Two Neighbors And Their Tales Of War

India and Pakistan share a long history that dates back to their time under British rule. For
nearly 200 years, India fought for its independence from England, first from the East India
Company and later from the British Raj. During the 1940s, the Muslim-dominated area of
British India joined the fight, beginning the Pakistan Movement with the hope of creating a
sovereign Muslim state. On August 15, 1947, independence was won, and British India was
separated into the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.

These new political borders could not be completely established according to religion,
leaving many Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India. Violence among religious groups
broke out, leading to a giant wave of migration as people moved to the countries
corresponding with their religions. Additionally, independence left behind some territories
still under the rule of Indian monarchy, called princely states. These territories became points
of contention between the newly developed sovereign nations. The majority of the Muslim-
dominated princely states chose to join Pakistan, and Hindu-dominated princely states joined
India, with some exceptions. All of these events have helped to form the often hostile
relationship between India and Pakistan.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Shortly after gaining independence, India and Pakistan went to war in what is called the First
Kashmir War. The conflict began over the Muslim-populated, but Hindu-ruled Princely State
of Kashmir and Jammu. The king, Hari Singh, chose to exercise his right to remain free. His
majority Muslim population violently rebelled and demanded to join Pakistan. In October of
1947, Pakistan sent troops to the area in an attempt to gain control of the state. When the
violence became too much for the king to control, he requested military aid from India. As a
condition of the support, King Singh agreed to accede Jammu and Kashmir to India.

Pakistan refused to recognize Jammu and Kashmir as an Indian state. They continued fighting
for territory, capturing some cities and forcing out Hindus. Indian forces kept up defence as
well, taking back control of some areas and securing others. When a ceasefire was finally
established in January of 1949, India had control of Jammu, Ladakh, and Kashmir Valley;
Pakistan had control of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The Indo-Pakistan War of 1947
was the first of many wars between India and Pakistan.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was instigated by several events. First, in 1956, India
regained control over the Rann of Kutch region in the Indian state of Gujarat. Then, in
January of 1965, Pakistan sent troops to patrol an Indian-controlled region, believing the
local population wanted to be out of Indian control. This move was followed by attacks on
both sides in April of the same year. With tensions high, Pakistan launched Operation
Gibraltar in August of 1965 and began invading the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. India
responded with a full military attack in West Pakistan. Although this war only lasted for 17
days, it resulted in thousands of deaths. The war was the largest grouping of troops since
independence and the largest tank battle since World War II.
The United Nations mandated an end to the war after the US and the Soviet Union initiated
peace talks. Both India and Pakistan, however, claimed to have won the war and felt that the
US and Britain had not supported their positions. This led both countries to create stronger
ties to the Soviet Union and China. In January 1966, India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent
Declaration, a peace treaty, in which they agreed to return conquered territories, remove
troops, and return to the borders established in 1949.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was the first war between the countries that did not involve
fighting over the Kashmir region. At this time, the Dominion of Pakistan was divided into
West Pakistan and East Pakistan (initially East Bengal). These two regions were separated by
the larger nation of India. East Pakistan felt exploited by West Pakistan, which held the
majority of political power. In March of 1971, an East Pakistan political party won the
election, and West Pakistan chose not to recognize the results. This decision led to political
unrest in East Pakistan, and West Pakistan responded with military force. The Bangladesh
Liberation War began with East Pakistan declaring independence as Bangladesh.

Due to the violence in Bangladesh, many of its residents sought refuge in India. The Prime
Minister decided to intervene in the civil war, supporting an independent Bengali state. Some
say this decision was prompted by the past relations between India and Pakistan, others say it
was to reduce the number of refugees. India began supporting rebel troops in Bangladesh, in
response, Pakistan attacked an Indian military base in December of 1971. This attack was the
official start of the war.

After two weeks of fighting and losing West Pakistan territory, the Pakistani troops in
Bangladesh surrendered. This surrender effectively established the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh. The war resulted in the highest number of casualties of any Indo-Pakistani
conflict.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1999

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1999, also known as the Kargil War, took place between May and
July. Pakistan prompted this conflict when it sent troops across the Kashmir border to join
rebels in the Indian district of Kargil. India retaliated with a significant military response. The
Indian army, together with the Air Force, recaptured the majority of the Kargil district. Facing
international opposition, Pakistan was forced to withdraw its invasion over the rest of the
district. Many countries criticized Pakistan for starting the conflict, and its already weak
economy suffered further due to the threat of decreased international trade.

Current Relations Between The Two Nations

Today, India and Pakistan continue to have strained relations. Both countries spent the latter
part of the 1990s in a nuclear arms race. They are currently cited as having one of the world’s
most dangerous borders. Military members from both countries continue violence across the
border, with incidences in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015. Recently, civilians and security forces
have been involved in increasing violent conflict throughout the Kashmir Valley, beginning
full force in July of 2016. This area continues to be Muslim-dominated although under Indian
control. Attacks have been made against public establishments and police stations; the unrest
has led to over 7,000 civilian injuries and at least 70 deaths (some estimates are as high as 90
deaths). The attacks against Indian forces have been increasingly carried out by fedayeen
militants, rebels willing to sacrifice their lives.

2016 Uri attack

On September 18, 2016, four terrorists carried out an attack on the Indian Army Brigade just
outside of the town of Uri in the Kashmir Valley. The terrorists threw approximately 17
grenades in short succession which set fuel tanks on fire. The fire spread to the sleeping
quarters and several tents around the brigade. Eighteen soldiers died in the attack and an
additional 19 were injured (some sources report up to 32). This attack is considered the worst
in over 14 years. Both countries have responded by placing troops on high alert, and India has
increased security around the area.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has criticized Pakistan and has called for the
international isolation of the country. Pakistan denies involvement in the attacks and has
promised that any military retaliation will be returned. This threat is of utmost concern given
Pakistan’s nuclear capability. To avoid this, some experts believe that India will spark a
diplomatic campaign against the country.

Reasons and Effects of India-Pakistan Wars are as follows:

1. Indo-Pakistan War 1947- 48:

Reasons:

- Kashmir Problem has been central to the dispute between India and Pakistan.

- In, 1947 when India was partitioned, Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Muslim dominated
Kashmir, dreamt of the Independent State of Kashmir.

However the partition riots broke out in Kashmir in September 1947 when Muslims were killed in
Western part of Kashmir. This led people of this part to rebel against Maharaja and declared their
own Azad Kashmir Government.

- Sensing it as an opportunity, Pakistan sent the Pakistani tribal armies to Kashmir which got into
fifteen miles from the state’s capital, Srinagar.

- Alarmed at this intrusion, Maharaja asked India for assistance. However, India asked him to sign the
Instrument of accession to India. Maharaja Hari Singh signed it and Sheikh Abdullah leader of
National Conference of Kashmir assented, India accepted the merger of J & K to India. Finally, India
sent its forces to Kashmir while Pakistan sent military aid to troopers aiding Azad Kashmir movement.
Effects:

- The Indo-Pakistan War ended in a stalemate because PM Nehru of India pursued the idealistic path
of using diplomatic means through the newly created United Nations Organisation to try and force
Pakistan to withdraw its irregular forces from J & K. Also, UNSC resolutions 39 and 47 were not in
India’s favour and Pakistan refused to abide by these resolutions.

- So, Pakistan now controls a part of J & K called “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) “in India and The
Indian Kashmir is called “Indian Occupied Kashmir” in Pakistan.

This problem is one of the main simmering issues between both the nations.

2. Indo-Pakistan War of 1965:

The Indo-Pak War of 1965 was the culmination of a series of disputes between India and Pakistan.

Reasons:
- The partition of India even led to dispute over sharing of river waters. The water of nearly all the
rivers – Indus, Chenab, Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi flowed from India. In 1948 India stopped water of these
rivers.

- A dispute ensued and the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 signed between Nehru and Ayub Khan. After
this Pakistan was to use waters of Jhelum, Chenab and Indus while India was to use the waters of
Sutlej, Beas and Ravi.

- Then boundary commission tried to settle the border dispute. Dispute ensued over Rann of Kutch in
1965 Pakistan attacked near Kutch border. India referred dispute to UN. Seeing this as India’s
weakness, Pakistan tried to outrage Kashmir. On 5 August, 1965 Pakistan stationed troops along the
LOC.

Effects:
- The War began following Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar, which was designed to infiltrate irregular
“Jihadi” forces into J & K to precipitate an insurgency against rule by India.

- War ended in a United Nations mandated ceasefire and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent
Declaration.

Note: Tashkent Declaration was signed between President Ayub Khan of Pakistan and Shastri an
Indian Premier to solve all the disputes bilaterally and strive to live in peace. This agreement was
signed on January 10, 1966.

What is the Structure and Commands of Indian Army?

However, at the conclusion of the War, many Pakistanis considered the performance of their military
to be positive. 6 September is celebrated as Defence Day in Pakistan, in commemoration of
successful defence of Lahore against the Indian Army.

After the Tashkent declaration the two sides of the nation got disillusioned and Z. A Bhutto,
Pakistani’s premier said that ‘Hindu Culture’ was determined to devour ‘Islamic Culture’.

- Pakistan showed hard postures to solve Kashmir dispute.

- Pakistan allowed China to use road in Gilgit an area of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

- Disputes even emerged over the use of Ganga waters and construction of Farakka barrage.

- With this the relations between the two further reached at its lowest ebb in 1971, which results in
the emergence of civil war in East Pakistan with lots of Chaos, So, now another war with Pakistan.

3. Indo-Pakistan War of 1971:

Reasons:
- After partition the East Wing of Bengal had joined Pakistan as East Pakistan and between the two
parts of Pakistan was about 1200 miles of Indian Territory. Also, Pakistan’s military government did
not pay much attention to East Pakistan and Urdu was imposed upon it.

- The immediate source of conflict was denial of the office of Premier to Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of
East Bengal whose party had won 160 out of 300 seats in the 1970 elections.

- Pakistani leader Z.A Bhutto and President Yahya Khan denied rights to East Bengal.

Effects:
- When Pakistan attacked Indian airfields in Kashmir, India attacked both East and West Pakistan.

- India occupied the eastern half, which declared its Independence as Bangladesh on 6 December,
1971.

- Both countries agreed to cease-fire and Z.A Bhutto emerged as a leader of Pakistan and Mujibur
Rehman as first President of Bangladesh in 1972.

- Negotiations broke out between Indian Premier Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Z.A Bhutto
which led to the signing of Shimla Agreement in June 1972 for restoration of peace and order
between the two states.

Shimla Accord objectives are:

- India was to seek peaceful solutions to disputes and problems through bilateral negotiations and
neither India nor Pakistan would unilaterally change the existing situation.
- They will not use force against each other, nor violate the territory integrity, nor interfere in political
freedom of each other.

Note: War of 1971 lasts 13 days and is considered to be one of the shortest wars in History- rivalled
only by the Six Day War between the Arab’s and the Israelis.

4. Indo-Pakistan War of 1999:

Reasons:
- The cause of the War was the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into Kargil
district of J & K and along the LOC (Line of Control).

- The intrusion into the area, that divided the Indian territory of Ladakh from the northern areas of
the state, surprised the Indian army and Operation Vijay was launched immediately to flush out the
enemies from the Kargil sector.

- Tiger Hill, one of the highest peaks in the Drass- Kargil area of the State, became the focal point
during the War.

- Indian Air Force (IAF) joined this operation and finally, after the fierce War of more than 60 days,
India recaptured Tiger Hill and pushed the Pakistani forces back to the territory.

Effects:
- Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee signed Lahore Declaration with Nawaz Sharif the then
Prime Minister of Pakistan on 21 February, 1999 to maintain peace and stability between their
countries and for progress and prosperity of their peoples.

What were the results of the just-concluded talks between

India and Pakistan?
Representatives of the two longtime adversaries, at meetings February 16-18, agreed to a
timetable for a series of high-level meetings over the next several months. "We do have a
basic road map for a Pakistan-India peace process to which we have both agreed," Riaz
Khokhar, a senior Pakistani foreign ministry official, said February 18.

What are the major issues?

The greatest point of contention is Kashmir, the mountainous region between the two nations
that is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed in its entirety by both. It has been
disputed since India was partitioned by Britain in 1947 and was the cause of two of the three
Indian-Pakistani wars. The ongoing dispute over the region brought the two countries to the
brink of another war in 2002. Other issues to be addressed include nuclear security, terrorism,
drug trafficking, trade, and economic development.

When will the next series of meetings take place?

The foreign secretaries of the two nations will meet in May or June, after Indian
parliamentary elections scheduled for April, according to a statement issued by both
countries. Further high-level talks will follow in July and August.

What are the chances that the talks will produce a

settlement?
Expert opinions differ. Some are wary because of the history of animosity. "There’s an
enormous river of mistrust to be overcome," says Rajan Menon, the Monroe J. Rathbone
professor of international relations at Lehigh University. The two nations have held talks
before--most recently in Agra, India, in 2001--with little result. Other experts, however, say
that this time around might be different. Frank Wisner, former U.S. ambassador to India, told
a Council on Foreign Relations meeting February 19 that he saw excellent chances for
success in these talks.

Why are the two sides now willing to talk?

Experts say there are many reasons for India and Pakistan to take steps toward peace. The
primary one is that their two leaders are actively engaged in the process. Indian Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, 79, started the recent momentum by extending a "hand of
friendship" to Pakistan in a speech in April 2003. Vajpayee, leader of the Hindu Nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) --which heads a strong governing coalition in India--is expected
to win another term in April. Experts say he is considering his legacy and wants to leave
behind a lasting peace. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf survived two assassination
attempts in December; experts say the attacks shook Musharraf and convinced him that
radical Islamists were, for the first time, a greater threat to Pakistan than India.

Why did the last effort fail?

The Agra summit collapsed after India insisted that Pakistan stop supporting terrorists in
Kashmir, and Pakistan insisted that India include final-status discussions on Kashmir as part
of any future talks.

Why is Kashmir the center of the dispute between the two

countries?
India and Pakistan have each claimed the majority-Muslim province since partition. India is a
majority Hindu nation and Pakistan is majority Muslim. Kashmir’s population is majority
Muslim, but it had a Hindu ruling dynasty at the time of partition. Kashmir’s maharajah, Hari
Singh, sided with India after partition, angering many of his subjects and sparking the first
Indo-Pakistani war. When the war ended in 1949, India controlled some 45 percent of
Kashmir; the border separating the two sides is called the Line of Control. Until Musharraf
declared a unilateral ceasefire in November 2003, Indian and Pakistani forces routinely
traded fire across the Line of Control.

Pakistan has long demanded a U.N. referendum for the people of Kashmir, in accordance
with 1948 Security Council Resolution 47, to choose if they want to join India, join Pakistan,
or become independent. India has resisted calls for such a vote, saying the Kashmir issue is a
bilateral one to be worked out between India and Pakistan only. India has also long accused
Pakistan of supporting Islamist terrorists in Kashmir, an issue on which experts say the
Pakistani leader has recently changed his position. "Musharraf came into power thinking that
the radical Islamists in Pakistan [and Kashmir] were essentially freedom fighters," Menon
says. "And he’s learned that they’re a real threat to him."

What are the major obstacles to agreement?

There are many, experts say. Hardliners in both countries oppose any kind of settlement on
Kashmir, which some experts say has become central to each country’s self-definition. India
sees itself as a secular republic that can tolerate many ethnic groups; that would be confirmed
if Kashmir, a majority Muslim state, stays part of India. Pakistan’s founding vision is as the
homeland for South Asian Muslims. If Kashmir stayed in India, that vision would be
threatened, experts say. In addition, pressure for a deal could lead to "political suicide" if the
two leaders set a deadline for progress and fail to meet it, says Kathy Gannon, longtime
Associated Press bureau chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Edward R. Murrow Press
Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

What other major issues will be discussed by the two

countries over the coming months?
 Nuclear security. Discussions will continue along the lines of a memo of understanding
signed by both nations in 1999, in which each pledged to undertake measures to reduce risk
of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.

 Trade and economic links. The two countries will discuss access to each other’s markets,
experts say, and practical moves to make quality-of-life improvements for Kashmiris.

 People-to-people contacts. These include travel to visit or reunite families. New cross-border
bus and train services would run from Pakistan’s Sindh province into India, experts say.

 Water sharing. There are several river systems that start in one country and flow into the
other; management of the water resources must be negotiated.

 Siachen Glacier. Both nations have stationed soldiers in this remote Himalaya Mountain
borderland, at great cost in lives and money, since 1984. Experts say talks would focus on
how both countries could eventually withdraw troops from Siachen.

On all of these issues, experts say, there needs to be what Menon calls "constructive
reciprocity": each concession by one side has to be reciprocated by the other in a timely
fashion in order to build enough trust to keep the process from falling apart.
What is the role of the United States?
It should be supportive but unobtrusive, some experts say, practicing what Wisner calls "quiet
engagement" while building strong relationships with both countries. The best thing the
United States can do, these experts say, is to offer economic aid to both countries, but
especially Pakistan, to show the people there that aligning with U.S. interests against fellow
Muslims in al Qaeda and the Taliban will yield tangible benefits. But these experts stress that
all this needs to be done discreetly. "The last thing Musharraf needs is to be seen as playing to
a script written by the Pentagon," Menon says.

With continued violence in Kashmir and a heightened threat of terrorist activity by Pakistan-
based militant groups, tensions and concerns over a serious military confrontation between
nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan remain high. In February 2019, an attack on a
convoy of Indian paramilitary forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least forty
soldiers. The attack, claimed by Pakistani militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, was the
deadliest attack in Kashmir in three decades.

Since taking office in August 2018, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has signaled a
willingness to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to improve relations and
resolve core issues, including Kashmir. In September 2018, Khan sent a letter to
Modi proposing talks between the countries’ respective foreign ministers at the UN General
Assembly; after initially agreeing to talks, India canceled the meeting.

Background

Territorial disputes over the Kashmir region sparked two of the three major Indo-Pakistani
wars in 1947 and 1965, and a limited war in 1999. Although both countries have maintained a
fragile cease-fire since 2003, they regularly exchange fire across the contested border, known
as the Line of Control. Both sides accuse the other of violating the cease-fire and claim to be
shooting in response to attacks. An uptick in border skirmishes that began in late 2016 and
continued into 2018 killed dozens and displaced thousands of civilians on both sides of the
Line of Control.

In 2014, after India’s then newly elected Prime Minister Modi invited then Pakistani Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend his inauguration, there were hopes that Modi's government
would pursue meaningful peace negotiations with Pakistan. However, after a brief period of
optimism, relations turned sour once more when India canceled talks with Pakistan’s foreign
minister in August 2014 after the Pakistani high commissioner in India met with Kashmiri
separatist leaders. A series of openings continued throughout 2015, including an unscheduled
December meeting on the sidelines of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. This led
to a meeting between national security advisors in Bangkok a few days later, where the
Kashmir dispute was discussed. Later in December, Prime Minister Modi made a
surprise visit to Lahore to meet with Prime Minister Sharif, the first visit of an Indian leader
to Pakistan in more than a decade.

Momentum toward meaningful talks came to an end in September 2016, when armed
militants attacked a remote Indian Army base in Uri, near the Line of Control, killing
eighteen Indian soldiers in the deadliest attack on the Indian armed forces in decades. Indian
officials accused Jaish-e-Mohammad, a group with alleged ties to the Inter-Services
Intelligence—Pakistan’s main intelligence agency—of being behind the attack. Later in
September 2016, the Indian military announced it had carried out “surgical strikes” on
terrorist camps inside Pakistani-controlled territory across the Line of Control, while the
Pakistani military denied that any such operation had taken place.

Militants launched attacks in October 2017, against an Indian paramilitary camp near
Srinagar, and in February 2018, against an Indian army base in the Jammu region, which
killed five soldiers and a civilian. These attacks came amidst a period of increased cross-
border shelling along the Line of Control, with more than three thousand reported violations
in 2017 and nearly one thousand in the first half of 2018. Violent demonstrations and anti-
India protests calling for an independent Kashmir also continued; over three hundred people
including civilians, Indian security forces, and militants were killed in attacks and clashes in
2017. After months of Indian military operations targeting both Kashmiri militants and
demonstrations, India announced in May 2018 that it would observe a cease-fire in Kashmir
during the month of Ramadan for the first time in nearly two decades; operations resumed in
June 2018. In May 2018, India and Pakistan agreed to a cease-fire along the disputed
Kashmir border that would restore the terms of their 2003 agreement.

The diversion of jihadi fighters and proxy groups from Afghanistan to Kashmir threatens to
further increase violence along the border. If another Mumbai 2008-style attack, where
Lashkar-e-Taiba fighters rampaged through the city for four days, killing 164 people, were
carried out by Pakistan’s militant proxies, it could trigger a severe military confrontation
between the two nuclear-armed states.

Concerns

The United States has identified South Asia as an epicenter of terrorism and religious
extremism and therefore has an interest in ensuring regional stability, preventing nuclear
weapons proliferation, and minimizing the potential of a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan.

Economic burdern
India and Pakistan were once described as ‘natural trade partners’ by The Economist. Indeed,
if there were friendly relations between the two neighbours, trade and investment partnership
would have flourished and the welfare gains would have benefited the common person on
both sides. In agriculture, manufactures and in services, much complementarity exists
between the two countries. India is Pakistan’s giant neighbour with 1.3 billion population and
huge resources. Pakistan is comparatively much worse-off economically and is currently
struggling with high inflation, rising sovereign and domestic debt, a falling currency (138.39
Pakistan rupee to a dollar) and a fiscal deficit of 5.1 per cent.

