|
| February 21, 2007 | Wednesday | Safar 3, 1428 |
IAEA’s sane advice
Why this roof collapse?
The brewing Kashmir ‘goulash’
“Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.” --Oscar Wilde
MONDAY’S tragedy at Panipat is too staggering for words. The identification of the charred bodies will take some time. But so far a minimum of 68 people have fallen victim to flames lit by men utterly indifferent to human suffering. The fire-bombing of the Samjhota Express, carrying 757 passengers, 553 of whom were Pakistanis, did more than cause death and destruction in Samjhota Express; it rocked the subcontinent itself. Newspaper reports and TV images cannot catch even a fraction of the humanitarian dimensions of the tragedy, the grief and misery inflicted on the hundreds of families, and the agonies of the severely burnt now fighting for their lives. What precisely the perpetrators of this crime wanted to achieve by killing innocent civilians and destroying entire families is a mystery. If the aim was to sow discord and derail the peace process, both governments have made it clear that such dastardly deeds will not be allowed to stand in the way of the normalisation process and the pursuit of the composite dialogue to which they are committed. In fact, as Pakistan has made it clear, even the train service will continue to run on schedule. Condemning “such wanton acts of terrorism”, President Pervez Musharraf said that he would not allow “elements who want to sabotage the on-going peace process to succeed in their nefarious designs”. Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s focus was on the humanitarian side of the tragedy, and he reaffirmed his government’s “commitment … to ensure that its perpetrators are punished”. Monday’s crime at Panipat came a week ahead of the fifth anniversary of the burning of the train at Godhra and a day before the arrival of Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri in New Delhi for talks with his Indian counterpart. It took years of investigations and court judgments to finally establish that the Muslims initially held responsible for the Godhra train fire were not to blame. In the present case, too, one hopes that time will sooner or later establish the truth and unmask the fiends behind this despicable crime whose victims were innocent people. It must also be noted that the casualties would have been far fewer if the Indian authorities had not sealed off all train windows.
There are several ways in which the impact and immediate outcome of the Panipat tragedy are different from similar acts of terrorism committed earlier. Unlike what happened immediately after the Bombay train blasts in July last year, no responsible person in the Indian government has pointed fingers at “Pakistan-based terrorist groups” for the crime. Since a majority of the dead are Pakistanis, no one in his right mind would see Islamabad’s hand in the crime. Secondly, we now have in place an Indo-Pakistan “anti-terrorism mechanism” to which President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh agreed at Havana last year. This part of the Havana statement was criticised in India by some right-wing elements who objected to the establishment of a forum designed “to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations.” The existence of such an instrument obviously irks those in India who blame Pakistan for every act of terrorism even before investigations begin.
There is no doubt that the two sides will jointly investigate a crime that has shocked the world. There are extremists and hate groups on both sides of the border, and they would love to derail the peace process. However, the two governments must know that the scourge of terrorism now seems to be operating on a scale that, if left unchecked, could make a mockery of not only the peace process but everything else meant to promote harmony and understanding between Pakistan and India.
ALTHOUGH there is no love lost between Tehran and the IAEA, the atomic watchdog agency has said that sanctions alone will not be effective in resolving the current nuclear face-off between Iran and the US. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who is due to report soon on Iran’s compliance with the UN Security Council’s demand for Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment and nuclear reprocessing activities, has said that sanctions must go hand in hand with “incentives and a real search for a compromise…” His words echo those of the European Union, which in a recent report, called for a “two-track approach” that combined “incentives with disincentives”. But constructive engagement with Iran is the last thing on Washington’s mind. Although the US has denied that it will launch an attack on Iran, it has deployed warships in the Gulf. This, coupled with its increasingly strident posture over the nuclear issue and its repeated threats of action against Tehran, has led to fears that a military strike cannot be ruled out.
Washington’s aggressive tone is being matched by Iran’s defiance. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made several unwise statements regarding Israel. Moreover, his insistence on continuing with his country’s nuclear programme — although for peaceful purposes — has added to tensions. In his latest move, Mr Ahmadinejad made it clear on Tuesday that no pre-conditions could be attached to negotiations and that he would not suspend Iran’s nuclear activities. By their refusal to compromise and try and find a solution to the nuclear impasse, both Iran and the US have much to lose. A strike on Iran would have spillover effects and unleash death and destruction in a region where political and religious tensions are already rife as a consequence of the war in Iraq. For the US, which has troops bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, another military adventure could spell disaster and see its global political influence plummet. The onus is on the international community, especially the EU, Russia and China, to make both sides see reason and come to a compromise as more muscle-flexing and retaliatory provocations will inevitably lead to a widening of the Middle East crisis.
GIVEN how dismal statistics on the state of schools are, it should come as no surprise that a school roof collapsed in Jacobabad on Monday. Thankfully, there were no fatalities as there were in many other cases in the past, particularly during the earthquake when children were simply crushed to death when school roofs caved in on them. In Monday’s incident, nine students were injured. It is incomprehensible as to why, despite increasing allocations of funds for education, funds are not being used to fix the physical structure of school buildings. Where then are all the funds going? According to a report in 2005 by the finance ministry on poverty, 50 per cent of schools do not have boundary walls, yet children are made to study in such shabby conditions. Not only are schools missing walls, they do not have toilets, electricity and even drinking water. Then there is the question of teacher absenteeism. The pleasant surprise is that in spite of all this, parents continue to send their children to such dilapidated schools. The puzzling thing is that the 10-year-old school in Jacobabad underwent repairs only last year. This shows that the material used in the renovation was of poor quality, for what else would explain the quick deterioration that led to its collapse?
What was reassuring, however, was the students’ response to the incident: they came out on the streets to protest against the relevant education department officer. It is protests like this and the demand for accountability that may persuade the higher authorities to take action against the errant ones. In this case, parents and community activists can join in the protests and demand that an inquiry be held to determine what led to the roof’s collapse and demand action against the unscrupulous elements.
A BACK-CHANNEL ‘deal’ on Kashmir is said to be in the offing. According to Foreign Minister Kasuri, the ‘confrontational mode’ of the subcontinent is being `rolled back’ in the face of what he describes as the ground realities of today’s turbulent world.
It seems, after Pakistan’s post-9/11 “turnaround,” we are in an unremitting business of ground reality-driven roll-backs. Kashmir might be our next rollback.
For nearly three years now, we have been hearing about what our leadership calls “flexible options” in pursuit of an “out of box” solution through a “no-borders-plus” approach as its preferred choice for what it likes to believe will be a win-win situation for all the parties to the dispute. President Musharraf has been throwing proposals here and there, at Iftar parties, in hotel lobbies and on TV screens to bring an end to the long-standing Kashmir dispute.
Musharraf’s personal vision of variable options represents an unprecedented “softening and flexibility” and a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s traditional Kashmir policy. In a controversial move, he has even offered to withdraw Pakistan’s demand for plebiscite as envisaged under the UN Security Council resolutions. His proposal for dividing Kashmir in ethnic regions which should be demilitarised and made autonomous entities with a semblance of joint supervision has not only evoked no response from India but has also deepened confusion over the Kashmir issue.
While India has yet to match Musharraf’s gestures of flexibility in any visible measure, its leaders keep repeating the claim that Kashmir is an integral part of India and have ruled out any “redrawing of boundaries” on the basis of religion. They also keep insisting that a solution to the dispute has to be found within the Indian constitution.
This could mean an outright rejection of the proposed `joint supervision’ of the disputed region unless Musharraf is seeking a cosmetic joint dispensation which would have no powers and no juridical status. As regards `demilitarisation’, one should not forget that this has been the crux of the issue and perhaps the sole major obstacle in implementing the UN Security Council resolutions. The issue would have been resolved long ago had the two countries implemented the UN Security Council’s call for demilitarisation.
Given India’s aversion to giving up its “constitutional” claim over Kashmir, any plan for demilitarisation or joint control over any region of Kashmir would appear impractical in the present circumstances. No Indian leader has so far reacted publicly to President Musharraf's Kashmir "self-governance" formula. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has only said that all these matters could be discussed at the appropriate forums. He was obviously alluding to the desirability of an institutional approach in addressing any new ideas that could help resolve the Kashmir dispute.
Privately, Indian officials have been saying that Pakistan’s changed position on Kashmir notwithstanding; there is considerable ground to be covered before any realistic and long-term solution can be found. In Pakistan, our readiness to forego our principled position on Kashmir, which is based on UN Security Council resolutions and rooted in a national consensus, is seen as a big “surrender” and a “turnaround” of policies that have over the decades cost Pakistan so heavily in terms of wars and conflicts.
India on its part has been able to maintain a consistency in its policies and priorities while fully exploiting the regional situation to link the Kashmiri struggle to the prevalent global concerns against terrorism, and to deflect the international attention from its own repressive policies in Kashmir by engaging in a fruitless dialogue with Pakistan.
Ironically, after its January 2004 resumption, the India-Pakistan composite dialogue has been focused more on terrorism than on the long-outstanding issues. In terms of the January 6, 2004, Islamabad joint Statement, Pakistan had “solemnly agreed not to allow its territory to be used for any terrorist activity against India.” Since then, India has managed to link the dialogue process to Paksitan’s ability or otherwise to stop alleged `infiltration’ from across its territory.
We also agreed under pressure from India after the Mumbai blasts and as a follow-up to the Havana “breakthrough” to the creation of a new but totally superfluous joint “anti-terror mechanism” with a mandate already covered in the existing mechanism of the India-Pakistan composite dialogue. The two countries already have a joint working group headed by their respective interior secretaries to address the issue of terrorism and drug trafficking.
How would the new set-up which is headed only at the level of additional secretaries in the foreign affairs ministries make the difference? It is obvious that India had made the new set-up a prerequisite for resumption of dialogue only to highlight Pakistan’s “terrorism-related” regional role and relevance and to divert the world attention from Kashmir issue to cross-border “terrorism.”
In its post-9/11 “strategic” policy shift, Pakistan became America’s strategic partner and has been engaged in a full-scale “war on terror” within its own territory and against its own people. It has apparently now joined India as its undeclared “strategic partner” in fighting another war on its behalf against its own people or those whom it has always acclaimed as legitimate `Kashmiri freedom fighters’.
It seems the future rounds of the composite dialogue will now be exclusively devoted to exchanging and disputing the lists of wanted or unwanted persons from each side. The lists of India’s violation of human rights will be of little relevance in the newly formatted peace process. Cross-border terrorism, not Kashmir will now be the main issue in this process.
In its inexplicable anxiety to sustain the dialogue with India, Pakistan is now assuming the onerous responsibility of ensuring an end to “violence, hostility and terrorism” in India. This is an impossible task for a government which has not been able to free its own country of recurring acts of terrorism and senseless violence.
Pakistan is the only country in the world which is now fighting a war against its own people. It has no sovereign control over its borders, and in a controversial move is now planning to `mine and fence’ its border with Afghanistan. It is today the “ground zero” of America’s war on terror and is paying a huge cost in terms of ever-mounting collateral damage in this on-going operation.
The biggest casualty, however, is Pakistan’s own credibility. It has staked everything in this proxy war, and has killed or “Guantanamoed” hundreds of its own people, yet it is being blamed for “not doing enough.” Meanwhile, the `faceless’ monster of terrorism is no longer confined to the wilderness of Waziristan and is out on our streets with vengeance, exploding bombs for random killings, spreading panic and challenging the government authority.
It is no less than a joke now that Pakistan, itself a victim of recurring terrorist acts and senseless violence should be guaranteeing “terrorism-free” borders with India or for that matter with Afghanistan. What is however painful is that in this murky environment of violence and suspicion, Kashmir is no longer the “core issue” involving the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. Instead, it has become only an issue of “cross-border infiltration” and terrorism.
For understandable reasons, the people in both Pakistan and Kashmir are getting worried over the direction of Islamabad’s Kashmir policy. Since the January 6, 2004 Islamabad agreement, we seem to have been progressively drifting away from our principled position on Kashmir. We have abandoned the high moral ground, a constant of our Kashmir policy, rooted in our commitment to the cardinal principle of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter.
We no longer speak of the UN Security Council resolutions and are instead rambling on half-baked and ad hoc approaches in the name of “pragmatism” and “flexible options.” Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Kasuri, in his resonant way, keeps defending the case for the Kashmir “turnaround” by claiming that it was the only way “ to save the last Kashmiri” from falling to India’s brutal repression. What an argument!
This is not the message that the government and the people of Pakistan flagged while observing the ‘Kashmir Day’ on February 5 this year in solidarity with the people of Kashmir and their just cause. By giving wrong signals, and that too at the highest level, Pakistan is only damaging the Kashmir cause and its own case as a party to this dispute.
While Pakistan’s “back-channel” bonhomie goes on in places of agreeable “ambience,” India spares no effort to reinforce its stranglehold over the Kashmiri people. In fact, we have helped it divide the Kashmiri leadership. The true representatives of the Kashmiri people have lost faith in Pakistan’s commitment to the Kashmir cause while the Kashmiri people themselves also stand totally disillusioned with Pakistan's changing stance. They feel abandoned and let down.
In making a paradigm shift in our Kashmir policy, President Musharraf has apparently taken no one into confidence, not even his handpicked cabinet or the Kashmir Committee in the marginalised parliament. Major political parties remain completely in the dark on Musharraf’s vision of the future of Kashmir. There is no institutional approach whatsoever in his policy initiatives on Kashmir.
He claims that he has the support of the “intelligence, the establishment and the foreign office” in his policies on Kashmir. Aren’t these agencies at his beck and call to support and promote the policies that he dictates to them? None of these entities incidentally have any roots in the people of Pakistan or have any elected status.
What is most worrisome is that after 50-plus years of our independent statehood, our leadership should be seeking to change the course on Kashmir and struggle for a “back-channel” deal on the `status quo’ under the cover of “demilitarisation-cum-self-governance” proposal.
But there is no shortage of variable options on Kashmir. Even on status quo perhaps there could be a more dignified and surely more `legal’ approach.
The writer is a former foreign secretary