UNIT – 8 INDIA’S POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN

Structure
8.0 Objectives

8.1Introduction

8.2 Historical Background: Roots of the Conflict

82.1 Divergent Concepts of Nationhood
8.2.2 Princely States
8.2.3 Accession of Jammu & Kashmir and the First India-Pakistan War of 1948
8.2.4 Aksai Chin
8.2.5 Siachen Glacier

8.3 Wars between India and Pakistan

8.3.1 Indo-Pak War of 1961

8.3.2 War of 1971 and Liberation of Bangladesh

8.3.3 Kargil War, 1999

8.4 Indus Water Treaty, 1960

8.5 Peace Process and CBMs in the 1990s

8.5.1 Track – II Diplomacy

8.5.2 Composite Dialogue

8.5.3 Lahore Visit

8.5.4 Agra Summit

8.5.5 ‗Coercive‘ Diplomacy

8.5.6 Vajpayee in Islamabad and Musharraf in Delhi

8.6 Terrorism is the ‗Core‘ Issue

8.7 India‘s Policy towards Pakistan since 2014

8.8 Let Us Sum Up

8.9 Some Useful References

8.10 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

129
8.0 OBJECTIVES
In this Unit, you will be reading about India‘s policy towards Pakistan and about, in general, Indo-
Pak relations. After going through this Unit, you should be able to:
 Understand the historical background to the present day Indo-Pak relations;
 the various issues and subjects that are cause of conflict and animosity between the two
countries;
 accession of Jammu and Kashmir and the India-Pakistan conflict;
 Indo-Pak wars of 1947-48; 1965, 1971 and 1999;
 Indus Water Treaty of 1960;
 peace process and CBMs since the 1990s; and
 Threat of cross-border terrorism.

8.1 INTRODUCTION
How to sum up India-Pakistan relations? Some say it is a ‗love-hate‘ relationship. Others describe
the two neighbours as estranged brothers who love each other but are quarrelling over distribution of
family wealth. Some look at India-Pakistan relationship in adversarial terms: India and Pakistan are
involved in a mortal battle. This enmity will end only with the destruction of Pakistan. A less
extreme view is that Pakistan stands against everything that India champions – pluralism, secularism,
democracy, development and peace. Emotions run high and take over reason. One hears heart-
warming stories too: in Lahore, restaurant owners refuse to charge Indian visitors for food. In Delhi,
taxi drivers refuse to charge fare from Pakistani visitors. Two points bear significance here: One
thing is certain: not one single dominant view can capture the complexity and nuances of Indo-Pak
relations. Secondly, relations with Pakistan have dynamics which are very different from India‘s
relations with other neighbours. It is the most enduring rivalry between any two nations since the
end of the Second World War. Ironically, the number of issues that divides them continues to
increase then decrease. But the number of issues that unite them also has a fairly long list. Peace and
harmony is not in sight; conflict and hostility is the reality of today – as it was of yesterday and, one
fears, of tomorrow as well.
There is a historical background; and there are political experiences and memories. Indian and
Pakistan elites – political, business, civil services and armed forces – had lived and worked together

130
prior to 1947. There were personal equations and rivalries too among the elite classes. Then there
are cultural legacies – not one but several. Partition gravely disturbed the economic production
system. Further, the making of Pakistan did not follow logic of geography. Borders were drawn
arbitrarily; they left behind lots of disputes. Sociologically, it turned neighbours, who had lived side
by side for generations, into enemies. Culturally, the syncretic culture was rejected by Pakistan.
Evolving an alternative identity has proved an artificial effort.
British India was first partitioned and a separate state of Pakistan was created on 14 August 1947.
India was granted independence a day later on 15 August 1947. The Muslim dominated regions
became Pakistan and came to be called West Pakistan and East Pakistan – the two regions were
separated by hundreds of kilometers of Indian territory. Soon after their independence, India and
Pakistan established diplomatic relations. But partition proved a very violent process with millions
dead and displaced. Further, numerous territorial claims overshadow their relationship. Since their
Independence, the two countries have fought three major wars and one undeclared localized war. The
1972 war led to the birth of Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan). There have been numerous armed
skirmishes and military standoffs; Pakistani border forces periodically violate the ceasefire line in
Jammu and Kashmir. There are two centre-points of conflict. Kashmir dispute is the centre-point of
all of these conflicts. Cross-border terrorism which is a strategic tool in the hands of Pakistan state is
another point of contention. There have been numerous terrorist incidents in last three decades or so,
including attack on the Indian Parliament which are traced back to Pakistan-based terrorist
organizations and their close links with the sections in Pakistan establishment.

8. 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT

Relations between India and Pakistan are complex and largely hostile; yet the relationship, at times,
shows the dimension of a strong emotional and cultural bond. Some say, it is a love-hate
relationship. But there is more to Indo-Pak relationship. There are historical, cultural and political
reasons underlying this hostility and mutual antipathy. As stated earlier, India was was first
partitioned and only thereafter granted independence.
There was lot of mutual acrimony and political one-upmanship between Indian National Congress
and the Muslim League prior to 1947. Communal divide had reached high pitch and there were
incidents of communal violence. When independence was granted to both India and Pakistan,
partition could not remain a peaceful orderly process. Partition resulted in massive displacement and
migration of populations along communal lines across the borders of the two independent states
which resulted in very large scale violence, destruction and death of innocents. In all, about 12.5

131
million people were displaced. The number of dead in the communal violence that followed is
estimated to be from several hundred thousand to one million; some estimate the number of those
killed at 2 million. In short, freedom came to India at a heavy price. The centuries‘ old social
cohesion and communal harmony was damaged; and India was laid up with a hostile neighbour.
Muslim League had demanded and got Pakistan as the ‗homeland‘ for Muslims. Its raison detre as
an independent nation was hostility towards India. Pakistani leadership saw their nation in an
adversarial relationship with India. They were keen to project the new country as distinct and
different from India. For decades, the leadership has fed the Pakistani population of the ‗un-
Indianness‘ of their country – in terms of history, culture and society. Bilateral relations have strong
domestic national dimension: Pakistan stands as a negation of all that India stands for and aspires
for.

8.2.1 Divergent Concepts of Nationhood

India is a plural country with many languages, castes, religions and sects and ethnic identities. Indian
Constitution guarantees right to equality to all. Secularism is enshrined in the Constitution. Indian
state is expected to embrace all religions as equal and follow the precept of sarva dharma sama bhav
("all religions are the same"). India emerged as a secular nation with a Hindu majority population
and a large Muslim minority besides several more religious minorities. Important to note, Pakistan
also emerged as a secular nation with a Muslim majority population and a large Hindu minority and
sizeable Sikh community. Pakistan‘s two stalwarts died in quick succession. Pakistan‘s founder
Mohammed Ali Jinnah and its first Governor-General died in September 1948 and Prime Minister
Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. It caused a political vacuum: there was no political
leader acceptable at a national level. The vacuum eventually got filled by army officers and senior
bureaucrats – whose favourite tool was martial law and governor‘s rule as response to all political
problems. The drift towards political chaos and economic decline continued for over two decades
with Bengali-speaking region seeking more autonomy from federal rule. In West Pakistan too,
provinces sought to assert their own linguistic and ethnic identity.
There was a constituent assembly but which could not resolve competing regional, linguistic and
religious and sectarian demands. The religious heads, the Ulemas, were very influential; they had
had wanted the constitution based on Islamic laws. It took Pakistan nine years and two constituent
assemblies to finally have a constitution; until 1956, Pakistan was governed under the British India
Act of 1935.
However, under the 1956 constitution and it directive principle of state policy, Pakistan declared for
itself the ideal of an Islamic Republic; though the constitution guaranteed freedom of religion to

132
people of all faiths. In later years, emigration of its large Hindu population continued from the Sindh
province on the West and Bengali-speaking Hindus from the then East Pakistan. With the secession
of East Pakistan and birth of an independent state of Bangladesh, Pakistan lost its sizeable Hindu
minority population. In very brief, such were the circumstances that continue to weigh heavily on the
relation between the two countries.
8.2.2 Princely States
Another source of conflict between the two countries had been former princely states. The departing
British colonial rulers gave freedom to all the 680 princely states to decide which of the two
dominions they wished to join. Most of the Muslim-majority princely states joined Pakistan and most
of the Hindu-majority states acceded to India. But there were several exceptions to this. Some of the
princely states had different political ambitions or some peculiar geographical predilections. Their
decisions and predilections cast a long shadow on the future of India and Pakistan relation.
Junagadh: Junagadh was a princely state on the south-western end of Gujarat. Overwhelming
number of its population was Hindu under Nawab Mahabat Khan - a Muslim ruler. Mahabat Khan
decided to join Pakistan on 15 August 1947. But the princely state had no contiguous borders with
Pakistan. With no contiguous borders, Junagadh would have been an enclave of Pakistan surrounded
on three sides by Indian territory. It had a coastline so it could have a maritime link with Pakistan.
Pakistan accepted the accession on 15 September 1947 while India rejected the accession. There
were security dimensions: there was no geographical contiguity with Pakistan; and that 80 per cent of
the population was Hindu. The result was a standoff. In a highly charged atmosphere, the Nawab
left for Pakistan and the Dewan of Junagadh wrote to Indian authorities to intervene to restore peace.
Indian troops occupied Junagadh on 9 November 1947. In February 1948, a plebiscite was held
where people almost unanimously voted for accession to India.
Hyderabad: Hyderabad was the richest of the princely states under the rule of Nizams. The Muslim
Nizams ruled over a population that was largely Hindu for over 200 years without any major
problems. It was a peaceful and somewhat a backward princely state, which also remained almost
isolated from the Indian freedom movement. When India became independent, the Nizam of
Hyderabad chose to become an independent state rather than join India. On 29 November 1947, a
standstill agreement was signed with India for a period of one year. Nizam wanted to remain
independent while India insisted that Hyderabad join the Indian Union. This led to the police action
when Indian soldiers overwhelmed the feeble resistance by Nizam and thus on 13 September 1948,
Hyderabad‘s accession to India was achieved.
8.2.3 Accession of Jammu & Kashmir and the First India-Pakistan War of 1948
Kashmir was a Muslim-majority princely state, ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh. The

133
Maharaja had wanted his state to remain as an independent kingdom – a neutral country recognized
by both India and Pakistan. Circumstances were still not clear when Pakistan invaded Kashmir with
its irregular forces and the tribal fighters in October 1947. The security forces of Maharaja Hari
Singh could not stop the invaders. There were incidents of communal violence in September 1947
which resulted in the killing of Muslims in Jammu. Faced with Pakistan invasion, Maharaja Hari
Singh appealed to India for help. He was advised by the Governor-General Lord Mountbatten to first
sign the instrument of accession before India could provide any help. He signed the instrument of
accession to the Union of India on 26 October 1947. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the leader of
Kashmir‘s popular movement, rushed to Delhi and requested Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to
send Indian troops to save Kashmir from the invaders. Governor-General accepted the instrument of
accession on 27 October 1947. With this, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir became part of
Dominion of India as per the Indian Independence Act of 1947 passed by the British parliament.
Kashmir was later given special status within the Indian Constitution – a status which guaranteed that
Kashmir would have independence over everything but communications, foreign affairs, and
defence. Indian troops reached Srinagar same day and began the operation to evict the Pakistani
invaders from the valley.
This was the first India-Pakistan war, 1947-48. Fighting was intense between Indian and Pakistan
armies. With a difficult terrain and weather, this localized conflict continued during 1948. It was
noted that the two armed forces had limited capabilities. The two countries agreed to a ceasefire
worked out by the United Nations, which took effect in January 1949. They also sought UN
arbitration with the promise of a plebiscite. With popular leaders like Sheikh Abdullah in favour of
accession with a secular India, India had expected to win the vote. In July 1949, India and Pakistan
defined a ceasefire line – the line of control. It was meant as a temporary expedient; but the line of
control exists to this day. About two-thirds of the Kashmir remains with India; and the rest is the
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). In 1957, POK was integrated into Pakistan, becoming the so-
called ‗Azad Kashmir‘.
Pakistan maintains that Kashmiris have right to self-determination through a plebiscite and that the
promised plebiscite should be allowed to decide the fate of the Kashmiri people. India on the other
hand asserts that with the Maharaja's signing the instrument of accession, Kashmir has become an
integral part of India.
8.2.4 Aksai Chin
China had refused to accept the British-negotiated boundary agreements in northeastern Kashmir.
After China had established its authority over Tibet and reasserted its authority in Xinjiang, Chinese
forces penetrated the northeastern Ladakh. China had built a military road in Aksai China to better

134
link Xinjiang and the western Tibet without India‘s knowledge. In 1962, China occupied Aksai
Chin, the northeastern region bordering Ladakh. India claims that Aksai Chin is the easternmost part
of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir; while China claims that it is part of Xinjiang. The
resulting clashes culminated in the Sino-Indian war of October 1962. In sum, India has claims over
its Jammu & Kashmir territories which are under the illegal occupation of both the Pakistan and
China.

8.2.5 Siachen Glacier

In 1984, India launched Operation Meghdoot and captured more than 80 per cent of the Siachen
Glacier – the Saltoro Ridge, a strategic location on the southwest side of the Siachen Glacier, which
the UN did not demarcate in the 1948 ceasefire agreement.
India took control of around 1,000 square miles of territory during the military operations in Siachen.
India and Pakistan had had combat operations launched during the 1980s and the 1990s to take
strategic positions at the glacier. A ceasefire was worked out in 2003. India remains in control of the
Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as all the main passes and ridges of the
Saltoro Ridge. Pakistan holds posts at lower elevations along the spurs of the Saltoro ridgeline.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Describe the accession of Jammu & Kashmir and the first Indo-Pak war of 1947-48.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.3 WARS BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Political differences are deep and seemingly unbridgeable; and territorial claims are unmitigated.

135
The result has been various wars. India and Pakistan have fought three wars. A brief description of
the 1947-48 war has been given earlier. Then there were wars in 1965 and 1971; and an undeclared
short war in 1999 at Kargil. At the time of Kargil war, the two countries were nuclear-armed powers.
A brief description and analyses of major wars follow.

8.3.1 Indo-Pak War of 1965

India and Pakistan had their second war in 1965. The decade of 1960s was marked by the intensity
of Cold War. Pakistan had joined the US-led military alliances of South East Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO); and received generous US
military aid. India was Non-aligned, which US did not like. The India-China border war had
brought China and Pakistan closer. Pakistan was able to convince China that its membership in
CENTO and SEATO is not directed against China. Pakistan is a strategically located country; and
took full advantage of it during Cold War. As Soviet Union did not want Pakistan to be close to its
ideological rival China, it too offered Pakistan trade and economic cooperation agreements in 1965.
Thus on the eve of the war, the regional strategic environment was favourable to Pakistan; and its
leaders felt emboldened. It was then that Pakistani President Field Marshal Ayub Khan decided to
find a military solution to Kashmir issue.

There is a piece of war strategy. The first Kashmir war of 1948 had convinced Pakistani strategists
that it can fight only asymmetrical wars with India. The 1948 war had witnessed the use of non-state
actors in the form of the tribal invaders. The strategy in 1965 had two parts: first, Pakistani design
was to encourage and support sabotage and guerrilla operations into J&K. Pakistan armed forces
sent around 30,000 trained infiltrators on 5 August 1965. The plan was to incite popular uprising and
sabotage the infrastructure. A guerilla war would be launched to destroy physical infrastructure and
supply and communication lines of Indian army. The second part of the Pakistan plan unfolded on
1st September 1965. Pakistani army attacked Indian positions. Indian forces responded by launching
operations and occupied Haji Pir, Tithwal and Kargil heights. The war lasted 17 days. Thousands
were killed on both sides. The 1965 war saw the largest tank battle and the largest battle involving
armoured units anywhere since the end of Second World War. UN brokered ceasefire following the
diplomatic initiatives by the Soviet Union and the United States.
Role of the UN: The UN Secretary General U Thant worked hard at the behest of the world body to
bring an end to the hostilities. U Thant held Pakistan responsible for crossing the ceasefire line; he
also appealed to India to observe restraint as regards retaliation. UN Security Council was seized of
the matter and passed as many as three resolutions to bring an end to the war. Resolution 209 was

136
passed on 4 September 1965. It called for ceasefire and asked the two governments to cooperate
fully with the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in its task of
supervising the observance of the ceasefire. Two days later, the Security Council adopted another
Resolution 210. It requested the Secretary-General ―to exert every possible effort to give effect to
the present resolution and to resolution 209 (1965), to take all measures possible to strengthen the
United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan‖.
UN Secretary General visited India and Pakistan from 7 to 16 September but failed to convince the
two countries to stop the fighting. By then the war had spread across international border. UN
Security Council passed its third Resolution 211 which demanded that a ceasefire take effect at seven
in the morning of 22 September 1965; and that the two sides should withdraw all armed personnel to
the positions held before 5 August.
The Tashkent Declaration: The Soviet Union offered its good offices for a peaceful settlement of
the dispute. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and President Ayub Khan met in Taskhkent during
4-10 January 1966 to discuss the issues. Prime Minister of India demanded the withdrawal of all
Pakistani infiltrators from Kashmir and future assurances that Pakistan would not indulge in such
activities. Importantly, he also offered a ‗no war pact‘ to Pakistan. President Ayub Khan remained
insistent that Kashmir issue be discussed and demanded holding of the plebiscite. Finally, the two
sides agreed and signed the Tashkent Declaration on 10 January 1966: the two countries agreed to
withdraw forces to 5 August1965 positions. India agreed to return Haji Pir and other Pakistani
territories. The two countries also agreed to exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations; and
reaffirmed not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means. They
also agreed not to encourage propaganda against each other. Tashkent Declaration has been
described as a peace agreement. In reality, it was more of an agreement that brought cessation of
hostilities. The agreement was signed on 10 January 1966. Incidentally, Prime Minister Shastri
passed away in Tashkent that very night.

8.3.2 War of 1971 and Liberation of Bangladesh

Pakistan was created as a geographically divided nation. Its two major parts viz. West Pakistan and
East Pakistan were separated from each other by 1600 kilometres of Indian territory. Air travel
between the two parts took three hours. East Pakistan, occupied mostly by Bengali-speaking people,
accounted for 60 per cent of Pakistan‘s population. The economy of East Pakistan was dominated
by businessmen from West Pakistan. Pakistan could have been a bilingual country with Urdu and
Bengali as the two official languages. But Urdu was declared the official language of Pakistan and
the claim of Bengali language was rejected. It was only after large scale protest that Bengali was

137
accepted as the official language in 1954 The seeds of ethnic discord had been sown. The linguistic
and ethnic divide combined with economic factors led to the spread of dissatisfaction in East
Pakistan. By 1970s, there were strong grounds of resentment in East Pakistan against the domination
by West Pakistan.
In the parliamentary election held in 1970, the Awami League under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won
169 out of 313 seats in Pakistan, but he was denied the office of prime minister. Pakistan‘s military
dictator General Yahya Khan arrested Mujib and imposed martial law on East Pakistan. Throughout
1970-71, East Pakistan faced a civil war. Its civil and military establishment was controlled by
personnel from West Pakistan. A strong ethnic nationalism emerged. People in East Pakistan rose
up in revolt and Mukti Bahini took up arms to resist the Pakistani regime. Pakistani military
responded with repression and genocide of the Bengali-speaking population. Estimates of those who
died vary from three lakh to three million. Around nine million refugees poured into India straining
its resources and internal security. The clouds of war had been hanging for months as the situation in
East Pakistan deteriorated.
Pakistani air force carried out a preemptive strike on the Western front at as many as eight airfields –
from Srinagar to Barmer on 3 December 1971. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi told the nation said
that a ―War has been forced on us.‖ There was an Awami League-led government-in-exile near
Calcutta which India had refrained from recognizing. Three days after Pakistan air force attacked
Indian positions on the Western front, India recognized Bangladesh as an independent state on 6
December 1971. The war was brief but bloody, and resulted in the liberation of Bangladesh. Indian
armed forces also inflicted heavy damage on the Western front. India captured around 15010
kilometres of Pakistan territory; and Indian navy literally destroyed Pakistan navy at Karachi
harbour. The war lasted 13 days and some 3800 soldiers from both India and Pakistan died on the
battlefront. On 16 December 1971, Pakistan‘s commander General A.A.K Niazi surrendered Dacca,
handing over his service revolver to Indian Lieutenant-General J.S. Aurora. Ninety thousand
Pakistani military personnel surrendered to the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini – the largest
surrender of armed forces since the end of the Second World War. Pakistan had thus lost 60 per cent
of its population; and one third of its army was in captivity. Post victory, India announced ceasefire.
Indira Gandhi made it clear to the Pakistani leadership that India‘s ambitions were not territorial; nor
are they revengeful or expansionist. On 2 August 1972, India and Pakistan signed the Shimla
Agreement under which the former agreed to release all the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war.
Shimla agreement has three important principles: (i) mutual commitment to the peaceful resolution
of all issues through direct bilateral approaches; (ii) to build the foundation of a cooperative
relationship with a focus on people-to-people contacts; and (iii) to uphold the inviolability of LOC in

138
Jammu and Kashmir.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Describe and discuss the 1971 war and the liberation of Bangladesh

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.3.3 Kargil War, 1999

After the 1971 war, there was no major war between India and Pakistan except efforts made by the
two countries to take control of the Siachen by establishing military presence on the higher mountain
ridges in the 1990s. The decade of 1990s was otherwise full of tensions and conflict as Pakistan
supported separatist activities in Jammu & Kashmir. In May 1999, the two countries had also gone
nuclear which added a new strategic dimension to their bilateral ties. Kargil was the first
conventional war between two countries with nuclear weapons. The war was fought between 3 May
and 26 July 1999.
In the winter of 1999, infiltrators of Pakistan army surreptitiously occupied about 132 high altitude
vantage points in the Kargil region of India overlooking National Highway-1, which links Srinagar
with Leh. This brought the highway under range of their artillery fire. India found out of the
intrusion on 3 May 1999. ‗Operation Vijay‘ saw a mobilization of around 2 lakh Indian troops.
Fighting was carried out in very difficult terrain and extremely harsh weather conditions. Indian air
force carried out its operations at very high altitudes without crossing the LOC. After two months of
conflict, Indian troops had slowly retaken some 70 to 80 per cent of the ridges that were encroached
upon by the infiltrators. The international community held Pakistan responsible for the crisis.
Pakistan‘s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sought American help to deescalate the conflict. However,
Bill Clinton, US President asked Pakistani Premier to first withdraw all Pakistani forces from the

139
Indian side of the LOC. Following the Washington accord of 4 July 1999, most of the fighting came
to a gradual halt. Some Pakistani forces and Jihadists remained in positions on the Indian side of the
LOC. The Indian army launched its final attacks in the last week of July in coordination with the air
force and cleared the Drass subsector of all Pakistani forces. Fighting ceased on 26 July 1999; the
day since then is marked as Kargil Vijay Diwas.
By the end of the war, Pakistan had to withdraw under international pressure and due to pressure
from continued fighting at battle front. Kargil was a fiasco for Pakistan‘s armed forces and for its
political leaders. The infiltration had come within months of a successful peace process when Indian
Prime Minister took a bus to travel to Lahore for a dialogue with his Pakistani counterpart Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif. India saw it as the betrayal of the trust Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
had reposed in Pakistani leadership when he took the good will journey to Lahore. Though the
Kargil conflict brought Kashmir dispute into international focus; at the same time, everyone also
understood the validity of the LOC to maintain peace between the two countries.

8.4 INDUS WATER TREATY, 1960

If as sensitive a matter as allocation of water, an issue of life and death for millions on both the sides
of the border, can be worked out peacefully and abided by for 60 years, why not other issues that
bedevil Indo-Pak relations? Idealists wonder whether the example of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT)
can be replicated so as to bring about peace between the countries. IWT is the notable exception to
India-Pakistan acrimony and hostility. Brokered by the World Bank, the Indus Water Treaty divides
the waters of Indus river system and stipulates the rights and obligations for both the countries.
The Indus River rises in the southwestern Tibet Autonomous Region of China and flows through the
Kashmir region and then into Pakistan to drain into the Arabian Sea. It is joined by numerous
tributaries, notably those of the eastern Punjab Plain—the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej
rivers. The partition of India and creation of Pakistan created a peculiar situation: head works were in
India and the canals carrying the water were running through Pakistan. Water sharing could have
gone the same way as all other issues – in acrimony and dispute. India withheld flow of water into
Pakistan on 1 April 1948. However, the Inter-Dominion Accord of 4 May 1948 required India to
provide water to the Pakistani parts of the basin in return for annual payments. It was a stopgap
arrangement. When negotiations began for a permanent solution, there was the expected stand still.
Neither side was willing to budge from its rigid stand.
Better sense prevailed, thanks to David Lilienthal, former head of the US Atomic Energy

140
Commission who came to the region in 1951 and suggested that India and Pakistan should work
toward an agreement to jointly develop and administer the Indus River System, possibly with advice
and financing from the World Bank. The World Bank came forward, its member-countries agreed to
finance and thus a win-win solution was worked out. However, the politics between the two
countries delayed a final decision for nearly ten years. Indus Water Treaty was finally signed on 19
September 1960 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Ayub Khan.
The treaty gave the waters of the western rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—to Pakistan and
those of the eastern rivers—the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—to India. It provided for the funding and
building of dams, link canals, barrages, and tube wells—notably the Tarbela Dam on the Indus River
and the Mangla Dam on the Jhelum River. These helped provide water to Pakistan in the amounts
that it had previously received from the rivers now assigned to India‘s exclusive use. World Bank
financed major projects. A Permanent Indus Commission was established which had one
commissioner each from India and Pakistan. The commission was to oversee proper implementation
of the treaty. A dispute settlement mechanism was also provided for.
IWT has worked for over half a century. But there are new problems now. Technology and national
needs for more water and electricity have put pressure on IWT. The year 2019 brought tension and
doubts about the viability of the IWT. India wants to build dams along the Chenab – a 900 kilometre
long tributary of the Indus that was originally allotted to Pakistan under IWT. This follows several
building of other dams on shared rivers including Kishanganga on the Jhelum River, which was also
allotted to Pakistan.
Under the IWT, India has a right to ―limited hydropower generation‖ upstream on the western
tributaries allotted to Pakistan, including the Chenab and the Jhelum. However, many in Pakistan
worry that even though these proposed dams may individually abide by the technical letter of the
treaty, their effects will add up downstream. Because the treaty does not provide a definitive
solution, the two countries have frequently sought time-consuming and expensive international
arbitration. From time to time, Pakistan has raised concerns and asked for intervention on the storage
capacity of Indian dams planned on shared rivers allotted to Pakistan under the IWT.
Can India ‗turn off‘ the waters flowing into Pakistan from its side? Many strategists say this could
be an option. The Indus, and its tributaries are mighty rivers — the annual flow of the Indus is
estimated to be upwards of 200 cubic kilometres. How to tap so much of water so as not allow it to
flow into Pakistan?
Then, there are other challenges beyond anybody‘s control. Global warming is making Himalayan
glaciers melt faster. Dangerous flooding is expected to become more frequent and more severe both
in India and Pakistan. The authors of the Indus Water Treaty can‘t be blamed for not anticipating

141
climate change, huge population growth, or modern hydropower issues. The treaty was drawn up in
the 1950s. The IWT does have a clause for ―future cooperation‖ which allows the two countries to
expand the treaty to address recent challenges like climate-induced water variability or groundwater
sharing. But the historical trust deficit between the two countries prevents meaningful dialogue.

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Write a note on Indus Water Treaty.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.5 PEACE PROCESS AND CBMs IN THE 1990s

Hope springs eternal. Ordinary Indians and Pakistanis really cannot hate each other too much
without crying for love which they hold for each other. Similarities are too strong between Pakistan
and north Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, UP and Delhi. Rural areas are so much
identical in terms of living, livelihood and weather; and more importantly every-day customs and
culture. Urban areas evoke parallels: in terms of architecture, buildings, food, and crowds in the
streets. Lahore looks so much like Delhi; the old parts of Lahore remind one of Chandni Chowk or
parts of old Lucknow. The food is amazingly similar; and connoisseurs can identify recipes
borrowed from Delhi, Lucknow, Marwar, Peshwar and Lahore. The ‗Frontier‘ food is very popular
all over India. This bond is shared alike by the elites and masses on both the sides of the border.
Pakistani youth love to dance on Bollywood songs. Partition had separated friends and colleagues.
Take the example of the ‗Frontier Gandhi‘. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a disciple and a close

142
associate of Mahatma Gandhi and a great leader of Pashtuns who stood for a united India. The
Khudai Khidmatgar (Servants of God) suffered worst atrocities at the hands of the colonial
authorities. When Indian National Congress decided to accept partition with North West Frontier
Province (NWFP) allotted to Pakistan, Badshah Khan was crestfallen and told the leaders of the
Indian freedom movement: "you have thrown us to the wolves.‖ The ‗Frontier Gandhi‘ remained in
jail or in exile for much of the 1960s and 70s and died in 1988 while still under house arrest.
Badshah Khan wished not to be buried in Pakistan but in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
Strong bonds of religious syncretism, faith and beliefs, pilgrimage centres, food, culture and folk and
classical music, language and dress emotionally bind the elites and the masses alike in Pakistan and
parts of northern India. These emotional ties have not weakened; rather they have withstood all
distrusts and wars.
Since the 1990s, as India‘s economy expanded and its influence at global level increased, the notable
change has been a conciliatory approach towards Pakistan – in fact towards all the South Asian
neighbours. It is recognised that a peaceful and friendly neighbourhood is necessary for India to
occupy is due place in world affairs as a credible emerging power. No nation can ever become a
credible power without the neighbourhood recognising its primacy in the region. Taking care of
neighbourhood has become even more important in the context of India‘s high and sustained
economic growth rate over the past quarter of a century. Every Prime Minister of India did reach out
to Pakistan in the 1990s. In the following, let us briefly recount the peace process and confidence
building measures (CBMs), India took towards Pakistan.

8.5.1 Track-II Diplomacy

In the 1990s, India made a number of overtures and took unilateral steps to improve relations. To
create a positive atmosphere and enhance trust between the two countries, the government of Prime
Minister IK Gujral encouraged people-to-people contacts. The number of visas issued to Pakistani
nationals was increased; there was greater interaction between academics and media persons; and
efforts were made to enhance cross-border trade. This came to be known as Track-II Diplomacy.
High-level contacts were made.
Economic liberalization was in full swing and India had wanted trade and economics to shape
relations rather than old hostilities. In his one year tenure as prime minister, Gujral met his Pakistani
counterpart four times. Bilateral official dialogue was resumed at the initiative of India. Foreign
Secretaries of the two countries had had as many as three meetings. In June 1997, the two countries
had identified the subjects to be discussed in a broad-based dialogue and also suggested setting up of
a mechanism for conducting talks.

143
8.5.2 Composite Dialogue
The decade of the 1990s was difficult: Pakistan‘s intransigence and support for militancy in Kashmir
remained unabated. The government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took several bold steps
to engage Pakistan with a view to change its hostile behaviour. The two countries had gone nuclear
in 1998. Vajpayee decided to revive the dialogue with Pakistan in this changed geostrategic context.
The first round of the renewed Composite Dialogue was held in October-November 1998 to discuss
eight identified subjects – peace and security including CBMs; J&K; Siachen; Tulbul navigation
project; Sir Creek, Trade and Economic Cooperation; Terrorism and Drug Trafficking; and Friendly
Exchanges in different fields. The dialogue started but no agreement could be reached on any of the
subject.
8.5.3 Lahore Visit
Prime Minister Vajpayee held the view that a country can choose its friends but not its neighbours.
Undaunted by the challenges, he decided to travel on the inaugural run of the Lahore-Delhi-Lahore
bus service in February 1999. This was the most comprehensive and high profile engagement by
India in the past 25 years. He met Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. There was the
Lahore Declaration, an MOU on CBMs and a Joint Statement at the end of the visit. The two
countries reaffirmed their commitment to work through a bilateral process in the framework of
Shimla Agreement to resolve all outstanding issues and to establish durable structure of cooperation.
The two prime ministers agreed to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It was also
agreed to have a regular political dialogue at the level of foreign ministers.
‗Lahore spirit‘ was betrayed by Pakistan‘s military adventure in Kargil in May 1999. A political
stand-off ensued. It was India that had initiated the Composite Dialogue. The Lahore bus journey by
Prime Minister Vajpayee was meant to transform India-Pakistan relations forever. Kargil brought a
stop to all these things. The military coup by General Pervez Musharraf in October 1999
overthrowing the elected government of Nawaz Sharif further had implications for India‘s security
and cross-border intrusions. The hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC814 to Kanadhar on 24
December 1999 was an example of the dangers posed to Indian security by Pakistan-based terrorist
groups working in tandem with Pakistani army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. The
year 2000 continued to have terrorist incidents and violence perpetrated by Pakistan-based jihadist
groups. There was attack on the Red Fort in New Delhi on 22 December 2000 carried out by
Lashkar-e-Taiba; and, earlier, there were attacks at the airport in Srinagar and an attempt at the life of
the Chief Minister of J&K.
8.5.4 Agra Summit
Two years had passed. Notwithstanding the political stand-off and numerous incidents of terrorism,

144
Prime Minister Vajpayee was still committed to restart the Composite Dialogue – which he had
initiated in 1998. Vajpayee invited the Delhi-born Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to visit New
Delhi. In the invitation letter, Vajpayee wrote of poverty being the common enemy of the two
countries and agreed to discuss Kashmir issue. He had wanted to revive the Lahore spirit and restart
the Composite Dialogue. India took several unilateral steps by way of building confidence: release
of Pakistani fishermen; opening of the LOC to facilitate movement of Kashmiri people; offer of
fellowships to Pakistani students to study in India; reduction of tariffs on imports from Pakistan; and
readiness to send the Director General of military operations to meet his counterparts so as to have
regular contacts between two armies.
Vajpayee and Musharraf met in the historic city of Agra for two days on 15-16 July 2001. Meetings
lasted two days and two nights: one-to-one between the two heads of government for five hours; and
at the level of delegations covering a huge number of issues. Differences however marred the Agra
summit; the two countries could not agree on the draft of the Agra Declaration. One more effort
failed indicating that the worldviews of the two countries were quite divergent; and how difficult is
India‘s neighbourhood. There were many points of differences: one however stood out. For
Pakistan, Kashmir was the ‗core‘ issue; for India, among others, Pakistan should first check the
cross-border terrorism.
8.5.5 ‘Coercive’ Diplomacy
Incidents of terrorism remained unabated through the 1990s. There was the dastardly attack on
Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001; and earlier on 1st October 2001 an attack on the J&K
legislature. India decided to militarily confront Pakistan. It launched its biggest military
mobilization, ‗Operation Parikarma‘, since the Kargil conflict and stopped or drastically reduced all
contacts with Pakistan. These measures put together came to be described as ‗coercive diplomacy‘.
It is noted that time and again, United States put restraint on both the countries so as not let the
situation deteriorate. International diplomatic mediation resulted in October 2002 in the withdrawal
of Indian and Paksitani troops from the international border.
Prime Minister Vajpayee was a statesman. He had faith in peace and friendship with Pakistan. He
once more extended the hand of friendship while addressing a rally in Srinagar on 18 April 2003; ten
days later, Pakistan responded positively. There were immediate developments: full diplomatic
relations were restored; bus journey restarted; there were lots of movement of parliamentarians,
businessmen and others under Track-II; and release of fishermen and prisoners. This time around,
there was the perceptible desire of the people of both India and Pakistan to turn a new chapter in their
relations. Visitors could see warmth among people and a great desire to start a new chapter in the
bilateral ties.

145
8.5.6Vajpayee in Islamabad and Musharraf in Delhi
During the SAARC summit in Islamabad, there was an Indo-Pak Joint Statement on 6 January 2004.
Both countries welcomed the positive developments in their bilateral ties. It was agreed to restart the
Composite Dialogue in February 2004 to discuss and resolve all outstanding issues including the
J&K. After the change of government in May 2004, the UPA government headed by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh continued with the Composite Dialogue.
President Musharaff visited New Delhi from 16 to 18 April 2005. A lot of progress had been made
in terms of people-to-people contacts; easing of visa and travel; road, rail and air links; the proposed
gas pipelines – one from Iran (IPI) and another from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan and Pakistan
(TAPI); confidence building measures in both the conventional and nuclear areas etc. President
Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh also discussed Kashmir issue. Indian Prime Minister
underscored that while there would be no redrawing of borders and another partition, all measures
that could bring the people on both the sides together would be taken to help the process and create
an atmosphere of trust and confidence.
This phase of looking for peace and building CBMs did not produce final end results but the efforts
made were significant in foreign policy terms. This phase of conciliatory approach came to end with
the terrorist violence perpetrated in Mumbai in November 2008 that caused some 200 deaths. India
as a nation reacted with anger and total disillusionment over what the Pakistan-based terrorists did in
Mumbai. In the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, India responded with coercive diplomacy. India
avoided a muscular response fearing that reprisals might lead to escalation. This policy would
change under Modi when a muscular policy would lead to cross-border ‗surgical strikes‘. Prior to
Mumbai attacks, there was the Samjhauta Express bombing in 2007, which killed 68 civilians (most
of whom were Pakistani).

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Make a summary of various peace initiatives since the 1990s

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

146
 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.6 TERRORISM IS THE ‘CORE’ ISSUE

Terrorism remains the core issue in relations with Pakistan. India has nearly always responded with
restraint and brought the threat of cross-border terrorism to the attention of the international
community. The approach is to build international pressure on Pakistan to change its behaviour on a
permanent basis. Anti-India diatribe is the ticket to political success in Pakistan; and governments
regularly indulge in India bashing to hide their own inadequacies. The government of Pakistan allows
known terrorist organizations and their leaders to operate freely and indulge in anti-India propaganda
and activities openly.
What one can say that India and Pakistan made numerous efforts to resolve their differences; at least
arrive at some kind of an understanding within limitations on select issues. However, the overall
relationship has really never improved. The so-called Composite Dialogue was a grand effort to
look at relations comprehensively including the contentious issue of J&K but in truth nothing
meaningful ever came of these efforts. Distrust and hostility continues to shape their outlook.
‗Terrorism‘ is the core issue for India, ‗Kashmir‘ for Pakistan, and ‗nuclear security and stability‘ for
the international community‘. These tectonic plates crash up against each other, but cannot mesh
comfortably (Stephen Cohen, 2009).

