Introduction
Forty eminent experts have asked for
cancellation of talks between the Indian and Pakistan Prime Ministers. Egged on
by TV anchors, several eminent Indian’s are talking about retaliation. Others have pointed out that talks are not a
favor to anyone; they are an essential part of diplomacy. However, neither the use of force nor
diplomacy can serve if we are confused about our Strategy and Objectives. The basis of ‘strategy’ is an unsentimental understanding
of the opponent and his strategy and objectives.
Past: Jihad & its Supporters
After the formation of Bangladesh
in 1971, the Pakistan Military, fully supported by the entire Pakistan
establishment, developed a two pronged strategy of dealing with India: Acquire
nuclear weapons and use these as a shield to carry out Jihad against India.[1]
Pakistan’s entire international policy
and much of its internal policy was driven by this obsession of revenge against
India. But make no mistake, it was not just a policy of the Military it was
fully supported by and implemented by the elites of Pakistan (political,
bureaucratic, diplomatic, business, professional), whichever country they
resided in.[2]
General Zia ul Haq (1977-98),
imposed a policy of state-led Islamization, by bringing in his concept of
Sharia, including the infamous blasphemy law. Under his regime, the fundamentalist
Ahl-e-Hadith version of Islam, was introduced in
(all) school curricula as a result of which, “An entire generation of
Pakistanis studying in public (and secular) schools has grown up viewing not
only non-Muslim minorities but also Muslim minorities as “the other,” as
“unpatriotic,” and as ‘not Muslim enough’.”[3]
Zia used to greet all Indians with expansive bear hugs.
Present: Pak Democracy
So the first question we have to
answer is whether there is any change in this dual policy towards India? The Al Qaida attack on the USA (9/11) has
clearly set in motion a process of learning among the US, UK and other Western
analysts and policy makers, that directly or tacitly supported this Pakistan
policy by connecting all violation of global rules and practices by Pakistan to
something that India did or did not do.
The erosion of the international carte blanche for Pakistan, forced a
rethink by the globalized English speaking elites of Pakistan. But Inside
Pakistan they are a shrinking minority, decimated by the murder of any one who
exposes Pakistan military’s double dealing on Terrorism or draws the ire of the
Sunni fundamentalist killers. With the coming of democracy, the leaders of the
major Pakistani political parties (PPP, PML-N) have realized that their own and
their parties interests are not identical to those of the Pakistan Military and
appear to be willing to consider changing the anti-India policy. Mr. Nawaz
Sharif has gone further than Mr. Zardari could, in making clear that more
normal relations with India would also be in the interest of his party.
However, in a democracy one must
ask, what is the extent of support for changing a policy of anti-India Jihad,
to one of Peace. Unfortunately, as the old (English educated) elite has begun
to realize that the Frankenstein terrorists they have created may destroy
Pakistan itself by taking it back into a medieval age, the new Urdu speaking
(Sunni) elites appear to be fully behind the terrorists.[4]
Future: India’s Policy
Keeping this background in mind
what should be the Indian Governments strategy to deal with Pakistan. As has been clear for some time it is in
India’s interest to have a two pronged approach towards Pakistan:[5]
(1) Increase the costs to the
Pakistan Military of its anti-India Jihad and thus affect its benefit-cost
calculus. This has three elements: (a) The Military as an institution (flow of
financial aid and sophisticated equipment & technology), Forceful response
to cease fire violations. Targeted attack on valuable (but not iconic/symbolic)
assets by a small super-specialized commando force, in response to cross-border
terrorist incidents. (b) The Anti-India Jihadi organizations (Take the fight to
them all over S. Asia by developing covert assets). (c) The personal interests
of serving & retired Army/ISI officers: Identifying & blacklisting (UN,
US, west) all those connected with terrorism.
(2) Identify, discuss and implement economic,
cultural and other policies that are good for the people of both India and
Pakistan. For instance, theory and
empirical evidence points to the fact that normal trade, transit, investment
backed by good trans-border and trans-Asian (from C. Asia/Iran to Myanmar)
infrastructure would be in the interests of both countries and their
people. Similarly, genuinely open and
symmetric social and cultural policies would be mutually beneficial and can and
should be pursued without interruption.
What is completely unclear at this point is the case for India to make
any asymmetric economic concessions and gestures that are only economically
beneficial for Pakistan and financially costly for us. These require a much
higher standard of trust in the Pakistan government and in its ability to
overcome domestic objections to normalization.
Conclusion
It is pointless putting pre-conditions for talks that we keep abandoning. Any condition on talks must be simple, effective and enforceable. One simple condition could be that we will not officially/formally discuss J&K's (including Siachin's) future unless effective and credible steps are taken to try known anti-India terrorists in Pakistan (i.e no formal composite dialogue with the Kashmir/Siachin sub-groups). All issues should however be open for discussion on back channels.
[1] Trilateral
Nuclear Proliferation: Pakistan’s Euro-Chinese Bomb, IDSA Monograph Series No.
1, Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi, December 2006. http://www.idsa.in/monograph/TrilateralNuclearProliferationPakistansEuro-ChineseBomb_avirmani_2006 .
[2] About 6 years
ago, I overheard Pakistani friends in USA referring to anti-India Jehadis as
“Paltu Kutta (pet dogs).”
[4] Punjab lawyers
agitated to free the Punjab governor’s self-confessed killer, the courts free
self-confessed killers all in the name of Islam. Businessmen fund the JUD and
other front organizations of the terrorists. Recent poll showed 83% support for
Osama Bin Laden (should have been protected in Abbottabad).
[5] “Globalisation, Growth and National Security” at https://sites.google.com/site/drarvindvirmani/international-relation-security, and “World
Economy, Geopolitics and Global Strategy” EPW 2006.