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.
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. [...].
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 |