index

Support the Siachen Peace Park Initiative

Honour the past. Secure the future

index

Need for UN's role in Indo-Pak impasse

The world watches India and Pakistan from afar. We applaud steps toward reconciliation and we fear the times of crisis. In the 21st century, war between these two great countries should be unimaginable yet responsible leaders cannot ignore the unresolved issues, especially Kashmir.
Given the well-known history between India and Pakistan, would it be beneficial to augment the negotiating process with a formal plan that will encourage compromise? There follows a proposal that both Indian and Pakistani and leaders are asked to weigh. Either side could call on the UN to adopt the following policy: If private negotiations remain stalled between India and Pakistan, the UN will encourage public negotiations. This plan, requiring full approval by the Security Council, would result in the development of a new international communication process by the UN
The central instrument of this process would be a short series of perhaps twelve to sixteen-page magazine-size "challenge documents" widely distributed within India and Pakistan and also to many world capitals via a handful of national and international newspapers and/or magazines. Simultaneous publication of these documents would take place on an authorized web site.
Terms for such public negotiations might call for each side's initial challenge document to include its interpretation of history, moral arguments, core interests and negotiating positions. If both agree in advance, each side's initial challenge document would be distributed simultaneously. (More later on how this process would unfold without an agreement.) Then, alternating every two weeks, each side would proceed with its own challenge document, responding in the prescribed format. Essentially, the UN would design the form of this new media, while both India and Pakistan would present the substance of their case before the world public within their own challenge document.
Should a foreign idea, especially one coming from America, be considered by the people of India and Pakistan? It is affirmed that this proposal is solely that of the author who has no involvement with the US government. Proposing that the UN plays a role in the creation of this communication structure runs entirely against current US policy, which seeks to ignore or marginalize all international institutions that are not directly controlled by the US. Moreover, technological advances has made the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan a world issue.
With these public talks, the majority of citizens on each side will see more clearly than ever the stark and difficult compromises necessary for an agreement. This will provide political cover for leaders, who can then show their constituencies the complex and detailed tradeoffs necessary to reach a settlement. In contrast, leaders emerging from secret negotiations are vulnerable to extremists who can portray one or two simple issues as a towering betrayal by the leaders who negotiated that deal.
What of India's insistence on only direct bilateral negotiations with Pakistan and no involvement of a third party? This is a direct bilateral process. Moreover, it is not proposed nor anticipated that the UN would be an arbiter or mediator for these public negotiations. To the contrary, the UN's proposed role would simply be to create a neutral communication structure. As a practical matter, if President Musharraf called on the UN to create this large-scale conflict resolution strategy, would it not be difficult for anyone to object to another form of dialogue and engagement between India and Pakistan?
Although extremists on both sides will adamantly oppose this process, the majority within each of these nations will see this as an alternative to the violence of the extremists. The negotiating tradeoffs will be difficult for both sides to accept but each society will better understand the logic and rationale of their leaders - and the other side's leaders - which in turn will tend to marginalize the extremists.
What if one side initially refuses to participate? The other side could proceed with its challenge documents absent any agreement. A key motive to engage in this process would be to favourably influence regional and world opinion. The motive for an adversary to respond in kind would not be some vague notion of goodwill, but rather, to head off erosion of public support. Refusal to take part in this public peace process would also risk worldwide acceptance of an adversary's interpretation of history.
Will people in the subcontinent and beyond be interested in these documents? This direct and unfiltered source of news will constitute a new media that will stand in sharp contrast to the many reports on conflicts we have experienced for years. This process will generate a wide range of media coverage including TV, newspapers, magazines, radio and the Internet. People everywhere, recognizing the life and death nature of these dramatic communiques, may find this multifaceted perspective of enormous interest.
Encouraging both sides to make their cases in this defined format may tempt some to manipulate their version of events. Nevertheless, this direct and equal clash of opinions, in sharp contrast to propaganda, has the potential to yield a greater public recognition of truth than is otherwise possible in today's media environment.
If this public negotiating process culminates in a single document signed by leaders in both India and Pakistan and then distributed worldwide, confidence would increase that agreed-upon terms would be adhered to. Similarly, confidence would increase that terms of an agreement would not be reinterpreted in sharply divergent ways after the fact. Personal trust between individual leaders would also become less important because commitments would be spelled out for all sides to witness. Indeed, a peace process that is less dependent on personal trust between leaders would contrast sharply with all forms of traditional negotiations including the peace conference.
Knowing that the eyes of the world will be focused directly on the central details of this conflict will weigh heavily on all sides. This precise phenomenon may exert much more pressure for the two sides to compromise when compared with conventional secret talks. Therein lies the central objection to this entire strategy - outside pressure. Yet isn't the alternative stalemate and the continuation of a dangerous confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers?
Envision the world reaction to a new series of narratives unlike any we have ever seen. Every couple of weeks, prior to each new challenge document, leaders from within India and Pakistan and also around the world would be urging that side to take incremental steps towards the position of the other. Once a momentum for peace is created by this deliberate, step-by-step process, it could become unstoppable. Thus, will Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf call on the UN to encourage public negotiations if private negotiations stall?
The writer is Executive Director, The Institute for Public Dialogue, US

index

India-Pakistan cold war

Karachi August 29, 2003

Failure of India-Pakistan talks on restoring air links was entirely predictable. The very fact that the talks took place so late, four months after the Vajpayee initiative, was indicative of the fact that the Indians had hesitated to initiate talks on the subject and left the matter to Pakistanis because they had sensed that restoring the air links will not be easy. Obviously the restoration of all the air links --- and with that the restarting of the Samjhota Express between Lahore and Attari or New Delhi --- is going to take some time and effort.
It is the effort that seems to be shrinking on either side and there is reluctance to accommodate the other. The Pakistani restricted interpretation of normalisation process ---going back to the exact situation of Dec 12, 2001--- was happily accepted by the Indians. In which case, the restoration of road, rail and air links should have been a simple routine matter. At most, a few weeks might have been needed to prepare for the regular service on either side. There was, and is, no great hindrance in the resumption of railway link that had existed for so long or the air links that had never been sundered before 2002. No new or major arrangements were required to be made for the restoration of the old services, although a strong case exists for having many more links than had been in operation in 2001.
But that is contingent on what is politically desired by the two governments. If the purpose is no more than going back to the position as it was on December 12, 2001, the conduct so far seems to conform to the cold war mindsets on either side. It is however notionally accepted that the restoration of the old air, road and rail links is necessary. Moreover, it is necessary for both, not for one side only. And yet there is an obvious reluctance on the part of both the governments --- bureaucracies really, though governments have gone along with them --- to implement the simple process of restoration of old services. That should have been no big deal. But apparently there are big hurdles even in the matter of simple restoration of preexisting services, let alone creating new links.
One is fond of putting it as a case of cold war mindsets. The question however is: are there no alternative ideas or vision. Is there no high caliber leadership at all? Cold war was the phenomenon that grew out of 50 years of mutual rivalry and bad blood. Although some leaders have propagated friendship, good relations and strong mutual cooperation between the two countries obviously based on myriad commonalties between the two peoples of the Subcontinent. It so happens that despite the clear enunciation from the days of Mahatma Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, whose initial speeches spoke of India-Pakistan relations in terms of what obtains between Canada and the US. The two governments, driven by contrary political objectives and international intrigue, never took the path of reconciliation, friendship and cooperation. They preferred to remain engaged in a militaristically conceived cold war objective of wresting Kashmir or retaining it.
What the two governments do not see is that this militaristic approach has run its course. It is no longer viable or practical. The year 2002 was the high watermark of the India-Pakistan cold war, more significant than the three wars they have fought. Notionally, a great war, appropriate to the level of the two, was fought. Details are needless. The simple point is that the Indians meant to go to war in order to punish Pakistan for its transgressions in Kashmir. Pakistan was quite ready to fight back--- a war with the proviso that if the Indians were to invade, they should expect the use of Pakistan's nuclear devices. Great powers also intervened. In the event no war, great or minor, took place.
The conclusion to be drawn is that India did not invade because it could not hope to win a worthwhile victory. Let's remember that the Presidents of both the countries, otherwise so different, confirmed that the war did not take place because of the threat of atomic weapons being used. The final point that can and should be made is that that war was not needed and will be unnecessary anytime in future. Neither can India initiate it nor Pakistan can withstand the consequences. The Indians did their own atomic sabre rattling during May-July period of that year. They promised Pakistan near total obliteration of all its industrial and urban centers. Pakistanis were impressed and drew different conclusions. The Islamabad government does not seem to have drawn all the lessons from the 2002 experiences.
The conclusion one draws from 2002 experience is that neither side can afford another war. If so, it is necessary for both to learn how to keep peace --- by doing all that which will preserve peace. This is a categorical imperative for both countries --- unless they want a nuclear night over large parts of the Indo-Gangetic plains. This realization should be the starting point. But this is not there, though is a prerequisite.
Some kind of a vision of peace --- more-than-mere-coexistence ---and cooperation mandates a people-to-people reconciliation for progress of both sides. Sad to say, such a vision is conspicuous by its absence.
It is obvious that Pakistani bureaucrats, on a cue from some stupid cold war warriors, have based policies vis-ŕ-vis air links on the calculation that the denial of the right to overfly Pakistan territory is hurting India far more (Rs.285 crore per year) than what Pakistan is losing by not being able to overfly Indian air space (Rs.25 crore per year only). Ergo, they seem to have concluded that let the Indians not overfly Pakistan and go on suffering more losses. After all India banned the overflights. Let it go on paying more by denying it the Pakistani air space. What is missed is that, supposing PIA losses are no more than Rs.25 crores a year --- by no means certain --- these Rs.25 crore mean a lot to the people of Pakistan who are losing them. That the Indians are also losing money confers no benefit on the Pakistani citizens. This seems to have been the true rationale of why Pakistan has been reluctant to allow overflights. It later developed a whole theory that Indians should now commit themselves through a treaty or otherwise never to ban the overflights again by way of justifying their obstructive conduct.
What is forgotten is that India is as much a sovereign country as Pakistanis think theirs is. Even if it bound itself hand and foot in 50 treaties, what would these avail if politics in India leads it to a point where it ignores all the parchments and starts fighting with Pakistan. It is a needless point to insist on a sovereign state. A treaty lasts as long as it remains in the interest of that country to preserve it. Treaties, at most, might delay something but cannot avoid. Those who are happy with the gun will always downgrade and abuse the written word.
The point that the people of the two countries need to make to their respective governments is that for once they should agree on a framework of ideas that can do duty for what the word vision implies. The rest will fall into place.

index

The unilateral way

When Indian and Pakistani officials again meet in Islamabad today to discuss the issue of restoring airline flights between their cities and overflights through each other's airspace, they should know that millions of people in both countries are keenly watching the progress of their effort. On its success will depend the fate of rail links, and more generally, mutual trade. This, in turn, will both indicate and determine whether and how quickly India and Pakistan can convert the symbolic extension of "the hand of friendship" by Prime Minister Vajpayee into real, material, progress. For, it is not excluded that they could, tragically, even fall short of immediately restoring the pre-December 2001 status quo.
Also in full display this week is the enormous, unprecedentedly wide, gap that now exists between Track-I and Track-II contacts between India and Pakistan. On the heels of the spectacularly successful visit of the 80-strong Indian delegation, including 34 MPs, to a South Asia Free Media Association conference, and the repatriation of young Munir, comes some more good news of citizen-level cooperation between India and Pakistan.
Pakistani Sabiha Sumar's "Khamosh Pani" (Silent Waters) has just won the prestigious Golden Leopard award at the Locarno film festival. Starring in the film is Indian actress Kiron Kher, whose mother was from Lyallpur. The film itself is about the lives of Hindu/Sikh women kidnapped during Partition and forced into marrying Muslim men in Pakistan.
No less significant was last week's meeting between India's information and broadcasting Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and Jang Group chief executive and editor-in-chief Mir Shakil Ur-Rahman to discuss cooperation in the arts and entertainment, including partnership with Doordarshan to distribute the Geo television channel, and organising events like Bollywood "star nights" in Pakistani cities.
Indian and Pakistani book publishers, meeting currently at the Delhi Book Fair, are discussing co-publishing and the possibility of importing books from each other, in particular children's books and natural sciences textbooks.
All these citizen-to-citizen exchanges, marked by a tremendous amount of goodwill, remain wholly unmatched by official-level interactions which continue to be chilly and occasionally abusive and hostile - fully four months after Vajpayee's April 18 speech. Thus, the Pakistani authorities have more than once refused to provide extra buses on the Lahore-India route to meet additional demand (eg when groups of children go across). Indian officials continue to drag their feet on talks on rail links resumption without prior progress on air links. They insist on a "step-by-step approach" to improving bilateral relations and warn against "unnecessary acceleration" of normalisation.
Worse, the two have resumed trading charges. Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson Masood Khan accused India of running "55 terrorist training camps" in Kashmir for subversive activities. New Delhi has retaliated by calling the charge "outlandish" and saying: "It clearly shows that the Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman has a sense of humour."
There is every likelihood that these hostile exchanges will be transported to the United Nations, whose General Assembly meets three weeks from now. Already, Pakistani representative Munir Akram has written to the UN complaining of India's "aversion to talks" and insistence on seeking concessions from Pakistan "unilaterally, through coercive means". India has dubbed this language "propagandistic" and "malicious" and Pakistan's protest "empty" and "self-defeating".
If we are not to witness a relapse into the familiar but ugly pattern of substituting downright abuse for diplomacy, our leaders must make a clear, principled decision. They should not allow the logic of "reciprocity" to vitiate the climate created by positive mutual overtures between the two countries, especially at the Track-II level.
"Reciprocity" in our context means unlimited mutual retribution, and punishing each other equally, in like measure: 'I'll be as bloody-minded and nasty to you as you are to me'. This usually does not apply to the "positive" part of the spectrum of exchanges, only to the negative, hostile part.
This logic follows a Closed Loop: one unfriendly action brings on a reciprocal reaction driven by bureaucratic cussedness and mean-spiritedness. This in turn "provokes" yet more retaliation, leading to a further escalation of hostility. Often, there is "cross-retaliation", or punitive action against the adversary in an area other than the original site of disagreement or conflict. This makes the Closed Loop pattern even more fraught.
There is something inherently, intrinsically and dangerously wrong with the Closed Loop. It takes the calculus of action-reaction out of the purview of reason. It destroys any criterion of deciding what conduct is acceptable and what is not. It means obsessively hurting your adversary badly - even if that also hurts you. There are simply no limits to how vicious you can get and how high you will take the escalation. Your actions are purely externally determined, free of all internal restraint.
We have seen this dread tit-for-tat logic in our three-and-a-half wars, and more perilously, working through our Kashmir and nuclear policies. But there are other examples too. For instance, both our governments routinely hold up releasing innocent detainees - simply because the other side might not do the same.
The Indian government recently told the Supreme Court that it has a deliberate policy of not releasing Pakistani prisoners even after they have served their prison term. When asked to explain why, Additional Solicitor-General Altaf Ahmed said: "This is the only way India can secure the freedom of its nationals languishing in jails in Pakistan." He also said Pakistani convicts are "enemy aliens" who have no right to be released even after the completion of their prison terms unless both countries agree to a mutually acceptable mode of exchange.
Clearly, what is involved here is hostage-taking, something that is profoundly immoral, illegal and should be repugnant to any civilised state. The Attorney-General of India has since given his opinion on this subject, saying such "security prisoners" cannot be used as hostages or levers for bargaining.
Soli Sorabjee says: "Such a stand is legally untenable, apart from the adverse repercussions it will have on the image of our country internationally". He takes the view that "if Pakistan adopts a policy which is unconstitutional and uncivilised, we need not stoop to their level... the government of India has to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the law irrespective of the behaviour of the Pakistani government."
Interestingly, Sorabjee cites Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, pertaining to fundamental rights. These rights are universal. Their availability is not confined to Indian citizens. Based on these rights, the Supreme Court has since ordered the release of 14 Pakistani inmates of Indian jails.
The rationale at work here is clear: certain kinds of conduct on the part of civilised states are simply unacceptable no matter what their "provocation". They are intrinsically wrong, irrespective of the circumstances.
This rationale has wide scope. It should reintroduce an element of sanity and rationality among our policy-making. Following it, our rulers should take some simple measures unilaterally, unconditionally, no matter whether they are reciprocated or not.
Not the least of them should be the opening of airspace and resumption of air and train links, and release of all "security prisoners" or those detained without trial. That is the best way to encourage decent, civilised behaviour while limiting self-inflicted damage.

index

Letter from Pakistan

Karachi August 26:

