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, Pakistan1

Abstract

Relations between Pakistan and India 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 resolve any 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 session of 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.

1 . Nasreen Akhtar is Assistant Professor of Politics and International Relations in International Islamic University Islamabad and she is doing her PhD in IR from QUA, Islamabad, Pakistan. This paper was presented in the 55 th Annual Meeting of Southeast Conference, Association for Asian Studies January 15-17.2016 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.2 . Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, (2015) Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1473 . Ibid.p.1444 . “ NSA talks off after war of words”, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/pak-calls-of-nsa-level-talks-with-india-says-meet-cant-be-held-on-preconditions-set-by-india/.

90

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistan

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 government which openly criticized 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 a dialogue 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 have increased 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 discussion brought moments in 1954, 1963, 1972 and 20077 when the a deal was almost completed, but sadly each attempt was derailed by the actors, who were ultimately unwilling to abandon or modify their claims over the Kashmir valley.8 Overall, bilateral dialogues between India and Pakistan did not progress in a

5 “ Delhi Pact ( India-Pakistan)” see detail http://www.britannica.com/event/Delhi-Pact

6 . “ Pakistan accuses India for violating of Indus Water Treaty”, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pakistan-accuses-India-of-violating-Indus-Water-Treaty-Agreement/articleshow/22986975.cms

7 . For detail see Jalalzi, M.K., The Foreign Policy of Pakistan (1947-2000), Lahore: Khan Book Centre. Lamb, Alstair (1993) Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, Karachi: Oxford University Press. In 1972 the conflict could have resolved during negotiations at Shimla. See Guha, Ramchandra (2007) India After Gandhi: The History of World’s largest Democracy; London: Piccador. S.M.Burk and Lawrence Ziring, Foreign Policy of Pakistan: An Historical Analysis8 Cohen, Stephen P., (2013) Shooting for a Century: Finding Answers to the India-Pakistan Conundrum, Noida: HarperCollins Publications, 26.

91

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanpositive direction. One of the major reasons for failure of many rounds of their bilateral dialogue was that during negotiation over some other specific issue, both parties would raise their concern over Kashmir. That is a bone of contention and a nuclear flash point in South Asia that neither will give up. Most of the time, the Kashmir issue has been deliberately raised to terminate any other on-going bilateral dialogue.

In an attempt to address this problem, India and Pakistan decided to engage into composite dialogue instead of issue-specific dialogue. This was initiated in May 1997, at Male, the capital of the Maldives. Then Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif suggested the composite dialogue process9 that would enable the two countries to discuss all issues including Jammu and Kashmir, simultaneously. India wanted satisfaction on terrorism before talking about other issues, though Nawaz Sharif made it clear that Pakistan wants a dialogue that is comprehensive even if not “composite.”10As India reduced its focus to a single issue, ‘terrorism,’11 it gave Pakistan the excuse to revert to its own single issue that is Kashmir12 It produced a compromise in the sense that while India agreed to include Kashmir in the agenda for talks, Pakistan relented to include terrorism, the two major irritants in bilateral relations. The first round of composite dialogue was begun in 1998, but it failed due to a limited war between India and Pakistan in the Kargil border sector in 1999 that divides the two countries.13

In 2004 the composite dialogue process was re-established, following a statement by then the Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee that all subjects, including Kashmir, could be discussed. From 2004 to 2008 four rounds of composite dialogue were held, but then paused, due to the terrorists attack in Mumbai on November 26, 2008. Later on, as a result of a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and then Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, in the sidelines of the SAARC summit at Thimpu in April 2010,14 and upon subsequent limited actions by Pakistan, India announced in April 2010 that it would not insist that Pakistan had to fully satisfy Indian demands on terrorism as a precondition for talks. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani went to watch a cricket match to 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 9 . Padder, Sajjad, “Heidelberg Papers in South Asia and Comparative Politics.” Retrieved from http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/13143/1/ Heidelberg_Papers_65_Padder.pdf.,. 4.10 . Ibid11 . India rejected Pakistan’s four points at UNGA and said, they need one point to talk that is ‘terrorism’ 12 . Satyabrata Pal, “An opportunity to seal a deal with Pakistan,” The Hindu, Chennai, 3 June 2014.13 . Padder, Sajjad, Heidelberg Papers in South Asia and Comparative Politics.”op.cit14 . “India- Pakistan Relations: Recent Developments.” Retrieved from http://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/pakistan-august-2012.pdf. Accessed on 15 October 2013.

92

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanissues were included in ‘dialogues’ in 1997. These issues include Siachen, SirCreek, Wuller Berage, 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

Siachen Glacier 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.16Since 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 NJ 9842 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.

15 . Sahni,Varun “Technology and Conflict Resolution: The Siachen Conflict,” in P. Sahadevan (2001), Conflict and Peacemaking in South Asia, New Delhi: Lancers Book, 236-271.16 . Interview with Col. Rtd. Majeed who has served at Siachen.17 . “ Siachen Glacier moves but troops to stay”, Dawn, 9Feburary, 201618 . Siachen was almost a done deal in 1992,” The Hindu, Chennai, 9 June 2012.19 . Sahni, Varun, “Technology and Conflict Resolution: The Siachen Conflict.” In P. Sahadevan (2001), Conflict and Peacemaking in South Asia, New Delhi: Lancers Book. pp. 236-271.20 . Raghavan,V.R. (2002), Siachen: Conflict Without End, New Delhi: Viking, 129.

93

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and PakistanPakistan’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 Siachin23 Pakistan offered help but India refused to accept. Indian minister ruled out troop’s withdrawal from Siachen24 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 a large 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

21 . “Siachen was almost a done deal in 1992,” op. cit.22 . http://tribune.com.pk/story/361097/avalanche-traps-over-100-pakistani-soldiers-report/23 .The Indian Express, 4 February 201624 See detail at http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/parrikar-siachen-glaciers-soldiers-death/25 . Siachen Glacier moves but troops to stay”, Dawn, 9 February 2016.26 . Ibid.27 . Gupta, Alok Kumar, in P. Sahadevan (2001), Conflict and Peacemaking in South Asia, New Delhi: Lancers Book, pp. 272-295.28 . Ghosh, Samarjit “Indo-Pak Composite Dialogue-2008: A Review,” IPCS Special Report, February 2009. Retrieved from www.ipcs.org.in. Accessed on 13 October 2013.29 . Interview with Captain Akhatr. Naval officer Pakistan. Islamabad, 14 January 2014.

94

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistan

Critical Issue: Terrorism

Terrorism is not defined, but it is one of the major irritants between India and Pakistan. These days 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 the Pakistan-Afghanistan region. Terrorism has had graver impacts on Pakistan than India. Many Pakistani citizens have lost their lives in sectarian and religious attacks by terrorist groups.31 In 2006, from the sidelines of the Non- Alignment Movement’s meeting in Havana, Cuba, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President General Parvez Musharraf met, and issued a joint statement for creating Anti-Terror Institutional Mechanism (ATIM), in which both countries pledged to cooperate in dealing with terrorism.32 The ATIM cannot be operationalized because of persisting differences between the institutions from both countries. Prime Minister Modi’s policy has created obstacles and security concerns and both countries have ceased dialogues. Prime Minister Modi’s policy toward Pakistan is not based on peace negotiations. During his visit to Kashmir and Kargil on August 12, 2014, the Indian prime minister said, “India will not talk with Pakistan. However, it will use power ‘goli not boli (bullet not talk).”33 This openly threatening announcement escalated tension between Pakistan and India and the dialogue 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

30 . Rajshree Jetly (ed), Pakistan in Regional and Global Politics, London, New York & New Delhi: Taylor & Francis Group. pp 150-180, and Hussian, Zahid (2010) Frontline Pakistan: The Path to catastrophe and the killing of Benazir Bhutto. New Delhi. Viva Books. p. 24).31 . These groups included; Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Laskr-e-Jhngvi (LeJ), Lashkar-e-Taiba ( LeT).32 . The Hindu, September 17, 2006. Also see Daulat, A.S. and Durrani A., “India-Pakistan Intelligence Cooperation,” The Hindu, 14 July 2011.33 . Dawn, 13 August 2014. Prime minister Modi said, not Boli but Goli (no talk but bullet)34 . The Express Tribune, 17 December 2015.35 . Indian Defense Minister, Manohar Parrikar stated that India would engage in terrorism to counter terrorism. The Tribune Express, 23 May, 2015.

