Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • IP23018 | India and Pakistan: Prospects for Peace
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    IP23018 | India and Pakistan: Prospects for Peace
    Rajesh Basrur

    28 February 2023

    download pdf

    Overtures from both India and Pakistan raise the prospect of a fresh effort to find common ground. Is the time opportune for a peace deal? RAJESH BASRUR addresses this question through a systematic analysis.

     

    COMMENTARY

    Much of the attention given to South Asia’s strategic politics in recent years has been focused on the Himalayan confrontation between India and China. But there is growing interest in the possibility of an India-Pakistan détente, perhaps even a resolution of the intractable rivalry. The two states have a long history of conflict dating from the violent partition that tore them asunder in 1947 with repeated wars, recurrent crises, and persistent tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir. However, recent developments have raised the prospect of a breakthrough in India-Pakistan relations, with leaders on both sides expressing the hope of steering their troubled relationship in a new direction.

    What are the chances of a rapprochement? Intractable rivalries have sometimes been resolved. Notable instances include the prolonged Franco-German tussle over Alsace-Lorraine, which spanned the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) and two world wars, and, on a global scale, the Cold War. The latter was a particularly surprising reversal of what, even until the mid-1980s, was widely perceived as a conflict likely to stretch indefinitely into the future. In the aftermath of the sudden end of the Cold War, the eminent historian John Lewis Gaddis castigated the discipline of international relations for failing to anticipate it. The problem lay not so much in the discipline as in the failure of its practitioners to ask the right questions. Keeping Gaddis’s homily in mind, we might use a systematic analysis to try to gauge the prospects for an India-Pakistan understanding.

    IP23018
    The disputed region of Kashmir has been a persistent source of conflict between India and Pakistan. Yet, recent developments suggest new prospects for peace. Image from Unsplash.

    Material Sources of Change

    In the view of materialist analysts like Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, the Cold War ended because Soviet leaders, aware that their moribund state was unable to compete with the United States in both economic and military terms, threw in the towel. In like manner, the economic and military gap between India and Pakistan appears to be widening. The Indian economy has been called a “bright spot” in the global system, whereas Pakistan is struggling in the grip of debt and seeking international succour from friendly state donors as well as the International Monetary Fund. The gap is wide: India’s GDP stands at US$1.3 trillion, compared to Pakistan’s US$348.2 billion. The same applies to annual military expenditure: India’s current military spending of US$54.2 billion dwarfs Pakistan’s US$7.5 billion. Their two political systems reveal a similar asymmetry in terms of stability. Indian politics exhibits a strong populism that is relatively stable (though leaning towards majoritarianism and illiberal democracy, which are sources of weakness if they persist). In contrast, Pakistan is a “hybrid democracy” characterised by a dominant military and unstable civilian governments periodically buffeted by religious extremism and terrorist violence.

    But the material gap has its limits and it is unlikely that the Pakistani state will disintegrate. Past prognostications of its impending collapse have repeatedly been proved wrong. The military and the civil administration keep it going, while the international community, fearing the collapse of a nuclear power threatened by terrorist groups, has a strong stake in Pakistan’s stability. In this respect, it is unlikely that South Asia’s cold war will evaporate quickly like the Cold War, which really ended rapidly only because one of its chief contestants disintegrated. For India-Pakistan antagonism to dissipate, a different dynamic has to come into play.

    Ideational Drivers of Conflict and the Possibility of Change

    The usually identified source of deep antipathy between the two South Asian neighbours is identity. As numerous analysts note, the Kashmir conflict represents a clash of identities at heart. The partition of undivided India at the time of independence in 1947 was broadly carried out on the basis of religion, with compact Muslim-majority areas breaking away to create the new state of Pakistan, while the rest, including tens of millions of Muslims, remained in India. For India’s leaders, their state was the political overlay of a fundamentally secular, multi-religious society. For Pakistan, the state was a political organisation that represented the aspirations of the region’s Muslims. The Kashmir conflict came to symbolise this difference in identity conceptions. Both claimed ownership of this Muslim-majority region—whose Hindu ruler had acceded to India—as essentially underpinning their respective identities.

    Can such a deep-rooted identity problem be resolved? Certainly; Alsace-Lorraine is a good example. The territory changed hands between France and Germany several times because of war, finally ending up with France in 1945. War may have been the deciding factor then, but, more importantly, the territory ceased to be a bone of contention between the two over time. In South Asia, a compromise without war is not impossible. Back in the mid-2000s, India’s Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf came close to a breakthrough when they agreed to loosen the Line of Control, which officially divides the Indian and Pakistani-held portions of Kashmir, and permit the freer movement of people and goods from one side to the other. In short, identity is not something written in stone.

    A second ideational factor that can come into play is the emergence of new ways of thinking about old relationships. The Singh-Musharraf attempt to build bridges resembled the more radical approach adopted by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev initiated “new thinking” and the broader “restructuring” (perestroika) that, applied to both the international and domestic dimensions, produced a dramatic revision of Russia’s world view. Driven similarly by new thinking, the United States responded with alacrity. US policymakers had begun to realise that continuing the arms race with a declining Russia was an unnecessary economic burden at a time when the United States was facing economic competition from Japan and the Asian “Tigers”, which had been free riding successfully on Washington’s Cold War accommodation of its allies. For Singh and Musharraf, the cost issue was both political and economic. Military crises in 1999 and 2001–2002 brought home the high risk that nuclear-armed states face when they engage in military confrontation. Both knew that a military solution was out of the question. In addition, a combative relationship could seriously inhibit foreign investment. Thinking of this kind still applies today. Neither side wants to be too close to the military precipice. And for all its economic advantages, India cannot afford to risk antagonising investors, as it has discovered with the crisis in the Adani conglomerate’s fortunes.

    Leadership and Domestic Politics

    A critically important factor that led to the ending of the Cold War was the role of the two men at the helm. Both Gorbachev and Reagan were charismatic leaders whose innovative mindsets allowed them to step out on a political limb and essay a conceptual leap into unknown territory. Both wanted to rearrange the basic framework of their nations’ relationship along more relaxed lines and came close to doing so at the Reykjavik summit in 1986 till the process ran aground on the sandbar of missile defence. In South Asia, Narendra Modi, a strong personality, made an early effort to build bridges with Pakistan as well as other neighbours. Imran Khan on more than one occasion seemed to reciprocate. His successor, Shehbaz Sharif, has called for negotiations as well. So the prospects for cutting, or at least gradually loosening, the Gordian knot are not inconsiderable.

    The key factor that determines the potential for leaders to succeed in pursuing transformative foreign policy changes is domestic politics. On the Indian side, Modi is an unchallenged leader who, other things apart, should be able to stave off nationalist criticism, especially since he has obtained a firm grip on the nationalism card. Yet, he too must tread carefully to avoid a crescendo of domestic opposition, so a breakthrough can only be achieved through a step-by-step effort. On the other side, the tripolar turmoil in Pakistani politics involving the two rival political leaders, Khan and Sharif, and the military is problematic. Each of the three parties has historically faced stiff internal opposition and accusations of betrayal when attempting a peace deal with India. A fourth element—the religious right—stands in the background, watched closely by violent extremist groups who are ever-ready to exploit the opportunity and shape the situation to their advantage.

    The current situation, then, is not one that offers much room for optimism. India is in a somewhat stronger position to attempt a transformation in the relationship because it has a strong and stable leadership, but it will do so only if Pakistan agrees to rein in jihadi groups bent on attacking Indian targets. In contrast, the leadership in Islamabad is splintered and its components are not in a position to make concessions that could place them out on a limb. Eventually, it is the nature of domestic politics rather than differences in power distribution or identity that will be the deciding factor for peace between both countries. And therein lies the rub.

     

    Rajesh BASRUR is a Senior Fellow in the South Asia Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

    Categories: IDSS Papers / Conflict and Stability / South Asia

    Overtures from both India and Pakistan raise the prospect of a fresh effort to find common ground. Is the time opportune for a peace deal? RAJESH BASRUR addresses this question through a systematic analysis.

     

    COMMENTARY

    Much of the attention given to South Asia’s strategic politics in recent years has been focused on the Himalayan confrontation between India and China. But there is growing interest in the possibility of an India-Pakistan détente, perhaps even a resolution of the intractable rivalry. The two states have a long history of conflict dating from the violent partition that tore them asunder in 1947 with repeated wars, recurrent crises, and persistent tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir. However, recent developments have raised the prospect of a breakthrough in India-Pakistan relations, with leaders on both sides expressing the hope of steering their troubled relationship in a new direction.

    What are the chances of a rapprochement? Intractable rivalries have sometimes been resolved. Notable instances include the prolonged Franco-German tussle over Alsace-Lorraine, which spanned the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) and two world wars, and, on a global scale, the Cold War. The latter was a particularly surprising reversal of what, even until the mid-1980s, was widely perceived as a conflict likely to stretch indefinitely into the future. In the aftermath of the sudden end of the Cold War, the eminent historian John Lewis Gaddis castigated the discipline of international relations for failing to anticipate it. The problem lay not so much in the discipline as in the failure of its practitioners to ask the right questions. Keeping Gaddis’s homily in mind, we might use a systematic analysis to try to gauge the prospects for an India-Pakistan understanding.

    IP23018
    The disputed region of Kashmir has been a persistent source of conflict between India and Pakistan. Yet, recent developments suggest new prospects for peace. Image from Unsplash.

    Material Sources of Change

    In the view of materialist analysts like Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, the Cold War ended because Soviet leaders, aware that their moribund state was unable to compete with the United States in both economic and military terms, threw in the towel. In like manner, the economic and military gap between India and Pakistan appears to be widening. The Indian economy has been called a “bright spot” in the global system, whereas Pakistan is struggling in the grip of debt and seeking international succour from friendly state donors as well as the International Monetary Fund. The gap is wide: India’s GDP stands at US$1.3 trillion, compared to Pakistan’s US$348.2 billion. The same applies to annual military expenditure: India’s current military spending of US$54.2 billion dwarfs Pakistan’s US$7.5 billion. Their two political systems reveal a similar asymmetry in terms of stability. Indian politics exhibits a strong populism that is relatively stable (though leaning towards majoritarianism and illiberal democracy, which are sources of weakness if they persist). In contrast, Pakistan is a “hybrid democracy” characterised by a dominant military and unstable civilian governments periodically buffeted by religious extremism and terrorist violence.

    But the material gap has its limits and it is unlikely that the Pakistani state will disintegrate. Past prognostications of its impending collapse have repeatedly been proved wrong. The military and the civil administration keep it going, while the international community, fearing the collapse of a nuclear power threatened by terrorist groups, has a strong stake in Pakistan’s stability. In this respect, it is unlikely that South Asia’s cold war will evaporate quickly like the Cold War, which really ended rapidly only because one of its chief contestants disintegrated. For India-Pakistan antagonism to dissipate, a different dynamic has to come into play.

    Ideational Drivers of Conflict and the Possibility of Change

    The usually identified source of deep antipathy between the two South Asian neighbours is identity. As numerous analysts note, the Kashmir conflict represents a clash of identities at heart. The partition of undivided India at the time of independence in 1947 was broadly carried out on the basis of religion, with compact Muslim-majority areas breaking away to create the new state of Pakistan, while the rest, including tens of millions of Muslims, remained in India. For India’s leaders, their state was the political overlay of a fundamentally secular, multi-religious society. For Pakistan, the state was a political organisation that represented the aspirations of the region’s Muslims. The Kashmir conflict came to symbolise this difference in identity conceptions. Both claimed ownership of this Muslim-majority region—whose Hindu ruler had acceded to India—as essentially underpinning their respective identities.

    Can such a deep-rooted identity problem be resolved? Certainly; Alsace-Lorraine is a good example. The territory changed hands between France and Germany several times because of war, finally ending up with France in 1945. War may have been the deciding factor then, but, more importantly, the territory ceased to be a bone of contention between the two over time. In South Asia, a compromise without war is not impossible. Back in the mid-2000s, India’s Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf came close to a breakthrough when they agreed to loosen the Line of Control, which officially divides the Indian and Pakistani-held portions of Kashmir, and permit the freer movement of people and goods from one side to the other. In short, identity is not something written in stone.

    A second ideational factor that can come into play is the emergence of new ways of thinking about old relationships. The Singh-Musharraf attempt to build bridges resembled the more radical approach adopted by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev initiated “new thinking” and the broader “restructuring” (perestroika) that, applied to both the international and domestic dimensions, produced a dramatic revision of Russia’s world view. Driven similarly by new thinking, the United States responded with alacrity. US policymakers had begun to realise that continuing the arms race with a declining Russia was an unnecessary economic burden at a time when the United States was facing economic competition from Japan and the Asian “Tigers”, which had been free riding successfully on Washington’s Cold War accommodation of its allies. For Singh and Musharraf, the cost issue was both political and economic. Military crises in 1999 and 2001–2002 brought home the high risk that nuclear-armed states face when they engage in military confrontation. Both knew that a military solution was out of the question. In addition, a combative relationship could seriously inhibit foreign investment. Thinking of this kind still applies today. Neither side wants to be too close to the military precipice. And for all its economic advantages, India cannot afford to risk antagonising investors, as it has discovered with the crisis in the Adani conglomerate’s fortunes.

    Leadership and Domestic Politics

    A critically important factor that led to the ending of the Cold War was the role of the two men at the helm. Both Gorbachev and Reagan were charismatic leaders whose innovative mindsets allowed them to step out on a political limb and essay a conceptual leap into unknown territory. Both wanted to rearrange the basic framework of their nations’ relationship along more relaxed lines and came close to doing so at the Reykjavik summit in 1986 till the process ran aground on the sandbar of missile defence. In South Asia, Narendra Modi, a strong personality, made an early effort to build bridges with Pakistan as well as other neighbours. Imran Khan on more than one occasion seemed to reciprocate. His successor, Shehbaz Sharif, has called for negotiations as well. So the prospects for cutting, or at least gradually loosening, the Gordian knot are not inconsiderable.

    The key factor that determines the potential for leaders to succeed in pursuing transformative foreign policy changes is domestic politics. On the Indian side, Modi is an unchallenged leader who, other things apart, should be able to stave off nationalist criticism, especially since he has obtained a firm grip on the nationalism card. Yet, he too must tread carefully to avoid a crescendo of domestic opposition, so a breakthrough can only be achieved through a step-by-step effort. On the other side, the tripolar turmoil in Pakistani politics involving the two rival political leaders, Khan and Sharif, and the military is problematic. Each of the three parties has historically faced stiff internal opposition and accusations of betrayal when attempting a peace deal with India. A fourth element—the religious right—stands in the background, watched closely by violent extremist groups who are ever-ready to exploit the opportunity and shape the situation to their advantage.

    The current situation, then, is not one that offers much room for optimism. India is in a somewhat stronger position to attempt a transformation in the relationship because it has a strong and stable leadership, but it will do so only if Pakistan agrees to rein in jihadi groups bent on attacking Indian targets. In contrast, the leadership in Islamabad is splintered and its components are not in a position to make concessions that could place them out on a limb. Eventually, it is the nature of domestic politics rather than differences in power distribution or identity that will be the deciding factor for peace between both countries. And therein lies the rub.

     

    Rajesh BASRUR is a Senior Fellow in the South Asia Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

    Categories: IDSS Papers / Conflict and Stability

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info