After a diplomatic pause enforced by India’s lengthy election campaign, the country will soon have a new government after the ruling Congress party won an unexpectedly decisive victory. But analysts doubt the change of government will bring a significant change of heart in India towards Pakistan.
Despite Pakistan’s offensive against the Taliban in the Swat valley, they say India has yet to be convinced the Pakistan Army is ready to crack down more widely on Islamist militants, fearing instead that it will selectively go after some groups, while leaving others like the Afghan Taliban and Kashmir-oriented groups alone. While Pakistan wants to resume talks broken off by New Delhi after last November’s attack on Mumbai, India has said it wants Islamabad to take more action first against those behind the assault, which it blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is expected to remain in office after the Congress election victory, is now likely to come under pressure from the United States to soften India’s stance towards Pakistan. The current stand-off leaves both countries vulnerable to a fresh flare-up of tensions which could torpedo Washington’s plans for Pakistan and Afghanistan. It also complicates U.S. efforts to persuade the Pakistan Army to move troops from the Indian border to fight Taliban militants on its western border with Afghanistan.
So how will Singh respond?
Indian analysts are already arguing India must stand up to U.S. pressure to ensure its own interests are not sacrificed to those of the United States. In an editorial in the Times of India, Brahma Chellaney writes that U.S. policy — very much focused on Afghanistan — now runs counter to Indian interests. He argues that Kashmir-oriented groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba are of little interest to the United States. “Instead, Washington intends to goad New Delhi post-election to reduce border troop deployments, a step that would help Pakistan to infiltrate more armed terrorists into India.”
It may not be entirely correct to say that Washington is not interested in the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The group was cited in media reports as a suspect in the London underground bombings in 2005, potentially making it as much of a global threat as al Qaeda. But Chellaney’s comments do underline a traditional suspicion in the region – both in India and Pakistan — about what is seen as a ruthless U.S. focus on its own interests.
In an editorial in The Hindu former diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar says India must galvanise its regional diplomacy, rebuilding its once close relationship with Russia and Iran, to strengthen its hand. But he also writes that, “certainly, resumption of the composite dialogue with Pakistan ought to be a priority.”
The other question to ask is whether Pakistan and India would both be better off talking to each other directly, rather than churning their arguments through the prism of U.S. diplomacy. According to some analysts the two countries came close to a breakthrough on Kashmir in 2007 — a subject explored at length by Steve Coll in the New Yorker in March – but were unable to close the deal after then President Pervez Musharraf became embroiled in political problems that eventually forced him to step down last year. There has been no official confirmation, and the two countries have come close to agreements on other issues before only to see them fall apart on disagreement about the exact terms.
President Barack Obama has so far been a leader in a hurry. His energetic special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, earned a reputation for being able to bang heads together after he brokered the Dayton peace accords in 1995. How far can, and will, the U.S. administration go to persuade India and Pakistan to talk peace? And equally importantly, how well will India and Pakistan manage the U.S. administration?
(Photos: Congress party supporters celebrate in Allahabad; Congress leader Sonia Gandhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh)
Trackback
130 comments so far
Previous | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | … 1 | Next
it is important for India as a stable country surrounded by troubled nations to prioritize and sort out issues and of course the primary one is tackle is Pakistan.
- Posted by sasidarMyra
“Siachen is a classic case…”
— If Russia encroaches upon the uninhabituated & barren parts of Alaska, then would it be madness on the part of the US to retaliate their moves?
- Posted by anup@My understanding is that the Pakistan Army genuinely believes that there is a threat from India.
@Pak view of India as Monolithic Giant/1971 war/Pak facing Russia on one side and India (then close to Russia) on the other.
–Myra, since when Pakistan is scared off India? The history proves otherwise by the fact that “tiny” Pakistan feels so confident to take on the India, such as in 1965 War (a clearcut attack), killing millions next door and providing all the genuine reasons to push India into involvement, Kargil War in 1999 (when India was nuclear). So Pak can afford to take on Monolithic Giant Nuclear India. Wow! Myra, these are no signs of Pakistan getting scared off India. Rather Pak knows Indian History, Indian foreign policy/diplomacy, the Indian leaders for them to attempt to be aggressive. Myra all this is no preception, the wars on India are a reality.
@PA genuinely alarmed/Indian Army “war games”/Cold Start doctrine
Myra, Keith has tackled this very nicely. In any case Cold Start doctrine is post 2004 phenomenon which doesnot expalin pakistan behaviour pre-2004. It is just one more reason to add to the laundary list of PA to explain their anti-India stance. I see not only Pakistanis but media buys it.
@The other classic example is over Baluchistan. Many Pakistanis are convinced that R&AW is…..
-Keith again dealt with the issue. IA and RAW are paid to do what they do. It is normal for spy agencies to be present in other countries for national security. Indian RAW came into existence after 1962 war (?), while ISI is there since 1947. Spy agencies become a problem only when they indulge in destructive tactics, like ISI has been doing since its birth in India. PERHAPS, RAW did these activities in Balochistan; but stopped by ex-Indian PM Gujral in 1990s if you recall. Moreover Sikh militanciies supported by pak was the big reason for RAW to be in Pakistan.
Myra: Pakistanis/PA are also convinced that RAW aids Taliban. Don’t you think this is absurd?
Myra: I have asked this before. Is it not fair that India asks Pakistan to shut off terrorist production and export to India/kashmir. You watched that youtube video–200,000 LeT-trained terrorists are in Pakistan. It is like a force.
Is it fair on India’s part to question Pakistan’s sincerity if Pak comes to the table for talks while making a phone call to step up terrorism in Kashmir and in India. isn’t it like holding a knife during peace talks? Is there a point in it? This is keeping in mind that in addition to kargil war, pak-supportted terrorism has historically derailed India-Pak talks. Or are we back again to the baseless/no evidence Pak’s perception of India as a giant that will crush them. India does not have perception, but evidence about pakistan–if you remember that ISI bombed Indian embassy in Kabul and Mumbai, Punjab terrorism, even in North East India.
Media and powers for their respective reasons are playing along with Pakistan in this India-Pak balancing game of politically correctness even as LeT etc kills innocents in India/Kashmir. All this is historical reality and going on as I write. But then it is tough to face the reality but easy to recite the perceptions like poetry.
With all due respect to sane pakistani citizens and the West, terrorism is an industry for pakistan and the West is promoting that while thankless Pakistanis curse America/West. Perhaps the Pakistanis who curse are genuine, since they do not feel the money since it gets siphoned off to buy bullets for Indians or to some 10%. No wonder Mr. Haqani wants no management of US oversight on the aid, while sane Pakistani writer like Mr. Ahmed Rashid favor accoutability and US oversight. Guess what- nothing will change with passing the US Bills, the crafty Pak will find a way to bypass that. So what;s the solution, remove the destination where this money goes and that is terrorists in kashmir. It is not wrong to say that Pakistan on its own has not enough $$$ to buy guns for terrorists. It is the West that gives them the $$$ that the Pak is able to maintain terrorism. All points down to one thing, make PAK cleanse all the hyphenated terrrist groups in all four directions.
- Posted by rajeevI’m told the Pakistan Army was genuinely alarmed after Mumbai when the Indian Army went ahead with “war games” in Rajasthan to practice its Cold Start doctrine. On checking the Indian version of events, I was told these were routine military exercises which had been planned for more than a year. So you can see how perceptions differ.
Perhaps someone can tell me more about Cold Start. What function does it have other than to give the Indian military the capability to mount lightning strikes on Pakistan? And if that is indeed the case, and you were in charge of the Pakistan Army, would you not also keep your troops at the eastern border just in case?
The other classic example is over Baluchistan. Many Pakistanis are convinced that R&AW is using Indian consulates in Afghanistan to cause trouble in Baluchistan. Yet when I ask Indians about this, they tell me that R&AW is just too inefficient to carry out an operation like this. So again, very different perceptions (although I do think both countries tend to overestimate the efficiency of the other, which is an odd sort of compliment in its own way.)
- Posted by Myra
As someone who has studied these issues in some depth and with more privileged sources, let me add my two cents. First off, every military officer know that the training and readiness cycle is an unforgiving god (especially for an army as large as the IA) who can only be interrupted for the most grave of reasons. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that the Indians would have called off the exercise in Rajasthan following the attack. Had they called it off, then the world would have had reason to be worried. And I am fairly sure the Paks understood this point as well, which is why their claims of feeling threatened are severely exaggerated. Had the roles been reversed the Paks would not have called off a scheduled exercise either.
- Posted by KeithNext the issue of Cold Start. A lot of media hype over this doctrine is over the top. The Indian Army is transitioning from attrition to maneuver warfare. Part and parcel of this paradigm shift is the implementation of smaller, more mobile task forces. Yes, that means a more capable IA. And yes that means faster mobilization times along the border with Pakistan. However, given that the Indian Army has shown a mobilization timeframe of 3 weeks (vs. mere days for the PA), it’s safe to say that this doctrine will merely help the IA catch up. It’s not some ticket to being able to pull off ‘lightning strikes’ across Pakistan. Next, any serious India watcher (and I don’t doubt that most Paks fall in this category) would know that Cold Start has a lot to to with inter-service rivalry. The Indian Navy is pushing to be premier power projection service (like the USN is to the United States) while the Indian Air Force is demonstrating that it can provide options (ie. air strikes) to policy makers who wish to respond to terrorism or challenges to Indian sovereignty. So the Army has come up with a doctrine that, of course, emphasizes the need for fast moving ground forces to respond, that relegates the other two services to supporting roles.
As far as the principle behind the doctrine, I accept that it can be viewed as belligerent. But even then it is conditional on what Pakistan does. The doctrine is designed to retaliate against a Pakistan backed terrorist attack by creating costs for Pakistan (in terms of territory) for supporting terrorism, while operating below the nuclear threshold (there is wide consensus that Pakistan would not have too many qualms about losing non-Punjabi territory in major hostilities with India) The activation of the doctrine could simply be avoided by Pakistan making a genuine effort to crack-down on terrorism and co-operating with Indian authorities when attacks do occur. And again, given the mobilization timelines of Cold Start and the mobilization abilites and capabilities of the Pak Army, it’s not far-fetched to say that the PA could afford to do more on terrorism and still maintain its readiness along the Indian border.
Finally the RAW-Baloch tie-up… I don’t doubt that there is probably some contact between Balochi groups and RAW just like there are well proven linkages between anti-India groups and the ISI. But that should serve as no excuse for Pakistan’s paranoia. Surely, if it is excusable for Pakistan to send over waves of insurgents daily into Kashmir then a few phone calls between RAW and the Balochis is tolerable. I sense a double-standard here on the part of Pakistan. They want to be able to continue to support the insurgency in Kashmir while claiming that India should stop any and all contact with insurgents in Pakistan. Clearly, a grand bargain is called for here. Is Pakistan up for it?
as an indian citizen i plea to new government,our army n our intelligence agency to build good relations with pakistan.i dont know y our army n some hindu extremists in our country didnt want good relations with pakistan.
- Posted by sachinMyra,
May be the pakistani army believes that there is a threat from India but
1. Can this justify something like Kargil? That too when peace talks where going on?
2. Can this justify state sponsored terrorism as a way to counter India’s conventional army?
3. Most importantly, is this belief rational?
If both parties sincerely believe that there should be peace then what is topping them from achieving it?
From India’s point of view, it is the lack of confidence and trust it has in the Pakistani government. For one know one knows who calls the shot. And Pakistan itself talks in tow voices and does a flip-flop evey now and then as is evident in the Mumbai attack case.
every one has an opinion, India’s opinion about Pakistan comes from what it has experienced in the past.
You asked about Cold Start. I don’t know much about it but what I have read, tells me it came after India’s experience of moving its troops to the border during 2001-02 stand-off with Pakistan.
Using this methodology, the Indian army can quickly launch counter-strikes (offensive) against the enemy using its defensive troops deployed at the border. This also means moving its offensive troops (which haven’t been used in any if the battles yet, since it takes weeks to move the army with all its heavy machines). This effectively has meant that the difference between defensive troops (deployed at the border) and offensive troops held back at the barracks is reduced with the defensive troops having its own set of heavy weaponry.
And yes, this was developed only keeping in mind the Pakistan army’s adventurist attitude at the border during Kargil. Moreover, this is effective only when India’s political class has the will to take on Pakistan. It gives the army the advantage to mount counter strikes before international pressure forces them to pull back as had happened in the past.
You also mentioned about threat perception from each side of the border. Can you elaborate as to why most Pakistanis have this paranoia about India attacking them? Has India been an agressor in the past?
- Posted by AmanAndy Rebeiro says:
Its better to be associated with a winner than be swayed by so-called separatist leaders who have just brought guns and death to the valley.
Thanks Andy. And some of the so-called separatist leaders got less than 1% vote in the recent elections. Rest of the separatist leaders didn’t dare prove their popularity and stayed away from votes. These separatist leaders are happy with the monthly salary and bonuses from ISI.
- Posted by DavidMyra says:
“My understanding is that the Pakistan Army genuinely believes that there is a threat from India”
I respectfully disagree. Since Roman times, dictators have shown external threats to justify greed for power and money. It’s an old trick. Zia, Musharraf and Pak-Army are playing the same trick. How else can army justify it’s size and budget! Fools are the Pakistani civilians, reduced to beggary and aid, refugees and displaced in their own country.
Mumbai email chain goes to a Pakistani general. So, do you see the logic? Everytime, India tried peace, ISI found an antidote!
Figure out yourself, who is killing who? Very soon, Obama will shift to Fak-Pa strategy. I feel sorry for Pakistani civilians, who never stopped believing their army. Now the civilians are getting bombed by army!
Freedom is Priceless! If someone never struggled for freedom, he would surrender it for pittance.
- Posted by DavidAndy Rebeiro writes about Kashmir: “As a landlocked country, they have to depend on either India or the remnants of Pakistan for their supplies, which is going to be very difficult if they secede from both. So any sane Kashmiri should think long and hard about what are they trying to achieve for their children. ”
Even though this blog is not the place for this, I’d like our new Indian government to take steps to diffuse public sentiments in the valley. Our military has been under lot of pressure and brutality has become a norm. They are not accountable for any of their acts and human rights violations result. This working to the advantage of Jihadi elements from Pakistan and they are fueling the fire even more. The public are becoming more and more alienated. Their hope for a peaceful life and reconciliation is reflected in their participation in Indian elections. This is the time to set up accountability to our security forces and take every measure possible that makes Kashmiri public turn friendly towards India. Right now, even though they do not like to go with Pakistan due to what is going on there, they do not want to go with India either where they have begun to perceive our military as an occupational force rather than a system in place to protect them.
See this link and select the clip
http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=58634&quer y=Kashmir
“The Killing of Kashmir”. It brought tears to my eyes. We need to improve things there. I am proud of our security forces and it breaks my heart to see them on the wrong side of the fence. I understand their feelings and frustration, but this is where our government has to get involved and bring peace in the hearts of these beautiful people.
- Posted by MauryanHere are a few answers to the comments/questions above.
1) Why the focus on Pakistan when the Indian electorate was more interested in other issues?
The answer at one level is very straightforward - it’s a blog about Pakistan. But it’s also clear that the United States is going to try to rope India in one way or the other given its preoccupation with Pakistan.
The former ambassador to Delhi, Robert Blackwill, goes into this in detail in an article in Yale Online. In summary, he says hyphenation has made a comeback in the minds of the new U.S. administration, so India needs to work out how to handle it:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.artic le?id=12361
2) Why can Pakistan not declare that India is not the enemy?
My understanding is that the Pakistan Army genuinely believes that there is a threat from India. I know from the Indian viewpoint that is hard to understand, but if you talk to people from both countries you can see why threat perceptions change depending on which side of the border you are on.
Siachen is a classic case where both countries misunderstood each others’ intentions and ended up in a conflict they could not get out of, even though both sides have known for years that it should end.
Here are a few more recent examples:
I’m told the Pakistan Army was genuinely alarmed after Mumbai when the Indian Army went ahead with “war games” in Rajasthan to practice its Cold Start doctrine. On checking the Indian version of events, I was told these were routine military exercises which had been planned for more than a year. So you can see how perceptions differ.
Perhaps someone can tell me more about Cold Start. What function does it have other than to give the Indian military the capability to mount lightning strikes on Pakistan? And if that is indeed the case, and you were in charge of the Pakistan Army, would you not also keep your troops at the eastern border just in case?
The other classic example is over Baluchistan. Many Pakistanis are convinced that R&AW is using Indian consulates in Afghanistan to cause trouble in Baluchistan. Yet when I ask Indians about this, they tell me that R&AW is just too inefficient to carry out an operation like this. So again, very different perceptions (although I do think both countries tend to overestimate the efficiency of the other, which is an odd sort of compliment in its own way.)
Finally, you just need to look at the history of India and Pakistan to see why both countries developed very different threat perceptions. Pakistan has always tended to see India as a monolithic giant, while it was a small country, broken in two in 1971, and after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 facing Russia on one side and India (then close to Russia) on the other.
India was — in the past — far less confident and monolithic than it appeared to be to Pakistan.
And of course there’s the China factor. India felt threatened by China after 1962 and developed its nuclear bombs in response to China. But from Pakistan’s point of view, the Indian nuclear programme was a threat to Pakistan.
That’s enough. I’m not making any comment on what should happen now; but trying to make it clear why threat perceptions differ on each side of the border.
Myra
- Posted by Myra MacDonald