On this day, 5th January 2004 : Pervez Musharraf and Atal Bihari Vajpayee pledge peaceful links

[MenInG]

Amazing to think what things could have been if peace had been pursued by all sides!

The leaders of Pakistan and India, meeting yesterday for the first time since their countries almost went to war two years ago, promised to restore normal relations

President Pervez Musharraf and the Indian prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, shook hands and held talks with a retinue of aides and ministers, on the fringe of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit in the Pakistani capital Islamabad.

Their governments had been working behind the scenes for days to ensure that the hour-long meeting went ahead, and billed it as a diplomatic courtesy call to dampen expectations of a breakthrough, especially on Kashmir, the flashpoint of two wars.

Officials said "detailed discussions" had taken place in a "good atmosphere".

The foreign ministries went to extraordinary lengths to dismiss a suggestion by the Pakistani information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, that a "declaration" was being worked on and that more "high-level meetings" were to be held.

The Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman, Masood Khan, said: "Nothing has been decided. Our first priority is that India and Pakistan should resume the dialogue that was interrupted after [the leaders' previous meeting, in 2001 in] Agra. Then we have to decide what level, what the agenda should be."

Although no issues are expected to be resolved immediately, observers say the two countries have little option but to continue with the rapprochement of the past few months.

But securing a new relationship will need agreement on a wide range of issues, from fishing rights and liberal visa arrangements to terrorism.

Najmuddin Sheikh, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said: "India needs to be reassured that Pakistan does not expects immediate results on Kashmir. And Pakistan needs to be reassured that if progress is made on other issues, then talks on Kashmir will continue."

Two years ago the neighbours mobilised a million soldiers in the disputed region after an attack on the parliament in New Delhi which India blamed on Pakistan-backed militants.

The current peace process began in April when Mr Vajpayee offered "the hand of friendship" to Pakistan. Since then diplomatic relations have been resumed and transport links restored.

The most important step came in November when Pakistan announced a ceasefire along the line of control which divides Kashmir. The Indian foreign minister, Yashwant Sinha, said there was room for more "confidence-building measures.

Analysts say the changing political atmospheres in both countries presents a window of opportunity for Pakistan.

Khalid Mahmud of the Institute of Regional Studies in Islamabad said: "India faces a general election this year and [Mr Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata party] could not do a deal with Pakistan if they used anti-Pakistan rhetoric to try to win.

"So I am... optimistic of some sort of deal."


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/06/pakistan.india

 

[MenInG]

Why did this partnership not last?

 

[Varun]

The problem with crafting any sort of alliance with Pakistan's military brass is that he will burn out in a few years and whether the democratically elected government that follows will follow through on any past commitments is always up to chance.

 

[DW44]

The problem with crafting any sort of alliance with Pakistan's military brass is that he will burn out in a few years and whether the democratically elected government that follows will follow through on any past commitments is always up to chance.

That's not how it works. Even during civilian rule, foreign policy remains the army's domain so whether or not any commitments made during military rule are honored still remains up to the military. The difference is that during military rule, relations improve because military dictators don't want to deal with one more issue, that of a belligerent India, on top of all the other domestic issues. During civilian governments though, tension with India is a good way to keep the government occupied, maintain the military's relevance and keep getting those outsize budgets (name one country other than Pakistan where military spending exceeds spending on education and healthcare - until recently, military budgets in Pakistan used to be greater than health and education spending combined).

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Why did this partnership not last?

Because a handful of months later Vajpayee was voted out of office and replaced by Singh. Sure Musharraf and Manmohan Singh had a good relationship but Sonia Gandhi was number 1 in the Manmohan Singh government and she had other issues as a priority. Also the Congress party are always cautious when it comes to the whole Pakistan issue as they don’t want to be accused of being soft on Pakistan because they think it will cost them votes at home.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

That's not how it works. Even during civilian rule, foreign policy remains the army's domain so whether or not any commitments made during military rule are honored still remains up to the military. The difference is that during military rule, relations improve because military dictators don't want to deal with one more issue, that of a belligerent India, on top of all the other domestic issues. During civilian governments though, tension with India is a good way to keep the government occupied, maintain the military's relevance and keep getting those outsize budgets (name one country other than Pakistan where military spending exceeds spending on education and healthcare - until recently, military budgets in Pakistan used to be greater than health and education spending combined).

What proportion of Pakistan’s total annual budget goes on the military? In India it’s around 11% ($40bn out of a total of $336bn). An obscene amount of money really.

Wonder what India and Pakistan would look like today if even 20-30% of their defence spending since 1947 was instead spent on infrastructure and development?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

/\/\/\/\

Have just googled it and to answer my own question the figure is 19%.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1335574/defence-budget-set-at-rs9202bn-for-fy2017-18

 

[Deewana Mastana]

And till this day there is no peace whatsoever and the likelihood of never will be.

 

[DW44]

/\/\/\/\

Have just googled it and to answer my own question the figure is 19%.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1335574/defence-budget-set-at-rs9202bn-for-fy2017-18

It's actually somewhere in the 25-30% range since that Rs. 920 billion figure doesn't include the allocations for pensions of retired military personnel or the operational costs of the ongoing operations in FATA. From other sources:

"However, the amount does not include Rs180 billion allocated for pensions of the military personnel that would be given from the civilian budget and a separate allocation for security-related expenses.

In addition, the military would also be given Rs180 billion under the contingent liability and Rs86 billion out of Rs144 billion under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF)."

Source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1420408/defence-spending-9-5-rs920-1b/

"Pakistan is set to increase defense spending by $578 million to $8.78 billion in fiscal year 2017-2018, Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar told the country’s National Assembly in late May.

This constitutes a projected 7 percent increase in overall defense expenditure. It should be noted, however, that Pakistan spends more on defense than its official estimates suggest. (Real defense expenditure could be up to 50 percent higher.)"

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/pakistan-raises-defense-spending/

 

[troodon]

Until Kashmir issue is resolved, there will never be peace. No amount of Bus journeys or Train Journeys will bring peace. It was just a show off.

As of now, there is no end to this problem. Either India have to give up Kashmir (Which they never will) or Pak should accept the LOC as the boundary(not acceptable to them).

 

[English August]

Wonder what India and Pakistan would look like today if even 20-30% of their defence spending since 1947 was instead spent on infrastructure and development?

This is an oft-repeated myth. I don't know about Pakistan, but in India, if you combine the annual budget allocated to healthcare, education and infrastructure development across central and state governments, and take stock of spend at the end of the year, more often that not, you'll find that it's not even fully spent. So basically there is no shortage of funds. People don't go hungry or stay poor / uneducated because there is no money for food and services. India produces more food grains than it needs, but there is >40% wastage through the supply chain. There are enough schools for kids, but kids drop out and quality of teachers is terrible.

Development has never been a budget issue, problem has always been poor governance, corruption and inefficient delivery systems. You can't fix these problems by reallocating defense budget to these things.

People who say India shouldn't waste money on defense, nuclear arms, space programs, bullet train etc. need to spend time understanding these things at a more granular level.