4

4.1 India Pakistan Relations in Musharraf Era

On October 12, 1999, Pakistan’s army chief General Pervez Musharraf dismissed the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s democratically elected government and took it all over the country. The Musharraf’s rebellion was not a unique and the result of weak political institutions. After coming to power, General Pervez Musharraf introduced a new word to “Chief Executive” instead of adopting the traditional title of Chief Marshal Law Administrator. He presented himself as a responsible and professional soldier who will bring real democracy in Pakistan. He stressed the role of the army that the army was compelled to save the move from the country’s disorder and uncertainty.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

After coming to power, General Musharraf tried to resume the positive image of Pakistan. He tried to restart friendly relations with the rest of the world. In addition, he expressed the desire to resume the process of making routines of India and Pakistan. The army ended in Pakistan, India did not welcome it and he criticized General Musharraf on a large scale. Indian leadership refused to negotiate with General Musharraf’s military dictator. Actually India’s leadership was not ready to start negotiations with a non-democratic government. Indian behavior was more negative for the newly established military rule and there were two main reasons for which Pakistan did not want to continue negotiations with Pakistan. The first reason was that the Indian leadership has trusted Nawaz Sharif’s democratic government, and consequently due to a positive viewpoint of the unanimous dispute resolution. The second reason was that the Army Chief General Musharraf was the master mind of rebellion in Kargil. Nawaz Sharif had confidence in India compared to Musharraf and was due to the struggle of Pakistan’s prime minister to hold the announcement of Lahore.

Indian leadership considered Musharraf to end the peace process between Pakistan and Pakistan. India also accused Pakistan of cross-border terrorism. Not only did he destroy all diplomatic relations with Pakistan, but also tried to defame Pakistan on the international front. India has announced that they will not attend the meetings of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and will try a lot of joint containers and to separate Pakistan on the international frontiers of the United Nations. Indian enemies behave more stress in the relations between the two countries. The aggression and the fighters continued, and even Pakistan was involved in violence and supported jihadists in Kashmir. (Khan, 2008:115).
Indian leadership was very unhappy with the arrest of the army by Musharraf. He expressed his concern about the removal of the democratic government. Indian Foreign Affairs Jaswant Singh said:

“We are worried about the development of Pakistan.
But there is no reason for alarm or nervousness.”
(Baruah, 2007:199).

General Musharraf adopted much passionate view from India. He expressed great interest in maintaining peace between Pakistan and India based on equality. In the first press conference of the first November, its policy of India has shown that:

“The Indian community will be meeting with the enemy with threats, Security and threats I will ensure the respect and honor of this country. Nobody threatens us without any threatening response.” (Baruah, 2007: 198).

Musharraf talked about the problem of Kashmir and kept it from Pakistan on the foreign policy of Pakistan. Musharraf expressed the desire to restore the process of comprehensive discussion. He said:

“We want to solve all our differences with India and when I express all our differences, I mean, Kashmir’s main problem is first of all or at least. But if solving problems outside Kashmir If there is no design for it and eliminates the Kashmir issue, and then I am not a part of it. Kashmir problem should be resolved and it can be resolved with other issues. If it is our attitude, Look inside the border, I’m sure I’m going out of India in this area”
(Baruah, 2007:198).