| 24 February 2004 | Tuesday | 03 Muharram 1425 |
The bone of contention
Peace in nuclear South Asia
Look a little deeper into the world of Islam and you will find, perhaps to your surprise, not a clash with the West. That is what the political scientist Samuel Huntington had predicted in his widely read and widely quoted book, The Clash of Civilization. What you will find instead is a clash between two different points of view about who should claim the Muslim state.
This battle is being fought on many fronts in the Islamic world. But of great consequence for the world's Muslims is the shape the battle is taking in four countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
Afghanistan now has a constitution that grants equal rights to men and women and protection to minorities. However, it has also given enormous powers to the Supreme Court which can rule on the constitutionality of laws based on its interpretation of Islamic principles. The on-going struggle in Iran between the established clergy and the Iranian youth has received considerable attention in the western press.
For several months last year, thousands of students marched in the streets of Tehran demanding a role for the ordinary citizens in managing the state. They seem to be giving up hope that the reformist cleric, President Mohammad Khatami, would be able to bring about the desired change from within the system.
They had come to realize that even if President Khatami succeeded, it will be a nuanced change, a change at the margin. More recently, the cleric dominated authority has barred thousands of people from contesting the parliamentary elections on the ground that they don't uphold the principles on which the Iranian Islamic state was founded.
Now a new voice has begun to be heard in Iran. This belongs to a person with impeccable credentials. Sayyid Hussein Khomeini - the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution - has lent his support to the point of view that there has to be a separation of religion and state even within the world of Islam.
This, of course, is unacceptable to the powerful religious establishment not only in his own country but all across the Muslim world. The Muslim religious conservatives claim that of all the major world religions, it is only Islam that comes with a well developed system of governance. Separate the state from religion and you take the spirit out of Islam, they maintain.
Not so, says the younger Khomeini. In a series of interviews given in Iraq last year - he had to leave his country to be able to speak freely - he called for a referendum in his country to determine how the Iranians wish to be governed. There is a place in Islam not only for political debate but for democratic expression, he said. The clergy must not be allowed to impose its will on the people. That is not what Islam teaches.
The young Khomeini's views have found a resonance in Iraq, at an important turning point in that country's history. The Iraqis, under the protective umbrella provided by America's occupying forces, are now debating their political future.
The most important voice in that debate now belongs to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani who has already forced the American authorities to change their time-line for transferring authority back to the Iraqis.
After persuading the US to fix June 30, 2004 as the date on which transfer of power will take place, the Iraqi cleric is now insisting that the constituent assembly to be given the task of writing the country's new constitution should be directly elected.
This will, of course, ensure that the majority Shia population (they account for 60 per cent of Iraq's population) will be appropriately represented.
In pressuring the US authorities in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani is determined not to make the mistake committed by the Shias in 1920. At that time, it was the Shia rebellion against the British occupation of their country that led to Iraq's independence.
Britain withdrew but political power fell into the hands of the Sunnis. That that would happen was engineered by the British with their invitation to the Hashemite family to establish a monarchy in Baghdad.
This time around, and under Sistani's leadership, the Shias are determined not to surrender power to the Sunnis and other minority groups. But what will they do once they have the power in their hands?
Sistani belongs to the "quietest school" within the Shia sect - a school that argues for a clear separation between the state and the practice of Islam. It is the same school to which Hussein Khomeini has attached himself.
Will this thinking succeed if Shias manage to secure an important position in the yet-to-be elected constituent assembly? There is some hope that that might happen. There are other voices within the Shia clergy that have begun to be raised in the debate in Iraq that also favour the separation of religion and state.
For instance, this is what Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddin, a young cleric with a home on the banks of the Tigris, had to say about the political development of the Muslim world. "We want a secular constitution.
That is the most important point. If we write a secular constitution and separate religion from state, that would be the end of despotism and it would liberate religion as well. The Islamic religion has been hijacked for 14 centuries by some extremist elements.
The state dominated religion, not the other way around. It used religion for its own ends. Tyrants ruled this nation for 14 centuries and they covered their tyranny with the cloak of religion," Jamaleddin told The New York Times' columnist Thomas L. Friedman in a conversation in August last year.
What kind of political system should the Iraqis create to replace the despotic structure established over time by the Baath Party? What should be the role of religion within that system? In what way should the minorities be protected within this new political system? These are all important questions. Not providing the right answers could bring a lot of grief to the highly fractured society of Iraq, divided as it is among the Shias, the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Turkmen, and a host of other communities.
Religion cannot be the glue to hold together these disparate communities. If Iraq becomes a religious state, it will inevitably be dominated by the Shia majority. Such a development would be of enormous consequence for the non-Shia population of Iraq.
It will also be of great significance for the Islamic world since a theocratic, Shia dominated Iraq - if that is the way Iraq ultimately evolved - would be sitting right next to a similar state that already exists in neighbouring Iran.
Such a development would add strength to the claim of the religious establishment that only it has the divine right to manage the state. It would convulse a number of other countries in the Muslim world such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms that have a significant Shia presence in their populations.
The debates, one in Iran and the other in Iraq, have drawn the attention of the western media and policy makers. What has not been noticed is the debate in Pakistan about that country's political future. Not just for the world of Islam but for the entire globe the way the Pakistani debate gets settled will also be of great consequence for the Muslim world. This is for several reasons.
Of the more than 50 countries that dot the Islamic landscape and house some 1.3 billion people, it is only Pakistan that was created on the basis of religion. What happens in that country of 145 million, the second largest Muslim nation in the world, will have enormous consequences for the development of political Islam.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founding father, was not a Muslim cleric. He created a separate homeland for the Muslim population of British India in the belief that the people of his faith would not get a fair deal in a Hindu dominated India once the British left their South Asian domain.
Jinnah was a modernizing secularist. Had he lived long enough to influence the evolution of the political system in the country he founded, there is little doubt that Pakistan today would be a secular country, with religion clearly separated from the state. But that did not happen and the struggle continued in the country between those who want a liberal and secular Pakistan and those who want to establish an Islamic state.
In this struggle, the forces of conservative Islam gathered considerable strength following their success in the elections of 2002. The MMA coalition of religious parties that emerged as a significant group in the national assembly was able to force General Musharraf to bring about a number of changes in the Legal Framework Order that had become the country's "basic law" along with the constitution.
He was also persuaded to take off his uniform and leave his army position no later than December 2004. More recently, it is the pressure from the religious parties that persuaded the government to adopt a more lenient approach towards Dr. A. Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, accused of running a "nuclear black market."
The second reason why Pakistan's political evolution holds such importance for the world is that Islam has gained influence within the country's military. Pakistan has the world's fifth largest army and it could develop a jihadi culture if the political system gets to be influenced by religious conservatives.
The army began to move in that direction during the CIA supported war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That trend has been arrested, for the time being, by General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's fourth military president.
The world has a great stake in Musharraf's Pakistan project which is aimed at gradually weaning away the country and the army from the hardening grip of the forces representing religious conservatism. His resolve to do that appears to have been strengthened following the two attempts on his life in December by Islamic militants.
Third, General Musharraf will succeed if the economy revives and the fruits of economic growth become available to the masses. Aided by the United States, that process appears to have begun. Economic numbers for 2003 are good and the trends they indicate could continue.
Ultimately, it is economic success that will put the brakes on the rise of Islamic radicalism in the country. However, "success" in this context means more than the revival of growth and a sharp increase year after year in the value of the national product.
This has happened in many Middle Eastern countries but has not prevented many young people to choose martyrdom to communicate to the world the anger they feel about their situation. Consequently, economic success means growth resulting in job creation, poverty alleviation, increase in confidence on the part of the youth in their future, and a belief that the world is a fair place to live in.
Pakistan's experiment with political and economic modernization will produce results, some of them slowly. If the country succeeds it could hold an example for people such as Hussein Khomeini in Iran and Sayyid Jamaleddin in Iraq. They need a model of success in the world of Islam. Pakistan could provide such a model.
The bone of contention
Karachi and Peshawar will have to settle for half a loaf, no test matches but the sop of ODI's and then the Indian team will be whisked away lest too much exposure may make them vulnerable to security risks. As if the terrorists plan their dastardly attacks according to some timetable. It doesn't wash.
As soon as the Indian cricket chief, Jagmohan Dalmia started his press conference to announce the tour's itinerary, I was telephoned by an Indian news channel in New Delhi who asked to stand by as they wanted to interview me on the itinerary. The call came through just as Dalmia's press conference was concluding.
Straightaway, the interviewer asked me about Karachi and Peshawar and I told him without mincing any words that some gloss had been taken away from the tour and it was a bit rich, as it was illogical that a venue was safe for an ODI but not for a test match.
I also pointed out that security affected both the teams since the players would be on the ground and would be staying in the same hotel. The Pakistan players would share the same risks, if indeed there were any risks.
The interviewer felt that I was getting angry and I told him that I was merely expressing my disappointment and since I was not an official, there was no requirement for me to be diplomatic. And then we turned to more pleasant subjects.
I mentioned too in a bantering way that since the wives of the players had been permitted to accompany their husbands, it was unlikely that these ladies would allow themselves to be sequestered in their hotel rooms and were bound to sneak out for shopping trips. The security situation could not be all that alarming.
I don't think it would have been such a big deal if Karachi and Peshawar were not allotted test matches. It is the reason given that is a bone of contention - security. I don't think the three-man delegation that had visited Pakistan to evaluate the venues did enough homework, I am convinced that they had come with pre-conceived ideas and were not inclined to change them. The philosophy of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
This does not dampen my enthusiasm for the cricket tour for it creates a feel-good factor and what with so much bad news about including the sordid business about our nuclear scientists, the people of Pakistan are entitled to some glad tidings.
Writing about glad tidings, Newsweek has a full page devoted to the photographer, Reni Burri. The Maison Europeenne de la Photographie in Paris is holding an exhibition of his photographs (through April 18). The laudatory Newsweek article traces Reni Burri's career.
"The pictures narrate a visual history of the second half of the 20th century from the Suez War in 1956 to the Tiananmen Square in 1980. It's difficult to see a theme in Burri's work; he's obviously a free spirit who likes to push the limits of photojournalism.
Yet he can be extremely conservative; in all of his war pictures for example, there not one cadaver. What holds the show together is two recurring elements - his precise, graphic composition and his filmmaker's eye for detail and motion, Newsweek writes.
Rene Burri has a powerful Pakistan connection. In 1962, I had asked PIA's advertising agency in New York, Fuller, Smith & Ross, to look for a top class photographer for the PIA calendar, the subject of which was the scenic beauty of Pakistan and they suggested the name of Reni Burri.
He sounded like the right man and I got Nur Khan's approval to hire him. Nur Khan was not a great calendar fan but believed that whatever bore the name of PIA had to be the best.
Rene arrived, boyish looking with long hair but there was an intensity about him which he neatly combined with a likeability and I took to him and he to me and we would become close friends and though I am not in touch with him, still are close friends.
He was a workaholic and very demanding and very meticulous. The pictures he took were stunning and he revealed a beauty that was in Pakistan that we ourselves were unaware of. The following year he came back and did another PIA calendar.
In 1964, PIA started its services to the People's Republic of China and I took Rene with me, along with A. J. Kardar and his film crew on the proving flight that preceded the scheduled service and we were on the tarmac of Shanghai's airport when PIA's Boeing 707 landed to a rousing welcome and Rene got the first pictures of a flight that made aviation history.
Later that year I went back to China for a two-month visit to write a book on China and Rene Burri accompanied me and we would collaborate, he supplying the photographs. We travelled extensively and after much discussion and advocacy we were allowed to visit Yenan, the mountain-stronghold where the Long March had ended and from where Mao had re-grouped.
Rene and I worked as a team but he was given to taking off on his own, at odd hours, to shoot his pictures, always particular about the light so that he could capture the mood.
After China, we went to Japan and then back to Hong Kong where I was able to re-new my friendship with the novelist Han Suiyin and she took Rene and me to lunch. The book was not written because it was overtaken by the events of the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed my central thesis of political stability in China.
Rene, however, got his pictures. Rene was the world's best but he was and is a champion person. He loved Pakistan. He felt at home and the late Yunus Said used to call him 'Murree Brewery'. Rene saw the funny side of it. I'll try and get in touch with him and may be persuade him to make more journeys to Pakistan. One must hold on to one's friends.
Peace in nuclear South Asia
With the collapse of the Soviet Union the era of a bipolar world dominated by the two superpowers came to an end. The Soviet disintegration raised the question of the control of its nuclear weapons, located and deployed in four of its erstwhile republics, now independent countries.
There is danger of a possible loss, leakage or pilferage of nuclear weapons or technology. The Soviet nuclear scientists and technicians rendered surplus have been hired elsewhere. Thus the resultant nuclear proliferation became a matter of great concern, if such weapons, material or technology fell in unauthorized hands.
The nuclear arsenal of Russia remains intact. The nuclear countries retain the option of conducting nuclear tests and maintaining or increasing their nuclear stockpiles. China is the only country which has made a commitment renouncing the first use of its own nuclear weapons.
Russia, China and France have self-imposed a moratorium on nuclear testing. The Bush administration is opposed to any such limitations. In spite of several international conferences on the subject, no date or time has been set to ultimately, ensure a world, free of all types of nuclear weapons.
The Middle East situation is far from being normal. United States continues to occupy Iraq. Whatever nuclear capability Iraq had, was destroyed under the IAEA supervision long ago.
Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, increasing the chances of a nuclear blackmail. Its aggressive policy, the killing of the innocent people and destroying the homes of the Palestinians leaves little hope of peace in the region. In fact, real peace may evade the region if Israel's nuclear capability is not fully addressed.
In order to comprehend the implications and inherent dangers in the present state of the development of nuclear weapons in South Asia, it is important to take into consideration the events resulting in the present state. There have been three wars between India and Pakistan.
India enjoys a considerable superiority in conventional weapons. Its indigenous defence production is superior to that of Pakistan. India is also one of the biggest importers of military hardware. So when India progressively developed a nuclear capability starting in 1974 and eventually conducted a nuclear explosion, Pakistan had no option but to do what it did.
As declared by President Musharraf, the policy is to develop and maintain minimum nuclear deterrence. The minimum deterrence that has been developed will continue to be improved both qualitatively and quantitatively in accordance with the requirement of the developing situation.
Similarly an appropriate delivery system will continue to be improved in terms of pay-load as well as range. This is necessary to ensure strategic balance in the region. Should the understanding between the two countries improve to complete satisfaction of both, the need for deterrence may disappear.
Today both countries not only have nuclear weapons but also a well developed delivery system. With a common border and with no understanding on nuclear restraint regime, the situation could be highly explosive.
As a follow-up from the joint statement by the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India, a number of steps have been taken and further steps are likely to be taken to resolve outstanding problems and issues between the two countries.
One of the most important issues, which deserves immediate and urgent attention is that of creating a nuclear restraint regime. The two countries have to come to an understanding to avoid a nuclear confrontation and holocaust which can lead to mutual destruction. An understanding on this issue will go a long way to remove fears, apprehensions, bitterness and hostilities that have existed so far.
In view of the inherent dangers, Pakistan has been advocating bilateral discussion on the nuclear issue. Several proposals had been made in this regard in the past.
As India feels that the nuclear capability of China and Pakistan poses danger to its national security, Pakistan proposed in 1991, a five-power meeting between the representatives of the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan to arrive at an agreement for keeping the South Asian region free of nuclear weapon. India rejected this proposal.
Pakistan and India must retain the nuclear option as long as other nations possess nuclear weapons. A division of the world between the nuclear-haves and nuclear have-nots cannot be accepted.
Denunciation and rejection of nuclear weapons must remain the ultimate objective. While Pakistan and India have pledged to work to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, both have reiterated that neither would sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. In any case the NPT has become meaningless as the goal of general and complete disarmament is nowhere in sight.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons is taking place not only because it is a profitable business - it has more sinister motives behind it. As is evident, subversion and attempts by foreign agents to destabilize Pakistan has continued. A nuclear- free zone for South Asia has been proposed from time to time. This may not be a practical proposition in the present circumstances.
In the absence of nuclear-free zone in South Asia, Pakistan is willing to accept any non-discriminatory regional settlement for establishing a nuclear safe zone in South Asia. The security and well-being of more than one billion people residing in South Asia must remain the primary concern of not only this region but also of the world in general. India and Pakistan bear special responsibility in this regard.
Should India and Pakistan agree to declare South Asia as a Nuclear Safe Zone, which they must, to avert a nuclear holocaust, they have to devise a mechanism for nuclear arms control measures similar to those evolved by the two superpowers.
These may include arms control, mutual inspections in addition to considering containing their nuclear weapons capability under verifiable safeguard, covering nuclear material and facilities.
Safety of nuclear installations to prevent nuclear hazards and transborder effects by major nuclear accidents will have to be ensured. Towards that end it is desirable to create a crises control mechanism.
All this could only be done by promoting bilateral nuclear transparency in the spirit of peace and security. Could it be possible for India and Pakistan to agree to cap their nuclear programmes at the existing or some agreed levels? Of course the entire problem of establishing nuclear safe zone and nuclear restraint regime requires a comprehensive examination by both countries at political, diplomatic and technical levels.
While discussing the evolution of a nuclear safe south Asia, it must be emphasized that we have to remove the existing impasse by resolving the core political issue, which has caused hostilities between our two countries for more than a half century.
An amicable settlement of Kashmir issue can bring about a positive change in our bilateral relations. Let us break the prevailing barriers of doubt and suspicion and look to the future with an open mind. Let us cooperate to create a durable peace in the subcontinent.
The writer is a retired major-general of the Pakistan Army.
email: genumar@yahoo.com.