[sacw] SACW #1 (17 Dec. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #1. | 17 December 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

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

#1. American Presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan (MB Naqvi)
#2. Pakistani and Indian Governments need help for resuming a serious civil=
ised
dialogue. (M. B. Naqvi)
#3. Conference Against Emergency and External Intervention in Nepal
#4. The Girl Next Door (Shauravi Malik)
#5. Breeding little hawks (Javed Jabbar)
#6. There is No One Loyalty (Amit Bhaduri)
________________________

#1.
ON AMERICAN PRESENCE IN PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN
by MB Naqvi
Karachi December 15:
One collateral damage that America=92s War on Terror in Afghanistan has
already caused to Pakistan is American troops=92 presence on a permanent
or semi-permanent basis. According to a Pakistani news agency report,
President Pervez Musharraf has already agreed to the American request
for an extended stay of American troops at the Jacobabad base and of
course also to the continued use of the base. The duration of this
base=92s use or troops stay has not been specified in the news but clearly
appears to be indefinite.

The base at Jacobabad is also to be renovated on an urgent basis. Over
40,000 metric tons of concrete is to be used to build barracks for the
troops that will be air-conditioned. The number of troops thus could
only be very considerable. But this is for just one base: Jacobabad.
There are three other bases in current American use. It is not known
whether they too will remain in extended American use or will be
surrendered.

There is widespread scepticism in the country about true American war
aims. Few dispute that Americans have genuine concerns about Terrorism,
Al-Qaeda, Mulla Omar, Taliban and Osama bin Laden. But many politically
aware people think that American security thinkers, generals and
politicians in power have not been in a state of hibernation since Sept
11 and are not at work now, planning next geopolitical and geo-economic
moves after recent gains in Afghanistan.

There are clear indications that Americans are going to be around
(present in strength) in Afghanistan for a long time to come. Their
military will surely remain in places like Bagram, Mazar-i-Sharif,
Kandhar and Jalalabad indefinitely. This will be in addition to their
presence in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. India cannot be a
worry for the Americans, as it was the very first country that offered
its every facility=92s use to the US after the Sept 11 attacks.

The infrastructure for American leadership role in Asia is thus being
expanded and strengthened. The only question is what is the precise
connotation of what is variously expressed as Pax Americana, leadership
role or plain old-fashioned term domination. Political influence, per
se, is not of much value to expend treasure, though it is very welcome
to politicians in power. It is the economic benefits that accrue from
=91influence=92 which are the real prize that can make the extra expenditur=
e
in wars and forward deployments well worth a modern government=92s while.

Seen in this light America=92s War on Terror --- at least hitherto ---
promises to be quite profitable. Its ability to bid for and indeed to
clinch, the deals has vastly improved for projects of oil, gas, many
minerals or contracts for modernising many armies and air forces, not to
mention the new opening avenues for surplus American capital.

Already the geostrategic situation of America may have decisively
improved. Others independence of action may correspondingly have been
degraded. Among the latter most importantly are India and Pakistan who,
in days to come, may feel hemmed in or forced to toe the line. Those
whose activities would tend to get thus limited are Russia and China.
The whole geopolitical climate may be undergoing a sea change. Look at
the anxiety of the UK, France and other EU friends of the US to be able
to contribute troops to the multinational force now being readied in
London --- a desperate bind to register even a token presence in
Afghanistan, far most the only chance of stationing their own troops
where the action is. And look how American authorities were reluctant
over even the British troops=92 deployment.

If some Asians see all this as the updated version of showing the flag,
few should be surprised. To many Asians the US is apt to seem like an
imperium in imperio in their own areas. In addition to the possible
rivalries and competitive moves from other powers, turbulent popular
movements may arise in countries like India and Pakistan the governments
of which may come to be seen as having been too complaisant to the
Americans drive for power and pelf under cover of fighting terrorism.
______

#2.

PAKISTANI AND INDIAN GOVERNMENTS NEED HELP FOR RESUMING A SERIOUS CIVILISED
DIALOGUE.
By M. B. Naqvi

Following the Wednesday terrorist attack on the Parliament in New Delhi,
India and Pakistan seem set to slide into war --- now or a little later.
Their governments can scarcely rise above the futility of angry mutual
accusations and making hostile propaganda attain ever greater intensity.
Far too much poison has been injected into the public discourse
vis-=E0-vis the other within each country and between them.

At any rate, the two governments can not be trusted to keep peace
between themselves because their politics --- Pakistan demands serious
negotiations on Kashmir and India feels unable to talk on the subject
--- brings them into conflict at every step. Indian government, with
inflamed nationalistic opinion behind it, has barred all foreign
mediation. And yet without some outside help, the two can neither arrest
the powerful undertow towards all out hostilities nor begin talking in a
civilised way to defuse the situation. They obviously need help, if not
of a government, then non-official for resuming a serious civilised
dialogue.

Both sides make a case that is strong enough. Secular framework of
Indian politics and polity not only needs to be preserved but
strengthened. On the other hand, the present insurgency in Kashmir
cannot be allowed to go on; it is killing youngmen on a large-scale;
wealth is not only being destroyed but its new creation is being
preempted; and horrible violations of human rights are being perpetrated
by 'both' sides. A solution of some sort for the Kashmir problem is
unavoidable if a ruinous war is to be avoided. An India-Pakistan war now
has more than one dimension of terror for common people on either side.
It will not be like US=92 war on Iraq or even Afghanistan.

Here religious passions of well over a billion persons, men and women,
are being steadily roused by hardliners on both sides. Indeed, the
governments in New Delhi and Islamabad are culpable: they keep stoking
the fires of what is religious intolerance through their work-a-day
Hindu and Muslim politics that is based on communal sentiments with much
dissembling rhetoric. They have a bad history of communal hostility of
over a century behind them. Evidence of religious intolerance is
everywhere in both countries.

Today=92s rulers are legatees of those who carried out world's largest
ethnic cleansing and widespread genocide, not to mention trampling of
human decencies and rights underfoot in the days of 1947 partition of
British Indian Empire. Communal riots have been frequent in both
countries wherever they could since. Should a war break out in the
present surcharged atmosphere, religious minorities stand to suffer
horribly. Ferocity of the war can set off a prairi fire of
religiously-motivated strife --- a prospect that should not be allowed
to materialise.

Then, the two countries are nuclear powers. Should a war erupt, there
will be strong temptation to use nuclear weapons to --- quickly crush
the losing side and by the weaker party to avoid being defeated. A
nuclear exchange on the populous Subcontinent will cause horrible death
and destruction. India no doubt talks of no-first-use but is now said to
have evolved a doctrine that permits a conventional war --- for which
India is better prepared --- and thinks there will not be a nuclear
exchange. There is no reason to ignore the repeated Pakistani threat of
using the atomic weapons first if it looks like losing the war.
Moreover, in a war between two nuclear powers, no one can possibly wait
for the other side to obliterate a city or two before using one's own
nuclear weapon; both may in fact race to be the first to use it.

A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would otherwise be
unthinkable because, all said and one, the human material in the
leadership on both sides is aware enough and human enough not to inflict
nuclear destruction even on the 'enemy' country. But the roused passions
on both sides that are strongly tinged with religious hatred and, in
conjunction with the profound mistrust that the mere existence of
nuclear weapons on the 'other' side inevitably generate, can cloud
judgements, especially of the kind of political decision-makers there
are.

What is needed therefore is some wise people with high statures to
intercede with both to move back from forward deployments --- from high
alerts and hair-trigger readiness --- and to begin negotiations. Now, it
should be widely known that left to themselves neither the two
governmental leaders --- after the kind of exchanges they have indulged
in --- nor their bureaucracies will find it easy to sustain a meaningful
dialogue. Ruling classes in both countries have boxed themselves in
formulations that leaves no meeting point and which would drive each
other away. The intervention from outside cannot however be too
intrusive. It can only initiate the process. The help for sustaining the
inter-state dialogue will have to be by leading members of the
intelligentsia in both countries acting both nationally as well as
jointly for coordinated efforts to find principles and formulations that
the two governments can accept and which would eventually make the
negotiations fruitful.

We have thus to find individuals of wisdom as well as high stature who
can be persuaded to undertake this difficult task. Who can such persons
of goodwill be? Well, if a hundred persons were to find five to 10
persons from around the world, a few names that are repeatedly by most
of these 100 can surely be agreed upon. Here is a suggestion. Let there
be an international seminar of prominent persons on the subject. Let it
suggest a committee of five, seven or ten. This would, after studying
the problems at issue exhaustively, make the two governments begin the
dialogue at appropriate levels. They can then retire after popularising
their common approach, if any.

But the task of sustaining this official dialogue will then devolve on
prominent intellectuals of India and Pakistan. They have to jointly and
separately find formulations and principles on which hopes can be pinned
that they can be usefully and productively accepted by the two
governments, on the one hand, and popular consensus can be created among
the two people, on the other. Let me set the ball rolling about
selections.

For the international committee, one should look for men and women who
have experience of national affairs, have conducted international talks,
possess high integrity as well as stature, not to say wisdom. One can
throw in a few names for a start. How about persuading Bishop Tutu and
Nelson Mandela from South Africa, Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl from
Germany, Jimmy Carter and Michael Gorbachev, leaders of international
peace movement and anti-nuclear campaigns and a few Nobel Laureates.
Persons noted for their human rights struggles such as Wali Khan,
Justices VM Tarkunde and Sachar to name only two and a few noted
Gandhians, with a few literatures thrown in. Out of such a lot
volunteers must be sought and a few like Mandela and Tutu press-ganged,
in a manner of speaking.

The Subcontinent itself is not devoid of persons of goodwill and
stature. Similar national committees and an Indo Pakistani steering
committee can be created not only to help sustain the inter-governmental
negotiations but to arrange brainstorming sessions at suitable intervals
of Indian and Pakistani intelligentsia at nationally and jointly.

Can some such thing be done?
______

#3.

CONFERENCE AGAINST EMERGENCY AND EXTERNAL INTERVENTION IN NEPAL
New Delhi, 17 December,2001

Dear friends,
Developments in Nepal have been in news for sometime now. But most=20
people in India remain un-informed about the dynamics of Nepalese=20
politics. Who are these Maoists? Are they terrorists? Why did the=20
talks breakdown? What were the talks all about? etc etc are several=20
questions that remain unanswered. It is in order to bridge the gap in=20
our understanding and provide some answers a meeting is being held to=20
consider the declaration of emergency in Nepal as well as the=20
likelihood of outside interference in the name of 'global war against=20
terrorism'.
Please come and also inform others.

Place: Gandhi Peace Foundation (Deendayal Upadhyay Marg)
Time: Monday, December 17 at 2 PM

Thanking you,

(Anand Swaroop Verma)
on behalf of the Organising Committee

New Delhi, 17 December,2001
This convention has been called to focus on the role of the Indian=20
Govt. in context of the ongoing political movement in Nepal. Breaking=20
off talks with the Maoists on the formation of a constituent assembly=20
for the country, the Deuba Govt. has declared an Emergency and=20
clamped down on democratic rights of the Nepalese people. Various=20
reports in the media suggest widespread killing of civilians and=20
their repression at the hands of the Army controlled by the King.
In reference to this situation, the role of the Govt. of India=20
should be a matter of serious concern for all democratic sections in=20
India. The American Attack on Afghanistan has clearly brought to the=20
fore, the aspiration of the Indian ruling class to act as regional=20
policemen in South Asia and to further the interests of imperialism.=20
In keeping with this, utilizing the situation created by the attacks=20
on WTC towers on 11th September, the BJP led NDA Govt. has joined the=20
general clamour of labelling every movement as 'terrorist' and using=20
this climate to justify repression. Not only are they supplying=20
military equipment to the Deuba Govt. but has begun a crackdown on=20
Nepalese people in India. Thus the Indian Govt. has rushed to put its=20
fingers into the Nepal situation. First it has appropriated to itself=20
the right to interfere, saying that crushing the Maoist is part of=20
the ''global war against terrorism'', something which even the Deuba=20
Govt. does not say, as it calls the Maoists 'rebels' and treats them=20
as a political force, Anyway by appropriating to itself the right to=20
'crush terrorism' in Nepal, the BJP led Govt. proves its aspirations=20
of policing the region.
Secondly, not only has it wholeheartedly supported the declaration of=20
Emergency, it has rushed arms and materials to Nepal. There are=20
sufficiently proven reports of movement of army helicopters into=20
Nepal and of 11 trucks of military material being sent to Nepal via=20
Siliguri. Indian Army is known to be training Nepalese personnel and=20
probably the only consideration which has so far kept the Indian Army=20
itself out of Nepal is the fear of a patriotic upsurge among the=20
Nepalese people which would be directed against the Deuba Govt. and=20
the King.
What kind of a Govt. a country should have, in the case of Nepal or=20
any other, should be the decision of the people of that country=20
alone. The Indian Govt. has no right to interfere in the internal=20
affairs of Nepal. Whatever may be our opinion on the ongoing struggle=20
in Nepal, we call upon all democratic friends to come forward to=20
demand that Indian Govt. must refrain from interfering, must stop=20
military support to Deuba Govt., which is using it against its own=20
people. It is for the Nepalese people to decide what Govt. they=20
should have.
In this context, we call upon the Deuba Govt. to lift Emergency, stop=20
crushing the democratic rights of the people. It should resume talks=20
to settle the political questions. Repression is not the answer.
We have invited speakers today who can tell us about what is going on=20
in Nepal, what is the actual political ground situation.

Contact Address: C/o Q-63, Sector-12, Noida-201301
Ph.: Anand Swaroop Verma: 91-4524504, Gautam Navlakha: 6476580, Anoop=20
Saraya: 6195692,
Anil Chamaria:7853886, N.K. Bhattacharya: 7580073
e-mail: vermada@h...

______

#4.

chowk.com

THE GIRL NEXT DOOR
by Shauravi Malik

My fascination with Pakistan began early with countless stories of=20
large farmlands and a peaceful idyllic existence; of British rule and=20
zamindars, or maaliks, which is how my family got its surname.=20
Stories of lassi brimming with malai and asli ghee ke paranthay,=20
interspersed with stories of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood. There were=20
some stories that I was never told, but overheard: the story of how=20
my grandfather crossed the border with a truck full of family,=20
leaving everything he had ever known for an alien land in the name of=20
God. Of how he was held at gunpoint at the border and told that the=20
only way his family would be allowed across alive would be if the=20
next truck from the Indian side carried no dead bodies. I vowed to=20
myself that I would go back once, to see for my grandparents, what=20
had become of the land they had left. I found myself wondering if the=20
fields of Jhang really were golden, and whether the land was as=20
beautiful as my grandfather remembered.

My first visit to Pakistan was as part of a college trip soon after=20
the Kargil conflict. Many warned us that it was not the best time to=20
go, but off we went, on Mr. Vajpayee's much touted Delhi-Lahore bus,=20
on a cold winter morning, accompanied by a slightly less=20
enthusiastic, but extremely encouraging faculty member. After having=20
our luggage thoroughly searched on both sides of the border (Attari=20
-Wagah), we were finally in Pakistan.

Our first mission upon reaching Lahore was to find a suitable place=20
to eat. Being the excited tourists we were, we set off for Anarkali=20
bazaar, which was walking distance from the hotel. That was when we=20
noted the first significant difference: vegetarians are a severe=20
minority in Pakistan. If you want to be vegetarian and a tourist,=20
better be prepared to eat bread and butter.

It felt a bit strange to be out in a supposedly hostile country and=20
not know what the next step was. But just as we began to succumb to=20
that sinking feeling of "where-the-hell-are-we?" we met a=20
photographer, who willingly drove all eleven of us around the city in=20
his Maruti Omni (or whatever it's called in Pakistan). Later, he took=20
us for lunch to a dhaba and refused to let us pay. Suffice to say, we=20
were all was astounded by his hospitality. Later on in the day, we=20
met Nusrat Jamil - our sole contact in Lahore - where we were, once=20
again, assailed by Lahori hospitality.

Our trip to Islamabad began on the famous Daewoo motorway, which=20
bypasses all cities, settlements and signs of human life, save the=20
immaculately clean Daewoo rest stops on the way. The road was a dream=20
to travel on - smooth and unfamiliarly un -bumpy; this did not feel=20
like a third world country. We were told later that most trucks=20
continue to use the old Grand Trunk Road, on account of the high=20
tolls required on the motorway. As we trundled along in our super=20
luxury buses, I missed the hustle and bustle back in Lahore. But I=20
was soon distracted by the drive through the neatly harvested fields=20
of the Punjab and subsequently, the breathtaking Salt Ranges. I kept=20
an eye out for Sargodha, where some of my family was born and which=20
is the closest one passes by Jhang. I caught myself wishing that the=20
Pakistani embassy had not denied my request for an individual visa to=20
Jhang.

