Moving Towards a Solution
IN REALITY, THE choice for Pakistan today is not between democratic and military rule, but, between one of two states: to remain in the impasse that it finds itself in, thereby wiping itself off the roadmap of the global community, or to extricate itself from this impasse and move ahead.
In the history of a country it sometimes happens that its course of progress comes to a standstill. At such times, it becomes imperative for it to take bold steps if it wants to move ahead. Naturally, this is a sensitive matter and such steps might go wholly against popular sentiment. This is why such courageous decisions are often taken by strong military rulers rather than democratically-elected politicians who, being chosen by their people, have to pander to their emotions and prejudices and so are generally unable to take such steps as might hurt their sentiments.
Let me cite one instance to make this point. The French President Charles de Gaulle (d. 1970) was a top general in the French Army, but later manipulated his way to the post of President. On the face of it, this was an anti-democratic move, but by doing so, de Gaulle was able to save France in a manner that a democratically-elected government could not possibly have adopted. He unilaterally announced the end of French rule in a number of French colonies in Africa and elsewhere, because this was proving to be a burden for France, rendering France as the ‘sick man’ of Europe in the wake of the Second World War, when all European countries except for France were making great strides towards progress and development. It was this decision, against the wishes of the people, which made France one of the developed nations of the world. Obviously, this move, which was widely unpopular in France, was a necessary one for the greater good of the country, but only a bold and strong ruler could do this, unmindful of popular sentiment and opposition.
The current situation in Pakistan is somewhat similar. Pakistan’s undeclared war against India over Kashmir has brought immense loss and destruction to Pakistan itself. Consequently, the entire world views Pakistan as a country with no stability. Foreign investors are now extremely reluctant to invest in Pakistan. The proxy war in Kashmir has led to rapidly escalating instability and violence within Pakistan itself, causing grave problems for its own people. Scores of Pakistan’s religious and educational institutions have turned into centres of violence and destruction. Because of all this, Pakistan is witnessing an alarming brain-drain, with most of its highly-qualified and capable people fleeing the country because of the ongoing violence, the lack of developmental opportunities, and the poor state of infrastructure in the country.
The completely unrealistic policies of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir have proven to be a stumbling block that is blocking the path to Pakistan’s further development. The only way out for Pakistan is to change its policy as regards Kashmir, that is, it should rather focus on the opportunities for positive development and progress that are available to it. Pakistan must now recognize the status quo in Kashmir, and accept the Line of Control in Kashmir as the international border between India and Pakistan, albeit perhaps with some necessary adjustments. This can be a permanent solution to the Kashmir conflict. For this, Pakistan must cease its emotion-driven policies and politics with regard to Kashmir and, instead, adopt a sensible, realistic and pragmatic approach. Once it is able to establish peace with India by settling the Kashmir dispute, it will be able to work towards establishing peace within its own borders and work for the progress and development of the country.
For the last sixty years Pakistan’s politics have revolved round the Kashmir issue. However, Pakistan’s efforts to annex Kashmir, that is, to change the status quo in Kashmir, have only resulted in massive destruction—in Kashmir and within Pakistan itself. Nothing positive has ever come out of these efforts in the past, nor will they bear fruit in the future.
For Pakistan to accept the status quo in Kashmir and the Line of Control as a permanent and accepted border between India and Pakistan is, admittedly, difficult. But if Pakistani leaders gather the courage to take this bold step, it is bound to lead to miraculous consequences. It will break down the barriers between India and Pakistan and build a relationship of close friendship between the two countries. The negative mentality of the Pakistani people, built on hatred for India, will give way to a positive approach. Trade links between the two countries will flourish, to the benefit of both. In spite of being one as regards language and culture, both countries, have become ‘distant neighbours’. Subsequently, with the restoration of all the links, they will be able to benefit from each other in the fields of education and culture. By ending its enmity with India, Pakistan will be able to progress in the same manner as Japan was able to after it ceased its enmity with the United States in the aftermath of the Second World War.
The truth is that when any individual or group tries to achieve any goal, he finds himself in a set of situations which may be called the status quo.
Now there are two starting points for him. One is to seek to change the status quo by removing the roadblock for further action. The other is to accept the status quo as it is and to make concerted efforts to avail of the opportunities which are already available in the given status quo. This second approach is what I call ‘positive status quoism’. This is in accordance both with reason and with the teachings of Islam. The Quran enjoins: “Reconciliation is the best. (4:128) That is, the best way to settle a conflict is to follow the policy of reconciliation. In other words, conflicts are best resolved by the contending parties avoiding confrontation and by coming to a mutual understanding.
This suggestion to build better relations between India and Pakistan through acceptance of the status quo is not a new one. As long ago as the early 1960s, during the rule of Jawaharlal Nehru, the governments of both the countries had evidently agreed on this principle. The Kashmiri leader, Shaykh Mohd Abdullah, had even left for Pakistan as a mediator. However, because of Nehru’s sudden demise, this historic agreement could not be arrived at.
“By 1956, Nehru had publicly offered a settlement of Kashmir with Pakistan over the Ceasefire line (now converted into LOC). On May 23, 1964, Nehru asked Shaykh Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan in Rawalpindi in an effort to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio. The Pakistani leader agreed to a summit with Nehru, to be held in June 1964. This message was urgently telegraphed to Nehru on May 26. But Just as Nehru’s consent reached Karachi, the world also learnt that Nehru had died in his sleep. And with that a major opportunity for peaceful solution over Kashmir was lost. (The Hindustan Times, June 18, 2001)
If Pakistan were to accept the status quo in Kashmir as a permanent settlement and the Line of Control as the international border it would entail no harm at all for Pakistan and indeed for the Muslims as a whole. In spite of remaining separate from Pakistan, Kashmir would still remain a Muslim majority area. Furthermore, it is an uncontestable fact that the Muslims who stayed on in India are in a much better position than those who opted for Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus joining India will only help the Kashmiris in many ways. Just take one example to illustrate this point. Hakim Abdul Hamid of India and Hakim Mohd. Sayeed of Pakistan, both being real brothers contributed greatly to the field of medicine in particular. But Hakim Mohd. Sayeed was shot dead in Karachi, while Hakim Abdul Hamid continued to work in peace until he died a natural death in Delhi.
Another point is that adopting a policy of conciliation with India would amount to putting an end to confrontation with its powerful neighbour. Such a step could throw open the doors to all kinds of progress. An example of this is provided by the present Japan. Before the Second World War Japan and America were each other’s enemies. But after the war Japan opted for a policy of total reconciliation. Consequently, Japan emerged on the world map as an economic superpower.
It must also be recognized that the policies that Pakistan has been pursuing have proven to be a major reason for Islam getting a bad name. In line with its present policy, Pakistan has used hatred against India as a means to create an artificial sense of Pakistani unity. The result of this wrong policy has been that Pakistan (including erstwhile East Pakistan) has failed to unite in the name of Islam but appears to be totally united on the basis of hatred for India. This has given critics an excuse to argue that Islam lacks the capacity to unite the Muslims. The Hindustan Times of June 18, 2001, wrote that “Islam does not hold Pakistan together any more, but anti-Indianism does.”
If Pakistan adopted a conciliatory approach, its people would develop a positive approach and attitude to life, which would facilitate the emergence of a new era, wherein Islam, not anti-Indianism, could become the basis for Pakistani unity. It might open all doors to God’s blessings upon Pakistan.
