India and Pakistan Are Embarrassing South Asians Globally
Omair Ahmad
I generally do not write on Pakistan because of the principle, “Not my circus, not my monkeys,” but the competing delegations that India and Pakistan sent globally to argue their case after the recent conflict are an embarrassment for all South Asians. They will also exact a heavy cost on all of those living in the region, and need to be called out for the problems that they are creating.
There are three major international issues in the world today. People will rank them differently given their preferences, but they are: Israel’s eliminationist war against the Palestinians, Putin’s annexationist war in Ukraine, and the runaway impacts of climate change.
These are facilitated by, and are exacerbating, the collapse of global norms in which the US, China and a group of tech financiers are playing a leading role. All of these, in their different ways, will impact South Asia, where a quarter of the world’s population lives. The average income of this population of about 2 billion people is around $2,000 per annum, less than a sixth of the global average. While most of the countries have made great strides since the end of the colonial era, there is a long way to go before any country can take its eyes off the poverty in which the vast majority of South Asians live.
The greatest need of the greatest number in this region is a future that is better than this one. This requires an international system where South Asians can help create, and partake in, global innovation, a system of rules and laws adhered to by all, and peace regionally and globally. Instead, we have the spectacle of two large nuclear-armed countries putting on a sordid show that no country on earth (with the possible exception of China having its weapons systems being field tested) is even interested in.
We need to acknowledge that India cannot merely bludgeon Pakistan into agreement (witness our blockade of Nepal, which had a much smaller population and no nuclear weapons, and its outcome). Pakistan, of course, is in an even weaker position to try and influence India (witness Pakistan’s struggles with Afghanistan, a much smaller and weaker state). Neither country is easily influenced by outside actors. India brags non-stop of how we shrugged off American pressure during the 1971 war. Much more recently, we have seen Pakistan follow its own path in Afghanistan despite the whole pressure of NATO and much of the international system.
Kashmir is too important for both India and Pakistan to do anything under international influence except take cosmetic steps. The world has been able to do nothing about Cyprus, divided between the Greek-speaking republic and Turkey for decades, or even sort out the problems in Bosnia three decades after the ruinous Balkans wars. These are only two conflicts of the many that dot the world, of which most Indians or Pakistanis know or care little. Despite how important it may be for us, most of the world cares and knows just as little about Indian and Pakistani hostilities.
Given these realities, what are the competing delegations likely to achieve?
Clarifying national objectives to the global system is important, and it helps to influence a vote here or there, but when the whole international system itself is threatened, these seem like exceedingly petty achievements. The world is likely to just suggest that India and Pakistan sort it out themselves, and shrug their shoulders as poor Indians and Pakistanis continue to kill each other. What has been reported about our gains is meagre stuff indeed. The reality is that the world is largely happy that the heightened conflict died down after four days of intense violence. India heard lots of platitudes about states being against terrorism (which country will say otherwise?) and Pakistan heard some platitudes about resolving things through dialogue and transparent accountability (again, which country will say anything different?). Other than this, the delegations returned home, empty-handed.
More importantly, as the rules of war and trade are under strain, India and Pakistan are adding to the problems, not helping solve them. Neither will be seen in a good light, as stabilisers of order. India, as the biggest country and the biggest economy in South Asia, will be seen as a country that cannot manage its own security or its neighbourhood despite loud proclamations of global leadership. Pakistan, already seen as problematic for its decades of military dominated governance and its history in Afghanistan, will just be seen as a recalcitrant state. Given their size and influence in South Asia, the region will be dismissed as a place where corrupt and ineffective governments choose warmongering over solving the problems of their citizens, the region, and the world. This may seem unfair to the other countries of Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, the Maldives and Afghanistan, but let’s face it, they have their own problems.
By going abroad to complain about their neighbours instead of sorting out their problems between each other, or within the region, India and Pakistan are furthering the old racist assumption that after the retreat of colonialism the region would descend into violence and anarchy. The truth is that the region has, despite its many failures, been much more peaceful and much more prosperous under sovereign rule. Despite wars between countries and conflicts within, the states have made fantastic progress on everything from basic literacy and hygiene to infant and maternal mortality rate. People live longer, are more technically qualified, and produce far more than they did under colonialism. The shining cities in the Gulf countries, the health systems in Europe, or even the technology companies in the US all benefit from a large, hard-working, and well-educated diaspora from South Asia. Nepal, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan are among the top 5 contributors of UN peacekeeping forces.
Despite our many problems – and the fact that South Asians rush to work abroad is a symptom of that – we are a substantial source of good in the world, contributing labour, education, literature, health, innovation, and stability. All of this is threatened by the undermining of international rules by powers big and small, through conflicts, trade wars, rising xenophobia and the disastrous impact of climate change. South Asia’s contribution to a peaceable and prosperous world is under-counted, and South Asians are often overlooked or treated shabbily, not least by how the world has shrugged off its responsibility to help us adapt to a burning world. We are persevering nonetheless, and that should be our calling card.
More importantly, through the comprehensive dialogue between India and Pakistan – critically wounded by the 2008 attacks on Bombay – we had a long period where India saw a fall in militancy in Kashmir and Pakistan was able to represent itself as a responsible actor easing the burden on its strained economy. The regression from that high point to where we are now is appalling, and exactly what the terrorists (and their backers) hoped for from the murder spree in Bombay. We can continue to reward them and hurt ourselves and our wider region, or we can find a different way of dealing with the situation. Until we do, our contributions to the world will remain unrecognised, and our ability to actually change things for the better will remain extremely limited. We are not the problem for the world, and we should not present ourselves as such.
It has been more than 75 years since our tryst with destiny, when we rejected foreign rule and condescension. It is about time we grew up.
Omair Ahmad is an author. His last novel, Jimmy the Terrorist, was shortlisted for the Man Asian Literary Prize, and won the Crossword Award.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
