The key lies in eschewing any sense that Partition remains an unfinished business (Pakistan) and overcoming a permanent sense of loss and anxiety (India). The trick is not to attempt to redraw borders or engage in territorial competition. Rather, the border should be converted into a bridge between the two sides. While she holds up the EU as a model, she has no illusions that better ties between India and Pakistan will have to begin by acknowledging each other’s sovereignty rather than wishing it away. Borders must be treated as both real, but permeable. Their reality can be acknowledged, but we do not necessarily have to abridge the flow of people, goods and ideas. The solution to contested sovereignty is open borders that allow for multiple connections.
The book is a shrewd chronicle of the many missed opportunities to settle the border issue. It has some telling remarks on how India’s reluctance to force the issue after the ’71 win got us the worst of all possible worlds. By bending over backwards to not humiliate Pakistan, we alienated Bangladesh, got no clear commitment on the border and doubled Pakistan’s resolve to launch a nuclear programme. But Kumar’s own evidence raises the obvious question. Which way does the causality run? Is it by opening borders that we can overcome the burden of identity, or is overcoming the burden of identity itself necessary for opening borders? What are the internal incentives within Pakistan for the military to seek peace? And yes, are we ready?
