A cold peace?

Byline: Zarrar Khuhro

THE recent developments on the Line of Control have engendered a great deal of debate, or at least what passes for debate in our discourse. That discourse is as tedious as it is predictable, littered as it is with bombast, homilies, false equivalences, straw man arguments and partisan point-scoring. So let's try and cut through that noise as much as possible, while acknowledging that any actual analysis of an evolving situation is a work in progress and subject to revision.

To start with, this isn't the melting of ice as much as it is the (temporary?) extinguishing of a burning fire. The ceasefire that both Pakistan and India have jointly pledged to observe has been in place since 2003 but in recent years had seen unprecedented violations, mostly from India, which have resulted in both military and civilian casualties. Indian forces have conducted indiscriminate shelling on civilian targets while Pakistani forces have targeted only Indian military installations. So in the immediate, the beneficiaries of this re-established ceasefire are Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC and that cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a bad thing.

Now, repeat after me: one ceasefire does not make for a comprehensive peace agreement. I'm asking you to repeat this because far too many seem to think this agreement somehow means that Kashmir has been abandoned/sold/given away, and that the government/establishment/state has taken a craven U-turn on its previous stance vis-a-vis what they called the fascist/genocidal/Nazi-inspired Indian government.

It's understandable when this sort of talk comes from opposition politicians and spokespersons; having been accused of treason and selling out Pakistan with every other breath, this provides, in their mind, an opportunity to push back and counter-accuse. When it comes from people one would expect to have a more holistic view, it's somewhat disturbing.

We have no way of knowing how long the ceasefire will last.

Let's start by understanding that no amount of bloodshed at the LoC brings the liberation of Kashmir even an inch closer, and never will. Note also, that a cessation of hostilities, as mentioned before only saves the lives of innocent civilians and is thus more in Pakistan's interests than it is in India's, which has never shown any regard for the lives, livelihood and honour of Kashmiris. Also know that the escalation at the LoC was largely due to India, and its agreeing to...