Both India and Pakistan are shopping for arms, largely against one another

The Union budget for 1981-82, stepping up defence expenditure by another Rs 400 crore to Rs 4,670 crore or 17 per cent of the total (as against 60 percent for development), was followed a day later by Inderjit's interview with President Zia-ul-Haq in the Times of India. The two are interconnected.The Pakistan President made a number of important statements. Though India and Pakistan's threat perceptions vary, each regards the other as the primary threat. For Pakistan, developments in Afghanistan constitute a new and disturbing factor. The Soviet Union is now an immediate military neighbour and the security frontier of the subcontinent has moved from the Oxus through Landikotal (Khyber) to Wagah. Joint defence may be premature but General Zia said he had made a unilateral offer that he would be prepared to accept the assessment of Indian (military) experts of "what should be the strength of our forces, considering the defence requirements of a country like Pakistan and its geographic borders". Correspondingly, let them say what level of forces India needs and he would not challenge that, provided that 80 per cent of these did not face Pakistan as (he contended) they do today.However, Pakistan realises that India is "a big country", ". It has a clear role to play and we grant it." Pakistan for its part has no treaty or alliance with China or the United States; nor any commitment to defend Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states; nor any intention of making of nuclear bomb or detonating a nuclear device for peaceful purposes. Finally, President Zia said he regarded the Simla Agreement as a no-war pact but was not prepared to accept the Line of Actual Control in Jammu and Kashmir as an international frontier. This was a matter awaiting bilateral negotiations and settlement ... perhaps after a climate of trust had been created by tackling smaller issues first. Importance: Rhetoric? Possibly. Yet a most important statement for, as President Zia said, "We should stop living in the past... (and) start a new chapter". Simplistic ? Perhaps. But nevertheless valuable and constructive as a statement of policy. Some might argue that President Zia seems to be in trouble and that this therefore is not the right time for serious negotiations. Better wait. They would be wrong. We have waited too long - and at great cost. A number of factors make this a propitious time to talk to Pakistan, even on Kashmir which, after all, is the principal bone of contention and could, in different circumstances, become a bond of friendship. The right time to do the right thing is always now, not tomorrow. Indo-Pakistan relations in Pakistan are a national rather than a party issue and therefore unlikely to be upset by a change of regime. National perceptions of external threats buttress militarism. Genuine movement towards normalisation in Indo-Pakistan relations would accordingly give powerful stimulus to factors and forces working for democratisation in Pakistan.President Zia did not refer to the proposal earlier reiterated by his Foreign Minister, Agha Shahi, for talks on a mutual and balanced reduction of forces (MBRF). The General did however remark that "the new Jaguar aircraft that you have purchased cannot reach China. They can only be utilised in this region. We hope that they are for the defence of your country. But these are the factors which create suspicions and which create threats..."Both India and Pakistan are shopping for arms, largely against one another, partly as replacements. Nevertheless, the logic of modernisation is augmentation. And so the vicious circle spirals on. India bids up its defence budget by another Rs 400 crore. Alas, an inflation of money and purpose. And this when universal elementary education, safe drinking water supplies, and basic health services may reach every Indian perhaps only by 1990-95, and the Plan is limited by the availability of investible resources.Opportune Time: A number of factors make this a propitious time to talk to Pakistan, even on Kashmir which, after all, is the principal bone of contention and could, in different circumstances, become a bond of friendship. Pakistan's thinking has been influenced by events in Afghanistan and Iran; its acceptance of non-alignment; its yearning for identity and democracy at home; and an increasing acceptance of subcontinental realities. On the Indian side, the popular legitimacy that Sheikh Abdullah undoubtedly provides to the present status of Jammu and Kashmir, the slow yet steady return to normalisation in Sino-Indian relations, and India's continuing close ties with the Soviet Union provide an internal and external environment favourable for a final settlement. The case for a "soft frontier" across the Line of Actual Control in Jammu and Kashmir, and its demilitarisation and realignment with marginal adjustments to suit geographical and administrative convenience has been argued before in this column. Farooq Abdullah has recently repeated his father's eminently sensible plea for reopening the Uri-Muzaffarabad and Jammu-Sialkot road and rail routes for trade and traffic. Pakistan may fear such a move. Need India be afraid?India certainly needs a defence apparatus. But does it require the fourth largest army in the world in 1981, whatever the needs and circumstances of 1971 or 1962? What is the cost-effectiveness of the Rs 4,670 crore defence budget just presented? Better systems analysis and inventory control could result in significant savings without sacrificing military capability. But a rapprochement with Pakistan - and China - which is what an invitation for MBRF talks implies, could make possible further pruning.Maybe, as an earnest of India's willingness and ability to provide reassurance to its smaller neighbours, could a start be made by demobilising one or two divisions and converting them into a Land Army Corps with suitable additions to undertake land reclamation, command and catchment area development, reforestation, road and bridge construction? Such a composite development force, highly trained and motivated as it would be, could still remain part of the Army reserve and, by undertaking development tasks, rein discontent and reduce dependence in meeting law and order situations on military and paramilitary forces deployed in aid of civil power. Further, ex-servicemen could be mobilised en masse in a civil national reconstruction corps harnessed to priority tasks. This is not a fanciful notion. It would constitute real social defence. The GREF (General Reserve Engineering Force) which helped build the border roads is indicative of the kind of idea that might be explored.General Zia has spoken. Let us take him at his word: that both sides sit together and consider how best to beat their swords into ploughshares.Published By: AtMigration Published On: Nov 25, 2013 15:51 IST--- ENDS ---

Download App

Get 37% off on an annual Print +Digital subscription of India Today Magazine

Both India and Pakistan are shopping for arms, largely against one another

The Soviet Union is now an immediate military neighbour and the security frontier of the subcontinent has moved from the Oxus through Landikotal (Khyber) to Wagah.

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION