The longstanding political and historical tensions between India and Pakistan have created a complex and fraught relationship that persists to this day. In this context, the legacies of two key figures - Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah - are often revisited when discussing prospects for peace and reconciliation.
The play by Prof. Akbar. S. Ahmed, titled "Gandhi and Jinnah Return Home," suggests that the ideals promoted by these two leaders—Gandhi's non-violent approach and Jinnah's commitment to constitutional values—could provide a solution to the tensions between India and Pakistan. The drama revisits the founders' original visions, though it may do so with a touch of optimism.
However, a critical examination of the contemporary political climate raises questions about the continued relevance of founders’ ideas in an era marked by rising nationalism, militarisation, and authoritarianism. Can these philosophies still provide practical solutions amidst such challenging geopolitical realities?
Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of ahimsa, or non-violence, was central to his leadership in India's fight for independence. His belief in peaceful resistance and dialogue has been praised for its emphasis on compassion, mutual understanding, and human dignity. However, in today's political climate, Gandhi's commitment to non-violence is often dismissed as impractical. The growing militarisation of India and the rise of aggressive nationalism suggest that his ideals may be perceived as passive or even naive in the face of modern threats. Critics argue that non-violence is not only a pacifist stance, but also an unrealistic one in a world where conflicts are frequently resolved through force and strategic power plays.
The harsh realities of contemporary geopolitics often eclipse these ideals, yet they serve as a crucial counterbalance to the prevalent norms of aggression and authoritarianism
In the context of India-Pakistan relations, Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence appears to conflict with the militaristic and security-driven policies that dominate much of the political discourse in both nuclear-armed nations. The challenge lies in determining whether the principles of non-violence can be effectively applied in a geopolitical environment where the reality of violence—be it through direct conflict or proxy wars—seems unavoidable.
M. A. Jinnah's vision for Pakistan was rooted in a firm commitment to constitutionalism, emphasising the crucial importance of the rule of law and the protection of minority rights. He envisioned a democratic Pakistan governed by a fair and inclusive constitutional framework. This principled vision stands in stark contrast to the authoritarian tendencies that have often characterised Pakistan's political landscape. The military's pervasive influence on governance and the frequent occurrence of military coups have undermined the constitutional principles that Jinnah so ardently advocated.
In India, while democratic institutions remain intact, recent political trends suggest a worrying centralisation of power. The rise of undemocratic and authoritarian governance has raised serious concerns about the erosion of institutional checks and balances. These developments present a compelling challenge to the ideals of inclusive democracy that Jinnah championed for Pakistan.
Amidst the current landscape, a crucial question arises: Can Jinnah's vision of constitutionalism still serve as a viable model for governance in both India and Pakistan, especially given the decline in democratic ideals within their borders? As these nations grapple with authoritarian pressures, has constitutionalism transformed from a functional framework for political governance into an unreachable aspiration?
From a pragmatic perspective, Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and Jinnah's commitment to constitutionalism now seem increasingly irrelevant in the context of modern India and Pakistan. The political realities of the 21st century show that both countries have largely abandoned these ideals in favor of more pragmatic approaches to national security and governance. India's shift toward militarised, nationalist rhetoric contrasts sharply with Gandhi's calls for peace, while Pakistan's authoritarian tendencies suggest a departure from Jinnah's vision of constitutional democracy.
Still, while Gandhi's non-violence and Jinnah's constitutionalism may seem outdated in today's turbulent political climate, their importance remains vital. The harsh realities of contemporary geopolitics often eclipse these ideals, yet they serve as a crucial counterbalance to the prevalent norms of aggression and authoritarianism.
The key challenge is whether these ideals can be effectively reintroduced into political discussions. Given the entrenched power dynamics, will leaders in both nations be willing to embrace these principles to promote reconciliation? Perhaps the answer lies in making gradual changes—small steps toward rebuilding trust, acknowledging that the long-term benefits of peace far outweigh the short-term advantages of ongoing hostility.
For both India and Pakistan, revisiting the principles established by their founding fathers—non-violence and constitutionalism—could lay the groundwork for a more peaceful future. However, realising this vision will require not only a shift in political will, but also a reimagining of these principles to align with the current realities faced by both nations. Though the past cannot be altered, the enduring legacies of Gandhi and Jinnah may offer a vital path forward amidst the challenges of the present.