What’s wrong with us?

Shahzad Raza

The tricks of ruling the subcontinent for 1,000 years was through  a loose confederation, mutually benefitting alliances, religious freedom, inter-faith marriages, economic prosperity and adaptation of local customs and traditions. From Qutb ud-Din Aibak to Akbar, the Muslim rulers successfully deciphered the complexities of sub-continental life. 

Even the most reviled Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb Alamgir, according to Audrey Truschke, followed his ancestors. The strategy of convoluting foreign with the local culture gave birth to a third-culture life — an ideal mix of religions and customs. The subcontinent was more liberal and secular than any modern western society.

The colonial forces devastated the Hindu-Muslim unity with their ‘divide and rule’ strategy. The Great Divide of 1947 led to the divorce of a 1,000-year marriage. “Strict supervision and play them off one against the other. That is the secret of our government,” wrote Rudyard Kipling in The Education of Otis Yeere. The seed that the colonisers had sowed blossomed into a tree by 1947. The haphazard Partition and mass migration — thanks to Lord Mountbatten — nurtured it further with the blood of more than 2 lakh people. Both India and Pakistan began their journey as independent countries with animosity and misunderstandings.

The last few years witnessed a virtual impasse between the two nuclear neighbours. While the Modi government was surfing the wave of ultra-nationalist Hindu mindset, the establishment and extremists in Pakistan paralysed the Sharif government before he could capitalise on some peace overtures. Both sides committed irrelevant mistakes and pushed the peace process into a gloomy chasm. The reversal is near impossible.

Imran Khan’s succession to power was seen as a glimmer of hope. Though he mentioned the sensitive Kashmir issue (for India), he primarily talked of resuming dialogues and establishing greater trade ties. He subscribed to the vision that inter-state dependencies would create a congenial atmosphere between India and Pakistan. And that would, eventually, enable them to discuss thorny issues.

Khan and Modi talked to each other over the telephone. They shared the wish of having a permanent peace in South Asia. Later, Khan wrote to Modi formally proposing the resumption of the stalled peace process. In the backdrop of the developments, the two countries agreed to let their foreign ministers meet on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York.

Things looked better and steady. The brighter aspect was that the Pakistani military establishment shared similar views and vowed to back the civil government in its positive overtures towards India. In his speech on Defence Day, Pakistan army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa underlined the importance of trade between India and Pakistan, which, he believed, was necessary to ameliorate the plight of around 2 billion people living in South Asia.

What happened should rightly be called a bummer. The scheduled meeting between Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Sushma Swaraj was cancelled. India blamed Pakistan of killing a BSF soldier. It also lodged protest that Pakistan had issued a stamp featuring Burhan Wani. These are strong reasons to cancel the talks as far as India is concerned. However, Pakistan, in defence, has its own arguments. It has clarified that the soldier’s killing took place two days before India agreed to the meeting and that the stamp featuring Wani had been issued in July. 

The language that the Indian MEA spokesperson used against PM Khan was impolite and disrespectful. “It is obvious that behind Pakistan’s proposal for talks to make a fresh beginning, the evil agenda of Pakistan stands exposed and the true face of the new PM has been revealed,” spokesperson Raveesh Kumar  said.

Khan is just a month-old PM. Shouldn’t he be given some concessions? Not at all, if the answer is sought from the jingoistic Indian media. Should Pakistan keep on extending the hand of friendship? Not at all, if one asks emotional Pakistani news anchors. The state relations are not defined or established through prime-time shows. The dilemma of Pakistan and India is that they are hostage to the circumstances. They are the victims of negative peace looming large on the horizon. A small-triggering event could jeopardise a great effort. By wasting more time, the two countries are just increasing the number of bitter pills they will eventually have to swallow. 

 — The writer is Pakistan-based journalist