NEW YORK, 5 January — As I sat in a New York coffee shop sipping a cup of coffee and reading Robert Kaplan’s Balkan Ghosts, I was reminded of the current escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.
Kaplan’s book brings astonishing clarity to the underlying tensions that have caused innumerable bloody conflicts and excesses, most recently in the former Yugoslavia. Balkan Ghosts is filled with examples of intense differences between the various peoples in the region and how, instead of bridging those differences, most leaders channeled that negative energy to sustain their own regimes. The results were almost always horrific.
South Asia with a multiplicity of religions, languages, and ethnicities combined with many instances of hate-filled violence provides some parallels to the Balkans case. After all, the division of British India followed savage communal clashes that left hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced and tens of thousands of women raped.
The scars of partition haven’t healed yet. More appallingly, the leaders of India and Pakistan have failed their people by their utter inability to bridge the differences that divide these two countries.
In a series of retaliatory diplomatic moves (including expulsion of diplomatic staff), India and Pakistan are upping the ante. Cries for war are becoming deafening. Arun Shourie, a minister in the Indian Cabinet, speaking recently about Pakistan’s involvement in the Dec. 13 attack on the Indian Parliament was quoted as having said that he personally favors a policy of "two eyes for an eye and a jaw for a tooth".
Shourie is not alone in expressing such sentiments. Following the attack on parliament (and even before it), there have been increasing calls for waging a war against Pakistan to put a stop to terrorism that, without a doubt, receives Pakistani support. Outrageous as the attack on the Indian parliament was, there are other issues at hand. Consider the following: 1.2 billion people, 420 million below the international poverty line, 516 million illiterate, more than 40 percent of children are malnourished, and 180 million have no access to safe water. That is India and Pakistan for you. Where is the indignation, the moral outrage? It is unconscionable that people speak of war as if it is an abstraction, without consequences, impotent as the numbers on poverty have become over time. A war between India and Pakistan will solve nothing but will certainly push both countries backward, into an era of hatred and deeper social and economic problems as if current problems are not daunting enough.
The current crisis has its roots in decades of mistrust and even mutual dislike between India and Pakistan. Ever since their independence, India and Pakistan have embraced hostilities much more easily than they have friendship and cooperation. Unfortunately, the wounds of partition have never really been healed. Instead, three wars, one leading to Pakistan’s humiliating dismemberment, continuing mistrust of each other’s policies, and differences over Kashmir have only deepened the scars of partition. Undoubtedly, the leaders (past and present) of the two countries have much to answer for. They must be held accountable for the fact that two poor nations, armed to the teeth, now stand at the brink of war and of further misery that neither can afford.
The suicide attack on the Indian parliament has understandably ignited passions in India. Terrorist attacks, usually restricted to Kashmir, have now come to places like New Delhi. An earlier attack on the historic Red Fort was mostly symbolic but the attack on parliament was unmistakably targeted at the Indian leadership. India quickly blamed Pakistan for the attacks while Pakistan responded by condemning the attack and denying any responsibility. This is the usual pattern, only this time the Indians are not in a mood to let this latest aggression pass and understandably so. In spite of Pakistan’s vehement denials, there are not many takers for Pakistan’s abdication of responsibility. Pakistan has always maintained that it provides moral, political and diplomatic support for what it calls Kashmiri "freedom fighters". India believes that Pakistan (or its agencies) provides arms and financial support to armed insurgents fighting in Kashmir. Most South Asia observers agree with India. Despite Pakistan’s recent entry into the US-led anti-terror coalition its past record on terrorism is by no means exemplary.
In December 1999, Indian Airlines flight IC 814 was hijacked from Nepal to Afghanistan. The hijackers managed to secure the release of three of their comrades including the current leader of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Masood Azhar. Jaish-e-Muhammad, recently declared a terrorist organization by the United States, is engaged in militant activities in Kashmir with the goal of "liberating" Kashmir from Indian rule and was blamed for an earlier attack on the state legislature in Kashmir that claimed over 40 lives. Without going into a diatribe against the Jaish (and there are many reasons for doing so), I wonder how any responsible government can provide harbor to a person who was freed as a result of a hijacking. Those who secured Azhar’s release in exchange for innocent hostages even killed an Indian passenger, Rupin Katyal. Gen. Musharraf cannot in good conscience claim to be against terror and yet provide shelter to the likes of Azhar.
Masood Azhar, currently in Pakistani custody, should have been extradited to India a long time back. Perhaps, as a goodwill gesture, Musharraf should extradite Azhar to India to make sure that he is held accountable by Indian law enforcement agencies. By doing so, he will also send a strong signal to those in his country that are engaged in activities that run counter to Pakistan’s own interests, its own development as a civil society, and its standing in the international community. If Musharraf fails to act resolutely against religious extremism, it will only be a matter of time before the forces of intolerance overwhelmed Pakistan.
Pakistan’s leaders have failed their people on countless other occasions. By following a foreign policy that for all practical purposes is India/Kashmir-centric, Pakistan’s leaders have neglected their impoverished country’s overwhelming development needs. To make matters worse, Pakistan’s foreign policy has been a failure. Pakistan’s standing in the community of nations, despite a friendship of convenience with the United States, is poor. Pakistan’s support to the Taleban and to Islamic extremists in Kashmir, and its own problems with religious extremism, have made many countries wary and rightly so. Pakistan has deep underlying problems including poverty and illiteracy, a faltering economy, increasing religious intolerance, an undisciplined Northwest, and mindless sectarian violence. For once, Pakistan needs to look inward and make a genuine effort to steady itself. Pakistanis cannot allow themselves to be held hostage to the Kashmir problem. They must assert themselves and seek a negotiated settlement of all disputes with India. Of course, support (moral or otherwise) for any form of violence in Kashmir or in India must stop first. Pakistan and its people will be better for it.
Lest the reader thinks that I have neglected to comment on India’s responsibility for bringing peace the region, I am not done. I think India, despite the moral high ground it has managed to achieve due Pakistan’s follies, has a lot to answer for as well. Indian leaders, like their Pakistani counterparts, have on many occasions tried to divert the attention of their people from serious internal problems by resorting to nationalistic jingoism. Come to think of it, creating diversions has become an art form for many Indian politicians. The destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya was a convenient way of appealing to Hindu sensibilities in the absence of a solid election manifesto that could lead to electoral gains. In fact, some leading Indian newspapers have alluded to the possibility that some elements in the ruling coalition might lobby for military strikes to bolster their prospects in an upcoming election in India’s largest state. It is no coincidence that Indian politics generates so much cynicism.
India has admittedly achieved major diplomatic successes in recent times. India has promoted itself as a long-standing progressive democracy that is under constant attack from religious extremism exported by Pakistan. That message, combined with India’s seemingly large marketplace, has gained India much goodwill, especially with the United States. While Pakistan’s relationship with the US comes across as forced, Indo-US ties appear to be a natural fit. Nevertheless, India’s successes in the international arena cannot be used to cover some serious shortcomings in its policy framework with particular reference to Kashmir and Indo-Pakistan relations.
A dull one liner summarizes India’s Kashmir policy: "Kashmir is an integral part of India". This despite Prime Minister Vajpayee’s desire to chart a course off the "beaten track" when it came to dealing with Kashmir and with Pakistan. Perhaps it is because of increasing tensions with Pakistan or due to continued militancy in Kashmir, India’s Kashmir policy lacks realism and creativity. Day in and day out, Indian officials keep up the "integral part" rhetoric, vehemently denying that Kashmir is a disputed region, and by asserting that the only dispute in Kashmir is about that that part of Kashmir which is under Pakistani control. That much of the world recognizes the Kashmir issue as a dispute of frightening proportions is conveniently sidestepped. Perhaps this is part of a larger strategic plan but the last time I checked, taking positions that fly in the face of reality lack credibility and are counterproductive in the long run. I am not suggesting that India give up its claims to Kashmir but only that it undertake serious efforts to resolve this long festering problem. India must do its share to start a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan. All outstanding issues, including Kashmir, will have to be placed on the table. Old, inflexible positions will have to be cast away and new creative thinking employed in any future negotiations. The sooner it happens, the better for South Asia and for the rest of the world.
I am certain that there are those in India who are wary of placing Kashmir on the negotiating table. I have come across many politicians, analysts, and journalists who worry about any change in the status quo in Kashmir.
They argue that India’s secular character could be damaged if India was seen as ceding concessions in Kashmir, a Muslim majority state. I think India’s secular fabric is threatened by the continued characterization of the Kashmir dispute solely in religious terms (and for this Pakistan is to blame as well), instead of seeing it in a broader context of economic development and democratic principles. I think India’s secular fabric faces immensely greater challenges from virulent, communal forces that continue to stoke past hatreds for petty political gains.
What about this notion that if Kashmir was granted autonomy (or some other dispensation acceptable to Pakistan and to the people of Kashmir), other parts of India would demand similar treatment? This has to be one of the most incredulous arguments against any concessions in Kashmir. If such demands come forth from other Indian states, maybe, just maybe, those states are unhappy with the status quo and see a better future in a change. The mere possibility that such demands exist should spur policy makers to help improve the lot of the Indian public rather than devote their energies to devising artificial barriers to potential dissent.
There is a lot that divides India and Pakistan. Yet, unless these two countries are counting on continental shifts that will physically separate them, they have to live as neighbors. Resolving differences through discussions, no matter how long-drawn-out, is the only viable option. If war will resolve all outstanding differences between these two countries, then please, by all means, a full-scale war must take place. But, then again, most wars end up in talks. So, why not take the shortcut to discussions and save the world, and the suffering millions in India and Pakistan, a lot of misery. Like the ghosts of the Balkans, South Asia has its own ghosts, past and present. It is time for India and Pakistan to confront their ghosts and move forward into an era of peaceful coexistence. Those statistics demand it.
