Chapter 9: India-Pakistan Relations

Some Questions Regarding the Persistent Tension in Pakistan-India Relations. In response, derived from the discussion of the esteemed teacher, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.

First of all, it is important to understand that love for one’s homeland is inherent in human nature. It is in human nature to live life being connected to relationships. From birth to the last stage of life, a person experiences happiness and sorrow with these relationships. These relationships cultivate the love for the homeland within the person. I was born in one place, opened my eyes in a particular environment, walked and moved around on specific land, grew up in a certain house, played in some streets and markets, wandered through some fields and farms; there were people around me; among them were my parents, uncles, teachers, friends, and acquaintances. All of these collectively instilled a sense of connection in my nature. This is the feeling of love for the homeland. It is the same natural feeling as we experience in human relationships. That is why, just as we cannot separate ourselves from our parents, siblings, relatives, and friends even when we go to far-off places, similarly, we cannot separate ourselves from our homeland.

It is also a reality that due to these relationships, feelings of animosity and hostility are inherent in human nature. When a person feels friendship with someone, they give it a romantic form in their emotions, living and dying within it. When these relationships are disrupted, the motives for enmity and animosity arise within them, which often transform into hatred and can lead to discord and conflict.

Religion and morality work on the refinement of the emotions of love and enmity. That is, they instruct on how these sentiments of love and

enmity should be confined within certain boundaries. They guide which conditions make them legitimate and beneficial, and which transgressions turn them into oppression, aggression, and a cause of corruption on earth. To regulate the hostility and enmity that arise from national pride, the Qur’an commands the establishment of justice and emphasizes to Muslims that “let not the hatred of a people incite you to deviate from justice.”¹ When such animosity, based on nationalism, was expressed before the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), he described it as daʿwā al-jahiliyyah or “the call of ignorance,”² and on certain occasions, stated that “whoever fights for nationalism, calls towards nationalism, or is enraged by nationalism, and dies in this

state, has died a death of ignorance.”³

Through moral education and training, we essentially provide a boundary to the storms that rise within us. Emotions are akin to a turbulent sea, requiring a shoreline for control. Education, training, culture, and ethics provide this shoreline. In essence, when you mold a nation in a particular civilization, specific culture, and particular customs, many things fall into place. Religion also fulfils this role. Thus, we are informed about the nature of our enmity and the nature of our friendship. What are the boundaries of enmity and what are the boundaries of friendship?

The purpose of this explanation is to express that love for one’s homeland is inherent in human nature, and enmity towards the enemies of the homeland is a natural consequence of this inherent love. This love cannot be eradicated, nor should there be any attempt to do so. However, efforts should certainly be made through education and training to bring this love within the bounds of culture and ethics.

Hostility arising from love for one’s homeland often results in national disputes and international wars, leading to the destruction of peace in countries and opening the doors to chaos and discord in the

world. Now, the question arises, what is the way to safeguard against this? In the present era, the path that the collective human conscience has adopted is the adherence to two principles in national and political matters:

A democracy,

And the right to self-determination of other nations.

The history of nations in the past century testifies that wherever these principles have been adopted, an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation has prevailed, and wherever there has been a deviation from them, conflict and strife have dominated. Therefore, in my view, it is essential to adopt these two principles on a national and international level as part of the national ideology and political belief to end unrest and establish public peace: Firstly, the path of democracy should be chosen to change governments, and secondly, the right of self-determination of nations should be acknowledged at every level. This means that in any country, power will be held by the individual, group, or party that has the support of the majority of people. Decisions regarding the termination or change of power will also be made by the opinion of the public. In this matter, neither internal nor external forces will intervene. Similarly, if a nation resides in a specific region and, on this basis, demands a separate state, it will be accepted graciously. Emotional slogans, romantic tales, religious traditions, and authoritarian ideologies will not be allowed to hinder this. If these two principles are accepted in their true spirit, all the current disagreements and conflicts can immediately come to an end.

When Scotland demanded separation and autonomy from the United Kingdom, did any problem arise? Did the British government have to send seven hundred thousand troops there? Was there a storm of murder and mayhem? Were young lives taken there? Were such weapons used that seeing the result, life would become difficult for a person? None of this happened. The political parties there continued to contest elections and became part of the government. A referendum took place among them, the results of which everyone accepted wholeheartedly. In America, there is a long history of war,

meaning there is a civil war that led to the creation of this country. Many states agreed on a constitution to form this country. If you consider, it has been arranged in such a way that if any of these states wants to part ways, it can do so peacefully by a particular method.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah also advocated for Pakistan on the basis of these two principles. He adopted the democratic process for the transfer of power and, based on the principle of self-determination, made politicians realize that Muslims of India are a nation by every definition of nationhood, and they also have territory available in the northwestern and eastern regions of India. Therefore, their demand for a separate homeland should be accepted.

The conflict and tension between Pakistan and India, the wars and disputes observed, are essentially the result of not adhering to these principles. It doesn’t take long for a situation of life and death to emerge on both sides, borders are closed, and channels for the exchange of ideas are obstructed. The exchange of books becomes impossible, and the movement of individuals becomes challenging. This cycle began on the very first day and continues to this day. Every person can imagine the distress and difficulty this causes to the residents on both sides. On the other side, the Sikh community resides, whose sacred sites are all in Pakistan. Many institutions and historic landmarks of those on this side are there. On this basis, both are a necessity for each other, but the way relations should be between the two countries, the way people should travel, and the way mutual trade should occur, such a situation has never been realized.

Why was this not possible? The fundamental reason is that the principles of democracy and self-determination were not accepted with an open heart. It was said that the great India was divided, the motherland was slaughtered, and the nation was fragmented. These are all emotional interpretations, imaginary concepts that maintain a certain kind of romantic aura.

The issue of Kashmir has also arisen as a result of not recognizing these two principles. Kashmiris constitute a complete nation. In terms of nationality, they have maintained their distinct identity for centuries.

There is a defined and specific region where they have been settled for hundreds of years. Moreover, beyond this, Kashmir has long held the status of a separate state. Therefore, they should have the full right to either become part of a country of their choosing through their own free will or to organize themselves as an independent state. Neither India nor Pakistan should object to this. However, if their rights are not recognized, it results in the same oppression that has persisted for several decades.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the political leaders, journalists, and intellectuals of Pakistan and India to educate people that India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Arab states, or Iran are not sacred entities. These are merely political entities that have been established as a result of various political circumstances. The division of borders between them is neither eternal nor everlasting. These are human arrangements that have changed in the past and may continue to change in the future. Whether these entities are ancient themselves or have emerged by separating from an ancient unity, in both cases, their existence should be acknowledged. If any nation within them wishes to establish its own new entity, it should be supported and endorsed, and no obstacles should be placed in its path. In the modern era, there is no other path to international peace than this.

[February 2020]