[sacw] SACW #1 (02 January. 02)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 2 January 2002
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------
#1. India Pakistan: Diplomacy will work, not military action, will=20
succeed against terrorism (Praful Bidwai)
#2. Terrorism and War euphoria (V.K.Tripathi)
#3. Cold war's many costs (M. B. Naqvi)
#4. Averting A Ruinous War - What's the way out? (Praful Bidwai)
#5. "Peace Initiatives between Indian and Pakistan" by the People for Peac=
e
#6. `Peace be with you' (C.Rammanohar Reddy)
#7. India: Shiv Sena's rituals for soldiers invites Maharashtra govt's wrat=
h

________________________

#1.

Published in "The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, December 28, 2001

Diplomacy will work, not military action, will succeed against terrorism

Sow seeds of construction

By PRAFUL BIDWAI

The United States' inclusion of the Lashkar-e-Toiba and=20
Jaish-e-Mohammed in the "terrorist organizations" list will be widely=20
welcomed; as will Pakistan's positive response to the move--even if=20
that comes out of opportunism, compulsion or coercion, rather than=20
sincere acknowledgement of the gravity of the December 13 attack on=20
Parliament House. But it would be illusory to think that these=20
developments will dispel the war clouds over India and Pakistan which=20
are now locked in a fearsome eyeball-to-eyeball military=20
confrontation. The present enormous build-up along the border is far=20
greater than the preparations that preceded and attended the Kargil=20
war.

What makes the build-up much nastier is not just the deployment of a=20
panoply of weapons, including nuclear-capable missiles, but the mood=20
of bellicose intransigence prevalent among many of India's=20
policy-makers, and their obsession with purely military options with=20
which to combat terrorism. Three ironies are in evidence here. Not=20
long ago, our generals (and Pakistan's) would take pride in the fact=20
that India-Pakistan wars, while brutal, were "gentlemanly", short and=20
"clean". Typically, they did not target too many civilian=20
installations or population centres.

Today, the generals are counselling restraint but many diplomats are=20
baying for nasty, "decisive", "final-solution" military operations to=20
eradicate "cross-border terrorism" once and for all. Some measures=20
proposed, like abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty, could cause=20
irreversible but horrific damage. This role-reversal signifies a=20
terrible coarsening of our public discourse, now contaminated by=20
jingoism and bloody-mindedness.

Second, the government has still not collected or released clinching=20
evidence of the Jaish-e-Mohammed's, leave alone LeT's, involvement in=20
December 13. Even if one believes dubious witnesses like Mohammed=20
Afzal, the evidence still doesn't measure up to a legally tenable=20
indictment. But New Delhi has expanded its charter of demands. It=20
wants Pakistan to act against all known terrorist organisations=20
active in different guises. Evidently, the agenda has got padded up.

And third, most of our political parties, including the Congress,=20
have left to the Vajpayee government's determination the vital issues=20
of how, and with what means, to fight terrorism and protect the=20
national interest. This is not a government they trust, nor one whose=20
security and foreign policies they are comfortable with. They think=20
its leading party is sectarian and communal. As the Tehelka and the=20
coffin scams show, the government cannot be assumed to act=20
responsibly or impartially even in defence matters. Abdicating the=20
duty to oppose the government constructively is bad enough. Failure=20
to hold its feet to the fire on life-and-death issues like war and=20
peace is simply impermissible in a democracy.

There is every reason why the government should be made to desist=20
from military strikes against Pakistan, and from punitive diplomatic=20
measures that could wreck the possibility of contact and dialogue,=20
and make war likelier. The available military options all appear=20
ineffectual and carry inordinately high risks. Most of the=20
once-tomtommed 158 terrorist "training-camps" have probably=20
disappeared or shifted deep inside Pakistan. There is little reliable=20
intelligence on their location. They are beyond artillery range and=20
cannot be hit by high-altitude air-strikes. Low-altitude strikes=20
entail high casualties. Even "hot pursuit"--itself legally dubious on=20
land, as distinct from the sea--risks big losses. As do "pro-active"=20
but "limited" strikes.

There is no such thing as "limited war" in the India-Pakistan case=20
any longer. Pakistan is not the Gaza strip. Strategically, it is=20
relatively evenly matched with India. In today's circumstances, it=20
will surely retaliate. Musharraf, already on the backfoot and under=20
flak from his Right for having "lost" Afghanistan, has no other=20
choice. There can be assurance that an action-reaction spiral will=20
not escalate into a major, protracted, ruinous war, even a nuclear=20
conflagration. A major war will almost certainly destroy Pakistan's=20
economy and set India's back by many years--exacerbating in both=20
countries conditions favouring extreme social discontent, disorder,=20
sectarian strife and terrorism.

Only a reckless, strategically illiterate super-optimist will rule=20
out a possible India-Pakistan nuclear breakout. The two have poorly=20
safeguarded arsenals lacking in command-and-control systems. They are=20
disaster-prone and have poor safety cultures. Missile flight-time=20
between their cities is three to eight minutes. The US and USSR came=20
close to nuclear war hundreds of times despite investing nearly $one=20
trillion in command-and-control. Sub-continental deterrence is at=20
best ramshackle, if not Rambharose. No wonder a clear majority of our=20
former generals and admirals, who have commented on the issue, prefer=20
non-military options and negotiations.

This makes eminent sense. There must be a taut, logical, causal=20
connection between action and result (countering terrorism). This=20
cannot be achieved through coercive (gunboat or missile) diplomacy,=20
which breeds resentment and hostility and thus can only encourage,=20
not deter, terrorism. Therefore, it is futile to cite the US and=20
Israeli examples. These are not instances, certainly not yet, of a=20
successful fight against terrorism. As argued earlier in these=20
columns, the US was morally, politically and legally wrong to wage=20
war on Afghanistan.

The diplomatic measures that India is taking against Pakistan are=20
extreme and won't encourage responsible, reasonable conduct on=20
Islamabad's part. Cancelling bus and rail services does not hurt=20
Musharraf. It hurts the poor traveller, the small trader, the coolie=20
with relatives across the border. These must be reversed. Downgrading=20
diplomatic missions or stopping overflights bears little proportion=20
or casual connection to what India wants to achieve.

The threat to abrogate the Indus Treaty and starve Pakistan of water=20
is obnoxiously misconceived. The Treaty is one of the few successes=20
in a long story of failures. India could become a candidate for stiff=20
sanctions if as an upstream state if chokes off the flow of water and=20
ruins Pakistan's agriculture. Once abrogated, the Treaty will be hard=20
to put together.

In the final analysis, what's crucial in any "anti-terrorist"=20
strategy or measure is proportion, discrimination, balance and=20
efficacy. One essential difference between a freedom-fighter and=20
terrorist is that the latter kills indiscriminately, equating=20
combatants with non-combatants, and mixing up means and ends. India=20
can easily cross this thin dividing line--as Pakistan has long done=20
in Kashmir. India must desist.

Everyone in South Block knows that Musharraf, even the ISI, would=20
have to be insane to instigate the December 13 assault through the=20
very extremists he is now, at last, fighting. The=20
terrorist-extremists brand Musharraf a "traitor" and "failure", and=20
probably killed his interior minister's brother in revenge. This of=20
course is no reason why Musharraf should treat Masood Azhar and=20
Hafeez Saeed leniently. But it is also no reason why Musharraf should=20
be pushed to the wall--and towards a military confrontation.

It is not easy to bring terrorists to book in societies riven by=20
social strife, numerous discontents, widespread corruption, and poor=20
law-and-order. How many terrorists has India successfully brought to=20
trial? What is needed is a sustained programme which involves policy=20
changes, military revamping, the ISI's restructuring, as well as a=20
clampdown on known terrorists. India should cooperate with Musharraf=20
on this, rather than depend on US or European Union demarches. There=20
is a multilateral forum too, however flawed--the Security Council.=20
This has passed a resolution that asks all states to act against=20
terrorists, on pain of sanctions. India must invoke Resolution 1373=20
to ask Pakistan to take verifiable anti-terrorist action.

An additional reason why India must return to peaceful diplomacy--and=20
reconciliation with Pakistan--is Kashmir. The Taliban's defeat and=20
discrediting of many forms of militancy has created an unprecedented=20
political opening in Kashmir. Some of India's sharpest critics may=20
today be willing to contest elections. But that means saying no to=20
war. The BJP alone has a stake in war, which is related to its=20
aggressive, belligerent, communal nationalism. Its anti-Pakistan tilt=20
has been particularly evidence since September 11.

The widespread conjecture that the BJP wants war to avert a total=20
rout in Uttar Pradesh stands confirmed after a December 20 meeting at=20
Vajpayee's residence. Nothing could be more disgustingly cynical than=20
such Machiavellian calculation to exploit the current climate against=20
terrorism. As citizens, we must all reject it with the contempt it=20
deserves.--end--

_____

#2.

[30 Dec. 2001]
Terrorism and War euphoria

V.K.Tripathi

The fidayeen attack on Indian Parliament has escalated tensions between
India and Pakistan to a dangerous level. The attack was a grave
misadventure indeed. Nevertheless, the chances of its success were slim as
the event itself proved. Our reaction to this tragedy has appeared in the
form of a war euphoria, which I think is an insincere response. War is not
a conflict between ruling elites. It is havoc wrecked upon the masses, who
by no strech of imagination can be equated with the ruling elite. In fact
the contradiction between the elite and the masses is the most
fundamental one of all. The former wield economic and political power
while the latter are expolited and meek. We must also remember that the
masses of different countries are the same. Hence, war must be avoided at
all costs unless pushed totally against the wall. If we cannot justify
violence against economic exploitation, how could one justify war against
sporadic acts of terror?

The cries for war are imanating from privileged sections. I am afraid,
none of these people would ever like go to the battle field and risk their
lives. Nor would they like to face any inconvenience or discomfort. They
look for fanciful wars, to watch their excitement on TV screens. They are
unmindful of their lack of courage and insensitivity. They quote unjust
examples of USA's war on Afghanistan and Israel's attacks on Palestinians
to justify their thirst for war. Both instances, however, represent gross
conditioning. These have weakened the inner vitality of their own
people. I think this is a very heavy price any poor country would like to
pay. We do not have wealth or weapons. Soul is our strength and its
vitality rests on truth and sensitivity. Let us feel the agony of Indian
and Pakistani masses and see beyond temporary irritants.

We live in a world of contradictions where intelligence agencies of
different countries work at cross purposes against each other and at times
target political leaders. Aggrieved parties, criminals and mafia dons also
target them. Hence VIPs always run a higher risk. Any flaws in their
security must be addressed forth with. However, security of VIPs is not
made out a case for war. We lost Rajeev Gandhi but we did not attack LTTE
bases in Sri Lanka. Numerous coups were carried out by big powers in third
world countries but none of the sponsoring countries were attacked. In
1979 a bomb blast killed 70 top leaders of Iran. In Cuba several attempts
were made on President Castro's life. But there were no wars. Tighter
security arrangements were indeed made and these were helpful to a
significant measure.

As far as fidayeen attacks are concerned we must examine the nature, cause
and strength of these groups dispassionately. The fidayeens are not the
criminals like Veerappan or Mafia dons who do it for money and to reign
their authority. They are intoxicated by the sectarian view of Kashmir
problem as also of the strife in Bosnia, Iraq, Palestine and other places
where lakhs of Muslims have indeed perished. Their commitment has been
reinforced by religous fundamentalism to the level of self
sacrifice. However, fidayeens do not have the shrewdness of communalists
who strive to capture political power by polarising people. Communalists
do not attack the mightiest but the armless and the weak to create an
atmosphere of mistrust and hatred. Communalists of all religious
shades have been subservient to the interests of rich nations in last
fifty years. Now they wield enormous political power in many countries
including India and Pakistan. The fidayeens' leaders also served the
interests of big powers till a few years ago. Now they indulge in mafia
operations for their financial support. This is their weakest point
contrary to their hyperbole idealism. Their utter disregard for the lives
of fidayeen youth and forcing them to hit against the might of the state
with no chance of success will eventually break them. At a subdued level
terrorism will always continue as long as Kashmir remains a dispute
between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri people, and no genuine initiative
emerges to break the deadlock.

