By: Aslam Khan

On the arrival of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Pakistan where she is welcome by bombing at Peshawar in which over 100 people died. It is symbolic act done by the terrorist against the civilian government of Pakistan and United States. Most of the victims in the car-bombing were children and women. It is a high time for India and Pakistan should co-operate each other without any hesitation urgently to cope up the terror situation in respective country to improve the social and economic condition of the common man for the peaceful South Asia. It is an opportunity for us to response quickly to Indian PM’s appeal of friendship. But the stumbling block is Kashmir.

Unfortunately, Pakistan, like India, has a propensity to look backward rather than forward when it comes to the Kashmir conflict, and the Kashmiri people are paying a heavy price for intransigence. In Islamabad’s view, the price paid by India includes strained relations, the risk of war with Pakistan, the tying down of a large part of its army, and the wasteful use of scarce economic resources on security. India, moreover, is not likely to gain the necessary support to fulfill its ambition of gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council until the Kashmir dispute is resolved. But our decision-makers have yet to realize that Pakistan is paying, at least proportionately, an even heavier political, economic, and military price. Animosity with India translates into a heavy defence burden and the ever-present threat of war against a militarily superior force. Moreover, support for Kashmiri militants has rebounded by militarising and destabilising Pakistan’s own society. Internal instability and the frequent threat of war with India, in turn, discourage domestic and international investment.

The belief that the insurgency in Kashmir is bleeding India at a relatively low cost to Pakistan has more to do with conviction than facts. In the past ten years, India has sustained the economic burden of its military operations in Kashmir, and its economy has steadily grown, while the drain on Pakistan’s economy and social capital has been considerable. In any case, given the asymmetry in resources, Pakistan is not in a position to tilt the military balance in its favour through its current Kashmir policy. Nor have the Kashmiris gained from excessive reliance on Pakistan. On the contrary, that reliance has become more of a liability than an asset in the present international climate.

Beset with innumerable domestic problems, political and economic, Pakistan is not in a position to win over world opinion. India’s preferences carry more weight, given its size, economic resources and geostrategic potential. In these circumstances, Pakistan’s only promising recourse would seem to be to discard any military option and concentrate on diplomacy, continuing to highlight the Kashmir issue both bilaterally with India and in multilateral forums, such as the United Nations and the OIC, while ending all support to militants operating in Kashmir. If Pakistan were to limit its role to providing moral and political support for indigenous Kashmiri political forces attempting to control their own destiny, and the Kashmiris were to develop their own strategies, the latter would be in a better position to bargain with the Indian government as well as to acquire greater credibility internationally.

In Islamabad’s analysis, successive near-war crises were necessary to enhance international concern that Kashmir could become a nuclear flash point. That has now been achieved. Since bilateralism has failed to resolve the Kashmir conflict for a half-century, the international community should play a more proactive role in helping both states to end their diplomatic impasse and move towards a resolution of the dispute. But external, including U.S., facilitation can only succeed if both parties to the dispute accept it. Even then, the current level of hostility between Pakistan and India and their widely divergent positions on Kashmir preclude the possibility of an early settlement. Since Pakistan refuses to accept the existing LOC as the basis of a settlement, and India continues to reject Pakistan’s insistence on a plebiscite in Kashmir, the task of reconciling conflicting positions is one that will take a long time yet.

In such international scenario we do not understand why have not India and Pakistan sit together to plan a common strategy? Kashmir does not have to be sorted out before solving other problems. It is a high time we should get out from the mindset of blame game. It is a media and staunch nationalist from the both sides of border are responsible to create the mistrust and animosity among the common people in the sub-continent. Another attack on India’s embassy at Kabul is nothing new from the point of view of the Taliban who regard India as their enemy and economic development an anti-war measure. But the role of the ISI in such attacks is difficult to comprehend. An average Indian believes that it must be the handiwork of the ISI. It is the same old mistrust between the two countries that clouds the judgment. Pakistani government begins to blaming Indian intelligence agencies role in GHQ attack. Yet, both have known to their cost that the Taliban consider them their enemy. The attack on the Army headquarters at Rawalpindi reconfirms the fact that when it comes to causing harm, the Taliban make no distinction between Islamic Pakistan and secular India. Just as the stability of Pakistan is essential for the stability of India, Afghanistan’s viability is necessary for Pakistan’s viability. Essentially, the fight against the Taliban is the fight for the free world. But the most important step for India and Pakistan is a joint, concerted action against the Taliban.

Due to such rationality India and Pakistan should join hands to each other to crush the menace of terrorism in the world. If humanity has to survive, it is a need of hour India and Pakistan should embrace as brothers to each other and the truth is we were brothers once upon a time in history.

Thanks.