Imperatives of dialogue

NATIONS meet across a conference table to advance their national interests. More often than not, immediate political interest of one or both the governments overshadows national interests. It may not be an exaggeration to state that in the case of India and Pakistan, the ruling elites, represented by one political government or another, have kept their narrow political interests uppermost and relegated national interests to the second place.

In other words, they did not act statesman-like. Many an election was won on the slogan of intense confrontation between the two. There were efforts at making peace but there were also wars. At times no peace, no war was the official policy. The situation began to change during the last decade or more. A peace movement began building up in both the countries. Political governments perceived substantial change in the political climate. New Delhi and Islamabad concluded that they would gain in political terms by moving towards normalization of relations. Prime Ministers Gujral and Nawaz Sharif set the tone but it fell to Prime Minister Vajpayee to hold a summit meeting with his Pakistani counterpart.

The military leadership, the ultimate physical protector of civil governments in Pakistan, viewed the steps taken by Nawaz Sharif with suspicion. Then, Kargil happened. The strife between the civil and military in Pakistan deepened. Nawaz Sharif was deposed and General Musharraf assumed power. However, the logic of the need for dialogue for peace persisted and resulted in the Agra summit meeting. The change in Pakistan from Nawaz Sharif to Musharraf did not come in the way of dialogue.

The unannounced agreement at Agra was substantial enough to bring the opponents of peace and dialogue into action. As a result, the follow-up of the Agra summitry was delayed, and as if that was not enough to achieve their nefarious objective, they mounted an attack on the Indian parliament, striking a mighty blow at the prestige of the Vajpayee government. Very drastic measures were taken to repair the political damage caused by the attack.

A war-like situation came into being. A million armed men faced each other across the international border and the Line of Control. To counter the pressure for resuming the dialogue, almost all links between India and Pakistan were snapped. Road, rail and air communications were cut off and the two high commissions were denuded of more than half their strength. Restrictions were placed on the issue of visas.

As things stand today, the people’s forces within Pakistan and India along with international pressures are proving to be too strong for the anti-dialogue lobbies. There are positive signals for the resumption of the dialogue for the settlement of all outstanding issues. The governments may like it or not, the stand-off has to be ended. The dialogue has to be resumed.

Now, a dialogue is a political process. Politicians enter it in a sophisticated manner in the way experienced businessmen proceed to strike a business deal. For non-political persons, it is a crude “give and take” session. The ultimate aim of the dialogue is to strengthen one’s political position for staying in power and winning next election. A dialogue can be just a formality should there be no political gain nor an economic or security dividend forthcoming. Even the failure of a dialogue has to be of a kind that it can be claimed as a victory.

It is a game of creating reasonably favourable perception for one’s side of the polity but it should not be too lopsided as it turned out at Agra. Musharraf came out as a clear winner leaving Vajpayee a distant second, thereby creating difficulties for the latter in pursuing the matter further. In order that the results of a dialogue are endorsed by the people and parliament, both the interlocutors have to come out as winners.

Pakistan’s strategy should be to convince the world, the Indian public and especially the Kashmiris of its sincerity in establishing a state of permanent peace in the subcontinent and, simultaneously not putting the Indian leadership in a bad light in India and its own in too good a light in Pakistan.

At the moment the political climate in India favours a dialogue. Rhetoric apart, all political parties, except a section of the BJP, want India to talk to Pakistan. So does the international community. Four Indian states are going for elections in October. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, having created the perception that he is a man of peace, would like to handle the coming dialogue with Pakistan to improve the electoral position of his party. It is for Pakistan to use the occasion to extract out of India as much as it can in the effort to secure a final settlement of all outstanding issues.

The goal of achieving a final settlement can be realized if both sides, between now and 2004, are able to strengthen their political position in their respective constituencies. Towards that end, they have to give first priority to enabling the peoples of Pakistan and India to meet with each other as freely as possible.

The present visa regimes must go. The Khokrapar and Ganda Singhwala border check-posts should be opened. More buses and trains should be allowed to run. Let newspapers cross the borders freely. These measures will immensely strengthen both the governments to make the inevitable give-and-take inherent in any final settlement acceptable on both sides.

India and Pakistan should implement the accords already reached such as those of Siachin Glacier and Wuller Barrage. There was almost total agreement in 1989 on the draft of a no-war pact, — call it a non-aggression pact or a friendship treaty — which should be worked upon afresh. Then, there is the list of eight points agreed upon at Agra for further discussion.

