T Thomas: Do we need a nanny?

At a recent board meeting of an international company, one of my European colleagues asked me about the possibility of war between India and Pakistan on account of Kashmir.

This is a recurring question, especially after both countries went nuclear, and affects the attractiveness of India as a destination for investment.

I explained to my colleague that it would be suicidal for Pakistan to engage in a war with India. In the end wars are won through superiority in the size and strength of the economy as much as by the size and capabilities of the armed forces.

On any of these counts India has something like 10 times the strength of Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan taking on India will be like Mexico taking on the US.

The smaller country may be able to inflict some damage through a surprise attack--even a nuclear one. But the size and spread of India are such that within hours we will be able to retaliate.

Then it is a question of who can hold out longer. This is when the relative sizes of the two countries will be the determinant factor.

My friend had not thought of it in those terms or realised the disparity between the two countries. But Pakistan's rulers and generals know these facts about the relative strengths of the two countries, but have to keep the Kashmir bogey alive mainly to ensure their own survival in power.

India finds itself a prisoner of this situation, so much so that the US has to act as a nanny to bring the two countries together. The question is, why can't we behave as two mature countries and take the initiative ourselves to resolve our differences?

While doing that, we need to work at educating the international community about ourselves, as seen in comparison with Pakistan, so that the two countries do not get equated with each other.

First, most people in the US and Europe are not aware that India has 150 million Muslims, the second largest Muslim population in the world, ranking second only to Indonesia; and that Muslims own several successful businesses in India in manufacturing, retailing, and IT, with the richest Indian (Azim Premji) being a Muslim.

Secondly, Muslims play a significant part in the cultural life of India and the most admired stars in India's thriving film industry have traditionally been Muslims like Nargis and Shah Rukh Khan.

And they are not confined to any particular region of India, being spread throughout the country, and enjoy full democratic rights. Their votes count and often become the swing factor in determining who wins.

Besides, Hindu society is not monolithic. It is split into several castes and sub-castes and the differences among them are sometimes greater than those between Hindus and Muslims.

There are also other significant religious minorities in India, like Christians, who number 30 million, ten times the population of Ireland, twice the size of the population of the Netherlands, and almost equal to the population of Canada!

The Sikhs are another minority religious group, and three of the most powerful people in India now belong to this minority community, viz.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Harkishen Singh Surjeet.

The international perception of India does not take full congizance of these facts, and about the role that India's minority communities play in varied fields: education and health care in the case of Christians, music, cinema, and business in the case of Muslims, and so on.

This is the image that India should convey to the West. At the moment, "Asia" is represented by China and Japan, Pakistan and the Arabs represent the Middle East; India is and should be seen as being different from all these.

If we need a lesson in how to project our country, we have only to look at Malaysia, which has a majority (70 per cent) Muslim population but with a successful and wealthy Chinese community (20 per cent) and a professional Indian community (10 per cent).

Their campaign "Malaysia truly Asia" projects a beautiful and harmonious multi-cultural society. The Indian government should seriously think of a TV campaign featuring the beauty, harmony, and democratic credentials of India.

There is enough creative talent in the Indian mass communication industry to produce a suitable campaign. The CII has an Indian Brand Equity fund, which can be used for media buying.

The theme for the campaign can be "The Harmony of India".

The strongest ties between nations are economic (trade and investment) ties. The European Union, Nafta, and Asean are examples of this.

Therefore, while running an educational campaign on India, we must also promote much stronger economic ties, and this could hold the key for a breakthrough with Pakistan.

For example, international energy companies are willing to invest in a pipeline for transmitting gas from Iran via Pakistan to India; ONGC from India could be a partner.

The involvement of international companies will be a deterrent to disruption, especially if the pipeline also supplies gas to Pakistan. A joint guarantee by Pakistan and Iran will be furnished to ensure that if gas supplies to India from this pipeline are stopped, Iran will automatically shut off supplies to Pakistan as well.

That will be a strong deterrent for Pakistan.

At present India's position on the pipeline is linked to Pakistan allowing Indian goods to flow in the opposite direction, to Afghanistan and beyond.

Pakistan is not allowing it because they know they will not be able to compete against Indian goods in those markets west of Pakistan.

It may be prudent for us to give up our demand for reciprocal transit rights, and get the gas pipeline built because the benefit to us from it is far greater than the benefit from potential exports overland to regions beyond Pakistan.

Furthermore, it is more than likely that once trade between India and Pakistan is opened up, Indian and Pakistani businessmen will find ways to cooperate.

We must not underestimate the ability of business to cooperate even when governments do not do so.

Once the pipeline is built and starts functioning and trade ties are opened up, the benefits to both countries will be such that people will forget past conflicts.

One has only to look at Germany and France, who fought each other for 50 years and in the two World Wars in the last century, and who have since then led the European Union for 50 years to achieve tremendous growth.

Likewise China, which has bitter memories of being occupied brutally by Japan, is now cooperating with Japan to progress its economy.

Pakistan and India need to cooperate much more than France and Germany did, or China and Japan need to do. We share a common heritage, languages, music, poetry, art, and religion.

Do we need an American nanny to persuade us, like two petulant adolescents, to kiss and make up? Surely the political leaders on both sides are mature enough to take that bold step on their own.

Fortunately, Mr Vajpayee took the first step in opening the doors to Pakistan. So the BJP in opposition cannot criticise the Congress if it picks up the ball from where Mr Vajpayee left it.

Manmohan Singh is visionary enough to take a bold step and set the ball rolling on the gas pipeline. Sometimes the simple, straightforward, bold Punjabi style of doing is more productive than the ponderous methods of our foreign policy mandarins.