Why is Pakistan Indo-centric?

Bhaskar Roy, who retired recently as a senior government official with decades of national and international experience, is an expert on international relations and Indian strategic interests.

While participating in a NATO Defence Conference in Brussels on November 19, 2008, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani answered the international community’s question why Pakistan was “Indo-centric”.

"Sometimes you perceive us, Pakistanis, as to be too much India centric, India focused. But you also have to understand the geography, history and culture. Therefore it is important that the international community engage in facilitating a better relationship region-wide, which includes definitely the key issue of India-Pakistan relations," he was quoted as saying.

Gen Kayani was invited to the meeting to detail Pakistan’s efforts to neutralize the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and fighters well ensconced in the northern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Gen Kayani’s emphasis on the “historical, geographical, and cultural context” of the Pakistani army’s India doctrine has never before been put forth so succinctly.

From the time Kayani took over as Army Chief from Gen Pervez Musharraf earlier this year, he never hesitated in making it clear that the army’s position on Kashmir and India remained steadfast, and that there would be no compromise whatsoever.

Safe havens in Pakistan played role in Mumbai attack: US

The reference to “history” goes back to the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, the Kashmir issue over which the Pakistan army launched two full-scale wars against India and a half-war in the 1999 Kargil invasion, and the partition of Pakistan in 1971 leading to the birth of independent Bangladesh. The Pakistan army vowed after the 1971 defeat not to rest till India was also dismembered. It is in this context that the fuelling terrorism in India and support to the separatists in North East India must be seen.

The reference to “geography” would suggest that the two countries with different ideologies cannot exist side by side peacefully. In Pakistan army’s views, Pakistan has a moral right over Afghanistan, and India was working against Pakistan there. Control over Afghanistan is not only a “strategic depth” militarily, but also a sign of power projection towards Central Asia. Islamabad’s ambition is to play the role of a regional power that can control the hydrocarbon flow through Afghanistan to Asia.

But the Pakistani army’s projection of a cultural chasm between India and Pakistan is not shared by many even in Pakistan. There is too much of cultural commonality between the two countries, and that aspect is getting stronger.

It is well known that for decades successive Pakistani governments, both military and civilian, stonewalled cultural and people-to-people contacts and other exchanges with their Indian counterparts. The reason is not hard to see. The propaganda fed to the Pakistani people about India and Indians would immediately fall apart. That is what exactly happened over the last two years, after Islamabad eased some of the restrictions on visits by Pakistani citizens to India.

In the aftermath of the recent Mumbai incident, however, a Pakistani singer who had his schedule confirmed in India was not allowed to come.

By the same author: Why Benazir's death will remain unsolved

As the democratic movement grew in Pakistan, last year, against President and General Pervez Musharraf’s rule and ultimately brought him down, a sea change of opinion of India among the country’s discerning society became visible. It was widely recognized that friendship and close interactions with India were not liabilities, but assets. The new Pakistani civilian government led by PPP acting chairman and the new President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, articulated this view openly.

Amidst the rising anger of Pakistan’s media over their country being blamed for the Mumbai attacks by India, the opinion of a senior Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader is extremely pertinent. Pakistani National Assembly speaker, Dr Fehmida Mirza, asked a group of journalists not to instigate public opinion against India because this tension would “hurt the economies of both the countries”. She “feared a big conspiracy” behind the Mumbai tragedy, and warned that another strike like that in Mumbai could lead to a war between the two nations.

Reading between the lines, she was clearly indicating that she and her party knew where the Mumbai attack emanated from.She also counseled that Pakistan’s economy was in dire straits, that it could not absorb economic sanctions, and that a war with India would not be economically sustainable. But what Dr Mirza said is not possible for President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to articulate under the current circumstances.

Images of the Mumbai war

Pakistan is falling behind in international debt repayments, and has hardly enough foreign exchange to pay for a month’s imports. The “Friends of Pakistan” club, which includes the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and China among others, was initially unwilling to inject cash in Pakistan’s economy. There was a serious apprehension that the money would be siphoned off by the armed forces, like most the $10 billion assistance from the US since “9/11” has been. The IMF was finally persuaded last month by the “friends” club to release $3.1billion as immediate loan. China and Saudi Arabia, permanent friends of Pakistan, have also followed with cash assistance.

But while the Pakistani army is fully aware of the country’s crippling economic situation, it is also aware that the international community had too much at stake in Pakistan to allow it to sink into economic anarchy.

Gen Kayani made a very astute move when he took over as the army chief. He withdrew all armed forces officers from civilian posts, to which Musharraf had appointed them. The responsibility of keeping the country afloat was squarely in the new civilian government’s plate.

But on security and strategic issues, including in important foreign policy areas, the army called the shots.

For the army and Pakistan’s traditional strategic establishment, President Zardari crossed the red line when, in an interview with an Indian television channel, he offered “no first use of nuclear weapons”, and also said that in every Pakistani there was a little of India, and in every Indian there was a little of Pakistan. This flew in the face of the army’s doctrine of no meeting ground with India in “history, geography and culture”.

Bangladesh: A book that burns | More Bhaskar Roy columns
President Zardari and his government suffered two shameful defeats at the hands of the army. The first was in July, this year, when its notification to put the ISI under the Interior Ministry had to be reversed overnight on Kayani’s instance. The second was more recent. Zardari had promised to send ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha to India following the Mumbai attacks to cooperate with the Indian agencies in investigation. He had to withdraw after a post-midnight visit from Kayani. The civilian government in Pakistan is corralled, but still breathing. That is the good news.

The Pakistan government is now under tremendous pressure to arrest not only the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, but also others like their ideological godfather like Jamaat-ud-Dawa ((JuD) Amir Prof Hafeez Saeed, and those connected. Nobody is willing to buy the story any longer that the JuD and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) are different organizations.The US has already moved the UN Security Council to declare four former ISI chiefs, including Lt Gen Hamid Gul and Gen Aslam Beg, international terrorists. This would be a very serious blow to the Pakistani army.

With evidence coming from various countries, including the US and the European Union, that the perpetrators of the Mumbai mayhem came from Pakistan, and

That there was an ISI link with the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Pakistani army today is on the verge of being designated as a national armed force promoting international terrorism.

The “hoax” telephone call from Indian External Affairs Minister (EAM) Pranab Mukherjee to President Zardari on December 6 assumes serious significance. It was not only to confuse issues. The entire matter of the call, which was let out by Pakistani officials in bits and pieces, suggests something more sinister. Subsequent to this alleged call, Zardari reportedly ordered the Pakistani air force to be on high alert and be prepared for an Indian attack. If the Indian air force had responded in a similar manner, it could have escalated into an actual war. But New Delhi reacted maturely, and clearly ruled out a war.

The “hoax” telephone call has all the hallmarks of the ISI. The Pakistani Military establishment apparently seeks a war or a war-like situation with India to divert attention from the Mumbai attack and the resultant international demand to open up its terrorist wing. That would be the death knell for Pakistani military-sponsored terrorism.But while forcing the Pakistani armed forces to deliver, the international community must also deliver a timetable. The more the issue goes into discussion, the more difficult it would be to bring the terrorism issues to its rightful conclusion.

‘Former Pak army officials trained Mumbai attackers’

At the same time, Pakistan’s civilian government should not be lost sight of. It is the responsibility of the international community to support this government, while tackling the real culprits.

The threat of a war is not over yet. Indian policy makers must realize that a resolution of the Kashmir issue and other problems with Pakistan does not lie with a military government. The preparation for the Mumbai attack started under Gen Musharraf, who ran circles around the Indians.

We must also factor in the fact that China, Pakistan’s all-weather friend, could step in when Pakistan begins to lose. In 2006, Beijing had vetoed a move in the UNSC under Resolution 1373 to declare the Pakistani outfit, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, a terrorist organization.

The way from here is not giving an inch. The fears of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan have been overstated. India should not provoke a war, but must be prepared to face one.Surgical strikes on terrorist targets in Pakistan must be retained as an option at all times.

The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not of Sify.com