Kashmir and the prisoners’ dilemma

Sandeep M Kunte

The Indo-Pak stand-off can be usefully analysed by the Game Theory which economists call “the prisoners’ dilemma”. Two suspects, Ram and Shyam, are being interrogated by the police separately. Each one is pressured to confess and is told that the other is already doing so. If both hold out they will receive a routine sentence of one year each. If both confess they will be sentenced to five years. But if one confesses and the other doesn’t, the one who holds out gets 10 years while the other is let off. What will they do?

Ram doesn’t believe Shyam will confess but, then, he just might. Rather than take a chance, Ram confesses. His reasoning is: if Shyam holds out, Ram is let off and if Shyam confesses, Ram gets only five years instead of 10. Shyam uses the same reasoning and the two meet in jail for a five-year sentence.

If only they had been allowed to meet before taking the decision, the outcome could have changed. Following the dominant strategy led to an inferior outcome for both—herein lies the dilemma. Co-operating can improve their position, but then each is tempted to double-cross the other. What they actually do depends on the level of trust between them.

Now apply the prisoners’ dilemma to the Kashmir impasse. India and Pakistan have two broad options—compromise or hard line. If both countries take a hard line, the result is a stalemate. The best option for both occurs when one takes a hard line while the other compromises. However, better is for both to compromise.

Pakistan says Kashmir is the core issue. India counters by saying that it is not. Stalemate. It is clear that Kashmir is the core issue and India should admit it. But the Pakistanis should understand that it is the most intractable. Resolving the issue will require long, sincere and committed efforts.

The case of Kashmir is not the end game. The border may be redrawn but we will remain neighbours. Begin by allowing an exchange of performing artists. And why not allow cricket?

This would help prepare the ground for a conciliatory approach by reducing the political cost of such a move. Moving in small steps is a good negotiating tactic making it easier to tackle the more complex issues. How one frames negotiations is critical in arriving at a mutually beneficial settlement. At present, compromise is seen as a step down by both sides. But compromise by both could lead to settlement. Rest assured, both leaders will then be remembered for years to come, and without third party intervention. The world will recognise them as international statesmen and perhaps bestowal of peace prizes will follow.

(The writer works for a financial strategy consulting firm)