The hugely positive markings on the Daily Times comments section and similar responses on Facebook to last week’s article on the Punjabi language have greatly pleased me but, more than that, greatly surprised me as well. It seems I have lifted the lid from a cauldron in which Punjabiyat had been brewing for a long time despite whatever pretensions they may don to convince themselves that they are a superior caste because they speak Urdu or English. The current relationship between Punjabi and Punjabis is highly artificial and hollow and, therefore, fickle and superficial. The partition of India, Punjab and Bengal in 1947 on a religious basis lent legitimacy to the politics of exclusion from the community of those who belonged to a stigmatised religion. So, Hindus and Sikhs were rendered unwelcome in Pakistani West Punjab and, likewise, Muslims in Indian East Punjab. In my book, The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, this fact is affirmed over and over again from the hundreds of interviews I have conducted. Most of them did not want to leave their homes, mohallas (neighbourhoods) and villages but had to. At the end of the day, ethnic cleansing had taken place on both sides and the administrations of both Punjabs were complicit in such cleansing. Instead of beating our chests about what happened in 1947, we need to think creatively to transform the current situation into a positive one. If now we want Punjabiyat based on shared language to be a meaningful link among Punjabis, as social scientists we need to develop theoretical arguments that make Punjabiyat attractive not only emotionally but also rationally, as a material incentive. For intellectuals the emotive and aesthetic aspects of Punjabiyat are most appealing but for traders and industrialists, unless we can make a strong case about the cultivation of the Punjabi language being good for business, we are unlikely to win them over. Finally, we have all those state functionaries whose bread and butter is based on suppressing Punjabiyat on both sides of the international border, though in different ways. We have to make a convincing case on the lines that Punjabiyat does not mean the redrawing of borders but of transcending them as we interact regionally and globally in the pursuit of economic development and prosperity. In other words, Punjabi should play a positive role in generating economic rewards while preserving the political shape that exists today of the two neighbouring states of India and Pakistan. As social scientists we know that for building sound trade relations, trust and confidence in one another is imperative. When trust and mutual confidence exist, we say that social capital has been created. Social capital is the resource that provides strength and resilience to a relationship. Now, Punjabi was and always will be the most natural link between all Punjabis even when at present many do not speak or many more do not write or read it. I know many Punjabis who live in Karachi whose children do not speak Punjabi but they are identified as Punjabis by Sindhis, Baloch and Urdu-speaking Mohajirs, and when asked how they identify themselves, they too say they are Punjabis. We can extend this situation to India as well; Punjabis are one of the biggest immigrant groups settled in the west. So, then, what is the case for the Punjabi language as a catalyst to regional and global trade? I shall address this question below. Globalisation refers to an increasing and perhaps irreversible integration of the disparate economic units of the world into a single structure, even when the organising units of the international political system continue to be territorial nation-states. The proponents of globalisation argue that economic prosperity can be achieved more effectively through free trade, which requires the factors of production — land, capital and labour — to be put to optimal use through expanding networks and ventures. Capital and labour are moveable while land is stationary. Obviously, it is the free movement of capital that globalisation, based on Thatcherite-Reaganite neo-liberal economics, favours most, but labour too moves relatively more freely under the globalisation regime. However, given the uneven development of the world economy, powerful economies are in a far more advantageous position than weaker or less developed ones. If individual states have to face globalisation individually, oftentimes they are unable to protect themselves against the powerful economies of the world, and multinational and transnational companies start drawing maximum benefit from globalisation. Consequently, regional economic cooperation has been a popular response to globalisation. The EU and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are the best examples of regional cooperation but, in fact, all over the world regional cooperation has resulted in the founding of similar cooperative unions. This means that states within the same region accelerate trade amongst themselves and thus benefit from each other while retaining their individual identities and sovereignties. In South Asia such an understanding exists since 1985, when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was founded. But the partition of India, Punjab and Bengal resulted in India and Pakistan becoming rivals and enemies, going to war on a number of occasions and, when at peace, they have been indulging in zero-sum games derived from mutual suspicion, fear and hatred. Therefore, while we have the regional framework for accelerated economic interaction and cooperation, morons on both sides of the border have created a situation that hugely undermines the scope for genuine, substantive cooperation. I will not take sides and say which side bears the greater responsibility for this dismal situation but surely on both sides there are vested interests hellbent on preventing the normalisation of the India-Pakistan relationship. We know that irrational standpoints cannot be maintained forever; sooner or later they require resolution. If that does not happen, ultranationalism results in war. Such a possibility is always lurking behind the India-Pakistan relationship. Alternatively, rational thinking can help adversaries bury the hatchet and establish a new equation. Next week we shall be probing what role Punjabi can play if both sides begin to think rationally and farsightedly. (To be continued) The writer is a visiting professor, LUMS, Pakistan, professor emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University, and honorary senior fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Latest publications: Winner of the Best Non-Fiction Book award at the Karachi Literature Festival: The Punjab Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed, Oxford, 2012; and Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Oxford, 2013. He can be reached at: billumian@gmail.com