In Phizo’s footsteps

THE Nagas, living in the north-east of India, have seldom captured the country’s attention. Whenever they have, it is either a clash between the underground among them and the armed forces or sporadic incidents of violence. For an ordinary Indian, it is a disturbed, unfamiliar area which is far away.

Like Kashmir, which has article 370 for a special status, Nagaland has it under Article 371 (a), the Nagaland assembly is supreme and no parliament act can apply in matters of religious practices, customary laws and ownership or transfer of land and its resources. The difference between the two states is that Kashmir acceded to India after the paramountcy of Britain lapsed while Nagaland was carved out from the loosely administered area under the British.

Both have the central election commission conducting the polls. Both have their state assemblies and elected governments. People of both states are Indian citizens and carry its passport when they travel abroad. Strategically, both states are important, Nagaland having border with three countries — China, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Even after five decades, New Delhi has not been able to establish peace either in Kashmir or Nagaland. The problem at both places is political but the government has employed the army to solve it. Its commanders themselves admit that it is not possible to establish peace without political inputs.

While Kashmir awaits the talks which the centre has promised — Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Saeed gives three months as the deadline — Nagaland is engaged in a parley of sorts at the highest level. The real problem is not whether anything would come out of the talks but whether New Delhi is willing to go to the extent where the intractable become malleable. Is the government willing to modify its stand that a strong centre is the answer to local or regional aspirations for identity?

The Nagas, with whom New Delhi is having talks, the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) — Isak Swu and Muivah are the negotiators — is satisfied that the Government of India has recognized “the unique history and situation of the Nagas.” Now they want it to be spelled out. The Concerned Naga Senior Citizens (CNSC) and HOHO, an apex body, have supported the statement. They have dug out Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter to the then Assam Chief Minister Medhi: “One of their (Nagas’) grievances is that under our constitution we split them up in different political areas. Whether it is possible or desirable to bring them together again is for us to consider. Also what measure of autonomy we should give them so that they can lead their own lives without any sensation of interference.”

This is interpreted differently by some other Naga groups, which have not accepted the two-year-old ceasefire. Their strength and that of Congress party Nagas in power in Kohima, is far less than the NSCN (IM)’s. The church is largely behind the latter.

All groups, however, support the two demands: one, the greater Nagaland that incorporates the Nagas living in Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam and, two, sovereignty. The first one, as the Nagas know, does not depend on New Delhi. The three states have to agree to give part of their territory and get a resolution to that effect passed in their respective assemblies. Then parliament has to endorse it by a two-thirds majority in both the houses. It is difficult to envisage such a resolution going through either in assemblies or in parliament.

The second demand is that of independence, which means secession. The Nagas argue that they were never part of India and, therefore, the question of secession did not arise in their case. Still the fact remains that Nagaland is a state in the Indian Union and it is listed in the schedule of the constitution. It needs no argument that such a proposition will never be acceptable to the country. Something like autonomy may be readily acceptable. To use the words of former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, “The sky is the limit.” True, he said so in the context of Kashmir.

But it can well apply to the Nagas. They should try to have it as soon as possible. For the Hidutva elements may give the whole thing a religious colouring since more than the 90 per cent of the population in Nagaland is Christian. The possibility cannot be ruled out.

I believe even the views of Nagas’ Gandhi, A.Z. Phizo, had undergone a change some time before he died in London in 1990 — I was then India’s high commissioner to the UK.

Phizo told his old comrade-in-arms, Khodao-Yanthan, who was working with him in London, that he wanted to advise his old friends to give up violence and seek a solution within the framework of a united India. Khodao-Yanthan said that “Phizo had changed” and that he wanted to settle the Nagaland question with the Indian leaders.

Khodao-Yanthan was insistent on describing his nationality as ‘Naga’ in the visa application. The consular section was inclined to reject it on the ground that India did not recognize Nagaland as a separate nation. I intervened. I thought it was important that he visit India and meet political leaders. After living in London for three decades, he had lost touch with the realities: he might begin to face facts if he returned.

In fact, I sent a long telegram to New Delhi on Phizo’s views. I proposed that the government leaders should meet Khodao-Yanthan, who was going on his own to Kohima, via Delhi. But the day he reached Delhi, the VP Singh government fell. It was one of those unfortunate quirks of fate. His successor showed no interest in the matter.

Khodao-Yanthan, I believe, conveyed Phizo’s wish to both Isak Swu and Muivah. Even though independence may not be on the agenda of the talks between New Delhi and the two Naga leaders, the question of the quantum of autonomy is sure to come up during the parley. If so, both the Nagaland leaders and New Delhi are on the right track. Taking a leaf from the same book, the government should initiate talks with all leaders in Kashmir, whether they participated in election or not.

My recent brief visit to Pakistan convinces me that Islamabad will come round to accepting whatever settlement we reach inside our side of Kashmir. The Hurriyat leaders are not facing the reality when they go on emphasising a tripartite conference of India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris.

Maulvi Farooq is right when he says that any two can meet. But the Hurriyat should know that any solution hammered out without involving India would not be acceptable to the country.

If the Nagas can get to agree that greater Nagaland may not be feasible, why don’t the valley leaders exclude Kashmir under Pakistan from their talks with New Delhi, if and when they are held? The Line of Control (LoC) may well be a proper line to accept because it separates the Kashmiri-speaking Kashmiris from the Punjabi-speaking Kashmiris.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Emotions and realities

FOREIGN policy decisions must be based on a hard calculation of national interests. Wrong policy decisions can do long-term harm to a country, with profound implications not only for its present but also for its future. Emotionalism can only distort one’s judgment. Similarly, lack of realism — and even worse, a propensity to live under illusions — often proves to be disastrous, for individuals no less than for nations.

In fact, even in ordinary life, most people do keep the above principles in mind. When making important personal decisions like choosing a career, buying property, or in the matter of marriage and divorce, we try to avoid emotional decisions and want to act realistically. One does not take a big loan in the hope that a friend will be generous enough to bail one out. You do not provoke a bully, realizing that prudence is the better part of valour. You cannot boast that you can jump six feet high when clearing three feet might be a problem. This is elementary common sense and not a case of cowardice or lack of faith.

Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy matters, it seems that there are some people in Pakistan who keep indulging in bravado and emotionalism of the worst kind. In the last week, the top MMA leaders have talked of declaring a Jihad against the US and fighting alongside Iraq in case it is attacked, as seems likely, by the US and the UK.

Now, let us suppose that Pakistan actually does what the MMA leaders want our country to do. What will be the consequences? Are we in any position to defeat the US in a military conflict? Will not such an adventure bring total disaster to Pakistan? Are we in a position to send troops or military assistance to Iraq? Our hands are already more than full trying to keep India at bay and, hence, sending troops for combat in Iraq or anywhere else would be the height of folly.

It is a fact that we live in an imperfect world where morality does not often count. The example of Kashmir is a case in point. India has been guilty of violation of specific UN resolutions and unleashing an unending reign of terror and oppression against the Kashmiri people. The rest of the world seems apathetic. Pakistanis feel rightly indignant.

However, going to war against India is not a feasible option for Pakistan, particularly now when the two countries possess nuclear capability and a war will be mutually destructive. Thus, despite our indignation in the matter, we cannot take leave of our senses and jump into the abyss, even if our Jihadist circles might regard this as an act of cowardice.

There is also another hard reality in international affairs that cannot be ignored. Whether one likes it or not, the fact of the matter is that the US is now the world’s sole superpower. It has even been said that no country since the Roman Empire has gained such an ascendancy over other countries as the US has done in contemporary times.

Even great powers like Russia and China have found it expedient not to stand in the way of the US when it seems determined to pursue a certain policy, whether it is in Kosovo or in Iraq. In the case of Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, Russia and China even joined the US in its campaign against the Taliban regime.

So did the Musharraf regime in Pakistan. It calculated, quite rightly, that opposing the US campaign against the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda would not be in the best national interests of Pakistan. Indeed, even Pakistan’s support for the latter would not have saved them, but in the process, Pakistan would have exposed itself to the worst possible dangers. We would have been branded a terrorist state and would have been totally isolated — and possibly punished. Our economic aid would have been cut off and trade restricted. Attempts could have been made to destroy our nuclear assets, giving India a free hand to impose its will on Pakistan.

The same MMA leadership was at that time whipping up emotions in the streets in the name of Islam, little realizing that they were setting the stage for a mortal blow to Pakistan’s very survival as an independent state. On the other hand, by adopting a pragmatic policy, Pakistan was able to make significant diplomatic and economic gains. It became an important player on the world stage, much to the chagrin of India, which had been hoping that Pakistan would fall into the trap of isolation. It is perhaps for such a situation that someone has aptly said: “Save me from my friends. I can take care of my enemies.”

It needs to be understood that the phenomenon of anti-Americanism in Pakistan can lead to very unwelcome consequences, particularly in the economic field. In the last fifty years, Pakistan’s main economic assistance has come, directly or indirectly, from the US. Apart from its substantial direct economic aid to Pakistan, the US has been a key factor in the assistance received by Pakistan from international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF which are heavily influenced by Washington. Much of this economic assistance can dry up if we adopt anti-US policies.

Moreover, in the 1950s and 1980s, Pakistan received significant military aid from the US which did help in fortifying Pakistan’s defences against a hostile India. Of course, there are those in Pakistan who complain bitterly that the US did not come to Pakistan’s help during the 1965 and 19971 wars with India. In actual fact, the military pacts signed by Pakistan in the 1950s were meant only for US assistance in the event of aggression by the communist bloc. The US military equipment received by Pakistan was meant to be used mainly against communist aggression. But we actually used it against India.

The historical archives which have recently become public knowledge reveal that in the 1971 war, the US did intervene decisively to deter India from occupying portions of West Pakistan, after our military defeat in East Pakistan. Hardly anyone in Pakistan ever mentions the positive role played by the US at that critical juncture of our history.

Similarly, the US has in some recent instances intervened militarily to rescue Muslims in several parts of the world. The Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo have survived because of the US military action against Serbia. Kuwait was liberated in 1991 after its neighbour Iraq had attacked and occupied it in a treacherous manner. In the same year, several Muslim countries in Central Asia also regained their long-lost independence from Russian control. The US bloc had led a confrontation against the Soviet bloc for nearly fifty years which ended with the latter’s collapse in 1991. Earlier in the 1970s and 1980s, the US had helped the Afghan Mujahideen in their successful struggle to get rid of Soviet military occupation of their country.

Of course, in all of these instances, the US did not act out of any love for Islam or Pakistan. It was always pursuing its own national interests. But in these particular cases, there was a convergence of interests with the Muslim countries in question. This in fact is the way foreign policies are made all over the world. When there is convergence of interests, two or more countries come close together; and when there is a divergence of interests, their relations come under a strain.

This applies no less to Pakistan’s friendship with the US or, for that matter, even China. When we seek close ties with these countries, it is because we hope to get some benefits from them. In international affairs, sentiments matter little: it is national interests that determine policies. We have seen this demonstrated in the way our brothers in Muslim countries behave. While many in Pakistan continue to harp on the myth of Islamic solidarity, the reality is that most Muslim countries have established friendly ties with India. They find it in their national interests to be on good terms with a large country like India in spite of Kashmir and that country’s hostility to Pakistan. In most cases, it seems that interests prevail over sentiments.

Of course, the real grievance of the Muslim world against the US is its blind support to Israel. This is largely attributable to the hold of the powerful Zionist lobby in American life, whether in politics, news media or the financial world. While Israel carries on with its daily depredations against the Palestinian people, there is a sense of outrage in the Arab and Muslim world. This, more than anything else, has given birth to the anti-American terrorism associated with Osama bin Laden.

That, in turn, has hardened the US attitude towards Muslim groups and even towards nationals from some Muslim countries, in a kind of a vicious cycle. The US must understand that its overall interests in Arab and Muslim countries are being hurt by its pro-Israel policy. President Bush needs to take a leaf from the books of Presidents Carter and Clinton in adopting a more balanced position on the Arab-Israel conflict.

The current US stance towards Iraq is also causing deep concern in the Arab and Islamic world. Here again, the issue needs to be looked at in a balanced manner. On the one hand, it must be admitted that Saddam has had a very bad record. He twice attacked his neighbours — Iran and Kuwait — and has also been ruthless in persecuting Iraq’s Kurdish and Shia population. He used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. More than a million Muslims died as a result of Saddam’s aggressive policies. A thousand billion dollars of resources of the Gulf countries were lost as a consequence of his senseless invasions. This amount of money could have transformed the lot of the poorer Muslim countries.

Still, the foregoing does not give a licence to the US to mount an attack on Iraq. In this day and age, the maintenance of international legality is essential, otherwise, the world will relapse into a state of anarchy and the law of the jungle. There must be approval of the UN Security Council before any military action is taken against Iraq. In this context, Washington also must respect the findings of the UN inspectors, now engaged in carrying out intensive investigations in Iraq about the latter’s possession or otherwise of weapons of mass destruction.

The US must not decide to act as the judge jury and executioner in this particular or any other case. Muslim as well as non-Muslim countries must bring concerted diplomatic pressure on Washington to prevent it from the unilateral use of force. This would be the best approach towards securing a safer, more just world, rather than the emotional fulminations of the MMA, or the senseless terror of Osama bin Laden which is only defaming Islam in the eyes of the rest of the world and harming the Muslims.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

When justice goes mute

THE American people are losing rights and freedoms each time a federal judge sides with the Bush administration’s blanket orders to close courtroom doors, silence detainees or withhold evidence from defence lawyers.

Last week, a three-judge panel added another notch to the president’s victory column by ruling that government agents could shut down a US-based Islamic charity and then refuse to give any evidence to defence lawyers — or the public — of the group’s alleged links to international terrorists.

The Global Relief Foundation, based in Illinois, is one of the world’s largest Islamic charities. The president insists that it was directing contributions to terrorists. In December 2001, US Treasury agents froze its bank accounts and confiscated computers.

Maybe Global Relief does aid terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t, as the organization’s lawyers insist. But by letting the government keep secret its evidence, the judges have rendered worthless the group’s constitutional due process rights, including the right to contest these allegations. “If there is evidence,” the charity’s lawyer said, “it’s evidence I’ve never seen.”

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, government secrecy was sometimes necessary. Defence lawyers in cases involving national security got special clearance to review classified information or received specially edited versions of those documents. Now, they apparently get nothing.

American citizens should be more than a little alarmed at a lengthening chain of decisions in which judges sanction presidential actions shredding constitutional rights and limiting the openness that democracy needs to function.—Los Angeles Times

Aspects of Musharraf ‘doctrine’

CLEAN, honest and true democracy, across-the-board accountability, restoring respect of parliament, and giving good governance is what General Musharraf promised to the Pakistani nation when he overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

But, unlike his predecessors, he chose a different path for realizing his objectives. The basic elements of his strategy — or “Musharraf Doctrine” — to reconstruct Pakistani politics and economy were based on three assumptions: firstly, all civilian leaders and institutions are inherently corrupt and rotten; secondly, the military alone possesses the competence for rebuilding the nation; thirdly, the military must become a permanent partner in running the affairs of state at all levels and in all areas.

The Musharraf government ran the affairs of the country during the last three years in the light of the above principles. Therefore, in all actions of his government a contempt for civilian leadership was very visible; massive and unprecedented induction of military personnel was made in all civilian departments, and finally, he made a formal declaration that the only way to stop the military’s future interventions was to give it a permanent role in our politics through the National Security Council.

Gen Musharraf vehemently criticized the Nawaz government for failing to deliver despite the heavy mandate it enjoyed for two and a half years. Therefore, it would not be unfair to ask what have been the accomplishments of the Musharraf regime to improve the political culture and traditions and the economy with the super heavy military mandate it enjoyed during its three-year rule? In the third year, Gen Musharraf’s government held two flagship exercises as a testimony to its political programme: first the referendum and then second the general elections. Some sections of our society had pinned high hopes on the promises made by the general to give Pakistani nation a new political culture free from the vices of the past.

Unfortunately, instead of acting as a neutral figure who could bring all sides together to forge a consensus on a new social contract, the general chose to become a player himself in this power game. As a result, in his desperation to stay in power beyond the time allowed to him by the Supreme Court, he resorted to all sorts of tricks and manipulative tactics to achieve that goal.

To realize personal ambitions and implement his political agenda, he first appointed Chief Justice (retd) Irshad Hasan Khan as the Chief Election Commissioner as soon as he retired from the Supreme Court — in the face of strong opposition from all political parties and the lawyers community. Then, a referendum was announced to be held on April 30, 2002, to elect him as president of Pakistan. During the referendum campaign, government resources were used lavishly, rent-a-crowd meetings were staged and millions were spent on a media campaign.

On April 30, the whole exercise was rigged, with the polling staff casting bogus votes. In spite of all that, a dismal turnout of three per cent had to be converted into over seventy per cent. Certainly, no past political government comes anywhere close to the kind of political morality witnessed during the referendum exercise.

After the referendum, preparations were undertaken for the general elections. The PML(Q) was declared as the King’s Party and all government intelligence agencies and NAB were given the task of forcing the influential politicians to join this party. Governor houses and provincial secretariats were used to interview the candidates. The resources and staff of the district governments under nazims were placed at the disposal of the PML(Q).

Legal and political requirements were decreed to divert the opposition parties’ attention from election preparation work towards meeting the conditions of registration under the new law by holding fresh elections within the parties. The PML(N) was particularly targeted. According to impartial observers and the EU mission’s report, all conceivable forms of pre-poll rigging were done prior to October 10 polls.

On election day, many instances of ballot tampering and bogus voting were reported from rural constituencies, while urban constituencies were not disturbed for fear of media exposure. Complaints of wrong-doing were numerous.

Still many believed that the worst was over and now Gen Musharraf would not interfere with the transfer of power process like Gen Yahya had done in 1970-71. But, to the surprise of many, the opening session of National Assembly was postponed to allow more time to the PML(Q) to win over more of the newly elected members to its side. The prohibition on floor-crossing was relaxed. Fifteen bogus votes were cast in the election of the Speaker, as the members of the PPP forward bloc were asked to bring their ballots out by stuffing instead a plain folded sheets of paper. These ballots were later cast by other MNAs belonging to PML(Q) along with their own.

Ordinances, tailor-made to the needs of PML(Q), were issued enabling Mr Jamali to become PM, changing criteria for election of women MNAs/MPAs and FATA Senators. Before the newly elected members of the National Assembly were administered oath, Gen Musharraf arranged his own oath-taking as the president for five years under the 1973 Constitution. Interestingly, when the validity of the referendum was challenged before the Supreme Court, the government had admitted that the exercise was being held under the PCO and not the Constitution. So, how could Gen Musharraf be given oath under the 1973 Constitution when his election through the referendum was not under the Constitution?

The kind and extent of horse-trading seen in the process of government formation has no parallels in our history. At the centre, 10 MNAs from the PPP, including ones convicted and charge-sheeted by the NAB, were forced and lured to support the PML(Q) with the prize of six key cabinet slots. In Balochistan two NAB-convicted former ministers belonging to the MMA were released to make the PML(Q)-led government there possible.

In Sindh all records were broken. Earlier, the official line was that because the PML(Q) was the largest party at the centre, it had the right to form government. But, in Sindh PPP’s right as the largest party was ignored and through the worst form of horse-trading, a forward bloc was created and a deal with the MQM was brokered clearing the way for its nominee, an absconder in exile, to become governor of the province. As part of the reward and system, the Jamali government announced that each MNA would be given a development grant of Rs 10 million. The new CM of Punjab announced that jobs will be filled on the recommendations of MPAs, and he has inducted over a 30-member cabinet with more ministers to be inducted.

In spite of all that, the way forward is not to impose a personal agenda but to find a synergistic solution that brings sides together, builds bridges not walls, and helps us develop a consensus on the future reform agenda and code of ethics, and instals a stable democratic order in the country.

The house of cards erected by General Musharraf will not stand even a small shake-up. When he has accepted politicians convicted and wanted by NAB as members of the federal cabinet and as governor, what excuse does he have now to keep Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto out of the country? It is time for national reconciliation, dialogue and a consensus among the key stakeholders in society — politicians, members of civil and military bureaucracy, judges and lawyers, businessmen, professionals and ulema — about the future. The external pressures on, and threats to, Pakistan are growing rapidly. We can only face them if our ranks are united and we have leadership that commands the confidence of the masses, and it has the courage to speak up on behalf of the nation.

The writer was deputy chairman, Planning Commission, under the Nawaz Sharif government.

A market for golf

ONE of the more intriguing questions so early in this new year is the social impact of the decision by historic arms maker Smith & Wesson to manufacture golf clubs.

It may be a protective diversity deal, like cigarette makers adding a beer brewery. Business sceptics foresee a titanic $1.3-billion struggle over clubs in a market where finicky players wearing hats with no tops seem more impressed by product performance than brand names.

Golf clubs and guns do have striking similarities. Both are forged. Both can be weapons. Both involve dispatching a small projectile rapidly toward a target where it enters _ or makes _ a hole. And both items have at times been thrown into nearby lakes.

This simple business decision could completely change a sedate game that requires an appointment for a long walk on grass.

Who gets the best start times _ the first caller or someone known to use a snub-nosed sand wedge? Ponder the possibilities of golfers in shorts striding down gravel paths after a depressing bogey, packing Smith & Wessons. Will anyone argue about who tees up first?—Los Angeles Times