|
Punjab
and South Asian peace —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Free
movement of people and goods between the two Punjabs across a legal but open
border should satisfy everyone who can think rationally. There will indeed
be stiff resistance to such peace overtures
The ninth annual conference of the World Punjabi Congress was held in the
last week of January in Lahore. It was an unusually high profile event. Who
could imagine just a few months ago that the chief ministers of East and
West Punjab would address an international gathering of Punjabis from the
same podium, speaking about a common Punjabi culture and origin and the need
to eliminate restrictions so the Punjabis could meet freely.
East Punjab Chief Minister Capt Amrinder Singh went so far as to call the
international borders, dividing Punjab into an eastern and a western part
and placing them into two separate states, artificial. On the other hand,
West Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi stressed the importance of
recognising and accepting that Punjabis were now divided into two separate
and independent states, although their cultural bonds were unbreakable.
Much of what was said was sentimental and perhaps part of the conventional
rhetoric politicians employ on such occasions to embellish their statements
with emotive imagery. But the two speeches also represented different
political perceptions of contemporary political reality. Whereas Indians in
general and Punjabi Indians in particular tend to look beyond borders when
visualising everlasting peace in the region, Pakistanis in general and West
Punjabis in particular are keen to remind the world that they have chosen to
be an integral part of a different nation and, therefore, peace between
India and Pakistan would mean maintaining the separate and distinct national
entities of the two countries.
There is however an irony involved: the current perceptions of the two sides
are actually a complete reversal of how Punjab was seen more than 56 years
ago when the question of its division was first aired. Ironically it was the
Sikh-Congress alliance which demanded the division of Punjab, arguing that
if India were to be partitioned on the basis of contiguous Hindu-Sikh and
Muslim majorities then Punjab should also be divided on the same basis. On
the other hand, the Muslim League wanted to keep the Punjab united. This was
given legal effect when the Punjab Assembly voted on this matter: Hindus and
Sikhs voted to divide Punjab and Muslims to keep it united.
The reasons why the Sikhs and Congress demanded the division of Punjab were
varied, but the main ones were anxiety and fear. The idea that Pakistan
would become an Islamic state had been propagated throughout the Punjab
during the 1945-46 election campaign. It naturally made Hindus and Sikhs
feel vulnerable, and their worst fears were confirmed when massive violent
attacks against these two communities occurred in the Rawalpindi-Jhelum and
Multan areas in March 1947. Punjabi Muslims in Lahore and Amritsar also
faced intimidation during March, but their real ordeal with communal frenzy
started on a massive scale from July onwards when Sikh and Hindu hordes let
loose a reign of terror directed against them in the eastern districts where
they were in a minority.
The earliest estimates of deaths by Sir Penderel Moon put Muslim casualties
in East Punjab at least twice as high compared to that of Hindus and Sikhs
in west Punjab. However, his total number of 200,000 deaths is now
considered too low. Current estimates range from 800,000 to two million. How
many of these were Muslims and how many Hindus and Sikhs will never be
known, but with a tragedy of such magnitude any normalisation between the
two parts and their people will require a lot of forgiving and forgetting.
I have not followed the discussion in the Indian press on the current
liaison between East and West Punjab, but in Pakistan some people have
expressed great suspicion about these two parts coming closer. It is alleged
that the two-nation theory is in danger of being subverted if the religious
foundations of nationalism are supplanted with a secular culture;
additionally, it is argued that if the Pakistan government is allowing the
two Punjabs to hold annual meetings then it should also let Sindhis,
Pukhtuns and the Urdu-speaking people meet and re-establish their common
cultural links. Indeed such concerns are genuine and we need to address them
in a candid and open manner.
As regards the two-nation theory, I think it is no longer relevant once
Pakistan came into being. The new state did not include all the Muslims of
India and therefore only those Muslims who became citizens of Pakistan are
now Pakistanis. Equally, not all non-Muslims left Pakistan. Those who stayed
on should have equal rights along with Muslims.
A continuation of the two-nation theory argument only helps the
fundamentalists justify blasphemy, hudood and other such discriminatory and
oppressive laws. It is time that Pakistani nationalism based on territorial
principles should replace the religious basis of nationalism. This will not
harm Pakistan. In fact it will enable the state to emerge as a proper
democracy.
As far as the rights of the other nationalities to meet freely, I see no
reason why it should not be possible once everyone realises the permanence
of the separate and independent status of Pakistan. There is no reason why
people who speak the same language should be lumped into one state. After
all except for Brazil the rest of Latin America is Spanish-speaking. This
has not meant that the several territorial states of Spanish-speakers seek
union into one state.
There is however one fundamental reason why peace between the two Punjabs is
a pre-condition to peace in the entire South Asia. Apart from Bengal, it is
the only province that was divided on communal lines. Unless the two Punjabs
decide honestly and sincerely to seek friendship and peace, there will not
be durable peace in the region. Punjab remains the key province, just as it
did in the 1940s and even now, 56 years after independence, for determining
the direction of politics in the subcontinent.
It is important that the governments of India and Pakistan capitalise on
this opportunity when the Punjabis are ready for peace. Free movement of
people and goods between the two Punjabs across a legal but open border
should satisfy everyone who can think rationally. There will indeed be stiff
resistance to such peace overtures from the pathological elements on both
sides, but now is the time to make tough and firm decisions.
The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm
University. He is the author of two books. His email address is
Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se
|