By M D Nalapat
Were
the brass in Beijing not so enmeshed with Rawalpindi, the Doklam road
may never have been built, as it is of value only in case of an attack
on India.
Since
the 1950s, when Field Marshal Ayub Khan ensured that the military in
Pakistan won primacy over the civilian authority, the men in khaki have
evolved into a parasitic force that drains away the finances and the
energy of Pakistan. It must be admitted that the army in Pakistan has
shown considerable skill in finding support across the spectrum of
nations. To religious absolutists in the Gulf Cooperation Council, GHQ
Rawalpindi is the nuclearised spear tip of resurgent Wahhabism. To the
US, it was the most effective partner in ensuring that Af-Pak gets
cleansed of elements planning to attack either side of the Atlantic
Ocean. To China, it has been an effective diversion, sapping the energy
and attention of India, the only country in Asia with a realistic chance
of matching Beijing’s success in accumulating Comprehensive National
Power. To smaller members of SAARC, Pakistan is a lever that keeps those
in Delhi who are prone to Big Brother attitudes, in check. Again in the case of the US, during the period when India was a “friendship treaty” ally of the USSR, the calculation
in Washington was that a Pakistan military on US-provided steroids
would be sufficient to weaken Delhi and finally get it to give up its
nuclear and missile self-sufficiency on the premise of Islamabad doing
likewise. During the Bill Clinton years in particular, US officials were
unrelenting in their efforts at ensuring such a “cap, reduce and
eliminate” outcome for India’s nuclear and missile systems, apart from
working to ensure that Kashmir became a safe zone for Wahhabism and its
practices. The Wahhabi International grew substantially in potency when
Bill Clinton occupied the White House, although later, the serial
follies of the George W. Bush administration only added to the problem,
which finally morphed into the ISIS mutation when Hillary Clinton was
Secretary of State. This was in an administration dominated by Clinton
confidants working nominally under President Barack Obama, but actually
reporting to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Both have been consistent “in
deed” supporters of the Pakistan military, although “in word” their
stance has often been different.
George W. Bush ensured the safety of Osama bin Laden, as well as thousands of Al Qaeda
recruits during 2001-2003, thanks to the White House largely
outsourcing the locating of such elements to the Pakistan army, the very
agency that was sustaining them.
Despite the hundreds of US troops being killed or maimed as a
consequence of hostile action perpetrated by auxiliaries of the Pakistan
army, only recently has there been the realisation that putting an
acknowledged arsonist in charge of the Fire Department may not be the
best way of ensuring that the blaze does not spread. Change was
inaugurated on 20 January 2017. President Donald Trump has nominated
some very capable individuals to his national security team, such as
Adam Lovinger and Lisa Curtis, and hopefully others equally clued in
about ground realities in the battle against extremism will follow.
Unlike George W. Bush, who entrusted Pervez Musharraf with the task of
eliminating the Taliban, and who instead revived it, Donald Trump
publicly acknowledged in the presence of Narendra Modi the need for
India to help lead the effort at ensuring stability to Afghanistan,
something that had been offered in 2001 by External Affairs Minister
Jaswant Singh, but spurned by Bush-Cheney as a consequence of their
trust in the Pakistani military. However, although no longer able to
beguile Washington the way they have succeeded in doing for decades, the
generals in Islamabad have found a new superpower sponsor, China. The
Peoples Liberation Army seems in thrall to the Pakistan military to such
a degree that they appear willing to risk an armed conflict with India
so as to make the generals at GHQ Rawalpindi rush for the champagne
bottles. Such a war would lead to a meltdown in India-China economic
relations, which on present trends have the potential to cross $300
billion within five years. It would also significantly reduce the
leverage of both Beijing and Delhi with Washington, which could then
cherry pick among both in a manner that promotes the specific interests
of the US administration. Additionally, it would create a dilemma for
Moscow, which has for long been working towards close trilateral ties
between Russia, China and India, and has been using SCO, BRICS and other
fora to promote this objective.
In time, the PLA will realise that the
Pakistan army is not a conventional force, but an army committed to
global jihad. However, by then the damage to Sino-Indian relations would
have been done, setting back the growth trajectories of both India as
well as China. Were the brass in Beijing not so enmeshed with their
counterparts in Rawalpindi, the Doklam road may never have been built,
as it is of value only in case of an attack on India. The stance by the
Modi government that road construction should be halted is therefore
justified. However, a way out has to be found of the morass into which
Sino-Indian ties appear to be sinking. The forthcoming meeting of BRICS
Heads of Government in China may provide just such an opportunity. Two
old friends, Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping, could informally meet and
discuss bilateral cooperation. Should India participate
in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) without prejudice to issues
relating to sovereignty, it may even serve to bring down tensions with
Pakistan, once Indian commerce flows freely into and through that
country as a consequence of India gaining full access to the China-built
corridor inside Pakistan. Thanks to Prime Ministers Modi and Sheikha
Hasina, a similar result has already taken place with Bangladesh. As
well, a separate offshoot that links
India, China and ASEAN via Myanmar could be launched. To show its good
faith, China could join those countries seeking India’s entry into the
Nuclear Suppliers Group and later an expanded UNSC, without prejudice to
its stance that Japan should not be included. For decades, US-Pakistan
military ties kept India and the US far apart. The same fate should not
fall on relations between China and India as a consequence of the
present equally grotesque alliance between a Wahhabised army and a
country fighting against that same theology within its own boundaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment