APHC’s correct stand

THE All Parties Hurriyat Conference’s stance on the latest situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir shows both realism and political sagacity. On the question of the elections due in occupied territory this month and in October, it has not changed its position: it has reaffirmed the decision to boycott the exercise and also asked the people to do so. At the same time, the APHC has offered talks to India. Both Abdul Ghani Bhat, APHC’s chairman, and Mir Waiz Umar Farooq, one of its former chiefs, have made it clear that the “managed” elections which New Delhi holds from time to time in the occupied areas are no solution to the basic issue — the future of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. Addressing Friday congregations, the two leaders asked the people to boycott the polls so as to defeat India’s aim which, they pointed out, was to present to the world the Kashmiri people’s struggle for self-determination as India’s internal matter. This was not the case, they said, for Kashmir was an international issue. The spontaneous response that the APHC leaders’ call for boycott elicited from the people testifies to this fact.

Yet, while boycotting the elections, the Kashmiri leaders have not closed the door on talks. Speaking at another Srinagar mosque, Mir Waiz offered unconditional talks to India, provided the aim was a solution of the Kashmir problem. The APHC, he said, was not opposed to the principle of elections; in fact, it could consider participating in any electoral exercise if it was “linked to a resolution of the Kashmir issue.” But he pleaded for a “phase-wise” dialogue that should also include the Mujahideen. This is highly embarrassing for the Indian government, which said on Friday that talks would not be possible until after the election was over. India hardly needs reminding that manipulated and fraudulent elections held in the past have failed to solve the Kashmir issue; on the contrary, they have only served to strengthen the Kashmiri people’s resolve to fight for their right of self-determination. An election held under the bayonets of 700,000 troops deployed in Kashmir may create a bogus assembly and install yet another puppet government, but it will have no credibility.

Pakistan’s position on the issue was made clear on Friday when President Musharraf said his government fully backed the APHC’s boycott. All along, Pakistan’s stand has been consistent with the relevant UN resolutions. Kashmir is not India’s internal matter; it is a disputed territory, because it was India that went to the UN as an “aggrieved” party. It cannot back away from that position for reasons of expediency. It may delude itself into believing that “fixed” elections and the use of brute force can solve the Kashmir issue.

But the facts speak for themselves, for the Kashmiri people have been up in arms now for more than twelve years. Even New Delhi itself admits to an official figure of 61,000 dead, though the actual figure is much higher. The only way out of the trap in which India has landed itself is through talks among the three parties that matter — Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir. There indeed is no alternative to a dialogue. Its refusal to talk to Pakistan, while massing its troops along the Line of Control and the international border, has made peace look tenuous in a South Asia with its stalking shadow of nuclear arms.

Withdrawal — but no relief

THE relief expected by consumers after the withdrawal of GST on medicines by the government last month is not forthcoming because those involved in the trade refuse to pass on the benefit to the customer. Drug shops continue to charge the old prices saying that they had already paid GST on the stocks they now hold. Adding to the problem are reports of disappearance of many medicines, including life-saving drugs, from the market because of stoppage of supply by the multinationals. A major problem arises from the payment of GST already made by the druggists to the wholesalers before the withdrawal decision was announced. They argue that they are not in a position to deduct the tax until the current stocks are exhausted. In other words, only if the wholesalers withdraw GST on their fresh supplies would they be able to provide the benefit of withdrawal to the customer. A cause of the accompanying drug shortage may be that distributors and wholesalers are not ready to lift the stock until the issue of GST refund by the manufacturers is settled. Pointing an accusing finger at the manufacturers, chemists want the government to force the multinationals to refund GST to them so that they can sell the drugs at prices minus GST. A chaos of sorts seems to have engulfed the market as the three stakeholders — the manufacturers, wholesalers and chemists — blame each other for the problem.

A way-out could be a refund of GST to those who had paid it on stocks purchased before its withdrawal. This does not seem to be easy, however, particularly in view of the culture of profiteering and overcharging prevalent in the country and the failure of the government to evolve some formula to allow adjustment of sales tax paid on unsold medicines. In the given context, the unavoidable impression would be that the government is indifferent to its responsibility to safeguard the consumers’ interests after the withdrawal of GST. It must, therefore, take steps to ensure compliance with its decision and properly monitor drug prices to make sure that the benefit is not held back by unscrupulous elements in the drug trade.

Targeting Syria?

IS IT a mere coincidence that Israel should sharpen its rhetoric against Syria while the US Middle East envoy, David Satterfield, was in the region to ensure both Israel and the Palestinians implemented the pledges given at last month’s security accord to facilitate Israeli withdrawal from reoccupied territories? The Israeli defence minister used the occasion to have a dig at Syria in the presence of the visiting US envoy on Thursday, warning that the Syrians were ‘playing with fire’ by not restraining Hezbollah from attacking Israeli positions from Lebanon. As expected, the US envoy conveniently kept mum over the threat, because it did not fall within the officially defined scope of his current mission.

It is plain for any objective observer of the Middle East crisis to see that a lack of reaction from Washington on a given issue is routinely taken as a nod of approval by the Israelis. Viewed from that standpoint and given Washington’s own blind obsession with punishing Iraq, the last thing the Middle East needs is an Israeli attack on Syria. It is time the US realized that its own policy towards the region has given Ariel Sharon a free hand to perpetrate criminal excesses against the Palestinians and now threatens to engulf other neighbours in the region as well. Thus, one may ask: What is it if not Washington’s playing the global bully vis-a-vis Iraq in defiance of international law and morality that provides a cue for Tel Aviv to don the mantle of a regional bully? Nothing could be more dangerous and unjustified in the current Middle East context.