Pot on the boil


Written by Tasneem Noorani • Cover Stories • August 2010

Pakistan which was a land of peace and harmony in the fifties, is now a country beset by militants from all sides and within. Places like mosques or events like funerals, which were once sacrosanct, are safe no more. As a young Assistant Commissioner of a sub-district in the seventies, I used to wonder at the tranquility of our rural areas, where only an odd murder would take place, linked to either a fight over a woman, land or money, but almost never a crime by a maniac, like we used to read stories about in the west then. But why this grave deterioration of social order, when economically the country has progressed, like its neighbors? This is all unfortunately because of one factor, which Indians much rather not discuss; it is because of the dispute over Kashmir.

When the siblings in 1947 separated, they divided their assets amicably, except one little patch, on which they could not agree. Since then the two countries have fought three wars, in addition to two occasions - Kargil and storming of the Indian Parliament - which brought them within a whisker of armed conflict. But despite the bloodshed and bad blood, the dispute is more distant from resolution than ever.

What have been the disasters of this dispute for both sides but more for Pakistan?

Both have had to maintain much larger armies than they would have maintained, had this dispute not been there, thus diverting huge resources over six decade to unproductive sectors, like attaining the nuclear bomb.

The large size of the army in Pakistan, necessary in view of the dispute, has resulted in its disproportionate importance in all internal affairs and consequent derailment of development of democratic institutions and traditions.

Kashmir dispute has such intense emotive appeal that it has provided the ‘raison de etre' to the militancy movements in Pakistan. No amount of security management or other measures are likely to yield a permanent solution in the face of the grave provocation.

On the Indian side, it has led to the followers of ‘Akhand Bharat' and ‘Bharat Rashtra' to more organized militancy. Organizations like the RSS have attained disproportionate influence in the establishment and the media, with 44000 offices and seven million members. The basis of their appeal to the masses is also the defense of their motherland against the ‘Muslim enemy' whether across the border or inside the country.

Because of Indo-Pak bad blood, trade between the two logical partners has remained stunted, losing an opportunity to fight poverty. However much India may claim its economic success, poverty is still its biggest problem.

Because of bad relations, rather than standing together internationally and reaping benefits from the rest of the world, like the EU or ASEAN countries, India and Pakistan continue to make sure that no initiative like SAARC succeeds, because it may benefit the other.

And one can go on and on, on how the population of the sub-continent, more so that of Pakistan, has suffered because of sour relations between the two nuclear powers. What has, however, happened is that because of prolongation of the Kashmir issue, other issues have emerged and complicated matters e.g. Siachen, and now the issue of water. Issues, rather than being resolved, are becoming more complex.

Relations between the Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent remained harmonious during the 700-year Muslim rule of India. They fought the 1857 war of independence together. Hindu-Muslim conflict only started towards the end of the 20th century. This was mainly caused by the divide and rule policy of the British. The momentum was subsequently maintained by the rightist elements of both religions.

In the last thirteen years numerous attempts have been made to resolve the Kashmir issue. The initiatives taken by Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee in 1998/99 were derailed by Kargil. Later desperate efforts by Gen. Musharraf were shot down by the Indian hardliners, the rightist Hindu parties. The Indians missed a great opportunity to get a resolution when an army general ruled Pakistan, as he could have taken even an unpopular decision, unlike a politician.

When frontal armed efforts failed, Pakistan devised a "slow boil" strategy to continue the effort to resolve the matter, which has had its own fallout. While Indian media and propaganda machinery terms Talibanization, the villain of the peace, the surge of Hindu extremists in India is equally forceful. The influence of the Hindu extremists is on the increase, even though BJP, the political wing of the RSS may have lost the election, but the influence of the "Dals" (e.g. "Bajrang Dal') is keeping pace with the surge of ‘Lashkars' (e.g. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi). Extremist elements on both sides are attaining ascendancy over saner voices boding dangerously for the future.

The surge of the ‘Hindu Rashtra' movements in India is bad not only for better relations with Pakistan but a consequential backlash of Indian Muslims who will obviously fight for their space in as violent a manner as they are confronted. The violence internally is likely to be blamed exclusively on Pakistan, as in the Mumbai incident, where not one Indian has been held responsible, though one understands an Indian Muslim was charged but was later exonerated. Is it logical to expect ten terrorists to land from the open sea and hold a city as big as Mumbai hostage for three days without any local assistance? I think the Indian media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the government story of how the horrendous carnage happened.

Be that as may, how sound is the Indian policy to make the Mumbai incident the centerpiece of the future Indo-Pak relationship? By delaying dialogue and letting problems multiply, by sweeping the role and resurgence of Hindu extremists under the carpet and making extremism in Pakistan and its alleged export as the single item agenda, the Indians are just letting the pressure increase with which the pot might burst one day.

The Indian media spews so much venom against Pakistan that an ordinary Indian's position is becoming irreconcilable with Pakistan. Indians are bombarded with so much anti-Pakistan news that most are forced to believe that majority of Pakistanis are terrorists and hardly a woman comes out of her house without a veil.

One wishes that an ordinary Indian is facilitated to watch ordinary TV programs on Pakistan TV, including its numerous talk shows, to see how aggressively self critical and open the Pakistani society is. Also how similar, ordinary citizens on both side of the border are, and how confrontation is not what they want.

India is currently holding all territories that are under dispute e.g. Kashmir, Siachen etc. By following a strategy of delaying any kind of negotiation, they are perhaps hoped that with time gained, unrest in Kashmir will die its own death. However, evidence on the ground indicates, that delay in resolution of the problem is aggravating the aggression of Indian Kashmiris (despite half the Indian army positioned there) and providing the provocation to extremist in Pakistan, whether they manifest themselves in the shape of Lashkar-Taiba or Lashkar Jhangvi. So the strategy of gaining time is not working for India or for peace in the region.

India has successfully projected itself as being on the march. For developing at the speed it wants to, the single most important factor is peace and harmony. The more sophisticated an economy becomes, the more susceptible it becomes, to violence and breakdown of law and order. So by not showing a resolve or even an inclination to resolve the basic issues causing the conflict, i.e. Kashmir, India is acting like an ostrich with its head in the sand. If a failed Pakistan is India's desire, it will have to consider that there will be a serious blowback of chaos in Pakistan on India. Anarchy and chaos is fertile environment for the extremists.

The more reasons for extremism, in the form of unresolved disputes, India provides in the region, the more difficulties the moderates will have to maintain dominance in society, on both sides of the border.