Mr. Vajpayee recently arrived in Pakistan amid his overtures of peace that began last April. Pakistan followed with several overtures of its own. Now as we speak both countries have rail links, bus links, air links, and most importantly sports links. But the question arises why now? What has changed geopolitically that has forced both countries to reconsider their long-stated positions?

Several reasons Pakistan for make peace with India: Pakistan’s realization if it does not end its support for the militants operating in Kashmir, India is going to by confronting Pakistan and isolating it. Pakistan’s realization if it wants to be considered a responsible nation, it must distant itself from the cloud of militants that currently spawn all over there. Pakistan’s realization that economy is what decides if a country fails or succeeds rather than war.

Several reasons for India to make peace with Pakistan: India’s realization that if it does not settle its differences with Pakistan, especially Kashmir, its economy would never be on par with China, and thus precluding it from becoming a major player in Asia. Mr. Vajpayee’s desire to be seen as a visionary, to distant himself from previous Indian leaders, who were unable to resolve disputes between the two countries. Indian economy itself because if countries like Pakistan don’t trade with India, it hurts India more than it does other countries, as it can’t be as sufficient as it could with their participation.

Pakistan’s insurgency into Kashmir was at its peak, when its soldiers and militants invaded Kargil two years ago. India retaliated furiously by repelling them with remarkable determination, and calling Pakistan behind the invasion. Pakistan was humiliated in the world press, as most major publications sided with India over what they saw was Pakistan’s reckless meddling in India’s part of Kashmir. Although it tried effortlessly to refute the assertions that it did not support those militants, the proof in the form of soldiers’ dead bodies was irrefutable. Pakistan was isolated and had to find a new way. Kargil fiasco in a way cost then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif his government and eventual expulsion from the country. And a few months later when Indian parliament was attacked, Pakistan became under intense pressure to rein in the militants, who the evidence suggested were involved. India activated its troops and so did Pakistan and any thought that there would never be a war because both countries have nukes was put to rest. They were eyeball to eyeball. India had thus delivered a clear message: If Pakistan continues its support for the insurgency, it is going to be confronted by an Indian invasion.

It has been 32 years since the 1971 war and Pakistan’s military it seems, has finally realized that it may succeed in making India bleed but cannot make it succumb. Why can’t India succumb? There are several reasons but one of the biggest and most obvious is its economy, which at present is the fastest growing after China. Since more funds are at its disposal, it could sustain its efforts in Kashmir and Siachen, whereas Pakistan a country economically dependant on the United States, I.M.F, and et al spends more than half of its budget on military that leaves nothing for education or for anything that might raise standard of living of its citizens. Pakistan had to shed its terrifying image that except its military rulers and public, a panoply of countries feared. And the decision was made then that it must distant itself from the militants, the old warriors who attempt to take Muslims and Muslim countries back rather than forward, and who have no regard for human rights especially that of women. September 11 expedited the implementation of that decision, for which Pakistan should be thankful to Pervez Musharraf. The decision to distant itself from the militants now seems like a good idea, as they were the ones involved in one of the attempts to kill Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf. Also, from an observer’s point of view, the game is up for people voicing support for jihad, especially those in the religious parties. The contradiction in those people is they tell their followers to do jihad, but their own sons and relatives are being educated in the United States and Great Britain. Consider Musharraf, his son is being educated in Boston, though he is not a hypocrite, as he never claimed to be religious or voiced support for jihad.

It has finally dawned on Pakistan it seems that in order to distinguish itself in the world, a good economy is the way to go. A few years back it was having the nukes, in which it masterfully matched India, but where it has been unable to match India is in economic sphere or economic competition if you will. Compare Pakistan and India’s economic growth since the nuclear tests and the result is one-sides Indian growth. One could argue that it is due to India’s size. Partially true, though other factors are also important such as the form of government that has been in place there. The last time the military was in power was during Indira Gandhi government. Compare this with Pakistan, the last time the military was in power was just before Musharraf instated himself as the president because before his instatement as president he was a military dictator. Although India’s defense budget is huge it can afford to spend more due to its size, which often translates into more resources. Pakistan has persisted in its attempt to match India wherever possible, but it has now it seems realized that the true victory is not how many bombs a country has but how prosperous its citizens are. The more prosperous the citizens, the better the economy, and more prestige in the world. Pakistan is now heading in that direction and by afar it appears promising.

If China is Asia’s United States, India is Asia’s next Japan. Simply put its economy is booming and even companies such as IBM and Citibank have begun outsourcing jobs to India. India offers an educated workforce skilled in ways of computer technology, which works for far less than what American workers might would work for. Industrialized countries have invested heavily in India and most of the business operations operated by foreign investments such as McDonald’s and Pizza Hut have been tremendously successful. Economy improves only when the country is stable and daily skirmishes in Kashmir and odd attacks on the parliament building are a sign of anything but stability. In order for investment to be made in a country it must portray itself to be stable. It is this realization that has finally forced India to initiate a dialogue with Pakistan, though one should not underestimate input the Indian military has in this decision. Instability raises the odds that an investment might be lost, once the investment is lost the jobs are lost. Except India’s size, education of its citizens, and absence of a military keen on coups, the difference between the success of India and Pakistan is instability.

Initially, when Vajpayee was elected as prime minister there were concerns that he was a Hindu fundamentalist vying to achieve conservative agenda of his party promoting the notion of a greater India. At present those concerns are no more. He instead has become in words of Musharraf “a man with vision” and it was he who extended the “hand of friendship to Pakistan.” Although I too was under the impression that his presence at the helm of India’s leadership, would only deteriorate relations between the two countries but I was wrong. He is now described as a poet, visionary, and a skilled politician. He can be forgiven for sometimes being a bit obnoxious and not admitting his party’s role in the Gujarat riots, but mostly he has portrayed himself as a politician capable of making decisions beneficial to his party and country at large. He is a man capable of mobilizing troops in the face of an attack (parliament bombing), showing the world that it is serious about its national integrity. He is also a man committed to regional politics, who is aware of grievances of its economic elite who wants trade, cricket matches, and a solution to Kashmir problem. Even India no longer has to hold on to Kashmir in order to prove itself as a secular country because due to its system, a Muslim president being at the helm, and usually peaceful co-existence between Hindus and Muslims are testament to its secularism. He now appears to be a man who wants to leave behind a legacy and it is not a far-fetched idea that he and Musharraf might get the Noble Peace Prize if their differences are resolved.

If India trades with Pakistan and buys Pakistani sugar, if Pakistan buys Indian wheat rather than buying at a greater cost from United States or Australia, both countries would tremendously benefit. Consider the popularity of the Indian movies and movie actors. Although Indian movies are smuggled via Dubai into Pakistan, they are extremely popular and can be found at any video store. What if actors of both countries begin co-producing movies? Wouldn’t it be incredibly helpful to public in both countries? I think so. Economically, India has much more to lose by not trading with Pakistan than does Pakistan by not trading with India. Simply because Indian economy is booming, whereas Pakistan’s has yet to experience the boom. One could argue ‘Nope India does not need to trade with Pakistan because look its economy has been booming without it.’ But sorry it does need to trade with Pakistan because by trading with Pakistan, it could go beyond the boom it has experienced so far. Furthermore, if it trades with Pakistan it will not only be helpful in economic terms but in military terms as well, because countries that trade with each other often resist going to war.

In conclusion, I truly believe this time leaders of India and Pakistan might just be able to resolve their differences. It might not happen overnight, but it may eventually happen. Vajpayee knows he has a choice: he could either in twilight as an ordinary politician like so many before him or he could endeavor to do what none has been able to do, making peace with Pakistan. If he is successful he will be revered in India and to an extent in Pakistan. If he fails critics could say at least he tried. In Musharraf’s case, he was a smart soldier and has proven to be a smart politician, as he has secured his hold on presidency until 2007. It was his prudent and calculated judgment that ushered Pakistan into post September 11 era, as a front-line state helping to combat terrorism rather than supporting it. And once again it is him who has taken personal risks to combat militants in Pakistan as well as those operating in Indian Kashmir and Afghanistan. He is aware that some officers in military ranks are sympathetic to militants’ cause, but he is undeterred. It is a pity that it has taken over 50 years of bickering for India and Pakistan to finally embrace each other. More things unite them than divide them, but when they finally embrace they should embrace hard, for it has been long due.