Indo-Pak Dialogue – The Kargil Effect
13 Aug, 1999 · 244
Dr. Subhash Kapila says India's options for immediate resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue stand thus limited by the Kargil effect and more so by the domestic effect of Kargil on the Indian public.... This can only harden attitude and stall Indo-Pak dialogues
With India militarily succeeding in evicting Pakistan Army's aggressive occupation of a sizable chunk of Indian territory South of the LoC in the last few months, calls are now being made by different quarters including Pakistan, for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue to settle conflictual issues. Dialogue between nation states to solve contentious issues as an imperative is well recognized. However, any future resumption of Indo-Pak dialogues in the wake of the Kargil conflict has necessarily to take into account the pattern of inter-state relations vis-à-vis
India
woven by
Pakistan
so far.
Pakistan
's aggressive misadventure in Kargil brings this pattern acutely into focus.
India
needs to keep this backdrop in mind.
Pakistan
has not even the modicum of respect for any bilateral agreements of processes. While aggressing into Kargil sector,
Pakistan
gave the of-by to the Simla Agreement of 1972 and the Lahore Process of 1999. The Simla Agreement specifically embodied principles of bilateral dialogues for settlement of disputes, non-interference in each other internal affairs and respect for the LoC in J & K based on the 17 December, 1971 cease-fire. Kargil, therefore, in effect, highlights that
Pakistan
has no respect for international agreement or dialogues.
Pakistan
's internal power elite and political decision making processes, no change has taken place. Pakistan Army's collegium of Generals call the shots in
Pakistan
's foreign policy processes.
Pakistan
Generals do not subscribe to or respect any peaceful processes. Kargil is the latest example. Further, an unholy combination of Pakistan Army and Islamic fundamentalist forces in
Pakistan
would negate any Indo-Pak in the future.
Pakistan
in J & K indicates that
Pakistan
has not given up its grand strategic design of attempting the Balkanisation of India. Besides the four wars,
Pakistan
state sponsored terrorism and sabotage in
Punjab
, J&K and the North East, the
Bombay
blast of 1993 and ISI penetration of
South India
are indicators. With such designs,
Pakistan
's faith in any inter-state dialogue is questionable and therefore,
India
has to be cautious.
India
's options for immediate resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue stand thus limited by the Kargil effect and more so by the domestic effect of Kargil on the Indian public. Not only Indian national unity has been strengthened, but there is a heightened call for build-up of national power to defeat any future Kargils. Kargil also for the first time in 50 years has brought
Kashmir
as an election issue in Indian politics. This can only harden attitude and stall Indo-Pak dialogues.
Pakistan
is no more amenable to
United States
and
China
's advice. Surely, neither these countries would have advised PM Nawaz Sharif to go ahead with its aggression in Kargil. At least in
India
, we would like to believe it.
United States
and
China
are the only two countries that had leverage over
Pakistan
and with this gone or diluted, Indo-Pak dialogue can hardly move forward.
India
should therefore, stop sobbing over
Pakistan
's perfidy.
India
should agree to the resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue subject to a declaration by
Pakistan
that it is ready to respect the provisions of the Simla Agreement and the
Lahore
process and a commitment by the Pakistan Govt. to curb all
Pakistan
terrorist activities, governmental or non-governmental, in
India
.
Pakistan
is unlikely to commit itself as such as demonstrated by its post-Kargil activities in J& K. It thus becomes incumbent on the
United States
,
China
and the G-8 countries to exercise their financial leverages on
Pakistan
to make declarations of its intent to facilitate resumption of a Indo-Pak dialogue. Falling this,
India
would be justified in not resuming a dialogue with
Pakistan
.
Kargil, foremost, highlighted that
Kargil, next, demonstrates that in terms of
Kargil and the follow-up spurt of terrorist activities by
Kargil further highlights that
In international relations, there is no respect for aggrieved parties and their grief about breach of trust.