Abstrict

Pakistan and India are two immediate neighbors having common history and culture; in this way, they should have the warmest ties, but their relationships have remained hostile all the time. Kashmir is very important between the two states, over which three main wars have been fought between them. Despite some important and effective peace initiatives, the main problems in maintaining the bitter taste in bilateral relations remain unresolved. Pakistan has always been pleased to suggest mitigating measures, but India’s response is generally not so good. Today, more than 70 years after independence, both Pakistan and India are not concerned for solving long lasting issues like the Kashmir issue, and water issue. Peace process and stability in South Asia lies between the two major countries. So, South Asian regional security structure is affected by the two main players of this region because they cannot find a peaceful solution of lingering issues.

Keywords

Pakistan And India, Conflicts, Issues, Regional Security, South Asia.

Historical Background of Pakistan India Relations

After gaining the liberation of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam in a meeting convened in the Chamber of Commerce Bombay said that “We will live in Pakistan and you will live in India. In this way, we will be the neighbors. We want to live in a friendly way, friends in trade and commerce as two brothers” (Hilali, 2005). India and Pakistan were birthed out of bloody partition that heartened each to define herself in hostility towards the other, and they have waged four wars since partition. India has a hegemonic design and never maintains good relations with other small neighboring countries in South Asia (Oimstead, 2014).

Pakistan and India have negotiated at various issues between 1984 and 1997, including the disputes over Siachen, sir creek and Tulbul or Wular, with little achievement. The representatives met, debated and prepared contracts, but final approval of management was lacking due to years of mistrust, hate and hostility between the two nations. Neither India nor Pakistan was willing to take the step by changing the positions previously mentioned and finding a compromise or another position. Firearms continued to explode, security forces continued to fight, exhaustion and terrorism continued to kill thousands, and negotiators met on a regular basis, but no positive conversion took place at that time.

The Kashmir conflict, the unfinished agenda of partition further plagued their ties with hostility and suspicion. Pakistan has faced three major wars; 1948, 1965 and 1971, and later on, the Kargil conflict and many other serious clashes. Pakistan and India have faced many security risks from the first day of the partition of the sub-continent due to the hostile relationship which was the major challenge for Pakistan in the past. As a matter of fact, traditional Indian capabilities were a major threat to Pakistan, but the atmosphere changed between the two states after a nuclear explosion in 1998. After nuclear tests in May 1998, the head of state and government of India showed typical pragmatism in the fight against long-standing uprisings in Kashmir. India considered this a better force than Pakistan. In the face of this threat, Pakistan conducted its own nuclear test and made a political decision to ignore all global pressure. Government decisions received general support at the national level, which allowed leaders to cope with national restrictions associated with nuclear explosions. The interplay of nuclear and traditional threats is a new dimension in Pakistan-India relations. Nuclear tests created some equilibrium of power in the region which forced a settlement of the Kargil crisis of 1999 (Johnson, 2005).

There is a clear demonstration of nuclear weapons in the subcontinent that has drawn attention to this region of the international community, especially the Kashmir issue. Pakistani and Indian officials say nuclear deterrence has minimized the likelihood of a major war in the region. However, there is a possibility of misunderstanding, and technical errors can lead to accidental nuclear wars.

Timely access to real-time nuclear weapons information has become more important. This deficit will have grave concerns and challenges for the population and society of both states. South Asian countries inherited a weak, backward and traditional economic substructure from their colonial masters or the indigenous authoritarian rulers. Except for Sri Lanka and India where some kind of infrastructural development had taken place during the colonial rule, the other countries lacked even the basic economic infrastructure. All the South Asian countries began with the process of modernization and development in the fifties. There have been numerous problems and challenges which have affected the South Asian economies. Despite deep cultural, social, historical and geographical connections, the unusual pattern of positive and passive conflicts between the two South Asian neighbors effectively alienates and separates them  (Upreti, B.C).

In the general sphere of suspicion, rivalry and mistrust, new and unexpected problems emerged after 1947 and became extra signs of apparently endless conflict between Pakistan and India. One country's failures, frustrations, and mistakes made one of the most important news in another country, and the gap that widened in 1947 grew even larger. However, other factors bring them closer together or at least prevent them from worsening the conflict. Behind the current rivalry is the recognition of common cultural ties, economic interdependence and, in particular, the desire to avoid a frontal confrontation in the shadow of nuclear weapons. Their relationships are therefore contradictory: the search for solutions to old conflicts goes hand in hand with the emergence of new problems, sometimes separated and sometimes more closely connected.

Theoretical Framework

The security concept has several implications. Therefore, it must be contextualized. According to Barry Bazan, people do not share the same idea of security because of moral, ideological and regulatory differences. Thus, safety aspects are always determined using a different set of theoretical foundations. Security can only be seen in the real world as a derivative of power or as a synonym for power (Stone 2009).

“The core of this human-centered approach is normative and can be attributed to social constructivism. The ideal path from a curious and realistic concept of national security to a more comprehensive concept of security, such as human security”, to help people engage with local and global levels as a change that shows the power of ideas to model. (Kim 2010). To frame a recognized aspect of reality to facilitate processing to identify specific issues, an interpretation of causality, a moral assessment, and / or recommendations for the article described and the essence of the message to further highlight it. The theoretical framework of the study will follow the Realist approach and its fusion with the Regional Security Complex Theory of Barry Buzan. “Security emerged as one of the main concerns of the contemporary world, but its implementation in South Asia is rear. Security is a difficult concept as compared to other concepts of social sciences as power, justice, peace, equality and freedom due to its ambiguity” (Buzan & Weaver, 2003).

Kashmir Issue

“There are various viewpoints regarding Kashmir issue due to a difference in ideology and interests. The simple issue of the right of self-determination has been turned into a complex conflict between India and Pakistan” (Rizvi, 1994).The Kashmir conflict has been a burning issue for many years waiting for a solution. On 1 January 1949, a ceasefire agreement was signed between Pakistan and India by UN resolution. But India has never done that. Since both countries' views and demands for Kashmir are different, the issue remains an unresolved and serious conflict. The unresolved conflict in Kashmir has proved a security threat in the South Asian region (Korbel, 1966).

India and Pakistan have fought many wars and the main motive behind the wars has been Kashmir. If we look at this point according to the partition plan it is clear that Kashmir is part of Pakistan. But India, while applying its binding policy, wants to continue at any cost. India has a very rigid and binding policy on the Kashmir issue. Because of the vast majority of Muslims in Kashmir, he was convinced that the state of Kashmir would annex Pakistan. The main motive behind the score was the theory of two countries that inspired Muslims from the subcontinent to get a separate homeland where they could easily live their lives in Islam. Hindus and some Muslims rejected the idea of the theory of two countries and declared that the Indian National Congress was the only representative party in India. The Muslims of Pakistan and Kashmir believe that the distribution is incomplete without the annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan because the main reason for the division was the violation of the theory of the two nations. These two neighboring countries have already fought three major wars in the Kashmir conflict but failed. However, Kashmir's issue should not be a reason for war between both neighbors as it is a justifiable struggle of Kashmiri people for a basic right, the right of self-determination in the light of the UN resolutions. This right was provided to exercise the people of 584 Princely States, but Kashmiri people are denied until now in this modern era (Yousaf, 1994).




Kashmir conflict and Four-Point Formula of Musharraf 

Since inception in 1947, the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir has been a great conflict between Pakistan and India. After seven decades, the two have not been able to move on to a consensus on this unfinished agenda and carried on to a zero-sum approach to the issue. Even their narratives and agendas on the issue are different from each other. Pakistan furthered the case of Kashmiris in order to internationalize the issue after the 1989-90 mutiny and India’s attempt to tackle the Kashmiris by adopting repressive measures. It was also reckoned that it was Gen. Musharraf, who moved the Kashmir conundrum further from Pakistan’s recognized posture than any of his pioneers in the past. In order to break a stalemate in 2001, he himself met with Indian PM Atal Behari Vajpayee that had proved to be a defining movement on the way to normalizing relations with India. Musharraf stated that “we are for the United Nations Security Council resolutions. However, now we have left that aside, adding further, if we want to resolve this issue, both sides need to talk to each other with flexibility, coming beyond stated positions, meeting halfway somewhere. We are prepared to rise to the occasion. India has to be flexible too” (Shah &Riaz, 2013). President Musharraf proposed a solution by suggesting a Four-Point Formula on the Kashmir issue during his interview with the Indian Television Network (NDTV) on 5th December 2006. This formula pleaded:

1. “Demilitarization or phased withdrawal of troops

2. There will be no change in the borders of Kashmir. However, people of Jammu & Kashmir will be allowed to move freely across the Line of Control.

3. Self-governance without independence

4. A joint supervision mechanism in Jammu and Kashmir involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir” (Ali, 2011). 

Kargil Conflict

The Kargil issue itself is not considered a complete war, “but it is one of the serious conflicts between 

Pakistan and India. The region is important in the context of the Kashmir problem because there was an Indian reinforcing line in the Kashmir Valley. The war highlighted the serious threat of nuclear war. Both states tested the atomic bomb just before the conflict. The conflict ended with the intervention of the international community and prevented it from becoming a full nuclear war” (Hussain, 2006)

Kargil crises became an eye-opener for the United States when in 1999 Pakistan and India fought at the edge of nuclear war, which was only averted by the intervention of the United States. From then onwards the US has been worried regarding the explosive condition of south Asia. The US has convinced Pakistan and India to come to the talks table to discuss and resolve disputed issues including the Kashmir problem recently and on the insistence of United States there have been a serious of negotiations and visits on both official and public to public levels between Pakistan and India (Javaid, 2013)

The conflict ended with the intervention of the international community. In particular, the United States convinced Pakistan and India to come to a negotiating table to discuss and resolve unresolved issues, including the Kashmir issue. The conflict took more than 1,200 lives on both sides.

Water Issue

In 1948 India cut off the supply of water to Pakistan and this fact alarmed the Pakistani population imagining a possible scenario where Jammu and Kashmir are under the complete dominion of India. This is shared not only by the outbreak of the conflict in Kashmir but also by the often intense conflicts over water resources and the distribution of conflicts, numerous border issues and allegations of ethnic minority movements. Much of the debate on the relationship between India and Pakistan is inconsistent and is often recorded in bitter language both within the government and in the media (Raghavan, 2013).

The reason for starting this topic is that water is one of the most important provisions of the present timetable. Future wars on water are due to the fact that this important resource with an increasing world population is almost over and energy demand is increasing. “For this very reason, several countries are in a state of maintaining their hegemony over different water reservoirs to secure it for their future needs. India being an upper and Pakistan a lower riparian state are in a constant turf over Indus basin and water distribution. India is violating the treaty by building dams on Pakistan’s due water share because of this the state of Pakistan is facing extreme problems like power shortage being the pivotal one. Pakistan has to ease down its political tensions and start-up with its hydroelectric power projects to meet their energy needs. Both the states should reach up to amicable solutions in relation to water especially because peace between India and Pakistan means tranquility and peace in South Asia” (Barlow, 2009). 

Terrorism

It is stated that “Every nation’s primary goal is to protect and secure adequate defense for its homeland. No nation feels comfortable living under a security threat. Security in the Third World countries (that includes Pakistan as well) states cantered in character in terms of both its territory and institutions and to the security of those who profess to represent the state territorially and institutionally”. South Asian region is declared as the most politically unstable place where terrorism, suicide attacks, target killings and assassination on the basis of political, sectarian and ethnic lines etc. The “War on Terrorism” has turned out to be the most critical clash of the 21st century and it is Pakistan that has endured the most in this war. “Role of Pakistan in the war on terror has caused multidimensional” exterior security coercion to the country. Pakistan has been the greatest victim of this entire war. Pakistan’s situation as compared to the other actors in Afghanistan has also taken serious beatings (Goraya, 2014). By making Pakistan a front line state, such a game is being played that Pakistan is America’s friend and foe at the same time. After 9/11, Pakistan has become a war theater of a blind war. Who is against whom, it is becoming difficult to assess with every passing day (Javaid, 2013).

Confidence-building Measures (CBMs)

Confidence-building measures can be defined as a method that strengthens the security of the heart and

 the belief in the dignity of national trust. “Confidence is the product of much broader patterns of relations than those which relate to military security. In fact, the latter has to be woven into a complex texture of economic, cultural, technical and social relationships. The concept of CBMs is commonly believed to have originated in Europe in the 1970s in the backdrop of East-West confrontation. However such measures were already being practiced elsewhere in the world, though not named as such. In South Asia, there is a long list of what can be termed CBMs, dating back to the 1949 Karachi” (Javaid, 2006), including the agreement, formalizing the ceasefire in Kashmir. Significant confidence-building measures have been taken in some key areas. With regard to Jammu and Kashmir, a central theme of Pakistan, which continues to advocate a peaceful settlement based on Security Council resolutions in support of Kashmir's right to self-determination, a series of confidence committees have been established in the lives of the Kashmiri. The bus lines Muzaffarabad-Srinagar and Rawalakot Poonch, as well as a commercial connection between Kashmir, have been established. The worldly bond between the people of Kashmir and their brothers in Pakistan has been restored somewhat. The Kashmiri liberation leaders visited Pakistan (Javaid, 2006).

The Role of the US and major powers for peacekeeping

The conflict and its consequences have plunged the region into a volatile, unstable and divided security zone that in the long term does not seem to be beneficial to protecting US interests in the region. As a result, US security options in the region have always promoted the regional situation for a fair settlement of the Kashmir dispute. Although the US perception over the Kashmir issue has been changed with the passage of time; the fundamental position that Kashmir is a controversial area between India and Pakistan has not changed. US officials have recognized that a harmonized perception of strategic developments in South Asia in Islamabad and New Delhi could create a favorable climate for both neighbors to work together for peace and security in the region. Therefore, Washington has consistently pushed Islamabad and New Delhi towards a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute. For its part, the United States has always played a role in carrying out the preventive diplomacy of the crisis and persuading the two rivals to join the negotiations (Ejaz, 2016).

Major regional and international powers have chased an out-dated balance of power approach while ignoring the fact that their interests can be better served by a partnership with South Asian nations. Their long and persistent influence in decision making in South Asia has impacted the political evolution of these states. To some extent, all the regional states are facing internal democratic disorders yet the non-reconciliatory role of external powers has shaped the political landscape of the region. Divide and rule strategy and exploitation of the political differences among the South Asian has been used so skillfully that the breach has almost touched the peak, which directly and indirectly served the interests of the major powers.

Political Instability 

According to Javaid, in those days “Pakistan is facing different types of security and terrorist threats from various Taliban organizations. In the tribal areas of Pakistan, so many extremist groups are active to destabilize Pakistan. Pakistan also has many issues regarding its sovereignty and economic welfare. However, there are so many internal and external players who played a very negative role in the economy of Pakistan. Pakistan is in a precarious situation today largely because of its internal problems and instability. Sectarian, Ethnic and provincial conflicts are common and terrorist activity; corruption and crime are rising in number. Pakistan has weak internal security which is damaging its international repute. In India the situation is quite opposite, it is more stable internally, developing economically and is therefore viewed as politically, economically and strategically possessing, precisely what is necessary for the stability of South Asia, in the eyes of US” (Javaid, 2013).

Prominent groups like political, religious and ethnic are increasingly using violence and terrorism, sometimes even as a democratic and legal instrument, which has led to several incidents that have occurred over the past fifteen years. There have been ethno-linguistic movements in all the Provinces, as well as sectarian and tribal conflicts in many areas, resulting in the convergence of multiple typologies and a widespread Islamic radicalization. The reasons for this situation are multi-dimensional and /8*9-+represent a complex phenomenon, to be considered as a part of a un-manageable process o\ socio-cultural change creating tension and social crises (Corsi, 2004)

Role of Media

The media can be another very significant source to alter the existing misperceptions on both sides about each other’s intentions. Both electronic and print media should try to play their role in a very professional way. The mishandling of various issues by media had been proved the main problem to stabilization of relations between these two major players of South Asia. Exaggerated facts and propaganda not necessarily always produce fruitful results. The role of media can be highly constructive regarding the resolution of various issues such as, to highlight different aspects of involving issues and to discuss available possible options to solve problems. This is one of the major responsibilities upon the shoulders of media of both states Pakistan and India in securing durable peace and harmony in the region of South Asia (Javaid, 2013).

On the other hand, media hostility is another challenge and “a reason for the failure of peace efforts between the two sides. Media propaganda on both sides was mainly conducted by the Indian media. In the event of an incident, militant attack or terrorist attack, the media blamed the other state, as in almost all cases the Indian media attacked Pakistan for the incident. The most important example is the Samjhota Express Blasts in 2006, which killed more than 100 Pakistanis but indoctrinated media blamed Pakistan for the attack. However, in the further course of the investigation, it was proved that the far-right Hindus were involved in the attack. This negative media propaganda was not controlled by any party, leading to greater hostility between the two states”. So, the media and societal animosity had often failed representatives for negotiations because in certain cases the parties were unwilling to accept the suggested formula, as Musharraf's five-pronged cashmere method was severely rejected by the Pakistanis in 2004 and at selected point by the media launched its own campaign that did not survive the conflict resolution process (Khan, 2013).

Impact on Regional Security

The region is usually known as one of the most dangerous regions and named the ‘nuclear flashpoint’ in the world. The vulnerability to the ethnic, sectarian, religious conflicts and continuous cross border terrorism is, due to the inadequate basic necessities or facilities. Alarming security conditions of war-trodden Afghanistan, military antagonism among bigger states of the region, nuclearization, historical intra-state conflicts and rivalries, along with the widespread and systematic human rights violations are the unprecedented threats to peace and harmony among the regional states (Lodhi, 2001).

A significant challenge to regional security pertains to Pakistan’s threat perceptions about India’s military intentions and nuclear weapons program (Jaspal, 2011). In the Pakistani view, the flawed approach of the Modi government toward crisis management has placed the regional security in danger, and tensions could escalate. The key to preserving the precarious stability in the region is to tackle the roots of regional tensions i.e. the Kashmir issue (Khan & Khan, 2016).

Suggestions and Recommendations

In the end, India and Pakistan must accelerate their efforts to solve the main problems. The two leaders make it clear that they must develop a mutually agreed solution to all controversial issues and agree on a framework for bilateral cooperation on mutually beneficial considerations. The following suggestions can be viewed or considered as a rough guide to the regulation.

Kashmir Issue

War has not solved the problem in the past. We believe that Kashmir can be a bridge of peace to both countries. India and Pakistan should pursue a peace process and a complex dialogue to resolve the Kashmir issue. They must make an explicit commitment to seek reconciliation by negotiating the conflict in Kashmir.

If the Kashmir issue during 2004-2005 is solved peacefully, there will be no further bloodshed, no mass migration, and no communal or ethnic disturbance. Only peaceful, workable, just, democratic and honorable measures can provide a lasting and peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem, which guarantees for the world in general and South Asian region, in particular, a peaceful and prosperous future. Kashmir must be involved in the negotiations, or the United Nations must play a constructive role in organizing a free and fair referendum.

Terrorism

Pakistan has the highest priority in the fight against terrorism. India must agree to control planning with various extremists, share material on terrorist activities, and coordinate anti-terrorism policies.

CBMs

Due to the need for security and stability, India and Pakistan must take confidence-building measures for traditional security and non-traditional security. Several important steps have been taken in the past, and it is expected that both countries will continue to expand RCM activities to prevent escalation to traditional war threats and nuclear exchanges.

Trade Relations

They must understand that it is not only in the interests of the two countries but also of their immense population, to improve their trade relations, which will be of great benefit to both sides. The hostility between the countries Pakistan and India had affected the overall development of South Asia. It is regrettable that the South Asian region lags behind regional trade in comparison to other regions. The development and progress of South Asia are directly linked with the regional peace and stability.




Water Issue

Major Powers can play the role to solve the problems like the water issue and the Kashmir issue. They can play a role in sustaining peace and harmony in this region.

Liberalized Visa Policy

Promote social relations between Pakistan and India by relaxing visas policies and expanding travel opportunities. Governments need to be encouraged to communicate and tourism groups must be started in South Asian countries, including Pakistan and India.




Peace and security 

Peace and security will continue to be elusive and serve as hostages for the swift and timely resolution of major political disputes, especially between Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India were mediated by the United Nations, and it was decided to solve the Kashmir problem with the will of the Kashmiri people under the UN resolution, but India will not say it has never been implemented. The problem is still not solved. The great conflict between the two countries was the cause of three wars between the two hostile states.

Conclusion

Indo-Pak history is full of conflicts and appeasements. Since independence in 1947, they both have several mutual conflicts that escalated with the passage of time. Due to a variety of reasons, the efforts for the peaceful development and cooperation between the two South Asian states India and Pakistan initiated several times and finally stopped. Kashmir remained a core agenda between both the states since inception. These disputes were assessed on the basis of a negotiating framework that included the factors of maturity, new negotiations and contract. The aim was to examine the history of the Indo-Pakistani negotiations on these clashes in order to determine to what extent these four features of the negotiations influenced the final outcome and to draw important lessons from the achievable achievements.  Upcoming clashes and whether these achievements can be pretending in upcoming talks. The subsequent important lessons are important for future negotiations: First, dispute settlement must be handled according to the negotiating criteria, and the agreement is likely to be successful. Second, to increase the chances of achievement, it is significant to start edges in a mature environment. A third, the link between the outstanding disputes and the Kashmir issue should only be solved by negotiations. Fourth, the political determination to range an agreement and implement it is as vital as the political will to negotiate. While internal political aspects play an impressive role in resolving skirmishes, courageous and determined headship can make the critical change between achievement and failure, hope and despair.

At any cost, the peace process must be continued. A neutral posture should be adopted by Pakistani and Indian representatives. Certain Confidence Building Measures should be adopted by both sides. Ties at the diplomatic level and people-to-people contact should be enhanced more and more. Flexibility should be observed on the principles and points in dialogue in order to resolve major outstanding bilateral issues between both the states.

References

• Ali, N. (2011).
• Barlow, M. (2009). Blue covenant: The global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water. McClelland & Stewart.
• Buzan, B., & Weaver, O. (2003).Regions and Powers, The Structure of International Security. United States: Press of Cambridge
• Corsi, M. (2004). INTERNAL CONFLICTS IN PAKISTAN. Istituto per l'Oriente C. A. Nallino , 39-49.
• Ejaz, A. (2016). US Security policy toward South Asia.Pakistan Study Centre
• Hilali, A.Z. (2005).
• Hussain, J. (2006). Kargil: what might have happened? Dawn.
• Jaspal, Z. N. (2011). Towards Nuclear Zero in South Asia: a Realistic Narrative. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 22(-1), 75-97. DOI:10.3318/isia.2011.22.75
• Javaid, J. (2012). Peace building in South Asia: Limitations and Prospectus. Lahore, University of the Punjab.
• Javaid, U. (2013). Security concerns in South Asia, Lahore, University of the Punjab.
• Javaid, U. (2013). South Asia in Perspective. Lahore: CSAS, University of the Punjab.86
• Javaid, U.(2006). Peace and Security in South Asia: Issues and Challenges. Lahore, Pakistan Study Centre, University of the Punjab.
• Johnson, R. (2005). A Region in Turmoil: South Asian Conflicts since 1947. Reaktion Books, London, UK.p.99.
• Kim, Sung Won.
• Korbel, Josef. (1966). Danger in Kashmir, California: Princeton University Press.
• Malheea, Lodhi. Security challenges in South Asia. retrieved on 13-11-2019.
• Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. (2014). Post-2014 Afghanistan: Reflections & Off-Shoots. Lahore: University of the Punjab, Lahore.
• Oimstead, J. (November 2, 2014).
• Raghavan, P. (2013). The Finality of Partition: Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan, 1947- 1957 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge
• Rizvi, Gowher. (1994). India Pakistan and Kashmir problem 1947-71 (ed.) Perspectives on Kashmir by Dr. Kaniz Fatima Yousaf, Islamabad: Pakistan Forum.
• Stone, Marianne. (2009). Security according to Buzan: A comprehensive security analysis. Security discussion papers series, 11 (1)