Speaker: Amb. Teresita Schaeffer
Chair: Prof PR Chari

In her presentation Amb Schaeffer spoke about some impressions she sensed about the Indo-Pak peace process while traveling in Pakistan and India through her interactions with politicians, scholars, think tanks and government officials. She raised some pertinent questions about the evolving relationship between India and Pakistan on which the discussion took place.

The first important observation was that the leadership from both sides are determined to keep talking. The primary reason for this determination is their realization that the economy is the driving force in international relations at present. The improvement in foreign direct investment and investments in the social sector are important indicators. Though many Pakistani politicians are not happy with Musharraf's policies, there is no opposition to the peace process. The same determination is visible on the Indian side but with caution. The agreement on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service is an indicator of this fact.

The Government if India is more interested in people-to-people contacts. It is not clear whether this is a long term strategy or short and medium term tactics on the India part. The emphasis on pipeline diplomacy and trade liberalization by India, while expecting to obtain Most Favored Nation status by Pakistan, shows India's keenness to develop functional interactions.

For Pakistan, Kashmir is still the "core issue" and they insist that unless a solution is found there cannot be progress on other issues. Surprisingly there is no clear answer about 'what can be considered an improvement in Kashmir situation.' The position adopted by the Pakistani authorities is that an improvement in the Kashmir situation implies improvement in the human rights situation in Kashmir.

These two stated national positions however provided no sense about either government making any preparations for major policy changes. Against this background, the interaction between people in the two Kashmirs becomes very important, and this will probably decide the future of Indo-Pak peace process. Amb Schaeffer suggested that India should be ready to take this gamble in the initial phase.

Amb Teresita Schaeffer raised the following questions which she believed would decide where we go from here. These questions set the tone of the discussion that followed.

• How does India engage the Kashmiris and Pakistan at the same time?

• Is the peace process a short term tactic or major policy shift for India?

• How do India's domestic politics play out vis-à-vis the peace process with Pakistan?

Discussion

Prof Chari initiated the discussion by saying that certain systemic factors are working in favor of the peace process, which according to him are irreversible, and the aspirations of the common people is the driving force of this process. The success or failure of the peace process depends on strengthening these systemic factors. The following points were raised during the discussion:

• No one can have precise answers to the questions raised by the speaker. But the situation in South Asia is developing in a way in which there are very few chances of this process going into reverse direction. Amb Eric Gonsalves explained the main features of this changing situation. Firstly, economic progress in India is developing in the larger Asian and global context, which has eclipsed its South Asian neighbours. Secondly, both India and Pakistan are trying to leverage their relationship with the United States. Another important factor working in favour of the peace process is the changing equations of China with India. Fourthly, Kashmir is no longer the top priority for the Indian establishment as it is for Pakistan. India is trying to use the potential of its South Asian and Southeast Asian neighbours for its economic developments. With all these developments it is unlikely there would be hiccups in the Indo-Pak peace process. He also pointed out that the Asian countries are slow in responding to the forces of globalization although State frontiers are becoming irrelevant.

• Amb Salman Haider questioned the proposition that the peace process is driven by the 'popular aspirations'. According to him, there are many elements in the system who are resisting the positive direction of the process and to believe that the peace process is driven by popular will is wishful thinking. He illustrated his argument by saying that after weighing all the realities about the bus and pipeline diplomacy, India adopted its stand giving concessions to Pakistan, while the Pakistani posture was that India can be pushed back if it wanted. Therefore, both sides have to be innovative in their approach by accepting the centrality of the Kashmir issue. A simultaneous dialogue with Srinagar and Islamabad is an essential part of the peace process.

• Many participants commented on the role of popular will in the peace process. Some felt that the pressure of popular aspirations is more on Pakistan than in India particularly about the Kashmir issue while others cautioned that popular support could be shaken by a major militants attack in Kashmir or New Delhi. The support of the civilian and military bureaucracy to the peace process was also questioned.

• The political and constitutional stability of Pakistan and the relations between its political parties and military establishment were critical for the success of the peace process, while for some military officials, defense cooperation with Pakistan could to be critical for the normalization process.

• Dr Klause Voll from Berlin University asked if any lessons can be learnt from the German Unification process relevant to India Pakistan relations. Many participants raised a question about the US interests in the peace process. Its actual influence on the three parties that is India, Pakistan and Kashmir was also discussed. With reference to recent visit of the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and her comments about the sale of F-16s to Pakistan and proposed pipeline to India from Iran, a question was asked whether the US was playing a balancing game in South Asia.

