Pragmatism must guide Indo-Pak talks

During the recent talks, a concerted effort appears to have been made to increase such confidence-building measures, wh-ich do not necessitate third-party mediation. As already experienced in the Middle East, such measures introduce a measured degree of transparency, without impinging on the security of either state. These could be in the shape ofregular information exchanges, crisis communication links and inspections at the level of the local formation commanders.

Pragmatism should hold the key to progress in talks. In Jammu and Kashmir, for example, to arrive at a solution, both sides will have to climb down from their lofty positions in order to find a lasting solution. While we India will have to appreciate the fact that control over a region does not mean sovereignty over chunks of land alone. It is the people who make up for a nation and if they are perpetually alienated, territorial supremacy achieved thr-ough force alone can never guarantee long-term peace.

On the other hand, Pakistan must have seen the futility of waging a low-intensity war in Jamp;K. It must also realise that harping on UN resolutions and plebiscite is preposterous in today8217;s context. The unseemly developments during the past 50 years in that area have brought out the distinctiveness of each of the regions that make up the state 8212; Jammu region, Kashmir Valley, and theLeh-Ladhakh area. It is obvious that to arrive at a lasting solution one has to go beyond the UN resolutions 8212; whether the LOC should be recognised as the international border or there should be a solution of another kind are issues which can be debated once both sides see reason and give up their rigid stance.

In Siachen, where the futility of warfare is by now acknowledged by both sides, steps towards at least de-escalation, if not a final solution, should be initiated right away. Both sides could sign an agreement to cease shooting at each other. They could identify the actual ground positions and mark these on maps and then start first thinning out and then withdrawing troops fr-om the forward positions of the Glacier to agreed baselines.

Having done that they could sit down to work towards a lasting solution to the problem. The two sides will not only have to keep in mind the existing military positions but also the fears and apprehensions of each other while working towards a lasting remedy.

Toensure that neither side violates the possible agreement, pending a final solution, they could agree to have periodic joint aerial inspections of the area. Such inspections will provide early warning of troubling activities by either side.

Siachen, where incidentally the guns kept booming even during Vajpayee8217;s visit, could actually set the trend for a new span in relations between the two warring nations.

The most ticklish issue, however, will be a bilateral agreement on the nuclear issue. Having tested their devices, the two sides could now work towards either a 8220;pre-weapon8221; or a 8220;post-weapon8221; arrangement. In fact, on this issue, the two sides have much in common; both feel that the world nuclear treaties are discriminatory.

Since both sides have more or less announced that there is no need for any further nuclear tests, they could formalise their respective unilateral moratorium with a bilateral agreement on the issue. Through talks at various levels, they could also take firm steps againstsecret assembly and deployment of nuclear weapons both strategic and tactical. Meetings on this issue will make headway only if held at the highest levels. What one has in mind are the kind of meetings at the global level which took place between the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union during President Eisenhower days, which led to the subsequent arms control pacts.

The tests and the sanctions which were imposed on the two countries are enough to underline the futility of a nuclear weapons race in the sub-continent. A nuclear arms race has no restricting parameters. Once the race starts, then the nuclear doctrines keep changing 8212; from nuclear deterrence to nuclear retaliation and finally mutually assured destruction. Similarly the warheads grow in size and numbers.

The two sides have spent the last 50 years preparing for war, which have done no good to either of them. Both sides now appear to be convinced on the need to prevent a war, for which Vajpayee8217;s visit should be seen as a beginning. As thephilosopher-statesman, Dr. S. Radhakr-ishnan, once said, 8220;Wars begin in the minds of men and it is in the minds of men that defences against such wars must be built up.8221;