Pakistan and India’s relationship can be characterized as that of mistrust and endemic conflict for the last sixty six years. This is unfortunate because a healthy and prosperous relationship between these two neighbors would have led to immense strategic, economic and cultural headway in the challenges that these two countries face today. In fact, the root cause of many of these challenges is this very antagonism that exists between these two countries. So what has given rise to this bad blood? The reasons are myriad and complex and I believe that one needs to look at both the Pakistani and Indian narrative to understand .
The seeds of this antagonism were the mindsets of the Congress Party and Muslim League. The congress party always believed that there primary struggle was to get the British out of subcontinent. They views Pakistan as an illegitimate child that could be throttled soon after its birth and made to join United India again. Sardar Patel who was to become the deputy Prime Minister of India expressed publicly that he hoped Pakistan would come join India and Nehru only agreed to the Partition because he felt that Pakistan could not last as an independent state. The Muslims on the hand were the descendants of an ancient conquering class who believed that they would prevail over the Hindus whenever the situation came to armed conflict. Given these mindsets it was preposterous even to assume that the two newly formed stated could follow a policy of reconciliation and respect.
Indian attempts to strangle the new born Muslim state soon confirmed the fears of the Pakistani leadership. The area that constitutes pre partition Pakistan was industrially under developed with the consequence that even though Pakistan had plenty of natural resources, the factories to process these resources were all located in India. India stopped all trade with Pakistan to handcuff it economically. Had it not been forn the Korean War, Pakistan would have been unable to sell its raw cotton and earn valuable revenue. It was the opportune timing of the Korean war due to which Pakistan was able to avoid extreme economic distress. The second attempt to strangle Pakistan materialized when India cut off all water supply to Pakistan from the Punjab rivers. It was only after British and United Nations pressure that India resumed the water supply. Lastly, India refused to provide the defense and financial payments that had been allocated to Pakistan out of United India’s resources. This time it was Mr. Gandhi who came to Pakistan’s rescue. Gandhi had been a strong opponent of partition but he was also a man of values. He believed that since partition had been agreed upon by all Hindu leaders, it was now the responsibility of India to give Pakistan its due share of resources. He went on a hunger strike to force the Indian leadership to release the financial and defense resources that had been held back.
However, the situation could have been better if the British had planned the partition with foresight and patience. The elimination of flashpoints such as territorial and water disputes could have made peace a real possibility. That possibility went to waste to Mountbatten’s search for glory who wanted to be the white man in history credited with the liberation and creation of Pakistan and India. It was in this search for glory that brought up the scheduled departure of the British from June 1948 to august 1947. With only a few weeks left to organize and arrange the partition, the British not only failed to think through the consequences of an undecided Kashmir but also failed to stop the massacre of millions of migrating Hindus and Muslims.
The division of the princely states between India and Pakistan is without doubt the most important factor which attributed to the animosity between Pakistan and India and has been a point of contention for the last sixty plus years. On 15th August 1947, accession agreements were signed by the rulers of the princely states proclaiming allegiance to either a India or Pakistan. British paramountcy was succeeded by one of these two states. Only a handful of the five hundred and sixty two states did not sign an accession agreement. Among these were Hyderabad and Junagadh who had Muslim rulers but Hindu majority populations. Both these states had no geographical contiguity with Pakistan but the rulers did not want to accede to India. India made short work of these states by sending in small contingents of the army and ousting the nawabs and other leadership. Plebiscites were then held in which the people voted for acceding to India in comfortable majorities.
The issue of Kashmir was much more complex and problematic. Kashmir shared borders with both India and Pakistan. Not only was it of great geostrategic importance due to its location and borders with Afghanistan and China, it was also the source of the five rivers that flowed through Pakistan and were the life blood of the Pakistani economy. Even though Kashmir had a Muslim majority, the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh was hesitant to accede to Pakistan. Pandit Kakh advised the Maharaja to sign a standstill agreement with Pakistan. The standstill agreement offered to Pakistan on 12th August 1947 was duly accepted and signed by Pakistan. Meanwhile, Kashmir also signed a standstill agreement with India. As the the chances of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan started to dim, armed Muslim agitation in Kashmir started against the Maharaja which was supported by the Pathans in the Frontier. These rebels started marching towards Srinagar with an aim of wresting Kashmir from the Maharaja’s control. Pakistan also wanted to make sure that Kashmir sided with Pakistan. To that effect, Jinnah requested the support of the army for the Pakhtoon rebels. However, Pakistani army intervention would have definitely solicited similar action from the Indian army. Since both these armies were led by British commanders (Gracy from the Pakistani side and Oakenhart from India), the commanders decided that it would be dangerous for the stability of India and let the situation play out. As the tribal elements reached Srinagar, they started looting and plundering instead of securing the airport. The Indian cabinet decided to send in six aircrafts filled with Indian troops who repelled the tribal elements and secured Srinagar and adjacent areas. This was done without the approval of the maharaja and an expost facto agreement was signed by him on the 25th of October. A large part of Kashmir came under Indian rule through this military intervention. Nehru went to the United Nations to seek an international solution to the problem. A resolution was passed asking both armies to withdraw from Kashmir and a plebiscite to be held in which the local people be given the right to choose to accede to the country of their choice. India reneged on its promise of holding a plebiscite causing widespread anger in Pakistan. The reasons given by the India were that Pakistan never withdrew its army from Azad Kashmir which was an integral part of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. Things did not change even when the resolution was amended and terms of synchronous withdrawal of both armies from Kashmir were added. India further added that due to military aid agreements between Pakistan and America (SEATO and CENTO), the situation in the subcontinent had changed so dramatically that a plebiscite was not an valid option. Furthermore, India used the provincial elections that it had held in Kashmir as an excuse to say that the Kashmiris had used their right of freedom to indicate that they wanted to be a part of India and increasing turnout in this election was in fact an indicator of Kashmiri acquiescence to Indian control. The Kashmir issue needed special mention because it has been the cause of 3 wars between Pakistan and India. After the undeclared war of 1947, Pakistan sent 5000 armed men and militia in Indian occupied Kashmir in 1965 to encourage an uprising which provoked India in attacking across the Line of control in Lahore district. Tension flared between the two neighbours over Siachen (which is in an undecided area in Kashmir) when both armies tried to establish their tactical and strategic advantage in 1999, almost causing an international nuclear accident.
Sir Creek, Siachen and the Kashmir issue have continued to be thorns in the way of healthy relationship between the two neighbours. The question of paramount importance is: can things move in the right direction in the future? Is it possible for India and Pakistan to come to an agreement which can be mutually beneficial as well acceptable for both parties? I believe that the answer is “yes” and lies in a two pronged approach. This approach revolves around the amicable settlement of the Kashmir issue as well as strengthening the economic ties between the two neighbours.
The Kashmir issue needs to be resolved because it will remain a bone of contention if status quo is maintained. Given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers now, the stakes are infinitely high and any future armed conflict can lead to devastating consequences. I feel that a lesson needs to be learned by the Indus treaty agreement of 1960. Even though Pakistan and India went to war several times after the treaty, it was never reneged upon. One factor was the involvement of an international force i-e the World Bank. Any future Kashmir agreement needs to be backed by an international guarantor to make sure that it is respected by both sides. Needless to say, both sides need to show flexibility to come to an arrangement. Pakistan should stop dreaming of getting the whole of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir, Northern Areas, Jammu and Ladakh) and vice versa. Things can be picked up either from the Chenab formula or the four point agreement that Musharaf and BJP came very close to signing. I feel that for a long lasting arrangement, the will of the Kashmiri people need to be taken into account as well. Given the presence of a multitude of factors, I propose that a small part of Kashmir i-e the Kashmir valley be given independent status or be managed under the joint supervision of both India and Pakistan. Regional plebiscites should be held in the Kashmir Valley and adjoining areas and the results of which should be respected. Furthermore, the northern areas and Azad Kashmir be given to Pakistan while the areas of Ladakh and Jammu are handed over to India. This agreement would ensure that neither party would have to give up areas of strategic importance (Northern Areas for Pakistan and Ladakh for India) while the will of the Kashmiri people would be respected as well. Of course, every party will have to show flexibility and give up a part of their claims but in the long run, the benefits would certainly outweigh the cost.
The second part of this approach is the creation and strengthening of economic ties between the two neighbours. Pakistan needs to grant India the status of Most Favoured Nation while India needs to remove the non-tariff barriers that it has placed on Pakistani imports. Strong economic relationships have often led to great diplomatic relationships. This happens because the value of trade and economic cooperation acts as an opportunity cost that deters armed conflict. Both sides have more to lose in case of worsening of relationships. We can see in the case of China and America that a strong economic relationship had led to improving diplomatic relationship as well. It is absurd that two countries such as Pakistan and India which share such a long border have minimal trade relationships. Not only will improvement in economic relationship lead to better foreign relations, they will be of great benefit to consumers on either side of the border.
To conclude, I would like to point out that Pakistan and India have a relatively short history. The problems and conflicts that the two nations are embroiled in may be complex but are far from unsolvable. The history of the world has seen great friends emerging after hundreds of years of war and thousands of deaths. But it is extremely important that the leadership of both these countries realize the benefits which can be achieved through the normalization of relationships. Hard decisions need to be made and flexibility needs to be shown but such measures are imperative for success in the long run.