[sacw] SACW #2 (20 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
20 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. Pakistan: Frontline state, doomed democracy (Aqil Shah)
#2. Extremism, police restrictions drown out peace calls in Pakistan=20
(Nadeem Iqbal)
#3. 'Yes we are Muslim; yes, we are Indian....' (Bindu Jacob)

________________________

#1.

The Friday Times
19-25 Oct.2001

Frontline state, doomed democracy
by Aqil Shah

says long-term peace and stability requires sustained investment in=20
solid, secular democracies, not stable dictatorships
=09=20
Sustained US support for Musharraf's military regime could seriously=20
impact any future political process in the country. Direct=20
international backing will only embolden the military in its desire=20
to extend its illegitimate hold on civilian affairs and further=20
undermine the political opposition. With the even token international=20
pressure for the restoration of democracy taking a back seat in the=20
face of the urgent needs of a 'just' war, the military's manipulation=20
of the political process could become more brazen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States,=20
Islamabad's volte-face on its Afghan policy - withdrawing support=20
from the Taliban militia - is understandable in the face of=20
relentless US and international pressure. The decision also puts=20
Pakistan again in the front line of a US military campaign against=20
Afghanistan. Given historical parallels, what could this mean for the=20
military regime and the future of democracy in Pakistan?

By going along with the US, General Pervez Musharraf appears to have=20
killed two birds with one stone. He has secured de facto=20
international acceptance for the 1999 coup, and he can now draw=20
succour from the removal of US sanctions and the provision of=20
international financial assistance which his handpicked managers need=20
to resurrect Pakistan's crumbling economy. Pakistan has also=20
outmanoeuvred India, the government believes, and ensconced itself=20
firmly as a US ally. Islamabad feels relieved now that the=20
overwhelming international pressure on it to mend fences with New=20
Delhi has given way to more pressing issues for the US.

But this newly found glory comes with grave risks, a fact General=20
Musharraf should know only too well. The risks range from the now=20
assured decimation of the Taliban to the possible ascension of the=20
unfriendly Northern Alliance to the throne in Kabul. Not too far on=20
the horizon is the international pressure on Pakistan to end support=20
to Pakistan-based jihadi groups that sustain Islamabad's proxy war in=20
Kashmir. The Bush administration's decision to freeze the assets of=20
three Pakistan-based organizations, Harkatul Mujahideen, Al-Rashid=20
Trust and now Jaish-e-Mohamed, is only the first sign of this looming=20
threat. Domestically, old allies have turned foes and the military=20
faces the anger of religious fanatics opposed to the US-led attack on=20
Afghanistan. A host of factors could turn this anger into a serious=20
threat.

But leaving aside other factors, the sustained US support for=20
Musharraf's military regime could seriously impact any future=20
political process in the country. Direct international backing will=20
only embolden the military in its desire to extend its illegitimate=20
hold on civilian affairs and further undermine the political=20
opposition. With the even token international pressure for the=20
restoration of democracy taking a back seat in the face of the urgent=20
needs of a 'just' war, the military's manipulation of the political=20
process could become more brazen, providing it an opportunity to=20
institutionalise its role in Pakistan's politics. To Musharraf's=20
pleasure, his "roadmap" to democracy could now lead straight to=20
autocracy a la General Zia-ul Haq. With him ensconced as President=20
and COAS, while playing to the international gallery, a token Prime=20
Minister and a hung parliament could hardly raise a voice that may be=20
perceived against the 'national interest.'

Perhaps it is untimely to expect Washington to bother about such=20
trivia under these circumstances, but the gravity of the issue cannot=20
be overemphasised for Pakistanis. President Bush's repeated=20
assurances to General Musharraf that America and its allies will make=20
sure that his government remains stable should make Pakistanis very=20
nervous.

"There should be no question in any world leader's mind that the most=20
essential ingredient for success in this 21st century is a free=20
people and a government that derives its right to govern from the=20
consent of such [a] people," the then Secretary of State-elect Colin=20
Powell proudly claimed in January 2001, "...a guiding principle of=20
President-elect Bush's foreign policy will be that America stands=20
ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world."=20
However, as most Pakistanis know through bitter experience,=20
Washington only talks the democracy talk. It has armed ruthless=20
dictatorships in Pakistan whenever they suited its strategic=20
interests. From General Ayub in the 1960s to General Zia in the=20
1980s, democracy has never been high on the US agenda. Not without=20
reason, either. The Bush administration, like its predecessors, is=20
more than glad to have a 'stable presidency' in Islamabad at its beck=20
and call. An insecure elected Prime Minister would have wavered,=20
weighed his or her political options, perhaps even consulted=20
political partners and gauged public opinion before taking such an=20
important policy decision. No wonder then that the unwritten US=20
political doctrine for many 'uncivilised' countries rests on the=20
self-serving assumption that civilian rulers are 'corrupt' while=20
military dictators are clean, honest and reliable. That democracy is=20
messy, fraught with risks and instability, while authoritarianism=20
offers a sure-fire recipe for stability.

But Washington's 'strategic engagement' with Pakistani dictators has=20
achieved much more than just the emasculation of democratic=20
institutions in Pakistan. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to=20
understand the connection between the growing radicalisation of an=20
otherwise moderate Pakistani society and the intransigent Kashmir and=20
Afghanistan policies of a national security establishment that has=20
run amok in the absence of firm civilian control. Since the early=20
1980s, the national security apparatus has extended unlimited=20
patronage, often with Washington's blessings, to militant Islamic=20
outfits for fulfilling its political and strategic goals. Consumed by=20
these misdirected national security priorities, the state has=20
consistently failed to provide basic education, health and security=20
to its population. This has fuelled public disillusionment and=20
alienated a vast majority of poor Pakistanis who now rely on Islamic=20
madrassahs to feed and educate their children. The virtual absence of=20
legitimate political mechanisms to articulate and aggregate=20
collective interests in a deeply polarised society has also provided=20
a fertile ground for the growth of militant sectarianism in the=20
country.

The US and its 'democracy-loving' allies should make no mistake in=20
recognising that the long-term peace and stability of the 'most=20
dangerous flashpoint in the world' requires sustained investment in=20
solid, secular democracies, not stable dictatorships. The sooner they=20
realise this truism, the better.

______

#2.

Malaysiakini.com
Friday October 19

Extremism, police restrictions drown out peace calls in Pakistan
Nadeem Iqbal

2:17pm, Fri: (IPS) news feature ''Your 30 minutes are over, go=20
home,'' a police officer ordered some 50 Pakistani peace activists=20
who had gathered in front of the UN offices here and were demanding=20
an immediate stop to US-led military strikes in Afghanistan.

The protest, held Monday when US Secretary of State Colin Powell=20
visited the country, was organised by the Citizen Peace Committee=20
(CPC) and had participants from NGO workers, teachers, students,=20
journalists and trade unionists.

These activists are worried not only about the effects of the strikes=20
on Afghanistan - but also about a worrisome trend emerging at home.=20
In its outrage against the US and British attacks on Afghanistan, the=20
religious lobby is targeting civil society groups who have been=20
calling for peace, and dubbing them ''western collaborators''.

Many NGO offices in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP), which=20
borders Afghanistan, and Bajaur Agency, where at least a dozen NGOs=20
are located, have been attacked by unruly mobs in recent weeks.

The Pakistan NGO Forum reported that at least eight offices of NGO=20
and social advocacy groups have been ransacked and burnt, including=20
the Women and Children Welfare Organisation, the Darul Falah and=20
Salik Development Foundation in Takht Bahi area, the Society for the=20
Protection of the Rights of the Child (SPARC) and the Human Rights=20
Commission of Pakistan Core Group in Bajaur.

''All office equipment has been stolen. In some cases, homes of NGO=20
workers have also been attacked," the Pakistan NGO Forum noted in a=20
statement. Indeed, in the two weeks since the US-led bombing of=20
Afghanistan, the country's peace movement finds itself sandwiched=20
between security agencies and religious extremists.

The security agencies do not allow them to hold rallies to express=20
their views for peace, and some religious groups have been attacking=20
NGO offices for their supposedly 'westernised' ideas.

The peace movement, which traces its origin to the May 1998 nuclear=20
detonations by India and Pakistan, has been pleading the rival=20
governments to desist from what they call 'MAD' or mutually assured=20
destruction.

These days it is trying to call for dialogue and alternatives to war,=20
but often finds itself the target of hostility instead.

Adequate protection

On Wednesday last week, the NGO forum said that the government had=20
not taken effective action to apprehend those who attacked NGO=20
offices or provide adequate protection to those under threat.

''Of equal concern is that in more than one case, the district=20
authorities did not make an effort to control the mobs or provide=20
timely support in filing and pursuing police action,'' it added.

Aasim Sajjad Akhtar, coordinator of Citizen Peace Committee, said the=20
government of President Pervez Musharraf has already banned the=20
holding protests. But activists point to the irony that religious=20
extremists have nevertheless been allowed free hand to hold protest=20
rallies.

"Being law-abiding citizens, we are left with the option of getting=20
permission from the deputy commissioner, head of the district=20
administration, to hold protests, which most of time is not=20
granted,'' said Aasim.

Asked why religious extremists are allowed to hold protests, a police=20
officer told IPS that the groups' emotions are ''very high'' and they=20
have ''big following in the public''. He added, ''They can hold rally=20
whenever they like. By allowing them to do so, we take promises from=20
them that they will not disturb law and order. In it more or less we=20
have succeeded.''

Still, the Citizen Peace Committee has succeeded in holding around=20
six protests in the Pakistani capital. Similar protests have been=20
organised by peace activists in the main urban centres of Karachi,=20
Lahore and Peshawar.

On Sept 29, nine members of the Citizen Peace Committee - four of=20
them women wearing tattered clothing - addressed a press conference=20
in front of Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, where many foreign=20
media teams are staying.

They started marching barefoot toward the Afghan and American=20
embassies to present peace resolutions.

But all of them were arrested by police and kept in lockup for hours.=20
Later, they were released but not without being severely warned=20
against not doing the same action again.

Indeed, many are concerned that the peace movement is not attracting=20
much mass appeal - in contrast to the attention media and the public=20
are giving to protests by religious and other groups.

''Today, the peace movement is very confused,'' activist Pervez=20
Hoodbouy said. People are very upset about the bombing in Afghanistan=20
and want that to be stopped, but are also weary of the Taliban's=20
cruel policies within and outside the country which promoted=20
religious fanaticism.''

''So far the peace activists have failed to make any balance in=20
between these feelings,'' he added.

Many political analysts agree that Musharraf is right in saying that=20
the religious lobby opposing the U.S. attacks is a minority - but say=20
this minority is winning public sympathies in the aftermath of US=20
strikes.

For instance, many Pakistanis say they are still waiting for the=20
United States to come forward with concrete evidence linking the=20
Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden to the Sept 11 attacks.

Thus, slogans like 'Bush Wanted Dead or Alive - Cash Award of 2=20
million rupees ( US32,300) on placards during a Monday protest here=20
by the Pakistan-Afghan Defence Council, a coalition of religious=20
parties, have become quite catchy for many people.

On the group's call on Monday, the day Powell arrived in Islamabad, a=20
partial strike was observed to protest the U.S. attacks on=20
Afghanistan, and most of the markets throughout the country remained=20
close.

Scepticism by many Pakistanis also has its roots in their memories of=20
US behaviour in relation to the South Asian country in the past.

Twice betrayed

They remain bitter about being 'betrayed' by Americans twice - in=20
1971 war with India when Washington did not come to the aid of=20
Pakistan and the country was divided into two, and in 1990 when=20
sanctions were imposed on Pakistan after the withdrawal of Soviet=20
troops from Afghanistan.

Nazir Ahmed, a butcher who was watching a religious procession here,=20
said that he did not support the calls of religious extremists of=20
late, but ''likes listening'' to them. He asked: ''Should we trust=20
the Americans again?''

Still, activists are trying to get their message across. On Sept 16,=20
the Citizen Peace Committee handed over to a UN representative a=20
resolution that said ''the United States and its allies have not=20
fully pursued all diplomatic, non-military options to respond to the=20
situation peaceably.''

''In this condition of reckless violence, citizens throughout=20
Pakistan and Afghanistan feel more insecure. Their interests are=20
being trampled upon by the United States and its allied governments=20
and by the religious extremist groups,'' the group's letter said.

''There is a clear and urgent need for the United Nations to play its=20
due role in combating terrorism of all kinds, whether state-sponsored=20
or independent,'' it argued.

It called on the world body to ''force'' Washington to stop the=20
attacks on Afghanistan and set up a task force to investigate the=20
Sept 11 terror attacks, provide evidence about it and go to the=20
International Court of Justice if needed.

Last modified:Friday October 19, 2:20 pm

______

#3.

The Hindu
Saturday, October 20, 2001

'Yes we are Muslim; yes, we are Indian....'
By Bindu Jacob

NEW DELHI, OCT. 19. It was an ``emotionally choked'' Javed Akhtar and=20
a seemingly in control Shabana Azmi who in one voice today claimed=20
that their religion made them ``no less an Indian''. And noone was=20
spared for forcing them to voice this claim -- neither the newsmedia=20
with their ``hunger for easy scoop'' nor the likes of the Shahi Imam=20
of Delhi's Jama Masjid. Their anguish sounded real and the pain too=20
deep.

``Just why are Muslims hauled over the coals each time there is a=20
terrorist attack? Why are we pushed against the wall and asked to=20
prove our love for the country? The media take up irresponsible=20
statements by Islamic leaders without questioning. But why is it that=20
no one hears the voice of the sane Muslims?'' questioned the seasoned=20
actress-politician Ms.Shabana Azmi while speaking at a press=20
conference organised here by Sahmat. She also released a statement=20
signed by nearly 300 Muslim intellectuals and academicians protesting=20
against ``the situation that Muslims find themselves in''.

The statement condemns ``the terrorist attacks in the U.S., and=20
distortion of interpretation of Islam by the Shahi Imam of Jama=20
Masjid'' and denounceds ``the blatant anti-women and inhuman=20
practices and polices of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan''. ``War,=20
like terrorism, is only inflicting needless sufferings on innocent=20
civilians,'' rued the cine star.

``This war seems to be waged between the Western civilised world and=20
the Islamic barbaric world, which is held responsible for all the=20
ills. It is a dangerous trend that needs to be stopped,'' asserted=20
Ms. Shabana Azmi.

``We are trying to polarise the world and need to be careful not to=20
ignite an internal war in the country. The war is not between=20
religions but between the fundamentalist and the liberals,'' she said=20
when questioned why terrorism is made out to be synonymous with Islam.

``Over fifty countries in the world practise Islam and each has its=20
interpretation of the religion depending on their lifestyles and=20
beliefs. But why should only the fundamentalist viewpoint be known=20
and related to the world?'' she demanded to know.

But it was her husband, Javed Akhtar, who moved the assembly with his=20
unshed tears and choked voice. ``Who is the Shahi Iman of Jama Masjid=20
to represent and speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community? He=20
is not my representative, he does not have my consent to make=20
statements like the one he made. In this scenario, I want to know why=20
an average Muslim is looked upon with suspicion? Why does not anybody=20
ask Bal Thackeray to prove his love for the country?'' thundered Mr.=20
Akhtar.

Also present were the former Pro-Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia=20
Islamia and Prof. Mushirul Hasan, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad of JNU who=20
pointed to the paradoxical situation that the Muslims find themselves=20
in today. ``The communal group in the majority party is now against=20
the minority group which is a bad situation to be in.''

Meanwhile, Sahmat in an effort to underline its ``protest against=20
war'' will hold a sit-in at the Vithalbhai Patel House lawns here on=20
Saturday. The celebrated writer Ms. Arundhati Roy, anti-nuclear=20
activist Mr. Praful Bidwai, historian Ms. Zoya Hasan, actress=20
Ms.Sharmila Tagore and former cricketer, Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi=20
are expected to take part.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20