Connect with us

South Asia

Transforming Regional Diplomacy in South Asia

Published

on

June and July in South Asia are the hottest months and it seems recent wave of heat in India-Pakistan relations got some contingent effect form this summer as the nascent peace between India and Pakistan appears to be hijacked once again by the hawks from the both sides.

However as every summer is met by the monsoon in South Asia, one should not abandon hopes for the showering of rain for peace between India and Pakistan. Interestingly, this time mechanism, to check the omen of peace was built up by the state officials, thus so-called non state actors must be cherishing on this as their agenda of hate speech and violence is taken by democratically elected representatives.

Though dialogue process once again was in embryonic phase but the situation was not that worst prior to the highly propagated and discussed, Indian army’s attack on rebel camps within Myanmar’s territory, claiming destruction of two camps and killing up to 15 belligerents. Indian Media and defense analysts started discussing potential of Indian army to conduct similar operation in other neighboring states in general and Pakistan in particular. Earlier, Mr. Modi, the prime minster of India, mentioned his volunteer efforts and contribution in the war of succession of Bangladesh, while addressing to students of Dhaka University and a cross-section of Bangladeshi Society, he reminded and acknowledged the role of Indian army in 1971 war. These two events fuel up the debate across Pakistan and gave huge blow to peace that was already in budding phase.

Contrary to this, soft corner for India and desire for peace was paid more attention in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif, the-then newly elected Prime Minster, faced harsh criticism for his generous invitation to the counterpart from India for his oath taking ceremony. However the invitation went deaf ears and hawks in Pakistan celebrated this refusal. In contrast, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made no delay to be the part of oath taking ceremony of Mr. Modi when the latter invited heads of all SAARC member states. This move was admired and appreciated by Mr. Sharif, and was looked as an opportunity to improve bilateral relation between the two states, furthermore hopes for better relations between two new governments were expected. One sided bonhomie of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif towards India didn’t end here and Indian Foreign Secretary Subramanyam Jaishankar was over welcomed by the Prime Minster house. Such moves and receptions though offer greater opportunity to visualize the relations from prism of idealism but it also invoke the sentiment that Pakistan’s national narrative has come to a point where India’s third tier officials are to be dealt by the supreme leadership of the country.

Holding these views mean neither I am against peace nor do I cultivate any hate, but indeed it is an issue of national honor and dignity. The dialogue is necessary between the two neighbors, but one must remember both India and Pakistan are equally sovereign states, and the prime minister is the representative of the nation. His desire to be a peace-broker and win a Nobel Prize should not be at the expense of national prestige. Also it is evident form the past that such generous and out of way moves produce nothing.

Arguably, hastened set of statements and irrational, narrow sighted policy choices are the outcome of frustration that India is facing with game changer ‘China Pakistan Economic Corridor’ project. This mega project with 45billion$ worth would not only offer stability, peace and prosperity to Pakistan but also it will facilitate trade to central Asia and Afghanistan along with prime objective to connect China with Arabian sea, thus offering China two Oceans power status. Though both Pakistan and China assured this development is not aimed against India, however Indian criticism and loud hue and cry itself explaining the defeat of their regional diplomacy.

Another setback to Indian diplomacy in the region is newly established better working relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. With the transition of government in Afghanistan, the new government improved bilateral relations with Pakistan. Mutual agreement to nip the bud of terrorism collectively enhanced trust between the two states. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan mutually assured that their terrain will not be used against each other. This has nurtured confidence between them and offered disappointment to India. Indian offer to train Afghan Military is refused and it seems Kabul looks towards Islamabad with consistent reliability.

Lastly but not least India’s day dreaming for permanent status in the United Nations Security Council and Obama’s statement over the issue on Republic Day celebration of India was met by anger and irritation in Pakistan. However, it was nothing more than a happy ending diplomatic bargain by the United States for India with no serious implications. Since its inception UNSC have been retained by the Permanent Five members of the council who are granted special powers and attribute by the charter of the UN, as the article 27 calls for an affirmative vote of the permanent members for the UNCS to decide any issue other than procedural ones, whereas the article 108 endorses their powers by making it, out of question to reform the charter without their consent. Which means one big ‘no’ by any of the permanent five (most likely by China) would restrain any such proposes amendment in the charter.

