INDO-PAK RELATIONS

Dileep Padgaonkar on Indo-Pak Relations

India and Pakistan are about to resume their dialogue at the official level after a gap of more than two years. (Some) people claiming to possess an authentic pedigree of pragmatism and some divinely ordained guardianship of the national interest, debunk the very thought of such talks. The basic assumptions on which the two nations are built are so divergent that their interests can never be reconciled. A small, theocratic state with a history of military rule cannot seek normal relations with a large, secular and democratic state. Pakistan will at all times try to disrupt India's unity and integrity by engaging in proxy wars and indulging in belligerent propaganda. The only language it understands is force. That is why it will construe any concession as a sign of weakness, Compromise will not beget compromise but only contempt. The best that can be expected, then, is a stalemate of discord. Otherwise, India must be prepared to counter belligerence with belligerence.

(Some) tend to go overboard in the opposite direction. It assumes that since the people of India and Pakistan share both a common heritage as well as a stake in economic development and an equitable social order, they are "naturally" inclined to prefer cooperation rather than confrontation, friendship rather than hostility, understanding rather than an adversarial relationship. (They) argue that if only the two governments were to renounce their nuclear ambitions, reduce their defense spending, facilitate exchange of persons, goods, information and services, the problems bedeviling their relations will melt away.

Paradoxically, both sets of people are agreed on one point. Both want to blur and eventually eliminate the borders the two countries inherited in 1947- the hawks with Akhand Bharat and the doves through some sort of a confederal arrangement.

However, it is precisely such ambitions articulated on the right and the left that provide grist to the mills of the establishment in Islamabad. They serve to heighten the fairly widespread feeling that India has not reconciled itself to the existence of Pakistan. The Indian who harps on the theme of the "shared culture" in fact adds to the sense of insecurity of the Pakistani. Any talk that Indians and Pakistanis are one people sends alarm signals in the Pakistani psyche.

Given these constraints are compulsions, it is difficult for the two governments to deviate from entrenched attitudes, approaches and mindsets. They will do so only under pressure of public opinion. While it is tempting to be starry-eyed about what public opinion actually wants or, indeed, about how far ahead it is of the political, bureaucratic and military establishments- the fact remains that some elements are now available to New Delhi and Islamabad to engage in an official dialogue with cautious optimism.

Possible Areas of Progress

These elements have emerged from a large number of non-official meetings held by Indians and Pakistanis, over the past two years. (Most of) the participants have held influential positions in their countries' political bureaucratic, economic and media fields. Consequently, they cannot be charged of lacking in realism or patriotism. What they share in common, however, is an abhorrence of religious fundamentalism, a commitment to democracy and to territorial integrity, mounting concern over military expenditure and the neglect of social problems.

As a former Pakistan Minister, Dr. Mahbub-ul Haq, has pointed out, both countries are spending around $20 million a year on defiance. They buy twice as many arms from the global arms bazar as Saudi Arabia, which is 25 times richer. Pakistan recently purchased two French sub- marines at a cost of $1.2 million which could have financed education and drinking water for all Pakistanis. Indeed, South Asia has fallen behind several sub-Saharan countries as far as social indicators go mainly, if not exclusively, because of massive military spending.

The various non-official meetings have yielded some insights about how the official-level dialogue can proceed. It is felt, for instance, that the dialogue must begin without pre-conditions, that it must be problems must be delinked from the more sensitive comprehensive and substantive; the less intractable ones. It is possible to set up a mechanism which will separately examine the Kashmir and the nuclear issues while other groups will simultaneously focus attention on matters of lesser complexity.

Among the problems that can be solved without too much of a hullabaloo in either country is Siachen. Diplomats on both sides have also worked out solutions to two other territorial disputes - Tulbul/Wular and Sir Creek - which can be implemented if both governments summon the requisite political nerve.

Another area where tangible progress is possible is trade. At present illegal trade between the two amounts to consumers stand to gain from this state of affairs more than a billion dollars. Neither the governments nor Pakistan's concerns can best be addressed if New Delhi takes unilateral measures to throw open India's markets to Pakistani goods and to let various players in Pakistan determine the pace and quantum of the flow of Indian goods into Pakistan.

Similar unilateral action as regards cultural and academic exchanges, visits by businessmen and and professionals, of students, journalists, parliamentarians should meet with the Indian Parliament's approval too. Such actions are required not necessarily to impress public opinion in Pakistan but because it is in India's own national interest to do so. Once businessmen in both countries develop shared interests and once opinion makers come to terms with ground realities, the way will be clear for India and Pakistan to conduct themselves as sovereign entities which are alive to the larger interests of their respective peoples in a rapidly changing international environment.

(Source: The Pioneer, 20 July, 1996) MUSLIM INDIA 164, AUGUST, 1996)