While we keep harping how the advanced nations of the world, like the US function as arms merchants with a vested interest in arms sales and in engendering conflicts, what is forgotten is the utter foolishness of developing nations like India , egged on by blind nationalism and patriotic pride, wasting precious resources on arms purchases. Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers boost nation’s pride, but not progress.

A harmless joint statement by the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers has become the subject of a controversy with critics blaming Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for having conceded ground to Pakistan. What is more the hatred for Pakistan is so strong in the country that even the Congressmen feel the need to disassociate from the statement for fear of being dubbed anti-national.

By now the points of criticism are well known: the Sharm el-Sheikh statement inadvertently admits India’s meddling in Balochistan and contrary to the stand taken earlier India has delinked terrorism from composite dialogue. It was further pointed out that even Dr Manmohan Singh’s avowal that India wanted a stable and democratic Pakistan and hence would not do anything contrary was considered unwarranted in the context of Pakistan not caring for India’s stability.

Speaking in Parliament on July 29, he also made a heroic attempts to defend other controversial policies such as the revised stand on climate change, nuclear deal with the US and the recently signed End Use Monitoring Agreement with Washington.

The BJP leaders particularly had accused the Prime Minister of succumbing to Pakistani pressure. It is their contention that the joint statement, especially the one mentioning Indian role in Balochistan compromised national interests.

He made it clear that the joint statement was not restrictive of Indian options regarding dialogue with Pakistan. He reiterated that India wanted Pakistan to take steps to dismantle all terrorist networks which executed terrorist attacks against India before the two countries could continue.

The Prime Minister may not have adopted a tough posture in his talks with the Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani. Yashwnt Sinha, former foreign minister opined that the faith which the prime minister is reposing on Pakistan is misplaced and not supported by Pakistan’s history.

Even the media had reacted harshly turning a blind eye to the fact that a peace strategy needed flexibility and not rigidity. The war-like postures between India and Pakistan had cost the two countries dearly and it is time that they put the hostilities behind to work for a new era in relationships especially in the context of Pakistan itself embroiled in a war with terrorism.

Positive steps:
There is a growing realization that it was wrong to have used terrorism as a ‘weapon’ and that policy had caused much harm to Pakistan itself. In the past there had been a steady progress in fostering friendliness between the civil societies of the two nations through a series of exchange visits of legislators, journalists, army men and peace activists.

Rather than promoting such healthy developments there are sections in both countries that still look at issues from a nationalistic and patriotic angle. The result is flexing of muscles, wasting precious resources on arms build up. The dismantling of the wall of hatred dividing the two nations will yield rich dividends and prevent self-inflicted burdens.

War-mongering
Competitive development of more destructive weapons by the two nations will only perpetuate poverty for the masses, while the weapons themselves remain show pieces for so-called deterrence. In a recent book on nuclear cold war, the author has written as follows:

“America, with its nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world several times over, could not defend itself against the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 that paralyzed the nation. The erstwhile Soviet Union, another superpower with equal quantity of nuclear weapons, could not survive the crisis that splintered it into several countries. India, instead of becoming more powerful by declaring itself a nuclear weapon state after the 1998 tests, has been powerless to pursue the militants across the border in Kashmir for fear of Pak nuclear capability. “More than Kashmir and cross-border terrorism, the nuclear arms race in the sub-continent is the menacing danger to the millions in India and Pakistan. A nuclear arms race and a possible nuclear war would ruin both countries. Those who point to the US-USSR cold war that did not break out into a nuclear exchange, as an example of successful deterrence, should know Indo-Pak hostility is a different matter. Muslim fundamentalism and Hindu fanaticism do not work rationally. The Indo-Pak nuclear cold war should end here and now by making South Asia a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.”

Promoting better Indo-Pak relations will have an impact even on internal security by neutralizing misguided religionists from taking to ‘jihad’ in the name of Islam.

As leader of a bigger nation, the prime minister did well in adopting a flexible and magnanimous approach towards the smaller neighbour, Pakistan. Pride and prejudices of nationalism and patriotism are great hindrances in harmony between nations and also on the path of economic progress. The people and the media on both sides of the border must come to realize this truth and give up all hostility blindly practiced hitherto.