Saturday, May 26, 2012

Credible mainstream Indo-Pak experts

There are a bunch of mainstream public figures (as well as journalists or diplomats) who I think all have mainstream credibility (I mean the common man) on either side of border. These are also what you would consider relatively less hawkish on Indo-Pak relations.

Pervez Hoodbhoy
My first pick is Pervez Hoodbhoy, a PhD from MIT and professor of Physics at Quaid i Azam University in Islamabad, and a voice against nuclear arms race, generally speaks out against Pakistan's support of terrorism.

Professor Hoodbhoy writes a lot, is an invited speaker at fora in the US and India, is a very respected researcher, and in my opinion holds a lot of credibility primarily due to his honesty in criticizing Pakistan (which of course the hawks in Pakistan don't like) as well as sincere push for Pakistan toeing the path of progress. YouTube carries a lot of videos, mostly talkshows in Pakistani television. There is a recent talkshow that he participated in with Mani Shankar Aiyar, hosted by Barkha Dutt.

G Parthasarathy

Parthasarathy is an IFS officer, has been a consul general at Karachi, and is considered somewhat of a 'hawk'.

Other than that, I know very little about G Parthasarathy and his views, mostly gained from his appearances on Indian television shows.

Parthasarathy is now a fellow at at least two think tanks.



Hassan Nisar

Hassan Nisar is a personal favourite.

Nisar is a long-time journalist, doesn't appear to mince his words in taking on the establishment in Pakistan, and is a frequent participant on television talk shows in Pakistan. He even appears on his own weekly show in Urdu called 'Meray Mutabiq'. 

Nisar's views are largely well known to the public, and he has fans from both countries. His father migrated to Lahore (or was it Lyallpur?) from Jalandhar, and Nisar's fondness for east Punjab is very apparent. When he breaks into Punjabi, it's really sounds wonderful..

I consider Nisar a 'dove' given his push for normalization of ties between the two countries, and prodding the Pakistani establishment to look inward to solve its problems instead of blaming outside 'forces'. Nisar is also for 'letting go' Kashmir so Pakistan can focus on bettering its existing citizenry.

You will find a lot of Hassan Nisar videos on YouTube, and they are usually very entertaining.

Mani Shankar Aiyar


Mani Shankar Aiyar is well known, a former IFS officer, consul general at Karachi, was on the East Pakistan desk (later the Bangladesh desk), and has been a cabinet minister in Congress governments.

It's tough to find someone with experience being both a diplomat and a politician. Although he was close to Rajiv Gandhi (who brought him into politics), he seems to have lost favour with the present Gandhi family.

Mani Shankar is a 'dove' and has good credibility in Pakistan. I'm not sure I agree with his views, but he's definitely an honest and experienced voice.

KC Singh


KC Singh is an experienced diplomat, most recently the secretary of the ministry of external affairs at retirement. KC Singh has never served in Pakistan, but has been ambassador to Iran, so definitely understands the regional dynamics well.

I've seen him appear on television talk shows recently, and like his observations and views.

I think he's neither a 'hawk' nor a 'dove' but lies somewhere inbetween which is wonderful from a 'credibility on both sides' perspective.

Najam Sethi


Najam Sethi is another of my favourites in Pakistan. He's a Punjabi, educated at Cambridge, has a lot of contacts in, and ground-level experience in India, and enjoys a lot of patronage from think tanks and organizations in the West, especially the US.

He appears in a weekly (?) television talk show on Geo TV in Pakistan, and his views and observations are usually well researched. Except when the discussion is on regional politics in Pakistan, his shows are very interesting to the average Indian audience.

Sethi appears occasionally on Indian talk shows and is very comfortable in Urdu as well as English.

He has run into rough weather with politicians in Pakistan in the past, adding to his credibility, but appears to be well connected ('najam sethi ki chidiya').

Siddharth Varadarajan


Siddharth Varadarajan has been a journalist for a long time, including during the Taliban era and the NATO war in Yugoslavia. He has taught at LSE (?) and Columbia University.

Most recently, Varadarajan became the editor of The Hindu (certainly better than N Ram). I've seen him in talk shows that included participants from both countries, and he did seem to come across as well informed.

Not sure how much of an expert he is on Pakistan..
Certainly has a good command over Urdu (and by that I mean, knows when to say 'dehshadgardi' instead of 'aatankvad').

Karan Thapar


This choice may be somewhat unusual. Karan Thapar is well known as tough interviewer. He has a PhD in international relations and has interviewed a host of biggies in international politics, from Kissinger to Benazir Bhutto.

Many know Thapar's early connection to Pakistan. Thapar was a friend of Benazir Bhutto since their Oxford days (or was it Cambridge?). Thapar wrote a famous obituary for Benazir when she was assassinated, in 2007.

Karan Thapar has focused on Pakistan a lot in his journalism career, and at one point even was a 'clandestine' intermediary between the Pakistan high commissioner Ashraf Qazi and LK Advani (then home minister in the NDA government). See Thapar's account of him being a facilitator of meetings between the two.

Karan Thapar is well connected in Pakistan and makes frequent trips there.

Mushahid Hussain

The last on my list is Mushahid Hussain, a school of foreign service graduate from Georgetown University, and cabinet minister in both Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf governments.

Mushahid was most recently the Pakistan Muslim League (N) candidate for president but he lost of Asif Ali Zardari.

Mushahid has been involved deeply in Indo-Pak relations at the government level, and I consider him to be somewhere between a 'dove' and a 'hawk'.  A well educated man who enjoys good credibility in India, he has appeared on television in India.

So, that was my list. These people aren't necessarily 'power centres', but hold credibility among the public in either country, most likely in both countries.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Why status quo with Pakistan on core issues is good

Image courtesy: pon.harvard.edu
I am a firm believer in normalizing India's ties with our neighbour across the northwest border. However, in the last 1-2 decades, the strategic positions of the two countries have changed so drastically that India has the opportunity of a lifetime to set right the diplomacy follies of the Nehru era.

Pakistan has successfully made Kashmir a core issue in diplomacy with India, amply aided by Nehru shooting himself in the foot over what the world would have considered a case of aggression by Pakistan. By taking the matter to the United Nations, some of India's position on Kashmir has been diluted. Still, the United Nations resolution on Kashmir is impractical, not only from India's perspective, but firstly from Pakistan's perspective since the resolution calls for Pakistan withdrawing troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir (including Gilgit, Baltistan (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)). Aksai Chin is of course a related, more tricky, matter to deal with.

During India's first Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Ministry of External Affairs is said to have had successfully negotiated a 'borderless Kashmir' with General Musharraf of Pakistan. While this may not appear to be a bad thing at face value, the unfolding of the war on terror in Af-Pak and Pakistan's increasingly solidifying pariah status in the world lead me to believe that this softening of the LoC border may have turned out to be a diplomatic blunder (partly in hindsight of course).
 
Now, for some context - the high voltage bilateral issues between India and Pakistan appear to be:

  1. Kashmir. Enough said.
  2. Water. Pakistan accuses India of building dams on the Indian side to stop water from reaching Pakistan. Some of the accusations (probably just the media talking heads) go to the extent of blaming India of engineering the recent floods in Pakistan. Many in Pakistan also believe that the water issue has a strong diplomatic framework in the form of the Indus Water Treaty (1970s) that has worked well for both countries.
  3. Terrorism. This has been India's concern, and thankfully the world has woken up to the danger that Pakistan presents to the region and beyond.
Maintenance of status quo has normally been to India's benefit. Whatever Kashmir resolution is arrived at would likely mean India giving up more than it can get. Hence, Pakistan has more incentive to bring India to the table, which I think India has successfully avoided in the recent past. Given that Pakistan's standing in the world has been on a downward spiral, and better support for India's position in general, it is in India's best interests to maintain the status quo while Pakistan weakens further (which is inevitable, in my opinion, over the next decade or two). A weaker Pakistan will have much less negotiation power at the table.

India is also doing the right thing by insisting on tangible action on terrorism as a pre-requisite for any negotiation on other outstanding issues. Here, Pakistan can make it a win-win situation, by rooting out terrorism emanating from its land, but this is easier said than done even if the Pakistan government wanted to do something about it.

The water issues, I think, is a non-issue with the diplomats raising the issue, if at all, only as a populist measure. 

India's 'involvement' in Balochistan flared up as an accusation by Pakistan at Sharm al Sheikh, but that seems to have died down despite Prime Minister Singh 'acknowledging' the issue in the joint press release.  


Trade may actually be an important conduit for India to help Pakistan while making its own negotiation power higher. Pakistan's agriculture, small scale, and other industries stand to benefit significantly by expansion of trade with India. India, on the other, will benefit no doubt, but being deprived of this trade will not cause any massive impact. Once Pakistan reciprocates and accords India the Most Favoured Nation status, I would expect Pakistan's economy's dependence on India to increase significantly. If this were to happen, the threat of suspension of trade ties by India would be an important tool in India's diplomatic arsenal.

Bottom line, India stands to gain by maintaining diplomatic status quo on the issues that Pakistan stands to gain by any sort of resolution being reached (while Pakistan is on its downward spiral). Enhancement of trade with Pakistan can make India's diplomatic position stronger, with the added benefit of a new market and cheaper agricultural products for northwest India.