index
Let our leaders remember that their job as politicians is to find
political solutions to intractable problems.
IT IS strange to welcome the New Year with the imminence of war
staring us in the face. As planes drone over Karachi and newspapers
in Mumbai throw out images of Indian soldiers standing ready at the
border, we are compelled to make this argument for peace. As
journalists from India and Pakistan, we collaborated on a project on
peace when both our countries went nuclear in 1998 and simultaneously
spouted the rhetoric of war. Today, our arguments for peace and
dialogue hold an even more urgent relevance. Hence our need to repeat
them jointly.
With the global community of nations' appetite newly whetted for the
waging of war, preferably for war with vague moral purposes fought
with murderous accuracy and vengeance, our very own India and
Pakistan are now on the brink of jumping into the fray again.
The mood of madness began with the September 11 attacks in New York
and Washington. As the United States like a bewildered dumb giant
rubbed its bruised head and wondered why it inspired such hatred,
there was even then little hope that the giant would exercise
restraint and choose the remedy of politics over the remedy of
violence. It has now applied its brutal salve to Afghanistan,
installed the Northern Alliance, despite its dodgy human rights
record, into power and refused to count or acknowledge the number of
"the enemy's" dead. India is pleased with the new regime in
Afghanistan, for its enemy's enemy is its friend and Pakistan's new
impotence in the affairs of its western neighbour suit it well. Now
that the U.S. and Israel have exercised their self-assumed right to
wage war against Afghanistan and Palestine based on charges of
terrorism, India sees its turn next.
But this mad logic will not lead to a solution of the outstanding
issues between India and Pakistan, and a war will not bring to an end
covert violence sponsored by intelligence agencies within each
other's countries. There will be no true winners in such a war, only
yet another brutal "solution" imposed by one enemy on another and
yet another refusal to count each other's dead.
We have just a few days left to recall some words of sanity that have
been raised since the world decided to go to war against "terror."
Michael Lerner, a Rabbi in the United States, wrote just days after
the September 11 attack that it was a world based on violence,
inequity and injustice that produced the killers, and that the United
States needed to recognise its own role in perpetrating the roots of
such violence. "We may need a global day of atonement and repentance
dedicated to finding a way to turn the direction of our society at
every level, a return to the notion that every human life is sacred,
such0 that violence becomes only a distant memory." He described a
world that has lost the capacity to recognise the sacred in its
people, the essential humanity of everyone.
In the past decades, South Asia has been victim of ruthless acts of
violence, sponsored by intelligence agencies, foreign governments,
its own governments, and even some of its own extremist political
parties. In all cases, innocent people die, the sacred and humane
within us get buried in the earth or burnt at the pyres. Can the
leaders of India and Pakistan dare to take their people out of this
darkness and refuse to violate their humanity yet again?
Peter Mahoney, a veteran of America's dirty war in Vietnam, wrote
cautionary words after September 11 that our leaders would do well to
heed. Vietnam, he stated, had taught him an essential lesson:
"Soldiers are required to do their jobs because politicians fail to
do theirs. Make no mistake, the war on terrorism is the desperate act
of politicians who failed miserably in the leadership
responsibilities to those who elected them, and who, by the very act
of starting the war, have failed us even again."
Indians, even those who may harbour bitter hatred for Pakistan and
resent its belligerent Muslim identity and the very fact of its
creation, and are deeply angered by its obsession with Kashmir and
support for the militancy in that State, should ask themselves today
whether they elected the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies for
the purpose of leading their country into war or into an age of peace
and prosperity.
And Pakistanis, particularly its disgraced political cadres, must
also consider whether the lack of clear foreign policy objectives in
its leaders and their obsession with matching India's might as well
as their reliance on the sinister ISI for achieving domestic and
regional objectives have brought them anything better than chronic
insecurity and the tattered dreams of a true democracy. Indeed, it is
the failure of our politicians on both sides of the border that will
lead us into a new war.
Let us not succumb to the distorted and sanitised view of war as
projected in the western media through its coverage of the war in
Afghanistan. As we face our new potential war, let us be honest about
the essentials. Innocent people will die by the thousands. Maybe our
children will die. Can anyone countenance the death by violence of
their children, or even those of their enemy? Our over-burdened
exchequers will be further depleted in pursuit of these violent
objectives, and even less money will be spent on the people. Hence
our so-called leaders, on both sides, need war propaganda to banish
from our imagination any thought of the humanity or the sacred in us
all that should be nurtured, not destroyed.
As troops mass along the border, land mines are laid, and anti-
aircraft missiles placed upon our apartment buildings, we need to
remember one last thing. The U.S. President, George W. Bush, and
Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, are still hedging their bets
as they go after their terrorist enemies. As Nicholas Kristof of The
New York Times pointed out in a recent article: "One study found
that foreign terrorists struck America 2,400 times between 1983 and
1998, but that the United States hit back militarily only three
times: for Libya's bombing of a nightclub in 1986, Iraq's attempt to
assassinate former President Bush in 1993, and Al-Qaeda's bombing of
American embassies in Africa in 1998. Quite responsibly, we pick
fights only with 97-pound countries." Israel, too, can wipe out
Palestine when and if it desires to do so.
But the balance of power between India and Pakistan is not the same,
and as India considers a similar remedy for the scourge of terrorism
as its American and Israeli predecessors, it has to remember this
reality. A conventional war, even a limited one, can devastate large
swathes of one or both countries, while a nuclear war is too
unthinkable to countenance.
South Asia must not go the way of the West, a region that has led the
world in a culture of violence, global inequality, and a series of
unjust wars in the last 50 years where only the mighty stand a chance
to get out alive. The humanity has been taken out of the human,
particularly the one who lives in the developing world. We need not
follow suit like good post-colonial subjects. Let our leaders
remember that their job as politicians is to find political solutions
to intractable problems. Our role as citizens is to insist on
preserving the humanity in us all, and protecting the future for our
children.
More than 150 leading media persons met in Kathmandu to address the
role of media in promoting peace. After long deliberations they
unanimously agreed on a declaration that provides guidelines for
professional conduct and a platform for action.
Following are some excerpts: We the media-persons belonging to
various organisations and media fields from the member countries of
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), having held
a most frank and fruitful exchange of views at the Second South Asian
Free Media Conference at Kathmandu, Nepal, on January 1-2, 2002;
Recalling the principles inspiring the Joint Statement issued by the
First South Asian Free Media Conference, in Islamabad, on July 1-2,
2000, and the commitments made therein; Reaffirming our faith in
peace, democracy, justice and the well-being of the family of the
South Asian peoples and drawing upon the ideals of truth, integrity
and humanism of our calling;
Taking serious note of the most dangerous situation prevailing
between and within some of the states that threatens the very
existence of the peoples, and recourse to violence and terrorism in
the countries of South Asia posing serous threat to civil society,
democratic institutions, peace and stability of the region;
Alarmed at the ongoing inter-state and intra-state conflicts that
have the potential to unleash wars and civil strife, including
nuclear war, which could cause a tremendous loss of life, devastation
of environment, destruction of precious resources, infinite misery to
the peoples, including denial of human and social rights. Have
reached a broad-based consensus on the following understanding that
reflects our deep concern about the impending dangers, the true
democratic spirit of our humane commitment to the cause of peace and
well-being of our peoples in South Asia and our professional calling:
Rejecting the tendency to prefer violence to negotiations,
bellicosity to understanding, conflict to confidence building, arms
race to management and stabilisation, evading the causes of tensions
to possibilities of resolution, annexation to addressing the
aspirations of the suppressed indigenous people, repression to
respect for human rights, including women rights, terrorism to
respect for human life and, unconstitutional government to
representative regime, disregard for good neighbourly relations to
peaceful co-existence;
Apprehending that such an aggressive, uncivilised, undemocratic,
self-serving, rigid, irrational and repressive path in inter-state
and intra-state matters relating to social and ethnic contradictions
and historically-rooted conflicts will breed further violence, on the
one hand, and create a social soil for nationalist jingoism,
religious and ethnic extremism, fascism, authoritarianism and
terrorism, on the other;
Realising that in such a poisonous environment not only the people at
large but also the intelligentsia and the media are likely to be
swayed by one-sided, prejudiced, hateful and chauvinistic notions of
incorrigible jingoism and intolerance for the other side of the
divide, resulting in derogation of professional integrity,
impartiality, understanding, rationality and every consideration for
amity, reconciliation, accommodation, plurality, mutually beneficial
co-existence, equity, freedom, democracy and human rights;
Acknowledging that many media practitioners, reporters of conflicts,
opinion makers, broadcasters, film-makers, writers, editors,
moderators, strategic and socio-political analysts generally tend to
be overwhelmed by the false consciousness and illusions of 'national
pride', 'national interest', 'one's own greatness', 'one's own war',
'foreign danger', 'foreign hand', 'infallibility of national
consensus', 'popular opinion' and aggressive national chauvinism and,
in turn, take lead and compete in reinforcing these "necessary
illusions" bordering jingoism, hate, irrationality, exclusion and
extremism that facilitate self-serving 'national consensus' against
the demonised 'enemy' and the other 'hateable' de-humanised side of
the divide that is self-conveniently dubbed as 'all-wrong' as opposed
to the erroneous 'all-right' on one's own side;
Accepting media-person's enormous responsibility at the present most
critical juncture in region's history and most crucial role in
nation-building and history-making, we recognise our pivotal
responsibility to the collective survival, interdependence, mutually
beneficial co-existence, expose one-sided vested interests, report
and appreciate the other-side of the half-truth, not-becoming
instrumental in distorting facts or providing cover-up to one's own
aggression or demonising the 'enemy' or facilitating the subversion
in other country, appreciation of the diversity of the unity of
opposites, oppose jingoism and chauvinism, defend the fundamental
human rights and equality of all our peoples, promote equality for
minorities and fullest affirmative support for the deprived and
disenfranchised indigenous peoples, diversion of our resources from
military and nuclear build-ups to human and social sustainable
development and work for greater South Asian collective identity and
unity-in-diversity, non-discriminatory progress and cooperation
without the hegemony of the stronger over the weaker and the bigger
over the smaller;
Noting with serious concern that the media-persons daring to oppose
or deviate from the official standpoints of powerful establishments
are discouraged, harassed, accused, abused, victimised, emotionally,
physically and materially damaged and, in some cases, even prosecuted
for being 'enemy agents' while those who project and reinforce the
false, dangerous and aggressive brinkmanship of the powers that be
and violate all occupational ethics and standards of scholarship and
objectivity are praised, rewarded and given unmerited prominence;
Have agreed to pursue, as far as possible in our peculiar
circumstances, the following path while keeping our professional
integrity, independence, truthfulness, self-critical introspection,
overall responsibility to our South Asian region, its various peoples
and an unflinching belief in the universal democratic and humane
values:
1. That the participants of the Second South Asian Free Media
Conference affirm their firm commitment and support to peaceful means
over all forms of violent behaviour, negotiations over military
brinkmanship, understanding over bellicosity, amicable resolution of
social conflicts within the states and historically-rooted disputes
between the states over perpetuation of conflicts, recognition of the
free will and satisfaction of the aspirations of the peoples over
repression, reconciliation over incompatibility, confidence-building
over aggravation of tensions, management over intensification of
conflicts, stabilisation of nuclear regime over unpredictable
standoffs, disarmament over unbridled arms race, mutuality of
interests over exclusivity, peaceful co-existence over animosity,
upholding of peoples rights over repression, safety of people over
state oppression, democratic governance over unconstitutional regimes
and cooperation over confrontation;
2. That we resolve to distance from, and expose, as for as possible
in our particular circumstances and within our relative room to
manoeuvre, all such policies/acts that are meant to promote
confrontation, war, terrorism, repression, destruction, loss of
innocent lives, jingoism, chauvinism, religious and ethnic extremism,
expansionism, hegemonism, aggression, exclusion of people,
demonisation of the other side of the divide, de-humanisation of
inter-state and intra-state 'adversaries', external interference,
militarisation, occupation and marginalisation of peoples and
curtailment of human rights and dislocation of people on any pretext
whatsoever;
3. That we call upon the South Asian states, that are at loggerheads
with one another and those involved in conflicts with sections of
their own populace, to enter into meaningful and purposeful dialogue
with the parties concerned, take confidence-building measures to
stabilise and improve the situations and, in the meanwhile, find some
amicable solutions that satisfy the democratic and social aspirations
of the peoples, remove causes of the conflicts and take into account
the mutuality of legitimate interests of the concerned states,
without making the peoples and South Asia's future hostages to one
conflict or the other;
4. That we call upon all governments of South Asia to take effective
measures against terrorism and terrorist outfits;
5. That we as practitioners of media, to the best of our ability and,
in the given situation, pledge to uphold the whole truth, not only
about ourselves but also about the others, regardless of the views of
establishments, responsibility, and avoid becoming instrumental in
fomenting war phobia, nationalist hysteria, jingoism, hate against
others, extremism, distorting the facts, misleading nomenclatures,
insulting other peoples, injuring sacred feelings, desecrating sacred
places, ridiculing the traits and traditions of other peoples and
nations, and promote better understanding, amity, realism, free flow
of unbiased information, respect for human rights, empowerment of the
peoples, including women and disadvantaged groups, strengthening of
democratic institutions and peaceful resolution of all conflicts and
disputes to the satisfaction, above all, of the concerned peoples,
while addressing the legitimate interests of states and non-state
parties;
6. That we will spare no efforts in creating a peaceful, friendly,
democratic, and interactive atmosphere for the resolution of social,
political and ethnic conflicts in our own countries in the interests
of our own peoples and amicable, peaceful and just settlement of all
disputes between states and do our best in promoting informed
debates, free exchange of views, exposing falsehoods, distortions,
accusations, extremism, jingoism and aggressive nationalist phobia
and war hysteria, encouraging dissent, defending everyone's right to
disagreement and expose the beast within;
7. That we will strive to promote a media for peace, instead of a
media for war, and find ways and means and use our influence in
facilitating peace, reconciliation, stabilisation,
confidence-building and solution-seeking processes and evolving
multiple mechanisms and alternative approaches in place of current
fixated national consensus on various strategic, socio-political
issues and disputes and inflexible bureaucratic set-ups that thrive
on confrontation and protracted stalemate.
WACO, Tex., Jan. 6 - In the three weeks since a deadly attack on the
Indian Parliament, President Bush and his foreign policy team have
scrambled to avoid war in South Asia with a simple formula: in daily
phone calls to both sides, they have tried to reframe the conflict as
a battle over terrorism, not territory.
They have carefully offered no opinion on the question of who should
control Kashmir, an emotionally explosive issue in both countries.
They have not volunteered to oversee negotiations, a role the United
States has played so often in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Instead, they have acted as if the Islamic extremist groups accused
of carrying out the assault were stateless terrorists similar to Al
Qaeda and perhaps linked to it - and that they threaten the stability
of Pakistan, where they are based, as surely as they threaten India.
It is partly a convenient fiction. President Bush has made no public
mention of the fact that the terrorist groups he says must be crushed
have often acted as a surrogate for Pakistan's intelligence service.
Yet so far the strategy appears to have worked, or at least bought
some time for the opponents, who met this weekend at a tense summit
meeting in Nepal.
The president's aides here and in Washington say they believe that
their constant barrage of telephone calls to India and Pakistan
probably prevented a rapid escalation of the conflict into a war
between two hot- headed nuclear powers.
"We decided early on that the purpose now is not to solve Kashmir; it
is to defuse the crisis," one senior administration official in
Washington said the other day.
Another added, "The question is how long will that work - how long
can you keep both sides from making a big mistake?"
At the core of the strategy has been constant pressure on Mr. Bush's
new ally, Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. At the urging of
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the national
security adviser, and then the president himself, who called from his
ranch, Mr. Musharraf has begun a roundup of the leaders of the
Islamic groups suspected in the attacks, and a few who are not
suspected. The administration's thinking was that each round of
arrests makes it more difficult for India to justify an attack that
would almost certainly turn into war.
Mr. Bush, describing his conversations with Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee of India, said last week that, "while I understood
his anger," he should "give us all a chance to work with President
Musharraf to bring the terrorists to justice."
"Terror is terror," Mr. Bush said, before buying a cheeseburger in
the small gas station and deli near his ranch, "and the fact that the
Pakistani president is after terrorists is a good sign."
The Indians were suspicious of the strategy. They had been outraged
at Mr. Bush's characterization of the two main terrorist groups
operating in Kashmir as "stateless," which they saw as a crude pander
to Mr. Musharraf. And they noted that despite repeated acts of
terrorism in the last few years, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or the Army of the
Pure, and Jaish-e- Muhammad, or the Army of Muhammad, were never
placed on the State Department's list of terrorist groups. The
administration belatedly remedied that on Dec. 27, more than two
weeks after the attack on the Parliament.
Now Indian officials say they want "guarantees" from the United
States that Pakistan would wipe out the groups. Administration
officials say they have heard no such request, and they doubt they
could offer such a guarantee anyway.
But they can continue to pressure General Musharraf, who by all
accounts has so far offered little resistance to the American call
for a crackdown, perhaps seeing an opportunity to consolidate his own
power.
While General Musharraf has long identified himself with the Kashmir
issue, American officials were betting that he was nervous about the
Islamic radicals in his midst and the terror groups' brewing anger
about Pakistan's decision to side with the United States in the war
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"The unspoken part of this deal," said one White House official, "is
that Musharraf has a brief window of opportunity to act against these
guys before they threaten him. And he's feeling a lot stronger than
he did a few months ago." But in many conversations with senior
American officials, General Musharraf expressed growing alarm about
the size of the Indian military buildup on his border.
Defusing a crisis of this magnitude is not what the Bush
administration envisioned when it came to power. All last spring and
summer, the president and his aides focused on India, not Pakistan.
While Mr. Bush's team has few charitable comments about Clinton-era
diplomacy, they saw an opportunity to build on Mr. Clinton's courting
of Indian leaders, and the strengthening of economic ties.
In contrast, they saw little potential in building a relationship
with Pakistan: its support of the Taliban, its proliferation of
missile technology and its constant dalliance with economic default
made it seem, in the words of one American diplomat, "only a few
shades better than North Korea." Hard-liners in the Pentagon,
moreover, thought a tilt toward India would help in the containment
of China, India's other great rival.
Sept. 11 changed all those calculations. Now Washington finds itself,
to India's distress, with an equal interest in both countries. But it
does not yet have a strategy to meet that new reality.
Assuming that the current crisis can be defused, officials say Mr.
Bush must begin to address both the substance of the Kashmir dispute
and the threat posed by both countries' nuclear arsenals. Eventually,
that will require creating some kind of arms control framework that
gives officials in Islamabad, New Delhi and the rest of the world
some assurance that a firefight over the Line of Control does not
risk rapid escalation into a nuclear exchange.
But for now the Bush administration is starting small. On Friday,
Secretary Powell suggested that he was ready to send an American
envoy to the region. That envoy may be Secretary Powell himself, or
his deputy, Richard Armitage, or Richard Haass, who heads the State
Department's policy planning operations and has long experience in
defusing past India-Pakistan crises.
The hope is that the envoy will convince both sides to pull back
their troops, reducing the chance of an inadvertent disaster. They
are mindful, they say, of the warning from Brig. Muhammad Yaqub, the
Pakistani Army's commander in Kashmir, who told a reporter the other
day, "When you've got two armies standing eyeball to eyeball, even a
little accident can lead to a chain reaction."
LAHORE, Jan 6: The South Asian Fraternity organized a peace walk here
on Sunday in the wake of the Indo-Pakistan border tension. The walk
started from Nasser Bagh's gate No 1 and terminated peacefully at
gate No 2.
Dr Mubashar Hassan, Dr Anwar Sajjad, Munir Niazi, Madiha Gohar,
Shujaat Hashmi, Dr Ajmal Niazi, Ashraf Saleemi, Saleem Qureshi and
Farrukh Suhail Goindi were prominent among the participants.
They were carrying banners and placards inscribed with slogans like
'We want peace not war; No to war; No to terrorism; fight against
war'.
Speaking to the participants in the walk, Dr Mubashar Hassan said
that South Asia needed peace and prosperity and the people of this
region can not afford nuclear war. He said that we all condemn the
incident of September 11 at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
He appreciated President Gen Pervez Musharraf for his bold handshake
with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee at the Saarc
Summit. - APP
CHAKOTHI, Pakistan. As the leaders of Pakistan and India exchanged a
stiff handshake in Nepal over the weekend, their troops pointed
machine guns at each other across a rugged ravine here, in the
disputed region of Kashmir.
Diplomatic nuances mean little to the soldiers who patrol this
jittery outpost along the Line of Control, a cease-fire line that
serves as a de facto border between the Indian and
Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir.
"When you've got two armies standing eyeball to eyeball, even a
little accident can lead to a chain reaction that nobody can
control," said Brigadier Mohammed Yaqub, the Pakistani Army's
commander in this region.
"Every day, we are getting closer to a situation that nobody can
control," he said, squinting across the ravine.
Bullets have whistled across this line almost every night since Dec.
13, when gunmen attacked the Indian Parliament in New Dehli,
resulting in 14 deaths, including the five assailants. India blamed
Pakistan-backed militants for the attack, and the two countries have
edged perilously close to war.
If there is a conflict, it is likely to start here, in the mountain
canyons of Kashmir. Machine-gun nests and artillery batteries nestle
among the fir trees, beneath snow-capped peaks. They are controlled
by soldiers who sometimes behave as though war has already broken out.
On Friday, close by this post, Indian troops fired several shots at
their Pakistani counterparts, Brigadier Yaqub said. He said that his
soldiers had not returned fire and that he did not know the motive
for the attack. More often, the Pakistanis do fire back, and there
are casualties on both sides.
"We are taking all the defensive measures required to defend our
country," Brigadier Yaqub said at a briefing organized by the
military for foreign journalists. Pakistan's goal in taking
journalists to the Line of Control seemed to be to correct a
perceived disadvantage in its public relations campaign about
Kashmir. The Indian government attributes the violence in the region
to terrorist groups, which it says are financed and armed by
Pakistan's intelligence service.
Pakistan denies this, though it acknowledges giving moral support to
the insurgents. It refers to them as freedom fighters. "There are no
terrorist groups on our side," Brigadier Yaqub said. Brigadier Yaqub
said 50,000 people had been forced out of their border homes since
1998 by Indian harassment.
