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

index

Rediff.com, October 10, 2003

India's nuclear infrastructure nearly ready

By Josy Joseph

India is in the process of raising dedicated nuclear missile groups and constructing underground nuclear shelters, senior officers in military and civilian agencies involved in creating India's nuclear infrastructure told rediff.com.

However, they admit to several gaps in the set-up.
The major leap in India's nuclear capability has been the recent decision to operationalise Agni-I and Agni-II missiles, dedicated fully to a nuclear role. The 700-km range Agni-I will be used in case the retaliation is aimed against Pakistan, while Agni-II will cover most Chinese targets.
Agni-I was developed in the wake of the country's experiences in the Kargil conflict of 1999 when the government realised the need for a missile with a range to cover major strategic installations in Pakistan.
While the Prithvi missile was found insufficient to cover the whole of Pakistan, the 2,000-km range Agni-II overshot the requirement.
Agni-I and Agni-II missiles are being inducted as different missile groups in the army. The handing over of the missiles to the army has left the Indian Air Force unhappy, but sources insist that the launch of the missiles will be through the Strategic Forces Command. Other than the missiles, India will depend on its fighter planes for nuclear delivery if it comes to that. The Mirage 2000s based in Gwalior and other fighters such as Jaguars and SU-30 are all capable of carrying nuclear weapons. "Aircraft are integral part of the nuclear arsenal. But in all probability missiles would be preferred," an officer said.
India's dream of developing a nuclear submarine, considered the safest platform for a second strike, still remains a distant one. This October-November are crucial days for the ATV (Advanced Technology Vessel) project as its team assembles in Chennai to carry out land tests of a scaled down reactor for the submarine. India's desire to lease a nuclear submarine from Russia is also stuck because of the lack of progress in the negotiations over the acquisition of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier. Russia has said it is ready to discuss leasing of the nuclear submarine and Tu-22 long-range nuclear capable aircraft if India concludes the Gorshkov deal. Reacting to Defence Minister George Fernandes' claims this week that India has 'established more than one (nuclear control) nerve centres,' the officers said foolproof nuclear shelters are yet to be operationalised. "What he was talking about was only ad hoc systems in place," a senior officer said. "Creating permanent facilities that can stand NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) attacks would take time, patience and a lot of technological incorporation," a senior officer told rediff.com. One such facility for emergency evacuation of the prime minister and his Cabinet is being created in New Delhi just behind South Block near the prime minister's office.
Similar facilities are also being created at the prime minister's Race Course Road home and "elsewhere in the country," an officer said. The nerve centres for retaliation and protection of the chain of command would be scattered across the north and south of the country. "We are taking into consideration all eventualities," an NBC expert said.
Some facilities would be nuclear command shelters and other VVIP shelters. But how elaborate the structures would be, the number of these shelters etc "would be revised as we go along," he added. An area of major concern is the hiccups in acquiring state-of-the-art executive jets for the prime minister and other VVIPs. The government had proposed to acquire three executive jets from Boeing and negotiations were at an advanced stage when problems arose. The deal for three Boeing 737-700s, with protection suit against missile attacks and encrypted communication systems, is stuck because the company refused to transfer the technologies for these systems.
A senior IAF officer said they do not want any embarrassment of the sort that the Chinese faced. A similar VVIP plane supplied to the Chinese was bugged and its detection led to a diplomatic row between China and the US. Some officials say several decisions have been delayed due to bureaucratic sluggishness. They point out it took the government almost a year to allot finances to the newly created Strategic Forces Command.

index

SACW, October 10, 2003

The Great Betrayal

Sajad Gani Lone

A split in the Hurriet conference, scream aloud the various sections of the media. There seems to be a tearing hurry to write the obituary of the Hurriet Conference. Has the irrelevant, reviled, abused, detested Hurriet conference actually split? Is there a meeting ground for India and Pakistan _ a unique occasion to celebrate the demise of a Kashmiri political platform? The issue of the split needs deep and sincere analysis. If there is a split, the nation need not be kept in the dark. However if there is no split and yet a perception of a split is created, it assumes greater significance. Why is this perception being created? Who benefits from this perception? Who are players interested in creating this perception? Who are the tools used in creating this perception? And most important, who has betrayed the nation and the martyrs? Who is a traitor?

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT
The constitution of the APHC is exhaustive enough to identify the true APHC. The confusion arises either out of deliberate, flawed, interpretation of the Constitution or ignoring the existence of a constitution.
The APHC was formed in the year 1993. It was a coalition of different political parties subscribing to diverse ideologies, bound together by a unified objective. Legal luminaries sat together and devised a constitution for the alliance. Right from the outset, it was explicitly a coalition of political parties and not of individuals. Every party in turn nominated a person to represent their respective party in the coalition. The executive council comprised of seven parties and the general Council comprised of twenty-five parties. There was a clear demarcation of power and the executive council was all-powerful and the general council had an advisory role. If my basic interpretation of the constitution is correct and if APHC is indeed a coalition of political parties, I have a simple question. In my very humble capacity, I would like to ask Geelani Sahib _ What party does he represent? About thirty parties were initially a part of the APHC alliance. Among these parties, which party has nominated him to represent it in the APHC? Or has he formed or joined a new party? Is it Jamaat Islami or PDP or does he represent an invisible agency? What is the role of an individual devoid of any party, in a coalition of parties and how can he lay claim on the title of the coalition?
Geelani Sahib played an active and an important role in the formulation of the present constitution of the APHC. Morally, ethically and politically he is committed to this constitution. A newcomer like me could raise queries. But he is one of the creators of constitution of APHC. Can the creator of the constitution literally rape the same constitution if it ceases to serve his interests?
Till date the General council had no say in the election of the Chairman. Suddenly they acquire a status bigger than the constitution and a group of parties in the general council bring a so-called motion of no confidence against the chairman. If a group does not have the right to elect how can they have the right to recall? The actions of these individuals have no constitutional validity.

ROLE OF MEDIA
Some newspapers are bending their back backwards by trying to add suffixes to APHC, thereby actually endorsing a split. Is it ethical? All the newspapers published in the valley have to register with registering authorities in order to get a title for the newspaper. Every newspaper in the valley accepts the Indian constitution. Only Indian nationals are allowed to publish newspapers. I do not intend to hold this against them. But let us assume a situation, where the newspapers refused to accept the Indian Constitution and refused to get registered or say that there is no registering authority. Bashir Manzar of the Kashmir Images was earlier working with the Greater Kashmir. In the absence of the registering authority, he could have printed a newspaper under the name and style of Greater Kashmir. We would get two versions of Greater Kashmir in the morning. Everybody ever associated with any newspaper would print another version under the same name. Imagine the confusion. APHC is not registered with the registering authority i.e. the election commission of India, because it does not accept the Indian Constitution. Had it been registered, it could have legally barred anybody from misusing the name of APHC. So we have a situation where adherents of the Indian constitution are able to confuse the people, because the APHC does not accept the Indian Constitution. I leave it to the conscience of the group in question to decide that if legality would be the deciding factor, would they have been able to confuse the people about the real and the true APHC headed by Maulvi Abbass Ansari.
PTV has gone some steps ahead and blatantly recognized the deserters as the true APHC. In case of PTV, I have a rather difficult choice to make. Which fiction is better in PTV- the one depicted in their famed drama serials or the one so shamelessly depicted in the newsroom? I think the newsroom fiction is better any day.

NITTY GRITTY OF THE DESERTERS; THE EIGHT WONDER
The servile group of people collected by Geelani sahib does not really constitute the " who is who " of Kashmir. Who are these unknown wonders and why are some quarters keen to thrust them on the people of Kashmir. There is a single individual who calls himself the Muslim Conference. There are two individuals who call themselves Peoples Conference. Geelani Sahib is yet to decide what to call himself. Thousands or hundreds of thousands of cadres of these parties do not matter. What matters is whether Geelani Sahib endorses any party or not. The assassination of Shaheed e Hurriet made Peoples Conference sacred to its adherents. Today two isolated and lonely individuals want to create a nuisance in the name of peoples Conference at the behest of those people suspected of creating the vicious environment, which ultimately led to the assassination of their leader. This is Geelani Sahib_s petty way of getting back at Lone Sahib. If the rank and file of Peoples Conference or for that matter Muslim Conference is willing to accept these individuals as their leaders, how can one possibly dispute their claim? By the same token if these individuals cannot garner the support of even one person of any prominence or stature in the party or among the cadres, how can any sane person even suspect them of representing the parties they purport to represent? In the seven- member Executive Council, three parties including the Jamaat are undecided and not a single party has crossed over to the deserters. Still the deserters insist on calling themselves the APHC. These unknown entities headed by a notorious entity are the tools of a larger plan. The objective is not to highjack APHC. The objective is to discredit APHC and create suspicions about the credibility of APHC as the advocate of the overwhelming sentiment of Azadi.
The evil strategy of the perpetrators of this crime against the Kashmiri nation, is to collect a group of political eunuchs raised on a diet comprising of nuisance and lung power and coerce the Kashmiri population to accept them. In a shameful incident in Gujarat, Zahira an eyewitness of the killing of her relatives refused to testify against the rioting thugs. The refusal to testify does not mean that she endorses Narender Modi's concept of hindutva. The refusal is a testimony of the fear among the Muslims of Gujarat instilled by Narender Modi and his thugs. Similarly if people in Kashmir are keeping mum over the attempted desecration of a politically pious Kashmiri platform, it does not mean that they endorse the actions of the desecrators. Narender Modi's Muslim counterparts are present in Kashmir and the Muslims of Kashmir are as terrified as the Muslims of Gujarat. The dividing line between respect and fear is very thin. Only conscience can answer whether people are quiet out of respect or fear. And only conscience can answer whether somebody should be proud or ashamed, that after fifty years in politics, he has to resort to fear and threat of violence in order to get political acceptance. The thin crowds attracted by these Friday special leaders should have been an eye- opener. But do people really matter in the scheme of things of these leaders?

THE SENTIMENT
Let us analyze the broader, macro dynamics of the situation. The Kashmiri nation is pursuing the sacred objective of achieving the right to self-determination. Despite fifty five years of physical union, the Indian state has failed to convince or coerce the Kashmiri nation to stay on as a part of India. The struggle of the Kashmiri nation largely political in nature manifested itself in the form of a violent outburst and has continued in this form for the last thirteen years. The journey to liberation especially the last thirteen years has cost the Kashmiri nation thousands of lives, unimaginable collateral damage, handicapped young men, violence related social upheavals. This forms the core bank of sacrifices. Every household has contributed to the bank of sacrifices and is a sacred national treasure.
Maybe it is time to look at the whole situation from a psychologist's perspective. What is it that motivates an entire nation to render sacrifices of such a heroic scale and endure an unending tale of suffering and pain? Answer lies in the overwhelming sentiment prevalent in the population i.e. the sentiment of Azadi. More important is the question - if the sentiment motivates people to render sacrifices, what is the guarantee that these sacrifices will actually translate into liberation? The answer lies in the strength, conviction and vitality of the sentiment. Sentiment is the sole guarantor of the sacrifices rendered. As long as the sentiment of Azadi is strong, the sacrifices rendered are relevant. The day the sentiment weakens, the sacrifices will grow stale and lose relevance. Anybody weakening the sentiment truly conforms to the standard definition of a traitor.
What is APHC? APHC is not the sentiment. It is the advocate of the sentiment _ a political mode of communication, symbolizing the existence and strength and vitality of the sentiment. If somebody is trying to discredit or weaken the APHC, he is weakening the sentiment by diluting the strength of the argument put forward by the APHC by projecting it as a feeble voice as a result of division. The argument will be the same, the sacrifices will be the same, the anguish and pain of losing loved ones will be the same, but the credibility could be diluted. There will be a difference between the perceived strength and the actual strength of the sentiment. People behind the creation of the perception of the split are responsible for the dilution in the credibility of the argument. Internally there could be a more vicious fallout at the source of the sentiment. The people could be dejected at the internal wrangling, which could in turn have a negative impact on the sentiment. Imagine going to the mother of a martyr and soliciting her support for the real faction of the APHC. What do you tell her? I am the real one and not the other one or does she or thousands like her really matter. The perception of a split or a split translates into fatal danger to the spirit of the sentiment. And I repeat _ if the sentiment is lost, the sacrifices rendered lose their relevance. Thousands of Geelanis and similar hirelings will be rendered irrelevant and their rabble-rousing antics and emotional theatrics will have no employers.
The power behind the argument we all put forward is derived from the people of Kashmir, not from any individual or country. The most famous example is that of Sheikh Sahib. He was undoubtedly the most popular Kashmiri leader and advocated Azadi at a certain stage and abandoned the advocacy at a later stage. Even Sheikh Sahib's charisma and popularity could not finish the sentiment. The sentiment in fact thrived and prospered. Yet if somebody is suffering from delusions and feels that he is the monopolized creator and coordinator of the concept of liberation, one could only offer sympathy towards the deluded person and pray that his psychiatric condition and sense of delusions show signs of recovery. However if the sense of delusion exhibited is intentional, the intentionally deluded person needs to have mercy at the people of Kashmir.
The struggle and sentiment of Azadi predates the participation of almost all the present actors in the Azadi industry. Nobody can take credit for creating the sentiment. The struggle, the pain, the suffering and the defiance exhibited by the Kashmiri nation, defines the creation of the five - decade old sentiment. Maybe it is time to ask what have the Azadi Robin Hoods have contributed towards the sentiment and the struggle for Azadi and what has the sentiment contributed towards the personal and political fortunes of the Azadi brand of leaders? IS AZADI RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THESE LEADERS OR ARE THESE LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE CONCEPT OF AZADI? The people of Kashmir are the best judge. Desperation is mounting to make a historical distinction between people who EXPLOIT the sentiment and people who ADVOCATE the sentiment.

