Blinding each other
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley asked India recently to help the United States in keeping an eye on Pakistan, as Washington cannot tolerate any government that shelters terrorists. She went on to explain that the United States was “really going to need” India’s help in stabilising Afghanistan and was looking forward to greater support from this major South Asian power in resolving the Afghan conflict. Ms Haley’s statement was a follow up to US President Donald Trump’s “tougher approach” to Pakistan for allegedly “harbouring terrorists”, with Trump wanting Islamabad to eliminate the so-called terrorist safe havens from its soil. Pakistan’s reaction to Donald Trump was rather comical: although immediately denying the allegation, foreign minister Khwaja Asif gave a statement which seemingly referred to “ownership of certain militant groups” and in reaction PTI chief Imran Khan had quipped “With such a foreign minister, who needs enemies?”
But let’s come back to the business of keeping an eye. Apparently the United States was so touched by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bear hug to its president, that in overwhelming response it has been showering much praise and importance to India lately, although without any display of emotion. However, what is surprising to note is the task itself: keeping an eye on each other is what India and Pakistan have already been doing since they split as independent nations, in fact it has consumed them so much that from foreign to domestic and even economic, all affairs are handled with one supreme motive, i.e security in the best interest of the nation. And this vigilance extends beyond boundaries: both countries hawkishly eye activities across their borders and if that is not enough, literally wait for an opportunity to ‘expose’ each other’s misdoings. ‘India and Pakistan live in a state of perpetual hostility. In this oppressive subcontinental atmosphere of enmity, each revels in the misery of the other and each seeks glory in the ignominy of the other.’
The state of Jammu and Kashmir still remains an unresolved issue, has been the reason for two wars between India and Pakistan and persists to be the major bone of contention, resulting in both privileged to become nuclear armed states. This past and present of hostility leads to inflated defence budgets for both countries, which takes its toll on other worthy areas of expenditure unabashedly neglected.
The cost of keeping an eye has its own economics. India is the world’s second most populated country with its population crossing one billion. Pakistan and India rank 42 and 53 respectively among the world’s poorest nations. Still, this does not deter India from boasting the world’s third largest army and Pakistan the sixth largest! To maintain this status, India spent $55.9 billion on its military budget last year according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which is more than Pakistan’s entire fiscal budget of $50 billion for the current financial year! In terms of its share in the GDP, India’s military budget consumes 2.5 percent while Pakistan ambitiously spends 3.4 percent of its GDP on military costs. This is in stark contrast to spending on public health expenditure, as World Bank data for 2014 shows that India spent 1.4 percent of GDP on public health, while in the same year Pakistan spent 0.9 percent, with the world average for UN classified least developed countries being 1.9 percent. However, India managed to push its GDP above $2 million last year with a ranking of 7th highest in the world, as compared to Pakistan which ranked well below at 42 with a GDP of nearly $0.3 million.
Pakistan is also facing a serious hunger problem and the situation is likely to worsen in the coming years, according to a report by the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute The country is ranked at 106 among 119 developing countries in the Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2017, lagging behind India and most African states and standing at the high end of the ‘serious’ category.
The dismal and worrying picture of Pakistan’s economy and society owes very much to the indispensable business of keeping an eye on its ‘enemy’. And while Pakistan struggles to balance the unequal scales, its neighbour is patted on the shoulder and asked to stretch its eyelids wide to keep a check that no mischief takes place in the vicinity. So how much more help does the United States want from India in keeping an eye on Pakistan? Will it mean infiltration of more Indian spies in the Land of Pure? Does this mean that India will be able to fetch sophisticated and advanced technology from the Big Brother to enhance its ‘eyesight’? Will the two countries engage in more military collaborations, with India already being one of the top recipients of military aid from the US? Or is India being elevated to the position of a regional policeman, similar to the self designated world policing role United States assumes? India could then be imagined to become the mythical sphinx, with a man’s head and a lion’s body, seated with its claws firmly entrenched and gazing out for any predators or unwanted activity, threatening to kill if one fails to answer the riddles asked, or simply fails to please and oblige.
When the United States asked India to expand its roving eye over Pakistan, it did not make any specifications as to what India needs to do to fulfill the wish. We do not know what unwanted or unpleasant activity India may carry out on the pretext of keeping an eye. What are the limitations, if any? What rules are to be followed? And if India supposedly does get proof of any ill doings in Pakistan, is it simply going to report or will it take ‘necessary’ action to make corrections? Nikki Haley’s statement and its reiteration by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson cannot be dismissed as casual talk and since the policing role assigned to India has not been defined, it raises many questions and worries for Pakistan.
So once that role is defined and we see its practical implementation in the coming days, it would not be presumptuous to conclude that Pakistan will deal with the situation with ‘An eye for an eye’ approach. We can expect on the part of Pakistan increased manoeuvring and vigilance and probably more frantic complaints of human rights violation in Kashmir to counter allegations of terrorist activities. Instead of working together to eradicate the causes and consequences of poverty in the region, Pakistan and India will be increasingly embroiled in a struggle to keep a check on each other and will continue to compete in the arms race. When India will try to ensure that Pakistan doesn’t get naughty, Pakistan would be burdened to return the favour. The masses will continue to bear the cost of these activities in the form of bloating defence budget and will receive lesser in return for health care, education, shelter – all basic conditions for living. In short, with a fear of being stamped out, we are eventually leading ourselves to death anyways.
‘India and Pakistan are, thus, poised to destroy each other through economic attrition rather than armed conflict. More than four decades, three wars and endless threats later, the two peoples are now close to an economic, political and social collapse such as the world has never seen before.’
(The options in Kashmir by Iqbal Jafar, published on April 16, 1992 in DAWN)
