Paper no. 905	27. 01. 2004
INDIA-PAKISTAN PEACE ACCORD-PAKISTANI LEADERSHIP OPTIONS FOR INDIA: An Analysis by Dr. Subhash Kapila  Introductory Background: The Islamabad Accord for January 2004 to begin a peace dialogue between India and Pakistan has been hyped by the Indian media as ‘historic’. It seems that in the bleak landscape of India-Pakistan relations, any little movement becomes historic. Presumably, it also reflects the yearning of the peoples of the two countries for genuine peace. In Pakistan, there is a growing peace constituency prompted by a number of factors. These need to be taken into account as it has a bearing on the analysis of the topic of this paper.  Pakistan’s Growing Peace Constituency- The Stimulants: The growing “Peace Constituency” in Pakistan is not as a result of any motivation by Pakistani leaders both military and civil. The “Peace Constituency” in Pakistan is growing due to the following stimulating factors: * The Pakistani masses now recognise the futility of the policies of successive Pakistani Governments to wrest Kashmir, militarily from India. * Pakistan’s exorbitant military expenditures, not limited to defence but military adventurism arising from the above has led Pakistan to being a “failed state” today. * India’s economic advancement and growth is a shining example for Pakistani masses as to how “democracy and “liberal social policies” on the other side of the border has brought about economic success. * India’s knowledge power and its export provides an example to Pakistani masses as to how the emphasis on higher education and technical education can be brought about by democracies.  In brief, India’s comparative progress in all fields has been brought about by democratic form of governance as opposed to long spells of military government in Pakistan. If that be so, it is pertinent now to question whether India in terms of  “peace accord” and opening a peace dialogue could have awaited for a return of democracy in Pakistan and also with which Pakistani political leader, it would have been more advantageous to deal with.  All these options are analysed below.  Option 1-Dealing with a Military Ruler in Pakistan: It is not for India to decide who rules Pakistan, but it is legitimate for India  to decide that when it deals with Pakistan on far reaching and far-seeking solutions for peace in South Asia, it should assess whether who rules Pakistan is in power as a result of a constitutional process and enjoys political legitimacy.  General Musharraf usurped power from a lawfully elected Government in Pakistan. General Musharraf was only a “mask” used by the Pakistan Army to checkmate former PM Nawaz Sharif who with his unprecedented political mandate had attempted to “tame” the Pakistan Army and bring it under civilian control. Therefore, neither General Musharraf nor the Pakistan Army, are the legitimate rulers of Pakistan. So why has India chosen to deal with General Musharraf in initiating a peace dialogue with him?  There are many in India who argue that peace in South Asia, meaning an India-Pakistan “peace accord” can only be brought about by a military ruler in a Pakistan, as he can carry the might of the Pakistan Army to enforce it. Such an argument is fallacious and also has elements of double standards: * India in the past had been making noises against SLORC rule in Myanmar and for a return to democracy.  Why should the same yardstick not be applied to Pakistan also at this juncture. * Any Pakistan Army imposed “peace accord” on the Pakistani masses has inherent in it the seeds of self-destruction. Military rule of Pakistan cannot be a permanent feature. * Pakistani masses are already yearning for peace so why should India have a stake in a Pakistan Army imposed “peace accord”. If any ‘peace accord’ has to be imposed in Pakistan, it has to be on the Pakistan Army, to desist from military rule and oppression against its own people.  General Musharraf is a doubtful entity who can neither be expected nor trusted to deliver on any peace accord. His record of the last five years is ample proof and does not require repetition here.  Prof Stephen Cohen, the noted South Asia expert, now at Brookings Institution, and who has never been hard on the Pakistan Army has the following to say in a recent article: * “His (Vajpayee) dialogue partner General Musharraf is harder to figure out. He lacks strategic vision, is a bad listener and believes that ruling Pakistan is like an Army garrison give the orders and they will be obeyed”. * “Even his strategy of using militants to force Indians to the negotiating tables has failed. Now that the militants are more interested in his death than victory in Kashmir, he is having the second thoughts.”  If General Musharraf gets liquidated either by a palace coup or the Islamic Jehadis, India will have a dialogue with whom? Wait for the next Pakistani military ruler to emerge?  Options 2- Dealing With Former PM Benazir Bhutto: Like the Americans, the Indian Establishment too is enamoured with Benazir Bhutto who is perceived as Westernised and therefore liberal and easy to talk to.  Indians, so enamoured fail to recollect the following background of Benazir Bhutto: * Pakistan’s two wars of 1965 and 1971 with India were primarily instigated by her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Pakistan’s then military rulers FM Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan were both hassled and goaded to war by Bhutto. * Benazir Bhutto has never respected the Simla Accord signed by her father and where she too was present as an interested observer.(dynastic politics) * Benazi as Prime Minister was the prime initiator of the Pakistani sponsored proxy war and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir in 1989. In fact she was the first Pakistani politician to create Kashmir as an election issue of unprecedented proportions in Pakistan. * Benazir Bhutto was the creator of the Taliban and unleashing its brutality on Afghanistan. * During Benazir Bhutto’s regime, Pakistan officials were engaged at the highest levels in parleys with International Islamic Jehadi organisations.  A Pakistani political leader with such credentials hardly inspires trust to be engaged in an India-Pak peace accord. It is curious how she was invited and lionised in New Delhi recently at a seminar organised by a leading media house.  Option 3-Dealing With former PM Nawaz Sharif: Like Benazir Bhutto, former PM Nawaz Sharif is in political exile today imposed by General Musharraf.  Whatever be the limitations of Nawaz Sharif, he can be credited with the following: * He was the only Pakistani political leader who fought an election in Pakistan on the election plank of better India-Pakistan relations and peace. * Nawaz Sharif won the elections on this plank by a two-thirds majority (indicating the yearning for peace in the Pakistani populace). * Nawaz Sharif facilitated in Pakistan the emergence of the Lahore Accord with Vajpayee against the inclination of the Pak Army and its COAS, Gen Musharraf.  Should democracy come back to Pakistan and should Nawaz Sharif re-emerge as PM, he or somebody like him would be the best choice for India to deal with. Option 4- Dealing With an Islamic Conservative Govt: If the last elections in Pakistan are an indicator where MMA has formed government in Baluchistan and NWFP and become the ‘king maker’ in Islamabad, emergence of a National Government of MMA cannot be ruled out in the future.  If such a Govt emerges in Pakistan, this author feels that there is nothing to become hysterical about. If it constitutionally emerges, India cannot have any objections to deal with them. Further any Islamist Govt. in Pakistan cannot be worse in terms of proxy war and terrorism against India than the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf. At least the Islamists would be predictable.  If India has withstood a decade plus of Benazir Bhutto initiated and Pakistan Army intensified war of terror against India, it would be fair to say that India can also withstand a war of terror of an Islamist Govt. should they come to power and should they so inclined.  Concluding Observations: Peace in South Asia cannot be brought about by India’s good intentions only. Nor can it be brought about by the Pakistan Army or its military rulers. Genuine peace can be helped to emerge only by the emergence of “democracy” and “liberation” in Pakistan and their maturing under civilian rule. The United States has a major role to play here. (The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email drsubhashkapila @yahoo.com)
Back to the top Home  | Papers  | Notes  | Forum  | Search  | Feedback  | Links Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group  All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name  are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.