Carving up Kashmir would be unfeeling. First because it will be dissonant with the people- oriented intent of The Independence Act of 1947 when dealing with issues concerning the princely states, and secondly it would be disregarding the central concept of partition itself, namely, that majority religious populations, particularly where overwhelming, will succeed to British suzerainty in units of British India. An interesting juxtaposition is that of Hyderabad state.
But then that was then. Filibustering by one party has paid off. The geo-political power calculus and world equations have radically changed. Finding a way out has become inescapable.
But why not go for mutually negotiated, tripartite arrangements aimed at serving the supreme interest of the people? To my mind, given the will by all concerned, one such possibility could be:
a) Under the umbrella of the UN Trusteeship Council create a political entity encompassing the borders of the British princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
b) This political entity should comprise three confederating states, namely, (i) areas covering Azad Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of the princely state administered by Pakistan, (ii) areas consisting of Jammu, Ladakh, etc., under the control of India minus the Valley and (iii) the Valley itself represented by the Kashmiris.
c) The political entity mentioned in (b) to be a 'trust' territory under the Trusteeship Council, with joint administration of the three confederating units with the UN.
d) Each confederating unit will have a representative assembly provided that, except for the assembly for the Valley, India and Pakistan will have the right to nominate 25 per cent of seats in assemblies for units currently under their jurisdiction as constituted in (b).
e) The political entity will have its borders guaranteed by the UN for 25 years after which, by virtue of predetermined arrangements, the territory will assume the status of an independent, neutral state - Switzerland model - and India and Pakistan will cease to nominate people to the two confederating units as provided in (d).
M.J.AS'AD
Karachi
PU affiliation charges
The Punjab University has issued a 40-point manual of amended rules and procedure for affiliation of private institutions with the university. This has resulted in de-affiliation of 42 colleges, out of which 17 are in Lahore.
This is a good move to improve the quality of education. However, the PU has raised security fees to Rs150,000 for degree colleges in general education, Rs200,000 for post-graduate colleges and Rs300,000 for commerce, law, BEd and information technologies colleges.
Besides, the PU has imposed a Rs30,000 fee for inspection by affiliation committee and Rs15,000 for extension of affiliation to each discipline already affiliated with the university.
The intention of the PU is good, and inspection of private colleges is necessary to ensure that they meet the laid-down standards of higher education but these heavy fees make education expensive for poor students who fail to get admission to government institutions.
The ultimate burden of these security and other fees would fall on the parents as these private institutions are going to increase their admission and tuition fees to cover up the PU's heavy charges for affiliation.
I should like the PU to rationalize their fees. They should announce their rules and procedure, and any private college applying for the first time for affiliation should be charged a nominal inspection fee, without any security.
But if it does not meet the standards as laid down by the PU in the first inspection, then the fee for the second inspection be increased and, similarly, for the third time it should be further increased.
In fact, if an institution fails to come up to the required standard in two attempts, the institution may be debarred from affiliation. This is a sufficient deterrent for the upcoming new colleges/ institutions.
MUHAMMAD AZHAR KHWAJA
Lahore Cantt
Sindh CM's concerns
Your editorial (Nov 25) has rightly commented on the Sindh chief minister's remarks about the release of Mr Asif Ali Zardari that perhaps the release of Mr Zardari and the possibility of a PPP resurgence (or reconciliation with the government) posing a challenge to the provincial government has upset the chief minister.
I fail to understand why people ignore the fact that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Successive governments kept Mr Zardari in jail for eight years, but they failed to prove any case against him. Is anybody sorry for this treatment meted out to this politician? Will anyone apologize to him?
Mr Zardari may or may not be convicted, but isn't it time to question our legal system that keeps a person in jail without conviction for such a long time? There may be hundreds of people in different jails across the country without trial for years and the much identified and talked about jail reforms remain mere rhetoric.
Regarding the Sindh chief minister's insinuation that Mr Zardari's release is due to a deal between the government and the PPP, the PPP seems to be right in saying that had it wanted to have Mr Zardari released through a deal, why it would not have taken so long.
Instead of welcoming his release and starting a process of healing and reconciliation, remarks such as those by the CM signal a revival of narrow political rivalries that have eroded our politics and values.
MUSHTAQUE RAJPAR
Karachi
Condoleezza Rice
It is interesting to see various reactions from our part of the world to the nomination of Dr Condoleezza Rice as US secretary of state. While it may be a matter of concern to see another hard liner about to enter the inner circle of President Bush, the reactions here revolve more around her gender, race and personal life than her ideological disposition which is entirely her own.
Having been a tutor of Bush on foreign policy and having advised Bush Sr. on the former Soviet Union during his presidency, the intrinsic professional capability of this Stanford professor and scholar cannot be discounted, however hard one may try to taint it due to her gender and race. Hawkish Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney do not arouse half as much negative interest as Dr Rice does.
The challenge for our part of the world is, therefore, to make an effective professional response to the hardline winds blowing everywhere instead of maligning the person of Dr Rice, which will not only not get us anywhere but also only reflect upon the mentality of our society - that it is not tolerant enough of women in general and of professional women with minds of their own in particular.
DR MAHNAZ FATIMA
Karachi
Two-nation theory
Mr Salahuddin Haider, adviser to the Sindh chief minister, has issued a rejoinder (No 24) to Mr Ayaz Amir's article about the MQM. This must be the first time that the role of a political party has been defended at the government level. If the MQM had any reservations about the contents of the article, it should have counter-argued at the party level.
Mr Haider has gone far beyond the ground realities in appraising the MQM chief's achievements during his recent visit to India inasmuch as he has attributed the Indian government's decision to pull out a few soldiers from occupied Kashmir as an outcome of Mr Altaf Hussain's visit.
That India, which usually does not succumb even to superpower pressure, has in the matter of Indo-Pakistan relations yielded to the MQM chief's advice is really difficult to digest.
The proposal to make the Line of Control (LoC) a temporary border and to further the dialogue with India contains nothing new. This is already happening. What success can be claimed on the basis of that proposal is difficult to understand.
It is true that the MQM, after winning the municipal elections in 1987, rendered some service to the citizens but what it has done in later years cannot also be forgotten. It should take the responsibility for damaging the economy by giving strike calls off and on for quite a long time.
The history of the creation of the party and its split in 1992 contained in Mr Ayaz Amir's article cannot be dismissed outright even though, during the earlier years of its creation, the party succeeded in mustering public support in urban Sindh.
The position may have since changed and free and fair elections may prove that but not the "engineered" elections to which we have been accustomed for many decades, and the recent election of Mr Shaukat Aziz can be cited as an example.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
Karachi
(II)
I refer to the letter of Mr Kunwar Khalid Yunus (Nov 21). Mr Yunus is very naive if he does not understand the situation of mass migration in 1947. The plan for independence and division of India did not include the mass migration of populations as it would have been considered as madness in normal circumstances. In the event it did take place because of mass killings.
The Pakistan leadership suspected that it was a conspiracy to choke the newly-created state with millions of refugees. India, being a much bigger and more established government, could absorb them. Under those circumstances, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan was very sensible not to encourage the migration wherever possible.
In any case, Pakistan could not absorb the whole Muslim population of the subcontinent. It was never intended to do so, otherwise Pakistan should have been given four more provinces - East Punjab, UP, West Bengal, Bihar and Assam - on the basis of the total Muslim population of India.
The two-nation theory was based on Muslim majority areas only. The idea was that there will be a substantial population of minorities on both sides of the border and both countries will be sensible enough to look after their respective minorities.
KHALID AHMAD
London, UK
'Enlightened moderation'
President Musharraf once again outlined his views on 'enlightened moderation' while speaking to a panel of South Asian journalists in Lahore (Dawn, Nov 21). He elaborated on his two-pronged approach, claiming that his concept of enlightened moderation has "caught on".
Meanwhile, the Defence Science Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon, in a critique of the US government's failure to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world, has commented on the perceived causes of hatred for the US (Nov 24).
It says: "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the panel stated. "The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states."
Doesn't President Musharraf comprehend that his rule is seen as authoritarian by a large portion of the population? Does he not realize that this virtual dictatorship of his and its support by the US is actually contributing to the rise of extremism and hatred against the US in Pakistan?
MUBASHIR KHAN
Indianapolis, IN., USA
Deafening silence
Dr Gideon Polya's letter "Reporting Iraqi civilian deaths" (Nov 22) reminds one of the old folk song from the Vietnam War ('Blowing in the wind'): "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died".
The silence of the world community (especially the Muslim world) is deafening.
DR M.U.KHAN
Lahore
ICC & doosra
It has been reported in the press that the International Cricket Council (ICC) has termed doosra of Muttiah Muralitharan as his "legal delivery". Previously on two occasions the ICC regarded his "doosra" as an "illegitimate delivery".
By overruling its own decision, the ICC has shown itself as unreliable. On the other hand, hasn't Muralitharan made a mockery of spin bowling by bowling legal and illegal deliveries? The fact remains that with his illegal deliveries it is not only the batsmen who have suffered but the image of cricket has been tainted too.
RAFAT MAHMOOD ANSARI
Islamabad
'Powell's belated exit'
Your editorial (Nov 17) has exposed the US administration's in-house rivalries. By no means a dove himself, a retired four- star general, Colin Powell - a friend of Pakistan - was surrounded by hawks, and even a super hawk, Dr Condoleezza Rice, who has now replaced him.
During the entire first term of the Bush administration, Powell seemed or was found to be a sane voice and a symbol of moderation. But in the backdrop of the illegal wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, sanity and moderation were the most wanted commodities.
Powell wanted to do a thing or two. He wanted the Palestinian problem to be solved amicably - which meant that he had to help Palestinians, and that was not acceptable to Israel, as well as to the White House.
Yasser Arafat, whom Powell respected, had assured him that 'any solution' so long as it guarantees a Palestinian state was acceptable to him and the Palestinians. Israel, on the other hand, does not want any solution.
The Zionist lobby in the Republican administration compelled the defence department to attack Iraq for securing Israel and also the USA may get its hands on Iraqi oil.
Powell knew this game, which he tried to show it to the president. Bush, already playing in the hands of Israelis and Jewish community of the USA, closed his ears. Naturally, then, he had to resign.
Then his deputy Richard Armitage, the Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and five other secretaries of state had also to resign. In fact, they had to be purged. The US administration - controlled, directed, guided and even arm-twisted by Zionists and Israelis - has no place for just, reasonable or sane voices.
S.M. KAZIM NAQVI
Karachi
Travelling facilities
The residents of Satellite Town, Bahawalpur, wish to draw the prime minister's attention to the following: On Oct 19 we submitted an application to the secretary, Road Transport Board, Bahawalpur, requesting him to re-start the mini-wagon service between Farid Gate and Himaitian via Rafi Qamar Road.
This application was duly signed by the residents of Satellite Town and endorsed by our nazim, Mr Rab Nawaz. It is regretted that no action has yet been taken on the application. Moreover, all our queries in this regard have so far remained unanswered.
RESIDENTS
Satellite Town, Bahawalpur
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com