Irfan Alvi
Indo-Pak border currently depicts as the shimmering volcano of trans-border exchange of fire. This exchange of fire is said to involve not only the heavy machine guns, but also the medium artillery and the manoeuvres of unmanned Ariel vehicle (UAV) equipped with anti-material missiles.
This situation heralds vulnerability in the subject of the regional stability mainly because the two rivals Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenal even in a deployed form that is hazardous to the lives of more than 140 billion people, living across the borders. That is why firing even a single bullet in the violation of the declared ceasefire along LOC is the harbinger of the apprehension and requires the decision-making pundits to pay a sensible and conscientious attention.
The current border standoff is the direct upshot of the both sides' realistic cognizance against each other's respective policy pursuits in their vested regions. The areas where both are locked into fighting proxies are two. First, Kashmir where the LOC exists and separates its two parts and bloody skirmishes occur time and again is the overt arena between Islamabad and New Delhi.
In this region, both sides maintain their respective stances. According to Pakistani perspective, India plans to divert all western rivers, such as The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab of Pakistan, which flow from Kashmir and are the latter's right according to the Indus Basin Water Treaty 1960. Recently, the Indian Prime Minister has affirmed this posture, threatening to divert every drop of Bias, Sutlej and Ravi Rivers for the usage of Indian peasants.
This development derails the two sides' explicit commitment to cease fire, concluded in 2003. Simply, the divergences are to widen when one party is not letting its rival to enjoy the right. Whereas Indians believe that Kashmir valley is being ignited for the execution of jihad by Pakistani Intelligence Agencies. That is why huge bands of fighters are to intrude in Kashmir through the LOC. Thus, they are bound to prevent them from intrusion, which leads to clashes with the Pakistani troops.
These two perspectives in fact help the cognizant of the geopolitics to penetrate the deep saga of the two sides' military engagements. The relevance of both sides' perceived approaches is lucid. Let us believe that India has set on to divert the Pakistani rivers. Islamabad reacts and perceives this diversion will be difficult to sustain. Obviously, it undertakes a variety of countermeasures to prevent India from this sneaky pathway. Therefore, the fighters may be sent to stimulate the ongoing movement in Kashmir.
This deployment of fighters gives rise to the skirmishes between Pakistani and Indian troops. Accordingly, the Indians avow to accomplish their plans of water diversion. On the other hand, Pakistanis' response remains highly dependent on the countermeasures, aimed at the prevention of the diversion plans. Accordingly, the two sides ongoing trend results in action reaction phenomena and kindles the bleeding clashes.
Secondly, CPEC, passing through Baluchistan and FANA specifically, grabs the premeditated involvement of India into disruptions that cannot be gainsaid. Kulbhushan Yadav was arrested on March 3, 2016; he confessed to involve in spying in Balushistan and disclosed the Indian plan of CPEC suppression. This has proven as solid evidence against the Indians' secret plans for the disruption. In fact, India has invested massively in Afghanistan and wanted to build its major role in the region.
The said proxy wars were fought in Swat and FATA to destabilise the said area. However, Operations Rah e Najat and Zerb e Azb have destroyed the strong bastion of the militants, hiding in SWAT and FATA. It restored almost the state writ in the said areas and the thrust of violence was diminished. This security improvement was followed by the renowned CPEC mega project, considered by many rationales and analysts as a game changer in Pakistan economy and image.
Coherently speaking, the clearance of FANA and nearly Blochistan from militancy and the improvement of the security situation in Pakistan led the Indians to think alternatively for the sake of disturbing the project. The reason is that India perceives China as a threat and is engaged in security competition partnership, led by USA against China. India also thinks Pakistan as sole hurdle that can challenge it in South Asia.
On the other hand, China shall ensure its energy security and supply through CPEC routes whereas Pakistan shall enhance its derailed economy through the collectable levies and taxes. Given the competition with Sino-Pak and the beginning of the CPEC project, it is not recondite to assess that the disturbance on the eastern border is the extension of the plans, chalked out by the Indians to disturb CPEC. Similarly, Pakistan seems to respond in the same way, the Indians are undergoing. That is why the Kashmiri movement may be considered as the viable option which is already on the rise.
These policy choices lead the two states to confrontation along the LOC. Therefore, the implementation of an urgent solution under the ongoing circumstances is abstruse. In fact, the obdurate stance of the two jingoists is unlikely to pacify in the near future. There are many reasons. First, the Indians' ambitions to par with China geopolitically, economically and militarily is the foremost obstacle in the way India cannot be predicted to show flexibility in its stances on Kashmir specifically and the whole region commonly.
Second, Indians are locked into security concerns against Pakistan. Therefore, the continuity of armed confrontation between Islamabad and New Delhi on the LOC is eloquent. Third, Pakistan is also realistically behaving and is engaged in the execution of the measures, aimed at subsiding Indians policy pursuits in Afghanistan and Balochistan. Thus, the infiltration of the likely fighters through the LOC is seen as a workable strategy and a reasoned option.
Under such scenario, the workable options can be observed. However, the above-said realities cannot be denied. The two antagonistic sides have to withdraw from their perceived approaches.