At a refugee camp near Muzaffarabad, the capital of
Pakistan-administered Kashmir, some residents expressed frustration
that the dispute over Kashmir seemed further from resolution than
ever. "I am angry at the Indian government and the whole world," said
Chawdry Mirza, 60, who fled his home in 1994 because of the violence.
The farmers at Chakothi, however, do not seem fazed by the standoff.
On Saturday, some could be seen tending their fields, terraced green
plots that step down to a fast-moving river. Across the water, the
helmets of Indian soldiers peeked over the stone walls of their
lookout posts. Neither side is retreating from its positions, and
those have not changed much in decades Indeed, in some ways, the Line
of Control seems like a Cold War relic. For example, Indian and
Pakistani troops maintain a telephone hot line that crosses the
border near Chakothi.
The line, which was instituted to head off an accidental
confrontation, has never been used. But once a month, it is checked
by soldiers from each side, Brigadier Yaqub said.
After a date is set by both sides, Indian and Pakistani soldiers
raise white flags and march cautiously to the middle of a wooden
footbridge that spans the border. There, he said, "they check the
line, exchange a cup of tea, talk about cricket and movies, and then
go back."
by ANTHONY SPAETH/NEW DELHI
TAUSEFF MUSTAFA/AFP
Sunday, Jan. 06, 2002
Kirat Chand lives on one of the hottest spots on the globe, the
disputed border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. Life is never
tranquil in his Galar village. Troops on either side continually take
potshots at each other. These days the situation is nothing less than
explosive. On Dec. 23, Pakistan lobbed an 81-mm mortar into Chand's
courtyard, the first time such heavy ordnance has been used in the
area since 1971. The mortar landed in mud and failed to detonate. Now
army engineers are trying to extricate it, whacking around the shell
with heavy pickaxes. "If that thing had burst," says Chand, observing
from a few feet away, "nothing would have survived."
In the final weeks of 2001, the entire subcontinent became an
unexploded bomb. The antagonistic neighbors geared up their war
machines to a level not seen in 30 years. Colossus India ranged tanks
and troops in strike formations along the border, deployed warships
in the Arabian Sea and moved medium-range missiles-capable of
carrying nuclear warheads-closer to Pakistan. A plan was publicized
to pull camouflage tarps over the stately Taj Mahal to protect it
from air raids. Vulnerable Pakistan moved troops and hardware from
its border with Afghanistan, where they were supposed to be stopping
fleeing al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, to its Indian border, although
it did so without publicity. Both countries have said explicitly over
the past month that they were ready to go to war. It would be their
fourth major conflict in a half-century. And this time each side is
nuclear armed.
Would it come to war? The Bush Administration worked desperately to
head off that possibility, with Secretary of State Colin Powell at
one point camping in his office to work the phones to Islamabad and
New Delhi. The last thing Washington needs as it strives to complete
its goals in Afghanistan is a separate, new war in the region. That
would distract Pakistan, whose cooperation is essential to the
American strategy in Afghanistan, as well as complicate the fortunes
of its leader, Pervez Musharraf, who has proved a handy partner to
the U.S.
At the same time, the U.S. war against terrorism has actually helped
set the stage for a new conflagration on the subcontinent. The
proximate cause of the current tensions was the outrageous Dec. 13
attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi by suspected
Muslim rebels who India claims were tied to Pakistan. India's
response to the assault was conditioned by America's reaction to
Sept. 11. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee immediately
equated the attack to the Sept. 11 devastation in the U.S., blamed
Pakistan for backing terrorists, demanded that Musharraf crack down
on them and made plain that the alternative was war. Late last week
the two leaders met at a regional conference in Kathmandu and even
shook hands-significant in tense times-but they were still far from
resolving the crisis. Musharraf talked of distinctions between
terrorists and freedom fighters, while Vajpayee said he would welcome
friendship as long as Pakistan prevented terrorists from "mindless
violence" in India.
The Sept. 11 comparison has been strenuously promoted by India. "Dec.
13" is now accepted parlance among Indian politicians and
journalists, even if the analogy is a stretch; 14 people, including
the five attackers, were killed that day, and despite the apparent
intentions of the assailants, the Parliament was left standing.
Still, in the post-Sept. 11 environment, India finds itself on a new
moral plateau. Its government has vehemently protested Pakistan's
active support of armed insurgents-which is well known, even if
Islamabad has denied it. In the past, the world paid little
attention; it seemed to be a Hatfield and McCoy situation. The U.S.
war on terrorism changed that. "It's a different world now," Indian
Defense Minister George Fernandes told Time. "Sept. 11 made the U.S.
realize the damage that a couple of terrorists can cause." While
fearful that New Delhi's military maneuvers would set off a new war,
Washington-to avoid hypocrisy-had to mute its protest. Though feeling
protective toward its new pal Musharraf, Washington pressed him to
rein in the militants.
So far, Musharraf is doing just that, buying what Washington assesses
will be a cooling-off period of several weeks. "We now have a
breathing space," says a senior Bush Administration official.
However, it remains unclear whether Musharraf's actions will appease
India sufficiently to reverse the escalation toward war. Clearly,
neither side wants to unleash its ultimate arsenals. "Nobody is going
to use the weapon," says Fernandes. But, notes a State Department
official, "it's a question of unintended consequences. You never knew
where it would end up, and you always knew they had nuclear weapons."
New fighting over Kashmir, which both India and Pakistan lay claim
to, has loomed as a possible complication in America's battle against
terrorism ever since President Bush declared war. Until then, the
U.S. gave Pakistan the cold shoulder, in punishment for its 1998
nuclear test, and snubbed its leader, Musharraf, who came to power in
a coup. Now, suddenly in need of Pakistan as a staging ground for the
war in Afghanistan, the U.S. was embracing the country and offering
$600 million in aid, a figure that will reach $1 billion by the end
of the year. Mostly Hindu India, which has been at odds with mostly
Muslim Pakistan since the departing British partitioned the
subcontinent into the two countries in 1947, grew fearful that the
U.S., which had been growing closer to India, would now tilt toward
Pakistan. Then, on Oct. 1, Muslim extremists attacked the state
legislature building in Srinagar, in Indian-controlled Kashmir,
killing 38 people. In mid-October, while Secretary Powell was
visiting Islamabad, the Indians shelled Pakistani army positions in
Kashmir, breaking a 10-month cease-fire and reminding the U.S. that
India would not be ignored.
Next came the Dec. 13 rampage. At 11:40 that day, one of the
Toontown-type sedans used by Indian bigwigs got through the
Parliament gates in New Delhi because it had an official-looking
light on top and a home ministry decal on the windshield. Five
militants got out and started firing assault rifles and grenades as
they moved toward three separate entrances of the structure. None got
inside; one man, who was wired with explosives, detonated himself
near the main gate, through which he could have reached the chamber
filled with legislators. After some 20 minutes of gunfire, all five
militants were dead, along with eight paramilitary security guards
and a gardener who was caught in the crossfire.
The suicide mission wasn't terribly sophisticated. The windshield
decal that gave the terrorists access to the compound was anything
but official. It read, in fractured English: "No body allows to stop
this car. India is very bad country and we hate india we want to
destroy india ... brother bush he is also a very bad person he will
be next target." Once the carnage was over, the government recovered
the terrorists' cell phones, with records of recent calls to Kashmir
and Pakistan. Arrests in New Delhi and Kashmir came up with some
alleged collaborators.
The police put an alleged accomplice, Mohammad Afzal, in front of
television cameras, where he admitted helping the terrorists reach
New Delhi from India-controlled Kashmir. New Delhi announced it was
fully satisfied that Pakistan was behind the plot, though evidence
was scant. In Islamabad the expected hot denials had an unmistakable
timbre of truth. In the wake of Sept. 11, such an assault on India
was probably the worst thing that could happen to Musharraf & Co. The
general turned President condemned the attack. But it hardly mattered
what Musharraf said. India already realized that the attack on
Parliament, though similar to suicidal assaults of the past in more
remote reaches, could alter the goalposts of its conflict with
Pakistan-thanks to Sept. 11.
For 12 years India has been trying to put down an independence
insurgency in the part of Kashmir it holds. Its official line is that
the insurgency is fueled by Pakistan, not by the Kashmiri people-that
it is a proxy war. The world has disregarded that argument, knowing
India was stubbornly ignoring its own problems with the mostly Muslim
Kashmiris, who have revived a call for a plebiscite that the U.N.
promised them in 1949 to determine whether they would be part of
India or part of Pakistan.
Pakistan, on its side, did aid the insurgency, although it claimed it
gave only moral and political support. One thing it never denied was
that militants were based on its soil, many in Pakistan-controlled
Kashmir. That's a dangerous claim in the post-Sept. 11 world. It
means you are harboring terrorists, just as the Taliban harbored
al-Qaeda. "America must ensure that those who are part of the war on
terrorism are themselves not guilty of providing a safe haven to
terrorists," proclaims hard-line Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani,
referring to Pakistan.
New Delhi has withdrawn its top diplomat from Pakistan, canceled
train and bus service across the border and widely publicized its
troop and hardware movements, always threatening to go further. "The
mood of the nation is to hit back," says Sahib Singh Verma, a senior
leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Indians were instructed
by the media what the logical escalation of pressure would be:
limited air strikes, sorties across the border to hit terrorist
camps, perhaps an abrogation of a 41-year-old treaty that would deny
Pakistan vital waters from rivers that originate in India. After
that: all-out war.
Militarily, Musharraf could do nothing but match India's escalation,
moving troops to the 1,800-mile border and ordering retaliatory
shelling across the Line of Control in Kashmir. Politically, he was
being pushed to the wall. For more than 50 years, Pakistan has been
dedicated to "liberating" Kashmir from India, and Musharraf has gone
further than most in pursuing that goal. As army chief of staff, he
ran Pakistan's six-week (unsuccessful) battle for the sparsely
inhabited mountains of Kargil in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Most
Pakistan watchers knew that Pakistan would have to change its Kashmir
policy after Sept. 11. "We hoped they'd have longer," says a Western
diplomat in Islamabad.
To turn away from the Kashmiri rebels, especially under pressure from
India, was a lot to ask of a Pakistani leader. It was hard enough for
Musharraf, under U.S. pressure, to abandon the Taliban, whom Pakistan
had supported before Sept. 11. But the Kashmir cause is much closer
to the hearts of Pakistanis, who partly define themselves through
their opposition to India. Anyway, Musharraf had few options. "If he
didn't give the appearance of responding to Indian concerns, he might
have a war on his hands, and it would be a war he'd lose," notes
Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia program at the Woodrow Wilson
Center, a Washington think tank.
Musharraf started slowly, banning the two organizations that India
linked to the Dec. 13 attack, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba,
and freezing their bank accounts. Then, under U.S. pressure, he had
the groups' leaders, 22 of their henchmen and more than 100 other
extremists arrested in the name of domestic security, and instructed
his intelligence agency to scale back its support of insurgents going
into Kashmir.
In fact, since Musharraf took over the country in a bloodless coup in
1999, he has wanted to crack down on the country's extremist
religious groups, which often feed people into militant
organizations, including those fighting for Kashmir. It's not a task
for the fainthearted. Three weeks ago, the brother of Pakistan
Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider was gunned down in the port city
of Karachi because, police believe, Haider was outspoken against
fanatical religious groups.
On Dec. 25, Musharraf gave a speech against "wicked, bigoted"
religious extremism, saying it could lead "to our own internal
destruction." But even if he had his own reasons, once India demanded
a crackdown, it became politically dicey for Musharraf to pull it
off. "The shriller the Indians, the more difficult it is for
Pakistan," notes a Western diplomat in Islamabad. Still, Musharraf's
crackdown against the militants has at least impressed Washington.
"It's real, and it's going to continue," says a senior State
Department official.
The U.S. has been intensely involved in mediating the dispute.
Because Washington is friendlier with both India and Pakistan than
ever before, its role has been elevated beyond recognition. In the
three weeks after Dec. 13, Powell phoned Musharraf four times and
Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh three times, pleading with both
sides to "slow down" their escalation toward war. President Bush
called Musharraf and Vajpayee as well. Along the way, Powell pleaded
with Musharraf to act more forcefully against the militants. Then, in
every call to Singh, he emphasized what Musharraf was doing.
As the situation evolved, Powell got into the details of the army
maneuvers. Noting that the Pakistanis were acting against the
militants, Powell told Singh, "You need to reciprocate." He asked
that India halt its soldiers at their assembly points instead of
transporting them to the front lines; late last week New Delhi
announced it would do just that. For Washington, which still needs
Pakistan's assistance in hunting down al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden and
the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, the stakes are enormous. "A war
between India and Pakistan would make the conflict in Afghanistan an
afterthought," says Hathaway. "You could kiss goodbye any hopes for
capturing Osama bin Laden."
Of course, on the ground in Kashmir, the stakes are high and
personal. On both sides of the Line of Control, people are fleeing
border villages in fear of war. They aren't the only ones on the
move. At this time of year, Muzaffarabad, the capital of
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, is usually teeming with teenagers in
camouflage jackets who have arrived from Pakistan proper for winter
training as jihadis. But the young radicals these days are sullenly
waiting for buses, headed not for war but for home. Militant groups
confirm that they have been told by the Pakistani government to wind
up their operations, at least for now, and to evict "guest
mujahedin," non-Kashmiri volunteers. The biggest training camp in
Muzaffarabad, run by the now banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, is quiet, as are
its sister facilities not far away. "People no longer sleep at the
camps," says a Kashmiri militant in Aath Maqam, a village near the
Line of Control. "There is a fear of attack by India." In the past
couple of weeks, pro-jihad flags and posters that lined the streets
have been hauled in or scrubbed away.
Commanders of the insurgency insist that despite Pakistan's
crackdown, they can continue sending infiltrators across the loc,
which has many secret passages. "We know we cannot operate fully
without government help. But we can carry on. Instead of 10, we can
send two people into India now," says a Lashkar militant. But without
the help Pakistan once offered, life will become tougher for the
militants. They will face two enemy forces-one Pakistani, the other
Indian.
If war between India and Pakistan is averted, the countries will
still have plenty of challenges between them-and on their own.
Musharraf will have to explain to his people his crackdown on
terrorism, which he used to call by a more glorified name. Lots of
those people lived for the jihad that is now under such attack. "When
I was a child, my mother wanted me to get settled in London," says
Abu Haroon, 28, returned to Pakistan after two years fighting in
Kashmir. "But I opted for jihad after one of my friends died in
India. I abandoned my education and don't know anything else than to
fight and die over there." Haroon is a walking metaphor for his
nation. Pakistan's main moral purpose for decades has been to stand
up to India, and Kashmir has been its principal platform.
India has its own worries. The indigenous militants in Kashmir now
think they have a fighting chance-and they're as bloodthirsty as
their visiting colleagues-at forcing India to start addressing
decades of grievances. Given the stakes of a new India- Pakistan war,
the rest of the world, especially Washington, might now become
involved in untangling the Kashmir mess, a notion India has long
abhorred. Which goes to show that when the world starts changing, no
one knows where it's going to stop.
-Reported by Hannah Bloch and Syed Talat Hussain/Islamabad, Meenakshi
Ganguly/Galar, Ghulam Hasnain/ Muzaffarabad, Yusuf Jameel/Srinagar,
Sankarshan Thakur/New Delhi and Douglas Waller/Washington
KARACHI: Jan 07: A peaceful candlelight demonstration at Hasan Square
urging restraint between India and Pakistan was forcibly dispersed by
Gulshan-e-Iqbal police led by ASP Asif Ejaz and two demonstrators
Aslam Martin and Javed Iqbal Burki were arrested.
Police offices manhandled women and children and snatched away
banners. They tore up peace placards from the hundred or so peaceful
citizens who had gathered waiting for the vigil to begin. Several
hundred more were expected.
Written information for the rally had been provided by the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan to the DIG,
Karachi who had said that the demonstration could take place as long
as there was no procession. But over
100 police officers began forcibly dispersing the waiting demonstrators
before
the vigil even began.
Rally organisers negotiated with police, while demonstrators stood
their ground, but the arrival of ASP Ejaz put a stop to the process.
Male and female police officers armed
with rifles and lathis pushed and shoved the participants and started
arresting them, even as other demonstrators were arriving for the
vigil.
"We would like to know what the policy of our government is," said
the organizers. "On the one hand they allow statements to be
published by religious groups calling for jihad and openly provoking
war, but when we
assemble peacefully, we are violently attacked."
One of the protestors, Dr Riaz Ahmed of Karachi University, was
hauled away by the police but he
to break free when other demonstrators resisted his arrest. His
eye-glasses were broken in the scuffle.
The vigil was organized under the umbrella of the Joint Action
Committee for Peace, which includes about 30 non-government
organisations including HRCP, WAF, Shirkat-Gah, Idara-Amn-o-Insaf,
Aurat Foundation, Labour Party Pakistan, Piler, Pakistan-India
Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy, War Against Rape,
International Socialist Group, CPP, Pakistanis4peace.org, Citizens
for Peace, and a large number of unaffiliated citizens.
Only a few months ago, every village and town in Pakistan was awash
with graffiti glorifying holy war.
Religious groups were openly recruiting young people and calling for
donations.
A new cause was found in Kashmir
Now the offices stand empty, their leaders arrested or fearing arrest.
Some have even renamed their groups.
And all this brought about by none other than Pakistan's army ruler.
President Pervez Musharraf has launched a campaign to marginalise
these groups which previously were believed to have enjoyed support
from Pakistan's army. [...]
Full Text at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1742000/1742651.stm
The Fifth Afghan War, now slowly coming to a close, has changed the
rules of international engagements. The Bush doctrine against
terrorism stated that the US or any aggrieved party would retaliate
for acts of terror not only against those who perpetuate the
violence, but also against those who harbor terrorists.
In other words, the US accepted the Israeli military technique that
inflicts as much pain on the Palestinian leadership as it can, even
as the Palestinian Authority denies its hand in the acts of terror
conducted by other anti-Israeli forces (most of whom are indeed based
in the PA).
But the Bush doctrine, we now find, is not for universal usage, but
only to be adopted by the US at its discretion and by the Israelis
(who crafted it in the first place).
When a group of terrorists drove up to the main gate of the Indian
Parliament on 13 December 2001 and attacked security personnel there
just as the upper house (the Rajya Sabha) went into recess, the
Hindu-Right led Indian government willed that it too wanted to go
after not only the terrorists, but also the state that harbored them.
The US said no.
Foiled by a miscalculation, the men could not enter the building nor
could they create the mayhem that they had so astutely planned.
Gunfire and grenades, as well as a suicide bomb blast, killed nine
people and the five terrorists themselves.
Half an hour later, the Indian streets buzzed with this information
and the media began the inevitable parallels with 9/11. We heard
immediately that 13/12 was our 9/11 and that we must do something to
respond. In truth, the streets remained open and most ordinary people
went on their way as before. It takes a lot to shake a country this
size.
When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated here in 1984 the
first reaction was disbelief, until her Congress Party engineered the
massacre of at least four thousand Sikhs. The mood on the streets did
not reflect 1984, nor did the people feel a sense of dread that the
pogroms may begin any minute.
In truth, the assault on Indian Muslims is ongoing: a massive
campaign against the poor Muslim population of the city in 1993 has
been repeated in small doses ever since. Even as it was possible that
the terror gangs of the Hindu Right may take to the streets, it
seemed unlikely. A cricket tour by England in India had the attention
of many people, as others continued their pursuit of a struggled
living.
But the chattering class went into action. The Hindu Right leadership
took refuge in the Israeli-US logic enunciated clearly by the Bush
doctrine. The Hindu Right spoke of an attack on Pakistan in
retaliation for 13/12 as the investigation by the authorities began
to show that the men might have come from groups headquartered in
that state.
Jaish-e-Mohammad and Laskar-e-Toiba, two insurgent groups formed to
create mayhem in Kashmir in the name of freedom, are certainly a
grave threat to the mild stability that prevails in the subcontinent,
even as the Indian and Pakistani armies exchange fire routinely
across the Line of Control in Kashmir.
JeM and LeT are based in Pakistan, now banned by the US, and given
the same kind of shelter by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) that was given to the mujahidin of the anti-Soviet Afghan war
and to the Taliban. The police arrested three men accused of being
accomplices of the terrorists, just as the leadership of the JeM and
LeT claimed that the Indian state had conducted this attack itself to
manufacture a provocation against the Pakistan-based organizations.
The Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, offered his sorrow for the
attack, but defended the Pakistan-based groups as freedom fighters.
Just as the Hindu Right followed the Bush playbook, Musharraf offered
words that mimicked those of George Shultz before Congress in 1986 to
defend the US support of the Nicaraguan Contras ("The Contras in
Nicaragua do not blow up school buses or hold mass execution of
civilians"; while this was not true of the Contras, it is also not
true of the JeM and the LeT, both of whom are indiscriminate with
violence against noncombatants - itself the weakest definition of
terrorism).
Mimicry was the order of the day. Just as Bush spoke of Good and
Evil, and claimed all Good for any action of the US, so too did the
Indian Home Minister L. K. Advani tell Parliament that "the struggle
is between the civilized society and barbarism. It is also the
struggle between democracy and terrorism."
India, he said, stands on the twin pillars of secularism and
democracy, while Pakistan does not. This Advani is the man
responsible for the assault on India's secularism and he is the prime
mover of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), a mimicked
version of the USA Patriot Act and of the British Terrorism Act. His
claim to secular democracy is as true as Bush's to goodness.
The two sides moved troops to forward positions and the entire region
smoldered in the tension of troop mobilizations. War seemed likely,
except that the powers did not want the engagement to happen. And
this had little to do with the fact that both these regional powers
possess nuclear weapons.
The US did not want the war because it would mean that the Pakistani
military would not do its border duty on the Afghan-Pakistan border
and stop the flow of al-Qa'ida fighters out of the reach of US guns.
Furthermore with US troops posted to Pakistan, an Indian attack would
jeopardize American lives. All the blanket morality of Bush fell by
the wayside when the Indian government attempted to use his logic
against Pakistan.
Domestic compulsions pushed the brinkmanship. Musharraf feels the
heat of an emboldened Islamic Right within, one whose manpower has
been increased by the fleeing al-Qa'ida and other such fighters from
Afghanistan.
Furthermore, the failure of Pakistan's forward strategy into
Afghanistan (viz. support for the Taliban) has forced its ISI to push
harder for a forward strategy into Kashmir, even as this too would be
fated to fail.
