There is a whole range of historical experience behind our attitude (towards Pakistan). Many ... had seen in the days before Independence how the Muslim League's Pakistan policy could be exploited by the British to put obstacles in the way of the national struggle for freedom. So, when Pakistan was born, it was but natural on their part ... to nurture bitterness against the new born state. This anti-imperialist trend getting merged with anti- Pakistan attitude was further strengthened when in the mid-fifties, Pakistan forined part of the US military network. Thus the anti-US feeling also got expression in renewed anti-Pakistani attitude ... (This) outlook influenced a considerable section in the External Affairs Ministry. Then came the Chinese hostility towards India culminating in the military aggression in1962. The Sino-Pak entente following the Chinese attack further intensified the bitterness ... against Pakistan.

In this way, one has to take into account the fact that the traditional resistance to come to a closer understanding with Pakistan was essentially the product of an anti-imperialist outlook. For this section to demarcate itself from the rabid communal hostility ... was not very difficult under the statesmanship of Nehru, who, while strongly condemning the imperialists trying to exploit Pakistan's weakness, was never tired of reiterating that India wished well of Pakistan. In fact, Nehru did not hesitate to criticise those who thought that a solution of the Indo-Pak problem lay in the disintegration of Pakistan itself.

Once Nehru's overpowering influence was removed, things were allowed to drift: with the result that the reactionary forces in Pakistan also took it into their head that military action against Kashmir might pay dividends. The result was the war of 1965. In contrast, one cannot fail to note that Nehru never allowed things to drift to a position where a full-scale war between the two countries could take place. Even the conflict in Kashmir was localised ...

In retrospect, it is to be admitted today that the Indo-Pak war of 1965 was (a) useless and wasteful war that should never have taken place; for, it was. a war, which denuded both the countries of precious resources and contributed to a large measure towards subsequent economic crisis. While a large body of opinion in both the countries looked upon the 1965 conflict as a patriotic war in defence of their own frontiers, one cannot escape noticing that a renewed incentive to communalism in both the countries was provided by this war itself. In India, the Jan Sangh's arrival on the national scene as a major political force can be traced to the Indo-Pak war of 1965 ..

In the changed context, it is no longer possible to maintain an anti-Pakistan stance without helping the cause of communalism in this country. For, it is in the climate of Indo-Pak cold war that communalism thrives best not only in Pakistan but in India as well.

The question assumes added significance since the very foundation of Indian secularism can be effectively undermined by the communal forces getting a fresh impetus by stepping up anti-Pak hot air; in short, one cannot afford to be anti-Pakistani today in one is interested in combating communalism at home. And until communalism is fought and destroyed, there can be no stability for Indian democracy ...

The time has come for the progressive forces to take up a full-scale crusade for mass understanding of the need for rapprochement with Pakistan ... (Source: The Mainstream 29 April, 2000)