Towards enduring peace

FEW regions in the world can compete with South Asia in springing surprises. Important developments can take place in this part of the world when they are least expected. When guns fell silent on the LoC and the Siachen Glacier, at midnight on November 25 — after almost 25 years — even the most inveterate optimists were taken by surprise.

A look at some of the headlines appearing in newspapers since then will show how meaningful has been the change in the thinking and attitude of the rulers in Islamabad and New Delhi:

* Pakistan willing to reopen Khokrapar route, start Srinagar bus service and ferry service between Karachi and Mumbai.

* New Delhi’s response encouraging — Jamali

* More positive steps expected.

* Pakistan has changed its mindset-Yashwant Sinha

* Ceasefire can prove harbinger of peace — India

* Musharraf offers resumption of overflights.

* Train service restoration: Pakistan team to visit India on December 17.

* Delhi wants hotline between coastguards to prevent frequent arrest of fishermen from both countries.

* Move positive — Pakistan foreign office.

* PIA to operate 12 flights to India — an expanded operation

* Peace with Pakistan, key to progress — Vajpayee

What is baffling is that only a few weeks ago, Vajpayee’s 12-point initiative had not received quite a positive response from Pakistan. Yet his proposals have now been accepted by Islamabad — almost totally. What has caused this amazing change of heart?

The change has resulted from a variety of factors. It is too early to reckon which of them has played a decisive role in convincing Islamabad and New Delhi that their own self-interest demands that they settle their differences as expeditiously as possible.

It will, however, be worthwhile to enumerate the long-ignored realities which are likely to have persuaded Pakistan and India to start the latest peace process:

* Pakistan can neither fight terrorism nor modernize itself without ending permanent confrontation with India.

* The realization in Islamabad as well as in New Delhi that the Kashmir dispute has forced more than one billion people of the subcontinent to suffer immeasurably for more than half a century. * Infiltration in Kashmir and the killing of innocent people have only managed to de-legitimize a genuine Kashmir movement that had considerably undermined India’s moral legitimacy.

* Core issues, however, unpleasant have to be addressed. The process of peace making in South Asia cannot move forward without making progress on Kashmir.

* As long as India remains pinned down in Kashmir, it cannot play its due role in world affairs.

* The world has enormously changed after 9/11 and Iraq war. Islamabad has no choice but to adapt its policies to the new security environment.

* Pakistan is faced with strategic imbalance. With our meager resources and comparative isolation , it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to maintain a credible minimum deterrence.

* Pakistan will not remain a “valuable ally” for the United States for all times to come. Pakistan-US relations, as aptly described by Stephen Cohen, are something of a “temporary liaison.” On the other hand, India-U.S. relations are based on more durable and long-term strategic interests.

* And lastly, the most important factor: While Pakistan has always been receptive to American mediation over Kashmir, India had so far been hesitant to accept it. It now appears New Delhi feels confident that it has convinced influential quarters in Washington that the Kashmir issue is intimately connected with the global war against terrorism. The Vajpayee government, therefore, does not now seem to be averse to accepting the United States as a “facilitator”. Whatever name we may give to Washington’s role, there is no denying that the US has become an arbiter of sorts between Pakistan and India.

There has been an obvious increase in US interest in South Asia. For the first time since the end of the Second World War America has its forces stationed in South Asia. In the ongoing war against terrorism, this part of the world has acquired a key position in US strategy.

Which of these compulsions and pressures have played a major role in convincing the two countries to change their thinking and adopt a more flexible, pragmatic and trustful approach? The answer to this question will ultimately determine the future of India-Pakistan relations. The painful realization that continuous confrontation for over fifty years has already taken a heavy toll will lay the foundation of enduring peace and amity.

The importance of American pressure in the politics of South Asia cannot be denied. It is also apparent that the events of the past few weeks could not perhaps have taken place without promptings and inducements from Washington. One, however, hopes that the American pressure was not the only factor in bringing about a change in the policy and attitude on either side. Enduring results cannot be achieved under duress. Unless both sides realize that their own interests demand a sincere effort on their part to heal the past wounds, the peace process cannot succeed in South Asia.

The ceasefire would not have taken place at a better time. Infiltration into Kashmir always declines during the winter as mountain passes are closed by snow. And let us hope that as the snow melts on the mountains, the inexorable march of events will have brought about a genuine thaw in bilateral relations.

India has got to get rid of its obsession of Gen Pervez Musharraf that has lingered on since Agra. Since the failure of Agra summit, the Vajpayee government has made it a point to sidetrack Gen Musharraf and appeal directly to the people of Pakistan. Without including him in any serious Pakistan-India dialogue, New Delhi will be committing the same mistake as Nawaz Sharif did by not taking the armed forces into confidence before launching the Lahore peace initiative.

Islamabad, for its part, must realize that Vajpayee is the best bet for any enduring Pakistan-India settlement. Pakistan should not fritter away the opportunity that has come its way. By a fortunate coincidence, the present leaderships in Pakistan and India are uniquely positioned to resolve their bilateral disputes peacefully.

We are lucky that two major positive developments have occurred in both countries. The BJP has won the recent crucial state elections without using the communal card. Its victory in the state elections shows that the people of India have endorsed Vajpayee’s peace initiative and hate-Pakistan campaign is no longer a vote-getter in India.

Pakistan, too, has not lagged behind in sending a positive signal to India. For the first time in 50 years, the role of the opposition vis-a-vis relations with India has been positive and constructive. Perhaps the main reason for this is that the opposition in Pakistan today is more suspicious of the US than India and is therefore not opposing the move for normalization of relations between the two countries.

The relations between India and Pakistan are best described by a remark of the Roman historian Polybius: “We can neither endure our condition, nor the measures to overcome them.”

There is no easy way out of the complexities of Pakistan-India relations. In view of the pulls and pressures at work on either side, it will be naive to expect a quick-fix solution to the problem. However, at the same time, it is necessary to implement, in all sincerity, the various confidence-building measures the two sides have agreed upon. This will pave the way for tackling more challenging and complex issues facing the two countries. Can Musharraf and Vajpayee fox-trot out of the Kashmir minefield and lay the foundation of enduring peace and amity between the two nations?

A region without borders

DOOM appears to stalk the footsteps of India and Pakistan. Whenever they journey towards peace, some incident is engineered to scare them not to go further. It is as if the confrontationist elements are determined to scotch even a limited settlement.

Things have begun to look up. For the first time, democratic New Delhi has condemned the attack on President General Pervez Musharraf, who is also the Chief of the Army Staff. The two countries have more or less restored the status quo ante — what was prevailing before the attack on India’s parliament house on December 13 two years ago. There are indications that more steps are in the offing for a closer understanding. Both have agreed to connect by bus the portions of Kashmir under their control.

In the face of improving relations, the attempt on the life of Musharraf is not difficult to comprehend. True, the Al Qaeda has felt let down because it has seen the Musharraf government changing sides on Afghanistan when the Taliban want back. But lately they are not too unhappy after the secret support they are getting despite Washington’s harsh words to Islamabad. They could not have gone to the extent of eliminating Musharraf.

The blast, a minute after Musharraf’s motorcade passed, is the handiwork of such powerful forces that are opposed to the conciliation between New Delhi and Islamabad. They seem determined to sabotage the talks between Vajpayee and Musharraf even before the date is finalized.

Who are they? They may be the Pakistani Islamic militant groups or the disgruntled elements in different agencies, including the ISI and the army. Even some religious parties cannot be ruled out because they want to entrench themselves after they have come to occupy space in the absence of free political activity. They have their own agenda which does not tally with that of the forces wanting to move closer to India.

What has really upset the anti-India elements is the growing strength of people-to-people contacts. Road, air and other links are not just accidental. They are the result of relentless pressure by teams of parliamentarians, businessmen, artists, journalists and others. Even the two governments which want more and more links at popular level have acknowledged their contribution. In a way, the role of the people is seen integral to the efforts towards sorting out things. This recognition must have irritated the anti-conciliation lobby. Some positive speeches made at a seminar in New Delhi a few days ago would have only unnerved it. Vajpayee outlined the contours of tomorrow’s South Asia, with “open borders and even a single currency.”

Conscious of the mischief the anti-India forces could create, Vajpayee said in the same speech “as we develop greater economic stakes in each other, we can put aside distrust and dispel unwarranted suspicion.” It was a welcome development and Pakistan’s foreign office reacted favourably. It did not take the suggestion as something amiss. Quite rightly, it pointed out how difficult was the path and how it “demanded hard work, firm resolve and sincerity.” Nobody doubts that. What it means is that both New Delhi and Islamabad have to patiently and persistently find a solution to the problems confronting them. The dream of South Asia is dependent on how soon they shed their suspicion and distrust.

If South Asia is to become a reality, New Delhi should be willing to make concessions unilaterally. It is bigger in size and larger in resources. Other countries in the region — Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal — are developing economies compared to India which is a developed country. Until they have a feeling of equality, they will not be forthcoming in cooperation — whether in trade, travel or economy. European Union (EU) is an example. Both France and Germany, the two big economies in EU, had to bear greater burden so that smaller countries could feel that they were not inferior. The growth rate, the size of economy, GDP and such other things of member-countries were taken into consideration — they are assessed all the time — for EU to fructify. One currency, Euro, was introduced after every country in EU felt that it would not be under disadvantage in any way. India would have to take such steps which would give confidence to the rest that joining hands with it would benefit them.

Pakistan’s real fears are on Kashmir. Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali has said categorically that Kashmir needs to be solved before opening borders or introducing one currency. But India is not running away from the problem. Even after winning the Bangladesh war, it said in the Shimla Agreement more than 30 years ago that the two sides would meet subsequently to take up the question of “a final settlement on Jammu and Kashmir” for durable pace and normalization.

It has taken a long time for Pakistan to appreciate India’s difficulties. Nawaz Sharif admitted before Inder Kunar Gujral at the prime ministers’ summit in Male: “We cannot get Kashmir from you forcibly and you cannot give it to us on a platter.” That was the reason why Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee had agreed at Lahore to hold talks till a solution was found. But they had also vowed to go ahead in other fields in the meanwhile.

Benazir Bhutto’s suggestion at the seminar where Vajpayee spoke is probably the best one for the time being. She said: “Kashmir could be separated” from efforts towards normalization. “China and India,” she said, “have a border dispute but they do not threaten each other with war.” New Delhi and Islamabad should move ahead despite their differences over Kashmir. Benazir herself proposed soft borders.

What all it meant was that people of the two countries would be free to travel from one place to another and go around without the police bothering them and the authorities checking their credentials all the time. Travelling freely, Benazir said, meant doing away with borders. This is true of the countries in EU. They have joined hands for economic development. Naturally, visas have to go first. From the meetings of industrialists and businessmen in the region I have attended, one thing that comes out loud and clear is that they want to work in tandem to develop and benefit. But all eyes are fixed on India.

South Asian Economic Union — I shall include Afghanistan and Myanmar in it — does not undo Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal. It strengthens their economy. After some time they themselves will come to develop a vested interest in the entire region. The subcontinent can find its own destiny according to its own genius if left alone. Together the countries can work for the welfare of all South Asians. But fanatics and extremists must be dealt with severely because they are pushing people in the wrong direction.

The region has been so riven with religious, social and economic differences that it has to rise above them to make the common man’s life meaningful and secure. You may be anything — Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan or Nepalese. You may be Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist. These are your own beliefs and they must be respected. But you have to imbibe a South Asian temperament and outlook. All dissensions and quarrels over territories — be it Kashmir or Sri Lanka — will dissolve in the togetherness of South Asian entity.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.

The cost of toughness

US forces are engaged in a major offensive in southeastern Afghanistan, a sweep US officials say is intended to improve security conditions for the national Afghan political convention, or loya jirga. Sadly, the most conspicuous results of the campaign so far are the deaths of 15 children in two recent episodes that involved raids on the compounds of suspected militants.

Rather than help the loya jirga, the US actions may have made it more difficult for Afghan President Hamid Karzai to lead the event, meant to approve a new constitution. Pentagon officials have expressed regrets, announced investigations and offered assistance to those affected. But the incidents provide a painful illustration of the high risks and costs of the Bush administration’s move toward tougher military tactics in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The shift to the offensive in the two countries in recent weeks has been prompted by a surge in the number and size of attacks by enemy insurgents — and in military terms, the response is probably necessary. The history of counterinsurgency shows that even a small and disorganized resistance can be defeated only with determined offensive tactics.

Some civilian casualties are inevitable; so is some measure of hardship for the general population. Yet history also demonstrates that victory isn’t possible unless the support and cooperation of a large part of the public can be won and held. The trick is to mount a campaign that is tough enough to find and defeat insurgents but also precise, humane and accountable. That is where the Bush administration risks falling short.

Targeting enemy leaders and terrorist operatives in a war zone isn’t wrong. But airstrikes may maximize the possibility of mistakes and civilian casualties. That is what apparently happened in the Afghan village of Hutala Dec. 6, when a US plane bombed a compound in an attempt to kill one militant; the enemy was missed, but nine children were killed. According to Human Rights Watch, 50 such “decapitation strikes” in Iraq this year failed to eliminate any top leaders —but did kill dozens of civilians.

Other US tactics skirt the Geneva Conventions while infuriating Iraqis. US forces have rounded up the family of one Baathist leader suspected of organizing resistance, bombed or otherwise demolished houses suspected of being used as bases and surrounded villages with barbed wire, effectively imprisoning their residents.

Young men in some areas appear to have been detained indiscriminately for interrogation. As in Afghanistan, episodes in which US soldiers kill or injure innocent people are rarely followed by steps to assign accountability. American spokesmen often refuse to admit to such errors even when they are well-documented.

Such behaviour extracts a needless cost from the effort to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan under liberal governments. It forces even America’s allies in those countries to distance themselves from the Bush administration. They also can breed disturbing and destructive attitudes among some U.S field commanders.

“You have to understand the Arab mind,” one captain outside a barricaded village told a reporter from The New York Times. “The only thing they understand is force.” That arrogant philosophy about an occupied population has trapped Israel, Russia and other nations in endless and unwinnable wars. The United States must not repeat their mistakes.

— The Washington Post

New media: changing the information landscape

PAKISTAN in 2003 personifies the paradoxes of the new and old media, and of power and democracy. The country has an army chief of Staff, first as head of government from October 1999 to November 2002 and since then, to date, as head of state.

In October 2002, general elections were held in which all political parties took part. Given some reservations, a reasonably free and fairly elected parliament is in place.

Through all the past four years, Pakistan has witnessed phenomenal and progressive change in three fundamental respects that directly bear on the theme of the World Electronic Media Forum. This Forum was held as an adjunct event of the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva from December 9 to 11, 2003.

First, 2000 onwards, several private satellite TV channels broadcasting from outside Pakistan but originating content from within Pakistan without any obstruction; a new law for private, independent, terrestrial electronic media, and rapid growth of cable TV distribution bringing dozens of overseas channels to low and middle income households have transformed the electronic media environment of Pakistan. There is now freely available on TV a wide range of candid political comment, educative information and colourful entertainment.

Since February 14, 1998, the Citizens’ Media Commission of Pakistan regularly observes “Electronic Media Freedom Day”. The former chief justice of Pakistan, Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, is the chairman of the commission and this writer is the founding convener. The observance of this day for the past six years has helped mobilize public support for freedom of expression in electronic media, and has catalyzed policy reform.

It is strongly recommended that in line with World Press Freedom Day on May 5, an appropriate day be chosen by the World Electronic Media Forum. February 14 is a good option: by coincidence, it is also Valentine’s Day.

Second, a vibrant, vigorous free press in Pakistan continues to publish highly critical analysis of the role of the armed forces as well as offering a wide range of choice to readers.

Third: the fastest expansion in South Asia of Internet access in the past four years has taken place in Pakistan through massive reduction in prices as well as speedy extension of telecommunication services, and steady growth in the number of cellular phones.

In effect, the ultimate paradox is that Pakistan today has far greater freedom of expression in old media and in access to new media than several other countries in Asia that are far more advanced than Pakistan in economic and social development (Singapore and Malaysia).

Further, the content of media in Pakistan expresses the rich pluralism and liberalism of Pakistan’s society, a facet that is rarely, if ever, projected in global media or overseas media which obsessively concentrate only on violence, so-called ‘jihad’ and terrorism to portray Pakistan as a hotbed of extremism.

Basic issues of constitutional amendments, concentration of power in the executive and the military rather than the legislature and the civilian sector remain unresolved in Pakistan.

In terms of human development indicators, as the world’s seventh largest state in population and one of only seven states with nuclear weapons, and having produced thousands of exceptionally talented and distinguished individuals, Pakistan ranks at only 144 out of 175 countries in the UNDP’s human development index, a ranking based on data that has been challenged by the government of Pakistan.

Perhaps these are the inevitable ironies of a historic transition to a new order —- and to new media.

Pakistan is part of an exciting and volatile world. The information landscape shaped by the old media, especially the electronic media in the 20th century, created a spectacular and unprecedented collective memory instantly shared by billions of people.

Yet, even when radio or TV programmes gave virtually every person, in theory, an opportunity to be famous for 15 seconds — or 15 minutes — the transience of electronic media content, and low access, made this an illusion.

Concurrently, in the second half of the 20th century, a majority of nation-states adopted, for the first time, the principle of “one man/one woman/one vote”. Yet, just as the veto power of five States negates real democracy in the United Nations, so too does the power of corporate media and state media submerge and weaken individual communication rights because community-based media are not encouraged to grow with the same force as corporate or state media.

Now, however, the new media hold the promise of authentic emancipation for each person. The advent of new media is, in one context, helping to complete a historic circle.

Each human being is the single most potent medium of communication. By voice,

by ear, by tongue, by hand, by expression and by movement. As a source of potential content, as a transmitting device through the eyes, silent facial expression, word of mouth or the written word, and as the recipient of content which can change the beliefs and behaviour of others, there is no better medium than a single human being.

From cave paintings to cuneiforms to calligraphy and now to computers, the human being has demonstrated the extraordinary capacity for a single mind to become the core of communications.

The status of the individual, with respect the personal rights and dignity, as being at the epicentre of the communications process, was displaced and down-graded by the pervasive growth of mass media in the 20th century, particularly electronic media. This was an era in which sheer numbers, volumes and masses driven by advertising, audience ratings, propaganda and profit assumed the highest priority in the communications cycle.

Now, the new media, supplemented by some of the more positive facets of the old media, enable the possible restoration of the might and the majesty of each single human being as the king or the queen of communications.

Whether this be through access to the incredible Internet, or a cell phone that provides multiple services, or the interactive aspect of conventional mass media, or the enormous proliferation of media choices.

Ironically, these changes also give the audience the power to switch away or switch-off. We are already on the threshold of a new age in which each individual can originate media content, can transmit content, can receive content, can adapt content or reject content altogether.

The fact that wireless technology has accelerated this process is a most appropriate symbol of how the entrapping, restrictive chains of the old wired media have been broken. Of how the individual can once again become as potentially free as from where he began his communication odyssey.

Fortunately, the drawing of the full circle is not a return to a primitive condition. Instead, like the energizing impact of a completed fuel cycle, the new focus on the sole individual created by the new media promises real empowerment.

Yet, even as we see the outlines of our expectations, there is a need for caution, and a scope for purposeful, collaborative action.

First, while acknowledging the enterprise and innovation of corporations, we must prevent greed and rapacity from manipulating the new media.

Second, we should build and strengthen new institutions of global civil society to serve as independent, non-coercive monitors of media content and enable accountability of media by social, non-official regulation.

Third, while appreciating some aspects of the quality and integrity of some of the existing global media, we need to reduce the prevalent imbalance in global-scale electronic media with more and independent global electronic media originating from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Fourth, we need to deal

with the continuing and disquieting question of whether media per se, of whether access to information by itself genuinely empowers the citizen to the degree that he is able to actually change the structures of power that control society, across the world, and within each country.

Finally, the capacity of new media and a new information landscape to foster harmony, peace and justice has to be judged in the context of their being able to reduce the gross disparities that still imprison over two billion people on our planet — or about one in every three human beings — in stark, painful poverty.

These two billion people have only their own voices as their private media. They hope that the old and the new electronic media listen to them and share the beautiful new world with them.

The writer is a former information minister and director of the International Institute of Communication, London.