Daily Times

Authorities in India and Pakistan are at it again. The war of words has recently echoed in the United Nations. His Excellency, Mr. António Guterres, the ninth Secretary General of the United Nations, may not find it the most opportune time to have taken over the reins of the UN.

Whether it be the dossiers prepared by the Pakistani government highlighting the espionage activities carried out on the Pakistani soil by the Indian operatives, or the Indian calls for declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. All of these are politically motivated moves aimed at having the last laugh, and unsettling the adversary’s policy decisions back home.

Does this bode well? No. Whenever the tensions between India and Pakistan are on the rise, the entire South Asian region comes under jeopardy. Well, you just can’t endanger 1.7 billion lives-can you? That’s how catastrophic it can be.

After going nuclear in 1998, both the countries have, at many a times, scared the hell out of the entire world, particularly the South Asians. Remember December 13, 2001? Remember the eyeball — to-eyeball confrontation? Remember the Mumbai episode? You’ll surely remember the latest Uri and Nagrota Base incidents that have flared up the discussions on lowering the nuclear threshold even more. This is where the stability-instability paradox comes into play. Although, India and Pakistan have enjoyed relative stability at the nuclear level, yet the instability at the sub-conventional level is an anathema in itself.

The possession of nukes might have played a key role in deterring both the countries from engaging in any sort of heroism. The concept of limited war with controlled escalation does prevail. But, with emotions running high on both sides of the LOC- who is to ensure the war, once started, would remain limited? After all, considering the love lost both the countries have for each other; sanity, in such a situation, often takes a back seat.

It is pertinent to note that individual consciousness determines the level of conscientiousness one will exude. For leaders in India and Pakistan, the level of insight and command over regional as well as international affairs tend to matter a lot. The absence of which can lead to jingoistic, narrow and short-term policy objectives, whereas, a high level of perceptivity can infuse calmness and equanimity. The problem with leaders in India-Pakistan region is that they’re either too ingenuous in their claims and policy decisions, or they succumb to the right wing-the largely popular- narrative, all too easily.

If Mr. Nawaz Sharif can maneuver himself through two sit-ins in the last two years, presumably come out unscathed from ‘Panamagate scandal’ and ward off his critics by being back in business after his open heart surgery in London last year, then surely enough, a long-lasting peace initiative can also be envisaged in South Asia.

Mr. Narendra Modi’s popularity graph has been on a steady rise ever since he took the office in 2014. He has delivered to a large extent, and even the areas where he has somewhat failed to live up to the expectations of his voter base are appeasable enough.

If none of this can be channeled towards harmonizing the South Asian region and spreading love and amiability, then one may wonder, what else can. After all, what munificent gift can there be for the South Asians if peace and tranquility looms large over the India-Pakistan horizon.

Whatever the media tells you, it is all but hogwash. Pakistan’s relationship with Iran is at loggerheads. Introspection might assuage the conspiracy theorists a bit. Let me put it straight. No, it’s not India, Israel or even the Unites States that tend to pull the strings. The question is; does Pakistan actually need outsiders to create panic and consternation? Aren’t the Pakistanis good at it anyway?

General Raheel’s decision may be somewhat personal, but the ramifications can be significant enough for Pakistan’s internal security. Similar Pan-Islamism ideas have been pitched in the past, and the results haven’t been auspicious. It ought to be deciphered whether, in the light of the current scenario, Pan-Islamism or Pakistan’s internal security is what needs the most attention.

Well, yes, a Muslim Military Alliance might come in handy, but the timing isn’t appropriate. Pakistan is mired in internal conflicts, extremism seems to be penetrating deep down within, and sectarian strife doesn’t seem to end anytime soon. In such a quagmire, this is what the Pakistani intelligentsia needs to know: The threat lies within, not without.

Considering the current hostility between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, normalization seems to be too big a wish to ask for. The solution, although, isn’t fatuous. Both India and Pakistan should look to marginalize the hate-mongering far right extremists. This is what’s needed to break the impasse.

If India wants Pakistan to neutralize Hafiz Saeed, then it may need to replicate the policy decision at home. India should look to keep Raj Thackeray and the likes at bay, particularly when it comes to India’s policy decisions regarding its western neighbor. Pakistan, on the other hand, should ensure that the state no longer patronizes the India-focused ultraists. If this can be achieved, then a breakthrough might just be around the corner. If not, the people on both sides of the international border aren’t any stranger to the jingoistic rhetoric, anyway.

The author is an independent researcher and a security analyst having expertise in writing about counter-terrorism, internal security and military related affairs