Home Contact Us
Search :
   
Terrorism - Articles
Print Bookmark Email Post Comment
#2789, 26 January 2009
Engaging a Reluctant Pakistan
Ali Ahmed
Security Analyst, New Delhi
e-mail: aliahd66@hotmail.com

Pakistan's security predicament has been attributed to the definition of national interest being usurped by its Army. The Army in seeking to preserve its institutional interest has conflated its corporate interest with the national interest. This explains reluctant Pakistani participation in the GWOT as also its slovenly response to Indian entreaties. Despite this, the Army is failing in protecting these interests, namely nuclear assets, strategic space in Afghanistan, Kashmir and corporate cohesion.

The favourite Pakistani conspiracy theory has it that its nuclear assets are threatened by an Indo-US combine. This apprehension is only heightened by commentary in India by no less than the eminent strategist, K Subrahmanyam, that there is a 'mutuality of strategic interest' between India and the US in seeing that Pakistani nuclear weapons do not fall to Islamists ('The Clock is Ticking', Times of India, 14 January 2009). Its strategic space in Afghanistan is set to narrow with the 'surge' gaining traction under the tutelage of Gen. Petraeus, who carries the legacy of victory from Iraq. Obama has in his first days in office made clear his unmistakable resolve of holding Pakistan accountable and has appointed a tough interlocutor, Richard Holbrooke, to ensure this. In Kashmir, misplaced zealousness of the strategic instrument of its choice, the Lashkar, has backfired in Mumbai. Further, elections there have placed India in an unassailable position. Lastly, portents of failure in the forthcoming campaign against the Taliban-Islamist combine are on the Army's mind. Not having been bailed out of this predicament in face of India's mature reaction to 26/11, it has to risk running of losing corporate coherence. Thus all four core interests stand threatened. Superceding these is a more important threat to Pakistan - an existential threat to national existence. This emerges from the GWOT, which in enveloping Pakistan, promises to get worse without the promise of getting better. The proactive strategy calls for pressure by the US and India, with military threat in the background, for Pakistan to 'do more'. The understanding is that projection of a perpetually 'failing state' image by Pakistan is a ploy to preserve it against more demanding pressures. Attempting to second guess the Army carries the danger of taking cue from a policy favouring a proactive approach. This needs to factor in the possibility of 'undesirable outcomes'.The hard-line proving overly risky, opens up scope for reflecting on an alternative political approach. Pakistani strategic interests mentioned can be conceded in a strategic meeting of minds between the US, Pakistan and India. The quid pro quo on its part it would be to tackle its end of the bargain purposefully, one rendered simpler by complementing any military action with a more salient political one.

With respect to Afghanistan, this would entail getting the proportion of the negotiation-amenable Taliban on board. Pakistani good offices, rumored to maintain covert contact with these elements, can be taken advantage of. This may entail formulating an exit strategy and time schedule for foreign forces in return for cessation of violence by Taliban and compliance with anti Al Qaeda goals of the international community. Defining an inclusive end state and a time frame, instead of an expansive agenda, would pre-empt the counter, otherwise set to escalate and destabilize Pakistan. Second, with respect to Kashmir, India could reopen the autonomy issue with the newly-elected government, even if progressing the same is left to the next dispensation at New Delhi. The elections manifestos of parties should include their intent which the electorate can endorse at the polls. Were Pakistan to take credit for this would be small price to pay for a return to normalcy in the Valley. Third, nuclear assets figure as an issue with the hard-line school owing to its awareness that pressure could incite Pakistani recalcitrance. It is clear that an Islamist threat to these can only be tackled by the Pakistani Army currently in charge. US assistance can only be on invitation. US-Indian action can only lead to an avoidable threat to India. A political approach, to perhaps include a strategic dialogue, would instead reassure Pakistan on its nuclear assets.Lastly, by avoiding cohesion-sapping operations, the Army stands to retain its position atop Pakistani polity. While this may retard the pace of deepening of democracy, in preserving its Army, the political approach would help preserve Pakistan. The militarized approach carries the risk of tilting relative strength equations in favour of the Taliban-Islamist combine, as has been the steady trend over the past four years of Operation Al Mizan of the Pakistan Army.

Since American power has proven deficient and the Pakistani Army deterred, Obama's ascendance has era transcending portents. This is therefore the opportune moment to revise the agenda. Indian input into this should be through Indian interests as against those of the US or GWOT. These are predicated on a stable Pakistan with its core interests accommodated. It would be better for India, in fulfilling its role as a 'strategic partner', to sensitize Holbrooke - one known for a robust approach from his Balkans innings - along these lines.

 
Article by same Author
The Pro-Talks Argument
India and Pakistan: Losing time
The Logic of the 'Sundarji Doctrine'
The Obama Decision Making Model
The Illogic of ‘Unacceptable Damage’
The ‘Pause’ in India-Pakistan Dialogue
India's Thermonuclear Test: Bombed?
Talks As Strategy
The Illogic of ‘Massive’ Punitive Retaliation
Nuclear Trajectory in South Asia
Tackling Insurgency In Assam
The ‘Context’ of Islamism
Questioning ‘Compellence’ as Answer to India’s Pakistan Dilemma
Post 26/11 Strategy Recomendation For India
The Pay Commission Outcome as Opportunity
Thinking Beyond the Line of Control

 
ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
 
View comment(0)
POST Your Comment
No comment for this article
 
Print Bookmark Email
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2010, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
            Web Design : India Internet