In its dealings with the United States, Pakistan starts from the threat it perceives from India and emphasises India's shortcomings. It will continue to use the United States as a balancer, barring a major improvement in India-Pakistan relations.
Pakistan's view of the world begins with the trauma of the 1947 partition of India, and from the chronic insecurity that it engendered. This is the starting point not only for Pakistan's foreign policy but also for its approach to negotiating with its principal international friends. Pakistan's position as a country one-seventh the size of its giant and, to Pakistanis, hostile neighbour is always at least in the background. The most painful part of this history — the “core issue,” in the term preferred by Pakistani officials and commentators — is Kashmir. Pakistanis believe they have been cheated and betrayed by both India and the international community. They feel that the very structure of their history and geography makes them dependent, vulnerable, and discounted. At the same time, national pride and the need to play up the ways in which they believe Pakistan is superior to India are important themes in their dealings with foreigners.
Pakistani negotiators often try to impress on their U.S. counterparts that Americans and others who have not had to deal with India from a position of weakness do not understand Indian ambitions and guile. As they argue it, Americans are taken in by the Indians and fail to recognise the overbearing, bullying policies and practices India inflicts on Pakistan and the other smaller countries of South Asia. Most Pakistanis believe that Americans are not aware of India's longstanding hegemonic goals and the dangers to Pakistani and U.S. interests that they entail.
Pakistani tactics to correct these “misimpressions” and instil a “more realistic” understanding of what the Indians are up to will vary, of course, with individual Pakistanis, their American interlocutors, the nature of the negotiations under way, and current circumstances. Americans familiar with subcontinental history and politics may receive a more nuanced presentation than newcomers to South Asia. The highly one-sided interpretations Pakistanis provide stress India's unwillingness to accept Pakistan and its other regional neighbours as fully independent states entitled to pursue their own policies and go their own ways. In its crudest form, this approach focuses on dire Indian plots to undo Pakistan by breaking it up into smaller units, or making it a vassal state, or both. This fear is fed by one of the most traumatic events in Pakistan's history, India's support for the breaking away of East Pakistan in 1971. The memory of this time is still vivid.
Aware that Americans are impressed by Indian democracy and contrast it favourably with the congenital weakness of Pakistani civilian political institutions, Pakistanis will at times point to defects in the way India is governed, especially the way its Muslim minority is treated. Pakistanis are well versed in their version of the truth and will have facts and figures ready to support their accounts. They contrast the hierarchical character of the Hindu caste system with the more egalitarian ethos of Islam. Stereotypes frequently found among Pakistanis hold that Indians are more duplicitous, less honest, and less courageous than Pakistanis. Some military officers in years past were fond of saying that vegetarian Indian troops could never hold their own against their carnivorous Pakistani counterparts. Pakistani negotiators and briefers will call attention to India's overwhelming strength, especially its military capabilities, and argue that the bellicose way India has used this superiority in the past indicates that it would be prepared to do so again if the opportunity arose.
The approach Pakistanis use with Americans knowledgeable about South Asia includes these and other points critical of India in a more nuanced form. But even those Pakistanis who do not accept the cruder versions of these stereotypes are eager to persuade the American side that Indians (unlike Pakistanis) are not to be trusted, and that India's claims that they prefer a stable and secure Pakistan as their neighbour are false.
Undercutting Indians in American eyes reflects Pakistani concern that Washington regards India as the more important of the two in ways that disadvantage Pakistan. These apprehensions have always been present, even in the heyday of the U.S.- Pakistan security alliance in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Pakistani fears that the United States would “tilt” toward India were heightened by developments after the Cold War ended. U.S.-Indian relations became substantially stronger, especially during the George W. Bush administration. As the Pakistanis are painfully aware, Washington has come to see India as a rising global power and an incipient economic powerhouse, an attractive partner for American strategists and business people. Some influential Americans view it as a useful Asian counterforce to an aggressive China, with which Pakistan has historically enjoyed a warm relationship. And the demise of the Soviet Union meant that Americans no longer worry about New Delhi's ties to Moscow. The United States and India now sometimes even describe each other as “natural allies,” an enormous reinterpretation of the relationship from the norm of Cold War days.
At the same time, the United States has also drawn closer to Pakistan, for different reasons. These relate almost exclusively to Pakistan's role in the U.S.-led effort to combat al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a part it reluctantly accepted under American pressure following 9/11. Washington can rightly claim that it now enjoys the best relations it has ever simultaneously had with New Delhi and Islamabad. It also can assert more justifiably than it has in the past that U.S. policy in South Asia is not a “zero-sum game” in which improved American relations with India entail weakened ties with Pakistan (and vice versa). Washington plausibly insists that the United States has “de-hyphenated” India and Pakistan in its approach to South Asia. (Ironically, the term “Indo-Pak” once used in describing American policy in the region has now been succeeded by a fresh hyphenation, “Af-Pak,” which the Pakistanis find demeaning and distasteful.)
These assurances have not stilled Pakistani concerns that America will favour India on matters important to Pakistan. Islamabad wants the United States to deal with it as New Delhi's equal, and reacts sharply to any deviation from this norm. For example, the refusal of the U.S. government to consider a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan similar to the one it negotiated with India is seen as clear evidence that the United States has downgraded its ties with Pakistan, and is often referred to as discrimination against Pakistan.
Pakistan's call for equal treatment and its worry that it will not get it are closely related, of course, to its efforts to counterbalance the Indian threat that is still the central element in the country's chronic sense of insecurity. This effort is not limited to Pakistan's dealings with the United States, though Washington has usually been its prime target. Pakistan governments of various political persuasions have looked to China, the oil-rich Arab nations, other Muslim countries, and occasionally even the Soviet Union for diplomatic, political, and economic backing. Pakistan recognises that it is no longer in India's league in terms of overall power, if it ever was. It will continue to look for support from the United States and other outsiders to keep it strong enough to deter the aggressive Indian designs that it considers its primary challenge. Only a marked improvement in its relations with India, including significant steps toward a settlement of their Kashmir dispute, will lead Pakistan to change this policy. Until that unlikely development takes place — and it has eluded the two countries for six decades — Pakistan will continue to see India as a basically hostile neighbour, and its negotiators will probably continue to believe that making India look bad is an important part of their task.
(This is excerpted from How Pakistan Negotiates with the United States: Riding the Roller Coaster by Howard B. and Teresita C. Schaffer, Washington: USIP, 2011. Reprinted by permission. The authors are former U.S. ambassadors, with long years of service in South Asia.)
Keywords: India Pakistan relations, Pakistan U.S. relations
India is not threat to Pakistan as in 1947 ,1965 and Kargil war was started by Pakistan and 1971 Bangladesh liberation was thrust on India by Pakistan as 10 Million refugees were thrown into India due to its atrocities in present day Bangladesh.Besides conventional war Pakistan has also indulged in cross border terrorism in India.
The author is hiding behind 'pakistani misimpressions', and &'pakistani fears' and 'one-sided interpretations' to pour venom on India and Indian way of life. Not quite far back in the past, the author was the leading voice in Washington berating India. Now that the truth is coming out (there is a saying in tamil 'you cannot hide a whole pumpkin in a plate full of food'). The author's cannot continue her/his anti India tirade. Now they are pretending to support India, while cleverly spreading the half truths and utter lies.
The Indophobia, not India, will be the cause of Pak's disintegration (post 1971). All India has to do is watch as the process has already begun. I am not sure when Pakistan will realize hat India is not its biggest enemy, if at all. Oh, well. Not much one can do.
When you start from a premise that the other side is a mortal enemy, and whip yourself into a frenzy, it leaves no basis for negotiation and compromise. Despite all the rhetoric, India and Pakistan have come very close to signing agreements on Siachen (during Zia ul Huq's tenure) and on Pak (during Musharaff's tenure), if press reports are to be believed. So, it looks as if there is enough common sense on both sides that can forge a compromise. The question is what will it take to get us across the finish line.
Well written. Most people in India do not understand why Pakistanis do not trust us. Here is an American perspective that helps. Unfortunately, the more powerful India becomes in economic/military terms will be seen in Islamabad as not being in Pakistan's interests. Deep sense in insecurity coupled with disproportionate power with the military in Pakistan can never laed to peace in the region. Add to this mix a Wahabi influenced Islam and now you have a recipe for disaster! Hopefully, some day pakistanis will stop this implosion.
Gopal Vaidya makes the good point that Pakistan systematically indoctrinates its people in prejudices against Indians (who are equated to Hindus as part of this process). However, I would caution Indians against directly countering this state propaganda. There are civil educators within Pakistan who have mounted a campaign to cleanse Pakistani textbooks of these kinds of biases. But the most effective charge against these groups is that they are sponsored by enemies of Pakistan. If Indians start supporting these groups, it will be the kiss of death for them.
The fundamental mistake in this whole analysis of 'Pakistan' is that people mistake the corporate interests of Pakistani armed forces with that of Pakistani nation and society. It is in the corporate interests of the Pakistani army establishment to have a big 'enemy' like India. If India and Pakistan are no longer 'enemies' Pakistani military will lose a lot of its business resulting in significant loss in material terms as well as prestige to members of its armed forces. If one cares to look at Pakistani army as a corporation all actions by Pakistani military will make sense.The question as to whether this corporate interests are aligned with the interests of the Pakistani nation and society is much different.
While it is true that because of partition and the deep wounds inflicted both on India and Pakistan, our foreign policy has been Pakistan-centred for far too long. It is time that we recognise the wider role we have to play in the international arena as one of the largest economies in the world as well as safeguarding our long frontiers controlled by China and our riparian claims for waters of the Himalayan rivers beginning their journeys in Tibet.
It is incredibly refreshing to read the confirmation by independent observers of the insecurities displayed by the inferiority-complex-suffering citizens of Pakistan vis-a-vis India. We Indians, of course, already know of these lies which the Pakistanis clearly take great pains to disseminate to all and sundry via sedulous propaganda and brainwashing campaigns. However, the jealousy espoused and anti-Indian vituperative rhetoric spewed by the Pakistanis are also clearly sensed in other neighbouring countries such as Sri Lanka, and possibly Bangladesh and Nepal. With (SAARC) 'friends' like these, who needs enemies. One can only pray for rationality to prevail across the region and the world.
Six decades is far too long a period for Pakistan to be trying to point out India's shortcomings to the USA and the rest of the world. During this period, India has made remarkable progress in the political and economic arenas. It is not bogged down by the mind-set of religious hatred nor hegemonic preoccupations, as Pakistan claims. India can boast of many Muslims in high political offices - past and present - and civil administrative positions, not to speak of well-known people in business and entertainment, while Pakistan cannot. On the international arena, as recent events have proved, Pakistan has tried to maliciously exploit its strategic alliance with the USA to support international terrorism. It would appear that Pakistan would do anything to further its agenda of hurting and smearing India. But the truth is for all to see. Its comradeship with China is blatantly opportunistic against India. It is high time that Pakistani leadership realizes that it doesn't help their country and its people, in the long run, to be pathologically hateful toward its neighbor and consume itself in that mind-set. It should make up its mind to engage in peaceful cooperation with India and be a healthy competitor in economic development.
I have travelled almost the entire country and equally fortunate with the experience of interacting with various people, one common point that hits me strongly is the fixation of the Punjabis with the Pakistanis.Some times, I find them lot more curious of our neighbours than the distant part ( from their geographical position)of our country.As the governing centre in our country has remained in the Punjabi dominated northern region, we are unfortuantely not able to get away from this fixation.It is time that we become less emotional, more pragmatic, decisive and firm in dealing with this neighbour.It will also help us to focus more importantly on the internal problems which have easier solutions than the issue of Kashmir with our neighbour.When will we become a balanced knowledgeable and responsible and importantly sobre country which reflects the tremendous human capabilities and shared cultural ethos of this country? I think it is time to kickout all the bandicoots entrenched in our political/ administrative/ media and start looking at important issues with clarity.
One of the most cogent articles I have read on this subject in the recent past. The virulent mix of organized religion, the Islamic bomb, an excessively curropt army and an impotent government will ensure that Pakistan is always perceived as a lump of landmass with 17 million people - never as a nation state. Pakistan is perhaps the only country in the world that considers terrorist groups as strategic assets. The 'powers-that-be' have always and will continue to feed the Pakistani society with an obtuse version of history viz-a-viz India to mask their enormous failures in delivering roti-kapda-makaan. What is most unfortunate is that the common man in Pakistan is largely content knowing that it his country is blessed with an abundance of 'missiles' - without worrying where the next meal is going to come from. If only Zia-ul-Haq could see this.
A great analysis from long time professionals with experience in that region. I will be brief in my musings. Increasingly, I get a sense that in order to mollify Pakistan, the US has asked India to do more and that is highly unacceptable to India and its citizen. As the article indicates Pakistan and its citizen are living in collective paranoia, delusion and only itself can extricate from deep morass and not anyone else including India. We all have issues with everyone but all have moved on accepting certain truth, but not Pakistan. Truth be told India paid huge price as a result of havoc created by rogue Pakistan and none in India who have been impacted by it will excuse the nonsense that is perpetuated. Simply put, Pakistan has the cry baby attitude and we in India have heard too many times the story line 'the boy who cried wolf'. India for its part sees bigger hand of China for the irresponsible behavior by Pakistan over the years. I am surprised that in the larger context of Geo-politics the authors are missing that point. My take is that, even if Pakistan gets (not that India is going to give!) what it wants from India, it will forever remain the client state of China!
The article rightly points that religious bigotery is at the heart of Pakistan's hatred for India. Jinnah was reportedly not a very religious man but he sided with rabid communal elements and the sub continent was divided on the basis of the 'two nation' theory. After Partition, the communal elements became more and more assertive, and society became more and more radicalized. Also, Pakistan declared itself as Islamic nation after partition. Ethnic cleasing led to a drastic decrease in the percentage of minorites in that country who have become virtually second class citizens.
US has no permanant interest anywhere exept business industerest. That is why they show inclined to India sometimes keeping an eye on India's emerging economy. On the contrary interest on Pakistan is only stratagic. Even as recent as last week India agreed to purchase Rs. 1800/- crore defence equipments from US. If Pakistan want to go for that much purchase America has to give a grant. Even nuclear agreement also was not different. America expects good money from India on the sale of design and equipments for generating electricity. Pakistan cannot afford that.
Pakistanis love to live in an unreal, make believe world of their imagination that has nothing to do with reality.They also suffer from a guilt complex that comes from the fact that their founder was principally responsible for partition at the time of India's Independence and the fact that it has driven out Hindus who were more than 20% of its population in 1947 but are today less than 5%.All this talk is to hide that guilt.Anyone who insists that he is superior to others in reality suffers from an inferiority complex which he desperately wants to hide.
In all the wars between India and Pakistan it was never India who attacked, it was always Pakistan.Pakistanis accept this fact privately if not publicly,so to imagine that India has hegemonistic designs is again their inferiority complex coming out.
It is important to note that there is a strong element of bigotry in how Pakistanis perceive Indians. Anti-hindu communalism is the strongest part of this bigotry but it also includes bigotry related to eating habits, skin color, and physical stature. Through text books and media, a large number of Pakistanis have internalized these ideas. For instance, recently, a Pakistani cricket captain who came across as a gracious person in India expressed the most loathsome thoughts about Indians in a press conference.
Indians too have a responsibility to push back against this bigotry. However, there is virtually no record of Indians pointing out errors in Pakistani history text books. Nor is there any history of Indian media examining the Pakistani media with a critical eye. For the most part, Indians have ignored the internal dialog in Pakistan. Worse many well meaning Indians have attempted to shroud these issues by empty platitudes regarding our similarities.
Many countries in the world have historical disputes but it does not prevent co-existence, nor does it prevent a free exchange of opinions on text books, bigotry, human rights, or any other contentious issue. By cajoling, complaining and taking our Pakistani interlocutors to task for the bigotry in that society, we force them to be more balanced and even handed. What happens in Pakistan reverberates in our own country as well – therefore, a balanced Pakistani society helps foster balance in our own country.
Excellent analysis.What the author misses is that Pakistan has never seen itself as a normal country who wants to give good life to its citizens and occupy a respectable position in the comity of nations.
Please Email the Editor