[sacw] [ACT] sacw dispatch (29 October 00)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web - Dispatch
29 Feb 2000
__________________________________________
#1. Vajpayee's new nuclear face
#2. India Veering away from dialogue
#3. A Lahore actress faces a treason charge over 
an alleged song for Zee TV praising India
__________________________________________

#1.
DAWN
28 February 2000

Vajpayee's new nuclear face

By M.B. Naqvi

THE Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, went on record the
other day as saying that "if (Pakistan) thinks we're going to wait for
it to launch first (nuclear) bomb, it is wrong. If Pakistan wants to
avoid a nuclear holocaust, it should accept our proposal for a mutual
pact against nuclear aggression." India now affirms the intent to make
a pre-emptive strike. It is a substantive statement and its import in
the context of the heightening tensions between the two countries is
unmistakable. 

It is obvious that Mr Vajpayee has punched a hole in India's presumed
nuclear doctrine, based on, or in continuation of, its draft doctrine's
professed emphasis on deterrence of August last year. The latter
document however stands superseded, if not wholly rendered irrelevant,
by the new doctrine adumbrated by the Indian PM. It renders void of
meaning or relevance all the wonderful verbiage about the doctrine of
nuclear deterrence being a factor of peace and security. The
implications of Mr Vajpayee's doctrine need to be examined. 

The first thought that occurs is that Mr Vajpayee is busy upping the
ante at a furious pace; the Indian government's campaign to raise the
political temperature in the subcontinent is relentless. Why is New
Delhi doing it? Some in Pakistan have suggested that he is dissuading
US President Bill Clinton from visiting Pakistan. A few commentators
think that this is in response to the increased tempo of insurgency in
Kashmir; the idea seems to be to browbeat and overawe Pakistan on the
assumption that it is Pakistan that is stoking the fires of the
uprising in the valley. 

Still others note the current domestic circumstances of India,
especially the electioneering that was going on then in four states.
The BJP would seem to think that bravely beating war drums against
Islamic Pakistan would garner more votes for it and for its allies. The
exact motivation behind these Vajpayee remarks will however not remain
relevant for long while their substance will. 

The first implication is that the Indian prime minister has formally
admitted that his nuclear forces may be pre-emptively used. The concept
of deterrence has been shown to be an illusion and was at best a useful
talking point. It is obvious that India no longer relies on the
deterring quality of its so-called (nuclear) deterrent, minimal or not.
It shows readiness to anticipate a Pakistani strike, because Islamabad
professedly relies on reserving the right to first strike at a time and
place of its choosing. This first-use threat was in contrast to India's
doctrine of 'no first use' - both of which replicated respectively the
old Western and Soviet doctrines of the cold war vintage. 

Mr Vajpayee has formally reneged on the pledge, repeated ad nauseam,
that India will not be the first to nuke anyone. It is true that many
had always doubted that the doctrine of no-first-use will actually
work. But there was, it is to be conceded, a certain plausibility in
that position: after all, India enjoyed a clear superiority in
conventional armaments against Pakistan and the idea of not making the
first nuclear strike made sense. Mr Vajpayee has now thrown all that
out of the window. 

The resulting position is that the top military commanders of India and
Pakistan are simultaneously saying to each other: 'I will shoot first.'
Since it is the nuclear gun they are talking about, that makes all of
South Asia hostage to the side that will actually launch the
nuclear-tipped missile first. The people of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and
Nepal and even Bhutan and Maldives run the risk of receiving
radioactive fallout and possible damage to the region's ecology - for
no fault of theirs. 

The relationship between India and Pakistan is loaded with tension
these days. Their mutual hostility is growing at an alarming rate.
India has indicated an increase in its defence budget by 15 to 20 per
cent in the year 2000-01. Many will wonder whether this is calculated
to evoke a certain Pakistani response rather than in pursuance of its
own plans for expansion. Could it be that Indians are borrowing from
Ronald Reagan's stratagem of forcing the Soviet Union to bankrupt
itself in trying to match the American Star War ploy? 

It is remarkable that both sides in fact are ignoring the moral
dimension of nuclear weapons. The threats being hurled at each other
show that they regard the nuclear weapons as not much more than
ordinary weapons, only a trifle more destructive! But their
fearsomeness seems to have made them more tantalizing, even bewitching.
Neither side seems to believe in the view that a nuclear exchange would
involve the kind of destruction that is not acceptable to any sane and
civilized society. The nonchalance being shown by both governments
about that devastations is breath-taking in its irresponsibility. It is
scarcely possible that politicians elsewhere can match the callousness
of the subcontinental variety. 

The politics of competitive threats needs a bit of attention from the
hapless citizens who will have to bear the real brunt of their
respective government's blithe unconcern about the wholly unacceptable
damage that will result from a nuclear exchange. Expecting the
politicians to avoid a nuclear conflict is futile, for that can only
intensify the cold war. All these verbal fire works are making the
likelihood of a nuclear exchange - and thus a holocaust - more Likely.
It is raising political and military tensions to a level which can
touch off actual hostilities. Ordinary citizens have to come forward to
douse the political fires raging along India-Pakistan frontiers. 

Among the recognized nuclear powers, India and Pakistan have the
distinction of possessing no worthwhile peace movement. True, some
saplings are coming up. But the governments and the electronic media in
both countries, in the name of patriotism, are engaged in breathing
fire with a section of the print media being the solitary exception. 

It is remarkable how soon the governments and security thinkers have
forgotten what they were saying and stressing until some time ago. The
ease with which Mr Vajpayee has thrown away all the voluminous work of
Indian thinkers about nuclear weapons being a guarantee for peace and
how sweetly did they not argue with their Pakistani counterparts to go
ahead and test their nuclear devices. They had promised Pakistan a
harvest of prestige and a guarantee of peace because nuclear weapons on
both sides will balance each other: and there will be no war. 

The nuclear weapons were also hoisted up as the currency of power. One
ignores the Indians' earlier deliberate attempts at leading Pakistanis
up the garden path for avoiding the opprobrium that did come their way
when they tested five nuclear devices in early May 1998. It was clear
that the Indians were then planning their tests and wanted Pakistan to
provide them with a fig-leaf of justification by detonating its device
first. For once, Pakistan wisely held its hand and wanted the Indians
to show their hand first. But then they chose, perhaps for macho
reasons, to equal, indeed better, the Indian 'achievement' of 11-13 May
1998. 

At least some of us should ask the two governments about the benefits
that were promised by security experts in terms of greater respect and
influence, not to mention the enhancement of security itself from
nuclear weapons that both countries possess these deadly toys. 

Is India more secure today than it was in 1997? Is India more
influential than in the 1950s when its military strength was a fraction
of what it is today? In so far as can be ascertained, Pakistan is
surely less secure today than it was three years ago, no matter what
the experts say. Or else we would not be worrying about the absence of
countervailing influences or making and promoting peace because
governments know no other initiatives coming into play and persuading
both governments not to seek a solution of their disputes by military
means which could trigger a nuclear conflict. 

Should not there be accountability of security thinkers for promising
stable peace and increased security by the possession of nuclear
deterrents? Because look at what has in fact been the result:
unimaginable threats to the security of each country. The prospects
include a nuclear holocaust, not to mention political and economic
costs of an unending cold war, arms race and so on. How wrong can one
get? 

Does anyone remember the propositions that used to be treated as
requiring no argumentation: wide devastation caused by atomic bombs
will render the old ideas of victory and defeat irrelevant. The very
thought of using these monstrous weapons was horrifying. Now those who
daily threaten the use of their atomic weapons are obviously intent on
causing that kind of havoc in the enemy country, fully knowing that
similar damage will be caused in one's own country. 

This could not be said of the leaders of NATO and the Warsaw Pact: they
did not indulge in daily threats against each other and left such
matters to security officials. Ordinarily people everywhere, thanks to
global stakes, regarded the mega-destruction of thermonuclear weapons a
distant threat, almost theoretical, rather than an actual possibility. 

_______________

#2.
DAWN
24 February 2000 

Veering away from dialogue 

By Dr Maqbool Ahmad Bhatty

HAVING got past the anniversary of the last summit held between the 
leaders of India and Pakistan at Lahore, one cannot help being 
struck by the transformation of the political environment in the 
subcontinent. That meeting had led to the signing of a number of 
agreements reflecting the shared desire of the two countries to 
resolve outstanding issues peacefully, so that they could achieve a 
relationship conducive to durable peace and mutually beneficial 
cooperation between them. Though it arose out of the initiative of 
two persons, one of whom is no longer in office, the need to 
maintain a dialogue has not disappeared. However, New Delhi has 
obviously decided that confrontation rather than conciliation with 
Pakistan will serve its interests better. 

Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, who had represented the image of 
moderation and relished the role of "nice guy" within the Hindu 
extremist BJP leadership, now competes with hardliners such as 
L.K.Advani in hurling threats at Pakistan. His public rejection of 
the two-nation theory, and of the very basis on which the 
subcontinent was divided is a far cry from his visit to the 
Minar-i-Pakistan on February 21, 1999, when he proclaimed his 
acceptance of the Pakistan resolution at the very spot where it was 
adopted. 

India's army chief as well as defence minister propound the concept 
of limited conventional war which may be resorted to in order to 
destroy the bases from which the "militants" come into Indian-held 
Kashmir.Such a limited conflict is conceived as enabling the vastly 
superior Indian conventional armed forces to humble the smaller 
Pakistan armed forces once and for all, forcing their country to 
yield the part of Kashmir under its occupation. Mr. Vajpayee has 
sought to counter the possible resort to nuclear weapons by Pakistan 
by proclaiming that India would hit back with superior nuclear 
weapons that would virtually destroy Pakistan. 

This is bellicose talk indeed, which Mr. Vajpayee knows is popular 
in the situation of war hysteria created after Kargil. This attitude 
was also manifest at the independence day celebrations on January 
26. Operation "Vijay", the Indian name for the Kargil conflict, was 
glorified, and Pakistan's "perfidy" after the Lahore dialogue was 
highlighted. Many foreign analysts view the repeated references to 
the inevitability of limited war with Pakistan as psychological 
preparation so that public opinion is ready for the war option, in 
case the government decides to go for it. 

Since Kargil, which was a manifestation of the indigenous movement 
by the people of Kashmir to secure their right of 
self-determination, further developments have had the effect of 
heightening tensions between the two neighbours. The military 
takeover in Pakistan on October 12, 1999, happened to coincide with 
the day Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee was sworn in as prime minister, 
following the victory of his BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. 

General Musharraf, the head of the military government in Pakistan, 
announced his intention of resuming the Lahore Process with India in 
his very first address to the nation on October 17. He also took the 
decision to withdraw the additional forces that had been sent to the 
international border with India, as a result of the Kargil episode. 
However, India has not taken kindly to the military regime, as 
General Musharraf is viewed as a hawk who was behind the Kargil 
episode. 

The hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane in December 1999, which 
culminated in the release of three Muslim militants from Indian 
jails, has further embittered feelings, since public opinion in 
India considers that Pakistan was involved, even though no clear-cut 
proof has been cited. India's policy of attributing the ongoing 
struggle by Kashmiri freedom fighters for their rights to incitement 
and assistance by "Jehadist" organizations in Pakistan has received 
powerful support from current US concerns over resort to terrorism 
by groups hostile to the US. In this connection, the US 
preoccupation with the presence in Afghanistan of Saudi dissident 
Osama bin Laden, who is accused of masterminding terrorist incidents 
against US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salam in 1998, has proved 
handy for hawks in India. An apparent convergence of perceptions 
between New Delhi and Washington on the threat from terrorism has 
led to an agreement between them to consult with each other in 
counter-terrorist strategies in the region. 

The intensification of the tempo of activity by the Kashmiri freedom 
fighters in the face of increased Indian repression has led to 
further expansion of Indian military presence in the state 
accompanied by an intensification of propaganda against cross-border 
terrorism from Pakistan. Instead of paying heed to heightened 
international concern over the unresolved Kashmir issue, for which a 
dialogue offers the best response, India has apparently opted for 
force and repression. This choice reflects the realization that any 
democratic solution would result in the loss of the territory India 
has been occupying by force for over 50 years. 

India's trigger-happy approach, which seems to come naturally to the 
Hindu extremist leadership of the BJP government, finds expression 
in the heightened tempo of repression in Kashmir, where nearly all 
leaders of the All Parties Hurriyet Conference have been 
incarcerated in inhuman conditions. The Indians appeared to have 
convinced themselves that as their linkage of the Kashmiri struggle 
to "terrorism" by Jehadist organizations outside has been virtually 
accepted, they can get away with the worst human rights violations. 

Indeed, they feel encouraged to seek the branding of Pakistan as a 
"terrorist state". They have stepped up a propaganda campaign on 
these issues ahead of the visit of President Clinton to the region, 
and are jubilant that Washington's disapproval of the military 
regime in Pakistan led Clinton to exclude their arch rival from his 
itinerary. All these factors are being presented together to create 
the impression that a militarily inferior adversary is also 
suffering from diplomatic isolation, compounded by a near-bankrupt 
economy. This has led to the adoption of an arrogant stance towards 
Pakistan, and an impression is being fostered that despite its 
nuclear deterrent, Pakistan is now highly vulnerable, especially in 
the context of the supposed Indo-US nexus against terrorism in the 
region. 

