SAARC: A turning point?

The partition of India on the basis of religion was due to the supposed conviction of both Hindus and Muslims that they could not live in peace and harmony once the British Raj ended. The then British government played a pivotal role in creating mutual distrust among Hindus and Muslims. After the Sepoy Mutiny, they became all the more cautious about the Indians. Apart from the British machination, the then politicians were also responsible for the perpetuation of British rule. Except for a few eminent leaders like M K Gandhi, A K Azad, Gaffar Khan or Sikandar Hayat, the then leaders of both the Congress and the Muslim League thought that partition of India into Hindu and Muslim majority areas would be better for both the communities. The subcontinent was perhaps the only example of division of territory on the basis of religion. This belied the modern theory of state. The basis of modern state is mainly economic. It was difficult to accept as to why Hindus and Muslims should not be able to live together peacefully after the subcontinent is freed from British Raj if they could live in harmony for a thousand years under the Muslim rule.

It is, however, a fact that under the Muslim rule the majority population of India i.e. Hindus were not treated very fairly by the Muslim rulers (except emperor Akbar). The Muslim rulers appeared to have ignored the necessity to understand the true sentiments and emotions of Hindus. The plundering of the temple of Shomnath for 17 times by Sultan Mahmood of Gazni (Afghanistan) is certainly one of the darkest episodes of history. Such a heinous crime by a brigand like Mahmood had nothing to do with Islamic principles. Islam never advocated hostility towards other religions. Islam is a religion of peace. But under the Muslim rule discriminations were made (such as imposition of Jijya, in wearing of footwear and riding horses etc). Such actions resulted in hindering development of closer understanding between Hindus and Muslims.

With the introduction of the British rule, Hindus accepted English education well ahead of the Muslims. This enabled Hindus to get jobs. The permanent settlement of 1793 deprived the majority of Muslim landlords of their estates. This resulted in loss of Muslim leadership.

The partition of India affected the population of mainly two of its provinces, namely Bengal and Punjab. Some people lost their lives in communal riots, others their ancestral property and professions. Some so called politicians community leaders, on both sides, were gainers because they could grab the properties of the fleeing minority at throw-away prices or for free. Large scale migration of skilled or semi-skilled minorities affected industry and trade in the then East Pakistan which also suffered most because of migration of Hindu teachers, physicians, and other professionals

During the last 56 years (1947-2003), lots of changes have taken place in the sub-continent, the most important being the creation of Bangladesh. Right from partition of India, the majority of the people in the eastern part of Pakistan could not be happy economically or politically. The top policy makers of the western part of Pakistan were also suspicious about the eastern part. In such an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, the people of the then East Pakistan continued to remain Pakistani because of their apprehension that independent Bangladesh may not be a viable state. Despite initial problems, the people of Bangladesh have proved that the will of the people can overcome many odds.

The other important development in the sub-continent is emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers. Certain developments, however, like assassinations of MK Gandhi and Liaquat Ali Khan and destruction of Babri Mosque, communal riots in Mumbai, Delhi, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad etc. are the saddest of events in the subcontinent. Lack of trust and confidence between Hindus and Muslims affects not only domestic policies, it also influences foreign policy. But in the long run, it does not help them either politically or economically. If the BJP stalwarts put too much pressure on Muslims, say, for establishing Hindutva, it will not only compel the Muslims of India to distance themselves from the mainstream of Indian life but will also have negative influence on other SAARC countries. The political leaders must accept that the people should be advised to shed suspicion and distrust and to respect each other's religious beliefs. People should be carefully guarded against the evil influence of fanatics and extremists. Those political leaders known for their duplicity will have to practice what they preach in the name of peace and tranquility.

The 12th Summit of SAARC has begun in Islamabad, after a long period of discontent in Indo-Pak relations. It is up to the members of the SAARC to decide whether it is in their shared interest to play dangerous games with one another, or to work together to challenge common enemies. If they can develop an effective regionalism, rewards would be significant for each and all of us.

In a conference arranged by the Hindustan Times in New Delhi, Indian Prime Minister AB Vajpayee expressed new hopes for the people of South Asia: "as we develop economic stakes in each other, we can put aside mistrust and dispel unwarranted suspicions. .... We could jointly tackle smuggling, drug trafficking, money laundering and other transnational crimes, which today flourish in our region because of our mutual rivalries and inadequate coordination. Once we reach that stage, we would not be far from mutual security cooperation, open borders and even a single currency."

With a preponderance over all others in South Asia, based on size, resources, development and power and with unique centrality, certainly India is in an ideal situation to take the lead.

A B N S Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary.