War or peace — India’s quandary?

Contributing Editor Vice Admiral (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir examines India’s options.

Seize the moment and cash opportunities. This was the strategy a la mode throughout modern history, a period lasting three centuries led by Western Europe. When the powerful indulged, it was termed ‘realism’. If the weak did likewise, it became ‘not selling oneself cheap’. Many under-developed countries after their independence adopted the latter as their policy to safeguard national interests and for development.

Today, ‘realism’ or ‘not selling oneself cheap’ was called  ‘pragmatism’. In it there existed not room for morality. In fact, those who sought after morality were dubbed as unrealistic, backward, obscurantist or at the least ‘the weak’. India adopted this pragmatism as her favoured policy immediately after independence. Pakistan, Hyderabad, Kashmir and India’s other neighbours, all suffered in different degrees as a consequence of this subterfuge.

Yet, despite Indian lack of sincerity and morality, and injuries done to Pakistan, we cannot wish India away. Fait has decreed her to be our neighbour and both have to learn to live as good neighbours. Better understanding could lead to beneficial vistas of co-operation for both in which India would be the gainer. Through Pakistan, India would be able to economically and easily access expanding markets in the vast Central Asian Region, West Asia, Western China, Russia and Europe, and in return obtain from there vitally needed oil, gas and other inputs for her expanding economy. But the Indian leadership is too blinded by the glitter of higher ambitions. It wants India to become the regional power in South and Central Asia before going on to become a super power.

India knows very well that half a century of confrontation has produced little good for either country. Both have suffered greatly with Pakistan getting divided by Indian perfidy and India in the bargain losing her half a century old ‘Western aided race’ to develop faster than China. A legacy of a dream of Pandit Nehru to show to the world that democracy could produce faster results than Communism. This idea was bought by the West and then supported to the hilt. But consequences of continued confrontation with Pakistan resulted in India lagging at least a decade behind China. Diversion of resources towards massing troops on Pakistan’s border these days would enlarge this gap even more. India’s anticipated six percent GDP growth this year was already on the way down for other reasons to five percent and would surely fall further as a consequence of her present confrontation with Pakistan. This compared to China’s GDP growth of 7.8 percent during 2001 and 8 percent for 2000. China’s per-capita GDP at US$ 855 in the year 2000 was similarly almost double that of India’s.

With Pakistan and India now nuclear weapon states, the stakes of confrontation have become higher; not only for the region but for the rest of the world too. The latter’s concern was truly reflected in the manner it reacted to India’s threatening posture against Pakistan. All countries that matter immediately despatched their leaders to cool down India. Others telephoned and counselled bilateral talks. Further, it is not generally known that when an Indian Corps Commander moved his Armoured forces too close to Pakistan, United States immediately moved some of her naval forces closer to Kutch. Their redeployment had an immediate sobering effect on New Delhi. Even the concerned Corps Commander was removed, reportedly under pressure from the United States of America.

It is now clear that so long Pakistan remains a partner of United States in its fight against terrorism and her future involvement in this region, the US would not let Pakistan’s security be jeopardised. But partnership with the powerful has obligations difficult to avoid. Their details should not be left in a void. Nor should we sell ourselves cheap as was done in the past for mere military left overs or, luxuries for some and free trips abroad for those of the government. Pakistan must get something substantially strategic and political in nature. In addition, transfer of knowledge and technology in the civilian sectors must receive high priority. For a nuclear weapon state Pakistan was way behind the rest of the modern world in economic development and without importing knowledge we would continue to fall further behind at an increasing rate.

Reverting to India, she firmly believed in the dictum of the stronger and was not willing to accept two swords in the same scabbard. What sort of relationship could then be fashioned out with her? God willing, Pakistan government or the masses would never accept anything less than equality. Under these circumstances, with India unwilling to give up her hegemonic ambitions, peace with her without outside influence would only be possible if Pakistan remained strong enough; economically, politically and militarily; such that it cannot be blackmailed again in the manner India was trying presently.

War or peace, therefore, was the choice that only India can make. She could either lay the seeds of a war that in the end could efface all civilization from the Indus to the Gangetic Delta or, she could start respecting Pakistan’s genuine concerns and other people’s rights.  She  would  also  have  to  swallow  the bitter pill (her own determination) of equality with her neighbours. Further, it would be a lot easier if India did not allow herself to be misled onto a wrong path by visions of greatness fuelled from outside. A path that only led to confrontation with her two nuclear neighbours and would generate instability in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific regions. Finally, let India put into practice the Five Principles of Bandung that India called Panjshila, and which the Chinese and Indian Prime Ministers talked of last month in India.