Al Bakistans Problem (Part One)

Russia though has been India’s chief arms supplier since the late 60’s and a strategic partner since the 70’s, India has been quick to realize the limitation of joining any ‘bloc’, especially so since liberalization of its economy in the early 90’s, where India desperately needed west and primarily US as its trading partner, obviously given the purchasing power that US as a market offered.

Today, US ranks 2^nd in terms of nation supplying arms to Indian Defense Forces and with the setup of US-Indo strategic and commercial dialog US is soon set to dislodge Russia. Similarly, China will be India’s biggest trading partner by 2020, from a ‘total trade’ perspective, quite significant considering Sino-India relationship is non-defense related and purely commercial in nature.

Now taking a step back into history, one cannot miss to note, China in the 60’s had fought with India over contesting territorial claims and both still continue to disagree over possession and land along their borders, while US has traditionally perceived India suspiciously and part of ex-Soviet bloc. The obvious question emerging is, what has led to this turn around?

The answer is – pragmatism. Nations are no different than corporate entities in the pursuit of their interest and in saying so eventually if not immediately realize both potential and opportunity cost of its lack of realignment with reality. India, US and China have done precisely that, and could be said to have behaved normally.

What could be argued here is, why then has India not behaved normally with Pakistan or rather does not seek to realign with reality when it comes to Pakistan? Before getting into the answer, lets take a look at reality and compare the leverage that each nation has on the other or security threat that each pose for the other;

Pakistan and India have fought both full-fledged and limited wars, with disastrous result for Pakistan resulting in not just loss of face (1965 & 1999) but also liberation of erstwhile East Pakistan, into Bangladesh (1971). I would ignore, nuclear bomb as a threat because – India has a no first use policy and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal had little impact on India during 1999 Kargil conflict.

Further, Pakistan’s defense expenditure is roughly 15% compared to India, posing little threat to India given its numerical and economic depth.

Coming to trade, Pakistan and India’s total trade has averaged a little over $2.5billion (0.5% of India’s trade or 3% of Pakistan’s trade), thus inconsequential to each other. That said, considering the opportunity cost, especially for Pakistan that desperately needs energy, something that India can supply but also given India’s purchasing power and market potential, Pakistan stands to gain particularly in the agro sector, replacing Egypt and Australia that India relies to meet its vast populations food security need. Further, Pakistan could stand to gain as a hub for land and piped transit route, multiplying its leverage on India and increasing its coffers by manyfolds. Here would be apt to recall, Dutch economist, Jan Tinbergen’s thesis – that not just size but distance matter in trade; but alas not for Pakistan.

The answer to earlier question is, India has no rational reason to accommodate Pakistan, more so given Pakistan’s open support to terrorists that commit acts of violence in India, which in the words of Ex-President’s of Pakistan Asif Zardari and Gen Musharraf – is a tool (terrorism) for its geostrategic agenda. The relevant question therefore is – why does Pakistan behave abnormally? Or rather not realign itself to reality?

Quoting Gandhi would be apt here, who famously once said “Your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, and your habits become your destiny.” And therefore to better understand Pakistan’s behavior, its imperative to analyze its birth and subsequent societal psyche.

Pakistan is a state created on the premise, of then Indian Muslim leaders led by MA Jinnah, that Muslims and Hindus of the sub-continent cannot live together and its therefore natural for them to separate. The essence of this demand though ideological on the surface is laced with subtle communal fear and aversion of the “other” i.e. Hindus, disregarding the principle of equality among their own countrymen. With that being the seeds of its birth, its quite obvious the trajectory that Pakistan has chosen for itself, as being a state seeking to establish a puritanical form of Islam, to the extent that it attempts to rid itself of any perceived “impurities”, that being – Shias, Ahmadis, Hindus or Christians by either using state resources to deny them equal rights or condoning persecution by mullahs and militants.

A society that has been in constant look out for “impurities” within, can it then be expected to behave normal towards an object of its ingrained dislike of the “other” i.e. Hindu India?  

I do realize that ingrained dislike of the “other” is a strong comment and will not be true in all circumstances, especially when it comes to individual - people to people – contact across borders. But I chose to use because Pakistani state has consciously instutionalized hate of the “other”, including in their education system and as early as grade 5^th, portraying self as both the victim and victor against the “other” i.e. Hindu India. This is pretty much along the lines of how North Korea feeds its masses with constant lie about the cruel world across its border. Further, Pakistan fauj has a very creative hand in this, as it has been in the forefront of shaping the nations destiny by frequent coups and more recently from the back seat, so much so that any attempt by politicians or analyst especially with access to media, to change the narrative or oppose the all pervasive yet invisible hand of the fauj, is instantly perceived as challenge to the very foundation of Pakistani nation and therefore tagged a gaddar – a traitor and if you are lucky enough you could also become Mr. Bond – a raw agent.

Pakistan fauj sees itself as the only savior from the tyrant Hindu India. And by its experience in governance, has successfully sustained this image within Pakistani society, primarily by threat and incentivizing a culture within its beaurcarcy, media, religious-militant lobby and among politicians that equate any attempt to normalize relationship with India as a sign of weakness. The antithesis of this mindset being, enduring abnormality at any cost – which includes being recognized as primary sponsor of terrorism in the region or consistent defeats in war or an economy that runs on international welfare – in pursuit of their objective to defeat Hindu India.

For folks that argue, Kashmir being the root of the problem, must realize Kashmir is an issue not because Pakistan is a beacon of human rights and India a tyrant – infact quite opposite to it, Pakistan has indulged in genocide of Bengali-Pakistanis resulting in liberation of Bangladesh – the only reason Kashmir is a problem because, it is a Muslim majority region, administered by the “other” i.e. Hindu India, something unacceptable to the land of the pure - Al Bakistan. 

Part Two: To explore circumstances that might force Pakistan to behave normal and what if it continues on its current path.

Published: http://archive.niticentral.com/2015/10/11/why-pakistan-behaves-the-way-it-behaves-334763.html