Pakistan continues to lag behind in the race for social development because it fails to cut down its defence budget. To be able to improve its economy and come up to the expectations of its citizens, outstanding issues with India have to be resolved not through war but diplomacy. The problem is that those who continue to formulate policies on India and Kashmir are not trained in peaceful resolution of conflicts and tend to resolve every issue through recourse to arms.
Over two and a half years after the induction of the present administration, decisions on India and Kashmir remain outside the civilian purview. A statement by President Zardari regarding Pakistan not to be the first to use nuclear weapons was widely resented by the establishment. The decision by Prime Minister Gilani to send the ISI chief to India after Mumbai attacks was immediately shot down by the real policy makers. The strategic dialogue with the US is invariably attended by the army chief indicating the primacy of the military in the formulation of the countrys policies. To finalise the agenda for a strategic dialogue with the US early this year, key federal secretaries were called to the GHQ where COAS Kayani presided over the meeting The event, unusual during civilian rule, underlines the increasing grip of the army on policy matters. The action was meant to send a signal to the bureaucracy regarding who actually called the shots.
Whatever attempts were made by ZAB to establish the supremacy of the civilian authority in decision making were nullified by Zia after the 1977 coup. For eleven years under Zias rule, the army played a key role in the formulation of foreign policy, seeking inputs from the ISI and ignoring the foreign office. Military authority over foreign policy matters was formalized by the appointment of Sahibzada Yaqub Khan as Foreign Minister in 1982 who held the post for nine years till 1991. An attempt by Muhammad Khan Junejo to take an independent stand on the Afghan peace process incensed Zia to the extent that he sent the Prime Minister packing home within weeks.
Attempts made by Benazir to have a role in the formulation of the foreign policy met with a strong rebuff from Gen Mirza Aslam Beg. Benazir met Rajiv Gandhi on the sidelines of the SAARC summit in Islamabad in December 1988 with the aim to improve relations between the two countries through negotiations. Later in July 1989, she invited Rajiv to Pakistan where the two leaders held talks for two days. The initiative was strongly disapproved of by the military establishment. Agencies set the rumours afloat that PPP ministers had handed over the lists of Sikh militants to the Indian government. The PML (N) supported by other rightist parties opted to play in the hands of the establishment by launching a campaign against the PPP government. Benazir was dubbed as a security risk and, a year later, booted out of power.
Similar attempts in 1999 by Nawaz Sharif who had grown a little mature by that time, brought Vajpayee to Lahore creating hopes that the peace process would go ahead and ground would be prepared for resolution of issues like Kashmir. At a nod from the offstage players, Jamaat-e-Islami launched a violent protest against Vajpayees visit. Soon after the peace process set in motion, it was derailed by Musharraf who launched the Kargil misadventure and, within months, removed the Nawaz government through a military coup.
The militarys handling of foreign policy has led Pakistan into a blind alley. Increase in defence spending is explained away on the ground that Pakistan faces a hostile and powerful India. In order to preserve its existence, it is maintained, Pakistan must give priority to defence even if it implies starving sectors like education, health and social development.
Keeping in view the size of Indias economy and its phenomenal rate of growth, second only to China, it is simply inconceivable for Pakistan to outgun India or even have a semblance of parity in the military field. With defence consuming a major chunk of the countrys earnings, little is left to spend on schools, hospitals or social development programmes. While the country has nuclear weapons and has purchased F-16s, half the population lives under the poverty line. Keeping in mind the meager amount diverted to education, health and end of poverty, the objectives agreed in the UN Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015 may not be fulfilled even by 2025. Vital civilian institutions, meanwhile, remain underdeveloped because funds are diverted to weapons purchases to fight India.
Despite all the sacrifices extracted from the masses, there is no guarantee that the army will achieve its objectives through war. The country has fought three wars with India without winning any or getting any of the outstanding problems resolved. Meanwhile billions of dollars worth of armaments are purchased every year which become outmoded within years and turned into junk within decades.
Despite failures of the successive military conflicts, the offstage players continue to foil whatever attempts are made by politicians for the resolution of the outstanding issues through peaceful means. As the Indus Waters Treaty indicates, disputes can be resolved through talks. The army needs to be told by the politicians that if the economy continues to move at the present snail-like pace, the day is not far when there will be pretty little left to pay salaries to the army personnel.
The issue of Kashmir has to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris. An unintended effect of overspending on defence is the weakening of Pakistan. An economically weak Pakistan which lacks international clout suits neither the people of Pakistan nor the Kashmiris. Pakistan can continue, in fact it should continue, to extend moral and political support to Kashmiris without putting its future in jeopardy.
On Thursday, Mian Nawaz Sharif told the media he wants a Pakistan Charter in accordance with the constitution to ensure that no institution is given preference over the other and all institutions perform their functions within their limits. Noble sentiments, no doubt. But keeping in view the differences between the major parties, fanned by hawks and agents and provocateurs in their ranks, who will bell the cat?
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
