Indian Quest for Friendship Treaty

The POST, Sun, Apr,2, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


While inaugurating the bus services between Amritsar and Nankana Sahib, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh offered peace, security and friendship treaty to Pakistan. ‘I have a vision that the peace making process must ultimately culminate in our two countries entering into a treaty of peace, security and friendship’, expressed the Indian Prime Minister. It is difficult to doubt PM Manmohan Singh’s intentions. He appears to be sincere and well meaning individual.

An objective analysis of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clearly indicates that nothing new has been proposed in his envisaged treaty. The past is studded with many examples of similar offers. It is not difficult to recall the fate of President Auyb’s offer of Joint Defense or President Zia ul Haq’s off of ‘No War Pact’ or Nawaz Sharif’s proposals of ‘Non-aggression Pact and Arms Control and Arms reduction’. Each of those offers were met either by counter proposals or were out-rightly rejected. In fact the general perception is that it appears to be somewhat difficult for the Indians to swallow the offer that elicits appreciation by the objective observers and has emanated from Pakistan. Almost all proposals emanating from Pakistan were either rejected or confronted with a counter proposal. This is particularly true of proposals like ‘No War Pact’ which was originally made by Indian Prime Minister Nehru but it met rebuff because it was offered by the Pakistani side.

The latest proposal generates positive vibes if read in isolation. But given the history of India-Pakistan uneasy and complex relationships, it would be difficult to overlook the overall unresolved conflicts with a particular focus on the Kashmir dispute. While there is no doubt that Prime Minister Singh means well but the inbuilt effort to de-link the Kashmir dispute makes it extremely difficult for the Pakistani leadership to accept. Any attempt to de-link Kashmir from the peace process could never be accepted by the Pakistanis. Most Pakistanis believe that the main dispute is Kashmir and once this is out of the way, the normalization of relationship would be attained at an accelerated pace and within a very short span of time.

‘I am convinced that we can move forward if all concerned are willing to accept the ground realities, if all concerned take a long view of history and our destiny’, stressed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Every nation wants to live in peace and enjoy harmonious relations with its neighbors and that is indeed the desired objective. But what happens in real world is a different story. However let me focus and analyze the ground realities which the Prime Minister Singh has alluded to. . The ground realities that the are generally acknowledged by most independent observers include the existence of freedom struggle, the presence of huge Indian security forces, the continuous gross violations of human rights, the infiltration of sympathetic elements from outside, the existence of Kashmir related disputes such as Wullar Barrage, Baghiliar Dam and Siachin along with other disputes like Sir Creek etc.

This writer is inclined to agree with the Indian Prime Minister’s assertion that a meaningful agreements can be secured over Sir Creek, Siachin and water disputes in Kashmir. Some of these disputes are indeed not difficult to resolve if the two parties make sincere efforts. However the other assertion that it would be a mistake to link normalization of other issues/disputes with finding a solution to the ongoing Kashmir dispute deserves comments. On the contrary it would be mistake not to link the ongoing Kashmir dispute with the normalization process. Almost all Pakistanis regard the Kashmir dispute as the core dispute. A core dispute has the capacity to not just to pull back all that has been attained in this connection but could also effective slow down the process. It would be a wiser approach to make progress on Kashmir along with other issues and dispute. Leaving the resolution of the Kashmir dispute to future generation or even considering concerted attempts to be made only after the resolution of all other issues/disputes could damage the process.

Undoubtedly the peace would continue to remain an illusive commodity unless the main dispute is resolved. However it does not mean that other issues and disputes should be delayed. There are two approaches which are commonly applied to such situations. Either takes up the relatively less complicated issues/dispute first and after having resolved them, and then take up the complicated issues/dispute. Alternatively one could start by focusing on the main dispute first and then concentrate on other issues/disputes. Both approaches are frequently employed.

Not only the Kashmir dispute is very complex and it is generally agreed that its resolution would take quite sometimes, but efforts should also be made simultaneously to seek its solution. The very nature of visible efforts regarding Kashmir is likely to keep both parties satisfied with the process. Given the repeated assertions that there would be no redrawing of the boundaries or difficulties concerning the possible constitutional changes gives the other party the feelings that the solution is sought by one party on its own terms. Such an impression does not help and could also affect the ongoing process.

The statement that the peace making process must ultimately culminate in a peace, security and friendship treaty, if read in isolation, amounts to a noble goal. For obvious reasons all of us like to live in a peaceful and secure environment. But one should take cognizance of totally opposite points of view of the two countries regarding the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan has repeatedly asserted that LOC cannot be accepted as the permanent international border and has often also expressed that LOC is part of the problem and not part of the solution whereas India has been stressing that there would be no redrawing of the borders. So if both parties remain stuck to their respective position, the solution would certainly appear as something unattainable. And if Kashmir dispute in not resolved, how can one assume that the treaty on peace, security and friendship would come into existence.

Bypassing the Kashmir dispute amounts to seeking peace on India’s terms and it is not going to work. Perhaps the most practical and feasible way out of this complex situation is to seriously consider the Pakistani proposal of self governance. Even if we assume that both the Indian held Kashmir (IHK) and Azad Kashmir get the maximum autonomy and practice the self governance in true sense, the question that is being asked is what about the aspiration of the Kashmiris. Did the Kashmiris sacrifice so much to get autonomous status? Would the Kashmiris be satisfies with self governance? Many Kashmiris stress that the time has come that they should be directly involved in negotiations over the fate of Kashmir. Even if they accept for the time being the proposal of self governance, they would not only like to be a party to negotiation process discussing the fate of the state but would also like to have clause inserted in the ultimate treaty that eventually or after a stipulated period of time they would be allowed to decide the fate of their state.

Nobody would like to undermine the significance of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s offer especially when one realizes that it came after such long silence by the Indians in responding positively to so many of the Pakistani proposals relating to the Kashmir dispute but as he himself pointed out that ground realities must be recognized for a permanent peace. The ground reality is that India-Pakistan cannot secure a permanent and lasting peace without resolving the Kashmir dispute.
To put Kashmir on the hold may not carry much appeal for both the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris. This also implies bequeathing our undesirable load to the future generations.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.