A Dutch proverb says, “No one can have peace longer than his neighbour pleases”. In Mahabharata even Krishna, who could defeat any opponent, knew that a lasting peace with a hostile neighbour Jarasandha, who had already attacked Mathura 17 times, was impossible as long as the neighbour remains hostile. So, he built Dwaraka far away from Magadha and shifted the Yadava clan there.
India finds itself in a challenging position, sandwiched
between two hostile neighbours. China's Communist Party is an aggressive,
rogue, expansionist regime that seeks global dominance at any cost, while
Pakistan is a failed rogue state whose sole aim is to undermine and destroy
India. Despite efforts to build bridges through people-to-people connections,
the fundamental nature and attitude of these regimes remain unchanged. India
cannot relocate its entire population to a far-off location, nor can it simply
wish away its hostile neighbours. Maintaining a passive approach would allow
China and Pakistan to continue their "death by a thousand cuts"
policy against India.
While talks and diplomacy can be useful channels of
communication with China and Pakistan, they are not the ultimate solution to
dealing with these rogue states. Talks and diplomacy are effective when dealing
with minor disputes and good intentions exist on both sides. However, hoping
for good intentions from China and Pakistan is akin to chasing a mirage. Those
who argue that talks and diplomacy may not work are often labelled as
war-mongers. It is important to note that peace talks and war represent the two
extremes of the solution spectrum, and that there are multiple shades between
these two extremes that should be explored.
So India needed to adopt a strategy that is neither purely hawkish
nor purely dovish, but rather proactive and sustainable. Throughout its history
after gaining independence, India has been constrained by a self-imposed image
of non-violence and has been reluctant to take action unless absolutely
necessary. However, this approach has not been effective, as evidenced by continuous
hostilities from China and Pakistan. India needs to break free from this
self-image and adopt a more pragmatic and effective approach to managing its
relationships with its neighbours.
Thankfully, India has taken steps in this direction. Since
2014, India has implemented a tit-for-tat strategy against China and Pakistan.
While the phrase "tit-for-tat" is often associated with a knee-jerk,
retaliatory response to perceived slights or harm, it is actually a powerful
strategic tool. Unlike the usual perception where the protagonist of tit-for-tat
action uses it to cause some severe loss to their opponent, when implemented
strategically, it can lead to a win-win situation. Before considering the examples
of how India used this strategy, let’s first understand what tit-for-tat
strategy is.
Suppose there are two opponents, X and Y, with contrasting
attitudes. X is extremely self-centred and is willing to win at any cost, even
if it means causing losses to Y. On the other hand, while Y is also acting in his
own self-interest, he recognizes that his self-interest can only be sustained
if X's attitude towards him changes. Therefore, for Y, it is not just about his
own profit, but also about encouraging X to adopt a win-win strategy. This is
where the tit-for-tat strategy comes into play.
Under this strategy, the following sequence of actions takes
place:
-
Y begins by being cooperative with X
unconditionally.
-
X has two options - either be cooperative with Y
or defect against them. X chooses the latter, driven by their short-sighted and
selfish behaviour.
-
Y responds by taking a retaliatory action
against X, and then signals cooperation.
-
Having suffered a loss, X is more likely to take
a cooperative action the next time around.
-
Y then continues his cooperative stance.
Over a series of such actions involving cooperation and retaliation,
X eventually realizes that whenever he defects, Y punishes him, but whenever he
cooperates, Y reciprocates his cooperation. As a result, X begins to adopt a
more cooperative stance towards Y, leading to a win-win situation.
It is important to note that if Y always maintains a
forgiving stance, there would be no incentive for X to cooperate. Similarly, if
Y always maintains a punishing stance, X will have no incentive to cooperate
either. By first demonstrating unconditional cooperation and then mirroring the
opponent's actions, Y nudges X towards cooperation.
Few important aspects of the retaliatory response, for the tit-for-tat
strategy to be effective are –
-
The retaliatory response must be directly
related to the previous defection by the opponent.
-
The retaliatory response must be swift and not a
very prolonged one.
-
The response should not be overly retaliatory as
a huge loss would cut the incentive for the opponent to move to a cooperative position.
-
The retaliatory response should be proactively followed
up with a tangible cooperation.
Let's examine how India employed the tit-for-tat strategy in
its interactions with Pakistan and China.
