Introduction:

Military diplomacy is a specific field of policy approach. It centers basically around the

pursuit for foreign policy interests of a state in the field of security and defense policy. In the

present and complex world of international relations, it speaks to one of the most significant

form of foreign policy exercises of the states. However, In the context of the theories of

international relations, and explicitly inside diplomatic science, be that as it may, just moderately

little consideration is paid to the subject of military diplomacy in contrast to the subjects of
[1]
economic or cultural diplomacy. In the current scientific discourse, military diplomacy has a

few more extensive or smaller understandings. As a fact of both hypothesis and diplomatic

practice, it has all the earmarks of being generally proper to comprehend military tact in the

smaller sense, and to describe it as a set of activities for the most part by the representatives of

the defense ministry and other concerned, just as of other state organizations, planned for seeking

the foreign policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense, and whose activities

depend on the utilization of dialogues and other discretionary instruments in the same context.

More extensive meanings of military diplomacy as a rule take into account the integration under

this term of an unreasonably broad arrangement of various exercises, the reasonable

investigation of which is for all intents and purposes inconceivable. [2]

The military of Pakistan is a main actor in a lot of the current most squeezing security

difficulties, and not many institutions face such outrageous weights from such diverse powers.

Most recently, the military has been asked to battle a terrible inner rebellion, smother global

terrorist gatherings, and react to Pakistan's most exceedingly terrible floods in eighty years, all

while facing a lot bigger adversary in one of the most deliberately complex regions on the planet.

Pakistan's military is not just an instrument of the state's international strategy, but in addition the
 [3]
most powerful actor in the country’s internal political matters. They are as of now fighting

fierce local enemies who have executed a great many civilians along with the the country's

military and civilian leadership. They moreover figure obviously in endeavors to stifle

international terrorist organizations, and have, simultaneously, been blamed for enduring or in

any event, supporting those equivalent associations. Moreover, Pakistan's military manage the

world's quickest developing atomic armory in the midst of incredible worries about its security

given an active domestic insurgency, vital challenge with its atomic neighbor, and the A.Q. Khan

system's legacy of nuclear proliferation. [4]

Military diplomacy as a fact has not been an obvious component of India-Pakistan

relations in context of abundant reason. Military to military commitment between the two states

is restricted to Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) of shifting viability. Indeed, even as the

two militaries have a few local and extra-territorial commitment falling under the title of military

diplomacy, the ones between the two are confined to the standard exchange of military
[5]
consultants in separate missions in national capitals. However, there is a case for growing

military strategy between the two. The contention made is that there are uneven benefits for India

from engaging Pakistan. Subsequently, the few components of India's commitment with Pakistan

need enhancing with drawing in its military directly. India's endeavors so far have delivered

constrained profits. Since the Pakistani armed force is at the center of the foundation in Pakistan,

connecting with it legitimately may help. On the off chance that there are reservations regarding

drawing in with the Pakistani military at the danger of sidelining the regular civilians set up in

Pakistan, at that point any such commitment can be extended from being barely military to

incorporate both the nonmilitary personnel and military segments of the respective national

strategic establishments. [6]

Problem statement

Military diplomacy is a particular field of policy approach which centers basically around

the quest for foreign policy interests of a state in the field of security and defense policy. In the

present world of international relations, it speaks to one of the most significant form of foreign

policy exercises of the states. However, in the case of Pakistan and India, Military to military

commitment between the two states is restricted to Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) of

varying effectiveness. Military diplomacy as a fact has not been an obvious component of India-

Pakistan relations and with abundant reason. Since the Pakistani armed force is at the center of

the foundation in Pakistan, connecting with it legitimately may help. There are various variables

that affect the local relations of Pakistan because of the inclusion of Indian military diplomacy.

Therefore, Military-to-Military Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool attempted as a part of

defense and military association.

Literature review

Though the Department of State is the leading foreign policy association inside the U.S.

government, the Department of Defense assumes an inevitably significant job in diplomacy to a

great extent through its long convention of international commitment and the security

environment. In near future, huge planning staffs, and different commitment tools, geographic

warrior authorities seek after local level commitment by facilitating universal security meetings,

elevating transparency through military-to-military contacts, and giving American military

trainings and hardware. From the beginning of time, officials, for example, Commodore

Matthew Perry, General Tony Zinni, and Admiral Joseph Prueher, have assumed critical jobs in
U.S. foreign policy definition and execution. Officials like these give prepared proof that the

military does considerably more than "battle the country's wars." [7]

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia expresses that the objective of foreign policy is to

advance the state's advantages as managed by topography, history, and financial matters.

Defending the state's autonomy, security, and trustworthiness is of prime significance; saving the

massive conceivable opportunity of activity for the state is about as significant. likewise,

diplomacy looks for most extreme national advantage without utilizing power and ideally

without causing resentment. In this manner, if the utilization of (peaceful) diplomacy is the

principal resort in creating international relations, the utilization of (violent) military methods

could be viewed if all else fails. Diplomacy can be characterized as the direct of international

relations by arrangement and inciting altruism and common trust as opposed to to power,

propaganda, or plan of action to law. [8]

Militaries, truly, are related with accomplishing national objectives and goals in

international relations using power. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the coercive

operations of militaries and naval forces by harsh powers prompted authoring of the term

'gunboat diplomacy' which refers to the search for international diplomacy destinations with the

guide of prominent showcases of military power, suggesting or comprising an immediate risk of

fighting. It implied that the military needed to have the ability and fortitude to act; and the

leaders the will to challenge the adversary's false front, whenever required. [9]

The diplomatic means of defense serves explicit national foreign and security approach

targets. With regards to international and local key commitment, it makes feasible agreeable

connections, subsequently constructing trust and encouraging clash counteractive action,

bringing transparency into defense relations; fabricating and strengthening impression of

common interests; changing the mentality of accomplices; and instigating participation in

different zones. Defense policies can advance nation’s explicit international strategic goals by

overseeing foreign policy goals and supporting the other conciliatory activities of government.

The writer, in his book 'Enabling Military-to-Military Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool',

subtleties the different practices that can be attempted as a component of defense and military

collaboration and which could likewise contribute towards military strategy. [10]

USA, UK, France and the NATO countries could be viewed as the world's chiefs in the

context of military diplomacy. China has been forcefully augmenting its military strategic

endeavors and could likewise be considered among the pioneers. Australia and India have also

reputable military strategic endeavors. USA, UK, France, the NATO countries and Australia

have extremely engaged and generally have transparent policies and projects. One of their

military discretionary destinations has been to guarantee and energize militaries that would help

democratic rule government and civilian control of the military powers. India, with a long

convention of utilization of military diplomacy, is likewise increasing its endeavors, though, in

its very own moderate and confounding style under the excessively centric and bureaucratic

control of its services of external affairs and defense. While the USA draws in nations over the

globe through its authoritative commands, India and China center around the developing world

on the landmasses of Africa and Asia. [11]

India keeps up defense and military relations with numerous nations including Mauritius,

Seychelles, Maldives, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Cambodia, Japan,

Philippines, Republic of (South) Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and ARF, China, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Israel, Oman, Iran, UAE, Botswana, Lesotho,
Zambia, Namibia, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea. Sudan, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa,

USA, Brazil, UK, France, Russia, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Belarus,

Germany, Greece, Italy and Australia. [12]

In the course of the most recent decade India's military diplomacy contacts and exercises

have expanded exponentially. Rajat Pandit annals the rundown of war games being attempted by

the Indian military powers in 2010-11. The military has arranged 14 to 18 exercises with nations

ranging from the US, UK and Russia to Bangladesh, Mongolia, Thailand, Tajikistan, Seychelles

and Singapore; both at home and abroad. After the 'Malabar' maritime war games on the western

coast, the 'Habu Nag' land and/or water capable exercise at Okinawa (Japan) Indian warships will

hold battle moves with French warships, including the atomic fueled plane carrying warship

Charles de Gaulle. Indra-Dhanush, air battle war games among IAF and British Royal Air Force

are scheduled to be held at Kalaikunda airbase in West Bengal. While the RAF has conveyed its

hitting new Eurofighter Typhoon fighter, E-3D AWACS (airborne warning and control

frameworks) and VC-10 mid-air refuellers, IAF is partaking with Sukhoi-30MKIs, Mirage-

2000s, MiG-27s and the Phalcon AWACS. [13]

India's failure to make trust and generosity with its neighbors has prompted the majority

of them liking to utilize military discretion with China as an India explicit countervailing factor.

