INDIA AND PAKISTAN:

COMMON IDENTITY AND CONFLICT

Samar Hasan
Webster University, Geneva
The experience of migration offers a particularly interesting context for exploring
personal and social identity. When people cross borders, despite their efforts to
cope with the new setting, migrants cannot help but remain linked in some way
to their country of origin. Often, the search for identity is a problem for migrants.
This is why, in migration issues, identity has to be studied in detail since it plays a
key role in affecting developments. In the case of India and Pakistan, the issue has
been the establishment and reinforcement of a separate and unique identity, and
often this has led to distress and further enstrangement between the two nations.

INTRODUCTION
India and Pakistan came into existence as two separate nation-states in 1947.
They have a history of only fifty-seven years of existence as separate countries
as compared to about a thousand years of joint existence before the British Raj.
Their common identity revolves around aspects of shared history, geography, lan-
guage, culture, values, and traditions. However, during partition, only one aspect
of the identity was considered i.e. the religious identity of the peoples of India.
Over the years, common identity has often been suppressed and buried under
the pressure of the conflict of identity between India and Pakistan. One expression
of the conflict between India and Pakistan is the issue of Kashmir. This conflict
has continued ever since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in August 1947.
Kashmir is an open conflict similar to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and has contin-
ued over more than half a century. While many people do not realize the gravity
of the issue, it is a central issue in Indian-Pakistani relationship, and we need to
address this issue. The two countries have to find a solution to the deeper and
broader conflict in order to enable them to develop friendly ties with each other.
My paper aims to discuss the various aspects of identity shared by both India
and Pakistan and suggests some solutions for the conflict of identity. I will briefly
explain the process that led to the creation of Pakistan, and the continuing conflict
since then over Kashmir. I will also outline the different levels of identity and how
Indians and Pakistanis share a common identity that has, at the same time, some
distinctive characteristics. Finally, I would like to suggest what steps India and Pak-
istan might take to be able to overcome their differences and co-exist peacefully.

BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

There were various social groups and communities living in India, and the coun-
try was far from being a homogenous society. Two major groups were Hindus and

Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue 4 © UNHCR 2005, all rights reserved
DOI:10.1093/rsq/hdi085

RSQ-24-4.indd 74 25.11.2005 9:52:49

 Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue 4 © UNHCR 2005, all rights reserved 75

Muslims. For about a thousand years before the advent of the British rule in In-
dia, Hindus and Muslims had lived side by side in separate social compartments,
accommodating each other’s beliefs.1
However, the establishment of British rule was accompanied by radical
changes in the political and economic structure of the country as well as the
intellectual life. In the early nineteenth century, introduction of Western ideas
and English education created discontent among Muslims. While Hindus eagerly
accepted Western ideas, Muslims rejected English education. The replacement of
Persian by English in 1837 severely affected Muslim employment in government
sectors, and by the middle of the century, Muslims were well behind the Hindus
in progress. They were lagging behind in education and training, were unem-
ployed or in low-income jobs, thus they were also financially less stable. Much
of this uneven development of the two communities became responsible for the
mutual communal distrust between Hindus and Muslims that finally led to the
Partition of India. The Revolt of 1857 relinquished all power in the hands of the
British, and the defeat was felt most strongly by the Muslims. The privileges they
had enjoyed earlier disappeared, and in the aftermath of the Revolt, the British
were also prejudiced against them.2

BRITAIN’S DISENGAGEMENT POLICY

Another factor that led to the separation of the country was Britain’s colonial dis-
engagement policy. According to Dr. Sumit Ganguly, Britain’s colonial disengage-
ment policy exacerbated the ideological differences between the Congress and the
Muslim League.3 He says:
“Separatism became a resource that the British regime cultivated and exploited
for its own purposes. The more “separate” Muslims came to feel, the more readily
could the foreign rulers contend that antipathies between Hindus and Muslims
made nationhood for the Indian people impossible.”
Initially, the British adopted this policy so that Hindus and Muslims would re-
alize how futile it was for them to try and obtain nationhood. They wanted to
demonstrate that the two sides could only live together under British rule. Yet, the
differences between the two sides became irreconcilable, and instead of sorting
out the mess, the British handed over the control hastily when the Congress and
the Muslim League reached a political stalemate beyond British control.
Was the Creation of Pakistan inevitable?
Many scholars have questioned whether the existence of Pakistan was unavoid-
able or whether there were other ways of organizing the country without sepa-
rating the two groups. Was this truly inevitable? It is true to say that the British
found this as the easiest way. Yet, at the same time, we must understand that the
ideologies of Islam and Hinduism were separate and unique. Jinnah, the founder
of Pakistan wrote,
“The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different philosophies, social cus-
toms, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and indeed,…

RSQ-24-4.indd 75 25.11.2005 9:52:49

 76 Conference Papers

they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and
conceptions…”4
However, they had been able to co-exist for a thousand years. The main rea-
son was that they did not feel threatened by each other. They were able to main-
tain their own individual religious identity as Hindus and Muslims, practice their
religion freely and at the same time, they were able to maintain their joint Indian
identity. Yet, with the British policy of divide and rule, the differences between
them were highlighted to the extent that they became a burden. This gulf was in-
tensified by British colonial policy and created a fear of “Hindu domination” that
resulted in the creation of Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim country.5 In such
circumstances, I believe that there was no other option but to create Pakistan.
To this day, the feeling of separateness exists, and communal violence has
continued in India. There are about a hundred deaths every year, and in 1980,
there were 400. In 1998-99, 275 people were killed in the state of Gujerat.6 In
2002, about 1,000 Muslims were killed in Gujerat, their homes burnt and prop-
erties destroyed.7 This has given reason to Pakistan to declare that India makes
false claims about being a secular state. In 1992, the Baburi Mosque that was built
during the Mughul Empire, was demolished. In retaliation, the Pakistani popula-
tion destroyed the few mandirs that remained in Pakistan. Communal violence
has been less in Pakistan since it is a predominantly Muslim country with only
3% non-Muslim population.
If we look at the tremendous upheaval that was created in society upon sepa-
ration in 1947, it is hardly surprising that there were feelings of bitterness and
mistrust on both sides. During partition, new boundaries were drawn up without
consideration for local interests and loyalties. Villages, clans, families were split up
instantaneously. Irrigated land was cut away from the source of water. Both coun-
tries faced an explosion of communal violence. Millions left their homes in Pun-
jab while Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh fanatics slaughtered each other mercilessly.
Communal riots in East Punjab forced more than six million Muslims from East
Punjab to migrate to Pakistan.8 Crowded trains would reach Pakistan with not a
soul alive. Hundreds of villages were burnt in both countries, and it is estimated
that a million people died during partition. Approximately seven million people
crossed from India to Pakistan and slightly more migrated the other way.9
However, India and Pakistan must remember that this is what happens in
wars and armed conflicts. War is not a victory for any one side. The losses are
plenty and shared by all parties. To continue living in the past will not help either
party. If we say that it became impossible for them to live together, how is it that
they are unable to stand each other now that they are separate countries?

KASHMIR

The issue of Kashmir is also a bone of contention. At the time of independence,

there were more than hundred princely states in undivided India. While Pakistan
constituted of all the provinces with a Muslim majority, the princely states had
their own choice to accede to either side.

RSQ-24-4.indd 76 25.11.2005 9:52:49

 Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue 4 © UNHCR 2005, all rights reserved 77

The princely state of Kashmir had a Hindu prince (Raja) who belonged
to the Dogra tribe. The Raja decided to accede to India, and did not properly
consider the views of the masses, which were predominantly Muslims. Pakistan
insisted that all Muslim majority areas should be handed over to the new Muslim
state. However, India was intent on demonstrating that all minorities could flour-
ish under a secular government.10
Soon after the formation of the two new states, there was a local uprising in
Kashmir. The Kashmiris had the support of Pakistan, and they received aid from
the Pashtun tribal region of the country. These 1948 border skirmishes had the
result that one-third of Kashmir went to Pakistan, while India maintained control
over two-third of the region.
A UN resolution was passed in 1948 that insisted on a referendum to be held
in Kashmir. Through this referendum, they could either choose self-rule or decide
to become a part of either India or Pakistan. India accepted the ruling but so far
it has been put off and has not been implemented till now.
Common Identity
The process of peace is a long process, and it is not possible to establish peace
over night. But, it is an achievable goal, and both countries are in a dire need to
establish friendly relations with each other. War is a terrible thing, because no
one is victorious. All sides suffer losses. Yet, to view each other as enemies is not
the solution. France and Germany too have had a history of waging wars against
each other. Yet, today the way they have handled the issue is not by eliminating
their identity, but by no longer viewing it as a source of enmity. Both French and
Germans have a clear identity of their own.
There are several ways of dealing with different identities: accepting the dif-
ferent; changing the different, rejecting the different. The consequences can ei-
ther be fear or harmony, integration or assimilation.11 For India and Pakistan the
challenge today is of accepting not rejecting each other, so that they can harmon-
ise relationships among each other.

GENERAL ASPECTS/ISSUES OF IDENTITY

There are various aspects of identity. Citizenship-nationality is one of them. Lan-

guage, political values and traditions, culture, history, social conditions, profes-
sion, religion, economic conditions, race, ethnicity, friends-enemies are all differ-
ent aspects of identity.12 Indians and Pakistanis share many of these aspects and
more. Existing together for centuries, both Hindus and Muslims exchanged many
of their traditions, and the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan carried these tradi-
tions over to the new country.
Respect for elders is an innate part of the South Asian culture. The family
values are very strong and the family system is extremely close-knit. Obedience is
a special virtue in the Indian and Pakistani youth, and even today, the tradition of
arranged marriage continues. The culture is very similar. Both Indians and Paki-
stanis often don the same clothes. Muslim weddings across the Middle East are

RSQ-24-4.indd 77 25.11.2005 9:52:49

 78 Conference Papers

usually in white. However, Pakistani brides wear red or other bright colours like
Indian brides. Furthermore, while dowry is not a Muslim tradition, Pakistanis
incorporated the dowry system from their combined existence with Indians.

OLD ENEMIES, NEW FRIENDS?

Why is it that even after almost six decades, Indians and Pakistanis view each
other in a hostile manner? In Europe also, we have seen the gradual transforma-
tion of enemies into friends. India and Pakistan should learn from the example of
Europe. After the Second World War, European States realized that, on their own,
they were incapable of maintaining peace, and some sort of unification was es-
sential to ensure that peace was maintained. No one was able to predict the future
of Europe, yet states shared a common ideal and they had a firm will to avoid a
catastrophe similar to World War I and World War II.
While on one hand, this feeling dominated throughout Europe, it was also
fairly obvious that deep-rooted feelings of hostility could not simply vanish sud-
denly. Nor could they be overcome by the restoration of traditional “good neigh-
bourhood” relations. In fact, an authentic reconciliation was absolutely necessary.
Western European countries first adopted the formula of cooperation and then,
through the creation of European Community, started to take steps towards in-
tegration. As a result, the European Union was formed by the reconciliation of
countries that had fought against each other just a few years before.
We can observe clearly that the first step in the process in Western Europe
was a desire to establish peace. India and Pakistan need to develop this desire so
that they will take useful steps in that direction. Using emotive language and
blaming the other side is no longer a valid option. Government spending on
defense from both sides has strained the economy immensely, and it has to be
drastically reduced. While it is true to say that both countries have made progress,
they could have achieved present development at a faster rate if they had stopped
viewing each other as enemies.

CONCLUSION

Education is necessary at the base and good leadership is needed at the top. With
the recent elections in India, we have seen that Indians did not want a strong Hin-
duist party any more. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, Mr. Musharraf has been cracking
down on the various Islamist groups that foster resentment against India. How-
ever, India also needs to cut down on her forces in Kashmir to reduce border ten-
sions. One key question that both sides should address is: what do the Kashmiris
want? They should be brought into the decision making process as well, and be
present in multilateral bodies to discuss the future of Kashmir. Both countries are
nuclear powers and war is just not an option. At the same time, defense spending
must be reduced drastically so that government funds can be allocated to more
deserving areas, such as economic development, development of infrastructure,
education, health, etc. India and Pakistan should aim to increase trade between
each other and strengthen their economic relations.

RSQ-24-4.indd 78 25.11.2005 9:52:49

 Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue 4 © UNHCR 2005, all rights reserved 79

It is especially important for India to re-establish contact with Pakistan and

vice versa. Pakistanis and Indians should be able to travel freely between the two
countries. India and Pakistan have lost so much through their continued hostility;
culturally, socially and, most importantly, economically.
While ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) is a regional in-
stitution that has helped South-East Asian countries progress with leaps and
bounds, SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) has faced
disappointments due to hostility between India and Pakistan.
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are three very important and populous
countries in the region. If they want to succeed and develop, they have to move
together. I believe that once they start cooperating at other levels, they will foster
closer relations, and they will move closer to a reconciliation of their differences.
It has been almost sixty years since independence, and I think it will be a great
misfortune for both India and Pakistan if they continue along the same path for
the next decade.

REFERENCES

Akbar, M. J., India: The Siege Within: Challenges to a Nation’s Unity, Penguin
Books Ltd, Middlesex, England, 1985
Ganguly, Sumit, The Origins of War in South Asia, Westview Press, Inc., U.S.A.
1986
Harrison, Selig S, Paul H. Kreisberg and Dennis Kux, India and Pakistan: The
First Fifty Years, Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University
Press, U.S.A., 1999
Hieronymi, Otto, Notes from his course, “Comparative Politics: Migration and
Refugee Movements: the Challenge of Identity and Integration,” Webster
University Geneva
Jaffrelot, Christophe (ed.), Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation, Zed Books
Ltd. UK, 2002
Mason, Colin, A Short History of Modern Asia, Palgrave, New York, 2000
Ramesh, Randeep, “Two years on, Gujarat’s wounds are still raw,” The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,1154420,00.html, Feb 24,
2004
Shehab, Rafi Ullah, Fifty Years of Pakistan, Maqbool Academy, Lahore, 1990
Spear, Percival, A History of India 2, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, England,
1982
Singhal, Damodar P., Pakistan, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1972
Wolpert, Stanley, A New History of India Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1993

RSQ-24-4.indd 79 25.11.2005 9:52:50

 80 Conference Papers

Notes
1
Singhal, Damodar P., Pakistan, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1972, p. 37
2
Ibid, p. 38-39
3
Ganguly, Sumit, The Origins of War in South Asia, Westview Press, Inc., U.S.A. 1986, p.10
4
Ibid, p. 26
5
Harrison, Selig S, Paul H. Kreisberg and Dennis Kux, India and Pakistan: The First Fifty Years, Woodrow
Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, U.S.A., 1999
6
Mason, Colin, A Short History of Modern Asia, Palgrave, New York, 2000, p. 185
7
Ramesh, Randeep, “Two years on, Gujarat’s wounds are still raw,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/
international/story/0,,1154420,00.html, Feb 24, 2004
8
Shehab, Rafi Ullah, Fifty Years of Pakistan, Maqbool Academy, Lahore, 1990, p. 54
9
Mason, Colin, A Short History of Modern Asia, Palgrave, New York, 2000, p. 179-184
10
Ganguly, Sumit, The Origins of War in South Asia, Westview Press, Inc., U.S.A. 1986
11
Hieronymi, Otto, Notes from his course, “Comparative Politics: Migration and Refugee Movements: the
Challenge of Identity and Integration,” Webster University Geneva
12
Ibid

RSQ-24-4.indd 80 25.11.2005 9:52:50