India Uncut

A few days ago, I had linked to a piece by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in which he had written that "[s]ome hawkishness ... is about a lack of a certain kind of courage". Well, Nitin Pai responds to that, and many of the points raised by Mehta, here and here. In the second of these posts, Pai writes:

Trust, Mr Mehta argues, is beside the point for three reasons: because India has given nothing away, because the peace process is not incompatible with a tough line on security; and because the situation on the ground today gives India reason to think it can do business.

Each of these arguments sounds reasonable enough, but ignores the dynamics of the peace process. One of the key elements of that dynamic, relevant in this context, is the asymmetry in the costliness of reversing any move. That asymmetry is loaded in favour of Pakistan. Being a status quo power, India can only concede ‘real ground’ to move the process forward while Pakistan just has to concede its ‘claims’. In reverse, India can take back what it has already conceded only if Pakistan is willing to let go.

I am still on Mehta's side on this one. India-Pakistan relations are not just the zero-sum squabbling over territory, but the possibility of mutually beneficial progress in trade, which excites me much more. (My earlier posts on this subject are here and here.) India and Pakistan are third-world neighbours struggling towards a more prosperous future, and friendly relations will help both progress.

Note, though, that I am not recommending we let our guard down or make concessions that hurt us. The possible pull-back from Siachen, which Nitin characterises as a concession, does not harm us at all: as Ajai Shukla points out here, "Siachen has little strategic value" and "is a drain in terms of money and sheer military effort". It represents a negative-sum game, and one that is pointless to continue.