By linear logic, the India-Pak military crisis of September 18 was significantly eased mainly due to the nuclear deterrence between the two countries. The contention of this piece is that the $46 billion mega China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project with China's assistance could be an additional potent factor acting as 'economic deterrent' that forced circumspection and restraint on the war-mongering Indian leadership.
This is not the first time that tensions between India and Pakistan have peaked and then subsided. Every time in a past crisis the threat of nuclear conflagration seemed real. While nuclear weapons create a balance of terror and impose extreme caution, in the case of the Uri crisis the role of China as a neighbour of India as well of Pakistan through mega project of CPEC cannot be ignored. For, the CPEC envisions regional connectivity and spurring of trade, business investment and development across 56 countries.
Anecdotally, it was said that where caravans moved across the borders the armies generally did not. The CPEC is going to be a busy commercial thoroughfare for trade and goods, energy and industrial developments and has to still go a long way (2025) in yielding dividends. Yet, notwithstanding the existential problems the Sino-Pak commitment to consummate the plan is profound.
Interestingly, Sino-Indian trade amounts to about $70 billion and is likely to rise further in the years ahead. China and India are nuclear armed neighbours and rising powers; given their huge population, these countries need investment, energy trade and access to resources; both have ambition to earn a respectable place under the sun; both are eager to invest and trade outside; and both are desirous to match their hard power with soft power. In this, China has far excelled the Indian Hindu rate of growth with its dragon economy.
Sino-India northern border is quiescent for quite some time as both have decided to place the border dispute on backburner as they trade and interact economically. While India is a democracy, albeit fumbling and faulty one, China is an efficient one-party communist state with a dragon economy and having global aspirations. OBOR is a project conceived, linking many continents of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The CPEC leg forms part of South Asia. India has none of the kind of global projects of aid, trade or connectivity to match the Chinese.
China flexes its military muscles in East Asia and the South China Sea, and India is extending its hegemonic footprint in South Asia, including Afghanistan, viewing it as an 'extended neighbour.' In fact, China and India are geo-political competitors while being engaged in conflict-co-operation mode. This precludes any provocative action or activities by either side to safeguard its economic interests.
The same holds true for China-US relations despite prevailing distrust. In fact, most of the Western and other world economies are dependent upon a politically and economically stable China. During the 1998 global recession it was China that took care of the world economic health. Any major conflict in East Asia or Indo-Pak subcontinent will severely damage interests of the US, China and India. China's economy rocketed in the last two decades.
Does this make India and China rivals prone to physical conflict. A question arises: why India reacted so belligerently in the recent crisis. Was it to appease domestic demands, divert attention from its repressive policies in Kashmir or to cow down Pakistan and advertise it as a "terrorist state" beset with own problems. At one point PM Modi boasted that while India was 'exporting software Pakistan was exporting terrorism.'
Apart from Modi's jingoistic rhetoric, the Indian military planners must have had second thoughts about launching any surgical strikes against Pakistan as threatened. Unlike politicians, militaries generally act rationally especially when nuclear-armed. Indian public and social media went hysterical and urged punitive action against Pakistan to 'teach a lesson' but the Indian leadership backed out. Both India and Pakistani militaries are professional and military planners are averse to indulge in physical conflicts - if there are other choices available.
India, on its part, was able to divert somewhat world attention from atrocities in Kashmir, convey to its public a hard line stance. Moreover, Pakistan's PM Nawaz Sharif's address in UNGA the Indian atrocities were highlighted effectively - although it is too early to say whether India will be pressurised by world community on the Kashmir issue. Big nations see India as a large trading, business and investment partner, together with as an ally against terrorism and a counterweight against China as a Third World democracy.
India may not be happy over CPEC plan as it passes through 'disputed' territory of Gilgit-Baltistan. Further in its view, it brings in the Chinese factor with economic and potential strategic influence in South Asia and perhaps could entice other nations such as Iran and may be Afghanistan too in the CPEC project.
At least for now, India in a fit of strategic envy may like to act as a spoiler, though, if and when CPEC endeavour consummates, it may have afterthoughts and may be tempted to join it. Iran has too expressed interest and Afghanistan may too decide to join the bandwagon.
However this does not stop India from creating hurdles, given the embedded distrust with Pakistan. Given the historical baggage, BJP government might keep on stoking foreign intervention in Balochistan in collusion with Afghanistan and divert attention from the Kashmir issue. It may employ sabotage, subterfuge and destabilisation to impede CPEC progress and exacerbate socio-economic provincial and religious differences in Karachi, Balochistan and G-B.
When Modi government threatens to 'isolate' Pakistan by walking out of Indus Basin Treaty it is resorting to 'hybrid warfare' - the latest version of unconventional, irregular warfare, propaganda, sabotage, subversion, terrorism, deepening internal fractures, cyber attacks, economic sanctions and strangulation and disinformation. These stratagems are meant to 'isolate' Pakistan by painting it as a 'terrorist' or 'rogue state.'
In other words, the intent would be to corrode and erode the country through internal hemorrhage rather than outright military invasion. On this it is helped by its soft power, democracy, technology, diaspora, IT and education, and size of middle class market.
Pakistan remains vulnerable due to sins of omission and commission by past government. Of late, there is palpable progress against extremism and terrorism. As a counter- strategy Pakistan has realized that military is only one arm of comprehensive national security: presently the armed forces are overburdened with multi-front tasks.
Robust economy, national unity, civil military harmony, inter-provincial accords, good governance and normalisation with neighbours, building of soft power are important defensive mechanism to ward off any internal or external designs.
Country's domestic and foreign policies need realistic, visionary and merit-based leaders who reflect real national interests. Creditably, the menace of militancy and terrorism has been adequately controlled by the armed forces; now the civil leadership has to pick up the gauntlet and work hard on improving the socio-economic landscape. In the age of geo-economics, the Cold War paradigms are now getting redundant: both India and Pakistan need to realise this shift.