War-like statements being made by India in this situation have 
shifted the focus of international diplomatic efforts from promoting 
dialogue to preventing conflict. Washington appears to have 
recognized the nature and purpose of the current Indian campaign to 
isolate and pressure Pakistan, through their dialogue with the 
Pakistani interlocutors in Islamabad and Washington. The US is also 
realizing that the focus on "Islamic fundamentalism" as the source 
of terrorism has the potential of pitting it against the Islamic 
world, extending from Morocco to Indonesia. 

Several steps have been taken to clarify the US stance on major 
issues affecting South Asia. A spokesman of the State Department 
stated categorically on February 7 that the US did not see Kashmir 
as a terrorist issue. Such a statement was clearly necessary in view 
of the recognized status of Kashmir as a dispute of long standing on 
which there were resolutions of the UN, and which was again 
mentioned specifically in the Security Council Resolution 1172, 
passed in June 1998 following the nuclear tests by India and 
Pakistan. The US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also 
dispelled the impression that some kind of all-embracing accord had 
been reached between Washington and New Delhi, by stating publicly 
that there were many issues on which the US did not share Indian 
perceptions. 

It may be further recalled that whereas Deputy Secretary of State 
Strobe Talbott was reported to have tacitly recognized India's right 
to have a nuclear deterrent in the light of its security 
perceptions, Ambassador John Holum, Senior Adviser to the President 
and Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 
reiterated the US goal of a nuclear-free South Asia, for which 
Washington would persist in efforts to prevent weaponization and 
deployment of nuclear weapons in the region. Thus, key US goals on 
non-proliferation and disarmament have not changed. 

The Indian Foreign Secretary, Lalit Mansingh, has recently returned 
from a visit to Washington, where he went to discuss the parameters 
of discussions during Clinton's visit to India. He met senior State 
Department officials as well as National Security Adviser to the 
President, Sandy Berger. Since his return, he has been stressing 
that there is going to be a "strategic partnership" between India 
and the US. While in Washington, he reportedly tried to have Kashmir 
excluded from the dialogue during the Clinton visit, he was told 
that Kashmir would be included among the issues. Mansingh also 
downplayed the Albright statements, emphasizing that the focus would 
be on the new relationship, and not on "transient" issues. 

To counter the Indian campaign to isolate Pakistan, General Pervez 
Musharraf has also taken initiatives, designed to show that Pakistan 
is mindful of US concerns. He is particularly anxious to establish 
that the Kashmir struggle is not connected with any anti-US 
activity. Maulana Masood Azhar of the Harkatul Mujahideen has been 
taken into custody, and anti-US rhetoric is being discouraged. The 
Chief Executive plans to visit Afghanistan, to achieve some progress 
on the Osama issue, and the Taliban themselves have shown 
sensitivity to US concerns over his alleged involvement in anti-US 
terrorism, one option being for him to face a court of law in any 
"acceptable" country. 

These steps are expected to help Clinton take a positive decision on 
including Pakistan in his South Asian itinerary. Indeed, both 
officials and lawmakers in Washington have stated that Clinton's 
visit to South Asia cannot make the desired impact on key issues in 
the region unless he visits Pakistan as well. Kashmir has to be 
brought up with both India and Pakistan, and the nuclear issue also 
involves both countries. Pakistan is the key country so far as 
Afghanistan is concerned, and US concerns on terrorism also require 
constant contact with Islamabad. 

The threats and sabre-rattling from the BJP leadership in response 
to the continuing struggle in Kashmir, notably the recurring theme 
of a "limited war," appear to be predicated on the new found 
convergence with the US on "terrorism" which is allegedly being 
practised by Jehadi organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 
Indian chauvinists conceive of this supposed nexus with the US as 
providing them with the opportunity to inflict decisive blows on 
Pakistan's armed forces, and thus achieve their goals that range 
from "reoccupation" of Azad Kashmir to the ending of partition. 

Right now, with nearly half its army committed to the suppression of 
the freedom struggle in Kashmir, India is hardly in a position to 
undertake such a venture. Pakistan's nuclear deterrent is also a 
fact of life which India cannot ignore. However, war-mongering does 
create a scare that serves the Indian aim of weakening Pakistan by 
discouraging foreign investment in it. 

Since Kargil, India has sought to place the responsibility for 
creating an environment conducive to the resumption of dialogue on 
Pakistan. Yet it is India's arrogant attitude, and its resort to 
sabre-rattling that have created a situation in which the focus has 
shifted from dialogue to conflict avoidance. The situation demands 
more active diplomacy, on the one hand, and readiness to face any 
military adventure by India, on the other. The recent trial firing 
of the Hatf I missile was as relevant to safeguarding our security 
as greater efforts to present the realities and challenges on the 
ground to the world, with special emphasis on India's state 
terrorism in Kashmir. 

It is India's genocidal strategy in Kashmir that is at the root of 
the armed struggle there. The real answer is to hold a dialogue to 
achieve a negotiated settlement that would usher in peace and 
stability and promote cooperation and progress in the subcontinent. 
President Clinton, who has repeatedly mentioned his intention to 
help resolve this dispute, would have to go beyond a proforma 
reference to Kashmir during his visit to the region if South Asia is 
to have durable peace. 
_______________
#3.
Outlook
March 6, 2000

Jailhouse Rock
A Lollywood actress faces a treason charge over 
an alleged song for Zee TV praising India

Sing a song and go to Sing Sing. Or the 
Pakistani equivalent of it. That seems to be the 
case with Reema, the reigning queen of 
Lollywood, Bollywood's across-the-border 
counterpart.
Reema faces trial in a treason case for singing 
"Dil dil Pakistan, Jaan jaan Hindustan" 
(Pakistan is my heart and India is my life) as a 
guest on Zee TV's musical programme Antakshari. 
And that too, at a time when relations between 
the two countries had hit a new low. If 
convicted, Reema-known for her sexy roles in 
Pakistani films-could face a jail term or even 
death. 
But the actress remains unfazed. "There is 
nothing that they can go on," she says 
dismissively. "Of course, I will. I am a Pathan 
girl and am not cowed down when I know I have 
done nothing wrong," she retorts when asked 
whether she would again appear on an Indian 
TV programme. 
But "traitor" is the word the Pakistani media 
immediately employed to describe the country's 
leading actress. Reema has been denying the 
charge all along, describing it as a grand 
conspiracy to ruin her career. Not all agree. 
"While in India, these artistes tend to say 
things against the two-nation theory," 
editorialised the conservative newspaper, 
Nawa-i-Waqt.
A private citizen filed the charge after she 
sang the song at a musical programme recorded in 
New York last year. It was an altered version of 
a song entitled Dil dil Pakistan, Jaan jaan 
Pakistan, sung by Junoon, a Pakistani pop group, 
several years ago.
What got complainant Ameer Hussain Hashmi's goat 
was that Reema's version was aired by Zee, an 
Indian channel, at a time when tensions between 
the two nations were peaking in the wake of the 
Christmas-eve hijacking of an Indian airliner. 
Apart from Reema, Hashmi-a self-claimed social 
worker from Lahore-has named actress Atiqa Adho 
and singer Sajjad Ali. He has accused them of 
violating the sanctity of the country by singing 
a song that favoured India, the "enemy" country. 
The complainant based his case on a report in an 
Urdu paper. While filing the case, the 
complainant had presumed that the showbiz 
personalities had sung the objectionable song in 
Antakshari.
The Antakshari episode, recorded for the new 
millennium, was perhaps the most eagerly awaited 
Zee TV telecast in Pakistan. But it did not 
include the controversial song. This, however, 
could not end the controversy. The next day, 
papers reported in detail how Reema, through a 
billionaire friend in Dubai, succeeded in 
getting the song that could have ended her 
career edited out.
"I am a Pathan girl and will not be cowed down 
when I know that I have done nothing wrong," 
says Reema.
"How naive it is to believe that I managed to 
get the song erased. I can't get a song included 
or omitted at PTV, much less Zee TV," says 
Reema. She adds: "Just think: can an Indian 
actor or singer sing "Phir bhi dil hai 
Pakistani" in a Pakistani programme and expect 
to go back to his/her country in one piece? No, 
we showbiz people are not so cut off from 
reality."
The other co-accused, Sajjad Ali and Atiqa, also 
deny improvising the song. "Pakistani artistes 
visiting India or appearing in an Indian 
programme know fully well that every word they 
say and every move they make is being watched 
closely back at home. So, they're overcautious. 
Especially after Junoon was banned on PTV a 
couple of years back for condemning borders 
between India and Pakistan," Ali told Outlook.
For the whole duration of the proceedings of the 
case, Atiqa has stayed away from the hearings as 
she is settled abroad, and the court has failed 
to find the address of the famous pop singer 
from Karachi, Sajjad Ali. Under these 
circumstances, Reema appears to be the only 
person currently in focus and facing the music 
here. 
Amir Mir in Lahore