index
There are three things that Pakistan's President
General Pervez Musharraf must not do if the
process of normalization of ties with India is to
proceed apace.
He should not invite Indian or Pakistani editors
for breakfast and have a heart to heart chat with
them (under no circumstances should he get the
event filmed); he should not try and answer every
question that is asked of him on the relationship
with India; and, he should not compete with Atal
Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani by countering
every statement that they make.
The General does not have to win an election in
India. There is no need for him to convert the
domestic compulsions of the demagogues of the
Bharatiya Janata Party into his own constraints.
General Musharraf has been brave in saying that
Pakistan is willing to even set aside the United
Nations resolutions to address the Kashmir
question. The late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had done
the same thing when he signed the Shimla
Agreement and agreed to a bilateral negotiation
to resolve the issue. Nawaz Sharif had also
quietly set them aside when the Lahore process
was set into motion.
What is different about General Pervez
Musharraf's statement that came at a time when
neither the UN nor anyone else in the world was
asking for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir? And
why did he make it without preparing the public
opinion in his country to accept it?
This was not a concession that India sought at
this time. And Madeleine Albright's view that
plebiscite is a solution is neither here nor
there because she represents no one but herself
on the lucrative celebrity lecture circuit.
What General Pervez Musharraf seems to be
suggesting by his statements is a willingness to
be flexible in starting negotiations on the
cancer that has eaten the innards of the two
countries for more than half a century. He has
been arguing for quite some time now that both
India and Pakistan need to go beyond stated
positions on Jammu and Kashmir. Saying that
Pakistan was willing to go beyond the UN
resolutions is his way of showing flexibility.
General Musharraf may want India to reciprocate
by playing down the orthodox position that the
whole of Kashmir is an "integral" part of India
and that the only agenda is the return of
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. India has to now make
a determination about whether it is also willing
to show some flexibility on the Kashmir issue and
what that flexibility might mean.
India cannot keep avoiding the mention of Kashmir
in its relations with Pakistan or keep
pussyfooting about calling it a "dispute". Let us
recognize it for what it is, then go on to
address the issue. History will not forgive the
leadership of the two countries if they were to
bequeath this cancer to even their future
generations.
The 12 proposals for building confidence put
forward by India have received a generous
response from Pakistan. It is time to move on
from there. There is no doubt that General
Musharraf is serious about resolving the issue.
India should also be clear about whether it wants
to get into a serious negotiating mode on Kashmir
at the moment or not. If there is a willingness
to resolve the Kashmir question, then New Delhi
must acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with
the General's suggestion that negotiating
positions need to be flexible. The existing
frameworks and the known positions of both sides
are not going to lead to a solution.
Both sides will have to reject the existing
frameworks, which have failed in this respect -
that is the historical, legal and the military
framework. In all these frameworks the
differences between India and Pakistan are
irreconcilable.
In the historical framework, India says that the
sovereignty lay with Maharaja Hari Singh and not
with the people of the princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir. So, when he signed the Instrument of
Accession, what his subjects may have wanted was
immaterial. The two-nation theory favoured by
Pakistan says that the people of Kashmir should
have opted for one or the other emergent
nation-state on the basis of religion. The
two-nation principle was an instrument of
governance developed by the colonial state for
British India. Once British paramountcy ended,
there was no question of using that principle by
the post-colonial secular state in India. In any
case, India can claim to be the second largest
Muslim country in the world, so there is no
question, as far as New Delhi is concerned, of
allowing Muslims in Kashmir to opt for the
Islamic state of Pakistan.
In the legal framework, there are two options -
of adjudication and of arbitration. Neither is
acceptable to India. As for the military
framework, it has not helped resolve anything.
The three wars fought, the Kargil conflict and
the eyeball-to-eyeball face off in 2002 are a
testimony to this. Now that both the countries
have gone nuclear, the possibility of resolving
the Kashmir issue militarily has become even more
remote.
Therefore, the two adversaries have to agree to
go beyond these existing frameworks if they want
to solve the Kashmir issue. This is what General
Musharraf seems to be suggesting. Once there is
agreement on this, then a search for new
framework can begin.
If it is not possible to resolve the Kashmir
issue immediately, even then a certain kind of
relationship with Pakistan is possible which
would not be entirely adversarial. Between 1972
and 1988, India and Pakistan did not have an
adversarial relationship, and the relationship
was not Kashmir-centric. Because of a variety of
factors since then the relationship has become
hostage to the Kashmir issue.
Often solutions are not possible when a situation
is not malleable. The attempt then can be to
first make it malleable by bringing the
temperature down.
To do this, India and Pakistan can initiate a
series of Kashmir-related confidence-building
measures. Besides the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road
link, perhaps other roads can be opened up - say
Uri-Chakauti and Jammu-Sialkot. There can be
experiments with Friday markets along the border
and the line of control. Kashmiri students from
the other side can be allowed to come and study
in educational institutions on the Indian-side of
Jammu and Kashmir. India can pull out a brigade
or more of its armed forces from the valley to
generate goodwill.
There can be many imaginative measures, which if
properly graduated and spread over a couple of
years, can bring the temperature on Kashmir down.
The important thing is to stretch the process of
confidence-building. This would also allow the
Pakistan establishment to rehabilitate the
jihadis who cannot go on polishing their guns for
years to come - they can be trained to become
carpenters, plumbers, farmers or other
self-employable professionals. Pakistan can also
use the time to choke the funding of the jihadis,
stop their training, dismantle their launching
pads and re-assign, transfer or give golden
handshakes and retire their handlers in the
Inter-Services Intelligence.
In effect, the two countries would have then
created conditions which might allow the next
generation in India and Pakistan to deal with the
Kashmir issue in a more reasonable way - say 10
to 15 years hence.
Pakistan Peace Coalition
ST-001, Sector X, Sub-Sector V,
Gulshan-e-Maymar,
Karachi-75340
Pakistan
[Date: 24 Dec 2003]
Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) welcomes the
recent decisions by Iran and Libya to
abandon their quests for weapons of mass
destruction, first by Iran by opening itself for
very intrusive monitoring of its nuclear
establishments, and then by Libya by abandoning
any programmes of WMD that it may have had.
However, these unilateral steps from Iran and
Libya are likely to serve only a limited purpose,
if no further progress is made towards global
disarmament under article 6 of the NPT and
towards further de-nuclearisation, especially of
Israel, to enhance security and stability in the
Middle East. Without Israel's joining in the
moves towards making the Middle East weaponsfree
zone, these developments will be perceived as
Western powers having coerced these
two countries to give up their nuclear option in
order to make Israel supreme in the region.
Next in line ought to be Pakistani and Indian
nuclear weapons programmes. The existence of
nuclear weapons in this region will always remain
a source of great worry. The geography
and the history have made sure that no other
region of the world is as likely to see the use of
nuclear weapons as South Asia. Now that there is
a thaw in the relations between the two
countries, this is the opportune moment to extend
the improvement of relations to the level of
declaring South Asia a nuclear weapons-free zone.
In addition, the PPC understands well that the
posture of the United States under the rule of
the militant neo-conservatives is also a factor
that stands in the way of global nuclear
disarmament. PPC therefore stands shoulder to
shoulder with all those forces in the world
that struggle to ward off American imperialist designs.
MB Naqvi, President - PPC
Dr. A.H.Nayyar
Dr. Zaki Hassan
Dr. Tariq Sohail
Mr. Mohammad Tahseen
Ms. Sheema Kirmani
Ms. Sheen Farrukh
Mr. Aaijaz Ahmed
Ms. Sarah Siddiqui
Mr. Rahim Bux Azad
Mr. Aslam Khawaja
Ms. Nasreen Chandio (MPA)
Mr. Khalique Ibrahim Khalique
Ms. Noor Naz Aga
Mr. Mansoor Saeed
Hafiz Siddiq Memon
Mr. Karamat Ali
Dr. Aly Ercelawn
Dr. A. Aziz
Dr. M.A. Mahboob
Mr. B.M.Kutty
Mr. Irfan Mufti
Dr. Asad Sayeed
Mr. Khalid Ahmed
Ms. Sania Saeed
Mr. Shahid Shafat
Mr. Sohail Sangi
Mr. Usman Baloch
Mr. S. Akbar Zaidi
Mr. Noordin Sarki
Mr. Mirza Aly Azhar
Mr. Mushtaq Meerani
_________________________________
SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN):
An informal information platform for
activists and scholars concerned about
Nuclearisation in South Asia.
SAAN Web site URL:
www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Track II and III circles are agog and the
governments are engaged in frenetic activity to
restore normal relations between India and
Pakistan. The whole world favours the burying of
the hatchet between these two nuclear powers. Is
peace beginning to break out? It is too early to
say.
What is happening is a rather limited
normalisation between the two rivals. Pakistan
originally wanted to restore the Pak-India ties
to the level of December 12, 2001, i.e. before
India broke off most links. It appears that
momentum of events might force the two to go
beyond this limit.