THE CLOUT FACTOR
Tripartite talks signify the politically logical culminating stage of the present struggle in Kashmir. Talks will start and have to start. Will the talks be a repetition of the historical ritual of involving India and Pakistan and talking for the sake of talks? OR precisely_will there be a third seat at the negotiating table for the Kashmiris. Who among the Kashmiris will sit on that seat? The present desertion of some individuals in the Hurriet has to be correlated with issue of Kashmiri representation.
If political pressure within Kashmir increases and at the same time external pressure is applied by the international community emphasizing the need for Kashmiri participation, who will represent the Kashmiris. Irrespective of the public posturing, absence of Kashmiris at the table suits both the countries. The net political clout at the negotiating table at the moment is divided between India and Pakistan. Inclusion of the Kashmiris will mean an increase in the clout of the Kashmiris at the cost of India and Pakistan. None of the two countries exactly relishes such a situation. The first part of the strategy is to impede efforts of involving the Kashmiris. The second part is to create confusion about the political definition of Kashmiri leadership. The Indian definition of Kashmiri leadership will mean individuals like Mufti Sahib and Farooq Sahib, while the Pakistani definition of Kashmiri leadership will mean individuals like Geelani Sahib. Where does that leave the Kashmiri definition of Kashmiri leadership? The two countries will fight each other about the definition of Kashmiri leadership and in the process crowd out the true Kashmiri leadership and as per plan end up creating enough confusion to get the Kashmiri leadership labeled and sealed as DISPUTED. While India and Pakistan will talk about our future, we will be relegated to religiously playing the role of the eternal sufferer in the Kashmiri dance of death and additionally we will be fighting each other out to lay claim to the coveted title of Kashmiri leadership. At least we should know that in the absence of a split in the Hurriet, why is desertion by some individuals being given the perception of a split.

CHALLENGES AHEAD
In spite of the betrayal, the changed scenario in the separatist leadership has come up with new opportunities. It has provided a historical opportunity for institutionalizing the Pro Kashmiri forces. Sheikh Sahib was a pro Kashmiri leader with a truly mass following. However he could not translate his Pro Kashmiri slogans into practice and finally gave up midway. Thereafter the institution of a pro Kashmiri platform has not been able to realize its full potential and emerge as a strong force. Time has come for a rethink. Let there be no confusion in our slogan- no, ambivalence. Let us take pride in saying it loud and clear _ Kashmir first Kashmiri first. The onus of providing the pro Kashmiri political thrust, falls on the APHC. They will have to rise to the occasion and deliver on behalf of the people of Kashmir. The political distinction between the various shades of political leadership in Kashmir should no longer stay blurred. If Mufti Sahib and Farroq Sahib are the Indian face of Kashmir; if Geelani Sahib is the Pakistani face of Kashmir, APHC is the Kashmiri face of Kashmir. APHC owes it to the people of Kashmir. The portents are good and the political sagacity and resilience demonstrated by Abbass Sahib and Professor Ghani Sahib in particular is a matter of Kashmiri pride. Their utterances and political postures at perhaps the most demanding times have been exceptional and will form a part of history. In a vicious environment, overwhelmed by violence, fearless policy decisions by political elements is indeed an outstanding trait, so scarce in a nation where majority of the so called leaders are busy bartering dead bodies in exchange for personal favors and self glorification. Only a sustained replication of such selfless behavior can clear the confusion created by various covert agencies. The APHC will have to demonstrate a behavior, which is palatable and acceptable to the international community. They will have to take care that they do not start competing with the radicals. In a worst-case scenario of destructive competition, we could end up with a moderate Geelani and a hard-line APHC. APHC represents the people of Kashmir and they have to compete with India and Pakistan in presenting their case before the international community. There is no need to give credibility to the set of Kashmiri hirelings employed by both the countries. And even India and Pakistan need to understand that individuals who betray their own nation should never be expected to be loyal to alien nations, whatever the size of perks.
The people of Kashmir are perhaps facing an even bigger challenge than the leadership. They will have to make a distinction between demagogues and sincere political leaders. It is easy to raise an emotional pitch in the name of the martyrs. Even the most sane person could get swayed by professional rabble rousing actors and professional mourners in circulation in Kashmir. But a nation crippled under the burden and debt of thousands of martyrs cannot afford the luxury of getting swayed. Should the people allow themselves to be lectured in the name of martyrs OR should they be asking questions in the name of martyrs. We are living in the twenty first century. Thousands of societies exist to prevent cruelty against dogs and other animals. We as a nation sacrificed thousands of lives in this twenty first century and yet we seem to be nowhere near our objective. Is the enemy cruel and brutal and unmoved by these sacrifices or are our leaders incapable of properly portraying the scale and magnitude of sacrifices. The answer is, a bit of the both. Apart from ruthless enemies we have to put up with even more ruthless leaders. They are asking for more and more and yet assigning no yardstick to monitor their own performance. One thing really amuses me. When some of our leaders talk about the nation they are idealistic to the core. However when they confront their day to day personal problems they are hardcore realists. It is the nation that will have to remind these leaders to maintain a consistent approach of realism both for the nation and their personal lives. Until the people rise and revolt, the Kashmiri children and youth are destined to die and the enemies of Kashmir will prosper at the cost of Kashmiris.
The writer is the Chairman of Peoples Conference and had written this write-up for Daily Kashmir Images, Srinagar, India.. The views expressed in this article are his personal views and do not partly or wholly constitute the policy statement of Peoples Conference. [...].

index

The Nation (Pakistan), October 8, 2003

Bus to Delhi

Dr. Mubashir Hasan

Nothing exists in the world like Lahore-Delhi bus service. It is not an economic proposition but a political triumph of sorts. Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had inaugurated it some years ago when he came to Lahore for his famous summit meeting with Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.
The service operates in the most extraordinary, even weird manner. Through crowded towns and highways, the bus to Delhi hurtles like the VIP cavalcade which is late for its appointment. On every road crossing of its 530 km journey, police ensures its passage without a stop. One for each district administration en route, a relay of police vehicles, two in front, flying red flags and one carrying an armed guard in the rear roar to guarantee the safety and unhindered passage of the bus.
With sirens blowing all the way, men in pilot vehicles clear the way for the bus with merciless zeal, waving battens in the air, sometimes hitting drivers of scooters, scooter rickshaws and their vehicles which are slow in yielding the way. All red lights are violated with impunity. It is an ugly sight. The aggressive behaviour of the police in the two Punjabs, Haryana and Delhi is identical in this respect. At Lahore and Delhi and at five stops on the way, there is heavy presence of police and security men and women in plain clothes guard the passengers and the bus. I experienced the journey on Friday, 26 September, 2003. The passengers started arriving at the Falettis Hotel at 4 am to board the 6 am bus. No proper bus station, even a make-shift one, has yet been constructed in Lahore. Two rooms, the veranda in front of the rooms and the outside tarmac serve as a bus station for the next 2-3 hours. The entire perimeter is cordoned off by police personnel serving as a fence to enclose the passengers. The difficult duty often resulted in unpleasant exchanges. There were no proper arrangements to check the passengers and their baggage for disallowed items, to seat all the passengers in a comfortable lounge, to put the checked-in baggage in safety, to issue boarding passes in an organised way as at airports. The loading of the baggage on the bus remained the responsibility of the passengers. They had to pay for it. The porters fleeced the passengers left and right. All told, the arrangements at the Falletis boarding station are quite unsatisfactory.
The bus had a seating capacity for thirty-nine passengers. We were fifty on that Friday morning. The extra eleven passengers were accommodated on small fragile folding chairs in between the two regular rows of seats and at the back in the space meant for luggage. A heavy set man requiring a seat of more than two feet base had to be precariously perched on a chair with a seat hardly a foot wide. The eleven additional passengers meant 220 kgs of extra luggage which necessitated special arrangement to tie it on top of the bus. Some had to be placed inside the bus. The overloading also meant extra time at the two immigration and customs checkpoints on both sides of the border. Because of the overloading, we reached Delhi almost four hours late.
Overloading the bus was irregular. Someone defied the operational orders and took huge risks with the passenger's lives and PTDC's liability. The bus got delayed. The two bus drivers who were on duty from 4 am to 10 pm and were to bring back the bus to Lahore the next day were left no time for rest. In case of an accident, which is bound to take place some day for sneaking the bus through densely populated route at high speeds with overworked drivers, the damage claims by the passengers on account of injuries and deaths would bankrupt the PTDC as the insurers would not accept the liability when the regulations are broken. The way the bus plies now carries heavy risks.
At Wagah all luggage had to be unloaded for customs check and passengers had to go through immigration formalities. It was a slow and primitive process - carrying luggage on heads and shoulders. Once again the porters fleeced the passengers. For immigration formalities, there were three windows, one for foreigners, one for Indians and one for Pakistanis. The passengers had to stand almost on roadside to get their passports stamped for exit. The procedure in place at Wagah makes a mockery of the procedure followed at our international exit and entry points where computers record data as well as images. This is a weak link in our security watch. Wagah urgently needs a proper building for customs and immigration clearance. I inspected a building that was built three years ago for the customs. It was used by other agencies and never handed over to the department it was made for. All fittings and fixtures, electrical, mechanical, plumbing were ripped off and vandalised. Any way, the building is architecturally unpleasant, too small for its task with no space provided for immigration formalities.
Crossing the border was eye opening. The bus stopped at a modern spacious building which had polished floors, glass doors and shining chromium. There were chairs for passengers and tables to fill the disembarkation forms. The immigration staffs were courteous and helped the passengers in filling the forms. The inspectors fed their data on computers which were linked on the national network of India. Unlike the Pakistani side, the customs staffs were in full uniform and in large numbers. Discipline and efficiency was in the air. No less than six counters were operating. In the compound the trees, shrubs and hedges were well looked after. Border formalities on both sides over, the run to Delhi started in right earnest. Much needs to be done to improve the sound system and the quality of audio and video players and cassettes. Since tastes differ, it would be desirable to fit the seats with headphones for passengers to avoid the discomfort of seeing and listening what one may not like. All seats also need to be provided with seat belts.
At Delhi the bus enters a proper international terminal having all the facilities which Lahore lacks - screening devices, lounges etc. The biggest challenge of the bus service is non-availability of seats. The outward journey is solidly booked for the next six to eight weeks and when you do travel there is no way to book the return journey. If you are lucky to be among the first thirty-four (as five seats are reserved for government nominees) in the queue at Delhi, you can buy a ticket for the bus leaving after 30 days. As a result a stay in India for a minimum of 30 days becomes mandatory.
A Pakistani gentleman, who was visiting a town more than 2500 km south of Delhi, related his ordeal of travelling to Delhi to buy a ticket for Lahore. He was told that none was available for a month. As his visa was due to expire before the end of the one month period, he had to travel all the way back to get the visa extended. He travelled to Delhi once again to buy the ticket, then returned to the place he had come to visit and then finally travelled once again to catch the bus to Lahore. One extra month stay was an oppressive burden.
The present procedure of selling tickets is nothing short of madness. It is an invitation to corrupt practices. The booking office at Lahore should have the authority to book some Delhi - Lahore seats, say 10 to 15 per bus. In the same way the Delhi booking office should be able to book an equal number of Lahore- Delhi seats. All said and done, a bus is better than no bus, no train, no plane.

index

SACW, October 7, 2003

Myth of people's power: Relations between India and Pakistan

by Mubarak Ali

Believing that the ruling classes of India and Pakistan are not interested to improve relations, some individuals and organizations have made attempts to initiate people to people's dialogue with the hope to pressurize their respective governments to improve relations and end the tension. The question is that how powerful are people in both countries to change policies of their governments and force them to reframe their agenda based on good neighbourly relations. We all know that people can play important and useful role in democratic societies and only when there are deep rooted and strong democratic institutions in their political structure. Even in such societies, state media manufactures public opinion. Recently we have seen that how using lies and falsehood people in Europe and America are misled by their leaders. Those who were aware of this falsehood and organized big rallies to express their displeasure failed to prevent invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In case of India and Pakistan the situation is quite different. Pakistani people, mostly in absence of democracy, have no role to play in politics. In the corridor of power their voice is not heard. Pakistani ruling elite behaves, like the colonial masters, as the mai bap of people and protect them by undertaking all decisions in the national interest. In return they are expected to obey and be ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their country. In India where there is democracy, people have right of vote. After exercising this right, their role comes to an end. On both sides, ruling classes mobilize people's emotion against each other in the name of patriotism and use them for their political and personal interests.
How people are treated when they visit each other's country? Those who are in the category of people, they know it well. Once they approach to the High Commission building for visa, they are welcomed by host of intelligence agencies whose agents ask all types of questions just to harass them. If they get a visa, there is specific condition either to travel by train, by bus, or by air. Once mode of travel is written on the form, it is very difficult to change it. Further, they are permitted to visit only limited number of cities. Rest of the country is banned for them. If somebody tries to violate it, he is immediately imprisoned as a spy. Then, there is police reporting, because every Indian or Pakistani is treated as a potential threat to both countries, therefore, their agencies regard it their national duty to observe his/her movements.
There is a personal experience of police reporting. In 1997, I visited along with my family. We are told that we were exempted from police reporting, a great privilege if somebody gets it. However, on our way back, the immigration officer detected that we were all exempted from police reporting except my wife. The officer asked her to stay back and complete police reporting procedure. In spite of our request to reconsider his decision, he refused. There is no space for understanding in such cases. My wife had to stay back and returned after a week. We were lucky that we had friends who looked after her. If this happened to somebody coming from south India or some other far off city, how could he/she face this problem?
Personally, I have more experiences of police reporting. Once I was invited by Teesta Setelvad, the editor of Communalism Combat to Mumbai to attend a conference on South Asian history. She applied to the concerned ministries for clearance and telephoned them nearly 50 times. I was lucky to get visa just on time for 4 days with police reporting. I was lucky that Teesta had connection in the city and completed police reporting on my behalf. Otherwise, I had to spend half of my time to police reporting and half in participating seminar Another personal experience, not of police reporting but security clearance: in 2001, Nehru Museum and Library selected me for a senior fellowship and sent my case for clearance to Interior, Foreign, and Cultural ministries. So far, there is now news about clearance.
On the other side if an Indian visits Pakistan, how he and his host face problems, is not interesting but irritating. First of all, the Indians (and the Pakistanis in India, it is tit for tat policy) cannot stay in cantonment areas. A clear indication that they are treated as enemy and not allowed to visit sensitive places. Then different agencies watch his movements and inquire about his activities. Again, I have some experience inviting Indian scholars for lectures. These lectures were always open and announcement was made in the newspapers. It was usual custom that after every lecture came men belonging to different agencies and asked about the speaker and content of his speech. Once I got three history books from India. Next day came people from Special Branch asking me that who sent me these books and why? Sometime, it is difficult to satisfy their queries. They inquired about my date of birth, about my education, employment, and about my family. And this exercise was repeated several times. On one occasion when I told the persons that all such questions have already been asked and you must have in your file. His reply was simple that what other had asked was their duty and he was doing his. At one time I became so popular in the Special Branch that whenever Indian scholars visited Lahore, they rang me and inquired about them. Not bothering whether I knew them or not.
Recently an Indian journalist from the 'Asian Age' came to see me. I surprised that next day there were two gentlemen from Special Branch asking me about the journalist. Surprisingly, they are very efficient in this respect. So, the question is that keeping this, how somebody can keep friendship with the Indians? If my telephone is tapped; if my post is censored; and if my movement is observed because I have friendly relation with the Indians. How could we, the people, change the attitude of our ruling classes?

index

October 6, 2003

Back to the barricades?

By M.B. Naqvi, Karachi

Foreign Minister Kasuri has said that an armed clash with India is still possible ---- and one says it may even be likely. Trend of official comment in both the countries points to this conclusion. The peace initiative of the Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee of last April appears to have run into sand. If the normalisation process started by it can still be regarded as alive, its pulse is extraordinarily slow. Not even rail and air services could be restored. The two bureaucracies by their visa policies have choked all chances of the common people on both sides contributing to the normalisation that matters most. Besides, what President Pervez Musharraf and Premier Vajpayee said last month in the UN General Assembly was standard cold war rhetoric to which the world has long been accustomed. There is no doubt, the official normalisation processes remain subordinated to the vigorous pursuit of competitive national security (i.e. arms race) --- with India inducting missiles in its armed forces and Pakistan test firing more missiles. Hearty verbal denunciations of each other create growing bitterness.
Indeed, the war Kasuri talked about is constantly being postponed since 1980's Brasstacks exercise by international effort, mainly American. That American policies have more than one dimension of peacemaking is perhaps not fully realized in either Pakistan or India. They aim at managing both Pakistan and India through a policy of balance of power. While many would thank the US for trying to keep peace on the Subcontinent, its design of appearing to be close to India in one context and favouring Pakistan in another is unmistakable. That intensifies an arms race between the two South Asian powers --- directly as a result of that US design --- to the ultimate benefit of not only the war industrialists but also to the US strategic purposes.
The question is why are India and Pakistan perpetually on the very brink of a clash of arms for all these decades? The fundamental reason, accepted on all sides, is the Kashmir dispute. However, the Kashmir policies of both countries are actually an enigma. It is hard to comprehend Pakistan's Kashmir policy: It began being actually aimed at making Kashmir a part of Pakistan since 1947. But its current stance is that the Kashmiri people have risen in revolt against India and are carrying on an armed resistance on their own. Pakistan merely gives them moral and political support and no more. As for the consequences of India's Kashmir policy, it had better be left to the good sense of the Indians.
But India's current stance has to be noted. The Indian government, for its part, refuses to accept the existence of any international problem about Kashmir, except one: Pakistan-supported terrorism in their controlled Kashmir Valley and parts of Jammu. India considers Kashmir to be a part of India. For the rest, India intends to retain all parts of Kashmir it controls by doing whatever it takes. Its response to the emergent situation is to suppress the uprising and seek a solution through the recently-elected state government for whatever internal problems there may be in Kashmir.
There is no meeting point between the two stances. Both have repeated their stances many times in innumerable conferences and have reached nowhere. Unless one or both sides change their line, there is no hope of peace in future also. One hopes there are Indians out there who take a different tack. One can only focus on a possible change in Pakistan because the maintenance of peace overrides everything, especially face.
What are the nut and bolts of Pakistan's Kashmir policy in terms of its consequences? Pakistani establishment is happy that the Indians are forced to bleed by insurgents in Kashmir. The operational part of the policy is encouragement and support to these insurgents that can scarcely remain confined to words only. But nobody takes its claim of not facilitating the insurgency seriously. The policy in place has two main prongs: Pakistan is enabled to carry on propaganda round the globe for gross abuses of the Kashmiris' human rights by India's soldiery and secondly it has kept up for 55 years an arms race with India to be able to tackle the latter, if it turned around and started fighting. What is the net result of this policy?
The Indians have proved by consistent action that they would retain their possessions in the old Jammu and Kashmir State at all costs. India is said to have 700,000 armed men in Kashmir to cope with the insurgency. An armed revolt by a small unarmed populace against such a huge force does not promise victory of the Kashmiris, aided or unaided by Pakistan. Already a lot of Kashmiri youths --- a good proportion of a whole generation in the Valley --- have been killed. Still, the insurgent side is not an inch closer to their objective. Can Pakistan really help them secure victory? Not very likely. The experiences of the year 2002 and the alarm they caused in the rest of the world combines to ensure that Kashmir problem has now no military solution whatever. Pakistani leadership has acknowledged it in so many words.
If no reliance is to be placed on Pakistan's serious military involvement for getting Kashmir Valley added to Pakistan, why then all this arms race and such a big military establishment that Pakistan economy cannot bear its true cost? What's the point? And why should Kashmiris go on fighting with guns a hopelessly unequal war? Isn't a change of strategy indicated?
The recent events --- Americans have promised an aid of $ 600 million a year and permission to buy military equipment up to $ 9 billion --- have raised the morale of Pakistan's ruling establishment and it would merrily spend $ 11 billion in the next few years. That is, actually most of the much boasted Monetary Reserves. Everyone can be sure that the Indians would, in their turn, ratchet up their defence spending by 4 to 10 times this figure. If this is true, there can be no war between the two nuclear-armed rivals, thanks to the nature of nuclear weapons and international diplomacy. What, then, is the point of all these build ups if they only result in the enrichment of the few, including the merchants of death --- and penury of most of the Indians and Pakistanis. It looks uncommonly like not so much a foreign policy as a folly.
Kashmir problem cannot be left in the air, however. Something has go to be done. If it has no solution by military means, it has to be sought through other means: i.e. through amicable negotiations. But you cannot have amicable negotiations when a furious arms race is going on. It simply means that when and if there is to be any serious solution-seeking of the Kashmir problem, it has to come through negotiations with India in which both sides will have to engage in some give and some take. For that genuine friendship, based on grassroots rapprochement, is needed. It so happens that the Indians, being a satisfied status quo power, are not pushed about the Kashmir solution and is willing to let the problem drag on. Can Pakistan go on with its old attitudes, stances and actions without care? Factually, it has continued the old policy orientation despite knowing that it takes us nowhere.
If the Pakistan establishment is prepared to let Kashmiri youth go on being killed on an escalating scale by letting the socalled Jihad go on with no realistic hope of a solution, it is being grossly unfair to the Kashmiris. Is it fighting India to the last Kashmiri? Pakistan state has to see facts as they are. It has to engage India peaceably and conditions of trust have to be created for that. That the Indians are not talking today is due to Pakistan's own political immobility and perhaps also a political ploy for other reasons. Should Pakistan be ready to seek an amicable and workable solution of the Kashmir problem, without one- upmanship, the Indians will be only too ready to talk.
Pakistan establishment has great influence with Kashmiri insurgents. Pakistan's main purpose should not simply be to go on acquiring arms to reach the elusive goal of bettering the power balance with India and keeping the military tensions high. It had better advise the Kashmiri youth to adopt a more appropriate political strategy. They can and should conduct a local version of Palestinians' original Intefada, the non-violent one. That will cause some problems. But that will be a small price to pay which can be recompensed by a new Kashmiri satyagraha with more promise. That would be a genuine effort to create conditions of trust and real friendship with India with no mischief in Kashmir --- combined with appropriate trade and cooperation policies --- so that negotiations on Kashmir can be held and the problem, hopefully, resolved over time. That will take a lot of doing. But the Kashmiri young men's choice of non-violent agitation would greatly help both the chances of the negotiations and a possible eventual resolution of the Kashmir problem.

index

The Praful Bidwai Column, October 6, 2003

India, Pak in roguish duel: Pull back from the brink now!

Praful Bidwai

Less than six months after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee held out "the hand of friendship" to Pakistan from Srinagar, the rather hesitant and wobbly bilateral "peace process" all but lies in tatters. The two South Asian rivals are back to sabre-rattling. Three recent developments underscore the heightened danger that India-Pakistan hostility could take on malign forms: the exchange of venomous rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly; accelerated preparations in both countries towards the actual deployment of nuclear weapons; and intensified skirmishes, including ambushes and killing of soldiers, in the Rajouri sector of the Jammu and Kashmir border.
This last has a particularly grisly character. According to The Hindustan Times, Pakistani troops "walked across" the border last month. "They ambushed a Jat Regiment patrol and killed four troops. They chopped off the head" of a dead Indian soldier and carried it back as a trophy. In ghastly, ferocious retaliation, the Jat Regiment "shot dead nine Pakistani soldiers. And for gruesome impact [they] brought back the heads of two Pakistani soldiers."
I find the episode utterly repulsive and nauseating. Killing enemy soldiers is legally permitted only when war is declared. In no other circumstances do soldiers enjoy immunity under international law for using force. Killing casually is illegal and unacceptable. And mutilating bodies or chopping off parts of them is downright barbaric. Such medieval practices are impermissible in a minimally civilised society--no matter how grave the provocation and how disgusting the adversary's conduct. Lt-Gen Satish Nambiar, who commanded UN troops in the Balkans, says: "Even in Yugoslavia, I did not hear [of] such things."
Contrary to the trivial and rather silly adage, everything is NOT fair in (love or) war. There are clearly defined rules of warfare, about whom you can legitimately attack and what methods you can use. Non-combatant civilians must not be targeted. The use of force must not be indiscriminate or disproportionate. Inhuman or cruel methods are banned. Even prisoners of war have to be treated humanely. The rules, embodied in international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, are legally enforceable. Their violations can invite severe penalties--as happened to Nazi war-criminals and is likely to happen to the perpetrators of the Rwanda and Bosnia genocides. India and Pakistan have both disgraced themselves by resorting to such ghoulish practices. This shakes one's faith in their leaders' maturity and ability to control their subordinates in the battlefield. It also lends credibility to hair-raising scenarios of devastating nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan, whether accidental, unauthorised, or deliberate. The very least the two armies can do is to court-martial the culprits--and demonstrate that some acts are utterly unacceptable and un-doable.
Less ghastly but much more politically damaging was the free flow of abuse and recrimination between Mr Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf in New York. On September 25, Gen Musharraf launched a broadside against India for its "brutal suppression of the Kashmiris' demand for self-determination and freedom from Indian occupation". In a tit-for-tat reply, Mr Vajpayee assailed him for using "cross-border terrorism" as "a tool of blackmail". He also accused Gen Musharraf of having made "a public admission that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism. After claiming that there is an indigenous struggle in Kashmir, he has offered to encourage a general cessation of violence in return for 'reciprocal obligations and restraints'." Both leaders questioned each other's credentials to hold responsible positions in international organisations. Pakistan placed India among "states which occupy and suppress other peoples, and defy the resolutions of the [Security] Council". And Indian leaders dismissed these remarks as "rubbish" and the result of Pakistan's "annual itch" on Kashmir. Each accuses the other of being the "fountainhead" or "mother" of terrorism and of being "bloody-minded".
Evidently, Gen Musharraf miscalculated the mood of the international community by harping on Kashmir's "liberation struggle" without condemning indiscriminate violence by separatist militants, themselves aided and abetted by Islamabad. Pakistan is today under America's critical scrutiny. As The New York Times put it, "Pakistan's behaviour has fallen well short of what Americans are entitled to expect from an ally in the war on terrorism". If Gen Musharraf doesn't behave, "America must look for ways to reduce its dependence" on him. But Mr Vajpayee conducted himself with no maturity or dignity by descending to abysmally bellicose rhetoric to match the General. Indian officials have tried to rationalise Mr Vajpayee's fusillade by pointing out that Gen Musharraf fired the first shot. This is as unconvincing as it is irrational. What matters is that India has tarnished its own global image.
The venomous India-Pakistan exchange has left a bitter taste and inflicted serious damage upon the fragile and uncertain half-truce between the two states. The most productive features of this half-truce were growing and exuberant people-to-people or civil society contacts. Ever since the Lahore-Delhi bus service was resumed, there have been any number of friendly visits of citizens' delegations, businessmen, schoolchildren, journalists and parliamentarians. The most dramatic of these visits was little Noor's trip to Bangalore for a heart surgery and the explosion of goodwill it generated from a wide cross-section of society. These contrasted sharply with the reluctant and extremely guarded official-level exchanges. Indeed, the two governments have shown they are out of sync with their own peoples' sentiments which strongly favour peace and reconciliation. They, especially Pakistan, are clamping down on citizens' visits through the simple expedient of holding up visas. The worst cases of such denial are the cancellations of the visits of a jurists' and lawyers' delegation and a high-powered Indian businessmen's group.
Secondly, while Mr Vajpayee must be complimented for his "hand-of-friendship" speech, he never discussed his larger plans with his Cabinet or party or prepared the government for peace. Nor has taken the initiative further imaginatively. The people negotiating normalisation have remained deeply suspicious of one another. They have for months quibbled over the sequence of steps to be taken. Ambassador-level contacts were restored and the bus service restarted. But there has been no agreement on the resumption of air and rail links or trade. India made restoration of rail links conditional upon the resumption of flights as well as free passage through airspace. Pakistan, in turn, insisted that air links could not be resumed unless India assures it that it would not unilaterally suspend overflights, as it did last year, and earlier, in the 1971 Bangladesh war. The talks collapsed.
New Delhi has gradually hardened its insistence that there can be no dialogue with Pakistan until "cross-border terrorism" is fully ended. Islamabad has questioned India's willingness to discuss Kashmir. Underlying the failure to negotiate normalisation is deep-seated resentment and suspicion on both sides, compounded by domestic political considerations. It is as if both states had become slaves to a compelling degenerative logic, which militates against reasonable behaviour. Both refuse to take unconditional steps even although these won't compromise their positions. It's as if both had vowed to ensure that the existing half-truce would collapse--by making self-fulfilling prophesies of doom, and helping to realise them.
India and Pakistan are now perilously close to the brink of yet another military confrontation in their unrelenting half-century-long hot-and-cold-war. Both are making furious preparations to build new missiles and stockpile fissile material and to deploy missiles. On September 1, India's newly formed Nuclear Control Authority held its first-ever meeting and took "a number of decisions" on the further development of the "strategic (nuclear) forces programme". These decisions will "consolidate India's nuclear deterrence". Reactively, just two days later, Pakistan too held a meeting of its National Control Authority. This decided to make "qualitative upgrades" in its nuclear programme.
Since then, the Indian Defence Ministry has confirmed that it will "operationalise" the nuclear-capable intermediate-range Agni missile. It has sanctioned the raising of two new missile groups. Pakistan is believed to be more advanced than India in the deployment-readiness of missiles and is about to test-fly the Ghazanavi. Both countries now have a variety of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and reaching each other's cities in less than 10 minutes. There are no worthwhile crisis-prevention and -diffusion, or confidence-building measures in place between India and Pakistan. They are suspicious of each other's nuclear doctrines and repeatedly resorted to nuclear blackmail both during the Kargil war and last year's 10 months-long eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation involving one million troops. Amidst all this, India is reportedly building two special bunkers to protect the Union Cabinet in the event of a nuclear strike which could decimate its political leadership. One bunker is being built right within South Block, in the heart of Delhi, which houses the Prime Minister's Office and the Defence and External Affairs Ministries.
This doesn't highlight security for the Cabinet, but the total lack of security for the 15 million ordinary citizens who live in the Capital. They could become victims of a nuclear holocaust within minutes of a decision made across the border--a decision they cannot influence, leave alone control. An ugly truth stares us all in the face. The threat of Nuclear Armageddon is not imaginary; it looms large over South Asia.

index

The Hindustan Times, October 3, 2003

Genghis Khan can't be our model

Praful Bidwai

We should all be utterly horrified and disgusted at a report in this paper (September 28) on two grisly episodes amidst growing skirmishes in the Rajouri sector of the Jammu and Kashmir border with Pakistan.
Last month, says the story, Pakistani troops crossed the Line of Control and ambushed a Jat Regiment unit, killing four soldiers. Then, in medieval-style triumphalism, they cut off the head of an Indian soldier and "carried it back... as a trophy", along with a light machinegun.
In gory retaliation, Indian soldiers last week ambushed and killed nine Pakistani troops. "And for gruesome impact, the Jats brought back the heads of two Pakistani soldiers." These events are repulsive to a civilised conscience for many reasons. Killing 'enemy' soldiers is in the first place unlawful unless war is declared. In no other circumstances do soldiers enjoy immunity under international law for using force against an adversary.
When Indian and Pakistani armies kill one another's troops almost casually through incessant shelling or ambushes - which has long been a routine at the LoC - they commit grossly irresponsible acts. These show their leaders' contempt for human life.
Legality apart, once you lower the threshold for pulling the trigger - for example, merely because the 'other side's' sentry comes into your view across the LoC, or because you want to make a (false) statement of power/dominance at Siachen - you risk wanton, mindless bloodletting. When 'eye-for-an-eye' retribution and revenge prevail, professional armies are reduced to feuding groups of mafiosi stalking each other in senseless vendettas.
Wantonly killing soldiers is illegal, morally repugnant and militarily irrational. Mutilating dead soldiers' bodies is downright barbaric. It is indefensible under any circumstances - no matter how grave the provocation and how reprehensible the adversary's conduct.
Minimally, civilised societies, or societies that aspire to that description, don't commit and can't permit certain acts not only because their consequences will be bad, or because the outcomes would be worse than the starting point, but because they are inherently wrong and intrinsically evil - and hence impermissible. Genghis Khan cannot be their model.
It is futile to plead for exceptions to this norm. For, once you accept a sliding scale of morality, there's no stopping your own slide down the slippery slope of compromises leading to the abyss.
One cannot duck the issue by saying "war is hell", there's bound to be killing and maiming. It's precisely because war is violent and terrible, that its conduct must be regulated. One doesn't have to be a pacifist to say this. Humanity - including generals and war-planners - has itself evolved elaborate rules and conventions not only about the justice of going to war, but about just means of waging it (jus in bello). Wars are horrible. But some - like those against tyranny or colonialism - can be just. However, they must be fought justly, following rules.
There are clearly defined rules about whom you can attack and by what means. Non-combatant civilians cannot be targeted. The use of force cannot be indiscriminate or disproportionate. Inhuman, degrading or cruel methods are banned. There are rules about reprisals and sieges, about the rights of prisoners of war and ordnance-factory workers, and about application of the vital principle of non-combatant immunity in varying circumstances.
These rules, embodied in international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, are enforceable. Their violations can invite severe penalties - as happened to Nazi war criminals and is likely to happen to the perpetrators of the Rwanda and Bosnia genocides.
The least the Indian and Pakistani armies can do is court-martial the culprits of the two recent gory incidents, and send out a categorical message that Genghis-style methods are impermissible. The urgency of this arises from past examples. During the Kargil conflict, Pakistani troops mutilated the bodies of Indian soldiers. This was widely publicised and rightly shocked the public. But Indian troops, shamefully, did the same thing. They hung the head of at least one Pakistani soldier from a tree - apparently for 'inspiration'. This fact was widely known, but censored.
This raises a larger ethical issue. If one cardinal principle of justice-in-war is non-combatant immunity - that is, civilians must not be targeted - then certain kinds of weapons themselves become impermissible.
Mass-destruction weapons belong here. They quintessentially target civilians and kill massively in horrific and inhuman ways. The damage from nuclear weapons lasts for many generations and tens of thousands of years.
The world has negotiated agreements to (verifiably) abolish chemical (and less rigorously) biological weapons. It's legally committed to abolishing nuclear weapons. The world's highest international law forum has held them illegal and 'generally incompatible' with international humanitarian law.
The World Court pronounced its profoundly important judgment in 1996 outlawing nuclear weapons. India passionately argued for their abolition, indeed for declaring even their manufacture and possession "a crime against humanity".
Two years later, the Indian government committed that very crime. Five years on, it's about to deploy nuclear weapons and building two underground bunkers to protect the cabinet from a decapitating strike.
Nothing highlights more effectively the contrast between security for the cabinet and insecurity for India's citizens - millions of whom have become vulnerable to a holocaust that will make Genghis Khan look like a playful schoolboy and medieval scalp-hunters like angels.

index

Dawn, October 2, 2003
Letters to the Editor

Indo-Pakistan travel links

Now it is apparent that the hopes that the Indo-Pakistan relations will soon be normalized have been dashed to pieces and we are back to square one, hurling allegations and abuses on each other. It is no use blaming one party or the other: we are only concerned with the net result.
However, re-establishing the travel links and either abolishing the visa system or rationalizing its procurement and making it easier and cheaper need not wait for the settlement of the disputes. It is a humanitarian issue and affects a man's basic right to visit his relatives and friends even though they may be living in an 'enemy country'.
What crime have the citizens of the two countries committed to be punished with denial of this right? Or, was it a crime for the Muslims of India to struggle for Pakistan and then, some of them moving to it? It is only they, and the Hindus of Sindh, who suffer from this continued denial.
I urge the two governments to consider the ordeal of the common people and work out some formula under which restrictions for the Indo-Pakistan travellers are reduced to the minimum - and till this is done, at least the Lahore-Delhi bus service may be run on rational and practical considerations of requirements. At least 200 passengers should be enabled to commute daily either way, and for this the frequency and the number of buses need to be increased.
Visa procurement is a big problem. It costs more to go to Islamabad to obtain the visa than going to one's destination in India. If deputy high commissions cannot be re-opened in Karachi and Bombay (and new ones opened in Kolkata and Hyderabad Deccan, and Mirpurkhas in Pakistan), can't visa officers be posted at these places or can't visa be given by post?
Future generations will surely laugh at the irrationality of the present system of visa. We often hear of rationalization of prices or rationalization of this or that system. Why should we not consider rationalization of the visa system as well?
Even 'adabi' and literary activities are adversely affected. The Mushaira Committee of 'Sakinan-i-Shahr-i-Quaid' is holding the annual Aalami Mushaira on Oct 4. It applied for NOC for 13 poets and was given the same for 11, out of which only four could obtain visa from our high commission in Delhi, and even they have not been able to manage their seats in the bus because of heavy advance bookings in the twice-a-week 34-seater bus service. As a result, the Indian poets will be conspicuous by their absence, and the Mushaira will be the poorer because of this. A cultural void has been created by the prevailing restrictions on the Indo-Pakistan travel.
SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, Karachi



index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 27 oktober 2003