PRICE OF UNPEACE: memoir-in-progress

 

PRICE OF UNPEACE 

by Nighat Na-koja

 

 

One lunatic got so involved in this India/Pakistan question that he became even crazier. One day he climbed a tree and sat on one of its branches for two hours, lecturing without pause on the complex issues of Partition. When the guards told him to come down, he climbed higher. When they tried to frighten him with threats, he replied: “I will live neither in India nor in Pakistan. I’ll live in this tree right here!” With much difficulty, they eventually coaxed him down. When he reached the ground he wept and embraced his Hindu and Sikh friends…..[1                 

                                                                                            Toba Tek Singh by Saadat Hasan Manto

 

Abba was born in Kolkata, in pre-Partition India. He grew up speaking Bengali, but also Urdu, as his mother was from Delhi. He left his beloved Kolkata after high school and moved to Chittagong, in what was then East Pakistan, to find work. It had become clear that employment opportunities for Muslim youth were dwindling in post-Partition India. Communal riots were erupting. Abba’s Hindu tea factory manager advised him to move to East Pakistan, where job prospects for Muslim youth were better.

Dadajaan bought Abba a pair of pants and a shirt from lunda (the used clothing market), gave him ten rupees for expenses, and put him on the train to Chittagong. It was 1950. Abba was 17 years old.

 

***

 If India and Pakistan had evolved as friendly neighbors in the seven decades since the Partition, the journey from Delhi to Karachi via Dubai wouldn't have stretched beyond sixteen hours. Un-peace doubles the 1100 km distance, making it exponentially longer and far more costly. The direct flight used to take a mere two hours. Via Dubai, it's a sixteen-hour ordeal thanks to the interminable layover. Un-peace inflates travel costs between the two countries. What's someone like me to do, with family on both sides of this artificially drawn line? Un-peace also takes a toll on the environment. Imagine the fuel wasted on that circuitous route via Dubai. But do the political elite—the architects and maintainers of this un-peace—care about individual travails or environmental damage?

A few months after Abba left this world, I stumbled upon a common-sense piece in DAWN's letters to the editor section, written by a Karachi resident, Mr. Makhdumi[1]: 

"A time comes in the life of every nation when people realize that it does not pay to harp upon regressive, fossilized, and anachronistic viewpoints on territorial disputes. Such an attitude only causes instability and misery to the masses.”

How true! Except our nations seem stubbornly attached to these regressive, fossilized disputes.  My sixteen-hour journey, including a ten-hour Dubai layover, was miserable.  Adding insult to injury, it was far more expensive. Misery meant popping NSAIDs for my aching back. Misery means thousands of families, separated by the Indo-Pak border, can only connect through video calls. The visa process is so torturous, expensive, and document-heavy that video calling becomes the least painful option. Mr. Makhdumi's outlook is grim: “The two nuclear-armed neighbors need to start living in peace and harmony, much to the benefit of coming generations…”  He ends with a sliver of cautious optimism: “The multi-talented millions of Pakistan and India can only learn and benefit from each other’s prowess.” As I wrote this chapter, I listened to Indo-Pak Dhrupad sisters, Alia Rasheed and Amita Sinha, sing the meditative Raag Jog with its undertones of melancholy[2]. Imagining more such musical collaborations filled me with a futile longing. If only…if only…

Alas, Mr. Makhdumi, the hurting, longing ones don't belong to the political elite. The elites’ concerns lie in making empty promises for election wins. They aren't the ones pining to meet relatives across borders.  They prefer to deluge the masses with patriotic anthems like: “tu bhi Pakistan hai, mai bhi Pakistan hu” (I am Pakistan, you too are Pakistan) or “is parcham ke saaye taley hum ek hain, hum ek hain” (We stand united under the protection of this flag, our refuge).

Peace is the only path to progress, Mr. Makhdumi writes. Needless to say that a real, lasting peace in the subcontinent should be the cherished goal of the global community. 

I couldn't agree more! But Mr. Makhdumi, is it naivete or idealism that makes you place your hopes for peace in the global community? What does the global community care about peace between India and Pakistan? A peaceful India and Pakistan means nothing to them unless it translates into economic gains.

Un-peace reigns precisely because it is immensely profitable for the global elite. Just Google the staggering sums India and Pakistan spend on weapons manufactured by the rich, first-world countries of Europe and the US. These weapons are job creators for the rich nations. They sell us the means of annihilating one another to fuel their own economies. Meanwhile, the aam admi of India and Pakistan suffers and blames it on kismet.

Who doesn’t know we could better spend our nation’s wealth on feeding, educating and providing health services for our people? Instead, our governments spend it on building stockpiles of mutual annhilation. That our political elite prefer to spend most of our nations’ wealth on pleasing the global political elite, is evident. If they say that their bombs and fighter jets are good for us, we bow to their diktat.  

The prosperous nations thrive on expensive wars and coups they facilitate in less prosperous nations. The global capitalist economy sees war as a lucrative option, unlike world peace which wouldn’t make them richer. About four out of every ten people in the subcontinent live in extreme poverty. It’s a no-brainer that food and medicines would make them more secure than destroyer drones and bombs.  

Mr Makhdumi cites the example of arch enemies, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran, two warring nations that have come to the negotiating table for promoting peace and harmony between them, thanks to mediation by the Chinese. China wants to see an economically and politically peaceful Middle East as this creates better trading conditions for China.  Let’s pray that along with the Middle East, promoting peace between India and Pakistan also becomes a profitable prospect for the Chinese!

***

Tariq Rehman, in his excellent book on the social and political history of the national languages of India and Pakistan[3]—Hindi and Urdu respectively—concludes with the sad tale of how one language, Hindustani, was artificially cleaved into two national languages—Urdu and Hindi. A political move to divide Urdu and Hindi speakers, these two languages were artificially created, encouraged by the colonizers and, later, maintained by the nation-states of Pakistan and India. Indo-Pak politics made Persianized Urdu the language of Pakistan, while India adopted Sanskritized Hindi as its national language.

Rehman writes:

For the last two hundred years or so, since Urdu and Hindi separated from each other, we have lived in perpetual strife. The peoples have drifted apart and so have the languages….Is it possible to arrest this trend and promote peace, harmony, and give-and-take? I believe it is possible by removing the obstacles to peace—such as Kashmir, terrorism, and water disputes—but that is in the hand of the ruling elites of the two countries….It is only by not losing sight of the continuities and shared cultural features among Pakistanis and (north) Indians that we can hope to transcend the mutual hatred which threatens to annihilate this ancient land.

Mr. Rehman and Mr. Makhdumi, bravo! You are both sensible, cautiously optimistic, peace-loving individuals, wringing your hands at the idiocies of our self-serving ruling elites.

Mutual hatred will likely grow and annihilate this ancient land unless some external, God-like power (like God?) intervenes. Mutual cooperation could make both countries flourish (economically, culturally, politically, even spiritually). But the mistrust between the two nations can’t be ended by self-absorbed, low-IQ leaders blinded by self-interest. They can’t be entrusted with the lofty task of promoting peace. The ordinary, women and men of both nations, people like Mr. Makhdumi and Mr. Rehman and countless others like Abba and myself, will continue to wring their hands. They aren’t influential enough to deter the selfishness of their politicians.

It was here, on this very land, now carved into three nations with borders and armies, that one of the finest, largely peaceful human civilizations flourished along the Indus River. But that is old news. More than five thousand years ago.

We are told we are living in the most peaceful era humankind has known. It may not look like it, given all the ongoing wars and unfair resource and land-grabbing by mightier nations from weaker ones. We humans have been a warring species for most of recorded history, since history began being recorded a few millennia ago. Who can say for sure what our pre-recorded collective past was like? Were we selfish or unselfish, competitive or cooperative, before we gave up our nomadic lifestyle and became tribes and clans, and later, cities?

Regarding a utopian future for humankind, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, as quoted by feminist theologian Mary Grey, writes:

There is a principle of hope at work wherever people have lived that generates great excitement and utopian visions in spite of the fact that of the 3,400 years of recorded human history, 3,166 were years of war, and the remaining 234 years were years of preparing for war.[4]

We must indeed be an optimistic species to thrive on hope. What an inexplicable trait—hope! We still hope for peace even though, for most of recorded history, we've been at war with one another.

Years ago, Abba tried to warn me that I was making a big mistake marrying an Indian. I met my agnostic husband in college in the USA. I liked his sense of humor and his companionship. When he asked me to marry him, the idea of defying religious dogma seemed exciting. My Muslim boyfriend had dumped me; I was lonely and perhaps seeking love and validation. Love or foolishness—whatever this marriage was—I faced my share of trials for defying customs. It was a high price to pay for the emotional maturity that followed. Of course, my rational mind attributed a noble reason to my personal misadventure: I believed in peace, harmony, and equality. Despite having no evidence whatsoever that my Indo-Pak marriage would magically usher in an era of Indo-Pak amity, I went ahead and did it.

***

One of my South Asian Studies professors at the University of Wisconsin, upon hearing of my marriage, remarked,

At least she shouldn't have married a Hindu.

 At least? What did he mean by at least?   He didn't say, At least she shouldn't have married an Indian. Was he suggesting I should have married an Indian Muslim instead? The point of contention for this professor, who was himself married to a non-Muslim, was my spouse's religion, not his nationality. Was I disappointed by his statement? Deeply. 

Marriage between Muslims and Hindus, even within India which has a sizeable Muslim population, wasn’t very common, but it wasn't unheard of. Things weren't quite as fraught for inter-religious marriages as they've become under Modi’s rule. Even marriages between Muslims on both sides of the border have practically vanished.  In the past, families arranged marriages for their children across the border. Visit visas were readily available. You could visit family in Pakistan even if you were married and living in India, and vice versa. There were trains, buses, and direct flights between major cities. Not anymore.

So, when I told Abba, whose life had been completely upended simply for being Muslim in post-Partition India, that being Hindu or Muslim didn't matter, it was like rubbing salt in his wounds. I hadn't witnessed Partition. The labels of Hindu and Muslim didn't hold the same weight for me. But for Abba, those labels had determined his fate. He had to leave his birthplace because he was Muslim in a Hindu-majority nation.  Then, he had to leave his second adopted homeland because he was a non-Bengali in a Bengali nation. He was forced to leave his beloved Calcutta for Chittagong, and two decades later, again forced to leave Chittagong for Karachi after Bangladesh's secession. The wrong labels had led to repeated displacements for him.

You are making a big mistake, Nigi ma, Abba had said when I told him about my intended life partner. India and Pakistan will never resolve their differences. Not in my lifetime. What if you go to live in India and can't visit us? What will happen to your children? Will they become Hindus or Muslims?

I had retorted, Abba, you're living in the past. The present is very different. Hindu-Muslim marriages aren't such a big deal anymore. Why would I get stuck in India? Of course, I'll be able to visit my family. My children will choose their own religion when they're older.

Here's my apology, Abba, three decades later, for my unrealistic, idealistic, simplistic, and overconfident notions—notions the younger me had spouted with such certainty. So, please accept this belated letter of apology:

Mere pyaray Abba:

 I’m so sorry! I want to apologize for not listening to you, for arguing with you. You were right! Even though you’ve left this dunya and are peacefully resting in the peaceful otherworld, you were so damn right! I can’t tell you how right you were. I didn’t believe you then, and I deserved the consequences of my disbelief.

These two pig-headed nations hadn't resolved their political issues in your lifetime, nor are they likely to in mine. Unless pushed to the brink of extinction, they’ll behave as stupidly as they always have. I was a fool for believing in peace. Peace? Yes, peace! No borders! Free trade! Visa-free travel! Friendly relations and cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan! Ha. Ha. Ha. Such naivete! Forgive me, if you can.

I was young, naive, and foolish. And your grandchildren—forgive them too. I raised them to be neither Hindu nor Muslim, nor anything else. I was proud of giving them a choice—they could choose whatever religion (or none) when they grew up. But, in hindsight, maybe they would have been better off raised as orthodox Hindus or orthodox Muslims. Hindu fundamentalists or Muslim fundamentalists—both would be fine because they’re cut from the same cloth, you know. Hating the Other makes one feel so safe, so powerful.

I feel utterly, utterly alone, Abba.

This aloneness will remain regardless of which side of the border I live on. For neither side is a place of peace; neither is a place where a peace-loving person can live in peace. I’m not even sure if my values matter anymore. You were a staunch believer in Allah. I was not. You were sure your religion was the right one. I am not sure any religion is the right one if it justifies killing those of another religion. Abba, you were right about India and Pakistan. I tried to change things in my own feeble way. But I don’t see any solution to the larger, ongoing conflicts.

So you rest in peace. Enjoy peace in heaven, where there are neither religions, nor nations, nor weapons, nor wars.

You were my refuge—I miss you. I have nothing and nobody left in this world to want to live for anymore.

We have a long way to go, Abba, before humans evolve into humanity.

Ghalib was your favourite poet, na? Remember, what he had to say about the lunacy of dividing the humans into disparate sects and creeds and nations:

Hum mohavid hain, hamara kesh hai tark-e-rasum

Millaten jab mit gaeen, ajza-e-imaan ho gaeen [5]

your still-deluded daughter, 

Nigi ma

---

[1] Saadat Hassan Manto’s Toba Tek Singh. Short story on the Indo-Pak Partition. Translated from Urdu by Richard McGill Murphy.    https://wordswithoutborders.org/read/article/2003-09/toba-tek-singh/

[2] Indo-Pak Dhrupad sisters: Aliya Rasheed and Amita Sinha. Aliya Rasheed and Amita Sinha's time spent learning Dhrupad in Bhopal overlapped. On occasion they would sing together and during one such session their gurujis noted that the textures of their voices blended wonderfully and suggested that they should explore singing Dhrupad together. Thus, began their unique journey. Indo-Pak Dhrupad Sisters is a rare amalgamation that breaks cross border barriers through an ancient and mighty art form.”   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AjhKNCkcc0&list=RD3AjhKNCkcc0&start_radio=1&t=3104s

Author's Note: Whether it’s the obscurity of Dhrupad as a classical music genre or the relative obscurity of the Indo-Pak Dhrupad sisters, this priceless piece of music, has only garnered 3000 views on YouTube in the past ten years.

[3] Tariq Rehman: From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History. (2016) Oxford University Press, Pakistan.

[4] [1] Mary C. Grey: The Outrageous Pursuit of Hope (2000), p. 21. The Crossroad Publishing Company, U.K.

[5] hum mohavid hain....

We believe in the one Divine,

Abandoning all outward customs and rituals

When false differences between peoples are erased

True faith in oneness of Reality (God) will flourish