New Delhi, Jan 29: The recent World Social Forum in Mumbai brought together a vast gathering of citizens from across the world, driven there by their strengthening concerns about public affairs and the direction being taken by their governments. The participants showed their readiness for direct involvement in matters that governments usually prefer to keep to themselves. The complexities of globalisation have been the centre of WSF attention, and dissenting voices have been heard loud and clear. The Mumbai gathering avoided the excesses that have been seized upon by opponents to diminish the Forum but was nevertheless firm in voicing alternative views on major global trends. Within the vast concourse where numerous structured discussions took place, there was one of specific regional import, devoted to the latest phase of Indo-Pak relations. What was stimulating about the Mumbai discussion was that it took place not in the chambers of the powerful or in the rarefied setting of think tanks but in open conclave. The participants were non-specialists, well aware of how their own lives were affected by the developments being discussed.

This event was held in the aftermath of the successful Islamabad Summit. Initial preparations for official talks are already in train, CBMs are coming fast and thick and the shadows of past discord and spitefulness seem far away. A remarkable feature of the Islamabad Summit is that it came after a cascading series of people-to-people events that owed nothing to governments but nevertheless had their impact on official attitudes. At many different levels, organised citizens’ groups on both sides took the initiative in coming together and collectively expressing their wish for an end to conflict and the advent of peace. The stone-faced men in the recesses of the establishment are notoriously insensitive to such sentiments. For them, it is a constant thrust and parry, an unending search for advantage. It is they, more than the general populace, who have the ear of the leaders. But the strength of general expectation did eventually make a difference at Islamabad. There was no shortage of negative counsel to Vajpayee when he went there, dissuading him from any peace-making commitments. Yet, the public mood was such that he could hardly have come back home with nothing useful to show for his visit. While there is much talk of third party pressure on the two sides, domestic public opinion may have been a more potent driving force.
Nor need it be supposed that the role of active citizens is confined to cheerleading from the sidelines, making calls for peace and harmony, generating goodwill, urging the authorities forward. The issues that divide the two countries have been discussed threadbare and are deeply embedded in any kind of bilateral discourse. Public discussion of the key issues can be a useful and relevant exercise, for any settlement between the parties, if it ever happens, will have to pass close public scrutiny. At Mumbai, a discussion on these themes brought together noted personalities from India and Pakistan. Participants spoke boldly of matters that governments can only hint at, among them the possibility of an eventual settlement along the LoC. Agreement may have been hard to reach but there are few parallels for such a public discussion between responsible citizens of the two countries; it can help clear the air, perhaps indicate a path for the future. At the WSF, it was also noteworthy that persons from J&K found a strong voice. The people from the state are no longer willing to wait passively for the outcome. The Kashmiri voice is gathering strength and on some important subjects, it cuts across all lines of division. For one thing, Kashmiris of all political persuasions seem adamant that that the scattered segments of the old J&K should be reunified. This amounts to a desire to undo the LoC and also to bring back the separated “Northern Areas” of Pakistan. How practical these desires may prove remains to be seen, yet what the people are saying will be an important element in any future agreement. At a minimum, it is a reminder that the dialogue that is taking shape between New Delhi and political elements in Srinagar, including separatists, is no less important than the dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Several times in the past, there have been hopeful indications about dialogue and what it offers, only for the moment to pass and be replaced by the familiar discord and recrimination. A roused public opinion in both countries such as we have seen in recent months can be a safeguard against unwarranted backsliding. One should be cautious about what can be achieved, for hostile sentiments towards the other side can easily be aroused to limit and displace a more cooperative approach. Yet, one must hope that citizens’ groups such as those active at WSF will become more effective and serve as monitors of progress along the path to peace and reconciliation.