Syed
H. Akhter
The
Indo-Pakistan conflict, having drawn the world’s attention
to a potentially catastrophic scenario, is no longer on the center
stage. For the protagonists, Vajpayee of India and Musharraf of
Pakistan, this must be a disappointing outcome.
For
the short harrowing period when a nuclear confrontation seemed unavoidable,
both seemed to relish the attention they received, being front-page,
headline news in major media. And not unexpectedly, both adroitly
exploited the situation to shore up their waning popularity.
In
both countries during the stand off, private citizens and public
officials brazenly talked about the final solution. From the Indian
perspective this meant the end of Pakistan and, from the Pakistani
perspective, the crippling of India with its industrial infrastructure
and major cities destroyed. Such irresponsible, fiery political
rhetoric lent credence to the idea that while these countries may
have developed nuclear capabilities, they were not yet responsible
guardians of these destructive weapons.
In
this latest face-off, war mongering on the Indian side was far more
disappointing than on the Pakistan’s. A military government
in Pakistan legitimizes its overt and covert hold on power by shifting
people’s attention away from the pressing needs of economic
and human development to the danger of external threats to Pakistan.
Without the putative Indian threat, the military rulers in Pakistan
would find it difficult to present themselves as God-appointed saviors
entitled to ravenously suck resources that could be well spent on
improving the living conditions of the people.
India,
however, should have acted with restraint and not fanned the war
hysteria. The decisive victory that Vajpayee spoke about to the
front line soldiers turned out to be more for public consumption
than for troops’ morale restoration.
After
visiting front line, battle ready soldiers and pumping up their
adrenalin, he quickly retreated to the mountains for a short vacation.
India’s democratic checks and balances should have discouraged
loose talks and adventurous behaviors. That her politicians chose
to ante up the war rhetoric was yet another reminder of the reality
of Indian politics – brandishing swords and stoking religious
hate can still serve political goals.
The
logic of arms endowment and organizational skills undoubtedly favors
India. India’s superior force can decisively win a long-term
war against Pakistan, just as it did in 1971. The Pakistani generals
are aware of this competitive reality. They also understand that
for India the cost of winning a decisive war against Pakistan would
be exorbitant, economically and regionally.
This
the generals in Pakistan skillfully exploit to their advantage.
Indian politicians thus merely play into their hands by ratcheting
up war rhetoric and legitimizing their rule in Pakistan. If having
the military rule Pakistan, knowing that it hurts and weakens Pakistan,
were a part of India’s strategy, her behavior would be defensible.
But this does not appear to be a component in India’s strategic
thinking.
India
and Pakistan are poor countries, one poorer than the other. These
two countries that cannot adequately feed, clothe, and house their
people can, however, wreak havoc on each other. This is the irony
of today’s malfunctioning, unbalanced development in developing
countries.
These
two countries cannot afford to sink so much of their resources into
their military infrastructures. While it could be argued that for
financially stable India this may not be an onerous burden, but
for financially weak Pakistan, this is a luxury she cannot afford.
India
and Pakistan need to reconcile their differences. This needs to
be done without any foreign mediators or facilitators. The malady
of distrust and hate dividing the neighbors is their internal matter
and there is no need for them to wash their linen in public.
However,
for India and Pakistan to travel on the road to appeasement, they
will need to abrogate the assumption that have long shaped their
attitudes and guided behavior. Both countries will need to spurn
the idea of using religion to divide people. Religion in these countries
has metamorphosed into a sporting event where spectators gather
to see the burning, looting, raping, and pillaging of innocent people,
all under the aegis of the ruling elite.
What
unites the people of the subcontinent is far more pervasive and
deeper than what separates them. They share a common ancestry, heritage,
and culture. Much that Indians and Pakistanis may not want to admit,
it is impossible to tell a Muslim face from a Hindu face, or a Christian
face from a Buddhist face. The faces are the same, the people are
the same. Muslims are as safe in India as they are unsafe in Pakistan.
And Hindus are as safe in Pakistan as they are unsafe in India.
More Hindus have died at the hands of Hindus in India than they
have in Pakistan at the hands of Muslims. More Muslims have been
killed by Muslims in Pakistan than by Hindus in India. The climate
of fear for some Muslims in Pakistan is almost palpable, as it is
for some Hindus in India.
Raising
the specter of religion to divide people has only served the interests
of the selected few in both countries, those adept at exploiting
the people for their own advantage.
With
the rapidly changing geopolitical reality, a decimated Pakistan
and a poor India would be no more than historical anomalies. The
two countries with a combined population of approximately 1.2 billion
have a responsibility to fulfill and a destiny to achieve. The two
nation states as currently constituted are geopolitical and historical
artifacts, but their people are not.
Hindus,
Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and others -- the people of the subcontinent
-- will not disappear. What they expect from their governments is
a fear-free environment to pursue their dreams, separate but united.
Putting together a system that promotes commerce and understanding
among the different groups of people will go a long way in bringing
peace and prosperity to the region.
A first
step in this direction, and perhaps the most difficult, would be
to forego the use of religion to divide people and make enemies
of kindred spirits.
The
writer is an academic with research interests in South Asian affairs.