The official trade between the two countries is small at $2.4 billion. It could have been many
times more according to the World Bank and could reach $37 billion if there were no tariff or
non-tariff barriers.

Smuggling amounting to another $5 billion takes place along the border. A substantial amount
of trade also takes place through third countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and
Singapore, amounting to around $5 to $10 billion. After 2012, there have been no further
business negotiations between the two countries. A roadmap was worked out between the
commerce secretaries from both sides for improving trade and investment in September 2012.
There was a meeting between the two prime ministers in 2014 and an attempt was made to
normalise trade. Prime Minister Modi promised to look into making visas for business
persons from Pakistan easier.

Recently, since the Pulwama attacks, India has revoked the Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
clause which it had granted to Pakistan in 1996 in accordance to the WTO rules under which
all WTO members have to grant MFN to all their trade partners who are members of WTO. It
involves granting them equal tariff treatment. India has granted Pakistan equal tariff treatment
for more than two decades. But after the recent conflict, India is set to impose 200 per cent
duty on all Pakistani exports.

All these years, Pakistan has backed out from granting MFN to India though its parliament
had approved of it. It is possible that many ordinary Pakistanis, especially working in micro,
small and medium enterprises, would suffer deeply after the steep increase in custom duties
imposed by India and there are reports that Pakistani exports are lying at the Wagah-Attari
border because Indian business is failing to lift them on account of the high duty added.
These include sports goods, steel instruments like knives, scissors, types of surgical
instruments and cement.

In the past, the trade between Pakistan and India never really took off even though from our
side we tried our best and reduced the negative list of banned imports under the SAFTA
(South Asian Free Trade Agreement) initiated under the SAARC. Pakistan continued to have
a long negative list of 1209 items which acted as an effective non-tariff trade barrier. Among
the banned goods in Pakistan’s list are textiles, garments, pharmaceuticals, plastic and
polymer, cars, trucks and auto parts.

Even though trade is not playing an important part in India-Pakistan relations, Pakistan
cannot afford to have a prolonged conflict with India because its economy is in shambles. It is
in urgent need for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of around $12
billion. It needs more foreign aid and loans from other sources but its credit rating by
international agencies has fallen. Recently, Saudi Arabia and China have given $2 billion
each in loans to Pakistan.

Its net forex reserves are at a very low of $7.2 billion which can support imports for just six
weeks. Its trade deficit is at $31.2 billion. The foreign investment inflows are not enough to
finance the trade deficit.

India is in a more comfortable position with forex reserves of around $405 billion but its
economic outlook is not as bright as before because its GDP growth has slowed down to 6.6
per cent recently. The foreign investment inflows have also slowed down and investors are
waiting and watching on two counts — the outcome of the forthcoming elections and the fear
of escalation of the armed conflict between India and Pakistan. To regain the confidence of
investors, a strong signal is needed from both sides that the conflict will be de-escalated. Also
clearing the air about the details of the Balakot strike will help because different versions are
circulating in the western media. A report by Farhad Manjoo in The New York Times has
debunked the claims made by both sides.
The threat of a prolonged conflict may witness a slowdown of FPI (Foreign Portfolio
Investment) inflows into India which will have an adverse effect on the rupee. Following the
Pulwama attack, FPIs withdrew Rs 3,000 crore from the Indian markets.

The Royal Bank of Canada has predicted that the rupee will decline to Rs 80 to a dollar in
2019. India imports 83 per cent of its oil needs and if there is also a rise in crude prices, the
rupee will have a free fall.

The escalation of the conflict will mean diversion of budgetary resources towards buying of
arms. India is the second biggest arm purchaser in the world. For two developing countries in
which millions are living below the poverty line, it makes little sense to keep buying arms
from highly advanced countries like Russia, Israel and the US. Both India and Pakistan are
ranked low in the HDI index and are burdened by poor social and physical infrastructure.
There is high unemployment in both the countries and both urgently need to increase public
expenditure on health and education.

Under such circumstances, any escalation of war will increase the financial burden on both
and will only make ordinary people suffer as the governments spend more on arms rather
than on improving the quality of life. Dialogue between the two countries is very important
for reducing the geopolitical tension in the region at this juncture.

War would be disaster for Pakistan and India

Peace between India and Pakistan, the real, tangible, deep-seated peace, which is strong enough to
dissuade warmongers attempts to ignite crisis, is but an elusive chimera that tempts but shies away
at the slightest touch.

And that real peace is what would benefit both countries, especially the people, more than any
short-term advantages of scoring futile political points. There is no doubt in Pakistan that when
Prime Minister Imran Khan recently asked his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi to “give peace a
chance”, in response to Modi’s comments, he was reiterating the genuine desire of the Pakistani
nation.

Modi’s public reminder to Khan to standby his promise to fight alongside India against poverty and
illiteracy is a step back from the insanity of the past few weeks following the targeting of Indian
soldiers in the Pulwama attack.

But while the leadership in both countries toned down the rhetoric, tension still remains high.
Airspace violations by Indian jets has upped the ante. War is a real possibility and any accidental
transgression by trigger happy elements on either side could be the catalyst. However, air force
incursions, especially in a highly-charged environment do not happen by chance. This is worrisome.
War is not an option even if it’s started with the intent of being a brief, limited strike endeavour.

Wars have a tendency to escalate, any loss is compounded and becomes the driving force for
reprisals. Wars between nuclear armed states that happen to share borders is worse. Come to think
about it, there have been no wars between nuclear armed states actually, no direct confrontation,
only proxy wars fought far off in third states that serve the battleground for misplaced ideologies and
race for hegemony. It would be sheer insanity for Pakistan and India to set a historical precedent in
this case. Disaster. Irrespective of the disparity in size and strength of conventional forces, nuclear
war becomes the leveller, and the annihilator. Does anyone in India or Pakistan want that?

Disillusioned lot

Indians baying for blood argue that they have suffered enough at the hands of terrorism perpetrated
by Pakistan and it needs to be taught a lesson. And when attempts to isolate and strangle Pakistan
compounded by threats of stopping water flowing from eastern rivers into Pakistani soil flounder, the
only option left is war. But is it? And does this disillusioned lot even think of the consequences of
war?

Khan does not have the luxury to procrastinate in this case. He has promised a full investigation in
return for any “actionable evidence” presented by India over Pulwama. He should extend this
commitment and extend diplomatic support to start working jointly in this regard.

But, he also stands committed to retaliation if India chooses the course of force, a stance any leader
would take if confronted by threats of attack. The glimmer of hope that came with Modi retreating
from a maximalist position now stands dulled by the latest airspace violation. If this incursion was a
threat, a reminder of the possibility of war it was foolish. If accidental, New Delhi should then say so.

Modi faces a tough election. The BJP has already lost ground and Modi’s stance on Pulwama would
also determine the support from his own vote bank. The bigger problem at the moment for the
Indian premier is his losing grip on those in the secular vote bank that elected him for his economic
acumen. There is so much Modi could spin and deliver. The dynamics of the system are a force in
themselves.

The past five years of religious intolerance not only against Muslims but other minorities in a secular
democracy, the rise of the Hindutva have had a collective impact on the psyche of the Indian people
and not just those who stand opposed to such ideology. More dangerous is the boost the militant
Hindu factions got under Modi. The attacks on Kashmiris nationwide following Pulwama is a case in
point. It reached a point where the Supreme Court stepped in and Modi was forced to side with the
Kashmiri people in a public address.

Maybe Modi and the larger Indian leadership should sit and review Indian policy towards Kashmir.

As for Pakistan, it is high time it safeguards itself against indigenous individuals and organisations
that have turned rogue or are operating on an agenda that ultimately is against its national interests.
Yes, national interests, for war with one’s neighbour, especially if it’s India is detrimental - to the
nation. Pakistan must not abandon its commitment to peace with India.

As for PM Khan, he must reiterate his commitment to helping Indian investigation if he meant that,
which I believe he did. Moreover, if Pulwama in any way was linked to anybody on Pakistani soil then
he must make an example for those miscreant elements seeking to damage relations with India.
India must also not misinterpret Pakistan’s efforts to do so and it should refrain from its gungho
attempts to coerce any such development. It would backfire.
The region has witnessed significant geopolitical changes and it is in Pakistan’s interests as is India’s
to mend ties. Peace is the ultimate prize and would do more for settling disputes than any
confrontation, proxy or otherwise.

Capital: Lhasa