|
| September 28, 2006 | Thursday | Ramazan 4, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Human cost of development
Faulty ATMs
Why Bush raised Kashmir issue?
Rhetorical warfare
THE key to understanding the latest turn in Anglo-American policy towards India and Pakistan is that recent incidents of terrorism in Britain owe as much to local Muslim anger about Kashmir as they do to Iraq or Palestine.
PALESTINE is more than a dispute; it is a tragedy unparallelled in modern times. It is not that two nations are quarrelling over a piece of land; it is a great ordeal for an entire people. In terms of the number of people killed, its dimensions may not be those of the Holocaust, but in terms of people affected — massacred, expelled from their homes and made to leave their country — the Palestinian tragedy equals the collective misfortune that befell European Jews in the 20th century. The country called Palestine has ceased to exist, and in its place there is the state of Israel and the area which until recently was called occupied territories but is now referred to as disputed territory. A disputed territory could belong to either side in a settlement, so the implication of this new nomenclature for the West Bank and Gaza is that Israel could also be a rightful owner of this piece of the holy land.
A solution to the dispute — which now means an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories — has not been possible because in terms of armed strength, Israel is more than a march for all Arab states. The Arabs tried to solve the issue militarily in 1948, 1967 and 1973 but failed. But after intifada — Yasser Arafat’s “revolution of sticks and stones” — rocked Israel, Tel Aviv seemed to give diplomacy a chance. The secret talks in Oslo led to the historic handshake on the lawns of the White House in September 1993 ith a timetable providing for the emergence of an independent Palestinian state in 1999. However, following Yitzhak Rabin’s murder by a Jewish fanatic, the peace process was sabotaged by his successors — Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Ehud Barak. Whatever chances were there for a peaceful settlement were scuttled when Mr Ariel Sharon reoccupied the areas vacated and froze the peace process. The situation since then has been one of deadlock, with little effort for the revival of the idea of a two-state solution as contained in the roadmap unveiled by President Bush in 2003.
As pointed out by President Musharraf in New York on Monday, the continuation of the Palestinian crisis is the biggest source of extremism in the Muslim world. The continued occupation of Palestine reminds the world Muslims of the arrogance and excesses of Israel which has the armed might of the United States at its disposal. The wounds and humiliations inflicted on the Arabs and Muslims have included repeated massacres — Deir Yassin and Sabra-Chatilla among them —, the miseries of the Palestinians in occupied territories, and the dare-devilry with which Mr Sharon destroyed Arafat’s living and official quarters by tank fire brick by brick with America’s tacit approval. No wonder, most Muslims identify America with Israel, and that is one of the major reasons for anti-western, especially anti-American feelings throughout the Muslim world. Which is a pity, because if America were to abide by the ideals of its founding fathers and the spirit of the American revolution, Washington should have been on the side of freedom rather than tyranny and illegal occupation.
THE manner in which the Punjab government is set to go about building two small dams to provide for Rawalpindi’s water needs will lead many to question the projects because of the human cost involved. The lowering of the two projects’ cost from the original Rs14 billion to eight billion to get an international financier involved by cutting the compensatory sums payable to the people who will be affected by the construction is not only immoral but it also sends a wrong message to the anti-dam lobbies elsewhere in the country. Poor villagers will lose some 9,523 acres comprising their homes and subsistence-level agrarian means of livelihood. By cutting down the six billion rupees meant for buying land and for the resettlement of dozens of families to be affected by the two projects, the provincial government will either have to evict the landowners and users from the area or offer them only token monetary compensation. That there is no strong opposition to the construction of new dams in Punjab should not give the government a carte blanche to treat the would-be affected of such projects in a thoughtless manner.
The story of the big and small dams so far built in the country has been full of such uncaring treatment meted out to the affected people. Some 170 families displaced by the construction of the Tarbela dam in 1967 have yet to be compensated for their homes and land lost to the mega-project. They have been forced to live as refugees all these years, forgotten by successive governments which did not feel duty bound to resettle them. The absence of a national policy on compensation for and resettlement of the affected people resulting from the setting up of development projects is to blame for this state of affairs. The antiquated, colonial-era Land Acquisition Act of 1894 should be replaced by a more people-friendly law, as is the norm in the other civilised and democratic countries. The people giving up their homes and land for the greater public good must at least be paid the market price for their holdings.
MANY people in Karachi faced a lot of problems over the weekend when they were unable to withdraw cash from automated teller machines (ATMs). This was particularly frustrating as Monday was a bank holiday and the beginning of Ramazan, a time when most people needed cash.
While the problem of faulty ATMs isn’t limited to any particular time of the year, it seems to have become a regular occurrence before the onset of Ramazan (when there is a zakat deduction) and before Eid. Complaints about faulty ATMs range from these being simply out of order with no sign of their repair any time soon to ATMs not having enough cash to people not getting receipts of their cash withdrawal. Then there is the complaint of a person’s account being debited when they haven’t had any luck in withdrawing the required amounts. This is ironic given that ATMs were supposed to make life easier for the depositor. Instead of having access to cash 24 hours a day, seven days a week, many in the country complain of running around trying to get cash from a functional ATM. It’s small wonder that quite a few people over the weekend felt that banks were deliberately avoiding putting cash in ATMs — an unlikely scenario but then experience at times bears it out.
It is time that banks made the process of cash withdrawal more certain. They need to ensure that their ATMs are functional and that where needed, repairs are promptly carried out. The banking ombudsman should also look into this common complaint and issue necessary directives to banks to alleviate customers’ grievances. He should direct banks to devise ways to address the issue of having ample cash in its ATMs during public holidays so that customers are not inconvenienced.
A good percentage of British Muslims are Mirpur-Kashmiri in origin, with links to jihadi groups in Pakistan, and provide an abundant source of British-Muslim suicide terrorists.
Tony Blair, anxious to sew some of the tatters on his reputation before he leaves office, is keen these days to address the “root causes” of Muslim anger, and Kashmir is right up there along with Palestine. He has made a well-advertised trip to Palestine. Kashmir is more complicated. But by any logic, George Bush is the better interlocutor, since he has excellent personal relations, as well as political leverage, with both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf.
This, perhaps, was why it was Bush who raised the issue of Kashmir during his talks with Pervez Musharraf Friday last in Washington, rather than the other way round. It is logical for Musharraf to bring Kashmir up. Why did Bush do so? I am not revealing any state secret. This comes straight from Bush himself. This nuance has not yet reached the attention of Indian public opinion, which is understandable. It also seems to have eluded the Indian establishment, which is less explicable.
During his comments to the media after the talks, Bush said that he “admired” Musharraf’s leadership and praised him as a symbol of moderation, according to the news agencies, AP and AFP. He then added that he “raised the Kashmir issue with the Pakistani leader”. Bush went on to ask Musharraf: “What can we do to help? What would you like the United States to do to facilitate an agreement? Would you like us to get out of the way? Would you like us not to show up? Would you like us to be actively involved? How can we help you, if you so desire, to achieve peace?”
It was an interesting, and even remarkable, array of options. Musharraf did not tell us what his answer was, but he certainly would not have kept silent. Instead of Pakistan asking for America’s help, it was America asking what it could do to help. We will learn about the implications of these remarks when they begin to take effect on policy. Musharraf informed Bush that his meeting with Dr Manmohan Singh in Havana had been “excellent” and that India and Pakistan were “moving on the Kashmir dispute especially”. The story from Delhi so far has concentrated on the “joint mechanism” for a concerted effort between India and Pakistan on terrorism. The stress has not been on Kashmir, but maybe Musharraf understands what happened differently.
Bush linked Kashmir and Palestine. He agreed that the US could not impose a settlement in either dispute. But, he added, “We can help create the conditions for peace to occur. We can lay out the vision. We can talk to world leaders — and we do.”
The September pirouette began a few days earlier with a slight thud, almost inevitable since Bush and Musharraf have to negotiate through so many thickets to find common ground. But it quickly picked up momentum and indeed some style, since both knew what they were doing. That their meeting ended in laughter and expressions of admiration says a great deal about the confidence Bush has in Musharraf, who has proved a master strategist. Who else but Musharraf could sell the deal he made with the Taliban as another tactic in the war against terror? And Bush bought it.
But was it a one-way swap? Did Bush have something to sell as well?
Pakistan has been in the news in an American campaign season (the elections to Congress in the first week of November) for the worst reason on Bush’s long list of problems: Osama bin Laden.
Five years ago, America went to war against a Taliban-led Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden, the self-declared mastermind of 9/11. If the Taliban had handed over their permanent guest to America, the case for an invasion would have collapsed. Five years later, Osama is still free, and questions are being asked.
On the weekend before 9/11 I happened to be on a CNN programme called ‘At War This Week’. I pointed out that while America, despite satellites and the most sophisticated military and intelligence presence in the region, claimed that it could not find Osama, the latter seemed perfectly capable of finding America whenever he wanted. He had just reasserted this ability by sending another tape, replete with his familiar themes, to Al Jazeera in the week before the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
Did these tapes reach Doha on Aladin’s magic carpet? It was common knowledge that the tapes went from Osama’s residence to Qatar by old-fashioned, almost antique, Cold War tradecraft: letter box drops and a courier system. If British and American intelligence agencies, honed on Cold War espionage, could not discover a fairly porous human chain then one had to suspect either their ability or their intention. It is a tough choice.
Such were the dilemmas that persuaded Wolf Blitzer of CNN to ask Bush, during an interview, whether he would send American troops in pursuit of Osama if he received reliable intelligence that Osama’s safe haven was in Pakistan. Bush replied in the affirmative. Was he taking Pakistan agreement for granted, or had a deal already been made with Musharraf that American troops would be permitted to use Pakistani soil for their operations? Musharraf objected to Bush’s unilateral decision, but this clearly had no impact on the bonhomie of their meeting. American troops are already in Afghanistan, with close communications support from Pakistan, and the border isn’t etched on stone.
Diplomacy is about give and take, and Musharraf would be taking back with him to Islamabad some forward movement on Kashmir from his linked trip to Havana and Washington. The phrase he used at the White House — “we are moving on the Kashmir dispute especially” — was not accidental. The use of “especially” was particularly deliberate. We are not aware of the full meaning of this word. Perhaps we will discover that after the first phase, that of a “joint mechanism”, is in place.
The “joint mechanism” between India and Pakistan on terrorism opens the way for a bilateral body that has the ability to monitor and investigate terrorist incidents in Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India, since this mechanism has been designed to allay Indian concerns about Pakistan’s support for terrorism in India. This is an extremely bold move, since Delhi has co-opted the country it has accused of terrorism into the solution of the problem. The presence of Pakistan police officers in Delhi and Mumbai, and certainly Srinagar, will arouse unprecedented levels of interest. The reaction of Indian intelligence officers will be even more interesting.
No one sane would want to sabotage a solution to the Kashmir problem, and if George Bush and Tony Blair can help attain one, then may they get half of the Nobel Peace Prize money that awaits Musharraf and Manmohan Singh. The tough part is the definition of a solution, even after we have managed to define terrorism. The official Islamabad line, repeated as frequently as you want to hear it, is that the violence in Kashmir is not terrorism but a war of liberation. Words, words, words: and how much blood flows between them...
The disconcerting fact about the Havana deal is that it is a marked departure from the line that Delhi has been taking for at least a year. The immediate reaction to the Mumbai train blasts, for instance, was to blame Pakistan. Whether wise or not, that certainly begs a question: what has happened in the weeks since that incident to persuade Dr Manmohan Singh that Islamabad can be a partner in the solution to our most difficult and painful problem? Every citizen has the right to know the answer, and judge its credibility, otherwise suspicion will provide its own set of answers.
The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi.
UNDER the orange glow of candlelight, Gladstone leant over his desk, quill in hand, crafting the famous Midlothian address which he would learn by heart and take to the nation: his oratory would transform ideas about imperialism.
For most 19th-century statesmen, a speech was an infrequent but invaluable chance to marshal thoughts, order priorities and reach hearts and minds. The spoken word has always offered a mirror to society as well as a glimpse to the future, from Churchill to Thatcher to Mandela. Despite spin, anonymous briefings and chatshow politicians, ministers give more speeches than ever, but at the expense of quality: repetition is no substitute for argument, nor jargon for imagery. With conference season comes brief respite and the promise of classier debate, as politicians deliver the one speech that they still care about.
The greatest theatre this year will be as the Blair-Brown duel shifts into full on rhetorical war, as each strives to outdo the other with the most sophisticated use of the rule of three, alliteration and phrase reversals. Ambitious, potential rivals will watch from the wings, hoping to draw gasps with their own sideshows.
—The Guardian, London