How Pakistan Can Get Kashmir By Kamran Yousaf

Every year on the 5th of February, Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day. This has been the practice since
1990 when the late Jamaat-e-Islami leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed first mooted the idea.
The day is marked by a national holiday. Statements eulogising the sacrifices of Kashmiris in the face of brutal use
of force by the Indian forces are issued, rallies are staged across the country and resolutions are adopted showing
support to the people of Kashmir for their right to self-determination.
This year, the PTI government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan went a step further to extend support to the
Kashmiris. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi travelled to London and attended several events, including
one at the British Parliament, for the Kashmir cause.
All such efforts were aimed at highlighting the human rights violations being committed by Indian forces in Kashmir,
which has long been the scene of tensions.
Pakistan, being a legitimate party to the dispute, has every right to highlight the Indian atrocities in the scenic
Himalayan region. But do Pakistan’s efforts really get any traction globally? Unfortunately, barring a last year’s
report by the UN Human Rights Council chief criticising the systematic human rights abuses in the occupied
territory, rest of the world — even the Arab countries with which Pakistan has close ties — are not bothered much
about what’s happening in Kashmir.
The reason India gets away without any punitive measure is that in the international relations, economic interests
trump issues of human rights and morality. In fact, morality and international laws are often used by powerful
countries against weak nations.
It is estimated that more than a million people died as a direct consequence of Britain’s flawed policies during
partition in 1947. But no one has ever questioned Britain for the crimes it directly or indirectly committed in the
subcontinent. Interestingly, Britain today even lectures us on human rights. Why Britain was not held accountable is
because it was powerful.
That’s not the only example. After the 9/11 attacks, the US military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria
claimed at least half a million lives. Did anyone think of dragging the US to the dock? This means no one can catch
you if you are powerful.
India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been using brazen tactics to crush the genuine uprising in
Kashmir. It has also tried to change the rules of engagement with Pakistan.
Now even a mere telephonic conversation between the Pakistani foreign minister and Kashmiri leaders invites a
strong reaction from New Delhi. There was a time when Kashmiri leaders from across the LoC travelled to this part
frequently and India never objected to that.
India’s hardened stance stems from its economic prowess that enhances its clout globally. This transformation has
allowed India to neutralise any outside pressure on Kashmir.
In this changing scenario, what Pakistan needs to do is to formulate its Kashmir strategy based on realism. India
and the world will take Pakistan seriously only when we unleash our true economic potential and create stakes in
international trade.
It is foolish to think that India would give any concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir knowing where today we stand
economically. The current government has borrowed money from Pakistan’s friends to keep the faltering economy
afloat.
The IMF package may be next. And this is a template followed by successive governments in Pakistan for
decades. The reason we have never been able to grow is because of absence of structural reforms, longstanding
issues pertaining to civil-military imbalance, fragile democracy and lack of industrial advancement despite being a
nuclear power.
With these weak indicators and a plethora of issues, Pakistan can never forcefully plead its case on Kashmir to the
world and India. Only an economically powerful and politically stable Pakistan can guarantee a better bargain on
Kashmir.
Kartarpur Corridor: Progress at Last | Editorial
Despite some initial shuffling on a seemingly futile endeavour, Pakistan and India have finally moved ahead on
finalising the Kartarpur Corridor Accord with both sides agreeing to reciprocal visits by their respective teams.
A Pakistani team will now travel to New Delhi on March 13 for initiating the process and an Indian team will visit
Islamabad on March 28 to finalise the accord.
The move came after Islamabad last month shared with New Delhi its draft of the Kartarpur Corridor Accord for
building visa-free access for Sikh pilgrims to the Gurdwara in Kartarpur Sahib in Narowal district of Punjab. The
document would govern operations of the corridor.
India insisted on hosting the Pakistani team for the first leg of the negotiations. It goes to Islamabad’s credit that a
decision was made to take up the offer so that the momentum gained at the groundbreaking ceremony for the
corridor in Narowal, attended by two Indian cabinet ministers, could be maintained.
Another short step forward has been in a different field — sports. India has thus far indicated that it will allow its
tennis team to travel to Pakistan for a crucial Davis Cup tie in September.
If it goes through, it would mark the return of an Indian tennis team to Pakistan for the first time since March 1964.
Failure to do so would see a severe reprimand from the International Tennis Federation (ITF), including fines and
sanctions barring participation in certain ITF events.
While they may appear small, these are significant steps in building up tracks towards formal talks between
Pakistan and India at much higher levels. Ever since the groundbreaking ceremony of the Kartarpur corridor,
Islamabad has been signalling its willingness to work towards a thaw in ties with India. Now the ball is in India’s
court.

Pakistan’s Troubled Neighbourhood By Talat

Masood
As the US withdraws from Afghanistan the country is expected to undergo major changes in its political and
economic structure. It is most uncertain as to how this transition would take place. Nonetheless, it is clear that the
Taliban would be in a dominant position by virtue of the area they control and the military advantage they have over
the Afghan forces. The US realising this has been directly negotiating the terms and conditions of withdrawal with
the Taliban, despite President Ghani’s serious reservations. This is a major departure from Washington’s previous
position but it shows how frustrated President Trump is with the prevailing situation in Afghanistan. It is also a
reiteration of his commitment to disengage from unending conflicts especially this one that has lasted over 17 years
and cost the US exchequer a trillion dollars. Moreover, until August of last year over 2,375 American lives were lost
and 20,320 service members wounded in action in Afghanistan. In addition nearly 1,730 US civilian contractor
fatalities occurred.
The current US approach indicates that President Trump, notwithstanding his idiosyncrasies, is pragmatic and has
a set of priorities different from that of his generals who would like to continue with an unending war.
Even if the Taliban demands were met and they agree to a ceasefire it would not necessarily lead to peace in
Afghanistan. There has to be a political understanding of the Taliban also with progressive forces that constitute
mostly the urban middle class and elite of Afghanistan that previously were mostly part of the Northern Alliance and
are Hazaras Tajiks and Uzbeks. Besides, the warlords that command support in their local areas will have to be
taken into confidence. More importantly, the Taliban would have to ensure to the US that they would not allow any
inimical groups like the ISIS to operate from Afghan soil. Assurance to deny the ISIS any space will not be difficult
to implement, as it is as much in the Taliban interest. The most critical issue would be how the Taliban and the
Afghan government and progressive Afghan forces agree to share power.
In many ways the emergence of Taliban as the major player in determining the future of Afghanistan vindicates
Pakistan’s policy. But the more pertinent question is whether the emergence of Taliban in a bigger role beneficial,
especially while assessing it in terms of its impact on society and the region as a whole. The other regional
countries—Iran, Russia, China and also India would be reassessing their positions in the changing scenario.
Already we were seeing that these countries had developed contacts with the Taliban leadership. India, of course,
would have to make a major shift and develop a working relationship with the Taliban. It may not be difficult as the
Taliban leadership has been fairly pragmatic and flexible in changing positions if it suits their interest.
The other significant event in the region is the Indian elections in April-May of this year. Indications are that the BJP
would still secure the highest number of seats but with a lesser majority. A decisive victory for the BJP would make
Prime Minister Narendra Modi more arrogant and dismissive toward Pakistan. It would turn India into essentially a
Hindu state in which the security and freedom of minorities, especially Muslims, would be in danger. The situation
in Kashmir would worsen which already is on the boiling point. What gives hope that the politics of hate and
divisiveness is not paying back and PM Modi’s popularity and that of the BJP is on the decline. If the discontent is
reflected in the coming elections chances are even if the BJP assumes power it would remain constrained and that
may allow Modi to rethink his policy towards Pakistan. The BJP government has been using Afghanistan territory to
destabilise Pakistan. Shrinking presence of the US in Afghanistan and a Taliban dominated government likely to
emerge in Kabul would restrain India from indulging in anti-Pakistan pursuits.
In addition, on several policy fronts—Afghanistan, Kashmir and dealings with its own Muslim community India
would need to revisit its policies. No doubt, its economy is doing consistently well and it has broad support of the
Western world and the international community but it cannot overlook indefinitely the negative side of its foreign
and domestic policies.
Meanwhile, as Prime Minister Imran Khan has indicated Pakistan will wait out until Indian forthcoming elections.
The ball is in India’s court as far as its dealings with Pakistan are concerned. If still Modi or any other successor
government moves forward Pakistan would reciprocate willingly.
The relationship with Iran is far more complex. Being an important neighbour with close cultural and religious ties
one would have expected far closer collaboration in the economic and political spheres. International and US
specific sanctions have adversely affected trade with Iran and major communication and energy projects are on
hold. Besides, Pakistan and Iran’s economy are going through a major crisis.
Unfortunately, the Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan have remained restive that hinders smooth movement of
people or trade to flourish. Pakistan has relied heavily on the armed forces to stabilise the region. Their efforts are
commendable. They have focused on building schools, hospitals, and constructing roads. And now with Gwadar’s
eminence due to CPEC and the connecting highway and other infrastructural projects, Balochistan has acquired
greater importance. There is, however, need for addressing the genuine grievances of the Baloch youth who feel
rightly or wrongly disfranchised. There has to be a serious attempt by the political government at resolving the
injustices. A stable Balochistan would vastly contribute towards building bridges with Iran. Developing
complementarity with Iranian port of Chabahar port in future would further serve the interest of both countries.
The Saudi-Iranian conflict that has sectarian and political overtones places Pakistan in a difficult situation despite
its earnest efforts at staying clear of it.
Pakistan has always aspired to derive maximum strength from its geo-strategic location. The present regional
situation though complex, presents once again an opportunity to maximise its potential.

Indian Envoy’s Remarks | Editorial

In an informal interaction to mark India’s 70th Republic Day, Ajay Bisaria – the Indian High Commissioner to
Pakistan – stated that building trust between the two sides is essential before embarking on a political dialogue.
However, he clarified that owing to the upcoming general elections in India, political dialogue may be quite difficult.
He also revealed that the two countries are in operational contact over the Kartarpur corridor initiative on which
basic points have been agreed upon with the exception of zero-point.
The envoy’s remarks signify that his intentions for concrete talks are sincere for long-term stability.
Nevertheless, South Block, New Delhi’s refusal to create a conducive environment for dialogue is a major
impediment for peace in the region. Ever since the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government came to power
in May 2014, multiple talks have broken down or stalled at the eleventh hour owing to several factors.
Key examples include August 2015 secretary-level talks in New Delhi and September 2018 foreign minister-level
talks in New York City, which were overshadowed by bitter speeches in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Other
talks such as those held during former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s tenure had no concrete outcome given the
overall hostile environment along the Line of Control (LoC) and internal political crisis brewing in the restive region
of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
Under the new government led by Prime Minister Imran Khan, there have been multifaceted efforts for ensuring a
harmonious environment. Kartarpur initiative was the first major breakthrough in November 2018 which was
welcomed by the Sikh community residing in not only India but other parts of the world too.
It is pertinent to mention that New Delhi unofficially distanced itself from all the glamorous projection of the corridor
in Pakistan owing to two key reasons.
Firstly, since elections are just around the corner, the NDA does not wish to lose in constituencies where it could
garner votes on communal/anti-Pakistan rhetoric. Especially when the Indian National Congress (INC) is regaining
its political prowess in light of the NDA’s populist socio-economic promises being side-lined or struck down. In
addition to this, major scandals such as those relating to the French Rafale jet deal have also damaged the NDA’s
ability to tackle state-level corrupt practices which have shook the power corridors.
The second reason is the ‘terror’ narrative promoted by India for the last several years. This narrative has lost its
credibility to such an extent that several analysts are of the opinion that New Delhi should have a bigger heart
when dealing with Islamabad. The repeated shuns have done more harm than good for its foreign policy objectives
regarding bilateral ties with Islamabad. Furthermore, the haphazard and directionless approach on peace talks
implies the severity of non-seriousness on its part.
However, only time would tell whether a concrete dialogue could be held once the elections are held by May 2019.
Should NDA form the next government once again, albeit with a projected reduced majority, then there’s a chance
for talks to proceed subjective to regional pulse.
Kashmir dispute will remain one of the core objectives of PM Khan’s government that wishes to reduce hostilities
and come up with a tangible solution to the decades-old problem.
The Afghan peace process is already in a breakthrough period when the US and Taliban have finally agreed to a
draft agreement on ceasefire to end one of the longest wars in modern history with the backing of Pakistan as a
key mediator.
Keeping it in view, a solution for the Kashmir conflict could be achieved and lasting peace between both Pakistan
and India ensured for promoting economic integration and regional prosperity. *

India and Pakistan Need to Engage By Talat

Masood
ver since PM Imran Khan has assumed office he has made several statements and sincere overtures to normalise
relations with India. The previous PML-N government was equally keen to improve relations.
In fact, PM Modi made a surprise visit to Lahore on his way back from Russia and a stopover in Afghanistan in
December 2015. It was significant that it was the first trip to Pakistan by an Indian leader since 2004, even, if it was
in response to an invitation of then PM Nawaz Sharif for a family wedding. It augured well for both countries and
the region. But the goodwill was not to last too long. An attack on a base in Pathankot in Punjab state in January
2016 and on an army base at URI in Indian-Occupied Kashmir in September of the same year gave PM Modi an
opportunity to blame Pakistan.
Since then the Indian government has taken a highly antagonistic stance against Pakistan. The more troubling
aspect is that PM Modi exploited Pakistan-bashing as a means for gaining support during last year’s Indian state
elections. Most analysts are of the view that his hostile attitude would persist at least until the forthcoming general
national elections due in April-May this year. And Pakistan should wait it out until then. PM Khan in some of his
recent statements has voiced similar views.
However, policy of demonising and keeping pressure on Pakistan may continue even beyond. For it is also closely
linked to the mass unrest in Kashmir that the Indian government is unable to handle with casualties on the rise.
What is worse, the Indian leadership is in denial of the reality that its policy is not working. In fact, it has given a
new life and energised the uprising. By accusing Pakistan of supporting the freedom movement in Kashmir India
tries to deflect attention from the genuine nature of the revolt and its gross human rights violations.
Contrary to the understanding between the two countries for upholding the ceasefire, the Line of Control remains
volatile with each side blaming the other for having initiated it. Frequent firing incidents and occurrence of
casualties further aggravate tensions.
The Indian leadership is also uneasy with the China-Pakistan strategic partnership and with CPEC progressing it
finds Pakistan’s position and role in the region expanding. In opposing this project tacitly it has the support of the
US as well.
Furthermore, India loses no opportunity to exploit the grievances of the Baloch people.
India’s hostility towards Pakistan has its genesis in the very character of the BJP that traces its roots to the
Bharatiya Jana Sangh. It believes in the supremacy of the Hindu upper castes and is considered to be prejudiced
against not only Muslims but also Dalits, Christians and other minorities. How far it is still relevant or selectively
applied probably is weighed against other factors.
Unsurprisingly, there are similar apprehensions on the Indian side that Pakistan has an identity crisis and thus it
has to cast India in the frame of an enemy in search of its own identity. So unless that struggle is over the anti-
Indian stance will not go away. How far this hypothesis is valid is a moot point.
Whereas Pakistan-bashing by India may be an expedient tactics in the short term, but is it a good strategy? The
answer to this question rests primarily what PM Modi’s motive is and what exactly is he trying to achieve. His
primary aim is to isolate Pakistan, deny its rightful regional role as it is one South Asian country that stands up to
India. More importantly, it challenges its position on Kashmir and has become the foremost champion for the rights
of Kashmiris.
Pakistan makes every effort to counter India’s military advantage, even if it is at a huge cost, by maintaining a
modern conventional tri-service military force and a matching nuclear and missile capability. Of course, there are
long-and medium-term implications of it to which Pakistan cannot remain oblivious.
Our military leadership’s willingness to improve relations with India is not taken seriously by the Modi government.
There is a prevailing view in India that the Pakistan army realising that it is being financially squeezed due the
country’s current predicament would like to reduce tension along the border. They also maintain as long as the
military remains in control of Pakistan’s foreign policy and especially as related to India there is unlikely to be any
fundamental change in relations.
The impact of adversarial relations with India has implications for our relations with Afghanistan and most of the
other South Asian neighbours. In recent months Pakistan has been working hard to develop a strong trust based
relationship with Afghanistan independent of India.
Moreover, Pakistan has taken definite measures to tighten control on militant organisations such as Lashkar-e-
Taiba that is accused by India of attacking military and civilian targets notably the 2001 Indian parliament attack.
The use of non-state actors to supplement military capability has led to destabilising society and inviting serious
international strictures. No doubt, of late Pakistan has enacted laws and ensured that these organisations are
banned and their activists do not remerge under new names. But India would still try to keep the episode alive for
propaganda purposes.
Opening of the Kartarpur corridor was a good initiative. It has generated considerable goodwill among the Sikh
community in India and globally. Similar initiatives should be taken for other religious communities. And the visa
regime should be more relaxed for businessmen, tourists and academics from India.
Despite all the hurdles it is still in the interest of Pakistan, and we believe for India as well, that both countries work
seriously toward reconciliation and a cooperative relationship.
Better relations will contribute towards attracting investment, improving trade opportunities and above all enhancing
international image. It will give greater leverage while dealing with major powers. If in spite of Pakistan’s sincere
efforts, India fails to respond then the onus would rest on it.

CPEC and Opportunities For India By Shakeel

Ahmad Ramay
India has been skeptical of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from its very inception. It recognizes
CPEC as a stumbling block for realization of its dream as a great power of Asia.
In 2018 India presented 7.5 percent growth rate as a sign of overcoming China with a growth rate of 6.5 percent. In
mathematical terms it seems fascinating but its translation into real development of net worth does not make any
difference. According to calculations published in the Times of India in March 2018, they clearly rejects the notion
of any comparison between China and India in term of gains in net worth during 2017-2018.
Calculations show that with 7.5 percent growth India would only be able to add 215 Billion US dollars in 2018 to its
GDP. For China, the figure would be 1181 billion US dollar. China’s rate of increase in economy almost equals half
of India’s economy every year.
There is no doubt that India is a rising middle power and it has its own advantages. It is one of the biggest markets.
It has a rising middle class, which is important for sustainable growth. But the point is that India has to be realistic
in exhibiting its status and power and play a constructive role. It will reap the benefits of cooperation and economic
initiatives.
Unfortunately, India’s actions point to another direction. From its perceived imagination India is trying to act as a
stumbling block in the region. CPEC is the latest victim of this attitude of India. Although some experts believe that
it is due to enmity of India toward Pakistan, but it is not the full story.
India is a rising middle power and it has its own advantages. It is one of the biggest markets. It has a rising middle
class, which is important for sustainable growth. But the point is that India has to be realistic in exhibiting its status
and power and play a constructive role. It will reap the benefits of cooperation and economic initiatives
However, sane voices in India are arguing in another direction. They are asking their government to be a partner in
CPEC and reap the benefits of economic development. CPEC has enormous benefits for India. Shyam Saran, ex-
Indian diplomat pointed out that looking at the financial health of India, it is wise for India to be part of the Belt and
Road Initiative (BRI), and CPEC presents an opportunity.
For improving regional connectivity there is a need to improve transport and related infrastructure. South Asia is
lagging behind on this by a million miles. The World Bank in 2014 estimated that South Asia needs 1.7 to 2.5 trillion
dollars to improve its infrastructure related to transport, service and others till 2020.Annual spread of this required
investment shows that every year South Asia will have to invest 6.6 to 9.9 percent of the accumulative GDP of
South Asia. Another dimension of the issue is that lack of investment will increase the cost of investment, as we
have observed it has increased form 3 percent in 2010 to 6.6 to 9.9 percent in 2014.Pakistan and India stand alone
in all these calculations due to increasing population and middle class.
CPEC provides an opportunity for the region to benefit from it and become part of the greater plan of BRI. Although
CPEC will not be able to provide all required investment but it will help to cover a substantial part of it. Pakistan by
recognizing this fact has become part of CPEC. In recent years Pakistan has immensely benefited from investment
in energy and transport infrastructure. It is also advisable for India to be part of it and reap the benefit. Inclusion of
India will also pave the way for other regional countries and there would be smooth sailing for CPEC and BRI. It is
also important for India in context of transition of economy from primary to tertiary stage. Right now, India’s
secondary sector i.e. manufacturing sector, did not show much development. It is necessary in transition phase
that manufacturing sector takes off to create jobs. The same is true for Pakistan and Pakistan is trying overcoming
this through CPEC investments. Planned Special Economic Zones are a step in this direction.
Moreover, joining of India to CPEC will also open doors of opportunities for regional connectivity and connectivity to
Central Asian States. Being part of CPEC and BCMI, India can benefit by creating linkages between these
corridors. It will open Afghan and Central Asian markets for India. India is craving for many years to enter
Afghanistan and Central Asia, CPEC can help it. It would also be beneficial for other regional countries, as it will
open markets for Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar etc.
Fortunately, China and Pakistan are open for inclusion of India or any other country in CPEC. Both countries have
reiterated many times that CPEC is a project of the future and for everyone. However, India’s self-perceived fears,
assumptions and dreams are hindering the inclusion of India. India can decide anything as a sovereign country, but
it has to keep in mind that the opportunity cost of missing CPEC and BRI is very high for India and the region.
South Asia needs an investment of 1.7 to 2.5 trillion US dollars, only for infrastructure. This does not include the
investment in education, health, skill development or human capital development. Addition of these costs may
increase the investment figure to 3-5 trillion US dollars. Therefore, taking any initiative, India must remember that 3-
5 trillion is beyond the capacity of any country or South Asia as a region.

Why Pakistan, India Need Backchannel Diplomacy

By Kamran Yousaf
India continues to spurn peace overtures by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government. Last week, Islamabad
shared a draft agreement with New Delhi on the Kartarpur Corridor. It also requested India to send its delegation to
Islamabad for talks to finalise the agreement that would allow Sikhs from India to visit the Shrine of Baba Guru
Nanak without visa. But the Modi government, instead of responding to the initiative, made a counter-proposal
asking Pakistan to send its delegation to New Delhi for talks. The Foreign Office here termed India’s response
childish. However, the Foreign Office spokesperson made it clear that despite India’s obduracy, Pakistan’s
response would be ‘mature and well considered’.
India’s approach clearly suggests that the Modi administration is not serious about having any engagement with
Pakistan at least before the parliamentary elections across the border. Pakistan has gone out of the way on
Kartarpur initiative despite lukewarm Indian response. Initially, India thought that Pakistan’s announcement to open
the Kartarpur corridor was just rhetoric. But in November last year, Prime Minister Imran Khan formally launched
the ground-breaking of the corridor. India sent two ministers while former Test cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu
attended the ceremony as special guest.
Doubts still persisted as to whether this proposal would ever be implemented given the current state of relationship
between the two countries. But Pakistan once again proved that it was keen to make the corridor operational on the
550th birth anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak in November this year when it formally shared the draft agreement
and invited India for talks.
That puts the Indian government in a difficult situation. Given that Sikh community across the border is excited and
looking forward to the opening of the Kartarpur Corridor, the Indian government cannot simply brush aside
Pakistan’s initiative. But the Modi government feels that sending a delegation to Pakistan may give a wrong signal
to the domestic audience particularly to the right- wing Hindu groups. At the same time saying ‘no’ to Pakistan’s
offer will certainly invite strong reaction from Sikh voters. It is because of this reason that India tried to outsmart
Pakistan by making a counter-proposal. If Pakistan does not agree to it, the Modi government would say ‘look who
is backtracking’. And if, for example, Pakistan does send its delegation to New Delhi, the Indian government would
take the credit for the Kartarpur initiative — something that may help boost its vote bank among the Sikh
community.
But irrespective of who gains what, this episode clearly shows how much ground both Pakistan and India have lost
because of the tense ties for the past many years. The two neighbours now even fight over the venue of talks on
the Kartarpur Corridor, an otherwise humanitarian gesture that should have been finalised without any hitch. This is
all because of widening trust deficit between the two neighbours. And when there is no or little communication
between the two sides, this trust deficit widens further. There is no doubt that the Pakistan-India relationship is an
intricate one. But this does not mean that the two countries cannot address or at least reduce the trust deficit. For
this they require greater engagement. From 2004 to 2009, Pakistan and India had a sustained period of dialogue
process. There were meetings at the official as well as at the highest levels. But it was all due to the ground work
done by the two sides through backchannel or quiet diplomacy.
Prime Minister Imran Khan has repeatedly expressed his government’s desire to mend fences with India since
taking charge in August. But his initiative has not been reciprocated by the other side. Perhaps, the two sides need
to revive the backchannel diplomacy in order to arrest a further slide in ties.

Kashmir’s Struggle For freedom By Sajjad Haider

The 1948 United Nation’s Resolution clearly states that accession of Jammu and Kashmir will be decided through
plebiscite; however, India has remained consistent with use of force to dictate its unlawful occupation. As the
Kashmir solidarity day approaches, Kashmiris are again hopeful that international community will consider the
sacrifices they have made, the carnage they survived, the bloodshed they suffered and pressurize India to
discontinue its human rights violation in Kashmir along with its decades’ long illegal occupation. With every passing
day, the bloodshed of the Kashmiris by the hands of Indian forces makes the Kashmiri people more determined
and resolute to attain their long-standing right of freedom from Indian forces. India deceptively projects itself as the
world largest democracy, on the contrary, such proclamation seems absurd when the same country disregards the
international laws, continues its illegal occupation over Jammu and Kashmir and subjugates its minorities.
READ MORE: Sanders set to announce his 2020 presidential bid: reports
India under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rule has increased the intensity of vicious atrocities and violence in
Kashmir. The current ruling elite in India are those who earlier carried out inhumane massacres of Muslim in Gujrat
and are likely to continue the same in Kashmir. Mass defiance against the repressive Indian regime is becoming
more and more frequent since the brutal killing of Kashmiri freedom fighter Burhan Ahmed Wani. An army of more
than 600,000 armed soldiers is permanently deployed in Indian Occupied Kashmir, making it world’s most
militarized zone. The international Human Rights bodies have failed to understand the bloodbaths faced by the
Kashmiris in demanding their right of freedom. Their silence over the brutal occupation in Kashmir is depressing
which shields the Indian aggression.
Figures speak for themselves, where thousands of Kashmiris killed, millions wounded, children orphaned and love
ones lost, yet the violence from occupational forces continues. Kashmiris have suffered permanent eye damage
and many have been blinded by pellet guns during protests, yet the human rights organisations remains silent. A
Kashmiri journalist rightly pointed out that if the year 2010 was remembered as “year of killing youth” for Kashmiris,
the year 2016 will be reminisced as “year of dead eyes”. However, the violence never subjugates, neither will it
suppress the Kashmiris to demand for their independent identity. The expression of freedom reverberates in the
valley as a deafening roar, indoctrinating fear to the Indian illegal occupation over Kashmir, defying the customs
built on the narrative of subjugation and burnishing the forlorn hope of luminous liberty.
It is pertinent to mention here that Pakistan has always supported peaceful resolution of Indian held Kashmir
according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people, and as per the UN resolution. Furthermore, the new government in
Pakistan has taken bold steps in engaging with India at bilateral level and offered to resume comprehensive
dialogue to address all outstanding issues along with the Kashmir dispute. However, the Indian belligerent attitude
towards Pakistan and Kashmir never guaranteed any optimism.
Hostile aggression of Indian forces over the Muslim Kashmiris, especially in a disputed territory, also questions the
UN efficacy to implement its resolution. UN has failed to implement its own resolution in Kashmir, which shows
signs of its failure against aggression on oppressed. The international community must realize that India remains
fixated with its use of illegal force, denying any peaceful resolution of Kashmir or bilateral engagement with
Pakistan. Rather India continues to carry out the border violations in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, killing innocent
Kashmiris living along the peaceful border areas in Pakistan. While engaging in dialogues with Pakistan, the Indian
administration cannot fulfil its belligerent mantra against Pakistan; a pre-requisite for winning elections in India.
Considering this, there exists no hope that the current governing elite in India will respond to any peaceful
settlement of issues with Pakistan.
READ MORE: Reason why Queen and Prince Philip don’t wear seatbelts explained
The writer is a Assistant Research Officer (ARO) at Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI).
The current ruling elite in India are those who earlier carried out inhumane massacres of Muslim in Gujrat and are
likely to continue the same in Kashmir.

UN Chief Urges ‘Meaningful’ Pak-India Talks

UNITED NATIONS – United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres Friday expressed the hope that Pakistan
and India would be able to engage in a “meaningful dialogue” to resolve their disputes, pointing out that the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights had clearly spoken about the deteriorating rights situation in Indian-occupied
Kashmir.
“The UN has clearly done its job in that regard,” the UN chief said in response to a question from a Pakistani
journalist at a crowded press conference at UN Headquarters in New York, his first in the new year.
He was referring to the damning June 14 UN report that calls for the establishment of a ‘commission of inquiry’ to
investigate the grave human rights violations in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
The report accused Indian armed forces of “unlawful killings by using brute force, sexual violence against female-
folk, use of one of the most dangerous weapons pellet-firing shotguns against civilian population.”
The report also emphasised that a dialogue between India and Pakistan that “includes the people of Kashmir” the
resolve the problem.
Guterres said that he has been offering his good offices in relation to the dialogue between the two countries that
until now had “no condition of success.”
“I hope that the importance of both Pakistan and India is such in international affairs (that) I hope that the two
countries will be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue,” he said when his attention was drawn to Prime Minister
Imran Khan’s peace gestures that have not elicited a positive response from India.
Pakistan has been calling on the United Nations to set up a ‘commission of inquiry’ — the world body’s highest-
level probe — to investigate the human rights abuses in Kashmir.

India’s Sabotaging Acts By Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

PAKISTAN’S economic stability is not acceptable to India. Therefore, it has been hatching conspiracies against
Pakistan-China Economic Corridor since the begging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had approached the Chinese
leadership to desist it from investing in Pakistan. Simultaneously, the Indian intelligence agency Research and
Analysis Wing (RAW) has been sponsoring terrorist attacks on Chinese engineers and workers to sabotage the
project. Moreover, India has been struggling to engage Pakistan in an arms race by increasing its military hardware
buildup and purchases and threatening statements.
The CPEC is a flagship project of Chinese President Xi Jinping ‘Belt-Road Initiative (BRI). Since the start of work
on the CPEC, the country’s economy has had positive indicators. It has been attracting foreign investors. Currently,
Saudi Arab and the United Arab Emirates have been negotiating billions of US dollars worth projects with the
government of Pakistan. Indeed, it is not acceptable to Delhi because the Indian ruling elite is convinced that
economically stable Pakistan undermines its influence in the region and beyond. Therefore, it has been hatching
conspiracies against the CPEC. The Indians are cognizant of the fact that once CPEC implemented; it would
transform the economy of Balochistan. The people of Balochistan would be its greatest beneficiary in the long term.
Therefore, the Indian intelligence agency RAW crafted a network in Balochistan to obstruct the construction of
CPEC infrastructure. It has been financing and training the Baloch Liberation Movement (BLA) recruits in
Afghanistan. On November 23, 2018, three BLA militants attacked the Chinese Consulate in Karachi. The law
enforcement personnel and guards were successful in shooting them at the entrance of the Consulate building.
Thus, the devastating attack was prevented. All the attackers were shot dead, two policemen martyred and two
visa applicants died. Despite it, the terrorists terrorize the Chinese working in Pakistan. The government of
Pakistan has increased their security.
The primary objective of the attackers was to establish that Karachi is not a safe city for the Chinese nationals. The
investigation team confirmed that BLA attackers were trained and financed by the Indian intelligence agency. On
11 January , Karachi Police Chief Dr Amir Ahmed Sheikh claimed that the attack on “the Chinese Consulate in
Karachi was planned in Afghanistan and carried out with the assistance of Indian Intelligence Agency Research
and Analysis Wing (RAW).” Importantly, it was not the first time that RAW targeted the Chinese nationals. It had
established a terrorist network in Baluchistan to incapacitate the CPEC. Fortunately, Pakistani law enforcement
agencies had unearthed the network and arrested its main handler in Pakistan, serving Indian Navy officer and
RAW spy Kulbhushan Yadav. Paradoxically, during the recent meeting at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),
India raised unnecessary objections over Pakistan’s efforts and plans against money laundering and terror
financing. The Indian representatives amazingly forget India’s involvement in financing and perpetrating terrorist
acts in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the international community’s response to India’s financing BLA is not judicious.
The FATF has been following the double standards, ie it is investigating Pakistan and completely ignoring India’s
involvement in terrorism.
The Modi government tried to timid people of Pakistan by announcing that it had conducted surgical strikes on the
night of September 28-29, 2016. Pakistan responded rationally and rejected its phantom surgical strikes claim and
demanded pieces of evidence, which India failed to provide. The alarming factor is that Modi Government
celebrated the surgical strikes day on September 29, 2018, and also made it part of both the Indian Army’s Land
Warfare Doctrine-2018 (LWD-2018) released on December 19, 2018, and also the Joint Doctrine of the Indian
Armed Forces-2017. Nevertheless, Pakistan is prepared to respond to India’s surgical strikes stratagem. Hence,
any India’s military adventurism will be catastrophic for both the states in particular and region in general. India with
the support of the United States has been struggling to establish its hegemony in South Asia and the Indian Ocean.
Unlike the other South Asian States, Pakistan is not accepting New Delhi’s dictates in its domestic and foreign
relations. Islamabad is capable and confident to defend itself. It is conventional, and nuclear weapons capabilities
are sustaining strategic equilibrium between the belligerent neighbours. Therefore, India has been employing
hybrid warfare tactics against Pakistan.

India, Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Water Woes By

Masood Malik
Pakistan is facing water stress as much as the other countries around the region. Pakistan has been placed among
the countries facing a high overall water risk by the World Resources Institute. Media is also abuzz with all sorts of
experts saying the country will run dry by this date and by that year. The Chief Justice of Pakistan has also initiated
a fundraising drive to raise money for a couple of dams. But whenever there is talk of water scarcity in the country
the general public and the media speak through emotions instead of facts and put all the blame on India. They
think that only India is responsible for Pakistan’s water woes. The level of ignorance can be gauged from the fact
that a little while back there was a message circulating on social media that there are two rivers in Deosai area of
Gilgit-Baltistan called ‘Chota Pani’ and ‘Kala Pani’ which flow to India, and Pakistan should divert them. So
Pakistan should spend billions of dollars to divert small streams. I received this message from many otherwise
educated friends. Although India may intend to rob Pakistan of its water as India is both a water hegemon state as
well as a water-stressed country. But things have not reached that point and blaming India for Pakistan’s current
water stress is factually incorrect and misleading. This mantra only gives Pakistanis an easy escape from their own
failure to act as a water responsible state.
River issues between India and Pakistan are governed according to the Indus Basin Water Treaty of 1960, which
was signed between India and Pakistan with the help of the World Bank. Pakistan got major rights over three
western rivers out of a total of six rivers flowing from India and Indian controlled Kashmir to Pakistan. These three
rivers are Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. India can build run of the river projects on these rivers and can use a fraction
(20 percent) of water for local agriculture. Although India has built small dams on these rivers still the treaty has
withstood the test of time and remained alive even through wars.
Waters of Indus and Jehlum rivers are relatively secure for Pakistan for two main reasons. Firstly, these two river
flow from south to north through the Indian controlled Kashmir before reaching Pakistan controlled territory. Simply
put they flow away from the Indian mainland and diverting them to Indian mainland will be quite challenging
technologically and also politically
Waters of Indus and Jehlum rivers are relatively secure for Pakistan for two main reasons. Firstly, these two river
flow from south to north through the Indian controlled Kashmir before reaching Pakistan controlled territory. Simply
put they flow away from the Indian mainland and diverting them to Indian mainland will be quite challenging
technologically and also politically. No large-scale irrigation is possible around these two rivers due to extremely
mountainous terrain around the Indus, and also the Kashmir valley through which Jhelum flows is already well
irrigated and receives plenty of rainfall.
Secondly, much of the water of these rivers particularly the mighty Indus comes from glaciers of Gilgit-Baltistan
which are already under Pakistan’s control. Neelum River supplies almost half of the Jhelum River’s water, and is
mostly fed by the glacial streams of Azad Kashmir. This can be understood from the period when India was
constructing the Kishanganga project and the hue and cry it evoked. Everyone was saying that there will be no
water for Pakistan’s own under construction Neelum-Jhelum power project if India completes the Kishanganga
project. But now after the completion, both projects are running smoothly. Also with Kishanganga project India
diverted Neelum river at a point where it is only a stream and threw it in Wular Lake and eventually in Jhelum River
inside Kashmir valley from where it again comes to Pakistan. So Kishanganga project had an overall negligible
impact on water availability for Pakistan. Chenab is a bit vulnerable in this regard due to its proximity to the Indian
mainland, and also the less formidable terrain of the Jammu region. But still, India has refrained from developing
any major diversion projects although it has built some small dams. Thus, Pakistan needs to focus on Chenab and
employ active and skillful diplomacy to make India not violate the Indus Water Treaty when it comes to Chenab.
The fourth important river flowing into Pakistan is the Kabul River, originating and getting most of its water from
Afghanistan. So far Afghanistan has been able to use little of Kabul River’s water due to its own political instability
and the difficult terrain surrounding the river. But in the future things will not remain the same as Afghanistan as an
upper riparian state will try to utilize more and more of Kabul River’s water. There is no treaty between Pakistan
and Afghanistan regarding sharing the water of Kabul River and there is the potential of a conflict in this regard in
the long-term as identified by different experts. A recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, highlighted the fact that
dam building on the Kabul River can be a source of tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the future.
Pakistan needs to reach an agreement with Afghanistan as soon as possible to legally and permanently secure its
due share of water from Kabul River. A recent conference organized at the University of Peshawar titled
‘Sustainable usage of the Kabul River: Challenges and opportunities for Pak-Afghan cooperation’ also highlighted
the need for a bilateral treaty between the two countries for equitable and sustainable use of Kabul River’s water.
It is clear that presently Pakistan’s water woes are not a result of hostile neighbors blocking the rivers but the
causes lie somewhere else.

Core Issue Between Pakistan and India By Khalid

Saleem
In alluding to what has come to be known as the ‘core issue’ between India and Pakistan, one recalls the assertion
of the Quaid-e-Azam that Kashmir represented the jugular vein of Pakistan. The Quaid was not given to making
rhetorical pronouncements. As a pragmatist and a jurist, he chose his words with care before uttering them.
Let us then apply our minds to what his assertion about Kashmir implied. The jugular vein and the body are
mutually inter-dependent. Pakistan’s life-blood — water — passes through Kashmir. Kashmir’s life force — its
commerce, its people’s very livelihood, its cultural heritage — all lay through its contacts with what is now Pakistan.
Both Kashmir and Pakistan have suffered all these years because of artificial man-made barriers between the two
entities.
Regrettably, the Quaid did not live long enough to influence the course of events that followed. The question that
presents itself begging for an answer is: had he survived for a few more years would he have allowed this issue to
linger on? Regrettably, the succeeding leadership failed to live up to his ideals. Several issues (among them the
Kashmir dispute) — that should have been tackled betimes but were not — bear testimony to this. Suffice it to state
that after the Quaid, successive leaderships appear to have missed the bus, so to speak!
The struggle of the people of Kashmir predates the partition of what was then British India. Even before the British
called it a day, the people of the State had already asserted, through a valiant struggle, their inalienable right to
decide their own future. When the matter landed in the Security Council of the UN, the world body went on to put its
stamp of approval on the fundamental right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Certain misconceptions and cobwebs — that have clouded the issue since — need to be clarified and swept away.
Firstly, this is by no means a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. While there may be no bar on bilateral
discussions or negotiations between the two countries, any decisions taken by them bilaterally are not legally
binding unless they are formally endorsed by the remaining two parties: the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the
international community through the UN.
More importantly, this is not an issue of religion or creed. The decision of the UN is based on the fundamental
human right of self-determination of all people of Jammu and Kashmir, irrespective of their religious denomination.
The universal right of self-determination is a secular concept and it must be accepted and recognised as such.
India has tried to present to the world that the Kashmiri resistance is being waged by so-called ‘Islamic
fundamentalists’. This is not borne out by the facts. If the lid of Indian state military occupation were to be lifted, it
should become evident that the Kashmiri resistance has a much wider base in the disputed state than what India
would have the world believe.
One other point needs to be clarified. The Indian establishment has tried off and on to confuse the international
community by drawing a comparison between the Kashmir issue and the India-China border dispute. The two are
not open to comparison. The India-China border dispute is about territory, while the Kashmir issue is about the
fundamental human rights of over 10 million people. You can freeze disputed territory, but how can you freeze the
genuine aspirations of millions of people?
It is imperative that the two countries resolve to equitably settle all the contentious issues between them, foremost
among them the Kashmir issue. The longer these issues remain unsettled, the more the chances of their
developing into festering sores, eating into the very vitals of the region. The world has moved fast. Options are
shrinking by the day. There is no time like the present. The leaderships of the two countries should do well to grasp
the moment.
Insofar as Pakistan is concerned, an equitable settlement of the Kashmir issue should help repay part of the debt
this country owes to the Father of the Nation.

Thaw in Indo-Pak Ties | Editorial

A warm breeze is blowing, perhaps through the Kartarpur Corridor, as India has shown its willingness to let a
Pakistani team visit hydropower projects at the Chenab basin – Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai – in the last week of
this month. This can be called a significant development for earlier India once backed out of a scheduled inspection
of such projects by the Pakistani team in October last. Though at the time the Indian side cited local bodies’
elections reason for postponing the visit, the subsequent statements by the Indian government authorities showed
they signed off bilateral talks as an option with the Pakistani side. The bone of contention, what the Pakistani water
commissioner says, is the flawed designs of Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai hydropower projects. Either side should
pin great hopes on bilateral talks to resolve differences even though such exercise did not help Pakistan in the
cases of 330 megawatts (MW) Kishanganag reservoir on the River Jhelum and 850MW Rattle Hydroelectric project
on the River Chenab. Now, Pakistan has approached the World Bank for arbitration to stop the function of the
water reservoirs, which are against the Indus Waters Treaty. The World Bank has yet to respond to Pakistan’s
request which it put up back in 2016.
The government is in a buoyant mood over the invitation extended by Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters
Pradeep Kumar Saxena. Water Resources Minister Faisal Vawda announced the breakthrough in a tweet and told
the media that “I welcome the gesture from India. This is a major breakthrough that India has finally agreed to our
request for inspection of Indian projects at Chenab basin”. The Indian side is, however, silent on engaging the
Pakistani experts on Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai. The mainstream Indian newspapers did not give importance to
the development. No politician spoke on the record to offer their version on Pakistan’s concerns on the water issue.
Since general elections on the other side of the border are around the corner, and the beleaguered ruling Bharatiya
Janta Party suffered heavy election defeats in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, so they are playing
to the gallery by not speaking on Pakistan related issued in their statements. If everything goes by the book, a
three-member Pakistani team will leave for India on January 27 and return on February 1. Commissioner for Indus
Waters Syed Mehr Ali Shah will lead the team which will inspect the sites from January 28 to 31. A positive gesture
should beget an equally positive gesture; Pakistan is ready to greet Indian counterparts to inspect Kotri Barrage on
the Indus. In fact, the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty provides the Pakistani water commissioner to examine water and
hydroelectric projects on the Chenab and Jhelum rives. The process, however, stalled in September 2014.
Now, on an optimistic note, we see signs of a thaw in relations between the two countries in the wake of the
opening of the Kartarpur Corridor and the release of Indian prisoner Hamid Nihal Ansari from Pakistan. The other
side has invited the Pakistani expert to get water reservoirs and hydropower projects inspected for the first time in
four years. Peace-loving circles on either side demand more such developments and interactions between people
for a prosperous and developed South Asia. Bilateral talks will diminish hostile voices in both countries. More
interactions should result in a peaceful Line of Control, and more trade across the border. It is high time to move
forward forgetting the bitter past. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s tweet congratulating Indian cricket captain Virat Kohli
on Indian success in Australia was a warm and encouraging gesture. Though Kohli chose not to respond, let us
keep our fingers crossed for the friendly conclusion of the Pakistani experts’ visit to the water sites. *

Pakistan-India Friendship By Syed Zeeshan Haider

arpur Corridor.The question then arises: why has this very positive development only taken place just now? If we
look back at history, Benazir Bhutto made a lot of progress at the diplomatic level with Rajiv Gandhi. But sadly,
during that period, the government of the PPP was forced to face many problems due to this. Ms Bhutto was even
accused of being a security risk. Imran Khan, however, has full support from the establishment. This is the reason
that the current government has been successful in undertaking such major steps. But it is not just that. What are
the other hidden reasons behind these kinds of actions? Let us analyse them.
There is a need to understand that just when right-wing parties come into power, the chances of improving
relations with respect to such diplomatic matters increase.The reason for this is that their strategy attracts relatively
less criticism because, at the end of the day, they are critics themselves. For instance, in comparison with the PPP,
the PML-N was considered more conservative while the PPP was considered a progressive party. But when the
PML-N came into power,Vajpayee visited Pakistan and Pakistan-India relations improved considerably. On the
other hand, compared to the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party was considered anti-Pakistan. However, it was
the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Prime Minister Vajpayee who visited Pakistan and brought about a lot of improvement
in the links between Pakistan and India.
It is a fact that Pakistan is currently going through its worst economic times. Keeping the context of Pakistan’s
economic situation in view, a change in the diplomatic policy of Pakistan towards India is understandable. Right
now, Pakistan needs trade. Pakistan’s manufacturing industry is currently on the verge of disaster. Due to its failure
in constructing dams, Pakistan is generating expensive electricity through the use of oil and imported natural gas.
Because of this expensive electricity, the manufacturing industry cannot manufacture products that are able to
compete with the prices in the international market.
The only solution for Pakistan’s economic development lies in the trade and service sectors, including tourism and
financial services. Regional trade is very important to make any trade sector successful. Relations with Afghanistan
and India are at their worst in history.In such a situation, promoting trade is difficult.Perhaps considering all of these
facts, the Pakistani government has decided to bring about a big change in its foreign policy.
Trade and international investment will only be able to take place when the security situation in Pakistan improves.
In order to improve the law and order situation in Pakistan, Pakistan’s relations with its neighbouring countries need
to be improved as does its relationship with the law and order in those neighboring countries — especially with
Afghanistan.Pakistan is highly concerned about Indian activity in Afghanistan which is why Pakistan has not been
able to distance itself from the internal affairs of Afghanistan.If relations between Pakistan and India were to
improve, a joint strategy between India and Pakistan could lead to peace in Afghanistan. With the establishment of
peace, the Afghan government, including the US with it, and the region as a whole could benefit. In light of this, any
change in Pakistan’s foreign policy has huge implications which could benefit the entire region. The TAPI gas
pipeline will pass through Afghanistan to reach Pakistan and also has to reach India.This will be possible only when
bilateral relations between India and Pakistan have improved and they are able to adopt a joint strategy against
terrorism so that peace can be achieved.
In response to our growing proximity with Sikhs, India could try to increase its relations with the disillusioned
Balochs or the people of Baltistan
Sometime ago, when I had the opportunity to interview world-renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky, he clearly
stated that reason behind Russia’s defeat and collapse in the Cold War against the US was the arms race.
According to Chomsky, the US had much more economic resources than Russia which allowed it to remain firm in
the arms race while Russia disintegrated. Similarly, if we carry out a comparative review of the economic power of
India and Pakistan, the Indian economy is much more powerful than the Pakistani economy, making it very difficult
for Pakistan to continue on in the regional arms race.
The Indian government is well aware of the internal economic situation of Pakistan. This is why it has adopted
dilatory tactics in response to the message of friendship extended by Pakistan. There are a few other possible
reasons for India’s indifference as well. For instance, its elections are coming up and it does not want to lose the
anti-Pakistan vote by responding positively to the friendship message sent by the current government of Pakistan.
Along with this, another aspect worth considering is that in India, Pakistan’s soft stance taken towards a particular
religious group (i.e. the Sikhs) has not been positively received. The Indian establishment’s ideology is that if
Pakistan wants to improve relations with India then it should take steps towards engaging with all Indians, not just
with the Indians that belong to a particular religion or social group. There is a historical reason for this. There was a
Sikh freedom movement which started in India and Pakistan was accused of helping the Sikhs. Later, a Sikh
bodyguard of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi assassinated her for attacking the Sikhs’ sacred Golden Temple.
Keeping this history in view, Pakistan should be very careful and thoughtful while planning out its foreign policy.
Otherwise, in response to our growing proximity with Sikhs, India could try to increase its relations with the
disillusioned Baloch or the people of Baltistan. That would definitely be a worrying development for Pakistan.
Nevertheless, this whole foreign policy change and the steps taken by Imran Khan can be considered as positive
overall — if they do not limit their foreign policy only to the Indian Punjab but spread it across all of India.If the visa
requirement is waived for Kartarpur, then why can the visa requirement not be ended for the other Indians as well?
The Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said that if France and Germany could introduce a free-trade zone after
killing millions of each other’s people in World War II, then why can we not do so?
If this were to be done, many opportunities for trade between Pakistan and India would arise.The biggest
advantage would be a decrease in the arms race in the region which would enable both Pakistan and India to
reduce their defense budgets and to spend that money on the welfare of their people.

India’s Kulbhushan Embarrassment By M

Ziauddin
What is happening in the Indian-Occupied Kashmir (IOK) today is a classic case of the failure of India’s democracy.
No true democracy would have failed to win, in 71 long years, the hearts and minds of a handful of people seeking
their fundamental right to self-determine their political fate. The alienation in the IOK seems to have multiplied
manifold in the face of highly-tyrannical policies of a Hindutva-dominated Bharat against its religious minorities,
especially the Indian Muslims.
New Delhi seems to have turned what in essence was a bilateral dispute with Pakistan into a bloody domestic
problem. Today, IOK is being treated by New Delhi as its colony forcibly occupied by armed-to-teeth Indian troops
numbering perhaps nearly 700,000. India largely wasted a decade of uneasy quiet, imagining that it meant that
peace had returned to the valley, and in the years since 2008, as anger has built up, it has shown itself bereft of
any ideas other than those that it used to quell militancy in the 1990s.
As they say when nature wishes to destroy someone, it deprives him of his marbles. That is perhaps why Prime
Minister Narendra Modi of India had in retaliation to what he believes to be Pakistan’s attempts to foment trouble in
IOK using non-state actors, started talking openly about India’s designs to create unrest in Pakistan, especially in
Balochistan. This has led him directly to the Kulbhushan embarrassment.
Following are some relevant excerpts from a joint piece (published in Foreign Policy on November 30, 2018) by
Sameer Lalwani and Emily Tallo blaming India squarely for the escalating crisis:
“After 25 years of counterinsurgency against a separatist insurgency backed by Pakistan, India believed it had
achieved ‘normalcy’, but the past six years have seen a sharp uptick in militant recruitment, violence and public
support for the insurgency.
“The re-escalation of the Kashmir insurgency fuels India-Pakistan tensions for several reasons. So long as India
fails to consolidate control over the region, Pakistan feels compelled to offer rhetorical and some material support
for the insurgency, even if it is no longer the primary driver…
“India also finds it convenient to blame Pakistan for the failings of a repressive approach that generates widespread
resentment. Preliminary evidence suggests that Kashmiris are now choosing quasi-violent resistance over ‘normal’
democratic politics. Rising Hindu nationalism throughout India also channels the mounting frustrations over the
Kashmir valley into added animus toward Pakistan, inhibiting diplomatic efforts at conflict resolution.
“India has also failed to build a credible deterrent against Pakistan-backed attacks. Despite having one of the
world’s largest militaries and defense budgets, India has struggled to deny, dissuade or deter continued cross-
border terrorist attacks due to a mix of credibility and capability challenges.
“Despite more than a decade of efforts to develop a limited war ‘Cold Start’ option, the Indian military still faces
organisational and budgetary challenges as well as formidable Pakistani defenses, including a risky yet effective
nuclear posture of asymmetric escalation involving the early use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“Indian attempts to bridge its capability and credibility shortfalls through its newly developed ‘surgical strike’ option,
employed in September 2016, face similar challenges. Some reports suggest that the 2016 surgical strikes had a
limited or even negative effect on terrorist activity in the region, but they might increase the risk of intentional or
inadvertent escalation in the future.
“India has also inadequately invested in the denial and resilience capabilities necessary to reduce terrorist attacks,
including improvements to border and coastal security, security of key infrastructure, and the training and
equipment of local law enforcement. Despite several investigatory task forces that have diagnosed the problems of
intelligence and organisational response failures, Indian political leadership has failed to implement the reforms
needed to redress these vulnerabilities.”

And Now President’s Rule in IoK | Editorial

NDIA is getting desperate in its pursuit to suppress indigenous freedom movement in occupied Jammu & Kashmir.
Whilst makng mockery of human rights in the occupied territory, Modi junta has now gone a step further to take all
the matters in its hands by imposing President’s rule there.
The move comes amid escalation of Indian brutalities in the occupied territory. Just a couple of days back, the
troops killed about a dozen Kashmiri youths during a cordon and search operation and firing of live ammunition on
protesters in Pulwama. Since then, a complete lockdown had been imposed by the Indian occupation forces as
civilians take to the streets to march against the deaths. Authorities had also shut down mobile, internet and train
services. The imposition of President’s rule indeed is another step in the continuity of Indian atrocities and
barbarism in occupied Kashmir. Condemning the move, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmoud Qureshi urged the world
organizations and defenders of human rights to play their due role to stop the atrocities against the innocent
Kashmiris. India never gets tired of blowing the trumpet of being the largest democracy in the world but the fact of
the matter is that it has never respected the democratic right of the Kashmiri people which was also accepted by
the UN Security Council Resolutions. Rather it has enforced draconian laws and now imposed the President’s rule
in the territory which undoubtedly will further deteriorate the already tense situation. These tactics really expose the
ugly and extremist face of Modi junta which is failing to realize that all such moves have failed on the face of firm
determination and resolve of Kashmiri people and in future also no amount of force can either deter or shake but
will only contribute to further strengthening their resolve to get freedom from the evil clutches. Whilst we welcome
the OIC for condemning the recent brutalities in the held valley, it is also for the world community to shun double
standards and speak openly against the brutalities unleashed by Indian forces. It will also be advisable for the
Indian government to review its policy and rather sit with Pakistan and the Kashmiri people for solution of this
lingering dispute for a more peaceful and prosperous region.

India’s Role in Dismembering Pakistan By

Muhammad Hanif
DECEMBER 16, 1971, the culmination of the events leading to the dismemberment of Pakistan had become
possible because of three main factors. First, the then East Pakistanis’ perceptions and misperceptions developed
over a period of 23 years life of united Pakistan about the supposed or actual injustices done to them by the then
Pakistani governments. Second, the major mistake done by the then Pakistani government in 1971 and the runners
up political party in 1971 general election, of not allowing the Awami League (the winner political party in the 1971
elections) to form the government. Third, India’s political and subversive role and its direct military intervention by
attacking East Pakistan on 20 November 1971. The India’s role in dismembering Pakistan is discussed in detail.
Since India was against Pakistan’s creation in 1947, it was there between East and West Pakistan, (located 1000
kilometres away) to create misperceptions, and exploit those misperceptions to harm Pakistan’s integrity, at an
opportune time. India played a major role in 23 years (from 1947 to 1971) in creating misperception among East
Pakistanis by using its better propaganda machinery and East, Pakistan’s Hindu population, which was dominating
in the teaching staff of East Pakistan’s educational institutions. India carried out propaganda that West Pakistan
was given preference over East Pakistan in the socio-economic development and for representation in different
services departments. Moreover, language barrier, and the lack of people to people contacts were also exploited to
create misperception. It would have been better if Urdu was taught as a compulsory language in East Pakistan and
Bengali in West Pakistan. In fact, the ground situation at that time supported the fact that there was not much
difference in the development of both wings, although some issues were there, which could be addressed.
The major opportunity, which India got to exploit had occurred in the backdrop of 1971 general election, which had
been won by the Awami League with the Pakistan Peoples Party emerging as the second largest political party in
the election. After the election, while the Awami League considered its right to form the government, the Peoples
Party leadership wanted some negotiated arrangement, since the Awami League had won an absolute majority in
East Pakistan and the Peoples Party had attained an absolute majority in West Pakistan. Since the negotiations
between the Awami League and the Peoples Party did not succeed, the Awami League voters of East Pakistan
had got alienated and voices of separation of East Pakistan had started emerging. The Awami League mobs at that
time started carrying out political violence and plundering. Hence, to restore law and order, military action was
ordered in East Pakistan.
India exploited this situation by inciting and supporting the Awami League leaders and its activists to opt for
separation from Pakistan. In this context, India carried out its self made propaganda that the Pakistan military was
killing the people and burning their properties, thus making them flee to India to save them. In fact the Pakistan
Army was acting with extreme caution just to restore law and order and gain more time for a political solution. As a
result of India’s propaganda and incitement, many Awami League activists and Bengalis fled to India with their
families and India made them hostage by putting them in well prepared barbed wired refugee camps, but
pretending that they were being protected.
The refugees’ tempers against Pakistan were kept constantly high by making them listen concocted news through
loudspeakers, as they were not allowed to keep radios to listen to the actual news. The male members in the
camps were given guerrilla training and incited to launch a guerilla war to separate the Eastern wing from Pakistan.
India sponsored the guerilla war for 9 months, and on 20 November 1971, along with guerillas, it launched a full
scale offensive in East Pakistan. As a consequence, the Pakistan’s Eastern Command led by Gen. Niazi
surrendered, the war ended and formation of Bangladesh was announced, although according to many observers,
the Pakistani troops could still fight for months to buy time for a political solution.
In view of the above discussion, the tragedy of 16 December 1971 gives Pakistan following lessons for the future.
Political differences among the provinces and political parties in the country should not be allowed to grow to the
irreconcilable level, that the neighbouring enemy country gets an opportunity to exploit those to harm Pakistan’s
integrity. The mutual cohesion among the provinces should be ensured by pursuing equitable socio-economic
development strategies, removing language barriers and promoting people-to-people contacts. Pakistan should be
made economically self reliant and militarily strong (thanks to Allah Almighty that Pakistan is now a nuclear power)
to defend its integrity without any external assistance.

The (over) Optimism in Pakistan-India Relations

By Maryam Nazir
IN recent developments, despite the presence of Indian officials at the groundbreaking ceremony of Kartarpur
Corridor, India has once again ruled out the possibility of resumption of dialogue and participation in SAARC
Summit. Indian belligerence over the years has grown into irrational stubbornness over the decades specifically
after the Mumbai attacks episode. The possibility of dialogue and cooperation at any level has become hostage to
lurid allegations of terrorism levelled by India against Pakistan. And then there is a suspected coincidence that
whenever talks are to take place, a terrorist attack happens impeding the entire effort made to bring India on table.
External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, in her recent statement has made it very clear that there will be no
dialogue with Pakistan unless it desists from terrorist activities against India. Adding further she said that India has
been asking for a corridor, which will facilitate visa-free travel of Indian Sikh pilgrims to Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in
Kartarpur, for many years but that does not mean that bilateral talks will start only on this. And this brings all the
euphoria and optimism associated with the ‘opening of Kartarpur Corridor and a new beginning in the bilateral
relations’ to a naught, literally. India did announce the start of construction of Kartarpur Corridor up to the
international border to which Pakistan responded positively. The commitment made by General Bajwa with Navjot
Singh Sidhu on the oath taking ceremony of Prime Minister Imran Khan, saw its realization but India never learnt
the art of reciprocating a gesture positively. Not long ago, the Indian External Affairs Minister declined to meet Mr.
Shah Mehmood Qureshi, on the sidelines of the UNGA meeting at the very last moment, parroting the same old
allegations of terrorism.
Despite knowing the Indian aggression and stubbornness, a certain kind of hype and optimism is normally
associated with the bilateral relations especially when there is any chance or possibility of talks, on both sides of
the border. Recent history has been marked with instances when Pakistan did express its desire for talks with India
but those were always turned down. Unfortunately, if little does Pakistan know of how to publicize this irony, India
painted black every issue between the two countries with the tag of terrorism. It is specifically after the occurrence
of Mumbai attacks in 2008, the bilateral relations have taken a down-turn and it is all about terrorism since then.
While India plants terror allegations against Pakistan, why it turns a blind eye to the case of Kulbhushan Yadav?
Isn’t it one clear solid manifestation of India’s destructive designs against Pakistan in the region? Or why it forgets
its policy renditions and practices against minorities in its land which is claimed to be the largest democracy on
earth? Or with being so arrogant, why India does not give people of Kashmir their right to self-determination?
Certainly, these are difficult ventures while manufacturing allegations is easy.
The Kartarpur Corridor episode might bring the Sikh community at peace for some time with the Indian
Government but Sikh dynamics in larger picture will not change. Pakistan reciprocated the gesture well but it would
be too early to associate high hopes with this development. Elections are scheduled soon in India and hate speech
against Pakistan sells the nationalists’ agenda and buy them majority in the government. More so, since Indian
Government is offering its Sikh pilgrims’ visa-free entry, Pakistan needs to be extra vigilant from security point of
view. It is hoped that at some point, a case for the better handling and facilitation of Pakistani pilgrims in India will
be made by the government. In the past, there have been episodes where such soft gestures met sad fates,
Samjhota Express is one of them. From a pacifist’s perspective, there is a need for such projects and cooperations
to be successful in order to keep peoples’ faith intact in humanity since the complexities of borders and statecraft
are not a common man’s cup of tea. But for these faith corridors to do well, faith in peace is needed on both sides
of border.
— The writer, works as an senior Research Officer at Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI), a think-tank
based Islamabad.

Sabotaging SAARC | Editorial

India’s attempts at sabotaging Saarc continue. In November 2016, New Delhi boycotted the 19th summit of the
regional cooperation bloc over the unfounded assumptions about the Uri attack, and pressured Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Afghanistan and Nepal to do the same. That resulted in Pakistan failing to host the biennial meeting. The
20th Saarc summit — that can be organised during 2018 and 2019 — is in doldrums too, with Indian External
Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj having already declared that there would be no Indian participation in the meeting
of the Saarc heads of states. And very recently, an official of the Indian High Commission in Pakistan walked out of
a meeting of the Saarc Chambers of Commerce and Industry on the pretext of an Azad Kashmir minister,
Chaudhary Muhammad Saeed, being in attendance.
India’s actions to impede the Saarc process are part of its sinister bid to isolate Pakistan diplomatically and in all
possible respects, albeit with no success. India is not interested in talks for peace with Pakistan, it’s not ready to
play bilateral cricket, and it’s not even willing to maintain people-to-people contact. The Modi government’s
acceptance of the Kartarpur corridor earlier this month only came half-heartedly, in a clear expression of disregard
for the Imran Khan government’s initiative that only comes in pursuit of peace. The corridor to connect two Sikh
shrines, one each in Pakistan and India, is a meaningful confidence-building measure having the potential to undo
the current bilateral freeze between the two nuclear neighbours and push them to engage in a positive and
purposeful manner. But India appears least interested.
India’s Pakistan-centric approach is a big impediment to the objectives of developing regional economy and
promoting integration that Saarc was set up for. Founded in 1985, Saarc — now an eight-member bloc comprising
Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh — is yet unable to realise its
true potential for peace and progress in South Asia via trade promotion as well as friendship and understanding
among the member states. There can be no denying that Saarc is held hostage to the whims of its strongest
member.
Pakistan and India By Farrukh Khan Pitafi
Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, the commander-in-chief of the British Indian Army, was initially in favour of a
joint military command for India and Pakistan. This idea was impractical and therefore soon abandoned. But while
reading this, every student of history is compelled to think of infinite other possibilities. What if India and Pakistan
had separated on a less hostile note? What if they had either successfully resolved the issue of Kashmir at the
inception or that the matter had never arisen? Could the nations be allies? These days it is a given that the
enemies of one state can count on the other for support from the other. Could the situation be any different if we
did have a relatively cleaner break in 1947 like Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine Benes? Imagine the state of the vitiated
space between the two countries that even such questions sound nothing short of laughable imponderables.
For a student of strategic studies, these questions do not matter. They are trained to think about today and, if time
allows it, of tomorrow — not yesterday. But to a student of history, these questions merit attention. Because it is in
the impossibilities of the past that you can hope to find a key to the future. If we can sufficiently expose the demons
of the past, we can build a future exorcised of them.
If you want to know how the two countries view each other, consider the language used by their leaders to refer to
the border between the two. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently likened the border to the Berlin Wall.
Pakistani PM Imran Khan, however, compared the two countries with France and Germany. The difference? The
Berlin Wall was a concrete structure built to divide not just the German nation but essentially the German capital
along the Cold War lines. It stood there for about 28 years, was a product of a bipolar world and ended with it.
Germans on both sides reunited after its fall. Pakistan and modern-day India were created by a dying multipolar
world, withstood the test of bipolar and unipolar worlds and are now preparing to be a part of a multipolar world
order again. Similarly, Germany and France are two distinct nations with pride in their history and culture and even
if you permanently remove their boundaries you cannot remove their identity. Imran Khan’s comparison makes
sense because today the Pakistani identity is as real and distinct as the Indian identity. India helped build it.
Narendra Modi’s doesn’t.
This idea that Pakistan was temporarily taken away from mother India and will eventually reunite has been there
since 1947 and is the longest running trash talk that anyone has ever witnessed. And yet it keeps firing up the
Indian imagination. First, Pakistan’s creation was considered a denial of India’s secular credentials. Now it is the
desire to see Akhand Bharat which keeps them going. They say the ashes of Nathu Ram Godse, the assassin of
Mohandas Gandhi, are still kept in an urn to be scattered in the River Indus once India takes Pakistan back. But
what do they want? Land? People? Anything else? Well, it is an irrational and unintelligent desire. It is not like India
in its many forms that have existed ever cared much for the territories now part of Pakistan. These lands were part
of India’s untamed wild west. Often when there was fear of invaders from further west, a scorched earth policy was
used here to keep the adventurers at bay. Poison the wells, burn the crops, pillage and murder those who even
had a potential to be useful to the enemy. And regarding the people, note how India now treats its minorities as a
burden. Why then would you keep the fantasies of a reunification alive?
And it is a self-defeating prospect. The Indian state is already bloated and inefficient enough without further
helpings. One unfortunate binary of our time, aided and abetted by the Indian intelligentsia, is to view China and
India as equal quantities. They are not. In China, partly because of its communist legacy and partly as an accident
of history, wherever you go you find same people, same race, same language with slight variations. That is not the
case with India. It has multiple races, languages, faiths, castes, classes and nations within. And they all don’t live in
harmony. It is difficult to hard enough to keep them together. Why add more burden to the problem.
Then there are the matters of Indian self-image and strategic thought. When you look at India and think of giving
permanent membership at the UNSC, you think of democracy, diversity and of Gautam Buddha and Bhakt Kabir.
When India looks in the mirror, it sees Machiavelli’s prince and Kautilya or Chanakya’s Chandragupta Maurya. Why
would a country that has been a victim of imperialism choose a realist worldview and not idealism as its worldview
is beyond me. But one thing is for sure while choosing realpolitik over collective security, it still wants to utilise the
idealist worldview to gain access to global power. So, when you think of bringing India into the UNSC fold, you are
not giving voice to the victims of the past, you plan to bring in a broken Third World imagination into the system that
will essentially mean the end of the lofty ideals you cherish.
Pakistan on the other hand has no grand ambitions. And that is bad. If the country had any, instead of trying to
block Indian permanent seat in the UNSC, it would want one for itself. Is it not how things work? India acquires
nuclear weapons to get even with China. Pakistan does so to get even with India. And China and Russia have
shown that this is the way you tackle the South Asian Siamese twins. They brought both India and Pakistan to the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The two countries could hold Saarc hostage to their mutual hostility.
They cannot hold SCO hostage. Empower one country and they will instinctively try to ruin the other. Empower
both, give them common stakes in peace and they will try to behave.
India and Pakistan need to realise that whether they like it or not in many spaces they share they already are allies.
In SCO, in the fight against terror, against poverty. Instead of waiting for the collapse of the other they can gain
from cooperating. Half-hearted cooperation and harbouring malice against the other at the same time will not help.
Peace between India and Pakistan is an idea best suited for our times. Such ideas do not care much about
elections, expediency or narrow-mindedness of policymakers.

TAPI Pipeline: Connecting The Region | Editorial

The Chief Executive Officer and chairman of the board of TAPI Pipeline Company limited Muhammetmyrat
Amanov while speaking at a public talk on the implementation of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI)
pipeline project informed the attendees that the construction of the project would begin in early 2019. Pakistan
needs not to abandon its advocacy of prompt completion of TAPI. The reason that Pakistan needs to leave no
stone unturned in the completion of TAPI is apparent. Pakistan is facing energy crisis for almost a decade. The
energy crisis has hampered its economic growth. It is a fact that energy is a vital force behind the development of
modern and industrial societies. The timely completion of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline
project will cater Pakistan’s growing needs of energy in domestic and commercial sectors. Pakistan will consume
around 42% of the gas that this pipeline will carry.
However, TAPI project is not an ordinary pipeline project. Multiple benefits are associated with TAPI. Apart from
being a cheaper substitute for liquid petroleum gas (LPG), the pipeline project will also ensure regional connectivity
between these four countries. The pipeline initiative will also ensure the populations of these countries benefiting
from the long-term energy security provided by the project. The pipeline can prove instrumental in facilitating a
unique level of trade and cooperation across the region, while also supporting peace and security between the four
nations. Pakistan and Afghanistan have already given sovereign guarantees, which should assure the other
partners that the two states want the completion of the project promptly. Some other benefits that Pakistan can
secure from the project also include new employment and an increase in its revenues through transit fees. It is
worth mentioning that the plan for the TAPI project was initially conceived in the 1990s. However, one factor or
another proved to be a hurdle in its completion. The growing energy demands in Pakistan and India instructs that
the project should not be delayed any further.

Regional Trade | Editorial

WORLD Bank has claimed that there is potential of $35 billion trade between Pakistan and India on annual basis
through opening up trade by removing all kinds of barriers. Briefing newsmen on Wednesday, its Director
Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment said by reducing man-made trade barriers, trade within South Asia can
grow roughly three times – from $23 billion to $67 billion. According to the official, the cost of trade is
disproportionately high within South Asia compared with other regional trade blocs.
There can be no two opinions that regional trade or trade with neighbours has clear advantages both in terms of
cost and prompt delivery besides its obvious role in promoting peace and cooperative environment. Experts point
out that cultural overlap and consequent similarity of consumption patterns, the natural integration of industrial
production due to likeness of demand and factor endowments, low delivery costs and short lead times make the
neighbouring markets a natural extension of domestic market. The neighbours with varied economic development
and income levels benefit from one another’s comparative strengths — the richer economy provides wider variety
of goods and the poorer one provides a cost-effective location for production. Taking clue from other regions,
leaders of South Asia too formed South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which is there for
decades but unfortunately this could not make any meaningful impact on regional trade or economic cooperation
mainly because of trust deficit and tension caused by unresolved disputes. This is particularly so in the case of
Pakistan and India as they have not been able to address the root causes of tension and their rivalry has also
virtually jeopardized SAARC. So is the level of mistrust that India is not even allowing to hold scheduled meeting of
the Association in Pakistan. India’s designs also stand exposed from its uncalled-for opposition to the China-
Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is purely an economic adventure and has immense benefits for all
potential participants and partners. Pakistan has also demonstrated its sincerity for closer and meaningful ties time
and again and only recently Prime Minister Imran Khan, while speaking at the ceremony relating to Kartarpur
Corridor, extended an olive branch to India. There are other bottlenecks to regional trade at well that need to be
tackled at the forum of SAARC. These include poor trade logistics and abysmal transport infrastructure, high tariff
and non-tariff measures, lengthy custom procedures, heavy import duties, port restrictions, lack of appropriate
storage facilities, strict visa regime, financial transaction barriers and lack of telecommunication facilities.
Imran Khan’s Peace Gestures and India’s Response
By Talat Masood
The recent opening of the corridor connecting Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in Kartarpur area to Dera Baba Nanak in
India’s Gurdaspur district was in many ways a major event. It demonstrated what Imran Khan had remarked that
we want civilised ties with India and indeed was a step in that direction. It is unfortunate Pakistan’s initiative is
viewed in India with suspicion. Subsequent statements and tweets from the foreign ministers of both countries cast
a shadow on this otherwise purposeful development.
The negative response of the Indian foreign minister and the Punjab chief minister to Pakistan’s invitation to attend
the opening ceremony was a clear snub to Pakistan’s goodwill gestures. From the frenzy generated in some
hawkish Indian media an impression was being created as though Pakistan by opening the corridor is trying to
promote separatist trends among Sikhs and undermining India’s national unity. This is another demonstration of the
lack of trust and misreading of each other’s motive. Besides, there is more to India’s rebuttal that we need to
comprehend as several determinants govern its policy towards Pakistan.
First, if India were to move towards reconciliation with Pakistan it fears that it will strengthen the Muslim minority of
India, and indirectly other minorities too. And this will be in conflict with the BJP’s policy of exclusive dominance of
Hinduism. The most blatant manner in which the BJP leadership is demonising the Muslim community is evident
from the stream of hate speeches by Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath, while campaigning for its
allies in Andhra Pradesh state elections.
Second, the main challenge for India’s supremacy in the region emanates from China, and Pakistan-China ties
presents another great hurdle to this ambitious power play. It considers CPEC and the expanding and deepening
relationship of Pakistan with China a major roadblock in its pursuit to dominate the region.
Moreover, Afghanistan is another area of serious differences between the two countries and chances of
compromise seem remote. Pakistan views India’s role in Afghanistan with suspicion. This has led to our support of
the Taliban and using them as a countervailing force against Indian dominance. General Bajwa’s serious attempts
at reconciliation with the Afghan leadership have not been successful primarily due their convergence with India’s
thinking.
What emboldens New Delhi is that its Afghan and China policy is in total accord with Washington’s!
The United States, as is well known, has been consistently putting pressure on Pakistan to ‘do more’ implying that
it brings the Haqqani network and Afghan Shura to the negotiating table. The latest letter of President Trump to PM
Khan, however, shows that realism is dawning on Washington. Pakistan has a crucial role in the stability of
Afghanistan and its insistence that political dialogue is the only route to peace is after all being recognised.
European powers too need to fully support efforts towards a negotiated settlement of the Afghan conflict.
Apart from genuine reasons for dismay regarding India’s policies we from our side have not been able to fully justify
the lack of progress on pursuing the alleged conspirators and accomplices in the Mumbai attack. Very cleverly
India has used it as a lever to pressure Pakistan and project it in a bad light.
Whereas what will be India’s gains if it were to take a conciliatory approach towards Pakistan?
There are clearly medium-and long-term benefits. It would reduce tensions in the region; bring the peoples of the
two countries and those of South Asia closer by opening up opportunities for tourism, trade and commerce. This
would incentivise local and foreign investors and boost the economy. Reduce influence of global players in South
Asia and increase space for determining the region’s own destiny. For this India would have to gain confidence of
its neighbours by supporting them at international forums where policies converge and treating them with respect.
But Indian leadership in general and the BJP in particular are not interested in this approach. It considers these
policies would compromise its agenda for a Hinduvta India and be a setback for achieving its regional aspirations of
dominance. Moreover, it would set forces wherein the minorities would gain political space thereby thwarting its
national and regional ambitions. In short, altogether a new strategic, political and economic paradigm would
emerge in which the status of Kashmir could also undergo a change. The prevailing unrest in Kashmir valley is an
unnerving phenomenon yet the BJP government mistakenly feels it could handle it by mere application of brute
pressure. Latest move of the governor of Indian-Occupied Kashmir to change the Permanent Residency rules in
J&K is another manifestation of its harsh policies. Indifference of the international community towards the Kashmir
movement allows India greater space to continue suppressing it.
What is less realised is that Pakistan’s alleged support of the LeT and Milli Muslim League is ingeniously exploited
by India to provide cover to its gross human rights violations and gain Western sympathy. This problem is also
contextualised with events of 26/11 and 9/11 and projected as a constant reminder that Pakistan is failing in its
international obligations to take genuine punitive action against these militant organisations and its leaders.
The unfortunate aspect is that India instead of dealing with the Kashmir issue sympathetically has resorted to
pursuing policies that undermine Pakistan’s stability and integrity. It is brazenly supporting the Baloch Liberation
Front and TTP. This vicious cycle of weakening each other’s state by supporting dissident elements has to be
broken.
The United States deliberately overlooks these Indian destabilising tactics but comes hard on Pakistan for its
retaliatory measures. The preponderant basis of the US’ relations with Pakistan is how it relates to Afghanistan.
And this obsession overlooks Pakistan’s national interests and sensitivities. The United States should raise its
interest in the region and promote India-Pakistan dialogue.
Prolonged disengagement by India could have serious implications for the region. Multiple problems relating to
security, strategy, economy and ecology can only be undertaken through a cooperative approach and efforts
toward normalisation are the only sensible course.

Making Peace With India | Editorial

OPENING of Kartarpur Corridor is definitely a monumental event which will open new opportunities of people-to-
people contacts between Pakistan and India and especially facilitate the Sikh pilgrims to visit their holiest sites
without any trouble. The initiative has also been seen with much interest in the world as it is being anticipated that
the Corridor will greatly help reduce tension between the two arch rivals. Nonetheless how far this Corridor
succeeds to build bridges is yet to be seen as every positive initiative taken by Pakistan has never been
reciprocated by the other side in the same spirit.
Performing the ground breaking of Kartarpur Corridor, Prime Minister Imran Khan once again extended a hand of
friendship to India saying Pakistan desires strong and civilized relations with the neighbouring country. He said the
peoples of both countries want friendship and it is now up to the leadership of the two countries to be on the same
page. Indeed whilst forgetting the past rivalry, the two countries can achieve many milestones through collaborative
efforts to steer the peoples of this region out of poverty and address their chronic problems. Pakistan has always
expressed the desire of peace from its neighbourhood but the other side appears not to be ready to shun its
antagonistic posture. As the Prime Minister was giving the message of peace and moving forward on the pattern of
Germany and France, the very Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj once again resorted to baseless
rhetoric against Pakistan and brushed aside the possibility of improvement in relations with Pakistan. She said
India will not attend the SAARC Summit if it is held in Islamabad and said there will be no dialogue with Pakistan
unless the country stops terrorist activities in India. So, we understand one should not pin so much expectations
with the opening of Kartarpur Corridor given the anti-Pakistan attitude of Modi Junta. In fact the time has come that
Pakistan gear up its diplomatic efforts to expose the true Indian face at the world level. It is Pakistan which has
suffered the most in the war on terror and the arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav clearly demonstrates as to which country
is supporting and instigating terror.