An Overview on Pakistan’s Foreign Policy towards India

An Overview on Pakistan’s Foreign Policy upon India: 

Prepared For
Saima N. Sherazi
Instructor, Communication Skills (SS 122)

Prepared by 
Sania Khalid, Hassan Ali and Ghazah Abbasi
Group 6, Communication Skills Section Four

January 17, 2004

 Preface
This report on the current affairs between Pakistan and India is compiled to serve the demands of SS122 course at LUMS. It contains most of the material that was provided in the presentation and also some more details which were not present in the presentation itself.

There have been growing concerns for the common man in Pakistan about the matters being discussed between the leadership of Pakistan and India. People do not know what is being decided for their future that they would have to face as fate afterwards. This report will be helpful in clarifying these emerging thoughts and concerns.

It was a nice experience firstly to work in groups, and secondly to refresh and add to our previous knowledge about foreign affairs and underhand terms like track-2 diplomacy. Although this report was compiled before the presentation but due to the rescheduled deadline, it is being published a week later on 25th January 2004. 

We would like to put forward special thanks to our parents who provided essential guidance towards researching the topic and helping us decide the track we should take to compile this report. We acknowledge the kind help provided by Mr. Irfan Siddiqui and Mr. Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, senior editors in Nawaiwaqt and Jang respectively, for taking out time for interviews from their congested work schedules. Thanks also to Dr. Shahid Masood, Mr. Hamid Mir, Mr. Mohammad Fahd, GEO TV and ARY ONE World. Their TV programs helped us in course of obtaining basic knowledge to start working upon. At the end, each of us would like to thank and praise the other two group members for their cooperation, contribution and cogence that allowed us to work as one single body.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.	PREFACE								3
II.	TABLE OF CONTENTS						4
III.	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY						5
IV.	REPORT					
a.	INTRODUCTION 						6
b.	BACKGROUND						6
c.	NUCLEAR TESTING – MAY 1998				8
d.	LAHORE SUMMIT 1999					8
e.	KARGIL ISSUE						8
f.	ANOTHER DIP IN RELATIONS				9
g.	THE NEW YEAR MEETINGS				10	
h.	SIGNIFICANCE OF SAAFTA				11
i.	EFFECT ON PAKISTAN’S BUDGET			11
j.	VAJPAYEE’S INITIAL STANCE ON KASHMIR		12
k.	US PEACE TRIES						12
l.	FLASHBACK AND CONCLUSION	13
V. REFERENCES	15
VI. APPENDICES	
a.	INTERVIEW OF MR. IRFAN SADDIQUE			16
b.	INTERVIEW OF MR. IRSHAD HAQQANI			17
VII. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL	18

Executive Summary
Pakistan and India, both share a critical border and a bad history. The main cause of the tension between the two countries is the northern border which links both the countries - the border where lies the beautiful valleey of Kashmir. This report gives details of the turbulent history of the nations and of Pakistan’s foreign policy on India over the past years after its independence. It also gives an account of the recent changes in the policy and as to how these may affect both countries in the long run. Moreover a detailed analysis and comparison of the recent changes is presented keeping in mind the past policies and interviews with two renowned journalist namely Irfan Siddiqui and Irshad Ahmed Haqqani. 
A major step towards the improvement of Indo-Pak relations was the 12th SAARC Summit held in Islamabad, Pakistan in January 2004. Under this summit both the countries signed SAFTA – the free trade treaty. The affects of this signing of SAFTA and its apparent benefits have also been discussed in the report. Moreover, talks held between General Pervaiz Musharraf (President of Pakistan) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Prime minister of India) after the SAARC summit have also been fruitful and both countries officials are hopeful that they will see peace between the two countries borders in the future. The Kashmir issue still remains unsolved but both have decided to put it to the background and to focus on maintaining peace and good relations with each other. 
United states Of America has always played a vital role in deciding what it best for Pakistan and has influenced Pakistan’s foreign polices throughout the past years. These recent changes may also be a result of the pressure. The analysis of whether this is the case and what us is getting out of this peace signature is also discussed in the report in detail. 

