In examining the dynamics of India Pakistan relations
Hegel's famous dictum, may be a helpful starting point: "Freedom
is the recognition of necessity" i.e. By understanding the conflicting
imperatives that impinge upon India Pakistan relations it may be possible
to grasp the space for efficacious action. The fact that the Delhi Summit
was held in the first place signifies the internal and external pressures
for peace on the respective states. Failure to arrive at a joint declaration
connotes the political constraints to a quick resolution of opposed standpoints.
Thus within the dialectic of India Pakistan relations peace can only come
through a carefully conducted process rather than as a prize at the climax
of a single summit. In this article an attempt will be made to examine
the pressures for and the constraints to peace in the present historic
conjuncture. It is a moment in which both Prime Minister Vajpayee and
President Musharaf are attempting to transcend the adversity of circumstances
so that men may make history.
The pressures for peace operate at a strategic level
for both Pakistan and India. In the Indian case the pressures operate
on a state, which has achieved economic take-off and is now seeking access
to global markets for its IT, electronics, heavy engineering and chemicals
industries. At the same time it is seeking a Security Council seat and
thereby a more important voice in global power relations. Yet these aspirations
are constrained by the fact that its huge military budget is keeping 30%
of its population in abject poverty together with acute regional economic
disparities. This is creating powerful pressures on its traditionally
secular democratic political structure. At the same time with almost half
its army locked in counter insurgency operations in Kashmir, the resultant
massive human rights violations undermine its candidature for a Security
Council seat as the world's largest democracy. Moreover the tensions with
Pakistan over the Kashmir issue create a nuclear flash point, which puts
India out of sync with the global community that is seeking to defuse
the threat of nuclear conflict. Thus seeking peace with Pakistan is a
medium term strategic imperative for India. Prime Minister Vajpayee's
sagacious initiative for the Delhi Summit emanated out of these considerations.
In the case of Pakistan by contrast, the pressures
for peace are more immediate. The regime of President Musharaf seeks its
legitimacy and political survival through economic revival, an objective
that continues to elude the government. This is due to a situation where
lack of fiscal space through a massive debt relief package, prevents the
implementation of any serious economic revival strategy. The economy continues
to remain on the knife-edge of good harvests and the danger of debt default.
Unlike India, Pakistan is in the throes of an economic crisis and institutional
erosion that constitute a direct and immediate pressure on the state.
Therefore overcoming the economic crisis is a matter not just of the survival
of the regime of President Musharaf but is a question of the security
of the state itself. The crucial feature of this situation is that without
the fulsome support of the international community for massive debt relief
and large private capital inflows, economic revival is simply not possible.
Getting such support requires (apart from democratization), defusing tensions
with India and bringing the armed militant groups within the rule of law.
This dialectic induces a military regime with a national security perspective
to seek peace with India precisely for its own survival and for strengthening
the State. This imperative is operational for Pakistan in the short term
since its economic and state crisis itself is so immediate. Thus while
both India and Pakistan are subject to their respective strategic imperatives
for peace, the time scales of these imperatives for the two countries
may be slightly different. That is why Pakistan's government was so concerned
that a joint declaration be signed at Agra, while the Indian government
held back even though both countries were equally keen not just to have
the first summit but the second one in December as well.
Having analyzed the pressures for peace on both India
and Pakistan, let us now examine the constraints that pose a challenge
to the leadership of both countries in the pursuit of peace. Three distinct
but inter-related features of India Pakistan relations have historically
constrained any serious attempt at achieving lasting peace:
- A concept of power prevails
in the conduct of India Pakistan relations that is rooted in a particular
perception of the ruling elites of the two States: The affirmation of
statehood lies in adversity with the other State which was born in tandem
at the stroke of midnight in August 1947. The assertion of power in
this context closely resembles the definition of sociologist Stephen
Lukes, who sees power as being exercised: "When one party affects
another against the interests of the latter". The practice of power
has therefore been seen within the narrow paradigm of two states defining
themselves in terms of their adversity to the other. Clearly as both
India and Pakistan have matured over the last 50 years in terms of self-confidence,
the development of their respective economies and their independent
roles in international relations, such an adversarial notion of statehood,
has become obsolete. The expression of state power would be more credible
and more expressive of national interest if it were exercised for improving
the economic and social conditions of their respective peoples. Therefore
state power in India Pakistan relations can no more be seen in terms
of a zero sum game where one party necessarily "affects another
against the interests of the latter". On the contrary, as both
India and Pakistan seek to overcome poverty, illiteracy and shortages
of basic services for their peoples, such an exercise of state power
would open up a new space for cooperation. This new space would engender
a sense that the "other", while being different, is a vital
fertilizing force as a member of the wider human community. The emphasis
during the Agra talks by both President Musharaf and Prime Minister
Vajpayee on the need to seek peace for the material welfare of their
respective peoples, is illustrative of the new paradigm of power in
the context of India Pakistan relations. The argument by President Musharaf
that there is no military solution to the Kashmir issue and that it
needs to be resolved to overcome poverty, finds resonance in the use
of the word "Insaaniat" (Humanness) by Prime Minister Vajpayee.
Thus there is a new historic conjuncture in which two adversarial states
locked in the embrace of death for half a century, now seek to unlock
the possibilities of enhancing life.
- The second constraint
to peace is that historically, in establishing and sustaining an adversarial
paradigm of state power, it has been necessary for the propaganda machinery
of both countries to demonize each other. This becomes particularly
necessary in a situation where the peoples of the two countries share
so much in common in terms of their folk traditions and the well springs
of their humanity. The other must be drained of all human qualities
and converted into a demon to be exorcised from within the self, if
it is to become a perpetual target of hate.
The process of demonization that has been an integral element in the
practice of an adversarial inter-state relationship has also reached
its logical end in the present conjuncture. Over a period of 50 years,
an antagonistic relationship between India and Pakistan with its associated
diversion of scarce resources towards huge military apparatuses has
brought South Asia to a moment of reckoning. Almost half the people
are banished to poverty, illiteracy and preventable diseases. Children
who embody our future are in a far worse condition. The majority are
suffering from malnutrition, millions are dying of water borne diseases
and almost half the school age children do not get the opportunity of
even primary education. Out of those too poor to go to school, millions
of children are engaged in labour. Many are maimed, blinded, and struck
with lung diseases and brain deformities related with poisonous emissions,
and physical hazards at work places. We are witnessing a massacre of
the innocents.
Yet as if this were not enough, the practice of adversarial state power
has brought both countries to a nuclear standoff. The tension of the
Kashmir issue and the less than 5 minutes of flying time for nuclear
missiles, have combined to dramatically raise the risk of death by nuclear
accident. It has been estimated that for the individual citizen of South
Asia the probability of dying from an accidental nuclear war is higher
than the probability of dying in a road accident. Therefore for the
majority of the people of India and Pakistan antagonism between the
two states has not only brought hunger, disease and death but has also
subjected all South Asia to an unacceptably high risk of complete extinction.
Clearly, the epistemology of demonization associated with the paradigm
of power has divorced successive governments in India and Pakistan from
the sources of universal humanism rooted in their respective civilizations.
The ruling elites, the politicians and jingoists, must now ask themselves
a question: Of what use is a civilization if it cannot be brought to
bear to sustain life and to actualize its human potential? If the peoples
of South Asia are to survive, the epistemology of hate and death must
be replaced by the recognition that on both sides of the border we are
human beings seeking to survive.
- The third constraint to
the pursuit of peace in South Asia is the imagined fear by successive
governments that giving a concession from the stated hard line position,
would lead to an explosion of popular discontent leading to a fall of
the government concerned. There are of course extremists lobbies who
continue to maintain rigid positions based on mistrust, hate and the
notion that courage means annihilating the other. President Musharaf
during his press conference on 20th July 2001 illustrated the historic
conjuncture, by making a new formulation in this context. He proposed
that the majority of the people of India and Pakistan want peace and
that the leadership must have the courage to ignore the extremist minority
for the sake of their peoples. This implies that courage is no more
being seen in terms of the exercise of hostility against the neighbouring
country. Instead courage is being sensibly defined as swimming against
the tide, in terms of the ability to pursue peace and the welfare of
citizens.
The key to the peace process will lie in the wisdom with which the general
proposition is translated into a changed negotiating position by both
sides. Negotiations as opposed to mere 'Summit talk' implies give and
take. At some point a shift has to occur by both sides from their initial
apparently irreconcilable positions to the discovery of common ground.
In the Pakistani case there has been a demonstration of flexibility
and a significant concession by shifting from the position that Kashmir
is a bilateral dispute that can only be solved through the UN Security
Council resolutions of 1948. The new view is that Kashmir is the central
issue (as opposed to a bilateral dispute) that needs to be resolved
according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The key demand from
the Pakistan side is that the centrality of the Kashmir issue be acknowledged
by India and some progress made in resolving it before the "cart"
of other confidence building measures can be placed behind this "horse".
On the Indian side the key demand is for Pakistan to accept the fact
that armed militants from Pakistan are operating in the Kashmir valley.
Both Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharaf represent moderation
in the heart of their respective "Establishments". Both apparently
wish to pursue peace through negotiations. Yet both are pulled back
by the hawks within their respective power structures. The courage on
both sides will perhaps consist of taking the process forward by so
finessing the hawks that each side recognizes the ground reality: The
fact is that there is a popular indigenous rebellion in Kashmir against
the Indian State, so it is a central issue for Kashmiris, Pakistan and
India. Equally it is a fact that armed militants from Pakistan are active
in adding fuel to the fire that has been lit by the people of Kashmir.
The first step presumably is to recognize these facts. The next step
perhaps would be to go forward, in discovering the common ground in
which the best national interests of both Pakistan and India can be
pursued.
While a new historic conjuncture has opened up in India Pakistan relations
it is a window of opportunity in time. For the opportunity to be grasped
both leaders must pursue peace with a sense of urgency. Peace must be
achieved in the foreseeable future if it is to be achieved at all. The
dynamics of peace lie in the inter-play between the leaders as much
as in the inter-play between each of them and their respective power
structures. These dynamics if they are to bear fruit have to be conducted
within the small window in time available.
In this article an attempt has been made to
examine the opportunities for and constraints to peace that have emerged
in India Pakistan relations. I have argued that strategic imperatives
now operate on the two states to seek peace. Historical circumstances
now make it possible to replace an obsolete paradigm of state power based
on an adversarial relationship with the neighbour, by a new paradigm in
which power could be exercised for improving the conditions of life of
the people and thereby open up a new space for cooperation. Fifty years
of mutual demonization that has sustained conflict between India and Pakistan,
has led to economic deprivation for the majority of the people, social
disintegration, and the danger of extinction of all life through a nuclear
war. The time has come therefore to change the mind-set of demonization
with a new epistemology which recognizes the "other" as being
human. Security must therefore be sought not through the means of eliminating
the other, but through cooperation and development.
At the political level of course the challenge
has been recognized by the leadership of both countries that the extremist
lobbies whether in India or Pakistan must be handled with the necessary
adroitness so that the interest of the peoples of both countries can be
pursued. The peace process therefore, while it is predicated on the passion
to enhance life, cannot be expected to be smooth and painless. As the
great Sufi saint Sultan Bahu puts it:
[ISS MAIDAAN MUHABBAT VAALE MILLAN TAA TIRKHERE
HU, MEIN QURBAAN TINHA THEEN BAHU JINHAAN RAKHIA QADDAM AGGERE HU]
[In this landscape of love you confront much pain, I would sacrifice my
life O Bahu For those who take another step forward.]
|