Scared of peace?
By Dr Mubashir Hasan
DAWN
23 April 2003
The partition of the subcontinent
into Pakistan and India in 1947 was accompanied by a very large traumatic
exchange of population and horrible massacres. That these events should
cast long shadows over the attitudes of the peoples of the new countries
towards each other was only natural. Not natural, however, was that
the two governments should have confronted each other for more than
a few years. Countries go to war but with signatures on a peace treaty,
normal intercourse at government level is quickly resumed.
Today, over fifty-five years
after independence, the governments of India and Pakistan can still
be quite articulate in justifying the
uninterrupted hard policy stand they adopt to confront each other. At
times, each government's logic may seem unassailable, but considering
the opportunities they have missed of ushering in peace and progress
in their respective lands, their policies appear nothing short of tragic.
They have gone to wars but peace has eluded them. They have remained
in a state of no war, no peace.After fourteen years of promoting peace
and friendship between the two countries, I have come to conclude that
both the ruling elites are genuinely scared of peace breaking out between
them. They seem to recognize enormous dangers that peace in the subcontinent
may bring to their political power and the flow of wealth that comes
with power. Strong vested interests for the two elites have developed
to maintain the status quo.
In India, politicians, the
civil apparatus of the state, its army
protectors, big traders and businessmen make up the elites. The
Pakistani elites comprise the officers of the military and civil
services, their client politicos and supporting feudal and business
classes.Internally, by using the authoritative administrative structure
built by the British to deny democratic governance at the grassroots
level, the elites have maintained their political hegemony. No social
contract between the state and the people has emerged. Governance is
based on arbitrary use of coercive power. The elites have legislated
draconian laws giving wide powers to the police, paramilitary legions
and armed forces in the name of maintaining law and order.Externally,
by adopting a policy of confrontation with the neighbouring country,
the two elites have indulged in an open-ended arms race and recruited
division after division of armed personnel.
Large armies, paramilitary
legions and huge intelligence apparatuses have immensely helped the
elites to maintain their political power, simultaneously threatening
their neighbour. They have built weapons of mass destruction along with
delivery systems by spending vast amounts from national budgets.
By maintaining confrontation towards each other and building massive
armed power and often violating the rule of law and sanctity of basic
human rights, both elites have done fabulously well for themselves during
the last half a century. They have amassed riches through legal and
illegal means which will be the envy of the Mughal princes should they
come to life. Their vested interests have vastly grown in size, exacting
an enormous amount of wealth from poor farmers, industrial workers and
other labouring classes - all in the name of national security, irredentist
ventures and a deliberately distorted view of history.
To maintain their hegemony
and to secure the support of the masses, the two elites have stoked
the fires of communal hatred and intolerance to intensify the gulf between
communities and nations. They have failed to settle disputes such as
that of the transfer of assets relating to partition, Kashmir and Siachin
among others. They would do all they can to widen existing cleavages
and to create new ones by reneging on settled issues such as that of
the division of the Indus Basin waters. They have gone to wars and now
claim the right to pre-emptive military action against their sovereign
neighbour.
However, there are elements
among the two elites who, time and again, have made unsuccessful efforts
at bridging the gulf. Towards the end of the eighties, foreign secretaries
- Rasgotra of India and Niaz Naik of Pakistan - had agreed on the draft
of a peace deal. The Indian side blames Pakistan for going to sleep
over it. India and Pakistan had come to an agreement on ending the confrontation
over the Siachen glacier. Pakistan blames India for not solemnizing
the agreement.
During his first term as
prime minister, Nawaz Sharif desperately
wanted to start negotiations but Prime Minister Narsimha Rao would not
agree. As soon as Benazir took over as prime minister, Narsimha Rao
greeted her assumption of office but she would have none of the talks
that the Indian wanted. After a meeting with the Indian prime minister,
when this writer approached Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for an interview,
she loudly said in the presence of press reporters and photographers:
"Dr Sahib, come and talk to me on any issue but not about relations
with India. They will think that I had sent you to India".
A mysterious unwritten understanding
seems to exist between the
permanent establishments of the two countries to discourage taking any
measure that will bring the two nations nearer. I learnt on good authority
that on one occasion Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif speaking to a high-level
Indian diplomat, said that visa restrictions between India and Pakistan
should be removed. The diplomat politely responded that it was a good
idea but also pointed out the difficulties in the way. When the Indian
diplomat told a high-level Pakistani diplomat what was in the mind of
the Pakistani prime minister, the Pakistani responded to the Indian,
"I hope you tried to dissuade him".At a Commonwealth Conference,
prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Chandrashekar had verbally agreed to
do away with visa formalities for travel between the two countries.
Pakistan is alleged to have gone back on the idea.
When they met in Edinburgh, Scotland, Prime Minister I K Gujral asked
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif about progress on the Pakistani proposal
to sell electricity to India. Nawaz Sharif confirmed that Pakistan was
agreeable. Right there, in the presence of the Indian prime minister,
the senior Pakistani diplomat present there told the two prime ministers
that the sale could not take place. Mr Gujral was dumbfounded at the
daring shown by the Pakistani bureaucrat in contradicting his prime
minister.
It is a curious state of
relations between the two countries. When
India is ready to talk, Pakistan is not willing and when Pakistan is
ready, it is India which refuses to talk and most of the time both
sides indulge in confrontational rhetoric. On occasions the two sides
seem to reach the brink of a deal or an agreement. However, at the last
minute, as two senior Indian diplomats confided to me, something or
the other happens to thwart the deal - an act of sabotage, an armed
incursion, a murderous attack, an artillery duel on the border, an irresponsible
statement by a leader or an arms deal with another country.
These days it happens to
be India's turn to close all doors and
windows of negotiations between the two countries. Rail, road, and air
communications have been suspended. Representation at ambassador level
stands withdrawn. The high commissions' strength is badly denuded. They
do not allow their citizens to read the newspapers of the other country.
It takes only one government
to refuse to negotiate at a particular
time but the refusal serves the traditional interests of both the
elites. It serves to preserve the status quo. The severity of the
present-day restrictions on normal intercourse is indicative of the
severity of internal and external pressures on the government placing
such restrictions.
In the past, confrontation
and a semblance of normality could exist
simultaneously. For the moment, the Indian stance has allowed
Pakistan to yield to the internal and external pressures on it and
show its all-out readiness for unconditional negotiations.
The present situation cannot last long. Opportunities for genuine
peace negotiations can arise sooner than later. The forces of
confrontation are at their weakest in both countries. It is important
that personages of high profile and peace activists in both the
countries join together to mobilize their people for peace. The
billion-plus peoples of the subcontinent are ready to learn and be
convinced that confrontation only serves the interests of the two
elites and is against the interests of the overwhelming majority.