APRIL 15
Indo-Pak Detente
Under the auspices of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, an international meeting was held in New Delhi on February 5-6, 1996 to discuss the possibility of an Indo-Pak dialogue, which hopefully, would find ways and means to normalize relations between India and Pakistan. Although held at an unofficial level—it being more a function of ‘Third-track democracy’—it was attended by dignitaries from both countries.
As a participant on this occasion, I debated whether we could discover a practicable formula acceptable to both countries. I concluded that a via media could be arrived at, basing my judgement on the strategy adopted by the Prophet of Islam as a result of which he achieved the greatest success in human history.
This formula, in short, is al-Fasl bain al-Qaziyatain, or the de-linking of two issues. Pakistan, being an Islamic state, is bound to follow in the Prophet’s footsteps. India, on the other hand, is a secular state. Nevertheless, because of the reasonableness of the above proposal, I am convinced that if Pakistan were to adopt it, India would have no hesitation in following suit, particularly when it has already instituted the process of de-linking issues in its relations with China.
I must add that the acceptance of such a formula would be no sign of weakness on the part of either country, such policies having become the inevitable imperatives of modern circumstances. That is why the USA, albeit a superpower, is likewise following the identical policy of separating politics and economics in its dealings with China. It is a well-known fact that America’s separation of its economic interests from its political stand on human rights has resulted in its increased leverage in that country. India and Pakistan should also learn from this and profit from it wherever possible.
It should be borne in mind that this is a formula which accords both with Islam and with nature. What we should do, therefore,—if not in principle, then at least in practice—is put aside all political conflicts, in particular, the problem of Kashmir. Peaceful negotiations on this issue may continue but both countries shall have to make a resolve that under no circumstances will there be any transgression of the boundaries of peaceful dialogue.
This is the need of the hour if we are to save ourselves from unnecessary losses in vital fields due to present-day confrontational attitudes. This formula, which was adopted by the Prophet in state as well as in international matters, was a very reasonable one. I shall give here three examples of its application which have a direct bearing on the present situation.
1. As recorded by Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet of Islam was once seated by the wayside when a funeral procession passed by. On seeing it, the Prophet stood up. One of his companions remarked that it was the funeral of a Jew. The Prophet replied: “Was he not a human being?” The Jew in question had belonged to a faction which opposed Islam. But the view the Prophet took of him kept apart the two sides of his personality. From one point of view, he was a Jew and a dire opponent of Muslims and their religion, Islam, but, from another point of view, he was simply a human being. It was the wise separation of two distinct aspects of the deceased which made it possible for the Prophet to stand up to show him respect.
2. Another example of this principle as applied to national life is to be found in the history of Islam, namely, the Treaty of Hudaybiya. This was a no-war pact entered into by the Prophet with those very people who unjustly held Makkah and the House of God in their tyrannical grip. Prior to the beginning of this treaty, they had not allowed the Prophet and his companions to visit the House of God (Kaba), notwithstanding God’s declaration in the Quran that this holy shrine would remain open to visits from both townspeople and outsiders.
The negotiation of this peace treaty became possible only after the Prophet had separated religion from the political conflict in the Makkan context, thereby eliminating possible causes of friction. This peace treaty, as finally drawn up, yielded innumerable benefits. One important consequence was that it made free movement possible between Makkah and Madinah, despite the existence of political differences. The road to mutual commerce was thereupon thrown open. People began travelling everywhere in an unrestricted manner for the purposes of education and commerce, and there eventually came a time when both warring groups started to live together as friends.
3. A signal example of the adoption of this principle in international affairs was the Prophet’s decision in the case of Qibla of Bait al-Maqdis. After the emigration, when the Prophet had reached Madinah from Makkah, and had established the ritual of congregational prayer to be performed five times a day, he proclaimed Quds (Palestine) as the Qibla for worship. (This remained in force for about seventeen months.) But at that point in time, Quds was under the dominion of an idolatrous Persian King. The Prophet solved this seemingly insoluble problem by simply separating the spiritual from the temporal in this instance. Only then was it possible for him to make Quds the Qibla for worship. Had the Prophet not adopted this policy, such a decision would never have been possible.
Over the last fifty years, relations between India and Pakistan have been vitiated by political controversy. During this very long period each side has given its full attention to settling matters to its own advantage. But the result has been quite the reverse. And without there being any signs of these political controversies ever being resolved, precious resources have been, and are still being wasted in senseless confrontation.
Now, the wisest policy, from the respective standpoints of reason and religion, would be for both countries to base their foreign policy on the de-linking of political and economic issues. As far as the issue of political conflict is concerned, they would be well advised to adopt a wait-and-see policy, and to avoid taking any practical step save that of peaceful negotiation. This is what will ultimately open all doors to activity in non-political arenas.
Once Vinoba Bhave visited Kashmir, and when he arrived near the border, he was met by a number of army officers. Pointing to the geographical division, one of them said, “up to this point we have our pickets. After that the pickets are those of our enemies.” Vinobaji replied: “Don’t say ‘enemies’: say ‘neighbours.’”
If the de-linking policy could only be adopted by both countries, they would start looking at each other not as enemies but as neighbours. Then destructive policies would soon yield to constructive activities on both sides of the border. Once this became a reality, it would only be a matter of a few years before both countries were transformed into flourishing areas of development, just like other countries of the same region, such as Singapore, Korea, Malaysia and Japan.
As a consequence of de-linking—despite the continuing existence of conflicts—people’s two-way movement across the border would greatly increase, resulting in interaction between Indians and Pakistanis on an ever-increasing scale. As we all know, interaction in itself—especially on a person-to-person basis—is an effective means of removing misunderstanding between disaffected parties, and is the first step towards paving the way to better relations between them.
Moreover, there are tremendous opportunities for commercial exchanges between the two countries. Could the de-linking process be set in motion, free trade would automatically ensue and international tourism would itself expand, resulting in extraordinary economic benefit to both countries. Similarly, in the fields of education, culture and politics, there exists great opportunities for interchange. The exchanging of cultural delegations would mean that young people could start visiting each other’s countries, and with educational activities becoming a means of interaction between the younger generations, innumerable benefits would accrue to both sides in the years to come.
It should be conceded that clash and confrontation between neighbouring countries is destructive to both, and that the pursuit of reconciliation is the key to progress and prosperity.
If India and Pakistan were to adopt this de-linking principle on a reciprocal basis, both would gain immensely in many spheres. Certainly no one would be the loser. It is a matter of common knowledge that confrontation between the two countries over political matters has become a way of life over the last half century. And now a heavy price is being paid for this, both countries having wasted almost half of their respective incomes in pursuing this policy year in and year out, without any observable gain to either side. In fact, the state of affairs is exactly as it was in 1947.
Now if both these countries were to adopt the suggested formula, it would simply mean that the political state of affairs would remain unchanged, but that its remaining so would not be at the cost of ruined national economy. Political stalemate would no longer entail the wastage of precious material resources, once the impetus had been given—by de-linking—to a great upswing in commercial and cultural affairs. What the demands of reason are in such a situation are plain for all discerning persons to see.
