[sacw] SACW #1. (21 July 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire / Dispatch No.1
21 July 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

[1.] Vajpayee must resist the hawks' effort to undermine Agra's gains
[2.] Indians, like Pakistanis, feel cheated
[3.] Kashmir: Valley victims find a place to shed tears
[4.] India- Pakistan: Now that the dust has more or less settled=20
after the Agra summit, what should ordinary people make of the events=20
of the last couple of days?

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

#1.

Appeared in The Hindustan Times, July 20, 2001

Vajpayee must resist the hawks' effort to undermine Agra's gains and=20
even its rationale

'High road', not low comedy

By Praful Bidwai

Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee has inadvertently become an unconscious agent=20
of history in setting off what can only be described as a groundswell=20
of robust popular sentiment for reconciliation and peace with=20
Pakistan. Never before have we witnessed such charged, overwhelming,=20
across-the-board support for India-Pakistan rapprochement, nor such=20
sincere hope that New Delhi's long-overdue re-engagement with=20
Islamabad at Agra should succeed. The hope is only matched by the=20
widespread disappointment that the Summit was inconclusive as regards=20
a joint Declaration The goodwill in evidence in both countries goes=20
far, far beyond syrupy bhai-bhai sentimentalism. Rather, it=20
represents an authentic desire to break out of the vicious cycle of=20
unrelieved mutual hostility, feeding upon intolerance and prejudice,=20
and in turn producing yet more hostility, in which the two countries=20
have locked themselves for half a century.

Yet, ironically, Mr Vajpayee is in danger of becoming a passive=20
spectator to the undermining of the historic momentum he himself=20
triggered off by inviting Gen Pervez Musharraf to take "the high road=20
to peace and prosperity" at Agra. Right-wing hawks in his own party=20
and cynics in the foreign policy establishment have joined hands to=20
minimise, distort and systematically scupper the gains of the Agra=20
dialogue. If they succeed, and if Islamabad routinely reciprocates=20
the same hardline response, then India and Pakistan will be thrown=20
back into the same gridlock or vicious cycle that Agra sought to=20
break. Already, there are distressing signs of such a slippage both=20
in Wednesday's National Democratic Alliance meeting to discuss Agra,=20
which congratulated the government on its "tough" unyielding stand.=20
Even more worrisome is the Foreign Office's back-to-Shimla-and-Lahore=20
statement, which virtually annuls the substance of the Agra=20
initiative. Consider this.

All evidence suggest that the attempt at the Summit to produce a=20
joint Declaration foundered not because the two sides could not find=20
the right balance between Pakistan's insistence on Kashmir's=20
"centrality" and India's concern with "cross-border terrorism", but=20
primarily because India refused to accommodate Islamabad's Kashmir=20
preoccupation. It is easy enough to rationalise this refusal by=20
invoking stated positions or "first principles". But that's not what=20
serious negotiation in good faith, leave alone statesmanship, is=20
about. Worse, there is every reason to believe that Indian hawks, led=20
by Mr L.K. Advani, shot down a draft after it had been all but=20
approved by the two diplomat-level delegations. Even more=20
reprehensibly, New Delhi's decision-makers seem to have been driven=20
less by considerations of mature diplomacy than by mere pique at Gen=20
Musharraf's rather unconventional breakfast meeting with editors on=20
July 16. (Needless to add, Pakistan's response to these moves was=20
unhelpful.)

This is part of a pattern of concerted hawkish moves to throw a=20
spanner in the Agra works. Ms Sushma Swaraj's omission of Kashmir=20
from the list of issues discussed at the Summit during her July 15=20
"briefing" was part of the same strategy. She now claims (The Hindu,=20
July 17) that her statement had been "cleared" (by Mr Advani?)=20
Earlier, the same hardline lobby had succeeded in getting the NDA to=20
boycott the July 14 tea-party thrown in Gen Musharraf's honour by his=20
High Commissioner--on the spurious ground that Hurriyat Conference=20
leaders were invited to it. No one in the NDA barring the BJP was=20
worked up about this. The invitation to the Hurriyat didn't add up to=20
"recognising" it as the Kashmiri people's sole representative. But=20
the BJP forced the NDA into the boycott. Mr Vajpayee should have=20
right then cracked the whip and insisted that the NDA attend the=20
tea-party. He didn't. In general, his homework around Agra has been=20
poor or inadequate.

At the editors' breakfast meeting, Gen Musharraf was at pains to=20
outline his compulsions (especially over Kashmir) and especially his=20
flexibility and willingness to go beyond stated positions. How else=20
can one interpret his appeal to turn a historic "event" (Agra) into=20
"historic gains", his accommodative acceptance of the term "Kashmir=20
issue" instead of the "Kashmir dispute", and his advocacy of a=20
relationship in which Pakistan would be India's "junior partner"=20
(junior partner)? It is not often that one finds terms like=20
"partnership" or tributes to "fruitful" dialogue and=20
"people-to-people" contacts in South Asia's internal official=20
discourse. Our "partnerships" are usually reserved for external=20
powers, like the United States.

Therefore, it takes a very special prism to read in Gen Musharraf's=20
statements a hardening of postures within the context of a diabolical=20
public relations exercise. That is the familiar prism of prejudice=20
and cynicism, if not visceral hatred of Pakistan. This perspective=20
regards Pakistan as an "abnormal" and quasi-rogue state unfit to be a=20
"responsible" member of the international community. It believes that=20
certain unique structural obstacles make Pakistan incapable of reform=20
or moderation, and unworthy of trust, if not altogether=20
"treacherous". Any dialogue with it, as RSS spokesman M.G. Vaidya=20
says, is bound to be "fruitless".

It is not hard to see the provenance of such views (aired rather=20
freely, especially by several former Indian ambassadors to Islamabad)=20
or their fallacious nature. They duly duplicate entrenched hardline=20
positions across the border. They are the very substance or=20
sub-stratum on which the structure of India-Pakisan vicious cycle of=20
hostility is premised. Giving them credence in order to scuttle the=20
possibility of progress at Agra, or more crucially after Agra, is to=20
perpetuate that very cycle. Following this logic, Shimla, Lahore and=20
Agra were all blunders; Mr Vajpayee should not have invited Gen=20
Musharraf at all...

The time has come to make a decisive break with these vulgar=20
prejudices and acknowledge that mutual hostility is one of the=20
greatest barriers to India's and Pakistan's potential for development=20
as healthy, normal, plural and democratic societies. It exercises a=20
malign influence upon their domestic politics, not just their=20
external relations, and is an essential ingredient of communalism of=20
both the Hindutva and Islamicist or jehadi varieties. It is in the=20
Indian people's own vital interest that our relations with Pakistan=20
are normalised so that we substantially reduce our absurdly high=20
military and paramilitary spending, regain poise and dignity in our=20
international diplomacy, and above all, return to the long-neglected=20
social agendas of equitable development.

Agra would have spurred such nomalisation. It certainly inaugurated=20
that process. That's precisely why it is being undermined. Mr=20
Vajpayee should and can resist this-but only if he sees the broad=20
pro-peace popular sentiment and the secular social forces and=20
anti-chauvinist parties unhesitatingly committed to it as his real=20
allies. He should work with them to isolate the hawks and bigots in=20
the sangh parivar, in the NDA, indeed in his own Cabinet.

To do this, he must take three steps. He must make a strong statement=20
defending the Spirit of Agra and the rationale of reconciliation and=20
peace, and outline the need for a historic rapprochement with=20
Pakistan. Second, he must quickly announce an early date for a=20
Pakistan visit which will complete Agra's unfinished task. And third,=20
he must listen to the growing India-Pakistan peace movement. This is=20
the only current on both sides of the border that has sustained a=20
principled and consistent interaction for a decade on the basis of a=20
commitment to peace, secularism, pluralism, democracy and justice.

More than 200 organisations and people-to-people initiatives=20
belonging to this current sponsored the Pakistan-India People's=20
Solidarity Conference held just one week ago in New Delhi. Some of=20
its leaders (e.g. Admiral L. Ramdas, Nirmala Deshpande, Rajmohan=20
Gadhi, Kuldip Nayar) have impeccable credentials as peace activists.=20
The Conference Declaration should be music to all pro-peace ears. The=20
basic question Mr Vajpayee confronts is this: Should he rely on the=20
tired wisdom of the "we-told-you-so" hawks, or should he relate to=20
the broader peace movement and the anti-chauvinistic social and=20
political forces which sustain it?-end---

________

2.

The Friday Times
20-26 July 2001

Indians, like Pakistanis, feel cheated

S. P. Udayakumar

The people: Newspapers in hand they waited with bated breath only to=20
be disappointed yet again
After all the Agra hoopla, it is frustrating to see ourselves back to=20
square one. Although no pragmatic Indian or Pakistani expected a=20
major breakthrough at the Agra Summit, almost everyone expected at=20
least a joint statement that could indicate what transpired at the=20
talks and where we might be headed in terms of Kashmir and all the=20
other outstanding issues between India and Pakistan.

The failed summit points out several things. First, that it was an=20
ill-prepared meeting, hastily arranged by New Delhi for diversionary=20
purposes. The BJP-led government had put in place the K.C. Pant=20
initiative to talk to the various Kashmiri groups and find out their=20
views and perspectives on that vexing issue. But even before that=20
process could come to some meaningful conclusion and Indians had a=20
chance to assess what the ground reality in Kashmir was, the Vajpayee=20
regime went ahead and invited General Pervez Musharraf. With the=20
Tehelka-scandal (that exposed, among other things, the BJP chief=20
accepting bribes from alleged defense contractors) weighing it down,=20
the BJP desperately needed something to divert the Indian public. So=20
they pressed the "pause" button on the Pant mission and=20
fast-forwarded the "peace" talks.

It should not be a surprise that the Pakistani establishment works=20
with the same kind of "tape recorder" technique. After all, aren't we=20
the identical twins born on the same August 1947 night? General=20
Musharraf, on his part, pressed the "pause" on the "jehadis,"=20
"mujahideens," and other violent elements without actually convincing=20
them about the peace talks and fast-forwarded the peace mission.=20
Bogged down by the rapidly declining economy, questionable political=20
legitimacy and unsatisfactory law and order situation, he readily=20
embraced the peace talks with India that could provide the=20
much-needed diversion for the people of Pakistan.

What would happen when an unprepared host out of sheer domestic=20
compulsions (and external pressures too?) invites an unready guest=20
who has similar compulsions at home for peace talks? Answer: Agra.

Second, the failed summit points out that several powerful groups in=20
our countries have much at stake in the continuation of our conflicts=20
and confrontations. For instance, General Musharraf's spokesman,=20
Major General Rashid Qureshi, is reported to have said, "The draft=20
agreement was changed two times after the two leaders [Vajpayee and=20
Musharaff] had approved it. This did not stop here and even for the=20
third time changes were sought to be made after the two leaders had=20
cleared the statement." Qureshi added further: "There seems to be an=20
invisible hand in delaying the statement." Similarly, the Indian=20
Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ms. Sushma Swaraj made a TV=20
appearance in the middle of the summit to list the topics covered at=20
the Musharraf-Vajpayee talks. Kashmir was not one of them. She=20
claimed later that her broadcast had been "cleared" beforehand but=20
the prime minister did not seem to know anything about it. The gist=20
of all is this: he came, they talked, we waited, but the clerks and=20
clerics, colonels and contractors (defense) won.

Third, the Agra summit also points out how the inflated egos of the=20
External Affairs Ministries of our countries have virtually eaten up=20
their brains and prevented them from admitting the reality. It is=20
frustrating to see that New Delhi and Islamabad are fighting over the=20
most obvious things. Even a complete moron would readily admit that=20
Kashmir is the most important conflict between India and Pakistan and=20
violence (of Kashmiri groups, Islamic militants, cross-border and=20
state-sponsored) has been playing havoc in Kashmir. It is rather=20
strange and painful that semantics and other superficialities seem to=20
be more important for our elites than the innocent human lives we=20
lose on daily basis.

Fourth, the summit revealed the big vacuum that existed between=20
General Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee. And that was the=20
absence of the people of Kashmir. Who are the legitimate=20
representatives of the people of Kashmir is, of course, a matter of=20
contention. The Pakistani penchant for the Hurriyat leaders and the=20
violent "jehadi" elements and the utter disregard for Farooq=20
Abdullah, the elected chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir is as=20
problematic as India's indifference toward the elected prime minister=20
of Azad Kashmir and the leaders of the alienated people in Jammu and=20
Kashmir.

Similarly, the people of India and Pakistan were not involved in the=20
Agra talks either. The short and symbolic meetings both Vajpayee and=20
Musharraf had with sections of their respective countries' political=20
class was not enough to gauge the thoughts and feelings of the people=20
of these two vast countries. Without widespread and candid debates on=20
all the pertinent issues, the Agra summit looked even more=20
authoritarian and anti-people. The intransigent nature of our=20
bilateral issues requires the full-fledged involvement and=20
participation of all our peoples, not just a few representatives.

Agra talks may have failed to produce a roadmap; but it does give us=20
the consolation that a new road has been opened. The fact that=20
General Musharraf, who is expected to be in control in Pakistan for=20
some time, and the Indian leaders such as Prime Minister Vajpayee,=20
Home Minister Advani, and the Congress President Sonia Gandhi have=20
all met personally is a good thing. It is also an important=20
achievement that India and Pakistan have finally begun to talk to=20
each other. Moreover, General Musharraf's invitation to Prime=20
Minister Vajpayee to visit Pakistan and the latter's willingness to=20
do so are significant developments too. We can only hope that the=20
next time round both sides would be better prepared and more=20
considerate of the emotions and aspirations of the people of our two=20
countries. Some kind of a structured dialogue process for future=20
talks with a clear time frame should be immediately created. As=20
General Musharraf has suggested, the people of our two countries=20
could begin by "negating certain solutions" for the dogging issues of=20
Kashmir and terrorism and try to arrive at a consensus for life in=20
peace and dignity.

________

3.

The Indian Express
Thursday, July 19, 2001

Valley victims find a place to shed tears

Families join together to build memorial for those who have disappeared

MUZAMIL JALEEL

SRINAGAR, JULY 18: Even as the dust raised by Agra continues to fly=20
around, Kashmir has taken the first step to making peace with itself.=20
In a dignified, poignant ceremony today, two boys and a girl laid the=20
foundation stone of a monument being built in memory of 3,000=20
Kashmiri men who have gone missing in the past 12 years of violence.
AS HOPE DRIES UP, TEARS FLOW: Raja Begum weeps as she holds a=20
photograph of her missing son, Nisar Ahmad, during a memorial to=20
those who have disappeared, in Srinagar on Wednesday. Reuters photo

Aadil Badiyari (6), Aashiq Hussain Bhat (8) and Roomi Khan (5) have=20
never seen their fathers; like their families, they don't even know=20
their fate. It's easy to call them orphans, but they aren't; their=20
fate, however, is probably worse because of the tyranny of=20
uncertainty.
The monument is being built by the Association of Parents of=20
Disappeared Persons (APDP), a voluntary group founded by human rights=20
lawyer Parvez Imroz. ''It will serve as an emotional sanctum for=20
those whose loved ones are deprived of graves. It will also help=20
highlight the plight of victims' families who desperately want to=20
come out of the uncertainity about their missing ones,'' Imroz says.

The initial feeling is one of pain. ''I feel my wounds have been=20
opened again,'' said Noora Begum (60), a widow from Baghwanpora=20
locality here. Two of her sons, Manzoor and Mushtaq, died in the=20
militancy while a third, 15-year-old Ghulam, was picked up by the=20
Border Security Force five years ago and not seen since. ''I want=20
this uncertainty to end. Please tell me where my son is,'' she said.

Twenty-eight-year-old Dilshada's husband Ghulam Nabi Khan was=20
abducted from the bus stand in front of her eyes. ''One year has=20
passed and I have no clue. I have three children and there is no=20
source of income,'' she said.

The memorial will be a dome-shaped building that will house a=20
library, research centre and a conference hall. ''There will also be=20
a huge lawn dotted with trees, each of which is in memory of a=20
missing person,'' Imroz said. ''The names of the disappeared will be=20
etched on the walls of memorial building which will act as a joint=20
epitaph,'' he said. The monument, however, is going to be strictly=20
non-figurative to avoid criticism by the clergy.

Imroz said though APDP was formed by the mothers of the disappeared,=20
the majority of members now are the wives, or ''half-widows''.=20
''These half-widows are very effective in our campaign against=20
disappearances,'' he said. ''Though there will definitely be cases=20
where people have gone missing after being picked up by militants,=20
the majority of disappearance cases are enforced by the state=20
agencies here. Our group is mostly approached by families of those=20
who are missing after being arrested by the state agencies, like=20
Police and various other security forces.''

=A9 2001: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

________

4.

The Hindu
Saturday, July 21, 2001
Opinion

Media acted as a mirror

By Kalpana Sharma

Now that the dust has more or less settled after the Agra summit,=20
what should ordinary people make of the events of the last couple of=20
days?

It would be easy to blame the media for first building up=20
expectations and then apparently playing a role in sabotaging the=20
summit. But is this what really happened?

First, we need to be clear that the hype reflected the high levels of=20
expectations that existed in both countries. Regardless of the=20
history of confrontation and suspicion, it is more than apparent to=20
anyone who ventures outside official circles in either country that=20
people want peace. Indeed, even in the ``We, the people'' programme=20
on Star News, two Kargil widows spoke of the need for peace. So the=20
media could not have hyped an event that did not already have a high=20
level of expectation attached to it. Media coverage reflected these=20
expectations, even if in a slightly exaggerated way.

Second, it is the blanket coverage by the media that provided another=20
``first'' for ordinary people in the country - we got to listen=20
directly to what Pakistanis felt about issues such as Kashmir.=20
Pakistani activists, strategic experts and journalists were panelists=20
on almost every channel. Their perspectives were different from each=20
other's and also predictably different from their Indian=20
counterparts. Yet, there was much greater convergence on the whole=20
than would have been expected between two hostile nations.

And we also got to listen directly to the man who today rules=20
Pakistan. We did not have to depend on interpretations of what he=20
said or condensed excerpts from his press conference.

The entire meeting was televised - for Indian and Pakistani viewers.=20
And even if this is supposed to have put a spanner in the works, it=20
will have served a purpose if it makes people on this side believe=20
that we are dealing with a man whose language we can understand.

However, while hearing Gen. Pervez Musharraf directly has enhanced=20
our understanding of what he thinks and where he stands on many=20
issues, the press has also revealed how little he knows about certain=20
important aspects of Indian history.

For instance, it was curious to read a press report about the=20
questions on Gandhiji that Gen. Musharraf asked Mr. Digvijay Singh,=20
the Minister-in-waiting.

The General seemed to know very little about Gandhiji and did not=20
even know that he was assassinated on January 30. He reportedly asked=20
whether Gandhiji had been killed with a knife or a gun. He did not=20
know that Gandhiji's decision to return to India and fight for=20
freedom followed the incident in South Africa when he was thrown off=20
a train because of the colour of his skin.

If the President of Pakistan does not have knowledge about the most=20
prominent actor in the freedom struggle, then how much must the=20
present generation of Pakistanis know?

The same can be said about this country. How many children know about=20
Jinnah or about the events that led to the creation of Pakistan?

Indeed how many would know about Maharaja Hari Singh or about Sheikh=20
Abdullah or understand why the Pakistanis keep talking about ``the=20
unfinished agenda of Partition'' with regard to Kashmir.

While we did hear non-official Pakistanis and the Pakistani=20
President, we never heard the voice of our Prime Minister at all over=20
the three days, only of his appointed spokespersons.

Why, for instance, if Gen. Musharraf had a breakfast meeting with=20
Indian journalists did not Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee have one with=20
Pakistani journalists? They were present in considerable numbers and=20
it would have been an interesting exercise if the two meetings took=20
place simultaneously in different locations.

The hand-wringing and analyses about the apparent failure of the=20
summit is only just beginning on both sides of the border. What is=20
sad, however, is the impact that the conclusion that the talks did=20
fail is having on attitudes in Pakistan. The News in Pakistan on=20
Tuesday asked readers to vote on its website whether they thought=20
there was a chance that relations between India and Pakistan would=20
improve. More than 50 per cent voted in the negative. That is a sorry=20
reflection on what could follow in the future.

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

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 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To 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.

[ All interested and concerned by the dangers of Nuclearisation of South
Asia are invited to join South Asians Against Nukes Mailing List. =3D> send=
a
blank e-mail message to : <saan-subscribe@l...> ]