For some reason, my earlier post got edited, heres the full article.:thumbsup:
Challenge of coexistence with India
By Maqbool Ahmad Bhatty
HAVING been created in the teeth of India’s opposition, whose Hindu majority considered the division of “Bharat Mata” (Mother India) a sacrilege, Pakistan has had to contend with India’s hostility from its very birth. Imperatives of national survival have largely determined our defence and foreign policy, impelled our entry into western pacts and shaped our strategic partnership with China as well as our nuclear policies that have been aimed at safeguarding our sovereignty and independence.
The end of the Cold War was one global watershed. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil have become another. Pakistan’s geo-strategic location has again made us highly relevant in the world’s most sensitive region, where strategic, economic and civilisational rivalries are at play. The world’s only superpower is guided by a doctrine that has made power the dominant element once again, and is seeking to ensure that it continues its hegemony in the 21st century.
Israel has acquired a special status in US security policy, and now India appears to be moving towards a third angle of this triangle, that would interact with Australia and Japan on the periphery of China to contain it. Russia, that has been almost marginalised in Europe, is also turning eastwards, where the bulk of its territory is. It may join China in global strategy, but would also seek to preserve its close relations with India, while interacting with Islamic states such as Iran, and those in the Arab Middle East and in Central Asia.
With India receiving US and western patronage as a democracy, and as an anti-Islamic force, there are some analysts who are becoming alarmed at the success it is apparently having in its diplomacy and hegemonic ambitions. Used to Indian tactics, and mindful of Indian traditions dating back to Chanakya, they are fearful that India will soon have the muscle and the diplomatic weight to absorb its smaller neighbours. It had got away with annexing Sikkim, and its former BJP rulers had begun talking of forming a confederation of the subcontinent immediately after the Indian nuclear tests of May 1998, until Pakistan’s tests two weeks later took the wind out of their sails.
The current state of alarm over the preferential treatment given by the US to India is understandable. Pakistan has done far more than India in the war against terror, capturing and handing over more than 700 terrorists, including some key figures involved in the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan is paying a higher internal price, owing to the strong reaction in the tribal areas as well as the provincial border areas. The role of Pakistan is likely to remain crucial for many years, because militancy cannot be eliminated until its deeper causes, including the injustices that Muslims are suffering in Palestine and Kashmir are redressed. It may be recalled that there are UN resolutions on both these issues that are being violated on the basis of force.
The reordering of perceptions and interests that had started in 1990, following the end of the Cold War had involved a reversal of the roles of India and Pakistan, in the 1990s decade. India, despite having backed the Soviet Union in the Cold War, was seen as sharing US concerns on Islamic resurgence, and nuclear issues. The conclusion of a defence agreement was considered in 1995. Pakistan, on the other hand, was subjected to the Pressler law in 1990 (that ended not only US aid but military sales also) and other sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests and the military takeover of 1999, thus becoming the most sanctioned country in the world.
Pakistan also not only suffered from internal instability, with repeated changes of democratically elected governments, but also insurgencies and civil conflict in Afghanistan and Kashmir, increasingly attributed to terrorism. As a result, GDP growth fell to an average of three per cent as against over six per cent in the preceding decade of military rule, while exactly the reverse happened in India, which doubled its growth rate to six per cent in the 1990s.
Significantly, even before George W. Bush was elected to the presidency, President Bill Clinton, who visited South Asia in March 2000, spent five days in India, conjuring up a vision of close relations with a democratic and economically vibrant India, while delivering a stern lecture on democracy, good governance and counter-terrorism during his five hours in Pakistan. It was made clear that the relationship with the two countries would be at different levels.
The saving grace of this period was that the success of the country’s scientists and engineers in developing its nuclear capability to match that of India not only assured its security but also underlined the need to resolve the Kashmir dispute, which as the UN Resolution 1172 stated in June 1998, could cause a nuclear conflict. The two countries started a dialogue process in 1999 that was resumed again in 2004, following a military standoff that lasted almost a year when India tried coercive diplomacy.
Since 9/11, both Pakistan and India have been allies of the US in the global war against terrorism. So, for that matter, is China. All three countries are following trajectories of their own in the years since then, and are poised for further growth. What distinguishes their individual approaches is also very clear. China, which has maintained the most impressive rate of growth since 1978, with an average of nine per cent per year, is the least militaristic in its plans, the accent being on bringing its vast population out of poverty.
India has been engaged in building up its military strength, despite subscribing to the philosophy of non-violence backed by Gandhi since independence because Nehru, the first Indian prime minister, saw the world eventually as dominated by the four great powers, namely the US, Russia, China and India. The resolve to build up its military power to the point where India would be impregnable, was reinforced in 1962, after India suffered defeat in a border conflict it had precipitated with China.
The fears and apprehensions of those in Pakistan, who are alarmed over the US decision to build India into a great power, can now be considered. Firstly, while we have developed nuclear deterrence, backed by missile capability ranging from cruise to high trajectory systems, India is progressing across a wider spectrum and will have overwhelming superiority within a few years. Our approach should continue to be to avoid an arms race, and to maintain sound deterrence. It is true that we can hit only a few targets while Pakistan can be obliterated in a second strike, but deterrence can be maintained without the kind of arms race that ruined the Soviet Union economically.
The most important constraint on India opting for an active hegemonic policy comes from its internal problems. The western media, including BBC, have highlighted that despite its middle class market of over 300 million, it continues to be home to nearly 400 million people who are not only poor, but denied basic human rights under a caste system that remains deeply embedded.
The situation is comparable in other countries of South Asia. The other constraint can be provided by a proper global multilateral system. In order to manage global affairs, the UN and other bodies need to be strengthened so that do not only discourage excessive concentration of resources on the acquisition or manufacture of arms, but also promote peace and international cooperation to alleviate poverty in all its forms as well as to safeguard the environment. China is setting a good example, both in development and in eschewing hegemonic impulses.
We need to remind ourselves of the role of active diplomacy, backed by an outreach to markets for trade and investment. We have important assets in a campaign to counter India’s sheer power through economic, cultural and ideological activism. We have regional linkages with South and Central Asia and historical and cultural links with the Islamic world. We should also maintain and reinforce our close and time-tested relations with China. We can maintain our good relations with the US that should know that neither the people nor the government of Pakistan want to be used against friendly neighbours like China, or Iran.
Our perspective on future relation with India should also take into account the fact that it is a country with diverse races, languages, religions and cultures. It sought to separate Bangladesh as a part of undoing partition, but Muslim Bengal endured. Whereas 96 per cent of China’s population is of Han ethnic origin, India has hundreds of nationalities, races and tribes.
The caste system is divisive, and the country is hard to govern. So we need not be alarmed about its military superiority but concentrate on resolving our internal problems and building up our own strength and prosperity.
Overall, Pakistan is far more governable, and its people more robust than those of India. Even if India does emerge as a great power in the next few years, we should take timely steps against any efforts to divide or weaken us, and concentrate on improving the life of our people. Above all, adherence to the principles the Quaid gave us — unity, faith and discipline — should ensure a secure and prosperous future for us as a responsible, peace-loving nuclear power, with a role in Asia and the world.
The writer is a former ambassador.
