Pakistani Television Talk Show Discusses How Pakistan and India Came Close To Breakthrough on Kashmir Issue and Missed Opportunities for Peace

Anchor Habib Akram

Pakistan-India relations have not shown signs of real progress despite continuing intermittent efforts by both of the nuclear neighbors to break their deadlock on the key issue of the Kashmir dispute. Early in 2010, television talk show Badalta Pakistan (Changing Pakistan) organized a discussion on Pakistan-Indian relations.

The key point that emerges from the talk show is that India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, had reached a tentative agreement on Kashmir issue, a move that was visible in historic peace talks between India's right-center government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. and Nawaz Sharif, who also headed a center-right government in Pakistan. In February 1999, Vajpayee travelled to Pakistan to sign the historic Lahore Declaration, which was supposed to pave the way for a Kashmir agreement that was to be signed later.

However, the draft of the proposed Kashmir agreement was presented to then-Pakistan Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf, who would later that year order a war in the Kargil mountains of Kashmir. The 1999 Kargil war was ordered by the Pakistani Army without consulting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Later mediation by U.S. President Bill Clinton led to a face-saving exit for Pakistan from that war.

It also emerges that the military government of General Musharraf, who led a coup against the Sharif government in October 1999, kept alive the proposed peace agreement on the Kashmir issue. It seems that a resolution of the Kashmir issue was in sight when the Pakistani intelligence-backed militants sabotaged it by carrying out the November 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. After that, India suspended all negotiations with Pakistan.

The following transcript of the talk show outlines many of the grievances in Pakistan-India relations, including the Kashmir issue and terror threats, while also stressing missed opportunities for peace. This talk show, conducted in Urdu language, was telecast by CNBC Pakistan in March 2010.

Following are excerpts from the program:[1]

Varying Pakistani Leaders' Statements on India: "We Cannot Trust India;" "We Don't Want to Have Any Relations with India Without Kashmir;" "We Should Focus on Trade before Kashmir;" "We will Fight India for a Thousand Years;" "We Should Not Take India as Our Enemy"

Anchor Habib Akram: "I am Habib Akram with our program Badalta Pakistan. Today's topic is Pakistan-India relations. Today, we have gathered some statements regarding the Pak-India relations. It seems appropriate to let you know about this in the beginning of the program. These statements have been made by various presidents, foreign ministers, and prime ministers of Pakistan at different times: 'We cannot trust India;' 'We should be looking towards our interest while talking to India;' 'We don't want to have any relations with India without Kashmir;' 'We should focus on trade before Kashmir;' 'We will fight India for thousand years;' 'We should not take India as our enemy.'

"These are the statements, and their explanations and meanings, which show that there are many policies, instead of one, at work in Pakistan regarding relations with India. Different people get swept away in their own view and try to paint India in their own way. We find a similar situation across the border too. One alternative is that we should learn to live with contradictions; and the other way is that we should make a unified strategy and go ahead with that. A generation took up the issue in its own way; and the next generation is here who is supposed to understand the issue and deal with it. We have our panelists who will tell us how will this be possible. We have with us today Dr. Mohammad Saleem Mazhar, who is director of the Centre for South East Asian Studies at Punjab University. With him, we have Lt-.Gen. Nishat Ahmad; and we have Nazir Naji, who is a prominent columnist and has a unique view on the Pak-India relations. With him, we have Prof. Sarfraz Khan, who belongs to the Area Study Centre, Peshawar University…"

Dr. Mohammad Saleem Mazhar: "The [contradictory] statements you have presented before us, they were made by various officials of a government [led by any single party]. If you take the statements made by two different governments, for example the present one and the previous one, you will find no head and tail (coherence) in them. In my view, every country has to keep its interest in mind while dealing with another country or nation.

"And in this way, we have three basic issues with India, on which we should hold talks with India. And there is no way other than dialogues. We have to make them understand this through dialogue, logic, arguments, reasoning, and understanding that no issue has ever been resolved through war in this world until npw; and it won't get resolved in the future, either. Of these three issues, one is the water dispute. India is making dams on our water resources [i.e. on rivers that flow into Pakistan] and is pushing us toward a water crisis and famine. We should hold talks on that. The second one is the Kashmir dispute, and it is accepted at international level that it is a dispute. There should be an attempt to settle this issue. The third issue with India is that India is exerting pressure in Baluchistan and … [Khyber Pakhtunkhwa] region through the Afghanistan border. We should hold talks on that also."

Anchor Habib Akram: "Nishat Sahab, it's being said from both the sides, and there are some intellectuals who have been saying it repeatedly, that the main hindrance between the resolution of the issue between the two countries is the armed forces on both sides, because they find their existence resting on enmity."

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "Every government is responsible to provide security to the nation and its people. And you will see that whenever you are weak – whether economically, politically, or militarily – your adversary will always take advantage of that. In this regard, the best example is the 1971 war. After World War II, it [Pakistan] is the only country which has been torn apart militarily. Even after that, if you think that they [India] should be growing in military power unchecked, then it is not justified. In this way, it [military] is necessary to provide security.

"Secondly, if you are not at good relations with your neighbor you must know whether its military power can defeat you. In this situation, it becomes a political as well as moral obligation of the government to make an arrangement to provide security to its people…

"Take the example of India, which is seven times larger than Pakistan. How much of a threat does it have from Pakistan? You must have seen the current increase in their defense budget, which is more than our total annual budget. Do you think that they are doing this because they have a greater threat from Pakistan…? India has its own ambition; it wants to become a world power and wants to create a regional dominance, and for that it will keep increasing its troops. If India keeps increasing its troops, then you have to look if in the future there comes any change in India's intentions, you must be strong enough to provide security to your people. And this is the reason to keep your military at a particular level."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Our India-Specific Foreign Policy has Been Our Military's [Monopoly] from the Very Beginning"

Anchor Habib Akram: "Nazir Naji Sahab, you have been writing that the role of our civil government shrinks when it comes to our foreign policy on India."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Yes, our India-specific foreign policy has been our military's [monopoly] from the very beginning; and any elected government has not been capable of deciding it, nor has it been given any chance to do so. General Sahab was saying that military is needed for the security… We had the military in 1971 as well [when Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan] but did we get the security? We had the troops to launch an expedition on Kargil [peak in Indian Kashmir in 1999] but could we get Kashmir? Whatever we do we must have an objective for that. And if we don't achieve our objective, then it is required to look for another means to achieve that objective. We don't get the permission [from Pakistan Army] to look for other means, because it is the military's monopoly…

"The basic call of the Pakistan Movement was that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together peacefully, for there would be riots and clashes; so, they should be separated for the sake of peace [leading to creation of Pakistan in 1947]. People of my age must know that when Pakistan was formed, the currency of the two countries remained the same for three years; business and trade were open; and people moved from one country to another without any passport until 1954.

"The main conflict began from 1965. About the 1965 war, our generals and bureaucrats… have written that we had sent infiltrators into occupied Kashmir, and they were caught. And then we attacked Akhnoor [in Indian Kashmir] to break the road link from Gurdaspur to Srinagar [capital of Indian Kashmir]. Pakistan was attacked in retaliation. We celebrate without assessing the result of this aggression by arguing that we defended our towns of Lahore and Sialkot. Had there been no Akhnoor, Sialkot and Lahore were safe anyway."

Professor Sarfaraz Khan: "India is Going to Become a Global Power…; We Cannot Change Our Geographic Location, Nor can We Change the Geography of Our Neighbor…; We have to Learn How to Live with It"

Professor Sarfraz Khan

Anchor Habib Akram: "Let's go to Sarfaraz Sahab. As we have said, India has a regional design to become the regional power, and about which Saleem Mazhar Sahab was talking that India is alleged for infiltrating into Baluchistan [province of Pakistan] through Afghanistan; and it is also said with regard to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project that India wants to get the benefit of its size. In this regional perspective, what changes are taking place in context to the Indian design?"

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "In my view, India is going to become a global power. India is the second largest country in the world as per population, and in coming times it might become number one nation. It is also bigger in geographical area and resources. And on the level of technology as well, it has gone far ahead in the world.

"In science and technology, it might come just next to the U.S.; otherwise it has surpassed every country. Indian universities are acquiring the status of the top universities of the world and some of their schools already enjoy that status… and we don't find our name anywhere in such any list. That's why it would be hard for us to say that they don't have global ambitions, or they should not have global ambition.

"[India's] economy has grown big; they need bigger markets than us; they are manufacturing at large scale. Similarly, their size of trade is over 20 times bigger than ours; their reserves of foreign exchange are much more than ours… We cannot change our geographic location, nor can we change the geography of our neighbor, and we should also not to try to change it. We have to learn how to live with it and also how to live peacefully with each other. We have also to learn how to work with them for the betterment of our people and also keeping intact our sovereignty."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "It is a Fact that Terrorists are There in Our Country; It is a Fact that Training Camps are There in Our Country; It is a Fact that the Biggest Export of Pakistan is Terrorism"

Columnist Nazir Naji

Anchor Habib Akram (after a break): "Before going on the break our guests expressed their views. Now let's go to our question session. Let's watch what the first question is."

Female student: "So far as our knowledge and information goes, the basic crisis is that of the water crisis, and the Indian design is quite obvious that it wants to make Pakistan barren. If we want to resolve this crisis through negotiations, we don't see India willing to do so. And we find Pakistan's foreign policy in this matter as a total failure. India declares us a terrorist state and that's why it does not want to talk to us. It is said that in the coming 10-15 years, by 2025, if there would be a war between India and Pakistan, it would on the water issue. What instant measures should our country take, and what should be our foreign policy on that, which we don't have presently? My question is to Nazir Naji Sahab."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "In reality, the water crisis is the outcome of our foreign policy and it is not an issue in itself. There is an Indus Water Treaty between us… a copy of the agreement should be made available to students so that they should know what is the reality. Some 40 years have passed since the pact was inked. Pakistan never had any complaint during these 40 years before the Mumbai terrorist attack [of November 2008]. There has been continuous flow of water of our share [from the rivers that flow into Pakistan]. We had developed a formula for… [sharing of water]; some of the rivers were given to them and some of the rivers came to us. And those rivers which are common, most of them flow into Pakistan. There also we had our quota [of water] and we used to get that until the weapon of terrorism was used; and the world says that it has been used by us…

"We cannot say that we do not have terrorists... It is a fact that terrorists are there in our country. It is a fact that training camps are there in our country. It is a fact that the biggest export of Pakistan is terrorism. In this perspective, we have to see what is the issue – water issue, or the India-Pakistan tension? In my view, the basic issue is the India-Pakistan tension. Unless we resolve it, each country will try to use the weapon it has. You say that India has stopped our water, but have you ever heard them complaining that we have stopped India's road access. India's road to Europe goes through yours; its route to Central Asia goes through your country. India has a good trade relation with Russia, and its route to Russia goes through Pakistan. You don't allow them to use the land route which would have been diplomatically beneficial for both the countries. As we are taking recourse to blocking their routes, so they are blocking our water. So, the basic issue is the tension between the two countries…"

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "In my view, no other country in the world is witnessing acts of terrorism as much as Pakistan. As pointed out, the Pakistani government or the state, or the army, should have stopped it [terrorism] first. And if it's happening even after their efforts, then there is really something to ponder about [i.e. alleging a foreign role in terrorism]."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "General Sahab, who is to blame here? We have prepared the terrorists and now they have stood against us."

Prof Sarfaraz Khan: "General Sahab, what you are saying is a dangerous thing. If our army, our police, and our intelligence agencies on which we spend 90%of our budget and for whom we, our mothers, and sisters have sung devotional songs, if they are not capable of dealing with a handful of terrorists in the country, and if they are not able to stop them from worsening our relations with our neighbor, then only Allah may save us. You are saying a very dangerous thing."

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "Let's see that happen by dismantling our armed forces. [Let's see] what happens..."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Would it not be better if our armed forces destroy the terrorists? Is this demand inappropriate?"

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "This [demand] is correct. You have seen they are doing it at their level best, but that too needs to be done with a strategy. What I am trying to say is that we are trying to stop them at our level best. But what happened yesterday [i.e. the bomb blast]; do you think that it happened because our government or our army wanted it to happen?"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "General Sahab, it did not happen in isolation. We made FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] as the center of terrorism during the Afghan war [of the 1980s]…"

Columnist Nazir Naji: Indian and Pakistani Leaders have Accepted that a Manuscript was Ready to be Signed on Kashmir Issue, but when the Mumbai Terror Attacks Took Place, India Suspended the Dialogue

Student: "My question is with Nazir Naji Sahab. If there is any bomb blast in India, it immediately blames Pakistan for that. Sir, why are the Muslims being suppressed all over the world, be it Pakistan or any other Islamic country?"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "I'll only say this much to you; that you say that since India does not listen to you, therefore you are also helpless; it is not so. Both the countries have to agree. India had agreed on many things. The composite dialogue had gone to that level that former President General Musharraf and former Foreign Minister Khursheed Mohammad Kasuri had said that they had reached an agreement for the resolution of Kashmir issue. And only recently [Indian Prime Minister] Manmohan Singh has said that 'we had arrived very near to the resolution of the Kashmir issue.' You know, these dialogues were continuing under which these issues were to be resolved … so far so that some of the leaders like Mani Shankar Aiyar, who recently visited [Pakistan] and who is an important leader of [ruling] Congress, and also in charge of their foreign affairs, he has also been a diplomat in Pakistan, said that the manuscript was ready where the resolution of the Kashmir issue is written. But when the Mumbai terror attacks took place, they suspended it [the dialogue]."

Student: "My question is for Mazhar Sahab… India is involved in FATA and Baluchistan. Is it that our policies have failed, or is there any pressure from above which led India to get involved in our country?"

Dr. Mohammad Saleem Mazhar: "So far as our foreign policies, especially our relations with India, are concerned, which is also very sensitive; we don't have a very specific direction. It is not only me who has said that India is involved there [in Baluchistan]; it has been said by our political leaders, government officials, and [intelligence] agencies, and they have also provided its evidence in this regard. [Our] foreign minister and [interior minister] Rahman Malik have said that they are there [in Pakistan].

"India blames Pakistan instantly whenever any incident takes place there. There are also many extremist [leaders] who are always ready [to blame Pakistan]. But Pakistan has hesitation. If there occurs any incident and our government has some proof, even then we don't ask India categorically and explicitly to keep away from such things, and we don't ask them not to do the things on which you have objections with us."

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "It is Too Adventurous to Say that in Afghanistan should be a Government of Our Choice…; In Case of a War with India, Afghanistan has Never Advanced against Us"

Anchor Habib Akram: "Sarfaraz Sahab, I want to add to this. Recently, an article has been published in The New York Times in which it has been said that the Pak-India relations in future would be tested in Afghanistan, rather than in Kashmir."

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "It's being said from the side of Pakistan, perhaps our commander-in-chief [General Ashfaq Kayani] has also given a statement, and I was a little bit surprised over that, that we want strategic depth in Afghanistan and we take it as our right. In my view, the policy of strategic depth was buried with [former Army Chief General Aslam] Baig Sahab and Hameed Gul [former chief of Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistani military]. Even after signing the UN chart on 'no interference' in other nations, and we have signed it, it is too adventurous to say that in Afghanistan should be a government of our choice. We, perhaps, need a better relation with our neighbors. It is a fact historically that… in case of a war with India, Afghanistan has never advanced against us…"

Student: "My question is that when rights are denied, it creates lots of problems; sometimes it so happens that two brothers fight with each other and in such situation a third party enters to mediate peace between them. Why isn't the UN, which is called the peacemaker, doing anything to resolve our issues?"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "[The UN] is a body of nations which is working in consonance with all the nations. It cannot do anything if any single nation disagrees. If there is a problem between the two nations, the UN can do anything only when the two are ready… But after the 1960s, the situation deteriorated; India said that there is no need to accept anything from Pakistan, for it cannot keep its promises… We should look toward our faults as well. We keep asking for the implementation of the UN resolution on Kashmir. Do you know that the first clause with that resolution on plebiscite is that it will happen only when Pakistan evacuates its military from there? Are you ready for it…"

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "The Indian policy on Kashmir is quite clear. Every prime minister [of India], whether he comes from any part of India, has said that Kashmir is an integral part of India and it will never be allowed to disintegrate. Every Prime Minister Deve Gowda, who was from the southern India, did not show any flexibility on the [Kashmir issue]…"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Let me explain this over-simplified statement. Our East Pakistan [now Bangladesh], when it was with us, was against our Kashmir policy. In the 1965 war it said categorically that we are not ready to die for the cause you are warring for. What you did in that war, you left East Pakistan at the mercy of India. You fought the war in this [western] part… [which also later led to] East Pakistan's secession from Pakistan. Our two provinces of Baluchistan and Sarhad [now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa], which don't have anything to do with river water issues, are not ready to do anything for this issue [of Kashmir]…"

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "The history of our [Khyber Pakhtunkhwa] province is that when Pakistan was being formed, a referendum was done there because the provincial assembly was not given the right to announce their affiliation with either India or with Pakistan, a right given to the assemblies of Sindh and Punjab. The biggest movement of that province was Khudai Khidmatgar, and it had boycotted the referendum. Historically, the leadership [of Khudai Khidmatgar] had very good relations with the Indian National Congress, which was a secular party at that time, and also with [Kashmiri leader] Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference…

"If you look at the independence movements in the subcontinent, you will find that there was a strong opinion in the favor of granting more power to the provinces rather than the centre – both before and after independence…"

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "Even on the issue of Kashmir, the dominant opinion from there [i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province] has been that it should be resolved through dialogue; war should not be fought on this; and the country should not be put at risk…"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "It was the situation in Pakistan. Let me say, East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan, saying that they wanted better relations with India and we were fighting for Kashmir. There were innumerable other issues as well... There is no easy sailing in India as well. It is said that Delhi decides policy [for provinces], and due to that today 20 districts in southern India have gone under the Maoist rebels' control. They say that they can fight war with India for 15 years…"

"Pakistan was Basically an Economic Movement for Freedom Which Got This Geographical Area…; We are Taught Just the Opposite of That; We are Taught that It Came Into Being for Islam"

A section of audience

Student: "When we start growing up, we find India as our biggest enemy in our textbooks. Why is it that we consider India as our biggest enemy to inculcate nationalism in us and don't look towards our shortcomings?"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Once I was talking with a top-level official of Punjab government on Muslim issues. I told him since Muslims were economically and educationally backward, Hindus did not give them chance to progress. The Muslim leadership thought if we get separated from them, we will be saved from their exploitation. So, Pakistan was basically an economic movement for freedom which got this geographical area. He said, what are you talking Nazir Sahab. We are taught just the opposite of that. We are taught that it came into being for Islam."

Anchor Habib Akram: "General Sahab! Is there any mechanism in our army to reorganize itself to deal with the issues being raised here; or can it as a state institution give input to the government?"

Lt.-Gen. (retired) Nishat Ahmad: "Yes, that is there. There is an education system in the army which begins from the lowest level, reaching the highest level, which we call the National Defense University. There, they could be taught.

"All over the world, you will find neighbors not at good relations... India is such a big country but it does not have good relation with either Nepal or Bangladesh, nor with Sri Lanka. So, Pakistan is not the only country, other neighbors who are small too don't feel safe and secure because of Indian policies. These days Bangladesh has the prime minister [Sheikh Hasina Wajed] who had been in India for a long time, and due to that the situation has improved between them but only a little. Bangladesh's water issue with India is much bigger than ours; it will really become a desert. However, Pakistan would not [become a desert] as long as the Indus River is there…."

Anchor Habib Akram (after break): "The General Sahab said that if India is such a good country, then countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Maldives should not have any problem with India, as has been said by Nazir Naji Sahab and Sarfaraz Khan Sahab. It seems that the problem lies somewhere else. Let's take another question."

Student: "My question is with Sarfaraz Khan Sahab. We have come to know that the people of RAW [Indian intelligence's Research and Analysis Wing] came in the guise of the Taliban in Swat district, where an operation was held recently [in May 2009]. Is it based on fact?"

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "What could be a better thing that those who were fighting in Swat, be they Indian or any other, be eliminated? And if they were Indians or came from anywhere else, why couldn't they be buried in the earth; and why are they being still honored [by the army].

"Secondly, repeating it again and again that India doesn't have good relations with its neighbors [is not true]. They were given mandate to have war with us only. We had armed conflicts with India and have fought three big wars."

Anchor (interjects): "Khan Sahab, history should be put in totality; India [had conflict] in Sri Lanka."

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: I don't say that India cannot do wrong, and I'm not also the spokesperson of India. Being the citizen of Pakistan and a taxpayer in the country, I have the right to influence the government policy. It is the work of peace-loving people of India to influence their government and press it to hold talks and resolve issues peacefully. If India is violating human rights in Kashmir, it is the duty of the people there to raise their voice against it and there are people who are doing so…

"And if … there is a bomb explosion in Swat [district], we blame India for that, and if there occurs anything they blame Pakistan; warriors [i.e. terrorists] from this side go to conquer the Red Fort [of Delhi] and warriors from that side come to conquer our Lahore. Warriors on both the sides are similar and peaceful people on both the sides are identical."

Anchor Habib Akram: "Let me clarify some historical facts. [Indian Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated for the fact that India had intervened in Sri Lanka. So, the tradition of intervention in India is much stronger than us. [Indian Prime Minister] Indira Gandhi, on record, intervened in another state and got Bangladesh secede from Pakistan…"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "I have said in the beginning that tension, conflicts, and historical competition between nations do occur. But on this specific issue, on why India had no wars with its other neighbors, I would like to say that they had gone to Sri Lanka for the Tamils who are of Indian origin; but later they also drove them out. They don't have war with other neighbors because they make their policy according to their size and we make policies bigger than our size."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "The Two Countries have Atom Bombs and the Way They have been Quarreling on Smaller Things, It is Very Dangerous"

Student: "First, Pakistan is changing, but so far as the India-Pakistan relations are concerned, the old issues remain alive and new ones get added to them. Second, aren't there any time frames for any issue to be resolved between two nations so far as the India-Pakistan dialogue and third party, UN mediation is concerned…?"

Anchor Habib Akram: "So far as the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan is concerned, you were part of that and you knew the things behind the scene. I think a time frame was fixed for that?"

Columnist Nazir Naji: "It was the time of the Nawaz Sharif Government. Sartaj Aziz was our foreign minister [of Pakistan]. It was the time after the Lahore Declaration [peace pact signed between Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in February 1999]. Specifics had been decided in the Lahore Declaration, and the two foreign ministers, Sartaj Aziz from here and Jaswant Singh from India, were to meet in some city of Italy where they were expected to prepare the final draft. The basic points of that … were ready and were also reasonable… That manuscript went to [Pakistan Army Chief General Pervez], Musharraf and progress was made on that only. Even [Indian leader] Mani Shankar Aiyar has said that the draft is ready; we need the will to resolve the issue."

Anchor interjects: "I think the time line was fixed to 2025."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Not at all, the pact was ready to be made. Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee, the two were claimants for the Nobel Peace Prize. [But later that year, General Musharraf launched the 1999 war in Kargil without consulting his Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to derail the peace process]."

Prof. Sarfaraz Khan: "The [United Nations] resolution on Kashmir is not mandatory…; it is a kind of advisory and there was no scope for any time frame as well. There was yet another forum on which we could have done anything in this regard was the SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation]…."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "Let me tell you one thing about the agreement that was reached. That there would have come a point when borders would have been softened at the Line of Control [that divides Kashmir]; people from both the sides of Kashmir would have travelled freely; trade and commerce would be initiated and encouraged, and after 25 years the Kashmiris would have the right to decide if they wanted to go with India or Pakistan."

Dr. Mohammad Saleem Mazhar: "There are some foreign elements also involved in it. If the matters between India and Pakistan get resolved, foreign elements don't gain. The two countries should use their wisdom on that because they are the one who are suffering from this tension and not the foreign elements."

Anchor Habib Akram: "Then, there should be reconciliation and peace, and the process should keep moving."

Columnist Nazir Naji: "In other words, we should resolve the issue through dialogue to have peace in the region. The two countries have atom bombs and the way they have been fighting on smaller things, it is very dangerous. It is better if they resolve their issue, else they will kill each other…"