Twosome Troubles of Troublesome Two

The adolescent behavior of both the Indian and Pakistani elites and their awry
management of bilateral relations has become a matter of international
notoriety. Their 'one-step-forward-and-two-steps-backward' tendency not only
upsets the socioeconomic development efforts of these two countries but also
threatens to take the regional peoples to the brink of an all-out nuclear war.

Bilateral relations, be it at the interpersonal level or at the international
level, have never been known for easy and smooth dispensations since twosome is
a deceptively simple but intensely complex equation. When the two entities
involved happen to be humongous in size and strength and have had intimate
association in the past, the twosome relationship becomes even more
complicated. Add noble sentiments to the Self, ignoble feelings to the Other,
nasty myths, intractable traumas, fears and bigotry, we have the recipe for
disaster.

There is no dearth of such twosome troubles in the international arena:
India-Pakistan, Ethiopia-Eritrea, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea,
Serbia-Croatia, Serbia-Bosnia, and so forth. What is astonishing is that
behind all these awry twosome relationships, there is a remarkable likeness
such as same heritage, shared history, similar problems, and synchronous
futures.

Are these troubled twosome relationships just like any other askew bilateral
situations around the world? Or is there indeed a flawed inheritance, a
genetic inadequacy, a bad DNA in their respective bodypolitic? Are the factors
that one would normally expect to bring them closer keeping them apart? In
other words, is their strength keeping them weak?

Politically or diplomatically speaking, two independent and sovereign states
pursuing different socioeconomic-political objectives come into conflict when
there is an incompatibility of goals or when the policies of one have negative
impacts on the other. What we need to remember, however, is that beyond these
inanimate and impersonal entities and generic phrases such as "India,"
"Pakistan," and "Indo-Pakistan relations" is the human component. The degree
of antagonism and tension that results from the national differences is mainly
determined by the psychological and emotional attitudes of the leaders toward
their enemy who is the chief motivator for internal organization and
political consolidation.

In the case of India and Pakistan, the bilateral relations have been rooted in
negative feelings and emotions: desertion, partitioning, betrayal, domination,
subjugation, non-acceptance and so forth. The vivisection of the undivided
country amidst communal violence, painting the bilateral issues with communal
colors and sentiments, the dogging presence of a protracted conflict (Kashmir),
and fostering terrorism and disturbance in each others territory have caused
so much bitterness and mistrust in both countries. Building on and contributing
to these negativisms, the political classes seek to erect the modern India and
Pakistan.

Bilateral relations are often defined and understood in the Subcontinent as
fraternal dispensations. Most political leaders and social reformers
deliberately use the 'brotherly' sentiment to invoke peace and amity.
Commenting on Indo-Pakistan tension, N. Sri Ram, a theosophist, for instance,
wrote in the 1960s: "It was not long ago that the two countries constituted one
country, and there is still much in common between their respective peoples.
As remarked by a speaker in the Indian Legislative Assembly, this is not a war
between one country and another country really alien to it, which has always
been separate and opposed, but 'a war between brothers' who must learn to live
in amity and peace."

India and Pakistan are born out of the faulty and problematic 'Two Nations'
theory of the 1930's and 1940's . The 'Hindu' India has substantial number of
Muslims and the 'Muslimness' of Pakistan could not prevent the Bengalis from
establishing their own Bengali-Muslim Bangladesh. The recent nuclear 'coming
out' of India and Pakistan has had an air of this discredited 'Two Nations'
theory that has been modified as 'Two (Nuclear) Nations' confrontation.
Ironically enough, the communal ideologies and political rhetoric that prevail
in both the countries now resemble and reproduce the communal politics of the
1930s and 1940s.

Whipping up incessantly the fear of "foreign hand" and bigotry for one another,
both these countries' political classes divert their citizens attention from
pressing domestic maters, and manipulate the public opinion in favor of their
misrule. The "leaders" do not look to one another for support in finding
solutions for our common problems. Besides the largely technical and symbolic
SAARC activities, they have not tried to utilize the sense of common concern on
any of the crucial issues that Indians, Pakistanis and others in the region
face.

The overall emphasis on the bilateral relations is on intractable conflicts and
differences rather than on socioeconomic development and avenues of
cooperation. The political environment created by the international actors and
factors and domestic concerns has made it harder for them to sort out bilateral
difficulties also. However, the onus of continued antagonism, and failure to
channel the national energies toward a life of peace and development lies
rather squarely on their own shoulders.

These "leaders" have not only failed to provide a decent and dignified life to
our citizens during the fifty-two long years of independence, but try to take
us all to nuclear Armageddon instead. The current tone of bilateral relations
is rather worrisome and reprehensible. Because of all these reasons, we can
conclude that the Indo-Pakistan bilateral tension is the twosome troubles of a
troublesome two.

If our national elites are not upto the mark in handling our bilateral
relations properly and utilizing our scarce resources to improve our lives, it
is worth pondering what we, the "ordinary citizens" of India and Pakistan, can
do to improve our bilateral relations. What Mahatma Gandhi said about the
Indo-Pakistan relations in the last 100 days of his life is worth our
meditation: "What is happening in India and Pakistan is not humanity. It is
barbarism. Fury and revenge are not humanity. If sanity does not return, we
shall lose both Pakistan and India. There will be a war and the present State
cannot last. I know if we have a change of heart here in India, there will be
a change of heart in Pakistan too. It will take some effort, no doubt, but
there will be a change."

The right place to start would be refusing to fall for the nationalistic
jingoism orchestrated by New Delhi and Islamabad. Patriotism, understood as a
civic commitment to ones fellow citizens and the larger collectivity in the
common struggle for a better life, is noble. But reducing that humane calling
to dehumanization of another group of human beings and thuggery is most
definitely not patriotism. It is bigotry!

Secondly, let us keep our maps, flags, anthems, constitutions and all the other
nation-state paraphernalia, but let us not forget about the human element in
our politics. As the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war was raging on, Vinobha Bhave, an
ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi, made the following observation at Mokameh in
Bihar: "I am anxious that some way should be found to stop it. You eagerly
listen to the radio news. Casualties and losses are taking place on both
sides. Perhaps you feel glad when you hear that 50 people of India were killed
as against 100 of Pakistan. That is wrong. The truth is that 150 persons have
been killed. Hardly 18 years ago we were one people. For hundreds of years we
have been living together. Therefore there is no question of anybody's gain or
loss. Both will be hurt and suffer equally. We must therefore pray that this
war may soon come to an end."

Thirdly, as opposed to what we have always been told by the vested interests,
we should ask what the country has done for us in the past fifty-two years of
freedom. Why are most of us still poor, hungry, sick and illiterate? Why
hasnt our country (meaning the national "leaders" who have been running the
show) managed to do anything about it?

Fourthly, we may not want to reunify like East Germans and West Germans, or
North Yemenis and South Yemenis did to struggle together for a decent and
dignified life. In fact, given the backbreaking centralization both India and
Pakistan already suffer from, reunification is not even desirable. But we
could definitely learn a few tips from the Czechs and the Slovaks how to be
decent neighbors.

And finally, it is high time we started a South Asian Poor People's Movement
(SAPPM) that recognizes the existing national arrangements but transcends the
exclusionary national politics and advocates the needs of the poor and
oppressed peoples of South Asia. We need to focus on the life problems of
"ordinary" Indians and Pakistanis (and others in our region) and start
developing policy responses for those issues in close consultation with all the
others. If we decide to lead, our "leaders" will indeed follow!

S. P. Udayakumar

Research Associate & Co-Director of Programs

Institute on Race and Poverty

University of Minnesota

229-19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455