A world cup for kabaddi: DATELINE NEW DELHI

THERE are lots of easy gimmicks politicians use to distract our attention from their own failures and inadequacies. Naming and renaming of roads and hospitals, or unveiling portraits of real or make-believe heroes are a time-tested stunt that virtually every leader in public view seems to subscribe to.

Recently, the Vajpayee government sought to garner an easy constituency by installing the picture of V.D. Savarkar, a controversial pre-independence Hindu communalist leader, in the Indian parliament, that too alongside the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi. The entire opposition boycotted the inauguration, but only to soon return to live with the topsy-turvy ways of history.

Similarly, as was to be expected, everyone and his neighbour wanted to milk the Indian cricket team’s impressive march into the World Cup finals against Australia.

Lead singers of paeans for the team were the Pakistan-baiting Shiv Sena party whose cadre are better known for bolstering patriotism by digging up cricket pitches, when they are not setting fire to government property. After all, it was only the other day that they were threatening to burn down the homes of the very same cricketers after they had lost an opening match to Australia.

So these very men, the conscience-keepers of our patriotic masses, as it were, were heard demanding that Sachin Tendulkar’s portrait should be enshrined in the Parliament House alongside the independence heroes, no less.

The only trouble with the Shiv Sena’s brazenly opportunistic demand is that not too long ago their bigger and more powerful colleagues in patriotic obscurantism, the Rashtriya Swayamasewak Sangh (RSS), had described cricket as a colonial legacy that ought to be banished from India. Their party journal was crooning a similar theme as recently as last month or thereabouts.

Along with the RSS, the less rabid but equally convoluted socialists of the Indian hue also began their career in the 1950s, mouthing expletives against cricket for becoming a national pastime.

Journalist and author Ramachandra Guha notes in his latest offering on cricket, A Corner Of A Foreign Field: The Indian History Of A Foreign Sport, aspects of this inexplicable contradiction.

In the 1950s, he notes, RSS chief Golwalkar would lose no opportunity to come down upon cricket.

Wrote Golwalkar in his book to exhort Hindu militancy: “The costly game of cricket, which has not only become a fashion in our country, but something over which we are spending crores of rupees, only proves that the English are still dominating our mind and intellect. The cricket match that Pandit Nehru and other MPs played some years back was the very depth of this Anglicism. Why could they not play kabbadi, our national game which has been acclaimed by several countries as a great game?”

The socialist leader and Nehru-baiter, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, seemed to be at one with Golwalkar in the wish to banish cricket from the country and promote kabbadi in its stead.

Guha recounts a story related to him by one of Lohia’s associates, Arun Kumar of Delhi.

“To a group of acolytes and left-wing journalists Lohia thundered about how the game of cricket symbolized our continuing colonization, and how the last Englishman to rule India was complicit in this. Throw out Nehru, he said, and we can all happily start playing kabbadi. The scribes departed, to file their stories. But after they had gone, Lohia walked across to the nearest paanwallah, asked for a paan, and while chewing it continued: “Kya Hanif out ho gaya kya?” The answer came back: “No, Hanif is still batting.” He was out only at sundown, run out, for 160.

The question is now that the Indian cricket team has done exceedingly well by reaching the finals of the World Cup, thus arousing national fervour all round, where do people with the mindset of the RSS and the Lohia-type of socialists, of whom Defence Minister George Fernandes is a leading example, stand on this issue.

“Be like Arjuna”, Prime Minister Vajpayee counselled Saurav Ganguly, the Indian captain, citing the example of a mythical hero from the epic Mahabharata. Arjuna had scored a bull’s eye in an impossible archery contest by applying a focused will to win.

Goodness knows how many more turncoats of patriotic ideals is this game of cricket going to produce.

In the United States, the government does not censor newspapers or TV channels. The job is left to the corporate houses that run and own the mega businesses. With the arrival of Rupert Murdoch here via local conduits, the syndrome has come almost intact to India.

I cannot recall any single event, whether it was the Indian budget or the national day, that was covered so uniformly by all the TV channels than the way they were seen eating out of the hands of Donald Rumsfeld at the ‘live’ press conference the other day, which they were privileged enough to be allowed to link up to.

As if to narrow the difference between the sublime and the ridiculous, we have a leading Indian newspaper reporting the Iraq war out of guess where — Washington. Despite the national mood being firmly against the American-led attack, the slant on Indian TV channels too remains by and large partial to the pro-American version of the war.

In fact, one private channel does the easiest thing on offer — it just hooks on to Fox TV, and makes available the unedited, unbridled propaganda to its captive viewers. Naturally, very few would be aware that Indians are protesting virtually every day, every hour against the war. If the protests are being blacked out in the media, it has little to do with the state’s whip hand of censorship. The answer more likely lies in the business interests that the channels and newspapers have to take into account.

Sindh’s demand for water: SINDHI PRESS DIGEST

IN an editorial marking World Water Day, Ibrat writes that recent rains have improved reservoir levels to some extent but Sindh is still facing acute water shortage. The daily alleges that Punjab has kept on receiving more than its share.

It argues that each session of the Indus River System Authority concludes on one or other controversy over distribution of water between the two provinces.

Recently, Punjab’s representatives created a tense situation at an Irsa meeting by taking up the issue of the Kalabagh and Akori dams. Irritated by this, the representative of Sindh staged a walkout which was supported by those of Balochistan and the NWFP. After Irsa chairman rebuked the Punjab representative for always taking up disputed issues, it was decided that in future, the issues of dams would not be raised at Irsa sessions as they come under the jurisdiction of the government.

Ibrat expresses the opinion that Punjab’s approach to the water issue does not augur well for the national interest.

It appeals to the government to ensure that water- starved Sindh is provided with its due water share.

Kawish says that after the passage of eight years since the killing of six villagers by the Ghotki police, the case has been put up before a court. According to the complainant, the Ghotki police arrested six villagers from Pano Aqil and adjoining areas.

The complainant contended that the villagers were subsequently killed in a fake encounter and their bodies were buried at an undisclosed place.

Later, on the directives of the Sindh High Court, an FIR was registered with the Baiji police against its SHO and four sub- inspectors of the police station, but none of them was arrested. Now, after the lapse of eight years, the police has challaned the case in a court.

The daily writes that no comment can be offered as the matter is subjudice, but at least it can be pointed out that the case can be a wake-up call for the highups of the police department, which, even after the introduction of recent reforms, is not helping the people.

Tameer-i-Sindh writes that the ever-rising incidents of Karo-kari killings call for urgent and effective legalisation against this rampant crime, which has become a social norm in the rural areas. More so, because a case of so- called honour killing is often not seen as a murder case.

This is why the Sindh minister for social welfare, Dr Saeeda Malik, has said that action against the culprits of this crime should be taken under Section 302 of the PPC.

Mounting contradictions: COMMENT

THE Brazilian writer, Paulo Coelho, brilliantly pointed out some of the hypocrisies and contradictions created for itself by the Bush administration in his article, “Thank you, President Bush,” published in Dawn on Sunday. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now come out with another startling observation that further exposes US double talk.

He wants coalition prisoners of war taken by Iraq to be treated under the Geneva Conventions which he says prohibit the showing of PoW pictures. After ridiculing the United Nations and doing everything to denigrate the world organization and refusing to honour the will of the international community, the US is now seeking protection for American PoWs under international treaties. It cannot have it both ways, although there can be no debate on the point that both sides should treat combatants and civilians in their custody humanly and with dignity.

CNN and the BBC have obligingly been bringing on representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to read out chapter and verse from the Geneva Conventions. No one has been asked to tell us in similar fashion about the UN Charter. There has been no one to talk to us on the cable channels about how the US, which so criticizes France and Russia for threatening to veto any resolution authorizing war against Iraq, vetoed resolution after resolution on the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.

The PoW issue is just one of the many problems that the US-led coalition has created for itself. It says it has attacked Iraq to free the people of the country from Saddam Hussein. But at least 50 civilians are reported to have been killed in coalition attacks in Basra alone and there are other casualties among the civilian population elsewhere. How can you kill a people whom you want to be free?

This declared objective of liberating people has posed a strategic problem also for the coalition forces themselves. They can, with their tremendous might, pulverize Iraq and wipe out Iraqis and get it all over with in a matter of days. But they have to tread carefully and be selective in their attacks. Avoiding the use of maximum force means getting bogged down outside populated centres and suffering casualties, which will have repercussions at home in the US and Britain. The arrogant foolishness of the entire adventure has thus been further exposed.

Something else has been starkly underlined as never before since the war began and its saturation coverage by the international media. Hour after hour, you have reporters based in Doha, Qatar, and in Kuwait outlining the progress of the conflict. Suddenly you realize that if Kuwait and Qatar had not given permission to the US-led forces to operate from their territories, there may well have been no war. Let’s wind up the OIC, the Arab League and stop talking of the “ummah”.

Pakistan wants to resume talks with India, says Kasuri: DAWN DIALOGUE

The following is an edited version of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri:

Question: A foreign media report said long before the attack on Iraq was launched, Pakistan had conveyed to President Bush that it was going to support the US position on Iraq in the UN Security Council. Is that correct?

Answer: Pakistan has tried very hard to adopt a mature policy based on justice as well as on preservation of national interests. This objective cannot be achieved by double talk. Let me say it categorically that our stand was known to all the permanent members of the Security Council as well as to all our friends. I made it clear during my visit to the United States that Pakistan cannot support war on Iraq. And I don’t mind saying it to you— you are the first newspaper that I am talking to on a one-to-one basis since the attack has taken place— that we had felt that the objectives of the Security Council Resolution 1441 could be achieved peacefully. We had felt that (chief UN weapons inspector) Hans Blix and (International Atomic Energy Agency chief) Mohammad ElBaradei were making progress and they should have been given (more) time.

But that’s now in the past. We have to now think of the people of Iraq. As far as that is concerned, now that military action has broken out, a development that we have deplored, our emphasis is that priority be given to avoid a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqi people, and civilian casualties and infrastructural damage, particularly to civic services and holy places must be strictly avoided. I hope that efforts will not be made to subject the people of Iraq to greater pain than they are currently suffering.

We have to now concentrate on making sure that civilians in Iraq do not suffer and it is necessary to reiterate today that the territorial integrity of Iraq must be preserved as well as its rights to the use of its natural resources for the betterment of its own people.

Now that military action has started, we still feel the United Nations has a major role to play. I do not agree with the people who feel that the UN is lost. We, therefore, strongly believe that even now that the attack on Iraq has taken place, the United Nations must play its role and anything outside of UN framework will engender great hostility and will be counter-productive to the declared objectives of the United States and Britain.

Q: What role is Pakistan going to play in the next, say, one hundred hours?

A: We will remain in touch with all major powers and we will continue to now emphasise on the need for (focusing on) humanitarian aspects. Pakistan did all it could to prevent war in Iraq. We are not a country which has the resources of France, Germany, Russia or China. But despite that we adopted a principled position and never for a minute gave the impression that our vote (in the Security Council) was for sale.

I would like to go on record because there has been a lot of rumour-mongering going on that we never negotiated on this position. We were for a principled stand. We, however, didn’t find it necessary to shout from rooftops because that would have weakened our position in trying to reduce differences within the multilateral framework of the United Nations.

You see, there is life after Iraq. With the Iraqi people, we have historical, brotherly and fraternal bonds and we cannot, and will not, remain unconcerned about their position. It is not possible for the people of Pakistan to ignore their plight.

We cannot forget that the United States is a superpower, that it has the capacity to do both good and not so good for the world at large. Pakistan’s endeavour will be to see that the United States returns to Wilsonian idealism.

Q: China has termed the attack on Iraq illegal. Does Pakistan also subscribe to this view?

A: We have deplored the attack on Iraq. We are against war. We are for multilateralism. We feel that any attempt at weakening the framework of the UN is fraught with grave consequences.

Q: There is now talk about a ceasefire in Iraq and of the possibility of some European countries tabling a new resolution in the Security Council that could invite a veto from the US and Britain. What would Pakistan’s position be?

A: We will study it closely when this comes up and will give a studied response. Our effort will be in line with our position on multilateralism.

Q: Now that Pakistan has openly opposed the war in Iraq, would this not affect Pakistan’s relations with the US?

A: We hope not. We adopt a principled stand on all international issues and this position is well known now to all our friends and major powers.

Q: What is your reaction to the comment being made by some that after Iraq, it will be Iran and Pakistan’s turn?

A: We should refrain from repeating this day in and day out lest it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t accept this view for two reasons. First, in the three wars with India, Pakistan had shown great discipline and restraint and had abided by the Geneva Conventions. We acted as a responsible power and we never attacked India’s dams or civilian installations. Secondly, regarding our weapons of mass destruction, our command and control structure is in place. Its validity and efficacy is internationally recognized even by international defence journals like Jane’s. We are also adding an element of transparency, which I cannot be more specific about at this point in time.

The world should rest assured that Pakistan’s weapons of mass destruction cannot fall into irresponsible hands. Pakistan is a responsible power. Its weapons of mass destruction are in safe hands. Therefore, I do not find it justifiable for people to say that after Iraq, next would be Pakistan’s turn.

I deplore the attack on Iraq. But the situation has to be understood in the context of the 1991 (Gulf) war and the sanctions imposed on Iraq at that time. To compare this with Pakistan is just being populist, if I may be allowed to say so.

Those politicians who are saying it are exploiting the sentiments of the people. I hope they will stop this because such sayings can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Q: But even Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been saying that other Muslim countries like Iran and Syria will be the next targets.

A: I hope there will be enough international resistance to unilateralism to prevent a repetition of Iraq. And as I said before, the Iraq situation is specific to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the subsequent 1991 war on Iraq. Such a situation does not apply to Iran and definitely not to Pakistan.

Q: How does Pakistan as a member of the Security Council and the only Islamic nuclear power plan to influence events in Iraq?

A: The possession of nuclear weapons imposes great responsibility and restraint on the part of Pakistan. Even more so is the case for the US which is a superpower and whose actions have global implications. We, therefore, expect from the US even greater restraint than what other major powers are expected to show. If the US does not operate within the multilateral framework, it will not have commensurate influence.

When people talk about possession of nuclear weapons as a means of influencing international policy or when they ask what Pakistan will do as a nuclear power, surely they are not suggesting that we use our nuclear weapons? Our nuclear weapons have to be understood in the context of South Asia. Our nuclear programme is India-specific. I am not a hawk in making this statement. I attach the highest importance to the improvement of relations with India. But there is currently no response from the Indian side because it does not suit its rulers’ domestic electoral agenda.

When I say that our nuclear programme is India-specific, I am emphasising the fact that it is defensive in nature. In 1974, we offered India many confidence-building measures, the aim of which was to keep South Asia nuclear-free. India was the one (country) which forced us to go nuclear. But we are not in a nuclear or missile race with India. Our programme is meant purely for self-defence.

Q: Pakistan is going to play a role in a world where the law of the jungle prevails, as can be seen in the case of Iraq. Shouldn’t Pakistan be concerned about India’s behaviour in this respect?

A: Let me emphasize that we are thoroughly opposed to the principle of a pre-emptive strike. Our view on this is well known. The pre-emption principle can even be used by countries that do not have constitutional or democratic constraints, and as far as India is concerned I am sorry to say that no principle or respect for international law has governed India’s relations towards Pakistan or Kashmir. This is evident from two facts: first, India itself took the Kashmir issue to the Security Council, but it never honoured its resolutions; and, secondly, whatever may have been our political blunders in the western wing in 1971, India violated the unanimity of world opinion that was reflected in the UN Security Council which was against India’s intervention in East Pakistan. To quote Indian leaders at that time, India had gone into East Pakistan not as liberators but to ‘avenge one thousand years of history’.

The defence of Pakistan does not depend on any international law or policy or any reliance on the so-called doctrine of pre-emption, which we reject outright. The defence of Pakistan’s independence and territorial integrity ultimately depends on the unity of the people of Pakistan in resisting any Indian aggression as well as on the courage, discipline and preparedness of the armed forces of Pakistan. For 10 months, India had concentrated what was the largest mobilisation of troops since the World War II on our border. We are grateful to the United States, the European Union and Japan which played a role in bringing down the tension. But going by India’s track record, if it had felt that it could have gotten away with it, it would have attacked Pakistan, disregarding all international opinion.

Q: Do you envisage any future role for China in helping to solve the dispute between India and Pakistan?

A: China is a country we trust a great deal. We are happy that it is improving relations with India. We have full confidence in the fact that these relations will never be at the cost of Pakistan. We welcome any Chinese role in trying to bring about a better understanding between Pakistan and India. We have been welcoming in the past international mediation attempts, but India has rejected them.

Q: In the context of the post 9/11, post-Iraq new world order, do you feel there is a need for a change in the theme of Pakistan’s foreign policy which for the past 20 years has centred on Kashmir?

A: We want peace with India, but we want peace with honour. We also want India’s friendship, but not India’s hegemony. Even if any Pakistani government were to think otherwise, the people of Pakistan will not tolerate it. President Musharraf had gone to Agra on the issue of Kashmir. President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee had almost reached an agreement they had even agreed on the text on what would have been an historic declaration. But that was not to be because it was sabotaged by hardline elements in the Indian establishment.

Diplomacy is a question of nuances. We cannot simply announce that we are giving up the Kashmir policy. It can’t be done this way. Whatever we do, it has to be acceptable to the people. Even if Pakistan and India decide to forget Kashmir, Kashmiris would never let this happen. Until 1989, it may have been possible for India and Pakistan to reach a settlement. But since then, so much blood has been shed, the honour of so many women has been violated and so many children have been orphaned that the voice of Kashmir will have to be heard and considered in any long-standing settlement.

If you ask me, the overriding concern or policy theme of the government should be the reduction of poverty and the economic development of Pakistan in particular and of South Asia in general. Any policy that ignores these issues cannot succeed.

If Pakistan has not been able to achieve its objectives and aspirations, neither has India despite it being much larger than Pakistan. India must realize that it cannot realize its potential unless it settles its disputes with Pakistan. If India has paid a price for this, so has Pakistan. For instance, last year direct foreign investment in China amounted to $50 billion. India, which has more or less the same population as China, got only $3 billion while Pakistan only $1 billion. Unless we are able to create an atmosphere of stability in South Asia, the region will become even more backward than it already is.

It is the duty of the leadership in both Pakistan and India to go much beyond adopting cynical and self-serving policies. Therefore, we are for a composite dialogue that would address all issues of concern to both countries. Agra already showed flexibility on both sides because we were both talking about a dialogue and agreed to start a dialogue without formally saying anything other than what we both had been saying in the past on Kashmir. Instead of saying whether we should abandon a particular policy or whether this or that is the right solution to Kashmir, we should simply start a composite dialogue process, which will hopefully create a new paradigm in the sub-continent. Whatever the solution on the Kashmir issue, the aspirations of the people of Kashmir will somehow or the other have to be accommodated.

Q: Don’t you think that in the context of economic development and poverty reduction, Pakistan is in a more disadvantageous position than India?

A: Only the other night I was talking to a senior official of the World Bank about India’s current deficit, which is 11.2 per cent. This means India is now reaching the same position that we were in four to five years ago. This is unsustainable. Last year, India increased its defence expenditure by an amount that is greater than the entire defence expenditure of Pakistan. There is an extremist government in power in India which is ignoring the reality and feels that only the use of military might can achieve its objectives. In the last three years, Pakistan’s defence expenditure was $3 billion and now it is $3.1 billion, whereas India’s defence expenditure in the last three years was $7.1 billion while it is $12 billion now. This is simply unsustainable.

Pakistan will not compete with India in an arms race. But it will maintain a credible deterrence for it cannot remain oblivious of India’s intentions or simply close its eyes to the latter.

Q: Are there any new moves for a resumption of a composite dialogue between Pakistan and India?

A: When I became foreign minister, I repeated the invitation to India’s foreign minister to visit Islamabad for the Saarc conference. Likewise, Prime Minister Jamali also issued the invitation to Prime Minister Vajpayee. We believe in a continuation of the Saarc process and we have tried, as far as we are concerned, to reduce the temperature. But the only thing that the Indians have done was first to sever (travel) links with us and then they threw our diplomats out. We hope, sooner rather than later, other forces in India will exert themselves and try to change India’s current belligerence.

Q: Some people say that India is now talking about the possibility of resumption of some kind of low-level contact, provided (guerrilla) infiltration (in Kashmir) does not jump up soon after the snow melts and if Pakistan were to agree to some kind of trade relations under Saarc. What is your reaction to this?

A: India keeps on making excuses and it keeps on changing these excuses. When India started concentrating its troops on the border, everybody knew that it was related to the elections in Uttar Pradesh. But India denied this. When the government lost the elections in the UP, and the troops were later withdrawn, there was a big debate within the Indian army, the establishment and the media about the need for the troop concentration in the first place.

President Musharraf has given repeated assurances that he would do his best to control infiltration into Indian-held Kashmir. Beyond this we have two options. One is that we could start killing Kashmiris on our side of the LoC who wish to go indiscriminately to the other side, just as the Indians are killing Kashmiris on the other side of the LoC. But this cannot happen and we’ve told the Americans and the Europeans that this will not happen. The better option would be to hand out hope to the Kashmiris that there will be justice for them at the end of the day. This will give us greater manoeuvrability and flexibility in influencing the Kashmiris on our side of the LoC. But the bottomline still is that the aspirations of the people of Kashmir have to be taken into consideration.

Q: The opposition has said in the debate on foreign policy in the National Assembly that Pakistan’s foreign policy is ambiguous, that it is not being formulated by the civilian government and that it is being dictated from elsewhere. Who really makes Pakistan’s foreign policy? How independent is the civilian government in formulating Pakistan’s foreign policy?

A: Let me say without fear of contradiction that the foreign ministers of the major world powers have been consulting me very frequently on the Iraq issue. They would not have wasted their time in this manner if they had felt that our foreign policy was irresponsible or that we were being dictated from the outside. It was because they felt we could play a responsible role that they were constantly interacting with me as the foreign minister of Pakistan.

Wherever the centres of power are, the opinion of the National Assembly, the Pakistani nation and the will of the people definitely cannot be ignored. Even in the recent debate on foreign policy in the National Assembly, there was not much difference in the speeches from the two sides. Everybody was against a war on Iraq. To that extent, there was a consensus.

Q: What do you think is the biggest challenge for Pakistan on the foreign policy front today?

A: The biggest challenge is to somehow bring about a balance on two or three fronts. First, we need to try and create peace and reduce poverty in the South Asian region in general and in Pakistan in particular in the face of belligerence exhibited by the current government in India. Second, we need to restore multilateralism in the interest of international peace, justice and order. Both are big challenges which the government of Pakistan is well aware of and it will resist any effort to steer it away from these objectives.

Dawn Panel included: M.Ziauddin, Raja Asghar, Ihteshamul Haque, Qudssia Akhlaque and Aileen Qaiser