A WORLD IN FLUX

The last few years have been a period of great stress for most nations across the globe. The pandemic of 2019 which originated from China, caused immense economic hardship and physical suffering for most of the world's populace. It took about three years to contain the pandemic, but even today, it has not been fully controlled. The war in Ukraine, which began in March 2022 is still ongoing and while the conflict remains confined to Ukraine, the economic costs are being felt in many regions outside the war zone. With NATO aligned behind Ukraine, providing it with weapons, finances and political support, the war can only prolong. As China and Iran have extended support to Russia, we are witnessing the emergence of a new Cold War, with the world once again being split into two camps.

In the Indo-Pacific region, tension has been brewing now for some years between China and Taiwan, which has the potential of blowing up into a full-fledged cross-Straits crisis. China's aggressive polices in the South and East seas is also a source of concern, especially as China has created a number of artificial islands and has laid extravagant claims to some islands.

Closer home, in West Asia, there has been a resumption of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia which had been severed in 2016. This is a positive development and holds out a promise for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Yemen, but the larger ideological sectarian divide between the two countries, based on schisms between the Sunnis and Shias is unlikely to be bridged any time soon. Hostilities between these two Muslim countries has the potential to spill over into a wider conflict which could have an adverse impact on the supply and availability of energy resources from the Gulf.

In India's immediate neighbourhood, the Taliban, which reneged on all its promises after coming to power in August 2021, remains a centre of instability. Pakistan is also going through a particularly difficult patch with severe economic challenges and with multiple internal security concerns across most parts of the country. This, in conjunction with the volatile political developments in Pakistan has made the entire Af-Pak region a veritable tinder box. The prevailing instability could spill over into neighbouring countries, including India.

In Nepal, the polity remains fractured. While the seven-party ruling coalition has elected Pushpa Kamal Dahal or ‘Prachanda’ as the Prime Minister, his own party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) has only 32 seats. Nepal has had eight different governments in the last ten years and it remains to be seen if the present government can complete its full term. In the recent Presidential elections, Ram Chandra Poudel, a senior leader of the opposition Nepali Congress party, was declared the winner in March 2023. He won with the support of Prachanda, which triggered a feud among the coalition partners. This portends renewed political churning in Nepal along with political instability. 

Elections are due in Bangladesh in January 2024. While the Sheikh Hasina led Awami League government has kept the Bangladesh economy reasonably buoyant, the challenges posed by radical Islamist groups such as the Jamaat remain a source of concern. How the politics develop in Bangladesh post the elections remains to be seen, but with the opposition BNP led by Khaled Zia being soft on Islamist groups, the security environment may change for the worse. Further East, Myanmar is once again under military rule and the internal security situation remains both a challenge and an enigma. Myanmar remains critical to India both on account of the security matrix in some of the Northeastern states of India as well as the fact that Myanmar is central to India's Act East policy.

India has handled the changing dynamics caused by the pandemic as well as by the war in Ukraine and other conflict zones with great dexterity. Today, India is the fastest growing large economy in the world, and is set to become a USD 5 trillion economy earlier than the IMFs forecast of 2026-27. India's interests in the Indo-Pacific pertain to keeping the sea lanes free and open and hence it is part of the Quad, the four member grouping of India, Australia, Japan and the US. India is also a member of BRICS and the SCO which serve Indian interests in the economic sphere and in the Eurasian land mass. While to some, India's membership in these organisations may seem contradictory, India has handled the competing interests with great finesse. Today, India has excellent relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran—the two Gulf powers that are antagonistic to each other. Similarly, India has de-hyphenated its relations with both Israel and Palestine, as also with Russia and the US. The present year is also the year when India is holding the Presidency of both the G-20 as well as the SCO. But multiple challenges still remain, both internal and external. 

With India determined to become a developed nation by 2047, a century after achieving Independence, the coming decade will be a time of great expectations and hope. We are indeed living in very exciting and challenging times.

Published in IFJ Vol 4 Issue 3

INDIA PAKISTAN RELATIONS

On India - Pakistan

1.Why the India-Pakistan rivalry endures?

Hostility between India and Pakistan has been a consistent feature of the relationship between the two countries since 1947. It endures because the causative factor of that hostility is largely left unaddressed. Many people believe that the Kashmir dispute between the two countries is the raison d'etre for the frayed relationship between the two countries. But the truth of the matter is that the Kashmir dispute is but a symptom and not the cause of hostility, which is primarily the result of both the nations having competing ideologies. Pakistan, in its ideological construct, pushes its Islamic identity in antithesis to India, which chose to be a secular, pluralistic state. And therein lies the root cause of the problem.

