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.