Pakistani reactions to Mumbai's bomb explosions on Monday were characterised by suspicion and some fear. Knee jerk reactions in both Islamabad and South Block are familiar. As soon as the news broke, Pakistan Foreign Office condemned the incidents as cases of terrorism, affirming that Pakistan is against all terrorism where innocent civilians are targetted.
On the Indian side the suspicion immediately fell on an Indian Muslim students organisation that has links with Pakistan-based Lashkar-i-Taiba (now operating under the name of Dawa after having been banned by Pakistan government). Whether or not the intelligence about a link between the Indian Muslim students body and Lashkar is true, the Lashkar is certainly an extremist Islamic group that has a terrorist record. It has made no secret of its intent to attack Indian targets in India.
The Lashkar's position, after being banned, is peculiar: it foreswears any political aims in Pakistan even under the new title of Dawa. But it claims to have a consuming interest in the Kashmir Jihad. In this it is a close ally of Jaish-i-Mohammad. Both these bodies claim to be operating only in Kashmir in Indian controlled part as well as in Azad Kashmir. Both have acted in close cooperation with Pakistan's military agencies in the past and had enjoyed the benign neglect of Islamabad --- until the Indian and American pressure is said to have broken the cozy relationship sometime in later 2002.
But this is by no means a confirmation of Indian suspicion which looks uncommonly like a reflex action. It is merely a possibility: some such can possibly be the case. That is all. But there are other possibilities.
Among the Pakistani observers and commentators two main streams of thought are prominent --- not counting the establishment's own publicists. One assigns high significance to the exigencies of Indian politics. The other school has its gaze focused on Washington and the complicated games it is playing in the region.
The former school is torn between two possibilities: it is in no position to reject the possibility of Lashkar-i-Taiba having a hand in terrorist attacks in India. But its suspicions of BJP strategists' Machiavellian skills is as strong. Many of them still believe that the Godhra incident was stage managed to make its sequel possible --- which enabled the BJP to win a handsome victory in last December's state polls. Now again four Assembly polls impend in India during the next few months --- and beyond which looms India's national election in Sep-Oct 2004.
A raging and tearing campaign, a la Gujarat, heaping contumely on Muslims and Pakistan, can confer on the likes of Narendra Modi a famous victory. Now this is only a fear. It becomes plausible for such people because they have noted the reluctance of the Indian bureaucracy to implement with any enthusiasm what seems to be their own Prime Minister's programme.
It is true that Pakistani bureaucracy's instinctive reactions are as anti-Indian as Indian bureaucracy's are suspicious of Pakistani moves. But in this case two points have impressed many Pakistanis: the normalisation process is Mr. Vajpayee's initiative and South Bloc was expected to push it harder. This does not seem to be the case; the Indian officials appear quite relaxed at the slow pace of normalisation --- which is what the Pakistani bureaucracy actually likes.
The second school regards June 24 encounter between Gen. Pervez Musharraf and the US President at Camp David to be a watershed. Gen. Musharraf's India policy used to be primarily conciliatory and accommodative towards India before this US visit. It is much harder since. He is also more assertive of Pakistan's need for keeping up the balance of power, not to mention the need for preserving Nuclear Deterrent and all it implies.
Some thing changed and the date is June 24 this year. The new element on the surface is the resumption of US aid to Pakistan. The $ 3 billion aid will be disbursed in six years, half of which will comprise military aid. What transpired between the two Presidents may never be known in full or in their true context(s). But resumption of $ 300 million per year military aid may have achieved a lot more than the small aid figure would seem to suggest. Musharraf could assume American protection even against India despite the expected American disclaimers.
Doubtless, Pakistan was desperate for military aid before June 24 of this year, all its defence strategy having been based on the availability of some hard currencies. Even that did not encompass Pakistan's needs. It could not buy modern military equipment because no one can ignore the formal and informal US ban on major arms producers to sell sensitive modern equipment to a military-ruled Pakistan. It my be easier now for other nations to sell such equipment.
For the rest, bases and terms of diplomatic engagement between two South Asian states have become different. At any rate, Pakistan's relations with India have always been accident prone. Remember Oct 1 and Dec 13 incidents in 2001. The entire year of 2002 had had to be marked by unbearable military tensions and a lot of people in South Asia and the rest of the world could visualise mushroom clouds rising over the Indo-Gangetic plains. Both states are slowly returning to normalcy --- the partial normality of Dec 12, 2001 --- halting and, one fears, unwillingly. And if electoral politics of India also gets mixed up with India-Pakistan relations, it will be good neither for Indian politics nor for inter-state relations.

index

Peace with India - The artists' viewpoint

The fledgling non-commercial gallery, Neher Ghar, is fast emerging as a socially purposeful space for creative activities. A couple of months ago, an exhibition of art works commenting on the Iraq war crisis was held here and this paved the way for another exhibition in which artists were invited to express their opinions and ideas through their creative work on 'peace with India', a socio-political issue which has been in the forefront in recent days. A number of well-known and established artists, as well as young and upcoming ones, from Pakistan as well as India, participated in this exhibition, bringing forth a variety of viewpoints, techniques and media. Quddus Mirza who teaches at the NCA and is an art critic, has helped Neher Ghar to give shape to the idea of bringing together artists on the topic of peace between India and Pakistan and the exhibition which opened on August 18 will continue till September 2. Perhaps the biggest challenge for artists participating in a 'theme' show, especially pertaining to sensitive and even volatile socio-political issues is to convey a pertinent message, and yet maintain the technical and aesthetic requirements of what is deemed a work of art. Often, the tendency is to neglect the latter, and concentrate on the former, and for most artists it is the symbolic approach that appears to work best in such a challenge. How obvious, subtle or complicated the symbolism is, depends on the mind set and style of the artist and it is interesting to observe how one issue can be addressed in a variety of ways.
Among the more conventional works, Prof Ijazul Hasan's large eye-catching and appealing oil painting titled Blizzard shows a few delicate bright yellow leaves emerging in a snowy blue landscape of rocks and bare trees. Salima Hashmi's mixed media work is in her characteristic style wherein the entire surface is delicately strewn with small broken lines and brush marks in neutral hues and in which emerge flowers and stems - symbolism is then attempted through the addition of blood-red blocks and a red dividing line in the central portion, and the work is titled 'No man's Land'. A more obvious but also evocative and touching symbolism is seen in the work is pastels by Rahat Naveed, which shows lighted diyas in front of a black but starry night.
Rukhe-Neelofar's Legitimate Relationship, an eye-catching and attractive painting in acrylics is an aerial view of two brightly clad beautiful young women, one in a green sari and the other in an orange shalwar-kameez, hand in hand, with one's head on the other's lap albeit facing opposite directions as they lie on a richly patterned rug. The work shows painterly skills and is a rather festive looking piece which shows hope. Risham Syed's untitled work has a heavily textured background which is built up to create the subtle imagery of roses and leaves and this frames a painted oval which appears as a kind of theatrical stage because of the image of pulled curtains on the sides and stages a symbolic 'drama' containing a stately columned building on a green field besot by parachutes and guns. Quddus Mirza's Dialogue is an arrangement of two opposite rows of seven small wooden blocks covered with floral patterned cloth, each with the image of a gun stamped on it so that one gun faces another one in the opposite position. This creates a lively and somewhat amusing piece that points out to the duality of political relationships.
Flowers seem to be a favoured though somewhat cliched symbol to represent hope and peace, and another work by Ayesha Khalid titled, Infinite Justice has a big red embroidered rose in the middle of a large frame covered with material that has the pattern of the camouflaged uniform worn by soldiers during wartime.
There are a number of other works that employ a more unconventional approach to socio-political comment and in which the symbolism gains precedence over the display of conventional artistic skills. For example, Sania Samad's Installation consists of an entire room draped in silver plastic sheets and has two similarly framed large mirrors placed on opposite walls. Two stately chairs, placed side by side, but in opposite directions, face the mirrors and this entire arrangement into which the viewer can enter and experience, is titled Narcissism. This installation and other efforts like a video presentation by Bani Abidi, and a lighted lamp with rotating, colliding, fish carrying the colours and symbols of India and Pakistan's flags, by David Alesworth, are attempted to catch the audience's attention in an unusual way and such creations have their own special niche in the contemporary art world.
Most of the Indian artist which include Shilpa Gupta, Kausik Mukhapadhy, NS Harsha, Jaitish Kalat, Sharmila Samant, Jaishri Abhichandni and Riyas Konu, as well as Pakistani artists like Naiza Khan, Aasma Mundrawala, Huma Mulji and a few others, have expressed themselves through small poster-like printed works which were actually part of an international project called Aaar Paar and was held simultaneously in Mumbai and Karachi in 2002.
Ten artists each from India and Pakistan developed a single coloured work which was then exchanged between the two countries via e-mail. These were then printed locally and inserted into public spaces, such as walls, or distributed as leaflets between newspapers in an attempt to get a public reaction. Most of these works are simple, economical but often pithy, more of printed statements than typical works of art, but nonetheless thought-provoking. For example, one work by a group of artists shows a small map of Karachi and highlights all those places which carry an Indian name, like Bombay Paan Shop, 'Dehli ke Dahi Barey' Bombay Biryani and so on.
Riya Komu's piece emphasises the caption Don't' Let Your Friends Decide who Your Enemies Should be and Jitish Kallat's work is like a page on the internet which indicates that there is no way in which the user can download any information on peace.
Thus the issue of peace with India is addressed from a variety of angles and the exhibition has brought together a number of socially conscious artists who can perhaps elucidate some significant reaction from an audience who chooses to contemplate on the various symbols and messages.

index

The Goodwill Bonus

It is unfortunate that while the people of Pakistan and India will like to believe that the climate between the two countries has improved somewhat in recent weeks, officials on both sides continue to be oppressively belligerent in their statements. The old ding-dong continues, as if the past six months since the Indian prime minister's Srinagar speech and the Pakistani premier's warm response to it had never happened. In a letter sent to the presidents of the General Assembly and Security Council the other day by Pakistan's permanent UN representative, a number of charges have been levelled against India for dragging its feet on opening serious negotiations. Indian foreign office spokesmen have talked in similarly negative terms while commenting on proposals for re-establishing air and rail links and the reported US sale of some C-130 aircraft to Pakistan. It is perhaps not so much what is said during these bureaucratic exchanges that is important as the tone, which continues to reflect a mindset that many will now wish was changed or moderated.
Political leaders saying one thing and sounding extremely positive and their officials striking an altogether different posture may be considered sound strategy to keep options open and maintain pressure. Its fallout at the public level, however, has a disconcerting effect, and people are left guessing as to whom and what to believe. It is, of course, impossible that habits formed over five decades of intermittent hostility and bickering should disappear overnight. But a conscious effort should, nevertheless, be made on both sides to promote the atmosphere of popular goodwill that is slowly beginning to take hold and to whose creation a number of peace delegations have made a significant contribution. This would mean softening some of the official rhetoric and commentaries on state-run media. We have played to the gallery for far too long to continue to delude ourselves that this has either a serious vote-catching potential or helps promote patriotism and national solidarity. These attributes are more constructively stimulated by following domestic policies that increase popular participation in governance and further people's welfare.
The governments of Pakistan and India should realize that the longer steps essential to normalization are delayed, the greater the danger both for disillusionment to set in and for hard-crust ideologues on either side to again try to seize centrestage, making compromises difficult. Islamabad at least has repeatedly said that it is prepared to enter into an immediate bilateral dialogue with New Delhi. India appears to hesitate and to link talks with a number of stipulations. But to discuss these stipulations, it is also necessary that these should be taken up at some level. It is not necessary that Mr Jamali and Mr Vajpayee should rush into each other's arms, but contacts at various official levels can at least be started without further loss of time. The question of air and rail links and visa facilities, for instance, should not be the subject of daily statements from either side but form the agenda of a proper and structured negotiating process. President Pervez Musharraf felt confident enough to go up to shake Mr Vajpayee's hand at a Saarc summit despite the Agra debacle; Mr Vajpayee should not fear a loss of face at home if he meets the general when the two are in New York for the General Assembly session next month. Even an exchange of pleasantries should help. The crucial thing is that the present momentum for a rapprochement should not be permitted to dissipate.

index

Animosity between neighbours may blow out candles of hope

Will people-to-people contact succeed when it has yielded little result in the past? This is the question which is increasingly being asked both in India and Pakistan. The answer depends on what the posers of the question are seeking. No, Kashmir may not be solved. The contact will help evolve a solution.
People-to-people contact is, however, a misnomer. Visits of some parliamentary members, journalists or their conclaves do not mean that this kind of contact has taken place. There should be meetings between different members of the society - lawyers, doctors, academicians, entrepreneurs, industrialists and students - involving the common man as well. Only then will the process become meaningful.
The wider the contact the lesser will be the mistrust - the mistrust of the past 55 years. People will begin to realise how much they have in common. They will come to develop a strong desire to accommodate one another to live peacefully. Even obdurate governments will then seek a compromise.
We have missed many opportunities. During the 1962 India-China war, the Shah of Iran wrote to General Ayub Khan to send his forces to fight by the side of India. The Shah sent the letter's copy to the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who, in turn, marked it to Home Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. I was then Shastri's press officer and read the letter.
Long after the 1962 war, Shastri recalled the letter. If General Ayub had sent his forces to fight by the side of Indian forces, he said, the scenario would have changed. Shastri said had the blood of Indian and Pakistani soldiers flowed together on the battlefield, it would have been difficult to say "no" even if Pakistan had just asked for Kashmir.
Shastri's observation was probably true. Instead, we have had three wars and the Kargil engagements. They have increased the distance further. The basic thing is to remove the animosity which has been fostered and nurtured on both sides since day one after partition. It means changing the thinking in the two countries. But fighting religious prejudice, a legacy of hundreds of years, is not an easy thing to do.
First the British and then some leaders pandered to communal elements to keep the two communities apart. The bias they have planted is deep. To uproot it, the idea of a pluralistic society would have to be re-sown.
Straightaway, the official propaganda by one against another country must stop. This was the agreement reached between Nehru and Liaquat Ali when mistrust on both sides took the shape of killings.
There is no bar on the sale of newspapers and books of one country to the other. But cussed bureaucrats have managed things in such a way that no newspaper or book can cross the border. The Pakistan government has now disallowed even the viewing of Indian TV channels.
Even after a modicum of contact, things are not moving because of the cloistered thinking in the governments which do not look beyond scoring points. How can there be people-to-people contact when visas are not issued and police harassment continues?
Six months after Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke at Srinagar for a dialogue and Pakistan Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali's telephone call to congratulate him, there has been only one bus plying daily each way carrying 37 passengers.
Islamabad may be blamed for not allowing more busses and air and train contacts. It seems as if Islamabad is holding contacts hostage to the Kashmir solution. But why doesn't New Delhi unilaterally open its borders and set up a post at the Wagah border itself to issue visas? Terrorists do not use this way to come in, if that is what bothers the Indian government.
The media on both sides can help. But it is jingoistic in thinking and cynical in approach. It looks for negative stories all the time. No wonder, they scoff at the "candle wallahs" because they challenge their biased views. What can you do about the bigoted writers who distort the partition perspective and say that it was necessary for "interrupting the old Islamisation process running across the subcontinent?"
Because of their mindset, the media gave very little attention to the history made at the Wagah border a few days ago. For the first time since independence, 12 members of the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan crossed into India to join the candle-lighting ceremony at the border on the August 14-15 midnight, the hour when India and Pakistan became free.
By participating in the ceremony, the Pakistan MPs defied the dictates of the military and the mullahs not to have any truck with Indians. MPs did more than that. Aitizaz Hasan, one of Pakistan's best minds, was their leader. He said: "Open the borders to let people meet who are determined not to go to war ever."
Fawzia Wahab urged women on both sides to have a vested interest in peace so that "the hatred and bitterness of the past is not forced upon the future generations of Indians and Pakistanis". She said she could see the mood of people in Pakistan changing after the recent contacts. They should not stop.
MPs were not alone to project the message of amity. People were behind them. When I went to the other side of the Wagah border to bring the MPs to India, I found a milling crowd of at least 25,000 with white flags aloft, to see them off. Asma Jehangir, I.A. Rehman, Jugnu Sethi and many more human rights activists were in the crowd. Theirs has been an untiring effort to span the distance between the two countries.
Not long ago the government had banned their visits to the Indian border. The religious bodies had threatened to attack them. But the mood seems to have changed. Officials were co-operative and followers of religious bodies waved the Pakistan flags to express their support. Indeed, a favourable wind is blowing in Pakistan. When I led a parliamentary delegation to that country two months ago, even religious formations said they wanted peace.
I wish I could say the same thing about India. Most 'experts' on this side have a mindset. They do not want to believe that people in Pakistan can change. However, the public in India is beginning to distance itself from such people. There were at least a hundred and fifty thousand people at Wagah to applaud the MPs from Pakistan. Celebrations and songs to extol friendship between the two countries continued till three in the morning.
How different was the scene this time from the one in 1995! That was when only a few of us - former chief justice of the Delhi High Court Rajinder Sacher, Outlook editor Vinod Mehta, former vice-chancellor Amrik Singh, human rights activist Sayeeda, Sikh leader Manjit Singh Calcutta, the late Nikhil Chakravarty of the Mainstream and myself - lighted candles at the Wagah border. What was a small initiative then is turning into a people's movement. Let it spread.

index

Pakistan cable TV vows boycott

Foreign news channels will be among those affected

Pakistan's cable TV operators say they will refuse to broadcast national channels in protest at being prevented from showing Indian programmes.
The Cable Operators' Association of Pakistan will begin the boycott, which will also include foreign news channels such as the BBC and CNN, on Sunday, general secretary Ahsan Ali told Reuters news agency. "Ninety-five percent of Pakistanis want to see Indian programmes," Mr Ali said. "The government should respect public opinion."
Pakistan banned Indian channels in March 2002 during a period of tense ties with its neighbour.
The association, which represents more than 900 operators, said if its demands were not met within the first week of the boycott, the cable services would shut down completely.
The association has been running a media campaign to try to raise public support for its position.

Ban reinforced

The government ban came during a military stand-off that followed an attack by Islamic militants on the Indian parliament in December 2001. "We co-operated with the government last year because of the military build-up," said one operator, Khalid Arian.
But after this summer's thaw in relations, he said, some Indian programmes began to be broadcast again.
However, the government quickly moved to reinforce the ban.
The government wants to keep out Indian channels that have eaten into the advertising revenue of state-run Pakistan Television.
It is also under pressure from Islamic parties that are bitterly opposed to what they regard as an Indian cultural invasion.
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority has appealed to the operators to drop the boycott.

index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 5 september 2003