General

Military to military CBMs were held in from 23 – 25 September 2012. They were attended by the following : -

(a) India

• Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Shashi Tyagi.

• (Retd) Aditya Singh.

• Lieutenant General (Retd) Arvinder Singh Lamba.

• Lieutenant General (Retd) BS Pawar.

• Vice (Retd) A.K. Singh.

• (Retd) Arun Sahgal.

• Brigadier (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal.

• Ambassador (Retd) Lalit Mansingh (former Foreign Secretary of India).

• Ambassador (Retd) Vivek Katju.

• Mr Rana Banerji (former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, India).

• Mr Ajai Shukla (Journalist).

(b)

• General (Retd) .

• General (Retd) Tariq Majid.

• Admiral (Retd) Tariq Khan.

• Lieutenant General (Retd) Tariq Ghazi (former Defense Secretary of Pakistan).

• Lieutenant General (Retd) Sikander Afzal.

• Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Shahzad Chaudhry.

• Ambassador (Retd) Riaz Khan (former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan)

• Ambassador (Retd) Maleeha Lodhi.

• Ambassador (Retd) . • (Retd) Qasim Qureshi.

Subsequent to the above, a Round-Table discussion was held at CLAWS on 15 Oct 2012 wherein Lt Gen (Retd) BS Pawar, Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal and Capt (IN) Alok Bansal, Senior Felow CLAWS presented their views on the Track II Dialogue process in Lahore. Capt (IN) Alok Bansal was not part of the military to military CBMs but took part thereafter in a track II meeting discussing CBMs over the Indus Water Treaty.

The discussion at CLAWS was attended by select officers from the Army and members of the CLAWS faculty.

Lt Gen BS Pawar, PVSM, AVSM (Retd)

The third round of the Track II process between retired military officers of India and Pakistan was held at Lahore recently with the previous two rounds being held at Dubai and Bangkok respectively. The two sides have reached an agreement on resolving the Sir Creek and Siachen disputes. The proposals are doable and are awaiting the government’s approval. It appears that the Track II process has the blessings of the . On Siachen, the Pakistan Army is conscious of the fact that the enjoys a tactical advantage and can dictate terms.

Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd)

Track II efforts are nothing new and hundreds of such initiatives have been undertaken ever since the conclusion of the Second World War. A recent example was the Norwegian mission in Sri Lanka. The India-Pakistan Track II has held several discussions of the general situation, both in the region and bilaterally, and how this affects the prospects for progress on the CBM file. It was reported that the relationship between the two countries is going through a relatively positive phase. Diplomatic and business contacts are improving across a range of issues. At the same time, suspicions remain concerning each side’s view of the other’s objectives and alleged actions in Afghanistan, and in the area of military doctrines and deployments. There has been another round of Track 1 discussions on both conventional and nuclear CBMs, but both sides found it disappointing. The 2007 accord “Reducing Risk Relating to Nuclear Weapons” has been renewed for another five years. However, there was no progress on other proposals to develop new CBMs. In contrast, some participants pointed to lower profile examples of confidence-building measures at work between the two countries. For example, when there was an inadvertent helicopter crossing of the LC into Pakistan, the matter was managed quickly and effectively.

The project reviewed the status of existing CBMs between the two countries. Based onpresentations from the two sides, it was agreed that the main existing military CBMs are:

• DGMO Hotline

• Non-attack on nuclear facilities (1988)

• Advance notice of military exercises and maneuvers (1991)

• Informal ceasefire along LOC/AGPL (2003)

It was by and large agreed that most of the above CBMs were working well.

The following CBMs could be further strengthened:-

• Prevention of Airspace Violations (1991)

• Link between the Indian Coast Guard and the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (2005)

• Joint patrolling along the international border and periodic flag meetings. Non development of new posts

• Biannual meeting between Indian border security forces and Pakistani Rangers (2004)

• Advance notice of Ballistic Missile tests (2005)

Several CBMs which have been proposed between the two sides, but not yet agreed, were identified. These are:

• A Prevention of Incidents at Sea Agreement

• The development of a Pakistan Air Force-Indian Air Force Communications link and of a Communications link between the two navies;

• Exchange of military delegations and also participation of senior military officers in

Seminars.

• Mil-to-mil exchanges and “cultural” activities (such as: exchanges of guest speakers; visits by military bands; sports teams and adventure activities)

• Quarterly flag meetings between sector commanders along the LOC; and

• Speedy return of inadvertent line crossers.

On Sir Creek, Pakistan is willing to forego its claim on the southern line and the dispute is ripe for resolution.

The following clear package of integrated and inter-linked stipulations were laid down for the demilitarisation of Siachen and delineation of the AGPL.

• Set up a joint commission to delineate the line beyond NJ 9842, consistent with existing Agreements;

• The present ground positions would be jointly recorded and the records exchanged;

• The determination of the places to which redeployment will be affected would be jointly agreed;

• Disengagement and demilitarisation would occur in accordance with a mutually acceptable time frame to be agreed;

• Prior to withdrawal, each side will undertake to remove munitions and other military equipment and waste from areas of its control; and

• Ongoing cooperative monitoring of these activities and the resulting demilitarised zone would be agreed to ensure/assure transparency.

It was agreed upon to hold further discussions on crisis stability and terrorism. Beyond military CBMs, it was recognised that intelligence-sharing is a key issue. It should be noted that information is being shared on lists of terror groups which both sides wish to see stopped but cooperation on investigations regarding these groups should be more intensive and transparent.

Capt (IN) Alok Bansal

The dialogue on water issues between India and Pakistan was organised by the Atlantic Council, USA and Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. This was the first Track II dialogue on the subject and was more of an effort towards breaking the ice. The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is a perfect mechanism which has withstood the test of time. Yet, public perception in Pakistan on water issues is quite mis-guided and ill-informed. The common man is not aware of the principles of the IWT and perceives India to be deliberately trying to curtail the flow of water into Pakistan. In recent years, Pakistan has seen a tremendous increase in its population and this is an important factor which has led to hardening of stand on the water issue. The mis-management of canals in Pakistan has added to the problem of water management.

The IWT lays downs conditions for use of river waters for consumptive use, agriculture and for building run of the river hydroelectric power projects. The IWT does not limit use of water for domestic consumption. There is a perception in the Kashmir valley that excessive exploitation of the rivers is leading to the receding of glaciers thereby creating environmental issues. Over the years, land area under horticulture in the valley has increased while that under agriculture has come down. Pakistan’s major concern against India is that the latter does not share information on damming projects on the Indus and its tributaries. On the other hand, India feels that sharing information with Pakistan has led to troubles and delays in implementation of projects on the river waters. For instance, the re-designing of the Salal hydel project on the river Chenab led to silting which rendered the dam useless. The Pakistani objection to the Kishanganga project is on the ground that India is diverting waters of one tributary of the Indus to another – river Jhelum. The Pakistani aim is to prevent the building of hydro-electric projects to stall the economic development of J&K.

Discussion

• The argument that Siachen must be demilitarised because of the high costs involved in maintenance of troops and to minimise casualties is flawed. India has to defend its borders and there are other areas also which present a challenge similar to the one experienced in Siachen. It would be setting a wrong precedent if troops are to be withdrawn on such frivolous grounds.

• Building confidence and trust between the two countries is necessary if India- Pakistan relations are to improve. However, Siachen cannot be a start point for the above process. Withdrawal from the Glacier will not lead to any improvement in ties bewtween the two countries. What can improve the environment is for Pakistan to stop sending terroists into India and to close the 42 terrorist training camps which are supported by state patronage. Unless Pakistan is prepared to give up its policy on supporting terrorist organisations which they maintain as their strategic assets against India, no improvement in relations can take place. Better confidence building can be done by stopping the hostility displayed by the police forces of both countries at Wagah, and by exchanging prisoners, thousands of whom are rotting in each others jails.

• The resolution of the Sir Creek issue is doable and should be de-linked from having an agreement on Siachen first.