[sacw] sacw dispatch #2 (7 June 00)

Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:39:14 +0200

South Asia Citizens Web - Dispatch #2.
7 June 2000

------------------------------------------

#1. The Relationship Between India & Pakistan
#2. India: Low-cost temples for low caste people?
#3. US/India: Narmada Alert - Demo in NYC against Ogden Corporation
#4. Pakistan: Greens battle oil TNCs in nature reserve

__________________________

#1.

CNN International: Insight
June 1, 2000

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

by Jonathan Mann

Home to one fifth of the world's people and the world's newest nuclear
arsenal, India and Pakistan share a common border that's been one of the
hottest flashpoints in South Asia. In this special edition, we talk with
Pakistan 's Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf and India 's Foreign Minister
Jaswant Singh.

JONATHAN MANN, INSIGHT (voice-over): Two nations' tragedy-India and
Pakistan . Both have nuclear weapons. Both say they want peace. And both
want Kashmir.

(on camera): Hello, and welcome.

At least 16 people were killed over the last two days in fighting in India
's Jammu and Kashmir state, the latest casualties in a war for autonomy
that has dragged on for years. India accuses Pakistan of supporting the
guerrillas. Pakistan accuses India of repression that fuels the guerrilla
movement. And the two sides haven't spoken directly for months.

Wednesday, they did speak to us, with appearances by satellite at the CNN
World Report Contributors Conference. General Pervez Musharraf, chief
executive of Pakistan , and Jaswant Singh, foreign minister of India ,
discussing Kashmir and the new nuclear arsenals that make the long-running
conflict such a potentially explosive one now.

We're going to hear extensive portions of their remarks in the minutes
ahead. On our program today-two countries with more than just a border
divided.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The long-simmering dispute between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir flared again last year, when Muslim guerrillas backed, New Delhi
says, by Pakistan occupied positions inside the Indian line of control. As
the fighting around Cargill (ph) escalated to higher levels, relations
between India and Pakistan hit new and more dangerous lows.

In 1998, only a year before the most recent fighting, both countries
conducted nuclear tests. They were India 's first tests in decades. They
also signaled Pakistan 's debut as the world's newest nuclear power.
Though the tests were greeted by jubilation in both capitals, the
international community quickly imposed sanctions.

The revelation that both sides now possessed nuclear weapons dramatically
raised the stakes in the conflict over Kashmir. Ultimately, after the
death of hundreds on both sides, the militants were driven out or
withdrew, depending on which side is to be believed. There is no dispute,
however, that the fighting in Cargill further damaged the credibility of
Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Before the end of the year, after attempting sweeping changes in Pakistan
's power structure, Sharif was overthrown and arrested in a military coup.
General Pervez Musharraf now rules the country as its self-proclaimed
chief executive. He's promised to respect a court ruling calling for a
gradual return to democracy within three years.

New Delhi has expressed concern over the change at the top in Pakistan ,
which saw the country's democratically elected prime minister replaced by
its military leader. General Musharraf is calling for a dialogue with
India to resolve the question of Kashmir, which has already been the
flashpoint of two wars between the two countries.

The United States has leveled sanctions against both countries, but it is
still trying to play the role of peacemaker. President Bill Clinton was
welcomed with euphoria during his visit to India in March. Despite the
objections of many inside and outside the United States, Mr. Clinton also
made a stopover in Pakistan .

Still, no formal talks have taken place between the two countries since
the latest fighting in Kashmir. And there's little sign the situation will
change any time soon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MANN: The issues are complex, but when discussing the conflict between
Pakistan and India , two central themes arise-Kashmir, which we'll hear
more about in a moment, and nuclear weapons. When we talked with General
Musharraf of Pakistan and India 's foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, they
were asked about the decision by each country to test nuclear weapons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUESTION: If we turned the clock backwards, you are giving the chance to
make a choice again, will you go ahead and conduct the nuclear test back
in 1998? Thank you.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Well, here, it was India
which conducted the nuclear tests first. In fact, they conducted a nuclear
test as far back as 1974 calling it a peaceful test. I really fail to
understand how a nuclear test is-a nuclear test is a nuclear test. I don't
know how it's a peaceful test and a (INAUDIBLE) test or whatever.

So they tested first, and we responded. And if at all they were to test
-if I was to go back in '98, 1998, I'm sure the response of the entire
nation and myself would be the same.

QUESTION: Do you have any regrets on detonating the nuclear tests which
sparked the current tension, looking back on it with hindsight?
Militarily, was it necessary? Has it added anything to the peace and
security of India or the region as a whole? Thank you.

JASWANT SINGH, INDIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: If India regrets that and has it
added to the peace and security, that question itself is one of an
oversimplification. Repeatedly, India has made it clear that our nuclear
program is neither country nor threat specific. It was intended to enhance
India 's strategic space and autonomy. That has certainly been achieved.
There are no regrets on that count.

MANN: Our next question.

QUESTION: Mohammed Rachid (ph) from Egyptian Radio and Television Union.
I'm afraid my question is a repetition of my bravest colleague. Both India
and Pakistan are classified as developing or underdeveloping countries.
And beside the dispute on borders, last year you are now racing on nuclear
weapons. What is the effect of this race on the plans to raise the standard
of living of your people on both countries?

SINGH: Now, I do not know, and I cannot speak for Pakistan . But so far as
the economic progress in India , permit me to point out that in the last
year alone, India has demonstrated a 6 percent growth of its GDP, which I
do believe, without sounding boastful, is amongst the highest in
developing world. It matches the GDP growth, I believe, of a great many of
the developed world.

We have maintained a stable currency. Our inflation rate has been in
single figures, moving between 2 percent and 4 percent. We have a very
comfortable stock of reserves. Our industrial production has gone up. Our
exports have gone up. There is by and large in India a feel-good factor.
There is a small-scale and medium-scale industries flowering. We have a
difficulty with rainfall in some parts of India , but we have managed it
entirely on our own to meet that challenge.

So if you were to infer that any of our programs is at the cost of our
social obligations, please disabuse yourself of that thought.

MANN: General, if you'll permit me, I'd like to ask you another question
about a domestic concern-a bread and butter issue, quite literally. You're
talking about the changes that you're instituting. If press accounts are
to be believed, most of your country's shops are closed right now and have
been since Saturday as part of a revolt against your plans to try to force
businesses and citizens in Pakistan to actually pay their taxes.

How many people in Pakistan actually do pay their taxes now, and how hard
are you going to push to force the rest of them to do them?

MUSHARRAF: Economic revival happens to be at the top of my agenda. I've
made it very clear. Pakistan needs economic revival first and foremost,
and I'm going very strongly into that. And I have identified the areas
where we need economic revival. We have debt burden, tremendous debt
burden. But there are burdens which needs to be retired. I'm not going to
talk about it.

But the second issue is the issue of fiscal deficit. Every year, we are
spending far more than we are earning. Therefore, we need to increase our
earnings, and that is why in this context, we have gone into survey and
documentation of the economy. Only 1.2 million people out of 120 million
people are paying taxes of any kind in Pakistan .

It is here that we have the answer to our economic revival plan. We have
to turn around the budget in that removing the budget deficit can only be
done if we carry out this survey and documentation of the economy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MANN: General Musharraf.

We have to take a break. But when we come back-more on the contest for
Kashmir. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MANN: Welcome back.

General Musharraf is a career soldier who describes himself as a man of
peace. Peace between India and Pakistan , he says, has at its core a
resolution on Kashmir. Let's listen to more remarks.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MUSHARRAF: I am trying to say that I am prepared to go anywhere, travel
anywhere and meet the Indian leadership at any time to start the dialogue,
to reduce tension, to bring permanent peace into this region.

