The grammar of politics in South Asia
By Ahsan Butt, November 11, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 4:00 PM
Share
It is one of the quirks of international diplomacy that an entire delegation from a superpower, traveling to a major regional power, can be based around a punctuation mark. But that is exactly what we witnessed over the weekend, as Barack Obama completed his much-discussed trip to India.
The hyphen may seem innocent enough to casual observers of global politics, certainly less offensive than the serial comma, but it is the bane of Indian strategic thinkers. For more than a decade, India has been at pains to convince the U.S. to not treat it as one half of an ungovernable relationship with its western neighbor, and instead to establish relations with it on a purely bilateral basis, to the exclusion of Pakistan. "De-hyphenating" U.S. foreign policy in the region, making it less "Indo-Pak" and more "India here and Pakistan there," has been one of the primary goals of Indian foreign policy since the Clinton administration.
By and large, India has succeeded in imposing this grammatical and strategic culling. This success would have been clearer had the U.S. not involved itself this decade in what seems to be an essentially unwinnable war in Afghanistan, where Pakistan -- by virtue of neo-imperialist designs, geography, ethnic ties, social networks and political history -- exerts great influence, to the point of being a veto player on any settlement reached in that country. The U.S. is forced to respect Pakistan's ability to play kingmaker in Afghanistan -- or spoiler, depending on the frame of reference -- and thus not fully throw its lot behind India more generally.
But Af-Pak notwithstanding (a hyphenation that Pakistanis, rather than Indians, find uncomfortable), India's relationship with the U.S. is becoming increasingly sturdy. On business, commerce, education, military hardware, nuclear energy, and maritime security, the U.S. partnership with India is growing and will continue to grow.
Curiously enough, these developments in India's relations with the U.S. are part of the consequences of re-hyphenation. Simply put, China's role in Asian and global politics is necessitating a balancing coalition against it, the principal parties being Japan and India, and tertiary actors like Vietnam and Australia too in the mix. In essence, the U.S. has not de-hyphenated its foreign policy toward India so much as changed the country it is hyphenated with: previously Pakistan, and now China. And while the U.S.-India relationship is not reducible to China, China does feature prominently in the strategic space between the world's two largest democracies.
Frankly, the idea that the world's sole superpower would divorce regional considerations in its bilateral dealings with states is foolish. As long as nation states have populated the international system, great powers have oriented their foreign policies around wider regional and global imperatives. It is no coincidence that France supported the U.S. in its war of independence against Britain; it is no coincidence that Germany viewed Austrian-Serbian relations differently than Russia in the prelude to World War I; and it is no coincidence that as China asserts itself, the U.S. finds itself in a tighter embrace with India. This is International Relations 101.
To that end, it is unsurprising that the U.S. has endorsed a seat on the U.N.'s Security Council for India. Though the announcement is largely considered symbolic rather than substantive -- given that any reform of the U.N. would have to pass a China veto -- it is still significant. It crystallizes the changing dynamics in Asia, and removes the ambiguity in the developing alliance patterns both regionally and globally.
Where does this leave Pakistan? It is hard to conceive of Pakistan allying even closer to China than it already does, but the burgeoning ties between the U.S. and India leave it little choice. Pakistan will continue to rely on China for infrastructural development, nuclear cooperation, and regional security -- as it always has.
As for its relationship with the U.S., Pakistan simply cannot match India and thus might be better off not even trying. As analyst Mosharraf Zaidi noted in an excellent column, "Pakistan is a net-consumer of American taxpayer benevolence. India is a net-contributor to the American taxpayers' bottom-line." If Pakistan is waiting for the U.S. to retreat to its Indo-Pak shorthand, it will be waiting a long, long time. Once the war in Afghanistan is over, whenever that may be, Pakistan should aim at broadly cooperative relations with the U.S., but nothing more, because it is bound to be disappointed.
The disjuncture in what India and Pakistan can offer the U.S. could not be clearer, and the ways in which the U.S. interacts with the neighbors reflects that fact. When it comes to India, the U.S. talks jobs and software. When it comes to Pakistan, the U.S. talks drones and terrorism. Put differently, the U.S. wants an extensive partnership with India because of the potential benefits in doing so. But it wants an extensive partnership with Pakistan because of the potential costs in not doing so. Once the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in the past, those potential costs will be minimized, thus affording both the U.S. and Pakistan the opportunity to disentangle from a fairly messy alliance.
All this elides the inescapable notion that whatever the fickle machinations of global power politics, the relationship that needs the most work -- that between Pakistan and India -- is garnering the least attention. It would be silly to pretend that the mere holding of talks or "composite dialogues" can ameliorate the tension between the two. Pakistan and India have some very deep problems that cannot be solved easily or quickly -- terror, territory, and water, to name but three.
That said, there is plenty of room for cooperation between the two states, and there is no reason to leave such mutual gains on the table because of an inability to hammer out more significant agreements. For instance, the practice of jailing fishermen for long periods of time simply because they crossed maritime borders must end. These jailed fishermen became bargaining chips in the interminable political wrangling between Pakistan and India -- and very small chips at that. They buy little in terms of concessions, but the cost to families and communities affected is incalculable, as depicted in the film Ramchand Pakistani.
More importantly, the two countries can relax visa and travel restrictions on each other's citizens. Indians might chafe at such a suggestion due to security concerns, but the fact is that terrorists very rarely need an official visa to cross the border and wreak havoc. Visa and travel restrictions hurt two major groups of people more than most: divided families and tourists who would like to visit the other country, and commercial interests. Trade between India and Pakistan today stands at a pitiful $1.65 billion; estimates suggest it could easily be an order of magnitude higher with trade and travel restrictions eased.
This is not to suggest that cooperation on "smaller" issues will develop into a broad-based partnership; the international relations literature is still divided on whether increased trade leads to more cooperation between states. But smaller gains are worth it in and of themselves, and the two states should not let larger stumbling blocks impede progress in other areas.
Moreover, recent history has shown that the two countries are not as far off a deal on major issues as commonly thought. The Onion once memorably claimed that if all else fails, India and Pakistan will have their issues resolved in 800 billion years due to the shifting of tectonic plates underneath the earth's surface. Such cynicism is understandable, but slightly misplaced.
Just in the last ten years, the governments of India and Pakistan have come narrowly close to resolving very thorny issues, such as Kashmir. In the late 1990s, Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, though back-channel dialogue, were on the cusp of ironing an agreement out -- until the disastrous Kargil adventure led by Pervez Musharraf put an end to those plans. In the mid-2000s, Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were on the verge of a final settlement on Kashmir, before domestic problems with the judiciary in 2007 caused Musharraf to back off.
It is notable that the leaders involved in those negotiations were not outwardly similar. Vajpayee was a center-right leader or a right-wing nationalist coalition; Manmohan a center-left leader of a Congress-led coalition. Sharif was an authoritarian civilian with a strong conservative bent; Musharraf was the gung-ho general who initiated a war against India in 1999 but then made rapprochement with India his central foreign policy objective as president. If these gentlemen -- or rather the civil servants, foreign policy bureaucrats and negotiating teams under them -- could come as close as they did, it stands to reason that a sustainable détente is not out of the question. Difficult? Absolutely. Impossible? Absolutely not.
Ahsan Butt is a PhD student in political science at the University of Chicago. He blogs at Five Rupees.
China has promoted Pakistan to counter-balance India. So India had no choice but to seek ways to counter-balance China-Pakistan axis to encircle India.
Let us not forget that it is China who gave nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan to check India.
Let us not forget that Pakistan is allowing China to modernize Gwadar seaport which gives China a foothold in Arabian sea as well as Persian gulf.
Pakistan did not have any problem giving away even some Kashmir territory to its all-weather friend China.
This is how China-Pakistan forced US to rush to India for strategic ally in South Asian neighborhood.
These recommendations are just more "feel good" or "let's hold hands so we can understand each other" recommendations that aren't well thought out.
1. "More importantly, the two countries can relax visa and travel restrictions on each other's citizens. Indians might chafe at such a suggestion due to security concerns, but the fact is that terrorists very rarely need an official visa to cross the border and wreak havoc. "
Ever heard of David Headley?
2. "For instance, the practice of jailing fishermen for long periods of time simply because they crossed maritime borders must end. "..
..yeah, right. Is the author even aware that was through water that the Mumbai terrorists arrived into India?
The author is right to point out that in 1999 and 2008 Pakistan and India came close to peace agreements. But the the policy recommendations are not grounded in reality.
Relax Visa regime for Pakistanis?
"but the fact is that terrorists very rarely need an official visa to cross the border and wreak havoc."
This cheap unfounded cliche is pure bunkum.Of course,you need papers(faked or real) to move around in a country.It adds one more layer of complexity to terrorists.Why the hell should India relax visa or anything to Pakistan which is bend on blocking every step of progress India makes by sabotage or training and infiltrating terrorists..
Secondly,the border patrolling,fencing,IEDs and thermal imaging capability build with help of Israelis have made India-Pak border very difficult for Pakistanis to penetrate.This is a documented fact that when there was a friendly regime in Bangladesh,Pakistan send terrorists via flights to Bangladesh and Nepal (both have open borders/leaky borders with India) to infiltrate through these routes.The sea-route to Mumbai was planned precisely because of India's strengthened border defences.Now post-Mumbai 26/11,Sea is also closely watched by hi-tech aerostat radars,radar satellites etc..
In fact,all countries should block Pakistanis from entering their countries or doing business with them..until they are ready to dismantle and reverse their massive terrorist institutions which are openly recruiting,training all and sundry "students" from all over the world in tradecraft of sabotage and bloodshed.
Misuse of Indian hospitality by Pakis
Plz read this piece..Pakistani military intelligence misused visas for India-Pakistan cricket match to recon for terrorist attacks..
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Headleys-handlers-used-Indo-Pak-match-as-cover/articleshow/6869213.cms
Best reply from @majorlyprofound blogger
http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/strapping-the-suicide-vest-on-the-kashmir-issue/
One more attack in Karachi. As of writing this post, 20 have died and over 100 are wounded. Many of them critically. My sympathies to the brave law enforcers who were killed in cold blood. But this was bound to happen.
The instinctive reaction–which is also the decent and conscientious thing to do–is the outpouring of grief and sympathy for the victims. Some of the statements made during the immediate aftermath should be interpreted in the context of the shock of the moment: This includes Edhi attributing the attack to rising prices and the economic discomfort of the common man.
This post is not about such statements. Instead, this post is about other mindless platitudes–some of them due to intellectual laziness and others due to malice–which make me very pessimistic about the prospects of reduced violence in the foreseeable future. I am not talking about the inevitable nuttiness about "foreign hands" or "Zionists conspiracies" or "Sugar hoarding" which explain this horror, but the statements of intelligent, well travelled, accomplished Pakistanis made (presumably) with the best of intentions before and after the attack. I am talking about those along the lines of "Talk, dammit. TALK to resolve issues, incl #Kashmir" (as a reply to What can India do when one pakistani kills other..)
An explanation is due first. My criticism is general, I do not accuse anyone in particular. When I do quote someone, I rest secure in the knowledge that he/she is mature enough to debate criticism. Feel free to comment, I will approve it unmoderated.
Why am I bothered about such statements? Before I go into it, let me first quickly point out why some statements (like those which seem to suggest solving the Kashmir issue will somehow reduce violence levels in Pakistan) are the epitome of stupidity and/or intellectual laziness. I present Exhibit A (attributed to @pragmatic_d in twitter whose blog I read) and wish to pose a question.
If India did not negotiate during the 1991-2003 period why would India do so now?*
In fact, I would go a step further:
Taking the adversarial view, if Pakistanis are killing Pakistanis because of unresolved Kashmir issue, the best strategy for India is to wait till Pakistanis kill each other off. India certainly has the time, money, manpower, strategy, international support and the will to pursue this strategy.
After Pakistanis kill off Pakistanis, Kashmir issue is solved! So are Sir Creek, Siachen, opposition to UN security council seat, threat of nuclear weapons, Mumbai style attacks, need to maintain a huge Army. So why really would India help Pakistan out? In short,
What if India does not negotiate Kashmir with Pakistan? What is Pakistan’s anti-terror strategy then?
Now that we have dispensed with the stupidity of the "solve Kashmir" approach to anti-terrorism (about which I also hastily put together a crudely humorous response in a previous blog post) let me visit what really bothers me and prompted me to write this post. Surely any reasonable person would have first asked the question:
How do I know for sure that the terrorists are somehow connected to the Kashmir issue?
Data Durbar, Marriott bombing, Shah Ghazi attack, Police academy bombing come to mind. What did these have to do with Kashmir? While it is seductive to blame everything on the "extremist forces" I wish to hear the argument why Shah Ghazi shrine would be safe if Kashmir is solved. As an aside, I wish to politely point out that nobody knows who killed Benazir or Zia and why. So claiming to know the motives of these attacks seem to be a bit presumptuous. Viewed from another angle, how can anyone assure us that if we solve the Kashmir issue, the "extremist forces" suddenly wont get passionate about Rajasthan or for that matter Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or Timbuktu? Or Aafiya Siddiqui? Or Guantanamo? Thereby creating yet another, yet another, yet another and yet another issue to solve before someone can buy tomatoes at a Lahore market without getting blown to pieces.
So why are people still dishing out Kashmir-based or US forces in Afghanistan-based narratives for explaining terrorism?
While I am not accusing everyone, at least a substantial number of such statements and articles seem to come from people who "understand" why people get radicalized due to these causes. "Solve Kashmir and they will go back to living peacefully" they say. Or the more nuanced variant from articulate people "Solve Kashmir and the Pakistan government can sell it as proof of western recognition of our sensitivities and de-radicalize such people". Sometimes people get careless and let it slip
"If Kashmir is solved, Pakistan will have no use for terrorist cells"
Aha!!
So the people dishing out the platitudes dont really denounce the terrorists, they are simply the "liberal and mainstream" supporters of terrorists who serve as a propaganda arm to put an acceptable face on terrorism!! (needless to say, I am not accusing everyone. Please read on)
Let me explain why I make this shocking allegation. Our very own commando (yes, yes he was Ex-President long gone. With a capital EX. But please note that like minded people still run Pakistan and he was running it as recently as 2 years ago) and innumerable others portray a subtext of innocence and helplessness. This starts off usually with "Mujahideen groups rose up to help their Kashmir brethren" and/or "US left the region and left behind a gun culture". Let me once and for all settle this and get it out of my system.
Claiming Mujahideen groups rose up is like claiming WAPDA rose up to supply electricity or PTCL rose up to provide internet. Terrorist groups were and are still actively recruited, funded, trained, supported and their spectacular attacks planned by the state of Pakistan. In that sense claiming that they rose up is like claiming that a government department was spontaneously formed one day. It would do everyone a great deal of good, if people started saying We formed, funded and trained terrorists…. But that would just make us look bad. Secondly, people should understand the subtext behind US left the region and left behind a gun culture. Let me dish out a history lesson here: It was understanding of Pakistan’s strategic community that US will help Pakistan replicate the Afghan success in Kashmir. Unfortunately US did not feel inclined to do that. Pakistan’s Jihad-warriors tried to take a go at it alone and the results are for everyone to see. The "US leaving the region…" is a subtle lament that if US had helped Pakistan with Kashmir, Pakistan would have succeeded and ergo, would have dismantled the terror apparatus by now. So before repeating this line ad-nauseam please do understand where this disappointment with the US really originates. Therefore, by starting off a grand speech with "Mujahideen groups rose up to help their Kashmir brethren" and/or "US left the region and left behind a gun culture" people are just brazenly admitting:
We trained terrorists as part of state policy and sent them to Kashmir & other parts of India and wont stop now because we havent succeeded in our objectives yet
The second half hearted attempt at claiming innocence goes along the lines of "Our army is tied down in the east and west, so many Pakistanis have lost their lives…we are helpless". Case in point is this gem from Mosharraf Zaidi "Pakistan has proven that it is a country that cannot protect its own citizens — in mosques, shrines, universities, shopping centers and police stations. How can it possibly protect the citizens of other countries?" Which again is at best naive and at worst malicious.
The naiveté stems from viewing anti-terrorism as a military operation: How many terrorists have been convicted in Pakistani courts? Why is Omar Sheikh Saeed still alive (yes that one. The one who was freed during the exchange of hostages in the hijacked Indian Airlines plane). His illustrious compatriot Mazood Azar (also freed during the hijack) is still running around free. So is the Philanthropist-in-chief of the "charity organization" LeT/JuD (About whom Musharraf admiringly spoke of recently) who is openly holding rallies. Punjab law minister is taking breezy car rides with terrorists. The case of the accused in Mumbai attacks is doing a farcical dance in the courts (Which to jog our memories, started off as a "RAW operation to defame Pakistan". Followed by "Kasab is not a Pakistani" by none other than illustrious President Zardari. Followed by "Planned on a boat outside of Pakistani territorial waters" by our illustrious UK ambassador. Ultimately reaching the current consensus of "non-state actors trained by rogue ex-employees of ISI" — because denying involvement in the face of overwhelming evidence was just getting plain embarrassing. Of course if not for that idiot Kasab getting caught alive, Mumbai attacks would have still remained a "RAW operation to defame Pakistan"). Then there are "Patriots" (the yahoos in Waziristan) and "Strategic assets" (The taliban according COAS Kayani’s utterances). So much for the "helplessness".
Forget invading North Waziristan, a leisurely walk in Muridke will net more terrorists than entire FATA and KP put together. Everyone knows this. Why hasn’t anyone gone on a stroll yet? Now you know why it is really mischievous to claim But…but…Pakistan is helpless because our Army is tied down. So when Mosharraf Zaidi says ""Pakistan has proven that it is a country that cannot protect its own citizens — in mosques, shrines, universities, shopping centers and police stations. How can it possibly protect the citizens of other countries?"" the narrative it is subtly conveying is***
Look at us!! Even though terrorists kill so many of our citizens, we stand steadfast in doing nothing about them, in fact we actively encourage them to kill a few of your citizens and you cannot make us stop!! Gloat!!
So where does the instigation to feign innocence, helplessness and blame everything terrorism and radicalization on everything from Kashmir to water sharing come from? Let us take a look at the recent "outrage" over NATO attacks in Khurram. A basic question needs to be addressed first – if drone attacks are acceptable to the Army, approved by Musharraf and operated form the Shamsi airbase inside Pakistan, why the sudden anger about helicopter attacks? Anger evident in blocking the transit routes for NATO convoys, where "extremists" suddenly showed up to burn the trucks (The comedic ending being the "extremists" strangely deciding to stop burning the trucks as soon as a NATO apology was dished out).
The reason ladies and gentlemen is that the attacks by NATO nearly gave Sirajuddin Haqqani his 72. Who (for the benefit of the uninformed) happens to be: Pakistan’s man in Afghanistan. Epitome of the "good taliban". A great patriot who has served his country by bombing the Indian consulate and their employees in Kabul under ISI guidance, planning and funding.
Thrice.
Outrage about Khurram was parroted by the TV anchors. Regurgitated by the newspapers. Bandied about by our diplomats. Ultimately lapped up by the naive "intelligentia" who get busy in blogs, twitter, opinion pieces–raising so much ruckus about violation of sovereignty that in the ensuing confusion a dozen drones slipped in unnoticed and did their deed. A narrative was built up whereby every "thinking Pakistani" then speaks with a unified voice “Violation of Sovereignty strengthens the hands of extremists!!!" and NATO backed off.
Congratulations!! You were used successfully by the Army and the ISI to impress upon NATO that killing Sirajuddin Haqqani is a red line for Pakistan.
Ofcourse we dont know for sure if ultimately our great patriot might one day get angry for whatever reason and set off few in Lahore. Not to worry, everyone can then blame NATO for not killing Sirajuddin Haqqani because NATO abandoned Pakistan as soon as their security objectives were met! Let me put it in clear terms:
A large part of blaming terrorists on "unresolved Kashmir issue", feigning helplessness, dishing out platitudes about overstretched army is just a tactic to buy time, keep the terror apparatus intact, wait till the Americans leave Afghanistan, send half the terrorists Afghanistan and the other half to Kashmir and party like it is the 80?s & 90?s. A few Pakistanis blown up in Karachi or Lahore is acceptable collateral damage for this great strategic plan.
People who get deceived by this narrative, parroting the "Kashmir cause", bemoaning helplessness and consequently refusing to ask the obvious questions or demanding commonsense actions on the anti-terrorism front, are just being suckered into participating in the propaganda arm of those who wish to adopt a terror-based strategy to further Pakistan’s "interests".
Or in short, I just called you probably well-intentioned but gullible and/or dangerous. And I was being charitable.
Ofcourse there are those who do this by design because they believe that this is a viable strategy — Wait till the Americans leave, export all the bothersome terrorists to places which are part of Pakistan’s strategic calculus. This has been articulated in so many words by many in the establishment**. If they succeed, everyone should keep their bags packed and ready to travel. To the stone-age. That is where Pakistan will be bombed back to after the inevitable repeat of 9/11.
Till then I will be at your service helplessly complaining about my weight while helping myself to another bucket of butter…and blaming my girth on the "Kashmir issue".
And oh, wake me up if any of Pakistan’s "strategic assets" get arrested. Maybe then I will talk about Kashmir and Pakistan’s helplessness.
________________
*Your answers cannot be one of:
Because India is "moral"
I thought they were Muslim-hating, Zionist, conspiracy-hatching, serial rapist Brahmin Banias?
Because Pakistan’s ally US will force India to!
The current US president chose to skip Pakistan altogether. If someone looks back fondly at the past "strong US-Pakistan relationship", let me remind you that the one before this (Bush Jr) landed in a decoy plane with all lights switched off in the middle of the night in an Airbase. The one before (Clinton) got out of the emergency hatch to confuse "the snipers" and lectured us from the Airport tarmac. At least Obama did not subject Pakistan to that ignominy. And that about sums up our relationship with the US for the past 15 years.
Because Pakistan’s ally China will force India to!
India-China trade was 60 Billion $ this year. Last I checked, the Pakistan government did not have enough money to buy sugar. Money, I suspect, is taller than the mountains and deeper than the oceans.
Because our brethren in Kashmir will pelt bigger stones!
It is very clear that protesting Kashmiris want Azadi. None of them want to join Pakistan. What is Pakistan’s locus standi on the issue then? In what way is Pakistan relevant? Why should India negotiate with Pakistan?
**Hamid Gul lovingly spoke of how the Taliban will "rise up against Kashmir" once Afghanistan is settled.
***To belabor the point, I am not accusing everyone who mouth such platitudes to be secret terrorist sympathizers
...that is one of the most interesting comments I've ever seen on the issue of Pakistan's domestic terror issue, and how often it is described as connected to the Kashmir issue.
Too bad the guys' 4 other posts are apparently some kind of mocking, intentionally -misspelled joke-pieces.
FYI, you might want to check with that author before reposting 100% of his comments in other forums. Normally just a link is considered good etiquette.
But then, again, I do admit the piece is extremely germane. This guy makes me feel a lot better about Pakistani public opinion; I'm relieved they don't all sound like Lal Qila/Khan.
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE