Of Violent Birth and Peaceful Death

The end of World War II saw an unprecedented boom in the birth of sovereign

states. This was no surprise--after all, colonialism had officially ended,

and nations were becoming free. Rejection of the overt kind of colonialism

took effect over a long period; some countries had thrown off that yoke

centuries ago (e.g. the USA and other countries in the Americas) whereas

others could not get rid of their colonial masters (e.g., many countries of

Africa) for another couple of decades, but still, in all practical sense,

the end of the Second World War marked the end of the colonial era.

Colonized nations should be thankful to Hitler for their emancipation;

Hitler made the colonizing powers of Europe weak enough for them to decide

to draw back and tend to their own problems, instead of sucking the color

out of other countries.

In nearly all regions, the spheres of influence of the colonizing powers

defined the shapes of the new countries that emerged on the face of the

earth (many of them were cobbled together by the colonizers). Generally

speaking, three types of independent countries came into being in those

fortuitous times:

I) Countries (kingdoms, chiefdoms, etc.) that existed before being colonized

(though not necessarily with the same borders) and were now relinquished by

the colonizers,

II) Countries born under the adoption of a new philosophy of governance

(communism), and

III) Other newly independent countries that did not fit either of the above

two categories (only two countries, Pakistan and Israel, belong to this

class).

One can learn an important lesson studying the rise and fall of states and

nations: a history of existence gives a state stability. The longer a

country exists as a free state, the more it becomes destined to remain free.

Using this argument we can say that only the countries of the first kind

were inherently stable; they existed before they were being colonized and so

there was no doubt that they would exist after their colonial masters left.

On the other hand the "artificial" countries of the second kind had gone

through an interesting transformation: a transfiguration based on embracing

a socio-political ideology. Four decades later, when the hollowness of the

implemented version of communism became evident, the countries using that

ideology as the binding force underwent another transformation.

The disappearance of that shroud of ideology did the following:

i) It left some countries clueless; having abandoned their communist

direction overnight, they were left groping their way along the path of

capitalism,

ii) It freed up countries from the erstwhile Soviet Union e.g., the

countries of Central Asia and Baltic,

iii) It divided them where the socialist ideology had previously (and

artificially) united them (Czechoslovakia disintegrated into the Czech

Republic and Slovakia; Yugoslavia again "balkanized" into many states).

iv) In cases where the adoption of the "propitious" social structure had

resulted in artificial division, the disappearance of that canopy unified

the divided region--East and West Germany united and so did North and South

Yemen. One unification of this genre that still has to take place is that

of North and South Korea, and I very much hope that it will happen soon.

Thus, the conclusion of the cold war at the end of the eighth decade of the

last century gave way to a general optimism. Concurrently, some people in

their naiveté thought that all ongoing conflicts in the world could be

readily solved and that India and Pakistan too could forget their

differences and form a union. Obviously, the naive did not understand that

the India-Pakistan tensions stem from a different source. The nature and

history of South Asia need to be studied carefully to understand the present

state of conflict between India and Pakistan.

When the British conquered South Asia (then loosely referred to "Hindustan"

and which then became the "British Indian Empire" and eventually "India") it

was not one big kingdom or empire they overcame (in fact, if a unified

kingdom existed in South Asia it would have been very tough to conquer).

What the British found were fiefdoms ruled by individual rajas, maharajas,

Nizams and Nawabs; the biggest of these being the Mughal Empire (which had

chronologically expanded and contracted depending on the strength and

ambitions of the incumbent ruler). The British landed in one corner of

South Asia and slowly worked their way inward and upward. Almost like the

fly that is said to eat six times its weight, the small kingdom of Great

Britain devoured many states much bigger than itself.

After facing the "mutiny" of 1857, and crushing it, the British had made

their rule over South Asia formal, complete, and comprehensive. Besides

directly controlling a big portion of South Asia, the British ruled that

part of the world through the nawabs, princes and rajas they manipulated.

The area of South Asia over which the British exercised control was a lot

bigger than the area ruled by any indigenous king ever--not even the mighty

Mughal Empire at its peak spanned that big a region. Under British rule,

South Asians--who had previously lived in relative isolation--easily moved

from one part of British India to another. This luxury of traveling far

from your place of birth was a new thing. Before the British Raj, leaving

your region often meant entering the region of your enemy. The ease in

movement of people from one area to another paved the way for homogeneity

and planted the idea of an Indian nationalism.

