Speaker: Mr. Muchkund Dubey
India
India after the
Pakistan ’s infiltration in Kargil, which is understandable.
Pakistan , at least for the next twenty years because of “breach of trust”. The second perspective is that
India should severe its relations with
Pakistan and declare
Pakistan as a terrorist state unilaterally. The Government perspective is to go ahead with talks but with following conditions: sanctity of the LoC must be restored;
Pakistan should restore confidence by assuring that it will stop cross border terrorist activities and it should stop ISI activities inside
India .
Pakistan place the following arguments: First, the elections in
India . Secondly, even if
India is willing to talk, the agenda of
Pakistan would only be
Kashmir .
Pakistan to accept any preconditions because for
Pakistan this is the most effective strategy that could be used in
Kashmir against
India , especially when the situation in
Kashmir is disturbed. Thirdly, it is not possible for
India to garner the support of the international community regarding preconditions for the talks.
India ’s refusal to talks reveals its weakness, especially in terms of mobilising internal consensus. Secondly, at the international level, there has been a change in the way the mood of the nations and the erstwhile enemies are talking to each other. Thirdly, the longer
India and
Pakistan refuse to talk each other, the greater the fear of nuclear war.
India should talk to
Pakistan , even if there are any internal pulls there.
Pakistan is not a monolithic country and not everybody is conspiring against
India . Besides,
Pakistan society is in the process of change.
India should contribute to this change and encourage those sections that would like to develop the relations between the two countries.
India should keep the trans-border terrorism as the first issue in the agenda. Besides
India can also unilaterally declare MFN status to
Pakistan as it would not only benefit
Pakistan but also
India . At international level,
India should make the whole world to understand that
Kashmir is not the core issue between the two countries. At the domestic level,
India should provide an autonomy package to
Kashmir and make serious efforts to restrict the people of
Kashmir from getting alienated from the rest of
India .
India fears a third party mediation in resolving the issue. The speaker, citing the Kosovo example, replied no third party could be trusted.
India should be stopped. He also argued that there is a paradigm shift at the international level. He quoted the examples of the British Intelligence informing media regarding the role of fundamentalists and terrorists in
Pakistan ,
Afghanistan and
India ; and the
US has abandoned its plan to build a pipeline via
Afghanistan ,
Pakistan and
Turkmenistan . Thirdly, he also told that if refusing to talk is seen as weakness, readiness to talk is also a sign of weakness. Fourthly, LoC as border between
India and
Pakistan is not acceptable to many in
Pakistan .
Kashmir could be minimised. On the question of plebiscite, he told
India does not want it because of the fear of not getting adequate support for it. Thirdly, he also told that our foreign policy is obsessed with
Pakistan .
Pakistan society if there are ideological difference between the two countries. Secondly she also told that the international society these days seem to be very particular about resolving the issues at “pre-crisis” stages itself.
India .
Kashmir , as “paradigm shift” is not entirely correct. This change is not permanent. Thirdly, he said that it would not be correct to consider
Pakistan as a failed state. Finally he was hopeful that there are chances of the dialogue changing the internal dynamics of
Pakistan in
India 's favour.
Former Foreign Secretary, Govt. of
The speaker began his talk by saying that there was a mood of despondency in
With the crisis over, there are different perspectives on what should be done regarding Indo-Pak relations. The first perspective is that, it is not possible to have good relations with
Those who feel that there should no talks with
The speaker said laying down preconditions is not practical for the following reasons: First, there already exists sanctity of the LoC on account of the Shimla treaty between the countries. Secondly, it is impractical to expect
What should be done? At bilateral level,
During the discussion, one participant asked why
Another participant stressed it is essential to have some pre-conditions. For example, the ISI’s destabilising role in
Another participant asked while there has been enough internationalisation on “plebiscite”, why the conditions attached with plebiscite have not been given enough prominence?
Another participant argued that by making the LoC as border, the cross border terrorism and the insurgency situation in
Another participant asked how to reach out the
Another participant argued that ISI has very strong connections with the fundamentalists, terrorists and mafia all over
Another participant felt LoC should be protected by force and the Indian military should always be ready to face any situation.
Two participants felt that one third of Pakistan Army is fundamentalist and about half of its Army is also fundamentalists. These elements are against any peaceful solutions.
The speaker in response to the questions and suggestions stated that commencement of talks could not be made conditional beyond a particular point. Secondly, he felt that viewing the current change in the mod of international community on
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
