Stop these pleas
ONCE again, President Pervez Musharraf has called upon India to end the military stand-off by pulling back its troops along the borders. Talking to newsmen after inaugurating the Saarc information ministers’ conference, the president dwelt at length on the danger the stand-off posed to peace and pleaded with India for the umpteenth time to agree to a mutual withdrawal. The president has also been pleading with New Delhi for talks to resolve all other issues, including the Kashmir dispute. Nowhere was he more forceful — and dramatic — than at the Kathmandu summit, where he went out of his way to extend a hand of friendship to the Indian prime minister — literally. However, Mr Vajpayee did not reciprocate the president’s peace gesture. Instead, he denounced Pakistan in strong terms and rejected the president’s offer of talks.
Ever since the present crisis began with the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament building, the restraint and moderation in Pakistan’s policy has been appreciated by the world. In contrast, Indian policy has all along been characterized by rank hostility and big-power chauvinism. Blaming Pakistan for the attack, it massed troops on the borders, forcing Islamabad to take counter measures. Since then, there has been an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with all the possibility that this may result in an accidental war no one wants. To Pakistan’s offer of a phased withdrawal, New Delhi has insisted that the stand-off would continue until Pakistan agreed to some of its conditions.
It is now obvious India is not interested in talks — either on Kashmir or on a phased withdrawal. Instead, it thinks a perpetuation of the crisis serves India’s interests. Whether or not this really is the case is a matter of opinion. But repeated pleas for disengagement and talks seem to have sent a wrong message to India. If these pleas are for the benefit of the world at large, then the international community and world capitals are convinced of Pakistan’s keenness to avoid a devastating war. Washington, European capitals and the lame-duck United Nations may not like to be on record for flaying India for its hubris, but they know which side is being unreasonable. However, Islamabad’s offers ad nauseum of talks to India give New Delhi a feeling that Pakistan is talking from a position of weakness. The offer to lift the ban on flights was ridiculous. Will India rescind the ban if we do? One doubts. New Delhi initiated the ban and let it rescind the decision.
India is ruled by a communal government to which the aim of advancing Hindutva is more important than India’s own national interests. Were this not so, Indian troops would have been there to quell the riots in Gujarat and elsewhere instead of rotting on Pakistan’s borders. Clearly, the likes of L.K. Advani and Jaswant Singh think the best way to divert attention of the Indian people from the burgeoning domestic problems is to exploit their religious feeling and create a war psychosis. Our repeated pleas for talks merely serve to reinforce these communalists’ belief that Pakistan is feeling uncomfortable and is suing for peace. This adds to, and satisfies, their arrogance. Let Islamabad sit tight. Pakistan is quite capable of taking care of its security. Were this not so, India would have taken advantage of our weakness long ago. Our repeated offers of talks are counter productive. It would be much wiser and tactically fruitful if Islamabad were to wait for New Delhi to make the peace moves, if it feels peace rather than war serves India’s interests.
A blot on Pakistan’s face
TARGETED killings, earlier for political reasons and now mainly on sectarian grounds, have been the curse of Karachi for several years. Many innocent lives have been lost in the process — 177 Shias and 52 Sunnis in sectarian violence since 1994 by one count — and the harm done to the fabric of society and the state is incalculable. Equally dismaying, if not more, is the perversity of the killers who are now singling out doctors, mostly Shia. All the medical professionals killed — more than 70 in the last two years — were rendering noble service to the community irrespective of the religious/sectarian affiliations of their patients. In fact, this is one profession where its members have remained above such narrow biases.
What is most distressing is the apathy which characterizes the official response to this brand of violence. Since January, five doctors and six others have fallen prey to the terrorists in Karachi alone. In other parts of the country, incidents of sectarian violence have also resulted in heavy loss of life, as happened a fortnight ago in a mosque in Rawalpindi where ten worshippers were massacred. Trite statements by the authorities promising to catch the killers and expressing shock have so far produced no results. In fact, the cases of targeted individual killings even fail to evoke a reaction from the powers that be. It would seem that the government believes that if it turns a blind eye to this brand of terrorism, it will manage to convince the world that all is well in Pakistan.
It appears that the militants whose organizations were banned by the government under pressure from Washington in the wake of 9/11 continue to be active. They have been driven out of Afghanistan, but they have not closed shop. After a few months of inactivity, when they appeared to be regrouping and reorganizing themselves, the terrorists are back in business. Only the focus of their criminal activities has shifted away from Afghanistan and their attention is now concentrated on other fronts. It is not clear why the law enforcement agencies are unable to arrest the killers, who are playing havoc with human life and the state of law and order. This lapse on the part of the police suggests that would-be killers are encouraged and go about their job with greater impunity. They take heart from the intriguing silence of the high government functionaries, who choose not to condemn these killings in strong terms. Although these are no less a blot on the face of Pakistan, our leaders have not even deemed it necessary to stand up and adopt a politically correct posture on a crime which strikes at the very roots of the country. Actually taking stern measures and catching the killers is another matter.
With Muharram less than a week away, the need for sectarian harmony can hardly be overemphasized. The positive dimension of this scenario is that there is no evidence of any sectarian discord at the grassroots level. The Sunnis and Shias have lived peacefully together despite the massacres by the gunmen. The blood-letting which we witness from time to time is caused by militants of some religious groups. It should not be difficult to keep them in check, as has been demonstrated in the weeks following 9/11 when the government actually showed a political will to act and managed to curb religious extremism temporarily. Do not wisdom and humanitarianism demand that the authorities clamp down on the killers and on their fiendish activities on their own initiative without being pushed into it?