| 27 October 2004 | Wednesday | 12 Ramazan 1425 |
Iran's flexibility
Fishing and the Rangers
As Pakistan and India prepare for the second round of their dialogue, it is encouraging that a sense of realism is beginning to mark the approach of the two governments. Islamabad and New Delhi have now considered it fit to keep their negotiations away from the media glare and not create exaggerated expectations about the goodwill that has come to characterize their exchanges. But more than that, both have come to realize - and have even conceded to each other - that they will have to move away from their respective fixed positions on Kashmir and explore new options.
In this context, President Pervez Musharraf has done the right thing by calling for a debate on Kashmir options. He has rightly said that the status quo offers no solution. The state of no war no peace born of the Kashmir dispute between the two neighbours in the last five decades has only benefited India. Pakistan and the Kashmiris have suffered as a result of this logjam between the two sides. In the past neither war nor diplomacy has produced any definitive results. With no solution on the basis of the UNCIP resolutions in sight, common sense demands that alternative approaches be tried rather than remaining stuck in the old groove.
President Musharraf has called for a debate to explore new openings. This would have two advantages. First, it should encourage people to think of new solutions which they have not tried for many years, having been conditioned to think of the UNCIP resolutions as being the only feasible basis, for a Kashmir solution. Secondly, by holding a debate the government will allow new ideas and proposals to be discussed out of which something feasible may emerge.
That is how countries which have lived with an unresolved problem for years have managed to extricate themselves from a bad situation. This has also given them the time to prepare public opinion for an impending change in outlook by educating the public about the pros and cons of a new approach. There have been cases when the compulsions of history and politics and the pressure of public opinion have forced even a mighty state to accept an aboutturn in its policy.
The sagacity of a leadership is proved by its ability to carry the people along with it in a situation of change, to lead rather than be led. It does not have to impose its will on the people if it can persuade them that a change is essential and inevitable.
That stage has been reached over Kashmir and it is indeed a big challenge for the Musharraf government how it handles this change. After having fed the public on a lot of propaganda for over 50 years, the establishment has led the people to believe that Kashmir can be taken with the force of arms and that every Kashmiri wants the state to join Pakistan. Now a strong section of opinion in Pakistan - though a small one - knows that this approach will only harm us.
The peace activists want peace with India and believe that other options are feasible which would satisfy the Kashmiris as well. It is also time that the people of Kashmir on both sides of the LoC are treated as the key stakeholders who should have a major say in the debate on the options being explored.
Iran's flexibility
Iran has shown a remarkable degree of flexibility on the nuclear issue. On Monday, Iranian officials said that Tehran could consider freezing uranium enrichment as proposed by three European countries. The European three - Britain, France and Germany - have proposed to Iran that it could get valuable nuclear technology provided it indefinitely suspended its uranium enrichment programme.
Iran has now indicated that indefinite suspension should not mean putting a permanent halt to the enrichment process. Nevertheless, despite these differences in semantics, Iran seems to have averted a major crisis by making its position clear well ahead of the Nov 25 deadline proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Monday's announcement means that Iran is keen to continue its dialogue with the European three with a view to finding an acceptable solution.
The talks with the Europeans are important, because their success could thwart the American move to take Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council, where the US could have a resolution imposing sanctions on Iran.
The Iranian flexibility is in sharp contrast with the attitude of Israel and some of its supporters. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Iran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons and organizing "an enormous terrorist network".
There are reports that Israel has acqured bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Given Mr Sharon's hawkish approach, it is quite possible that Tel Aviv may attack Iran's nuclear insulations. For this Mr Sharon will probably get full support from President George Bush and the Democratic presidential candidate, Mr John Kerry. Support for Israel has also come from Mr Tony Blair, who said "the international community" did not find Iran's nuclear programme "acceptable".
Obviously, by "the international community", the British prime minister meant his own government. What Mr Blair failed to admit was that the international community also did not accept Israel as a nuclear power. It is the Middle East's only country with a nuclear arsenal which it has acquired with full American and European support. It is this double standard that has deprived the Anglo-American policy toward Iran of a moral basis.
Fishing and the Rangers
Activists of the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, a voice of the fishing community in Badin, have accused Rangers personnel of harassing local fishermen and destroying the latter's sole means of living. That the paramilitary organization has not even tried to rebut these allegations only confirms the impression that there might be some truth in what the fishermen are saying.
The Rangers have been accused of practically running their own fiefdom in the area, controlling fishing rights in the surrounding Indus delta region as well as those in the coastal waters. A system is in place under which fishermen have to obtain permission from the paramilitary to fish in a certain area. In return for such permission, they share part of the catch with the Rangers. The fishermen say that this arrangement is highly unjust and that in many cases they have to give up most of their catch to the Rangers who then sell it for a profit.
The first question to be asked is: how can the Rangers possibly acquire the right to issue licences for fishing in the coastal waters? They are in Badin because it is a border district and their job is to guard the frontier. If the allegations of the fishing community are correct, then the Rangers are intruding on areas that are not theirs to control or regulate. They are also said to extract a levy from locals for which there is no legal sanction.
This is just one more example of the armed forces in Pakistan getting increasingly involved in commercial and business interests and by doing so they are presenting an unhelpful image of themselves. Badin's mostly impoverished residents depend largely on fishing for a subsistence living. The Rangers should not add to their misery by trying to control fishing rights and by imposing a levy on the people of Badin.