Looking beyond Gujarat

THE Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s landslide victory in the Indian state of Gujarat is a grim reminder of the fact that the Indian Muslims are without much effective support from any of the political parties.

There is no indication that the plight of the minority Muslim community of the state, which has suffered terribly at the hands of the Hindutva zealots in the last ten months, has generated any measure of sympathy or support for it.

The December 12 election was held in a communally charged atmosphere. In the months following the burning down of two railway coaches at Godhra carrying Hindu pilgrims at the end of February, frenzied Hindu mobs went on a rampage of killing, arson, rape and plunder. About 2,000 Muslims lost their lives and thousands more were driven out of their homes. Investigation carried out by an independent commission headed by a former chief justice of India has established that the anti-Muslim riots were incited by the state government, with official agencies actively involved in the carnage.

To make matters worse, the attack on a Hindu temple in Gujarat’s Gandhinagar on September 25 by two armed terrorists, was blamed on Pakistan. India’s deputy prime minister Lal Kishan Advani, who rushed to the site of the incident, directly accused Pakistan even before any preliminary investigation had been held. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, who has never made a secret of his intense anti-Muslim prejudice, insisted that the terrorists were from outside the state implying Pakistan.

Within a week of the attack on the temple, Narendra Modi went on a tour of the state, spreading anti-Muslim venom and hatred and mouthing anti-Pakistan rhetoric. He blamed President Pervez Musharraf for conspiracy to assassinate him. Leaders of the fundamentalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad demanded a war “to break Pakistan into 40 pieces.”

During months of mayhem several ancient Muslim monuments were attacked and damaged or destroyed. These included the eighteenth century tomb of Vali Gujarati, the last resting place of the renowned exponent of classical music, Ustad Fayyaz Khan, and the mosque of Malik Asin in Ahmadabad, a protected monument situated in Ahmedabad. The situation drew international attention.

A despatch from its Washington correspondent carried by weekly Frontline (October 25) said that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) viewed the atrocities committed against the Muslims with concern and called upon the State Department to declare India as “a country of particular concern.” The report went on to say that the BJP-led government at the centre might not be directly responsible but it did nothing to stop the systematic killing of the Muslims.

The fact that the BJP has won 126 seats in a house of 182 in the state makes it patent that the electorate in Gujarat remained unresponsive to the appeals for sanity. As a comment in a Gulf daily put it, “the venom had been spewed (by the BJP government) and the battle lines were drawn... sharp and clear.” What could not but have come as a shock to the saner elements in Indian society generally and to Muslims and other religious minorities in particular, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee personally campaigned for the BJP while posing himself to be an apostle of communal peace and harmony. During electioneering he had no compunction about joining the communalist platform of Narendra Modi.

The fear is that the events in Gujarat may be the fore-runner of things to come in the rest of India. Although earlier there were indications that the BJP-led coalition in New Delhi may be losing its popular support, this may not quite be the case. A clearer picture of the trend of opinion will emerge next year when as many as 10 Indian states go to the polls.

Though estimated to be about 140 to 150 million in number, Muslims of India have been handicapped by the fact of their being scattered over different states. They have also never found effective leadership. Initially, they looked up to the Congress because of its secular creed. However, after the death of Pandit Nehru the policies of the Congress on communal issues became increasingly ambivalent.

Notable Muslim leaders, such as Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Dr Zakir Hussain and Imam Abdullah Bokhari of Delhi’s Badshahi Masjid, failed to secure for the Muslims their due share in the country’s political, economic and administrative spheres — not even the basic security and protection that are now increasingly threatened.

After the Babri Masjid outrage, when P.V. Narasimha Rao of the Congress was Prime Minister the Muslims became bitterly disillusioned with the Congress. They then sought a sense of security in political alliances with leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadhav and Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh. However, as a leading Indian Muslim intellectual, Dr Rafiq Zakaria, has pointed out, “there were no signs of a real union of the disadvantaged against the privileged and Cracks soon started appearing in the temporary, make-do alliance. “The rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan is also believed to be contributing to the spread of Hindu militancy in India. Even a staunch Indian nationalist like Dr Zakaria has acknowledged this saying that “the Hindu communalists are forging ahead.”

A rational approach to the solution of outstanding India-Pakistan disputes, particularly Kashmir, which are the main hurdle in the way of peace, stability and harmony in South Asia, may help defuse tension between the two countries and in the process, deny the extremist forces and war-mongers on both sides the oxygen of tension and bickering they need to pursue their aims of mutual hatred and animosity on both political and military fronts.

No nukes or missiles for Muslims

SO FAR, the Bush administration has not been having much luck finding a credible pretext to invade Iraq. But last week, administration hawks thought they finally found the smoking gun.

A mysterious, unflagged North Korea freighter that had been monitored by US intelligence since it left North Asian waters was seized off the Yemen coast by Spanish Navy frigates. Concealed beneath piles of cement, Spanish naval commandos and US military intelligence discovered 15 Scud missiles.

To White House’s chagrin, the missiles were consigned not to Iraq but to Yemen, a reluctant US ally. The Bush administration for once observed international law by admitting it had no right to seize the cargo, no matter how eager it was to shut down North Korea’s exports of missiles and associated technology to Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria — and, claims US and Israelis intelligence — to Pakistan. It is all right for nations like Britain, France, China, Russia, India, and Israel to have powerful missile forces and nuclear weapons, but not, according to Washington, for Muslim nations to acquire modern strategic weapons. Any that does, like Pakistan, will be severely punished.

Much has been made of the notorious Scuds. These Soviet 1960s technology missiles based on the World War II German V-2 missile were designed to carry a small, 100 kiloton nuclear warhead. In non-nuclear roles, the wildly inaccurate Scud is almost worthless and probably the most cost-ineffective weapon anywhere. Conventionally-armed Scuds differ little from hulking medieval siege engines called trebuchets that hurled boulders over city walls. But the Scuds make a lot of noise and are useful for scaring people.

North Korea is one of only a few nations still producing Scuds, mostly for export. The North still uses upgraded Scud-Cs and Ds, and now, a son of Scud, the 1,300km No-dong, which can reach Japan. Always desperate for cash, North Korea has two principal sources of hard currency aside from just terminated bribes from the US to be good: pachinko gambling in Japan run by North Korean gangsters, and missile exports.

Iraq and Iran produced modified Scuds during their eight-year war by reducing the 1,000 kg warhead to 250 kg and increasing fuel load, giving the missile a 650 km range. But the modified versions proved feeble, unstable and unreliable, often breaking up in flight. Iraq tinkered with a longer-range missile by strapping Scud-Bs around a larger missile core, but the project never matured and was demolished during the Gulf War. Today, Iraq is allowed tactical missiles with a maximum range of only 100 kms.

Iraq fired 39 modified Scud-Bs at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. The results were minimal: one elderly Israeli died of a heart attack and some minor property damage. Iraq’s range-extended Scuds would have been unable to carry a crude, heavy nuclear warhead even if Iraq had been able to develop one — which it was not able to do. However, armed with chemicals or germs, damage would have been more extensive, though hardly devastating.

While there is a huge outcry about weapons of mass destruction, it is important to understand their limitations. Miniaturizing nuclear warheads and making them able to withstand heavy ground forces and re-entry stress is well beyond the current capabilities of any Arab nation or Iran.

Delivering chemical weapons by missile has serious drawbacks. Blistering and choking agents like mustard gas, Lewisite, and hydrogen cyanide, must be released in large quantity to be effective, requiring bulky tanks and hoses. They depend on wind direction and humidity. World War I experience showed them to be less effective in killing troops wearing protective gear than massed heavy artillery.

Nerve gases are extremely deadly and persistent — insecticides for humans — but to be effective, they must be properly dispersed by aerosols and, again, depend on favourable meteorological conditions. In modern warfare, nerve and blistering agents would be best used to degrade operations at key airbases, supply depots, command headquarters and vehicle parks.

Germ weapons are extremely deadly and perhaps untraceable. But they are very tricky to store, transport, dispense and spread, and require high-tech aerosol dispersion. In the 1980s, the Soviets combined a 10-megaton city-buster warhead with an antibiotic resistant strain of modified anthrax and/or smallpox- a true doomsday terror weapon.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis, 2002

Foreign policy: setting new directions

THE emphasis on the continuity of the policies of the military government has now been reaffirmed by the newly elected civilian government. Any changes or any significant changes in major policy matters by the new government will not be forthcoming easily. Any realization of the need for a change by the Jamali government would still be subject to approval by President Musharraf, his pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding.

The strategic and ideological content of the new government being totally fuzzy, a fresh debate needs to take place about the new directions which our foreign policy requires. The big challenge before the new government would be to narrow the gap between the popular sentiment and current policy and make it more pragmatic. As the inevitable crises loom on the horizon, the need for new directions in our approach to Kashmir, India and the United States has become more urgent. A reinterpretation of the geopolitical imperatives which have shaped the current policy is required and a redefinition of our long-term objectives has become necessary.

It is here that the mettle of the Jamali government would be put to the test. Luckily, it has found an extremely able person to head the foreign ministry. Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri brings to his task a brilliantly analytical mind and exceptional powers of articulation which would be invaluable in his new role as Pakistan’s foreign minister. He is also considered a moderate, which should endear him to leaders and diplomats around the world. But his biggest challenge would be to evolve a foreign policy which balances the sentiments of the Pakistani people with the demands of pragmatism. This would require an extensive review of the presumed fundamentals which have shaped our foreign policy under the Musharraf regime.

There are compelling reasons to believe that President Musharraf’s responses in Agra and during the post-9/11 crisis when he agreed immediately to all the American demands were based on fear. In Agra it was the fear of annoying the conservative-religious lobby in Pakistan which prevented President Musharraf from exploring further the possibility of a draft acceptable to both India and Pakistan. The lessons of Simla and Lahore were forgotten and a great opportunity was wasted.

While responding to the US demands President Musharraf’s main fear was the potential threat to Pakistan’s nuclear assets and India’s emergence as America’s political and strategically in the region. An element of statesmanship was lacking in our responses to the two critically important situations. As a result, both the Americans and Indians have adopted policies in the region which remain extremely unpopular in Pakistan.

The task before Mr Kasuri is not an easy one. He would have to tell the United States that the people of Pakistan have a different view on how to fight world terrorism and that they believe the pro-Israel US policy in the Middle East was responsible for the 9/11 disaster. Unless the US is willing to balance its stance in the Middle East, an environment conducive to achieving lasting peace in the region can never be created. This is the truth that must be conveyed to Washington yet again and more forcefully. Mr Kasuri will also have to persuade the Americans to draw a clear line between pursuing the so-called terrorists and interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan.

A case in point is the recent persecution of Dr. Amir Aziz which has resulted in widespread resentment all over the country, specially against the overzealous US operatives and their Pakistani counterparts. Such operations need to be stopped immediately if the equation between Pakistan and the United States has to be rationalized and made sustainable — notwithstanding our need to seek financial assistance and debt relief. This would be necessary as the decision makers of the new civilian government would be answerable to the parliament and the people who have elected them, unlike the government of Gen. Musharraf which had no such compulsions.

But the litmus test of the strength of our support for the American-led “war against terrorism” will come when the US launches its expected attack on Iraq in the near future regardless of the report of the UN weapons inspectors. So far President Musharraf has refrained from criticizing the American policy in the Middle East . He may continue to do that as he now has found a “buffer” in the person of Mr. Jamali, the new prime minister. Mr.Jamali may also resort to the Musharraf tactic of low-key but carefully crafted responses of the foreign office on this sensitive issue with the objective of trying to avoid annoying the Americans. But he must be well aware of the public sentiment and the possible parliamentary opposition to the American moves.

It would be prudent, under the circumstances, to warn the US of the dangers of such unwarranted adventurism. Americans must be told that they would risk weakening and even losing the support of a key ally for their war on terror if Iraq came under attack. Washington has already started an expensive media campaign in Pakistan through which it is trying to portray America as a land of peace and tolerance for the Muslims who live there. It will not work, as the real issue is justice and fairness which is missing totally from the American foreign policy.

Perhaps the time has also come to carry out a fundamental review of our strategy to resolve the Kashmir issue. A new strategy would require a new attitude. Mr. Kasuri is a seasoned politician and should know how to prepare ground for big moves. He also knows that the Kashmir issue cannot be resolved without the support of the liberal section of Indian public opinion. That support was available to Pakistan when President Musharraf went to Agra but was lost through haste and inexperience. Mr. Kasuri should therefore seek to target that by initiating measures designed to cultivate Indian public opinion in favour of a peace and normalization dialogue and should not hesitate to broaden the whole gamut of India-Pakistan relations by moving aggressively into the sphere of economic and cultural exchanges. There is no contradiction here. India today has more Muslims than Pakistan and its one billion people are a natural market for Pakistani goods just as the US is for Mexico and Canada.

A clearly defined and broad-based policy towards India needs to be evolved, something which was lacking totally during the last three years. Mr. Kasuri can take the first step in that direction by trying to establish a personal rapport with the Indian leadership, including the opposition leaders like Sonia Gandhi. A better understanding of the Indian mind can only be reached by having an open mind ourselves. The five-decade old Kashmir dispute will not be resolved overnight and certainly not through the continuing war of words which has become the defining factor of our Kashmir policy. The Simla Agreement, the Lahore Declaration and the Saarc document already define the ground rules for conduct in this sphere. Bilateralism must be the key to further progress.

Time is also ripe now for a renewed emphasis on economic diplomacy. During the last decade the foreign office has been involved in half-hearted pursuits of economic opportunity with various countries without much to show in terms of success. A comprehensive review of this approach is now necessary. The initiatives to seek foreign investment must be spearheaded not by the middle-level functionaries of the ministry of commerce, but by senior corporate executives and businessmen who can identify opportunities more clearly and effectively.

Mr. Kasuri would be well advised to use the immense talent which exists in this area. During the last decade both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif indulged in extensive travelling abroad without having any specific agenda. The charm of foreign travel can be very addictive and Mr. Jamali may be susceptible to it. He must resist the temptation to travel abroad at the drop of a hat.

Pakistan as the only Muslim nuclear power deserves a more dignified and respectable place in the world affairs. It is only possible when we move positively towards eliminating areas of conflict and friction in our own region. Dignity and realism must set the tone for a new direction in our foreign policy.

A lone superpower

The Bush administration’s outright rejection of the Kyoto treaty on global warming, the International Criminal Court and the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia has earned it the label “unilateralist” and the image of the lone gunslinger.

But even the superpower atop the globe sometimes needs allies, especially when it wants to fight an international war against terrorism. It is important to understand the concerns of nations whose help the United States seeks in tracking down terrorist cells, freezing their funds and bringing their members to justice.

Last week, the Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press brought some mixed news. Its survey of more than 38,000 people in 44 nations found sympathy for the United States after the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre but increasing discontent with US policies and attitudes.— Los Angeles Times