IndoPak War - Probabilities and Permutation

I never wanted to write this post. I wish things had never came to the point which merits pondering of such thoughts. But alas they have and so this should be penned.

Let us analyze where things are heading. First and foremost, it seems someone is trying to drag India into a war. I say India, whosoever is behind Mumbai attacks and post-Mumbai attacks developments, is aiming to provoke India to be aggressive and consider military option. The provocation caused by Mumbai carnage, followed by media madness (equally followed by the same madness in Pakistan) and hysteria created by defense analysts and extremist elements in India, seems more and more like playing in the hands of provokers. If aim of Mumbai attacks was to provoke India, terrorists (or whosoever it was) is succeeding. And India must learn from lessons of provoked invasions of last 6 years (Lebanon and Iraq) where someone provoked the war which ended up strengthening the Islamic extremists in both places.

Unlike the popular belief, I think war is more probable than it has ever been in my life time. Needless to say, this war can turn into a nuclear conflict which not only can destroy both countries but will also suck in global powers into the conflict. Specially with western forces presence in Afghanistan and China neighboring both India and Pakistan, it will be very difficult for global powers to stay neutral.

Some analysts think that escalation will lead to some limited strikes by India and may be some reciprocal response by Pakistan. Knowing Pakistan as I know it, if India does limited surgical strikes, it will be impossible for Pakistani government to stay silent. Pakistan will respond. If civilian government shows restraint, there most likely will be a military takeover, by either top brass or mid-rank officers (who can be fundamentalists too). Of course, a response to strikes will follow the takeover. Also, if Pakistan responds to Indian incursions, Indian government will look weak if it doesn't take things to next level. Very hard to do for an Indian government. And this cycle if started will be out of control and will lead to a full-scale war. So those military minds who are selling this theory of limited strikes are laying a trap for both governments which will ultimately lead to a full-scale war.

If war happens, it has a potential of getting nuclear even for threat of some localized military retreats. If it stays conventional, and we buy the conventional warfare estimates, Indian Army is likely to have an upper hand in Pakistan. Global powers, allied with Pakistan including China and West, will have two options then. Either stay inactive or support Pakistan.

If allies stay inactive, first threat will be that Pakistan Army will have to make peace with Taliban and other Jihadi militias. If that happens and war ends inconclusive or in stalemate, this means end of democracy in Pakistan and fundamentalist takeover of Pakistan, in the wake of Army being marginalized and shattered in a war fought in isolation and rising influence of fundamentalists won through fighting India (remember Hizb Ullah's popularity surge in Lebanon post Israel-Lebanon war). A fundo controlled Pakistan is not what the doctor has ordered for either West or China or even for India.

Even if going by the conventional war theories, India crushes Pakistan Army, it will be left with three options. Either to control Pakistan on her own, seek a UN sanctioned control, or divide it to create friendly regimes. If India decides to control Pakistan on her own, it will have to deal with the most sophisticated Jihadi insurgency in the world. Keeping in view India's past experience of dealing with insurgencies, this certainly wouldn't be a wise option.

If India decides to divide Pakistan and install friendly regimes, these regimes in many parts would lack credibility because of predominant anti-India sentiment. In NWFP, Northern Balochistan, South Punjab and Karachi, in the absence of Pakistani security apparatus (of course destroyed in case of this scenario) will either fall to Taliban or will erupt in worst civil war spreading beyond borders. Also, any rise of extremist elements in Pakistan (evident in case of collapse of Pakistan's security apparatus in case of India's domination) will give morale boast to Muslim fundamentalists all across the region, including India and will radicalize the Muslim populations even further.

And at a time when US and West are trying to pack bags from Afghanistan and Iraq, it probably wouldn't be a good time for a UN mandated authority fighting extremists and separatist movements. I say this with a heavy heart (for things have become way more complex in my homeland), but if Iraq was a nightmare, for its complexity Pakistan will be a hell.

In case of a war, the best possible outcome for Pakistan's allies, specially because of their concern for War on Terror will be, to ensure that Pakistan gives a resilient response to Indians under liberal political and military leadership while fighting Taliban at the same time. This will require extensive financial, diplomatic and military assistance. This help might be their support-winner with Pakistani public in War on Terror. I am not sure whether they will do it or not though the alternatives for them look very uncomfortable. If at all, they decide to support Pakistan, specially West, it will be a hard sell to their domestic constituencies as well.

Then there is this beating-all-odds option of Pakistan actually tackling Indian aggression effectively on its own - which surely is not something India would want.
Also, whether we accept Indian claim that the insurgencies in India are perpetrated by ISI or not, there is a high likelihood that insurgency movements will try to make the best of Indian army's engagement with Pakistan and thus will erupt. This too is not something India will desire.

Logic and rational suggest that India is better of not going the war route. Military strikes will either be counter-productive or will most likely lead to a full-scale war. Pakistan's civilian and military leadership has shown restraint. If it leads to surgical strikes, it will suck Pakistan and India into a war. If the rogue elements who carried out Mumbai attacks were rooted in Pakistan, Pakistan government should be helped in eliminating them. No Pakistan government can look to act under Indian pressure. So, it has to be cooperation and sharing of substantial evidence and toning down of rhetoric by New Delhi.

Media in Pakistan, as in India is trying to provoke the public sentiment. Luckily, general sentiment in Pakistan, though angry at India, is to avoid war at every cost. There are political elements and Jihadis who seem to benefit from the current crisis and are trying to provoke the sentiments. There are elements within Pakistani establishment who want to use this opportunity to uproot democracy.

Right now the world's best bet to check the menace of Jihadis is Pakistan Army. In absence of Pakistan and Pakistan Army, this Jihadi mess will be uncontrollable for the region and for the world. It needs to be strengthened and on its part it needs to be subservient to civilian control, needs to have support of masses, and needs to reform itself to uproot the rogue elements. Pakistan currently is undergoing major security establishment reforms to uproot these very rogue elements and bring some checks and balances to a branch of government which has run wild for last 60 years across the globe. Obama administration is working on a major CIA and security apparatus overhaul aimed at controls. It probably is about time that India initiates this too. Rogue elements exist in every defense establishment. In case of Pakistan, they exposed themselves fully. But they need to tamed in countries like India to. This should be next item on the agenda of those who run our world.

P.S. In no way do intend to stress that this merits Pakistan going to war. In all likely outcomes, Pakistan has very low probability of surviving a nuclear or conventional war. It's a time to show restraint as is rightly done by us except the media.

What can be done?

Someone some where wants the world to head to a major war being triggered in South Asia?

Who is it? I am not too sure. One thing I can say for sure is that Indian Establishment is not comfortable with a democratic Pakistan. They have had great time under dictatorships of Zia and Musharraf. And then they have a horrible memory of isolation and cornering (though most of it had to do with India's problems within) under a stable democratic Pakistan of 1970s.

Secondly, there are elements in defense establishment of both India and Pakistan who want tensions to escalate for the interest of Military Industrial Complex (Please refer to US President Eisenhower's farewell speech on youtube). There most potent tool is their infiltration in the corresponding medias. Coverage of both Pakistan and Indian media post Mumbai attacks has been the main instigator of hatred and escalation of tension. Societies in generals, at least the main stream, have been cautious vis-a-vis being jingoist but in some ways the elements in media of both sides, with known associations to corresponding defense establishments, who are fueling the rage of jingoists and hawks on both sides to bring both nations to the brink of a war.

The mantra, on both sides and specially in India, is "a war to end all wars". They have at their disposal (or they are on disposal of) non-state, anti-state, and international actors. It's a giant deja vu - first world war. And will lead to nothing but ensuing more conflicts.

A war between India and Pakistan is very likely to be nuclear. India and Pakistan are not Ethiopia and Somalia. They are not even Serbia and Bosnia. This war will suck all the major powers in. Forcing them to take sides and leading to a much wider global conflict.

Even in isolation and without nukes, the conflict will make India erupt internally with innumerable insurgency movements. For Pakistan, the best case scenario will be a severe blow to democracy and strengthening of militant elements within.

Logic and rationale tells us all that war and escalation is not a solution. But still the vested interests and their trumpets in media are dragging us to jingoism and a war. In India, it is sold as "a war to end all wars". What it will lead to is "a peace that will end all peace". The best thing we can do is not to play in hands of jingoists and vested interests, and look with in. Be indifferent to the other side and pressurize our governments to show caution and dissociate completely from the neighboring country - no enmity - no friendship.

India and Pakistan - the conflicts within

“There’s a little bit of India in every Pakistani and a little bit of Pakistan in every Indian."

A quote by Benazir Bhutto referred by President Zardari during his address to Hindustan Times conference, only a couple of days before the Mumbai terrorist attacks. My challenge here will be not to be influenced by the Pakistani or the Indian in me while I analyze the recent developments and our options going forward.

I know what I am going to say here will not go well with a lot of my friends (on both sides). But I believe in the wake of present circumstances, it is time for some tough and honest talk.

First and foremost, if at all these attacks have any proven Pakistani connection; it is in the best interest of Pakistani to persecute the elements responsible for it. More so, because the past tells us that these elements have proven more dangerous for Pakistan than for anyone else. Also, if these attacks have any Pakistani connection, it is in best interest of all the parties to help Pakistan persecute these culprits. The best way to do it will be not to create hype around this persecution and not to turn it into a matter of Win or Loss.

The fact must also be worth mentioning that post Malegaon, it will be very difficult for Pakistani administration to persecute any Pakistani connection in these attacks.

Having said this, in my honest opinion and analysis, I find it hard to believe these attacks had a Pakistan connection. I say this not because I am Pakistani. Indian authorities and media started trumping Pakistan connection only when “Deccan Mujahidin” accepted the responsibility of these attacks. In my honest opinion, Indians had no option but to blame Pakistan loud to avoid a widespread communal riot between Hindus and Muslims.

For this reason, these attacks put to fore a very dangerous volatility in India - 60 years into independence, India still has not been able to resolve the communal conflict. In fact, it has gone worse over the years.

The problem with both India and Pakistan is their failure to resolve the issue of their national identity. It has been said time and time again about Pakistan that Pakistani's only national identity stems from being Anti-Indian. This is a bitter truth. But a more bitter truth is, India's national identity is nothing but being Anti-Pakistan. Something, no one has ever tried analyzing.

Much has been written, and rightly so, about Pakistan's identity confusion, so I will not delve into that. I would rather be focused on genesis of Indian identity and how it is a matter still unresolved. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the architect of India as we know it today, based Indian identity on two distinct characteristics, past Indian glory dating back to Indus Valley civilization, and Indian Secularism. One of them was outright flawed, the other turning out to be impractical but both cannot hold ground unless the reality of Pakistan is negated.

India was never a nation. In history, it, at the best, has been a continent comprising hundreds of independent states from Kabul to Bengal and from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu. The term India for a nation state (as we know of it today) was coined by none other than the Brits and the purpose was to facilitate their administration of the region as one cohesive entity. Even more so, the talk of Indus Valley civilization and center of civilization is deceiving because neither Indus nor the two landmarks of the civilization (Mohenjo-daro and Harrapa) are in India any more (they are located in Pakistan). So the euphoria with Indian glory of centuries was ill-founded and misplaced. This, along with peoples' crazy obsession with religion (all over the world with all religions) is at the root of Hindutava and rise of Hindu nationalism.

Secularism might have had more chance at succeeding but it failed too. Part of the failure can be blamed on inherent conflict with obsession with historic Indian glory. But there are other factors too. First and foremost is, in the land known as India, people carved out Pakistan. Also, in Nehru's view, it was important for India to have a claim on Kashmir to demonstrate and strengthen its secular credentials. In retrospect, I guess the decision has caused more harm to Indian secularism than good. Then there is this obsession with religion/ communalism of people of subcontinent that did not let India emerge as a Secular state. I am inclined to believe that Sachar commission report exaggerated Muslim's plight. But the problem at heart of that exaggeration is that Muslim economy is not documented because Muslim's have created a world of their own in India comprising undocumented small businesses and gray economy segments and have dissociated themselves completely from the main stream Indian society and economy. Now whether Indian state or Hindu majority is responsible for this or alien attitude of Indian Muslims is responsible for this, both ways it is a sign of failure of Indian Secularism.

What has happened has happened. What can happen is even more troubling? Blaming Pakistan, Indian government has avoided the communal riots. However, it has raised India Pakistan tension to a point where even a war cannot be ruled out. Indian government cannot afford to look soft on Pakistan yet it has very limited options vis-a-vis Pakistan. For their own interest, International powers want Pakistan Army engaged on Western Frontier with Al Qaeeda. They will pressurize India not to escalate the tension to a point where Pakistan might need to pull troops from its Western Frontier. Also, if India ever decides to go to war, Pakistan might be destroyed, but because of its own internal vulnerabilities (communal and secessionist), India is likely to erupt like anything as well. Any limited, hit and run strike on targets inside Pakistan to sooth domestic audience will either lead to a regime change in Pakistan or will draw a strong tit-for-tat response or will lead to both. Either way, it will not be beneficial for India. Logic and rationale suggests war is unlikely, but usually in times like these, people act in desperation and for this, I cannot rule out the possibility of a war. Luckily, India and Pakistan have in President Zardari and Sonia Gandhi, two leaders at helm of affairs who, because of their position, can afford to be soft and calm. It is to be seen whether these two leaders succeed in preventing the spiral of war and conflict, both overt and covert.

These attacks more than anything are a time to retrospect for all parties. In my personal view, Pakistan is not involved in these attacks. However, this cannot be denied that for past few decades, Pakistani security establishment has been in bed with elements that have brought notoriety to name "Pakistan" and has led to serious security threats for Pakistan itself. No matter how shamelessly Hamid Mirs, Shahid Masuds, and Jamat-e-Islamis of the world deny this, this is a reality facing us. These attacks offer us an opportunity to rethink how to clear name "Pakistan" of these blots and go against these elements - for our own security and survival.

For India, it requires answering the question of how to deal with communal trouble. For too long, India has brushed the communal issue under carpet. From emergency of 70s to Babri mosque, from Mandal Commission to Amarnath Land controversy, from Shah Bano case to Malegaon, the issue has refused to disappear. It is a serious challenge to India's survival and viability and it is about time Indian's start accepting it as a reality and deal with it head-on. For years, a coherent political force of 13%-16% Muslims was barred to emerge in India (at a time when Indian politics is becoming more and more communal around Akalis and Dalits and Hindutva parties), for the main stream of Indian establishment feared it would revoke the scars of partition. What this controlling of know-all planners has led to is a militant response from Dawood Ibrahims and SIMI. Indian society needs to find a way to bring Muslims to the main stream and Indian Muslims need to respond positively to any such efforts. No matter what you do, you cannot eliminate a community of 160 million and neither can a minority of 160 million be in peace while being in constant confrontation with the main stream.

India has progressed leaps and bounds in last two decades. However, if I could point out one area, where we Pakistanis are ahead of Indians; that is our realization of our problems. In Pakistan, Army or national security is no more a holy grail. Neither do we let blame of events get passed to RAW and India without substantial proof. There is a wide spread social realization that left-out social elements like Balochs etc need to be brought to main stream. There is at least a realization that one way or the other the issue of religion's role in the state needs to be fixed (and this is what we are still fighting to get the right answer). I say this as a well wisher of India that if Indians need to succeed in combating challenges facing them, it will require challenging clichés - The cliché of national security and Sher Jawan's, The cliche of India is a perfect secular state, because Hindustan Times or NDTV says so. The worst thing Indians will do to them post Mumbai carnage is giving up on Malegaon probe. It is not about being Hindu or being Muslim, it is about understanding the motives of power of Military Industrial Complex that exists everywhere in the world. It will be naive to assume that Industry, where 15%-30% of our national budgets go, will be immune from vested interests.

And last but certainly not the least, I think the best thing some one can do for both the people of India and the people of Pakistan will be to dissociate them from each other. It is over-obsession with enmity as well as friendship between our two great nations that has made matters worst over the years. Our obsession with enmity has led us to three wars and a Jingoistic fervor. But it is our obsession with friendship that has been equally responsible for continuous deterioration of our relationship right from our creation.

Gandhi and Jinnah were probably only two leaders who could have made mends post partition and create a new equilibrium between the two neighboring states. After them, no one had the stature to sell this equilibrium to these nations. What this euphoria of friendship, coupled with euphoria of jingoism, has done is, it has made us obsessed about each other. Indians see the world through Pakistani prism and Pakistanis see the world through Indian prism. For this obsession, every time there has been talk of peace between the two countries, it has rallied the skeptics to an anti-peace stand even harder. Also, both sides have conflicting reasons to seek peace. In India, for majority peace is required to break the wall of partition (at least imaginatively). For Pakistan, peace means India accepting the truth in rational of partition. So when the matters get worse, the very advocates of peace like HTs and Jang Groups turn the most jingoist. We need to adopt an approach of dissociation which China tried for Taiwan for decades. Even historically, the best phase in Indo-Pak relations was Bhutto-Indira phase post-Simla in 70s when two countries were hardly engaged in any war or peace initiative. For years of contradictions and baggage, we are not ready to make peace right now. So the best approach will be to dissociate ourselves from each other and stop being obsessed with each other. In two to three generations, less obsessed generations might succeed in finding the peaceful equilibrium between them. Some times, it is better to leave something that cannot be done for some better time. But it seems the know-all god-almighty minds find it hard to fathom it. May we be in peace!