The call for reforms in the UNSC is not a new phenomenon, there have been strong voices in post-cold war times for the reforms. The present distribution permanent status neglects several significant states in contemporary times, these includes Brazil and South Africa as emerging economies from the southern hemisphere, Indonesia and Japan from Asia Pacific and Germany as the leading economy and technologically advance state of the central Europe. Albeit, India owing to its population, economy and several attributes of the powers seems justified in such demand but a state that does not comply with the UNSC resolutions over Kashmir simply remains in utopian dream that needs compliance with the UNSC resolutions to materialize this dream.

Desire for peace is worthy, noble and sacred, there must be no effort left undone to cultivate peace between India and Pakistan. Pakistan should not over react on hawkish statements by the Indian state officials. As the motive is to divert the national potential from development to conflict and wastage of energies is useless verbal game with India. However, as a famous proverb says ‘peace prevails among equals’, this noble desire for peace must not be at the cost of moral surrender, subjugation, compromise on national honor and the death of dignity. Thus any breach of peace or threat of aggression should be met with full powers and potentials. Let us hope to dream once again for the peace, prosperity and friendship between India and Pakistan to secure a better future for the upcoming generation with stable and endurable peace.

 

First published in Monthly the Diplomatic Insight, July, 2015. Vol. 8, Issue 7.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Questioning the Novelty of India’s New Normal

Haris Bilal Malik

Published

on

In recent years Indian notions of Pre-emption and so-called surgical strikes have been referred to as the ‘new normal’ by many in India. These have contributed to further affecting the security, stability and strategic equilibrium in the South Asian region. This is evident in how the top-brass within the Indian military has repeatedly asserted that India reserves the right to punish Pakistan with such notions of preemptive strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) under its limited war doctrines, which themselves belie a desire to wage a low-intensity conflict across the border. At the doctrinal level, India has been planning for this for quite some time as evident from its 2004 Cold Start Doctrine (CSD)as well as its more recently released doctrines such as the 2017 Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces (JDIAF) and the 2018 Land Warfare Doctrine (LWD). These doctrines are all based upon proactive strategies and indirect threats of preemptive strikes against Pakistan. Based on the current patterns of Indian aggression these ideas hold immense significance when considering the latest rounds of tensions over the disputed territory of Kashmir as witnessed in the short-lived military engagement between the two countries in February 2019

Inspired by such notions and in typical fashion, the new Army Chief of India Gen. Manoj Mukund Naravane wasted little time in blaming Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism in India. The same day he took charge of his new appointment he claimed that India reserves the right to respond in the same way it had previously done through its so-called ‘surgical strikes.’ Moreover, he openly asserted to physically taking control of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) if his government ordered him to do so.

However, such assertions from the Indian political and military leadership are simply repetitions of the same statements that have been made by Prime Minister Modi, Mr. Rajnath Singh, and former Army Chief Gen. (R) Bipin Rawat in the recent past. Representing the same aggressive and jingoistic posturing, there is not much novelty in these statements. In fact, even in this so-called ‘new normal’ which these leaders have repeatedly described over the last few years, there is nothing new at all.

Even the oft-quoted notion of a preemptive ‘splendid first strike‘ is not new for Pakistan as it had already formed a key part of the discourse surrounding the Indian and international strategic community since the years 2016-2017. According to this, if in India’s assessment, Pakistan was found to be deploying nuclear weapons, as a contingency, India would likely resort to such a splendid first strike which it has always hinted as being a nuclear strike. As such all this does is prove Pakistan’s pre-existing doubts over India’s long-debated ‘No First Use’ (NFU) Policy. Yet, what’s worth noting here is that this overt shift towards declaring a more offensive doctrinal posture from India represents a more focused attempt at undermining the deterrent value of Pakistan’s own nuclear posture, thus ultimately destabilizing the South Asian region.

