A no-war pact with India

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI discusses Gen Pervez Musharraf’s “no-war pact” offer to India.

While addressing the Millennium Summit at the United Nations on 6 September, Pakistan’s Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf firmly and openly proposed a no-war pact and a mutual reduction of forces with India. He went on to say that his country was prepared to take “bold initiatives to change the status quo.” While addressing the packed General Assembly Session of the UN which included 152 heads of state and governments the Chief Executive said that he was prepared for a dialogue with India “at any level, at any time and anywhere.”

The Chief Executive went on to assure the world leaders assembled at the UN in New York when he said: “Let me commit at this world forum that we desire a no-war pact; we are ready for a mutual reduction of forces and we also seek a South Asia free from all nuclear weapons.” It was a formal peace proposal offered by Pakistan at the historic session of the United Nations. A well-considered, forthright and a positive statement by General Musharraf, which was Pakistan’s genuine offer, and could be considered a national commitment to the United Nations in the presence of the assembled heads of state and governments.

A no-war pact if accepted by India would have a significant impact on India-Pakistan relations because of the military and political ramifications that are bound to follow from such an understanding in South Asia. A no-war pact as the word implies would preclude any possibility of war between the two countries, whatever, the provocation. In other words both India and Pakistan would solemnly undertake not to resort to war as an instrument of state policy. They would also reject any tendency or temptation to resort to arms to settle old disputes between them.

Once the possibility of an armed conflict or war recedes into the background, tensions ingrained in a charged atmosphere in both the countries resulting from a state of no-war no-peace will tend to subside. This could result in some rational understanding of the situation and the others’ point of view, which is essential for solving long outstanding disputes. With a change of atmosphere a gradual change in the attitude of the political leaders on either side of the border should hopefully be expected.

A no-war scenario would also be understood and applied along the Line of Control in Kashmir, where the troops and para-military forces of both sides are in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation for the last 53 years and along the working boundary near Sialkot. This would certainly mean a lowering of the general state of tension in these areas. It would also result in the reduction of firing incidents resorted to by both sides at present, which have a tendency to escalate out of proportion to the original cause of the firing from one side. It would result in the reduction of civilian casualties who are invariably the victims of cross border firing, many being killed and wounded every week.

A no-war pact would act as a major confidence building measure between the two countries. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that any progress could be possible at the first meeting with Indian representatives after half a century of confrontation and strife. A gradual process of mutual trust and confidence is necessary and this can rapidly be achieved when the two sides are not shooting at each other and give up recourse to arms under a mutually agreed no-war pact.

The Chief Executive of Pakistan had also proposed a mutual reduction of forces between India and Pakistan. It is the opinion of many defence analysts that the reduction of forces was a splendid idea and complimentary to and supportive of the no-war pact. Both go together to make a strong and assertive claim to helping the peace process in the region, which should be the aim of both the countries. Mutual reduction of forces by India and Pakistan would be by itself help to reduce tension between the two countries and act as a confidence building measure leading towards a peace process.

The reduction in the size of the armed forces and some para-military forces raised for the specific purpose of internal and external security connected to the border situation, would have a soothing effect on the population on either side of the tense India-Pakistan border. It would also be an important pointer to the public that some meaningful peace efforts are afoot between India and Pakistan. This is bound to have a good effect on the general atmosphere in the country thereby creating some confidence amongst the public of both countries particularly those living in close proximity to the borders. This confidence will lead to an equitable approach in course of time.

It is pertinent to discuss what the mutual reduction of forces would mean when translated in strict military terms. An appropriate and meaningful reduction in the present size of the Armed Forces of the two countries would proportionately reduce each country’s ability to defend itself in a classical military environment. But this inability would off course be counter balanced and offset by mutual confidence and signing of a no-war pact by the two governments, which would guarantee that no recourse to war or an armed encounter would take place.

Another important military implication resulting from a meaningful and mutual reduction of the Armed Forces would be to reduce the attacking potential of the forces in each country. This reduction would of course be in accord with the no-war pact. It would be reasonable to assume that when war is being precluded as a state policy, a reduction in the attacking potential of the force would be acceptable to the government and the people. Mutual confidence would be built gradually and be of benefit to the people of South Asia.

The mutual reduction of forces would also provide economic benefits for the peoples of India and Pakistan, because the reduction of forces would inevitably lead to the reduction of expenditure as well. Both countries are at present spending a disproportionate amount of their meagre financial resources on the maintenance of their Armed Forces. This is done at the cost of development, education, health and a host of other important requirements of the nation, which have been ignored over the years and, therefore, need urgent attention at present.

The Chief Executive offered to work towards a South Asia free of nuclear weapons. He also mentioned that the region was heavily militarized and nuclearized. He, however, clarified that this situation was not of his country’s making. “We have been obliged to respond to the compulsions of our security and have merely acted in self-defence,” he said. The offer of a nuclear weapons free South Asia is certainly a bold initiative and goes well beyond the present CTBT discussions that are underway. From being the world’s nuclear flashpoint, Pakistan is proposing a nuclear free South Asia, which would preclude a nuclear holocaust and the colossal damage that would follow.

The idea of a nuclear weapons free South Asia should have merited international accord by the world leaders present in New York. Nuclear weapons could as a consequence have been eliminated from at least one region of the world. The offer still stands and could be taken up by discerning leaders as a package working towards peace and amity between India and Pakistan. Peace is the wish and desire of the peoples of both India and Pakistan at present and should be pursued with determination and a political will in both the countries, before it becomes too late.

The Chief Executive of Pakistan made his offer of peace to India including a no-war pact at the UN Summit in New York on September 6, before a gathering of over 150 Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers gathered at the United Nations for the first time. In other words it was a solemn national commitment to the world, and should have merited some serious consideration by the United Nations and the world leaders. Also by all those who were concerned with the fate of Kashmir, which has over the years turned into a nuclear flash point threatening the stability and welfare of the region.

Indian Prime Minister Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee in his speech at the UN Summit launched an attack on Pakistan accusing Islamabad of “terrible crimes against humanity” by adopting cross border terrorism as an instrument of state policy that had claimed more than 30,000 innocent lives in Indian-held Kashmir. He went on to say that those who had stifled democracy at home, now speak of freedom. Those who have engaged in the clandestine acquisition of nuclear weapons and delivery systems talk of ridding South Asia of these. Those who have repudiated peace covenants talk of new agreements to prevent war, he added.

Mr Vajpayee went on to describe some of the statements as “Orwellian mockery” and said “the world must see reality as it is. The acid test of sincerity is not words, but deeds. Terrorism and dialogue do not go together.” This was certainly rhetoric unworthy of the Prime Minister of the largest “democracy” of the world. One would have expected Mr Vajpayee to have given some consideration to the peace offer from his small neighbour. By his reference to terrorism and the acquisition of nuclear weapons and delivery systems (with regard to Pakistan), Mr Vajpayee was certainly playing to the Western gallery who are susceptible to these  subjects.

It seems Mr Vajpayee’s original speech did not contain a vicious attack on Pakistan but was in accord with the spirit of the Millennium Summit of the United Nations. But after the speech of Pakistan’s Chief Executive which was frank, straight from the shoulder, so to say, and offered a set of concrete and workable peace proposals, which seem to have gone down well with the audience, Mr Vajpayee’s script was changed by his policy advisers. It was in fact aimed at rebuttal of General Musharraf’s offer and according to some political analysts was an effort to undertake damage control in front of the world leaders. Whether he succeeded or not is beside the point, but he certainly derailed the offered peace process for some time.

Mr Vajpayee’s stance at New York has not been appreciated by the political leadership and the media in India particularly his refusal to take up Pakistan’s offer of a dialogue to solve all outstanding disputes between the two countries including that of Kashmir. Mr K. Natwar Singh a senior Congress leader and the party’s working committee member blamed Prime Minister Vajpayee for not talking to Pakistan military ruler General Pervez Musharraf on ending cross-border terrorism. He said the Congress has always wanted that the diplomatic door should not be closed with Pakistan. “If General Musharraf continues in power for ten years, are we not going to talk to him,” Mr Singh asked, recalling that in the past also India had dialogue with the military rulers of Pakistan.

Mr Natwar Singh went on to say that although more than 150 heads of state or government were at the UN Summit, Mr Vajpayee was able to talk to only the prime ministers of Nepal and Bangladesh. Replying to a question whether poor health was causing problems to Mr Vajpayee, he said if he is not well he should quit at the earliest. Where was India’s vision in Mr Vajpayee’s address to the millennium summit, Mr Natwar Singh asked pointing to Mr Vajpayee’s tirade against Pakistan, India’s vision should have secularism, democracy, human rights and concern for the poor, he rightly pointed out.

While Mr Vajpayee was being adamant in not accepting Pakistan’s peace offer and initiating a dialogue, the Indian army’s Chief of Army Staff, General Ved Prakash Malik had different thoughts. While laying the foundation stone of the Army Law Institute near Chandigar he said that there could only be a political solution to the “revolt” in occupied Kashmir. “Ultimately Kashmir has to be a political solution,” he said. In other words no military solution was possible despite his best efforts and those of his army over the past 12 years.

These are the views of an army chief who has tried to crush the Kashmiri freedom struggle often using harsh and brutal methods repeatedly condemned by the world, with a force of over 700,000 Indian troops and para-military forces, some raised only for the purpose. He has sent a strong message to the ruling political leadership in India that a political solution should be sought. A political solution requires the participation of Pakistan being an important party to the Kashmir dispute.

President Clinton said recently, in fact just before seeing Prime Minister Vajpayee at the White House, that the Kashmir dispute was the core issue between India and Pakistan. These remarks seem to have caused some alarm amongst the Indian delegation waiting to see the President. To solve the core issue a dialogue with Pakistan is essential. The offer of a no-war pact should prepare the ground for a meaningful dialogue and in many ways give an arrogant India a face saving devise as well.