Border raids give India-Pakistan peace process a reality check

Border skirmishes between India and Pakistan have grown unexpectedly hot in the past few days, prompting US comment.

Mukesh Gupta/Reuters
Indian security posts (r.) are seen along the border between India and Pakistan in Suchetgarh, southwest of Jammu, Sunday.

Two days after the Pakistani Army claimed that a cross-border Indian raid killed a Pakistani soldier and wounded another, the Indian Army claimed that Pakistani soldiers crossed its side of the line in Jammu and Kashmir state today and killed two Indian soldiers. 

While cross-border shelling along the 435-mile Line of Control that divides the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region between the two countries is not rare, the killing of soldiers has come as a surprise: Pakistan and India are in the middle of a major peace process, and most cease-fire violations happen during the summer rather than the difficult winter in the mountainous region.

The skirmish has prompted many to ask “why now?”

Analysts in India see these events in the light of recent reports that the Pakistani military has adopted a new doctrine that states, significantly, that the Taliban and not India is Pakistan’s primary threat.

“These cease-fire violations could be the localized decision of a divisional brigadier or commander unhappy with the India-Pakistan thaw,” says military commentator Ajai Shukla, a former Indian Army officer who has served at the Line of Control. “It is significant that the Pakistani Army has transferred 70,000 soldiers from the Indian border to counterterrorism efforts on the Afghan border in the last two years,” he points out, adding: “It is very likely that there are officers who do not think this is in Pakistan’s best interest.”

Referring to rogue military or militants, Raza Rumi of the Pakistani think tank The Jinnah Institute, says, “While the Pakistani government and military have both tried their utmost to continue the peace process, there may be nonstate actors who could be riled up by the prospect of imminent unemployment.”

While the Pakistani military denied "Indian allegations of unprovoked firing" to Reuters, an Indian Army spokesperson described Tuesday's events as "a serious escalation to the continuing series of cease-fire violations and infiltration attempts."

Many see the killings as a retaliation for the death of the Pakistani soldier on Sunday. As the Pakistan Foreign Office protested the killing by summoning the Indian Deputy High Commissioner, the Indian Army said it had responded to heavy firing from the Pakistani side that destroyed one civilian house on the Indian side.

"We believe it was clearly an attempt on their part to facilitate infiltration of militants," spokesperson Col. Brijesh Pandey said.

But Pakistani military analyst Ayesha Siddiqa says that the Line of Control skirmish and the new Pakistani military doctrine are both being overplayed by the Indian media.

“The talk of a new military doctrine is based on questionable reports,” she says, adding, “The peace process has not achieved anything substantial so far and it is obvious that both peace and anti-peace lobbies would be at work. It is important to not see small tremors as major shifts. The Pakistani Army may realize that the scope for adventurism in Kashmir is limited but India remains the major conventional military threat for it.”

The United States expressed concern Monday about the skirmish. "We urge both sides to take steps to end exchanges of fire and to resume normal trade and travel across the Line of Control," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.