One reason forcing the pace, apart from major
powers' prodding, is the Islamabad Summit of the
Saarc. This implies multiple but minor pressures
on the two bigger member states: the governments
and the public opinion of SAARC countries does
not want SAARC to be a hostage to Indo-Pakistan
quarrels. There is also the inherent appeal of
regional cooperation.
Most important reason is international pressure
on both New Delhi and Islamabad to change their
inflexible stances on Kashmir that left no scope
for compromise. It is led by the sole superpower,
though EU, China and Russia are supporting the
desire to effect at least a détente between these
powers. It is not clear if the US is suggesting a
Kashmir solution as a guarantee of stable peace
in the region. The four options for a Kashmir
solution, now in the air, are meant as agenda for
drawn out negotiations, while normalisation plus
a military détente (CBMs) based on stoppage of
Jihad take care of a possible conflict.
Role of non-official peacemakers (tracks II and
III) is important, though official bureaucracies'
cussedness had greatly hampered them. Perhaps
bureaucracies need not be blamed; they do what
their political masters tell them. Recent events
have demonstrated that the common people on both
sides want nothing but peace and friendship
between India and Pakistan. Here a clarification
is necessary.
The original track II diplomats were first
assembled by the Americans for assisting the two
governments. They comprised influential members
of the ruling establishments or were otherwise
close to them. Ideas discussed at their level did
not commit the governments while consensus thus
arrived at can safely be pondered over by the
real rulers. This track II, a convenience for the
governments, should be sharply distinguished from
track III wallahs who are primarily
representatives of the people of the respective
countries (civil society) and can ignore what
governments think or say on any issue.
The much postponed sixth Joint Convention of
Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and
Democracy, recently held in Karachi, illustrates
what Track III can do. The kind of comfortable
agreement that was witnessed on most issues on
which the two civil societies' representatives
pondered was heart-warming. How representative
the two delegations were can possibly be
questioned. There was preponderance of left and
liberals on both sides, though the right-wingers
were not absent. True, stalwarts of the right
like Ram Jethmalani did not turn up. On the
whole, the two sets of delegates did represent
most schools of thought.
There was unanimity over the main aim of the
Forum: a people-to-people reconciliation between
the peoples of India and Pakistan so as to banish
inter-state as well as inter-people conflict,
especially communal politics and riots or
pogroms. The Convention recommended a 25 per cent
reduction in the armies and a number of measures
to demilitarise the society on both sides. It
visualised a non-nuclear South Asia, at peace
within itself and working for popular welfare and
democracy. It denied Kashmir was a territorial
dispute; Kashmiris' wishes were recognised as the
criterion for a solution of the problem.
Among the old and young-yes there were students
and young people on both sides - the upsurge of
friendly feelings was evident. Convention was
mainly engaged in rational discussion but
sentiment of love broke loose outside the
discussion hall or rooms and during cultural
programmes. On departures, some delegates burst
into tears.
This is an important element in the situation,
though it has to contend with powerful,
entrenched interests in politics, ruling
establishments and of course governments and
bureaucracies. Pak India cold war, interspersed
with hot ones, and arms races have created
powerful vested interests on either side to keep
the two countries on the edge of perpetual war.
These interests dominate governments. This hard
fact has to be remembered to guard against easily
aroused high expectations about peace as soon as
government leaders shake hands. A long hard
struggle in order to reach the shores of peace
and reconciliation impends; governments are
capable of throwing snares across people's path.
They need to be aware.
For setting the course basic questions have to be
asked: what is it that Pakistanis should strive
for? Is it Pakistan's or Islam's glory that is
the ultimate aim which the state should achieve?
If so, what is the relationship of this aim with
that of all the people's human rights and their
material well-being, including the vital
necessity of social security for citizens? Can
these two goals co-exist? If so why not demand
full fundamental rights and social security for
all in a clear, coherent and credible manner?
Also, what about Kashmir? Is the aim its
inclusion in Pakistan? Or is it the Kashmir
people's right of self-determination that
Pakistan should seek? In the latter case, other
questions arise: Will Pakistanis abide by
Kashmiris freely expressed wishes, if their
decision goes against a Pakistan that is
perpetually under military occupation? There is
another basic question: Does this Kashmir
commitment override the earlier formulated main
aim? Can Pakistan envisage a solution other than
UN-supervised plebiscite as visualised by Gen.
Musharraf? What about the people's wishes if
Kashmiris' rights are Pakistan's criterion.
It is not a matter of cleverly used words. It
will affect the lives of common and desperately
poor folks. It is the rich who can afford to
involve the country and the people in airy-fairy
objectives that seem noble but have negative
effect on poverty stricken sections of
population. Clarification of aims is crucial for
fixing priorities and the criteria of
governmental actions. All political parties and
rulers should be forced to disclose their aims,
priorities, objectives and their criteria. That
will make politics rational and democratic.
As for relations with India, common Pakistanis
should insist on the desired relationship. Time
was when demagogues talked of a thousand year war
with India. In changed circumstances the people
want to arrive at agreements and to solve the
Kashmir problem. Lately Islamabad began its peace
offensive. It came not a day too soon. Peace is
what suits Pakistan and peace is a high enough
objective in its own right.
Anyhow relations with India need especially
careful thought. After all Pakistan has fought
three and a half wars and has run an open ended
arms race with it. The arms race now encompasses
nuclear weapons and missiles; it is becoming
impossible for Pakistanis to keep up with Indian
Joneses; there are just not enough resources.
Even if it had those resources, it would be a
stupid policy to waste them in destructive arms
races.
India is Pakistan's closest neighbour, the way
Afghanistan or China are not. Pakistan itself
came out of India's womb. It was claimed as a
solution of India's festering communal problem.
All its problems deal in one way or another with
India. And the origins of both are in the same
history and the Indo-Persian civilization that
grew around India's central authority, Muslim in
middle ages. But the fate of each is a matter for
the other's concern - despite the 80 year long
legacy of hate and conflict and nuclear weapons.
Despite the obvious hatred of India or of
Pakistan in India, whenever common people of
India and Pakistan come face to face, they are
attracted to each other the way no other two
peoples do. One's inference is that these
relations are ambivalent: if the wave of
friendship and cooperation were to prevail, scope
of friendly cooperation becomes unlimited. But
should leadership foment hatred, the era of
distrust and conflict can be sustained, as indeed
happened from the second decade of Twentieth
Century-but was not the case earlier.
It will be economically ruinous, socially futile
and politically dangerous to continue along the
present path. There is no option but to change
tack and reverse the trend of communal distrust
and emphasising separatism. Pakistan can reverse,
work for genuine friendship - from the grassroots
up-cooperate and rely on strong a millennium-old
commonalities. United voice of India and Pakistan
will make a tremendous difference to Asia and the
world. Today, they undercut each other. If both
cooperate bilaterally and regionally the whole
world will take note of a new factor. If a
progressively greater proportion of resources is
devoted to development based on meeting human
needs of the millions in both the countries,
eradication of the direr forms of poverty will
take no longer than a decade or so.
On the day this article is published I shall be
in Srinagar, in Indian-administered Kashmir,
having travelled across the Wagah border on
December 19. I write the article in Lahore, an
hour after leaving the Polo Ground where my wife
and I watched the India-Pakistan match along with
many friends, and a record crowd of 15,000, all
of whose members were good-natured and in high
spirits. Not only that, but they demonstrated
sportsmanship that would put any British soccer
crowd to shame. Admittedly this is not much of a
challenge in modern yob-ridden UK, but I am sure
you see what I mean.
It was especially pleasant because my old friend
General Shah Rafi Alam had two sons playing in
the match: Shamyl, and the team captain, Qublai.
We were staying with Rafi and Tameez at their
farm near Bedian from which spot in 1965 Rafi saw
his first Indian soldier - in the turret of a
tank that had its gun pointing westwards. But on
December 14 there were no guns in Lahore, only
goodwill, and this is the message I want to
spread.
Obviously the crowd was pro-Pakistan, and it went
wild when Qublai scored the winning goal in the
extra sixth chucker to decide the game ten-nine
in the sudden-death play-off. But all fifteen
thousand of them applauded the Indian team. The
Pakistan and Indian players shook hands with
obvious cordiality (and partied together very
late that night); the game was absolutely clean,
with no fouls other than unintentionally; there
was no roaring by players; the few Indians in the
crowd, loyally displaying their national flag,
were regarded with affection; Indian goals were
heartily applauded; and the whole tamasha was
admirably civilised. As the commentator said, it
takes sport to show the way to friendship, and he
declared, with genuine feeling, echoed by the
crowd, that he hoped the Indian side would 'come
back again and again and again and again'. And so
say all of us. Well, most of us.
During my talks with so many people in Pakistan
over the past three weeks the constant theme was
peace. I walked round the bazaars in Pindi and
Lahore and visited villages, speaking with
countless shopkeepers and stall-holders. (And the
only danger I experienced was that of terminal
chai-poisoning.)
I had discussions with the good and the great,
including President Pervez Musharraf and serving
and retired officers, and with many luminaries of
the business and political communities. The
refrain was the same: let's talk with India; the
whole stand-off has been going on too long; the
way ahead is not confrontation but negotiation.
There remain zealots on both sides, of course,
whose appetite for confrontation remains
unsatisfied and who seek to derail even the most
modest attempts at improvement of relations. But
the swell of public opinion appears against them.
During my meeting with the president he was
optimistic about Indo-Pakistan relations, and on
December 18 went so far as to say that the
countries "need to talk to each other with
flexibility, coming beyond stated positions,
meeting half-way somewhere". This is most
encouraging, but, as usual, the problem lies in
definition. Just where is 'somewhere' in a
process of meeting half-way? It is bound to lie
on one side or the other of preconceived and even
predetermined positions, and is thus in itself a
potential irritant.
I betray no secrets when I say that the president
was frank with me in saying that so far as
Pakistan is concerned, talks would be without
preconditions - therefore dropping former
emphasis on Kashmir. This is a major concession,
and let us hope it will be met in the spirit in
which it is offered. The even greater concession
is President Musharraf's preparedness to move
away from insistence on UN resolutions. A quantum
change, indeed, and one that opens new vistas for
advance to rapprochement.
Naturally the loonies disagree. Maulana Fazlur
Rehman said the president had 'bowed down the
whole nation before India' and I say the maulana
is talking through his hat. He was joined in his
sentiments by the usual suspects; those who only
want the confrontation and the killing to
continue and even increase. They are stark,
raving mad to wish to throw away the chance for
the guns to fall silent. And the chances of
seeing well-fed, well-groomed, comfortable chaps
such as the MMA vice-president, Sajid Mir, in the
firing line are absolutely zero. The maulana
declares that the president's initiative 'amounts
to negating the sacrifice of Pakistanis and
Kashmiris who laid [sic] their lives for
Kashmir's freedom' but I haven't seen the maulana
laying down anything except his peculiar version
of the law.
There have been no sacrifices by maulana sahib
for Kashmir's freedom. Nor have there been any
sacrifices by the rest of the plump,
beard-wagging, well-manicured rabble-rousers who
take delight in encouraging murder and mayhem.
These people are sick, and they are humbugs. Not
a single one of them is prepared to take up a
weapon and go forth to fight for what they call
freedom. How many 'shahid' maulanas have we seen?
Where are the crowd-stirrers when the bullets
begin to fly? I'll tell you where they are: they
are sitting in their Pajeros, surrounded by
bodyguards, going very fast in the opposite
direction.
The MMA opponents of a Kashmir solution are not
only absurd hypocrites and physical cowards, they
are devoid of compassion and incapable of
political flexibility. They see the 'cause' of
Kashmir as a convenient cudgel with which to
strike the government. They care not a fig for
the death of innocents, and they revel in
bloodshed. Qazi Hussain Ahmed states that
'Musharraf must go'. But who will take his place?
Another bunch of corrupt politicians? Or plump
Qazi sahib, who wants the slaughter in Kashmir to
continue while he sits at ease in his mansion?
Most people in Pakistan want the threat of war
removed. They want their children to be educated.
They want clean water, decent governance, and
prosperity. The MMA promises mass action against
the government for its own selfish aims, and in
doing so will wilfully polarise the country. It
has no reasonable alternative to offer Pakistan,
and wants power for its own sake.
A pox on those who deliberately seek to derail
the movement to peace. They are enemies of
freedom, and not its supporters. They could learn
a lot from the Indian and Pakistani polo teams
and the enormous crowd that supported them. The
MMA for war. Polo for peace. Let the people
choose.
Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who
writes on international affairs. His website is
www.briancloughley.com.
By declaring that "we have left aside" the United Nation Security Council
resolutions for a solution to Kashmir, General Pervez Musharraf shattered
a long-held taboo. While the General had given some confusing hints during
his 2001 visit to India and spoken of the need "to move away from stated
positions", never before had a Pakistani head of state made an explicit
public admission that Pakistan cannot realistically hope for a plebiscite
to end the Kashmir dispute and, therefore, is willing to explore other
ways. Subsequent attempts by the Foreign Minister, Mr. Khurshid Kasuri, to
dilute Musharaf's remarks have been insufficient to control outrage and
accusations of treason from those in the Pakistani military, political,
and jihadist establishment who remain convinced that Kashmir can someday
be liberated by force. Interestingly Pakistan Television, which slavishly
follows rulers around, did not cover the General's speech.
Mr. Kasuri need not apologize for the General, nor go overboard to placate
those who insist on the impossible. It is true that plebiscite was indeed
the solution mutually agreed upon in 1948 and that India had reneged on a
solemn commitment. But the passage of five decades, and drastically
changed geo-political circumstances, demand a reappraisal. Today,
plebiscite is no longer the obvious way of determining the wishes of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir. For example, it clearly excludes a major
section of Kashmiris that would opt for independence today but which, in
1948, may not have wanted it. More frightening is the likelihood of a
plebiscite igniting communal passions leading to horrific Gujarat-style
bloodbaths across the subcontinent. Moreover, at a practical level there
is no agency, including the UN, that is capable and willing to implement a
task that all nations (except Pakistan) see as impossibly difficult.
Therefore to insist on plebiscite is the surest way of guaranteeing that a
bloody stand-off continues.
Why the change? Unfortunately, much of Pakistan's conspiracy-obsessed
intelligentsia appears eager to believe that the General is merely obeying
marching orders received from George W. Bush. But the view that everything
comes from Washington is simplistic and disallows an appreciation of some
critically important, but unpleasant, facts about Pakistan's failed
Kashmir policy. One hopes that these considerations, rather than external
pressure, have influenced the General.
First, there has been an alarming decline in international support for
Pakistan's position on Kashmir. Even at the level of passing resolutions,
Muslim states and the Organization of Islamic Countries have been
lukewarm. More importantly, their trade with India is many times greater
than with Pakistan. Today Indian workers, particularly skilled ones, are
still welcome in the Middle East while Pakistanis are finding it harder
and harder. It goes without saying that Europe does not agree with
Pakistan's actions in Kashmir. But more significantly, even Pakistan's
immediate neighbours -- Iran and China -- are extremely wary of liberating
Kashmir through jihad. As if to send a signal, both countries have had
joint military exercises with India during the current year. Afghanistan,
which Pakistani generals long regarded as no more than their backyard, now
has hostile relations with Pakistan.
While acknowledging that India is winning the propaganda war, Pakistani
hardliners continue to insist that it is merely the failure of Pakistan's
diplomatic missions. This is nonsense -- many Pakistani diplomats and
embassy officials have tried valiantly but they could not make up for the
failure of a short-sighted and indefensible surreptitious "bleed-India"
policy formulated by the military establishment around 1990. One
consequence was that the horrific crimes committed by India's occupation
forces in Kashmir, amply documented by various human rights groups, were
eclipsed by widely publicized crimes committed by the mujahideen
clandestinely dispatched by Pakistan to "liberate" Kashmir. The massacres
of Hindus, targeting of civilians accused of collaborating with India,
killings of Kashmiri political leaders, destruction of cinema houses and
liquor shops, forcing of women into the veil, and flaring up of sectarian
disputes, severely undermined the legitimacy of the Kashmiri freedom
movement and deprived it of its most potent weapon -- the moral high
ground. In an age of television cameras and instant communication, nobody
believed Pakistan's denials of aiding and arming militants. Pakistan's
diplomats therefore had an impossible task, especially after 11 September
2001, when jihad became the most notorious word in the political lexicon.
Second, the recent split in the Hurriyat Conference, originally set up
with Pakistani help to mediate disputes between different anti-Indian
Kashmiri organizations has sharply reduced Pakistan's influence on the
Kashmiri freedom movement. Kashmiris have realized that their interests
are by no means identical to Pakistan's. In a clever move, after having
stubbornly resisted talking to the Kashmiri leaders for years, the Indian
establishment -- including the hawkish L.K.Advani and N.N.Vohra -- now has
had direct talks with Maulana Abbas Ansari's majority faction of the
Hurriyat. Pakistan is now left isolated with the small Geelani faction.
Moreover, by fencing off the LOC, acquiring high-tech surveillance and
night-vision equipment from Israel, and increasing pressure on Pakistan to
limit infiltration, India is likely to further decrease Pakistani
influence in Kashmiri domestic politics.
Third -- and most important -- is the inescapable fact that India, with
its hugely abundant scientific and high-tech manpower, is set to emerge as
one of the world's largest economies while Pakistan's educational and
scientific institutions continue their decline. India has penetrated into
America's industrial core, providing it with scientists and engineers, and
even drawing work away from US companies into India. Income from just one
source -- outsourcing and IT services -- is expected to swell to an annual
export industry of $57 billion by 2008. This far exceeds Pakistan's GNP,
current and projected. The outline of an emerging US-India strategic
partnership is beginning to emerge. The recently concluded agreement on
space and nuclear cooperation is one indication of things to come. It is
clear that the US no longer regards Pakistan as being in the same league
as India. Therefore any expectation of equal treatment would be a
delusion.
Time is running out for Pakistan. Rather than perform another
Afghanistan-style U-turn, it should seek practicable ways of settling
Kashmir before a solution is forced upon it. In effect this could mean a
preparatory stage in which inflamed nerves are soothed and the
high-pitched decades-old rhetoric is toned down. Subsequently, the
Pakistani side of Kashmir and the Northern Areas should be formally
absorbed into Pakistan. Negotiations should be conducted with India on an
LOC-plus solution that allows for some territorial adjustments and soft
borders, and possibly a 10-mile deep demilitarized zone. While the
division of Kashmir is unfortunate, it is better to accept this reality
rather than live with endless suffering that has consumed nearly 90,000
lives since 1987.
By dropping its insistence on plebiscite, Pakistan has now put the ball in
the Indian court. If Mr. Vajpayee is the man of peace that he says he is,
he must respond to a move that is breathtakingly bold. The move carries
additional personal risk for General Musharraf, whose narrow escape from
an assassination attempt shows the dangers of the line he has taken. The
forthcoming SAARC summit in January 2004, to be held in Islamabad,
provides an opportunity that India should seize upon.
The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
"Defy the divide, unite for peace," declares the
huge theme banner on the stage at the end of the
lawn, venue of the opening and closing plenary
sessions of the sixth joint convention of
Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and
Democracy, held in Karachi recently. The open
sessions are attended by some 500 Indian and
Pakistani delegates and hundreds of local people.
Banners and flags from a joint exhibition flutter
in the cool sea breeze.
The main hall buzzes with animated discussion
following presentations on de-militarisation and
nuclearisation (Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy), intolerance
(I A Rehman), globalisation (Sushil Khanna) and
Kashmir (Gautam Navlakha), followed by group
discussions on all these issues. But this
convention is not just about speeches and
position papers. It's also about reunions,
discoveries and questions, ranging from a
desperate inquiry about coffee, to what the next
agenda item is, to where can one go to exchange
money or buy gifts. It's about meeting and
getting to know each other, about people
desperate for the simple personal interaction
that their governments deny them. Perhaps the
most commonly heard question on the first day is,
"Are you Indian?" as Karachiites throng the venue
to try and meet people from across the border.
Upstairs, the hall is full of schoolchildren
watching a screening of the hit film 'Makri',
organised by the Human Rights Education Programme
-- followed by an impromptu screening of
'Brothers from Chichibabba', a 12-minute
animation based on the children's book by
scientist D P Sengupta.
Dedicated to 'the Kargil orphans of India and
Pakistan', the film is produced by Kolkata-based
Indrani Roy and Debasish Sarkar. It tells the
story of the right-handed Guruk and left-handed
Turuk, who allow their differences to overcome
their love. A wall comes up between them, and
they grow up to rule their own kingdoms, amass
armies and buy increasingly lethal weapons. But
children from both sides start to meet each other
as a hole develops in the wall. "I'm hungry,"
says one. "I want to go to school," says another.
"We don't want to fight." "If the bombs fall, we
will all be dead anyway," adds another, scared at
the prospect of "melting like butter". Guruk and
Turuk then see each other for the first time and
remember the love they used to share, and to the
cheers of the watching children, they embrace.
The children watching the film also cheer. But as
they file out, one little boy is overheard
muttering, "India murdabad". Embarrassed when
caught by a teacher, he quickly pretends he was
saying something else.
Perhaps the student's bravado only reflects what
he has been hearing all his little life, rather
than any deep-rooted conviction. But personal
interactions can overturn even strong
convictions, as a young engineering student
found, after volunteering at a seminar of Indian
and Pakistani women in Lahore three years ago. "I
had always thought of India as the enemy," he had
said, explaining that he volunteered because he
had never met an Indian before, and was curious.
"Now I know they are people, just like us."
In December 2000, when post-Kargil tensions were
at their peak, a group of history students from
Delhi came to Lahore by train. One student from
Kargil confessed to feeling "hatred towards
Pakistan" before. What brought him was curiosity,
"to see what these people are like, who have
inflicted such suffering on us." Like the
engineering student, he too left with the
realisation that people on either side are human
beings, and that peace is the only option between
India and Pakistan.
It is this realisation, this conviction, and this
curiosity, along with the opportunity for
reunions, which drives the participants of these
joint conventions, these large people-to-people
exchanges between India and Pakistan.
Particularly encouraging about the sixth
convention in Karachi is the huge participation
of first-timers and young people. "We need
agricultural cooperation," says Akram Khan, a
young farmer from Layyah, inspired to attend by
the continuing participation of his father in
previous conventions.
A young representative of the Pakistan Fisherfolk
Forum rushes about trying to organise what must
have been the largest sectoral group meeting,
between fishermen from both countries, who are
routinely arrested and imprisoned for violating
territorial waters. "We're arranging a grand
reception for our leader, Father Thomas
Kocherry," he explains, referring to the
legendary organiser from Bombay. "This is the
first time he has come to Pakistan." Some 1,500
fisherfolk, including women and children, waited
over two hours for the Forum delegates to meet
them at the Ibrahim Haidery wharf.
Other sectoral groups included trade unions,
women, media, doctors, youth and students,
environment and displacement, and artists.
The Karachi convention on December 12-14, 2003,
was postponed from its original 2001 date -- and
not just because of continuing tensions
exacerbated by post-Kargil hostilities, the 9-11
attacks, and the attack on the Indian Parliament.
Joint conventions have previously taken place in
times of tension (which in any case are more
frequent than times of peaceful co-existence).
But the suspension of the road, rail and air
links dealt a huge blow to these interactions.
Forum participants include fishermen, trade union
workers, students, farmers, journalists,
filmmakers, women and human rights activists, who
pay for their own transport and cannot afford the
inflated cost of reaching across the border via
Abu Dhabi or Dhaka.
Special permission is needed -- as it was this
year -- to allow them to cross the border on foot
when the train is not running. Within the country
too, they take third-class trains to the joint
convention venues, which have included Delhi (Feb
1995). This was followed by Lahore (Nov 1995),
Kolkata (Dec 1996), Peshawar (Dec 1998), and
Bangalore (2000). Karachi 2003 has been the
largest joint convention so far, with almost 250
participants from India and roughly as many from
Pakistan.
Right from the start, the joint declarations have
been pressing for a resolution of all issues
through dialogue between the two governments, a
peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue based on
the aspirations of the Kashmiri people (rather
than as a territorial dispute between India and
Pakistan), reduction of defence budgets, more
people-to-people contacts and an end to religious
intolerance and violence.
And yet, unlike Guruk and Turuk of Chichibabba,
the leaders of India and Pakistan are unlikely to
embrace with open arms when they next meet, as
expected at the SAARC summit in a few weeks.
There are few illusions that the people's
pressure will affect government policy. But, as
founding member I A Rehman says, "As the pressure
of the people increases, it does limit the
options of the governments."
In any case, "Peace is too important a business
to be left to governments," quips Forum Chair
from Pakistan, Afrasiab Khattak. "The people are
the real stakeholders and they have to keep up
the pressure."
That, this huge joint convention undoubtedly did.
Why should the Pakistani consumer be punished? Why should the Indian
consumer be punished? What is this nationalism? You are talking about
WTO and free trade. You can't go on doing both things at the same
time. This logic has finally come to end. It will break. Once you
have a bania on both sides, who has a stake, then it will change. You
will see the media will also change
Tapan Bose is an India-based media man, filmmaker, human rights and
peace activist. He knows every intellectual, peace and rights
activist in Pakistan and South Asia by first name. He is one of the
architects who envisaged the establishment of Pakistan-India People's
Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), and is the Secretary General
of its Indian Chapter. He is also working as Chief Executive Officer
of SAFHR, Katmandu.
In an interview with Political Economy during his visit to Pakistan
last week for participation in the PIPFPD forum, Bose talked about
various aspects of the India-Pakistan peace developments. Excerpts
follow:
PE: Would you like to tell us your expectations and hopes from the
Sixth Convention of PIPFPD? You know this convention is being held
after a delay of three years...
TB: Our expectations are the same as old, but the environment has
changed a bit. Pakistani Government has offered in response to some
of the earlier Indian offers. In the interlude it seemed that the
train has stopped. Now things are moving. We are very hopeful that at
least some of the things would happen. Borders will be opened at some
more places, more buses would be deployed, Muzaffarabad-Srinagar
route will open. The border across Rajasthan, Jammu, Gujarat and
Sindh will have more exchanges. And hopefully the visa regime will
also become easier. I am also afraid that it is not going to be easy
and it may take more time. It is more important to start rail traffic
then air because the rail is what the common man can afford.
