Archives

by Alfred K. David

South Asia which is a typical Third World region has some of the most intractable conflicts of any part of the world. Various manifestations of conflicts ranging from minor irritants and non-violent disputes to full-scale wars, have taken place in South over the contemporary period of 1947 to 2001. Other types of conflicts such as maritime boundary demarcation, resource sharing and environmental disputes have added to the already long list of conflicts. There are other protracted conflicts in South Asian countries based on religious strife, on social conflicts and on separatism.

South Asia is a potential flash point. India dominates the South Asian landmass with 69 per cent of the population and 68 percent of the GDP. India still has border and territorial disputes with Pakistan, Bangladesh and China. The unresolved status of Kashmir dominates India's relations with Pakistan. The region remains a potential flash point with hundreds of thousands of troops permanently based along the line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir and in the disputed Siachen Glacier.

Jane's World of Defence of 1995 has described South Asia as "racked by diplomatic ensign terrorism and economic instability" and states that it remained "one of the world's most volatile regions". This perception endures, with India and Pakistan currently locked in a seemingly intractable nuclear stand-off alongside a conventional arms and missiles race. Pakistan accuses India of attempting regional hegemony over the neighbouring states and domination over Indian Ocean affairs, while India accuses Pakistan of running a proxy war in (Indian) Kashmir. Both states accuse each other of meddling in their affairs and in Afghanistan.

The sources of conflicts in South Asia have primarily been intra-regional. External interventions have taken place, mostly guided by extra-regional motives but the pulling force has been largely provided by the internal forces. This means that threats to the security of the regional countries have come from the South Asia region itself. The peculiarity of the threat matrix is that India considers its individual neighbours as the possible source of troubles while her South Asian neighbours individually consider India as the source of insecurity.

There is a climate of suspicion and mistrust between India and her South Asian neighbours. There is great disparity between the size and power potential of India on the one hand and its neighbours on the other. Extra-regional powers have exploited this fear for their own purposes. Unfortunately, there has been insufficient inner coherence in some South Asian countries.

There is an asymmetry between India and its neighbours. Despite what was enunciated in the Gujaral Doctrine, India has so far been unable to correct these misperceptions. According to the Gujaral Doctrine, India does not ask for reciprocity with regard to neighbours like the Maldives Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka but gives and accommodates with it can in good faith and trust. The Gujaral Doctrine does not apply to Pakistan. At the First SAARC Summit in Dhaka (1985) Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene called upon Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to "tell us what each of us should do and we must respond as best we can".

At the Second SAARC Summit in Bangalore (1986) he referred to the SAARC ship having set sail and having started its journey and then cautioned, "There should be no mutiny on board". He then quoted from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" - "on such a full sea are we now afloat; and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures". Rajiv Gandhi whom destiny made the helmsman of SAARC, was not able to guide South Asia through the turbulent waters then prevailing in the 1980s.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution is a new subject. It has emerged as an independent discipline since the 1980s. Conflict itself is an old phenomenon perhaps as old as human history. Conflict means a struggle where there is a clash of opposed interest. But conflict resolution as a scientific method of understanding and resolving conflicts between ethnic identities, religions, classes and nations, is new. Conflict is perceived to be a result of incompatible interests pursued by different actors.

This assumes that the goals or interests were recognised by the parties to the conflict. Conflicts can also involve apparently incompatible values, where the task of the third party may be to help the parties to specify their values more explicitly so as to facilitate resolution of the conflict. Conflict resolution assumes that conflict is endemic and that a solution is possible by scientific exploration of the interests of parties to a dispute and encouraging or facilitating communication between the parties involved in the conflict.

Conflict resolution should not be confused with conflict management. Conflict management involves controlling the violent eruption of a conflict, imposing if necessary, a unilateral solution by the stronger party. Conflict Settlement involves formulating a short-term solution for a problem at the risk of its recurrence in the future. Conflict resolution involves resolving a conflict to the satisfaction of all the parties involved in the dispute. Conflict prevention involves identifying a conflict situation and resolving it before it is converted into a full-fledged conflict.

Thus, conflict resolution and conflict prevention are inter-linked. Conflict resolution can be conducted either through traditional diplomacy or track two diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy consists of initiatives by official government representatives of the state parties involved. Track two diplomacy involves a dialogue between persons from disputing states, with or without facilitators/mediators on critical issues where participants have access to their governments and/or ability to influence public opinion.

The persons involved in Track two diplomacy can be former civil servants, diplomats, military officers, informal advisers to government, Members of Parliament and political parties. Track two diplomacy involves communication between non-officials who have a place in the political system. Many a time it serves as a preparatory process for the substantial political process. Before the Kargil War of May 1998, retired diplomats of both India and Pakistan were engaged in Track two diplomacy and there appeared to be a breakthrough with regard to the Kashmir problem. On the Pakistan side, former Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik, was involved.

There are two methods of modern conflict resolution: negotiation and mediation. Negotiations are directly conducted by parties to a dispute Mediation is facilitated by a third party. Negotiating for peace or conflict resolution is different from negotiating for trade, transit, cultural or communication matters. Negotiating for peace is not dictating in the spirit of "take it or leave it". It is trying to reach resolution of a conflict so that one party does not feel a sense of defeat. Third party mediation is increasingly popular but it does continue to be resisted by some states, particularly India over the Kashmir issue. Normally, the weaker of the two parties to a dispute desires third party mediation while the stronger one resists it. In the official political process, the third party can be a strong state, the United Nations, a regional organisation, an international financial agency like the World Bank, or a neutral state close to the location of the dispute.

Conflicts Resolved and Conflicts yet to be Resolved

Now the question that confronts us is, can the South Asian countries afford to remain plagued by conflicts, particularly after the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998, followed by the Kargil War in May 1999? The India-Pakistan relationship is under severe strain. The outlook is gloomy. Can anything be done? Let us look at the conflicts that have taken place in South Asia to understand and analyze the complex nature of these conflicts in their multiple setting.

It is relevant to mention that there are certain conflicts that have been resolved and this strengthens the view that conflict resolution is a feasible proposition in South Asia. Let us first look at the conflicts that have been resolved and then at the conflicts yet to be resolved. The detailed information that follows is reproduced from "A Handbook for Conflict Resolution in South Asia" by Sundeep Waslekar. (Konork Publishers Pvt. Ltd. - New Delhi - 1996)

Conflicts Resolved

(a) Conflicts Resolved Between India and Pakistan

* In April 1950, India and Pakistan signed a pact on the treatment of religious minorities in their respective countries;

* In 1960, the two countries settled five disputed claims along the then West Pakistan-India border;

* The Simla Conference in June 1972 attempted to construct a post-war order for the region after the Indo-Pakistan War in 1971. Agreement was reached in the following issues - normalizing diplomatic relations, resuming trade, communication, travel and fixing a Line of Control in Kashmir;

* Tripartite agreement on Pakistan's prisoners of war issue settled in April, 1974;

* Division of assets and liabilities. It was decided in December 1947 that the Government of Pakistan would receive 750 million rupees from India as its share of the balances in Undivided India.

* River water dispute. The Indus Water Treaty was signed in September 1960;

* Rann of Kutch boundary dispute. Resolved by a three member commission in Geneva in 1968.

* Salal Dam Agreement. Signed in 1978.

(b) Conflicts Resolved between India and Bangladesh: Handing over Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh. India has handed over the enclave in what can be termed as a major diplomatic victory. Realignment of the Indo-Bangladesh border is over and the issue has been resolved.

(c) Conflicts Resolved between India and Nepal

For various reasons, political as well as historical, India is perceived in Nepal as the "big brother." The feeling was reinforced after India reduced entry points for goods heading for Nepal in 1989, resulting in shortages of just about all essential items and commodities in the Himalayan Kingdom. This created serious problems for the Nepalese. While the ostensible reason for the restriction on the number of entry points into Nepal was that a new transit treaty had not been signed, the row was actually sparked off following Nepalese attempts to bring arms from China.

The problem was resolved when the Nepalese Congress was voted to power in the first democratic election in Nepal in 1990. In December 1990, the new transit treaty was signed.

(d) Conflicts Resolved between India and Sri Lanka

* Agreement on stateless people was reached by Prime Minister L. B. Shastri and Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike in October 1964. The Agreement provided for the settlement of 875,000 persons - 300,000 to be granted Sri Lanka citizenship and 525,000 to be repatriated to India within a period of 15 years. The "Status and Future" of the remaining 150,000 would be settled under a separate agreement. During Mrs. Gandhi's visit to Sri Lanka in September, 1967, it was agreed that the case of the residual number of 115,000 would be taken up after the major part of the 1964 Agreement was implemented. A settlement of this problem was reached only in 1973 during Mrs. Gandhi's second visit to Sri Lanka.

It was agreed that an increase of 10 per cent each year over the initial figure of 35,000 mentioned in the 1964 Agreement would be made. In the following year, agreement on the final phase of the issue was concluded when Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike visited India. This concerned the fate of the remaining 150,000. Both the countries agreed to accept half of the total number each.

* Agreement on 1979 to decide the jurisdiction of Kachchativu Island in favour of Sri Lanka.

(e) Conflicts Resolved between Nepal and Bhutan

* There has been only one conflict so far, and it has been resolved.

(a) Conflicts yet to be resolved between India and Pakistan

* Kashmir. It is the major outstanding unresolved dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947. The matter has been on the UN agenda since 1948. India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir and the recent deterioration in relations between New Delhi and Islamabad is related to an uprising in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir and the Kargil conflict thereafter in May 1999. This conflict is the amalgamation of both territorial and ethno-religiosity. It is the most complex and enduring conflict in the South Asian region.

In the context of the Kargil conflict, another round of fighting over the territory raises considerable alarm, particularly since both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. The Kashmir issue has not only been a threat to peace in the region but has by implication obstructed the progress of SAARC.

* Siachen. Since 1984, India and Pakistan have been militarily engaged over the Siachen Glacier. Historically, the agreement of 27th July 1949 that defined the ceasefire line between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, left its northern end vague. In the Simla Agreement, a line of control was drawn up afresh and defined on 12th November 1972, but it did not extent to the Siachen Glacier. In 1984 the race for control over Siachen began between India and Pakistan. In June 1989, on the occasion of the fifth round of the Indo-Pakistan Defence Secretaries' talks, the two countries were close to an agreement on Siachen.

They had agreed to work towards a comprehensive settlement based on redeployment of their forces to reduce the chances of conflict, avoidance of the use of force, and the determination of future positions on the ground so as to conform to the Simla Agreement and to ensure a durable peace in the Siachen area. But, according to Pakistan, India backed out of the understanding it had reached with Islamabad in June 1989. Since then no breakthrough has been achieved on the settlement of the Siachen dispute.

* Nuclear Issue. The India-Pakistan disagreement on the question of nuclear non-proliferation in South Asia not only concerns New Delhi and Islamabad, but also external powers. India has termed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 discriminatory and has refused to sign it and has called for the inclusion of China for any sort of understanding on the nuclear issue. Pakistan has made it clear that it will not unilaterally sign the NPT unless India does the same. This situation causes great concern since both countries are now nuclear powers.

* Wuler Barrage. The Wuler Barrage dispute concerns a barrage to be constructed by the Indian Government on the Jhelum River below the Wuler Lake in order to improve the lake's navigability during the winter when there is a drop in the water level. New Delhi launched the Tulbul Navigation Project to regulate the decrease of water. The Jhelum is one of three rivers that the Indus Treaty of 1960 (signed by India and Pakistan) assigns to Pakistan for unrestricted use, but with precise exceptions. One of them is "any control or use of water for navigation" by India, provided it has not diminished the volume of water.

Storage of water or construction of storage works is forbidden. The issue, therefore, is whether the barrage on river Jhelum will be a project for the "control or use of water for navigation" or is a "storage work". Since the waters will be confined for some time in order to raise the level of the Wuler Lake, there will be "storage temporarily". India has shown concern for the lower riparian (Pakistan) and suspended work on the project. Talks on the Wuler Barrage are continuing between New Delhi and Islamabad. Pakistan wants certain safeguards from India that the volume of water in the Jhelum River as it enters Pakistan, will not be diminished and that the Wuler Barrage project will be in the interest of both India and Pakistan.

* Demarcation of Sir Creek. Sir Creek is a 60-mile long estuary in the marches of the Rann of Kutch. The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary Case Tribunal's Award signed on 19th February 1968, apart from settling the Rann of Kutch dispute, did not demarcate the boundary from the top of Sir Creek westward to north of the Creek on the Arabian Sea. The Tribunal noted that 'in view of the aforesaid agreement, the question concerning the Sir Creek part of the boundary is left out of consideration." It has now become a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. India contends that the boundary lies in the middle of the Creek.

Pakistan claims that it lies on its eastern bank on the Indian side and therefore, the entire Creek belongs to Pakistan. Pakistan insists that the Creek boundary be delimited first so as to establish the point on land from which the sea boundary is to be limited. India's concerns centre on the maritime boundary. The Sir Creek dispute is included in Indo-Pakistan parleys to settle conflicts, but no breakthrough has been achieved so far.

(b) Conflicts yet to be Resolved between India and Bangladesh

* Ganga Water Dispute. The Indian government says that Bangladesh's share of the Ganga's water will progressively decline because of the increasing demand of river water in the upper reaches. It advises Bangladesh to accept an agreement on the Brahmaputra's water instead. But Bangladesh says it has an inalienable claim to the sharing of water from the Ganga as the lower riparian country. Besides, it refuses to settle for a share of only one international river when it has a claim on the Ganga water too.

* Chakma Refugees. The first and second phase of repatriation of Chakma refugees in year 1989 and 1992 was successful. However, India wants the rest of the 56,000 Chakma refugees mostly settle in the North-East, to be repatriated. It also wants the Bangladesh government to provide land to them, since the land and the houses have been taken over by the Muslims and the security forces.

* New Moore Island. New Moore island is only 5.2 kms away from the Indian land boundary and quite far removed from the nearest point on Bangladesh territory. The island emerges at the estuary of the border river Harrabhanga when it separates India and Bangladesh. Bangladesh was not even aware of the existence of the island until 1974 when it was brought to their notice by India. Bangladesh laid their claim only in 1979 while India thinks the island belongs to it.

(c) Conflicts yet to be Resolved between India and Nepal

* Treaty of 1950. Nepal wishes to end the tilt towards India and balance it with a equi-distant relationship with China. It does not want what it calls an 'Indian Security Umbrella' as provided for in the 1950 Friendship Treaty. It wants to renew it. Nepal says that the treaty violates Nepal's sovereign status, especially Article 5 which makes it mandatory for Nepal to inform India about any arms purchase. On the other hand, the Indian government maintains that the treaty provides certain privileges for Nepalese residing in India. For instance, Nepalese residing in India get the same facilities as Indians regarding the ownership of property, while Indians do not enjoy similar privileges in Nepal. Moreover, the treaty provides Nepal with trade and transit rights with minimum duty payment. The Indian government feels that should the treaty be scrapped, Nepal will be the bigger looser.

* The Tanakpur Accord was signed by Nepal's former Prime Minister, G. P. Koirala. The Adhikari government called it an unequal accord on sharing of the water of the river Mahakali, alleging that the G. P. Koirala government had sold Nepal's right in return for a small share of power to be generated by the project. The Adhikari government had all along maintained that the accord should be renegotiated. The coalition government which came to power after the fall of the Adhikari government in late 1995, had not articulated a clear stand on the issue. The Indian government maintains that the accord was signed between the Heads of the states and should be maintained in accordance with International Law. Nepal also wants 2 MW of power generated from the project, free of charge.

* Sharada River Treaty. This treaty was signed in 1920 by the then Rana ruler of Nepal and the representative of British India. Nepal feels that this treaty is redundant. The Sharada River flows from Nepal, but from time to time it zigzags into the Indian territory due to which the treaty was signed, giving India 80,000 cusecs of water and Nepal 3,000 cusecs of water. In terms of water resources in the world, Nepal is among the richest and in the summer months, the Northern states of India face a water problem. Nepal wants 1000 cases of water more than what it gets now.

(a) Conflicts yet to be Resolved between Nepal and Bhutan Refugees and Separatists Conflict. People of Nepalese origin in Bhutan's southern district of Samchi, Sarbhang and Samdrap Jongkh have for the past five years been engaged in a militant movement demanding greater political and cultural freedom. Some of the militants even nurture the notion of Gorkhaland, a territory that would include parts of India, Nepal and Bhutan.

None of this is acceptable to Bhutan, which says that the agitationists are not bonafide citizens of the country. Bhutan is not happy with the role of the Nepalese government in the movement, particularly Nepal's request that Bhutan must take back the 80,000 Bhutanese refugees of Nepalese origin, who obviously sympathise with the separatist movement, camping in the southern part of Nepal. King Wangchuck says that he will take back only those who are bonafide Bhutanese citizens and had fled in panic or under pressure from the militants.

As a result of this, now nearly 125,000 refugees are staying in North Bengal with the help of the UNHCR and few in the Eastern district of Nepal.

Regional Effort for Conflict Resolution

Efforts to promote regional conflicts resolution and co-operation began in March 1947 when the Indian Council of World Affairs convened the first 'Asian Relation Conference'. The Conference hosted 25 Asian nations, and discussed problems related to colonialism, racism, migration and co-operation in agriculture and industry. Colombo Conference, April 1954, December 1954, December 1956, to discuss an agenda including colonialism, the hydrogen bomb, communism and economic co-operation. Bandung, April 1955 despite disagreement on condemning communist expansion, there was agreement to co-operate in economic and cultural areas.

November 1956, Colombo Powers met to discuss the Hungarian crisis and the Suez Crisis.Efforts to launch South Asian Regional Co-operation advanced by Bangladesh Prime Minister Ziaur Rahman who formally proposed it in 1980. There was modest co-operation in functional areas, began in 1985 as SAARC. However, it has no mandate to discuss bi-lateral or contentions issues. Thus it has played no part in conflict resolution. India-Pakistan talks at the 1986 summit apparently played a mellowing role in the 1986-87 exercise crisis.

External Efforts for Conflict Resolution

Britain: Forum 1946 to the early 1960s Britain's policies after partition were directed towards preserving the strategic unity of the sub=-continent. The initial British plan involved a joint defence council, covering financial and economic matters, communications and foreign policy. The plan failed because of the 1948 war. British co-operation was restricted to bringing about a UN-sponsored solution to Kashmir and mediation with regard to the Kitch in 1965.

Iran: From 1969 to 1979 Iran attempted to bring India and Pakistan closer in an extended version of regional co-operation for development.

The US and USSR: During 1952-59 US had a formal alliance relationship with Pakistan, while with India there were informal arrangements and an economic aid program. UK and US helped India with arms during the China war. US has tried to encourage India and Pakistan to settle their differences and engage in regional co-operation and negotiations over Kashmir.

The Soviet Union brokered an agreement at Tashkent in 1966 between India and Pakistan ending their confrontation. In 1969 the USSR proposed an Asian security pact but it was, rejected by Pakistan, which felt it was anti-Chinese. In 1971 the Treaty of Friendship was entered into between India and the USSR. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan they made it clear that they would not support India in the Kashmir crisis. The US and Russia are engaged in regular consultation over South Asia and both sides are co-operating in efforts to resolve the Kashmir crisis.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager