Why a Pakistani nuclear physicist sees hope even after Pathankot attacks

It is no longer tenable to classify people as hawks or doves based on where they stand in relation to the ever changing India-Pakistan dynamic. Whether you frame this relationship in terms of a conflict or a peace process, it is hard to miss the language of respect and restraint in recent diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

Instead of the mutual mud-slinging that one has come to expect, there is a growing semblance of trust. Pakistan has promised to co-operate with India by taking action against those responsible for the Pathankot terror attack. India has affirmed that there is no reason to doubt Pakistan's commitment. This might be a surprise but certainly a pleasant one.

"Pathankot gives me a bit of hope. It has been handled remarkably well by both governments, shortly after that unexpected trip by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lahore. Not very unexpected to some, I must add. Where did he get that pink turban to gift Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? Did he buy it in Kabul?" said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear physicist from Islamabad at Mumbai's Tata Institute of Social Sciences on January 11.

He was at the institute to give a talk titled "Nuclear Rivalry Between India and Pakistan: Implications for the Stability of the Region".

Hoodbhoy is known for his seminal work in theoretical particle physics in a career spanning four decades, and for his staunch opposition to militant Islam in Pakistan. He has been to India on a four-week lecture tour in 2005, which took him to the north, south, east and west of India, as part of UNESCO's Kalinga Prize recognising his contributions to the popularisation of science.

He said, "There are rational actors on both sides. Everybody now understands that if there is a serious war, it will escalate out of control. Once the first nuclear weapon is used, the second is going to be used. When the second is used, the third will be. Well-meaning people who have created nuclear weapons, thinking that they would act as a deterrent to war, have no idea of the horrors they have unleashed."

Many in India, however, are deeply cynical of Pakistan's assurances to crack down on terrorists. This is particularly because of the slower than snail-like pace at which they have acted in response to the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai.

Hoodbhoy said, "There is little doubt in my mind that the responsibility for punishing those jihadis is on Pakistani shoulders. The men who carried out those brutal attacks on the Taj Hotel and other places -- their calls have been traced back to Pakistan. They came from Karachi. Their chief was Hafiz Saeed, and their handler Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi. It is incumbent on Pakistan to punish them. The very fact that Saeed is allowed to be on television is a disgrace. Lakhvi should not be protected at all by the Pakistani state."

There is reason to believe that Pakistan's response to terrorism will change. Both civilians and the Pakistani army have had to pay a heavy price by way of the large number of lives lost due to terror attacks on Pakistani soil. "The Pakistani army has lost more soldiers to the jihadis than to the Indian army," said Hoodbhoy, while making a special reference to the massacre of children and their teachers at Peshawar's Army Public School in December 2014.

It is difficult to have a conversation about terrorism in the subcontinent without talking about Kashmir. It would be facile to sum up the complexity of the situation by saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The lived experience of physical and structural violence is perhaps best talked about by Kashmiris, in all their diversity, instead of those whose interest in the region is purely academic or political. However, it would also be foolish to state that the issue of Kashmir should not be broached at all since it is delicate territory to tread on.

During his talk, Hoodbhoy mentioned walking through the corridors of Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, and noticing posters by groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Hizbul Mujahideen competing to recruit students to join the jihad in Kashmir.

After listening to this, one of the students in the audience at Mumbai, asked Hoodbhoy, "By discrediting the freedom struggle in Kashmir as a Pakistani conspiracy, aren't you turning a blind eye to the brutal occupation of Kashmir by India?"

Hoodbhoy replied, "Pakistan should have no business in supporting them militarily. It can respond diplomatically and politically. We must remember that both Muslims and Hindus have suffered. What has happened to the Kashmiri Pandits is no small thing. Yes, we must be critical of armed action against civilians, whether it is in Kashmir, Balochistan, Nagaland or Sindh."

His position on India-Pakistan relations appears to be far more pragmatic than the longing for a pre-Partition past, or the dream of a South Asia without borders.

"Whenever I talk to young people, I emphasise that our nationalities and our religions and our racial origins are accidental. All these are to be treated in a detached way. We didn't choose them."