Indo-Pak No-War Pact:A Visit Manmohan must make

[ajtr]

A Visit Manmohan must make


By A. G. NOORANI
Only a summit between India and Pakistan at the highest political level can lead to a forward movement on Sir Creek, a no-war pact, and the Kashmir formula
The pre-condition Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been insisting on for a visit to Pakistan — that there must first be “something solid” to achieve — defies the sound rules of diplomacy and is one which the self-consciously powerful impose unwisely. History has vindicated Churchill and proved Truman wrong in rebuffing Stalin’s pleas for a summit. Doables are more clearly determined at the summit level itself and Dr. Singh knows what they are. It seems that he has all but abandoned the agenda on which he so bravely worked during his first stint as Prime Minister.
What message is he seeking now to convey to Pakistan and Kashmiris? Expect “nothing from me?”

IDEAL ATMOSPHERE
Ironically, the atmosphere for a visit to Pakistan was never better and there is something which he alone, at the highest political level, can accomplish — finalise an agreement that settles the Sir Creek dispute. Though it is of limited dimensions, its removal from the agenda of disputes awaiting settlement will provide an impetus to the resolution of the others and improve the atmosphere. Dr. Singh briefed the on-board media while returning from the Non-Aligned summit in Tehran on August 31 that he had told Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari when they met there that “there must be a genuine feeling that Pakistan is doing all that it could do to deal with terrorism directed at India from Pakistan’s soil. The court trial on the Mumbai massacre is a crucial test of Pakistan’s sincerity.”
But he did not stop at that. He added, significantly, “I also said Sir Creek, which we had talked about during his visit to Ajmer [in April], was doable”. Nor is that all. Credible reports have it that when Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik met India’s Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde “on the sidelines” of the SAARC Home Ministers’ Conference in the Maldives late last month, he gave a “verbal assurance” of access to Indian investigators to the accused in Pakistan’s prisons and the evidence already collected. This is an area which can be fully explored only in frank talks at a high level. Sir Creek has been “doable” for at least the past five years. The joint statements issued on May 21, 2011 and June 19, 2012 speak of demarcation of “the land boundary in the Sir Creek area and the delimitation of [the] International Maritime Boundary between Pakistan and India.” A joint survey of Sir Creek was conducted in January and February 2007 which resulted in a joint map of the area. It was authenticated by both sides at the fourth round of talks when copies of the joint map were also exchanged.

BOUNDARY-MARKING AND MAKING
As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once remarked, boundary-marking is the task of a surveyor; boundary-making is the task of a statesman. Both countries, parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, submitted their claims to the extended Continental Shelf with the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Their claims remain “on hold,” pending a settlement. If they continue to disagree on the limits of the EEZ or the Continental Shelf, the matter will have to be decided by arbitration (Articles 279-299 of the Convention). Is that what we want? Why not do the “doable”?
There are two other matters on which India can take the initiative. One is a no-war pact. Both sides came very close to an agreed draft in May 1984. India had sent an aide-memoire to Pakistan on December 24, 1981 setting out the principles. Pakistan sent its draft on January 12, 1982. In Islamabad, formal talks began in May 1982 when Pakistan presented a complete draft of a no-war pact. India followed up by presenting a draft Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation in August 1982. Indira Gandhi wantonly injected new elements on bases and alliances. Meanwhile, an agreement on a Joint Commission was signed on March 10, 1983.
Talks resumed at Udaipur and Delhi on March 1 and 2, 1984. There was a breakthrough in May 1984 on the two sticking points. The Shimla formulation on bilateralism and the criteria for NAM membership, adopted at Cairo on June 5, 1961, was acceptable to India on bases and alliances. Pakistan did not send its draft on them as it had promised. The Rajiv Gandhi-Zia-ul-Haq summit in Delhi on December 17, 1985 imparted momentum to the dialogue. Talks were held in 1986 but they petered out. In 2012, bases and alliances have lost their relevance; but Article 8 of the India-Bangladesh Treaty can be adopted. It used a standard formulation for reciprocal pledges not to “enter into or participate in any military alliance directed against the other party” nor “allow the use of its territory for committing any act that may cause military damage to or constitute a threat to the security of the other.”

The no-war pact proposal was formally revived by Nawaz Sharif when he was Prime Minister, in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 22, 1997: “I offer today from this rostrum to open negotiations on a treaty of non-aggression between India and Pakistan”. He renewed it in a television interview on December 11, 2008 after the Mumbai blasts: “We should sign a no-war pact for peace.”

ALMOST THERE

Existing drafts can be meshed together. Not much work is involved. When this writer asked M.K. Rasgotra, India’s Foreign Secretary during the May 1984 talks, how much time it would have required, he raised his index finger and said, “one hour.”

There is another matter on which the summit will help. For some time, the Pakistan People’s Party government treated the Musharraf-Manmohan consensus on the four-point formula on Kashmir as something the cat had brought in. That is no longer the case. Pakistan is prepared to adopt a constructive line on the formula. Last month, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar clearly indicated to Iftikhar Gilani of DNA that, “we need a relook [on Kashmir], we need to do some homework for that.” In an interview to Barkha Dutt of NDTV around the same time, former PPP Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani specified the subject of the homework: “There had been some formula earlier which was decided between General Musharraf and the Indian government. But there had been some loopholes which we wanted to tighten, aur uspe hum kaam kar rahe the [and we were working on it] when there was a change of government here in Pakistan.”

Tightening the loose ends would be a more accurate description for the exercise. Only a summit can accomplish that. And, that is where the havoc wrought since 2008 must be repaired. As Churchill said in a historic speech to the House of Commons on May 11, 1953, soon after Stalin’s death, “If there is not at the summit of the nations the will to win the greatest prize and the greatest honour ever offered to mankind, doom-laden responsibility will fall upon those who now possess the power to decide. At the worst the participants … would have established more intimate contacts. At the best we might have a generation of peace.”

(A.G. Noorani is an advocate, Supreme Court of India, and a leading constitutional expert. His latest book, Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir, was published by Oxford University Press in 2011.)

 

[Ehsan Riaz]

a great thought i must say.the only way for south asian development is to maintain peace between india and pakistan.unless both countries stand on no war ground they will not be able to bring prosperity of their people because most of the budget of both countries is spent on military to make it up to date and prepare for war.

 

[ajtr]

NO-War Pact - The Premise

Peace between India and Pakistan is not only necessary for sustaining economic growth but also vital for building pluralistic democracies and sustaining the integrity of both states. South Asia today stands suspended between the hope of a better life and fear of cataclysmic destruction. It is not only the poorest region in the world but also one whose citizens live in constant danger of a nuclear holocaust. This is also an established reality that hostility between India and Pakistan is fuelling radicalisation in South Asia. No War Pact between India and Pakistan is not crucial to the both hostile neighbours, but imperative to the global peace as well. Hostility between India and Pakistan has fuelled radicalization not only in South Asia but the world over.

The history of India-Pakistan rivalry constitutes a chronology of struggle to establish “hegemony”, “action-reaction” type of security paradigm; misperceptions; underestimation and overestimation, and mutual “fear.” These both countries carried a baggage of history at the time of independence in 1947 which was loaded with doubt, hatred, animosity and distorted perceptions. The enmity between the two rival countries has huge economic costs, socio-political damage, military costs, diplomatic costs, and human costs.

According to a 2010 World Bank report printed last year, these two countries account for 93 per cent of the total military expenditure in South Asia.

India, which is ranked at 142 in terms of per capita income, ranks first in the world in terms of arms imports. Pakistan is not far behind, being ranked 119 in terms of per capita income and 10th in the world in terms of arms imports, it notes. Pakistani defence budget stands at $6.41 billion, approximately 4% of the GDP, while Indian defence budget has been recently increased to $36.5 billion for 2011-12, approx. 2% of the GDP. These simple figures and number crunching become quite daunting, when according to a 2009 estimate, Indian’ military spending makes18.6 percent of its total spending while health care spending is 3.4 percent and education spending is 12.7 percent of its total spending.

The military expenditure of Pakistan is 23.1 percent of all its yearly expenditures compared to the health care expenditure of Pakistan which is an embarrassing 1.3 percent of all its yearly spending and the education expenditure which is 7.8 percent of all its yearly expenditures.

At Forum for International Relations Development, we led the first European programme on ‘deradicalisation’ and ‘rehabilitation’ though Stockwell Green Community Services (SGCS – FIRD’s partner organisation). We gained deep insight into the psychology of religion fuelled radicalisation and violent extremism through our interaction with effected communities, (Terrorism Act) TACT offenders and law enforcement agencies. SGCS has the honour of being the first community based organisation to develop the ‘triangular model of containment’ of radicalisation which was later borrowed and modelled across the UK.

In our view, the conflict, tension and hostility between India and Pakistan became the breeding ground for radicalisation in South Asia which threatens the whole modern world. During the course of programmes ran by SGCS/FIRD, we came across radicals and extremists and the discourse helped us identify the road to conversion to the violent extremism.

With the help of prominent British Indians and British Pakistanis and the both Diasporas, Forum for International Relations Development has launched a massive drive to build bridges of peace and understanding between the two countries. A fifty years No War Pact is going to be the culminating point of this drive. Peace between India and Pakistan is not only necessary for sustaining economic growth but also vital for building pluralistic democracies and sustaining the integrity of both states. South Asia today stands suspended between the hope of a better life and fear of cataclysmic destruction. It is not only the poorest region in the world but also one whose citizens live in constant danger of a nuclear holocaust.

Pakistani and Indian public opinion makers including journalists, academicians, sportsmen, artists, scholars, intellectuals, politicians, think-tanks, community lobbyists and statutory bodies are being consulted to frame the outcomes in a realistic perspective and to define the relevant phases. The initial meetings with the Pakistani Premiere Mr. Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and High Commissioner of Pakistan in April 2011 have been received on a positive note. The No War Pact between India & Pakistan drive and the current exploratory and consultative visit have been based on the following premise:

1.We understand that the conflict between these two countries is quite an imbroglio with complex nodes and extensions. We are not looking for a quick fix as this is not possible due to on-ground historic, social, religious, cultural, economic and policy complications.

2.We understand that due to sensitive and entangled relationship, we are required to engage with intelligentsia, executive, academicians, researchers, journalists, writers, politicians and public opinion makers and public of both the countries to develop realistic understanding of the impasse.

3.We understand that both the countries have been suffering from the fall-out of this endemic hostility. There are enormous opportunities available for both the countries in social, cultural, economic, academic and technological areas on a win-win basis.

4.We understand that the frames, models, paradigms and approaches used to resolve the conflicts between both the countries in the last 63 years have failed to deliver and need to be revisited, reviewed and dissolved and reframed for the next 50 years.

5.We understand that the new paradigms are to be conceived to resolve the conflicts due to its massive scale and impact in terms of threat, impact and ancillary repercussions.
6.We understand that it is still possible to work towards the solution of the problem without becoming a part of it.

7.We understand that the cost of the pervasive conflict is being borne out by hundreds of millions of underprivileged, marginalised and wretched population of both the countries in terms of compromised budgetary allocations for education, health and human development.

8.We understand that inspite of all hostility, misunderstandings and misgivings it is possible to engage with each other on a pure humanitarian context.

9.We understand that the conflict between India and Pakistan may be resolved by both the countries without any mediation or a third party involvement.

10.We understand and dream and pledge that by oiling the public apparatus and engaging with intelligentsia and relying on the support of the most effective British Pakistanis, British Indians and native Pakistanis and Indians, we might pave pay for a comprehensive dialogue eventually paving way to a summit and then possibly brokering a ’50 Years No War Pact’ between both the countries. Such a pact will not solve all the problems but it may channelize hundreds of millions of dollars budgetary allocations in both the countries towards education, health and human development.

11.We understand that we may not know all or most of the relevant answers and that is why we look forward to working with you as a fellow partner and a dreamer.

12.We understand and dream that what looks impossible today may become a living reality for our upcoming generations in the next five decades.

13.We understand that this whole drive has to have no other evident or hidden agenda except the glorification of humanity.

 

[arp2041]

so that mumbai attacks keep on happening & India can do nothing, no thanks.


on a lighter note - India is the largest importer of weapons, all will get waste

 

[Iggy]

The court trial on the Mumbai massacre is a crucial test of Pakistan’s sincerity.

Exactly, the ball is in Pakistan's court.. We Indians can only think of a no war pact once Pakistan take sincere action against those who are behind the Mumbai attack and curb the anti India elements in the country.. If we sign a pact with out these, then loonies like Hafiz Syed and Kashmirie along with the head twisted followers will have a free ride over India..

