THE India-Pakistan peace process has been stalled for almost a year now. Its negative impact is seen most in Jammu and Kashmir where people feel discouraged and disheartened about their problem ever being resolved. It was against this gloomy backdrop that the first intra-Kashmir women’s conference, ‘Connecting women across the Line of Control’, was held in Srinagar recently. It helped to lift spirits and revive hope.

The conference was historic in more ways than one. It was the first time that women from both sides of the LoC were able to meet. Organised by the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR), the conference established beyond doubt that more such meetings/dialogues are needed to keep the lines of communication open.

In the last 60 years, Jammu and Kashmir have suffered partition, borne the brunt of wars between India and Pakistan, and has been living through an armed conflict for the past 18 years. These events have caused huge social turmoil and violence resulting in deaths, displacement of communities (in some cases several times), destruction of property, disruption of normal life and slow down of every kind of development.

In this saga, women’s suffering has been enormous and ongoing. Yet this has not been recognised and women have never been asked what kind of future they visualised for themselves, their families and their society and how they would like the Kashmir dispute to be resolved. Although no one prevented their participation in the peace process, enough opportunities have not been provided to women in this regard. It was this quest to bring women into the peace process that prompted the first all-women’s intra-Kashmir conference in Srinagar.

The several intra-Kashmir gatherings organised in recent years in India, Pakistan and elsewhere have created an informal network of individuals interested in the peace process and built a wider peace constituency on both sides of the LoC. However, women’s participation in these intra-Kashmir gatherings has been inadequate.

Many believe, at this important juncture in history, women’s voices and their perspectives are needed in official as well as civil society peace processes. Although women have actively participated in protests against violence and human rights violations, there is no effective mobilisation of women for peace and social change.

The reason for this could be their experiences in the early 1990s at the height of the azadi movement in Kashmir when they were in the forefront of processions and demonstrations. Those years were marked with repression, human rights violations, disappearances, death and destruction of property.

Women suffered at the hands of the state as well as of non-state actors. Kashmiri society as a whole paid a heavy price. Hardly any family was left untouched by tragedy. People were angry at the state but also became disillusioned with the leaders of the azadi movement. Apart from general fatigue, these could be some of the reasons that made women hesitate to come forward in large numbers to demand peace.

One of the most effective confidence-building measures in Kashmir’s context is cross-border travel. The AJK delegates travelled for almost three days via Wagah to reach the conference venue, although Muzaffarabad-Srinagar direct travel would have brought them to Srinagar within four to five hours.

If only the travel across the LoC is relaxed for purposes other than meetings between divided families, it will produce rich dividends as well as facilitate the process of creating a conducive atmosphere for taking tougher political decisions later.

There is need for governments to have more confidence in their citizens if they want the CBMs to produce a positive impact.

The women’s delegation from across the LoC brought with them the intensity of the pain and suffering of divided families, as a majority of them belonged to such families. Some of them visited their relatives in different parts of the state — this became a pilgrimage that began the process of healing. This emphasises the need to simplify travel procedures.

The conference took place in an atmosphere that allowed delegates to speak freely and frankly, to express differences as well as areas of agreement. On both sides of the LoC, there was a visible desire to find a way out of the Kashmir problem. And women from both sides were ready to talk and explore avenues for peace-building.

The conference addressed important issues. It discussed the need to overcome difficulties and explore the role that women could play in the peace-building process, reconciling differences and promoting cross-border cooperation.

The importance of ending violence of state and non-state actors was debated. Both sides acknowledged that one agency could not be held responsible for years of strife. They deplored the blame game that points to violations by insurgents or Indian security forces. The meeting stressed the need to acknowledge the sufferings of people on both sides of the LoC, especially women, as a consequence of separation and conflict.

Participants articulated concrete suggestions to bridge the divide. They debated whether justice or reconciliation should be the priority. Was one possible without the other? It was concluded that justice was a prerequisite to reconciliation. Peace cannot be imposed.

The issue of militancy was gingerly raised. Mixed feelings were expressed. While some gave tacit support to the armed struggle, others drew attention to the feeling that AJK had contributed to huge loss of life and wellbeing in the valley.

It was also pointed out that more needed to be done to coax militants out of their militancy by offering them adequate rehabilitation.

The smaller group discussions were particularly effective as they allowed women to freely and frankly voice their views and concerns. Some interesting insights and points emerged from these group discussions:

Celebrate differences and recognise their right to exist.

Only those who have personally suffered can decide to move on and forgive. This is not something that others can dictate or suggest.

Peace in the real sense would mean freedom from fear of violence, freedom to meet family members easily, freedom to pursue the field of choice, freedom of expression and freedom from patriarchal values.

Borders should be softened so that cultural and other interactions can take place. Neutral zones between the two sides would allow movement for reasons of health, employment and cultural interaction.

The consensus statement denounces all forms of violence, and supports the India-Pakistan peace process. It also demands a decisive role for women in all negotiations in future. It calls for withdrawal of forces on both sides of the LoC as well as the decommissioning of militants. It urges all efforts should be made for the return and rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Pandits as well as facilitating the return of youth who crossed the border. The statement further demands that all political groups and factions strive for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue.

By releasing this consensus statement to the media, the women challenged their leaders by taking the first step in the long journey ahead. It was hoped that the governments of India and Pakistan would read the consensus statement and give consideration to the suggestions raised.

The writer is executive secretary, Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, Gurgaon, Haryana.

E-mail: cdr_org@hotmail.com

q I AM back in Pakistan for a four-week stay. I have returned after two months to find the country in a very different mood. I am struck this time by the widespread sense of despair and despondency that has engulfed the nation.

It is noticeable everywhere; in newspaper columns, in TV talk shows, in drawing room discussions all over the country. That this is so is not surprising. Even from the standard of Pakistan’s turbulent history, 2007 was an enormously difficult year.

The events that made it so are well known and are the backdrop against which the citizenry has formed its opinions about the country’s current situation and its political and economic prospects. There is a widespread belief that the country is adrift. Some people are speculating that Pakistan as we know it today may not exist for very long; it may break up into smaller autonomous states. Some people believe — wrongly I think — that the major western powers may favour such a development.

The mood in the country is influencing foreign thinking about Pakistan. In 2007, Newsweek magazine wrote two cover stories on the country. The first appeared early in the year and described Pakistan’s economy in glowing terms. It said that Pakistan was a sleeping economic giant in Asia that was waking up to a very bright future.

The second appeared after the October attack on the convoy in Karachi that was bringing Benazir Bhutto from the airport to the place where she was supposed to address tens of thousands of people who had gathered to welcome her to Karachi. The magazine then called Pakistan the world’s most dangerous place, even worse than Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Jan 5, 2008, The Economist followed the same line of thinking with a cover that had a picture of a ticking bomb. The title called the country ‘the world’s most dangerous place’. The magazine had four stories on Pakistan. It carried Benazir Bhutto’s obituary, had a leading article on the situation in the country, provided a three-page analysis of the problems Pakistan currently faces, and published a review of a book that provided the detailed story of the scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferation activities.

The magazine’s overall analysis was less sensational than that of Newsweek. Its main conclusion was that the country was not beyond repair. It could be rescued by a move towards democracy. The magazine offered two solutions that would enable democracy to take hold: a fair election and a reliable inquiry into the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

The reason for going over some of the material that is appearing in both the Pakistani and foreign media is to underscore an important point. An excessively negative view of the affairs in Pakistan is hurting the country’s standing in the international capital markets. As I pointed out in my article that appeared in this space on January 22, what is called ‘the country risk’ has increased for Pakistan.

This has not only raised the cost of borrowing in foreign markets — if such borrowing was to be undertaken — it has also made institutions and individuals reluctant to work in the country.

It is hard to measure how that will affect Pakistan’s medium-term economic growth but it will certainly pull it down unless the country’s image begins to improve. To remedy the situation will require a change in the citizen’s perception about where Pakistan is today and where it seems to be going.

In this context, I would like to quote from an interesting letter sent to The Economist by Shreekant Gupta, an Indian who is currently at the Institute of South Asian Studies at Singapore. He writes: “Yes, Pakistan is going through trying times, but is far from being the world’s most dangerous country. Having just returned from Pakistan which I traversed without let or hindrance with my Indian passport and Hindu name, I can say emphatically that its people are warm and friendly and passionate about democracy and the forthcoming elections.”

I am not suggesting that Pakistan is not faced with difficult times and that in some areas the country has gone terribly wrong. I am not saying that criticism about various features of Pakistani society and the failure of the government to provide good governance should be stilled. My point is that what is happening needs to be placed in a proper perspective.

Again, to quote from Gupta: “Parts of my own country (and Nepal and Sri Lanka) are racked by Maoist guerilla warfare and violent separatist movements. I do not recall you designating India as the world’s most dangerous place when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated during electioneering or Indira Gandhi for that matter. The latter’s killing was followed by a brutal and murderous pogrom against Sikhs, and Delhi burned for days. The truth always contains shades of grey.”

It would be helpful for Pakistan’s future if the country’s people began to see things not just in black and white. They need to introduce shades of grey in the way they look at their country. Some months ago, I wrote a series of articles in this space spelling out the positives and negatives about the Pakistani economy. Much of that analysis remains pertinent even though a great deal of a negative has happened. In the past eight years, the country has seen a respectable rate of economic growth, even though the poor have not benefited a great deal.

One of the provinces — Punjab, the largest in the country — has done particularly well. This has been recognised by such aid-giving and development agencies as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. A far- reaching programme of decentralisation and devolving governance to the local level has been put in place. There are many teething problems with this structure but it will have positive consequences if it is allowed to evolve. Relations with India have measurably improved although the Indians have been less eager to normalise than the Pakistanis.

Pakistan is now on the radar screens of many Arab financial institutions and they are providing much-needed capital to the Pakistani economy. However, some of these investments will pose problems in the future since they will produce returns in rupees that will have to be converted and remitted in foreign currencies. This will put pressure on the already strained external account. In other words, there were many positive developments in the last eight years but each one of them came with some problems.

As Pakistan heads towards a period of political transition, it would be useful to do an accounting of what has happened in the last one decade. The new policymakers who will take office in a few weeks must see the situation not just in black and white but in shades of grey. They should be prepared to continue with the good policies that have been adopted since 1999 while changing those that did not produce satisfactory results. At this time, there is a great deal at stake.

The next few months will be critical for Pakistan’s future. Those who will be placed in positions of power must recognise that they have to work for national good, and not for personal gain.

A MAJOR schism in Pakistan’s political scene is between those who insist on contesting elections and those who want them boycotted. Of all the issues that divide political leaders, this is the most crucial.

Some sections of society support the lawyers’ cause or champion another. But the boycotters are a breed apart. They have a long history.

The hard-core amongst them are those who have always been separatists and confederationists. They have been inclined to seek their objectives under the aegis of undemocratic regimes. They miss no opportunity to denounce or sabotage constitutional systems. Their anti-people approach always makes them willing or unwilling allies of the Jamaat-i-Islami.

People remember how the Pakistan Oppressed Nations’ Movement was formed in the shadow of GHQ in Rawalpindi. Its convener, Mr Ajmal Khattak, supported the proposal put forward by the commander-in-chief at the time, Jehangir Karamat, for the formation of a national security council. In spite of his IJI credentials, Nawaz Sharif proved loyal to the people and that move fizzled out.

That was about two decades ago. The vagaries of time may not always change issues but they do change faces. The issue today is the same as it was earlier: the rule of the elite or the rule of the people; authoritarianism or democracy. The present regime is hemmed in from all sides; it is short of options. The people want elections to be held as per schedule, and want them to be free, fair and transparent. The president has added the word ‘peaceful’ as an escape hatch, should the need arise, to use the law and order alibi. The latter is the surest, nay, the only option available to the government to defend authoritarianism.

The PPP is the largest political party. It has become stronger after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It insists on elections. It has in tow the second largest party, the PML-N. Apart from the obscurantist riff raff, the only defenders available to authoritarianism are the boycotters. Recently, an APDM leader had the cheek to ask the Punjab government to provide the movement space to campaign for an anti-election line.

The PPP leadership has put such leaders on the defensive. It has declared that if the PPP won even two-thirds of the seats in the assembly, it would form a coalition government of political consensus. It has made it clear that the objective of the PPP is not self-aggrandisement but the empowerment of civil society, with the army welcome to play its constitutional role. It has allayed the fears of those who think that elections may lead to fragmentation by implying that the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 did not take place due to elections, but because of the refusal of the Yahya regime to honour the results — in other words, to honour the national mandate.

Awareness has grown in civil society by leaps and bounds. Since the movement for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was launched, it has never looked back. The role of the Chief Justice, eminent lawyers like Aitzaz Ahsan and Muneer Malik, Asma Jehangir and other human rights activists has also helped. Young students, especially those blessed with the knowledge of advanced computer technology, are taking politics to the street and to the web — even to beaches where a street play was performed. But most of all, the masses of Pakistan have strengthened the protest movement.

The hallmark of a live movement is that instead of being fissiparous, it envelops ever more segments at every turn. Benazir Bhutto was a great uniting force while she was alive. She mended fences with Sherbaz Marri, Nasim Wali Khan, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, talked to Bushra Aitzaz and visited the homes of those who had been killed earlier. Nawaz Sharif tried to convert her to the cause of the boycotters, but went back proclaiming that he would contest elections.

Her assassination further strengthened the electoral lobby. Today, Nawaz Sharif is firmly following the PPP line. The boycotters have no agenda beyond non-participation. Those who dream of a revolution are welcome to join the ranks of the militant jihadists. Apart from them, there is no space for a civil revolution. In fact, the civil revolution is being waged by those contesting elections. A revolution will take place if they win. A revolution will also take place if the elections are rigged and the electorate is frustrated.

This scenario gives a new meaning to the president’s addition of the word ‘peaceful’ in relation to the elections. Those ruling by brute force can resort to bloodletting. Indeed, they have no other option. Pakistan’s civil society and its major political parties are hell-bent on beating them. Pakistan is bound to see the dawn of a new people’s power.