Events & Issues
New Delhi, 9 June
2014
Breaking
Indo-Pak Gridlock
IT’S EASIER
SAID THAN DONE
By Proloy
Bagchi
At the formal launch of her book “Fighting to the End. Pakistan Army’s Way in
War” C Christine Fair, a noted American scholar on South Asia, told her
Washington audience the Pakistan Army does not want resolution of the Kashmir
problem as for them it would mean committing hara-kiri.
She went on to say: “They (Pakistan
Army) are not going to do a settlement on Kashmir.
Why would the Army allow a process to go forward that would obviate its own
politics?” She added: “I really do not expect much out of it (Modi-Sahrif peace
initiative). The Army would undercut him (Sharif). All they have to do is to
have a Laskar-e-Toiba attack opportunity for spoilers.” She further stated: “The
attack on the Indian Consulate in Herat,
which was very likely done by Lashkar-e-Toiba or the Haqqani network, is really
a good testing of these waters”.
Ms. Fair has suggested that the best
that India
can hope for is some version of status quo. She has reasons for that as she
asserts “Nawaz Sharif genuinely wants an opening of economic relationship with India. But does
he really want to take on the business of shutting down the jihadi groups,
there is no sign thereof so far.” She goes on to say that Pakistan’s problems with India are much more “capacious” than the
territorial conflict over Kashmir. “Pakistan’s revisionism persists in regard to its
efforts not only to undermine the territorial status quo in Kashmir, but also
to undermine India’s
position in the region and beyond. Pakistan will suffer any number of
military defeats in its efforts to do so.”
One has always felt that even if
Kashmir is offered to Pakistan
on a platter it would not solve its problems with India. Fair’s is one of the more
accurate assessments by an American of Pakistan and its Army’s attitude towards
their neighbour. That the Pakistan Army calls the shots in most of the issues,
more so in respect of those that relate to Kashmir and India, is an
open secret. Kashmir is something which they
just cannot give up as it is the very basis of their existence – one might even
say their livelihood.
Any peace initiative between the two
countries, therefore, makes the Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)
sit up and take steps to shoot it down mostly with the help of their proxies,
the assorted jihadists. One can recall at least three major instances from
among several others where efforts were made to sabotage the emerging peace
initiatives. One, of course, is “Kargil” that happened even as Prime Minister
Vajpayee travelled to Lahore
in a “Friendship” bus. The second major incident was the burning down of the
Tourist Reception Centre of Srinagar on the eve of flagging-off of the
Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and now
“Herat” as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif travelled to New Delhi for Narendra
Modi’s swearing-in. News has just come in that “Herat” was a Lashkar-e-Toiba
event confirming the hunch of Ms. Fair.
While the Pakistani establishment
has often termed these acts as the enterprises of “non-State” actors, these, in
fact, are orchestrated by well-entrenched State actors in the Army. The Army
and its ISI have in the jihadists some valuable expendable assets that can
occasionally be let loose to inflict wounds on India. They have the “Mullahs” with
them who run an assembly line to produce endless numbers of “fidayeens”,
extremist, thoroughly radicalised militants who at short notice can head across
the country’s eastern borders on suicide missions against the “kafirs”. It is
difficult to believe that the civil authority in Pakistan is not aware of these
shenanigans of the Army that is theoretically under its control. Nawaz Sharif
unsuccessfully did profess ignorance about Kargil. But, was he unaware of “Herat”? One cannot be
very sure.
That the Army would not like any
softening of attitude towards India
became clear soon after Modi’s swearing-in. While political analysts, the media
and a significant segment of people across the borders were appreciative of
Modi’s invitation to Sharif the army men – even the superannuated ones –were
not very happy. Invited by Indian news channels, they entered into acrimonious
arguments insisting on continuance of the broken-down composite dialogue
forgetting the past and not hinging it on to action on conspirators of 26/11 or
even continued terror. On the Indian contention that terror and talks could not
go together, they claimed they too were victims of terrorism. When reminded
that “terror” was their own brain-child they promptly passed on the blame to “a
superpower” – an argument that was “no-brainer”.
While the Army, thoroughly
radicalised over generations since Zia-ul Haq’s tenure, would always be
inimical to India, the civil
society in Pakistan
too is not well disposed towards its neighbour. One does not know how Sharat
Sabharwal, a former High Commissioner to Pakistan,
recently said that there is a “growing segment of opinion in Pakistan ... (that is) conscious of the need to
build a stable relationship with India for a better future for
themselves”. One, however, feels that it is the trade and industry (Inclusive
of businessman Sharif) which is more in favour of a harmonious relationship
basically for self-enrichment.
The PEW Research reported last year
that only 22% people in Pakistan
are favourably disposed towards India.
Years of relentless hostility, false propaganda, doctored history taught in
schools and colleges and religious chauvinism inflicted on generations of
Pakistanis had to take their toll. Hostility and hatred for the eastern
neighbour is overwhelming, with dispassionate and objective voices being few
and far between and, in any case, awfully faint to be drowned in the boom of
the guns of ISI’s proxies.
Pakistan’s is a progressively
regressing society and the country seems to be travelling back in time to the
medieval ages. Life is cheap and easily dispensable and killing comes so
naturally to those who are thoroughly indoctrinated. Killings for blasphemy are
rising – even of those who have the guts and courage to defend an accused.
Similar is the case with honour killings and sectarian violence against shias is mounting up. There are
occasional voices from within helplessly screaming that the country is a failed
State where life, property and honour are not safe. It is only the guns that
rule.
The question would, therefore, be
whether Modi would be able to break the gridlock with such a violent and
intractable country. Even if he is able to arrive at a settlement it was likely
to remain unsustainable. Christine Fair is right; stakes are too high for the
Pakistan Army and its proxies. It is they who have the guns and the inclination
to use them to make the civil authority fall in line. For India, the best
bet would, therefore, seem to be to let the sleeping dogs lie till an opportune
moment presents itself to break the deadlock. -- INFA
(Copyright, India News and
Feature Alliance)
|