How Do You Solve a Complex Problem Like Pakistan?

The most pertinent question which comes up while addressing the issue of strategic dialogue with Pakistan is this: Whom should India talk to?

In Pakistan, there are multiple actors calling the shots. Most importantly, it’s the army which runs the state. Within the army also, it is the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) (better known as “deep state” in the strategic world) which is the real player and controls the state apparatus. There are also fledgling and weak democratic leaders like Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, and Imran Khan.

Then, there are non-state actors like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Tahreek-e-Taliban and an array of religious parties which exist in the grey zone between an extremist group, a terrorist organisation, charity group or a political group. These groups have been raised and bred over decades by the military to suit its political and strategic interests.

Is the Army Interested in Resolving Kashmir Conflict?

These external groups play a very strong role in the social, cultural, political and the formal state apparatus of Pakistan. The worrying concern is that many of these non-state actors have gone beyond the control of army and have become potent players in the global Islamic movement, with their superb transnational networks, ready supply of recruits and funds, and strong expertise in the trade-craft of insurgency and terrorism.

Finally, there are international players like Saudi Arabia, China, and the US who are exercising tremendous political and economic influence in Pakistan.

Among all the aforementioned players, the army along with the ISI can be accepted as the most important player for all practical purposes.

It can be argued that if at all India wants to engage any institution in Pakistan in a diplomatic dialogue for some concrete action and result, then it has to be the army. However, the question arises whether the army is genuinely interested in resolving the issues of Kashmir, terrorism, and non-state actors.

The Perks of Having India as an Enemy

Eminent Pakistan experts like Christine Fair, Ayesha Siddiqi, Hussain Haqqani, and MJ Akbar have suggested that Pakistan army derives its sustenance through the Kashmir conflict.

As long as it can sustain the perception of India as an existential threat and an ideological antithesis, it can continue getting a huge portion of state revenue, perks, land holdings, financial resources and other forms of state largesse besides immense political and social clout. And, for this, it is essential to keep the Kashmir issue alive.

Whenever there has been any attempt by the democratic leadership to negotiate peacefully, it has been met with resistance by the army, unless it has been initiated by the army itself or has an active involvement of military brass.

Furthermore, there is a huge jihadi infrastructure which has been passionately created over the last 60 years in the name of Kashmir. Now this humongous infrastructure has become uncontrollable and has stakes in the continuation of Kashmir conflict. They fear to be out of employment if attempts at peace succeed.

Hence, one always comes across organised sabotage by such groups of any attempt at peaceful negotiations (an endless series can be found in the forms of 26/11, Pathankot etc.).

Non-State Actors and Their Importance

These days it is said that these groups have gone beyond army’s control and have turned into Frankenstein’s monsters. So it is said that the army cannot be blamed for each and every act of terrorism. However, facts on the ground tell a different story.

Also Read: Lashkar-e-Jhangvi: The Who, Why and What the Hell?

A plethora of groups like Lashkar-e- Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba, and Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan have created a major challenge to the socio-political fabric of Pakistan and have engaged the army in severe gunbattles.

However, this is not true with respect to India-specific non-state actors like Lashkar and Jaish. The India-specific non-state actors are still regarded as strategic assets by Pak army and given favourable treatment.

Radicalisation of Pakistani Society

Regarding political parties, it must be said that first of all, they don’t have enough clout. Secondly, since the perception of India is that of an existential threat, going overboard with peace overtures will be a political disaster for these so-called malnourished democratic forces.

International players like the US and China have their own geo-strategic calculations to keep India and Pakistan engaged in a pattern of conflict, dialogue and conflict again without any honest intention to find a mutually agreeable solution to the contemporary and historical disputes. Lastly, the common people of Pakistan have been fed with a distorted and hateful narrative of nationalism over the years which thrives on lies, hatred and religious extremism.

Also Read: God’s Own War: Can Religion Alone Effect Political Unity?

Of late, intense Wahhabi and Deobandi radicalisation of society has dealt a final blow to the last remnants of liberal and tolerant Sufi culture, and intensified the anti-West, anti-Kafir, anti-minority, and anti-India hatred. The aforementioned actors might clash with each other over several issues but there is a broad consensus over the perception of India as an existential threat which deserves to be hated and countered at every step and by all means.

Looking at the Idea of Pakistan

Having analysed the various stakeholders and their real intentions, I would like to delve deeper into the issue and explore the past of Pakistan for understanding the true reasons for this mindset of suspicion, belligerence and perpetual animosity.

MJ Akbar in his classic work Tinderbox-Past and Future of Pakistan maintains that the genesis of the idea of Pakistan can be traced back to the fear that arose in the minds of Muslim ruling elites and intellectuals after the fall of Mughal Empire.

Eminent philosophers and intellectuals like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Iqbal – with a modern and secular educational background – could never come to terms with the idea of sharing political space with the majority Hindus as equal partners.

In the mainstream academic and strategic discourse in Pakistan, the country is primarily an Islamic entity while India is perceived as “Hindu India”. The underlying philosophical doctrine of Pak army also places itself against the “Hindu India”.

Secondly, the centrifugal forces in Pakistan have been very strong since its creation. Their project was to build a nation and except Islam, there was no binding factor. Over the last 70 years, Islam and Kashmir have evolved as the primary instruments of cultivating nationalism. Therefore, it is becomes a compulsion to sustain and feed the perception of “India being an existential threat”.

Therefore, Pakistanis (to be precise, Pakistan army) might not want a full-scale war but would always be interested in sustaining something less than war, interspersed with some periodic stunts like Kargil.

An Engagement Strategy Which Takes Into Account All Stakeholders

Then, the question arises: What is the right way to engage an adversary with such a complex personality?

Firstly, the engagement has to come out of teleology as it begins with the unrealistic aspirations of finding lasting solutions to overhanging disputes like Kashmir and cross-border terrorism. The approach has to be mechanical aiming in the first place to curtail the incidents of military showdowns and terrorist attacks. With this philosophy, the engagement strategy has to span over a broad spectrum, ranging from hardcore undercover pressure tactics and sabotage, to formal dialogue process.

Secondly, we have to weigh the different stakeholders and then decide whom to engage and while doing this, a system of “checks and balances” based on strictly pragmatic grounds of our national interest must be developed and implemented.

Thirdly, international isolation through diplomatic efforts will be immensely advantageous vis-à-vis the costs incurred.

Fourthly, direct communication channels between the intelligence agencies of the two countries may go a long way in averting many conflicts that arise out of charged passions.

Need to Keep ‘India-Threat’ Alive

To conclude, I would state that there is a midway solution possible which can satisfy the prominent stakeholders of Pakistan by keeping the “India-threat” alive and also address the uncertainty and instability arising from the fear of unintentional escalation of short military action into a full-fledged nuclear war.

What we need is just the right understanding of the Pakistani instincts, aspirations and limitations, and a realistic flavour in our approach. If we understand them correctly, we can compel them to act more rationally and stop the incentives to indulge in misadventures.

(The writer is Project Consultant, ILO, Delhi. He can be reached at@abhinavpandya)