Shall we breathe a sigh of relief that India-Pakistan relations are inching towards peace? What with the overland flights being resumed; the guns being silenced over the line of control in Kashmir, the talk of negotiations---what with all these positive signs, do we dare hope for peace? It is not easy to be optimistic because the hawkish state of mind, the militant worldview, is still in place in both India and Pakistan. The hawkish mind, in my opinion, uses interludes of peace to prepare for war. It does not want peace.
How does the
hawkish state of mind perceive reality in South Asia? In India it reasons
roughly as follows: that Pakistan is an aggressive state which needs to be
countered at all levels; that the insurgency in Kashmir is created only by
Pakistan; that if India curbs the militants who come from across the border,
Kashmir will become a peaceful place; and, finally, that India will be able to
pacify Kashmir on its own terms.
The hawkish mindset in Pakistan thinks as follows: India
has never accepted the creation of Pakistan; India is an expansionist state:
Pakistan can wrest away Kashmir from India through aggressive means ; a
permanent state of peace with harm Pakistan because Kashmir will no longer
appear as a flashpoint and India will integrate it fully.
The hawkish minds in both countries are uncannily alike
in their assumption that the ‘other’ is going to continue fighting but that it
will be eventually defeated. It also feels that a strategy based on aggression
is useful. And, above all, it feels it will eventually win the war. In short,
the hawks do not ever think that their policies are wrong. They either do not
have self-doubts or, if they do, they conceal them in public. This leaves them
with the kind of confidence with which one can only wage war. In short, the
Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan is a clash of the hawks of both
sides. Since the hawks dominate the ruling echelons of both sides peace appears
to be somewhat illusory.
The hawks are not only in government, they are also part
of the public. Both the Hindu and Muslim extremists are hawkish about Kashmir
and about India-Pakistan relations in general. This makes any peace process
extremely fragile. Any violent incident, be it communal riots or an attack in
any one of the two countries by unknown perpetrators, can bring the peace
process to a grinding halt. And such ‘accidents’ occur every time there are chances of peace.
In essence, one sees no fundamental change in the
official stand of either India or Pakistan. So, even if there is no sudden
accident, the officials of both sides will probably stick to their positions
when they do eventually meet. This will not result in peace; it will continue
the conflict.
The hawks give various arguments on both sides to explain
their inflexible stances on Kashmir. In India they say that Kashmir, being a
Muslim dominated area, is the test for Indian secularism. The Pakistani hawks
argue that India will stop the water flowing into Pakistan so that the loss of
Kashmir is the end of Pakistan.
Both arguments can
be refuted. Even if Kashmir is no longer with India, the Indians can prove they
are secular by ensuring there are no Hindu-Muslim riots; the number of Muslims
in good jobs is according to their just proportion in the population; all
mosques and other religious institutions feel secure and the Hindu right wing
is dealt with as religious extremists are in a secular state i.e. as equal
citizens but not as the rulers of the streets and a powerful lobby to be
placated. This will prove India’s secularism not holding on to Kashmir.
As for Pakistan, if the Pakistani water has not been
stopped during three wars, why should it be stopped in peace time? In any case
any dispute, including the one about water, can be solved when it occurs. It
need not be anticipated and the whole country’s very existence be jeopardized
because it may occur at some future date.
The fact is that these arguments are used by hawks, and
certainly believed by them in all sincerity, because they neither trust peace
nor do they trust the ‘other’. Indeed, the hawks make the mistake of thinking
everyone on the other side is hawkish while in their own country those who
disagree with them are either fools or traitors. Actually, though the hawkish
position is dominant---and perhaps more so in India than in Pakistan judging
from the large number of Indian intellectuals who defend their country’s
position on Kashmir---there is another position which should be brought to the
notice of the public in both countries. It is only by not adamantly adhering to
the hawkish position that the peace process can continue.
Those who really want peace, and there are several who
do, must bring about a change in the public perception about Kashmir. In India
people like Rajmohan Gandhi and Praful Bidwai can take the lead in voicing the
opinion that India should concede that Kashmir is a disputed area and that the
Kashmiris should be given the right of self-determination. If this results in
Kashmir going to Pakistan or becoming independent so be it. India will become a
prosperous and a secure country by spending so much less on this thorn in its
side.
In Pakistan prestigious pro-peace people---people of the
standing of I. A. Rehman, Asma Jahangir etc---should impress upon the public
that any kind of support, except moral support of course, to the insurgency in
Kashmir puts Pakistan at risk. Our first priority should be to save Pakistan
from an open or even a covert low-intensity conflict. This is a pragmatic
pro-Pakistan policy and we must not deviate from it.
Moreover, when we negotiate terms with India we must
bring an open mind to the possibility of Ladakh and Jammu, because of their
predominantly non-Muslim population, going to India. Also, since the will and
well being of Kashmiris matter most, Pakistani decision-matters, like their
Indian counterparts, should also consider the possibility of an independent
Kashmir. Such ideas are considered anathemas but if we value peace, which we should, they should at
least be considered and not be shouted down as they invariably are in the name
of patriotism.
In short, the aim should be an abiding peace and not a
continuation of conflict by other means. But the hawkish mind mistrusts peace
and equates it with weakness. Since
this mindset---and it is not an Indian or Pakistani mindset; it is the hawkish
mindset---has not changed so far, I do not think the present peace process can
succeed. Still, as one who generally desires peace, it should be welcomed. The
drowning man clutches at a straw! And why not? It may turn out to be something
more than a straw! Let it not be said a thousand years from now that the people
of this part of the earth were so stupid that they destroyed each other by
nuclear bombs for a piece of earth which they poisoned for ever. At that time
even the name of Kashmir may not be remembered and the hawks of that time will
be fighting for something else. The hawks are never right: remember the two
world wars in which the German hawks were wrong; the Russian attack on
Afghanistan led by the Russian hawks which destroyed the Soviet empire; the
American attack on Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq which have harmed America
incalculably —the hawks are never right. Let us save ourselves from the clash
of the hawks.