Meanwhile, the Hindu Right is eager to win a majority in the crucial
northern state of Uttar Pradesh, whose assembly elections will be in
February. Chief Minister Rajnath Singh was one of the main hawks on
behalf of the BJP, and Prime Minister Vajpayee reserved his strongest
speeches for his visits to that state. Culturally cruel nationalism
combined with a belligerent foreign policy may help the electorate
forget the collapse of the economic destiny of the many as well as
the corruption of the BJP in power.
The powers asked the two sides to negotiate, to dialogue - strange
words after the muteness that preceded the Fifth Afghan War.
Musharraf banned the two terrorist organizations, arrested their
leadership, and asked the ISI to close down its cell that foments
terror in Kashmir. The latter was a startling admission, because
Pakistan has until now denied its obvious presence in the Kashmir
troubles.
When Musharraf went and forced a hand-shake with the Indian Prime
Minister Vajpayee at the South Asian Association of Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) summit in Kathmandu, Nepal on January 5, 2002,
the Indian PM replied that these gestures of friendship must be
matched by actions.
When Vajpayee went to Lahore in 1999 for the "bus diplomacy," he said
at the opening day of the SAARC, he was "rewarded with aggression in
Kargil and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft from
Kathmandu."
Musharraf did condemn terrorism, but then halted with a defense of
the mehmen mujahidin in Kashmir: "it is equally important that a
distinction be maintained between acts of legitimate resistance and
freedom struggles, on the one hand, acts of terrorism, on the other."
Kashmir is indeed the pawn at the center of this power struggle, but
let us not also forget the irresponsible situation created by the
adoption of the Israeli logic by the US government and generalized as
a response to terrorism.
Cooler minds cannot sort out the Kashmir matter if we all act like
the IDF. Tony Blair comes to India as Bush's ambassador, a man who
represents a country unable to deal with the troubles in Ireland, and
yet able once again to lecture that darker peoples about their
problems.
Both India and Pakistan are mature countries that need to provide a
framework within which the border disputes and the Kashmir matter can
be settled. The Bush doctrine and the Blair tourism is no solution,
even as these acts by accident have helped stem what seemed to be an
inevitable war.
Vijay Prashad has recently published "War Against the Planet: The
Fifth Afghan War, US Imperialism and Other Assorted Fundamentalisms"
(New Delhi: Leftword Books, 2002). To order a copy, contact LeftWord
at leftword@vsnl.com.
This letter to the governments of India and Pakistan is now soliciting signatures from organisations, parliamentarians, and prominent persons most urgently, and in view of the situation, needs to be sent as soon as possible. It is to be sent urgently (15th) to the governments of India and Pakistan.
Please get your organisation to sign this letter, and if possible fax a similar one yourself to the fax numbers at the top of this one.
Do you think that you/your organisation could endorse this?
(To sign/endorse just email me back with details of your name, name of organisation, position, and location including country)
John Hallam
---------
PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA A.B. VAJPAYEE,
New Delhi, : PRIME MINISTER Atal Bihari Vajpayee and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair signed the New Delhi Declaration on Sun
day, calling for a "better and safer world". The declaration
enhances India-UK bilateral cooperation in counter-terrorism and
will strengthen the UK-India Joint Working Group on . Terrorism.
Blair assured Vajpayee that he will address India's concern on
cross-border terrorism and do his best to persuade Pakistan to
curb terrorist groups operating from its soil. Blair had an hour-long
discussion with Vajpayee before both leaders signed the New Delhi
Declaration.
Inside a Jackson Heights hair salon, Harshad Kumar Valand and Muhammed
Rafi have snipped and shaved their way to a relationship most unlikely
in their sparring homelands.
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 UN MISSION Fax. + 1 212 490 9656
Aust. High Commission - 6273-1308, 6273-3328
PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF OF PAKISTAN,
0011-92-51-920-3938, 0011-92-51-920-1968 0011-92-51-811390
FOREIGN MINISTER OF PAKISTAN
+92-51-920-7217 +92-51-920 0420 or 820-420
UN Mission Fax. + 1 212 744 7348 Aust. High Commission - 6290-1073
CC
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY - GENERAL KOFI ANNAN
Dear Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers of India and
Pakistan,
The undersigned groups and parliamentarians, representing people and
organizations worldwide, write to you to express our extreme concern
over
the possibility of conflict between your two countries.
A military conflict could all too easily become a devastating nuclear
exchange, which could destroy both countries as functioning entities,
with casulties in the millions. Some projections suggest that up to 150
million people might die, depending on the exact scenario.
Military action, or a threat of military action, could all too easily
lead to an outcome that is not in anyone's interest.
Military solutions to the Kashmir problem should therefore be ruled out.
It is urgent to initiate a dialogue on Kashmir in whatever is the most
effective manner, leading to a real solution to the Kashmir problem.
We do not seek to prescribe in detail any particular solution to the
Kashmir issue. Rather we point out that the losses that would be
incurred equally by both nations in a nuclear exchange are so vast, and so
incomprehensible, that no political, security, or other goal whatsoever
could possibly justify taking the risk of those losses.
Eliminating the risk of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is
a goal which must take precedence over all other possible political and
security goals as it concerns the continued physical survival of both
nations.
Whoever provides a peaceful and just way out of this crisis will have
the gratititude of both Indians, Pakistanis, and the world as a whole.
We therefore urge India and Pakistan:
--To move their troops, especially 'strategic units', but also all
military formations, back from the border.
--To instruct their troops not to return fire if fired upon
--To immediately enter discussions both at SAARC and elsewhere which
will stabilize the situation.
--To immediately restore road and rail links
--To enter discussions as to the most appropriate way in which to pursue
terrorist organisations.
and in the longer term:
--To enter a dialogue aimed at providing a mutually acceptable solution
to the Kashmiri problem.
--To enter discussions aimed at eliminating the risk of a nuclear
exchange
between the two countries, under any cicumstances.
--To work towards lasting solutions toward peace and stability in the
region.
Finally, we urge that both nations take seriously the goal of
eliminating nuclear weapons to which other nations have agreed, and eliminate the
risk of the annihilation of both parties by dismantling their nuclear
arsenals.
We trust that through these and other representations, a peaceful
solution
to the current crisis will be found.
Copy to : UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY - GENERAL KOFI ANNAN
with the request to exercise his good offices to facilitate and ensure
that both the governments of India and Pakistan take immediate steps in
conformity with this appeal for peace by the undersigned organisations
and concerned individuals.
Signed [Organizations and Parliamentarians Signatures]
INDIAN AND PAKISTANI GROUPS
Sukla Sen EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity) Mumbai (Bombay)
Harsh Kapoor, South Asians Against Nukes (SAAN),
S.V. Kirubaharan, Secy, Tamil Centre for Human Rights (THCR) France,
Dr Balakrishna Kurvey, President, Indian Institute for Peace,
Disarmament,
and Environmental Protection,(IIDEP) Nagpur, India,
Prof Ram Puniyami, IIT-Mumbai,
Akhila Rahman, Asiapeace, Berkley, CA., USA,
Ritu Primlani, Thimakaa, San Francisco, USA,
Zahid Hussain, President, Sustainable Resource Foundation, (SURF)
Islamabad, Pakistan,
Yasmin Zaidi, Islamabad, Pakistan,
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
John Loretz, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW), Boston, Mass, USA,
Wiliam Peden, Greenpeace International,Lond, UK,
Ricardo Navarro, Chair, Friends of the Earth International (FOEI)
RUSSIAN/CIS GROUPS
Oleg Bodrov, Chair, 'Zelenyi Zvit' (Green World), Sosnovy Bor, Russia,
Vladimir Slivyak, ECODEFENSE, Russia,
Alisa Nikoulina, Social-Ecological Union, Russia,
US GROUPS
Robert K. Musil, Executive Director, , Physicians for Social
Responsibility
(PSR) Washington, USA,
Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley CARES, Livermore, US,
Carol Wolman, Nuclear Peace Action Group of Mendocino, CA.
Alice Slater, Global Resource and Action Centre for the Environment,
(GRACE) NY, USA,
Preston J. Truman, Downwinders, Idaho, USA,
Phyllis W. Stanley, Environmental and Peace Education Centre, Florida,
USA,
Molly Johnstone, Director, Grandmothers for Peace, San Luis Obispo, CA,
USA,
CANADIAN GROUPS
Senator Douglas Roche, OC, Canada,
Desmond Berghofer, Institute for Ethical Leadership, Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
Sue Fraser, Secy, Vancouver Islanders for Nuclear Disarmament, BC,
Canada,
UK GROUPS
Jenny Maxwell, West Midlands CND, UK,
Jenny Maxwell, Vice-Chair, CND-UK, London,
Lindis Percy, Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB),
UK,
Simon Bowens, Yorkshire CND., Yorkshire, UK,
George Farebrother, Secy, World Court Project, Hailsham, UK,
Dr Wolfgang Hertle, Archiv-Aktiv, Hamburg, Germany,
Hans-Peter Richter, German Peace Council, Germany,
Matthias Reichl, Centre for Encounters and Active Non-Violence, Bad
Ischl,
Austria,
Professor Bent Natvig, Chair, Pugwash Committee of Norway, Oslo, Norway,
Constantin Lacatus, President, Sibenii Pacifisti, Sibiu, Romania,
Steve Leeper, Global Peacemakers Association, Hiroshima, Japan,
Yumi Kikuchi, Founder, Global Peace Campaign, Japan,
Satomi Oba, Plutonium Action Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan,
Haruko Moritaki, Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition,
Hiroshima, Japan,
Haruko Moritaki, Association for Peace Exchange with Indian and
Pakistani
Youth, Hiroshima, Japan,
AUSTRALIAN GROUPS
John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia,
Irene Gale AM, Australian Peace Committee,
Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament W.A.,
Hilel Freedman, Nuclear-Free Australia, Melb, Aust,
Robert J. Hunter, President, Scientists for Global Responsibility,
Sydney,
Aust,
Robin Chapple MLC, Greens, W.A., Mining and Pastoral Region, Perth,
W.A.,
NZ GROUPS
Lawrence F.J. Ross, Secy, New Zealand Nuclear-Free Peacemaking
Association
Hindustan Times, 7.1.02
Cross-border terror must end: Blair
Newsday, January 7, 2002
U.S. Indian-Pakistani Bonds Defy Hostilities Back Home
By S. Mitra Kalita
Valand hails from India, Rafi from Pakistan.
On a slow afternoon recently, with no customers seated before them, the
barbers appeared insulted when asked about their friendship of three
years.
"Dost nahi hai," Valand said in Hindi, pointing to Rafi. "Mera bhai."
Not my friend, my brother.
Steps away, on a table in the Rose Beauty Salon's waiting area, lies a
reminder of why the barbers' bond grows ever more noteworthy. "COLD
WAR!" blares the headline of an ethnic newspaper, above parallel photos of
India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistan's President
Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
"I live in the U.S.A.," Rafi said. "This problem is government to
government, not people to people. When we are together doing our jobs,
all people are happy."
Along the South Asian commercial strip in Jackson Heights, Indians and
Pakistanis patronize one another's shops, employ one another and work
side by side. In Long Island, they gather as teammates for weekend cricket
matches in the spring and summer months. Indeed, the relationships
Indians and Pakistanis have forged on U.S. shores appear to defy the
ever-growing hostility on the subcontinent. Observers say business interests,
economic dependence and cultural similarities bind the communities together here,
thousands of miles from home. But loyalties and patriotism still run
deep among many immigrants - and will perhaps deepen as India and Pakistan
skirt with waging their fourth war since partition in 1947.
On Dec. 13, militants attacked India's parliament in a suicide mission
that killed 14 people. India accuses Pakistan of financing the militant
group it holds responsible; the conflict has also brought renewed
attention to Kashmir, a disputed Himalayan territory to which both India
and Pakistan lay claim.
"Sometimes you do feel what choice are you left with if such attacks are
carried out again," said Ramesh Navani, an Indian immigrant who is
president of the 100-member Jackson Heights Merchants Association. "We
try to keep above these developments, of course. A businessman by nature
tries to stay away from politics. You have all kinds of customers."
Evidence of Indian shopkeepers marketing to Pakistanis, and vice versa,
lines storefronts along 74th Street. At Sahil Sari Palace, the "Eid
Mobarek" sign still hangs in the window of the sari and fabric store
owned by Hindus, offering greetings to Muslims who observe Eid ul-Fitr. The
holiday marks the end of Ramadan, the month of fasting.
"We're not Muslim, but it brings people in," said Sunil Chugh, whose
father owns the store. "On Eid, I gave my friend a hug three times. I
didn't see a difference. When there's Diwali, they gave me sweets," he
said, referring to the Hindu festival of lights.
Across the street, Shereen Mahal, a restaurant owned by Pakistanis,
advertises specials for masala dosa and sambar, foods native to South
India. "Pakistan and India were the same country 55 years ago," said
owner Tasawar Hussain, who lives in Searingtown. "So many people think it's
the same country."
Indeed, in a spate of bias incidents after Sept. 11, attackers often
made few distinctions between Indians and Pakistanis, Sikhs and Muslims and
Hindus. "After Sept. 11, we shared in the racial discrimination," said
Ali A. Mirza, president of Americans of Pakistani Heritage, which represents
1,000 Pakistanis in Brooklyn and Queens, and Nassau and Suffolk
counties.
And community leaders who emigrated from India - a secular country that
is majority Hindu but includes Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists
and followers of other religions - said they have spent recent weeks
touring mosques and churches and temples to present a united front as
Americans. "Right after Sept. 11, there was a joint prayer meeting at
the mosque in Westbury," said Arvind Vora, chairman of the Long Island
Multi-Faith Forum who is a Jain from India. "People probably didn't
expect me to be there, but I was there."
Nonetheless, other immigrants say they have noticed an escalation in
discussion and debate within the South Asian community. "Half our staff
is Indian, the other half is Pakistani," said Tariq Hamid, owner of
Shaheen, a chain of sweet shops throughout the city. "Between them in the
kitchen, they talk. Of course sometimes they get into heated arguments ... but it
stays friendly."
When Anil Vyas moved to a new home in Williston Park a few weeks ago, he
had a housewarming party and invited the Pakistani teammates he plays
cricket with on the Long Island Cricket Club. His gathering of 40 or 50
guests fell on a weekend after the Parliament attack and included a
handful of Pakistani families.
"You don't want to start talking about religion," said Vyas, an Indian
immigrant. "It's a never-ending story. If somebody starts arguing over
something, you divert the conversation to cricket or something else."
Cricket matches between India and Pakistan are infamous for the intense
rivalry they foster. But in the United States, Vyas said, Indians and
Pakistanis often find themselves on the same team.
Many immigrants say rooting for their homeland's cricket team remains
the extent of their patriotism.
"In Pakistan, I cheered for Pakistan," said Mohammed Irfan, owner of
Kohinoor, a jewelry store in Jackson Heights. "That's a game. War is not
a game."
index
HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep
pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 17 januari 2002