8.7 INDIA’S POLICY TOWARDS PAKISTAN SINCE 2014

After the electoral victory of the BJP and its NDA allies in the 2014 general election, Prime Minister
Narendra Modi invited all the SAARC heads of state and government to his swearing-in ceremony.
The new government also announced its ‗Nieghbourhood First‘ policy in all earnestness. Prime
Minister Modi made an unannounced 2-hour stopover in Lahore on his return journey from
Afghanistan and Russia on 24 December 2015. Earlier during their meeting in Paris on climate
change, Modi and Nawaz Sharif had agreed to launch what they described as the ‗Comprehensive
Dialogue‘. After a brief thaw following the election of new governments in both nations, bilateral
discussions again stalled after the terrorist attacks on 2 January 2016 at the Pathankot Air Force

147
Station.
The 2016 Pathankot attack was a terrorist attack committed on 2 January 2016 by a heavily armed
group which attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station, part of the Western Air Command of the
Indian Air Force. The attackers belonged to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) – an Islamist militant group
designated a terrorist organization by India, the US, the UK and the UN. The attack led to a
breakdown in India-Pakistan relations. Media reports suggested that the attack was an attempt to
derail a fragile peace process meant to stabilize the deteriorated relations between India and Pakistan.
On 18 September 2016, there took place the deadliest terrorist attack on the security forces in two
decades when JeM terrorists attacked the Indian military camp in Uri in Kashmir, resulting in the
death of 19 Indian army soldiers. India cancelled its participation in the 16th SAARC summit which
was scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November 2016 citing ―increasing cross-border terrorist
attacks in the region and growing interference in the internal affairs of Member States by one
country.‖
On 28 September 2016, Indian army carried out the "surgical strikes" against the terrorist "launch-
pads" by crossing the LOC into the POK. Western news media reported the death of some 150
terrorists in India‘s retaliatory military operation. Since 2016, the ongoing confrontation and
continued terrorist attacks have resulted in the collapse of bilateral relations. India‘s policy is to
diplomatically and politically isolate Pakistan in the international community and take necessary
steps to induce change in the behaviour of Pakistani establishment towards India. There is a strong
public opinion not to have any dialogue with Pakistan. According to a 2017 BBC World Service poll,
only 5 per cent of Indians view Pakistan's influence positively, with 85 per cent expressing a negative
view; whereas, 11 per cent of Pakistanis view India's influence positively, with 62 per cent
expressing a negative view.
Since 2016, the ongoing confrontation and the continued terrorist attacks have resulted in the
collapse of bilateral relations, with no hope of an early resumption of any dialogue. Relations
deteriorated further in 2019. There was an attack on Indian military convoy in Pulwama on 14
February 2019 which resulted in the death of 40 Indian paramilitary troops. On 26 February 2019,
Indian Air Force warplanes crossed the LOC and destroyed the terrorist camps in Balakot in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan. It was a preemptive strike on a terrorist training camp and
resulted into the deaths of a large number of terrorists who were planning to carry out terrorist
activities in India. Tension increased as Pakistani air force sought to target Indian positions in
retaliation. Following the 2019 Pulwama attack, the Indian government revoked Pakistan's most
favoured nation trade status. India also increased the custom duty to 200 per cent on imports from
Pakistan which affected the apparel and cement from Pakistan. Pakistan closed its airspace for India-

148
bound flights.
Domestic policies and measures have external implications and fall-outs. India has abrogated Article
370 of its Constitution ending the special status of J&K. In response, Pakistan recalled its
ambassador and expelled Indian High Commissioner and cut off bilateral and trade relations.

Check Your Progress Exercise 5

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Analyse India‘s policy towards Pakistan since 2014.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.8 LET US SUM UP

Admittedly, it is a difficult relationship. Economic and trade relations with Pakistan are minimal.
Political relations remain full of tension and uncertainties; multiple efforts to reach out to Pakistan
for peace and understanding have not yielded positive results. Developments in Pakistan are of
security concerns to India. Cross-border terrorism has become a major threat over the past many
decades; and there are no signs of its abatement. Lots of political, diplomatic and military energy
and attention goes into dealing with Pakistan. Issues are getting entwined. Since 2016, there is an
effort to expose and isolate Pakistan in the international community and make the international
community exert pressure on Pakistan to change its behaviour.

8.9 SOME USEFUL REFEENCES

 B.G .Verghees (1965), Our Neighbour Pakistan, Bombay 1965, p.54.

149
  Bajpai, Kanti, Afsir Karim, and Amitabh Mattoo (2001) (eds.), Kargil and After: Challenges
for Indian Policy, Har-Anand, New Delhi.

 Dixit, J. K (2002), India- Pakistan in War and Peace, Routledge, New York, p.109

 Dixit, J N (2001), Indian Foreign Policy and Its Neighbours, Gyan Publishing House, New
Delhi.
 Ganguly, Sumit 2010, ―Structure and Agency in the Making of Indian Foreign Policy‖,
Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, No-116

 Ganguly, Sumit (1997), The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace,
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, New
York, p.3

 Malik, V.P. (2009), ―Kargil War: Reflection on the Tenth Anniversary‖, Strategic Analysis,
vol.33, no.3, June 2009, p. 350

 Paul, T.V (2006), The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, Cambridge House, New
Delhi, p.176

 Pande, Savita (2009), ―India-Pakistan Imbroglio‖, in R.S. Yadav and Suresh Dhanda(eds.),
India‘s Foreign Policy Contemporary Trends, Shipra Publications, Delhi, 2009, p.76.

 Pant, V. Harsh (2019), ―The Modi factor in Indian Foreign Policy‖, The Diplomat, read the
Diplomat, Know the Asia-Pacific, March 02, 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/the-
modi-factor-in-indian-foreign-policy/

 Rizvi, Hasan-Askari (2011), Indian-Pakistan Relations: Old Problem New initiative,

PILDAT, Pakistan.

 Ray, Jayanta Kumar (2011), ―Relations with Pakistan‖, In India‘s Foreign Relations: 1947-
2007, Routledge, New Delhi, p. 115
 Zeb, Rizwan (2003), ―Peace Process and the News Media A close look at the Agra Summit‖,
Regional Studies, Vol. 21, no.2, 2003, p. 54-56.

8.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES

150
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
3) Your answer should be based on sub-Section 8.2.3.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
3) Your answer should be based on sub-Section 8.3.2
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
3) Write your answer based on Section 8.4.
Check Your Progress Exercise 4
3) Write your answer by identifying major points from Section 8.5.
Check Your Progress Exercise 5
1) Write your answer based on Section 8.7

151