ISLAMABAD, 28 August 2004 — The word from both Islamabad and New Delhi is that the dialogue process is moving satisfactorily. That it must continue. Both sides said that the talks were constructive and candid. Alongside these positive expressions however there are some concerns. Few concrete outcomes have flowed from the eight rounds of composite dialogue. There has been an exchange of a draft agreement in June on advance notification of missile testing. A follow-up of the MoU signed during the 1999 Lahore summit, the Indian draft is being examined by the Pakistan. Also the two sides will now show some leniency in issuing visas to certain category of visitors.
However on other issues ranging from Siachin to the Wullar Barrage, from terrorism to trade, from Sir Creek to Kashmir, the two sides, not unexpectedly have used the first round of composite dialogue to merely repeat their previously held positions. For example Pakistan has sought the end of Indian occupation of the Siachin glacier. India who now illegally occupies the area west of the line that joins NJ 9842 and the KK pass seeks authentication of the current location of the Pakistani and Indian forces. Earlier in 1992 India had demanded this authentication and given a formulation for this. While India has neither ruled out nor agreed to the relocation of its forces, Pakistan seeks acceptance of the line by India that has de facto existed and was accepted internationally since the Simla agreement.
Two, India’s repeated commitment to dialogue is now being coupled with the complaint against increase in “Pakistan-supported cross-border terrorism.”
The sentiment however on the peoples’ front seeking normalization and in fact friendship between the two countries was also evident. A large number of people gathered on the Aug. 14-15, at the Wagah border to jointly celebrate two countries’ independence.
The dialogue process, while still continuing, seems to be switching tracks. From the steady-footed track laid down personally by Prime Minister Vajpayee and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, it now appears to be veering toward a slippery slope. Resolving disputes may not be easy. After all dispute resolution in only one round of talks on each of the eight issues is not possible.
While a definitively pessimistic conclusion may therefore be premature some non-dialogue indicators on confidence building too are not too promising. The bilateral talks for starting the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service still remain stalled. Since the last foreign ministers’ SAARC meeting in Islamabad in July, where Pakistan sought specific dates from India on the talks, there has been no response from the Indians. Earlier there had been differences over the composition of the delegation for these talks. During informal exchanges India has expressed reservations over Pakistan’s decision that Kashmiris will use state documents and not national passports for cross-LOC movement.
An agreement to reopen their consulates in Bombay and Karachi has been reached. Yet Pakistan’s request that India give it the possession of its founder Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s home in Bombay has been rejected. Giving it to Pakistan would have been a major confidence -booster. By contrast in 2004 Pakistan’s 50-day Prime Minister Chauhdry Shujaat Hussain took the initiative, although less demanding, of naming a boys public school in Chakwal, the birthplace of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after Manmohan Singh.
The improvement in Pakistan-India relations remains tied to developments in Indian Kashmir. Over the last few weeks there has been heightened violence in the valley, end of APHC-Delhi dialogue and Kashmir chief minister’s concern regarding increased induction of Indian paramilitary forces. The recent EU report meanwhile calls for a three— party participation for a sustainable Kashmir solution. It recommended a bigger role for the United Nations Military Observation Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitoring LOC violations. India has repeatedly called for disbanding UNMOGIP.
A corollary to this has been Delhi’s increasing accusation against Pakistan supporting cross-LOC infiltration. Indian failure to take any tangible steps in reducing massive human rights violations are obviously being linked by the Indians to increase in Pakistani support to so-called “cross-border terrorism.” This claim not withstanding, top Indian officials have conceded over the last one year at least that Pakistani support for cross-LOC infiltration has greatly decreased. Yet the people in Indian Kashmir have not experienced any major reduction in state-perpetrated human right violations.
Against this backdrop, on both sides of the border questions have been raised regarding sincerity in pursuing the dialogue process. For genuine progress political commitment to normalization and improvement of bilateral relations is required. Perhaps the one key factor in such an effort is the consensus between the two sides on what would be the basis of resolving existing disputes as well for conducting inter-state relations. Will it be some principles, legal framework, international law, UN declaration or bilateral agreements? The answer to such questions needs to be worked out in Delhi and Islamabad and then at the negotiating table.
Clearly an approach to dispute resolution whether on Wullar Barrage, Siachin, or Sir Creek, which seeks to holding on what is in possession of either side, without reference to any legality or bilateral commitment, is no formula for dispute settlement. It will merely perpetuate the Indo-Pak hostility in the long run, while appearing to reduce it in the short run.
The history of Pakistan-India relations clearly indicates that internal weakness of either country, the international pressure and often the high cost incurred by either side in upholding their respective positions, has never led to the solution of any bilateral dispute. These factors may have only led to temporary reduction in tensions.
Given their geography and their socioeconomic challenges, India and Pakistan both must have a stake in making the dialogue process generate positive outcomes. Yet none appears so desperate as to rush toward peace “at any cost.” Banking therefore on “peace” flowing either from the “bully” tactics or from “bleeding” tactics would be unwise. Peace will flow from only a sincere, principle-based and mutually beneficial approach to conflict resolution.
— Nasim Zehra is fellow, Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge Mass.
