These words might come as a joy for thousands of Pakistanis but they are nothing less than an immature approach towards a relationship that needs to be mollycoddled to say the least. With an estimated amount of over 200 nuclear warheads between the two it is imperative that Indo-Pak realtionship should be handled tenaciously.
Not to forget that Indian Information minister, Rajyavardhan Rathore, issued a kind of a similar statement couple of days ago.These kind of statements only reinforce the Orwellian concept of Goldestein as universal enemy, which is deeply entrenched in the mentalities of general public on either side of the border. In short the idea of universal enemy states that governments create a hype of their enemy by following an excessively obsessive behaviour towards them in order to generate public sentiments in their favour. But is this true? Are both the sides really under threat from their neighbours? Do we really need to abhor our enemy so much so that we wear our nukes right on our sleeves? To answer these questions we need to analyze the political and financial situation of the two countries and consider Real Politicrather than an emotional approach.
Firstly getting into a conflict with India is militarily impossible for Pakistan at the moment. With the army budget encircling the funding of Operation Zarb-e-Azb, it is practically impossible to generate more money for the army. Moreover the 11% increase in military spending last week narrows the government spending on health, education and development sector quite significantly.
For India things are not so simple as well. The statement from ex-President might not prove more bark than bite as a possible nuclear annihilation will be on the cards. India do have an army which is four folds larger than Pakistan's but no country in this world can muster even the tiniest of breathing space - figuratively and literally - once a nuclear war has started.
Secondly, over the last two decades sub-continent has been a crucial target of major geopolitical movement. With both countries plagued by multitude of separatist factions and dozens of terrorists outfits, these deteriorating relations will only prove as a breeding ground for these armed rebellions. Undoubtedly, what all armed movements require in order to pursue their political goals is an unstable establishment. For both India and Pakistan these decaying relations will only create a larger pit to stumble in.
Thirdly, Pakistan and India now take long strides back in resolving some of the major issues between them. For most people Kashmir is the only point of concern of the Indo-Pak relationship but that is not it. One of the major point of contention is the treatment of water sources which begin from India and enter into Pakistan. Indus Water Treaty which was signed in 1960 by Ayub Khan is not the best of pact to solve the water crisis. There are some loopholes in the treaty which allows it to exacerbate the dispute over water. Nevertheless these loopholes can be negotiated by the two sides by a diplomatic mechanism. But diplomacy doesn't work when either of the side fail to respect their neighbour's military prowess.
Moreover, trade relations are also hampered in the process. In 2011 it was estimated that the trade potential between the two countries was twenty times greater than its current levels but faced a series of obstacles. Fluctuating levels of import tariffs and similar protectionism policies narrow down the market potential of the two countries. These policies are usually dictated by the diplomatic relationship which will remain unsettled with the war of words between the two states.
So in short for both the nations war is not an option. Rather than wielding their tongues to exhibit superiority, Pakistan and India should adopt a peaceful approach based on diplomacy. Passing on witty remarks against your enemy does sound optimistic but only for a fool. Because neither India and Pakistan can afford a war. As Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”
Not to forget that Indian Information minister, Rajyavardhan Rathore, issued a kind of a similar statement couple of days ago.These kind of statements only reinforce the Orwellian concept of Goldestein as universal enemy, which is deeply entrenched in the mentalities of general public on either side of the border. In short the idea of universal enemy states that governments create a hype of their enemy by following an excessively obsessive behaviour towards them in order to generate public sentiments in their favour. But is this true? Are both the sides really under threat from their neighbours? Do we really need to abhor our enemy so much so that we wear our nukes right on our sleeves? To answer these questions we need to analyze the political and financial situation of the two countries and consider Real Politicrather than an emotional approach.
Firstly getting into a conflict with India is militarily impossible for Pakistan at the moment. With the army budget encircling the funding of Operation Zarb-e-Azb, it is practically impossible to generate more money for the army. Moreover the 11% increase in military spending last week narrows the government spending on health, education and development sector quite significantly.
For India things are not so simple as well. The statement from ex-President might not prove more bark than bite as a possible nuclear annihilation will be on the cards. India do have an army which is four folds larger than Pakistan's but no country in this world can muster even the tiniest of breathing space - figuratively and literally - once a nuclear war has started.
Secondly, over the last two decades sub-continent has been a crucial target of major geopolitical movement. With both countries plagued by multitude of separatist factions and dozens of terrorists outfits, these deteriorating relations will only prove as a breeding ground for these armed rebellions. Undoubtedly, what all armed movements require in order to pursue their political goals is an unstable establishment. For both India and Pakistan these decaying relations will only create a larger pit to stumble in.
Thirdly, Pakistan and India now take long strides back in resolving some of the major issues between them. For most people Kashmir is the only point of concern of the Indo-Pak relationship but that is not it. One of the major point of contention is the treatment of water sources which begin from India and enter into Pakistan. Indus Water Treaty which was signed in 1960 by Ayub Khan is not the best of pact to solve the water crisis. There are some loopholes in the treaty which allows it to exacerbate the dispute over water. Nevertheless these loopholes can be negotiated by the two sides by a diplomatic mechanism. But diplomacy doesn't work when either of the side fail to respect their neighbour's military prowess.
Moreover, trade relations are also hampered in the process. In 2011 it was estimated that the trade potential between the two countries was twenty times greater than its current levels but faced a series of obstacles. Fluctuating levels of import tariffs and similar protectionism policies narrow down the market potential of the two countries. These policies are usually dictated by the diplomatic relationship which will remain unsettled with the war of words between the two states.
So in short for both the nations war is not an option. Rather than wielding their tongues to exhibit superiority, Pakistan and India should adopt a peaceful approach based on diplomacy. Passing on witty remarks against your enemy does sound optimistic but only for a fool. Because neither India and Pakistan can afford a war. As Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”
No comments:
Post a Comment