In his article, Ernst Haas has mentioned the illustration of balance of power by Nicholas Spykman on page 450 which I found very interesting and very much related to Indo-Pak relations. If balance of power is understood in terms of hegemony, then according to Spykman's thesis, all states would ought to attain a hegemonial position and therefore would eventually find themselves in constant conflict with each other. If it stops short of total war, the conflict has to result in some sort of equilibrium but for Ernst that is never going to happen and never be stable as all statesmen's interests lie in gaining hegemonic position rather than seeking balance.
The governments of both India and Pakistan have desperately tried to reach and maintain a stable and strong relations for ages/ Unfortunately, the relations are usually broken as both of them are always attempting to impose strong influence or hegemony over the other and enjoy overwhelming preponderance over the other. Such an attitude is quite noticeable in two very sensitive issues: Kashmir issue and Indus Water treaty dispute. There have been some other serious cases as well where either of the two countries have demonstrated their attempts in gaining a hegemonial position in their relationship. For instance, India blamed Pakistan for the Mumbai attack and demanded Pakistani government to hunt the terrorists responsible for that nemesis or otherwise there will be severe consequences. There have been reported exchange of fire at the line of basis on almost daily basis. There is also widely believed controversial theory in Pakistan that the India intelligence agency, RAW, has been behind all the terrorist attacks, like the one in Peshawar. These incidents would always draw the two countries to war. Moreover, there has been a case that brought the two countries to war in 1970s when the Indian government helped the Bengali freedom fighters in gaining independence and establishing Bangladesh.
When the relations are on the verge of complete break down, the governments of both countries again attempt to revive the relations by coming up with new set of agreements. The relations between the two countries have always been like a vicious circle. The relations are revived, the hunger of either of the two countries for having a hegemonic position leads to the break down of relations and then again attempts are made to revive the relations. Ernst has rightly pointed out that "should equilibrium be attained at one point, it would immediately be wiped out by the search for slight superiority" (Ernst 450).I do find that both India and Pakistan are though attempting to have strong relations and reach some sort of equilibrium, the search for even the slightest of superiority by either of the two countries lead their relations to disequilibrium.
The governments of both India and Pakistan have desperately tried to reach and maintain a stable and strong relations for ages/ Unfortunately, the relations are usually broken as both of them are always attempting to impose strong influence or hegemony over the other and enjoy overwhelming preponderance over the other. Such an attitude is quite noticeable in two very sensitive issues: Kashmir issue and Indus Water treaty dispute. There have been some other serious cases as well where either of the two countries have demonstrated their attempts in gaining a hegemonial position in their relationship. For instance, India blamed Pakistan for the Mumbai attack and demanded Pakistani government to hunt the terrorists responsible for that nemesis or otherwise there will be severe consequences. There have been reported exchange of fire at the line of basis on almost daily basis. There is also widely believed controversial theory in Pakistan that the India intelligence agency, RAW, has been behind all the terrorist attacks, like the one in Peshawar. These incidents would always draw the two countries to war. Moreover, there has been a case that brought the two countries to war in 1970s when the Indian government helped the Bengali freedom fighters in gaining independence and establishing Bangladesh.
When the relations are on the verge of complete break down, the governments of both countries again attempt to revive the relations by coming up with new set of agreements. The relations between the two countries have always been like a vicious circle. The relations are revived, the hunger of either of the two countries for having a hegemonic position leads to the break down of relations and then again attempts are made to revive the relations. Ernst has rightly pointed out that "should equilibrium be attained at one point, it would immediately be wiped out by the search for slight superiority" (Ernst 450).I do find that both India and Pakistan are though attempting to have strong relations and reach some sort of equilibrium, the search for even the slightest of superiority by either of the two countries lead their relations to disequilibrium.
You have correctly pointed out how both India and Pakistan would prefer a more hegemonic position so that they can exert greater influence over the other but, you did not recognise how India is already at a stronger position when comparing the two. Their economic progress as well as stronger position within the International community has been an advantage in the examples you have mentioned.
ReplyDeleteHowever, attempts for better relations usually break down in India not Pakistan. Ernst's idea of a Balance of Power is a theoretical one and so, does not effectively incorporate this very example.
All states - at least according to offensive realists like Mearsheimer - aim to maximize power and become regional hegemons. Hence, there will never be equilibrium and the balance of power will always be shifting as Spykman points out.
ReplyDeleteMahnoor brings up some interesting points and I think that given India's stronger position, Pakistan has to work hard to ensure its interests are protected in the international system.