Indo-Pak reality

[Bang Galore]

Indo-Pak reality

Moeed Yusuf

INDIA is all over the media again. Prime Minister Modi has irked our nationalist fervour with the Sialkot incident. Officialdom is back in the groove, regularly throwing around words like ‘honour’, ‘dignity’, ‘parity’, etc.

Thankfully, I sense that our decision-makers recognise that while the usual game of pinning Modi down for this (and whenever else he overplays his hand) must be played, this tactical positioning can only get one so far. They are rightly more perturbed about what they feel is Modi’s larger design: to keep Pakistan internally unstable and globally isolated. Equally, they feel the world is deliberately going along despite Modi’s insincerity towards resolving outstanding disputes and his insistence on talking to Pakistan only on India’s terms.

My worry though is that in terms of responses, we are still fixated on outmanoeuvring India in the tactical realm. This is self-defeating, especially if one takes Pakistan’s own analysis of Modi’s policy at face value. If Modi wants to keep Pakistan in the dock, preoccupying us at the tactical level is precisely what he would be aiming for.

To understand this, we first need to establish why Modi is able to maintain a dismissive attitude towards Pakistan and why the world is looking the other way.

Why is Modi able to maintain a dismissive attitude towards us?
An honest analysis on our part should lead us to recognise that India’s expanded manoeuvring space is a function of the growing disparity in strengths between the two countries. It’s statecraft 101: with an internal base that is stronger than ever, India can afford to forego benefits of improved ties with Pakistan, especially if its dismissiveness allows it to keep Kashmir off the table.

Equally, the world’s attitude towards India is driven by a convergence of interest between Delhi and the global powers. India offers the world’s military-industrial complex the single largest market and its economy has locked in Western business and investment interests. Add to this the West’s flawed belief that India will play counterweight to China.

Therefore, if I am Modi and I want to keep Pakistan boxed in, I would want to ensure that my differential with Pakistan grows further; that Pakistan remains the world’s favourite whipping boy; and consequently, I feel no real pressure to negotiate sincerely on disputes with Pakistan.

Modi can best achieve this by keeping Pakistan stuck in its current India-centric security paradigm. To do so, he needs to keep Pakistan’s traditionally heightened threat perception of India intact. If he can keep Pakistan worried about his military’s strength, formations, doctrines and periodic actions such as on the LoC and about his growing ties with Pakistan’s neighbours, he’ll be set.

Pakistan’s resources will remain disproportionally committed to defence and it will be distracted from its more pressing internal needs. India’s economy will keep growing (despite losses associated with broken ties with Pakistan) but Pakistan’s priorities will remain fundamentally warped.

Pakistan’s decision-makers should realise that focusing solely on the tactical game with Modi only plays into his hands. You’ve got to think strategic and find a way to reverse Modi’s two real advantages: power differential; and the world’s support to him.

Pakistan’s only silver bullet solution is creating leverage over India by forging strong economic ties with it. By doing so, you’ll tie Indian and regional economic interests with yours and force India to develop stakes in keeping the Pakistani economy integrated and thus, mainstreamed. Projects like Tapi will make India dependent on transit through Pakistan (India wouldn’t be able to afford instability in areas hosting pipes/transmission lines); allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia will be dependent on you; you’ll undercut the competitiveness of Iran’s Chahbahar port; likewise, offering India-held Kashmir transit through your ports will link them intrinsically to you; and by tying CPEC to an east-west corridor involving India, you’ll not only optimise gains but force India to de facto acknowledge your right over Gilgit-Baltistan.

Most importantly, you will be able to break the regional logjam that is holding your economy back. An improved economy will naturally begin to interest the world positively. A stronger economic base will also allow you to maintain robust defence capabilities, but now without being an obvious drag on your economy.

Mind you, this paradigm shift will not prevent you from continuing to play the tactical game, firmly advocating your position on Kashmir, etc. in the interim. That you must to keep your stakes in the game. But the course suggested here will simultaneously begin to move you towards attaining real ‘honour’, ‘dignity’, and ‘parity’, that builds on internal strength rather than hollow sloganeering. This is the only way to compel India to negotiate with Pakistan somewhat evenhandedly.

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington, DC.

Indo-Pak reality - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

 

[SQ8]

Pakistan’s only silver bullet solution is creating leverage over India by forging strong economic ties with it. By doing so, you’ll tie Indian and regional economic interests with yours and force India to develop stakes in keeping the Pakistani economy integrated and thus, mainstreamed. Projects like Tapi will make India dependent on transit through Pakistan (India wouldn’t be able to afford instability in areas hosting pipes/transmission lines); allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia will be dependent on you; you’ll undercut the competitiveness of Iran’s Chahbahar port; likewise, offering India-held Kashmir transit through your ports will link them intrinsically to you; and by tying CPEC to an east-west corridor involving India, you’ll not only optimise gains but force India to de facto acknowledge your right over Gilgit-Baltistan.=

And this is exactly what I push for, play the Indian game of "Baghal mein Churi". We need to suck up to India so much that even Bangaldesh under Hasina feels insecure. All the while, we can literally bang the proverbial Indian Mrs/Bhabhi Day in day out and they wont be able to do jack about it.

 

[Bang Galore]

Time to move from posturing to dialogue

• 
  
  
• Mahmud Durrani

PTI
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Pakistani Counterpart Nawaz Sharif at the Ufa meet.




The Pakistani leadership and its establishment need to realise that with the arrival of Prime Minister Modi on the scene, they need to revise their foreign policy template towards India.
Every sane individual — both in India and Pakistan — is convinced that it spite of the acrimony and decades of mistrust, it is in the strategic interest of both these nations to live in peace and friendship. With a common geography, heritage, culture and language, good relations and harmony should come naturally to the two neighbours but it seems that the baggage of Partition continues to dominate our thinking and actions.

Over the decades, there have been numerous efforts to hold a ‘meaningful dialogue and discuss all outstanding issues’ but with almost zero results. Even during the most recent meeting between the two Prime Ministers at Ufa in Russia, emphasis was again on discussing all outstanding issues but the so called dialogue collapsed even before it began.

What is the reason for the failure of the so-called dialogue process, even though in almost all such attempts in the past, each dialogue process was based on a common understanding about the broad objectives to be achieved?

At Ufa, the broad objectives were jointly agreed to and spelled out in the Joint Statement at the conclusion of the meeting between the two leaders. Unfortunately this latest dialogue process beat all previous records and collapsed even before it was begun, just a day before the scheduled meeting of the National Security Advisers (NSAs) of the two countries.

The main components of the Ufa Joint Statement issued on July 10, as presented in the press are:

I) The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India met today on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Ufa. The meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere. The two leaders exchanged views on issues of bilateral and regional interest.

II) They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues.

III) Both leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia. [emphasis added]

IV) They also agreed on the following steps to be taken by the two sides:

1. A meeting in New Delhi between the two NSAs to discuss all issues connected to terrorism. [emphasis added]

2. Early meetings of Director General Border Security Force (BSF) and Director General Pakistan Rangers followed by that of Directors General of Military Operation (DGMOs).

3. Decision for release of fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days.

4. Mechanism for facilitating religious tourism.

5. Both sides agreed to discuss ways and means to expedite the Mumbai case trial, including additional information like providing voice samples.

V) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reiterated his invitation to Prime Minister Modi to visit Pakistan for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in 2016. Prime Minister Modi accepted the invitation.

Twin objectives

There were two principal objectives expressed in the joint statement. The first objective is ‘to ensure peace and promote development, for which both sides are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues’. The second objective expressed in the joint statement is to cooperate with each other to eliminate the menace of terrorism from South Asia.

The Joint Statement proposed a proper follow-up plan for the elimination of terrorism (NSA meeting, expediting Mumbai trial) but no follow up action was envisioned on how the two countries would proceed on the first objective, which is, ‘discussion of all outstanding issues’. Besides including the NSA meeting, there was a need to include another paragraph in the joint statement, to define some action, for example, like the nomination of either the Foreign Ministers or the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries to “explore modalities for discussing all other outstanding issues like Kashmir, Siachen, etc.”From my perspective, the agreement at Ufa was flawed; it was in fact loaded against Pakistan. While addressing the Indian concern of terrorism, it was very silent on Pakistan’s concerns of discussing all outstanding issues (especially the ‘K’ issue).

For this, I blame Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s team, which failed to recognise the smart manoeuvre by the Indian team. No wonder all hell broke loose in Pakistan on the Prime Minister’s return to Islamabad. After that the Pakistani foreign policy establishment went into overdrive to minimise the negative domestic fallout. An effort was made by Pakistan to expand the mandate of the NSAs’ dialogue by trying to insert Kashmir into that meeting. Inviting the Hurriyat leaders for a cuppa with the Pakistani NSA in Delhi was also geared to squeeze in the Kashmir issue. Naturally the Indian establishment was unwilling to give up their gains at Ufa. Thus, the talks were doomed to fail.

The Pakistani leadership and the establishment need to realise that with the arrival of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the scene, they need to revise their foreign policy template towards India. Mr. Modi is committed to breaking away from the past and placing his personal stamp on India’s foreign policy. His style will certainly be more aggressive than the style of his predecessors. I certainly do not propose an equally aggressive style by Pakistan but certainly encourage a more intelligent and measured approach. I do believe Mr. Modi wants peace with Pakistan but on his own terms. I foresee more difficult times ahead but also see some windows of opportunity.

Status quoist establishment

For a dialogue to succeed between two sovereign states, the only formulation which will normally work is a win-win outcome based on compromise in the spirit of give and take. Unfortunately, in the case of India and Pakistan, though the process is called a dialogue, in essence it is posturing and trying to outsmart each other. A second problem with the dialogue between India and Pakistan is the dominant role of the establishment, which is a status quoist entity. This attitude from both sides often results in a stalemate. No wonder not a single major issue like Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek or even on trade has been resolved.

Surprisingly in 1960, India and Pakistan did manage to resolve one major issue to the satisfaction of both parties. This is the famous Indus Water Treaty 1960, which has survived all the years, in spite of the two nations fighting a number of wars. However, the successful conclusion of this treaty was essentially due to the presence of a third party, the World Bank. Unfortunately, today India has virtually ruled out the involvement of a third party to resolve bilateral issues between the two neighbours.

Before Ufa, the Composite Dialogue too failed to resolve even a single serious issue. However, I am not totally pessimistic and take hope from a secret backchannel dialogue initiated during the Musharraf-Vajpayee era, when impressive ground was covered towards resolving the Kashmir issue. But today we are back to square one. The media in both countries has become very powerful and is the proverbial tail that wags the dog. Presently, the media and not the political leadership mould public opinion. I believe there is an urgent need to launch a secret backchannel, away from the glare of publicity.

As I write this article, news is pouring in on an hourly basis of the destructive firing continuing along what Pakistan calls the Working Boundary and India calls the International Border. In Pakistan, it is almost an article of faith that all this firing is a result of the Indian coercive strategy, while the Indian media and public is convinced that this destructive activity is because of the aggressive designs of the Pakistan Army. It is pathetic that in this time and age, the truth is lost while innocent people are dying and private property is being destroyed. Why are the flag meetings and hotlines between the DGMOs ineffective? This situation can very easily spin out of control and create a war-like environment. In reality such a crisis is usually created by a minor incident on the border between the border security forces of both countries and not a deliberate policy decision by either country.

The people of India and Pakistan and the broader South Asia region deserve a durable peace and the opportunity to live without the fear of a conflict and the opportunity to harness their full potential. I am not trying to be dramatic but in the worst-case scenario, we may face nuclear annihilation. India and Pakistan are joined at the hip and need to grow up and learn the very obvious virtues of peace. As a wise man said, ‘we breathe the same air and drink the same water’.

India has the potential to become a great global power but not until it is able to bring peace in its region. It may coerce smaller countries into submission but Pakistan may need another kind of treatment; destabilising Pakistan will be certainly counterproductive. On the other hand, Pakistan needs to accept India as the senior partner or a big brother, while India needs to treat Pakistan with respect. The first step towards such a relationship is a sincere effort by both sides to resolve the outstanding issues. This is not the raving of a romantic peacenik but a realistic recipe based on cold logic with an eye on the history of the world.

(Mahmud Durrani was former National Security Adviser to the Pakistan Prime Minister.)

Time to move from posturing to dialogue - The Hindu

 

[bhola singh]

And this is exactly what I push for, play the Indian game of "Baghal mein Churi". We need to suck up to India so much that even Bangaldesh under Hasina feels insecure. All the while, we can literally bang the proverbial Indian Mrs/Bhabhi Day in day out and they wont be able to do jack about it.

The way I see it, you dont have any other option than to follow the proverbial baniya since strength, moral or military apparently isn't your forte.

Rest about the bhabhi syndrome, I see the frequent night outs nearby heera Mandi have convoluted your tender mind...

 

[Indika]

And this is exactly what I push for, play the Indian game of "Baghal mein Churi". We need to suck up to India so much that even Bangaldesh under Hasina feels insecure. All the while, we can literally bang the proverbial Indian Mrs/Bhabhi Day in day out and they wont be able to do jack about it.

Author only presents only one side of scenario but not the other one. What if pakistan ends up exporting more to india and ends up having a substantial stake in Indias stability like china does for US ?
Then pakistan will think twice about going to war/raising the hackles without hurting itself.

 

[SQ8]

The way I see it, you dont have any other option than to follow the proverbial baniya since strength, moral or military apparently isn't your forte.

Rest about the bhabhi syndrome, I see the frequent night outs nearby heera Mandi have convoluted your tender mind...

Neither is hypocrisy or lying through or teeth. So I admit, these are all Baniya powers.

Author only presents only one side of scenario but not the other one. What if pakistan ends up exporting more to india and ends up having a substantial stake in Indias stability like china does for US ?
Then pakistan will think twice about going to war/raising the hackles without hurting itself.

It is a win win isnt it?
Doesnt that compute to feeble minds that somehow.. VICTORY isnt always a goal. That is the problem with both India and Pakistan.. or desis. They are so mentally handicapped in their need to prove themselves that they cannot see the benefits of working together.

 

[Indika]

India has the potential to become a great global power but not until it is able to bring peace in its region. It may coerce smaller countries into submission but Pakistan may need another kind of treatment; destabilising Pakistan will be certainly counterproductive. On the other hand, Pakistan needs to accept India as the senior partner or a big brother, while India needs to treat Pakistan with respect. The first step towards such a relationship is a sincere effort by both sides to resolve the outstanding issues. This is not the raving of a romantic peacenik but a realistic recipe based on cold logic with an eye on the history of the world.

Until the last few lines it looks ok then the low self esteem and machismo strikes back. Arggh India ? how can they be better than us. Why should one dominant the other ? pakistan all along has tried to bring down india and failed in its approach. Hence assumes india as arrogant big brother and themselves as humble peter pan. In the process they have sold their dignity to every other country like US,China,gulf and lost their self respect.

It is a win win isnt it?
Doesnt that compute to feeble minds that somehow.. VICTORY isnt always a goal. That is the problem with both India and Pakistan.. or desis. They are so mentally handicapped in their need to prove themselves that they cannot see the benefits of working together.

Yes working together is a win-win scenario for both the countries. But the author never discusses that his sole intention seems to how to tie india down.
"Projects like Tapi will make India dependent on transit through Pakistan (India wouldn’t be able to afford instability in areas hosting pipes/transmission lines); allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia will be dependent on you; you’ll undercut the competitiveness of Iran’s Chahbahar port; likewise, offering India-held Kashmir transit through your ports will link them intrinsically to you; and by tying CPEC to an east-west corridor involving India, you’ll not only optimise gains but force India to de facto acknowledge your right over Gilgit-Baltistan"

Author only crows me , myself and my great idea to pin india down. He does not say lets both the countries have trade and prosper. But how pakistan should try to create a strangle hold on india. As the saying goes "as you sow so shall you reap". Good intentions will deliver good results.

 

[I.R.A]

Pakistan’s only silver bullet solution is creating leverage over India by forging strong economic ties with it. By doing so, you’ll tie Indian and regional economic interests with yours and force India to develop stakes in keeping the Pakistani economy integrated and thus, mainstreamed. Projects like Tapi will make India dependent on transit through Pakistan (India wouldn’t be able to afford instability in areas hosting pipes/transmission lines); allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia will be dependent on you; you’ll undercut the competitiveness of Iran’s Chahbahar port; likewise, offering India-held Kashmir transit through your ports will link them intrinsically to you; and by tying CPEC to an east-west corridor involving India, you’ll not only optimise gains but force India to de facto acknowledge your right over Gilgit-Baltistan.

Don't engage directly with India and Modi, go after partners of India for these business interests, and sell them the idea of it's either through Pakistan or else its a lost investment. Make them realise how it is more feasible and more beneficial. Modi's advisers are already selling him the idea to lay pipelines through ocean without engaging Pakistan.

But then again you need to forget mangoes and sariz and start thinking how to engage and attract partners of your enemy................... which sadly our competent advisers don't anticipate.

 

[Bang Galore]

Don't engage directly with India and Modi, go after partners of India for these business interests, and sell them the idea of it's either through Pakistan or else its a lost investment. Make them realise how it is more feasible and more beneficial. Modi's advisers are already selling him the idea to lay pipelines through ocean without engaging Pakistan.

Doesn't work. Take the pipeline example for instance, GoI would have to be convinced of a pipeline route or no cigar. It is the buyer after all. If it is not convinced that its interests are protected, it won't play. The only way GoI will ever agree to a pipeline through Pakistan is if Iran pays the transit charges & is willing to pay a penalty if gas is not delivered at the Indian border. That is too big a risk for Iran to take. Far better for them to look at undersea pipeline where India will pay atleast half the cost.

 

[mpk1988]

There is no concept of let live with Pak's top brass is there??? Well, this would've been the smart thing to do but that's not what is going to happen. There is too much ego and decades of false assumptions, education involved for most of the Pak leaders to look beyond Kashmir.

Hence, this will continue. All we need to do is ignore and take care of ourselves. That's it. Nobody in the world gives a shit about Kashmir anyway.

 

[I.R.A]

Doesn't work. Take the pipeline example for instance, GoI would have to be convinced of a pipeline route or no cigar. It is the buyer after all. If it is not convinced that its interests are protected, it won't play. The only way GoI will ever agree to a pipeline through Pakistan is if Iran pays the transit charges & is willing to pay a penalty if gas is not delivered at the Indian border. That is too big a risk for Iran to take. Far better for them to look at undersea pipeline where India will pay atleast half the cost.

In any normal scenario Seller -----------------> Buyer or Buyer ------------------------> seller direct relationship happens but here Pakistan is in between buyer and seller and India cannot ignore buying this commodity for long and seller surely wishes to have access to Indian market. Going through oceans if you ask me personally I would have had that adviser's head lying in a plate in front of me. Not a feasible option, neither cost wise (forget capex its a sunk cost once a project is undertaken, but the opex part would be high and is all times relevant) nor strategically when it comes to protection and maintenance,and it would take lengthy periods to build these pipelines. India is already locked to have its demand fulfilled, we need to convince the seller and sell them the idea, convince them its either through Pakistan or else it is nowhere feasible and a total loss.

In nutshell Pakistan needs to convince the seller only and have them lock India's interests in Pakistan, Pakistan may not be a big market and a strong economy but it has its position on map to sell ............... but that may not happen.

 

[Bang Galore]

In any normal scenario Seller -----------------> Buyer or Buyer ------------------------> seller direct relationship happens but here Pakistan is in between buyer and seller and India cannot ignore buying this commodity for long and seller surely wishes to have access to Indian market. Going through oceans if you ask me personally I would have had that adviser's head lying in a plate in front of me. Not a feasible option, neither cost wise (forget capex its a sunk cost once a project is undertaken, but the opex part would be high and is all times relevant) nor strategically when it comes to protection and maintenance,and it would take lengthy periods to build these pipelines. India is already locked to have its demand fulfilled, we need to convince the seller and sell them the idea, convince them its either through Pakistan or else it is nowhere feasible and a total loss.

In nutshell Pakistan needs to convince the seller only and have them lock India's interests in Pakistan, Pakistan may not be a big market and a strong economy but it has its position on map to sell ............... but that may not happen.

The alternative to no undersea pipeline is supply through ships. If India is unwilling to accept a pipeline through Pakistan, there is nothing any seller can do. Unless they are willing to own all risks. You forget that the seller wants to lock India in with a pipeline, ships allow for short term deals with many sellers. There may or may not be an undersea pipeline but no seller will ever convince India to risk having a major part of their supplies coming from Pakistan. Cold logic. India's benefit here is cheaper supplies but when risks are added, it may prove too costly. The onus is on the seller to mitigate the risks.

 

[I.R.A]

The alternative to no undersea pipeline is supply through ships. If India is unwilling to accept a pipeline through Pakistan, there is nothing any seller can do. Unless they are willing to own all risks. You forget that the seller wants to lock India in with a pipeline, ships allow for short term deals with many sellers. There may or may not be an undersea pipeline but no seller will ever convince India to risk having a major part of their supplies coming from Pakistan. Cold logic. India's benefit here is cheaper supplies but when risks are added, it may prove too costly. The onus is on the seller to mitigate the risks.

Pardon me if I sound ignorant but supply through ships would involve Liquefied form only, can all petroleum byproducts be converted to liquefied form?

And that is what I am saying make choices (sellers) for India lesser and lesser, convince the sellers (raising references to separate security for CPEC and China's involvement) not India, and how long India can wait with limited options then? Plus how about India's access to CAR and that side of world for its exports etc? Chahbahar only and that too through naval means? I may be wrong but one main advantage that Iran had / has location near to Strait of Hormuz, why that cannot be equally strategic importance of Pakistan?

 

[ito]

I find Moeed Yusuf analysis to be the best coming from the other side of the border.

What I don't understand is that why the other Pakistani analysts cannot get it. You cannot force some to come to the tables by threats of war and nukes, but by showing economic incentives.

 

[Not So Good]

Indo-Pak reality

Moeed Yusuf

INDIA is all over the media again. Prime Minister Modi has irked our nationalist fervour with the Sialkot incident. Officialdom is back in the groove, regularly throwing around words like ‘honour’, ‘dignity’, ‘parity’, etc.

Thankfully, I sense that our decision-makers recognise that while the usual game of pinning Modi down for this (and whenever else he overplays his hand) must be played, this tactical positioning can only get one so far. They are rightly more perturbed about what they feel is Modi’s larger design: to keep Pakistan internally unstable and globally isolated. Equally, they feel the world is deliberately going along despite Modi’s insincerity towards resolving outstanding disputes and his insistence on talking to Pakistan only on India’s terms.

My worry though is that in terms of responses, we are still fixated on outmanoeuvring India in the tactical realm. This is self-defeating, especially if one takes Pakistan’s own analysis of Modi’s policy at face value. If Modi wants to keep Pakistan in the dock, preoccupying us at the tactical level is precisely what he would be aiming for.

To understand this, we first need to establish why Modi is able to maintain a dismissive attitude towards Pakistan and why the world is looking the other way.

Why is Modi able to maintain a dismissive attitude towards us?
An honest analysis on our part should lead us to recognise that India’s expanded manoeuvring space is a function of the growing disparity in strengths between the two countries. It’s statecraft 101: with an internal base that is stronger than ever, India can afford to forego benefits of improved ties with Pakistan, especially if its dismissiveness allows it to keep Kashmir off the table.

Equally, the world’s attitude towards India is driven by a convergence of interest between Delhi and the global powers. India offers the world’s military-industrial complex the single largest market and its economy has locked in Western business and investment interests. Add to this the West’s flawed belief that India will play counterweight to China.

Therefore, if I am Modi and I want to keep Pakistan boxed in, I would want to ensure that my differential with Pakistan grows further; that Pakistan remains the world’s favourite whipping boy; and consequently, I feel no real pressure to negotiate sincerely on disputes with Pakistan.

Modi can best achieve this by keeping Pakistan stuck in its current India-centric security paradigm. To do so, he needs to keep Pakistan’s traditionally heightened threat perception of India intact. If he can keep Pakistan worried about his military’s strength, formations, doctrines and periodic actions such as on the LoC and about his growing ties with Pakistan’s neighbours, he’ll be set.

Pakistan’s resources will remain disproportionally committed to defence and it will be distracted from its more pressing internal needs. India’s economy will keep growing (despite losses associated with broken ties with Pakistan) but Pakistan’s priorities will remain fundamentally warped.

Pakistan’s decision-makers should realise that focusing solely on the tactical game with Modi only plays into his hands. You’ve got to think strategic and find a way to reverse Modi’s two real advantages: power differential; and the world’s support to him.

Pakistan’s only silver bullet solution is creating leverage over India by forging strong economic ties with it. By doing so, you’ll tie Indian and regional economic interests with yours and force India to develop stakes in keeping the Pakistani economy integrated and thus, mainstreamed. Projects like Tapi will make India dependent on transit through Pakistan (India wouldn’t be able to afford instability in areas hosting pipes/transmission lines); allowing overland route to India will mean that its entire trade with Central Asia will be dependent on you; you’ll undercut the competitiveness of Iran’s Chahbahar port; likewise, offering India-held Kashmir transit through your ports will link them intrinsically to you; and by tying CPEC to an east-west corridor involving India, you’ll not only optimise gains but force India to de facto acknowledge your right over Gilgit-Baltistan.

Most importantly, you will be able to break the regional logjam that is holding your economy back. An improved economy will naturally begin to interest the world positively. A stronger economic base will also allow you to maintain robust defence capabilities, but now without being an obvious drag on your economy.

Mind you, this paradigm shift will not prevent you from continuing to play the tactical game, firmly advocating your position on Kashmir, etc. in the interim. That you must to keep your stakes in the game. But the course suggested here will simultaneously begin to move you towards attaining real ‘honour’, ‘dignity’, and ‘parity’, that builds on internal strength rather than hollow sloganeering. This is the only way to compel India to negotiate with Pakistan somewhat evenhandedly.

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington, DC.

Indo-Pak reality - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

Modi everywhere