Daily Times

It is ironic, to say the least, whenever India and Pakistan were able to engage each other in peace proceedings, the process is fractured either by the states themselves, given the bureaucratic mistrust, or by the non-state actors. The most recent case in point of bilateral cooperation was manifested during Indian Prime Minister (PM)NarendraModi’s visit to Pakistan on 25 December 2015. Regardless of the media hype which attempted to make a case that Modi only stopped over in Lahore from his state visit to Afghanistan where he had a very warm exchange of views and policy commitments, the fact of the matter is Modi-Nawaz meeting was well planned and supported by the two countries’ security establishments. In the case of Pakistan where the Sharif-led civil government had been subdued to the mightymilitary, thanks to Imran Khan’s sit-in politics, it is but illogical to argue Sharif took a personal stance on India-Pakistan relations. The Sharifs, being businessmen and with corporate interests in the expanding Indian market, might have personally preferred peace with Delhi but any such whims can not materialise in Pakistan until they are approved by the GHQ. This is a hard core reality of civil-militaryrelations in Pakistan that, for the sake of corrective discourse, ought not to be overlooked.

Now that India and Pakistan, despite tense boarders where intermittent skirmishes have become a norm than an exception, were somehow able to break the ice by shaking hands in Paris and hugging in Lahore and discuss a broad range of bilateral issues briefly but candidly, does it make sense for either India or Pakistan to put a nail in the coffin of a peace process that has been initiated with much effort and courage on the part of the civil and military leadership of the two countries? This is the central question being raised by the regional media after the attack on the Indian airbase inPathankot, which is located not that far from the international border with Pakistan. Also, Pathankot has historical relevance with regards to the partition plan and the geostrategic value of it for the Indian state with respect to its northern command that is essentially Pakistan (and Kashmir) centred. Based on the past trends and speculations, one can scheme out certain scenarios where someone from within the rigid bureaucratic world of either India and Pakistan or both might have allied and aided certain existing actors who are well trained to carry out sabotage acts.

Obviously, from the perspective of state bureaucracy of either county, rapprochement between India and Pakistan hurt its corporate and ideological interests from the short to the long run. There are some reports which hint to the a similar bureaucratic mistrust exhibited from the bureaucracies across the border in the wake of Agra summit initiated by Pakistani general, Pervez Musharraf, and the then BJP government of India. This variable is further substantiated with data, at least, from Pakistan side where certainelements from within the security establishment played the dubious role of insiders and provided required intelligence to the outsiders, mostly aggrieved elements of a variety of militant organisations, that successfully carried attacks on the Pakistan state, not sparring even the military personnel and installations that included ISI headquarters and the GHQ. That was the moment the Pakistan state must have opened its eyes to the new but bitter realities and taken due measures accordingly. This selective approach impaired our security vision and a heavy price was and has been paid by our state and the society even today.

Another scenario points to the existing militant networks that were used as force multipliers by the Pakistani state in the past. A part of such organisations, which are termed anti-state, has been chased and targeted by the security forces of Pakistan. Those that are considered pro-Pakistan, ideologically speaking, might have certain aggrieved elements with the potential to disagree with the top brass of their organisations for working with Pakistan state and not working on their ideological agenda. It seems natural on the part of such aggrieved elements, which are already trained, to disrupt India-Pakistan peace process. If this is the case, then Pakistan state, logically, should not have any hand in it. Similarly, India-based militant and extremist organisations (of which Shiv Sena is a part) may also carry a similar tendency to fracture the peace initiatives. This then absolves the Indian state of being accomplice to the crime. In a different scenario, certain Kashmir base guerrillaorganisations that are overloaded with Kashmiriultra-nationalism may abhor any India-Pakistan talk on Kashmir that excludes the option of independence for the Kashmiris. Such organisations, given opportunity, can use militant means for their national objectives. It should not surprise any that a Kashmir based United Jihad Council had claimed credit for the Pathankot attack whereas the Hurriat leadership had condemned the attack. In addition, regional and extra-regional cartels that primarily deal in drugs and smuggled weapons may approach such local organisations for their own corporate interests.

Any allegations on the part of Indian state should be based on concrete evidence. It is very interesting to note that the Indian (print) media showed caution and moderation with respect to Pakistan’s (direct) involvement in the incident. So has acted the Indian government led by Modi. It is healthy to observe hot lines are duly utilised by the two states to exchange views and information and to avoid any misreading of the provided evidence. The Indian side has, the other day, provided its counterpart with “actionable”evidences. If this is the case, Pakistan should be forthcoming and continue to engage its counterpart meaningfully. The Pathankot attack will serve as a catalyst either for cooperation or conflict between India and Pakistan. Since the two states are already meeting up, it is prudent to cooperate in letter and spirit. Let the cooperation over Pathakot attack serve as a confidence building measure. Remember, India and Pakistan will both lose if they fight another war. Both, and the region, will benefit if they cooperate, argues Professor Subrata Kumar Mitra, a world renowned political scientist. China, and even the US, should play a bridge role in this respect. Certainly, there is life post Pathankot. Let it be lived.

The writer is a political scientist by training and professor by profession. He is a DAAD fellow and the author of Military Agency, Politics and the State in Pakistan. He tweets @ejazbhatty