[Kashmir Times, April 18, 2005]
Priorities in India, Pakistan relations
By Sandeep Pandey
When we reached Phillaur from Ludhiana we met the first resistance
to our position on Kashmir during the Peace March. Our host here was
Mr. Johal, president of the committee which runs the Gurudwara where
we were to stay. He registered his protest as soon as we reached
Phillaur saying that our position that the Kashmir issue must be
resolved according to the wishes of people of J&K was not acceptable
to him as it was a position which favoured Pakistan. He was of the
view that Kashmir was an integral part of India and only Indians had
a right to decide about the future of Kashmir. It was obviously a
narrow nationalist position held by him and shared by few people in
the country. The meeting was being held in a Hanuman temple.
He snatched our signature campaign sheet and started striking out
the statement on Kahsmir. He was stopped from doing this after two
sheets as he was told that there were other people who had signed
the sheets who did not share his opinion on Kashmir and instead
agreed with the position of the Peace March. The peace marchers
tried to avoid getting into an unpleasant situation with their host
for the evening. They tried to reason with him but he was not in a
mood to listen to any other point of view.
In the night after the dinner at the Gurudwara his associates joined
a meeting that we were holding to discuss how to tackle such a
situation in future. Another round of discussion took place on
Kashmir and we tried to reason with them that the any possible
humane solution to the problem must involve the people from J&K. We
explained that the narrow nationalist view held by Indians from
outside Kashmir, or for that matter Pakistanis outside Kashmir, was
born out of feudal mindset and in a world in which people were more
sensitive to human rights violations and also democratic way of
thinking, the conventional nationalist Indian and Pakistani view
could not be imposed on the people of Kashmir. Also, in a world
where economic policy of globalization was taking over, the concept
of nation state was weakening and even the two Governments probably
realize that staying ahead in economic development was more
important than in arms race, taking away pressure from the
governments to make a prestige issue out of Kashmir. It was also
pointed out that the traditional concept of nationalism was not
shared by a major section of the society including dalits, tribals,
women, and other marginalized sections, who were busy with more
basic struggles for life and livelihood than engage with the
question of national pride. They, for example, were not likely to
feel the same enthusiasm if India were to beat Pakistan in a game of
Cricket compared to people who were close to the ruling class. We
don't know whether this discussion had any affect on the associates
of Mr. Johal but he did come to see us off in the morning and seemed
to be more calm than the previous evening. He had probably accepted
the difference in point of view held by him and us and had
reconciled himself with this fact.
Our march while it was in Ludhiana was shown on the national TV
Doordarshan news. As we were walking from Phillaur to Phagwara a
man, Paramjit, who was in the business of buying and selling
buffaloes, after recognizing us came over from the other side of the
road and stopped us. He expressed his happiness that such a march
was taking place and confidently told us that we were going to get
visas to cross over into Pakistan. At that time we knew that the
Pakistani government had dashed all our hopes by refusing to allow
marchers from Pakistan to cross over into India. But Paramjit's
resolve reflected the opinion of common people that people should be
allowed to cross the border freely. Little did we know then that two
days later the Internal Ministry of Pakistan would actually grant
permission to the Pakistani marchers to join the march. This has
also opened the possibility of us going to Pakistan and realizing
our dream of a joint march through the territories of India and
Pakistan and jointly crossing the Wagha.
As we were walking out of Phagwara towards Jalandhar a man came from
behind on a bicycle and got down from his bicycle after stopping
next to me. Surjit Singh earns his living as a Tadi Kirtan singer.
His wife is also in the same vocation. He first congratulated us on
taking out this march. He told me that he had signed our signature
campaign which my colleague Chandralekha from Hardoi District of
U.P. was carrying walking behind me. He then offered a suggestion
with which I was pleasantly surprised.
He said that the third point in the signature campaign, about
allowing people from two countries to meet freely and, if possible,
doing away with Passport-Visa system, should have a higher priority
than the first two points. The first point was about two sides
resolving their disputes peacefully through dialogue, including the
issue of Kashmir according to the wishes of people of J&K and the
second point was about doing away with nuclear weapons, land mines
and reducing the defence budgets so that resources could be spent on
development of poor people on both sides of the border. Surjit's
argument was that for the common people from India and Pakistan the
third point was closest to their heart and it was also probably the
easiest for the two Governments to agree to.
The impact that this could have would also create an atmosphere
where the Governments will find it easier to make progress on the
first two points. I looked at him in admiration and promised him
that I would mention his views in an article. I'm truly impressed by
the understanding of Surjit Singh who is a representative of the
common people. Only somebody like him could have thought like this
because we intellectuals often cannot free ourselves from our
preferences and biases. I'm glad I met Surjit Singh, the Tadi Kirtan
singer, on my way and thank him for educating me about the
priorities of issues as common people see it. I kept cursing myself
why I could not see this simple logic when I was drafting the
signature campaign text. Anyway, we're glad that we've collected
over 5000 signatures on this statement and so far and except for Mr.
Johal, nobody seems to have any problems with the point of view that
we're putting forward during the India Pakistan Peace March.
