In symbolic terms, there is little to match this story. A two-year-old girl child in dire need of heart surgery rides the first bus after the road link between Delhi and Lahore is resumed. Her parents articulate the need for better ties between the two countries in spite of the intractable position of their respective governments and half a century of violent hostility. Her doctors in Bangalore reaffirm the most essential principle of their profession: That the right to healthcare is an inviolable part of the universal right to life and that the human body is the human body no matter which region of the globe it emanates from. Ordinary people, within the country and across the world, who are following Noor’s progress, spontaneously express their concern for her well-being as she goes under the surgeon’s knife. The baby recovers and smiles at the world, with her hair tied up in a jaunty little “fountain” and with her new “happy heart”. This is a script choreographed by life and no Bollywood writer could have done a better job. The Noor story is special, so let us count the ways in which it is so. First, it is an early portent of ordinary people in the region in search of better life choices taking their destinies into their hands regardless of external realities. Two, it indicates that people today are linked by new forms of communication; that information technology has the power to dramatically alter the way individuals interact with each other across geographic and political divides. This gives them access to new opportunities and support systems. Three, it highlights once again the potential of cooperation between nations in the South Asian region. This, after all, is a region that the Pakistani development economist, the late Dr Mahub ul Haq, had characterised as the poorest, most illiterate, most malnourished, least gender sensitive, and the most militarised in the world. Yet it could transform itself into a powerhouse rivaling East Asia if only it acquires the political and economic sense to make common use of the unique resources of all the nations in the region for the good of each nation. Four, it illustrates again the potential of the media in setting the terms of discourse on the Indo-Pak relationship. The Noor story was narrated largely through front page reports and television footage. Five, it helps to defeat the project of terrorist outfits that wish nothing more than to keep the cauldron of public anger and hatred on the boil on both sides of the border. Finally, it is an instance of a civil society initiative influencing government policy, rather than the other way around. Last week, the Indian government announced that as a “gesture of friendship towards the people of Pakistan” it would bear the cost of travel, stay and medical treatment of 20 Pakistani children. It certainly would not have done this if it had not been pushed into doing so by the groundswell of public support for little Noor. Of course, this immediately drew predictable murmurs of disapproval from those who have consciously set their mental thermostats at sub-zero levels and who routinely bait the “candlewallahs” at the Wagah border and the “bleeding hearts” of Friends Colony. What about Indian children with heart problems, they ask pointedly (not that they ever thought of them very much) — as if the entire health outlay of India would now be expended in caring for 20 Pakistani kids! What these homegrown hawks do not realise, or choose not to realise, is that their vision of the nation state — inflexible in its pursuit of a narrowly defined notion of “national interest”, one that is not shy of mobilising armies and launching preemptive strikes — is history. From Baghdad, the US has just ruthlessly messaged the world that “preemption” and the settling of disputes by the use of force is the prerogative of the world’s sole superpower alone. As for the rest, they had better hunker down and get embedded in its international security strategy. Should not this development, if nothing else, drive our neocons to rethink their positions and consider more seriously the dividends that bilateral initiatives between India and Pakistan would bring to both nations, and the region? Let’s take a hard look at this neighbourhood. Figures culled from the recent Human Development Report 2003 will tell you just how far down the road both India and Pakistan would have to travel if they are to bring about a qualitative difference to their people’s lives. To begin with, among 175 nations of the world, India and Pakistan are presently placed in the 127th and 144th position respectively. While people can expect to live until they are 63.3 years in India, life expectancy in Pakistan is 60.4. Literacy levels are pathetic — 58 per cent in India and 44 per cent in Pakistan. As for undernourished people, they form 24 per cent and 19 per cent of the population in the two countries. But the real human vulnerability of the subcontinent becomes obvious when the state of children comes into view. Some 47 per cent Indian and 38 per cent Pakistani children are underweight. Only 43 per cent of births are attended by skilled health personnel in India, while the figure is 20 per cent in Pakistan. One of the consequences of this is the unconscionably high levels of infant mortality. For the year 2001, 67 infants in a 1,000 died at birth in India, and 84 in Pakistan. The under-five mortality is also high at 93 and 109 respectively. Each child that has died for reasons that are totally preventable is an argument for why both India and Pakistan need to work together to transform the social dynamics of the region. Once, when asked by the novelist Amitav Ghosh whether a nuclear war is possible between the two countries, Pakistan’s civil liberties activist, Asma Jehangir, shot back: “Anything is possible because our policies are irrational. Our decision-making is ad hoc. We are surrounded by disinformation. We have a historical enmity and the emotionalism of jihad against each other. And we are fatalistic nations who believe that whatever happens is the will of God. Our decision-making is done by a few people on both sides.” While her assessment may be accepted as fairly accurate, hopefully history will prove that her conclusion was completely over-the-top. But that would depend a great deal on whether two governments and their people see the light, or noor by another name.
