Leaders of seven South Asian Nations are scheduled to meet in the Pakistani Capital from December 29 to 31. The meeting has assumed significance in view of the dramatic political change in Pakistan and India’s role as the Big Brother. The emergence of Benazir Bhutto as the first woman to be democratically elected to rule a Muslim country and her loudly articulated desire to establish friendly relations with her neighbors have evoked considerable interest. There is an element of cautious optimism in the air about the possibility of improvement in Indo-Pak relations. Ever since the two countries gained independence from the British rule in 1947, their relations have been plagued by mutual recriminations, mistrust and suspicion. They have fought three wars in less than forty years and there are bottle-necks that look too formidable to be over-come by either passing pleasantries or formalistically accented communiqués.
Fresh from the over-publicized success of his visit to China, the Indian Prime Minister is expected to favorably reciprocate to Bhutto’s desire and show equal earnestness in peacefully resolving the ticklish problems facing the two countries. No doubt, the problems are complex and difficult to contend with and have defied solution for a long time; still they are not altogether insurmountable. They can be effectively tackled provided both sides show honesty, broadmindedness and a spirit of accommodation. The important question is whether the two young leaders from the Indian sub-continent possess the requisite will and freedom to rise above their legacies and stretch the point beyond their romantic out-pouring. They are heading nations nursed in communal hatred and both suffer from constraints that lie beyond the pale of their range and power.
The communal card played by Indira Gandhi and faithfully emulated by son Rajiv Gandhi for narrow electoral gains has led to the emergence of powerful Hindu fundamentalist organizations that are aggressively working to make India a truly Hindu theocratic state. Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan is their slogan and they publically flourish their threat to “reconvert” 100 million Muslim population of India back to Hinduism. Muslim shrines are increasingly under attack. The historic Babri Masjid is now practically a Hindu temple. Thousands of Muslims are perishing in State-aided massacres. The list of gory brutalities perpetrated upon innocent Muslims in Aligarh, Moradabad, Nellie, Bhiwandi, Meerut and Malian a is daily growing longer and longer. The people in Pakistan, who have close emotional ties with their suffering co-religionists in India, cannot ignore and forget all this. They cannot also easily forget the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh. It is a wound which like a malignant cancer can never; never heal through pharmaceutics summits or diplomatic therapies.
Besides, Kashmir continues to be the major bone of contention between the two countries. Pakistan is not prepared to accept the hastily signed accession of Kashmir to India by its former Hindu ruler and reduce state’s 80% Muslim population to a position of Virtual slavery. It believes that the instrument of accession was signed by the Maharaja to facilitate Indian armed intervention to quell mass insurgency against him. The intervention resulted in a war between India and Pakistan which ended with a U.N. sponsored resolution. The resolution envisaged a plebiscite to determine what the people of Kashmir want.
Subsequently, India resiled from its plebiscite pledge and unilaterally declared the accession to be final and irrevocable. Pakistan, however, continues to insist that Kashmiris must be provided with the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and argues that Hindu Maharaja’s decision cannot be considered more valid than the decision of the Muslim Nizam of Hyderabad. The Nizam had declared his independence and refused to accede to India but he was overthrown by the Indian army, The Maharaja of Kashmir would also have been overthrown by the Muslim insurgents had the Indian army not intervened,
It is difficult for both now to give up Kashmir and the division of the State along the ceasefire line is not acceptable to either of them. The bottle-neck continues with all the attendant bitterness and deepening hostility. It is further confounded by India’s habitual blaming of Pakistan for its support to Sikh freedom fighters. Not blaming Pakistan means admitting the truth that Sikh revolt is a direct reaction to the persecution of the minorities and Hindusation of the country. To deny this truth and to mislead * the world, India must perforce blame Pakistan.
This is the scenario that Bhutto and Rajiv have to contend with. It calls for an extra-ordinary statesmanship and charisma to steer clear of their respective legacies and national compulsions. At present both lack the stature and the political stability necessary for meeting the baffling challenge.
Article extracted from this publication >> December 30, 1988
