http://www.zameen.com/zameenjun99/focus1.htm
Dr David Taylor speaks to Muna Khan on the possibility of easing tensions between India and Pakistan
Dr David Taylor has been on the faculty of the School of Oriental and African Studies since 1970, where he is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Pro-Director for Taught Courses. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and London, Dr Taylor has made many visits to Pakistan and India.
Q: Can Pakistan and India be friends?
A: First they have to ask what are the reasons for the hostilities between them. One immediately comes to Kashmir. Then one needs to ask what Kashmir symbolises. I think that Kashmir has come to symbolise different things to different generations; for people around 55-60 years of age it still represents something to do with Partition, with the disruptions that many people had to face. For other people, it is like a dreadful football game with a 'we have to beat the other side' attitude which ultimately has no logic to it. It's simply a case of one country wanting to be top dog. International systems have to find ways of coping with countries' desires to be seen as superior to the other and yet, at the same time living together, comfortably as friends. There is a similar European example: the French and the British are elbowing each other. Both countries want to be taken seriously in Europe and all that business about who should be appointed the first chairman of the European Central Bank with each country anxious to have their person as the top dog, but that didn't stop a lot of straight forward personal level contact. Kashmir in that context could be no more than just a symbol, it could co-exist with friendship. But it won't until some solution is found to the human rights problem. From the Pakistani perspective, they see a huge number of potential Pakistanis deserving to be treated in a better manner, whereas the Indian perspective is that Islamic fundamentalism is trying to take over Kashmir and push out the Hindus. The symbol of Kashmir does prevent the friendship from developing but it doesn't mean that it is impossible to resolve the issue.
Q: So, is Kashmir the hurdle between better relations with India?
A: You have to develop a framework where people feel a solution is possible. Look at Northern Ireland: apart from the IRA, ordinary middle-class opinion of the south recognises that Tony Blair or John Major were making serious efforts to solve this issue. Northern Ireland was an issue but it wasn't an insurmountable issue so that they could get over that hurdle even though that hurdle hadn't vanished. You could have something like that in Kashmir. If you put it from an Indian point of view, the settlement is there; it is based on the Simla Agreement and the supposed agreement between Mr Bhutto and Mrs Gandhi which was to turn the line of control into an international border. May be that happened, may be that didn't but a lot of people have subsequently said that it is the solution. From India's point of view, that is fine but from Pakistan's point of view, it confirms India's illegitimate occupation. So if India wants Pakistan to recognise the line of control then it has to make a framework where Pakistanis can feel friendlier. It's a chicken and egg situation: which comes first? It's going to take 10-15 years for some improved difference provided they move in the right direction; if we're lucky they will. If it moves in the wrong direction, things will stay where they are. India also has to give Kashmiris some sort of guarantee that they won't be deprived of their special position and that economic development will be made.
Q: Pakistan highlights the Kashmir issue in international forums yet it continues to be ignored. Does the west pay heed to the problems in Kashmir?
A: The west knows that Kashmir is a conflict situation. India made a miscalculation when it detonated the first (nuclear) tests because, for a little while, it reminded the rest of the world that there was a risk of war with Pakistan over Kashmir. That led western countries to at least think about internationalising the Kashmir issue but it seems to have faded again. The rest of the world does recognise the threat; there's always a threat of an accidental war. I don't think there's a high risk, it would be suicidal apart from anything else.
Q: Have the two countries taken enough measures for better ties in the future?
A: They have been talking to each other more or less even though those talks haven't amounted to much. Take the Lahore Declaration. There's not much in the Declaration that hasn't been included in previous discussions between Benazir and Rajiv; yet people had forgotten. So when Vajpayee and Sharif say the same thing it is suddenly rediscovered which indicates how little progress has been made since earlier talks. In fact, the Benazir and Rajiv meeting looked just like the period where things would get a lot better but they didn't and it looked just the same as Vajpayee's bus trip to Pakistan.
Economic cooperation between the two countries is a step forward. The idea of Pakistan selling electricity to India is a good idea. The interesting thing is that they have a similar stance against the west in that they are both determined to show that they are not going to knuckle under all the pressure. Of course, they are doing it because of each other, because of their fear for each other but at the same time it creates a similar platform.
Q: Pakistanis seem to Ôfear' the speed at which India is growing Ð both in terms of military and economic growth. Is that fear justified, especially in light of the bomb?
A: The fears are understandable but I don't know if the word Ôjustified' is correct. Are the Indians justified in fearing China? There's no reason why the Chinese are going to threaten India but that situation may change in 10-15 years Ð Indian authorities may have to note the possibility seriously. In the same way, there's no threat that India will take over Pakistan tomorrow but the threat will always remain. Pakistan has to be alert, always. India is a mightier nation so its fear of Pakistan is restricted to viewing it as a nuisance as they attribute the Kashmiri insurgency in the '90s to Pakistan.
As far as the bombs are concerned, Pakistan tested after a three-week period and a lot of pressure was put on them not to test; countries were promising to Ôlook after' them although Americans were careful not to say that they would give Pakistan a full nuclear guarantee. There were a few in Pakistan who subscribed to the view that Pakistan should prove the world wrong and not test. But on the other side, you had people like Advani who was giving speeches saying that Ôwe're going to sort Kashmir out.'
Q: But even after the devices were tested, and talks were held, there have been random incidents of firing on the border. Plus, the Agni and Prithvi issue has reared its ugly head again. Could third party intervention solve the tension; Pakistan advocates it?
A: The cure, and there is no magic cure, has to come from themselves. This tension is not all about Kashmir, it's about what Kashmir stands for. Both Pakistan and India are large nations ÐÊIndia is larger and it is desperately anxious to avoid this second-class status. None of the countries want another war. I genuinely believe that if you had a government in India with an overwhelming majority, like Nawaz Sharif has, than you might get some significant changes happening, for example with the Kashmir status. As long as you've got any coalition government, whether BJP led or Congress led, you won't see realistic changes because each coalition is vulnerable to criticism both from within the coalition and outside just like Benazir Bhutto was always vulnerable. Sharif at least has the opposition where he wants them and has considerable sway within his own party but it takes two to play. At the same time, he can't make too many concessions. He couldn't say okay we'll have the line of control as a border without any major changes'; India's not going to settle for a joint co-dominion of the valley. I don't think third party intervention would do anything. The Indians aren't going to accept American mediation. Pakistan would because it would prove their point of Indian aggression in Kashmir.
Q: Would economic cooperation between the countries ease the tension?
A: For Pakistan, too much cooperation is threatening because it means that the Punjabi industry is going to be overwhelmed by these developments. When I.K. Gujral was prime minister, he did make some concessions. He did not insist that Pakistan would reciprocate on everything but I can imagine Indian industrialists thinking how long will that (unequal treatment) go on'. It is difficult.
Dr David Taylor speaks to Muna Khan on the possibility of easing tensions between India and Pakistan
Dr David Taylor has been on the faculty of the School of Oriental and African Studies since 1970, where he is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Pro-Director for Taught Courses. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and London, Dr Taylor has made many visits to Pakistan and India.
Q: Can Pakistan and India be friends?
A: First they have to ask what are the reasons for the hostilities between them. One immediately comes to Kashmir. Then one needs to ask what Kashmir symbolises. I think that Kashmir has come to symbolise different things to different generations; for people around 55-60 years of age it still represents something to do with Partition, with the disruptions that many people had to face. For other people, it is like a dreadful football game with a 'we have to beat the other side' attitude which ultimately has no logic to it. It's simply a case of one country wanting to be top dog. International systems have to find ways of coping with countries' desires to be seen as superior to the other and yet, at the same time living together, comfortably as friends. There is a similar European example: the French and the British are elbowing each other. Both countries want to be taken seriously in Europe and all that business about who should be appointed the first chairman of the European Central Bank with each country anxious to have their person as the top dog, but that didn't stop a lot of straight forward personal level contact. Kashmir in that context could be no more than just a symbol, it could co-exist with friendship. But it won't until some solution is found to the human rights problem. From the Pakistani perspective, they see a huge number of potential Pakistanis deserving to be treated in a better manner, whereas the Indian perspective is that Islamic fundamentalism is trying to take over Kashmir and push out the Hindus. The symbol of Kashmir does prevent the friendship from developing but it doesn't mean that it is impossible to resolve the issue.
Q: So, is Kashmir the hurdle between better relations with India?
A: You have to develop a framework where people feel a solution is possible. Look at Northern Ireland: apart from the IRA, ordinary middle-class opinion of the south recognises that Tony Blair or John Major were making serious efforts to solve this issue. Northern Ireland was an issue but it wasn't an insurmountable issue so that they could get over that hurdle even though that hurdle hadn't vanished. You could have something like that in Kashmir. If you put it from an Indian point of view, the settlement is there; it is based on the Simla Agreement and the supposed agreement between Mr Bhutto and Mrs Gandhi which was to turn the line of control into an international border. May be that happened, may be that didn't but a lot of people have subsequently said that it is the solution. From India's point of view, that is fine but from Pakistan's point of view, it confirms India's illegitimate occupation. So if India wants Pakistan to recognise the line of control then it has to make a framework where Pakistanis can feel friendlier. It's a chicken and egg situation: which comes first? It's going to take 10-15 years for some improved difference provided they move in the right direction; if we're lucky they will. If it moves in the wrong direction, things will stay where they are. India also has to give Kashmiris some sort of guarantee that they won't be deprived of their special position and that economic development will be made.
Q: Pakistan highlights the Kashmir issue in international forums yet it continues to be ignored. Does the west pay heed to the problems in Kashmir?
A: The west knows that Kashmir is a conflict situation. India made a miscalculation when it detonated the first (nuclear) tests because, for a little while, it reminded the rest of the world that there was a risk of war with Pakistan over Kashmir. That led western countries to at least think about internationalising the Kashmir issue but it seems to have faded again. The rest of the world does recognise the threat; there's always a threat of an accidental war. I don't think there's a high risk, it would be suicidal apart from anything else.
Q: Have the two countries taken enough measures for better ties in the future?
A: They have been talking to each other more or less even though those talks haven't amounted to much. Take the Lahore Declaration. There's not much in the Declaration that hasn't been included in previous discussions between Benazir and Rajiv; yet people had forgotten. So when Vajpayee and Sharif say the same thing it is suddenly rediscovered which indicates how little progress has been made since earlier talks. In fact, the Benazir and Rajiv meeting looked just like the period where things would get a lot better but they didn't and it looked just the same as Vajpayee's bus trip to Pakistan.
Economic cooperation between the two countries is a step forward. The idea of Pakistan selling electricity to India is a good idea. The interesting thing is that they have a similar stance against the west in that they are both determined to show that they are not going to knuckle under all the pressure. Of course, they are doing it because of each other, because of their fear for each other but at the same time it creates a similar platform.
Q: Pakistanis seem to Ôfear' the speed at which India is growing Ð both in terms of military and economic growth. Is that fear justified, especially in light of the bomb?
A: The fears are understandable but I don't know if the word Ôjustified' is correct. Are the Indians justified in fearing China? There's no reason why the Chinese are going to threaten India but that situation may change in 10-15 years Ð Indian authorities may have to note the possibility seriously. In the same way, there's no threat that India will take over Pakistan tomorrow but the threat will always remain. Pakistan has to be alert, always. India is a mightier nation so its fear of Pakistan is restricted to viewing it as a nuisance as they attribute the Kashmiri insurgency in the '90s to Pakistan.
As far as the bombs are concerned, Pakistan tested after a three-week period and a lot of pressure was put on them not to test; countries were promising to Ôlook after' them although Americans were careful not to say that they would give Pakistan a full nuclear guarantee. There were a few in Pakistan who subscribed to the view that Pakistan should prove the world wrong and not test. But on the other side, you had people like Advani who was giving speeches saying that Ôwe're going to sort Kashmir out.'
Q: But even after the devices were tested, and talks were held, there have been random incidents of firing on the border. Plus, the Agni and Prithvi issue has reared its ugly head again. Could third party intervention solve the tension; Pakistan advocates it?
A: The cure, and there is no magic cure, has to come from themselves. This tension is not all about Kashmir, it's about what Kashmir stands for. Both Pakistan and India are large nations ÐÊIndia is larger and it is desperately anxious to avoid this second-class status. None of the countries want another war. I genuinely believe that if you had a government in India with an overwhelming majority, like Nawaz Sharif has, than you might get some significant changes happening, for example with the Kashmir status. As long as you've got any coalition government, whether BJP led or Congress led, you won't see realistic changes because each coalition is vulnerable to criticism both from within the coalition and outside just like Benazir Bhutto was always vulnerable. Sharif at least has the opposition where he wants them and has considerable sway within his own party but it takes two to play. At the same time, he can't make too many concessions. He couldn't say okay we'll have the line of control as a border without any major changes'; India's not going to settle for a joint co-dominion of the valley. I don't think third party intervention would do anything. The Indians aren't going to accept American mediation. Pakistan would because it would prove their point of Indian aggression in Kashmir.
Q: Would economic cooperation between the countries ease the tension?
A: For Pakistan, too much cooperation is threatening because it means that the Punjabi industry is going to be overwhelmed by these developments. When I.K. Gujral was prime minister, he did make some concessions. He did not insist that Pakistan would reciprocate on everything but I can imagine Indian industrialists thinking how long will that (unequal treatment) go on'. It is difficult.
Comment