|
[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 connection |
Who we are
Comments
To be able to post comments, please register on the site.