Contemporary Developments in India-Pakistan Relations: The Peace Process and Beyond



Download 108.43 Kb.
Date25.05.2016
Size108.43 Kb.
#65297


Contemporary Developments in India-Pakistan Relations: The Peace Process and Beyond

By Dr. Sohail Mahmood


Pakistan-India relations have seen many twists and turns since Partition. The two countries have until recently considered each other as bitter enemies and have fought three wars (1948, 1965, and 1971) and a serious skirmish in Kargil in 1999. To understand the conflict between India and Pakistan we have to understand the historical development of the two countries. Comprehending the historical consciousness and its development in the two countries is an important requirement to understand the nature of the contemporary situation. Perceptions matter a lot as they shape politics. Reality is perceived in numerous ways by various parties to any dispute. It is only people who formulate and conduct foreign and security policies. Understanding perceptions, or for that matter misperceptions, is therefore necessary. The logic of international politics is based on perceptions of reality. Simply put, there is no common reality for all actors on the world stage. In other words, it is not the same for every body. We can perceive reality only through our ideological lenses or frameworks. Ideology in turn shapes perceptions. These different worldviews shape our understanding of what is happening. The particular stance taken on an issue depends not only on the ideological framework but also the politics of the period. Hence, the severity of the problem of conflict resolution in so many cases.
The Kashmir Dispute
At the time of Partition in 1947 the princely state of Kashmir had a Hindu ruler. Muslims constituted a majority of the state's population. The Hindu Dogra ruler had illegally acceded Kashmir to India in 1947. India and Pakistan went to war over the control of the territory in 1947-8. The war concluded with a cease-fire brokered by the United Nations (UN) in 1949. Kashmir was divided by a UN line of control between the areas held by the two countries. The matter went to the UN Security Council (UNSC) and in 1949 the UNSC passed a resolution which provided for a plebiscite to be held under UN auspices to decide the issue of accession. However, India has refused to hold the plebiscite, and the dispute has continued. Later, both countries agreed under the Simla Agreement of 1972 to solve the Kashmir question through bilateral negotiations, and not through international forums such as the UN. India and Pakistan have had different perceptions on what constitutes the main problem in Kashmir. Today, roughly one third of the western part of Kashmir is administered by Pakistan. Most of the remainder is under Indian control. The dispute lingers on to this date.

In 2001, President Musharraf went to Agra to meet with India's then premier, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Meanwhile, the two countries failed to come to any agreement. The world changed dramatically after the 11 September, 2001 attacks in the United States (US), forcing Pakistan to man the frontline in the international war on terror. Pakistan agreed to co-operate with the US's campaign against Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan. Tension along the Line of Control (LoC) continued. India continued to condemn Pakistan for cross-border terrorism. After the attack, the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, called on the Indian government to launch a war against militant training camps across the border in Pakistan.

In 2001 about 38 people were killed in devastating attack on the Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar. On 13 December, 2001 an armed attack on the Indian parliament in Delhi left 14 people dead. India again blamed Pakistani-backed Kashmiri militants. The attack led to a dramatic build-up of troops along the Indo-Pakistan border, military exchanges and raised fears of a wider conflict. In January 2002, President Musharraf gave a keynote speech pledging that Pakistan would not allow terrorists to operate from Pakistani soil. He called on the government of India to resolve the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through dialogue. In January 2004, the Congress-led coalition government came to power having won the general elections and defeating the BJP coalition. Earlier efforts at peace between India and Pakistan had not delivered. The peace process was rekindled in January 2004 by the current Congress-led coalition government and Pakistan. Soon after, a composite dialogue was begun resulting in a number of confidence building measures (CBMs), a greater flow of travel between the two countries, a bus service across the Line of Control, and visits of APHC leaders and talks between Kashmiri and Pakistani political leaders. There was a reference from both sides to explore possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement in Kashmir. In October 2004, President Musharraf unveiled some radical proposals to resolve the Kashmir dispute. One of his suggestions was that the territory be demilitarized and jointly governed by both Pakistan and India. He also suggested that Pakistan could withdraw its demand that a plebiscite be held in Kashmir. However, India remained cool to these proposals.1 General Musharraf has met Manmohan Singh three times. After the second meeting in April 2005 he claimed that Pakistan was making efforts for establishment of lasting peace in South Asia through resolution of all issues, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. General Musharraf held talks with Manmohan Singh for the third time in New York on Sept. 14, 2005. It was widely agreed that the meeting yielded no concrete outcome. However, General Musharraf maintained that progress had been made on the dialogue process.2

The US is seemingly pushing both Pakistan and India towards a final solution to the intractable territorial dispute. Why is the US interested in a final Kashmir solution? Since 9/11, the regional political dynamics have changed drastically. The US is pitted against the al Qaeda in its “war on terrorism” and is preoccupied with its Iraqi occupation and fight against the Muslim and nationalist guerilla attacks. About two thousand US soldiers have been killed since the occupation of Iraq in 2003. More than a $100 billion have already been spent on the war in Iraq. The US is also fighting against the Taliban and al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan and is relying on the Musharraf regime to help it get rid of the remaining al-Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan region in Pakistan. The US and Pakistan have a convergence of national interests in the removal of the al Qaeda and Taliban elements. Pakistan is threatened from within by the radicals. The US supports General Musharraf for this purpose. The Indian government is also siding with the US on the Iraq and Afghanistan issue. Thus, the US is keen to stabilize the subcontinent because of its preoccupation in the Middle East. Meanwhile, President Musharraf has sought help of the US in resolving the Kashmir dispute, calling it the root of tension in South Asia. President Musharraf made the request to the US national security adviser Stephen Hadley who visited Pakistan in September 2005.

Earlier, Mr. Kasuri had said that “very strong peace constituencies in both the countries would carry the peace process forward. He said people should also feel that the two countries were making progress.3 He mentioned that the April 18 joint statement issued after the Musharraf-Manmohan meeting in New Delhi also underlined the need to resolve these issues. Mr. Kasuri said Pakistan was very serious and determined to carry the peace process forward a notch higher if not more.4 Meanwhile, the critics are not optimistic about progress on the main issue of Kashmir. It remains a stumbling point. The baggage of history on Pakistan and India’s shoulders is heavy indeed. Some 80,000 people have died in Indian Kashmir since 1989, when a Muslim separatist revolt against Indian rule erupted. Despite differences over Kashmir, a ceasefire has held there since late 2003. Kashmir is at relative peace today. Despite all efforts the peace talks have made little headway in resolving the bitter dispute over Kashmir.

The Kashmir Stalemate

After the visit of India’s Foreign Minister Natwar Singh to Pakistan in October, 2005 a joint statement was issued which maintained that possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir issue should be explored in a sincere, purposeful and forward looking manner? 5 Meanwhile, India and Pakistan agreed to finalize modalities for setting up meeting points for divided families across the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir. It will take bold leadership on the part of both India and Pakistan to achieve a significant breakthrough on Kashmir. Is the leadership of both India and Pakistan capable of rising above its domestic political compulsions and boldly charting a new course? Kashmir is proving to be a very serious problem between India and Pakistan. The Indians and Pakistanis have sharp difference on the issue. There is no easy answer to the dilemma. We hope that India and Pakistan, especially India shows courage on settling the dispute.

The Indian perceptions on a final solution of the Kashmir dispute vary with that of Pakistan. India says that Kashmir belongs to it because of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja in October 1947, which handed over to Delhi powers of defense, communication and foreign affairs. Kashmir's special status within the Indian constitution was confirmed in 1950, allowing it more autonomy than other Indian states. Under the Indian constitution, Jammu and Kashmir is a state or province of the country. India says that under the terms of the Simla Agreement of 1972 both countries have agreed to solve the Kashmir question through bilateral negotiations, and not through international forums such as the UN.

It also says a plebiscite should not be held in Kashmir because elections have been held which demonstrate that people living there want to remain part of the Indian union. Since the insurgency began in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1989, India has constantly maintained that Pakistan has been training and supplying weapons to militant “separatists”. The Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has warned that any attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir by militants from the Pakistani side could disrupt the peace efforts. 6 In sum, the essential elements of the Indian solution include: easier travel between the two divided Kashmiris, no change in borders, no compromise on sovereignty, and demilitarization after the militancy has put down through joint efforts, and trade and travel.


Developments after the Aftermath of the October 8 Earthquake

The October 8 earthquake had devastated many parts of Azad Kashmir and the NWFP. By October 23, 2005 the earthquake death toll had risen to over 53,000 and the number of injured people had soared to above 75,000.7 Later the figure for the earthquake dead was given to be 80,000. By November 7, 2005 the death toll from the earthquake had reached 86,000, about 100,000 people have so far been reported injured and more than 3.5 million people have been affected8. Earlier, President Musharraf announced on October 18, 2005 that Pakistan would allow any number of Kashmiris from across the LOC to join reconstruction efforts in Azad Kashmir. The proposal was widely welcomed by Indian and Pakistani leaders. The two governments negotiated the modalities about how to facilitate the process. But it seemed that India was foot-dragging on the matter while Pakistan was being impatient.


Earlier, Pakistan had refused the Indian offer of joint rescue and relief operations in the affected areas, and refused Indian crew to fly Indian helicopters to be deployed in the mission. This was a time when helicopters were badly needed and the refusal by Pakistan was widely seen as negative. Therefore, Pakistan came up with a positive proposal of the LoC opening. The LoC opening, if and when it happens, will be a limited affair and shall also be strictly controlled, however. The Loc opening will start a process that can lead to developments welcomed by India and Pakistan as well as the Kashmiris. At the minimum, this development has raised hopes. 9 India and Pakistan agreed on October 22, 2005 to open at least three sectors along the LoC for aid to reach the victims of the October 8 earthquake in divided Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan had given India a proposal for five crossing points along the LoC to facilitate relief and rehabilitation work in the quake-hit areas.10 By November 9, 2005 two border crossings had been opened on the LoC. Pakistani and Indians exchanged relief goods for the earthquake victims in the two parts of Kashmir.11 By December 9, 2005 five border crossings had already been opened. This development was welcomed widely. Shahid Javed Burki, a noted Pakistani analyst argued that:12 There are moments in a nation’s history when its leaders must look at their performance and also around themselves, take stock of the situation they and their country face, and, if need be, adopt a new course. For Pakistan such a moment has arrived. It was long time in coming but a number of defining events occurred in October and early November that suggest that the country stands at a crossroads. My view is that the time has come to adopt a new course and follow it steadily till the past has been left comfortably behind. The October 8, 2005 earthquake provided an opportunity for the establishment of a friendly atmosphere in which a viable solution to Kashmir dispute may be found.13 While Pakistan has agreed to the opening of the LOC, a porous border is just an initial step towards an acceptable solution and not the solution itself. What is the future of the current peace talks between India and Pakistan? Definitely, India and Pakistan are trying to overcome decades of mistrust by cooperating on many issues. Various confidence building measures (CBMs) have been initiated by both India and Pakistani governments. Given the nature of the conflict, the era of durable peace between India and Pakistan is problematic. What can a possible solution look like? Over the years many solutions have been discussed. It is possible that a readjustment be made to the LOC and some Muslim districts are included in Pakistan. A Chenab solution has been talked about for some time. This would bring in the land west of river Chenab (essentially, the Srinagar valley) into Pakistan. Jammu and the rest of Indian Occupied Kashmir is Hindu majority and Ladakh is Buddhist majority. These areas will go to India. Undoubtedly, this is an ideal solution favoring Pakistan. Obviously, Pakistan gains some territory which is currently under Indian occupation. It will therefore emerge as a clear winner. In this deal, India does not gain any new territory and so can be perceived as a looser. Clearly, it is not in India’s interest to relent to this outcome to the dispute. Many Pakistanis still believe that the Musharraf government must aim at this outcome as a final solution to the Kashmir dispute. This outcome does not seem viable.
There can simply be no disagreement with the argument that without the Kashmir settlement there is no durable peace in South Asia. The problem is that the positions of India and Pakistan diverge widely on the matter. Pakistan is prepared for a negotiated settlement of the dispute. It is showing great flexibility on the issue by not emphasizing the earlier position demanding implementation of UNSC resolutions. Pakistan is now saying that the settlement must not only reflect the aspirations of the Kashmiris must also be acceptable to both Pakistan and India. Therefore, a new way forward has to be found to meet the challenge of establishing peace in the region. Pakistan hopes that India realizes that a significant shift is required on its Kashmir policy. This shift is not forthcoming for the time being. Meanwhile, the US has offered to facilitate talks on Kashmir. The US has urged both India and Pakistan to resolve their differences amicably and has encouraged them to continue the dialogue. Pakistan welcomes the offer. We hope that with outside assistance a real breakthrough may happen. If the main stumbling block to peace in the subcontinent- Kashmir – is not removed then the current peace process will come to a screeching halt. If, and when, this development happens, great tension would again be created in South Asia. Pakistan cannot afford this to happen again. Therefore, it is imperative to find a just solution of the Kashmir dispute through negotiations. But we also recognize that the very nature of the territorial dispute in Kashmir makes the formulation of a solution very difficult. What are the options for a peaceful settlement of the issue?
The Bhandara Solution
M.P. Bhandara, a member of the Pakistan National Assembly, argued that: 14

Given our roller-coaster relationship with India, most people are curious if the current ‘Slow Fox Trot detente’ will lead to a settlement on Kashmir. The Indians would like to spin the Confidence-Building Process (CBP) as long as it takes, before addressing the core issue… India is not likely to agree to any change in the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. I am afraid the buck stops there. From India’s point of view, the past is now a closed chapter. …India and Pakistan, by mutual agreement, award to one another the parts of the old state, which are well integrated in the respective countries, so as to shrink the area of dispute. This, by itself, would be a giant step forward in the direction of conflict resolution. On the Valley dispute, the Simla format accepted by both countries can be used to fill the central crack. Our present goal post must aim for a reduction of the Indian army in the Valley to the level obtaining in the mid-’80s and the election of the moderate APHC (All Parties Hurriyat Conference) to positions of power….The Valley does not need any more arms. It needs massive investment in infrastructure and employment opportunities. Pakistan is a vital part of the process. It must dismantle militant organizations nesting in Kashmir and Pakistan with a stronger hand. Pakistan army may even consider active cooperation with the Indian army to prevent militants from crossing over into Kashmir. A reciprocal agreement on reducing the levels of the Indian army and the closure of liberation camps is something that should be quietly negotiated by the special representatives of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The process should be verifiable by either side. Militants basically need a job; they should be absorbed in our paramilitary forces, including those of non-Kashmiri origin. A general amnesty is required to absorb the militants into the political and civil society mainstream on both sides of the LoC. Terrorism will die a natural death once a truly popular government in Srinagar uses its own police force to take care of the residual militancy. The Indians do realize that the Muslims of the Valley are very alienated from India. The heavy hand of Indian security forces found its ready response in what is described as terrorism. Who would not be a terrorist, if he saw his family molested or home pillaged by merciless heavy-booted aliens? Since the 1980s Kashmir has been a garland of thorns for India. If the Indians are wise, they will promote real autonomy in the Valley as envisaged by their own constitution. In brief, the Indians should climb down the some ladder, step by step, that it climbed up post-1953.An autonomous Valley, with a minimum of Indian control, will be de jure part of India; but, de facto a part of Pakistan. Such is the case in South Tyrol, wherein a Kashmir-like problem existed between Austria and Italy. Real autonomy has smothered the vanities of sovereignty.



Lessons of the South Tyrol case and the Kashmir dispute

In the South Tyrol case, the German- speaking minority in Austria was assured of autonomy by Italy in the 1946 peace treaty. After agitation for autonomy, the question was first raised in the UN in 1959 in Austria called for autonomy in the province as demanded by local nationalist party – the SVP Austria had charged Italy of violating the peace Treaty and had endorsed demands for autonomy by the SVP. Meanwhile, Italy had made attempts to “Italianize” South Tyrol. In 1960, Austria and Italy agreed to negotiate but the talks ended in a deadlock in 1961. Violence by extremists seeking reunification with Austria had aggravated the matter further. In 1961, Italy had refused to compromise unless Austria acted to close its border to infiltrators and would only accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In 1961, a committee of nineteen negotiated a package of self-government for South Tyrol. This package was first approved by the SVP and then Austria followed by Italy. In 1969 the Copenhagen agreement gave greater autonomy to South Tyrol. The second Autonomy Statue was given in 1972. Finally, in 1992 Austria had acknowledged that Italy was indeed protecting the rights of the German – speaking minority.

Lessons learnt from the South Tyrol case are that in cases where political solutions and not military ones are applicable, the parties to the dispute must show patience and that concept of autonomy need not be static, it may indeed be dynamic. Today, the 1972 Autonomy Statue progress has certainly been made in South Tyrol for the benefit of the German – speaking minority. In the Kashmir case, M.P. Bhandara has hinted that only autonomy for the Kashmir Valley is viable and feasible. He suggests that the area of conflict’ be reduced to the Kashmir Valley only. While India will remain ‘dejure’ control, Pakistan can achieve some “de facto” Status through the APHC. This would be indirect influence on Kashmir Valley. The success of this formulation obviously depends upon the recognition of the APHC as the true representative of the Kashmir Muslims. The Kashmir Muslims are not united and first need to get their act together. Meanwhile, a committee of eminent personalities can be set up for further negotiations on Kashmir. This committee has to include Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmir’s. It may also include some third – party representatives like, either the UNO or commonwealth or both. This committee may be tasked to negotiate a deal for a new special status or fuller autonomy and self – governance for Kashmir Valley. The autonomy granted may later expand. The primary lesson of the South Tyrol case is that the principal of self – determination of the local population can work for the benefit of the aggrieved party Kashmir Muslim deserve a better deal from India and the world owes them justice. Let us move forward on this front and earnestly work for peace in the subcontinent.

The Bhandara formula seems workable and must be pursued earnestly by both India and Pakistan. The stakes are high for both parties to the dispute and a solution is just possible. There are many people in Pakistan who are getting vary of making concessions to India on various grounds and have a genuine apprehensions that all this movement in the realm of CBMs will not resolve the Kashmir dispute. That is plausibly correct but the peace process is a means to an end and cannot become an end in itself. Pakistan must show patience here. Back-channel contacts between Indian and Pakistani governments have certainly borne some fruit and need to be encouraged. The resolutions of all major territorial disputes follow dialogue processes which are always tedious, very slow at times, and often frustrating. Not letting the processes stop is the critical first factor in successful outcome of such disputes. India and Pakistan are back to serious engagement again and in the midst of an important dialogue process. There are hopeful signs of a definite thaw in our relationship with India. The ability to resolve other disputes, though lesser in significance, will determine the resolution of Kashmir. We must note that intractable problems like Kashmir can only be resolved in an environment of trust, credibility and goodwill. Nothing else will work. In order to improve the atmospherics of the dialogue process we have to invest more heavily in it. Meaning we must negotiate with India on all issues that may help improve our relations with it. Times have changed. Pakistan is facing a daunting challenge after the October 8 earth quake. The northern areas of Pakistan were devastated and need to be rebuilt. This requires energies and time. We have ambitious economic plans which have earned us great admiration from abroad. Without peace with India, we simply cannot meet our ambitions regarding the development of Pakistan. Above all, Kashmiris have suffered tremendously and need a peaceful settlement. Therefore, Pakistan must concentrate on the third phase of the composite dialogue beginning in January 2006. The resolution of Kashmir will take time and can only happen, if and when, India and Pakistan both have attained a high level of mutual trust and friendship.


India-Pakistan Peace Process
The peace process was begun by the BJP government when Vajpayee visited Lahore in 1998. Nawaz Sharif received him in a friendly manner and a Lahore Declaration was issued. Later relations between the two countries soured. After 9/11, a remarkable change happened in the region. Changed circumstances opened the possibility of improved relations between India and Pakistan. In 2001, General Musharraf went to Agra on Indian Premier Vajpayee’s invitation. The outcome of the Vajpayee- Musharraf Summit 2001 was widely seen as inconclusive at best. In 2001, Islamist militants attacked the Kashmiri legislative assembly and India’s parliament building. This drastically raised tensions between India and Pakistan and relations between them deteriorated again in 2002. India took an aggressive military posture against Pakistan by deploying a large number of troops on the Pakistani border. Pakistan responded in kind. Together India and Pakistan deployed one million troops along the border. The two countries were on a brink of war. Premier Vajpayee threatened Pakistan and General Musharraf responded in kind. The US was alarmed at the situation in the subcontinent and quickly got involved. The US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld traveled to the region. The US played an important role in defusing the crisis between India and Pakistan. A war between the two neighbors was avoided. There was then a lot of talk about the need to reduce tensions. The Kashmir problem came up again and again as the foremost impediment to any peace process between India and Pakistan. In January 2004 a summit of the SAARC was held in Islamabad and a dialogue process was initiated to discuss all contentious issues. The peace process had gained some momentum.
In January 2004, India and Pakistan agreed to enhance economic, transport and cultural links while working to resolve the Kashmir dispute. These steps were important commitments to peace. Later a format for a composite dialogue was designed to allow Pakistan and India to start the negotiation process. During the past 21 months several teams met to discuss various issues on the agenda. A number of CBMs were agreed between Indian and Pakistan. Natwar Singh visited Pakistan on October 3-5, 2005. His visit followed a meeting between Pakistani President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York in September 2005.
During the talks India and Pakistan focused on promoting economic cooperation. By all indications the second round of the composite dialogue did end on an optimistic note because a number of agreements have been signed and implemented in the last two years. Definitely, Pakistan-India relations were improving gradually. On October 4, 2005 foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India resolved to carry forward the peace process between their countries and to maintain its momentum. The pledge was made in the joint statement read out by Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri with his Indian counterpart Mr. Natwar Singh. We can expect even a more successful third round which will take place from January to July 2006. India hoped that the revival of joint commission would further expand bilateral cooperation. Meanwhile, the Indian side had presented draft proposals to the Pakistani side for visa liberalization, consular access, and cultural exchange program and on expanding both the exchange of pilgrims and increasing the lists of shrines on both sides.15 Both sides had also agreed to initiate discussions to promote bilateral cooperation in a number of areas of mutual interest such as agriculture, health, education, science and technology, information, and environment.

Progress on Dispute Resolution
Ever since January 2004, Pakistan and India have been holding talks on various issues like Siachen, Sir Creek issues, Kishanganga and Baghliar dams. Several meetings have been held, and elaborate "dialogue architecture" comprising political leadership, bureaucrats, the media and civil society is already in place. After two rounds of composite dialogue Pakistan is keen that there is tangible movement towards dispute resolution. The second round of the composite dialogue process ended in September 2005. Some of the issues that the Natwar-Kasuri talks dwelt upon included peace and security, including CBMs, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Wullar Barrage/Tulbal Navigation Project, Sir Creek, terrorism and drug trafficking, economic and commercial cooperation and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. Kashmir was also discussed The External Affairs minister had expressed satisfaction over the talks
Baglihar Dam Issue

India is constructing a dam and 450MW hydroelectric project in Baglihar, in Jammu and Kashmir’s Doda district. This has become an irritant in the establishment of good neighborly relations between Pakistan and India. Pakistan believes the dam construction is a violation of the Indus Basin Treaty, a 45-year-old water-sharing treaty brokered by the World Bank. Under the treaty, the Beas, Sutlej, and Ravi waters of the Indus branch were accorded to India while Chenab, Jhelum, and Indus were given to Pakistan. The treaty allows India-administrated Kashmir to use the waters for “non-consumption” purposes only. Pakistan contends that the Baglihar dam would deprive it of over 7,000 cusecs of water daily which would adversely affect its agriculture. Despite this treaty, India continues building the Baglihar dam. This dam is a one-billion-dollar project. The two countries could not resolve the issue. After negotiations failed between India and Pakistan it was decided that the World Bank shall appoint an expert to inspect the dam. The expert began study of the Baglihar dam and the peripheral setup on October 2, 2005. Pakistani representatives and Indian representatives accompanied the expert. The World Bank expert said on October 4, 2005 that he would submit his report to the World Bank and that his report would be binding on both countries. 16



The Kishanganga River Project
India is constructing a hydropower and water storage project on the River Neelum in Indian-administered Kashmir. India has already completed 75% of a 22-km tunnel on the project. Pakistan considers this a violation of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Pakistan will begin negotiations with India next month. Officials of the two countries will first visit the site.
The Siachen Dispute
The Siachen glacier is an icy wasteland in the mountains of north Kashmir and in the northern most part of Pakistan and is close to where the frontiers of India, China, and Pakistan meet in the Himalayas. It has been a dispute for more than two decades. Some analysts have questioned the glacier’s strategic value to either India or Pakistan.17 General Zia ul Haq had once famously remarked that “not a blade of grass grows on the Siachen glacier”. Meanwhile, the two armies are pitted against each other on what is described as the world’s highest battlefield, 18,000 to 22,000 feet high. Several thousand soldiers of the two countries have died in the Siachen glacier. Both sides have lost more troops there due to sub-zero temperatures, avalanches, and altitude sickness than to enemy action. India accused Pakistan of retaining bases to send guerillas into Indian-held Kashmir. There has been no fighting on Siachen since November 2003, when a ceasefire came into effect. The two countries have agreed to withdraw troops from the Siachen Glacier but are stuck on verifying each others position before they pull back.18
In September 2005, President Musharraf declared that both sides showed commitment to the peace process, and had made considerable progress on Siachen and Sir Creek issues. Earlier, there was speculation that the two countries would be making some headway towards having a formal agreement on resolving the Siachen dispute. But this did not happen. On October 4, 2005 Mr. Kasuri stated: “On Sir Creek and Siachen we have exchanged ideas that create the possibility of resolution of these issues.”19 He maintained that there was a “reasonable degree of understanding” and hinted that some proposals were seriously being considered.”20 Thus, Pakistan remains hopeful that the Siachen Glacier dispute will be resolved amicably.21 However, it remains to be seen what developments takes place to solve the issue.

A joint statement issued on October 4, 2005 in Islamabad after Natwar’s talks with Pakistani leaders said the two sides exchanged ideas on Siachen and agreed to continue their discussions so as to arrive at a common understanding before commencement of the next round of the Composite Dialogue in January. An agreement on Siachen before January next year becomes important. Singh and Musharraf had also discussed the Siachen glacier and both sides welcomed discussions on a "framework to promote settlement" of the dispute. Kasuri said the possibility of a resolution of the glacier dispute had been created but no agreement had yet been reached. Indeed, as with other issues, the glacier remains a relic of past distrust. Any solution has to be a carefully calibrated exercise in which both sides try to ensure that they have not given in more, especially in the eyes of the domestic population, whether it is extremists in Pakistan or the hawks who keep a keen eye on developments in India.22



Confidence Building Measures (CBMS) between India and Pakistan

In the last 21 months the two governments have held many rounds of talks and several CBMs have been agreed between India and Pakistan.



The Missile Test Warning Accord

Earlier, the two countries had reached an understanding on a proposed agreement on pre-notification of flight testing of ballistic missiles. It was formally agreed on August 6, 2005 that India and Pakistan will notify each other ahead of ballistic missile tests. The two countries would also establish a "nuclear hotline" by September 2005 to reduce the risk of conflict.23 This agreement laid the groundwork of the agreements on pre-notification of missile tests signed on October 4, 2005 by the two foreign secretaries.24 In view of the hostile relations between India and Pakistan the agreement was a significant CBM that will reduce tension between Pakistan and India. Under the agreement, each party will provide to the other party advance notification of the flight test that it intends to undertake of any land or sea-launched, surface-to-surface ballistic missile.25



Coast Guard Hotline Accord.

Previously, secretary–level talks held in New Delhi were followed by talks between the Indian Coast Guard and the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency.26 The two sides signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the establishment of a communication link between the Indian Coast Guard and the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency on October 4, 2005.27 The agreement on the communication link has a humanitarian aspect in that it should preempt the taking of prisoners of the fishermen who sometimes stray unknowingly into the territorial waters of the other side.



Prisoner Releases

Recently, both India and Pakistan have released each others prisoners. As a goodwill gesture, the Indian side conveyed to Islamabad on October 4, 2005 its suo motu decision of releasing 30 more Pakistani prisoners very shortly. Pakistan has also returned the goodwill gestures.



Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) Project
A trilateral gas and oil pipeline involving Iran, Pakistan and India is also under negotiations. This is a gigantic $7.4 billion gas pipeline project, commonly referred to as the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project. Indian Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar visited Pakistan on June 4 -5, 2005 to discuss with his Pakistani counterpart, Amanullah Khan Jadoon, the pipeline from Iran. The proposed pipeline would bring natural gas to both countries from Iran. The 1,735-mile pipeline proposed by Iran in 1996 had never gotten off the ground because of India's concern for its security in Pakistan. However, after easing of tensions between India and Pakistan they had agreed to work toward building the pipeline, despite opposition from the US. India wants to import gas to meet the growing energy needs of its rapidly expanding economy; Pakistan would also have access to the gas, and would also earn transit fees from the pipeline passing through its territory to India. The gas pipeline project will be by far the biggest economic cooperation project between India and Pakistan. Pakistan assured India that it would take requisite security measures for the smooth transmission of the gas pipeline to India.28
India, like Pakistan, has a huge stake in the successful completion of the project. Pakistan and India have made progress in the bilateral talks on financial, technical, security and legal issues pertaining to the project. It was agreed that India would finalize a draft agreement for review and consideration by Pakistan. This would then be shared with Iran. The formal signing will then happen by the end of this year. This agreement would then lead to a set of other agreements. In the October 3-4, foreign ministers talks, both Indian and Pakistan have reiterated their commitment to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.29 But analysts say that project could be at risk in the wake of India's vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board meeting last month. India joined the US in voting to refer Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.30 India and Pakistan have set at rest apprehensions about the fate of the IPI pipeline in the wake of India’s vote. India apparently has decided to side with the US on the Iranian nuclear issue. Meanwhile, Iran is outraged by India’s action. The IPI project is now in the doldrums.

Transport Services

In May 2005, Pakistan and India agreed to operate a new bus service between Amritsar and Lahore and another between the Sikh holy places of Nankana Sahib.31 In April 2005, India and Pakistan agreed on the first bus service to link divided Kashmir. India and Pakistan reached an agreement to start a bus service linking Amritsar and Lahore on September 28, 2005. It will be the second bus service crossing the Pak-India international border. A trail run will happen in October and the regular bus service will commence in November 2005.The Lahore-Amritsar bus service, will link the two countries via the only international crossing at Wagah, near Lahore.32 The two sides have resumed some severed transportation links that has made it easier for people from either side to travel to the other country.

The two sides are currently holding negotiations on commencing truck services and increasing the frequency of the bus service from fortnightly to weekly between the two sides of Kashmir. 33 The Amritsar, Lahore bus service will be on a weekly basis. This development is expected to beef up people-to-people contact.34

The rail connection has been restored at Wagah and the Khokrapar sector will also be connected soon. On October 4, 2005 the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan agreed that a meeting of experts would be held in Islamabad on Oct 25-26 to start the Nankana Sahib-Amritsar bus service at an early date. They agreed that expert-level meetings would be held by the end of this year to finalize modalities for the meeting points of divided families across the LoC and to initiate a truck service on the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar route. Also, it was agreed that technical level meetings would be held before the year’s end to discuss modalities for operationalising as early as possible the Rawalakot-Poonch bus service and starting truck service on the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar route for trade in permitted goods. These are welcome moves. The reopening of the Indian Deputy High Commission in Karachi and the Khokhrapar-Munabao rail route would be of great help to visitors. It would also give a big boost to bilateral trade and people-to-people contacts. The two countries were also looking into the possibility of operating a ferry service between Karachi and Mumbai.35 Pakistan hopes rapid progress is made in this area.



Aviation

Air links have been established on Mumbai-Karachi and Lahore-New Delhi routes. The two sides have agreed to open the skies for private airlines and revise the shipping protocol to permit third country ships to make a transit halt in each other ports to deliver cargo instead of point to point transshipments.36



Sir Creek

India and Pakistan have a boundary demarcation problem which they have been trying to resolve for many years. They now have agreed to undertake a joint survey of Sir Creek in the marshland of Rann of Kutch off Gujarat coast and consider options for the delimitation of the maritime boundary. This will commence before the year end and its report will be considered in the next round of composite dialogue. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan Mr. Kasuri said this would enable the two countries to work for the resolution of the Sir Creek issue in a concrete manner.37



Reopening of Consulates

India and Pakistan are expected to finalize the schedule for reopening of consulates in Karachi and Mumbai. Pakistan is believed to have paid the advance money for a plot had earlier it identified for its consulate building in Mumbai Pakistan is not insisting on its earlier demand that India should hand over Jinnah house in Mumbai.38 India has presented draft proposals to the Pakistani side on visa liberalization, consular access and on enabling increasing number of pilgrims from both countries to religious shrines on both sides.39



Trade Ties

Official trade between India and Pakistan is very low. Pakistan hopes to expand trade with India. Having realized the importance of increased trade, both countries are trying to boost their trade relationship. The two countries were on the right path and that sustained engagement of Pakistan and India in the dialogue process would help enhance economic integration between the two countries. Pakistan was willing to do whatever it takes to help promote interaction between the business communities of the two countries. India and Pakistan have signed the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) agreement. Talks are scheduled for the operation of the agreement from January 1, 2006. However, India and Pakistan bilaterally can go beyond SAFTA. Both the sides now underscored the need for liberalizing the trade visa regime. India viewed that the pace was slow, but did acknowledge movement.40 Indians had pressed for trade through land route to Afghanistan and for the rant of transit facility for Indian goods going to the country. India has called for intensified trade and urged Islamabad to open up its economy, saying this would benefit both countries. New Delhi desired to make Pakistan a transit hub for trade with Central Asia and the Gulf. Natwar Singh said that India understands that there are certain industries in Pakistan which need to be protected. He urged Pakistan to make a negative list of these and open the rest for regular trade or at least open those items that she presently imports from elsewhere to Indian trade. Natwar Singh called on Pakistani businessmen here to use the opportunities thrown up by the peace process.41 It was decided that the next meeting of the Joint Commission will be preceded by technical level working groups on agriculture, health, science and technology, information, education, IT and telecommunication, environment and tourism. New proposals for a cultural exchange program were submitted by India and the two sides agreed to pursue them under the composite dialogue framework.



The New US-India Strategic Partnership
Historically, Indian-US relations have been frosty. During the Cold War period, India was seen by the US as a Soviet ally. An upturn in India-US relations was initiated in the Clinton administration. In the past few years, these relations have grown gradually. Most of this build-up was in the economic, commercial and political areas. In January 2004, the US and India had agreed to expand cooperation in three specific areas: high-technology trade, civil space programs and civilian nuclear activities. In addition, both countries also agreed to expand their “dialogue” on missile defense. The US declared on Sep 17, 2004 that “these areas of cooperation are designed to progress through a series of reciprocal steps that build on each other”.42 Lately, India has been the focus of a lot of attention in the US. It is widely seen as a rising global player. There are many things going in favor of India. India has a population of some 1,027 million people. It is now the second country in the world, after China, to cross the one billion mark. The UN estimates that by 2050 India will have overtaken China as the most populous country in the world. There is a lot in common between the US and India.
Indian premier Manmohan Singh visited the US in July, 2005. This visit was seen to be successful as it resulted in a strongly worded joint statement between Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush. In the joint statement the US President had committed to persuade Congress to approve a deal that would ship civilian nuclear technology to India. The two countries declared their “resolve to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership”.43 The US and India agreed to further cooperate in the economic, energy, environment, development, non-proliferation and security, high-technology and space areas. The two countries entered into a new framework for a defense relationship. Under this framework agreement the US and India would cooperate in the field of defense technology.
The US and India signed a Science and Technology Framework Agreement designed to “provide for joint research and training and the establishment of public private partnerships”.44 The two countries have committed to “build closer ties” in satellite navigation and launch, space exploration and in the commercial space arena through mechanisms such as the US-India Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation. Resulting from the Indian commitments, the US would remove certain Indian organizations from certain commercial restrictions. Finally, the two countries have also resolved to play a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. This development in Indian-US relations was seen as a qualitative improvement in mutual ties. In return, India would have to place its civilian facilities under safeguards of the IAEA. Before nuclear technology could be shared with India, the Congress must approve an exception to a U.S. law that bans civilian nuclear cooperation with countries that have not submitted to the NPTs full nuclear inspections.
Analysis
Why has the US decided to embrace India at this time? What are the implications of strengthened US-Indo ties on Pakistan? India is increasingly seen by the Americans as a success story and it is often viewed as an ancient civilization with legitimate global power aspirations. The goodwill towards India is genuine. Undoubtedly, India has done well in the economic area. In the recent past the boom in Information Technology sector in the US has been fuelled, in part, by non-resident Indian engineers and technologists settled in the country. Many Indians settled in the US returned to their homeland and opened businesses in the sector. The later rapid growth of the Indian IT sector is attributed to this reverse “brain drain” phenomenon. Some India multinational corporations in the IT sector have done very well and are recognized as global players. Unmistakably, the cooperation between India and the US has deepened further in the IT sector. The economic relationship between the two countries has prospered in other areas as well. Trade has expanded and foreign direct investment from the US increased. But it is not economics alone; there are other factors that are fuelling this growth of Indo-US relationship. The principle factor is that of regional politics and the American perception about China’s rise to world power status. China’s growth has been even more remarkable. The US is more concerned about China’s than Indian development. The US increasingly sees China as a future rival in the Asian region and desires to balance China’s growing power with that of India. However, India does not see their new relationship developing with the US in this way. India seeks to develop friendship with China and does not see it as a potential rival. At least, not yet. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seemed to be echoing this sentiment with the remark about “the world being large enough to accommodate the rise of both India and China as two aspiring global players”.45 Meanwhile, China is concerned about the strategic relationship between India the US.
Thus, a strategic relationship is being gradually built between India and the US. The US sees India as a valuable business, and trading partner. It is also seen as a valuable source of joint ventures, research partner and source of industrial collaboration. Lastly, India is a growing market and can prove a fertile ground for US exports. Thus, the US increasingly sees India as a valuable business, trading, research partner and also a source of industrial collaboration. In the past few years, the US-Indian relations have blossomed remarkably.
Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Bush again in New York in September 2005. The two leaders reviewed progress on the agreement between the two countries under which both sides were expected to take follow up steps in implementing the deal. To its credit India has made numerous friends in the US. These persons are calling for an increased collaboration between the two countries in various areas, including nuclear cooperation. The new development of India-US “Framework Defense Agreement” is certainly of considerable significance. The media in India, and elsewhere, is debating these developments and this agreement itself. While some see it as a sign of American acknowledgement of India’s de facto status as nuclear-weapons – possessing state.46 Others are not sure what this all means to both India and the US. The agreement was arrived at secretly and the details are still missing. This is obviously an important question which must be further examined.

The new American deal is seemingly very important to India as was recently indicated by the about turn in the IAEA vote on the Iranian nuclear issue. Earlier, the US was rallying support for possible UNSC sanctions against Iran. India had come under attack in the US congress over its cooperation that if India did not support US’s bid to refer Iran to the UNSC, Bush administration should freeze its agreement to expand nuclear cooperation with India. The nuclear pact can only be implemented after the Congress amends certain laws. Manmohan Singh reiterated to President Bush that India was firmly against nuclear proliferation and wanted the issue resolved diplomatically.47 But the Indians had also given Iran assurances that it would side with it in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors vote on September 24, 2005. An editorial in The Washington Times stated that “India surprised even the most vigilant observers last weekend … U.S. officials have correctly made clear, though, that if the United States is to share nuclear technology with India, New Delhi must commit itself to nuclear nonproliferation on Iran and other issues. India clearly heard that message, and acted on it last weekend”.48 Thus, the strategic relationship between India and the US was already affecting politics elsewhere. Given India’s quest for global status, it is expected to value its strategic relationship with the US over many other considerations like relations with Iran.



What are the implications of this agreement on Pakistan? The Government of Pakistan was downplaying the development the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation pact. The official response was indicated by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in a statement on September 27, 2005 in which he said the pact was not a cause of concern for Pakistan.49 However, the popular response was different. For example, M.B. thought that the US promise to give India civilian nuclear reactors was a violation of the NPT and also the regulations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. He termed the Framework Agreement for Military Cooperation and the promise of civilian nuclear technology to India as a “fully-fledged military alliance “between America and India. He continued to claim that:” India expects much more from the US, while the latter has undertaken to make India a major global military power”.50 Clearly, public perceptions about India remain hostile in some Pakistani circles.
Pakistan remains cautious about the development and is quietly demanding that it be given the same access to US civilian nuclear technology that has been proposed for India. Pakistan desires that the proposed US legislation shouldn't be a specific, one-time affair just for India. It should leave the door open for other countries that meet the same criteria. Pakistan would indeed like to have a similar treatment on the issues which concern it as well as India. Recently, Pakistan had clarified that any discriminatory treatment on the question of civilian nuclear technology would not be acceptable to it. Pakistan is concerned about the turn of events, especially after the US refused to enter into a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan similar to that of India. This exceptional treatment of India was worrying. Pakistan warned that the balance of power in South Asia should not be tilted in India's favor, as a result of the new strategic US relationship with India. In that case Pakistan would have to take “extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defense”.
Although the US-India agreement concerns the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Pakistani concern was that greater help by the US would enable India to divert its indigenous capability to military purposes. Former minister of state for foreign affairs, Inamul Haq claimed that the civil nuclear cooperation pact was a very important development. Condoleezza Rice had recently stated that the US will assist India in becoming a super power. He claimed that the US had established a long-term strategic relationship with India. The agreement was termed as a “subversion” of the NPT and could lead to an arms race in the region. He also claimed that the US was trying to contain China.51
Pakistan had expressed its concerns to the US. India already has a nuclear establishment much larger than Pakistan’s. The US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley visited Pakistan on September 27, 2005 and met President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri. Mr. Hadley said that the US needs to have a nuclear program “tailored” to the needs of Pakistan. An editorial in Dawn, speculated that after this “significant” remark should lead to stepped-up nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and the US. Mr. Hadley had also said that the US desired to “broadening and deepening its strategic relationship with Pakistan over the long term.” The Dawn editorial quickly noted that “As the history of US-Pakistan ties shows, absent all along has been a long-term relationship. Twice in the past it was expediency that brought the two countries closer…The 9/11 trauma have again infused a new life into their relationship, but people wonder whether this too is a passing phase”.52 The statement echoes popular perceptions about the US in Pakistan. The concern about the durability of the ties between Pakistan and the US is very widespread in Pakistan and is not limited to the official circles or to the media alone. Thus, in the popular mind the Pakistani relations with the US were lacking permanence. Skepticism in Pakistan over US-Pakistan ties is a reaction to past events in the country’s history.
Pakistan has now stepped up its campaign to secure advanced nuclear technology. Pakistan maintained that denying it a nuclear package like that of India is a clear discrimination against a friend. President Musharraf warned the US and important western countries that there would be no stability in the region if India was continued to be favored and Pakistan was ignored despite being a strong ally of the international community against terrorism.
Pakistan has now formally approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) seeking a deal similar to the one between United States and India to produce nuclear power, saying that it needed more atomic power plants to meet future energy requirements. Pakistan has urged the NSG, comprising developed industrial countries, not to single out Pakistan by providing nuclear energy to India in the region. The NSG was approached after President Musharraf had been requested by Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) to formally seek a nuclear deal from the US and the West to meet the country's 8,800 MW of electricity needs during the next 25 years.53 Pakistan hopes that a further strengthening in ties with the US would help it meet its growing energy needs. Nuclear power is now accepted as a safe and cheap source of electricity.
The Controversy over the Indo-US Strategic Relationship
Pakistan’s quest for equal treatment has many critics in the US. Critics of Pakistan contend that Pakistan and India are not comparable. Often the A.Q. Khan network smuggling nuclear weapons technology is mentioned. Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's ambassador said in Aug. 2005 "Whatever legislation is made shouldn't be a specific, one-time affair just for India, but should leave the door open for other countries that meet the same criteria and show good responsibility and satisfy the United States' concerns."54
Pakistan is considering approaching the Bush administration about civilian nuclear energy cooperation. Pakistan stands good chances as it has strong military ties with the US. Critics point out that neither Pakistan nor India is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons. While it is certainly too early to judge the direction of the new US-India relationship, it is clear that Pakistan does have to be concerned about the development. Although that India-US relations are not a zero-sum game. Meaning that a gain for India is perceived as necessarily loss for Pakistan. Still much needs to done to strengthen our relationship with USA on this matter. Recent offer of assistance from Britain in the civil nuclear technology area is heartening.
Conclusion
It is simply wrong to imagine that the peace process between India and Pakistan has become irreversible, as some might have us believe. Notwithstanding, the definite gains in removing mistrust between the erstwhile enemies and other successful CBMs, a reversible in improved relations is clearly possible. Therefore, the negotiation process between India and Pakistan has to be handled carefully. Remember the ideological divide between Muslim and Hindu is real and the antagonism between India and Pakistan as recent as 2002 border situation. Nothing is given when it comes to the two neighbors. A long history of enmity is not easily reversible. It is easier said then done. Pakistan desires peace in South Asia simply for the sake of the hapless and poor citizens of the two countries. Valuable energy and resources can be then diverted to solve the economic and social problems of the teeming millions living in abject poverty and helplessness. Surely, the poor of both India and Pakistan deserve better. While many people were apprehensive of the talks then were voices of wisdom and encouragement as well. The two countries are gradually moving onwards and debating problems within the context of the framework that they had adopted for moving towards a resolution of the outstanding issues between them. Pakistan has already tried the other route. Wars and low-intensity conflict, far form changing the status quo had only added to the miseries of the long-suffering Kashmiris.
After 9/11 there is no international support for exercising the military option in Kashmir. Pakistan must continue to emphasize the centrality of the Kashmir dispute but at the same time take firm positions on issues such as Baglihar, and Siachen. Pakistan must also push for interim developments such as the gas pipeline from Iran. Economic issues have the potential of setting in motion a different dynamic and creating an environment in which contentious issues can be resolved differently. The stakes are very high for both parties to the dispute and a solution is not inevitable. It is simply wrong to imagine that the peace process between India and Pakistan has become irreversible, as some might have us believe. A reversible is clearly possible and may even happen if the negotiation process is not handled carefully. The ideological divide between Muslim and Hindu is real and the antagonism between India and Pakistan as recent as 2002 border situation. Nothing is given when it comes to the two neighbors. A long history of enmity is not easily reversible. It is easier said then done. Pakistan desires peace in South Asia simply for the sake of the hapless and poor citizens of the two countries. Valuable energy and resources can be then diverted to solve the economic and social problems of the teeming millions living in abject poverty and helplessness.

It is maintained that flexibility be shown by India on the Kashmir issue. The recent opening of the LoC in Kashmir after the earthquake is a positive development; however, it has given some hope for a breakthrough. The final solution on Kashmir requires a higher level of trust and confidence between the two countries. Various options for a solution are given and the Bhandara solution is endorsed as the most viable. Although a final solution is extremely problematic, it is imperative that India and Pakistan continue the peace process. The on-going process of ‘confidence building measures’ between the two countries. It argues that the peace process is not irreversible, as some might have us believe. Therefore, it is imperative that the peace process be diligently pursued. Meanwhile, the recent upturn in India-US relations has resulted in the development of a strategic partnership between the countries. The US will assist India in the field of civil nuclear technology. India may divert its indigenous civil nuclear technology, developed by US assistance, into military purposes. Although the US-India strategic relationship is controversial, it has obvious implications for us. Pakistan must remain wary of these developments. It must seek new ways to develop strategic ties with the US. It must compete with India in making significant inroads into the American establishment. For this purpose, a better designed policy needs to be prepared. Only a joint effort by various state agencies on a sustained basis can possibly deliver better foreign policy.




1 Sanjoy Majumder, “Analysis: Breaking diplomatic ice”, (BBC News World South Asia Analysis Breaking diplomatic ice.htm), 18 April, 2005,

2 Teresita C. Schaffer, “India-Pakistan Peace Talks: Slow Progress”, South Asia Monitor, Number 75, October 1, 2004 (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies)

3 Ashraf Mumtaz, “Interaction among Kashmiris needed: FM”, Dawn, October 2, 2005

4Qudssia Akhlaque, “Guarded optimism ahead of talks: Pakistan, India to discuss Siachen, Sir Creek”, Dawn, October 3, 2005.

5 Surinder Kapoor, “India, Pakistan to reach common understanding on Siachen by January 2006”, http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=395119, October. 5, 2005

6 http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/india.pakistan.ap/

7 Dawn, October 23, 2005

8 Dawn, November 8, 2005

9 See editorial “The Loc opening is welcome”, Daily Times, October 21, 2005.

10 Jawed Naqvi, “Islamabad, Delhi to reopen Loc” Dawn, October. 23, 2005

11 Dawn, November 10, 2005.

12 http://www.dawn.com/2005/11/08/op.htm

13 See editorial “The Loc opening is welcome”, Daily Times, October 21, 2005.

14 M.P. Bhandara. “ Slow foxtrot with India”, Dawn, October 23, 2005

15 Qudssia Akhlaque, “Resolve to push peace process forward: Joint commission revived, statement issued”, Dawn, October. 5, 2005

16 Dawn , October, 5, 2005

17 Dawn, September. 29, 2005.

18 Dawn, September. 29, 2005.

19 Dawn, October 5, 2005.

20 Dawn, October 5, 2005

21 Qudssia Akhlaque, “Resolve to push peace process forward: Joint commission revived, statement issued”, Dawn, October. 5, 2005

22 Siddharth Srivastava < Asia Times Online South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan.htm> October 6, 2005

23 “India, Pakistan to warn of missile tests”, CBC News

Last Updated Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:27:20 EDT



24Qudssia Akhlaque “Natwar, Kasuri to review dialogue” Dawn, October 2, 2005.

25 Rajeev Sharma , “India, Pak heading for Siachen”, breakthrough, Tribune News Service, <

<http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051004/main1.htm>

26 Dawn, October. 1, 2005.

27Qudssia Akhlaque “Natwar, Kasuri to review dialogue” Dawn, October 2, 2005.

28 Sadaqat Jan, “India Begin Talks on Proposed Pipeline to Get Gas from Iran” available on ABC News Home> on October 1, 2005

29 Qudssia Akhlaque, “Resolve to push peace process forward: Joint commission revived, statement issued”, Dawn, October. 5, 2005

30



31 Arshad Sharif, “Pakistan, India agree on new bus routes” Dawn, May 12, 2005

32 Dawn, September. 29, 2005

33 K J M Varma, “ India, Pak should show flexibility to resolve Kashmir issue: Pak PM”, http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22india.htm on August 23, 2005

34 Dawn, October 2, 2005.

35 Dawn, October 6, 2005

36 K J M Varma, “ India, Pak should show flexibility to resolve Kashmir issue: Pak PM”,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22india.htm on August 23, 2005

37 Surinder Kapoor, “India, Pakistan to reach common understanding on Siachen by January 2006”, http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=395119, October. 5, 2005

38 K J M Varma, “ India, Pak should show flexibility to resolve Kashmir issue: Pak PM”,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/22india.htm on August 23, 2005

39 Surinder Kapoor, “India, Pakistan to reach common understanding on Siachen by January 2006”, http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=395119, October. 5, 2005

40 Daily Times, September 20, 2005

41 Pak Tribune < http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=121411> on October 05, 2005

42 “United States – India Joint Statement on Next Steps in Strategic Partnership” available at http://www.state.gov/r/pay/prs/ps/2004/36209.htm on 9/1/2005.

43 “Joint Statement between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh” available at on 9/1/12005.

44 Ibid

45 P.S. Suryanarayana, “The importance of being China and India”, Hindu, Aug 18, 2005.

46 Ibid

47Dawn, September. 15, 2005.

48 See editorial “India's positive vote on Iran”, The Washington Times . October 2, 2005.

49 Dawn, September 28, 2005.

50 M. B. r play by and around Iran”, The News, October 5, 2005.

51 Dawn, September. 29, 2005.

52 See editorial, “Relations with the US”, Dawn, September. 29, 2005.

53 “Pak approaches NSG asking for similar US-India nuclear deal”, Press Trust of India, > October 4, 2005

54 Foster Klug, “Envoy: Pakistan Wants Civilian Nuke Deal”, Associated Press, Yahoo News, available at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pakistan_nuclear_1 on 9-8-2005

 FOSTER KLUG, “Envoy: Pakistan Wants Civilian Nuke Deal”, Associated Press, Yahoo News, available at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pakistan_nuclear_1 on 9-8-2005

 Masood Haider and Anwar Iqbal, “US offer to facilitate talks on Kashmir”, Dawn, September. 13, 2005.



Download 108.43 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page