Is
it a suicide to die or sacrifice to live?
Again,
more suicide attacks. Again, Ariel Sharon dearly declared operation against the
oppressed people of
Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to recapture the
Noticeably
the recent attacks have happened when the
The
PLO leadership firmly condemned the attacks. According to the news agency WAFA
the PLO executive committee headed by Arafat, said in a statement, “We are
determined to pursue those who order these operations against civilians that
endanger the destiny of our homeland.., the latest attack will serve to cover up
When
asked from comments on suicidal attacks to a Palestinian woman, by the media,
just after the attack on the bus in South Jerusalem, she said “Sharon does not
want the Palestinians to have their state and then queries the origin of the
blast, they want to put us in prison now – referring to construction of
barrier to seal off the West Bank from Israel and east Jerusalem - but no one
can put us in prison”.
Analyzing
the timing, the detonation spot and the beneficiaries of the recent attacks one
might conjecture this as a conspiracy against the peace plan or a planted game
of Musad against the Palestinians or the mission of Hamas
against Zionist but the reality where there no speculations needed is that the
on going terror of Sharon and the silence of the world has left no option for
the isolated people of Palestine to sacrifices their own bodies, one after the
other, for their basic rights to live in their own land.
One
strange reason Sharon and the
Eliminating
the sources of suicide bombing that the Ariel Sharon is implementing would
manifestly produce more such human bombers.
Now,
let’s see
The
stranded Palestinians have no hope or expectations from the leaders of the
Islamic nations, except the only option left to sacrifice their bodies for
freedom of their land. One may call it terrorism or a fight for the basic rights
to live.
shassan@tribune-intl.com
_________________________
Who
is behind the recent attacks?
By
After
about a month there has been another car bomb blast left 11 killed and dozens
injured. This time no foreigners killed but it happened facing the US Consulate
Office. The previous similar kind of bomb was blasted at Sheraton Karachi, which
left 9 French dead. Beguilingly, American and Pakistani authorities alleging the
incident as another suicidal attack though there has not been any confirmed
evidence found yet by the investigating agencies.
The
palpable objective behind these attacks is not so complicated to understand. It
is quite obvious that the element/s responsible for these attacks want to harm
If
one deems on the
Looking
into the engineering of the recent car-bomb attack, any simple mind can
understand the fact that bomb planted in Suzuki high-roof could not be meant to
raze the boundaries of the US Consulate office and then hit the building to blow
it up. These Suzuki hi-roof possess so illuminative
body that it could hardly break any ordinary barrier. It has also been seen that
generally the suicidal operations are the part of the declared mission of the
groups who try to terrorize and convey the message to their foes with clear
acceptance of the responsibility of their deeds. The suicidal operations in most
of the cases are well calculated, distinctive, and timely. If the recent attack
was a suicidal act then firstly, some visible claims and targeted damage must
have come on to the scene by now. Secondly, killing the innocent road-passers
and the people standing around does not indicate to any intent of the Al-Qaeda
or Taliban as being asserted by US and Pakistani agencies.
Now
the point is who could be then the elements behind these brutal attacks? For
this, one has to analyze the situation in terms of assessing the possible
beneficiaries from these horrified acts.
Pakistani
Minister for Information Nisar Memon
in his recent statement linked the incident to the possible involvement of
(Indian) RAW. Blame on RAW by Pakistani leaders and on ISI by Indian leaders for
any single event or series of actions in Pakistan and India are, now, the
routine statements by their leaders and it suits them for an easy way out and
shifting responsibilities to trace out and
capture the criminals. One can understand the purpose and motives of RAW’s
activities in
In
spite of the on going brutal operation and hunt by SAS and US-led forces in
Afghanistan and alongside Pakistan’s western border yet they failed to find
out the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omer
and their other members. It is pertinent to mention here that
shassan@tribune-intl.com
______________________________________
Radical Indian-Government trapped in its own Plots
By Syed Atiq ul
Hassan
The present Indian government, which is a coalition of three extremist Hindu parties Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the major player Bharatya Janta Party (BJP), fanatically took the post-September 11 global conditions as the war against Muslims rather than against terrorism. The extremist Indian rulers found the situation as an opportunity to launch a campaign against Muslims in general and against Kashmiris in particular to accomplish their fanatic manifesto. Even before the US could ask India for help, India bluntly and unconditionally offered its bases and logistical support to US. Indian government, consecutively, tried to publicise its internal calamities as terrorist acts by ISI of Pakistan, Kashmiri militants or Al-Qaeda and held Pakistan responsible for every chaos in India. The Attack on Indian parliament, bomb blasts on army personnel, Anti-Muslim ethnic violence in Gujarat were proclaimed by Indian leadership as a result of cross-border terrorism by Pakistani backed Islamic militants and ISI.
While US-led forces countering terrorism around the world – which has yet been an operation only against Muslim extremists around the world – Indian Hindu government seemed it as an adventurous epoch to instigate its uni-focused agenda of suppressing the voice of those who are resisting for their civil liberty in so-called secular India. Taking advantage of post September 11 global torments on Islamic activists by the US and its western allies the Indian government’s intentions are crystal clear. (1) eradicate Kashmiri freedom fighters on the name of combating against terrorism (2) Suppress the voice of the Indian Muslims - the largest minority - by banning Islamic groups, institutions and missionaries running in India (3) Exploit Pakistan’s situation on its western border – accuse Pakistan of being involved in cross-border terrorism and harbouring terrorists - pressurise the world powers to force Pakistan to withdraw from the support to the Kashmiri freedom fighters.
However, looking into the upshots of Indian blinkered policies one can boldly say that Indian policy makers botched in accepting realities even-handedly. For example; judging the outlined Indian goals with the outcome India is gaining, one can easily reach to the conclusion that narrow-minded decision-makers in Indian government could not analyse the facts that any action which will spoil Pakistan will not be appreciated by the western capitals, at this stage. The reasons are pretty simple that (1) the US and its allies would not be in a position to take one sided stand on Kashmir as long as they are engaged themselves in Afghanistan (especially) when Pakistan is their key-player in the Afghan operation (2) Indian hostile action against Muslims could bring ghastly image of India particularly in the Arab (Muslim) world from where India earns substantial amount of its foreign exchange through Indian labour (3) As long as US possess its interest in the region due to many simple reasons, US can not show its back to Pakistan.
India’s dreams are broader. India keeps ambitions to grant a seat in Security Council, enhance its relations with US, thrash China in the region and be recognised by the international community as a Chief of the South Asian region. Of course these dreams require the demonstrations of great deal of responsibility, peace making efforts for the safety of the region and providing security to the other nations in the region. Contrary to what India needed; the present Indian government has come out with rigid and hostile approach on its internal, territorial and regional issues.
Introducing POTO (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance), ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), uncountable arrests of Muslim activists throughout India and in Kashmir are the series of acts of the present Indian government where the leadership openly blamed Muslims and used US-style hostile language accusing Islamic groups and machineries as terrorist organisations. Pravin Togadiya, the secretary general of the extremist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) party said in a statement ‘The Muslims have to be taught a lesson, once and for all’. In addition, the attack on Indian parliament was also added into Pakistan’s account with the demand of handing over number of Islamic activists, objectively to prove to the world that Pakistan is a country breeding terrorists. Likewise, any logical mind can also understand the reasons of India’s hysterical loudness on international forums accusing Pakistan on cross-border terrorism. Indian policy makers comprehend that Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omer and other Al-Qaeda & Taliban activists are still hiding somewhere in tribal territory on the wester border of Pakistan. This could be the best time for the world to believe India’s accusation on Pakistan being involved in exporting these elements into Kashmir. To further pressurise the world powers India has made a blunder in its game by deploying its half a million force alongside Pakistani border and started threatening to launch attack on Pakistan. Yet, Indian plots could not get success in its goals.
The politics based on radicalism or fanaticism or on aggressions may lit up the fire within no time and heat-up the average minds hastily but can never flourish long and cannot survive in today’s integrated world. The world has seen incredible demonstration of emotional support to Osama throughout the Muslim world - and then what happened – when the bubbles settled down he could not find any room for his support in the world politics. Even now Bush is unable to retain the support from its coalition partners when he planned to launch an unjustified attack on Iraq.
The politics is a game of chess where one has to be well prepared for an attack and counter-attack. The high-pitch drastic and hostile statements from the responsible leadership, threats of attack on Pakistan, deployment of dangerous military arsenals with half a million armed forces , continuos gunfire on the line of control, yet could not frighten Pakistan instead brought the attention of the world powers on the alarming situation in the region. The entire drama made the situation favourable for Pakistan to engage the international community. That is exactly what Pakistan needed. Pakistan has been waiting for this so long to somehow involve the international community to resolve the Kashmir dispute on the basis of UN Security Council’s resolution. Pakistan knew that once the international powers would involve in the dispute, eventually, they will know the ground realities – it doesn’t matter how India propagates the issues at present.
Even the Indian opposition and the leftist are strongly condemning the ruling BJP and openly blaming the present government degrading India’s image internationally and providing more projection to Kashmir issue as being an international issue.
In April, the European Union (EU) has made a public declaration on Gujarat’s anti-Muslim violence. The declaration said that "the carnage in Gujarat was a kind of apartheid...and has parallels with Germany of the 1930s". The declaration carried 15 signatures, including those of the ambassadors of Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium.
On the top of Indian government’s wrong-track policies, India has consecutively been flattened by Musharraf’s visionary diplomacy on every front. India faced the first shock when Musharraf decided to be a part of the US-led coalition and Pakistan received high price from the world powers on Musharraf’s government positive steps on the crises with monetary and political gains.
Contrary to Indian hostile attitude, the international community has been observing the positive, co-operative and sensible attitude of Pakistani leadership from Agra summit to SAARC conference in Kathmandu and now in Almaty.
At the same time, Musharraf is keeping, very ingeniously, his offensive attitude on Indian threats to retain the dignity and support of its nation. Internally Pakistani leadership is getting unanimous support on dealing with India contrary to disparities within the Indian political elites and in the public. The recent 3-day demonstration of different range of nuclear capable missiles by Pakistan watered on Indian threats of war. Whenever Musharraf talks about peace and dialogue with India he also asserts to teach a lesson to India if war is thrust on Pakistan. In his recent statement in Almaty conference, Musharraf said, "We have stated repeatedly that instead of accusations, threats and dangerous escalation, India should return to the path of dialogue and negotiations, which is the only sane option, especially in the dangerous environment of South Asia. However if war is thrust on us we will respond with utmost might".
Today, India is found in too much pressure from internally and international community. The pressure of international community on India can be estimated by looking the recent conflicting statements of Prime Minister Vajpayee and Defence Minister George Fernandes. In Almaty, Vajpayee proposed the idea of a joint-patrolling on the LoC in Kashmir. Rapidly, Fernandes disagreed with the idea by manipulating Vajpayee statement, he said, "It's not that the prime minister has made the proposal. He has only said India would have to look at it".
The entire political game of India against
Pakistan has brought India in a horrendous situation and found trapped in its
own plots. Now (1) India cannot afford to attack on Pakistan as the
international community has already put-up so much pressure on India. The
deployment of half a million arm forces for the last five months is already
costing India enormously. The tourist and other foreigners are also leaving
India which would damage India’s tourism industry very badly (2) India always
refused to have any arbitration involving 3rd party mediation for the
dialogue between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute. Now India’s own
strong supporter Russia is also pushing India to have dialogue with Pakistan and
offered its mediation on the dispute – For which Musharraf very diplomatically
accepted unconditionally. (3) India always declined to allow international
monitoring agencies and observers in Kashmir but now the threats of war -
initiated by India - put huge pressure on India to open the channels for
international observers. These have made-up the things more complicated for
India. Whatever India sow for others it is now reaping for itself.
shassan@tribune-intl.com
The writer
is a Sydney-based freelance journalist and a political analyst
_________________________
Provocative Bush asking for more trouble
Sydney Australia
After
deposing Taliban and ravaging Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the next plan of US is to
eliminate the Islamic missionaries and groups running in various parts of the
world and to demolish the powers of those Islamic countries where anti-American
regimes exist. The rulers of the Muslim states are continuously being pushed and
under watch on fulfilling US agenda to eliminate the Islamic groups except
Palestine where this assignment has been given to Ariel Sharon to annihilate all
the Palestinian freedom movements. To persuade on the second item in the agenda
internally and internationally, the Bush administration is desperately trying to
ascertain the support from the American public, European allies, Russia and Arab
countries - to launch fresh attacks on Iraq. The objective is to demolish the
remaining military power and bring the pro-US government in Iraq. Subsequently
Iran might be the next target.
To
gain internal backing from its own people Bush administration and the
intelligence agencies are trying to frighten the American public that they are
still at war. Prior to the visit of George W. Bush to Europe and Russia,
Vice-President Dick Cheney said another attack was "almost certain".
FBI Chief Robert S. Mueller III said suicide bombings on US soil are
"inevitable". Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld added more – he
declared that some Al-Qaeda members have succeeded entering in to America -
these terrorists would get weapons of mass destruction and would not hesitate
one minute in using them - the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge could be
the possible targets and so on. In his recent statement the Vice President, Dick
Cheney said that US knew "with certainty" that al-Qaeda was trying to
obtain biological and nuclear weapons; September 11 was not a discreet event but
part of "an ongoing campaign of terror against the US" that meant
Americans were living in "a time of war". It seems that the Bush
administration believes more on scaring its own people but is weak on productive
measures to defuse the global tension.
Even
if it is believed that the US is expecting further attacks, with weapons of mass
destruction, then how effective was that “war against terrorism” which
killed thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and captured hundreds - put them in
cages in a tiny island of Cuba - yet the entire US-led force unable to find out
the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omer for whom Bush decreed to
“smoke them out and bring them dead or alive”?
One
fears that Bush’s antagonistic attitude - like a Texan cowboy in the duel
field - and the prejudiced policies of his administration will push the US and
the Muslim World into endless acts of attacks and counter-attacks in a showdown
of terrorism.
It
would not be inappropriate to quote here the remarks of Iranian Defence Minister
Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani about Bush in a recent interview on the state
television. He said, “Mr. Bush thinks that the (current) era is an era of
cowboys, that the world is a Texan one, and that he is the sheriff".
There
are ample evidences that show Bush's leadership is unconvincing in the world and
ineffective at home. The US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted in the
recent interview to The New York Times
that before Bush came to the White House, "he had never been involved in
this level of international interaction or diplomatic activity".
The Post September 11 (attacks in US) was the golden opportunity for Bush to
expose his leadership by pulling the world together and inducing confidence in
the American public. Oppositely, he presided over a rift with Europe, a
chronically inept Middle East policy, an ongoing US unilateralism, security
deterioration in Afghanistan and created fears in the Arab world by unjustified
threats to Iraq, at the same time, silently watching and letting Ariel Sharon
turning the civilian population in Jenin (the town of Palestine) into debris -
killing unaccountable civilians using heavy military force.
The
ongoing inflexible and offensive policies of Bush have brought him into a series
of alliance management problems. He finds it now hard to keep Europe or NATO in
coalition in the war against terrorism. The war has now led to a rift rather
than a unity between the Atlantic partners, surely a strategic blunder. Bush
failed to mobilise the initial European goodwill towards the US. This is the
reason that few Europeans think that this is a war of the US not for them. They
feel that supporting the US is not paying any positive outcome instead earning a
hostile image in the eyes of the Muslim World.
This
is probably the first time when an American President received such huge
anti-ism on the streets of Europe during Bush’s recent visit to Germany and
France. He has faced large anti-demonstration on the streets of western cities
against his plan of fresh attacks on Iraq.
In
his speech at the D-Day beaches at Normandy, he again said about Saddam,
"He's a dictator who gassed his own people” – understandably referring
to Kurds. The man - who first speaks then thinks - didn’t realise that the
Kurds whom Saddam viciously gassed were fighting for Iran and that the US, at
the time, was on Saddam's side.
In
a joint press conference with French President Chirac, Bush linked the struggle
against Nazism during World War II with the "modern-day sacrifices" of
his war on terrorism and the military campaign in Afghanistan. He said,
"Memorial Day in my country is a day to honour those who have sacrificed
for freedom, given their lives ... - We still fight people who hate civilization
- civilization that we love - they can't stand freedom”. His whole concern was
that America must not be isolated in the war against terrorism. Yet, Bush’s
suspicious, half-told and hostile remarks has been heavily criticised in the
western press.
Across
the former Soviet southern Muslim republics, the US is building air bases,
helping to pursue the "war on terror" against any violent Muslim
Islamist groups that dare to challenge the local dictators. Bush also wants
Russia to keep a side step while the US takes any hostile action against Iran.
He is looking for bargain with Putin on that issue.
During his visit to Russia, his intentions overtly observed that he tried to
corner the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on his threats to Iran. He wants
the Russians to lean on the northern bit of the "axis of evil", the
puerile remarks, which he still trots out to the masses.
Bush’s
contrary behaviour for Muslim and the western world has constrained the Muslim
leaders particularly the Arabs to review their policies with the US. The Post
September 11 events especially the killings of thousands of innocent civilians
in Afghanistan and barbaric acts of Sharon in Palestine have further opened the
eyes of Muslims watching the double standards of Bush’s policies.
This
is first time when the people of Saudi Arabia crossed the boundaries of their
tough laws, came out on the streets in favour of the oppressed people of
Palestine and compelled the Saudi leadership to speak loudly in support of the
people of Palestine. The Arab leaders have shown a great deal of sensibility
particularly the Crown Prince Abdullah when he firmly made it clear to Bush that
his country would not support US to attack Iraq again. Iraq and Iran are trying
to normalize their relations. Egypt threatened to discontinue their diplomatic
relations with Israel that is if Israel prolongs its ongoing operations on
Palestine land. The US administration has spent most of its time denying that
the progress towards a Middle East settlement was pivotal to its war on
terrorism. Bush grasps that he needs to reactivate a peace process but doesn't
know how. The administration seems to have promised the Saudis it would act, yet
it heavily identifies the US war on terrorism with that of Israel but no
progress for the Palestinian land. On the return of his visit from America,
Crown Prince Abdullah while talking to the media remarked about Bush as “the
man who watches the 9 O’clock domestic news and sleeps, he doesn’t know much
about international affairs”.
One
would agree that since the September 11 attacks, US has earned more hatred than
sympathy, more problems than solutions, more violence than peace and more
isolation than friends. In
conclusion, this is the time for Bush administration to review their policies
and accept the ground realities. However, if Bush continues to follow the
hard-line, unilateralism and unviable policy and persist to launch a 2nd
series of desert storm on Iraq then he will be asking for more trouble.
The
writer is a Sydney-based freelance journalist and a political analyst
shassan@tribune-intl.com
_________________________
India
claims the territory of occupied Kashmir is an integral part of her. Whereas,
Pakistan says Kashmiris should vote on their future. There have been heavy to
moderate military skirmishes along the 630 mile line of control separating the
two sides in the held Kashmir region. There has been intermittent small arms
fire along the 140 mile international border dividing the Himalayan state of
Jammu and Kashmir from the Pakistani province of Punjab.
Pakistan said 6
people were killed when Indian troops fired mortars at villages across the
border into Punjab province. India blames the attack on its Parliament on
infiltrators from Pakistan. India and Pakistan have fought two wars over the
territory of held Kashmir since 1947. It is said that the bitter cold has killed
more soldiers than the military skirmishes. On May 14th there was an
attack on an army camp in occupied Kashmir.
Two full scale wars
were fought over occupied Kashmir in 1948 and 1965. There have been unending
artillery duels, not to mention a tragic 12 year insurgency within Kashmir. Some
appeared ready for peace in November, 2000 when a cease-fire was called. This
was followed by village elections on January 1st, 2001, the first
elections in 23 years.
Most Kashmiris are
disillusioned by the violence that has killed more or less 30,000 since 1990 and
damaged millions of lives. Since Britain divided the subcontinent in 1947, the
State of occupied Kashmir has been claimed by both India and Pakistan. Now in
its 54th year the conflict continues not only to threaten the peace
of South Asia, but now that India and Pakistan have nuclear capability, not only
would a nuclear conflict wreck the Asian subcontinent for many many years, the
conflict would threaten the rest of the 6 billion human beings and the wildlife
on this earth with radioactive rain. should they really start lobbing nuclear
weapons at each other?
When Pakistan was
formed with a mostly Islamic population and India with a predominantly Hindu
population, at the time the wishes of the rulers of all the princely States that
made up India and Pakistan were taken into account. The territory that is now
called occupied Kashmir was an oddity, a predominantly Muslim State with a Hindu
ruler ( Raja Hari Singh ).
Hari Singh acceded
to India, and Pakistan claimed that it was against the wishes of his people. The
dispute then became a military one when India’s army was sent to drive out
what they considered the "Pakistan Invaders" in the occupied Kashmir
valley.
Since then, India
and Pakistan have fought three wars in the region. The most recent one being
over the Kargil sector in 1998. A large percentage of the people in the Kashmir
valley are disillusioned with the government of India. The people of the Kashmir
area consider the freedom fighters, not terrorist. Pakistan has 1600 people in
custody for attacks on India. It says it cannot hold them without enough
evidence.
The Pakistanis claim
the elections in Kashmir/Jammu were rigged to install pro-Indian politicians.
Another reason the people are disillusioned with the Indian government, is that
30 years ago there was a promise of autonomy for Kashmir made to the popular
politician, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. Abdullah supported India’s claim to
Kashmir on condition of autonomy for the valley. His dream was never fulfilled.
His son, Farooq
Abdullah, is now the chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, and has tried to
revive Kashmir’s demand for autonomy with legislation, but without success. He
is part of the coalition led by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatla Janata Party, and
often blames Pakistan for the violence in his state.
The border between
India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir has constantly shifted since 1948. That
is why, the line that divides occupied Kashmir and Azad Jammu & Kashmir is
known as the line of control. There has never been an official border agreed to
by the two countries.
India claims the
entire region of Kashmir, even parts under the control of Pakistan and China.
Pakistan will give up parts of Kashmir under it’s control when India gives up
the control of occupied Kashmir. Even though the Indians and the Pakistani’s
have been fighting over the territory oc occupied Kashmir since 1948, the
interior of the Kashmir valley was peaceful until 1988. That is when, the
movement for freedom in the occupied Kashmir valley turned demonstrative with
dozens of anti-India protest and several bomb blast.
Experts feel the
real violence came in 1989 when a group of armed local separatist ( the Jammu
Kashmir Liberation Front or the JKLF ) Kidnapped the daughter of the Indian Home
(security) minister, demanding the release of some of their colleagues in jail.
To their surprise, the Indian government gave into their demands, giving the
insurgency in Kashmir an unlooked-for boost. Since then India has accused
Pakistan of training and arming the mujahideen groups for alledged acts of
terrorism in occupied Kashmir. Pakistan says it only gives moral support for the
"struggle" of the Kashmiri people. Many of the original freedom
fighters’ groups, like the JKLF have given up violence and are now part of the
separatist political leadership, the Hurriyat Conference.
For sure, both the
countries-India and Pakistan-know what will happen if they start lobbing nuclear
weapons at each-other. So hopefully they will not have an all-out war.
India always said
that Kashmir, occupied by her, is part of India. It considers itself a secular
nation, partisan to no religion. Kashmir is the only Indian region that has a
majority Muslim population. A fact that bolsters India’s claim of secularism.
That is why,
Pakistan wants the territory of occupied Kashmir to be part of it. Sto confirm
the two nation theory of its founding president Mohammed Ali Jinnah, which said
the Hindus would stay in India and Muslims in Pakistan. Kashmir, according to
him "was part of the unfinished business of the partition of India in
1947".
The only way for this conflict to end is for India and Pakistan to have a
compromise where each would move from its present stance. Kashmir is not just a
territorial issue, but also a political one involving the wishes of the Kashmiri
people as well. The territory of occupied Kashmir must have elections that will
decide the future of occupied Kashmir. Since Raja Hari Singh made Kashmir a part
of India instead of Pakistan against the Will of the Kashmiri people, the Indian
government will let the Kashmiri people vote on whether to stay part of India,
or become a part of Pakistan.
Since Farooq
Abdullah’s fathers promise of autonomy 30 years ago was not fulfilled, it is
the right thing to do to let the people of Kashmir vote on their future. Since
India refuses to give autonomy to the people occupied Kashmir, the only solution
is to let the people join Pakistan if they choose to do so.
The unfinished business of the partician of India in 1947 must be finished. In order to finish it the Indians must let the Muslims in Kashmir join Pakistan if they choose to do so.
_________________________
India must face realities, adopt realistic approach
Syed
Atiq ul Hassan
Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated again with both the countries having build-up of their strong military arsenals across the borders. Each side is accusing the other of perpetuating the crisis and stirring, if not deliberately provoking, a full-scale war.
The ongoing heavy cross border firing and intrusions at the line of control (LoC) by both sides killing many innocent lives every day. Both the countries have now expelled their heads of diplomatic missions. Despite the appeals from the international community and the expected visit of Deputy Secretary of US State department Richard Armitage to Pakistan and India to ease the tension, the situation is remained at a stake of dangerous conflict up to date.
Amid the high-tension confrontation comes a war of words, focused on nuclear weapons. This has further aggravated matters. The hostile rhetoric belies the fond hope that possessing nuclear weapons would instil sobriety and a sense of responsibility in the minds of Indian and Pakistani leaders.
The flashpoint issue remains the half a century old Kashmir dispute-bone of contention. Kashmir, no doubt, is the most beautiful place on the earth. Once, it used to be a heaven for international tourists from around the world. It is a home of a culturally tolerant and religiously hybrid people and a centre of Sufism in the sub-continent. The continuous torture, extra judicial killings, aggravating situation of rapes and uncountable arrests of the innocent people of Kashmir by the Indian forces for decades turned a peaceful, happy and friendly nation into a distorted and oppressed people. The continuous oppressions compelled the people of Kashmir to take arms in their hands for self-defence. Their long struggle for freedom is now driven bye the Islamic extremists, for which India blames as cross-border terrorism by Pakistan.
Pakistan considers the Kashmiri Mujahideen as a natural reaction to the brutal actions by Indian forces and denies for providing them any help of armaments. President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf claims to be doing what he can to crack down on extremists, though he recently assured the hardliners in Pakistan that if the war was imposed on Pakistan, it would strike back with its full strength. At the same time, Musharraf also offered to sign a no-war pact with India. He has offered to rid South Asia of nuclear weapons in cooperation with India and other powers. Addressing at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2000, he proposed for the formation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia.
On
the other hand, India cannot claim, today, for having stable relations with its
other neighbours. The rigid and hard-line policy of the ruling BJP leadership
has made the situation worst for India internally and at the borders.
The
ongoing attacks on Muslims in Gujrat, which are blamed to have been under the
shelter of BJP’s Chief Minister Modi, have challenged the Indian claim of a
secular country. Then the constantly refusal by the Indian government to the
international observers and the monitoring agencies in Kashmir for documenting
facts on the human rights conditions in Kashmir have created fears about the
conducts of the callous Indian forces in occupied Kashmir.
Despite
the fact that many world powers including Japan, UK and US offered for the
arbitration between India and Pakistan, India neither agrees for any 3rd
party mediation nor accepts any of Pakistani proposals or demands. Pervez
Musharraf showed extraordinary flexibility at the Arga
summit and then a handshake offer for dialogue at the SAARC summit in
Khatmondo. Yet, the Indian hardliners and Hindu extremists refused to show any
suppleness to bring the Kashmir issue on the table.
In
addition, India is already facing other freedom movements and ethnical issues in
other parts of the country. In these circumstances, what does the Indian
leadership have strategies in mind to deal with the territorial issues with the
neighbours including the utmost critical issue of Kashmir remains a question
mark.
India
is the largest country in the region. There are more Muslims in India than those
in Pakistan with several other large minorities’ population. If India wishes
to maintain its superiority in the region then it has to deal every single
regional issue including the issue of Kashmir with accepting the realities of
the times. The unfortunate part in Indian leaderships is that many hardliners
and the Hindu extremists, even after the half-century, could not swallow the
reality of Pakistan. They still believe on the philosophy of “Akhad
Bharat” (United India). They openly talk in their political statements
about using the nuclear arms to wipe out Pakistan from the horizon of the world
that is never ever possible.
Indeed, the Indian leftists have often forwarded the view that the Indian State itself perpetrated the terrorist bombings in India in the 1990s in order to justify its communalist politics. Some of them even believe that India attacked on its own parliament to give credence to its crackdown on Muslims in India and to implement their Hindu fundamentalist agenda by the ruler BJP.
The ruling BJP and other Hindu extremists are the main snag making India unable to sit on the dialogue table with Pakistan with clear-cut proposals in their hands. These are the same elements, which became the cause of failure of the Agra summit. As long as the Indian leaders look into the Kashmir issue in the context of their agenda of culmination against Muslims, they wouldn’t be able to resolve the dispute. Kashmir issue must need to be looked as an issue of the self-determination of Kashmiris with Pakistan and India are the parties involved. Then both the parties have to understand each other’s interest in respect to reach to an acceptable solution. In this regard, in 1948, India approached to UNO and the Security Council concluded the solution in shape of its resolution of 1948 on Kashmir. Both Pakistan and India agreed to have UN intervention to the plebiscite.
Even,
if India feels, today, that security resolution is not acceptable to her now
then again India has to approach back to the International community and to
Pakistan with some sensible and practical alternates.
The
continuous use of force against the people of Kashmir with the evil intention to
kill the self-determination movement by mere means of ruthless power, it will
not pay anything to India instead more damage to its image globally. Apart from
the demands of the Kashmiris, India has to understand the strategic and
geographical importance of Kashmir for Pakistan as well. Pakistan believes
Kashmir as a main artery for survival. Pakistanis understand loosing Kashmir
means direct threat to their own existence. Therefore, even Pakistan’s denial
for the patronage to the Kashmiri freedom fighters and providing them all sort
of help including the armaments, as claimed by India, is understandable.
The threats and fear of attacks from each side have put both the countries into an arms race. Both India and Pakistan are lavishly spending huge amount of their budget on buying and manufacturing nuclear warheads, long range missiles and other dangerous weapons. India is building a huge underground facility at the cost of US$300 million to house a nuclear command and control centre. Recently, India purchased two nuclear-powered submarines from Russia.
Hence,
confidence building, trust and faith between India and Pakistan are the key
factors before sitting for any kind of peaceful negotiations. This is the reason
that all the dialogues, in the past, between the two leaderships have never been
successful. Unfortunately, the present BJP government remain following the wrong
track. Massive military build-up at the border by India will not push Pakistan
back from its resistance on Kashmir instead it could trigger, even accidentally,
the nuclear holocaust that will not only annihilate both the countries but bear
impact on the entire region.
It has been observed that whenever there is war threat or tension on the border, the peace loving citizens from the both sides raise their voice for peace in the region, amity and harmony between both neighbouring countries. There have been hurls of anti-war protests and vigils in both Pakistan and India. There have also been attempts at the LoC for peace rallies by human rights and anti-nuclear activists in India and Pakistan. However, these efforts are yet not sufficient to resolve the issues and maintain the neighbouring affable and genial relations between the two nations. In principle, Indian leadership should come forward; accept the realities of the times with broader vision and stability for the region.
The writer is a
Sydney-based freelance journalist
Email: shassan@tribune-intl.com
_________________________
Not your everyday Third World dictato
Eric Margolis
If you want to be a successful dictator, don't
hold a referendum designed to show how much the people love you. No one believes
such nonsense any more, particularly not the world media, which rightfully
dismissed as a farce last week's crudely rigged referendum in Pakistan.
The vote, designed to give military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf some semblance
of political legitimacy, didn't. But it certainly embarrassed Pakistan in the
eyes of the world. Washington, the champion of world democracy, remained stone
silent.
I interviewed Musharraf at army HQ in Rawalpindi five months after he came to
power in a military coup that ousted the corrupt prime minister, Nawaz Sharif.
The diminutive general looked more like a doctor or academic than the commando
officer he was. Musharraf did not have any of the toughness or charisma I had
felt when meeting with Pakistan's previous military ruler, Zia ul Haq, none of
former prime minister Benazir Bhutto's brilliance and charm, nor any of the
fire-breathing military panache I'd come to expect from Pakistan's warriors, the
ones Benazir scolds me about, calling them, "Your beloved generals."
During our interview, Musharraf seemed weary and withdrawn, a reluctant leader
unexpectedly put into power by his fellow generals. It seemed Musharraf almost
wished he didn't have to face Pakistan's enormous problems: near bankruptcy;
political instability; a hostile neighbour in India; omnivorous corruption.
Washington greeted the coup with anger and outrage. The U.S. media and Congress
denounced Musharraf as another nasty Third World military dictator, branded
Pakistan a "terrorist state," and called for an immediate return to
what in Pakistan passed for democracy.
Then came Sept. 11. The White House declared war on Muslim extremists as well as
Islamic groups opposed to American domination of their homelands and resources.
The Bush administration seized on 9/11 to launch a campaign to acquire the oil
and gas of Central Asia and Iraq. Total co-operation from Pakistan was a key
part of this plan. Washington put a gun to Musharraf's head. Musharraf accepted
the American ultimatum with unseemly haste, abandoned former allies, and became
an eager, obedient servant of the United States.
Exit Musharraf, the Third World Dictator. Enter Musharraf, statesman. American
criticism of Pakistan's new dictatorship abruptly ceased. In a remarkable volte-face,
the White House and U.S. media overnight transformed Musharraf into a bulwark
against Islamic evil and an enlightened ruler.
Each time Musharraf took a major step that pleased Washington - abandoning the
Taliban, providing the U.S. with military bases, sharing intelligence, locking
up Islamic militants, curbing the media, banning political demonstrations,
giving up the quest to end Indian rule in Kashmir - his stature abroad grew
apace. American aid flowed in; Pakistan's huge debts were rescheduled.
Over the past seven months, Pakistan has gone from being the world's leading
independent Muslim state to a client of the United States. Pakistan's best
military and intelligence officers have been purged on orders from Washington;
its soldiers now serve as auxiliaries - or loyal native troops - to U.S. forces
in Afghanistan. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is under constant U.S. monitoring.
During this remarkably short period, American support transformed Gen. Musharraf
into a true Mideast-style strongman, complete with a growing cult of personality
worthy of Saddam Hussein. Most interesting, Musharraf has clearly been bitten by
the bug of international celebrity, an infection that has afflicted numerous
other Third World leaders.
When Washington turns on the charm, it's hard to resist. There are meetings in
the White House with the world's most important man (who recently referred to
Pakistanis as "Pakis.") Speeches to Congress, gala state banquets and
intimate dinners with Barbara Walters and Henry Kissinger in New York. There are
glowing stories in the media about progress in human rights, women's rights and
agriculture. There are tens of millions in American aid, much of which can be
siphoned off by the ruling elite into foreign bank accounts, or used to reward
cronies and supporters in the military and media. This is what happened to
Egypt's Anwar Sadat, who ended up adored in New York but hated in Cairo.
Pakistan, which used to pride itself on its independence, is now going the way
of U.S. allies in the Mideast like Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan - thinly disguised
military dictatorships whose armed forces, intelligence agencies, media, police,
national bank and very economic survival are controlled by the U.S. government.
No doubt, after so many decades of political and economic crises, some
Pakistanis will welcome becoming an American satrapy. But there will be just as
many who do not and will likely resort to violence to oppose their government.
Pakistan deserves better than becoming Washington's newest gendarme in the
Muslim world. Musharraf, a decent, honest man and patriot, still has a chance to
show his independence and, like Chile's former military ruler, Gen. Augusto
Pinochet, to put his nation on the road to real democracy by cleaning house,
then returning the army to the barracks.
If Musharraf does not, and allows ultimate power to ultimately corrupt him, he
will confirm what many Indians have long sneered - that Pakistan is simply too
backward for democratic government.
The writer is Contributing Foreign Editor
_________________________
By Adil Rashdi
A day
after the suicide bomber struck at Karachi’s posh Club Road, our official
television had three of Sindh’s top administrators over for a talk on the law
and order of the city. There was the provincial home secretary, the Nazim of
Karachi and the additional inspector general of the Sindh police, now termed
something like CCPO. As we all know, the last two directly represent the new
experiment at local “grass-root” government, which has reached the 100-day
landmark.
While a
hundred days may be considered a bit too short a duration to judge a system, a
recap of a few comments of theirs will reveal where beleaguered Karachiites
stand today under the new system and what portends to the future.
In his
wisdom, the Sindh home secretary, felt that the terrorist targeting of doctors
was to spread fear among the various communities these professionals served.
Indeed there is wisdom in this view, but not complete wisdom. For, there is much
more to the strategy of the terrorists than merely causing fearing among select
communities. Surely it does not need specific targeting to put the fear of God
into people. Any form of violence, be it firing in the air, a small massacre or
even a box of firecrackers, in enough to cause fear in not just a few
communities, but even in a whole city.
A review
of the terrorism that Karachi has sustained over the years reveals the presence
of this menace in more than one form. Till recently, there was political and
sectarian terrorism that took thousands of lives. Now a new and more devastating
form of terrorism has invaded the city, whether or not our custodians of law and
order like to accept this harsh fact. The proportions of this new form is such
that it can take a much shorter period of time to cause as much if not more
devastation and mayhem than what the other two put together may have caused in a
decade or more. Be that as it may, all three forms of terrorism are not aimless
exercises. Each has a specific purpose. Politically motivated terrorism is aimed
at destabilising a government as well maintaining a vice-grip over the
electorate, which would otherwise not remain very obedient. Sectarian terrorism
is, of course, a battle between two or more sects, in our case religious, and is
aimed at weakening each other’s professional and financial infrastructure
through which, it is felt, maximum damage can be inflicted. Geo-political
terrorism, which Pakistan faces presently, has an entirely different spectrum.
It is a product of virulent ideological antagonisms, which spawn equally intense
violence. A battle of ideologies knows no boundaries as we have seen since the
middle of the last century. The terrorism arising out of this phenomenon has,
over the years and in tandem with progressing technology, developed into the
most debilitating form of destruction. As we saw last year, one well-planned act
changed the very nature of man’s relations with each other and has left what
seems to be an indelible stamp of mutual suspicion among the world’s various
races.
Given this
scenario, the home secretary’s comment about terrorism on doctors leaves one
wonders whether he has the comprehension of the actual state of affairs
regarding terrorism in Pakistan, especially in the country’s main economic and
political artery, Karachi, upon which his writ prevails.
The
additional inspector general of the Sindh Police, despite his ‘wizened
years’ said nothing that would reflect any active change in the Sindh Police
high command’s thinking or comprehension about law enforcement in the light of
the prevalent situation or its ability to tackle the new and complex
battle that has only just begun. As to the Police’s ability to curb crime, he
emphasised the success in the apprehension of those responsible for US
journalist Daniel Pearl’s murder. Commendable indeed, but what is the average
rate of success in the long run? Daniel Pearl’s is a ‘high profile’ case
and the whole country’s resources, not to mention international expertise was
mobilised to rope in some of the perpetrators. Even then they have not found his
body! What about the various acts of terrorism that have continued to afflict
the city? How many of those have been solved, how many genuine terrorists have
been caught and how many militant sectarian organisations have been rendered
inoperative? Things as they stand today raise the negative graph sky-high. He,
of course, elaborated upon the complexities of detecting and investigating
crime, but since when has such work been easy? He needs only to look back three
years to realise that this very Police did manage to arrest high intensity
terrorism and give Karachi peace and tranquillity. The difference then was the
quality and enterprise of command that transformed this force, to an appreciable
extent, into a dedicated crime-fighting machine from a rabble of public bullies!
That this present command has recently restored many of that team of officers
back to their old posts, who had successfully curbed terrorism and maintained
peace then, can be seen as an acknowledgement of this fact.
The Nazim
of Karachi appeared to be ailing from delusions. His statement that the crime in
Karachi was much less then in other countries of the world but it was the
international press propaganda that had blown it out of proportion, can only be
a product of a mind full of the unreal. This one statement is enough to judge
the scope of the man’s thought process and to what grievous measure of trial
he will eventually subject the city of Karachi in the hard days ahead.
The
success and failure of a system is usually judged by the people running it. The
best system can fail if its operators do not meet the standards that ensure
success. This is universal law. Yes, bad systems do exist, but then it is people
who make them. As to how the new ‘grass-root’ administrative system has
fared in its hundred-day existence, is difficult to judge conclusively in this
short time. Even our president says it will take time to produce results. But
with the present mettle of men whose perceptions have been recorded here, one
dreads to work out the possible outcome!
_________________________
Since
a decade or more, the city of Karachi has seen terrorism in many of its ghastly
faces. In fact, other than a brief spell in the last year of the Nawaz
government, the city has never seen the end of it. Be it sectarian, political or
as of now, geo-political, the scourge remains a continuing scourge and there is
very little hope it will end through the process of law enforcement that the
people have been subjected to since one can remember.
Wednesday
morning’s bomb blast outside the Sheraton Hotel, ending in an instant, the
lives of over a dozen innocent Frenchmen and Pakistanis, is a harsh reminder of
this fact. Moreover, it clearly indicates the inability yet, of the custodians
of our law and order, all along the ruling hierarchy, in not just combating this
scourge, but in understanding the very battle they believe they are fighting.
President
Musharraf’s televised response to this latest and perhaps most ghastly attack
upon foreigners in ‘our land of the pure’ was as always forthright and
coated with the regular amount of sincerity and sense of purpose towards
addressing the grave issue. One may disagree with his method of governance,
however one cannot deny his sincerity and commitment towards the country’s
welfare. However, his endeavour to calm the grief of the innocent foreign and
local victims of this attack as well as bolster the spirit of the Pakistani
public with the information that he held a high level security meeting in which
several important decisions were made to combat terrorism, alas, is not good
enough. The government must realise that this is not the first time it has given
purposeful assurances on this issue, which have, as recent events have proved,
never progressed beyond the statements made.
Last
year, there was the supposed de-weaponisation campaign, then quite recently the
crackdown against sectarianism followed by the daring decision to eradicate
religious extremism, these being interspersed with a lot of hoopla about police
reforms. Yet, illegal weapons continue to be harboured (the heavy firing in
Karachi on the eve of the recent political strike makes this quite evident),
sectarian terrorism is literally a daily event and religious extremism, as we
all know, is still rife in the country, despite a lull at present, which must
never be misconstrued as a permanent state of affairs. As to the police reforms,
what of it?
Given
the stark realities of the present state of law and order in the backdrop of the
government’s performance in this area of state management, how, may one ask,
can mere official verbosity instil confidence in a people unless there follows
visible and effective action?
The
idea here is not to issue a ‘charge sheet’ on the president, for his good
intentions are clearly manifest. Obviously there is the hierarchy that follows
which needs to be taken to task. However, we do have an autocracy and all power
does emanate from him as the chief executive of the government. Therefore he
must hold his subordinates accountable for their performances, especially those
on whom he devolves the responsibility to maintain law and order in the land.
The
city of Karachi, as we all know, has been a terrorist’s backyard for many
years. The province of Sindh as a whole has also been the most difficult to
manage as its recent-past history will bear out. Given this history, it would
indeed be interesting to discover the criterion adopted to select administrators
for this important quarter of the country, which is the economic hub of the
140-million-strong nation as a whole.
Since
this government came to power, Sindh has had two governors and as many
inspectors-general of police, which means on an average, change has taken place
within roughly a year and a quarter. What is interesting to note is that the
state of the province and the all-important city of Karachi has not changed for
the better, which is a fact requiring no elaboration here. Obviously there is a
vital flaw in that criterion and with all that we hear of the government’s
genius, through the government mouthpiece of course, in tackling the long
standing issues plaguing the country, how is it that this crucial pre-requisite
to “good governance” has been ignored; or is there no realisation that there
is something terribly wrong with the subordinate hierarchy which explains why
the president’s sincere intentions for the country are not being implemented
in spirit?
The
statements by the Sindh governor and the IGP for the benefit of the press and
public in the wake of Wednesday’s terrorism contain nothing new nor do they
inspire confidence. Yes, we will continue to wage war against terrorism, and
yes, we will not rest until the “anti-state” forces and terrorism are
eliminated. Oh, yes, “every act of the enemies of peace and development would
be responded with greater force!” Let us also not forget, two investigating
teams have been constituted to investigate the crime. Perhaps the French may
also be requested to lend their expertise. The perpetrators may well be the
“foreign hand” from across the border – so on and so forth. The only new
development is the possible Al-Qaeda connection. It is incredible how these
“administrators” of people believe these words carry weight any longer. One
can only assume they remain in a constant state of slumber over the realities of
the situation and the considerations attached to it.
Speaking
of considerations, can anyone believe that our provincial administrators and of
course the pleasant character of federal stature, who is directly responsible
for the country’s internal security, have a proper perspective of what they
are actually facing in the present terrorist attacks? Are they aware of the fact
that since September 11 and Pakistan’s consequent position, the spectrum of
terrorism in Pakistan has widened and what this could mean for the country? Do
they realise that their past half-baked attempts at halting illegal weapons,
sectarianism and religious extremism cannot be sustained given the devastating,
destructive power of the Al-Qaeda brand of terror that rocked the all-powerful
USA to its heels? Are they giving enough importance to the kamikaze
phenomenon that is synonymous with such terrorism? Do they believe that they are
mentally equipped to devise a strategy to combat this new and more terrible
menace? Is just lack of resources the problem or does the calibre of the people
involved also determine success or failure of any plan against terrorism of this
magnitude? Do they not realise this is a war of a different kind, which requires
an equally brilliant counter-strategy to that of the likes of Osama bin Laden?
Such questions can go on and on.
One
major indicator condemning these administrators to ignorance is the visible lack
of anticipation of such occurrences. One would have imagined, that given the
country’s vanguard posture in the war against terrorism following 9/11, they
would have anticipated such occurrences and would have adopted effective
preventive counter-measures which could save so many from so much tragedy.
What
is equally depressing is that they are not doing justice to the president’s
confidence in their ability to counter grave threats to the country’s welfare.
If they really believe that Wednesday’s attack was in fact an attack by those
wanting to diminish international confidence in the country and arrest the
direly needed foreign investment which is “pouring in”, or so we are
constantly told, then they should have been better prepared. Lack of time is no
excuse, and ample time they have had to prepare.
It
all boils down to what our august president decides to do now. It is not just a
matter of giving his subordinates a strategy, for, brilliant strategist he may
be. It all depends on how the strategy is implemented and of what ability should
be the people to implement it. One is reminded of a quote of that brilliant
Chinese strategist Sun Tzu: The ruler who has good men about him prospers, he
who does not is ruined.
ali_makkishah@hotmail.com
|
Referendum held: Now what next to follow? |
|
Since
heavy contingents of the police and Pakistan army for the security purposes were
deployed at all the polling stations to thwart any untoward incident, the
long-hailed referendum eventually ended peacefully. Following the referendum
results in outright favour of the president Musharraf, he has now had the green
singal by the people to continue to go with his policies of reforms.
Now
what comes to think over is that would Musharraf do his best to run the country
with his widely acclaimed national policies pursued for socio-economic
development of the country as he has been doing during his the pre-referendum
era? Would he continue to justify the hopes and expectations of the people
attached to his government?
Following
the victory in the referendum, President Musharraf has had a five-year term for
himself to rule the country further. He, hence, now stands to be Pakistan's
third de facto army chief to claim to be an elected ruler of the state-although
a self-evident violation of the Constitution. He was so firm to make himself
president that he left no stone unturned to make his referendum movement
successful. For this, he went through even every sort of criticism from all the
quarters of the country including from Alliance for Restoration of democracy (ARD).
Although referendum ended in peaceful manner and the results went in out-and-out
favour, president Pervez Musharraf has still a long way to go through. He is now
amid the heavy responsibilities to lead the country relating to the
socio-economic developments. It would not be wrong or irrelevant to say that by
winning the referendum, he has burdened himself with more onerous
responsibilities.
It
is being thought by the people outside and inside the country that the results
of Tuesday's referendum will cast their shadow across Pakistan's political
landscape for quite some time. And, now the task before President Musharraf is
to vindicate by his actions that his victory would pave the way for real
democracy and lead Pakistan towards political stability and economic growth and
social development that still continue to be unrealized dream of the nation.
With so many powers already in his hands and more to be had through the proposed
constitutional amendments, there is a danger that, in lieu of checks and
balances, we may have a situation in which the president will have all the
powers only for himself. Then, what will happen is not sure but can be predicted
well.
Fears
also prevails among the people regarding no guarantee for the upholding of the
interests of civil society as now the National Security Council will be heavily
under the heel of the military. It is in this context that even after the
October elections the elected Civilian leadership may succumb to undue pressures
emanating from the military ruler rather than becoming responsive tot the
urges-cum-wishes of the nation.
Given
the contentious nature of the referendum, it is of significant importance that
controversy should not circumfuse the upcoming general elections due in October.
It should, however, be fair, free, and transparent and all the political parties
as well as personalities not debarred by the law should be allowed to partake in
it. The whole exercise should not only be free from even the distant suspicion
of manipulation; it should appear to be so.
In
his Thursday’s televised address to the nation, Musharraf himself vowed that
the October elections would be held transparently and efforts would be made for
its being fair and free. Same facilities would be provided to the people to cast
their votes to the leaders of their own choice without facing any troubles.
Therefore, it can be concluded here that one can realise the sincere interests
and intentions of the president Pervez Musharraf with regard to holding of the
October’s elections.
It
is really commendable that Musharraf has vowed to continue with his widely
acclaimed policies for national development and with the process of reforms
including continuing of his fight against corruption, terrorism and poverty.
He
also reiterated his determination as anti-terrorism fight, poverty alleviation
would continue to be as his top-priority reform agenda. He also said that he
would leave no stone unturned to bring back the real democracy in country,
economic development, improvement of law and order situation and terrorism and
spread of the education every nook and corner of the country. But, here he
should concentrate more on the economic and political reforms as these two very
factors can contribute a lot in restoration of peace, improvement of law and
order situation as well as social and economic development.
Here
it seems to be very pertinent to mention that since the President Pervez
Musharraf has won the referendum, the expectations attached to the present
military government of the people has greatly increased. Therefore, the long
period of five years will be period of challenges for the president if he wants
to stay in power for the next five years. He never has to avert from the
promises and pledges he has been making so far with the nation. Thence, the
errand before the President Pervez Musharraf now is to justify by his actions
that his victory in the Tuesday’s referendum would tend to strengthen
democracy and lead Pakistan towards political stability and economic growth.
And,
what next to be done by the president military ruler of the country is that the
heed to be directed to the more serious issues of good governance and matters
pertaining to the state-affairs at his earliest. President Pervez Musharraf, who
has got a mandate to rule the country for further five years, should now set on
the role of a politically unbiased leader of all four province as he now tends
to represents the federation; not a single province.
It
is in this contest that he should exercise non-partisan sort of politics and
never resort to targeting any political parties or their leaders. It is
important for him and his government as the future of parliament with which he
is required to work as the members of the parliament comes from different
political parties inside the country.
It
will really be necessary to open up the door for dialogue with all the party
leaders to ensure the success of the only purpose, which he has been given a
mandate for. This will also be better and do well for the restoration of real
democracy.
It
is really encouraging to note that unlike the previous governments that failed
to keep their promises they did with the people, the president Pervez Musharraf
has come up so far in keeping his promises and he has
done his best so far. But
now what needs to be done is that attention should now be directed towards the
proposed constitutional amendments under which the elections of the National and
Provincial Assemblies will be held. All political parties are intending to
contest these polls, they should be allowed to participate fully in the October
elections.
But
as the nation is passing through stern testing times, it is essential that both
the military regime and the opposition should do some thing possible to make
their positions more flexible and adjustable to work jointly in the interest of
restoration of true democracy in the country.
saleemzeal@hotmail.com
_________________________
Quest For A Just World Order
By
Farrukh Khan Pitafi
The
visiting delegation of the Russian Parliamentarians has left ripples in the
stagnant pool of our diplomatic consciousness. The public statements and
well-articulated benign outlook of the delegation have provided ample testimony
to the fact that time is ripe for Pakistan to join the quest for multi-polarity.
Islamabad’s attitude seems turning more conducive in this context. Our
relations with China are once again growing warm thanks to the open hearted
leadership in Beijing. It seems that the current regime is learning swiftly from
its own follies unlike its predecessors. This is the major reason why many of
the government’s erstwhile critics, including this scribe, may find it more
and more convincing to appreciate the govt. policies in this vital field.
However let us spell out a caveat on the outset. All recent developments in the
field of foreign policy are at a rudimentary stage and if due care is not
maintained in this sector by the government these positive developments may
freeze in the budding stage.
It
is noteworthy that behind the current global chaos lies the specter of uni-polarity.
Uni-polarity is essentially different from collective security. In theory
collective security knows no pole. It indeed is an ideal envisaging a just order
in which all global disputes are resolved amicably and on principles with
absolutely no soft corners to the selfish interests of any of the actors. The
essential ingredients of collective security are tolerance, democracy, and
political and intellectual pluralism. These essential features of collective
security are not found in the uni-polar world.
In
contrast uni-polarity is an anomalous product of balance of power. Gramisci’s
usage of the term hegemony seems fit for study such an order. Cultural hegemony
unlike pluralism tends to suppress or crush the currents of opposing culture or
intellectual traditions. In uni-polarity Adam Smith’s proverbial ‘invisible
hand’ ceases to function leaving the world hostage to the whims of a single
power. The ensuing sense of deprivation in the neglected poor remnants of the
previous order and those under threat takes refuge in terrorism, guerrilla
warfare and other forms of asymmetric challenge to the unravelling order. Since
in this paradigm all states are tied to a single pivot, the expression of rage
naturally comes through the non-state actors (NSAs).
The
tragedy with the NSA politics is that unlike nation states there is hardly any
established mechanism to deal with its leading actors. Hence unnecessary
indiscriminate violence becomes rule of the day and affects the human life
adversely. It therefore cannot be gainsaid that until the world order matures to
the extent that there unambiguous plural and tolerant traditions are in place to
help us settle in collective security, multi-polarity remains the only panacea
to safeguard the needs of the disgruntled and the poor.
Strikingly
no state in the recent history has been so central to the establishment of the
global order despite its apparent lack of prowess as is Pakistan. Pakistan’s
geography, political relevance and the current thrust of history are proofs that
it can play key role in the establishment of an order meant for the global
stability. Let us see how.
The
present world witnesses emergence of several potential global powers.
Interestingly most of these powers are located in the Eurasian region contiguous
to Pakistan’s circle of relevance. In the sense of hardcore real politick
power politics is partly the game of resources and partly of the efficient
harnessing of them. It is inevitably the century of the vitality of human
resources as the limits of mechanized resources have already been tested. And
till the time artificial intelligence and virtual reality do not reach a prudent
level this centrality of human resources can hardly be overemphasized. Situated
with the two most human-resource rich countries Pakistan cannot remain isolated
from the global power games. Amusingly enough Pakistan’s best part of history
is a clear indication to the principle-centered path that this country should
adopt in the approaching days.
Since
its very inception our nation has faced several jittery phases. Most natural
threat that compelled it to seek political support of some heavyweight was
India’s stubborn and uncooperative attitude towards its existence. India went
to the extent of sponsoring a resistance movement in East Pakistan by fanning
the local sense of deprivation and later with the naked display of force
resulting in the creation of Bangladesh. At first Pakistan almost reduced itself
to a secondary tool in the hand of the western powers. However gradually it
found a trustworthy and principled friend in the shape of China. China has
proven itself to be the best friend of our country and has extended full support
to our interests in the most crucial phases. Even this friend of ours forgave
with open heart several follies that we committed from time to time. China is
hence to be the most defining factor of our foreign policy formulation.
In
the last decade of the cold war Pakistan served as the frontline state against
the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Regardless of the suitability of our role
in the cold war one thing has become absolutely clear with our later experience:
that we are not naturally germane to western interests in the region. Since our
basic ethos is truly different from the western guiding philosophy we can never
see dream of absolute convergence. This however is not true of Russia.
Russia
is a beautiful mix of the oriental and occidental values and its Eurasian
character makes it an ideal ally for Pakistan. One more thing that has
officially been recognized recently here in Pakistan is that Russia holds key to
the material as well as cultural riches of the Central Asian Republics (CARs).
Although the natural resources in the CARs are still not developed to their full
potential, once exploited properly they have the capacity to outshine almost
all-major regions in the field. Russia itself owns forty percent of the
world’s proven fuel deposits. Fortunately Pakistan’s geography is congenial
for the interests of the land-locked states of Central Asia and to Russia, that
need access to hot waters. Pakistan and Iran jointly offer this opportunity
abundantly. In return Pakistan may get plenty of benefits. First that it
acquires healthy amount of foreign capital by serving as a trade route. Secondly
as the foreign trade starts passing through Pakistan more and more companies may
find it convincing to invest in the local infrastructure. Culturally too this
trade can integrate Pakistan into the Central Asia, which indeed is the cradle
of our civilization, hence overcoming the identity crisis that we have faced for
umpteen years.
Russian
interest in development of relations is also profound in strategic terms. The
9-11 has changed the attitude of Europe towards the current US administration.
Prior to 9-11 Europe was critical of the iconoclastic binge of the Bush
administration that took pleasure in discarding the protocols and agreements of
the past. The fate of Kyoto Protocol and the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty
attracted devouring criticism. However after the eleven September attacks all
major European countries, mostly part of NATO, have stood firmly with the US
stand facilitating NATO’s radical expansion towards the east. If the informal
meeting of NATO foreign ministers decide to include the Baltic States into this
treaty organization in the informal meeting to be held in mid May, it may prove
a blow to the Russian interest in the region. It is hence taken for granted that
Russia would be more than willing to enhance its strategic role in Asia if it is
momentarily compromised in Europe. It has already shown keen interest in
developing an Asian axis with China and India as its major cohorts. While India
is still hesitating, the development of a strategic alliance between China and
Russia can impart great regional stability and cohesion.
So
far the Indo-Pak confrontation has proven to be the major impediment in the
development of such an alliance. Since India so far was very close to Russia and
Pakistan’s relations with China were no lesser strong, the mutual disagreement
of our two states to coexist in the same axis has barred the growth of this
vital collaboration. However in the recent years thanks to the over zealous
Indian leaders like Advani and Fernandes India’s desire to go the west’s way
has become only too self-evident. Hence Russia may not find any difficulty in
finding common grounds with Pakistan and China. Mr. Bush has also helped to
grant this potential alliance a fourth aspiring regional associate in shape of
Iran. His axis-of-evil speech has rapidly undone the western encouraged and
perhaps sponsored politico-religious divide in Iran, hence bringing to an end
the western hopes of ‘Islamic reformation’ in Tehran. Iran today finds
itself more united than ever and most vocal against the forces of aggression. If
Pakistan plays its role effectively it may achieve a longer lasting relationship
with Iran that may later compliment in the Central Asian trade and relations.
India
could prove a very precious ally in this context. Unfortunately however the lure
for India to join the west is very strong. As is evident from various western
works ranging from the Clash of Civilizations and Asia-2025, the western powers
have already chosen friends and foes. They are keen to treat the Socialist
China, despite all its opening up, as a competitor and not an ally. Since it is
a competition in which human resources play a vital role, India has to be the
natural alternative. Unfortunately in its blind pursuit of hegemony and global
power status India is forgetting that it is one of us and not one of them. With
such a big number of its citizens on the level of basic subsistence, India
should champion the cause of the poor and not the rich. But until we have BJP
led coalition government in India, we should stop hoping too seriously of any
such sane attitude from Delhi.
To
our misfortune we, even then, cannot enjoy the luxury of branding India an
enemy. India has a huge mass of Muslims living there. The safety of these
Muslims in view of the guiding principle of Pakistan’s identity, the Two
Nation Theory, is Pakistan’s important concern. The recent tragic massacre of
Muslims in Gujrat speaks volumes in support of this. Hence the leadership in
Islamabad must maintain contacts with the secular forces in India, which have
already proven to be worth this respect. Our hearts beat with those of the
Indian Muslims and instead of planning to hit them with the weapons of mass
destruction we must try help them accommodate in their habitat.
The
second most distracting factor in the development of the strategic axis,
Afghanistan, is no more unresolved. Now there is no serious threat to the
confidence building between China, Russia and Pakistan. If Iran joins this
nexus, as is most likely, an absolute convergence of interest can be achieved
here. But when we talk of the CARs we must not forget that Turkey is another
serious player in the region and needs to be engaged. Turkey so far has waited
for the EU to open its doors for membership. This is the major reason that it
has emphasized more on its European identity rather than its Asian or Muslim
fraternity. However the recent remarks by General Tuncer Kilinc, the
secretary-general of Turkish National Security Council are also revealing.
According to him, Turkey should look towards the countries like Russia and Iran
if the European Union maintains its ambiguity over Turkish membership. Turkey is
also disenchanted by the US stubborn insistence on attacking Iraq, which
obviously would not be free of implications for Turkey.
Coming
back to Russia and China the recent developments are very encouraging. China is
trying its best to help Pakistan place itself on the Asian power map. It has
invited Pakistan in the proceedings of various influential fora. Our relations
with Russia are also improving. It is not a matter only of the invitation for
Musharraf to visit Moscow or the above-mentioned visit of the Russian
parliamentary representatives. Recent cooperation between the two countries in
the field of space technology, especially with the growing emphasis on the
cooperation in the field of espionage, is highly indicative of the potential of
strategic partnership.
Despite
all this emphasis on multi-polarity, it by no means implies that the US should
be termed an enemy. In this world of fierce interdependence such churlish ideas
are tantamount to foolishness. However instead of total reliance on the US
support, which obviously is equally counterproductive for the US itself,
Islamabad should explore new vistas of balance and stability. Meanwhile it can
prove a true ally of the US by becoming its conscience and no more remaining a
tool of regional disruption. Time holds testimony to the fact that the people of
the United States have always proven themselves to be far more tolerant and
conscientious than their successive administrations. Attempts to dupe them as
enemies can be nothing but reckless bigotry.
While
General Musharraf is now proving himself far-sighted enough to learn from
history in this field, there are many among the downtrodden circles of his own
country that still consider him more the protector of the western interests in
the region. If the recent developments grow further unabated all such criticism
may vanish soon. However there is one very serious need that if fulfilled can
help him win support of a huge chunk of even his opponents. If General Musharraf
succeeds in convincing the US to shift its bases from Pakistan to some other
country, he may immediately become hero of even those who have opposed him due
to his foreign policy concessions to the west. There are solid grounds for this
too. The operation in Afghanistan is almost over. Afghanistan has already
developed substantial capacity to host foreign troops. In these circumstance
there is hardly any benefit for the either side to maintain the US presence in
our country. Instead of being productive such presence can prove cataclysmic, as
we are know it already that the terrorists and bigot lot use such excuses to
perpetuate hatred. Why should then any such excuse be left for the exploiters?
Moreover, the US military stay may jeopardize Pakistan’s image as a sovereign
actor in the eyes of its regional friends Time is waiting for the quick
decisions of the General. If he succeeds he may not find it too onerous to
restore momentum.
fkp@mail.com
