|
| October 04, 2008 | Saturday | Shawwal 04, 1429 |
Why this controversy?
Sindh’s cultural heritage
OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press
EU’s relationship with India
Celebrating the N-pact
GROWING concerns over the impact of the US financial crisis on an economically fragile European Union (EU) were probably one reason almost all leading EU newspapers ignored the 27-nation bloc’s summit with India last week.
INDIA’S Congress party leadership and the Bush administration were celebrating on Thursday after the US Senate finally approved a nuclear cooperation agreement that opens the way for a $14bn investment in new Indian reactors and nuclear plants over the next year alone. The deal also has wider strategic significance, bolstering US-India ties at a time of rising Chinese influence.
SHAH Mahmood Qureshi, the foreign minister of Pakistan, has been a largely anonymous figure in the weeks since the US stepped up attacks inside Fata in September. However, Mr Qureshi hit all the right notes in a speech at Princeton University this week. “I’m afraid that a relatively recent element in this already difficult war threatens to undo what we have already achieved,” the foreign minister said in a reference to US strikes inside Pakistan. When American Special Operation forces landed in a village near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan in early September, observers pointed out the disastrous potential such attacks had to alienate Pakistani public opinion — and especially the tribes whose support Pakistan requires to defeat the militants in Fata and northern Pakistan. Since that attack, the Americans have stated their respect for Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, and launched numerous missile strikes inside Fata. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has even claimed that the UN charter permits America to act in “self-defence” against militants operating from Pakistani soil, if the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to do anything about those militants.
The problem is that the Bush administration is desperate for a quick success along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, whereas an effective anti-militancy strategy must necessarily be long-term. And an effective strategy can only be led by Pakistan itself, with some combination of tribal and state action. What Mr Qureshi was highlighting is that at present Pakistan is advancing against the militants, with clear help from local tribes. Lashkars have been organised by tribes in Bajaur, Peshawar, Khyber, Swat, Dir, Buner and Lakki Marwat, and they have had some success against the militants. Engaging the tribes in such a positive manner is a delicate affair for each tribe has its own dynamics and strategic position. Earlier this week Gen Kayani visited Bajaur Agency and met with tribal leaders; later, Salarzai tribesmen announced a full-fledged operation to clear their tehsil and neighbouring areas in Bajaur of militants.
Pakistan needs all the help it can get to facilitate such decisions by tribesmen. However, American strikes — thus far confined to Waziristan — only fuel a backlash and complicate efforts to harness the support of tribes. “We will fight against America until the last soul if they come to our country,” Malik Manasib Khan, a leader of a lashkar in Bajaur Agency, told reporters last week. The attack over Eid on Asfandyar Wali Khan, leader of the ANP which has turned to a more aggressive strategy against militants in Swat and other areas of the NWFP, was yet another reminder of the threat and reach of the militants. If the militants are to be defeated, the US must give Pakistan the time and space to face the challenge itself.
THE confusion caused by the central Ruet-i-Hilal committee, which first declared a fast for the morning of Oct 1 and then reversed its decision later in the night at around 10.45 pm, announcing Eid, underlines the problem that has come to mark this festive occasion in Pakistan for as long as one can remember. In fact, many would argue that they would be hard pressed to recall an Eid where uncertainty did not prevail. No other Muslim country it seems can beat us in the moon-sighting business. Part of the reason may be the composition of the moon-sighting committee. It reportedly comprises religious experts from various sects and a scientist or two. While the former base their decision purely on evidence of physical sighting by at least two adult Muslims, the latter have their calculations to go by. It is intriguing to note that a calendar is devised in advance of the exact times at which to start or break the fast as well as to say prayers throughout the year without anyone having to go out and observe the sky, as was the practice before science entered the picture. Are there any lessons to be drawn from the fact that throughout most of the Muslim world from the Middle East to North Africa there is seldom such chaos over the sighting of the Eid moon? One hasn’t heard of two (or three) Eids in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt or Libya. This sort of situation seems to occur only in Pakistan and India.
Isn’t it time that the government, for who else would have the logistics, initiated a debate on this issue in order to evolve a national consensus? One could draw on the experience of other Muslim countries and find out how it is possible for their citizens to celebrate Eid on the same day. In the recent past the former MMA Frontier government had gone it alone and observed the festival one day ahead of the rest of the country. While such unilateral decisions and last-minute announcements fuel perceptions of disunity, they also create other problems. Does one go and offer Taraveeh prayers and later learn that Eid will be celebrated the next day? The festival is also about last-minute shopping, logistics and hosting guests, and late-night decisions don’t help people here either. We also present a rather sorry spectacle to the rest of the world. It is time — in fact
it has been for years — that we agreed on an enlightened solution.
THE cultural heritage of Sindh deserves viable conservation strategies. It is therefore a welcome move that a Rs1bn endowment fund, administered by a 14-member management board, has been set up to preserve the province’s cultural heritage. This is a timely initiative as a booming antiquities trade threatens to rob the country of its cultural heritage. Lack of security at archaeological sites and museums means that artefacts continue to be pilfered. Human activity has led to encroachment on heritage sites. In 2006, a cellphone company began erecting a communications tower within the 5,000-year-old Moenjodaro ruins. Those with political clout continue to bury their dead in the historical Kalhoro rulers’ graveyard in Hyderabad. At the same time, natural factors cause decay at these sites at a pace faster than that of efforts to restore them. Erosion is rapidly degrading the Samma-era Thatta monuments, a necropolis that is one of only six Pakistani sites on Unesco’s World Heritage List. Restoration may even exacerbate the problem as sites meant to be preserved end up being defaced, as the botched restoration of the Ranikot Fort in Dadu illustrates.
It is against the backdrop of the ongoing Makli controversy that the cultural heritage management board has been formed. Given the ineffectualness of government committees in the past, it is heartening to see that this board includes respected members of civil society. The involvement of members of civil society helps mobilise public opinion, which is a crucial aid for conservation. It is also encouraging that the board itself will have the powers to determine how best to spend the money it generates from the endowment. Since the board will also be funding the antiquities department, it must help evolve a strategy to upgrade that department and thereby boost its functionality in the long term. The heritage of Sindh should be preserved for posterity, for which the formation of this board is an encouraging sign. Proper allocation and utilisation of funds can produce the desired results. This example should be followed by the rest of the country to protect the national heritage of Pakistan.
Sakvithi of the Wanni
The Island
THESE are bad times for con men in Sri Lanka. One big time con artist has fled the country after the collapse of his business empire that stood on the foundation of other people’s money and another is on the run, with his military empire built on others’ sweat, blood and money, caving in. The former is Sakvithi of the South or Sakvithi Ranasinghe and the latter Sakvithi of the Wanni or Velupillai Prabhakaran…. These two men may be as different as chalk and cheese in many respects. The one from the South has no history of violence unlike the other in the Wanni. But, their forte is the same — deceiving people…. Ranasinghe built his business from scratch as a teacher of English and had a meteoric rise… in the world of finance. He offered unbelievable interest rates to depositors and thousands of people fell for his wiles….
…Our friend in the North, too, started his Murder, Inc. from scratch with a single-minded will to succeed. Well fed on a diet of racism, he was only a teenager when he gunned down a popular Tamil political figure…. Having come of age as a full-fledged terrorist, he… forced… people to invest in his venture…. He had roaring business with billions of rupees at his disposal as a warlord in the north and the east of Sri Lanka….
Sakvithi of the Wanni has been in business for over 25 years but instead of delivering the goods he has churned out corpses, as... thousands of LTTE graves…are the dividends those who invested in his Murder, Inc. have received….
Those who pinned hopes on Sakvithi of the Wanni may continue to hope against hope. They are claiming that he will live …to fight another day. Yes, he may have to flee …abroad or into the jungles but it is only wishful thinking that he will succeed in carving out a separate state. For, this time around he will retreat into the jungles as a confirmed failure and not as a promising guerrilla.... He has failed to achieve the goal of Eelam… and reached the mandatory retirement age…. Small…terror strikes would take him nowhere….
That is the fate that awaits all Sakvithis. Finally, they lay bare their true faces as failed con men. They can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time. — (Oct 3)
But that’s not the only explanation for the European media’s lack of interest in the EU-India meeting. Try as they might, EU policymakers — unlike their US counterparts — just cannot seem to put their relationship with Asian nations on a glamorous, exciting and strategic footing.
Despite all the hype and spin leading up to EU summits with foreign countries, especially those with nations outside Europe’s immediate neighbourhood, the meetings themselves are lacklustre, ritualistic affairs where little of substance is discussed. True, the communiqués — such as the long, wordy document published after the Indian meeting — are full of impressive goals to be attained as well as common pledges to promote democracy and human rights. Leaders also invariably discuss a vast array of subjects, including global and regional flashpoints, energy security, climate change and terrorism.
The reality is more mundane, however. There is no denying that the EU is interested in a global role and is determined to upgrade its visibility and presence in Asia, including in China and India. Both countries were identified as ‘strategic’ partners by the EU’s first-ever strategy paper published in 2003. EU leaders are also frequent visitors to both Beijing and New Delhi and, at least according to the rhetoric, European business is determined to become as active in India as it is in China.
However, the EU-India summit held in Marseille on Sept 29 was proof that although recent domestic and regional developments have bolstered the international clout and reputation of both India and the EU, neither side is really interested in injecting much-needed energy and momentum into their hitherto less than inspiring relationship.For one, the landmark India-US civilian nuclear agreement has not only given a boost to Delhi’s ties with Washington but also gives the country — already recognised as a global economic powerhouse — an even stronger political profile worldwide, especially in Europe. The EU, meanwhile, can boast success in defusing the crisis in August between Russia and Georgia.
Second, forging stronger India-EU bilateral relations makes foreign policy sense for both sides. India needs to balance its new, stronger ties with the US with an effort to build a more dynamic relationship with Europe. Equally, the EU must balance its continuing fascination with China by paying more attention to India as an important regional and global player. The relationship is clouded by a number of factors, however. Some in Europe worry that despite its claims to a seat in the UN Security Council, India has yet to take on its global responsibilities and should stand up more forcefully against violations of democracy and human rights in countries like Burma and Zimbabwe.
In addition, strains have emerged on world trade and climate change. The EU continues to complain about India’s restrictive trade barriers and tough regulatory regime. India, meanwhile, has been vociferous in rejecting EU demands for more cuts in industrial tariffs in the Doha round of the WTO. In addition, negotiations on an EU-India free trade agreement have been painfully slow. Also, of course, India continues to resist EU demands that it take on tougher commitments to combat climate change.
Despite such tensions, however, the groundwork required to ensure a qualitative leap forward in EU-India relations already exists: Contacts between Indian and EU officials are frequent, Delhi is on the itinerary of most EU commissioners and European leaders, and there is a continuing rise in business contacts between the two sides. In addition, discussions between India and the EU cover a vast array of issues, including development aid, energy, biotechnology and trade.
The EU will soon be opening a European Business and Technology Centre in Delhi to help EU firms forge partnerships with their Indian counterparts. Most importantly, the green light given to the India-US nuclear agreement by the 45-nation Nuclear Supplier Group opens the way for nuclear energy cooperation between India and the EU. While several EU states — including France — are eager to sign bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements with India, Delhi also has a strategic interest in signing a wider-ranging research and development nuclear deal with Euratom, the EU’s nuclear agency which covers all 27 EU states.
Turning what is currently a rather lacklustre relationship into a real partnership will require time, energy and creative thinking. Importantly, mindsets in both India and Europe will have to change. The EU, for instance, will have to start viewing India as a country in transition rather than a purely developing nation. The current anti-poverty focus of EU aid will therefore have to shift to education and training. India, meanwhile, must stop viewing Europe as merely an economic power and recognise the growing political influence and clout of the EU both within its region and on the global stage.
That goal appears elusive for the moment, however. After the EU-India summit in Marseille, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy became entangled in a debate which had little to do with global politics. Instead, the focus was on the French ban on displaying religious symbols, a law which not only affects the Muslim headscarf but also the Sikh turban.
Speaking to reporters, Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said the Indian premier had told Sarkozy that he had received representations from Sikhs living in France about the ban on turbans in public-funded schools, adding that the French leader had promised to “look into the issue.”
At the meeting with Prime Minister Singh, Sarkozy justified the restriction by saying that this was part of a policy meant to discourage the display of religious symbols and applied to all communities, not just Sikhs. Talking to reporters, with a turban-wearing Singh at his side, Sarkozy told journalists that while Sikhs were welcome in France, they were required to follow the rules and “secularism” of the French Republic.
In 2004, three Sikh boys, Jasvir Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, were expelled from French schools for wearing turbans. Reports say that 84 per cent of Sikh students in France have so far been prevented from wearing head coverings to school.
The French law was enacted to stop Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarves in state-funded schools and initially created a furore among Muslims in France and the rest of Europe. But the issue has slowly receded from the headlines, with most Muslim girls opting to avoid confrontation by removing their scarves while at school.
The fact that Sikh turbans and Muslim headscarves can still stand in the way of a serious strategic discussion between France and India is a sign of just how far some EU nations still have to travel before they can be taken seriously as global players.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
President George Bush said the agreement, which took three years to negotiate, would “strengthen our global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs responsibly”. A spokesman for India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, who like Bush views the deal as a legacy issue, described it as “historic and unprecedented”.
Independent experts are less enthusiastic. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said: “The agreement is a non-proliferation disaster. Contrary to the counterfactual claims of proponents and apologists, it does not bring India into the ‘non-proliferation mainstream’ and India’s so-called separation plan is not credible.”
Indian claims that the deal transforms the country into a respectable, mainstream nuclear power are also fiercely disputed. Critics say that Delhi’s continuing refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and the comprehensive test ban treaty, and uncertainty over whether it will test more bombs, places it beyond the pale.
The reaction of Pakistan was instructive. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said on Thursday that Pakistan would demand similar access to nuclear supplies, “and they will have to accommodate us”.
— The Guardian, London
