20000320

Economic Intelligence:

Should Muslim world collaborate

with India?

Dr Ayub Mehar

What should be the nature and strength of Socio-economic relations between India and Muslim World (and particularly Pakistan)? There are three different schools of thoughts:

1) Some experts think that Pak-India frontiers should be absolutely abolished and a confederation should be formed. Benazir Bhutto has stated that if she got another chance to form a government in Pakistan, she would open the borders with India. According to her, "Now, this Wall of Berlin should be removed." It is 'a fact that a complete confederation' has been proposed by the Indian scholars, intellectuals, and traders too. Some nationalists in Pakistan have also wished such a confederation. Even a joint defense system has been proposed.

2) According to another view boundaries should remain on paper but not in physical term. So that mobility of the goods and services, labour, investment, skills, ideas, information and currency can be enhanced and become convenient. It may be a formation of economic union just like in European Union and Nafta, where no frontiers exist for trade and economic mobility.

3) Other group does not allow any trade relation with India. They think, we should not collaborate with India in any form for any purpose and we should focus on the formation of a Muslim bloc.

In relation to a multi-polar world, another question is also important: Should Muslim World collaborate with India against Christian bloc?

Arabs and Indians have long-term association in their economic history. Indian economy is still depending on the remittances, trade relations, investment, and employment opportunities in the southern part of the Arab world. Muslims became a part of Indian culture some 1200 years ago. This type of alliance may reduce the domination of Christian block.

Indian Hindus are more against Christians than Muslims are. Christians have never become a part of the Indian culture. British rule in India and Portuguese's colonialism in Gowa created the problems and rifts between India and Western bloc. Hindu extremists agitated against the visit of Roman Pop in India in November 1999. The bloody riots between Christians and Hindus and the fire on churches and Christians' residences are very common in Southern India. Congress (I), the most popular Indian political party lost its position just because its chairperson is not a Hindu. She is a Christian.

Despite these facts United States is interested re-establishing good relations between India and Pakistan. Which theory is working behind this? There are two basic motivations behind the US interest in Indo-Pak relations. Confucius Block (Greater China) is a big challenge for the United States. A rift between India and China is in the interest of United States. United States wants to threat China with the help of a strong and powerful neighbour. To fulfil the American objectives, India should concentrate its attention to the rivalry with China. It is only possible if India has trouble-free relations with Pakistan and the other Muslims countries.

At present, Muslim World is not a challenge for the West. Christian world is twenty-one times more powerful than present economic strength of Muslim world. But, Western block wants to weaken further its historical rival. They are trying to divide the Muslim World by means of the creation of South Asian Treaty. Such a treaty will shift four countries of the Islamic Bloc into the Hindu Bloc. It will be eight-country block (including Afghanistan) led by India. The inclusion of four Muslim countries into the South Asian Treaty will be a harmful for the Islamic culture and unity. Another important point is that the inclusion of Pakistan in South Asian Treaty will be the reflector of the fact that there would be no "Nuclear Power" in the Islamic Bloc.

Talbott's visit and US parliamentarian delegation to India just before Vajpayee's visit to Pakistan were the meaningful steps in this direction. In the same period, Nicolson Bridgeton, a shrewd ambassador of Britain, and Frank and anti-Pakistan US ambassador in Delhi, have visited Pakistan. Those event are not at random, they must have some linkages. The sequence of events shows that work on an agenda is being done rapidly. If India and Pakistan form a joint treaty; the Western World can get the following benefits:

1) The formation of Islamic bloc will be abolished or become weaker.

2) Justification of the nuclear programme will be abolished. So the risk of an "Islamic Bomb" will also be minimised.

3) Kashmir solution will tend to eliminate the tempo and spirit of Jihad.

4) If Pakistan curtails the defense expenditures and equipment, it will ultimately weaken the Muslim World.

5) The political power of China will be reduced; China is an economic and and political challenge for USA. China will lose the number of its political supporters.

It is important that according to the geographical distributing by US foreign office, WTO, and the World Bank, Afghanistan is a part of the South Asia, and the role of Delhi is to cover the Afghan issues also.

The statements and slogans, like Indo-Pak confederation, Great Indian Unity, Common Currency and Hindu-Muslim brotherhoods are dangerous from the ideology point of view. They negate the 'Two nations theory' which is the "only" justification for Pakistan.

In fact, people who recommend a complete collaboration with India, ignore the historical roots of those relations. Pakistan and India are the characters of 'Two countries, one story'. Indo-Pakistan relations are in fact, Hindu-Muslim relations. The rivalry relations between Hindus and Muslims are not the effect of the creation of Pakistan; they are the cause of the creation of Pakistan. They are the natural consequences of the Indian history.

From Pakistani perspective, the 'Mujahideen' in Afghanistan and Kashmir are the freedom fighters; they are terrorists from Indian's perspective. This conflict in the ideologies has not been created because of the present fighting. It has deep roots in the history. Mehmood Ghaznavi was a Muslim hero, but a robber in the eyes of Indo majority. Raja Dahir and Pirithivi were the favourite commanders according to the Indian school of thought; they were symbol of fascism according to the Muslim literature. Mohammad Bin Qasim, Hujaj Bin Yousuf, Mohammad Shah Ghouri, Babar, and Alamgir are the honourable names in the Muslim history, but dictators and militants in the Hindu literature. Akbar is the hero of the secularists, but a weak Muslim in the history of Muslims One's heroes are the others villain in the history of the Hindu-Muslim relations in India.

The role of Pakistan in the Muslim world has multi-dimensional aspects. Pakistan is considered as an eastern gate of Muslim world. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, mentioned that 'Pakistan is not an end with itself but means to an end.' What is the end? Historically, people of Pakistan are closely related with the Ottoman Empire. They scarified and devoted their time, wealth, and efforts to protect the Ottoman Empire through "Khilafat Movement" in India. Now, Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Muslim World.

It is an important observation from Pakistan that armed forces and public have the uniformity in the opinions on national issues like CTBT, Kashmir, Jihad movements and economic relations with India. The politician and statesmen in Pakistan may disagree with the armed forces' opinions but public views support the forces' opinion. Such witnesses have never seen in other countries. This is the reason of the success of military governments in Pakistan. Public have always been welcoming armed forces. The people in other countries cannot understand the nature of this emotional relation between the pubic and military forces. It is important that Martial Law and democracy are closely related with the freedom of choice. The external forces can manipulate the public choices through economic coercion. Now, they are trying to break the public and military relations through various modus operandi, like:

1) Creation of the disagreement and misunderstanding among the forces;

2) Creation of anti-Taliban thoughts in the name of Afghan terrorism;

3) Change in the public opinions on Kashmir issue; and

4) Reduction in the defence budget and abolishment of the ideological related activities and institutions through the implementation of IMF and World Bank agreements.

Now, it is not a secret that Christians and Hindus have shaken hands against Islam. It is being clearly observed that China is coming closer to the Muslim bloc, while Western Bloc is going closer to India. Although, India is not offering any collaboration with Western bloc and historically India was closer to Muslims. The Kashmir and historical rift between Hindus and Muslims are the factors of discrepancies between India and Muslim world.

"Hindu Bloc" will be the smallest bloc among the expected blocks indicated by Professor Huntington. This smallest and less-developed block cannot survive without the affiliation of another bloc.

In fact, India cannot afford a rift with the Muslim world. It has two options: either become a subsidiary of Muslim block in future or play a role of the agent of Western bloc against China and Muslim World in Asia. The choice is in the hand of India.