Eminent panelists debate about what lies ahead for India and Pakistan at Spring Fever 2016 in New Delhi. ANANYA BORGOHAIN reports
Mosque and Military have designed an idea of Pakistan, Hussain Haqqani remarked about the dominant rhetoric about Pakistan. The former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States (2008–2011) and currently Senior Fellow and Director for South and Central Asia spoke to his audience in New Delhi via a video message at a session titled ‘Pakistan is in the eye of the beholder’ at the Spring Fever 2016, organised by Penguin Random House at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi.
How different is a citizen from a personIJ How does one control the overlapping of the personal and politicalIJ What distinguishes a country from a nationIJ Questions such as these formed the core of the debate on the multifarious perceptions of Pakistan. Speaking in the panel were Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament, public intellectual and author, TCA Raghavan, retired IFS officer and formerly posted in Pakistan as the High Commissioner, former Commissioner of Police, Neeraj Kumar, as well as author and journalist Hindol Sengupta. The surprise of the evening was the presence of writer and women and human rights activist, Taslima Nasrin. Nasrin will reportedly release the seventh part of her autobiography (Exile) later this year. Rishi Suri, editor at the largest and oldest Urdu daily, The Daily Milap was the moderator of the session.
Haqqani emphasised that Pakistan was not created by a majority, and only 15 per cent votes were in favour of the Muslim league. In today’s time, only 6 to 7 per cent Pakistanis living in the country could remember the macabre moments of the Partition. Being one of the youngest countries in the world, he urged it to be credited with due merit as seen in its youths and their vibrant talents. He stressed that about 100 million people in the country were below the age of 22 and their future should go beyond militarism in the country since the military’s aggressive forces exist only because of the volatile relationship between India and Pakistan.
This was effectively countered by Tharoor who underlined that Pakistan subscribes to brute force essentially (mind of a hawk) while cultivating the urge to resolve the perpetual Indo-Pak crisis without aggression (heart of a dove). He highlighted that while in India, the state has an army, in Pakistan, the army has a state! Militarism in the country has reached the extent where it indulges in all aspects – education, trade, finance et al. In fact, Pakistani army has the highest portion in the country’s GDP. Suggesting solutions, he called for smooth trade and travel between the two countries and strongly advocated direct people to people contact. As he noted, “Permanent hostility is a mood, not policy.”
The third speaker of the evening, TCA Raghavan, had a fresh perspective and narrated how our problems with Pakistan are not necessarily since the time of Partition. In fact, if one considers calmly, they started to accelerate from 1979 - the year of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the blow to democracy after the execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the same year. Regardless of India, Pakistan has undergone distressing times during 2007-14. So if one were to envisage a colourful future for the nation, it has to be attained through industrious reconfiguring of its foreign policy, constructive talks, and an unparalleled sense of self-worth. Internet, he pointed out, was a great enabler and it’s time Pakistan controlled the Army from monopolising power.
Taslima Nasrin recounted personal accounts from the 1971 war when she was only nine and where the Pakistan army barged into her home, manhandled her father in the courtyard, and looted them, down to the last penny. She recalled being petrified of an impending sexual threat as the uniformed men entered the house with vigorous ruthlessness. Innumerable women had already been raped. While acknowledging that she grew up with a fear of Pakistani people because of her past traumatising experiences, she also conceded making acquaintance of like-minded Pakistanis who were leaving no stone unturned in spreading the message of peace.
She emphasised how Pakistan is not a real democracy because if a country is based on religion, it will eventually become fundamentalist; precisely what the history of Pakistan has demonstrated. Ironically, Bangladesh is gradually becoming like Pakistan, as she noted. Citing the example of the murders of secular bloggers in Bangladesh, she stressed that 1971 proved that Muslim immunity is a myth, that the two nation theory, a foundational standard of Pakistan, is laden with fallacies.
Neeraj Kumar, on the other hand, reiterated the role of the ISI in a series of fatal threats to India: The 1993 serial bomb blasts, the 26/11 attacks, the Parliament attacks, and so on. They were all bound by a shared objective – to make India bleed from a thousand wounds. And that they would target the primary icons of the country and strive to attack them by all the means possible.
The last speaker of the evening, Hindol Sengupta, asked to identify the slippery slope between Aman Ki Asha and Aman Ka Nasha, asking what price could be paid for peace, which is immensely crucial as well. While lamenting the killings of the rational, thinking people he knew in Pakistan - Saveen Mahmood, Salman Taseer etc – he also stressed that he still has only like-minded friends in the country who would want the nation to shun violence as much as he would. To cite an example, he referred to Pakistan’s decision to announce national holidays for all religions in the country.
At the same time, he also clarified, “We must have peace but never lose the ability to do to them what they to do us”. He continued his appeal for balance as he mentioned that he found the Armed Forces Special Powers Act “horrific” but certain issues regarding Kashmir have been conveniently brushed under the carpet. He cited the example of how the J&K Bank is a Fortune500 company that media doesn’t talk about. J&K, he mentioned was witnessing the revival of normalcy and grassroot level entrepreneurship, and when one opines on the issue, a holistic approached is required to be nurtured rather than relying on presumable accepted notions.