Many treaties and agreements in international relations are the natural outcome of conflicts and wars between two or more players. In India-Pakistan relations too, the two major agreements signed between them, the Tashkent Declaration (1966) and the Shimla Pact (1972) were the follow-up of negotiations started in the wake of the 1965 and 1971 wars. But the Lahore Declaration, signed between Prime Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, on 21 February 1999 was followed by reports of Pakistani intrusion into Kashmir and a prolonged war with India in the months of May, June and July 1999. What makes the Lahore Declaration quite significant at that time was a host developments emerging from 1998—the Pokhran and Chagai nuclear tests and the sanctions imposed by the Western powers.

It was often stated that one of the supreme accomplishments of Vajpayee was his commitment to keep open channels of conversations with Pakistan and encourage friendly relations. His launching of Delhi-Lahore bus service and the signing of Lahore Declaration were seen as great successes in that sense. Even Nawaz Sharif was reported to have said that Vajpayee could “now win elections even in Pakistan” (Ray 2018).  No doubt, Vajpayee’s ‘bus diplomacy’ found an important place in India-Pakistan ‘people-to-people’ contacts. Eminent people like Kuldeep Nayar, Mallika Sarabhai, Dev Anand, Javed Akhtar and others had accompanied Vajpayee.

The Lahore Declaration was, in many ways, a commitment to help revive and strengthen the spirit of Shimla Accord, which, for many years, had not worked in the expected direction. The Lahore Declaration acknowledged that “the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries.” The Declaration recognised that “confidence building measures for improving the security environment” is very important. Most importantly, the two countries agreed to “intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir” and “refrain from intervention and interference in each other’s internal affairs.” There was also a commitment to “take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict.” It is also to be noted that both countries reaffirmed “their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their determination to combat this menace”(India, Ministry of External Affairs  1999).

Following the directive given by the two Prime Ministers, the Foreign Secretaries of Pakistan and India also signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 21st February 1999, identifying measures aimed at promoting an environment of peace and security between the two countries.

As per this MoU, both had agreed to “engage in bilateral consultations on security concepts, and nuclear doctrines, with a view to developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflict.” The two sides also had undertaken “to provide each other with advance notification in respect of ballistic missile flight tests, and shall conclude a bilateral agreement in this regard.” Besides, the two sides agreed to “continue to abide by their respective unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions unless either side, in exercise of its national sovereignty decides that extraordinary events have jeopardised its supreme interests.”

A few weeks after the signing of the Declaration, there were reports about Pakistani intrusion into Kashmir, which eventually became a war between India and Pakistan from May 1999 onwards (Seethi 1999). There were even calls for the use of nuclear weapons in both countries. The CIA had warned that during the 1999 Kargil war, when the Pakistan military army was suffering major setbacks, the Nawaz Sharif government was planning to deploy and use its nuclear weapons against India. The CIA’s assessment was part of its classified briefing for the President in July 1999.  Bruce Riedel, who had worked in the National Security Council of the White House, was reported to have said that “The morning of the Fourth (of July, 1999), the CIA wrote in its top-secret Daily Brief that Pakistan was preparing its nuclear weapons for deployment and possible use. The intelligence was very compelling. The mood in the Oval Office was grim” (The Economic Times 2018). Later, there were reports about a “confirmation of truth” by Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that the Kargil “misadventure” in 1999 by troops of his country was a stab in the back for the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the two neighbours were engaged in a peace process” (First Post  2016). Obviously, Nawaz Sharif was pointing to the role of army in derailing the peace process. The military takeover under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in the wake of the Kargil war, had upset Nawaz Sharif’s calculations.

Admittedly,  Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif  had gone to the extent of recognizing the necessity of going “beyond stated positions and devise a solution that would take the interests of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people into consideration,” as noted by AG Noorani. He wrote:
“Only a week later, Inder Kumar Gujral reneged on the accord. He would not agree to a working group on Kashmir. This accord was a precursor to the aborted Agra Declaration of July 16, 2001, which also provided for a composite dialogue. Gujral reneged on the first. Atal Behari Vajpayee allowed Advani and Co. to wreck the second. A recent disclosure in The Telegraph (July 22, 2001) is relevant: “One of the myths about Indian diplomacy is that there are hardliners and softliners on Pakistan. In the Indian establishment you cannot deal with Pakistan and be what peaceniks would call a ‘softliner’ ” (Noorani 2002).

Noorani continues: “When he was Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral, who was miffed at criticism that he was soft on Pakistan, told this correspondent: ‘Do you think I will give away anything to Pakistan? I am as much a nationalist as anyone else.’ He stressed that his Gujral doctrine ‘did not cover Pakistan’.” Noorani said that this “was tragic” insofar as Sharif had “secured a mandate to settle Kashmir. Deadlock ensued.” Noorani also quotes a report from The Hindu (3 April 1999) which stated that “In a radical proposal, Mr. Vajpayee suggested to Mr. Sharif that the two countries open the Line of Control (LoC) at Uri in Indian Kashmir to allow Kashmiris living close to it to meet each other” (Ibid).

In less than a decade after the Lahore Declaration, India-Pakistan relations witnessed a series of twists and turns, following the Indian Parliament attack in 2001, India–Pakistan standoff during 2001-02, the Samjhauta Express bombings in 2007, the Mumbai attacks of 2008 etc. The following decade also witnessed a series of events upsetting the process of peace building in India-Pakistan relations. Pathankot, Uri and Pulwama attacks only added to the festering wounds in bilateral ties. What is significant in the transformation of bilateral relations, during the last two decades since the Lahore Declaration, is the burgeoning role of militants and Pakistani-based jihadi groups. Pakistan says that it, too, is suffering from the menace of terrorism and the number of causalities within the country is much higher than in India. However, India insisted that stringent action against the terrorist groups is a precondition for any dialogue with Pakistan.

More importantly, the weapons’ capability of both countries has increased considerably over the last two decades. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reports say that “Pakistan now has a nuclear weapons stockpile of 140 to 150 warheads.” This apparently exceeded the projection made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1999 that Pakistan would have 60 to 80 warheads by 2020.  It estimated that Pakistan’s stockpile “could more realistically grow to 220 to 250 warheads by 2025, if the current trend continues. If that happens, it would make Pakistan the world’s fifth-largest nuclear weapon state” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2018a).

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists also stated that “India continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems now under development to complement or replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems.”  India was “estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140. Nonetheless, additional plutonium will be required to produce warheads for missiles now under development, and India is reportedly building several new plutonium production facilities” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2018b).

Evidently, the nuclear scenario of South Asia is too dangerous and both India and Pakistan have not adhered to the spirit of Lahore Declaration all these years. Moreover, even the spirit of regionalism in South Asian has been undermined with the 19^th SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Pakistan in 2016 has been indefinitely postponed due to bilateral issues. The Lahore Declaration itself had made a commitment to strengthening regional cooperation through SAARC, and it remains, unfortunately, a pipe-dream.

References
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2018a): “Pakistani nuclear forces, 2018, available at  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2018.1507796
 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2018b): “Indian nuclear forces, 2018, available at  https://thebulletin.org/2018/11/indian-nuclear-forces-2018/
First Post (2016): “Sharif’s remarks on Kargil being a stab in Vajpayee’s back are confirmation of truth: MEA,” 18 February, available at https://www.firstpost.com/world/sharifs-remarks-on-kargil-being-a-stab-in-vajpayees-back-are-confirmation-of-truth-mea-2632544.html

India, Ministry of External Affairs (1999): “Lahore Declaration Joint Statement, Memorandum of Understanding, February 02, 1999,” available at  https://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?18997/Lahore+Declaration+February+1999

Noorani, A.G. (2002): “The truth about the Lahore Summit,” 16 February- 1 March, https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1904/19040850.htm

Ray , Sanjana (2018): “Vajpayee Sahab Can Win Elections in Pakistan: Nawaz Sharif in 1999,” The quint, 18 July , https://www.thequint.com/news/india/vajpayee-sahab-can-win-elections-in-pakistan-nawaz-sharif-said-in-1999#gs.hB37eqJe

Seethi, K.M. (1999):  “A Tragedy of Betrayals: Questions Beyond the LoC in Kashmir,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.34, No.37, September 11.

