WHITHER INDIA AND PAKISTAN?

Arshad M. Khan

The worst enemy Northern American gray wolves can encounter is a neighboring pack.  Yes, they are territorial, and yes, they are merciless to a neighbor straying on to their territory.  This genetic trait, deeply embedded, probably predating wolves and other fauna, continues in us.  We learned survival is eased in numbers.  We formed groups, then tribes, then nations, coalesced by racial, religious,  national affinities, and fought when threatened territorially.  We still do.  Not much has changed.

In the world outside Africa, humans are descended from a particular strain of Africans, resulting in Africa itself having greater genetic diversity than the rest of us.  We are the same, yet we manage to differentiate.  On the Indian subcontinent, religion exploited as a colonial wedge became a murderous differentiator in 1947.  Over sixty years later, we are unable to shed this unhappy colonial legacy despite the horrific example of Sri Lanka and the expensive heartbreak of beautiful Kashmir.

All of this comes to mind as the India and Pakistan Foreign Secretaries have met.  Bureaucrats both and not cabinet members as might be assumed by those unfamiliar with the nomenclature, they have limited policy leeway and simply repeated governmental mantra.

There is a certain smugness in the Indian media about India’s economic progress.  Yet if one compares per capita income, Pakistan is not that different (per capital GNI of $1070 versus $980) and it certainly does not suffer from an epidemic of farmer suicides.  In fact if one travels to one or the other, it is difficult to see any difference.  And culturally, there is hardly any.  One does notice a generally better fed populace in Pakistan perhaps reflected in life expectancy (68 versus 62 for men and 66 versus 65 for women).

India and particularly elements of the more jingoistic press need a strong dose of reality.  Those wanting to teach Pakistan a lesson seem oblivious to the estimated hundred nuclear weapons it possesses.  Moreover, the prevailing winds – from west to east – are not to India’s advantage, and a bomb exploding above ground on Pakistan’s side of the Wagah border is likely to decimate Amritsar.  War between nuclear-armed states is unthinkable.  There is, therefore, no alternative but peace.

The attack on Bombay was horrific and a testament to the ignorance of the attackers, who focused it on the hotel built in response to British discrimination against the local population.  But terrorism is a tactic, and asking Pakistan to fight terrorism is like asking a country to fight artillery barrages or infantry charges.  The underlying causes and the plight of Kashmiris  must never be mentioned.  This ostrich approach to diplomacy is unlikely to be successful.

Both countries need a strong dose of self- examination — and soon — because impending issues and foreseeable future existential threats stemming from scarce water resources portend the unthinkable.  Those who say Pakistan is a small country might pause to consider a hundred, or, by that time, a possible two hundred nuclear weapons in the hands of an extremist government — a not unlikely election outcome in times of scarcity.

Given the on-again, off-again nature of relations between the two countries, there is a readily available basket of confidence building measures.  That aside, the real festering sore needing treatment first and foremost is the religious intolerance and discrimination in both countries.  It exists both outside and within the main religious traditions and is at the core of major friction.  As a first step then, what is needed is a hate crimes law and legislation against religious, racial and caste discrimination along the lines of existing laws in the USA.  It would punish with extra severity crimes rooted in bigotry; it would also punish hate speech and the unfettered demagoguery of a certain type of politician capitalizing on fear and hatred.  Such a law could be the basis of a first treaty becoming effective in both countries when the treaty is signed.  It would be in the interests of both countries for it would clearly go a long way to redress the grievances of Muslims in Kashmir and the rest of India as well as the under-represented ethnicities in Pakistan.

Second, the two countries need to address the long term or eventual bilateral status.  One idea is to examine the European Community template and aspire towards an economic union.  India being the more powerful partner must be sensitive to the fears and needs of a smaller Pakistan, not unlike Germany in the European model.  Kashmir might well have to become temporarily an autonomous region within the community until trust and almost borderless travel – as in Europe – make such issues an anachronism of the past.

Both India and Pakistan suffer from extreme rural poverty where 85% live on less than a half dollar a day.  The ability of urban middle and upper class eyes to look past this sea of misery might well be a self-defense mechanism but corrective lenses are surely necessary.  Why not require two years of national volunteer service from graduating university students.  They could be grouped in teams, each to assess, develop and execute projects to improve living conditions in their assigned village.  Now here’s the kicker:   Each team should consist of participants from both countries in proportion to their respective total pools available.

There are many confidence building measures and they should be employed but few better than for the young to get to know each other and work together towards a worthwhile goal.  As numerous examples and studies have shown, micro development rooted at village level is the quickest surefire way to improve rural quality of life.  Add the young volunteers from both countries and there might well be hope for the future.

---