Letters between friends
A Peaceful Exchange

Dr. Inderjit Singh is a professor of Political Economy and National Strategy at National War College Washington DC, USA. The learned professor was born in Lahore, was educated in India and has spent the major part of his adult life in USA (since the age of twenty). He has had twenty-five years of experience with the World Bank before his current assignment. Air Commodore (Retd) Jamal Hussain is the Director of Centre for Aerospace Power Studies (CAPS) based at Karachi. The two have had very useful exchange of ideas on the India-Pakistan relationship. The opinions expressed by Dr. Inderjit Singh in a letter form and its reply by Air Commodore (Retd) Jamal Hussain would be of interest to our readers and is being reproduced below. Please note that the views expressed by both the writers are their own and do not represent those of their respective governments or institutions.

Air Commodore (Retd) JAMAL HUSSAIN engages in a very interesting dialogue on the confrontation in South Asia.

Jamal,
I am one of those who believe that WITHOUT peace between India and Pakistan, there can never be true economic, social and political progress in the two countries and South Asia. They have both remained backwards and far below their potential as a result of their enmity. Further increasing the enmity by using popular myths and propaganda have made it impossible for both states to concede and come to “rational” solutions. But that is what happens when elites use issues to bolster their legitimacy and use emotional religious symbols.
And for what? Kashmir? Is Kashmir worth it? Worth nuclear holocaust in the region?
I fully understand Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and what it perceives to be its principled support for the Kashmiris and the feeling that Kashmir should have come to Pakistan on the basis of religion. Unfortunately, the use of “terror” tactics and proxy war have not brought a solution for over 55 years, nor helped the cause of the Kashmiris on whose behalf Pakistan says it is working. Further you and I both know that the support not been just “moral and political” in this proxy war as has been claimed these past 30 years or so — far from it. Indeed Pakistan’s position has been now weakened internationally, now that Pakistan’s real support for proxy war via terror/freedom has been highlighted. Further the strategy of “bleeding India” has actually ended up destabilizing Pakistan and bleeding it also.
I also understand India’s concerns and position. It does not accept religion as the basis of a nation state and feels that Kashmir is part of its national territory. It also further fears the backlash in other areas and on Muslims. We can talk about these issues further if you cannot understand or concede them.
In my view they both have merit, even though the other side refuses to concede this. Unfortunately, they are incompatible. Given the post-9/11 realities it will be very hard for Pakistan to continue its proxy war and alienate Kashmir from India by force. India will continue to use the threat of war unless Pakistan desists in its support of the Jihadis. Once the support declines, India will use political means to calm the situation, and the bet is that the Kashmiris might settle for peace. Even with the support the Kashmiris have now got tired of the current insurgency and want no part of the Jihadis from Pakistan. At least that is how I see it.
Given these realities I believe that a solution along the LoC along with greater autonomy for Kashmiris — on both sides — and an opening up of borders would be the most likely solution down the road. This is not “supporting an Indian position”, as you might suspect, but just an assessment of the real politic at play in the region at present, post-9/11.
I know that this will be very difficult for Pakistan to accept, since “Kashmir runs in our blood”, and “Kashmir is part of Pakistan”, and “we will continue our Jihad” are ideas that have been propagated in Pakistan by the media, the politicians and also the army for so long. Further, I also sincerely believe that Pakistan’s military establishment cannot accept such an outcome and still survive with its notions of “dignity” intact. With memories of 1971 still raw — for which India alone is blamed without any attempt at understanding the role of the army and Bhutto —the armed forces see a “victory” in Kashmir as essential for their dignity as an institution. For this they have been willing to risk war, nuclear holocaust and slow but sure decline and destabilization of the nation.
However, if Pakistan continues to stay in the groove of these past policies, the enmity between India and Pakistan will continue and the threat of war will remain. Both countries will continue to suffer and bleed.
What do you and others think strategically?
I for one have an alternative vision for the future, one that I will lay out when I have more time.
Inderjit (IJ) Singh
(NOTE: The opinions expressed here are personal and do not in any way represent those of the NDU or DOD).

Professor of Political Economy and National Strategy
Department of National Strategy
National War College
Fort Leslie Mcnair
Washington D.C. 20319
Tel: 202-685-3704
e-mail: singhi@ndu. edu

Dear IJ,
It is always a pleasure hearing from you. There are many on both sides of the divide that like you would want genuine peace between India and Pakistan. Since the past five decades, the two nations have been spewing vitriolic against each other and the layers of mistrust is so deep that it may be unrealistic to expect them to become friendly overnight; but to accept each other’s existence and co-exist peacefully, if not harmoniously, without a zero sum mentality is possible. Moving from there on to a friendly and amicable relationship could be the next logical step. It is on this basis I find your views very refreshing although I will admit that I do not agree with some of your perceptions:
Over Kashmir I think we understand each other’s points of view despite our differences. Kashmir is a genuine problem and an imposed solution based on brute strength, which does not appease the will of the Kashmiri people cannot resolve the issue. The festering wound will continue to linger and is likely to erupt again. You do grudgingly acknowledge Pakistan’s principled stand on the Kashmir issue but you also accept Indian concerns as genuine. If you are right, how do you explain the Indian stance of refusing to seek a solution through UNO or third party mediation? To claim that third party mediation would be an insult to Indian sovereignty is in my opinion, mere smoke screen. After all both India and Pakistan had accepted it during the Rann of Kutch crisis in 1965 and it was amicably resolved. Why not now? I believe the Indians are aware of their weak legal and moral stand on Kashmir: hence they would avoid at all cost any third party mediation and would like to keep the issue at the bilateral level where they hope to impose their will because of their superior military might. With such a mindset, I am afraid there can be no solution and peace in the region will remain a mirage.
The proposal of converting the LoC as a permanent border, I am afraid is a non-starter. I dare say this option was available as far back as during the Simla Accord, or perhaps even earlier, but it was not acceptable to Pakistan or to the people of Kashmir then and now. I do admit that LoC is at present the de facto border. If both sides pledge to respect it and not try to alter it through military means till a final solution through negotiation is reached, a beginning could be made. To that extent I agree to your proposal. I would like to add that holding of elections under the Indian occupation cannot be a substitute for referendum.
You do us an injustice when you assert that Pakistan blame India alone for the 1971 debate. The calamity was brought about by our own stupidity and prejudices and India played the part that we would have most likely played if the shoe had been on the other foot. Such is real politics.
Pakistan’s Kashmir policy has suffered because of the shortsighted policies of its leaders and its own internal weaknesses and dissensions. In statecraft, resolution of disputes through military means even when the cause is morally and legally correct is relevant only when one is strong enough to undo the perceived injustices. Unfortunately Pakistan does not fulfil this criteria and therefore, pursuing the military option did not work in the past and will not work in the future unless there is a change in the balance of power to Pakistan’s advantage. This does not mean that we should give up our principled stand; we should continue to strive for a just resolution of the Kashmir issue through all means short of the military one.
Is Kashmir worth it, you ask? When dignity and honour of a nation is involved no price is high enough but I do agree that a military showdown is not the only option. If you have noticed, we have indicated time and again that we would like to settle it through peaceful negotiations. Our differences may appear to be irreconcilable but through negotiations a compromise can be reached
provided both sides are serious about resolving the issue.
You talk about rhetoric on our side. How about the Indian rhetoric about “Atoot Ang”? The Indian sub-continent was divided on the basis of religion and however, India might have opposed the division, eventually they conceded to the plan and two independent nations were created. Now when they continue to harp on “Atoot Ang”, do you blame us in Pakistan from concluding that the Indians are still trying to undo the partition? How do you think we should react to such pronunciations? It is not only Pakistan that needs to come out of the groove, as you suggest, it has to be mutual.
I am convinced the leaders of both India and Pakistan are aware of the dangerous game that is being played out and I hope for the sake of humanity in South Asia, they will not embark upon anything foolish. I personally believe they will not. They are unfortunately forced to playing to the gallery, as the masses appear to relish such rhetoric. Accidental stumbling into a conflict that can escalate to the nuclear level is a possibility, however, remote. Public education and better awareness in our masses may help prevent our leaders from being forced to indulge in trying to appease public sentiments through pronouncement of unnecessary bellicose statements against each other. There are other vested interests as well on both sides of the border that would like to keep the tension at a high level.

Regards
Jamal