|
September 25, 2001
NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF
|
Kuldip Nayar
The disease is mistrust
Every time India and Pakistan face a problem, they tend to look towards America as if its nod
is all that matters. This has been particularly so after the end of the Cold War. The approach
is demeaning and smacks of servility. Yet for illusory gains, the two countries try to catch
Washington's eye.
The carnage in the US was an opportunity for both Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and
President Pervez Musharraf to have discussed common dangers. They should have been on the
hotline. The theatre of war is going to be this part of the world and we, the two countries,
will be hit directly, without knowing for how long and to what extent. But the reaction of
both has, however, been otherwise.
New Delhi and Islamabad have been vying with each other in offering assistance to Washington.
The manner in which Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has been going about the task -- a foreign
television network even cut him short in his entreaties to support the US -- gives the impression as if
New Delhi felt that it had been left out. Jaswant Singh is still at it, persuading the US to
use India.
Yet initially, India did not figure among the countries President Bush feelingly mentioned
for their prompt and generous assistance. It was obvious that Washington did not want to give
India precedence over Pakistan or say something which would make Islamabad feel that it came
next to New Delhi.
Of course, Washington's main consideration to get Pakistan on its side was
the location of the country, a state bordering Afghanistan for miles. The American
administration has always felt happier with military dictatorships than democracies which have
to think about people's sentiments and parliament's endorsements. Since Pakistan took time to
throw its weight behind America, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was late in attending to Jaswant
Singh's injured feelings that America was not asking India for any assistance.
Islamabad's response has been on expected lines. It has taken no time in siding with
Washington but has staged a drama for the public of being on the horns of a dilemma. Whether
it has brought in Kashmir or not hardly matters. The problem is terrorism, not any territorial
discussion. If Kashmir has any relevance at all, it is on the basis that terrorism in the
state is financed, sustained and exported by Pakistan. Musharraf should have known by this
time that the solution of Kashmir has to be found by the two countries, not a third party.
From Tashkent to Lahore, all declarations and agreements speak about the principle of
bilateralism and even the international community has accepted it.
In any case, the war declared against terrorism is not on the basis of principles. Had it been
so, Washington would have helped New Delhi long ago when it had provided it with the
documentary evidence to prove that terrorists were trained, armed and sheltered by Pakistan.
America woke up only when the fire of terrorism began to engulf it.
Not long ago, India, Russia and America had announced their resolve to combat terrorism
jointly. Washington established an FBI office in New Delhi. But all that was a mere exercise.
Washington did not show any real interest. Several US think tanks, conscious of India's
travails, also gave perfunctory sympathy. Now all of them are vociferous against terrorism.
But they still do not point their finger at Musharraf who has given the name of jihad to
terrorism.
As in the past, Islamabad has come to believe that the war against terrorism has given it a
chance to extract the maximum military and economic assistance from America. General Zia-ul
Haq did the same thing during the Soviet Union's attack on Afghanistan. India knows it too
well how those arms reached the hands of jihadis and others who are still using them in their
killings in Kashmir. America should realise that terrorism will continue to thrive if politics
is the criterion to select the enemy.
It has taken several years but many in Pakistan have begun to realise how terrorists,
primarily fundamentalists, have contaminated their society. And they feel that Pakistan has
been playing with fire. But the people across the border are still not exposed to the
democratic and secular India. The information reaching them is scanty and slanted. Some
Pakistan journalists have gone back from Agra with a new image of India. Indian journalists
themselves were surprised to find their counterparts from Pakistan so different from the
stereotyped impression they had.
Such contacts, such efforts to know one another had to establish a rapport despite the
differences between the two governments is all what the lighting of candles at the Wagah
border on the night of August 14-15 is about. It is a tender message of peace in the
jingoistic atmosphere. The establishments on both sides, including the governments, have
stonewalled the relationship. It is only the people-to-people contact that will break the
crust of suspicion and lessen the cliché-ridden image of one another.
A substantial part of the intelligentsia in India is against any joint Indo-Pak gathering or
gestures like lighting candles at the Wagah border because it sees no difference between the
government and the people. Officials have only strengthened the impression. A slow change is
taking place in Pakistan but very slow. Still it is for the intelligentsia, which forms public
opinion, to decide whether to tar people in Pakistan and the government with the same brush or
do something to retrieve them. They do not have even an elected set-up.
We should not forget that a long, protracted anti-Pakistan feeling changes into anti-Muslim
feelings. This not only puts our society under strain, but poses a challenge to our secular
polity, which is still not strong enough to resist all the buffets of communalism. Certain
parties and individuals want a Hindu rashtra. Hating Muslims as well as Pakistan is part of
their agenda. But that was not the ethos of our national struggle in which people from all
religions participated. Nor does it represent our composite culture.
After Partition, Mahatma Gandhi went on fast to make New Delhi pay some Rs 60 crore to
Pakistan -- its share from the division of assets. The war in Kashmir was raging at that time
and Sardar Patel, then home minister, was deadly opposed to giving the money. But the Mahatma
stood by his conviction that Independent India would not violate its moral obligation or the
solemn promise given, whatever the price. The money was paid. Of course, this is related to
values and norms, which are beyond the comprehension of people dripping with hatred and
parochialism.
Pakistan is going to be an intransigent neighbour for a long time to come. India has to learn
how to live with such a country. Kashmir is only a symptom, not the disease. The disease is
mistrust. This has to be dispelled. Events have meandered to a situation where, even if there
is a conflict, there is no settlement; even if no hostility, no harmony and even if there is
no war, there is no peace. We have to go beyond this. The lighting of candles may not shatter
the darkness but the message of peace never goes to waste. In the land of Gandhi, we should
never lose sight of this basic truth.
Kuldip Nayar
|
