Isolating Pakistan would simply harden the border and heighten the tension that complicates these two men's lives. And the lives of all of us who live here. Yes, we must uncover the terror links, the facilitation, but no, we must not sharpen the paranoia or confuse the state with the people, the great majority of the people. And we must not give up on dialogue by other means.
Since the death of Osama bin Laden there have been calls, mostly from abroad, to make an outcast of Pakistan. I would like to suggest we take the opposite route.
That Osama was eliminated by the very nation that once sponsored his cause should surprise nobody. The Americans, like any power, have a beady eye and a blank menu. The states of the region, waiters all, must look on and hope to snaffle a chop. But what's in it for the man peering through the plate glass? I share my glimpse of the least practical way forward.
When the news broke I was at my mechanic's garage here in Dehra Dun. The man is a Muslim: he is a good mechanic who operates by instinct, a shrewd businessman who runs a tight if jerrybuilt ship, and a hopeful family man who does online surveys at night for extra money. Just another dweller in the subcontinent making his way. Good, he said. Good he's gone. Such people make, have made life difficult for every Muslim. He meant in this country and in Pakistan and throughout the world.
Kill him, my good friend of the dagar veena, master musician and another Muslim, felt obliged to say of another man whose fate we were discussing last year. He was speaking of Ajmal Kasab and the stay on the execution awaiting him for his part in the Mumbai attack.
What do these men from different walks of life share apart from their Muslim faith? A wish to get on with their lives wherever they happen to live so nobody can impute to them loyalties to the other side. Because they understand in a way that politicians and rabble-rousers alike do not that there is no other side.
Isolating Pakistan would simply harden the border and heighten the tension that complicates these two men's lives. And the lives of all of us who live here. By making those sides colourfast. Yes, we must uncover the terror links, the facilitation, but no, we must not sharpen the paranoia or confuse the state with the people, the great majority of the people. And we must not give up on dialogue by other means. Dialogue of any kind will be harder if al-Qaeda ever replace the present rulers of Pakistan. Time is short, and there's enough wounded pride about at the moment to sink a ship of state. Even in Chanakyan terms that's not what we want next door.
But I'm not here to be practical. Why not instead take a leaf out of my friend the musician's book? (Except he plays by ear, by tradition, by history, by instinct, by each moment of his being.) Push out an alap. Extemporize. Make overtures — and rebuffed, make more overtures — a whole barrage of them. Political overtures, of course, but equally I mean the hand of common friendship. A cultural barrage. Not just an arts offensive but a rapprochement in the widest sense of culture, everyday life. To be made now, at this difficult, at this impossible time.
Music, certainly. I have only to write the word and all our commonalities leap to my defence. Our defence, theirs and ours. These cross-border traditions are so well known I will say no more on the subject, and let my friend of the veena simply begin to play. When I heard him in Beijing last year I wept in my seat. Embarrassing, but what can you do? A Pakistani in my shoes would have done the same.
But also movies, television — theirs, ours, which both sides watch — theatre, all the performing arts. They wanted Madhuri in exchange for Kashmir, remember? Nice story, but it represents a real wish for something much more, something always unstated because it's in the realm of fantasy. Our tendency is to leave it there because we don't want to sound infantile, we're big boys now.
I wrote a little nursery rhyme once for a regional magazine on the Indo-Pak lesson. The editor didn't pay me, or paid me in kind, a year's subscription, while the other contributors would have got the usual fee for learned disquisitions on the border. I understand the poor man's plight. (I see a hasty editorial board consultation, a scratching of heads, and this compromise.) But the decision spells out an old prejudice against the mixing of poetry and politics.
Yet common people speak poetry, more poetry than they think, or perhaps they think more poetry than they speak. And they have their own notions of politics. They would be happy at the thought that the song and dance they love could bring about a change at this time, simply a juncture, like any other, but a moment fraught all the same with possibility. So, let there be Madhuri. (Where is she when they need her?) More Bollywood tie-ups, music festivals, film festivals, festivals of every kind, not more isolation. The very language of dialogue, of diplomacy, locked into the reigning discourse of the day, could do with some evolution, some freeing up. At any rate men and women in power (Madame Rao for example, addressing the French with a cool head yesterday) can surely be persuaded to smuggle some of these goods through in plain covers. And then there is the simple matter of information.
There is an immense hunger for knowledge of life across the border out there, and here is something newspapers can satisfy. Features on everyday life in a small Pak town would catch a reader's eye far more readily than your standard reportage on the latest skirmish. When my wife and daughter travelled by train and bus through Pakistan on their New Zealand passports they were besieged with questioners at every turn: what was India like, but really what was it like? With my Indian passport I would simply have hobbled them on their journey. But I have not forgotten the thrill of standing on Pak soil when conducted through the fence for a brief minute in the Rann of Kutch. After a half century lived in medieval ignorance of life across the border, I stood there not as a conqueror but as a marvelling citizen of undivided India. The ritual bluster of patriotism, the firecrackers in the street when a cricket match is won, drown out another voice, the voice of persistent and unassuaged curiosity. What are they like? Is it possible that the belligerence we assume on either side is overstated? More likely the majority are indifferent, and indifference is not impermeable. A single paragraph will do the job, a cunningly crafted column inch can breach the wall of mistrust.
Once curiosity is piqued it knows no limits. As in the lab so in the world. Look at recent redrawings of the political map. Imagine the no-longer-indifferent, the now-curious, the sick-of-hostility, the newly-awakened raising their voice in a growing chant, over against the growl of military menace and orchestrated distrust. A voice getting louder and harder to ignore every day till it becomes a presence massing at the sham border, a border made real by blood, the blood of real men and women from both sides, sent to their deaths in obedience to another music. Sometimes in my head I can hear this crescendo and see another outcome altogether to the history we're obliged to repeat.
Is it possible that rusty fence on that border can come down, the border itself disappear? (Who would have thought that of the Berlin Wall?) There is life after Osama. There will also be death, deaths. But what the hell. There could equally be union.
Really! Do I really believe that? I truly couldn't say. But there are other futures far more unthinkable.
It's all very well for outsiders to plot our fate. The masters of war I can understand. Quite as keen but with no clearer mandate are opinion makers and fellow travellers in the diaspora. I remember the American Irish in the seventies, more Irish than the Irish in their support for the IRA, sending guns and money for the cause, flying the flag. Indian Americans will be up in arms too after Osama, and proxy warriors of every nation. But exiles never have to face the bullets. We are the ones who stand to gain or lose, everything in the case of a nuclear exchange, much in the case of another conventional war.
I will now shut up and hand over to the member from Realpolitik. But I have conquered my fear of naïveté. Trapped by this fear we surrender not just to the ISI and al- Qaeda but to the NATO whose jihad killed 600,000 in Iraq alone on the way to Abbottabad. Six hundred thousand. No, we should not be ashamed to speak our fantasies.
It's all talk. So let's ground it, airily. But air it on this ground.
Put your body where your mouth is.
Talk from here.
(Irwin Allan Sealy is the author of The Trotter-nama and other novels. He lives in Dehra Dun.)
Keywords: Osama bin Laden killing, India-Pakistan divide
There is some amount of naivete in the notion that by removing the borders the terror infrastructure that exists in our neighborhood will not cause havoc, only overwhelmed by the people-to-people contact etc. It may well happen, but to me, it requires the other party to show some willingness and evidence of concrete action of our concerns. Absent that, in the past several decades, it is hard for any leader to justify talks and make meaningful progress.
Yes, India needs peace with its two troublesome and hostile neighbours, Pakistan and China but at what cost? China attacked India in 1962 and still occupies a large chunks of its territory. Despite numerous peace talks, China refuses to settle the boundary issue except on its terms. Pakistan has repeatedly attacked India since it's creation, long before it adopted terrorism an an instrument to further it's foreign policy goals. As another post has mentioned, Pakistan is a state that has reduced the minority population from 22-25% of Hindu and Sikhs in 1947 to 1 % in 2011, in West Pakistan and this fact cannot be brushed aside as it may offer one reason why it hates India so much. I am sure there are many in Paksitan who want peace with India but it is the Army there which has the final say in almost everything that matters. Despite the Kargil war and numerous terrorist attacks such as those on the Parliament, Mumbai etc by terrorists trained and supported by the Pak military, India has acted with remarkable restraint and has kept on talking with Pakistan's leaders. No other country has suffered as much from terrorisn as India and no other country would have tolerated such repeated attacks by a foreign power. India's restraint is being interpreted as cowardice by Paksitan (as well as other countries around the world) and it will continue to launch new terrorist attacks on India so long as it is not made to realize that there will be a price to pay for such attacks.
Ah, an idealist. As long as the Pak army and ISI keep seeing India as Enemy no. 1, and without a govt that can reign them in, this brinkmanship on both sides is likely to continue; we don't hate Pakistanis (despite all the jingoism we see during cricket matches!); in fact, I for one, pity them- their country seems to be sinking as we speak into a cauldron of violence; we just want their government to stop trying to kill our citizens. I'm a believer in dialogue and cultural exchange as the way forward, but it's a long and slow process and cannot succeed until the Pak state gets some control over it's own machinery. Pakistan's political class needs to stop its bluster/take it's head out of the sand and get it's act together if they want to see their country move forward.
First, perpetrators of terrorism must be brought to justice and made accountable. Then we should talk about all these kinds of romantic peace-nik stuff. Look at the The United States. It is a country which is a global leader today because it does not second guess itself to death!. It does not hesitate to use violence, if necessary, and spill blood to show its enemies that terrorism against it won't work. If you commit the crime, be prepared to pay for it. India did not do terrorism against Pakistan, India is the victim.
One of the commentators, in response to Allan's piece said "Irwin is a dreamer". But then adds, "Breaking the borders and living with Pakistanis, forget it... That is will be suicidal." She is wrong. We need dreams, and Allan has a dream. It is not to be confused with utopia as the commentator does. Dreams means hope. Dreams of ordinary people. Allan beautifully makes the point about what people feel. Peoples and states musn't be confused. We know that too, but need to make the point again and again.
We think of dissolving borders, barriers with neighbours while there are some who think of creating new borders within our existing Indian states. So what do we say for that? An average middle class person in any country has almost the same thoughts, troubles, perception towards life, whether its in South East Asia, Asia or the world.
The author's fantasises a utopia refusing to let the brutal truth settle in his conciousness that Pakistan in it's current state cannot be approached for reconcilation.Even though he makes a commendable suggestion of transceding boundaries and looking beyond the realm of demarcations and let friendship, brotherhood,trust and harmony prevail for people of both sides ,i think that's a suggestion which would fall flat on its face if tried in today's scenario when few islamist radicalists and fundamentalist agencies in Pakistan are trying their heart and soul to expunge every possible route to reapproachement between these two nations.Majority of the people on either side of the border do not want hatred or killings , but it's ISI,and other terrorist outfits who are driving the 'hate machinery' causing communal disharmony.I think the terror network in Pakistan which is as active as ever needs to be dismantled and Pakistani govt needs to demonstrate its full support in coming down hard against them, then only can there be an atmosphere where trust can develop and everything suggested above can be achieved.
Just a plea to the editor, stop these unrealistic articles regarding friendliness towards the very country that seeks our destruction - Pakistan. The Pak military and ISI will never change, they may even get worse. There are all these anti-India terrorists, criminals and terror camps flourishing in Pakistan. Terror is big business there, just look at the dollars and euros pouring into Pak under the guise of being an ally in the 'war on terror'. Most of the Al Qaeda, Taliban, LeT, JeM leadership and cadre are given safe haven there. Also the belief that the general public are friendly towards India is a myth. Their media and press are very anti-India and there are regular demos against India in one form or another. Wake up and start using your militry might to sort out a vicious and unfriendly neighbour.
Our unilateral approach to normalize relation with Pakistan would end in smoke unless it is appreciated and reciprocated amicably by the leadership there. The way India is being preached ad nauseam to adopt Gandhian path while dealing with Pakistan it feels as if we are the aggressor and perpetrator of terrorism. Those who are constantly advocating extending Olive Branch to our neighbour across the border should wake up to reality. The idea of easing border is crass.
I disagree.... its time to act not procrastinate with talks. The powers ruling Pakistan understand only one language... so yes we need to engage but in that language. Yes the people of Pakistan may be more peaceable than their rulers but that is not relevant. India must not shy away from hard decisions. Lets act to defend India.
A lot depends upon Indian government to not continue engaging Pakistan but also dealing with the hardline voices within India. Educated people in Pakistan expects Indian government to understand the problem of common Pakistanis who want peace with India but few hawkish voices supress their voices. I am sure educated Indians equally understand that peace with Pakistan will also help India becoming regional economic power.
Thanks for the article. Friendly relations are essential for progress. I read about the story of a farmer who consistently won the award for best produce. When asked about the secret of his success, he mentioned he would ensure his neighbors have the best raw materials, so that no infections spread from there. Look at our neighbors, it's a pity we are not more engaged with them in their development. They are people like us, and I am sure know how to recognize good will.
As was famously quoted, 'We can choose our friends but not our neighbors'. The question is, would you like to live in a slum or a well developed residential colony?
When I was in Europe travelling on a schengen visa, I was amazed while crossing borders between countries.It hardly looked like a border,no heavy military presence , no playing up nationalist passions etc. During the last century these countries fought bloody battles against each other and today the boundaries are just marked by sign posts.They managed to forget their past and trust each other. We will reach there one day, not today not tomorrow but some day in distant future.Like the song written by Gulzar for the movie Refugee 'panchhi, nadiya pavan ke jhoke, koi sarhad na inhe roke', ..we too will have free movement of people.
The author has a point in this well written article. Those who advocate eye for an eye are blind to the consequences as it will result only in fighting and chaos. No doubt we are dealing with a difficult neighbour - some of them at least and perhaps the American President's Roosevelt's advice is something Indians need to follow. He said 'talk softly but carry a big stick'. Indians need to be united and strong, polite but firm!
Unless the basic dispute, Kashmir, is resolved no peace can ever come between the two nations. Rationally speaking, the most pragmatic step would be for India to unilaterally convert the Line of Control into a formal Indo-Pak border in J&K, scrap the divisive Article 370, and create three separate states of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. After all it was Nehru who created the Kashmir problem by ordering an uncalled for unilateral ceasefire during the 1947-48 war just as the Pakistani invaders were on the run out of Kashmir hotly chased by the Indian army. Nehru did so in order to give Jinnah a portion of the Valley. Tashkent and Shimla after the 1965 and 1971 wars respectively saw India and Pakistan arrive at a tacit understanding to keep the Kashmir problem alive as it was more profitable to do so than resolve it. Ergo, we should fully execute Nehru's objective by redrawing the J&K border as suggested.
Who in their right minds would even imagine the average Indian on the street has anything against the average Pakistani? We all KNOW the Pakistani state is quite different and unrepresentative of the normal Pakistani. We should also recognize that without us Indians being super alert, our state also would not represent India. What is the problem? We don't have any animosity towards Pakistani people, but we certainly are hopping mad with Pakistan the state. We know it is not the peasants across the border who want to send lunatics to bomb our cities. But what is it that we are dealing with? There won't be any India for the Pakistani peasants to be curious about if we're not keeping the lunatics at arms length. We too would like to know what life in Pakistan is like, but we surely must not be willing to risk our lives and well being in order to find out. There are 200 other countries we can make friends with!
Pleasure to read. Absolutely, the border must be erased in peace.
Talk about speaking from the heart. This is it, but.
Most of the people across the borders want to leave in peace and don't keep any deep grudges against each other because of a common past and heritage. But there is a microscopic minority in Pakistan (ISI, Military and Jehadi's) whose policies and propaganda are India-centric. India on other hand can't focus solely on Pakistan as it tries to find its rightful place in global geopolitics. India has to not only tackle the threats from Pakistan but also keep an eye on China. Our history is checkered with unfortunate optimisms (Nehru's panchsheel and 1962 war; Vajpayee's bus trip and 1999 kargil war) and we must not loose our guards while pursuing peace process with our neighbours. Moreover, Chinese have been using Pakistan against India so that we are fixated with Pak rather than rising on global stage. Growing India-US bonhomie is a welcome development and India should leverage it to rise above the ladder fast not loosing the sight of our core national interests.
As I read more about The Indo-Pak Partition, I feel more and more sympathetic towards the newly created Pakistan, created not out of the spirit of freedom, but out of a false assumption of mistreatment of people of a single religion. I hope more and more people realise that discrimination on the basis of religion is as fake as a mirage, and that this 'berlin wall', as this remarkable author has put, comes down, once and for all. Agreeing congruently to what he said, "there is no other side."
Irwin, you are a dreamer and I am sure they are of the scary variety. Breaking the borders and living with Pakistanis, forget it. Living away from them has been made so difficult, living with them will be suicidal. I beg the editor not to publish such trash. India has been so tolerant with the people and the Government of Pakistan for so long that it is time to flex the muscles. Goswami Tulisdas in the Ramacharitramanas said 'There will be no liking without fear'. Instill the fear and then we can allow them to like/love us.
I agree with the proposal. This makes so much sense that it is a puzzle why it is not evaluated more seriously as a policy option. In some ways that is the real question to explore; it may lead to some ideas abut how to move to the path suggested. The question is raised for discussion in the following: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/04/what-exactly-is-indias-pakistan-policy.html
And while the two states prevent the kinds of linkages recommended, The South Asian Idea (mentioned in the discussion) provides a second-best alternative to keep the conversations alive. It is indeed essential to keep talking and to keep asking the difficult questions. Thanks for thinking the unthinkable.
Dear writer, I agree with your thoughts. I have always felt that we as one nation fought against colonial power and then divided ourselves between two nations leading to a host of problems. Our problems are only due to partition. If we can re-unite then logically all the problems will also disappear. I am amazed that amongst all the solutions, this one doesn't get discussed at all. I understand we must discuss this for an ever lasting solution to our problems.
To imagine Berlin, and, more pertinently, the EU itself, without the attendent price paid in oceans of blood over centuries, is fantasy; thus, when we have done with our own bloodletting, maybe reason will emerge. Until then, the generals and politicos, hardwired to machismo, not wisdom, rule, and they know only the kneejerk. 2047 may be the date to watch for, when memory will have been erased.
I am getting tired of so many columnists at Hindu, propogating more and more dialogue with Pakistan, totally unmindful of Pak actions, Pak ideology and the outcome of any previous engagement. Pakistan is a state that has reduced the minority population from 22-25% of Hindu and Sikhs in 1947 to 1 % in 2011, in Wwest Pakistan. How did that happen? Is Pakistan prosecuting the perpetrators of numerous terrorist acts against India or protecting them? Has Pak army and ISI become more duplicitous with every passing year or less? India should engage Pakistan only when it can certify that Pak intends normal relations and friendship with India. In absence of that, India is just setting itself up to be deceived again.
Your suggestion is eloquent and imprssive! But we do all these overtures with a set of people of that country. But there is another set of people there, who are the real rulers of Pak, who are hell bent in spoiling whatever advantages gained from enormous goodwill exchanged between people to people.
I think most Indians have no hatred for Pakistanis Muslims, just they have nearly always got along with Indian Muslims. However, dealing with the eternal hatred from Pakistani Army/ISI/Jehadis is a different matter. I believe the author is above all that, existing on a higher humanitarian plane, unaffected by this hatred from Pakistan. Most very ordinary Indian are still evolving, and I suggest the author and other intellectuals have some patience. Personally, there is only one reason to deal with Pakistan - Indian Muslims. These poor souls are separated from family and friends on the other side of the border. Otherwise, there is no need to talk or trade with Pakistan.
As an avid reader of the editorial column, I have a longstanding complaint against The Hindu. I perceive a strong anti-American overtone to most articles being written that considers the United States. I do not believe The Hindu is being fair in portraying America. I would like to see this change and The Hindu adapt a more neutral stand in Geo-political matters.(The writer is settled in the United States)
Please Email the Editor