Those of you familiar with oceanic geography know that the equator is an imaginary line dividing the north and south hemispheres and has fascinated sailors for centuries. A widely known tradition observed by sailors since the Middle Ages and even in some navies today is the Line Crossing Ceremony. According to myth, the first time a new recruit crosses the equator they are required to pay tribute to Neptune, king of the seas, to be permitted to cross the boundary and considered fit to endure the hardships of seamanship. In the past, senior members of the crew would sometimes wear costumes and the recruit was put on trial and asked to defend himself against outrageous charges. Often pranks were played and the sailor would get a good dip or two into the bargain. The grilling was meant to provide the crew with entertainment but also to test the recruit’s character and resolve. It is interesting though that a sailor who has crossed the equator is nicknamed a son of Neptune and is considered to be under his protection. These seafaring traditions live today in the Royal Navy, among others, and sailors adhere to them because, though their ships are of steel and not wood, they remain at the mercy of the sea. This is the lesson of the ritual.
King Neptune and his more worldly imperial kinsmen have quite a few other privileges too. Julius Caesar was a powerful man and a stream known as the Rubicon stood between him and his rise to absolute power in Rome. He hesitated briefly and then crossed. That changed the course of Roman and world history. The difference between the two expressions of power is that while crossing the equator is compulsory for the ordinary sailor, crossing the Rubicon is a gamble of the mighty. Neptune’s preference for a strange ritual is a page out of mythology with an implicit lesson but when Caesar crossed the Rubicon he committed an act premised on brute power, which has since become a part of diplomatic parlance.
As Prime Minister (PM) Modi came to power in India, our leadership in Pakistan fondly hoped to replay the late 1990s when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was led by A B Vajpayee, who travelled to Lahore and did things politically correctly. Unfortunately, the initiative did not prosper leaving our leadership with only its imagination as to how it might have unfolded. The problem with nostalgic notions of the past is that they tend to shut the door to realistic re-evaluation of the current situation. Nawaz Sharif also has an endearing habit of employing personal rapports in pushing interstate relations, which invariably results in disappointment. In the diplomatic world, the personal equation is a tool to advance national interests and not the main operative framework; Mr Modi’s oath taking ceremony is an objective example. Our hopes were by no means raised by Modi but were conceived within Pakistan and our disappointments are also our own. Modi is a person in his own particular cast who Pakistan needs to carefully weigh before stepping out to embrace his overtures. One ought to be mindful that he has a clear vision for his nation and a definite view of the future. He appears to be quite clear about what he wants to achieve in the region and is eminently equipped with the necessary political traction. Say an opportunity arises where our two countries decide to ‘normalise’ relations. Regardless of at what point in the future that might occur, we will have to address a few seemingly obstinate questions determined by the historically uneven reciprocity between the two countries. It is fair at this stage to examine possible terms of engagement should India incline towards a rapprochement with Pakistan. The list is long but some points stand out more prominently.
Pakistan is a country whose nuclear weapons’ capability stands alone amidst a plethora of underdeveloped national support indicators like political architecture, technological base, an aid dependent economy unable to service nuclear infrastructure and developmental goals simultaneously, and limited capacity to absorb the major advantages of nuclear research and development or tackle a sizeable nuclear accident. The net effect is that we are perceived as an “accidental nuclear power” rather than a capable one. In this view, India would rather see Pakistan’s nuclear undertaking controlled if not capped. That sits well with similar sentiments voiced by the west and US. It is not so much a nuclear threat as it is a capability and reliability issue for the world, our chronic insecurity notwithstanding.
The Kashmir dispute has embittered mutual relations since forever. Mr Modi’s inclination seems to be to formally annex the territory already held, lay a claim to the parts west of the Line of Control (LoC) and then let the issue simmer for an indefinite future period. Pakistan’s stance has been consistent diplomatically but militarily it has been tempted occasionally. Both approaches are flawed as they seem to perpetuate the dispute rather than resolve it. Leaderships on both sides have a rare opportunity to grapple with the issue decisively and peacefully as they have majorities in their respective parliaments. Sabre-rattling is no substitute for statesmanship. A workable resolution of Kashmir would have another salutary effect. It would take away the central place occupied by Kashmir-centric extremism in Pakistan. It is needless to emphasise that Pakistan must come down hard on all varieties of militancy on its territory in its own interest.
Pakistan is located auspiciously at the junction of major economic zones in our part of the world. It could earn sizeable returns by providing transit for inter-region surface trade. India, Afghanistan, the Central Asian States and China want just such a facility. Pakistan does realise its central position but inadequate planning and foresight have prevented its exploitation. Our drift is causing growing resentment amongst our neighbours, particularly India, and is losing great amounts of revenue for the country. Pakistan must address this issue seriously, weigh all its implications and then devise a transit trade policy that not only serves our national interests but also facilitates regional trade.
Having said that, let us examine what Pakistan is being asked to pay to cross the equator. Sheer size and economic and military capital have slowly but visibly pushed India into a position of strength, which lends itself to Indian unilateralism. That is not conducive to forward movement in a region where so much hostility already exists. As a result, what should be a mere line appears as a whole zone for Pakistan to cross from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn. India can cross the Rubicon whenever it wishes but Neptune must consider carefully if a seaman can survive a prolonged prosecution.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army and can be reached at [email protected]