[Keynote address delivered at India International
Centre, New Delhi on November 3, 2003]

Nikhil Chakravarty and the Momentum of Peace
by Dr Mubashir Hasan

INDIA - PAKISTAN: "WALLS MUST COME DOWN"
-- (N.C.August 4, 1990)

Today, in the fifty-seventh year after

independence, the people as well as the elites of

India and Pakistan are questioning the wisdom of

maintaining a state of confrontation between the

two countries. The power of the pundits of old

mind-sets is declining. The momentum for peace

is growing. Nikhil Chakravarty played the most

outstanding role in bringing about this great

change. I propose to trace in some detail the

three phases in which this change has come about.

In the first phase the two governments were the

principal actors. In the second phase ó in the

beginning of the eighties ó the intelligentsia

of the two countries started playing an important

role. The third phase is the era of

people-to-people diplomacy.

The partition of the subcontinent into Pakistan

and India in 1947 was accompanied by very large

traumatic exchange of population and horrible

massacres. That these events should cast long

shadows over the attitudes of the peoples of the

two countries towards each other, was only

natural. Not natural, however, was that the two

governments should confront each other for more

than a few years. Countries go to war but with

signatures on a peace treaty, normal intercourse

is quickly resumed. That did not take place in

our subcontinent. The opportunities we have

missed of ushering progress and prosperity for

the two peoples has been nothing short of tragic.

The elusive peace

Pakistan and India never ceased to talk peace.

They always declared friendly intentions towards

each other. Within a year of the first Kashmir

conflict Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal

Nehru handed over to the High Commissioner for

Pakistan in New Delhi the draft of a joint

declaration:

ìÖ they condemn resort to war for the

settlement of any existing or future disputes

between them. They further agree that the

settlement of such disputes between them shall

always be solved through recognised peaceful

methods such as negotiations, or by resort to

mediation or arbitration by special agency set up

by mutual agreement for the purpose, or by agreed

reference to some appropriate international body

recognised by both of them."

In his reply, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan

accepted Nehruís draft almost word by word but

added an undertaking that failing settlement by

direct negotiations, the countries would ìresort

to arbitration of all points of difference.î

Nehru did not accept Liaqatís suggestion.

On 8th April 1950, India and Pakistan signed the

famous Liaqat-Nehru Agreement under which the two

governments agreed that "each shall ensure to the

minorities throughout its territory, complete

equality of citizenship, irrespective of

religion, a full sense of security in respect of

life, culture, property and personal honour,

freedom of movement within each country and

freedom of occupation, speech and worship,

subject to law and morality.î

In 1959, Pakistanís military dictator Ayub Khan

offered to India a Joint Defence Pact which the

latter declined. Few Years later, the foreign

ministers of Pakistan and India, Zulfikar Ali

Bhutto and Swarn Singh had six rounds of talks

without coming to an agreement.

In 1964, N.C. welcomed "the evolution of what

might seem to be a new approach to Pakistan". He

wrote on May 23, 1964:

First came the Prime Ministers declaration in

Parliament that for the purpose of a settlement

with Pakistan, even constitutional changes should

not be ruled out. Then came his conspicuously

friendly handling of Sheikh Abdullah and finally

his pronouncement at the Bombay AICC, coming out

in open support of the Sheikh's mission to bring

about Indo-Pak amity.

India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent

Declaration on 4 January 1966. They reaffirmed

their obligation under the (U.N.) Charter ìnot to

have recourse to force and to settle their

disputes through peaceful meansÖ "and ìto

discourage any propaganda directed against the

other country and to encourage propaganda which

promotes the development of friendly relations

between the two countriesî.

N.C. who had a profound understanding of IndiaÇs

problems in Kashmir and with Pakistan, wrote in

the Mainstream, November 18, 1967:

- the need for winning back the confidence of the

Kashmiri masses cannot be minimised. And if this

is done boldly and with imagination there is

little ground for pessimism about the possibility

of solving the Kashmir problemS

- in dealing with the Kashmir question there

should be more determined effort to establish

better relations with Pakistan. If the cold war

between the superpowers could be reduced, there

is no reason why the cold war between India and

Pakistan should be kept up S.

Again in the Mainstream, Annual of 1967, N.C.

pointed out:

Through sheer drift and inaction, a peculiar

state of uncertainty has been reached in our

relation with Pakistan, with the result that a

chain reaction of tensions can be worked up on

both sides by those who have almost developed a

vested interest in keeping the two peoples apart

S we have to ask ourselves, have we done our

maximum best to overcome all the resistance that

block the path to Indo-Pak reconciliation?

As India and Pakistan were preparing to meet at

Shimla in June 1972, N.C. wrote in the Mainstream

of May 9, 1972:

The Asian policy of both the USA and China today

does not permit either of these two powers to

sustain a durable peace in this subcontinent.

The strategy of both Washington and Peking at the

moment à though for different reasons à strongly

favours the continuation of the state hostility,

if not actual conflict, among the countries of

this region, particularly between India and

Pakistan.

On 2 July 1972, Pakistan and India signed at

Shimla an agreement on bilateral relations

putting ìan end to the conflict and confrontation

that have marred the relationsî. They resolved

to ìwork for the promotion of friendly and

harmonious relationship and the establishment of

durable peace in the subcontinentÖ"

In 1977 the elected government of Pakistan was

thrown and 1979 its Prime Minister was executed

by the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq,

reconciliation efforts between the countries

received grievous blow.

Near the end of 1981, N.C. spent 25 days in

Pakistan. Just then Zia-ul-Haq had suggested a

non aggression pact between India and Pakistan.

N.C. wrote in Mainstream of January 27, 1982:

I looked out of the plane window and watched

Lahore landscape disappearing. Our brothers and

sisters down there are eager to live in peace and

friendship with us, but would they not

misunderstand if we sign a pact with a regime

they intensely dislike and want to replace by an

elected one.

Intelligentsia seeks peace

A significant event occurred when in April 1984.

The English language newspaper The Muslim invited

a number of eminent Indian journalists and

intellectuals to Islamabad for a conference with

Pakistani journalists, politicians, and retired

civil and military officials. N.C. was among the

Indian delegation as was a retired vice-chief of

army staff of India, the first ever to visit

Pakistan for such a conference. The rights and

wrongs in the India-Pakistan relationship were

aired by both sides with great frankness and

candour. Pran Chopra, a leading columnist and

former editor of The Statesman, who was also a

member of the Indian delegation, had the

following comments on the atmosphere prevailing

at the conference:

îThe conference was held at a time when relations

between the two countries were exceptionally

relaxed, thanks to the diplomacy of peace

launched by Pakistan and India with an offer of

îno war offer pactî and counter offer from India.

This had a sunny effect on the mood of the

public in both countries, which had always wanted

more mutual cordiality and less preoccupation of

the governments of the two countries with

military concerns.

The contacts established between peace seeking

Pakistanis and Indians during this conference

were to go a long way in making joints efforts

for peace in the following years.

Towards the end of the Eighties, foreign

secretaries Rasgotra of India and Niaz Naik of

Pakistan had agreed on a draft of a peace deal.

The Indian side blames Pakistan for going to

sleep on it.

Not long afterwards, India and Pakistan had come

to an agreement about ending the confrontation at

the Siachin glacier. Pakistan blames India for

not solemnizing the agreement.

The last decade of the twentieth century saw the

tide decisively turn in favour of open campaigns

for peace and against war. On 9 April, 1990,

former foreign minister of India Swarn Singh,

eminent former foreign secretaries and

ambassadors, Kewal Singh, B.F.H.B. Tayabji,

A.P.Venkateswaran, P.N.Haksar and Rajeshwar

Dayal, editors Prem Bhatia, Rajendar Sarin and

B.G. Verghese, academics A.M.Khusro, M.A.Rehman,

Satish Kumar, M.L. Sondhi and Tarlok Singh and

retired general J.S.Arora appealed to ìto all men

and women of goodwill in both the countries, to

make a united front to avoid a disastrous

conflict, which will not solve any of the

existing problems but will only aggravate and

multiply themÖ..

We believe there are no outstanding problems,

including Kashmir, which cannot be solved

peacefully in a manner which could be acceptable

to both the peoples and governments in India and

Pakistan in the spirit of Simla Agreement.

In a separate statement published in Hindustan

Times of 16 April 1990, another group of

prominent Indians Romila Thapar, Rajni Kothari,

Ram Jethmalani, General Arora, Justice retired

Mahip Singh, S. Mulgokar, Bharat Wariawala, Inder

Mohan, Amrik Singh, Justice Tarakunde, Ranjan

Dwivedi and N.D. Pancholi appealed to India and

Pakistan to refrain from taking any steps which

might lead to a destructive war.

On 25 April 1990, 78 Indian academics and

intellectuals including Eqbal Ahmad from Pakistan

signed an appeal addressing all scholars and

professionals, political leaders, academic

associations and concerned citizens of South Asia

for conciliation rather than confrontation, of

futility of armed conflicts and for resolution of

disputes through discussions and negotiations.

