| 04 June 2004 | Friday | 15 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
Peace talks on track
A paradigm for nuclear security
Many new faces in Iraqi cabinet
The view that religion cannot be separated from the state in a Muslim country is being increasingly criticized these days. It is cited as the main reason behind the backwardness of Muslim states that are actually acting on this concept. It is claimed that the notion of the inseparability of religion from the state is more of a theoretical rather than a scriptural injunction.
It is true that Muslim countries, where affairs are administered on the basis of the concept of inseparability of religion from the state, are either altogether backward or at least in some respects.
But, if we examine the causes of such backwardness in a more objective way, it will appear that the main factor responsible for this is not religion but the perception of Islamic polity being influenced more by the form rather than the true spirit and essence of religious teachings and values that once enabled the Muslim ummah to lead the world.
The Quran says, "(they are) those who when We give them power in the land, establish regular prayers, and give regular charity and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong" (22:41).
The words "power in the land" have a clear reference to the existence of the state. The rest of the verse lays down the charter for those in power in the state which, among other things, gives credence to the concept of inseparability of religion from the state.
Conforming to the two guidelines, namely, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, would, according to another Quranic verse (3:104), mean inviting all that is good, the outcome whereof, according to the same verse, could be the attainment of felicity.
This has been further explained by Abdullah Yusuf Ali as the attainment of happiness in this life and in the next: success, prosperity, freedom from anxiety, care or a disturbed state of mind which by all standards could be the normal outcome of advancement in the modern sense.
The attainment of even some of these forms of felicity cannot be possible without the requisite degree of advancement in the socio-economic field. From the above guidelines, those wielding power in Muslim states concentrate more on forbidding what is wrong, and that too in a coercive manner.
Likewise, they interpret the guideline "enjoining what is right" in the most narrow sense of the expression, as something closely connected with personal conduct, and not in the broader sense of doing good which could benefit everyone.
This preoccupation with prohibitions and the harbouring of narrow views of that which should be enjoined serve as the main stumbling block in the way of attaining progress and advancement.
In order to prove the viability and true worth of the concept of inseparability of religion and the state, the rulers of Islamic states, who claim to be ruling their people on the basis of this concept, must conform more to the spirit than to the form of Islamic teachings and values in managing the affairs of their states.
For example, the Quran not only tells us to do that which is good (2:195) but also exhorts us to excel in doing all that is good (2:148). It means that Muslim rulers should, among other things, not only do things that bring happiness and prosperity to their people but should excel in all such actions within the limits of divine guidance.
Likewise, the Quran says, "He has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and in the earth, all from Himself. There are many signs in this for those who reflect" (45:13) which spells out motivation for unlimited scientific and economic progress. In matters of prohibitions, the focus should be more on reformation than coercion. The Quran also tells us to repel evil with goodness (28:54).
The Quran not only tells us to excel in doing all that is good but also guides us in that by laying emphasis on three things. One is the acquisition of more and more knowledge (20:114).
The acquisition of knowledge is the sine qua non for progress and advancement in any walk of life. The Prophet (PBUH) emphasized the acquisition of knowledge from cradle to grave.
The other is reliance on one's own efforts when it says there is nothing for man except what he has striven for (53:39). The verse emphasizes making both mental and physical efforts for achieving the desired objectives.
The third is the need for appropriate change. This guidance is of special significance as there cannot be any advancement without change. The Quran tells us that if we want to bring any favourable change in our outer condition, there has to be first an appropriate change in our inner condition (13:11).
It means that there has to be first an awareness or realization about the necessity of bringing the change followed by its acceptance and mental preparedness for it, which should among other things, include the acquisition of the requisite knowledge and know-how, and then commitment to its achievement.
Almost all developed countries have passed through this process while achieving the desired degree of advancement in the socio-economic field. The march towards advancement will naturally unfold new vistas concerning various aspects of life which have to be properly addressed and responded to.
The Quran and Sunnah provide us with detailed guidance in respect of numerous matters and situations. They provide guidance in broad terms for all matters but allow the working out of details through the process of ijma and ijtihad and within the limits of such guidance.
Thus, unless the rulers of Muslim states take recourse to ijma and ijtihad while responding to or meeting the requirements of new or changed situations, their states will not be able to attain the desired degree of advancement.
