& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Not by visa alone

Once business and contact come down to the level of ordinary traders and ordinary people the spirit of togetherness develops. Were this to happen, the picture which some politicians, bureaucrats and journalists have painted about each other's country would change. People would come to know each other as they were, not as they are depicted, to fit into the policies the two countries pursue.
NAWAZ Sharif, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, is touching upon subjects which leaders in his country and India intentionally avoid. His suggestion to Pakistan to unilaterally lift restrictions on travels by Indians is bold and timely. Tension between the two countries is far less than before and there is a pronounced desire to come closer to each other. The Muslim League which Nawaz Sharif heads is a concomitant with fanatic elements. Some have strong anti-Lndia views. For him to ignore their bias is courageous. Yet, the hardheaded politician as he is, his ears are plugged to the ground. He is convinced that an average Pakistani wants to befriend India. He has
tested this sentiment when, a few years ago, he swept the polls against the late Benazir Bhutto on the plank that the vote for him was a vote for friendship with India. She had then taken an opposite stand. Nawaz Sharif has said that Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP), also supports his proposal. Zardari or any PPP minister should come out with some statement to confirm their support. It is, however, strange that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has made no statement to express his views on how to improve relations with India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose visit to Pakistan is awaited anxiously by Islamabad, said a few weeks ago that
he was ready to travel to the other side provided there was something important to sign. The abolition of visa can be worth a visit.
While in the wilderness Benazir Bhutto had come to the conclusion that India and Pakistan should sink their differences-a realisation that came to her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto towards the end of his life. He would even say that he was sick of going to the chanceries of the world. Had Benazir been alive she would have taken the initiative to normalise relations with India. She told me at London during an interview that she wanted a "borderless” subcontinent. She also had Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal in view. Her wish boiled down to a common South
Asia with joint trade, business, services or investment.
The hitch may be from the Indian side. It believes that it is a target of terrorists who are "trained” in Pakistan. New Delhi's fear was initially on the infiltration in Kashmir. But it has now spread to other parts of India, more recently because of disclosures following raids on SIMI, a banned organisation of Muslim students. Some have reportedly made a clean breast of their 'design' to attack key installations and people at high places. They have also admitted their involvement in several blasts, including the one on the Samjhota Express. New Delhi also claims to have proof that Dawood Ibrahim,
an underground don said to be living in Karachi, has planned and executed the bomb blasts at Mumbai in 1993. Some recent incidents of violence have also been linked to his men.
Since the "hand of Pakistan" is seen in all these incidents, India would be chary in abolishing visa. Its fear is that terrorists will come through the border, although it is naive to believe that they use normal channels to enter. Some terrorist organsiations may be operating from across the border, but it is also an established fact that there is an indigenous crop of terrorists in the country. 'Drue, during the interrogation of the SIMI men and those of Dawood Ibrahim, the ISI link was
alleged. But there is no going away from the fact that the extremists among Muslims in India have emerged after the killings in Gujarat.
Another hindrance in the way of normalisation may be the BJP which once had the credit of leading its Prime Minister's bus to Lahore. The party has re-adopted its old antiPakistan posture and the ideology of Hindutva. Friendship with Pakistan does not fit into its anti-Muslim approach. The party believes that its anti-Pakistan stance will go down well with the Hindu voter in the Lok Sabha elections, due in less than a year.
I see the merit in Nawaz Sharif s proposal if the people-to-people contact is in thousands. Only then will the cobwebs of misinformation and the age-old hostility go. This cannot be done so long as the two countries pledge not to use violence to settle their disputes. It is unfortunate that the Tashkent Declaration did not lead to the abandoning of violence. The then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, did not sign the declaration until General Mohammad Ayub Khan wrote in his own hand the words, "without resorting to
arms.”
Both the countries may not sign a no-war' pact which has its own connotation because of the past history. But they should renounce violence to solve die bilateral issues. Using terrorists to destablise a country is worse. Both countries are at the mercy of terrorists at present. Both would do well if they were to join hands to curb terrorism not only in India and Pakistan but also in entire South Asia. Zardari's suggestion to keep Kashmir aside for the time being is worth pursuing. We have made no progress in the way we have gone about in the last 60 years. Had there been at least free trade between the two countries, there would have been economic interdependence. lessening the space for bickering. Trade ultimately develops into economic ties. The feeling of inter-dependence comes into play. There is give and take. Once this feeling gets hold of the people, they go beyond disputes. At least, the differences are understood in the spirit of accommodation, not antagonism.
One regrettable thing has been that contacts have generally been at the level of the elite where prejudice
has political dimensions. Once business and contact come down to the level of ordinary’ traders and ordinary people the spirit of togeth-^ erncss develops. Were this to happen, the picture which some politicians, bureaucrats and journalists have painted about each other’s country would change. People would come to know each other as they were, not as they are depicted, to fit into the policies the two countries pursue.
Ultimately the abolition of visa, however desirable, may be of little use if the young minds continue to be polluted. India at least is not guilty of rewriting the history'. Unfortunately, history in Pakistan begins with the advent of Islam in the subcontinent. What about Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa or Ihxla? The subcontinent has a long history. The birth of two and three countries does not change it. Our separate identities are important. But they cannot be at the expense of the history and traditions which we have shared for hundreds of years. The abolition of visa alone cannot bring it about.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist