India, Pak should go beyond ceasefire for peace

In what was definitely a surprising development, India and Pakistan announced a ‘strict observance’ of all agreements, understandings and ceasefire. This was a joint statement between those actually on the ground, which is the armed forces of either side, through the respective Director General of Military Operations (DGMOs). That’s heartening at one level. After all, it’s the army that’s in control in Pakistan, and there’s little point agreeing to anything that it hasn’t put its hand to. To most Pakistan watchers, however, the development will hardly raise hopes of any permanent change in relations between the seemingly perpetually warring states. After all, it’s been going on for nearly 70 years, with some significant interruptions. But that’s the point. There have been periods when the border was completely peaceful, but the political steps to take that forward just didn’t happen. It should have. The sparring at the border costs lives and money, and achieves nothing at all, not even political points or an inch of territory.

To clarify, just what are ceasefire violations (CFVs)? The Line of Control (LoC), known earlier as the Ceasefire Line, originates from the 1948 war and was formalised in an agreement in July 1949. Overseen by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan, the line was clearly detailed up to a point called Khor, from where it vaguely said ‘…and thence north to the glaciers’, thereby setting the seeds for another conflict in the Siachen glacier.

However, the ‘border’ remained quiet with India and Pakistan even signing a raft of agreements to regulate trade, water and other matters. Military rule and the internal contradictions of undivided Pakistan led to the 1971 war, which then led to the Simla Agreement and the line being called the ‘Line of Control’ (LoC), with a few tactical changes. The reasons for the enormity of foolishness on the part of the Indira Gandhi government in not fully settling the whole issue after Pakistan’s total defeat remains a mystery.

The LoC again remained largely peaceful till the nuclear tests of Pakistan in 1998. There after began the propagation of terrorism, sending in hundreds of trained mujahideens, some fresh from the Afghan war, into Kashmir. The Valley became a bloody battleground from 1999 onwards with over 4,500 incidents of terror by 2001, and thousands of civilians killed. Pakistan’s grand plan was to push in terrorists through the hills and ravines of the LoC, under the cover of fire by the Pakistan army. This rise in terrorism reached the hinterland, leading to an attack on Parliament in December 2001, just three months after the 9/11 attack on the US. A furious Washington literally asked Pakistan to decide whether it was ‘with us or against us’ with General Musharraf himself noting that Pakistan was threatened with being bombed ‘back to the stone age’. That led to Islamabad shutting down a few terrorist camps, and more importantly, virtually ceasing terrorist infiltration. A terse statement from the Ministry of External Affairs announced a ceasefire in 2003.

A peaceful border requires someone to push Pakistan to the wall and keep its head there. As terrorism fell, so did firing at the LoC, but not entirely. Local factors, sometimes as trivial as a new commander arriving at a post or a religious festival, caused bored troops to fire. Both sides were usually guilty in these minor incidents. These are, however, hardly ever reported, and matters remained in the hands of the local commanders. Sometimes, however, this barrage would spread across entire sections of the LoC, escalating on occasions to include artillery barrages. In 2018, for instance, more than 2,000 violations were reported, and another ceasefire reached, welcomed even by China. It didn’t last. When Article 370 was revoked, Pakistan was shell-shocked and accompanied its vituperative diplomatic barrage with one on the ground.

Now, it seems that this is to stop. Some backchannel talks have been hinted at, reportedly with NSA Ajit Doval engaging with someone other than his nearest counterpart, Moeed Yusuf, Special Assistant to the Pakistan Prime Minister, and not from within the system. Someone else did the talking, but with the blessings again of the United States under a new President. The White House press secretary ‘welcomed’ the ceasefire just hours later, noting that peace and stability was a ‘shared interest’. These things don’t happen in a day, and the assumption is that the talks took place over a period of several months. Therefore, the talks were initiated during the height of tension along the Ladakh border, as Indian Generals warned against a two-front war. The ceasefire is the end result, happily coinciding with de-escalation with Beijing as well.

But any third party, however interested, would not be able or willing to apply the kind of pressure for Pakistan to change its mind on opening a third front if it did plan to. But at no time did Rawalpindi show any sign that it wanted to open a third front. In fact, it vehemently denied Indian news reports of a movement of men and material. Therefore, it seems Pakistan did this in its own interest. With its economy in tatters, faced with the pandemic, and increasing internal political pressure from a combined and noisy Opposition, Islamabad is in no mood to fight China’s battles.

There’s a second issue. Delhi has shown that it is willing to cross barriers in prosecuting a fight. A signal may have been given that any attack on India would have been met with unprecedented retaliation, creating a dangerous situation. In fact, a warning of pre-emptive strike in case of a terrorist attack was given at the UN on February 25 by India’s Permanent Representative. It seems, therefore, both have decided to back off, and change the chess pieces around. With Pakistan moving to take over Gilgit-Baltistan as a full-fledged province, the Kashmir issue could be closed for good. All it needs now is the right glossing for Pakistan to end the Kashmir issue, and the right incentives for both. China’s attack may indeed have brought that about for India at least. As they say, it’s an ill wind that blows no good.