The Unilateral Way
Praful Bidwai
The News International, 28 August 2003
When Indian and Pakistani officials again meet in Islamabad today to discuss the issue of restoring airline flights between their cities and overflights through each other's airspace, they should know that millions of people in both countries are keenly watching the progress of their effort. On its success will depend the fate of rail links, and more generally, mutual trade. This, in turn, will both indicate and determine whether and how quickly India and Pakistan can convert the symbolic extension of "the hand of friendship" by Prime Minister Vajpayee into real, material, progress. For, it is not excluded that they could, tragically, even fall short of immediately restoring the pre-December 2001 status quo.
Also in full display this week is the enormous, unprecedentedly wide, gap that now exists between Track-I and Track-II contacts between India and Pakistan. On the heels of the spectacularly successful visit of the 80-strong Indian delegation, including 34 MPs, to a South Asia Free Media Association conference, and the repatriation of young Munir, comes some more good news of citizen-level cooperation between India and Pakistan.
Pakistani Sabiha Sumar's "Khamosh Pani" (Silent Waters) has just won the prestigious Golden Leopard award at the Locarno film festival. Starring in the film is Indian actress Kiron Kher, whose mother was from Lyallpur. The film itself is about the lives of Hindu/Sikh women kidnapped during Partition and forced into marrying Muslim men in Pakistan.
No less significant was last week's meeting between India's information and broadcasting Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and Jang Group chief executive and editor-in-chief Mir Shakil Ur-Rahman to discuss cooperation in the arts and entertainment, including partnership with Doordarshan to distribute the Geo television channel, and organising events like Bollywood "star nights" in Pakistani cities.
Indian and Pakistani book publishers, meeting currently at the Delhi Book Fair, are discussing co-publishing and the possibility of importing books from each other, in particular children's books and natural sciences textbooks.
All these citizen-to-citizen exchanges, marked by a tremendous amount of goodwill, remain wholly unmatched by official-level interactions which continue to be chilly and occasionally abusive and hostile - fully four months after Vajpayee's April 18 speech. Thus, the Pakistani authorities have more than once refused to provide extra buses on the Lahore-India route to meet additional demand (eg when groups of children go across). Indian officials continue to drag their feet on talks on rail links resumption without prior progress on air links. They insist on a "step-by-step approach" to improving bilateral relations and warn against "unnecessary acceleration" of normalisation.
Worse, the two have resumed trading charges. Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson Masood Khan accused India of running "55 terrorist training camps" in Kashmir for subversive activities. New Delhi has retaliated by calling the charge "outlandish" and saying: "It clearly shows that the Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman has a sense of humour".
There is every likelihood that these hostile exchanges will be transported to the United Nations, whose General Assembly meets three weeks from now. Already, Pakistani representative Munir Akram has written to the UN complaining of India's "aversion to talks" and insistence on seeking concessions from Pakistan "unilaterally, through coercive means". India has dubbed this language "propagandistic" and "malicious" and Pakistan's protest "empty" and "self-defeating".
If we are not to witness a relapse into the familiar but ugly pattern of substituting downright abuse for diplomacy, our leaders must make a clear, principled decision. They should not allow the logic of "reciprocity" to vitiate the climate created by positive mutual overtures between the two countries, especially at the Track-II level.
"Reciprocity" in our context means unlimited mutual retribution, and punishing each other equally, in like measure: 'I'll be as bloody-minded and nasty to you as you are to me'. This usually does not apply to the "positive" part of the spectrum of exchanges, only to the negative, hostile part.
This logic follows a Closed Loop: one unfriendly action brings on a reciprocal reaction driven by bureaucratic cussedness and mean-spiritedness. This in turn "provokes" yet more retaliation, leading to a further escalation of hostility. Often, there is "cross-retaliation", or punitive action against the adversary in an area other than the original site of disagreement or conflict. This makes the Closed Loop pattern even more fraught.
There is something inherently, intrinsically and dangerously wrong with the Closed Loop. It takes the calculus of action-reaction out of the purview of reason. It destroys any criterion of deciding what conduct is acceptable and what is not. It means obsessively hurting your adversary badly - even if that also hurts you. There are simply no limits to how vicious you can get and how high you will take the escalation. Your actions are purely externally determined, free of all internal restraint.
We have seen this dread tit-for-tat logic in our three-and-a-half wars, and more perilously, working through our Kashmir and nuclear policies. But there are other examples too. For instance, both our governments routinely hold up releasing innocent detainees - simply because the other side might not do the same.
The Indian government recently told the Supreme Court that it has a deliberate policy of not releasing Pakistani prisoners even after they have served their prison term. When asked to explain why, Additional Solicitor-General Altaf Ahmed said: "This is the only way India can secure the freedom of its nationals languishing in jails in Pakistan". He also said Pakistani convicts are "enemy aliens" who have no right to be released even after the completion of their prison terms unless both countries agree to a mutually acceptable mode of exchange.
Clearly, what is involved here is hostage-taking, something that is profoundly immoral, illegal and should be repugnant to any civilised state. The Attorney-General of India has since given his opinion on this subject, saying such "security prisoners" cannot be used as hostages or levers for bargaining.
Soli Sorabjee says: "Such a stand is legally untenable, apart from the adverse repercussions it will have on the image of our country internationally". He takes the view that "if Pakistan adopts a policy which is unconstitutional and uncivilised, we need not stoop to their level... the government of India has to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the law irrespective of the behaviour of the Pakistani government".
Interestingly, Sorabjee cites Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, pertaining to fundamental rights. These rights are universal. Their availability is not confined to Indian citizens. Based on these rights, the Supreme Court has since ordered the release of 14 Pakistani inmates of Indian jails.
The rationale at work here is clear: certain kinds of conduct on the part of civilised states are simply unacceptable no matter what their "provocation". They are intrinsically wrong, irrespective of the circumstances.
This rationale has wide scope. It should reintroduce an element of sanity and rationality among our policy-making. Following it, our rulers should take some simple measures unilaterally, unconditionally, no matter whether they are reciprocated or not.
Not the least of them should be the opening of airspace and resumption of air and train links, and release of all "security prisoners" or those detained without trial. That is the best way to encourage decent, civilised behaviour while limiting self-inflicted damage.
Copyright 2003 The News International
|
