From Across The Border

I am reproducing for this forum the exact text of a letter that I wrote to one of my friends in India. The text was actually a spontaneous response to a letter from my friend. As I looked at it now, it struck me as more relevant now than at the time at which it was written: The communication took place shortly after the september 11th tragedy. Read on!

The world we live in is full of the likes of us who grow up in an ideology laden environments. No exceptions. It’s hard for me to imagine an ideological vacuum in which minds could grow otherwise. We have also constructed names for them and the list should be long: Nationalism, religion, secularism, fascism, fundamentalism, humanism etc. etc. Then there is culture, which apparently transcends or cuts across the "isms." The cultural similarities enable us to communicate with each other. Given this, I should assume that there should also be something that could be called global culture that lets people communicate with each other in the language (and other signals) that all of us understand. The circumstances of birth of a child and its upbringing--education, other forms of indoctrination, omissions and commissions within a society, and the dominant myths--provide us with an almost finished human being. If the things have gone right this being should be normally absorbed in the societal super structure within which it grew, otherwise it should end up on the margins, in the mental asylum, in the jail, or should probably die soon by contracting some sickness. Our success (and failure) is defined, so are acceptable agreements and disagreements in conversations that we have. Then there is also economics. We start competing for resources right after we are born. We continue to do so as we grow up. When we are ready to assume an identity earmarked for us by the society, we find ourselves becoming part of a larger structure which exists side by side other such, although different, structures else where. The real politik seems to take shape when people (and therefore societies) attempt to be, and be successful. Needless to say, it is possible that "gains" by one could have a price in terms of a "loss" by another. Sometimes it could be a perceived loss, other times it could be real. The gains and losses could be cultural, material, others…It is in the midst of all this probably that threats are perceived.

I must have experienced threat perception while I was a child, and of course had perceived enemies among the peers. They threatened to take something away. It could be something as abstract as a transient loss of self-esteem or as concrete as perhaps a valuable belonging. I had a territory, which was mine. All of us have that. I protected mine, and it sometimes also involved scuffles. Sometimes I lost, other times I defended and also won. There were also times when the enemies became friends, at times life long and so continue to be friends still. What did the metamorphosis from enmity to friendship involve? Did it involve giving up of our selves and identities? Or acceptance of defeat by one at the hands of the other? I wonder!! But here is my hunch. There is no victory to be gained in defeat of the other, with the only (possible) exception of total annihilation of one enemy by the other. The boundaries between victory and defeat are tenuous and need to be blurred by looking at the historical consequences of local victories (and defeats).

The defeat brings with it the humiliation. The history of conflict suggests that local victories, irrespective of how huge they were perceived to be, resulting into humiliating the enemy led to another series of conflicts as soon as the vanquished regained his energies. So the only possible victory is victory for both, or total annihilation of one by the other. Some evidence of this can be seen by comparing the post WWI and post WWII scenarios for countries like Germany and Japan. Now the statement that "the only possible victory is victory for both" is too simple when considered in the light of the real politik scenarios. The total victory, which would be the victory for both, cannot be achieved by hanging on to our respective hardliner positions. The strategic victories such as in the case of allies over Hitler's Germany also show that it took a lot of reconstruction coupled with the near total destruction of an ideology that caused the conflict in the first place. The resurgence of neo-nazis, although still marginal, tells us that the destruction of ideology was not total. However, Germany is productive and prosperous with strong democratic institutions and a mechanism to take care of neo-nazis. It is important to note that Germany itself is taking care of this “menace.” Such is the measure of a strategic victory. It would be hard for me to make use of this example to say something about the aims of war and their actual consequences in the case of India and Pakistan. I would leave it for further analysis through discussion after offering the following example. Consider the secession of East Pakistan. If the strategical idea on the part of the Indian players in East Pakistan was that the ideological basis for the Pakistani nationhood would become weaker, the result has been diametrically opposite. We have been too busy--and unfortunately continue to do so--scoring local victories and losses.

I argue that the local territorial gains are not consequential, at least in the intended direction, in this historical and certainly fruitless “kashmakash” between our two countries. This is also to cast debate on the Pakistani position on Kashmir. A friend pointed out to me that Kashmir as a site for struggle has a symbolic value. Were I to give it up, I would be giving up the ideological basis for creation of Pakistan or at least that’s how “I” would understand it. Were you to give it up, it would be striking a blow to the conception of Indian nationhood. It is not a matter of subscribing to the notions of “human rights” or other nice stuff like that. It is possible, as you said, that Kashmiris would hate us “both”. But do we care about that? We “both” talk about people only as long as such talk support our various positions. Evidently, the freedom of Kashmir is not a simple matter for "you", neither would "I" stop disputing its current status. My using double quotes for "I" and "You" is meant to be an indication that I am not referring to us as individuals.

To conclude this part, let me come back to where I began. I claimed that we (and likes of us) have grown up in ways that have positioned our loyalties. This is not to say that we have not made strides to understand the other. However, It is possible that we don’t change substantially through this act of understanding, but probably only grow "wiser" about our respective positions and, hence, more formidable as enemies. Our collective history (in the making) suggests this. For example, the conflict between our two countries seems to be growing deadlier. The proxy war is a lot more deadly than the real one. From your position one could argue that the ISI was evil. “Neither is RAW innocent”, the other would retort. Together they are involved in playing the games that define the nature of contest between our two countries. The continuing proxy war also shows that conflict was seeded rather than halted due to local victories in wars between us that both of us hold high. We have created “Gladiators,” who play for us over this large coliseum called Kashmir.

Let me now look briefly and solely on Pakistani situation. The people of Pakistan: Their suffering has only increased over the past two decades. All indices of social development would record lows on scales constructed by the world in the case of my country. This is hardly a situation to boast about. The people in my country deserve better than what they have gotten so far. They have suffered due to due to involvement of their government's in other people’s wars and due to an ongoing conflict with your country. The governments in this country, military or otherwise, could possibly have other choices to make if we were not locked in a conflict with India. The common Pakistanis are not different from any other people in this world in their desire for a safe and prosperous future for their children. They want peace, progress, and stability. If you ever come to Lahore, which has always been known as the city of colleges, you would notice a proliferation of colleges and institutions where the youth from almost the entire Punjab and other parts of the country prong to get a share in ever-elusive economic well being. It makes me very pleased when you tell me that India is taking off economically. There is much that we have to learn from each other. There is much that I have to learn from you.

It is ironic, that when both India and Pakistan saw the dawn of their independence in 1947, a group of Pakistani and Indian students at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor celebrated their independence. One of them was Syed Babar Ali, a prominent Pakistani business figure and ex-caretaker Finance Minister, who narrated this to me, as I was about to leave Pakistan for the USA in the fall of 2000. They celebrated the Independence Day with the flags of both countries standing together and bent over each other. We have come a long way in a little more than 50 years. Alas!

Irfan Muzaffar is a currently a doctoral candidate in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy at Michigan State University, at East Lansing, Michigan.

Before joining this doctoral program in the fall of the year 2000, I have worked as a teacher and teacher educator at Ali Institute of Education, Lahore. His focusses on learning and teaching of Mathematics and Physics. My current research intersts also include studying various approaches to the professional development of teachers in general and teachers of mathematics in particular.