) is also taken into account, Pakistan's capacity to satisfy the aspirations of the whole of multi-ethnic and multi- religious state of J&K will be further exposed. India should have tried to shift the onus of ending prolonged violence and enormous suffering of the people of the state and offering possible solutions acceptable to them on Pakistan. However, for this task, scope for track two diplomacy should be fully utilised. India could legitimately demand free contacts between its mission in Islamabad and leaders of Pak-held Kashmir as part of the state as there exist between Pak mission in New Delhi and dissident leaders of India-held part of the state.
The Kashmir dispute is unlikely to be resolved by foreign policy initiatives alone. But they may help in restoring India's international credibility and have a salutary effect on the minds of people in the Valley. The media should be used more to inform the people of Pakistan than to provoke them on Kashmir and other disputed issues.
India should acquire and train expertise in Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) which have been tried in conflict resolution in many parts of the world in the last few decades and which Micheal Krepon calls the growth industry of the 1990s. (A Handbook of Confidence Building Measures for Regional Security, 1993). CBMs can be tacit and informal, formal but private. The first stage is conflict avoidance - to avoid unintended escalation and accidental war.
Such CBMs exist between India and Pakistan like the establishment of hotlines between army chiefs and between sector commanders of the two armies along line of actual control in J&k state and an agreement in 1992 to provide prior notification to the other side of military exercises involving more than 10,000 troops and the establishment of no-fly zones along their borders. But to move form conflict avoidance to confidence building would depend on demands of national interest and response of Pakistan. It is not a question of a hawkish or dovish policy towards Pakistan. If reduction of tension and restoration of normal relations with it is in the enlightened national interest, Indian should take initiatives, even unilateral, towards that end.
Maybe Pakistan suffers more in the long run on account of tension with India; though the proxy war in Kashmir is at the moment costlier for India. However, dividends of peace could be much higher for India. Its international status depends on its status in the region. If its neighbours become friendlier, the region's role in world affairs and of India, as its natural leader, could rise in importance which its rich civilisation deserves. The compromises that a great country like Indian makes in the foreign and economic policies, in its obsessive concern with scoring points over Pakistan, have lowered the stature it had once acquired. Militarisation in terms of weapons would inevitably swell the number of the poor in the country, who are already largest in the world and according to UN index of quality of life its international rank is 135. By making its people poorer, security of a nation does not become stronger. Moreover, stockpiling of weapons also leads to militarisation of minds which poses a threat to the most civil and democratic society of the region.
More knowledgeable persons are aware of the resurgence of ethnic identities, growing assertion of liberal intelligentsia, and movements for human rights, women empowerment and trade unions in Pakistan. They get a setback whenever chauvinist forces in India become more aggressive. Their closer and more frequent interaction with their counterparts in India, who still comprise its mainstream, would strengthen both of them. In general, larger people to people contacts would demolish many walls of ignorance and prejudice. In this content the unilateral decision of the then external affairs minister Gujral to expand visa facilities was an act of bold statesmanship and in the best national interest. The victory of Nawaz Sharif's party in the last election in Pakistan on the promise of normalisation of relations with India is the most promising development in the subcontinent.
There are a few more hopeful pointers in the situation. Self-interest of businessmen is forcing the two countries to liberalise mutual trade. The volume of trade between the two countries - through third countries, illegal channels and smuggling - is manifold more than the official figures. The measures announced by the two countries after the UF government took over in India to remove restrictions on trade have unfolded many potentialities not only for the growth of their economies but also for its positive political fallout. For business and trade do not respect political animosities and prejudices.
Similarly, revolutionary changes in communication technology have opened up skies and removed national and geographical barriers for exchange of information, TV news and other programmes, films and music. A South Asian cultural personality is emerging which may check trend towards competitive and negative nationalism. In any case, whatever degree of rivalry remains, which often does among close neighbours, it could be carried on in more sophisticated manner which requires better diplomatic skills.
In post-Nehru era, gradually India's foreign policy was mortgaged to an anti-Pak objective. A process started to abdicate its global role and make it subordinate to this objective. A stage came when Pakistan led the non-aligned block of which earlier it would not become even a member - on an issue like Bosnia on a resolution in UN which had tacit American sympathy. In a country where, according to Atal Bihari Vajpayee (in his address to parliament as prime minister) majority community has developed a minority complex, where some national parties have contributed to creating a siege mentality and sense of insecurity in the country despite having become much stronger militarily and industrially since Nehru days, where physical force is considered as the only remedy to deal with alienated parts like Kashmir, where concept of nationalism is trying to exclude all those who do not believe in Hindutva version of Hinduism and whose leadership has neither a vision nor an ambition of a world role, a foreign office has little options except to aspire for a status of parity with Pakistan.
(Source: The Economic and Political Weekly, 2 August, 1997)
CWC: Resolution on Indo-Pakistan Relations, 27 September, 1997
The recent developments in Indo-Pak relations is a matter of concern. Congress welcomed the initiative taken by the UF Government to resume dialogue with Pakistan with the hope that our Government representatives would be able to focus on the real issues disturbing the sub-continent. Pakistan's buying spree of sophisticated weapons from almost every part of the world may trigger off an unintended arms race in the sub- continent. Intensification of ISI activities in Indian particularly in N.E. region is alarming. This meeting of the CWC hope that Prime Minister had conveyed our concerns in these areas to his Pakistani counterpart during his last round of talks with him at New York.
Mani Shankar Aiyar On Indo-Pakistan Dialogue
By November, when the foreign secretaries are next scheduled to meet, we would have wasted six months just trying to settle what we should talk about and how. What is worse, the mechanism for negotiations now being put in place is pitted with the infirmities that have in the past structurally derailed the dialogue. The "working groups" technique fractionates the dialogue. Each working group will have different sets of interlocutors; all trade-offs will be intra-sectoral, leaving little scope for the inter-sectoral trade-offs which alone can bring success. The India-Pakistan dialogue can reach a conclusion only if it is holistic - if every facet of the relationship is discussed between the same set of interlocutors. Their advisers may change depending upon the subject under consideration. But if the dialogue itself is departmentally segregated, departmental priorities in both governments would make any broader progress virtually unachievable.
The foreign secretaries have not even begun discussing the key questions of periodicity and venue for the conduct of the substantive dialogue.
The crux of the matter is to ensure that the substantive dialogue is insulated from passing passions, that it remains uninterrupted and uninterruptible.
(Source: The India Today, 6 October, 1997)
The Muslim Festivals Withdrawn
The Muslim Festivals by Fayth Wenishester published by Capiston Publishing House, was withdrawn from market (on protest) by the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) representing the Muslim community in the US. The book meant for 9th grade students includes insulting remarks about Islam and a full-page offensive drawing.
Shahabuddin's Reply to Mani Shankar Aiyar, 20 October, 1997
I think neither India nor Pakistan are ready yet for a substantive dialogue on the core issue, which is the Kashmir dispute. Sharif cannot make any visible headway on any other front and Gujral cannot make any concession on Kashmir beyond reiterating a la Swaran Singh our known stand. I am certain that both India and Pakistan are losing with every passing day. Why can't we tote up the cost of confrontation.
Let India and Pakistan agree to decide Jammu & Kashmir on the same basis as Punjab and Bengal which would have been the case had J&K been a province of British India and not a princely State. However, a view of Kashmiri self-consciousness, let the Kashmiri speaking Valley (7% of the total J&K) have the status of a neutralised sub-sovereign State, with internal independence under the joint protection of India and Pakistan which should together guarantee its defence, manage its external relations and make up its financial deficit.
Moving in the old grooves - slow or fast - will not produce any movement. Only political will based on a rational view of national self-interest will.