On 13 May 1990, fifty eminent Pakistanis issued a

statement which received wide publicity in the

Indian press. Among the signatories were the

speaker National Assembly of Pakistan Meraj

Khalid, Yakub Ali Khan former chief justice of

Pakistan, Dorab Patel former Judge of the supreme

court and founding chairman of Human Rights

Commission of Pakistan, judges of high courts

Ataullah Sajjad, Dilawar Mahmud, former ministers

Sardar A. Rashid, Mubashir Hasan, Ghulam Nabi,

former and sitting members of the National

Assembly Abida Hussain, Prem K. Shahani, Rao

Shafaat Ali Chohan, former minister and cricket

captain A. H. Kardar, former secretaries of the

federal government Sajjad Haider, Fareedullah

Shah, Riazuddin Ahmad, Aminul Haq, former

ambassador Mufti M Abbas, secretary general

Human Rights Commission Asma Jahangir, Air

Marshal Zafar A. Chaudhry, Editors and

journalists Eqbal Ahmad, I. A. Rehman, Nisar

Osmani, Hussain Naqi, Abbas Rashid, Najam Sethi,

Aziz A Siddiqi, Jugno Mohsin, Khurshid Alam,

academics Mehdi Hasan, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Fareeda

Shaheed, Khawar Mumtaz, Irshad Ahmad, Chairman

NIRC Afzal Sindhu, lawyers Raza Kazim, Kazim

Hasan, Mahmud Mirza, Taj Mohammad Langah, Muneer

Malik, Khalid Malik, Zafar Malik, Zaman Khan,

Architect Kamil Mumtaz, concerned citizens Dr

Shubbar Hasan, Dr Zeenat Hussain, Safdar Hasan

Siddiqi and Muneer Pirzada. The statement said:

South Asia is haunted by the spectre of a fourth

India Pakistan war. The dispute is again over

the unresolved question of Kashmir.

As concerned Pakistanis, we urge the governments

of India and Pakistan to refrain from seeking

military solutions to an eminently political

problem. Wars did not resolve this issue in the

past. S We believe that Kashmir, which has so

far been the primary cause of hostility between

Pakistan and India, can well become the bridge to

peace between the two countries.

At the end of May 1990, some of the signatories

of the Pakistani statement raised the level of

their campaign and decided to meet their

counterparts in India and leaders in Indian

government and politics. Eqbal Ahmad, Nisar

Osmani, Asma Jahangir, Nasim Zehra and this

writer arrived in New Delhi on 27 May. It was a

private visit, the first ever of its kind.

They paid their own travel and hotel expenses.

V. A. Pai Panandiker, Director, Centre for Policy

Research had arranged meetings for the group at

the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies,

the Indo-Pakistan Friendship Society, India

Council for South Asian Relations, Indian

Institute of Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru

University, the prestigious Saturday Discussion

Group, a public meeting at India International

Centre auditorium, besides his own Centre for

Policy Research. Planned also was lunch by Mr

Inder Kumar Gujral, Minister for External Affairs

and tea at the residence of Mr Jaswant Singh, a

prominent leader of BJP. The enthusiasm shown in

New Delhi to meet the peace mission from Pakistan

was overwhelming. In four days of stay the

Pakistani mission had fifteen sessions with well

known organisations and addressed one public

meeting. It was invited by former Prime Minister

Rajiv Gandhi for an informal discussion.

The venerable Nisar Osmani published a detailed

report in Dawn of 5 June, 1990, from which

excepts follow:

The discussions were held in cordial atmosphere

each side appearing to be keen to learn and

communicate. On occasions the exchange of views

did generate heat and voices were raised in a

typical subcontinental style.

The participants on both the sides were of the

opinion that wars in the past had served no

purpose and an armed conflict in the future would

be disastrous. They believed that the

governments should go to the negotiating table

with a will to achieve peace and normalcy. But

this is where the agreement seemed to come to an

end.

The Pakistanis visit to New Delhi paved the way

for collaboration between citizens of note on

both sides of the border. On 27 June 1990,

Indian national newspapers published a joint

statement. The report in The Times of India

said:

Fifty-four leading personalities of India and

Pakistan have urged the two countries to take

immediate steps to avert ìthe risk of war by

miscalculationî.

The statement released simultaneously in New

Delhi and Lahore follows the visit of five member

Pakistani goodwill delegation to India led by Dr

Mubashir Hasan, former federal finance minister,

and a visit to Pakistan by three Indian

intellectuals ó Dr V.A.Pai Panandiker, Mr L.P.

Singh and Dr Bhabani Sengupta. The joint

statement says

îAn early meeting of the two prime ministers

without preconditions could provide framework for

reactivating the Simla Agreement which envisages

normalisation of relations in all spheres in

accordance with the principles of peaceful

coexistence and the U.N. Charter.

The best manner in which both governments can

reaffirm their commitment to a peaceful

resolution of all outstanding differences is ìto

begin withdrawing strike forces of both countries

from forward positions and by otherwise observing

restraint in word and actionî.

The signatories to the joint statement from India

include Dr Malcolm Adiseshiah, Dr Bashiruddin

Ahmad, Mr M.N. Buch, Mr Nikhil Chakravarty, Mr

Justice V.K. Krishna Iyer, Prof A.M.Khusro, Mr

Jamal Kidwai, Mr K.B.Lall, Mr Jagat Mehta, Prof.

B.S.Minhas, Mr F.S.Nariman, Mr Justice

V.M.Tarkunde. From Pakistan the signatories are:

Mr Mohammad Yakub Ali Khan, Mr Dorab Patel, Mr

Burhanuddin, Mr Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Sardar A.

Rashid, General Azam Khan, Dr Mubashir Hasan, Mr

Ataullah Sajjad, Ms Asma Jahangir, Professor

Karrar Hussain, Mr Sheikh Ayaz, Mr I.A. Rehman.

Mr Sajjad Haider, Mr Riazuddin Ahmad, Mr

Fareedullah Shah, Mr Afzal Agha and Mr Ibrahim

Joyo.

In Mainstream of August 4, 1990, under the title

Walls Must Come Down, N.C wrote:

It is time we ourselves forced our governments to

let us cross over to each otherÇs homes and

establish a bond of unbroken amity. Why should

we be scared of restrictions? If we come forward

in hundreds and thousands, the governments in our

two countries are bound to respond.

In September 1990, the Centre for Policy

Research, New Delhi, organised a seminar at Goa,

India, at which it was agreed to organise South

Asian Dialogue, a yearly conference of scholars

to meet once in each country for the next five

years. The strategic objective of the dialogue

was to be: Peace, Development and Cooperation.

The first South Asian Regional Dialogue was held

in New Delhi: 16ñ18 December, 1991. 54

delegates, former ministers, governors,

secretaries to government of India, ambassadors,

editors of national papers and renowned academics

participated. PakistanñIndia problems figured

prominently in the discussions.

The elaborate press communiqué issued at the

conclusion of the conference ìexpressed great

concern over the dilution of the peoplesí

egalitarian ideals, deterioration in law and

order, and rising crimes against women, children

and minorities. There was recognition of the

need to create awareness of the peace dividend to

be gained, were the legacy of the mutual distrust

and hostility to be abandoned in favour of

bilateral and regional cooperation. It was

agreed that avoidance of war is not enough.

There has to be promotion of peace through

negotiated settlement of all outstanding

disputes.

On 2 August 1992, a galaxy of the elites of two

countries, comprising 30 Indians and 29

Pakistanis issued a joint statement. Names from

India and Pakistan in addition to those mentioned

in the communiqués cited earlier were Fakhruddin

G. Ebrahim, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, M. A. K.

Chaudhry, Qazi Jameel Ahmad, Faqir Mohammad

Baloch, Tahir Mohammad Khan, Prem K. Shahani, Ms

Hameeda Khurho and from India: Nirmal Mukerji,

General Sunderji, Soli Sohrabji, Air Chief

Marshal Arjun Singh, A.K Damodran, Professor Yash

Pal, V.N.Narayanan, Admiral Nayyar, Ved Marwah,

A.G.Noorani, Dhruv Sawhney, Paulos Mar Gregorios.

The statement asked the two countries to move

towards

îan era of sustained peace and cooperation based

on a firm commitment to resolve all outstanding

disputes through negotiationsî. It demanded the

ending of arms race and urged increasing exchange

between people to improve the environment for

meaningful negotiations.

The statement demanded: Lifting of restrictions

on the import of newspapers, magazines and films;

Removal of restrictions on the stationing of

media representatives; Reduction of charges of

postal, telegraphic and telephonic and other

means of communications;

Liberalization of issuance of visas; Removal of

delays and humiliation of travellers at the Wagah

Attari border and negotiation of arrangements to

prevent violations of international norms of

protocol and treatment of diplomats.

The High Commissioner for India, Islamabad, S. K.

Lambah wrote to this writer:

î1. I have just received your letter dated

August 4 and want to thank you for sending me the

statement on Peace and Cooperation issued by 59

eminent Indians and Pakistanis which was released

by you in Lahore on August 2.

î2. The Government of India is committed to

improve relations with Pakistan and I want to

assure you that we would like to put into effect

the suggestions made by the eminent personalities

in both the countries.

The second South Asian Dialogue was held at

Colombo in November 1992. The working group on

Conflict Management and Resolution concluded that

conflicts can be brought under control only

through bilateral/ multilateral negotiations

laced with mutual understanding, accommodation

and compromise.

The third South Asia Dialogue was held in Lahore

on 3ñ5 November, 1993. The participants

numbered 47. Equal Ahmad wrote in Dawn of 21

November, 1993

îThey met in Lahore S. They talked for three

days ó intensely and earnestly.

îIn their papers and discussions the participants

emphasised South Asiaís common heritage; a

pluralistic civilisation nourished through the

ages by four great religions and social systems

ó Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. S

There was concern over the fact that this region

is menaced by the rise of sectarian movements.

îThe incident at Ayodhyaî wrote Radhika

Coomaraswamy of Sri Lanka ìcaptures the essence

of this new South Asian phenomenonÖ.î There

was consensus on the need to resist sectarianism

and exclusionary ideologiesÖÖÖÖ

îBeyond invoking South Asiaís civilisational

heritage and diagnosing common ills lay the

larger and difficult challenges of identifying

the causes of this subcontinentís predicament and

their cures, the most interesting contribution in

this regard were those by Davendra Raj Panday, a

former finance minister of Nepal and Dr Mubashir

Hasan of Pakistan. In a thoughtful essay Mr

Panday argued that the responsibility for our

contemporary condition and unresolved conflicts

lay with the intelligentsia and the leadership it

has spawnedÖ.

Eqbal Ahmad continued:

îDr Mubashir HasanÖ..went further in

diagnosing the malaise, which he underlined, was

also a Third World condition. He located our

troubles in the South Asian State, Nationalism

and Culture. All three, he argued, are rooted in

and remain linked to imperialism. The post

colonial state is a mere clone of its colonial

predecessor ó centralist, elitist, isolated from

the masses, and geared to accumulating surpluses

rather than insuring distributive justice. Hence

it was coercive in structure, and more

organically linked to foreign powers than its own

peopleÖ.

îThere can be no South Asian community without

peace between India and PakistanS.." It is

impossible to envisage normal relations between

India and Pakistan until there is settlement of

the Kashmir question. S ìIt is moral and

political obligation of all South Asian

intellectuals to protest violations of human

rights wherever they occur. No one contested a

Pakistani contention that today Kashmiris were in

extremes of such violations."

The Fourth South Asia Dialogue was held at

Kathmandu, Nepal in 1994 and the Fifth at Dhaka,

Bangladesh in 1997. The latter was unique that

it focussed on art and culture. Notable

interaction took place among renowned writers and

personalities from the fields of music, theatre,

painting, dance, sculpture, literature, cinema

and television. As told by Dr Pai Panandiker,

the Dhaka Dialogue was undoubtedly a rich and

splendid mix of cultural performance every

evening.

The conferences served extremely useful purpose.

Seriously inclined men and women sat together

five times for two to three days each time and

arrived at a consensus on many basic issues. As

the yearly conferences followed one after

another, the unanimity in the views grew

markedly.

People wage peace

A new phase in the peace making efforts between

India and Pakistan ushered when a group of

eminent Indians ó Nirmal Mukerji, Rajni Kothari,

Dinesh Mohan, Gautam Naulakha, Kamal Mitra

Chenoy, Teesta Setalvad, Amrita Chachi and Tapan

K. Bose arrived in Lahore and met with on 2

September, 1994 I. A. Rehman, Karamat Ali, Dr

Mubarak Ali, Dr Haroon Ahmad, Nighat Saeed Khan,

Hussain Naqi, B. M. Kutti, Anees Haroon,

Iftikharul Haq, Madeeha Gohar, Dr Rashid Ahmad,

Dr Mubashir Hasan, Shahid Kardar, Khaled Ahmad,

and Professor Mehdi Hasan.

They founded PakistanñIndia Peoplesí Forum for

Peace and Democracy. They agreed:

1. That war and attempts to create war hysteria

should be outlawed;

2. That a process of de-nuclearisation and

reversal of the arms race should be started;

3. That Kashmir not merely being a territorial

dispute between India and Pakistan, a peaceful

democratic solution of it involving the peoples

of Jammu and Kashmir is the only way out;

4. That religious intolerance must be curbed as

these tendencies create social strife, undermine

democracy and increase the persecution and

oppression of disadvantaged sections of society;

5. And finally the group constitutes a convening

committee for setting up a Peoplesí Forum for

Peace and Democracy.

The first convention of the Forum was fixed for

24 and 25 February, 1995 in New Delhi. The big

question mark was whether the Government of India

would issue visas. Never had such a delegation

of independent minded persons ever sought visas

in such a large number. With breath held the

waited for the word from the High Commission in

Islamabad. Hardly anyone believed that the

permission would come. But come it did, barely

two days before the date of departure. Next

morning, in a section of the Pakistani press a

news item appeared that government of India was

paying the fare and they would be the guests of

the Indian government and they would pass

resolutions in the convention which would favour

India. Next day editorials full of vitriolic

appeared against the Pakistani participants as

also statements of some national leaders

condemning them and demanding the government stop

the visit. Regardless, nearly one hundred

reached Delhi to meet an equal number from India.

The Convention unanimously adopted some key

recommendations relating to resolution of

disputes without war, balanced reduction of armed

forces, restraint on nuclear weapons, concluding

their own test-ban-treaty, solution of the

Kashmir question in accordance with the wishes

and aspirations of the Kashmiri people and a

detailed one on religious tolerance.

The Pakistan chapter of the Pakistan-India

Peoplesí Forum for Peace and Democracy hosted the

second Pakistan-India convention at Lahore on 10

-11 November, 1995. 79 delegates from India

were joined by 102 from Pakistan. The convention

took up the themes of the Delhi Convention, the

Kashmir dispute, demilitarisation and

denuclearisation, religious intolerance and

governance and further elaborated upon them in

the ten resolutions that it adopted.

Under the title Ray of Sunshine, N.C. wrote in

Mainstream of March 4, 1995:

In short we may venture to say that while at the

official level the governments of the two

countries have been drifting to an

eyeball-to-eyeball acrimony, the popular mood is

veering towards a relationship of friendly

neighbourhoodS the message of hope and confidence

that the people-to-people diplomacy has generated

at New Delhi meeting is expected to serve as a

spur to bold and imaginative IndoòPak diplomacy

by the two governments.

After a weekÇs trip to Pakistan to attend a

workshop on South Asian problems, N.C. reiterated

his faith in people-to-people diplomacy. He

wrote May 13, 1995:

Whatever the politicians may say or do , it is

time that at the level of the common people,

there must spread the fresh air of freedom. ItÇs

time indeed for the people-to-people diplomacy

between Pakistan and India.

From 28 to 31 December, 1996, more than 300

Pakistanis and Indians met in Kolkata for the

Third Convention of the Pakistan-India Peoplesí

Forum for Peace and Democracy. This was the

largest gathering yet of peace lovers from the

two neighbouring countries for the longest

duration yet. 165 were Pakistanis of various

backgrounds who had come from all parts of the

country. Detailed resolutions on the subjects

were unanimously adopted. A comprehensive

Kolkata Declaration was approved covering

demilitarisation, denuclearisation and peace

dividends, religious intolerance, Kashmir, gender

justice. On the last day a huge public rally,

joined by many citizens of Calcutta, with the

theme ìPeople against warî, was held from College

Square to the Esplanade.

The 4th joint Convention of Pakistan India

Peoplesí Forum for Peace and Democracy was held

at Peshawar, Pakistan, on 21 and 22 November,

1998. Over 100 delegates from India and about 200

from Pakistan participated. The holding of the

convention at Peshawar was considered politically

more difficult than holding it in any other city

of Pakistan. The Taliban had by then assumed the

control of almost all of Afghanistan and the

influence of the fundamentalists in Pakistan was

at a new peak. Peshawar was the hub of the

fundamentalist related activities. Bringing in a

large number of Indians in the city was

considered risky. The apprehension proved to be

utterly baseless. The hosts at Peshawar were

angry that the Indians had been advised against a

dance-recital event in the cultural programme.

The Pashtun hospitality for the delegates knew no

bounds. The non-vegetarian among them enjoyed

the wonderful Peshawar cuisine. When some Indian

delegates expressed the desire to visit the

Khyber Pass they were told it was not possible.

They had no visas for the visit and even

Pakistanis needed a special permit to go beyond a

certain point on the Khyber-Torkham road. But

the Indians were not deterred. They made it.

îHow did you manage that?" they were asked. ìNo

problem. We just went to the authorities and

they issued us the permit" was their reply.

The convention unanimously condemned the

introduction of nuclear weapons in the

subcontinent, systematic violation of human

rights, resort to authoritarian and draconian

laws and discrimination against women and

children. The Peshawar Declaration emphasised

that peace and democracy in Pakistan and India

cannot become a reality unless the Kashmir

question is resolved to the satisfaction of the

people of Jammu and Kashmir. Another resolution

urged both countries to pullout their forces from

the Siachin area.

The efforts to promote peace and goodwill in the

subcontinent had touched unprecedented heights in

the last decade. According to ëAn Inventory of

Current Initiatives of Track II Dialogues related

to South Asiaí, available at the Ford Foundation

offices in New Delhi, the new non-governmental

initiatives launched and institutions created

exclusively to promote peace between India and

Pakistan numbered one in 1987, one in 1989, two

each from 1991ñ1993, eight in 1994, one in 1995

and one in 1996 ó the last entry in inventory.

Visible impact

The activism shown by the people and sections of

the elites began to have a visible impact on the

governments of India and Pakistan by the

mid-nineties. In private conversations,

Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Ahmad

Khan Leghari of Pakistan and prime ministers of

India Narasimha Rao, I. K. Gujral and Deve Goda;

ministers Manmohan Singh, Dinesh Singh, Inderjit

Gupta during their tenure in the government and

Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh in the

opposition exhibited sincere desire for peace and

resolution of disputes.

It was during the prime ministership of Inder

Kumar Gujral that the prime ministers of the two

countries began directly to exchange views on

telephone in an informal way. In fact the two

had come quite close to each other ó yet not

close enough.

Slowly but markedly political leaders of both

countries shed their apprehensions. They started

talking of establishing durable peace with the

neighbouring countries. The Chief Minister of an

Indian state had publicly proposed an offer of

U.S. $ 500 million to Pakistan. In 1998. Another

highly respected Indian intellectual, a veteran

of the policy making establishment, speaking

before a closed door audience of the bulk of the

ruling elite of the Indian capital proposed that

India should place a sum of U.S. $ one billion at

the disposal of Pakistan as a help in warding off

its economic difficulties.

One after another Indian prime ministers publicly

declared that progress and prosperity of Pakistan

was in Indiaís interest. These declarations had

salutary effect in Pakistan where many had

believed that India still had not accepted the

partition of 1947. Finally the two governments

concluded that their overt contact with the

leaders of the other country will not have a

negative backlash on their voters, that it was no

longer possible to attract votes in elections by

rhetoric against the other country.

In his election campaign in 1996, Nawaz Sharif

openly declared that if elected he would try to

improve relations with India. He kept his word.

He got welcome response from Prime Minister Atal

Bihari Vajpayee, who also correctly judged that

if he were to make his dramatic bus journey to

Pakistan the people of India would support him.

Nawaz Sharif was also proven right when his warm

welcome of the Indian prime minister at the

Lahore Summit received substantial positive

response from the people of Pakistan.

Women and soldiers

The congenial atmosphere for peace created by the

Lahore Summit was temporarily vitiated by the

mini-war on the Kargil heights. The Kargil war

did not dampen the desire of the peoples of the

two countries to establish a durable peace. The

post-Kargil convention held by the Pakistan-India

Peoplesí Forum for Peace and Democracy at

Banglore on 6ñ8 April, 2000 was a tremendous

success. Similar was the success of convention

held by Akhil Bharatya Rachnatmak Smaj and

Association of Peoples of Asia at Kolkata where a

number of retired generals of Pakistan army

appeared on the stage, clasping hands with an

equal number of retired generals of the Indian

army. This caused a stir. Indeed, the activism

for peace shown by the people in the years 1999

and 2000 was absolutely unprecedented.

Groups of women activists in India and Pakistan

became aggressively active in promotion of peace

and goodwill between the two countries. The

chapters of Womenís Initiative for Peace in South

Asia (WIPSA) were established in Delhi and

Lahore. In March 2000, about a dozen prominent

Indian women expressed the desire to visit

Pakistan to confer with Pakistani women to

promote peace and friendship. So strong was the

desire that within a few days the number of women

desirous of going to Pakistan from a few to 20,

then to 30. On 25 March 41 delegates arrived

Lahore to a rousing welcome with garlands, songs,

dances and a band. They had to be rushed to

Islamabad as on the next day, without their

knowledge, Pakistanís Chief Executive, General

Pervez Musharraf had agreed to receive them.

They were thrilled beyond description and were

all praise for him after the meeting. A number

of meetings and an Indo-Pakistan Womenís

Solidarity Conference ensued. The joint

statement issued at the end began:

The womenís peace bus from India to Pakistan has

given an impetus to the process of peace. The

warm welcome that the initiative has received in

Pakistan bears witness to the fact that most

women on both sides are committed to peace and

reject the prejudices which have partly been

state sponsored.

Pakistani women responded strongly to the Indian

womenís visit. Two bus loads, under the

leadership of Asma Jahangir, arrived in Delhi to

a tumultuous welcome. So enthusiastic was her

and her delegationís reception in India that her

detractors taunted her of ambitions to contest

elections to the Indian Lok Sabha.

Reacting to the pressure from their citizens, the

two governments liberalised their visa policies.

As a result scores of delegations of citizens,

students, teachers, media-persons crossed the

international border to visit the lands and

sights they had not seen but heard so much about.

They enjoyed the traditional hospitality of the

culture of the subcontinent and returned full of

praise saying about the people on the other side

îThey are just like usî.

Typical was the case of large delegation of

Pakistani visitors to Panipat. They had been

invited by the children of the pre-1947 residents

of the historical Indian city. None of the

guests had ever met any of the hosts. Yet they

were profusely entertained from early morning to

late at night. Receptions, banquets, Mushairas,

public meetings, visits to historical sights,

shrines, schools and institutions of their

elders, knew no end. Not even one-third of the

invitations could be accepted for want of time.

As they returned after several days visit, they

were over-loaded with gifts.

An entirely new development on the peace-making

front was the interest shown by retired soldiers

on both sides of the border. Many a times this

writer was graciously invited to meet and address

middle and high-ranking retired military

officers.

In the years 1999 and 2000, a large number of

retired senior military officers and their wives

took upon themselves to visit the neighbouring

country and meet with their counterparts. Groups

known as India Pakistan Soldiers Initiative were

organised in both countries to create better

understanding and to promote peace. General

Pervez Musharraf generously received Indian

generals, admirals and air marshals. Several

Indian army chiefs of staff paid back the

compliment by publicly hinting that

India-Pakistan problems should be resolved on the

negotiating table. A war between the two

countries was not a solution.

The opposition within

The support for normalisation of relations had

grown tremendously among the people of the two

countries during the last decade. A section of

intellectuals, women groups, soldiers had become

campaigners of peace and for settlement of all

disputes through negotiations. However the road

still remained blocked by formidable hurdles.

Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz

Sharif had underestimated the opposition they

were to encounter within their countries mainly

from the permanent establishments of the states

and conservative religious elements. For forty

years after independence, political elements of

the two governments and their permanent security

and foreign affairs establishments were agreed in

pursuing a policy of confrontation against each

other. Now a contradiction between the political

and the establishment elites surfaced in both the

countries.

This writer learnt on good authority that at one

occasion prime minister, Nawaz Sharif speaking to

a high level Indian diplomat said that visa

restrictions between India and Pakistan should be

removed. The diplomat politely responded that it

was a good idea but also pointed out the

difficulties in the way. When that Indian

diplomat told a high level Pakistani diplomat

what was in the mind of the Pakistani prime

minister, the Pakistani responded to the Indian,

ÑI hope you tried to dissuade our prime

ministerâ.

At a Commonwealth Conference, Prime Ministers

Nawaz Sharif and Chandrashekar had verbally

agreed to do away with visa formalities for

travel between the two countries. According to

the former prime minister of India, his Pakistani

counterpart was unable to take the matter further

on his return to Pakistan.

When Inder Kumar Gujral became prime minister of

India, he appointed an eminent intellectual known

for promoting peace with Pakistan as his adviser.

The permanent establishments vigorously opposed

the appointment through leaks to the media and

the gentleman had to resign.

When they met in Edinburgh, Scotland, Prime

Minister Inder Gujral asked Prime Minister Nawaz

Sharif about progress on the Pakistani proposal

to sell electricity to India. Nawaz Sharif

confirmed that Pakistan was agreeable. Right

there, in the presence of the Indian prime

minister the senior Pakistani diplomat present

told the two prime ministers that the sale could

not take place.

The one very significant reason among others

which made Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif lose his

job was his peace making efforts with India

without fully consulting with the security

establishment of Pakistan.

President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf

and prime minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee

met at Agra in July 2001, the Kargil war not

withstanding. In their meetings, the two leaders

along with their foreign ministers agreed on an

agenda for future meetings. The draft of a

communiqué to be issued at the conclusion of the

meeting was jointly prepared. The Indian prime

minister sent it to his colleagues waiting in

another room for their opinion. It was returned

to the prime minister with certain suggestions.

The foursome reworked the draft and sent it again

to the next room where prime ministers advisers

were in waiting. Once again the prime minister

could not secure the necessary concurrence. No

joint communiqué could be issued. However, the

statements made by the foreign ministers of

Pakistan and India on July 17, 2001, the day

following the summit meeting were most

encouraging. The Indian foreign minister Jaswant

Singh said the "caravan of peace" shall move on.

Similar sentiments were expressed by Abdul

Sattar, his Pakistani counterpart. Two years

have passed. The negotiations planned at the

summit have yet to begin.

It is a curious state of relations between the

two countries. When India is ready to talk,

Pakistan is not willing and when Pakistan is

ready, it is India who refuses to talk and most

of the time both sides indulge in confrontational

rhetoric. On occasions the two sides seem to

reach the brink of a deal or an agreement.

However, at the last minute, as two senior Indian

diplomats confided to me, something or the other

happens to thwart the deal ó an act of sabotage,

an armed incursion, a murderous attack, artillery

dual at the border, irresponsible statement of a

leader or an arms deal with another country.

All said and done, let us not forget that over

the years the environment has changed radically.

New generations have begun to question the

assumptions of the older generations. Much has

changed in the last 20 years when the first batch

of Indian journalists and intellectuals visited

Pakistan. No other option but that of peace is

available to the ruling elites of the two

countries. It would not be long before they

realise that the dividend of peace shall far

outweigh the cost of confrontation.

---

return to South Asia Citizens Web