The Economic Times (2018): “Pakistan was to deploy nukes against India during Kargil war,” 12 July, available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-was-to-deploy-nukes-against-india-during-kargil-war/articleshow/50019153.cms

This article has also appeared in Global South Colloquy

The author is Dean of Social Sciences and Professor, School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He can be reached at kmseethimgu@gmail.com

Courtesy : Counter Current

The post Unlocking the India-Pakistan Dilemma : Twenty Years of ‘Lahore Declaration’ and Missed Opportunities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘India cries out at the barbarism of the cowardly, Islamic Pakistan’
‘Enough is enough’ 

(Reproduced below, in full, is an English translation of the editorial in the June 20, 1999 issue of Panchjanya):

This has been going on for centuries now. Bharat’s northern borders have always been assaulted by Islamic invaders. The cause for the long chain of evil deeds from Mohammed Bin Qasim to Nawaz Sharif were never that we had occupied their land, attacked or looted them. The only reason for the animosity has always been that Bharat has always been a peace–loving land, wealthy and loyal to its faith. This was intolerable for them. To loot our land of its wealth, to change our faith and to shatter our peace — that is why these attacks have always taken place. These people have always come under the garb of looters and barbarians. From the story of Raja Dahit to squadron leader Ajay Ahuja and lieutenant Saurabh Kaliya, we can see the imprint of the same barbarism and inhumanity of these invaders. These invaders have always been ruthless and devious. They have always attacked us stealthily in the dark of the night.

They have always fought in the name of religion and given their deception the name of jihad. Even when they kill animals, they bleed it to a tortuous death and then call it halaal. Forget granting life to men, how can one expect from them even a dignified death? This is their way, this is their nature. And they never change their ways except when the hands of brave soldiers goes for their jugular. This inhuman lot can never forget 1971! Like bleating goats, 94,000 jihadis had then stood their heads bowed in abject surrender before our brave soldiers. Had it been some Islamic country in our place, it would have beheaded the entire lot and despatched 94,000 skulls to Islamabad. But true to our own civilised values and culture, we even fed milk to these 94,000 snakes. Fed on our generosity, they all returned well fattened to their homeland.

Look at them, now! So "brave" are they that when they encountered six of our soldiers on patrol, they would not fight them like men would. Instead, they were encircled, disarmed and then, crossing all limits of bestiality, tortured in such inhuman ways that even hearing or reading about it is intolerable. The blood of every Indian is on the boil today. From Ladakh to Kanyakumari, the entire nation is raising only one demand — Revenge! Revenge!

The time has come again for India’s Bheema to tear open the breasts of these infidels and purify the soiled tresses of Draupadi with blood. Pakistan will not listen just like that. We have a centuries’ old debt to settle with this mindset. It is the same demon that has been throwing a challenge at Durga since the time of Mohammed Bin Qasim. Arise, Atal Behari! Who knows if fate has destined you to be the author of the final chapter of this long story. For what have we manufactured bombs? For what have we exercised the nuclear option? The courageous give their enemy time to retreat. In the beginning, they even forgive. But if the perverse and incorrigible are bent on inviting his own death, the brave never disappoint them.
 

just recall, with what crookedness and violence Pakistan has responded to our magnanimity since 1947. In 1948, it sent its soldiers dressed as tribals and through deception captured a large part of our Kashmir. And this, when only a few months earlier, Mahtama Gandhi had used the ‘weapon’ of fasting to get India to grant Rs. 52 crore loan to Pakistan. The very money that we loaned them was used by Pakistan to attack us and grabb our territory. It perpetrated atrocities on our Hindu brethren, violated Hindu women, forcibly converted them, demolished our temples and has persisted in constantly provoking Bharat.

In 1965, they attacked us but faced a humiliating defeat when our jawans unfurled the triocolour right to the Haji pir. Then it groveled and we had the Tashkent agreement. But India again made the mistake of showing its magnanimity and returned the captured Haji Pir.

But Pakistan turned around from Haji Pir only to war against us yet again. After 1965, 1971. Bangladesh was born, and the story of India’s victory echoed through the world. Pakistan went down on its knees and begged for mercy. That’s when the Shimla agreement was signed. We again showed magnanimity and without resolving the issue of Kashmir once and for all, we returned the 94,000 captured serpents!

Even then Pakistan did not change. Zia–ul–Haq launched ‘Operation Topak’ in a bid to deal a serious blow to India. The bloody game of terrorism and militancy in Kashmir is a direct result of this. Of how many Indian lives are you going to ask Pakistan to account for? Is there any count of how many thousand Indian lives have been taken by these cowardly jehadis in Kashmir? And will you forget the terrorist assault on Punjab? Even today, blood–stained Punjab is unable to forget the slaughter of thousands of its innocent sons and daughters. Pakistan has spread the ISI’s web all over India. From the far east to the far south, from the deserts of Jaisalmer to the Terai region of Nepal, ISI is hell bent on killing Indians and crippling the Indian political system. Every day, hundreds of kilograms of RDX, AK–47 rifles, bombs and other ammunition are intercepted in Delhi and in every nook and cranny of the country.

