By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on November 13, 2007
Countries become great powers not jut by believing they are so but when their neighbors and not just great powers recognize them as such.
India and Indian leaders pride themselves on the greatness of Indian civilization and the great future of India in the years to come. Yet they have tried to keep out the problems facing their smaller neighbors, unless those problems cause spill-over effects.
The largest power in South Asia, both demographically and economically, the Indian policy elite has normally adopted one of two attitudes towards the problems of its neighbors – disinterest bordering on ignorance or cynicism bordering on fatalism. There is need for a more nuanced policy.
India initially tried to keep out of the civil war in Sri Lanka but when it did it sent a peacekeeping force. In Nepal too India did not support, at least overtly, the democratic revolution in 2006 in its early stages and only when the revolution had reached the point of no return did India choose the side it would support. India’s Bangladesh policy has entailed ignoring things in that country till they reach a breaking point.
Today once again we see two types of policies being thrown up in the Indian media and academia on the question of the turmoil in Pakistan. The view is that either we should ignore what is happening in Pakistan because India is now in a ‘bigger league’ and can afford to ignore the ‘pinpricks’ caused by Pakistan; or that things will never change in Pakistan and one should not waste one’s time in helping any attempts at change.
The latter view also often holds the United States as responsible for the problems in Pakistan and as the key beneficiary of any temporary changes in that country.
The October 18 bomb blasts in Karachi on Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s convoy were condemned by both the Indian government and the leading Opposition party. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sent a letter to Ms. Bhutto and the Indian External Affairs Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee spoke to Ms. Bhutto expressing his “sorrow at the dastardly act.” The leader of the Opposition Mr. L.K. Advani said he was “aghast” to hear of the attack and was relieved Ms. Bhutto had survived the bid on her life.
But when martial law was imposed by General Musharraf on November 3, the Indian reaction was to refer to it as an ‘internal matter’ of Pakistan.
Editorials in leading newspapers critiqued the Indian establishment for “virtually bending over backwards” in expressing dismay at the attack on Ms. Bhutto. Most of the articles believe that “Benazir Bhutto’s return was stage managed by the United States. The only reason Nawaz Sharif didn’t succeed was that “he lacked American backing.” And that “Her role is only to provide formal democratic legitimacy to the Army to execute the anti-terrorist agenda of America in Pakistan.”
Ms. Bhutto’s party had struck an arrangement with General Musharraf’s government, which is now unraveling. Negotiating with a military dictator might seem like compromise and ‘abandoning of democratic principles’ to some people and to others it might look like a repetition of history. But people forget that it is not history that repeats itself but actors who repeat themselves. If the actors are different, the context is different; maybe the course of history might also be different.
Indian readers are being told that “neither Ms. Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif exercises any real power over the Pakistan state.” And that “lovers of democracy in India do not have any understanding of the forces that control and direct the Pakistani state and it is likely that they will bite the bait of democracy seeing Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s return to her country on October 18.”
There is a need for the policy elite, media and academia to move beyond these attitudes.
Pakistan may not be as large a country as India but it is the second largest Muslim country in the world, has a population of 160 million people, is a nuclear weapons state and above all is our neighbor. Pakistan cannot be ignored, however, great a power India might become. Neighbors still remain important as Canada and Mexico keep reminding the United States and Ukraine reminds Russia.
Neither is it inevitable that things follow a certain paradigm in Pakistan. Paradigms can be changed, people can be roused and it is possible for there to be a phased rollback of military rule in Pakistan. Rising Talibanization in Pakistan, rising number of suicide attacks or bomb blasts, increasing disenchantment of the people with the government is not something to either gloat over or something Indian policy makers and elite can ignore. It is something to be worried about.
General Musharraf and the military stay in power on the assumption, believed by many in India and in the West, that if the military relinquishes power jihadists will take over Pakistan. The weeks of protests in support of Chief Justice Chaudhry in March-April this year and the hundreds of thousands who gathered to welcome Ms. Bhutto on October 18 should have been proof that it is not so.
In the absence of a civilian representative government, non-government organizations often take over the vacuum that is created. It is positive if people-led NGOs fill this gap but in many states, like Pakistan and Egypt, it is the Islamists who have filled this vacuum. To turn Pakistan back there is a need to fill this vacuum with either an elected secular government or a non-Islamist civil society.
Here is where leaders like Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif fill the gap. They highlight the systemic problems that the country faces in a manner in which Pakistan’s people understand, something which bureaucrats and academics are sometimes not able to do. Pandit Nehru had a characteristic which contemporaries found difficult to understand. Nehru would discuss all his policies, whether foreign or domestic, with all the constituencies and people he met or gave speeches to. He believed that it was the purpose of government to explain policies to the people, however abstruse they might be.
There are significant opportunities for India here both on Kashmir and other issues. Gen. Musharraf has tried to put forth new proposals for the Indo-Pakistan peace process but a lack of political legitimacy and rising internal problems in his country have stalled the peace process at many levels. A government which is politically representative and also has the backing of the military is a lot more likely to be able to come up with a long term agreement with India.
India cannot and should not interfere in the domestic politics of Pakistan. However, both at the level of civil society as well as at the level of political elite, India must show the people of Pakistan that we believe in their democratic and civilian-controlled future as much as they do.