India, Pakistan locked in their animosities

[jeypore]

Thinking outside the box



By Shandana Khan Mohmand


IF there is anything that the Mumbai terror attacks have made clear, it is that it’s time to think outside the box.

The manner in which we in Pakistan have thought, spoken and acted so far has led us here. If we want to move away from this spot, the same conventional thought process and attitude is no longer going to work. A dramatic shift is now required in the way we perceive our region and conceive our identity.

First: we need to be less defensive. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is the fact that it simply makes us look stupid. It is one thing to insist that you need more evidence in order to initiate action. It is quite another to question each piece of mounting evidence, especially in the face of a general popular acceptance of the fact that there are organisations here in Pakistan that openly purport the ideology that they are being accused of, about which we choose to do little.

Imagine this: a Pakistani organisation is so implicated in such activities that the United Nations actually sees fit to declare it a terrorist organisation, but we sit around and let it operate freely and openly until we get news of this declaration, at which point we spring into action.

What were we thinking until now? The banners hanging from most lamp-posts in Lahore for the last few weeks, asking people to contribute their “qurbani hides” to the organisation should demonstrate well the unfettered operations that this group enjoyed.

Being defensive, however, may be a hard behavioural trait to alter because it is firmly embedded even in our everyday social interactions. Mohammad Hanif , the brilliant author of A Case of Exploding Mangoes made a fantastic reference in a BBC article to “that uncle that you get stranded with at a family gathering when everybody else has gone to sleep but there is still some whisky left in the bottle” in describing Musharraf’s behaviour when he announced his coup against himself last year.

Taking this analogy further, this quintessentially Pakistani uncle has two other very familiar traits. One, he is extremely defensive about every one of his own identities — nationality, religion, sect, class, career — and has a deep distrust of all those who inhabit the realm of the “other”. And two, he resolutely believes that the only verification any fact needs is for it to be emitting from his mouth. Musharraf suffered heavily from this delusion, but so do so many of our other uncles, those in our homes, those at our parties, and those currently issuing statements on TV.

Second, we need to stop acting in a merely reactionary manner. The “if they were in our place they would have behaved in the same way” attitude isn’t going to get us very far. Many of us tried to point that out to the Pakistani government all the way back in May 1998 when India first tested its nuclear bomb.

Our government thought for about two weeks and then chose to act in exactly the same way, rather than to secure its position on the moral high horse by backing away from such childish tit-for-tat arguments and games.

Our ‘outside-the-box’ collective thinking now needs to demonstrate that though it may be true that if some other country had been in our position they may have acted with misguided nationalist bravado, we are capable of acting differently, not because it is demanded or expected of us, but because this is the right thing to do and because we take such terrorist attacks very seriously, both at home and abroad. The moral high horse may be the only thing that Pakistan can have going for it right now, and yet, even that is being squandered away by the defensiveness of those who claim to speak on its behalf.

Third, Pakistan needs to accept a very harsh reality — it is not the equal of India, and the belief that we can be compared has stunted our development no end. We cannot win a war against it, we cannot compare the instability of our political system to the stability of theirs, we cannot hope to compete economically with what is a booming economy well on its way to becoming a global economic power, and we certainly cannot compare the conservativeness of our society to the open pluralism of their everyday life.

Accepting these realities may allow Pakistan to give up its nationalistic bravado and posturing, and may actually allow it to accept its more realistic role in this region — one that requires that it live in peace with India, that it not unnecessarily provoke its wrath and that it understands that its most beneficial economic strategy would be to get in on the boom next door.

For that we need to think outside the box — outside the box of the two-nation theory, outside the box of the violence of 1947, and outside the box of the ill-conceived wars of the last six decades.

The writer is a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

DAWN - Opinion; January 10, 2009

 

[salman nedian]

Thinking yourself as equal to others is a natural phenomena. A person who doesn’t think that he is equal to others is in some sort of inferiority complex. By thinking that we are equal to others we can progress and by accepting that we cannot compete with others is a loser’s mentality.

Forgetting Two-Nation theory means abusing your parents and denying your existence and we simply can’t do this. Indians should stick to their ideology and we should not leave ours.

 

[paritosh]

Thinking yourself as equal to others is a natural phenomena. A person who doesn’t think that he is equal to others is in some sort of inferiority complex. By thinking that we are equal to others we can progress and by accepting that we cannot compete with others is a loser’s mentality.

Forgetting Two-Nation theory means abusing your parents and denying your existence and we simply can’t do this. Indians should stick to their ideology and we should not leave ours.

well that is THE second argument and equally valid and the reason why we keep flexing muscles.Human ego has no bounds.It's not even considering yourself equal...at times i notice that many pakistanis suffer from acute superiority complex...when compared to India.The "being racially supreme" notion does exist in the Pakistani mentality....as i have seen.I know that many Indian forums abuse paksitan and are full of rubbish...but the pakistani forums often have pakistani members talking about their racial supremacy.It is a reflex action to a reality where your enemy is a much bigger and a richer state...your ego won't allow you to take a step back.I often hear things like 1 pakistani =10 'lalas'......that pakistanis are gifted aviators...and hindus are zionists...and what not.

 

[Hutchroy]

Thinking yourself as equal to others is a natural phenomena. A person who doesn’t think that he is equal to others is in some sort of inferiority complex. By thinking that we are equal to others we can progress and by accepting that we cannot compete with others is a loser’s mentality.

Forgetting Two-Nation theory means abusing your parents and denying your existence and we simply can’t do this. Indians should stick to their ideology and we should not leave ours.

We are all equal as individuals but as Groups or Nations we cannot become Equal to another Group – Nation who might be Four or Five times the size ofour Group-Nation.

Here is an Article by an author who is a retired Pakistani ambassador having served 35 years in active diplomacy in Algeria , Mali , Mauritania , Kuwait , Iraq , Turkey , China and Macedonia :

Time to be pragmatic in relations with India - Karamatullah K. Ghori

THE carefully choreographed and well-televised July 16 meeting between Prime Minsters Gilani and Manmohan Singh, on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Summit, at Sharm-al Sheikh was a landmark encounter in more ways than one.

For one, its sheer timing was superbly calibrated to send a loud and clear signal to a watchful world, tense since last November’s mayhem in Mumbai, that the two arch-rivals and neighbours were intent on turning a corner. To a world already saddled with the prickly issue of combating the global menace of terrorism, an India-Pakistan stand-off could only add to nervous tension. There were howls of concern, mostly knee-jerk, in the wake of Mumbai that the two nuclear-armed states were that close to triggering a nuclear holocaust.

For another, the two leaders seemed alive to the need of not letting the plethora of their complicated relations remain mired in the bog of one over-arching issue; Kashmir, in the case of Pakistan, and terrorism, in that of India. The joint communiqué issued at the end of the meeting was quite categorical that the two countries will not allow the broad-spectrum of their relations become hostage to terrorism.

Manmohan Singh’s readiness to not impale the broad range of India-Pakistan relations on the nettlesome stake of terrorism instantly became a cause célèbre for those pundits of the news media and intelligentsia feeling uneasy at the prospect of détente between traditional and hostile rivals. They went to town angrily remonstrating and protesting that Manmohan had squandered the chips in his hands for nothing in return from his interlocutor. But these shrieks of angst were largely an expression of innate enmity against Pakistan than anything else. Manmohan Singh showed great maturity in refusing to remain a prisoner to the chimera of terrorism.

To the Pakistani pundits, it was a refreshing sight to see PM Gilani in the limelight of global attention. They have been worried about Gilani being regularly overshadowed by President Zardari on the global stage. Their concerns have a legitimacy of their own. Zardari has been sidelining Gilani in foreign affairs, a domain belonging to the PM under the constitution.

Gilani is also a better choice for putting a new accent on relations with India . Soft-spoken and unassuming, just like his Indian opposite number, the two of them make an ideal pair to tackle the daunting task of repairing their badly bruised relations. Temperament of the interlocutors plays a crucial role in tackling tough issues and a suave Gilani steals a huge march over Zardari, who, no matter how unctuous he may look, still can’t hide his rough edges. Gilani’s image of a Mr Clean is a blessing compared to the smirks the very mention of Zardari’s name spawns, universally.

However, the elephant in the room at the meeting between Gilani and Manmohan was the US , which undoubtedly played the role of a great facilitator.

There is no secret in Washington being overly concerned with the dipping curve of relations between Delhi and Islamabad as a consequence of the Mumbai melodrama. It’s not altruistic, for sure. The Obama administration has put Afghanistan on the front burner of its global concern and priority. And Afghanistan ’s chestnut can’t be pulled out of the fire without Pakistan ’s help. And for Pakistan to be properly prodded into focusing its primary attention on Afghanistan it’s ineluctable that its concerns about India and Indian intentions be put at rest. Hence the unavoidable need to iron out as many kinks from India-Pakistan relations as possible.

That Manmohan Singh relented on taking the sting on terrorism out of the main agenda in relations with Pakistan speaks volumes of the success of US diplomacy. Ever since Obama has entered the White House, his minions have been at work behind the scene to lower the temperature in both Islamabad and Delhi . One of Hillary Clinton’s team of whiz kids at the State Department, William Burns, has spent a considerable time and effort in Delhi to convince the Indian mandarins of the logic that Pakistan could never be expected to put its heart, with singular concern, into combating the menace of Al Qaeda and the Taliban unless it felt its back secure against India. The super-charged and emotionally unstable ambience had to be cooled and the Obama-Clinton team focused on reaching that target.

The Pakistanis may feel impelled — for entirely home-consumption — to congratulate themselves that they managed to pin down Manmohan on the Indian RAW provocatively bankrolling the Balochistan Liberation Movement and also larding its arsenal with weapons. The Americans have also been conscious of these Indian shenanigans in the Karzai-ruled Afghanistan where Indian consulates have mushroomed since the Taliban were ousted. These consulates have been up to their eye-balls doing everything other than consular work, according to independent think tanks in the US . Pakistan has had a genuine concern about the nefarious activities of these Indian spy dens focused on de-stabilising Pakistan .

But notwithstanding the self-serving concern in both Delhi and Islamabad to score Brownie points with an eye on domestic audience the importance to both countries of combating terrorism in all its forms cannot be over-emphasised. And that was the main effort apparently invested by both PMs at Sharm al-Sheikh. That Manmohan Singh realises the gravity of the matter much more than BJP chauvinists — to whom Pakistan is the sole villain responsible for everything going wrong in India — or narcissistic gurus of the Indian intelligentsia to whom Pakistan is much too fossilised to be taken seriously as an equal interlocutor, is a measure of his sagacity and political savvy, for which PM Gilani’s cabinet has, rightly, complimented him.

The obvious message out of Sharm al-Sheikh is that American effort in calibrating — if not exactly choreographing — a new culture of soft diplomacy between India and Pakistan — otherwise, usually, given to rambunctious and loud-mouthed rhetoric — is making inroads into India-Pakistan relations. That should be welcome to both long-estranged, neighbours, albeit Washington ’s own stake in the new chessboard is quite noticeable.

Prime Minister Gilani has, no doubt, added a feather in his cap by being seen as an equal to his Indian counterpart at what deserves to be hailed as a watershed meeting. But Pakistan, while claiming kudos for standing firm on issues concerning the Indian-abetted threat to its security from terrorists in Afghanistan, needs, and needs most urgently, to review and revamp its entire culture of dealing with India.

It has gone on for far too long that Pakistan has adamantly insisted that it be treated at par with India by the outside world, especially by the West where Pakistan has invested the bulk of its diplomatic effort over the past more than half a century. The West, especially the US , which has always had a special place in Pakistan ’s foreign policy orientation, obliged us on this account only because its Cold War interests were better served by taking a hyphenated approach to its relations with the two biggies of South Asia .

But the Cold War has long been dead and with it Washington ’s interest in our part of the world has taken on different colours altogether. Pakistan is no longer in India’s league in Washington’s calculus, or that of any other country in the world. The twains are no longer on the same page with anyone. India is seen as a progressive and truly democratic country while Pakistan is unable to cast off its caricature of a violence-prone, military-dominated, feudal society with only pale pretensions of being democratic.

Let us accept the harsh reality that we aren’t the equals of India. We are a middling state compared to an India entitled, on the strength of its potentials, to becoming a world class power. Accepting one’s limitations isn’t something to be ashamed of. Our insistence on parity with India has only spawned an elitist culture in which the privileged and the powerful have thrived while the masses have suffered. The end of this obsession is the prerequisite for transforming the overall atmospherics in South Asia.

A new and pragmatic basis of relations with India will not only take the induced heat out of the equation but actually result in the empowerment of the people. A democratic culture, something we should be importing as an item of priority from India, would bring down the elite to the ground level and raise the people to the status they should rightly deserve in a democratic polity.

Engaging India against this new perspective will release latent forces that have not been allowed, to date, to come into play. A new, out-of-the-box thinking on relations with India will be the first step in a journey of thousand miles, which ought to commence now when the Pakistani people are hankering for a new dawn of democracy and an open and democratic society where their voice and interests would reign supreme.

K_K_ghori@yahoo.com

 

[cyberdyne]

A common man both in India and Pakistan doesn't really like a war bcoz both PAK and India are developing countries and war is only counter productive.The only thing which i don't like are the stupid opposition politicians who in order to gain image in their respective countries try to criticize the ruling coalition for the peace talks.I am glad that a stable and a democratic govt in PAK has come into force which essential to maintain peace in the region.The author's note on the UN banned organistaions operating in PAK shows that PAK elite are able to understand the ground situation and I hope that leadership of Mr.Gilani and Singh will bring an everlasting peace.

 

[Hutchroy]

Why Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir

By Amulya Ganguli

If Pakistan cannot envisage 'long-lasting peace' with India unless the Kashmir problem is solved, as the country's Foreign Secretary Abdul Basit has said, the reason has less to do with its concern for the 'wishes of the (Kashmiri) people' than with the question of Pakistan's own survival as a nation.

Having already lost East Pakistan that became Bangladesh in 1971, the ruling establishment in Islamabad is scared of allowing Kashmir to slip out of its grasp as well. Hence, the persistent attempts to foment subversion in the valley and also organise large-scale incursions by both the mujahideen and the army, as in Kargil.

The jehadi attacks on the Indian parliament in 2001 and in Mumbai in 2008, apart from random acts of terrorism, are also intended to weaken India so that it will become easier to wrest Kashmir from it.

The fear in Islamabad is that if India succeeds in holding on to Kashmir, then Pakistan will slowly start unravelling. The reason is that, first, a "long-lasting peace" based on the fading of hopes of securing Kashmir will undermine the army's dominance over Pakistan. If India is no longer seen as a major military threat, the army will lose its raison d'etre.

But the second reason is more potent. Pakistan had expected to make up for the loss of its eastern wing by annexing Kashmir. It would have been a great morale booster for a country which has always been paranoid about coming second to India, whether in cricket or in diplomacy.

The inability to make any headway in Kashmir will confirm the present-day reality that Pakistan can no longer claim parity with India. The earlier hyphenation, encouraged by America, is gone. India has forged ahead as a vibrant multicultural democracy while Pakistan is seen as the nursery of Islamic terror.

Not only that, it is also perceived to be coming apart at the seams with the army having to use helicopter gunships to retain control over its north-west while Balochistan is in the grip of an insurgency with or without India's help. It is worth recalling that even the religious extremists of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in the north-west had pointed out during their conflict with the Pakistan Army that India has never used helicopters to control the unrest in Kashmir. The difference between a democracy and a virtual military dictatorship was evident even to the fundamentalists.

There are other causes of disquiet in the Pakistani establishment. It is that a "long-lasting" peace will enable India to exercise its "soft" power via its cultural influence, of which the most overwhelming will be Bollywood movies and Hindi film songs.

There is a revealing passage in Pakistani author Mohammed Hanif's book, "A Case of Exploding Mangoes", on General Zia-ul Haq's death, in which the hero (or anti-hero), Ali Shigri, is travelling in a car driven by Major Kiyani of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The latter "reaches into his glove compartment", the passage says, "and starts rummaging for a tape. 'Asha or Lata', he asks". It may be mentioned that General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani headed ISI before he became Pakistan's army chief.

Since the two-nation theory was based on exploiting supposed Hindu-Muslim incompatibility, Pakistan's efforts throughout its history of six decades have been to assert its distinctive identity. It is for this purpose that it designated itself as an Islamic republic despite Jinnah's obvious preference for a secular state, as outlined in his Aug 11, 1947, speech.

Any resolution of the Kashmir problem on India's terms will mean that the widely admired Indian secularism will influence Pakistani society. The result will be a curbing of the excessive emphasis on religion, which was encouraged by General Zia, leading to the emergence of extremist groups.

As suspected by India, the clandestine links between the army and these elements have helped the latter to thrive since the military regards them as "strategic assets" in the event of a war with India. The removal of the Kashmir issue from the India-Pakistan equation will mean that the militant fundamentalists will be orphaned by the withdrawal of support from the army.

In addition to secular concepts, Indian democracy is also likely to act as an inspirational model for Pakistan. Its experiments with the system haven't been successful till now because of the army's frequent interventions and its overpowering presence based on the exploitation of the anti-Indian bogey. The army's return to the barracks will boost democracy.

No one can say how real is the Pakistani fear of Indian (read Hindu) cultural dominance because the two communities lived side by side for centuries before the partition of 1947 and still do in India. As is obvious from the sub-continent's past history and India's present experience, the identities of neither have been diluted-as they haven't been in the cases of other minorities in India such as the Sikhs or the Christians or even a minuscule one like the Parsis.

In all likelihood, therefore, it is the roots of the composite culture for which South Asia has long been known which will be further strengthened.

(8.8.2009-Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached at aganguli@mail.com)

 

[maverick2009]

I CAN,T SEE much change in South Asia with regards India V Pakistan.

The Stronger the Indian Industrial might gets the bigger the GDP gap. between the 2 nations.

In turn the greater Political economic and military threat to Pakistan will keep getting greater.

 

[Spitfighter]

^^ That may be true, but I think eventually there will be a resolution. The threat from Pakistan is fading. Once we resolve our core disputes it won't take long for the situation to improve. Doing so now may come back to haunt us later, I'd rather India stonewall for another 5 years before moving towards reconciliation.

 

[Cholan]

Excellent Asim., very sensible and realistic post., I am glad i joined this forum and read this topic

 

[syeda rehman]

right asim

 

[luoshan]

India Befriends Afghanistan, Irking Pakistan

With $1.2 Billion in Pledged Aid, New Delhi Hopes to Help Build a Country That Is 'Stable, Democratic, Multiethnic'

By PETER WONACOTT

KABUL -- After shunning Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, India has become a major donor and new friend to the country's democratic government -- even if its growing presence here riles archrival Pakistan.

From wells and toilets to power plants and satellite transmitters, India is seeding Afghanistan with a vast array of projects. The $1.2 billion in pledged assistance includes projects both vital to Afghanistan's economy, such as a completed road link to Iran's border, and symbolic of its democratic aspirations, such as the construction of a new parliament building in Kabul. The Indian government is also paying to bring scores of bureaucrats to India, as it cultivates a new generation of Afghan officialdom.

India's aid has elevated it to Afghanistan's top tier of donors. In terms of pledged donations through 2013, India now ranks fifth behind the U.S., U.K., Japan and Canada, according to the Afghanistan government. Pakistan doesn't rank in the top 10.

Afghanistan is now the second-largest recipient of Indian aid after Bhutan. "We are here for the same reason the U.S. and others are here -- to see a stable, democratic, multiethnic Afghanistan," Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Jayant Prasad said in an interview.

Such a future for Afghanistan is hardly assured, as the run-up to Thursday's presidential election shows. On Tuesday, a pair of mortar shells hit near the presidential palace in Kabul while Taliban insurgents attacked polling stations across the country, as part of wave of violence aimed at preventing people from casting ballots in the election.

Despite backing the Taliban in the past, Pakistan doesn't want to see an anarchic Afghanistan, say Pakistani security analysts.

"Pakistan is doing nothing to thwart the elections in Afghanistan and everything to help Afghanistan stabilize and have a truly representative government," says Gen. Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's former ambassador to the U.S. and a retired army chief.

Yet India's largess has stirred concern in Pakistan, a country situated between Afghanistan and India that has seen its influence in Afghanistan wane following the collapse of the Taliban regime. At the heart of the tensions is the shared fear that Afghanistan could be used by one to destabilize the other.

"We recognize that Afghanistan needs development assistance from every possible source to address the daunting challenges it is facing. We have no issue with that," says Pakistani foreign-ministry spokesman Abdul Basit. "What Pakistan is looking for is strict adherence to the principle of noninterference."

View Full Image

Reuters
India is seeding Afghanistan with a vast array of projects such as a completed road link to Iran's border and the construction of a new parliament building in Kabul. A view of the city, above.
The two countries have sparred repeatedly about each other's activities in Afghanistan. Indian officials say their Pakistani counterparts have claimed that there are more than the official four Indian consulates in Afghanistan, and that they support an extensive Indian spy network. For years, Pakistan refused to allow overland shipment of fortified wheat biscuits from India to feed two million Afghan schoolchildren. India instead had to ship the biscuits through Iran, driving up costs for the program.

The World Food Program, which administers the shipments, said the Pakistan government gave its approval for overland shipment in 2008 -- six years after the first delivery from India. "Why did it take six years ... is something that WFP cannot answer," a spokesman for the aid organization said. "However, we are indeed thankful to the government of Pakistan for allowing transit for the fortified biscuits."

Mr. Basit, the foreign-ministry spokesman, didn't respond to a question about the Indian food assistance.

India's aid has extended well beyond physical infrastructure to the training of accountants and economists. For a nation devastated by decades of war, these soft skills fill a hole, says Noorullah Delawari, Afghanistan's former central-bank governor and now head of Afghanistan Investment Support Agency, an organization that promotes private enterprise. "The country shut down for 20 years," he said. "We stopped producing educated people to run our businesses and government offices."

Some believe there is room for cooperation between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan since both countries share an abiding interest in its stability. "The opportunity is there," says Gen. Karamat, "if we can get out of the straitjacket of the past."

—Matthew Rosenberg contributed to this article.

 

[humblehobbes]

Pakistan policy: Sharm-el-Sheikh and after

Amitabh Mattoo

It is important to recall Jinnah’s original design for Pakistan: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. And it is this Pakistan that an Indian strategy must work towards constructing.

It has been clear for some years now that India is unable to fully comprehend or address the complexities of a changing Pakistan. Not surprisingly, New Delhi’s policies have floundered, if not failed. Strident debates in the Indian media — frightening in their Manichaean simplicity — reflect a lack of appreciation of the intricacies of the Gordian knot of bilateral relations. Unlike much of the establishment, however, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — by pinning Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh and then by warning the Chief Ministers of Indian states of the dangers of a terrorist attack from Pakistan-based groups — may have addressed part of the core problem: there are multiple Pakistans all of which demand Indian attention. Robust if differentiated, focussed but flexible, multitrack responses must now define India’s policy towards Pakistan’s fragile and fragmented political and social structure.

Not only the deep cleavages within Pakistan’s society but also — surprisingly — the overwhelming popular desire now for better relations with India are revealed in two recent surveys of public opinion in that country, conducted by Gallup Pakistan and by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project which included 24 countries (including Pakistan) and the Palestinian territories. The findings should also serve as a warning to New Delhi of the dangers of “outsourcing” its Pakistan policy to Washington.

Three findings from both surveys stand out. First, as expected, is the high level of anti-Americanism among the Pakistanis. In the Pew survey, 68 per cent of the respondents have expressed a negative opinion of the U.S. Only 16 per cent have a positive view, and 64 per cent consider the U.S. more an enemy than a friend. American President Barack Obama receives the lowest ratings in Pakistan among all 25 nations surveyed as part of the Pew project. The Gallup Poll too reveals the all pervasive nature of Pakistani sentiment against the U.S. Fifty-nine per cent consider the U.S. the greatest threat to the country. Not surprisingly, American policy in Afghanistan receives very little support.

Secondly, both surveys suggest that there is a strong public desire for better relations with India even among those sections which consider their eastern neighbour a major threat. The Gallup Survey suggests that only 18 per cent consider India the greatest threat, and interestingly the figure is the highest among those likely to vote for either the MQM or the ANP and lowest among Sindhi speakers. Women are more likely to be anti-American than anti-India. According to the Pew survey, 69 per cent of the respondents do consider India a major threat, but two-thirds believe it is important for relations between Islamabad and New Delhi to improve. Over a third of those polled believe that having good relations with India is very important. Apprehensions about India are the highest in Punjab, where 70 per cent cite India as the greatest threat to the country, while a majority in Sindh and the NWFP consider the Taliban a bigger threat.

Finally, it seems that there is a process of deep churning within Pakistan’s multiple “societies,” which seems to translate, at the moment, into almost schizophrenic responses on key issues of identity. This is most clearly reflected in attitudes towards the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “severe laws” associated with these groups. For instance, in the Pew survey, there is little support for the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. Fifty-seven per cent consider the Taliban and 41 per cent consider the al-Qaeda a serious threat to the country. Forty one per cent in the Gallup poll support military action against the Taliban. And yet there is also considerable support for the harsh punishments imposed by these extremist groups. Seventy-eight per cent favour death for those who leave Islam; 80 per cent support whipping and cutting hands for theft and robbery; and 83 per cent favour stoning adulterers. And yet, 87 per cent of Pakistanis believe that it is equally important for boys and girls to be educated, in contrast to the Taliban’s thinking. The poll finds that support for suicide bombing remains very low. In terms of credibility of institutions, the army, the media and the judiciary receive high approval while the Inter-Services Intelligence, the police and the national government get much less support.

These findings need to be studied carefully but if they are indeed reflective of real trends, they suggest what has always been intuitively obvious: India’s Pakistan policy has not succeeded because, while remaining a prisoner of past dogmas, it has been unable to respond to the multiple political and social forces in Pakistan that need to be understood and addressed.

The strategic community in India has traditionally been overwhelmingly in support of a policy of aggressively countering Pakistan. These are the Subedars. Only a minority, the Saudagars, has wanted to ignore and benignly neglect Islamabad or integrate it economically. A microscopic few, however, want New Delhi to be proactive in promoting peace, even to the extent of making unilateral concessions. These are the Sufis.

But these strands cannot afford today to remain in opposition to one another. The need of the hour is for the Subedars, the Saudagars and the Sufis to come together and shape a new Pakistan policy. At a time when it has become risky to invoke Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it is still important to recall his original design for the state: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. It is this Pakistan that an Indian strategy must systematically work towards constructing. In the present scenario, Indian policy must have at least the following strands.

First, India needs to build strong defensive and offensive capabilities to deter “asymmetric” attacks by non-state actors which may have the backing of elements of the Pakistani establishment. Nuclear weapons, at the end of the day, will only deter nuclear weapons and, at best, a full-scale conventional war. Doctrines like Cold Start will, however, remain in cold storage until they are able to explicitly demonstrate that diplomatic, political and military benefits outweigh the costs.

Secondly, India must reach out and strengthen all those who have a stake in better India-Pakistan relations and an interest in regional stability through unilateral gestures that do not demand reciprocity. These would include specific initiatives for civil society actors, as well as many others within the business and political community. For instance, New Delhi should consider constructing a preferential trading regime that offers Pakistan’s handicrafts and other local products almost unfettered access to the Indian market. Such a gesture, with some short-term costs, could have far-reaching long-term benefits for India and the region. Similarly, New Delhi could begin by offering a thousand scholarships to young men and women in Pakistan willing to study the humanities or social sciences in India at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Thirdly, India must systematically seek to weaken, delegitimise and isolate those who are enemies of a moderate Pakistan and, by implication, of a stable subcontinent. This can be done unilaterally or in conjunction with allies. It is unfortunate that sub-continental Islam, built on an ethos of multiculturalism and tolerance, has not been projected with the robustness needed in these difficult times. This “soft power” of South Asian Sufi Islam remains the best weapon against extremism.

Fourthly, Indian policies must be carefully distanced from the present American role in Pakistan or the larger U.S. ****** policy. In the Pew survey, more Pakistanis expressed a willingness to trust Osama bin Laden rather than Mr. Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Ultimately, we need to understand that India-Pakistan relationship, over the last 62 years, has been about almost everything that matters: history, memory, prejudice, identity, religion, sovereignty, ideology, insecurity, betrayal and much, much more. Ironically, a troubled Pakistan, confused about its identity and its place in the world, may offer a real chance to move beyond conflict and towards real reconciliation. It is an opportunity to finally cut the Gordian knot; a chance India cannot afford to miss.

(Amitabh Mattoo is Member, National Knowledge Commission to the Prime Minister of India, and Professor of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.)