The recent flap about the news that India is rehabilitating and upgrading an air base in Tajikistan concentrated minds briefly on the growing strategic threat to Pakistan.
Although the Tajik government has denied that the agreement with India is aimed at Pakistan, the presence of Indian air force and army personnel at Farkhor has rung alarm bells at GHQ. In fact, these bells have been ringing for quite some time. Consider the following:
* The agreement between India and Israel to procure Phalcon AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System) aircraft. Apart from the massive force-multiplication effect this system provides, it is significant that Washington has approved the deal when it had earlier put its foot down on a similar sale to China. Pakistan has threatened to buy equivalent aircraft, but the fact is that apart from the US, Israel and Russia, nobody else manufactures them.
* India is committed to spend $250 million in Afghanistan on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. This kind of money buys a lot of influence in Kabul, specially when the Karzai government is suspicious of Pakistani intentions and routinely accuses it of giving aid and shelter to the Taliban who continue to launch attacks in the border areas from sanctuaries located on Pakistani soil.
* Iran has signed an agreement with India giving its navy the use of its port at Bander Abbas in case of war with Pakistan.
* India currently has a $10 billion arms acquisition programme under which it is procuring, among other items, a Russian aircraft carrier with up to 66 Mig-29 fighters; 50 SU-30 fighters; three guided missile frigates; and 200 cruise missiles. Many other items are on the Indian shopping list.
* Our neighbour is building a satellite with a 2.5 meter resolution. Equipment for this spy satellite will be procured from Israel.
* China and India held an unprecedented joint naval exercise recently.
More alarming than these specific items and agreements and the growing strategic imbalance these imply for Pakistan is the increasing isolation we face today. Traditional friends and allies like Iran and China are rapidly improving ties with India, and despite the soothing words that follow these steps, the fact is that many of these developments have been to our detriment. Our generals' pipedreams of 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan and Central Asia went up in smoke long ago.
A major reason for the Soviet Union's collapse is that at the end of the day, it simply could not match American developments and spending on defence. Its inefficient economy finally collapsed under the pressure of generating the funds necessary for the Soviets to match the Pentagon's massive and continuing outlays. In short, the USSR was out-spent by its superpower rival.
Before 9/11, there was genuine and well-founded concern that Pakistan would default on its international obligations, but thanks to the infusion of dollars that followed the attacks on the Twin Towers, the economy is afloat again, if scarcely buoyant. However, the impressive speed at which the Indian economy is expanding means that our neighbour will be able to easily out-spend us well into the foreseeable future.
And it is not just the size of the Indian economy that is growing; its composition is also changing. Investment in high-tech fields is providing a major boost: according to Arun Shourie, the Indian minister for disinvestment, 100 of the Fortune 500 companies now have R & D operations in India. Not one of them has invested in research in Pakistan. In a speech made last year, he also informed his audience that Rover of Britain had entered into an agreement to market 100,000 Indian cars manufactured by Tata under its label in Europe.
These random snippets of information are not intended to cause alarm and despondency. The idea is to show the direction our neighbour is heading, and to point out a simple fact: Pakistan simply cannot compete with India in the arena of economics. From this flows the obvious conclusion that we cannot match Indian expenditure on defence. Forget parity: we cannot even maintain our traditional posture of minimum deterrence for very long at the rate at which the strategic balance is shifting against us.
Another doctrine drummed into our young men from the day they enter the armed forces is that one Muslim soldier can take on ten Hindus. Apart from overlooking the inconvenient fact that a large number of Muslims proudly wear Indian uniforms, modern warfare is mostly about high-tech weapons launched from a distance to devastating effect. If nothing else, the lesson we ought to have learned from the American campaign of 'shock and awe' in Iraq is that courage is no substitute for cruise missiles.
War games played out in America have indicated time after time that an Indian thrust into Pakistan would succeed in cutting the country in two within days, leaving our leaders little option but to go nuclear. This is a suicidal path nobody in his right mind should even contemplate. The Indian retaliation and the ensuing radiation will obliterate much of Pakistan. The fact that leaders on both sides of the border have been rattling their nuclear sabres is an indication of what passes for leadership in our part of the world.
Whenever I have discussed this topic with friends, they have agreed with the facts, but then have stepped back from accepting the inescapable conclusion: we cannot allow Kashmir to hold us hostage forever. Both internally and externally, this single dispute has damaged our core interests more than anything else these last 55 years.
Understandably, it is difficult for the politicians and generals to undo a policy they have been touting for decades. But common sense dictates that there are few options. We must accept the reality and tackle the real issues of poverty and ignorance that confront us which the successive governments have been unable to address largely because of lack of resources.