India and Pakistan: Is comparability a fiction?

The last time the international community referred to Pakistan and India in the same breath was when the two countries carried out nuclear tests in 1998 - India carried out its last fusion weapon test on 11 May 1998 and its nuclear test on 18 May the same year. Pakistan undertook the first nuclear test on 28 May 1998 and its last nuclear test two days later.
At the time much was made of the fact that both countries had already engaged in two wars - 1965, 1971 - with a third well within the realm of possibility (a fear that proved valid as the ill-advised Kargil war began a year later). The nuclear arsenals of the two Sub-continent rivals, with Kashmir and Siachin continuing to be an integral ingredient in the cauldron of conflict, ensure that concerns over the possibility of another war remain - a war that is feared may lead to the unleashing of the nuclear arsenal in the Sub-Continent in spite of assurances by the two countries.
Post-nuclear tests and subsequent to Musharraf's coup on 12 October 1999 the two countries entered a phase during which they began to be viewed in entirely different contexts. This change in world view was articulated in the first week of March 2006 by the then US President George Bush: "Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories... As we proceed forward, our strategy will take in those well-known differences." Less than a week later Musharraf endorsed Bush's view and told a group of journalists at his camp office in Pindi that there was a tendency of Pakistanis to be India-centric: "They [the Indians] are going in a different direction and we are going in a different direction." What was the different direction of the two countries and when exactly did the two countries cease to be mentioned in the same breath by the international community are relevant questions and may provide some insight into what policies need revision - be they in the realm of foreign policy, domestic economic policy or indeed domestic politics.
Musharraf, in spite of his blatant manipulation of the political system in an effort to appease the political sensitivities of the post 9/11 world - sensitivities that were content with cosmetic trappings of democracy - was a dictator, and he ruled accordingly. He was not the first dictator that this country has been subjected to, and though the current parliament through the 18th Amendment hopes that he would be the last yet there is little guarantee that an ambitious general may not abrogate the constitution in future. Be that as it may, a one-man rule for much of our history has, as in other countries suffering from a similar fate, led to three negatives in Pakistan.
First, the judiciary was subservient to the executive as each dictator sought to legitimise first his coup and later his continuing rule. This impacted on the entire legal system whereby legitimate and illegitimate economic and political interests of the ruler and his select supporters were safeguarded in open violation of natural law. That the ambit of the select supporters increased with time encompassing all of the state-run as well as most of the private-run (pressure group) productive sectors is evident from the number of scams that this country continues to be subjected to. This does not imply that there is no corruption in India, because there is, but simply that justice is served better there be it with respect to a private litigant or a member of the executive.
Second to perpetuate the rule of one man does not require support from the silent majority, as in a democracy, but of the select few. This has led to a civilian political base that has little integrity and is easily won over through a package of incentives and favours. This is one factor, though certainly not the only one, which has led successive Pakistani governments to steadily reduce budgetary allocations on development expenditure and resist slashing non-development expenditure. That this particular policy is continuing today, and was also in vogue during the country's brief periods of democracy in the 1990s, reflects the fact that as the government grew, both dictators as well as civilian rulers became shy of challenging the existing balance of power through an innovative money bill. Thus it is no wonder that while the Musharraf government directed the National Accountability Bureau to refrain from investigating cases against those politicians who were supporting him to imposing a tax on the income of the rich landlords, the Zardari government appears to be following a similar policy.
Third Indian government's five-year economic plans were adhered to and laid the basis for an infrastructure base as well as private sector development. To put it in a nutshell India succeeded in overtaking Pakistan in the realm of economics during the 2000 decade through targeted policies which began soon after independence and included providing a level playing field for the domestic private and the public sector, a rigid import policy that gave breathing space to domestic industry to develop, a non-anomalous tax system, and a series of foreign policy decisions that benefited India enormously including a deal with Soviet Union to pay for oil with Indian exports that were later dumped on the economies of the Soviet bloc countries. Pakistan in comparison continued to flounder with its five-year plans that were not implemented and became hostage to ensuring the perpetuity of one man rule. To argue that the current dispensation, even though democratically elected, has priorities different from that exhibited during one man rule is simply not accurate.
It's precisely because of the system of government in place in the two countries that concerns over our nuclear programme have been raised while no such concerns have been expressed with respect to the Indian programme even though nuclear-wise the two countries are more or less at par: India's peak and current stockpile is estimated at 45 to 80 while Pakistan's is estimated at 70 to 90 war heads. India's strategic nuclear command (SNC) was established in 2003, with an Air Force officer as the Commander-in-Chief. The joint services' SNC was designated as the custodian of all of India's nuclear weapons, missiles, and assets and for executing all aspects of India's nuclear policy. However, the civil leadership, in the form of the CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) was designated as the only body authorised to order a nuclear strike against another offending strike. The Prime Minister's finger is "on the button." In Pakistan the command and control system was different, premised on Musharraf's dictatorship and the role that the army has traditionally played in the country's politics and, needless to add, continues to play.
The organisation authorised to take decisions about Pakistan's nuclear posturing is the NCA, established in February 2000. The NCA is composed of two committees that were to advise the President of Pakistan, on the development and deployment of nuclear weapons; it was also responsible for war-time command and control. But everyone knew that Musharraf alone could take the decision to strike. President Zardari's comments soon after he took over the reins of government that he would consider a no first strike agreement raised the hackles of the establishment and may have led to his announcement in November 2009 that he will be replaced by Prime Minister as the chairman of NCA. However few would accept that the finger on the button is of any civilian.
International concerns with respect to our command structure continue and are periodically laid to rest by a prominent member of the international community stating that he/she has full confidence in our command structure. The last person to so state was Hillary Clinton. Concerns about terrorists stealing our nuclear weapons are also periodically voiced. The critical question is would these voices be silenced once the allies leave Afghanistan as they have committed to doing?
The current state of affairs for Pakistan is embarrassing: any western nation that wants to sell its products and thereby create jobs in their recession ridden country is wooing India today. In turn India is exacting a price: denouncement of Pakistan and calling for stopping the alleged cross-border terrorism that, according to India, is being launched by our officialdom. Such a focus no doubt reflects that part of the Pakistan-centric Indian psyche remains. However this is unlikely to remain in the long term and a time may well come when our nuclear comparability may become irrelevant.
To conclude: unless we as a nation focus on extending genuine justice to all, including those close to members of the executive, giving a level playing field to domestic private and public sector, banning all imports that are not critical and focus state expenditure on infrastructure development as well as education nothing will change. We need to get out of the syndrome of a country perennially on the IMF programme and we must learn to tax those who can afford to pay. Unfortunately nothing along these lines appears to be on the cards.