Allowing Pak FDI in India: Is the subcontinent drifting into a Complex Interdependence Paradigm?

It’s official now. India is allowing foreign direct investment (FDI) from Pakistan in all sectors except defense, space and atomic energy. Richard Rosecrance’s- the distinguished Harvard political scientist’s prescient prophesies and prognostications seem to be finally making their debut in the region held to be in thrall of politico-military , ideological and territorial conflict: the Indian subcontinent. The subcontinent is apparently on the cusp of enmeshing itself in the ‘complex interdependence’ paradigm enunciated and propounded by the brilliant duo of Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.

Nye and Keohane propounded the concept of complex interdependence in the late seventies during the waxing and waning years of the Cold war. The concept was a challenge to the dominant theory of realism which posited a zero sum relation between states with power as the ultima ratio of/for states. The corollaries to realism were balance of power, conflict, and war. Nye and Keohane held that subtle changes were occurring in international relations and world politics and that military power and might or hard power was no longer the sine qua non of world politics.

Nations and states were enmeshed into ‘thick globalism’ or complex interdependence which rendered the traditional reliance on hard power, balance of power and military conflict rather passé. Similarly, the eminent Professor Rosecrance, a few years later, held that trade was replacing territorial expansion and military might as the key to international position, wealth and power. The politico-territorial-military state was giving way to what the good Professor called the ‘trading state’.  Post war Japan was held to epitomize the trading state. While Nye in his latest book ,’Power in the 21^st Century’ elaborated upon complex interdependence in the 21^st century, he qualified this by positing a theoretical paradigm or synthesis called which he called liberal realism. That is, a synthesis of liberalism (which informed complex interdependence) and political realism and whether Professor Rosecrance was a bit too enthusiastic with his ‘trading state’ formulation is besides the point here.

What is pertinent is that a new dynamic and paradigm between nuclear armed rivals, India and Pakistan is emerging. And this is corresponding to both the complex interdependence and the trading state paradigm. This is not to say that complex interdependence is the determining relationship between both states or they are morphing into trading states, but the drift of the relationship is gradually moving towards these paradigms.  Skepticism notwithstanding over/about  the durability of the process that has been initiated, it is nothing but unalloyed good and salubrious news and is to be welcomed.  The reasons for this are axiomatic: mutating and morphing into potential trading states and enmeshing themselves into a complex interdependence paradigm will redound positively to the peoples of the two countries and will sublimate their energies towards salubrious ends. The result will be peace and prosperity in the subcontinent. The question is how to sustain this process and set it in stone? The answer to this question lies in deepening the process of complex interdependence.

Complex interdependence is contingent and is informed by three salient features:

(a)     the employment of multiple channels of contact and action between societies in interstate,  transgovernmental and transnational relations;

(b)    Issue linkages and changing agendas;

(c)     Decline in the saliency and use of military force and coercion in interstate relations.

What does this mean in the Indo Pak relationship dynamic? This means and implies vigorous and intense people to people contact, development of official channels for dialogue between the respective governments and deepening the volume and density of these contacts. It also means changing the mix of issues and linkages that define these into ones that lend themselves amenable to resolution and finally obviating the security dilemmas inherent in a zero sum conflict dynamic that permeates the relationship between the two countries. In practice, this may mean changing the military posture of the two countries into a non offensive defense paradigm and working out a nuclear doctrine that corresponds to this new strategic doctrine.

A concerted focus on these elements may lead to complex interdependence becoming real in the subcontinent. Whilst it may be surreal to expect the military political dimension to disappear, it would not be a far fetched expectation to believe that gradually the conflictual dynamic between India and Pakistan will give way to a more co-operative one. This , incidentally, is in accord with the drift of world politics and international relations of the past few decades. And it means that the subcontinent is aligning itself with these rather irreversible trends and dynamics. Enough is enough: the peoples of the subcontinent should built bottoms up pressure to support and sustain this process and their governments should respond to this. It is perhaps complex interdependence that will give short shrift to decadal animus and hostility between the traditional adversaries. Let cynicism and skepticism give way to warm hope.