| May 11, 2005 | Wednesday | Rabi-us-Sani 2, 1426 |
The Manchhar problem
Under the sky of fear
WASHINGTON: On the peak of the East Pakistan crisis, the then US President Richard Nixon sent a letter to former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, telling her that “the American people would not understand” if India went to war against Pakistan and hostilities would “inevitably affect” the US ability to be helpful in many other ways.
FINALLY, the Sindh government has started discharging the contaminated water of Manchhar Lake into the Indus river. It was said that 600 cusecs will be released into the Indus on May 6. But the next day it was increased to 725 cusecs and on May 8 it reached 1,000 cusecs.
KHOUF Key Aasman Taley (under the sky of fear), a collection of 11 short stories by young writer Mubeen Mirza, was launched at a function last Saturday with well-known writer Ms Firdous Haider in the Chair.
Mr Nixon also sent a letter to former president Yahya Khan informing him that he had conveyed to India that the United States would not approve an Indian military action against Pakistan.
The two letters were released on Monday by the US State Department along with other documents showing that the United States clearly supported Pakistan during the 1971 crisis and even encouraged China to go to war against India. The documents reveal that the US government was even prepared for a regional conventional war in South Asia pitting India and the Soviet Union against China, the United States, and Pakistan. But two days after India launched an offensive against East Pakistan on Nov 22, Chinese representatives met Mr Nixon’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Henry Kissinger, in New York, and conveyed that China was not going to war against India, the documents claim.
On Nov 27, 1971, President Nixon sent the following letter to Mrs Gandhi:
“Dear Madame Prime Minister:
I have read with care your letter of November 18/2/ in which you shared with me your most recent thoughts on the current situation in South Asia. I very much share your hope that our discussions and the continuing dialogue between us will indeed clear away misunderstandings and lead to the strengthening of the friendship between India and the United States. Your visit to Washington helped to clarify views about many of the problems affecting South Asia and about the steps which are required to achieve a viable political solution. Hostilities between India and Pakistan would negate the efforts which we hoped to make toward such a solution. I appreciate your assurance that you will make every effort to urge patience on your people.
Unfortunately in recent days the danger of war has increased. I am distressed at the recent deterioration of the situation and at the ominous trend of events. Military engagements along India’s border with East Pakistan have increased in number and strength. Tanks, aircraft and regular forces have been involved on both sides. In this connection, I note your Government has confirmed that your armed forces have been engaged on Pakistani territory. The situation has reached a critical stage and there is danger of all-out hostilities. As I indicated to you during our visit, the American people would not understand if Indian actions led to broad-scale hostilities. Hostilities would inevitably affect our ability to be helpful in many other ways.
In our conversations, I mentioned to you that President Yahya would be willing to take the first step in disengaging his forces on the frontier with West Pakistan provided India were willing to take reciprocal action subsequently. I have not heard from you on the point, and I hope you would agree promptly to designate a representative who could discuss a limited disengagement with a representative named by President Yahya. On the frontier of East Pakistan he has agreed to permit the stationing of UN observers even if India does not reciprocate. Such steps would be in the interests of both India and Pakistan and of peace in the world. It is only in a defused situation that progress can be made in the direction of a political settlement for which we continue to work.
In view of the seriousness of the situation, I have also written to President Yahya and Premier Kosygin.
Sincerely,
Richard Nixon”
On Nov 27, Mr Nixon also sent the following letter to Gen. Yahya:
“Dear Mr President:
Thank you for your letter of November 22 in which you described the deepening conflict along your country’s eastern borders with India. I am grateful to you for the continued friendship and candor in our relationship which your letter represents. You know the importance I attach to this.
I am especially gratified to have reaffirmation of your strong desire to avoid what you so wisely say would be a senseless and destructive war with India. I have asked Ambassador Farland to convey to you directly what we have been trying to do recently, as friends of both Pakistan and India, to counsel restraint, to accomplish a withdrawal of forces, and to contribute to a lessening of tensions. I have made clear to the Government of India that the people and government of this country would not understand it if Indian actions led to broad scale hostilities. We are also continuing to make our views known on this to the Soviets, at the highest level.
Mr President, my government intends to continue as a concerned friend of Pakistan to act in ways that hopefully might help prevent war between your country and India.
I have asked Ambassador Farland to keep in closest touch with you and your associates in the days ahead. We will welcome any suggestion your government may wish to discuss with us that will help reduce the risk of further conflict in South Asia.
With warm regards,
Richard M. Nixon”
A day before Mr Nixon dispatched the two letters, Mr Kissinger sent the following memorandum to the US president:
“India-Pakistan: Reports in the last twenty-four hours do not reflect an escalation of the fighting. The principal activity in that period has been diplomatic.
Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh in a rambling two-hour conversation with Ambassador Keating made these points:
—Even now, it is not too late for President Yahya to make a dramatic political gesture. The situation would be immediately defused by such a gesture. This should involve negotiations with East Pakistan’s elected representatives and not going ahead with “his farce of elections.” He thought Yahya could still free Mujib and start talks — if not overnight, perhaps in two or three weeks. —If Pakistan withdrew its troops from the border then another situation would arise and India would certainly consider that situation. However, Yahya is only prepared to withdraw contingent on India’s reciprocal withdrawal.
—Pakistani talks of an Indian offensive were to provide an alibi for Pakistani losses. Singh said, “I would like to say categorically that Indian troops are not there” (in East Pakistan). The Indian Army had gone into action when its own positions were attacked.
President Yahya saw Ambassador Farland early this morning. Reports so far-still coming in say that Yahya made these points:
—In response to a tentative suggestion by Farland, Yahya said with enthusiasm that he would advise his UN ambassador immediately to institute a request for UN observers on the Pakistani side of the border. —He has decided next week to tell his UN ambassador to take up with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (Prince Sadruddin) the idea of inviting a large UN group to take complete charge of refugees returning to East Pakistan. The UN would have control from establishing corridors to the border to resettlement in the villages.
—He would continue to exercise the greatest possible degree of military restraint.
Indian High Commissioner Atal has returned to Islamabad from high-level consultations in New Delhi “carrying an important message.” Atal is an old friend of Yahya’s. After a long conversation with Yahya a week ago, Atal was reportedly impressed with Yahya’s plan to turn his government over to civilian leaders. Atal returned to New Delhi and, according to (less than 1 line of source text not declassified) reports from there, he planned to urge Mrs Gandhi to give Yahya’s political timetable a chance. We have had no reports yet on the outcome of those talks except for the fact that he is now back in Islamabad asking to see Foreign Secretary Sultan Khan immediately.
On other diplomatic fronts, the press reports that Soviet Ambassador Rodionon has delivered a note to Yahya, but we have no firm knowledge yet of its contents. Press reports also indicate that Chou En-lai reaffirmed the Chinese support for Pakistan stated to the Pakistani delegation two weeks ago, urged discussions to avoid war and accused India of intervention in Pakistan’s affairs.”
The irrigation department has claimed that the measure is being taken to save the lake from any breaches that may occur due to the rise in the water level caused by recent rains in the Khirthar range.
Officials may have many reasons to justify the step, but the release of Manchhar water into the Indus may cause yet another catastrophe, similar to that of last year when over 80 people in Hyderabad and adjoining areas died from using the lake’s contaminated water.
This time the government, fearing what may happen, has put all hospitals, doctors and paramedics on high alert to face any outbreak of gastroenteritis and other water-borne diseases. The obvious reason is that water flowing from Manchhar mixed with Indus water can still inflict the same harm as a direct flow from the lake. The only difference may be in the intensity of the contamination.
The original plan envisaged that effluents should be disposed of in the Hamal lake and then the Manchhar lake and finally be discharged into Indus through a link canal. But the plan made it imperative that the water flow in the Indus below Sukkur Barrage should be enough to ensure that the salts and other insoluble ingredients did not endanger vegetation and human lives.
After taking samples from the Makhdoom Bilawal bridge near Moro and Kotri, it was found that any quantity of effluents exceeding 6,300 cusecs will make the Indus water poisonous. However, work on the RBOD was launched in 1994 and continues. The impact has already begun to show.
According to the 1991 water accord, the water flow at Kotri Barrage for the month of May has to be 16,500 cusecs but on May 6, it was flowing 13,003 cusecs, which means that the ratio of contaminated water is higher.
The Kotri barrage and its water works are a major source of water for both irrigation and drinking purposes. If the authorities are convinced that the only solution lies in flushing out the Manchhar water into the sea, they will have to provide an uninterrupted supply of a greater quantity of water for at least 60 days and will have to be on the alert to face any outbreak of diseases in the area from the point where the Aral Canal flows into the Indus up to the delta. If adequate water is not released, dangerous elements can spread to all places taking off from the Kotri barrage.
The exercise must also reckon with the fact of the pharmaceutical and other factories located on the banks of the Indus upstream Kotri. If they are not prevented from throwing their effluents into the river at least till the Indus flow is declared safe for human consumption, then all other measures will be neutralized. Last year’s water crisis and the outbreak of diseases were also to a great extent due to this.
Let us also not forget that the bulk of the water supply to Karachi comes from Kotri Barrage and once these poisonous ingredients reach Karachi, the situation might get out of control.
