(The views expressed in this journal are
solely those
of the authors)
Khaled Ahmed, Consulting Editor of Daily
Times,
Pakistan,
takes
a
historical
and
empirical
view
of
unresolved
disputes
among
the
states
of
South
Asia
and
says
that
while
perennial
disputes
continue
to
keep
the
gulf,
ancillary
issues
have
also
become
'core
issues'
and
difficult
to
resolve.
Focusing
on
India's
relations
with
all
its
neighbours,
he
narrates
multiple
differences
between
New
Delhi
and
all
other
countries
that
prohibit
India's
smaller
neighbours
to
embrace
the
regional
big
brother.
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Shaukat
Aziz,
comes
out
very
emphatically
in
favour
of
making
South
Asia
an
economically
vibrant
region
with
a
pledge
to
make
regional
cooperation
a
dynamic
enterprise.
Mindful
of
Pakistan’s
strategic
position
between
South,
East
and
Western
Asia,
Mr.
Aziz
assures
of
a
very
contributory
role
and
that,
he
underlines,
is
possible
if
India
and
Pakistan
join
hands
to
do
it
together
by
thinking
‘out
of
the
box’.
Salman Khurshid, senior leader of the Congress
Party
and
former
Indian
diplomat,
develops
a
context
that
makes
no
sense
of
the
conflict
between
India
and
Pakistan.
Challenging
Pakistan's
case
over
Jammu
&
Kashmir,
while
questioning
the
genesis
of
Pakistan's
creation
on
the
basis
of
religion
-
the
hallmark
of
a
contestable
secular
position
-
he,
however,
suggests
a
solution
to
the
conflict
on
the
lines
of
the
Good
Friday
Agreement
in
the
broader
context
of
South
Asian
union.
Moeed Yusuf, Consultant at Sustainable
Development
Policy
Institute,
Islamabad,
provides
a
broader
perspective
on
nuclear
stabilisation
in
South
Asia,
while
evaluating
dangers
inherent
to
nuclearisation
of
the
subcontinent.
Setting
parameters
that
ensure
nuclear
safety
in
an
otherwise
volatile
region,
the
author
sets
out
necessary
measures
to
ensure
nuclear
stability
while
discarding
notions
of
prevention
or
pre-emption
and
calling
to
keep
nuclear
threshold
at
a
manageable
level.
Najmuddin
Shaikh,
former
foreign
secretary
of
Pakistan,
analyses
the
factors
that
have
brought
India
and
Pakistan
on
the
path
of
negotiated
settlement
of
disputes.
Taking
a
detached
position,
but
obviously
from
Pakistan’s
perspective,
he
argues
not
to
re-invent
the
whole
wheel
in
favour
of
every
issue
but
to
agree
on
what
had
been
agreed
earlier
or
what
is
possible
and
suitable
to
both
sides
in
the
longer
term.
The
author’s
do’s
and
dont’s
are
worth
consideration
by
the
interlocutors.
I. P. Khosla, former secretary in the
Ministry
of
External
Affairs
of
India,
in
his
remarkable
study
of
Indo-Bangladesh
relations
unveils
the
political
dynamics
of
a
bumpy
relationship
that
suffers
the
ups
and
downs
of
political
and
divisive
pulls.
While
he
blames
the
political
leadership
of
the
countries
for
the
difficult
relations,
he,
despite
sympathetically
entertaining
Bangladesh's
concerns,
makes
a
rational
case
on
different
issues
that
in
the
end
may
not
be
of
satisfaction
to
the
Bangladeshis.
Krishna V. Rajan, former Indian Ambassador
to
Nepal,
traces
the
five
decades
of
an
uneasy
relationship
between
India
and
Nepal
from,
of
course,
New
Delhi's
perspective.
He
shows
how
India
feels
uneasy
over
Nepal's
tendency
to
pursue
equidistance
or
forge
relations
with
other
countries,
especially
China,
and
the
way
the
Himalayan
kingdom
feels
insecure
due
to
India's
attitude,
despite
striving
to
benefit
from
New
Delhi's
support.
He
concludes
by
saying
that
the
1950
Treaty
is
outdated
and
unfair
to
Nepal
and
needs
to
be
reviewed,
even
as
both
agree
to
counter
the
Maoist
challenge
together.
Ahmer
Bilal
Soofi,
a
prominent
lawyer
from
Pakistan,
places
the
disputes
between
India
and
Pakistan
over
Siachen,
Sir
Creek
and
Wullar
Barrage
in
legal
and
technical
perspectives.
Suggesting
that
these
issues
be
resolved
on
legal
and
technical
bases,
he
cautions
against
mishandling
of
these
issues
by
those
who
are
not
experts
in
the
field
and
calls
for
political
backing
to
legalistic
solutions.
Bharat
Bhushan,
Editor
of
Telegraph,
surveys
the
troublesome
path
of
not
resolving
issues,
such
as
Tulbul,
Sir
Creek
and
Siachen,
between
India
and
Pakistan
and
focuses
on
the
shifting
interpretations
and
methodologies
experts
and
bureaucracies
from
the
two
sides
use
to
defer
their
resolution.
Although
mainly
representing
the
Indian
standpoint,
the
author
rightly
observes
that
the
resolution
of
these
ancillary
issues
has
got
caught
up
in
the
heat
of
the
perennial
dispute
over
Kashmir
and
favours
finding
middle-of-the-road
solutions.
Dr
Saman
Kelegama,
Executive
Director
of
the
Institute
of
Policy
Studies,
Sri
Lanka
and
Ratnakar
Adhikari,
Executive
Director
of
SAWTEE,
Kathmandu,
review
the
debate
on
regionalism
and
make
a
comparative
evaluation
of
the
for
and
against
schools
of
regionalism
in
the
context
of
multilateral
liberalisation.
Supportive
of
regional
trade
arrangements
and
open
regionalism,
both
Kelegama
and
Adhikari
argue
in
favour
of
SAFTA
while
concluding
that
it
needs
to
be
repositioned
in
a
pan-Asian
context
as
a
building-block
for
an
Asian
Economic
Community.
Syed
Shahid
Husain,
former
Secretary
in
the
Ministry
of
Water
and
Power,
Pakistan,
critically
evaluates
the
ambitious
river
linking
plan
being
envisaged
by
India
that
arouses
serious
apprehensions
in
Bangladesh,
the
lower
riparian
country.
Besides
politically
and
technically
questioning
the
project,
the
author
warns
against
the
negative
impact
of
the
project
over
ecological
equilibrium.
Dr
Bishnu
Raj
Upreti,
Director
of
Friends
for
Peace,
Kathmandu,
analyses
the
‘people’s
war’
started
by
the
CPN-M
(Maoist)
Party
in
Nepal.
Tracing
the
structural
and
ideological
causes
behind
the
Maoist
insurgency
and
the
three-way
conflict
between
the
Maoists,
the
palace
and
the
parliamentary
parties,
the
author
identifies
catalysts
which
have
fueled
the
conflict
in
the
Himalayan
kingdom.
The
author
concludes
on
the
note
that
the
Maoist
conflict
is
not
the
reason
behind
the
failure
of
democracy
in
Nepal,
rather
a
reaction
to
it;
and
calls
on
all
parties
to
the
conflict
to
settle
their
differences
through
purposeful
dialogue.
Achin
Vanaik,
a
prominent
Indian
political
commentator,
contrasts
the
assumptions
propounded
by
the
bomb
lobby
with
subsequent
shift
in
their
position
to
show
the
absurdity
of
the
stability
argument
woven
around
nuclear
deterrence.
Questioning
the
very
notions
and
assumptions,
he
argues
complete
disarmament
while
proposing
some
basic
measures
to
make
the
threat
from
nuclear
weapons
less
menacing.