A year ago the Government of India had invited Hizbul Mujahideen, the
largest terrorist outfit in Kashmir, for talks saying that they are the
indigineous group, i.e., of Indian origin. In September 2001, The Hindu
published a report that in last 11 years of militancy in Kashmir 1087
militants of foreign origin have been killed. This is only a small
fraction of total number of militants killed in Kashmir. These facts imply
that militancy in Kashmir to a very significant extent has roots in
Kashmir. Only by winning over the people of Kashmir we may conter
terrorism over there. As far as ISI support to militants is concerned
it must be broken by intelligence and by political and diplomatic means.
To revenge seekers I may add that the people of Kashmir, for no
fault of theirs, have already paid a heavy price of 40,000 innocent lives
to terrorist violence and the armed repression of it by the State.

The present situation has another dangerous dimension too. An air of
suspicion is being buit up against the Muslim masses. The forces who
raised terrorising slogans like "Babur ki auladon se badla lenge" a
decade ago are branding an entire community a terrorist. This must be
resisted resolutely. Terrorists beyond the frontires of disturbed states
have merely sporadic contacts which can be identified tactfully without
torturing the innocent. It is in this atmosphere that POTO would prove
disaserous.

At times I wonder whether there is room for nonviolent activism
against terror. Armed resistance of terror by the state is fraght with ill
effects for the masses leading to their alienation. Nonviolence can
succeed if the activists can overcome the fear of death like the
fidayeens and develop a nonviolent mode of struggle against the genuine
grievances of the masses. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had created valiant
nonviolent fighters from the land known for warrior instincts as he
addressed their basic problems. Kashmir and Assam pose a serious challenge
for nonviolent activism. So does the growing menace of sectarianism and
economic exploitation.

_____

#3.
The News International
Wednesday January 02, 2002

Cold war's many costs

By M. B. Naqvi

It is clear that while a war is still possible through miscalculation,
escalation or accident, neither New Delhi nor Islamabad wants it. For
one thing, it may force nuclear strikes on both. For, it will be odd for
any general or government to risk heavy losses or defeat and not use the
weapon that can reduce or avoid them; even a winning side may wish to
shorten the war or reduce the costs by nuking the enemy. However, the
rest of the world is horrified by the prospect and appears to be putting
effective pressure on both sides not to let the cold war become a hot
one. Hence this stultifying stand off may continue in some form ---
until the two see its futility and make peace.

Meanwhile both peoples should re-asses the policies of their respective
government that have resulted in this endless deadlock. Apart from the
initial specific disputes over territory, states, stores and cash, both
India and Pakistan inherited attitudes rooted in culture, circumstances
and interests that made them rivals. Thus they had peculiar but similar
illusions. India, drawing upon six thousand years-long heritage, staked
a claim to leadership; =91light comes from the east=92. Pakistan, almost as
second best, wished to be the leader of Islamic World to the annoyance
and even derision by most Muslims. Later, the dynamics of Kashmir
dispute made the two states cold warriors and before too long became
nuclear powers.

One cost of this disputation that became unending military confrontation
from around 1986-87; it clearly had a nuclear dimension. Indians thought
that given their nuclear status, Pakistan would desist and stop
challenging it militarily over Kashmir. That did not happen and Pakistan
acquired its own nuclear capability; it has gone on challenging it.
Pakistanis considered their new capability to be an invincible shield
which they can go on needling India through a Jehad without it being
able to use its superior military strength to bear on itself.

The denouement, sort of, is this paralysis of will on either side. This
stand off has brought quite a few things into relief: their common
militaristic approach to disputed problems has resulted in both states
becoming national security states par excellence. A large proportion of
their people has stayed poor, unlettered in indifferent health, with
high birth rates. Future will not be bright for both until they do not
extend the meaning of national security to achieve high levels of human
development; indeed human development has to be seen as most of national
security. Politics in both countries has been distorted by a jingoistic
nationalism that benefits the elite classes and chauvinistic approach.

