Constructivist Approach: Indo-Pak Relationship

India and Pakistan have more in common than any other pair of nations in the world. Not only do they speak the same languages, practice similar cultures and customs, cook identical cuisines but also share the same legacy of British imperialism which lasted around 200 years. It is for the common cultural legacy that Bollywood is as famous in Pakistan as Pakistani daily soaps in India. With all these pleasent similarities, there is yet another one which is anything but pleasing. Both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons and given the status of the bitter relationship between the two countries, situation can take really ugly turns.

It is essential to mention these commons among the two countries as we analyze Indo-Pak relationship through the Constructivist lens but before we do that it will be helpful to understand it from other perspectives. For example, A realist will argue in terms of number of weapons India and Pakistan operate to bring down each other. They will speak of the economic heft with potential to be translated into military might. Realists propose the tendency of states as actors in the international arena to keep their own interests and benefits above everything else. The primary objective of a state being survival, realists view the world in relative terms. For a Realist, If Pakistan signs a defense deal with China; it is obvious for India to be worried about it.

Moreover, Realists see the world as essentially ‘anarchist’. The global order being akin to a self-help system where there exist organized hierarchies which are decided in terms of capabilities and resources a state can bring to the table. For instance, US imposed sanctions on Iran without any clearance from the United Nations. Furthermore, US ensured that other countries comply by the US imposed sanctions, highlighting the realist argument that with enough power and resources a state can make international organizations redundant.

On the other hand, A Liberal will endorse dialogue, cooperation and free trade. Liberal thought argues that free trade and interdependence among states incentivize cooperation. To bring an order to the global order, Liberal thought has devised international organizations which operate more or less independently and will attach a cost to any behavior not falling in line with the established international norms. To highlight the value attached to cooperation, Liberals often emphasize upon the existence of international organizations itself. At the base of all International bodies is the fact that the states members to them, willingly, give away a part of their sovereignty which is considered to be the most characteristic and arguably the dearest tenet of nation states.

Nonetheless, neither Realism nor Liberalism can claim the status of being an all encompassing theory which explains all the aspects concerning International Relations. To explain what is left by the classical theories, Alexander Wendt, the foremost proponent of the constructivist theory presented it as an approach which does not intend on explaining everything. It disregards anything that is constant and unchanging. Constructivism rather focuses on taking cues from both Realism and Liberalism. Filling the gaps that remain after Liberal and realist analyses and yet not coming to a final conclusion, for there does not exist one. For Constructivists, the international arena takes new shapes, established definitions expire and conventional wisdom fails as time passes by.  

Coming back to the Indo-Pak story, they comprise one of the most volatile nuclear belts in the world. The south Asian neighbors keep international bodies on their toes regarding the apprehensions of a devastating nuclear war in the subcontinent. With dense populations across both the borders, it will be the ugliest of wars human kind has survived, experts predict.

Nonetheless, thousands of  troops on the Indo-Pak border continue to maintain a grim situation with incidents of regular shelling evident on vulnerable bordering villages. We spoke of the shared historical and cultural legacy at the onset of our learning. Then, how did the situation became so violent? How did the formerly integrated India and Pakistan came to become so hostile to each other. The answer to this question may take us to a multitude of explanations but this article limits itself to three primary pivots in attempting to understand the Indo-Pak rivalry in its present day form from the constructivist lens.

First, India and Pakistan since partition have fought three major wars in 1948, 1965 and 1971 which changed the relationship among them in some or the other way. However, among these three, the war of 1971 demands special attention as it proved to be very different in terms of the fundamental change it brought to the story of Indo-Pak relationship. The Indian Armed forces succeeded in dividing Pakistan in to two parts. At the end of the 1971 war, East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

It led to a loss of a major part of Pakistan’s territory which was evident. However, what was not so evident was the impact it left on the masses of Pakistan. The establishment in Pakistan has used the 1971 experience as a perpetual fear to be fed to the masses in Pakistan. The armed forces in Pakistan consume more than 25% of the state’s annual GDP. They defend the disproportionate allocation of resources to the armed forces by using the fear of the enemy across the border. This results in an unusually large army Pakistan operates that would have otherwise been unsustainable for the size of Pakistan. The whole issue further deepens the Indo-Pak conflict.

Second, keeping in view the historical account of the partition of India, there is a significant majority of Indians (primarily Hindus) who believe that the partition was not fair to them. After partition, Both India and Pakistan declared themselves to be secular nations, tolerant to all the religions and beliefs. However, Pakistan converted to being an Islamic republic under Gen Zia. This change in Pakistan left a profound impression on the Indian mind. Those opposing the partition in 1947 included the members of Hindu Mahasabha who wanted India exclusively for Hindus. At present, the same voices have gained prominence under the Hindu Nationalist regime led by PM Narendra Modi.

The very same partition debate has come to the fore to defend the discriminative citizenship amendment act, 2019 which differentiates Muslims from other refugees applying for citizenship in India according to the latest legislation. In a strikingly similar manner, as Pakistan has succeeded in feeding the fear of a larger neighbor, the Indian government has built upon the fears of the majority of Hindu Indians about the persecution of their fellow Hindu brethren in the neighboring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Third, the elephant in the room, Kashmir. The dispute that reached the high tables of the UN in 1948 remains the biggest hurdle in the Indo-Pak relationship. In 1972, the two countries arrived to a mutual understanding in the Simla conference which underlined the idea of resolving  the Kashmir territorial dispute bilaterally without any involvement of a third party whatsoever. The conference was concluded in the light of 1971 victory of India. At present, Pakistan seems enthusiastic about involving a third party to resolve the issue but India puts up its 1972 stance of deciding the matter bilaterally which has resulted in a deadlock. Unfortunately, there seems to be no light at the end of the Kashmir tunnel.

Looking at the present state of affairs, as happens in all types of conflicts, communication has become the first casualty of the Indo-Pak tussle. Absence of communication ensures lack of trust. One party keeps guessing about what the other one is planning to do and with no reliable method of executing a guess, miscalculations become routine rather than exceptions. The two neighbors have abandoned all channels of communication, formal and informal. Mutual trust between the two countries is at an all time low with an unfavorable bonhomie between Pakistan and China.

To conclude, it would be obvious for India and Pakistan to maintain their stand on non-negotiable issues but what is extremely harmful is to not open the channels of communication. Naturally, the situation is unfavorable to cooperation but it is imperative to focus on trust building for common gains. Cross border trade and cultural exchange programs for instance can serve as efficient confidence building measures. There is great hope for both the countries if they decide to come along and work towards trust building and cooperation.