Will India reciprocate by words, and deeds (My article published in the NEWS on 21 April 2012)

Avalanche at Gayari is, indeed, a sad incident but out of this tragedy emanates hope for the future of the peoples of this region. First, the opposition leader, while visiting the site suggested that both Pakistan and India should resolve the Siachen issue and the former should lead the latter in pulling out of the area. The next day, General Kayani also talked on the subject, suggested bilateral resolution of the Siachen issue and went beyond by declaring that the ‘nation should spend less on defence and more on the welfare of the masses’.

While Nawaz Sharif’s suggestion of ‘pulling out first’, though good intentioned, is a clear manifestation of his lack of understanding of the implications of unilateral withdrawal of forces from a strategically important location, such as Siachen, General Kayani’s suggestion carries more substance to build on. The developments, however, raise three important questions; will the Indians reciprocate, not only by words but by their deeds, will the money saved be spent on welfare of the masses as suggested by the COAS and, most importantly, should we wait for incidents like Gayari to drive sense into the policy makers and move beyond?

While handling of the multifarious challenges that mar Indo-Pakistan relations is the domain of the political leadership, General Kayani’s statement about ‘spending less on defence’, directly relates to the military’s sphere, response to the threat and how it would manifest.

In this context, we must have no doubt that India nurtures aspirations to become a regional and super power for which, besides other pre-requisites, Pakistan must be reduced to a pliant state and, as such, India must remain central in our threat perception. We must, however, be very clear about the ways the threat may manifest / is manifesting, especially if we are to curtail defence spending.

Though India has embarked upon modernization of her Armed Forces with developments / inductions which are apparently Pakistan specific, especially with regard to her Army, yet, in my view, she is unlikely to opt for use of military instrument for achievement of her objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan and continue to adopt indirect approach, as hitherto, in collaboration with her allies. While this view point may not be endorsed by some hard-liners, it is based on cogent reasons, which are;  (1) In the obtaining environment, space for traditional application of military instrument is gradually shrinking and non-traditional security threats are taking centre stage (2)Chances of a conventional war between two STABLE nuclear states are very remote. Gravest threats to any nuclear power are internal instability and unviable economic conditions eg dismemberment of former USSR (3) India is progressing at a fast pace, for her the stakes are too high to opt for a conventional war, especially when other viable options are available to undermine Pakistan (4)        In any case, achievement of India’s perceived politico military aim which could be degradation of Pakistan’s military and economic potential, is neither in the interest of India nor the world at large, as a depleted Pakistan would be highly prone to extremism, with disastrous implications not only for the region but also the international community (5) Failure to achieve their war objectives, in case the Indians opt for a conventional war, would be disastrous and may result into their break up. Why should India adopt such a course? (6)India can and is achieving her objectives vis-a-vis Pakistan through such ‘non-military means’ that even our nuclear deterrence, which is against conventional military threat, is becoming irrelevant - safest option for India.

India is aspiring to become a super power and for power projection, greater investment is required in Air Force and Navy, while maintaining a comparatively smaller, but well equipped, Army. As such, their Army leadership is looking for justification to continue to maintain a big Army by asserting that a conventional war was still possible with Pakistan and by exaggerating bogey of Chinese threat.

Thus, while the Indian Army is looking for relevance, Pakistan need not follow the suit. Doing so, would tantamount to falling in their trap as Pakistan would crumble economically, resulting into ultimate social break-down, facilitating pursuance of Indians’ strategy of subduing Pakistan through indirect means.

Thus, General Kayani’s statement regarding ‘spending less on defence’ is reflective of his deeper understanding of the nature of the threat Pakistan faces today, and response thereof. Will this thought process be manifested in the upcoming budget? Let’s wait and see.  

Indo-Pak relations – at what cost? (My article published in THE NEWS on 8th Apr 2012)

While there is no denying the fact that better relations between India and Pakistan are in the best interest of both the countries, should these be based on ‘subservience’, acceptance of India’s hegemony and by compromising on Pakistan’s national interests, is the question which must agitate the minds of those who are critically following the developments in the last four years.

Either due to the lack of understanding of the intricacies of Indo-Pak relations or as a well thought-out agenda, which in President Zardari’s perception is the right course to adopt or he is forced to adopt as per dictates of those who brokered NRO, Pakistan is in the making of a ‘pliant’ state, as envisaged by USA-India Nexus. Few under-mentioned important statements, decisions, actions, or lack of action vis-a-vis India and their relation with what has been happening within Pakistan would substantiate the assertion.

(1)After assumption of power, in his first important statement on relations with India, President Zardari stated that India never was, is and would be a threat to Pakistan. Then, while talking to the Indian audience, the President promised ‘no first use of nuclear weapons’. While making these statements either the President had no clue of the implications of such statements or these were made as per agenda given by those who are endeavouring to undermine Pakistan’s nuclear capability. He should have known that our nuclear strategy is based on minimum deterrence against conventional threat from India and such statements would put a question mark on our nuclear programme.

(2)Kashmir issue remains a major irritant between Pakistan and India. Though we should have no doubt that neither wars nor using militancy as an instrument would bring about any solution to the problem, yet the criminal silence of the present Government on Kashmir is intriguing. All indicators are they have compromised on the issue. Recent announcement of bounty on Hafiz Saeed by USA would put further pressure on those who could have questioned Government’s apparent u-turn on Kashmir.  Placing Kashmir issue on the back-burner has always been desired by the USA and India. Thus, a desire fulfilled.

(3)In the obtaining environment, space for traditional application of military instrument is gradually shrinking and non-traditional security threats are taking centre stage in which the intelligence agencies are expected to play a major role. In this regard, Government’s earlier attempt to place ISI under Ministry of Interior, the offer of sending DG ISI to India after Mumbai attacks and now the undermining of ISI through a very well orchestrated propaganda plan are alarming developments. Nothing would please India and USA more than to see ISI undermined.

(4)No doubt, the Government is within its right to grant of MFN status to India. However, taking into consideration the present plight of our own industry, made redundant by power shortages, high tariff and lack of competitive environment, the decision does raise certain suspicions – whether the decision was taken in Pakistan’s interest or as part of a given agenda, especially when there are clear indicators that the Government itself is instrumental in destroying the country’s industry. The decision would surely make Pakistan economically dependent on India.

(5)Though the construction of new hydroelectric power projects and dams by India on the rivers feeding Pakistan in violation of Indus Water Basin Treaty and recently proposed construction of link canals to divert water from these rivers, are extremely detrimental to Pakistan’s future, yet the lack of meaningful response to these developments by the Government is beyond comprehension. Even our other political leaders, media and the masses in general are showing indifference to this issue which actually should be considered as a matter of life and death for Pakistan. No need to emphasise that control over the water of these rivers would make Pakistan totally dependent on India’s good-will.  

Thus, the recent developments vis-a-vis India are reminiscence of how the British East India Company made ingress into the Mughal Empire by pleasing the kings and the masses remained either ignorant or indifferent to the developments, ultimately rendered subservient to the British Raj and accepted the change as their destiny. Similarly, Indo-US Nexus has an agenda to convert Pakistan into a ‘pliant state’, President Zardari seems to be obliging and the masses are inclined to accept the fait accompli, as manifested by their indifference to the present happenings. 

Bounty on Hafiz Saeed (My article published in THE NEWS on 6th April 2012)

Normally head-money is placed on criminals / terrorists in the hiding. As such, USA has created history and given indications for the things to come, by putting head-money on Hafiz Saeed who is a free Pakistani citizen, is now trying to enter the mainstream politics and when militancy in IHK, of which India has always accused him, has slowed down. It was, thus, natural if the news came as a shocker for the entire Pakistani nation and being construed, by and large, as yet another act of unilateralism by the only super power. Why at a stage when Pak-US relations are under turbulence and the Parliament is discussing contours of future Pak-US relations, would USA take such an action and to serve what purpose, will remain a question under discussion for a few days. To understand, we need to be clear about US objectives for the 21^st century - Pursuance of US interests, interests of the allies and interests of the partners – in the same sequence. The others, in which apparently Pakistan also falls, matter less and expected to facilitate.

The Pakistani leadership assigned with the formulation of foreign policy, especially relations with USA, must understand that the latter has a well defined agenda to pursue in the region, any hindrance in that pursuit would not be tolerated and taken as a hostile act. In this regard, opening of supply routes is critically important and, as such, the announcement to put bounty on Hafiz Saeed at this stage is to give a clear-cut message to the Pakistan Government to comply, as well as, to intimidate the groups threatening its forceful closure, even if the Government permits it.

Secondly, by announcing the decision at India, the Americans have conveyed that, irrespective of the role Pakistan plays for USA, India gets pre-eminence in relations. In fact, the decision was meant to and has pleased India.

Thirdly, Difa-e-Pakistan’s rallies, of which Hafiz Saeed is one of the active members, is emerging as a small but violent force which could threaten USA’s interests in the region. Since, this out-fit is perceived to be supported by the establishment and the organization which Hafiz Saeed heads, is considered by the Americans and Indians as ISI’s proxy, we may not even rule out connivance of Pakistan Government in the decision. In a country where there is trust deficit between the institutions, anything of the sort is possible. Logically also, the kind of close relations our Government thinks it has with the US Administration, the latter should have consulted them before taking decision on Hafiz Saeed. If they have not, as the Government’s stance is, the act gives a clear indication of where the US policy makers place Pakistan in their scheme of things.

Whatever the motivation behind the decision, it is clear that USA is in no mood to play games with Pakistan, means business and would go to any extent to achieve what it wants. The Government, as the indicators are, understands it well and willing to comply, but there are parties who feel that the USA is cornered, desperately needs Pakistan’s assistance for pursuance of her objectives in the region and that we could play around with them for a while to extract maximum in return. Probably, the message is meant for the latter category.

Though, in my view, at this stage the decision is symbolic but we may not rule out the possibility of USA taking this matter to UN to put pressure on Pakistan, in case she is found non-cooperating. While the Government is not likely to give any forceful reaction and may even signal tacit approval, any retaliation by Hafiz Saeed’s followers would surely be against Pakistan’s interest and further tarnish her image. The best course for Hafiz Saeed would be to understand the obtaining international environment, get into the mainstream and take part in country’s political activities, including elections.

The Pakistan Government must understand that the noose is being tightened around Pakistan’s neck and to break loose, it must take decisions, and soon, which enhance its relevance in the international community and not those which push Pakistan further towards isolation. While we must play our cards well, we must also know the limits beyond which our brinkmanship may fail, especially if we try to base it on some negative potential. The need of the hour is to put own house in order so as to face external challenges up-front – the only option left for Pakistan.

PCNS recommendations – time to take bold decisions (My article published in THE NEWS on 4th Apr 2012)

After 9/11, Pakistan rendered unconditional support to the US forces for undertaking operations in Afghanistan. Since then, it’s a common perception that the former President Pervaiz Musharraf buckled down under US pressure and compromised on national security. While the decision would always be termed controversial, there is no doubt that those days USA’s unilateralism was at its peak, there was a strong demand in USA to avenge 9/11, that UN and the entire international community was backing USA and India had already offered all out support to the USA for action against the Taliban.

Now after over 10 years, the Americans in general are sick of war on terror, their economy is sliding down at a fast pace and USA no longer enjoys the kind of moral support to continue operations in Afghanistan or to open up a new front against Pakistan. As such, Pakistani leadership is under least pressure as compared to what Musharraf faced ten years back. However, notwithstanding the leverage the Pakistani leadership now enjoys, it must refrain from rhetoric which some of our politicians are resorting to for self projection. It is time for the political leadership to be the architects of Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially vis-a-vis USA, and they must ensure that the decisions on the PCNS recommendations are taken in the best national interest keeping the bigger picture in mind, giving due cognizance to the internal situation, the regional scenario and the international environment. A few aspects which we normally hesitate to discuss on the media but must be given due consideration while taking decisions on future Pak-US relations, are covered in the succeeding paragraphs.

USA HAS ALREADY GIVEN ITS EXIT PLAN FROM AFGHANISTAN AND COMMITTED TO WITHDRAWAL OF ITS FORCES BY 2014. THOUGH DOUBTS DO EXIST ABOUT THEIR SINCERITY, PAKISTAN MUST PROVIDE WHATEVER FACILITIES ARE NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSE AND MUST NEVER GIVE AN EXCUSE TO THE AMERICANS TO PROLONG THEIR STAY IN AFGHANISTAN DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLY OR WITHDRAWAL ROUTES. PAKISTAN MAY EVEN SEEK AND WELCOME UN’S ROLE IN THIS REGARD.

Pakistan enjoys immense geo-strategic importance as a gate-way to Central Asia and beyond.  Accordingly, Balochistan, today, has gained a centre stage as a future ‘international strategic corridor’, a development which Pakistan can exploit to her advantage. Pakistan’s unwillingness to oblige may result into foreign sponsored surge in Independent Balochistan movement, having serious ramifications for Pakistan’s integrity.

USA has developed a strategic partnership with India and vying to carve out a role for her in Afghanistan, a major reason of recent animosity between Pakistan and USA. In my view, however, this fear is ill-founded as, I am sure, Indian leadership is not that naive so as to take the risk of directly confronting the Taliban and face the consequences. With India in, if they do, the endgame in Afghanistan would surely be a far-fetched dream. The Americans, as well as the Indians, know it.

THE PARLIAMENTARIANS MUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THE STATUS OF ISAF AND US FORCES OPERATING IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE IN GENERAL PERCEPTION THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS OCCUPATION FORCES, WHEREAS, THE HARD REALITY IS THAT THESE FORCES ARE MANDATED BY UN AND FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE LEGITIMATE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT. SECONDLY, EVEN IF THE PAKISTANI MASSES PERCEIVE THE ISAF / US AS OCCUPATION FORCES, DO THE MAJORITY OF AFGHANS ALSO FEEL THE SAME WAY AS WE MUST REMAIN RELEVANT TO THE AFGHAN PEOPLE IN THE ENDGAME? IN ANY CASE, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A PAKISTANI SATELLITE AND HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS.

In the third week of November 2011, an Afghan Jirga comprising 2000 representatives agreed on strategic partnership with United States. Unfortunately, the jirga did not demand withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan as a pre-condition and instead demanded that the USA must side with Afghanistan if a third country tried to attack it.  We should have no doubt as to what was meant by the ‘third country’. This is the kind of hostility we have earned in the last ten years because of our role in Afghanistan, a strategy which needs to be reversed. 

The parliamentarians must also take cognizance of the fact that in Pakistan’s chequered history, it’s probably the first time that US Administration is inclined to deal with the political leadership instead of the military establishment. As such, while peoples’ perceptions may influence but should never dictate the decision-making, which must be based on prudence, realism and in the best national interest.     

WHILE FINALIZING THE CONTOURS OF OUR FUTURE RELATIONS WITH THE USA, WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN PAKISTAN’S ECONOMY AND THE INFLUENCE IT HAS ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

And finally, since foreign policy flows from internal dynamics, in these defining moments, WE AS A NATION HAVE TO DECIDE ONCE AND FOR ALL WHETHER TO REMAIN RELEVANT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OR BE ISOLATED, GIVEN USA’S LEVERAGE THE WORLD OVER. For making the right choice, rhetoric apart, we must critically deliberate on the factors that impinge on our sovereignty and have put us in a state we are in. In this regard, the media must play a very positive role to educate and not agitate the masses, without fear of reprisals from the terrorists. In my considered view, we have no choice but to put our own house in order if we are to face the external challenges up front. An internally destabilized, religiously polarized, ethnically divided, economically unviable and foreign aid dependent nation, led by inapt / corrupt leadership, has to relinquish its sovereignty and that is the issue we need to tackle at priority and if we can do that, the others, including USA, would automatically start respecting our sovereignty.       

THUS, BARRING RECOMMENDATIONS ON FOREIGN SPIES AND PROVISION OF BASES WHICH SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED AS OPTIONS, DECISIONS ON THE REMAINING, INCLUDING THE REOPENING OF SUPPLY ROUTES MAY BE TAKEN IN THE LARGER NATIONAL INTEREST, AS PER DICTATES OF THE GROUND REALITIES AND WITHOUT FEAR OF US’S UNILATERALISM OR INTIMIDATION BY THE TERRORISTS. SHYING AWAY FROM TAKING DECISIONS AT THIS CRITICAL STAGE, AS SOME OPPOSITION PARTIES ARE RESORTING TO ON ONE PRETEXT OR ANOTHER, WOULD BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR NATIONAL CAUSE.