India has never been and will never be an existential threat to Pakistan

In his interview with BBC’s Andrew Marr before his European tour, President Obama categorically pronounced that Pakistani army’s obsession with India arising from its belief that India poses an existential threat to Pakistan is a ‘mistake’ and that attitude needs to change. He referred to the enormous economic and trade benefits that Pakistan can reap by normalising ties with India.

It is a little secret that the rivalry between nuclear- armed India and Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous in the world. The fall out of a war between the two nations can not only have catastrophic consequences in the sub-continent, but will gravely endanger global security and economy.

It is, however, worth looking at things from the Indian perspective to explain why the Pakistani army’s claim of an existential threat from India is highly exaggerated. 

The conflict with Pakistan is centred on the Kashmir issue. It has had a serious impact on ordinary Kashmirs, but for the vast majority of Indians the issue has become a thorn in the path of their rapid economic development. For India, the conflict is about defending the borders from potential invasion from Pakistan and its strategic partner China. It has never been an aggressor in the three wars that it fought with Pakistan and one with China. Other than the Indian states, that share their borders with Pakistan, the rest of the country has little historical or cultural connection with Pakistan; so unless the national sentiments are provoked with acts of terror like the Mumbai attack in 2008, the thought of going to war doesn’t even cross public imagination.

India also has a massive and a chaotic democracy to manage with a host of internal security problems to tackle. Unlike the Pakistani intelligence and military, that often tries to give a jihadist angle to the issue; India on the other hand, with its secular credentials and a Muslim population bigger than that of Pakistan, sees the problem as a territorial issue. It has nothing to achieve by invading a neighbouring country that in economical and conventional military terms is no match to India.

It is also true that moderate Pakistanis harbour no antagonism against India. But in a country that is deeply rooted in an orthodox religious conservatism, it serves the Pakistani army well by projecting India as an enemy of Islam; or by poisoning the minds of the population by blaming India for their woes. The jihadist groups aided by the Pakistani army have systematically carried out a propaganda that blames India for the shortage of water in Pakistan. This is a dangerous trend. It is no wonder that when Pakistani cricketer Mohammad Asif found himself embroiled in spot fixing scandal in England in 2010, many in his village suspected an Indian hand in it!

The problem with Pakistan is that it is the army that calls the shots in regard to its strategic foreign policy. The Pakistani army is not just a military organisation but it also controls many lucrative businesses in Pakistan. The survival and dominance of the army largely depends in its ability to sustain its rivalry with India.  The Economist in an article ‘A rivalry that threatens the world’ quoted  M.J. Akbar, an eloquent Indian journalist and author of a new book on Pakistan. He blames the army, mostly, for ever more desperate decisions to preserve its dominance. “Pakistan is slipping into a set of contradictions that increasingly make rational behaviour hostage to the need for institutions to survive,” he says. ( http://www.economist.com/node/18712274)