A model of political rectitude

FOR some years I have been observing with much anguish that not a single newspaper, television network, nor even Radio Pakistan, has so much as mentioned the name of two great leaders without whose invaluable contribution it would be impossible to imagine the existence of Pakistan. These two great men of our history were born in what was then the United Bengal.

The two I am referring to are: Moulvi A.K. Fazlul Huq and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy. Without their support and untiring efforts the achievement of Pakistan would have been impossible. I feel sorry not for these great leaders but for the people of Pakistan, especially the younger generation, who do not know enough about these great figures of our history.

Mr. H.S. Suhrawardy was born on September 8, 1892, at Calcutta. His father, Zahid Suhrawardy, was a judge of the Calcutta High Court. Mr Suhrawardy received his early education at different schools and colleges of Calcutta. Later, he proceeded to England to study law .

Back in Calcutta, Suhrawardy did not confine himself to his law practice. He continued his studies in subjects as varied as science, economics, Arabic. Of course, English was his first love. As a young lawyer, he started taking an active interest in social and political affairs.

He was only in his third year in the law profession when he was elected member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly. Those were exciting times. The Khilafat movement was picking up momentum. The blood-stained memory of the Jalianawala Bagh massacre was still rankling in the minds of the people across the subcontinent.

Suhrawardy became the head of the Calcutta Khilafat Committee. He took great pains to organize the movement throughout Bengal. My father, Syed Akbar Ali, was a close friend and associate of Suhrawardy. Lending a helping hand to him, my father organized a Khilafat committee in our hometown Sirajganj and was elected its president.

Although I was not born yet ,I came to know that Suhrawardy would always stay at our place whenever he visited Sirajganj. The same was the case with Moulvi Fazlul Huq. He, too, was a close friend of my father and a frequent guest at our house. As a matter of fact our house became the hub of hectic political activity.

Politics came naturally to Suhrawardy. He became minister in Bengal a number of times. Indeed, he was the last chief minister of pre-independence united Bengal. He was also prime minister of Pakistan in the mid-fifties.

He was a sincere supporter of students and their causes. For the common man, he had a special place in his heart. He wholeheartedly exhorted the students to work for the Pakistan movement. Under his guidance, the All Bengal Muslim Students League was formed.

This body of the youth of Bengal plunged into the Pakistan movement with total dedication. Branches of this organization were formed all over Bengal and the students worked for the Muslim League during the run-up to the 1945-46 elections to the Bengal Assembly that actually became an election for Pakistan. The election resulted in a resounding victory for the Muslim League and for Pakistan.

When the Quaid-i-Azam called for the Direct Action Day, the well-organized Hindu community conspired to pre-empt this move. They were supported by the British Inspector-General of Police.

On August 16, 1946, the Calcutta Muslim League organized a public meeting to protest against the betrayal of the Muslims in which Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Governor-General Lord Louis Mountbatten were jointly involved. But many of those who had gone to attend the meeting did not return home. They were either killed, or abducted, or forced to take refuge in some nearby safe places. One of my own brothers (late Syed Warris Ali) was among those caught in that dangerous mayhem. But to our immense relief, he was rescued and delivered at our Calcutta home by chief minister Suhrawardy himself.

Without caring for his personal safety, Suhrawardy helped hundreds of stranded Muslims and also Hindus who needed protection. He did not distinguish between Muslims and Hindus. Anyone who needed help in that dangerous situation received due help and assistance.

When Pakistan came into being, Bengal was faced with extensive riots. Suhrawardy stayed back in Calcutta to help the riot-affected people. The irony was that when he wanted to come to Pakistan, he was dubbed as a traitor and was not allowed to enter Pakistan.

When finally he came to East Pakistan, he found the political situation unsatisfactory. He set up the Awami Muslim League in collaboration with Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani. Suhrawardy was an uncompromising exponent of classical style democracy. Maulana Bhashani had other ideas and parted company with Suhrawardy to set up his own political party—-the National Awami Party (NAP).

When in 1954 elections were called in East Pakistan, political activity entered an exciting phase. The most significant feature of this phase was that it brought into being a wide-ranging political alliance that drew all high-profile political leaders of East Pakistan together. Notable among them were Suhrawardy, Moulvi A.K. Fazlul Haq, Maulana Bhashani and Ataur Rahman Khan. Together they formed the Jugto (united) Front. In that historic election contest the Jugto Front won all but nine seats in the East Pakistan Legislative Assembly.

After the election, Suhrawardy started working for the welfare of the people of East Pakistan. As a result of his efforts, the government of Pakistan was persuaded to concede that Bengali would be a national language of the country along with Urdu. This was a landmark development and in the best interests of national unity. For some time Suhrawardy joined the federal cabinet as law minister. Later, he was to be the prime minister of the country.

Behind the scenes the civil and military bureaucracy were working against democracy. The conspiracy succeeded. On October 7, 1958, acting in collusion with General Mohammad Ayub Khan, General Iskander Mirza declared martial law and dismantled the constitutional system. All political parties were banned and political activity of all kinds was outlawed. This sweeping demolition of democracy was followed by political witch-hunt.

The military rulers promulgated an extraordinary edict to harass politicians. It was called the Elected Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO). Under this draconian order, political activity was not only banned but vindictive action was initiated against politicians. The high point of this conspiracy was that Suhrawardy was put behind bars, the charge being treason.

Even though politicians were incapacitated and political activity totally prohibited, public opinion forced the military rulers to move in the direction of some form of representative government. General Ayub Khan introduced his own crafted system of Basic Democracy. This meant that partial and restricted political activity restored. Pressure of public opinion mounted for the release of Suhrawardy from prison. This at last succeeded and the great leader was released.

He lost no time in going home to East Pakistan. On arrival in Dhaka, he was received by thousands of jubilant people, including all the elected members of the National Assembly (MNAs) of East Pakistan. In Dhaka Suhrawardy always stayed as the guest of Manik Mia, generally known as Manik Bhai. He was the owner of the most popular Bengali language newspaper, The Ittifaq.

During his stay in Dhaka, Suhrawardy remained in close touch with the leading political figures, holding discussions about the political situation in the country. I was among them.

In the National Assembly the opposition parties had formed a united body named the Pakistan People’s Group. I was appointed secretary of that group and also its spokesperson. During this phase I travelled extensively with Suhrawardy. His daughter and I were good friends and associates in social and political activities.

Public meetings were held at many places which drew huge crowds and galvanized the political forces in East Pakistan. Suhrawardy would always insist that I should be the first speaker at these public meetings, designating me as his “opening batsman.”

Suhrawardy never overlooked West Pakistan. After holding one successful public meeting in East Pakistan he would proceed to the western wing and create political awareness in the other part of the country. At a public meeting in Gujranwala an attempt was made on his life. Fortunately, the assassin missed his target. The bullet hit his guard and wounded him. But his life was saved.

Then we proceeded by train to Karachi where thousands of people had been waiting outside the railway station because they had been prevented from gathering on the platform. When Suhrawardy came out of the railway station people were prevented from coming near him. Then the crowds tried to follow his car as he headed for his residence, Lakham House. The police then resorted to lathi-charge and also used batons to beat up the crowds.

The hectic political activity affected his health and he fell ill. To receive medical treatment Suhrawardy went to London. On his way back home, he took a brief break in the Lebanese capital of Beirut. There on December 5, 1963, Suhrawardy died. It was reported at that time that he died of heart attack in his hotel room, with no friend, no relative near him. Hundreds and thousands of people received the body of their dead leader and presented their tearful tribute to him.

Suhrawardy was a great man, a great political personality, selfless and absolutely free of any taint of any kind. He was an utterly selfless person.

The writer is a former member of the National Assembly.

Kashmir: a peace plan

THE long history of the Kashmir dispute is a tragic demonstration of the fact that recrimination can be endless and, in the absence of a judicial authority, arguments, no matter how powerful in logic and compelling in equity, hardly decide anything. The great suffering and pain borne by the people of Kashmir as well as the heavy cost inflicted on both India and Pakistan by the persistence of this dispute should beckon us away from the sterilities assiduously pursued so far. They should drive us to identify helpful courses of action which can potentially elicit agreement from the parties concerned.

However, we run the risk of perverting our approach if we ignore the atrocities that have been perpetrated in the Vale of Kashmir since 1989. True, in the very imperfect world we live in, violations of human rights are only selectively censured and very rarely punished but that does not justify dismissing the factual record when we try to assess the fruitful possibilities that lie ahead. To bear the sombre record in mind is not necessarily to make it a basis of indictment. It can rather serve as a dispassionate reminder to the party concerned of the damaging consequences of certain policies and the need, in its own interest, of turning over a new leaf.

Despite the tangled undergrowth of the dispute, there are constructive paths waiting to be explored by the parties. What has obstructed their view so far? What factors are responsible for the paralysing stalemate over the dispute?

There is, of course, the basic fact of sheer intransigence on the part of one contestant but it is the global political climate prevailing at present that has made the negative attitude so hard that it looks as if it were unchangeable. The parched and shrivelled state of the United Nations, the inertia of the world powers in the matter of international disputes which do not threaten their own interests, the irruption of frenzied groups which wear irrationality as an armour and an unspoken cynicism afflicting commentators who, by virtue of the place they have gained in the most influential sector of the global media, unwittingly stifle reformist thinking on the part of policy makers — all these are signs of a miasma which was totally unforeseen when, after the most destructive world war ever fought, a beginning was sought to be made towards sanity, balance and justice in power relations.

I find it most ironical to recall that when the Soviet Union, adamant in its support of the Indian position, used to veto every proposal in the Security Council which would nudge the Kashmir dispute towards a settlement, we observers thought it reasonable to hope that the end of the cold war would mean a breakthrough, an end of the imbroglio. Little did we imagine, far less fear, that there would occur an erosion of a sense of international community based on established notions of legitimacy. An inevitable consequence would be a lackadaisical attitude towards the settlement of international disputes despite the havoc wrought by them. This has as its symptom an evasive language which in crises talks more of reducing tensions than of resolving the underlying and recurrent causes of those tensions.

Then again, shifting strategies of power relations are given such disproportionate importance that they get precedence over far more durable considerations. How India and Pakistan are respectively placed in current power alignments is, or should be, of little relevance to settling the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. This is so because the alignments can change while the settlement is to be for good.

A world where military force and economic might, backed by deceit and trickery, are allowed to decide the destinies of the poor and the weak needs no conferences and meetings of the kind that are held from time to time. Actually, the promoters of such a world sneer at them. These promoters come in various guises; in the matter of the Kashmir dispute, they don the mantle of “experts”.

A person, for example, who has never lived in Kashmir, does not know the language of the land, is unacquainted with its history and totally ignorant of its links with its neighbours and has not even heard of developments in Kashmir’s political life since 1931 can yet be presumptuous enough to opine that the conversion of the so-called Line of Control — which is really the Line of Conflict — into a permanent international border would settle the problem. One has to be remarkably insensitive to suggest that the cause taken up by the people of the Vale be considered a nullity and the thousands of lives they have sacrificed be deemed to be a waste.

It is incredible that anyone should fancy it wisdom to prescribe the perpetuation of a disease as its remedy. Did the people of Kashmir wage a costly struggle with only the aim that a cease-fire line be technically accorded a higher legal status? Did they seek to lend durability to their very artificial separation from Pakistan — a separation not just resented by mullahs (as some seem to think) but mocked by such secular phenomena as the direction of Kashmir’s rivers and of its historic roads? How many of these experts have the knowledge that the society which was Pakistan was politically involved in Kashmir even before the state that is Pakistan came into being?

The modern political history of Kashmir started in 1931; let anyone consult the newspapers of the 1930s; he will find that the centres of Kashmiri political activity, along with Srinagar and Jammu, were the two Pakistani cities of Lahore and Sialkot. In early 1932, thousands of youngmen from Punjab courted imprisonment when they tried to march into Kashmir to assist a campaign against the feudal ruler’s oppression. These facts should not be thought to be of only academic interest; on the contrary, they signify age-old roots which cannot be pulled out from the popular psyche. To urge that these memories be banished and a whole historical dimension be cut off is to recommend solutions which will be shallow and simply will not hold.

The phenomenon of these little-knowing “experts” presuming to suggest solutions of problems is actually a symptom of a deeper, disquieting trend — the trend to suppose that, never mind the principles and the rights of the people involved, a solution can be manoeuvred by threatening or cajoling the leaders concerned. It takes no deft diplomacy and little courage to adopt a minatory posture towards the weak and a deferential one towards the strong — which regrettably was the hallmark of President Clinton’s visit to the subcontinent. Even though Secretary Powell appears to have maintained a far more balanced stance, some influential elements might still be entertaining the thought that if the genial President Musharraf can be prevailed upon somehow to settle for the Line of Control, the Kashmir problem will be solved.

Should that improbable eventuality occur, we can be sure of two things — the solution will be denounced by the people but a bulwark against extremism will have been toppled. What happened as a sequel to the Tashkent declaration in 1966 is a pertinent example. President Ayub Khan allowed some arm-twisting by the Soviet Union with the indirect connivance of the United States and agreed to soft-pedal the Kashmir issue. A couple of years later, the declaration had been trashed and Ayub Khan dethroned by the people.

The question arises here: if Pakistan is not to be pressed to surrender its position on the issue, why should India be? The answer is that neither of the two has to surrender: both have to respond to the common interest of their peoples and return to the rational position each originally took when they brought the issue to the United Nations. Their shared position was that the future status of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by the will of its people and (equally important) that will should be ascertained under impartial auspices and without coercion or intimidation from either side. To fulfil the condition of freedom of the vote, they agreed to withdraw their troops and other fighting personnel from the State and to let the United Nations administer the vote.

If one looks at the Kashmir issue not as a dispute between India and Pakistan but as a problem of both, then the paradigm will change and it will be easy to take a fresh look at the concrete shape which, after long and intense negotiations, a number of United Nations mediators gave to the joint commitment of the parties. The procedure contemplated at early stages of the dispute for its solution may be varied in the light of changed circumstances but its underlying principle must be scrupulously observed if justice and rationality are not to be thrown overboard.

The alternative to chaos in international relations—and in the global mind itself — is a world order governed by rules and principles and the test of the strength, indeed the reality, of these rules and principles is that they should play a commanding role in the settlement of international disputes. All the major principles essential for international sanity are attracted by the Kashmir dispute; the two major ones are the sanctity of international agreements and the self-determination of peoples.

India and Pakistan have bilaterally signed agreements and/or declarations at Tashkent, Simla and Lahore. But to hold that any of these has “overtaken” the agreement they concluded under the auspices of the Security Council is fallacious on four counts. First, it flies in the face of a recognized principle of international law which is stated in Article 103 of the United Nations Charter viz: obligations under the Charter prevail over obligations under other international agreements. Second, the agreement secured by the United Nations deals specifically with the measures required to resolve the Kashmir problem while the other agreements are silent in that respect. Indeed, as far as the Kashmir issue is concerned, they do not rise above (or fall below) the level of pieties and platitudes.

Third, the Tashkent and Simla agreements were concluded under duress while at the time the United Nations obtained the agreement which was later repeatedly endorsed by the Security Council, neither party was driven to sign on the dotted line by defeat or any strategic disadvantage. Fourth, the people of Kashmir, not having been a party to any bilateral undertakings between India and Pakistan, can draw little satisfaction from them; they, along with their supporters, see no reason why they should be bound by them. Of course, they were not a party to the United Nations agreement either; but that is not the same thing because that agreement left the whole issue to their own unfettered decision.

Any road-map which deviates from the principle laid down in the primary agreement concerning Kashmir is bound to be arbitrary in conception and a failure in effect. However, the procedure for implementing it needs to respond to three requirements of the greatest magnitude which have been underlined by both the situation in Kashmir itself and the one surrounding the dispute. It must bring clarity where confusion reigns at present. It must not unnecessarily stress the religious factor where other factors — geographical, linguistic, social — are equal determinants of people’s affiliations. And it must allow a transitional phase, a phase of detoxification, of establishing an environment of non-violence, free from terrorism either by state forces or anti-occupation groups. All the three parties — India, Pakistan, Kashmiris — need a relatively unagitated atmosphere to embark on the settlement of the dispute.

A principal source of confusion in approaches to the problem is the heterogeneity of Jammu and Kashmir; the so-called state consists of as many as five regions or cantons, each with its own ethnicity and orientation. No solution will have any democratic validity or justice which does not allow each region to decide its future without being under the pressure of another. Considering this, the modality of a single plebiscite lumping all the regions together needs to be replaced by another method of consulting the popular will in each region.

Actually, this involves no radical departure from the course of action envisaged in the proceedings of the United Nations; in fact, a representative appointed at an early stage by the Security Council itself, Owen Dixon, had proposed a regional plebiscite.

To be concluded

The writer is a former federal minister of Pakistan.

Vajpayee’s peace offer hijacked

THERE are strong reasons to believe that the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s offer of talks to Pakistan to settle all the outstanding bilateral issues between the two countries was hijacked by the BJP hardliners, headed by deputy prime minister L K Advani, soon after its pronouncement.

The offer that Vajpayee had made at a public meeting in Srinagar carried no pre-conditions. However, shortly thereafter he made it contingent upon the complete cessation of the alleged infiltration from across the Line of Control. In his latest statement, also made at Srinagar, he has further amended his offer saying that there can be no meaningful talks with Pakistan until normality has been restored in Jammu and Kashmir.

After many months’ pause in his anti-Pakistan rhetorics which many people misconstrued as his endorsement of Vajpayee’s peace initiative, Advani has broken his silence and blamed Pakistan this time for the recent Mumbai bomb blasts which deputy chief minister of Maharashtra Chhagan Bhujpal believed was linked with the killing of the Muslims in Gujarat last year.

The Mumbai police also suspected that the bomb blasts could have been carried out by an outlawed Indian outfit, the Students Islamic Movement of India. As such, Advani’s allegation against Pakistan, seems to be a deliberate attempt on his part to sabotage the already fragile peace process.

Most of the Indian parliamentarians, particularly those belonging to the BJP, who recently came to Pakistan on a goodwill mission, also accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in the region. It was indeed a well-rehearsed performance which fully reflected Advani’s mindset and his unsavoury attitude towards Pakistan. On their return to their country, these ‘men of goodwill’, who were treated remarkably well during their soujourn in Pakistan, have showed no let-up in their anti-Pakistan stance which speaks volumes about the true nature of their so-called goodwill visit to Pakistan.

The Indian parliamentarians, during their stay in Pakistan, also pleaded with their Pakistani interlocutors to shelve the Kashmir issue for the time being and to concentrate on promoting the mutually beneficial trade and economic relations with India and for the creation of cultural cohesion between the two countries. This unsolicited advice by the Indian parliamentarians, evidently, ran counter to the declared objective of the peace process, initiated by their prime minister. It was also incompatible with their own aims of generating goodwill for the purpose of creating a conducive climate that was a pre-requisite for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute amicably.

In the wake of the recent conciliatory move by the Indian prime minister, there was a ray of hope that the things may now improve to enable Pakistan and India to settle all their outstanding problems, including Kashmir, which is the main source of tension between them. By and large, Pakistani leaders, regardless of their political and religious affiliations, have always supported the normalization of relations with India so that the two countries could live as good neighbours. However, this has not been the case with the Indian leadership. Advani’s latest attempt to sabotage the on-going peace process by his negative attitude underscores this point.

India is well aware that highly motivated native militants, on its side of the Line of Control, are carrying on their freedom struggle. India portrays the freedom fighters in Kashmir as terrorists only to hoodwink the world opinion. By no stretch of the imagination, can the concept of terrorism be invoked by India against the Kashmiris’ struggle for self-determination, the legitimacy of which has been recognized by the United Nations.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, as declared by the United Nations which means that the inhabitants of that state, currently under the illegal occupation of India, are not Indian subjects, by any definition, and cannot, therefore be called as separatists.

The people of Kashmir have been denied their inalienable right of self-determination in violation of the UN Charter and international law. Massive violations of human rights are a daily occurrence in Kashmir which are not isolated instances of aberration but were in compliance with the official policy that India enunciated to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

The magnitude of the danger posed by an unresolved Kashmir dispute is being undermined by some of the shortsighted elements in the subcontinent. The Kashmir dispute has adversely affected millions of innocent people of Kashmir whose sufferings and agonies not only continue unabated but are aggravating by the passage of time. The dispute has the potential to endanger international peace and cannot, therefore, be sidetracked. If not resolved soon, in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people, it would not only cause incalculable harm to the national interests of both Pakistan and India but may also lead to disastrous consequences for the entire region.

The writer is a former ambassador.

India’s coercive diplomacy

ARE there any prospects of peace in South Asia? This is a question being asked from time to time since independence. Even this question was once posed to the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah as early as March 11, 1948. His answer was “Yes, provided the Indian government will shed their superiority complex and will deal with Pakistan on an equal footing and fully appreciate the realities.”

The Quaid’s answer is valid even today, more so after 1971 when India emerged as a dominant and overbearing power in the region. For instance, there is an ambivalent Indian attitude towards its neighbours. If Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan or Sri Lanka toes the line of India they would be pleased otherwise the relations would be strained. Whereas Bangladesh is keen to correct the gap in the mutual trade, there is a dispute over distribution and flow of river water, transit facilities the Indian demand for gas from Bangladesh, etc.

Similarly if Pakistan submits to Indian wishes and keeps quiet on Kashmir, they would be happy, but if it demands self-determination by the people of Kashmir under UN auspices as promised to them by both UN and India, they would hate Pakistan and level charges against it which may or may not be true and use coercive diplomacy. A couple of examples are cited to substantiate the use of coercion against Pakistan.

First, we could refer to Indian leaders statements after their nuclear explosions on May 11 and 13, 1998. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee warned that his country was a “nuclear weapons state” and that they had “the capacity for a big bomb now.” L. K. Advani, Deputy Prime Minister who was then union home minister, told Pakistan that a “qualitatively new stage in Indo-Pakistan relations had been brought about by the country [India] becoming a nuclear weapons state.”

Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Tourism Madanlal Khurana said, “India was ready to fight a fourth war with Pakistan.” Vice-President of the ruling party (BJP) K.L. Sharma warned Pakistan that if it continued its “anti-India” policy, “Pakistan should be prepared for India’s wrath.” An ally of BJP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) president Ashok Singhal said, “a war would be a better step to teach Pakistan ‘a lesson’.” Perhaps this rhetoric is nothing but coercive diplomacy.

Second, the terrorist attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2000 was immediately branded as being committed by Pakistan without holding an enquiry, least of all waiting for the result of the enquiry. The identity of the assailants on the Indian parliament is not known as all of them were shot dead by the security forces. It is surprising that the so-called trained terrorists could not damage even a portion of the building nor were they able to harm any of the legislators who are claimed to be their target.

The Supreme Court of India held three Kashmiris including a professor living in Delhi responsible for planning the attack. In case the Indian nationals were involved, how is it that Pakistan was accused of organizing the attack. The reported crime might in fact be the work of the RAW to forge a case of terrorism against Pakistan. Or it may be an attack by Taliban or Al Qaeda against whom India was supporting their adversary, the Northern Alliance.

India blames Pakistan for “cross-border terrorism” — the name it has given to the insurgency in Kashmir and infiltration from Azad Kashmir into the Indian held Kashmir. Pakistan denies the allegation and has time and again suggested that an impartial agency, preferably the United Nations, be allowed to monitor the LoC to ascertain facts instead of casting aspersions and polluting atmosphere. India rejects the proposal.

Recently a report emanating from Brussels says that the Group of Eight (G-8) nations and the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) are seriously considering deployment of an international helicopter force to check alleged infiltration on the LoC dividing India and Pakistan. Diplomats in the US and Europe are of the view that the Indian allegation and Pakistan denial should be checked through an independent mechanism to ascertain facts.

It is believed that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is supporting the proposal and it is also being referred to as “Straw Formula”. It is also reported that the G-8 nations, the European Union and the NATO are willing to provide “helicopters, other logistics and technical support” for the proposed force without getting themselves entangled in the Kashmir dispute.” If Pakistan and India accept this proposal, the ambiguity will be removed and truth will be known to the whole world. This will be a positive development leading to the promotion of peace in the region.

Now it appears that there is a realization in both India and Pakistan that there is no alternative to peace. Two years after the Agra summit (July 15-16, 2001) a number of steps have been taken by the two countries to improve their strained relations, such as withdrawal of forces from international borders, exchange of high commissioners, resumption of bus service and the likelihood of resumption of train service and air link. In July, 269 Indian fishermen and their 25 boats were released by Pakistan.

There has been exchange visits of Parliamentarians. There is some change in the rhetoric against each other. For instance, it is encouraging to note that Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha while referring to militant activities against Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir did not seek to sabotage the improving climate for peace process.

Earlier, a delegation of religious leaders headed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman who is the general secretary of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a coalition of religious parties, which has about 15 per cent seats in the National Assembly visited India. The army, the political parties and even the conservative MMA want peace with India. Earlier on March 1, 2003 Qazi Hussain Ahmed, chief of Jamaat-i-Islami, a component of the MMA, had stated his preference for normalization of relations with India rather than “submitting to the dictates of the US.”

On return to Pakistan Maulana Fazlur Rahman stated that the Indians are reviewing past mistakes that had led to the derailment of the talks between India and Pakistan. They are considering ministerial level talks before holding a summit. He also stated that Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee would attend the SAARC summit in January next in Islamabad. Mr Vajpayee was hopeful that this would help improve the atmosphere for an Indo-Pak summit.

This means that the next summit could not be held till then. There are crucial elections in five states such as Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chateesgarh and Manipur in November next and there will be general elections for the Indian parliament next year. Thus while there is electioneering in India there may or may not be a conducive atmosphere for a summit. There is one encouraging thing that unlike the state of Gujarat elections in December 2002 elections, anti-Pakistan rhetoric did not pay dividend in Himachal Pradesh elections this year. It seems that the forthcoming elections may not be fought on anti-Pakistan stance.

The present government of India will like a settlement on its own terms so that it could help them in the elections. The prospects of peace could be bright only if the two countries discard rigidity and show greater understanding and flexibility in their attitude. The process could be facilitated by a serious change in thinking for the resolution of disputes and facilitation, if not mediation, by friendly countries.

The 2001 military standoff has made it clear that nuclear capability and international pressure would not let the two countries involve themselves in fatal nuclear disaster. The alternative is to solve the disputes through peaceful means and not military force.

The South Asian nations need change in their thinking. First, they should abandon the politics of hatred and extremism. They should not blame each other for whatever happens in their countries without a proper and transparent enquiry. Second, it would be better if India does not traverse the path of an imperialist power, sheds its superiority complex and deals with its neighbours on an equal footing. In fact, India being a much bigger country should be more generous in dealing with them. A just and considerate attitude is bound to evince a reciprocal response. The brotherly relations inter se are essential in the interest of peace, progress and prosperity of the region.