Formed as a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent, Pakistan chose to define its identity based on Islam. The Objectives Resolution of 1949 defined the Islamic-religious character of the Pakistani state, which later was inserted into the Preamble of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. As Islam was central to the idea of Pakistan, every political leader, starting with Jinnah’s political successor, Liaquat Ali Khan, negotiated a compromise with the religious right, as a result of which the Muslim clergy soon became a dominant force in the politics of Pakistan. Consequently, religious ideology became inextricably linked with the core state ideology. While General Ziaul Haq went further than others in ‘Islamising’ Pakistan’s legal and educational system, his policy of Islamisation was an extension of a consistent State ideology, not an aberration.

The Pakistan army's dominance in the political landscape of Pakistan is also now a constant fixture. Besides guarding the country against external threats, the army has expanded its role to include internal security matters, as well as being the guardians of the state’s ideology. For the army to remain relevant in Pakistan it needs an external enemy and raising the bogey of a threat from India serves that purpose well. 

A normalisation of relationship between the two countries would require a fundamental shift in the ideological stance of Pakistan, and of the nature of their polity, which has excessive military control. In the absence of the same, the relationship will continue to be one of hostility and mutual suspicion.

2.The involvement of major powers has deepened the rivalry between the two  neighbours of the Indian subcontinent. Do you agree?

Major powers exploit fissures that exist between countries if it leads to the furtherance of their own geo-political and economic interests. In the frayed relations between India and Pakistan, China has visibly propped up Pakistan in its efforts to keep India bogged down in South Asia so that it does not become a rival to China. That explains Chinese technological and military aid to Pakistan over the last six decades, which continues till date. 

Pakistan has also received support from the US and the West. This support was not against India per se, but was aimed at propping up Pakistan as a front-line state, to halt the expansion of communist ideology from USSR. However, the weapons and equipment provided to Pakistan enhanced its military capability and were used to balance India's military power. The pro-West groupings which Pakistan joined in the 1950s, (CENTO and SEATO), were ostensibly to ward of the threat of communism, but in reality, the military and other assistance provided was used by Pakistan against India. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Pakistan lost its salience as a front-line state against communist expansion and so Western interest in Pakistan diminished to a large extent. But this changed post the attack on the US by al Qaida on 11 September 2001. Pakistan once again became a front-line state, this time in support of the US Global War on Terror. With the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan two decades later in August 2021, the US and its allies have a vastly reduced stake in Pakistan as at present, which is reflective in the drop in military and economic assistance to that country.

While external actors do not play a major role in deepening the hostility which exists between India and Pakistan, they will continue to fuel the distrust that exists between the two countries, in furtherance of their own political interests.

3.   How far the domestic politics has contributed to the sustenance of rivalry between India and Pakistan?

Domestic politics within India are not centred on Pakistan. India's aims and aspirations of becoming a developed country require a peaceful regional environment and towards that end, India has continuously made overtures to Pakistan to defuse tensions and maintain peace and tranquility between the two countries. Parliamentary elections in India are fought on various planks, but for the Indian electorate, the state of India-Pakistan relations occupies increasingly diminishing mind-space. Ayesha Siddiqa, the noted Pakistani political commentator and author, during her recent trip to India in March 2023, made the observation that a decade ago, she saw no signs in India, of hostility towards  Pakistan. This time around, while there was still no hostility, there was indifference. It was as if Pakistan did not exist and India has simply decided to move on.

India is, however, a major factor in the Pakistani psyche. Any political party attempting to improve relations with India would face a huge backlash, both from the public as well as from the military establishment. Given the extent to which Pakistani society has been radicalised, the call for a jihad against India still resonates strongly amongst the population. At the people-to-people level also, there has been a marked shift in attitudes defining the two countries. For a large segment of the Pakistani population, including the elite, the conflict remains ideological, where religion is central to Pakistani identity. The alignment of religious ideology in Pakistan's political and social space will continue to drive hostility towards India, based on religion.  

4.  Can personal diplomacy help in resolving issues between India and Pakistan ?

Personal diplomacy can at best be a palliative, much akin to giving a painkiller to a terminally ill patient. In the short term, personal diplomacy can help in reducing tensions, but is inadequate to set forth an agenda for peace. Hostility between India and Pakistan can only be removed by addressing the root cause that has created that hostility. Unless the ideological issue is addressed, other measures will be unlikely to deliver on the long-term goal of creating a positive and congenial environment in the region.

5. What is the way forward for India-Pakistan relations? Your suggestions.

The India-Pakistan relationship is in part hostage to history and in part to a divisive ideology which acts as the binding glue for Pakistan. For long, efforts to create an environment of peace and friendship between these two antagonistic neighbours has failed to achieve the desired results. This is because the focus has been on palliatives and not on the cure. Frills like Aman ki Asha are no more than publicity seeking gimmicks by a group of people who have an exaggerated self opinion about themselves. The solution also does not lie in people to people connect, or in promoting sports and cultural exchanges or in increasing bilateral trade, because none of these addresses the core issue—the divergent ideologies of the two countries.

For now, it would be better to accept the fact that the two countries are enemies. Accepting that reality will lead to the two countries looking at the relationship from a different lens and learning to live with that hostility, without the need to go to war. If we cannot live as friends, let us then learn to live as hostile neighbours. That would be easier and more doable.

Comments given to Prof Mahendra Gaur for FPRC Journal 54.

THE INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONSHIP: HISTORICAL LEGACIES AND PRESENT TRENDS

 

THE INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONSHIP:

HISTORICAL LEGACIES AND PRESENT TRENDS

Dhruv C Katoch*

Introduction

An understanding of the fragile nature of India-Pakistan relations cannot be divorced from the idea which led to the creation of Pakistan. In a speech delivered in Lahore in 1940, Jinnah spoke of Hindus and Muslims being separate nations and two distinct civilisations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. The "Two Nation Theory" thus became the basis of the creation of the state of Pakistan, which continues to define itself as the 'other'. Pakistan as the 'other', in its ideological construct, pushes its Islamic identity in antithesis to India, which chose to be a secular, pluralistic state. Pakistan's search for an identity, to keep together the disparate elements which constituted the state, was sought to be achieved by using Islam as the unifying glue. The formula has not worked but the Pakistani establishment continues to use religion as a foundation to create an ideal nation-state. In the process, it has ridden roughshod over regional sentiments and social and cultural identities, which led to its Eastern wing breaking free in 1971 to form an independent Bangladesh. While geographically, the state of Pakistan is now a cohesive entity, fissures within society have led to multiple internal security challenges which today engulf many parts of the country. 

Pakistan: An Islamic State

The Objectives Resolution of 1949, which later became the preamble of the 1973 Constitution, defined the Islamic-religious character of the Pakistani state. Thereafter, every political leader, starting with Jinnah’s political successor, Liaquat Ali Khan, negotiated a compromise with the religious right, as a result of which the religious clergy soon began to dominate the religiopolitical discourse leading to religious ideology becoming inextricably linked with the core state ideology. The secular elite within Pakistan did not oppose this development as the religious paradigm was the raison d'être for the creation of the state. Religion was also the key rallying point for the defence establishment, which motivated its manpower on the basis of religious ideology.

The Pakistani leadership, whether civilian or military, has thus used Islam as a tool for nation-building from the time the state came into existence. General Ziaul Haq went further than others in ‘Islamising’  Pakistan’s legal and educational system, but even his policy of Islamisation was the extension of a consistent State ideology, not an aberration. One of the factors which mitigated the building of institutions which could serve to unify the country was the long spells of military rule that Pakistan has been subjected to since its inception and the lack of understanding of socio-political issues in the military dictators of Pakistan. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the country's first military dictator, states in his autobiography, the reason for his opposition to the Bengali language. "It is quite clear to me", he writes, "that with two national languages, we cannot become a one-nation state; we shall continue to remain a multi-nation State. But more disturbingly, his attitude to the Bengali population of the East Wing was rather condescending and patronising. Muslim Bengalis, he averred, "have been and still are under considerable Hindu cultural and linguistic influence…had all the inhibitions of downtrodden races and have not yet found it possible to adjust psychologically to the requirements of the new-born freedom". If Ayub was honest, he would simply have stated that the Bengalis of East Pakistan were not willing to be trod on by the West Pakistan centric leadership of the country. While Bangladesh has broken free in 1971, a sense of alienation still exists in large parts of Pakistan amongst the Sindhi, Baloch and Pashtun populations, all of whom resent the big-brother attitude of the Punjabi ruling elite. This issue has as yet not been addressed, as a result of which the present internal security dynamics in Pakistan remain a source of concern. 

Today, Pakistan prides itself on three issues. One, its Muslim identity, two, its nuclear status and three its geo-political location, lying at the intersection of West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. All of these lie outside a development paradigm, which could showcase the progress Pakistan has made since 1947. Its ability to make a mark for itself will depend on how it navigates its relations with India and Afghanistan and breaks free from the inconsistencies of past policies.

India-Pakistan Relations: Is War on the Cards?

It is generally believed that India-Pakistan relations are held hostage to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Perhaps it may be more accurate to view the fissures in the relationship in terms of competing ideologies, which results in heightened tensions. In its formative years, Pakistani leaders played upon religious sentiment to strengthen national identity. This policy had broad support even amongst the Pakistani secular elite, who found in religion a convenient tool to ensure the survival of the state. Exacerbating tensions with India, which was projected as a Hindu state, thus served to whip up nationalistic fervour within Pakistan. Ratcheting up narratives on the status of Kashmir serves this purpose.

Ever since the military coup by Field Marshal Ayub Khan in October 1958 and the imposition of martial law in the state, Pakistan has, for a great part of its post-independence history, been under army rule. Even when civilian governments were formed through the electoral process, they had to play a subordinate role to the army. The army's dominance in Pakistan's politics is now a permanent feature of the political landscape in Pakistan. Besides guarding the country against external threats, the army has expanded its role to include internal security matters, as well as being the guardians of the state’s ideology.

For the army to remain relevant in Pakistan, it needs an enemy. Hostility with India thus remains the cornerstone of the Pakistani military establishment. The first India-Pakistan war which began in October 1947, was an attempt by Pakistan to take the state of Jammu and Kashmir by force. Though Pakistani designs were negated, the ceasefire when declared, left Pakistan in occupation of Gilgit-Baltistan and of the Mirpur-Muzzafarpur region. A second attempt by Pakistan to take Kashmir by force, which began in August 1965, led to a full-scale war in September. Once again, Pakistani designs were foiled. Speaking at the United Nations on 22 September 1965, Pakistan's then foreign minister, Mr ZA Bhutto declared a 1000-year war against India, while at the same time accepting a ceasefire at midnight of that day. As the power differential between the two countries had widened considerably, war was no longer thought winnable by Pakistan, and so it embarked on a policy of bleeding India by a thousand cuts, using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. This 'thought process' was studied and conceptualised into a military doctrine at the Pakistan Staff College, Quetta and was premised on the notion that Indian military capability can be degraded through waging a covert, low-cost, low-intensity warfare, using insurgent groups. This strategy took shape post Pakistan's defeat in the 1971 Liberation War, and was effectively employed in J&K since the middle of the 1980s. The infiltration of a large number of personnel from Pakistan's Northern Light Infantry, disguised as militants was yet another audacious attempt by Pakistan to cut off Ladakh from the rest of India by occupying the heights in the Kargil sector, overlooking the road link to Ladakh. The Indian military evicted the intrusions over a period of three months from May to July 1999, in a conflict which took place under a nuclear overhang. 

India's success in throwing out the intruders while at the same time restricting the scope of the conflict, was widely applauded. However, India felt betrayed by Pakistan, as the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee had gone to Lahore on a peace mission in February 1999. Unbeknown to him, Pakistan had begun planning for the operation on the Kargil heights in October of 1998, which was code-named Operation Koh-i-Paima or Operation KP. At that very moment that Vajpayee was talking of peace in Lahore, Pakistani troops were being infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) on the heights surrounding Kargil. This was the last war fought by India and Pakistan and remained confined to the Kargil sector, but its termination did not lead to a positive peace and Pakistani continued with its attempts to foment terrorism in India. 

Some of the more serious incidences of terrorist violence post the Kargil war were the attack on India's parliament on 13 December 2001, an attack on the Akshardham temple in Gujarat on 24 September 2002 and the dastardly attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, which resulted in 175 civilian fatalities. While the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of Pakistan played a covert role in all these attacks, none of them led to war between the two countries, though the Indian armed forces were mobilised after the attack on India's parliament. 

In 2014, with a new dispensation in power in Delhi under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a fresh attempt at peacemaking was made by the BJP-led Modi government. The Indian Prime Minister invited all the heads of state of the SAARC countries to his swearing-in ceremony and Pakistan's premier, Nawaz Sharif also attended. A year later, on 25 December 2015, Prime Minister Modi made a surprise unscheduled stop at Lahore, while returning from Afghanistan, to attend the wedding of Sharif's granddaughter. The rapprochement was however short-lived. Barely eight days later, on 2 January 2016, six heavily armed terrorists attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station, killing seven Indian soldiers. The six terrorists were eliminated before they could cause major damage, but the intent of the attack was clear: to sabotage the possibility of any rapprochement between India and Pakistan. The credibility of the Modi government stood dented, but India still believed that a change could be brought about in the political establishment of Pakistan, to desist from using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. India was still looking for a peaceful way to settle differences with Pakistan when on 18 September, four terrorists from the Pakistan-sponsored Jaish-e-Mohammed, carried out a suicide attack against an Indian Army base near the town of Uri in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), killing 19 Indian soldiers and injuring many more. This was perhaps the deadliest terrorist attack on Indian security forces in Kashmir in over two decades. This time the Indian government responded by launching a surgical strike at the Pakistani terrorist camps across the border. In a well-planned operation conducted on the night of 28/29 September, Indian para commandos launched multiple attacks on terrorist hides across the LoC, and eliminated a large number of terrorists. More importantly, India's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) announced the success of this operation to the world media the next day. This marked an irreversible inflexion point in the relations between the two countries. India had given an unmistakable signal that acts of terrorism would be responded to with force and would no longer be overlooked. 

