Militarisation vs democratisation in India and Pakistan
DELHI — India's April 11 test of an Agni-II missile, which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, was answered by Pakistan on April 14-15 by the firing of Ghauri-II intermediate-range ballistic missiles. These actions have again raised tensions in South Asia.
India and Pakistan exchanged nuclear tests in May to intimidate each other. This was followed by a series of friendly gestures this year. The February visit to Pakistan of Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee resulted in the joint Lahore Declaration. A direct bus service between the two countries resumed in mid-March after 50 years, but tight visa controls remain.
On March 29, Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly's EVA CHENG asked P.V. SRINIVAS, international secretary of the Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist (Liberation), to explain these contradictory developments.
Question: What prompted the Indian and Pakistan governments to ease their mutual hostility?
The antagonism between India and Pakistan is a legacy of British colonial rule — a division based on religious differences. A lot of blood was shed, but after 50 years the intensity of the feelings has subsided.
After the partition, the imperialist powers have always tried to keep South Asia tension-ridden. The tension between Pakistan and India is centred on the Kashmir question. There have been three wars between Pakistan and India. However, because imperialist capital needs a wider market, it is pressing for more economic cooperation between India and Pakistan.
Among the people of India and Pakistan, there's a yearning for unity, to end the tragic separation of kith and kin.
Bangladesh's separation from Pakistan, both Muslim countries, proved that religion can't be a factor for long in keeping the people together.
In many parts of India, especially in the north-eastern belt and the tribal areas of many states, oppressed nationalities are fighting for autonomy or power sharing. It's part of an unfinished democratic process — a lack of real democracy in India is giving birth to various contradictions and destabilising factors in society.
Within some states, some nationalities are dominating others that are less developed. But the latter are asserting themselves and want to have a say in the process of development. This contradiction exists in almost all countries in South Asia — in Pakistan between the dominant Punjabi elite and the people of Sind, the North-West Frontier Province and Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka, where the Sinhalese rulers oppress the Tamil people of the north and east.
There's a yearning from the people for a broader loose confederation, where each component can have its self-determination. But it will only come when all the nations in South Asia accept fighting imperialism as their main task.
Then there will be a basis for unity, and the tension and military expenditure in the region will be reduced. These gains will ultimately be translated into prosperous conditions for the people.
Historically, the Indian ruling class has exhibited a kind of jingoism. It wants to dominate the nations in this part of the continent. With the existing power relations, it will be difficult to achieve the people's aspiration for unity.
Question: Are the imperialist powers a factor in these developments?
When the Indian ruling class declared that China and Pakistan are India's main enemies, it was also attempting to make itself attractive to US imperialism. The Indian ruling class wants to offer itself as a reliable "natural partner" for the Western imperialists, especially the US. The Indian prime minister made this clear in an interview after a recent UN general assembly.
Question: Are the recent signs of an easing in tension between India and Pakistan just empty gestures?
There are moves to normalise the relationship and develop trade and other economic relations among South Asian countries. Many raw materials needed for production in India are in Pakistan. Objectively, there are economic reasons for closer relations because of the degree of dependence and a stagnating economy. The subjective factor is playing out with signs of a cordial relationship developing between the ruling classes of the region.
Thus far, they have not taken into account the various aspirations of different nationalities, the disparity between different regions, the political institutions or the people's aspiration for unity.
Question: But these friendly gestures came so soon after a period of very high tension. How do you explain the timing?
India's nuclear explosions were a reaction to Pakistan's. The ruling class's race to militarise both Pakistan and India logically culminated in the nuclear explosions.
But there are peace forces in India and Pakistan that don't want that kind of mad war — a war with no victor, a war that results in the elimination of both. Nuclear weapons in South Asia can bring disaster to the world, so there is a strong movement against this regional arms race.
The tests also provoked a worldwide debate on nuclear disarmament. People question how genuine can this disarmament process be when some imperialist countries possess a monopoly of nuclear weapons.
In India and Pakistan also, people are seeking to dismantle nuclear weapons. Such a situation compels the ruling classes to negotiate about weapons control.
Question: How strong and extensive were the mobilisations in India against the nuclear explosions?
Initially, there was an euphoria among the middle class, particularly those with a jingoist tendency, but it didn't last. In response, the government started to promote a kind of military-industrial complex, through encouraging private sector investment in defence and the defence industry entering commercial activity.
This injected a further distortion into the country's economic priorities. The Indian ruling class militarised Indian society in order to have an ultimate weapon to bully their own masses, as well as their neighbours. But in the short term it has backfired.
For the explosions to happen, you have to have a big military-industrial infrastructure. This meant a diversion of scarce resources towards the military buildup, which has started to hurt the people's livelihoods. The people have started to resist. They realise this nuclear capability is not useful for war and is no deterrent.
People ask how can this country — with a per capita annual income of US$250 — afford that kind of arms race. They started to reflect on the stark reality that, while costly nuclear weapons are in the hands of the ruling class, 60% of India's people go to bed without dinner. They began to realise the development of such weapons will not help the people.
There were a lot of demonstrations and seminars in most metropolitan areas, including one that attracted 10,000 people in Delhi. People from all walks of life participated, including workers, middle class, writers, scientists, engineers, even bourgeoisie since some industrialists know that a war atmosphere will hamper investment and production.
Question: How will these developments affect the collaboration between revolutionary forces in India and Pakistan?
The relaxation of tension will give space for revolutionary forces to develop a joint struggle for socialism, as well as democratisation. Pakistan has been militarised for a long time, and India is an autocratic society. Both governments use the Indo-Pakistan phobia as a weapon to suppress all kinds of democratic aspirations.
Our party's clear position is to fight against the Indian ruling class's jingoism and its attempts to dominate the smaller countries around India. Objectively, this position addresses the aspirations of the people of these countries.
Ultimately, as they develop, the people's struggles in India and Pakistan will support each other. But we can't export revolution to Pakistan, and Pakistan can't export revolution to India.