By the time the British left, a crude Indian identity (embraced by many, but

not all, South Asians) was in place.

The British left South Asia in a great hurry; they did not leave it the way

they had conquered it (in the form of small states and kingdoms ruled by

individual rajas). They wished to transfer the burden by giving control of

the relinquished vast empire to the native people under the western system

of democracy.

It was one thing for the plethora of South Asian states to be ruled by a

foreign entity a lot powerful than themselves but completely another to be

ruled by elected representatives. It was obvious that, among the many

native groups often living in isolation from each other, democracy would

favor the group having a demographic advantage. Pakistan was the first

rebellion against that idea--a new country comprising the Muslim majority

areas was demanded by the Muslims of South Asia.

When the British were leaving, many of the "Princely States" of South Asia

decided to be completely independent too (i.e., independent of the nascent

India and Pakistan). All but one were quickly swallowed by India or

Pakistan. One, Kashmir, which bordered both India and Pakistan, is still the

bone of contention between them. One more country (Bangladesh) was born

twenty-five years later. At least seven other countries (Khalistan,

Tripura, Nagaland, Asaam in India and Pukhtoonistan, Azad Balochistan and

Sindhu Desh in Pakistan) are trying hard to kick their way out of the forced

union they have found themselves in on the morn of August 15, 1947.

I don't doubt Mr. Jinnah's sincerity in the creation of Pakistan. I

understand that the leaders of the Muslim League didn't want to see the

rights of the Muslims trampled in a unified South Asia under the guise of

democracy. It is the same reason we don't have one big democracy

encompassing the whole world--wherein a Chinese person will almost

definitely always be the head of the state. Pakistan precipitated out of

the broth of mistrust between the various South Asian communities that

existed in 1947. The Muslims of South Asia managed to get their own country

because they had strong leadership and because they did form a majority in

some of the provinces of the British India. If a similar situation had

existed for the Sikhs, Buddhists, and the Christians I am sure those

communities would have done the same to ensure better treatment for their

people. (Of these three big groups Sikhs have indeed seriously tried to get

their own Khalistan).

So, whereas, ideally speaking the British should have left South Asia the

way they had conquered it (a region of many independent countries), they

tried to hand over the power of their huge empire to the local people, to be

governed as a single country. Several states and communities opted out of

this arrangement. The largest of these rebels, Pakistan, was able to remain

independent while the others disappeared. And eventually this scenario of

two countries emerging out of the British Raj gave rise to a dichotomy.

Because Pakistan was demanded to protect the rights of the Muslims of South

Asia, the creation of Pakistan polarized the region on the basis of religion

[The creation of Pakistan is both an effect and a cause of religious

intolerance in South Asia: Pakistan was created because the large Hindu and

Muslim communities didn't trust each other, and the creation of Pakistan has

in turn aggravated the communal friction in that region. The Hindus of

Pakistan and Muslims of India are seen with suspicion in their respective

countries]. Of course, the ensuing polarity would have had a minimal

detrimental effect if instead of only two, 20 plus countries had been formed

in

1947.

Interestingly, even while Pakistan was formed to safeguard the rights of

South Asian Muslims, its founder wanted to see it function as a secular

state. Unfortunately, the Pakistani rulers could not abide by this vision

of the founding father. Three decades after its creation, Pakistan started

drifting towards Muslim fundamentalism. And this drift had a harmful effect

on India. As Pakistan became more "Muslim", India--even despite resistance

by the saner elements of that country--became more "Hindu."

It is hard to miss the greatest shortcoming of democracy. Like mirrors,

democratic institutions invariably show a sharp image of society. With

illiterate and ignorant voters, you are sure to see their image in the

elected leadership of a democratic country. So today even being world's

largest democracy--the system of governance of choice--India, home to almost

half a billion illiterate people, is far from being a bastion of secularism

where all religious communities live in a peaceful nirvana. The recent

sectarian violence in Gujarat is a testimony to that fact. [Is this what

the

people of other countries of South Asia should become united with: An

environment of hatred in which one community is burning the houses of the

other community, people slashing each others' throats?]

Still, all of us who consider ourselves to be its friend want to see South

Asia a hate-free region. It is okay to have administrative divisions to

protect the rights of the communities, but ghastly to have impenetrable

boundaries based on hatred and mistrust--boundaries that prohibit the

movement of people.

The world prefers categorization. People belonging to a particular region

are identified with that region. It does not matter if you are from Hong

Kong, Taiwan, Mainland China, or Singapore, the world identifies you as

Chinese. Similarly, a person is generally referred to as an Indian if that

person is from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives or even

Nepal and Bhutan. Moreover, if you look at the map of South Asia you will

notice that from the wilderness of Balochistan to the once impenetrable

forests of Asaam, from the mighty Himalyas to the Indian Ocean, there are no

physical boundaries. Geography defines South Asia as one region.

Underneath the superficial layers of religious and ethnic differences, all

South Asians are the same people.

Peace in South Asia is a necessity for all the countries of that region.

Warring Pakistan and India are harming their own interests. It is as if

they are running with their feet tied to each other while other nations are

running free.

It is in India's interest to peacefully settle issues with other countries,

so that it can take care of the needs of its children that number over a

billion. It cannot hope to become a respectable member of the world

community while the world sees the image of a multitude of Indians living

their lives on the sidewalks.

Pakistanis need to understand that their country being in a continuous fray

with India negates its (Pakistan's) very reason for existence. Wasn't it

the underlying thought behind the creation of Pakistan that, in the

prevailing demographic scenario of South Asia in 1947, peace wasn't possible

with one big country? Wasn't it the idea that the whole region would be

peaceful if the Muslims of South Asia ruled themselves in a separate

homeland? So if Pakistan jeopardizes the peace of that region, it casts

doubts on its own raison d'etre.

Peace in South Asia cannot be achieved through a decisive war (It may sound

very scary but fanatics in both India and Pakistan have been arguing for

just such a war). India cannot just conquer Pakistan and hope its population

will willingly assimilate into India. The reason for animosity between the

two countries is the mistrust between religious groups. That distrust

cannot be removed by war; a war will only deepen the mistrust. [An example

of the prevalent religious-based antagonism in South Asia is the creation of

Bangladesh: What used to be the eastern part of Pakistan separated from it

and became Bangladesh; it did not unite with India].

On the other hand, if any Pakistani thinks--and I have met people who

believe this--that with longtime conversion and coercion of Hindus, the

Mughal Empire could be revived making Muslims the rulers of all of South

Asia, then that person obviously needs a thorough psychological examination.

Not Akhand Bharat, not a revitalization of an old empire is what it will

take to have peace in South Asia. No, you are not going to attain peace by

conquering everyone and uniting them under your umbrella. You should instead

first have peace, and then the time will come for unification.

For South Asia to be a hate-free zone--even maybe united in some form, in

the future--some big hurdles need to be removed first. It is not going to

be like the unification of East and West Germany where there was a strong

bond of German nationhood that could be built upon. In Pakistan and India,

it is almost a slur to call a person an Indian or Pakistani, respectively.

This type of widespread animosity has to end first. And this enmity is only

aggravated by the continuous state of conflict the two countries have

descended into.

Nobody can fool anyone. Peace in South Asia and open borders between the

countries cannot happen to one party's advantage and the other party's loss.

It would have to be a win-win situation.

First, India would have to become a desirable country to have open borders

with. India will have to go beyond what it is now. India's formidable

population of over a billion is intimidating. Obviously, smaller countries

fear they will be overwhelmed if they would open their borders to such a

populous country. The countries of South Asia smell Akhand Bharat in this

desire for reunification--or even an economic union. This fear needs to be

removed. India will have to either reduce its population, or will have to

elevate its populace to a higher level of prosperity.

The countries of South Asia need to concentrate on their peoples. With

peace and prosperity a time will come when South Asians would realize that

the bonds between them, shaped through millennia of history, are much

stronger than their superficial differences. Not with war, not with one

country trying to bleed the other, not with somebody wishing to rule them

all, but only with long-lasting peace can love and understanding be

achieved--by being educated, being confident and feeling secure.

I have a dream for South Asia. I strongly believe that one day this dream

will come true.I see a united South Asia as a peaceful confederation of small states. It will be a paradise for anthropologists, a place to travel freely and see the world's most fascinating people. The communities of South Asia would then have come together just like the countries of Europe came together after

years of peace removed the mistrust between the European nations.