Even at the level of common man, the gun supersedes logic or rational thinking. In the subcontinent, the recent nuclear tests appear incongruous to a few. But the general response is reflective of the raw emotions of scared people trying to cope with the horrendous realities that hold them in an unrelenting vise. In this presentation I would like to summarise the origin of aggressive and violent behaviour in general and an aspect of its nature and genesis in the subcontinent.

Many theories of the origin and nature of aggression have been floated and data generated to support them. Inborn instinct, drive and motivation, conflict and stress resolution, social learning, experience and individual determinants to social environment are but a few of them. However, the consensus today is that aggression is basically a form of learnt behaviour rather than merely an emotional or need–motivated phenomenon. Deaths caused by firearms in the United States are 13.7 per 100,000 persons as compared to 0.57 in the United Kingdom and 0.07 in Japan. Incidentally, the US has tested 1,148 nuclear devices and their strategic and tactical warheads are estimated to be 15,200. American society has clearly facilitated arms–related behaviour.

Attitude and value systems play a significant role in formulation of behaviour patterns. “Attitude” is a relatively enduring evaluation of an object or situation frequently with emotional content. “Values” are strongly held preferences and judgements that define behaviour as correct, acceptable or appropriate. Society’s attitude towards deadly weapons has been carefully toned down through beguiling misnomers like Fatman, Little Nuke and Star War. How many people know that the world today has 18,000 megatons of deadly explosive which are 1,200,000 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb or 1,636 times of the total explosive power used during World War II, in Korea and in Vietnam together, and which killed 44 million people.

The Muslims ruled India for several centuries during which they acquired the presumptuous identity of being superior, a sense of self–aggrandisement that alienated them from the rest of the populace. The concept of Umma aggravated the situation and completed their alienation. The minority–majority complex, as defined by Dr. Mubarak Ali, goes to explain the genesis of this attitude: “The Muslims refused to recognise the over–lordship of Hindu power which once remained under their control. The Muslim minority preferred British rule which came as a blessing, saving them from the humiliation of domination by the Hindu majority. When the departure of British became imminent they demanded the partition of India”.

Besides, minority–majority conflicts there are other theories of the Pakistan movement including one of Hamza Alavi. He argues that the Pakistan movement was basically of Muslims rather than Islam that attracted Muslims of diverse ethnic origins in pursuit of material objectives (The Salariat Hypothesis).

During the Zia–ul–Haq regime the state sponsored campaign of Islamic ideology being the driving force behind the creation of Pakistan gained currency with religious parties coming to the fore, even though they hardly had any support at the grass–root level.

At the time of partition, India assumed a secular and democratic identity while Pakistan identified itself as a Muslim country. This was the beginning of intense hostilities between the two newly independent countries at the economic, political, social and above all psychological levels. Over the last 50 years they became archrivals and Kashmir became the main symbol of their discord. Many more symbols were propped up in the process. Ironically, when Pakistan began its erratic experimentation with the democratic system of governance, the biggest democracy of the world started losing its secular identity. A Hindu India began emerging to confront a Muslim Pakistan.

Not very surprising. But when the bigger power begins to feel or believe too insecure, erratic behaviour ensues — like going nuclear. Hindu sentiments were aroused which swept the nation. In a way this is a form of conflict resolution — the conflict of security. A sense of insecurity is being force–fed to the people of a much bigger, much larger and a very powerful India. Both India and Pakistan have now detonated the Bomb, a symbol of security and power. Prithvi and Ghauri are more concrete symbols. A conventional and nuclear arms race is on, emotions are running high and the sense of insecurity is perceptible on both sides. Intolerance and hate are the major weapons used to divide people. New symbols are created and fancy slogans are coined with unabashed religious, sectarian and communal overtones. Fictitious patriotism is flaunted, dissent is punished and submission rewarded. Perpetrators of intolerance are glorified and the opinion of liberals and intellectuals ridiculed.

Events over the last decades should have changed our outlook and attitude radically. They amply demonstrated that no amount of military might could halt the deteriorating social situation. The myth of contrived security has been broken. Yet, the mindset created by the military industrial complex lingers on. It has generated its own culture, imaginary needs and politics. Those under the impact of this mindset are contemptuous of democracy, insensitive to human rights and want every one to follow their own brand of justice. In the name of national security, individual freedom, political process and environmental needs are compromised.

The race for nuclear superiority between the two super powers in the recent past led to the disintegration of one of them. But, unfortunately, the message so loud and clear has been totally lost on South Asia. Then there were lessons to be learnt from armed conflicts between India and Pakistan. Instead, we have been distorting history, and what is still worse, believe in it.

The emergence of Bangladesh should have taught us a lesson in the practice of democracy, justice and human rights. But we refused to learn. The fallout of the Afghanistan crisis is starkly visible in everyday life in Pakistan. Yet we talk about war and Jehad.

Both in Pakistan and India, the Bomb has been promoted as a symbol of strength and greatness, and something to be proud of. We have linked this so–called strength to patriotism and religion. This is a mental set ossified by constant reinforcement by bellicose pronouncements across the borders. Attempts to decalcify this fixation meet with little success. Yet those who can see know that the osteoporosis has set in and it is bound to fracture.

We are witnesses to and victims of violence all around us — social violence, political violence, religious and sectarian violence, ethnic and linguistic violence, tribal, clan, family and domestic violence. There is violence within the precincts of the mosque, the parliament, the court, the police station and educational institutions. There is violence by the State against the citizens and by citizens against one another. No place howsoever sacrosanct is safe. We have abandoned the path of argument, reasoning and persuasion.

Our political culture does not leave any room for tolerance or dissent which is the essence of democracy. Political differences are sought to be settled, not through discussion and dialogue, but through resort to arms. Political leaders, like religious fanatics, freely indulge in promoting violence against their opponents.

The need for civil society playing its historic role in conflict resolution has never been greater than today. All efforts need to be made and all resources need to be mobilised, however meagre they might be for the moment, to create and spread social awareness. The voice of reason, however feeble it might be at present, must reach as many ears as possible. The feeling of inadequacy must not be allowed to hinder the role of civil society.

S. Haroon Ahmed

(Professor S. Haroon Ahmed, a practising psychiatrist from Karachi, was formerly president, international Physicians Against Nuclear War)