Upon arriving in Islamabad, I found it unlike any city I have seen in=20
the Sub-Continent. As an Indian, one instantly envies the urban=20
picture-perfection, not to be found in our own country. There are=20
rows upon rows of official buildings and offices, all very=20
aesthetically pleasing and opulent. Islamabad was clearly a city=20
planned for visiting politicians and the urban elite. But at the same=20
time, I found the city almost over sanitised and disquieting, and=20
longed for zigzag, cluttered streets, and the discordant sounds of=20
life. From Islamabad, we travelled to the ruins at Taxila. In Taxila,=20
I got talking with the tour guide and asked him how the people of=20
Pakistan managed to live under what is ostensibly military rule. He=20
told me of the ills that had plagued the nation under the former=20
Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, and how most people were happy that the=20
corrupt were being brought to book.

Back in Lahore, we took to exploring Anarkali bazaar with a=20
vengeance. Our "agents" duly followed us, one pair on a bike, and=20
another group in a Gypsy. Our churidars instantly gave us away as=20
Indians and led to some amazing bargains, zillions of cups of chai=20
and invitations for lunch. It seems like every shopkeeper had a=20
story, a relative back in India, a shop in Chandni Chowk in Delhi,=20
which they wanted to know about; a house, a childhood memory, a link=20
however tenuous, even if it was just mere curiosity.

All too soon, the trip came to end, and I was left with a whirl of=20
memories and events. Fed with grandiose theories on "conflict=20
resolution" and "how to understand the other," I had made the journey=20
with preconceived notions. I left tinged with a warm sense of=20
belonging and a sense of empathy for the common problems and=20
sufferring on both sides of the border. On the face of it, Pakistan=20
has several trappings that India seems to lack. The roads have fewer=20
potholes, and the cars are snazzier. In particular, public transport=20
is remarkably convenient. The rickshaws are cheap and buses are=20
bright and clean. As complete strangers, we were able to negotiate=20
our way with ease - which is more than I can say about making it to=20
college back in Delhi. But, as a woman on the streets, I felt a sense=20
of isolation. It's not that people conspicuously stare or leer. It's=20
just that there are not enough women on the streets giving off the=20
feeling of a male bastion. Of course, one only has to hit the shops=20
in Anarkali, or even in PACE, to put that feeling of isolation to=20
rest - all the same, it felt good to walk the streets upon getting=20
home.

A father's description:- Shauravi is 20, going straight on 28,=20
currently in her final year at St. Stephens in Delhi, allegedly=20
pursuing a degree in Economics, but I think there are too many boys=20
hanging around her at our home and eating everything including the=20
fridge. As her father, I am simply glad that she can drive a car=20
better than most of the guys her age. Genes jump generations is the=20
best way to describe matters in perspective.

Previously published at The Friday Times
______

#5.

The Hindu (India) Monday, Dec 17, 2001
Opinion
BREEDING LITTLE HAWKS
By Javed Jabbar

Getting children to raise hands in response to one-liner questions on=20
issues as solemn as war and peace, as life and death, epitomised the=20
superficial yet potentially dangerous uses to which TV is put.

ON THE night of December 9, 2001, at about 11 p.m. Pakistan Standard=20
Time or about 11-30 p.m. Indian Standard Time, the Star News TV=20
channel based in New Delhi telecast a special edition of ``Star=20
Talk''. It was hosted by Mr. Vir Sanghvi and featured the Indian=20
Information Minister, Ms. Sushma Swaraj. They faced 30 to 40 school=20
children aged between 10 and 14 years. The special edition was=20
recorded and telecast to mark UNICEF's observance of Universal=20
Children's Day.

One expected a special programme like this to concentrate young and=20
tender minds on subjects of shared human interest, of common global=20
values so as to do justice to the true meaning and significance of=20
Universal Children's Day. But going by about 80 per cent of the=20
programme's content, it would have been more appropriate to telecast=20
the show on a day specially invented to mark ``Universal Hate Your=20
Neighbour Day''.

The school children looked intelligent and charming. They appeared=20
capable of exercising their own minds quite independently on their=20
own to the extent that children can do at their ages. However,=20
judging by the content and tone of most of their questions put to the=20
honourable Minister they had clearly been coached or primed in=20
advance by a certain kind of adult mindset that seems to be soaring=20
to new heights in India since the BJP took charge, and more specially=20
since Kargil and September 11, 2001.

The very first question put by a child, if I recall correctly, posed=20
the following profound thesis: ``Since the U.S.A has begun bombing=20
Afghanistan after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, why=20
should not, or cannot, India apply the policy of `hot pursuit' and=20
attack targets in Pakistan and/or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir?'' This=20
thoroughly adult opening proposition was virtually an echo of the=20
line that is being assiduously promoted for the past few weeks by=20
certain analysts on Indian TV talk shows. The obvious intent is to=20
give popular currency to the concept and term `hot pursuit': so that=20
even children begin using it as a perfectly acceptable option for=20
India's conduct.

Succeeding questions sustained the direction set by the opening=20
salvo. ``Why should we wait (to use force)?'' ``Kashmir is just the=20
start (by Pakistan)''. ``As Kashmir is legally a part of India, how=20
many Indians will have to go on dying before the terrorism by=20
Pakistan stops?''

Some children had either been given less abrasive suggestions or they=20
themselves were assertive enough to pose questions of a different=20
nature. For example: ``Do you think the people of Kashmir care more=20
for Pakistan than they do for India?'' And, ``Why are there so many=20
terrorists?''

One innocent child narrated a hypothetical query posed by a teacher=20
in school to the effect: ``What will happen if Kashmir is given to=20
Pakistan?'' This was like throwing a full toss to the lady. She duly=20
obliged by lifting it right out of the ground. Predictably, she spoke=20
in capital letters to say ``no'' just in case some naive Pakistanis=20
were expecting this gift to come true. But just to make sure such a=20
heresy was not repeated, however hypothetical and well-intentioned it=20
may be to provoke some sober reflection on the subject, the BJP=20
leader emphasised that neither this aberrant teacher nor any other=20
teacher for that matter should ever dare to pose such hypothetical=20
questions again.

When Ms. Swaraj was not breathing fire and brimstone about Pakistan,=20
she also pointed out that Indian Muslims have never sided with=20
Pakistan on Kashmir. In any case, Indian Muslims have enough of other=20
crises of survival, security and equity of opportunity to worry about=20
instead of also joining the Kashmir issue to their lives. No one in=20
Pakistan, including India's favourite Pakistani institution, the ISI,=20
wants or expects Indian Muslims to take up the Kashmir issue.

There was also reference by the children to some other very adult=20
reflections such as the need to do away with Article 370 of the=20
Constitution that gives Jammu and Kashmir special status. As also a=20
concern about how non-Kashmiri Indians are thus prevented from=20
migrating into Jammu and Kashmir and owning property. The remaining=20
portion of the programme dealt with children's views about the new=20
laws being introduced in India to deal with terrorism and with other=20
subjects.

Some of the children in their supplementary comments proved that they=20
have an inherent ability to pose pertinent questions and comments.=20
When one child referred to a recent visit to Pakistan by a group of=20
Indian children and how friendly they found Pakistani children to be,=20
Ms. Swaraj began to make the distinction between the people of=20
Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan so as to presumably ascribe=20
all that is bad to the Government. But at this critical moment, for=20
some inexplicable reason, our TV screen went blank for a couple of=20
minutes. So I cannot be sure about how she went on to stress the=20
goodness of the people of Pakistan but I am sure that she did so.

Other answers by Ms. Swaraj either built upon the incendiary nature=20
of the loaded questions put by the children or injected her own views=20
about Pakistan to ensure that the hostile opening tone was maintained=20
in the minds of children and others vulnerable to such insinuations.

On a special occasion and at a time in history when the focus should=20
have been, say, on the devastating effect of the Kashmir dispute on=20
Kashmiri children's lives, their families, their education, their=20
well- being, the entire emphasis was on villianising Pakistan and=20
spewing vitriol. There was not a single reference to the children of=20
that territory.

This TV programme seemed like an Indian madrassah of the airwaves for=20
overt and covert indoctrination. In a country which rightly prides=20
itself on its pluralism and diversity, this show was evidence of how,=20
using the facade of freedom of speech, a blanket uniformity of=20
opinion is sought to be imposed. Incidentally, not all madrassahs are=20
centres of brain-washing - but that is another story!

