It’s a nation that came into being with a separate home for ‘Indian’ Muslims (of Undivided India) at the behest of the call for hostility that primarily was a manifestation of a ploy by Jinnah and team to garner power and steal the show from the Congress back in 1930s. Ironically for Pakistan, the agenda that Jinnah had just after separation, of a tolerant society, lost its mark as Pakistan ushered towards Theocratization as Pakistan changed its constitution just after Bangladesh Liberation war in a bid to woo the Gulf ‘Friends’ under the pretext of an ‘Arab Parivar’ (Arab Family) even if the cultural commonness brings it close to being an alienated ‘Indian Parivar’.
The one common thing that became part of the legacy is an Anti-India Attitude that it inherited from the same leaders who vouched for the state of Pakistan. India was branded a ‘Hindu Nation’ despite the fact that the total Muslim population of India surpasses the entire population of Pakistan. In summary, the Hindu-Muslim feud took a political stance wherein the ‘Hindu’ was dragged into the fight against its will.
The obsession of Violence must have begun right after ‘Dicky Bird Plan’ of June 1947 which later translated into Radcliffe Division and an announcement for Dominions of India and Pakistan. The Kashmir war of 1947-48 was a manifestation of the theocratization of Pakistani Army. The decision to send Army guised as militants was an Army call and not a Political one marking necessarily a shift towards a doctrine which was to become a core principle of Pakistani Politics. The stance that Politics took after Army’s Adventures was also significant since Jinnah was completely sidelined and was virtually house-arrested in his Rawalpindi home and the ‘new leaders’ took to the helm supporting Army with whatever political and international needs they wanted.
Pakistani Political class was unaware of the fact that they were trying to tame a monster – a monster that shall one day become so powerful that it will tame the political class instead. The evidence didn’t need much more time to surpass as Army coups began right since 1950s. The Army coups further strengthened the legacy of violence as the Bureaucratization of the Political machinery from a civil one to a military one needed a purpose that could only best be served by an anti-India Attitude and the fear of sovereignty (which was never there).
Until 1970s, when Pakistan had already engaged itself into 3 wars with its eastern neighbour, the Politics seemed to take a stance that it was UN which could solve its version of Kashmir problem. The Political class was relying on CENTO and SEATO which it signed with US. The 1962 war between India-China was another turning point though. The ‘same feather friends’ began new relationship particularly aimed against India. Incidentally, the 1974 Pokhran Blasts changed the scenario completely. With India being a nuclear state, Pakistan saw a rise of Army’s stature – the Army began dictating its terms to Political class in all aspects especially and including the Foreign Policy.
1980s was a period when Kashmiri militancy appears for the first time. Pakistan terms it a rise of the suppressed voices long after India’s aggressive posture on Kashmir and internationally demands a UN-backed solution. Logic however questions, what kept them quiet instead for that long. With Political instability in India, the posture of Pakistan-backed Kashmiri militancy grew strong, possibly aimed at an ‘early solution’ (if I could use this Political language at all). The stance could also be a result of Indian occupation of SiaChen in 1980s.
1998 was another turnaround period when Chagai Blasts put Pakistan as the 7th nuclear state – thanks to the ‘generosity’ of Netherlands and thefts of A Q Khan. The Kargil war and Musharraf’s regime added to the bitterness of Indo-pak relationship. What incidentally is important here though is a bit of warmness that thawed against the perceived bitterness as both the countries agreed for LoC peace treaty of 2003 and then Track-2 back-channel talks were close to yielding a political solution to Kashmir.
2008 saw democracy returning to Pakistan which only changed the face of the government as the long rule of Musharraf had only militarized the Bureaucratic structure with Army head taking calls on major policy decision – be it internal matters or external ones.
What promises a declining anti-India legacy is the stance hat civil society of Pakistan has taken up. It was, in fact, unimaginable to see Pakistanis rising up for India in Pakistan back in 1970s. But this illusion is pretty much mired by the fact that civil society and Politics are quite a distant phenomena in an Army-ruled Pakistan.
Chirag Goel's Blog 