Introduction
The recent silent steps forward towards a road to peace between Pakistan and India has become a flash point all around the world. Both countries have been fighting upon matters that have suddenly faded from their recent priorities. Moreover, there has been a new shine of hope for the settlement of these long lasted issues. In this report, we have collected data through various sources and presented it in a manner that it could help resolve the confusions a common man is facing about this issue. We conducted several interviews and obtained information from books, newspapers, websites and other people who have sharp observation upon the circumstances. With the help of all the information and our own judgement, we will present a comparison of previous talks and the recent talks between the two leaders, the reasons that caused any variations in stances, their effects and durability.

Background
Pakistan and India have had hostile relations with each other ever since the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. The core reason of hostility throughout years remains the same i.e. the Kashmir issue. Both nations have fought many wars for Kashmir in the past 57 years. 
On October 27, 1947, Kashmir was made a part of India by its Sikh Raja Hari Singh and the Indian army entered the region. This created a conflict as Pakistan expected Kashmir to accede to Pakistan since it had a Muslim majority, and was geographically contagious with it. Thus, India and Pakistan went to war for the first time over what would henceforth be known as “the Kashmir issue”. 
India turned to the United Nations in 1948 to resolve the issue and a resolution was passed by the Security Council calling for the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces from Kashmir and for holding a plebiscite in the region to ascertain the wishes of the local people. The ceasefire line was also established. However with a passage of time India went back on this promise. In July 1955 while addressing the Lok Sabha, Nehru declared that the question of plebiscite in Occupied Kashmir was then out of date because of the US military aid to Pakistan, Pakistan's joining SEATO and CENTO pacts and the creation of the Constitutional assembly in Occupied Kashmir. Later on India started calling Kashmir as "an integral part of India", something which it still claims it to be. 
In September 1965 this problem between the two nations lead to a full-scale war between the two nations. Although the Indian forces were able to penetrate into Pakistani area at first, but Pakistani armed forces were able to push their opponents into their own territory. This tension was put to an end by USSR's interference in 1966. A treaty was signed by both the countries in which they agreed to stop hostile propaganda against each other. 
This was under President Ayub Khan's government and Zulifqar Ali Bhutto was the foreign minister. Not agreeing with government policies, Bhutto resigned from the government. However in 1969 General Yahya Khan threw over the Ayub government. Elections were held in 1971and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was chosen to be the prime minister. Then a conspiracy in East Pakistan by Mujeeb Ur Rehman invited India to interfere which led to another indo-Pakistan war, ultimately separating East Pakistan as an independent state and by signing the Simla Agreement which is summarized below:
 "The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples."
Regarding the Kashmir issue it stated:
In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or use of force in violation of this line.
In December 1988, the fourth SAARC summit was held in Islamabad where both India and Pakistan signed three accords on nuclear installations, aviation and cultural exchanges. According to these both the nations agreed to inform each other about their nuclear installations, exempt their airlines from the payments of dual taxes band to exchange visits of journalists, artists, and sportsmen, literary scholars and religious scholars. This was a major step towards improving the relations between the two countries.
After that, the circumstances between India and Pakistan remained tensing and easing time and again due to political reason. SAARC was heavily influenced by the bilateral issues of the two major members, India and Pakistan, and hence it remained unable to create new economical and cultural ties between all seven members. During the Nawaz Sharif regime, tension between the countries arouse to such an extent that it started a new race of weaponry which led to the nuclear testing by both countries.

Nuclear Testing - May 1998
In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test - the so-called "Smiling Buddha" detonations in the Rajasthan Desert. A few years later, under Bhutto regime, Pakistan began to develop its own programme of nuclear weapons. Both countries were also developing and testing both short-range and intermediate-range missiles. 
In April 1998, Pakistan finally tested its new intermediate-range nuclear missile, Ghauri. This test prompted India for a larger scale reaction. As a result, on Monday May 11, 1998 India announced it had conducted three underground tests at Pokhran in the northern state of Rajasthan. Two days later it announced that another two explosions had taken place. India's actions were widely condemned by the international community and Pakistan was urged not to retaliate. Despite of all the pressure from international community and keeping the interests of Pakistan, on May 28 Pakistan announced that it had conducted five nuclear tests of its own in south-western Baluchistan. The tests were widely criticised throughout the world, and led to the imposition by some countries of sanctions. The balance of power in the South East Asia came back to equilibrium and gradually, the tension started to release.

Lahore Summit – 1999
In February 1999 the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee was invited by Nawaz Shareef, his counterpart in Pakistan, and was given a warm welcome at Lahore.  On the occasion, he said India welcomed “sustained discussions on all outstanding issues including Kashmir”. Both the prime ministers agreed to have peaceful relations between the two countries. Lahore declaration was signed by both countries, according to which the Simla agreement would be followed in its entirety and all unsettled issues, including Kashmir, was to be resolved peacefully.

Kargil Issue – May to July 1999
However, later that year in May 1999, India and Pakistan were in the international spotlight again when some 600 to 800 mujahidin (freedom fighters) occupied Kargil. India claimed that these mujahidin were given military aid by Pakistan, an allegation that Pakistan denied at that time. Kargil is an area in Indian occupied Kashmir and is very close to the Line of Control. It is especially significant to India because the supply lines for Indian army in Kashmir pass through it which came under direct attack from the occupants. 
“A senior officer of the Indian Army, Brigadier Ashok Chopra, told the reporters that Indian troops had advanced close to militant positions but were still inside the Indian side of the Line of Control. But separatist militant groups in Kashmir say their activists continue to hold onto their positions and the army's claims of advance are not true.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/371813.stm June 17)
India used air strikes over the mountainous region which is around 15,000 feet above sea-level. According to one BBC journalist, more people there are victims of the cold than of the border skirmishes. 
After two months, the fighting finally ended as a result of a lot of international pressure on both Pakistan and India. In the end, both India and Pakistan claimed victory in the conflict. US Prime Minister Bill Clinton met Nawaz Shareef and they both signed an agreement whereby Nawaz Shareef agreed that it was vital for peace in South Asia that the line of control in Kashmir should be respected by both India and Pakistan. 
Ever since this event the relations between the two countries have been unstable without any resolution of the Kashmir problem. Any talks held never seemed to give any positive output. And all the changes in Pakistan’s policies on India seemed to be influenced by one superpower or another during the past years. But one thing which is pretty highlighted in these events of the past is that Kashmir issue has always been an integral part of Pakistan's foreign policy and has had the foremost priority in all cases. But after these recent talks and changes the situation seems different.
Another Dip in relations
India and Pakistan’s relationships had been stained since the so called terrorist attack on the Indian parliament on 12th December, 2001. The tension increased to such a level that one SAARC summit had to be postponed and all bus, train, air links and over flight rights between the two countries were suspended. The matters had reached to such a pass that even when the leaders and senior officials happened to attend other multilateral meetings, not connected with the SAARC, they were noticed avoiding eye-contact with each other.
Track 2 diplomacy thus had to be established to revive the ties. Track 2 diplomacy can be defined as "an informal, unofficial interaction between members of adversary groups or nations". Even though it is unofficial, the agreement reached is respected by both the parties on official level as well. To pave the path for the 12th SAARC summit and break the ice between the two countries, the implementation of track 2 diplomacy was given more emphasis from April 2003 onwards when Vajpayee put forward a proposal of peace with Pakistan. Under this, all the communication passages were gradually reopened and Vajpayee agreed on attending the 12th SAARC summit which was to be held on 4th January in Islamabad.
The New Year meetings
Some analysts say that both the countries had a very positive and elastic approach to settle down all their conflicts in this summit and the talks that were to be held later between the two head of states. India’s “elasticity” being as Vajpayee puts it by quoting to an Indian newspaper that Although Kashmir is an integral part of India, we are ready to negotiate upon it.
The much looked forward 12th SAARC summit has resulted in many changes in Pakistan's foreign policy on India. After the SAARC summit and also the talks held between Musharraf and Vajpayee (details of which have still not been disclose completely) the following short statement was issued:
The Indian Prime Minister while expressing satisfaction over the successful conclusion of the SAARC Summit appreciated the excellent arrangements made by the host country.
Both leaders welcomed the recent steps towards normalization of relations between the two countries and expressed the hope that the positive trends set be the CBMs would be consolidated.
Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he would not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. President Musharraf emphasized that a sustained and productive dialogue addressing all issues would lead to positive results.
To carry the process of normalization forward the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to commence the process of the composite dialogue in February 2004. The two leaders are confident that the resumption of the composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides.
The only addition thing in this statement as compared to the Lahore declaration was “including Jammu and Kashmir”. Pakistan had previously assured that its territory will not be used for purpose of terrorism in India. But since Azad Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of Pakistani Territory yet under control of Pakistan, so Pakistan had to alter its statement to include Azad Jammu And Kashmir as well.
Under this 12th SAARC summit all the south Asian countries have also signed SAFTA to facilitate free trade throughout the region. Apparently all these changes seem to be for the better and to move towards peace and stability in Pakistan’s economy. However, it has yet to be analyzed whether these can bring about any changes in Pakistan’s economic situation or not and that which nation is benefiting most from these changes.
Significance of SAFTA India and Pakistan
 The South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), which was the outcome of the 12th SAARC conference, will be extremely beneficial to India. This is because Indian production costs are truly lower than those of Pakistan, owing to factors like cheaper electricity and labour and availability of local raw materials in India. Currently, smuggled Indian goods are sold at lower rates in Pakistani markets compared to local or Chinese substitutes.
Furthermore, since India is the only SAARC nation with which Pakistan shares a common boundary, it is the only country with which Pakistan can participate in free trade. This puts Pakistani goods in direct competition with their Indian versions, which is ultimately a no-win situation for Pakistan because of the relatively lower prices of Indian goods. 
Before the inception of SAARC, India's exports to the six member countries were 200 million dollars. In 2001, the same figure had risen to 2000 million dollars. Thus, there is enough evidence to prove that the SAFTA will cause the SAARC countries to become markets in which Indian manufacturers have a monopoly, (that is they will be controlled to great degree by Indian markets) and this will have a severe detrimental impact on Pakistani economic interests. 
Effect on Pakistan’s Budget

One of the supposed biggest benefits to Pakistan of the SAFTA is the predicted decrease in its defence budget, which can then be diverted to the much neglected development and industrial sectors. Presently, Pakistan allocates around 5% of its GDP to defence, which amounts to 30 million dollars a year. In contrast, India spends 130 million dollars a year on its own defence, which amounts to only 2.3% of its GDP. It is clear upon analysis of both countries that India possesses a purchasing-power-parity 800 times greater than that of Pakistan. It can therefore afford to increase its defence budget significantly without an adverse affect on other sectors of its economy.

 The situation is very different for Pakistan’s economy, which in spite of an increase in its reserve funds, still lacks in substantial investment in the production and industrial sector. Pakistan’s internal economic conditions have worsened considerably in the last three years. Almost 6 Million people in Pakistan now live below the poverty line. Foreign investment too, has been fully absorbed by the financial sector and has escaped the industrial sector almost entirely. Bearing the nature of such inadequate resources in mind, it is plain to see that if India chose to increase its defence budget, Pakistan would be in no position to do the same. In this light, peaceful and diplomatic relations with India have a lot to offer Pakistan and its economy. 

Vajpayee’s Initial Stance on Kashmir
Before reaching Pakistan Vajpayee has been reported to have said that “It is our belief and correct belief that Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, but we are ready to talk about it openly," It is beyond ones perception as to what Vajpayee and Musharraf would have discussed even after this open remark of the Indian prime minister. Some people interpret this stance of Vajpayee as just a political statement to satisfy the Indian public that no deal on Kashmir would be made. It can thus be assumed that the Kashmir issue which had been the top priority of both the nations has suddenly faded to the background - how and why? These questions remain unansswered yet. What the past trend shows is that there has to be some US interference in this matter and perhaps it is US itself which is the mastermind behind all this, working to better the Indo-Pak ties to attain its own interests.

US Peace Tries
As mentioned earlier, Pakistan and India’s relationship history has been influenced by US interference at every major event. Here we will analyze US interests in keeping both the countries at peace individually because we believe that these recent changes in foreign policy are in fact controlled by one mastermind. 
US foreign policies have always been made keeping in mind its own interests, ideologies and benefits.  US population is no more than 5 percent to the whole world but these 2 hundred million people are using more than 25 percent of the oil resources of the world. All the major oil producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela are now, under their strict control. At the top of the list of foreign policy preferences for US is trade and exposure to markets and as India is a huge international market. US and Indian economic cooperation is of utmost importance and a thing not to be ignored and that is the reason why economic giants like Microsoft, AT&T, GE, Caterpillar, GP Morgan, Proctor n Gamble, Apple, General motors, American express and Cisco Systems have access over all important high-tech departments of Indian markets with over 250 million tentative users. This implies that US is depending upon India for markets and as a result, India is making money. Thus the more stable India gets the more secure would US investments in the Indian markets be. 
Another reason why US would be interested in this peace keeping campaign is because both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers. History shows that US has tried time and again to make both the nations sign treaties that they would roll back their nuclear and missile programs. An example of this can be seen when after the nuclear tests conducted in Pakistan, US tried to force both countries into signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The main reason behind this was perhaps ensure peace throughout the region as one nuclear explosion can trigger the third world war. 
Flashback and Conclusion
Dialogue between the two countries is not a novel or new development. Discussions between India and Pakistan began in 1948 with the UN resolutions, but were discontinued in 1954. Later, negotiations continued in almost all government regimes. For instance, it is said that Prime Minister Bhutto and Noon met over one- hundred times. Such intermittent discussions (with similar outcomes) continued between Indian and Pakistani governments for several decades. 
The Lahore declaration which was passed in February 1999 broke new ground as it stated that all outstanding issues, including the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, were to be settled peacefully between India and Pakistan. This was right after the nuclear tests of 1998, with which each country had overtly asserted its nuclear power. It falls
In February 1999, when the Lahore Declaration was passed, Pakistan was in a lot better condition to negotiate independently than it is now at the moment of the 12th SAARC summit. Both parties had realised the power of each other including the nuclear programs. And also both of the countries had democratic systems. The Lahore declaration stated that all the issues will be settled peacefully including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.  
But after 9-11, Pakistan came under tremendous pressure being blamed for playing a major role in spreading the nuclear technology to different countries and also blamed for spreading terrorism, defined as the Islamic jihad forces and Taliban. Under this certain pressure, we doubt if we can gain the same things that we could have achieved before the 9-11 incidence. 
The pressure just mentioned is due to the international scenario. Firstly, a massive campaign against Terrorism has been launched and terrorism has not been defined and linked to Muslim fundamentalism or Jihadi spirit. The reason why we are under pressure is because by supporting Taliban, in Kashmir and madrassas in Pakistan reflect and promote the same Jihadi spirit. 
Secondly, US have officially declared India as a strategic partner and have done numerous different scale agreements. India has been successful to support its consistent point of view because of consistent democratic government. Where as in Pakistan, the frequently changing governments, including army takeovers, created their own agenda and their foreign policy kept on changing as well.
Pakistan has moved into a so called democratic setup. The parliament and the prime minister are present. The prime minister was responsible to have talks and issue joint statement with the Indian prime minister but it is not so, causing confusion to public. The common man is unaware of his future. Unlike previous stances, Pakistan has tried to normalize social and economical links with India, pushing in Kashmir issue on the back burner. This apparently is a success for India. 
After the 9-11 incidents, talks between the two head of states were held in Agra. Although an agreement was signed at the foreign minister level, as accepted Vajpayee in his recent interview, but it failed to get through the head of state level and was dropped. That’s why when Musharraf came back and addressed to the press conference, he mentioned that he has returned empty handed. So, these talks fall in a totally different category.
Although the public is not fully satisfied with the currently growing situation, but this problem has been a headache for a long while. Just before coming to Pakistan, Vajpayee said that India has is willing to talk about Kashmir whole heartedly, which it hasn’t done previously. If the leadership of both countries agrees on some solution, never mind it favours one country or the other, whatever matters are settled are supposed to burry this issue. Since both the countries are nuclear power and to reopen this issue would simple mean restarting a fight. It is unlikely that these issues if once settled would be dug again and any solution at the present condition would prove sustainable and long-lasting.

