Kuldip Nayar: Disconnecting people by 'hastening slowly'

As in journalism, a new cliché has come to be included in the lexicon of India-Pakistan relations. It is "hastening slowly". Some years ago, it was the "step-by-step" approach. Then the "core issue" held ground for a long time. Such worn out phrases are easy to reach to cover the subject without saying anything specific. It is understandable that nothing but clichés can be used until elections in India are over.

Still, the two sides can at least hasten steps to facilitate people-to-people contact, exchange newspapers and literature and scrutinise history books. These steps will provide them with a firm foundation without which India-Pakistan relations may come to naught at the very first serious difference.

A maverick too can spoil the relationship, so can a terrorist's bullet or bomb. Apparently, the secretary-level meeting at Islamabad did not appreciate the importance of equations among people.

All that is happening is a result of people-to-people contacts. The governments have done their worst to stall it and run down the organisers. Such efforts are a must if the two countries have to achieve even a modicum of normalisation.

Strangely, the mindset of the bureaucracy has changed very little. The same old rigidity prevails in issuing visas and the same old enemy phobia persists in what pervades through official media.

People believe that the governments are increasingly in the way of further contacts. Last week, one retired Pakistani judge had to report to the police on arrival in New Delhi. For some reason, his wife was spared from the rigours of reporting. Pakistan stopped two top Indian lawyers from crossing the border at Wagah, although they were above 65 and fell under the "exempt" category.

For the foreign office mandarins on both sides, even the joint settlement is one more agreement which will in due course go the Tashkent and Shimla way. They honestly believe that if they were to relax visa restrictions, spies would travel without any hindrance as if the latter use check posts to cross the border. Per force, visa applications are forwarded to Islamabad and New Delhi for processing.

Invariably, clearance is late. The public does not know know what it takes to get a visa. The first hurdle is in obtaining the application form itself. You either pay a travel agent or stand in an unending queue to get the form. If the applicant does not get special attention, he or she has to wait for several weeks. That is the time the home ministries on both sides normally take to check the antecedents of an applicant.

Even when a visa is given, it is generally for one city. The maximum is three. In contrast, visitors from the west get visas for the entire country. They do not have to report to the police on arrival. None of them is harassed as the people from across the border are.

The High Commissions on both sides complain that they do not have adequate staff. Not long ago, the two governments increased the number but it was not sufficient. Islamabad did suggest going back to the strength that was prevailing before the deterioration of relations. But India did not agree. Despite the delays and other difficulties, the people's enthusiasm has not waned.

By keeping the two apart, the governments on both sides have, however, been able to stoke the fires of misinformation and mistrust. They have sowed the seeds of enmity. This has led to hostilities. What the establishments should ask themselves is how far such tactics have helped them or lessened the difficulties facing their peoples?

A study, entitled "Cost of Conflict between India and Pakistan" says that India has the potential to raise its GDP from seven per cent to over 10 per cent provided it has stable relations with Pakistan. Similarly, the report says, the ability of Pakistan to loosen itself from the grip of extremist religious forces depends on, among other things, relations with India.

For reasons difficult to fathom, the exchange of newspapers and books, an innocuous step, is nowhere near implementation. The decision was first taken at Tashkent in 1966, repeated at Shimla in 1972 and re-enunciated at Lahore in 1999.

History books in Pakistan are a discourse on prejudices. School textbooks say that in the entire history of the subcontinent no other dynasty acquired as much importance as the Mughals. The Hindu period is dismissed in one sentence.

In India, the evangelist Murli Manohar Joshi, is re-writing history to placate Hindutva zealots. The University Grants Commission, UGC, which doles out money to universities is his instrument for destroying education which has been reflecting India's diversity. He has already ousted the Gandhian institutions because they had refused to toe his line. The vandalism carried out at Varanasi and Pune is the result of Joshi's biased interpretation of Indian culture.

The secretary-level meeting should have attended to such issues. "Hastening slowly" may be an interesting form of expression. But it contributes little towards people-to-people contact.

In any case, the India-Pakistan relationship should not be allowed to slide from the stage it has reached. For the first time, even a hawk like Home Minister L. K. Advani has admitted publicly that the thaw between India and Pakistan has had a favourable effect on relations between Hindus and Muslims.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian high commissioner to the UK and a former Rajya Sabha MP. He can be contacted at knayar@gulfnews.com