KARACHI, Nov 12: Speakers at a conference on Saturday emphasised the need for working together in South Asia if the region is to tread the path of progress and prosperity.

The international conference titled The Situation in South Asia – Global and Regional Implications was organised by the Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST) at the institute’s auditorium.

The conference commenced with the welcome address delivered by Prof Dr Amanat Ali Jalbani, followed by senator Raza Rabbani’s speech in which he discussed Pakistan’s present geopolitical situation and reiterated the basic red lines, which were (1) respect for territorial sovereignty (2) issues should be dealt with sovereign equality (3) no boots on ground (4) cessation of drone attacks (5) no pressure from any power on decision-making vis-à-vis national security.

The first session of the moot (Changing Situation in South Asia) was presided over by former foreign secretary Najumddin Shaikh. Dr Didier Chaudet of the Institute of Political Studies (Paris) was the first speaker of the day. He said when Pakistan came into being it was impossible to imagine to have no influence in Afghanistan. He said for Russia, Afghanistan was not the main issue: it only wanted to see what the US was doing. Global powers didn’t care much about Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said.

Dr Julian Schofield of the Department of Political Science (Montreal) opined that China’s interest in Pakistan was shallow and superficial.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa contested Dr Schofield’s view and said the geo-strategic plates in the region were shifting as US-Pakistan relations were complex — there were strategic diversions and tactical conversions in the relations. She said there was an increased Chinese interest in Pakistan and the Chinese were moving very smartly. She said China wanted to get access to Pakistan’s resources but at the same time it didn’t want to take on additional liabilities.

Replying to a question Ayesha Siddiqa said the military’s backing for certain non-state actors had negative implications. It could go to Afghanistan like India with options such as development and cultural exchange. She said one shouldn’t confuse equality with parity.

The second session (Indo-Pak Relations: a Framework for Peace) was presided over by member of Indian parliament Mani Shankar Aiyar. The first speaker of the session historian Dr Mubarak Ali told the gathering that in the past efforts were made to write joint history textbooks, which didn’t materialise. He said our historical narratives carried hostility. There were attempts to isolate ourselves from India through history, then by using the Two-Nation Theory it was established that there’s nothing common between Hindus and Muslims.

After the making of Bangladesh hostility towards India increased. He said Pakistan became an ideological state and thus liked to remain in isolation. He maintained though we read about Pakistan giving India the status of the Most Favoured Nation, it hadn’t made any effect on the life of the common man.

Secretary-General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan I.A. Rehman said there was a time when Jinnah said that Pakistan would defend India’s boundaries, but then two things changed the whole situation (1) 1947 riots which were economically motivated (2) the issue of Kashmir after which Pakistan developed the theory of security concern and relied on the US. He said today instead of cooperating in Afghanistan, India and Pakistan were determined to compete. It’s unwise for both countries to think that either didn’t have a stake in Afghanistan. He said they were creating a problem which was as difficult as Kashmir. He said we needed to unscramble the mess that we’d created. A beginning had to be made, he articulated.

Ahsan Munir said trade between India and Pakistan was governed by political interests rather than economic.

Mr Aiyar said Pakistan was an irreversible historical fact and that “India and Pakistan are like Siamese twins”; they couldn’t float away from each other. He said we could either carry on punching one another or work together towards a common goal. He said history didn’t divide us but historiographers did. It led to the Two-Nation theory which manifested in Pakistan and then into a three-state reality. He said there were Muslims shrines in India just as there were Hindu shrines in Pakistan. He lauded the idea of writing a joint history which was a difficult task. He commented that communalised approach to history was dangerous. “We must recognise the diversity of our heritage.” He said there were people in the Indian foreign office who were ignorant of and prejudiced against Pakistan — foreign offices of both countries were a problem. We must resume restructuring of an uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue and prevent hostile elements from not letting the dialogue take place. He stressed we shouldn’t let the non-state actors disrupt dialogue. He said a window of opportunity in Nov 2011 had been seen (he appreciated that the prime minister of India had called the prime minister of Pakistan a man of peace) and we must consolidate that point.

For that to happen we still had two and a half years. Agreeing with I.A. Rehman on working together on different forums, he said India and Pakistan should also work with each other for UN reform and nuclear disarmament.

Two presentations were made in the third session, presided over by economist Kaiser Bengali: one by Dr Tipu Sultan (on health-related issues) and the other by Iffat Ara (on matters pertaining to trade).

In the concluding session Mr Aiyar delivered a longish speech in which he by giving a detailed historic perspective emphasised the point that civilizationally India and Pakistan shared more than what set them apart. He began by suggesting that two words, asymmetry and non-reciprocity, were key to coming closer — one should be friendlier to the other. He argued trade between the two had to be dealt with in a sensitive manner rather than bringing down all barriers. After tracing the centuries’ old common history, and after touching upon the phase when Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru, etc) suffered inferiority complex vis-à-vis Europeans and then restored self-confidence, he said it was Tagore and Iqbal who started Asian Renaissance in the region. He said in early 1947 through a conference Nehru wanted Asia to be the centre of the world. He said if Pakistan had ancestral relations with West Asia and Central Asia, it shouldn’t bother India; similarly India also had relations with these regions. But the fact remained that there were more civilisational similarities between India and Pakistan. He said Mughals ruled India for hundreds of years and during that time only 24 per cent of the population was Muslim, which clearly indicated that there was no major attempt to forcibly convert Hindus into Muslims. He said South Asia had survived on the basis of plurality whereas West Asia had survived on the basis of uniformity. He disagreed with Javed Jabbar who wrote in one his books that there’s a Muslim nation in India. He said sub-identity had to be given recognition. He said we had common civilisation and only when India’s hostility got asserted a reaction from Pakistan was witnessed. He again suggested that a structured uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue was necessary and for that to happen there should be a designated day (Thursday) at the Wagah-Attari border; the foreign offices of both countries shouldn’t be allowed to prevent the meetings from happening; all subjects should be discussed etc.Najmuddin Shaikh said he was a bureaucrat and remained so, but Mr Aiyar was a bureaucrat who became a politician and had now turned into a visionary.