And this only shows us that Pakistan’s animosity towards India is forever on the increase. Yet, behold the extent of our magnanimity! Despite all this, we took bus all the way to Lahore, the peace flag aflutter in ourhands! The Lahore Declaration was made. With what warmth the Pakistanis had greeted us! On one side they were embracing us, on the other the dynamite was being laid, bunkers were being erected. This is their character, this is their culture.

Enough is enough. To tolerate any more would be sheer cowardice. To teach them a lesson now is the only dharam now.

The over 1,000 years of our struggle with barbarians and religious bigots and their vandalism is written with the blood of martyrs who were subjected to the most inhuman torture unparalleled in history. The terrorist state of Pakistan is the continuation of that gory past.
— Seshadri Chari, editor, Organiser, in a signed article in the Organiser, June 20, 1999.

The barbaric and cruel behaviour of Pakistan with Indian soldiers is a good indicator of their mindset and their ‘civilisation’. The same mindset was at work during the time of Guru Tegh Bahadur; his colleagues, too, were martyred in the same cruel way. Killing a person in the normal fashion is alien to their culture. By behaving with Indian soldiers today with the same bestial as in case of Bhai Matidas, Bhai Satidas, Bhai Dayala etc., Pakistan clearly shows that even today its outlook is anything but humanitarian.
— Rajendra Singh, RSS sarsanghchalak (chief), in the Organiser, June 20, 1999.

The celebration of Hindu rule is being observed this year at a time when through treachery and deceit Pakistan has intruded into Indian territory.And coward–like, they have chosen to give this back–stabbing the label, "Islami Jihad’. This reminds us of those chapters of Indian history which are full of revolting accounts of the deceit and ill–will of Islamic marauders. While remembering Shivaji on this occasion, the best way to finish off the crooked ‘jehadis’ is the way Shivaji dealt with Afzal Khan.
— Narsinh Pandit, in an article titled, ‘Pursuing Shivaji’s Afzal policy is the way to teach the croooked Pakistanis a lesson’, in Panchjanya, June 20, 1999

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999, Year 6  No. 51, Cover Story 4

The post ‘Teach them a lesson now’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

— Pervez Hoodbhoy 
(Professor of physics at Quaid–e–Azam University, Islamabad)

There are many Kargils to come, I fear. Nuclear weapons have made brinksmanship possible, meaning that one hopes to get as close to war as possible without actually having war. India and Pakistan shall keep playing this game indefinitely until such time as a tragic error or miscalculation rules out further play. Pakistan is totally serious about Kashmir. Call it an obsession if you will, but facts are facts, and all indications are that its support for the militants will increase in times to come. This was the essential content of the speech by the chief of army staff, General Pervez Musharraf, in Karachi on April 10 this year. 

Presently there is much jubilation here in Pakistan about Indian planes and helicopters being downed. Sadly, most people don’t realise how close this pushes us to the brink, and have no idea of how total and final a fall would be. They also do not understand the immense cost which Pakistani civil society has paid for supporting insurgency in Kashmir. 

One should never have had illusions about the Lahore Declaration; it was a mere consequence of international pressure, particularly from the US, for the two prime ministers to look as if they are serious about peace. Even so, it was a good thing and every attempt to reduce enmity and tensions is to be welcomed. The bus service is still doing well, after all. I feel that we must welcome negotiations at all levels even if the results are marginal.

We must, however, also recognise that the basics have not changed, and probably will not change unless something very major happens. If that “something” is less than war, we shall be very fortunate. India and Pakistan are likely to make it past Kargil this time, and to the end of this millenium, with high probability. But unless there is a radical departure from past behaviour, I doubt that we will make it past the next few decades ahead. 

Adopt a dual strategy
— Praful Bidwai 
(A senior journalist and founder member of Movement in India  on Nuclear Disarmament)

The peace movement in both countries should not assume it knows the answer.  Rather, it should adopt a dual strategy: advocate normalisation and progress in all areas,  independently of Kashmir; and call for a  modest beginning at coming to  grips with the Kashmir issue while the general relationship improves.

The first strategy is minimalist and worth pursuing regardless of the second. There is simply no reason why the grotesque conflict at Siachen, which has killed 10,000 and costs Rs. 3 crores a day, should  not be resolved or the Wular, Sir Creek and  trade  issues should remain undecided even though Kashmir is not settled. But this needs a much deeper commitment than was shown at Lahore. “Bus diplomacy” was symbolically welcome, but substantively very thin. The Lahore accords were not even about arms control, only about limited transparency.  India and Pakistan didn’t even agree to slow down  nuclear and missile development or to  stop  testing. Lahore didn’t mark a real breakthrough. We still need one.

As for Kashmir, it is vitally important that a process of discussion begins. But this must be defined and enunciated, first and foremost, by the Kashmiri people themselves.

Fortunately, a beginning seems to have been made. At the Hague Appeal for Peace conference last month, a cross–border dialogue took place among Kashmiris from different political tendencies, from the JKLF and the Hurriyat to Pannun Kashmir. This needs to be built upon.

Durable peace requires Kashmir solution and more
— Zia Mian
(Scientist of Pakistani origin teaching at MIT, USA)

There can be no doubt that both Indians and Pakistanis, must talk about Kashmir, with the Kashmiris, and find a solution. Unless there is a settlement over Kashmir, that the Kashmiris feel reflects their aspirations, any peace between India and Pakistan may not thrive or survive. Until it is erased from the maps and from people’s minds, the Line of Control will always be a place for Lack of Control, especially for demagogues and would be heroes. 
At the same time, it may be un–reasonable to assume that a settlement of the Kashmir issue would in itself create lasting peace. One of the lessons of the end of the Cold War was that even though the Soviet Union is no more, its nuclear weapons remain (about 10,000 are operational), as do those of the United States (about 8,000 are operational). Both are still prepared to fight a thermonuclear war against each other, and in the process obliterate themselves and the rest of us. The Cold War has led to a bitter, resentful, grudging, nuclear armed Cold Peace. At times it is hard to tell the difference between the two. 

Both these aspects must be kept in mind. A durable peace in the region needs a solution to Kashmir, but it requires far more. This requires that we rid ourselves of nuclear weapons. We must overcome nationalism as an ideology, transform the state as a political institution, and bring justice within society. 

In the situation we are now in, with fighting along the Line of Control and nuclear weapons casting their terrible shadow over the region, there has to be movement towards peace no matter what. If nothing else, it can be narrow and focussed on tiny steps forward, for example restraining nuclear weapons development and deployment, loosening the restrictions on people’s travel across the border, increasing trade and so on. But unless Kashmir is addressed there is always the danger that it will be the kind of movement where for every one step forward there shall be two steps backward. 

This is what seems to have happened with the Lahore Declaration. 
There should however not be too many illusions about the Lahore Declaration. It was the same two leaders who talked peace in Lahore who earlier had ordered the nuclear weapons tests. It was expedient, given international opinion, for them to stop fighting (at least for a while) and make up. Once the world moved on to other issues,  the battle was resumed. 
 

Track two has a limited objective
— J.N. Dixit
(Former Indian foreign secretary)

The thing to remember is that track–two diplomacy has been going on, through various initiatives, for the last ten years. What has been most significantly observed about such intiatives is that they have no impact on government policy at all. On either side, in Pakistan or in India, the power structures of the two governments do not take into account either what is discussed at these fora or the recommendations made. So while track–two diplomacy may be broadly useful, the immediate impact is not noticeable.

What happens at a time when we are faced with a situation like we presently are in at Kargil? Even those individuals who are committed to peace and rational thinking on such issues get disappointed and wonder how to carry on because, when a territorial dispute arises, popular resentment and national feelings are aroused. Even the people who are committed to the improvement of relations between the two neighbours are faced with a wider public opinion that becomes antagonistic. 

In Pakistan, newspapers, television and radio report news of the bombing of “our schools and the killing of our children”. In India, the heavy casualties, the violation of the sanctity of an international agreement — the incursion beyond the LOC seven–ten miles into our territory — all in the face of Pakistan claiming not to have made any mistake raises temperatures.

I do believe that for at least one year, even government–level talks are not going to make serious headway. The foreign ministers may meet several times over — so that the world cannot tell us that we are being unreasonable — but the inner impulses on either side will not contribute to coming to any reasonable compromises on either side.

Track one diplomacy gets vitiated by such developments such as the current situation in Kargil. And track two efforts serve a limited objective: they keep alive trends in public opinion and are important at that level but are limited in their impact and reach. Unfortunately, what is a forgone conclusion today is that even if there was earlier some possibility of imminent solutions, these have been irretrievably delayed further. 
 

The situation will defuse soon
— Dr. Mubashir Hasan
 (Former finance minister, Pakistan)

The process started by both the prime ministers, Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee envisaged clearly talking on all issues including Kashmir. Unfortunately this unique intitiative, the first of its kind in fifty years, was first put off, or delayed by the dissolution of the Indian Lok Sabha and has now been stalled by the recent operations in Kargil. I foresee that grim though the situation in Kargil today seems, it will defuse within ten–fifteen days time. 

We must also remember that whenever the two governments come close to resolving issues or making a beginning even, something occurs to put a spoke in the wheel. It could be much–publicised news of USA supplying F16s to Pakistan that makes the Indians angry or it could be the news of a big explosion on Pakistani soil that makes the Pakistanis angry! These are the considered machinations of those international powers who do not want regional peace in South Asia. The Sharif–Vajpayee governments were for the first time in the process of co–relating their nuclear policies. An identical nuclear policy is in the interest of both Pakistan and India. This is not what vested international powers want.
 

Await more stable governments
— Nirmal Mukherjee 
(Former Indian cabinet secretary and governor, Punjab)

I don’t believe that the doings of peace groups are undone. I believe the urge for peace remains unchanged. The current situation in Kargil is illustrative of the games regimes play. My own view is that India is going through a situation of political flux (as our former prime minister, V.P. Singh has been saying) except that I feel that the results of the next election will be another pre–final. Until the voice of the oppressed, the vast majority, gets finally heard. In the midst of this flux, with weak governments at the helm, peace activists cannot do too much. They must hold their fire, conserve their energy, remain in touch, gather as many facts, and as much information about each other, as possible. And await a political climax over the next decade when the moves for peace find receptive listeners in government.
 

Peace pressure must continue
— B.M. Kutty
(Convenor, Pakistan Peace Coalition; also secretary, Sind province committee of Pak–India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy)

It is true that the situation  presently looks very bleak and  frustrating. Something like the recent developments in Kargil appear to undermine by months and years the efforts put in by pro–peace organisations and individuals on both sides. But peace groups cannot afford to give up in either country. The argument for people to people contact, the need for increased interaction, remains as valid today as it was before. So, irrespective of what happens at the government level, we should go on pressing for further contacts.

Also peace groups cannot close their eyes to the fact that Kashmir remains a very sensitive issue between the two countries and a resolution of this issue is essential for durable peace. It has acquired a hydra–headed character that cannot be pushed under the carpet. We, therefore, will have to evolve perspectives for a resolution of the problem and thereafter mount pressure on the government on both sides to act on them. 

To begin with, a few things are very clear. The Kashmir problem cannot be solved militarily — neither by India’s military action nor by Pakistan’s intervention through support to this or that group. Both the governments have to agree that the people of Kashmir also count — no agreement will work unless it enjoys the confidence of the Kashmiri people. 

I personally believe that unless people of Kashmir on both sides are given an absolutely free choice, with no Indian troops present and without any Pakistani involvement, there will be no solution possible.
 

Kashmir’s accession to India is final
— Vishnu Bhagwat
(Former Chief of the Indian Navy)

In my mind, there can be no question of any moves towards lasting peace within the region being at all feasible with Pakistan insisting on intervention in Kashmir. This is true not only in the context of the recent infiltration in Kargil but in the context of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole. For India and for me, the question of Kashmir and its accession are final through the instrument of accession and no Indian government has any right to indulge in any kind of bargaining so far as the question of the status of Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian union is concerned. This is because, in more ways than one, Kashmir is not only the symbol of Indian secularism but the sine qua non of both the secular Indian constitution and the secular India state. It is literally the head of the body that is India. The will of the people of Kashmir was behind the accession of Kashmir to India as opposed to the rulers of not just Kashmir but Hyderabad, Junagadh and Jaipur who wanted independent status, their treaties with the British having lapsed. Under no circumstances can any state of the Indian union, be it Punjab, Kashmir or a government at the centre be encouraged or permitted to take on a non–secular, theocratic garb. 

On all other issues like trade and business, people–to–people links, cultural exchanges these are welcome since we are basically the same people. But I strongly feel that Kashmir cannot be a part of these levels of exchanges. Here I would like to quote the example of Abraham Lincoln who held the American union together at the cost of a civil war knowing full well the implications of such a war. Secession was something that was never entertained as a possibility let alone an eventuality. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 1999, Year 6  No. 54, Cover Story 2

The post “India and Pakistan will play the war game indefinitely” appeared first on SabrangIndia.