Monday May 03, 2010

Kashmir solution-an imperative for peace

By Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri
The biggest problem between Pakistan and India currently is the absence of trust. Anything that addresses this trust deficit is, therefore, helpful. For this reason I warmly welcome the initiative by The Times of India Group and the Jang Group of Pakistan to initiate the project 'Aman Ki Asha'. Media can help remove suspicions about each other. This is all the more important because the existing suspicions and distrust about each other have been further exacerbated by irresponsible and distorted stories carried by sections of the media in both the countries in the first instance. For this reason, this initiative is very important. I sincerely hope the other media groups will also play their role. It was precisely for this purpose that earlier on, I had convened a meeting of seven former Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India in Lahore. Our Indian counterparts have promised to carry the process further by inviting us to Delhi later on during the year.

The Times of India has asked me to write an article on the need for resolving the Kashmir issue and as well as on the direction in which this process is heading. Some people in both countries may well say that, after all, both Pakistan and India are important countries and could go their own way. It was for good reason that Prime Minister Vajpayee said that you could change history, but not geography during a debate in the Lok Sabha. Moreover, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh echoed similar sentiments also in a debate in the Lok Sabha, where he said as neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan dialogue is the only way forward. I was encouraged to note during the recent meeting of the Aman Ki Asha? in Lahore that some distinguished Indian participants said that India felt the need to resolve the issue of Jammu & Kashmir inter alia for two reasons. Firstly, that India being a democracy could not resort to force in Jammu & Kashmir for an indefinite period, and, secondly, that India could achieve its real potential and play a major role on the world stage only after resolving its disputes with Pakistan.

Speaking for myself I can say with confidence that as a politician all my life, belonging to a political family as I do, also as one who has been elected a member of parliament from a constituency in Central Punjab on the Indian border - and as former Foreign Minister for five years, I can say with confidence that peace with India is not only in the national interest of Pakistan, but can also be sold to the people of Pakistan provided it is peace with honour. History teaches us that only peace with honour can be lasting. India is a big country and may have extra regional ambitions. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our very doctrine is one of minimum credible deterrence aimed at protecting Pakistan?s national security.

Another reason that gives me confidence is that every major political party of Pakistan supports a negotiated settlement. This implies that if India were to show flexibility, Pakistan would reciprocate similarly. In this connection it is correct that while the agreement was arrived at during our tenure in office, former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee showed leadership and courage in restarting this process in February 1999, when Mr. Vajpayee undertook his famous bus journey on the invitation of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Similarly, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto during both her tenures made concerted efforts to improve the relationship between the two countries. MQM, ANP and even Jamiat Ul Ulema Islam, under the leadership of Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman, have supported a negotiated settlement on Kashmir.

Perhaps one reason why there is such a strong need for a negotiated solution of Kashmir is the recognition in both countries that Pakistan and India have tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement. They had fought five wars including two minor ones in the Runn of Katch and in Kargil. There had been various mobilizations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which a million soldiers remained eye ball- to -eye ball for almost a year. After Nuclearization of South Asia, following tests by India and Pakistan, war between the two countries has become nearly impossible.

That being the case, it was equally clear that any solution we found would not be an ideal one from the perspective of the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the Indians. It could be the best under the circumstances. It had to be one that the Kashmiris would accept, and one, that the leaderships of India and Pakistan could sell to their respective peoples whose perspectives were radically different. It would seem to many people that such a solution could just not be found. It was precisely to find such a formula that the two leaderships directed their representatives involved in the backchannel to remain engaged. No wonder the non-papers went to and fro, innumerable times. The backchannel negotiators met in different locations in many countries to preserve the secrecy of the process. They brought the drafts to the principals in the both countries, where changes were made and sent back to the other side and so on and so forth. It was after approximately three years of such pains taking work, which sometimes even involved changing punctuation in different drafts, that the two governments felt that they had agreed on the draft of an agreement towards the end of 2006 beginning 2007. They felt that on the basis of this draft they would be in a position to present an agreement to their respective constitutional authorities for their approval. It was felt that this draft would be acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis.

The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved, inter alia, a gradual demilitarization as the situation improved, self governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris. The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power. Self-governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as far as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances.

The agreement provided for a review after 15 years. The Pakistani and Indian sides realized that in view of the history of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of, would be an ideal one since it had to be made acceptable to all three. We were aware of the fact that there would be overwhelming support for this agreement; but we also realized that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India. In the very nature of things, it is impossible to produce a solution, which will be equally acceptable to every one. It was for this reason that we decided that the arrangement that we had arrived at would need a review at the end of 15 years during which its implementation would be monitored with great care by all the parties concerned, and in the light of the experience, this arrangement could be further improved.

Another question that people sometimes ask me in hushed tones these days, now that President Musharraf is no longer in power, is whether the agreement that we have arrived at had the support of the Pakistan Army. Of course, it had the support of all the stakeholders. It is unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. Besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented. Former President Musharraf in response to a question whether he took into confidence his Corps Commanders, is on record in saying on more than one occasion that he used to take everyone on board. Furthermore, Pakistan Army high command is highly disciplined and sophisticated and understands clearly that national security is a very broad concept and military preparedness is only one, albeit, a very important component of it.

The concept of national security includes economic and political stability and a settlement with India on honourable terms strengthens Pakistan's national security. It is also pertinent to mention here that while President Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, institutional thinking does not change so rapidly. Of course, for tactical reasons, adjustments are made keeping in view time and circumstance. I am aware of the current differences between Pakistan and India on Afghanistan following President Obama's announcement regarding America's intentions in Afghanistan. If trust deficit between the two countries can be bridged, all differences between the two countries can be resolved.

Before I conclude, I would like to welcome the statement of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani that efforts are being made through the backchannel to resolve all outstanding issues with India. It is important that negotiations be resumed soon because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government with which we negotiated the agreement is still in power, and, the BJP, the other major national party in India, had started the process during the tenure of former Prime Minister Vajpayee.

I welcome the statement of our Prime Minister, despite being in the opposition, because I believe that in matters of national interest one has to rise above the spirit of partisanship. I am sure Indian politicians would have a similar approach. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. A lot of detailed work has been done and we can start from where we left. This piece was commissioned for and published in the Times of India.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            Thursday April 29, 2010

Thaw at last in Pak-India relations




THIMPHU: The prime ministers of Pakistan and India have agreed to normalize bilateral relations stalled after Mumbai attacks, saying the only way forward is through dialogue.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani held a meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh here at the PM house of Bhutan.

The one-on-one meeting between the two prime ministers lasted for one hour. Earlier, the two leaders spoke with each other for ten-minute in the presence of delegations of the two countries.

Following the above meeting, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao held separate press conferences here.

Qureshi described the meeting as highly positive which discussed all the outstanding issues including Kashmir and Siachin. 

He said Pakistan Prime Minister invited Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan which the latter accepted.

Yusuf Raza Gilani assured his Indian counterpart that Pakistan will bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks.

In reply to a query, Shah Mehmood Qureshi said the extradition of Ajmal Kasab, the lone survivor who was allegedly involved in Mumbai attacks, did not come under discussion at the meeting.

He informed that interior ministers of SAARC countries would have a meeting in Pakistan on 26th June, which he hoped would also be attended by Indian home minister.

Qureshi said the two sides have admitted presence of a trust deficit between the two countries. “The foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India have been tasked with bridging the trust gap …. it is foreign ministers’ job to eliminate the trust deficit.”

He said all the outstanding issues will be resolved at the dialogue table. 

Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao also declared the meeting between the two PMs as positive.

"Prime Minister expressed India's concern over the slow progress of Mumbai trial in Pakistan to Prime Minister Gilani," Rao said. 

Singh told Gilani that India was willing to discuss all issues of mutual concern through dialogue but the issue of terrorism is holding back the progress, she said. 

It was decided by the two prime ministers that foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of the two countries should meet as soon as possible to "restore trust and confidence" in the relations, said Rao.

          ----------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

‘Interim pact’ on Kashmir was for 15 years: Kasuri

Says water management was listed under joint mechanism; Kashmiris were given independence in economic, social, political affairs; present govt aware of pact, agrees to it

By Babar Dogar
LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has disclosed that the agreement on Kashmir, worked out through back-channel diplomacy, was an interim one, and was subject to review after 15 years.

Talking to The News here on Tuesday in the backdrop of ‘Aman Ki Asha’ - a joint venture of the Jang Group of Pakistan and The Times of India, Khursheed Kasuri claimed the Pakistani and Indian sides at that time had the realisation that in view of the history of Jammu and Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of would be an ideal one. He termed that agreement on Kashmir the best possible under the circumstances.

“We were aware of the fact that there would be an overwhelming support for this agreement; but we also realised that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India,” he said, adding that it was impossible to offer a solution which could be acceptable to everyone.

Kasuri said they decided that the arrangement they had arrived at would need a review after 15 years of its announcement. During this period, its implementation would be monitored by all parties concerned and, in the light of the experience, this arrangement could further be improved.

He said the water issue was not discussed as a crucial matter at that time; the agreement on Kashmir was being negotiated. However, the management of water was one of the issues included in the joint mechanism. He claimed that the joint mechanism was apart from the Indus Basin Treaty, which was the basis of water sharing arrangement between the two countries.

Responding to allegations from religio-political parties, which termed the proposed agreement an attempt to sell out Kashmir, Kasuri said the basis of the agreement was the assumption that Pakistan and India had tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement.

“They have fought five wars, including two minor ones in the Rann of Katch and Kargil. There have been various mobilisations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which one million soldiers remained eyeball-to-eyeball for almost a year,” Kasuri claimed. He said the nuclear parity had been established in South Asia after the nuclear tests India and Pakistan conducted, making war between the two countries nearly impossible.

Reacting to the criticism by Syed Ali Geelani of his statement on the reported Kashmir agreement, Kasuri claimed that he had great respect for Ali Geelani for his being a freedom fighter, but he disagreed with him that the solution that was envisaged for Kashmir would have led to further disturbances in the valley and that the people of the valley would never have acquiesced in a settlement that he described as one perpetuating the status quo. Giving reasons for his disagreement, he said the whole purpose of the disagreement was to improve the comfort level of the Kashmiris by the gradual demilitarisation. “The Kashmiri leaders, we met in India, Pakistan and overseas, attached highest importance to withdrawal of the Indian forces,” he claimed. Furthermore, he said the Kashmiris, due to the proposed agreement, would have become in-charge of their own destiny in a vast array of specified subjects in the economic, social and political spheres. He claimed that the very creation of a joint mechanism consisting of Kashmiri representatives from both sides as well as Indian and Pakistanis would have comprehensively negated the criticism that status quo had not been changed. He said the agreement arrived at once signed could not be unilaterally changed by either side. He believed that it would have given a lot of relief and hope to the Kashmiris.

He welcomed the statement of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that efforts were being made through the back-channel diplomacy to resolve all outstanding issues with India. He said it was important that negotiations be resumed because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government with which they negotiated the arrangement was still in power, and the BJP the other majority party had started the process during the tenure of former prime minister Vajpayee. He said he welcomed it despite being in the opposition because he believed that in matter of national interest one had to rise above the spirit of partisan.

He claimed that there was no need to reinvent the wheel and the recent comments from the Foreign Office of Pakistan suggested the same and were encouraging. He said painstaking and detailed work had already been done and the two governments should take off from where they had left.

Kasuri claimed that they conducted secret negotiations with all stakeholders because they wanted to avoid any spins or leaks, which could damage the level of trust between the parties. He said they could not have signed an agreement without authorisation from their respective cabinets and parliaments. He claimed that the whole idea was to produce a draft which the governments of Pakistan and India felt would be acceptable to the large majority of Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians, and the draft agreement would then have been submitted to the appropriate constitutional authorities in both the countries for their approval.

Kasuri believed that the present government also supported the agreement. He claimed that President Asif Ali Zardari, in his very first interview at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, said the nation would have good news about Kashmir very soon. He claimed that though this announcement was premature, yet it was clear that he could only make the statement because he was aware of the progress made on back-channel and supported it. He said the incumbent government appointed Tariq Aziz, their representative on back-channel, to continue his work after the present government took over. He further referred Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s announcement during an interview with CNN that former foreign secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan, who was privy to all negotiations on the Kashmir agreement, was asked to start working on the back-channel.

Kasuri pointed out that those who criticised the secret nature of the back-channel needed to take note of the great secrecy with which the representatives of various political parties conducted their negotiations in parliament over the issue of the 18th Amendment, although this was purely an internal matter and not even marginally capable of exploitation by premature leaks or spins as against the protracted and difficult nature of negotiations between Pakistan and India given their troubled history on the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir.

Regarding taking all the stakeholders on board, he stated it was unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. He claimed that besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented.

Kasuri claimed that the nature of Pakistan-India relations following the Mumbai attacks needed concerted efforts not just by the government but also by the civil society to bring the two countries to the dialogue process once again. He appreciated ‘Aman ki Asha’ by the Jang Group and The Times of India Group as an important contribution in helping to remove some of the trust deficit that existed between the two countries.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Kashmir solution just a signature away: Kasuri
Says previous govt had completed 90 pc spadework on dispute; 'we agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy'

By Babar Dogar & Ranjan Roy
LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has said the solution to the Kashmir dispute is just a signature away once India and Pakistan decide to pull the file from the rack.

While addressing the concluding session of the two-day seminar - held as part of the ongoing Aman ki Asha campaign, launched by the Jang Group and Times of India - and later talking to The News and the Times of India here on Friday, the former foreign minister revealed the previous Musharraf government had completed almost 90 per cent of the spadework on the half-a-century old Kashmir dispute by 2007 as the whole exercise just needed the formal signature of all the three parties to the issue - Pakistan, India and representatives of Kashmir.

"All India and Pakistan now need is to defreeze the process. The entire paper-work has been done. The copies of related documents are safe with some friendly countries as well," said Kasuri.

Kasuri said that negotiators from Islamabad and New Delhi had quietly toiled away for three years, talking to each other and Kashmiri representatives from the Indian side as well as Kashmiris settled overseas to reach what he described as the "only possible solution to the Kashmir issue".

He said the two sides had agreed to full demilitarisation of both Indian Kashmir as well as Azad Kashmir. In addition, a package of loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi and self-governance aspirations, had been agreed on and was to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier. ``We agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy,'' he said.

He said that hardliner Sayeed Ali Shah Gilani was the only Kashmiri leader who refused to come on board. ``He would accept nothing but merger with Pakistan, which ironically is something we too wanted but knew wasn't practical. I once had a seven-to-eight hour meeting with him and even Musharraf met him but he refused to budge,'' Kasuri said. He refused to give details of the stance other moderate Kashmiri leaders adopted.

He said the former government had finalised the formula of giving independence to the Kashmiris like the one they had before the dispute surfaced in 1948. When Pakistan and India decided to engage the Kashmiri leadership, it made it clear the people of Kashmir would not settle for anything less than the kind of independence they had during the tenure of the maharaja before the partition. However, with the scenario changed altogether, and Pakistan and India having strategic compulsions against such an independence, the issue had to be worked out again on different lines?.

``Well, India and Pakistan had serious reservations over that kind of independence. So, it was decided let the Kashmiris have their homeland as desired by them, and Pakistan and India should roll a plan for gradual evacuation of the strategically important parts of the united Kashmir,'' the former foreign minister informed.

?It was also decided both the countries would gradually withdraw their forces from Indian and Pakistani held territories of Kashmir. We decided a nominal chunk of forces would be kept back in the strategically important areas of liberated Kashmir for sometime,'' he added.

Furthermore, Kasuri went on to say, Indian and Pakistani governments decided not to sell victories in their respective countries for avoiding a general public backlash in the other. `?It was a dicey situation in terms of political fallout of any solution back home in both the countries. If that exercise had to materialize, both the countries needed to tell their respective masses what actually had been done for breaking the status quo,'' Khursheed Kasuri said. He maintained it was very hard for making the public accept the achieved results either. So, at one point in time, it was decided to make the Line of Control (LoC) `irrelevant' so that the Kashmiris could be allowed to move freely across the Valley, using their ID cards.

He said: ?The two nuclear neighbours were quite worried about the volatile situation in the region, especially around the LoC. There were insurgencies in both the countries. The freedom struggle in Indian-held Kashmir and the growing menace of terrorism in Pakistan were becoming a cause of serious concern for the two governments by the end of 2005. The Mumbai attack worked as a catalyst for finding an immediate solution to all issues, which had the potential of sparking a full-fledged armed conflict in the subcontinent?. Kasuri further explained both the countries just couldn't afford any Mumbai-like attack in India as it would force them to retaliate at all costs.

He said the three-year long arduous efforts were rendered fruitless by the sudden emergence of the judiciary-executive row in 2006, which forced the Musharraf regime to put the matter on the backburner for the time being. Kasuri further revealed former president Pervez Musharraf had a possible signal from the Manmohan Singh government in early 2006 vis-?-vis formalizing the almost reached solution in August 2006. Or, if delay was inevitable, the announcement to this effect could be made by March 2007. However, Kasuri added, he suggested President Musharraf to hold the process back for a while as the political situation in Pakistan was not conducive for unveiling such a big plan, which had the popular sentiments involved to a great extent. As the media, the opposition, the people, especially the civil society and the lawyer community, resorted to opening afterburners against the former president in the aftermath of the judicial crisis, any initiative, however sincere and productive, by the government would be eyed with suspicion.

He said to soften public opinion before making this breakthrough public, India and Pakistan decided to resolve the Sir Creek issue. Indian PM Manmohan Singh was scheduled to come to Pakistan in 2006 for signing the settlement of the Sir Creek issue. However, the Indian government postponed the meeting in view of general elections in India the same year. The Sir Creek matter was put ahead of the already agreed agenda on Kashmir with the purpose to give more credibility to Indo-Pak endeavours. ``There was a usual perception that Pakistan and India just couldn't resolve any mutual dispute through bilateral engagements,'' said the former foreign minister.

?By that time, Pakistan and India had already held over 15 informal meetings for chalking out a feasible plan to settle the dispute. In the latter part of the deliberations, both the countries realised the need for involving the crucial party to the conflict, the Kashmiris, in the ongoing negotiations. Apart from Indo-Pak meetings during the process, India and Pakistan held talks at various levels with the Kashmiri leadership. ``I had held covert meetings with the Kashmiri leadership even in other countries,'' Kasuri added. Meanwhile, a senior Indian official involved in the backdoor talks corroborated the statement of the former forign minister.

Kasuri was all praise for the Jang Group of Publications and the Times of India Group. He said only the media had the guts and the credibility to take such an initiative of warming the process again, which was a whisker away from glory. ``The media can make the difference at this point in time. If more credible media groups joined the cause, wonders could be done in near future. I hope these two media giants kept the momentum up for sometime till the respective audience realised the significance of peace in the region.'' Kasuri stressed the need for frequent media people movement across the border, which, he believed, would go miles in propelling this vital campaign.

Media can help break status quo in South Asia

By our correspondent
LAHORE: The dialogue ‘A Common Destiny’, the first of Aman ki Asha series on strategic importance to India and Pakistan concluded in Lahore here Friday amidst note of consensus among the intelligentsia from both countries that media can sensitize the people of respective countries to put pressure upon their governments to break status quo position for the sake of bringing peace in the Subcontinent.

The intelligentsia from both sides of the divide participated in a programme hosted by renowned anchor Iftikhar Ahmed from leading news channel GEO, and expressed their views in open and frank manner.

The participants were divided in two groups including former Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, Dr Mubashir Hasan, Arif Nizami, Shafqat Mehmood and Amin Hashwani from Pakistan side while Salman Haider, Prem Shankar Jha, Amitabh Mattoo, Admiral (rtd) Nayyer and Admiral (rtd) Ramu Ramdas represented India.

Host of issues encompassing terrorism, water, Kashmir, role of establishment, visa restrictions and other controversies came under the discussion and the intelligentsia from both sides presented their point of views on particular points and made their efforts to remove each-others misconceptions. Student from leading universities in Lahore and members from civil society were also invited to ask questions. Most of the questions from the audience were related to terrorism, water, visa problems and the role of establishment in discouraging peace initiatives.

Former Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri opened the discussion highlighting the significance of initiative of two leading media groups from India and Pakistan to maintain peace in the region. He was of the view that we should not take commonalties like culture and language between the two countries as granted because many of the neighbouring countries including Russia-Poland, Iran-Iraq and France Germany were running hostilities despite being identical to each-other. He said the peace required uninterruptible dialogues between the two countries for sustainable peace. He disclosed that the Kashmir issue was just inches away from solution during his stay in Foreign Office as minister.

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Salman Haider appreciated the peace initiative by the two leading media groups and claimed that it was vital for the masses of both countries to have an understanding that peace must prevail over hostility. He was hopeful that Aman ki Asha would have positive impact. He said he had greater expectations from the new generation having enlightened vision that they would have better understanding that peace would benefit the both countries. He claimed that he wanted there should be easy visa process between the two countries. He was of the view that the establishment from both countries would have to change its mindset in easing restrictions. On trade, he claimed that its volume had increased compared to the past but there still needed to be done a lot because people from across the divide were prepared to make huge investments.

Admiral (rtd) Nayyer claimed that India despite being bigger country was more engaged in countless domestic problems compared to the low profile of Pakistan that they could not focus on bridging differences with it. He was of the view that India had little pressure of outside world and greater influence from people of Kashmir as they were not pleased with their policies.

Amitabh Mattoo claimed that the political leadership and masses in India wanted peace with Pakistan but its establishment was resisting such efforts. Giving credence to his argument, he claimed that there was significant development on Kashmir issue during Musharraf-Manmohan tenure but later on the situation dramatically worsened. He claimed that political leadership from both countries would have to resist establishment for initiating peace. He claimed that PM Manmohan believed that India could not attain bigger status in the world unless it maintained peace in the subcontinent after settling all disputes.

Dr Mubahsir was of the view that supreme powers in Pakistan were calling the shots whereas the state machinery was just a puppet in their hands. He dispelled impression that India was stealing water of Pakistan and claimed that if Pakistan had any proof of it, why it was not lodging its complaint under Indus Water Treaty. Commenting on visa restrictions, he admitted that Indian government had given relaxations on visa which had to be withdrawn later on after Pakistan had not reciprocated such initiatives.

Arif Nizami was of the view that India for being a bigger nation and country had the greater responsibility to take the peace initiative. He said the Indian government had always reflected narrow minded whenever there was opportunity to take initiative. He alleged that Indian establishment agreed on resolving Kashmir issue during Musharraf regime as they had firm belief that such agreement would never be executed owing to weakening position of Musharraf in Pakistan.

Prem Shankar Jha claimed that former Indian Prime Minister IK Gujral during his tenure as PM had announced to lift visa restrictions and decided that visas would be stamped on passports on arrival at borders but establishment stopped its implementation that decision should be withheld till the time Pakistan did not reciprocate it. He was of the opinion that both the countries instead of taking afresh start would have to assume things from backchannels. Commenting on water issue he said there was misconception in Pakistan that India was stealing or blocking water. He claimed that the mistake India committed was that they started filling Baghlihar dam during lean season when there were less rains and slow snow melting on mountains due to climatic changes. He asked as why water issue was raised after 49 years and claimed that certain powers were playing with it just to air differences.

Admiral (rtd) Ramu Ramdas claimed that India did not have any involvement in Balochistan and tribal areas of Pakistan and if Pakistan had any proof of such thing it would immediately bring it forth. He claimed that they were visiting Pakistan to remove differences and misconceptions.

Shafqat Mahmood was of the view that both sides should lift ban on media to mobilize their people towards peace.

India, Pakistan urged to join hands against US influence in region

By Moayyed Jafri
LAHORE: India and Pakistan must work together in order to keep the American influence out of South Asia, said Prem Shankar Jha, former editor of the Economic Times, Financial Express and Hindustan Times.

Citing an example of the American influence in the region, the renowned Indian journalist said, “India has nothing to do with Afghanistan, which does not share any borders with India, but the Indians were allowed to establish their machinery by the Americans there, which implies that America would be at one hand with Pakistan and at the other with India, turning our two countries against each other”.

He said the US, intentionally or unintentionally, treats India and Pakistan differently on issues so as to develop dissent between the two countries. Thus, he said, the Afghanistan issue has particularly served as a wake-up call for both India and Pakistan, demanding that they need to develop a mutually agreed common strategy for Afghanistan, besides all other such issues where American policy line divides the neighboring nations.

Prem Shankar Jha praised former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, saying that Kasuri proved himself a brave man enough to openly dismiss the much-touted allegation that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had backed out of the Kashmir resolution framework which had been agreed by both the countries.

He said Pakistan’s then president Pervez Musharraf had categorically said that he could not sell the mutually agreed framework to his nation because of the chief justice’s movement, which had made him unpopular, and thus he requested that he needed time for it all to settle.

Expressing his reservations over the recently-hyped issue of water between the two countries, he said the Aman Ki Asha dialogue has revealed that this issue has been misreported, exaggerated and intentionally whipped up by some agencies in Pakistan in order to alienate the two countries from each other, because the Kashmir issue is no longer spurring anti-India jingoistic sentiments in Pakistanis.

Stressing the importance of Aman Ki Asha project, he said, “It is so important, as it corrects opinion of the peoples through truthful information-sharing which nullifies the propaganda of certain elements who try to arouse offensive sentiments between the two nations”.

Expressing his perspective on the issue of American Influence, former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador Salman Haider said although Indians and Pakistanis perceive America differently, this does not deny importance of the fact that the two countries need to work against the American influence which has the tendency to disturb Indo-Pak relations.

He said the intent of America cannot be doubted totally, because India is among the top growing economic powers in the world and the US wants to tap into this huge market.

Talking about the dissent and a level of anger that exists in the Pakistanis towards India, he said he is not offended by the sentiments of Pakistanis, as it will take some time for building neutral opinion of the masses through untainted information-sharing, for which Aman ki Asha provides a perfect platform. However, he maintained, all this necessitates time and persistent efforts as there has been a lot of negativity in the past.

Commenting on India’s reaction in the event of a civil nuclear pact with America, he said although it is dealing strictly between Pakistan and the US, there is a distinct possibility that India will have concerned issues with it, just like Pakistan had when the civil nuclear pact between America and India came about.

Much of this has to do with the fact that both the countries do not know what the level of cooperation is extended by the US to either of them which raises concern over perceived threat from each other.

Admiral (Retd) K. Nayyar said a young girl approached him after the dialogue and questioned why India is bent upon killing Pakistani agriculture and people by inflicting a drought through violation of the Indus water treaty.

He said, “This is what misinformation has brought about, and that is why the perspective of the people of both the countries hosts grievances, anger and even aggression”. He said if such propaganda is not checked, the pursuance of peace will meet failure.

He said if the misconceptions harbored by the people of both the nations over the water issue are not removed immediately by the governments, it may develop into the most destructive contention. All the three intellectuals, despite their diverse fields, agreed that there is a need to acknowledge each other’s issues, even if they have serious differences.

‘People-to-people contacts to change misconceptions’
Youth for involvement of Indo-Pak leadership

By Khalid Khattak
LAHORE: Pakistani youths attending a strategic discussion ‘A Common Destiny’ held under ‘Aman Ki Asha’ on Friday said people to people contacts would change prevailing misconceptions and result in good ties between India and Pakistan.

The participants said the contacts should be more frequent between the people of the two countries to achieve most needed peace and better relations. They termed the “Aman Ki Asha”, a joint initiative of the Jang Group of Pakistan and the Times of India, a step in the right direction and called for involving in it leadership of both the countries.

Talking to The News, after the discussion held at a local hotel, Ammara Ishfaq, a student of the Punjab University, said the efforts to achieve peace between both the nuclear powers should continue. “This move should not be limited and time barred and such efforts are certainly going to resolve conflicts between both the countries,’ Ammara said.

Another PU student Nida Arif also expressed similar views saying “Aman Ki Asha” was a good initiative, which was creating awareness among the masses of both the countries about importance of good relations and living in peace. “However, there is a need of more interaction between people of the two countries”, she added.

A participant, Arslan, was of the view that besides more mutual trade opportunities and public visits, universities and educational institutions should initiate joint research projects. He said people of both the countries were facing almost similar problems and any joint venture to confront the problems would bring both the countries more closer.

He also stressed the need of exchange of delegation at all levels, saying that peace in the region was for benefit of the people of both the countries. Safdar Ali, a student of the University of Education, said Indian and Pakistani governments should make sincere efforts to accept each other, adding that “There is little chance of achieving peace and good relations unless governments are not involved in peace efforts.” He said civil society must come forward to play its role in achieving peace.

Another student Irfan Haider lauded “Aman Ki Asha” and said it was a step in the right direction. He said there was certainly a dire need of removing biases between people of both the countries and this could be achieved by brining public closer. “The media should also take steps to increase interaction between the people”, he said, adding that “The leaders of the both the countries should also be part of all these efforts.”

Another participant, Faisal, said the peace dream could be turned into reality only if sincere efforts were made in this connection. “A long lasting friendship, which ensures peace, is in fact the demand of people on both the sides”, he added.

A seven-member delegation from India, including journalists, writers, retired admirals and a former top diplomat, is currently visiting Pakistan to participate in the ‘Aman Ki Asha’ series of discussions “A Common Destiny”.

Jang Group fetes Indian delegation

By our correspondent
LAHORE: A formal dinner was hosted by the Jang Group of Publications in honour of high-profile Indian delegation, which has come to Pakistan, to participate in discussions on “A Common Destiny”. Dinner was held at the Cuckoo’s Den adjacent to the Lahore Fort. The delegation will leave for India today (Saturday) at 2.30 pm from the Allama Iqbal International Airport.