India and Pakistan Relationship

By: Vipin Agnihotri
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:24:15
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

India and Pakistan, as two nations united by history but divided by destiny, are almost like two estranged siblings. Their rivalries over five decades have prevented both the countries from realizing their full economic and geopolitical potential.

Since the founding of India and Pakistan as separate states in 1947, the dispute over who should control Kashmir has been one of the world's most enduring and violent conflicts. There are also signs of a religious conflict at play, pitting predominantly Hindu India against Muslim Pakistan.

There has been a paradigm shift since the initial stages of insurgency in Kashmir. The direct, bold, loudly eulogized direct strategy of the insurgents establishing themselves as protectors of the people of Kashmir and suitable spreading their cause through the media, has since seen many changes in the methodology.

It is worth recalling that the territory of Kashmir was hotly contested even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947. Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan.

The Maharaja, Hari Singh, wanted to stay independent but eventually decided to accede to India, signing over key powers to the Indian Government - in return for military aid and a promised referendum.

Since then, the territory has been the flashpoint for two of the three India-Pakistan wars: the first in 1947-48, the second in 1965. In 1999, India fought a brief but bitter conflict with Pakistani-backed forces that had infiltrated Indian-controlled territory in the Kargil area.

Theoretically speaking, there was a sudden mushrooming of a number of jihadi groups in mid-1990s in J&K. With the purse strings tightly controlled by the Pakistani leadership, the supposedly indigenous struggle of freedom for all in Kashmir became a Pakistan-sponsored fight of terror. This was backed by Pakistan’s military might, especially with regard to artillery support, intelligence sharing and provision of training in the well-established training camps at select places with instruction being imparted on latest explosive techniques.

In recent years, the tactics of the terrorists has changed and it has some sort of relation with their level of indoctrination and the employment of fidayeen squads hitting the well-protected and fortified Army establishments. On the other hand, the Security forces have also been changing their strategies from seek-and-destroy missions to cordon and search missions to boxed-in specific missions.

The technology for both, the terrorists and the security forces have also been constantly changing with a one-up mode. If the terrorists used a particular band-width spectrum for communications or a frequency band-width spread for remote controlled IEDs, then the security forces developed a counter. A counter forced the terrorists to change the pattern resulting in yet another counter by the security forces and the game goes on. Even the weaponry and communication equipment have been constantly modified and updated.

But the question to be asked at this point of time is why there is a situation of deadlock in the Kashmir issue between the two countries? It’s because of the fact that no side is willing to give an inch to another. Islamabad says Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan in 1947, because Muslims are in the majority in the region. Pakistan also argues that Kashmiris should be allowed to vote in a referendum on their future, following numerous UN resolutions on the issue.

On the other hand, India does not want international debate on the issue, arguing that the Simla Agreement of 1972 provided for a resolution through bilateral talks. India points to the Instrument of Accession signed in October 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh. Moreover, both India and Pakistan reject the option of Kashmir becoming an independent state.

From large counter-reactionary force, the Army had to adept to small mission-oriented groups with the need of quick real time information being made available only through proper local contacts and the quick reaction teams proving to be extremely effective in the conflict. Use of helicopters and satellite imagery was also extremely effective, keeping the terrorists on the move at regular intervals. The construction of fence right along the Line of Control (LoC) also had an effect on lowering the scales of infiltration although, in the long run, it may prove to be rather costly and counter-productive. Mine-laying and other obstacles being created, on the lines of a conventional war-counter systems do lend toward complacency and in my view are not the best means of inflicting casualties on the terrorists. Hence, new strategies and tactical concepts have to be adopted and the conflict has to be fought on a pattern other than war.

This is because of the fact that Kashmir dispute is potentially one of the most dangerous disputes in the world. With both India and Pakistan declaring themselves to be nuclear powers with a string of nuclear tests, signs are not good.

It is worth recalling that the world has already saw a huge deployment of troops on both sides of the border in 2002 as India reacted to an armed attack on the National Parliament in Delhi, the previous December.

India said the attack was carried out by Pakistani-based militants assisted by the Pakistan Government - a charge always denied by Pakistan. In the worst-case scenario, the Kashmir dispute would trigger a nuclear conflict. Aside from that, the separatist militancy and cross-border firing between the Indian and Pakistani armies has left a death toll running into tens of thousands and a population brutalized by fighting and fear.

According to experts, religion is an important aspect of the dispute. Partition in 1947 gave India’s Muslims a state of their own: Pakistan. So a common faith underpins Pakistan’s claims to Kashmir, where many areas are Muslim-dominated.

In theory, the population of the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir is over 60 per cent Muslim, making it the only state within India where Muslims are in the majority.

The LoC divides Kashmir on an almost two-to-one basis: the region in the east and south, with a population of about 9 million, falls into the Indian-controlled state of Jammu and Kashmir, while the Pakistani-administered Kashmir to the north and west, with a population about three million, is labelled by Pakistan as “Azad” (Free) Kashmir. China also controls a small portion of Kashmir.

The US has an “interest” in seeing if a “final settlement” of the Kashmir issue can be reached, and is trying to help build on the progress made by India and Pakistan on the “composite dialogue”.

“The US is not a mediator. But we respect the considerable progress that’s been made by Pakistan and India in the composite dialogue and we’re just trying to help build whatever we can on that progress,” pointed out the US Under Secretary of State, Nicholas Burns, recently.

The friction between India and Pakistan is relevant to the rest of the world not only because both are the newest members of the nuclear club; it also affects the stability and economic potential of region that includes more than a billion people, some 950 million in India alone.

There is, of course, a pervasive cynicism in South Asia concerning Indo-Pakistan relations, which sees all peace negotiations as doomed enterprises. But one needs to examine the context of present negotiations carefully to assess the chance for better outcomes. What factors produced the current rapprochement? Have changes in the international environment (especially the 9/11 attacks) played a transformative role? The mainstream media around the world recently have praised Indian and Pakistani leaders for engaging in dialogue and welcomed interventions of US diplomacy to avert escalation of a potentially nuclear conflict.

Regarding Kashmir, India has moved away from its hard stance that it would not negotiate until border incursions stopped. It has also withdrawn some of its troops. Pakistan, on its part, has relaxed its demand that a plebiscite be conducted to resolve the dispute. Neither country any longer claims the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. Citizens in each country are beginning to see that a compromise is needed.

What factors have influenced Pakistan? One is recognition of the growing disenchantment of Pakistani middle class citizens over Kashmir policy. The media and intelligentsia have raised questions about the high cost of Pakistan’s support of Kashmir’s secessionist struggle. This policy resulted not only in diplomatic isolation but a decline in trade and tourism and a serious lag in technology development. Such a policy also fostered confrontation with India, and the development of nuclear weapons as a consequence of “militarization”. Further, the support of Islamic militia damaged Pakistan’s image abroad while, domestically, these religious groups began a gradual “Talibanization” of civil society, causing discord and sectarian divisions.

Theoretically, the Pakistani establishment realizes that its 14 year-old policy of trying to bleed India through Kashmir has failed. India has not only absorbed the damage, but has won a good deal of sympathy from the international community, especially the US.

In India and Pakistan the domestic environments have changed for the better. The peace constituency exerts genuine influence on the dialogue; it represents the wishes of average citizens who are eager to improve relations with their neighbour.

Writer is a Journalist based at India and can be contacted at nit43@rediffmail.com

Article source: Expert Articles