index
Summary
The widely noted decision to resume F-16 sales to Pakistan and, even more,
the largely ignored commitment to assist India’s growth in power represent
a new U.S. strategy toward South Asia. By expanding relations with both
states in a differentiated way matched to their geostrategic weights, the
Bush administration seeks to assist Pakistan in becoming a successful
state while it enables India to secure a troublefree ascent to great-power
status. These objectives will be pursued through a large economic and
military assistance package to Islamabad and through three separate
dialogues with New Delhi that will review various challenging issues such
as civil nuclear cooperation, space, defense coproduction, regional and
global security, and bilateral trade. This innovative approach to India
and Pakistan is welcomeand long overdue in a strategic sensebut it is
not without risks to the United States, its various regional
relationships, and different international regimes.
Click on here for the full text of this Policy Brief.
About the Author
Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington, D.C. Previously, he served as senior
adviser to the ambassador at the embassy of the United States in India. He
also served on the National Security Council staff as special assistant to
the president and senior director for strategic planning and Southwest
Asia. Before his government service, he was for eight years a senior
policy analyst at RAND and professor of policy analysis at the RAND
graduate school. He is the author of India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture,
coauthor of China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future, and has
recently edited
Strategic Asia 2004–05: Confronting Terrorism in the Pursuit of Power.
Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee opened the first phase of India's giant
western naval base in Karwar, Karnataka state, on May 31, saying it would
protect the country's Arabian Sea maritime routes.
The Karwar base is being built in the southern state as part of India's
ambitious 350-billion-rupee ($8.13 billion) "Project Seabird," which will
include the naval base and an air force station when it is completed in
the next five years.
It will also have a naval armament depot and missile silos.
The Russian aircraft carrier, Admiral Gorshkov, which will be refurbished
and handed over to the Indian Navy by 2008, will berth in Karwar,
officials said.
"With the commissioning of this naval base in Karwar, the Indian Navy will
fulfill the responsibility of defending the country, its sea lanes and
safeguarding the country's exclusive economic zone," Mukherjee said in
inaugurating the base.
India's exclusive economic zone consists of all marine, mineral, energy
and oil resources that fall within 200 nautical miles of its territorial
waters from the coastline.
According to defense experts, the Karwar naval base will play a major role
in securing the seas not only for India but for countries like Japan,
which rely heavily on shipping for imports and exports through maritime
routes in the Arabian Sea.
We are grateful to the Pakistani government for
allowing us to enter Pakistan and symbolically
complete the India Pakistan Peace March scheduled
from Delhi to Multan between March 23 and May 11,
but regret that we were not given permission to
walk within Pakistan. The only consolation is
that we reached Multan on the scheduled date,
which was not looking possible at one point
because of bureaucratic hurdles.
The highlight of the Multan event was the
presence of both Shah Mahmood Hussain Qureshi,
the Sajjada Nashin of the Dargah of Bahauddin
Zakaria in Multan where our March ended and Nazim
Syed Ali Shah Nizami, the Gaddi Nashin of the
Dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya in Delhi from
where the march began.
The march was meant to carry the message of Sufi
saints and we accomplished our objective to a
large extent. The response from people on both
sides of the border was overwhelming. The signs
are very clear. The people of India and Pakistan
are for peace and friendship and they blame their
governments for not giving it to them.
The people of India and Pakistan are anxious to
meet each other as no other two communities of
people around the globe. The governments of India
and Pakistan have made it so difficult for the
two people to meet as probably nowhere in the
world. A very complicated travel restriction
regime exists between India and Pakistan. Some of
the restrictions are beyond the comprehension of
common people.
For example, why does one need the permission of
one's Home Ministry to cross the Wagha border on
foot if the other country has granted a visa?
This permission is not needed when you're
crossing over from one country into the other by
any other means -- air, rail, or bus. Hence, if
you cross the same border on Delhi-Lahore bus
service then you don't need the permission from
the Home Ministry.
There is also a rule which mandates a group of a
minimum of four to cross the border on foot. Most
of the common Indian and Pakistani citizens are
neither terrorists nor criminals, but they are
required to report daily to the police if they
are in the other country. It is funny that during
our stay in Pakistan a police squad was
continuously accompanying us and they had minute
to minute knowledge about our movement but still
our friends Saeeda Diep or Shabnam Rashid had to
waste a couple of hours every day to carry our
passports to the police headquarters. One has to
use the same means to return that one used to
enter the other country. There is a senseless
strictness about port of entry.
Most importantly, you cannot go into the other
country unless you have a relative or an
invitation. The Pakistani High Commission in
Delhi had refused to entertain our visa
applications until our names were cleared by the
Interior Ministry in Islamabad, which meant that
unless we had influential friends in Pakistan it
was virtually impossible for us to enter Pakistan.
And we had to go through all this after Pervez
Musharraf's recent trip to New Delhi where the
two governments had talked about increasing
people to people contact and making the borders
softer! The bureaucracy on the two sides is still
not willing to acknowledge the changing realities
between the two countries. It wants to maintain
its hold over people and create all possible
obstacles in the path of people wanting to go to
the other country.
Only twelve of us had got the nod of the
Pakistani Interior Ministry to enter Pakistan.
About ten times more people who wished to
accompany this march into Pakistan were
disappointed. A close friend Vinish Gupta, who
left his Ph.D. programme at IIT Delhi to become a
Buddhist Monk and presently lives in Sarnath,
wanted to come to Pakistan to see his ancestral
home in Lahore which houses Habib Bank today. His
grandmother would have been most happy if he
could have brought photographs of this home back
with him.
However, Tenzin, as he is now known, was not
given the opportunity by the Pakistani Interior
Ministry to fulfill even as small a wish as this.
The great Gautam Buddha had said that desrire is
the source of pain. Tenzin has learnt this the
hard way. However, what right the bureaucracies
on the two sides, who themselves are not
accountable to anybody, have to deny even simple
freedom to the people to travel and meet people
they wish to on the other side?
Even though we're demanding a complete doing away
with of the passport-visa regime for travel
between India and Pakistan, the common sentiment
that was expressed by people along our route was
that the two governments must grant visas on
arrival at the border. The governments of India
and Pakistan can do it if they want to. They have
to merely demonstrate the political will as they
did when they started the Delhi-Lahore bus
service, implemented the cease fire agreement,
allowed over 5,000 people to cross over to watch
a cricket match and most importantly, against all
odds, introduced the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus
service.
In fact, it would be a very novel idea for India
and Pakistan to allow granting dual citizenship
to people of the other country who wish to apply
for it. There would be a number of Pakistanis
willing to obtain Indian citizenship too and
similarly a number of Indian citizens willing to
obtain Pakistani citizenship too if given the
choice.
This would be the surest way to get rid of
distrust between the people of two countries
which exists because of sustained propaganda on
both sides against the other country and its
people. It would also make life easier for a
number of us who wish to frequently travel to
Pakistan to meet friends and attend events and
have to go through the tedious process of getting
approval of Interior Ministry of Pakistan every
time.
And till the day of our departure we're not sure
whether the Indian Home Ministry would allow us
to cross the Wagha border on foot, even though we
might have the visa from the Pakistani
government. No governments possibly treat their
citizens in such a disrespectful manner as the
governments of India and Pakistan when it comes
to traveling between the two countries. Why
should the citizens of the two countries be
subjected to this shoddy treatment by their
governments?
Dr Pandey is a social activist and recipient of
the Ramon Magsaysay Award for the year 2002.
The much hyped and hoped for progress of the
Indo-Pak peace process suddenly finds itself on
the edge of a precipice. At least outwardly,
every thing was hunky dory till Islamabad
formally invited almost all the separatist groups
to send their representatives by bus to
Pak-administered Kashmir (PaK) on 2 June for a
thorough discussion on the future of this divided
and tormented state with the officials and
popular leaders of Pak and Pakistan. New Delhi
had already agreed not to raise any objection to
their visit, and has not said `No' so far. But,
all hell broke out as soon as Islamabad let it be
known that, contrary to the letter of the
agreement on the bus service across the LoC, the
visiting leaders from India would be allowed to
visit other parts of Pakistan to see the
situation there for themselves and to interact
with the leaders of as many parties and groups as
possible. Instead of welcoming the freedom
Islamabad had decided to extend to the visitors
from Kashmir the Ministry of External Affairs
(MEA) raised serious objection to the proposed
breach in the letter of the agreement. The MEA in
New Delhi made a serious issue of the Pak
proposal, and announced that none of them going
by bus to Muzaffarabad should be permitted to go
beyond PaK. They ignored Islamabad's admission
that, in the recent past, many Indian families,
on a visit to the PaK, had been allowed to visit
other provinces of Pakistan to meet their friends
and relatives there. So, what is the harm if the
separatists from Kashmir too enjoyed that
privilege? In fact, any one going to Mirpur in
PaK has to normally go to Rawalpindi on his way,
because there is no direct link between northern
PaK and its southernmost part. So a possible
violation of the letter of the agreement is
implicit in the agreement itself. So, why so much
of fuss over similar breaches by these separatist
leaders? Besides, these are no ordinary visitors.
They have been invited and allowed to proceed
with a certain purpose in view, and both the
countries are equally expected to make it easy
for them to see as much of and to meet as many as
possible in Pakistan. How will it adversely
affect India's interest if they went beyond PaK
to the Punjab or NWFP? If any of them is out to
harm India's interest he can do so while in the
PaK itself, without going any where beyond her.
In short, India's objection appears highly
unreasonable.
As expected, Islamabad's official re-action to
the Indian objection is one of moral outrage.
They have accused India of 'stubbornness',
lacking in sincerity, and of being unwilling to
associate the Kashmiris in the forthcoming peace
process. The Pak foreign minister has used even
the language of despair and threat to let India
and the world know that Pakistan had 'softened'
her attitude only to prevent another repitition
of the past Indo-Pak wars, and would be forced by
India's attitude to once again raise the
fifty-five year old U.N. resolution in the
committee of nations. These contained enough of
hint of the unfortunate possibility of the peace
process ultimately leading no where in the face
of India's rigidity. The same rigidity over the
Pak proposal of an immediate demilitarisation has
already ensured the failure of the two-day
foreign secretary level talk on the Siachen issue
at Rawalpindi, last week. Unless New Delhi and
Islamabad learn to bend and to yield on occasions
future talks on Sir Creek, Baglihar, Kishanganga
etc. are likely to fail. If the two countries are
really interested in reaching the distant goal at
the earliest then they shall have to ignore or to
give up many things that they value in their
search for the greater good. By raising petty
objections they are only betraying their lack of
commitment to peace and friendship. It is,
however, encouraging to find the Prime Minister
ignoring Kasuri's angry response and expressing
his faith in seeking solutions through a dialogue.
It is regrettable in the extreme that
stubbornness has again triumphed over good sense
on Siachen. The defence secretaries of Pakistan
and India met in Islamabad for two days of talks
last Thursday amidst high hopes of a breakthrough
on this issue. But at the end, a bald statement
merely repeated the diplomatic doublespeak for
deadlock: that the two sides held "frank and
constructive discussions" and would continue to
talk - without specifying any new date. In real
terms, therefore, the position, if it has not
actually regressed, remains the same as the one
that prevailed when the then Indian premier, Mr
Rajiv Gandhi, had come to Islamabad for talks
with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in July 1989.
At that time, there were at least signs of some
agreement on a redeployment of forces in the
forbidding 6,300-metre high glacier and efforts
to determine future positions in preparation for
a comprehensive Siachen settlement. But premature
information leaks, coupled with the fact that Mr
Gandhi had decided to go to the polls later that
year, put paid to any chance of an agreement on a
politically sensitive question.
Since India occupied the heights in 1984, a
stalemate has prevailed, punctuated off and on by
active hostilities. But, as has been repeated
almost ad nauseam: more soldiers have died from
the cold than by shooting at one another. The
cost for both India and Pakistan has been
frightening in both human and material terms;
somebody pointed out the other day that bread
that sold for two rupees in the plains cost
almost a hundred times more by the time it got to
the men in Siachen. It seems such a needless and
costly standoff. It has somehow become a matter
of prestige, and no one is prepared to blink
first, although India went into the area
unilaterally and the burden for an agreement
rests on it. The issue is also of course tied up
with Kashmir, which only complicates matters. But
the expectation was that since Islamabad and New
Delhi were now set on a friendly course and even
inching towards substantive discussions on
Kashmir, they might have wanted to get Siachen
out of the way and provide another indication of
their determination to put the past behind. A
more earnest attempt should be made to at least
agree on withdrawal to less harsh and more
civilized positions and to pledge that no patrols
in uncharted territory will be carried out by
either side. This too should be seen as a
confidence-building measure.
Meanwhile, what does one make of the Indian stand
that leaders of the Hurriyat can travel only to
Azad Kashmir and not go anywhere else?
Technically, since the APHC delegation will be
coming by the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, the
visit will be governed by the rules laid down for
the bus service. But, for heaven's sake, the
Mirwaiz and his companions cannot be treated on
the same footing as divided families or ordinary
travellers. The whole thing has been devised as a
political initiative, and the bus alternative,
with its temporary permits, was decided on to
circumvent the Kashmiri leaders having to apply
for passports to New Delhi, with all kinds of
implications. The visit must continue to be
looked at politically because much is riding on
the proposed bus journey on June 2 and
disappointment will be acute if it falls through.
The government of India has acted correctly in
permitting the leaders of the All Parties
Hurriyet Conference to visit Pakistan next week.
India badly needs to improve its image with the
people of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir;
therefore, the permission granted to the Hurriyet
leadership is a step in the right direction.
Apparently, now India has come to believe that
the discussion the Hurriyet leaders may have with
the Pakistani leaders in Islamabad will help
towards the resolution of the Kashmir issue. What
Pakistani leadership tells the visitors may also
help in opening a dialogue between New Delhi and
Hurriyet.
Further, India will be most interested in
discovering what the Pakistanis say, in
confidence, to the Hurriyet. Ultimately nothing
will remain confidential and India will be better
able to assess Islamabad's intentions by what
they learn from the talks there. This is the best
India can hope for from the visit.
Much will depend upon how the Hurriyet leadership
assesses what the president of Pakistan tells
them during his talks with the Indian leaders. He
can merely repeat what the Indians have told him
and his own interpretation of it, but cannot
offer any assurances. The Hurriyet leaders,
seasoned by experience and huge sacrifices, may
consider themselves to be the better judge of the
Indian approach.
President Pervez Musharraf has done well to
invite the leadership of the APHC to visit
Pakistan. The visit must be a total success.
There is no doubt that the Hurriyet has to be the
most vital part of the consensus towards the
solution of the Kashmir dispute.
However, there are other political elements on
the two sides of the Line of Control whose
support has to be won by New Delhi and Islamabad.
For a lasting solution, India and Pakistan have
to win the hearts and minds of the peoples of the
entire former state of Jammu and Kashmir and also
get the approval of the peoples and parliaments
of both the countries.
The governments in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad will
also have to give the green signal for the
proposed solution of the dispute. Further, the
leaderships of the political forces in
opposition, militant and non-militant, have their
own constituencies to be won over. Even a
military commander has his limitations; where he
can and where he cannot order his troops to
follow him. The political objectives which stir
the populace to the depth reached at present
cannot be achieved only through dialogue with
leaders behind closed doors.
Pakistan's objective, like that of India, to win
the hearts and minds of the people of the former
state, is not an easy one to achieve. So far
General Pervez Musharraf has done splendidly by
candidly and forthrightly stating that Pakistan
will not agree either to independence or the
division of the former state along the line of
control. But now he has to say more in public to
the leadership as well as the people of the
former state in order to assure everyone that he
is not striking a secret deal with the APHC.
Pakistan must begin to put its cards on the
table, as many as it can, particularly those
which will increase its general support among the
masses and classes in the former state. Pakistan
should make the following recommendations:
(a) The people of the entire state should be free
to travel and trade throughout Pakistan and India
without any let and hindrance or tariff
restrictions.
(b) Pakistanis and Indians should be free to
travel and trade throughout the former state.
(c) Pakistan is all for touching the "sky", as
Prime Minister Narashima Rao had declared, in
agreeing to the fullest autonomy for the former
state.
(d) Pakistan along with India is committed to the
fullest defence of the former state against any
non-regional power. Further, India should
continue to maintain its troops along the Ladakh
border and Pakistan along the Khunjrab border
with China.
(e) Pakistan stands for the withdrawal of
Pakistani and Indian forces from the interior of
the former state as soon as the latter can raise
a special force to come to the aid of civil power
whenever called to do so.
(f) Since the former state is a multi-ethnic,
multi-religious, multi-racial and
multi-linguistic polity, its people should evolve
a workable constitution of a decentralised state
where power is devolved to the level of the
grassroots.
ABID Hasan Manto, a lawyer by profession, is one
of the founders of the Pakistan India People's
Forum for Peace and Democracy, and a member of
its central committee. He is also the president
of the National Workers Party which was formed in
May 1999, coincidentally a few months before the
military takeover led by General Musharraf. The
following are excerpts from an interview
conducted recently with Mr Manto about the
current situation vis-a-vis Indo-Pak relations.
Q. A generation of Pakistanis has grown up
considering the India-Pakistan animosity as the
most natural state of being. What, in your view,
is the context of this hostility?
A. Between India and Pakistan there are certain
historical facts that must be kept in mind. To
begin with, the two major communities, that is,
the Hindus and the Muslims, over a period of
thousand years did not have an amiable
relationship at all. The Muslims originally came
as invaders, they plundered and returned. They
did not indulge in empire building at that time.
Later on, the Pathans and the Mughals came and
built an empire. For several centuries different
parts of India, which were overwhelmingly Hindu,
worked within an empire that was primarily
Muslim. There is no denial that during this
period the relationship between the Hindus and
the Muslims as the rulers and the ruled had
several ups and downs. Muslim rulers took some
steps that generated cordiality and the Sufis and
mystics interacted with the people of India in a
way that peace and harmony were also created. As
a result, to this day, non-Muslims also go to
Nizamud din Aulia and Hazrat Chishti's mazars. In
spite of all this the basic physical fact is that
the Muslims ruled over Hindustan for eight
hundred years. Against this background the people
who were working within the Hindu community for
its resurgence, using its religion and culture,
and the fact that the Muslims had subordinated
them, is not such an irrelevant thing. Now for
those building a Muslim identity on religion it
is easy to use this (Hindu resurgence) because it
has a historical foundation.
But the key issue is the difference between the
rulers and the ruled. Such differences exist
between the Muslims too. When the Arabs took over
Iran they kept a difference between 'Arabi' and
'Ajami' for centuries. The Iranian civilization
at that time was an advanced civilization.
Similarly, Indian civilization was also an
advanced one when the Muslims came here. Anyway,
the rulers had an impact on the local culture be
it Iran or India. But we should realize that in
spite of being Muslims the Arabi and Ajami
difference still exists to this day. So
establishing peace is not so easy because a lot
of prejudices exist for such a long time that it
is not possible to eradicate them at a stroke. In
fact, it is easy for the establishment to use
these differences when it wants.
In the Indo-Pak situation, we say we are
different from Indians, we have also made a
separate country and we feel that we are the
smaller country in this equation. At the back of
our minds is also our history that we were the
rulers and we ruled over a major chunk of the
world including India. This is similar in some
ways to the superiority that the British feel
even towards other Europeans in spite of peaceful
relations for many years. This is essential
background for us to remember: our relationship
with religion. We cannot separate our history of
having ruled the world from Spain to India from
religion's point of view. Certainly Islam had the
last big religious empire. So we are convinced of
the power flowing through religion, which may not
be as clear to others. In parts of the world
where modernism and industrialization have not
established themselves people are busy
establishing their identity on the basis of
religion.
Q. What role does industrialization play in this situation?
A. Historically, the Indian subcontinent has not
entered the modern era completely. We have not
entered the industrial and post-industrial era
completely. There are several reasons, going back
to the Mughal Empire with its own character, and
the colonization impact. Colonization forced a
distance from the development of society that
western societies gained. Western liberalism and
democracy were a result of the economic
industrialization in those countries. These
things complemented each other. Science and
technology helped bring down religious prejudices
etc. For them to talk about secularism and
liberalism is valid because it is part of their
historical tradition.
Our system is still largely feudal. In fact, to
the extent that India was able to progress in
industrialization and break down its feudal
structures, it is ahead of Pakistan. At the eve
of independence, India was at a different level
of trade and development and that helped the
democratic tradition in many ways. The
arbitrariness of feudal structures is reduced in
such a situation. The ruling, commercial elite
remains arbitrary in some ways, but because they
need to sell things, they need to establish some
kinds of relationships with a wider variety of
people in a host of different ways. This is what
happened in Europe and also in India to some
extent.
Another problem for us is that we got our country
by dividing the common struggle against the
British. We said 'we don't want the British,' but
that we're also against the Hindus. I don't want
to go into details of the justifications for this
but the fact remains that this is what we did.
This we started doing from 1940; before that we
were looking to resolve our issues within an
Indian confederation or union, whether through
Jinnah's 14 points or other means. In 1940, there
was a clear break. Although even in 1946 Jinnah
moved back on this too, and he accepted the
Cabinet Mission Plan, which would have meant a
united India. However, Congress did not accept
this plan for several reasons. Anyway, our entire
struggle for a separate state was six years old
and as a result it did not give birth to a mature
political leadership here. A long struggle for
their independence was the principal struggle
that Congress leaders had undergone. Mr Jinnah
was not wrong when he said he had 'khotay sikkay'
in his pocket. He could not find good leaders;
for instance, in Punjab he had to rely on Noon,
Sikander Hayat and Daultana, all feudals without
a history of struggle for independence.
Therefore, these leaders were not anti-empire
and, in fact, many had the seal of British
approval through titles such as sir etc. These
are again facts of our heritage so we need to
know them before we can judge the current
situation.
This is also why there was such a vacuum after
his death. The leadership later on was not of the
same level - intellectually, culturally or
politically. His own political grooming had been
during an Indian national struggle and he was
very different from the people around him
including Liaquat Ali. All of this also left its
impact on the political traditions on Pakistan.
This class had no interest in making a
constitution and delayed it constantly because
they were feudal rulers and felt no need for a
law or constitution. You can see how the change
in the class itself impacted our
constitution-making when a different class of
leaders from East Pakistan were in power briefly,
the constitution was finally made. The outdated
feudal Bengali leadership and our feudals could
not make this constitution.
Q. Kashmir plays a pivotal role in our
relationship with India, and to many Pakistanis
peace with India is tantamount to a sell-out on
the Kashmir issue.
A. The ML leadership had thought that Kashmir was
contiguous and predominantly Muslim. So of course
it would stay with us after partition. At the
same time we thought that Hyderabad, although not
contiguous with Pakistan, has a Muslim ruler so
he will accede to Pakistan. So we took a stand in
the middle about accepting the ruler's decision
as far as the princely states were concerned. We
did not at that time bargain for a poll or public
opinion. We may claim now that the Hindu raja was
pressurized by the Indian government, but our
stand now is weakened by our stance on partition.
The fact again is that war happened. Our desire
was always that Kashmir should be part of
Pakistan. In addition to religion there was the
issue of all our rivers originating from Kashmir.
A psyche was built up that Kashmir is ours and
India is occupying it by force. This disaster has
created perpetual conflict between India and
Pakistan. In fact, it has turned our state
apparatus into a security state; defend yourself
against India, which is three times larger than
our country. So our focus moved to security,
which meant building the army, and that required
money, which we did not have, so right from 1951
we looked to the US for money. We entered various
defence pacts with the US and in the cold war
context the India-Pak conflict was solidified.
Q. There have been, however, other episodes of
improved relationship between India and Pakistan.
Take the example of the '50s cricket matches in
Pakistan when the borders were opened. Why didn't
they last for long?
A. In 1953, there was a cricket match and the
borders were opened. There was a general exchange
at all levels. I was studying at the Law College
at the time, and I took the Punjab University
debating team to different cities in India. They
welcomed us warmly and we met Nehru. Ghazanfar
Ali was the High Commissioner in India at that
time and he took several initiatives. And then
their teams came and we looked after them here.
But this ended quite soon because Pakistan became
an active participant in the cold war on the US
side. We entered various defence pacts that also
bolstered the role of our army in Pakistan's
decision-making. India, with a generally
non-aligned but largely pro-Soviet stance, was in
the other camp. As I said, our conflict was
solidified because of the cold war context. The
Kashmir conflict continued in spite of
negotiations and Nehru's visit. All the politics
here was being conducted on the basis of
establishing India as the key enemy.
However, today's situation does not parallel
those previous incidents of peace building. In
part, this is because of the realization now that
we have tried the path of hostility and it is not
going to work. We have realized that the Security
Council resolutions are of no use. The
institution that makes these resolutions can and
will not implement them. We have also realized
now that we cannot win Kashmir over form India.
We can create disturbance, but we cannot win it
over in war. But the right to create disturbance
is no longer given to any country other than
America today. So in this context, there has been
a withdrawal from jihadi politics. It is the age
of economics and trade. It is now impossible for
us to not trade with our neighbour rather than
somebody 2,000 miles away. This will happen
inevitably although we will go through certain
ups and downs.
There have been other experiences as well. For
instance, now there is a clearer understanding
among the people that the US has time and again
used us, and dropped us when a relationship is no
longer in their interest - for example, after the
Afghan war. Although admittedly the predominant
impression in our ruling class is still that
being with the Americans is important. But one
thing that everyone realizes is that
international conditions have changed. Our
so-called friend America is itself saying we need
to build peace with India, and so is China. These
pressures are not just for India and Pakistan.
This is an international scenario in
globalization in which economic integration
requires free access to people and nations for
corporate interests.
Q. How is this US or corporate interest-sponsored
peace likely to affect its sustainability?
A. We need to be aware that the ruling elite in
both Pakistan and India is overwhelmingly part of
US global plans. All this peace is to make it a
part of that global economic system, which is
another form of colonial extension. Certainly, we
cannot stay away completely from the global
economic system, but how can we decrease or
change the impact? Our party's analysis has been
that we need regional arrangements. We have had
this analysis since the fall of the Soviet Union
and when such notions were not particularly
fashionable. In the case of South Asia, Saarc
should be converted into a massive ground for
trade and economics rather than just striking
conversations. Then various other groupings can
be pursued like Saarc and the Middle East, Saarc
and Central Asia etc. Some of these regional
groupings are already emerging and the US is not
happy with all of them. For example, they are in
competition with the European Union. Even now
they do not want the gas coming from Iran to go
from Pakistan to India. They are pressurizing us
to leave Iran and take the gas from Turkmenistan,
where the Americans have military bases.
We are not pursuing a radical agenda at this
point. We need to get beyond our archaic feudal
structures, build our industry, promote equitable
trade, and all this is not possible without peace
with regional players.
Therefore, we need to consciously pick up the
issue and build a people's movement. We do not
want to become a pawn in the hands of MNC
globalization. As far as possible we want to
benefit from globalization, which is not possible
on IMF and WB conditions. A people's movement is
necessary to pressurize the government in the
right direction.
In India, for instance, a Common Minimum
Programme has been agreed between the left
parties and Congress to decide how much inclusion
in the globalization process, how much
privatization etc. are they willing to work
towards. For us it is problematic because such a
movement is weak in our country. The situation is
such that the mainstream political parties are
looking for employment with the US. Instead of
mobilizing the people these parties put in an
application to the Americans to impose democracy
in our country. Corporate globalization will have
an impact on our industry, including textile,
which will obviously have an impact on farmers
and cotton crops. The rich countries insist that
we cannot provide subsidies to our farmers while
they continue to subsidize theirs. And then we
are expected to compete with their farmers. This
effect on the rural economy has a direct bearing
on the urban economy. At its most basic
unemployment in rural areas translates into
migration to cities creating greater pressure on
urban structures. Here, with privatizations in
cities we can see further unemployment, lack of
social legislation etc. Even our traditional
economists are beginning to realize these
problems.
In Pakistan two things thrive on conflict between
India and Pakistan: religious fundamentalism and
the military. If this conflict is removed it will
be easier to build a liberal democratic process
in our country. A people's movement on the lines
of, with some changes, Latin America is what we
need in South Asia. Brazil and Venezuela are not
cutting off the world but want to exert control
on their resources and decisions.
There is an almost surreal ring to it. To many,
it will always sound too good to be true. But
there can be no doubt whatever that the tone and
tenor of the conversation between Indian and
Pakistani leaders has changed totally,
dramatically and unrecognisably Or else, why
would President Pervez Musharraf talk about
having reached "complete understanding" and
"harmony" on carrying forward the peace process
with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a South
Asia Free Media Association conference? Nor would
Singh have repeatedly expressed confidence that
the peace process has become "irreversible" and
urged that India-Pakistan boundaries should
become "irrelevant".
Never before has such language been used since
the two independent states were born amidst
bloodshed and visceral hostility. This is itself
noteworthy, if not cause for jubilation.
Musharraf has further elevated the level of hope
and mutual goodwill in a newspaper interview this
week.
On May 20, Musharraf said he did not think a
solution to Kashmir could be based on religion.
"We do understand India's sensitivity over their
secular credentials and therefore it cannot be,
maybe, on a religious basis. So therefore it
needs to be on a people's basis, regional basis".
He advocated "maximum self-governance" within
identifiable regions, which should be
demilitarised so as to "make the border
irrelevant."
This is the first formulation ever by a top
Pakistani leader of the need and desirability of
severing the Kashmir issue from the "unfinished
agenda of Partition" and looking at it through a
fresh, modernist, contemporary, people-centred
perspective. Only slightly less bold is
Musharraf's agreement to rule out a re-drawing of
the borders to resolve Kashmir. Evidently, he is
prepared to take a high domestic political risk
to push the peace agenda.
Thus, Musharraf has repeatedly stressed in recent
weeks that the Kashmir issue must be resolved at
the level of himself and Manmohan Singh by
seizing "fleeting moments in history". He has
underlined the "harmony that exists between us,
maybe it continues with the future leaders also.
But why leave anything to doubt ... I personally
feel it must be done within the tenure and
presence of ... Singh and myself."
This has two major implications. One, Musharraf
has developed a high level of comfort with Singh
through repeated encounters. And two, he welcomes
inputs regarding a Kashmir solution from the All
Parties Hurriyat Conference, without insisting
that the Hurriyat must immediately have a place
at the dialogue table -- although, eventually,
"there has to be a trilateral arrangement where
Kashmiris become part of the dialogue process."
(During his last visit to India, he also said
that the elected Mufti Mohammed Sayeed government
in Srinagar represents a significant current of
opinion within Kashmir.)
Musharraf has since tentatively floated a new
idea: "Maybe the peace process should be
guaranteed by the international community. I
think if we reach an agreement there should be
something other than just bilateral guarantees. I
think the international community should play a
role in the guarantees. And this is a new thing
that I am saying."
This idea, like a three-way dialogue, is unlikely
to evoke a positive response from India. But in
the long run, it is perfectly reasonable to
demand international guarantees for any durable
Kashmir solution and multilateral involvement in
the supervision of India-Pakistan bilateral
agreements pertaining to that issue.
Musharraf again reiterated: "Grasp the moment. We
do not know how much time we have. So, the
earlier the better. New leaders may have
different perceptions altogether." In November
too, Musharraf threw up a new idea, that of
looking at the old state of Jammu and Kashmir
through the prism of its seven regions, defined
largely by ethnicity and geography, and then
demilitarising them one by one, thus softening
the Line of Control and making borders
irrelevant. He has again returned to the
demilitarisation and ceasefire theme.
All these ideas represent a big political advance
and major departures from stated positions. India
must respond positively to them without waiting
on formalities. The most important of these is
"maximum self-governance" within an agreed region
in Kashmir, comprising parts of both Indian- and
Pakistani-held segments of the former state.
It won't be easy to identify such a region beyond
the Kashmir Valley and parts of Azad Kashmir. Nor
will it be easy to work out transit, economic
exchange and other arrangements between such a
region and the rest of erstwhile J&K. But the
process must begin, and soon, preferably through
a working group or back channel talks.
India has done well to allow Hurriyat Conference
leaders to visit Pakistan -- after a long and
obdurate refusal, made bureaucratic
petty-mindedness so typical of South Asia.
However, it would be unwise for anyone to put all
their eggs into the Hurriyat's basket. Not only
is the Hurriyat divided between "more
loyal-than-the-King" hardliners like Syed Ali
Shah Geelani (who opposes the India-Pakistan
dialogue and the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus) and
moderate elements. Its factions taken together do
not even command the support of all the Valley's
separatists, leave alone the whole of India's J&K.
Elements like the People's Conference founded by
the murdered Abdul Ghani Lone are out of it. And
so is Shabbir Ahmad Shah's Jammu & Kashmir
Democratic Freedom Party (although he is likely
to visit Pakistan).
Many Hurriyat leaders are individually
compromised through all kinds of deals with
intelligence agencies and mainstream politicians.
None has recently demonstrated that he has a mass
base -- either by winning elections, or by
staging civic resistance movements or impressive
demonstrations. The Hurriyat leadership cannot
even summon up the courage to meet Indian leaders
on a no-conditions-attached basis; it has to rely
on Islamabad to facilitate such a meeting. This
does not speak of much self-confidence.
This highlights the importance of letting the
Hurriyat develop its own base of support through
hard work and popular mobilisation of the kind
that Yaseen Malik has done through his march
through 2,000 villages spread over two years to
collect 1.5 million signatures on a statement
that demands the Kashmiri people's association
with the India-Pakistan dialogue.
The Hurriyat's visit to Pakistan is nevertheless
welcome, indeed long overdue. Musharraf should
encourage its leaders to interact extensively
with other Kashmiris and explore ways of
obtaining ideas and inputs from Kashmiri civil
society and political groupings, which could feed
the dialogue process. One hopes the Hurriyat's
Pakistan visit will be fruitful.
The same may not be true, however, of the coming
round of talks on Siachen and Sir Creek. On
Siachen, there has been some hardening of
postures in India, which might lead to only a
ceasefire and "authentication" of the actually
held ground positions along the glacier, not to a
full-scale troop withdrawal, which is necessary.
Many hawks concede that Siachen has no strategic
importance, but some hold that India should give
it up only after extracting concessions from
Pakistan, like, say, a withdrawal from Kargil.
This is a cynical and untenable position and must
be changed. For such a change to happen, a
breakthrough in some other area may be necessary.
India and Pakistan should both work towards that
-- at least over Sir Creek. The two governments'
sincerity is on test as never before. They must
not fail their peoples.
KARACHI, May 27: Speakers at a discussion on
Friday urged the peace activists of India and
Pakistan to continue to put pressure on their
respective governments regarding on-going peace
process so that a sustainable peace could prevail
in the subcontinent. Speaking at the discussion
on "Imperatives of denuclearization and the peace
process", organized jointly by the Pakistan India
People's Forum for Peace and Democracy and the
Aurat Foundation at the Rafia Chaudhry
Auditorium, they stressed that if there was no
pressure, peace process might derail.
The discussion was organized on the eve of 7th
anniversary of the Pakistan's nuclear testing
carried out on May 28, 1998. Brig A. R. Siddiqui,
columnist M. B. Naqvi, journalist Zubaidah
Mustafa, cartoonist Mohammad Rafiq "Feica",
teachers of Karachi University Jaffer Ahmad and
Nausheen Wasi, Anis Haroon and others also spoke.
They pointed out that no home work had been done
prior to starting the peace process, as one could
remember that emotions were running high just
before this process began, but then all of a
sudden some specific international conditions
persuaded both the governments to start the peace
process, so it was feared that if the situation
changed, there was a possibility that the peace
process could be reversed by the vested interest.
They said a large number of textbooks of both the
countries were infested with material fanning
hatred, and it is high time that both the
governments should evolve a policy to review and
revise syllabus so that the younger generations
in the region grow up with a clean mind.
They said that the government should know that
the weapons do not provide sustainable security,
which could only be achieved by strengthening
human resources. They suggested that the nuclear
armament level between both the countries be
lowered.
They said with the bomb the country has become
even more vulnerable. They said at present the
world powers needed Pakistan in their war against
terror, what guarantee was there that there would
not be a repeat action of the 1984 Baghdad attack
when Israeli air force, with surgical precision,
wiped out Iraq's nuclear facility.
They said that confidence among the masses of
both the countries could not be built up by
keeping nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems,
which were being updated and improved every now
and then. They said that the jehadis and the
religious extremists parties in both the
countries were a serious threat to peace.
They said bulk of the resources of both the
countries were being spent on non developmental
sectors like defence, while the social sectors
like health, education etc were not given due
priority.
They said that efforts be made to improve the
economic conditions of the masses so that they
could get the basic amenities, and their human
rights were not violated.
They said that cities and urban centres in both
the countries were so near to the border that
nuclear bombs could not be used as, with the
change in the wind direction, the fall-out could
affect the areas and human settlements across the
border, so the claim that nuclear weapons acted
as a deterrent was not correct.
They also expressed doubts on the statements that
nuclear assets were safe and secure, and said
only a few days back some parts had been stolen
from the KANUPP, which is also a nuclear facility.
A brief question-answer session also followed the speeches.
The peace activists after the discussion also
organized a candle-lit peace vigil and the
participants marched from the auditorium to the
Press Club.
LAHORE, May 27: The four-day seminar on
"Assessing people-to-people initiatives"
concluded here on Friday with an emphasis on the
need for making South Asia a nuclear weapon-free
zone to ensure safety of its people. In a
declaration read out after its conclusion, the
seminar proposed joint opposition to the US bases
in South Asia, and solidarity in the region with
struggle against occupation of Palestine and Iraq.
The declaration was read out by Ms Kamla Bhasin
and Mr Smitu Kothari from India and Mr A.H.
Nayyar and Mr Muhammad Tehseen of Pakistan.
Around 50 peace and rights activists from
Pakistan and India attended the moot.
According to the speakers, the seminar proposed
protection of shared ecosystems in the region and
widening of its people-centred economic and trade
activities. A museum of partition should be
established to let the coming generations know
about its painful impact on the peoples, they
said.
The moot also demanded decolonization of the
regional countries' legal and institutional
fabric, creation of a South Asian news service
and a popular magazine.
The participants pledged to publish a book and
produce CDs in Urdu, Hindi and English containing
a comprehensive history of initiatives in order
to acknowledge, document and disseminate this
important aspect of peoples' history. The moot,
they said, further pointed to many challenges
that needed to be addressed in future for the
betterment of the peoples of the region.
These included difficult and humiliating visa
situation, abject poverty, religious
fundamentalism, vested interests, civil-military
bureaucracy, military-industrial complex,
repressive and discriminatory laws, prejudice and
stereotypes, extra-regional influences, adverse
impacts of neo-liberal economic globalization,
and state-centred security conceptions.
They said the workshop was held to critically
assess 40 years of the people-to-people
initiatives for peace, justice and democracy that
had been taken by groups in India and Pakistan.
This assessment was made possible by the
concerted efforts of organizations in both
countries, including the South Asia Partnership
(Pakistan), Shirkatgah, Intercultural Resources,
Lokayan and the Sangat South Asia. The gathering
was supported by the Princeton Institute for
International and Regional Studies.
The context within which these initiatives had
taken place had been the progressive breakdown,
since independence, of political relations
between the two governments, which had critically
affected a free flow of people and information.
The shared civilization history of the region had
been fragmented by nationalism framed by
antagonistic attitudes, they said.
They further read out that there had been efforts
by political actors on both sides of the borders
to deepen rift by stoking distrust and hatred.
The people of the two countries had also faced
adverse impacts of gradual militarization (of the
region) and with the advent of nuclearization in
1998, a climate of tension and distrust had
further compounded the situation.
They said Pakistan and India also shared endemic
social and economic problems ranging from
polarization of wealth and power to bonded and
child workers, from discrimination and violence
against women to marginalization of minorities
and other vulnerable groups, from harsh living
conditions for a majority of urban dwellers to
growing displacement and dispossession of rural
dwellers from their sources of subsistence.
Economic policies increasingly directed by
non-national interests and an exponential growth
in defence and nuclear expenditure at the direct
expense of basic social programmes are among
other ills the two neighbours had shared.
Numerous groups and movement had taken root in
both societies to these challenges. Many of the
groups felt strong need to exchange and share
energies to collaboratively address these issues,
they said.
The seminar participants shared a widening belief
that the real security of the subcontinent lay
not only in reduction and resolution of political
issues, but also in a firm democratic process.
Thousands of initiatives had been taken over the
past four decades not only by transnational
organizations like the Pakistan-India Forum for
Peace and Democracy, but also by theatre groups,
women, students and professionals.
LAHORE: Pakistan and India should expand
education links and exchange teachers to boost
higher education in both countries, said speakers
in the education session of a four-day conference
titled 'assessing people-to-people initiatives'.
The conference, arranged by civil society groups
of India and Pakistan, started on May 24 at a
local hotel. Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist and
human rights activist, said that Pakistan's
higher education sector was very weak and there
was need to exchange faculty of science and
technology from Indian universities.
Samina Rehman told the participants about Lahore
Grammar School students' visit to India and
Indian students' visit to Pakistan.
Rina Kashyap said that exchanges of students and
teachers have started between Lahore Kinnaird
College for Women and Lady Shri Ram College for
Women, New Delhi. Jamila Verghese also spoke
during the education session.
Earlier, Anees Haroon, Beena Sarwar, Kamla Bhasin
and Khawar Mumtaz spoke on the role of women in
human rights and peace movements. They said that
active representation of women was required in
all walks of life.
Oxford, 27th May 2005. "It is only through
greater interactions between Indian and
Pakistanis that it will be possible to break down
stereotypes and fear, which can permeate down to
the unconscious level.", claims a report launched
by the Joint-Indo Pak Peace and Goodwill Mission
(JIPPGM) at a meeting held here in Oxford this
afternoon.
The JIPPGM a movement for people to people
contact in the subcontinent was initiated and
coordinated by Mr. John Prabhudoss, a US based
scholar of Indian origin.
The report is the outcome of the first ever joint
delegation of Indians and Pakistanis to the
subcontinent. 25 people from diverse religious,
national and professional backgrounds living in
UK, US and Canada that travelled to Pakistan and
India in December.
"The purpose of this joint mission was to
encourage the two neighbouring nuclear powers to
find peaceful solutions to their long standing
problems and to help create friendship and
goodwill between the people living on both sides
of the border", says the report compiled by a
member of the delegation, Miss Vanita Sharma, a
graduate student at Oxford University studying
the partition of British India in 1947.
"The delegates wanted to demonstrate that Indians
and Pakistanis could work together for peace, in
spite of differences in their professional
training, religious affiliations, cultural
background, national origin, political point of
views and personal experiences", the report
emphasises.
The report mentions that the delegates after
visiting Karachi, Peshawar, Islamabad and Lahore
crossed the Wagah border to enter India. At the
border they offered joint-faith prayers for the
victims of the partition in 1947 in which
thousands of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were
killed. In India the delegation visited
Amritsar, New Delhi, Jammu and Mumbai.
In Pakistan the delegation met Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz, representatives of all major
political parties, the Mayor of Karachi
Na'matullah Khan, peace activists and several
other important personalities. In India it met
with the leader of UPA coalition government and
Congress President Mrs Sonia Gandhi, Home
Minister Shivraj Patil, former Prime Ministers,
journalists including the veteran journalist
Kuldip Nayyar and leaders of various political
parties and Chief Ministers.
The report describes in detail the meetings and
opinions expressed by various people in their
meetings with the delegation throughout the
visit. The report looks at the "people to people
movement" and examines how it could be supported
by initiatives relating to trade, education,
history, arts and culture.
In the second half, the report discusses the
current status of political negotiations between
India and Pakistan in general and the Kashmir
dispute in particular. The report also asks what
role the Indian and Pakistani diaspora can play
in the peace process.
The report says that, "the purpose of the
delegation was not to engage in political
discussions, but to focus on increasing
people-to-people initiatives and to argue that
whilst India and Pakistan continue their
political negotiations the people of the region
should no longer have to suffer and their rights
to meet, interact and live peacefully should
receive priority." The delegation lobbied for a
number of issues, including:
At the end, the report asks, what role is there
for the Indian and Pakistani Diasporas in the
peace process?
The report says, "as people of Indian and
Pakistani origin now living in the West, we would
like to be able to give something back to the
region and we want to see more development
happening so the people there can benefit and
progress as much as we have in our countries. We
also became involved, because our experience of
living together as Indians and Pakistanis has
shown us that the potential exists to have good
and peaceful relations. However, our concerns
are also more personal, as we have witnessed that
poor relations between India and Pakistan can
often impact on community relations in our home
towns".
The leader of the delegation, Mr. Prabhudoss
said, he has planned to take a 'Joint Task Force'
made up of Indians and Pakistanis including
Kashmiris from both sides of all groups and
factions from the diaspora community to study the
situation on the ground and suggest a possible
solution to normalizing relations between the two
nuclear neighbours.
The Joint Delegation emphasised the need for both
governments to allow free movement of people
across the borders and let the people lead the
peace initiatives rather than politics. JIPPGM
has planned several programmes to bring Indians
and Pakistanis together. The Oxford meeting, was
organised by its UK members Cllr. Faizullah Khan
of Pakistani origin, Mr. Munaf Zeena of Indian
origin and Ms. Vanita Sharma of Indian origin.
The report can be downloaded from the group's website
www.indopakpeace.net.
LAHORE: India and Pakistan must go beyond
nationalism to resolve the Kashmir issue, said
speakers at the second day of the 'Accessing
people-to-people initiatives' conference
organised by civil society groups from India and
Pakistan.
The speakers, discussing nuclearisation,
militarisation and the Kashmir issue, said that a
viable solution required the input of the people
of Kashmir and not the "puppet leaderships"
created by India and Pakistan. Dr Mubashir Hasan,
former Pakistan foreign minister, said a solution
to the Kashmir issue was possible, "if the elite
can identify the benefits they will get in the
solution they can realise".
He said that previously, it seemed the two
countries were heading for war for the benefit of
this 'elite', but now they were for peace. "We
are inching towards resolving the issue, but no
time frame can be set." He said the
demilitarisation of Kashmir had been demanded,
"but then who would assure the protection of the
life and property of the Kashmiris settled in the
valley"?
He said the people of Kashmir would have to
tolerate "draconian laws until and unless the
people have the power". He said people-to-people
contact was still "prohibited and grossly
restricted by the governments" in Kashmir. He
said the recently started bus service was still
under the control of the establishment and should
be independent.
Earlier, Dr Hasan said that the Indo-Pak peace
process was still insufficient as there were no
genuine steps being taken to accept the Kashmiri
people as the third party, while the "puppet
leaderships" separately created by India and
Pakistan were supporting their masters.
To resolve the issue, he said, the Indian
Constitutions needed to be amended, but there
appeared to be no such change on the cards. In
Pakistan, there was little discussion about what
would have to be sacrificed for peace in Kashmir.
Tappan K Bose, noted HR activist from India,
Balraj Puri, noted journalist and HR activist
from Jammu, Admiral (r) Ramdas, former president
of the Indian chapter of the PIPFPD and Dr AH
Nayyar from Pakistan mainly discussed the
situation among others.
Balraj Puri, journalist and human rights activist
from Jammu, said the ethnic, cultural and
religious diversity of Kashmir was a unique asset
and called for the independence of the state. He
urged both government to respect Kashmiris' point
of view and go "step by step".
Tappan K Bose, Indian human rights activist, gave
a brief overview of the history of Kashmir,
describing how communal and religious violence
started that ultimately led to militancy and
"cross border terrorism" with a shift from
"secular nationalism" to "Islamic nationalism".
He said voices were raised against violence and
human rights violations after 2000.
To a question, Bose said that that the idea of
independence was supported by the 'elite' of
Jammu and Kashmir, who were very close to the
Maharaja. He said the "repressed majority" wanted
to get rid of the "Maharaja system".
Earlier talking about nuclearisation and
militancy, Admiral (r) Ramdas called for
eradicating nuclear weapons and stopping the arms
race in the region. "We should get rid of these
weapons. These can be used mistakenly or on any
disinformation." However, he said to do this
Pakistan and India would have to bear
international pressure from weapons manufactures.
He said India and Pakistan were equal and the
only disparity between them was of the economy
and population size. He proposed that India,
China and Pakistan form a strategic regional
alliance. "You will see that we will move towards
this situation in the coming few years."
In the afternoon session, IA Rehman, director of
the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and
Parminder Singh from India spoke about human
rights and called for true democracy, justice and
accountability of all.
Mushtaq Gaadi, Muhammad Tahseen, Smitu Kothari
and Aly Ercelawn spoke on the "Development, trade
and the environment". The conference will
conclude on Friday.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistan has sought prices for buying as many as 75
new F-16 C/D Falcon fighter aircraft since the Bush administration
announced it would resume sales, the head of the Pentagon agency handling
the matter said on Wednesday.
Pakistan also has asked about buying 11 used F-16s, said Air Force Lt.
Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
which runs U.S. government-to-government arms sales.
Many experts had expected Pakistan to seek only about two dozen F-16s,
said Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, a Virginia-based aerospace
consultancy.
The numbers cited by Kohler show it wants to make the F-16 a mainstay of
its combat aircraft fleet, he said, adding this was "very ambitious in
terms of regional strategy and very costly."
The single-engine, multi-role F-16 is built by Maryland-based Lockheed
Martin Corp. . The new purchases would flesh out a fleet of about 32 F-16s
acquired before Congress cut off sales in 1990 over Pakistan's nuclear
program.
Kohler, in an interview with Reuters, said Pakistan had requested F-16
Block 50/52 aircraft, the most modern flown by the United States and the
current production standard, similar to exports to Poland, Greece, Chile,
Oman and Israel.
Only the United Arab Emirates flies a more advanced variant, Block 60,
with improved radar, defenses and range.
Asked about any Pakistani interest in the Block 60 model, Kohler said:
"They did not ask for it and I don't think they could afford it." Kohler
held arms-sale talks with defense ministry officials in Pakistan and India
last month.
"I think when we go back and talk to them about the cost of the new
systems my guess is that they will downsize slightly the (request for) new
and they may increase slightly the used," he said.
The Bush Administration announced on Mar. 25 that it would resume sales of
F-16s to Pakistan after a 16-year break. The about-face was widely seen as
a reward for Pakistan's support of the U.S.-led global war on terrorism.
At the same time, the administration said it would let Boeing Co. and
Lockheed compete for a potential $9 billion market in India for as many as
126 combat aircraft.
Lockheed is pitching India the same F-16 Block 50/52 and Boeing is
offering its dual-engine F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the most modern combat
U.S. aircraft currently in full-rate production.
The F-16 C/D Block 50/52 sells for $40 million to $45 million each,
depending on options. Boeing's Super Hornet is expected to cost $50
million to $55 million, based on the U.S. Navy's next production batch,
Kohler said.
He said India was seeking to produce domestically the majority of the
aircraft it eventually buys. It also apparently had invited bids from
Sweden, France and Russia, Kohler said.
For Pakistan, U.S. government officials were still weighing the weapons
systems, targeting pods, radars and electronic warfare equipment that
would be offered as part of a package.
A deal could perhaps be notified to Congress toward the end of the summer,
the first step in a process that could lead to deliveries three years
after an agreement is signed, he said.
From the start Pakistan's nuclear programme was
military-oriented and India-specific. The initial
proposition was that Pakistan was a weaker rival
of India and had business to transact with India
that could require application of military force.
The ambivalent nature of India-Pakistan relations
is known, with its three wars and three
semi-wars. Pakistan was decisively defeated in
1971 and concluded thereafter that there is no
future in conventional wars with India because it
is richer and can always outspend Pakistan.
Pakistan therefore decided to go nuclear to
offset India's advantages.
When exactly Pakistan started its nuclear
programme does not signify; it was sometime in
1970s. Pakistan succeeded in the middle of the
1980s in enriching uranium. That key success led
to other successes and soon Pakistan was able to
fabricate nuclear weapons, admitting only its
major components in 1990. But it was able in 1986
to threaten India with a nuclear riposte to the
likely extension of India's exercise Brass Tacks
into a thrust into Sindh, as was feared.
Once Pakistan became nuclear-capable, it decided
to twist the Indian lion's tail in Kashmir,
fearing no military response from it. It chose an
undercover semi-war with India in Kashmir. Events
in India-administered Kashmir late in the 1980s
gave Pakistan an opportunity: it metamorphosed
Kashmiris' non-violent secular political protest
agitation -- against India's manipulation of
elections in Kashmir -- and captured the
movement's leadership, converting it into an
Islamic jihad. It did so through jihadis, most of
them veterans of Afghanistan's anti-Soviet war
and many of whom had doubled as Taliban. This led
to many consequences.
India chose to suppress the jihad by inflicting
horrible human rights violations on Kashmiris.
The Indians need to be blamed for these gross
human rights violations. But Pakistan also shares
some responsibility. Why? Because it did not
think its options through. It should have
foreseen what the Indian reaction would be. And
whether the pressure Pakistan was putting on it
was enough to make India cry "uncle." In the
event, Indians fought on -- i.e., to kill as many
Kashmiris as possible. The result is that
Kashmiris have lost something like 80- to 85,000
lives and many more limbs. Loss of property is
astronomical in purely Kashmiri terms. Despite
these sacrifices the Kashmiris are not an inch
nearer their azadi. The outlook is more Indian
atrocities, if jihad continues.
True, India might continue to inflict human
rights violations even after Pakistan has stopped
sending militants from outside. So long as there
is an armed insurgency in Kashmir, the Kashmiri
freedom fighters are offering India its chance:
in a violent conflict, India would crush the puny
violence by Kashmiris with its far greater
violence-making machine. Adopting violent
insurgency is a foolish game for Kashmiris.
Remember Pakistan's military thinkers, who
controlled the nuclear programme throughout, wove
strange strategic doctrines in the hubris created
by nuclear weapons. On the one hand, they dreamed
dreams of federating Iran, Afghanistan and
Pakistan in order to confront India with this
strategic depth. How unrealistic this foolish
project was should be clear. On the other hand, a
theory was evolved that keeping Indians engaged
in a proxy war in the Kashmir Valley would free
Pakistan from the worry of an Indian attack. So
long as India was kept on the hop, Pakistan was
safe. In retrospect, this can be seen as foolish
ratiocination.
In 2002, the Indians called Pakistan's bluff.
They brought forward their troops on the Pakistan
border in staggering numbers. They made as if
they would invade. The threat was credible for
both friend and foe. The rest of the world
thought that thanks to balance of power, Pakistan
would be obliged to use its nuclear option first.
A nuclear war will result. The rest of the world
was not prepared to accept it. Everyone advised
the two to make up.
Pakistanis too saw that the Indians meant
business. Pakistan made a U-turn in the Kashmir
policies by promising no more infiltration from
this side. That firm promise by Pakistan's
president resolved the crisis and Indian troops
began withdrawing by October 2002. Normalcy took
some time to return. India later offered
negotiations and the hand of friendship (April
2003). How genuine it was, or is, is hard to say.
Anyhow, the long stalled Composite Dialogue,
first agreed in 1997, was resumed. Although it
has gone nowhere for over a year, it has not
finally broken down. The talks are going on and
more are scheduled.
Dispassionate assessment of the true utility of
Pakistani nukes is urgent. There are two clear
negative entries in the national ledger. One,
nukes were of no use to Pakistan vis-ý-vis
Kashmir and it had to promise it will not longer
send jihadis. The promise was repeated several
times to Indians and Americans. The second
context was the 2002 war crisis. India was ready
to attack if Pakistan had it not made those
promises about Kashmir. That is to say, India was
taking the risk of a war despite the presence of
Pakistan's nuclear deterrent, probably not less
effective than India's own. One calls for taking
purposeful note of the mere fact that Indians
made a credible move to attack Pakistan, ignoring
the presence of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent.
That simply shows that this Nuclear Deterrent did
not deter India threatening war.
Why does one make such a sweeping claim? Because
Pakistani nuclear devices were sold as giving
Pakistan an impregnable defence against India; it
was argued that given the nukes' presence, no one
would dare attack. The fact that India dared
makes those nukes less credible than they were
thought to be. It is being argued that India did
not finally attack because of those nukes. But
that is a non sequitur and takes us nowhere. The
decisive moment was when the Pakistan president
made the premise of virtually ending the jihad in
Kashmir. Obviously, nukes were no help to
Musharraf; if the notional benefit of the nukes
had to be sacrificed to keep peace, the nukes'
value gets heavily diluted. The nukes are no
longer vital for Pakistan's security because (a)
Pakistan could not win Kashmir through the proxy
war; and (b) these nukes could not defend
Pakistan against India's threatened attack
without Pakistan making vital political
concessions.
Let's note that no outsider loves Pakistan
because of these nukes. No outsider appears to
dread Pakistan's nukes, not even India. No
outsider is prepared to do as Pakistan wishes him
to do because it has nukes. It is true the same
is true of India. But India is out of context
here.
There is another negative aspect of the nukes:
there is Dr A. Q. Khan's underground bazaar of
nuclear contraband. The story has not ended. The
rest of the world is still interested. They all
think that Pakistan is vulnerable to various
threats from inside. They believe that there are
anti-Musharraf and anti-Pakistan elements inside
who can get hold of these weapons. They feel that
extremist forces can, in conceivable
eventualities, get control of these weapons.
Pakistan is more vulnerable because of these
nukes. Conceivable threats of external
intervention exist.
Pakistanis have paid through their nose for these
nukes. Pakistan's economy has been put under a
pressure that it cannot really bear. The kind of
inflationary pressures and the growth of poverty
that has taken place are due to Islamabad not
being able to invest enough in the social
sectors. The economic price of the nukes is lost
opportunities.
The Siachen glacier is the highest, and possibly
the harshest battlefield, in the world. This icy
wasteland is a drain on the exchequers of both
India and Pakistan. It costs India about two
billion rupees every month to maintain a troop
presence in Siachen. Possibly it costs Pakistan
the same.
For a fraction of this cost and with a great deal
of imagination, this bone of contention could
become an asset for both countries. Siachen, with
its military presence, could become the perfect
gene bank for the region's precious and highly
specialised genetic resources! This symbol of
fractious fighting and hostility could be turned
into a symbol of hope and collaboration for the
future, now that the leaders of our warring
nations are walking the road to peace.
India, which has one of the largest gene banks in
the world, understands the importance of
conserving genetic material. Pakistan does too.
For both nations, genetic resources form the
backbone of the economy and the basis of the
livelihoods of tribal and rural communities.
Genetic resources are also the raw material for
biotechnology, which will dominate up to 60
percent of the global economy in the coming
years. India and Pakistan can develop as
important producers of biotechnological products,
given the richness of their genetic wealth. To do
this, they must begin by conserving and storing
their genetic wealth in gene banks. One option is
to base such gene banks in the permanently frozen
glaciers of Siachen.
India and Pakistan, like the rest of the
subcontinent, are home to several thousand
species of plant, insect and animal life. This
biological wealth is one of the most sought-after
resources in the world today. The Indian
Subcontinent contains some of the most important
biodiversity "hot spots" of the world. This
region has given the world several varieties of
food and cash crops and has contributed
significantly to the stability in global
agriculture. The famed Basmati rice being poached
by America belongs to the Indo-Pakistani region.
The Subcontinent has contributed to at least
20,000 varieties of rice to the International
Gene Bank in the Philippines. Similarly, it has
contributed many kinds of pulses, peas and beans,
other kinds of cereal like millets, vegetables
and spices to various gene banks that are
conserving genetic resources for the future.
A gene bank is one of the facilities necessary to
conserve the fast eroding genetic diversity in
our fields. If we fail to conserve our genetic
(biological) diversity, we risk the future food
security of this country, as also of the world.
In addition to plant varieties in agriculture.
There is an urgent need to save our forest
resources, the animal and fish species in our
rivers and the insects and the micro-organisms of
our region.
Most of the gene banks in existence are located
in Western nations. Although they are governed by
an international mandate, practically, the
control over the genetic material in the bank is
not in the hands of those who are the
contributors. India for example, has little
control over the many thousand rice varieties
lying banked at IRRI in the Philippines. All our
micro-organisms are lying banked in an American
facility because we do not have our own gene bank
for storing these. At this time, with an
aggressive biotechnology industry demanding
access to our genetic resources and forcing an
international patent regime to monopolise these
resources, it has become imperative for us to
think of our own gene banks, under our control.
Gene banks are expensive options and the cost has
been one of the major impediments to setting up
our own facilities on a large scale. The National
Gene Bank in Delhi has been an Indo-US effort.
But given the current climate of controversy over
genetic resources, in the matter of storing our
genetic material, it is best to be independent.
Although a conventional gene bank is an expensive
proposition, an unconventional gene bank need not
be so.
A gene bank is essentially a combination of
fridge and freezer. Here there are two ways of
storing genetic material, usually in the form of
seeds. Seeds can be stored for five to 15 years
(medium-term storage) in the "fridge" section, at
five degrees Celsius. This is not so difficult.
While seeds that have to be stored for a long
term which theoretically means "forever," have to
be stored in the "freezer" section, which means
at -20 degrees Celsius. This is somewhat more
difficult because it means very heavy energy
costs. Maintaining a gene bank at -20 degrees not
only means heavy electricity bills but, given the
problem of power shortages, it means providing
back-up support by captive power generation,
making the whole exercise still more expensive.
The permanently frozen Siachen is a natural
freezer where the imperative -20 degrees C is
provided by nature and entails no electricity
bills. Here is a free gene bank of almost
unlimited capacity, provided we have the
imagination and the will to seize the
opportunity. India and Pakistan maintain highly
trained troops in that territory. This skilled
manpower is bored out of its head and has nothing
better to do than take pot shots at each other.
It is not unreasonable to assume they would be
more than happy to catalogue, store and maintain
the foundation of their children's future,
provided their leaders let them.
Making a gene bank in the Siachen would really be
quite a simple affair. All the technical know-how
is available at the National Gene Bank in Delhi.
What is essentially required is for seed samples
to be treated appropriately for long-term
storage, put into special aluminium pouches,
labelled properly and put into the bank. What is
important is that the samples can be retrieved
periodically and sent back to the field to test
that nothing has gone wrong in storage and that
they are still viable.
The seeds derived from these grown-out samples
can go back to the bank. Suitable sites in the
Siachen can be selected as, so to speak, ice
cupboards where boxes containing the aluminium
pouches can be stored. A similar, perhaps less
glamorous but, under the circumstances, more
easily implementable option is available for us
in the experimental station we maintain in
Antarctica. In this perma-frost region nature has
also provided conditions which are suitable for
natural gene banks. Here also we maintain highly
trained teams of scientists so manpower will not
be an additional cost. For a modest sum of money,
the banking facilities for the genetic resources
of our region can be extended almost indefinitely.
Gene banks in the Antarctic and Siachen are new
ideas, but they have tremendous potential. Their
likely impact on securing the livelihoods of our
people and strengthening the economy of our
region should be incentive enough to try. Given
the crucial importance of genetic resources to
our joint future, it is time for the leaders of
India and Pakistan to demonstrate a quantum leap
in creative thinking.
The writer is director of Gene Campaign, a leading Indian NGO.
Q: Where is the Indo-Pak process going from here?
Musharraf: More than any agreements or joint
statements that we make, more than that is the
intention of the leaders. Is there any intention
to solve the problem? We reached so many
agreements and declarations in the past but all
ended in failure. All ended in another conflict.
So more than the declarations, it is the
intention of the leaders that is important. The
second important thing is that when leaders reach
an agreement and there is an understanding
between two leaders, if within the tenure of
those two leaders you don't reach an agreement
then there is no guarantee that the next leader
will be equally accommodating and will have the
same understanding and perspective. So therefore
it is very important to do these things now. Now
we have a situation where I think the intentions
are good on both sides. Certainly, I am clear
about my side. And I am also reasonably sure that
Prime Minster Manmohan Singh's intentions are
very noble. He wants to resolve all disputes
including the Kashmir dispute. So I have been
told that we shouldn't hurry and we should take
our time. But my belief is if we don't resolve
this dispute by ourselves - Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and myself - because we have such
a good rapport, because we have such a good
understanding, I am afraid we will have repeated
the history of the failures of the past. And we
will both go and the situation will remain
unresolved. And there is no guarantee about the
future. Now having said, where do we go from
here? Well, we need to arrive at an amicable
solution is acceptable to India, Pakistan and the
people of Kashmir. And in this there are
statements by the three parties to the conflict:
India says boundaries cannot be redrawn. I keep
saying we cannot accept the Line of Control. And
I also strongly believe the third element: that
borders are becoming irrelevant. This is another
statement from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. We
need to reconcile all these three statements
because there are contradictions within these
statements. How do you reconcile these? I can
just give you a feel for the approach that I am
inclined to take. We obviously need to take the
whole of Kashmir and put it in front of us and
see the sensitivities of all the regions of
Kashmir. And identify some regions which need to
be demilitarised. I think it's the presence of
the military which causes all the irritants and
disturbs the people there. And all the atrocities
also, may I say, stem from the presence of the
militaries in these regions. The human rights
violations, the atrocities, these are quite
natural when there are 600,000 troops involved.
So demilitarisation. And the third issue is that
we should address what kind of governance these
regions should have. There are many in Kashmir
who are demanding independence. Now can that be
acceptable to Pakistan and India? Is it anything
short of independence that can be accepted? India
has been telling them that it is prepared to
given them autonomy, maximum autonomy. Is that
acceptable to us? Is there something between
autonomy and independence, like self-governance,
that might be acceptable? What would it imply?
What are the implications of self-governance as
opposed to autonomy? And when we talk of
self-governance, who governs? Obviously, the
Kashmiris should govern themselves. But if are
not giving them independence, then should they be
over watched over by all three parties. And what
is the distribution of responsibilities between
the Kashmiris and the other two in this
"over-watch"? These are issues which I feel are
do-able, irrespective of these three statements.
I think they are very much doable; if we show a
little bit of flexibility in our stands we can
arrive at a midpoint acceptable to the people of
Kashmir and India and Pakistan."
Q: Are you pressing India for a ceasefire in the valley?
Musharraf: This is somewhat like the chicken and
egg situation. We say that they must stop their
atrocities and demilitarise the area. And the
response that I get from the other side is that
all "terrorist" activities inside the valley must
stop first. So it's a chicken and egg situation.
Who stops first? Maybe if there is goodwill and
there is a move forward towards addressing the
core issue this could be a good starting point.
Q: Are you in a position to enforce a ceasefire by the militants in Kashmir?
Musharraf: If there is an agreement, up to a
point one can try and do something. But I can't
give a guarantee that there will no bullet fired.
Absolutely not, that's clear. I don't hold a
whistle which when I blow it will end all
militancy. After all, look at the attack on that
bus station. I am against it. We are going in a
certain direction. Obviously, these are
individuals who don't agree with me or with the
India prime minister. Unfortunately, these
elements will be there to create problems in the
transition period. But they will die their own
death if we reach a conclusion which the vast
majority of Kashmiris and Pakistanis and Indians
are willing to accept. If there is willingness on
the part of the Indians to demilitarise, and if
the requirement is that there is no militant
activity there, then one could get involved in a
discussion with all roots and try to persuade and
influence them to stop this activity. But this
has to be tied in with demilitarisation because
there is so much of mistrust and these things
can't be one-sided. It cannot be that you stop
all your activities and we will stop or
demilitarise later. This is not doable. It has to
be taken as a package.
Q: Who will represent the Kashmiris in the dialogue?
Musharraf: This is another sensitive issue. I
feel the true representatives of Kashmiris is the
All Parties Hurriyat Conference, the APHC. We
feel that there has to be a trilateral
arrangement where Kashmiris become part of the
dialogue process. Now the Kashmiris are the APHC
and there are Pakistan and India. Now we have a
breakthrough. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has
allowed them to travel to Pakistan. So once they
visit us and they also talk to the Indian
government, which we will try to facilitate, we
shall have a trilateral arrangement going. Let us
start from here and see if there is any other
group who also represents the Kashmiris and needs
to be included. If so, then we let's bring them
together. As I said, if you are moving forwards
towards a resolution I am sure these are small
issues that can be solved as we move forward.
Let's move forward, as I said, towards
demilitarisation and issues of governance.
Q: Even Mir Waiz has accepted the fact that the
APHC is not the exclusive representative of the
Kashmiris, that the PDP, Mufti Sahib, and the
National Conference have their constituencies and
also represent the Kashmiris.
Musharraf: I do not want to be drawn into this
debate on sensitive issues. I am not going to
comment on it. To us the APHC is the sole
representative. But if we see forward movement
and flexibility on the other side, we would like
to show flexibility on our side. But I will not
show flexibility if I don't see flexibility on
the other side.
Q: So you expect to see a solution on Baglihar and Siachin and Sir Creek soon?
Musharraf: On Siachen and Sir Creek, the
intentions are very good on both sides and that
is strongly reflected in the joint statement in
New Delhi. Both of these are actually troublesome
on both sides and they are unnecessary irritants
which can be resolved. Now on the third issue,
Baglihar, we have taken it to the World Bank.
There is a mediator now, a Swiss gentleman who
has been nominated. Let him decide. It is
surprising that India should have dragged its
feet so long on bilateral discussions that it
pushed Pakistan to demand a neutral expert to
adjudicate the issue. But it was always a do-able
issue between us. They have a right to generate
electricity from the river above our river. The
issue is: what is the size of the pond needed to
generate the required electricity? The size of
the pondage according to the treaty is to be
based on design parameters. The other issue is
the operation element of the reservoir. If you
work out the pondage on an operational basis, it
comes to a much bigger figure than if you work it
out on the basis of the design parameters.
However, even if - and I told this to Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh - Pakistan were to agree
to Indiaia's demand for more electricity, we
would have problems with the gates they are
making at the bottom of the dam. I asked him to
give me one good reason why they are making those
gates at the bottom, because this is suspicious.
This is mala fide. The only use of these gates is
if you want to discharge the entire water of the
dam and then close them and start filling again,
it will take at least 21 days or 27 days to fill.
So you will end up denying water to Pakistan for
27 days. Otherwise for pure generation of
electricity, additional electricity which they
want, why have those gates? And there is no
answer to this.
Q: Is it possible to have a demilitarisation of
Siachen to pre-1984 positions without having a
demilitarisation in the Kashmir valley first?
Musharraf: Yes, indeed, there was an agreement in
1989. And that agreement was based on relocation
of Siachen. And in 1992 the relocation position
was decided. And our secretary defence went from
here to India for a signing ceremony. Two hours
before the signing ceremony, they backtracked. I
think it's a habit with them to backtrack at the
last moment. And out secretary defence came back
empty handed. Now I have told the Indian prime
minister that this is clear decision, there is no
problem. Let's decide on that.
Q: Are they linking it with other issues, with
the issue of Kashmir, with security in Kashmir
for them?
Musharraf: No, it's quite the opposite. We are
linking it to the resolution of Kashmir. It is
pinching them more than it is hurting us.
Q: If you want to look ahead what do you see in
next 12 months or so? Where do you see Indo-Pak
relations going?
Musharraf: I see them looking much better. My
only hope is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stays
and is allowed to move forward. I am very glad to
say that my interaction with the BJP leaders,
Advani and Vajpayee, has been very good. The only
thing that I said was: please don't oppose it
because you are in the opposition. And then the
coalition partners, the communist members who are
very strong in the coalition, they are totally on
board. We must resolve this issue. These are
positive signs. If were move forward, which we
can, if we have the courage I am very sure this
whole issue can be put behind in 12 months.
Q: But do you think the Indians share your sense of urgency?
Musharraf: I said this in the banquet speech in
New Delhi because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
said "we are incidental leaders". Yes, indeed. So
I said, whether incidental or accidental, we are
there and we have this moment to grasp. Grasp the
moment. We don't know how much time we have. So
therefore the earlier, the better. New leaders
may have different perceptions altogether. I
don't know, I haven't thought of this point, but
maybe the peace process should be guaranteed by
the international community. I think if we reach
an agreement there should be something other than
just bilateral guarantees. I think the
international community should play a role in the
guarantees. And this is a new thing that I am
saying. We are talking of guarantees which go
beyond us. If we reach an agreement and we are
reasonably sure that it will be followed, there
is no harm why we should be so stuck up. If we
have sincerity in the permanence of whatever we
decide, I think we will have better permanence if
the international community is involved, finally,
in the guarantee.
Q: But suppose this optimistic scenario doesn't
work out in 12-months time, what sort of pressure
will you come under?
Musharraf: Well, people will say why are we
wasting time talking to them, why are we going
ahead with CBMs when there is no movement on the
core issue.
[...]
FULL TEXT AT :
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-5-2005_pg7_28.
WASHINGTON - Imagine waging a miniwar at 21,000
feet, where temperatures touch minus 40 degrees,
and where altitude sickness and frostbite have
caused as many casualties as bullets and
artillery rounds. That's what India and Pakistan
have been doing for the past two decades in a
remote area of disputed Kashmir known as the
Siachen Glacier, the world's largest outside the
polar regions.
Few contend Siachen has any strategic value, but
it has been important as a symbol of the
unremitting hostility that has existed between
India and Pakistan, neighbors who have fought
three wars and added nuclear weapons to their
military options.
But the dispute across the glacier's 47-mile-long
frozen divide on the western end of the Himalayan
chain may be thawing, as part of a wider, more
comprehensive peace process that has been
unfolding between India and Pakistan for the past
two years.
The defense ministers of the two countries are
scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday in
Islamabad. Their instructions, contained in the
joint statement issued at the end of Pakistan
President Pervez Musharraf's recent visit to
India, are to find a "mutually acceptable
solution" to Siachen and to do so "expeditiously."
Three factors augur well for accomplishing that
objective. First, India and Pakistan agreed to a
cease-fire across the Line of Control, the
military line that divides Kashmir, in November
2003. That cease-fire included Siachen, and the
guns have remained silent since. Second, the two
sides nearly reached an agreement to resolve the
dispute over a decade ago, to include a phased
troop withdrawal and demilitarization. As a
former Indian foreign secretary puts it, all
that's needed now is "to dust off the old ideas
and take them forward."
But the most important factor pointing toward a
possible breakthrough on Siachen is the fact that
the two countries are now in the midst of their
longest-running - and most hopeful - effort to
normalize relations in their history.
At their mid-April meeting in New Delhi, India's
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President
Musharraf watched their national teams play a
long-anticipated cricket match. Pakistan won but
"cricket diplomacy" is proving to be a winner for
both countries.
The joint statement issued at the end of their
discussions said the two leaders have "determined
that the peace process was now irreversible."
They agreed to pursue further measures - like the
bus service that began April 7 connecting the two
capitals of divided Kashmir - "to enhance
interaction and cooperation." This will include
more meeting points for separated families,
trade, pilgrimages, and cultural exchanges.
India's Singh says "soft borders" will create the
right climate for a final Kashmir settlement,
which both leaders said they are committed to
achieve.
Most important, Singh and Musharraf pledged they
"would not allow terrorism to impede the peace
process." As The Economist pointed out, this is
"a striking promise, implying both that Pakistan
is distancing itself further from 'freedom
fighters' in Kashmir, and that India is not going
to react to every terrorist attack as if it were
an act of Pakistan aggression." This pledge, in
short, gives the current peace process a real
chance to succeed.
Unfortunately, that pledge is being tested. In
recent days, a car bomb in a business district in
Srinigar, the capital of Indian-held Kashmir, and
a grenade explosion at a school there killed
several people and injured nearly 100. While the
Indian press reported that a "pro-Pakistan
militant outfit" claimed responsibility for the
first terrorist act, Pakistani press accounts
attributed the attacks to "freedom fighters."
But if the unfolding peace process between India
and Pakistan is able to withstand such
challenges, what is to become of the Siachen
Glacier?
A creative solution has been offered by South
Asian conservationists. Concerned by
environmental degradation and loss of life, they
have proposed that the glacier - source of the
Indus River, a key resource for both India and
Pakistan - be converted into an ecological peace
park, jointly maintained by both nations without
reference to territorial boundaries. Both
countries already have high-altitude natural
reserves. Moreover, the concept of peace parks is
not new.
Today there are some 140 trans-frontier parks on
the borders of about 100 countries.
Perhaps the time has arrived for the world's
highest battlefield - the Siachen, which means
"place of roses" - to be added to that list.
Karl F. Inderfurth served as US assistant
secretary of State for South Asian affairs
(1997-2001) and is a professor at the Elliott
School of International Affairs at George
Washington University.
Dawn - May 23, 2005
NEW DELHI: President Pervez Musharraf's newly
advertised belief that his chemistry with Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh offers the best chance
for a solution to the Kashmir issue actually
marks a tectonic shift from Pakistan's erstwhile
blinkered view that it could do serious business
only with rightwing Hindu hardliners. That Dr
Singh is neither a Hindu revivalist nor a dyed in
the wool Pakistan-baiter, which the BJP and its
various leaders had quite evidently proved to be,
should be an eye-opener for those, including most
notably Pakistani liberals, who had cultivated a
perverse preference for the Hindutva leadership
out of a kind of spite, as it were, for the
Congress. It is a fact though that the Congress
has not been entirely clean on many of the
concerns voiced by liberals in both countries,
nor does it smell of roses on the communal
question. Over a period of time, and certainly
since the mid-eighties, it has promoted a narrow
nationalism as well as Hindu communalism whose
DNA is not very different from the BJP's.
Moreover, the Congress has traditionally had an
extra weapon in its quiver - that of fanning
Muslim communalism and obscurantism to fit
apolitical, electoral need. The roots go back to
the years before Independence when Mahatma Gandhi
sought to get Indian Muslims tethered to the
Khilafat Movement as an anti-British tool. For
all practical purposes the Khilafat Movement
ended up as an attempt to stave off the rout of a
system of religious leadership of Muslims that
was no longer going to be tenable in
thecontemporary world.
Today, juxtaposed to President Musharraf's stated
objective to lead his country towards an
Ataturk-inspired modern, liberal nation state,
the Khilafat Movement of Gandhiji appears even
more medieval than was originally visualized.
There may be many pitfalls in the Ataturk model
of governance, not the least being a tendency for
authoritarianism, but few can question its thrust
for a badly required enlightenment visa vis
religious zealotry rampant in both countries.
Last week, the Indian state - which is
essentially a hotchpotch amalgam of the Congress
and the BJP's worldview - took yet another step
to stoke the fires of Hindu-Muslim communal
passions. It did so with a clearly delineated
electoral purpose. In its new ill-considered move
the government gave Aligarh MuslimUniversity,
which is a federally funded institution mind you,
a kind of a minority status by granting 50 per
cent reservations for Muslim students. The Indian
constitution does not allow for such reservation
on religious grounds. That is the hallmark of a
secular state. In any case the university has
more than 50 per cent Muslim students at any
point of time. So what's the big deal? No prizes
for guessing then that the BJP lunged at the
issue and why not? If and when elections are held
in Uttar Pradesh or anywhere else in the north,
even Assam for that matter, the BJP would raise
the bogey of appeasement of Muslims by the
Congress, a time-tested political plank. The BJP
would get more Hindu votes and the Congress would
probably get a few more Muslim votes.
Bal Thackeray, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and All
India MuslimPersonal Law Board, which has been
effectively given the contract to brainwash young
Muslim minds in the madrasas, were patronized by
the Indian state under Congress rule. In fact
they were set up to foil the secular liberal
politics because liberal politics would logically
lead to egalitarian demands, which the Indian
state is not ready to entertain. This approach
persists even more vehemently today. The problem
with this kind of polarization is that it not
only fuels Hindu and Muslim extremists, but it
also takes away the focus from the issues that
need to be targeted. For the Congress the latest
Aligarh move is a clever attempt to create the
illusion of helping Muslims without actually
doing anything for them, except bringing more
harm. What do Indians need most, and let us
assume that Muslims are also among them? They
need jobs. They need security. They need to be
treated with respect. The state doesn't have to
try very hard to deliver all these if it can be
only a little more transparent, merit-oriented,
caring, and ruthlessly protective about
everyone's individual and collective rights to
equality and justice enshrined in the
constitution.
As Aligarh's most eminent academician and
acclaimed historian Irfan Habib said the move to
reserve college seats, when Muslims don't need
that quota, could only harm them. So while the
BJP has attacked the reservation issue to whip up
communalism, the Left has taken up cudgels
against it to bridge the growing gap between
India's Muslims and the Indian state.
Addressing the hardcore issues of secular
governance is thus necessary for it impacts on
the evolving India-Pakistan relations. Moving
away from the Khilafat Movement and Ataturk
models, what is it that ideally the two countries
would want to see in Kashmir as they head to
resolve this seemingly intractable issue? What
kind of political and religious milieu would be
agreeable? What would happen to both countries if
Kashmir elects a religiously fundamentalist
government, bereft of its all-embracing
Kashmiriyat, if it were to ever hold free and
fair elections? What are the ways to prevent such
a slide from happening? Going by the
diametrically opposite approaches to the kind of
Muslim society they want to build, President
Musharraf would win the liberal corner hands
down. The question really becomes more urgent
when it gets to Prime Minister Singh and his
Congress Party. In its attempt to placate Hindus
and Muslims as electorally useful religious
categories - tinkering with the Ayodhya mosque
here and a Muslim divorcee's case there - the
Congress was forced into political oblivion for
four general elections. And if it hasn't learnt
any lessons from history, then it would be
leaving Pakistan with no choice but to continue
to engage with the BJPas the only feasible
interlocutor. For who knows when the Congress is
going to hand the Hindutva hordes the ideal come
back vehicle of communalism. Dr. Singh's liberal
credentials notwithstanding."
On May 10 in Multan, thousands of citizens thronged at Chowk
Kumbharwala to greet a small delegation of peace marchers coming from
the other side of the border. To some people it may seem like a
simple event but it took three years for a small group of committed
activists on both sides of the border to realise this unique idea.
It was an annual convention of Pak India Peoples Forum in Karachi
when Dr. Sandeep Pandey, a renowned Indian peace activist and
intellectual, floated the idea of a peace march in December 2003
which sounded nothing more than a crazy idea then. Many thought it
impossible in the strained relations between the two nuclear
neighbours.
Pandey then visited a civil society organisation in Karachi and
shared the idea in detail, surprising many of its staff members who
kept quiet for the moment. But it was the tiny figure of activist
Aslam Khawaja who raised his hand saying, "I am with you, come what
may."
"This was really encouraging, and I thought now it's possible," says
Pandey, one of the peace marchers and organisers of the present
show. "I had already discussed it with Pakistani peace activist and
labour leader Karamat Ali who supported the idea and joined hands."
It was undoubtedly a difficult idea and the problems ranged from visa
to security of peace marchers who were to walk for about two months
in the two enemy countries.
But for Karamat and Pandey, the two main organisers, it was very much
possible. Activism coupled with political vision gave them the
conviction that they could turn it into a reality.
Interestingly, Pandey was lucky to have the endorsement of Pak India
People's Forum India chapter and other networks for the idea.
Pakistani side initially faced problems in having such an endorsement
but later all networks joined hands and Pakistan Peace Coalition
(PPC), a composition of different organisations, came forward to host
the activities in Pakistan.
Despite all difficulties, the peace march started on March 23 2005,
two years after it was initially conceived, from the Dargah (shrine)
of Nizamuddin Aulia in Delhi. It culminated at the shrine of Ghous
Bahauddin Zakarya in Multan.
No Pakistani peace marcher was issued a visa to participate in the
march in the beginning. "It was ironic that the peace marchers were
not issued visas since it was promised by top leadership of the two
countries," says Karamat Ali, a representative of Pakistan Peace
Coalition and organiser of the march in Pakistan. "Instead of
facilitating this march, governments tried to create obstacles in its
way."
Organisers of the event say that before the start of the march, they
had a meeting with the prime minister of Pakistan and Indian high
commissioner in Islamabad and both sides promised to issue visas. It
did not turn out to be so when passports were sent in. They got lost
on the excuse of some 50 years old security clearance syndrome.
While the Indian marchers started the walk, Pakistani marchers
eagerly waited for visas. "We wanted to join them but it was beyond
us. We stayed in Lahore hoping to cross the border every day," says
Aslam Khawaja, a peace marcher from Sindh.
Finally, nine Pakistani peace marchers were issued visas and were
able to join their Indian friends. "We walked with them for five days
only as they had already covered a long way," says Khawaja.
Interestingly, when the March reached Wagah border on April 18,
Pakistan government resorted to the same delaying tactics in issuing
visa, which compelled the organisers to halt the march. After hectic
efforts of a number of peace activists in Pakistan, 12 Indian
marchers were issued conditional visas which demanded of them to
travel in vehicles to Multan and did not allow them to walk.
Hundreds of Pakistanis greeted them when they crossed the border on
May 8. In Multan thousands of people marched with the convoy from
chowk Kumbharwala to Dargah Ghous Bahauddin Zakarya where Makhdoom
Shah Mahmood Hussain Qureshi, the spiritual heir of the shrine and a
member of parliament, received them. People had come from different
places to join the march.
In Karamat Ali's view: "Despite obstacles, the march remained
successful as we were able to bring out the issues." He says the idea
was to help promote interaction among the people, so that they talk
to each other on different issues. In India peace marchers met 500-
600 people daily.
The marchers, many of them trained peace activists, discussed issues
like nuclear disarmament to peaceful solution of Kashmir and were
able to get thousands of signatures on a petition they carried, which
demanded a peaceful solution of Kashmir issue and no-war pact between
the two neighbours.
"It was not an easy job to talk to ordinary people on such sensitive
issues. But we really got very positive response, as there was no
hostility. You could not imagine these things a few years back," says
an Indian peace marcher. All this shows peoples' desire for harmony
and peace.
Many people wondered why were the shrines of saint selected as the
starting and ending points for the peace march. Was it to promote
religion?
"The reason to link the march with the shrines of two saints was to
highlight the sufic aspect of religion. Sufis fought against
extremism and tyranny so we wanted to make this march symbolic,"
explains Karamat.
The other reason was to involve the current spiritual heirs of these
shrines in peace process. "I must appreciate that both the spiritual
leaders co-operated more than our expectations," he says.
Nizamuddin, spiritual heir of the shrine of Nizamuddin Aulia,
travelled from Delhi to accompany the march from Lahore to Multan.
While Shah Mahmood Qureshi received the march in Multan and attended
the peace conference.
Undoubtedly, the participation of Shah Mahmood Qureshi will impact
the peace process in a positive way. His opposition to spending on
weapons in a conference of about 1000 people was a success for anti-
arms activists.
Though peace marchers were not allowed to walk into Pakistan,
organisers say they are very much satisfied with the outcome. Though
many of them think that the idea of walking on Pakistani roads is
still alive.
"We will march on foot from Wagha to Multan whenever we get
permission," reiterates Karamat. "We are writing to the authorities
to fulfill their promise and allow the peace marchers to walk in
Pakistan like they did in India."
He said people to people contact is very important because this
region has less contact comparing to Asean and other
regions. "Participation of common man in the peace march shows the
urge of peace among ordinary citizens. It's time the governments
recognised this need and moved fast towards peace as well."
May 22 marks the first anniversary of the
government that took over after the electoral
overthrow of a fascist regime in India. Can we truly
celebrate it as a day of deliverance?
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, plans
countrywide celebrations in which it would like not
only the coalition partners but also its outside
backers including the Left to participate. The
defeated and still sulking National Democratic
Alliance (NDA), under the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), is busy preparing a political "charge-sheet"
against the Manmohan team.
The run-up to the anniversary has also witnessed a
polite but still prickly debate between the UPA and
the left on what the past year has delivered to the
people.
Despite all the details of economic policies and
performance that mark the debate, it remains a
rhetorical exercise. They argue endlessly about the
extent to which specific tasks in the Common Minimum
Program (CMP) adopted by the UPA along with all its
supporters have been carried out. Buried deep amidst
all the ensuing balance sheets are the basic and
broader expectations that the political regime change
in New Delhi raised.
The fascist dispensation under former Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee distinguished itself,
above all, as an enemy of peace - both internal and
external. The two events that will forever be
associated with it, both internally and
internationally, were: the Pokharan nuclear weapons
tests of 1998 and the Gujarat carnage of 2002. None of
the balance sheets of the UPA's performance in power
takes serious note of the new government's record in
offsetting the twin threats to peace.
On both these fronts, for sure, there is progress.
But it is progress achieved by the people, with
precious little official contribution. It is the
people-driven part of the India-Pakistan "peace
process" that has paid some dividends and kept alive
even dim hopes of a distant solution to the problems
between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The official
part of the process, on the contrary, has striven to
treat the nuclear threat as nearly non-existent. The
attempt, as we have seen before in these columns, has
indeed been to forge an India-Pakistan partnership in
seeking entry into the "nuclear club."
BJP leader and former deputy prime minister Lal
Krishna Advani, addressing a group of businessmen
recently, taunted the Left on its opposition to
Pokharan. Said he : "If China makes a bomb that is
very fine. If the Vajpayee government did it, it was
jingoism." Nothing surprising there. The pro-bomb camp
has always sought to identify anti-nuclearism with the
Left and to damn it by denouncing the Left.
What surprised, however, was a Left response.
While it answered all the other charges from Advani,
the Left opted to remain discreetly silent on
Pokharan. The unstated Left assumption is that the
bomb has ceased to be an issue after the BJP's
departure from power.
The avowedly anti-bomb sections of the main ruling
party, the Congress, appear to share the assumption.
The prime minister himself has been at pains to stress
the need for "continuity" and "consensus" in foreign
and defense policies. Forgotten is the famous Action
Plan for Nuclear Disarmament, presented by former
Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the United
Nations in 1988. The phased plan would have committed
India to nuclear disarmament by 2010. Attempts by the
Indian peace movement to revive a national campaign
based on the plan, with the help of leaders of
hitherto firm anti-bomb commitment, have proven
fruitless so far.
And what of Gujarat? Action promised in the CMP
against the perpetrators of the pogrom, which claimed
a toll of nearly 3,000 human lives, should have been
easier. All the more so for the fact that the carnage
has by now received much publicized condemnation from
even BJP luminaries, if only as part of
party-factional warfare. Justice to the
Muslim-minority victims, however, continues to be
delayed to the point of its denial.
The CMP promises a new legislation to prevent the
recurrence of such massacres. The draft Communal
Violence Suppression Bill, however, has already drawn
flak as a draconian measure from groups of impeccably
democratic and anti-fascist credentials. The Bill aims
to prevent another Gujarat by vesting the federal
government with unfettered powers to intervene in
states in situations of the kind that shamed India in
2002. The Bill, if enacted, would indeed guarantee a
grislier Gujarat, if the BJP or the NDA were to return
to power.
The people's mandate again has made a more than
perceptible difference here. Anti-minority invectives
from certifiable maniacs of the fascist fraternity
assail our ears with far less frequency these days.
The BJP has been forced onto its back foot on divisive
issues so dear to its heart. But official initiatives
carry no assurance of any long term advance towards
the larger objective of making the Gujarat pogrom as
obsolete as the plague.
More discussed than anything else in the debate on
UPA's year in office is the way to "a double-digit
growth." No growth of any digit or description will
prove stable without first closing the path of
destruction that the fascist ideology spells.
A freelance journalist and a peace activist of
India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint
(Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular
contributor to t r u t h o u t.
Whatever India intended, it flagged off a nuclear arms race with Pakistan by exploding five nuclear devices in May 1998. For Pakistan soon followed suit, exploding six. Earlier, there were some indications that a secret arms race was going on. Frequent testing of different missiles by both gave away the terrible game.
The world knew of the Indian nuclear capability since its test explosion in 1974, despite Indira Gandhi's assurance that India would not fabricate nuclear weapons. Missile tests were attributed to its space programme. Between 1974 and 1998 India was known to be developing missiles unrelated to satellites or space programmes. They could only be militarily-oriented. Pakistan believed India was continuing to fabricate nuclear weapons. In hindsight, this seems to be the case.
The question of India's motivation crops up insistently. India was one of the leaders of Non-Aligned Movement. Its moral stock was high because of its earlier decision to abjure nuclear weapons. Which is why world was astonished at its PNE (Peaceful Nuclear Explosion) in 1974. If India did not intend becoming a nuclear power, why did it test explode a bomb it had fabricated? The fact is that India stabbed the anti-nuclear movement in the back. The 1974 testing was not an isolated event. Nehru himself had asked for American military aid and its nuclear umbrella in 1962. Wind direction was clear: acquisition of a nuclear umbrella.
There is consensus in Indian political life that the aim is to make India a great power, with the assumption that military strength makes a power great. That confers status. Earlier great powers would acquire colonies by conquest. While India is acquiring every element of military strength, it is unclear what it intends by its ability to project power. Some say status or grandeur is the aim. Nuclear weapons are seen as the currency of power, which supposedly attracts respect and awe from others.
But what is the actual result? Pakistan's knee-jerk reaction was to test-fire six nuclear weapons within days. With that India sank to equality with Pakistan. An essential hyphenation with Pakistan took place, to India's chagrin. The world saw both linked with each other also through these hostile nuclear weapons aimed against each other. Since Pakistan made no bones about its motivation, willy-nilly the Indian nukes have to counter Pakistan's. No matter how much India protests that its nukes are not Pakistan-centric, the world sees no other use of Indian nukes.
Can nukes really help attain a world power status for India, necessarily at the cost of vacating high moral ground? Indians have to figure that out. An outsider is only aware that nuclear weapons are feared and hated. All people of goodwill condemn nuclear weapons whether held by the Big Five or Israel, India or Pakistan. No one respects India and Pakistan because of their nuclear weapons. On the contrary these lead to a loss of others' goodwill.
India's political establishment has set its heart on being recognised as a great, and the region's pre-eminent, power while America wants it to be a major world power. India wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with the veto. The question is: would the possession of a sophisticated Indian Nuclear Triad – that is constantly being updated and expanded – help India achieve this aim? An outsider's judgment is, not too many powers would want to deny India a seat in an expanded UN Security Council. But few would like it to get a veto. For one, veto has been used in a manner that has left everyone unhappy. It is anti-democratic; it violates sense of fair play among states. In international law, it is a violation of its natural principles. In short, neither India nor Pakistan can expect any rise in status simply by being nuclear powers.
Indians do not talk much about national security being strengthened by having nukes. But in the decision to become a nuclear power, it is certain that the security wallahs must have weighed in with the argument that nuclear weapons will make national security impregnable. That leads to a simple question: Was India more secure on May 14, 1998 (after the explosions) or on May 9, 1998? What difference have these WMDs made to India's national security? The plain answer is that they have been a negative development for India's national security. Why? Because Pakistan has developed a nuclear deterrent that is aimed at India. Now, these WMDs are weapons of offence; they are useless for defence. India's impressive nuclear triad cannot defend it against a sneak nuclear attack by Pakistan and vice versa. Nuclear weapons have reduced the national security of both India and Pakistan.
It could be that the 1974 PNE or the five explosions by Vajpayee government later, were political ploys to give a political resonance favourable to the government. But factually they helped chauvinism and jingoism grow. This is an easy road to popularity. In both countries the tests were claimed to be a great achievement. Whatever the intent, the two sets of nukes have enhanced chauvinism and jingoism – the true legacy of these weapons.
India, all said and done, is still a developing country with the largest pool of poverty. It has miles to go before it can ensure a decent living for its people. These weapons are horribly costly, although their promoters (local industrial-military complexes) sold them as the cheapest way to greatness and absolute security. They are nothing of the kind. In the regional context, it was a dishonest sales pitch by hardliners of both India and Pakistan, who had been in frequent contact and had jointly popularised nuclear weapons as the cheapest means to security and peace. All told, expenditure on these weapons systems should include the cost of a subsequent accelerated arms race between India and Pakistan that each has to incur. India, richer than Pakistan, is scarcely rich enough to waste a lot of money on nuclear weapons and on the secondary arms race too.
Nuclear weapons require command and control systems, cost $ 3 billion and God knows how much more to keep them updated and to maintain their operational capability. Anyway, an arms race is built into nukes because all weapons have to be kept updated all the time. Each side has to keep ahead of the adversary, who is doing the same. The amount of money devoted to the nuclear triad has serious opportunity costs. Moreover, once two nuclear powers have achieved rough parity in nuclear weapons, they have to start a new arms race because the nuclear weapons notionally cancel each other out. All of this is unaffordable. Costs include the loss of goodwill and high esteem that the people of former non-aligned countries had for India.
Finally, Indians should consider what these nukes are doing to Indian economy and society. Are they not aggravating inequality and poverty? Let's consider just this one: If India had not undertaken any expenditure on nuclear weapons and even if it was spending all that it is spending on conventional weapons, the money available to invest for reinforcing the rate of growth would be greater, with more available for health, education and scientific research.
Pakistan and Britain on Wednesday signed an arms deal to allow Islamabad
to purchase British military hardware, said a defence ministry statement.
Britain's visiting Under Secretary of State for Defence, Kevin Tebbitt,
signed the document with his Pakistani counterpart, Lieutenant General Ali
Muhammad Jan, the statement said.
"The Memorandum of Understanding would help open new avenues in defence
cooperation between Pakistan and the UK. It would facilitate procurement
of defence equipments and transfer of technology," it said.
The two sides also agreed to hold "joint exercises, exchange observers and
to jointly fight the war on terror."
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 1 juni 2005