INDO-PAK RELATIONS

Prospects for Indo-Pak Unity

Editorial, The Spokesman Monthly, August 1996

The partition of the country in 1947 was wrong and it should not have taken place. The Hindu leaders wanted to preserve the integrity of India without granting any special rights to the minorities. This being against the democratic spirit, the country came to be divided. Now, if we wish to rectify the wrong, we will have to make a start from the point where the first distortion took place. In other words, in keeping with democratic principles:

1.     The minorities will have to be given such political rights as enable them not to live in subservience to the majority. What these rights should be, will be decided by the minorities themselves, even though the issue had been frankly discussed before 1947 and the entire written record is available.

2.     No decision relating to the minorities shall be taken by the majority; rather their elected representatives shall do so.

3.     All promises made to the minorities before 1947 shall be fulfilled.

4.     The country shall be given a federal structure in the true sense of the word, and barring three or four departments, all other departments shall be entrusted to the states.

1.     Indo-Pak unity is possible only if the principles mentioned above are accepted in toto, not only in words but in practice also. A beginning can be made... by giving a truly federal structure to the country. By doing so, all reasons for keeping Pakistan a separate country will evaporate and no individual (in both the countries) will oppose Indo-Pak unity.

Benefits of Indo-Pak Unity

Indo-Pak unity has many advantages. First, India can become a Big Power of the world, while at present the two countries continue to dance to the tunes of other countries in order to defeat and denigrate each other. Secondly, the fear of nuclear war in the region will be eliminated. Both countries probably possess nuclear weapons and nobody knows when they may be used for mutual annihilation. This danger will be warded off as a result of Indo-Pak unity. Thirdly, the Kashmir problem will also be solved. Fourthly, as a consequence of Indo- Pak unity achieved after accepting the principles enunciated above, regional separatist tendencies both the countries will disappear, because the minorities and State governments will have such rights as will render separation from the country unnecessary, while at present, disgruntled and alienated minorities in both the countries are working for separation. Fifthly, many advantages will accrue in economic sphere too, (as) defense expenditure will lessen. In return, the only thing to be renounced is the thought that India belongs to the Hindus alone and the minorities have to live here at the majority's will. This feeling, in fact, was responsible for the division of the country and this too is the stumbling block in the way of Indo-Pak unity. Besides, if this feeling continues, even without Indo-Pak unity, India can at any time (face) dangers as... in Russia, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The Hindu leaders should decide whether they want a United India or a Hindu India.

(Source: The Spokesman Weekday’s Monthly, August, 1996)

Bhutto's Doublespeak on Indo-Pakistan Relation

The Pakistani Government's doublespeak, especially in relation to Kashmir, is showing up increasingly in the public pronouncements of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto's speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS) was only the most obvious example in recent days, of its divided face on policies, the analysts say. The divisions are symptomatic of a deep conflict within the Pakistani Government (and) increased Western pressure on (her) to moderate the Pakistani stand on Kashmir, they say.

The most notable conflict in Bhutto's presentation at the IISS was between the written speech usually prepared by bureaucrats, and what she said extempore. The written speech was a long and bitter injective against India devoted almost entirely to Kashmir. Bhutto herself spoke of the schism when she deviated from the speech. "While my talk may have painted a grim picture, let me give you the most optimistic picture now", she said in the course of the same talk.

Under criticism for her negative projection of relations with India, Bhutto said that despite differences. "The two countries have not gone to war since 1971." And though it had been "quite hard to explain to the Kashmiri people and to some of the more conservative elements within Pakistan", her government was separating politics from trade relations with India, she stated. She spoke of an agreement signed between her and then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in December, 1988 in which the two countries agreed not to attack each other’s' nuclear installations. All was going well, she said, until Rajiv Gandhi was voted out of power and later she "left office".

The departure from that kind of rhetoric in her extempore remarks was a virtual acknowledgement of Western pressure to deal with India more realistically, an adviser on defense issues at London University said. "Her remarks showed her to be decidedly more reasonable than the hard line of her speech", he said Bhutto made several statements extempore contradicting her own speech and her own actions. She spoke of India's piling of weapons as aggressive. But she claimed the successful release of weapons from the US as a "strengthening of our defense".

(Source: The Pioneer, 5 October, 1996)