Instead, the only thing new to come out from all these assertions from Indian leaders is the prevailing fascist mindset within India that is being fueled by a false sense of racial superiority and hatred against Muslims. This was clearly stated by Prime Minister Imran Khan in his tweet when he attributed the cause of such provocations to the RSS’s extremist ideology. Hence, Pakistan perceives the recent statements from India’s top military brass as also being wholly politically inspired and as a routine attempt to divert attention away from the rampant domestic socio-economic issues currently plaguing India. The fact remains that Pakistan’s response to this Indian self-proclaimed ‘new normal’ which was on full display during the Balakot crisis itself set a clear example of its full spectrum deterrence. Contrary to the notion that a conventional asymmetry of sorts exists between the two countries, Pakistan had responded conventionally and more befittingly while holding its own toe to toe. In other words, Pakistan proved that it can also restore deterrence via conventional means despite the quantitative edge of India’s conventional forces and military hardware.

It is also worth noting that while India is spending billions of dollars on its military modernization program both in terms of its conventional and unconventional acquisitions; allocating billions for defence spending does not necessarily guarantee military supremacy. Especially if the adversary is determined to thwart any such attempts right from the outset. India’s actual capabilities still differentiate widely from what its political and military leadership inspires and projects itself to be. In fact, there is a huge gap between the Indian leadership’s expectations and what its military can actually deliver. As apparent not only in the absurdity of Gen. Naravane’s statement but also in Prime Minister Modi’s and others, the credibility of such threats already remains highly questionable.

Hence at the present, it seems that India is more keen on simply projecting military supremacy vis-à-vis Pakistan as opposed to actually attaining it, as reflected in the statements of its political and military top brass. Its favored notions of preemption at the doctrinal and strategic levels are evidence of such aspirations. As such the increasingly provocative posturing against Pakistan in the form of this so-called ‘new normal’ seems to represent simply a jingoistic approach to manipulate Indian public sentiment in the ruling government’s favor. However, the fact remains that Pakistan has already nullified such notions of preemption in the recent past and has proved it time and again. As such India’s aggressive posturing seems to be collapsing on itself with its self-proclaimed ‘new normal’ unlikely to pose any serious challenges to Pakistan’s strategic posture at least for the time being.

Continue Reading

South Asia

From Scapegoat Back to Key Ally: Pakistan and the Perils of US Maximalism

M Waqas Jan

Published

on

In the two years since President Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing but deceit and lies, relations between both countries seem to have undergone a dramatic turnaround. This is evident not only in the official narrative being put forth by both countries with respect to one another, but also in how this growing sense of cordiality has culminated into a series of high-level visits and meetings between key representatives. For instance, the icy indifference with which US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was greeted with in Islamabad back in September 2018 now stands in stark contrast to the frank more amicable meetings that have been held between Prime Minister Khan and President Trump thrice since then. Not to mention the back to back visits from Alice Wells, the current US government’s focal representative for South Asia, that have further accompanied a steady yet gradual thawing of tensions.

Signs of this turnaround are further evident in how last month’s resumption of military education and training programs for Pakistani Officers marks one of the first steps towards renewed strategic cooperation. This represents an important milestone since President Trump had announced the cancellation of all forms of US military aid to Pakistan in early 2018. Similarly, acknowledgments of the progress made as per the requirements of the FATF review, as well as the ‘concern’ expressed over India’s recent actions in Kashmir are all signs aimed at placating some of Pakistan’s most pressing interests. Thus, hinting at what more cordial relations with the US could look like for Pakistan, while just stopping short of making any concrete commitments.

Yet, to say that Pak-US ties have begun to ‘normalize’ or ‘revert’ towards a mutually beneficial status quo would be ignoring the age-old complexity that has characterized relations between both countries. Especially for a relationship that has been long described as blowing hot and cold, on and off, as a rollercoaster ride, or simply a love-hate one. History has borne witness to the fact that US foreign policy towards Pakistan has more than often been based on a ruthless pragmatism and maximalism. This all or nothing approach has brought immense amounts of aid and funds for Pakistan which have been always cut off just as abruptly as they were initiated. Often without any long-term assessment or appreciation of what such actions are likely to lead to beyond the US’s more immediate goals.

