Harsha Kakar
The recent failed talks between the National Security Advisors (NSAs) of India and Pakistan have only added to the already existing high levels of mistrust and differences in perception on bilateral issues between the two countries. There was a glimmer of hope that the talks would and could reduce tension between the neighbours, but that hasnow gone up in smoke. The final straw was the proposed meeting between the Pakistan NSA and the Hurriyat. However the proposed talks between the Director Generals (DG) of the BSF and the Pakistan Rangers are expected to go ahead from 09 Sept at Delhi.
The format of talks between the two countries as announced at Ufa was to have the NSA level talks first, followed by the DG level talks and then finally between the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO). In my opinion, instead of starting from top down, it should have been the DG level first, then the DGMO and finally the NSAs. The DGs would have discussed peace and tranquillity at the IB between the countries, while the DGMOs would have aimed to resolve violations of ceasefire and infiltration attempts along the LOC. This would have helped bring progress at the ground level first, thereby creating a positive environment for the macro level issues to be discussed between the NSAs, in which any way minimum progress was expected.
There was immense media hype and high expectations in the terror discussions from the NSA level talks while at the same time there is limited hope and expectations from the forthcoming DG level talks.In this case, there would be no dossiers of India’s most wanted or of Pakistan’s involvement in terror strikes in India being handed over, but the most important issue which would be discussed and hopefully see an outcome would be pertaining to the benefit and survival of the large mass of population living and earning their livelihood close to the border on both sides.Therefore, these talks carry immense significance, especially for the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as it is here, that the brunt of ceasefire violations and militant activities are faced. The recent firing at the villages of Balakoteand those in the RS Pura sector are a clear example. Thus there is a need to prepare for these talks with equal vigour to ensure that the end result brings about a better life for the people living close to the border.
In my earlier article on ‘Responsibility to Protect and Provide’ in this newspaper I had mentioned that the centre is responsible for the security of the international border and the state within the border. The population living in this state has been affected not only by border firing and ceasefire violations but also by militants entering from the Line of Control (LOC) and the international Border (IB) and causing casualties within the state. Therefore both the centre and the state need to be involved together in the preparation and participation of these talks. The state has to be a party in both the talks, being most affected.
The problem which compounds thiscase is that Pakistan terms the IB in the Jammu sector as the ‘working boundary’, a connotation, which implies from their perspective that it is neither an IB nor an LOC, though still disputed. However, the same is manned by their rangers, and on our side the BSF, which inter alia makes it akin to the IB. Further as we move north and the IB becomes the LOC the responsibility shifts from the BSF to the army.
Therefore logically, the DG level talks would cover the entire IB starting from the Rann of Kutch upto the commencement of the LOC. This directly affects the plains of Jammu and Kashmir, and the villages bordering the IB. Almost all along the IB, there is our created border fence located at varying distances in the interior from the actual IB. The only area where there is no fence is where rivers or other water obstacles exist. There are border outposts of varying strength, at regular distances on both sides of the border. These are manned by troops responsible for the security of the border. The posts are planned, organized and sited for defence and can withstand enemy firing.
There are villages located very close to the fence. More importantly, the fields of the farmers living in these villages exist ahead of the fence and upto the IB. This therefore makes the locals vulnerable to across the border firing. The circumstances are such that our villagers work under the glare of both, our own BSF and the Pakistan Rangers. The same is the case with the farmers on their side. The people here live under the constant fear of the bullet, not knowing, what could trigger off the next round of firing and cause casualties.
The two DGs need to take stock of this situation, and create an environment for ensuring safety and security for the common man, who toils in these fields for his basic survival and has no direct link to the international dispute, except that he just happens to live close to the IB. This affects both sides and a positive attitude taken, would benefit this mass of humanity. Some other issues which could be discussed are as given.
Ceasefire violations do take place at times for varying reasons. These target villagers and cause civilian casualties. Ideally being an IB, there should be no reasons for ceasefire violations or any firing. If however, these do take place, then they should completely avoid civilian areas. The border posts could be targeted as they are organized and prepared for such actions and they are the ones who respond back. More important is that to ensure the villagers do not lose their livelihood, agreements on no firing during the time when the farmers work in their fields should be implemented. Targeting innocent civilians is an international crime and completely unacceptable.
In spite of all precautions people do stray across the border inadvertently. Those arrested for such straying should be returned back, once their credentials are proved. It would benefit families on both sides.
The other issue which adversely affects the villagers, and has fairly reduced post the creation of the fence, is cattle smuggling. It still continues and has immense financial effect on the villagers. Positive action by both sides to curb this trend would be beneficial. In addition to cattle is smuggling of drugs. This also needs resilience from both sides to stop and curb.
The issue of cross border terrorism and infiltration is something which would naturally be discussed, but realistically reach no conclusion. It would be projected by us, denied by them, and end up in a stalemate. Hence, when it is unlikely to produce results, it could be given a gloss over.
Most important for the talks is to create an understanding between the two sides, to build confidence between the adversaries at the local level, establish contacts at the post level and instil trust. By doing this, we would be able to create a safe environment for those villages which exist under the constant fear and threat of cross border firing and targeting. They should be able to work on their fields without fear or worry.
If the state succeeds in creating a safe environment, it would fulfil its duty of protection to its population.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel