The historic animosity between India and Pakistan has an enormous social cost for the people of both countries. India and Pakistan, as hyper-national security states built on religion-based identities, are constantly playing on the fear of the ‘external threat’. Hindu India is always a threat to Muslim Pakistan and vice versa. This hatred for each other is a core feature of Pakistani and Indian nationalism. This nationalism provided the justification for both countries to invest meagre resources in defence and security rather than building human capital. Consequently, India ranks at 135 out of 186 countries on the Human Development Index (2014), while Pakistan stands at 146. The number of absolute poor has increased in both countries despite India’s economic growth and Pakistan’s economic stagnation.
To counter this state-sponsored animosity, pro-peace communities on both sides of the border initiated people-to-people dialogue feeding into an overall peace movement. These grassroots initiatives were unofficial but organic sans institutional funding. Later, officially approved and donor-sponsored formal processes of track one and track two diplomacy emerged.
Through the peace movement, a space was created for peace within the larger national security discourse. However, the shared frustration between the peace activists of both sides stems from the slow progress that is being made in resolving hardcore issues such as Kashmir and the issue of water distribution, which continue to endanger the peace building processes. However, they have been extremely successful in exposing the disconnect between the state policy of jingoism/militarisation and the people’s desire for peace and friendly relations.
In a recent bilateral dialogue between Pakistan and India, organised by the Regional Peace Institute (RPI) in Delhi, we clearly concluded that both states lack political will to resolve bilateral disputes. The delegates put forward extremely viable proposals for building a peace constituency through better economic and social cooperation. However, every speaker without fail lamented the lack of political will, which appears to be the real challenge that confronts the pro-peace lobbies on both sides of the border.
As part of the delegation for this bilateral dialogue, I personally experienced the stubbornness and the lack of will on the part of the Indian authorities during my stay in Delhi. This anecdote speaks volumes about the state’s unwillingness to change its behaviour. I got a return ticket for November 26, 2014 because that was the only flight during the week coming to Lahore from Delhi. On my arrival at the airport I realised the visa stamped was for seven days. That meant I would have to exit Delhi on November 25, 2014. To avoid the hassle of cancelling my ticket, purchasing a new one to fly from Delhi to Amritsar and then crossing the border on foot, I requested the official at the airport to extend my visa for one day. He refused and asked me to contact the home ministry. The same evening, I discussed the issue with the Pakistan High Commissioner at a dinner hosted by him for the delegates. He told me that he would take care of it. Despite several visits by a Pakistani official to the concerned authorities, the Pakistan High Commission could not manage to get me the one-day visa extension.
The institutional stubbornness, recent skirmishes along the Line of Control and India’s unilateral decision to call off the foreign secretary level talks demands a review in the peace building approach by civil society. The reformist approach of the peace movement has failed to put enough pressure on the belligerent states of India and Pakistan to remove irritants for establishing a lasting peace between the two countries.
The shift from a reformatory to a more transformative approach is imperative. The transformative approach demands internal focus and initiation of a structural dialogue within the countries rather than across borders. To expand the peace constituency, there is a need to initiate an internal dialogue with various stakeholders.
Those at the margins of the power structures of the state and society, the ones who suffer the most from wars, conflicts and lower investments in the social sector, are the real stakeholders of peace. The focus within the peace movement should shift towards supporting social movements for the marginalised sections of society by way of connecting them within and across borders and also a sharing of information on their successful experiences of resistance.
One is aware that this is not going to be an easy task but possibilities do exist. For example, even though the working class in both India and Pakistan has a glorious history of struggles, the working class movements are currently quite weak. The political consciousness of workers is at its lowest ebb. The political domination of right wing and religious forces that are supporting neo-liberal economic policies have destroyed workers’ unity through casualisation and informalisation of labour and the ban on trade unionism. Strengthening and connecting the movement of the marginalised who have shared the realities of poverty and deprivation will garner the mass support that would bring a shift in the state’s policy toward peace.
A greater focus is required on women and the youth who have a higher stake in peace. Without taking an essentialist position on women as peace lovers, it is a fact that due to their centuries old caring roles, the majority of women do not like war and conflicts. Also, women suffer in a distinct manner and disproportionately in war and conflict. Peace building initiatives should reach out to women and engage them in peace building processes. Without expanding the constituency base for pro-peace forces, the reversing the character of the dialogue at the state level will remain a far-fetched goal.
The emphasis on constructive cooperation in the social sector and on the human rights issue was the much-desired focus that had come out of the bilateral dialogue initiated by the RPI. So far, the focus to create more pro-peace constituencies has been through better economic cooperation, opening our markets for trade, joint business ventures, softening visa regimes, opening more consulates and banking facilities, etc. The realisation is that, while it is important to take steps to open markets and facilitate business interests, it is equally vital to understand that the business community have contradictory interests. They wish to have access to markets to multiply their profits; at the same time they support the right wing political ideologies that, in turn, support a neo-liberal economy.
Neo-liberalism has thrown up massive inequalities along the lines of class, caste and gender that are the shared realities amongst the teeming millions on both sides. It is important that all peace initiatives place their interests first and also garner support for peace building processes. The Regional Peace Institute (RPI) is in a good position to take the lead in bringing the much-needed shift by expanding the peace constituency amongst the working classes of both countries. There is connectivity between the intra- and inter-state peace movements. The stronger social movements within the country will ensure that states act on the behalf of the people whose lives and choices are dependent on lasting peace between the two countries.
The writer is a human rights activist and university professor