Equal treatment in respect of basic rights at least and the provision of equal opportunities are those components of human rights on which there is great emphasis in the present context. Both these rights are clearly spelt out by the Quran (49:13).
Explaining the relevant verse on the occasion of Hajat-al-Wadaa, the Prophet said, "In the light of this Quranic verse, no Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab nor does any non-Arab have superiority over an Arab.
Black is not superior to white nor is white superior to black. Of course, if there is any criterion of superiority and respectability it is taqwa (righteousness)."
The verse, as may be seen, highlights not only the idea of equality but also spells out the concept of equal opportunities. Taqwa, which is the only criterion of honour before Allah, is a standard that is within the reach of everyone.
Each one of us has an opportunity to become righteous. The rulers of Muslim states should, therefore, ensure due compliance with the spirit of this guidance, where possible, for entitlement in respect of various matters and rights.
Also, the giving of charity as emphasized by verse 22:41 does not mean merely giving alms but implies a practical demonstration of love and goodwill towards all.
Thus, the only appropriate answer to the criticism on the doctrine of inseparability of religion from the state lies in due compliance with the true spirit of relevant Islamic teachings and values by those who claim to be ruling their states on the basis of this concept.
Peace talks on track
After several anxious days, when the future of the recently launched India-Pakistan peace process appeared to be in jeopardy, the prospects of the resumption of the dialogue between Pakistan and India is once again being seen as promising.
The Indian foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh, has clarified that the talks would adhere to the original schedule and would not be confined to the rigid framework of the Shimla Agreement.
If, in the first place, in a previous statement, he had not made observations which cast a shadow of uncertainty over the peace dialogue, both countries would have been saved their moments of anxiety.
Mr Natwar Singh, in a statement on May 30, had suggested somewhat categorically that "India will pursue talks with its western neighbour" on the basis of the Shimla Agreement of 1972.
As a seasoned diplomat having dealt with India-Pakistan problems over a long period, he can be expected to remember that the Shimla Agreement was not negotiated in the happiest of circumstances from Pakistan's point of view.
But for the statesmanship which the late Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto demonstrated at the time, Pakistan would not have come out of the Shimla talks with its dignity intact.
India had militarily intervened in the crisis created by General Yahya Khan aggressiveness and the intransigence of the Bengali leadership in the then East Pakistan, which led to the latter's secession. Mr Bhutto secured a reasonable deal. It is reassuring that Mr Natwar Singh believes that India and Pakistan should not remain prisoners of their past.
More importantly, about the same time when Mr Natwar Singh made his earlier remarks, the Indian prime minister, Mr Manmohan Singh, assured Prime Minister Zafrullah Khan Jamali in their telephone conversation that India was firm in its commitment to move forward and pave the way for resolving all outstanding bilateral issues including that of Kashmir.
Mr Natwar Singh, in an exclusive interview to the widely circulated Hindustan Times, has given the assurance of "frank discussions" on all bilateral issues including Kashmir.
India has also since conveyed to Pakistan its acceptance of the schedule for the talks on nuclear confidence-building measures (CBMs) and the meeting between the foreign secretaries of the two governments.
The Indian foreign secretary has also confirmed that the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan would have a meeting in August, as already scheduled, and the basis of the bilateral talks would be not only the Shimla Agreement but also all subsequent agreements and understandings between India and Pakistan.
A section of the press has reported that Mr Natwar Singh has said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government had "no fundamental differences" (on the India-Pakistan peace process) with the erstwhile administration of Vajpayee "who had built a warm rapport with General Musharraf."
As a Gulf newspaper has observed "the war of words" between the two countries which had started with Mr Natwar Singh's earlier controversial statement now appears to have ended.
It is unfortunate that the Indian foreign minister should have evoked the painful memory of the Shimla Agreement and also speculated that perhaps a resolution of the Kashmir question could be found on the basis in which New Delhi resolved its border dispute with China.
Not unexpectedly, in a sharp rejoinder, the Pakistan foreign minister has stressed that unlike the India-China dispute, Kashmir was not a mere territorial dispute but an international dispute which could not be settled without addressing the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
It is reassuring that following the acrimonious exchange between the two foreign ministers, both Islamabad and New Delhi now seem to agree that all such contentious issues should be dealt with in the course of the bilateral talks which have already started. As Mr Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has said, "the search for peace and stability is imperative for both Pakistan and India."
Perhaps, the most important aspect of the bilateral talks which will recommence later his month is the schedule for the official level talks on the nuclear CBMs slated for June 19-20 and the foreign secretary level talks proposed for June 27-28.
This would be the first time that the two governments would be getting down to discussing the issue in a serious businesslike way. However, it would unrealistic to presume that the discussion would enter a decisive stage in this first encounter between the two neighbours on a matter which touches upon their very survival.
It has to be recognized in both countries that the common people demonstrate a sense of euphoria because of the knowledge that their security arsenals are now equipped with nuclear weapons. The delivery systems in both countries have also been developed to a fairly high level of technology.
While in India the ultimate decision to use or not use a nuclear weapon will apparently lie with the political authority, in Pakistan this decision will be the prerogative of the defence or security apparatus.
It has to be acknowledged that while the political elite in India is normally not hysterical, where nuclear weapons are concerned it has proved itself to be hasty and even mindless by carrying out the nuclear tests in May 1998 which left Pakistan with no option but to follow suit.
To make matters worse, the Indian leadership which was in power in New Delhi at the time daunted Pakistan in the short interval when Pakistan had not quite decided to go for its blasts by asserting that Pakistan should note "the change in South Asia's strategic environment."
Both countries have since been engaged in a mindless pursuit of nuclear weaponry and its delivery system. The late Dr Eqbal Ahmad had aptly remarked: India's mindless rightwing leaders who started it all and then proceeded to goad Pakistan into baring its nuclear capabilities may never acknowledge that "they have committed a crime against India and its neighbours, and that not one good - strategic or tactical, political or economic - can accrue from the blunder."
However, the right-wing (Vajpayee, Advani et al) are now no longer in power but it is doubtful that the Congress, which even though if it has come to power mainly with the support of the left wing i.e. the two communist parties, has the moral courage to bring about a radical policy change to neutralize the consequences of India's nuclear adventure.
The redeeming feature is that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) whose support is crucial to the survival of Manmohan Singh's government has always been strongly opposed to the Bharatiya Janata Party government's nuclear policy.
In a statement issued after India's nuclear blasts in May 1998, it demanded de-nuclearization of the region. The party's Polit Bureau called upon the New Delhi government to declare that "it would not induct nuclear weapons and build a nuclear arsenal triggering a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."
The Polit Bureau also called upon "all peace-loving patriots" to carry forward India's long cherished desire "to rid this planet of all nuclear weapons" and force the government to adopt positions which would help preserve peace and security in the region and strengthen good-neighbourly relations."
With its strong presence in the Lok Sabha and its indispensability to the survival of Manmohan Sindh's government, the CPM can be expected to pressure the Congress and its allies into adopting the same policy towards the nuclearization of the regions.
If a dialogue by India is sustained with Pakistan and some degree of normalization is achieved in other areas of India-Pakistan relations, a movement towards nuclear disarmament may also become a possibility. It will certainly not happen soon but over a period of time it may actually come about.
President Gen Pervez Musharraf's decision to telephone Ms Sonia Gandhi and invite her to visit Pakistan was a gracious gesture. It appears that she would be happy to visit Pakistan.
The Indian foreign minister himself has said: "Soniaji has been invited to Pakistan and I hope a programme would be chalked out for her visit...she would certainly receive a big welcome from its (Pakistan's) people.
It cannot be said that the late Ms Indira Gandhi was always well disposed towards Pakistan. Let us hope her daughter-in-law will show a more congenial disposition in her dealings with Pakistan.
A paradigm for nuclear security
At last some sanity has prevailed over the dark clouds of Indo-Pakistan acrimony. The Islamabad Declaration holds the promise of a genuine rapprochement. I recently saw a great groundswell for peace in New Delhi.
Lahore too opened its heart to Indian visitors. It's a fair tale of two great cities. Only fools now dream of hoisting the green flag on the Red Fort, or of repasting at the Lahore Gymkhana.
There is an air of hope. The people of the subcontinent have spoken. Will the leaders listen and heed? Will they show wisdom or will they squander this opportunity for peace which history has presented?
The stunning results of the Indian elections have sent Vajpayee and his alliance home. This need not be bad for the Indo-Pakistan peace process. If Sonia Gandhi wishes to move forward, as she has said, the BJP, far from opposing, will seek credit for it as the outcome of its own initiative.
The Congress allies, especially the communists, will be supportive of the peace process. Normalization must follow leading to conflict resolution and good relations.
Talks must move forward on all issues with substantive progress on all fronts. India must not shy away from addressing the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. The final solution will take time - who does not know that? But in the meantime, India must deliver on the human and legal rights of the Kashmiri people.
The LoC is sealed. It is time for India to send a signal of good intentions to the Valley. Equally, Pakistan must not shy away from trade, the solution of lesser issues, and more CBMs.
A staggered simultaneity on all issues is a reasonable and viable approach. Peace will need to be knit, strand by strand, into the fabric of solutions. This is the only way to the cherished tapestry of friendship.
It is well that both countries recognize the dangers of a nuclear war and have agreed to talk soon on possible nuclear confidence-building measures (CBMs). At many levels, both India and Pakistan need to take a unified stand multilaterally.
The CTBT and the NPT are fast becoming irrelevant in the face of India and Pakistan acquiring de facto status as declared nuclear states. Both countries must jointly endeavour for de jure recognition of their nuclear status as a fait accompli.
This must not be seen as a dangerous precedent because all other near-nuclear states have signed the NPT and are under IAEA inspection. The only other exceptions are Israel, a non-declared nuclear state, and North Korea.
The P-5 should be expanded to include India and Pakistan, and made P-7 under the NPT, provided both states agree to sign the NPT. Israel and North Korea could be given associate member status provided they agree to the full IAEA regulatory regime.
Though a covert nuclear power, Iran is under vigorous IAEA inspections and cannot qualify for associate status. Both India and Pakistan can jointly mount a worldwide campaign for reform of the NPT.
They could also cooperate in the fissile material cut-off treaty in its negotiations in the UN disarmament committee in Geneva. Both countries need to work out joint strategies for total global nuclear disarmament as a contingent to nuclear non-proliferation.
Both India and Pakistan need to take a high moral position on the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world. Nuclear weapons, as all WMDs, are bad for the whole world. India and Pakistan must declare so.
This is the only moral position all peace-loving countries can take while promoting the principle of universal nuclear disarmament and elimination. Bilateral nuclear talks scheduled for June must address these multilateral interests of both countries. But a heavy responsibility rests upon them to make South Asia a safer place. There are serious dangers of an accidental nuclear exchange given the 3 1/2 to five minutes' response time.
In the event of war, the losing side will be tempted to make a strategic or tactical nuclear strike to avert a conventional defeat. A potential Armageddon looms large on the subcontinent's horizon.
This threat must be wisely managed. It is of no use for India to play games with its nuclear card. Its proposed treaty on nuclear non-first strike cannot be conceptually accepted by Pakistan.
This is seen here as a ploy to subvert our nuclear parity and to relegate us to conventional arms inferiority to India's advantage. On the other hand, given the security environment, it is unrealistic for Pakistan to expect India to agree to nuclear disarmament.
India has a contradictory position on nuclear disarmament. It has one standard for the P-5 to whom it sermonizes on the virtues of disarmament. To Pakistan's quest for nuclear disarmament in the region, it cites the supposed security threat from China as an argument against it.
We must understand that states are seldom consistent in pursuing their interest and will use any opportunistic argument to push them. I think the time has come for India and Pakistan to evolve mature policies to avert the dangers of nuclear war. The nuclear paradigm must be based on risk management and security. Some proposals, which could be mutually acceptable, are:
FIRST: a treaty for non-nuclear strike on demographic and economic targets: this will protect the cities, towns and population centres of both countries. It will also ensure the protection of economic assets like dams, irrigation systems, major industries, nuclear sites, etc. This treaty can become the most significant nuclear CBM.
SECOND: a treaty for the non-use of strategic nuclear weapons: both countries can agree not to use mega-ton weapons against one another. Consequently, in the event of war, the use of only tactical or theatre nuclear weapons will be notionally permissible.
THIRD: a treaty on nuclear security. Both countries will need to put into place a strong monitoring regime to avert an accidental nuclear exchange. This may mean two things.
