India - Pakistan: Notes from an Island
About two weeks ago, the Royal Society of Arts in UK, together with Tehelka, organised a Summit on India and Pakistan in London. It had a stellar line up of speakers and panelists (Jaswant Singh, Farooq Abduallh, Arun Jaitley, Mushahid Husain, Imran Khan, Asma Jehangir, Ram Jethmalani…et al) and I am sure it generated a lot of animated discussions…
I am delighted to present a guest post by my dear friend Ashutosh who attended the summit and graciously agreed to pen down his thoughts to share with everyone on this blog…Ashutosh has a blue-chip CV and he left McKinsey a few years ago to start his own consulting firm in London…Needless to say, he also has a deep and abiding interest in politics and international affairs. Without further ado, here are Ashutosh’s thoughts…in two separate posts…This is the first one (emphasis is mine).
*** POST BEGINS ***
Allow me to begin by saying that I attended the events over two days wearing essentially two separate hats- one that of a politically aware global citizen (after all “vasudhaiva kutumbakam” has not been a more relevant concept that today and best describes the world view of us expat desis) and the second more practical hat of a energy geo-politics analyst (and there is probably no other region than the sub-continent where geo-politics of nuclear- natural gas- renewable energy and climate change is most relevant, fragile and least appreciated); my thoughts on the meeting therefore are in that sequence…
As a relatively more aware follower of international affairs- I question the need to have any reconciliatory relationship with Pakistan. What follows is a brief summary of my thoughts…
A] Pakistan wants India to forget the recent past (and in my view the most important past of the last 60 years) and reflect on our much longer history before…when we were one country.
If the meeting was about burying the past and moving forward- well it was a very good first step but we have barely scratched the surface in establishing trust at a human level. One example of self contradiction- Mushahid Hussain opening his speech by greeting (read insinuating) the audience in every other language and style but (conspicuously) avoiding a single hindu greeting like “namaskaar” and then closing his speech (suggesting to India) by - “Thoda Dil Bada Karein”- this was just one example of several self contradictions in Mushahid’s speech. Grow up dude, look at that inexperienced Sachin Pilot, measured and moderated responses in face of insinuations- logical and consistent- through out.
B] Search for that sameness - another theme that came out…“We are similar –so there is no reason we cannot move forward”.
Well- I challenge this notion of sameness- yes , we have common food habits, similar languages and to some extent a common civilization but our life experiences of the last 60 or more years driven by our national ethos have been totally different. Tolerance versus Fanaticism- and so have emerged our relative positions as a function of our individual national ethos.
Why should we desperately seek out that same-ness and struggle in this relationship? When we deal with China, be it at a Governemnt level or in business, the first thing we do is recognize our differences- much stronger footing to craft our way forward. Pakistan and India may have common history and gene pool but our ethos is totally different- we will not only struggle but even get frustrated more easily in making this relationship work. Lets recognize our differences first- tolerance v/s fanaticism then figure out what is the relative value at stake for each of us!
C] Don’t Use the T-word. If you do, then at least don’t use it as IT (Islamic Terrorism)…
Will someone please explain to me why not? Speaker after speaker mentioned that terrorism has no place in Islam. Good passionate rhetoric but frankly this is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and calling it militancy or freedom struggle ain’t any good, any more. Well done Tarun Vijay, for bringing it out into the open, chapter and verse with examples included. Of course no answer/response was forthcoming except a Humphrey Appleby-esque “Don’t use the T word and if you do don’t call it IT”
D] Why this stance towards India? and Why now? It was clearly spelt out- “Anti-Indian-ism is now replaced by Anti-Americanism in Pakistan”- coming from a known India basher like Mushahid Hussain…
One can only imagine how much anger is now directed to a far away enemy, for us- their arch foe next door one should only imagine the reaction we will have to experience if anger towards America turns to frustration- because of inability to inflict damage due to distance or economic/ military incapability.
Also now, think if India-US relationships continue on their onwards and upwards swing where would you expect this frustration to be directed?
E] Please don’t let Israel be your role model, India - Perhaps one reason why this stance and why now could be gleaned from Imran Khan’s remarks. His plea seemed something like this- please stay away from the US, you don’t know how cruel they are. Look how they are openly supporting Israel, look how difficult it has become for us to have any solution with Israel. They don’t even negotiate, they simply take unilateral action.
F] Why should we (India) work to repair this relationship? And why now? What does India gain, is that gain material compared to the opportunity to shape international affairs in the rest of the world?
Will someone please help me answer this question? Just because we have a temperamental neighbour and we cannot change our address does it mean we have to be the initiators of that truce? Even if that were to be our stated stance, why now? Why not allow a failing Pakistan to simply implode? This question did cross my mind.
G] Pakistan’s psyche and world view - This point was more brought into focus when I experienced some more Pakistani self-belief/ arrogance, first hand…The background is this….I had just finished reading “Deception- Pakistan, The United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy” -a blow by blow account of the activities of Dr A Q Khan and the Pakistani Nuclear Establishment by well known international journalists- Cathrine Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy. I began by asking Lt Gen Durrani (who was a speaker at the Seminar) if he had read it. He replied “No and I wouldn’t” I asked him why- was he uncomfortable with the facts? What followed was a treatise on facts and self belief…
On being asked how as head of ISI (1991-92) he felt when in his tenure, the US funds stopped due to the revoking of the Pressler Amendment and Pakistan faced no other alternative than to earn export dollars though nuclear technology exports- which were led by Dr Khan and his organization at Kahuta? What were his thoughts on the “facts” presented in that book? – The answer by Gen Durrani was fascinating and insightful in understanding the establishment psyche in Pakistan:
there are facts one knows and then facts one doesn’t know, so on the whole, facts don’t matter much in our (line of) work. Besides I am absolutely certain that Dr Khan broke no international laws in his activities. What one must work with is belief- self belief, and then choose from the events facts that substantiate ones actions
The tone of honesty and matter of fact-ness in his response smashed to smithereens any hopes I had of any possible positive relationship with Pakistan. How do you deal with “belief” - Here is a nation that still believes it can do what it believes and present a cogent picture to the world! It believes its foreign policy need not change, it has done no wrong and of course fanatic Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with this place.
So tell me why and how should we hope to have any meaningful and positive engagement with Pakistan? We can have some trade, sure! We can even export some of our bollywood films, yes but what else? Can we really deal with this mindset of self belief? If this self belief/world view is what it is then what progress can one expect on the Islamic Terrorism front? And can we really hope to move any co-operation agenda unless the 800 pound gorilla is dealt with first?
I came back – now firm in my belief too - (that) no meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is worthwhile unless there is evidence of suo motu curbing of terrorist activity in and by Pakistan - be it in India or any other part of the world; and no policy of negotiation be followed where terrorist activity is involved.
*** END OF PART-I ***
In Part-2, Ashutosh will share his thoughts on the coming energy crisis, the “politics” of energy, climate change and the Iran-Pakistan pipeline…Stay tuned for more.
In the meantime, comments and thoughts welcome…Ashutosh has promised to respond to comments and is willing to engage in a discussion…
Related Posts:
INDIA - PAKISTAN: LESSONS FROM THE RUINS (I)
INDIA - PAKISTAN: LESSONS FROM THE RUINS (II)
and an Excellent factual background to the Kashmir Issue
P.S. Ashutosh has not vetted this final draft so all blame for any typos, spelling erros and mis-interpretation and/or mis-understanding lies with me..
I agree absolutely with Ashutosh’s firm belief - that no dialogue with Pakistan is possible unless there is a suo motu curbing of terrorism. Was interested in knowing the proceedings of the Dialogue - thank you for highlighting it. it gives a clear insight into the minds that have run or profess to run Pakistan. Don’t know how many here will undertsnad the sub-text!
Comment by Anirban | July 11, 2008
Hi Shantanu,
Perhaps my thoughts appear to go slightly against the grain on the tehelka article but the Kabul blasts that killed our countrymen underscore the point I was making- we should not turn down the heat if Pakistan engages in terrorist activity outside the country as well.
As if any substantiation of a need for more resolute stance was required- it is useful to gauge the undertone of the statements made by M K Narayanan today (emphasis mine)- At one level they are what one has been dearly hoping for but at another they still seem a bit weak; I feel that if Mr Narayanan had a little more confidence in the media that he was speaking to he would have been slightly more direct. (If it would have then sounded more like an Israeli statement- so be it. We need an externalisation/outreach programme that is more direct and yet very sophisticated in its design). Kudos to Mr Narayanan- at least someone wants the facts to be called facts and not insinuations.
Perhaps if he was more confident that the headline would not appear the next day- “Narayanan threatens war!” he would have spoken his mind.
The MKN statement is reproduced below:
“We not only suspect but we have a fair amount of intelligence (on the involvement of Pakistan),” National Security Advisor M K Narayanan told Times Now news channel when asked whether India suspects Pakistan’s involvement in the attack.”
The people of this country deserve to know the facts rather than being carried away by people who make statements that these are insinuations. There are no insinuations,” he said. Four Indians, including an IFS officer and a Brigadier of the Indian Army, were killed in the blast caused by a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden Toyota Corolla.
The NSA said there was a need to retaliate to such acts of terror. “I think we need to pay back in the same coin. We are quite clear in our mind,” he said. When asked who should be paid back, he replied, “Those who are responsible.
“Narayanan said India-Pakistan relations were sought to be improved through a comprehensive dialogue mechanism.”The anti-terror mechanism was one piece of this picture. The hope was that in course of time both sides would share whatever information they have and come up with a holistic idea of what was going on,” he said.
“Talk-talk is better than fight-fight. But it hasn’t worked so far. In some way, we haven’t arrived at the decision that we should go for fight-fight so let talk-talk continue for the moment,” Narayanan said.
Comment by Ashutosh | July 13, 2008
Dear Sir,
All this talk - talk is getting to no where.
The Indians have to keep it going as otherwise all their tall talk of Gandhigiri etc. will be thrown back on them.
The Indian public and the people of India are doomed to liuve with this hell, as unles we bell the cat, that Gandhigiri cannot work with these inhuman, can I introduce a new word? - inanimals like inhumans - They know only one language and that just give them back as they give it to us and damn all the Javed’s Teestas Swamis and Azmi’s.
Let us talk to them in the language they understand. No niceties please.
My future and what I leave for my future generations need not have Gandhigiri, but let them be safe!!!
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | July 14, 2008
If anymore evidence was needed about Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism against India:
Comment by B Shantanu | August 24, 2008
From a review of “Pakistan’s westward drift” (Pervez Hoodbhoy) by Vijay Vikram (School of International Relations, University of St Andrews) in Pragati issue dt. 19th Oct 2008
Dr Hoodbhoy goes on to argue that this was a deliberate policy adopted twenty five years ago by the Pakistani government and is driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim in order to better define itself in contrast to India. For example, prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory and floggings were carried out publicly.In the 21st century however, there is no need for the state to impose strict Islam, as there is a spontaneous groundswell of religious zeal in contemporary Pakistan. The notion of an Islamic state is more popular than ever, as people turn to Islam to rescue a failing state.
Moreover, the Pakistani village has undergone a transformation, thanks in part to the return of Pakistani labourers from Arab countries. Village mosques are now “giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers.”
In fact, Punjabis who tended to be relatively liberal on gender issues are increasingly taking a Talibanesque view on the matter. However, it is school militarism that emerges as the most significant issue.
Dr Hoodbhoy argues that the militancy that bedevils Pakistan’s tribal areas as well as its cities as well is a result of an education system that propagates Islam as a complete code of life and is designed to engender a siege mentality in the mind of the child. In fact, a government-approved social studies textbook for Class V students prescribes that the child should “Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan”.
Dr Hoodbhoy attributes Pakistan’s Arabization or “Saudisation” to the Zia regime and the Afghan jihad. With active assistance from Saudi Arabia, General Zia established a network of over 22,000 madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan. It is these madrassas that provided the US-Saudi alliance with willing recruits for the anti-Soviet jihad.
In the end, Pakistan’s future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want a theocratic state and those who want a modern Islamic republic.
Comment by B Shantanu | October 18, 2008