New phase in Pak-US ties

The most prominent feature of the new phase in US-Pakistan is that it owes much to the personal equation between President Pervez Musharraf and President George W. Bush. If any proof was needed of this important factor, it was amply provided by General Musharraf's recent Washington stopover and meeting with the American leader.

Brimming with confidence after his talks with Mr Bush, President Musharraf described his meeting as "wonderful", and said that it had "paved the way for a long-term, strategic and broad-based relationship" with the world's only superpower.

He described Pakistan as a "front -line state" successfully fighting against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and disclosed that Pakistan had arrested 600 Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including some of their key leaders.

Perhaps no US president has ever publicly praised a Pakistani leader in such effusive terms, even during the worst days of the Cold War or when the struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was at its height, as President Bush did at the joint media appearance after the talks.

Calling his Pakistani counterpart "a world leader", the American president said that "there is a relationship in which I can call upon my friend to help deal with international issues such as the development of a Palestinian state." He said he looked forward to working with President Musharraf on that important issue.

Praising President Musharraf for restoring democracy in Pakistan, Mr Bush observed that the world could learn from Pakistan that Muslims could also have a democratic set-up.

"There are some in the world who do not believe that a Muslim society can self-govern. Some believe that the only solution for government in parts of the world is for there to be tyranny or despotism. I don't believe that.

The Pakistani people have proven that those cynics are wrong," said Mr Bush. He went on to observe that President Musharraf can help in world peace by reminding the sceptics what is possible.

Expressing unequivocal support for the Pakistani president, Mr Bush said he looked forward to "working closely" with him for the next four years. Assessing US-Pakistan ties, President Bush said: "All in all, our relationships are good, they are strong, and they will remain that way."

When asked how he would define the long-term vision he has for ties with Pakistan, Mr Bush replied that it was a relationship which was very mature in this sense. He, however, was careful not to use the term "strategic" in regard to bilateral relations between the two countries.

The United States is all set to deliver to Pakistan defence equipment worth $1.2 billion which will include eight P-3C Orion Surveillance aircraft for its navy, 200 Tow 2-A missiles and 14 TOW -2A missiles.

The Pentagon has already notified the Congress about the proposed sale. Although the proposed sale of equipment will not affect the basic military balance in South Asia, India has cautioned the US against arms sale to Pakistan.

"US arms supply to Pakistan," says Indian foreign minister Natwar Singh, "will have a negative impact on the goodwill the US enjoys in India, particularly as a sister democracy."

Though the issue of the F-16 fighter jets to upgrade the defence capability of Pakistan was discussed during the talks, no decision seems to have been taken. Pakistan wants to buy up to 25 F-16s, costing $25 million each, by mid-2005 to add another squadron of these jets to its airforce.

In order to mollify India, the US has reportedly offered to sell sophisticated weapons to New Delhi, including F-16s. According to an Indian Express report, India is not interested in the purchase of F-16s because it already has Russian SU-30 MKI and French Mirage 2000.

Though it has objected to the proposed US arms sale to Pakistan, India is itself interested in purchasing weapons from Washington. During defence secretary Rumsfeld's current visit to New Delhi, India is likely to discuss a possible purchase of the Patriot missile system.

The Patriot is a ground-based missile system that can defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft. The proposed sale of arms to India by the United States also reportedly includes C-130 stretched medium lift transport aircraft and P-3C Orion maritime surveillance planes.

According to the Indian media, the US offer has already been discussed by the Indian ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

It is important to view the new phase in Pakistan-US relations in its proper perspective. With Pakistan as a front-line state in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the US at the moment needs it more than the other way round. But this equation will change and the importance of Pakistan will diminish as the fight against terrorism progresses and Al Qaeda and other terrorists are decimated. Another downside of the relationship is that being based primarily on a personal equation between two heads of government, the institutions are not deeply involved in it, which renders its durability doubtful.

There is a qualitative difference in US relations with Pakistan and in its ties with India. It is with New Delhi that Washington is developing a strategic relationship. In his National Strategic Review of September 2001, President Bush described India as a "strategic partner" of the US.

In similar statements on January 13, 2004, President Bush and the then prime minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee announced a new strategic equation between the United States and India.

Explaining the rationale behind the decision, Mr Bush said: "The expanded cooperation is an extended milestone in transforming the relationship between the US and India based increasingly on common values and common interests."

Also, Mr Bush's statement that a partnership with India would increase stability in Asia was an acknowledgement that India had assumed a significant position in US strategic and security plans in Asia.

The most important factor influencing US policy seems to be the perception in Washington that in the post-Cold War era, India as a stable democracy, based on institutional solidity, would be a more reliable partner in US policy objectives in the Asian region.

The current warmth in Pakistan-US relations should not make us unduly euphoric or oblivious of the realities on the ground. We must guard against the temptation of self-deception - the inclination to assess situations in terms of preconceived notions or wishful thinking while ignoring or rejecting any signs to the contrary.

Irrespective of the upswing in our relations with the sole superpower, we should pursue the ongoing peace process with India sincerely and seriously because there is no alternative to a Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbours.

There is nothing wrong with the policy of the present government to maintain friendly and close relations with the United States. However, we must keep in mind that it is essentially an unequal relationship, a relationship between a superpower and a middle order country.

As between two unequal persons, similarly between two unequal nations, there cannot be friendship. There can only be a relationship based on mutual interests and the relationship will last as long as those mutual interests last.

We should also keep in mind that interests of nations change with the passage of time. In relations between a superpower and a smaller country, it is an uphill task to build and sustain close cooperation and understanding, without sacrificing national honour or interests.

This is because the relationship is basically asymmetrical. It is so easy to become a client state of the superpower, unless the utmost vigilance is exercised. The real challenge of our foreign policy is to establish a cooperative relationship with the United States without sacrificing our self-respect or vital national interests.

The writer is a former ambassador.

What the state can do to root out honour killings

Earlier this week the Senate passed the honour-killing bill upping punishment for karo kari to death or 25 years imprisonment (from 14 years). The amendments suggested by the PPP didn't make it to the light of day and the opposition is miffed that the bill was passed so quickly.

The state was not made the wali, as the PPP suggested, and the status quo has been upheld; men can still forgive the people who murder their women. Relatives can waive qisas as contained in Section 309 of the PPC. And the bill does not do away with the provision of sulh-i-badl in Section 310 under which the right to qisas is made compound able.

The MMA was against making these changes, which it believed interfered with the Shariah laws of qisas and diyat. On October 25, MMA leaders said an attempt was being made to take away these rights as granted in verse 178 of Surah al-Baqra and this "proposed amendment in the law is aimed at destroying the family structure".

When the bill was passed on Tuesday, the MMA's Senator Kausur Firdous said that the government was passing this legislation under pressure from international human rights organizations: "We are facing a cultural war right now and western countries raise these issues to spoil our family culture. We should legislate in accordance with our social and family norms, otherwise big powers will make us bow down on every controversial issue."

The position that tampering with these laws is following the dictates of the West is a defensive one. Yes, certain aspects of Western culture do exert extensive influence on Pakistani society, but it is very small-minded to encourage culture or beliefs always in reaction to the West. (This incidentally is a bug most post-colonial countries battle at some point in time, but must emerge from eventually.)

The bill has, however, amended a provision in the criminal laws that had allowed a compromise between the victim's family and the killers, but only barring them from doing so before or during the trial. But since many karo kari cases never reach the courts, this is cold comfort. This is the reasoning behind major criticism of the bill; increasing the punishment will not matter because most of the time cases do not reach sentencing in the first place.

Another problem the PPP had was with the discretionary powers of the lower courts, where it said the bulk of the judgements are decided. We should legislate in accordance with what we think are the rights of women, not just family and social norms, which we could debate till we go blue in the face.

Some families think it is traditional and hence excusable for them to murder their women because their honour (or land) is at stake. Other men wouldn't dream of killing a woman because they wanted to take out the man from the village next door to teach him a lesson not to steal their sugarcane.

Nonetheless, passing laws is the job of parliamentarians, but the implementation of the law is the duty of the state. The lives of these women are in the hands of their families, the police and the lower courts.

The lower courts need to be re-educated, the police need to be either changed or made sensitive to the nature of these cases and patriarchal families need to be educated so that they are convinced honour killing is wrong.

If a man living in Shikarpur believes that he must kill his wife, there is only so much that the state can police him. It can exert as much pressure as it likes from the top-down, but what about the bottom-up?

Minister of State for Law, Justice and Human Rights Chaudhry Shahid Akram Bhinder said on Tuesday that the government is not against any further amendments.

But if these are the amendments that the opposition was suggesting in the first place, why were they not inserted in the bill before it was passed? Does the government know that even if the punishment is 25 years or death this will not stop a man in Shikarpur who has the entire jirga haranguing him to "take care" of his wife or face shame for the rest of his life?

The MMA and the PPP disagree on the way karo kari should be legislated against. But it is the job of political parties to disagree, however, only if this leads to compromise. But at this point in time, reaching a compromise feels like pushing molasses up a hill.

What if the government rushed the bill through without the proposed amendments, because it doesn't want to go up against the Shariah laws? But for the women who are getting killed, (450 reported so far this year), does this mean they are getting stuck between state and senator? And how long will we be stuck in this deadlock?

Perhaps at this particular moment in time the laws will not be changed for the better. It should be changed to protect these women, but it isn't happening now. The state's basic problem is that women are being killed.

If it can't change the laws, surely there are other ways it can try to make headway. The government needs to think out of the box. If it at least acknowledges that it is wrong to kill someone for honour, then it does have the option to tackle the problem bottom-up, the other way around.

Why not spend money on educating people and women about their social rights? (I am not talking about "mass awareness campaigns", which are costly and short term, and produce very few tangible results.)

We're not asking for miracles but the government can persistently tell men that it is wrong for them to kill their women. It must find a way to do this away from the laws, courts and police, or the arenas where there is corruption or considerable opposition.

If the MMA has a problem with western intervention, can we not seek help from an Islamic country which has encountered a similar problem and found solutions? We look to the government to find solutions, not get mired in controversy. What about before the crime? What will the government do before the crime?

Perhaps too much of this debate has taken place in Islamabad. And while this is unavoidable because the laws have to be passed there, can we assume that the man in Shikarpur knows or even cares about what is going on in the capital? But, the first step has been taken, the bill has been passed and we hope that the government keeps its promise to make amendments. Will the focus now be on implementation, education and other solutions?

Modi's plan takes shape

Time is a great healer. I wish I could say that for Gujarat. Nearly three years ago, the BJP, nay, its state chief minister Narendra Modi, had instigated the killing and uprooting of thousands of Muslims. Wounds are far from healed and those who inflicted them stay in power.

I vainly searched for some embers of understanding in the heap of scotched hopes. There was no repentance, no remorse among those who directly or indirectly participated in what was ethnic cleansing. True, the refugee camps have been wound up.

Many of the houses which the mob had destroyed with the help of police have come up. The victims too have fallen to silence after repeatedly narrating their tales of woe. Yet something tugged me from within to tell that peace was superficial.

Ahmedabad, where I spent three days, appears normal. The traffic is heavy as usual and shops full of goods and customers. But whatever trust was built between Hindus and Muslims after the 1969 riots lay shattered.

Then the state was helpless, not a party, and many people tried to put the pieces together to span the distance the two communities had developed. Today the state itself is opposed to any effort at conciliation.

The dwindling tribe of Gandhians and some youthful human rights activists are trying to help people restart their life and to revive Hindu-Muslim unity in the land of Mahatma Gandhi. But they find most Gujaratis so alienated and the government so hostile that it is difficult to have even a place to hold their meetings in the open. The annual meeting of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took place behind closed doors.

Modi is so hostile to persons helping Muslims that he does everything to make their life miserable. It is as if he fears that the whole "work" he has done to polarize society may face some sort of danger.

The detention of a leading lawyer, H.N. Jhela, is a typical example. He has been fighting the cases of wrongfully detained Muslims. That he has been sent to jail has irked even the contaminated bar at Ahmedabad.

The lawyers have observed strike to voice their grievance. So much so, that the public prosecutor refused to appear for the government. Modi is not affected by such protests.

For him, Gujarat is a laboratory to experiment with the BJP's new thinking to permanently divide society along religious lines. Most of the people have been taken in because he has wrapped Hindutva in the identity cover. They feel Modi is winning the Gujaratis an identity which even Sardar Patel, the son of the soil who was India's first home minister, had failed to do.

Strange, even the educated do not feel that in the name of dignity they are heaping indignities on the Muslim population. The jingling of coins - Gujarat is a prosperous state - is not letting the majority of Hindus in the state listen to the feeble cry of the suppressed minority.

Modi's experiment has succeeded to the extent that both Hindus and Muslims have been segregated. They live in separate localities. A sense of insecurity haunts both of them.

So much so that a Muslim judge of the high court has preferred a congested Muslim habitation to a sprawling government-allotted bungalow. This is no triumph for the BJP because Modi has ghettoed the Hindus as well. They do not dare go to Muslims localities. Even government buses take a detour of six, seven kilometres to avoid a locality like Juapur, known as mini-Pakistan.

Of course, Muslims are the worst sufferers because they have been boycotted economically. Very few Hindus buy from their shops. Contacts at the social level have been decreasing for some years; they have become still fewer. Prospects of jobs for Muslims have never been bright.

They have become bleaker because there is now a blatant scheme not to employ them at all. Some Muslims have migrated to other states. A few who have returned feel lost.

"My wife has told me many a time to send the children out," says a Muslim whose family made sacrifices during the independence movement. "I have told her that things will improve."

But the tragedy with Gujarat is that the chief minister himself sees to it that the situation does not normalize and that the distance between Hindus and Muslims does not lessen.

Several human rights activists told me that conditions had "deteriorated" since the carnage. On the one hand, many Muslims are growing beards and women wearing burqas to register their identity and, on the other, Hindus are feeling that "the Muslims are again rearing their heads." They continue to justify that what happened to the Muslims on the grounds that "it was coming to them."

The Gujarat unit of the PUCL does not hide its concern. It is conscious of the "enormous task before it." But it finds the government "uncooperative" and most Hindus "unconcerned."

In a report, it says: "While the government is callously indifferent, the people are yet to be awakened." It recalls the days of the emergency saying, "Gujarat was an oasis of individual freedom and human rights." But it is no use of harking back to the past. The Gujaratis live in terror and dare not say anything against what Modi is doing lest they should be punished as some have been for expressing their protest.

Modi is no less authoritarian than Mrs Indira Gandhi was. The backing of the BJP high command has made him ride roughshod over others' rights. The majority of the BJP MLAs are against him and his predecessor Keshubhai Patel has conveyed this to the party leaders in Delhi. But the RSS is reportedly in favour of all that Modi is doing to establish a "Hindu rashtra."

As for the civil servants, they are part and parcel of Modi's dictatorial set-up. The fear generated by the mere threat of taking action even under the amended POTA is so pervasive that the general run of public servants act as willing tools of tyranny Their sole motivation for being "yes men" is the desire for self-protection, the desire for survival.

Sensing this, Modi has appointed civil servants as chairmen of boards and corporations. His secretariat directly controls them. MLAs who normally head such bodies are resentful but fall in line because of the instructions of the party bosses from New Delhi. If there was a free and fair election for leadership by the BJP MLAs, Modi would be ousted in no time.

In the case of police, it is worse because Modi bypasses even the district superintendent of police and orders the officer in charge of a police station directly how to act and when. Atrocities committed in police custody are innumerable.

One example is that of Rajkot where the police applied tiger balm to the eyes of the seven accused. Again, some time ago, a home guard killed an innocent young man at Millatnagar, Ahmedabad. But no action is taken against those who commit such crimes.

Recent developments - Zahira Shiekh's (main witness during the Best Bakery carnage) retractions - suggest that what the Gujarat police and administration was attempting is nothing but a repeat of the very fraud, for which they were severely castigated by the Supreme Court only a few months ago. But neither Modi nor the BJP high command is bothered. They have a different plan.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

No respite from US torture

The Lubyanka prison's heavy oak main door swung open. I went in, the first western journalist to enter the KGB's notorious Moscow headquarters, a place so dreaded Russians dared not utter its name.

After interviewing two senior KGB generals, I explored the museum of Soviet intelligence and was briefed on special poisons and assassination weapons that left no traces. I sat transfixed at the desk used by all the directors of Stalin's secret police and on which they wrote the orders to murder 30 million people.

Descending dimly lit stairs to below street level, I saw some of the KGB's execution and torture cellars, and special "cold rooms" where naked prisoners were beaten, then doused with ice water and slowly frozen.

Other favoured Lubyanka tortures: psychological terror, psychotropic drugs, prolonged sleep deprivation, dazzling lights, intense noise, days in pitch blackness, isolation, humiliation, constant threats, savage beatings, attacks by guard dogs, near drowning.

Nightmares from the past...but the past has returned. According to report recently leaked to a newspaper, the Swiss-based International Red Cross has accused the Bush administration for a second time of employing systematic, medically supervised torture against suspects at its Devil's Island at Guantanamo, and at US-run prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The second Red Cross report was delivered to the White House last summer while it was trying to dismiss the Abu Ghraib prison torture horrors in Iraq as the crimes of a few rogue jailers.

Many tortures perfected by the Soviet secret police, notably beating, freezing, sensory disorientation, and sleep deprivation, are now routinely being used by US interrogators against Muslim suspects.

The Soviet secret police, however, did not usually inflict sexual humiliations. That technique, and hooding, were developed by Israeli psychologists to break the resistance of Palestinian prisoners.

Photos of sexual humiliation were used by Israeli security, and then by US interrogators at Abu Ghraib, to blackmail Muslim prisoners into becoming informers. All of these practices violate the Geneva Conventions, international, and American law.

The Pentagon and CIA's secret gulag in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan has become a sort of Enron-style, off-the-books operation, immune from American law or congressional oversight.

The US has been sending high-level anti-American suspects to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and, reportedly, even to Pakistan, where they are brutally tortured with violent electric shocks, savage beatings, drowning, acid baths, and blowtorching - the same tortures, ironically, ascribed to Saddam Hussein.

Protests over these crimes by members of Congress, respected human rights groups, and the public have been ignored. If, as Bush claims, terrorism suspects, Taliban, and Mujihadeen fighters deserve no protection under the laws of war because they wear no uniforms or are "illegal combatants," and thus may be jailed and tortured at presidential whim, then what law protects from abuse or torture all the un-uniformed US Special Forces, CIA field teams, and those 40,000 or more US and British mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan euphemistically called "civilian contractors?"

It's time the US Congress and courts wake up and end this deeply shameful and dangerous episode in America's history. - Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2004