• Prof Vijayalakshmi pointed out that subtle alterations in Chinese policy towards India and Pakistan had an impact on Indo-Pak relations. She insisted that the peace process was driven by popular will. The cricket matches, student and teacher level interactions, contacts between traders, journalists and professionals show that, despite their stated positions, both governments are being forced to allow people-to-people contact. She elaborated that concessions given and major policy shifts were irrelevant because the new generation was looking forward to friendly relations between India and Pakistan. Giving the examples of Pakistani students and scholars, she said they are very curious about the functioning of democracy in India.

• Gopi Arora pointed out that the pressure from below is largely from the middle class and is not spread to all sections of society in both countries. He argued that, despite all efforts, the peace process has not taken off because of the incomplete process of state formation in South Asia. The region is characterized by unsatisfied aspirations, poverty and violence. Whenever people have asserted their aspirations, they were crushed by the coercive power of the State. This has led to the rise of naxalism, cultural nationalism and various forms of violence. Both India and Pakistan have played out the Kashmir card either as a symbol of Islam or symbol of secularism. He suggested that the present shared mutuality of interests should continue in culture, economy and sports, but India has to think about its role in the world and complete its state formation process. This will help in resolving the Kashmir problem. He also suggested that, the US, while employing its imperialistic tactics, should learn some lessons from British imperialism. Amb Eric Gonsalves also cautioned that US policies are leading to Muslim alienation all over the world.

• Gen Banerjee argued that both India and Pakistan are still continuing with their old strategy. Pakistani strategy is military driven and based on internationalizing the Kashmir conflict, while India's strategy is terrorism centric based on anti-terrorism operations. The ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir and fencing of the LoC has changed the situation, and economic transformation holds the key to peace in the region. Referring to Chinese policy in Tibet, he remarked that only economic development can marginalize the extremists.

Amb Schaeffer responded to these queries and comments by noting:

• One has to remember that there is a history of misperception between India and Pakistan. There is wide agreement in Pakistan that India is a major existential threat and it could undo partition. Therefore, more time and a deeper level of interaction is needed to change this perception and regular assurances for Indian side would help.

• Whenever the army has taken over in Pakistan, it has sought a greater role for itself. The Army will play a significant role in the near and medium term future of Pakistan as the Prime Minister has no political base and there are no signs of the mainline Pakistani leaders coming back to the country.

• One cannot transplant the solutions of one region to another and Indo-Pak relations have a different cultural context. Therefore, the lessons of the German Unification process are not very relevant.

• In order of importance the United States has three major interests in the peace process: 1. Reducing the risk of nuclear confrontation; 2. Strengthen relations with India, mainly due to its economic potential; and 3. Allying with Pakistan to achieve its anti-terrorism goals. Amb Schaeffer commented that, to really influence the peace process, the US needs to create more space for itself in its interactions with Pakistan which goes beyond anti-terrorism operations. She accepted that the US has very little influence over the Kashmiri population. But it definitely enjoys influence in policy making of India and Pakistan, though the influence on Pakistan is much more. On US policy of balancing power in South Asia, she said that it is part of general US foreign policy and Secretary Rice has referred to it many times but this has no operational relevance to India-Pakistan relations.

• Change in India-China relations is of great significance to the peace process. She was fascinated by the process of people-to-people contacts which can change the stereotyped perception about each other. But she cautioned that 'popular will' as the driving force of the peace process may not drive it always in the right direction.

• On the role of media in the peace process, the speaker said that the media has its own biases and looks for good stories. Credibility is the most important factor for the media. The chair supported this point by citing the example of the Emergency in India when the government owned media lost its credibility and people preferred to listen to the BBC rather than the All India Radio. Amb Schaeffer further pointed out that, despite the military regime, there is considerable freedom of the press in Pakistan, and the regime had allowed a team of journalists to visit Jammu and Kashmir and write about their impressions, which is a positive sign for the peace process.

Concluding Remarks

In her concluding remarks Amb Schaeffer said that whether India wants to permanently settle the Kashmir problem or wants to make the Kashmir question irrelevant through its management of the conflict is not yet clear. But, in any case, India will have to deal simultaneously with Islamabad and Srinagar. As violence has reduced in the Valley, she opined that this was the right time to initiate a dialogue with the Kashmiri separatists. Economic development is an important ingredient of the peace process but it cannot replace the real political questions. She expressed her satisfaction over the realization in both India and Pakistan that keeping quiet about the details of a settlement of Kashmir is good for the peace process. But, for the success of any process, she emphasized that visible changes are necessary and agreement on resuming the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service is a significant step in this direction.