India and Pakistan: 56 Years after Independence

On August 18, 2003, in commemoration of India and Pakistan's 56th independence day celebrations SALDA hosted a thought-provoking panel discussion on peace Initiatives between India and Pakistan, fundamentalist violence, and the protection of minorities in the two countries.

Panelists:

• Teesta Setalvad, Human Rights Activist, Mumbai, India
• Tapan Bose, Human Rights Commissioner for South Asia, Nepal
• Tarek Fatah, Journalist, Toronto, Canada
• Hamid Bashani, Kashmiri Activist, Ottawa, Canada
• Raghu Krishnan, Moderator, Toronto, Canada

Tapan Bose's analysis focused on the future of the India/Pak peace initiative by providing his audience with both countries' perspectives on the Kashmir issue. He questioned the reasoning of the Indian government's insistence on having Pakistan admit its support for anti-India militants in the region. He recognized that this strategy would help India prove that the Kashmir 'problem' is not indigenous. However, by asking Pakistan to accept its support for militancy in the disputed territories, India has set an impossible condition for Pakistan. This deadlock raises questions about India's sincerity to sustain a peace dialogue with Pakistan.

Tappan Bose also noted that India's insistence on limiting the peace initiative to a bilateral level has further reduced the viability of a resolution between the two countries. Citing previous peace treaties brokered between the two countries by outside mediators, Bose cautioned the audience against the likelihood of the two independently reaching a consensus on this issue. According to him, the very act of becoming a nuclear power has thrown the Kashmir issue into the international arena. With the onset of the war on terror, the renewed neo-colonial presence in the area has further bolstered India's position. It is therefore all the more important to enlist the support of an independent mediator.

Tarek Fatah addressed the fundamental divide between India and Pakistan. Returning to the very inception of the Kashmir problem, he noted that the Partition which is marked by the two countries' independence days is viewed as an ultimate tragedy by India on the one hand, and as cause for celebration by Pakistan on the other hand.

Fatah suggested that perhaps the greatest difference between the two countries lies in the evolution of the Left post-partition. Pakistan's Left remains limited to the upper classes and disconnected from the masses, which are almost entirely influenced by the religious Right. Within the last few decades, Pakistan has witnessed a complete switch to the Right. As a result, the Pakistani psyche now identifies itself more with the Middle East rather than with the rest of South Asia. A study of the two sides' perceptions of the US and Israel also reveals a crucial difference. While the fundamentalist element in Pakistan is overtly anti-US and Israel, their Indian counterparts are pro-US and Israel. Increasing media coverage of Indian officials fraternizing with US officials further convinces Pakistan's religious Right of a Hindu/Zionist plot against their country.

Meanwhile India's Left is still operating at the grassroots level. Yet, Fatah contended, over the last 56 years we have not encountered a single Indian political party which has recognized the Kashmiris' right to self-rule - irrespective of Pakistan's stance and the division of 1947. Fatah indicated that unless this fundamental right is acknowledged and becomes the basis for a resolution, he doubted that a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue could be achieved.

Hamid Bashani brought the audience the Kashmiri perspective on the conflict between the two South-Asian neighbors. According to him, the Kashmiri people's suffering is the same, regardless of whether they are part of Indian or Pakistani administrations. Kashmiris are sick of the finger pointing, blame and the 'opportunistic rule' of their land by the two regional powers. The Kashmiri people are being treated as 'animals' by both Pakistan and India. The fundamentalists and militants in the area are equally responsible for creating an unending cycle of violence in which Kashmiris are the main victims. If the Indian security forces are blamed for their repressive tactics within the area, this does not mean that Pakistan is blameless. Bashani expressed that if the Kashmiri people had resisted the Pakistani administration, they would have received the same treatment which is being meted out towards them by the Indian forces. Bashani was confident that if the Kashmiris were allowed to proceed with a democratic movement for self-rule they would not be suppressed by India. According to him, there is no difference in the aims of the militants and India: hegemony over Kashmir. It is important to question the source of weapons found in Kashmir. Since the Kashmiri population is unable to afford guns, Bashani concluded that their source could only be Pakistani fundamentalists and the ISI.

Hamid Bashani cautioned against the perception that Kashmir is witnessing a Marxist -style liberation struggle. He emphatically stressed that the forces at work in this region are not motivated by kindness or sympathy for the Kashmiri cause. Instead, India and Pakistan are fighting their own war and the battlefield has become Kashmir.

Bashani maintained that the Kashmiris' right to self-determination should come with a reunification of Kashmir. Veering away from Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory that had split the sub-continent in the first place, he argued that this right to self-determination did not stem from the fact that Kashmir is a Muslim majority state - it is an inherent right that both countries need to recognize. He doubted that a compromise, or India and Pakistan's interpretation of this right to self-determination, would solve this issue peacefully.

Teesta Setalvad discussed religion-based intolerance in India. Since the 1980's any work on developing and maintaining secular democracy has been subverted and eroded by religious nationalism. A prime example would be the promotion of hate speech, which became a precursor to violence, as witnessed in the massacre of Gujarat in 2002.

Setalvad explained that an examination of religious-based nationalism needs to be placed within its historical context, and includes a study of the representation of history in Indian textbooks. Today, India's textbooks ascribe the division of the sub-continent to Jinnah, the Muslim League, and their advocacy of the Two-Nation Theory. The violence of Gujarat was made possible by the complicity of the governmental powers and a re-writing of history by Indian textbooks, which, failing to grapple with the real issues on hand, have deliberately subverted facts. Gujarat's textbooks dating back to 1999, even before the genocide took place, provide justification for the caste system, along with glorification of Sati, and treat Muslims, Christians and Parsis as foreigners. These developments took place before the BJP came into power.

Teesta Setalvad emphasized that the India-Pak peace initiative, and the anti-nuclear movement are interconnected within this context. She mentioned that on numerous occasions the BJP goaded Muslims into violence, using slogans of 'Mian Musharaff' in elections. Setlvad pointed out that there is a critical need for Indian democracy to be based on a secular platform - otherwise rabid religiosity will destabilize the entire sub-continent. She underscored the importance of this need by stating the fact that India's Muslims are the second largest community in any country after Indonesia.

Setalvad argued that Gujarat exemplifies how a fanatic movement that has been taken over by the state apparatus in accompaniment with non-state actors can eventually overtake an entire nation. According to her, the bestiality and scope of the Gujarat carnage point to its being a pre-planned attack with the backing of the state authorities.

Setalvad viewed the post cold-war scenario as a dangerous re-alignment of the US and India. Nevertheless, she noted that thanks to mainstream media attention and awareness-raising efforts, people are now beginning to take notice of this development. The importance of small-scale efforts to reach out and mobilize is significant, especially since the Muslim population feels increasingly isolated and abandoned by the Indian government.

Moderator Raghu Krishnan's comments:

• Until recently, India and the US were pro war in Afghanistan. However, the Indian people have opposed the war in Iraq, and this may provide a basis for unity between India and Pakistan's population against the US and its allies' designs in the region.
• Tappan Bose called for the need to have a foreign mediator in the region. Given the US's unpopularity, we should consider other options. Who can play this role? The UN? Or some yet-to-emerge third force in world politics?
• It appears that the onus is on India to begin this rapprochement process. As India is the regional power, the Indian Left should strengthen itself. Much of the evolution of Pakistani politics has been influenced by events in the Middle East. A peaceful resolution to the Kashmir problem cannot just rely on the Indian Left. How can the Left in Pakistan be nourished to take progressive action against the fundamentalists' influence?

Tapan Bose: India's insistence on bilateral talks is illogical and counter productive. Who should mediate? It's always someone that is acceptable to both parties or no mediation takes place. However, there is no willingness to go to the next stage of the dialogue. Opening up the borders and easing restrictions on cross-border exchanges will help with this. The Diaspora is as nationalistic as people in South Asia, and progressive people need to use their position overseas to gain influence with Indian and Pakistani policy makers as well as their counterparts in the Canadian government.

Tarek Fatah: Afghanistan only had diplomatic relations with a handful of countries. In Iraq's case, the US was isolated by the developing world and therefore, India and Pakistan were able to remain against the war in Iraq. Their opposition was not based on high principles.

Who represents Kashmir? We have to ask the Kashmiri people that question, without the presence of both India and Pakistan. The Pakistani Left is virtually non-existent. Perhaps it can only be seen operating in a few NGOs and among the elite. It has no impact on the country's politics.

Hamid Bashani: Who is the real representative of Kashmir? The only solution is to reunite Kashmir. Outsiders are trying to find a solution based on the Two-Nation Theory. As a Kashmiri, I don't care about this theory. We have the right to self-rule. Democracy cannot be dictated by Pakistan's wishes or by India's designs. When it comes to the question of the Subcontinent, the people of Kashmir are not separatists. They identify with and wish to be part of South Asia. Pakistan and India face the hard task of addressing this issue.

Teesta Setalvad: We ask: where is the Left in South Asia? I would like to ask: where is the organized Left in the US and Canada? Yet we had a massive anti-war movement here. South Asia includes Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. We need to widen how we present and contextualize these issues. The existence of grassroots movements can have a critical impact. We have seen the emergence of a number of small-scale movements that are gaining momentum, for e.g. the Narmada anti-dam movement, and the Dalit movement. These movements have emerged during the past 25 years. One needs imagination to discard the old and adopt new and creative approaches to our problems.

Q & A / Comments:

• What is attractive about Kashmir? Natural resources?
• Why is there such a total obsession with this issue? Why can't India and Pakistan let Kashmiris decide this issue?
• Religion as a binding force doesn't work - we have two Punjabs and two Bengals. We need people with vision and consensus
  

Tarek Fatah: the original division took place in 1947 by referendum. However, the princely states allowed the individual rulers to decide on the fate of their states, with or without taking into consideration the affiliation and aspirations of their people. The fate of Kashmir was decided by a Hindu Prince. The same fate affected the state of Junagarh, where a Muslim head ruled over the Hindu population. Indian police went in to claim it for India. It's fundamentally a moral issue.

Tapan Bose: We must keep perspective. We have to rethink the concept of nation and state. There is no such thing as an Indian or a Pakistani identity. The protectors of national sovereignty are rethinking all this. The question of the right to self-rule comes from the struggle for de-colonization. The tragedy is that the nation states have not dealt with this politically. It's not a legalistic solution, but has to be placed within the framework of democracy.

Teesta Setalvad: South Asians residing in North America can play a greater role in the Diaspora. Many Right-wing activists use the west for fundraising purposes. So why can't progressives influence western governments' policies regarding South Asia?