By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on October 10, 2008
Recent comments by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari that ‘India does not pose a threat’ to Pakistan and his reference to militant groups in Kashmir as ‘terrorists’ have not just created a storm in Pakistani domestic politics but highlighted the need for a paradigm shift in both countries.
Indian policy makers have always maintained that ‘Pakistan needs to do more.’ One of their key demands has been that Pakistan acknowledge that there is ‘cross-border terrorism’ from Kashmir into India. Now when the new Pakistani leadership has in some ways accepted this there seems to be a hesitance on the Indian side.
Is it because over the years a certain part of the Indian strategic establishment has built Pakistan as its ‘bogey’ and needs that ‘other’ in order to survive. This establishment believes that India as a status quo power, as the bigger of the two powers in the equation and the potential global power does not need to make concessions. The belief is that India has enough resources to outlast any conflict with Pakistan and hold on to Kashmir. That may be true. However, at what cost?
Economically India’s growth and development are negatively impacted by the annual cost to the exchequer of the insurgency in Kashmir. Over the years there has also been a harmful impact on Indian democracy – the undue interference by the federal government in local politics from a desire to ensure that the party in power in Kashmir is ‘friendly’ to the federal government and ‘pro-India.’ This has added to the grievances of the local populace and damaged India’s image abroad. The prolonged presence of armed forces and paramilitary presence in Kashmir has its concomitant social problems. It also leads to the interference of the armed forces in politics and the creation of their vested interests.
If India wants to be considered a global power it needs to look at how other global powers resolved their conflicts with their neighbors. The United States and Canada still have many border disputes and problems but that has not come in the way of a harmonious and long-term relationship. France and Germany fought over Alsace-Lorraine for years; now it does not really matter which country has those territories as each is closely tied to and integrated with the other. India has better relations with China (including economic ties) than it has with Pakistan even though China still lays claim to large parts of Indian territory in the north west and north east.
It is in India’s interests, economic, social and foreign policy related, to take the advantage of the changed administration in Pakistan and to work towards a paradigm shift in the Kashmir policy. India, and South Asia’s future, lies in a stable civilian democratic Pakistan with which India has close conflict-free ties.
Indian strategic thinkers and policy makers have been reticent to start any dialogue on Kashmir with a civilian administration in Pakistan on the grounds that ‘only the military can institute changes in Pakistan.’ This is a fallacy. On the contrary, a civilian government can bring about long-term changes because it needs to win the support of its people. The challenge in Pakistan, however, has been that civilian governments have not been able to stay in power long enough to do so. Its power and longevity would be helped if the civilian government could show its people that it can bring them not just economic and social growth but also peace and prosperity by resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Kashmir is one of the many ‘issue items’ on the agenda for India-Pakistan talks but there is a need for something more than that. India needs to offer Pakistan a policy it can sell to its people. Most people, in both countries, know that land will not be exchanged and borders will not change. However, after 60 years of calling Kashmir ‘the unfinished business of Partition’ and after fighting four wars and a covert insurgency Pakistan’s policy elites need a face-saving measure. And India can provide it to them.
We must remember that Kashmir is part of a much larger problem – the problem of Pakistan’s basic insecurity vis-à-vis a much larger neighbor from whom it perceives a security threat. President Zardari recently pointed out, to the chagrin and discomfort of Pakistan’s establishment, that India is not a threat to Pakistan. The Indian leadership too needs to come out with statements which reassure the Pakistani side that not only is ‘Pakistan not a threat to India’ but that India ‘respects and recognizes’ Pakistan’s sovereignty and integrity.
India gains much more by a stable Pakistan, a democratic Pakistan, an economically strong Pakistan because that Pakistan will desire better ties with its neighbors, will not be under the control of a strategic establishment which needs to create bogeys and interfere in other countries affairs and will have a government which will be accountable to its people. It might be unstable for some years but then who knows better than Indians how unstable and erratic democracy can be.