Hard outside, soft inside

Listen to article

In the previous two articles, I had identified strands connecting a grand design in continuum in how India has covered its vulnerabilities and carved space for itself to manifest rapid progress.

Despite inherent enmity, it helps to recognise and acknowledge India's progress in recent decades. India gained its 'liberty of action' — strategic term for critical space — over three decades from initiation as a thought to its realisation. India needed relative peace, political calm and a semblance of stability for the progress to follow. Continuing disaffection and rumbles in the north-east or east do not appear threatening if most other territories seem to progress smoothly in a stable sociopolitical environment.

Kashmir and Balochistan are two entirely different kettles of fish. Kashmir is an internationally recognised agenda point which needs to be settled between two countries under the ambit of an international system of dispute resolution.

Balochistan, or to be exact parts only, is an internal expression of dissatisfaction on matters of governance and fair representation — both valid. That makes it much easier for Pakistan to move internally towards resolving the underlying discontent.

Kashmiris uninhibitedly have raised their voice for freedom from under the illegal and forced occupation of India with one of the largest military presence per capita in a confined region.

In Balochistan, on the other hand, the leadership is patently Baloch, elected and answerable to a parliament of elected representatives. The increasingly educated, non-feudal, middle-class aspires for its own place in the sociopolitical milieu of Balochistan which has been overwhelming claimed by tribal and feudal chieftains. These are progressive trends in a society which must be given due recognition to replace regressive and anachronistic structures.

When the army chief recently mentioned the need to act hard as a state, it carried a hint of a strategy. Essentially, it was premised on immediate concerns. Pakistan has been lax with application of laws and constitutional provisions as exist in the statutes and generally permitted a laissez faire disposition in internal governance and to a large refugee presence from Afghanistan over four decades. Their slow assimilation in the local social economies of the country has disrupted the fabric of Pakistani nationhood and instituted widespread crime. They are also instrumental in assisting with terror sourced in Afghanistan. It is true that we have under misplaced notions of fraternity, political convenience and strategic apprehension been unnecessarily tolerant of such presence on our soil, but it is time for the state to act hard against such elements.

Should it though appear ruthless in trait? A 250 million nation, each with their own level of awareness and comprehension, needs deft and nuanced handling of its sentiment. A better approach for a nation with challenges as hard as face Pakistan on the outside and inside is to be 'hard from the outside but soft inside'.

'Soft inside' implies the need to be sympathetic to own people in addressing agitation and complaint. 'Hard on the outside' is hard borders, regulated movement of goods and people, eliminating threats with overwhelming force where needed. These include the khwarij and any other group that has taken up arms against the state and its people.

We cannot permit an active, kinetic threat to exist whether inside or out. Those citizens that are merely discontented and disaffected must be handled differently. Political and legal remedies can be readily resorted to inculcating a sense of care and fairness to enthuse stability and cohesion.

We need societal stability before it can translate into political stability. That will give us the urgently required liberty of action to translate into a surging economy and a connected and invested people. Good governance instills hope, retaining belief in the system. China stands out as a great example even if entirely undemocratic, though that is not what we must vie for. Instead, liberty of thought, expression and association informs the spirit of a nation which must be as permissible as material gain in society.

Wellness in the mind and material richness together make happier people. Constitutional provisions are clear on this aspect of nation-building and must not be lost sight of. Complaints and agitations are redressable and must be attended to, not put down with force. Internally, law deters while the state supplicates with development and dialogue to appease any sense of dissent and discord.

India resorted to numerous and parallel employment of political, legal, judicial, intelligence (Doval-ish) and military-force-centric options to bring about relative quietness to its western border with Pakistan. But for that to materialise it also pushed Pakistan to attend to its western borders away from the Indian border by instigating and triggering elements aimed at threatening integrity of Pakistan. For it she employed all forces short of formal war. That gave it the freedom from its north-western border, instead focusing on what would make India a more credible economy on the global scene. That has given India relevance and recognition.

For Pakistan this threat consumes our attention and resources. Mere supplications to enabling platforms in Afghanistan or the state of Afghanistan have not helped nor delivered. Nor will they deliver when a nation is willing to play a proxy and a nemesis both in pursuit of its odious agenda.

When decent, diplomatic entreaties fail, the only other resort is to eliminate through force what feels like a war even if undeclared. Of it there should be no doubt. It will have consequences but just like India, we must seek work-around using alternate and indirect options. India directed its attention and interest eastwards when it found itself embroiled for far too long on the west -— her first preference.

Central Asia can wait as a dream market till Afghanistan can be brought around to being a more cooperative cohort. Else we can and should go around Afghanistan through shaping environment and infrastructure that will enable such an undertaking. It will need all aspects of national power, just like India, to work with to create the possibility.

We cannot be tied inside as is currently the case but embark outwards in the region, enabling what will serve our strategic purpose. Dr Yunus, Bangladesh's Chief Executive, recently suggested China play its role in enabling a closer contiguity with Bangladesh by placating India's north-east in initiatives which could lead to strategic gain.

Pakistan desperately needs space to pursue its agenda on the internal front. She is just not winning the liberty to do so. All actions must therefore qualify to this end and where needed undertaken to ensure that this strategic end is delivered. Rest then will fall in place. That will need the state to be hard on the outside but soft inside - which is a far better expression of our collective intent.