More details emerged over the last few days to explain how India and Pakistan recently backed down from the brink of war and what steps countries could take in the near future to decrease tensions in South Asia (see GSN, June 19).

Two primary factors — U.S. intervention and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s promise to permanently end militant infiltration into India’s side of the disputed Kashmir territory — enabled the nuclear-armed rivals to avert war, several analysts and officials said.  Musharraf had promised to crack down on militants, but India did not accept his commitment until U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited Musharraf and secured the commitment to bring about a “permanent end” to militant infiltration, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, June 10).

“If Pakistan had not agreed to end infiltration, and America had not conveyed that guarantee to India, then war would not have been averted,” Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said last week.

The deal to avoid a direct military conflict, however, came at some cost to India.  Musharraf told Armitage that India must take substantial steps to make his commitment to end infiltration “sustainable.”  The United States and other countries put pressure on India by calling for their citizens to leave the country — causing economic damage in India (see GSN, June 6).  Within a few days, India allowed Pakistani commercial flights over its territory, moved naval fleets back to homeports and prepared to name a high commissioner for Pakistan (see GSN, June 11).

What’s Next

In addition, U.S. officials including President George W. Bush told Musharraf that they would help find ways to resolve the dispute over Kashmir (see GSN, June 10).  India has continually said Kashmir is a regional issue, not a subject requiring outside intervention (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, June 22).

Vajpayee said in an interview with Newsweek that he would be willing to discuss all issues, including Kashmir, with Pakistan as long as Musharraf ends what India sees as cross-border terrorism based in Pakistan.  He said, however, that the U.S. role should be as a “facilitator” — not a “mediator” — continuing India’s insistence that the Kashmir dispute does not require a third party.

In the same Newsweek article, however, Musharraf repeated his insistence that to have long-term stability the two countries must address the Kashmir issue, and he said the United States “is the only country which can persuade India to initiate a dialogue and move towards a solution of Kashmir.  Bilateralism hasn’t worked.”

There also seemed to be some disagreement between the two leaders concerning Pakistan’s commitment to end infiltration.  Vajpayee said Musharraf has promised to dismantle militant training camps in Pakistan’s part of Kashmir, but Musharraf said he had not discussed that issue with Armitage.

Both leaders said the decrease of tensions might offer a good opportunity for a positive turning point in relations (Lally Weymouth, Newsweek, July 1).

Strong tensions still exist, however, while the United States tries to determine its future role in the region.  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked his staff to think of new ways to encourage Indian-Pakistani dialogue on Kashmir with the hopes that a change in the status quo would reward Musharraf for complying with U.S. requests and help India feel that it has also gained politically, according to the Post (Kessler, Washington Post).

For further information, see:

Stimson Center Background on Kashmir

Pakistani Government

Indian Government

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top