1) Indo-Pak Relations:-
“We can choose our friends, but not our neighbors”
News:- Recent developments in bilateral talks , visit of External Affairs Minister to Heart of Asia conference, meeting between the National Security Adviser of both countries.
Background :-
Indo-Pak relation is of the extremes – there is no middle ground. This is a love-hate relationship.Especially hatred has grown more than the love in the recent decades.In this context , it becomes imperative to understand this volatile neighbor and what it holds for the future.
1)History
- Pakistani elite have a bitter memory of the opposition to the partition from the Indian National Congress which the Muslim League had to face.Consequently, the Muslim League did not get Pakistan of the geographical parameters which it expected.
- It is one of ironies of history that many of those who now live in Pakistan did not approve of the two-nation theory.
- The pro-Pakistan movement drew its main strength from Bengali Muslims and Muslims of North-Central India, even this support did not come from the Muslim masses but from the Muslim elite.
- Jinnah was eclipsed as a leader of the Indian National Congress by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru, he was lionized as an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.The Pakistani view is that the machinations of Lord Mountbatten and the Indian National Congress prevented the emergence of a Pakistan encompassing the entire Muslim population of India. This bitterness still permeates the psyche of the Pakistani power structure.
- India’s strong action in Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh heightened this bitterness and more importantly, generated a genuine apprehension that India would try to nullify the partition by subverting the state of Pakistan, either by breaking it up or by reabsorbing its territory to what the Pakistanis called Hindu plans of ‘Akhand Bharat’
- India’s role is the liberation of Bangladesh only reinforced this Pakistani fear psychosis.
- The conflict of 1971 tempered Pakistan’s inclination towards military adventurism for getting even with India, but short of that its power structure continues to have the same mindset.
2)Kashmir Dispute :-
Before getting into serious note lets see what happened once at UN.
A representative from India began:
“Before beginning my speech I want to tell you a very very old story about Rishi Kashyap of Kashmir, after whom Kashmir is named.
When he found a beautiful lake,
he thought- ”What a good opportunity to have a bath”,
He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.
When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished.
A Pakistani had stolen them”!!
The Pakistani representative in Assembly jumped up furiously and shouted:
“what are you talking about? The Pakistanis weren’t there then”.
Indian representative smiled and said,
“And now that we have made that clear, I’ll begin my speech”-
“And they say Kashmir belongs to them”.
Everybody laughed.
On a different note. as history stands , Srinagar is a city established by Asoka and 4th Buddhist Council carried out here by Kanishka.
- The Maharaja Hari Singh was planning to declare his state as an independent country after Independence of India.
- But this vacillation on the part of Maharaja prompted Pakistan to invade with the help of tribesmen from North-Western Frontier Province. They launched the attack on October 22, 1947 and within a short period of 5 days reached Baramula just 25 miles away from Srinagar.
- Overawed by this attack Hari Sing decided to seek India’s help and pleaded with the Government of India that he is willing to sign the Instrument of Accession in return for saving the state.
- While accepting the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. India had said that after the aggression is vacated the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be ascertained.
- Pakistan in the meanwhile installed a so-called Azad Kashmir government in the territory occupied by the invaders. In the meantime, India had moved to the Security Council under article 35 of the Charter, In fact the decision of the Nehru government to offer plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir seemed to be a serious mistake as it is this clause the support of which Pakistan has taken to prolong its case with regard to Kashmir.
- United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was constituted and submitted its report in 1948, the recommendations are :-
- First,Pakistan should withdraw its troops from Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible after the cease-fire and that Pakistan should also try for withdrawal of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals who are not ordinary residents of Kashmir.
- Second,the territory thus vacated by Pakistani troops should be administered by local officials under the supervision of the Commission.
- Third, after these two conditions are fulfilled and India is informed about their compliance by the UNCIP, India should also withdraw substantial strength of its troops.
- Finally; pending a final agreement India should maintain only such limited troops as should be essential for law and order.
- As history stand today, the UNCIP recommendations were violated by Pakistan at every occasion , and unless and until the first two conditions were met , the action expected from India will not follow. Over time, this declaration lost its value in terms of geopolitics.
- The cease-fire line (now called the Line of Control) was drawn where the fighting ended. An agreement on ceasefire line was reached in Karachi on 27″ July, 1949. It left 32,000 sq. miles of J & K territory in possession of Pakistan which is called Azad Kashmir by Pakistan.
