Untitled 18

Abstract

The main object of the essay was to find out what modern day Pakistanis think about the everlasting Kashmir issue and the rest of the world. The idea was to understand their thought process on how they looked at an issue as compared to people from across the border in India. The purpose of this was to document whether the youth of Pakistan had a differing view from those of the past. It was also important for understanding their viewpoint, so that it can be related to those from India and how similar or different to both countries’, the observations were.

I interviewed two Pakistanis currently living in Pakistan via an email-based interview. This was perhaps a draw back as a one on one would have been more appropriate. But, as that was not a possibility, this was the second best option. I also did not want to have any gender discrimination, so interview one from each sex. This was to help determine whether they thought differently. The interview was set up via the help of a social networking site. The interview format was in question and answers but there has also been a chat as that provides a better understanding of the interviewee’s viewpoint. To have a counter view though, I got reactions from Indians on their views and thus created a dialogue for me to evaluate and comprehend the similarity and difference of the people across both borders.

The results observed indicated that although they were fed up with the hatred between India and Pakistan and hoped for a better and peaceful existence, none of the four interviewees would want their country to lose on the issue of Kashmir. The findings could though reflect that the people from both countries do not want to continue fighting and blaming each other for what happened 62 years ago. It was time to move on and move forward. The limitation of the findings was that this was the views were of people from a more financially substantial background than those of middle or lower class person. This limits the findings as it does not give an all round perspective of the questions that were asked. Social class plays an important role on how one thinks.

The conclusions drawn were that although there was a similar understanding of the problem from both sides, there was still a hint of banter that would never cease to exist.

A Pakistani viewpoint via an Indian.

“You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the State…. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of the individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

-- Mohammed Ali Jinnah, his first address to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi on 11th August, 1947.

Now this speech has been criticized albeit in private, since Jinnah was above criticism by religious divines, confessional sects and right-wing political parties because of its opposition to the creation of an ‘Islamic State.’ (Tariq Ali 1983, Can Pakistan Survive? New York: Verso Editions)

These criticisms were not unwarranted. Pakistan was the culmination of the struggle for a Muslim Nation. If this was the case, then an Islamic State would have been an appropriate and perhaps a valid choice for Pakistan’s constitution. Jinnah fought for a separate Muslim state, but if his speech was anything to go by, then it could have been in the same context for a United India as well.

But why would Jinnah consider the secularism of the new State of Pakistan? Jinnah was more British in his outlook than a katar Muslim. When he spoke about the future shape of Pakistan's constitution he envisaged a democratic system based on social justice and fair play as taught by Islam: "I do not know what the ultimate shape of our constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state -- to be ruled by priests with a divine mission." (Radio talk in February 1948, Speeches of Mr. Jinnah)

Both India and Pakistan have been plagued by a common phenomenon. A phenomenon that is perhaps never going to go away. Neither from the memories nor from the very hearts of the people.

We all know the history between the two countries and it has been united or rather disunited by the Kashmir Valley. But these 62 years of hatred, how long does one think it may go on?

The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union formally signed by Maharaja Hari Singh and supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the acknowledged leader of Kashmir, though constitutionally and politically valid, did not end the uncertainty over the final status of the State mainly for three reasons. First, the accession was subject to a reference to the people of the State. Second, the issue of the future of the State was internationalized as it was referred to the United Nations Security Council for a peaceful settlement. Third, a war had to be waged to clear the State of invaders. (Balraj Puri, Kashmir Towards Insurgency, Orient Longman)

Since 1947, there have been three major wars, one minor war and thousands of skirmishes between India and Pakistan, the first one being in 1947, second in 1965 after Pakistan’s Operation Gibraltar was retaliated by India. The five-week war came to an end after UN mandate and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration. The 1971 war was the only one that was not about Kashmir but East Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh. The last conflict came in 1999, which was also known as the Kargil War.

Now, if we look at this from an Indian perspective, the simple scenario goes like this: Pakistan infiltrated into India and in response India, to defend its sovereignty, retaliated. Pakistan on the other hand will have a different response, but facts cannot be altered. Wrong, fact can be altered according to the whims and fancies of leaders and nations.

It is all about perspective and how one sees the issue. Kashmir is looked at from both India and Pakistan from different angles. When, a young Pakistani girl was asked about Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, her response to that was, “I’ve never heard of such a place. There is Kashmir and Indian Occupied Kashmir.” It is quite strange to see how different the perspectives are across the border. There is an understanding that history is taught by those in power and it is a wonderful phenomenon on how different people see the same thing, differently.

Farrukh Shafiq, a Pakistani national, in his early 20s, was asked what the best possible solution for Kashmir was. His answer was, “Kashmiris be granted their fundamental right to self-determination. As long as India keeps denying the Kashmiri people this right, there cannot be lasting peace in the Subcontinent.”

Rabia Zaid, also from Pakistan, has similar understanding and shares the sentiments of Farrukh. She think the best possible solution with Kashmir can be to make it an independent country or a state with complete autonomy, with a Muslim majority the people should be allowed to live according to their own will. But at same time believes that this may not be possible and the Kashmiris should be allowed to choose between India and Pakistan.

Now put this same question to an Indian. Harish Prabhakaran’s response to the answer was, “Kashmir is part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which in turn is part of India. The only solution is that Pakistan stops funding terrorists and start worrying about protecting their borders from the Taliban.”

A more nationalistic, if you could say, Indian, Vimal Anand responded, “Kashmir is India’s and that is how it should remain. Hell, we should even go and get back the part that they stole from us.”

Both look at the same question in absolute opposite ways. There is so much as a blame game being played here by all four individuals, some just more subtly than others. When people in India today want to talk about the recent past, they say, ‘Since Independence….’ Referring to the same period, Pakistanis invariably say, ‘Since partition…’ (Hugh Tinker 1967, India and Pakistan, A Political Analysis, Pall Mall Press.)

When asked about Partition and whether they think Pakistan would have been in a better state if it had been part of India, Farrukh replies, “Absolutely not, on a personal level, without partition I would have always been a minority, an untouchable, a second class citizen in India. The greatest gift my grandparents gave me was that of migrating to Pakistan. I feel stronger as a person from the inside knowing that those who are ruling this country are members of the same faith as me. Had I been living in India, I would have always felt as if the country didn’t truly belong to me, that I was only a foreign guest, a guest in my own country.”

Strange, in all his responses to this question, the one that talks about the ruler as one of same faith. How is that a justified argument? Yes, that of same ideas and thinking may be one, but how does one feel stronger in being ruled by someone of same faith. If that be the case, then how is Jinnah called the Quad-i-Azam (Great Leader). Jinnah was more British than Muslim.

Jinnah’s untimely death in 1948 was perhaps not untimely at all. He suffered from tuberculosis and this was known to very few people. It has also been mentioned in many books that Jinnah consumed alcohol, which is forbidden in Islam.

But what would Jinnah have said, to see his country, the way it presently is. Would he wanted have partition to be overturned. Well, 62 years hence, this is perhaps one of the most unlikely scenarios. Both Rabia Zaid and Farrukh Shafiq are against partition being overturned, just like a majority of those in Pakistan. They think that India has yet to come in terms with creation of Pakistan and that they have their own identity. Farrukh says, “What is disturbing for me is that Pakistanis have moved past the issue of Partition, my generation is not bound to it, for us Pakistan's identity has nothing to do with that of India's, and yet questions such as these which are often asked by Indians shows that Indians have yet to move past the Partition and recognize Pakistan is an independent country whose existence has nothing to do with India's. Questions such as these suggest (and that might not even be the intention) make us feel as if Indians have not been able to accept our existence and this alarms Pakistanis and leads to bitter sentiments.”

The same questions were put to Indians. They had similar responses when it came to overturning of partition. Vimal said, “Why would I want partition to be overturned. Those in Pakistan wanted to leave and they have. Now what they suffer is their own problem. I think the only thing I would have loved to see if partition was overturned, to watch Sachin Tendulkar and Wasim Akram in the same side (cricket).”

All said and done, can there ever be amicable relationships between the two countries? Countries that have been known to hate each other, or is this just a creation of a few bad men? So what do our interviewee’s think is the best possible solution to improve relationships between both the countries? According to Farrukh Shafiq, “There can be amicable relations between Pakistan and India provided India commits itself to treating Kashmir as a serious problem whose solution must be found on an urgent basis and Pakistan on the other hand commits itself to reciprocate by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure which has emerged as a result of the Kashmiri conflict. Unless there is sincerity on the parts of both countries (India being sincere to not just talk about Kashmir but to actually finalize a peace settlement and Pakistan being sincere to not deny the terrorist infrastructure but to actually go about implementing it), there will not be peace in our part of the world.”

It is a very simple and just view but one that unfortunately both States would agree with behind closed doors but never in the open. Rabia Zaid has perhaps more detailed views of the situation being an International Relations student herself and presently working with Daily Times in Lahore. “I definitely think so, although both the countries are based upon different ideologies, Pakistan and Israel are the only two countries in the world which were made for the reason of religion. But it is upon the people of both countries, if they want a healthy prosperous relationship with each other. Reason being we speak the same language, have the same culture and so many other things. As Pakistan treats Bangladesh as a separate country and does not want it back, India should do the same. The purpose for which Pakistan was created holds a very key value for the future of this world, and so much more. The corrupt politicians on both sides of the border should not be allowed to manipulate the will of people which is that we want peace between the two neighbors. We want free borders where Indians come into Pakistan and vice versa. The reason this traveling back and forth is so important is because it can remove so many biases we have towards each others. For instance a lot of Indians think Pakistan is Afghanistan or Iran, well Pakistan is not either of these. Pakistan has a high literacy rate; women are not subjugated as the west believes, although variations do exist, Pakistan does not have a cast system, and so many other things.”

On the lighter front she says, “Pakistanis love Indian movies. We girls in Pakistan love John Abraham (Indian Film actor), the same way an Indian does or maybe better. But one thing which saddens me is that the Indian media is not as free as the Pakistani media, there are shows on Pakistani television after the media revival of 2007, where Indians are represented as educated, liberated and a nation which wants change, but somehow Pakistanis are not represented as that in India. Well I am sure there are streaks of illiteracy, cruelty, terrorism in Pakistan but well that's not the majority. The majority is a bunch of people who are known for their hospitality, their strong fondness for learning what is happening in the world, they want peace.”

Would it be right to simply put it this way- Pakistan does not hate India and vice versa? Unfortunately, it is not as simple as this. There is hatred for each other and there is also love for one another. Vimal Anand, an Indian student studying in Manchester, says, “Personally, I don’t hate Pakistan or its people, but I don’t like their government. The problem is that Pakistan is too unstable, and this is a threat for India. I had a friend who went to Pakistan to watch the Cricket when they hosted India. And he said the Pakistani people were kind and warm and it felt just like home away from home.”

They do of course have a major ally in America. One may see this partnership - as any -as one of mutual understanding of one’s self interest. Farrukh admires America for its values. Unfortunately, he says, America has been failing to live up to those same values which made it a great nation and were its trademark. As a result of its imperialist wars, America might have won military victories lately but has been losing morally. The Obama administration came into office promising change. Hillary's efforts in engaging the civil society of Pakistan on her last visit here makes me believe things will change for better.

Rabia, on the other hand sees it as a platonic relationship. “America only does what is good for them. The only reason I see them allying with us is cause of the strategic location of Pakistan.”

At present, probably the most vital and perhaps the major problem for Pakistan is Islamization of their country by the Taliban. According to an Associated Press article, a top Pakistani Taliban commander said that he has sent thousands of fighters to neighboring Afghanistan to counter the influx of new American troops.

"Since Obama is also sending additional forces to Afghanistan, we sent thousands of our men there to fight NATO and American forces," Wailur Rehman told AP in a face-to-face interview in Shaktoi, South Waziristan, part of Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal area near the Afghan border. (Associated Press, 23rd December, 2009)

What does Pakistan’s youth think about the Afghanistan situation? What comes across is a natural bonding between the two people. Farrukh looks at the situation with a positivist attitude He says that the Afghanistan situation has been a blessing in disguise for left-wing liberals such as himself. “For years, we had watched worryingly the growth of madrassahs all across our country and especially in the northern areas. These Saudi-sponsored schools of hatred and the brutal legacy of Zia-ul-Hal had Islamized our society and led to intolerance, hatred, etc. The mess in Afghanistan led to conflict within Pakistan including a civil war with the militants. But this was something we left-wing liberals had been praying for a very long time. Right now there are dark times in Pakistan, but as they say the night is always darker before the day,” says Farrukh.

The real challenge he says is how the Pakistani Army eliminates the militants from the northern areas who want to Islamize their society but at the same time keep secretly supporting the freedom fighters in Kashmir, because if Pakistan abandons its support to the freedom fighters and takes off that pressure, India will never be serious about working with Pakistan to find a just settlement to Kashmir which is in the benefit of all concerned and which ends the abuses of the Indian army and the human rights violations that occur daily in occupied Kashmir.

Vimal was quite outraged by Farrukh’s last comments. He goes on to say, “Pakistan needs to check their priorities and first trying to solve their own internal problems, before going on about Kashmir. They face more danger from the Afghanistan side and this is a grave problem for not only them, but India and the rest of the world as well.”

Rabia Zaid believes that Pakistan has shot themselves in the foot with the Afghanistan situation. According to her, Pakistan was kind enough to help the Afghan refugees, but believes that conquering the Afghans is just not possible. “The Afghans are bitter fighters; they have no education, no freedom, and no infrastructure. All they know is War and Fight. On the other hand, Pakistan knows about the costs of war, human rights and the luxury that comes when not fighting. We don’t want to lose our lives but the Afghans can risk anything because they have none.”

On July 7, 2008, the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan was attack by suicide bombers. There are intelligence claims that there was an involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) being involved in these bombings.

India has been heavily investing in Afghanistan, building dams and roads. In an article in The Hindu on July 9, 2008, just two days after the Kabul Bombings that killed 58 people and injured 141, there is a quote from a sermon given at the Jamia Masjid al-Qudsia in Lahore, by Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. He charged India with following a plan of destroying Pakistan. “India,” Saeed continued, “is building dams on rivers flowing into the country. On the other hand, it is establishing training centres in Afghanistan where it is teaching its agents how to carry out terrorist acts in Pakistan. While our rulers insist that we should have good relations with the Afghan government, India is imposing wars upon us. Still, our rulers, pursuing a policy of unilateral friendship under foreign pressure, have promised the world we will not fight with India.” (Praveen Swami, July 9, 2008, The Hindu).

This is a much skewed way of looking at a scenario and how interpretations can vary. Our two interviewees were asked about India and what were their views on their neighbour – the people and the government. Rabia Zaid said that the Pakistanis were not fond of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and other such Hindutva parties like the Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). “We are although fond of the congress (Indian National Congress). I think it is best if the congress are in power in India. I think it is high time, actions be taken from both sides,” she adds.

As for the people, Rabia sees Indians as fun loving people. “They love dancing, arts, and movies and are intelligent. Also Pakistanis think that Indians are simple people and don’t spend crazy money over bling like the Arabs or the Pakistani's.”

Farrukh Shafiq has similar views when it comes to Indians. He says, “The general and my personal belief is that countries and not people go to war. The war between Indian and Pakistan is between the states and not between the people. Everyone in Pakistan wants a just settlement of Kashmir and doesn’t want to keep waiting for it. At the same time, there is a lot of love for the Indian people, for Bollywood, for Indian cricket, etc. On the level of the masses, there is far greater love for Indians in Pakistan than there is love for Americans.”

Lastly, more than understanding the outside world, how do they see Pakistan? This perhaps was a difficult question but both the interviewee’s look at the present situation with perhaps not positive eyes, but surely a positive look into the future.

Farrukh Shafiq puts it quite nicely, “Pakistan is a survivor! In our short history, we have survived three wars with an enemy country ten times our size, we have survived Bhutto's nationalization, Zia's Islamization, the 90s nuclearization, we have battled and fought with dictator after dictator in our history, we made the last one return back to the barracks just last year, we have survived one corrupt civilian leader after another, we have survived an earthquake which shook us to the core, have survived the aftermath of 9/11, I mean you name anything which could have happened to us and chances are that it did, but through it all, we have always survived and prospered as a nation, so if anyone thinks that we will let Pakistan fail as a state after all that we have endured for it, just needs to take a look at what all we have already fought along the way.”

India and Pakistan may not see eye to eye on many a thing and have fought several wars against each other, but the people of both countries, are well, fed up with a skirmish that started over 60 years ago. It is about time, we forgot the past, and looked into a brighter future. The doxa has to change, and change for the better.