Kashmir through the eyes of the ceasefire NAAD magazine Mar 2021

Kashmir through the eyes of the ceasefire NAAD magazine Mar 2021

file:///C:/Users/Harsha%20Kakar/Downloads/Naad%20Issue%20March%202021.pdf

Kashmir through the eyes of the ceasefire NAAD magazine Mar 2021

          India and Pakistan have accepted a ceasefire along the LoC. This was announced post the weekly Director General Military Operations (DGMO) talks and is effective from 24/25 Feb. While still at the nascent stage, there is hope that for once the ceasefire would hold. This is a marked shift in relations between the two countries. The major stumbling block remains trust deficiency. In the past few years both sides have blamed the other for initiating firing along the LoC. Post the announcement of the ceasefire, both Indian and Pakistan foreign office spokespersons placed the onus of creating a conducive environment on the other. Imran Khan welcomed the ceasefire, however, also placed responsibility on India for creating conditions for talks.

          Though announced by the two DGMO’s, the ceasefire would have involved a far higher level of interaction before being accepted, coming as it did after a year of heaviest exchanges of firing across the LoC. The fact that General Bajwa made the first announcement implies that contact between India and Pakistan would have involved the Indian NSA and from Pakistan, either a senior army representative or the advisor to Imran Khan, Moeed Yusuf. Yusuf has officially denied being involved in talks, though welcomed the ceasefire, hence, speculation falls on a senior army representative being involved.

          In the past, there have been multiple attempts at restoring peace and commencing dialogue, each of which has resulted in a terrorist strike. The reason has been that offer for talks has flowed from the political leadership of Pak and has never been backed by the army. This is, possibly the first time, when the offer of talks and peace flowed from their army chief and India ignored the Pak political leadership in its discussions for peace. It would have been difficult for the Pak army chief to take such a decision, considering there are elements within, which continue to support terrorist groups. Hence, there is a reason to believe that Pak does seek restoring peace and normalcy, prior to commencement of dialogue.

          Last week, addressing the media, Lt Gen Raju, GOC 15 Corps, stated that the valley currently has about 200 local and 90 foreign militants. He reiterated that while anti-militancy operations would continue unabated, the army will work to ensure that the ceasefire remains in place. He was confident that both sides would try to cool down temperatures along the LoC. To ensure that the ceasefire succeeds, both sides would need to show restraint. The announcement of the ceasefire has been welcomed by valley political parties and the Hurriyat.

          For the populace living close to the LOC, there would be some respite. The regular landing of shells and casualties due to firing would cease. Villagers whose fields are ahead of the fence or close to it can now tend to them without fear of being targeted by the enemy.

          With a ceasefire in place, Pakistan cannot employ firing as a means of pushing in militants. Indian response, on establishing contact with terrorists along the LoC, could also lead to a break in the agreement. Pak’s intentions would be clear from inputs flowing from monitoring existing launchpads. If they remain occupied, then Pak’s intention is doubtful. If Pak genuinely desires peace and talks, then there would be no infiltration attempts.

          The recent discovery of sticky IEDs in the valley, which have been employed in Afghanistan, has added to security concerns. Reports indicate that few were dropped by drones, while others were moved through tunnels discovered along the IB. If employment of drones to drop arms, ammunition, drugs and IEDs continues, then Pak’s intentions are in doubt. If no such activity is noticed, then Pak is serious in its endeavour to adhere to the ceasefire.

          A major question is what could be Indian response in case of a major attack in the valley? Ignoring it could lead to an internal political backlash, while responding with force could mark the end of the ceasefire. A difficult choice for the Indian government.

          Pakistan is currently facing growing internal violence and an economic downslide. There is an escalation of violence in Afghanistan, which would soon spill into Pak. In such scenarios, Pakistan cannot have multiple active borders. Tensions along the Indo-Pak border are its creation, while others are not directly within its control. It is also aware that apart from rhetoric, it can never re-ignite passions in the valley nor regain Kashmir. The valley has changed for the better.  

While locals in Kashmir continue to join terrorist groups in small numbers, their lack of motivation, training and availability of weapons have led to them having short life spans, which is discouraging others. The Hurriyat, which had backed Pak intentions is currently defunct and has no major hold. Hence, peace with India is more beneficial than confrontation for Pakistan.

          Is Pak also signalling a change in its Kashmir policy. This is unlikely for the moment. However, it is accepting reality that activating the LoC, employing terrorists to further its foreign policy and enhanced rhetoric is not a solution. Further, despite wars and terrorist attacks, Pak has achieved nothing. On the contrary, it has been at the receiving end. The population of Kashmir have witnessed loss of innocent lives and hence have become disillusioned with Pak and its benefactors. There has also been a realization that the changed status of Kashmir is permanent.

          For the population of J and K as also POK, silence of the guns is a welcome call. It would restore normalcy. In case Pak quits pushing in terrorists, the valley would rapidly witness development.

          In case both nations move forward, ignoring the past and seeking an economically beneficial future for their populace, then talks is the solution. The current ceasefire also endorses the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, both of which stated that all issues between the two nations would only be resolved bilaterally. The major concern is whether the ceasefire will hold to permit talks. For this, there has to be a strong determination from both sides. If it does, both nations will benefit.