index
As the recent Kathmandu Summit showed, the deadlock between India and
Pakistan is far deeper than a mere military confrontation; it is a clash
of two ideologies based on sick nationalisms. It has lasted all of 54
years. Two things are clear: the confrontation is unsustainable and a
war will result, if not resolved soon. Why it is unsustainable is
because it tends to escalate and both are nuclear powers. A nuclear
exchange under any circumstances will be a disaster; there can be no
victory in a nuclear war; both will lose. Apart from expressing mindless
bigotry, neither side can achieve any rational objective by even a
non-nuclear war.
The immediate consequence of the current standoff is that the issue of
Kashmir has truly been internationalised. Most foreign powers have
offered their mediation and good offices, with the US in the lead.
India's lobbying of the US, Britain and Russia to pressurise Pakistan is inviting them to play a role in South Asia. Needless to say Pakistan
wants nothing better than a third party intervention, preferably by the
US. The international background is not favourable to second and third
rank powers: it is a unipolar world par excellence. As the American war
on Al-Qaeda and Taliban has demonstrated, the US is determined to play a strong hand in Asia --- primarily for its own benefit. All others are
required to facilitate it --- unless they want to risk becoming an
adversary. India willingly and Pakistan under duress are a part of the
American-led Coalition against Terrorism. Americans are militarily
present in Pakistan, operating from four or more military bases. India
had offered the use of all its available facilities for the task; that
the US has not made use of them is due largely to its needs. Let no one
make a mistake: Americans and the British are already playing a decisive role in restraining India from doing what it would have liked to do; they are protecting Pakistan for the time being, though they are
implicitly promising to deliver Pakistan's compliance to the Indian
purposes by their own inimitable ways of persuading. But isn't it a
third party intervention?
The other side of the unipolarity coin is on display too. Scope for
freedom of action by second and third rank powers is on the decrease.
India had hoped that South Asia should somehow be kept out of
international rivalries; thanks to its political weight, the two cold
warriors deferred to India --- up to a point. There developed a tacit
détente between the US and USSR over the Subcontinent --- despite
Pakistan having been accepted into the western alliance system largely
due to its need for dollars. The superpowers thus did not conduct active rivalry in South Asia. That restraint is no more. The US feels free to do what it thinks necessary in the pursuit of its War on Terrorism. The American military presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, with strong political and diplomatic activities elsewhere in central Asia is threatening to suck in the Subcontinent into a maelstrom.
America calls it leadership role; it is geo-strategic mastery over large
parts of Asia if we remember the American influence in Japan, Southeast
Asian countries and not to ignore Taiwan and South Korea. But
geo-politics does not hang in the air. The leadership role is no longer
an end in itself as was the case with kings of yore. It now confers
financial benefits. Ignoring new names, the old fashioned concept of
shperes of influences applies. Only this sphere must become a safe
market for investments and WTO rules are a help. The nexus of
geo-politics with economics was never absent, no matter how passionately
and sincerely the political aims are articulated. It is immaterial
whether the financial or economic gain is immediate aim or results from
new equations. What South Asians must examine is: where do they stand
and what is their true status. There is a strong undertow that is
propelling them to America-ward. Their true independence of action is
being preempted and their stature is eroding in the process, though for
Indians a prize of ambiguous significance, recognised regional
influential in a Pax Americana.
The 'vision thing' is unavoidable really. Can Subcontinental people not
see where they are heading thanks to Indo-Pakistan confrontation that
has now become unsustainable. It is not contributing to any state's
progress or enhancing stature. The two antagonists are running
unacceptable risks. They are holding up the progress of the rest of the
South Asia and the latter is complaining.
The rhetoric about dire poverty of the masses in both countries, and
indeed in the rest of South Asia with its illiteracy, ill health and
backwardness is overworked. But it is true. Much of this can be traced
to excessive militarisation in India and Pakistan and clearly wrong
priorities that have favoured narrow elites to prosper while the masses
have remained in penury and widespread unemployment. The present crisis,
in essentials, is compulsive clash of the two elites that may lead to
utter self-destruction if they stumble into a nuclear war. This latter
threat cannot be ruled out.
There is a notion abroad in India: Maybe the Americans can be persuaded
to do something about Pakistan's nuclear arsenals. Supposing the
Americans do perform this near miracle, would the outcome be to India's
advantage? Would it not make for the permanence of US overlordship over
South Asia? Would that enhance India's greatness? Would not the US also
want to take the Indian nuclear capability under its supervision? May be
they would want to repeat or would want to repeat the performance in
some fashion or pretext. At all events, the stature of India and all
others in South Asia would diminish.
There is another vision: a people-to-people reconciliation between the
Indians and Pakistanis can become a core round which all of South Asia
can be made into a zone of peace and common friendship. The disputes
that have dominated newspaper headlines and grabbed popular attention
can then be relegated eventually to insignificance by freezing them more
or less indefinitely. Should the priorities shift from purely
militarised security concepts, popular weal can be directly aimed at for
reducing poverty through aiming at jobs for all. In lieu of jobs a
minimal kind of social security should be statutorily compulsory. This
can be progressive as the economies develop. Regional principle for free
trade and economic cooperation, indeed integration, needs to be taken up
with zeal in conditions where the need for the Indians and Pakistanis to
use the SAARC veto would not arise. Thanks to the resource base, sky can
be the limit of prosperity that South Asia can achieve. There would also
be political benefits. Without trying to become great powers in the
classical sense their inherent stature would go up; they would be
admired for their cultural advances. Are there any buyers of this
vision?
India and Pakistan have been fighting a verbal war for the last fifty
years. These verbal wars some time escalates and turns into the real
war killing thousands of people, poor soldiers and destroying the
already crippled economy of the subcontinent. But Pakistan and India
are, at the same point of time, each other's shield for nationalism
and national pride. Therefore, India must be defeated at all cost in
the cricket or Hockey match and in return Indian's would always want
a Sachin Tendulkar hitting Wasim Akram for a six. Our national pride
is actually strengthened by destroying the other. Even things, which
have similarity, based on common culture and language, have become
victims of this prejudice. Thus the Pakistani ruling elite despite
the known fact of trans-border appeal of Bombay films, tried to stop
this import of information and entertainment on the pretext that they
are harmful for country's pride. No doubt, the Pakistanis are not
hundred percent wrong, as Indian films always need villainy Pakistan
to make them superhit. Recent example of Gadar Ek Prem Katha and
Border reflect this filmy nationalism very well. Therefore, when the
national pride comes, the Bombay films and their tax evaders are
first in cashing for it. It is therefor natural for the likes Shabana
and Javed Akhatar to resort to rhetorics in terms of condemning
Pakistan and singing Vande Mataram.
India and Pakistan, for a very unfortunate reason, have not accepted
each other's existence. For the past fifty years, Indian
intelligentsia has not completed its partition thesis putting the
entire blame on Muslim League and particularly on Jinnah terming him
as a highly communal man. On the other hand, Pakistan's history
starts from everything that haunts India. Hence invaders like
Muhammad Gauri become their heroes while Akbar is decried because he
believed in pluralism and consulted Hindus too in his kingdom. We, in
India don't even know that Pakistan has some of the most beautiful
places. Our young generation doesn't know that Pakistan have modern
cities and Hardpan civilisation, beautiful mountainous regions like
ours. There are very few Indians who know that Mohd Ali Jinnah was
termed as Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by none other than
Sarojini Naidu for his glorious role in the Lucknow Convention.
Similarly very few Pakistanis would know that Gandhi died for their
cause. That he was shot by a Hindu lunatic who considered that Gandhi
was doing a favor to Muslims as he wanted the Government of India to
pay 36 crore Rupees to Pakistan. It is a paradox that Jinnah had
opposed Khilafat movement and Gandhi had supported it against the
sane advice of Jinnah who said that mixing politics with religion
will create dangerous precedent. How many of our people know that
Jinnah had outrightly rejected the demand for a Separate Pakistan
when the idea was narrated to him by Chaudhury Rehmat Ali.
So charges and counter charges are always there but information flow
should not stop. Unfortunately some of our friends feel that it is
just Indian's who believe in social justice and human rights and that
Pakistan is some how a notorious state. It might be possible that
Pakistan is a victim of its own identity and creation. It is a victim
of ethnic crisis that erupted in that country after partition as the
country's different ethnic groups asked for their share in power.
Some of them were denied their due democratic right and therefore
Bangladesh came into existence. But then all these were challenged by
Pakistanis. People revolted as well as questioned the motives of the
ruling elite. To scuttle people's genuine voice the religious card
was played in Pakistan and certainly Hindu India and its 'persecuted'
Muslim minority became the talk of the nation to communalise the
situation there and legitimise the rule of the army. Similarly the
ruling elite in India is busy in legitimising its misadventure and failure in Kashmir and hence their
first target is civil liberties and democratic rights which were
crippled in Pakistan for the same reason. That
India is a very soft state and we need stringent laws to tackle
terrorism, as some our friends in media and political spectrum have
started complaining for the past few years. Of course, Pakistan has
been a theocratic state dictated by the military junta for long yet
there are people who have been fighting for the civil liberties and
human rights in that country. Does current Indian dispensation is
following the same Pakistani pattern to create a theocracy here? If
nationalism, jingoism and war cry are any signal then one cannot be
wrong in assuming such a notion.
It will not be correct to blame just the Hindutva philosophy of the
BJP for this problem. The entire congress dispensation was Hindutva
oriented in its policy towards Pakistan in the similar way as their
various governments had the same policy towards India. It is clearly
a Hindu India pitted against Muslim Pakistan in both the ways though
the fact is that India had more Muslims than Pakistan. One needs to
ponder over as why India and Pakistan still haunt each other. What is
the problem?
And the most important answer comes in terms of flow of free and open
information in our society. Basically, we are a closed mindset who
pretend to be very open and liberal. The governments of both the
countries use this closed mindset wrapped in a sweet pill of
nationalism played by the ' so-called' liberal media to create hate
against each other. It is the 'misinformation and disinformation war'
that both the governments are fighting with each other. Hence as I
have mentioned earlier Pakistanis have fetched the information from
the Jamat e Islami and PTV which is just fanatically giving details
how Muslims are insecure in India. For PTV Indians are a poverty
stricken country where the government and opposition speaks in
different tones while in Pakistan every countrymen is solidly behind
the General. How can different opinion expressed in a democratic
country be termed as differences on the national issue. Pakistani
elite always exploits this difference of opinion in India for its own
dubious purpose. One can see on the official government's website the
Kashmir reports of civil liberties organisations in India because it
suits their purpose. However, one must ask this question to the
Pakistani government as how much it respects its own human rights
organisations. Everybody knows how Nazam Sethi, editor of Friday
Times, was hounded and humiliated by Nawaz Sharief and how the
current dispensation in Pakistan is after Ashma Jahangir terming her
as anti national.
However, Pakistan is living under a dictatorial regime while India
claims not be under any dictatorship. The biggest 'proof' of India's
openness is its TV channels and news-papers which are 'independent'.
True, during the congress regimes the only source of news was
Doordarshan and people never believed in it as it was always termed
as 'Rajiv darshan' and 'Indirawani'. But now the government of the
day is much smarter than Indira and Rajiv as they are working on the
long-term agenda. Hence, Indian TV channels may claim to be
independent but as far as foreign policy is concern and matter
towards Pakistan are concern, their ideological perspective is as
narrow-minded as PTV's. Ofcourse, the rhetorics of softstate has been
initiated by the TV channles. Are these TV channels free from
prejudice and bias? I am sure no right thinking Indian considers
these TV channels free from bias.
After the Parliament was attacked by the terrorists, the Police
immediately swung into action and the 'culprits' were arrested. Delhi
Police has the quality to arrest the culprits within 24 hours, they
did it in the Lalquila shootout case and finally shot an innocent
person in Okhala and here also they acted immediately. The next step
that the police did was to get Mohd Afzal, a person arrested relating
to Parliament shootout case, interviewed by India's 'independent' TV
channels in which he said that he had been planted by the Pakistan's
notorious ISI to spread terror in India. One does not know how these
people just repent after the events like the Mumbai's filmy villain
who would apologize after committing the crime. Anyway, Afzal's trial
through media is well planted in the same way as yesterday PTV's
presentation of five people who they claimed have been arrested by
the pakistani authorities, came from India to spread terror in that
country. One is amused by media trial being sought by the authorities
in both the countries. Justice, therefore, become the casualty in
such cases.
This one way controlled information has damaging effect as people are
supposed to believe what is being fetched to them by the media in
their respective countries. Now, Star TV's new anchor in her news
programme speak to a senior journalist in Pakistan and ask him what
does he think when President Bush phoned to Pakistan president
Musharraf and asked him to deal seriously with the terrorists hiding
in that country. The Pakistani journalist clerealy inform her that he
has not come across any news, which says Bush has directed Musharraf.
How is this direction for Musharraf only ? Why not Vajpayee but the
media in each country is doing its best to serve the 'national
interest'. National interest and political interest today are
becoming synonymous and that's why the media secular-communal both
variety did not like any political leader questing the failure of
security aspect in the Parliament shootout. They wanted us to behave
like US which was solidly behind 'Captain Bush'. Now it is a bit too
much by the Indian journalists. And truth is the biggest casualty as
Vajpayee's visit to US recently was a disaster by all sorts but
Indian media tried to inform the people in a very different way. If
American media write about India in the same way as it does about
Pakistan than Indian complain of white skin's prejudices. Every
country manipulates press releases and talks of their senior leaders
according to their own concept. So when Blair would be in the
subcontinent the PTV will claim that he supported President Musharraf
and his fight against terrorism and asked India to have a peaceful
dialogue with Pakistan, while Indian TV channels would fume that
Blair blamed Pakistan for its support to terrorists hiding in
Pakistan.
The New-York Times story in this case is a classic example which said
that President Musharraf has ordered Inter Services Intelligence (
ISI) not to support any non Kashmiri militant group fighting for
Kashmiri cause and therefore has accepted that there are terrorists
in Pakistan. Indian government used this story for its own charges
that terrorists are hiding in Pakistan, especially notorious Dawood
Ibrahim, Masood Azhar, who was released after the Kandahar hijacking.
Now government of Pakistan clearly disowned the statement while India
played heavily on the report to prove its point. It must be mentioned
here that the same Indian government has refuted stories published in
various newspapers in the very same way as Pakistan is doing. It is
like using Amnesty International's reports about each other in our
respective countries while rejecting the same organisation's report
about it.
The matter is serious as why our elite don't want to share
information. The fact is that if the people of India and Pakistan
were allowed free flow of information then the biggest casualty would
be our bureaucrats and political elite. The media is playing clearly
in the hand of ruling elite and is imposing its viewpoint on the
masses. A mass hypnotisation campaign is on to create a war hysteria
in the minds of the people. Clearly Indian media behave as a big
brotherly fashion when Pakistan is the case. Prime Minister Vajpayee,
his home minister Advani and his defence minister George Fernandese
of the coffingate and Tehelka fame, made loud noises about war and
hot pursuit from the bullet proof glass houses. It is an attack on
democracy and our democratic institutions said Vajpayee forgetting
how many times the local Sanghies have threatened to blow up the
democratic structure of the country. One is not denying the gravity
of this attack on Parliament but one is amused by the rhetorics and
talks of hot pursuit and nuclear war by the responsible people of
democracy. The paradox of the situation is that the military dictator
is trying to behave in a matured democratic way while the
democratically elected leaders are talking the military hardware
language. Is not it a fact that General V.P.Malik clearly advised
against hot pursuit and said India must be high on military
preparedness and low on rhetorics?
Pakistan becomes a justification of every ill that our polity has
imposed upon us in the same way as India has been portrayed in
Pakistan. Pakistan has still not forgotten creation of Bangladesh in
the same way as India has not forgotten creation of Pakistan.
Unfortunately, when our political leadership should have been
visionary and our open media should have asked the government to be a
bit patient than the Pakistanis, Vajpayee went on rhetorical way to
please the Sangh gallery for the UP elections as BJP faces the worst
ever challenge in Uttar-Pradesh. What they fail to understand in this
war cry, the future of the children of the subcontinent. Clearly war
mongering did not come from Pakistan but Indian ruling elite.
Musharraf may be hiding Dawood Ibrahim in Karachi and Masood Azhar
elsewhere yet he seems to be best choice for India. India cannot
eliminate Pakistan as being threatened by George. It cannot change
its neighbor. And the leadership is behaving in such a fashion as if
Pakistan is Afghanistan and India mighty as the US. US itself
followed certain norms in attacking Taliban. Definitely terrorism is
the biggest issue that we face but that does not make Kashmir a
non-negotiable problem. Unfortunately, government's latest initiative
in the valley will further alienate people from the country. By
closing STD, ISD Pco booths and Internet services, the government is
trying to give more space for rumor mills than the actual news.
Tomorrow, the same bureaucrats may ask to ban TV set like the
Talibans did in Afghanistan so that people are unable to be in touch
with outsiders. How blinked is this vision? It has been proved beyond
doubt that the terrorism thrives on the most modern weaponry and
technology of the world. Hence just by banning STD/ISD in Kashmir the
government may not be able to do anything to the militants but would
just create more problems for the innocent citizens whose basic
rights are violated in this case. India will continue to face problem
as long as it consider Kashmiri people as problem and Kashmir problem
as administrative problem. Advani must ponder over his Kashmir policy
which has been a failure. India must ponder that Musharraf is the
best bet for India in Pakistan as he seems to be better than Zia ul
Haq and the likes of Jamaat e Islami and has taken against the
Islamic militants. Ofcourse he cannot shed his anti India feelings in
the same way as Lal Krishna Advani because of his political
compulsions.
As far as peace initiative between India and Pakistan are concern,
they are led by the powerful elite, which has been part of the
establishment at some point of time. They did nothing when they were
in power. This elite is also a ruling elite in both the countries far
away from the oppressed masses. This powerful ruling elite itself has
not accepted partition gracefully and hence their prejudices never go
off. Due to their elite structures these peace initiatives are just
meant for being in the news. Unless, free and open information is
allowed and more get together of people from each region,
understanding the ethnic issues and communal strife and not invoking
political rhetoric's, peace will always be an illusion. India and
Pakistan are two separate sovereign nations and they must speak with
each other on equal basis with out any preconceived notion about
community. Unless this is done, peace will remain with peace marchers
only for a page three of the English newspapers in both the countries
and oppressed masses in both the countries will be sacrificed at the
cost of our false 'national pride.'
Karachi January 15:
The US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrives in Islamabad on Wednesday
on
what is not called by its proper name: mediation. It is being termed a
mission of friendly persuasion of India and Pakistan to de-escalate the
military tension on their borders, its immediate objective. Included in
this is the nudging the two to resume their dialogue now that India's
preconditions for its resumption have largely been fulfilled.
The true response of India to Musharraf's Jan 12 address was formulated
by
the Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes: India will not pull back
its
troops (and armour) from the borders until it is sure that Pakistan has
stopped its cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. That is to say, he wants
to
see this happen over a period to be sure that it has happened, though he
has not explained what evidence of good behaviour and over what period
he
wants it from Pakistan. The latter, for its part, has declared that
Pakistan Army will also not pull back from its forward positions on the
borders with India until it has the evidence of a similar but prior
Indian
withdrawal has actually taken place --- a yet another deadlock.
Many questions have thus arisen here. What precisely was the bottomline
of
India in this coercive diplomacy. Is it to go to war, no matter what
Pakistan does, with its punishment as the real aim? Or is it to
demonstrate
to the Indian electorate how masterfully has the BJP-led government
dealt
with Pakistan and how it has humbled it --- for garnering more votes. Or
is
there some other reason in between these two extremes?
Pakistan, during all this crisis, has remained on the defensive, if not
on
the retreat. It was still nursing its deep wound on the body politic
caused
by its U-turn on the Afghan policy, when it suffered an even deeper
second
one last Saturday (Jan 12) through the presidential address at the
height
of the military Crisis on its eastern borders. President Musharraf said
he
was doing all that was right and had to be done anyhow. He certainly
met,
in full, the Indian demands or preconditions for defusing the tensions
with
India. The only reservations he made were two: Pakistan shall not
surrender
any Pakistani national to India and secondly Pakistan will not stop
morally
and politically supporting the cause of Kashmiris' Azadi. Even on the
matter of not handing over the men wanted by India, he has only exempted
Pakistani nationals from being extradited. Thus all the others would
seem
to be subject to negotiations.
As for moral and political support to the Kashmir cause, it can scarcely
be
a major ground for continuing the confrontationist course --- so long as
it
stays just that. That is a whole world short of cross-border terrorism,
India's main grouse. The other Indian ground for not relaxing its
pressure
is that mere verbal change of policies is not enough. Unless these
changed
the policies that are visible on the ground, New Delhi will not be
impressed. As one writes, it is only the fourth day after the speech.
Vigorous action not only against the two impugned organisations ---
Jaish-i-Mohammad and Lashkar-i-Tayba --- and their top leaders has
already
been taken, there are three other bodies which have been banned and
their
central leaders arrested and offices sealed. Literally thousands of
active
workers of these five bodies and some others have been arrested. A few
Indian objections have already been heard. These organisations can
continue
to work after changing their names and hiring other office premises. In
theory there is no way of preventing that. But the political context in
Pakistan, with its dynamics, needs to be focused on.
Pakistan's is not a closed or totalitarian society; what goes on here
can
easily be monitored by all. The anti-terrorist measures being undertaken
are open and a change can already been seen in the political discourse.
Full impact of the change to be visible on the ground by the Indians ---
on
the assumption that insurgency in Kashmir Valley is due mainly to
Pakistan's sending armed infiltrators into Kashmir from across the LOC
---
should take some time.
There is no reason to suppose that the assumptions that Indians are
making
are all based on hard facts and are not exaggerations. While Islamabad
and
its secret agencies have been quite capable of doing what New Delhi
alleges
and may well be culpable to an extent, as many Pakistani analysts and
politicians concede. But it will be exceedingly odd that they can create
an
insurgency of the kind in a foreign land out of no local material or
basis.
Anyhow, the kind of political change that India and more importantly the
US
were demanding --- the latter behind the scenes --- has been largely
implemented. It is causing the political eddies that confirm that the
action taken is more than proforma words; it is a serious change of
policy
on the ground too.
Doubtless, full results of such a change can only become apparent to all
after they have had time to work through the society. Where the Indians
may
be right is the fact that Islamic extremism of the kind that has
produced
Taliban and other Mujahideen in Kashmir, some of whom have mounted
suicide
attacks, is not produced or destroyed in a week. It was a long time,
with
much state aid, in coming into being.
Even international media and US master publicists had assisted in the
creation of an elaborate mythology about Jihad in Afghanistan --- much
of
it was bodily transferred to the Kashmir, powerfully reinforced by the
officially-sponsored anti-India and anti-Hindu propaganda. Changing that
mind set will surely take a long time. But insofar as the physical
Kashmir
Jihad is mainly sustained by Pakistan, it should begin dying out within
weeks.
But preliminary results of India's coercive diplomacy --- more clearly
articulated by the trio of Advani-Jaswant and Farnandes --- can be seen
in
the shape of unending visitations by luminaries of all major powers.
Insofar as American and British high officials are concerned, their
intrusive facilitation is mediation except in name. Immobility on the
ground by the Indians and Pakistanis is an open invitation that cannot
be
rejected in the circumstances.
The Jaish-e-Mohammad spokesman in Muzaffarabad vowed (reported on Jan
4), that there would be "no scaling back of the jihad against Indian
rule in Kashmir despite a clampdown by Pakistani authorities".
Talking to AFP he declared, "We are not afraid of war. Rather, we
want it to take place because Kashmir can only be liberated by
military means."
Obviously the Jaish have it all figured out; they are not afraid to
die and they have no qualms in causing the deaths of millions of
others, which is what will happen in case of a war between India and
Pakistan. Although these fighting words were spoken before Gen
Musharraf's address of Jan 12, such groups are unlikely to desist
from violence because they know nothing else.
But without Pakistani support, how far will they get? Perhaps it's
time to call their bluff and find out. Already, thousands of enraged
parents are on the prowl against the religious leaders who incited
their sons to fight in Afghanistan; their rage makes these leaders
reluctant to emerge from the Pakistani prisons that they have
requested and been granted, asylum in. Interestingly, their own sons
and daughters are in even safer havens, the far away colleges and
institutions in the jaws of the Great Satan itself.
General Musharraf had begun cracking down on militant groups even
before September 11 - the term 'jihadi' is a misnomer for them, since
there is nothing holy about them. Since joining the so-called
coalition against terror, the General had redoubled his efforts. And
after December 13, he took further steps - none of them sufficient to
placate New Delhi, which seemed intent on matching the militant
groups in provoking war until his speech of December 12.
The visible short term gains of continuing hostilities would tempt a
greater statesman than Atal Behahi Vajpayee, not least being the
forthcoming UP elections of February, and the chance to 'put Pakistan
in its place'. But steer India out of this mood and arise from these
politics, he must.
A journalist friend in New Delhi commented on Gen Musharraf's
address: "It will please the US and erode the advantage that India
had gained over the present situation. More importantly, however, it
has the potential of charting a brave new course for Pakistan. If the
internal dynamic of Pakistan becomes non-jihadi, it will be good for
us in India too."
Mr Vajpayee would do well to pay heed to voices like these in India.
It is not in India's long term interests to have a Talibanised
Pakistan next door: provoking war or a war hype will only strengthen
the jingoism and religious militancy on either side of the border.
A recent poll on the Tehelka.com website drew a negative answer from
89.9 percent of those who responded to the question "Is Pakistan
sincere in cracking down on the terrorist groups?" One can't really
blame them, given the amount of times Pakistan's sincerity has been
tested and found wanting. To cling to such a view at this point is
self-delusional. Pakistan has no choice but to take action against
these groups, not just for the sake of peace with India but for its
own internal security. Such groups have caused as much or more havoc
within our own borders as they have elsewhere.
It is a situation that the leadership of Pakistan has brought upon
itself, in the process dragging along a population that has never
been involved in the formulation of these policies. What the people
do know is that their leadership has betrayed them time and again,
that independence from 'British rule' and 'Hindu domination' did not
usher in freedom, justice and tolerance, and that they are not
allowed to live in peace.
Withdrawing support from these elements in Afghanistan while
fraternising with their brethren in Kashmir will not work. Even those
who supported the Taliban think that Kashmiris should be left to sort
out their own affairs. Take Abdur Rehman, who fought against the
Soviets in Afghanistan for eight years. "My jihad now is to feed,
clothe and educate my family," says this bearded, unlettered man from
Waziristan, who now drives a taxi in Karachi and looks far older than
his 35 years. What about Kashmir, would he go there to fight for
their liberation? An unequivocal no is the answer. "Let the Kashmiris
take care of their own problems. What's happening there now is not a
jihad, it's mercenary fighting."
Kashmiri groups have welcomed Pakistan's announcement that it will no
longer provide any support other than moral and diplomatic; this
tacit admission of other support has long provided India a stick to
beat the Kashmiris with and drawn accusations that their struggle is
fuelled by outside sources. The reality is that Kashmiri uprising
against New Delhi started indigenously, and it will continue after
Pakistan withdraws tactical support. In fact, the infiltration of the
Kashmiri fighters with foreigners has hijacked what began as a
secular, progressive movement against Indian repression. As in
Afghanistan, they give the Kashmiri uprising its militant Islamic
colour; their pressure forces Kashmiri women in the cities to don
burqas or face acid attacks.
People the world over are sick of violence. Ordinary citizens are
raising a voice against the latest war threat arising from tensions
between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Rallies against the war
hype have been held in Kolkota, Mumbai, and New Delhi. Hundreds of
signatures, from individuals, parliamentarians and peace
organisations, have been obtained on a memorandum urging restraint,
calling for dialogue and demanding the restoration of road and rail
links between India and Pakistan. Over 250 parliamentarians and
organisations worldwide, including Pakistan and India, Australia, UK,
USA, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan, particularly anti-nuclear
groups, have urged a resumption of dialogue.
In Boston and San Francisco, Pakistanis and Indians have come
together to call for a halt to hostilities. In one recent
demonstration on Jan 5, members of Boston's South Asian community,
many of them students - Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and
Americans - held a demonstration demanding that India and Pakistan
resolve their differences peacefully, and defuse the mounting
tensions between the two countries.
In San Francisco on Jan 7, a group of students, Silicon Valley
professionals, scientists and engineers held an anti-war
demonstration outside the Indian Consulate, under the banner of a
loosely organised group called 'Friends of South Asia' (FOSA).
According to information received on email, "The group had brought
with them an anti-war petition to the Indian Prime Minister signed by
over 100 Indians, Pakistanis and other peace-loving citizens across
the world and a memorandum of demands to both governments to take
concrete step to deescalate the present crisis."
Those motivated to demonstrate in San Francisco include ordinary
people with no political affiliations, like Usman Qazi, a scientist
of Pakistani origin, who was disgusted by a radio interview of local
Pakistani and Indian consular representatives. "It was revolting to
hear them fight like children and parrot their governments' points of
view." An Indian participant, Akhila Raman was motivated after seeing
films by documentary film-maker Anand Patwardhan. "Both governments
have to negotiate peace through dialogue and plan phased cutbacks in
military spending. We are both poor countries."
The attitude of the Indian and the Pakistani governments speaks
through not only the actions of the Karachi police and the Lahore
Rangers which disrupted peace rallies here, but also through the
refusal of functionaries of the Indian Consul for Political Affairs
in San Francisco, who refused to keep a scheduled appointment with
the demonstrators.
The memorandum they wanted to present to him was to be sent to both
governments urging them to resolve the tension by diplomatic
initiatives and pull back the military build-up at the border, and
"to start an unconditional and honest dialogue on Kashmir, one of the
main causes of the dispute".
It asks India to "refrain from military strikes against Pakistan,
resolve the issue of terrorism in the International Court of Justice
by submitting evidence, reinstate full diplomatic relations with
Pakistan and restore air, bus and train services". It asks Pakistan
to "take honest measures to eradicate the long-standing issue of
terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of India and to stop the proxy
war against India by cracking down on the so-called 'jihadi' groups".
Back home in Pakistan, a peace demonstration in Karachi on the same
day, Jan 7, was forcibly disrupted by a nervous police force despite
the presence of women and children. Earlier, peace demonstrators
marching to the Wagah border on December 31 were violently stopped by
the Rangers. In both cases, the demonstrators included ordinary
citizens who had arrived at the venue on learning of the event; they
included teachers, IT specialists, doctors, lawyers, retired armed
forces officers, and 'housewives'. They were individual as well as
members of non-government organisations, trade unions, political
organisations, women's and human rights groups.
The interest of ordinary people is evident in the number of phone
calls received at newspaper offices in Lahore asking for how they
could participate in the Wagah rally - so much so that the widely
circulated daily Jang was pressurised to announce the time and date.
In Karachi, a 60-year-old housewife in Gulshan-e-Iqbal learnt of the
rally and came to participate in it, the first time she had taken
such a step. After the police disruption, she offered her own house
for future meetings of the peace group.
It is time for the Musharraf regime to demonstrate its sincerity not
just by cracking down on the militant organisations but by allowing
those organisations which are working for peace, justice and
tolerance, to function without hindrance.
What Pakistani citizens should be loudly asking the government of Pakistan
President Gen Musharraf perhaps articulated the precise sentiments of
the entire nation when he warned India on Saturday that it should not
dare cross the Line of Control. He was also right on the dot when he
said in his speech on the national hookup that nothing can keep
Pakistan from extending political, diplomatic and moral support to
the people of occupied Kashmir. And he would certainly find the
entire nation backing him on the issue of Pakistanis wanted by India.
His invitation to the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, to
come forward and help create peace and harmony with a view to
resolving all disputes through peaceful means and dialogue is also in
line with what the nation wants. And he was again reflecting the
sentiments of the nation when he asked the US to play its role in
resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Above all it is highly reassuring to note that India has responded
positively to Gen Musharaf's repudiation of 'cross-border' terrorism.
He did not say it in so many words. But this is what perhaps he had
wanted to convey in effect to the Indians when he announced the
banning of all those Jihadi organizations which were known to have
been very active in the Indian Held Kashmir and also by making a firm
commitment to punish those who would be found using Pakistani
territory for launching terrorist activities in other countries.
This is exactly what the Indians had wanted him to do in Agra in
return for agreeing to treat Kashmir as the core dispute between the
two countries. But for some reason he did not oblige the Indians in
Agra. Perhaps he was waiting for an opportunity like the one offered
by the December 13 to respond positively to the Indian demand. Well
as they say, all is well that ends well.
The president's speech has, however, raised a number of questions on
the domestic front, though. And there are many in Pakistan who would
like Gen Musharraf to answer the following questions so that the
whole thing of religious extremism in this country is put in its
proper context and effective measures are taken to keep it under
control in the future.
These questions are: Who had he meant when he referred to 'those' and
'they' when he said "'Those' who set up Afghan Defence Council did
not do any service to Pakistan and Islam rather 'they' got hundreds
of innocent Pakistanis killed by sending them to take part in the
so-called Jihad in Afghanistan"? Who had actually created the
organizations like the banned Jaish-i-Mohammad (JM), Lashkar-i- Taiba
(LeT), Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Tehrik-i-Jaferia Pakistan
(TJP), Tanzim-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM)? Who had
encouraged the setting up of those Madaris which he said were
involved in encouraging hatred, violence and terrorism? Who had
encouraged the 'religious extremists' to defy the writ of the
government and why? Who had authored the policy of interfering in the
affairs of others (countries) and using violence as a means to thrust
our point of view on others? Who had actually sponsored and
strengthened the policy of allowing Pakistan to be used for carrying
out terrorist or subversive activities in and outside the country?
And who had actually allowed foreign Muslim extremists to use
Pakistan as the hub of their activities?
Simply put, it appears that in his speech the President had tried to
blame every 'sin' related to violence in the name of Afghanistan,
Kashmir and sectarianism inside and outside the country in the last
15 years or so on the so-called religious extremists. A very
convenient way of side stepping accountability of the Establishment
itself which has attained an uncanny mastery in finding scapegoats
for its own sins and getting the nation as well as the world accept
its version of the story lock stock and barrel!
What is actually needed, therefore, is another inquiry body to be set
up on the lines of Hamoodur Rehman Commission which should go into
the 'hows' and 'whys' of the emergence of the so-called 'Jihadi'
elements in this country. Of course, every body knows the genesis of
modern day Jihad. It goes back the US war against the USSR in
Afghanistan in the decade of 1980s. The Americans had given global
respectability to the terms 'Jihad' and 'Mujahid' for their own
purpose. They funded these Mujahideen and armed them to teeth. And
these misled Mujahideen flocked to Afghanistan from the Muslim
countries to fight the American 'Jihad' against the Soviets.
After they had won this 'Jihad' for the USA, their benefactor just
walked away leaving them high and dry. This is when they were adopted
by Pakistani Establishment. And why not? The Pakistani Establishment
had the grandiose visions of extending its 'strategic depth' to the
northern borders of Afghanistan and bleeding India in the Indian Held
Kashmir. The Establishment sponsored these Mujahideen without a Jihad
with money, guns and another Jihad.
Even the Pak-Afghan Defence Council was formed at the behest of the
Establishment. Remember the formation of IJI in 1988 and the money
the ISI is supposed to have distributed among politicians then to get
them to stop Benazir Bhutto-led PPP from sweeping the 1988 elections?
Well an affidavit to the effect by the then ISI chief, Lt-Gen (Rtd)
Asad Durrani, the present Pakistan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is
pending before the Supreme Court.
If the ISI can spend money to interfere into the internal affairs of
Pakistan what was there to stop its external wing using the
hard-earned money of the taxpayer as well as that doled by the
foreign donors in doing the same for achieving its global objectives?
The President cannot pass the entire responsibility for this on his
predecessors? In December 1999 when Masood Azhar of Jaish emerged
from the hijacked Indian airline in Kandahar Musharraf was the all
powerful military ruler of this country who could exile Nawaz Sharif
with a stroke of pen, stop Benazir Bhutto from coming back and ban
legitimate political activities of the mainstream political parties.
Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, whom Gen Musharraf arrested only last
week, had the full field to themselves and they could go to any place
in full public view, hold meetings, display arms and issue threats to
India. Nothing was done against them. And when just before he was
about to embark on his Agra Yatra, he was asked by an Indian
journalist if he would like to ask these Jihadis to curb their
activities now that peace talks were starting his answer was in the
negative.
So, the Pakistani Establishment cannot escape its role in promoting
the Jihadi culture in the country. And it will have to be held
accountable for this, if as Gen Musharraf says the Jihad culture has
brought such a bad name for Pakistan. We must find out who corrupted
the simpletons of Madaris and the mosques. Unless we do this we
cannot hope to have repudiated violence completely.
PESHAWAR, Jan 14: Asking the government to enforce the ban on
militant organisations, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has
hoped that Islamabad's present drive would open the way to reducing
tension in the region without compromising the rights of the people
of Kashmir which could not be sacrificed under the slogan of war
against terrorism.
In a press release issued here on Monday, HRCP Chairperson Afrasiab
Khattak and Secretary General Hina Jilani stated that the authority
had at last recognised that militants operating under the garb of
religion had become a state withinthe state and law unto themselves.
"Civil society had for years been pointing out the threat these
elements were posing to the integrity of the state and the interests
of the population.
It would have been better if the measures announced on Saturday had
been adopted earlier when they would have indicated a self-propelled
change of heart and nobody might have been confused by the existence
of external pressure. Yet, however the present decision might have
been taken, it must now be implemented with the utmost sincerity and
vigour," the release said.
"It may not be fair to put the entire blame for Pakistan's problems
on the misguided clerics.
The state in particular and the people in general must subject their
conduct over the past several decades to a thorough reappraisal,
however painful and bitter. Thus, Pakistan's problems will not end by
merely putting the militant groups out of action. What is needed is a
complete recording of the state priorities and policies solely in
public interest.
While the state should respect the various religious faiths of the
population, belief should be treated strictly as an individual's
private affair," the HRCP said.
It hoped that the next natural step to this process would be the
democratisation of society, and the authorities would be able to
deliver to the people of Pakistan, "with the same fervour they
exhibit in fighting for the cause of the Kashmiris, the right to
elect their own representatives."
Dear Friends,
The morning after the General's TV appearance, which we watched and
listened to very carefully,we drafted this note which we hope will be
released today to press and media across the country on behalf of the
Pak India Forum and a few other groups as well.
We encourage as many groups and individuals as possible to either
endorse this, or draft other messages - basically to consolidate
moderate opinion in favour of de-escalation and dialogue as the
immediate first step.
We believe that there is an urgent need to take action at several
levels simultaneously if we are to use this small window of
opportunity that has opened up.
1) Reaffirm and Strengthen the positive features of the Statement by
the President of Pakistan. We are well aware of all the lacunae which
are already being pointed out by several people in both countries!
But those debates will continue - as they must - and form an
important part of the tough process of re-building democracy within
Pakistan.
2) Reaffirm and strengthen those sections within the Indian
establishment who are willing to give the general the `benefit of the
doubt' and `time to implement his promises' - as Jaswant Singh's
statement and Press Conference brought quite clearly. (WE have read
some of the reports in the Pakistani Press regretting the `lack of
warmth' ! Anyone who has seen our Foreign Ministry in action will
realise that this is their style - and not something reserved
especially for Pakistan!)
3) However, right now, as a Peace Constituency in the region - there
is an immediate, difficult, but critical role and task ahead of us.
Already one can hear the `macho' voices getting more and more
strident - demanding that there should be no compromise with the
other - and that `national honour' (whatever that means!) must be
upheld at all costs. The seductiveness of the `war' option is
frightening as it is widespread among certain segments. Alas, those
segments are also vocal and visible - and seem to have strong allies
within some sections of press and media. This might take different
shape and form in each country .
In India it is created by building on the "terrorism, trust betrayed,
and dont lose the opportunity now" theme which has already been so
skillfully kept in the public eye. And it is precisely these
constituencies and voices which need to be engaged immediately by all
those of us who can - wherever we happen to be situated.
Large Peace Rallies could be one of our endeavours, but
simultaneously we need to seek out all opportunities to talk with
colleagues - youth in particular - providing facts - pointing out the
potentially catastrophic scenario of the war option for both sides.
So while we continue to analyse the speech - examine all the gaps and
historical background - let us keep in mind the immediate situation
and utilise every possible opportunity to buy time and push for
de-escalation and lowered levels of rhetoric.
Greetings,
Admiral Ramu Ramdas and Lalita Ramdas
Pak India Forum for Peace and Democracy(PIPFPD)
Indo-Pak Soldiers for Peace Initiative (IPSI)
Asia Peoples Alliance
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India)
The statement is given below.
*************************************************************************************
WAY AHEAD FOR PEACE BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Millions of people around the world, including many of us in the
Peace Movement in India, heard His Excellency,
Gen Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, address his nation last
night 12 January 2002. Most of his address
was focussed on domestic issues concerning extremism and the role of
Madrassas inside Pakistan. The General
outlined several courageous and determined steps in order to end
religious fundamentalism and all forms of
terrorism, and to restore tolerance and balance in Pakistan. By any
standards, these measures were indicative of
a radical turn around from the views subscribed to by previous
Pakistani regimes since Gen. Zia ul Haq.
Gen Musharraf has imposed a ban on many terrorist groups functioning
out of Pakistan, including the two groups
identified by India , namely the LeT and the JeM. Whilst condemning
the terrorist acts of Sept 11, Oct 1 and 13
Dec in unambiguous terms, he has also made it very clear that no
terrorist groups will be permitted to function
from within Pakistan to carry out militancy outside Pakistan,
including in Jammu and Kashmir. One hopes that this will be
translated into action on the ground in the near future.
In a special message to the Prime Minister of India, the President of
Pakistan once again re-iterated the need to
move away from `old mindsets and historical baggage' and resume the
dialogue process to resolve all bilateral
issues including J & K.
We welcome the initial response of the Govt of India as set forth by
Mr Jaswant Singh in his Press Conference of Jan 13 2002. However we
would like the Govt of India to demonstrate its acknowledgement of
the positive
nature of the steps announced by General Musharraf and to do the
following as an initial act of goodwill:
** restore communication links including, air, land and rail
transport between our countries to the pre Dec 31st
status.
** defuse and de-escalate the current `eyeball to eyeball'
confrontation along the International border and Line of Control in
J&K.
** resume the dialogue process as soon as possible
New Delhi/Islamabad, Jan. 14: INDIA WILL not pull back its troops from the border with Pakistan unless Islamabad ends cross-border terrorism, Defence Minister George Fernandes said on Monday. India has lined up about six-seven lakh troops on the border after the terrorist attack on its Parliament on December 13. "There's no way we will pull back our troops unless there's action on the promises made by General Musharraf in his Saturday address," Fernandes told the media on the eve of his week-long visit to the US. The benchmark for satisfying India includes action on the list of 20 wanted persons who have taken refuge in Pakistan. "We've had Musharraf s word. Now we wait for his deed," the minister said. He reckoned that the ultimate purpose of Pakistani action . must be to "end cross-border terrorrism for all time".
CHINESE PREMIER Zhu Rongj on Monday said that China posed no threat to India. He assured Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that Beijing will keep out of the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir and said: "China has never viewed India as a threat nor do we believe India will regard China a threat. He also expressed the hope" that the troops build-up along the Indo-Pakistani border would not lead to a serious confrontation between the two countries. The two leaders discussed the issue of terrorism and the security scenario in the region during their half hour meeting on Monday.
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 17 januari 2002