CSS 2008 Solved Current Affairs Past Papers | Settlement of the Core Issue of Kashmir
The following question of CSS Current Affairs 2008 is solved by Sir Ammar Hashmi, the best Current Affairs Coach, on the guided pattern of Sir Syed Kazim Ali, which he taught to his students, scoring the highest marks in compulsory subjects for years. This solved past paper question is uploaded to help aspirants understand how to crack a topic or question, write relevantly, what coherence is, and how to include and connect ideas, opinions, and suggestions to score the maximum.
Question breakdown
This question has one part, i.e., discuss whether solving the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes could resolve the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India.
Outline
1-Introduction
2-Historical Context of India-Pakistan Territorial Disputes
3-Strategic Importance of Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek
4-How Can Resolving the Siachen and Sir Creek Disputes Build Trust and Lay the Groundwork for the Kashmir Issue?
- ✓Reducing Military Tensions in Smaller Disputes
- ✓Establishing a Framework for Peaceful Negotiations
- ✓Building Mutual Trust Through Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs)
- ✓Economic Cooperation as a Pathway to Peace
- ✓Reducing Internal Pressures and Nationalistic Opposition
- ✓Gaining International Support for Future Dialogue
5-Challenges in Addressing the Kashmir Issue Despite Progress Elsewhere
- ✓Historical and Nationalistic Significance
- ✓Internal Political and Military Resistance
- ✓Non-State Actors and Insurgency
6-Critical Analysis
7-Conclusion
Introduction
Territorial disputes between India and Pakistan continue to be used as causes of incitement, negating any chances of stability and constructive conflict transformation in South Asia. Among such conflicts, two are of particular significance: the Siachen Glacier and the Sir Creek, both of which are significant, symbolically as well as strategically, as they contain strategic and economically valuable territories. The chance to solve these issues can create a positive opportunity to reach a new level of trust and decrease military conflicts; thus, the main issue of Kashmir might indeed be solved through the policy of diplomacy. In this sense, while it is clear that both geographical locations, such as Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek, offer great strategic importance for such a framework, they also signal the framework’s goal to use confidence-building measures, CBMs, alongside the combination of economic cooperation as the primary strategy for stability. Such resolutions could also alleviate internal pressures and nationalist opposition in both countries and create a way to seek more vigorous international support for their further negotiations. However, again, this holds out optimistic possibilities about the issue; until now, the problem in Kashmir is quite sensitive as it has a historical background, internal political and military confrontation and non-state actors and insurgency addictions. As for Siachen and Sir Creek, the solutions reveal specific possible prospects for future cooperation or joint investment. Nevertheless, again, the question of Kashmir is much more intricate. Furthermore, this is done through long and multifaceted endeavours because the resolution of this issue becomes problematic, and it is an essential step towards the relations between India and Pakistan as well as in the consequent stability of the region.
Historical Context of India-Pakistan Territorial Disputes
Territorial disputes between India and Pakistan have their roots in the partition of British India, which brought into being two states with opposing territorial claims. Differences between the two countries were proved through the division. This division did not resolve borders, particularly between Jammu and Kashmir, and as a result, many wars and hostilities have taken place between the two nations. Kashmir may be the centrepiece of Pakistan’s conflict with neighbouring India. Still, other areas, such as the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek, have also become flashpoints, each with military or economic importance that justifies a battle. They not only tend to increase military tension but are also incapable of bringing about a meaningful level of fostering stability and cooperation in the long term. Knowledge of this historical context puts into focus both the entrenched nature of these conflicts and the daunting obstacle of resolving them without war facing both countries.
Strategic Importance of Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek
Two of the most critical territorial conflicts of the two countries are the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek. Siachen is situated in the Karakoram range at a height of nearly 5,400 meters and is known to be the world’s highest battlefield, where armed forces of both countries fight at a very extreme altitude. A control of Siachen is essential strategically; based near China and Pakistan-administered Kashmir borders, the territory is advantageous for military power and control of the territories around it. Likewise, the Sir Creek is a marshy piece of water separating India from Pakistan near the mouth of the Arabian Sea concerning the maritime boundary and ownership of potentially rich fishing grounds and possible oil and gas reserves. Solving these conflicts might help ease military confrontation, unload the tremendous expenses on the troops’ presence in Siachen, and comprehend the economic benefits of defining the sea borders in Sir Creek for both economies. This strategic importance explains the potential consequences of clauses and agreements which can be separately pursued to address these disputes and other related instruments of peace.
How Can Resolving Siachen and Sir Creek Disputes Build Trust and Lay the Groundwork for the Kashmir Issue?
- ✓ Reducing Military Tensions in Smaller Disputes
Military confrontations and crises would be considerably lowered, and the ground would be paved for broader peace if Pakistan and India resolved the Siachen and Sir Creek dispute. Both nations are burdened with massive financial and logistical strains concerning the high-altitude battleground of Siachen and the contested waters of Sir Creek. More resources are needed to be at stake while skirmishes are frequent along Sir Creek. An amicable settlement would mean that each side is willing to de-escalate, which would mean taking away resources for economic and developmental needs rather than spending them on endless military standoffs. For instance, when Norway has demilitarized the Arctic, as it did with Russia, it has still agreed to joint patrols and resource-sharing in zones of contention, such as in its recent agreement with Russia. This is a precedent that mutual commitment can de-escalate even in high-stakes regions. Just as India and Pakistan could take a similar approach on Siachen by dialling down military presence there and on a maritime boundary in Sir Creek, both sides could begin creating an environment where diplomacy is prioritized over confrontation, and the way lies open for resolving broader irritants such as Kashmir.
- ✓ Establishing a Framework for Peaceful Negotiations
Moreover, settling the Siachen and Sir Creek issues between India and Pakistan would be a strong basis for future negotiations on more significant issues. Such a successful negotiation of these minor conflicts would establish a diplomatic precedent and show that peaceful negotiations resolve territorial disputes. One example of a relevant case study is the Good Friday Agreement between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, which flourished after several years of intense conflict through a carefully structured negotiation process. In like manner, discussions on Siachen and Sir Creek could include phased negotiations, third-party facilitation, and monitoring mechanisms that might have been adjusted to the Kashmir negotiation. This would also serve as a framework to establish peaceful negotiations in these less controversial disputes that would help build trust, experience, and structural guidelines to deal with Kashmir’s complexity within a process of controlled, pre-flagged.
- ✓ Building Mutual Trust Through Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs)
Further, settling Siachen and Sir Creek would contribute to confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, which are needed to move on to the Kashmir issue. One of the measures is emerging with standard patrol or attaining proper communication channels. The beast’s reality can be explained well by examining the phased military CBMs that Israel and Egypt implemented after the signing of the Camp David Accords to form sustainable peace between the nations. In general, CBMs such as the Siachen and Sir Creek can prevent misunderstandings, leading to large-scale operations between India and Pakistan. The result of such measures stood the chance of demonstrating that even former foes could gradually develop trust to encourage both nations to apply similar CBMs to the situation in Kashmir. Such incremental trust-building would create goodwill. Such a transformed approach may turn Kashmir from a uni problem – an unmanageable and unconquerable complex problem, into a negotiable problem within a broader cooperative framework.
- ✓ Economic Cooperation as a Pathway to Peace
Additionally, a peaceful resolution of the Sir Creek dispute may lead to dramatic economic cooperation that shows how the coexistence of competing economies can benefit from collaboration over competition. Such clear economic incentives exist for communities that reach shared fishing rights, maritime trade routes and joint resource exploration in Sir Creek. Among the few that exist, an illustrative model would be the European Union’s founding — where economic interdependence turned former warring nations into cooperative allies for peace and prosperity. The India-Pakistan context of successful economic cooperation in Sir Creek may serve as a model for future joint economic development to develop interdependence and trust. This could be especially important for Kashmir, where economic alliances and development could help break the narrative of future conflict as an anchor for cross-border regional relations and transition to a focus on mutually beneficial prosperity.
- ✓ Reducing Internal Pressures and Nationalistic Opposition
Similarly, the successful resolution of the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes could, or so it could, ease or help reduce domestic political pressure and nationalist resistance, making the leaders not bent on taking bold, peaceful steps. Territorial issues are also often considered a matter of national pride, frustrating government flexibility because domestic stakeholders in both countries view them frequently as a matter of pride. However, the experience with U.S.-Mexico border agreements also shows momentum at home; agreement on less controversial matters can free up space and allow more flexibility and compromise later in a more considerable negotiation. It could also temper the nationalist frenzy that India’s Kashmir has come to generate and perhaps create a more propitious atmosphere for discussion. Therefore, gradually reducing zero-sum perspectives in this approach makes the Kashmir issue amenable while reducing peace-making risks.
- ✓ Gaining International Support for Future Dialogue
Last but not least, the possibility of achieving a peaceful resolution of the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes would help Pakistan and India build a reputation as responsible, peace-seeking nations, securing international support for further dialogue. South Asian stability is interested in global powers, particularly nuclear capabilities in the region between these two countries. The example of successful initial agreements leading to subsequent goodwill and, in turn, stable, long-term diplomatic support is relevant to the U.N.-facilitated Eritrea (Ethiopia) peace process. In India and Pakistan’s case, accepting the resolution of Siachen and Sir Creek would signal the world that they are committed to their peace and would attract goodwill from the United Nations, the United States, China and other major powers. Such external encouragement would add credibility to the peace process and allow for more in-depth discussions about Kashmir to help point both countries out as fair players on the world stage.
Challenges in Addressing the Kashmir Issue Despite Progress Elsewhere
While resolving the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes offers hope for building trust and establishing diplomatic frameworks, the Kashmir issue remains deeply entrenched, with unique challenges that complicate its resolution. The success in more minor disputes may provide a foundation, yet Kashmir’s historical, political, and social complexities require a separate, sustained approach.
- ✓ Historical and Nationalistic Significance
The Kashmir conflict has historically and nationally significant meaning for both India and Pakistan, making the task of a compromise, even if the smaller disputes are resolved, more complex. Kashmir is an unresolved issue for Pakistan because it is a Muslim-majority region that many believe should have acceded to Pakistan during the partition in 1947. Kashmir is an emblem of Indian secularism and national unity, and its continued possession is regarded as indispensable to India’s faith in diversity within its democracy. But in a nationalistic age, this attachment tends to grow as public sentiment demands any apparent concession over Kashmir as an attack on a fully formed, core national identity. A parallel to this is the Cyprus dispute, where international mediation has failed to end the conflict despite gross international mediators like the US and the UK. Such deep-rooted historical and ideological attachments provide stiff resistance to downsizing the barriers through limited successes in more minor disputes.
- ✓ Internal Political and Military Resistance
Despite the advancement achieved in Siachen and Sir Creek, certain political factors are significant hurdles in dealing with the Kashmir issue. Cohesive Pakistan politics and the military see Kashmir as significant strategically and ideologically. The politicization and militarisation of Pakistan see any negotiations as a sell-out that will lead Pakistan to compromise the status of the country. This fear of deleterious domino effects is a joint political opposition to autonomy everywhere, especially in India, where demands from other secessionist groups might follow any concessions made to the Kashmiris. A similar example is Northern Ireland, where internal political pressure was brought by Protestants and Catholics, delaying the peace process due to political power loss. In both countries, influential actors never yield significant compromises on the issue of Kashmir despite winning some victories in the rest of the regions for fear of losing the support of their masses or control of their respective national policies.
- ✓ Non-State Actors and Insurgency
Unlike Siachen and Sir Creek, where state actors exclusively conduct diplomacy, the disposition of Kashmir stands out for its insurgent diplomacy and endemic insurgency. Militant groups comprised in the region have remained in motion, occasionally enjoying support from outside, and continue with acts of vandalism, which negates agendas and fosters enmity between India and Pakistan. These categories of people invariably have much to lose from peace in the region, believing that any attempt to bring this about threatens their organisation or belief system. Another classic example is the Israel-Palestine conflict, in which non-state actors have been a thorn in the effort for peaceful solutions, deploying violence to scuttle even the most promising peace efforts. Similarly, in Kashmir, the situation remains the same; even if some headway was made on other territorial issues, the presence of insurgent groups makes any solution tentative only. The ongoing ability of the two, through some act of violence, to escalate the situation is a significant impediment to peacebuilding as it leads to a loss of trust between the two countries, and they are always prepared to defend themselves.
Critical Analysis
To critically analyse, resolving the Sir Creek and Siachen disputes poses real promise for India and Pakistan, that even small steps of cooperation can have ripple effects on their long-drawn relationship. If both countries worked through these smaller issues, they could take a break from the constant military standoffs, showing their citizens and the world that peaceful negotiation is always possible. Such resolutions could facilitate new paths to more trust, facilitating the ability of each side partly to turn their focus away from conflict. But there is a difference, and Kashmir is on another level. Kashmir is not just about land — for both countries, it is deeply bound in history, national pride, and, in some people’s eyes, even justice. If a war in Siachen and Sir Creek were resolved, Kashmir’s heavy political and emotional weight would hold a different status and cannot be treated similarly. Politicians and military people of both countries might consider any Kashmir discussion an admission and source of resistance or even backlash inside both countries. Additionally, conflicts in regions where outsiders can delay peace efforts or stop them altogether by employing provocation or isolated incidents may proceed too quickly due to non-state actors taking matters into their own hands. At the same time, peaceful negotiations can work when Siachen and Sir Creek are resolved. Concurrently, Kashmir needs a more profound, longer-lasting commitment, not merely geopolitical, but also to the identities and values that both countries give to the region. These smaller steps are what they are—steps, not the whole journey toward resolving a hugely entrenched conflict.
Conclusion
The road to peace between Pakistan and India is difficult, but even taking tiny steps, including settling the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes, can change the pace. Properly, these more modest resolutions can attenuate those chronic animosities that cloud the possibility of trust, construct a reliable set of parameters for the subsequent negotiations, and give each side some relief that the other side will not pursue an all-out war. However, Kashmir does not fit this category – it is an ancient issue with a history, emotion, and politics behind it. For the Siachen and Sir Creek, resolutions might be imperative in overcoming some past animosities. Progress on Kashmir would not be as easy but would demand a different kind of patience and understanding concerning what Kashmir represents for both sides. Thus, the talk of shared interests and the ‘smaller’ disputes is a positive sign; the blessing of peace in South Asia will not come unless both countries understand that they have to share the responsibility for solving the Kashmir problem as it is both a burden and a potential for both nations and their people.
CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays
Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them.
CSS Solved Essays
CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers
Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.
General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers
