Ideological obsessions
One needs to peel off some basic layers of thought processes that have popped up in both the countries
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and he tweets @LegalSubtleties
How can millions of inhabitants of a geographically defined territory be steered into hating and despising millions of other people living beyond their boundaries that they have never met? Is it pompous gallantry or nadir incivility in 21st century to openly threat ‘nuking’ and ‘annihilating’ millions of other people? Is the world meant to be doomed because of intransigent positions of certain militarily resourceful states that consider each other as perpetual ‘enemies’? Should the shared natural resources be allowed to become tools of conflict? Can religious sentiments be unendingly roused to ensure steady supply of military manpower? And must love for one’s own land be taken to a point where one becomes blindsided to bigger picture of inflicting unimaginable harm on collective humanity?
As India and Pakistan once again draw guns at each other and brazenly talk of sizes and destructive powers of missiles in their arsenals, one is starkly reminded of certain questions that stand parallel to accusations of human rights abuses in Kashmir by India, purported use of non-state proxies by Pakistan to instigate violence in India or even the issues of abject level of poverty and challenging conditions of most people living in this region. These questions need to be boldly put forth before the candid sections that still exist on both sides of the Indo-Pak border. In time, this may help inject reason when political leaders are openly spewing hate against each other, crazy jingoism is constantly hurled from media outlets of respective states and when otherwise educated and seemingly reasonable people are surprisingly found war mongering and justifying use of weapons of total devastation.
Like an onion, one needs to peel off some basic layers of thought processes that have popped up in both the countries.
The classic scholarship of nationalism in near approximation entails that distinct characteristic; religious & cultural norms; customs; and social practices of a populace over a period of indefinite years, through a process of evolution, can forge a society that is unique on own and thus can desire to permanently continue living by making a pronounced political expression. Perchance, the people can have blind obsession about the nationhood and must die for the land and own people if there is an outside aggression of any form. This thought has long provided ideological fodder to soldiers who stand poised in harshest of weathers and toughest of terrains to strike at threats emerging from other side of the wall. There is another nuance to it as well. Nationalism taken to an extreme level can also make people believe that they have some exclusivity attached to them and the rest others are all less of nations and humans. The paranoia with owns history doesn’t allow thinking ‘out of the box’ and constant rants and referral points are about distinctiveness. The constitutional vocabulary and political realities stand in deep contrast with each other. The horrors of Second World War have lucid shades of such radical nationalism.
An equally dangerous idea that runs analogous to hyper-nationalism is of a religious state. This notion attempt to forge people of similar faith under a divinely ordained call and attach exclusivity to them because of a shared belief set with afterlife benefits. The militaries under such ideological territory are pumped, roused and conditioned into believing that their muscle might and cult are interlinked. The other religions are inferior if not wrong and thus all others should either become vassal to their faith or be coerced to convert. Any state that does not subscribe to their ideology or help advance their cause is ostensibly deemed threat. More so, other nations who also have predominantly similar religious belief set, if not abetting with them in advancing the ‘collective’ goal should be disciplined. The sentimental values are aroused in inter-state relations and any ideas of human welfare are simply ignored. The perceived ‘glory of faith’ and its protection becomes pretentious mission of such state and every form of dissent is deemed an act of treason that must be quashed. Anyone who does not follow the mainstream is persecuted, prosecuted and pushed away to perish. This too, like hyper-nationalism, is a self-destructive and suicidal path.
India and Pakistan that carved out their existence, along with many other states across the planet, in the mid-20th century, as a consequential outcome of the Second World War and global decolonisation process took such varied path. While the former turned itself into an epitome of hyper-nationalism trumpeting its incredibleness and shinny past, the later metamorphosed into a self-obsessed and overtly righteous religious state. As a consequence, the weight of their respective ideologies that they promoted within their societies has only burdened their people and compromised the statecraft’s ability to engage with each other to proactively resolve conflicts. It would have been easier if the blood spill didn’t occur at the moment of their birth, the scars of which still bursts every now and then. So now, each time when both the states lock horns, they further compromise their ability to look inward, fails to rationalise realities and simply rush back for refuge in their ideology boxes. The noises they make from those positions have no sense attached to it.
So what does the crystal ball suggests from this point onwards:
The framework of international institutions, economic interdependencies and unparalleled military advancements has reduced the threat of big war. The international mood is also not favourable towards redrawing of borders anymore. Any indigenous ‘freedom’ struggles, no matter how legitimate, are also not likely to receive broader support from the outside world. The only thing that would certainly remain in at least foreseeable future of subcontinent is: continuous use of proxies by both states to inflict harm on each other; rash and abrasive statements from political and social sections; frenzied media loathing the other side; diplomatic hyperboles; less meaningful interactions; un-faced and unresolved issues; and eventually great lot of populace hating each other, even more.
Once again, the ideologies will be sufficient to take care of poverty, population and disease.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 5th, 2016.
As India and Pakistan once again draw guns at each other and brazenly talk of sizes and destructive powers of missiles in their arsenals, one is starkly reminded of certain questions that stand parallel to accusations of human rights abuses in Kashmir by India, purported use of non-state proxies by Pakistan to instigate violence in India or even the issues of abject level of poverty and challenging conditions of most people living in this region. These questions need to be boldly put forth before the candid sections that still exist on both sides of the Indo-Pak border. In time, this may help inject reason when political leaders are openly spewing hate against each other, crazy jingoism is constantly hurled from media outlets of respective states and when otherwise educated and seemingly reasonable people are surprisingly found war mongering and justifying use of weapons of total devastation.
Like an onion, one needs to peel off some basic layers of thought processes that have popped up in both the countries.
The classic scholarship of nationalism in near approximation entails that distinct characteristic; religious & cultural norms; customs; and social practices of a populace over a period of indefinite years, through a process of evolution, can forge a society that is unique on own and thus can desire to permanently continue living by making a pronounced political expression. Perchance, the people can have blind obsession about the nationhood and must die for the land and own people if there is an outside aggression of any form. This thought has long provided ideological fodder to soldiers who stand poised in harshest of weathers and toughest of terrains to strike at threats emerging from other side of the wall. There is another nuance to it as well. Nationalism taken to an extreme level can also make people believe that they have some exclusivity attached to them and the rest others are all less of nations and humans. The paranoia with owns history doesn’t allow thinking ‘out of the box’ and constant rants and referral points are about distinctiveness. The constitutional vocabulary and political realities stand in deep contrast with each other. The horrors of Second World War have lucid shades of such radical nationalism.
An equally dangerous idea that runs analogous to hyper-nationalism is of a religious state. This notion attempt to forge people of similar faith under a divinely ordained call and attach exclusivity to them because of a shared belief set with afterlife benefits. The militaries under such ideological territory are pumped, roused and conditioned into believing that their muscle might and cult are interlinked. The other religions are inferior if not wrong and thus all others should either become vassal to their faith or be coerced to convert. Any state that does not subscribe to their ideology or help advance their cause is ostensibly deemed threat. More so, other nations who also have predominantly similar religious belief set, if not abetting with them in advancing the ‘collective’ goal should be disciplined. The sentimental values are aroused in inter-state relations and any ideas of human welfare are simply ignored. The perceived ‘glory of faith’ and its protection becomes pretentious mission of such state and every form of dissent is deemed an act of treason that must be quashed. Anyone who does not follow the mainstream is persecuted, prosecuted and pushed away to perish. This too, like hyper-nationalism, is a self-destructive and suicidal path.
India and Pakistan that carved out their existence, along with many other states across the planet, in the mid-20th century, as a consequential outcome of the Second World War and global decolonisation process took such varied path. While the former turned itself into an epitome of hyper-nationalism trumpeting its incredibleness and shinny past, the later metamorphosed into a self-obsessed and overtly righteous religious state. As a consequence, the weight of their respective ideologies that they promoted within their societies has only burdened their people and compromised the statecraft’s ability to engage with each other to proactively resolve conflicts. It would have been easier if the blood spill didn’t occur at the moment of their birth, the scars of which still bursts every now and then. So now, each time when both the states lock horns, they further compromise their ability to look inward, fails to rationalise realities and simply rush back for refuge in their ideology boxes. The noises they make from those positions have no sense attached to it.
So what does the crystal ball suggests from this point onwards:
The framework of international institutions, economic interdependencies and unparalleled military advancements has reduced the threat of big war. The international mood is also not favourable towards redrawing of borders anymore. Any indigenous ‘freedom’ struggles, no matter how legitimate, are also not likely to receive broader support from the outside world. The only thing that would certainly remain in at least foreseeable future of subcontinent is: continuous use of proxies by both states to inflict harm on each other; rash and abrasive statements from political and social sections; frenzied media loathing the other side; diplomatic hyperboles; less meaningful interactions; un-faced and unresolved issues; and eventually great lot of populace hating each other, even more.
Once again, the ideologies will be sufficient to take care of poverty, population and disease.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 5th, 2016.