Words Including Quotations : 3700
Words Excluding Quotations : 3300

References

12th Saarc Summit Islamabad. Retrieved Jan 10, 2004, from
http://www.jang.com.pk/important_events/saarc_2004/index.html.

BBC News. Retrieved January 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/world/south_asia/       country_profiles/1156716.stm – Pakistan Timeline.

Haqqani ,Irshad, Ahmed, personal interview ,January 15, 2004.

Latest News on BBC. Retrieved January, 2004, from http://www.cnn.com.

News on BBC. Retrieved Jan 12 , 2004, from  http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//1/hi/world/south_asia/2852157.stm.

Siddiqui, Irfan , personal interview ,January 14, 2004.

Saqib, ullah, Ehsan (2002). Curent Affairs. Lahore : Dogar Publishers.

The Daily Jang  Newspaper ( published between 27th- 7th January).

Appendix A

Telephonic Interview Dated 15th January 2004.
Mr. Irfan Siddiqui, Columnist Daily Nawaiwaqt, Islamabad.

1. What is the difference between the pervious meetings between the leaders of Pakistan and India and the recent meetings in Islamabad?

2. You mentioned external pressure. Who is exerting that pressure on Pakistan?

3. How much these talks are beneficial to Pakistani government?

4. You mentioned SAFTA. What would be the effect of SAFTA on Pakistani Economy?

5. What does Track 2 diplomacy mean and how much effect has it had on issues between the two countries?

6. Who guides the Track 2 diplomacy of a country? 

7. Vajpayee said just before coming to Pakistan that Although Kashmir is a part of India but we are ready to talk upon it. What does that mean and what else could have been discussed about Kashmir then?

8. What a common person understands from this quote is that India is showing elasticity in this matter. Is that true?

9. Do you feel that the latest talks between the two leaders will resolve the issues for long term, not keeping in mind public satisfaction?

Appendix B

Telephonic Interview Dated 14th January 2004.
Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Columnist Daily Jang, Lahore.

1. What is the difference in agenda and policy matters between the pervious meetings of the leaders of Pakistan and India and the recent meetings in Islamabad?

2. What are the possible reasons that we have stepped back from our previous stance on Kashmir?

3. Kashmiris are not mentioned in the talks and in the combined declaration between the two leaders. So have we ignored Kashmiri people?

4. What is meant by Track 2 diplomacy and what’s the importance of track 2 diplomacy in this matter?

5. What would you say about the US pressure upon the two countries?

6. A headline on January 12 mentions that Mr. Powell says that finally we have succeeded to break the ice between the two countries. Does that mean all the credit goes to US?

7. There is a general consensus that it is a sudden change in the policy matters. Is it?

8. Vajpayee said that Kashmir is a part of India, but still we are ready to talk about it. What can we extract from this?

Letter Of Transmittal

January 23, 2004
 
Prof. Saima Sherazi
Professor Com Skills
LUMS
Lahore, Pakistan

Dear Ms. Sherazi: 

The report enclosed with this letter is a detailed analysis of Pakistan’s foreign policy on India over the past years. We have mainly emphasized more on the recent policy changes and their effects as requested in your January 8 letter. A comparison of these changes has all been done with respect to past policies.

Our research concludes that this step towards peace will be positive for both the countries in the long however India my benefit more as compared to Pakistan because of its better economic situation. Moreover, an analysis of the past policies also reflects that this policy change has also been influenced by external powers like all past policies were.

If you have any queries regarding anything reported or analyzed in this report please feel free to contact us at 07020210@lums.edu.pk. It will be our pleasure to be of any assistance.
 
	Yours truly,  
	Members of Group 6
	SS122 Section IV