A questionable initiative

IT WOULD be recalled that in January the president had suddenly embarked on a hurriedly arranged air dash to a number of Arab capitals, on the grounds that internecine clashes among Palestinian factions and the growing threat of civil war in Iraq called for an Islamic initiative to be launched urgently. This action had been initially well-received in Pakistan.

This reaction was in keeping with the profound interest that the Muslims of the subcontinent have always taken in developments in the Middle East. The Palestinian cause, in particular, has always occupied centre-stage for the people of this country. In fact, this predates the establishment of Pakistan, for while still struggling for the establishment of a homeland for themselves, the Muslims of the subcontinent did not forget the plight of the people of Palestine.

But it is not the Palestinian issue alone that causes us concern. The Islamic world faces not one but multiple challenges of such magnitude that it would be no exaggeration to state that there is an all-pervading sense of gloom and doom afflicting Muslim societies.

This has led some scholars to advocate an abject surrender to western values and practices. Others, however, have come to believe that only a harsh and uncompromising rejection of all that is western is essential, for they view the West as primarily responsible for the ills afflicting the Muslim world.

The result of all this is that the world of Islam is riven by political differences, sectarian rivalries, ideological tensions, and most importantly, by a near absence of credible governance. To add to their woes, most Muslim countries are governed by unrepresentative, authoritarian regimes, which draw sustenance and legitimacy not from the freely expressed will of their people, but from brute force or dogmatic religious beliefs, or even from foreign powers.

As if the occupation of Palestine and turmoil in other places were not enough, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mortal blow not only to the concept of state sovereignty as recognised for past centuries, but also as a manifestation of defiance of international public opinion and contempt for the principles of inter-state relations.

Given all these factors, the initiative by the Pakistani president to hold in-depth exchanges with the leadership of important Muslim states, was appropriate and timely, and initially evoked favourable comments in Pakistan and abroad. Pakistanis recognised that the challenges facing the Muslim world were so grave and urgent that any initiative, however remote its chances of success, deserved to be welcomed.

As a result of the president’s meetings held in these capitals, it was decided to call a meeting of the foreign ministers of major Muslim powers in Islamabad this week, to prepare for a summit meeting in Makkah. The purpose was to explore new approaches and ideas for ending the turmoil in the Middle East, renew the call for ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and oppose the use of force to resolve the stand-off over the Iranian nuclear programme.

The foreign ministers, who met in Islamabad on February 25, along with the secretary-general of the OIC issued a joint statement describing the Palestinian question as the core problem in the Middle East and called for its resolution on the basis of the UN resolutions. They expressed concern over continuing Israeli occupation and illegal actions. At the same time, they stressed the importance of unity amongst the Palestinians and welcomed the establishment of the Palestinian national government, following the Makkah agreement.

They demanded the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories in Syria and Lebanon and viewed with concern the increase in tensions over the Iranian nuclear programme and stressed that all issues must be resolved through diplomacy and that there should be no use of force. They reiterated their strong commitment to fight all forms of terrorism and extremism, while expressing deep concern over campaigns to malign Islam.

While Pakistan’s initiative was commendable, it did nevertheless raise certain questions. These related to the impression that the meeting was arranged much too hurriedly and was not preceded by the kind of consultation necessary to ensure success.

The decision to omit Iran in the first group of countries consulted by us also created misgivings. It also coincided with reports from Washington to the effect that it had been undertaken at the behest of Saudi Arabia and with the encouragement of the US. The Arab media claimed that the initiative had little to do with either Palestine or Iraq, and that its real purpose was to establish a coalition of pro-western Sunni states to challenge Iran. This impression was strengthened by the immediate endorsement of the initiative by the Bush administration.

Given daily reports of American military build-up in the Gulf and Israeli threats of unilateral action against Iran, this was a time to calm frayed nerves in Tehran and not to add to their doubts and misgivings. Iran’s concerns are so strong that even mainstream Iranian papers were led to believe that Pakistan was undertaking this mission at the urging of the Arab states.

This was all the more disturbing as both the American and Arab media have been claiming that the generally perceived expansion of Iranian influence in the region, coupled with allegations of Iran’s inexorable march towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons, have sent tremors in the Middle East and the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others have already indicated that either individually, or collectively as members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, they may be constrained to undertake their own nuclear programme, should the Iranians not be persuaded to abandon theirs.

The situation became all the more alarming when pro-government newspapers in Iran expressed the fear that one of the results of Islamabad’s initiative would be the “marginalisation of Iran and Syria”, which constrained our spokesperson to emphasise that the purpose of the meeting of the seven “like-minded” Muslim countries was not “against anyone and not at the behest of anyone.”

Even the Turkish prime minister felt the need to stress that these meetings “are not designed to isolate any country”.It was, however, only natural for such fears to find credence, given the fact that even mainstream US and European newspapers are now alleging that the US has redoubled its efforts, both diplomatically as well as on the ground, to create major problems for Iran.

Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported earlier this week that America was secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran to pile up pressure on Tehran. It quoted intelligence sources to the effect that in the past year, there had been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. These efforts have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the northwest, the Ahwazi Arabs in the southwest and the Baloch in the southeast.

Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism expert, confirmed that the latest attacks inside Iran were in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the regime. That Washington should be extending critical support to these extremist groups is both disappointing and even dangerous, because most of them represent extremist views that could cause problems for Washington at some later stage.

Only last week, the BBC carried reports of US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran that extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure. The network also reported diplomatic sources as saying that senior officials at the US Central Command in Florida, had already selected their targets in Iran and that Washington may have decided to use any major terrorist attack in Iraq as an excuse to initiate a bombing campaign against Iran.

There are, however, other diplomatic observers, who believe that the US is not likely to undertake military action against Iran. They argue, with merit, that US forces are fully committed to managing a deteriorating situation in Iraq, on top of which the Taliban are showing signs of resurgence in Afghanistan. There is also growing opposition within the US to any new adventures. These are certainly convincing arguments against a war, especially to people who take decisions on rational grounds.

But the Bush administration is composed of hard-line ideologues, who may not necessarily be swayed by rational reasoning, because their ideological motivations are faith-based and logic plays only a minimal role.

This may also explain why the US has been claiming that opposition to the Islamic regime is now so strong and widespread that all it needs is for a massive surgical strike to bring down the whole edifice. European observers, however, are of the view that Washington may be misreading news reports that there has been a backlash in Iran against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies pointing to the setback suffered by the president’s supporters in the December 2006 municipal elections.

But the Bush administration appears to be misreading the signals. The backlash is against Ahmadinejad’s provocative rhetoric and ineffective economic policies; there is no difference of opinion on the nuclear programme. If anything, the US-approved nuclear deal with North Korea would have convinced the Iranian leadership of the strong negotiating position that the possession of nuclear weapons would give them.

All these developments are extremely worrying not only for the region, but for the people of Pakistan as well. Given our “strategic ties” with Washington and growing collaboration with Nato, there is concern as to what exactly our understanding, if any, is with the US on this issue. What happens if Washington were to raise with us the possibility of using our air corridor to fly B-2 Stealth bombers on bombing missions to Iran? There are even reports to the effect that the US may wish to use air bases in Balochistan for operations against Iran. This would, of course, be a folly of monumental proportions.

It is, therefore, absolutely essential that Pakistan make it clear, at this stage, that there is no way that it can permit its land, water or air space to be used by the US against Iran, a friend and tested ally. Any collaboration with the US would not only create major domestic problems, but also destroy a historic relationship and create an unprecedented situation, wherein we will be in a state of confrontation with three out of four of our neighbours — a nightmare scenario that must be prevented.

The writer is a former ambassador

Development sells, not slogans

THE voting pattern in India is undergoing a change beyond conjecture. There were times when Pakistan or Kashmir would be an issue at every election — provincial or central. Then came the turn of slogans about the state’s constitutional rights and New Delhi’s tendency to violate them. Some such noises still linger.

Yet, it is development that has been the centre of focus in the last decade or so. The voters have begun to measure their economic gain when they are in the process of selecting a political party and pressing the button at the polling booth. No doubt, their vote against the ruling group is called the anti-incumbency factor. But what it really means is their dissent against governance.

This was reflected in elections in three states: Punjab and Uttarakhand in the north and Manipur in the northeast. The first two went against the Congress which was the ruling party there. The party has, however, retained the third, Manipur, although precariously. The clear message the polls give is that the way to the ballot box goes through the path which economic development paves.

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s coalition learnt the lesson only when it lost the majority in the Lok Sabha nearly three years ago. It had projected that India was shining under its rule while the fact was that the country, especially the rural areas, was reeling under indifferent, cursory development. To the BJP’s woe, slogans did not sell; neither did the publicity worth millions of rupees. The reverses that the Congress has suffered in Punjab and Uttarakhand has the same explanation: the belied expectations of voters regarding their economic well-being.

The rise in prices has hit the party even more. Not surprisingly, women who have to balance the expenditure against income, polled most in Punjab, nearly 78 per cent in the state where the percentage for men was 55. Still the Congress got more popular votes than before. In Punjab, the swing in its favour was four per cent and in Uttarakhand two per cent. The defeat in both states has been close and the party fought more or less as a team.

However, the political scene in Punjab has changed. There was no cry for the state's autonomy (in the form of Khalistan, an independent state of the Sikh community) this time. The biggest proponent of Khalistan, Simmranjit Singh Maan, was defeated at the polls. The Sikhs want a pluralistic society. The Akalis for the first time fielded seven Hindu and one Muslim candidates. The point at issue was primarily the government’s performance and the outgoing chief minister Amarinder Singh’s style of functioning. Once the most prosperous state in the country, Punjab has slid to fifth position. Even farmers have committed suicide. Amarinder Singh, scion of a royal house, failed to react and went on with his maharaja-type rule.

One other factor which has counted with voters in Punjab and Uttarakhand is the rulers’ contact with the people. Amarinder Singh was always distant from the common man. Unlike him, his opponent, Prakash Singh Badal, the new chief minister, is a familiar figure even in the remotest

part. When he was in the wilderness, Badal kept his contact, leaving his house at Chandigarh everyday in the morning and returning in the evening.

In Uttarakhand, the Congress leaders had a penchant for official cars with beacon lights. They did not have to be cabinet ministers to flaunt this symbol of authority. Uttarakhand has the paraphernalia of development. It must be said to the credit of the outgoing chief minister N.D. Tewari that he brought practically every big industrial house to the state. Yet the gestation period took its toll. The benefits had not begun to accrue when elections were held. The fact that Tewari did his best saved the Congress from an ignominious defeat. Had he himself contested, he would have made a difference. People saw the foremost fighter withdrawing from the battle even before it had begun.

The ominous development is the return of the BJP in the urban areas. In the last election, the party was the Akali Dal’s Achilles’ heel, adding only three seats to its strength. This time the BJP gave 16 seats apart from the Hindu vote. In fact, the revival of the BJP is what should be a matter of concern to the secular parties. The Shiv Sena-BJP front won most of the municipal seats in Maharashtra recently. Now the Akali-BJP combine has won a majority in Punjab. In Uttarakhand, the BJP has gained 15 seats to make 34 in a 70-member house. Not that the BJP played the Hindutva card but the party's basic ideology to create a Hindu state remains unchanged. Pluralism is what makes the country democratic and united. The recovery of the BJP means that the space for pluralism is shrinking.

The biggest drawback in fighting against communalism is that the Congress, the main party, lacks committed members, although not the commitment. The party has not been able to project the image of a secular outfit. There are doubts about many of its leaders, particularly in the states. In Punjab, the party’s blessings from a religious organisation like the Sucha Sauda Dera puts a question mark against the secular credentials of the Congress. Electoral politics have made the party compromise on its fundamentals. In admitting in its ranks former BJP and Shiv Sena members in Maharashtra and extremists in Punjab, the Congress does not realise the harm it is doing to itself. The impression goes around that communalism is not, after all, such a blemish as it is made out to be.

The reason why the nine to 10 per cent growth rate is not paying the Congress dividends is the share which is appropriated by the upper half. They are the real gainers of developments. The lower half remains where it has been. The party has belatedly realised this. But the love for globalisation that most cabinet ministers and Congress leaders have makes them look like part of the corporate sector. Capitalism has never gone down well in India. Progress without giving up the concept of a welfare state is a challenge before the Congress. It should quickly take remedial measures because the mother of elections is round the corner in UP.

Whether or not the Punjab and Uttarakhand elections will affect the centre is too early to say. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not reportedly rule out some fallout. If the UP goes against the Congress, as is expected, the Manmohan Singh government may face a challenge. The election of the president, due later in the year, is bound to be contentious. The Congress should start talking to the opposition to find a candidate through consensus.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi

Black and blue

THERE is something remarkable about a serving policemen publishing damaging revelations about life inside the force, as chief superintendent Ali Dizaei is doing in a new book he is publicising. His story of being unfairly hounded for corruption is more striking because he is a senior officer, a man of a rank which — in many walks of life — would only be reached by those enjoying happy relationships with their employer. Among the handful of black and Asian people who have reached the top of the Metropolitan police, however, his experience is far from unique.

It is now eight years since Sir William Macpherson's inquiry damned the police for institutional racism, yet tensions between the Met and its top ethnic minority officers remain widespread. Like Mr Dizaei, the former chair of the National Black Police Association, Superintendent Leroy Logan, was subjected to a disproportionately heavy fraud probe; it was dropped without wrongdoing being shown. Dal Babu, now a superintendent, won damages in 2003 after being passed over for promotion on grounds of his race. Even more senior are Shabir Hussain, a commander who has filed three discrimination claims, and Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, who has failed to get the top job in several urban forces despite repeated applications. These numerous cases suggest a worrisome pattern, and more systematic analysis — including from Cambridge University — confirms that internal police procedures fall short in race and diversity terms.

Troubles at the top reflect deeper issues. The drive to increase minority recruitment has not been a total failure — one in three community support officers in London are now non-white - but move up from this lowest of ranks and things look much worse. Fewer than one officers in 10 in the capital is from a minority, which is why Peter Fahy, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, told MPs that at the current rate it would take another 17 years to achieve a representative service.

Speeding that up will not be not easy. When many officers serve 30-year careers natural turnover is not fast; and experience in Northern Ireland, where Polish Catholics are now being recruited to fill religious quotas, shows how badly designed positive action can produce weird results. But it is important to try and do better. The issue is not just one of fairness, but increasingly one of effective policing too. A forthcoming report from the police inspectorate is likely to argue that an essential precondition to successfully fighting terrorism is healthier community relations. That is impossible while the force continues to look so different from the community it represents.

— The Guardian