India and Pakistan: Differing Security Perceptions

Abstract

The two fragments into which Britain, before its withdrawal from the subcontinent, had split the Indian Empire, carried with them a legacy of mutual distrust. This could not but influence the course of subsequent events in the sub-continent. So have the attitudes of the erstwhile colonial and other powers towards the new states in the light of their respective regional interests. In the comparatively short period of thirty-seven years, short in the life of nations, the two states have been involved in hostilities on three occasions, not counting Pakistan's attack on India in the Kutch sector in April 1965. Time no doubt is a great healer but it takes same time for deep wounds to heal. The healing process would be aided and succeed only if the governments of both countries are convinced that not mutual hostility but at least co-existence, if not mutual amity, is good for both countries and strive to create conditions for peaceful co-existence. If only one side is anxious to maintain peace and the other wishes to maintain tension, the latter will prevail. Public opinion in the two countries, if mobilised far promoting coexistence rather than confrontation, would help. In democratic countries, at least in theory, public opinion is a force to reckon with and no government can for long afford to disregard public opinion. The media, again in theory, reflects public opinion and serves to consolidate and strengthen it, in the process compelling the government of the day to consider carefully the issues raised. In practice, however, governments, even in “liberal” democracies can influence prominent segments of the media to project issues in the manner desired by the former, i.e., the media can and regrettably are being used to misinform the public at home and abroad- Even so, in democracies, ultimately, governmental efforts not withstanding, at least some sections of the media discover facts and fearlessly expose governments' earlier efforts to misinform the public. This is the inherent strength of democracies. In dictatorships this is diffcult. But there are dictatorships and dictatorships! In Pakistan, for example, by all accounts the government of General Zia ul Haq, in its own way, has managed to secure tolerance if not the enthusiastic support of a majority of urban middle and lower middle classes for the martial law regime. A. section—even a large section—of politically conscious urban and rural groups are totally unreconciled to rule by generals for a number of reasons. Another section of the same strata of Pakistani society again for its own reasons, supports the regime. Thus General Zia is secure, provided he continues, with the dexterity he has so amply demonstrated during eight eventful years, to steer his country on a “least risk” course, and there is a good chance of preserving peace, precarious though it may be, in the sub-continent.