Sid-effect

Ironic, isn't it? We squarely blame the rightist political parties on both sides of the border, who hinge their politics on a narrow religious discourse, for the ever-widening gulf between India and Pakistan. But when it comes to decision-making on pending issues between the two nations by the supposedly liberal and progressive political forces, the Indian National Congress and the Pakistan People's Party, their conflicting positions seem to get further fortified.

The latest has come from our honourable foreign minister on the floor of the national assembly responding to a private member's motion. In his usual affected tone, he said that the present government is now trying to redress the loss inflicted upon the Kashmir issue during the previous government. He explained his position by saying that the incumbents have returned on the historic and principled stand on the Kashmir issue from which the former government deviated. What does that mean? The military-led government had moved faster in resolving the Kashmir issue while general understanding remains that it is the military which keeps hampering the peace process? Back to square one I would say.

On the other hand, India's former high commissioner and consul general to Pakistan, G Parthasarathy, who I believe served two diplomatic terms here, has again resorted to a completely non-reconciliatory tone by apparently saying that India should not budge an inch on Kashmir and that speaking to a civilian government in Pakistan is wasting time. This insults the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani nation. He is known for his tough stands on India's defence policy but you expect more political understanding on issues of international relations and a more cordial manner from a career diplomat. But South Asian liberals have failed the masses inhabiting the sub-continent time and again.

Some history. If we look back into pre-partition days, while the conservative Jamia Millia Islamia harboured

nationalist sentiments, the liberal Aligarh Muslim University insisted on a separate Muslim national identity. The Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind supported the idea of a united India while the somewhat liberal All-India Muslim League asked for a separate country. When the Muslim League came closer to accepting a decentralised union after the British would leave India, claiming to be secular and Nehruvian-socialist, Indian National Congress facilitated the partition of the British India by promoting centralised politics and emphasising on a powerful centre which completely ignored the insecurities of a large Muslim minority.

In 1971, it was the Congress government which decided to intervene in the affairs of Pakistan through military action in its eastern wing. While we continue to hold West Pakistani leadership, aided fully by civil and military bureaucracy of that time, responsible for the debacle, we can't forget India's direct intervention either. India, led by Congress, went ahead in escalating military tensions in the region by detonating a nuclear bomb in 1974. Pakistan followed suit and embarked on a military nuclear programme. ZA Bhutto spoke of fighting a hundred-year war with India, claiming that we would eat grass but make a bomb. His words were perhaps prophetic for both countries. The poor in India and Pakistan are virtually eating grass.

What next? We need statesmanship on both sides of the border. The progressive politicians, intelligentsia and opinion-makers in both countries must stop playing to the gallery of hawks. They have to ensure the beginning of a serious, output-driven dialogue encompassing the issues of Kashmir, terrorism, water distribution, mutual trade and investment and cultural exchanges. Sherry Rehman's idea of instituting a joint mechanism needs further thought.



The writer is a poet and advises national and international institutions on governance and public policy issues. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com