Ties with India
PREOCCUPATION with domestic issues over the past few weeks should not have prevented Pakistan’s policymakers and informed sections of society from taking note of the dangerous events along the Line of Control in Kashmir.
What led to the exchange of fire between Indian and Pakistan troops and the loss of life on both sides is not clear. However, it should not have been difficult to appreciate India’s anger at the reported beheading of one of its soldiers.
One does regret the two sides’ failure to set up a mechanism for the investigation of such incidents. What should have caused immense anxiety in Pakistan was the sharp reaction from the Indian leadership, especially Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s declaration that bilateral relations had considerably deteriorated.
Fortunately, the foreign ministers of both countries are making an attempt at damage control but a more earnest effort to ease the tension is obviously needed.
Whatever the provocation, the Indian decision to suspend the visa-on-arrival facility for senior citizens was completely unexpected. It also made no sense. People on both sides had hailed the new system as the culmination of years of campaigning by human rights activists on both sides. It seemed the doors were being shut on agents of friendship and goodwill. This impression has been altered somewhat by the explanation that certain preparations for managing the new system have to be completed.
One should hope that the suspension of the new visa regime is only for a short time.
More worrisome has been the effectiveness of the hate-driven campaign by India’s communal organisations, led by the new boss of Shiv Sena, who is obviously keen to establish himself as a tougher troublemaker than his recently departed predecessor.
Pakistani hockey players were sent back home before they had time to unsheathe their sticks, the venue of a Pakistani women’s cricket match was shifted from Mumbai, a Pakistani actor was obliged to rush back home, a drama team was disallowed participation in a theatre festival and Ajoka’s performance of a play on Manto at Jaipur was cancelled (though by allowing two performances of the play in New Delhi, Indian society confirmed its valuable stock of sanity).
These incidents should not be dismissed as infantile petulance; they betray the communal extremists’ fears that cooperation between India and Pakistan in the areas of the arts, sports and culture, as indeed free travel between the two countries, will demolish the walls of acrimony they and their patrons in mainstream politics have raised after years of hard labour. This also underlines the urgency of redoubled efforts to promote deeper cooperation between the two neighbours in the cultural field.
Islamabad and New Delhi both should be aware of the challenges they face from anti-democratic and anti-secular forces in the run-up to their general elections and both need to protect whatever of substance has survived in their democratic systems after the free hand allowed to self-seekers and criminals with money bags. Indian democracy’s being more resilient than Pakistan’s seasonal experiments in democratic governance does not mean that New Delhi can afford to be complacent about the canker of communalism in its body politic. In Pakistan’s case, the battle with terrorists and religious militants has become for obvious reasons a matter of life and death and therefore it has much greater need to strengthen its defences against attacks on its constitutional order.
There have recently been signs and suggestions that Indian politicians and the intelligentsia have begun to see in the threats to Pakistan’s political system and its integrity potential risks to peace and security in their own country.
Similarly, the fact that exploiters of common people’s religious sentiments on both sides derive strength from each other’s antics is now widely known. The soundness of these formulations is manifest and no arguments are necessary to realise the need for India and Pakistan to avoid doing or tolerating anything in their respective lands that could start a cycle of action and reaction on the other side and cause harm to both societies.
Since Pakistan’s problems are quite acute, Islamabad must realise that not only neighbourly relations with India but mutually beneficial collaboration in economic and political fields has become essential for its progress, perhaps even survival.
Thus Islamabad must move beyond the point the army chief recently made when he called for a shift in the security paradigm because of the fact that the threats to Pakistan’s security from the north-west had become more serious than those from the eastern and southern sides. The sooner practical steps are taken to make the border with India peaceful without the presence of large contingents of troops, the better.
There is a clear need for the defence strategists of India and Pakistan to realise what a mess they have created by pursuing inappropriate, to use a mild expression, security doctrines, and to find ways of evolving new and rational answers to their security concerns, preferably in a broader South Asian context. Unfortunately this does not seem likely in the near future and Pakistan and India may have to spend more time on confidence building measures.
Meanwhile there is no reason for Pakistan to delay rethinking its defence strategy. The folly of depending on the benevolence of international war contractors and arms suppliers was exposed long ago and so was the misplaced faith in the capacity of the so-called Muslim bloc to keep Pakistan’s modest war machine going. The impossibility of forcing India to yield ground under the pressure of arms should have been accepted by now by commanders and footmen alike. Likewise Pakistan should have no fears of being destroyed by the Indian military. The time for such scenarios has passed.
The only possibility Pakistan should be on guard against is that a punitive strike against Pakistan may be seen by a desperate government in India as a way to ease the pressure for revival of confrontationist policies from hawks in its political and military establishments. This danger can be warded off by skilful diplomacy. The only condition is that diplomats should begin to be recognised for their ability to defuse tensions and not for proficiency in blame games or point-scoring.
It is also time to realise that Pakistan should seek security less in the size of its arsenal and the strength of its defence personnel and more in the country’s economic stability, democratic consolidation and revival of the people’s allegiance to the state. Once this view is accepted by the defence high command it will become possible for it to wholeheartedly support, possibly lead, the government’s efforts to begin a new era of peace and cooperation with India. The time is ripe for this opening to the east, for at the moment there seems to be no difference between Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif on the urgency of good, fruitful ties with India.
Pretty much balanced article from the author. One thing I always notice in most of Pakistani author’s now a days is they are trying to bracket both India and Pakistan in same bracket especially in negetive aspects ex. “Islamabad and New Delhi both should be aware of the challenges they face from anti-democratic and anti-secular forces” “need for India and Pakistan to avoid doing or tolerating anything in their respective lands” etc etc… This type of narrative is self defeating for Pakistan in the long run. Fact of the matter is there is immense anger in common Indian people against Pakistan.
Thank you for a very sensible article. But keep in mind the need for improved ties is more urgent for Pakistan than for India. India has moved on working on better ties with its neighbors. And it has achieved a lot within last few years. India has deeper and meaningful ties with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan. Indian foreign policy broaden their scope. On the other hand Pakistan lost so many opportunities to develop mature ties with the US, the Nato, along with its neighbors. Deeper ties with the US would have lifted this country so much, had Pakistani Army had any vision. It would have opened so many doors for them. Unfortunately, Pakistan missed all the opportunities and isolated itself so much so that now they lack any significance in the World politics. I really pity Hina Rabbani Khar. She knows all this, but can’t do much because of Pakistan Army which is the real in charge of the Pakistani foreign relations. Let’s see what Pakistan can achieve. We are watching you!
”Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s declaration that bilateral relations had considerably deteriorated.”
He is seen as a MUTE politician. He spoke just because of upcoming election. He is not able to threat Pakistan or anyone.
A good read.
This paper makes several points which are laudable. It also says several things which are downright nonsensical. For instance, there is no recognition of the fact that much of the difficulty between India and Pakistan arises from the fact that Pakistan is professedly based on Islam, a fact even enshrined in its constitution. In Pakistan there is no dearth of people determined to remind the world that in South Asia it is a contest between the forces of Islam and forces other than Islam. The paper shows no recognition of this fundamental factor. In this day and age it is anachronistic to even hope that a State can prosper by being devoted to a religion – any one religion. Jinnah had a point but his successors chose to ignore that point. The paper talks about the secular factor but its is rather muddle headed in pretending that in both countries secular forces are in the ascendant. Communal forces in both countries feed on each other’s antics. But the secular factor is entirely an Indian factor: the secular factor does not exist in Pakistan. Then, the paper has an admirable recognition of the fact, though not said in these words, that in India there is no school of thought which wants to work for India’s military conquest of Pakistan. Quite to the contrary, no one in India thinks about even a short-term invasion of Pakistan. War does not solve any problem. At the end of a war the belligerents still have to sit down and sort things out. So, why not sort things out without fighting a war? The author should have remembered that in the wide world no one accuses India of starting any of the wars that Pakistan fought with India since Independence. And yet the paper talks in neutral terms as if the two were equally responsible for past wars. They were not: the responsibility for past wars rests solely with Pakistan, as will responsibility for any future war. India does not need to start a war with Pakistan for any objective. India’s stability is not threatened by anything that Pakistan may do. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 25 Jan 2013, 0445 IST
One wants WIN only….other agree even for Tie.
Only Muscles will decide some day….may be next 60 yrs of dialogue
I believe whatever has happened at the LOC recently was very unfortunate. However, both countries need to investigate what caused it and put processes in place making sure it doesn’t happen again and move forward with some real progress. People on both sides would like both countries to come closer. It is about time too.
I would love to see the following:
1) Students from Pakistan to be allowed to get admissions into the most prestigious educational institutions such as IITs and IIMs on merit basis. Why do Pakistani students have to go to USA, UK when good education is available right next door.
2) Allow all businesses (in both countries) to freely trade with each other.
3) Allow Indian IT companies to open up offices in Pakistan and give them incentives such as tax holidays for 10 years.
4) Fast track visas for business people on both sides.
What is also very important for Pakistan is to stop these terrorists who are running amok all over Pakistan. Can we really not control them?.
Khalid Bhai what you wrote at the bottom… …..”Pakistan to stop these terrorists……”. should have been made the top most point…..Then it may work.
“People on both sides had hailed the new system as the culmination of years of campaigning by human rights activists on both sides.” really? do the comments to such report make it seem that way? none of us Indians want anything to do with Pakistan, we are certain how opening visa regime would ensure nothing but terrorism and illegal immigration.
A lot of reaction in India after beheading at LOC. however, that one lousy MFN to India has still not been ratified by Pak.
Very well said. Responsible people on both sides of the border should raise their voice and speak loudly on the need to maintain peace along the border. A properous and stable India/Pakistan is in the best interest of both the countries. I hope that on both sides of the border logic and reasoning will prevail. However, this to hapen, more Indians and Pakistanis must raise their voice against political parties that propogate hatered among nations/religion/people.
“Responsible people on both sides of the border should raise their voice and speak loudly…”
Waste of breathe. Islamabad has missed the boat.
Every relationship is based on win-win situation for every partner. But in Indo-Pak relationship there is no gain for India. Indian team has not visited pakistan but still its board is richest one. Indian cinema is much better than pakistan one or in any area whether its technology or agriculture Indians are much better than pakistani. Then why India will want to have a good relationship with a country with whom it has fought 3-4 wars..