Pakistan and India’s ‘official psyche’

[Neo]

Pakistan and India’s ‘official psyche’​

A leading Indian journalist writing in an influential Indian news magazine has asked the Indian government to “soften” its policy towards Pakistan in view of significant changes taking place in Pakistan. He was encouraged to make his recommendation after recently visiting Pakistan and witnessing the freedom with which Pakistanis were now analysing their country’s foreign policy in general and the equation with India in particular. His concluding remark in the article was: “This is the moment for India to make major, generous overtures to Pakistan and help consolidate its democratisation and demilitarisation. India can earn tremendous popular goodwill by unilaterally lifting trade barriers and liberalising visas. This will not hurt our economy, but will work in India’s long-term interest. Similarly, India should tell Pakistan that it is prepared to negotiate a gradual demilitarisation of the border: ‘grand reconciliation’ is not mere rhetoric”.

Pakistan has been forced to become introverted by its domestic turmoil and by the weakening of the militaristic view of its relations with India. Now the real threat, it is agreed on all hands, is not external and from India, but from inside, and from non-state elements challenging the writ of the state. This phase of opinion is not a passing one but is based on a permanent shift of opinion about military rule and military interference that Pakistan’s revisionist rivalry with India brings about. In the past, the India-centric policy was bought in Punjab alone, while the other provinces had cooled off; today there is a national consensus on normalisation of relations with India. Indeed, the only policy of President Musharraf that was supported by the general public in Pakistan was his peace-with-India policy. The jihadi organisations set up by the state in the past were greatly disappointed but could do little more than attempt to kill him in the face of the national consensus on normalisation. But as the consensus became strong, the doctrinal stand on Kashmir also slid to the background, with a surprisingly positive response from the two sides of Kashmir. After that, the jihadis have joined forces with the Taliban and other Al Qaeda elements and now confront the Pakistan army in the Tribal Areas.

Consequently, the two mainstream parties in coalition in Pakistan, the PPP and the PMLN, together with a number of parties in the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD), decided to state their intent of normalising relations with India in 2006 in what is known today as the Charter of Democracy. The linkage with “democracy” is significant because the Charter clearly traces all reversals of democracy in Pakistan to the army’s supremacy and its insistence on an adversarial relationship with India. Since the signing of the Charter, leaders of both the parties have separately indicated the extent of normalisation they would like to pursue with India.

The PPP has always been condemned by the “militarists” in Pakistan as a “security risk” because of its policy of seeking normal relations with India. But the PMLN, once wedded to this view, now stands completely disenchanted, and its leader Mr Nawaz Sharif is even more frank in recommending a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s relations with India. Mr Sharif was greatly politically damaged by the Kargil Operation of 1999, which he insists he never okayed as prime minister. His offer to abolish the visa regime with India and seek stronger trade ties with India is now on record and indicates how far the PPP-PMLN coalition is ready to go in calling off Pakistan’s India-centric strategy.

Indian analysts are on record on why the Indian government is not able to take the big decisions which are clearly in India’s favour. One reason is the almost permanent “devolution” or “regionalisation” of electoral power in India which delivers a dispersed writ of governance looking very much like the one prevalent under proportional representation in Europe. The Indian government’s failure to finalise its nuclear deal with the United States is one example of this “weakness”. The other example is the delay in reformulating the “Lok Sabha consensus” on policy on Pakistan. The obstacle comes into view every time there is a bomb explosion in India and the “unofficial consensus” calls it Pakistan-inspired.

The other obstacle is present on both sides, and that is the bureaucracy, which sits on top of a mountain of files representing the negative jurisprudence of the bilateral past. Insistence on reciprocity, as against unilateral action based on national benefit, is the trip-wire on which the politicians trying to normalise are sent sprawling. But bureaucracies always follow meekly in the wake of big acts of statesmanship, and if India is to put an end to the dangerous Indo-Pak imbroglio, it must listen to the advice of its senior journalists. There are other crises in the offing, like disputes over river waters, that are ready to fill the Kashmir dispute vacuum. *

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[vish]

With regard to India, what the author has said is very true. It is indeed difficult for an Indian head of state to allow such "groundbreaking" measures.

Frankly, the only way I see froward is normalizing of relations and converting the LoC into the IB.

There are hawkish sections in both India nor Pakistan; these will have to be sidelined.

Our populations need to be made aware that these terrorists are the enemies of peace and prosperity. They are neither Indian nor Pakistani regardless of the location of their place of birth.

 

[Vinod2070]

I agree. It is time for India to make a big bold move for a grand conciliation with Pakistan thereby removing the last stopper to peace and prosperity in the subcontinent.

The conditions have never been more favorable.

 

[cactuslily58]

With regard to India, what the author has said is very true. It is indeed difficult for an Indian head of state to allow such "groundbreaking" measures.

Frankly, the only way I see froward is normalizing of relations and converting the LoC into the IB.
There are hawkish sections in both India and Pakistan; these will have to be sidelined.

Our populations need to be made aware that these terrorists are the enemies of peace and prosperity. They are neither Indian and Pakistani regardless of the location of their place of birth.

This is the bottom line.. though there will be turmoil in India & Political parties will make a ruckus things might stabilize if handled well by the Govt in power.


On the Pakistani side, Kashmir is the raison d'être for the Army. How will they justify their existence thereafter ? No elected Govt will be able to handle the backlash.. maybe a Dictator will / can.

My experience of meeting Pakistanis away from the borders has been very good, they have been helpful & friendly with little or no traces of the animosity we have seen all our lives.A sense of loss of the Eastern Wing though is visible.

Somewhere down the line I feel that there should be a mechanism wherein people from both sides get to meet / interact at any / all levels so that we see for ourselves how the Politicians /Military / hardliners are exploiting the communication gap for their vested reasons.

 

[Mohammed Azizuddin]

The article rightly points out to the fact that there has been a positive development at Pakistan's stance towards India. Mr.Sharif and Mr.Zardari sound very positive towards saying that we need to open up trade and make visa-free travel across the border, these are excellent ideas, and, most of the people in Pakistan support the idea of friendship with India, and have a tremendous good will for Indians as demonstrated during the cricket series...Now, we must understand that there is a significant number of institutions in Pakistan that are working over-time to hurt India. This is a significant minority among the population of Pakistan that does not want peace with India.

Sure, visa-free travel, open borders for trade, like the one between USA and Canada, these will be the best things happening to the lives of millions of people, India will be more than willing,happy and honored to resiprocate, but Pakistani authority must dismantle support for anti-India terrorists. I understand that it is difficult for Pakistan for to do it all at one go......due to difficulties in Nwfp and with Taliban....may be we can start things with a groundbreaking joint military exercise....forming a joint anti-terror group between India's and Pakistan's special operation forces, and then conducting joint operations.The sub-continent will be a different place to live in.

 

[IceCold]

Indian analysts are on record on why the Indian government is not able to take the big decisions which are clearly in India’s favour. One reason is the almost permanent “devolution” or “regionalisation” of electoral power in India which delivers a dispersed writ of governance looking very much like the one prevalent under proportional representation in Europe. The Indian government’s failure to finalise its nuclear deal with the United States is one example of this “weakness”. The other example is the delay in reformulating the “Lok Sabha consensus” on policy on Pakistan. The obstacle comes into view every time there is a bomb explosion in India and the “unofficial consensus” calls it Pakistan-inspired.

The other obstacle is present on both sides, and that is the bureaucracy, which sits on top of a mountain of files representing the negative jurisprudence of the bilateral past. Insistence on reciprocity, as against unilateral action based on national benefit, is the trip-wire on which the politicians trying to normalise are sent sprawling. But bureaucracies always follow meekly in the wake of big acts of statesmanship, and if India is to put an end to the dangerous Indo-Pak imbroglio, it must listen to the advice of its senior journalists. There are other crises in the offing, like disputes over river waters, that are ready to fill the Kashmir dispute vacuum. *

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan​

I disagree with this asseration of the author about indian government lacking to what it takes to make big decision. The point is unlike our political setup, indians have been very very cautious about their relations with pakistan and therefor has always been cautious steady with their foreign policy w.r.t pakistan. They see pakistan as threat back then and they still see it. Our problem is that our foreign poilcy has never been stable thanks to our political parties who if get the chance may sell pakistan and buy a land in texas or maybe switzerland, highly unpatrotic, no sense of nationalism, nothing at all. The fact of the matter is that the amount of harm and damage they have delieved to the state as a direct result of their policies no military ruler has done just take the example to kargil.
Bottom line is that india has always maintained a balance in their foreign policy specially matter related to pakistan, we on the other hand have always done the opposite. We frankly dont know what we are talking about. We want a solution of kashmir, yet we dont know what it is, we need to develop good relations with india, yet we cannot sideline kashmir, there is no dialouge solution to kashmir, yet we are reducing our military budjet as if there never was any threat. Simply pathetic on our part.
If we need to develop relations with india we need to first make our foreign policy stable and it should remain stable with every new government not that it changes every time the government changes specially matters related to kashmir.​

 

[su-47]

visa-free travel is not a good idea. it will make it harder to curb cross-border terrorism. everything else is great.