Indo-Pak rapprochement and beyond

The Hindu-Muslim mistrust, which has been the root-cause of this hostility, was in a large measure spawned under the aegis of the British around the beginning of the 20th century. Their intentions then, were by no means to create a separate state for the Muslim community, but to use the rivalries and angers that existed between the two communities as a convenient wedge to perpetuate their hold over the Indian empire. It is not that the Muslim mistrust was totally unfounded. Many Congress members themselves have admitted that although the Congress claimed to represent the common interests of the two communities, partition became inevitable because of the extreme myopia with which the Congress had dealt with some legitimate and other not-so-legitimate safeguards that the Muslims had demanded. It is also a twist of history that had the Second World War, which broke out in 1938, not disrupted the process of gradually granting Indians some form of home rule, leading progressively to independence, the embryonic idea of Pakistan may not have been able to evolve into a full-blown demand. Pakistan, after its creation also forgot to roll back the aggressive slogans it had used during its creation. On the contrary, the palace intrigues of its civil and military bureaucracy was able to convince its rulers that a larke-lengey posture would serve them best.

However, the ramifications of the global power equations in the aftermath of 9/11 are that all that saber rattling must change. And it is these new compulsions that may spark a breakthrough in the peace process between the two countries, ushering in new hopes for a peaceful and progressive South Asia. However, for those enamoured with the two nation theory, the peace process will spell disappointment because it

certainly drives the penultimate nail into its coffin.

A diversion may be made at this point to look at how the 9/11 related realities will affect the Islamic world. The isolation that the world of Islam suffers today can be said to have originated from the time it abandoned the pursuance of science, learning and liberalism which had given Islam its golden age in the Abbasid period. The Islamic world has taken one backward step after another since then. From around the same time that the Reformation and Renaissance were guiding the western world towards the heights it has attained today, along the road of free thought, patronisation of the science and arts, experimentation with statecraft and above all, preventing the Church from interfering with the State, the world of Islam has been regressing. Therefore, in the changed circumstances of today, the Islamic world has little option but to accept the paradigm changes that have occurred and march in-step with the rest of the world.

Although it is true that the west (in the context of this article) represented by the U.S, had no compunction in fanning the terrorist message of fundamentalism and Talibanism in their bid to dismember the "evil empire", they are in no mood today of tolerating another challenge to the supremacy which they have built over the last 600 years. And unsavoury, but true remains the fact that they will be able to find many willing co-operators in their bid to chastise what they view as the enfant terrible of the world today -- the Islamic world. No matter how loyally the Arab Sheikhs may have served the Western interests in the past, in the eyes of the west the indelible images of Islam are the images of beheadings and of a flawed system of social justice. They may have romanticised and paid lip service to the values -- but only as long as it was confined to the Arabian deserts. They are not to tolerate it when it is exported to their own backyard.

It was a miscalculation of gargantuan proportions when the fundamentalists thought they had gained enough strength to be able to purify the world with their Wahabi doctrine. In today's context therefore, it will be pragmatic for the Osama Bin Ladens and the Islamic world in general, to accept that even with hundreds of more suicide-bombings, they are not in a position to fight back. Not in this century, but

perhaps, if it has carried out a Reformation of its own, in the next. Terror has been and is used by the west too, not only in the Abu Ghraeib prisons, but in their own lands all the time, but their societies and systems are such that these acts do not go absolutely scot-free as has been the case in the Arab lands. However, the good news is that this paradigm change that the Islamic world must go through is not as soul-wrenching as it sounds. We must not forget that Islam was able to evolve from its humble beginnings as a tribal religion into an international credo within a century of its founding because it was able to adapt itself to the various local environments.

South Asia is advantageously poised to play a pivotal role in the transformation that Islam must undergo--not in its basics, I hasten

to add, but in its applications. South Asia can take pride from the fact that a large quantum of the research and development of Islamic thought and philosophy has taken place in the subcontinent. It also has another distinct advantage. It was not necessary in the monolithic Arab society to live in an atmosphere of concessions and tolerance with other communities. The Muslims of South Asia have that advantage and can share their experience with the rest of the Islamic world. They must use it to their fullest advantage, for even the most diehard fundamentalist knows that in the world of tomorrow they will have to share their backyard with people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. They also realise by now that there no space is left anymore for a theocratic state in that world.

It is with this backdrop in mind, that the India-Pakistan rapprochement should be viewed. Both India and Pakistan have a glorious opportunity now of sowing seeds of sanity in their societies -- where reason will dominate over emotions. Pakistan needs to approach the problem with the thought that it has on its shoulders the reputation of the entire Muslim world to defend. Rigidity of the kind that destroyed the Arafat-Barak talks five years ago will cause both sides to regret it for decades. The process is not going to be a bed of roses but fraught with frustrations all the way. Sixty years of Islamisation and the equally stupid counter-saffronisation of the sub-continent's history books has left a bumpy road ahead. However, human beings are wonderfully adaptive creatures and I have recently actually seen a Pakistani talk to an Indian without his stomach bulging-over from a river of gall. And this is in a country where I was witness in late-fifties to a group of class fivers who were asked what their aim in life was. One of the students raised his hand and said that his aim was to become a cook in the Nehru household and poison him to death.

If the normalisation does actually take place, the transition to a less belligerent posture could be more easily achieved in India, because it has a more diverse population, democratic traditions there are firmly rooted now and because its population is poised for reaping the economic benefits of a resurgent India. If it comes to a tussle between a better way of life and the Hindutva rhetoric, Lakshmi appears to be set to win hands down. The most profound effect of normalisation will be on the political front in India, and it is conceivable that it could bring back to power once again in the next elections a coalition with a broad secular platform. If that happens, 10 years of religion relegated to where it belongs -- inside the individual home -- buoyed by its booming economy could well make the BJP's saffron message permanently irrelevant in India. That would be the ultimate nail in the coffin of the two nation theory.

The Kashmir issue is so sensitive in both countries, that it is doubtful whether either of them would seriously want to bring it to the table now. If the breeze of sanity starts to blow, the people-to-people contacts which will ensue will make it easier for the politicians to eventually deal with the Kashmir issue. Blots to India's democratic traditions, like the POTA will no longer be used and a Muslim will not need to auto-programme a discretionary brake on his tongue when he is criticising the system or campaigning for his community. It could also rekindle hopes that a mosque and a mandir having a common boundary wall, with both the "azan" and the "ghanta" pealing forth their respective messages in the evening air, can proclaim the syncretism that was not unknown in Indian society. It is sad that fundamentalism, be it of the Hindu or the Muslim genre, has banished that syncretistic tradition into a distant dream, found only in Hindi film songs of yesteryears.

Pakistan will initially go through an intensely traumatic period in its transition to a reduced belligerency, and they must keep a sharp eye that this genie within its body politic is not allowed to come out. The beginnings of that trauma are already evident, as they start to deny safe havens to the Talibans and the Kashmiri insurgents and significantly, in the way that a component of their present government, the MMA is beginning to be harassed by their own establishment. It is in the interest of the Islamic world that Pakistan survives through these traumas. Both the countries will benefit immensely from scaling down on the weaponry and the size of their armies, but more than the economic benefits, a reduced army would deliver Pakistan from the curse of a government within the government which has dictated state policy and which has been the source of all their misadventures of the past. The world is entering a phase where the famous words, "it's the economy, stupid" are beginning to impact many nations including China and India and who knows what may burst forth as new interpretations to the concepts of statehood are explored -- it may be an interesting world indeed.

Reduction of hostilities will enable Pakistan to direct its energies for competing with India on the international business front. In fact, it may create the foundations for the Muslims of the South Asia to take a leadership role in the Islamic world. It will also enable Pakistan to take advantage of the industrial and scientific resources that India has acquired. Most of all, it will permit Pakistan to proudly claim as theirs once again all the things it had to leave behind in 1947-- its common history and its common cultural traditions. They will no longer have to bemoan their severance from the red stones of the Lal Qilah or the serenity of the Tajmahal. Above all, it will give the millions of people who were wrenched from their homes in search of the promised land in 1947, new hopes, if not of going back but of a final destination.

It will also let the third country of the sub-continent, Bangladesh, take steps which are in the best interests of its economy, its people and its politics and which are driven by pragmatism, not dogma. It will strengthen Bangladesh's voice in South Asia and its collective voice will then be more than just a whimper in the world stage. It will of course, strengthen the democratic institutions in the country and help to reduce the frills in our defence spending, because, after all, who are we fighting against? It will possibly open up employment opportunities for its population in the other two countries. Reduction of religious tensions in India and Pakistan will perhaps finally give a voice to the minority population in our country, who have had to lead a life of denigration ever since 1971 and who--let us have the courage to admit--we have denied equal opportunities as citizens of this country.