I had almost forgotten that Dilip D’Souza now a regular commenter on my blog, also writes for Rediff. He’s written quite well on the urgent need for peace between the subcontinental (?) neighbours. In this article, he has compared the apparent unity among the European nations (in the form of the EU) with the no-end-in-sight Indo-Pak conflict. He calls for The Road, a beginning that has to be made somewhere if we all desire peace.

Yet he slips intermittently because he tries to equate the histories of two entirely different parts of the world that share(d) different views of defining nationhood, nationalism, and patriotism.

Yet what might we build here if we learned to live together — as France and Germany have done, despite hating each other as much and for far longer than India and Pakistan have done? What might we build if, instead of pointing fingers and slaughtering people, we searched for peace?

For one, France and Germany were separate nations for as long as recorded history tells us. Whereas India was one before it became India and Pakistan. I’m definitely all for building bridges, and removing the Damocles’ sword of violence hanging so palpably in the air. However, it must be remembered that Pakistan was a child of violence and hatred unlike for example, East Germany and West Germany, which after some decades, merged into what it was before the partition. What I advocate instead of efforts for peace is something like this: let India and Pakistan merge. Hopefully that should put an end to all troubles. Sorry, but would our President General at the other side of the fence agree to this? It is also curious to notice that how, when peace talks are in progress, Pakistan-backed terrorists freedom fighters carry on their jobs quite unhindered.

Viewing India’s (and/or Pakistan’s) history using the same yardstick as Europe’s isn’t particularly enlightening. As I said earlier, India of the yore defined itself culturally, not geographically. A cursory knowledge of the system of Saartha (caravan, “travelling economy” to put it vaguely) in ancient India will throw light on several aspects of the Indian society, economy, culture, and political set up among other things. It also provides an understanding of how Indian nationalism can be understood. Whereas most of the European nations defined their nationhood by arcs/maps/lines/boundaries: it was “us” versus “them.” Hence the hatred between Germany and France, or for that matter between France and England.

…the EU is a shared understanding of that better way — that if you cooperate, you bring peace and prosperity for all.

Agree fully. Yet, the cynic in me asks me to look at several other factors that prompted the formation and functioning of the EU as it is today. And the cynic tells me that in addition to the peace-through-mutual-cooperation principle, the EU is also a reaction, an attempt to “stand up to America,” and a resolve to salvage the political and economic monopoly over large parts of the world that individual European nations once commanded. And despite the formation of the EU, it has not been able to “break” America, so to say. Further, the same Europe is responsible for much of the mess in the world today: India-Pakistan, the Israel problem, the mess in many parts of Africa… in short, in all countries which were its former colonies. Thank you.

This is not to say that the EU is a floundering union or a failure or that its intentions are ignoble. After all, the continent that is responsible for two world wars should begin soul searching somewhere. Only, the defining factor shouldn’t be negative: break the US hegemony monopoly.

The cynic that I am!

Tags: Commentary, General, History, Weblogs