Tunnel Vision

While the world watches with varying degrees of interest, India and Pakistan continue to pursue a political tunnel vision with only one outcome. A review of various news items that appear in the press of both countries and abroad shows a recurring pattern.

Leaders of both countries practice double speak. Different stories go to the foreign media, to the local people and to the people in opposition. There are many examples of this double speech—perhaps this is why ordinary people are so cynical about their governments and politics in general.

Just a couple of days ago Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee addressed a gathering in India and told the Hindu majority that India will not tolerate a compromise in the values of the Hindus. So cow slaughter will be banned and BJP will fight for a temple in Ayodhya.

Two days ago in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf inaugurated a satellite, which is planned to have four educational channels and said in his speech that this way the Muslim world will be united. A sustained message is sent to the Muslim that his values will be protected and he will become part of Muslim brotherhood. Ex leaders of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif and Benazir send similar messages at Bakr Eid (the Eid where Muslims sacrifice animals to show allegiance to Allah and share meat with others of the community). Benazir and Nawaz Sharif both say that the Muslim ummah must not tolerate oppression. (From whom or what is left hanging in the air).

Vajpayee or Musharraf appear to spare no thought to the consequences of exclusiveness, hate rhetoric and the spread of instability in the entire region. Their political views are narrow. Even if forced to respond to this allegation that the use of communal passions is improper, the probable reply would be to tell the other side to watch their language first. Over the past year or so India has done its best to blame Pakistan for fundamentalist and terrorist links and Pakistan has in its turn blamed every foreign policy failure on Indian media.

In the backdrop to this drama stand the foreign powers who hold the purse strings for the region. The verbal sparing often lead to the brink of war, but then the rich benevolent Uncles come into the picture and ‘talk’ to the leaders of the countries. The countries however spend millions of rupees deploying and maintaining troops and weapons. (India deployed troops on the Pakistan border for an entire year ). Interestingly, the West is against any regional conflict always but provides all the weapons (another former of double speak).

The democracy that came to South Asia in the wake of the British has been bittersweet. The non-royal ‘leaders’ who emerged after the departure of the British had little vision other than playing on the closely held values of their communities. History saw the break-up of undivided India on the basis of regions, religions and rancor. Olive branches from journalists and human rights activists, or even visits to the enemy country are viewed with suspicion (see the recent reduction of visas given by both countries). Some writers have felt that questioning the policies of one country toward the other is viewed with suspicion (Pankaj Mishra, Asma Jehangir, Kuldip Nayyer). Indeed if keeping India and Pakistan intact means the deployment of millions of troops and millions of dollars of weapons—than it just might mean that without armies, these states cannot survive in present form. Could it mean that India and Pakistan would fracture into tiny states reflective of history 200 years ago? The nation states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are relatively new formations. The old way has been in the blood for much longer. To me the huge investment in defense shows the inherent weakness of the region’s social structures and political identity. However, staging the experiment of removing both armies simultaneously to watch what happens is an impossible fantasy. Instead, the status quo perpetuates like a surreal drama in a house of mirrors. The insecurity makes the army and then the army makes the insecurity grow.

Even though Pakistan quotes Kashmir as the biggest bone of contention, the dispute over Kashmir itself is a symptom of the deeper malady.

Dialogue with people from India, Pakistan and Kashmir shows a few key responses.
Indian responses:
1. If India gives up Kashmir, than where do we stop? Other states will want to be separate, e.g., Nagaland, Assam, South India. Bharat would disintegrate.
2. Historical fact that the Raja signed the papers to defect to India.
3. What can Pakistan do for Kashmir? Pakistanis themselves are in deep trouble economically, socially and politically.
4. A recurring theme is the general ignorance that Kashmir is a disputed territory. In India the map is always drawn with Kashmir on India’s side. 5. The certainty that Pakistan is solely to blame for the mutiny.

Dialogue with Pakistanis goes as follows:

Comments from Pakistanis:
1. The failure of India to meet the historic UN resolutions on Kashmir.
2. The cost to Pakistan and how it cannot administer Kashmir given its resources and track record.
3. The lack of confirmation that the Pakistani Government indeed provides funding for the Kashmir Jehadis.

From the people who lived and worked in Kashmiri:
1. The hopelessness of the cause due to the continual political if not economic suppression and dispersion of the indigenous Kashmiri due to instability.
2. Frustration.
3. Ignorance about who or what is behind the bloodshed. Who are the people behind the violence? What is the truth?

Large spread ignorance of what is really happening visavis Kashmir is the shared conundrum for ordinary people of the two countries. Kashmir is a symptom of a deeper problem. The Us and Them philosophy that permeates political speech.

The Us and Them philosophy that India and Pakistan use as a source of identity may be necessary to preserve the nation state. This philosophy has become more urgent over the last twenty years. I am curious to examine why. It is not restricted to current Governments i.e., a BJP stance in India and an MMA stance in Pakistan; every Pakistani Government and every Indian government have held the rancor over Kashmir sacred. Both countries’ newspapers also exalt the nation state over any other identity. India is India, no regional identity is ever hinted at. Pakistan is a Muslim Republic, an expansion of identity does not appear in political speeches. It is no wonder that SAARC meetings fail time and time again because of Indian and Pakistani tunnel vision. Indian and the Pakistani politico-cultural space is largely supported by ordinary communal prejudices rather than other topics of discussion such as its internal racism, food, water, health.

What practical alternatives are possible other than playing on communal prejudice (bottled as separate identity) to preserve the nation states? And since the nation state cannot afford to become totalitarian, what is the role that minorities in both countries are expected to play in this polarization? Has anybody thought this through on either side? When will ordinary people ask for an explanation and the truth about the armies that patrol them?

Are Hindu, Muslim spiritual beliefs the true culprits of this divide? Must we change our deepest held dogmas to resolve regional conflicts? Or is our prejudice caused by our ignorance of ‘Them’?

The tactic of removing our deeply held dogmas is fraught with problems. The poor of South Asia need all the faith in God to get through various oppressions ranging from ignorance, hunger, earthquakes, mal-nutrition and a continuous denial of civic liberty. Who, what or how will people be told that their faith in God/Gods or what have you is the cause of their manipulation?. Just getting across the complexity of this argument any time soon and in the present framework is difficult.

Both Governments view attempts towards removing ignorance with some suspicion. (See Pankaj Mishra, Kuldip Nayyer’s articles). Attempts in any case are few and ironically in the language of English. These attempts rarely make it to the local languages. Common people on Pakistan’s side are convinced that India is the true reason for Pakistan’s failures. India on the other extracts all the capital it can after 9/11 in showing Pakistan as a terrorist supporter. In case of India, people believe that Pakistan is the sole reason for the state of insurgency in Kashmir. Pakistan’s continued support for Kashmir's freedom fight allows it to become an easy scapegoat for all the atrocities in Kashmir. The truth, however, is lost somewhere in the dead bodies. The mutual distrust between the two countries has reached such a level that even the sanest of voices have become strangely quiescent. Indian TV is banned in Pakistan and the Indian image in the common person’s mind is a bogeyman who hates Pakistan. It is the same in India. Pakistan is labeled a terrorist friendly place, where everybody in power is an Indian hating fundamentalist. Fewer and fewer people from each country visit each other. The identities of being Indian or Pakistani seem to demand an instant hatred of the other. This is indeed how narrow our definitions have become.

But politicians have a tacit understanding that the situation must not change. A déjà vu marks the relationship. One action from India brings forth an equal reaction from Pakistan. Somehow Pakistan always plays the fool and always reacts with fist shaking anger. I have never yet observed either side behave with some maturity. If India expels diplomats, Pakistan must do so as well. It seems that Pakistan must always act like a puppet on a string. This brand of politics has become entrenched in the fibre of South Asia, it is rarely questioned, in fact it seems to build momentum decade over decade. A couple of years ago, it seemed that decades old political stances were being questioned. Peace and trade were being considered. But every effort came to a complete halt with the most vitriolic exchanges of rhetoric. During the peace initiatives, it seemed that suddenly deaths in Kashmir had increased. Who, what or why was not questioned. Instead India blamed Pakistan for all the incidents of violence. It was outright, no explanations asked or given. Leaders waved fists and told their people, it is them, they did it and the people did not question why or how. No independent inquiries were carried out.

But, if I were a politician in either India or Pakistan, I wouldn’t be so sure that the tunnel vision is the only political alternative. Just last week in an unprecedented turn-out millions of people in the world walked out in freezing cold to protest against war. People across the world are sick of war. That indeed may be the fashion statement of this decade. Over the last four years in various cases of near confrontation between India and Pakistan, people showed their open reluctance. This reluctance was shown through the editorials of its newspapers and websites. (Rallies are not the option of the middle-classes in a class-conscious, chaotic society like India and Pakistan). A truer idea of what people think is found in newspapers, magazines and more recently on websites. Which is why the PM’s and the Presidents of this region must change the tunnel vision. The current duality, on the one hand, whipping up nationalistic/ethnic fervor, on the other advocating peace, a last minute coitus interruptus is dangerous. After decades of successfully using double speak, it may not be the only feasible alternative. The ideas that are tossed about in literary magazines, eclectic drawing rooms and websites are the voices that don’t make it to public rallies or legislative assemblies. The mighty institutions that prop incompetent democracies are ultimately weaker than the shared desires of a region. What would happen if Musharraf or Vajpayee did not curse the other country and did not reply in a tat for tat manner? Would it mean that the other country would become victorious? Or would it be a simple end to a vicious cycle and show that these countries are able to critically examine their own policies internally.