An important outcome of the surgical strike carried out by the Indian forces was that the Pakistan nuclear bluff had been called. Pakistan covered its tracks by simply denying that such an attack had taken place, but the security dynamics had now altered to India's advantage. No major terrorist incident was reported from any part of India over the next two years or so, but that changed on 14 February 2019, when a vehicle-borne suicide bomber blew himself up in front of a police convoy near Pulwama in J&K, killing 40 personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force. This attack was responded to on 26 February, when Indian Air Force fighter jets crossed over into Pakistan and destroyed the base of the Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist organisation in Balakot in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Pakistan played down the attack claiming that no target had been hit, but its significance was not lost on the world. India reserved for itself the right to strike at targets deep inside Pakistan, to prevent terrorist attacks on its soil. 

Post the abrogation of the special status of the state of J&K in August 2019, which was provided by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, Pakistani capability to foment terrorist violence in J&K stands considerably degraded. Incidences of violence have shown a distinct decline, and normalcy to a large extent has returned to the Union Territory. The year 2022 has seen the largest influx of tourists which is an indicator of normalcy. Nevertheless, Pakistan continues in its attempts to foment disturbances in the newly constituted Union Territory of J&K. Pakistan also fomented similar violence in the Indian state of Punjab, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, by supporting an armed campaign by Sikh militants, but this movement was effectively dealt with and normalcy was restored.

Despite the inbuilt hostility of the Pakistan establishment to India, the precarious state of Pakistan's economy, its own internal security concerns and the political instability in that country, precludes the possibility of Pakistan initiating a war with India. Even a military misadventure on the lines of Kargil in 1999, has a very low probability, essentially because Pakistan lacks the military wherewithal to do so. India, on its part, will not initiate hostilities, primarily due to the nature of its polity, but more importantly, due to its focus on economic growth. A war with Pakistan or with any other country will set India back from the ambitious economic goals it has set for herself. In the immediate future, the probability of the two countries going to war is thus remote. 

A possible trigger for war could be a major terrorist attack in India on a high-profile target such as witnessed earlier in India's Parliament in 2001 or the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai, and which can be traced back to Pakistan. India's response will be firm but designed to be below the threshold level, and will in all probability target terrorist leadership, or infrastructure and bases within Pakistan which are used by terrorist groups. This would involve the delivery of lethal kinetic munitions, through land, sea or air, to achieve the desired outcome. An attack on Pakistani military targets on the LoC which facilitate infiltration of terrorist groups is also a possibility. This would go hand in hand with political and diplomatic moves against Pakistan. Pakistan will, in all likelihood, respond in like fashion, against Indian military targets along the LoC. Such attacks and counterattacks may continue for some time. However, if these are not contained, it could lead to a wider conflict where the militaries of both countries will engage with each other across the entire length of the international border. The probability of such an occurrence is very low, but it cannot be ruled out. Hostilities will however be confined to the conventional level only. 

Another possible scenario for a war between India and Pakistan is a deterioration of relations between India and China which in turn leads to war between the two countries. In such a case, Pakistan may choose to side with China and attempt to engage India militarily. The strategic nature of the China-Pakistan relationship makes Pakistani involvement in an India-China war more than a mere probability, especially if it senses a weakness in India's military capability. India has the capacity and capability to deal with a two-front war, but Pakistan could be tempted to support its all-weather friend and look into the possibility of making tactical gains in the Ladakh region or in J&K. 

In the near future, both the scenarios outlined above have a very low level of probability of occurrence. An improvement in India-China relations will obviate one of the possible triggers of war with Pakistan. And if Pakistan eschews the use of terrorists to foment violence against India, the possibility of an India-Pakistani war can be practically ruled out. 

War in the sub-continent goes against the interests of all concerned parties in the region. India is committed to its economic growth, which will be impacted by war. Hence, India will not initiate a conflict with either China or Pakistan, and will attempt a diplomatic and political resolution of its areas of concern. If war is thrust on India, then she has the capability to respond effectively against any aggressor. Pakistan is unlikely to initiate hostilities against India, considering the weak state of its economy, its own dire internal security dynamics and the political instability in the country. Pakistan is however, unlikely to pull back its support to terrorist groups such as the Hizbul Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, fearing the backlash that such an action may provoke within Pakistan. The India-Pakistan relationship will thus remain strained for the foreseeable future but is unlikely to degenerate into full-scale war. 

Is Rapprochement Possible?

A shift away from a radical Islamist state by Pakistan is an essential pre-requisite for a rapprochement to take place with India. The present Indian stance that talks cannot go hand in hand with terror is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Without such a change, India will not make any political overtures to Pakistan to restore normalcy. Pakistan, on its part, is unlikely to forego the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy, especially as the state has been responsible in nurturing terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen and others, for use against India. Syed Salahuddin, who heads the Hizbul Mujahideen, is based in Pakistan. He is also the head of the United Jihad Council—a grouping of a number of terrorist groups sponsored by the ISI. These organisations have built up a strong support base within Pakistan and dismantling them will cause a severe backlash against the Pakistani establishment. For the foreseeable future, the status quo as currently exists is likely to continue, which means that there is unlikely to be any forward movement in the political domain to bring about normalcy between the two countries.

