Daily Times - COMMENT: Indian matters —Munir Attaullah
Why do I feel the need to write another short column on a subject as simple as what our policy towards India should be? Why should I reiterate views that I have so often expressed before in these columns?
It is because most of the statements made by our officials, politicians and media pundits, before and after the recent visit of our foreign secretary to India, tell me that our mainstream thinking on this vital subject largely remains as stale and outmoded as ever.
That is, therefore, a good enough reason to look again at matters in a logical and clear-headed manner, rather than through spectacles whose lenses are clouded by a wishful or ideological tint. To enlist a colourful expression, we need to wake up and smell the coffee.
I am not that arrogant to assume I am a one-man think tank. I have my views, yes, but it is a great pity there is no formal forum or mechanism where their validity and utility can be publicly tested through intensive debate. The absence of such institutionalised, detailed policy input that should guide the political constituency is a crippling shortcoming of our fragile democracy.
Why? Because, while our political leaders, having not a clearly worked out policy to guide them, flounder and take refuge in vague generalisations and platitudes, the army, through a considered, clear-cut, and well enunciated policy, long ago seized complete charge of our foreign policy. As long as that situation persists (and it still does), the principle of civilian control over the armed forces — the bedrock of democracy — will remain in abeyance.
And the common experience of mankind tells us there is a wide gulf between the mindset of an army and that of a political leader. Normally, a country’s foreign policy is firmly rooted in its domestic political compulsions. We seem to have got it the other way round: our foreign policy has been the convenient excuse for seizing and maintaining control of the levers of power, and driving domestic policy.
The ugly and devastating consequences of those adventuresome policies are now writ large for all to see. And yet, even now, we remain hesitant to make a clean break from the past and think in modern terms. Thus, we still believe in the need to continue investing huge sums in our defence capabilities. We continue to reiterate the mantra of Kashmir being the ‘core’ issue that must be resolved first before any headway can be made in any other direction. And we have now given a new twist to this mantra by linking it to the issue of water. Finally, we are alarmed at the diplomatic headway India has made in Afghanistan at our expense. Is Afghanistan not supposed to be our legitimate sphere of influence?
In my opinion, all these basic assumptions are fundamentally fallacious and need to be reconsidered. Start with defence expenditure. Only those who live in their own mad ideological world now believe that India is still not reconciled to the existential fact that is Pakistan. Did not even Mr Vajpayee, the head of a BJP government, declare as much at the Minar-e-Pakistan? There is no possibility whatsoever of India attacking us, unless severely provoked by us first.
So why do we need to continue pouring billions into defence? Especially when we are simultaneously told that our nuclear capabilities now make our defence ‘impregnable’? The latest plausible-sounding answer is that “threat perceptions are based not on intent but on capability”. If so, then should not the doctrine equally apply vis-à-vis our neighbour, China (and even the US). Does it?
The fact is, perceived intentions are all important. And wars are started by those powers intent on shaking up the status quo (Pakistan) rather than those (like India) quite content with not disturbing it. It may be an unpalatable truth for us to swallow, but the fact is we are now little more than a bloody nuisance as far as India is concerned. All India really wants from us are security assurances and little more. We, on the other hand, have much to gain on all sorts of fronts from peace.
But we do not want to leave India alone and let it live in peace. Not unless the Kashmir problem is solved to our satisfaction. However, is it not time we understood that all such attempts to ‘force’ India to the negotiating table and do our bidding have failed, and have little chance of succeeding in the future either? For, the reality today is not that solving the Kashmir problem is the prerequisite to peace and normalisation between India and Pakistan. It is the other way round. Once we have accepted that the old territorial basis of the dispute is now so much history, and that the real issue is the welfare of the Kashmiri people, then that will best be achieved slowly after we stop our cold war.
The latest twist to keeping the cold war going is to insinuate that India is somehow responsible for our water shortages. The fact is that, for better or worse, the rights (and duties) of both countries to the waters of the Indus and its tributaries are governed in detail by the Indus Water Treaty. As far as I know, whatever India has done in 50 years, or plans to do, is not in serious violation of the terms of the treaty in any significant way. If we foresee a serious shortage ahead, is the real reason not that India is stealing our water but our own inability to make a proper and full use of our share of the resources?
To adopt a hardline posture and to insist that there is little point in talks unless there is a formal agenda of a full and composite dialogue is a self-defeating exercise. Even talking for the sake of talking is worth pursuing. For, the onus is on us to break the logjam. And it is Pakistan far more than India who has real future possible gains at stake. So let us not continue to deceive ourselves that we hold some powerful cards (apart from the threat of mayhem) that will ensure our wishes will eventually bear fruit.
The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com
Why do I feel the need to write another short column on a subject as simple as what our policy towards India should be? Why should I reiterate views that I have so often expressed before in these columns?
It is because most of the statements made by our officials, politicians and media pundits, before and after the recent visit of our foreign secretary to India, tell me that our mainstream thinking on this vital subject largely remains as stale and outmoded as ever.
That is, therefore, a good enough reason to look again at matters in a logical and clear-headed manner, rather than through spectacles whose lenses are clouded by a wishful or ideological tint. To enlist a colourful expression, we need to wake up and smell the coffee.
I am not that arrogant to assume I am a one-man think tank. I have my views, yes, but it is a great pity there is no formal forum or mechanism where their validity and utility can be publicly tested through intensive debate. The absence of such institutionalised, detailed policy input that should guide the political constituency is a crippling shortcoming of our fragile democracy.
Why? Because, while our political leaders, having not a clearly worked out policy to guide them, flounder and take refuge in vague generalisations and platitudes, the army, through a considered, clear-cut, and well enunciated policy, long ago seized complete charge of our foreign policy. As long as that situation persists (and it still does), the principle of civilian control over the armed forces — the bedrock of democracy — will remain in abeyance.
And the common experience of mankind tells us there is a wide gulf between the mindset of an army and that of a political leader. Normally, a country’s foreign policy is firmly rooted in its domestic political compulsions. We seem to have got it the other way round: our foreign policy has been the convenient excuse for seizing and maintaining control of the levers of power, and driving domestic policy.
The ugly and devastating consequences of those adventuresome policies are now writ large for all to see. And yet, even now, we remain hesitant to make a clean break from the past and think in modern terms. Thus, we still believe in the need to continue investing huge sums in our defence capabilities. We continue to reiterate the mantra of Kashmir being the ‘core’ issue that must be resolved first before any headway can be made in any other direction. And we have now given a new twist to this mantra by linking it to the issue of water. Finally, we are alarmed at the diplomatic headway India has made in Afghanistan at our expense. Is Afghanistan not supposed to be our legitimate sphere of influence?
In my opinion, all these basic assumptions are fundamentally fallacious and need to be reconsidered. Start with defence expenditure. Only those who live in their own mad ideological world now believe that India is still not reconciled to the existential fact that is Pakistan. Did not even Mr Vajpayee, the head of a BJP government, declare as much at the Minar-e-Pakistan? There is no possibility whatsoever of India attacking us, unless severely provoked by us first.
So why do we need to continue pouring billions into defence? Especially when we are simultaneously told that our nuclear capabilities now make our defence ‘impregnable’? The latest plausible-sounding answer is that “threat perceptions are based not on intent but on capability”. If so, then should not the doctrine equally apply vis-à-vis our neighbour, China (and even the US). Does it?
The fact is, perceived intentions are all important. And wars are started by those powers intent on shaking up the status quo (Pakistan) rather than those (like India) quite content with not disturbing it. It may be an unpalatable truth for us to swallow, but the fact is we are now little more than a bloody nuisance as far as India is concerned. All India really wants from us are security assurances and little more. We, on the other hand, have much to gain on all sorts of fronts from peace.
But we do not want to leave India alone and let it live in peace. Not unless the Kashmir problem is solved to our satisfaction. However, is it not time we understood that all such attempts to ‘force’ India to the negotiating table and do our bidding have failed, and have little chance of succeeding in the future either? For, the reality today is not that solving the Kashmir problem is the prerequisite to peace and normalisation between India and Pakistan. It is the other way round. Once we have accepted that the old territorial basis of the dispute is now so much history, and that the real issue is the welfare of the Kashmiri people, then that will best be achieved slowly after we stop our cold war.
The latest twist to keeping the cold war going is to insinuate that India is somehow responsible for our water shortages. The fact is that, for better or worse, the rights (and duties) of both countries to the waters of the Indus and its tributaries are governed in detail by the Indus Water Treaty. As far as I know, whatever India has done in 50 years, or plans to do, is not in serious violation of the terms of the treaty in any significant way. If we foresee a serious shortage ahead, is the real reason not that India is stealing our water but our own inability to make a proper and full use of our share of the resources?
To adopt a hardline posture and to insist that there is little point in talks unless there is a formal agenda of a full and composite dialogue is a self-defeating exercise. Even talking for the sake of talking is worth pursuing. For, the onus is on us to break the logjam. And it is Pakistan far more than India who has real future possible gains at stake. So let us not continue to deceive ourselves that we hold some powerful cards (apart from the threat of mayhem) that will ensure our wishes will eventually bear fruit.
The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com
