After months of silence, India and Pakistan have once again agreed to hold bilateral dialogue. The Pakistani foreign minister is scheduled to visit New Delhi to re-start talks with his Indian counterpart.
This engagement, like those in the past, has sparked speculation among political commentators. But the resolution of conflicts through dialogue takes time, and the amount of time it takes depends on the nature of political relationship and the level of trust between the negotiating countries.
An abrupt stop in the engagement can make things go back to square one, and any new initiative would require more time, energy and focus. The best example of successful India-Pakistan negotiations is the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960, after eight years of intense but rational negotiations.
Major areas of conflict and disagreement between India and Pakistan include the sharing of water from Indus river system (the Tulbul/Wullar Barrage and the Kishenganga Project), the status of Siachin glacier, the Sir Creek estuary, and the issue of terrorism.
Water from the IRS is shared on the basis of the IWT, but due to an increase in population, more water is required for direct and indirect consumption in both the countries. Also, the source of the river is being continuously affected by climate change. In this situation, instead of looking for a rational solution to the problem, the two countries are preparing for a ‘water war’.
The Tulbul/Wullar and Kishenganga problems are related to the Indus water issue. The two countries are still in negotiations over the Tulbul/Wullar Barrage, but Pakistan has invoked the arbitration clause of the IWT on Kishenganga. Although this step was criticised by many in India, Pakistan’s move is legal and in line with the provisions of the treaty.
The fight over Siachin glacier kills and injures many soldiers every year. Both India and Pakistan understand the uselessness of manning this area throughout the year, but they do not want to demilitarise it because of strategic concerns.
Sir Creek is a marshy area that is economically important because of the presence of hydrocarbon gases. Pakistan and India were given a 2009 deadline to demarcate the area lest it is made international waters in line with the UN laws on un-demarcated areas. But the process is yet to start.
Terrorism is at once a local, regional and global problem. Even Pakistan is battling to free itself from the deep-rooted tentacles of terrorism.
Finally, the mother of all conflicts between the two countries is their claims and counter claims on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. Many political leaders and commentators have made suggestions on how to resolve the issue but the two countries have never engaged seriously over the lingering problem. It is believed that the two countries came close to resolving the issue in 1964, 1972 and 2005, but stepped back following unfortunate incidents or bad advice.
One misperception that many Indians have is that Pakistan is a failed state and its nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of terrorists who will use it against India. Pakistan Army is very professional and they would never like to back a bunch of terrorists to take over the state which is virtually in their own control. Also, a nuclear weapon is not a toy that someone can pick up and play with. One should remember that modern states are rational actors.
To conclude, for any amicable solutions on the myriad problems and to end the prolonged mistrust between the two nuclear neighbours, bilateral dialogue is essential. It might be useful to set up sub-committees like China and India have to discuss multiple disputes. These committees must be kept away from all sorts of political pressure and members must be given physical and political protection. These committees must remain engaged even if an unpleasant incident takes place. Continuity must not be broken no matter what happens and no matter what the situation.
Amit Ranjan is a Phd student at JNU, New Dehli
This engagement, like those in the past, has sparked speculation among political commentators. But the resolution of conflicts through dialogue takes time, and the amount of time it takes depends on the nature of political relationship and the level of trust between the negotiating countries.
An abrupt stop in the engagement can make things go back to square one, and any new initiative would require more time, energy and focus. The best example of successful India-Pakistan negotiations is the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960, after eight years of intense but rational negotiations.
Major areas of conflict and disagreement between India and Pakistan include the sharing of water from Indus river system (the Tulbul/Wullar Barrage and the Kishenganga Project), the status of Siachin glacier, the Sir Creek estuary, and the issue of terrorism.
Water from the IRS is shared on the basis of the IWT, but due to an increase in population, more water is required for direct and indirect consumption in both the countries. Also, the source of the river is being continuously affected by climate change. In this situation, instead of looking for a rational solution to the problem, the two countries are preparing for a ‘water war’.
The Tulbul/Wullar and Kishenganga problems are related to the Indus water issue. The two countries are still in negotiations over the Tulbul/Wullar Barrage, but Pakistan has invoked the arbitration clause of the IWT on Kishenganga. Although this step was criticised by many in India, Pakistan’s move is legal and in line with the provisions of the treaty.
The fight over Siachin glacier kills and injures many soldiers every year. Both India and Pakistan understand the uselessness of manning this area throughout the year, but they do not want to demilitarise it because of strategic concerns.
Sir Creek is a marshy area that is economically important because of the presence of hydrocarbon gases. Pakistan and India were given a 2009 deadline to demarcate the area lest it is made international waters in line with the UN laws on un-demarcated areas. But the process is yet to start.
Terrorism is at once a local, regional and global problem. Even Pakistan is battling to free itself from the deep-rooted tentacles of terrorism.
Finally, the mother of all conflicts between the two countries is their claims and counter claims on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. Many political leaders and commentators have made suggestions on how to resolve the issue but the two countries have never engaged seriously over the lingering problem. It is believed that the two countries came close to resolving the issue in 1964, 1972 and 2005, but stepped back following unfortunate incidents or bad advice.
One misperception that many Indians have is that Pakistan is a failed state and its nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of terrorists who will use it against India. Pakistan Army is very professional and they would never like to back a bunch of terrorists to take over the state which is virtually in their own control. Also, a nuclear weapon is not a toy that someone can pick up and play with. One should remember that modern states are rational actors.
To conclude, for any amicable solutions on the myriad problems and to end the prolonged mistrust between the two nuclear neighbours, bilateral dialogue is essential. It might be useful to set up sub-committees like China and India have to discuss multiple disputes. These committees must be kept away from all sorts of political pressure and members must be given physical and political protection. These committees must remain engaged even if an unpleasant incident takes place. Continuity must not be broken no matter what happens and no matter what the situation.
Amit Ranjan is a Phd student at JNU, New Dehli
No comments:
Post a Comment