| March 15, 2002 | Friday | Zilhaj 30, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Indian court verdict
Shocking vandalization
THE Security Council’s resolution affirming the “vision” of a Palestinian state is indeed a historic step taken by the world body. There are at least two reasons why the resolution should be considered seminal: first, it is for the first time that the UN Council has had the foresight to speak of a Palestinian state; second, the resolution was based on a draft moved by the United States. This is the same United States that has for decades recklessly used its veto to save Israel from the world body’s censures for its genocidal policies in the occupied territories. The resolution comes on the heels of a very strong statement from Kofi Annan, who called Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza “illegal.”
It now remains to be seen whether the resolution would be consigned to the United Nations’ archives or whether those who had the wisdom to have the motion passed will take practical steps to achieve the idea behind it. The resolution calls for a Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel “within sure and recognized borders.” This is not something that any sane mind would be opposed to. Ever since Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank in 1967, those wishing to see a lasting peace in the Middle East have considered the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands the biggest threat to peace. However, all through these decades, Israel gave no indication that it believed in ending its occupation of the territories and finding an acceptable solution for the future of Al Quds. The first intifada — Arafat’s “revolution of stones and sticks” — rocked the state of Israel, forcing its benefactors to think in terms of satisfying the Palestinian people’s legitimate desire for a state of their own. The result was the historic handshake on the White House lawns and the signing of the agreements that visualized a final settlement by April 13, 1999.
So long as Yitzhak Rabin was alive, there was hope that the agreement would be implemented faithfully. However, his assassination by a Jewish fanatic and the violation of the agreement by his successors derailed the peace process. Nevertheless, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak continued to talk to Yasser Arafat, thus keeping the hopes for peace alive. However, Ariel Sharon turned out to be a tragedy for peace in the Middle East. He is opposed to talks in principle, believes in the use of force as a cardinal principle of Israel’s policy, and until this week had kept Yasser Arafat under virtual house arrest.
The immediate task before the world body is to stop the bloodshed in the occupied territories and ask Israel to pull back from areas that are theoretically under the control of the Palestinian Authority. The second step should be to start talks so as to revive the peace process. The aim should be a faithful implementation of the Oslo accords in letter and in spirit and the coming into being finally of a Palestinian state with Al Quds as its capital. One sincerely hopes that the US will back this resolution by putting its foot down if the Zionist entity does not cooperate with the world body. An American failure to follow this up with a practical demonstration of its will to realize the resolution’s “vision” will be misunderstood by the world. To many in the Arab world, the resolution will merely appear a PR exercise designed to mollify the Arabs while the US prepares for an attack on Iraq.
INDIA’s Supreme Court has taken a bold and welcome step in giving an interim judgment barring any group from performing prayers or any religious activity, even as a symbolic gesture, at Ayodhya. The verdict by a three-member bench of the court is a serious setback to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which has been spearheading a campaign to build a temple at the disputed site. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee rightly told the Lok Sabha on Thursday that his government would implement the order. However, it needs to be pointed out that it was his attorney general who argued before the court that the petition be allowed. In fact, according to The Hindu, Mr Vajpayee told a group of newsmen right after the verdict that “the status quo” at Ayodhya would “not have been disturbed by a symbolic puja”. One hopes that the prime minister said this more to appease the extremists in his camp and not out of personal conviction.
The Supreme Court decision needs to be backed up not by mere good intentions but effective implementation. This aspect should be of serious concern for all law-abiding Indians, especially the Muslim minority community, which got a raw deal in Gujarat, where the security forces failed to provide them adequate protection. One hopes Mr Vajpayee’s government will stand firm over this issue and not bow down to the proponents of Hindutva. His leadership is to be tested soon, as early as perhaps today, since March 15 is the date set by the VHP for carrying out the ‘symbolic’ prayers. Another component of the ruling coalition, the Shiv Sena, has already held protest rallies, burning effigies of the judges and saying that this issue was beyond the jurisdiction of any court. The Supreme Court verdict is not final by any means. The matter as to who owns the disputed site at Ayodhya is to be decided by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. One hopes that the final judgment, too, will be as fair as the interim order.
THE damage caused to one of Lahore’s exquisite archaeological treasures, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s marble pavilion at Hazoori Bagh, during an antique car rally on Wednesday shows our apathy towards our cultural heritage. The wall panels and ceiling of the building, a protected site, was pierced by steel nails to hang banners, streamers and floral decoration. Pieces of white marble broken in the process were recovered later. The responsibility for the vandalization should be borne by the rally’s sponsors, which included the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab. It neither sought official permission for using the monument nor did it exercise any restraint on the organizers and contractors. The latter apparently felt free to do what they liked, driving nails into the Sikh period structure and littering it with waste. The TDCP has blandly admitted impropriety over its failure to seek prior permission, which was small consolation for the damage resulting from its irresponsible conduct.
Making use of a monument for some commercial or cultural purpose is probably considered a routine matter, hardly warranting any formal permission from the relevant authorities. There are countless instances of cultural and social events organized at historical sites without compunction, causing almost irreversible damage to the relics involved. There have been reports indicating damage to the Lahore Fort’s Shish Mahal and Shalimar Gardens during functions sponsored by government departments and private parties. The tone for this kind of reckless and irresponsible conduct had obviously been set by the government, because it has not done enough to discourage such behaviour, much less protect the monuments by standing firm against recurrent demands for their use. Already, for lack of resources and maintenance, many rare archaeological sites are crumbling. If indiscriminate use of these sites for cultural and commercial programmes is allowed, the results in terms of decline can be well imagined. It is time the government put a stop to this practice and took action against those found vandalizing our heritage.