Crisis India-Pakistan:
Achtergrondinformatie, analyse en nieuws
uit de Indiase, Pakistaanse en internationale media.

index

BBC News, Thursday, 3 January, 2002, 02:35 GMT

Thousands flee rivals' war moves

War-like rhetoric from both sides has heightened tension. Fear of war breaking out between India and Pakistan is prompting thousands of people from frontline villages to move to safer areas. [more...]

index

The Guardian (UK), Thursday January 3, 2002

Here is a truth we can all agree on

There can't be real friendship between India and Pakistan until two old, angry wounds are healed

by Kamila Shamsie

A decade ago, more than 50 of my 96 classmates and I left Karachi to attend university in the US and UK. We didn't give much thought to the fact that many of us would be meeting Indians for the first time in our lives. It's hard now to find anyone among those 50-odd Pakistanis who didn't make at least one Indian friend. But what we all discovered was this: we might agree with our friends from across the border on everything else - our embarrassed attachment to 80s music; our despair at the floundering fortunes of the West Indian cricket team; our inability to eat Uncle Ben's rice without thinking weepily of basmati; our positions on capital punishment, gay rights, abortion, and gun control - but we could not agree, not one whit, on the two interrelated wounds of Indo-Pak relations: partition and Kashmir.
There are worse things, I suppose, than discovering at 18 that, no matter how many books you read and analytical skills you acquire, your truths will never be objective.
It would be nice to say that, after a decade of talk, those Indo-Pak friendships have resulted in a shifting of positions which can serve as an example to the politicians of our two countries. Perhaps this is true in one or two cases. But, largely, we just learned to stop talking about certain things to each other, and accepted that we had grown up with two different narratives about the same events.
If the "two nations, two narratives" issue only centred on the creation of Pakistan 55 years ago, I expect we could learn to live with our differences. But as long as the situation in Kashmir remains unresolved we will continue to see border tensions and doomsday predictions and radically differing interpretations arising from a basic set of facts.
The basic set of facts we are faced with is this: on December 13 there was a failed attack on the Indian parliament, and the attackers were killed along with several Indian security personnel.
One narrative surrounding these basic facts goes like this: soon after Israel showed how easy it is to milk the "no distinction between terrorists and those who harbour them" line, gunmen miraculously got through security checks, in a time of heightened alerts, and attempted to destroy the Indian parliament. In a further miracle, none of the ministers were hurt and the terrorists were killed. The Indian government refused to show the faces of the terrorists to reporters, insisted that the terrorists were part of two groups fighting for the liberation of Kashmir (though that is not quite how the Indians phrased it), and that the attack was planned in training camps in Pakistan and involved the collusion of Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistan offered a joint inquiry into the affair, and India refused.
The other narrative, in which I'm not as well-versed, follows these lines: Pakistan decided to take advantage of its newly warmed friendship with the world's superpower by launching yet another in a long series of attacks on India. Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups attempted to bring the Indian government to its knees by blowing up the Indian parliament. The plan was foiled and the terrorists were killed. If the war against terrorism is to be a global war then surely India must have the right to attack Pakistan. But the US cautioned restraint, and Pakistan, in a brazenly cheeky move, insisted that it be part of the investigation into the attack.
Or, here is the condensed version of the two narratives, which can stand in for the two narratives during any conflict between India and Pakistan.
Narrative one: India always lies.
Narrative two: Pakistan always lies.
But there is an important third narrative. In the first days after President Musharraf came to power in Pakistan more than two years ago, he repeatedly expressed his admiration for the aggressively secular Kemal Ataturk. And then, abruptly, he went silent. It was widely believed that Musharraf was warned against the perils of taking on the hardline religious groups. But in a post-September 11 Pakistan the extremists have been dealt a severe blow due to their inability to drum up significant support for their anti-government rallies, and the president has been speaking openly about the need to combat those who have been holding hostage a nation which is essentially moderate.
Pakistan's best chance to move against the extremists is now. But it's one thing for Musharraf to root out terrorists; it's quite another for him to appear to do so at the behest of India. In government circles, it is being said that Musharraf is furious about the attacks on the parliament building, and - more importantly - that India's belligerent demands that he arrest militants are actually slowing down the crackdown on extremists. Perhaps this is the narrative to which more Indians should be paying attention.
For a moment I thought I could end this column on that previous line. But to do so would be to leave out the most important narrative here: that of the 70,000 and more (every week, more) who have died since 1990 in the struggle for Kashmir's future. When Indo-Pak narratives clash, the fallout is almost always in Kashmir. India insists there is no genuine struggle for self-determination and that the uprising in Kashmir is Pakistan-sponsored. Pakistan insists it offers only moral support to the Kashmiri struggle.
India lies.
Pakistan lies.
But here is a truth we can all agree on: a solution to the Kashmir dispute must be found so that the phrase "threat of nuclear war" can be consigned to the history books and the next generation of Pakistanis and Indians does not become so accustomed to such a phrase that, in the midst of the massive build-up of troops along the border, it continues to live its life as though nothing out of the ordinary is going on. (I don't know about the major cities of India, but in Karachi New Year was a wildly celebratory affair, and not just among groups who are associated with fiddling during fires.)
And here is another, no less important truth: a solution must be found for the sake of the Kashmiris who have waited far too long already to approve a joint narrative of peace.
Kamila Shamsie is the author of Salt and Saffron (Bloomsbury, £6.99)

index

The Weekly Independent, Jan. 3, 2002
COLUMN

The ISI Facade

Pakistan can fight India only if we have internal unity. But the ground realities seem entirely different

By Hamid Mir
Mr. Hamid Mir is the Editor of Daily Ausaf Islamabad and also writes for some Paksitani and Indian English Magazines.

Whether to attack Pakistan or not? The Indian government has given 10 days to its Army to decide on this important question, while the Indian generals have already expressed their preparedness for a war. Military experts in India are of the view that a limited action in 'Pakistani-administrated Kashmir' cannot lead to a full-scale war, since the political situation in Pakistan will not allow the Musharraf regime to undertake a full-fledged combat.
The war of words between India and Pakistan is intensifying, with the Indian leaders' statements giving clear indications that Delhi will not hesitate to aggress Pakistan. A majority of the analysts here, however, are reluctant to believe that the two nuclear powers could actually jump into a war.
India got the opportunity of putting pressure on Pakistan after the suicide attack on its parliament in New Delhi on December 13. As the history goes, Bhagat Singh also bombed the parliament in New Delhi, for which the British government hanged him in 1930. At that time, Mahatma Gandhi justified the act declaring Bhagat Singh a freedom fighter. A few years back, renowned Indian journalist, Kuldip Nayyar, wrote a book on Bhagat Singh and incidentally, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was the chief guest at the launching ceremony of that book.
The Indian government is accusing Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence and two militant groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad for the Parliament attack. Reacting, Pakistan government is asking for concrete evidence. But it appears that the Indian side does not seem interested in a peaceful settlement of the issue. The Indian High Commissioner has been called back, while the reports of a Pakistani diplomat mugged in the Indian capital have also hit the headlines. India has further suspended Samjhota Express and Lahore-Delhi Bus Service, from January 1. Western diplomats in Islamabad believe that some Pakistan-based militant organisation might be involved in the attack on Indian parliament, to boost the morale of jehadis in Kashmir, who were demoralised after the fall of the Taliban. But, at the same time, they hold that Pakistani government is not involved in the attack. Even the US government does not support the Indian thesis of Pakistan's involvement. However, the US has made it clear to Pakistan that it should crack down on the militant outfits otherwise the chances of an attack from India could not be ruled out.
There are two main reasons for India being so hostile in present circumstances. First, the ISI has come under attack not only in the western but also in the Pakistani Press. Second, the government relations with the jehadi elements and the mainstream political parties are tense at the moment and a majority of the militants in Indian occupied Kashmir are demoralised after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. As the Press in Pakistan continues to castigate the ISI, rightly or wrongly, it has provided India with 'ideal' situation to exploit. Some time back, Newsline of Karachi accused the ISI for sectarian terrorism in the country. Later, Herald started picking on the spying agency. In the December 2001 issue of Herald, its Editor Aamer Ahmed Khan wrote: "Senior police officials in Punjab are convinced to this day that ISI officers were instrumental in engineering the escape of dreaded terrorist Riaz Basra from a trial court in Lahore. At one point, the Military Intelligence wrote to the government complaining against the ISI's 'training methods'. Among other things, the MI asked why the ISI was training militants to shoot from motorbikes given that motorbikes have never been preferred mode of transportation for militants active inside Kashmir. Many senior army and police officers attribute sectarian attacks inside Pakistan to the militants trained by ISI."
Discussing the ISI role in national politics, only a few would disagree that people like Hameed Gul, Asad Durrani and Ziaudin Butt have brought a bad name to this institution. Hameed Gul openly admitted that as DG ISI he formed a political alliance against the Pakistan People's Party in 1988. Asad Durrani submitted an affidavit with the Supreme Court, admitting that as ISI chief, he was asked by Nawaz Sharif to distribute money among politicians and journalists, in a bid to ensure the defeat of the PPP in the 1990 elections. While Hameed Gul and Asad Durrani represent the facade of ISI, not many people know about the services of the agency inside and outside the country for the cause of national security. It is so lamentable that the acts of a few black sheep have brought a bad name to the ISI. Today, the political pigmies of Pakistan, be it Farooq Leghari or anybody else, know quite well that they cannot win the elections without getting an NOC (no-objection certificate) from the ISI. The chief editor of an Urdu daily advised Begum Abida Hussain the other day at a dinner that if she wanted to get more seats in the coming election, she must develop good relations with the internal wing of ISI. He even named a serving ISI major general who could help Abida win elections. It is a pity that names of serving ISI officers are discussed in the political circles and this is the root-cause of the problem.
I personally believe that the ISI must stop its political operations in the interest of its own existence. Moreover, militant outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad should be disbanded whose leadership is very close to the sectarian parties. Few people know that Jaish chief Maulana Masood Azhar wrote an article sometime ago against Lashkar-e-Taiba with some serious sectarian implications. The Jaish was raised and patronised by none other than Lt Gen Mehmood Ahmad, the recently retired ISI chief.
The general made two major moves as ISI director general. Firstly, he pressurised Hizbul Mujahideen for a premature cease-fire in 2000 and used Jaish to destabilise Lashkar and Harkatul Mujahideen. Lately, the same Jaish has turned out to be a major threat for the whole Kashmir movement.
I believe Pakistan can fight India only if we have internal unity. But the ground realities seem entirely different. The national Press continues to criticise the ISI, which is adamant to create further rifts between the PPP and PML. The government, on the other hand, has put the topmost religious leaders behind the bars. Their supporters and activists are critical of the government policy and thus bitterly oppose General Musharraf.
This could be an ideal situation for India to attack Pakistan. We must get united to repulse the expected Indian attack and for this, not only Musharraf but ISI should also take some positive steps. I have no doubt that Masood Azhar has indirectly served a lot to the interests of Indians and the anti-jehad forces in and outside Pakistan. All those, who allowed and facilitated him in launching Jaish-e-Muhammad did no favour to the Kashmir movement.
One wonders if Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Professor Hafiz Muhammad Saeed could be pressurised to quit in favour of Abdul Wahid Kashmiri, why not a similar formula be applied on Masood Azhar, who is apparently working on American agenda. Meanwhile, with the threat of an Indian attack looming over Pakistan, the Musharraf regime seems to be in total isolation. The regime had already pushed the two mainstream political parties - the PPP and PML, to the wall. The religious parties too have turned against the regime for siding with the US. Under these circumstances, it would be most appropriate for General Musharraf to go for a national reconciliation drive to mend fences with mainstream political parties.

index

Dawn, 03 January 2002
Bureau Report

Peace forum flays lathi-charge on Wagah rally

HYDERABAD, Jan 2: The Pak-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy condemned lathi-charge by the law enforcement agencies on the rally held at Wagah border, near Lahore , which had been held for peace and against the tension between the two countries.
The leaders of the Forum, Hyderabad chapter, Mir Sikandar Ali Talpur, Zafar A. Rajput, M. Shabbir Khilji, and Dr. Merajuddin among others, in a joint statement issued on Wednesday, also condemned the misbehaviour of the law enforcement agencies towards women protesters. The lawyers also took strong exception on the ban imposed on Ms Nirmala Deshpande, an exponent of the Pak-India Friendship and Peace, and the chairperson of the Indian chapter of the Forum, Ramdas, by India.
These messengers of peace, the lawyers said, were on a peace mission to Pakistan and wanted to enter the country to meet President Gen Pervez Musharraf.
They said this action by India will sabotage the peace efforts between the two countries and will encourage the extremist elements. The leaders of the forum have appealed to the Indian and Pakistani governments to withdraw their forces from the borders and initiate negotiations to resolve the existing problems between the two countries. They also appealed to the two governments to restore air and land travelling facilities for the people of Pakistan and India. Meanwhile, the chairman, Lawyers Equity Action Committee, Hyderabad, Advocate Zahoor A. Baloch has supported the efforts of President Gen Pervez Musharraf undertaken by him in the interest of national security.
He said every lawyer of Hyderabad appreciated the statesmanship of the president.
Dialogue: Representatives of political parties, religious and social welfare organizations asked the people of India to pressurize their government to refrain from creating a war-like situation.
They said this at a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Zila Nazim, Dr Makhdoom Rafiquz Zaman, at the Shahbaz Hall on Wednesday. The meeting emphasized the need for a dialogue between the two countries as confrontation between the two countries was not a solution to the existing problem.
It said that the people of the two countries were facing problems of poverty, health care and education and they were lagging far behind developed countries in these areas. [...].

index

The Hindustan Times, Thursday, January 3, 2002
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/030102/detNAT05.asp

Kathmandu Diary: Journos do their bit for peace

by Vinod Sharma

Parallel to the SAARC summit, over 150 journalists from the seven-nation regional grouping have assembled here under the aegis of the South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA). The organisation's agenda: To promote peace in the face of a rising threat of war.
Though the host country has maximum representation at the meeting, the discussions remained focused on the growing hiatus between India and Pakistan. The curbs on the Nepalese press following imposition of Emergency got little more than passing mention.
The Pakistani and Indian delegates often agreed to disagree. Terrorism was one issue on which there was an obvious divergence of views in the context of Kashmir. But the participants refrained from any direct mention of the dispute towards building a consensus on a 'Declaration of Intent.' SAFMA also referred to the heads of government and state of SAARC a Protocol for free movement of mediapersons within the region.
*****
It was media pressure of another kind. Journalists from all seven SAARC nations took out a procession demanding a resumption of the Vajpayee-Musharraf dialogue and toning down of tension in the region. About 150 journalists marched through the city to the SAARC Secretariat near Narayanhiti Palace. The banners they carried read "No to war", "No to terrorism", "No to repression" and, most importantly, "Vajpayee-Musharraf should meet".
*****
"We cannot let terrorism win the war, nor should we let the governments use it as a pretext to abridge freedoms", remarked Madhav Nepal, while opening the conference on Tuesday. Made in the context of a gagged Nepalese media, the CPN(UML) leader's observations applied as much to conflicts in other parts of the subcontinent. But a party comrade of M. Nepal, K. P. Sharma Oli, felt that newspersons in his country could do more for restoration of their freedoms. "Until now, they have tended to accept what has come their way," he said.
*****
Talking of terrorism, the phenomenon is intensely debated in Nepal. The Maoist threat from within, the Kandahar hijack and the recent attack on Indian Parliament seems to be changing the Nepalese way of life. And nothing drives home the message more palpably than the tight security at the Birendra International Conference Centre, the venue of the Summit. Armed securitymen in battle gear are crawling all over the place, sanitising the premises.
*****
Tourist dollars make up Nepal's staple source of revenue. But, this year alone, it stands to lose roughly $30 million by way of depleted arrivals. The slide began in the aftermath of the palace massacre and touched a new low after September 11. To turn the tide, Nepal has come out with a new policy. The rebates include a huge slash - from $40,000 to $5,000 - in the fee charged from filming units headed for scenic locales like Upper Mustang and Upper Dolpa.

index

The Hindu, 3.1.02

India yet to decide on bilateral meeting with Pak

KATHMANDU, JAN. 2. The External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, had a couple of close encounters with his Pakistani coun terpart, Mr. Abdul Sattar, here today but the much-anticipated substantive consultations between the two leaders, if at all, might have to wait for another day. There will be opportunities for the two Ministers to interact in the next few days as the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) unfolds. All of them will be in a multilateral setting. The Indian side is yet to make up its mind on whether Mr. Singh should have a separate bilateral meeting with Mr. Sattar.

index

The Hindu, 3.1.02

ISI 'ordered' to keep off jehadi outfits in J&K

ISLAMABAD, JAN. 2. Pakistan today declined to comment on reports that its President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had ordered the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) to end backing the militant groups in Kashmir, while Western diplomats maintained that there was a big shift in the government's policy of supporting the "jehadis." In response to a question on a report in the New York Times about the ISI being asked to stop supporting the "jehadi" outfits in Kashmir, the Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr. Aziz Ahmed Khan, said he was not aware of the report and development. Quoting senior officials in the Musharraf government, the newspaper said the future support of the regime would go only to the Kashmir! groups with local roots that are not part of the "jehad" (holy war). The decision would end the armed activities of the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. A senior Western diplomat, while declining to comment on the veracity of the report, maintained that there was a discernable shift in the policy of the Musharraf government towards the "jehadi" outfits in the last few weeks.

index

Indian Express, 3.1.02

Pak plugging for swadeshi Kashmir movement?

LONDON, JANUARY 2: GENERAL Pervez Musharraf has ordered the shutdown of the ISI's wing that deals "exclusively with armed groups" that Pakistan backs in Kashmir, according to a report from Islamabad in today's edition of The New York Times written by former New Delhi bureau chief John Burns. Officials have told the newspaper that in perhaps the "boldest step (Musharraf has taken) yet to defuse Indo-Pak tension," Pakistan will now limit its backing for the "Kashmir freedom struggle to groups with roots in Kashmir, and rely on Kashmiris to induct military operations." Although Pak officials question the "evidence" India had against the two groups, they have "acknowledged that the groups were responsible for about 70 percent of all attacks in Indian-ruled Kashmir in the last three years," The New York Times says.



index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 17 januari 2002