Clearly demarcated and internationally recognized borders certainly enhance a nation’s security.

Crossing one is like jumping across a neighbor’s boundary wall: the cops will view it as a criminal act. But an unmarked and fuzzy frontier not only makes for insecure neighbors, but also invites aggression.
Across the world today, there are numerous contested and contentious borders that continue to cause friction and, in worst-case scenarios, warfare. In our region, the Chinese-Indian border, the Kashmir valley, and the Durand Line separating Pakistan and Afghanistan have all seen fighting in the post-colonial period. Indeed, all of them are the result of colonial redrawing of the vague maps that existed when the British arrived on the scene.
So why, if they are the cause of so much tension and uncertainty, aren’t they negotiated and settled? The obvious answer is that competing claims to the same bits of real estate go on festering for decades, causing nations to nurse grievances that erupt periodically into warfare. Kashmir is the classic example of a perennial flashpoint. Apart from three wars fought over it, the dispute over the Valley has held an entire subcontinent hostage for six decades, without a resolution in sight.
Another spill-over from the conflict has been the rise of fundamentalist terrorism. Trained jihadis have entered Indian Kashmir for nearly two decades, often, it is alleged, with the connivance of the Pakistani security apparatus and the extremist networks that have put down root on our soil. Every now and then, they have attacked targets in India, precipitating major diplomatic crises that have threatened to escalate. In retaliation, India has allegedly meddled in ethnic strife in Pakistan, helping separatist groups in their struggles against the state.
Against this backdrop, it would seem that there are compelling reasons for India and Pakistan to resolve their border issues as a way of enhancing internal and regional security. But unfortunately, logic takes a back seat to chauvinism when it comes to issues of national pride. Both sides have been harping on the same legalistic arguments for so long that they have become hardened into bedrock foundations of policy. Both countries have convinced themselves that any compromise would somehow weaken national security.
Currently, Pakistan is fighting for survival against a ruthless enemy that seeks and gives no quarter. The last thing it wants now is to open another front on its eastern border. If anything, military logic dictates that it should transfer forces to the northwest in order to fight the Taliban more effectively. But our generals continue to feel threatened by India, and therefore retain an outdated defensive posture.
I have often argued here and elsewhere that India, being the far more powerful state, can make a symbolic gesture to reassure the Pakistani establishment that it does not pose a threat to its neighbor. One way to send this signal would be to pull back some troops out of the 20 plus divisions on its western border.
Writing in this space about the Indian elections a fortnight ago (‘India moves beyond slogans’), I had suggested that the Congress government, with its renewed and expanded mandate, could make such a gesture without compromising the country’s security in any way. In response, I have been flooded with emails from angry Indian readers who demanded to know how I could suggest such a step, given the history of bad blood between the two countries. Others have loftily informed me that as a regional power, India has to contend with multiple threats. I regret to report that out of around 50 emails I received on the subject, not a single reader wrote: “Good idea. Let’s discuss it further.”
Such a lockstep, knee-jerk response bodes ill for peace in South Asia. For all his many faults, at least Musharraf did try to break the logjam over Kashmir with a number of out-of-the-box proposals that were either shot down, or allowed to languish unanswered by the Indian government.
It is the foremost duty of every state to guard its citizens from external attack. But it is possible to take this concern to the point that it becomes the cause of insecurity. Israel’s obsession with security is a case in point. India, despite its million-man army, its nuclear arsenal and its burgeoning defence industry, remains insecure. Before I am slammed by Indian readers for daring to make this point, here is an excerpt from an Indian report about the plans to construct a railway station on no-man’s land in Sindh on the Indian-Pakistani border, along the Munabao-Khokrapar railway section:
“In what could be a (sic) latest and one of the biggest threats to India, Pakistan has hired a Chinese company to build an illegal railway station in no-man’s land near the Indian border at Barmer.…”
A railway station is now “one of the biggest threats to India”? Please give me a break. More than the military implications, I am concerned that Pakistani engineers are no longer competent enough to build a small railway station. But seriously, how could a tiny, seldom-used train station pose any threat to India? And yet, Indian defense officials have been quick to spot a connection between this station and the port the Chinese are building in Sri Lanka.
It has long been evident to the meanest intelligence that China, for all its rapid growth and rising military power, remains a very cautious country. For years, it has concentrated on building up its economy, foregoing any adventurism. Soon after the 1962 war with India, China pulled back from the areas it had occupied, but did not claim. There is very little chance that it will launch any military operation against India in the foreseeable future.
In fact, the real danger India faces today is from home-grown and regional asymmetrical forces. This is the common threat its neighbors face as well. There is thus every motive for China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran to cooperate and put aside their differences to fight extremist terrorists. Many in India reject this approach because they see Pakistan as part of the problem, and therefore do not think it can be part of the solution. But they need to recognize that peace and security are not handed out as prizes for good behavior. We have seen that a piecemeal approach to fighting terrorism has not worked. By pooling intelligence and by denying jihadis sanctuary and political space, the war can be won.
Above all, Indians must see that it is in their interest to end the asymmetrical battles being fought on their soil. Scoring debating points will not win them the security they seek. (Source: Dawn