None of this has been more evident than in US expectations from Pakistan regarding Afghanistan and the Taliban. It’s no secret that the very inception of the Taliban came from US funds and training during the waning stages of the Cold War for which Pakistan played the role of an indispensable intermediary. Yet following the 9/11 attacks, US policy towards the Taliban changed overnight when the US in lumping the Taliban together with Al-Qaeda brought down its military might on the entire Afghan State. What’s more it forced Pakistan to join its War on Terror almost at gunpoint. The infamous statement attributed to then US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage where he allegedly threated ‘to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age’ stands as a stark reminder of how even labeling this relationship as ‘complex’ is simply an understatement.

This aspect is further reinforced in the damning revelations of the Afghanistan Papers that were released just last month. Representing a cache of candid interviews of key officials responsible for formulating and implementing the US’s Afghanistan policy, these interviews have been used to piece together crucial mistakes at the strategic and policy levels made by successive US governments over the last two decades.  One of these mistakes has been highlighted as ‘trusting Pakistan as a friend’ where Pakistan has been repeatedly accused of providing sanctuary and support to certain militant groups. Hence, accusations of Pakistan playing a double game, as well as the confusing distinctions between good and bad Taliban all contributed to a narrative that Pakistan was doing more to upend US progress than support it. This had caused much of the resentment and mutual distrust specifically during the Obama years which starting from calls to ‘do more’ resulted in the US unilaterally and covertly taking out Osama Bin Laden deep inside Pakistani territory. As ties worsened, the advent of the Trump presidency brought with them an overt sense of finality in the form of his new year tweet that was referred to in the beginning of this article.

Yet, even now as both countries come full circle with the US asking for help in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, one fears that the US may still not have learnt anything from its adventurist debacles. As the Afghanistan Papers themselves testify, Pakistani officials have remained quite  candid in their desire to hedge their bets against the US by maintaining limited ties with the Taliban. This was made clear to Ambassador Ryan Crocker who had served as the US ambassador in Islamabad from 2004-2007. In one of his interviews in the Afghanistan Papers, the former ambassador directly quotes a conversation he had with Gen Ashfaq Kayani who was then the DG ISI.As Mr. Crocker himself recounts, the general had quite explicitly made clear his reservations against an abrupt US withdrawal that would force Pakistan to once again pick up the pieces while having made the Taliban a mortal enemy. Hence justifying the reasons behind Pakistan’s so-called duplicity.

But considering how it is in fact the US now that is pressing Pakistan to use those same ties to help extricate itself out of the Afghan quagmire, Pakistan’s strategy against the Taliban seems to have stood wholly vindicated. In fact, it appears downright visionary considering how in hindsight, Pakistan had repeatedly called on the US to consider negotiating with the Taliban – especially when the US had the upper hand following its initial successes back in the early 2000s.However,the US after squandering its own reputation and credibility and already having missed multiple chances to engage with the Taliban are now ironically banking on Pakistan to help secure an exit. A kind of exit that not only allows the US to perhaps save face at the international level, but also offer something palatable to the American people during an election year. Thus, once again reeking of the reactionary maximalism that has so often brought into question the US’s reliability and trustworthiness as an ally. Not to mention President Trump’s own ‘America First’ policy, which already risks squandering whatever little credibility the US has been left with in the first place.

Continue Reading

South Asia

India’s Modi: Messiah or Menace

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

When the Hindu sages developed their way of life, they divided people into four castes:  Brahmins, the thinkers, scholars and priests at the top for they were the guides; Kshatriyas, the soldiers including the king second for they protected and governed society; Vaishyas the merchants third with their commerce facilitating daily living; and Shudras who were the laborers and service workers at the bottom.

Well, the world has changed as it should but perhaps they had a point as there is a Vaish — not one at the top of the class but a tea-seller from a shop that would be at the other end of the spectrum from those charming English tea shops in Devon — now running the country.  Of dubious education that has been challenged and a beginning in the ultra-nationalist RSS (once outlawed by India’s founding prime minister and known also for producing Gandhi’s assassin) Narendra Modi is at India’s helm.  His BJP party’s rise is linked to stoking up tensions between Hindus and minority Muslims, whose suffering has been well documented.  Police powers have been increased and Muslim Kashmir is now under direct rule from Delhi, while new laws are disqualifying Muslims from citizenship.  So reports The Economist in its special issue, The State of the World in 2020 (p. 53).

Better known is the pogrom of Muslims in Modi’s Gujarat when he headed the provincial government there, and his party’s role in the destruction of a 500-year old mosque built by Babur so that the fictitious birthplace of Ram would be holy to both religions.  Having overthrown the Muslim Lodi dynasty and with a tenuous hold, Babur was seeking friends among Hindu Rajas who generally owed fealty to the Delhi sultans.  The Mughal Emperors also started the custom of marrying Hindu royalty to cement relationships and ensure loyalty.  And this Mughal openness to other religions reached its apex under Emperor Akbar who founded a new religion, Din-i-Ilahi, attempting to incorporate the best from all faiths but which, lacking roots, died with him.

After the Indian rebellion against British rule, the British saw advantage in fostering division among communities in the infamous divide-and-rule maxim, now changed by Modi into suppress-and-rule, as the left-over Muslim community is poor and weak after the emigration of many to Pakistan following partition and independence in 1947.

Gandhi and founding prime minister Nehru’s vision of a secular India is enshrined in its constitution, which Modi and the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda subverts.  Its Hindutva, a Nazi-like ideology holding Hinduism supreme, wants India to be an exclusively Hindu nation noting that Hindu and Muslim cultures are different, without regard to the similarities.  As a video demonstrating the new ideology in practice points out, it is safer to be a cow than a Muslim in Modi’s India.

It is what one can expect when an ill-educated, charismatic tea-seller takes over the world’s largest democracy offering cultural superiority and its false pride, hare brained schemes like a deadline  declaring old high denomination banknotes illegal causing chaos at banks.  Poorly managed plans like toilets and gas cookers for the poor are touted as successes.  But the toilets are not used because the plans did not include maintenance, and gas cooker distribution is riddled with corruption.  Meanwhile, the economy suffers and the country ranks 102 out 117 on the Global Hunger Index (between Sierra Leone and Niger) and far behind Bangladesh.  So much for the hype.

Continue Reading

Latest

Tourism1 min ago

Global Tourism Plastics Initiative Takes On One of the Worst Polluters

The Global Tourism Plastics Initiative is ground-breaking and ambitious in its goals. It aims to reduce the amount of plastic...

Defense2 hours ago

India’s Evolving Nuclear Posture: Implications for Pakistan

It’s been twenty one years to the emergence of India, as an explicit nuclear weapon state (NWS), yet India needs...

Tourism4 hours ago

King of Spain Signals Strong Support For UNWTO’s Tourism Ambitions

Held to mark the 40th anniversary of FITUR, one of the world’s leading tourism trade fair and the first one...

Middle East6 hours ago

Potential Sino-Lebanese Cooperation under the New Lebanese Government

Since ancient times, Lebanon has been a center of civilized communication between East and West; ships that carry Chinese silk...

Hotels & Resorts9 hours ago

Marriott International Signs Landmark Deal To Open World’s Largest Fairfield By Marriott Hotel In Makkah

Marriott International, Inc. announced that it has signed a landmark agreement with Nahdet Al-Mashaer to open a 2,600-room Fairfield by...

Style11 hours ago

Big Bang Integral

New product alert: the first Big Bang with an integrated bracelet! 15 years after its creation, the Big Bang features...

EU Politics13 hours ago

Africa-Europe Alliance: Four new financial guarantees worth €216 million

The European Commission signed today four guarantee agreements worth €216 million that will help unlock €2 billion to invest in...

Trending