NAWAZ Sharif, former Prime
Minister of Pakistan, is touching upon subjects
which leaders in his country and India intentionally
avoid. His suggestion to Pakistan to unilaterally
lift restrictions on travels by Indians is bold
and timely. Tension between the two countries
is far less than before and there is a pronounced
desire to come closer to each other.
The Muslim League which Nawaz Sharif heads is
a concomitant with fanatic elements. Some have
strong anti-India views. For him to ignore their
bias is courageous. Yet, the hardheaded politician
as he is, his ears are plugged to the ground.
He is convinced that an average Pakistani wants
to befriend India. He has tested this sentiment
when, a few years ago, he swept the polls against
the late Benazir Bhutto on the plank that the
vote for him was a vote for friendship with India.
She had then taken an opposite stand.
Nawaz Sharif has said that Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman
of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP),
also supports his proposal. Zardari or any PPP
minister should come out with some statement to
confirm their support. It is, however, strange
that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has made
no statement to express his views on how to improve
relations with India. Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, whose visit to Pakistan is awaited anxiously
by Islamabad, said a few weeks ago that he was
ready to travel to the other side provided there
was something important to sign. The abolition
of visa can be worth a visit.
While in the wilderness Benazir Bhutto had come
to the conclusion that India and Pakistan should
sink their differences—a realisation that
came to her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto towards
the end of his life. He would even say that he
was sick of going to the chanceries of the world.
Had Benazir been alive she would have taken the
initiative to normalise relations with India.
She told me at London during an interview that
she wanted a “borderless” subcontinent.
She also had Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal in
view. Her wish boiled down to a common South Asia
with joint trade, business, services or investment.
The hitch may be from the Indian side. It believes
that it is a target of terrorists who are “trained”
in Pakistan. New Delhi’s fear was initially
on the infiltration in Kashmir. But it has now
spread to other parts of India, more recently
because of disclosures following raids on SIMI,
a banned organisation of Muslim students. Some
have reportedly made a clean breast of their ‘design’
to attack key installations and people at high
places. They have also admitted their involvement
in several blasts, including the one on the Samjhota
Express. New Delhi also claims to have proof that
Dawood Ibrahim, an underground don said to be
living in Karachi, has planned and executed the
bomb blasts at Mumbai in 1993. Some recent incidents
of violence have also been linked to his men.
Since the “hand of Pakistan” is seen
in all these incidents, India would be chary in
abolishing visa. Its fear is that terrorists will
come through the border, although it is naïve
to believe that they use normal channels to enter.
Some terrorist organsiations may be operating
from across the border, but it is also an established
fact that there is an indigenous crop of terrorists
in the country. True, during the interrogation
of the SIMI men and those of Dawood Ibrahim, the
ISI link was alleged. But there is no going away
from the fact that the extremists among Muslims
in India have emerged after the killings in Gujarat.
Another hindrance in the way of normalisation
may be the BJP which once had the credit of leading
its Prime Minister’s bus to Lahore. The
party has re-adopted its old anti-Pakistan posture
and the ideology of Hindutva. Friendship with
Pakistan does not fit into its anti-Muslim approach.
The party believes that its anti-Pakistan stance
will go down well with the Hindu voter in the
Lok Sabha elections, due in less than a year.
I see the merit in Nawaz Sharif’s proposal
if the people-to-people contact is in thousands.
Only then will the cobwebs of misinformation and
the age-old hostility go. This cannot be done
so long as the two countries pledge not to use
violence to settle their disputes. It is unfortunate
that the Tashkent Declaration did not lead to
the abandoning of violence. The then Prime Minister,
Lal Bahadur Shastri, did not sign the declaration
until General Mohammad Ayub Khan wrote in his
own hand the words, “without resorting to
arms.”
Both the countries may not sign a ‘no-war’
pact which has its own connotation because of
the past history. But they should renounce violence
to solve the bilateral issues. Using terrorists
to destablise a country is worse. Both countries
are at the mercy of terrorists at present. Both
would do well if they were to join hands to curb
terrorism not only in India and Pakistan but also
in entire South Asia.
Zardari’s suggestion to keep Kashmir aside
for the time being is worth pursuing. We have
made no progress in the way we have gone about
in the last 60 years. Had there been at least
free trade between the two countries, there would
have been economic inter-dependence, lessening
the space for bickering. Trade ultimately develops
into economic ties. The feeling of inter-dependence
comes into play. There is give and take. Once
this feeling gets hold of the people, they go
beyond disputes. At least, the differences are
understood in the spirit of accommodation, not
antagonism.
One regrettable thing has been that contacts have
generally been at the level of the elite where
prejudice has political dimensions. Once business
and contact come down to the level of ordinary
traders and ordinary people the spirit of togetherness
develops. Were this to happen, the picture which
some politicians, bureaucrats and journalists
have painted about each other’s country
would change. People would come to know each other
as they were, not as they are depicted, to fit
into the policies the two countries pursue.
Ultimately the abolition of visa, however desirable,
may be of little use if the young minds continue
to be polluted. India at least is not guilty of
rewriting the history. Unfortunately, history
in Pakistan begins with the advent of Islam in
the subcontinent. What about Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa
or Taxla? The subcontinent has a long history.
The birth of two and three countries does not
change it. Our separate identities are important.
But they cannot be at the expense of the history
and traditions which we have shared for hundreds
of years. The abolition of visa alone cannot bring
it about. |
