index
The present Kashmir crisis feels like a déjà vu replay of the last
one. Three years ago a weak Indian coalition government led by the
Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party had just lost a confidence
vote in India's Parliament and was nervously awaiting a general
election. At once it began to beat the war drums over Kashmir. Now
another coalition government, still led by the B.J.P. and deeply
tainted by B.J.P. supporters' involvement in the massacre of hundreds
of Muslims in Gujarat State, may be about to lose another general
election. So here goes the government again, talking up a Kashmiri
war and asking India to stand firm behind its leadership.
Three years ago in Pakistan, the equally weak government of Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif had bankrupted the national economy and was
facing well-documented corruption charges. Mr. Sharif, too, had much
to gain from war fever - fed by the various Muslim terrorist groups
operating in Kashmir. The hawkish Pakistani general then responsible
for communicating with and training those terrorist groups was one
Pervez Musharraf. (By the way - just so we're clear on who Mr.
Musharraf, now Pakistan's president, really is - some of these groups
were almost certainly sent by Pakistan's intelligence service to
Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.) When Nawaz Sharif succumbed to
American pressure and promised to rein in the terrorists, General
Musharraf was furious. A few months later he overthrew Mr. Sharif in
a coup and seized power.
Will the outcome also be a replay of three years ago? Will the
conflict be contained again?
This time President Musharraf is the one being pressed by the United
States to stamp out Kashmiri terrorism. He has been playing a double
game, arresting hundreds of members of the groups he once fostered
but quietly freeing most of them soon afterward. Caught between two
necessities - placating his major international sponsor and playing
to the home audience - he may well in the end follow his deepest
political instincts: to support (overtly or covertly) the Islamist
radicals who have terrorized the once idyllic valley of Kashmir for
well over a decade.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India, with his talk of a
"decisive battle," clearly feels that direct military action,
resulting in the reconquest of some if not all of the Kashmiri
territory now under Pakistani control, is the only way of preventing
attacks like the atrocity this month in which women and children were
slaughtered at an Indian army base. Mr. Vajpayee knows that Indian
rule is unpopular in the valley, that the Indian army looks to many
Kashmiris like an army of occupation. But he will also have
calculated that in the opinion of the international community, and
also of many fearful, near-destitute Kashmiris, Pakistan's protracted
sponsorship of terrorism has damaged its claims to moral legitimacy.
Would a war between India and Pakistan, if it came, go nuclear?
Pakistan, with its suggestively timed missile tests, its refusal to
adopt a policy of not being the first to use nuclear arms and its
hawkish talk, is trying to give the impression that it would have no
compunction about using its nuclear arsenal. India's military
leadership has said that if attacked with nuclear bombs it would
respond with maximum force and that in such a conflict India would
sustain heavy damage but survive, whereas Pakistan would be destroyed
utterly.
Is it really likely, however, that Pakistan would, so to speak, strap
a nuclear weapon to its belly, walk into the crowded bazaar that is
India and turn itself into the biggest suicide bomber in history?
Mr. Musharraf doesn't look like martyr material. Ah, but if he were
losing a conventional war? If India's overwhelming numerical
superiority on land, at sea and in the air won the day and Pakistan
lost its prized Kashmiri land, would reason be swept aside? Worst of
all, if Pakistani fury at a military defeat by India were to result
in Mr. Musharraf's overthrow by Islamist hard-liners, Pakistan's
nuclear warheads could fall into the hands of people for whom
martyrdom is a higher goal than peace, people who value death more
highly than life.
Pakistan is calling on the international community to intervene, but
this call must be heard with caution. For half a century Pakistan has
sought to internationalize the Kashmiri dispute while India has
consistently described that effort as interference in its internal
affairs. Both sides are locked into old language, old strategies and
an old game of chicken that's currently playing itself out across the
Line of Control. Like two aged wrestlers fighting on a cliff, India
and Pakistan are locked together, rolling ever closer to the edge.
But their ancient hatred is no longer a matter only for them. The
risk of a nuclear battle, however improbable, makes Kashmir
everybody's problem. Right now it's the most dangerous place in the
world. These pathetic old fighters must be pulled apart, and soon.
Yes, that probably does mean intervention by the West, though Russia
seems eager to help as well, which is useful.
This should not, however, be the intervention that Pakistan wants.
The point is not to restrain Indian "aggression," but to make the
world safer for us all. The situation can only be stabilized if India
and Pakistan are both forced to back away, preferably to outside of
Kashmir's historic, unpartitioned borders. This "hands off Kashmir"
solution will have to be externally imposed on the reluctant
principals and will require that a large peacekeeping force be sent
to the region to support Kashmir as an autonomous area. But who in
the West wants that - it's just the old colonialist-imperialist power
trip, isn't it? And who's supposed to pay for all this peacekeeping,
anyway?
The answers to those questions are also questions: What's the
alternative? Do you have a better idea? Or shall we just stand back
and keep our postcolonial, nonimperialist fingers crossed? Will it
take mushroom clouds over Delhi and Islamabad to make us give up our
ingrained prejudices and try something that might actually work? In
the immortal words of the Spice Girls, "Will this déjà vu never end?"
Salman Rushdie is the author of "Fury: A Novel" and the forthcoming
essay collection "Step Across This Line."
PTI [ THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 9:56:13 AM ]
UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons
even if India stuck to conventional arms in any conflict, asserting
that it has never subscribed to "no-first-use" of atomic weapons and
that ruling out their use would give New Delhi a "license to kill."
"India should not have the license to kill with conventional weapons
while Pakistan's hands are tied regarding other means to defend
itself," said its new ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram.
The highly bellicose and provocative statements by Akram on the
second day on the job on Wednesday surprised diplomats and officials
at the United Nations who declined to make an immediate comment.
Pakistan, he said, has to rely on the "means it possessed to deter
Indian aggression" and would not "neutralise" that deterrence by any
doctrine of "no-first-use."
To a question at his first news conference after taking over the job,
Akram said any action by India across the border, any aerial attack
on Pakistani territory and its assets, and any action to economically
strangle it would be "viewed" as aggression and would be "responded
to by Pakistan."
Noting that both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, he
said while that should instill restraint on both sides, "it does not
seem to do so on the Indian side."
The launching of a sharp attack less than 48 hours after taking over,
some diplomats believe, could mean that Pakistan plans to use the
United Nations for anti-Indian propaganda.
Akram, who had been his country's ambassador to the UN at Geneva, is
known for his rhetoric against India and in previous years had also
made highly provocative statements on Kashmir during debates whether
the occasion demanded or not.
Pakistan, Akram claimed, believed in "no-first-use of force." That
was the reason, he said, that Islamabad had offered non-aggression
pact to New Delhi but India had rejected it.
"If India reserved the right to use conventional weapons, how could
Pakistan - a weaker power-be expected to rule out all means of
deterrence."
The United Nations Charter, the Pakistani ambassador said, prohibited
the use of force and India should be committed to "non-use-of-force".
Akarm said the Security Council should address the issues of tensions
between India and Pakistan, which "constituted a threat to
international peace and security."
"Whenever, there is a threat of use of force against a member state
and a threat to international peace and security, there is an
obligation for the Council to address that situation," he told the
news conference.
The Security Council, Akram said, has the responsibility of
addressing the Kashmir issue for two reasons. "First, its resolutions
had prescribed the modalities for the solution of the problem.
Second, all parties had the responsibility to implement the Council's
resolutions."
Besides the Council, he said, the Secretary-General and other member
states also had obligations to "promote the implement of those
resolutions."
Replying to a question, he said the solution is clear - "first verify
Indian allegations of cross border infiltration and then de-escalate
and demobilize the troops along the border."
Once that is addressed, he added, "the rest of the problem could
addressed - the Indian repression inside Indian-occupied territory on
the one hand and the insurgency on the other."
It has to be a mutual process, he said and warned that Pakistan would
not accept "one-sided concessions imposed on it by use of force or
the threat of use of force."
He called for strengthening of the United Nations Monitoring Group in
India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). The current number of 35 observers have
to be substantially augmented to "effectively monitoring" the Line of
Control (LoC).
Asked about the advisability of Pakistan conducting missile tests at
the height of tension between the two countries, Akram said India had
also tested missiles in recent months. "Why was it that when Pakistan
tested, it was seen as raising tensions?"
Claiming that Pakistan is always prepared for a dialogue, Akram said
Islamabad has responded positively to offer of Russian President
Vladimir Putin to bring the two countries to the negotiating table.
"If India accepts the offer," he said his government would welcome
the opportunity for a dialogue.
Asked about the possibility of dialogue between the two countries,
Akram claimed that his country has always sought dialogue for all its
problems with India.
In this context, he referred to the Indo-Pak summit at Agra and put
the blame for its failure on India. "Unfortunately, the agreement
reached at Agra to launch a structured process of talks was scuttled
at the last minute by the Indian side," he alleged.
Akram rejected the charge that Pakistan was helping militants to
infiltrate into Kashmir. India, he said, has 150,000 troops along LoC
- an 850-km line.
There were three layers of troops as well as mines and fences. "If
people were still getting through, India has to ask itself how people
were able to get through. It is no way a proxy war. It is a war being
fought by the Kashmiri people inside," he added.
"Unable to crush the freedom struggle, India has resorted to
depicting the struggle as terrorism. That is simply not true. Also,
the Kashmiri struggle is an indigenous one. If there has been an
outside presence, it has been a very small one," he claimed.
Pakistan, he claimed, has responded to calls from international
community not to escalate the situation. But if India commits an
aggression, Pakistan would respond with full might.
As with drugs, efforts to control the supply side are only part of
the solution. Controlling the demand side is equally important. This
requires India and Pakistan, to switch their priorities instead of
buying expensive arms
Earlier this week, the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
warned, "The current tension and the build up of military forces in
Kashmir could all too easily spiral out of control into a
conventional and then a nuclear conflict of a kind we have never seen
before." And the consequences of such a war were "all too easy to
describe: death, destruction, disease and economic collapse affecting
not just the immediate war theatre but many parts of the
sub-continent and lasting for years."
Given such concern, one might expect that the UK might back up its
words with some action and prohibit the sale of destructive military
arms to the region, without which the build up of military forces
would scarcely be possible. But despite growing pressure on the
British government to impose an arms embargo on India and Pakistan,
continued sale of arms to the region seems likely. The immediate
proposal is to sell 60 Hawk jets to India, a deal that is worth over
a billion pounds, equal to about ten years of UK bilateral aid to
India.
A billion pounds is a lot of money; enough for several high-level
British officials to visit India to promote the sale. The push
started soon after Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit in January of
this year, hypocritically expressing the desire to "have a calming
influence." Since then, India has played host to industry minister
Nigel Griffiths, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw, and cabinet colleague, Margaret Beckett, all
seeking, in part, to push through the deal.
With such high-level interest, India will likely receive its Hawk
jets and the UK, its billion pounds. Even if pressure on the UK
administration were to succeed in postponing or stopping the Hawk jet
deal, one can expect others in the future. Certainly, if the past is
any guide. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), a broad coalition
of groups and individuals in the UK working to end the international
arms trade, estimates that over the past two years - while the
situation in Kashmir degenerated - the UK licensed £122m and £17.5m
of arms to India and Pakistan respectively. These often include
similar equipment being supplied to both countries, and include
combat helicopter parts, aircraft radar and small arms.
The UK is not alone in this lucrative pursuit. France, for example,
sold the Agosta submarine and the technology to build it to Pakistan
last year. Following that, it was India's turn to be offered the
Scorpene "killer submarine", said to be a generation ahead of the
Agosta. (If this were to go through, then presumably France would be
back in Pakistan with the next generation submarine!) France was
already collaborating with India in matters like upgrading of radars
and modernisation of military helicopters and has become the second
biggest military hardware and software supplier after Russia to India.
Other arms producing countries have also taken notice of business
opportunities in South Asia. Russia has, of course, been a staple
supplier of weapons to India. In the first major weapons deal between
United States and India in over ten years, the US agreed in April to
sell eight long-range weapon-locating radars for about US$146
millions. Other countries that have entered arms sales agreements
with India are Israel, Poland and Kazakhstan, while South Africa and
Sweden are contenders. Pakistan, for its part, has entered agreements
with China, its traditional ally, France, Indonesia, and Ukraine,
among others.
Over the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, India and Pakistan
ranked at 6 and 13 among the list of arms recipients put out by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, with purchases of
US$4.2 billions and US$2.6 billions respectively (1990 US dollars).
The top five ranks on the other side, namely the list of suppliers,
were held by the US, Russia, France, the UK and Germany,
respectively. The US selling over US$49 billions was over US$10
billion ahead of the other four put together.
With massive poverty and lack of resources for development, India and
Pakistan's spending so much money on military arms purchases
demonstrates the skewed priorities of the ruling elites in the two
countries. It is nothing short of criminal. But by the same token, it
is criminal for countries supplying these weapons to do so knowing
fully well not only that they are taking money from countries with
desperate poverty and underdevelopment, but also that these weapons
may be used to kill people.
In thinking about the arms trade, the analogy that comes to mind is
that of the drug trade, with the suppliers making huge amounts of
money by making people addicted to narcotics that are detrimental to
health, possibly leading to the death of the individual. Just as drug
sellers comb the world for likely customers, so do arms marketers.
But in comparison to the publicity given to drugs, and efforts to
control and prohibit illicit production, distribution and
consumption, there has been no comparative effort to control, let
alone prohibit, arms sales. In fact new weapons purchases and sales
are often greeted with enthusiasm.
As with drugs, efforts to control the supply side are only part of
the solution. Controlling the demand side is equally important. This
requires India and Pakistan, and other countries for that matter, to
switch their priorities satisfying the real needs of their people and
not buying the destructive wares offered by these "Merchants of
Death". The waste entailed in military weapons expenditures even
moved a retired military officer like US President Eisenhower to
state "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket
fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world
in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its
laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
M V Ramana is a physicist and research staff member at Princeton
University's Program on Science and Global Security. He is the author
of "Bombing Bombay? Effects of Nuclear Weapons and a Case Study of a
Hypothetical Explosion" (Cambridge, USA: International Physicians for
Prevention of Nuclear War, 1999). Some of his writings can be found
at www.geocities.com/m_v_ramana/nuclear.html.
Shabana Azmi has many names -- actor, activist, parliamentarian, not to mention a couple of not-so-flattering ones that the imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid called her.
Recently, she got a new one -- Islamic fundamentalist. The term was used by Narain Kataria of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh in an email sent out to the Indian American community, accusing Azmi of having a soft corner for Islamists and the Taliban.
The email was sent out a few days before Azmi arrived in New York to take part in a reading of Shashi Tharoor's novel Riot. Azmi spoke to Tanmaya Kumar Nanda in New York during her visit:
What made you decide to come all the way for one evening of reading?
I felt the book keeps the same debate, deals with contrasting voices. In fact, the debate is not between Hindus and Muslims, but between liberal and fundamentalist positions. I felt it was very important to do this.
And you played the Hindu fundamentalist...
Yes, and I played him so as not to make him a caricature. There were certain real hurts, certain postures I took, certain completely unbelievable myths he had internalised, so I had to play him as a real person and not as a caricature.
And the reaction to that?
I was quite surprised, really, to find the audience so open to liberal opinion. And the fact that there was actually a counter-demonstration was so encouraging. I don't think even New York has ever seen something like this before. What's more, the question-and-answer session remained within the same debate. There was a lot of anger and disgust at what has happened in Gujarat.
How do you react to the hate mail that has been going around, calling you an Islamist and accusing you of Hindu-phobia?
[Laughs] That is completely baseless. In fact, it is so baseless, it has no sting in it. I have been called a terrorist, among other things. In fact, I am seen in India as being anti-Islamic by the Islamic fundamentalists. And I have been at the receiving end of their ire over my position on the Shah Bano case [when the Indian government rejected a Supreme Court ruling in an alimony case for a Muslim woman and maintained that the issue was to be decided as per Muslim law].
Imam Bukhari of the Jama Masjid has called me many names, and when I made that statement about airdropping him to Kandahar, it was BJP members who applauded me.
So how does it feel to be caught in that cleft?
It makes me more secure, actually. It enforces my secular credentials that fundamentalists of both sides are attacking me. Fundamentalists typically only strengthen each other, anyway.
Where do you stand in the political spectrum?
Nowhere. I am independent, I have been selected for the Rajya Sabha by the President of India as an individual. Not belonging to any political party actually helps me because I value my independent voice above everything else, I treasure it.
You were part of a team to Gujarat. What was your experience there like?
[Hands over a bunch of photographs of charred-beyond-humanity bodies, keeps talking] I was part of a four-member team -- along with Amar Singh, Sitaram Yechuri and Raj Babbar -- that visited Gujarat in March, after Defence Minister George Fernandes. But the chief minister refused to let us go to the affected areas, saying he could not guarantee our security because we were 'known faces'.
If the State cannot guarantee the security of members of Parliament and a politburo member of the Communist Party, what chance does the common man stand? And from my experience in the Mumbai riots, I know for a fact that victims need to see faces they can recognise, it reassures them.
What are the chances for communal peace in Gujarat after this?
We have to work towards healing and reconciliation. But nothing can happen until justice is done. People are afraid to go back to their homes, and no confidence can be rebuilt until justice is done. In riot after riot, the guilty have been getting away, sending out two signals to society.
If you commit one murder and are caught, you will likely be punished. But if you commit mass murder in this manner, you probably stand a better chance of getting away. That's the message that's going out right now. That's why it is extremely important for justice to be done as a major step towards reconciliation, and prevention of further ghettoisation. The law must be seen to be above everything else.
What is your focus for re-establishing peace?
At the moment, it is essential to be focused. Take the focus away from the Hindu-Muslim debate; instead focus on the liberal versus rabid fundamentalism. It's time for the silent majority to take a stand and say 'This is the Hinduism/Islam I want.' The Hinduism of Swami Vivekananda and Gandhiji, which was encompassing and understanding, the true Hinduism, not intolerant Hindutva.
Similarly, Muslims must say that they want the Islam of equality and brotherhood, not the Taliban version of it. Attack the fundamentalists, and deter politically vested interests.
But what can be done now?
Like I said, it's important to punish the guilty. And I include Godhra as well. In fact, it is time we stopped treating Godhra and Gujarat separately. I don't think any confidence-building measure has taken root in people's heart. They are afraid of going home, they are afraid of the relief camps being shut down. Also, there has to be a distinction made between relief and rehabilitation. The latter will take a long time.
Do you think the Modi government should go?
Well, the State failed completely, it failed to anticipate the violence, and it failed to contain it. Even now, FIRs have not been lodged, people have been forced to withdraw FIRs and names of individuals in many cases by the police.
Why do think this happened only in Gujarat?
It was the systematic campaign of hatred against minorities over a long period. Communalisation of textbooks, righteous prejudice, building up of deliberate misinformation, communalism being used as a political process, the creation of an 'us against them' theory, all these factors have to be taken into account.
But hats off to states like Uttar Pradesh, where the Hindus voted the BJP out simply because of its failure to perform, to govern, and not because of any dilution in Hindutva. Frankly, what the Congress did during the anti-Sikh riots is reprehensible, but it hasn't indulged in an ideology of hatred, like the Sangh Parivar has.
There has been some talk that the war scenario is being created to deflect attention from the Gujarat carnage.
That's a very callous thing to say. An army camp was attacked, women and children were murdered. It is chilling that this should happen. Earlier, Parliament was attacked. The Indian government has to take effective steps for cross-border terrorism from Pakistan to stop. India will not tolerate cross-border terrorism. I am afraid to create war-mongering, but a decision has to be taken since people have been murdered. Ideally, of course, war should never be an option.
How do you see communal rifts in the light of war talk, or even actual war? Do you think there might be an increase in communal violence?
In a situation like this, it is extremely important for the political leadership to speak to India's people. The message has to go out through all media that Indian Muslims are not equivalent to Pakistan. This should not be allowed to spill over. Pakistan only jeopardises India.
Do you see any end to such animosity between the two countries?
There needs to be more people-to-people dialogue and we should build on our common culture. We should make the subcontinent as a whole strong and important. Tension across borders is futile.
How does it feel to be a parliamentarian? And how do you see your growth graph?
I am quite proud of being in Parliament, I actually love it. And the fact that I am not with any party is even better, because I have to listen and think for myself. I have to do my own research for everything.
Growing up, I was so sick of politics -- it was in the house all the time -- I was proud of not reading the newspaper. But my father was confident that I would return to activism, that the prodigal daughter would come home. Even as an actor, one draws resources from life, you look around and ask 'why'. Also, the kind of films I did dealt with social issues. So that connection is there.
Your father Kaifi Azmi passed away recently. How do you remember him?
He was my greatest source of inspiration, he was literally an ideal. I am where I am because of him, because I was treated as an equal right from the beginning. It was not until I grew up that I realised that our home was an exception instead of the rule.
You have also done a lot of work with women's rights...
I basically work with women in the slums of Mumbai, and it's not just women, it's about women, children, health, sanitation. Even religious fundamentalism impacts women, with its notions of family izzat [honour]. Unfortunately, we lurch from crisis to crisis, instead of focusing on issues like health, education, pushing up the human development index, which is the yardstick of the health of a nation.
Health, particularly women's health, is on no one's political agenda. Even 54 years after Independence, [there are] more pregnancy-related deaths in India than in all of Europe. The worst part is that 70 per cent of those are preventable. If we were to count the number of women we lose every year in this manner, it would be the same as having 300 air crashes annually. And yet, this is an area that is completely neglected because these women are poor.
Ernest Hemingway gave a famous definition of courage in a 1929 issue of the New Yorker: "grace under pressure". So, how would one characterise General Pervez Musharraf's deportment over the past couple of weeks, culminating in his televised speech this past Monday? 'Graceless', even 'boorish' and 'vulgar', were the adjectives that came to mind when listening to him.
The self-appointed chief executive of Pakistan is, as everybody agrees, under considerable pressure. The presidents of the United States and Russia, the prime minister of Britain, the secretary general of the United Nations and other dignitaries great and small have made their displeasure with the Pakistani leadership quite public.
Some of the criticism has been unusually blunt, as in Secretary of State Colin Powell condemning Pakistan's missile tests as not particularly "useful". Did he mean that they came at a bad time, or that the missiles did not need to be tested as they came courtesy China via North Korea? In fact, rather oddly, the Indian leadership has been unusually restrained on the subject, dismissing it as an internal concern of Pakistan.
Let us return, however, to General Musharraf's latest speech. Brushing aside the rudeness -- aimed, I suspect, at his domestic audience as the missile tests were -- did he have anything substantial to offer?
Frankly, I cannot say that I heard anything new. But would it have made a difference even if the general had made a dozen new promises? Irrespective of what he says, can India trust him? Can we afford to trust him?
General Musharraf did not help his case by telling some silly fibs. He claimed, for instance, that infiltration into Jammu & Kashmir has stopped. This is simply not true -- a judgment in which the United States and other foreign powers concur. Why else would so many leaders ask General Musharraf to prevent terrorists from entering Indian territory? It is proverbial that no chain can be stronger than its weakest link; if the general is caught out in one lie, how can we believe the rest of what he had to say? [I refrain from commenting on his claims about that stage-managed referendum!]
Let us be charitable, however, and assume that the general meant what he said. In that case, the next 15 days or so shall be crucial in deciding whether there shall be war or peace.
India believes there are up to 3,000 terrorists waiting for the summer heat to open the snow-bound passes that open into Jammu & Kashmir. Most of these are veterans of the war in Afghanistan. India has identified roughly 70 training camps in Pakistan-controlled territory. [There are believed to be more camps, perhaps about 100 of them, but I am talking only about those that have been located.] What is the Pakistani Army going to do with this bunch?
If infiltration continues -- as it has gone on despite General Musharraf's promises in January -- then I believe that diplomatic resources have run their course. India must then look to other solutions.
It will not really matter whether terrorists have a free run in Pakistan because General Musharraf cannot rein them in or because he will not do so. In either event, there is no point talking to him because any attempt at negotiation will be a total farce. If he is not in control of the situation in his country, any promises he makes are worthless. If he continues to back terrorism, conversations will be nothing more than a bid to win time until world attention turns away.
Personally, I believe that the second is closer to the truth, that General Musharraf is talking away in an attempt to gain time till the snows melt. And why not? After all, the tactic worked in January, when the United States gushed about the "path-breaking" speech he had made, with India coming under pressure to grant him more time. The difference today is that the general's credibility has taken a beating.
It would not be the first time the Pakistani leader miscalculated. He seems to have thought, for instance, that India would be deterred from taking any action because of the presence of American troops in his country. As one wag put it, "American territorial waters now extend to Karachi, and its airspace to Lahore!"
It is an argument that has found no takers in India. Nor has it gone down well in Washington. If anyone has put American lives at risk, it is General Musharraf with his constant threat of exercising the nuclear option.
How much time is there for General Musharraf? If you ask me, he has already had far too much time. Look at the chronology over the past nine months.
Just 20 days after the World Trade Centre attack, terrorists tried to storm the Jammu & Kashmir assembly (www.rediff.com/news/2001/oct/01jk.htm). The world preached restraint. On December 13 (www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/13parl1.htm), there came the assault on Parliament in Delhi itself. There were more calls for restraint. And then came Kaluchak (www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14jk.htm)... The fruits of India's restraint are bitter indeed! [I have not even mentioned the scores of individuals who have been murdered in ones and twos -- incidents that did not receive the publicity of the aforementioned attacks.]
General Musharraf claims, as he has always done, that he wants nothing but peace. Well, the onus is entirely on him as far as India is concerned. Let him take concrete steps. Shut down the militant training camps. Prevent infiltration into India. Stop aiding terrorism with arms and money. These are promises that the general made in January; is he so far gone that he cannot live up to his own promises?
Dear friends
As the storm clouds gather over Kashmir, peace and anti-nuclear
movements
are struggling to be heard. Many statements and analyses are circulating
but
few public actions are yet visible. We urge you to do all you can in the
coming days and weeks to mobilise many, many more people - to get
pressure
put on the governments of India and Pakistan, and to build visible
public
protests.
Please find below a basic call to action, some fax numbers and slogans
and
details of the action we are taking in Geneva on Wednesday. I believe
that
poster parades are an excellent way to get news coverage even if you
have
relatively few participants. Perhaps you could do something similiar.
Please
do send us pictures and reports of any actions you undertake. We will try
to
put all of these on our new India-Pakistan webpages: www.ipb.org, please
take a look.
Good luck and keep in touch.
Colin Archer
IPB Secretary-General, Geneva
---------------------
Geneva, 30 May 2002
ACTION NOW TO STOP NUCLEAR WAR IN SOUTH ASIA! INTERNATIONAL PEACE BUREAU
CALLS FOR URGENT PRESSURE ON BOTH INDIA AND PAKISTAN, URGES ARMS EMBARGO
ON
ALL PARTIES
India and Pakistan are closer than ever before to the brink of a
conflict
over Kashmir that could turn into a nuclear war.
With around 1 million troops mobilized on the border, and Pakistan
conducting repeated missile tests, the tension is acute. The danger is
that
any strikes across the Line of Control could lead down the slippery slope
to
a wider conventional conflict. That in turn would risk a full-scale
nuclear
exchange. News has recently emerged that during the Kargil conflict of
1999,
the Pakistani military readied its nuclear weapons for use against India
(and quite possibly vice-versa).
While western leaders are rushing to the scene of the potential crime to
calm spirits, let us not forget that it is they who are fuelling the
fire
with arms sales to both sides, in violation of their own pledges not to
sell
to states involved in conflicts and human rights violations. The US and
UK
have also issued new nuclear doctrines recently, indicating a greater
willingness to consider using these suicide-machines themselves.
IPB calls for a worldwide embargo on arms to India and Pakistan.
Both countries have substantial peace and anti-nuclear movements. They
need
all our help.
OUR EFFORTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
This issue must be made a top priority for civil society and governments
all
over the world. It is time the UN became fully involved. Talks must begin
at
the highest levels. The Kashmir dispute must never again be allowed to
menace the world with nuclear disaster.
Reports and suggestions of actions are welcome, write to:
International Peace Bureau, mailbox@ipb.org
A new India-Pakistan section has been opened at www.ipb.org
ACTION SUGGESTIONS:
1) Write to the Indian and Pakistani governments, their embassies,
consulates or High Commissions (in Commonwealth countries). The fax
numbers
of the Prime Minister of India, the President of Pakistan, other
government
ministers, and the UN representatives of those countries are listed
below.
2) Organise demonstrations, vigils, poster parades* outside Indian or
Pakistani embassies, consulates, high commissions, or travel offices.
3) Persuade parliamentarians to put forward urgent resolutions urging
restraint on both parties and calling for an end to arms sales. Limited
resolutions have already been passed by the British, Canadian, and
European
parliaments. Contact: Parliamentarians Network for Nuclear Disarmament:
alynw@ibm.net
You should also press your government to do its utmost to restrain the
two
sides.
* IPB would like to assemble a photo-gallery on the web with pictures of
actions and demonstrations, especially poster parades (which only require
a
few people yet offer considerable media interest). Please send to:
mailbox@ipb.org
See suggested slogans below.
Key fax numbers:
PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA A.B. VAJPAYEE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, 110-004
+91-11-301-6857 +91-11-301-9545, +91-11-972-2-664-838
MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS INDIA
+91-11-301-0700
PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF OF PAKISTAN,+92-51-920-3938, +92-51-920-1968
+92-51-811390
FOREIGN MINISTER OF PAKISTAN +92-51-920-7217 +92-51-920 0420 or
820-420
------------------------------------
SOME SUGGESTED SLOGANS
PEACE MOVEMENTS SAY NO TO NUCLEAR WAR IN S.ASIA
PULL BACK TROOPS NOW
TIME TO NEGOTIATE A PATH TO PEACE
STOP ALL ARMS SALES TO PAKISTAN AND INDIA
NO TO TERRORISM (INCLUDING NUCLEAR TERRORISM)
UN - TIME TO ACT, GET THEM TO THE TABLE
NO NUCLEAR SUICIDE OVER KASHMIR
GANDHI, WHERE ARE YOU NOW?
REMEMBER CHERNOBYL
NUCLEAR WAR? IT'S MADNESS
KASHMIR IS NOT WORTH 12 MILLION DEAD
NUCLEAR WAR: A GLOBAL, NOT REGIONAL, PROBLEM
HATRED + NUCLEAR WEAPONS = COLLECTIVE SUICIDE
US-UK PREACH PEACE BUT SELL ARMS + THREATEN NUKES
----------------
EMERGENCY ACTION! The International Peace Bureau invites all friends of
peace to join us in a poster-protest against the danger of a nuclear war
in
Kashmir:
WEDNESDAY June 5 at 12h30 - Place des Nations (the Chair)
Please bring a placard or poster with a clear message of protest
(English,
French...) against the danger of nuclear war between India and
Pakistan.
This is intended as a 'brief photo-opportunity' - we plan to finish by
about
13.00.
All are welcome
Info: 022 731 6429
New India-Pakistan pages on website see www.ipb.org
See IPB statement below.
------------------------
ACTION D'URGENCE! Le Bureau international de la paix invite tou(te)s
les
ami(e)s de la paix de nous rejoindre pour une protestation-affiches
contre
le danger d'une guerre nucléaire au Cachemire:
MERCREDI 5 JUIN 12h30 à la Place des Nations (La chaise)
Veuillez apporter une pancarte ou affiche portant un message clair de
protestation (anglais, français...) contre le danger d'une guerre
nucléaire
entre l'Inde et le Pakistan. Nous voyons ceci comme une brève
'photo-opportunity' - ce sera terminé vers 13h30.
Bienvenu à tous/toutes
Infos: 022 731 6429
Nouvelles pages web sur l'Inde et le Pakistan au www.ipb.org
---------------
Best wishes
From: (Mr) Colin Archer, Secretary-General
International Peace Bureau
41 rue de Zurich, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland.
Tel: +41-22-731-6429, Fax: 738-9419
Email: mailbox@ipb.org
Web: http://www.ipb.org
also: www.haguepeace.org
and http://youth.haguepeace.org
IPB is the oldest and the most comprehensive of the international peace
federations - covering issues from nuclear weapons and small arms to
human
rights and peace education. Current main programmes are the Hague Appeal
for
Peace Global Campaign for Peace Education, and the Disarmament and Human
Security Programme. Recent publications include 'Peace is Possible' (35
short accounts of positive successes in peacemaking), and 'Time to
Abolish
War!' (an easy to read resource written by youth for youth). For details
of
membership, projects, publications etc consult our 3 websites - or write
to
above address.
We, who are committed to help achieve the aspirations of the common
peoples of
Pakistan and India, urge our respective governments to exercise
restraint in the
current surcharged atmosphere. The entire world is anxious that there
should be
no war between the two countries of Pakistan and India that need, instead,
to
work hard on economic development and cultural enrichment with a view to
improving the lot of the majority of their peoples.
As of now, the threat of war from miscalculation or accident is quite
serious.
Regrettably there has been a deliberately cultivated war hysteria in
both
countries. Should a war break out, for whatever reason, it runs the grave
risk
of escalating to the level of nuclear exchanges.
We assert that no cause is worth fighting with nuclear weapons. Though
both
governments have painted themselves into a corner through their
belligerent
posturing, they must nevertheless beat a political retreat. Justice and
sanity
demand nothing less. Neither government should offer gratuitous
provocation
or insult to the other. In the face of stark danger of a possible
nuclear war, it is of
utmost importance that the armed forces of both sides simultaneously
move
back to their peacetime stations.
Resolving the basic disputes between the two countries is necessary and
will
take time. But the immediate prerequisite is the return of normalcy and
resumption of dialogue, not only between politicians or bureaucrats but
even
more importantly, between the concerned citizens of the two countries
who
must be free to meet and communicate with each other whenever they wish.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance that along with the mutual
disengagement
of the two armed forces, the recent extraordinary restrictions on means
of communications that prevent people-to-people dialogue and cultural
exchanges
from taking place, be removed. Indeed, they should be promoted through
easing
of visa regimes.
We urge the two governments to take all necessary steps to achieve this
disengagement of armed forces and restore normal relations
and appeal to the international community to support this process.
Politics in
both countries must be de-militarised as much as possible. It must be
redirected,
first and foremost, towards fulfilling the human needs and aspirations of
the
citizens of our two countries. There must be no support to terrorism,
direct or
indirect.
We oppose it in all forms whether cross-border or within our countries,
whether
carried out by individuals, groups or governments.
We declare our common commitment to promote secularism, democracy,
justice and peaceful co-existence.
Signatories from India: Tapan Kumar Bose, Admiral R. Ramdas, Achin
Vanaik,
Latha Jishnu, K.S. Subramanian, Joseph Gathia, Syeda Hameed, Prakash
Louis,
Vijayan M.J. Ranjana Padhi, Vineeta Bal, Jawed Laiq, Suneeta Madhu
Prasad,
Gautam Navlakha, Sagri Chhabra
Signatories from Pakistan: I.A. Rehman, M.B. Naqvi, B.M.Kutty, Dr.
Haroon Ahmed,
Karamat Ali, M. H. Askri, Rahat Saeed, Zaheda Hina, Anis Haroon, Naseem
Gandhi,
Shahid Fiaz, Omar Farooq, Saleem Raza, Baseer Naveed, Aqeel
Billgrami, Iqbal Alvi,
Zameer Niazi, Brig. Abid Rao, Dr. Tariq Suhail, Dr. Zaki Hassan,
Tahir Mohammad Khan,
Gul Rehman
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 4 juni 2002