ON APRIL 7, both India and Pakistan jointly took a big step on the road to regional peace when the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad bus service went into operation after 52 gun-powder filled years. And considering the significance of the breakthrough and its anticipated positive fallout on the peace process it is interesting to note that the two neighbours seem to have crossed the bridge of fire without letting go of their respective stands on the core dispute — Kashmir.

The fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India’s ruling coalition chief Sonia Gandhi and the chief minister of Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Mufti Saeed, flagged off the Muzzafarabad bound bus at Srinagar was an emphatic reiteration of the Indian stand that Kashmir was an integral part of India. And by keeping away from a similar ceremony presided over by the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, Sikander Hayat in Muzzafarabad for the Srinagar bound bus, President General Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and the ruling party chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain have in an equally emphatic manner and in their own way reiterated Pakistan’s position that Kashmir is a disputed issue and unless it is resolved, neither India nor Pakistan has the right to take decisions on behalf of its people.

However, there was a broad suggestion in India’s indirect recognition of the Line of Control(LoC) as an official barrier between the two Kashmirs for the purposes of launching the bus service that it would not be averse at the appropriate time to take steps to amend her constitution to remove its claim on the whole of Kashmir and the Northern Areas from its basic book. On the other hand, Pakistan by giving its complete endorsement of the bus service to Indian-held Kashmir from Azad Kashmir has also indicated that at the appropriate time it would not be disinclined to go beyond its stated position on the relevant UN resolutions and agree to a mutually acceptable line for dividing Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

Here it would not be out of place to mention that India has never ever officially offered to turn the LoC into a permanent border between the two Kashmirs because obviously that would have meant a violation of its constitution. But New Delhi has also never ever rejected the option officially in a outright manner like Pakistan has done whenever such a suggestion has been mooted at serious levels. Suggestions to this effect have so far remained a media baby, nurtured mostly by the Indian media, presumably encouraged and inspired by the Indian government, perhaps to prepare the minds of its public for an eventual solution of the issue and also perhaps to signal to all the parties concerned that it is prepared to show flexibility on its stated position if the idea of partition of Kashmir on the basis of the present LoC is acceptable to Pakistan. Indeed, it would be more difficult for India to change its constitution to make LoC a permanent border between the two Kashmirs than for Pakistan to give up its stated position on the UN resolution. Since these resolutions have no constitutional sanction in Pakistan, President Musharraf does not need to go to parliament to get its approval for offering to show flexibility on the matter, if India reciprocates.

That again is the reason why Gen Musharraf could one fine evening last Ramazan publicly offer seven options for the division of Kashmir. Though he later claimed that he had thrown up these ideas only for a domestic debate, since the idea was pegged on the concept of a division of the original state of Kashmir, there was in this proposal a hard to miss message for the people at large to be mentally prepared for giving up their long-standing claim on the entire state.

Now that the bus service has begun and the new reality of contact has replaced the old reality of disconnect between the two Kashmirs, it is perhaps time for the leadership in the two countries to match the march on the CBMs with some concrete progress on the issue of Kashmir.

Both the countries are today doing well on the economic front. But both lack the energy that is required to propel them to the take-off stage. So, both need to get together to use their respective clouts in Washington to persuade the US administration to do the same for the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline as it did when the Europeans traded with Iran — ignore the relevant laws concerning US economic sanctions against Tehran.

Also, India urgently needs a two-way passage to Central Asia and the Middle East, which it can only achieve with a friendly Pakistan on its western borders. Pakistan’s own economy would get a significant boost under such an arrangement. And Pakistan badly needs a two-way preferential route, to begin with, to the huge Indian market for accelerating its economic growth at an economical cost. And India would not lose much under this arrangement. If one keeps in mind the gains India will make by getting transit through Pakistan to the rich markets beyond, it would only be a win-win situation for both the countries on the economic front.

Increased economic exchanges between the two countries would pave the way for more across-the-board people-to-people interaction. More than that, a vested interest in maintaining and improving such interactions would eventually develop within the business communities of the two countries in order to secure and increase the economic gains that they would be making as a result. This would in due course of time build the right environment and create the needed compulsions for the politicians in India, Pakistan and Kashmir to prepare their respective constituencies to get ready to make the compromises required to tackle all the contentious problems that have marred their relations over the last 57 years.

ISLAMABAD: Kashmir’s spiritual leader and chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq believes that the time has come for all

elements in Kashmir to coordinate and have a unified voice on how to proceed further.

He advocates a triangular dialogue to settle the political future of the Kashmiris but cautions that one wrong step could take the entire process back to square one.

In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Dawn last week in New Delhi where he had come to meet the PML president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Mirwaiz said: “We have to have a step by step approach as far as the problem (Kashmir) is concerned.”

He talked at length about the Kashmir bus service, the advantages of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue for the Kashmiris, the human rights situation in the valley, the APHC split and the difference between Congress’s Kashmir policy and that of the BJP government.

Mr Farooq said the Kashmir issue had many dimensions to it and the bus service catered to the human aspect, which was fine. He said all other roads linking Jammu, Laddakh and the Valley that were closed after 1947 including the Poonch-Kotli and Jammu- Sialkot routes should be opened and all communication links should also be restored. However, he emphasized that the focus must not be lost from the real political problem in Jammu and Kashmir.

“We welcome and support these gestures and CBMs but the fact is that the people of Kashmir have made immense sacrifices and the investment of the people of Kashmir in this movement is very high and we cannot lose sight of that.” However, “we want India and Pakistan to come closer because unless these countries come closer to each other, the prospects of a resolution of our problems become very dim.... We have to be consistent as far as the CBMs are concerned. They have to lead to a situation where we can address the problem politically. We cannot just continue with the humanitarian steps.”

In this context he appreciated the course of action adopted by Pakistan, especially by President General Pervez Musharraf. “He (President Musharraf) has not lost the focus of the main issue despite all the CBMs.”

Mr. Farooq indicated that APHC representatives would want to go and meet people across the ceasefire line. “If given the opportunity, the Hurriyat would want to visit Pakistan, too, and talk to President Musharraf, political parties in Pakistan and the Mujahideen and take them all into confidence as to how we can move forward,” he stated. He disagreed with the view that the start of the Kashmir bus service would harm the Kashmiri struggle. He said that the bus service should be viewed “as a step which is linked with our struggle and our determination rather than something which India and Pakistan have agreed on.”

According to Mirwaiz Farooq, “We were reaching a situation where there was almost a stalemate on Kashmir. But then President Musharraf floated some proposals that have generated a debate inside Kashmir and, I am sure, in India and Pakistan too as to what could be the ultimate solution to the problem.” Mr Farooq said that the APHC had two or three roadmaps on Kashmir which could be shared with the Indian and Pakistani leadership.

“We want to be a part of the process. But before that, we should be allowed to deliberate on these issues with the leadership in Azad Kashmir and the Mujahideen so that everybody can be on board,” he said.

Recounting the two rounds of discussions with the previous Vajpayee government, Mr. Farooq said: “We had an understanding on three issues with the BJP: one, that any talks between the separatists or the Hurriyat Conference and the government of India have to be unconditional and there has to be no bar of the Constitution; two, the talks have to be centred on a solution of Jammu and Kashmir, not about transfer of power, subsidies, elections or economic packages; three, and most importantly that the involvement of the third party, which is Pakistan, has to be mandatory in any process if we are looking at a permanent solution to the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir.”

He said on these three issues if the government in Delhi was ready to take the initiative, Hurriyet would definitely respond positively. However, he added that before starting a new dialogue with New Delhi it was important that India allowed the leadership of Kashmir to go to Azad Kashmir to make this process a complete one.

On the APHC’s split and prospects of its unification, Mr. Farooq said he was trying hard for unity but conceded that unfortunately the gap had widened. However, he pointed out that there was no difference as far as the goal was concerned. He said while he respected Mr. Geelani’s perception, he believed that support ought to be given by Pakistan to those people who want to contribute towards the process of resolution rather than who want to create hurdles in the way to a resolution.

“We have to help both Pakistan and India in their efforts to have a solution to Kashmir rather than create more stumbling blocks,” he said, lamenting that the APHC stood more or less divided at such a critical juncture when it was important for it to be together.

Asked how he would compare Congress’s Kashmir policy with that of the BJP, Mr. Farooq said that irrespective of party policy, in the case of the BJP Mr Vajpayee’s statements gave the feeling that this was not an exercise in rhetoric. “One could see to some extent that apart from the party position there was a personal realization that we need to move forward.

“With him (Vajpayee) one could feel he was looking into the possibility of opening up at least some channels of communication with Kashmiris especially with separatist elements in Kashmir,” the APHC chairman said. “Most importantly we felt he took the initiative to start the dialogue with Pakistan despite the fact that at that time the BJP and even the opposition was hawkish considering that Kargil had happened,” he said.

“Congress may seem more secular and accommodating but if you look into the history of Kashmir it is clear that the issue was created by the Congress. So in that sense, they are old players and know the situation, the politics, and the tricks of how to evade a settlement rather than come to terms with the situation on the ground.”

Commenting on the difference in the human rights situation in Kashmir over the period of a year from March 2004 to March 2005, Mr. Farooq said: “If you look at the statistics, attacks and skirmishes between the Kashmiris and the security forces have come down.” However, he pointed out that there was still a huge presence of troops and paramilitary forces on the ground. “In Jammu and Kashmir we have more than 450,000 military and para- military troops and it is a virtual military camp. The checking, the searches and crackdowns are a headache.” Commenting on the withdrawal of troops following the Indian government’s announcement, he said that no numbers had been given and human rights violations were continuing. “The worse part is the silence of the international community,” said Mr Farooq. He said after 9/11 people were “quiet about it” and there was not enough pressure on the government of India. Out of the hundreds of human rights cases that the Hurriyat had sent to the Indian national and state human rights commissions, only one or two had been taken up, he said.

PESHAWAR: The combined opposition in the NWFP assembly has failed to put up a joint candidate for a Senate seat which fell vacant when Khalilur Rahman Khan was named governor of the province. Election for the seat will be held on April 13.

The Awami National Party, Pakistan Muslim League, People’s Party Parliamentarians, Pakistan Muslim League (N), Pakistan People’s Party (Sherpao) and six independent MPAs make up the 54- member combined opposition in the assembly. The PPP(S) is the largest party in the house after the MMA but Shahzada Mohammad Gustasap Khan, an independent MPA from district Mansehra, is the leader of combined opposition and is acceptable to both the MMA government and the opposition.

There are five candidates — Nighat Yasmin Orakzai (PMLA), Pir Mohammad Khan (MMA dissident), Qari Abdullah (MMA), Syed Qamar Abbas and Najmuddin Khan (Parliamentarians) — for the seat. The PML, which has vacated the seat, does want to confront the MMA which plays the role of a friendly opposition in parliament. Political observers believe the election will be fair and transparent and the MMA will easily bag the seat, because its rivals which could pose a threat with their mastery in horse- trading are out of the race.

The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazal) has fielded Qari Abdullah from Bannu. The Jamaat-i-Islami has withdrawn the nomination papers of Merajuddin, a labour leader, in favour of the JUI candidate. The PPP has filed nomination papers of Syed Qamar Abbas, its senior vice-president in the province , and Najmuddin Khan, PPP secretary general. The combined opposition, however, has failed its internal differences. The PPP (S), which has 13 seats, and ANP, which has 10, will not vote for Syed Qamar Abbas on political grounds. Last time, PPP lawmakers had ditched the party’s nominee, Sardar Ali Khan. This resulted into the resignation of PPP provincial chief Khwaja Mohammad Khan Hoti, who urged PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto to expel renegades, but she didn’t take any action.

The PML-N, which has five MPAs, will oppose the candidate of Nighat Orakzai of the ruling PML. MPA Zafarullah Khan Marwat of the PML-N has already announced his support for the MMA candidate. The dissident JI MPA from Shangla, Pir Mohammad, is contesting against the wishes of the MMA. Interestingly, Leader of Opposition Shahzada Gustasap had proposed the candidature of Pir Mohammad Khan.

The PPP-S is keeping quest because it wants to get Miss Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli, Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, installed as deputy chairman of the Senate.

So, nobody knows who is the 54-member opposition’s candidate for the senate seat.

WHAT is the image of public sector hospitals in Karachi? Not an irrelevant question, if one keeps in mind that the reality of these government-owned hospitals is very disturbing. The hard image is one that reflects the fact that the common man gets a raw deal, and it is only as a last resort that he goes there. No, there is no soft image of these hospitals. In fact under the circumstances there cannot be one. No such embellishment.

At a time when there is growing official focus on the need for a soft image of the country, one does wonder whether the image of such institutions like Karachi’s huge, sprawling, and suffering Civil or Jinnah hospitals will ever have a soft image. And whether there can be created a platform like “Friends of the Civil Hospital Karachi” or the “Friends of the Jinnah hospital”, which will take the initiative to bring about that revolutionary change that is called for. After all there are such “friends” and supporters available to other hospitals (private and public). Then why not something for these long ailing hospitals? Let’s try please.

It is since 1968 that I have been observing these hospitals, and in particular the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital. It is a story of inadequacy, politely speaking. The hard image: absolute failure. One has read with sadness and dissatisfaction the detailed report in Dawn’s March 30 issue on “Poor facilities at Civil Hospital add to patients’ sufferings”. It is obvious that these patients are from the lower classes of our society, and are those who cannot afford the expensive health care options that are available.

In that Dawn report there are several handicaps in the Civil Hospital that are demanding immediate attention. The very first one mentioned is that the casualty department, which is described as the “most neglected as far as equipment and facilities are concerned” and ironically it is “serving the general public round-the-clock”. It is obvious that the quality of the patient care is inadequate. For years there has been no X-ray machine in operation there. Work this one out, as to how the doctors work with such shortcomings.

It is common to hear from Karachiites, bitter and angry accounts, of how they have been treated, and ill-treated at that, in the casualty departments of the public hospitals that the Sindh capital has. Only the major hospitals — the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, and the Civil Hospital — handle medico-legal cases. Try and visualize the size of Karachi, its growing population. Should not there be some plan and some urgent attempt to drastically improve the hospitals, and equip all the casualty wards on a high priority basis?

In fact what is now frequently suggested is that much of the overseas funding, and assistance that comes from foreign NGOs should be diverted to these casualty wards, for instance. Or for that matter the money spent by the federal health ministry on advertising assorted campaigns (that are viewed with cynicism anyway by public opinion) should be actually spent on health care.

Returning to the Civil Hospital, Karachi, apart from the emergency ward, concern has been expressed (in that report) at the absence of any centralized intensive care unit, the inadequacy of the surgical ICU, the dentistry department, absence of an isolation ward, a neglected psychiatry department, also misused, no chief pathologist and blood bank officer, and in fact other important posts are still lying vacant, a water shortage in most of the departments, outdated sewerage lines.

In a certain context, a senior official of the Civil Hospital was quoted as saying that hospital administration and doctors were disinterested in any change from the status quo, and “wanted to drag on and pass their duty timings”. This means that there is something wrong with the attitude of the staff, and that their levels of initiative and motivation are on the lower side.

It is particularly relevant to bring in here what the Pakistan Medical Association has stated on a subject that has remained a source of dissent and argument for several decades now. The point whether doctors employed in government service should be allowed to do private practice. That the PMA has chosen to speak out at this particular point in time is significant. Even welcome. The PMA and the Pakistan College of Family Medicine have together emphasized (during the week) that there should be “a restriction on private practice on the part of physicians and surgeons associated with government health care facilities so as to prevent reported exploitation of patients visiting these centres.

But in suggesting this ban, the PMA secretary general Dr Shershah Syed, and PCFM President Dr Aziz Khan Tank, said that it was expected that the “government would ensure realistic salary and remuneration for public sector doctors, following which even a ban could be placed on their private practice.” They have both expressed “reservations regarding the public-private partnership”.

It makes one wonder why, in the last 35 years now, there has been almost no progress on this subject, whereas public opinion is steadfast, and has sustained itself. The average patient believes that the government doctor works better in the clinic.

The PMA annual health report 2005, presented by the above spokesmen, underlined that the health situation had not changed over the last many years. It was further conceded that while significant funds were allocated for the health sector, the majority of the local population still had no access to primary health care. The PMA has also challenged several official claims vis-a-vis doctors refusal to work in rural areas, all of which reflects that all is not well in the health sector in this country. For all the funding and the propaganda that has, for instance, been done in the polio field, Pakistan’s performance has been disappointing.

And the World Health Organization has warned that further assistance will be stopped if results don’t improve.

Let me conclude with this weary elderly man I met at a petrol pump in Clifton around midnight last month. He lives in Korangi and was selling different small items. I asked him why he was doing this at that odd hour. He said that he was trying to raise money for his daughter who had a stone in her kidney, and needed medical help. His story mirrored the profile of a common man unable to afford the medical care his daughter desperately needed. And that’s a reality.