More important is what will happen in Kashmir. If Kashmir contacts
open up...if the people on both the sides of the Kashmir are allowed
to meet, because opening up a bus service between Srinagar and
Muzaffarabd would mean that the two governments are agreeing to allow
something, which they have not allowed in the past fifty years. That
means allowing the Kashmiris to meet. Now if they start doing that,
it means a substantially changed situation in Kashmir. What we have
been saying all along that Kashmiris should be allowed to meet,
discuss and develop their own democratic institutions where they can
participate. Till this day, it has not been possible. By keeping them
divided it has also been possible for the Government of India to
manipulate the elite on their side and the Government of Pakistan to
do the same.
Once you open the gates then the capacity to manipulate would reduce.
And if this exchange begins and if it is sustained I am sure in five
years time you will see change in the public opinion in Kashmir. That
is what really the solution is. Look at it in 1993-94; we could not
talk about openly that India and Pakistan must make peace. In 2003 we
are doing it openly. Five hundred delegates are going to meet in
Karachi. When the Sindh Chapter convention took place in May 2003, I
was in Karachi. I saw thousands of people came to attend that meeting
on a weekday. This is something, which did not happen in the past. So
there is a groundswell. And the political parties and the leaders,
armies and the generals have to understand. So the hopes and
expectation are higher. Fear is also there. And consciously we have
to step on.
I think the Forum has also come a long way. We know the problems like
this time also in the middle of November we thought everything is
moving on smoothly, we will get all the visas. We will get all the
exits we have asked for. But suddenly three days ago we were put on
hold. And there was panic and as you know the visas were given
finally, even less then twenty four hours when we were to cross.
There was a moment of panic, when we thought that we may have to
cancel it. But it happened. It also shows that governments on both
sides are also caught, as we are caught. And they also realised that
you can't really stop it.
PE: There have been sudden ups and down in the relations between
India and Pakistan. Now the important question is, how to sustain
this momentum?
TB: There are some of us who have deep political commitment to
democracy and broader democratic and social justice issues.
Unfortunately, our political parties are no longer committed to
social justice issues. Unfortunately, under the globalisation and
liberalisation regime, social justice is no longer on any body's
agenda. Poverty is not on our agenda. We are all in the privatisation
agenda. So in today's world I think the only thing that will matter
is if we can get the business community--'Hindustan ka Bania aur
Pakistan ka Bania'. If we can get them to do cross-border investment
and trade, that is a class of people who have more power today. You
see that peasantry has no power; peasantry is powerless. Working
class is powerless. The middle class is also powerless. It is only
the traders and businessmen and the industrialists who are powerful.
So if we can get the Indian businessmen to invest in Pakistan, if
Pakistani businessmen start investing in India, if free trade begins,
and that will happen, after all in the last fifty years we have done.
Look at the unnatural divide; in East Punjab there is glut of
agricultural produce. Tomato sells at five rupees a kilo and here it
is 80-100 rupees. There is a glut of wheat and you are importing from
Canada. You see this is unnatural.
Who are you punishing? It is the ordinary consumers in Pakistan who
need to consume vegetables, who need to consume wheat. They are being
punished. Similarly, in India we can import your rice, cotton, sugar,
and sugar cane, at a much competitive price. The Indian consumer will
get a much better price. And similarly Pakistani producer and
consumer will benefit and this will affect millions. This will also
create a much better solution for the political problems that India
is facing in the Punjab, as you are facing. This cannot go on. It is
an artificial divide. Similarly, you see the automobile industry in
Pakistan is new and growing. Twenty-five years ago it was a similar
situation in India. The model of Suzuki, which is being sold for five
lakhs here, the same model of Suzuki in India is sold for 2.5/2.8
lakhs. So Pakistani consumer is paying a much higher price. Why
should the Pakistani consumer be punished? Why should the Indian
consumer be punished? What is this nationalism? You are talking about
WTO and free trade. You can't go on doing both things at the same
time. This logic has finally come to end. I think it will break. Once
you have a bania on both sides, who has a stake, then it will change.
You will see the media will also change. Today it does not care. It
has no stake today. After all, how can the media run without
advertisements? Who will give advertisements? It is the business
houses who give advertisements. Media does not run the newspapers.
You and I pay in the street for the newspapers. So if the same people
who give advertisement have a stake in the business in the other
country they will force the media to become more responsible.
PE: How should they be motivated? There is fear in Pakistan. I was
just listening to a speech by a Pakistani industrialist here at Wagha
saying, "India wanted to use Pakistan just as a market but we want
equal treatment"...
TB: Look you are doing trade with China. Can you dictate equal
treatment to China? India is also doing trade with China. This is
ridiculous. As it is, what is equality? Equality is in the market.
The buyer and the seller should be able to do trade on a free and
fair basis. Today Pakistan is importing 30% of its steel from India.
If you are already importing 30% of your steel and you are getting
both price and quality advantage, is it fair or it is unfair? If you
increase it to 50-60%, will it be fair to Pakistan or will it be
unfair to Pakistan? Now tomorrow are you going to say I am not going
to import all these cheap batteries and calculators and computer
parts from China because it is unfair? Is it fair to your consumer?
What is unfair about it? Who is Pakistan? The manufacturer who is
producing lesser quality goods and charging higher prices from its
consumers? Pakistan belongs to whom--only to profiteers or the common
people of Pakistan? You see the same happened in India. Vajpayee
signed an agreement for the import of Sri Lankan tea. Sri Lankan tea
is 25-30% cheaper than Indian tea. So the Indian tea lobby got
together to scotch that. So who lost, the ordinary Indian consumer?
In fact, Sri Lankan tea is much better than the Indian low-grade tea.
So, good quality tea at a much cheaper price. But because the Indian
tea lobby is so powerful they got it scotched. You see, these people
are everywhere.
PE: How can it be countered? With people's pressure or people's
movement? Even the peace movement is very weak.
TB: It is ultimately connected with the consumer's rights. You see
democracy is just not political vote. This is also democracy. It is
in fact a deeper question. Do we as a consumer have a right to demand
a fair price? You cannot go on punishing us by bad products and
higher price in the name of nationalism? We cannot go on saying that
dependency of Germany, Japan, America and Russia is alright. But
dependency on Indian production is bad for the nation and then go on
punishing me. I pay fourteen lakhs of rupees for a car like this
Toyota, which is being made here. A similar make is available for 6-8
lakhs in India. Why should Indian make Indigo, which is nearly 40%
less in price, but is not available to the Pakistani consumer? Just
to protect the interest of that one bloody manufacturer. How many
jobs does he create? Similarly, why should Indians not import the
Pakistani sugar, Pakistani machine parts the Pakistani expertise?
Whose interest, just a few handful industrialists? Are they Indians
or the millions of consumers? That is where I think we have to take
them. That is, in my opinion, the future direction for Pakistan and
India.
PE: Are you hopeful that things would move in the right direction?
TB: I am very hopeful and our slogan this year is "Defy the Divide,
Unite for Peace". We want to develop three to four joint programmes.
We want to develop a link with the farmers and the agriculture
producers' lobby and traders' lobby and organisations, first to begin
with the two Punjabs. And we want to organise exchange between them
and want them to meet each other. We would like to create a forum, so
that they come up and they demand that we will go to Ludhiana Mandi
and we will buy five to ten million tons of wheat and bring that here
in trucks. And they will come here and buy your cotton. So you can
buy vegetable and sell it here. That is the ground level thing. So we
want to create an exchange and understanding between the primary
level goods producers, market and traders.
PE: Do you think the state will allow it?
TB: The state does not have much of an option. It may not be very
happy, like this time also. Every thing was OK. Suddenly at the last
minute we were told that now the intelligence people have raised some
queries. Everything was taken back. But at the end of the day they
also realised that beyond a point they cannot stop it. It is
counter-productive, actually.
PE: You have brought a very good study on the violations of human
rights in the Indian Punjab 'Reduced to Ashes'. You have been
involved in human rights violation monitoring in Kashmir. Do you
intend to do a same kind of report on Kashmir?
TB: Yes, we are working on it and hopefully by January we will bring
out a smaller but a similar study. We have taken two hundred cases,
which have been pending before the various courts of Kashmir. We have
followed it upon a ten-year period. We have followed up exactly what
happened. We have focused on how the insurgency and
counter-insurgency have affected the institutions of judiciary and
state--the state's capacity to deliver justice. It is also a study to
show the failure of the system.
