Not by force alone

CONTRARY to the impression given by the government, the situation in Balochistan, especially in the Dera Bugti area, does not seem to show any signs of improvement. The latest action that resulted in the death of 23 militants took place on Sunday in the Sangsilla and Bhamboor areas of the Dera Bugti district. A government spokesman also claimed that 53 militants had surrendered, and that Mir Baramdagh Bugti, Nawab Akbar Bugti’s grandson, evaded arrest, though his vehicle was hit. The use of helicopter gunships and heavy artillery for destroying the militants’ bunkers and bases shows both the guerillas’ strength and the high level of military engagements. A day earlier, terrorists blew up three power pylons, cutting off electricity to the Sui and Dera Bugti areas, and attacked a Rangers post on the Sui-Kashmore road, killing a soldier.

Another indication of the grim situation in the province is the allegation levelled against the government by Sardar Akhtar Mengal. Speaking at a press conference in Quetta on Saturday, the chief of his faction of the Balochistan National Party said that the purpose behind the full-blown military operations in the Dera Bugti and Marri areas was to kill Nawab Akbar Bugti, Mir Baramdagh Bugti and Nawabzada Baloch Marri. The government must come clean on this. While there is reason to believe that the BNP (M) chief might have been carried away by the heat of the moment, his pronouncements nevertheless show the extent of some Baloch leaders’ alienation and the deep suspicion they have of the government’s motives behind the anti-insurgency operations. No government worth its salt can be indifferent to the acts of sabotage that are taking place in Balochistan, with railway tracks blown up and gas and electricity installations attacked virtually every day. It has to act to crush terrorism and subversion, but at the same time, it must stick to political means for a solution to the crisis.

Against this background, one must welcome Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s decision to re-activate the parliamentary committee headed by PML president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. This committee had done a lot of good work by having a meeting with Nawab Akbar Bugti, leading later to the formation of two separate committees charged with the task of making recommendations for a solution of the crisis. The recommendations were made public, and some of the steps suggested were widely welcomed, including those relating to jobs for the Baloch in provincial and federal governments. However, the committees and their recommendations have been in limbo for a long time, creating misgivings. The reactivation of the committee, which is to meet on July 15, seems to indicate the prime minister’s interest in a revival of the political process. The earlier the talks begin the better for all sides. The present situation can only worsen the crisis, cause more deaths and obstruct the completion of the on-going development projects. As the stronger of the two parties, the government must show generosity, and go out of its way to accommodate the Baloch point of view. No doubt, there are hardliners on the Baloch side, too, and some of the sardars want their vanity and pride to be satiated and the existence of their private fiefdoms guaranteed. Ultimately, it is economic development and the rise of a politically-conscious middle class that will erode serfdom and liberate the Baloch people from masters masquerading as champions of the Baloch people’s rights.

Italy lifts World Cup

IT was befitting that the final of a low-scoring FIFA World Cup showcased the two best defensive teams in the tournament. But while the knockout stages were marred to an extent by the attritional tactics of overly cautious coaches, there was nothing lacklustre about the Italy-France showdown on Sunday, a contest that no team truly dominated. For Italy there was no repeat of the heartbreak of USA 1994, the only other World Cup final decided by a penalty shootout. The resurgent Italians held their nerve this time, triumphing over a disconsolate French side that never quite recovered its poise after losing captain Zinedine Zidane in extra time. Expelled from his farewell match for headbutting, the legendary Zidane deserved a swansong. Instead, his brilliant career ended in disgrace and for that he has only himself to blame.

Besides being party to the only two World Cup finals ever decided by penalty kicks, Italy also emerged victorious the last time the final did not involve a South American team. That was in Spain in 1982. Then, as in Germany this time, the Azzurri’s successful campaign came on the back of a match-fixing scandal. The euphoria of winning the Cup aside, the outlook for Italian football remains bleak on the whole. Four of the country’s leading clubs have been recommended for relegation from Serie A, the country’s premier league. This means that as many as 13 members of the squad that won on Sunday may be looking for employment on their return home.

Unlike recent events, the 2006 World Cup failed to produce a brand new star with the promise of becoming an all-time great. There was a paucity too of shock value, with Ghana’s victory over the Czech Republic the only real upset of the tournament. The Asian powerhouses also failed to impress, a clear reminder that subcontinental teams will not be featuring in the World Cup any time soon. Football is still popular in our part of the world but no longer of world ranking. Pakistan comes in at a dismal 153, behind India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Dramatic improvement is required if we are to compete even at the Asian level.

Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi

WITH the passing of Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi, Urdu literature has lost one of the last remaining scions of the idealism bred by the Progressive Writers’ Movement of the 1930s. Lahore, too, is poorer by the departure of another rare gem it proudly held in its literary casket. Devoting an entire lifetime to scholarly pursuits, Qasmi Sahib has left behind a vacuum that will be hard to fill: rarely do a poet, a short story and drama writer, a critic and a journalist of his calibre combine these traits in one person. But, above all, he will be remembered for his integrity and a persistent refusal to compromise it for worldly gains. In this he stood head and shoulders above many others in the field. As the editor of the defunct daily Imroze, Lahore, Qasmi Sahib paid a heavy price for speaking up against the first martial law in 1958. He stood by the values he cherished — for himself and for his admirers; it was only before them and his own conscience that he held himself accountable.

Qasmi Sahib’s vast literary work reflects his humility — a rare trait in our society — combined with the romanticism of Urdu literature: Yaad aaye tere pekar ke khutoot/Apni kotaahi-i-fan yaad aai. (‘Memories of the curves of your body/remind me of my inept craft’). Among his few worldly possessions, he leaves behind the literary journal Fanoon, which he passionately edited till his very last days. As an acknowledgement of his immense contribution to Urdu literature, it will be only fitting to rename Lahore’s Club Road, where the journal’s office is located, after this last of our literary giants. He may not be among us any longer, but dead certainly he is not. Just like he said: ‘Who says death will be my end? A river I am, into the sea I shall flow.’

Disinvestment rocks the Indian boat

EVERY lie must be denied; otherwise it becomes an attachment to the truth. I am not equally sure that rumours deserve similar attention, because a denial tends to live in the same haze as the rumour. The smoke-and-fire axiom begins to operate: could there be smoke without fire? Prime ministers must be particularly careful about smoke.

What is a rumour? It is much more than repetition of a lie, for a lie rarely travels very far. A rumour finds legs only because it has the possibility of being true. The success of a lie depends on the credibility of the perpetrator. A rumour succeeds because of its persuasive ability, because those who hear it are amenable, consciously or subconsciously. Why are they amenable? Because there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to give credence to the rumour.

Could there be denial without some, however fleeting, truth in it?

Spread a rumour that Manmohan Singh has taken money in the growing navy scandal, and no one will believe it. There is no evidence that in a lifetime of public service Manmohan Singh has taken an illegitimate rupee.

No one would have believed a rumour in July 2005 that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was about to resign. At that time, he was in full command of his cabinet, and had the determination of a leader with an agenda, focused around what he believed would be a historic deal with the United States. The process began with an agreement signed by Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee on June 28 last year, and gathered momentum during Dr Singh’s visit to the White House later last year. Is it irony, or merely poetic justice, that Dr Manmohan Singh’s political credibility began to waver after President George Bush’s pseudo-historical visit to India, and his announcement that Washington was ready to go ahead with the nuclear deal.

Euphoria, particularly of the premature kind, tends to breed errors, even among the most balanced of men. Dr Singh had a significant lapse of judgment when he dismissed opposition to the Bush visit as “communal”. Suspicion about what was being cooked in the cavernous kitchens of Delhi and Washington was not a by- product of latent communalism. In any event, to call Marxists, who led the demonstrations against Bush, communal is apolitical if not absurd. The government quickly stopped parroting this line, but even this small self-inflicted wound created an opportunity. For the government was up against something far more potent than communalism: nationalism.

Suspicion became a worry when the terms of engagement were revealed. Dr Homi Sethna, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and a founding father of India’s nuclear programme, read the details and said that what Dr Manmohan Singh was about to sign was worse than joining the NPT regime. No government in Delhi of any colour ever dared to compromise India’s independent nuclear assets by joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. We are now on the verge of surrendering our independence, and all we can hear is the sound of silence.

Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, has outlined how precisely commitments made by Dr Singh to parliament and the people have been blatantly undermined and notes that if the deal goes through in its present form, it will “compromise the sovereignty of this country for decades to come”. He has exposed the very enormous financial price that India will have to pay as well: between Rs 300,000 to Rs 400,000 crores in nuclear reactors that will be totally dependent for their existence on a yearly audit of our policies by the US Congress. Dr P.K. Iyengar, another former chairman of the AEC, has called the deal “giving up sovereignty”. These men have spent their lives translating an Indian vision, crafted by Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, into reality. They do not have a political or personal agenda.

Democratic politics is a terribly uncertain game at the best of times, and only the very complacent waste opportunities. Arjun Singh sent off the first, powerful, signal that the time for political expediency had arrived. He brought reservations back to the forefront of debate, for in conflict lay votes. It was known that the prime minister was unhappy, but his unhappiness made no difference. If a prime minister cannot assert his authority, authority simply latches on to anyone who will. Dr Ramadoss, nationally unknown but influential Tamil leader, who leads a small party of just six MPs, has bull-charged his way into centre space by converting his regional needs into a national dilemma.

The prime minister cannot restrain his “backward castes” activism, since the only way to do so is to either sack him or change his portfolio. Dr Singh can do neither. The senior party from Tamil Nadu, the DMK, is happy to go for the jugular on behalf of the workers of Neyveli, and once again the prime minister is helpless. In a fit of pique, Dr Singh responds by halting all disinvestments across the country. The trouble is, this hammer will not kill the fly.

Two years ago, when the world was young and every horizon just a footfall away, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised reform with a human face, a curious phrase, but one whose meaning was nevertheless clearer than its grammar. It meant that economic reforms would not be pushed through at the cost of the working class or the peasant. That policy has now been stood on its head. If this were by the collective will of the government, it would be understandable. But both the prime minister and the finance minister have become hostage to office, and the allies know it.

There is a perceptible sense of drift alternating with freeze, as the axle of power is challenged by the spokes: the wheel cannot turn in a predetermined direction. Dr Singh has made the nuclear deal with the United States his highest priority. There is something sincere about this, since a full-time politician would have hedged his bets and left wiggle room for escape if the deal began to unravel. But sincerity is no substitute for being right. As details have begun to emerge, there is unease in the highest quarters of the Congress as well, because, if eminent Indians like Sethna, Gopalakrishnan and Iyengar are right, the Congress will pay a very heavy political price.

It was the accumulation of such internal tensions that gave wing to the rumour recently. The rumour was not total speculation, or the idea without precedent. It is not widely known that Dr Manmohan Singh once sent his resignation to P.V. Narasimha Rao. Rao ignored it. But this time Dr Singh is the prime minister.

Have you ever seen straws floating in the wind? They are like rumours: no one knows where they come from and where they are headed. But they do predict a storm.

The writer is editor-in-chief of the Asian Age, New Delhi.

Congress’s turn

PRESSED by the Supreme Court, Congress this week at last will begin considering how to create a legal system for foreigners held at the Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere abroad. Depending on the course it takes, the legislature could compound the damage of the past five years — or it could enhance America’s prestige and its fight against terrorism.

Having allowed President Bush to assert extralegal powers for nearly five years, some in Congress now want to rush through legislation that would rubber-stamp the regime that the court rejected. There is talk of completing a bill by summer’s end. Some Republicans appear eager to turn what ought to be a serious debate about balancing national security and human rights into an election issue — by labelling as soft on terrorism anyone who opposes Mr Bush’s unworkable scheme for trying Guantanamo inmates.

It’s somewhat encouraging, therefore, that the Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of Sen. John W. Warner will take the legislative lead in the Senate. Mr Warner’s committee was the source last year of the sole piece of responsible legislation on foreign detainees since 2001, the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners authored by Sen. John McCain.

Mr Warner says he will conduct “intensive consultations” with Republicans and Democrats on his committee, the White House and legal experts before deciding how to proceed. His first hearing this week will feature testimony by serving and former military judge advocates general.

That’s a good place to start, if only because so many in Congress seem to misunderstand the issues raised by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — especially its finding that all detainees are covered by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Based on their public statements, a number of senators appear to believe that any application of Geneva to al-Qaeda prisoners is equivalent to giving them prisoner-of-war rights or setting requirements that go beyond U.S. law. Some claim that American servicemen have been exposed to new legal jeopardy. None of that is true.

In fact, Geneva’s Common Article 3 applies to everyone caught up in a conflict, including civilians and irregular combatants. Its requirement for minimally humane treatment falls far short of POW status and is very similar to that mandated by the McCain amendment.

—The Washington Post