Absence of war is not peace

Side-effect
There is this nonchalant magnificence about Delhi. I have seen the city transform over the last sixteen years since I first visited it. It has changed in terms of its new impressive transportation infrastructure including the underground train called Delhi Metro, the exhibition of flashy national and international brands on the streets and public places – be they in automobiles, consumer items, handbags or clothing – and the local state and municipal administration sprucing up the lanes and by-lanes which I had seen unkempt for long years.
There is new wealth but the present nouveau riche character of some of its old and new inhabitants still does not overshadow the scintillating charm the city exudes from the times of the Sultanate, the Moghuls and the British Raj.
From a brisk walk by way of exercise in Lodi Gardens in the morning to a trip to Humayun’s mausoleum around midday to swinging by the bookstore, Bahri Sons, in Khan Market in the afternoon to a drink with pakoras or mutton seekh kebabs in United Coffee House in Connaught Place in early evening to visiting the Dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia before the long day ends, there is so much more to look forward to.
Undoubtedly, there is a huge underbelly of the city made up of the poor, oppressed and excluded women and men. Inequality on the basis of caste and class exists in a frightening form. There are chronic issues around the rights of minorities and backward castes, ensuring safety women and provision of equal economic opportunities to people at large. After all, India is still a third world country and the charming capital city, the centre of power, cannot refute the existence of the massive challenges its disadvantaged population faces. However, most people look optimistic about the future and there is a desire to progress across the board.
Last week, when sixteen Pakistanis descended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi, some of them there for

the first time ever, we felt a mix of anxiety, grief, frustration and hope. We were there for the second round of a bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan organised by the Regional Peace Institute. Ably led by arch Pakistani columnist, commentator and intellectual, Raoof Hasan, the institute is involved in bilateral and multilateral track two and back-channel mediation, negotiation and unofficial diplomacy across Saarc countries, China and West Asia.
India-Pakistan dialogue has a pivotal importance in the dialogue between nations that the institute promotes for a host of historic, strategic, economic and political reasons. There are no two other countries that are the successor states of one colonial territory and have also fought three full-scale wars and two limited wars in Kargil and in Rann of Kutch.
When the official dialogue process is stalled, such otherwise less significant exchanges become more significant. We were anxious to know what the Indian side will say and propose in order to move forward. We were grieved for the unnecessary loss of lives of soldiers and civilians due to recent skirmishes and exchange of fire at the Line of Control and the working boundary in Kashmir. We were frustrated because each one of us wanted the bilateral dialogue between the two countries to resume.
Calling off the foreign secretary-level talks by India had made us feel that while the new government of India had picked up some past prejudices when it comes to the troubled relationship between the two countries, it was also introducing some new ones. But in this mix of feelings, there was a dominant feeling of optimism and hope that eventually sanity will prevail over the leadership, both civilian and military, across these countries. South Asia will develop and progress as a region in the interest of the one billion wretched women, men and children who live in its countries.
What came under discussion between academics, writers, activists, former ministers including those who have held the foreign or external affairs portfolio, retired ambassadors, a few ideologues of political parties and journalists from the two sides included political and security dimensions, trade, investment and economic cooperation, constructive engagement through social sector development and poverty alleviation programmes and the use of soft power of media, film, art and literature and tourism, etc. The apprehensions from both sides were laid out on the table, the reasons for the longstanding mistrust between the two countries were spelled out in the opening remarks and the contribution of the participants was free and frank.
It was stressed that India-Pakistan relations cannot be on an even keel unless incidents of cross-border firing and incursions do not stop. Such events cause major disquiet on both sides, whose officials and media level the entire blame on the other side. The killing of many soldiers and civilians on both sides is not just unfortunate for the families, it has intensified tensions as well. The participants unanimously asked the governments of the two countries to ensure non-violation of the ceasefire agreement and.
The other issue that the Indians saw as a major hindrance in improving relations between the two countries is the alleged presence of Dawood Ibrahim in Pakistan and alleged overt and covert support by Pakistani civil and military establishment to groups who do not only want to wage war on India but have already been involved in cross-border terrorism. Pakistanis stressed that we should not remain hostage to the history of our conflict. We have seen incidents like the razing of the Babri Mosque in 1992, riots in Mumbai in 1992-93 and the subsequent bomb blasts for which Ibrahim is held responsible. Only an uninterrupted and uninterruptable dialogue process, to quote Mani Shankar Aiyar, will help resolve any pending issues.
Where Pakistanis and Indians were divided not along the lines of their countries but along political ideologies was the debate around trade and economic cooperation. Indian and Pakistani activists and academics together stressed that while they support non-discriminatory market access in many cases and welcome joint investments, it should benefit people at large. Peace does not mean accommodation of ruling elites and benefits for the already rich and prosperous on both sides of the border. They asked why ensuring social justice for people and creating a South Asian human rights mechanism cannot become the focus of Indo-Pak relations.
The joint resolution that came out of the dialogue asks the prime ministers of India and Pakistan not to miss the opportunity for resumption of dialogue in the Saarc summit in Kathmandu. This meeting should be followed up by an early summit-level round of talks with a well-planned and comprehensive agenda. Many security and strategic issues can be resolved if there is will on both sides, and short-term electoral gains by promoting acrimony against Pakistan in India and the deep-seated mistrust within the Pakistani establishment give way to the appreciation of the larger economic and political interests of the region in order to break the shackles of poverty, ignorance, illness and dispossession.
There was a lot of goodwill on both sides and respect for different views. It was unanimously understood that war is too harrowing a prospect to contemplate, and hence must be delegitimised by both sides. The media, which whips up negative emotions in the two countries – more so in India at times – has to demonstrate more responsibility and sobriety. We cannot survive for long false starts, half-hearted initiatives and abdication of responsibility by the two states to bring peace to the people of South Asia. I call it peace to South Asia and not just between the two countries because India and Pakistan also drag down the rest of the region with their conflict.
The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad
Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com