Pakistan and India – desire for peace?


VIEW: The desire for peace –Ikram Sehgal

There is now a dire and immediate need to change old mindsets and give way to a new and positive thinking. Both Pakistan and India need to avoid shortsighted policies for political point-scoring or short-term gains

Peace and good relations between Pakistan and India will remain a dream unless two core issues are sorted out. Kashmir has lingered for over 60 years for a resolution while the one now taking priority is the dispute over water. The water dispute directly threatens the very survival of Pakistan because of the continuing impasse over our access to water supplies from India. India effectively controls water flows into Pakistan that begin in Jammu and Kashmir and has commenced a string of ambitious water projects because of which disputes over water allocation have risen, adding further impediments to a resolution of the Kashmir dispute in the foreseeable future.

Pakistan has a 77 percent dependency on water, the highest amongst the major South Asian countries. In 1948, after India started controlling the flow of river water into Pakistan, the issue became internationalised and after years of negotiations, the World Bank brokered a deal between the two countries in 1960 that became known as the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The Treaty provided exclusive rights to India over the eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, whereas the use of western rivers Indus, Jehlum and Chenab were allowed to Pakistan. As per the agreement, the flow of these rivers into Pakistan can neither be stopped nor hindered. A few exceptions in the treaty do allow India to use the water for domestic use and generation of hydroelectric power, but precluding building of any storage thereon. However, India has commenced work on the Baglihar and two other controversial dams on River Chenab named Uri-1 and Uri-2. As far as River Jehlum is concerned, India has started construction work on the Kishanganga Hydropower Project. The resultant squeeze on these two rivers waters downstream will have grave and catastrophic consequences for the agriculture sector of Pakistan with the potential to drastically affect its economy. Moreover, should any dam malfunction or collapse, it will have grave consequences for Pakistan in the shape of massive floods in its areas. A greater perception is developing in the national print and electronic media to make our water rights a cornerstone of our foreign policy, water being the most vital issue for the national security of Pakistan.

The IWT is an excellent mechanism, an example that agreements are possible, provided its functional aspect is held paramount rather than the political. It was signed at a time when water was available in abundance and when climate change was not affecting water supplies. Instead of abandoning a treaty that has managed extremely well despite three wars between the two countries, perhaps it could be revamped keeping the interests of both parties in sight. Unfortunately, the functional aspect is being sacrificed at the altar of politics at present. This issue has been politicised to such an extent that the level of mistrust has soared to new heights, especially on the Pakistani side.

Perhaps new and innovative areas of cooperation can be envisaged outside the treaty. Islamabad has suggested joint watershed management and joint commissioning of environmental studies that would address the emerging concerns arising from reduced flows.

Gordon McKay, professor of Environmental Engineering at Harvard University, has written an excellent piece entitled ‘War or Peace on the Indus’ (The Daily Star, April 26, 2010), which gives honest and unbiased views from the perspective of one who is not a party to the dispute. He says, “Had Baglihar been the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jehlum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects — Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa…the cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan.

“This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India.” He then goes on to explain ways in which India needs to show a spirit of statesmanship to resolve this issue.

The Composite Dialogue process, initiated by Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf in January 2004, identified eight issues to be discussed bilaterally between the two countries. A rare opportunity was lost in October 2004 in not going ahead with Musharraf’s pragmatic and flexible ‘out of the box’ solution, which called for demilitarisation of the regions of Jammu and Kashmir, soft borders through travel and trade, granting of maximum autonomy to the five regions of Jammu and Kashmir and withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces.

Musharraf’s initiative was a very brave one. Interestingly, it came from a military person and broke new ground. Let us go a little further today and be more controversial in the search for peace. Why not constant and meaningful military-to-military contact, including slots in each other’s training schools and presence in military exercises as observers (and not just a hotline between the DGMOs), to tear down the walls of suspicion in the military mindset? After all, on UN Peacekeeping duties in many troubled areas of the world, the Pakistani and Indian soldiers seem to serve together well, even coming to each other’s help in times of need.

A satisfactory solution of the Kashmir dispute from Pakistan’s point of view is not within reach in the short-term because of the current massive power imbalance in favour of India. The time has come for the adoption of a long-term approach in contrast with our efforts in the past to find an immediate solution. Pakistan must work with India for improving the plight of the Kashmiris through protection of their human rights, starting the natural lateral trade and unrestricted movement across the LoC, reciprocal and substantial reduction in the military presence in the territory and mutually pulling them out of machine gun and mortar range, if not artillery range.

On April 29, 2010, Pakistan and India agreed to the resumption of a high-level dialogue, which had been unilaterally stopped by India since the Mumbai terror attacks. The two nuclear-armed neighbours must move forward for the sake of peace and stability in the region, particularly on the terrorism front. There is now a dire and immediate need to change old mindsets and give way to a new and positive thinking. Both Pakistan and India need to avoid shortsighted policies for political point-scoring or short-term gains, which have resulted in poisoning their relations in the past and diverting their attention from the gigantic task of eradicating poverty and raising the standard of living of the vast mass of their peoples living below the poverty line. Both countries face a social time bomb that is ticking away.

The writer is a defence and political analyst. He can reached at ikram.sehgal@pk.g4s.com

4 thoughts on “Pakistan and India – desire for peace?

  1. Pingback: Rajeev Ranjan
  2. Pingback: Rajeev Ranjan
  3. Pingback: Rajeev Ranjan
  4. Pingback: Rajeev Ranjan

Leave a comment