While the peace process, vis-à-vis Indo-Pak relations, has picked up momentum over the past couple of years, it is still largely defined by elitism. For sustained, viable peace, it is imperative that the peace movement create completely decentralized processes.

Hostilities between India and Pakistan are based on internalization of a process creating demons that has spanned multiple generations. While partition birthed this process and the internal politics of both nations nourished these demons, the extreme forms were given shape in more recent years, by dictatorship of Zia in Pakistan and the rise of the religious extreme in India.

In either case, the definitions of how people of both countries must see the other were presented and enforced by certain elite groups; the people themselves did not really get to see the other for themselves. For example, people in Pakistan did not ever get to see for themselves whether Hindus are indeed very dirty; they were told that was the case. Similarly, people in India never got to see whether Pakistani men married multiple times; they were told what to know.

Peace and hostilities have thus been defined by the elite. When these countries have gone to war has been decided by political, intellectual or military elite. It is the same group that has decided when there is peace and under what conditions. In fact, the very definition of the nation states in South Asia was drawn up by this group.

And yet, for most part, the processes of peace are also been designed to evolve through these very groups. Elite sports people have gone to meet their counterparts. Movie stars, nationally acclaimed intellectuals and artists have gotten together at various events for peace. Political leaders were invited to participate in conventions of peace. Really – do they not know what the perils of war are? Do they really need a convention to learn this?

This is not to say that such gatherings are not necessary; however, when almost all peace efforts are restricted to such events, the process is self-defeating.

Thus, even the peace processes are within the control of, and under the conditions of the political leadership. The quantity and the quality are defined by the political needs of the elite of both our countries. As long as the peace process is limited to the elite, it is easy for political leadership of both nations to reverse the process.

Given that hostilities between the two countries are based on en-masse de-humanization of the other, the peace process must look at a process of humanization that is decentralized, that is people-based and people-oriented. The peace movement must take the process to the people – to a condition where interested forces will find reversal much more difficult.

Unfortunately, the peace movement has not achieved this; it has in fact made little attempt in this direction. Accepted, that with stringent rules that limit direct interactions between people, and immense political and financial barriers for interaction, only the elite have had the opportunity to truly interact. However, the peace movement has not presented such a vision – and when it has, the vision has often been co-opted by the elite within the peace movement itself.

Till recently, that is.

In the early part of this century, a few small efforts were organized that brought larger communities in touch with each other. Sometimes it was through agricultural fairs, at other times through community exchanges. They were small and often restricted to communities close to the border. And they were very few.

Last year, a group of people in India and Pakistan decided to organize a march of Indians and Pakistanis from Delhi to Multan. This was significant since it was envisioned that common people would walk through the countryside of both nations, meeting people and talking about day-to-day life, sharing our problems, our hopes and our ambitions.

While very few people got visas, and the group was not allowed to march in Pakistan, the event still exposed people in India and Pakistan to people from the ‘other’ side. The recognition, the acknowledgement of humanity, was significant. It was significant that school children got to meet and speak with the other, that farmers, small businessmen, policemen, small town and large city residents, all got to meet the other.

Yet, this event did take a lot to organize – much resource, energy and bureaucratic strings. While significant energy and momentum was generated by this march, it is clear that we cannot organize such marches on a regular basis and we cannot have sustained and en-masse interactions through such processes.

And sustained, en-masse interactions are absolutely necessary.

Hence, it is of critical importance that we begin to find ways for direct interaction between various communities in India and Pakistan – between school children, agrarian communities, journalists, professionals, business people, etc. In this age of global connectivity and internet, surely this is possible?

As a pilot effort, a small group organized a teleconference between children in Hyderabad, Pakistan and in Lucknow, India. The effort was a huge success with participants saying that it changed how they thought about the other. How do we decentralize such a process? Surely, it cannot be too difficult? We have phone lines. And webcams.

We can also think of numerous other ways. It is important that we try them. And share these stories.

For peace South Asia is of benefit to the people of South Asia; it may not be of benefit to arms dealers, to entities that gain from the absence of direct trade between the two nations, to the political leaders who may gain from the politics of hate.

Our hope for peace rests with the people of South Asia. The peace movement must then imagine processes that empower our people.

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Kids Teleconf Decides: We Can Be Friends
Reject Fighter Plains, Campaign Requests Governments
Peace March Preparation in Full Swing
Indians, Pakistanis Celebrate Independence Together