Is the glass half full or empty?
By Iqbal Haider
The three rounds of talks between Pakistan and India in a span of just about three weeks starting by the visit to Islamabad of the Indian foreign secretary on 24th June, followed by the visit of the Indian interior minister on June 25 and now the Indian external affairs minister has visited Islamabad to further pursue the process of dialogue, are indeed a major positive development in the relations of the two countries.
The people of South Asia who are craving for peace view this development with optimism as the glass of hope half full, if not more. Fortunately this year of 2010 has started with all the positive developments both in India and Pakistan. The two biggest groups of newspapers The Jang Group in Pakistan and Times of India Group in India took a remarkable initiative by launching the much-needed campaign Aman Ki Asha.
While people of Pakistan took out peace rallies in every city on January 1, the Peace Coalition of Intellectuals held a joint Indo-Pakistan conference in Delhi on 10th of January this year to define A Roadmap Towards Peace, and succeeded in offering to our two governments a comprehensive roadmap providing pragmatic solution to all burning issues for peace and stability in our two countries. The Peoples Saarc in its seminar held in Delhi on 19th of April this year made further valuable contribution in promoting more understanding and cordial friendly relations among the people of South Asia.
Despite these positive efforts on the part of the officials as well as concerned members of the civil society of the two countries, one cannot ignore the assessment of many pessimists who view the glass as half empty and are not hopeful of any positive change in the Pak-India relations without first resolving the Kashmir issue.
Those who say that without resolving the political issues, cooperation between the two countries cannot be promoted in economic, trade, cultural and media sectors are not correct and realistic. The reverse appears to be more close to the reality. These are the stronger economic ties, social and cultural proximity that are more helpful in resolving the political issues.
The pessimists should not forget that even during the cold war and even after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the USA broke all ties with Soviet Union except economic ties. The US refused to play any game with Soviet Union in Olympics or otherwise but continued to sell its wheat to Moscow. India had strained relations with China but now China is the biggest trade partner of India.
The strong economic ties and considerations between India and China help them resolve their some disputes on border if not all. I can quote a number of examples of the economic considerations playing a vital role in resolving the political issues. It is for these reasons that I have to state that the precondition of resolving political issues first before establishing strong ties in economic, social and cultural sectors, amounts to maintaining strained status-quo to the detriment of the interest of our 1.5 billion people and it would only result in denial of progress, social, welfare that the people of our two countries need, and they can easily achieve the same by collaboration rather than confrontation.
There are no two opinions that all political issues including not just Kashmir but far more crucial issue effecting all 1.5 billion people of our two countries is the issue of fair distribution of water, and must be resolved peacefully for ensuring progress and social welfare of the people, and peace and stability in the South Asia.
The differences exist on the mode and manner of resolving these political issues. Conventional and pronounced position of the two countries on the Kashmir issue does not appear to be pragmatic or possible to be achieved now. There is realisation in both the countries that war is not an option.
The jihad launched by the imprudent extremist and militant religious groups was neither desirable by the vast majority of Kashmiris as the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) had also declared in February 2001 that the struggle for liberation of Kashmir is not religious, but political. All jihadi, militant and religious forces could not force India to budge an inch.
They only succeeded in damaging Pakistan, its image and caused incalculable harm to our economy, politics, and social and cultural values and conditions, so much so that our integrity and sovereignty is also being seriously threatened by the undeclared war of religious extremists from within Pakistan.
We have no option but to seek solution to political issues through expeditious peaceful negotiations with India. We can succeed peacefully only if we accept the ground realities, howsoever disappointing and bitter they may be. We must recognise that solution to Kashmir on the basis of UN resolution is a sour dream.
In the past 62 years, the UN and its members are least interested in the implementation of these resolutions. Even the closest allies of Pakistan in OIC are not willing to offer more than the lip service to this issue. One should not also ignore the fact that the Shimla Pact has already substituted the demand for implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir.
On the occasion of the Saarc conference in Islamabad in January 2004, even the then Chief of Army staff General Pervez Musharraf had shown flexibility to search a solution to the Kashmir issue by modes other than UN resolutions.
May I also remind that one of the very conservative leaders of a religious party JUI, Maulana Fazalur Rehman, during his visit to India a few years ago, had shown the courage to support the proposal to accept LoC as the international border. It is also an undeniable fact that neither India can push Pakistan out nor can Pakistan push India out of the portions of Kashmir in their respective control.
Under these geopolitical realities, the only viable strategy and solution appears to be that in the first face it would be in the best interest of the people of Pakistan, India and Kashmir, that both Pakistan and India formally accept the Line of Control as the international border for all practical purposes, at least for the time being.
This is precisely the spirit and objective of the Simla Agreement of 1972. This acknowledgement must however be followed by a treaty between India and Pakistan, containing firm and sincere commitments:
(a) That both countries would refrain from aggressive actions, policies or propaganda against each other and militancy or terrorism in any form, may it be at the hands of the arm forces or jihadi/religious fanatic organisations, has to be stopped;
and (b) Borders between the two countries and between the two parts of Kashmir should be opened to the people at large with free access, free trade, exchange of cultural activities, academics, intellectual groups, sports events as well as access to the electronic and print media. This will usher in a new chapter of peace and progress in South Asia, strongly desired by our 1.5 billion people.
(The writer is a former federal minister for law, justice, parliamentary affairs & human rights; and a former senator. Email: ihaider45@yahoo.com)
