Panelists: Dr. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema and Amb. IP Khosla
Chair: Prof. PR Chari

P R Chari

In analyzing the state of Indo-Pak relations, two points of view generally emerge. One that laments the pace of improving relations as glacial, and the other that appreciates the fact that this improvement in relations has perhaps provided the longest peace between the two states in a long time.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Prior to a discussion of relations at this time, it is important to recognize certain factors that affect the forward movement of relations. As long as these factors are operative, the dialogue will continue to move forward. The first factor is the ability of the leaders to work together. They understand each other and tacitly recognize the constraints they have to work within. They have consistently demonstrated the will to carry the process forward that has generated a lot of optimism. The second factor is that the opposition and the government are both supportive of dialogue and will be very difficult for either to withdraw from it. The third factor is the growing interest of the international community in the forward movement of the peace process. This is probably due to the nuclear capability of the parties involved. Though writings in the West depict attitudes in the first 25 years of Indo-Pak relations, they do not reflect the changes in that attitude over the last 25. The fourth factor is the support of the people who are on board with the government. Though there are various reasons for this support, the fact is that both sides want disputes to be resolved. The fifth factor is the changed nature of the global community. In the Cold War era, the two great powers functioned as equalizers, but in the post-Cold War there are no equalizers available and economic factors have taken ascendancy. The sixth factor is the realization in both countries that a military solution cannot be lasting because new non-military threats have emerged. If the process is stabilized for 3-4 years then there is a good chance of resolving conflicts. The past few years have demonstrated that both parties are willing to show flexibility. On Kashmir for instance, there was a time that both insisted on pre-conditions for dialogue but this is no longer the case. This reflects the maturity that has been gained over the years.

Two rounds have been completed, the third is scheduled for next year, this has raised hopes and there is a need to sign agreements no matter two big or small because there is a risk that hopes may not be met. There is a realization that things can improve with sincerity. The third round must settle some issues. Siachen is one such issue that can be worked upon.

Amb. I P Khosla

The factors enumerated by Dr. Cheema are long term in nature. An issue which needs to be considered here is the importance of 'positioning' in a conflict. Historically, specific positions have got entrenched in the respective mindsets of the two countries. While India-phobic Pakistan believes that the former wants to destroy it, India looks upon Pakistan's aspirations as directed to attaining parity with it at any cost. This is similar to the Cold War scenario where the issue beyond irreconcilable differences was of positioning. Hence, while assessing the potential of the factors as given by Dr. Cheema, for conflict resolution; it is equally important to see if there have been changes in the attitudes and positions of the involved parties.

Questions and Answers

Question: It is often believed that the military is in power and running the country and would not like the problem to be resolved. What is the politico-military structure in Pakistan?
Answer: As far as the Army in Pakistan is concerned, improvement in relations is acceptable to the army for it was the army that initiated the peace process. The impression that the military is in power is a consequence of military regimes in the past. The fact is that the people of Pakistan do not mind military leaders in power because they are tired of politicians. However, to stay in power the military tries to win the people over by formulating policies that have the people's support.

Question: Progress has been slow, but that is okay because we cannot get to Kashmir without resolving other issues like Sir Creek, etc. While economic ascendancy will bring the two states together there is a feeling that Pakistan is unable to engage with it properly. How does the situation in Pakistan affect Kashmir? There is growing sectarianism in Pakistan and Musharraf is consolidating the support of religious parties and moderate support is shifting. Doesn't this instability affects Pakistan but also Kashmir.
Answer: Sectarianism in Pakistan is an internal issue, there is an unwarranted tendency in South Asia to meddle in others' internal affairs. The impression that the military is in power is a consequence of military regimes in the past. The fact is that the people of Pakistan do not mind military leaders in power because they are tired of politicians. However, to stay in power the military tries to win the people over by formulating policies that have the people's support.

Question: The media has been actively reporting developments in the peace process, what has its affect been on the same?
Answer: The media generates optimism but also uses negative prefixes that affect discussions. Often real issues are left behind because the focus is on the negative prefixes created by the media. This is a tendency one must be aware of.

Question: Can the issue be resolved without broaching Kashmir? What will be the outcome of this forward movement if the two countries cannot agree on the core issue?
Answer: Many think that the peace process is moving slowly, but we must remember that Kashmir issue is the core issue whose resolution will take time. This is an issue that has the ability to pull back advance in all other areas. Though it is not absolutely necessary for it to be resolved, it is best to move forward with caution. Signing of agreements does make a difference, therefore, in the third round it becomes important to have an agreement over one issue or another. On the issue of Kashmir, Pakistan is not willing to accept the LoC as the final border while India is not willing to consider a redrawing of boundaries. Negotiations are based on common grounds, but it must be acknowledged that one is unwilling to erode one's own position. The situation today is a hostage of history but this will eventually be surpassed.

Question: Musharraf is a maverick and his impatience is what resulted in Kargil. This, along with his dictatorial style and complains about the slow progress, is there a possibility of accidental adventurism that may put the process back by 5-10 years?
Answer: To say that decisions by any power or individual in power are made by accident is incorrect. Decisions are made keeping in mind the pros and cons of the situation, therefore one cannot say that Kargil was an example of accidental adventurism. It was a rational decision. There is no scope fro making accidental moves in the situation.

Question: Does it not seem that academics and diplomats are out of touch with ground realities? The 2003 decision by Atal Bihari Vajpayee took everyone by surprise, the people and perhaps politicians are able to understand the undercurrents in Indo-Pak relations. Economics is the way to resolve the issue, not politics.
Answer: To say that academics and bureaucrats are out of touch with ground realities is unwarranted. Serving diplomats are necessarily constrained by the stance of their governments, they are policy executors, not formulators. Academics have a tendency to shoot in the dark, however, their intentions are good. They have an important role to play for they provide the ideas that can be converted into solutions.

Question: What is the role of non-state actors? What sort of control does the regime have over these?
Answer: The role of non state actors cannot be ignored, they are linked to the emergence of new threats. The government does realize that spoilers are important. No government will however permit them to guide the process.

Question: Why is Pakistan upping the ante on missile notification at a time that it is readying to test Shaheen?
Answer: It is hoped that through the new agreement, gaps in earlier ones can be closed. It has nothing to do with the testing of Shaheen.

Comments

• At present the military solution is ruled out and there are economic compulsions on both sides. In India the coalition politics at the center prevents quick decision making, Track 2 and Track 3 are the long way forward. In Pakistan, as long as the military wields influence, no political party will be able to sign an agreement on the border. With the increase in CBMs perhaps the environment will improve to such an extent that a solution will present itself.

• The nature of the regime in Pakistan is important and does have a bearing on the peace process because the military functions on a siege mentality that can be detrimental to finding a solution.

• To say that the rise of sectarianism in Pakistan is an internal problem would is dangerous for the roots of this sectarianism lie in religious bigotry and this religious bigotry affects Indo-Pak relations.

• In the abstract it is true that due to cultural affinity the people want peace but people do not see eye to eye on specific issues.

• One cannot ignore objective domestic situations in either state for they have a bearing on issues. The nature of regime is important The possibility of the military giving up power in the near future are bleak. If we factor in the prospect of military entrenchment, finding a solution becomes even more difficult from the Indian perspective.

• The relationship is not just between governments but a mix of societies. The military in Pakistan can be considered a part of civil society that affects policy making in Pakistan. This is a process that cannot be derailed because it is larger than the leadership, it may be slowed but it continue.

• There emerge two key points- firstly, Kashmir is the core issue. In the Pakistani mindset it is more a territorial issue but in India it is associated more with soft borders etc. With the increase in CBMs one might find the territory issue losing importance. Secondly, the economic factor is even more important. The two economies be enmeshed as has happened with India and Sri Lanka, and even with China. While Kashmir may be the core issue, monitored dialogue on Kashmir should be simultaneous with other discussions.

• To say that relations are hostage to history would be to ignore the fact that the state of current relations is a result of a civil war engineered by imperial powers.

• Pakistan is not the authoritarian regime it is depicted as in India. India cannot say that democracy is better than authoritarianism for Indian secularism is not thought highly of in Pakistan. Pakistan does not think of Kashmir as a territory issue and no longer talks of even UN resolutions but is willing to accept whatever is acceptable to the Kashmiri people. Relations between the two countries are accident prone and even small issue can have a large bearing on them.