THE ostensible purpose of President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India from April 16 to 18 was to witness the one-day cricket match between India and Pakistan. However, both sides clearly intended to avail themselves of this opportunity to hold intensive talks on a broad range of issues, including Kashmir. An informal visit, therefore, turned out to be much more substantive than an official visit would have been.

The Kashmir issue, of course, has been the hardest nut to crack. It has bedevilled relations between the two countries ever since their independence in 1947. It has led to wars, tensions and acrimony. However, a turning point in Indo-Pakistan relations was the Musharraf-Vajpayee joint statement of January 2004 that initiated the peace process through a composite dialogue. Still, the two sides had differing priorities, posing serious problems.

India wanted progress on other items of the agenda, while giving lower priority to the Kashmir issue. Musharraf kept emphasizing the centrality of this issue and insisting that there could be no durable peace in South Asia without resolving the Kashmir dispute.

This was the background in which the latest talks took place in India. At their conclusion, both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf expressed satisfaction with their discussions. Musharraf said his visit to India was “very successful and beyond his expectations.” Manmohan Singh also said he was highly satisfied with the “productive and positive results” of the talks. Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran described the talks as highly successful.

The atmospherics were extraordinary. President Musharraf was given a big reception by India that went beyond all protocol requirements for an informal visit. The two leaders described each other as sincere and there seemed to be good chemistry between them. Moreover, the public mood in India, including that of the news media, was exceptionally warm. In over 50 years, no Pakistani leader had been received with so much warmth in India.

This seems all the more striking when one recalls that not too long ago in 2002, the two countries had come close to a nuclear confrontation, and war fever was being whipped up all over India. Earlier on, there had been Kargil and the failed Agra summit for which India had blamed Musharraf. The question arises as to how the latest transformation has taken place on the two sides. Perhaps, paragraph 6 of the joint statement provides the answer. It reads: “They determined that the peace process was now irreversible. In this spirit, the two leaders addressed the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to continue these discussions in a sincere and purposeful and forward-looking manner for a final settlement. They were satisfied with the discussions and expressed their determination to work together to carry forward the process and to bring the benefit of peace to their people.”

This language is quite striking. Firstly, the two sides have described the peace process as being “irreversible”. Never before has such an affirmation been made by the two feuding countries. This is clearly a victory for peace and has been welcomed by public opinion in both Pakistan and India, as well as by the world e.g. by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. This affirmation is also a victory for logical thinking. The hard fact of the matter is that despite the wars, tensions and bitterness of the past 57 years, the Kashmir dispute has not been settled.

On the contrary, the net result has been a serious wastage of economic resources by both countries, and their failure to overcome their biggest problem — poverty. Hundreds of millions of people in both countries, living below the poverty line, have continued to suffer. They are the ones who have really paid the price for the deadly impasse resulting from the jingoism exhibited by the rulers and elites in both countries.

The second notable point in the joint statement is that the two leaders agreed to continue discussions in a sincere and purposeful and forward-looking manner for a final settlement of the Kashmir issue. This is clearly a change in the erstwhile Indian stance, which had always sought to downplay the issue. It would seem that President Musharraf has achieved an important objective.

Apart from Kashmir, of course, the joint statement contains several other positive points. The two leaders “assessed positively” the progress made so far through confidence-building measures and people-to-people contacts. They noted the overwhelming desire of the peoples of the two countries for durable peace and recognized their responsibility to continue to move forward towards this objective. They agreed to pursue further measures to enhance interaction and cooperation across the LoC, to increase the frequency of the bus service, and the use of this route by trucks to promote trade.

Other CBMs include a bus service between Amritsar and Lahore and to religious places such as Nankana Sahib, the Khokhrapar-Munabao railway link, and reopening of the consulates-general in Karachi and Mumbai before the end of the current year. They agreed that the Sir Creek and Siachen issues would be resolved expeditiously. They planned cooperation in petroleum and natural gas including gas pipelines. It was decided to reactivate the joint economic commission and the joint business council.

On the Baglihar issue, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Pakistani journalists that India would honour in letter and spirit the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and that the design of the project could be changed by India if it was found to be violating the treaty.

President Musharraf also met the Congress chief Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and the two main leaders of the BJP, ex-prime minister Vajpayee and party president Advani. The hard-line Hindu opposition party reaffirmed its support for the peace process. Invitations were extended to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mrs. Gandhi and Mr Advani to visit Pakistan, which they accepted.

The visit was clearly a success, at least, in the immediate context. But only the follow-up action will determine whether it should be termed as a historic success. To explain the apparent change of heart on the two sides, perhaps the following explanations could be offered.

Unlike the Agra summit of 2001, the present visit took place in a far more congenial atmosphere. Since January 2004, there have been growing people-to-people contacts between the two sides and a rising swell of public opinion in favour of peace and accommodation. The news media in both countries has also cut down much of the venomous rhetoric that had marred the climate between the two sides in the past.

Perhaps, the ominous confrontation between the two countries in 2002, when they came close to a nuclear catastrophe, has made them realize that a war between them has got to be avoided at all cost. It is notable that even the traditional hate lobbies and the rightist political parties on both sides have toned down their opposition to good relations. Moreover, the world scenario has been transformed in the wake of events since 9/11. Global terrorism has emerged as a central issue. The US, Russia, the European Union and even China have joined hands to oppose terrorism and religious extremism.

There is also considerable pressure on India and Pakistan to sort out their differences through peaceful means. There seems to have been a realization in India that it was wrong in its earlier assessment of President Musharraf as being an instigator of terrorism. India now sees him as the main force in Pakistan against religious extremism, fanaticism and terrorism.

The condemnation by Pakistan of the terrorist attack on the launch of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, just before Musharraf’s visit to India, could also have made New Delhi realize that its prognosis that Pakistan was behind all acts of militancy in Indian-occupied Kashmir was unfounded. It can also be argued that in its approach towards Pakistan since the January 2004 joint statement, India has had two major objectives.

First, it wants Pakistan to stop giving any kind of material support to the freedom movement in Indian-occupied Kashmir. This seems to have been largely achieved as Indian complaints about “cross-border terrorism” have become muted. Paragraph 8 of the Musharraf-Manmohan Singh joint statement says, “They condemned attempts to disrupt the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service and welcomed its successful operationalization. The two leaders pledged that they would not allow terrorism to impede the peace process.”

Secondly, India has been keen that progress on the other items of the composite dialogue should not be had hostage to the Kashmir issue. This too seems to be happening, as shown by the latest talks. From the foregoing, it does not necessarily follow that India has gained and Pakistan is the loser in the process. It is not a zero-sum game. Bilateral cooperation helps both countries. Moreover, Pakistan can take satisfaction from the commitment by India that the two sides would continue their discussion on the Kashmir issue in “a sincere and purposeful and forward-looking manner for a final settlement.”

But then, how about the Indian statements that the “boundaries could not be redrawn”? When asked to comment on this, Musharraf said that Manmohan Singh had agreed that the LoC could not be accepted as the final solution. He said that his visit had been “very successful and went beyond his expectations.” It could be inferred, therefore, that the one-to-one discussions with the Indian prime minister (whose details are not known at present) did give reasons to the Pakistan president to believe that there was progress on Kashmir.

The hard-line lobby in Pakistan might still disagree, but it cannot deny the fact that the Kashmir-or-nothing approach followed by Pakistan in the last half a century has not worked and is unlikely to succeed even if we persist with it. Pakistan cannot force India to change course on Kashmir. That change can only come when tempers cool down and a friendlier atmosphere prevails, based on CBMs and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Until a final solution is found, perhaps the most feasible interim solution of the Kashmir dispute could be on lines of the Northern Ireland formula of 1998. That would mean no change of actual control in the two parts of Kashmir by India or Pakistan. Instead, there could be maximum autonomy and a sharing of power by all groups, as well as transforming the LoC from an iron curtain to a linen curtain between the two self-governing Indian and Pakistani regions of Jammu and Kashmir. It remains to be seen if the two countries might now be moving towards this kind of solution.

Apart from some forward movement on Kashmir, there could be an even more significant development that came to light during Musharraf’s visit to India. The big welcome given to him indicated that India has come round to the view that the past bitterness with Pakistan has to be set aside and there has to be a modus vivendi with it. This is a far cry from that country’s anti-Pakistan obsessions including latent ambitions to undo partition, and the refusal to accept Pakistan as an equal, sovereign state in the subcontinent. This was always an unreasonable and chauvinistic attitude, which might now have been done away with because of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent and the barrenness of the confrontation policy.

In fact, India’s growing energy needs, and its ambition to accelerate its economic development, do necessitate a new, more friendly equation with Pakistan. With an economically oriented prime minister in charge, India might well be shifting its priorities, which necessitate a cooperative relationship with Pakistan. In any event, whatever might be India’s rationale, the path towards peace and cooperation is surely preferable to the policy of confrontation.

LAT Sunday, the newspapers carried the picture of a Bangladeshi woman who has offered to sell one of her eyes to earn some cash. Her husband has abandoned her and she is desperate for money. Shefali, that is the name of the unfortunate woman, is perhaps the first one to offer an eye.

Otherwise, the sale of human kidneys for transplantation has become, in recent years, quite common in many Third World countries. But as this unethical practice has assumed alarming proportions, governments have moved to ban the trade in organs and regulate transplantation.

India, which was at one time called the kidney bazaar of Asia, now has a law banning the sale of organs and recognizing cadaveric donation of organs. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also have similar laws. (Shefali could get into trouble were she to go through with a deal, and one only hopes that some kind hearted philanthropist will bail her out without demanding the eye).

What is strange is that as other countries crack down on this unethical practice, Pakistan is fast emerging as the new centre of unauthorized sale of organs with 2,000 “cash for transplantation” surgeries taking place every year. This is only bringing a bad name to the country as President Musharraf’s endeavours to build up a “soft image” of Pakistan seem to be ending in disaster.

In the last few months, two major media in the West have carried damaging stories about the organ racket in the country. The CNN’s website posted an article titled Pakistan’s lucrative kidney trade and a few weeks later the Guardian of London reported “Transplant tourists flock to Pakistan, where poverty and lack of regulation fuel trade in human organs.”

Specially identified are two hospitals in Islamabad run by retired army surgeons and two others in Lahore. With the truth so widely known one cannot really hit out at the western media for distorting facts. The scandal has now been reported by the local press as well. The argument put forward by those who are involved in the trade and the individuals, who have benefited from the organ they have acquired from a donor after the payment of a hefty sum, are not very convincing. They have described this as a cooperative transaction the rich paying the poor who is in need of the money and the poor donating an organ as a quid pro quo to the rich who needs it.

But is it actually so? First of all only a fraction of the amount spent by the patient goes to the donor who is monetarily in desperate straits - generally heavily indebted and his family bonded to a feudal landowner or kiln brick manufacturer. Since the whole trade is clandestine, exact figures are difficult to obtain.

One report says the donor may earn barely Rs 100,000 from which he is required to foot his hospital bills too. But another person claims that the donor was paid Rs 400,000 in the case of his relative but he didn’t know how much went to the middleman who scours the countryside looking for potential donors. But this is clear that the bulk of the money goes to the hospital, the surgeon and his team and the middlemen. Surveys have shown that the donors very often end up in debt again and this time in poor health too since no one feels responsible for his health care.

As for the recipients of the graft not much can be said about their post-operative health because quite a few of them come from abroad and return home within a few weeks. One Pakistani who had a transplant had to pay Rs 800,000 and is now suffering from some complications. The foreigners are the ones who keep this trade going since they are required to pay as much as $40,000 out of which 40 per cent goes to the surgeon. Many of the patients coming here are from the Middle East — notably, Saudi Arabia. They come to Pakistan to get an organ because such commercial transactions are banned in their own country.

So far Dr Adibul Hasan Rizvi, the director of the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT) in Karachi, has been the most vocal critic of this unethical practice. He calls it exploitative because it amounts to taking undue advantage of the poverty of the poor. A staunch believer in the basic human right of every human being to health care he does not charge a penny from his patients who flock to SIUT. Even the costly transplantation operation is done free of charge.

“In the absence of a law regulating transplantation, we have self-made laws which suit the rich and coerce the poor. This is wrong. If this is not stopped will the poor be required to sell their eye, lung or even liver?” he asks. How prophetic his words have proved to be in the case of Shefali, the Bangladeshi woman.

For many years Dr Rizvi has pleaded for a transplantation law. A bill was presented to the Senate in 1992 and again in 1994 but it was never taken up because the government didn’t seem to be interested. The general impression was that given the orthodoxy in our society and the hold of the ulema over the people, a bill recognizing brain stem death and providing for cadaveric donation of organs would meet with resistance from the religious quarters. But to the surprise of many this has not been the case.

The SIUT’s Newsletter lists at least 14 fatwas issued by various Islamic jurists bodies sanctioning transplantation, legalizing cadaveric organ donation and recognizing brain stem death. That public acceptance can be easily gained for these concepts is apparent from two cases in Karachi when the families of two persons, who had been pronounced clinically dead, authorized the removal of their organs for transplantation. This was a moral victory for the transplant surgeons demanding a regulatory law. Society is moving ahead of the government and that too without a sustained public campaign.

Once again the law on transplantation of human organs and tissue, which the government had promised to move in the National Assembly, appears to have been shelved. One wonders what is stopping the government from moving ahead with the transplantation bill. It prescribes rigorous conditions and procedures for determining brain stem death and preempting the sale of organs. Amongst other provisions, it allows a living donor to voluntarily donate his organ to a person genetically and legally related to him.

To prevent abuse, the bill provides for an evaluation committee to determine brain stem death and the fitness of the organ to be removed for transplantation. A monitoring authority to be set up by the government would monitor the standards of the institutions authorized to conduct transplantations. The punishment for the violation of the law is quite stringent: three years rigorous punishment, a fine of Rs 300,000 and the suspension for three years of the surgeon’s license found involved in the violation of the law.

Even a fool can see that those who are minting money from the organ sale racket would not be interested in this law being adopted. Their self interest lies in stalling the bill. But why should the government be dragging its feet? This is a million dollar question.