[Reader-list] "This Is Perhaps the Best Time in the History of the Subcontinent" and all that

[Shivam]

Here is a naive article on the India-Pakistan situation from a Saudi
paper. Please note the gushing, Utopian generalisations. We heard a
lot of these for Vajpayee too. The argument then was that only an RSS
PM in India and a military dictator in Pakistan could bring about
peace. Now the argument is that economist PM's will bring about peace
because they will put prosperity about politics. It's so easy to go
with the flow, but ground realities of political conflicts don't
change with governments. The Indian govt has complained again that
cross-border infiltration of trained jehadis has begun again (sounds
familiar, no?) and this will again take us to the cycle of violence,
denial, argument and counter-argument between the two countries.

And it is so ridiculous to compare Indian and Pakistani PM's because
Pakistani PM's change every time Musharraf sees a new dream. It's
Musharraf and Manmohan, not Shaukat and Manmohan, who will bring about
peace, if at all.

My observation of the Indo-Pak political peace-conflict cycles over
the last 5-7 years makes me believe that neither side is serious about
peace because it's so much easier to live with status quo. Just blame
the other side, simple. But taking the initiative for peace, driving
though the arduous process of negotiation and working out
nitty-gritties, and then for both governments to 'sell' the conclusion
of the settlement to their public - it's too much responsibility. You
have to put your neck on the line. You have to face accusations of a
'sell-out' from the opposition. And then be judged by history, just as
popular conceptions of history blame Nehru for the Kashmir dispute:
'had Patel handled it...'. And then Indira Gandhi is blamed for not
blackmailing Bhutto after the Bangladesh war into giving up PoK. And
so on. I'm sure a lot of Pakistani leaders have been blamed for
messing up Kashmir. Pakistani liberals blame the military
establishment for taking the jehadi approach.

Vajpayee's Lahore bus was one major attempt to bring about lasting
peace, because, as Indian editors have repeatedly pointed out,
Vajpayee harboured the dream of a certain lolly-pop called the Nobel
peace prize. And from the recent revelations about the Kargil war and
the Nawaz Sharif-Musharraf politics, it seems that Sharif was also
sincere about peace. But Kargil and the nuclear arrogance of the two
countries ruined it all, and for this Saudi writer to suggest that the
Agra summit could have been a turning point is ridiculous. The Agra
summit was a farce, nothing more than a media spectacle. The 'what
if?' question here should be: what if Kargil hadn't happened? And be
it Lahore or Agra, it wouldn't have 'sounded a death-knell' for Hindu
fundamentalists because they have plenty of issues to rake up and
spill blood over.

Curiously, the writer suggests that the lack of success of 'patriotic'
anti-Pakistan movies in India is a sign of the Indian public wanting
peace. I'm not so sure. There are no signs of anyone rejecting such
cinema for political reasons. Indians don't use their brains when they
watch Bollywod. So a war film will be successful if it's released soon
after the Kargil war. But if you make it into a formula, or if you use
a viable formula to make a bad film, people just get plain sick of it.
And Bollyood cinema taste has in the past few years been altered by
'feel good' films. Let another skirmish happen on the border, and some
stupid filmmaker will spend a few crores sending Ajay Devgan or Sunil
Shetty to fight Pakistan, with their love interests singing songs in
the background.

Shivam Vij

o o o o o o o o o o o o 


  This Is Perhaps the Best Time in the History of the Subcontinent

  By Siraj Wahab
  Arab News (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) / 8 September 2004
  http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=51168&d=8&m=9&y=2004 


In its Independence Day Collector's Issue last month, India's popular
Outlook weekly magazine examined a series of hypothetical questions
such as "What if L.K. Advani had been PM? Godse's Bullets Had Missed
Gandhi? India Hadn't Tested the Nuclear Bomb? Rajiv Gandhi Hadn't
Unlocked Babri Masjid? Indira Gandhi Hadn't Been PM? Gujarat Hadn't
Happened?"

Brilliant essays — all by some of the best analytical minds in India.
But they somehow forgot to throw light on the most pertinent question
of our time: What if the Agra summit had succeeded? Would it have
changed the political and economic map of the Subcontinent? Would it
have assured a second term for Atal Behari Vajpayee? Would it have
sounded the death-knell for the Hindu fundamentalists?

The unfortunate failure of that summit in 2001exploded a long-held
myth among a large number of the Subcontinent's population that a
lasting peace between the two archrivals was possible only if there
were a hard-line Hindu government in Delhi and a powerful military
general in Islamabad. The popular perception was that any
give-and-take on Kashmir would not have invited the charge that
national interests had been compromised by a Hindu nationalist
government. A strong army man in Pakistan would have eventually
rallied round the weakened political parties in his country. In short,
a popular Indian National Congress and an equally popular Pakistan
People's Party or Pakistan Muslim League would have found it extremely
difficult to offer anything besides rhetoric.

Who would have imagined that one day both countries would be ruled by
world-class economists whose eyes are fixed firmly on the welfare of
their countries? Dr. Manmohan Singh became prime minister under
special circumstances and now has the unflinching support of perhaps
the most powerful woman in Indian politics, Sonia Gandhi. Pakistani
Premier Shaukat Aziz got the top job under equally interesting
circumstances and enjoys tremendous support from the most powerful man
in Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Both Dr. Singh and Shaukat Aziz are proponents of liberalization. Both
want economic reforms with a human touch. Both have lived outside
their countries and know very well their nations' problems. Both know
full well the futility of fighting proxy wars. Both want a big chunk
of their budgets to go toward alleviating poverty and educating the
masses.

Both lack the cunning of politicians and are therefore in a better
position to focus on issues of vital interest to their nationals. They
will at least try to cut down on burgeoning defense budgets. Whether
they succeed or not is another matter. They are a dream team to lead
two big nations which have the indisputable potential to become the
world's largest trade zone.

The recent cricket series between the two nations opened the
floodgates of goodwill between two different ideologies. Every other
day, Bollywood now receives a guest from Lollywood. Every other day
Indian newspapers are filled with beaming pictures of Pakistanis
arriving in India for heart surgery and other medical treatment. There
are similar stories in Pakistani newspapers. The desire for peace with
India is perhaps more evident in Pakistan than in India. Pakistani
cricket legend Javed Miandad literally took India by storm during his
recent Zee TV-sponsored tour.

Everybody thought he was the most hated person in India. He was in for
a shock when he met Bal Thackeray. "I am your admirer," said
Thackeray. "I love your game." Mainstream Indian actors discovered a
new-found courage and are increasingly refusing to act in
anti-Pakistani films. Perhaps they have been encouraged by a series of
failures of such films in theaters all over the country. The verdict
is clear: The peoples of the two countries have had enough of the
politics of hate.

There is a kind of war fatigue in both India and Pakistan. The hate on
which many in both countries were brought up is rapidly turning into
something better. The rhetoric is gone. And for good.

This is perhaps the best time in the history of the two nations. Both
countries are at ease with themselves. They no longer suffer from the
insecurities of the past. Both realize the unwinnability of any future
war. Both have two dynamic leaders with refreshing outlooks toward
life. Neither carries the usual baggage of popular politicians. When
Dr. Singh speaks about improving relations with Pakistan, he sounds
convincing. And when Shaukat Aziz talks about converting Pakistan into
a giant economic powerhouse, everybody sits up and listens. It is
indeed a blessing in disguise that the politicians have been given a
much-needed rest. In all probability, what the politicians failed to
achieve in 50 years may now be achieved by technocrat prime ministers
in three or four years. They will focus less on the disputed border
and more on the people who live inside those borders.

Indians and Pakistanis will hopefully no longer have to suffer the
sight of hundreds and thousands of hungry and emaciated compatriots
lining the streets of their cities and towns as so poignantly
described by V.S. Naipaul in "India: A Million Mutinies Now." As for
what would have happened if the Agra summit had succeeded, history
would have recorded something very different.