Pakistan
India adopted the tit-for-tat strategy with Pakistan soon
after Modi became Prime Minister. In his first move, Modi invited Pakistan PM
Nawaz Sharif to his oath-taking ceremony in May 2014. Modi then reinforced his
cooperative approach by visiting Lahore in 2015 and meeting Sharif at his
ancestral home.
However, Pakistan responded to this gesture with a terrorist
attack on Pathankot in January 2016. In response, India punished Pakistan with
a retaliatory action (Uri Surgical strikes) in September 2016. India's
retaliation was calculated to avoid being excessively punitive, as it would
have made it difficult for the Pakistani establishment to adopt a cooperative
stance. Instead, India targeted only the terrorist launch pads, punishing
Pakistan just enough without being overly retaliatory.
After the surgical strikes, India returned to a cooperative
stance, which continued until 2019. The trade continued normally and Modi even
sent a congratulatory message to Imran Khan upon his election as Pakistani PM.
In fact, in 2018, India proposed the Kartarpur Corridor, and Pakistan agreed to
it. India did not take any further coercive actions against Pakistan.
In February 2019, Pakistan reverted to its previous tactics
with the Pulwama attack. However, this time, India responded with greater
speed, launching the Balakot air strikes and suspending Pakistan's MFN status.
The Indian government carefully targeted terrorist training camps during the
Balakot strikes, and also mounted a vigorous campaign to keep Pakistan on the
FATF grey list. In 2020, India adopted a more cooperative stance by increasing
trade with Pakistan.
Pakistan learned that it would face punishment for any
hostile actions against India, while cooperation with India would bring
benefits. As a result, Pakistan refrained from any further misadventures
between 2019 and the present.
China
After Narendra Modi assumed office, India implemented a
tit-for-tat strategy with China also. In September, the Indian Prime Minister
invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to India, signalling a cooperative stance.
This relationship remained stable until 2017, when China began constructing a
road in Doklam. India responded with a retaliatory action, ordering troops to
cross the Sikkim border and halt the construction. Once the situation was
resolved and the status quo was restored, India immediately returned to a
cooperative stance. Despite this cooperative approach, few people noticed it,
as Indian officials refrained from making public statements, allowing the
Chinese Communist Party to shape its own narrative about the standoff. Through
such a matured response after the retaliatory action, India signalled to the
Chinese that it is willing to cooperate as long as China doesn’t defect.
The relationship remained stable until 2020, when China
again defected by attempting to cross into Ladakh. India responded more swiftly
and more strongly this time. India also built a strong global narrative and
domestic public opinion against China. However, after the retaliatory action, India
resumed a cooperative stance and increased trade with China after 2020. While
tensions at the border persist, China has likely weighed the costs and benefits
of defection and cooperation. No new skirmishes happened at the border after
2020. In the midst of the Ladakh stand off and after that also, there was
pressure from US on India to build a joint military front against China. But
despite the tough situation with China and the luring temptation of ganging up
militarily against its opponent, India didn’t give in to turn QUAD into an
Asian NATO. This is a huge cooperative signal to the Chinese regime.
For decades, there have been several theories that suggest
that Pakistan and China would eventually disintegrate into smaller entities,
which would no longer pose a threat to India. However, this is merely wishful
thinking and not a proactive strategy. Even if these entities were to
disintegrate, smaller hostile entities would likely persist. Thus, India needs
a strategy that can withstand any situation. The tit-for-tat strategy is an
excellent option because it possesses two unique characteristics that
differentiate it from other strategies:
-
This strategy can be pursued openly without
being perceived as a threat by opponents.
-
It is a positive strategy aimed at achieving a
win-win situation, rather than creating losses for opponents.
Indian strategists have effectively implemented the
tit-for-tat strategy without any distractions. By breaking away from its
artificially constructed pacifist image, India has decolonized its strategic
mind. The Indian strategists have displayed their maturity and foresight in two
ways: firstly, by accurately calculating the optimal strength of retaliatory
actions, and secondly, by promptly returning to a cooperative stance after each
retaliatory move. China and Pakistan, given their intrinsic nature, cannot
become "good" neighbours of India. Nevertheless, now there is hope
that after few years of tit-for-tat treatment, they will learn to be
well-behaved neighbours.
Comments
Post a Comment