Stoking nuclear fires

AS the United States mulls evacuation of some 60,000 Americans stationed or living in India and Pakistan, it takes no rocket scientist to determine that India and Pakistan are on the threshold of a third war over the disputed Kashmir territory.

One of the biggest fears which is prompting the international community to weigh such extreme measures is the possibility of a nuclear conflagration in the region which could kill up to 12 million people in the first strike.

The international community, from US President George Bush to the European Union leaders, has expressed alarm at the rising tensions which they believe could ignite a nuclear confrontation.

On Wednesday at a press conference in New York, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, when pressed by the Western correspondents to rule out the first nuclear strike option, said Pakistan had never subscribed to a doctrine of “no first use” of nuclear arms against its South Asian neighbour.

Akram said what the whole world has all along feared since India and Pakistan exploded the nuclear devices in May 1998, both countries could use nuclear weapons if their very survival was at stake. But in Pakistan’s case, as India’s Defence Minister George Fernandes said, “it would be suicide.”

While few expect India and Pakistan to use their nuclear weapons against each other, the possibility of a bloody conventional war between two key allies in the US “war on terrorism” is shaking the international community. Indeed, some analysts say India is stealing a page from Israel’s game plan to initiate their own “war on terrorists.” Others see a classic brinkmanship strategy that India, in particular, is using to invite external pressure on its enemy. In which case Pakistan’s military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf is being likened to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and India’s Vajpayee to Israel’s Sharon. But the comparison ends there.

India, which is raising a hue and a cry about Pakistan’s nuclear options, should remember that the responsibility of letting the nuclear genie out rests squarely on its shoulders. In fact, every time the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party fears that it would lose power in the elections, be they national or provincial, it uncorks the war genie and comes out with a war plan to call Indian to arms. In doing so it won the 1998 elections and now when it felt the international pressure mounting with the Gujarat massacre and the eroding support within its electorate, it has upped the ante.

A report in Christian Science Monitor on Thursday said Indian military sources say India has secretly told the US and Britain that it will wait two weeks to see if international diplomatic pressure halts infiltration of Islamic militants into Indian territory. “This could be easily verified by monitoring [radio and telephone] intercepts,” says Maj-Gen Ashok Mehta, an Indian military analyst. If infiltration does not significantly drop, a senior army official says India plans a 10-day assault in Kashmir. “It will be like Kargil [the 1999 war between India and Pakistan],” says Mr Mehta. “The military action will be predominantly infantry-led and intensively supported by the air force.”

The short Indian military operation is designed to capture territory and destroy the infrastructure of Islamic militants quickly. The battlefield scenario, says a senior Indian military official, is premised on the calculation that it will operate under the nuclear threshold and that the international community will step in to prevent the conflict from escalating.

Within the first 48 hours, India is expected to attack the Neelum Valley Road across the Kupwara sector in Indian-held Kashmir, says an Indian air force officer involved in the planning. The Indian air force will try to destroy an important bridge over the Jhelum River which connects Pakistan with Azad Kashmir. But “Indian action will attract heavy Pakistani punishment,” says Mr Mehta.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has given vitriolic speeches decrying Pakistani “cross-border terrorism” and calling on Indian soldiers to “prepare for sacrifices” in a “decisive fight.” Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has responded by donning his general’s uniform, testing short- and long-range ballistic missiles this past week, and vowing that any Indian attack would be met with a swift response.

The New York Times, which usually is tough on Pakistan’s military regime, said in an editorial: “Last week Mr Vajpayee sounded as if a nuclear confrontation were acceptable when he spoke of winning a ‘decisive battle’ over Kashmir.”

Underscoring that “the focal point of the India-Pakistan conflict is the future status of Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-dominated state, where a guerilla insurgency has periodically flared since the late 1980s,” the Times said: “India is right to demand that Cashmere’s future be determined peacefully, not by cross-border military actions from Pakistan.

“Pakistan is right to demand that India stop using force to crush legitimate demands for self-determination in the state. Intractable though the conflict may seem, it has to be settled by negotiation, not war. There is simply no alternative. Mr Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf must acknowledge as much.”

While the international community is exhorting India to accept a mediating third party — be it the US, the UK, or the UN — India says the 1972 Simla agreement is binding on the two countries and stipulates dialogue.

Former US president Bill Clinton tried his best to persuade India to accept US mediation as did UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, but India has rejected any third-party mediation efforts. The Bush administration, faced with a similar predicament, did not offer any mediation. The reason is simple: on the face of it, India, under any international law, treaty or agreement, has no ground to stand on when it comes to the UN resolution which it agreed to, and which calls for a plebiscite in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

But at this point and time India is not even willing to sit down and talk to Pakistan.

India in essence is saying: “It’s our way or the highway,” to paraphrase an American jargon.

So we stand at the edge of the precipice. “Waiting for Godot.”

KASHMIR COMMITTEE: At a time when the whole world is holding its breath, hoping that India and Pakistan don’t go to war, Sardar Abdul Qayyum, former prime minister of Azad Kashmir; Mushahid Hussain, former information minister in Nawaz Sharif’s regime; Shireen Mazari, an analyst; and former minister P. K. Shahni are in Monterey (California) to discuss the Kargil crisis of 1999 under auspices of an American think-tank.

Apparently, the Kashmir Committee, set up by the government, has a lot of money to burn. For one thing the members of the committee travel in business class and stay at first class hotels, which is a tidy sum in itself. But besides attending the conference, the committee members plan to spend two extra weeks in Washington and New York to meet American politicians and journalists.

At a time when the preoccupation of the Bush administration is to avoid a war between the two nuclear states by sending its Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the region next week, no one in Washington would be helpful in giving an ear to the Kashmir Committee.

However, it is learnt that the three members of the committee, namely Sardar Qayyum, Mushahid Hussain and P. K. Shahni, insist on visiting Washington and have asked the Pakistan embassy to arrange meetings with US lawmakers on the Capitol Hill.

The Pakistan embassy in Washington, which is working overtime in the face of new challenges would be hard pressed to arrange meetings with the Kashmir Committee. The committee apparently has a mission of its own which is to use the money given it in any manner which it deems right.

Munir Niazi and amnesia

STRANGE though it may sound — it has happened in Lahore. A medical function has been given a literary touch.

AmnAsia is a media organization working to promote informative and knowledge-based culture for human development. The other day it arranged a lecture in the Lahore Press Club on Alzheimer’s Dementia by an eminent psychiatrist, Dr Nusrat Habib Rana. She explained that it was a degenerative brain syndrome characterized by progressive decline in memory, thinking, comprehension, and the judgment capacity of a man. However, she clarified that it would be wrong to think that loss of memory was a symptom of old age.

Organizers of the function, for reason known only to them, had invited Munir Niazi to be the chief guest on the occasion. Starting to speak, he swept the audience off its feet with his own interpretation of the syndrome. He accepted that there was nothing like loss of memory in old age. Giving an example, he said he had seen a girl in his youth but the glitter in her eyes was still fresh in his mind. The fact is, he added, that good poetry is prompted by such memories and remembrances. And then he went on to recite his popular poem, Hameisha deir kardeyta hun mein. I do not know what he wanted to prove by that.

Talking of Munir Niazi, I may as well add that he has to got over his scare of ill health and is again in his elements. He has been attending meetings arranged in his honour both in Lahore and Islamabad and has also charmed those in Karachi with his presence. But the best is that he continues to write poetry. Here are two of his latest verses:

Shabab-i-shab heh jaga dijiey kahin chaliey

Kahin pe rang jama dijiey kahin chaliey.

I DON’T think Iftikhar Nasim, now calling himself Ifti Nasim, needs any introduction. He is quite well known in literary circles for various reasons. Originally belonging to Faisalabad, he settled in the United States long ago and lives permanently in Chicago. He writes poetry in English, Urdu and Punjabi. I don’t happen to know him personally, yet he has sent me his latest collection of English verse entitled Myrmecophile (whatever that means), together with a personal note. In addition, he has spent a good three dollars on postage. I thank him for the kindness.

The blurb says that the book is “provocative, funny and inspiring. It will make you cry and laugh at the same time.” But, to be honest, the book made me neither laugh nor cry. It just disgusted me.

I did make bold to go over some of its pages but when I found him talking of the ‘warmth of body’ and glorifying the male anatomy, I threw the book away in revulsion. You will understand me better when I tell you that this character, the poet, was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 1996. What a fantastic honour. But what surprises me most is that all Pakistanis visiting the United Stated come back with bagful of praise for this man. That is, in case he can be called one.

PS: I must apologise for the furore I inadvertently caused in the literary circles of Lahore last week by writing something in my piece which turned out to be wrong.

I had completed typing my column last week when Dr Agha Suhail rang up to tell me that Asrar Zaidi had passed away three days earlier. He was particularly sore that not a line had appeared about him in any of the newspapers.

Asrar Zaidi was born in November, 1924 and, as such, is exactly my age, and the news did not come to me as a shock although I did feel outplayed. However, I made haste to add two lines about it as a postscript to my column.

Now when I was flooded with protest calls last Saturday, I range up Agha Suhail to find out the source of his informations. He mentioned the name of Syed Wahidul Hasan Hashmi. I straightaway contacted him. He said that he had got the news from one of Asrar Zaidi’s cousins who lived close to his house. However, he would re-confirm and let me know. And it was the cousin who turned out to be the one to blame. He meekly said that hearing about a death in the family he thought that it was Asrar Zaidi as he had been ill for some time.

What more can I say in the matter? All that I can do is to offer my profound regrets to Asrar Zaidi and all his well-wishers. — Ashfaque Naqvi

The Zionist lobby

PEOPLE often tend to throw around the phrase “Zionist lobby” at will. The other day, during a dinner meeting with a much older, and rather distinguished person, the topic of the conversation drifted to the current Pakistan-India tension. The gentleman began comparing Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, quite a popular comparison these days. A further digression took place and the man began talking about how powerful the “Zionist lobby” was in America.

Now, this is something that one gets to hear day in and out at current affairs shows on PTV — not exactly a fountainhead of good sense themselves. The problem with using this phrase is that it’s too general and vague, and lends itself to easy misuse. Because of the Palestinian conflict Israel does not enjoy much sympathy in Pakistan but to say that everything happens because of the power of the “Zionist lobby” is to sound a bit too simplistic. This is quite similar to a popular rumour floated soon after the attacks on the World Trade Center when, via e-mail a conspiracy theory quickly gained credence that on the day of the tragedy around 400 Israelis working in the building did not show up.

Use of such a phrase can sometimes be quite misleading. An example is the much-publicized, albeit small, presence of so-called ‘refuseniks’ in the Israeli army (conveniently called the Israeli Defence Force) who have refused to serve in Palestinian areas.

What exactly is this entity: the Zionist lobby? Michael Massing, writing on the website of the US-based media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in his article, The Israel Lobby, puts matters in contest. He starts with a resolution passed by the US Congress in the beginning of May, at the height of the stand-off between the Israeli army and the Palestinians in Bethlehem and the frequent raids into Palestinian territories. The US Senate passed the unashamedly pro-Israeli resolution by a vote of 94 for and 2 against while the House of Represe-ntatives passed it 352 to 21. “The resolutions were so strong that the Bush Administration — hardly a slouch when it come to supporting Israel — attempted to soften its language so as to have more room in getting peace talks going. But its pleas were rejected, and members of Congress from Joe Lieberman to Tom DeLay competed to heap praise on Ariel Sharon and disdain on Yasser Arafat,” Mr Massing writes.

He says that in writing about the vote, the venerable New York Times noted that one of the few dissenters Senator Earnest Hollings of South Carolina “suggested that many senators were after campaign contributions” implying that they had left their goods sense and judgment behind in search of dollars. However, the fact that the Times made no other mention of the role played by various recognized lobbies on Capitol Hill was a “remarkable oversight” according to Mr Massing.

More specifically, he noted, the Times made no mention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the richest such lobby in America.

“AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It also maintains a network of wealthy and influential citizens around the country, whom its can regularly mobilize to support its main goal, which is making sure there is ‘no daylight’ between the policies of Israel and of the United States,” the article says.

A close follower of the US media, Mr Massing says that during the run-up to this important vote he found “next to nothing” in the American mainstream press or on the news networks about AIPAC and its influence.

Only one paper, The Washington Post, reported anything of consequence but that, too, was by way of a report on an event hosted by the AIPAC. Its correspondent, Mike Allen, reported that those who attended AIPAC’s annual conference included “half the Senate, ninety members of the House and thirteen senior Administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who drew a standing ovation when he declared in Hebrew, “The people of Israel live.”

Mr Massing further wrote: “AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel organization to escape scrutiny. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, though little known to the general public, has tremendous influence in Washington, especially with the executive branch. Based in New York, the conference is supposed to give voice to the 52 Jewish organizations that sit on its board. In reality it tends to reflect the views of its executive vice-chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein. Hoenlein has long had close ties to Israel’s Likud Party. In the 1990s he helped raise money for settlers’ groups on the West Bank. Today he regularly refers to that region as “Judea and Samaria.” A skilled and articulate operative, Hoenlein uses his access to the State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council to push for a strong Israel.”

The point here is not to condemn a group of people for pushing their viewpoint and lobbying for their opinions to be heard by policy makers. The point, as Mr Massing quite eloquently puts forward, is that mainstream US media does next to no reporting on the players behind organizations like the AIPAC. Given the influence it clearly seems to have over the foreign policy of the country, it would be only reasonable and logical to expect American journalists to do stories on these organizations. They don’t. — OMAR R. QURAISHI

Bonded labour — a perspective

A RESOLUTION adopted by a peasant and labour convention, held at Khipro on Monday, has demanded abolition of ‘bonded labour’ in Sindh, and implementation of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act. It has also called for extending interest-free loans to peasants and a mode by which payment to the labourers is ensured.

The demands come a long time after the reports from the interior of Sindh about how social workers and HR activists had helped to ‘detect camps of bonded peasants’. Some such reports and photographs had showed the peasants and their families as being escorted by the activists but, incidentally or deliberately, no follow-up reports have so far come on record. Nobody knows what happened to those ‘liberated’ bonded labour and farm workers. Or even nobody knows what action was taken against those who held them ‘captive’.

Much has been publicized about bonded labour in Pakistan, mentioning the case of children working in carpet industry, brick kilns and those peasant families on the farms of various landlords, claiming that they are being forced to work on lands without being paid. Some activists have even claimed that they were being chained during the night time. Such reports in the press and HR watchdogs drew some restrictions from developed countries affecting our exports.

Bonded labour is a phenomenon, specially mentioned in the farm sector of Sindh. In fact, it has been misinterpreted, ignoring its historical perspective and socio-economic aspect of Sindh which is directly linked to economic conditions, social environment and tribal customs. The agricultural economy of Sindh is essentially based on large landholdings, a small portion is owned and managed by middle-class and small landowners.

This economic system has its own peculiarities. While the large landholders have their permanent peasants — completely dependent on their landowners — the middle-class and small landowners cannot follow that practice in its entirety. Normally they employ a few peasant families permanently and hire others for various tasks at various stages of the crops — from sowing to reaping and marketing. Whether permanent peasants or those working for specialized tasks, do not work single-handedly, but all his family members including women and children too work. The work division by the family head makes the task easier to accomplish.

Over the period the farmers have developed certain classes according to the nature of their work, mainly the permanent peasants and piece-work peasants. For instance, ploughing and raising of crops, including irrigation (water management), are done by the permanent peasants. Cleansing is done on contract. When the crop is ready, reaping is carried out by a special type of farmers called Lahiyara (reapers). In the case of rice crop, these reapers also undertake threshing and once the job is over, they move to another contract place.

Similarly, cleansing of watercourses is undertaken by another group of peasants known as Khatriya (excavators). The Kolhis of Tharparkar are noted for their skill in such work. If the quantity of the produce is big, the transportation of the produce is conducted by another group called Hamals. And, of course, everything is supervised by the landlord’s confidant — Munshi or Kamdar.

In this setup, normally, various peasants are called to perform certain tasks on a piece-work basis and leave on being paid after completion of their work. But those who are employed on a permanent basis do so on different conditions. Like other peasant groups, permanent a peasant also works with his whole family.

While the landlord is responsible for paying land revenue, water rates, road cess, seed, fertilizer, laapee and rasaaye (bribes to revenue staff and the police or any other official who visits the area), the peasant looks after production. On Batayee (distribution of the produce between the permanent peasant and landlord) the two parties take their shares, and accounts are settled.

The pattern of hiring a permanent peasant for work is like this: If a peasant is already employed with a landlord and wants to work with a new one, he has to clear all his liabilities with his present employer. For this he seeks loan from his prospective employer to pay off the present one. After the farmer joins his new employer, he needs more money (loans) for his livelihood and to meet his personal requirements. For this he seeks more loan from his new landlord. All this loan is deducted by the new landlord, according to the convenience of the two parties, at the time of batayee. Normally, it is settled for payment in instalments. A landlord does not create any hurdle if a permanent peasant wants to leave him, but there are occasions when things get stuck up. Since the process of litigation is complicated and lengthy, a row develops which ensues into lengthy disputes. A landlord does not need anything but work till the loan he has given to the peasant is adjusted, and when challenged, some ugly scenes develop.

Before Independence some Hindu landlords used to play tricks on the peasants and manipulate the figures to multiply the loan, with the result that once a peasant joined a cruel Hindu landlord it would be difficult for him to get out of his clutch because he would never be able to pay off his loan, according to the accounts book kept by the Muneeb of the landlord.

The practice has not changed significantly. The peasant needs short-term loans to carry on his living from one crop to another crop. To provide relief to the peasant from loan default, a number of attempts were made in the past but in the absence of a political will and an honest mechanism, nothing could be done to improve the lot of the peasant. Haider Bakhsh Jatoi and Masood Khadarposh did render valuable services but all remained unproductive, as the bureaucracy and landlords are always hands in glove. To resolve the financial issue of the peasant, a cooperative scheme was introduced in 1927 but after functioning well for some decades it finally collapsed when landlords and jagirdars swindled hundreds of millions of rupees, thus bringing end to a scheme that could have ameliorated the condition of the peasant.

The uproar about bonded labour is misplaced and those who insist on giving vent to it, do so without any regard to the understanding of the age-old system of lending money to the peasant. This system is based on a sense of co-existence between the landlord and the peasant. To comprehend its impact, it is necessary to study rural culture / custom and its effects.