False hostilities

He was dying. He knew it. The familiar faces were receding slowly into the background as he was breathing hard. The retired major general gestured to his friend that he should come near him. He asked him to carry a handful of his ashes to Lahore and sprinkle them outside the Chief’s College, where he had studied 56 years before. (The name has been purposely withheld.)

“Tell them I have fought wars against them. But I bear them no ill-will,” he said. And then he fell silent forever. The friend he talked to is now preparing to leave for Lahore. But he is still figuring out how to get there when there is no train, bus or direct flight from India. I narrated the incident to Asma Jehangir, a Pakistani human rights activist, who was in Delhi a few days ago. She said: “You let us know when this friend visits Lahore. We want to be there, outside the Chief’s College.” I am sure hundreds of Pakistanis would flock there if they knew when the ashes would be distributed.

Such feelings are not rare among Pakistanis and Indians. People in the subcontinent have expressed the same sentiment in different ways. One Pakistani requested an Indian attending a recent seminar in Islamabad that whenever he passes Jalandhar, he should salute the city for him. For, he had been born there.

I know many such instances of the 1965 war. After the ceasefire, soldiers on both sides tried to locate people from the villages to which they had once belonged. Arjan Singh, heading the Air Force during the 1965 war, stayed with his counterpart in Pakistan soon after the ceasefire. You can call it by any name — old ties, nostalgia or just emotion. Still people on both sides fondly remember the old days and the places where they lived together before Partition.

There is a feeling in both countries that they come from the same stock and share the same history. The passage of time has not dimmed that reality. It is not dependent on the state of relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. It is based on the perception and gut feeling that they are the same people.

But the climate is changing; more so because the mutual ignorance of the two nations is now colossal. Even newspapers and books printed in India are banned in Pakistan, and vice-versa. Social contacts are declining fast. I wish the Vajpayee government had not stopped people-to-people contact. Things did not change even after the prime minister’s visit to Minar-e-Pakistan, the arch built at the place where the resolution on the formation of Pakistan had been adopted.

Yet we must understand that Pakistan is an intransigent neighbour with which India has to learn to live. “You can choose your friends but not your neighbours.” This old saying applies to us. Good or bad, we must realise that Pakistan is our neighbour and we cannot ignore it. Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan, has said in a recent article: “We cannot afford to allow a South Asian Armageddon to take place. The eyeball-to-eyeball border confrontation, which has been going on for the past many weeks, is not a happy scenario. The threat of nuclear war remains.”

Whatever message we wanted to convey to Islamabad after the attack on Parliament on December 13 has been done clearly and unequivocally. Now the posture is merely a waste of money, about Rs 60 crore a day. We have to face the ISI menace squarely for a long time to come. Here the Americans should be brought into the picture. They still do not realise how President Pervez Musharraf is making favourable noises to placate Washington but doing everything possible to harm New Delhi.

In fact, the general’s statements on India have become more strident than before. But military dictators have to keep the pot boiling, because they cannot otherwise justify one-man rule. Why should a democratic country like India play into Musharraf’s hands and cut off contact with people groaning under the weight of military rule? India’s best asset is its open society.

After a visit to India, a Pakistani returns with admiration for its democratic ethos. Why should we create hurdles in the way of the Pakistanis wanting to come to India? The more they visit India, the stronger will be their desire to have democracy back. It is unfortunate that the military, which has ruled Pakistan for so many decades, has killed all democratic institutions. America should share part of the blame because it has looked only after its own interest, not that of Pakistan. Musharraf possibly believes that Pakistan does not have to bother about anybody so long as President Bush is on his side.

Over the years, I have become convinced that Kashmir or any other outstanding problem between India and Pakistan will not be solved until there is wide interaction among the people of the two countries. The mindset of the bureaucracy and of those who formulate policies will not allow normalisation. Many people make fun of the lighting of candles at the border. They fail to appreciate the message of peace it seeks to convey. Sooner or later the two countries will have to bury the hatchet. Economics and other compulsions will force them to do so. They can move towards that direction peacefully. The two countries have fought three wars apart from the hostilities at Kargil. They are none the better for it. There is no getting away from peace, placed as they are. Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is mistrust.

Both sides have lived suspecting each other for decades. The official apparatus has done its worst. Let it now give the people a chance. They will do far better. Even when Vajpayee and Sharif came closer to a solution on Kashmir, it was the result of the efforts by two non-officials. Too long a confrontation with Pakistan feeds the anti-Muslim section in the country. New Delhi should take the initiative by pulling back its forces from the front and sending them back to their peace-time positions. Pakistan will follow the example automatically. The world, which is rather concerned over the situation, will feel relieved. It will create an atmosphere for beginning a dialogue. Only then will the sentiments of the late major general get translated into reality.

People on both sides bear no ill-will towards one another despite the atmosphere of hatred in which they have lived since Partition. Whenever or wherever they meet, they pick up where they left off. But out of fear, they do not raise their voice. Unless they do so, they are condemned to jingoism. I have no doubt that some day they will revolt against the governments for having kept them apart. But much time would have been wasted by then.

Earlier Columns