No settlement is possible on the dispute of supreme importance unless consultation is started with the people of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the dividing line. The two governments should remove the restrictions on the movement of the people of Kashmir. They should be given passports to visit the other country. Above all, they should be allowed to cross the Line of Control on Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road.

A journey towards tomorrow

WHAT began at the Wagah border as a mere visit to Pakistan turned into an explosion of goodwill and friendship. We, the nine Indian parliamentarians who travelled to Pakistan a few days ago, were swept off our feet by love and affection showered upon us at Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi.

It was almost a people’s war against the age-old prejudice and hatred against India. They were prepared to jettison the baggage of hostility so as to live as good neighbours in peace. They wanted to reach out to people in India.

But if the message from our side is that no-give-and-take policy is required or some form of sabre-rattling, the window of opportunity opened by Prime Minister Vajpayee’s initiative could shut for many more decades to come. There is need for people on both sides to assert themselves and denounce those whose rhetoric is coming in the way of peace.

The highest point of our nine-day visit was the reception by the Jamaat-i-Islami that announced publicly that they wanted to befriend India. It was their first reception to any Indian delegation since the establishment of Pakistan. They assured us that they would like to solve all problems, including Kashmir, through dialogue. Their wish was to bury the hatchet once and for all.

One commentator from Pakistan has e-mailed me a message: “You have achieved the impossible. Of all the people Liaquat Baloch of the Jamaat-i-Islami is ecstatic on the private channels of Pakistan about the reception they hosted.”

Fazlur Rehman, chief of the amalgam of six religious parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), in the Pakistan National Assembly, added another dimension. He said: “Track Two is all right. But without Track One, the fauj (the army), anything can be stymied. We should ponder over that.” A top leader whispered to me that the core problem was not Kashmir but the corps commanders.

There is no doubt that the military remains the most important factor in the affairs of Pakistan. But people are visibly unhappy and restive. Never before had I heard in Punjabi such a barrage of unprintable words against the military. Both former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have got rehabilitated in the eyes of the Pakistanis.

Our travel through Pakistan began at the Wagah border itself. Asma Jehangir, a byword for human rights, and Dr Mubashir Hasan, who has done pioneering work in the field of India-Pakistan relations, were among the scores of people who welcomed us. We heard the refrain of a familiar song: “We shall overcome (Hum honge kamiyab).”

Our first halt was Lahore. Pawan Bansal, a Congress MP in the team, remarked that every face reminded him of a face he had seen in India before. It was his maiden visit to Pakistan. Shahid Siddiqui, general secretary of the Samajwadi Party, who had been to Pakistan before, said that he did not feel he had come to a different country — something he felt in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Senior retired military officers have constituted in Lahore a group, the India-Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace. At the dinner they hosted — some 50 top brass were present — the chairman admitted that the wars both countries had waged were pointless. It was time we forgot the past and began a new chapter of peace and harmony. Hostilities had not solved any problem; friendship would.

We perceived a similar desire at a roundtable discussion with the writers, columnists, retired judges and civil servants. Their reputation was that of hardliners. We found them pragmatic and accommodative. Retired chief justice Nasim Hassan Shah, who was in the chair, said that he was once a staunch supporter of right of self-determination but now his views had changed. He said it was wrong to think that Indians were “our enemies.”

One proposal that emerged at the meeting was that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal should become a single economic unit like the European Union to enable people and goods move without restriction.

The Lahore Chamber of Commerce also welcomed the proposal. They estimated that the two countries lost revenues worth nearly six billion dollars (Rs 3,000 crore) annually because of illegal trade through Dubai or Singapore. They were keen to sell in Indian markets. They wanted joint ventures.

Asked why Pakistan had not extended the MFN status to India when the latter did it nearly 10 years ago, we got no satisfactory answer. Some said that the reciprocal step got entangled in Pakistan’s politics.

Economic ties could be the sinews of a firm relationship. If we were to allow Pakistan sell its products in India without any impost — a suggestion I made 30 years ago — the Pakistanis would develop a vested interest in our progress.

It was Islamabad where we met Sherry Rehman and M.P. Bhandara, who were sparing no effort for narrowing the distance between the two countries. Both sides needed scores of Sherrys and Bhandaras to develop a meaningful understanding.

Protocol-wise, the Pakistan government was correct. The acting President of Pakistan gave a dinner in our honour. The Speaker of the Punjab Assembly too hosted a dinner at the chamber. The information minister of Sindh held a reception. But the federal government remained distant.

Our last halt was Karachi. The Press Club, which had never kowtowed to the martial law administrators, was as lively as ever. This is where a journalist asked us point-blank about Gujarat. None of us had any defence and we admitted that it was a shame for a secular polity.

Kashmir was raised practically at every meeting. No specific solution was offered. There was a demand to settle it. My argument that India would not accept any solution on the basis of religion was attacked by a couple of newspapers. But people on the whole tended to agree with me. We should start talks on Kashmir after ensuring that other problems like trade and tourism would not be held as hostage to the main problem. The majority of the people supported this approach.

At many places we pointed out that talks would have little meaning if cross-border terrorism continued. People generally agreed. But two poets in Islamabad resented even our raising the point. They, like some others in Pakistan, could not fathom the resentment cross-border terrorism was creating throughout India and jeopardizing the process of normalization.

I am convinced that people-to-people contact is the answer to the wall of suspicion and distrust which has got erected between the two countries. People on both sides have no option other than working on their own for building a movement to put pressure on governments for normalization.

In India, political parties are dragging their feet. But people in Pakistan seem to be ahead in seeking good relations. They probably feel that an understanding with India would give them an opportunity to give vent to their pent-up feelings against oppression. They do not like America, despite Pakistan’s official posture. They would rather have close relations with India.

The tour was over. I took the same patchy road from Lahore to Amritsar to cross over into India which I did some 55 years ago. Then I had been broken on the wreck of history. I was a refugee. This time I travelled with my eight colleagues from parliament. It was a journey towards a better tomorrow. I am sure that despite the difference of governments, the distant neighbours will get close soon.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

A drift towards 1984?

“WHAT ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ is really meant to do is to discuss the implications of dividing the world up into ‘Zones of Influence’,” George Orwell wrote to his publisher at the end of 1948 — and it certainly does that.

The three-way cold war of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, with constant skirmishes between the three totalitarian mega-states of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia and no freedom left anywhere in the world, is geopolitics as nightmare.

It would be a pity if the 21st century turned out like that. The 20th century didn’t, actually. There was a long cold war between two great power-blocs, but only one of them was totalitarian. Besides, it all ended pretty well, with no nuclear war and a wave of non-violent democratisation. But now we can see the faint outline of exactly those three Orwellian blocs glimmering on the horizon ahead.

It may never come to that, of course. Most people outside the United States (and many Americans, too) assume that the reign of the neo-conservatives in Washington and the current extreme unilateralism of American foreign policy are self-limiting phenomena, soon to be discredited by the sheer cost of empire-building in the Middle East. Local resistance to the American presence is growing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before long Americans themselves will turn against this policy and normal service will be restored.

That is the assumption, and it is why other governments are keeping their heads down and playing for time. Why have a confrontation with the US now if you can just wait a bit and see it change course of its own accord? But what if it doesn’t? What if there is a bigger American empire in the Middle East three or five years from now, and the United Nations is on the scrap-heap, and NATO is gone too? The rest of the world won’t just roll over and accept American global hegemony, but what will it do instead?

In that case we’re back in the jungle, where the only way to contain the ambitions of other great powers is the old game of alliances. What would those new alliances look like? Quite a lot like the world of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.

Oceania is already taking shape: essentially, the English-speaking world of North America, Britain (‘Airstrip One’ in Orwell’s novel), and Australasia. Give or take a Pole or two, that’s who actually showed up for the invasion of Iraq last March (though Canada and New Zealand are so far managing to avoid being swept away by their respective giant neighbours). Orwell’s Eurasia isn’t too hard to identify, either. It is NATO minus North America and Britain, but plus Russia. It is nobody’s first choice, but if it becomes necessary it’s a good fit: the European Union’s economic strength plus Russia’s resources and nuclear deterrent would be a credible counter-weight to America/Oceania — and it’s the only way Russia could get into the EU (which it very much wants) within the next decade.

Eastasia is the puzzling one, mainly because it’s hard to figure out which way Japan would jump: rapprochement with China and a junior partnership in a new ‘East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere’, or honorary Anglo-Saxon status and a role as Oceania’s Asian ‘Airstrip Two’. Neither option is appetising, so Japan would certainly try to avoid the choice as long as possible — but if it did opt for Eastasia, it would go very nuclear very quickly, as the best way of establishing an equal relationship with China.

Which leaves the Middle East (a string of restive American protectorates), Latin America (client states of Oceania), Africa (contention between Oceania and Eurasia), South-East Asia (a zone of conflict between Oceania and Eastasia) — and India. The Indians would be the one major power with the freedom to stay clear of the global alliance confrontations, but conflicts with Muslim neighbours to the west could easily pull them into alliance with the United States.

This is a ugly world, but it is not unimaginable. If the multilateral consensus that has kept things sane for a long time breaks down, a massive realignment like the one that occurred in the twenty years before the First World War is quite possible, and the result would be a more militarised, less free, more compartmentalised planet.

There would be no primitive ‘Big Brother’-style totalitarian systems, for their time has passed, but the foundations are already being laid everywhere for subtler ‘national security’ regimes that would encroach greatly on civil rights and political liberty. Hardly anybody wants this outcome, but then the pre-1914 great powers didn’t really want their idiotic alliance system either. They didn’t design it, but their responses built it.

A three-cornered cold war like that of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ is as stupid a way to spend the 21st century as can be imagined.—Copyright

Status of women in modern Islam

“During the last five hundred years, religious thought in Islam has been practically stationery.”

— Allama Iqbal in ‘The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’.

RECENTLY, my wife and I had the privilege of performing Umra at al-Masjid al-Haram (Haram Sharif) in Makkah Moazzama and offering prayers at al-Masjid al-Nabi (Prophet’s mosque) in Madina Munawrra. It was a breathtaking experience. With great humility and respect, I make the following observations for the thoughtful consideration of ulema, thinking Muslims and the Saudi Arab authorities so that the difficulties being experienced by female pilgrims may be alleviated.

As is well-known, the tawaf, seven rounds (circumambulation) of the Ka’ba and kissing or touching al-Hajar al-Aswad or paying respects to it if one is not near enough to kiss or touch it, offering prayers at Haram Sharif and Sai (running between Safa and Marwa,seven times) are the main constituents of Umra. Since it is spiritually rewarding to offer prayers at Maqam-e-Ibrahim after the tawaf, every pilgrim tries to offer prayers at or near Maqam-e-Ibrahim.

But women pilgrims are not permitted to offer prayers even in the great courtyard of Haram Sharif, let alone at or near Maqam-e-Ibrahim. They can offer prayers only in the porticos and corridors of Haram Sharif. It was heart-rending to see the disappointment and pain writ large on the faces of women pilgrims, coming from far-off places and distant countries, being denied the opportunity to offer prayers at or near Maqam-e-Ibrahim, monopolized entirely by men.

When men and women are allowed to perform all the rites of Haj and Umra together (in the tawaf, sometimes they are quite close to each other because of crowdedness), why are women pilgrims being denied the privilege of offering prayers in the main courtyard of Haram Sharif ? In fairness to them, a part of Haram Sharif’s courtyard, including a section of Maqam-e-Ibrahim, should be reserved for women pilgrims so that they do not feel being left out in the most sacred shrine of Islam.

At al- Masjid al-Nabi in Madina Munawwra, the prevailing practice also needs thoughtful consideration. The mosque, which the holy Prophet (pbuh) himself helped build after the hijrat, is one of the most sacred shrines in the Islamic world. Additions and improvements have been undertaken by a succession of caliphs. Sultan Selim 2 (1566-1574) decorated the interior of the mosque with mosaics overlaid with gold. Sultan Mohammed built the dome in 1817 and painted it in green in 1839. Sultan Abdul Majid 1 virtually reconstructed the mosque in 1860. King Abdul Aziz planned its modern expansion in 1948, executed by King Sa’ud in 1953-55.

The present Saudi ruling family has done a wonderful job in expanding and tastefully renovating the mosque which is entirely air-conditioned and carpeted and can accommodate 300,000 people at a time. I am not gifted with descriptive talent, but I have no hesitation in saying that perhaps no other shrine can match it in sheer beauty, dimension, capaciousness and tasteful embellishment. The Saudis deserve the gratitude of the entire Islamic world for maintaining the al-Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Nabi in excellent condition.

The most captivating attraction of the mosque is a small space called Riaz ul Jannah which comprises: the green structure representing the hujra of holy Prophet, his resting place and those of the first two caliphs; the pulpit from where the Prophet used to deliver ‘khutba’; and the raised platform from where Hazrat Bilal used to give ‘Azan’ (the call for prayers). Sadly enough, all these three places are inaccessible to women.

While men are allowed to visit the mosque, offer prayers there and pay respects to Riazul Jannah from about 3 am to 10 pm, women’s timings and area of visit are restricted. They can, of course, enter the mosque through Babul Nisa and offer prayers during prayer time, but they have no access at all at any time to the area of Riazul Jannah where the pulpit and the raised platform are located.

Between 7 am and 11 am and between Zohar and Asar prayers women are permitted to come near the green ornamental structure representing the ‘hujra’ and the resting place of the holy Prophet as well as the resting places of the first two caliphs. But unfortunately the women cannot see anything because about a seven feet high screen has been erected in front of the structure which does not allow any view of the place from the women’s area.

If the objective is to deter women from becoming emotional and getting too close to the green ‘jali’, the purpose can be served by fixing a chain in front of the sacred structure. As a further precaution, guards can be stationed in front of the green ‘jali’ as has been done in the men’s section. But why deny the women the privilege of viewing the green ‘jali’ altogether by erecting a high screen in front of it, while nothing of the sort has been done in the men’s section.

Another possible reason could be that some women (whose number is very small) bring with them infants and very young children who become restless and disturb the whole congregation. A better solution would be either deny entry to such women or allow them near Riazul Jannah at a different hour. But it is not fair to punish the great mass of women pilgrims by denying them altogether the privilege of seeing the green ornamental structure representing the ‘hujra’ and the resting place of the holy Prophet.

Thousands upon thousands of Muslim women from all parts of the world come to Makkah to perform Haj or Umra and visit Madina to pray at al-Masjid al-Nabi and pay their respects to the Hujra and the resting place of the holy Prophet. Have we become so insensitive that we are incapable of conceiving the pain we are causing to our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters by denying them the privilege we are unreservedly extending to men in the two most sacred shrines of Islam?

I request the ulema, thinking Muslims and the Saudi Arab authorities to give their thoughtful consideration to the disappointment being experienced by women pilgrims at Haram Sharif and Masjid al-Nabi. If the current practice is a remnant of an outdated medieval culture, it needs to be changed in the altered conditions of modern times.

A review of the practices being followed at Al-Masjid al-haram and at al-Masjid al-Nabi in regard to women pilgrims has become all the more urgent because Riyadh has convened an international conference on human rights on October 14 this year. Since Saudi Arabia has already ratified the UN convention on discrimination against women, it is incumbent on Riyadh to put an end to the discriminatory practices being followed in the two most sacred shrines of Islam.

Islam is today at the defining moment of its history. We live in an interdependent world of accelerating change and an obscurantist view of Islam cannot cope with the challenges of the 21st century. Though we pay lip-service to the equality of sexes, the truth is that in the Islamic world it exists more in theory than in practice.

Historically, the evolution of a social order requiring the segregation and subordination of women in the Islamic world was one of the reasons for the decline of Muslim power. While the western civilization became richer for women’s presence, Muslim civilization poorer by their absence.

As Iqbal has pointed out in The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam “The task before the modern Muslim is immense. He has to rethink the whole system of Islam without completely breaking with the past.” In his lecture on the Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam, while welcoming “heartily” the liberal movement in modern Islam, Iqbal further observes: “The question is whether the Law of Islam is capable of evolution — a question which will require great intellectual effort, and is sure to be answered in the affirmative.”

True Islam is dynamic and not static. For our inspiration and guidance, we should not look to the third century of the Islamic history but to the first which was full of dynamism and forward movement.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

The North Korea issue

TWO months have passed since inconclusive US-North Korean talks, hosted by China, Pyongyang’s most important ally. No new discussions are scheduled, and each week brings continued bluster from the North.

Every US move to draw other nations into dealing with North Korea’s nuclear threat triggers hostile rhetoric from Pyongyang. No matter what the North demands, however, the United States can’t deal with its threats on a one-to-one basis. Secretary of State Powell met with Asian diplomats last month in Cambodia and said North Korea was now the top priority for Washington in trying to stop the spread of the deadliest weapons.

The Us is trying to bring peace to Iraq, develop a working government in Afghanistan and persuade Iran not to use its nuclear power plants to make atomic weapons. Powell himself rightly stressed the need for unity in facing Pyongyang.—Los Angeles Times