*

Sajida Begum
**
Sheik Nadeem Ahmed

Changing Dynamics Of Pakistan-India Relationship

And Kashmir Predicament

Abstract
Pakistan and India have been living together as independent sovereigns
states for the last 68 years, yet far from being engaged into a cooperative
relationship. Their relationship is marked with endless animosity. One can argue
that both states are observing precarious co-existence, and also disturbed by
outbreak of hostilities, like the wars of 1948, 1965, 1971,1999 and escalated
tensions at borders of and on. The peace process has been jeopardized by the
unfinished agenda of British legacy. The issue of Kashmir has been a real threat
for peace in the region of South Asia. It has provoked both states to get embroiled
into unending tussle. The two states are busy in piling up weapons of mass
destruction. The catastrophic incident of 9/11 has intensified already war woven
relationship. The solution of Kashmir can usher a new era of prosperity for both
otherwise the durable and everlasting peace in the region of South Asia would be
just like crying for a moon. This paper attempts to develop a discursive historical
analysis of Pak-India relationship and prospects of Kashmir issue in the changing
dynamics of the world.
Key words: Precarious Co-Existence, Kashmir Quandary, Religious Militancy.
Introduction
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a son of Mars, moved
immaculately to spearhead the ship of liberating Muslims from British and
Hindus. Unfortunately the government of India failed to get reconciled with the
emergence of Pakistan. Issues like, influx of refugees, financial assets, defense
assets, boundary division etc seriously compounded relations between the two. On
the contrary Pakistan was keen to harmonize relationship with India but peace
process was bedeviled by the rise of Kashmir issue in 1948. Pakistan made valiant
efforts to avert threat syndrome created by its rival. Finally UNO meddled in and
declared to hold plebiscite with an objective to determine the fate of Kashmir’s.
However this decision was a hard pill to swallow for the India government.
Instead of complying with UNO Resolutions, it plausibly concocted a plan of
declaring Kashmir as an indispensable part of Indian federation.
Kashmir dispute has hampered peace process among two states. So far,
both countries have fought fours wars and numerous border skirmishes but the
matter of Kashmir is still unresolved. Today, both states are nuclear powers and
without any exaggeration Kashmir dispute may incite a nuclear warfare in the

*
Mrs. Sajida Begum, working as Assistant Professor Department of Political Science &I.R,
Minhaj University Lahore
**
Sheik Nadeem Ahmed is a Principal of kips Academy Wah Cantt Campus.
197
 JPUHS, Vol.29, No.2, July - December, 2016

region. Despite of making efforts for normalization, Kashmir issue is a menace for
the security and progression of South Asia.
Historical analysis of Kashmir: an Overview
The British government sold the whole area to Dogra Raja, Gulab Singh,
for 7.5 million in 1846. The Raja and his successors ruled with iron hand. Muslims
launched struggle against the oppressive rule in 1930s that culminated into
liberation movement before the partition of the sub-continent. The 3rd June 1947
plan which declared that Muslims majority areas would fall in Pakistan and
Hindus majority areas were to join India but after seeking the Instrument of
Accession from Mahraja, India landed its troops in Kashmir thus ignored the
wishes of the people of Kashmir who wanted to align themselves with Pakistan.1
The Indian troops who arrived by air in Srinagar on 27 October 1947 deprived the
predominantly Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir from determining their
future. Of the 4,000,000 persons living the mountain state,75 percent were
Muslims, and the populated Vale of Kashmir , in which Srinagar is located was
fully 90 percent Muslims2. The total area of the state was 84471 square Kilometer.
The geographical situation of the state was such that it was bounded on all sides by
the dominion of Pakistan. Its only access to outside world was by road through
Jehlum Valley road which ran through Pakistan. The only railway line connecting
the state with outside world lay through Sialkot. Its postal and telegraphic services
operated areas that were certainly belong to the dominion of Pakistan. It was
dependent for all its imported supplies like salt, sugar, petrol and other necessities
of life on their safe and continuous transit through areas of Pakistan. The tourist
transit being the major source of income and revenue was to come from
Rawalpindi, its timber drifted down only in the Jehlum River which ran to
Pakistan. The silent faces of the British government also added fuel to fire. Instead
of implementing the plan it sided with the Indian government. Pakistan army
supported Kashmiri’s struggle for independence and entered in the first week of
May, 1948, to protect Muslim brothers from the wrought of Indian forces 3.
With the intervention of UNO ceasefire was enforced. It was decided that
the future destiny of Kashmiri’s would be done in the light of UNO resolutions.
UNO passed two resolutions, namely Resolution of 13th August, 1948 and 5th
January, 1949. These resolutions re-affirmed the solution of Kashmir dispute in-
harmony with the interests of the people but Indian government never adhered to
these Resolutions. The impact was that both states developed inveterate hostility
against each other. Whenever there had been chances to open a new chapter of
bilateral relations, Kashmir quandary impeded such advancement.
When Indus-Basin treaty was concluded in 1960, it was expected that
both states would also proceed to bring forth a scheme of resolving Kashmir
dispute. Ayub Khan looked optimistic about settling this long standing matter but
efforts ended in vain. In 1962, Sino-India border conflict took place and despite of
getting assistance from the big powers, India failed to inflict a defeat upon China.
This development greatly impacted the geo-political and geo-strategic
environment of South Asia. Pakistan raised concerns over U.S. military assistance
to India. Pakistan was the ally of US and had paid a heavy price of joining western
sponsored pacts by annoying the Arab World and Soviet Union. Soviet Union had

198
 Changing Dynamics Of Pakistan-India Relationship And Kashmir Predicament

vetoed UNO Security Council Resolution regarding holding referendum in

Kashmir. Had that step not been taken by Soviet Union the issue of Kashmir
would have been solved in the decade of 1950s. The government and people of
Pakistan were disappointed over-seeing the intransigent behavior of U.S. The
deliberate betrayal of big power resulted in massive protest against United States.
The people of Pakistan demanded to leave U.S. sponsored Pacts namely as
SEATO & CENTO.
In order to address the concerns of Pakistan, U.S and Britain engaged a
new round of Pak-India talks on Kashmir in 1962. A total of six rounds of talks
were held and the big powers tried to exert pressures on both sides to settle this
issue. However these dialogues brought no concrete results. New York Times
reported ‘India failed to manifest any readiness to make any important
concession 4 . Pakistan upheld its previous stance of solving Kashmir issue in
accordance with UNO resolutions whereas India used delayed tactics. India feared
in case of Kashmir’s decision to join Pakistan then there will be Hindu- Muslim
riots in India. Besides it would also provide opportunity for secessionist elements
to organize against India federation thus posing serious threats to Indian
Secularism. After wards six rounds of talks were held but Indian government
showed little interest to remove impediments on Kashmir dispute. India was a
reluctant party to the conference table. It was simply under the diplomatic pressure
of the Western Powers whose military aid was badly needed. India was never at
any stage of the talks about a fair and honorable settlement 5.
In 1965 Pak-India war broke out over Kashmir. When UN had intervened
to endure peace through cease fire, Pakistan immediately demanded a firm
commitment from India to solve Kashmir dispute. Since no body was victorious,
Pakistan saw the Soviet offer of mediation as the only possible option for the
settlement of Kashmir. Both conflicting parties were invited by Soviet Union at
the place of Tashkent to bear peace. Ayub Khan accompanied by Zulifiqar Ali
Bhutto (foreign minister), went to meet Indian prime minster Lal Bahdur Shastri.
Ayub Khan singed Tashkent Declaration on January 10, 1966 without any
provision of solving the burning issue of Kashmir. The people of Pakistan were
extremely disgruntled over signing Tashkent Agreement. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
openly opposed it and earned great appreciation from the general public. The
internal crisis germinated which proved to be a swan song for Ayub Khan. He had
to leave under mass agitation of 1969.
The relationship kept on deteriorating in the following years. Both states
did not derive a lesson from the past and went into another war in 1971.
Surprisingly Kashmir factor had less role to play in it. This war badly wounded
Pakistani federation and its Eastern Wing got disintegrated. At the end of war, the
leadership of both countries again voiced about normalizing relationship. The
outcome of such optimism resulted in the signing of Simla Agreement 1972.
Although significant steps such as restoration of diplomatic relations, air links,
expansion of bilateral trade by opening rail and road traffic, cultural and scientific
exchanges were also taken but no tangible progress was made on Kashmir. In
1977 with change of government in India, new ruling party announced to forge
good relationship with all neighboring countries on the basis of Beneficial
Bilateralism 6 . The basic objective was to preserve Indian national interests
199
 JPUHS, Vol.29, No.2, July - December, 2016

transcending from Iran to Indo-China. In order to materialize this goal, India

foreign minister Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpai also visited Pakistan. Pakistan conveyed to
Indian foreign minister that without the resolution of Kashmir, economic
adventure looks oblique in nature.
With the intervention of Soviet Union in Afghanistan 1979, Pak-India
relationship underwent a serious estrangement. India out-rightly supported Soviet
military invasion and was among a few countries who did not endorse of the idea
of UNO demanding withdrawal of Soviet Union. Pak-India relationship suffered
from a deadlock when India alleged Pakistan’s involvement in Sikh separatist
movement in East India Punjab. The conflict over Siachen Glacier, in the northern
part of Pakistan also added fuel to fire. In November-December due to massive
Indian military exercises and deployment of troops near Pakistani borders,
conditions were so dangerous that there was a real danger of war among two
states. However with steer optimism from the leadership of both sides, threats of
war got diffused with India prime minister attending 4th Summit of SAARC held at
Pakistan. Significantly Pakistan and India signed three agreements on non-attack
on each other’s nuclear installations, avoidance of double taxation and cultural
cooperation.
Benazir Bhutto aspired for solving Kashmir issue within the framework
of Simla Agreement and followed the path of holding bilateral talks. The policy of
détente disappeared with Indian forces ruthless campaign of suppressing Kashmiri
up-rising in 1990. The uprising was indigenous development and it had nothing to
do with Pakistan. Instead of addressing the demands of the Kashmir’s, India used
coercive measures to curb it. It resulted in huge genocide and world community
including UNO became a silent spectator. Thus Pak-India estrangement continued
to widen in the decade of 1990s. The formation of BJP led government in March
1998 produced a drastic change in New Delhi’s perceptions. The detonation of
nuclear device created an alarming situation for Pakistan. In response to India
nuclear testing Pakistan responded back on 28th May 1998. This escalated tensions
tormented hopes of permanent peace between the dominant actors of South Asia.
Despite of touching the heights of nuclear armament both leaders also remained
committed to restore peace talks. The signing of Lahore Declaration on 21
February 1999 was hailed as one of the positive developments which emphasized
upon the need of solving all outstanding issue through dialogue. Again Kashmir
issue was marginalized and Indian government kept on using oppressive means to
contain freedom movement in Kashmir. On the other hand Kashmiri Mujahedeen
occupied number of posts in Kargil sector thus cutting strategic Srinagar-Leh road
supplies to Indian forces in Siachen and Ladakh. India launched massive land and
air strikes to recapture them. Kargil crisis proved to be litmus test for both states as
they were at the brink of a new warfare. Had it not been settled down, the war
between India and Pakistan was becoming an inevitable reality. It spoiled
Islamabad and New Delhi relationship considerably.
Kashmir Dispute after 9/11
The spate of terrorism unleashed after the catastrophic event of 9/11 that
also left impinging impacts upon the region of South Asia. The geo-political and
geo-strategic landscape of this region changed abruptly. The Indian government

200
 Changing Dynamics Of Pakistan-India Relationship And Kashmir Predicament

started putting accusing finger at Pakistan for harboring terrorism in the region.
The arch rival also stepped ahead in declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. In order to
declare Kashmir’s struggle of independence as state sponsored terrorism India
launched very offensive struggle. The unabated media campaign was meant to
tarnish the image of Pakistan in the world. Indian propaganda consolidated this
perception that Pakistan was directly or indirectly involved in promoting terrorism.
Besides big powers also developed apprehensions over Pakistan’s nuclear program
and feared that the terrorists might not capture them. 7However the government
made considerable endeavors to convince the world by ensuring nuclear defense
and vowed to eliminate all kinds and manifestations of terrorism. Pakistan had to
cope with new offensive strategy of its enemy. Pakistan was left with no other
option except yielding to U.S declaration of War on Terror.
After 9/11 the trust deficit among two countries continued to widen.
Relations between the India and Pakistan got escalated when terrorists attacked
India Parliament on 13th December 2001 terrorist. 8 Indian government accused
Pakistan-based Jash-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba of attacking Indian
Parliament. Without wasting time, India deployed its forces on the border and Line
of control. Indian government vociferously condemned these terrorists’ attacks. It
made strenuous efforts to attract world community. Notably it was able to gain the
sympathies of countries namely UK, China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia etc.
They came hard on Pakistan. They pressurized the government to stop terrorist
groups using Pakistani soil against India and advised India to cease its military
buildup.9 U.S. played an important role in diffusing tensions between India and
Pakistan. Former secretary of State and Deputy Secretary Collin Powel and
Richard Armitage urged president Musharraf to take stern action against those
who were crossing Indian border for terrorism in India. Musharraf in response to
U.S. efforts stated that Pakistan would not tolerate state within state and banned
both LET and JEM. He reiterated that no organization will be allowed to use
terrorism as a tool in the name Kashmir. The normalization process was seriously
hit by a series of terrorist’s attacks. The Kurnool (2003) train incident claimed the
lives 20 people lives, Dehli bombing (29 October 2005), which killed 62 people,
Varanasi bombings (2006) that also took the lives of 28 people. India officials
attributed all these attacks to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Unfortunately Indian government
failed to produce any strong evidence for it alleged involvement neither to
Pakistan nor to world community. However Mumbai bombings (2006), played
havoc with peace process between India and Pakistan. The officials in Pakistan
called it as despicable act of terrorism.10. India as usual blamed LET for Mumbai
bombing. Later terrorist attack on Indian Embassy at Kabul (2008) led Indian
Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh to conclude that if the issue of terrorism is not
resolved then our wish to live in peace and harmony will be negated. 11 Pakistan
rejected all Indian allegations. Then on November 26, 2008 a group of Terrorists
wrecked havoc in India's Capital Mumbai which caused casualties of 126 people
including twenty five foreign Nationals. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi was also present in India to discuss Kashmir, water and trade
issues with the Indian government. Indian officials just like in the past blamed
LET and ISI for it.

201
 JPUHS, Vol.29, No.2, July - December, 2016

While looking at the retrospective analysis of extremist and militant

organization operating in Pakistan, one can argue that most of them were the
product of either Soviet War in Afghanistan (1979) or Kashmir dispute. Pakistan
in collaboration with U.S.A fought a proxy war against Soviet Union in
Afghanistan. The Talibans and Al-Qaeeda was the product of that war. After the
withdrawal of Soviet Army, the Talibans were able to constitute a political
government namely as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They remained in power
from September 1996 to December 2001. On the other hand Lashkar-e-Taiba
(LET) was established by Professor Mohammad Hafiz Saeed at Kunar Province of
Afghanistan in 1991with the purpose of defeating remnants of Soviet forces
completely. 12 Jaish-e-Mohammad was setup by Maulana Masood Azhar in
December 2000.13 These organizations promoted Jihadi culture within and outside
Pakistan.
Pakistan is not the only the exception where extremist and militant
organizations have prevailed. In India RSS (Rashtriya Sawayam Savaksang) and
BJB (Bhartia Janata Party) had been involved in promoting Hindu militancy.
There had been strong proof of RSS in Shamjota express blast, Makkah Masjid
and Dargah Ajmer blast but no steps were to taken by the Indian government to
probe into such matters. BJP has been the second largest political party of India
which ruled over India by dividing Indian people on religious and sectarian lines.
Unity between RSS and BJP showed that Hindu terrorism had become a part of
Indian politics. It also negated Indian claim of being secularist state. Apart from
RSS and BJB a number of organizations Vishua Hindu Parishad, Badrang Dal,
Rasktriya Jargan Manch, Sri Ram Sena and Hindu Dharam Sena are known for
launching ruthless attacks against Muslims, Christians and other communities.14
The master minds of Samjhota express, colonel. Purohit confessed that he had
links to Hindu outfit Abinav Bharat.15 However the fact remains that Indian based
terrorist organizations have received less criticism from Western media.
The former president Musharraf presented proposals for the peaceful
settlement on Kashmir in 2003, 2004 and 2006. His political opponents criticized
him for being deviating from six decade old stance on Kashmir issue. He
categorically stated that his proposals were meant to pull out Kashmiri’s from
perpetual war syndrome. His proposals included soft borders, demilitarization,
State autonomy and joint mechanism in Kashmir. General Pervaiz Musharraf was
able to attract foreign media and big powers. He also impressed upon the Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who in return showed willingness to go for a
composite dialogue. However water issues such as Kishanganga, Baglihar dams
etc harnessed positive outcomes. India with alacrity flouted Indus-Basin Treaty
(1960) by which India had committed not construct to any dam on all those rivers
belonging to Pakistan. Hence Indian government also proceeded to construct more
water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers. With no exaggeration water issue has hijacked
all peace efforts rather it has created more fears of war. Even many political and
economic experts have shown great concern over the rise of water war between
both. Again the major hub of water resources for both is Kashmir.
Over the years many options have been given to settle Kashmir dispute
by Pakistan, UNO and World key actors but India never took into considerations
seriously. The perceptional paradox is indeed enigmatic. The egoistic, antagonistic
202
 Changing Dynamics Of Pakistan-India Relationship And Kashmir Predicament

and hostile approach cannot augur peace in South Asia. In contemporary scenario
the role of China can be utilized as a possible arbitrator for both conflicting
nations. Knowingly, China has been impacting the geo-political and geo-strategic
landscape of this region. It shares different perspective on Kashmir. It desires for
the solution of the conflict through peaceful ways. China enjoys cordial relations
with Pakistan and its bilateral relations with India have also improved. Both states
have realized the significance of maintaining economic relationship. It is expected
that by the end of 2015 bilateral trade volume would reach up to $100 billion. The
role of China as mediator can be utilized in resolving long standing Kashmir
dispute. At International Level, United Nations and International community
should come forward and facilitate this process of arbitration headed by China.
Human rights violation can also serve as important indicator by which
International community may impress upon Indian government to negotiate a
peaceful pact under the aegis of China. At regional level, the role of SAARC may
also be used for facilitating this process. The member countries may pressurize
Indian government to accept the role of China.

Conclusion
The Kashmir dispute is one of the oldest unresolved international disputes
in the contemporary world. It has been the real hindrance in the way of permanent
peace and friendship between India and Pakistan. Whenever there were initiated
sincere efforts aiming at the achievement of normalization of relations, they
received a setback due to Kashmir. It was supposed to be solved in line with UNO
Resolutions demanding holding plebiscite in the disputed region but it was denied
to them. India government led by Jwarlal Nehru promised to hold plebiscite but
that promise is yet to be full filled. The destiny of Kashmiri’s is still obfuscated.
Both states have fought four major wars on and numerous border skirmishes but
Kashmir problem remains unresolved. Over the years accusations and counter
accusations have determined the nature of relationship among the two dominant
actors of South Asia. Both sides get also engaged into inflammatory statements
against each other that could only aggravate the already tenuous relationship
between them. The other conflicts like Siachen, Sir Creek, water issues appear to
be less threatening in-comparison with it.
Instead of blaming Pakistan behind all acts of terrorism, Indian
government should look after the basic needs of minorities living in India. This is
the only way to address their grievances. Pakistan suffered from terrorism more
than India and gave countless sacrifices in war against terror. Unfortunately the
world paid little attention to Pakistan’s contributions. The terrorist activities in
Karachi and Baluchistan have been unheard by the key actors of the world. U.S.
has developed strategic interests in Baluchistan because of its proximity with Strait
of Hormuz and gulf of Oman. Baluchistan closeness to Iran, China and
Afghanistan also makes it an important region for the big powers. The power
politics of U.S. seems to be supporting India against China. The recent visit of
U.S. President Barak Obama in India is a strong evidence of it. Washington
considers India as competitor to China and does not want to see the growing role
of China in the region.

203
 JPUHS, Vol.29, No.2, July - December, 2016

With the possession of nuclear weapons both states have assumed the
capability of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and without hyperbolism this
dispute may lead to a nuclear warfare among two. It should be averted with an
intervention by the international community or by the path of following the policy
of bilateralism supported by diplomatic channels or accepting the role of China as
a mediator. Otherwise the long standing peace cannot be materialized in South
Asia.

Notes & References

1
Rasheed, H. (2011). Pakistan the Successful Culmination. Lahore: Publishers Emporium.
p.356
2
Ziring, L. (1997). Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. p.90
3
Burke, S.M. (1973). Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: A Historical Analysis, Karachi: Oxford
University Press. p.21
4
For more information see Choudhry, G.W.(1968). Pakistan’s Relations with India New
York: Frederick A. Praeger. p. 134
5
Choudhry, G.W. (1968). Pakistan’s Relations with India New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
pp. 139-140
6
Muni, S.D. (1979). India’s Beneficial Bilateralism in South Asia, India Quarterly, 30(5),
p.4
7
Ahmed, K. (2002). Pakistan the State in Crisis, Lahore: Maktaba Jadeed Press. pp.196-
197
8
Hussain, S.R. (2011). Pakistan Beyond the Crisis State, Karachi: Oxford University Press.
p.32
9
Cheema, P.I., Cohen, S.P. (2007). Four Crisis and a Peace Process, Washington DC:
Booking Institution Press. p. 164
10
A Despicable act: President and PM. (2014, August 18). Retrieved from
http://www.dawn.com/
11
Singh, W. (August 16, 2008). Peace process with Pakistan under precarious condition,
The News.
12
Mir, A.(2008). The Fluttering Flag of Jehad. Lahore: Zahid Bashir Printers. p.148
13
Ibid
14
Iqbal, K.( January 28, 2013). India Acknowledge Hindu Terrorism. The Nation.
15
For more information see www.Nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspapers-daily-english-
online-politics/16-Nov-2008/India-colonedl-linked-to-Shamdoto-express-blast.

204