Peace, for people

It is true that people don’t make policy, governments do. And the people in many governments do not necessarily reflect the hopes, aspirations and needs of the people of the country at large. It is not surprising, therefore, that very often governments are influenced by dominant ruling elites rather than the people. It may also be argued that governments are responsible for pursuing policies ostensibly to promote national interests, the intricacies of which people may not fully grasp and hence are unable to play a meaningful role in their pursuit. But no one should forget for a moment that people are inevitably affected by those policies, often in a negative way. This is why governments that are sensitive to the wishes of the people — like those of established democracies — normally pursue policies that accord high priority to people’s aspirations.

It is in this context that we need to see the pack of a dozen cards freshly dealt out by New Delhi to Pakistan for improving relations between the two countries. By their very nature the measures proposed are not meant to produce quick results; and nor do they in any case undermine the known positions of either government. They, however, go well beyond any concept of confidence building measures broached so far since they seek to create conditions for easier and closer people-to-people contact between the two countries. There is a large Muslim population on either side which has relatives living across the borders, and there are numerous holy places that the people in both countries may wish to visit in the neighbouring country. The biggest casualty of the deterioration of India-Pakistan relations in recent times has been the squeezing of opportunities for such contacts for ordinary people on both sides.

One can only hope that Islamabad would respond positively to these proposals and not allow them to be bogged down in a foreign policy of negativism. The cynics in India may well say that these proposals are beamed at the Indian Muslims to create a feel-good factor on the eve of elections. The elites across the border may also see some devious agenda in most of them, except perhaps that of playing cricket since its resumption would save its own cricket from economic collapse. But both sides would need to see these beyond such a narrow framework for what they can do for peace and people in future. The pragmatic may say that these would take a long time to effect any change in attitudes. But that cannot be an argument for not doing anything and allowing more time to be wasted on puerile posturing. There is no need to punish the people simply to chase the mirage of a fruitless foreign policy that is not going anywhere.