The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.
Tense bordersLo and behold! In the present circumstances, the last thing we would have wanted to happen has happened. As if the continuous exchange of fire at the LoC with India was not enough, there was a flare up at the Pak-Iran border.
Fortunately, for the time being, the two countries have agreed to resolve issues amicably, to strengthen border controls, to show restraint and to keep peace with fresh communication protocols established. However, the situation warrants once again a serious dialogue within Pakistan between its politicians, security forces, defence analysts, economic managers, academics and civil society to thoroughly review our foreign policy and security imperatives in the light of both the outside factors of current global and regional challenges and the inside factors of a struggling economy and our internal security paradigm.
Pakistan’s foreign policy has traditionally cascaded from our security policy, not our economic interest. This may well be true for other countries but our unique relationship with India and the frequent long-lasting martial rules have solidified the military view of foreign relations over the past many decades. Our foreign policy has revolved around sustaining a competing and adversarial relationship with India, pursuing a friendly and conducive relationship with China, building and strengthening a security relationship with the US and maintaining a combination of cultural, social and economic relationship with Arab and other Muslim countries.
There are reasons for Pakistan’s foreign policy pundits with the civil and military establishment behind them to remain paranoid of Indian designs of hegemony in the region, both in terms of military supremacy and economic onslaught. There is a small change visible for short periods of time but the traditional situation recurs. The preferences made at times by those determining India’s foreign policy and the manifestations of how their military mind conceives Pakistan from time to time also provides succour to the mutual mistrust between the two countries and helps perpetuate a feeling of insecurity in Pakistan.
It has been said time and again here by those who sincerely believe in social progress and economic prosperity of Pakistan that unless there is genuine understanding between the two countries on resolving all issues amicably and peacefully including that of Kashmir, with both parties agreeing to negotiate their conventional positions, the region will remain on tenterhooks. Concurrently, economic cooperation, trade, commerce, cultural and educational exchanges, etc have to be encouraged and promoted.
Taking this path is more crucial for Pakistan than for India. However, Indian policymakers must also realise that a perpetual conflict with Pakistan will create a glass ceiling for their progress. India may wish Pakistan to become a non-nuclear, compliant state. But the fact is that it is neither Nepal nor Bangladesh. Therefore, a long drawn conflict with Pakistan will drag them down as well.
The military mind on both sides of the border will see each other as enemies forever. They are trained as such – land over life, territory over people. The political minds, with the social and economic interest of the people they claim to represent, must understand that there are no permanent friends or foes between states. A nation’s interests define its friends. It is not in our interest as a nation to fight with India. The whole premise of partitioning India was based on creating peace and harmony in the region, not to harbour acrimony.
Our relationship with China is more comfortable but not at its all-time best. It is no small occurrence in foreign relations that the high-profile visit of a head of the state is cancelled at the last moment by the host country, thanks to internal political strife and tainted visions of revolution and creating a ‘new’ country. Besides, China sees links between its East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM)-led militancy and safe havens for international terrorism in our tribal areas. A few from the insurgent leadership from the Muslim-majority Xinjiang province of China were killed in drone attacks.
In terms of investments and economic relationship, we must not let ourselves become a dumping ground for second-class Chinese-made products, consumables and appliances. We must seek more technology transfer and access to Chinese markets, however limited it may be at the beginning.
We continue to have a love-hate relationship with the Americans. One reason being that Pakistan’s policymakers perceive that while they took a clear position all along during the cold war, they benefitted much less than other partners of the US. Americans may look at it differently as their military and development aid surpasses anyone else’s support to Pakistan. They have been around but Pakistanis see them as unreliable even after being a frontline state in all American wars or military interests in the region since the 1950s.
Furthermore, while Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, Turks and UAE Sheikhs have few issues with Israel now, Pakistani people at large and its governments continue to see Israel as a usurper of Palestinian land and Palestinian rights. American support to Israel has a negative impact on popular imagination. Also, in wide-ranging Pakistani public opinion, the two military adventures in Iraq were completely unjustified. Being uneasy partners, Americans continue to twist our arm and we try to hoodwink them whenever an opportunity is found.
American overtures towards India, with investments being made and a long-term relationship being sought, are a reality check for us. We must not forget that the Americans will not easily forget that Osama was finally found in Pakistan. In the new scenario, our relationship with the Americans will soon be more incumbent on our easing of tensions with India.
As far as working with Arab and Muslim countries is concerned, we gained from our economically beneficial relationships with the Pro-American Arab governments. The same stands true for Turkey, less in substance and more in spirit though. But it is an unequal relationship with Arab countries as, simply put, we provide cheap labour and get subsidised oil on occasion.
Iran has remained a friend for a long but the relationship has deteriorated due to militancy across the borders, our leadership becoming too close to the Americans in the Afghan war, and persecution of Shias in Pakistan over the years. There was effective diplomacy initiated by the last PPP-led government but it seems to have been placed on the side burner by the incumbents. Iran is far more important than they think.
The core issue is that unless we become a modern, progressive and economically strong state and society, no equal relationships can be dreamed of. But to get there, while an internal policy shift is needed, foreign policy has to be revisited in order to create stability in the region, invite investment, increase production and expand markets.
Also, technologically advanced and fairly independent countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and Russia can benefit Pakistan in unprecedented ways. We need rigorous country-focused relationship development and deepening of existing ties with Japan, Holland, Canada and the Scandinavian nations. The point is to take these countries as seriously as we have traditionally taken the US and the UK.
But this can only work when we decide to coolly reflect on the choices that we have made in the past and revise our internal security and foreign policy paradigms. Perhaps, this is for the first time in our history of foreign relations that no neighbour is happy with us and we are happy with no one either. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-281057-Tense-borders
Why India’s extremism is more dangerous: by Mazhar Abbas in The News, Oct 29, 2014
When extremism gets populist support and becomes part of mainstream politics, peace often become a dream. This is how Indian politics is shaping up today. The rise of the extremist BJP, now led by Gujarat-fame Narendra Modi, has not only changed the political narratives of “secular India”, but also threatened peace.
While Pakistan has often been blamed for spreading extremism and terrorism, the fact remains that despite serious challenges of extremism, Pakistanis never voted for parties with extremist agenda.
Thus extremism with populist support is more dangerous and that’s why the rising extremism in India with political support can be a far more serious threat to peace.Parties with extremist mindset have tightened their grip on Indian politics. The recent trend clearly shows that even Congress is under serious threat.
It would not be difficult to assess who was responsible for the recent tension at the LoC and who started firing at the Working Boundary. It was all linked with the recent elections. Thus Indian politics today is being fought on the “anti-Pakistan” agenda, which is dangerous for peace.
In India, it’s the other way round where parties with an extremist mindset are also getting populist support. The kind of political support which the BJP enjoys today and the policies which the sitting Indian prime minister intends to introduce may even force secular parties like the Congress to change its decades-old politics and policies.
“Anti-Pakistan” is one common agenda on which the Indian elections have often been fought compared to elections in Pakistan where “relations with India” has never been an election issue except in the 1970 elections. Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif fought the last elections on the agenda of “peace with India” and his party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, won the polls.
Today, the Indian politics is pushing Pakistan to a dangerous path. The recent peace process was halted on the lame excuse of a meeting between the Pakistan High Commissioner in India with the Hurriyat Conference leaders.
Thus, when the present Indian prime minister or his cabinet ministers warned Pakistan or encouraged tension across the border or took extreme line on the Kashmir dispute, they only instigated violence.
What was wrong in raising the Kashmir issue in the United Nations? Is it not the same forum where some 60 years back the Indian government had gone to seek the resolution of the Kashmir issue? Is it not the same forum that had passed the resolution and asked for a plebiscite? Is plebiscite an undemocratic demand? The UN after all is a forum to address world conflicts through peaceful means.
Even if one accepts the Indian position that all issues between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, should be discussed bilaterally under the Simla agreement, it has to be under the UN Charter. Secondly, it’s India, which is also avoiding bilateral talks and has made it “conditional.”
These are the ground realities. Today, India has even linked resumption of “sporting ties” with terrorism and often came out with a very weak argument over the cricketing series between the two countries. Here too, you may find Pakistan showing a lot of courage and gesture.
I still remember that in 1998, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in his second tenure was under pressure not to send the cricket team to India after Indian extremists threatened Pakistani team and even damaged one of the Test pitches. Yet, Sharif sent the team and the then BJP Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had welcomed the decision, saying, “One should not link sports with politics.” What is India doing today? They have linked sports with politics. Is it not true?
Despite strong opposition, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attended the oath-taking ceremony of Narendra Modi.It was a good beginning, but could not last. Within months India took a hardline when it postponed the scheduled foreign secretaries level talks. India came out with a weak reason — why did Pakistan’s high commissioner in India met the Hurriyat Conference leaders? Never before, it raised any such objection.
Thus, the message was clear from “Modi Sarkar”. They don’t want to talk; they don’t want peace, as peace would be acomplete negation of Modi’s political narratives. He has won the elections on “hate Pakistan” agenda.
The rise of BJP in Indian politics with people’s support reflects the changing mindset of otherwise “secular state.” Even within the BJP, a more extremist view now dominates its politics, which may not even like to see the word “hostile neighbour” rather prefer to address it as “enemy.”
The people of Pakistan voted for the PML-N and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the “agenda of peace” with India. Let the Indian media just go through the speeches made by Sharif and Modi in their respective election campaigns and if they make a fair assessment, it would not be difficult to reach a conclusion as to who wants peace and who does not.
The Indian media should also go through the “manifestos” of all the mainstream parties like the Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Muttahida Qaumi Movement and Awami National Party and even of two major religious parties Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and they would not find “anti-India” stance.
Now, just go through the Indian elections and the speeches. What is the stance of the BJP when it comes to Pakistan? Why the Congress often remained under pressure in dealing with Pakistan because of the support the BJP enjoyed among the masses? Why was the Indian election was by and large Pakistan-specific and Pakistan’s elections “against extremism and for peace.”
Pakistan and Indian relationship can often been divided into four different categories and can be resolved in phases. They are, (1) Kashmir, (2) terrorism, (3) border disputes, Siachen, Sir Creek, (4) water disputes, including construction of dams.
However, over the years even resumption of cricketing ties has become an issue because of the cricket crazy nation.Pakistan has its own internal challenges to fight against terrorism and extremism. In this fight it has lost over 60,000 people. Its army is engaged for the past several years on the western border. During the recently-launched Operation “Zarb-e-Azb,” it has claimed lot of success.
The civilian leadership also has a consensus on eliminating extremism. All this indicates that Pakistan wants peace and is fighting for it. But this does not mean that a “dispute” should be abandoned without resolution and the world remained silent on the massive violation of human rights.
The ball is in the Indian court. It’s now up to the Indian leadership, both civilian and military, to decide about how to respond to Pakistan’s continued plea for peace. If Pakistan went to the UN, it is not for “war” but for “peace.” After all, it only wanted the implementation of UN resolutions.
Elections, referendums, plebiscites are all peaceful and democratic means to get demands accepted. India knows that the present insurgency started after the 1989 elections in the Indian held Kashmir were disputed. Failure of peace struggle often resulted into armed struggles. This is exactly what happened in Sikhs case and in the case of Nagaland.
It is better for both India and Pakistan to go for peace initiative and avoid putting conditions, as there is no condition for peace. If you resolve major disputes, it’s better for millions of people in the two countries. Kashmiris should not be suppressed but their problems should be addressed.
Today, the Indian secularism is at stake and that too because of its own extremist politics. It now depends on how peace activists, the Indian media and civil society see the changing India. We in Pakistan want peace and resolution of all issues through dialogue.
The ball is in your court, Mr. Modi. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-33771-Why-Indias-extremism-is-more-dangerous
Comments are closed.