India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace

IMGXYZ508IMGZYXSamina Ahmed presented the findings of International Crisis Group’s (ICG) recent study “India, Pakistan and Kashmir: Stabilising a Cold Peace”, which employs a three - pronged analysis, focusing in-depth on the individual identities and collective complexities of India, Pakistan and Kashmir, to help determine whether movement towards a stable peace has occurred after the November 2004 cease fire.

The study, released on June 15, 2006, expands the dialogue of previous ICG studies and through the discussion of history, identity and possible solutions, analyzes the speed and trajectory of the normalization process.

In her analysis and presentation, Ahmed concluded that it is wishful thinking to assume that a solution is “around the corner”. Although important steps have been made since the November 2004 cease fire, such as re-establishing communication and shipping routes, such movements were more symbolic than substantive. Moreover, the lack of any real progress on the more contentious issues – including delineating the land and boundaries and continuation of fragile relations – have not yet allowed the relationship to progress beyond the normalization process.

Ahmed noted, however, that the “direction” of the relationship is more important than its speed, especially because this conflict is no longer a regional issue. Nuclear capabilities have transformed this conflict into an international matter with farther reaching implications. 

Ahmed pointed out that importance of peace has not gone unnoticed and both sides recognize they have much to gain from peace. In Pakistan, President Musharraf understands that Pakistan needs to retain the international support earned from its role in the “war on terror” and must continue to be seen as a responsible regional partner. India also wants to remain engaged in order to appeal to the international audience. Further, India recognizes the importance of domestic stability. Despite the independent ‘peace calculus’ conducted by each country, this does not necessarily translate into a domestic political will  necessary to sustain momentum towards a peaceful resolution.

Moreover, the different approaches of both countries could complicate matters: Pakistan’s interest in a quick solution contrasts with India’s argument that they must first reach agreement on issues other than Kashmir. This variable alone indicates it is unlikely  that results will occur overnight.

Ahmed argued that confidence building measures (CBMs) – primarily communication ranging from meetings between local commanders to dialogue between civilians – are one way the two countries could stabilize relations. However, CBMs must be carefully devised and implemented to ensure progress and in this case, Ahmed stressed the importance of Kashmir’s inclusion in the planning, implementation and problem-solving of CBMs.  Thus far, however, CBMs have had limited success, yet the international community, particularly the U.S., has played an important role in helping both countries recognize the value of engagement.

Although this dialogue has certainly helped, the fundamental issues have not been resolved. Pakistan maintains that they will not accept Kashmir as part of India, while India argues that Kashmir is part of the union and its constitutional status is non-negotiable.  India is willing to give Kashmir autonomy but only within the framework of the Indian constitution.

Other deep seated issues remain unresolved such as India’s blame on Pakistan for causing the war by supporting jihadis and similar organizations.  India argues that in order to end the violence, Pakistan must cease its  support for these groups. The continued jihadi support by Pakistan increases the chance that younger populations will join the fringe groups and exacerbate the conflict. Pakistan on the other hand counters that India’s military presence does not help stabilize the area, rather it perpetuates the conflict and  creates new problems. In fact, there is an implicit recognition that targeted killings do exist in the guarded areas.

Although it seems that the peace process is moving towards resolution, it is crucial to note that both sides have different expectations and perceptions about the peace process. Pakistan must recognize that this process will take years of negotiating before the most important issues are addressed and gaps are reduced. Both countries must move slowly in a continued dialogue involving Kashmir in order to reduce the risk of war and stabilize the cold peace. Although Kashmir might not be able to provide a solution, it is important that its voice be heard throughout.

During question and answer session, Ahmed was asked how a democratic government in Pakistan would affect the dispute. Ahmed stated that democratization would undoubtedly help stabilize Pakistan and its relationship with India. She pointed out that the civilians supported a peace process with India but the military had more distrust. In a democratic Pakistan people’s voices would be represented which would help the long term success of a peace process.

Ahmed was asked whether there had been substantial progress in the past five years and whether the international community might be able to bring this conflict to a tipping point. Ahmed responded that although it seems that we have come a long way, we have only reached a cease fire. She pointed out that the international community has already played an important role by encouraging constant engagement.  In order to reach the tipping point, a combination of internal and external events must occur. Internally, domestically elected governments could help stabilize the relationship and provide civilian accountability. Leaders cannot draft processes by themselves and they must recognize that they can help solve problems on their own side. External influences are equally important. Pressure needs to be applied on Pakistan to end support for the jihadi organizations. India must also recognize that the security it provides in Kashmir has undermined India’s role and caused resentment.

On the question of the potential role of United States in improving the situation in Kashmir, Ahmed said that the United States must not be complacent. There is now a degree of comfort, due to the cease fire, that did not exist five years ago. She stressed that complacency is dangerous because it leads stakeholders and observers to assume that this relationship will be sustained on its own. It is important to make sure that the two countries remain engaged and try to minimize the spoilers.