Conflict in South Asia and India options

 Conflict in South Asia and India options

1. When India was born as a free nation, it also inherited a new neighbouring country that became its perpetual enemy. With Pakistan, India has had at least five recognised armed conflicts. The first was the Kashmir invasion by irregulars supported by the newly formed Pakistani state. The second was the 1965 war. The third was the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Thereafter, we had the Kargil crisis (the fourth), which was nothing short of a war, although it was not fought on all fronts. More recently, we also had Operation Sindhur 1.0. According to the press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence of India, Operation Sindhur 1.0 is not over. It has only been kept in abeyance at the request of Pakistan. Pakistan claimed that it was the prodding by Mr. Donald Trump that compelled India to accept a cessation of hostilities between the two countries. India, on the other hand, maintains that it was Pakistan that wanted a ceasefire. Acceptance of the Pakistan proposal was a purely bilateral decision. Even now, Pakistan blames India for all the internal problems that it suffers politically, such as the crisis in Balochistan, the precarious situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the present unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. India is accused of fomenting these troubles. With respect to the crisis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan attributes its difficulties to Afghanistan, which, again according to Pakistan, is an Indian inspired occurrence. Thus, India and Pakistan remain in a situation of perpetual conflict.

2. India-Pakistan Trade Relations
India's MFN treatment under GATT is also relevant in this context. For whatever reason, Pakistan decided that it did not want any trade with India. In fact, this affected the Pakistani people more severely than it affected the Indian community. Earlier, many Pakistani cricketers and actors used to earn substantial amounts of money by playing and participating in the Indian Premier League. Pakistan chose to deny itself access to the lucrative north Indian market, for its agriculture products, cement and sports goods, where they would enjoyed a big cost advantage. Pakistan has declared that there would be no trade with India, unless the ‘status quo ante’ is not restored.
However, when India revoked the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir by abolishing Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, Pakistan stated that it would hold talks only after India withdrew the revocation of Article 370 and placed the resolution of the Kashmir issue at the top of the agenda. On the other hand, India insisted that there could be meaningful talks only if Pakistan renounced cross-border terrorism and conducted negotiations in accordance with the Shimla Pact entered into between Mrs Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after the Bangladesh Liberation War. In fact, now it insists that talks should be about the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Gilgit, and Pultistan. The residents of these areas are extremely unhappy with Pakistan, and now they want azadi from Punjab-Pakistan.
After India kept the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, Pakistan renounced its obligations under the Shimla Pact. It is Pakistan's case that the Kashmir dispute must be decided in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council. The resolution was not passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with the peaceful settlement of disputes. The resolution was not an enforcement or peacekeeping measure. It is argued that the resolution was only a recommendation and not a UN enforcement measure for world peace. Therefore, it will not strictly have the binding force of an enforceable decision under the UN Charter.
Pakistan claims that it has won all the conflicts with its neighbour, India. The reality and the consequences following the armed conflicts show that Pakistan is wide of the mark. At best, it is trying hard to make the rest of the world believe that it has a stronger military than India, merely because it's been under military rule for a long time. India, with all its imperfections and minor aberrations, is a truly democratic state despite suffering centuries of alien rulers.
Pakistan does not lose any opportunity to flaunt its nuclear weapons.
Pakistan is unable to appreciate that no country today can use nuclear weapons and escape the consequences. The former US Secretary, Mr. Robert Mc Namara, who subsequently became Chairman of the World Bank, came up with the MAD doctrine Mutually Assured Destruction in the event of a first nuclear strike by any adversary. This doctrine holds good for all nuclear weapon states today.
The MAD theory is followed by almost all the nuclear powers in the world, and they have committed themselves to policies concerning the no first use of nuclear weapons. Hence, the biggest weapon that Pakistan possesses today can never realistically be used in a conventional battle situation. If it is used, it would ensure the obliteration of Pakistan from the world map. So, Pakistan knows very well what it can or cannot do.

3. India-China Relations
India is also involved in a major border dispute with China. In 1962, China, after its failed attempts to establish lasting peace with India under the leadership of Prime Minister Nehru, went to war with India. Only the armies fought the war. The air forces and the Navies of the respective countries did not participate in the war. India had to relinquish control of about 20,000 square kilometres of land in the Himalayas, particularly the Aksai Chin region. It still has unresolved disputes in the eastern sector adjoining the Northeast. People attribute the current unrest in Manipur to the continued presence of Chinese interests in the northeastern region. In Galwan, there was a physical military conflict using force. It may not have been an armed conflict in the conventional sense of the term. Nevertheless, there was a serious confrontation, and more than 20 Indian soldiers lost their lives. It is believed that China lost more soldiers in the conflict. Although the combatants did not use bullets, guns, cannons, aircraft, or bombs, they fought using wooden sticks reinforced with iron pipes. The level of ferocity was not less.
India made public its casualty figures. China has not officially acknowledged the loss of Chinese lives in the conflict. Thereafter, there have been continuous rounds of discussions between the militaries of China and India. A fragile peace prevails today along the Sino-Indian border. Chinese side prefers a settlement sector/ bisector. They describe it as an ‘early harvest '. India wants a full, complete, comprehensive settlement instead of sectoral resolution.
We cannot say that India and China are best friends. Nevertheless, the trade between India and China today is around 200 billion dollars. It will only be a matter of time before trade between these countries improves their mutual trade Even more. China, unlike Pakistan, treats India as a full member of the WTO and desires more of its investments in India. Pakistan, on the other hand, has declared in the past that it would use the ‘security exception’ of the GATT to deny India most-favoured-nation treatment. Under the WTO trade regime.
Notwithstanding the denial of most-favoured-nation treatment by Pakistan, India, for some time, unilaterally and as a gesture of goodwill, granted Pakistan most-favoured-nation treatment. However, after a point, India thought that it would be better off by ignoring Pakistan altogether. Hence, it has unilaterally renounced any kind of trade, economic, or political relations with Pakistan. For India to resume trade with Pakistan, three conditions must be met. First, Pakistan should vacate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including Gilgit-Baltistan. Second, Pakistan should renounce terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Third, Pakistan should grant India similar privileges that it grants to other neighbouring countries. Pakistan is unwilling to accept any of these terms. None of these expectations Pakistan is not prepared to meet. Hence, the state of hostility between the two states is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the relationship between India and China has not deteriorated to the same extent as the Indo-Pakistani relationship.

4. INDIA AND ITS OTHER NEIGHBOURS
India, despite being a net aid giver to countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives, has generally been perceived as a regional hegemon. Each of these three countries now claims that they will resist Indian hegemonic ambitions. Thus, India is not particularly in a win-win situation when it comes to managing its relations with its neighbours. All these factors have not prevented India's economic growth. In the last 20 years, India has continuously been able to bring more people above the poverty line. More people have moved above the poverty line. Still India has a huge population that lives below the poverty line. But all have food security and many of the constituencies have several welfare measures for their poor and downtrodden. India's position in terms of its economy has improved. It today figures among the top five global economies.
At the time of Indian independence, its rank in the global economic order was much lower. India did not have an industry to boast about. British imperialism kept India poor and unindustrialised. Britain portrayed that Indian population could not govern itself meaningfully or sustain a democratic system of government. Even at the time of granting independence to India, Britain believed that the breakup of India was merely a question of time because India had many internal contradictions.
Soon after independence, Pakistan became a member of a US-led military alliance. As a result, Pakistan was able to obtain state-of-the-art weapons and pursued armed conflicts with India because of the belief that one Muslim soldier would be more than equal to five Hindu soldiers. However, Pakistan forgot that the Indian armed forces comprise not only of Hindus but also Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and, occasionally, Jews.
Today, India is much stronger than Pakistan, not only in terms of political governance but also in terms of military and economic strength. Unless Pakistan is determined to commit military suicide, it cannot realistically engage in a meaningful war with India in which it can use its so-called nuclear assets and escape the consequences. In view of this, the fragile peace in the subcontinent is likely to prevail. But India should reconsider its existing politics in their relations with Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. All these countries cannot count on the free launches from India perpetually. it has to be either on a reciprocal or arm's-length basis.

5. WTO AND GLOBAL TRADE, MR. TRUMP'S IMPACT.
The WTO formally came into existence in 1995. The WTO correctly recognised that increased global trade can accelerate the development of countries that are otherwise known as less-developed or developing countries. It further recognised that global trade must be conducted on ‘the basis of competitive cost advantages’. The WTO felt that the concept of most-favoured-nation treatment must be followed in both letter and spirit. However, GATT itself contained several permissible exceptions to the concept of MFN. Free Trade agreements can constitute an exception to most-favoured-nation treatment. MFN requires equality of treatment to all its members in trade-related matters.
After Trump became President of the United states, he openly declared that he would reverse some of the important decisions of previous Democratic governments, particularly the free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. The Trump administration also believed that many European countries were taking advantage of America economically because, while America spends a substantial amount of money on development and the procurement of military equipment and maintaining expensive armed forces, Europe had not been spending a proportionate amount of its GDP to ensure the defence of Europe.
America justifiably believed that Europe had been depending on the United states for ensuring peace against its communist enemy, the USSR, now known as Russia. Hence, he compelled the European nations to spend more money on the defence of Europe. Many European countries have now woken up and realised that America is not going to subsidise peace in Europe by continuing to be the most active and generous member of NATO.
Trump also chose to impose tariffs on Europe. Instead of the WTO model, which granted equal access to the markets of member countries, Mr. Trump believed in individual free trade agreements with respective countries or blocs of countries. He said that he would impose tariffs on all goods entering the US market. He further declared that the rate of tariffs would depend upon how other countries were disposed towards the United states in terms of their military and economic alignments. He tried to arm-twist China and imposed 50% tariffs on Chinese goods, but the Chinese responded very promptly. Sanctioned rare Earth magnets and Mr Donald Trump had to withdraw the tariffs swiftly.
Recently, the U.S. Senate has passed the Lindsey-Graham Bill. It is yet to receive the approval of the House of Representatives. But one can be sure that the House of Representatives is not going to rub Mr. Donald Trump on the wrong side. It is only a question of time before the United states imposes 100% tariffs on both China and India because of their trade with Iran and Russia, respectively. If this happens, exports from China and India to the United States will substantially come down because the goods from these countries will become far more expensive than goods produced in other countries. There are quite a few alternate sources from which US  can progure what it did in the past from China and India.
There are many countries in the world that are willing to occupy the space that will be vacated because of the U.S. tariffs. So, the United states has inevitably become the Maharaja of Tariffs!!
One will appreciate that the present U.S. administration has declared India to be the “Maharaja of Tariffs,” which, in a way, is true. The United States has also imposed more than 100% taxes on imports of alcohol and automobiles manufactured abroad. India has reduced these tariffs.
Recently, India has entered into free trade agreements with the USA, Australia, the UAE, New Zealand, ASEAN countries, and several other Asian countries. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that the ability of the WTO to influence global trade to a significant extent will be directly proportional to the ability of the United States of America to enter into individual trade agreements with members of the WTO, thereby bypassing the common trade regime contemplated by the WTO. It is in this scenario that BRICS & SCO acquire additional significance. These countries would push for future Reform of global monetary policies that would see the creation of globally acceptable additional basket currencies that would prevent the weaponisation of the dollar, which is the only major Global currency in the world today. USA has already declared that it will do its best to protect dollar primacy for global trade. Global change is a slower process than national change. It happens silently. It will take a longer time for the people to feel the effect of global change. Will the existing international institutions be adept enough to evolve new tools to keep their 11th in international relations? Only time alone can answer!