To cleanse Manchhar is the only remedy which should have been undertaken much earlier but even at present the strategy has to be reviewed and water flow downstream of Sukkur Barrage increased. We have to make sure that a technical issue does not become a political one. It is a question of people’s lives.
Mubeen Mirza belongs to a generation of writers that emerged in the 1980s. He was introduced by Mazhar Jamil, the literary critic, who referred to many stories reflecting society’s fears and was particularly impressed by two stories, Daam-i-Wahshat and Qayed Sey Bhagtay Huey. The latter depicts the feudal arrogance of a village lady Malkani Bibi, a unique character in Urdu. The local Seraiki blends with Urdu prose, and speaks of the writer’s command over language and diction.
Intervening, Saher Ansari reminded us that the use of street language while depicting characters from everyday life was not new: Manto’s rustic characters spoke the language suited to their social millieu. Ali Haider Malik quoted Bedi, Krishan Chander and Ilyas Ahmed Giddi who similarly experimented with Urdu prose.
Critic and poet Saba Ikram analyzed the stories in a more incisive manner. Imagine the fear of a ‘namazi’, he pointed out, who suspects the man standing by his side of being a suicide bomber. Ikram also referred to the fear of the present generation who felt uprooted from the past and insecure in the changing world order, particularly after the horrendous events of 9/11. Saba Ikram said young people felt that the future was not theirs as they were not the decision-makers.
There were references to religious terms and idioms in Mubeen Mirza’s work that, Saba Ikram said, reminded us of the writer’s fascination with religious values. Mirza was modern but bore the impress of Mohammad Hasan Askari.
Prof Saher Ansari, defining the fear in the stories said, it was rooted in military rule, the language riots, political oppression, terrorism and sectarian killings. It also came from global conditions. Despite all this, the writer does not seem to compromise with anti-human forces. He is firm in his social and political commitment.
Ali Haider Malik found the preface written by the author himself quite meaningful, indicating his desire to revive traditional values. Firdous Haider thought that the author was optimistic despite confronting a fearful scenario.
The function was organized by the literacy committee of the Karachi Club, and the committee’s secretary, Akhtar Mirza, congratulated the writer for what he called his thought-provoking stories.
HABIB Jalib, the people’s poet, was remembered at a largely attended meeting held on April 30 at the Karachi Press Club.
Jalib throughout his life sang and suffered for the poor and the common citizen. He was often seen at political rallies for democracy and social justice.
At the Press Club meeting, the speakers were many — opposition leaders, disgruntled politicians, a senator, a few trade unionists and activists. Their demand was for the end of military rule, controls on rising prices of commodities, jobs for the people, etc. Poet Jalib got somewhat lost in all the well- meaning rhetoric. When a literary critic came to speak about Jalib’s poetry, he got only a couple of minutes.
This is not the first time that Jalib has been poorly served. Looking back at other Jalib memorial meetings, one recalls how his merit as a lyrical poet was hardly acknowledged. Jalib has been monopolized by politicians, although his poetry won the admiration of Firaq Gorakhpuri, Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Ali Sardar Jafri and many other distinguished literatti. Jalib also struggled for the rights of women, but activists from women organizations were not among the speakers. Their number in the audience was also small.
ASHARAF Shad is a journalist turned poet and fiction writer. He is based in Al Ain, UAE, and has used his creative talent and journalistic experience to write novels.
At the launch of his latest, Sadre-Mohtaram, held last Friday someone pointed out that Pakistani society was divided into many cultures, classes, sects and religious beliefs and provided a most fertile ground for writing novels.
Ashraf Shad has closely watched many twists and turns in Pakistani society and fictionalized those experiences. During Gen Ziaul Haq’s military rule, he was once jailed. When he was freed, he found it convenient to go abroad and settle to write poetry and fiction.
He is also the author of Be-watan, a novel based on the lives of uprooted Pakistanis. The novel was well received well in Pakistan and India. His next venture was Wazir-i-Azam, depicting our power politics and ever changing political scene. The present novel is also a political one, partly fact, partly fiction.
According to a decision of the Progressive Writers’ Association to hold its meetings on the first Thursday of each month, a literary sitting, was held last week at the PMA House, with Anwar Sajjad in the chair. The first item on the agenda was a ghazal by Izhar Haidari which initiated a lengthy debate on the merits of the modern ghazal. The question was raised by Ahmad Saghir Siddiqui as to why one should write a ghazal with borrowed idioms and images, when such ghazals had lost their appeal many decades back. The ghazal in its best form was found in Faiz, another critic pointed out. Many poets at present were composing ghazals based on their own experience in life as well as a thorough grounding in classics. Anwar Sajjad said that any creative prose or poetry work, including ghazals, attracted the attention of the reader only if it reflected the social conditions of its time and the lives of the common people.