April-June 2013 - Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

Commentary
India and Pakistan: Political Fallouts and Larger Questions of the LoC Violations
PR Chari
Visiting Professor, IPCS
The ceasefire existing since 2004 along the Line of Control
(LoC), which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, was
recently breached. The consequent firings leading to the
death of soldiers from both countries' Armies is tragic and
needless.
A well-understood mechanism exists to defuse tensions
through flag meetings between local commanders. Issues
that cannot be settled at a local level are referred to higher
levels for negotiation and resolution. The important point to
note therefore, in the context of the recent violations, is that
these established mechanisms clearly did not work leading to
tensions at the national level.
Why Do Border Violations Occur?
The LoC is well delineated on the map and recognised either
by physical features or boundary markers. A complex medley
of factors is generally responsible for these breaches, with
personality issues intervening. A newly posted officer might,
for instance, wish to impress his senior officer as having “josh”
(transliterated to mean enthusiasm and courage). A superior
officer might wish to improve his regiment's position for its
easier defence, by plugging an infiltration route or gaining
higher ground. Naturally, the adversary understands these
tactical manoeuvres and wishes to frustrate them; leading to
frayed tempers, heightened instabilities and, if not defused,
firings, casualties and greater tensions along the LoC. The
Indian Army's standard explanation that border firings by
Pakistan are intended to facilitate the infiltration of its jihadist
elements has become passé, therefore, with the passage of
time.
Consider the facts of the present firings, killings and tensions
in the Mendhar sector. The facts are murky, but it seems that a
Pakistani soldier was killed in a small arms firing duel, and to
deter the infiltration of militants in this area, the Indian Army
constructed a bunker within the no-military-presence zone
along the LoC. Pakistani protests were ignored, leading to the
killing of two Indian soldiers on routine patrol duty in bad
weather. What set this border incident apart from several
others in the past was the barbaric beheading of one of these
soldiers, which has greatly angered the Indian Army and
people. The Pakistani explanation that jihadis operating in this
area were responsible is questionable, since the LoC is heavily
militarised on both sides. Such an assertion would imply they
were moving around freely in this area, which seems
problematic given the circumstances.
Political Fallouts of the Violation
The first political action of Pakistan's was to stop the crossborder
movement of people, as also cross-border trade
between the two parts of Kashmir. For its part, India held up
the agreement negotiated for relaxing visa restrictions, which
included senior citizens being permitted visas on arrival at the
Wagah border, and also denied entry to Pakistani singers and
sportspersons. The linkage of border incidents with greater
contacts between the two nations displays the extreme
fecklessness of both countries as they are discouraging the
very constituencies that harbour vested interests in
promoting normalcy in India-Pakistan relations.
Fortunately, better sense has now prevailed, and New Delhi
and Islamabad are taking steps to resume their interrupted
dialogue. With the imminent withdrawal of the US and ISAF
from Afghanistan in 2014, the need of the hour is for greater
coordination between India and Pakistan to draw up a
strategy for grappling with the post-2014 situation, rather
than fritter away their energies in internecine strife.
Does, therefore, preventing border incidents, evolving
confidence-building measures (CBMs) and deepening Indian-
Pakistani ties require an “uninterrupted and uninterruptable”
dialogue between the two antagonists? An ideal solution, no
doubt, but too deterministic to appreciate the political
realities of Indo-Pak relations. Dialogue for the sake of
dialogue, with little hope of fruitful results is hardly likely to
commend itself to hard-headed political establishments.
Witness the humdrum manner in which the inter-Korean
dialogue has continued for years after the Korean War ended
in 1954, and became a joke. Consequently, faith must be
reposed in the desire of the two leaderships to normalise
relations and proceed to address their internal challenges.
Is Pakistani Soldiery Under the Control of its Military
Leadership?
Let's face it. Despite the growing inability of the Pakistani
Army to provide for the country's national security, the
Pakistani civilian leadership only provides the façade behind
which the Pakistan Army actually calls the shots. The country
presently faces four serious threats to internal security -
domestic terrorism that has even targeted the GHQ in
Rawalpindi, as well as naval and air bases; continuing losses in
the FATA region to Taliban attacks; American drone attacks
along the Af-Pak border emphasising the country's
abbreviated sovereignty; and, secular strife that is tearing the
fabric of Pakistan apart.
In this milieu, opening a fifth front just does not make sense. A
plausible reason for the barbaric beheading of the Indian
soldier, therefore, could be the extreme frustration that
currently afflicts Pakistani soldiers. Coming from a restricted
recruitment base, family linkages are strong among them and
discipline has to be strictly enforced from above. Is that
discipline eroding? In other words, is Pakistani soldiery still
under the control of the Pakistani military leadership?
South Asia Plus 11