Absence of reciprocity

ANY disinterested observer of the South Asian scene would readily grasp one reality: Pakistan’s keenness to de-escalate the situation and India’s stubborn refusal to reciprocate. President Musharraf’s gesture was bold and meaningful. The Pakistani leader went all the way across the stage to profer his hand of friendship — literally and figuratively — and the Indian prime minister, taken aback, rose in his chair and shook his hand. But beyond that, Mr Vajpayee did nothing to indicate that he was prepared to reciprocate the sentiments behind President Musharraf’s gesture. In fact, his speech was characterized by hostility towards Pakistan. The least he could have done was to take time, absorb the impact of the presidential gesture and come up with an appropriate response that all friends of Pakistan and India would have appreciated. Instead, the Indian prime minister made changes in the prepared speech and urged Pakistan not to let terrorists use its territory. Not only that: Mr Vajpayee gave examples of how Islamabad had “betrayed” Indian efforts to solve problems with Pakistan.

A day later, the two heads of government met again, thanks to President Kumaratunga. It was a ten-minute meeting. But President Musharraf spoke of it in positive terms. First, he said, the two countries must ease tension along the border. Next, they should settle all their disputes through a dialogue. Mr Vajpayee’s attitude after he returned home was negative. Talking to reporters at New Delhi, the Indian prime minister ruled out talks with Pakistan and pooh-poohed his talks with President Musharraf as a mere exchange of courtesies. The only silver lining in his statement was a reference to talks at an unspecified date. Negotiations had been suspended now, he was quoted by a Nepalese newspaper as saying in Kathmandu, but India could talk to Pakistan “in the future.” This is hardly the kind of response the world expected to President Musharraf’s bold and honest gesture. No wonder, there is no sign of a relaxation at the border, much less a breakthrough in their relations.

President Musharraf has behaved with a great sense of responsibility and confidence. In spite of being a commando -turned-president, he upstaged the veteran Indian politician at the SAARC podium for millions to see and appreciate. In this, he was guided by the overriding need for peace. As the world knows, any hotting up of the situation along the Indo-Pakistan borders would militate against the US-led world coalition’s on-going war against the Al Qaeda and the hunt for Mulla Umar and Osama bin Laden. All along the crisis since Sept 11, India has done nothing positive diplomatically and militarily. In Afghanistan, its sole concern has been to intrigue against Pakistan, and in the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament it found a ready pretext to threaten Pakistan with war. However, this has not worked, for it is India that has emerged as the intransigent and pugnacious power, and Pakistan as a state willing to avoid war and talk peace.

Blair’s lack of balance

MR Tony Blair’s visit to South Asia was meant to have a “calming influence” on the current standoff between Pakistan and India. As he flew into Islamabad on the last leg of his trip, the only people calmed by his sojourn so far seem to be the Indians. While in New Delhi, the British prime minister went out of his way to publicly uphold New Delhi’s line of thinking on most issues and refrained from raising any thorny issues, such as human rights violations in Kashmir. Mr Blair and his Indian counterpart, Mr Vajpayee, issued a joint declaration on terrorism which stated: “We condemn all those who support terrorism; those who finance, train or provide support to terrorists share the guilt”. If that barely veiled condemnation of Pakistan was not enough, Mr Blair went on to almost justify New Delhi’s obduracy in shutting the doors on dialogue. The British prime minister stated that there has to be a complete rejection of terrorism and added: “When it is clear that the rejection is there I believe India... is prepared to have that peaceful dialogue.” In other words, India’s refusal to talk is justified and the onus is on Pakistan to control the militants before expecting talks. Mr Blair also seemed to implicitly agree with India’s view that the crackdown against extremists by Islamabad was “cosmetic”, when he insisted that there must be a complete rejection of terrorism and not “a halfway house”.

There was also dismay in Pakistan over Mr Blair’s pronouncements on Kashmir. Reiterating that Kashmir is basically a bilateral issue, the British prime minister said that however strong the cause and however strong the feelings, any cause must be “pursued by means other than terrorism and there can be no compromise on that”. The distinction between terrorism and a legitimate resistance struggle seems to have been lost on Mr Blair. The prime minister would have done well to remind India of the terrible human rights violations by its forces in Kashmir, documented by a number of independent organizations such as Amnesty International, in which a minimum of 72,000 people have been murdered. When Mr Blair meets the Pakistani president, who took considerable political risks by first backing the world coalition on terror and then launching a crackdown against extremists, he will have to offer more than generous praise to the general. By providing such fulsome moral support to the Indians and failing to uphold the Kashmiri people’s right to freedom, Mr Blair will be seen in Pakistan as encouraging the current bellicosity in New Delhi and discouraging the advocates of dialogue and peace. “Calming influence”, indeed.

The decline of cinema

THE decline of our cinema is indicative of a general neglect of the arts in Pakistan. The decay began during the Zia era, when under the garb of Islamization anything even remotely connected to entertainment was declared off-limits for people. Ordinary Pakistanis were goaded towards a ritualistic narrow version of the religion under which enjoying oneself was frowned upon. Consequently, state patronage of the arts and of related activities like cinema and film-making, which in any case was quite insignificant, disappeared. The VCR arrived around this time, then came satellite television, and with that many Pakistani homes had access to the offerings of the prolific Indian film industry. Cable television has made matters even worse, delivering a body blow that one hopes our film industry will be able to recover from.

All these factors have worked in such a way that over the years audiences have shied away from going to the cinema. To make matters worse, steep taxes were imposed on cinema houses, the last thing the industry needed. Many fell into a state of disrepair and eventually were abandoned by their owners. With the benefit of hindsight, it would be fair to say that policies by successive governments actually helped expand the audience in Pakistan for Indian films. It was only last year that a crippling tax on cinema houses was abolished. Even now, though, they are subject to a levy that makes little sense considering how few people go to public theatres. Therefore, at the very least the government must rationalize this charge. In any case, the cultural and social value of a vibrant film industry (look at Iran) should not be underestimated. Pakistani cinema needs a break in the form of government incentives and support, and there is no better time than now.