12
IN the light of 65 years of self-defeating acrimony between India and Pakistan, any positive movement on that front deserves to be commended, and it would be fatuous not to view President Asif Ali Zardari’s trip to India this week in that context.
Whether any good will flow from it in the longer term remains contentious, but New Delhi deserves credit for facilitating the conversion of what was initially billed as a personal pilgrimage into something of a state visit, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosting a convivial lunch for the pilgrim before the latter made his way to the shrine of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer.
The apparent suddenness of the urge to fulfil a spiritual vow remains unexplained, and it is difficult to accept that the logistics of this uncommon journey were sorted out within days. Whatever the circumstances, the invitation to lunch was a pleasant gesture, and some good may conceivably flow from it.
Manmohan Singh has accepted an invitation to Pakistan, and although no dates have thus far been agreed upon, the symbolism of the gesture ought not to be underrated. Rahul Gandhi too has evidently been requested to pay a visit.
That such interactions between the South Asian neighbours are viewed as extraordinary is deeply unfortunate, but by the same token any effort towards reducing tensions and establishing what is sometimes described as ‘normality’ is worth welcoming. The fact is that what has been “normal” between India and Pakistan is indefensible and unsustainable. For the good of both, it ought to be transcended. That transcendent moment remains elusive.
Zardari faced considerable domestic criticism over his pilgrimage, ranging from reservations over its coincidence with the $10m American bounty for information leading to the conviction of Hafiz Saeed to concern over the size of Zardari’s 40-strong entourage on what was billed as a private visit.
Then came the Siachen tragedy, in which more than 100 Pakistani troops and almost a dozen civilians were buried alive in an avalanche in the vicinity of what is billed as the world’s highest battlefield.It is unlikely that the Indian prime minister’s offer of humanitarian assistance in Siachen will be taken up, but it was a decent gesture. And it needs to be remembered that somewhat warmer India-Pakistan relations would obviate the need to station so many troops in such inhospitable terrain.
The subject of Hafiz Saeed, too, came up in the Delhi discussions, with both sides agreeing to pursue the matter further in talks between their home secretaries. India holds the progenitor of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaatud Dawa responsible for the 2008 terrorist rampage in Mumbai, and believes it has provided Pakistan with enough evidence in this context.
Pakistan cites insufficient proof as the cause behind Saeed’s unsuccessful prosecution. However, no one can seriously argue that the crime has diligently been investigated on the Pakistani side.
As for the bounty, The Washington Post noted last week in a report on Saeed’s latest sermon: “The former engineering and Arabic professor, who once fulminated on the political margins, has gained new stature, thanks to the nationalist sentiments whipped up by the US reward offer … The bounty announcement, analysts say, inadvertently enlarged radical Islamists’ role in shaping foreign policy by further galvanising public sentiment against Nato.”
That the US viewed Zardari’s brief sojourn in India with enthusiasm is unlikely to boost the president’s standing back home, but it’s certainly noteworthy that a number of observers have interpreted his pilgrimage to a Sufi shrine as an endorsement of syncretic ideals in the face of rampant Islamist fundamentalism.
“The appearance of such a large Pakistani delegation at [Chishti’s] shrine in Ajmer will strike a chord with an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis who are more comfortable with the soft, humane message of the Sufis compared with the vengefulness that Hafiz Saeed represents,” Saeed Naqvi commented in The Hindu this week, before going on to dilate on Sufism’s historical appeal.
That’s a worthy sentiment, no doubt, even though it is unrealistic to expect that any of Zardari’s antics or utterances will “strike a chord with an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis”.
As in the case of many other Sufi saints, Chishti attracts a reverence that to a considerable extent transcends sectarian and communal divides. Benazir Bhutto is said to have prayed at his shrine in 2003 for Zardari’s release from imprisonment, vowing to return with him to Ajmer if the wish was fulfilled.
She did so two years later — the same year as Pervez Musharraf paid obeisance at the shrine during a presidential visit to India that held out much hope but turned pear-shaped in the wake of the visiting leader’s undiplomatic discourse at a press conference.
Gen Ziaul Haq, widely viewed as the root cause of Pakistan’s Salafist-inspired woes, also paid his respects in Ajmer. And, for that matter, it is said that even some of the kar sevaks who planned to demolish the Babri Mosque sought Chisthti’s blessings before travelling to Ayodhya.
There has been no coherent explanation for why Zardari chose this particular juncture to experience what he reportedly described as a moment of spiritual ecstasy. Yet the superstitious inclinations that prompted him to venture eastwards (instead of flying to Dubai or London, as is the norm) can easily be overlooked if some political good flows from this visit. And it might, notwithstanding the domestic weaknesses that encumber both Zardari and Manmohan Singh.
They are both keen on improved commercial interaction between the two countries, which makes perfect sense in economic as well as political terms. Cross-border terrorism has substantially diminished in recent years. There are various hurdles to cross before the neighbours turn to Kashmir — a context in which both nations have a great deal to answer for — but even that perennial problem is not insurmountable, given the political will.
It may be too optimistic to view this week’s pilgrimage as a game-changer, but even if it proves to be a circuit-breaker, in the tiresome subcontinental context that’s nothing to be scoffed at.
