Towards economic prudence: a leaf from India’s experience

Prime Minister Imran Khan has reiterated his desire to open discussion with India on Kashmir, during his inaugural address at the Islamabad Security Dialogue. Without mentioning India’s accession to the region, it seems Pakistan has moved from a belligerent to a conciliatory policy toward India. There could not have been better timing for the shift — Afghanistan’s peace deal is on the threshold of completion, and peace on the Indian border would allow us to concentrate on this crucial mission.

In the middle of these developments, there is another angle to look at India that needs the Pakistani leadership’s attention for domestic growth and development.

India’s economy is the seventh largest in the world. The Western and Arab countries are India’s investment partners on a reciprocal basis. The Gulf countries have invested in India to the tune of $100 billion. This economic success has been one of the significant reasons behind Pakistan’s failure at the United Nations Security Council on the issue of Kashmir.

So the take-home lesson is that Pakistan’s Kashmir cause lacked the strength derived from economic prudence — something on which our focus has never been clear.

The question is: why, despite committing gross human rights violations along communal lines and having a strikingly high percentage of people living in poverty, India has managed to earn a promising image? The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner had released two consecutive reports, in 2018 and 2019, on human rights violations in Kashmir. Still, all five Security Council members have been standing behind India.

Although India has progressed significantly during the second half of the 20^th century, its growth in key human development areas has remained stunted. Even today, India’s adult dropout rate is 58%. According to the Multidimensional Poverty Index report (2019) prepared by the United Nations Development Program and Human Development Initiative, India has 364 million poor and destitute people — the largest for any country. The MPI monitors three key social indicators: health, education and living standards.

In an article published on the downtoearth.org.in website, its managing editor, Richard Mahapatra has reported that “because of lack of resources and social discrimination a chronic pattern of poverty has set in among India’s socially marginalised groups because of which close to 111 million people in India would remain poor forever.”

What is it that makes India the darling of the West and the Gulf countries, especially when its economic policies have been unable to transform growth into equitable and blanket development at home?

The answer lies in India’s foreign policy, which has primarily been prejudiced against any external intervention in its strategic interests. From opting to support the nonaligned movement to becoming the United States’ strategic partner to balance China’s rising power in the region, India’s policies provided a stable and profit-driven milieu to foreign investors. Nehru’s protectionist trade policies had been instrumental in establishing India’s industrial base, building upon which the future governments introduced market liberalisation reforms that internationally strengthened the competitiveness of the Indian economy. This trajectory gradually led India to become a member of 20 significant economies of the world.

The corporate world wags its tail where its economic interests are served best. Though India, since the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rule, has been using terror as a tool to marginalise minorities, its narrative on Kashmir being in the crosshairs of terrorism has sold like a hot cake. It is so because the cost (weighed in market value) to set aside India’s narrative is much higher for its economic partners to afford.

Power in the contemporary world is no more derived from nuclear preponderance. Instead, power is today the function of economic dominance. Failing to assess this shift has pushed us on a backfoot on the issue of Kashmir.

We need to focus on “development” and move on from whatever comes in the way, as also advised time and again by our best friend in the region — once when the UNSC designated JeM chief Masood Azhar as global terrorist. But because of the opaque policy structure of our security apparatus, one does not know how far this advice has been adhered to.

For all these years, Rawalpindi and not the Foreign Office has been handling Kashmir. Therefore, the buck ideally stops at the former. The nation Pakistan is not being heard when so much has been sacrificed in the name of Kashmir starting from 1948 to 1965 and 1999 —besides other intervening episodes.

There are three solutions to break this vicious circle: one, institutions need to be allowed to work independently and stopped being taken as employment exchanges for political purposes; and they should be staffed with trained professionals having clearly-defined performance targets. Two, both the government and the civil bureaucracy would have to redefine their relations within the power spectrum. Three, the undemocratic structure of the political parities would have to be dismantled in favour of a mature, reliable and deserving leadership. A parliamentary government system cannot be dynastic — it is a moral hazard that Pakistan needs to get rid of if we are genuinely looking at a corruption-free political milieu.

This long walk to freedom would require a clean and nationalist leadership — a breed not confined to temporary benefits for themselves or their party.

Let us hear our best friend, at least for a change!

Published in The Express Tribune, March 18^th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.