The urge to write on relations between Pakistan and India came after watching coverage of the visit of Chinese Premier Wan Jiabao to Pakistan this week. The dignitarys visit to Islamabad had been preceded by a State visit to India. While covering the event, the State electronic media declared repeatedly that the visit was coming on the back of a visit to India which was a failure. No one felt the need to substantiate this judgment, which was delivered with unthinking certainty by the States media managers, nor did any one of significance deem it necessary to question it.
In itself, this was quite unremarkable and hardly a surprise. But it does underline the unfortunate tendency in Pakistan to see Pakistans successes in terms of Indian failures. If the visit of the Chinese Prime Minister to India was a failure, let Pakistanis collectively jump for joy and pat each other on the back, became surely it is our success.
Why cant we pursue more mature and far sighted policies on India in our own interest? The Pakistani establishment, especially the Army and right wing political parties would do their damndest to prevent any fundamental change in policy. For them, fostering distrust of India is a non-negotiable cornerstone of policy. The question whether a particular move would benefit Pakistan in terms of trade, business interests, economic gains etc will not even be asked. Instead, the most unpalatable episodes from history and stock phrases which render any rational analysis unnecessary, are marched out with mind-numbing regularity: Indian intransigence core issue Indian hegemony etc.
Knee jerk expressions of denial even in the face of the strongest evidence have been the hallmark of Pakistan for half a century, and this has been fatal for our credibility. Our media and even school textbooks still speak of the 1965 war having been initiated by India. I recall the endless declarations of India sneaking across the international border (raat kay andheray mein) and how we had nothing to do with the sudden spike in Kashmiri freedom fighter (1965 model) activities which preceded Indians extension of the conflict. The facts leading to the war are now in the open and acknowledged by us. Our disastrous adventure in Kargil took off amid stout denials of our regulars being in any way involved. We cannot and do not claim that any more. When the terrorist attacks on Bombay occurred, we were quick to deny any connection at all with Pakistan or Pakistanis. When one of the attackers was captured alive, we promptly declared he was not a Pakistani national.
I am not saying the attack had any official sanction. Personally I am certain it did not. But that being true, our credibility as a responsible nation suffered an irreversible setback because of these hasty declarations which were quickly and inevitably proved false. Today we acknowledge that Ajmal Qasab is a Pakistani national, and by commencing criminal proceedings against some Lashkar-e-Taiba elements, we also seem to acknowledge the involvement of some non – State elements from among the lunatic right.
Why was it not possible for the Pakistani establishment to react to this outrage by promptly condemning it, to assure that the State was in no way involved, to offer unconditional cooperation in investigating it and if any Pakistanis were found involved, to punish them with the full force of the law. Had we done this, our credentials as a responsible member of the international community would not have taken a battering.
Admittedly, hard line elements in the Indian establishment are no better. They are as biased inflexible, myopic, extremist and militant as their counterparts on our side of the border. Rahul Gandhs wiki – leaked observation that Hindu fundamentalists are a bigger threat to India than Muslim terrorists is a rare admission from the otherwise self-righteous Indian establishment.
Clearly, our interests lie in diluting tensions and pursuing trade and economic development as a means to improving the quality of life of our people. India is a huge economy and Pakistan has very significant advantages in accessing the Indian market in comparison with other countries. The advantages of mutual trade are numerous and undeniable. We must ask ourselves if it is not materially and morally indefensible for us to sacrifice this opportunity at the altar of narrow vested interests of institutions and prejudices of pressure groups.
What prevents us from normalizing and pursuing trade relations with India? Mainly three disputes. Sir Creek and Siachin are so easily resolvable that it is only criminal apathy and insensitivity on the part of the leadership of both countries that they continue to block progress. Options broadly acceptable to both sides have been developed at technical level by the experts from both sides and we came very close to an agreement before then President Musharrafs troubles and lame duck status prompted Indias retreat. Options in terms of specifics, generally acceptable to both sides exist and are still valid.
So far as Kashmir is concerned, we can agree to differ and pursue resolution through diplomatic means, but not allow it to kill trade. Taiwan and Chinas treatment of the dispute is a model. If terrorism and Indias perception of our lack of good faith is polluting relations, we must declare our commitment to eliminating extremism and terrorism and demonstrate this commitment by word and deed in terms of our policies towards non State as well as State actors.
Let us stop cutting off our nose to spite our face. We owe it to our people.
