February 19, 2004

Zofeen Ebrahim presents a diversity of strong opinions, some optimistic others not so, each confirming the fragility of the ‘peace process’

India and Pakistan may have embarked on their peace process on a war footing. But, if you ask Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani anti-nuclear activist who is ‘delighted at this opening’, the two nuclear neighbours have ‘not stopped snarling or hurling nuclear abuses at each other.’ Still, he says: “Suddenly something has happened and the two leaders seem to have had a change of mood which is a great puzzle, and for which I have no answer.” Hoodbhoy is willing to enjoy the situation till it lasts. And will it? He says: “I don’t know as this change is very personality-driven and dependent on the whims and fancies of the two.”

However, the task before peace activists like Hoodbhoy is to create a situation where peace becomes so real that it transcends whims and fancies. But Rathin Roy, a young economist, has his own reservations. Peace, according to him, is only possible if we get the demons that we are so terrified of confronting out of our heads. We are still in self-denial and we must ask ourselves what does this small state means to us and why.

Without mincing words, he comes right to the point when he says that unless the much mentioned ‘core issue’ (we are even afraid to call it by its original name - the Kashmir issue) is not resolved, “real peace, or even worthwhile peace, is not possible.” Looking around at the milling crowd and not quite taken in by the air of camaraderie that seems to exist within the confines of the 40-acre World Social Forum venue, he feels “the people to people contact movements are not really confronting the real issue.”

Roy’s fears are echoed by the general secretary of the Labour Party Pakistan, Farooq Tariq, who says: “We fear it’s more politics than sincerity”. His apprehensions remain regarding the motives of the politicians, as the people he feels are quite genuine in their welcome. Although there is that ‘feel good’ element present “we will find out if the euphoria lasts till after the Indian elections (expected by April), and whether the handshake, this time round, is genuine.”

To that, Hoodbhoy says: “We should unreservedly show our feelings of extreme enthusiasm and not move cautiously as a better climate creates a soothing effect.”

Another reason for Tariq’s scepticism is “that it is not possible to be nuclear powers, continue with the arms race, promote fundamentalism and talk about taking the peace process forward, especially with a military dictatorship for a government on the one side and a rightist one on the other. Peace is quite opposite to their philosophy.”

On the other hand, if the handshakes don’t lend any warmth, most people fear there just might be a complete end to the peace process and conflict might be on the charts with disastrous consequences.

Alia Salahuddin, a young presenter on the Pakistani channel, is quite optimistic. “Yes, I’m sure peace is here to stay this time round. I’m very hopeful.”

Khalid Ahmed, a Pakistani television actor, finds it extremely commendable to see all that has been achieved in a matter of months. He says: “This upbeat feeling which started at the India-Pakistan Peace Forum, then the Kara Film Festival followed by the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit in January is encouraging.” For this, he gives due credit to the two governments who “were pushed to the wall by the people and external pressure.”

Whatever pressure it was, Khalid Ahmed finds that the alternative to ‘confrontation’ would be ‘unaffordable’ for either side. Having come this far, “we must move with a little caution as we are getting a little carried away, but more important is to now strive for South Asian unity. That is what we should be aiming for.” He feels that the arts are an important medium for peace as “with a common culture, there already exists a closeness and that perhaps can be made a starting point.”

Martin Macwan, an activist based in India’s Gujarat state, dreams of a time when the wall will come down as it did between East and West Germany, when “nationalities don’t matter and boundaries are already blurred, it is absurd to be governing people’s lives.” He also thinks that “if anyone is a threat to national security, I’m sure there are enough intelligence agencies in both countries to handle any untoward incidents, but let people meet, let them get to know each other.”

But like Tariq, he too fears that till the two countries do not decrease their military spending or stop the race for nuclear supremacy, all efforts will be useless. — Courtesy-Inter Press Service

Yearning for peace

The moment Yasin Malik, chairman of the JKLF, said he had trouble following the Gandhian path as then “they (Gandhian people) tell me to become Indian” and that Indians have a “psychological problem” of “keeping Gandhi in India” when “Gandhi, who took decisions against the wind has his presence anywhere but in India”, there was resounding applause.

This could not be dimmed even by the protests, the drummings and chanting that had all along been disturbing the sessions at various tents at the World Social Forum — and there seemed to be no abatement in the enthusiasm outside the tents with each passing day.

However, a member of the audience didn’t quite like this import of Gandhi to alien places, or the fact that Malik was trying to emulate Gandhi in any manner. Malik, started a signature campaign “to promote a non-violent culture” — after years of going violent (from 1988) which he said was “a political decision” taken consciously when the non-violence movement they started (1984) off with failed miserably. Even now since their declaration in 1994 to becoming non-violent, “600 of my colleagues have been killed, there have been three attempts on my life and I have been arrested a hundred times.”

A tired Malik is convinced that even if the Kashmiris want peace, India does not. “They have sold the idea internationally that ours is Pakistani-sponsored terrorism. India wants a violent movement. They don’t want the issue to be resolved.

But then when he, in his composed yet pained tone (part of it due to his various ailments and partly due to the unusual and tragic experiences he’s had since a very young age), expressed the philosophy of Kashmiriat — where Hindus and Muslims live in harmony as they have done since the 14th century —and which has been taken hostage by both India and Pakistan in their bid to acquire the piece of land, some excitable Indian fellow got up to say “Kashmir is ours”.

And so the session on Moving Towards Peace in Kashmir organized by the Confederation of Human Rights Organizations Keralam, went about within the confines of a charged atmosphere in a tent splitting from the sides.

The dispute over Kashmir has taken a toll of some 80,000 to 90,000 people in Kashmir with it turning virtually into a graveyard. Here the Kashmiris have been denied civil liberties and unredeemable human rights atrocities haven been committed on the women.

But if Kashmir bleeds and if, as Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, put it, with Pakistan influencing Kashmiris towards jihad by 1987-89 to get back at India and to “bleed India with a thousand cuts” so that they lose their resolve and walk away, it has had destructive repercussions for Pakistan too. “We are bleeding more,” he said, “ with Pakistan’s social fabric beginning to erode, which the leaders refused to accept till now.”

What should be the course of action? A simple “walking away from Kashmir” is the simple formula that Hoodbhoy gives. But that is not possible, however much Yasin Malik or his fellow Kashmiris may desire. But that is the only solution as the other alternative is far too horrifying to even imagine — a nuclear confrontation. “We’ve had four confrontations, the last one in Kargil initiated by Pakistan and, in all, the possibility of using nuclear warheads was all too real.”

And then Malik posed the next question. Why were people on both sides of the fence so complacent when the rest of the world was losing sleep over their fight? Leaders, he said were coming from all over to help unruffle the warring mood.

And then the peace activist that he is, and as a last word he said:, “Let there be no possibility of war between India and Pakistan. Let

the borders be softened, let us behave like human beings, live like neighbours as there is no way we can carve up Kashmir.” — Z. E. Courtesy-IPS

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)