- In the meanwhile, the Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise, ratified the State’s accession to India on February 6, 1954. A Constitution of the State was adopted on November 19, 1956 which declared Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of India. India’s stand now is that with the ratification of accession by directly elected Constituent Assembly of Kashmir, the promised ‘ascertaining of pishes’ of the people had been accomplished.India finalized accession on January 26, 1957
3)Should India do a Plebiscite in Kashmir ? :-
This was a debate raised over time and again and was in News through out last year. Many editorials, politicians promoted the cause to do a plebiscite. However , what they ignored is that promoting plebiscite is equivalent to challenging India’s sovereignty .
The reason is simple on why plebiscite is not required :-
- Kashmir was attacked when it was Independent and could not safeguard itself . Given the geopolitics now, the chances are that it will be subdued if it becomes independent and will have to go through the diktats either from Pakistan or from China (Given China’s recent interest in this region). Hence Independent Kashmir , neither ascertains safety of Kashmiris nor can it become economically viable .A failed country as a neighbor is the last thing that India wants.Thus Independence of Kashmir may be good for political agenda in the region , but not a viable options from a geopolitical perspective.
- India , has never been the aggressor,it was Pakistan who invaded Kashmir and butchered hindus and muslims alike until Indian army’s intervention.Terror has no religion, although , Pakistan is known to give religious sanction to terror activities. Terrorism has only one objective – Political, it serves no religion , spares no humanity.Religion is used for recruitment propaganda so as to find fodder for the canons.Find the young and destitute, give them some biased and subverted literature, show him there is a great cause in dying for religion and how the religion is threatened , train them , give them a fairy tale of heaven and put them as fodder in the canon and fire them at humanity – killing hundreds and terrorizing crores – this is the modus operandi of terror.
- Even though Kashmir signed Instrument of Accession , yet India allowed it to have it’s own autonomy, own flag and own constitution . Moreover the legislative assembly passed a resolution as being part of India. Hence any claim on plebiscite thus stands null and void.
- Even if , hypothetically, a plebiscite is held in Kashmir – a majority of the opinion will swing in favor of India , the reason being – Independent Kashmir will fail , Kashmir joining a failed state such as Pakistan will fail too. Kashmiris will be left with no access to better education , no prospect of development or finding a good job and leading a good life.
- Instead the language of Kashmiri and Kashmir culture will be subverted (History is proof to it – The single reason of creation of Bangladesh is – forcing Urdu upon them by West Pakistan; Pakistan also thrusting Urdu upon Baloch, Punjabi , Pakhtun people in its own region and is the major reason for discontent)
Hence, the only way forward is to safeguard Kashmir and it’s culture , promote development in the region and mainstream the youth of Kashmir with rest of India.Any other alternative to status quo, is neither in India’s interest nor in Kashmiri’s interest.
Of Course, Pakistan will keep chanting Kashmir time and again as it serves it’s political purpose.It is a state where the basic set up of power structure is still feudal.The elites are fooling its youth , the question is how long can it keep it’s youth under the shadow of darkness , given that the world is increasingly becoming a giant “Internet of things” where access to information is seamless and real-time.
Strategists predict that it will implode from with in. Though it might sound good to Indian ears, yet it is not a desirable one. A stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India’s interest. The last thing any one wants is a failed nuclear state as a neighbor which run by trigger happy generals.
4)Way Forward :-
- It is often said that , we look-alike, we talk alike, we eat alike , yet why do we keep fighting.
- Given the historical and cultural ties , India and Pakistan should move towards amity and peace (“Aman ki Aasha”)
- Bollywood transcends boundaries and Pakistani singers are very much liked in India. So Film, Music, Song and Literature can create a healthy bridge of trust , thus should be promoted.
- Pakistan education system itself needs revamp which propagates anti-India literature and its civil power should be strengthened. It is often said – ” Every country has an Army, but Pakistan Army has a Country” – this has to change if there has to be better relation.
- India is known for its “dove” approach to geopolitics , but Pakistan in every occasion betrayed the trust , hence the deficit of trust has to be built not by India but by Pakistan through confidence building measures .
- Pakistan became a sanctuary for terrorists which is not only a concern for India but a global concern.
- India, Pakistan and Uncle Sam :-
- Uncle Sam(America), acts a pivot to Ind-Pak relationships.For decades America has ignored Pakistan’s misdeeds, but the attitude of Uncle Sam is changing and it is acknowledging the facts that it’s ignorance and pumping billions of dollar only created a monster for the globe. One wonders, what will happen , if at all the nuclear installation comes under extremist organization one day.
- Hence , in this context USA can play a constructive role and do the necessary arm-twisting to get Pakistan out of the clutches of Military and strengthen the Civil Government so that it does not act as a proxy to wishes of its Army.
Conclusion:-
As said earlier , a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India’s interest and confidence building measures should be promoted. However this does not mean any action to weaken country’s security apparatus.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.