Walls and Bridges

[Armstrong]

Does prosperity lie with building walls or mending fences with India?

I would opine - Neither ! It was never about 'walls' or 'fences' it was always about 'narratives', 'intellect' & 'nuisance value' - India has outstripped Pakistan in all of three of them through a consistent effort whereas, it appears, that the power that be in Pakistan are still very much oblivious to the enormous value of each of them & the chronic deficit of each of them in Pakistan !

It doesn't matter whether you were in the right or not, it doesn't matter in the least bit whether its a wall or a fence you build if even the conjectures or aggressively flamboyant opinions of your competitor, your rival, is being accepted or pandered to by all those who matter.

 

[liontk]

Mr Hilaly is spot on.

While Indians will deny it vociferously, some with good cause since India has a variety of opinions, I believe the Jaswant Singh resentful view of Pakistan dominates the Indian political elite. Some, like Indira Gandhi, were honest enough to admit it openly.

As Hilaly writes, in that view the creation of Pakistan was a crime against India -- something that was stolen from India. For holders of that viewpoint, the only acceptable outcome is for Pakistan to fail, since that will validate their conviction that partition was a mistake. Since, as I wrote above, that viewpoint dominates Indian political circles, it is futile for Pakistan to expect true friendship from India. It simply will not happen.

What, then, to do?

The fact that Pakistan has managed to oblige these Indian nationalists by sinking into decay is something for us to bemoan and for them to gloat. However, being that as it may, how should Pakistan proceed? Does prosperity lie with building walls or mending fences with India?

Given the rising nationalist mood in India, and believing Jaswant Singh's view to still be dominant in India, I believe the best approach is to cut the cord (temporarily) and focus on strengthening Pakistan without any illusions of Indian friendship. Needless to say, this means firing all cylinders (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc.) not just the military.

Some time in the future, after Pakistan manages to redeem itself, India itself will come around since India, like the rest of the world, respects strength.

@Developereo

You raised a good point however similar to the hundred years of war, there will come a time when the nations or hopefully so will simply be tired of the wars and the insurgency. I think progress or continuity for the sake of change may be pakistan's greatest strength as the nation has a demographic of muslim majority. Before I continue further hear me out, I do not wish to indulge in religion promotion, but I find that the atleast Canadienne secularism and the faith of islam nearly intelligible though some may come to different conclusion. Islam to be presents progress going back to 7th century, the respectful prophets message came at a time, where the nomadic civilization of the peninsula were probably backward as the taliban and islam brought a change that changed the very fabric of this earth. It reunited people from all religion, races,cultures creed and presented a system that changed and adapted within time period given the parameters of basic guidelines. This form of government while rudimentary to modern days secularism as atheist like tout as somekind of 20th century idea was very well starting out in that society. However the islamic faith eventually digressed from the path of progress , however time raced ahead and european nation addopted progress and continuity and raced ahead something islam was a symbol of and now still represent it, however today its adheres to pay any heed towards its message.
Sorry for the rant and I was in no way promoting my faith so do not get offended if you are non muslim pakistani, however the anology i was trying to create was that pakistan has a majority muslim demographic that could very well play to its strength, as islamic faith represents progress, which I think pakistan should use as a tool for progress and move forward in all fields and sciences for the sake of humanity and as muslim people are commended so or as I felt from my reading of the holy book. however point being that for the sake progress, pakistan must change the very ideals and it saddens me that today secularism is only associated with west ,when it was very developed the region. Hopefully you got the jisque of my point, however I do present an outsider perspective and could very well be living in a western bubble or missing something.

 

[doppelganger]

So, should we build walls?


Zafar Hilaly
Thursday, February 21, 2013


Let’s face it; Pakistan and India have incompatible mutual obsessions. Ours is Kashmir and security. What rankles with India is that we are still on the map of the world. Pakistan was not just a mistake in Indian eyes but an insult to the idea of India. Every so often well meaning Pakistanis forget this and try to square the circle. Like I did when, as a junior officer manning the India Desk in the Foreign Office, I felt that given a modicum of goodwill India-Pakistan relations were fixable and not permanently jinxed.

After all, I reasoned, had Jinnah not said he wanted the best possible relations with India? Then why were these old fogies of the Foreign Office going on and on about India being the ‘eternal’ enemy. And so, in my own puny way, I supported moves for better relations with India and spoke out whenever those who mattered were within earshot.

An opportunity arose in 1973 when I discovered myself in the presence of the then foreign secretary, a former foreign secretary – who was then a powerful minister in the cabinet of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – and our former ambassador to the US. That one of them was my father and the second my uncle made the occasion, in my view, all the more appropriate.

I pointed out that since the confrontationist approach towards India had failed, perhaps a different, more convivial and less abrasive approach may work. There was a stunned silence. None of the three ICS mandarins spoke for what seemed like ages and when someone did it was my father who told me to run along and fetch some more ice. I thought I also heard the foreign secretary muttering something about this “boy needing to grow up”.

The second opportunity arose when I was at the OIC summit in Casablanca with Benazir Bhutto in 1995. We had just finished making the rounds of the heads of state and, feeling pleased with her efforts, Benazir seemed in a receptive mood. I started off by saying that if amity with India was not possible perhaps managing differences more adroitly was a wise alternative but that this required engaging India far more robustly than we were doing then.

“Great”, Benazir remarked, “now put it down in black and white, take it to ‘them’ (the fauj) and if they let you out of the room in one piece come and tell me their response. Meanwhile, I’m off shopping”. And that was that.

I persisted, although I dropped the somewhat ‘in your face’ approach in favour of a more indirect one. I also tried drumming up support. I knew the arch-hawk and head of the Parliamentary Kashmir Committee, Nawabzada Nasrullah had a soft spot for me. His other failing was that he could not be separated for long from his hookah. So, after he had settled down in his hotel room in New York, where we had all assembled for the UNGA session and lit the hookah, I barged in to say my piece.

Midway through my soliloquy I noticed the Nawabzada was puffing away with unusual gusto and a little later smoke was billowing out not only from his mouth but I swear, from his ears too, when suddenly the door burst open. It was the hotel (Plaza) supervisor. Apparently the Nawabzada’s hookah had set off the hotel smoke alarm and, needless to say, we all had to rush out. I thanked my stars and decided not to tempt fate again.

Instead of rushing in where angels fear to tread I should have asked myself why Jinnah, who was about as areligious and secular a man as you would find in the Subcontinent suddenly had a change of heart and why this ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’ (Gokhale) preferred, in his own words, “a truncated moth-eaten Pakistan” to remaining within India.

Or, better still, why my father thought nothing of leaving a score of family homes in a street named after his father in Bangalore (still there) in exchange for a rickety abode in Karachi, especially when in Bangalore and southern India in general there was little Hindu-Muslim animosity.

It was only when I was thrown onto the scrap heap that most retirees are and began reading intensively that the penny dropped and it occurred to me that the old fogies of the FO may have been right after all. They had roomed and schooled with their Indian counterparts; they had gone to college with them; they had eyed the same gals and knew and understood each other. And yet, this lot was convinced that for Muslims, Hindu majority rule was unacceptable. Were they all, to a man, mistaken? Surely not, I thought, and started looking for clues.

Consider what Jaswant Singh, a former Indian foreign minister and among the most intelligent of the lot India has had, confided to US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot privately during their extended conversations in the mid 1990s: As far as India was concerned, Pakistan was not just India’s sibling but its twin – born of the same womb. However, from the moment of its birth Pakistan had gone terribly and permanently wrong. According to Jaswant, Pakistan was a relatively small incurably troubled and incorrigibly troublesome state that dreamed of parity with India it would never attain or deserve.

Kashmir was “closed history” and a case study in the fraught history of Pakistan. It was not fitting as a topic for international diplomacy. Pakistan’s fixation with Kashmir should be understood as an objectification of Pakistan’s predicament as a lost soul among nations, an ersatz country whose founder’s only real legacy was a permanent reminder of what a tragic mistake partition had been.

No one had had as much experience with Islam as India. India knew how to deal with Pakistan (and presumably Islam) and America must work with India in waging our common struggle against these forces.

Talbott remarked that although he agreed with much of what Jaswant said, namely that Partition was a huge and tragic mistake, “I am at a loss to understand how an indictment of Pakistan’s origins and a presumption of guilt about Pakistan’s every move could possibly help India dealing with Pakistan”.

Precisely, but the truth is that India isn’t really bothered whether it gets on with Pakistan. In Jaswant’s view it suffices that Pakistan is an illegitimate state and an illegitimate heir of British India and therefore can have no legal claim to the patrimony, certainly not in preference to that of the sole legitimate heir – Bharat.

Viewed thus it is unrealistic to believe that we can achieve anything more than a modus vivendi with India in the foreseeable future. And perhaps not even then, if our internal decay shows no signs of abating and the prospect of us fracturing increases. India will want to wait and see what kind of an entity or entities will replace Pakistan.

Perhaps that’s why very little has emerged from the composite dialogue. Agreements reached have not been concluded; every little molehill has been made into a mountain and used as a pretext to prolong talks. Even where agreements were signed their implementation has been delayed or suspended.

So let’s drop the notion that somehow if we keep talking things will mend. Keep talking by all means but let’s not have a delusional view of these talks and let’s also concede that there are few happy endings in the India-Pakistan saga. Frankly, the stronger and higher the walls between us neighbours, the better neighbours we will make.


The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

This man makes a lot of sense to me. Even the retired SSG fellow. It is enjoyable to see Hilaly's expressions, once you get over his accent.

 

[Developereo]

I would opine - Neither ! It was never about 'walls' or 'fences' it was always about 'narratives', 'intellect' & 'nuisance value' - India has outstripped Pakistan in all of three of them through a consistent effort whereas, it appears, that the power that be in Pakistan are still very much oblivious to the enormous value of each of them & the chronic deficit of each of them in Pakistan !

It doesn't matter whether you were in the right or not, it doesn't matter in the least bit whether its a wall or a fence you build if even the conjectures or aggressively flamboyant opinions of your competitor, your rival, is being accepted or pandered to by all those who matter.

Yes, but the reason India is being pandered by "all those who matter" is because they did things the right way. They focused on internal strength, including economic, cultural, educational, etc. strength, while Pakistani leaders were only thinking in military terms.

I am saying we should learn from India's example, which is the same example as China, Japan, Germany, US and any other successful country, and focus on internal issues without getting obsessed with whether India is our friend or enemy.

India is there next to us; it is not going anywhere. Let's do our homework and then revisit our relationship with India.

 

[Dillinger]

plzzzz build a 100000 foot wall between pakistan nd india. we want no relations with these ppl

As long as you foot the bill this time around. We have already shelled out a few billion dollars in fencing and securing the LOC, all in the hopes of progressing towards this dream of yours which you have so succinctly worded in you post. Its time you paid up your share, no?

 

[KS]

What rankles with India is that we are still on the map of the world. Pakistan was not just a mistake in Indian eyes but an insult to the idea of India.

No offense..but do Pakistanis believe this bunkum even today ?

 

[Developereo]

islam

Thank you for a very mature post.

I totally agree with you that Islam is NOT the problem. For Pakistan to progress in the modern world, there is no need to abandon, or be ashamed of, Islam.

The problem Pakistan faces is because of misuse and misinterpretation of Islam by certain leaders. We need to have a more nuanced view of Islam -- neither rejecting it outright, nor enforcing it on everybody.

At the end of the day, like you mentioned, Islam is fully compatible with modernity.

 

[liontk]

First the highlighted part: They are part of the same class - pretty much the same kind of education, outlook and orientation, the same kinds of aspirations

Identity: I'm not really big on this concept - I like to think of it as something that must not be static, because once it is, ossification has set in and it's really dead. I had pointed to Economy and the dignity it can afford, but I can see how that may also effect "identity"

I very much agree that Pakistan and India have similar and dissimilar experiences, and that they may and I honestly think will, end up different countries, and that's not bad, respect for differences is just as important as respect for similarities - I also think the experience of Islamization and terrorism and civil war, and terrible governance, for ordinary persons, will lead to a very different Pakistan -- There will always be that germ of Islamism, utopian ideas especially when the Divine is harnessed to them, will find appeal amongst those so inclined, however, with out the state or institutions of the state, they only serve as fodder for ridicule.

I think your perspectives are well defined though I do hope that pakistan resolving the identity issue or for that case inde could very well change the dynamic or it may not. However forexample multiculturism is so ingrained into candienne and i sometimes laugh when they go to africa for aid work and some college students are confused about why certain bantu tribes are fighting , when they could simply live in peace yatiyadda... I think what they mistaken is assuming that peace is in the prime interest of the state and this is something that also I think is important, in todays world for the sake of progress, most nations prefer to have stable relations and this could very well translate to peace politically. So the question, is it in pakistan's interest or for that matter inde's interest to remain allies, partners whatever you want to call it. Or is hostility or enmity in the states self-interest as it apparent in the last 60 years. Also with respect to religion, i am somewhat befuddled that how could the faith of islam be interpreted 180 degrees backward, I mean in pakistan's case clearly from my understanding of Jinah's vision or platform lets say, he was more sympathetic to finding a secular state with a hint of clear islamic mosaic to keep in perspectives as , similar to what people exhibit in west european nation especially united states, where the country still exhibits a strong judeo-christian valuesin terms of law while keeping a secular system as they do not clash with one or the other in most cases.

 

[Armstrong]

Let's do our homework and then revisit our relationship with India.

Exactly & so the real question shouldn't be walls or bridges for that is irrelevant; the real questions should be inward looking :

(a) Who are We ?

(b) Where do We stand ?

(c) Why do We stand where We do ?

(d) Where do We want to end up ?

(e) How do We get there ?

Make it about us in a classical Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy instead of the quasi Wilsonian approach that most of the world adopts.

Make it about us...first, second & last ! Those are the only questions worth asking the rest is just emergent strategy.

 

[liontk]

Thank you for a very mature post.

I totally agree with you that Islam is NOT the problem. For Pakistan to progress in the modern world, there is no need to abandon, or be ashamed of, Islam.

The problem Pakistan faces is because of misuse and misinterpretation of Islam by certain leaders. We need to have a more nuanced view of Islam -- neither rejecting it outright, nor enforcing it on everybody.

At the end of the day, like you mentioned, Islam is fully compatible with modernity.

I just looked back and found quite a bit of grammatical mistake and my original comment may have come a little different but to clarify I completely agree islam is not only compatible, islam represents the very essence of modernity and progression, however the adherents have to also embrace modernity and sometimes that could be difficult coming out of the shell, however given pakistan's young population and labor force, its fair to assume the brighter days of the republic still await the nation.

 

[Developereo]

I just looked back and found quite a bit of grammatical mistake and my original comment may have come a little different but to clarify I completely agree islam is not only compatible, islam represents the very essence of modernity and progression, however the adherents have to also embrace modernity and sometimes that could be difficult coming out of the shell, however given pakistan's young population and labor force, its fair to assume the brighter days of the republic still await the nation.

Your English is fine.

Please see this thread about Islam and modernity. There are many, but this is the latest.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ce-road-renewal-economist-16.html#post3935348

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Muse, while I want to stress that I do not disagree with some of his conclusions, I see some flaws in Mr. Hilaly's article.

The first is - leaving aside its context for the time being- from the point of view of logical argumentation. Look at the structure of the article. He describes a few personal experiences in which he shows himself to be a dove, or at least of a more amenable disposition. Then he describes conversations between third parties (Jaswant Singh and Talbot) to arrive at the conclusion that his dovish attitude may not be correct. There are neither personal insights nor concrete examples to substantiate his case. I accept that both Singh and Talbot were significant figures, but I will require better argumentation to support his hypothesis (more about this later).

Now, about the implicit argument that India sees Pakistan as a geographical anomaly, one that should presumably be absorbed into Bharat mata. I cannot speak for all Indians and all times. Perhaps this was a belief of Indians of a certain (older) era and reflected in Indian policy and decision making. I do not know what they felt or believed.

But beliefs, attitudes and habits change over time (or should) and I can say with some conviction that I see no evidence today that Indians see partition as a mistake that must be remedied. On the contrary, I and many people I know, see mostly positives; the only terrible negative I can think of is that so many millions died in the process.

Of course there's a strong rivalry - just see any cricket game- and even a sense of schadenfreude. But even that is tempered by a what I am seeing as a fully formed belief that India needs to react (or be proactive) only when we believe that we are provoked by Pakistan (Kargil, Mumbai etc). In all other matters, the prevalent feeling seems to be that the less we engage with Pakistan, the better. In short, we want no part of it. With all our problems- the poverty, massive over population - India is indeed moving ahead economically and we do definitely do not want to be tagged with or by an entity that seems to be under a lot of stress.

In my opinion the next generation of Indian leaders and bureaucrats will be even more blasé about Pakistan.

Ironically, for the same reasons I outlined above, plus our perceptions of Kargil and Mumbai 26//11 I also believe that India is less likely to make concessions to Pakistan. The same desire to only engage as much as is needed - and not a whit more- also means that, in my opinion. Mr Hilaly is right when he says that happy endings are unlikely. However, it depends on the definition of 'happy endings'. If Pakistan desires to improve it's economic standing, talk trade, develop businesses- I am reasonably certain that things can only improve. But if Pakistan cannot sort itself out, India's not going to go out of its way to help her.

And that brings me to Mr Hilaly's proposal to build walls. As a matter of fact, if it were possible to literally build an uncrossable wall between India and Pakistan, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Pakistan may find a solution to its problems, but I have little faith in Pakistan's ability to manage a peaceful solution. And while it attempts to do so, the short to medium term impact on India could well be deleterious. So yeah, a wall sounds good to me.

 

[muse]

to clarify I completely agree islam is not only compatible, islam represents the very essence of modernity and progression, however the adherents have to also embrace modernity and sometimes that could be difficult coming out of the shell, however given pakistan's young population and labor force, its fair to assume the brighter days of the republic still await the nation.

Liontk: Religion is what it's adherents practice - always -- otherwise the religion cannot claim to have adherents

How would you now measure your statement about Islam being progressive and Modern -- and yet Muslims are regressive and the original malcontents when it comes to modernity????? If true, does Islam have any adherents??

Please do not allow yourself to go into defensive shell mode

 

[doppelganger]

From what I read in history, during partition, the best brains and the upper class and affluent Muslims of our undivided country went over to make Pakistan. This is not to belittle our own Muslims, but it is a historical fact. Even here we see so many highly educated Muslims from Pakistan making such insightful comments. Why are these elite educated of Pakistan on the losing side today within their own country? Forget about us. We have many more faiths, brains, land, resources, and other things. That should not be either what Pakistan should grudge or try to subvert.

When Hilaly speaks of walls, I like to think of them more as mental walls rather than the physical ones. There is a stream of antipathy towards where India is and what India stands for amongst certain quarters of Pakistan. Bridges exist between such elements and those they foster amongst us. Build walls against the continuity of such thought processes. Tear down the bridges that spread such. Break that link first. Hilaly is an intelligent man. It is up to us and Pakistanis to understand what he says.

 

[liontk]

Your English is fine.

Please see this thread about Islam and modernity. There are many, but this is the latest.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ce-road-renewal-economist-16.html#post3935348

merci for the link, did not know a thread on this topic existed, looks to be very promising as I am going through posts, a fun activity for a quiet Saturday. Overall It was a great conversation and thanks for sharing your perspective, it really opened my mind to say the least, however I must part for sleep mon ami. Take care