Pakistan's India policy
-Article
ACM Kaleem Saadat
Like most Pakistani citizens, I am always intrigued by
Pakistan’s India Policy-if there is an India policy indeed.
Pakistani governments are not good at formulating and pursuing
policies to their logical conclusions in general and in fact, in
most domains, the ministers don’t even bother about policy
matters. In our scheme of things, elections are all about being
able to become a minister and then serving the interest of the
party leadership, and their own near and dear ones. The interest
of the public at large or the state is limited to public
statements and TV talk shows. However, there are some
ministries, like Foreign Affairs, Defence and Interior etc that
cannot afford to twiddle their thumbs even if they want to
because of the sheer momentum of events. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs may not want to schedule events but there are other
countries and agencies, with which they deal with, do so the
Foreign Office(FO) has to prepare to participate in conferences
and forums where they are invited. That is not to say that there
is no work being done at the Foreign Office-certainly, people go
to their offices, where their superiors ask for reports and
briefs on issues they are confronted with but the citizenry’s
concern is with what results are yielded by the activities that
take place at the FO. To be fair to the FO, they have not been
allowed to play their due role in using diplomacy as an element
of national power. The civilian governments have been guilty of
apathy towards them while the military ones have tended to
disregard their advice or not felt the need to seek any. Thus,
the blame for the lack of effectiveness of our foreign policy
lies with political leadership- both civil and military- of
Pakistan.
Our foreign friends think that we are obsessed with India and
need to ‘normalize’ relations with them. Till recently we were,
in fact, obsessed with external security matters and India has
been, and continues to be, the main actor in the region, yet we
continued to behave in a reactive manner. Three discernible
strands of our policy were to: seek a solution of the Kashmir
problem, secure peace with all our neighbours and enhance trade
with them for the benefit of our people. Since India dominates
the sub-continent with its physical size, population and
economic strength, no progress can be achieved without arriving
at an arrangement of peaceful and good-neighbourly co-existence.
The Indian leadership and public opinion thinks that the
settlement of the Kashmir Issue, according to the wishes of the
Kashmiri and Pakistani people, is an insurmountable hurdle in
the way of Pakistan- India friendship or even absence-of-
hostility. The two countries consistently keep accusing each
other of interfering in their internal affairs.
As a nation, we are fond of believing that the whole world is
against us and that conspiracies are continuously hatched to
keep us unstable politically and economically and to deny us
what may be rightfully ours. Historians have given a name to
such activities and efforts i.e. the ‘great game(s)’. They have
been a constant of the march of history. Through millennia,
nations have considered political and economic gain or influence
to be a zero sum game. One’s own loss is the competitor’s gain
and vice versa. To get an advantage, requires will, competence,
diligence and persistence and unfortunately, our governments
have proven that we don’t have these qualities in abundance. The
other missing link is the absence of nationally-agreed vision
and objectives. Thus, without this foundation a superstructure
of a nation cannot be built. Policy-making and surviving in a
competitive world are, therefore daunting challenges for us.
Returning to the subject, what are the major planks of our
policy vis-a-vis India? What is apparent is the policy basket
called ‘composite dialogue’. The intent of this approach was to
avoid fixation with ‘an’ issue but to progressively resolve
those ones which are less intractable. In reality, it has meant
playing at the periphery without ever coming to the core of the
problem(s). The process is so cumbersome that while the effort
was to solve the Sir Creek and Siachen issues, new problems of
Wullar barrage and Kishanganga dam have been added to the list.
Then there are additional speed-breakers along the road to
reconciliation. There was Kargil, the assault on Indian
Parliament, the Samjhota Express deaths, and the Mumbai
massacre. Pakistan has now raised, belatedly, the case of Indian
support for the militancy and insurgency in Swat and FATA
regions of Pakistan. So the quest for peace and settlement of
outstanding issues has degenerated into holding talks about what
talks can be held, if at all.
It is of course foolish to expect the Indians to yield space or
cede ground voluntarily, but what is consternating is the
helplessness and desperation shown by our successive governments
by begging India, for talks, and the Friends of Pakistan, to
intervene on our behalf and coax India to come to the
negotiating table. Our policy-makers surely know the realities
of power. Will a stronger country yield and give up territory to
another country? Is there a hope of getting more of Kashmir than
what we already have? Will our public be ready to accept
something less than what we have of Kashmir? Is time on our side
or that of our adversary? Does Pakistan need more people and
territory when it cannot take care of what it already has?
Shouldn’t we maintain our dignity by not begging for talks? And
finally, is the situation hopeless? I am sure that the FO has
considered these questions and formulated a policy based on the
answers that they may have come up with. Begging India for a
composite dialogue is definitely not a good policy or strategy.
For Pakistan to be able to negotiate fruitfully, it has to
demonstrate that it is a functioning country with a Govt in
control. That does not seem to be the case at the present time,
consequently the disdainful attitude adopted by the Indian Govt.
Negotiations and dialogues are always successful from a position
of strength. Strength, however, does not come from the size and
population of a country but by the collective output of these
two elements of national power. Our human resource is good but
the political, social and the economic system does not enable it
to be as productive as it can be. Isolated successes in the
nuclear and missile technology domain or the odd success on the
cricket field are not the standards by which we should judge our
successes. In the case of the former, it has been achieved at an
exorbitant cost and in the case of the latter, an occasional and
rare professional performance by our team combined with the
failure of the competitors, were responsible for the success. On
the internet, one receives mails from optimistic individuals
about how beautiful and successful Pakistan is but
unfortunately, all those photos are either of our scenic
northern areas which we neither created, nor developed them to
make them a tourist attraction or a money earner, or of
colonial- and Mughal-era architecture, which again we inherited.
One is almost ashamed of the hoardings that adorn our
Constitution and Jinnah Avenues in Islamabad, as they just show
some artisan working on his handicraft or his final product and
that is supposed to be our window to the world after 62 years of
our existence. Yes , in the recent past we have created some
good road infrastructure but that was because there was money to
be spent(easily by the Govt) and made(easily, again by connected
individuals), while a more sensible solution would have been to
create and run a dependable public transport system to reduce
congestion on urban roads, but the latter solution required
painstaking planning, administering and execution, which would
have stretched beyond the tenure of office of the incumbent
office holders, who would not have gained from the benefits of
such decision-making.
The point that is being made is that a government that is not
responsive (to the needs of the people) and accountable (to
them), will never be effective and would remain weak at any
negotiating platform. Thus, we should first sort out our other
problems with the right prioritization and then think of solving
the Kashmir issue. From a position of weakness, we have been
continuously ceding ground and concessions to the Indians while
they have not shown a corresponding or proportional flexibility.
Whatever we have, we can do a lot with it for the betterment of
our people. Once we are able to give to our people a per capita
income and a standard of living higher than that of the average
Indian, we would have a case for the people of Indian Held
Kashmir wanting to unite with Pakistan. That can come about only
as result of good governance and by getting good value for
budgetary resources expended on development and social services’
schemes. As long as the largesse of the state is doled out to a
few on the basis of political affiliations, we would continue to
alienate the large majority of citizens who find themselves on
the wrong side of the political divide and without hope.
Consequently, we seem to be failing both on the internal and
external front.
Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat,
Islamabad.
03 May 10