The very countries that call us “irresponsible” for not reaching a peace compromise are the ones that sell us the most arms
By Semu Bhatt
Conflicts have always been used as a means of generating money and wielding power. The hostility between India and Pakistan has given rise to actors who manipulate the situation to their advantage in order to generate both money and power. At one end of the conflict spectrum are non-state actors who run a parallel economy that thrives on terror; at the other hand there are the states, which create wealth and strategic depth through arms diplomacy. And then there is the Pakistani military — the most important economic player that the bilateral hostility has thrown up.
Merchants of Death
India’s pursuit of global prominence and Pakistan’s quest for parity with India has sucked both countries into the vortex of the arms race. Both countries continue to feature amongst the world’s top importers of arms — between 2002 and 2009, India and Pakistan received 11 per cent ($32.4 billion) and 4 per cent ($12.5 billion) of the total arms imports by developing nations.
Given that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are amongst the biggest arms dealers of the world, it is not surprising that they, along with other developed countries like Germany, Sweden, Italy, Israel and the Netherlands, are prominent arms sellers to the subcontinent. Many of them exploit the one-upmanship approach prevailing in the two nations, by selling huge caches of arms to both countries. Ironically, these very countries are anxious about the protracted Indo-Pak conflict taking an N-turn, and engage in frantic negotiations every time tensions run high between the two neighbours. These very countries call us “irresponsible” for not reaching a peace compromise and for casting a nuclear shadow over the region -while conveniently overlooking the impact of their arms sales in stirring and sustaining tensions between India and Pakistan.
‘Arms diplomacy’ is also one of the most favoured tools of many countries to balance and enhance their geopolitical interests in the subcontinent for a short term as well as long term gains. So, while India ranked second in overall defence agreements with the US from 2002 to 2009, thanks to the Indo-US strategic ties, Pakistan received about $1 billion a year in military aid during the same period for its role in the ‘war on terror’. Of course, the US plays its tactical game regardless of the fact that every defence deal it signs with one country triggers off an arms procurement frenzy in the other and opens up the field for more power games –with Israel and Russia stepping in to supplement India with additional weaponry, and China moving in to help Pakistan. In short, the ‘compulsion of hostility’ has pushed us into a situation where we pay billions to be used as pawns in the geopolitical games of greater powers.
The lesser discussed side of the arms business is the massive corruption that emerges from it. Politicians and top military brass on both sides are believed to receive multi-million rupee kickbacks from the arms companies to keep the two countries perpetually caught up in the arms race.
Military Inc
The military is a prime player in Pakistani economy and runs some of the largest listed companies on the Karachi stock exchange. It is active in a wide variety of public and private sector businesses ranging from farming and banking to education and construction. Its strong economic grip puts multinational companies at a disadvantage as they find it difficult to compete with these military institutions that enjoy tax exemptions, subsidised electricity, strong political connections and immunity from public accountability. The massive military business empire necessitates two things: firstly, military needs to safeguard its economic interests by controlling politics, resulting in a clear conflict of interest regarding an effective democracy in the country. Religious extremists have long been co-opted to further political interests in Pakistan by keeping a check on moderate and liberal political parties. The unfortunate outcome of this is that the radical forces are now pushing hard to be counted as important players of nation’s power structure.
Fear of India is also used to justify the size of the Pakistan army and its sizeable monetary activities. The military’s economic power already ensures the allegiance of a considerable part of population that is educated in military schools and employed by military businesses. As long as the rest of the population also continues to see India as the monster waiting to devour Pakistan, the military will never be questioned on its financial or political power pursuits. Thus, the ‘Military Inc.’ as Ayesha Siddiqa termed it, is detrimental to both democracy in Pakistan as well as Indo-Pak peace.
Conclusion
The local players benefiting from the Indo-Pak conflict economy subordinate national interests to their vested interests. The global players sell us more arms than diplomacy. The only way to deny these players a space to operate in is by replacing the compulsions of hostility with a recognition of the necessity for peace. If the populations of both countries call for reconciliation and amity, the missionaries and merchants of death will no longer find a fertile ground to unload their causes and cargos.
The writer is an independent analyst on security and governance issues and co-author of ‘Cost of Conflict between India and Pakistan’ (International Centre for Peace Initiatives, Mumbai, 2004). Email: s[email protected]