QUESTION: India is neither honoring the United Nations resolutions
regarding the Kashmir, nor it's ready for mediation. And now he is not
even welcoming the categorical offer of General Musharraf to come on
table. I ask what you are up to?

SINGH: No, you don't want to ask that (INAUDIBLE). Of course we know that
General Musharraf, and he's done it on a number of occasions, I did not
have the benefit of watching him on television, certainly on this evening,
although I don't think I have had the benefit of watching over television
on many earlier occasions. But about his offer of talking, yes, we have. He
has repeated it a number of times.

And we have also made known our viewpoint on a number of occasions. And so
far as resuming the dialogue process is concerned, let me very briefly
restate if the proper environment for dialogue is radiated (ph), India as
the initiator of the dialogue process, shall certainly not be found
wanting.

MUSHARRAF: I am open to a bilateral dialogue also, if that suits India .
As long as the core issue of Kashmir is addressed and it leads to peace.
But I would like to sum up this issue of my desire for peace by saying
that we need-we want peace, but peace with honor. Peace with honor and
dignity. We cannot accept peace if we are to compromise on our sovereignty,
on our freedom.

Our sovereignty and freedom can never be compromised. Therefore, peace
with honor and dignity, I am open and Pakistan will certainly be
forthcoming.

QUESTION: Which party would be the one to decide that the preconditions
for negotiations are right and are there for negotiations to resume-India
, Pakistan or a third party? Thank you.

SINGH: No, I don't think third parties have anything to do with this. They
will only complicate the situation. Our long experience sufficiently
informs us when that will come. So far as negotiations are concerned, I
think you use the word somewhat glibly and loosely. We are talking of
dialogue, not negotiation. And as to who will decide, certainly we will
decide amongst ourselves.

QUESTION: My question to you is you have made repeated requests to India
to resume the dialogue that will then be (INAUDIBLE) under the Lahore
declaration. But India has made it very clear that until and unless there
are tangible signs that the cross-border terrorism that it accuses
Pakistan of being responsible for ceases, there is no chance of resuming
this dialogue.

Are you taking-are you making any tangible efforts, or have you-are you
hoping to make some tangible efforts to see that this concern of India is
alleviated? And my other question to you is you have made it very clear
that Kashmir is the core issue. If such a dialogue were to resume, are you
willing to place Kashmir on the table along with a whole heap of other
issues, instead of making Kashmir the be-all and the end-all issue, which
India seems to think is not the way to go?

Thank you very much.

MUSHARRAF: Thank you very much for this question. First of all, you
said-you used the term "terrorism." Well, I beg to differ. There is no
terrorism going on. There is a freedom struggle going on. It's a human
rights issue which is going on in Kashmir in the Indian part of Kashmir.
It's a human rights issue that is of concern.

Now, as far as the reduction in this freedom struggle that you are talking
of, I always have been saying that there should be no conditionality
whatsoever toward commencement of a dialogue. If there were to be
conditions, and I would also like to place certain conditions-Indian troops
must stop all atrocities in Kashmir. That is our condition then.

So therefore, there is a degree of reciprocity involved. Reciprocity in
that Indian troops stop or reduce their atrocities and stop their
atrocities against civilians, and then we may be able to persuade the
freedom fighters to maybe reduce the tension across the line of control.

QUESTION: In which direction do you see India-Pakistan relations heading?

SINGH: Well, I would really personally not like to comment on the
developments within Pakistan . That is really for the citizens of Pakistan
to decide for themselves. We do believe that amongst the peoples of India
and Pakistan there has not been and there is not either any hostility or
animosity.

But if you attempt to create a nationalism which finds greater solace not
so much in asserting positively its nationalism but, in fact, not simply
advocating but expressing hostility for another by which I mean that if
you continue to live in a world where compulsive hostility for some becomes
the fuel of your nationhood, and it's of great-and it's a very negative way
to create a nation or permit that nation to flower.

This has to be the spot, has to be abandoned. We cannot do it. We have
often extended our hand of friendship.

MUSHARRAF: I would like to ask what is the other issue other than Kashmir?
Is there any other issue? These are irritants. I've been saying all other
issues are irritants. They're not issues. The issue is the issue of
Kashmir. So I am just talking of the issues on which we need to talk. So
this is not a condition.

So I'd like to defer on your definition of the fact that when I say that
we need to talk about Kashmir, this is a condition. This is not a
condition. It is to see the whole dispute between India and Pakistan in
its reality, and we need to catch the bull by the horn on both sides.
Kashmir is the dispute, and we need to talk about it without any
preconditions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MANN: General Pervez Musharraf, chief executive of Pakistan , and Jaswant
Singh, foreign minister of India .

We have to take another break. But when we come back-a more neutral voice.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MANN: Welcome back.

India and Pakistan read their common history in very different ways.
People who know the region well grow accustomed to the debate between
them. Helping us through this one is Ambassador Teresita Schaffer,
director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and, we note, a former U.S. diplomat in South Asia in
both India and Pakistan , among other places.

Ambassador Schaffer, thanks so much for being with us once again. You had
a chance to hear some of those remarks. I would assume that you've heard
or read the remarks of these two men before. Is anything changing in
relations between these two countries, do you think?

TERESITA SCHAFFER, DIR., SOUTH ASIA PROGRAM, CSIS: Well, I don't think
these particular remarks conveyed very much new. Certainly, General
Musharraf has, on many occasions, made known that his government would
like to speak to India about Kashmir. The Indian government has, on
equally many occasions, made it clear that they don't think any meaningful
discussion can take place as long as the line of control is being violated
with Pakistan government's at least acquiescence. And there has appeared
to be a standoff.

If you look a little bit more carefully, though, you can discern the
outlines of what might be the path towards a more serious dialogue if the
two governments were ready to take it.

MANN: Do tell.

SCHAFFER: Excuse me?

MANN: Tell us.

SCHAFFER: Well, General Musharraf was talking about reciprocity, and he
spoke in terms of the Indian army reducing its the word he used was
"atrocities"-I'm sure the Indian government would reject that word-against
the Kashmiri people. In fact, the Indian government has released a number
of Kashmiri political leaders from prison in the past couple of months and
has taken steps to open a political dialogue, a badly needed political
dialogue with the Kashmiri leadership.

This is a step that they're taking for their own reasons, but it certainly
moves somewhat in the direction of making life a bit easier for the
Kashmiri people. If the government of Pakistan wanted to, they might take
this as a signal to explore what they could do to tamp down violence from
their side.

But you know, one of the problems is that even if they agree to talk, they
still have to figure out what they're going to say to each other, and
that's not such a simple problem.

MANN: Does India really want to talk about the future of Kashmir? After
all, India controls the part of Kashmir that it wants. Does it have
anything to gain from entering into that kind of conversation?

SCHAFFER: Theoretically, yes. The government of India 's stated position
is that all of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir by right
belongs to India . Pakistan 's stated position is that all of that same
territory should have its fate decided in a plebiscite in which they would
have two choices-to join India or to join Pakistan . So that's kind of a
standoff.

In fact, though, India-the main gain for India out of a serious dialogue
over Kashmir, if it succeeded, would be to stabilize its relations with
Pakistan and to stabilize its borders with Pakistan . And the main gain
for Pakistan would be the reverse of that, to be able to look out toward
the future and face peace.

But both of those gains would come at a price. In the Indian case, it
would be impossible to make-to achieve that gain without allowing a much
larger measure of political autonomy and self rule in Kashmir, which from
its point of view is taking something of a risk. In the case of Pakistan ,
I think the price would be much higher because I don't see a settlement
changing the map very much. And so Pakistan ultimately would have to come
to terms with the fact that Kashmir, the great unobtained prize from the
time it became independent at the partition of India , wasn't ever going
to be part of Pakistan .

MANN: With this dispute still festering, the two countries have now openly
developed nuclear devices, and there was much talk at the time of the
testing that there would be an arms race on the subcontinent because of
Kashmir and because now they can have nuclear weapons if they want them
badly enough, deliverable nuclear weapons.

Has there been any evidence of the arms race since?

SCHAFFER: Well, I think there has. First of all, there's two aspects to
the arms race. The first is what you might call the India-Pakistan-China
triangle. India claimed that its development of a nuclear program was
because of its long-range strategic threat from China. A threat based on
the fact that China is a great big continental power sitting right next
door with a nuclear capability.

Pakistan said it was reacting to India . But what that means is that both
countries are going to have-are going to decide on their ideal nuclear
inventory with an eye on different things. The Indians are going to be
looking at China. The Pakistanis are going to be looking at India .

That part of the arms race really hasn't gotten started, but it's there in
potential. The part that has gotten started is the race for missiles. And
here, both countries are trying to arrange-to develop a full range of
missiles that will go different distances and have different degrees of
precision. And those programs are moving ahead.

MANN: A frightening part of the world. Teresita Schaffer, thanks so much
for being with us.

SCHAFFER: You're very welcome.

MANN: And that is INSIGHT for this day. I'm Jonathan Mann. The news continu=
es.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING,
PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT
www.fdch.com

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.

Content and programming copyright 2000 Cable News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED. Prepared by eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document
Clearing House, Inc.) No license is granted to the user of this material
other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the
material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case,
only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for
commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Cable News
Network, Inc.'s copyright or other proprietary rights or

interests in the material; provided, however, that members of the news
media may redistribute limited portions (less than 250 words) of this
material without a specific license from CNN so long as they provide
conspicuous attribution to CNN as the originator and copyright holder of
such material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

_______

#2.

The Times of India ( 7 June 2000)
Editorial

KEEP THE FAITH

Low-cost temples for low caste people? At one level, that's what it
might seem to mean when the Puri Shankaracharya offers to build separate
low-cost `swastik temples' for Hindu reconverts. The mostly lower caste
reconverts took to other faiths in the first place because of perceived
discrimination in the social order into which they were born; in the
case of tribals it is widely accepted that they were never in the Hindu
fold to begin with being largely animists. Now these recruits and
re-recruits must, it appears, have separate places of worship
purportedly to avoid `embarrassing situations.' This is a double irony
for people ostensibly disillusioned by their experiments with other
faiths. Indeed, Hindu religious leaders have always questioned the moral
basis of conversion to Christianity and Islam: The converts might have
access to money and material, but rarely, if at all, to an equal social
status. Today, having made the return journey, the reconvert might
wonder if she was not better off where she was -- in a religion which at
least met her money and material needs. Many of the problems relating to
religious conversion -- and reconversion -- might be avoided by taking a
more dispassionate view of an issue that has become unhealthily charged
with quasi-political rhetoric that is often nothing more than deliberate
misinformation. Take the case of the recent RSS attempt to rewrite a
`Hindu' history which includes `facts' such as these : That 3,50,000
devotees of Lord Ram laid down their lives to liberate the Ayodhya
temple; that foreigners invaded the Ramjanmabhoomi 77 times in all; and
that November 2, 1990 must be inscribed in black letters because Mulayam
Singh Yadav ordered the police to shoot unarmed kar sevaks.

Such unsubstantiated narratives cannot but raise emotional temperatures
on an issue that has been put on the back burner with much difficult
negotiation. The proselytising activities of missionaries in various
parts of the country had similarly heightened sectarian passions with
violent reactions in Gujarat, Orissa and elsewhere. At that time,
responsible representatives from all communities had urged restraint and
an adherence to the rule of law. This indeed has been the main point of
liberals of all persuasion; that coercion of any form -- most
particularly involving the spiritual life, that most private of domains
-- was utterly repugnant in a society which had any claims to be a
democratic polity. Indeed, followers of the majority faith particularly
found such activities objectionable in that they were bound by their own
articles of faith not to seek converts from other beliefs. Apart from
any scriptural sanctity, an aversion to proselytisation is substantiated
by the very down-to-earth axiom, a faith that is cheap to buy can only
be a faith of little value : So called rice converts convert not to new
spiritual values but to a cereal. By the same token, reconversion and
its objectives must doubly be called into question. If advocates for the
majority faith are today chalking out an agenda for widespread
re-conversion, it suggests a challenge posed not by the forces of
conversion without but a crisis of confidence within the fold.

_______

#3.

NARMADA ALERT : DEMONSTRATION IN NYC AGINST OGDEN CORPORATION

Join us and express your solidarity with the struggle in the Narmada
valley !!

WHEN : Wednesday, June 14th 2000 , 10:00 AM

WHERE: Grand Hyatt Hotel in Park Avenue (Grand Central), New York City

The Narmada Solidarity Coalition of NYC and Friends of the Narmada are
organizing this demonstration in NYC, where Ogden Corporation will be
holding its 2000 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The demonstration is to
protest Ogden's involvement in the Maheshwar Dam on the River Narmada in
North West India. Part of a gigantic project that involves a series of
dams across the river Narmada, this dam will displace about 35000 people
in 61 villages, mostly communities of fisherfolk, sand quarriers and
drawdown cultivators. Independent investigations have shown inadequate
planning and land of poor quality, if any at all, for resettlement. The
electricity will cost four to five times the current cost in this 400 MW
project.

Ogden Corporation, which has no prior experience with large dams, is
investing 49% equity, despite the fact that an US company and two
German firms have pulled out of the project due to financial and social
concerns. The company also has a bad environmental track record in the US
with its solid waste disposal and incinerator units.

=46or more information on the Maheshwar project, visit
http://www.narmada.org/maheshwar.html

Contacts:

NYC: Chandana Mathur(212-877-0048) and Nandita Ghosh (718-446-9107)
IRN: Patrick McCully/Suzanne Wong (510-848-1155)
=46riends of Narmada: Vinod John (518-346-9384) and Aniruddha
Vaidya(408-980-0672)

______

#4.

Asia Times
June 6, 2000 India/Pakistan GREENS BATTLE OIL TNCS IN
NATURE RESERVE
By Muddassir Rizvi ISLAMABAD - Green groups in Pakistan, backed by
locals, are battling the military government's decision to allow
pre-exploration activities by transnational oil companies in the country's
largest wildlife reserve. They are unhappy that the government did not
wait for the findings of a study by an Australian firm, to be submitted in
January 2001, that was ordered to decide if the oil companies should be let
into the Kirthar National Park in the southern Sindh province. Located
150 kilometers to the northeast of the southern port city of Karachi, the
Kirthar reserve is home to several rare and threatened animal species like
the Sindh Ibex, Urial sheep and the Chinkara gazelle. Kirthar is the
country's first environmentally protected area and is on the UN list of
protected sites. The controversy began in July 1997 when then Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif's government invited British Premier Oil to search
for an estimated 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas believed to be
trapped in the porous rock beneath the 25-year-old park. In 1998, Premier
Oil and Dutch oil giant Shell set up a joint-venture company registered in
the Netherlands called Kirthar Development BV, commonly known
Shell-Premier, for prospecting in the park. However, protests by green
groups forced the government last year to order a baseline study of the
park's ecological status to determine if such activity should be allowed.
The initial findings of the baseline study are to be submitted to the Sindh
provincial government early next year. This has forced Premier-Shell to
suspend the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the park it had begun.
Green groups say an EIA by the oil companies in Kirthar violates the
country's wildlife laws as it is the first step toward exploration.
According to environmental activists, prospecting in Kirthar is in
violation of the 1972 Sindh Wildlife Ordinance that clearly prohibits
clearing or breaking up of any land for cultivation, mining or any other
purpose. The 1993 Sindh Wildlife Amendment Act and a notification by the
Sindh government also provide an ''ironclad constitutional safeguard to
protected areas'', says Foqia Sadiq Khan of the Islamabad-based Sustainable
Development Policy Institute. The institute is part of an informal
alliance of green groups set up to oppose gas exploration in the park.
Others campaigning against the proposed exploration include the World
Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Sungi
Development Foundation, the Pakistan Institute of Labor Education and
Research and similar groups. The alliance has launched a hectic media
campaign in the national press against the project and is also collecting
signatures in support of its agitation. ''Most of the commitments made by
the Sindh government and Shell-Premier to the citizen groups have not been
fulfilled,'' says Farhan Anwar, of the Karachi-based citizens' group
Shehri, who is also convener of the alliance campaigning against mining in
Kirthar park. A Canadian firm, Agra-Earth Consultants, has been chosen to
conduct the EIA being funded by Shell-Premier. ''We selected the firm only
to maintain the independence of the EIA,'' says an official of the Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Resources. However, the green groups are not
convinced. ''An EIA is a specific project-related activity and will lead to
mining and exploration prohibited under the present laws,'' says Anwar.
''We supported a baseline study of the park so that there is enough
scientific data on the ecological status of the park which could help us
determine whether or not there could be any commercial activity in the
precincts of the park,'' he adds. Meanwhile, provincial government
officials in Sindh are accusing the protesters of being
''anti-development''. The officials claim that the gas prospecting would
lead to an economic boom that would transform the poor countryside. ''These
groups never cried hoarse over the rampant cultivation in the park by the
locals, which is also banned. The mining activity will bring prosperity to
an otherwise backward area. We will be able to build hospitals and schools,
and create jobs,'' argues an official of the Sindh Wildlife Department.
Environmental groups shrug off the criticism and say their opposition is
being misunderstood. ''We are not against development. All we say is that
development must be sustainable,'' says Ali Qadir, coordinator of
communications at the Karachi office of the IUCN. Those living near the
nature park are also not impressed by the official promises of prosperity.
Nearly 11,000 people live in the 93 villages within the park area. Most of
them seem to believe that the gas exploration would not make any difference
to their lives. They give the example of Sui where the largest natural gas
reserves of Pakistan so far were found. ''The people of Sui are still
struggling to get cooking gas connections in their homes. How come they
(the government) expect us to believe that mining in Kirthar will result in
prosperity for us,'' the locals argue. The government claims that the
exploration would not threaten the Kirthar ecology. ''Shell-Premier is a
responsible company. We are sure that they will take all necessary measures
to protect the environmental damage in Kirthar,'' says a Petroleum Ministry
official, requesting anonymity. Green groups ridicule Shell-Premier's
claim of using clean technologies. ''We don't know what technology they are
going to use. They could use magic wands for all we care, but the goal
remains illegal and morally unacceptable,'' says Karachi-based green
activist Aly Ercelawn. The environmental groups are also alarmed by
reports that the Sindh government may be yielding to pressure from the
multinational oil companies to modify provincial conservation laws that
would permit gas exploration in Kirthar. ''We oppose any change in the law.
We urge the federal government to formulate a transparent, non-arbitrary
and participatory license concession policy in accordance with the
principle of provincial autonomy and concerns of civil society groups,''
says a press note issued by the green groups. According to green activist
=46oqia Khan, the Pakistani government is obliged not only to enforce
national laws, but honor international commitments to protect biodiversity.
(Inter Press Service)

______________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH (SACW) is an
informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service
run by South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)
since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be accessed
by joining the ACT list run by SACW. To subscribe send
a message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL