What's new

What can India Do About Pakistan?

By Shyam Saran on 25/08/2015


Delhi must look at talks as a means of enabling sustained diplomacy, rather than as a bargaining chip or form of penalty — whose denial will somehow become a pressure-point on Islamabad

File photo of Pakistan’s Prime Miniser, Nawaz Sharif, with Army Chief General Raheel Sharif. Credit: ISPR

The India-Pakistan talks have been called off and the sense of relief in Islamabad and, one suspects, New Delhi, must be palpable. Within days of the joint statement at Ufa last month, it became clear that the calculations on which the resumption of a dialogue process may have been envisaged had come undone. Stung by the widespread political as well as public criticism of having omitted any reference to Kashmir from the joint statement, the Nawaz Sharif government went into overdrive to insist there could be no talks without J&K being part of the agenda. On the India-Pakistan border and Line of Control, ceasefire violations mounted and two major cross-border terrorist incidents followed, one in Gurdaspur, Punjab and the other in Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir. A “living dossier” in the form of the Pakistani national, Naved, was captured during the latter incident. He cheerfully admitted to being a Lashkar-e-Tayyaba jihadist and expressed delight at having been given the opportunity to kill Hindus.

Nawaz Sharif has clearly been unwilling or unable to rein in the military leadership or the terrorist group, the LeT. If the Indian strategy is to engage the Pakistani civilian leadership, while retaliating robustly to cross-border provocations by its military—hoping thereby to strengthen a pro-peace constituency in Pakistan—this has proved to be a non-starter. The Pakistan Army has demonstrated time and again that it exercises a virtual veto over the country’s policies towards India, Afghanistan, the United States and China. Except for India, these countries maintain parallel and probably deeper relations with the Pakistan military, acknowledging the reality of its over-riding authority.

Once the Pakistani military had made its opposition apparent and escalated violence on and across the border with India, the proposed meeting between the two National Security Advisers was doomed.


The assumption that the civilian, democratically elected government in Islamabad, is in favour of better relations with India is only partially true. It is a complex but interpenetrated political, bureaucratic and military elite which rules Pakistan. There may be nuanced differences among its constituents, but they share a deeply adversarial perception of India. Furthermore, it is presumptuous to believe that India can significantly influence the domestic political dynamic in Pakistan. Change in Pakistan will come from how internal forces play themselves out. This is not to suggest that India should not play different constituencies in Pakistan differently. It should, but with only modest expectations.

Pakistani calculations

India-Pakistan relations are, by their very nature, adversarial. This is rooted in widely divergent but deeply entrenched historical and national narratives. Each side has a different view of why partition took place, how the Kashmir dispute erupted, or why the wars of 1965 and 1971 were fought. Even liberal Pakistanis believe that cross-border terrorism is explicable, if not justifiable, because of an asymmetric threat from India. Such competing narratives can be reconciled only over a long period of patient engagement in which historical fact is separated from its politically generated distortions.

The expectation of a spectacular and emotional grand reconciliation, as between long estranged brothers, is a seductive myth which a succession of Indian leaders and civil society advocates have fallen prey to. Reconciliation and expanded cooperation will be the cumulative culmination of a series of continuous, modest, but nevertheless, practical steps to improve relations. Conversely—and as we have seen repeatedly in the recent past—any suggestion of a more than modest initiative promising a transformed relationship has inevitably led to a backlash from elements deeply invested in hostility.

Whatever be the official rhetoric in Islamabad, there is a broad elite consensus that the use of cross-border terrorism has proved to be remarkably effective in advancing Pakistan’s aims vis-à-vis India and Afghanistan. The possession of a nuclear deterrent, it is believed, shields Pakistan from serious military retaliation. The military establishment also believes that Pakistan’s adversaries, either by choice or by compulsion, are unable to play the same covert game of tit-for-tat. In the case of India, Islamabad has escaped retribution despite Pakistan-based terrorists launching progressively more serious terrorist attacks against Indian targets, including the horrific assault on Mumbai in 2008. In Afghanistan, its use of cross-border terrorism is seen validated by the US withdrawal from the country and its acquiescence in a Pakistani lead role in any political settlement of the long-drawn out civil war. Unless this strategic calculus in Islamabad undergoes a change, it is unlikely that we shall see anything more than a tactical adjustment in response to immediate pressures.

Changing the Pakistani strategic calculus requires measures on multiple fronts. There is no silver bullet. What are the levers which, taken together, could raise the cost to Pakistan, of continuing with its current posture?

Inhibitions to be overcome

India must dispense with the implicit anxiety that the disintegration of Pakistan or its descent into chaos,will confront India with an existential crisis. Whether Pakistan descends into chaos or disintegrates will depend upon what its people want and how the domestic political dynamic plays itself out in the country. India is mostly irrelevant in this regard. To refrain from imposing penalties on Pakistan’s rulers for fear of stoking chaos, is a flawed proposition. Is it not strange that Pakistan’s fragility is advertised as a mitigating circumstance even while its resilience and survivability is lauded by one analyst after another? Pakistan is often said to be suicidal but it has always shown a remarkable willingness to cut deals which ensure its survival and maintain the privileges of its self-entitled elite. We should be clear that we are dealing with a state that is coldly calculating in its pursuit of its declared interests.

Pakistan also uses the linguistic and cultural affinities between the peoples of the two countries to arouse sentimentality, which it then uses to obscure its fully unsentimental aims as a state with hostile intent. The Indian side, particularly political leaders, often fall prey to such tactics, sometimes quite unconsciously.The affinity is a reality to be acknowledged and used to advance relations if possible, but it should never be allowed to influence the calculus of inter-state relations.

Once these unspoken but severely limiting inhibitions are abandoned, then one can begin to look at what one would normally do faced with an adversarial state.

We have several pressure points which we have been loathe to use despite there being no corresponding Pakistani restraint. We have a formal claim on Gilgit Baltistan but since the Simla Agreement we have rarely articulated it, let alone pressed it determinedly. We have been reluctant to receive people from Gilgit Baltistan or raise our voice when their rights are violated. Our silence on the horrific human rights violations in Balochistan is misplaced. Thanks to its harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Pakistan has earned its reputation of being an “epicentre of terror”. We could be much more active internationally to exploit that negative image. This should go hand in hand with the strengthening of our own security capabilities in preventing cross-border terrorism and retaliating against military provocations.

Denying dialogue does not help

At the same time, there are positive elements to be pursued through parallel, sustained and patient engagement. This means that talks should be pursued enabling sustained diplomacy, and not used as a bargaining chip or as a weak form of penalty. Doing so is acknowledgement that India has no effective levers to influence behaviour on the other side. In the past few years our response pattern has convinced Pakistan that after every crisis it is India which feels compelled to return to the table without a Pakistani quid pro quo. Therefore, any notion that holding back on dialogue is a pressure point on Pakistan, is no longer valid.

Other positive actions include promotion of people-to-people contact at all levels through a more liberal visa policy, unilateral if necessary. Even the limited visa liberalisation since 2004 has significantly increased the traffic between the two countries and there is a huge pent up demand in Pakistan for travel to India. There are close cultural affinities between the two countries and Bollywood is an indispensable part of the fabric of Pakistani life. These are underused assets.

The positive impact of increased exposure of Pakistani citizens to India will chip away at the contrived hostility that is encouraged by the Pakistani ruling elite, but this is a long-term endeavour requiring perseverance and patience. It should be our effort to promote exchanges among civil society, media and even the armed forces, such as NDC to NDC or Defence Staff College interactions. The promotion of bilateral trade and commercial exchanges should be a priority, opening up the Indian market to Pakistan’s key export commodities. The objective of these and other initiatives should be to foster, over a period of time, a more balanced and varied relationship between the two countries.

Managing Pakistan is a challenge but approaching it as a state with rational calculations which can be influenced through a varied set of political, economic, military and cultural instruments will do much to remove the self-imposed inhibitions on the conduct of our policy. The shift in mindset is fundamental. The rollout and use of the levers outlined here will need to be graduated and incremental, with careful regard to timing and opportunity. This is what we do with other states. This is what we need to do with Pakistan.

Shyam Saran is a former Foreign Secretary. He is currently Chairman,RIS and Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research

What can India Do About Pakistan? | The Wire

India needs to do nothing - just sit tight and do nothing. Up to 1990s, Pakistan had a higher per capita income compared to India - because of the billions of dollars in aid they got from their sponsors. Now India has a per capita income approximately 20% higher than Pakistan - we spent our limited resources on education, infrastructure and industry, while policy makers in Pakistan chose to spend their resources on Taliban, LeT and other such ventures. Another 15-20 years of this, our per capita income will be 2-3 times of Pakistan - which means our economy will be 15-20 times larger. An economy 5% our size can't really pose any threat to us.

Moreover, once the economic difference is sharp, another change will happen. We already have Pakistani cricketers and singers wanting to come and live/work in India - recall the venom that was witnessed when IPL decided to not hire Pakistani players because of the 26/11 terror attack - and the sense of loss. Once we have doctors, engineers and construction labour from Pakistan working in India, I think they will see for themselves the lie that their policy-makers have been telling them. That should resolve outstanding issues - particularly terror.

Time is on our side.
 
.
pakistan is immature. india should just sit back and let the kid grow up.

This is how most Indians think of Pakistan...

11822653_10153539293852863_3433718779058204292_n.jpg
 
.
Why do need peace talks with pakistan ? why cant we treat them like how SK treats NK ?? NK keeps on threatening to nuke SK as well as the USA...but SK is nvr like..peace talk and peace and bla bla ?? it has become one of the most developed nations in Asia ....pakistan will always deny its role in sponsoring terrorism in india.........so y cant we jus ......ignore them....kill the terrorists they send......fortify LOC....annd then...focus on our economy for gods sake
 
.
India needs to do nothing - just sit tight and do nothing. Up to 1990s, Pakistan had a higher per capita income compared to India - because of the billions of dollars in aid they got from their sponsors. Now India has a per capita income approximately 20% higher than Pakistan - we spent our limited resources on education, infrastructure and industry, while policy makers in Pakistan chose to spend their resources on Taliban, LeT and other such ventures. Another 15-20 years of this, our per capita income will be 2-3 times of Pakistan - which means our economy will be 15-20 times larger. An economy 5% our size can't really pose any threat to us.

Moreover, once the economic difference is sharp, another change will happen. We already have Pakistani cricketers and singers wanting to come and live/work in India - recall the venom that was witnessed when IPL decided to not hire Pakistani players because of the 26/11 terror attack - and the sense of loss. Once we have doctors, engineers and construction labour from Pakistan working in India, I think they will see for themselves the lie that their policy-makers have been telling them. That should resolve outstanding issues - particularly terror.

Time is on our side.
exactly.i wud like to add that we shud push for strong trade relations,,,flood thm with bollywood n cable tv.
 
.
What difference does it make whether a terrorist blows himself up or not? And hindu extremists do blow themselves up. Do the victims feel any less pain if the bomber blew himself up wearing a suicide jacket or if the bomber is still alive after bombing the Samjhauta express and then even gets bail?

As for hindu extremists not blowing themselves up is pure misinformation. You are one of the few educated ones of the hordes of Indian users on this site, didn't expect you to say this. Your own ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bombing in which a hindu "blew himself up"
Suicide bombings in Sri Lanka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me guess, they didn't do it in the name of religion at least, right? Well islam forbids suicide, it's clearly explained in quran, so anyone "blowing themselves up" is not following the teachings of islam. The only association they have with islam is being muslim, which goes for the hindu suicide bombers of Sri Lanka as well.

Allah knows best.
But then again...
Their cause was different,they did for the tamilians in SL. They would have done it anyway even if they were Buddhists.
***
Did you edit your post??
 
.
What difference does it make whether a terrorist blows himself up or not? And hindu extremists do blow themselves up. Do the victims feel any less pain if the bomber blew himself up wearing a suicide jacket or if the bomber is still alive after bombing the Samjhauta express and then even gets bail?

As for hindu extremists not blowing themselves up is pure misinformation. You are one of the few educated ones of the hordes of Indian users on this site, didn't expect you to say this. Your own ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a suicide bombing in which a hindu "blew himself up"
Suicide bombings in Sri Lanka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me guess, they didn't do it in the name of religion at least, right? Well islam forbids suicide, it's clearly explained in quran, so anyone "blowing themselves up" is not following the teachings of islam. The only association they have with islam is being muslim, which goes for the hindu suicide bombers of Sri Lanka as well.

Allah knows best.
Blowing up alone is not the criteria. Blowing up with 'Allah uh Akbar' is the issue. The Japanese blew up while hitting American ships. But not in the name of God of Mercy/Love.

That said, LTTE was a terrorist org and no Indian except a handful of Periyarists have any sympathy for them.
 
.
Your last line perfectly depicts the arrogance in you lot which is a problem i have identified earlier.

Btw, it's not arrogance brother, it's just that I (rather many of us) have stopped believing that these 'peace talks' have any value, yeh sab karne se kuch honewala to hai nehi, bekar mein time waste karna....
 
.
But then again...
Their cause was different,they did for the tamilians in SL. They would have done it anyway even if they were Buddhists.
***
Did you edit your post??
LTTE did execute a lot of Buddhists, target killings.

Aranthalawa Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, it's not arrogance brother, it's just that I (rather many of us) have stopped believing that these 'peace talks' have any value, yeh sab karne se kuch honewala to hai nehi, bekar mein time waste karna....
@IceCold Arrogance is a term that applies when a smaller power defies a bigger one.
Why on Earth you think India needs to be arrogant with Pakistan ? India is simply disapproving.
 
.
So gist of all that rubbish is that India has to submit to its knees. Or else face consequences.


Thus spake the prophet of National Defence University ??
Now, about talks...... what is there to talk about?
Even Sartaj mian, is now talking about "Atmi-Bums" so what is there to talk about when the over-riding tune is the refrain of "Bum Bum-a Bum".
Yeah, @Oscar, there seem to be few talking points left, let both countries just carry on doing their own things.
 
.

For starters, India should make her adherence of IWT, conditional to Pakistan, reigning in on terrorism, infiltration attempts and the related ceasefire violations.

If Pakistan, as a nation, can violate the sacred sanctity of another sovereign nation by indulging in terrorism or by allowing terror groups to operate from its soil with impunity, then what is the sanctity of a treaty such as IWT?

India has adhered to IWT despite grave Pakistani provocations so many times, with such impunity that Pakistanis take it for granted! I think that needs to change.

Besides, Nehru sold India out in IWT negotiations and those historic injustices need to be corrected at some point.
 
.
Thus spake the prophet of National Defence University ??
Now, about talks...... what is there to talk about?
Even Sartaj mian, is now talking about "Atmi-Bums" so what is there to talk about when the over-riding tune is the refrain of "Bum Bum-a Bum".
Yeah, @Oscar, there seem to be few talking points left, let both countries just carry on doing their own things.
Well, the issue remains and Im sure you'll agree with me. Both populations seem to be TOTALLY and absolutely unaware of the horrors of the "bum". Unlike the US and Russia where two generations were fed the effects of "duck and cover" and shown what happens.. neither India or Pakistan are mature enough or going to be in the near future to come up with anything like this( Do we even have any semblance of civil/federal defence in India? I know some farce of it exists in Pakistan)

And these were nations with fairly well spread out populations with lots of land where they could migrate to incase of attacks. Our idiots are literally packed together like sardines and right next to each other. So even if one "wins", no one does.
 
.
With this attitude everyone will get suffering in both countries.

Look france and germany history they were bigger enemies but they learn the lesson hard way

Is india want same story destruction than talks
 
.
Well, the issue remains and Im sure you'll agree with me. Both populations seem to be TOTALLY and absolutely unaware of the horrors of the "bum". Unlike the US and Russia where two generations were fed the effects of "duck and cover" and shown what happens.. neither India or Pakistan are mature enough or going to be in the near future to come up with anything like this( Do we even have any semblance of civil/federal defence in India? I know some farce of it exists in Pakistan)

And these were nations with fairly well spread out populations with lots of land where they could migrate to incase of attacks. Our idiots are literally packed together like sardines and right next to each other. So even if one "wins", no one does.

I am sorry, but India is NOT the one talking about Nuclear Bombs at the drop of a hat here, is it?

It is Pakistanis that have been mentioning the N-word (no pun intended) menacingly if their demands are not met, is it not?

And we are not even talking about some random mullah/politician or a fake defense-analyst here. It was your very own NSA to join the band wagon!
 
.
I am sorry, but India is NOT the one talking about Nuclear Bombs at the drop of a hat here, is it?

It is Pakistanis that have been mentioning the N-word (no pun intended) menacingly if their demands are not met, is it not?

And we are not even talking about some random mullah/politician or a fake defense-analyst here. It was your very own NSA to join the band wagon!

Actually, it was India that began the drama with the rhetoric after the tests in 1998. As I said, both nations need to mature beyond their sanctimonious attitude and realize on what deathwish they both sit on.
 
.
Pakistan should seek for 3 conditions for talks with India:

- Try Modi for war crimes for Gujrat massacre.

- Make Rahul Ghandi prime minister

- IOK reintegrated back into Pakistan for the greater peace of the region.

Then there will be everlasting peace.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom