War and Peace

Reading fine print in joint statements is an exercise that sustains many arm- chair experts. Insistence by some senior officials of the Indian foreign office to the media to display better understanding of the English language when reading the Sharm-El-Sheikh joint statement of India and Pakistan is, in substance, an exercise in obfuscation and damage control. The statement is not a botched up draft that needs analysis of experts, as made out to be by the outgoing foreign secretary. It is a simple statement of intent put together by two leaders of sovereign nations who wanted to break free from the restraints put together by lobbies and vested interests that want India and Pakistan locked in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation. Its unequivocal enunciation of the road map between the two countries reveals itself in the de-linking of "composite dialogue" with "action on terror".

Unfortunately, hate spewing TV experts have latched on to this part of the statement and criticised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for capitulating to the pressure of the Americans and the wily Pakistanis. To buttress their argument for maintaining status quo after the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008, they have picked up a hanging sentence on Baluchistan. What is ignored in this high-pitched debate is the reiteration of India's interest in a stable and democratic Pakistan and promotion of regional cooperation. This is an important affirmation by India and Pakistan 62 years after they were partitioned by a dishonest midwife who had an agenda of its own.

Reading of new Partition literature clearly shows the Machiavellian role a devalued world power played with its former subjects. Reading of history, these days, is providing a newsy spin to the violent happenings in Afghanistan-Pakistan and India. Historians and members of strategic establishment are wondering whether it is possible to reorder geography and people's destinies. The joint statement talks about the two countries realising their full potential if factors like terror and hatred is eliminated and the possibility of a war is reduced.

The degrading poverty and misery in South Asia is due to the mindless arms race that diverts billions of dollars in weapon systems that cannot be used. The tragedy of both the countries is that western powers that pontificate on peace are the ones who benefit the most by selling costly weapon systems while these countries desperately need schools, drinking water, hospitals and robust infrastructural development. Besides, the global slowdown is forcing western strategists to rethink old practices. Cash-strapped western powers are wondering whether they can allow regional powers to look after their own affairs. Withdrawal from Iraq and change in policies in Af-Pak is a case in point.