Suddenly, A Different Ball Game

Worries about a nuclear war between India and Pakistan may seem like a nightmare next week when Indian andPakistani cricket teams take to the green to play a series of matches. A red cricket ball flying over theboundary instead of shells going over the India-Pakistan border in Kashmir will have millions of TV viewersenthralled. How it came about is an instructive story in a turbulent world.

In the history of the nation-state, frontiers have defined the identity of emerging countries, theirexclusive properties helping to cement national identities. Yet in states formed under colonial rule,boundaries often had more to do with politics than with the population's shared characteristics. After thecolonizers' departure, many former colonies have struggled with border-related problems.

One example is the grievous error Britain committed when it rushed out of the Indian subcontinent in 1947and left the border province of Jammu and Kashmir undefined. India and Pakistan have fought modern history'slongest war over that dividing line, even as the European powers moved towards the loosening of borders intheir own corner of the world.

Europe's leaders realized that only by surrendering some 'sovereign power' could they make the fullest useof resources, manpower and economies of scale. The European Union has since become a model for othersupranational coalitions like ASEAN, Mercusor, NAFTA, and the African Union. These coalitions are thecontinents of the modern age.

In the first week of January, India and Pakistan finally seemed to be moving in a similar direction. At asummit meeting, the seven members of the South Asian Association for Economic Cooperation (SAARC) signed anagreement, previously sabotaged by Indo-Pak intransigence, to make the region a free-trade zone by January 1,2006. It was, in the words of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, a victory of rational economics overpolitical prejudice. Referencing Europe's success, the Prime Minister challenged the two adversaries toprogress towards open borders and a common currency. Simultaneously, Vajpayee and Pakistan's President PervezMusharraf signed a bilateral statement that affirmed each side's commitment to a "constructivedialogue" aimed at ending the Kashmir stalemate. Without such an agreement, the proposed free-trade zonewould never have taken off, since SAARC works only as well as India and Pakistan permit. In signing thestatement, Musharraf belied his reputation as a hawk. He praised Vajpayee's "vision, commitment andflexibility" and stepped out with him on the slow road to possible prosperity.

Why has the urge for peace descended upon a region synonymous with conflict? Friendship often starts withthe perception of a common enemy. America and Britain forged their bonds in the heat of three wars across ahundred years: against German militarism, Nazi fascism and Soviet totalitarianism. India and Pakistan arebeginning to see that their worst enemies are not each other, but rather the poverty and terrorism thatthreaten each government's hold on power. Solving either problem will require fighting both - as long as warand terrorism remain a problem, South Asia will be unable to devote significant resources to the fight againstpoverty.

All three parties to the Kashmir dispute have publicly stated their willingness to rise above the past.Although a subsequent uproar forced him to retreat the next day, Musharraf went so far as to suggest thatPakistan's demand for a UN-supervised plebiscite in Kashmir had become irrelevant. That uproar quieted whenHurriyat, the political alliance at the forefront of separatism in Indian Kashmir, suggested the same thing ina breakthrough dialogue with the Indian government in January. Hurriyat members also committed themselves topeaceful negotiations. The Indian government, in turn, tacitly admitted that Kashmir was disputed territory byagreeing to a composite dialogue that would have Kashmir on the agenda. Such concessions would have beenunthinkable even a year ago.

For half a century, India and Pakistan placed passion above compromise. Now, however, each may be accedingto political reality. Vajpayee, who took the initiative, measured the cost of the Line of Control (the Kashmirdivision) to both nations and found it was outweighed by the benefits of economic growth and human contact.Softened by a ceasefire, the armies of India and Pakistan encouraged Kashmiris on opposite banks of the NeelumRiver to reach out to each other during the Muslim festival of Id al Adha on February 1. Already, the twogovernments have decided to open a direct bus service between the estranged capitals of Srinagar andMuzaffarabad, a proposition that would have been dismissed as fantasy just months ago. And in the second weekof March, India and Pakistan will play a series of cricket matches while critical general elections are heldin India. Vajpayee believes that peace with Pakistan is an election-winner - just the opposite of what hisparty believed in the past.

These revolutionary developments can be attributed to changes in the populace. Young people in particularare angry because they view the India-Pakistan conflict as hamstringing South Asia while the rest of the world(visible on television sets) moves towards a better life. Vajpayee knows only peace will allow India torealize its true potential. Fifty years ago India was ahead of China in economic terms; in ten years it couldbe on par again.

At long last, India and Pakistan have agreed that sectarian terrorism is a common enemy. After September11, the United States forced Pakistan to take a stand against terrorism and renounce its support of theTaliban in Afghanistan. But this did not signal a complete reversal of Pakistani policy: the governmentcontinued to support 'jihadi' elements in Kashmir. Perhaps the December attempts by such groups on Musharraf'slife spurred him towards change. Musharraf has now declared a 'jihad' against such 'jihadis'. Moreimportantly, India now believes that Musharraf is sincere.

Undoubtedly, much remains to be done before peace is reached. The January 2006 deadline has to be reachedwithout a policy reversal. But if by some miracle India and Pakistan do cooperate to resolve the Kashmirproblem and promote regional economic unity, they could become partners in other endeavors.

After the Iraq conflict, Washington is hoping to re-position NATO as the world’s pre-eminent peacekeeper.But NATO cannot play a larger role without a larger focus. The American ambassador to NATO, R. Nicholas Burns,told this correspondent in Brussels recently that America would like India and Pakistan to become partners infuture NATO missions.

An end to the India-Pakistan conflict may also, in the long run, enhance international peace. In thechanging map of the world, new coalitions like ASEAN and SAARC can become the guarantors of stability in theirregions, just as NATO ensured the security of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. After all, who canensure peace better in Afghanistan – American and European troops, or an Indo-Pak Rapid Action Force?Moreover, if there is an economic partnership, there will also be the money to pay for common strategicconcerns. SAARC could act as an economic and strategic bridge between ASEAN, the Arab world, and Central Asia.

Progress on Kashmir is a good sign. But for the economic and political security of both countries and theregion, India and Pakistan must not let their contentious histories re-emerge to eclipse recent gains.