JEDDAH, 7 January — Distrust, if not earned, has a savage bite. Trust, when cautiously built up, is an endearing sight. It is the abundance of the former, and the lack of the latter, that has resulted in the ebbing and flowing of animosity and recriminations over the past 50 years between India and Pakistan.
It took several leaders, nouveau realism, a new world order and, more importantly, a new generation on the either side of the divide to break out of the shackles of mistrust and then lay down the first bricks of trust in what could have been — at least in theory — a start to a new order in the region and a new melding of people who are bound by language, history and culture but divided by an imaginary line drawn and defended with hatred and spilled blood.
The two countries have come a long way from the time the ghost trains between Lahore and Amritsar in 1947, a memory of the carnage the two sought to wreak against each other. Today we have the Samjhauta Express (the name relates to either understanding or compromise), still in its fledgling stage of carrying people and ideas across the border.
This symbolic bridge had provided a fresh cause for hope in the subcontinent. But, as has been proven time and again, the Indians and Pakistanis have shown that they are poor architects of hope and ideas but masters in despair.
Dec. 13, the day of the attack on the Indian parliament, could come to define the psyche of the subcontinent as Sept. 11 has that of the United States. The mirage of peace represented by the deadlocked, but much-hyped Agra talks, simply vanished.
The mistrust has inevitably produced a number of conspiracy theories, which once again have given sustenance to divided hearts and heartlands. Early generations were weaned in such an atmosphere of mutual mistrust, which transformed into poor bilateral relations after independence. Mutual trust is still elusive because people in the end tend to believe whatever they want to, and then justify it in any way they can.
Indians and Pakistanis say everything is fine, apart from Kashmir. India refuses to talk about the issue. Pakistan will not negotiate anything else before Kashmir is resolved. Each is sticking to its guns.
One view touted immediately after the assault was that it was India that triggered the attack. India, this theory goes, has deliberately raised the ante so that the world will put more negative pressure on Pakistan.
The proponents of this theory give credence to their argument by saying Pakistan is now once again an ally of the US after joining the global fight against terror. What those who buy into this conspiracy theory conveniently ignore is that just 10 days before the attack, it was India that was building bridges with the United States. The two had signed a key defense and terrorism cooperation pact that had already raised the temperature in Islamabad. After staking its all by becoming a US ally, Pakistan saw India winning militarily benefits.
Conspiracy theorists also point out that New Delhi rejected Islamabad’s offer for a joint probe into the attack, which would have been the first such cooperation in the history of the two countries. They also use the issue of the nationalistic Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) trying to build up patriotic fervor with an eye on impending elections in the largest Indian state, Uttar Pradesh. Although the BJP relies on the elitist vote bank in the state, which has predominately Muslim and backward voters, the other major parties Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, are also at odds with each other and will thus fracture the existing votes — giving the BJP a slight edge. What in theory is the fact that the Congress and the Samajwadi Party, which could have given the BJP a run for its money, have failed to forge an alliance to the detriment of each other.
The attacks, theorists say, were carried out not only to ruin the image of India but also to destabilize the BJP-led coalition. But all the evidence points to the opposite: It has strengthened the government. With the drums of war beating, the Indian premier got all the support he needed from all the parties.
The theory in India is that it is the case of Frankenstein’s monster on the loose. Pakistan-backed groups in Kashmir, they argue, have broken free of direct Pakistan control. Some of these groups launched this risky attack on the Indian parliament, following the failed assault on the Kashmir Assembly on Oct. 1, in order to stop the Pakistan government from changing tack on Kashmir. But Pakistan has not changed its policy on Kashmir, though there is some shift in its tolerant attitude toward homegrown extremist religious groups.
The Indian theory also states that the purpose of this covert war in Kashmir was to keep India in a state of constant discomfort, or to sever Kashmir from India. But just take stock of what some of the Indian politicians have been advocating: A strike at the supposed terror training camps inside Pakistan and regaining the lost portion of Kashmir in one fell sweep leaving a fait accompli whenever a cease-fire to the hostilities is achieved.
The reality, then, makes redundant the conspiracy theories. Many of the younger people would like to just get on with their lives while wishing for a just settlement of this thorny issue.
India and Pakistan have been intransigent. After 50 years of constant bickering, India must know by now that it should have a quid pro quo policy with Pakistan and only then can there be peace — or at least no talk of war. To demand a complete end to support for the armed struggle in Kashmir is something no Pakistani ruler can afford to do without substantial concessions from India. This is the reality that is the cause of the present standoff. Pakistan on its part should realize that its policy of getting even with India will just not pay.