95

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanseparatists and terrorists.36A recent BBC documentary shows that one of Pakistan’s political parties, MQM, has been receiving funds and training from the Indian intelligence agency RAW.37India’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.38The 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 could have 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 for that, 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 of these CBMs (Confidence Building Measures). The Pakistan Army blames India for deliberately flouting the CBMs as a part of its current policy. Frequent volatility on the LoC and the Working Boundary is symptomatic of the deeper grievances and the unfortunate history that the two countries share and are unable to shed for a better future.”40 India is worried that Pakistan supports Kashmiri fighters and it puts pressure on the borders instead of political and diplomatic resolutions.

The Critical Issue of Water

Water remains another serious issue between India-Pakistan. During floods both countries blame each other, and both countries pay a heavy price during periods of heavy rain. To resolve the water sharing problem over the Indus River System (IRS) India and Pakistan, under the aegis of the World Bank, signed Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in 1960. The IRS comprises Indus, Sutlej, Ravi, Beas, Chenab and Jhelum rivers. Both India and Pakistan, despite having three full wars (1948, 1965, and 1971) and one limited war in Kargil (1999), adhere to the IWT. A great example of their cooperation on this treaty is, even in the midst of the 1965 war, Indian payments to Pakistan as part of the treaty continued uninterrupted, as did the work of 36 . Saba Imtiaz, “PM told, Russia, India, and UAE, involved in Baloch insurgency,” http://tribune.com.pk/story/84902/wikileaks-india-russia-supportingbaloch- insurgency/ accessed on 11 January, 2015.37 . Dawn, 25 June 2015.38 . Bilkenberg, L. (1998), India-Pakistan: The history of unsolved conflicts (vol. II): Analyses of some structural factors, Campusvej: Odnense University Press.39 . As stated by Khursheed Mohammad Kasuri during his interaction with Times of India and Jang group’s Aman ki Asha programme on April 23, 2010. Statement published on 24April 2010.40 . Talat Masood, “Modi’s hostility toward Pakistan,” The Express Tribune, October 29, 2014.

96

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanengineers of both countries to control the opening and closing of sluices.41 Even during the Kargil war and political–military tensions afterwards,42

India has fulfilled its water commitments with Pakistan. But recently the future of this treaty has become another issue. Growing demand for water due to increasing population growth has created pressure over this resource. Both countries are competing to get the maximum quantity of water to secure their interests. This leads to disputes over trans-boundary water resources, particularly the multipurpose hydro projects. In 2007 the dispute over Baglihar was resolved through a mediation process. The fate of the Kishanganga project is lying with the arbitration court. According to provisions of the IWT, any party can call on the arbitration court for getting a solution. Another project is Wullar barrage/ Tulbul navigation. The Indus Commissioners from both countries have held talks over this project, but no concrete result has been realized. This project is now at a standstill.

Economic Cooperation

India and Pakistan started cooperation in economic sectors during the Musharraf regime (1999-2008), and this lasted until Zardari’s departure. The rationale for economic cooperation was that trade and commerce could generate goodwill which, in turn, would spill over to soften bilateral political disputes. In this they had been guided by the successful developments between the West European countries after centuries of war, and also by recent progress in India-China relations. After a phased-in economic engagement, the Integrated Check Post (ICP) at Attari for trade across the India-Pakistan border became operational in April 2012. A study released by the Association of Chambers of Commerce (ACC) said that with the ICP becoming operational and Pakistan granting the Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to India, the annual bilateral trade between the two countries would increase from $2.6 to $8.8 billion within the next two years. This prompted both countries to decide to have 13 ICPs.43

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attended Modi’s swearing-in ceremony to normalize relations, but Modi’s non-cooperative policy against Pakistan has halted political and economic relations. Modi demanded that Pakistan should take action against those who planned Mumbai explosion in 2009.44Thus political, security, and terrorism concerns irritate develop-ments in economic cooperation. Both countries have yet to implement the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), because they have not agreed on lists.

Then, there is a question about the implementation of Pakistan’s grant of Most Favorite Nation (MFN) status to India. This is a status which members of the World Trade Organization 41 . Tremblay, Reeta Choudhary and Julian Schofield “Institutional causes of the India-Pakistan rivalry” in Paul, T.V. (ed.)(2006), The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225-250.42 . Akhtar, Shaheen, “Emerging Challenges to Indus Water Treaty: Issues of compliance & transboundary impacts of Indian hydroprojects on the Western Rivers,” Regional Studies, vol. XXXVIII issue 4, 2010.43 . “Attari Integrated Check Post to open for trade on Friday” The Hindu, 12 April 2012.44 . During his election campaign Modi declared that he would take revengefrom Pakistan if Pakistan would not hand over the master mind of Mumbai incident,The Hindu, 16 May 2014.

97

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanhave given to other members. India granted this status to Pakistan in 1996. And, in 2011, the Zardari government tried to give MFN status to India, but the military establishment has blocked it,45 prevailing over the political will of the government. Another factor that aggravated tension between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai incident is the release of Zakir-u-Rehman Lakhnavi from a Pakistani jail. India believes he was behind Mumbai bombing and should be in jail. The Indian External Affairs Ministry expressed its concern that his release has reinforced the perception that “Pakistan has a dual policy to deal terrorism”.46

Problems Concerning the (Composite) Dialogue

States cooperate if they remain engaged in dialogues. If they do not talk peace or progress remain mirage. India and Pakistan were born to conflict47 with the partition of India in 1947. Partition-related violence still dominates the memories of the people from both countries. Also, the base-point of India-Pakistan relations are the question of identity more than territory. It influences every aspect of Pakistan’s foreign and national security policies.48

Security is major problem between the composite dialogue or talks. Several states have resolved their issues now live in peace e.g. Europe. Negotiation and talk is the only way to resolve conflicts. Power politics always promote war-like situation

Radicalization / Peace Makers

People want peace, progress and development. Civil-Society actors, in various forms and with different agendas, are very active in India and Pakistan. They can be broadly categorized into two types: Peaceniks and Radicals. The former is represented by many individuals and organizations are engaged in improvisation of bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan, and establishment of peace between them. They actively support the idea of increasing trade, issuing of more visas to people from both sides, and having no cross-border fire. Due to the active engagement of these groups, people-to-people contacts are being encouraged and many track two and two point nine dialogues have been started.

The success of this group is limited, yet it is significant. Contrary to the peaceniks, there are radicals who have their stake maintaining or even enhancing animosity between India and Pakistan. Jamat-e-Islami, (JeI), Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) are such groups in Pakistan, and Abhinav Bharat in India. These groups are active against the others in their respective countries. In the past, through their activities, they had scuttled the peace process and terminated bilateral dialogues. Pakistan-based groups make cries for carrying out jihad against India. Their acts cause Indian right wing groups to react strongly against the dialogues with Pakistan. In 2008, when the composite dialogue to improve their bilateral relations was going on the terrorist attack in

45 . Military Blocking Pak-India Trade Deal: Shahbaz Sahrif,” The Nation, 14 Feb 2014, http://nation.com.pk/national/14-Feb-2014/ military-blocking-pak-india-trade-deal-shahbaz.46 . The Express Tribune, 15 April 2015.47 . Wolpert, Stanley (2010), India and Pakistan: Continued Conflict or Cooperation? Berkeley: University of California Press.48 . Pande, Aparna (2011), Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: Escaping India, New York: Routledge, 28.

98

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and PakistanMumbai happened. After that, under public pressure, the Government of India backtracked from the engagement. Militant Hindu groups too have reacted: the Samjhauta Express, the train running between New Delhi and Attari, suffered a bomb blast. Both Hindu and Muslim radicals were suspected by the other side, but arrests were made in India of Hindu men, Swami Aseemanand, a suspect in several bombings, and three others. Their case submitted to Panchkula court and in August 2014, after petition to a higher court, Swami Aseemanand was released on bail.49 No final resolution of this incident has occurred.

Media – Peace (War) Maker

In both India and Pakistan the media have played a significant role in creating mass hysteria, generating fear, and increasing tensions. As in many places, viewer audience is more important than peace for the economic bottom line of private media corporations. This is more the case in India than in Pakistan because of larger number of private media houses. In 2014, when Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif accepted an invitation and attended the swearing-in-ceremony of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, hysteria about this was generated by the media. During tense times the same media houses exaggerate border incidents, fanning the flames. For example, in 2013 when an Indian soldier was beheaded on the India-Pakistan border the Indian media unabashedly criticized Pakistan, demanding retaliation, and almost creating war between the two nuclear powers. They did without doing any research and analyses of the issue. Barkha Dutt in her famous essay “Confession of a War Reporter,” first published in Himal South Asia in June 2001 has illustrated how the Indian soldiers had celebrated the beheading of Pakistani soldiers. Instead of acting socially responsibly, mass-media institutions in India and Pakistan thrive by reporting on fear and stirring up animosity that keeps readers ’and viewers’ attention active.

External Factors

China

To India an emerging China is a threat to its security. Historical rivalry between China and India leads to mistrust, despite recent economic and security cooperation. India considers the China-Pakistan friendship as a big challenge in the region. China has invested in energy sectors in Pakistan and also provided material and technological support. Recently China supports Pakistan in Nuclear Supplier Groups (NSG).50 In the same month, China blocked India’s move against Pakistan in UN, when India was seeking action by the world community over release of Lakhnavi, the alleged mastermind behind Mumbai attack.51India was confident about its move because the UK, USA, and Germany raised concern over Lakhnavi’s release but China vetoed 52

49 . One India, August 28, 2014, http://www.oneindia.com/feature/samjhauta- express-blast-accused-swami-aseemanand-you-need-know-1511168.html50 . “China Supports Pakistan for NSG,” http://www.thenews.com.pk/ article-186933-China-supports-Pakistan-for-NSG-membership-, accessed on 15 July 2015.51 . Times of India, 23 June 2015. Retrieved from http://timesofindia. indiatimes.com/india/China-blocks-India’s move-in-UN-seeking-action-against- Pakistan-on-Lakhvi/articleshow/47781771.cms52 .Ibid.

99

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanit and supported Pakistan. Pak-China relations are historical and making progress, particularly after the 9/11 incident, to contain America’s influence and Indian hegemony in the region. In April 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Pakistan and signed the multi-billion project of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).53India was not happy and asked China to cancel the project. Modi, during his visit to China, raised his concern with Chinese president, and formally protested against the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor agreement. India also expressed its concerns about China routing its corridor through Kashmir, which is a strategic location for India and would threaten to Indian security, but President Xi Jingping dismissed these objections.54

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a troubling state in South Asia and both India and Pakistan have long-term relations with Afghanistan. Both states claim legitimate rights for their strategic, security, and political relations. Afghanistan is a safe haven for Tehreeke Taliban Pakistan (TTP). In June 2014, the Pakistan army started operations against the terrorists and Taliban in North Waziristan and successfully eliminated TTP’s sanctuaries. Some of TTP’s commanders fled toward Afghanistan. The newly elected Afghan president is more cooperative with Pakistan than the previous president, Karzai. Karzai’s had leaned toward India. 55Pakistan believed that after NATO’s departure India is now using Afghanistan for its proxy war and providing assistance to anti-Pakistan actors from Afghan soil. However, President Ashraf Ghani is more cooperative with Pakistani government and determined to work for peace. He accepted Pakistan’s role as mediator between the Afghan Taliban and government. India does not like Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan because it has invested in several sectors and has commercial and political interests in Afghanistan. On the other hand Pakistan has strategic, political, and economic interests in Afghanistan.56 The two nuclear states compete to have the upper hand.

A Way Forward: Mirage

Relations between the states are based on the nature of interests. India seems not interested in resolving long standing historical issues with Pakistan, but it demands cooperation to eliminate terrorism. On the other hand, Pakistan wants to resolve all issues between India-Pakistan because they are perceived as the root cause of the terrorism. Prime Minster Modi and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif have met three times, but the Indian prime minister only agreed to talks if Pakistan would not raise Kashmir Issue. Current political development has taken place in Russia during the Shanghai Cooperation Organizations’ (SCO) conference. After a long stalemate Modi expressed his desire to meet Nawaz Sharif and agreed to resume dialogues with Pakistan. He also accepted Pakistan’s invitation to participate in the 2016 SAARC conference in

53 . “China reaffirms commitment on economic corridor,” Dawn, 30 April 2015.

54 . “India Raises Objection Over China-Pak Economic Corridor,” The Express Tribune, 12 May 201555 . Dean Nelson, “Afghanistan is a Proxy war between India and Pakistan,” The Telegraph, 2 November, 2011.56 . Talat Masood, “Advance normalization, not prospects for conflict,” The Express Tribune, 26 May, 2015.

100

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and PakistanIslamabad. America welcomed this political development and meeting between Modi and Nawaz, State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner told reporters. The US has also hailed among other things the decision of the two countries to revive their stalled dialogue and to accelerate the trial in the Mumbai 26/11 attack case.57 “We also welcome the announcement that India and Pakistan will discuss a range of bilateral issues, including security, people-to-people ties and expediting the Mumbai trial,” Toner said.58 Ironically, India’s prime minister faced internal opposition for his positive gesture toward Pakistan. Indian media and opposition both criticized Modi’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister.59 Similarly Nawaz Sharif faces opposition inside Pakistan, opposition that believes Sharif has compromised on the Kashmir issue, and that resolving the Kashmir issue Pakistan should not have trade or economic relations with India. Internal opposition on both sides could halt the peace process between the two countries. India refused Security advisors level talks under UFA’s agreement between Modi and Nawaz and conditioned to eliminate Kashmir from agenda.60 Both sides blamed each other.61

At the 70th session of United Nation General Assembly ( UNGA) Pakistani Prime minister

Nawaz Sharif proposed four points defuse tension and for stable peace between India and Pakistan and in the South Asia. It was rational policy presented by Pakistan to build peace but India refused. These points were;

1. We propose that Pakistan and India formalize and respect the 2003 understanding for a complete ceasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir. For this purpose, we call for UNMOGIP’s expansion to monitor the observance of the ceasefire.

2. We propose that Pakistan and India reaffirm that they will not resort to the use or the threat of use of force under any circumstances. This is a central element of the UN Charter.

3. We want that steps be taken to demilitarize Kashmir.

4. We agree to an unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battleground.62

57 . “UN, US Welcome Nawaz–Modi meeting,” http://www.thenews.com. pk/Todays-News-13-38569-UN-US-welcome-Nawaz-Modi-meeting accessed on 12 July 2015.58 Ibid.59 . See detail on http://tribune.com.pk/story/920421/opposition-ticks-offpm- modi-for-ufa-rendezvous/ and on http://tribune.com.pk/story/919670/ salman-khurshid-to-modi-dont-expect-dramatic-results-from-pakistan-visit/, accessed on July 13, 2015.60 . “ NAS-level talks off. After war of words”. The Indian Express, 22 August 2015 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/pak-calls-of-nsa-level-talks-with-india-says-meet-cant-be-held-on-preconditions-set-by-india/

61 . Ibid62 . “ UNGA address: Nawaz proposes agenda to defuse tension with India”, Dawn, 1 October 2015

101

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistan

India rejected Pakistan’s peace formula, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj told the General Assembly that India remained open to dialogue, “but talks and terror cannot go together. We don't need four points, we need just one: Give up terrorism and let us sit down and talk”. 63

Indi’s refusal was not unexpected, in the past India has always refused peace initiative proposed by Pakistan .The first time Pakistani Ambassador to UNO, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi has presented three64 dossiers of Indian to the Secretary General Ban Ki Moon provided evidence of India’s involvement to support terrorism in Pakistan.65 The purpose of these dossiers is to let the international community know that India has an aggressor policy to destabilize Pakistan and the world should stop India before it is too late.

Diplomatic Environment

State’s behavior is changed according to the external enviornmnet.25th December 2015 brought a pleasant surprise not only in India and Pakistan also the World’s community was surprised over Modi’s surprise visit in Pakistan. He came Pakistan to visit with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Before Modi’s visit two security advisors from India and Pakistan had a secret meeting in Bangkok where the Pakistani security advisor said that Pakistan did not want to live stuck in the past.66 Modi’s visit was welcomed by the peace lovers in India-and Pakistan and the USA and the UN both welcomed peace initiative by Indian Prime Minister. 67

Indian Air Base Attack (IAB)

If we look at the history every peace initiative has been sabotaged by extremists or terrorists. A few days after Modi’s visit an Indian air base at Pathan kot was attacked. Indian extremists in media and political parties directly blamed Pakistan before any investigation was made. India said that one of Pakistani-based militant group targeted IAB . Indian and Pakistani differences can be used as a pretext by Pakistani militant groups to disrupt foreign policy. Pakistan has assured to investigate and would cooperate with Indian investigation team. This time both countries did not put their soldiers on borders, but rather agreed to investigate the situation. The US advised Pakistan to investigate ‘right’ rather than ‘fast.’68

Conclusion

Pakistan wants peace with honor.69 Both parties have to respect and accept the reality, but the two countries continue to blame each other.70 India’s minister’s statement that India would deal with Pakistan with “counter terrorism policy” has created more tension between the two nuclear states. But international factors have also changed security environment in region. The 63 . “ Sushma rejects Sharif’s peace proposal, The Hindu, 2 October 201564 . Evidence of India’s involvement in Karachi, FATA, and Baluchistan were provided in separate dossier65 . “ Pakistan hands over dossiers against India to UN chief”, The Express Tribune, 2 October 201566 . India, and Pakistan security advisors meet in Bangkok, Gulf News India, 6 December 2015.” Let’s not be frozen with past: Janjua tells India”, The Nation, 18 December 201567 . “US,UN chief welcomes PM Modi’s surprise Pak visit “ The Times of India, 25 December 201568 . “US says Pakistan to determine own time line for Pathankot probe, Dawn, 8 January 201669 . Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri. Op.cit.70 . See detail Talat Masood,” Nawaz-Modi meeting generates hopes”, The Express Tribune, 15 June 2015.

102

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and PakistanChina-Pak economic cooperation and Afghan-Pak security relations have provided favorable political support toward Pakistan and this regional change has prompted the Indian government to reconsider its policies toward Pakistan. On the other hand, both countries have become permanent members of the SCO 71 which requires cooperation among the member states. Both will benefit if they resolve their differences and cooperate with each other.

By pursuing low-intensity insurgencies against each other, both India and Pakistan will suffer disastrous consequences and the rest of the world could be drawn in as well. Both countries need to adopt a rational policy for peace in the region for progress and development. They should look beyond self-interests to see how the entire region can be developed to the benefit of all parties.

Composite dialogue was aimed at making bilateral dialogue comprehensive and result oriented. Many times momentum was built but later diluted due to the role of non-state actors or institutions from both countries. Talks have been deliberately de-railed by stakeholders in India-Pakistan animosities. These stakeholders generally do not represent the will of a majority of people, yet they prevent governments from concluding successful peace agreements. Changes in government replaces individuals, but does not fundamentally reform the system. Every time a new government takes charge, expectations are raised about improvement of India-Pakistan relations but, apart from rail and bus service, nothing much concrete has taken place.The real test of a government’s character is during a crisis time.72 Although many crises have been stopped from going into a full-blown war, talks have suffered. To make composite dialogue a successful exercise, political will and public support is needed. The leadership must be ready to accept compromises, make adjustments and assert their decisions over powerful interest groups whenever required.

It should be noted that both sides have basically adhered to the decisions of third parties, such as the IWT, brokered by the World Bank, and the portion of the Sir Creek dispute that went to a Swedish court. Also, joint membership in the SCO is putting pressure on resolving bilateral tensions.

These outside brokers tend to adopt a more liberal problem-solving approach and once something is working in ways that make life better, the people want it to continue. This should be a strong indictment of the realist approach to negotiations that both states have tended to fall back on, pushed by interests not interested in the well-being of the whole.

The use of power and influence through proxy wars and terrorists-for-hire has a gigantic negative impact on the people’s lives, and the international community should sanction states

71 . See detail at, http://tribune.com.pk/stor y/918509/ Pakistan- India-become-permanent-

sco-members-reports/.

72 . Happymon Jacob, “Lessons of the past for the future,” The Hindu, Chennai, 27 May 2014.

103

Virginia Review of Asian Studies Volume 18 (2016): 90-104 Akhtar: India and Pakistanthat are caught engaging in such clandestine behavior. Only dialogues and diplomacy can resolve their differences, not their heavily equipped military. India and Pakistan should respect their people’s sentiments for peace and resist the agitators even in the news media who might profit from war. Therefore, India’s aggressive and stubborn behavior will not build peace. Rather, it will ruin peace in region. Pakistan should also not allowed non –state actors to use its soil for terrorism .Already Pakistan has started war against the Taliban and other non-state actors. However, Kashmir is a core cause of terrorism in region that should be resolved through diplomacy. Only peace is the guarantee for stable India and Pakistan South Asia region. Both States must take rational steps to build permanent peace.

104