Opinion: India-Pak Peace Is Possible - Only If Pak Army Takes A Back Seat

Following the controversial February general election, it seems Pakistan is going through a period where a nominal civilian government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is working under the strict control of the army. But while the military exerts its influence behind the scenes without accountability, the government, involved in the day-to-day running of the country, is still answerable to its people. 
 
The Pakistan military has directly ruled the country for over half of its existence, with generals such as Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf holding power for 43 years in total. For the remaining years, when the military was not in power, it maintained significant influence over political parties and indirectly controlled elected governments. Today, it is one of the most powerful, feared and unpopular institutions in Pakistan.

It may seem hard to explain how an army that was so badly humiliated on the battlefield, lost one big chunk of the country and was made to surrender en masse to its arch-rival in 1971, went on to become the country's main power centre. But, there is an explanation: the Pakistan army owes a lot to the US and China, both of which helped in rebuilding it. It also got a new fillip under General Zia, who began to Islamise the country and the armed forces. It got a boost when nuclear tests were conducted, and another shot in the arm when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The US poured arms and money into Pakistan and bolstered the army's capabilities, supplying its air force with F16 fighter jets. Following 9/11, the Pakistan army even joined the US-led global war on terror. For years, America paid the Pakistan army $2 billion a year for being at the forefront of the global war on terrorism and supporting its operations and logistics in Afghanistan.

A Vice-Like Grip

In practice, much of Pakistan's security issues and foreign affairs are reported to be shaped not in the capital Islamabad but at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, where the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) plays the role of a kingmaker. The military has significant economic interests, with control over large sectors of real estate, agriculture, corporations and industry.

Pakistan's current political turmoil was triggered when Imran Khan, who came to power with the army's support, later began to defy its authority. Many believe that if India and Pakistan have tepid bilateral relations today, it is because the Pakistan army appears reluctant to allow civilian governments to build a warm relationship with India.

But the considered view in the West is that the military is the main institution that holds Pakistan together. A few foreign policy think tank people I have interacted with in recent weeks are of the opinion that for all its faults, the Pakistan army is the one institution that can take on the forces endangering the country's future. They argue that the West needs a disciplined institution like the Pakistan military that can safeguard the big nuclear stockpile that Islamabad has amassed. They urge the military to mend relations with India and hope that it will respond positively because a disintegrated Pakistan, the argument goes, will create havoc in the region, which will severely affect India too.

Democratic Rule Is In Everyone's Interest

I, however, think this is a myopic view. The West should try to help strengthen political parties and push for the protection of the autonomy of national institutions. The restoration of true democracy should be everyone's objective. It will be easier for any country, more particularly a democratic India, to deal with an elected civilian government, with no direct or indirect interference by the Pakistani army. Former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto felt immense pressure from the army when they tried to initiate dialogues with India. During the two full-scale wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, the country was ruled by the military.

The Kargil War in 1999 is widely seen as an attempt by the Pakistan army to undermine the civilian government's efforts to establish peace with India. The war highlighted the tensions between Pakistan's civilian and military leadership and the army's willingness to pursue its own agenda, even if it meant undermining the country's democratic institutions.

The Root Cause Of Terrorism In India 

The public view in India, meanwhile, is that the root cause of terrorism here is the Pakistan army. The Indian government has largely been sceptical of a dialogue with Pakistan, which it accuses of exporting terrorism to its territories. It is, therefore, callous for the West to disregard the fact that over the past four decades, India has been at the receiving end of terrorism, which, India believes, is being perpetuated by Pakistan. India has shared evidence too with its Western allies and even with Pakistan, which reveals how the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan's army plans and trains young boys to commit acts of terrorism in India. Pakistan, expectedly, has always denied the allegations.

But the denial carries little weight. On May 16, 2011, David Coleman Headley, one of the main planners of the Mumbai terror attack, appeared in a federal court in Chicago and revealed how two ISI officers were present during the planning and training stages of the attack. I was present in the courtroom when he narrated this. In his long testimony, he gave graphic details of what instructions he got from the ISI men and which places in Mumbai he was told to target. In fact, the 10 heavily armed terrorists who attacked Mumbai had come from Pakistan. This is a well-known fact that none should dispute.

Terror Camps And Training 

I have met scores of militants during my long years in reporting, who have shared with me details of their training routines in camps in and around Muzaffarabad. I have met a few journalists from Pakistan who have visited these camps, organised by authorities and Islamist outfits.

The civilian governments in Pakistan have largely not been averse to being friends with India. The people, too, admire the progress India has made. The two countries have had a history of Track-II diplomacy. 

However, the Pakistan army's obsession with Kashmir and its desire for parity with India has led to hostilities and has hindered regional peace and stability. And thus, peaceful negotiations to normalise bilateral relations can be successful only if the army's influence is weakened.

India will have to take some steps too to achieve this non-combatant objective - something that will ultimately contribute to overall peace and stability in the Indian subcontinent. India will have to support Pakistan's civilian leadership and democratic forces that seek to reduce the army's influence over the country's politics. This will include taking a stand against the Pakistan Army's human rights abuses in Kashmir and Balochistan and restructuring ties with countries like Iran and Afghanistan, which share concerns about Pakistan's military and its adventurism. India could also do more to invest in strategic communications to counter the Pakistan army's propaganda and disinformation campaigns. By pursuing these strategies, India can create an environment that undermines the Pakistan army's dominance and creates space for more constructive engagement between the two countries.

Weakening The Pak Army

These strategies are not new. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, India supported Mukti Bahini to weaken the Pakistani military's control over East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Several big powers adopt these strategies. The US has conducted cyber operations and supported opposition groups to weaken the Revolutionary Guards's influence in Iran, while Israel has taken similar actions against both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Again, during the Cold War, the US engaged in a strategy of economic pressure, diplomatic isolation and ideological competition to weaken the Soviet military. 

Saudi Arabia's military is an example of how things can go horribly wrong if done in haste. Its military operations and support for opposition groups with a view to weakening the Houthi rebels' control over Yemen have not yielded any success at all.  

India will thus have to pursue these strategies tactfully, without seeming to be interfering in Pakistan's internal affairs. Kashmir will always remain an issue for the two countries,  but it's possible to agree to work on other bilateral issues to first normalise relations. If there is political will on both sides of the border and the Pakistan army takes a backseat, peace may not be so unachievable.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author