Has a peaceful harvest ever been produced from the field of hatred? Have lotus flowers ever bloomed after sowing thorns? Has a meat dish ever been cooked out of a pot of lentils? In reality, what you reap is what you sow. How can peace be born from hatred? Thorns cannot produce lotus flowers, only caltrops can. If you put lentils in a pot and expect meat to cook out of it, that is simply impossible. There is an English idiom: “What you think, you become.” An individual’s thoughts influence their personality and actions. The root of today’s problems lies in the crookedness and flaw of our collective thinking. Our political vocabulary is upside down; we have labeled virtues as vices and vices as virtues. In Pakistan’s politics, reconciliation is interpreted as cowardice and confrontation as bravery. In our society, making peace is considered an abuse; reconciliation between two rival groups is given the negative label of “deal-making” (mukh-mukha) and ridiculed. When flexibility is seen as weakness, tolerance as cowardice, negotiations as bargaining, compromise as selling out principles, confrontation as bravery, and revenge as justice—nay, when it is deemed the highest form of politics—then how will reconciliation, compromise, or peace take place? The Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has no choice. If he makes peace and cancels the long march, he will fall prey to the YouTubers who propagate the flaw of collective thinking, branding it as a fixed match, a deal, or an NRO, thus resulting in his political assassination. By refusing to make peace and continuing the long march, he prefers to become a political martyr; since he is still young and has politics ahead of him, a political martyr gets a new lease on life, whereas a politically murdered person is buried forever, and no one even offers his funeral prayers.
When thoughts are filled with hatred, speech with bitterness, and actions with confrontation, the resulting outcomes cannot be peace, stability, reconciliation, and progress. Peace is only attained when the desire for peace is fostered first, peace-loving attitudes are promoted, the culture of abuse and vilification is ended, and reconciliation and tolerance are regarded as the highest virtues. The reconciliation named NRO between General Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan was hounded as a “deal” and mukh-mukha, and its inevitable outcome was the failure of reconciliation. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was martyred in broad daylight on an open street, and General Musharraf was ousted from power—meaning peace, reconciliation, and compromise lost, while confrontation, warfare, and hostility won. Internationally, when Anwar Sadat and right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty, Anwar Sadat was gunned down in public, and the peace-loving Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist for supporting peace. When spaces become restricted for peacemakers in societies, war is the inevitable result. Today’s circumstances in the Middle East are once again crying out for the desire for peace, but everyone is afraid of making peace, fearing that their peace will be construed as cowardice and their reconciliation as a desire to perpetuate their rule. This fear and pressure have fueled wars and halted peace efforts. The ongoing crisis between Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the government is also unresolved due to flawed collective thinking. A Persian couplet attributed to the pillar of Eastern wisdom, Rumi, states:
Do not be heedless of the consequences of your deeds:
Wheat grows from wheat, and barley from barley.
That is, do not remain heedless of the consequences of your actions; wheat produces wheat, and barley produces barley. Similarly, there is a famous English idiom:
You cannot make peace by preparing for war.
Now, on one side, the government has blocked the roads to Islamabad, hundreds of people are arrested, and police and paramilitary forces have been summoned from across the country; on the other hand, Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, riding his steed of power, continues to conquer various cities of his own province. When victory and defeat at the negotiation table become a matter of ego, the settlement of issues then takes place in streets and battlegrounds. The fundamental principle for making negotiations successful is flexibility; if there is flexibility on both sides, the success of negotiations is one hundred percent guaranteed. If one party shows flexibility and the other remains stubborn, there is still a fifty percent chance of an agreement or reconciliation, but in the current matter, there is stubbornness and ego on both sides. The government could agree to show leniency in Imran Khan’s medical treatment, transfer Bushra Bibi to Bani Gala, and show softness regarding imprisoned political women, but in return, it demands the end of the long march and strict compliance with conditions to participate in the operation within the province. Why would the government make an agreement by backing down from its conditions? And why would Chief Minister Afridi commit political suicide by accepting both of these conditions? Understanding the stances of both sides, no agreement is possible. If the Chief Minister shows flexibility, his politics are gone; if the government shows flexibility, its control is gone. Therefore, a complete reconciliation is improbable, and its primary reason is the crookedness of our collective thinking. As long as extremism, abuse, vilification, coercion, protests, and sit-ins remain our favorites, the country’s internal conflicts will escalate, the culture of tolerance will fade away, and we will descend into anarchy.
I am writing this column sitting in London, and amidst today’s safe and peaceful London, I am reminded of those days in the city’s history when bloodshed and religious and political riots were common in its streets, and even violent scenes were displayed in theaters. Ordinary people derived pleasure from seeing blood flow, and the public clapped with enthusiasm upon witnessing violence and fights. This was sixteenth- and seventeenth-century London. Today’s collective attitudes in London have completely changed; news of murder is hard to find anywhere. The public detests violence and extremist behaviors. Previously, people enjoyed watching human blood flow; now, the situation is such that if anyone harms even an animal, it is considered a cognizable offense by the police. London’s example proves that collective attitudes ultimately result in actions. If we want to make our society peaceful and serene, we not only have to change our political vocabulary but also strictly adhere to the constitutional framework while ensuring the protection of human freedoms, political and personal rights, and freedom of public opinion. Reconciliation, peace, deals, truces, negotiations, and flexibility must be viewed in a positive rather than a negative light. Protests, vandalism, and sit-ins must be rejected. In the face of government pressure, high-handedness, and violations of civil rights, voices must be raised while staying within the bounds of the law. The concepts of heroes and villains must be altered. Instead of the heroes of Punjabi or Bollywood films who leave piles of corpses and promote violence, we must make peace-lovers, democracy-lovers, and constitution-lovers our heroes.
In the end, I submit that achieving positive results by defying the rules ordained by history is difficult. That is precisely why it is said: “As the oven, so the bread” (jaisa choolha, waisi roti), or taking the Punjabi proverb: “Jeyah mounh, waisi chapeer”—meaning, “As is the face, so is the slap.” To resolve the current crisis, perhaps a miracle might occur; otherwise, in light of our collective attitudes, there is no possibility of success for reconciliation, peace, or a deal, because whoever shows flexibility will be labeled as a coward and an appeaser. In this world of “braves,” peace has no currency, only fighting does—fight on, and keep fighting…!