As the dust is finally beginning to settle from the recent past’s heightened tensions between Pakistan and India that was accompanied with the most virulent war mongering cries muting everything else, the same old cycle of uncompromising positions and refusal to come to common ground for dialogue is manifesting itself. While the statement of Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Mohammed Nawaz Sharif that Pakistan wants dialogue with India if India puts Kashmir on the table is a much needed reprieve from recent belligerence that has informed the relations of the two states, it follows the same hackneyed script: devoid of a creative policy direction and characteristic of the past attitude that has yielded little in the way of substantial progress in actually resolving the Kashmir dispute. Even President of Pakistan Mamnoon Hussain’s statement that the United Nations should resolve the Kashmir dispute according to the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council so that durable peace in South Asia can be achieved is a reiteration of a desired outcome rather than a step that would take Pakistan closer to attainment of that outcome.
Where Pakistan wants Kashmir to be at the centre of any dialogue process with India, the reaction from India has been one of constant vilification of Pakistan thereby creating the perception that Pakistan has no moral standing to talk about Kashmir. Part of the reason to do so is, as Pakistan claims, to deflect world attention from Kashmir and instead put Pakistan on trial. This can be easily seen in the official declared Indian policy to internationally isolate Pakistan, and most recently, in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address at the BRICS Summit in which in a thinly veiled manner he referred to Pakistan as the “mothership of terrorism.” Hence, when it comes to dialogue, Indian policy is very clear: dialogue only over cross-border terrorism. How India plans on making such a dialogue possible — a dialogue to the complete exclusion of Pakistani interests — is lost on those who are objectively observing the South Asian situation.
However, it is abundantly clear that dialogue is the only way that Pakistan and India can resolve their disputes, and in turn, make South Asia exponentially better. For that to happen, churlish intransigence would have to give way for concrete steps. When it comes to Kashmir, India would have to realise that Pakistan has to be involved in any dialogue process on Kashmir, whether India likes it or not. Even the National Conference chief, Farooq Abdullah has suggested the reopening of dialogue with Pakistan over Kashmir to fix the issue of terrorism. Abdullah’s statement is an affirmation of the close link between terrorism and Kashmir as the primary motivation of those actors who perpetrate terrorism in Kashmir is due to their perceived Indian injustices and its state brutality on Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan, of course, must be categorical in its repudiation of any such militant action in Kashmir.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, mere platitudes would not do any favour to the Kashmiri people or to Pakistanis themselves. Unless Pakistan devises some mechanism through which Indian concerns could be addressed, the same old self-defeating cycle of accusations and counter-accusations would continue to repeat itself. An atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation is required in order to make any headway in the Kashmir dispute, and that could be achieved by initiating dialogue on some of the less contentious issues first, such as the Sir Creek dispute. Meanwhile, mutually acceptable terms of dialogue must be reached that takes into account the wider interests of both countries. Dialogue is the only way forward, the sooner it is initiated, the better. In the very sage words of Indian National Congress leader, Mani Shankar Aiyar, an “uninterrupted and uninterruptible composite dialogue” is the only way to initiate the rewriting of the Pakistan-India narrative.
Let art unite Pakistan and India
An artist is an artist in times of peace. He/she remains an artist in times of war as well. However, both Pakistan and India seem to have forgotten this sense of transcendence in the bizarreness of the recent events. Ever since the September attack in Uri further intensified the already acrimonious ties between Islamabad and New Delhi, war has been in the air, and not just between their armed forces. In a much-touted retaliation to an ongoing campaign against Pakistani artists at the hands of the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA), the Pakistan Exhibitors’ Association slapped their own bans on Bollywood films in their cinemas.
Bans on leading Pakistani actors working in Bollywood as well as those imposed on Indian cultural content in Pakistan is being celebrated and criticised by many on both sides.
There are many who believe that their respective entertainment industries have taken a spontaneous move by backing and honouring their respective armies in such arduous times. Nevertheless, there is an even greater number of voices in both Pakistan and India lamenting such restrictions. Art and artists, many exclaim, should be allowed to remain the advocates of peace and windows to the cultural diversity that they are. Although the simmering tension between the two countries is being condemned by the international community as a misstep on its own, the fact that this jingoism is now blurring the line between arts and politics is even more disheartening. The fervour with which Pakistani cinema owners are building up a greater number of walls of hatred in lieu of facilitating peace might seem justified in the light of recent crossfire against their actors in India. However, such narrow-minded approach stripped Pakistan of a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to the international community its willingness to establish peace in the region. The moral high ground is lost in these tit-for-tat games. Banning actors and films is not a noble act of patriotism; the entire process reeks of being nothing but petty and vindictive.
Had Pakistani cinema owners considered the implications of partaking in the war hysteria that has currently grappled Indian media, they would have definitely thought twice before mouthing off. It is not just peace that was at stake, especially in Pakistan. Despite the current revival of the local film industry, the present slim revenues and a long struggle ahead in order to recapture its former glory are a secret to none. The recent boom of Pakistani film industry was also largely facilitated by Indian releases that helped pull audiences back to cinema screens after the country repealed its official ban on Indian content in 2007. Cinema owners might have decided to go back on a decision highly beneficial to show solidarity with their government. However, this move would probably cause a significant blow to the country’s struggling film industry, and in turn, hamper its economics. Though growing, the local film circuit is at present unable to fully cater to the needs of cinemas in Pakistan and, hence, reruns of the previously released films would not hold its audiences for long.
Indian film fraternity, in the meantime, should realise its responsibility of encouraging initiatives that set forth peace not hostility between the two neighbours. This cold shoulder being shown to Pakistani actors and technicians who have brought great successes — and revenues — to Indian films on numerous occasions would only exacerbate the present state of affairs. It is hoped that the authorities would soon appreciate the need to facilitate art and artists in a setting without limitations, without boundaries.
Art, in the worst of situations, unites. Don’t use it for further divides. Pakistan and India need bridges, not more bans and barriers and boundaries.
