The social costs of conflict
Semu Bhatt argues for strengthening the ‘peace-nry’ in India and Pakistan
Pakistan and India – two countries that have explicitly expressed aspirations to achieve leadership position in the Islamic world and the world respectively. Unfortunately, both find themselves topping the world rankings in undesirable categories – poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, mortality rates, corruption, and of course, military spending. Usually the social costs arising from a conflict are appreciated only through the prism of developmental expenditure. However, the most significant social cost of conflict manifests in terms of negative transformation of the society, evident in growth of communalism and hard line political stance, increase of jingoism, intolerance and culture of violence, and celebration of terrorism and militarism as heroism.
Militarily Wise, Socially Foolish
Much has been written about the distortion of developmental priorities in India and Pakistan and the noticeable trade off between the social and defence spending due to the bilateral conflict. Both countries acquire military weaponry at a price tag of billions, while millions of people continue to suffer from lack of safe drinking water and basic sanitary and healthcare services.
The Indian armed forces have undertaken a massive modernisation drive costing the exchequer $200 billion to reflect India’s newfound economic success — even as India lags behind in actualising most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Some countries like Germany and France spend over 20% of GDP on social services while India ‘for all its economic success’ is still struggling to touch the double figure mark. The slogans of India Shining vibrate across the globe, but do not reach the ears of those poor tribals who support the Naxalites for want of inclusive growth.
The case is similar in Pakistan where military expenditure eats up major chunk of government outlay despite the country literally being on an economic ventilator. Pakistan continues to offer multi-million rupee subsidies to its military foundations at a time when it does not have enough money to rehabilitate thousands of flood survivors. No wonder that the socio-economically backward sections of Pakistani society are proving to be a fertile ground for militancy to flourish in the name of religion.
The Bigoted Outlook
India-Pakistan are hyphenated not only in the diplomatic realm but also in the mindsets of the leaders and people of these two countries. There is a constant comparison of development and liberties of people. It is not uncommon to see blinkered media reports in Pakistan that justify the ills within the country through India bashing. So as long as India has 40% of its population below the poverty line, its ok for Pakistan to let 20% of its population struggle to get one square meal a day; as long as there are Gujarat riots in India to talk about, no point focussing on the Shia and Ahmediya persecution in Pakistan. Similarly, a small segment of Indian political and population spectrum dismisses the socio-economic problems that Indian Muslims face by pointing out the situation of mohajirs in Pakistan.
There is a more dangerous fallout of the bilateral conflict, in terms of growth of fundamentalism in both countries. While the religious right in India is hell-bent on painting India saffron, extremists in Pakistan are inconvenienced even by different shades of green. The Indo-Pak hostility has been exploited as a part of rightwing offensive to foment communal tensions in India. In Pakistan, the once strategic weapons of low intensity warfare against India have turned against their own co-religionists, with increasing incidents of suicide bombing, terrorist killings and public lynching of people from minority sects. The ascendency of extremist forces poses a serious threat to the social cohesiveness of both countries.
The Peace-nry
There is undeniably a sizeable support for peace with Pakistan amongst Indian politicians, businesspeople and media. However, they tend to take a cautious approach a propos any dealing with the country. Also, voices in the media swing between being pro-peace and pro-war depending on the relationship status of the two nations. Such voices play up the anti-Pakistan rhetoric with every terrorist attack, discounting reconciliation totally.
In Pakistan, the political and financial stakes of military, religious and jihadi institutions need continued hostility with India to consolidate their respective positions. The Pakistani military remains a major behind-the-scenes power, while a virulent anti-India rhetoric continues to dominate the air waves. In this scenario, the constituency for peace finds itself cornered, with little influence to impel the government to convert the desire for aman into reality.
Conclusion
The prolonged conflict between India and Pakistan has not only short-changed their respective populations in terms of development, but also caused value deficits, rise of divisive forces and increasingly fragmented and polarised societies. A lesser form of security has come to be accepted. A jingoistic clamour is drowning out the voices of rational constituencies.
The hope for peace can be translated into a reality of resolution only if population of both the countries become aware that they have paid a huge price in developmental terms due to the continued conflict. The constituency of peace can be expanded if people are made aware about the extent of our past we have lost to this hostility, and the scope of our better future that is at stake. Aman or peace shall be achieved the day these vacillating minds make up their minds and firmly and collectively call for peace.
The writer is an independent analyst on security and governance issues and co-author of Cost of Conflict between India and Pakistan (International Centre for Peace Initiatives, Mumbai, 2004). [email protected]
