index
Pakistan on June 30 expressed concern over the signing of a defense pact
between the United States and its traditional rival India saying that it
could destabilize the strategic balance in the region. "The induction of
advance weapons system into the region is a matter of concern for Pakistan
as it could destabilize strategic balance in the region," the foreign
office said in a statement. US and Indian defense ministers signed a
10-year agreement June 28 paving the way for joint weapons production,
cooperation on missile defense and possible lifting of U.S. export
controls for sensitive military technologies.
The foreign office said that "while Pakistan is opposed to an arms race,
we are committed to maintaining credible minimum deterrence in both
conventional and non-conventional area." "Pakistan will always ensure its
defensive capability and would respond appropriately to rectify any
imbalance," it said. The statement said Pakistan, a key ally in the US-led
war on terror, had also conveyed its concern to the United States over the
"negative consequences of induction of new weapons system such as missile
defense." It said Pakistan had proposed strategic restraint regime to
India based on conflict resolution, nuclear and missile restraint and
conventional balance. "We are also committed to the ongoing composite
dialogue process with India with an ultimate objective of achieving
durable peace and stability in the region." India and Pakistan have fought
three wars, two of them on Kashmir since their independence from Britain
in 1947. After coming close to their fourth war the nuclear armed rivals
launched a peace process in January 2004 to resolve all issues including
the Kashmir dispute through dialogue. Since then they have restored road
and air travel links and people-to-people contacts besides launching a bus
service across the disputed borders in Kashmir.
Washington (AFP) Jun 28, 2005
The defense ministers of the United States and India signed a 10-year
agreement Tuesday paving the way for stepped up military ties, including
joint weapons production and cooperation on missile defense, officials
said.
It called for "an enhanced level of cooperation covering military to
military relations as well as a defense industrial and technological
relationship," a statement said following the signing by US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee in
Washington.
They agreed to set up a "defense procurement and production group" and
sign deals to cooperate on military "research, development, testing and
evaluation" as well as naval pilot training.
"Both sides agreed that US-India defense relations are an important pillar
of their transforming bilateral relationship," the statement said.
The military pact came three months after the United States unveiled plans
to help India become a "major world power in the 21st century."
Washington's move to boost relations between the world's oldest and
largest democracies which were on the opposite sides in the Cold War was
seen by analysts as part of a strategy to counter the growing influence of
China, India's immediate neighbour.
Under the plans, Washington offered to step up a strategic dialogue with
India to boost missile defense and other security initiatives as well as
high-tech cooperation and expanded economic and energy cooperation.
India's defense minister appealed on June 27 for a quick end to
restrictions on nuclear and technology cooperation with the United States,
saying they limit India's ability to become a stabilizing force in Asia.
On his first visit to Washington since taking up his post, Pranab
Mukherjee said such limitations were among factors "that prevent India
from realizing its potential to contribute to international peace,
stability and development." In a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, he said India and the United States have a
"convergence of our security concerns," including "fundamentalist activism
and terrorism" and weapons proliferation.
India is on the front line of this struggle and hence merits Washington's
assistance, Mukherjee added. He met earlier in the day with Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and is due to visit Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld on June 28 at the Pentagon. Mukherjee is preparing the way for a
White House visit next month by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
President Bush has greatly accelerated predecessor Bill Clinton's
initiative to strengthen ties between the world's two biggest democracies,
at odds through most of the Cold War and the years immediately afterward.
Economic and diplomatic relations have mushroomed. But nuclear, military
and other technology dealings have been more cautious, largely because of
U.S. concerns over India's status as an undeclared nuclear power that has
refused to join most international non-proliferation regimes. The
administration has begun to cooperate on nuclear-related safety programs
with India. But U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph said last week
"we're moving forward in an incremental and reciprocal way" in this regard
and no immediate changes in U.S. law or policy are contemplated. Mukherjee
said if India is to realize its economic potential, it needs alternative
sources of energy and foremost among those available is nuclear energy.
Insisting India's nuclear energy and weapons programs are separate, he
said "restrictions against India's nuclear energy programs are
anachronistic."
Programme of action to create awareness on the persisting danger n-weapons pose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Nation-wide observance of one-minute silence on August 6 and 9
* Right to Information Act excluded the DAE from the provisions of law
* Nuclear danger "is not far out there [in
history] but here on our doorsteps"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PANAJI: The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and
Peace (CNDP), an umbrella organisation of more
than 200 civil society organisations, on Sunday
issued a call for a nation-wide observance of
one-minute silence on August 6 and 9 to
commemorate the 50th anniversary of the dropping
of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which
resulted in the immediate death of more than two
lakh people.
The CNDP is aimed at "sensitising governments and
policy-makers" to the dangers of the nuclear arms
race in the world as also in the Indian
sub-continent. It concluded a two-day meeting of
its National Coordination Committee (NCC) here on
Sunday. It also chalked out a programme of action
by its State chapters and member-organisations to
create awareness among all sections of people,
especially women and the youth, on the persisting
danger that nuclear weapons posed to humanity and
its environment and habitat.
Addressing a press conference, leaders of the
CNDP noted the failure of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference
held in May to make any progress on the
implementation of the nuclear powers' obligation
for time-bound global nuclear disarmament, as a
result of the stance adopted by the United States.
Achin Vanaik, academician and activist, said the
U.S. had demanded and obtained an apology from
Japan for bombing Pearl Harbour (U.S. base in the
Far East) which triggered U.S. participation in
World War-II but the U.S. itself has refused to
apologise for dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
Neither Japan, whose foreign policy was dependent
on the U.S., nor governments of countries such as
India had cared to put pressure on the U.S. to
apologise for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"Unless we recognise the horrors and wrongfulness
of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the
world cannot rid itself of nuclear weapons," Mr.
Vanaik said.
No concern for victims
He said the erstwhile NDA (National Democratic
Alliance) government had unilaterally called for
mourning for the 2,500 victims of the terrorist
attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, but it
had not shown a similar concern for victims of
nuclear bombing which killed a hundred times more
non-combatants, women and children, in the name
of protecting American soldiers.
Mr. Vanaik said it was "extremely disturbing"
that India's Right to Information Act had
excluded the Department of Atomic Energy from the
provisions of the law. Christopher Fonseca, head
of the Goa Coalition for Peace and Nuclear
Disarmament and General Secretary of the State
unit of the All-India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC), appealing to the media to support the
awareness programmes related to August 6 and 9,
said nuclear danger "is not far out there [in
history] but here on our doorsteps," in the
background of nuclearisation of India and
Pakistan.
Sabsayachi Chatterjee, scientist, said this year
was also the International Year of Physics, and
nuclear bombing of Japan was the worst misuse of
physics.
Ilina Sen, Admiral (Retd) L. Ramdas, Sukla Sen
and Garimella Subramaniam also addressed the
media conference.
Panaji June 26: A two-day meet of the national
co-ordination committee of the Coalition for
Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) held in the
city on June 25 and 26, decided to run a
countrywide campaign for observing two-minute
silence on August 6 and 9, at 11 a.m, as a mark
of respect to those who lost their lives due to
the nuclear holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
on these respective days.
The Magsaysay award winner formal Naval chief,
Admiral (retd) R Ramdas who attended the meet
said that the perceptive radiation effect on the
people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still felt,
especially in the genetic mutations.
Pointing out that the Indian subcontinent,
including the marine life and marine environment
along it, is in grave danger due to the Indo-Pak
nuclear race, Adm Ramdas said that campaign
against this race should be slowly built up
through debates and other programmes.
Ms Ilina Sen from Chattisgarh said that the meet
also decided about holding various other
activities such as debates for/ against the
N-bomb, poster and painting competition and
related seminars.
Mr Sabyasachi Chatterji from the Institute of
Astrophysics, Bangalore said that nuclear weapons
are products of science that need to be
eliminated, while Mr Shukla Sen, a former officer
of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation observed that
weapons of mass destruction are actually weapons
of mass murder that kill innocent people.
"The heat effect and the blast effect of nuclear
explosion do not last long but its radiation
effect lasts long enough," Mr Sen added, pointing
out that presently there are nearly 30,000
nuclear warheads deployed and stockpiled.
Prof Achin Vanaik said that Goa has a long
tradition of social awareness, education and
ecological movements and would rightly respond to
the anti-nuclear campaign.
He also mentioned that the US had demanded and
obtained an apology from Japan for attacking the
Pearl Harbour during the World war II, however it
has not apologised for bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. "Many governments around the globe
don't recognise the need to pressurise US for
this apology," he lamented.
The Goa convenor of Coalition for Peace and
Nuclear Disarmament, Mr Christopher Fonseca said
that the CPND - Goa would actively participate in
the anti-nuclear movement.
The meet also expressed concern over the decision
of the Indian government to go for Uranium mining
in Meghalaya.
Dr Ghosh, the former professor of international
relations, Kolkota and Dr G Subramaniam, a
scientist were also present on the occasion.
Against the sound of cicadas singing in the Mediterranean heat, Indian Air
Force Sukhoi Su-30 fighters took off from this French air base in their
first exercise in European skies, marking New Delhi’s desire to strengthen
ties with Western militaries. Their Russian-built jets roared into the
clear sky on twin afterburners, eager to engage French Mirage 2000s off
the southern coast. The flying exercise, dubbed Garuda II, also signaled
France’s interest in cultivating defense links with India, a regional
power which is looking to augment its armory with new attack submarines
and a fleet of 126 multirole combat aircraft.
The French naval chief of staff underlined his country’s interests in
maintaining a military presence in the region. The island of Reunion in
the Indian Ocean is directly governed by Paris under the status of an
overseas region and France has historical links with India, Adm. Alain
Oudot de Dainville told reporters June 21. India’s mixed fleet of Western
and Russian aircraft includes Jaguar light strike aircraft, Mirage 2000s,
MiG-29s and Su-30 fighters. As part of the air force exercise, six Su-30K
fighters and an Ilyushin Il-78 in-flight refueling aircraft flew against
and with six French Mirage 2000s and a C-135 FR air tanker, base commander
Gen. Bruno Clermont told reporters June 22. India’s cooperation with
foreign air forces is fairly recent, but marks an eagerness to learn
procedures and tactics with friendly forces. Group Capt. Shreesh Mohan
told reporters here that the Indian Air Force started flying with a
foreign military in 2003, in Garuda I, when four French Mirages flew to
India for exercises with their Indian counterparts. Indian pilots flew six
Jaguars to Alaska last July to operate with the U.S. Air Force and, in
other exercises, took part in operations with the services of Singapore
and South Africa last autumn. Indian Air Force pilots bested U.S. F-15
pilots in an exercise in India last year. Practicing Interoperability
Garuda II marked India’s first deployment of its Su-30s to Europe, and a
first refueling of the Russian-built aircraft with a French C-135 tanker,
Mohan said. “There is a lot of learning value in training with the French
Air Force, which we consider a very professional air force,” he said.
Mohan declined to comment on India’s tender for new fighters, in which
France is offering the Mirage 2000-5 against the Saab Gripen, MiG-29 and
Lockheed Martin F-16. Although Indian pilots had flown against the F-16
and other foreign aircraft, he said, “Flying with an air force is one
thing; evaluating an aircraft [to buy] is another challenge.” He added,
“We’re very happy with the Mirage 2000.” India has operated the French
fighter for some 20 years. The Mirage 2000-5 would have a more advanced
radar, to allow air defense and strike missions. In Garuda II, a French
Mirage 2000 RDI was scheduled to refuel from the high-winged Il-78 tanker.
The cross-refueling exercises meant that if France sent Mirage jets into
the region, it could ask for refueling support from India, rather than
send its own C-135s, allowing an enormous saving, French Air Force Gen.
Alain Perriault said. Both the French and Indian aircraft use the flexible
drogue-and-hose refueling system, while the C-135 also is equipped with
the rigid boom used by the U.S. Air Force. Mohan said the fighter exercise
showed an “understanding between the two governments for good bilateral
relations and enhanced defense cooperation.” The deployment of Indian
fighter and support aircraft and 125 personnel was a major undertaking and
a valuable lesson in organization and interoperability, he said. The
Indian aircraft flew in two stages: a six-hour leg to Egypt with a stop
near Alexandria, then a four-hour flight to this base near Marseille,
southern France. During the eight-day exercise, the two air forces would
dogfight and fly mixed patrols as well as engage in increasingly complex
operations, designed to show each other how to interact. Simulated
beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles were used during the dogfights. Wing
Cmdr. KVR Raju said the Su-30 carries the A12, which uses an active radar
and infrared seeker and has a range of 15 to 18 miles. The Mirage 2000 is
armed with the Mica, which is also a BVR weapon. In Garuda I, the Indian
pilots used the semi-active R27ER missile, which requires the pilot to use
the Su-30’s radar to illuminate the target throughout the engagement.
Other assets planned for use in the exercise included a Mirage 2000N, an
E3-F airborne warning and control system aircraft and Tucano turboprops,
to simulate transport aircraft. Mohan declined to give the maximum range
of the Su-30, with midair refueling from the Il-78.
The phone lines between Hyderabad, Pakistan, and Lucknow, India
crackled with a unique electricity on June 17, 5 pm India time, 4.30
pm Pakistan: a conference call between about a dozen children and
youth each from either city. This was no elite, upper class gathering
of 'English medium' school children. Many belonged to working class
and low income families. Two of the boys from Pakistan are former
bonded labourers, who had participated in the Cricket for Peace
tournament of street children that the Saumya Sen (also known as
actress Nandita Das' husband) organised last year.
However, most of the children had no exposure to 'the other'. Aslam
Khwaja, a journalist and peace activist who is also involved in the
Asia Social Forum, was present at the teleconference in Hyderabad. He
was 'delighted' at how the children interacted. "They didn't just
spout 'peace stuff' that you or I might say," he explains, although
there were some orientation sessions on either side that involved
discussions, singing songs, and watching film clips about hostilities
between India and Pakistan.
Some of the children's parents had cautioned them to be 'very
cautious' while talking to Pakistanis. However, all restraints
disappeared as the children talked. One of them said she
couldn't "say all she wanted to" and would follow up by writing to
her friends in Pakistan.
There were other apprehensions, like wondering whether they would be
able to understand each other's language. Shantanu, a class X
student, was surprised that spoken Hindi and spoken Urdu were so
similar. He ended up leaving "overwhelmed with the 'huge'
experience," saying that this was the best evening he had had this
summer vacation and that he had wanted to talk much more.
Says Aslam: "In the beginning, there was awkwardness and some
hesitancy, but the children very quickly found their linkages,
starting out with the weather, sports, Shahrukh Khan's latest film,
and school issues. The actual talk of 'peace' was just a small part
of the conversation. More important were their human connections."
The participants told jokes and quoted poetry from Allama Iqbal.
Areeba Javed from Hyderabad read out a poem on peace, and when the
Lucknow children learnt that their Pakistani friends knew the songs
from their popular films, they all joined in singing from hits like
Veer Zaara and Kal ho na ho.
And, adds Aslam, they were having so much fun that when it was time
to end the call, after 65 minutes, one of the Hyderabad children
turned round and complained, "Why did you call us for then?"
The idea for this tele-conference grew during the peace march that
began in Delhi on March 23 from the dargah of the great Sufi saint
Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia and ended on May 11 in Multan at the tomb of
another great Sufi, Bahauddin Zakaria.
Among the peace marchers was Sanat Mohanty, a scientist in a research
lab in Minneapolis who co-organised the conference call. "Sanat made
the communication possible and helped us all believe in the sheer
possibility of having such an interaction," says another organiser,
Bobby Ramkant, a health worker based in Thailand. "I never thought
that it would generate so much of passion or how powerful this small
initiative would be in bringing together these children and youth
from India and Pakistan."
"Despite technical difficulties with unstable internet and video-
networking through a web-cam as well as disturbance over the phone
line that was finally used to teleconference the children in, the
enthusiasm and sheer joy of speaking to each other was perceptible,"
wrote Sanat Mohanty in a comment for www.thesouthasian.org that he
runs along with another activist.
He added in his comment, later carried by newspapers around the
region, that some Lucknow children had tickets for a film later but
decided to forego it to find out about their counterparts in
Hyderabad. "Yahan jyada maza aa raha tha. We were having more fun
here. We can see the movie anytime, but this was a beautiful
experience," said Shalabh.
"What picture do you see when you think about India," a Lucknow
participant asked.
"We see a place with friends," came the reply from Hyderabad.
"Can we be friends?" another voice from Lucknow queries.
"Of course," came the confident reply.
Another call with the same participants is planned within the next
month. "The organisers view this as follow up action from the march,
using available technology to increase people to people interaction.
Based on feedback and learning from these calls, the organisers plan
to start similar interactions between other groups," says Sanat.
Other organisers in India include the leading social activist and
Magsaysay Awardee (2002) for emergent leadership Dr Sandeep Pandey
who headed the Indian delegation for the peace march, noted Narmada
Bachao Andolan activist and NAPM (National Alliance of People's
Movements) leader Arundhati Dhuru, activist filmmaker Monika Wahi and
NAPM/Asha activist Mahesh Kumar Pandey.
From Pakistan, besides Aslam Khwaja, the organisers include Ghulam
Hussain Malokani, who heads Green Rural Development Organisation, the
journalist A. G. Chandio, Aijaz Ali, chairperson of Indus Valley
Theatre Network (a street theatre group which operates in the rural
area of Sindh) and Kaleem Shaikh, who runs the Hyderabad Business
Forum is an active member of PIPFPD and the Pakistan Social Forum.
Here's hoping that their small but significant personal initiative
blooms into something more, feeding the peace stream that appears to
be gathering momentum despite the occasional hiccups.
The writer is a staff member.
Ritu Sarin
NEW DELHI, JUNE 23: The probe into alleged pay-offs by South African arms
firm Denel in the supply of anti-material rifles to India has gathered
momentum with the company admitting that it did indeed engage the services
of one Varas Associates between 2001 and 2004.
This is a significant admission given that Denel had dismissed the first
report in Cape Argus, a South African newspaper, which first mentioned
Varas Associates, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.
Sources involved in the investigation said that Denel has now confirmed
that Varas was engaged for a fee for providing ‘‘technical assistance’’
for the Indian contracts. This admission, sources said, has come through
diplomatic channels and has since been conveyed to the CBI.
A fortnight ago, the CBI had registered a First Information Report (FIR)
in the Denel case, alleging pay-offs to the tune of Rs 20 crore for the
rifle contracts. The FIR said that Denel had paid Varas 12.75 per cent
commission on all deals it had secured despite the ban on agents.
Denel, though, denies it has violated any Indian laws and has described
reports of pay-offs for procuring papers of the Price Negotiating
Committee as alleged by South African newspapers, as ‘‘nonsensical.’’
Incidentally, a team from Denel, headed by its new Chief Executive
Officer, Shaun Liebenberg, is in New Delhi and held consultations with
senior officials of the Ministry of Defence and Defence Production.
CBI officials, who have been coordinating with the MoD and the Ministry of
External Affairs, say they have copies of agreements between Denel and
Varas as well. These agreements were reportedly given by Denel after
Indian High Commission officials in Pretoria contacted them.
Significantly, CBI sources say, an early scrutiny of the Varas agreements
shows that certain portions, probably the financial clauses, have been
erased before being submitted to Indian officials.
The CBI is now working on a Letter Rogatory (request for investigations)
that will be sent to Pretoria. The MoD, meanwhile, is continuing with its
freeze on all dealings and negotiations with Denel.
The Denel deal: what it was and how it’s played out
Shri L.K.Advani’s recent statements about Jinnah
describing him as secular leader has raised a
storm of controversy about him in India and large
number of people are writing and expressing their
opinion about him. It is quite natural. Jinnah,
at best, would remain controversial figure in
India for a long time to come. Advani’s statement
came as a shock not only to the Sangh Parivar but
also to any secularists. Advani and his parivar
had always reviled Jinnah and hence the shock.
It is difficult to guess why Advani said what he
did in Karachi. Did he become sentimental in his
‘home town’? Was he overwhelmed by the reception
and hospitality he got in Pakistan as he and his
Parivar had always demonised Pakistan? Or was he
trying, as some politically aware people think,
to project his image as a moderate now after his
tryst with extremism? And if so why his
temptation for moderation? One surmise is that he
is eying prime ministership of India if ever NDA
comes back to power again as Vajpayee is too old
to be in the prime ministerial chair again.
However, it could also be a genuine change of
heart. One cannot rule out that possibility also.
Advani had joined the RSS when he was in Karachi
and hence espoused communal ideology based on
hatred of Muslims and much more on hatred of
Muslim League and its leaders. Ideology always
creates certain simplistic beliefs and divides
the world in black and white ignoring all in
between shades.
Ideology often becomes blinkers and makes its
believer ignore complex realities and tread the
straight path of ideology and hence she/he
becomes victims of her/his own ideological
beliefs. Advani, as believer in Hindutva ideology
could be no exception to it. But when one comes
face to face with reality and experiences
something contrary to ones ideology, one could be
easily shaken and change ones view. It is
difficult to say whether Advani had changed his
views genuinely in the light of his experiences
in Pakistan. However, I am inclined to think
there is an element of genuineness in Advani’s
changed view of Jinnah.
One thing is sure that Advani did not retract his
statement back home in India. He stuck to his
guns. Usual politicians take recourse to having
been misquoted by the media, he did not take any
such plea. But under intense pressure from the
Parivar he only partly retracted saying he did
not say Jinnah was secular but that Jinnah’s
concept of state was. No one can deny Jinnah’s
speech on 11th August 1947 in the Pakistan
Constituent Assembly. In that respect Advani
cannot be faulted. Also it is a fact that Jinnah
was described as ‘ambassador of Hindu-Muslim
unity by Sarojini Naidu after Jinnah helped forge
Lucknow Pact between the Congress and Muslim
League in 1916. Here too Advani cannot be faulted.
But the question is did Advani not know all this
before he went to Karachi? If he did, why he kept
on demonising Jinnah along with his political
Parivar? Why did he make such statement only
after going to Pakistan? The only possibility is
that either he is now trying to project his image
as moderate or since the RSS has demanded his
resignation and he has agreed to resign from the
BJP presidentship at the end of 2005 he now
wishes to go down in history as a changed man.
Anyway after he resigns as president of the BJP
he may not have politically crucial role to play
in the Sangh politics.
Having said this another important question is
how to characterise Jinnah? Was he communal or
secular. One columnist has suggested Jinnah was
“pseudo-communal” and more westernised than an
authentic Muslim. It is very difficult to
honestly assess Jinnah in India. His name arouses
strong emotions as he is seen as solely
responsible for dividing the country. It is not
only the Sangh parivar which condemns Jinnah and
his role but even the Indian secularists see him
as culprit, if not communal, for dividing India.
M.N. Roy, a noted rationalist intellectual and
activist wrote, “ Mohammed Ali Jinnah was the
most maligned and misunderstood man. That
experience made him bitter and it was very
largely but of spitefulness that he pursued an
object, the attainment of which placed him in the
most difficult position. Jinnah was not an
idealist in the sense of being a visionary; he
was a practical man possessed of great shrewdness
as well as of more than average intelligence.”
And for Pakistanis he is everything father and
founder of the nation. He is beyond any
criticism. In fact Jinnah to Pakistanis is what
Mahatma Gandhi is to Indians or perhaps
combination of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru. One
cannot think of Pakistan without Jinnah. Pakistan
would not have come into existence without him.
Though this is true but question is was Jinnah
solely responsible for creation of Pakistan? Was
Pakistan more an accident of history that outcome
of a pre-planned operation long cherished by
Jinnah? There is no evidence to show that
operation Pakistan was pre-planned and long
cherished dream of Jinnah.
Jinnah began as nationalist and was active
supporter of Congress nationalism. He was liberal
and was described as ‘Muslim Gokhale’. He had
joined Congress and went to Muslim League on his
own conditions and brought them together through
the Lucknow Pact in 1916. In Jinnah’s life 1928
was a crucial year when the Nehru Committee
turned down his demand for 33% seats of Muslims
in Parliament. It is again debatable whether his
demand was justified and whether such a demand
could be met in any political democracy. Maulana
Azad himself rejected this demand in the AICC
session when Nehru Committee report was discussed
there.
Second turning point was 1937 elections in which
the Muslim League lost heavily and the Congress
went back on promise to take two League ministers
in the U.P. cabinet. For Jinnah it was great
betrayal. It was final break off from the
Congress in a way though not the ultimate one.
The ultimate break off point came in 1946 when
Nehru madder a statement that changes in the
Cabinet Mission Plan could not be ruled out.
After 1946 fall elections the Congress and Muslim
League had formed a composite government. Thus
one cannot say that even after passing the two
nation theory resolution Jinnah had made up his
mind for Pakistan.
All available evidence shows even after that
resolution of 1940 Indian unity could have been
saved, if a satisfactory power-sharing
arrangement could have been worked out. It would
be very difficult to maintain that Jinnah alone
was responsible for creation of Pakistan, much
less Pakistan being long cherished dream of
Jinnah. And how can one ignore the ignoble role
of British imperialism in partitioning of the
country.
Partition was not only culmination of the British
divide and rule policy but also result of
definite political design to bring about
partition of the country. United India would have
strengthened socialist camp led by Soviet Union
and would have posed a great challenge to
imperialist powers both in China which was
heading towards communist revolution but also in
the Middle East which was rich in oil resources.
Thus an honest assessment of Jinnah would require
taking into account various complex forces in
operation then in south, south east and west
Asia. Jinnah, for all these and various other
reasons, cannot fit into any neat political
category – communal or secular. He was secular,
if seen in his social and personal context. He
was far from religious fanatic as the Sangh
Parivar would like to project him. He hardly ever
subscribed to any religious dogmas. He was far
more closer to Nehru in this respect. He was
struggling for Muslim and not Islamic politics.
He wanted ‘Muslim homeland’ rather than an
Islamic state. He was more of an advocate
fighting his case than a mass leader or a
visionary.
It is true the result of his politics was
partition of the country and hence he is dubbed
as communalist. But as we have seen despite his
‘two nation’ theory he was not really wanting a
separate state of Pakistan but a power-sharing
arrangement which did not work out to his
satisfaction. There is some evidence to show that
for him partition was more of a temporary affair
than a permanent division. He wanted to spend his
last days in Mumbai where he had built a house
for himself and he greatly cared for it so much
so that he requested Nehru not to let it to any
commoner but to some foreigner or to some royal
house. The correspondence to this effect between
Nehru and Jinnah is on record for anyone to see.
The Indian Muslims also have grievance against
him. He left them in the lurch. All Muslims did
not agree with his partition project. In fact
only the elite Muslims of U.P. and Bihar fell for
him. Muslim majority areas were indifferent to
him and to Muslim League politics and so were
poor and lower class Muslims for whom Pakistan
project brought no benefit, political or
economic. The Jamiat-ul-Ulama –e-Hind was also
totally opposed to creation of Pakistan.
Thus Jinnah will remain highly controversial in
Indian subcontinent evoking great admiration for
some and total condemnation by others. This is
inevitable. Here are very few who would take a
balanced view keeping all the factors into
account. Neither uncritical adulation nor total
condemnation of Jinnah would do. A critical
evaluation is highly necessary. Perhaps more time
might be needed for this. Half a century may not
be enough on history’s time scale.
(Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai)
Author of Constitutional law of India and former
attorney general, the late H.M. Seervai, has
provided an interesting account of Jinnah's role
in Partition. According to him, the picture
painted of Jinnah as being the one who brought
about Partition on account of ambition, vanity
and intransigence is contrary to historical
evidence. He describes Nehru as appearing
imperious and shows Gandhi as being indifferent
to Muslim demands. He suggests it was Gandhi who
introduced religion into politics with disastrous
consequences.
M.A. Jinnah joined the Congress in 1906. He was
hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity
after the 1916 Lucknow Pact, when the Muslim
League (ML) and the Congress agreed to jointly
fight the British. When, in 1914, Annie Besant
started the Home Rule League, the president of
its Bombay branch was Jinnah. In 1920, Gandhi
became League president but Besant resigned over
politics becoming 'intertwined with religion'.
Gandhi had begun to subtly introduce religion
into politics as his ascetic image had begun to
appeal to Hindu religious sentiment. This
approach to arouse political consciousness was
understandable, but it came at a price. His
support for the Khilafat movement saw Jinnah
cautioning him against it.
In 1925, the All Party Conference appointed a
committee headed by Nehru to frame the
Constitution. The Nehru Report rejected separate
electorates. The ML had wanted this and had also
demanded residuary powers be given to the
provinces. Jinnah pleaded these amendments be
accepted to avoid "civil war". They were
rejected. "This is a parting of ways," Jinnah
told a friend.
Then, when the British announced the Communal
Award providing for separate electorates and
reservation for both Muslims and depressed
classes, Gandhi announced a fast unto death. It
was withdrawn after B.R. Ambedkar intervened and
the Poona Pact was arrived at under which there
were reservations for depressed classes but with
joint electorates. In the polls to provincial
legislatures under the Government of India Act,
1935, out of 485 Muslim seats the ML won only
108. Congress ministries were formed in eight
provinces. Then Congress made the disastrous move
of not forming a coalition with Muslims. In the
United Province, it contested 9 out of 66 Muslim
seats and lost all. The backlash had begun.
In his autobiography, India Wins Freedom, Maulana
Abdul Kalam Azad wrote "if the League's offer of
cooperation was accepted the Muslim League would
have merged with the Congress." But Azad's
recommendation was rejected by Nehru who said
that no Muslim should be admitted into the
Cabinet unless he joins the Congress. He wanted
the Cabinet to be homogeneous. In March 1937,
Nehru remarked "there are only two forces in
India today, British imperialism and Indian
nationalism." Jinnah was quick to retort, "No,
there is a third party, the Mussalman." History
was to bear him out. Yet, even as late as 1937,
according to Shiva Rao, Jinnah was not
considering a separate state.
Congress then began a search for a solution. The
Desai-Liaquat Ali Pact and the Sapru Committee
suggested the formation of coalition ministries
at the Centre. This was turned down. In 1945,
Azad suggested to Gandhi that the Constitution be
federal, units be given the right to secede, that
there be joint electorates with reservation of
seats and parity between Muslims and Hindus in
the legislature and Central Executive "until
communal suspicion disappears". Gandhi differed.
Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru, prominent
lawyers, also pleaded in vain. As a result, in
the 1945 Central Legislature Assembly elections,
the ML won every Muslim seat and Congress Muslims
lost every seat. It overlooked the fact that
though 200 million Hindus were not equal to 90
million Muslims in terms of numbers, while
framing a constitution some sort of meaningful
parity has to be worked out. Gandhi made no
practical attempt to find a solution. Even after
the ML call for direct action the Calcutta
killings and the boycott of the Constituent
Assembly in 1946, Gandhi did not budge.
The rest is history. Lord Wavell who, according
to Seervai, tried repeatedly to get the Congress
to accommodate the ML for a unified India, was
sacked. The Congress began planning for
Partition. Gandhi, who had previously said that
Partition would come to India over his dead body,
advised that circumstances had arisen which made
Partition unavoidable. Jinnah left India with an
appeal to both Hindus and Muslims to bury the
past. The next day Patel said at Delhi "The
poison has been removed from the body of India.
We are now one and indivisible."
The writer is a Supreme Court advocate
Sweden is happy about the ongoing peace process
between India and Pakistan. Not because it is a
peace loving country but because peace will again
provide Sweden with a market for its arms export.
Following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan
in 1998, Sweden had imposed curbs on both the
countries in line with other EU members. The
Kargil conflict further deprived Sweden of the
India-Pakistan market since Swedish law forbids
weapons' export to countries at war. Not that
Sweden has a history of strictly abiding by this
law.
Sweden first dispatched weapons to Pakistan in
1948, when Pakistan was engaged in its first war
with India. Since Washington adopted Pakistan at
its birth and as the 'Free World' lavishly sold
it conventional military weapons, India had to
seek alternative sources. In the process, India
became the largest Third World buyer of Swedish
weapons until the Bofors scandal that cost Rajiv
Gandhi his government. It also deprived Bofors
(Sweden) of its largest Third World buyer. In the
1990s, Bofors scandal forced Sweden to gradually
reduce its weapons exports to India. The nuclear
blasts further reduced the exports to just spare
parts.
The Indo-Swedish weapon trade did not mean
India's rival Pakistan was deprived of Swedish
largesse. Since 1948, Pakistan has also benefited
from Swedish arms industry (or is it actually
Sweden that has benefited from Pakistan?). The
volume of Swedish weapons' export to Pakistan
remained low compared to India, but it is clear
that the Swedish law forbidding weapons exports
to countries at war or running conflicts was
flouted.
According to research conducted by the Svenska
Fred och Skilljedomsföreningen (Swedish Peace and
Arbitration Society), in four decades (1960-1999)
India bought Swedish weapons worth SEK 9264
million, while Pakistan spent SEK 1152 million on
Swedish weapons. During these forty years, both
countries fought two wars besides engaging in the
Kargil and Siachin conflicts.
The Swedish lust for weapons' export may have
been behind Stockholm's invitation to Pakistan's
military ruler last summer. Money is, of course,
more important than commitment to democracy,
especially when a Third World military ruler is
interested in buying Saab Grippen fighter jets.
Incidentally, the Swedish media has been
questioning the performance of Saab Grippen
because of its crash landings that caused a media
uproar. There were also protests here by peace
groups that involved the Pakistan community, as
well as the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
which thwarted the Grippen deal. Musharraf was
satisfied with the Ericsson radar system. But
wait -- poor Sweden is a minor player in the
game, a tiny "common friend" that India and
Pakistan have. What about big "common friends"
like USA, France and Russia? Recent research by
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute) enlightens us on the major common
friends that two traditional rivals have had
during the period 1994-2004. The top 10 arms
exporters to both countries include seven in
common: Ukraine, France, USA, Italy, UK, Russia,
and the Netherlands.
Their best common friend in the last ten years
was France, during this period the fourth major
arms exporter to India and the third biggest to
Pakistan. Pakistan imported 16 percent of its
major conventional weapons, worth $964 million,
from France, while the corresponding figure for
India is 3.33 percent of its major conventional
weapons, worth $465 million. Russia, India's
largest weapon trade partner provided it 75.07
percent of its weapons imports, while meeting
5.10 percent of Pakistan's.
Among Pakistan's "Muslim brothers", one finds
Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan selling arms to India.
Delhi, in turn, a great friend of PLO has no
problem buying weapons from Israel.
The million dollar question is: why do Delhi and
Islamabad keep these "common friends"?
Particularly now when a peace process is
underway, the best CBM would have been a
reduction in both their defence budgets that have
instead registered an inexplicable hike.
Pakistan increased its budget by 7 percent last
year and 15 percent this year. India increased
its defence budget by 9 percent last year, and
went for another 7.8 percent increase this year.
Some arms contractors in both countries will
certainly benefit from these hikes in their
defence budgets, but the major beneficiaries will
be their "common friends".
Consequently, millions more will continue to go
hungry or remain jobless in South Asia. On board
over-crowded boats, millions of their jobless
youth will try to reach the lands of the Bofors,
Mirages and F-16s where only black jobs await
them.
Is it not high time for both countries to get rid
of the "common friends" that are selling them
war, and go for the mother of all CBMs: cuts in
defence budgets. After all, peace between our
countries does not mean merely the freedom to
watch cricket matches together. A peace process
that does not translate into improved living
standards for our people will remain meaningless.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Sweden
The events following Mr. Lal Krishna Advani's visit to Pakistan would
give the impression that the entire controversy was a result of his
remarks about Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah's secular credentials.
While these remarks have, indeed, upset the Sangh Parivar, including
sections within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the real reasons
for the Sangh Parivar's ire against Mr. Advani lie elsewhere. During
his trip to Pakistan, the BJP President commented on two important
issues in a manner that repudiates and challenges the very
ideological foundation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and
its auxilliary organisations.
Speaking at a reception hosted by the South Asian Free Media
Association in Lahore, Mr. Advani told his audience that Partition
was an inevitable fact of history and could not be undone. "The
creation of India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign nations
is an unalterable reality of history," he said, and added that
despite this immutability, "some of the follies of Partition can be
undone, and they must be undone". Indeed, he went further. Speaking
at a dinner hosted by the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mr. Advani
mooted the idea of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh jointly celebrating
the 150th anniversary of the 1857 uprising "in remembrance of a joint
struggle against a common adversary".
Partition and after
The RSS has never reconciled to Partition and has always been a
proponent of the ideal of Akhand Bharat (unified India), which would
also be a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). The only "common enemy" that
the RSS has ever recognised is Pakistan and Islam. The rejection of
Partition was clearly spelt out by the founding fathers of the RSS.
In his Bunch of Thoughts, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar says: "Our
leaders who were a party to the creation of Pakistan may try to
whitewash the tragedy by saying that it was a brotherly division of
the country and so on. But the naked fact remains that an aggressive
Muslim State has been carved out of our own motherland. From the day
the so-called Pakistan came into being, we in the Sangh have been
declaring that it is a clear case of continued Muslim aggression."
Elsewhere in the book, Golwalkar calls Pakistan a "self-declared
theocratic Islamic State".
The clearest statement against recognising Pakistan as a sovereign
nation comes from a statement issued by the RSS in 1965, which
states: "So long as Pakistan exists as at present, she will continue
to be hostile and aggressive towards Bharat. Pakistan was born in
hatred of Bharat. It was carved out artificially by disrupting the
natural, national integrity of Bharat. The K.K.M (Kendriya Karyakari
Mandal or central working committee) is, therefore, of the firm
opinion that peace and normalcy are inconceivable without the
establishment of Akhand Bharat."
Against this background, Mr. Advani's recognition of Pakistan as a
sovereign nation is nothing short of heresy for the Sangh.
`Saddest day'
Talking to the press in Islamabad, Mr. Advani unambiguously termed
the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, as the
"saddest day" in his life. Further, in an interview to Hamid Mir of
Geo TV, Mr. Advani restated this point even more forcefully: "As I
said earlier, the demolition of the Babri Mosque was the saddest day
of my life. The issue of the Ram Temple must be addressed through
democratic ways, through political means. Nobody should be allowed to
take law into his hands." This is the same Advani who called the
Babri Masjid "an ocular demonstration against the Hindus" in 1997 and
rejoiced in the fact that since the provocation was not there any
longer, it was not a matter of regret. On November 30, 1992, Mr.
Advani had asserted that he could not "give any guarantees at the
moment on what will happen on 6 December", and added that he did not
"rule out anything". Asked if he would violate court orders in
Ayodhya on December 6, Mr. Advani had said that as a political
worker, he had violated laws in the past and listed the number of
times he had disregarded Section 144.
The RSS has always held the Babri Masjid as a symbol of Muslim
aggression and domination over the Hindus. Articulating this idea,
the leader of the Sangh, Mr. H.V. Seshadri, has this to say in his
book, RSS: A Vision in Action: "Since the day Babar, the Mughal
aggressor, first demolished the temple in 1528 and put a mosque at
the hallowed spot of Shri Rama Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Shri
Rama in Ayodhya, its liberation and restoration has been a constant
point of struggle in vindication of national honour ... Since then,
76 fierce battles have been fought breaking down all barriers of
caste, creed, language or region and lakhs have sacrificed their
lives in the cause of redeeming that common point of national
veneration. In a way, it has symbolised the fight for the country's
freedom from the enemy's subjugation"(p.348). Mr. Seshadri goes on to
describe with unconcealed pride the way "the history of Bharat turned
a new and effulgent page on the morning of that day when the
obnoxious stain on the holy site of Sri Ram's birthplace standing
there for over 400 years was erased as if in a lightening stroke by
the fiery Karsevaks." (p.351)
Elaborating the point, Mr. K.P. Sudarshan, the current Sarsanghchalak
of the RSS, in a speech in Lucknow in October 2000, castigated
sections of the Muslims in India for identifying themselves with
Babar. He chides them for calling the structure in Ayodhya as Babri
Masjid and blaming the Sangh Parivar for its demolition. The felling
of the Mosque was inevitable, says Sudarshan, because a large number
of karsevaks had gathered there, and in the absence of an early court
order, their fury resulted in the felling of the structure (pp.
14-15, in Sangh Ki Saphalta Ka Rahasya).
After having led the Ram Janmabhoomi movement during the 1980s and
the 1990s, Mr. Advani's contrition about the demolition of the Babri
Masjid in Ayodhya is nothing short of apostasy in the eyes of the
Sangh Parivar.
Apart from these two compelling reasons, the Sangh also saw Mr.
Advani's visit to Pakistan and his pronouncements as a unilateral
privileging of politics above ideology. The Sangh has always shown
great disdain and distrust for politics as the vehicle for achieving
its goal of the Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Bharat. Mr. Sudarshan's
recent likening of politicians to commercial sex workers is only an
extreme restatement of the traditional RSS position on politics as
the least desirable way to their professed mission of uniting India.
Mr. Advani's remarks on Jinnah, therefore, are merely an instance of
interpolating a contemporary debate on secularism and communalism to
a period where these terms did not have the same fraught connotations
as today. The debates leading up to Partition centred around the
question of representation, and whether this representation was to be
based on a "communal" basis, where communal implied community, or on
the basis of a unified idea of all communities.
The current debate on whether Jinnah was secular or not is, then,
merely a smokescreen behind which the larger ideological debates
within the Sangh Parivar are being fought.
India may stop buying Russian military aircraft and air defense systems
altogether
Russian defense industry has suffered another blow in India as the Russian
President Putin was solemnly declaring friendship to his Indian
counterpart. According to Mr. Putin, "Russia-India relations are
developing today in the best possible way." However, the situation is not
so optimistic with regard to prospects for Russian arms sales to India.
India may stop buying Russian military aircraft and air defense systems
altogether. Meanwhile, the United States is making unprecedented
concessions in the field of military and technical cooperation while
imposing its friendship on India. USA is offering India to launch joint
production of the outdated F-16 fighters in India. The offer is ostensibly
made "in token of friendship." Americans are also hinting at a potential
sale of its much-vaunted Patriot air defense system to India.
India is now holding a tender for the order of 126 multi-purpose
lightweight fighters for the national air force. There are 4 bidders at
the moment including Russian Aircraft Concern MiG for the MiG-29M/M2;
Lockheed Martin for the F-16; SAAB for the fighter Gripen; and DASSAULT
for the fighter Mirage 2000. In accordance with the tender terms, a winner
should launch licensed production of its aircraft in India. The Russians
believed that their greater flexibility with regard to licensed aircraft
production would be an advantage at the tender. Representatives of
Rosoboronexport indicated earlier that neither American nor Swedish
manufacturers had any experience regarding cooperation with the Indian
side in the area of aircraft assembly. However, the above circumstances
did not prevent the Americans from taking a step toward the potential
customers. Needless to say, the Indian-assembled F-16 would be a lot
cheaper than its equivalent put together in the U.S. or Europe. There is
still an excess of qualified labor supply in India, and labor costs are
low. The Indian air force is likely to spend as much on domestic assembly
of U.S. fighters as it would spend on licensed production of Russian
aircraft. The Americans made an unprecedented decision, no doubts about
it. So far just a handful of countries has been given such a "privilege"
despite the possibility for partial joint production of the fighter
stipulated in the original provisions of the F-16 development program. The
F-16 is currently manufactured outside the U.S. by Belgium, Denmark,
Norway, Netherlands, and South Korea.
For the first time in history the U.S is making such an offer to a country
that is neither a NATO member state nor it has Americans troops deployed
on its territory. What are the reasons behind this spectacular move? Aside
from economic motivations, it is obviously a matter of geopolitics.
First, the U.S is beginning to gradually force out Russian, Ukrainian, and
Chinese arms suppliers out of the region by offering India its
state-of-the-art weapons at a reasonable price. Ukraine and China sell
arms mostly to Pakistan, a longstanding rival of India's. The Americans
are dealing successfully with Pakistan too. The Pakistanis always showed
consistency in their simple stance on the issue of U.S. arms sales to
India. They always objected to such deals while asking for more U.S. arms
for themselves. It is unlikely that the U.S. will fail to cut a similar
deal for the F-16 with Pakistan, terms of a contract will probably copy
those of the Indian deal i.e. joint production of the fighter in a buyer's
country. In any case, the issue has been already discussed during the
talks between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Washington is also keen to hold back China's growing influence in the
Asian Pacific region. Shortly after the news about the U.S. plans for
launching joint production of the fighter in India, Reuters put out an
article titled USA: apprehensive about China while selling arms to India.
The article cites Lt. General Jeffrey B. Kohler, director of Cooperation
for Defense and Security. Mr. Kohler believes the modern arms sales to
India and Pakistan that should be viewed only in the context of growing
Chinese strength. The "yellow threat" looks much more scary to the
Americans than the threat posed by the Soviet Union in the past.
Therefore, the U.S. is likely to make any concessions as it supplies more
or less modern weapons to countries which are relatively loyal to America.
Washington aims to reach a sort of local parity with Beijing.
Russia and its arms exports can hardly qualify for the above geopolitical
game. The situation is to advantage of the Americans since they know
better than anybody else that Russia's defense industry heavily depends on
export deals. These days a delay in talks on any foreign contract can
bring about dire consequences including bankruptcy for any company of the
Russian defense industry. Should Russia leave the traditional markets of
the Asian Pacific region (high profitability and capacity being the main
features of the region's markets), the scale of the Russian defense
industry will shrink significantly. Besides, the move would signify a
final devaluation of Russia's foreign influence in the region.
Read the original in Russian:
www.
pravda.ru/economics/2005/7/23/331/20098_india.html (Translated by Guerman
Grachev)
Prabhu Ghate
Outwardly at least, Srinagar is limp- ing back to
normalcy. The once ubiquitous sandbagged bunkers
have thinned out, and there are fewer
armour-plated vehicles tearing around with
machine gunners peering out of turrets on top.
The few one sees are often parked at
intersections, their occupants standing around
enjoying the sunshine. The army chief's
instructions not to point guns at people are
being followed, and the forces are talking about
the need to maintain 'traffic etiquette'. The Dal
boulevard is clogged with buses offloading tour
groups massed around shikara stations, waiting to
be taken to their houseboats. Further along the
lakeside, the up-market hotels seem pretty full,
with tourists and conventioneers. After a long
lull, though bomb incidents have resumed, and
perhaps more can be expected from spoilers, but
they have not affected the influx of tourists.
There is enough support for the peace bus to make
it highly unlikely that it will be attacked, the
bizarre incident, the day before it was first
scheduled to start, notwithstanding.
However, it is hard to discern a corresponding
change in mood, at least among the Srinagar
intelligentsia, which is so influential in
shaping opinion. The sense of alienation
continues to be fed by the petty humiliations and
inconveniences of constant searches (security if
anything has been tightened in the wake of the
bus and renewed bomb incidents) and by the mere
sight of olive green, even if less obstrusive
than before. Human rights abuses are widely
acknowledged to have declined, but what people
emphasise is that they continue to be
unacceptably high. Militancy is on the decline,
and is confined to a few pockets mostly in south
Kashmir, while security forces claim that the
first and second rung of leadership have been
largely 'eliminated'. A source in one of the
security forces put the number of militants at
only 750, down from 950 last year, and from 1,400
in 2003, a little more than half being
foreigners, with new infiltration down to a
trickle, whether because of the fence, or action
by Pakistan. These armed militants are provided
logistical support by perhaps a couple of
thousand locals. Others point out that the
seeming precision of such estimates is bound to
be spurious. Kashmiris sympathetic to the
separatist cause estimate the numbers to be
considerably higher, and point to the fact that
the militants have become more effective in
targeting officers, with more lives being lost in
the last two years than in the previous 14.
Despite this, the security forces seem confident
that they have the upper hand, and see themselves
as now 'going for the kill'. At a recent high
level meeting of the joint command, the minutes
of which were leaked to a national daily,
participants urged that the focus now shift from
the militant underground, to OGWs, or 'overground
workers', and monthly quotas be set for
eliminating or incarcerating them. Thousands of
such persons are said to be languishing in jails.
The pressure to 'eliminate' every last militant
or OGW, leads to a continuation of human rights
abuses such as fake encounters. While I was in
Srinagar there were demonstrations and
stone-throwing for three days in the Maisuma
neighbourhood where a youth who was claimed to
have been killed crossing the LoC on a Wednesday
night was seen later, leaving his home on a
Thursday morning. As many Kashmiris claim about
the peace process, 'nothing has changed on the
ground'.
An example of the constant insecurity and
vulnerability experienced by even non-violent and
peaceful proponents of the right to
self-determination (which is not the same thing
as calling for 'azadi', since self-determination
includes maintaining the status quo as well as
the new option of soft borders) is the latest
attempt to intimidate Parvez Imroz, a lawyer and
human rights activist. Imroz organises the
Coalition for Civil Society, which puts together
joint teams of volunteers from the plains and
from Kashmir to monitor elections in the valley.
A memorial meeting was held on April 20 to
remember Aasia Jeelani, who was killed in a mine
blast last April while monitoring the
parliamentary elections. Ironically, and
tragically, she fell victim to a human rights
abuse, one committed by the militants in this
case, since IEDs (landmines) do not discriminate
between combatants and civilians. The event
concluded the next day with the inauguration of a
monument a few miles out of town on the Baramula
road, put up by the Association of Parents of
Disappeared Persons. The impact of a
disappearance on a victim's family is recognised
internationally as a form of torture, denying
relatives the right to come to terms with their
bereavement. The small monument stands in what
was once a paddy field, overlooked by snow-capped
peaks, and says "Never again ŠThe justice we seek
lies not in forgetting the past but in
remembering those who should never be forgottenŠ"
There are over 500 graveyards scattered around
Srinagar, with some of the graves holding two
bodies. The parents, spouses and children of the
disappeared now have the small solace of having a
'graveyard' of their own.
Imroz has been calling for an official commission
to investigate the disappearances, which have
been one of the uglier abuses of the conflict,
one committed by both sides. The APDP's latest
estimate of the number of the 'involuntary
disappeared' is 8,000 to 10,000, while the
government puts the figure of those 'missing' to
be about 4,000, but says most of them joined the
insurgency voluntarily, and got killed, or are
living on the other side of the LoC. The APDP
says it excludes all such known cases, and has
produced a list, with details, of (only) 10
youths who have 'reappeared' or whose bodies have
been found. It is now engaged in a village by
village survey in Baramula district, to be
extended to other districts later, to prepare
lists of those known to have been died at the
hands of the forces, or of the militants, or in
cross-fire, or in custody, as well as of widows,
orphans, and of the involuntary disappeared. It
took a team six days in one village in Bandipur
tehsil to document 240 deaths. For all his pains,
Imroz was woken up by someone banging at his door
a few nights after the function, demanding he be
let in as a prospective client. Imroz suspects he
was one of the 'renegades' who now work for the
security forces, sent to intimidate him, or
worse. A lawyer was assassinated in similar
circumstances last year. Imroz's senior partner,
H N Wanchoo, was assassinated in the early 1990s,
and another human rights lawyer, Jalil Andrabi
was murdered in custody in 1966. Imroz and others
like him are determined to carry on.
The 'Bus' and Other Peace Measures
Happiness about the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus was
negated, temporarily at least, by what was seen
as an attempt to steal the show, the credit for
which rightfully belonged to the 'people of
Kashmir' and their struggle. While universally
welcomed as a step in the right direction, what
is regarded as more important is how easy it will
be for people to use the bus, and the other
routes that will hopefully be opened up. (The
vast majority of divided families live in the
Poonch-Rajauri sector.) The security forces are
already concerned about the risk of the bus being
used by OGWs to cross over from the other side.
As one of them said "one overground worker is
more dangerous than 10 militants". If anyone who
publicly but peacefully espouses
self-determination is regarded as 'anti-national'
and is denied a permit, the bus runs the risk of
engendering more resentment than it alleviates.
There is already considerable unhappiness about
the difficulties and delays in getting passports.
The valley has one of the lowest ratios of
passports granted in the country. Clearly if the
bus is to yield the benefits envisaged, the
stranglehold of security considerations over all
else will have to yield to a mindset at the
working level that is more in keeping with the
spirit of the changing relationship at the
national level.
There is need to follow up the bus with a series
of other 'Kashmir specific' CBMs to reduce
alienation as well as create and sustain a sense
of ownership in the peace process. To enable
widespread debate and consultation between
different parts of the old undivided state of
Jammu and Kashmir, including those across the
LoC, freedom of speech and travel needs to be
respected, restrictions such as S144 used only
sparingly, and detenus not wanted for specific
acts of violence released. The withdrawal of the
army from the urban areas and a phased thinning
out in the rural areas is near the top of
everyone's list of CBMs which would have an
immediate impact. Security duties would be taken
over by the J and K police (minus the hated
Special Operation Group which has been partially
integrated with the regular police but not
entirely dismantled), who could be assisted for
the time being by the CRPF. The army and the BSF
are not averse to a redeployment to the LoC and
borders, but implementation has been held up by
the illusion that militancy can be completely
eradicated by anything other than a political
solution, as well as the lack of preparedness of
the CRPF in the face of continuing sporadic bomb
and grenade incidents and assassinations. The
best hope of reducing these, and isolating the
jehadi groups is to push ahead with further CBMs
and the peace process. A ceasefire would be a
strong reinforcing element. The home ministry has
been making prevaricating offers for one, but its
last word was that it was waiting to see what is
on offer in the talks. The forces too seem to be
in no hurry to enter into a ceasefire in the
mistaken belief that they can solve the problem
militarily. A ceasefire would have to have the
strong support of Pakistan to have the chance of
carrying along the jehadi groups. Demonstrations
against human rights abuses are much more
tolerated under the Mufti regime, but
effective and visible action continues to lag far
behind of what is required. Imroz's group has
documented about 140 involuntary disappearances
since the Mufti government took over in November
2002, indicating the agency responsible,
including in many cases, the militants. However
of the 70 or so magisterial inquiries set up,
only about five have led to reports being
submitted to government, and reportedly only one
SHO has been suspended. As peace returns the need
to continue imposing the Armed Forces Special
Powers Act and other legislation should be
reviewed. The toothless state human rights
commission needs to be urgently empowered.
Perhaps one of the most effective CBMs will turn
out to be the intention to allow trucks on the
Jhelum Valley Roadway (JVR) and presumably on
other routes. The lion's share of J and K's
horticultural production of about Rs 1,500 crore
consists of about one million tonnes of apples,
two-thirds of which are sent to the plains.
Rawalpindi on the other hand, is located in the
state, is in the backyard compared to Delhi, and
will greatly enhance the bargaining power of
valley producers. Apples might even be
re-exportable through Karachi to west Asia.
Cherries and strawberries are highly perishable
items that need to be sent to the plains in
refrigerated trucks. These will no longer be
necessary on the JVR. The benefits of an
expansion of horticultural production are
potentially extremely broad-based. For all this
to happen though, apart from strengthening the
bridges on the JVR, Pakistan and India will have
to carry out the necessary trade policy changes.
One hopes that the story currently doing the
rounds in Srinagar of Musharraf having told
Gilani that he wants to see 4,00,000 tonnes of
Kashmiri apples in Pakistan is not just
apocryphal. Unlike horticultural products, with
the exception of walnuts, Kashmiri handicrafts
such as wood carvings and paper mache are largely
exported, but with considerable 'bunching' to
meet Christmas time deliveries. This is precisely
when the Jammu road is often blocked by snow.
Moreover, because of the tunnel and bends along
JVR, it cannot take containers above a certain
size. Exports through Karachi will obviate this
difficulty. Rauf Panjabi, the president of the
Kashmir Chamber of Commerce, told me that given
suitable financing and other facilities,
Kashmir's handicraft exports of about Rs 500
crore could quickly double. If one adds to this
the prospects of Pakistani tourists being allowed
to visit, the potential economic impact of the
opening up is considerable.
For the moment however the valley is not brimming
over with ideas on cross-border cooperation. On
the contrary, one sensed a distinct lack of
enthusiasm even for the more radical and
ambitious version spelt out by Mubashir Hasan in
a recent article in the Dawn, which sets out in
draft treaty form an agreement between India and
Pakistan to set up a fully autonomous,
demilitarised, and reunified Jammu and Kashmir,
which would be 'almost independent' and an
autonomous member of SAARC, but with sovereignty
continuing to vest with India and Pakistan along
the LoC, with minor adjustments. The article was
reproduced in two local papers but attracted no
immediate editiorial comment. The proposal must
feel like a bitter let down to those with long
cherished dreams of 'azadi'. Most people are
realistic and pragmatic enough to understand and
accept the constraints that are leading the two
countries to the soft borders approach, but
whatever their private thoughts, it was still
politically incorrect while I was there to
discuss anything less than azadi. The
reluctance to do so will no doubt dissipate, but
only if the government enters into a genuinely
broad-based and participatory search for
solutions. It may take a little time before the
existing and new leadership takes advantage of
the totally unexpected new space that has been
created since the Musharraf visit, but it is a
reasonable bet that new and creative
interpretations of azadi will be thrown up, and
find substantial acceptance, although it could be
a slow and messy process. Musharraf is probably
right when he says the two leaders will have to
provide strong leadership and remain proactive,
but it will be essential to carry the people of
Jammu and Kashmir along if any settlement is not
to unravel in the future.
PARIS -- While it battles Airbus for commercial-airplane orders, Boeing
Co. is engaged in an equally fierce dogfight with U.S. rival Lockheed
Martin Corp. to win the hottest warplane competition in the offing:
India's quest to buy 126 fighter jets.
The potential multibillion-dollar deal has broader significance for the
U.S. Striving to cultivate India as a strategic counterweight to China,
the U.S. recently reversed longstanding policy by agreeing to sell
advanced warplanes to New Delhi. That change coincided with an agreement
with Pakistan, Washington's Cold War ally and India's archrival, to resume
the sale of Lockheed-built F-16 fighters frozen for more than a decade by
U.S. sanctions.
India is a far bigger prize, as well as a focus of defense-industry
activity at this week's Paris Air Show. (See related article.)
Boeing went on the offensive by announcing it hopes to be able to offer
India its F/A-18 fighter equipped with one of the most advanced radars in
the world. Lockheed executives met discreetly with visiting Indian
officials and were guarded in public, declining to discuss which F-16
version and features Lockheed hoped to offer India. They also sought to
temper the hype around India's fighter buy. Ralph Heath, the head of
Lockheed's airplane division, said India represents a "substantial
opportunity." He added in an interview, "it is not a do or die by any
stretch for our company."
Neither company knows yet what it can sell -- or even whether it can sell
-- to India, because the Bush administration hasn't finished defining its
policy on the matter. Most military sales are handled between governments,
with the companies taking a back seat. Pentagon and industry officials say
the policy is expected to be announced this summer, so that India can
request detailed bids by September and award the contract six months
later.
The broad contours of the competition are known. India is seeking 126
advanced fighters and an agreement to co-produce them in India -- to help
develop its aeronautic industry. Both Boeing and Lockheed have said they
are willing to accept co-producing the plane in India.
Still, thorny details over export controls and technology transfer have
yet to be worked out with India, which long has distrusted Washington and
frets over any dependence on U.S. policy.
Lockheed and Boeing are lobbying Pentagon policy makers for terms that
they hope will give them an advantage. A critical decision will be whether
the fighters can be equipped with state-of-the-art radar. Boeing wants to
offer a Raytheon Co. radar system that is on the newest U.S. Navy F/A-18s
but has yet to be approved for export. Lockheed's latest F-16s have
similar radar made by Northrop Grumman Corp. The model Lockheed wants to
offer India isn't equipped with that radar, according to industry and
defense officials.
"The F-16 doesn't have the latest technology," said Chris Chadwick,
Boeing's program manager for the F/A-18. Without elaborating on specific
features, Lockheed's Mr. Heath said the upgraded F-16 is a "new plane,"
compared with the first models that began service in the 1970s, and
offered the "most competitive product" for the Indian market.
The policy decision could determine not only whether Boeing and Lockheed
gain a leg up on each other, but also whether the U.S. remains competitive
in the India competition. Russia and France, India's longtime military
suppliers, also are expected to bid, as is Sweden. All three are likely to
provide their latest technology, as well as lower prices.
The mission of a team of Kashmiri liberation
leaders from India-administered Kashmir to its
Pakistan-controlled counterpart and thence to
Pakistan is over. The total upshot of the
mission, however, has proven ironical indeed.
Much-hyped was the mission of the All-Party
Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, Hurriyat in
popular parlance, and much hope came to be pinned
on it. The two main results of the exercise,
however, have been the virtual abandonment of
long-standing demands for the right of
self-determination and a sharply aggravated
dissension in the camp of the Kashmiri liberation
struggle.
The initiative, expected earlier to give a
place for Kashmiris in the Kashmir solution, may
end up making their issue an entirely
India-Pakistan one.
The right of self-determination has been
relegated to the sidelines, and the decades-long
demand for a plebiscite or referendum has been
given a quiet burial. It has been given out that
the abandonment of the demand is one of the
points agreed upon without fuss or formal
announcement between the Hurriyat and the
Pakistan regime.
The background to the demand brings out the
irony forcefully. The idea was originally a
suggestion of the last British Viceroy of India,
Lord Louis Mountbatten. Soon after the creation
of independent India and Pakistan in 1947, when
Pakistani leaders anxious to complete "the
unfinished business of partition (of the
undivided British India)" sent tribal marauders
into Kashmir, the unpopular Maharaja of the
Himalayan state asked for Indian help and offered
Kashmir's accession to India.
In his reply, Mountbatten said: "... it is my
government's wish that as soon as law and order
have been restored in Kashmir and its soil
cleared of the invader, the question of the
state's accession should be settled by a
reference to the people." This meant, in modern
parlance, a plebiscite or a popular referendum.
For decades since then, the plebiscite has
been an insistent Pakistani plea. At least three
resolutions of the United Nations from 1949
backed the demand with full Pakistani support.
India always opposed the proposal on the grounds
that Kashmir's soil was not cleared of
cross-border insurgents.
President Pervez Musharraf's Pakistan has
left little doubt now about its resolve to
renounce the demand on its behalf as well as the
Kashmiri people's.
This might be acceptable to moderate sections
of the Hurriyat, or those that prefer a political
campaign to an armed struggle. The Hurriyat
delegation that represents these sections may not
have defended the demand vehemently in Pakistan.
The more uncompromising sections of the Hurriyat,
however, have given an alarming notice of how
they propose to respond to what they call "a
betrayal" and "a conspiracy."
Hurriyat hardliner Syed Shah Geelani, who
refused to join the mission, has reiterated that
there can be no Kashmir solution without a
plebiscite. The Azad Jammu Kashmir People Party
(AJKPP), based in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir,
has called the entire mission a "conspiracy" to
make the India- Pakistan Line of Control (LoC) in
Kashmir into a permanent border. This is entirely
unacceptable to militants who have been fighting
for a united Kashmir with its right to
self-determination.
The hardliners see a conspiracy also in the
remarks of Yasin Malik of the Jammu and Kashmir
Liberation front ((JKLF), a member of the team
with a rebellious image. The first of these
remarks was his admonition to the authorities of
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir against
"romanticizing militancy" regardless of tragic
consequences. Malik created a greater furor when,
in a public speech in Pakistan, he praised
present information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed
for his past contribution to the "jehadi"
struggle in Kashmir.
The minister was quick to deny any such
contribution. New Delhi, however, was quicker to
deplore the situation in which supporters of
"terrorism" had come to occupy "high positions in
Pakistan's public life."
The hardliners' response has already found
horrendous expression. On June 13, a car bomb
blast killed 14 and injured over a hundred in the
town of Pulwama. The victims included
schoolchildren; the camp of a para-military
force, located closeby, was the real target. The
weeks before witnessed less serious militant
strikes.
The violence, if it snowballs, can have the
effect of weaning away a section of the Hurriyat
moderates from the path of dialogue. A few more
strikes of the same kind, and the faith of the
Kashmiri people in the peace process may be
irreparably damaged. What dialogue are they
taking about, Kashmiris are asking, when school
kids can't return home safe?
No details are available about the meeting
between General Musharraf and the Hurriyat
delegates. However, he is reported to have told
them that he could not compel India to make them
a party to the peace talks. In other words,
participation in what diplomatic parlance calls
"proximity" talks is all that the Hurriyat can
hope for.
General Musharraf has, subsequently, asserted
that the Kashmir problem could be solved in "two
weeks." The India-Pakistan process, however,
cannot yield an enduring solution, even over a
longer period, if the neighbors persist in their
policy of keeping the Kashmiris out.
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
Advani's statement on Jinnah (June 2005) also brought
to fore one more debate, the one related to partition
of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan in 1947.
Some of the commentators and spokespersons of
political parties criticized Advani for the ' Jinnah
comment' on the ground that Jinnah was responsible for
partition of the country so how come we can call him a
secular person. In this context many an opinions have
been circulating as to who was ' the' culprit of the
partition tragedy.
One of the popular conceptions has been to blame
Mahatma Gandhi for the same. A section of Hindu Right
wing had popularized that it is Gandhi's policy of
appeasing the Muslims (does the term sound familiar!)
due to which Muslims felt emboldened and went on to
divide the country. Some opinions have been accusing
Gandhi to the extent that since he said that Partition
would take place only on his dead body, how come he
kept quiet and did not oppose the same. One recalls
that this was one of the pretexts given by Nathuram
Godse, to kill the Mahatma. The other argument putting
the sole blame on Gandhi comes on the premise that
Gandhi went in to build and lead the anti-British
anti- British constitution movement and in turn
unleashed the forces which partitioned the country.
The other opinion goes on to say that it was Nehru's
ambition to become prime minister that partition took
place. George Fernandes while rushing to the defense
of Advani said similar thing, that Nehru backed out
from the cabinet mission plans' scheme, so the
partition, so it is Nehru who is responsible for
partition. Not to be left behind Communists with their
formulation of ' Muslims are a separate Nationality', a
confused definition of nationality, are yet another in
the list of culprits. This argument, for some, is that
communists by providing the theoretical justification
to the demand of Pakistan are the primary culprits.
One is sure that the popular perception in Pakistan
must be that Hindus were dominating, Congress, Hindu
mahasabha, and RSS were bent on depriving the Muslims
of the equality so Jinnah saved the Muslims by
demanding for a separate Pakistan to safeguard the
interests of the Muslims of the country.
What is striking in these popular narratives is the
omission of the role, which British played in the
partitioning of the country. Partition process is
generally perceived as the story of a Hindi film, easy
to understand, a Hero; a villain, one black; one white
and so the understanding becomes easy. No straining
the thought process. It is another matter that one
group's Hero is another group's villain and vice
versa.
It also reminds one that in this singling out a one
villain there is an attempt to identify the individual
who played this role. Some researchers with easy
thinking see the whole tragedy as a clash of ego of
the personalities. Nothing can be shallower than this.
Most surprising part is the total blindness towards
the role of British in the process. It is also
reminiscent of the story of elephant and the blind
men, each blind man constructing his own elephant
according to his own experience or whatever.
Partition was no simple process. It was a
multi-layered phenomenon in which interests of
different classes, the goals of colonial powers and
the real politic of the parties and the individuals
all contributed their own share resulting in the
tragedy of mammoth proportions. This was a tragedy,
whose scars are difficult to erase even till the day.
Apart from the role of British, the colonial powers,
the second major factor, which is not much grappled
with, is the diverging interests of the declining
classes, landlords and kings and some middle classes
on one hand and the rising classes, industrialists,
another section of middle class and the vast mass of
peasantry on the other. Also somewhere totally missing
in the narratives is the conflict between the
pre-modern hierarchy of caste and gender and the
values of liberty equality fraternity.
The process of partition has to be grappled as a
multi-layered phenomenon. The base of this is the
conflicting interest of landed gentry on one side and
those around the industries and those striving for
equality at social, economic and gender level. With
the introduction of changes towards modernity the rise
of educated classes, and industrialists was the major
factor to form the core of national movement, against
the colonial powers. While lot of parallelism can be
deciphered in the response of two major religious
communities, the major difference in the response is
due to the majority and minority responses being
different in their articulation and expression.
Formation of Indian National Congress was responded to
by the feudal classes by throwing up of the opposition
to this party by the Rajas, Nawabs , Jamindars and
Jagirdars. Congress, which used the prefix Indian, was
opposed by the ideologies coming from Muslim elite as
being a party of Hindu interests as majority in the
country and Congress are Hindus. At the same time the
Hindu elite called it as the most unfortunate thing to
have happened to Hindus as Congress is treating the
Muslims on equal ground. The ' appeasement of
minorities' formulation has its roots here. While Sir
Syed will tell fellow Muslims to keep off the
Congress, Pandit Lekhram will call Congress as the
biggest misfortune of Hindus. Ignoring these people of
all religions joined this political process, which
acted as an umbrella for all the political tendencies
as well. The crystallization of Muslim communalism
into Muslim league and Hindu communalism into, first
Punjab Hindu Sabha and later Hindu Mahsabha, which was
to be supplanted by RSS, took place in due course of
time. We will not go into the minute details of all
the events, steps and the individual ambitions in this
tragic drama but will try to focus on the diversity of
class interests of the people of India, some involved
in the anti colonial struggle and others witnessing
the national movement from the sidelines.
Muslim and Hindu communalisms were based on the
understanding that religion is the base of nation
state. While superficially opposing each other their
basic premise is the same. It came up in the form of
Muslim league asserting that Muslims are a separate
nation since Mohammad bin Kasim first attacked Sind
and later Muslim went on to rule the country. On the
same wavelength the Hindu communalists stuck to the
ideology that this is a Hindu Nation and the
foreigners, Muslims and Christians have to respect
this fact. Savarkar's Hindutva or who is a Hindu was
the first major theoretical outpouring establishing
religion as the base of a nation. In Hindu Mahasabha
sessions Nepal Naresh (Emperor) was prominently upheld
as the monarch of all the Hindus World over. In 1938
The Hindu Mahasabha President Bhai Parmanand was forth
right in stating that, "Mr. Jinnah argues that there
are two nations in the country - if Mr. Jinnah is right
and I believe he is, that the Congress theory of
building common nationality falls to the ground. The
situation has got two solutions, one is the partition
of the country into two and the other to allow Muslim
state to grow within Hindu state".
RSS ideologue Golwalkar was more forthright to state
that India is a exclusive Hindu nation and minorities
are to be dealt with the way Hitler dealt with Jews
and others, "To keep up with the purity of Nation and
its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging
the country of the Semitic races-the Jews. National
pride at its highest has been manifested here." (M.S.
Golwalkar, We or Our nationhood Defined, Nagpur, 1938,
p. 27) The Muslim communalists were gradually shifting
towards demand for a separate nation, Pakistan, and
its culmination came in the form of Lahore resolution
of 1940. While a section of Muslim elite was behind
this resolution, large sections of Muslim community
were against this.
In the decade of 1940 the communalists resorted to
blatant propaganda against the 'other community'
laying the foundation of the communal violence in
times to come. The second offshoot of this was
sections of middle classes gravitating to communalism
in larger numbers. The surface phenomenon of these did
get manifested in the contrasting stands, which the
communalists on one hand and the national movement on
the other hand took. Primary reason for Jinnah to
leave Congress and become the spokesman of Muslim
League was not his being Muslim or ardent Islamic
follower. Primarily it was the aristocratic,
constitutional values and his opposition to the mass
movement, the participation of masses in the anti
British struggles. Interestingly both communal
streams, Muslim and Hindu kept aloof from the national
movement and did not have the mass participation of
broad sections of society. Both were again not the
subjects of British repression.
The role of British is the one least criticized in the
popular opinion and common sense. British saw this
country inhabited mainly by Muslims and Hindus. This
was not the popular consciousness or identity at that
time but in due course it has become the primary
identity. Their steps, to recognize the Muslim feudal
elements as the representatives of Muslims, their
dubbing the Congress as representative of Hindus,
partition of Bengal on communal lines, separate
electorates and communal award clearly sowed the seeds
of divide and rule policy. The colonial masters were
clear that an undivided India will be a big player on
the World political scene threatening their primacy
and may jeopardize their interest in the subcontinent.
Jaswant Sing while reviewing one of the books on
partition recalls an interesting incident. Lord Wavell
before coming to India went to meet Churchill who was
very busy at that time. As a substitute for the
discussion on the matter he just told Wavell that, if
the plan to give freedom to India is afoot, its OK but
told him to ensure that part of India is kept for
' us', meaning colonial powers. A large presence of US
troops on the Pakistani land and its acting as the
base of US and hatchet man of imperialists today shows
the foresight of colonial powers and the means they
adopt to see that their interests are safe and secure.
At superficial level some the incidents that led to
partition over a period of time were: Motilal Nehru
committee's rejection of the additional demands by
Muslim League and going back from the already accepted
demands under pressure from Hindu communalists,
Congress's refusal to have two Muslim League members
in UP ministry on the ground that this will hinder the
plans to undertake land reforms, Nehru-Patel's refusal
to work jointly with Muslim League in a coalition
ministry due to the background of their experience
that League ministers in the cabinet blocked most of
the steps desired by them, are all manifestations of
the divergent social agendas and goals of the support
bases of these political formations.
One good thing about the whole complex scenario is
that each political stream can pick up one or the
other incident and prove that it is due to so and so
that partition took place etc. The core reason for
partition tragedy is the role of British policy of
divide and rule, the agenda of Muslim communalists and
the goals of Hindu communalists. While Hindu and
Muslim communalists, at surface look to be enemies
with daggers drawn they are able to merrily work
together as manifested in the joint Muslim League,
Hindu Mahasabha ministries in Sind and Bengal
provinces. Their common goal is to present the
homogenous community standing in opposition to the
' other', this construct ensures that intra community
inequalities are put under the carpet and status quo
of social relationship continues.
And there is no shortage of ideologues and academics
that have seen the phenomenon from the point of view
of British colonialists or Hindu Communalists or the
Muslim communalists. The major focus has to be what
were Indian people supporting and standing for. And
here undoubtedly the large sections of peasantry,
workers, industrialists etc. stood by the values of
Indian nationalism (in contrast to Muslim or Hindu
nationalism), freedom movement and accepting the
values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity with
accompanying process of transformation in the caste
and gender relationship, towards relations of
equality, and equal citizenship rights irrespective of
one's religion caste and gender. The field is wide
open; one has to pick and choose between all the
options of understanding available. Even culprits can
be manufactured; we have a wide choice for making our
own culprit of the partition process.
A U.S. official said June 16 his government was willing to talk to India
about supplying missile defense systems, but urged New Delhi to spell out
regulatory mechanisms for controlling exports of sensitive technologies.
"We are willing to talk to India about missile defense. Missile defense is
very expensive. So, it is not something that India will enter into
lightly," visiting U.S. assistant secretary of state for arms control,
Stephen Rademaker, told reporters. Rademaker lauded India for a recent
legislation by parliament on export control of sensitive technologies, but
added that the "end game" would be a set of regulations for implementing
it.
Earlier this year, Washington offered to step up a strategic dialogue with
New Delhi including military and high-tech cooperation as well as expanded
economic and energy cooperation. It expressed willingness to discuss the
issue of defense transformation with India, including other systems such
as command and control and early warning. India was a Cold War ally of the
Soviet Union and maintains close ties with Iran, which the United States
accuses of developing nuclear weapons and supporting Middle Eastern
extremist groups. Traditionally, it has bought most of its military
equipment from Russia, France and Britain, but recently has shown interest
in the military hardware of U.S. defense firms. The United States and
India signed a landmark agreement last January to share advanced
technology, including in peaceful nuclear applications.
ONE of the issues that surfaces every year for budget-makers in
Pakistan is the search for fiscal space. This year the trillion-plus
budget continues to be squeezed on both sides by two large, seemingly
fixed liabilities: debt servicing and defence spending. Despite
defence absorbing more than a quarter of the national wealth, the
subject, unlike debt servicing, has become inured from public debate
and exempt from any parliamentary accountability.
A milestone, in fact, was crossed this year in the National Assembly
as the young finance minister of state chose to ignore the
inexplicable escalation in the defence budget and shied away from even
mentioning the actual figure. Given the constant talk of transparency
and good governance emanating from the government, it is not just
surprising but shocking that the defence budget in Pakistan remains
above public scrutiny as well as the law.
If lawmakers in Pakistan cannot discuss, let alone question the
allocations and management of this chunk of the country's wealth, then
it is clear that once again, almost 30 per cent of the budgeted amount
will remain out of parliament's purview. This in turn means that the
army's business interests will also remain outside the public
accountability mechanism.
Without explanation, the formal defence allocation account appears as
a two-line statement divided into defence administration and defence
services in the federal consolidated fund in the demands for grants
and appropriations every year. As it stands, this year's official
defence budget itself posts a price hike of Rs 30 billion at Rs. 223
billion over last year's allocation for Rs 193 billion in absolute
terms. No doubt, as in previous years, this amount too will be subject
to a revised estimate. Last year, for instance, official defence
expenditure showed a difference of Rs 23 billion between initial and
revised estimates for 2004-5.
The first glaring problem that arises with this defence budget is that
it does more to conceal the allocation made than to enable its
disclosure. To start with, the actual amount presented does not cover
many expenses that accrue to defence. This is an accounting trend that
has emerged over the last few years, when the international donor
community has insisted that the military budget be reduced.
When parliamentarians or donors read the allocation for defence over
the next fiscal year, it will not include the military pensions, which
now run into 35.6 billion rupees. Nor will the defence outlay include
Rs 1.4 billion demanded separately for the combatant accounts of the
defence division which include the Maritime Security Forces and others
with dotted line or direct reports to the military, Rs 40, 723 million
in salaries for defence production, Rs 7.2 billion spent on the civil
armed forces, Rs 3.7 billion for the Pakistan Rangers, Rs 1.5 billion
for the Frontier Constabulary, Rs 359 million for the Pakistan Coast
Guards, nor the one billion rupees set aside for military schools,
cantonments and other residuals.
The Atomic Energy Commission too, which falls under the control of the
Strategic Plans Division, has been allotted separate funds, yet the
two billion rupees demanded this year is charged to civilian expenses
under the cabinet division. But while the arguments for
guns-versus-butter continue to rage in many places, this year's Rs 272
billion development budget gets squeezed into carrying a load for the
defence division as development expenditure worth Rs 642 million.
So essentially, even if the amount for military pensions is restored
to the overall defence account and all the expenses mentioned above
are added up, a revised figure of Rs 277 billion emerges, which
demonstrates a clear rise of 43 per cent over last year's official
figure and a 14 per cent hike on the 'hidden' budget for last year.
For 2004-5, this hidden budget amounts to Rs 242 billion instead of
the Rs 193 billion figure that conceals military expenditures in
civilian accounts. After specific claims that that there would be no
rise in the defence budget, no credible explanation was even offered
about the compulsions that propel this jump of 14 per cent.
The second question being asked is why Pakistan now needs a huge
defence budget that is close to four per cent of its GDP, when India
is spending 2.8 per cent? When the entire justification for
maintaining a high defence budget is negated by the welcome downturn
in hostilities with India, the rationale for Pakistan remaining
hostage to its Cold War garrison-state identity should also naturally
be under review. For a country that has fallen behind all of South
Asia in its human development index, including Nepal and Bhutan, an
urgent redefinition of outdated concepts of national security is
surely expected.
But that is not all. The question of maintaining the eighth largest
standing army in the world, when huge undisclosed amounts on the
nuclear option are disbursed, becomes critical, for the simple reason
that the nuclear deterrent capability was meant to substantially
reduce the need for such a large conventional force. As it stands, one
of the many reasons for continued high defence spending remains a
large percentage of wasted resources which has arisen out of lack of
oversight from non-military sources. While purchases of bullet proof
limousines by the cabinet division can be questioned because they fall
under civilian oversight, no such queries can be directed at the
luxury cars and goods purchased by the military, its appointment of
surplus employees, nor the expenditure accruing from duplication of
activities or wrongdoing. From 1977 onwards, when Ziaul Haq began the
practice of maintaining funds by the corps commanders who were at
liberty to use them at their discretion, many scandals over money
being siphoned for political activities have surfaced.
The inter-services intelligence agencies remain above the law and
unaccountable, even though they reportedly absorb seven to 11 per cent
of the military's budget and use secret funds and ghost bank accounts
to destabilize civilian political parties and their governments. The
Mehran Bank scandal is an example of such financial corruption, when
bribes worth Rs 14 million were unearthed as paid out by the ISI to
manipulate the 1990 elections, a fact which was admitted in court by
General Aslam Beg, the former COAS.
The third problem with this budget is that despite public clamour
about the military's vast real estate holdings, no equation is
factored in to provide for the creeping militarization of the
mainstream economy. The issue which is now constantly questioned
without any satisfactory response is the size and quantum of the
military's holdings in what are traditionally commercial sectors.
The military's four major welfare foundations are increasingly the
subject of growing public disquiet because they pay no direct taxes on
their corporate activities, operate as virtual monopolies, and elbow
out civilian private enterprise in their subsidized operations. They
function as military welfare trusts but provide a haven for retired
and serving military officers who run a multitude of corporate
ventures ranging from sugar, cereal, fertilizer production to running
airlines, real estate, education, advertizing and others.
The four military foundations - the Army Welfare Trust, the Fauji
Foundation, Bahria Foundation and Shaheen Foundation - for instance,
now run a parallel commercial empire, but end up leaving scant traces
of the net financial burden they impose on the public sector, because
large allocations are made from the opaque defence budget.
Despite the fact that most of the foundations were raised with initial
funding from the public sector and the sale of evacuee properties
after 1971, their profits remain sky high because they remain above
scrutiny even in their tendering for contracts and other market
activities. The Fauji Foundation's recent and controversial sale of
Khoshki Sugar Mill at a low bid of Rs 300 million against the highest
bid of Rs 387 million damages the institutional reputation of the
military. The fact that government service rules prohibit public
servants from running private enterprises is often ignored, while the
military control of Pakistan's public sector continues unabated as
retired generals and brigadiers pick up lucrative posts and double
pensions to run everything from public utilities, universities and
accountability and national reconstruction boards.
The military as a class does itself a disservice when it allows rumour
to replace public disclosure. Perhaps many of its legitimate
procurement and modernization demands will then not be eclipsed by the
paper-trail of undocumented purchases and irregularities unearthed by
the auditor-general for Defence if it develops an institutionalized
mechanism of requisitioning public money for its needs.
Unsurprisingly, it becomes difficult to forego development funds, even
if they are poorly managed and often under-utilized, for an
institution that fiercely protects its privileges and political role
in the country by demanding immunity for itself while advocating
accountability for others.
We the people, as they say, are not opposed to the military's spending
money in principle. We don't even mind occasionally upgrading the
proverbial barracks, but only if we know where the money is going.
The writer is a member of the National Assembly.
The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), India, is
greatly disappointed at the failure of the recent official talks between
India and Pakistan to come up with meaningful nuclear confidence- building
measures (CBMs). Although these are no substitute for nuclear disarmament
they can, when intelligently conceived and sensibly applied, make matters
less unsafe. However, such CBMs are not likely to emerge when both
governments continue buying and producing more conventional armaments
thereby raising bilateral tensions and mistrust. Nor are matters helped
through false reassurances about Kashmir no longer being a "nuclear
flashpoint" when serious steps towards resolving the issue are absent.
New Delhi and Islamabad seem to lack the vision and commitment
to bring about such desired nuclear CBMs. The CNDP calls on both
governments to rapidly move towards:
All politicians have multiple selves; so do most
South Asians. South Asian politicians are, thus,
notoriously difficult to pigeonhole. Just when
you think you have entered their inner world, you
find they have slipped out through your fingers.
Things get worse because ideologies are usually
skin-deep in this part of the world. Ideologies
thrive where faiths are in decline and ideologies
serve as substitutes for faith. They give meaning
to life.
In societies where faiths are a living presence,
ideologies often become emotionally empty moral
postures, designed to hide one's real beliefs.
The meaning of life and the ends of politics come
from somewhere else.
Everything said, secularism is an ideology and
like other ideologies - nationalism, socialism,
feminism or pacifism - can be an anchor for
passionate commitments, an invitation to ethical
politics and the last refuge of scoundrels. It is
also a mask that does not look like a mask; South
Asians know that it can be worn for effect and
acceptability. Hence, the bitter debate today on
M A Jinnah's secular status.
Many have taken part in the debate not to explore
truth but to proclaim their location in the
political matrix. Jinnah has become for them an
excuse. Yet, the question remains: Who was the
real Jinnah? The one who gave that moving speech
on August 11, 1947 pleading for a humane,
democratic Pakistan or the one who gave the call
fo direct action because he did not believe that
Hindus and Muslims could live together in one
country and precipitated a first-class blood bath?
How much weight must one give to Jinnah's
un-Islamic lifestyle and marriage with a Parsi
and how much to his Muslim nationalism? How to
reconcile his contempt for the ulema and his
exploitation of them for electoral purposes?
In 2005, these questions are relevant mainly for
the biographers of Jinnah, not for young Indians
and Pakistanis facing more serious political
choices. More relevant for them are the following
facts: First, Jinnah has become a demonic
presence in the culture of Indian politics, an
exemplar of the kind of political leader one
should not be; he is, at the same time, for the
Pakistanis, the ultimate example of a just,
morally pure founder of a state which, since his
death, has been floundering as a political
entity, insecure about its past and uncertain of
its future. Secondly, politics being the art of
the possible, in public life one must learn to
build on the resources one has. The
intellectually, historically and ethically
satisfying may not be achievable politically.
L K Advani has shown immense courage by
acknowledging these two realities of political
life in the subcontinent and by trying to rescue
Jinnah from his own other selves. The effort is
not entirely fair to the millions of Muslims in
India and Pakistan who refused to support the
Muslim League in the 1940s.
It is even less fair to those who like Abul Kalam
Azad took a position on the kind of state one
should have in this part of the world. But it is
eminently fair to the new generations of Indians
and Pakistanis who do not want to fight the
battle of their grandparents and parents on the
nature of historical truths and want to live
unencumbered lives in which the ideological
battles of yesteryears will become less salient.
Those arguing that the politically adroit Jinnah,
who after 1937 began to talk of irreconcilable
cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims,
is the real Jinnah are missing the point. In the
new century, we and, more than us, the Pakistanis
need the other Jinnah, however recessive he might
have become in his own later life and in the
policy choices made by the country he founded.
Is this attempt to empower the other Jinnah also
a self-confession, an unconscious invitation to
reaffirm and rediscover the other Advani, not the
one who led the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, but the
one who was brought up and lived his formative
years in a Muslim-majority society where Islam
and Hinduism were not two antagonistic creeds but
two intertwined cultural and spiritual streams?
Is it an attempt to recover a lost childhood
where state building and nation formation - and
the criminality that is invariably associated
with them everywhere in the world - were not the
last word in human relations and social ethics?
Are even hardboiled statists everywhere beginning
to suspect that nineteenth century nation states
are not sustainable in the new millennium? For
the iron man of BJP, is his estimate of Jinnah a
form of expiation, a reparative gesture and an
attempt to undo?
Advani's homage to Jinnah, whether it refurbishes
Jinnah's image or not, opens up the possibility
of a different kind of self-confrontation. That
self-confrontation may allow us to move beyond
history, indeed, may give us the courage and the
wherewithal to defy history. Advani's political
opponents have accused him of staging a drama. I
wish they had the sagacity to stage such a drama
for the sake of the future of India and Pakistan.
The writer is a social psychologist.
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 7 juli 2005