India and Pakistan are on the brink of yet another war. Like its
democratic counterpart in India the military dictatorship of General
Musharraf is also not doing much to ease tensions. Pakistanis and
Indians are angry at hate-mongering of the governments. Peace rallies
are being held in major cities of both countries. The Joint Action
Committee, an umbrella group of radical NGOs, socialist organisations
and non-NGO peace groups of journalists and professional engineers
and statisticians had a successful vigil on Dec 31st at the Karachi
Press Club. Encouraged by the response they decided to hold another
at Hassan Square, the new city centre. However soon as the protestors
gathered on January 7th the police started dispersing them. Some
adamant protestors refused to disperse and two were arrested and one
bruised. The hundreds who arrived later were turned away. All this
brutality took place despite earlier police assurances that sidewalk
protest would not be stopped.
Isn't this a usual story? Another issue another protest? Day in and
out protesters gather at press clubs around the country and the
police allows them a 'side-walk' protest. So what was wrong with the
Hassan Square protest? Well, as one of the friends said 'because it
was not at the Press Club'.
The question asked by most of the liberals, progressives and those
taking the regime of General Musharraf as 'liberal,
anti-fundamentalist, anti-war' is that why would this government
attack peace-protesters? Isn't the General for peace? Ironically the
statement is self-contradictory. The history of the dictator in
General Musharraf shows that he and military bosses behind him, in
the given circumstances, are playing peace and at other times they
have done more to create disruption. Remember those opposing Lahore
Declaration, creation of the Kargil debacle, the nuclear explosions?
Peace protests have been repressed elsewhere, another example being
at Wagah. It will be a folly to expect a military regime to give us
the rights it has taken away by imposing military rule. The question
here is not that 'why the military regime would attack the peace
protesters' but it has to be that 'what causes it to attack all those
who criticise, challenge and protest against ruling elite's policies'.
Press clubs are in the quietest old-city areas. Insignificant traffic
passes by, working people don't even know where it is unless they
have to protest. That way the protests are limited, controllable,
manageable. By allowing protests and pictures of protesters the
government appears liberal: safeguarding the rights of its critics.
Protesters' anger gets vented and initial small numbers of protesters
gets demoralised for lack of solidarity.
If protests are held in public places surely not hundreds but
thousands will come to know of them. People will get to see the
protestors they sometimes notice in print only. The protestors and
the passers-by will come into real-life contact. Ideas will be
exchanged, debates made and more will join the protestors. The
protesters will get solidarity. The passers-by will know that 'some
are protesting'. They will realise that protests 'are possible'. This
will be a realisation that may radicalise millions into thinking that
it is possible to disagree, it is possible to protest. This will be a
first step towards real emancipation of the people -- 'an act of the
people by the people'.
Rulers in general and military rulers in particular know that to
allow protest is to allow people to think about their own lives and
to act to change it. Criticism bares open that which is fetishised.
Protests concretise this re-thinking of the masses. They usually
begin for retaining past reforms. Military rule relies solely on the
threat to use force. However a prolonged military rule itself takes
away the might conceived in its coercive stance. This is what
happened in General Zia's dictatorship. Five years into his rule he
was faced with a massive movement for restoration of democracy. From
then on the military ruler had to give in to various demands. This
may happen with General Musharraf and more quickly as the state and
economy are weak.
Denying the right to protest does not mean that protests will not
take place. In fact the recent protests have proved contrary to that
assertion. The more people protest the greater there is a desire to
protest more. And if the protesters succeed in getting a demand
realised then it gives confidence to argue for more reforms. In the
past one year or so radicalisation of our society has intensified.
Only last month, schoolteachers in Sindh and Punjab staged massive
protests, tens of thousands of land-less peasants protested for land
rights in Okara and other areas, college teachers in Karachi
protested against denationalisation, university teachers protested
against repression, anti-war protests were staged all over the
country. And most importantly the peace rally at Wagah on December
31st which was attacked.
Since the war on Afghanistan the protesters movement has intensified.
So when India and Pakistan threatened war the peace activists were
quick to respond and within days they were at the Karachi Press Club.
Within a week they were out there at Hassan Square and the mood was
fantastic. New faces, young people and mostly women -- these are the
colours and mix of the new movement.
The military regime of General Musharraf is apparently trying to
avoid war and by that token the stance of a peace protester may be
the same as that of the regime. But that is a coincidence. By design,
military is a war machine, a vital protector of the state when faced
with a challenge, be it be internal or external. So the military may
be against an immediate war but it would not allow people to protest
against the war. The military regime does not need people to be
awakened about the dangers of war because soon it may need a war to
protect itself. By allowing protest now the regime faces the danger
of allowing formation of an internal challenge to a future war or
against other policies. To protect itself the ruling class has to
ensure that its own house is united. The grouping together of the
various shades of political and fundamentalist parties around the
military government is testament to that unity. By denying people to
protest the military regime denies masses an opportunity to group
together. They fear that such grouping in turn itself may rise
against the ruling group.
World history shows that like all rights the right to protest is
never given by the state; rights are always taken, achieved. The
right to protest is one of the most difficult under military rule.
But the new movement of resistance has shown that it is necessary to
move beyond Press Clubs, out into the larger places and relate to the
masses. It has shown that the right to protest will never be
legitimised by the state. If our lives have to change and we wish to
control them then this right need only be legitimised in the minds of
masses. Little preaching can help in restoring that realisation, it
needs practice. More protests against war, deprivation and denial are
the only way that we can challenge fundamentalists, the repressive
rulers and gain the right to protest.
The writer is assistant professor, department of applied chemistry,
University of Karachi
AFP [ WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002 3:53:21 AM ]
WASHINGTON: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said here Tuesday he
had told US officials "indications" exist that India may be planning
a new nuclear test. "There were certainly indications," Musharraf
said in remarks to two Washington think tanks. "I did share these
with the US leadership. "I can't give conclusive evidence of it, but
I thought if at all there was a possibility, it should be checked,"
he said. Musharraf is in Washington on a working visit and is to meet
on Wednesday with President George W. Bush at the White House.
WASHINGTON: Pakistan's military leader Pervez Musharraf found economic solace and aid from the United States in his effort to rescue his crisis-ridden country, but he got no political or diplomatic support in his campaign for Kashmir.
US President George Bush rejected a mediatory role for Washington and said the best thing the United States could do was to encourage India and Pakistan to have a meaningful dialogue.
"The only way a solution can be found is for India and Pakistan to sit down and talk," Bush said, ruling out a direct American role. But he offered no suggestion on how the dialogue could resume and on whom the onus lay to restart the process.
Bush and other senior officials also did not respond immediately or publicly to Musharraf’s complaints of a "massive and aggressive" deployment of troops by India and his calls for withdrawal. The silence appeared to endorse the administration's known position that Pakistan still had to do a lot of groundwork on stamping out terrorism before it could expect India to back down off.
But Musharraf found plenty of support from Bush for the social, economic and political reforms he has initiated although aid in monetary terms was not immediately disclosed. There were also indications that Washington would resume bilateral military co-operation. The matter is expected to be discussed at length when General Musharraf meets Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later on Wednesday.
At a Rose Garden press conference following talks between the two leaders, Bush expectedly praised Musharraf heartily for being a frontline ally in the war against terrorism. He also enthusiastically endorsed Musharraf's social and education reform campaign and indicated the US would enhance monetary aid for the process.
In response to a question from a Pakistani journalist about Washington's reliability as a long term partner and patron, Bush said his administration was committed to Pakistan but qualified it by suggesting that this was valid so far as Pakistan shared US goals and ideals. Despite the evident bonhomie between the leaders, US officials are said to have been pressing for a road-map for Pakistan’s return to democracy.
Bush also denied suggestions from a visiting journalist that Pakistanis in the US are being racially profiled and indiscriminately detained following the 9/11 attack. Bush said they were being treated humanely and in any case his first task was to protect the American people.
Musharraf implicitly agrees to end crossborder terrorism.
PTI adds: The United States has said that Pakistan President Musharraf's commitment to fight terrorism made to President George Bush also implies that he would end cross-border terrorism against India from Pakistan's side.
"President Musharraf directly addressed the question saying that he will fight all forms of terrorism," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said on Wednesday when asked specifically whether President Bush and President Musharraf discussed cross-border terrorism and the list of 20 terrorists and criminals India wanted Pakistan to handover during their meeting yesterday.
Fleischer implied that what Musharraf meant in using the term "all forms of terrorism" certainly includes cross-border terrorism.
The publication of this book could not have been more timely. As the
armies of the two nuclear powers of South Asia face each other on
their vulnerable frontiers, it is indeed important to evaluate the
thinking of the conscious section of the population on the current
explosive situation. It is a matter of great pride and satisfaction
that never for a moment, the writers, poets and intellectuals of the
subcontinent have deviated from the path of peace and understanding
between nations.
Be it Japan, Vietnam, Rwanda, the Gulf region or Afghanistan, they
have consistently upheld the cause of justice and fair play. How else
can one explain Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi's memorable short story,
"Hiroshima se pahley, Hiroshima ke baad"? Hiroshima was far away from
Lahore where Qasmi lives. But he shared the anguish of a people who
were subjected to incredible atrocities dropped on them in the form
of an atomic bomb. And now when two Asian neighbours are threatening
each other with nuclear options, once again the community of writers
has raised its voice against this menace.
Here we are not concerned with the hawks of Pakistan and India who
are blinded by hatred for each other. They are found in every society
and every country and at all times.
When some insane individuals embark upon a devilish mission of
defacing the beauty of the Earth through atomic explosions in the
hills and the seas, writers have the responsibility of guiding the
people to the path of reason. In these testing times, who else but
Zamir Niazi has come forward to document the outpourings of committed
writers and poets in a book? This indefatigable chronicler of the
press in Pakistan has produced a revised and enlarged edition of his
book first published a year ago.
Zameen ka nauha is a rare anthology in many respects. Besides Zamir
Niazi's exhaustive and informative treatise on the rise and expansion
of nuclear devices, the first part of the book contains articles by
Khalique Ibrahim Khalique and Asif Farrukhi. They have discussed the
implications of a nuclear war and its aftermath for the entire
humanity. Though the literary excellence of the writings by various
writers and poets included in the book cannot be judged and properly
evaluated at this stage, comforting is the fact that all of them felt
and realized the horrors of a nuclear conflict between two states.
Along with the elder writers and poets a sizable number of them
belonged to the younger generations.
Apart from Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi's memorable short story, the stories by
Saadat Hasan Manto, Hasan Manzar, Intezar Husain, Zahida Hina, Masood
Ashar, Firdaus Haider and Fatima Hasan are quite poignant literary
pieces. Two new additions to the edition under eview are Hijab Imtiaz
Ali and Ibne Saeed. The latter has captured the images of Hiroshima
after its total destruction. He is instinctively a fiction writer.
It's a pity that he has stopped writing in Urdu. Manto's masterpiece
"Chacha Saam ke naam panchwan khat" embodies the frustrating
helplessness of a people who are condemned to live at the mercy of a
big power.
Besides original writings several short stories and poems written in
other languages and translated into Urdu have also been included in
the book.
The nuclear explosions in India and Pakistan also stirred up the
imagination of the poets of the two countries. Inspiring poems were
written by Sheikh Ayaz, Habib Jalib, Ahmad Faraz, Sehr Ansari,
Parveen Shakir (new entrant to this edition), Zia Jalandhri, Mohsin
Bhopali, Kishwar Naheed, Fahmida Riaz, Hasan Abidi, Muslim Shameem,
Saeeda Gazdar, Saba Ekram, Azra Abbas, Attiya Dawood, Hilal Naqvi,
N.M. Danish, Zeeshan Sahil and host of other equally gifted poets. It
is not possible to name all of them. Neither is any discrimination
intended. All of them have felt the pain that humanity may have to
endure as a result of nuclear conflicts.
Zameen ka nauha will be regarded by the future generations as a proud
legacy handed over to them by their ancestors. This is a valuable
document that records the feelings and fears of bewildered people who
were once alive to witness the horrors of the atomic blasts. It also
serves as a reminder to humanity to be on guard against the designs
of self-centred and ambitious rulers who are ever eager to dominate
the world through nuclear terror.
The book is a remarkable contribution of revered writer Zamir Niazi.
It was indeed a painstaking task to collect literary pieces written
in Urdu and other languages on the nuclear explosions in South Asia .
But he has successfully and neatly done it. The Urdu reading people
would always remain grateful to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zameen ka nauha
Compiled and edited by Zamir Niazi
Scheherzade, B-155, Block 5, Gulshan-i-Iqbal, Karachi
E-mail: scheherzade@altavista.com
375pp. Rs100
NEW DELHI/KOLKATA, Feb. 10. - Aftab Ansari, prime suspect in
the attack on the American Center in Kolkata, has admitted to his
involvement in the incident. He had links with jiha-dis in Pakistan,
especially with Omar Sheikh, one of the three terrorists released
by India during the hijacking of IC-814 in 1999. CBI sources said:
"He has reportedly admitted to his involvement in the crime. He has
also revealed that he was the man behind the arms smuggling in
Gujarat in which some of his associates were arrested by the CBI.
He further said that about six gangs are operating in the coastal
areas of Gujarat under the command of Dubai-based underworlds."
Ansari, alias Farhan Malik, held yesterday by the CBI along with
his associate Raju Sharma after being deported from Du-bai, were
today produced before the Patiala House Court and remanded in
seven-day transit custody. The court sent Raju to five days of
transit remand.
PTI
NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday demanded that Pakistan handed over Omar Sheikh, leader of banned terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad and main suspect in the kidnapping of American journalist Daniel Pearl, saying he was wanted in some cases in the country.
"We would like him to be handed over to India in good faith," Minister of State for External Affairs Omar Abdullah said.
Abdullah, however, said that the timing of the arrest of the militant caused suspicion as it came a day before Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was scheduled to meet US President George W. Bush.
Asked whether India could demand extradition of Sheikh as he was a Pakistan national, Abdullah told Star News there was no bar on seeking deportation of the terrorist who was released along with Jaish Chief Maulana Masood Azhar in December 1999 in exchange for the passengers of an Indian Airlines plane which had been hijacked to Kandahar.
To another question as to what would be India's stance if the militant was handed over to the US, the minister said that India would then raise the matter with Washington.
Earlier, an external affairs ministry spokesperson termed Sheikh's arrest as a confirmation of Pakistan providing safe haven to such criminals.
There are no easy options for President Pervez Musharraf, who should be
discussing things, among them Kashmir rather importantly, with the US
President George W. Bush today. He will have to accept what economic
package the US government has already prepared for Pakistan. Real
significance attaches to the US mediatory role in Kashmir desired by
Pakistan. What are the chances?
Few surprises are in store, as the US position is more or less an open
book. In deference to Pakistani wishes, and in pursuance of its own
responsibility, the US is trying to make India relent over de-escalating the tension on the borders by starting to thin out and eventually withdraw its troops. Pakistan will happily follow, if only India begins the process. But the Indians have dug their heels in and are demanding, as a condition, that Pakistan has to prove that it has changed its Kashmir policy by stopping what it calls cross-border terrorism or the proxy war. Who is to judge that this condition has been met? Why, India itself --- and not the US or international community.
There can be no two opinions about the priority of this de-escalation;
it overrides other matters. At issue is war or peace in South Asia ---
because an easily-possible war can quickly escalate into a nuclear
exchange, even if it does not start as a nuclear war properly socalled,
as this writer believes may now have become 'logical' in the given
circumstances. Happily the fear of consequences has forced both sides to shrink back from a 'massive' preemptive nuclear strike. But pride and prejudice --- the driving force of realpolitik in the Sub-continent --- prevents the logic of this true military deadlock being translated into doing what is unavoidable: to deescalate, mutual withdrawals and a
return to whatever degree of normalcy may be possible between such
hostile neighbours --- and bilateral negotiations.
Two points need being made on this all-important issue. First is about
the war itself: recent history proves that neither India nor Pakistan
can go to war so long as they retain sanity, including the ability to
react rationally to what the outside world says. The crucial fact is
that (a) no Indian leader or general can wait for the enemy (Pakistan)
to make a preemptive nuclear strike first and then react with an atomic
riposte. (b) Pakistan, so long as sanity prevails, cannot make the
initial, preemptive strike because it can neither cripple all the Indian capability to reply in kind nor can it contemplate with equanimity the size of the inevitable Indian reply: India can destroy all the major industrial-urban centres of Pakistan. Thus, the fear of Pakistani nuclear strike preventing a conventional war seamlessly graduates into the position where war ceases to be an option for either side.
The second point is that both countries, and their sane and peace-loving citizens, have to clearly realise and emphasise that war is not an option and have to make policies accordingly outside the government sphere. Look at what has been happening over the recent years. The political classes that have ruled New Delhi and Islamabad have been primarily --- as a first priority --- preparing for another war over Kashmir. For, all Pakistani governments in recent years have proved by their actions that they will not sit idle and will continue making the life difficult for India so long as it keeps the Kashmir Valley under its control. After gaining the nuclear capability in the middle 1980s, it acquired a parallel arrogance of its own. The Indians, possessing as great, if not greater, capability see no reason for accommodating Pakistan. Politics of each ruling set of elites is based on the hatred of the other and both sets of them have flourished.
A third point merits consideration by Pakistani establishment which has
been keen on third party mediation, mainly by the US. Mediation is done
by a neutral party, if its own interests are not involved on the
crucially important issue and if the other side agrees to it. The US has its interests throughout Asia; with India it is building a strategic consensus that is much wider in scope than what it might agree upon with Pakistan. Moreover on the issue of "cross-border-terrorism" itself, listen to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell telling the US Congress:
"(apropos the Jan 12 speech by Gen. Musharraf) it sent a clear message
to Pakistanis that terrorism must end if Pakistan has to enter the 21st
century with expectations of progress and decent life for its people.
President Musharraf showed great courage and foresight in sending such a decisive message to his country and by extension to the Islamic world at large. Now he must show equal courage in implementing his concept in
Pakistan."
What was Powell driving at? Musharraf must courageously implement his
anti-terrorism concept in Pakistan --- and by extension in Kashmir. If
there ever was diplomatic endorsement of Indian demand of the stoppage
of cross-border-terrorism it was this, though it is not to be confused
with the American drive to have the religious extremism extirpated from
Pakistan. This last is important for the US and is a commonality of
purpose with India. Even otherwise, the post 9/11 policy U turn on
Afghanistan by President Musharraf led logically and relentlessly ---
for the sake of the survival of Musharraf Presidency --- to Jan 12
policy shift. Now, the same logic unfailingly and no less rigorously
leads to the stoppage of whatever insurgency or violence in Kashmir is
taking place from Pakistani and Azad Kashmir territories. It is right.
And this needs to be done expeditiously. The US will not formally
mediate. And to the extent it is prepared to go, it is already doing so
--- as an ally of India.
Let no Pakistani supporter of Jihad in Kashmir forget that the sole
basis of insurgency in Kashmir was Pakistan's nuclear deterrent:
impossibility for India of going to war. The post-Dec 13 Crisis shows
that India has actually threatened war, or at least creating a near-war
situation that will arguably hurt Pakistan more than it does India, as
some say. It is threatening in fact a proper war despite the risk of
nuclear exchange. In other words, being sure that Pakistan dare not use
its nuclear weapons for fear of a reply in kind, Indian government is
ready to fight a conventional war in which it thinks it has an edge over Pakistan. Does it suit Pakistan to fight such a war? No it does not. In fact there should be no war at all; why should common people suffer for the sake of the elites' pride and prejudice.
The situation since Dec 13 attack on Indian Parliament shows that it is
an unsustainable situation for both sides, certainly for Pakistan which
is suffering unacceptable financial losses. Politically too it is
unmanageable. At the very least, the Crisis signals a new phase of cold
war with covert subversion as the main instrument; it may be beginning
or might. It is simply too stupid: neither state can be defeated in this way while it makes common people suffer needless losses and, above all, it degrades the quality of public life and culture in both countries.
Therefore President Musharraf will do well to accept the Kashmir part of American advice --- for want of any alternative --- just as he is likely to find that there is not much scope for enlargement in the package of economic aid. Musharraf certainly needs peace to restructure the governing processes for remaining in power for five more years after Oct 2002. And ordinary Pakistanis need peace (even simple absence of war) to rebuild their political parties with a view to creating an eventual democratic dispensation.
Buried under the rubble of the World Trade Centre lies a decade-worth
of Pakistani foreign policy. Faced by a furious United States,
Pakistan's establishment abandoned what had earlier been declared as
vital national security interests. First, Pakistan junked the mullahs
beyond the western border. A still bigger earthquake followed just
weeks later as thousands of jihadists suddenly found themselves being
hunted down and carted off to jail rather than ushered across the
Line of Control.
General Musharraf did well to surrender to these American demands. In
all likelihood the Americans would "have done an Iraq on Pakistan",
as one highly placed member of the foreign ministry conceded to me in
the week after September 11. He was probably right. Generations of
Pakistanis would have cursed a leadership that gave the US a reason
to destroy the country's agricultural and industrial infrastructure.
But pragmatism should not be mistaken for principle, and temporary
reprieve for victory. Pakistan's present crisis desperately demands
reflection upon the ruinous impact of its past plans and policies.
Tragically, our officially designated foreign policy experts remain
unmoved. They cavort daily on television screens, fill newspaper
columns with vacuous political commentaries, and energetically
condemn today what they had passionately defended until yesterday. As
ever, they are tasked with articulating, elaborating, and justifying
the ever-changing wishes and desires of their patron-of-the-moment.
The aim of this article is to understand the systemic failure of a
whole class of people to think honestly and seriously, in short a
failure to do their job as political analysts. Personalities are
incidental. Therefore various analysts referred to below shall be
merely denoted as X,Y,Z... However, the quotes are accurate and were
published on the indicated date in a major Pakistani newspaper. A
sufficiently interested reader may duly verify them.
Consider first the writings of columnist X. Well-known for
impassioned defence of the Taliban, X ridiculed those who insisted
Pakistan was being isolated internationally for supporting the
mullahs of Kabul. In "The Myth of Isolation", X glowed about our
being in the best of all possible worlds since "Pakistan's bilateral
relations with its regional friends and other global players are on
track....There exists no crisis in diplomatic, security and economic
relations with any of these countries." [25.2.2000]. An article
entitled "Defending Taliban" was followed with another wherein
Mullahs Mutawakil and Omar were represented as tragically
misunderstood by the world. X reassured us the kinder, gentler
aspects of the Taliban needed only our eyes to see: "since coming to
power the Taliban worldview has demonstrably evolved. There is also a
demonstrable willingness to gradually adopt a contemporary mode of
governance"[3.3.2000].
Alas for the Taliban, X's staunch support evaporated immediately
after Pakistan joined the US led coalition and B-52's darkened the
skies of Afghanistan. The death, the dying, the refugees, our
responsibility in helping destroy Afghanistan, induced no remorse or
rethinking from X. Instead, we were given proof of the triumph of
strategic analysis over commonsense as X insisted that "the
fundamentals of Pakistan's Afghan policy remain unchanged"
[13.11.2001].
Example Number Two. Before September 11, columnist Y had a similar
world-view but still more critical of the US and UN (for not
recognizing Mullah Omar's regime). As Pakistan ditched its friends, Y
somersaulted, writing "The rapid fall of the Taliban government from
Kabul vindicates Pakistan's support to the anti-terror coalition"
[22.11.2001]. Never short of praise for whatever the state chooses, Y
was moved to laud "Pakistan's timely decision to join the war on
terrorism" [30.12.01]. A tailor of principles, Y explained the now
urgent need to deal with the "armed obscurantists" who had "led so
many innocent and misguided Pakistani youth to their death in
Afghanistan".
Deceptions, contradictions, lies, abound. Consider Y again, who
flatly denied that jihadist organizations operated from within
Pakistan and warned of those suggesting such a thing, writing "One
dangerous theme that is being propagated is that the struggle is
being waged by jihadis from Pakistan" [15.06.2000]. Seemingly blind
to the obvious implication, Y explains that "the mujahideen struggle
on the ground is of prime importance and it cannot be allowed to stop
prematurely"[12.07.2001, emphasis added]. Nevertheless, once the
jihadists were dumped, Y joined in the chorus of clapping.
Still more interesting is the case of Z, a star of Pakistan's
strategic community, who offered publicly the well-considered advice
that Pakistan-based mujahideen must attack targets not just in
Occupied Kashmir but also deep inside India. This statement was
repeated in a BBC Radio program in early February this year. When the
Indian Parliament was attacked on December 13, Z took no credit. The
heinous attack was, Z said, obviously a cunning plan by the Indians
to smear Pakistan.
It is for others to consider why the pundits mentioned here and their
many peers did not recognise earlier the ruthless oppression of those
who not only stifled and crushed women but also prohibited chess,
football, the homing pigeon, kite flying, and singing in Afghanistan.
Or why they were so blind to the erosion of Pakistan's social,
economic and political fabric by the Kashmir jihad. Are they so
filled by hate of India that they see nothing else? Are they mere
intellectual soldiers of fortune, paid to defend the indefensible? Is
it about getting airtime and column inches, a power trip? Being
invited to head institutes or sit on policy meetings?
Nations that have confidence in their future approach the past with
seriousness and critical reverence. They study it, try to comprehend
the values, aesthetics, and style. By contrast, peoples and
governments with an uncertain sense of the future manifest deeply
skewed relationships to their history. They eschew lived history,
shut out its lessons, shun critical inquiries into the past.
It is an important fact that, over the last decade, several Pakistani
dissidents - marginalised and made irrelevant by the establishment -
had repeatedly warned that Pakistan's Afghanistan and Kashmir
policies, built upon unbridled fantasy and wild assumptions, were
doomed to collapse. None said this more eloquently and forcefully
than the late Eqbal Ahmad.
Banned from Pakistani television, Eqbal Ahmad wrote about the Taliban
as being the expression of a modern disease, symptoms of a social
cancer that could destroy Muslim societies if its growth was not
arrested. He warned that the Taliban would be the most deadly
communicators of this cancer if they remain organically linked to
Pakistan. He foresaw catastrophe - and he was proved right.
It is therefore important to seriously reflect on Eqbal Ahmad's words
on Kashmir. He warns that although New Delhi's moral isolation from
the Kashmiri people is total and irreversible, yet it will be foolish
of Pakistani leaders to believe that India's chronicle of failures
can ever translate into Pakistan's gain. Pakistan once had most of
the cards. Yet, its Kashmir policy has been so fundamentally and
severely defective that it has repeatedly "managed to rescue defeat
from the jaws of victory".
Over the years, Pakistan's policy has been reduced to bleeding India,
and India's to bleeding the Kashmiris, and to hit out at Pakistan
whenever a wound can be inflicted. Indian intransigence and
bloody-minded determination to crush the Kashmiris has increased, not
decreased, as a result of covert Pakistani involvement. Tens of
thousands of Kashmiris have died yet the liberation of Kashmir from
the Indian yoke is further away today than at any time in the past.
While the General Aslam Begs and General Hamid Guls fantasise about
bleeding India to death, it is now Pakistan that teeters on the brink
of a precipice. Internationally, Pakistan stands isolated - countries
that support Pakistan's stand on Kashmir can be counted on the
fingers of one hand. Today India and Pakistan must realize that a
military solution of the Kashmir dispute is simply not possible. The
solution must be political, may take decades, and must be left for
the Kashmiris to handle. The people of Pakistan will support General
Musharraf if he takes this wise course.
The proof for this support exists: ordinary Pakistanis condemned the
killings of innocent Afghans as they fled the Daisy Cutter bombs and
the Cobra gunships flying from Pakistani bases into the
slaughterhouses of Qila Jhangi and Kunduz. But almost everyone
breathed a sigh of relief at being rid of the misogynist and mindless
Taliban. There was also silent public approval as the
Lashkar-i-Tayyaba and the state-sponsored Jaish-i-Mohammad were
stripped off their status as liberation movements, declared
"terrorist organizations", and their accounts frozen.
The people of Pakistan have their own battles to fight against the
monsters of mass unemployment, ignorance, misogyny, ethnic and
religious hatreds. It is time we turned our attention to these
battles, started reflecting seriously upon battle strategies, and
stopped the puppet shows on PTV.
The writer teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
index | HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |