Arafat’s tragic legacy

PALESTINE’S first president and greatest leader, Yasser Arafat, died just four years ago on Nov 11, 2004. It was a terrible loss for the Palestinian people and, had Israelis but understood it, for their own future too.

For Arafat did what no other Palestinian leader was prepared to do: sign a peace agreement with the very state that caused the Palestinian tragedy and engage in a peace process with it that endured until 2000.

Through the Oslo accords of 1993, Arafat delivered the agreement of the Palestinian people to a political coexistence with their arch-enemy. Had Israel left him free to act after Oslo, he would no doubt have reconciled the majority of Palestinians to accepting a settlement along the lines of the two-state solution that Israeli politicians claim to support.

If he could look down today onto Palestine from whatever celestial sphere he inhabits, what anguish he would feel. Arafat’s departure from the political scene is the real backdrop to the civil war now raging between Fatah and Hamas. During his lifetime, Arafat’s dominance over the Palestinian political scene was such as to preclude the current developments. His authority was unquestioned and his capacity for smoothing over internal divisions legendary. I met him several times, and was always struck by his political adroitness, charm and control of events. He was a remarkably unifying force in a Palestinian situation of fragmentation, geographical dispersal and political disharmony.

With the rise of Hamas after the first intifada of 1987-1991 Palestinian politics changed. As the 1990s drew to a close Hamas had become a significant player and a challenge to the previous status quo of Fatah dominance in the Palestinian Authority and in the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It was Arafat’s skill that kept the Palestinian ranks united, in spite of this imbalance. The split between Fatah and Hamas that strengthened after Hamas’s election as the major party in the new Palestinian Authority in 2006 would have been unthinkable had Arafat been alive. And the conflict between them would never have reached its current vituperative and vicious levels. How tragic that in this mini-war the real enemy, Israel, has been all but forgotten.

A meeting in Cairo to draw together the Palestinian factions was scheduled for this week. The idea, which stems from the Egyptian government, was to hold talks aimed at forming a ‘national consensus government’ with a union between Fatah, led by President Mahmoud Abbas and ruling in the West Bank, and Hamas, led by Ismail Haniyyeh, the deposed prime minister, ruling in Gaza. The united factions would then reform the security services and set a date for presidential and legislative elections.

As things stand, the Palestinian president’s term expires in January 2009. The legislative council will also be up for election soon after. Hamas has said it will not recognise Abbas’s presidency after the January deadline, and there have been persistent rumours that Abbas is considering extending his term of office without elections.

It is clear to Palestine’s people and the rest of the Arab world that the dangerous breach between the two rival parties must be healed. Several Arab states threatened that, if the Cairo talks failed, they would boycott all Palestinian governments and terminate financial and political support. Yet, it is hard to see how the talks could have succeeded, given the level of mistrust, mutual insults and attacks that have become the norm for Fatah-Hamas dealings.

Hamas had imposed conditions for its participation in the talks. It demanded the release of all Hamas prisoners, approximately 200, currently held in Fatah jails in the West Bank, and it wanted an agreement on principles prior to the talks. The Islamic Jihad insisted that President Abbas attend all the sessions in Cairo rather than just the opening ceremony as rumoured, and threatened that if the Hamas leader, Khaled Mishal, retaliated by not attending either they would withdraw. Fatah responded by refusing to release Hamas prisoners with criminal convictions, in an eerie echo of Israel’s dubbing of Palestinian prisoners ‘with blood on their hands’.

In this atmosphere of recriminations even before the start of the Cairo meeting, it was unlikely that anything would come of it. And indeed Hamas has now pulled out. Previous attempts at bringing Hamas and Fatah together, brokered by the Yemeni and Senegalese governments respectively, have also come to nothing. For the major cause of these failures is missing from the agenda. It is the malignant interference of Israel and its western backers in internal Palestinian affairs that has been the major factor in creating the current impasse.

When the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government was elected in 2006 through fair and democratic elections, Israel, the US and the European Union immediately placed it under sanctions. Within months, the new government could scarcely function, starved of funds and political contact. The Palestinian economic situation predictably deteriorated, and unemployment and poverty rose steeply.

At the same time, these external powers mounted a campaign to beef up the Fatah president’s position and his forces with funds and military training in a blatant attempt to defeat the elected government. This generous western support to Fatah has continued and increased, just as the boycott on Hamas has been maintained. In June 2007, the anti-Hamas plots reached new heights with an attempted Fatah coup in Gaza, aiming to overthrow the Hamas government altogether.

Pre-empted by Hamas, the coup came to nothing but led to vicious internecine fighting between the two sides. Today, we have the spectacle of a Fatah force, armed and trained by the West, attacking Hamas supporters in the West Bank, and Hamas forces retaliating against Fatah members in Gaza. The victims of this cynical western manipulation are, as always, the Palestinian people, and the only victor is Israel.

The truth, well known to Israel’s ex-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, at the time of Arafat’s death, was that Arafat was the only barrier that stood against Israel’s designs to fragment the Palestinians and destroy their cause, as they are now doing through this Fatah-Hamas split. And it was for that reason that he had to die.

The writer is a London based Palestinian activist and the author of Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine.

Renegotiate the Indus Treaty

THAT India has not refrained from drawing waters from the rivers allocated to Pakistan for its exclusive use under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has caused much concern in Pakistan.

Moreover, India’s denial of compensation for the loss of 0.2 million acre feet of water that Pakistan claims it suffered while the Baglihar dam was being filled has disturbed Pakistani farmers who now worry about far-reaching effects of the water shortage in the country.

With the national economy slowing down, the shortage of water will be more painful. And at a time when the economic managers are predicting that it will take several years to recover from the current crisis, Pakistan cannot afford the loss of any more water.

The Pakistani position on the Chenab water issue has been clear: a minimum of 55,000 cusecs of water should flow into Pakistan at the Marala headworks near Sialkot in peak season; however, a flow of only 22,000 cusecs was recorded this year, affecting the output of the kharif crops.

When the Indus water commissioners of India and Pakistan met in New Delhi amid Pakistan’s deepening anxiety about the Chenab water, the bureaucratic-level delegation from Islamabad simply demanded compensation for the water Pakistan did not receive. New Delhi rejected the charge despite the fact that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani that Pakistan would be compensated for Chenab water losses.

The blocking of the Chenab river was feared in 2003 when a team of the Pakistan commission for Indus waters alleged that the Baglihar dam, some 150 km north of Jammu in Indian-controlled Kashmir, was being built in violation of the IWT brokered by the World Bank. Chenab is that tributary of the Indus river to which India has no water rights under the treaty signed in Karachi by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ayub Khan in September 1960.The roots of the India-Pakistan water dispute can be traced to Partition which not only divided people but also the waters of the Indus basin. The border between the two states divided the world’s largest irrigation system into two parts. The current situation is reminiscent of the water crisis Pakistan faced immediately after Partition. India being the upper-riparian country stopped the flow of water from the headworks falling on its side, causing severe water shortages in Pakistan.

To end the crisis, the World Bank acted as an intermediary in the negotiations that led to the accord on the sharing of water between the two countries, which gave India exclusive control of the waters of the Beas, Sutlej and Ravi while Pakistan was given the rights to the waters of the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus.

While there were free-flowing rivers, the water in the Indus was enough to flood the delta. But the burgeoning population in the two countries enhanced their need for water. Since the signing of the treaty, India has built several dams and barrages not only on the rivers allocated to it but also on the rivers to which Pakistan has exclusive rights.

Unfortunately, the construction of dams and barrages by India triggered an inter-provincial spat in Pakistan between Punjab and Sindh. According to Sindh, Punjab would divert water meant for Sindh to its own farmlands in a bid to make up for the water allegedly lost on the Indian side of the international border. Sindh being the lower-riparian province and a tail-end user of the Indus system claimed it was unable to stop Punjab from drawing water in excess of its quota. According to some estimates, 80 per cent of the water in the Indus system is diverted to farmlands, a diversion which, according to Sindh, has resulted in soil erosion, salinity, deforestation, desertification and encroachment by the sea in Sindh.

India benefited greatly from the IWT by reclaiming more lands in East Punjab and in the desert of Rajasthan. Sindh, however, lost its precious katchha forests and two million acres of fertile land in Thatta and Badin districts and the Indus delta as the loss of the three rivers to India was compensated for by link canals which diverted water from the Indus. Thus the Chashma-Jhelum link canal channelled water from the Indus river to the Jhelum, then onward to the Chenab and Ravi and ultimately to the Sutlej command area.

This diversion of water has devastated the whole aquatic ecosystem and culture of Sindh. The subsoil water across Sindh and the water in fresh-water lakes have turned brackish and unfit for human or agricultural use. This has not only affected the livelihood of fishermen but it has also disturbed the natural habitat of many species of animals, birds and fish.

In the wake of the gathering gloom on the water front, Pakistan must understand that there is no substitute for this precious commodity. Therefore, there is a need for renegotiating the IWT instead of merely demanding compensation from India. The decades-old treaty brokered by a military ruler handed over three rivers to India at Sindh’s expense. This is a perfect opportunity for the present democratic government to think beyond compensation and renegotiate the treaty keeping in mind the construction of the post-treaty dams and barrages, the recent flooding in the Sutlej valley, and devastation caused by water shortages in the Indus delta.It is important for India and Pakistan to establish channels of effective diplomatic dialogue to resolve the water dispute instead of depending on bureaucratic parleys. When the treaty was brokered concerns such as global warming and climate change did not exist. Now India should be asked to release water from its own share to save the Indus delta which has its own importance for keeping the regional ecosystem healthy.