India needs to survey its direct bilateral and multilateral international relations in South Asia and

the developing nations. It must move the concentration to mutual benefit and 'reliance' (as in the

Indo-Bhutan condition) and away from a competition with China. Of worry to India ought to be

the Chinese endeavors of shaking for space in the military diplomacy field particularly in the

South Asian and Indian Ocean regions. [14]

 It is regularly acknowledged that the Pakistani military's hardline position towards India

is at the base of the stressed relations among India and Pakistan since this is in the corporate

interest of the praetorian Pakistani military. With India seen as the coercing 'other', the Pakistani

military can get to state assets and stay on the power pyramid. In this perspective, the contention

goes - there is little to pick up from connecting with the Pakistani military. [15]

There are a few other valid justifications to avoid the Pakistani armed force at all costs. It

is with the administration that India works together, paying little mind to its appearance. On the

off chance that the military are in control, at that point as in the Zia and Musharraf years, India

drew in with Pakistan, the state yet not the military. It is to India's greatest advantage that vote

based system prevails in Pakistan with the goal that the profit of democratic peace can be

gathered in South Asia. Direct contacts with the military would undermine general population as

well as engage the military, further slanting civil military relations in Pakistan. [16]

With its unpleasant activities, for example, sending armed infiltrators; preparing, drafting

and controlling terrorists; spreading irritation; and meddling in India's inner issues. By this

meaning Pakistan is at presently outside the domain of military diplomacy. Where antagonistic

relations are the request for the day, confidence building measures and strife evasion estimates

should be set up. These are carefully dialogues outside the circle of military diplomacy, barely

characterized. Given the past record of conflicts with Pakistan and the potential for acceleration,

drawing in with the Pakistani military as far as CBMs and escalation control measures, not

adding up to military diplomacy, makes eminent sense. [17]

There is a subtler explanation that exists at the intersection of strategic culture and

bureaucratic governmental issues. The idea of Indian civil military relations is with the end goal
that the Indian military doesn't have a huge basic leadership power and weight. Military

diplomacy would enable the military to the detriment of the civilian read bureaucratic, part. This

may slant the balance more for the military and away from the administrators in both the services

of defense and international issues. There are likewise worries that even as the Indian military

may impact the Pakistani military emphatically, the invert is similarly conceivable. This may not

be in light of a legitimate concern for vote based system. Additionally, operational subtleties may

get bargained through such connection either by mistake or commission. [18]

India has no issue in connecting with Pakistani state, paying little heed to the composition

of the system. Be that as it may, it properly has doubts in direct association with the Pakistani

Army. Actually that Army controls Pakistan. In the event that interfacing with it facilitates

Indian interests, at that point doing so requires finding an exit from the present tie. The 'exit plan'

is in getting into a key group with the Pakistani security foundation and communicating in the

language the military comprehends, of dangers, control differentials and power proportions.

Since the military will be comprehensively spoken to on the two sides, it adds up to military tact

by the indirect access. Military tact may yet demonstrate to be the key. [19]

While the military by and large assumes the greater part of the fault for its different

interruptions into state administration, it generally provides to control with some much needed

help for all intents and purposes each nonmilitary personnel and political organization in the

nation, including the legal executive, components of the different ideological groups which are

coopted to frame a pro regime party, and the parliament that at last follows from imperfect

elections. Equally significant, the military comes back to control with the help of the populace,

who are regularly alleviated that whatever kleptocratic government went before it has been

expelled. [20]
 In October 2009, general Kayani planted himself in the focal point of external and

domestic approach issues by giving an emphatic official statement in the wake of leading a day-

long meeting of the military's corps administrators. This public statement affirmed the officers'

aggregate renouncement of the Kerry Lugar Berman enactment and its request that there be a

'Semi-Annual Monitoring Report' that incorporates among different things as an appraisal of the

degree to which the Government of Pakistan practices compelling nonmilitary personnel control

of the military, including a depiction of the degree to which civilian official and parliament

practice oversight and endorsement of military budget plans, the levels of leadership, the

procedure of advancement for senior military pioneers, nonmilitary personnel contribution in

vital direction and arranging, and military inclusion in civil organization. [21]

The military's capacity to intercede in Pakistan's administration without prompt public

resistance originates from its presumption, well-practiced in general public, that it is the pre-

prominent gatekeeper of Pakistan's external and internal interests, yet in addition of the country's

'ideology', differently understood. Similarly significant, the military's readiness to intervene

politically and financially originates from its own conviction that it is such a gatekeeper and is

the absolute most fit element to embrace both state-and nation building. Regardless of the

country's repeating dissatisfaction with the slips up taken by military pioneers when they

legitimately hold control, the populace by and large welcomes its supposition of power with

energy or help from the start. [22]

Presumption of power with respect to the military, which has commonly supported

among the people, has various implications separated from the supported enervation of

democracy. The military has a revisionist plan, trying to change the regional status quo in

Kashmir, and it has made a stove-piped basic decisive process with little space for thorough
national security debate or able regular civilian input. This mix of components clarifies in some

measure how the military has come to seek after an assortment of difficult strategies at home and

abroad. These arrangements have both continued the Indo-Pakistan security rivalry and affirmed

the truth of the Indian danger among Pakistanis, who are regularly uninformed of their military's

exercises, remembering its culpability for beginning threats, encouraging intermediary

components and neglecting to accomplish triumph in its multiple endeavors. [23]

It is important to show the Orientalism natural in the basic realist view of India and

Pakistan, famous among western forces and authorities who treat the two neighbors rather like

errant kids whose atomic eagerness should be controlled through sanctions. Rather, it considers

both country states as grown-ups attempting to jump on in a dif. clique and perilous world just as

they can, and draws on their observation and development of reality as the structure square of a

hypothesis to represent their security situation. It looks at the aims and impression of the two

nations instead of focusing on the insignificant accessories of intensity. complete information on

the procedure may give new bits of knowledge into compromise and a hypothetical reason for

confidence building measures in South Asia. [24]

A different view of India–Pakistan relations, settled inside a bigger set of three

comprising of China, gives new bits of knowledge. The main perspective on common

antagonistic vibe among India and Pakistan has picked up arguments over the previous decades

halfway of course, similarly as the optimism of Nehru, advertiser of non-alignment, has lost

credibility due to India's conflicting t and sharp utilization of the said notion. In 1962, when the

Chinese powers walked onto India for all intents and purposes unopposed, the optimistic barrier

of standards over interests inserted in the NAM went into a terminal decay. Pakistani vital

thinking, never much captivated of Nehru's hopeful vision of South Asia as a zone free of super-
control competition yet inside the conditions set somewhere near India, thought of its own

answer in the 1965 India–Pakistan war, when it endeavored to take Kashmir by power. Indian

strategic planning, which scarcely endure this stun, at long last surrendered to the intensity of the

structural realist standard view in the 1971 India–Pakistan war, when India interceded in East

Pakistan. [25]

The fact that domestic politics in South Asia offer evidence of tolerance, accommodation

and dialogue across cultural divisions needs to be recognized by the structural realists, and

integrated with an institutional mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution. Democracy rather

than sanctions is the path to regional peace in South Asia. [26]

The main perspective on India–Pakistan relations, being exogenous to the political

procedure of South Asia, hypothesizes this multifaceted phenomenon regarding a two-man, non-

co-operative game where international sanctions can give the main probability of harmony. The

way that regional political issues in South Asia offer proof of resilience, settlement and exchange

crosswise over social divisions should be perceived by the basic realist, and incorporated with an

institutional component for peaceful conflict resolutions. Democracy instead of sanctions is the

way to local harmony in South Asia. [26]

Hypothesis

Principally Military diplomacy is a particular field of diplomacy which centers around the

quest for international diplomatic interests of the state in the field of security and defense

approach. Relations among India and Pakistan have been perplexing and to a great extent

antagonistic because of various historical and political occasions. Relations between the two

states have been characterized by the fierce segment of British India in 1947, the Kashmir
struggle and the various military clashes battled between the two countries. Military to military

commitment between the two states is restricted to Confidence Building Measures of shifting

adequacy. Military strategy has been an unmistakable element of India-Pakistan relations and

with rich reason. Pretended by military diplomacy in serving explicit national foreign and

security strategic targets.

Research questions:

Q: 1. What is the Part played by military diplomacy in serving specific national foreign and

security policy objectives?

Q: 2. What is the role of military diplomacy in foreign relations of a country?

Q: 3. What is the role of Pakistan military in establishment of the foreign policy?

Q: 4. How Pakistan military promote national narrative of Pakistan at global level?

Q: 5. What are the factors that affect the regional relations of Pakistan due to involvement of

Indian military diplomacy?

Significance of research

The significance of research incorporates the questions of military diplomacy in various

contexts of international relations. It further defines the military diplomacy as a particular field

of diplomacy which centers around the quest for international policy interests of the state in the

field of security and defense approach. After defining this, the research analyzes and defines the

significance of military diplomacy on regional and global levels. It also then extends its

understandings of military diplomacy in the context of Pakistan and India relations. Therefore,

this research is explicitly significant in understanding of military diplomacy at various levels. It

speaks to one of the most significant types of foreign policy exercises of a large portion of the

states in the present context of international relations. It furthers elaborates the relations between

India and Pakistan in the context of military diplomacy as unpredictable and to a great extent

unfriendly because of various historic and political occasions which are characterized by the

rough segment of British India in 1947, the Kashmir strife and the various military clashes

battled between the two countries. In this way, Military diplomacy has been a noticeable

component of India-Pakistan relations and with plenteous reason. Moreover, it states that the

elements influencing the regional relations of Pakistan because of contribution of Indian military

diplomacy.

Limitations of research

Limitations of research are that it is based upon a statement of problem that Role played

by military diplomacy in serving specific national foreign and security policy objectives. This

notion might be limited in approach at various levels. Other factors affecting the regional

relations of Pakistan that might be limited in its own very nature are due to involvement of

Indian military diplomacy. Military-to-Military Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool undertaken

as part of defense and military cooperation without civilian input itself has limitations. In this

research, First of all, hypothesis is developed based upon the statement of problem. According to

the hypothesis the five research questions was developed like: Q: 1. what is the Part played by

military diplomacy in serving specific national foreign and security policy objectives? Q: 2. what

is the role of military diplomacy in foreign relations of a country? Q: 3. what is the role of

Pakistan military in establishment of the foreign policy? Q: 4. How Pakistan military promote

national narrative of Pakistan on world level? Q: 5. And what are the factors that affect regional
relations of Pakistan due to involvement of Indian military diplomacy? The limitations of all

these questions include that these are completely based upon the literature review.

Theoretical framework

The hypothetical structure of the paper incorporates the theme of research that the

Military diplomacy is a particular field of diplomacy which centers around the quest for foreign

policy interests of the state in the field of security and defense arrangement. At that point the

statement of problem was developed by theme of research. It speaks to one of the most

significant types of foreign policy exercises of a large portion of the states in the present scenario

of international relations. Military to military commitment between the two states is bound to

Confidence Building Measures of shifting viability. Relations among India and Pakistan have

been mind boggling and to a great extent unfriendly because of various verifiable and political

occasions. Relations between the two states have been characterized by the fierce segment of

British India in 1947, the Kashmir strife and the various military clashes battled between the two

countries. Military diplomacy has been a visible component of India-Pakistan relations and with

plenteous reason. Pakistani armed force is at the center of the foundation in Pakistan, drawing in

it straightforwardly may help in the advancement of foreign relations. Pretended by military

diplomacy in serving obvious national foreign and security arrangement targets. Components

influencing the regional relations of Pakistan because of association of Indian military tactics.

Military-to-Military Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool attempted as a major aspect of defense

and military participation. The data was being analyzed on the basis of literature review.

Research methodology
 Research methodology is that it is based upon the literature review. A statement of

problem that Role played by military diplomacy in serving specific national foreign and security

policy objectives was being developed. First of all, hypothesis was developed based upon the

statement of problem. According to the hypothesis the five research questions were developed

like: Q: 1. what is the Part played by military diplomacy in serving specific national foreign and

security policy objectives? Q: 2. what is the role of military diplomacy in foreign relations of a

country? Q: 3. what is the role of Pakistan military in establishment of the foreign policy? Q: 4.

How Pakistan military promote national narrative of Pakistan on world level? Q: 5. Factors

affecting the regional relations of Pakistan due to involvement of Indian military diplomacy?

According to these research questions the data was being collected and analyzed.

Structure of research

The structure of research includes the following steps:

a. Introduction

b. Problem statement

c. Literature review

d. Hypothesis

e. Research questions

f. Significance of research

g. Limitations of research

h. Theoretical framework

i. Research methodology

j. Structure of research
k. Bibliography of research