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)
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.
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.
[...].
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.
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.
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.
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 |