|
[Editor: Dr. Mahmood, if you can email us your intended links, we can complete them for you. We do not yet support translations in-house. Your post was copy edited for punctuation and bold sub-titles only. Otherwise the text has not been touched.] Welcome, you are here: Contemporary Political Developments in South Asia english | español
Search
Our ApproachContemporary Political Developments in South Asia The complex peace process between Pakistan and India By Sohail Mahmood (for Safe Democracy) Sohail Mahmood writes on the history of relations between Pakistan and India and underlines the essential need for dialogue at all costs. Despite the existence of many contentious issues --from Kashmir, to Siachen, to the destabilizing United States-India partnership--. Mahmood believes that much progress has been made in creating peace in South Asia. But in order for negotiation to work, both sides must set aside their long history of enmity, and build trust. Only then can the incredible potential of Pakistan and India, wasted for so many years by senseless conflict, be realized.
Sohail Mahmood is the Associate Dean of the Department of International Relations at Preston University in Islamabad. With a Ph.D. in Political Science from Northern Arizona University, he is one of the leading experts in the world on Musharraf and Pakistan and has published dozens of books and articles on the issue. THE CURRENT PEACE PROCESS BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA was initiated by the BJP government when Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee visited Lahore in 1998. At the time, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif received Vajpayee graciously, and the meeting resulted in the issuance of the Lahore Declaration. Yet, immediately following 9/11, relations began to sour. The Vajpayee-Musharraf Summit of 2001 was inconclusive at best, and the Islamist attack on the Kashmiri legislative assembly and Indian Parliament only raised tensions more. India and Pakistan began to deploy troops along the border again, mobilizing a mutual total of one million soldiers. On the brink of war, the United States stepped in and defused the crisis. Yet, Kashmir continued on as a manner of great contention. In 2004, a summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was held in Islamabad, and dialogue attempts were renewed. PROGRESS IN NEGOTIATIONSEver since, negotiations have been steadily improving. Composite talks on visa liberalization, consular access, the facilitation of pilgrimage, and the creation of a cultural exchange program, have gained momentum, as well as dialogue on the mutual interests of agriculture, health, education, environment, science and technology. In 2005, Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri of Pakistan, and Natwar Singh of India, made a pact to continue the peace process at all costs. Now in the spring of 2007, despite the setback caused by the July 11th, 2006 bombings in Mumbai, the dialogue process has expanded to include some eight areas of cultural, political, and social exchange. Most recently, the Indian and Pakistani governments signed the following agreements: The Missile Test Warning Accord, the Coast Guard Hotline Accord and the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) KASHMIRAt the time of Partition in 1947 the princely state of Kashmir had a Hindu ruler although Muslims constituted a majority of the state's population. India and Pakistan went to war over the territory in 1947-1948, concluding in a UN brokered ceasefire in 1949 that divided the country in two. In the Simla Agreement of 1972, India and Pakistan decided to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations rather than international forums. Since then, Kashmir continues to pose a serious problem for both countries: 1/3 of Kashmir is under Pakistani control, the rest under Indian jurisdiction. On April 2, 2007, Pakistan Foreign Minister Kasuri met with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to discuss the issue of Pakistan. Both agreed on taking a sincere, purposeful, and forward-looking approach to the issue for a peaceful settlement. Musharraf maintained that Pakistan’s infiltration of Kashmir had ended, and stressed India’s need to improve its human rights record as a confidence building measure (CBM). POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Many different solutions have been discussed over time. One suggested the handover of Kashmiri Muslim districts, currently under Indian jurisdiction, to Pakistani control. Another, the Chenab solution, proposed the inclusion of all of the land west of the river Chenab (the Srinagar valley) into Pakistan, while the Hindu-dominated Jammu and the Buddhist-dominated Ladakh would remain in India. While widely supported in Pakistan, it is unlikely that India will support such an agreement. The Chenab solution offers no new land to India, and instead requires the country to give up territory that it already controls. Also important in this debate are the perceptions of the Kashmiris themselves. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, claimed that what the Kashmiris wanted most was the demilitarization of the region by Indian troops. And many, even those within the Indian government itself, share this desire. Mufti Mohammad Saeed, leader of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has warned that his party would quit the government if India does not reduce the number of troops it has deployed in Kashmir. Without a settlement in Kashmir, there can be no peace between India and Pakistan. Kashmir, however, is not the only contentious issue complicating peace. THE SIACHEN DISPUTEAt 6,300 meters (20,700 feet) Indian troops continue to try and defend the 78-kilometer Siachen glacier at an estimated cost of up to $1 million a day. Siachen glacier, in the northernmost region of Kashmir, is an icy wasteland, and was left out of the peace agreement following the 1971 War because it was considered uninhabitable. Since 1984, when Indian troops inhabited the zone to preempt a Pakistani takeover, the two countries have held 11 rounds of talks in an attempt to resolve the conflict. There has been no fighting on Siachen since the November 2003 ceasefire. But while both countries have agreed to withdraw troops from the Siachen glacier, neither has been willing to move first. At the 11th round of talks, held on April 8 2007, Pakistan’s Defense Secretary Kamran Rasool reportedly walked out of the meeting on the demilitarization of Siachen. Pakistan maintains the opinion that India should withdraw its troops to their 1984 positions. Yet, the Indian delegation has refused to make the first move, instead demanding that Pakistan sign a road map for peace, and authenticate the location of its troops. As an editorial in The Dawn successfully summarized, The stumbling block is the historical mistrust between the two countries. US-INDIAN PARTNERSHIPIn 2004, the United States and India agreed to expand cooperation in three specific areas: high-technology trade, civil space programs and civilian nuclear activities. This newly formed partnership has created yet another impediment to the peace process in South Asia. Before nuclear technology could be shared with India, the Congress had to approve the deal, which constituted a violation of US law banning civilian nuclear cooperation with countries that have not agreed to the Non Proliferation Treaty. India remains outside the NPT, but it has agreed to submit 14 of its 22 planned reactors to the inspections of the IAEA. The 8 power reactors exempt from inspections can provide 130-kg of plutonium-239 annually, equipping India with the capability to produce 25 to 40 nuclear weapons annually. India’s present stockpile was estimated at about 100 nuclear bombs. There was no provision for a weapons cap in the agreement. India agreed that eventually 80 percent-90 percent of the country’s nuclear system would be under international safeguards once the deal was implemented. ARMS RACE IN SOUTH ASIA What are the implications of such an agreement on Pakistan? Although the United States-India agreement concerns the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, US assistance will undoubtedly contribute to an Indian military build-up. And if India steps up the production of its nuclear material, Pakistan will undoubtedly follow suit, as will China. The agreement, therefore, subverts the NPT and may well lead to a nuclear arms build-up throughout South Asia. The US has already assisted India’s military development in a big way. It has sold maritime aircrafts (P3Cs) as well as UAVs to further augment India’s surveillance and offensive capabilities. The US has also offered to sell F-16 and F-18 aircrafts to India along with long-term manufacturing rights. And as India continues its rapid military buildup with US support, the danger of the destabilization of the entire region is increasing drastically. THE IPI PROJECTUS involvement has further complicated the proposed IPI Project between Iran, Pakistan and India. In an attempt to garner favor among the Americans, India has moved to sanction Iran’s nuclear enrichment program in the United Nations, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to the IPI project. The US, meanwhile, has taken a stance of strict opposition to the proposed pipeline, despite its importance as a CBM in the building of peace between Pakistan and India. With the catastrophe of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hypocrisy of sanctioning Iran while ignoring Israel, the US has turned the public opinion of the world’s Muslim population against it. In order to improve its legitimacy as a world power, and reduce pressure on Pakisan and India, the US should normalize relations with Iran and support the IPI project. DIALOGUE AT ALL COSTSBoth Pakistan and India desperately need peace in the region. Each has ambitious economic plans, which have earned them great admiration from abroad. India’s economic development has been spectacular, with a growth rate of over 8 percent for the past three years, and a massive reduction of poverty. Pakistan too has reached growth rates of 7 percent, and seen tremendous economic progress. But the conflict continues to limit the progress of both countries. Although terrorism has caused many setbacks to the negotiation process, it is essential that dialogue be continued. Pakistan has realized the urgent necessity for negotiation, and has given much leeway to India. The Pakistani government no longer demands the fulfillment of UNSC resolutions as a prerequisite to negotiation. India, meanwhile, must fulfill its side of the bargain, and provide CBMs to move the peace process forward even more. A long history of enmity is not easy to reverse. But once a resolution is reached, valuable energy and resources can then be diverted to solve the economic and social problems of the teeming millions living in abject poverty and helplessness in both India and Pakistan. India must step away from its path of self-aggrandizement and earnestly negotiate with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute. South Asia has enormous potential. But only through peace, can this potential be realized. The Safe Democracy Foundation would like to invite you to subscribe to its weekly electronic newsletter, delivered to you every Thursday, with analysis and commentaries from our international experts (click here). India and Pakistan: Quest for peace in South Asia By Sohail Mahmood (for Safe Democracy) Sohail Mahmood discusses the growing need for a peaceful solution to the age-old conflict between India and Pakistan. Although enmity runs deep, and the issue of Kashmir will be difficult to resolve, by establishing an environment of patience, trust, credibility, and goodwill, peace may be possible in South Asia. It is time that the people of both Pakistan and India unite with the international community in sending a message of peace to their leaders. In Mahmood’s opinion, a lasting peace is long overdue, to enable both countries to be able to address the important issues of economic and political development, like economic growth, the strengthening of political institutions, and finding a solution to widespread poverty. Sohail Mahmood is the Associate Dean of the Department of International Relations at Preston University in Islamabad. With a Ph.D. in Political Science from Northern Arizona University, he is one of the leading experts in the world on Musharraf and Pakistan and has published dozens of books and articles on the issue. WITH FOUR WARS UNDER ITS BELT, rampant international terrorism, and continuing hostility over the Kashmir region, the conflict between India and Pakistan has been one of the main destabilizing factors in South Asia for decades. Peace in this region of the world is sorely needed; but the process is easier said than done. Many obstacles continue to impede the progress of peace. The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai aroused suspicions of a Pakistani connection among the Indian media, who linked the bombings to the so-called terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, once based in Pakistan. As a result, President Manmohan Singh immediately called off all peace talks. Recently, however, Singh met with General Musharraf in the United States, raising hopes that the stalemate in the peace process between Pakistan and India had come to an end. The two countries have until recently considered each other bitter enemies. Future difficulty lies in overcoming those sectors of the population that want continued war. END OF TERRORISM, BEGINNING OF PEACEReality is perceived in numerous ways by various parties to any dispute; therefore, understanding perceptions, and for that matter misperceptions, is very important. We can perceive reality only through our own ideological lens or frameworks, which in turn shapes our perceptions and changes how we may think or feel on a certain issue. Some Indian circles perceive Pakistan to be behind the attacks in Mumbai. This is not the first time that Pakistan has been implicated in terrorist attacks on Indian soil: in 2001, 38 people were killed in a devastating attack on the Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar; later that year, an armed attack on the Indian parliament in Delhi left 14 people dead. For both of these attacks, Pakistani–backed Kashmiri militants were believed to be responsible, resulting in a build-up of troops along the Indo-Pakistani border, military exchanges, and heightened fears about the danger of a growing conflict. Then, in January of 2002, President Musharraf gave a keynote speech pledging that Pakistan would not allow terrorists to operate on Pakistani soil. He called on the government of India to resolve the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through dialogue. And in January of 2004, the new Congress-led coalition Indian government rekindled peace talks with General Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan. Soon after, a composite dialogue resulted in a number of confidence building measures, and a greater flow of travel between the two countries. KASHMIR: THE KEY ELEMENT Peace is possible in South Asia, but one of the main stumbling blocks is the issue of Kashmir. The burden of history is heavy in this part of the world: some 80,000 people have been killed in Indian Kashmir since 1989, when a Muslim separatist revolt against Indian rule erupted. India has consistently maintained that Pakistan has been training and supplying weapons to these militant separatists. Since 2003, a fragile ceasefire has managed to stop the fighting. But the people of Kashmir have suffered enormously, and deserve a peaceful solution to so many years of bloodshed. Kashmir is the key element in building a lasting peace between Pakistan and India. Pakistan has declared itself ready to negotiate a settlement, provided that it reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiris as well as being acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Yet, India will have to make huge concessions in its policy on Kashmir before peace can be possible. The United States, meanwhile, have encouraged the continuance of dialogue, and offered to facilitate talks on Kashmir. With outside assistance many feel that a real breakthrough may be possible. ESSENTIAL STEPS TO ACHIEVE HARMONYIn order to accomplish peace, the Indian army must reduce the number of its troops in the Kashmir Valley and a third party must enter the country to stop the human rights violations constantly perpetrated by Indian security forces. Pakistan has already dismantled the militant organizations based in Kashmir but it must consider active cooperation with the Indian army to prevent militants from crossing over into Kashmir. In the long run an autonomous Kashmir must be created, for peace to be achieved, with a minimum of Pakistani and Indian control, thus adopting the principle of diluted sovereignty. Learning from South Tyrol’s own bid for autonomy in 1972, the Kashmir Muslims must organize and come to recognize the moderate APHC --All Parties Hurriyat Conference-- as their legitimate representative. A committee, made up of Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and some third-party representatives like the UNO, should be pieced together in order to achieve this autonomous shift. The local population deserves the right of self-determination, and with proper planning this part of the world will be able to move forward in peace and justice. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTPeace is very important for the growth and development of the Pakistani government and economy. Pakistan needs time and proper planning to rebuild and strengthen its institutions, and to put its economic plans into effect. Economic cooperation over such issues as Iran’s gas pipeline should be able to create an environment of mutual understanding. Without peace with India, the development of Pakistan will be greatly hindered. Pakistan, therefore, must concentrate on the next phase of the composite dialogue: on building up mutual trust and commitment. Provoking Pakistan now over the allegations regarding the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks would be both needless and counterproductive. The peace process is extremely fragile, and must be handled delicately. The ideological divide between Muslims and Hindus is vast, and a long history of enmity is not easily reversible. But taking the lingering economic and social problems of the two countries into account, there should be a greater desire for peace simply to be able to divert valuable energy and resources to solve the issue of poverty. The scarce resources of both countries are being squandered on the construction of larger and larger defense initiatives. If peace is established, the areas of domestic politics concerning human development can be given the attention and resources that they so direly need. SUPPORT FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUTPakistan needs help from abroad. The people of South Asia must send a clear message of their desire for peace to the entire world. The support and resources of the international community will be invaluable in forging strong relations between Pakistan and India, and in beginning a global movement for peace. The governments of both nations have failed in bringing peace to their people so far. They have ignored pressing social and economic issues in order to bolster their defense budgets. General Musharraf has hidden behind the façade of democracy, whose economic gains have failed to reach down to the masses. Peace will not be easy in South Asia. The process is long, and an environment of patience, trust, credibility, and goodwill is essential for progress to be made. The stakes are high, but times are changing. General elections in Pakistan are going to be held next year, so it is time for the people to rise up and send a clear message to their country. By organizing themselves massively using the Internet, and other modern tools of communication, their message will not be ignored: We, the people, yearn for peace and justice for all. Safe Democracy would like to invite you to subscribe to the weekly electronic newsletter, with analysis and commentaries from our international experts (click here).
Posted by Sohail on Saturday, May 05, 2007.
Rate this article:  |  (current rating: 5)
 |
 Home Express YourselfPanoramaPeace in South Asia by Dr Sohail Mahmood
 |
|
|
| a TakingITGlobal online publication | |
|
|
 India and Pakistan: Quest for peace in South Asia
There is a growing need for a peaceful solution to the age-old conflict between India and Pakistan. Although enmity runs deep, and the issue of Kashmir will be difficult to resolve, by establishing an environment of patience, trust, credibility, and goodwill, peace may be possible in South Asia. It is time that the people of both Pakistan and India unite with the international community in sending a message of peace to their leaders. In my opinion, a lasting peace is long overdue, to enable both countries to be able to address the important issues of economic and political development, like economic growth, the strengthening of political institutions, and finding a solution to widespread poverty.
WITH FOUR WARS UNDER ITS BELT, rampant international terrorism, and continuing hostility over the Kashmir region, the conflict between India and Pakistan has been one of the main destabilizing factors in South Asia for decades.
Peace in this region of the world is sorely needed; but the process is easier said than done. Many obstacles continue to impede the progress of peace.
The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai aroused suspicions of a Pakistani connection among the Indian media, who linked the bombings to the so-called terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, once based in Pakistan. As a result, President Manmohan Singh immediately called off all peace talks.
Recently, however, Singh met with General Musharraf in the United States, raising hopes that the stalemate in the peace process between Pakistan and India had come to an end. The two countries have until recently considered each other bitter enemies. Future difficulty lies in overcoming those sectors of the population that want continued war.
END OF TERRORISM, BEGINNING OF PEACE
Reality is perceived in numerous ways by various parties to any dispute; therefore, understanding perceptions, and for that matter misperceptions, is very important. We can perceive reality only through our own ideological lens or frameworks, which in turn shapes our perceptions and changes how we may think or feel on a certain issue.
Some Indian circles perceive Pakistan to be behind the attacks in Mumbai. This is not the first time that Pakistan has been implicated in terrorist attacks on Indian soil: in 2001, 38 people were killed in a devastating attack on the Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar; later that year, an armed attack on the Indian parliament in Delhi left 14 people dead. For both of these attacks, Pakistani–backed Kashmiri militants were believed to be responsible, resulting in a build-up of troops along the Indo-Pakistani border, military exchanges, and heightened fears about the danger of a growing conflict.
Then, in January of 2002, President Musharraf gave a keynote speech pledging that Pakistan would not allow terrorists to operate on Pakistani soil. He called on the government of India to resolve the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through dialogue. And in January of 2004, the new Congress-led coalition Indian government rekindled peace talks with General Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan. Soon after, a composite dialogue resulted in a number of confidence building measures, and a greater flow of travel between the two countries.
KASHMIR: THE KEY ELEMENT
Peace is possible in South Asia, but one of the main stumbling blocks is the issue of Kashmir. The burden of history is heavy in this part of the world: some 80,000 people have been killed in Indian Kashmir since 1989, when a Muslim separatist revolt against Indian rule erupted. India has consistently maintained that Pakistan has been training and supplying weapons to these militant separatists. Since 2003, a fragile ceasefire has managed to stop the fighting. But the people of Kashmir have suffered enormously, and deserve a peaceful solution to so many years of bloodshed.
Kashmir is the key element in building a lasting peace between Pakistan and India. Pakistan has declared itself ready to negotiate a settlement, provided that it reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiris as well as being acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Yet, India will have to make huge concessions in its policy on Kashmir before peace can be possible.
The United States, meanwhile, have encouraged the continuance of dialogue, and offered to facilitate talks on Kashmir. With outside assistance many feel that a real breakthrough may be possible.
ESSENTIAL STEPS TO ACHIEVE HARMONY
In order to accomplish peace, the Indian army must reduce the number of its troops in the Kashmir Valley and a third party must enter the country to stop the human rights violations constantly perpetrated by Indian security forces. Pakistan has already dismantled the militant organizations based in Kashmir but it must consider active cooperation with the Indian army to prevent militants from crossing over into Kashmir.
In the long run an autonomous Kashmir must be created, for peace to be achieved, with a minimum of Pakistani and Indian control, thus adopting the principle of diluted sovereignty. Learning from South Tyrol’s own bid for autonomy in 1972, the Kashmir Muslims must organize and come to recognize the moderate APHC --All Parties Hurriyat Conference-- as their legitimate representative. A committee, made up of Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and some third-party representatives like the UNO, should be pieced together in order to achieve this autonomous shift. The local population deserves the right of self-determination, and with proper planning this part of the world will be able to move forward in peace and justice.
|
Writer Profile Sohail Mahmood
[view profile]
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet. |
Comments
Ajay Kamalakaran | Feb 26th, 2007 While the message propogated by the author can be appreciated, the article has a large number of errors. 1) It was the BJP-led NDA government that revived the peace process with Pakistan in January 2004, when Prime Minister Vajpayee attended the SAARC summit in Islamabad. The Congress-led coaltion came to power only in May 2004. 2) By terming the Lakshar-E-Tayaba as a "so-called terrorist group", which used to be based in Pakistan, the author shows bias. Both the United States and the UN has designated the group as a terrorist group and linked it with the Al Qaeda. The group is still active in Pakistan with the support of the state-run intelligence agencey, the ISI. 3)The author cites the death of 80,000 civlians in the Kashmir insurgency and entirely blames the Indian Army, while ignoring the role played by terrorists in killing civilians. The same can be said about human rights violations, which terrorist groups have been responsible for in Kashmir. 4) The author talks of peace and normalisation of realtions between India and Pakistan but forgets to mention that the Pakistani Government links all improvement in relations to Kashmir.
|
| |
| | |
|
sohailmahmood's Blog
| February 26, 2007 | 4:39 AM |
|
|
|
Peace between India & Pakistan
This entry is about: Pakistan
|
India and Pakistan: Quest for peace in South Asia
WITH FOUR WARS UNDER ITS BELT, rampant international terrorism, and continuing hostility over the Kashmir region, the conflict between India and Pakistan has been one of the main destabilizing factors in South Asia for decades.
Peace in this region of the world is sorely needed; but the process is easier said than done. Many obstacles continue to impede the progress of peace.
The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai aroused suspicions of a Pakistani connection among the Indian media, who linked the bombings to the so-called terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, once based in Pakistan. As a result, President Manmohan Singh immediately called off all peace talks.
Recently, however, Singh met with General Musharraf in the United States, raising hopes that the stalemate in the peace process between Pakistan and India had come to an end. The two countries have until recently considered each other bitter enemies. Future difficulty lies in overcoming those sectors of the population that want continued war.
END OF TERRORISM, BEGINNING OF PEACE
Reality is perceived in numerous ways by various parties to any dispute; therefore, understanding perceptions, and for that matter misperceptions, is very important. We can perceive reality only through our own ideological lens or frameworks, which in turn shapes our perceptions and changes how we may think or feel on a certain issue.
Some Indian circles perceive Pakistan to be behind the attacks in Mumbai. This is not the first time that Pakistan has been implicated in terrorist attacks on Indian soil: in 2001, 38 people were killed in a devastating attack on the Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar; later that year, an armed attack on the Indian parliament in Delhi left 14 people dead. For both of these attacks, Pakistani–backed Kashmiri militants were believed to be responsible, resulting in a build-up of troops along the Indo-Pakistani border, military exchanges, and heightened fears about the danger of a growing conflict.
Then, in January of 2002, President Musharraf gave a keynote speech pledging that Pakistan would not allow terrorists to operate on Pakistani soil. He called on the government of India to resolve the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through dialogue. And in January of 2004, the new Congress-led coalition Indian government rekindled peace talks with General Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan. Soon after, a composite dialogue resulted in a number of confidence building measures, and a greater flow of travel between the two countries.
KASHMIR: THE KEY ELEMENT
Peace is possible in South Asia, but one of the main stumbling blocks is the issue of Kashmir. The burden of history is heavy in this part of the world: some 80,000 people have been killed in Indian Kashmir since 1989, when a Muslim separatist revolt against Indian rule erupted. India has consistently maintained that Pakistan has been training and supplying weapons to these militant separatists. Since 2003, a fragile ceasefire has managed to stop the fighting. But the people of Kashmir have suffered enormously, and deserve a peaceful solution to so many years of bloodshed.
Kashmir is the key element in building a lasting peace between Pakistan and India. Pakistan has declared itself ready to negotiate a settlement, provided that it reflects the aspirations of the Kashmiris as well as being acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Yet, India will have to make huge concessions in its policy on Kashmir before peace can be possible.
The United States, meanwhile, have encouraged the continuance of dialogue, and offered to facilitate talks on Kashmir. With outside assistance many feel that a real breakthrough may be possible.
ESSENTIAL STEPS TO ACHIEVE HARMONY
In order to accomplish peace, the Indian army must reduce the number of its troops in the Kashmir Valley and a third party must enter the country to stop the human rights violations constantly perpetrated by Indian security forces. Pakistan has already dismantled the militant organizations based in Kashmir but it must consider active cooperation with the Indian army to prevent militants from crossing over into Kashmir.
In the long run an autonomous Kashmir must be created, for peace to be achieved, with a minimum of Pakistani and Indian control, thus adopting the principle of diluted sovereignty. Learning from South Tyrol’s own bid for autonomy in 1972, the Kashmir Muslims must organize and come to recognize the moderate APHC --All Parties Hurriyat Conference-- as their legitimate representative. A committee, made up of Indians, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and some third-party representatives like the UNO, should be pieced together in order to achieve this autonomous shift. The local population deserves the right of self-determination, and with proper planning this part of the world will be able to move forward in peace and justice.
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
Peace is very important for the growth and development of the Pakistani government and economy. Pakistan needs time and proper planning to rebuild and strengthen its institutions, and to put its economic plans into effect. Economic cooperation over such issues as Iran’s gas pipeline should be able to create an environment of mutual understanding. Without peace with India, the development of Pakistan will be greatly hindered. Pakistan, therefore, must concentrate on the next phase of the composite dialogue: on building up mutual trust and commitment.
Provoking Pakistan now over the allegations regarding the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks would be both needless and counterproductive. The peace process is extremely fragile, and must be handled delicately.
The ideological divide between Muslims and Hindus is vast, and a long history of enmity is not easily reversible. But taking the lingering economic and social problems of the two countries into account, there should be a greater desire for peace simply to be able to divert valuable energy and resources to solve the issue of poverty. The scarce resources of both countries are being squandered on the construction of larger and larger defense initiatives. If peace is established, the areas of domestic politics concerning human development can be given the attention and resources that they so direly need.
SUPPORT FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT
Pakistan needs help from abroad. The people of South Asia must send a clear message of their desire for peace to the entire world. The support and resources of the international community will be invaluable in forging strong relations between Pakistan and India, and in beginning a global movement for peace.
The governments of both nations have failed in bringing peace to their people so far. They have ignored pressing social and economic issues in order to bolster their defense budgets. General Musharraf has hidden behind the façade of democracy, whose economic gains have failed to reach down to the masses.
Peace will not be easy in South Asia. The process is long, and an environment of patience, trust, credibility, and goodwill is essential for progress to be made. The stakes are high, but times are changing. General elections in Pakistan are going to be held next year, so it is time for the people to rise up and send a clear message to their country. By organizing themselves massively using the Internet, and other modern tools of communication, their message will not be ignored: We, the people, yearn for peace and justice for all.
Safe Democracy would like to invite you to subscribe to the weekly electronic newsletter, with http://english.safe-democracy.org/2006/10/05/india-and-pakistan-quest-for-peace-in-so
|
|
| February 21, 2007 | 6:01 AM |
|
|
|
Study Tour of Pakistan by Preston University, Islamabad
This entry is about: Pakistan
|
|
Preston University is conducting a study tour for a foreign group of teachers, students and community members in Pakistanr. The study tour include visits to Pakistani centers of learning like Punjab University, Lahore, Peshawar University, Peshawar, Quaid-i Azam University, Islamabad, etc. We will arrange seminars on topics such as "Politics and Government of Pakistan", "Islam, and Politics in the Middle East and South Asia", "the Cultural Heritage of Pakistan", "languages, literature and cultures of contemporary Pakistan", "History of Pakistan". "History of Islam in South Asia', ":"Islamic History", "Ancient Civilizations of South Asia etc. The study tour will also include visits to museums, and folk art galleries. Preston University will hold workshops on the above themes/topics by special arrangement in any of our campuses in Pakistan. What we have in mind was a combination of educational sessions and visits to museums and a few other cultural attractions to enriching the experience here in Pakistan. Since we will be hosting the said group, Preston University will have to charge for conducting the tour. Since we are more interested in getting this relationship started then anything else, we will keep the charges to a bare minimum. Students might be even accommodated in our hostels/dormitories and facilities in other universities/colleges. The costs involved per head comes to USD 2,000 for the ten-day event. |
|
| February 21, 2007 | 5:20 AM |
|
|
Latest Posts
Monthly Archive
Filter By Type
Links
898 views
|
|
Sir Creek: The Origin and Development of the Dispute between Pakistan and India
Rashid Ahmad Khan
Senior Research Fellow
ir Creek is one of the eight long standing bilateral disputes between Pakistan and India that the two countries are trying to resolve under the on-going composite dialogue process. It is a dispute over a 96 km (60 miles) long strip of water in the Rann of Kutch marshlands of the River Indus, along the border between the Sindh province of southern part of Pakistan and the state of Rajasthan in India. For the last about 40 years, the two countries have been trying to resolve this row through talks. Although, like other bilateral issues between Pakistan and India, the row over Sir Creek, too, awaits a final solution, this is the only area where the two countries have moved much closer to the resolution of the dispute. Following a meeting between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India on the sidelines of 14th SAARC Summit in New Delhi, an Indian official announced that the two countries had agreed on a common map of Sir Creek, after the completion of joint survey agreed last year. “We have one common map of the area, from which we will now work and try and see how far we can take this issue to a resolution, hopefully,” declared the Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon after Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Mahmud Ali Kasuri, met his Indian counterpart, Mr.Paranab Mukherji in New Delhi on 2 April 2007. While discussing the prospects of the resolution of this issue in the light of past negotiations between the two countries, this paper aims to examine the implications of the resolution of this issue for the on-going peace process between Pakistan and India. But before we focus on this part of the paper, it would be useful to discuss the nature and trace the origin and development of this dispute between the two countries.
Historical Perspective
In history, we find the reference to the Rann of Kutch as early as 130-150 AD, when it was ruled by a raja, whose name was Sakasatrap. Kutch was a part of his vast empire, whose capital was Ujjain. Towards the close of the 4th century AD, this part of India was captured by Guptas. After the establishment of Muslim rule in India, Gujrat and Kathiawar, due to their significance as important trading and commercial centres, became part of the Delhi Sultanate. The local rajas, however, were allowed to remain in power, pledging allegiance to the Sultan. During the long period before the establishment of British rule in India, the Kutch and the areas around, were ruled by a succession of Hindu rulers. But it was clear that the rulers of Sindh had gradually moved to secure the control of the area. In 1760, the state of Kutch was conquered by the Muslim rulers of Sindh and it remained under their control till 1813. In 1924, the state became a part of British Indian Empire. During the period of territorial adjustments that followed, the Rann of Kutch was put under the control of Governor of the Sindh. But the question of the demarcation of boundaries between Bhoj and Sindh in the Kutch state was never settled because both, then, were part of British Empire. Like in other parts of India, the boundary dispute is the result of the self-serving practices under long period of British colonial rule in India.
There is historical evidence, which strongly suggests that during the days of British rule in India, Rann of Kutch remained an integral part of Sindh. For example, the Imperial Gazetteer of India 1908, describes Rann of Kutch as a territory, ‘which is almost entirely cut off from the continent of India, north by the Great Rann, east by the Little Rann, south by the Gulf of Kutch and west by the Arabian Sea. The description of the boundaries of Sindh in the Imperial Gazetteer shows by inference that the Rann was never a part of the state of Kutch.
The Nature of the Dispute
The dispute is the product of conflicting interpretations by Pakistan and India of the boundary line between Kutch and Sindh. When the dispute surfaced, Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency of undivided India. After 1947, Sindh became part of Pakistan, while Kutch remained part of India. There are two issues involved in the dispute-the delimitation of the boundary along the creek and the demarcation of the maritime boundary from the mouth of the creek seawards in the Arabian Sea. Pakistan’s position is based on two contentions: the boundaries of the creek must be demarcated as per paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914, signed between the then Government of Bombay and the ruler of Kutch. Secondly, the demarcation of maritime boundary must be preceded by the resolution of dispute over the creek. From the points of view of both Pakistan and India, the demarcation of the land boundaries becomes significant when the line is extended seawards to divide the sea boundary between Pakistan and India. The line, then directly affects the division of sea resources-including minerals, fish and other marine life between Pakistan and India.
The issue of the rights over the resources of the sea has been one of the most contentious issues over which the international community wrangled for decades to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. A number of conferences under the auspices of the United Nations were held to resolve the conflicting claims. Finally, in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLS) was signed. Pakistan and India are both signatories to this law. While UNCLS places certain obligations on the signatory countries, it also grants rights to them over the sea resources, within certain limits. Pakistan and India also derive additional rights under the Convention over the sea resources up to 200 nautical miles in the water column and up to 300 nautical miles in the land beneath the column. The Convention also provides the principles on the basis of which sea boundaries have to be drawn between the states, adjacent to each other with a concave coastline. Pakistan and India have adopted rigid positions on the dispute because the dividing line over the Sir Creek would determine the extent of maritime boundaries in the Arabian Sea. The land boundary’s general course of direction on the land leading up to the coast can make a difference of hundreds of square nautical miles, when stretched into the sea as a divider between Pakistani and the Indian zones.
If the 1914 Resolution of the then Government of Bombay is followed, then Pakistan is justified in claiming the whole of creek. The resolution had demarcated the boundaries between the two territories, included the creek, as part of Sindh. The resolution, in fact, set the boundary as the eastern flank of the creek. The boundary line, known as Green Line, is disputed by India, which maintains that it is an indicative line known as “ribbon line” in technical jargon. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel. In support of its case, India refers to another map, which was drawn in 1925. This map, according to the Indian claim, depicts that the boundary of the creek lies mid –channel.
In order to establish the applicability of Thalweg Doctrine in International Law to the issue of demarcation of the boundary, India claims that the creek is navigable, at least during the high tide and that fishing trawlers use it for going to sea. But Pakistan rejects the Indian contention and holds that the since creek is not navigable, therefore, the Thalweg Doctrine, according to which river boundaries between states are divided by mid-channel, is not applicable. The basic difference between the Pakistani and the Indian positions is that whereas Pakistan claims that Sir Creek boundary lies on the east bank, India asserts that it lies in the middle of the channel.
The dispute is further complicated by the fact that the river has changed its course considerably over the years. If the Indian interpretation of the boundary line is accepted and Thalweg doctrine applied, Pakistan is set to lose a large part of the territory that 1914 Resolution declared and has historically remained as part of Sindh. The acceptance of India’s stand, would also lead to the shifting of land sea terminus several kilometers to the detriment of Pakistan, resulting in the loss of several thousand square kilometers of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of Sea.
Given the complex nature of the dispute and conflicting claims of the two sides, the Indian Government had proposed that maritime boundary could be decided first. But Pakistan refused the Indian proposal and insisted that boundary on the land relating to the creek should be demarcated first. In response to the Indian refusal to accept Pakistan’s claim, Islamabad had also proposed to refer the case to international arbitration. But India turned down the suggestion on the ground that since it was a bilateral dispute, it should be resolved, without the intervention of the third party.
The specific nature of relations between Pakistan and India since independence, marked by suspicion, mutual hostility, wars, tension and divergent foreign and defence policies, has made this issue extremely complex. According to an author, “The Sir Creek boundary dispute is totally caught up in methodology and maps, and is a representative of national anxieties. The connections here go beyond the practical business of charting the length and breadth of national territories. They extend to the complex power relations underpinning the two nations involved here. The Sir Creek dispute goes against nationalizing desires to produce a complete and secure cartography, and instead of a homogenising and flat map, points to the diversity in the very process of mapping. At the same time, it is not an intractable problem provided both countries approach it in a spirit of negotiation and compromise, and also recognize the possibilities of in-betweenness, which refuse fixed framings and provide space for creative ambivalences.”
Development of the Dispute and Indo- Pak Clash in the Rann of Kutch
On independence, Pakistan inherited the control of whole of northern Rann till India occupied a part of it in 1956. The Indian seizure of northern Rann, was accompanied by the Indian moves to build a major naval base at Kandla in the Gulf of Kutch and connect it with the hinterland of Rajasthan and other neighbouring states through a network of rail and roads. India also constructed forward army garrison and started building military cantonments in the areas close to Pakistani border. These steps had led to intensified border clashes between Pakistan and India, till the two countries held Ministerial Level talks in 1960. The talks produced what is called “Indo-Pak Pact”. The Pact recognized that the Rann of Kutch was a disputed territory, whose status was to be decided through the demarcation of boundary. Although the two countries pledged to show restraint on the issue and refrain from any step that might aggravate the situation, the border area remained under tension. The two sides continued to reinforce their force positions and conducted large scale military manoeuvre on either side of their common border. The two armies clashed in April-May 1965, but the ceasefire was arranged through the intervention of British Prime Minister Harold Wilson. The agreement on ceasefire, which was to take effect from 1st July 1965, was signed on 30th June 1965. The two disagreed to return to the positions they held on 1st January 1965. Under this agreement, the two countries also agreed to refer the issue to an international tribunal.
Two factors have played important role in rendering the dispute almost intractable despite regular sessions of talks between the two countries over several years. One: absence of an environment in Pakistan-India relations that could be conducive to the resolution of bilateral disputes due to the deadlock on Kashmir; and second, the prospects of finding the rich deposits of oil and gas below the sea bed in the area near the Kutch. Till 1960, the dispute over the creek, though unresolved, remained dormant. In 1965, Pakistan laid its claim to half of the Rann of Kutch. The circumstances that followed, led to a war between the two countries in this area in 1965. After the war, the boundary dispute was referred to the India-Pakistan Western Boundary Case Tribunal. The tribunal was constituted with the Pakistani and the Indian consent and as chaired by a Swedish judge, Gunnar Lagergren. The tribunal gave its award on 19 February 1968. The award was accepted by both Pakistan and India. But it covered only the issue of demarcation of the boundary to the north. The tribunal did not adjudicate on the boundary of Sir Creek-from its head in the marshy lands of the Rann to the south in the Arabian Sea. The maritime boundary between Pakistan and India, was also left un-demarcated. The reason was that both Pakistan and India had opted not to refer this part of un-demarcated boundary to the tribunal for adjudication.
The growing importance of the sea as a source of food and prospects of finding minerals, oil and gas below the sea bed has contributed to the activation of the dispute over Sir Creek. Without resolving this dispute, Pakistan and India cannot demarcate their maritime boundaries, which, both from the economic and the strategic points of view, have assumed critical importance for both countries. In the present situation, it is not possible for Pakistan and India to distinguish between their territorial waters. It has also made it difficult for the two countries to define their contiguous zones and establish Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has created strong imperatives for Pakistan and India to reach a settlement on Sir Creek issue as early as possible. Under this law, both the countries have to bring their Maritime Zone laws in consonance with it by defining the base line points to determine their maritime boundary and its coordinates have to be deposited with the United Nations. Unless the two countries resolve their differences over the demarcation of their land boundaries of Sir Creek, they cannot deposit their base-line point co-ordinates with the United Nations under UNCLS. The two countries are, therefore, left with no option but to engage in bilateral talks to resolve the issue provided under the UNCLS. The resolution of this issue has gained added significance in view of the fact that although disputed area along the Sir Creek constitutes only about six to seven square miles, it also involves as much as 250 square miles of ocean and ocean floor. One kilometer of boundary along the coastline could mean the loss of a few hundred of square kilometers of EEZ in an area, which is thought to be rich in oil and natural gas. At stake is not only the land, the issue is also linked to the sub-sea resources. Under the on-gong peace process, Pakistan and India have paid special attention to the resolution of the dispute over Sir Creek with the conviction that the issue is not only comparatively easier to resolve, its resolution would give a much needed shot in the arm to otherwise slow and sluggish peace process. Till 2004, when the peace process was initiated after the historic meeting between President General Pervaiz Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal BihariVajpayee, on the occasion of 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad, the attitudes of the two sides was marked by intransigence. However, under the on-going peace process, Pakistan and India have covered considerable distance in reaching a point where they have agreed on a common map of Sir Creek after conducting a joint survey of the disputed area. The agreement on a map has brightened up the possibility that Sir Creek may well be the first among the eight contentious issues to be settled under the composite dialogue process, initiated in early 2004. So far, three rounds of composite dialogue between Pakistan and India have been completed and the fourth one is under way. During these rounds, the two sides have held extensive discussions on all the issues, covered under the composite dialogue process, including Kashmir, Wullar Barrage, Siachin Glacier, nuclear CBMs and trade and economic cooperation. But no tangible progress has been achieved in the area of dispute resolution. Even on Siachin, where agreement has been reached on the withdrawal of forces and demilitarization, final agreement has eluded the two sides.
However, there are indications that, despite the persistence of differences over the basic issue of demarcation of land boundary, the two countries might be able to move towards an early and final settlement of the issue. The impetus for the two countries to move towards the settlement of this issue, had come from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which fixed 2009 as the new deadline for resolving all maritime boundaries disputes. The deadline applies both to Pakistan and India as signatories to the UNCLS. All such states, which have not yet resolved maritime boundaries disputes, have been called upon by UNCLS to submit their baseline coordinates, before the end of the current year so that their claims could be sorted out by 2009. The UNCLS call created a sense of urgency for Pakistan and India to seriously strive for an agreement on the demarcation of their maritime boundaries. In September 2004, the two countries issued a Joint Statement. The statement was issued at the end of the visit to India by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri. According to the Joint Statement, Pakistan and India agreed to conduct “Joint Survey of the boundary pillars in the horizontal segment (blue dotted line) of the international boundary in the Sir Creek area. The announcement was significant in view of the sharp differences over the dispute that marked earlier negotiations. Pakistan demonstrated great flexibility by giving up its insistence on international arbitration-a proposal that India had outrightly rejected.
The first Joint Survey of the Sir Creek, was conducted by the Pakistani and the Indian teams in January 2005. The survey covered only the marshy land portion of the creek up to G-pillar 45. In December 2006, Pakistan and India held talks on the Sir Creek in Rawalpindi and decided to start the second joint survey from the second week of January 2007. In this meeting, Pakistani side was represented by Major-General Jamilur Rehman, the Surveyor-General of Pakistan, while the Indian side was represented by Rear Admiral B R Rao, Chief Naval Hydrographer of India. In accordance with the decision of this meeting, a team consisting of Pakistani and the Indian experts conducted further survey from the G-Pillar 46 in watery portion of the creek. Since this time, only the watery portion of the creek was to be surveyed, work was completed easily and relatively short time.
Although dispute over the Sir Creek is covered by the ongoing composite dialogue between Pakistan and India, there is one legal feature of the dispute, which distinguishes it from other disputes. The dispute is not only a part of political process between Pakistan and India; it is also clearly and closely linked to the obligations of both countries under the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention. Even if there had been no dialogue process between Pakistan and India, both countries have the obligations under Article 76 (in respect of Continental Shelf), Article 74 (in respect of the Exclusive Economic Zone) and Article 15(in respect of the territorial sea) of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention to arrive at a negotiated settlement based on the principles of International Law. India has tried to separate the dispute over the land boundaries demarcation from that of determining the maritime limits in the Arabian Sea between the two countries, but even then, as one expert has asserted, the obligations under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention remain unfulfilled because the sea boundaries remain undivided. In case the two countries fail to reach an agreement, then Part XV of the 1982 Law, which provides for the formal mechanism in respect of the settlement of disputes, can be invoked. A deadlock over the dispute can lead the two countries to resort to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.
Implications for the Peace Process
The peace process between Pakistan and India initiated in early January 2004, has continued without a break down. It has also reduced tension between the two countries and led to the establishment of new CBMs. It enjoys popular support on both sides of the border and the two governments have termed it useful with satisfactory progress. But the process also remains vulnerable, as very little movement has taken place in the direction of conflict resolution. A successful settlement of the dispute like Sir Creek boundary dispute can, therefore, help change the parameters of India-Pakistan relations, enabling them to move forward on the more difficult issue of Kashmir.
Although six rounds of talks were held between 1998 and 2004 on the issue of Sir Creek, the two sides could not achieve any progress. The main reason was the huge trust deficit between the two countries, which prevented them to take bold decisions to break deadlock on the contentious bilateral issues, including the dispute over the Sir Creek. On 6 January 2004, President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee, after their meeting in Islamabad, issued a Joint Statement, in which the two leaders decided to resume the stalled dialogue process between Pakistan and India and expressed their determination to resolve all the outstanding bilateral disputes between the two countries, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. Although three and half year old peace process has not produced any major break-through, it cannot be denied that it has considerably lessened the tension in South Asia. There is a greater interaction between Pakistan and India through increased people to people contact and implementation of CBMs that the two countries agreed upon since the start of the peace process. These CBMs have considerably helped reduce trust deficit between Pakistan and India, and the two countries are now in a position to look forward and move from the area of conflict management into the area of conflict resolution. A settlement of the row over Sir Creek, would be the first major success in the area of conflict resolution providing an immense boost to otherwise fragile peace process between Pakistan and India. It would enable the two countries to settle their maritime boundary disputes and meet the deadline fixed by the UNCLS for submitting their claims on the demarcation of Continental Shelves and EEZs.. If the dispute over the Sir Creek is allowed to fester, it will not be possible for Pakistan and India to submit their claims under UNCLS on the limits of their respective continental shelves. Without the demarcation of maritime boundaries, the two countries cannot exploit resources in their EEZs, where deposits of oil and gas are thought to be located. Apart from economic dimension, there are also humanitarian and security aspects that call for a settlement of the dispute over the Sir Creek.
Since maritime boundaries of the two countries are not clearly marked, the fishermen of the two countries, who are mostly poor, either advertently or inadvertently, trespass into each other’s territorial waters. Hundreds of such fishermen are arrested by the maritime security forces of Pakistan and India every year. Their boats are confiscated and they are put into jails. They lose not only their means of livelihood but also freedom for periods that may extend to several years. Given the state of relations between Pakistan and India, these unfortunate prisoners, who include young and elderly, are often mistreated in the jails and kept as prisoners of war, telling stories of torture during their imprisonment. Their misfortune stems from their long stay into the sea, often extending to 15 days during which they stray into the waters of Pakistan and India. The two countries regulate their waters by laws that have not been brought into conformity with UNCLS, chiefly due to the unresolved status of Sir Creek. This leads to the capture of hundreds of fishermen by the security agencies of the two countries. As a Pakistani newspaper has commented on the situation, “The fishermen are trapped in the situation created by the non-resolution of the Sir Creek dispute, and the two states actually seem to be shamelessly using their fishermen to put pressure on each other to sign on the dotted line. In fact, when the fishermen are released periodically, they provide photo opportunities to state propaganda machines on both sides to defame each other.”
