Speakers
Islamabad
&
Quaid-e-Azam
University
,
Islamabad
25th August 2000 , The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies organised a closed door seminar on the subject ‘Understanding Pakistan’ with a group of scholars from
Pakistan
and
Germany
, headed by Shaukat Qadir, Director, Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI). Other members of the Pakistani group included Fasahat Hussain, Senior Research Fellow, IPRI, Dr. Riffat Hussain, Chairman, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Farha Zahra, Senior Research Fellow, IPRI. Dr. Karl Fischer, former German Ambassador to
India
and consultant to the Hans Sidel Foundation, and Dr. Hein Kiessling, resident representative of the Hans Seidel Foundation were also a part of the group. The Executive Committee of the IPCS and Deputy Director, Major General Ashok Krishna (retd.) and some otheres formed the Indian group.
India
and
Pakistan
claimed secularity. However, while in
Pakistan
religious parties struggled to establish their credibility,
India
has provided the space for religious parties to come to power. In 1979, when
Russia
invaded
Afghanistan
,
Pakistan
became the frontline state in the region and received
US
patronage to counter the Communist threat. The
US
needed a quick fix and jehad seemed to be the most effective way of achieving US interests in
Afghanistan
. Hence madrasas were set up in
Afghanistan
and became active in producing jehadis against the Communists. Most of these were Sunni madrasas. The Taliban was not always as powerful as it is today. Patronage to the Taliban by the
US
started in 1989 when the Russians started pulling out of
Afghanistan
. However after Taliban took over
Afghanistan
, the focus of jehad moved from
Afghanistan
to
Kashmir
.
Central
Asian
Republics
, along with the
Gulf states
, are the energy centre of the world. And between
India
and this region stands
Pakistan
. It would suit both
India
and
Pakistan
to cooperate in accessing this region for mutual benefit.
US
. Hence it was not possible for the Jamaat to have made the cease-fire offer risking the accusation of buckling down under US pressure. The only other agency that could have had any influence on the Hizb was the Pakistani government and its representatives. When the cease-fire was made, Indian’s reaction was one of caution and distrust. It was inevitable that the talks broke down.
Pakistan
is currently under military rule also contributes to some extent to the atmosphere of mistrust between
India
and
Pakistan
. The restoration of democracy is desired by all in
Pakistan
. However, while in power, the military can initiate a process of dialogue taking a more relaxed view of
India
.
India
, too, should respond by taking a more benevolent view of
Pakistan
. Keeping in mind the internal political dynamics in both countries, it is imperative that any solution regarding
Kashmir
does not project one side as the victor and the other as the loser. For any solution to be permanent both sides have to make sure that the other side does not lose face.
Kashmir
dispute.
India
and
Pakistan
have not followed people-centred development policies.
South Asia
is abysmally low. SAARC has not been effective forum and is in a sad state. This contributes to the slow economic development of the region.
Pakistan
has not been exemplary. For example, on the question of placing a moratorium on further nuclear testing, both the
Pakistan
and the Indian government have been unable to convince public opinion about the merits of the case. This is an example of civil society having run amok in both countries.
Pakistan
and
India
with the processes of Talibanisation and right wing Hindu nationalism gaining influence in the respective countries.
India
and
Pakistan
must shed the Cold War hangover that the international community will come to their aid in resolving bilateral disputes.
South Asia
as a region does not have strategic value to merit t attract international attention in any meaningful way.
Kashmir
dispute the status quo has to be accepted as was done during the Irish peace process. In
Kashmir
the status quo has lasted since 1948. An engagement can only be constructed if the status quo is not destabilized.
India
and
Pakistan
must become aware of the fact that it is in the interests of the international arms lobby to keep the
Kashmir
dispute alive. In fact, intellectuals and organisation are hired by this lobby to further their interests.
India
and
Pakistan
must become wise and nor spend money on arms that can well be spent on development.
India
and
Pakistan
have to convey to the world that they are not out to destroy each other and are responsible countries. The myth of
Kashmir
being a nuclear flashpoint must be countered. Military to military contacts can go along way towards risk reduction between the two countries. Further, we cannot wait for the
Kashmir
dispute to be solved before we initiate other diplomatic measures to de-escalate tensions. For any meaningful dialogue to take place violence in
Kashmir
must stop.
India
is in the process of building free trade areas with
Sri Lanka
and
Bangladesh
.
Pakistan
must realise it stands to only gain from this economic integration.
Kashmir
problem; however, it is more important to talk than to set preconditions for talks. Solutions will follow.
India
should take Gen. Musharraf up on his offer of talks, and at least see what he has to offer. In fact
India
should respond to offer of talks from the Hizb, as it shall definitely lead somewhere.
South Asia
is essential if the region has to compete in the globalising world.
Shaukat Qadir, Director, IPRI,
Riffat Hussain,
On
Shaukat Qadir in his presentation observed that at the time of their independence both,
Today, the
Moving on to the Kashmir issue Shaukat Qadir said that from the recent developments in Kashmir, it is clear that the Hizb-ul- Mujaihideen is a front for the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan. When the Hizb announced the cease-fire, the Emir of the Jamaat was sitting in the
The fact that
Dr Riffat Hussain enumerated the following points that must be kept in mind while attempting to resolve the
§ South Asia is an extraordinarily poor region. All indices of socio-economic development show that both
§ Regional economic integration in
§ Planning capacity of the state, especially
§ The domestic political agenda dominates in both countries with the governments being unable to project on a larger vision in economic and political terms.
§ There has been a retreat of liberalism in both
Discussion & Comments
§
§ To create a win-win situation in resolving the
§ Both
§ Both
§ Unless there is free movement of goods and services in the South Asian region, there will be very little regional economic development.
Response
§ Status quo might not be the final answer to the
§
§ Reciprocity must exist in any proposed talks because the domestic constituency in both countries would demand an explanation for any concessions granted by either side.
§ Economic integration of
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
