CURRENT } TNS Dr. Shahid Wazir Khan Former Civil Servant (PAAS) Director KIPS CSS » esa comprehensive look into history & recent geo-political and strategic developments Highlights the hucdles and offers solutions tothe issues fe Provides an insight into future ny KIPS NY = puBlication Augments the candidate's performance in Essay and IRPAKISTAN-INDIA. RELATIONS Introduction The conflict between India and Pakistan originated as a clash between Hindus and Muslims during British colonial rule. Before its departure in 1947, the British government imposed its own plan and departed. Throughout the history, the relations have been mostly adversarial. There have been rare moments when the dialogue process appeared to move in the right direction. A number of confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) have been signed from time to time. At times the relationship seemed to bé entering a more promising, phase. But those hopes were never sustained. The Kashmir dispute has been at the centre of the sterility of the bilateral dialogue. Even the issue of terrorism has been directly or indirectly Kashmir-related. There are other important issues on the agenda. But sooner or later they have been adversely impacted by the apparently unbreakable deadlock on Kashmir and its derivatives HISTORICAL BACKGROUND First Kashmir War, 1947 ‘The competition for control over Jammu and Kashmir led to the first war between India and Pakistan in 1947. The continuation of the conflict and tension between the two countries led arms race and helped consolidate the influence of their national security them to begin institutions Indus Water Treaty, 1960 In 1960, India and Pakistan concluded Indus Water Treaty, which enabled them to peacefully share water from the Indus and its tributaries. As the Indus-basin irrigation system was central to survival of the ecology that sustains life in the northern region of South Asia, it a2 . {WW KIPS PUBLICATIONS |Chapter-7 Pakistan-India Relations ‘was important for the two governments to arrive al an agreement. The international community took an interest in the problem and made World Bank funds and technical knowhow available. ‘The two countries set up a joint body to carry out the treaty and to handle disagreements. Even when India,and Pakistan have been at war, they have meticulously observed thei obligations under this treaty.” : t 1965 War, oo ° ‘When Pakistan failed to get the Security Council resolve the Kashinir dispute in 1964, it tried to compel Iidia to. make concessions by fomenting an uprising in Indian-occupied Kashmir. India retaliated by attacking Kashmir and its army also crossed into Pakistan in the Punjab and Sindh, The UN Security Council called for an end to hostilities and the war stopped after, seventeen ‘days on September 22, 1965. President Ayub Khan accepted an offer for mediation made by the Soviet Union. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Khan met in Uzbekistan and concluded the Tashkent Declaration on January 10, 1966, which remained unpopular in both countries. 1971 War " India attacked East Pakistan in December 1971 and the conflict spread to the Western. borders as Pakistan launched limited air strikes and made a determined military push in Kashmir. The war ended on December 17, after the Pakistan army surrendered in East Pakistan. Bangladesh then emerged as an independent state. Shimla Agreement i972 Pakistan's new civilian president Zulficar Ali Bhutto held negotiations with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. They concluded the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972 and agreed to resolve their disputes through bilateral negotiations. They also agreed not to unilaterally alter the existing "Line of Control” dividing their armed forces in Kashmir. Siachin Confliet- Kashmir, 1984 India unilaterally annexed the Siachen glacier in 1984, and attempted to alter the LoC eastward through force, in violation of the 1972 Shimla accord. This placed the Indian army near Pakistan's access routes to China. Casualties claimed by the harsh climate were greater than those caused by actual fighting. Campaign in Kashmir, 1989 ‘A massive public campaign for independence emerged in the Valley of Kashmir in 1989. This movement dramatically increased the tension between India and Pakistan and brought them to the brink of full-scale war. The Azadi campaign began peacefully and was led mostly by secular nationalists. It quickly turned violent when India's armed forces fired on peaceful public demonstrations. The Indian government then cracked down on Kashmiris. They used “cordon and search" operations. The Indian army eventually crushed the resistance. Pakistan was initially surprised by the Azadi campaign. Once it began, Pakistan's military leadership tried to guide it in a direction that would be in its own interest. Besides the military, politically-powerful Islamist groups were also ready to offer support to Kashmiri youth that were compelled to flee the Indian army. Weapons were easily available from the pipeline set up for the Afghan Jihad. Asa result, Indian armed forces continue to face effective resistance in Kashmir. ar Tests, 1998 Pakistan's nuclear weapons development program was in response to India's development of nuclear weapons 1974. Due to its relative paucity of economic, industrial and technological resources, Pakistan found it relatively more convenient to invest in developing a Nuel a3 YRIPS PUBLICATIONSPakistan-India Relations Chapter? nuclear force than match India’s large conventional military capabilities to restore a strategic equation. When the BJP formed the government in India in 1998, it moved swiftly to satisfy the demand of India’s national security establishment to test nuclear weapons. Pakistan responded with its own nuclear tests. In May 1998 Pakistan conducted six underground tests in response to India’s nuclear tests Kargil Conflict—Battle in Kashmir, 1999, In 1999, Indian PM Vajpayee and Pakistan's PM Nawaz Sharif declared their intent to discuss Kashmir. This did not stop the fighting in Kashmir. Later that year, it was discovered that Pakistan's armny had captured strategic heights in Kashmir’s Kargil region. India responded with massive force to evict Pakistan troops, and Pakistan was isolated diplomatically and agreed to leave Kargil. Differences arising from the handling of this episode led to the overthrow of Shatif by Pakistan's army. General Pervez Musharraf became the country’s new ruler. In July 2000, the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), the leading Kashmiri group resisting India’s armed forces, unilaterally offered a truce. Vajpayee accepted the offer and agreed to negotiate outside the framework of the Indian constitution. The truce broke down when India rejected the HiM's insistence on including Pakistan in the negotiations. In July 2001, Vajpayee invited Musharraf for talks in India (Agra summit). Their meetings ended without a communiqué, as Vajpayee couldn't convince Home Minister L.K.Advani to endorse the Pakistani demand for talks on Kashmir. During Musharraf's visit to India he made a persuasive case for talks on Kashmir that was appreciated by many Indian opinion makers. Attack on Indian Parliament, 2001 In December, 2001, five people were killed in a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament which India said was prepared by Pakistani agents. India deployed its armed forces along the border and: moved missiles to where they could be launched against Pakistan. Pakistan responded in similar fashion, Mumbai Terrorist Attacks, 2008 In November 2008, a group of terrorists, allegedly traced to Pakistan, attacked Mumbai, killing at least 173 people and wounding at least 308 others. This led both countries to the brink of war. In October 2015, before the launch of his book ‘Neither A Hawk, Nor A Dove’ in India, former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri revealed that India planned to launch air strikes on Pakistani soil in order to target the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JamaatudDawa (JuD). Due to active US engagement, a major disaster was averted. The Mumbai attacks had serious impact on the ongoing peace process between the countries as it caused break in composite dialogue, which started in 2004 and envisaged all the outstanding issues including Kashmir. India hardened its tone and refused to hold bilateral talks & tried to impose immense pressure on Pakistan to bring perpetrators to justice and do away with its terror sponsoring activities Warming of Relations, 2010-2012 Almost after two years of impasse, India agreed to resume composite dialogue in Feb 2010 under intense international pressure. The foreign ministers, Shah Mahmood Qureshi & S.M Krishna met in July 2010 in (slamabad, but to no avail, 2011 saw some positive developments. There were high scale meetings. Gilani met Manmohan Singh and also attended aa W KIPS PUBLICATIONS.Chapter-7 = Pakistan-india Relations the World Gap Semi Final in Mar 2011. In July 20u1, the iecting between the foreign ministers, Hina Rabbani Kher and Krishna, took place in Delhi, in September 2012, Pakistan and India agreed to ease the existing restrictive visa regime between them, launch a Karachi-Mumbal ferry cervice and start daily fights connecting Islamabad and Delhi, as the foreign ministers of both countries wrapped up the latest rund of péxce talks by promising to continue their dinlogoe. tn November 2012, Federal Minister for Commerce Makhdoom Amin Fahim said Pakistan's committed to the implantation of MEN status for India from January 1, 2013, and there willbe no delay. ‘Though, there had been no major breakthrough on critical issues between the two countries, they reaffirmed the commitment to resolve all outstanding issues through a comprehensive and uninterruptible dialogue. Indo-Pak Relation in Year 2014-15, ‘Relations between India and Pakistan remained frosty as hostilities across, the International Border (IB) and the Line of Control (LOC) in Jammu and Kashmir intensified. er ———s<©——<“—sS™ said during the election campaign. But he had himself given a “pleasant” surprise when he invited all heads of the SAARC countries including Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz, Sharif to his swearing in ceremony. But, Modi had not been able to rein in the “hawks” within the establishment who draw inspiration from RSS agenda to adopt a tough posture visa vis Pakistan. Year 2015 was n0 different than 2014 in terms of hostility between both. LOC Violations ‘The year 2015 was one of the deadliest in terms of causalities and destruction, According to foreign office of Pakistan, Indian committed 400 violations across the Loc and working, boundary killing 96 Pakistanis in 2015, This has kept the relations acrimonious the whole year. Gurdaspur Attack, July 2015 Tria and Pakistan were locked in a furious verbal duel Gurdaspur attack, which India blamed was carried out by cross-border terrorists. PM Four-Point Peace Plan Tocmet Prime Minister Nawaz Shari proposed four points to stabilize the disputed region at his address in September 2015 to UN General Assembly. ‘They included the flemilitarization of the Kashmir and the withdrawal of troops from Siachen. But India out-of- hand dismissed the proposal. India’s Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swara) said that india did not need Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’ four-point peace initiative; it only needed a single commitment: “give up terrorism” Dossiers on Indian Involvement, Oct 2015 Tn Oct 2015, Pakistan handed over dossiers against India to UN Chief and American secretary of state. Informing the US delegation about his peace initiative contained in his statement at the 70% session of the UN General Assembly, the PM underlined his commitment to contribute towards promoting a peaceful South Asia. He apprised Secretary Kerry of Pakistan's efforts to improve relations with Afghanistan and reiterated his commitment to seek normalization with India. Secretary Kerry was briefed about the destabilizing role of Indian agencies in FATA, Balochistan and Karachi. 45, KIPS PUBLICATIONSPakistan-ndla Relations chapter-7 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (DECEMBER 2015 ONWARDS) __ In December 2015, there was a thaw in India-Pakistan relation after an unexpected meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan Premier Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of the Climate Change Conference ~COP 21—in Paris. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the meeting between both. This set the path for further meetings. It is followed by a meeting between the national Security Advisors of both countries in Bangkok. Then Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj arrived in Islamabad for a regional security conference. What seemed impossible just weeks before, had turned into a remarkable, almost unprecedented round of diplomacy at the very highest levels. The meetings were welcomed by every right-thinking Indian and Pakistani. The relationship seemed set to be revived and reinvigorated Breakthrough Pakistan, India to Resume ‘Comprehensive’ Talks In December 2015, ‘Heart of Asia’ was jointly hosted by Pakistan and Afghanistan. Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj arrived in Islamabad to attend ‘Heart of Asia’. She said “T have come with a message of good relations between the two countries.” Both sides finally agreed to resume the dialogue to normalize relations between them. Pakistan's National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz and India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj issued a joint statement to pave the way for resumption of bilateral talks, and added a new dimension to diplomacy. It was decided to have ‘comprehensive bilateral dialogue’, in the place of the failed ‘composite dialogue’ Pakistan assured the Indian side that the government is taking steps being to expedite the early conclusion of the Mumbai trials. It was decided that dialogue process would start as soon and would include matters related to peace and security, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage, Tulbul Navigation Project, economic and commercial cooperation, counter-terrorism, narcotics control and humanitarian issues, people to people exchanges and religious tourism. Birthday Diplomacy 25! December 2015 was a delightful surprise Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stopped in Lahore to greet Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his birthday. It had been 12 years since an Indian Prime minister visited Pakistan. ‘This reflected Modi’s willingness to reverse his belligerence and engage Pakistan. The 25th of December was an auspicious day to mark the possible beginning of a new era of stability in South Asia. Pathankot Attack In January 2016, there was a deadly attack on India's Pathankot airbase. Amid the environment of goodwill generated over a couple of weeks, Pathankot attack offered a stark reminder of the challenges ahead. It confirmed the presence of spoilers, who do not want India and Pakistan to go ahead with the peace process. Pampore Attack In June 2016, India’s Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) came under attack resulting in the death of 8 soldiers. Indian defence minister blamed Pakistan for the deadly attack. Rajnath Singh, the Indian home minister stated that we wouldn't fire first but if the trend continues "we wouldn't keep an account for our bullets”. Pakistan denied any involvement in the 46 W KIPS PUBLICATIONSChapter-7 Pakistan-India Relations attack, The attack once again created @ hostile environment. Pakistan has never rejected discussing terrorism related issues but that'd require an equal effort from both the neighbors. This familiar and unhappy trend needs to be fought at all cost to ensure the establishment of peace. Uri Attack In September 2016, the deadliest attack on Indian army took place in Uri, Baramulla District, killing 18 Indian soldiers. Indian authorities once again threw the blame on Pakistan. and it plunged Pak-India relations into an even more dangerous and unstable state. Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh called Pakistan a “Terrorist State”, Indian PM, DGMO and other officials were threatening ‘Pkaitan to strike. They even made acclaim that they carried out surgical strikes against Pakistan. ‘This was immediately dismissed by ISPR. In these days, Pakistan Air Force was also observed on.a high alert situation. The flights over the Northern ‘Airspace were restricted and: fighter jets were seen landing on motorway as a part of their emergency landing practice. It was a demonstration of intense gravity of the situation. UNGA Clash. In September 2017, at the 71 UNGA, Nawaz Sharif reiterated Pakistani positon on Kashmir and ensured that “Pakistan is not'in’an arms race with India,” and sided the Kashmiris. He accused India of killing over a hundred civilians in the past two months in IJK, injuring thousands in the process. He also stated that Pakistan Itself has been the principle victim of sponsored terrorism. Indian First Secretary ‘Enaam Malik in reply accused Pakistan's “policy of sponsoring terrorism”. Indian foreign minister Sushma Swaraj also hurled allegations on Pakistan during her speech. In response, Dr Maliha lodhi rebuked the claims. She alleged that India had staged the Uri Attack in order to divert the world community's attention away from ongoing Indian Violation of human rights in Kashmir. Indian Submarine Intrusion into Pakistani Waters On November 14, 2016, an Indian submarine detected 40 nautical miles off Pakistani coast attempted to intrude into Pakistani waters, according to official accounts. As the date of the detection of Indian submarine coincides with the date of cargo ships leaving the Gwadar port under the recently accomplished CPEC pilot project, experts were of the opinion that “the submarine had come for intelligence gathering purposes”. Acrimony at the Heart of Asia In December 2016, at the Heart of Asia ministerial meeting at Amritsar, the highest-level Pakistani foreign affairs official—Sartaj Aziz—was not even seated at the centre table at the dinner hosted by the Indian prime minister and was reportedly stopped from a planned visit to the Golden Temple for ‘security reasons’ in violation of basie diplomatic norms. Predictably, Modi finding a strong ally in the Afghan president tried to use the Heart of Asia forum to castigate Pakistan as a ‘centre of gravity of terrorism’ and to isolate it internationally. Risk to Indus Treaty itis worth bearing in mind that the Indus-water treaty is @ landmark document, which stood the test of time, But for the last few months India has been threatened to withdraw from the treaty altogether, as well as initiate a parallel process of appointing a neutral expert to counter Pakistan's push to set up a court of arbitration. It would be a calamity for future a7 “WB KIPS PUBLICATIONSPakistan-India Relations Chapter? ‘Generations if both countries were to tear up the treaty in a moment of anger, then muddle ides, Dossier on Indian Interference Given To UN Chief In January 2017, the Pakistan's permanent representative to the United Nations Maleeha through the consequences for dei Lodhi delivered a dossier on India’s interference and involvement in acts of terrorism in the country to UN secretary general Antonio Guterres. A letier from Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz, which was also handed over along with the dossier, asks the UN chief to restrain India from interfering in Pakistan and from carrying out activities aimed at destabilising the country, The dossier contains information and proof of Indian intelligence agency RAW's ” (Research and Analysis Wing) interference in Pakistan and its involvement in terrorism in Balo- chistan, FATA and Karachi. The document was a follow-up to the three dossiers shared with the UN in October 2015. Kulbhushan Jadhav's Case “The case of accused Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav took a darker turn. He was convicted by a military tribunal for espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan and sentenced to death. India protested and vowed to defend him through every possible means. Indian Security Establishment’s Aggression For the last few months, Indian military commanders have increasingly been making provocative statements about war with Pakistan — a mindless threat given the military and nuclear realities of the region. The new Indian army chief is Gen Bipin Rawat. He is believed to have been closely involved in the planning and execution of the alleged so-called surgical strikes along the LoC in September 2016. His appointment has been interpreted as part of Prime Minister Modi’s get-tough approach on Pakistan. He made an astonishing claim: not only has Cold Start been doctrinally embraced by India, but the country has the military capability to implement it if a political decision to launch such strikes is taken. His claim infused strategic uncertainty into the Pakistan-India military equation, one with potentially far- reaching consequences. In response to India’s Cold Start, Pakistan chose to expand the size and range of its nuclear arsenal. But the Pakistani response did not, as Gen Rawat's assertions made clear, deter India from pursuing its foolhardy strategy. Moreover, in June 2017, during an interview with Asian News International (AND, he said, “Indian Army is fully ready for a two- and-a-half-front war". He claimed that the country's army was prepared to handle internal and external fronts at the same time if it comes to that. However, he added that methods other than war are available for resolution of difficult situations. Such provocative claims infuse uncertainty and affect strategie stability Moreover, in May 2017, the Indian media revealed something dangerous about the letter written by Indian Air Force chief B.S. Dhanoa and sent to every officer. The air chief marshal warned that the ait force must be prepared-to act.on “very short notice” because of a “sub- conventional threat" allegedly emanating from Pakistan. As news of the letter spread, the Pakistan Air Force chief Sohail Aman warned that any aggression by India would be met with a response that would be remembered for generations. Both the Pakistani and Indian air chiefs command fleets of aircraft that can deliver nuclear weapons. Indian Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa’s personal letter has given rise to speculation about the current security situation, and was seen against the worsening situation in Kashmir and along the India-Pakistan border. 48. 5 WKIPS PUBLICATIONSChapter? Pakistan-India Relations Further, in May 2017, the US intelligence chiefs warned Congress that India may launch aggressive actions inside Pakistan on the pretext of stopping “cross-border attacks” and that the ongoing exchange of artillery shells across the Line of Control (LoC) may lead to a direct conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The warning given at a US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing followed alarming statements from New Delhi and Islamabad, threatening attacks, and counterattacks. “India has sought and continues to move to isolate Pakistan diplomatically and is considering punitive options to raise the cost to Islamabad for its alleged support to cross-border terrorism,” Lt Gen Vincent Stewart, the head of US Defence Intelligence Agency, told the committee. “Increasing numbers of firefights along the Line of Control, including the use of artillery and mortars, might exacerbate the risk of unintended: escalation between these nuclear-armed neighbours,” warned the director for National Intelligence, Daniel R. Coats. HURDLES IN THE WAY OF NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS “There are many hurdles in the way of normalization of relations, These are mostly the concerns each sidé has with respect to each other. India eites the terrorism in Pakistan that targets its the reluctance of Pakistan to effectively prosecute or hand over suspects in the 2008 Mumbai atrocities; and alleged infiltration of militants across the LoC; unwillingness to control jihadi elements who are proxies for its India and Kashmir policy; Pakistan's aggressive nuclear posture—relying on the first use of nuclear weapons to counter India's conventional military superiority. On the other hand Pakistan refers to the human rights violation in Kashmir—Killing ever a hundred civilians as a reaction to the protest against the killing of Burhan Wani in June nox6; aggresdive warghting doctrines like eold-start; the Indian refussl to negotiate a rtlaont of the diapite; the disproportionate Indian use of heavy artery aocoss the LoC and Working Boundary; and Indian interference in Balochistan, Fata, Karachi. Moreover there are spoilers of the peace on both sides of the border. Kashmir Kashmir has been a major hurdle in way of bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. A Kashmir crisis is possible, even without Pakistan’s intervention, The BJP government's policies in Kashmir ~ settling Hindus in the Valley, eroding India-held Kashmir’s special status and continued suppression of dissent — have already provoked widespread protest from Kashmiri Muslims. In June 2016, a new Kashmiri revolt was observed after Indian army lilled Burhan Wani, a 22 years old separatist militant. More than 100 civilians were killed as a eS ————————™— of courage, fortitude, resistance and repeated resurgence in the face of oppression by the Kashmisis, thad the potential to evoke another India-Pakistan crisis. The spark for such a crisis was it by September 2016 Uri attaek which resulted in the death of 18 Indian soldiers. More recently, in June 2017, a student, Adil Farooq, was killed by troops in India-held Kashmir. The death sparked new anti-India demonstrations. Hundreds of students and villagers rrr «§©—rr— ===— SB ‘Magray. Given the anti-Muslim postures of the BJP-RSS government, Muslim militancy s likely to manifest itself more strongly in India, Terror groups, like Al Qaeda or 18, have already declared their intention to instigate such terror attacks and Pathankot and Uri attack were 49 WHIPS PUBLICATIONSPakistan-India Relations Chapter-7 perhaps just the beginning, India’s reaction would always be to blame Pakistan, Kashmir remains a nuclear flashpoint as the dispute could escalate and spiral out of control. Terrorism India cites the terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan that targets it, Moreover, it alleges that Pakistani state sponsors such terrorist elements to cause trouble in india. It blames all the attacks from Mumbai to Gurdaspur to Pathankot to Uri Attack on Pakistan. These terrorist attacks hold hostage the dialogue process. In fact, they deteriorate the situation. For instance in the wake of Uri attack, the hysteria was created and even Indian public was shown on media demanding attack on Pakistan. India’s Aggression: Cold-Start Doctrine After 2001 Indian parliament attack, India attempted to explore strategic space for @ limited war scenario. India’s military command developed an offensive strategy, ‘Cold Start Doctrine’, in 2004 to replace the outdated ‘Sundarji Doctrine’ to respond to what it calls proxy war by Pakistan. Under this, there is a possibility of rapid and shallow Indian military ingresses into Pakistan, The strategy aims at obtaining shallow territorial penetration about a few kilometers inside Pakistan's Territory. More recently, the newly elected Indian army chief, Gen Rawat, has confirmed the doctrine. This gives leverage to the hawks on Pakistan side to spoil peace process with India. Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine Full-Spectrum Deterrence—first use ‘Another major concern to India is that Pakistan swiftly responded to India’s Cold Start Doctrine by developing and test-firing Hatf-IX, Nasr, Short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) as tactical nuclear weapon CTNW) and successfully blocked its implementation. Pakistan now says it intends to use low-yield nuclear bombs, also called tactical nuclear weapons (NW), to forestall the possible advance of Indian troops into Pakistan. Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry announced in October 2015 that Pakistan may first use nuclear weapons in a future war with India, Pending Trials of Suspects of Mumbai 2008 Attack Pakistan has surely not given a fair deal to India as far as the trial of Mumbai is concerned. The drama about Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is one example. This will not convince India or the international community. The reluctance to prosecute the Mumbai suspects has also undeniably boosted the resistance of India’s hawks to engaging Pakistan Spoilers of Peace Process Hawks on Both Sides It was clear that terrorists and hawks always try and derail the peace process between the two countries. Amid an atmosphere of goodwill, we witness an unwanted action that spoils the efforts towards peace. The terrorist attacks like the one on the large IAF base at Pathankot and Uri Attack in which 18 Indian soldiers were Killed, threaten to undermine the prospects for the India-Pakistan understanding, which was developed during Modi’s pleasant visit in December 2015. These not only put a stop to peace process, bitt also enabled the hardliners like Shiv Sena to pressurize the Indian government that terrorism and talks with Pakistan could not go together. In October 2015, some Shiv Sena activists demonstrated their extreme anti-Pakistan rhetoric. They forced the cancellation of a concert by Ghulam Ali. They doused Sudheendra Kulkarni, the host of the Khurshid Kasuri’s book launch, in black paint. They also raided the headquarters of the BCCI, India’s nodal administrative board for cricket, forcing the planned cricket talks to be called off between the cricket body chiefs of India and Pakistan in Mumbai. 50 ‘WKIPS PUBLICATIONSChapter-7 Pakistan-India Relations "Their objective was to create fear and pressurize the government against any move aimed at reconciliation with Pakistan. LOC Violations ‘There were 400 violations and 36 deaths in 2015. This obviously is.a major cause of concern for Pakistan. This even continued in 2016 as well. By the end of year 2016, casualties on the Pakistani side due to Indian shelling rose to 52 after the November 2016 incidents ~ 40 civilians and 12 soldiets. This is the highest casualty figure since the two sides agreed to a ceasefire in 2003. More recently in 2017, another round of violence along the Line of Control and more accusations and recriminations between the DGMOs of Pakistan and India — the worrying pattern in the Kashmir dispute continued, deteriorating Pakistan-India relationship further. ‘The situation along the LoC has been worsening with every passing year and the numbers of ceasefire violations have steadily risen. There were 382 violations in 2016 and there have already been more than 542 ceasefire violations as of September 2017. Baluchistan Insurgency In March 2016, RAW agent Kulbhushan Yadav was arrested in Baluchistan. This was an undeniable proof of Indian involvement in the Baluchistan insurgency. The video recording of his voluntarily made confessional statement was released. He categorically stated that he was @ serving Indian Navy officer and was to retire in 2022, He mentioned his contacts with the Baloch insurgents, providing finances to them and also arranging their training for subversive activities and acts of terrorism. He also confessed his links with terrorist entities in Karachi and involvement in the acts of terrorism, including killing of some police officers. According to DG ISPR, one of his assignments was also to sabotage CPEC: and in this respect the Baloch insurgents were planning an attack on the Gwadar Port in the near future. In 2015, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, in a shocking and radical statement, had asserted that terrorists have to be neutralized only through terrorists. This also amounts to an open admission of India’s role in sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan and confirms the Pakistan Army's accusation of India’s role in the Balochistan insurgency. There had been many other evidences, Even BBC news supported Pakistan's stance. Such rhetoric gives the credence to the claims of those who say that peace is not possible with India. India’s Overt Opposition to CPEC India opposes China's rising role in the region, including in Afghanistan, and particularly its renewed strategie and economic commitment to Pakistan illustrated by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor initiative. The realization of this plan would be a major setback to India's desire to dominate South Asia and isolate Pakistan. TOWARDS ESTABLISHING CORDIAL RELATIONS: WAY FORWARD There is a nced for a change in the parameters of the relationship which could transform from a zero-sum into a win-win. Our respective narratives about each other should eschew the blame game as much as possible, Instead, we should focus on the costs and dangers of incessant mutual hostility and the benefits of a more informed and rational relationship. This should enable efforts to reduce potentially destabilizing differences and provide space for movement towards principled and mutually acceptable compromise. The comprehensive India-Pakistan dialogue could be transformed into something more lasting and productive 31 WIS PUBLICATIONS,Dakistan-India Relations Chapter-7 ority for both countries. This will require a shared and policies of both countries towards each other. Implementing ment and tic vision confidence- and security-building measures; increasing economic cooperation, inv trade; avoiding interference and conflict and strengthening procedures for this purpose; and reducing mutually hostile perceptions should become the focus of the bilateral relationship. This could set the scene for more critical progress that seems out of reach today. None of the foregoing requires Pakistan to move away from UN resolutions on Kashmir or to refrain from publicly criticising India's Kashmir policies. The Shimla Agreement acknowledges the positions of both countries on Kashmir. Nevertheless, India-Pakistan relations must respond to the governance and strategic imperatives of the 21st century. Resolving Kashmir Dispute Kashmir remains a flashpoint for another Pakistan-India conflict. It cannot be put on a back channel. Pakistan should revive the demand for implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir; raise India's oppression of the Kashmiris in the Human Rights Council; call for the withdrawal of India's 700,000 occupying force from India-held Kashmir; provide generous financial support to Kashmiri political parties seeking self-determination; invite them to meet in Pakistan or elsewhere and help to unify their struggle for freedom. It is for New Delhi to halt its repression and human rights abuses, de-militarise Kashmir and remain engaged in a constructive dialogue with Pakistan. ‘This can avert a Kashmiri eruption and a Pakistan-India crisis. Intelligence Sharing ‘Attacks in Mumbai, Gurdaspur, Pathankot and Uri can only be: averted through intelligence sharing, Further, the rise of the self-styled ‘Islamic State’ in Afghanistan is a threat to Pakistan and India. IS threat is a common terrorism threat that must force India and Pakistan to collaborate even in Afghanistan. There must be dialogue between the two countries’ intelligence agencies to find ways to cooperate on IS even if they continue to contest each other in other spheres, Military Balance India’s current military build-up poses an ever growing threat to Pakistan's security and needs to be neutralized, either through arms control or a reciprocal defensive build-up. Almost all of India’s capabilities are deployed against Pakistan; its military doctrines are Pakistan- specific; and threats of aggression against Pakistan are persistent and current. Pakistan should propose bold and specific arms-control measures to India, bilaterally and through multilateral channels. Avoid Playing Into the Hands of Spoilers It was clear that terrorists and hawks always try and derail the peace process between the two countries. The terrorist attacks like the one on the large IAF base Pathankot (Jan 2016) and the other one in Uri (Sept 2016) threaten to undermine the prospects for the India-Pakistan understanding. These not only put a stop to peace process, but also enable the hardliners like Shiv Sena to pressurize the Indian government that terrorism and talks with Pakistan could not go together. It was encouraging that in the aftermath of the IAF base (Pathankot) attack, Indian public opinion had not totally surrendered to the hawks. In fact The Hindustan 52 ‘WW KIPS PUBLICATIONSChapter-7 Pakistan-india Relations Times dedared that “disengaging with Pakistan after the Pathankot attacks, is to play into the hands of terrorists”. The home minister was also quoted as saying that a single incident of terrorism could not be allowed to derail the process. But Pampore and Uri attacks changed the dynamics once again. A war of accusitions was observed between politicians on both sides Rajnath Singh openly called Pakistan a “terrorist state” while Nawaz Sharif aocused India of violating human rights in Indian Administrated Kashmir. A mature attitude is required by both governments in order to ensure a sustainable peace process. Islamabad avoided dealing orth the Pathankot affair the way it responded to the Mumbai attacks. It arrested the accused JJeM leader Masood Azhar but the later attacks took the situation out of hands as once again up ‘oan extent that Pakistan Air Force was observed on a red alert situation, Surely, both India and Pakistan must take’steps to dismantle the infrastructure that anti-Pakistan and anti-India militants seem to have built around their countries country. Developing Mechanism to Monitor LOC Violations "There is a need for developing a mechanism to monitor LoC violations, which have been blamed by both sides on each other. The mandate of UNMOGIP, which India says has lapsed, must be revalidated. US has also conveyed support for Pakistan's position that there should be a mechanism for curbing, ceasefire violations along the Line of Control in Kashmir. ‘Trade and Investment