India might be the rising global power of South Asia, but it is the country’s north-westerly neighbour which is currently holding the world’s gaze. A series of incredible events in Pakistan, including the attacks on Sri Lanka’s cricket team, the truce with the ‘good’ Taliban in the swat valley and the re-installation of the chief justice have all grabbed the world’s attention.
Indeed, even when the focus seems squarely on India – such as with the terror attacks in Mumbai last year – it has ended up drawn to Pakistan. Investigations into those attacks are now focused on India’s neighbour, with evidence suggesting Pakistani nationals were to blame. Policymakers too seem to be drawn to India’s neighbour, demonstrated by Obama’s appointment of a single representative on both Afghanistan and Pakistan, doubly significant given the priority his administration has given to Afghanistan.
But while Pakistan may recently have leapt into our consciousness in Europe and the US, it has always been on the agenda here. Indeed, in the months I’ve been in India, Pakistan has dominated the news agenda keeping gory serial killers, squabbling politicians and even Oscar glory firmly off the top spot. Why? Because India and Pakistan are intimately intertwined.
Until 1947 India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were one country. But in the decades leading up to independence many Muslims campaigned for their own state. To the last Viceroy, ‘partition’ appeared to provide the most peaceful route out of India for the British; and most Indian politicians were willing – when push came to shove – to accept it as the cost of independence. But it unleashed massive violence – some estimate up to two million died in the largest migration in human history, with Muslims moving into Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs moving out. The pain and recriminations the process sparked still reverberate today.
But partition also created one particularly thorny problem – Kashmir. At independence large parts of India were still nominally ruled by princes who had to decide which nation to join. The Kashmiri prince was Hindu but the majority of his people were Muslim. The result? He prevaricated, dreaming of independence. His bubble was quickly burst with invasion from Pakistan and he called on India to repel the Pakistanis. India has remained ever since. Neither side will budge, and it is easy to see why. Pakistan sees uniting Muslim majority areas as its raison d’etre; and India is equally firm because keeping Kashmir demonstrates India’s secular credentials.
But the problems Kashmir has created are huge, for both India and Pakistan. Pakistani attachment to Kashmir is one reason that successive governments have supported or failed to clamp down on Islamic terrorist groups – these groups are the main weapon Pakistan uses to wage war in Kashmir. But to nurture them the Pakistani state promoted radicalisation and jihad, and once unleashed, these forces couldn’t be contained. Culturally this divided state institutions. Some army officers, intelligence officers and politicians are on board with and drive this radical agenda, whilst some are against, and many walk a tightrope simply focused on staying in power. And the groups’ reach has grown and grown – some fought with the Taliban, some attack ‘un-Islamic’ domestic targets (such as minority sects or schools teaching girls), and some have waged war at the heart of India, as in Mumbai. So whilst terror might have been promoted to try to extend the control of the Pakistani state into Kashmir, the result has been the opposite – a divided and diminished state.
But there is one issue that does continue to unite most parties – not letting go of Kashmir. Coming to some resolution on Kashmir then is key to tackling many of the issues the world – and India – want Pakistan to address – the lack of democracy, the over-reaching role of the army, and the support (at least on some parts) for terrorist groups.
So what is India’s response, and how is this playing out in the election campaign? Security (often a by-word for relations with Pakistan) is perhaps the top electoral issue. But the parties’ proposals are generally less than convincing. Many of the ideas (such as the issuing of new ID cards and putting diplomatic pressure on Pakistan) might be helpful in reducing India’s vulnerability in the short run – especially given increased US involvement in the region. But fundamentally all the proposals feel designed to be useful electorally, rather than to provide the bold, new ideas which are surely needed to get beyond current entrenched positions. And that surely involves, sooner or later, addressing Kashmir.