India - Pakistan

• Intro- The antagonism b/w India - Pakistan, the two nuclear rivals remains one of the greatest tragedies of Asian politics. While India is contend with the status-quo by accepting Pakistan’s existence, Pakistan on the other hand, seeks to revise the status-quo as it sees India as an existential threat to its survival
• 
  Trying to reconcile India and Pakistan is like trying to treat two patients whose only disease is an allergy to each other.-G Parthasarthy

• views of scholars:

		Stephen P Cohen
Dilip Hiro- the longest august- partition is banquo's ghost whose shadow hangs over the Asian sub continent. Uses social constructivism to say India - Pakistan relationship is a result of misconceptions, antagonisms and mutual paranoia of elites that have created a view of the other as a security threat.	Hussain Haqqani- Pakistan' reductive nationalism that comprises 95% hate for India and 5% love for Pak.  A relationship which has not been resolved for last seven decades, it can not be resolved just by symbolic gestures. Instead there has to be a major shift in attitudes of both the countries. In his book India vs Pakistan: why cant we just be friends- says inspite of huge economic and military power asymmetry, illusions of parity with India drives the deep state in Pakistan to pursue asymmetric warfare in the form of terrorism.	Book: shooting for a century- Paired minority conflict between an Islamist Pakistan and a “Hindu” India. says even after a century of partition (2047) there would be no substantive changes in relationship.

• Issues:
• twin factors govern the politics of South Asia when it comes to India and Pakistan: nuclearisation of India and Pakistan and, the Islamic extremism in the progressively failing state of Pakistan
• India’s image of Pakistan mirrors the image Pakistan has of India. Both nurture ‘mutual blind spots’ that disallows questioning of respective narratives.
• both countries foreign policy is mutually exclusive and is seen as a zero sum game.
• Recently Pakistan granted provisional provincial status to Gilgit Baltistan
• 
• Sumit Ganguly- conflict of identity between an Islamist Pakistan and “Secular” India
• 
  "Ours is really not just a story of missed opportunities but also of deliberate obstacles. Terrorism is among them.
• Stability instability paradox
• Terrorism emanating from territories under Pakistan’s control remains a core concern in bilateral relations. India’s consistently stressed the need for Pakistan to take credible, irreversible and verifiable action to end cross-border terrorism against India
• Pakistan through the use of terrorism engages in low intensity war. It makes a case for itself in the world that if India responds heavily against such attack, then Pakistan would use its nuclear weapons (since it doesn’t has an NFU) and a nuclear war would ensue
• This theory has many takers in the world and hence after every attack India is under pressure to behave “responsibly.”
• But after the Balakot Air strikes against Pakistan in response to Pulwama, many scholars like Brahma Chellany have opined that Pakistan’s nuclear bluff has been called off by India
• India withdrew MFN status to Pak after Pulwama attack
• Issue of fishermen being captured from both sides during course of fishing.
• The current bilateral trade is $2.5B and the World Bank estimates the potential at $37B.
• Recently both countries have agreed to adhere to 2003 ceasefire by strictly observing truce along the LOC.

• Way forward:

• 
• Functionalism, sociological liberalism to be used in normalizing ties
• India has stakes in the success of “Bajwa doctrine” that calls for peace within Pakistan and outside and pursuing geo-economics rather than geopolitics.

• Conclusion: It is important to create an environment of trust and cooperation which is free of violence and terrorism for peace, progress and prosperity of the region.