RECENT utterances of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on the India-Pakistan stand-off regarding the Kashmir dispute make a disturbingly strange reading. These might as well be a twisted string of militant chauvinism and some sort of political defeatism, multiplied manifold by India’s almost proverbial close- mindedness on the long-running dispute.

In the plethora of statements on the issue, he would not fail to single out Pakistan for the ‘tense stand-off’ between the military forces of the two countries in the aftermath of his own country’s military initiative in deploying forces along the Pakistan border.

In one such statement he said: “Our troops are deployed on the borders, not to attack, but to defend the country and prevent the infiltration of militants from across the border.” In other words, tails you lose, heads I win.

Moving troops up in a defensive posture would make sense only by way of a riposte to an impending threat from the enemy. At present, however, it is just the reverse inasmuch as India was first to deploy troops in an offensive formation to compel Pakistan to react defensively.

Mr Vajpayee goes on to warn Pakistan to decide ‘whether it wants friendship or enmity with India...’ More than the proverbial Hobson’s choice, this reminds me irresistibly of the last two lines of Aldous Huxley’s preface to his classical Brave New World running as follows:

“You pays with your money, you takes your choice.” It takes only a genius like Huxley to fiddle with grammar and a giant (with feet of clay?) like Mr Vajpayee to tell Pakistan to end the stand-off (pull back) before he would agree to talk to Musharraf.

In yet another statement — stranger still, he said he would agree to dialogue only on the basis of the whole of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to merge it with India. He would favour the line of control (LoC) turned into a ‘permanent border’ so as to obliterate the dividing line between Azad and Occupied Kashmir, once and for all.

The election fever preceding the upcoming polls in Uttar Pradesh — India’s largest province (population 100 million-plus), virtually a state within a state — appears to have gripped the top echelons of India’s political leadership. Mr Vajpayee sounds like having made a hostage of the subcontinental peace under mounting electoral pressures.

In one of his latest statements (Feb 11) Mr Vajpayee would appear to have all but succumbed to be electoral pressures. He threatened to quit the party (BJP) and his prime minister’s portfolio over the ‘differences with the right-wing party hawks...’

This is not to discount the extreme gravity of the Kashmir issue at all but fatally eroding the peace prospect between the two neighbours locked in a dangerously close eyeball-to-eyeball military stand-off for nearly three months now.

On a rough guess the massive troop deployment on both sides of the fence is supposed to have been costing the two countries no less than Rs7,000 million a day. Letting so much of their good money to go down the drain.

The question is: to what end? There could be only two options available at the end of the day. Either pull the formations deployed upfront back to their normal peace-time locations or go to war. The initiative in both cases would rest almost entirely with India, poised for offensive action.

As for Pakistan, with its forces deployed reactively in a largely defensive position (in real terms defensive / offensive), it would hardly wait to respond positively to India’s de-escalation initiative. President Musharraf has, time and again, suggested a ‘phased withdrawal’ of the frontline troops.

Depending on the mutually satisfying outcome (or otherwise) of the phased withdrawal, the exact timeframe could be left to the military commanders to set. What is really important is that the thinning out of the military forces must get under way without undue waste of time, and brinkmanship be ‘shunned’ at all costs.

President Musharraf in one of his policy statements has stated: “Instead of engaging in the brinkmanship, Prime Minister Vajpayee should accept my offer of dialogue for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue, as well as all for other issues.” UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan and practically all the world leaders, more so President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell, have lent the force of their voice to Pakistan’s unqualified offer for a composite dialogue with India.

British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon at his recent press conference in Islamabad, while calling for restraint between the two neighbours, said: “We want both sides to step back from the brink of conflict”.

Besides the mounting international opinion for de-escalation of the front-loaded military build-up, the sheer burden of maintaining troops at full alert puts India in a double bind, diplomatically and financially. Above all, there would be scarcely anything more demoralizing for the frontline troops than to be left in a state of grinding suspense about their next move, back or forth, and exact orders to that effect.

That has been more or less the existing operational environment along the international border. As for the Line of Control, hardly a day passes without clashes — mainly artillery duels between the two sides. These exchanges vary from medium to heavy fire, depending not only on the orders of the superior officers at corps, divisional, brigade, commander levels but also, at times, at the impromptu initiative of the battalion regimental commanders. Guns may come into actions out of sheer ennui and frustration when soldiers have nothing better to do than a casual fiery exchange to keep their sagging spirits high.

Mr Vajpayee insists on a ‘genuine meeting of hearts’ between him and President Musharraf. Fair enough. More than the ‘meeting of the hearts’, however, it is the meeting of minds. And that can only follow rather than precede the initiation of a genuine and sincere dialogue process.

— The writer is a retired brigadier of the army

FOLLOWING a statement by US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld that the British detainees at the US military base in Cuba could be repatriated, the families of the prisoners hope they would be released. Lawyers for the British detainees are stepping up their efforts to get them released rather than repatriating them for a trail in their home country, the Great Britain.

Lawyer Gareth Peirce, who is acting for the families of Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, both from Tipton in the West Midlands, accused Mr Rumsfeld of “horse-trading with human beings”. Their release doesn’t seem to be likely though the families of the five British detainees are pleading that they are innocent.

Mr Rumsfeld told the Daily Telegraph very clearly that he would send the prisoners back provided they were dealt with by the British courts rather than “simply turning them loose, putting them back out on the streets and having them go get more aeroplanes and flying into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center again”.

Their repatriation now seems likely and which could lead to calls for sending some other Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners in Camp X-Ray to stand trial in their home countries. Sending some of the detainees to their home countries for trail where they might be treated as prisoners of war or possibly released and others tried by the American military courts and sentenced to death could endanger the credibility of the US stand on the issue.

The US, which already has been criticized for its treatment of the detainees in the Camp-Ray, will have to decide a uniform policy about the prisoners to avoid any further criticism of its policy over the issue.

During the on-going US-led war against terrorism the Western countries are trying hard to take stringent measures against illegal immigrants. Similar steps have been taken in the UK where over the past some weeks a significant number of illegal immigrants have been rounded up and some of them deported to their home countries. Before deportation the “illegal immigrants” are kept in detention centres.

There are a number of such detention centres in the UK. The Yarl’s Wood near London is the biggest such centre in the country, parts of which were destroyed during the recent fire, which caused £38 million of damage.

Following this incident the British government has decided to toughen the regime in the immigration detention centres. Home Secretary David Blunkett told MPs: “It is now clear that there are a small number of people who will take any step to prevent their removal from this country. We, therefore, have no option but to toughen the regime, as well as instructing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to further speed up the removal of those in the centres to their country of origin”, he added.

A number of detainees are still at large after the rioting and blaze in the centre two weeks ago. The government has now put in place detailed contingency plans in case of further similar incidents in immigration detention centres and steps have been taken to improve both staffing and security.

DESIGNER BABY: The news of the destruction in the Yarl’s Wood detention centre was still under the media attention when last week’s ruling by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority , Britain’s fertility watchdog, caused a heated debate about the so-called “designer baby” by allowing an Asian British couple to go ahead with the embryo selection process they want.

Raj and Shahana Hashmi have been saying that their decision to go ahead with the selection they were not picking physical features like the sex or eye colour of their baby, but the fundamental genetic make-up to save the life of their son who had a fatal blood disorder. Their son Zain has a rare disease called beta thalassaemia major, which creates potentially fatal levels of iron in his blood. Any such condition can only be cured by a bone marrow transplant from a perfect genetic match and which could be done through embryo selection process in case no suitable donor is found.

Zain is currently given injections every day and a blood transfusion every three to four weeks in order to keep him alive. Critics seem sympathetic to the couple caught in very difficult and special circumstance but they are concerned that this ruling will pave the way for designer babies in the future and couples with less ethical motives would be able to select the physical features of their prospective children.

The debate about “designer baby” was forgotten by many last week when London on Sunday hosted one of the biggest designer dress parties of the year in the famous Grosvenor House Hotel.

The biggest names in Hollywood had arrived in London to celebrate the Bafta, popularly known as “British Oscars”. Despite torrential rain the party went ahead and continued till morning in the Grosvenor House’s ballroom. Nicole Kidman, the ex-wife of Tom Cruise, was photographed more than any other actress or actor for her very special daring low-cut designer dress though she left the ceremony empty-handed.

The Lord of The Rings film got five awards, and Russell Crowe was lucky enough to win again. Warren Beatty was made a Bafta Fellow, the ninth American to receive the honour.

HE SAID: “I’m always in a state of elation when I come to London, as in so many ways London doesn’t change. It’s a very special feeling to win an award here, a real honour.” Nicole Kidman highly praised the Bafta awards and said: “The Baftas holds its own in its own right, and I think comparing it to the American Oscars is patronizing. It is about the British film community — and that is a really important, thriving force in the world.”