It is a cliche to say that partition was traumatic. Intertwined with hatred and conflict, partition was a bitter price to pay for freedom. It led to the biggest displacement of people in history with people fleeing across the newly-defined border in the millions. Around 12 million fled their homes and a million were killed. Innumerable families lost their loved ones or were separated from them. The partition deepened the Hindu-Muslim divide in the Indian subcontinent. 

The official story of partition in both Pakistan and India is almost entirely political. Each country projects the other as an enemy.  This is how both countries teach their school children history.  They barely make any mention of the enormous suffering and pain endured by millions on each side from the violence, loss of family members and the break-up of families.  A first-time reader often has little idea of the carnage that took place and often fails to realize that members of all main communities were both perpetrators as well as victims of violence.

Truths, Not Myths, About Pakistan’s Founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah

READ MORE

Yet wounds of partition remain. Over the years, they have festered. The divide, tensions and possibility of conflict between India and Pakistan keep growing. Hate has grown on both sides of the border. The two countries have fought three wars and now have nuclear weapons to secure themselves against each other. Political commentaries largely denigrate and blame the other side. Children grow up hearing that the other side is the “enemy” and the cycle of hate and violence continues.

A time for peace

Despite the grim situation, peace is possible if people listen and share stories. To heal the divide, the two countries would need to take a first step. They must find courageous and positive ways to examine and tell the story of the partition. This historical event caused tremendous violence. One group of people were separated from another on the basis of religion. Without acknowledging this self-inflicted wound, peace will always be elusive. An admission of the atrocities committed and a sincere apology by both sides could be a first step.  Meaningful expressions of remorse could be created in the form of museums, such as the recent in Amritsar.

Furthermore, people in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh need a chance to hear each other’s stories of trauma and suffering endured during partition. It would be crucial that these stories of trauma and suffering are told in a safe space by those who endured them and that each side listens deeply to the other without blame and judgment. Each community can perhaps come to see how their own words and actions incited hatred, division and acts of violence among people during and since partition. Only then can there be a hope of restoring a semblance of communication between the two countries and people that is friendly, sustainable, and not adversarial.

Mandela: Gandhi’s Heir and Africa’s Greatest Son (Part 1/3)

READ MORE

Several communities around the world are working to heal divisions that stem from hatred. They are working to overcome differences in culture, race and religion. Their work shows the way forward. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, parents on both sides who have lost children to violence have come together to form peace circles to make sure it does not happen again. The families use their pain and grief to join together to work for peace. Sharing and listening to the personal and societal narrative of the other side is a central part of this step toward reconciliation between the two peoples. It is not easy for any of these people to overcome their preconceived notions of the other and choose forgiveness and reconciliation instead of revenge and retaliation. But they have shown it is possible.

In Northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants have suffered over 400 years of conflict, a forgiveness project has helped start a dialogue between families on either side that lost close relatives to the civil war. Family members participating in the project are able to come out of anger and resentment, and move towards peace and forgiveness. Through each other’s stories, they realize a Catholic family suffers just as much as a Protestant family when a family member is killed and no longer want their tragedy to divide each other.

In South Africa, after the end of apartheid, Desmond Tutu helped establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) whose work was to hear stories of suffering and trauma people had endured while those who had inflicted harm were given a chance to admit what they had done and ask for forgiveness. Tutu realized that for peace to have a chance it was important for truth to come out and stories of suffering be told. Without this, the two communities would not be able to live side-by-side in peace.

India and Pakistan have a choice

India and Pakistan have a chance to bring peace to their people. A critical challenge is to acknowledge and honor the past as the two countries look ahead to the future. People cannot heal from the damage and turmoil of partition without telling their stories, these stories then being listened to, and gaining a fuller picture of the truth. Otherwise, trauma will continue to pass on from one generation to the next and fester in the form of anger, hatred, and suspicion for the other side.

Is Peace Possible in Ukraine?

READ MORE

Similar to the examples from other parts of the world, sharing the reality of what happened can be freeing as well as empowering individuals. In the case of Indians and Pakistanis, sharing stories would enable them to realize the destruction caused by partition. Work has already begun in this direction with oral history projects such as , , and recording personal stories of partition survivors. These stories have also come out in the media in recent years. More needs to be done quickly though because partition survivors are getting very old. For instance, each side can perhaps organize reconciliation sessions similar in spirit to TRC’s listening sessions.

Peace leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Tutu recognized the law-like nature of violence which operates at the individual, family, community, or country level. They noted  that words and actions that divide us are violent, and those that bring us together are non-violent. They understood violence leads to more violence and peace leads to more peace. To secure their future, the two countries can consciously choose to put forward a different face and work towards peace. This would entail including sharing of stories, listening to the other, accepting responsibility, forgiving, and making amends as per the toolbox for peace. If done carefully, this exercise promises to help create a better future for both India and Pakistan as well their people.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Peace is Possible if India and Pakistan Listen to Each Other’s Stories of Partition appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

On February 14, a than 40 paramilitary police in Indian-administered Kashmir. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a militant group based in Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the attack. While Islamabad has denied having any role in the incident, India has long accused Pakistan of backing insurgents.

The way India chooses to respond to the attack in Pulwama has consequences for its future and its relationship with Pakistan. In light of a by Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan on February 19, India has a chance to consider the offer he made. While defiantly warning against an attack on Pakistan, Khan said the long-running dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India could only be “solved through dialogue.” He added that Pakistan is ready to cooperate in an investigation and would hold those accountable if evidence is found that anyone from his country was involved in the incident.

India said his speech was inadequate, lacking in offering condolences for the victims’ families and that JeM’s claim of responsibility was proof enough that Pakistan was involved. From India’s point of view, this perception of the inadequacy of Khan’s offer of dialogue is understandable given the magnitude of loss encountered. Instead of dialogue, the Indian government seems to be intent on revenge. Its air force has already  deep into Pakistan.

Khan’s offer of dialogue might have been more credible if he had acknowledged the suffering of Indians. But let us put aside for a moment the sentiments of sadness, fear, anger and resentment that we are justifiably feeling after the Pulwama attack. The relevant question to ask for India is whether the offer is good enough to get both sides to the negotiating table.

How Should India Respond?

To decide how India should respond, we need to step back and look at the Pulwama incident in the context of the bigger picture context. Since partition in 1947, tensions between India and Pakistan have increased. They have fought three bloody wars. Hateful language is commonly used for the other side in mainstream media and by politicians on both sides of the border.

India and Pakistan have paid a huge price for the unending conflict. Khan acknowledged in his speech that it has cost Pakistan tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. He also said it is in his country’s interest to address the conflict. India is in the same situation and has lost countless lives too. So, it is also in India’s interest to move toward a peaceful solution.

As hard as it would be, this is an opportune time for both sides to rise above the mindset of right and wrong, judgment and blame, and instead come together and work to build peace. The media, in both countries, bear a huge responsibility in the way they report stories and play them over and over.  They can either promote conflict or help de-escalate it.

India must take its cue not from the media or its politicians, but leaders who have worked tirelessly for peace. More than ever, Mahatma Gandhi is a good role model for the country. He recognized that violence was subject to a universal law. When used as a means to bring peace, violence always leads to more violence. Nonviolent means to bring peace lead to more peace. So, if we respond to violence with violence, we would never reach peace.

Looking at historic and contemporary examples in the world, peace leaders have been clear on one principle: the antidote to violence is nonviolence. Desmond Tutu, the South African anti-apartheid activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, defines violence quite simply: words or actions that separate us are violent and those that bring us closer together are nonviolent.

If we apply this definition to the words that Indian leaders are using in response to the Pulwama incident, their violent rhetoric will escalate the conflict. Pakistan is doing the exact same thing by using a similar tone. Of course, a tragedy where numerous families have lost loved ones makes us feel anger, resentment and hatred. But if we pause and reflect, we can clearly see that to address the problem at its root, we need to seriously consider responding non-violently. This is in India’s self-interest. It may sound a cliché, but it is easy to observe from past experiences that if India responds to hate with hate, we will secure more violence for our country in the future.

Pros and Cons of India’s Response

In weighing up which India should respond, the question to consider is what the pros and cons of retaliation compared to a nonviolent approach are? If India retaliates, the pro is we may be able to stem the immediate tide of anger and resentment in the country arising from the loss of lives, as well as derive solace that we have exacted revenge. The con is we would just contribute to another cycle of violence in the long run that has huge costs for us. If India chooses a nonviolent response, the pro is we may end up shifting the trajectory of the relationship between the two countries to a path of sustainable peace. The con is such a response may look weak, but this is not really so. In Gandhi’s view, nonviolence requires much more strength than violence.

A nonviolent response does not in any way mean condoning the Pulwama attack or letting go of seeking justice and accountability. Investigating and holding the perpetrators accountable need to be part of any solution toward peace. However, if done carefully, such a response holds the possibility of a win-win situation for both sides in the long term. This is the power of a restorative justice approach that holds the potential to shift the subcontinent from a destructive to constructive trajectory.

On the other hand, a violent punitive response, can provide short-term victory for one side, but both of them will lose in the long run. The parents of the suicide bomber in Pulwama have stated their son took the route of violence after being beaten up by the Indian army a few years ago. This is yet more proof  that violence begets more violence.

India can make the choice of responding with empathy to the seemingly deficient Pakistani offer of dialogue in order to get the two countries to the negotiating table. Any international dispute that has been settled with mediation and resulted in a win-win outcome that is sustainable has involved responding to the other side with empathy and using some form of nonviolent communication. This is at the heart of a restorative option that needs, at the very minimum, empathy because it requires understanding where the other side is coming from and finding common ground. This does not imply condoning or minimizing the gravity of what has happened.

James O’Dea, former Washington office director of Amnesty International, writes in a on Facebook: “It is a fundamental basis of conflict resolution that you must give the other party the space to be the very best person they can be. If you confine the other person to the very limited view you have of them you will never have dialogue or a breakthrough in communication with them.”

Using a restorative approach would mean we fully denounce the Pulwama attack and, at the same time, take up the offer of dialogue without compromising on investigation and accountability. Making peace is by no means easy in the face of such a destructive event, but it is possible and worthwhile because the stakes are very high.

In 2016, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that it “is much harder to make peace than to wage war.” It is time that the government, media and people of both India and Pakistan took the hard option.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post India and Pakistan Have a Choice to Make appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.