It is not only the plight of poor fishermen that presents a security risk to the two countries, ecological and environmental disaster due to ruthless exploitation of marine resources off the Indian and Pakistan coasts is fast developing a threat to the security of the two countries. The threat is in the form of steady decline of fishery stocks, pollution and environmental degradation. Ironically, it is the fishermen who are mainly asked to pay the price for ecological degradation. Various steps taken by the state authorities, like ban on the fishing or denying access to the fishermen to certain areas, lead to conflicts that may also include conflict between one nation and the other. As has been remarked,” “the political situation between India and Pakistan has enhanced the crisis.”
No wonder, the festering dispute over the Sir Creek has exacerbated the already tense security situation on the border between the two countries. In August 1999, a Pakistani Atlantique surveillance aircraft was shot down by the Indian Air Force in the Rann of Kutch. India claimed that the Pakistani aircraft was on a spying mission and had violated Indian airspace. In this shoot down, all the 16 personnel on board, who included 10 sailors and six crew members, were killed. An inquiry carried out on the request of Pakistan, however, belied the Indian claim that the debris fell two kilometers within its territory. Actually, the debris of the plane fell on both sides of the border between Pakistan and India. There was further shooting between the Indian and Pakistani forces in the area as the Indian side tried to ferry journalists to the site where the debris had fallen. In addition to the Atlantique incident, Pakistan and India have frequently traded accusations of violating airspace, over the un-demarcated economic zones. In February 2006, Pakistan claimed that an Indian maritime aircraft and two Coast Guard fast Crafts had violated its air space and EEZ. The Government of Pakistan termed this action as provocative and “in contravention of the Pakistan-India Agreement on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Maneuvers and troop Movement of April 6, 1991 as well as neighbourly relations and good seamanship practices.” A protest was lodged with the Government of India, through Indian High Commission in Islamabad.
The significance of the resolution of dispute over Sir Creek for Indo-Pak peace process can better be understood in the context of realization by the two countries that the settlement of their bilateral disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through talks and peaceful means, is in their interest. Both states have come to the conclusion that war, especially after the nuclearization of South Asia, is no longer an option for settlement of the disputes. Although Pakistan and India still hold divergent views on Kashmir, the two sides have moved much closer to hold a common view that in order to achieve the objective of the peace process, a step by step approach should be adopted. It amounts to the position that smaller and easier issues, like Siachin, Wullar Barrage and Sir Creek, should be tackled first. Their settlement would pave the way for the resolution of bigger and more complex issues like Kashmir. Previously, Indo-Pak talks on the bilateral issues remained deadlocked due to the rigid positions, adopted by the two countries. Pakistan insisted that Kashmir should top the agenda of the talks. The resolution of Kashmir dispute, from Pakistani perspective, was a pre-condition for progress on other areas, like increased contact between the people of the two countries, trade, economic cooperation and cultural exchanges, and opening of new rail and bus routes. From the Indian side, the main stumbling block was its refusal to accept the disputed nature of Kashmir issue and insistence on calling the state as an integral part of India. It was this wide gap between the positions of the two countries that Indo-Pak talks initiated in 1994, remained in hiatus for four years. The deadlock was broken in early 1997, when the two sides dropped their pre-conditions and resumed talks on the agenda that provided for discussion on all disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. This process culminated in the historic visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Lahore in February 1999 and issuance of Lahore Declaration, setting the stage for further talks between the two countries that also included the discussion on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.
But the real breakthrough came in January 2004, when on the sidelines of 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad, a meeting took place between President General Pervaiz Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee. The meeting led to the issuance of a joint statement on 6 January 2004, under which the two countries decided to resume composite dialogue. The significance of the joint statement lies in the fact that it sought to address the concerns of both sides that had so far blocked the opening of normalization talks between the two countries. Pakistan pledged not to allow its soil to be used for terrorist activities against any country, while India made a commitment to work with Pakistan for the resolution of all outstanding bilateral disputes, including the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. For the first time India acknowledged that Kashmir was a disputed territory, whose final solution was still to be determined. It was a departure from the traditional Indian stand under which it rejected all references to Kashmir as a dispute between Pakistan and India. However, despite the pledge contained in the joint statement to resolve the Kashmir dispute along with other bilateral disputes, there has been no tangible progress on Kashmir. This has, no doubt, caused disappointment on Pakistani end, where dissatisfaction is being openly expressed at the slow pace of the peace process. But both sides have expressed their determination to continue the peace process, as it has led to a marked improvement in relations between Pakistan and India. This improvement is reflected in the reduction of tension and implementation of a number of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) between Pakistan and India. The progress so far achieved under the on-going peace process, has strengthened the belief on both sides of the border that through a step by step approach, Pakistan and India would ultimately succeed in resolving even the most complex disputes, like the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. The settlement of comparatively easier and smaller disputes like the Sir Creek, therefore, assumes great significance as an important step in the direction of resolving bigger and more difficult disputes like Jammu and Kashmir.
Conclusion
Despite slow pace and lack of any tangible movement on conflict resolution, Pakistan and India, seem determined to continue the peace process and composite dialogue to resolve all outstanding bilateral disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. Both concur that a step by step approach is best suited to the resolution of difficult and complex disputes between the two countries. Under this strategy, the two sides are concentrating on less difficult and simpler issues like Sir Creek. The two countries are reported to have overcome a number of obstacles in the way of final settlement of the Sir Creek dispute. The joint survey and the agreement on a common map is an important achievement of the dialogue process the two countries are continuing since 2004. Although, as the last round of talks held in Rawalpindi on 17-18 May 2007 showed the two countries still have differences over the basic issue, it is hoped they would find this issue easier to resolve. The resolution of this dispute will not only enable the two countries to demarcate their maritime limits in the Arabian Sea, it will boost the prospects of progress on other issues, like Jammu and Kashmir and open trade between the two countries that are more complex and difficult issues to resolve. From the Pakistani as well as from the Indian perspective, the resolution of dispute over Sir Creek will be an important step towards realizing the logical end of the peace process-the resolution of all bilateral disputes-in accordance with step by step approach.n
Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan, is Senior Research Fellow at Islamabad Policy Research Institute, IPRI.
The author is thankful to Dr. Ahmad Rashid Malik, Research Fellow IPRI, for suggesting and then assisting in writing this paper.
|
Who we are
Sohail Mahmood is the Associate Dean of the Department of International Relations at Preston University in Islamabad. With a Ph.D. in Political Science from Northern Arizona University, he is one of the leading experts in the world on Musharraf and Pakistan and has published dozens of books and articles on the issue.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 
US-INDIAN PARTNERSHIP
DIALOGUE AT ALL COSTS
Comments
To be able to post comments, please register on the site.