Pakistan can ereate leverage over India by forging strong economic ties with it. By doing 0, it will ie Indian economic interests with its and force India to develop stakes in keeping the Pelistant economy integrated and thus, mainstreamed. This wil be able to break the regional logjam that is holding Pakistan's economy back. An improved economy will naturally begin to ieasrast the world positively. A stronger economic base will also allow us to maintain robust defenice capabilities, but now without being an obvious drag on your economy. ‘Trade with India can be mutually beneficial, especially in the exchange of natural resources and food, gas and energy supplies (from Iran and Central Asia). In manufactures, India competes with Pakistan and enjoys the advantage of size and a host of protections Transit India should be made dependent on. Pakistan, Pakistan should consider westward concessions to India. Transit through Pakistan to central and west Asia must be made a major Indian priority. India must be invited to reap benefits from CPEC: There must be a push to revive the Iran-Pakistan-India IPI pipeline, from which India had backed off. Projects like F,rrr—“—C—“C “Ec ————™—— Pakistan, Allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia and beyond will be dependent on Pakistan. By doing so India would find its own stakes in a stable Pkistan, It will then stop fomenting trouble, as doing so, will harm India’s interests. Pakistan should be accorded reciprocal rights for transit to Nepal and Bangladesh through India. Cooperation on Tackling Trans-National Issues 1. How to Deal with Climate Change Issues Irregular weather patterns are largely beyond the control of the state, but there are Bont things that can be done to mitigate their impact. The sharing of meteorological and hydrological data between India and Pakistan is imperative to cope with the situation, As si Joseph Nye points out that these transnational issues are to be dealt with mutval cooperation only, 7 om WH KIPS PUBLICATIONSPakistan-india Relations” Chapter-7 2, Water 2 Access to water is fast emerging as an existential issue for both Pakistan and India. To avoid food and ecological disasters, and a possible conflict, it has become vital for the two countries to live up to the principle of the equitable sharing of water enshrined in the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan must secure this aim bilaterally and through all available international avenues. FINAL ANALYSIS Relations between Pakistan and India are anything but simple. It is characterized by periodic ups and downs. Indeed, the heated issues of Kashmir, terrorism and nuclear arms remain challenging, Despite this, the silver lining in the troubled relationship is that disruption in dialogue is also never permanent; the governments of both countries invariably return to negotiation. Looking forward, there are a number of opportunities—mostly economic and cultural—that Pakistan and India may capitalize on in order to build a deeper relationship in the longer term, ‘The security arguments on both sides of the border are understandable; however, it is a fact that Pakistan and India are home to two largely poor populations that lack access to basic health, education and job opportunities. Pakistan needs to be kept safe — but so does its population need to be healthy, educated and productive. The same applies to India, Both countries have so much more to gain by engaging each other in trade, economic and social ties than keeping erect the wall that has been built between the two. As India has learned with China, so it can learn with Pakistan that economic cooperation can exist side by side with strategic and security-related rivalries. The animosity between India and Pakistan will do. good toneither side; on the contraty it could cause incalculable harm to people of both countries. Each time an unfortunate incident happens, the hawks on this side weleome the opportunity to revive their confrontational narrative. Pakistan and India have longstanding disputes. With both sides possessing nuclear weapons and the required delivery systems, any war could lead to a regional disaster. It would not only cause untold human losses but also wipe ‘out much of the progress the two countries have made through hard work and sacrifice. The only way to a better future is through mutual understanding and cooperation. In fact, even the Indo-Pak relationship showed some signs of maturity of late. The attacks like Mumbai and Pathankot and Uri displayed the potential of terrorism to hold: the Pakistan-India relationship hostage. If historical disputes and issues between the two countries are ever to be solved, it cannot happen while terrorism finds it so easy to intervene. What is required at this stage is that the governments must not give in to anti-peace elements. After any unfortunate incident, derailing from the dialogue process simply plays into the hands of the spoilers. The March 2016 Kulbushan’s incident and the Jan 2016 Pathankot attack were at first handled in a clear-headed fashion by both sides, apart from a few jingoistic outbursts. This is a much more progressive way to conduet foreign policy. Such was expected to sustain, Both cases were, at first, handled carefully; however, India and Pakistan reverted back to their usual confrontational modes in the wake of Uri Incident. 2017 seems to be the much worse with highest ever LoC violations. This must be avoided at all costs. 54 ‘WKIPS PUBLICATIONS