You see, every state has a right to carry out counter-insurgency. In
Pakistan, when there was insurgency in Balochistan, the Pakistani
state also took counter-insurgency measures. State is a state. But
our point is that the state should know that it is an institution
incorporated by law. Human Rights people are conservative people. We
want to uphold the rule of law. We are not anti-state. In fact, we
are very much pro-state. We want say to the state that if you go
outside the law like the militants then there is no distinction
between you and the militant. The militant by definition is outside
the law. The militant is saying that the state has become so bad that
it has now to change. Now I have to overthrow it. You prove the point
by proving legally that you are like the militant. So this is where
the contradiction is. The state thinks we are pro-militants while we
are actually saying that please don't put yourself in the same place
as the militant.
Therefore the path we have adopted is of judicial access. We want to
demonstrate how the state is giving up its own commitment to rule of
law. You see that is what the Bush administration is doing. The
onslaught is on the institutions of rule of law. The onslaught is on
the universality (after 9/11) and only in the name of one
thing--terrorism. Is terrorism the only thing that happens? You open
a newspaper, the first thing and last thing is terrorism. They are
militarising the society. So you see everything is criminalised. So
everybody's right to freedom of expression, right to dissent, right
to oppose is being squeezed out and everybody who voices opposition
to the state is being criminalized; he is dubbed as terrorist. This
is a very dangerous trend. This is a straight road to fascism.
Whether it is being done by a democratic government, elected
government or a non-elected government, it does not matter both are
doing this. They have completely destroyed the civil rights. In the
US, they have started discriminating on the basis of ethnicity and
religion. In America today, all Arabs and Muslim people are suspects.
This is what we have to fight. And we will continue doing that
because we believe that without a commitment to rule of law the state
system will collapse. It will actually be a lawless state. And that
is where the real danger is.
PE: Being a human rights activist, would you like to share with us
the human rights situation in India, particularly in Kashmir?
TB: The human rights situation in Kashmir is very bad. This whole
counter-insurgency has little ability to distinguish between the
insurgents and non-insurgents. This is one problem. You have seen
here also what happens or what is happening in Bangladesh today in
the name of security. It has been handed over to the army and how
they are killing the people who dissent. State is committing
excesses. It is using force beyond its required necessity. It is
failing to make distinction between the good citizen and the bad
citizen; that is leading to institutional subversion This is the
situation of human rights and it is allowing itself to be cornered
because fundamentally its ability to follow the principles of the
rule of law. This is the problem. I thing there is a lack of will on
the part of the state because it is unable to deal with it. There is
massive dissatisfaction and it will grow because of the nature of the
state, the nature of the economic policies, the whole process of
globalisation, liberalisation, and free market.
It has extensively collapsed the capacity of the economy, the
traditional economy to sustain and support people who are at the
marginal level. It has destroyed many professions. So it is under
enormous pressure. There is disproportion. The growth rate is
increasing. It is not necessary and it is proved again and again that
growth does not mean development. In fact, it is anti-development in
the traditional sense.
New Delhi: Effecting a subtle shift in register in the run-up to next
month's Saarc summit, General Pervez Musharraf said on Thursday
that?Pakistan was ready to leave aside the UN resolutions on Jammu and
Kashmir so long as India was prepared to begin a bilateral political
dialogue on the future of the state. The 1948 UN resolutions call on
Pakistan to withdraw its forces from PoK as the prelude to a plebiscite in
the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. In an interview to Reuters, Musharraf
said, "We are for UN Security Council resolutions. However, now we have
left that aside... If we want to resolve this issue, both sides need to
talk to each other with flexibility, coming beyond stated positions,
meeting halfway somewhere. We are prepared to rise to the occasion. India
has to be flexible also." Indian officials say Musharraf's latest comments
echo the open tone struck by the General and his foreign office prior to
the July 2001 Agra summit and are aimed at creating the right atmosphere
for a possible one-on-one sitting with Prime Minister Vajpayee when the
latter is in Islamabad from January 4 to 6.
New Delhi, Dec 18. (UNI): The Shiv Sena activist,
who dug-up the Feroz Shah Kotla cricket pitch
resulting in the cancellation of an Indo-Pak
cricket match in 1999, is flexing his muscles
again threatening to disrupt any match between
the two South Asian neighbours.
Mangatram Munde, who led a group of Shiv Sainiks
in digging up the pitch at the Firozshah ground
on January 6, 1999, today threatened that the
activists would not allow the scheduled second
match of the Veteran series between India and
Pakistan on December 21 at the Karnail Singh
stadium here.
"We are prepared to dig up all the cricket
pitches in the country and awaiting the order of
our chief Balasaheb Thackeray," Munde, the
working head of Delhi unit of Bharatiya Vidyarthi
Sena (BVS), the students wing of the Shiv Sena,
said in a statement.
He said a group of hundred Shiv Sainiks under the
leadership of Deepak Pawar had been formed to
disrupt any cricket match between India and
Pakistan in Delhi.
Pawar, senior vice-president of the Delhi unit of
BVS, was among the Shiv Sainiks who dug up holes
at the Kotla ground and poured petrol on the
pitch.
Munde warned the Centre that the Shiv Sena would
not allow the resumption of cricketing links
between the two countries unless Pakistan handed
over the 20 terrorists, including Dawood Ibrahim,
to India and dismantle terrorist training camps
on its soil.
Meanwhile a report from Agra said activists of
the local unit of the Shiv Sena damaged the
cricket pitch at the Agra sport stadium, the
venue for the December 24 veterans' match between
the two countries.
The Sena activists reportedly scaled the wall of
the stadium late last night and dug up the pitch,
the report quoting police officials said.
The activists had planned to pour grease on the
pitch and then set it on fire. However, two alert
constables reached there on time and chased them
away.
KARACHI, Dec 14: The sixth convention of the
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and
Democracy on Sunday called upon the two countries
to settle the Kashmir dispute while respecting
the aspirations of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir on both sides of the LoC.
The Karachi Declaration, which was adopted on the
last day of the three-day convention, also called
for withdrawal of armed forces and armed groups
on both sides, establishment of an effective and
accountable mechanism to ensure protection of
life and liberty of the people, particularly the
women, of J&K.
During three days of deliberations delegates from
the two countries appreciated the current efforts
at rapprochement and called for building the
people's movement to remove obstacles in the way
of peace.
Delegates from the two countries unanimously
declared that the future of the people of
Pakistan and India as independent countries was
contingent upon permanent peace and harmony so
that they fought the imperialist machinations of
subjugating and exploiting "the resources and the
people of our countries."
The Karachi Declaration also reiterated call for
global nuclear disarmament, and immediate
'de-alert' and subsequent destruction of all
nuclear weapons by the two countries, a 25 per
cent reduction in conventional forces, and an end
to the use of landmines. It also called upon the
two countries to become signatory to the UN
documents in this regard.
The convention also constituted joint committees
to ensure systematic and concerted pursuit of the
objectives of the Forum. The committee on Kashmir
has been mandated to arrange for, and facilitate,
a dialogue between people from both sides of the
LoC, and interact with all organizations involved
in the efforts to achieve a peaceful and
democratic resolution of the Kashmir issue.
The delegates from India and Pakistan were
convinced that the people of the world in general
and South Asia in particular faced new forms of
imperialistic globalization.
The committee would prepare an immediate and
short-term people's plan for confidence-building
and normalcy in the region and a long-term
strategy for a just and durable peace in the
subcontinent.
It would visit different parts of India and
Pakistan and hold extended discussions with the
various sections of society, including political
parties, business community, workers and farmer's
organizations, media professionals, women and
minority groups, and representatives of the
people's movements.
The convention also decided to constitute a joint
committee on minorities to deal with the issue
relating to the protection of minorities and
their rights in the two countries.
It was of the considered view that there would be
no justice without granting redress to the
victims of human rights abuses, especially with
the connivance of the state as in Gujarat.
The conference was convinced that people of the
world in general and South Asia in particular
were confronted with new forms of imperialistic
globalization, that was increasingly aided and
abetted by local interests and constituencies;
imposed an iniquitous system on the developing
countries; destroyed the livelihood of common
people; undermined the political and economic
independence of counties; directed violence
against societies with different political and
social ideals, particularly Muslim people; and
terrorized entire countries in the name of
fighting terrorism.
The conference also called for building
"resistance against the IMF, World Bank and
WTO..., and promoting strong trade and economic
cooperation between the two countries and in
entire South Asia to foster independent
development".
The Karachi Declaration also held that
"persistence of majoritarian politics and
increasing communalization of the polity, pitting
one disadvantaged section against another
deprives the people of their right to
self-realization."
It was of the view that without adequate
protection of religious, cultural and political
minorities, and women, there would be no
democracy. The convention also resolved that all
regimes and laws that deny human rights of the
person without citizenship status, such as
migrant workers and those who cross the border by
mistake must be scrapped.
It also exhorted Pakistan and India to sign a
protocol on exchange of prisoners and respecting
the rights of refugees. It demanded immediate
cessation of the harassment of fishermen. Those
arrested must be repatriated immediately with
their boats, equipment and property, it added.
The convention also called upon the two
governments to remove all restrictions on travel
between the two countries, and put in place a
regime of issuing of visa on arrival.
It also emphasized the need for recognizing the
universal right of divided families to reunion,
and allow cultural exchanges and interaction
between civil society organisations to counter
the atmosphere of hate and distrust, remove
restrictions on exchange of literature, films,
music, and other art forms.
KARACHI: A four-month long Friendship March from
Karachi to Delhi has been proposed by
Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and
Democracy to mobilize public opinion for peace
and friendship between India and Pakistan. The
idea of Friendship March has been initiated by
Dr. Sandeep Pandey, National Convener, National
Alliance of People's Movement, India.
Dr. Pandey, renowned social activist from India,
holds a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from
the University of California, Berkeley and has
been working as a full time social activist for
the last 10 years. He has been actively involved
in anti-communalism movement in Ayodhya, and
nuclear disarmament, anti-globalization and
anti-corruption campaigns being run in India. Dr.
Pandey had initiated and led an 88-day peace
march from Pokhran to Saranath in 1999 to
campaign for nuclear disarmament. In 2002, Dr.
Pandey led a 26-day peace march from Chitrakoot
to Ayodhya for communal harmony.
The proposed 1700 kilometer long Friendship March
will begin on June 11, 2004 and will reach Lahore
on 4 September, 2004, the day of the 10th
anniversary of the formation of Pakistan-India
People's Forum. After crossing over the border at
Wagah, the Friendship March will end in New Delhi
at Rajghat on 2nd October 2004. A joint
convention of Pakistan and India chapters of the
Forum will be held at the conclusion of the march
in New Delhi.
The marchers will walk 15 to 20 km on an average
per day, stopping over at night in scheduled
villages, towns and cities enroute, interacting
with thousands of common people in both the
countries, seeking their endorsement for
accelerating the peace process.
Dr. Sandeep Pandey,
National Convener, National Alliance of People's Movement, India
Karamat Ali
Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER), Karachi
JAIPUR, DEC. 14. The former Pakistan Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, today
visited the Dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer to pay obeisance
and pray for the progress of the ongoing overtures for peace between India
and Pakistan. Ms. Bhutto, speaking to reporters outside the shrine, said
the people in both the countries were in favour of peace and hoped that
the younger generation would take an initiative to break the "walls of
mutual distrust and suspicion". The Ajmer dargah had the capacity to unite
all the people of Indian subcontinent, she added. "Better relations
between India and Pakistan will benefit both countries and increase their
pace of development. A peaceful and cordial atmosphere will enable the new
generation to prosper and ensure that no child becomes an orphan and no
woman a widow," Ms. Bhutto said, while emphasising the need to keep the
momentum of the latest initiatives for peace. This was Ms. Bhutto's third
visit to the dargah that attracts devotees in large numbers from all over
the subcontinent. She had earlier visited the shrine in 1991 and 2001. The
officials of the Dargah Committee, appointed under a Central Act, accorded
a reception to her at Buland Darwaza inside the dargah premises.
They say nothing succeeds like success! Alas,
this adage only rarely applies to India-Pakistan
relations, with their sordid history of failure,
followed by crisis, succeeded by hostility. So it
is very good news indeed that Prime Minister Mir
Zafarullah Khan Jamali's unilateral ceasefire
offer in Kashmir beginning with Eid-ul-Fitr was
quickly followed by Pakistan's announcement
lifting its two year-old ban on Indian civil
aviation flights through its airspace. New Delhi
has welcomed both initiatives and agreed to
reciprocate.
We citizens should actually celebrate this thaw.
The resumption of point-to-point air services as
well as overflights between the two countries is
scheduled to begin on New Year's Day. This should
pave the way for the more important restoration
of rail links across the border--and hence for
more trade and economic cooperation, on which
India is very keen, but on which Pakistan has
been dragging its feet. Greater
citizen-to-citizen contacts and closer commercial
relations are worthy in themselves.
The ceasefire marks, at minimum, a welcome end to
the India-Pakistan practice of wantonly,
randomly, casually, callously shelling each
other's territory and border posts. Both states
indulge in this routinely--not so much for
strategic gains, as for mere effect, just to
appear macho and ready to strike. Artillery
shelling, which occurs thousands of times every
year, takes a massive toll of life and property.
The ceasefire will give a major respite to the
200,000 Indians who have had to flee their homes
and fields as a result of mortar fire and
heavy-calibre artillery fusillades. More
optimistically, the ceasefire could lead to other
substantive confidence-building measures and even
conflict diffusion--especially in Siachen.
The overflight ban, imposed in January 2002,
entailed a costly diversion of West-bound flights
of both Air India and Indian Airlines, and hence
a loss of 75 minutes' flight-time and over Rs.
100 crores in money. India was much the greater
loser because, prior to the ban, it operated 10
times more flights through Pakistan's airspace
than the other way around. The restoration of
overflights and point-to-point services, with
relaxed restrictions on aircraft size, removes a
significant irritant and source of suspicion in
India-Pakistan relations. It was long believed
that Pakistan wanted to continue the overflight
ban in order to continue to deny India aviation
access to Afghanistan. This is part of the two
South Asian rivals' hot-cold war, spilling over
into Afghanistan.
Overflight resumption is welcome. Even more
positive is what appears to be a more basic
change in Islamabad's attitude. In effect; it now
recognises that it's ludicrous to inflict a loss
upon itself only to hurt India--cutting off your
nose to spite your face, so to speak. This
establishes a simple principle: don't act just to
needle your adversary even though you know it
will hurt you. It's irrelevant whether your
adversary's loss is greater than yours--so long
as you foolishly bleed yourself. This principle
does not assume friendship between adversaries:
it only eliminates the more grossly irrational
forms of rivalry between them.
If this principle is applied to the Siachen
conflict, it will produce an instant solution.
Siachen is the world's highest-altitude conflict,
and perhaps its most strategically irrational
one. India and Pakistan, two of the world's
poorest countries, are each spending something
like Rs.3-to-5 crores a day to sustain
hostilities at unbelievable heights such as
20,000 feet, where the wind velocity can reach
150 kmph and temperatures minus 50 Celsius.
India and Pakistan both show utter contempt for
their own soldiers's lives, hundreds of whom die
from frostbite--a much higher number than those
killed by gunshots. Siachen leaves even its
survivors scarred: with snow-blindness,
high-altitude sickness and depression from being
lonely for long periods in a desolate place.
Indian and Pakistan have both squandered away
precious opportunities to settle the issue. They
fight each other not because there is a military
advantage in doing so, but only to deny each
other a possible future chance to demarcate the
Line of Control beyond the ground reference-point
NJ 9842 in ways favourable to them. Holding on to
their positions in Siachen gives them no military
leverage. Siachen doesn't overlook any strategic
area, nor does it lead to one. It's a dead-end.
The Siachen conflict must be terminated.
Even on a minimalist and cynical view, the
ceasefire could lead to a Siachen solution--if
the right moves are made. But one need not take a
dismal view of things. Mr Jamali's ceasefire
offer was unilateral and unconditional. It made a
clean break with the action-reaction pattern of
Pakistan's responses to India's overtures
prevalent since Prime Minister Vajpayee held out
the "hand of friendship" from Srinagar in April.
With this, Pakistan took the first real step to
establish its ownership of the peace process. One
possible reason for this is growing, if subtle,
Western pressure, arising from the view that
Pakistan is dragging its feet on fighting Al
Qaeda and other extremists. Islamabad is acutely
aware of this perception.
On November 20, Gen Pervez Musharraf told senior
Pakistani journalists that the world has started
doubting Pakistan's sincerity in conducting the
"war on terrorism"; it expects Islamabad to "do
more". Failure to act decisively could even bring
punishment from the US, including bombing of the
"tribal agency" areas on the Afghanistan border.
But compulsion isn't the only factor at work
behind Pakistan's apparent change of stance.
There seems to be a growing recognition within
its establishment, or its moderate elements, that
the covert military option in Kashmir is turning
counterproductive. Pakistan cannot bleed India to
an unbearable extent. It should explore the
cooperative approach.
This holds especially true of economic
cooperation. Pakistan's policy-makers know that
the coming South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation summit is make-or-break. Pakistan can
no longer hold out on a South Asian Free Trade
Agreement. If SAFTA doesn't come about, India
will turn its back upon SAARC and instead reach
FTAs with Southeast and East Asian countries, and
bilateral agreements with close neighbours, as
with Sri Lanka.
Mr Jamali's Eid initiative must be seen in this
positive context--as largely sincere. India must
respond to it generously. India has nothing to
lose by reciprocating goodwill gestures and a lot
to gain by expanding and speeding up the peace
process. In fact, New Delhi should look beyond
the ceasefire, while ensuring is extension into
the summer--after the snows melt and cross-border
activity, including infiltration, increases. We
must recognise that in the Indian subcontinent,
the processes of normalisation (or restoration)
of relations and of transforming them can go on
simultaneously; indeed, they can reinforce each
other. India should explore both reconciliation
and transformation.
This may not result, as Gen Musharraf hopes and
frequently demands, in an immediate full-scale
dialogue. His formula, spelled out to the Indian
business delegation which heard his overflight
announcement, involves four steps: start talking;
accept the centrality of resolution of the
Kashmir issue; eliminate whatever is unacceptable
to Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris; and
finally, reach a settlement acceptable to all.
This is not unreasonable. But Pakistan too must
show some indications that it has stopped
supporting the secessionist jehadis in Kashmir.
The ceasefire is a step in that direction.
If the ceasefire holds, and if the SAARC summit
is successful, India should make unilateral
gestures beyond the 12 proposals of October 22.
These could include relaxation of the visa regime
and doing away for, say, six months, with (the
absurd and counter-productive) requirement of
police reporting for visitors. Similarly, India
should unilaterally release all visa-violating
Pakistani detainees as soon as they have served
their prison terms. India should unilaterally
announce more tariff concessions, especially
those it's offering to Sri Lanka and Thailand.
India could organise a goodwill delegation from
Jammu and Kashmir to visit Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir. An even bolder measure would be a
one-year moratorium on missile test-flights,
which could be extended if Pakistan reciprocates.
Doing this will necessitate a mindset change.
Essentially, the choice is between India
remaining a prisoner to its hostility with
Pakistan, and liberating itself to develop its
true potential and give its citizens a fair deal.
The first option is not just negative; it's
thoroughly debilitating. It unrealistically
assumes that Pakistan and India are destined to
remain enemies forever. Pakistan will always
create "mischief" in Kashmir. Its proponents
piously wish that Pakistan would either
disintegrate because of internal dissensions in
Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP, or that its economy
would collapse, as happened in the former Soviet
Union.
This is the favourite fantasy of Jammu and
Kashmir Governor Lt-Gen S.K. Sinha, no less. But
nothing of the sort is going to happen to
Pakistan. Its economy is recovering, with
industrial growth clocking 18 percent. There are
growing ethnic tensions, but they are not
unmanageable. On a sober, realistic view,
Pakistan and India will just have to learn to
live with each other--separately, but sanely and
responsibly. Peaceful co-existence alone can
create the ground for the eventual resolution of
outstanding problems between them. India must
contribute to that process in the same spirit in
which it made the October 22 proposals. Conflict
offers no solution. Cooperation is the only
option.
A turban clad Sunny Deol, muscles rippling under
a blood-stained kurta runs atop a running train
shooting down with a single AK-47 helicopter
after helicopter bearing the ubiquitous green
star and crescent as the Pakistani train hurtles
towards the Indian border - this is the climax
scene of the box office hit Gadar, a love story
set during Partition and its aftermath. Without
paying too much attention to details like does
India really need a huge army to take on Pakistan
when Sunny Deol can do it all by himself,
jingoistic and anti-Pakistan films have
flourished in India in the last few years.
Animosity
Now as relations between the two warring nations
begin to thaw the Pakistani foreign minister
Khursheed Kasauri has made an intelligent appeal
to Bollywood - lay off making films which depict
Pakistan as the enemy. As he rightly says they
serve no good purpose but simply spur anti-India
films being made across the border and fuel
animosity. Bollywood's own King Khan - Shahrukh,
the heart-throb of millions and currently rated
as the most powerful star along with Big B
Amitabh Bachchan, echoed Kasuri's comments on the
same day at a bash in Singapore. For the first
time he had the guts to openly say "I detest
Hindi films which depict Muslims, Islam or
Pakistan in a bad light".
Whether it is Border, Hero, Mission Kashmir,
Zameen or the yet to be released multi-starrer
LOC, Pakistan - and the ISI - has become
Bollywood's bogeyman, much like the Soviet Union
was for Hollywood before the fall of Communism.
Ever since relations with our neighbours on the
western front deteriorated, Bollywood has been
able to find the enemy, but unfortunately it has
often blurred the line between Pakistan the
nation-state, and Islam the religion.
Considering it is an industry which has a
disproportionately high number of Indian Muslims
working in it, lately many of the films have been
insensitive to minority sentiments in their
enthusiasm for Pakistan-bashing. While the
jingoism in the "so very patriotic'' Gadar can be
tolerated, stretching this to being anti-Islam is
unpardonable.
A flagrant example of this is when the "brave'',
but "sensitive'' hero Sunny is asked by the
Pakistani villain, played by Amrish Puri, to
convert to Islam if he wants his bride back.
After much agonising Sunny agrees. But it is the
depiction of this ceremony that is most
offensive. Before a huge crowd of "Pakistanis''
(shot at the Bara Imambara in Lucknow) the hero
is converted to Islam not by reciting the qalma
(which is bearing testimony to Allah) as is the
Islamic practice, but by chanting "Pakistan
zindabad''. Sunny, who of course bears no ill
towards anyone, obliges but it is when he is
asked by the qazi to chant "Hindustan mordabad''
that our red-blooded Indian cannot hold back his
anger and destroys everyone in sight.
Gift from heaven
Where the director or scriptwriter got this
particular version of an Islamic conversion
ceremony is anybody's guess, but it is certainly
a gift from heaven for the likes of Praveen
Togadia and Narendra Modi.
The Rs 4,000-crore industry churns out 800 films
annually, twice as many as Hollywood, and it is
estimated that 14 million Indians go to the
movies every day, not taking into account the
numbers who watch films in the comfort of their
home. That gives Hindi films the capacity to
brainwash at least 14 million people daily. The
reach and impact of Bollywood is phenomenal. But
with power comes great responsibility, and it is
the latter which many directors are not showing
lately.
Gone are the days of Amar, Akbar Anthony when
Bollywood tried to spread the word of communal
harmony. Up to the 1980s most Hindi films had the
token kind, good-natured Rahim chacha or David
uncle to depict the multi-religious nature of
India. The character was often added even if the
story line did not necessarily need it, but it
was done for the cause of political correctness.
But in the changing political climate of the 90s
with the rise of the BJP and when Hindutva began
to be projected as being synonymous with Indian
nationalism and culture these figures were
discarded, probably when they were needed the
most.
Unlike in the nationalistic films of yore like
Upkaar, Kranti or Karma where a Muslim character
was always present generally shown dying for
Mother India, a runaway hit like JP Dutta's
Border did not have a single Muslim soldier in
the regiment fighting the Pakistanis. Released at
a time when Hindu-Muslim relations in India were
strained, it depicted Muslims on both sides of
the border as cowards and traitors.
Almost 50 per cent of Bollywood's audience is
Muslim whether it is the 150 million Muslims in
India or their co-religionists across the border,
in the Arab countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, and
many other parts of the world where sub-titled
copies of Hindi films flourish. That no Hindi
blockbuster is released during the Islamic holy
month of Ramazan when Muslims try to avoid films
is testimony to the trade's appreciation of the
importance of this segment of viewers. Then why
the insensitivity to their feelings?
Ever since Independence it is Bollywood films
which have thrived in Pakistan so much so that
their own film industry has never taken off.
Pakistan even banned Hindi films in order to
protect its own fledgling film industry but it
was unsuccessful. Whether it is homes in Pakistan
or in those of its diaspora spread across the
world, Pakistanis only watch Bollywood. They can
reel off the names of Hindi film actors but won't
be able to tell you the name of a single
Pakistani actor, unless he or she appears in
television plays.
It is not only in the interest of international
relations that Bollywood stop Pakistan-bashing,
but also for domestic communal harmony.
Stereotypes of the Muslim terrorist add fuel to
the fires started by organisations like the VHP.
Critical acclaim
The producer of noted Bengali film maker Mrinal
Sen's comeback film Amar Bhuvan starring Nandita
Das backed out at the last minute because he did
not want to invest in a story line which had an
all Muslim theme so soon after the Gujarat riots,
even though the film had nothing to do with
Hindu-Muslim relations. He believed it would make
bad financial sense as it would not appeal to
viewers. Sen and his team went on to make the
film on a tiny budget as they believed in it, and
the film received critical acclaim.
Hindi film producers and directors are no
different. They too are affected by the current
political climate. Karan Johar's hit film Kabhie
Khushi Kabhie Gham originally had the Hindu hero
falling in love with a Muslim girl from Delhi's
Chandni Chowk. But he too did not want to take
the risk of negative viewer-reaction and so
converted it in to a typical rich versus poor
love story, and raked in the money. Johar would
have certainly been more daring as a director and
done greater service to the cause of
Hindu-Muslims relations if he had stuck to the
original story line, though he may not have made
as much money.
Considering the influence of Hindi films on
society, it is in the greater good that the Rahim
chachas and David uncles are brought back. Some
may consider them caricatures of Muslims and
Christians, but they served a very useful
purpose; at least they gave a better image of
minorities than the current trend.
The author is Assistant Editor, The Statesman
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 26 januari 2004