By Amir Zia
Monday, August 19, 2013
The News
Only an economically and militarily strong Pakistan can negotiate good peace with India. For a ‘bad peace’ will keep the pot boiling.Yes, in politics and international diplomacy, state interests are permanent and should not be compromised because of today’s constraints and weaknesses.
It has now become an ominous pattern. Pakistan and India – the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours – take baby steps stretching over months and years to bring some normality in their often frosty and tense relations, but then one single event pushes them back to almost the same point from where they started their peace efforts.
The pendulum of emotions moves from one extreme to another with the blink of an eye. On a good day, it is the peaceniks, who dominate the narrative on both sides of the border. The deep cultural and historical bonds between Pakistanis and Indians are articulated and explored. Dreamers talk about prospects of building and expanding trade and economic ties and creating common markets. Greater people-to-people contact and effortless travelling between the two countries seem within grasp. The mere talk about dividends of peace and cooperation allure and fascinate many minds.
During these brief flashes of tranquility, even the two governments talk the right talk. At least for the public consumption, the need for peace, building trust and resolving protracted disputes take the center stage. The first and the second channel diplomatic efforts – all seem to move in the correct direction.
But then the hawks strike back. One isolated event triggers a chain reaction, trouncing doves and their peace narrative. Sometimes it is tensions and skirmishes between soldiers of the two sides at the disputed Kashmir frontier that comes as a blow for the peace efforts, as we have witnessed recently. At other times it could be the murder of an Indian prisoner in a Pakistani jail and a similar tit-for-tat killing of a Pakistani inmate in India that sets the ball of tensions rolling with a fresh impetus. Terror assaults in India – such as that in Mumbai in 2008 and the one on the Indian parliament in 2001 – are the worst-case scenarios that often push the armed forces of these two nuclear-armed nations into an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff.
During such tensions, one always finds Pakistan in the dock. According to New Delhi, the onus of any unwarranted action by an individual, or group of non-state actors is always on Islamabad. Ironically, this Indian position ignores the fact that Islamabad has proved hopelessly powerless in curbing terrorism even within Pakistan. How can it prevent similar actions carried out by the non-state actors in India?
When it comes to the limited flare-ups at the divided Kashmir frontier, it is again the Pakistani side which is held responsible by India. This Pakistan bashing – by the Indian government, its opposition especially the hard-line extremist Hindu groups, and the jingoist media – has also become an oppressive cycle which moves not just with regular intervals but in an identical manner. The aggressive posturing and threatening tone of Indian television gladiators, spitting out fire and venom against Pakistan often border on cheap, distasteful and melodramatic farces. However, they helps explain the mood of the moment in India, which fails to distinguish between government policy and isolated incidents.
The mood in Pakistan on the other hand is overwhelmingly conciliatory. The three successive governments in Pakistan – from the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf to the current one led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – all made improving ties with India a cornerstone of their foreign policy.
Under Musharraf, there had been a sea-change in Pakistan’s policy toward India as authorities worked to bridle militant groups and curb their crossborder infiltration into the Indian-held Kashmir. Musharraf also showed flexibility on Pakistan’s position on Kashmir and pushed for out-of-the-box solutions. The former Pakistan Peoples’ Party government continued with the policy of reconciliation and attempted to build economic and trade ties with India – one of its few saving graces of the entire five-year term.
Prime Minister Sharif is known for his firm position on having good and friendly relations with India. Being a businessman and industrialist, Sharif is aware of the economic and trade benefits once the two countries start cooperating with one another. And this desire for peace is not just confined to the ruling party. All the major opposition parties in Pakistan support this peace push.
The radical anti-India voices indeed are there in Pakistan, but they do not stand a chance of winning elections. This is in stark contrast to India, where many are betting that the hard-line leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, is all set to become prime minister in the next elections. In a nutshell, Pakistan appears more prepared and willing for peace with India than New Delhi. It is not just Pakistan’s civilian leadership, but also the military which wants to ease tensions and improve ties.
But Pakistan’s peace overtures are unlikely to get a similar response from its big neighbour, where the hurly-burly of the coming 2014 elections is all set to start in the coming weeks and months. In the run-up to the Indian elections, none of the political parties – be it in the ruling Congress or the main opposition the BJP – would like to be seen getting soft on Pakistan or giving it any real or perceived concessions. In India’s ‘Hindu cow belt’, a strong anti-Pakistan position has many buyers.
However, efforts to find solution to the longstanding mega dispute on Kashmir or relatively small issues of Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek appear doomed also in the mid to long run as Indian leadership do not feel any compulsion to engage with Pakistan in a meaningful manner.
There could be posturing for peace form India, but without any substance and meaning. The reason for New Delhi’s reluctance for any result-oriented engagement with Islamabad lies in the fact that many Indians believe that Pakistan is on a slippery slope with its battered economy, a fast eroding writ of the state, and all its internal contradictions ranging from the challenge of Islamic extremism and terrorism to that of low-intensity conflict in Balochistan.
If the things continue to move as they are, in the mid- to long-term, India appears better positioned to maintain the status-quo on the disputed territory and dictate terms for peace with its growing economic, political and military clout in the world. In the near future, Indians will like to keep any diplomatic engagement with Pakistan confined to the narrow agenda of terrorism and keep the other pressing political issues on the backburner.
This would be done more to maintain pressure on Islamabad rather than bring any qualitative improvement in relations by resolving protracted political disputes.
Therefore, Prime Minister Sharif should avoid showing any undignified haste in his peace bid with India as the time for his ‘great idea’ has not come yet. Any pleadings for the resumption of ‘composite dialogue’ won’t set the ball rolling. The best option for Pakistan is to show restraint in the wake of India’s diplomatic and military provocations as it has been doing now and focus more on putting its house in order in which combating terrorism and reviving economy should be on top of the list. Only an economically and militarily strong Pakistan can negotiate good peace with India. For a ‘bad peace’ will keep the pot boiling.
Yes, in politics and international diplomacy, state interests are permanent and should not be compromised because of today’s constraints and weaknesses.
Monday, August 19, 2013
The News
Only an economically and militarily strong Pakistan can negotiate good peace with India. For a ‘bad peace’ will keep the pot boiling.Yes, in politics and international diplomacy, state interests are permanent and should not be compromised because of today’s constraints and weaknesses.
It has now become an ominous pattern. Pakistan and India – the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours – take baby steps stretching over months and years to bring some normality in their often frosty and tense relations, but then one single event pushes them back to almost the same point from where they started their peace efforts.
The pendulum of emotions moves from one extreme to another with the blink of an eye. On a good day, it is the peaceniks, who dominate the narrative on both sides of the border. The deep cultural and historical bonds between Pakistanis and Indians are articulated and explored. Dreamers talk about prospects of building and expanding trade and economic ties and creating common markets. Greater people-to-people contact and effortless travelling between the two countries seem within grasp. The mere talk about dividends of peace and cooperation allure and fascinate many minds.
During these brief flashes of tranquility, even the two governments talk the right talk. At least for the public consumption, the need for peace, building trust and resolving protracted disputes take the center stage. The first and the second channel diplomatic efforts – all seem to move in the correct direction.
But then the hawks strike back. One isolated event triggers a chain reaction, trouncing doves and their peace narrative. Sometimes it is tensions and skirmishes between soldiers of the two sides at the disputed Kashmir frontier that comes as a blow for the peace efforts, as we have witnessed recently. At other times it could be the murder of an Indian prisoner in a Pakistani jail and a similar tit-for-tat killing of a Pakistani inmate in India that sets the ball of tensions rolling with a fresh impetus. Terror assaults in India – such as that in Mumbai in 2008 and the one on the Indian parliament in 2001 – are the worst-case scenarios that often push the armed forces of these two nuclear-armed nations into an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff.
During such tensions, one always finds Pakistan in the dock. According to New Delhi, the onus of any unwarranted action by an individual, or group of non-state actors is always on Islamabad. Ironically, this Indian position ignores the fact that Islamabad has proved hopelessly powerless in curbing terrorism even within Pakistan. How can it prevent similar actions carried out by the non-state actors in India?
When it comes to the limited flare-ups at the divided Kashmir frontier, it is again the Pakistani side which is held responsible by India. This Pakistan bashing – by the Indian government, its opposition especially the hard-line extremist Hindu groups, and the jingoist media – has also become an oppressive cycle which moves not just with regular intervals but in an identical manner. The aggressive posturing and threatening tone of Indian television gladiators, spitting out fire and venom against Pakistan often border on cheap, distasteful and melodramatic farces. However, they helps explain the mood of the moment in India, which fails to distinguish between government policy and isolated incidents.
The mood in Pakistan on the other hand is overwhelmingly conciliatory. The three successive governments in Pakistan – from the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf to the current one led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – all made improving ties with India a cornerstone of their foreign policy.
Under Musharraf, there had been a sea-change in Pakistan’s policy toward India as authorities worked to bridle militant groups and curb their crossborder infiltration into the Indian-held Kashmir. Musharraf also showed flexibility on Pakistan’s position on Kashmir and pushed for out-of-the-box solutions. The former Pakistan Peoples’ Party government continued with the policy of reconciliation and attempted to build economic and trade ties with India – one of its few saving graces of the entire five-year term.
Prime Minister Sharif is known for his firm position on having good and friendly relations with India. Being a businessman and industrialist, Sharif is aware of the economic and trade benefits once the two countries start cooperating with one another. And this desire for peace is not just confined to the ruling party. All the major opposition parties in Pakistan support this peace push.
The radical anti-India voices indeed are there in Pakistan, but they do not stand a chance of winning elections. This is in stark contrast to India, where many are betting that the hard-line leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, is all set to become prime minister in the next elections. In a nutshell, Pakistan appears more prepared and willing for peace with India than New Delhi. It is not just Pakistan’s civilian leadership, but also the military which wants to ease tensions and improve ties.
But Pakistan’s peace overtures are unlikely to get a similar response from its big neighbour, where the hurly-burly of the coming 2014 elections is all set to start in the coming weeks and months. In the run-up to the Indian elections, none of the political parties – be it in the ruling Congress or the main opposition the BJP – would like to be seen getting soft on Pakistan or giving it any real or perceived concessions. In India’s ‘Hindu cow belt’, a strong anti-Pakistan position has many buyers.
However, efforts to find solution to the longstanding mega dispute on Kashmir or relatively small issues of Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek appear doomed also in the mid to long run as Indian leadership do not feel any compulsion to engage with Pakistan in a meaningful manner.
There could be posturing for peace form India, but without any substance and meaning. The reason for New Delhi’s reluctance for any result-oriented engagement with Islamabad lies in the fact that many Indians believe that Pakistan is on a slippery slope with its battered economy, a fast eroding writ of the state, and all its internal contradictions ranging from the challenge of Islamic extremism and terrorism to that of low-intensity conflict in Balochistan.
If the things continue to move as they are, in the mid- to long-term, India appears better positioned to maintain the status-quo on the disputed territory and dictate terms for peace with its growing economic, political and military clout in the world. In the near future, Indians will like to keep any diplomatic engagement with Pakistan confined to the narrow agenda of terrorism and keep the other pressing political issues on the backburner.
This would be done more to maintain pressure on Islamabad rather than bring any qualitative improvement in relations by resolving protracted political disputes.
Therefore, Prime Minister Sharif should avoid showing any undignified haste in his peace bid with India as the time for his ‘great idea’ has not come yet. Any pleadings for the resumption of ‘composite dialogue’ won’t set the ball rolling. The best option for Pakistan is to show restraint in the wake of India’s diplomatic and military provocations as it has been doing now and focus more on putting its house in order in which combating terrorism and reviving economy should be on top of the list. Only an economically and militarily strong Pakistan can negotiate good peace with India. For a ‘bad peace’ will keep the pot boiling.
Yes, in politics and international diplomacy, state interests are permanent and should not be compromised because of today’s constraints and weaknesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment