By Dr. Tariq Rahman
Once again South Asia is on the brink of war; Once again the guns are booming across scenic mountains and baked valleys. Once again this land of teeming millions waits for the ultimate folly -- war! Nuclear War! And all this because terrorists blew up people near Jammu.
Let me be clear. I do not mean, not for one moment, that killing people is not an offence or that it can be justified. What I am saying is that it is immoral and unjust to impose a war on a country even if it is proved beyond the least shadow of doubt that its government has actually sent the terrorists. In this case, of course, it is not at all clear who the terrorists were and whether they were acting on their own or not. I am not making a rhetorical statement nor is it the first time I have said it. I said this when the US government said it would fight in Afghanistan. I said this in December when India amassed its forces on Pakistan’s borders. I would say it if Pakistan faced similar incursion from any country. In reality, however, it is not likely that the militants were sent from Pakistan by the government this time.
For the United States or other western countries to suggest that General Musharraf can wave a magic wand and the militants will go back home is unrealistic. Such movements have their own momentum and they might have the backing of rogue elements not known to the government or not easily controlled. This kind of statement harms Pakistan by making it seem the aggressor. It harms the US by making pressure increase on General Musharraf. It also harms India because if this is accepted India will have no face saving device should its leaders decide to be flexible and call back their forces. If they accept that not all terrorism is controlled by Musharraf, it may be purely indigenous or it might be perpetrated by groups out to embarrass Musharraf and so on then they can placate their own jingoistic public opinion. If they do not they are trapped. After having made enemies of the Islamic militants it does not seem likely to me that General Musharraf would still be risking so much by sending in militants.
The prospect of a war would have been opposed by me even if we did not have nuclear weapons. Now, however, it is madness not just folly. As I had predicted, nuclear weapons have made us much more unsafe than we were. Now the problem is that we have nuclear weapons and, if the evidence from the USA about the Kargil crisis is correct, our decision-makers are quick to take them out. This means that a small war in Kashmir could escalate into a nuclear conflagration which none of us really wants. As I have said consistently for over a decade, Pakistan comes first and we should not lose Pakistan for the sake of Kashmir. In India too sane elements should force their government to assure the security of India and not put their country in jeopardy for the sake of Kashmir.
Erich Fromn tells us in his book ‘The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness’ (1973) that people seek war to satisfy deeply hidden irrational urges in their own psyche. In most cases people are not aware of these urges themselves. Thus, the reasons they give for embarking on a course of war are different i.e. for honor, for national interest, for domination of an enemy, for more material resources, disputed territory etc. In reality, however, the reasons are psychological and there is no way they can be brought out into the open short of prolonged psychoanalysis.
I do not know which decision-maker, or decision-makers, need psychoanalysis in South Asia. I do know, however, that whoever starts a war -- and it seems India is threatening to do so -- will be starting on a course of suicide. This is the difference between the situation now and ever before in history. There were wars and both defeats and victories came ones’ way. Temporarily one could suffer setbacks and even lose territory. But the people remained. The cities remained. The thousands of years of civilization remained. There was the possibility, and the hope, of reversing the losses. Countries got over the losses and a new life was created. Now all this seems to be in question. If a number of nuclear weapons are used, the cities will be badly damaged and the ecology will be poisoned. Millions of people will die. The economic, physiological and psychological trauma will be such that civilization as we know it now will not be possible for many years.
Those who talk glibly of nuclear war do not seem to understand it. Talking of losing Indian cities to crush Pakistan, or vice versa, is nonsense of a dangerous kind. No rational person will agree that this should be the price we should pay for Kashmir. But, I suspect, our state obsession with Kashmir in both India and Pakistan has made this issue enter the realm of the deeply emotional; the extra-rational. Or, maybe, our governments have raised deep passions of which they are now slaves. They dare not back down on Kashmir. So, while we would not fight for a piece of land if it means risking our whole civilization, we might fight this insane war for deeply emotional reasons, or because we are trapped by public opinion and dare not lose face, or perhaps because we have put our ego and self-respect and our very identities at stake. For me this is very disturbing because it suggests that India and Pakistan, both nuclear rivals, may not be amenable to rational persuasion. Moreover, if their attitudes remain so irrational, what hope is there for an eventual solution of the Kashmir issue? After all most solution are compromises and, as we all know, fanatics do not compromise. They are inflexible people.
It is a matter of deep regret that fanatics have become powerful both in India and Pakistan. Anyone who studies the events leading to the destruction of the Babri mosque and the recent killings of Muslims in Gujarat will know how powerful the voice of the Hindu fanatic is. Between the fanatics the decision-makers of both countries find it hard to be flexible. Of course, in Pakistan, it is true that sections of the state itself courted the fanatics but now they cannot be contained all of a sudden. In India, the fanatics have a voice in the government itself which makes things even more difficult. But if sanity is to prevail, it must prevail now. A display of ‘sanity’ after we are mostly dead is useless.
We in South Asia have never known modern warfare. America too has never known it on its own mainland. Europe, however, passed through two terrible world wars. Maybe this is why our leaders as well as Americans are less averse to war than the Europeans. Those of us who think war means a hero’s death are mistaken. The worse thing is to be left alive crippled or to mourn forever those who should not have died so young. The threat of war is not about ‘cross-border terrorism’ as India says. It is not also about Kashmir as Pakistan says. It is really about hate and pride.
(The author is a Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad)