| 03 January 2004 | Saturday | 10 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Will the shadows lengthen?
Nigerians are the happiest
Good fences, they say, make good neighbours. This, however, is not true in the context of India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestinian relations. Indian efforts to fence the Line of Control (LoC) and the security fence that Israel is building around the West Bank are further poisoning bilateral relations, particularly in the Middle East, and are likely to make a peace settlement even harder to make.
Pakistan's contention is that India is taking advantage of the present ceasefire to accelerate the construction of a fence along the Line of Control to divide Kashmir and thus turn the LoC into international border.
New Delhi, however, does not accept Islamabad's contention that fencing along the LoC is a violation of the UN Charter and breach of ceasefire agreements between the two countries.
India further argues that fencing is an 'operational requirement' as it has been compelled to erect the barrier because of cross-border infiltration. This argument, however, is no longer valid because, according to New Delhi reports, infiltration has completely stopped since the November ceasefire.
At a time when serious efforts are being made to improve bilateral relations and start a meaningful dialogue to tackle the challenging issues facing the two countries, needless irritants must be avoided by both Pakistan and India.
The fencing problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians is far more serious because it threatens to sabotage the US-backed roadmap and the current international efforts to find a solution for a durable peace in the region.
Israel has already built a fence fringing the Rafah refugee camp along the Gaza strip's sandy desert border with Egypt. Now it is building a huge electronic security fence inside the West Bank to keep, it claims, the suicide bombers out of its territory. The Palestinians, however, describe it as a land grab because the fence often diverges east of Israel's border into occupied territory.
There can be no doubt that by continuing to build more Jewish settlements and encircling large chunks of Palestinian land behind the security fence, Ariel Sharon wants to reduce the area left behind with the Palestinians to small enclaves that cannot form a viable state.
That is why Israel's closest ally, the United States, has sent a clear message to Tel Aviv that the fencing of West Bank will be a serious setback to the Middle East peace plan.
In a key-note speech, during his recent state visit to Britain, President George W. Bush toughened his criticism of Israel, urging it to freeze settlement construction and dismantle unauthorized outposts because, like the Palestinians, it has obligations to peace-making. The U.N. General Assembly has already condemned the Israeli fencing and demanded the dismantling of the project.
Tel Aviv has, however, paid no attention to Washington's warning. When asked about Bush's remarks, the Israeli foreign minister said:' We have reached a clear and unequivocal decision to build this fence, to prevent the extremists from attacking us.'
Israeli fencing strategy has stretched over a number of years. In 1994, Tel Aviv built a separation fence around the Gaza Strip before handing over responsibility for the area to the Palestinians.
Since the fence proved effective in preventing infiltration from Israel even during the recent round of prolonged violence, the hardliners in Israel seized on the concept of unilaterally separating their country from the Palestinian West Bank as well.
A virtually hermetic separation fence became an integral component of this strategy. At $ 2.5 million per kilo metre, the fence was never intended as a means of protecting the almost 200,000 Israelis living in settlements in the West Bank.
Yet this is what is happening now under the Ariel Sharon government. The fence winds in and out to encompass Israeli settlements, sometimes leaving whole Palestinian villages on the wrong side of the fence.
So far only a quarter of the envisaged length of 680 kms has been built. Construction of the fence continues despite international condemnation. Eventually it will stretch upto 700 kilometres and cost $ 1.5 billion.
The fence, which comprises concrete walls, ditches, trenches, roads, razor wire and electronic fences veers for much of its length well into the Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.
Palestinians describe it as a new ' Berlin Wall' reflecting an attempt to create a political border. A recent United Nations report said the wall project 'strongly suggests Israel is determined to create facts on the ground amounting to de facto annexation' similar to the annexation of Arab east Jerusalem and the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. India seems to have got the fencing idea from Israel with whom it has developed a close strategic relationship.
Nearly every kilometre of the Israeli fence is the subject of dispute and is further poisoning relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Things will get much worse when it comes to fencing Jerusalem because the Sharon government believes in an undivided Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. A few years ago it might have been simple, but now Israeli settlements encircle the city's Arab eastern side.
The wall being built by the Sharon government is unacceptable because it puts beyond reach any conceivable solution to the century-old question of Palestine. The fencing is also wrong because purely as a matter of security it simply will not work.
Little in history suggests that walls through contiguous and contested territory resolve anything. Fencing aimed at separating the Israelis and Palestinians permanently without agreed borders and a clear acceptance of mutual rights is a recipe for unending conflict.
The Sharon government claims that the fencing will keep bombers out and cut the number of Israeli casualties. But even the best fence will not be able to keep out determined suicide bombers.
What it will indeed do is to prevent thousands of Palestinian workers from working inside Israel by making permanent the ban on Palestinians crossing into Israel from the West Bank.
Also, thousands of Palestinians will be driven out of their homes and land as a result of fencing Israeli settlements in the West Bank which will inevitably result in enclosing large chunks of Palestinian land behind the security wall. The result will be ruin for the already devastated Palestinian economy, making the Palestinians even more desperate and militant.
The recently concluded Geneva accord between the Israeli and Palestinian moderates reflects a collective desire on their part to reach a compromise that cannot only end the ongoing confrontation between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine but also lay the foundation for a peaceful and stable relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
The Geneva accord comes close to meeting the provisions of UN resolutions 242 and 338 by providing for Israeli withdrawals from the territories occupied during the six-day war in 1967.
It also provides for Arab sovereignty over the parts of Jerusalem that include the Al Aqsa mosque. Israeli sensitivities are catered through the Palestinian withdrawing their demand regarding the right to return for all Palestinian refugees.
The Geneva accord has no official standing; it is just a piece of paper at the moment. The hope is that a public groundswell in Israel and Palestine will force the authorities to come to the negotiating table. To say so is not wishful thinking but simple common sense. Unless Israelis and Palestinians find their way to a mutually satisfactory deal that lies in plain sight before them, disaster threatens not only both peoples but the whole region.
The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.
Will the shadows lengthen?
If a New Year were to be a break with the past, what a clean slate it would be to start from? There would be no baggage to carry, no failures to recall and no betrayals to irk. The year 2003 crushed a plethora of dreams under the debris of realities.
Two of them cast their shadow on the New Year. One is Kashmir and the other, the strengthening of the BJP. In fact, one affects the other. The two may well upset the applecart and bring to naught any plans for understanding between India and Pakistan.
Take Kashmir first. It has got unnecessarily linked with the Saarc summit which taboos discussion on bilateral issues. The Pakistan establishment does not seem to realize that any solution to Kashmir can be posterior to a favourable climate, not prior to it.
Many Pakistanis have told me that once India accepts Kashmir a disputed territory, the talks can go on for years. No government at New Delhi can do so because the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been spelled out as the territory of India in its constitution.
But Pakistan's insistence on this point is futile. When New Delhi has held a series of meetings on Kashmir, it has indirectly conceded that this part of the country is under discussion.
Even after winning the Bangladesh war, Indira Gandhi agreed with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in June 1972 at Shimla that the negotiations between the two countries would take place subsequently for "a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir."
Taking advantage of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's presence, Islamabad has built up a case to initiate talks on Kashmir. There is nothing wrong in it. But this has downgraded the Saarc which may one day provide an answer to Kashmir.
The Saarc delineates the contours of the South Asian Union. The organization should be strengthened, not diluted.
The first step should be the constitution of Safta (South Asian free trade agreement) and Sapta (South Asian preferential agreement). Vajpayee has offered economic cooperation to normalize the situation. This will help trade and travel that are the sinews of any rapprochement.
The important point to worry about is the tone of hostility in the official media. Doordarshan, with a 24-hour news channel, the Pakistan TV and the radio networks of the two countries continue to harp on differences despite the various steps taken towards normality.
They disseminate news and views in such a way that people are aroused on both sides. Apparently, the two governments give them directions every day because theirs is a daily reaction to the occurrences.
The language used and the programmes devised cannot be off their own bat. Why can't the propaganda of hate be stopped forthwith? India-Pakistan relations have survived the onslaught of official media or of those who are determined to sabotage any effort towards normality.
The last 56 years have not been easy, with the three wars and the Kargil misadventure thrown in. What evokes confidence in both the countries is the recognizable desire of the peoples to live in peace. That sentiment is so deep and wide that it cannot be brushed aside anymore.
I recall that when we lit candles at Wagah border a decade ago on the night of August 14-15, we were only a dozen-odd people. Last August there were two lakh on the Indian side and nearly half a lakh on the Pakistan side, raising slogans of Hind-Pak dosti (India-Pakistan friendship).
I have no doubt that the high walls that fear and distrust have raised on the borders will crumble and the peoples of the subcontinent, without giving up their separate identities, will one day work together for the common good. This might usher in an era fruitful beyond their dreams.
This is the faith I have cherished ever since I left my hometown, Sialkot, in Pakistan in September 1947. And this is the straw I have clung to in the sea of hatred and hostility that has engulfed India and Pakistan for long.
The rising graph of the BJP is, indeed, disturbing. It raises question about India's ethos of secularism. What the US state department has said in its latest report is largely true: "There is a gradual but continual institutionalization of Hindutva in India, marked by politicized inculcation of Hindu religious and cultural norms to the exclusion of other religious norms."
The annual report on what is a treatise of international religious freedom says: "Hindutva often synonymous with cultural nationalism, excludes other religious beliefs and fosters religious intolerance."
That the BJP is the ruling party makes things worse. I was prepared to believe that the BJP, after winning elections in Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan, would settle down and plug the line of development and governance to soften the Hindutva propaganda, as it did during the polls.
But I find the RSS guiding the three governments and the chief ministers saying it proudly. The new development is a direct induction of the RSS pracharaks (preachers) in the cabinets in all the three states. They are going to play a key role in the next general election.
What it denotes is that the RSS is confident that its ideology has come to be accepted. They do not hide behind the cultural discourse any more. They openly preach Hindutva and have made it clear that this will be their plank for the Lok Sabha election.
They do not want to admit that the BJP is their political limb because Vajpayee still pulls many liberals towards him on the belief that he is not "as bad as L K Advani."
The strengthening of the BJP has also encouraged another member of the Sangh parivar. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has said that it will "reconvert" those Hindus who had "become Christians." It has said that its job will be easier because they have their own governments in Rajasthan, Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi has become so blatant in his extremist behaviour that he wants to take on even the Supreme Court which has criticized the state for the manner in which the riot cases have been pursued.
His government has raised the fears of communal disturbances returning to the state if the Supreme Court transfers out the trial of any of the Gujarat riot cases. He does not want to change his communal outlook. Nor does he want the victims to get justice. There is still an economic boycott of Muslims.
With secular forces in disarray and Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi not making the grade, the return of another NDA, headed by the BJP, cannot be ruled out. This may spell disaster to all liberal values in India. Saffronization may come to acquire a deep coat of Hindutva.
Ministers like Murli Manohar Joshi have already polluted the fields of education, information, culture and even medicine. Another term of the BJP may encourage them to make wholesale changes in history, heritage and even the legal system. Political system is increasingly becoming a hostage to fanatics and extremists. India's ethos of pluralism is in danger.
One silver lining, however, is the alliance of non-BJP forces. Sonia Gandhi's statement that the Congress wants a joint front and that it will leave the question of prime ministership to it is a hopeful development.
This also takes the wind out of the BJP's sails that casting vote in favour of the Congress would mean bringing in the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi the country's prime minister.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.
Nigerians are the happiest
The World Values Survey, an inter-university study, recently issued a report in which it found that Nigerians are the happiest people in the world. The Americans are 16th on their list, the British 24th and the Russians the unhappiest.
The survey, which has studied happiness since 1945, finds that it has not increased in Europe and North America even though the societies have become wealthier. The desire for material goods, it concludes, is "a happiness suppressant".
But why Nigeria? To discover why it is so I have landed in a village of approximately 5,000 and everyone says hello to me often with a smile, and yet I know many of them barely have enough to eat.
I have just been given lunch by the headmaster of the local technical school, Peter Ikani, cooked by his 28 year old daughter, Ele. It is simple fare but a rather delicious hot peppered goat stew served with yams.
Peter apologizes for receiving me in his "hovel" (which it is, even by the standards of this village) and explains that teachers are badly paid and often paid late. Peter is well read, thoughtful and religious. Ele is highly articulate and perceptive yet, unable to find the finance to go to university, has a low level job in the Social Insurance Trust Fund in the capital, Abuja, five hours away.
Yes, they both say earnestly, Nigerians are a happy people. Peter puts it down to God and music. "We have a great religious faith. Whether we are Christians like us or Muslims as in the north, we all believe ardently that God is looking after us. We believe in being our brother's keeper".
Eli is perhaps more perceptive, "people smile at you because that is the way they deal with the awful stress in their poverty stricken life. I can take you to people in the village who are hungry, who are not happy, and God is just in their lives to give them solace. One reason why many of us are happy is that we don't ask for much. If God gives us food we easily become happy. We are not greedy."
A few days earlier I was in Abuja eating in a local open air fish restaurant with the daughter of an Ibo king, together with an engineer and a successful business woman. All of them believe Nigerians are unusually happy. Princess Gloria said, "You see it in how we move.
It's a movement inside us and in society. We feel full of music and love of God. Her friend, the business woman, added, "We Nigerians look after each other. If I know you and you are hungry or ill I will try and help".
The engineer said: "It was in our old tribal traditions and religion built on that. Have you ever seen such a religious people? (I confess I haven't.) Of course it goes too far in many cases and we become too fatalistic."
I walked the streets. I stopped the young men selling newspapers and phone cards and at one point was accosted by a talkative beggar. None said they were happy. "We are too hot and have no money". I quizzed them on how many cell phone cards they sell a day- "three or four", which I calculate gives them a daily income of less than $3 a day.
At the Nigerian newspaper editors' forum where I had been invited to speak, the previous speaker, a freedom of information advocate, said, "I read about the survey. I was surprised and not surprised. If you look at our problems it is unimaginable to say we are happy. But then Nigerians appear to have developed a very thick skin. Fela, the great singer of the 1970s, had a song, 'We suffer and we smile'". - Copyright