The shock one felt at this callous approach to children masked under=20
homilies and tributes to their ``intelligence'' and ``patriotism''=20
gave way to a sense of pity and sadness for those who speak and act=20
like this in India. They belong to a country so large, so rich in=20
history and human talent. Yet they are blinkered, alas, with so=20
limited a vision. To resort to exploiting children as intellectually=20
bonded labour to state an untenable case is remorse extremis.

Mr. Sanghvi made a vital contribution to ensure the pre- determined=20
bias of the show. At one stage, he asked the children to show their=20
hands to answer his question: ``How many of you think war (with=20
Pakistan) is inevitable?'' When several put up their arms, he=20
concluded that there was a fair number of hawks in the studio. With=20
similar helpful nudges and shoves he made sure the war dragon huffed=20
and puffed through the show.

Getting children to raise hands in response to one-liner questions on=20
issues as solemn as war and peace, as life and death, epitomised the=20
superficial yet potentially dangerous uses to which TV is put. This=20
TV show symbolises the urgency of the need for the media leadership=20
in Pakistan and India to conduct a critical introspection and replace=20
such a poisonous, conceptual approach with a more humane and=20
harmonious vision.

(Writer's note: The following comment was written just before the=20
attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. Predictably,=20
one of the immediate consequences of the reprehensible terrorist=20
incident is reiteration by certain elements in India of their=20
conviction that Pakistan is responsible even though President=20
Musharraf has immediately categorically condemned the attack because=20
there can be no possible gain for Pakistan by sponsoring such=20
actions. While the December 13 event requires separate comment, this=20
writer is of the humble opinion that the TV programme with which this=20
comment deals concerns an equally disturbing theme: the fostering of=20
mistrust and hate between our two countries.)

(The writer is a former Information Minister of Pakistan.)

______

#6.

The Telegraph (India) 16 December 2001

THERE IS NO ONE LOYALTY
BY AMIT BHADURI

If we refuse to learn from the happenings around us today, it would=20
be a miracle if we did not have to pay a high price for it tomorrow.=20
One only has to take note of the unending ethnic-religious violence=20
in Sri Lanka. Or, the U-turn in politics which the military=20
dictator-turned-president in Pakistan has been engaged in making=20
since September 11. His particular version of "nationalism" used to=20
be focussed on the solution of the Kashmir problem through military=20
manoeuvres, aiding and aided by Islamic "freedom fighters" who=20
believe in the Holy War.

History would show in the near future whether fighting for freedom in=20
Kashmir, now disinherited officially from the religious fervour of a=20
Holy War, can sustain a high pitch for long. However, more important=20
for the future of Pakistan is whether it would be able to extricate=20
itself from its peculiar military-religious nexus of cultural=20
nationalism, or would embrace this sort of ideology even more firmly=20
in a self-destructive mode, creating in turn a similar reaction from=20
Hindu nationalists.

The narrower the definition of a culture, the greater is the danger=20
of its degenerating soon into some form of terrorism, no matter=20
whether the terrorism is conducted by a group of organized=20
individuals in the name of religion, ethnicity and so on, or is=20
sponsored by the state. We need also to remember that the narrowness=20
of the concept of culture may come not only from religious or ethnic=20
fundamentalism. It may be the product of the other form of=20
narrowness, namely political fanaticism. The history of the=20
sufferings inflicted on the people of Vietnam in the name of=20
"democracy and freedom", which also involved a whole generation of=20
young and innocent Americans conscripted to fight meaninglessly in a=20
distant land, should be a reminder to us that fundamentalism comes in=20
all shapes, colours and sizes.

The killing fields of Cambodia were an extreme version of the same=20
phenomenon of fanatic political nationalism, in this case in the=20
"cause" of a classless society. Although Islamic fundamentalism looms=20
large at the moment as a major force propelling terrorism, we are=20
informed by the history of the 20th century that it is by no means=20
the only version of fundamentalism that can turn ugly. The fact that=20
fundamentalism can appear in such a bewildering variety of guises=20
with potentially dangerous consequences makes it nearly impossible to=20
have a consensus on it.

This is the reason why all the member states of the United Nations=20
recently agreed that terrorism, which originates from fundamentalism=20
of one sort or another, is bad. But they could not come to any agreed=20
definition of terrorism. And, without facing this issue, the ongoing=20
"war against terrorism" by a supposedly worldwide coalition, is being=20
sustained today simply by the superpower status of the United States=20
of America. Many countries, like Pakistan, fell in line simply=20
because the cost of going against the national interest of the=20
superpower would be far too high. Even a complete military victory=20
against this particular form of fundamentalist terrorism, in the=20
guise of Islam, would not be a moral victory. A definition of=20
terrorism imposed by a superpower is likely to create a reaction=20
against it, perhaps in another form, in another place.

If we look for a moral solution to the problem of terrorism, we would=20
soon be led to a sort of Gandhian position that ends do not justify=20
means. And, the use of violence, inflicting suffering on the innocent=20
as inevitable collateral damage, is never justified, no matter how=20
grotesque the evil that is being fought. However, this moral position=20
is so removed from the real politics of the world today, that it is=20
unlikely to provide much operational guidance. It may provide us with=20
a moral standard, but we do not know how to translate it into the=20
day-to-day affairs of the state.

There is no use pretending that anyone has a solution to this complex=20
problem of fundamentalist terrorism that can appear in various=20
guises. As a matter of fact, to recognize that terrorism has had a=20
variety of fundamentalist origins in recent historical experiences is=20
to begin to search for an honest solution.

At the practical level, such an honest solution has to depend on the=20
device of checks and balances in the polity and in the society. A=20
democratic polity is well-suited for this task, provided we recognize=20
that democracy is not merely about majority rule, it is also about=20
the protection of minority rights. In that sense, it is not an=20
absolute or abstract standard of political correctness. In a=20
civilized polity, we would learn to protect minority rights,=20
reflected in a diversity of religions, ethnicity or language, not as=20
a necessary evil to be tolerated by law, but as a source of cultural=20
richness of "a people". There is nothing more misleading than to talk=20
about the "clash of civilizations". Because, civilizations do not=20
clash, what clash are the one-dimensional fundamentalist tendencies=20
that deny the value of diversity. Any civilization is=20
multi-dimensional in that sense.

An apparent flaw of the democratic system is that "we", the majority,=20
tend to look upon "them", the minority or the less privileged, as=20
having rights which infringe on our majority rights. As we know all=20
too well, this creates tension about reservation, about affirmative=20
action. There is no easy solution to this problem, and politicians=20
with a fundamentalist agenda will always try to exploit this problem.

Yet, the recognition of one simple point might help in at least=20
reducing the intensity of this issue of majority rule versus minority=20
right in a democracy. In a basic sense, no individual belongs to the=20
majority, because each has multiple loyalties or affiliations. Thus,=20
a Tamil Brahmin may belong to the majority Hindu community in one=20
sense, but he also belongs to the Brahmin minority in another sense.=20
Moreover, suppose he is an old-fashioned scholar of Sanskrit texts=20
with relatively little knowledge of Hindi, but lives in the northern=20
part of India. He does not belong to the Hindi-speaking majority; as=20
a matter of fact, he might think of himself as belonging to a=20
minority language group despite his superior knowledge of the root=20
language of Sanskrit.

Thus, each of us can look deep into ourselves to realize how we all=20
are the products in different ways of such multiple loyalties and=20
affiliations, which may at times even contradict each other. In terms=20
of some loyalties, we belong to the minority, but in terms of others=20
we belong to the majority. It is the job of dishonest politicians to=20
manipulate these various loyalties in an attempt to create a=20
hierarchy; with an overriding loyalty so that, a "majority" can be=20
separated from a "minority". This can then provide a platform for=20
fundamentalism of some sort to create a winning democratic majority.

It should be the task of the civil society, and of real democratic=20
politics to counter such manipulations by insisting on a simple=20
truth; that individuals are necessarily the product of multiple=20
loyalties. None of us belongs unambiguously to the majority or=20
minority in a civilized society. Spreading this recognition might be=20
the most potent weapon we have against fundamentalist terrorism.=20
However, it would not leave any version of cultured "nationalism"=20
unaffected either, no matter whether it is based on ethnicity,=20
religion or language of the traditional world, or a supposedly=20
"correct" political culture of the modern world.

The author is former professor of economics, Jawaharlal Nehru=20
University, New Delhi

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

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