DAWN - Editorial; December 23, 2006
Priority in Balochistan
Why should people want to leave the comfort of their hearth and home in the biting cold of winter and opt for the insecurity and discomfort of temporary shelters if they did not feel they were under threat? Worse still, Unicef estimates a shockingly high rate of under-nourishment and mortality among the displaced children under five. After this disclosure, the Pakistan government can no longer deny that a military operation is going on in Balochistan. Islamabad, it seems, has developed misplaced confidence in its Balochistan strategy after the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti when no backlash was experienced. But it is time it realised that the situation in the province is rapidly deteriorating. Hence its recourse to force. The government would do well to change its strategy even now and seek a negotiated settlement with the Baloch nationalists who are in the vanguard of the struggle in Balochistan. The immediate measures Islamabad should take to pave the way for a dialogue should be directed at improving the political climate. For instance, the government should release the political prisoners, those detained by the security agencies — said to be 4,000 by one count — should be allowed to go home, and an end to the use of force should be announced. All this should be done unconditionally with no conditions attached to an amnesty. It is then that talks should be held with all leaders who matter. It was being said since last month that a jirga was to be held to bring together the government side and the Baloch leaders. But this move appears to have fizzled out and nothing more has been heard of it lately.
In November 2005 the Mushahid Hussain parliamentary committee had made a number of recommendations after talking to various sections of Baloch opinion. These were designed to ease the crisis. A task force was to be constituted to ensure the implementation of these recommendations within 90 days. Instead of taking the path of conciliation, the government has chosen the road to confrontation. True, Islamabad has tried to pour in massive funds for development but that is not likely to have an immediate impact because the benefits of development will take a long time to trickle down to the people. The immediate need is a political dialogue for normalisation. Apart from the internal repercussions of a troubled Balochistan, it has also had an impact on the international relations of the region — be it the Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas and in Afghanistan, or the dynamics of global politics involving Iran, India and China, a destabilised Balochistan has been a key factor in all this. The key is in Pakistan’s hand. It can pre-empt new problems by adopting a strategy that brings peace, security and stability to Balochistan.
Austerity in energy use
THE search continues for easy escape routes, even as efforts are being made to find practical solutions to the energy crisis facing the country. On the credit side are the government’s renewable energy policy and some tentative movement on the IPI gas pipeline project. Wapda’s decision to install additional thermal power units is also timely, despite the strain such plants place on the balance of payments as well as the country’s already stretched gas resources. Thermal plants also carry environmental costs but are desperately needed because they can be operational relatively quickly. The alternative energy options are still very much in the conceptual stage. Mega dams, for a variety of reasons, are an even more distant prospect. So what is to be done until such time that generation capacity can be increased?
Conserving energy should head the list of priorities. The introduction of another weekly holiday, however, is not the answer. As it is, actual productivity is nowhere near the country’s potential, courtesy a lax work ethic, a long list of national holidays, recurring power outages and the frequent shutdowns effected by politically motivated strikes. Nor is it fair to impose an evening curfew on commercial activity — another proposal which Islamabad is said to be considering. People’s livelihoods are at stake and, in any case, why should traders, shopkeepers and consumers pay the price for the government’s failure to plan for the future? The first step should be to check wasteful use of electricity and then assess the situation. Illuminated billboards and extra street lights can be done away with, as could the energy-guzzling floodlights that are left on all night, and often well into the day, in certain parks. Government offices must take the lead in introducing stringent austerity measures, and this should be accompanied by a concerted public campaign promoting rational use of electricity and gas. Transmission and distribution losses can also be reduced. In 2005-06, Wapda’s T&D losses on that count stood at 21 per cent. Going by the Karachi utility’s latest annual report, the KESC fared even worse with 34.4 per cent of total available units lost in transmission and distribution. These are the areas on which the government ought to focus.
Combating child labour
IT is not certain how many young workers in the NWFP will benefit from the $1.5 million anti-child labour project supported by the ILO and the SDC, the official Swiss aid agency. But it is clear that there is a pressing need for such programmes in Pakistan where there are approximately 10 million child labourers, many of them working under hazardous conditions for several hours a day. Awareness of this scourge is on the rise and besides having national legislation on the limits of child labour, Pakistan has ratified international agreements such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. It is thus obligated, morally and by law, to eliminate child labour. However, under the prevailing conditions where at least a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line and where children work to supplement family incomes, it is unrealistic to suppose that this goal can be achieved anytime soon.
In such a situation, it is perhaps necessary to adopt an approach that combines poverty alleviation measures with better working conditions for children in occupations that do not pose risks to their health and that allow them enough time for schooling. At the moment, far too many children are employed in hazardous occupations like mining, deep-sea fishing, bangle-making and leather tanning that involve exposure to noxious chemicals. Many children are also treated badly by their employers who exploit their tender age, vulnerability and economic situation to suit their own purposes. Unfortunately, the number of prosecutions for violence against child workers is low — an indication of the government’s apathy to conducting regular inspections of workplaces and arresting employers guilty of abusing children. If the government persists in showing this attitude, it cannot expect the law to take its course or the goal of eliminating child labour to be achieved.
Musharraf’s new proposal
IN his recent interview to an independent New Delhi Television (NDTV), President Musharraf suggested that Pakistan would give up its claim on Kashmir if India would accept his four-point proposal of self-governance, demilitarisation and joint supervision for the disputed state. Although President Musharraf had made similar proposals in the past, this time he was more articulate and definitive.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, making a departure from the past practice, has broken his silence and come out with a positive, albeit guarded, response. Not surprisingly, in Pakistan, these remarks have created confusion and drawn a lot of criticism, especially by rightist and politico-religious parties despite repeated clarifications by the Foreign Office spokesperson that Pakistan’s position on Kashmir remains unchanged. The government’s stand is legally and technically correct that Pakistan never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory.
The right of self-determination was promised to the Kashmiris by India, and when it decided to take up the matter to the UN, this pledge was reaffirmed by it through two Security Council resolutions — UNSCR 47 of 1948 and UNSCR 80 of 1950. It was presumed that the control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir by India was an interim arrangement and the ultimate fate of the state was to be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite to determine the wishes of the people and Pakistan will abide by its outcome.
But it is equally true that Pakistan has spent a life-time struggling to secure the release of Kashmir from the clutches of India. For Pakistan Kashmir was not just a territory or a disputed state; it became the ideological faultline between the two countries, characterised it has been by the “incomplete agenda of partition” and Pakistan’s “jugular vein”. Moreover, it has been the “core issue”, cause for years of hostility with India and prime basis of the 1948 and 1965 wars and several major skirmishes, including Kargil, between the two countries. Pakistan has made great sacrifices and supported the cause of Kashmir in every possible way — diplomatically, politically and by encouraging insurgency. Pakistan’s foreign, domestic and defence policies are significantly influenced by the Kashmir factor.
Western observers have described Kashmir as Pakistan’s obsession and military’s passion. When the people find the same military, which planned Kargil, prevented Benazir and Nawaz Sharif from making any peace overtures to India until Kashmir dispute was resolved, are now facilitators of peace, they are at a loss. It is no surprise that years of indoctrination have conditioned the national psyche to look at India through the Kashmir prism and any shift in substance, semantics and tone makes people feel confused.
It is also a reality that the global and regional geopolitical situation has changed dramatically in the last two decades. Indo-US nexus is now a hard fact, tilting the equilibrium of forces in the region heavily in favour of India. Both the United States and India are also status quo powers in the context of Kashmir. The European Union, Russia, Japan and even China are not disposed towards any territorial change in Jammu and Kashmir. India and Pakistan are overt nuclear powers and nuclearisation tends to freeze borders. The Impact of events of 9/11 on the region and Pakistan’s frontline role in the “war on terror” inhibits its ability to support the insurgency.
Furthermore, Kashmir casts a long shadow over the region by distorting priorities of the two major countries in terms of development and fighting poverty by diverting resources to defence. Globalisation demands cooperation and not confrontation and for Pakistan to sustain a high economic growth rate, it has to maintain peaceful borders. President Musharraf’s flexibility is thus driven by global and domestic compulsions and does not imply that Kashmir has lost its importance. On a personal level the President feels that he would gain enormous goodwill of the West, especially the US, by normalising relations with India. For India too the challenge of Kashmir is great. It prevents it from assuming a leadership role in the region and creates misgivings among the minorities, especially the Indian Muslims.
Human suffering in Kashmir is widespread, gross atrocities are committed by security forces and a large presence of the military and para-military forces approximating 600,000 to 700,000 enforce a coercive regime on the people. This creates a cycle of violence, emanating from the action- reaction syndrome. In reality, Kashmir remains a live, on-going, human problem and even if Pakistan were to totally withdraw and put the question of J&K at the back burner, insurgency will still continue. Just as the insurgency in Palestine would not fade away or the Northern Ireland violence would not cease until a resolution satisfactory to all major stakeholders was found.
A major card Pakistan has against India is the alienation of the Kashmiri people. India’s tactics of portraying Kashmir as a terrorism issue have not found resonance in the West and it would not work in the longer term.
What is needed is to create a climate of trust and understanding and move forward on the resolution of the dispute so that Kashmir from being the most divisive issue becomes a bridge for future partnership between India and Pakistan.
Pakistan is not prepared to accept the status quo as a permanent solution to the problem “because that is the problem and cannot be the solution”. It realises India’s constraints and sensitivities to any major territorial adjustments. As a compromise, “self-governance” has been suggested for Kashmir that would give the state of J&K a special status in the Indian constitution. Islamabad maintains that details of this proposal can be worked out in consultation with the resistance groups, represented by APHC and other elements in J&K and Pakistan. Talks are going on between the two sides both at the formal and back-channel levels, although the progress is slow.
Self-governance aims at devolution of maximum administrative, financial and executive powers to the state, while retaining only communications, defence and foreign affairs with India. This would give Kashmiris a sense of participation in running their affairs. Withdrawal of Indian military from Kashmir is another major precondition that Pakistan and the APHC are demanding for moving the peace process forward. India so far has been unwilling, as it does not want to loosen its authoritarian grip on the people.
Any viable solution to the Kashmir conflict will need to address not only the interests of India and Pakistan but more so of the Kashmiris. Their suffering and oppression will not go away until the Indian military is pulled back and security forces reduced in Kashmir. Bringing the militants into the political process at some stage would be necessary for ensuring durable peace. Pakistan would also have to further tighten control on cross-border movement of “Jihadist” elements.
Meanwhile, political, economic and social institutions in Kashmir should be developed for the benefit of the people and the two sides should be linked making “borders irrelevant”. For this, soft borders and easing of visa restrictions are essential. Coordination and linkages between the legislative assemblies of the two parts of Kashmir will strengthen political ties. Development of tourism, energy and infrastructural projects, accompanied by trading and cultural activities will place the peace process on a sound foundation and bring about an economic regeneration in the region.
There is a justifiable expectation among the people on both sides of Kashmir and between the people of India and Pakistan that the two governments would make substantive progress on the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and take effective measures to improve the lives of the people. Undoubtedly, the Kashmir problem is complex, but given political will and foresight, it is surely possible to arrive at a solution that satisfies the main stakeholders — India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general.
Probe into the war
NEXT month, when the new Democrat-controlled Congress convenes, the American electorate is likely to be treated to a whole series of devastating inquiries into the war, exposing material about intelligence, diplomacy and military preparedness.
But in Britain there will still be nothing. We trailed the US into war, and now we trail in holding our government to account.
The case for a British inquiry is irresistible, both to ensure that lessons are learned and to hold the government to account for making the case for war in a less than straightforward manner. Yet while Mr Blair remains prime minister, this will not be instigated by the government. So it is up to parliament.
Parliament has the power, but so far it has shown a lamentable lack of will. After the defeat in last October’s vote for a Commons inquiry, it may still be lacking. But parliament — or, for the pedantic, a select committee of parliament — does not need a vote to establish an inquiry, only the creative exploitation of existing powers in tandem with the House of Lords. The authority exists to establish a joint committee “for a specific purpose”. Such a committee would have the power to send for “people and papers”, and even to take evidence on oath.
Across the Atlantic in the New Year, congressional inquiries are likely to be exerting their greater powers with fewer inhibitions. They could be invaluable allies. One way to build support for such an effort would be to set out a possible remit. It must be clear that its principal purpose is to start to restore confidence in the process by which we might in future be committed to war.
— The Guardian, Londo