Throughout the world rivers flow through several countries and the riparian states share the waters by negotiating effective treaties. Since India and Pakistan are not locked in a state of hostility they can follow the example of other countries and hammer out a new treaty for posterity.

manzoor.chandio@dawn.com

Srinagar under siege

THE current uprising in Kashmir is unstoppable. The oft-repeated slogans for azaadi (freedom) reveal a narrative unforgotten, even while most political leaders languish in jail, are placed under house arrest, or are in hiding. The call by various parties for a free Kashmir is life-affirming and life-threatening.

With elections only days away, the Indian authorities’ ham-handed tactics aimed at silencing or annihilating the separatist movement are unlikely to succeed. At best, the authorities’ ban on the press to provide honest coverage of events will incite rage and revenge. At worst, the use of force by paramilitary troops could convince non-violent protestors to distrust the democratic process.

I arrive in Srinagar when the city is under siege. I live through two days of curfew unofficially imposed on the city on Nov 6, a day recalled for the massacre of local Muslims in Jammu by Dogra troops in 1947. Undeterred, I step outside the steel gate for a walk on the dirt road. I see boys in uniforms returning from school in the afternoon; men sit idly in front of closed shops. I pass a nearby army barracks with officers protected by barbed wire and heavy weapons. A few cars whizz by. I finally retire to the garden of roses in the guesthouse for tourists.

In Raj Bagh the city is quiet. Elsewhere, political leaders and the general public wait for an opportunity to begin anti-election demonstrations. For two days additional troops sent by the Indian government to prevent the protests are sprawled across the city to block the road to Jamia Mosque — the intended destination of the anti-poll procession. Last Wednesday, a day before the march, the moderate separatist leader of the Hurriyat Conference, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, is placed under house arrest. Unlike Farooq leaders of other political parties are in jail or have gone underground.

The day I arrive a senior leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) on the run from the authorities agrees to meet me. We talk about the golden days when the JKLF’s chairman, Salim Nanaji, and second-in-command, Farooq Ahmad Dar, were free to move.

They are now in Udaimpur jail, a safe distance from Srinagar and on the way to Jammu. Both are charged under the Public Safety Act and behind bars for two years without the right to a trial.

For an American outsider it is unthinkable that political activists espousing democratic ideals could serve jail time. With militancy behind them the chairman is convinced that the non-violent mass movement is the only way to achieve lasting peace in the valley.

I recall conversations in which Dar expressed his desire to visit the US and Nanaji recalled near-death experiences. Nanaji survived an attack when Indian troops damaged his car with gunfire, but his colleague died with a bullet in his head. In 1994 the JKLF accepted a ceasefire to lay down their arms and have since embarked on a non-violent movement to garner support from the local population, as well as the world community, for the right to self-determination.

Today, survival for groups such as the JKLF and women’s organisations lies in protest — in this case, boycott of the upcoming elections starting on Nov 17. Among Kashmir’s prominent female leaders is Asiya Andrabi, the leader of the first women’s socio-political organisation established in 1981. On this trip I am surprised to see her in central jail. During visiting hours we meet in the near-freezing cupboard-like room.

The authorities allow me to carry a pen and paper to take notes. We huddle together on the cemented floor to stay warm. In the cave-like building the white paint peels like melted snow and the walls are riddled with holes. Indian officers stagger outside. I see two young male detainees handcuffed to soldiers as they head to the court house for a hearing.

Cloaked in a black abaya, Andrabi is perceived as a fundamentalist by outsiders for her love of Osama bin Laden and rigid religious ideals. I ask her to explain why some call her an extremist. “I fight for women’s rights,” she says defensively, “I am not a terrorist. You are a Muslim woman! You know the principles of tolerance, peace, and respect for humanity. If I say I love Osama bin Laden, then I am defending the symbol of justice, not violence.”

We talk for hours about the rights of women and why independence from India is a precursor for an Islamic state in Kashmir, an idea not everyone subscribes to. That afternoon, in Cafe Arabica, the wife of an exiled JKLF leader living abroad insists that Kashmir’s political landscape is splintered by individuals seeking political supremacy. “If independence is achieved, these groups will fight for power,” she told me.

However, in the present crisis, the valley’s leaders appear united. Their raison d’etre is the common purpose to free Kashmir from Indian occupation. Politics aside the hysteria and quiet glory of anti-election protests are designed to sabotage a democratic process that is seen as unfree and unfair.

Therefore, no one I have spoken to has agreed to vote this year. With a boycott of the ballot box and a crackdown against political leaders, the cinematic display of people marching on the streets is unavoidable.

The writer is a terrorism analyst, writer and lecturer on conflicts in the Muslim world.