First, they will need to exchange information on numbers, forward deployment, and tonnage of nuclear devices possessed by each. Ambiguity, which served well for two decades, has now become a dangerous factor in the Indo-Pakistan nuclear equation.
Second, to prevent an accidental nuclear war, a joint command, control and communication system needs to be put into place for nuclear risk management. Our monitors can sit in the control room of the C-3 system in New Delhi, and theirs in Islamabad.
FOURTH: a treaty on banning the development of second-strike capability. India and Pakistan will be plunged into a second nuclear arms race if one of them develops the second-strike nuclear capability.
India's bid to achieve superiority in radar technology and develop anti-missile missile defences will be counter-productive. Recent history has shown Pakistan has matched Indian superiority in nuclear weapons and missiles.
All this will do is to divert scant resources from development and progress. If India wishes to develop ICBMs, it is India's prerogative and does not affect Pakistan. But advanced radar, second-strike nuclear capability and anti-missile missile systems do.
FIFTH: a treaty on mutual inspection of unsafeguarded nuclear installations and facilities. There must be mutual inspection of unsafeguarded and safeguarded nuclear facilities to ensure their non-use for aggressive purposes against one another.
SIXTH: Further strengthening of the bilateral nuclear agreements signed between Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto in 1989. Risk management and security must be the underlying Indo-Pakistan paradigm strategy in evolving nuclear CBMs.
But each country will determine its own perception of security. India's security arrangements will be bifocal - China-centric and Pakistan-centric. Pakistan's will be India-centric. Wisdom will lie in each state finding the space for peace.
Inevitably, that space will be small to begin with. But if the process is kept alive and nurtured, the area of peace can override suspicion and animosity. If India did not shine in its elections, let both countries now endeavour for the feel-good subcontinent.
The writer is a former foreign minister.
Many new faces in Iraqi cabinet
Iraq's new administration of 26 ministers and five junior ministers announced on June 1 contains many new faces, but still reflects the ethnic and sectarian character of its predecessor, the much-derided governing council, and is still dominated by former exiles.
The UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi had said he wanted the interim government to be composed mainly of apolitical technocrats, whose prime task would be to organize elections in January.
But one Kurdish official said recently that "given the mutual distrust that existed between Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia as a result of Saddam, it really is hard to leave all that behind for now".
The president, Sheikh Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, is a Sunni Arab, while his two vice-presidents are a Shia Arab and a Kurd respectively: Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a popular Shia politician and former governing council member, and Roj Nuri Shuways, the speaker of the Kurdish parliament in Arbil.
Ayed Allawi, the prime minister, is a secular Shia, while his deputy, Barham Salih, is a Kurd who has been prime minister of the Kurdish regional government in Sulaimaniya for four years. The government also has ministers from the Christian and Turkomen communities.
Aides to Mr Allawi have said that "security is the number one priority, and that is reflected in the new government". Barham Salih, the new deputy premier who has good relations with the state department and the Pentagon, is in charge of national security. Iraqi officials said the other day that this meant overseeing the work of the defence and interior ministries in the crucial months prior to next January's elections.
Mr Salih, a British-educated civil engineer and a popular figure in Iraqi Kurdistan, is also expected to coordinate the rebuilding of Iraqi security forces for the eventual withdrawal of coalition soldiers.
Another new face is Iraqi defence minister Hazim al-Shalaan. He is from the southern, Shia-dominated province of Diwaniyah and took a leading role in the ill-fated uprising against Saddam Hussein in 1991.
Mr Shalaan then spent years in exile in London before returning to Iraq after the US invasion and becoming governor of Diwaniyah. The other key security post is interior, which goes to Falah al-Naqib, a Sunni Arab who is the governor of Saleheddin, in the heart of the Sunni triangle.
There are no guarantees that the new cabinet will be regarded as any more legitimate than the former governing council, which dissolved itself. With this in mind, Mr Allawi is said to be keen to increase the powers of his government after the June 30 hand-over.
He has dispatched Hoshyar Zebari, the reappointed foreign minister (a Kurd), to the UN to lobby the Security Council on the US and British draft resolution on Iraq. Iraqi leaders want more say in security matters, more control over oil revenues, and a clearer statement about the status of the interim constitution, which the proposed resolution ignores. - Dawn/The Guardian News Service