Pakistan needs to be careful with how it deals with Shiv Sena
Like a jingle playing on repeat in our heads, the volley of abuses and antagonising statements from either side of the Line of Control are sounds Pakistanis and Indians alike can’t forget. A bloody history of cross border skirmishes, diplomatic talks held in vain and at least three wars have left the citizens of both countries, at the least, very wary of each other. As a former lecturer of mine reminded me recently “…people and political leadership often think that saying anything that’s anti-India makes you a hero.” And if choice statements made by Indian media and political leadership are anything to go by – our Indian neighbours are treated to the same beliefs about Pakistan.
Most recently, Pakistanis watched with mounting incredulity as Indian political party Shiv Sena (literally: the Army of Shivaji) upped an increasingly aggressive offensive against Pakistan–India relations. Targeting social and political channels of communication and cooperation, the party – which is famous for its hard line attitude towards Pakistan and its ideology of Hindu nationalism – has gained the attention of media, the political leadership – and yes, the people – on both sides of the border. While people in both India and Pakistan called for the Modi government to take action against the Shiv Sena’s attacks, in Pakistan, the legislature took steps of its own: a formal resolution against Shiv Sena was passed in the Punjab Assembly this week. Among other things, it called on Pakistan’s leadership to move the United Nations to declare Shiv Sena as a terrorist organisation.
On the surface, it sounded like business as usual: Pakistan and India’s animosity is the stuff of legends and there is scarcely anyone who is ignorant of it, or immune to it. But as local news published articles and news reports on this, and as people shared it across the social media, there were several others who questioned this “response”.
While people in both India and Pakistan called for the Modi government to take action against the Shiv Sena’s attacks, in Pakistan, the legislature took steps of its own: a formal resolution against Shiv Sena was passed in the Punjab Assembly this week. Among other things, it called on Pakistan’s leadership to move the United Nations to declare Shiv Sena as a terrorist organisation
“The irony is not lost,” Hassan, an econ and social sciences graduate, said: “that the same Pakistani nationalists who used to protest when Pakistan was labelled a terrorist state by India (who stated) that you can’t judge a nation on the acts of few, are the same who are calling India a terrorist state. The argument goes both ways, you cannot judge a nation on the basis of a few people. What is happening in India is condemnable but you can’t judge the whole nation on the actions of a few.”
A social activist, who wished not to be named, expressed similar views.
“Basically, when two people aren’t exceptionally fond of each other — and one of them does something that the other party doesn’t necessarily agree with — they should refrain from reacting or commenting. The only things one should do,” he said, “should have constructive value, at least on paper.”
He added: “I personally don’t see how Pakistan can do anything that would constructively influence the situation.”
What about the Punjab Assembly’s resolution that calls in part to move the UN to label Shiv Sena a terrorist group, I wondered.
“In isolation, I would say it’s a fair move,” he admitted. “But if you zoom out a little, it only exacerbates the existing relationship problems the two countries have: by not talking to the Indian government about the issue and taking the matter to an — allegedly — superior authority, it undermines the federal authorities in India.”
So, one is left wondering: should Pakistan have a response at all?
“Diplomatically speaking, Pakistan can play it smart by purely taking an isolated, inquisitive stance and publicly asking India whether these actions are in line with their constitution or not? And if they are outside of their legal system, what are the law enforcement agencies (aka government) doing about it?”
Sania, the chief-editor of an e-publication called Khabarfeed, was in agreement.
“Pakistan,” she said, “should raise the issue of non-tolerance and growing anti-Muslim animosity in India at all international forums and ask for a ban against holding of events within India similar to the ones imposed on Pakistan by the ICC.”
Admitting that Pakistan’s own political front did, in fact, leave much to be desired, Sania was of the opinion that while the Punjab Assembly’s resolution wouldn’t be particularly effective, it would be the right thing to do.
“It is not within the powers of the UN to regulate political parties inside a country,” she pointed out. “That being said, it will be the right thing to do as India, under Modi, has been continuing a smear campaign against Pakistan at all international forums and has refused to participate in dialogues with the Pakistani government on any topic besides terrorism, thereby projecting Pakistan as a one-dimensional terrorist state.”
Of course, not everyone believes that a formal response is required – or even validated. Comment threads under articles on the Shiv Sena attacks, and on social media alike, are minefields where debates are ongoing. As many – including Hassan — point out, Shiv Sena is a registered political party of another country. Calls for action against it by Pakistan can be viewed as attempts to interfere in India.
“It (Shiv Sena and its actions) is their internal affair,” reminded Ms Asma, who is the Head of the Political Science Department at Kinnaird College for Women. “And the way they always keep reminding us of human rights abuses in Pakistan, let’s not give them the chance to do that again.”
Her words echoed the sentiments of those who say, considering Pakistan’s less than stellar human rights record, pointing fingers at attacks in India is hypocritical.
“Let’s not make it Muslim centred or Pakistan centred,” she continued. “What I feel is; that when we do that, we – well, we lose points. Remember; international politics is about image building and scoring points, so let’s do it that way. It’s not ‘Muslim rights’ that have been violated, it’s ‘human rights’ that have been violated – and somebody has to do something about it. That’s an international issue. Let’s treat it as such. Let’s get the international community involved in this way – they should be involved.”
Admitting that Pakistan’s own political front did, in fact, leave much to be desired, Sania was of the opinion that while the Punjab Assembly’s resolution wouldn’t be particularly effective, it would be the right thing to do
Like the infamous Dead Marshes of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings — immortalised by Peter Jackson’s movies — opinions on Pakistan and India’s relations are perhaps best described as “Only shapes to see, perhaps, not to touch.”
So how should Pakistan respond to the attacks on the organiser of former Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s book launch in India? How should our government, and we as individuals, respond to the attacks on the BCCI headquarters or the human rights violations of minorities – particularly Muslims – across the border?
Or should we do nothing at all?
“Let’s not politicise this,” was Ms Asma’s opinion. “What’s happening is that (political leaders) are thinking ‘if we do this, if we pass this resolution, we’ll become heroes for the people’. There’s nothing very revolutionary about it. The media is trying to score points, the politicians are trying to score points – and no one’s thinking about the country.”
Towards the end of our talk, she added that civil society groups were in fact the institutions that had the main role to play – because they didn’t have to worry about the “niceties” of diplomacy and international politics required of the executive leadership.
“The students, the academia, the human rights groups, the activists groups, the women’s rights groups, the minority rights groups – they should voice their opinion on the minority rights violations in India. The government should give a diplomatic statement, you know, without naming names, etc. But civil society groups — and that’s the positive thing about it – they can always say all those things that we want to say”, she added.
“That, I think, is what would make a difference.”