On three parallel tracks

With a rapprochement of sorts in place, Pakistan and India seem to be moving along three parallel tracks. They are consciously attempting to develop a relationship that would stand the shocks of unpleasant developments. It was such an occurrence - the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001 - that brought the two nuclear armed nations to the verge of yet another open conflict.

The near-war of 2001-2002 lasted more than a year and took a heavy economic toll on both countries. The governments in Delhi and Islamabad seem to have concluded that they cannot afford another confrontation of this type. That notwithstanding, there is a high level of probability that some hardliner groups on both sides of the border will make a serious attempt to disrupt the process that was started following the Saarc summit in Islamabad.

A terrorist attack by a Pakistan based group on some place in India cannot be ruled out. Similarly an Ayodhya mosque type incident could occur on the other side of the border, engineered by some elements in the Indian political system for whom friendly relations with Pakistan remain distasteful. It would take resolve from both Islamabad and Delhi to withstand these pressures.

It is heartening that the senior leaders of the BJP have indicated that they will fight the April 2004 national elections on the basis of their party's economic record rather than continuing animosity with Pakistan. Similarly, President Pervez Musharraf's speech to the Pakistani parliament on January 17 was a clear indication that he has set his administration's course towards creating a working relationship with India.

What is the first track on which the Pakistani and Indian teams have begun to move? A knee-jerk reaction to some unpleasant development can be prevented by the adoption of what are rightly called "confidence-building measures." The Indian government appears to have recognized that it is dangerous to completely isolate Pakistan - to build an impenetrable wall between itself and its Muslim neighbour to the north. Isolation breeds suspicion; it also strengthens those forces that have an interest in widening the gulf between the two sides. Regular contacts between the citizens of the two nations would be extremely helpful in moving along the process of reconciliation.

Given the troubled history of the subcontinent, it will take a long time to normalize relations between India and Pakistan. But the process could be hastened by confidence-building measures. They could encompass sporting events between the teams from the two countries; exchange of writers, academics, teachers, and journalists; exchange of books, magazines, newspapers, and journals; visits by musicians, movie stars and special screenings of movies made by the two countries. Such contacts should also help to prevent another "near war."

The second parallel track on which the two countries have launched themselves is to find a solution to the long-enduring Kashmir problem. Pakistan has moved further on this track than India. Shortly before the Saarc summit held in Islamabad in early January, President Musharraf had hinted that Pakistan would no longer insist on a UN supervised plebiscite in Kashmir as mandated by the Security Council resolutions of the late 1940s. This was the basis of Pakistan's position for a long time. Various Pakistani governments had maintained that implementing the UN resolutions was the only way of solving the Kashmir dispute.

In the Islamabad agreement to begin negotiations between the two countries, Pakistan gave, for the first time, a pledge in writing that it will not allow its territory to be used to launch attacks on the Indian occupied Kashmir. This was a long standing demand on India's part; one that had kept it from discussing bilateral issues with the Musharraf government. Finally, Islamabad reiterated that it would honour the commitment made at Simla by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that all India-Pakistan disputes would be tackled and solved through bilateral negotiations.

This is a major concession by Islamabad. On several occasions after Simla, Pakistan had attempted to internationalize the Kashmir dispute by involving a third party as a mediator. There was some hope among Pakistan's policy-makers that after 9/11 Washington may be willing to become such a party. It could play the role of a broker to do a deal between the two long-time antagonists.

Islamabad believed that it was in Washington's interest to play this role since it would get Pakistan's undivided attention as a partner in the war against international terrorism once the Kashmir problem was resolved. Or, if the US was not willing to go alone into this area, it could perhaps do it in the context of the United Nations involvement.

The hard-hitting speech given in September last year by President Musharraf at the opening session of the UN General Assembly was to get that agency's attention focused once again on Kashmir. Musharraf's address provoked an equally strong response from Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister.

What has India offered in return for these Pakistani concessions? For the first time it has recognized that Kashmir was a central element in the uneasy relationship with Pakistan. This recognition suggests some shift away from the long-held Indian position that Kashmir is an integral part of the country and its status is not open to negotiations.

In fact, the Indians have often claimed that any compromise on Kashmir would undermine what historian Anil Khilnani has called the "idea of India." That idea encompasses nation building not on the basis of any form of identify - religious, linguistic, caste, etc. - but on geography, plurality and accommodation.

According to this line of thinking, letting Kashmir leave the Indian union would weaken the "idea" and encourage other fissiparous tendencies to flourish. There are many of those in India and, the argument goes that by providing Kashmir a special treatment Delhi would encourage other groups to demand something similar for themselves.

There is a similar "idea of Pakistan" argument on the Pakistani side. Pakistan, after all, was created as a homeland for the Muslims of British India. By accepting the partition of the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his associates agreed to create Pakistan only in the areas in which the Muslims had a majority. Kashmir was one such area and the logic that had resulted in the partition of India on religious lines should have brought the state into the Pakistani fold. That, of course, did not happen.

The third track is that of regional trade. At the time of the Islamabad summit, the seven Saarc nations agreed to work towards the creation of a Free Trade Zone in South Asia. They set themselves the target of 2007 by which time the South Asian Free Trade Area, or Safta, will come into force, allowing goods and commodities to move freely among the countries in the region.

This is a good move since the trade track holds the greatest promise for bringing about peace in the South Asian subcontinent. There are plenty of examples around the world to suggest that deep animosities among nations can be dissolved once trade begins to move freely.

This happened, of course, in Europe which, after two catastrophic wars in the twentieth century, is now a zone of peace. This also happened in the Mercosur, a trading arrangement among the nations in the southern cone of South America. The countries in this area had fought several wars and they continued to view one another with deep suspicion for a very long time. The birth of Mercosur helped to change this mindset.

In fact, the warming of relations between Argentina and Brazil, the two largest economies, ultimately led to both sides giving up their nuclear ambitions. The same can be said to be true for the North American Free Trade area that has brought Mexico closer to the United States and is likely to stay that way in spite of the uneven progress made by the trading arrangement during its first ten years.

In what way should SAFTA evolve? In working out a plan for its development and evolution how carefully should the founding countries look at the experience of other successful regional trading arrangements? What are the lessons that could be drawn from what has happened in other parts of the world? How much focus should be placed on moving beyond trade to other issues that have stood in the way of regional integration in South Asia? These are important questions and we will take them up in a separate article at a later date.

For the moment, we will return to the subject of rapprochement between India and Pakistan and discuss the very different sets of motives that persuaded the leadership on both sides of the border to begin to think in terms of launching an era of peace in the subcontinent.

Historians of deep conflicts between nations tell us that accommodation can be reached once the motives for doing so begin to coincide. The resolution of the sharp animosity between Germany and France occurred when the two countries recognized that they would gain enormously if they lifted their sights beyond narrow national interests and started to focus, instead, on the economic future of continental Europe. Once that happened, the rest was easy.

However, the further expansion of Europe has become somewhat problematic since there is a clear divergence of motives on the part of the continent's core (France and Germany) and its periphery (countries such as Portugal and Poland). The core would like to see the new institutions of the European Union develop in a way that it gives it greater weight in the arrangement than the periphery, including the ten countries about to be added to the expanded union. The peripheral countries want equality in the contemplated set-up.

Unfortunately, India's and Pakistan's motives are different in seeking come kind of accommodation. Of the many different motives that are propelling the two countries to seek rapprochement, two are compelling. On the Indian side, the ongoing conflict with Pakistan is a major distraction in its quest for global play.

The BJP leaders have begun to recognize that they cannot place India on the global map as a near-superpower for as long as it remains entangled with Pakistan. On this side of the border, President Musharraf has begun to appreciate how big a menace the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi groups has become. The two assassination attempts on him seem to have convinced him to focus on eliminating one of the reasons that provides these groups their raison d'etre. Peace with India would accomplish that.

Could these two motives be aligned in some way that they begin to be seen as a part of a plus-sum game in which neither side loses and both sides gain. That could happen if the building of trade between the countries - rather than solving the Kashmir problem - is placed at the centre of the evolving detente.

Britannia waives the rules

First a note of remembrance: a gentle lady walked gently unto that good night last week. Mrs Meherbanoo Kekobad Marker passed away at the age of 102 years and 5 months. I knew her for half those years, the duration of my friendship with her son Jamsheed, a friendship that has remained on a steady course though our careers took different roads.

Mrs. Marker was a remarkable lady not for the long years she lived but for the manner she lived those long years with a heart big enough to share out her goodness in equal measure to all whose lives she touched. For me, it was a privilege to have known her. In her latter years, she was bed-ridden and she could have been forgiven had she failed to put all the pieces together.

Not a bit. There was a warm smile of recognition as if to say that she was glad to see me and it made me feel special. Dignity is the word that comes to mind. Mrs. Marker had dignity and it is a rare gift when it is combined with compassion. I received nothing but kindness from her and I am thankful for it.

Now to other matters, less gracious and more hard-nosed and I turn not to Iraq but to Zimbabwe where Tony Blair's government is leading the charge to bring about a regime change and getting rid of that no-good Robert Mugabe.

Tony Blair has not yet accused Zimbabwe of having weapons of mass destruction that pose an imminent danger to Britain and there are no plans that we know of that a military invasion is planned but plenty is happening that would qualify as interference in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe by both overt and covert means and which would be considered as an outrage if the shoe had been on the other foot. But the most intriguing of these acts of subversion is the use of cricket!

England is due to tour Zimbabwe later this year and it will be damned if it will do so despite a binding commitment to the ICC. After 9/11 it became fashionable to get out of one's commitments by citing security concerns. The terrorists were hell-bent on targeting cricket teams, at least, that was the perception though why not soccer or Wimbledon or baseball's World Series is anybody's guess. Now a new element has been added - human rights and it is England that is leading the pack.

Mr Des Wilson who is the corporate affairs chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has drawn up a report on the Zimbabwe tour and he says that concerns over Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's human rights record could and should be taken into account when the board decides on January 29 whether to proceed with the November tour.

"Can we tour this country knowing what we do about its stance on human rights and the suffering of its people?" he asks, sanctimoniously, his piety oozing out of every pore of his body. "The safety and security of a touring party can in today's circumstances no longer be the only factor in deciding whether or not to proceed with a controversial tour," he says.

The Zimbabwe Cricket Union chairman, Mr. Peter Chingoka has responded with impeccable logic:" Having honoured our word that we would tour the UK we naturally expect England to reciprocate by touring Zimbabwe. " The ECB stood to lose a lot of money if Zimbabwe had refused to tour England last year in retaliation for England's refusal to play its World Cup 2003 match in Zimbabwe.

But Zimbabwe could have made an even more compelling case for not touring England than Des Wilson has made about human rights. Zimbabwe could have said that an illegal invasion of a sovereign country was a violation of international law. That the reasons given for this war turned out to be a tissue of lies.

That the evidence of weapons of mass destruction had been fabricated, that there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that Iraq had no hand, open or hidden in 9/11. That in pursuit of the war in Iraq, human rights of Iraqis are being violated apart from thousands of them being killed. Saddam Hussain was a horrible man, so too, probably, is Robert Mugabe. Is Tony Blair a saint? When we invoke a moral argument, we must make sure that our own hands are clean.

If democracy works at all, it is in Britain. There were massive anti-war protests, proof that the government was out of sync with the instincts of the people. Britain knows something about war. Its cities were blitzed during World War-2 as it awaited a German invasion. It was rallied by Winston Churchill but it was business as usual in the House of Commons and Churchill was not spared the barbs of Nye Bevan and when the general elections came around, the British people decided to vote in Labour and boot Churchill out. The British did not practise democracy in their colonies but at home it was never made hostage to real or imagined security threats.

There is now danger that Britain too wants to get into the regime-change business but to use cricket is a bridge too low. Once politicians start making the rule in sports, start laying down pre-conditions, we can wave good-bye to international sport including the soccer World Cup and the Olympic Games. By the logic of Mr. Des Wilson, almost all the countries should be disqualified.

It would be best that Britain's quarrel with Robert Mugable not be allowed to damage the cricket world and if England does not want to tour Zimbabwe, let it not but spare us the moral humbug. Even Australia is not too impressed with the moral argument. It prefers the catch-all security concerns. But it did play in Zimbabwe in the World Cup 2003 and is now hosting Zimbabwe in the on-going triangular cricket series. England should play cricket and not play moral policeman.

A campaign for non-violence

According to a recent poll on the Geneva Accord, one finds that "53 per cent of the Israelis and almost 56 per cent of the Palestinians support it" (Haaretz Daily). This clearly indicates a strong desire from both sides for a resolution which will end the on-going conflict.

Unfortunately, one does not come across such reports often because they are not deemed media-worthy. Images of violent acts by Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli soldiers are more eye-catching and controversial. Since the media portrays a predominantly negative image of the conflict, there appears to be no alternate option except violence.

Therefore, expressions like 'non-violent protest' within the Israeli-occupied territories seem out of place. While Israelis and Palestinians practise non-violent solutions, the media focuses mainly on their violence, which intensifies group polarization. The media plays a significant role in forming and, later, swaying public opinion.

The Palestinians first tried the option of non-violence in 1983 when an American-educated Palestinian named Mubarak Awad returned to Jerusalem. Awad, with his doctorate in counselling, he began an experimental non-violent movement in the first Palestinian intifada. The intifada is the Palestinian uprising that began in 1987 against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Awad, now the founder and director of the organizations 'Non-violence International' and 'Palestinian centre for the Study of Non-violence' writes:

It is important for Palestinians to focus on non-violent struggle. Large masses of Israelis, who truly yearn for a just peace, can be enlisted in this non-violent struggle against occupation and settlements, whereas there is almost no chance of enlisting them in any armed Palestinian activity. Palestinians will choose non-violence only if they are convinced of its efficacy. The Israelis know well how to fight an armed antagonist, but they have little understanding of how to deal with massive non-violent resistance. They expect and, in fact, need the Palestinians to be either submissive or violent.

Currently, both Israelis and Palestinians prefer the non-violent option. A poll conducted by the American nonprofit group 'Search for Common Ground' shows that "72 per cent of Palestinians are willing to embrace non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation".

Similarly, "72 per cent of Israeli Jews would accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders."Another Palestinian peace activist, Ghazi Briegieth, recently gave a tour with the organization 'Israeli-Palestinian Bereaved Forum for Peace'. Bregieth has experienced personal loss because of the conflict: Israeli soldiers killed two of his brothers.

The organization, he joined, however, advocates the slogan "No to revenge. Turn the other cheek. Peace over pain." The organization also encourages striking actions and for people to donate blood to 'enemy' victims. They want to initiate a dialogue between the two sides and have sponsored a telephone hotline so people can "Stop Killing and Start Talking."

The non-violent protest is, by no means, one-sided. There are impressive demonstrations of non-violent protest by former Israeli military conscripts and reservists who have first hand experience in the occupied territories. Moti Kimtel is one example of such a soldier, who now instructs Palestinians about farming techniques.

Ironically, he returned to help the very people whom he patrolled in the Gaza Strip merely three years earlier. Mr Kimtel commented on this change, "I don't have the answers to all of Israel's problems, but I was in the occupied territories as a soldier and now I am here as an activist. It feels like I am doing much more good here as an activist."

Another surprising action taken by Israeli soldiers was when they filed a petition to Israel's high court on September 30, 2003. Yesh Gvul, a movement of soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories, filed the petition demanding the Israeli High Court to investigate the air strike in the Gaza Strip last year which killed "fifteen Palestinians... including 12 civilians, nine of them children, when an Israeli F-16 fighter jet dropped a one-ton bomb on a residential building in Gaza City."

Defying military orders is extremely difficult; the fact that part of the younger generation does this is highly commendable. An example of this is a young Israeli, 21 years of age, who refuses to serve. He had to serve a jail sentence for his refusal to serve, yet after his jail sentence, Ariel joined "Ta'ayush (Arabic for "life in common")" which is a peace organization. Currently, he camps in front of a Palestinian village to defend it from being bulldozed.

It is not just Israeli soldiers, but also religious clergy who are resorting to non-violence. The rabbis from the peace group called Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) demonstrate this through their efforts. These rabbis put their lives at stake to defend Palestinian lives.

In fact, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, executive director of RHR, uses religion to justify his defence of Palestinian civilians. He feels "anger and embarrassment towards the settlers" when he sees them, for they believe that "their Torah tells them to vandalize land and abuse Palestinian people."

In an incident that took place on November 24, 2003, the rabbis "went to show solidarity with Palestinian villagers who were preparing to harvest their olives in a few weeks." Five armed settlers confronted them, "shouting at [them], throwing insults, kicking [them] and throwing stones."

The most unfortunate part about this incident is that the armed settlers comprised young Israelis; this indicates that "the first wave of settlers have brought their children up to hate." People such as Rabbi Ascherman, however, offer hope with their means of constructive protest against unjust laws.

Rabbi Arik Aschermans speaks out in another article, sharing his accounts of what he feels people's views are in Israel. He finds most Israeli secular in their beliefs. They believe in the genesis that, "all human beings are created equal in God's image" and, therefore, cannot practise discrimination against Palestinians.

The olive branch has become symbolic as this conflict continues. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, pleaded with the international community, "I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand." Non-violence is something to which a significant number of Palestinians and Israelis are turning because it seems much more logical than the violent means that are clearly not working.

It is obviously the more difficult alternative and requires much patience because the results are not immediately realized. Writer Louisa Morgantini makes a powerful comment regarding this: "I think that the Palestinian people are a miracle. I don't understand how they can continue to resist such aggression - how do they not explode." The same applies to Israeli settlers and former soldiers who continue to show solidarity by engaging in non-violent protest, wishing always for the turmoil to end.

E-mail: lion86125@hotmail.com