Pakistan's internal problems could create a backlash by public against both the Pakistan military as well as against terrorist groups based in Pakistan. But given the extent to which Pakistani society has been radicalised, the call for a jihad against India still resonates strongly amongst the population. At the people-to-people level also, there has been a marked shift in attitudes defining the two countries. For a large segment of the Pakistani population, including the elite, the conflict remains ideological, where religion is central to Pakistani identity. This religious fervour has only increased, especially as school textbooks in Pakistan are also used to demonise non-muslims. The shift in the Indian attitude is also perceptible. Ayesha Siddiqa, the noted Pakistani academic, in a recent trip to India in March 2023, made the observation that a decade ago, she observed no hostility against Pakistan. This time around, while there was still no hostility, there was indifference. It was as if Pakistan did not exist and India has simply decided to move on. While India may be a factor in the Pakistani calculus, in the Indian mind, Pakistan no longer holds any place. 

Economic cooperation with India would benefit Pakistan, but that is a path no political party in Pakistan would be willing to take. That would spell political suicide for the party that attempts such a step. But economic pressure, if imposed by the US and affluent Western countries could cause a change in Pakistani society. Here, such aid could be made conditional to making changes in the educational curriculum by deleting those portions which advocate hate against non-muslims. A change in mindsets however is a long-term task and can only be executed over a generation. People-to-people exchanges are also passé and will have little traction. Such exchanges have meaning only in a conducive political environment.

Recent political changes in Pakistan have only widened the rift between the former Premier Imran Khan and the present all-party ruling establishment. It is this rift which has created political instability in Pakistan and is propelling the country towards possible civil war if the situation is not urgently addressed. Voices from within Pakistan are expressing a sense of hopelessness never before seen in the country, even when they were going through a very difficult patch in 2007-2008. Zahid Hussain, writing in the Dawn states: "The country’s fate is now hostage to a senseless power struggle between a reckless populist force and an obsolete conglomeration at the helm". Huma Yusuf had this to say: "If our mainstream parties do not change tack and refocus on the public’s urgent needs, we must fear for a future, fragmented Pakistan". The irrepressible Pervez Hoodbhoy has been scathing in his comments. "Let’s face it: a flawed concept of nationalism created a class of plunderers, both civilian and military. The chickens have come home to roost. The flour stampedes are just the beginning. The poor will pay first, but all will pay ultimately". And then we have Ashraf Jehangir Qazi who talks of Pakistan imploding. These are but a small sample of voices coming out of Pakistan. India will not take advantage of Pakistan's dire situation and embroil that country in a military conflict. Pakistan is not in a position to seek a conflict even as a distraction to get out of the mess it finds itself in. Friendship with India can go a long way in easing the economic hardships of the people of Pakistan but that is not the path that either the Pakistan political establishment or its military will take.

There has been a change in the military leadership of Pakistan with General Munir taking over as the Army Chief. But that hardly means that the Pakistan military establishment has changed. The Pakistan military is conscious of its interests and regardless of who the Army Chief is, the military's fundamental hostility towards India will not change. A hostile neighbour is the raison d'être for the Pakistan army, without which it loses relevance and power in the country. No army chief will let go of this hold the military has over the polity.

Conclusion  

The India-Pakistan relationship is in part hostage to history and in part to a divisive ideology which acts as the binding glue for Pakistan. For long, efforts to create an environment of peace and friendship between these two antagonistic neighbours has failed to achieve the desired results. Perhaps the time has come to accept the fact that the two countries will for the present, exist in a state of mutual suspicion and hostility. Once that is accepted, ways and means can be found to exist with that hostility, without the need to go to war.

*Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch (R) is an Indian Army veteran. Presently, he is Director, India Foundation, A New Delhi based think tank.

Published in WikiStrat - April 2023

A VISION FOR BHARAT

The Union Budget 2023-24 has been characterised as the first budget for "Amrit Kaal"— A vision to see a transformed Bharat by the time the nation celebrates its Independence centenary on 15 August 2047. For the first time, we have a long-term road map of what Bharat should be in terms of its human and developmental index, with clear markers for reaching the desired end state over the course of the next quarter century.

This, by itself is a quantum leap forward from the incremental development policies followed for the most part since 1947. There was a hesitancy in envisioning a great and prosperous Bharat, which perhaps was a result of a socialist mind-set, mired in a philosophy that pedalled poverty as virtue and derided wealth as being sinful and corrupting. For decades since independence,  the state set about controlling the means of production and telling the people what, how and how much they could produce and at what cost. The bureaucracy became all powerful as the arbiters of the nation's destiny and this soon morphed into a political-bureaucratic-criminal nexus. 

This was a recipe for disaster and by 1990, the nation was on the verge of bankruptcy. Then came the era of reforms, which since the last decade, have taken on a more focussed approach with major initiatives like the rolling out of the GST and the JAM trinity (Jan Dhan Yojana which has provided access to India's poor to the banking sector, Aadhar—a unique biometric identifier and the Mobile penetration). This has enabled targeted provision of benefits to millions below the poverty line with near zero pilferage and brought about a sense of inclusivity to an unparalleled extent. Rural housing, electricity access, toilets for all, are but a few of the myriad schemes which has seen wide penetration across the length and breadth of Bharat in a truly transformative manner. 

Budget 2023-24 builds on the India story which saw a rejuvenation in 2014 after a decade of stalled economic reforms. There is renewed focus on digitisation, indigenous defence manufacture, green energy, transparency in government, skilling of the work force, education sector reforms and the like. A host of initiatives have been announced to unleash the full potential of all citizens. In this new Bharat, there  is little doubt that every citizen will stand up to be counted. But a slew of challenges remain.

It would be naive to think that the major powers will look on benignly as India moves ahead. A strong and economically powerful Bharat poses a threat to the economic interests of other powers. An Atmanirbhar Bharat would be an economic challenger, and with defence indigenisation taking place at a rapid rate, a rival to the worlds military industrial complex as an arms exporter. So, there will be attempts made by both India's enemies as well as those with whom India has friendly relations, but who may view India as a serious competitor in future, to sabotage the Bharat growth story. An inkling of what the coming year holds can be seen in attempts being made to create rift in society by inciting the public. The ham-handed manner in which the BBC tried to inflame passions by making a documentary on the post-Godhra riots of 2002, is a case in point. Another is the hit job done by a US based short-seller on the Adani business group. We are now seeing fringe Khalistani elements raising their ugly heads in a clear bid at destabilising the country. We are likely to see radical Muslim elements within the country creating discord over inane issues. There will be others with perceived grievances, who will be funded by external actors like the George Soros Open Society Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, all of whom, through a network of NGOs, will attempt to spread a divisive agenda. And in all this they will receive support from both China and Pakistan, who have their own axe to grind. Unfortunately, there will be elements of certain political parties who have their own agenda, who will also lend political support to such groups.

But these challenges are an intrinsic part of trying to create a strong and vibrant Bharat. While the Government can provide the vision and the policy support, it is also up to each and every citizen to rise to the occasion, to achieve the objectives of Atmanirbharta. The nations public and private sectors too will have to play their role. The same goes for the nation's bureaucracy. Can they measure up to the Prime Minister's vision and play an enabling and supportive role? Therein lies the challenge. 

Published in the India Foundation Journal, 1 March 2023

The Ongoing Russo-Ukraine War: Taking Stock after one Year

On 24 February 2022, the Russian military carried out a four pronged attack on Ukraine, setting in motion a string of geopolitical events which reverberated across the globe. Today, as a consequence of the Russian invasion, new alliances are being formed, Russia has been placed under sanctions, Europe and Japan are militarising, China has moved closer to Russia and India is poised delicately, having to balance its relations with Russia which has been a long-term friend and ally as also with the United States and the West, with which India is seeking closer collaboration in the defence and economic spheres, especially with respect to cooperation in the field of upper end technology.

The four-front Russian invasion of 24 February was marked by a ground attack with mechanised forces from the North from Belarus towards Kyiv, another assault from the Northeast towards Kharkiv, a Southeastern thrust towards the Donbas region onto Donetsk and Luhansk and a Southern thrust from the South, from Crimea. All the attacks were supported by air power. The objective was not simple capture of territory, but to execute a regime change in Kyiv and instal a government which would be friendly to Russia. 

Most Russians regard Ukraine as a country with which they are strongly interwoven with many Russians expressing the view that Ukraine is ‘an inalienable part of Russia itself.’ President Vladimir Putin had stated of Ukraine that ‘We are one people.’ Post the Euromaidan protests of 2014, which Moscow believed were triggered by the Western powers inimical to Russia and which led to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, Russia captured Crimea in a swift retaliatory operation and after a referendum, merged Crimea with the Russian Federation. From a Russian perspective, the regime change carried out via the Euromaidan protests implied nothing less than ‘an existential threat,’ to Russia, which explains why the Russians moved swiftly to capture Crimea. It is important to mention that Crimea, which till the 1950s was a part of Russia, was ceded to Ukraine when the entire region was under the USSR. It has, for the most part, a Russian speaking population, but its importance to Russia lies also in the fact that the Naval base at Sevastopol hosts the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This area had been leased to Russia by Ukraine.

The Donbas region, on Ukraine's South-Eastern border with Russia, which too has a large Russian speaking population, also declared independence from Ukraine and sought help from Moscow, soon after Russia annexed Crimea. The fighting that ensued in the Donbas led to the Minsk Accord on 5 September 2014, but it was violated soon thereafter and fighting resumed. A new ceasefire, Minsk II was negotiated on 12 February 2015, but the Accord remained unimplemented for the most part, and the conflict remained stalemated and unresolved. Russian fears intensified over the years due to measures being taken by Ukraine to officially join NATO. That was a red line for Moscow and was the causative factor for Russia to carry out a military campaign against Ukraine, primarily to instal a more friendly regime in Kyiv. This was the causative factor for the Ukraine war which began on 24 February 2022 and which continues till date.

The war has, however, shown the Russian military as well as its military leadership in poor light. The operations conducted by the Russian military in February and March 2022 made little headway. More importantly, the political objective of executing a regime change were not only not successful but resulted in uniting the Ukrainian nation against Russia. After one year of conflict, Russia has captured most of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts of the Donbas region as also Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts. These were important operational objectives which has given the Russians a land link to Crimea, besides providing greater control over the Black Sea and providing depth to Crimea from an invasion from the North. President Volodymyr Yelenskky of Ukraine is, however, doggedly holding on and continues to fight, largely with liberal supplies of arms and ammunition from US and the West. Large parts of Ukraine have however been destroyed by the war, which has also led to 10-15 million Ukrainian refugees seeking shelter elsewhere.

The war appears to be stalemated as of now, but the picture could change from March this year, when the winter recedes. Ukraine has the wherewithal to fight for a prolonged period of time as they are fighting for their country and as such, their motivation levels are high. Europe, however, is fast getting tired of the war and their commitment to keep supporting Ukraine is increasingly coming under strain. The destruction of the over 1200 km. long Nord Stream natural gas pipeline has added to European woes as they are facing huge and critical shortages of energy and shifting to energy sources from other suppliers is adding on to the costs. The US, however, is not directly impacted by the war and will continue to support the Ukraine war effort. This suits their long-term strategic interests as a prolonged war will weaken Russia and energise the military industrial complex of the US. The recent unannounced visit of US President, Mr Joe Biden to Kyiv on 20 February 2023, is a pointer in this direction, wherein Mr Biden stated that the US will back Ukraine in its fight against Russia for "as long as it takes".

The Russians have the wherewithal and the will to fight a prolonged war, but the number of casualties they are suffering may soon turn public opinion against the war—a prospect that would not be to the liking of the Russian President, Mr Putin. They will still aim at regime change to end the war, but the prospects of the war coming to a close are dim, largely because neither side is prepared to back down. A ceasefire along the existing front line would not be acceptable to Ukraine who would insist on a restoration of the status quo as it existed on 24 February 2022. Russia may accept a ceasefire on the existing frontline, but they will not accept a ceasefire which demands a return of the captured territories to Ukraine. That is an untenable proposition, as it would mean giving back hard fought gains where the Russians have sacrificed thousands of lives. The war could however end if one side faces a military defeat, with the victor forcing terms on the vanquished. This appears unlikely as of now.

Predicting the future is always hazardous and so it is with the Ukraine War. I would assess that sanctions have had limited impact on Russia, but Europe has been a major sufferer of the impact of sanctions. High energy prices have led to a worsening of most economies leading to severe shortages in many countries in the West. They are looking for an early end to the war. One impact which the war has had on Europe, is that NATO has been energised. Japan and the European Union will now be spending more on defence— a prospect that pleases the US as it keeps the EU outside Russian influence, especially after the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which many analysts believe has been the handiwork of the US.

This summer, Russia may continue with a limited offensive and attempt to capture Odessa. That would effectively cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea and make it a land-locked country. From a position of strength, Russia could then declare a unilateral ceasefire. Alternately, it may attempt to take the entire area East of the Dneiper River, making the river the new boundary line with Ukraine. This will, however, be hard to sustain.

Internationally, new power alignments are taking place, which are reflective of a return to the period of the Cold War. On one side we have an axis appearing encompassing China-Russia and Iran. On the other we have an alignment of the US, Western Europe and Japan. India will pursue its national interests which at times may be in sync with one side or the other, but will be driven by national interest.

India's interests in the Indo-Pacific align closely with the US and hence it remains an important part of the Quad grouping. However, India has a different set of interests in the Eurasian heartland, which spells divergence from US views. There is no dichotomy in pursuing different interests on the continental shelf and in the maritime domain, as in both cases, India's policies are aligned to suit India's national interest. Navigating the same in the coming years will require a great deal of dexterity.

The geopolitical outlines of tomorrow’s world remain undefined for now, but will become clearer in the years ahead. For the moment, the war has notably catalysed European integration and has pushed Russia closer to the Chinese embrace. But India will not be drawn into the power play of any one group and will continue to pursue its national interest. This reflects the emergence of a new, vibrant and confident India, which is ready to stand by itself, on regional and international issues. On Ukraine, India will push for peace, without getting entangled with any side. That perhaps is the best option to bring about peace between the parties to the conflict. 

Published in Organiser - 24 Feb 2023