Senkakus or Diaoyus: Implications and Lessons of the Japan China Quarrel on India and Pakistan

 

Sabre rattling, protests and somewhat rhetorical posturing over insignificant pieces of rock or uninhabited islands took place between the Japanese and the Chinese. The islands in contention are known to the Japanese as Senkakus and the Chinese as Diaoyus.  It stretches credulity and reason to see Japan- once the cornerstone of the United State’s Asia Pacific security strategy- and China- a wannabe superpower- fighting and squabbling over insignificant rocks. What then explains the quarrel?  How can the quarrel be resolved? Does the quarrel, its transformation into as serious conflict, and its potential resolution hold lessons for the disputes that bedevil South Asia and the subcontinent?

 

According to the Economist newspaper, shorn of speculation , the quarrel between China and Japan over the islands in contention accrues from historical memory, the attendant bad blood between Japan and China and negative nationalism. (The latter permeates China more than Japan). It is then the arousal of historical memory, coupled with negative nationalism that inflates the significance of these islands and leads to furor, din and noise.  It is difficult (but not impossible) to erase historical memory. However, it can be done. Time and circumstance, as the old cliché goes, are the best antidotes to these. What needs to be done is to revisit both the official and the popular narrative of history between these two nations and make it correspond to  a vision that is salubrious and salutary. This means altering the discourse and narrative of nationalism in both Japan and China.

 

 This is doable. Atavistic and primordial nationalism (or for that matter any form of nationalism) is, in the final analysis, a construct. And nationalism, to/for non western societies is an import.  Modern history is littered with the negative and insalubrious consequences of nationalism. Negative nationalism has made enemies where none really existed, gratuitously exacted millions of lives and on account of its false romanticism captured the imagination of millions leading to conflict, death and misery. The irony is that while the countries where nationalism originated from have , by and large, given up on nationalism( read the European Union) or mutated it into a form where its sharp and jagged edges are softened( civic nationalism in the United States), the concept continues to draw and inspire  non western countries and societies. Perhaps both the acceptance of nationalism and then its disavowal is a matter of political maturity and evolution. It is this maturity and evolution that non western societies, especially Asian ones, should aspire for.

 

More specifically and in terms of the cases in contention, both China and Japan should change the narrative of nationalism pervading in the societies –both at a practical and discursive level. This would tone down the stridency of their respective nationalisms and then insignificant rocks would not be vested with such intense emotional significance. The quarrel may then dissipate and never morph into a serious conflict. Does this hold lessons closer home- South Asia and the subcontinent?

 

Yes. It does. The two major antagonists of the subcontinent, India and Pakistan, have been estranged from each other since six decades and more. Historical memory- the scars  accruing from the partition of the subcontinent- coupled with a nationalist narrative that is negative(especially from the Pakistani side)- has lead to a vitiated atmosphere of mistrust, hostility and conflict between the nuclear armed neighbors. And they continue to lock horns over Kashmir- obiter dictum, a land populated by peoples who are not, in the least, insignificant. However, the emotional significance vested onto Kashmir by both the Pakistani narrative-(the incompleteness of Pakistan without Kashmir and a fellow Muslim feeling with Kashmiris) and the Indian narrative( the idea of India being incomplete without Kashmir and disallowing the rupture of the country once again)- leads to investing the dispute with transcendent and sacramental significance. The two sides then get locked into a zero sum position where yielding or compromising is viewed as total and complete surrender to the ‘enemy’.

 

It is this narrative that needs to change and mutate. Historical memory can potentially dissipate with the passage of time. However, the critical variable undergirding this is the change in the respective narratives of the two states. This matters and is more poignant for Pakistan which has cast India as its perpetual enemy-one that has usurped Kashmir which according to Pakistan’s narratives ‘belonged’ to Pakistan. Other flawed and negative stereotypes about India and Indians flow from this narrative.

 

This narrative then holds hostage the politics of both countries. Grandstanding, zero sum stances, and posturing are the inevitable consequences. As a result, no forward movement on Kashmir is made possible and the two countries remain locked in mutually exclusive positions. Once this narrative is broken and a new one forged, a new paradigm of relations and mutual perceptions will ensue. This will axiomatically take time. However, for the sake of peace, amity and a prosperous subcontinent , this must happen happen. The new narrative, not beholden to the past should smell of roses and will enable the two hostile neighbors to view each others in a different and salubrious vein. Deadly competition may then give rise to cooperation and the impact on the dispute over Kashmir will be sanguine. It is about time then that a vigorous attempt-both at a discursive and popular level- be made to jettison past baggage. Forward movement on all outstanding issues is contingent on this. Let haste be made slowly and the nettles grasped.