Daily Times

In a modern era of nation states and multilateral defence organisations, national governments respond to border disputes and acrimonious claims about national sovereignty in a variety of ways. The responses range from outright war to diplomatic skirmishes to creative resolution of disputes.

However, India and Pakistan, in the case of the flare-up on borders, often respond to the crisis by stirring up war hysteria and jingoism. Citizens of both countries protest on the streets, talk show hosts spew vituperation against each other and bellicose barbs are exchanged between government officials.

The case in point is the recent episode of the killings of Indian soldiers on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC). After the killings, India media and opposition parties unleashed a virulent anti-Pakistan campaign. As a result, the Indian government began pedalling on the back foot. Mr A K Anthony, Indian Defence Minister, who had earlier stated that terrorists wearing Pakistan army uniforms crossed the LoC and attacked the Indian soldiers, retracted his statement under mounting pressure from the media and opposition parties, and later levelled allegations at Pakistan army commandos for the killings of the soldiers. However, the volte face occurred without provision of any credible evidence.

In Pakistan, the response was muted in the beginning and is still discreet by Indian standards. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif expressed sadness over the incident and also urged restraint on the Kashmir issue. But as positions hardened in India, and Indian shelling caused casualties on the Pakistan side of the LoC, the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution condemning “the unprovoked Indian aggression on the Line of Control”. Additionally, the finance minister of Pakistan put on hold the grant of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India.

As certain sections of the media, opposition and some government officials in India, and to a certain extent in Pakistan too, have responded to the crisis by ratcheting up hysteria, it leads to another question: what could be the reason for this jingoistic reaction?

In India, by issuing hostile statements, the government is responding to the demands of the populist media and opposition for aggressive action against Pakistan. The populist Indian media engages in anti-Pakistan sentiments because it caters to the aspirations of middle class Indians. Economic prosperity has not only lifted millions of Indians from poverty but has also created a critical mass of educated, politically conscious, middle class Indians, who seek a more assertive role for their country on the global stage. Truly, the middle class Indians are setting the agenda of the media in the age of ‘Shining and Rising India’. On the other hand, the opposition, led by the BJP, is spewing anti-Pakistan sentiments, as sounding tough on a neighbouring country with which it has fought three wars sells well in an election year.

In Pakistan, the newly elected government, despite the early avowals of ‘peace with India’, has somewhat hardened positions for two possible reasons. One, as Kashmiri jihadi outfits and Muslim religious parties set the contours of political discourse on Kashmir and other intractable disputes with India, the government cannot afford to appear ‘weak’ before the electorate. Secondly, the civilian government has tenuous control over foreign policy making and the statements of its functionaries might not necessarily reflect its India policy truly.

That said, the flaring up of tensions on the LoC has put at stake the future of millions of Indians and Pakistanis who can benefit from peace. No doubt, elected governments in India and Pakistan are beholden to their vote banks, and unwittingly have to cater to their aspirations. However, the sagacity of the elected leadership is tested during times of crisis when they have to rise above entrenched biases and historical disputes and seek peace and prosperity for their countrymen by finding out, as some wise person has said, “the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict — alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.”

It is time that rhetoric on cross-border disputes is toned down in both countries and a creative framework is put in place for searching out solutions to decades-old disputes. The leaders of India and Pakistan must realise that they are not captains of rival cricket teams, where one side has to win and the other side has to lose, but that they hold the destiny of their countrymen in their hands, and any miscalculation, by giving in to sentiments of jingoism, can thwart the development prospects of millions of people on both sides of the border.

The writer is a public policy practitioner based in Lahore and holds MSc. in Public Policy & Management from King’s College, London