The main problem that has historically bedeviled Indo-Pak relations is tendency of the powerful lobby of ‘hawks’ in both countries to expect every attempt at mending fences to be a ‘no holds barred’ boxing match in which the results are out the moment the ‘contest’ is over, instead of the diplomatic approach which is an ongoing process and painstakingly slow. Assuming the self – assigned role of judges, they promptly get down to the job of awarding points to each side for every ‘bout’ and thereafter declaring the ‘results’. Thus, no sooner had the news reached their ears that Heads of SAARC nations had been invited for the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi, which was to be followed by a brief courtesy meeting of the invitees with the newly sworn-in Prime Minister of India, the ‘hawks’ on both sides of the Radcliff Line started crying ‘foul’. However, those who had thought that since Sharif was just on a ceremonial visit, they would be spared the agony of a running commentary on the Modi versus Sharif ‘big-fight’ were in for a big surprise, as even in this innocuous event, the ‘hawks’ saw an opportunity to ‘judge’ the performance of the two Prime Ministers and awarding ‘points’ accordingly, declared a ‘winner’!
Even though this invite was extended to the Heads of State of all SAARC countries, the panel of the self appointed panel of judges, with their characteristic myopic vision concentrated only on Indo-Pak angle. Immediately after the invitation was officially extended to all, the Indian panel of judges promptly awarded a ‘bonus’ point to Modi for having scored a ‘diplomatic victory’ and ‘surprising’ everyone by inviting Sharif. On seeing that there was no immediate response to this invitation from Islamabad, this panel was convinced that Sharif would not enter the ‘ring’. And so they decided to award an additional ‘bonus’ point to Modi for proving that it was the army in Pakistan which actually called the shots and since it cared precious little for brokering peace with India, the army chief obviously would not approve the Pakistani Prime Minister ‘romancing’ his newly elected Indian counterpart. Unfortunately for them, Sharif decided to come and the panel of judges had no other option but to reluctantly award this ‘bonus’ point reserved for Modi to Sharif instead. Consequently, the two Prime Ministers entered the ‘ring’ with one ‘bonus’ point each to their credit, raising hopes that the ensuing ‘bout’ in New Delhi would be a keenly contested and close one!
Unfortunately, even before Sharif met Modi, the Pakistani panel of judges unanimously awarded Sharif a ‘negative’ mark for failing to follow the existing convention of giving an audience to the Hurriyat leaders after stepping down on Indian soil. But Sharif’s woes didn’t end here. The press statements that followed the Modi- Sharif meeting saw the latter biting the dust and Modi scoring multiple ‘bonus’ points from both the Indian and Pakistani panel of judges for talking tough on terror. On the other hand, Sharif was awarded several ‘negative’ marks for having failed to bring up the issue of Kashmir, Siachen or Sir Creek as well as the dubious role of New Delhi in promoting terrorism within Pakistan. Thus, the panel of judges on both sides of the Radcliff line unanimously concluded that it was a one sided ‘match’ and promptly declared Modi the undisputed ‘winner’. Some of the judges like the Tehreek- i- Insaf chairman Imran Khan and the Jamat ud Dawa chief Saeed Hafiz even went as far as accusing Sharif of having ‘fixed’ the match with Modi by making a ‘deal on Kashmir’ as well as ‘succumbing to US pressure’ and intentionally going down without even giving a fight!
But then, why only blame the Pakistani ‘hawks’ like Saeed Hafiz and the Tehreek -i- Insaf chairman for playing a negative role, when the Indian National Congress, which has repeatedly declared its firm commitment towards normalising ties with Islamabad tried to play the role of a ‘game-spoiler’ by opposing the Sharif invite with a barrage of comments ranging from the pedestrian to the bizarre. While Congress party General Secretary Shakeel Ahmed offered the terse advice that “In the euphoria of his coronation, Modi should not forget that there is no such ambience or atmosphere for serious talks,” the eloquent Manish Tewari joined in by choosing to question Modi’s decision by remarking the BJP had all along maintained that terror and talks cannot go together. But beating even the most rabid ‘hawks’, Congress leader JP Agarwal, with unabashed sarcasm added that “Modi should have asked Nawaz Sharif to get Dawood Ibrahim along, as well as the Pakistani soldiers who beheaded our soldiers.” It was thus comical to see the Congress which after its defeat in elections had assured the public just a few days before that it would play the role of a ‘constructive opposition’, taking jibes at Modi and reminding him of his ‘Biryani diplomacy’ comments. If Congress had its way, Modi would have ‘disqualified’ from the ‘bout’ for daring to do what the Congress led UPA government had failed to do itself- so much so for the “constructive opposition” in India!
No one had ever expected that anything meaningful would emerge from the Modi- Nawaz meeting and it was amply clear that the best that could be achieved would be ‘breaking the ice’ between New Delhi and Islamabad, thus preparing a ‘meeting ground’ for future talks. This is precisely what Sharif has done and by not giving an audience to the Kashmiri separatists or raising contentious issues during his visit; he has in no way let down the people of Kashmir or undermined Pakistan’s national interests as is being perceived by the ‘hawks’ in Pakistan. On the contrary, by his astute approach, Nawaz Sharif has scored a major diplomatic victory by re-opening the channels for dialogue but unfortunately this spectacular achievement of his has escaped public notice. However, it would be uncharitable to accuse the people for failing to see the ‘method’ in what they perceive to be Sharif’s ‘madness’ as they have been brought up in an atmosphere of deep rooted animosity and thus perceive peaceful means to resolve the differences between India and Pakistan as a ‘sell-out’. This ‘ultra-nationalistic’ psyche afflicts the public on both sides and makes it impossible for the people to think beyond anything else but ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ – so peace becomes the obvious victim and even the sincerest of efforts to achieve normalcy in Indo-Pak relations inevitably fails, as it makes any rapprochement between India and Pakistan well nigh impossible!
How can we stop behaving like over-grown children and get over the notion that only a slugfest can resolve outstanding issues between the two countries, is what requires through introspection. As we all know, disagreement on any issue, whether individual or collective, is due to conflicting perceptions of the concerned parties. So, resolving differences is only feasible when the two sides after shedding their inhibitions, firstly agree to sit down and talk, then be prepared to make certain allowances to accommodate each other’s viewpoint and finally arrive at a solution that fulfills the basic aspirations of both the concerned parties. Though this appears to be simple, but in the Indo Pak context it is not so as here even the slightest sign of ‘accommodating’ the other party’s viewpoint is perceived as ‘capitulation’ and thus no Indian or Pakistani leader can afford to take this risk for obvious reasons. However, while this seems impossible, it can certainly be done if the will exists and we have a good example to prove this.
Though the Indo Pak conflict in Kashmir ended with the UN brokered ceasefire in 1948, guns on the ceasefire line (as the Line of Control (LoC) was then known) never fell silent and so intense was the degree of hostility between the Indian and Pakistan armies that no one would have ever believed that peace could prevail here. This perception was vindicated in 2003, when General Musharraf mooted the idea of a ceasefire on the LoC and his proposal was promptly termed ‘propagandist’ by New Delhi and summarily rejected. It goes to the credit of General Musharraf that he did not allow this slight to influence his rational self and he not only persisted, but also offered that the Pakistan army would implement a unilateral ceasefire. Since this proposal did have immense merits, it was subsequently accepted by New Delhi and for the first time since partition, guns on both sides of the Loc fell silent, putting an end to years of the senseless violence in which thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides had lost their lives. That this ceasefire held on for nearly a decade just goes to prove the point though there may be opposition to even a rational approach, ultimately it has takers on both sides and does find mutual acceptance!
If we honestly yearn for peace, then we have no other option but to replace intransigence with benevolence and getting over our skewed perceptions on nationalism, shed the baggage of mutual suspicion and animosity that our leaders have continuously burdened us with since partition. Remember, Germany too was ‘partitioned’ after World War II and during the Cold War era which followed, the people of both East Germany and West Germany were thoroughly indoctrinated through a comprehensive and institutionalised propaganda programme to regard each other as ‘enemies’ by the then Soviet Union and America respectively. Yet, they did ultimately pull down the Berlin Wall and reunite. While no one expects India and Pakistan to follow suit, but atleast we can learn to live in peace and coexist as two friendly neighbours and realise that since peace is priceless, no ‘concessions’ are too costly for achieving this. So, is expecting India and Pakistan to start shaking of hands and stop fighting, asking for too much?