The Summit Failed – Long Live Patriotism!

In their private conversation after the Agra summit, the leaders of India and Pakistan admitted at least one truth: however much goodwill they might personally possess, their intentions must perish before the crushing weight of domestic compulsions.
 
The General’s overzealousness, the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm, nearly a hundred million rupees expended for the summit — and yet, the net result was zero. The discerning had foreseen this emptiness written into its fate. Still, the people of both countries, carried away by excessive optimism, nourished a belief that something tangible might emerge.
 
At the end, what did we learn? The General demanded the liberation of a freedom-seeking nation; the Prime Minister demanded poverty eradication for the welfare of all his people. Both arguments, both aspirations, deserve admiration. Yet the sum of all events collapses into the wise man’s bottom line — a big zero. Which means: the summit failed.
 
The General’s Position
 
Let us first consider matters from the General’s side.
 
This war-minded General, who rose to the pinnacle of power by wholly unconstitutional means, is held responsible across the world for the Kargil war scarcely a year and a half ago. And yet, barely eighteen months after declaring war upon a neighbor and severing all humane connections, why did he suddenly conduct two months of romance with the same adversary? The explanation is not far to seek.

The war’s colossal expenditure broke Pakistan’s fragile economy, compounded by American sanctions. However much this impoverished neighbor might play the game of war with India, at day’s end its kitchen fires cannot burn without Indian onions and tomatoes. After Kargil, India’s embargo on imports and exports deepened the scarcity of daily necessities within Pakistan, compelling the General to attempt friendship again. The old proverb has become flesh there: “If the belly is full, the back can bear.”
 
America and Pakistan
 
The very America that had contributed most to Pakistan’s military strength has, over the past five to seven years, turned increasingly hostile. One reason: Osama bin Laden and the swelling ranks of separatist and fundamentalist forces finding shelter in Pakistan. Another: American corporations, driven by profit, striving to seize India’s vast consumer society. As India’s internal market slowly opened, the United States lunged to capture it. How then could Pakistan retain strategic importance in Washington’s eyes?
 
Thus, the flow of generous financial aid dried up, crippling Pakistan — for it was chiefly through this foreign assistance that its army and its fundamentalists had drawn strength. Hence, the General who seized power in a coup found himself from the very first entangled in the democratic snare cast by the First World.
 
History of Coups
 
It is worth remembering that two or three times before, Pakistan’s democratic governments had been overthrown by military coups. Then, America had not deserted them; its opportunistic foreign policy kept them afloat, for Washington’s primary aim was to counter Soviet-friendly India. In other words, South Asian politics and diplomacy have always revolved around America’s convenience.
Whether the General truly desires peace or not, he now dons the mask of peacemaker in hopes of pleasing America, lifting sanctions, and saving himself.
 
India’s Concerns
 
In truth, Kashmir is far less a headache for India today. New Delhi has no interest in reopening dialogue on the subject, for the contemporary political landscape — America, Russia, the entirety of Europe — leans toward India. Terrorism has established itself as one of the world’s foremost threats; powerful nations now scrutinize everything through its shadow. In this, India has raced several steps ahead of Pakistan. Thus, no notion of an “independent Kashmir” shall find priority in India’s negotiations. The problem is not what it was twenty years ago. India no longer lends ear to those frayed arguments.
 
The Prime Minister’s Motives
 
Hence the Prime Minister’s aim was not to obtain any certificate from America — such certificates are already secure in India’s grasp. His aim was economic progress, to fortify India’s place upon the global stage. Indeed, freedom from the terrorism imposed by Pakistan in Kashmir remains India’s principal international objective.
 
Some observers say the Prime Minister also sought to distract ordinary citizens from domestic troubles and to rescue his party from the threat of rout in the upcoming Uttar Pradesh elections — for which a fraction of the Muslim vote was indispensable. The world knows well: for India’s Muslims, Pakistan is an emotive symbol. The Prime Minister’s mask was therefore rich with implication. Yet one truth cannot be denied: however hard the BJP may strive, the Muslim vote in this land of Nehru’s educated heirs will never flow into its ballot box. Muslims vote as Indians, not as Muslims — to imagine otherwise is folly. Even within the BJP, doubts abound on this score.
 
The Kashmir Question
 
Another motive worked upon both sides — the desire to inscribe their names in history. Thus, the hasty Agra summit had multiple layers of purpose. But all politically conscious minds knew the result could never be so easily achieved. The General and the Prime Minister must be gently reminded: this land was divided not for bread or freedom, but for religion and language. Kashmir is neither India’s nor Pakistan’s question of livelihood, nor of liberty. It is a political wound inflicted by Nehru, sustained by the Abdullahs, and perpetuated for dynastic and political loot.
 
What “patriotic emotion” do leaders invoke? Whose emotion? Beyond religion, what truly lies behind it? How many crores of Indian taxpayers’ rupees are spent each year to keep Kashmir tethered to India under Article 370? Why is Article 370 not repealed, to make Kashmir self-reliant like other Indian states? Why must the interests of two or three families hold an entire valley hostage forever? What would Kashmir gain by merging with a fundamentalist, impoverished Pakistan? What if independence turns it into a Chinese military colony? None of this ensures freedom or livelihood for the Kashmiris. The issue is not bread or independence — it is politics, and the perpetuation of dynastic privilege.
 
The Mask of Patriotism
 
For decades, politicians and intellectuals have painted Kashmir with needless political and religious colors, misleading the people. The time has come to reject such falsehoods. Yet this falsification of sentiment over a patch of land is not new in history. Many nations have witnessed the same: turning territory into a communal fiefdom, excluding other communities, and inflaming nationalism, patriotism, religious frenzy. Always the same deceit.
 
If religion had not been used to divide India and Pakistan, if difference had not been constantly proclaimed, then ordinary people would surely have asked: why are we separate? Why only because of religion — which was never the reason for humanity?
 
The Price of War
 
I once read an economic report: the money India and Pakistan spend each year competing in arms races would suffice to provide higher education and modern healthcare to every citizen of both nations. One-third of India’s revenue, three-fifths of Pakistan’s, vanish into this abyss of weaponry. Is it not astonishing? Is it not bitter to the heart?
 
And when the General and the Prime Minister once more raise the old refrain of patriotic emotion, I see their faces and their masks together. Behind them loom the scarred visages of history: Jinnah and Nehru, Bhutto and Indira. In the shadows, Mountbatten and his wife. Above all, the pale Mahatma himself, who fancied himself divine — his role in this chaos was not slight. I see also the riots of Calcutta in 1946, Jyoti Basu on one side, and Suhrawardy — the architect of the Great Calcutta Killing — on the other. I see Jinnah, Nehru, and Mountbatten at their round table, deciding the formula of emotion that would forever enslave common people, so their heirs might feast upon the land in perpetuity.
 
Endless Summit, Endless Sacrifice
 
That round table never adjourned. The summit still continues.
 
Ordinary soldiers will die in Kargil; ordinary men and women will perish in riots. And these ordinary ones shall never know why they fought, why they died. What was the meaning of their sacrifice? Why did Hindus riot against Muslims, and Muslims against Hindus? Leaders will chant: patriotism, faith. But those with discerning minds know: it is only to keep political leaders in power that thousands upon thousands are consigned to death, their ashes left in the cremation grounds.

And today, the subcontinent itself stands upon that very ash.