Raghavan rules out military solution to Kashmir dispute

Ruling out military option to the solution of Kashmir problem, former High Commissioner to Pakistan, TCA Raghavan, Tuesday said India and Pakistan must come on the table to end the dispute as skirmishes along the Line of Control can’t resolve it.

Raghvan said that the militancy in Kashmir was started to achieve Pakistan’s policies and they thought if “they (Pakistan) can defeat USSR in Afganistan then they can also defeat India in Kashmir, but it never happened.”
“Despite that Pakistan did not change its policy. It did not learn and rethink about its policy,” he said.
Raghavan was giving special lecture at the Indian Institute of Public administration in collaboration with department of National Security Studies, Central University, Jammu. He was speaking on “Jammu and Kashmir a way forward”.

“Much of frustration in India is exaggerated. Larger discussion on Pakistan should be conducted on more positive note. I think it puts enormous pressure on the government in Pakistan which would finally lead to cordial relations,” said Raghavan.
Referring to his book, Raghavan said “My book is about past. It is not a policy book. It is a book on history. It is history of diplomacy and history of India-Pakistan relationship.”
He said that “referring to the roots of Indo-Pakistan relations is very-very important i.e.1947. There are six to seven phases and one particular which has to do with the 1947 which is about number of incidents like partition of Punjab, Bengal, division of J&K, partition of Muslim community in south Asia, Durand line becoming another IB. Besides this, you had four to five accession crises in Juna Garh, Hyderabad, Kashmir and in an area of Balochistan (Pakistan) and that leaves imprints on history. Therefore, 1947, 1948 and 1949 forms one distinct phase forms historical experience of Indo-Pak.
“It is 1950-1964 phase which is broadly put aside as legacy issue and see, whether you have more constructive relationship and overall, there was an attempt to have constrictive relations. High point was when Liyaqat – Nehru pact on minorities was signed. It was far ahead of their times in East and West Bengal. You also have constructive effort to cement Redcliff line on the round but you reduced friction like treaty of Indus Water to build more cooperative relationship between India and Pakistan.
Similarly, he said, Kutch crises, China War, 1965 Indo-Pak war which led to new forces unleashed in Pakistan, federal crises in Pakistan and 1971 war was another distinct phase which changed the relations between the two countries During 1977 to 1979 phase, he said, it was “creative period like and to 2004-2007 between India Pakistan diplomacy.”
“From 1979 to 1991 phase, Indo-Pak had a different relation which was hugely impacted due to regional and international events. Four to five events which had immediate impact on India and Pakistan relations like Shia revolution in Iran, Soviet invasion of Afganistan, China-Vietnam border war, execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan.”
“From 1989 and 1990 phase, he said, “You have combination of internal and external factors on Indo-Pak external factors like Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the beginning of disintegration of Soviet union, the breakup of Yugoslaviya, coming down of Berlin wall. Then, late 1989 and early 90s, you have replication of militancy in Kashmir. Kashmir which was not on the radar of Pakistan for half quarter, but suddenly came in the center in 1989-90. It is troubled period in bilateral relations. Rapid changes of Prime Ministers, Military rules.”
“It is useful to reflect what explains 2001 onwards events including chorology like that of parliament attack, attack in Assembly, Kalu Chak army camp attack in Jammu, and then you have de-escalation leading to cease fire, summit in Islamabad, beginning of composite dialogue. Why did this happen? Why this happened because one opinion is that international atmosphere changed after 9/11 attack in US.
And reason why Agra Summit failed and Islamabad summit succeeded is because 9/11 intervened in between. It happened because Pakistan realized that it could not say something and do other things as the global narrative on the militancy had changed and they (Pakistan) had to take into account that global narrative has changed.”
He said from 2007-2014, Pakistan paid enormous costs. “There was crises in internal stability regarding militant attack. There was no institution immune from the attacks like judiciary, military or civilians. There was sense of siege. This was the state where people were losing hope to maintain a state. When we talk about cost, we should keep in mind. Pakistan has paid enormous cost which has not seemingly had a great impact about India.”