Indo-Pak - Articles

In the last few months, there is a shift in Pakistan’s perception of India. A number of articles have appeared in the English media asking for ‘realism’ in Pakistan’s approach towards India. No doubt the post-September 11 events and the changed geo-political realities have been the main force behind such a change in perception.

Mir Jamilur Rahman wrote in The News (Coping with the enemy, 1 February 2003) that it would do Pakistan “good to move away from India-specific foreign policy. This policy restricts our choices by presupposing that whoever is a friend of India cannot be a friend of Pakistan. If we continue to follow this policy we will be left friendless and thrown into isolation…Saddam Hussein is in our bad books not because he is a ruthless dictator, has invaded Iran and then Kuwait, but because he has never supported us on Kashmir, which makes him a friend of India. If we continued applying this measure to quantify friendship, then our friendship with China may also be in jeopardy.�

More important is Rahman’s answer to the question “Are we the target of Indian hostility because we are Muslims? Is India against Islam?� According to him, “The evidence does not support these premises. India has generally normal to cordial relations with the Muslim countries and Islam is the second biggest religion in India and thriving. India has close relations with Israel as well and yet no Muslim country objects. Even Iran under maulvis, at present the sharpest critics of Israel, has never expressed any resentment over Indo-Israel relations nor does it consider these relations a danger to its security. On the contrary it has signed a protocol with India for assistance and cooperation in the defence field.�

Muhammad Ahsan Yatu commenting Pakistan, Kashmir and India, wrote (Others talk, when neighbours do not, The Nation, 1 February 2003) “Indians were quite successful, though not fully, both in Kashmir and Pakistan. At least two generations of Kashmiris have been pushed into depression, and the Pakistanis are no better; and their agonies are not ending: they are increasing. The numerical strength of Indian army always remained almost double than ours. Their military expenditures remained as percentage of GDP half than ours. Moreover unlike ours their defence industry is research oriented and has a strong link with their civil industry. The rise in their economy, about 6 percent GDP growth, was achieved from 1990 onwards. Ironically, this is the period that saw us declining fast. Surprisingly, this is the period when militancy originated in Kashmir and sustained. The time was passing steadily. Kashmiris were busy with their militant struggle and Pakistanis were busy in supporting them, and the Indians were busy in exhausting both.â€Â�

Roedad Khan, in an interesting article titled ‘No General dare impose military rule in India’ concludes, (Dawn, 2 February 2003) “Fifty-five years after independence, the Indian army remains bound by tight constitutional and political constraints. There has been no coup, no colonels' or brigadiers' conspiracy to seize power. The Indian army has not intervened in politics. De Tocqueville and other theorists have argued that democracy and a large standing army are incompatible, but India has managed both. Indian democracy has stood the test of time. The constitution has kept the country united, allowed its democracy to survive and kept the armed forces at bay. The structure of the Indian civil-military relationship is still intact, largely because the legitimacy of the political system remains high. The lesson of history is that the only defence against a military coup in any country is strong political institutions and nothing else. A democratic government can be given to any people, but not every people can maintain it… Pakistan cannot survive under military rule, with or without a civilian facade, because military rule lacks legitimacy and is an anachronism in a world of global markets, information and media.