Neighbours in a quandary

The recent India-Pakistan military exchanges post-Pulwama attack on the CRPF jawans has led to a significant shift in the way India would deal with terrorist attacks from across the border. The pre-emptive strike by India to demolish the terrorist camps in a place like Balakot has been swift and has caught Pakistan on the wrong foot. In the exchanges that followed, Pakistan surprisingly decided to return India's fighter pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman unconditionally and urging India to settle differences with peace talks. Two things stand out in this whole saga. Experts have analysed these and other associated developments from various perspectives. However, two issues which are yet to be understood with clarity remain the timing of the Pulwama attack and the unexpected and so-called extension of the olive branch of noblesse proportions from Pakistan.

It is well known that terrorists strategically plan attacks around elections. India is not an exception to this. In fact, democracies provide a high degree of 'permissiveness' and are, therefore, under constant threat. Discontented groups get to adopt violent means to voice their disgruntlement from time to time. Moreover, these groups are aware of the low costs involved in adopting violent means and craft their strategies just before democratic elections to grab eyeballs. In recent times countries like Spain and Germany have been victims of terrorist activities before elections. In the recent past, India has had to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks just before elections. The Kargil war, the Akshardham attack, the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, 2013 attacks on Mahabodhi temple in Bodhgaya, and now the Pulwama attack. While terror attacks are common in democracies, the rationale behind such attacks differs from one country to another.

In the case of India, two explanations can account for the timing of the Pulwama attack. A terrorist organisation like the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) has carried out the Pulwama attack to attract global attention on the Kashmir issue. Further, it can be argued that the terrorists have dented the current government's credibility just before elections and in the process are seeking to influence electoral outcomes. This explanation might seem to be plausible but doesn't cut ice beyond a certain point. This brings one to the other perspective. Terrorist outfits like JeM, inspired by Islamic radicalism have conducted such an attack just before the general elections to ensure that the current government will flex its nationalistic muscle and politically mobilise the Indian electorate to storm back to power.

What will JeM get out of this? Speculative it might seem but it is compelling to argue that the return of the right-wing BJP will provide the extremist outfits with a rallying point by spreading their propaganda that the Indian state is anti-Muslim. This will lead to greater communal divide and also enable the radical Islamic outfits to indoctrinate and brainwash the disgruntled youth, especially in troubled spots like Kashmir. This also fits into the designs of the terrorist outfits with the backing of the Pakistani government to continue to bog down India with the doctrine 'bleed India with a thousand cuts'.

The return of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman has been portrayed by Pakistani leadership as a goodwill gesture. But what can be the reasons one can attribute to unconditional return of the Indian pilot and urging the Indian leadership to settle differences through dialogue. First, India got the timing of its pre-emptive strikes perfect. Second, India has been working on the diplomatic front and upped the ante, post-Pulwama attack to ensure that all the major powers like USA, Russia, France, and the UK come hard on state (read, Pakistan) sponsored terrorism. In this regard, it is worth noting that even Pakistan's all weather friend China has not come out openly empathising with Pakistan in the aftermath of the pre-emptive strikes by India. Third, India's pre-emptive strikes followed by diplomatic onslaught to exhibit its zero-tolerance approach in terrorism and then claim the moral high ground that there were no civilian casualties in its pre-emptive strikes seems to have cornered Pakistan.

The new government under the leadership of Prime Minister Imran Khan has promised to liberate Pakistan from all possible evils – corruption, nepotism, extremism, and economic disaster. In terms of market size Indian economy ($2088 billion) is almost ten times larger than that of Pakistan ($ 273 billion). With a lower market size, falling productivity (translating into lower export, widening current account deficit, and a fall in the value of exchange rate), has left Pakistan with no choice but to approach International Monetary Fund for an $8 billion bailout package. Reliance on China to build necessary infrastructure ranging from building roads, ports, and investing in the energy sector including solar, coal, wind and hydroelectric, has only added to Pakistan's woe by burgeoning its debt in the international market. With a budget deficit higher than 5 per cent of national income, the least Pakistan can hope is to indulge in a full-fledged war with India.

In fact, contrary to popular commentary in the press, India's withdrawal of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) may, in fact, hurt Pakistan. True, in $2.4 billion India's trade with Pakistan, the former has a considerable trade surplus – India exported $1.9 billion worth of good as opposed to Pakistan's $0.5 billion. However, a closer look at the major exportable items from Pakistan to India – cement, tropical fruits such as dates, and refined petroleum – suggest these items are highly elastic in price (meaning India can source these products from elsewhere with similar import price). In fact, in cement manufacturing, India has excess capacity, and Pakistan may find it difficult to sell cement elsewhere as transport costs determine the price competitiveness of cement. Likewise, India has herself become one of the major exporters of refined petroleum product. On contrary, India's major export items to Pakistan such as pharmaceuticals, synthetic colouring, and propylene polymers are relatively priced in-elastics meaning Pakistan has to shell out more for importing these products from elsewhere.

The return of Abhinandan was more a smart move rather than Pakistan's intention to extend an olive branch. In fact, China also realises the danger of an all-out war between these two nuclear powers. China has not only invested heavily but also house more than 60,000 Chinese now living in Pakistan. Additionally, China has gone through the process of tackling extremism in its own Xinjiang province, and very well understands India's hawkish stance post-Pulwama. Pakistan also knows that all the welfare related activities that Imran Khan's government has promised, for instance, building five million houses for the poor, hospitals and research universities, all will be derailed by opting for a military engagement with India.

By the same token, surgical strikes and pre-emptive strikes are not sustainable from the Indian perspective. What is sustainable if both India and Pakistan work towards building economic stability in the region? Remember, China Pakistan Economic Corridor and India's connectivity with our eastern neighbours has the potential to connect all the way from Turkey to Singapore. And that is a big market which will make both these countries prosper. The first step for that to happen is Pakistan's genuineness in curbing JeM backed terror. On our part, India should restrain jingoistic media.IPA

(Nilanjan Banik is with Bennett University, Greater Noida; and G Venkat Raman is with Indian Institute of Management, Indore. Views expressed are strictly personal)