Pakistan has conveyed to India that the February 25 renewal of the 2003 ceasefire along the Line of Control can lead to a broader engagement only if and when Delhi restores statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as a “starting point” for a discussion on solving the Kashmir Problem, The Indian Express learned.
The joint statement issued by the Directors General of Military Operations does not reflect any change in the Pakistani position that Kashmir is a “dispute” and that its resolution is anchored in United Nations Security Council resolutions, authorized sources in Pakistan said. they did not want to be identified.
Furthermore, they added, the declaration in no way implies acceptance of the Indian “narrative” of an “agreement” on Kashmir.
In a first indication of how Pakistan views relations with India after the ceasefire and the gap in positions between the two sides, these sources indicated that for any broader engagement, India must create an “enabling environment” by restoring the status of State to J&K.
This, they said, would then facilitate “a conversation” that would include “Kashmiri voices front and center” on the way forward and potentially open a space for discussions on other bilateral issues.
Sources rejected what they called the “narrative” in India that the DGMO deal was a sign of Pakistan’s “desperation” and “weakness”, or the notion that it could be used by India to signal to the world that ” Pakistan and India are talking and everything is fine, or telling people in (Kashmir) that there is a clandestine deal and that Kashmir is done and dusted.
For its part, Delhi has signaled that if the ceasefire is maintained and there are no terrorist incidents dating back to Pakistan, a broader normalization of ties could follow.
At the same time, he has emphasized that the restoration of J&K statehood is a guarantee underlined several times in the Lok Sabha by the Union Minister of the Interior, Amit Shah, and there is little to discuss beyond that.
In Pakistan’s view, the ceasefire was something that it had “publicly talked about” for almost two years. It had been on the table, and for “whatever reason” India was reluctant all this time, and for “whatever reason” it had now agreed, sources in Pakistan said.
They also emphasized that the agreement was purely for tactical reasons due to the situation in the LoC – “at the end of the day, only innocent people were dying, and nothing on the ground was going to change” – and link it to some “grand plan” in the field. that this was the first step was “wrong”.
The entire Pakistani system – the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Army, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Special Representative for National Security – agreed with the idea that if the agreement opened spaces for wider participation, Pakistan would be ” willing to participate “because he sees peace with India as a prerequisite for his own economic stability, now at the core of his idea of national security, the sources said.
.
