Background Information
The relationship between India and Pakistan has been in the global spotlight for many decades now. It is highly characterized by constant interstate confrontations, war, and numerous crises. Ever since the late 1940s, the Indo-Pakistan relations have been in a state of cold war and over the years the conflict has escalated and taken the form of widespread armed clashes as well as nuclear war (Lyon ix). The dominant aim in the official Indo-Pakistan relations has been the search for lasting peace between the two countries (Lyon ix).
However, despite many numerous efforts by the international community to intervene in the situation, the warfare between the two countries has continued to widen in scope, technological inputs as well as the extent of destructiveness (Lyon xi). In 2001-2002, the two countries clashed when India mobilized its troops on the international border consequently provoking a Pakistani response which led to a ten month confrontation between the two countries.
The relationship between the two countries was highly influenced by border conflicts as well as internal violence due to communalism, caste, and class conflict insurgencies which tended to overflow beyond the internal boundaries consequently resulting in interstate conflicts (Lyons xii).
In addition, the economic relations between the two countries was characterized by conflict on division of the assets which served to intensify the conflict in the region and despite the fact that India embarked on significant liberalization of its economies and sought to widen its trade and investment in the subsequent years, the two countries still clash at issues regarding assets allocation and other economic disagreements (Lyons xii).
In our attempt to understand the underlying factors that influence the relationship between India and Pakistan, we will analyze the major conflicts that have taken place in the region by focusing on three fundamental questions as outlined in the table below.
Can the conflict between India and Pakistan be solely attributed to the dispute over Kashmir?
Right hypothesis
The root of all the conflicts and tensions in the region can be traced to boundary disagreements regarding Kashmir (Rafi 118).
Wrong hypothesis
The warring countries usually cover for the widespread internal instabilities by citing Kashmir as the root cause of problems within the region (Cohen 204).
Ever since 1947, the relationship between India and Pakistan has continued to deteriorate despite numerous efforts by internal and external bodies to establish an amicable solution. Both nations have engaged in three actual wars and several other internal conflicts which have led to institutionalization of a trend that promotes accelerating arms race and growing nuclear power in the region.
According to Rafi, Kashmir is the major and perhaps most persistent source of conflict between India and Pakistan since it has been cited as the source of two wars and several skirmishes. According to this writer, Kashmir is the most serious issue facing the two countries and presents itself as an international concern.
Rafi presents the irreconcilable differences between the two countries by revealing Pakistan’s conceptualization of Kashmir as central pillar for national pride and a symbol of national identity while in India; Kashmir has been made an integral part of the country by all Indian governments. The writer asserts that the highly intractable positions of both sides have only served to worsen the situation and frustrate any efforts towards reconciliation (Rafi 125).
On the other hand, Ayoob argues that the differences which have arisen in other internal issues are the major causes of tension and instability and conflicts between the two countries.
The writer has been backed by other scholars who have attempted to trace the root of the rivalry between the two countries by shifting their focus from the Kashmir problems and identified that the conflict persistent in the region have assisted the respective governments in suppressing internal crisis as well as crises of national integration. For instance, Pakistan utilized Indian threats to suppress dissent in East Pakistan for many years (Ayoob 42).
According to Ayoob, the conflict and tensions prevalent in the region should be attributed to such factors as political instability which is widespread in these countries and often frustrate the efforts to resolve any conflicts arising between the two countries. In addition, the writer observes that internal intra elite conflicts and competition adversely affects the relationship between the India and Pakistan since they heavily influence the way policies are formulated (Ayoob 45).
Another major and perhaps less emphasized factor that has promoted interstate conflict between the two countries is status inconsistency in international relations. The two country’s perception of their power status remains largely incompatible and their goals towards achievement of these perceived statuses may have led to the conflicts that persist to date in the region (Ayoob 47).
Numerous reasons have been identified as the major causes of tension between India and Pakistan. (Chopra 336) identifies the test of nuclear weapon and missiles as one of the major and perhaps a more recent factor that promoted friction between India and Pakistan.
The history of this conflict is more recent dating back to 1998 when the two countries engaged in nuclear confrontations which threatened the lives of people living in this region and the world at large (Chopra 335). The latest crisis was experienced despite the US efforts to deploy its forces in Afghanistan and out of bases in Pakistan (Pundak 69). The conflict was highly facilitated by the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament followed by a terrorist attack in on an Indian army camp.
This forced the Indians to respond and consequently, both countries mobilized their conventional forces and moved them to border areas despite the increasing external pressure for Pakistan to rein in the cross border infiltration of the militants into Kashmir while urging India to refrain from military escalation in order to prevent the likelihood of a nuclear war (Pundak 69).
This issue remains one of great delicacy since nuclear war would not only have devastating effects on the occupants of this region but would also affect the external world. Consequently, the United States intervened on the crisis by pressing Pakistan to permanently end its support for terrorism in the region of Kashmir and encouraged India to use elections in order to implement political change in the region (Pundak 69).
The arms embargo by the United States has led to steady atrophy in military equipment and despite the fact that China has offered to offer military assistance to Pakistan which has raised a lot of controversy in thee region, India still enjoys comparative advantage in terms of access to conventional weaponry from the cash starved Asia (Pundak 71).
Pakistan poor economic performance relative to India’s healthy growth inhibits the ability of the country to finance its modernization programs and this is worsened by lack of back up from developed countries such as US in favor of India which serves to further intensify the imbalance. The persistent threat of imbalance in the nuclear force structure between the two regions promotes instability in the region.
Emergence of major asymmetry in nuclear postures in the two countries could produce adverse instability but this is likely not to happen in the near future. However, dynamics of even slow arms is likely to continue to fuel anxiety in the region which is likely to stir nuclear instability.
The interstate conflict between the two countries can therefore be attributed to numerous factors and although the Kashmir dispute has been the major cause of most conflicts in the region, the countries should focus on solving the internal problems facing each of the countries in order to be able to deal with the prevalent interstate problems.
Is the intervention by external bodies effective in promoting the peace process between the two countries?
Right hypothesis
United Nations and the Soviet Union have in the past succeeded in ending the war between the two countries (Rafi 201).
Wrong hypothesis
Regional peace is impossible with the countries lack of dedication to the peace process.
(Cohen P 222)
Border conflicts between India and Pakistan have been persistent over a long period of time with Pakistan claiming over some territories believed to belong to the Indians and consequently attacking Indian posts. In June 1965 for example, resulting from Pakistan’s infiltration in Kashmir across the ceasefire line, there emerged war between India and Pakistan and the two countries have continued to fight over the same despite the Tashkent declaration (Chopra 336).
According to Haq, Pakistan believes that the key to attaining a permanent and amicable solution to the Kashmir will only be possible with Kashmiri leadership from both sides coming into a common platform and display flexibility to achieve a durable solution. Measures have been put to ensure that Indians understand that the Kashmiris are a stakeholder in the bilateral dialogue and they must therefore be considered as the principal beneficiaries of the eventual outcome of the peace process.
Haq highlights Pakistan caretaker prime minister’s acknowledgement that the history of Pakistan and India relations is bound to remain vulnerable as long as the two countries fail to resolve the core issues of Kashmir and Jammu which have formed the major contention in the region. The peace process is aimed at ensuring the solution established goes beyond the confidence building measures into addressing the implications of the conflict (Haq 2).
Mohammadmian Soomro emphasizes on the need for incorporating the Kashmiris in the process of peace keeping which he feels that will enable the two countries to reach mutually acceptable and sustainable solution in attempt to display the region’s commitment to the peace efforts and resolutions with India. Further, Pakistan has been found willing to move beyond conflict management towards conflict resolution since this would provide an amicable solution not only to the parties involved but also to international peace and security (Haq 2).
The writer emphasizes on Pakistan’s opposition of the Indian security forces which are stationed in the region of Kashmir and are empowered with Draconian laws which serves to deny the citizens their basic fundamental rights and the right to self determination to the Kashmir people and the prime minister expressed optimism that India will show the same dedication and flexibility as displayed by the Pakistani since this will foster cooperation and development in both countries which will promote development of a permanent solution to their conflict.
Some other writer are optimistic that the modern situation provides a chance for conflict resolution in the region especially drawing from the Indian’s prime minister’s far sighted decision to respond to the initiatives of the Pakistan’s prime minister which saw a couple of measures implemented by both countries in the recent past and continues to be implemented in future.
Further, the SAARC summit of 2004 had served to raise hopes that a dialogue process may commence following the summit (Gupta 365). Agreement on a peace process provides the context for constructive dialogue between the two warring countries and the peace process should incorporate a settlement process and a range of confidence building measures and resort to avoid impasse (Gupta 365).
In addition, Kashmiris should ensure that they remain neutral in the conflict between India and Pakistan to avoid further conflict between the two countries but this will largely impair the possibility of addressing their grievances as well as the widespread human rights violations that continues to take place in the region (Gupta 365)
Over the years, numerous solutions have been proposed in the attempt to resolve the Kashmir problem which has been the major source of interstate conflicts between the two countries.
Solutions proposed include implementation of soft borders between the two parts of Kashmir pending a permanent and fair solution to the underlying problem, region-by-region plebiscite of the Kashmiris, UN trusteeship of the region under contention, sharing the territory along the lines of Trieste and Andorra models or the establishment of a nominally sovereign territory controlled jointly by the two states, depopulation of Muslim Kashmiris and repopulation by Hindus from India among other strategies (Cohen 220).
Cohen seeks to answer the question as to why the conflict continues to persist despite the numerous efforts and dialogue designed to resolve the conflict between the two countries. He explains the hindrances in three fold;
Firstly, the cold war highly influenced the United States and Soviet Union perception of the dispute as an inherent East-West struggle. Secondly, India and Pakistan continue to pursue inflexible strategies whereby India has gradually diminished Kashmir’s special status under article 370 of the constitution of India which grants the state special status in the Indian Union. The country also continues to pretend that a solution has been achieved through the Simla agreement which serves to derail the process of establishing a solution.
This strategy by India later facilitated further disagreements between the two countries with consequences being evidenced in the 1980s when India rejected the political option and was reluctant to accommodate the Kashmiris demands and also excluded Pakistan from their Kashmir policy while resisting outside efforts to resolve the conflict (Cohen 220). Yet, India lacks the resources, the will or a strategic plan to deal with the problem that heavily determines the relationship between the two countries single handedly.
On the other hand, Pakistan often resort to force and military as well as terrorist attacks in the attempt to acquire Kashmir from the Indians and this not only further worsens the political relationship between the two countries, it continues to give the Indian government an opportunity to avoid negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict and this has also served to alienate the Kashmiris in the past.
The Kashmiris seek to exploit benefits from this disagreement despite the fact that they are victims of the situation by seeking Independence from India and Pakistan. Consequently, India and Pakistan continue to conflict on which of the two countries should control Kashmir and the mechanism for addressing the Kashmir’s grievances but agree on one thing, that the region should not be made an independent state (Cohen 221).
This render the proposal from outsiders that focus on the interests of the Kashmiris in determination of the fate of the region fruitless as they remain unsupported in New Delhi and Islamabad which are the major stakeholders in determining the fate of the relationship between the two countries.
Cohen observes that the dispute has become so deeply entrenched in the conflict between the two countries and it’s so complicated that the parties involved are likely to experience huge difficulties in trying to resolve it.
The valley residents continually raise complaints that they are being invaded by Indians while other Kashmiri groups such as Pandits are in constant fear of invasion by the Muslims (Cohen 221). To further complicate the process towards establishing a solution, there exist different perspectives within India and Pakistan on Kashmir and during the Kashmir crises of 1990, the further one was from Islamabad and Delhi, the less passion there was about Kashmir.
Lack of a working solution is highly influenced by lack of a strategy and if such a strategy had existed in the 80s, then the later consequences that have seen India and Pakistan at the verge of war may have been avoided. In addition, positive change in the relationship between Pakistan and India would require reform in each state as well as a comprehensive solution to the Kashmir problem.
Another major impairment to the process of reconciliation in the region is that none of the parties involved is time conscious on the duration of time that the resolution should take place. Both countries lack commitment to reconciliation process and despite the fact that a lot has and continues to be done to reconcile the two countries; they are likely to fail if both countries continue to lack commitment towards the process.
Are the two countries headed for a resolution or permanent hostility?
Right hypothesis
Regional trade may be utilized to promote good relations between the two countries.
(Paul 2)
Wrong hypothesis
Policy issues significantly hinder effective implementation of the peace process
(Cohen 220)
Paul views the case of Pakistan India conflict as a careful representation of enduring rivalry in the region.
According to Paul, identity which refers to ethnic and linguistic attachments as well as nature of politics, purpose of the state and its underlying values is the major factor hindering the peace process (Paul 178). The rivalry depicts issues in national identity in Pakistan and India with the rise of Islamism and Hindu nationalism as well as their role in shaping identities in the two countries.
Paul also acknowledges that at the face value, sacralization of politics in the two countries has resulted in the persistence of rivalry in both regions but the historical evidence does not necessarily support this conclusion and has provided for greater opportunities for compromise. Identity may have played a major role in Indian Pakistan rivalry in the past but the role has increasingly changed with both countries becoming more reliant on religious ideology in their mode of governance.
However, the nations’ identity may not have necessary resulted in negative implications that may significantly hinder the process of resolving the conflict but it has provided existing dynamics of the rivalry with new ideological orientation as well as political opportunities.
For instance, In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has strengthened attitudes towards the question of Pakistan while the Pakistan the impact of Islamism is not consistent and has strengthened Pakistan’s identity without necessarily strengthening the communalist discourse that legitimated the rivalry (Paul 201)
Cohen on the other hand views the controversy surrounding Kashmir to be more intense in India relative to Pakistan and no future can be absolutely determined with the conflict still persisting especially due to the Indian view to draw international boundary along the cease fire area with minor adjustments while Pakistan continues to rejects this idea although it keeps cropping up in proposals by Indians as well as third parties (Cohen 223).
The region has the potential to achieve long lasting peace drawing on past experiences in regions that have managed to resolve their conflicts but due to the extent to which the conflict has been entrenched in the region, extensive and major policy issues have to be addressed in both India and Pakistan in order to reach an amicable solution.
Regional peace however, seems hard to accomplish since India, highly critical of two nation theory views Pakistan’s sole reason for existence as based on this theory and also a force that would encourage India’s large Muslim population to promote separatist groups (Cohen 223).
Indian argument suggests that there can be no real peace between the two regions since they fail to accept their core differences existing between them. On the side of Pakistan, the intellectual and political debate area is dominated by hardliners as well as military security establishment with moderate voices often going unheard or intentionally suppressed (Cohen 223).
Consequently, India and Pakistan may not be able to improve their relationship status without intervention from the external community. In order to improve the relationship between India and Pakistan, India would require implementing extensive reforms in its federal system and the military balance between the two countries should be reexamined along with the provisions that would prevent the two states from again turning to arms in Kashmir.
Cohen recommends that Pakistan should reconstruct their view on their approach towards the conflict and rather than focusing on military confrontations, they should draw incentives for interstate associations while India on the other hand has to demonstrate to Pakistan that not only would it be willing to make significant concessions, but it would also be willing to negotiate. Addressing individual identity issues and policy issues in the country would facilitate reconciliation and promote stability in the region.
Conclusion
The role of peace making process should shift towards the fundamental causes of persistent instability between the two countries and the peace process should aim at achieving continuous series of moves aimed at permanent resolution from the nuclear brink. The region should also focus on the other factors affecting the relationship between the two countries such as nuclear war which threatens the peace of the entire world at large.
Works Cited
Ayoob, Mohammed. Conflict Intervention in the Third World. London: Taylor and Francis, 1980. Print.
Chopra Pran Nath. A Comprehensive History of Modern India. New Delhi: Sterling publishers Ltd, 2003. Print.
Cohen, P. Stephen. India: Emerging Power. Washington DC: Brookings institution press, 2001. Print.
Gupta R. Komal. India-Pakistan Relations with Special Reference to Kashmir. New Delhi: Atlantic publishers and distributors, 2006. Print.
Haq ul Noor. “Pakistan- India Peace Process (2008-2009).” Web.
Lyon, Peter. Conflict between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. California: ABC CLIO, 2008. Print.
Paul Thazha Varkey. The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry. New York: Cambridge University press, 2005. Print.
Pundak, Ron. “From Oslo to Taba: What went wrong?” Survival: The IISS Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 3, Autumn. 2001.
Rafi Khan Shaheen. Regional Integration and Conflict Resolution. London: Taylor and Francis, 2008. Print.