| 14 March 2004 | Sunday | 22 Muharram 1425 |
Pressure on Iran
Deaths in custody
The Indian deputy prime minister's statement that India is ready to "give and take" in an effort to make peace with Pakistan over Kashmir should be welcomed, and also reciprocated. Now that the peace process between the two countries is under way, it is encouraging that Mr L.K. Advani, who was generally known for his hawkish stance vis-a-vis Pakistan, has come round to moderating his line. He is now following his leader, the Indian prime minister, who has emerged as a champion of peace in India.
True, there are cynics who believe that this sudden outburst in Indian official circles of friendly sentiments towards Pakistan is part of the BJP's electioneering strategy. Others believe the peace process has been undertaken under American pressure. Be that as it may, the fact is that there is a growing consensus among the people of Pakistan and India that it is time to bury the hatchet and make peace.
With the two countries having achieved nuclear status, the cost of war is now too horrendous - in terms of destruction of human lives and the economic price to be paid - for any of the two to persist in pursuing a foreign policy based on militarism. In this context, the approach advocated by Mr Advani which envisages flexibility and accommodation is the one we will have to adopt. The two governments have, without saying it in so many words, already taken the line of give-and-take since they decided to mend fences in 2003.
Following the Islamabad Saarc summit in January where Mr Vajpayee agreed to resume the bilateral dialogue, substantial progress has been achieved. This would not have been possible if the two sides had not been accommodating.
The foreign secretaries met in February in Islamabad and agreed to open talks on Kashmir in May-June. There has been an agreement on opening the Khokhrapar-Munabao border crossing. Cricketing ties have been resumed. There have been fruitful exchanges between the two sides at various levels, between travel agents, writers, booksellers and traders.
This has created an amicable climate which makes it easier for the two sides to tackle the more ticklish issues. Moreover, the warmth generated by the people-to-people contacts has also given a fillip to the peace process, as pointed out by Mr Vajpayee. More can be done in this respect, however.
The visa procedure needs to be liberalized, as cases are frequently reported of intending visitors being denied a visa. There is also need for the media in both countries to lower the pitch of their rhetoric which at times tends to assume a strident tone.
It is significant that it is now being universally felt that Pakistan and India must resolve their differences on Kashmir and reach a settlement. Given the fact that neither has vanquished the other in a war and the balance of power in the subcontinent has not tilted predominantly in favour of one or the other, it would be foolish of either to stick to its guns and refuse to look for a compromise. Such an attitude will lead to deadlock and make a settlement difficult. Thus, the give and take approach makes sense if an era of peace has to be ushered in South Asia.
Pressure on Iran
The postponement by Iran of a visit by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is an expected development given the ongoing tussle between Tehran and the UN's nuclear watchdog. Iran's accusations that the US is "bullying" the IAEA into drafting a resolution critical of its nuclear programme seems to have considerable weight behind it.
America's continued scepticism of Iran's assertion that the nuclear programme is purely for peaceful purposes again underlines the double standards Washington applies when it comes to nuclear proliferation. For quite some time now, senior US officials have been saying that Iran has been secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and that its alleged failure to fully disclose the extent of its programme should invite scrutiny, censure and sanctions by the UN.
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei also said on March 8 that he was "seriously concerned" about the discovery of certain centrifuge designs uncovered by weapons inspectors and that this went against Tehran's "stated policy of transparency". Last year, Iran had declared the small amount of plutonium it had produced, but pointed out that it was a "technical violation" - something that several other countries had also been guilty of.
The US approach to Iran's alleged nuclear programme is in sharp contrast to its handling of Israel's nuclear programme. It was in fact almost two decades ago in 1986 that a former employee of Israel's main nuclear plant in the Negev desert provided photographic evidence to a British newspaper after which he was drugged by Mossad agents and taken back to Israel to stand trial (he remains in jail). The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1952 and the CIA had concluded as early as 1968 that the country had begun producing nuclear weapons.
Quite unlike Israel, Iran is perhaps the only country in the region that does not defer to America's quest for hegemony. Hence, it must be made to pay for its defiance, while another country in possession of a large nuclear arsenal is to be given military aid worth billions every year. Washington should realize that such biased policies serve to scuttle its moral position on proliferation issues.
Deaths in custody
The recent spate of custodial deaths in the country raises several questions about the methods of interrogation employed by our law-enforcement agencies. At least four such deaths have occurred this month alone. In the first case, a boy, arrested in Mardan on drug possession charges, reportedly committed suicide.
This was followed by three custodial deaths where cardiac arrest was cited as the reason for the victims' demise. One occurred in a police lock-up in Lahore, the other in NAB custody, also in Lahore, while the most recent incident took place in the FIA's passport cell in Karachi. All the three agencies have often been accused of resorting to coercive methods to extract confessions from detainees.
The police record in this respect is worse. Using physical force or instruments of torture on their victims, many get away with actual murder by either prevailing upon medico-legal officers to falsify autopsy findings or by refusing to register complaints initiated by the victim's family which are threatened if they proceed further with the case. Since most victims are poor and their families not in a position to stand pressure, many custodial deaths go unrecorded.
Acting against the tenets of the Police Order 2002 that prohibits the use of torture, the law-enforcement body has made itself so unpopular that public trust in the institution has eroded to an alarming degree. The fact that few officials are convicted of their crimes and that internal inquiries are often considered sufficient to curb police excesses serve to encourage the trend of torture and to whitewash custodial deaths.
Perhaps the trend could be checked if elected representatives at local, provincial and national levels - besides human rights bodies and NGOs - could involve themselves more deeply in such matters which shock the people and add to the law-enforcement agencies' low image.