A new strategy on Kashmir is needed

AS the country experiences another round of high tension on the Indo-Pakistan border, the question that comes to almost everyone’s mind is: Is India really going to strike this time or is New Delhi merely war-posturing again in another attempt to arm-twist Islamabad on the Kashmir issue?

The last time that bilateral tension reached this pitched level was hardly six months ago in December 2001 when, in response to the attack on the Indian parliament, New Delhi recalled its High Commissioner in Islamabad and mobilized its troops on the border.

This time, in response to an attack on an Indian army camp in occupied Kashmir on May 14 and another on May 19, New Delhi sent the Pakistani High Commissioner in India home (May 18), announced increased mobilization in occupied Kashmir (May 19) and the deployment of five missile-carrying warships into the Arabian Sea (May 22), and warned that the time had come for a “decisive fight” (Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee on May 22).

This time also, the threat of a military strike was buttressed by the Indian threat on May 23 to turn off the taps by abrogating the 42-year-old Indus Water Treaty, which would leave Pakistan, in the words of the Indian water resources minister who made the threat, at the mercy of India for “every drop of water”.

However, several developments have lent weight to the argument that New Delhi is merely war-posturing again and is unlikely to strike militarily. First, Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee backed down the very next day from his remarks about a “decisive fight” with the comment on May 23 that the sky was clear of war clouds, although he qualified by adding that lightning could strike any time even on a clear sky.

The next day on May 24 Prime Minister Vajpayee went on a three-day holiday to a Himalayan hill resort, and an Indian newspaper reported on the same day that the Indian government had given Pakistan another two months to crack down on the extremists before considering military action.

Then the fact that the Americans did not find it necessary or urgent enough to bring forward the visit to South Asia by its deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, to help cool the tension and, instead, continued to stick to the earlier schedule of him arriving in the region on June 4 was seen as another indicator that India was not about to launch a military strike.

But for how long does Pakistan have to read into such nuances looking for reassurances that a military strike from India is not imminent? The fact remains that Pakistan’s military has to be on its toes on the border as long as the large Indian troop deployment is not scaled down to the level before December 2001. It will have to remain on guard until the next attack in occupied Kashmir or India provokes another round of militant response from New Delhi raising the spectre of war in the region all over again.

For how long can Pakistan afford to continue to remain on high military alert in this manner waiting for the next terrorist attack to take place in India to see whether the Indians are going to launch a military strike or turn off the taps? Is this not part of the Indian strategy to wear Pakistan down economically? Regardless of the fact that India may only be posturing and that it really does not want a full-scale war, still Pakistan has had to divert already stretched resources towards meeting this constant threat of war from India, and it is also costing Pakistan the loss of whatever foreign investment and trade forthcoming. Many civilians have also died and property lost because of small-scale cross-border firing since May 16.

What strategy or policy choices does Pakistan have now that its previous Kashmir strategy has clearly backfired because of Sept 11 and its aftermath? Not much it seems, given the fact that the US and the world are not inclined to pressure India enough to solve the Kashmir problem according to the appropriate UN resolutions. Not even after what Islamabad has done and is still doing to cooperate with the US against international terrorism.

Does this mean that Pakistan is only left with a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, that is, either accept New Delhi’s demands on the Kashmir issue, or launch a military strike on India giving it such a trouncing that it would not dare to threaten Pakistan with war or with turning off its taps again?

In the former choice, Pakistan will not only need to do much more to convince India that it has nothing to do with the Kashmir militants but probably also support New Delhi’s desire for all Kashmiri movements to participate in elections in occupied Kashmir. The latter choice, striking at India militarily, is obviously a very high risk, one that could well end up with the nuclear annihilation of the two countries.

The manner in which India is cornering Pakistan seems to be leaving it more and more with no other option but eventually to take the chance with the latter choice. After all, it boils down to this country’s basic survival. For whether Islamabad bows down to the Indians on the Kashmir issue and give up occupied Kashmir, or New Delhi abrogates the Indus Water Treaty, the repercussions will be the same: Islamabad will be at the mercy of India for every drop of water; unless it is able to find alternative sources of water supply.

Pakistan cannot afford to be complacent in the belief that India is merely using the Indus Water Treaty as a threat to pressure it and that India would not actually abrogate the treaty because of international obligation or pressure. World Bank or no World Bank, history has shown that India can take such unilateral actions and no sky is going to fall on it. The only credible deterrent to India abrogating the Indus Water Treaty would be the real threat of a military strike from Pakistan.

If neither of the above two extreme strategies seem viable options, and neither can Pakistan afford to remain constantly on military alert as it has been doing for the past half a year, then Islamabad clearly needs to come up with a new strategy on Kashmir. This has to be a strategy that will not only take off the Indian military pressure on Pakistan but also take off the Indian-cum-international pressure on Pakistan to deliver more on the extremists issue.

The current Islamabad policy of reacting to every Indian demand on the Kashmir issue and every military move by New Delhi on the border has put Pakistan in a very weak bargaining position. Islamabad needs to evolve a strategy that would put it in the position of controlling the situation on the Kashmir issue and taking the initiative. It must be a strategy that would give Pakistan an edge over India by diverting international pressure on New Delhi to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Whatever the strategy may be, part of it must necessarily include making the US and the West, and India, realize that Pakistan’s very survival is linked with the Kashmir issue, and that it will do everything to ensure that survival. Thus it remains to be seen whether the four-day missile test-firing (May 25-28), which coincides with the 4th anniversary of Pakistan’s nuclear test blasts on May 28, 1998, will convince New Delhi and the West that Pakistan means business.

Meanwhile, every international move to help de-escalate the tension between the two countries should be welcomed, not least the Russian president’s invitation to both New Delhi and Islamabad to a meeting in Kazakhstan from June 3-5, and the visits to the region in the coming two weeks by the British foreign secretary and the American deputy secretary of state. India should be unequivocally asked not only to withdraw its troops from the border but stop threatening Pakistan every time a terrorist attack takes place in India. How serious these international efforts are about resolving the Kashmir dispute can be gauged from whether they go beyond finding mere cosmetic measures to cool down tension in the region.

Wars seen from a grocer’s perspective make sense, and profit too

IN Harper Lee’s acclaimed classic To Kill A Mocking Bird that so vividly depicts racial prejudice which thrived atop an incorrigible systemic bias against African Americans in Alabama a few short decades ago, a mysterious pale white man called Boo Radly makes one or two suspenseful appearances.

Only towards the end of the book is he revealed as a shy, compassionate fellow human who loves children of all colour and manner even if he is himself feared and reviled, pretty much pointlessly, as an ogre by the children he would love to befriend.

That’s what lack of communication does. We create ogres out of Boo Radlys. We slot Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Christians, increasingly so these days, without knowing the first thing about our purported quarry.

Last week, flying from New York to San Francisco, I was seated next to a young American woman who introduced herself as a law student from Washington.

She went on to reveal that she was working on a project with senior faculty members to file a lawsuit against the United States government for violating the civil liberties of the original inhabitants of Diego Garcia, her country’s military base leased from Britain in the Indian Ocean.

If she succeeds she could unwittingly help fulfil a promise made by the once alive Non-aligned Movement in 1983, an objective endorsed at the New Delhi NAM summit, among others, by Muslim countries such as Iran and Iraq, which all demanded that the US should vacate the Diego Garcia bases.

With today’s complete political subjugation of the Subcontinent by Washington, the Indian Ocean issue is more or less dead, particularly so as far as the pliant BJP government is concerned.

But that didn’t seem to be a factor in the scheme of things for the would-be lawyer from Washington. To add to the irony, she turned out to be Jewish. That was the beauty of it all. A Jew speaking the language of Iran and Iraq! Not to uphold their bigotry but to uphold what is right.

Yes, these things happen all the time, even if most of us do not care to notice them. Daniel Pearl, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx are or were all ethnic if not practising Jews. And yet not one of them could be truthfully described as sectarian or myopic in their perceptions of other peoples’ religions or human rights.

Have more. In a small apartment in downtown San Francisco a group of Hindu boys and girls (actually they were all young professionals mostly linked with the Silicon Valley business) were meeting to discuss ways last week in which they could reach out to the local Muslim communities from Pakistan and Palestine.

Some of these people were fairly religious Hindus, but their main concern was fostering a secular alliance with Muslims. Their discussions straddled rightwing upsurge in Gujarat, Israeli atrocities in Palestine and human rights for the thousands of detainees languishing in American prisons amid terrorism-linked suspicions.

This group’s urgent focus was on the war drums in South Asia as its members proposed strategies to link up with several other similar groups across the United States who are all seeking to challenge the predominantly rightwing Hindutva that appears to have taken root among fellow Indians in their adopted country.

Similarly, I met Muslim groups committed to fighting terrorism and religious bigotry without compromising on their fundamental right to preach and practice their religion freely. They were seeking alliances with members of other religious and ethnic minorities to fend off a narrow-minded rightwing and predominantly white Christian assault on these communities in the aftermath of Sept 11.

The most remarkable theme of most of these meetings was their acute mistrust and morbid fear of the drumbeats of war against terrorism. In this respect they appeared to share the growing cynicism and worry even within the US Congress over the actual pursuits and limits of the war in Afghanistan.

Lateral thinking was in evidence as questions were asked that usually do not figure in the normal media discourse with regard to the militarist developments, not only in South Asia and the Middle East, but with the focus on the American war on terrorism generally.

Some of the questions that were raised harked back to recent history. We were asked to recall, just to quote one such example, that wars are often imposed as a means to shift the spotlight from domestic embarrassments.

Other similar but somewhat varying opinions came through in the discussions. Most countries, it was argued, couldn’t be fighting wars 365 days a year. So you could indulge in brief bouts of sham peace-making, again not for the sake of peace, but to keep your domestic constituency guessing and engaged.

Wars or threat of wars could be a ruse to stockpiling of arms. In the case of industrialized countries like the United States this syndrome serves to fuel a domestic industry that helps shoulder an economic agenda.

In the Third World it runs up huge bills as India’s major slice of a huge foreign debt would indicate. Countries often fight wars to protect their economic interests too. There could be other ridiculous reasons to go to war, like the soccer match dispute became the cause of the Honduras war.

Sometimes the foreign policy objective can be even more trivial. Thus we are reminded about a scandal involving the top echelons of the Indian leadership with regard to some shady sugar deal with Pakistan around the time when Prime Minister Vajpayee had gone to Lahore.

The prime minister who is willing to risk a nuclear war if that is what it takes to root out terrorism had gone out of his way to ignore an outrageous terrorist (keep that word in mind) massacre of 16 Hindus in Kashmir to persist with his bus ride to Lahore, where he crooned his familiar lines Hum Jung Na Honey Dengey — we’ll never let a war happen again.

Remember more recently what President Musharraf had said, perhaps earlier this month, something about a loss-making sugar transaction with India that was carried out during Nawaz Sharif’s tenure.

How come there was no follow-up in the media about the alleged deal Gen Musharraf was referring to, neither in India nor in Pakistan? Was there an influential Indian lobby locked in the so-called shady sugar deal with Nawaz Sharif that was spoilt by the coup by Musharraf?

Of course a small sugar deal wasn’t the only scandal to have tainted India’s ruling establishment recently. Mr Vajpayee’s own rightwing detractors were involved in putting him on the mat on other alleged deals involving his near and dear ones which we shall leave for others to recall.

Similarly, George Fernandes and his friend Jaya Jaitley were caught in the vortex of a defence procurement scandal along with the head of Mr Vajpayee’s party in which several other politicians and senior military officers were also named.

No surprises therefore that Fernandes and Jaitley are the loudest votaries of a war with Pakistan today.

This is not to say that the scourge of terrorism in India is imaginary or exaggerated, not at all. But cross-border militants have been operating in Jammu and Kashmir for years, at least since 1990. And they were doing so also during Nawaz Sharif’s era. And yet Prime Minister Vajpayee went to Lahore, ignoring the major massacre on the eve of his visit.

At that time it was argued by both sides that these killings were the handiwork of elements inimical to peace between India and Pakistan.

Yet the same logic does not seem to apply to the cowardly attacks on Indian parliament or in Srinagar or the daily massacre of innocents in Kashmir still being carried out brazenly by religiously-driven fanatics. This when there is all the more reason today to believe that a war between India and Pakistan would only help a rightwing Islamic consolidation in Pakistan and of assorted obscurantist Muslim groups within India.

Or is it more likely that the logic of Lahore does not apply here because a war at this stage and time would clearly benefit India’s rightwing ruling Hindu groups, a possibility politicians including Sonia Gandhi have warned us about?

No wonder then that in one of the discussions I had with a group in San Francisco it was clearly stressed that the “class character” of the Hindu and Muslim zealots is by and large the same — i.e. they both derive their strength and support from lobbies led by grocers and baniyas.

Another war being fought with the stated agenda of uprooting terrorism, but which has shown increasing signs of grocer-minded profiteering, is the American-led military campaign in Afghanistan.

Increasingly these days that war is being perceived too as benefiting primarily the baniya interests of the Bush-Cheney administration.

“The Sept 11 terrorist attacks have provided a qualitatively new opportunity for the US, acting especially on behalf of giant oil companies, to permanently entrench its military in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, where there are vast petroleum reserves — the second-largest in the world,” said Karen Talbot, a thinker from the American Left.

“This also positions US armed might on the western doorstep of China, posing an unprecedented threat to South Asia and the entire world.

“If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war in Afghanistan, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipelines to the Indian Ocean,” says Uri Averny, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, writing in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv.

Now who would have thought that a former Israeli Knesset member, a Jew, would flag the hidden agenda of the war in Afghanistan.

A good example of why we mustn’t lean on our prejudices for answers to all the problems all the time. It would be more prudent to draw a conclusion if the question is posed correctly — like the one being asked around by a few groups of Indians and Pakistanis and increasingly so by US Congressmen. Who is making the profits out of these wars? The list could be imposing and the buck doesn’t seem to be stopping anywhere, not even at the White House or the Indian prime minister’s office.

Say no to charged parking

If the city government and the Clifton Cantonment Board had their way motorists probably would be charged for parking even on footpaths. After all, how else do you explain the fact that charged parking has sprung up practically everywhere. The other day I had to go to get some cassettes from the row of shops behind Clifton Centre. I must have parked my car a good hundred metres from the shopping area, at around eleven at night.

This stretch of road — the service lane that runs along one side of the main Clifton road, from Schon Circle all the way to Boating Basin — is littered with dozens of potholes and small craters. In fact, you arejust about to switch to second gear and you have to slow down because of all the bumps and craters. Now, as soon I got out of my car this man came and asked for ten rupees in parking fee. The car had been parked not in front of any building but quite far away, opposite an apartment building opposite it. Besides, there was no sign anywhere to suggest that motorists had to pay to park their cars, or that they had to pay on Sundays.

The point here is, which I hope readers will understand, that this isn’t about money at all. It’s about having to pay everywhere you go to park your car — which is fair enough since parking space is a scarce commodity — but never getting anything in return from the authorities in terms of better roads and security for the vehicle.

People might say, well it’s the law and that we all have to pay these charges because the contractors are authorized by the city government, or some municipal land-owning agency, to collect parking fees. My response to that would be yes, it is the law and we must do our bit. Having said that, shouldn’t the government also fulfil its side of the deal? This would mean us not having to travel on roads that not only slow us down but also cause a lot of damage to our vehicles. Surely, civic and government responsibility go hand in hand. A good example of this not happening is Seaview. Right after the Village restaurant is a stretch of land that the DHA reclaimed some time back. It juts several hundred metres into the sea, well beyond the shoreline of the rest of Seaview. And, because of that closer proximity to the sea, it has become quite a favourite with people who want to get as close to the water as possible. The location is such a crowd-puller that even on weekdays you can see hundreds of cars and motorcycles making their way along the dirt track that leads to the edge of this reclaimed land.

Now, what has recently happened is that all of a sudden and without any prior notice, the Clifton Cantonment Board has started charging ten rupees as parking fee for motorists wishing to go to this site. But, what is the CCB charging ten rupees for since there isn’t even a metalled road for people to drive on? As usual, it has gone ahead and implemented a decision that has been taken without taking into consideration the opinions of those who would be affected by it — or at least the residents of Defence and Clifton. And that is precisely why people must vigourously question the rationale of introducing charged parking practically everywhere.

A colleague at work is quite convinced that most people, even the more educated, have absolutely no sense of politeness or propriety.

“You hold doors for people, to let them pass, and they don’t even have the decency to say thank you. Didn’t anyone teach them manners?” he asks.

Another colleague once described the time in his apartment building when he made the lift wait for a man who was coming from the car park some distance away. He says that the man could see that people were waiting in the lift just for him but he made no effort to walk faster. In fact, to make matters worse, when he stepped inside, he did not even have the politeness to say a little thank you.

Quite understandably, the colleague was quite angered by this lack of decency in the man and says that he felt like saying something rude to him.

In fact, that’s what people who do such things — i.e., hold doors for others — should do when they find that the person they are doing a favour does not even acknowledge what has been done. The best thing to do with such people is to then tell these people something like “Well, at the very least you could have said thank you, jee!”.

Many born and bred in Karachi believe, and probably with good reason, that the city has this amazing tenacity and will to bounce back from all kinds of adverse circumstances and situations imposed on it.

A good example of this recently is the way in which both the Sheraton and Pearl Continental Hotels seem to have bounced back after the May 8 attack that took place metres from them. In fact — and it might seem a little bit surreal — a week or so after the attack I received an email from the Sheraton advertising a summer camp for children during the coming summer vacations. A week or so later I read that the hotel had an art exhibition and that several other culture-related events were planned for the summer.

A couple of friends from out of town came and stayed at the PC and said that except for increased security things seemed as usual. “Of course, they didn’t have that many guests staying at that time but what would you expect,” one of them said.

Apparently, foreign guests have police guards escorting them all over the hotel. I happened to go to the Avari the other day and while waiting for a friend in the lobby saw a couple of armed policemen escort a group of foreigners around the lobby. It seemed a bit funny actually, though probably not for the visitors who clearly looked uncomfortable with an armed cop walking around them all the time. In fact, a little while later, I saw one of the cops come up the stairs into the main lobby from the lower level, rush to his colleague and frantically ask him where the foreigners, whom they were supposed to guard, went.

The decision by the British government to recall its non-essential diplomatic staff from Pakistan and suspend issuing tourist visas could not have come at a worse time, especially for many aunties.

Summer school vacations were just around the corner when Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced this dramatic policy move, presumably causing much embarrassment to Islamabad. This was followed by the French government which has also decided to do exactly the same though the status of visa operations — whether it will close altogether or work on a reduced scale — is still unclear. And it’s also quite possible the European Union too might end up doing the same which means that Schenegen visas might be difficult to get.

Apparently, the reason for this has been that British and French interests — for their role in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda — have been threatened of late in Pakistan, and a sign of that was the attack earlier this month on the bus carrying the French defence technicians.

Well, in any case, those most affected by this seem to be all the people who make it a point to go to London or to other parts of Europe every year. Of course, you must be very lucky if you planned ahead and got the visa well before this time. But many people, as I found out at a recent dinner hadn’t. And they were understandably quite upset, especially the aunties, because their regular jaunts to Harrods and related attractions along Oxford Street and other parts of Central London were in serious jeopardy.

Well, perhaps this way they can be forced to go to the Northern Areas, some of which isn’t all that bad considering it has some of the best trekking and mountaineering opportunities to be found anywhere. But then again, how many aunties would be into trekking and hiking?

— By Karachian