Puyesh Kant Sharma
The reality of cross border firing is not a new phenomenon but the irony is that we don’t actually think; if we think, we don’t understand; if we understand, we don’t reflect and if we reflect, we don’t practice it seriously and this is the conundrum of the contemporary States.
The mockery of 2003 Ceasefire Agreement between India and Pakistan is not a new phenomenon, but the present level of cross border firing has brought a situation of conundrum for many on either sides of the border particularly people living near the International Border (IB) and Line of Control (LOC). The answer to the question, who initiated the offensive firing? is monosyllable, it is the other country. This is followed by the assumed logical question, Are we able to respond in words and kind, with a befitting reply that would silent the other? Yes, we could. In this situation, the sense of justice is dictated by the belief that one’s gain is calculated on the basis of the loss of the other, at least for the military decision makers on both sides. However on careful reflection this is nothing but a zero sum game and in many cases we end up losing more than we gain a false sense of pride. For the military strategist seen from a realist and nationalist perspective, it is a matter of pride to respond to such provocations with an equally resounding boom. But there is a paucity of vision on where this road leads to and as there is an equally sense of puzzlement as to what are the hopes expected from both the sides as a result of this vain display?
The presence of the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in the oath taking ceremony of Narendra Modi was seen positively by many political pundits in 2014 and read into as the beginning of the end of animosity between these two countries. But this camaraderie was short lived, it was followed by the escalations of ceasefire violations. The best of minds fails to understand, why the relation between these two countries is so complex? Who is responsible for this pandemonium? The proxy war by Pakistan to destabilize India through terrorism and infiltration has in turn weakened itself. The recent incidents of terror in Gurdaspur and Udhampur can never resolve any issue nor serve anyone’s purpose, the only thing it can successfully achieve is to worsen it. One wonders why when the internal security of Pakistan is in jeopardy, why would it choose to be aggressor? It is not hard to understand that Pakistan has turned into a Police State as a result of necessity. It is a theocratic military State where the elected leaders are at the mercy of either religious leaders or top military officials which is the accepted norm in Pakistan. A country which was formed on the basis of two nation theory thus it is but instinctive for its rulers to provide security to its religious beliefs which it sees as always being threaten, at any cost even if it means that one has to resort to violence.
Portraying India as the enemy of Pakistan is important for some in Pakistan, especially a practical necessity in military and religious sections. It is their way of convincing the people of Pakistan that India is antithetical to the idea of Pakistan and this is a source of threat to Islam in general and Pakistan in particular. The weak democratic structure and unstable civil government provides the much needed political vacuum for the military State control and the positive initiatives of the civil government are often overshadowed by the institution of military. This is evident in the circumstances prevailing the Kargil war in 1999. In 2014, the visit of Nawaz Sharif to India was but followed by the cross border firing, similarly after the 2015 meeting of Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif in Ufa the cross border tensions escalated. These trends show that there is a sense of political numbness at the highest level of decision making in Pakistan. It has not one but parallel decision makers in military and civilian government which is influenced by the ISI, the bureaucracy as well as the religious leaders. This makes it difficult for India to decide who the actual decision making body is in Pakistan. Negotiations become more difficult and complicated when issue of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is brought to the table. There is hardly a sense of seriousness on both sides of the border to resolve the problem which is not impossible to resolve if we study the substantive steps taken in this direction in the last few decades. Pakistan is involved and thrives on the proxy war waged against India in J&K for the last three decades, which has generated nothing but terrorism on its own land. It again deepens the problem because the ease with which the Kashmiri separatist leaders have access and meet with the officials of Pakistan in India creates a sense of discomfort for India. This has resulted in the cancellation of foreign secretary level meeting in August 2014 and the resumption of cross border.
On the same lines, it is also essential to bring forth the role and responsibilities of the Indian State as well. India must understand that the situation would always be precarious for India if Pakistan is not stable. The dictum that we can choose our friends and enemies but not our neighbours and that at the end we are as good as our neighbor is something that we need to remind ourselves constantly. The case of Europe where the European Union has tirelessly worked in this direction is a glaring example of such prudence. Hence forth, the greater engagement with Pakistan is the best possible way out for India as well. The gulf of trust between these two countries needs to be bridged. The present government under the dynamic leadership of Narendra Modi has done well on the foreign policy front which has been recognized by the international community as well. But the current standings of India with Pakistan is a blot on this well articulated foreign diplomacy of India. India carries a greater sense of responsibility in the betterment of relations with Pakistan for reason that India has earned the distinction of having successfully carried the world’s largest democracy with unity in diversity as its core values on the foundations of the cradle of one of the ancient civilizations.
One cannot absolve oneself of the charges for violation of ceasefire agreement for even if you are the offender or the defender, you are directly or indirectly involved. Though the situation of the ground reality is complex and the security of the borders is of priority yet neither initiation nor retaliation is the way out; an eye for an eye will make both the parties blind. Its result is always a loss of humanity. The long history of perceived prejudice between these neighbours makes us unwilling to engage with each other. However, every time there is a cross border firing incident which is translated in terms of numbers by the State remember it is someone’s kith and kins life that has been extinguished, someone’s love deprived of. Even without this, the world is already grappling with the problem to shelter the homeless and displaced people. Cross border firing is never a part of solution; it is a part of problem. It is at this juncture that the world needs to recall the word of Mahatma Gandhi that one cannot fight fire with fire that would rather aggravate the situation thus one needs to counsel peace. History stands witness to this, military action can never resolve any problem and in this nuclear age no State can convince other on the basis of force alone. These realities are not new but the irony is that we don’t actually think; even if we think, we don’t understand enough; if we understand, we don’t reflect and if we reflect, we don’t practice it and this is the conundrum of the contemporary States.
(The author is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel