| May 28, 2003 | Wednesday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 25,1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Tehran next?
PU’s misguided zeal
THINGS finally seem to be moving in the right direction in the subcontinent. Even though the pace is slow, one should be thankful for the positive movement on both sides. The latest of the positive developments is India’s decision to resume the bus service, suspended since 2001, and to release Pakistani prisoners in response to Islamabad’s action in freeing Indian prisoners earlier this month. A team of Pakistan legislators visited India to further contribute to the wind of change now blowing through South Asia. Last week, Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha proposed the establishment of a joint mechanism for intelligence sharing with a view to curbing what New Delhi calls “infiltrators” moving across the Line of Control in Kashmir. Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri did not reject the proposal outright and said “theoretically” everything was possible if the two countries established mutual trust and confidence.
Another positive development is Mr Sinha’s statement that could possibly be regarded as a policy shift on India’s part. In an interview with a British newspaper, the Indian foreign minister said that New Delhi would not demand a halt to “crossborder militant attacks” as a condition for talks with Pakistan. Instead, he said, a halt to these attacks was a precondition for talks’ success. In another respect, Mr Sinha’s statement is even more significant. India, he said, could even accept that Pakistan was not in a position to control all militants. In such cases, he said, the two countries could cooperate to curb their activities. Coming from Mr Sinha, who was known for his hawkish stance against Pakistan, the interview gives a clear indication of the Vajpayee government’s desire to abandon the “no talks” policy and finally opt for negotiations as the only way of reducing tensions and resolving all problems and differences between the two countries.
Since Mr Vajpayee’s Srinagar speech of April 18, Pakistan has responded to every Indian move positively. It should continue to do so. Placed as Pakistan and India are, they have no choice but to live as good neighbours. They have their baggage of history no doubt, but they have to come to terms with the reality of geography. A mass of one billion-plus people cannot live in a state of perpetual hostility. Wars and confrontation have done enormous harm to South Asia by using up energies and potential that could have been pressed into constructive channels for mutual benefit. Huge defence outlays, topped off by the investment in nuclear and missile technologies, have retarded the two countries’ economic and social progress. Used for constructive purposes, the same reservoir of scientific talent and fabulous financial resources could have transformed South Asia into an enviable region of human progress and prosperity.
There is, of course, the danger that the extremists on both sides could make every attempt to block the peace moves. But then this exactly is the challenge before the two governments. They have to pursue peace with vigour and determination and stand up to the opposition from extremists. They are bound to succeed — notwithstanding the pitfalls and difficulties along the way — because the vast majority of their people genuinely wish to see an end to hostility and bickering in South Asia and the beginning of a new era in which antagonism and distrust give way to peace and cooperation.
WASHINGTON’s latest volley of bellicose rhetoric demanding that Iran hand over the Al Qaeda terrorists it is allegedly harbouring seems aimed at intimidating Tehran. The demand has been laced up with an allegation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and a threat of effecting a regime change in Tehran if it does not comply. Classified American intelligence reports linking the recent Riyadh suicide bombings with Iran-based operatives of Al Qaeda leave a number of questions unanswered. Iran says that it has deported many Al Qaeda members who had crossed its borders illegally after the US action in Afghanistan began and is still holding some in prison. To conclude that these elements are operating from Iranian territory requires concrete proof which, if the Americans have it, should be shared with the Saudi government. The latter is the competent authority to demand the extradition of the wanted Al Qaeda men if it is convinced that they are hiding in Iran.
The truth is that Washington is pursuing a very dangerous unilateralist policy in the Middle East. The Iranian refusal to withdraw its support for Hizbollah in Lebanon in the absence of an Arab-Israeli settlement and stop voicing concern over the developments in neighbouring Iraq, seem to have irked the hawks in the Bush administration. The Pentagon is now openly encouraging the Iraq-based Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-i-Khalq, to destabilize the Iranian government. This, while the US State Department still categorizes the group as a terrorist organization. There is also talk of installing Reza Shah III as the Shah of Iran. This marks a mindless and radical shift in Washington’s Iran policy. A destabilized Iran at this critical time in the Middle East will only boost Israel’s interests, and certainly not those of the US in the long run. If Washington decides to play this dangerous game to the finish, it will arouse widespread resentment and anger against its policies and motives not only in Iran but in the entire region.
THE University of Punjab’s attempt to cleanse the English syllabus of so-called obscene literature seems a leaf out of the Dark Ages when book burning was the norm. The institution, which has given the nation many distinguished scholars, has in its misguided zeal embarked on a quest to rid the English literature syllabus of all “vulgarity”. It is disturbing to see that works of literature, whose merit and value universities all over the world have recognized and disseminated, are about to be taken off the English syllabus of the country’s largest institution of higher learning. The so-called cleansing campaign has been launched at the behest of the university’s vice-chancellor and registrar, both retired army officers, by a professor and has targeted works of writers like Jonathan Swift, Ernest Hemingway and Paul Scott. Even Alexander Pope’s ‘The Rape of the Lock’ has not been spared apparently because the title is deemed objectionable. The good professor has been quoted as saying that he would try and replace Pope’s masterpiece with another because the word ‘rape’ has a vulgar connotation.
True, there is a pressing need to revise many of the books that our universities and colleges teach but the reasons for doing so are entirely different. Many textbooks contain inflammatory remarks against minorities and other religions or a warped version of Pakistan’s history. Many also have jingoistic content that ends up instilling in students’ minds negative impressions making them intolerant and xenophobic. It is regrettable that a prestigious institution like the Punjab University has chosen to involve itself in such a McCarthyist exercise. Universities should encourage learning and scholarly pursuits and allow students and staff free access to all kinds of knowledge and information, within reasonable bounds of course. To deprive university-level students of reading the biting satire of Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’, or to forbid them to read Hemingway defies reason and logic and is akin to killing the love of learning. The Punjab governor, who is the chancellor of the university, should take note of this misguided ‘reformist’ zeal and ask the vice-chancellor to immediately stop this absurd campaign to cleanse the English syllabus.