Although, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, however, if India is led to believe that its nuclear power is superior to Pakistan’s, thanks to the US technology transfer or that it will be able to thwart any Pakistani attack through technology such as Patriot Anti Missile System, then the temptation for it to engage Pakistan militarily may far too great to resist.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
(The following was published in July 2006. However, it may be more relevant now and hence I am putting it here)
A regional imbalance between countries with a history of conflict and mistrust is a lose-lose situation for all.
The recent conflict between
and Israel is instructive for Lebanon , India and the Pakistan . The dynamics of conflict generation seem to be that an imbalance of power was created between USA and Israel which had a history of mistrust, namely, the Syrian forces were made to withdraw from Lebanon . This made the task of the dominant power to subdue the subservient power easier, attractive and rational! As the dominant power could see that it can attack the subservient power with little fear of retaliation. Lebanon
The environment was rich for conflict. An event occurred to the disliking of the dominant power and it decided instantly to teach the subservient power a lesson, namely, two of its soldiers were kidnapped.
The result has been war with adverse social, humanitarian, political and economic consequences for both the countries. Most importantly for
the foreign investment and the resultant economic activity have stalled and retrogressed. This will surely result in social problems in Lebanon and it will be easier for the extremist elements to popularize their appeal. This will in turn mean more problems and attacks for Lebanon which will mean disruption to the normal life, commerce and trade. Israel
Thus, it may obvious to state that creating an imbalance of power between countries with histories of conflict and mistrust is a no-win situation for either of those countries!
There are lessons in this for
, India and the Pakistan . The USA has, it appears, taken a decision to give USA the leadership role in the region, in terms of military, economic and political clout. This will create an imbalance of power between India and India which are, like Pakistan and Israel , two countries with histories of conflict and mistrust. This will, like the example quoted above, can make it rational and attractive for the dominant power to be more aggressive with the smaller power and more akin to enter into a military expedition considering itself more powerful. In this environment if any event occurs that provokes the dominant power then it is to be expected that the response of the dominant power will be more aggressive than had there been a balance of power. Indian reaction towards Lebanon after the Mumbai bomb blasts can be explained thus. Pakistan
This will have adverse effects for the both countries, even more so for
. The biggest effect will be on India ’s economic activity and the result could be political and social chaos given the size of that country, and resultantly it will be bad news for the international community and the India itself whose prime aim of making USA a strategic power in the region will be thwarted. India
All the three countries must be careful in maintaining the balance of power and if it is indeed disturbed then in the case of provocative events they would have to show great restraint in the interest of humanity and our political and economic global village.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The anti-Indian policies of Pakistani state from its inception were not due to any innate hatred of India but exercises in self-preservation by an insecure and vulnerable Pakistani state in its infancy. However, it was done so thoroughly and convincingly that even after securing our existence, we are still following the old policies. In effect, we have become slaves of our old policies which do not reflect our nuclear status.
Here is an explanation of the above.
The Chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan has quoted to have said that India is not the enemy at the present.
In my opinion, this is correct. With Pakistan becoming a nuclear power, it is not vulnerable to state actors especially not from the ones which have large stakes and a lot to lose in the case of a conflict with Pakistan. Pakistan, however, is vulnerable to internal instability and from elements against which our nuclear power is not relevant.
In other words, our nuclear power is a deterrent against countries and states or concrete regional entities and secures us against them, including against India. But this big power of ours is not effective against internal discontents and elements. And, our challenge is thus not securing ourselves against India that we already have, but unconventional actors and internal discontents.
In this sense the statement of the Chief of the ISI is right on the money.
Pakistan and India were created amidst a bitter and bloody partition. That calamity and tragedy planted the seeds of distrust and insecurity in the minds of the Pakistani policy makers in the early years.
Pakistani establishment felt an existential threat from India which was not unjustified given the circumstances leading to the creation of Pakistan. Indeed, if there had been no distrust between the Congress (which embodied the Indian leadership) and the Muslim leadership headed by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, there would have been no need for Pakistan.
The distrust between the two sets of leadership continued into their heading two different countries and shaped the state policy thereafter.
Pakistan's fundamental security concern was a threat from India. With a weak state structure and smaller size Pakistan was vulnerable or so its leadership felt. Pakistanis in order to secure their existence sought strong allies such as the USA and later China for help against India. Internally, Pakistanis perpetuated their fear and distrust of India into all spheres of policy including, the school and college curricula, defence policy, foreign policy priorities, trade policies, organisational ethos in security organs and the political expression.
This must be borne in mind by all those making policy for Pakistan now.
Today, Pakistan is no longer a weak and vulnerable state in the sense that it is an atomic power and no country including India should make it insecure or raise its concerns regarding its existence.
With its existence secure, Pakistani state can move away from policies centered on a threat from India. Since our existence is not threatened anymore, we no longer need to make policies centered around our security and the Indian threat.
India has accepted Pakistan as a reality. Indeed, India would or should prefer a buffer between itself and the dangerous Afghanistan. Historically, India has always been destabilised from elements coming from or through Afghanistan. Pakistan since its creation has given India a breathing space so to speak and India shall do well to preserve that.