The Hindu Business Line : Visits to bring down walls

With more frequent contacts, prejudices are bound to diminish: We will then realise that Pakistan is not as Green as we think it is and Pakistanis will appreciate India is not as Saffron as they have been taught to believe, says P. V. INDIRESAN.

Pakistani and Indian nationals participate in a candlelit vigil calling for lasting peace between the two nations at the Wagah Border on August 14…Goodwill works when both sides co-operate.

I am writing this article in Pakistan where I have met thoughtful experts and have enjoyed unexpected hospitality from utter strangers. It is always interesting to see how others see us and how they see themselves, particularly when their and our outlooks are often in conflict.

Conflicts arise mostly from prejudice. The word ‘prejudice’ is derived from the expression pre-judged; it means forming an opinion without adequate knowledge; in other words, in ignorance. Not merely on Indo-Pakistan issues, in a generality of affairs, we often tend to form and cling to prejudiced judgements.

There are problems for which there are no answers at all: Bertrand Russel’s Paradox is the classic example of such a situation. He asked who shaves the barber who shaves everybody in town except those who shave themselves. That is a simple question but an unanswerable one.

There are other problems that have multiple answers. For instance, the question: “In which year is March 13 a Friday?” That is a relatively simple question because, though the answers are many, they are all definite and verifiable.

On the other hand, in real life, most questions are probabilistic; they have multiple answers, each one of which is only partially correct and no one can say with certainty which option is best and all solutions are fraught with risks.

For this visit to Pakistan, I have been given a visa that permits me to visit only two cities, Lahore and Islamabad and no other.

The restriction that visas will be valid for two and only two cities is reciprocal. Recently, a dozen Pakistani students visited Chennai to attend an international conference. Their visa was restricted to Chennai but the college where the conference was held was just outside city limits in Kancheepuram District.

By the nature of the visa, those students were prohibited from attending the conference. With great difficulty (and thanks to the good sense of a local official) those students could join the later part of the conference. Here is an instance of a pre-judged rule becoming inconsistent with a probabilistic situation.

Ticklish questions

Talk of ‘Confidence Building Measures’ is fashionable these days. They often relate to complicated issues of statecraft. Should we not apply the same principle to mundane day-to-day affairs? For instance, should we or should we not encourage travel of ordinary people between the two countries?

However, not many officials dare take a commonsense view. An Indian diplomatic official in Islamabad remarked that every time he takes a liberal view, our intelligence agencies suspect he is an agent of Taliban! This is a typical instance of being wrong if you do, and wrong if you do not.

It is possible that, if we liberalise, undesirable persons will take advantage. On the other hand, if we are very strict, people of goodwill will suffer. Then, which will checkmate undesirable elements better — goodwill emanating from better contacts or, closed doors that stop both good and bad people from entering?

Do we make, have we made, a calculated decision which is the optimum level of restriction where, on balance, benefits are greatest? How far should we follow blindly bureaucratic rules for fear of becoming answerable to charges of leniency?

Further, as the politico-cultural situation changes all the time, is it not necessary to have a flexible system that acts with commonsense rather than one that obeys rigidly rules that can never take into account all possible situations?

Undoubtedly, Indo-Pakistan relations are in a perilous state. It is true that we have to exercise the greatest caution in allowing people from across the border. In this situation, we have two options: One, overcome the problems by force or two, resolve them by goodwill.

As Rostow explained in his book Stages of Growth, force works only when the balance of power is excessive and not otherwise.

According to him, where there is no preponderance of power on one side or the other, force feeds on itself; the demand for more and more force becomes insatiable and leads to escalation rather than resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, goodwill, like the Franco-German rapprochement after the last world war, works slowly but gradually minimises risk.

Two choices

On this hypothesis, nations in conflict have two choices: generate an overwhelming superiority of force or promote goodwill. By all accounts, the probability of either India or Pakistan acquiring preponderance of power is low. We, in India, tend to the view that we have technological superiority.

Considering the way Pakistan has checkmated us in nuclear weapons and missile capability, we have to concede that even in technology, we do not have adequate superiority.

On the other hand, there is evidence that, individually, (though, unfortunately, not yet collectively) there is considerable goodwill among ordinary people.

Initiating goodwill

It appears to me that we have not tried hard enough to cultivate goodwill. It is true that goodwill works when both sides cooperate. It is also true that we cannot let down our guard against incursion by terrorists from across the border. Yet, I contend that we have not tried enough to initiate goodwill. There must be many ways of initiating goodwill from our side without incurring undue risk.

For instance, consider the success of self-help groups. They get loans with no collateral at all but on the mutual guarantee of the members. It is common experience that social pressure of friends in this kind of association is far more effective than any system that banks can devise.

Why should we not extend the same principle for allowing entry to Pakistanis without incurring the risk of their harming our security?

Suppose we issue joint visas for small groups of about half a dozen visitors and make each one of them responsible for the good conduct of all others. Will that not work better than tight surveillance by hard pressed, poorly trained and ill-informed intelligence personnel?

We can even take the aid of technology: Each member of the group can be given a cell-phone that alerts them whenever any member strays away more than a hundred yards or so.

Then, the members will have no excuse if they lose sight of any of their companions. Even if the whole group wants to escape into the multitude, technology is available to detect them quickly.

I am sure there are many other ways that the risk of misuse of liberal visas can be mitigated. I return to my hypothesis that conflicts arise from prejudice, prejudice is created by ignorance and ignorance results from absence of contact. Then, the best (and sure) way of destroying an enemy is not to destroy him but to make him your friend.

Hence, should we, on Independence Day, take a pledge for practising goodwill to all men and women (including those about whom we have grave suspicions) and to strive for closer contact with our neighbours?

(The author is a former Director of IIT Madras. Responses to blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

(This is 232nd in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article was published on August 4.)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Vision 2020

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Visits to bring down walls

Flush out the bureaucratic mindset

Need for disclosure