 

[ajtr]

No War Pact for 50 years between Pakistan & India suggested
LAHORE, April 30, (APP): A no war pact for a period of fifty years should be inked between Pakistan and India to avoid perils of war and the process of composite dialogue must be continued without any interruption between the two countries.These views were expressed by speakers at a seminar on ‘Pakistan India Relations: Prospects and Retrospect’ organised by the Forum for International Relations Development (FIRD) in collaboration with Right Vision and Daily The Pak Banker at a local hotel.Journalists, academicians, scholars, intellectuals, politicians and think-tanks spoke on the occasion.
The speakers included FIRD Chairman MBE Toaha Qurashi, FIRD Strategy & Coordination Director Arif Anis Malik, Columnist Ataur Rehman, Director News One Sajad Mir, leading journalists Rizwan Razi, Arshad Arif, Amir Hashim Khkwani, Rauf Tahir, Ajmal Shah Din, Mian Ahmad Yar, M. Shoaib Adil, Khalid Chaudhry, Naeem Arif, Khalid Mehmood Khalid, Inees Mufti, Naeem Bloch and Imtiaz-ul-Haq from South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA).
The participants said a no war pact for a period of fifty years should be inked between Pakistan and India to avoid perils of war and the process of composite dialogue must be continued without interruption.
FIRD Chairman Toaha Qurashi said his organisation in its 2011-2015 strategy had charted to engage and consult politicians, intelligentsia, opinion makers , executives and statuary bodies of both the governments to initiate a meaningful dialogue eventually culminating into a summit and possibly brokering a fifty years ‘No War Pact between India and Pakistan.
“The pact for fifty years between the two countries is an excellent idea which will, no doubt, cut defence budget of both the countries enabling them to spend it on the welfare of their people and economic uplift”, Ataur Rehman said.
However, it is for India to be committed to the pact as it often says that it has nothing to do with Pakistan and its military establishment is for China.
Sajad Mir said that people of both the countries need to understand the fact they have to do something solid to improve ties between the two countries. Fair minded Indians and Pakistanis have to come forward to take the reigns in their hands to solve bilateral issues, Mir said.
Rizwan Razi said that India had given Pakistan the status of Most Favoured Nation, however, Pakistani traders could not properly export to India as it had put 24 trade barriers. On the other hand, Pakistan has given India a free hand to export products to Pakistan. India should be fair in its dealings with Pakistan for good relationships between the two countries.
Arshad Ahmad Arif said, “Cutting defence budget does not make any difference as there are many nations in the world which have been making progress equally on defence and social fronts. There is a need to properly spend our education and health budgets. Our issues cannot be solved by signing the no war pact only until we come forward with good intentions to resolve issues”, he said.
Amir Khakwani said that Kashmir issue has to be resolved to develop strong ties between the two countries. “No war pact would do anything as when war erupts all pacts prove to be futile. Both countries need to resolve their mutual issues”.
“We need to be truthful in our dealings with each other and have faith in each other,” Rauf Tahir said. He said that Pakistan’s backwardness was because of corrupt practices in all walks of life. We spend 18 per cent of our total budget on defence and if 82 percent of the budget is spent on economic development in real terms, we would not lag behind any country of the world in march on the road to development, Tahir said.
Maqsood and Imtiaz-ul-Haq said there was a dire need to probe the factors which led to sabotage of peace talks as whenever peace talks started, they were sabotaged for one or the other reason.
On both sides there were elements that wanted to destroy peace of the region, however, serious minded people of both the countries had long been desiring strong relations between the two countries and peace in the region, Ajmal Shah Din and Malik Allah Yar said.
Khalid Ch said that if both countries want peace in the region they should set aside their core issues for the time being and go forward to compromise on smaller things and afterward there would be a possibility to resolve the core issues.
People of both the countries should try to improve their mutual relations and the civil and military leadership needed to change their attitudes, he said.
Shoaib Adil and Nayyar Khan held Pakistani leadership responsible for the hostile relationships between the two countries. He quoted Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah who had many times complained that his statements had always been distorted to create uncertainty among the people of both the countries.
Wjahat Masood and Imtiaz-ul-Haq said there was a dire need to probe the factors which led to sabotage of peace talks.

 

[ajtr]

so that mumbai attacks keep on happening & India can do nothing, no thanks.
on a lighter note - India is the largest importer of weapons, all will get waste

Exactly, the ball is in Pakistan's court.. We Indians can only think of a no war pact once Pakistan take sincere action against those who are behind the Mumbai attack and curb the anti India elements in the country.. If we sign a pact with out these, then loonies like Hafiz Syed and Kashmirie along with the head twisted followers will have a free ride over India..

Pakistan has no control over on 26/11 type incidents and it cant prevent it etirely.Even usa could not preven 9/11 from non state actors.
As for weapons going waste -if you want you can gift them to L-e-T so that they can carry on with their proxy war on india.

one thing you must understand is that you are signing no-war pact with pakistani govt and GoP has no control over groups like LeT etc fighting against india.If GoI wants they can sign separate no-war pact with those groups carrying out proxy war in india.

 

[Iggy]

It will be a suicidal for India if a no war pact agreement will be signed even before our demands are met.. It will be favorable only for Pakistan.. It will be us, the common citizens who is going to suffer..

Pakistan has no control over on 26/11 type incidents and it cant prevent it etirely.Even usa could not preven 9/11 from non state actors.
As for weapons going waste -if you want you can gift them to L-e-T so that they can carry on with their proxy war on india.

one thing you must understand is that you are signing no-war pact with pakistani govt and GoP has no control over groups like LeT etc fighting against india.If GoI wants they can sign separate no-war pact with those groups carrying out proxy war in india.

Still the people who are responsible for 26/11 are still roaming in Pakistan freely.. Collecting cash in the name of relief funds and openly conducting rallies.. Pakistan can tame them with ease if they sincerely wishing for peace in this region.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Pakistan has no control over on 26/11 type incidents and it cant prevent it etirely.Even usa could not preven 9/11 from non state actors.
As for weapons going waste -if you want you can gift them to L-e-T so that they can carry on with their proxy war on india.

one thing you must understand is that you are signing no-war pact with pakistani govt and GoP has no control over groups like LeT etc fighting against india.If GoI wants they can sign separate no-war pact with those groups carrying out proxy war in india.

A no war pact is a great idea. However, the concept of a no-war pact is based on the fundamental assumption that both states are capable of and accept responsibility for all major actions that emanate from within.

If you're saying that Pakistan cannot be held responsible for preventing 26/11 incidents in the future, what is the point of a no -war pact? What is the benefit to India? Would such a pact then not become a convenient way for Pakistan to wage war against India while avoiding a response?

 

[karan21]

Great things need to be discussed on table not on borders
But wht if army takes back the control of Pak in future will this still work?

 

[Ehsan Riaz]

so that mumbai attacks keep on happening & India can do nothing, no thanks.


on a lighter note - India is the largest importer of weapons, all will get waste

then keep your people sleep on footpaths and let them die of hunger and agony.This is what the future of people like you who care for import of weapon than needs of population.

 

[arp2041]

The concept of a no war pact is utter BS IMHO, though i don't favor war, but it is the very threat of an Indian strike that is making Pakistan fearful of launching another mumbai type attack, since they know that any such attack will demand a massive Indian response, all Indians know that it was not a "non-state actors" operation (as pointed out by many across the border) but nearly all state actors were responsible for it, signing a no war pact will give Pakistan a free "License to Kill", which we can't give.

then keep your people sleep on footpaths and let them die of hunger and agony.This is what the future of people like you who care for import of weapon than needs of population.

from a person of a country that had launched 4 unprovoked war on India + 20 years of state sponsored terrorism + making commitments like "we will eat grass but we will make nuclear weapons" + the nation with the fastest growing nuclear weapon stockpile, these idealistic things doesn't make sense.

 

[Iggy]

from a person of a country that had launched 4 unprovoked war on India + 20 years of state sponsored terrorism + making commitments like "we will eat grass but we will make nuclear weapons" + the nation with the fastest growing nuclear weapon stockpile, these idealistic things doesn't make sense.

You should take that guys statement in a positive way.. What he said was true.. A no war pact will help us concentrate on other sectors of the society.. I am not against a no war pact. What I am saying is we cannot sign a pact like that with out sincere efforts from each sides.. First work on confidence building, then will sign no war pact..

 

[Soumitra]

The no war pact will not be worth the paper it is written. As AJTR so succinctly said the no war pact is ineffective against LeTs and HuJis of the world. These are the once who as "non state actors" actually attack India.

And how can we forget Kargil just Months after Lahore Declaration ? What is the guarantee that some other general will not embark on a misadventure and the poor civilian PM will wring his hands and say "I didn't know what was happening"

A no war pact is a no-go till the trust defesit remains.

 

[ajtr]

A no war pact is a great idea. However, the concept of a no-war pact is based on the fundamental assumption that both states are capable of and accept responsibility for all major actions that emanate from within.

If you're saying that Pakistan cannot be held responsible for preventing 26/11 incidents in the future, what is the point of a no -war pact? What is the benefit to India? Would such a pact then not become a convenient way for Pakistan to wage war against India while avoiding a response?

Is GoI ready to accept responsibility of surjeet singh types who carried out blasts in pakistan?