A military official hands over a Pakistan military cap, stick and national flag to the father of Pakistani soldier Muhammad Akhlaq, whom the Pakistan military said was killed by Indian soldiers while crossing into the Indian side of Kashmir. PHOTO: REUTERS
So far, Pakistan has demonstrated ample restraint. It has appropriately condemned the incident and complained to India but has not taken any punitive measures. That is how it should be. The chances of such incidents occurring along the disputed border are high, which is why both India and Pakistan need to ensure that they do not use these deaths as a reason for more sabre-rattling. A lot of progress has been made in the peace process over the last couple of years and retreating to square one will be to the detriment of both countries. Given the current situation, further peace overtures may be impossible right now but we should at least ensure that we do not throw away previous gains.
India, too, needs to play its part. Its reaction to the various LoC fracas have been disproportionate and over the top. Our sportspersons and cultural figures visiting India have felt unwanted and unsafe and had to return home. This is unfortunate since right now, these people-to-people exchanges may be needed more than ever before. When governments are at each other’s throats, these citizens can help keep contact alive and show the value of engagement. We need to keep these cultural engagements alive. If both Pakistan and India are indeed committed to peace, they will overlook these tragic LoC incidents.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2013.
COMMENTS (23)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713893627-4/Shredded-10,000-yen-bill-(1)1713893627-4-270x192.webp)
This is so sad that India and Pakistan are never able to resolve issues on LOC and soldiers from both sides are killed without any reason. Hope they find some good way to resolve their issues and these kind of killings don't come up next.
@Hem: Never part of Pakistan yes you are right but Kashmir is and has been never the integral part of India as well.....
@Ashraful Makhlooq:
Did you cry when you lost half of your country - Eat Pakistan - in 1971, did it bother you at all? So why go on about Kashmir which was never a part of Pakistan.
@G.Din: quite right.
too tragic beyond words.
@David_Smith: Correction to your Indian version: Pakistani soldier, when challenged, opened fire and injured two Indian soldiers upon which he was gunned down. After that beheading of one of theirs, it has become deeply personal for Indian soldiers. @BruteForce: "When ’65 war happened, India bided its time and retaliated in ’71. " No, India did not wait until '71. Lal Bahadur Shastri had warned Pakistan before the '65 invasion that the next time, India will chose the time and place of attack. In other words, Ayub had been warned that if he attacked Kashmir, India will not hesitate in attacking Pakistan. But Pakistani generals have always considered themselves to be star strategists. The result: all their strategies failed and every war ended in a humiliating rout!
Time to think and act in terms of a permanent PEACE across borders.
It may be the LOC~~~~~~~~~~~~but the two countries are not at war with each other.
All nations have borders. Why is this border so volatile ?
You respect the BORDER and the border will respect you.
Why kill & be killed in peacetime ? Its not heroic at all.
@Midhat: who wrote "The Picture killed me :( May Allah grant this old man courage to bear the loss of his young boy:( " I am sure they would have intoxicated the old man with " Shaheed Zinda rehta hae " But they should go after mid night to see this old man and his wife, how they would be crying.
1st of all Indian Army has clarified that it killied militant thinking it militant but later found it was a pakistani soldier so from this statement it is very clear for one to judge that no conversation or interogation is made as claimed by pakistani media.2nd militants can also be in pakistan army uniform so India cant take chances therefore as per agreement between India & pakistan,pakistan is right in demanding India to return its soldier alive who accidentally crosses each others border but again India is confused whether it is actually pakistani soldier or militant so to stop this pakistan should first stop such crossing on its side to make India confusion free.3rd pakistan media should give full details about any incident but they are giving half broken informations.4th India is in deep frustration with the way pakistan handled 26/11 case,India and US both punished the criminals but pakistan is yet to deliver four yrs now and still waiting.India has become very tough on terrorists after 26/11 so expecting restraint from India on terrorists in not going to happen whatsoever.So India's stance on LOC is natural blaming India will unnecessary make situation more complex.If India would have interrogated pakistani soldier then it would have returned him but unfortunately wrong information is being given by pakistani media.
@Anonymous: "f you are an Indian, you will believe Indian army’s version he started a fire fight, if you are pakistani, you will believe he surrendered and the indian army killed him brutally. Sadly the truth is somewhere in between and is lost in the argument."
By indicating that the truth lies somewhere in between you are establishing a false equivalence between the Indian and Pakistani position.
Questions that anyone from a 3rd country who is not Indian or Pakistani should ask themselves before they believe either side are: 1) How could a soldier inadvertently cross a 10 feet tall fene with a barbed wire?
2) How likely is it that a country that teated 90,000 prisoners of war according to Geneva conventions, be to kill a prisoner?
3) Which country has a history of lying not just to foreigners but its own citizens be it 1965 or Kargill?
Pakistani version: The soldier inadvertently crossed the LOC, the Indians picked him up, had a little chat and shot him in cold blood. India version: The soldier crossed the line (perhaps inadvertently) and when challenged opened fire... was then shot in the crossfire that followed. Which version sounds more credible?
The fundamental difference here. India accepts that it killed the Soldier and handed over the body. Pakistan Army has a default mode - Deny Deny Deny.
Even if it is caught with his hand in cookie jar, it'd deny. It denied its nuclear proliferation, denied hosting/supporting terrorists, denied Osama Bin laden, Denied Mumbai attackers being Pakistanis and it also denied Kargil.
Only later the actors involved (top generals, scientists or officials) to come out and say these were true.
Every nation practices some degree of covert, and unacceptable practices in the name of 'Security'. Pakistan seems to do this far higher than normal, because its runaway army, that's under no scrutiny or control.
The Army Chief of India had said we'll retaliate "time and place of..choice".
When '65 war happened, India bided its time and retaliated in '71. Same here..
Pakistan needs to think and act in the future. India is not a great threat when compared to the extremists, who have killed 80 people just yesterday and 116 last month.
You can fight one adversary at a time. Either India or the Islamic Radicals. Pick one.
Now we don't need any more justification to HATE India.
The Picture killed me :( May Allah grant this old man courage to bear the loss of his young boy:(
Such these types of tensions and confusions shall be remained on LoC unless Kashmir issue is resolved because Kashmir issue is the only issue to be resolved on top priority basis as soon as possible to ease,eradicate,remove and uproot the tensions,confusions,enmities,differences and misunderstandings for the strong,stable and permanent comradeship between Pakistan and India and comradeship is pro both India and Pakistan not only pro any single country.......
ET, When you editorialize , please give both versions.
India and all its media have said the Pakistani soldier when challenged opened fire injuring two Indian soldiers and was killed in fire fight,
I am not saying which version is right, I don't know and you don't know either.
Nathan
The message is clear to all but the blind. India is adopting a graded and stepped up approach in its communication strategy. If Pakistan tries to divert jobless terrorists after US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan into Kashmir, India will act to make those usual adventures very costly for Pakistan. A very simple message for those who can use their brains. Those who believe it will be business as usual for the Pakistani Establishment could be in for a shock, if the changed dynamic is not noted and strategy altered.
You can not get sloppy on the LOC.
Your hockey team did return- true. Since then your literary folks did participate in Jaipur and Kolkata literary festival. Your women's cricket team too played and they had no trouble.
In this incident, India has a different version I.e. soldier opened fire and was killed. How likely is it that Inda which returned 90000 prisoner's of war after treating them per Geneva convention would kill the soldier after capture? How likely is it that the soldier inadvertently crossed a 10 ft barbed wire fence? So who needs to exercise restraint? Please know you will not be able to bring back1989 so you should stop trying.
Easy said than done. I missing the hue and cry by Pakistani media. Imagined if the same had happened to Indian solider ? It is unfortunate that our jawan was killed in cold blood whereas Pakistan always releases Indian choppers and solders who cross over inadvertly with dignity. Too much for aman ki aasha
How did someone come to this conclusion "questioned by the Indians and then killed." ?
All the reports point that he strayed into indian territory and nobody knows what happened after that. If you are an Indian, you will believe Indian army's version he started a fire fight, if you are pakistani, you will believe he surrendered and the indian army killed him brutally.
Sadly the truth is somewhere in between and is lost in the argument.
Gary