May 29, 2005

‘Two things thrive on conflict between India and Pakistan: religious fundamentalism and the military. If this conflict is removed, it will be easier to build a liberal democratic process in our country,’ says Abid Hasan Manto

ABID Hasan Manto, a lawyer by profession, is one of the founders of the Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy, and a member of its central committee. He is also the president of the National Workers Party which was formed in May 1999, coincidentally a few months before the military takeover led by General Musharraf. The following are excerpts from an interview conducted recently with Mr Manto about the current situation vis-a-vis Indo-Pak relations.

Q. A generation of Pakistanis has grown up considering the India-Pakistan animosity as the most natural state of being. What, in your view, is the context of this hostility?

A: Between India and Pakistan there are certain historical facts that must be kept in mind. To begin with, the two major communities, that is, the Hindus and the Muslims, over a period of thousand years did not have an amiable relationship at all. The Muslims originally came as invaders, they plundered and returned. They did not indulge in empire building at that time. Later on, the Pathans and the Mughals came and built an empire. For several centuries different parts of India, which were overwhelmingly Hindu, worked within an empire that was primarily Muslim. There is no denial that during this period the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims as the rulers and the ruled had several ups and downs. Muslim rulers took some steps that generated cordiality and the Sufis and mystics interacted with the people of India in a way that peace and harmony were also created. As a result, to this day, non-Muslims also go to Nizamud din Aulia and Hazrat Chishti’s mazars. In spite of all this the basic physical fact is that the Muslims ruled over Hindustan for eight hundred years. Against this background the people who were working within the Hindu community for its resurgence, using its religion and culture, and the fact that the Muslims had subordinated them, is not such an irrelevant thing. Now for those building a Muslim identity on religion it is easy to use this (Hindu resurgence) because it has a historical foundation.

But the key issue is the difference between the rulers and the ruled. Such differences exist between the Muslims too. When the Arabs took over Iran they kept a difference between ‘Arabi’ and ‘Ajami’ for centuries. The Iranian civilization at that time was an advanced civilization. Similarly, Indian civilization was also an advanced one when the Muslims came here. Anyway, the rulers had an impact on the local culture be it Iran or India. But we should realize that in spite of being Muslims the Arabi and Ajami difference still exists to this day. So establishing peace is not so easy because a lot of prejudices exist for such a long time that it is not possible to eradicate them at a stroke. In fact, it is easy for the establishment to use these differences when it wants.

In the Indo-Pak situation, we say we are different from Indians, we have also made a separate country and we feel that we are the smaller country in this equation. At the back of our minds is also our history that we were the rulers and we ruled over a major chunk of the world including India. This is similar in some ways to the superiority that the British feel even towards other Europeans in spite of peaceful relations for many years. This is essential background for us to remember: our relationship with religion. We cannot separate our history of having ruled the world from Spain to India from religion’s point of view. Certainly Islam had the last big religious empire. So we are convinced of the power flowing through religion, which may not be as clear to others. In parts of the world where modernism and industrialization have not established themselves people are busy establishing their identity on the basis of religion.

Q. What role does industrialization play in this situation?

A: Historically, the Indian subcontinent has not entered the modern era completely. We have not entered the industrial and post-industrial era completely. There are several reasons, going back to the Mughal Empire with its own character, and the colonization impact. Colonization forced a distance from the development of society that western societies gained. Western liberalism and democracy were a result of the economic industrialization in those countries. These things complemented each other. Science and technology helped bring down religious prejudices etc. For them to talk about secularism and liberalism is valid because it is part of their historical tradition.

Our system is still largely feudal. In fact, to the extent that India was able to progress in industrialization and break down its feudal structures, it is ahead of Pakistan. At the eve of independence, India was at a different level of trade and development and that helped the democratic tradition in many ways. The arbitrariness of feudal structures is reduced in such a situation. The ruling, commercial elite remains arbitrary in some ways, but because they need to sell things, they need to establish some kinds of relationships with a wider variety of people in a host of different ways. This is what happened in Europe and also in India to some extent.

Another problem for us is that we got our country by dividing the common struggle against the British. We said ‘we don’t want the British,’ but that we’re also against the Hindus. I don’t want to go into details of the justifications for this but the fact remains that this is what we did. This we started doing from 1940; before that we were looking to resolve our issues within an Indian confederation or union, whether through Jinnah’s 14 points or other means. In 1940, there was a clear break. Although even in 1946 Jinnah moved back on this too, and he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, which would have meant a united India. However, Congress did not accept this plan for several reasons. Anyway, our entire struggle for a separate state was six years old and as a result it did not give birth to a mature political leadership here. A long struggle for their independence was the principal struggle that Congress leaders had undergone. Mr Jinnah was not wrong when he said he had ‘khotay sikkay’ in his pocket. He could not find good leaders; for instance, in Punjab he had to rely on Noon, Sikander Hayat and Daultana, all feudals without a history of struggle for independence. Therefore, these leaders were not anti-empire and, in fact, many had the seal of British approval through titles such as sir etc. These are again facts of our heritage so we need to know them before we can judge the current situation.

This is also why there was such a vacuum after his death. The leadership later on was not of the same level — intellectually, culturally or politically. His own political grooming had been during an Indian national struggle and he was very different from the people around him including Liaquat Ali. All of this also left its impact on the political traditions on Pakistan. This class had no interest in making a constitution and delayed it constantly because they were feudal rulers and felt no need for a law or constitution. You can see how the change in the class itself impacted our constitution-making when a different class of leaders from East Pakistan were in power briefly, the constitution was finally made. The outdated feudal Bengali leadership and our feudals could not make this constitution.

Q. Kashmir plays a pivotal role in our relationship with India, and to many Pakistanis peace with India is tantamount to a sell-out on the Kashmir issue.

A. The ML leadership had thought that Kashmir was contiguous and predominantly Muslim. So of course it would stay with us after partition. At the same time we thought that Hyderabad, although not contiguous with Pakistan, has a Muslim ruler so he will accede to Pakistan. So we took a stand in the middle about accepting the ruler’s decision as far as the princely states were concerned. We did not at that time bargain for a poll or public opinion. We may claim now that the Hindu raja was pressurized by the Indian government, but our stand now is weakened by our stance on partition.

The fact again is that war happened. Our desire was always that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan. In addition to religion there was the issue of all our rivers originating from Kashmir. A psyche was built up that Kashmir is ours and India is occupying it by force. This disaster has created perpetual conflict between India and Pakistan. In fact, it has turned our state apparatus into a security state; defend yourself against India, which is three times larger than our country. So our focus moved to security, which meant building the army, and that required money, which we did not have, so right from 1951 we looked to the US for money. We entered various defence pacts with the US and in the cold war context the India-Pak conflict was solidified.

Q. There have been, however, other episodes of improved relationship between India and Pakistan. Take the example of the ‘50s cricket matches in Pakistan when the borders were opened. Why didn’t they last for long?

A. In 1953, there was a cricket match and the borders were opened. There was a general exchange at all levels. I was studying at the Law College at the time, and I took the Punjab University debating team to different cities in India. They welcomed us warmly and we met Nehru. Ghazanfar Ali was the High Commissioner in India at that time and he took several initiatives. And then their teams came and we looked after them here. But this ended quite soon because Pakistan became an active participant in the cold war on the US side. We entered various defence pacts that also bolstered the role of our army in Pakistan’s decision-making. India, with a generally non-aligned but largely pro-Soviet stance, was in the other camp. As I said, our conflict was solidified because of the cold war context. The Kashmir conflict continued in spite of negotiations and Nehru’s visit. All the politics here was being conducted on the basis of establishing India as the key enemy.

However, today’s situation does not parallel those previous incidents of peace building. In part, this is because of the realization now that we have tried the path of hostility and it is not going to work. We have realized that the Security Council resolutions are of no use. The institution that makes these resolutions can and will not implement them. We have also realized now that we cannot win Kashmir over form India. We can create disturbance, but we cannot win it over in war. But the right to create disturbance is no longer given to any country other than America today. So in this context, there has been a withdrawal from jihadi politics. It is the age of economics and trade. It is now impossible for us to not trade with our neighbour rather than somebody 2,000 miles away. This will happen inevitably although we will go through certain ups and downs.

There have been other experiences as well. For instance, now there is a clearer understanding among the people that the US has time and again used us, and dropped us when a relationship is no longer in their interest — for example, after the Afghan war. Although admittedly the predominant impression in our ruling class is still that being with the Americans is important. But one thing that everyone realizes is that international conditions have changed. Our so-called friend America is itself saying we need to build peace with India, and so is China. These pressures are not just for India and Pakistan. This is an international scenario in globalization in which economic integration requires free access to people and nations for corporate interests.

Q. How is this US or corporate interest-sponsored peace likely to affect its sustainability?

A. We need to be aware that the ruling elite in both Pakistan and India is overwhelmingly part of US global plans. All this peace is to make it a part of that global economic system, which is another form of colonial extension. Certainly, we cannot stay away completely from the global economic system, but how can we decrease or change the impact? Our party’s analysis has been that we need regional arrangements. We have had this analysis since the fall of the Soviet Union and when such notions were not particularly fashionable. In the case of South Asia, Saarc should be converted into a massive ground for trade and economics rather than just striking conversations. Then various other groupings can be pursued like Saarc and the Middle East, Saarc and Central Asia etc. Some of these regional groupings are already emerging and the US is not happy with all of them. For example, they are in competition with the European Union. Even now they do not want the gas coming from Iran to go from Pakistan to India. They are pressurizing us to leave Iran and take the gas from Turkmenistan, where the Americans have military bases.

We are not pursuing a radical agenda at this point. We need to get beyond our archaic feudal structures, build our industry, promote equitable trade, and all this is not possible without peace with regional players.

Therefore, we need to consciously pick up the issue and build a people’s movement. We do not want to become a pawn in the hands of MNC globalization. As far as possible we want to benefit from globalization, which is not possible on IMF and WB conditions. A people’s movement is necessary to pressurize the government in the right direction.

In India, for instance, a Common Minimum Programme has been agreed between the left parties and Congress to decide how much inclusion in the globalization process, how much privatization etc. are they willing to work towards. For us it is problematic because such a movement is weak in our country. The situation is such that the mainstream political parties are looking for employment with the US. Instead of mobilizing the people these parties put in an application to the Americans to impose democracy in our country. Corporate globalization will have an impact on our industry, including textile, which will obviously have an impact on farmers and cotton crops. The rich countries insist that we cannot provide subsidies to our farmers while they continue to subsidize theirs. And then we are expected to compete with their farmers. This effect on the rural economy has a direct bearing on the urban economy. At its most basic unemployment in rural areas translates into migration to cities creating greater pressure on urban structures. Here, with privatizations in cities we can see further unemployment, lack of social legislation etc. Even our traditional economists are beginning to realize these problems.

In Pakistan two things thrive on conflict between India and Pakistan: religious fundamentalism and the military. If this conflict is removed it will be easier to build a liberal democratic process in our country. A people’s movement on the lines of, with some changes, Latin America is what we need in South Asia. Brazil and Venezuela are not cutting off the world but want to exert control on their resources and decisions.

— Humeira Iqtidar

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)