Theory and Praxis: The Story of Indo-Pak Relations

One of the greatest propositions in the field of social sciences to be extensively read, discussed and written about, the origins of the Democratic Peace Theory can be traced back to Immanuel Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, in which he puts forth his arguments as to why democracies tend to have more peaceful relations with each other. With the DPT having crucial implications both at the theoretical and at the policy formulation level, this article aims to assess its significance in the 21st century world, to understand better its most popular criticisms and to discover its relevance in the Asian context, especially with respect to India and Pakistan.

The theory actually focuses more on peace building than on war, elaborating upon the lower probability of democracies engaging in direct conflict with each other. Although it became a part of mainstream academia in the 1960s-70s, it first came into picture through Kant and Paine’s deliberation in the 1700s. Paine, in his work, ‘Common Sense’ in 1776, said that monarchies could easily engage in direct conflict because of pride but republics certainly would not. But in the 1960s and 1970s, Democratic Peace Theory became a part of mainstream academia and was studied vigorously. It garnered much more attention in 1983 through Michael Doyle’s series of essays, titled, ‘Liberal Peace: Selected Essays’ as well as on his work on ‘Philosophy and Public Affairs’.

As a theory which has evolved in itself over time, in contemporary international relations it has been observed as to how the Dyadic Democratic Theory or the theory of ‘peace amongst two democracies’ is much more applicable than the Monadic theory, i.e, an overall peaceful outlook with respect to foreign affairs since democracies are as likely as an autocratic government to wage a war on non-democratic nations as per observation. The extensive study of wars and direct disputes over the course of the past two centuries does clearly suggest that while liberal states often go to war against non-liberal states, they don’t engage in conflict with each other. Between 1816 and 1991, an estimated 353 pairings of nations were fighting in major international wars. However, none of these occurred between two democracies.

The values of the democratic peace theory are quite evidently ingrained into the modern-day neo-conservatism and are also supported by liberals as an attempt to push for the democratization of the 21st century world. The then US President Clinton’s 1994 address based the explanation of his foreign policy on this theory: “Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other; they make better trading partners and partners in diplomacy.” As an initiative by Clinton, The Community of Democracies, a grouping of 115 nations had as one of its underlying premises “the interdependence between peace, development, human rights and democracy.” The DPT was also greatly supported by Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister.

Asia – a region which includes under its umbrella several of the most important developing democracies of the world – presents a rather complex picture in this context, challenging the very ideals of the Democratic Peace Theory. Through an evident lack of adequate literature in the Asian context, the limitations of the theory become apparent, especially due to the region’s socio-political and economic disparities.

Case in point:The violent partition of British India has continued to influence the foreign policy of India and Pakistan. Their relationship has been shaped by mutual hostility and violence .Trapped in a complex security dilemma, the two countries have had 3 major and one minor wars, several border disputes, stand-offs, occasional skirmishes and tensions, alleged mutual interventions. An illiberal democracy today, Pakistan has alternated between military regimes by coups and democratically elected governments since 1947.

Post-liberalisation however, it may be argued as to how Indo-Pak relations saw developments like the Indus Water Treaty, SAFTA and SAPTA as a part of several other liberal trends resulting in a relationship of complex interdependence and peace.

However, in more recent times, the two democracies have been engaged in constant strife at all fronts. On 14 February 2019, a suicide attack on convoy of India's CRPF troop resulted in death of at least 40 soldiers whose responsibility was claimed by the Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammed. This led to severe tensions and retaliation by India in the form of airstrikes,which came to be known as the Balakot strikes. Pakistan had denied the strikes causing any damage but India claimed otherwise. Both the countries were also involved in aerial engagement. Although the conflict did not escalate any further, hostility in the form of firings, imposition of tariffs, weakening of diplomatic ties, etc. led to the creation of an uneasy atmosphere.

India and Pakistan although in some cases have fought wars while an authoritarian regime was in place in Pakistan, it stands out as an important exception to the Democratic Peace Theory in the 21st century Asian context. Trade between them is nominal with no free trade in sight in the near future.

A critique of the DPT in the context of many such pairs of developing countries in Asia is apt in this case. The countries of South East Asia especially have seen several internal conflicts and related challenges in recent history, a trend common in the case of transitional democracies. However, the DPT does not take into account the internal conflicts that may arise in democratic nations and fails to provide any explanation regarding the same. This is especially true for Pakistan, which in the recent past has oscillated between a democracy and a military dictatorship. Moreover, it sometimes may be unclear how democratic the state is, especially under overwhelmingly populist governments, feeble opposition, weak political mediatory infrastructure as well as in the ethnic/racial/religious communities – almost all of which had been characteristic of India and Pakistan at different points in time.

The third wave of globalisation of the 1980s-90s did incite many Asian countries to take up the liberal agenda, along with the two in focus – India and Pakistan. Yet, the attacks cited before are a testimony to how liberalism may not always lead to reduced or no hostility.

The key factor missing from the discourse so far has been the nature of adoption of a liberal structure by most countries. While there is much scope for a more detailed study, a preliminary look may indicate most developing countries aren’t born liberal or don’t develop liberalism organically; they have liberalism thrust upon them as a result of their circumstances. It has been the case for both India and Pakistan which were both instigated not by a recognition of structural reform but by the balance of payments crisis. Liberalisation was not seen as a progressive governance measure, but as a means to an end in depleting foreign reserves.

A similar pattern can be seen across continents and decades in the 20th Century from the “Banana Republics” of Latin America to American liberalisation of South Korea and the military intervention in Vietnam (not to mention the IMF-mandated Washington Consensus enforced upon debt-ridden countries).

So, perhaps, the question to be asked isn’t whether liberalisation prevents hostility. Liberalisation with nominal improvements but no systemic reforms like better public infrastructure, sustainable development, equitable access to resources and opportunities and good governance is not liberalisation in the truest sense. As the changing world order has dynamically shifted focus towards many of these emerging economies and their role in global conflicts, this question bears more significance than ever before.

References-

Democracy in the Asia-Pacific: Analysis of the dynamics of democratization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319952999_Democracy_in_the_Asia-Pacific_Analysis_of_the_dynamics_of_democratization

A Monadic Peace from a Synthesis of Methodologies

http://yris.yira.org/essays/436

The microfoundations of normative democratic peace theory. Experiments in the US, Russia and China

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1753084

How convincing is the Democratic Peace Thesis?

https://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/26/how-convincing-is-the-democratic-peace-thesis/

State of Indo Pak Relations – Times of India

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/strategic-insights/state-of-indo-pak-relations/

DPT in South Asia

https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/4126/

By-

Aastha Mohapatra (aasthamohapatra@gmail.com)