Daily Times

The signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 somehow aimed at ensuring the concept of an independent state with sovereign rights over the territory. Though there were gross violations of the concept when the Colonial Empires expanded their range of influence, the concept held itself firmly since the end of World War II. Now the states understand that they cannot alter the territorial boundaries without calling for an international reaction. Hence the concept of the permanency of the neighboured has been regarded as a norm in the civilized world. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war could be an exception.

If the permanency of neighbours is regarded as a norm in the present-day international system, then it’s the responsibility of the states to live like good neighbours. However, the same will be regarded as an ideal situation and rejected by the realists who believe in the anarchical state of affairs.

Looking at the globe, it is difficult to find two neighbouring states that have such estranged relationships as is the case in South Asia between India and Pakistan. At times one wonders if this is the civilized way of living like neighbors.

Without going into the causes of this enduring rivalry between the two nuclear neighbours, one needs to explore the compelling reasons for such disconnect in the relationship that bars the usual diplomatic ties between any two states. Unfortunately, India under incumbent Prime Minister Modi has adopted a much harsher approach toward Pakistan even on matters that have nothing to do security of the two states. For instance, the trade, sports, culture, diplomatic forums, and even the visa regime for the divided families at the time of partition in 1947.

Once the level of mistrust is brought down within a sober limit, the Summit-level talks may begin from where the Lahore Agreement or Islamabad Dialogue was ended.

This is not the way two neighbouring states should interact in the prevailing international system. More than 1.3 billion people in two states are living in an uncertain environment because of the active and unresolved disputes between them. It is necessary to understand that there is always a possibility of a violent conflict between the two neighbouring states if the disputes remain unresolved over a protracted period, only the probability of such engagement may vary with the changed geopolitical environment.

One must remember what Henry Kissinger had said at the peak of the Cold War; when two nuclear states make their plans, they do not prepare themselves only for a conventional war. Likewise, Kenneth Waltz also opined that peripheral military engagements are possible under the nuclear overhang.

Both India and Pakistan have successfully complied with these precepts of Kissinger and Waltz. Fortunately, the US intervention came on time, and a full-blown conventional war with the potential to escalate into a nuclear exchange, no matter how limited it could have been, was avoided. Recounting a few such occasions since the two states declared themselves as nuclear in 1998: The Kargil Conflict of 1999, the Twin Peak Crises during the 2001-02 standoff, the Mumbai attacks of 2008, and the Balakot engagement in 2019, stand out with a potential to expand.

I fully understand that the Indian General Elections 2024 are underway and the first results are not expected before June 5, 2024, therefore, it is necessary to mention that my suggestions in the following paragraphs are for the new government of India, no matter who forms it. To begin with, the two neighbouring states must immediately restore full diplomatic relations without any preconditions.

Then, resume the bilateral dialogue on all the agreed-upon issues during the suspended composite dialogue.

Following the resumption of the composite dialogue, the two states must undertake the long-delayed exchange of high-level visits to further normalize the situation and pave the way for the organization of SAARC Summits that have been pending since the suspension of relations between India and Pakistan.

Concurrently, the bans and bars on visa regimes, sporting engagements, and cultural exchanges may resume to expand the base of normalization and resumption of much-needed people-to-people contact.

The dialogue for bilateral trade may also commence without any further delay because it is one way to speed up the process of a cordial relationship between the two estranged neighbours.

Once the level of mistrust is brought down within a sober limit, the Summit-level talks may begin from where the Lahore Agreement or Islamabad Dialogue was ended.

One must understand that nuclear neighbours cannot live like this for long. The people of the two states in general and the conflict zones, in particular, have suffered a lot during the needless rivalry over the past so many decades. The new generation of the two states would like to freely interact with each other and compete on the cricket ground rather than on the battlefield.

I fully understand that my suggestions may sound simplistic, but I am certain that there is no dispute that cannot be resolved if the stakeholders have sincerity of purpose, care for their people, and are competent to deal with such complex issues.

I sincerely urge the leaderships of India and Pakistan to consider the resumption of the usual relations between the two states to begin a new era of relationship based on productive engagement leading to conflict resolution rather than conflict management that too through external interventions.

The writer of this article has authored three international books: “Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan” “South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace” and “Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War.”

The writer of this article has authored three international books: “Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan” “South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace” and “Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War.”