But first consequence is the un-sustainability of peace and stability in
South Asia so long as the two rival nuclear deterrents exist eyeball to
eyeball. Nuclear weapons in Pakistan are designated for India. Indian
Bomb, too, can only be oriented for use in Pakistan; there is no other
conceivable use for it. Defenders of which country can trust the
intentions of the other so long as this weapon of offence is sitting
there? The Bomb=92s actual utility between India and Pakistan is either
nil or, in exceptional circumstances, lies in a surprise attack of a
massive kind. It has no defensive role.

Earlier illusions about these weapons being status symbols or currency
of power have to be discarded. Look whether nuclear bombs have made
India or Pakistan any whit more respected than before? The world is
excoriating both for it and an attempt is on to push them away from the
confrontationist path.

On particular illusion was, and is, particularly pernicious: it is the
Bomb=92s deterrence. Was Pakistan deterred from supporting the Jihadis in
Kashmir because of Indian nuclear capability? India is threatening to
take offensive military action despite the Pakistani Bomb; that is the
heart of the current crisis. Should India invade, Pakistan has now
proclaimed that it would not make a nuclear response. Or else it stands
to suffer totally unacceptable damage from the expected Indian riposte.
The Bomb has thus proved to have no deterrent power nor is it any
practical use. Let Indians make their own assessment of their Bomb=92s
cost effectiveness. India=92s wish to make war, or its noises, is
predicated on Pakistan=92s Kashmir policy and apparently the presence of
the Pakistan Bomb has made no difference.

The conclusion emerges: both countries, all things considered, cannot go
to war. So why are their forces deployed on forward positions? Why incur
the extra costs? The BJP government=92s wisdom in scrapping agreements and
established trading practices regarding normal visas, rail, road and air
links or MFN status is open to question. Who will suffer most? Not the
ruling elite in either country but the common Indian or Pakistani ---
mostly members of divided families or small traders shall suffer. Denial
of air space to Pakistani aircrafts will do what? How will it change the
policies that India dislikes? It is claimed that common Indian sentiment
is being responded to? It bears examination from which Indian quarter is
this pressure coming? Could it be that political and electoral benefits
are seen by the spin doctors of the ruling Parivar? The true human and
economic costs need to be seen.

The immediate political costs are borne by secular democratic parties
and forces in India, while Hindu chauvinist parties stand to profit from
the aroused anti-Pakistan sentiment in the February polls. Ideas of
equity and fairplay are forgotten in the jingoistic propaganda of =91let
us punish Pakistan=92. In Pakistan war psychoses work wonders for the
ruling Junta of generals. All talk of immediate elections and true
reform are relegated to the background and what becomes ostensible is to
=91stand united behind the Army because the enemy stands menacing at the
door=92. The generals cannot ask for a better gift from India than this
cross-border tension. May be the two ruling groups are helping each
other=92s political longevity.

What Messrs Vajpayee, Fernandes and Jaswant are doing is to politically
strengthen the anti-Hindu religious parties and groups and other
anti-India Rightwing groups in Pakistan. This preempts the politics of
dealing with the concrete problems of common people. In fact all social
and economic reforms --- except those suggested by IMF, WB and WTO ---
is being preempted by the politics of jingoism on both sides. Economic
progress is being downgraded as a value.

The politics being pursued has an international dimension:
Automatically, the Americans are being invited to come and separate the
two --- who want to get at each other=92s throat but dare not do so. The
US leadership role in Asia is being immeasurably strengthened and
helped. Pari passu, others=92 role is being diminished. Even the Indians
and Pakistanis are showing themselves to be unable to keep peace --- so
necessary for maintaining stability sought by all major powers ---
without outside help.

_____

#4.

The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning December 31

Averting A Ruinous War

What's the way out?

By Praful Bidwai

New Delhi has upped the ante twice within a week by taking stiff=20
diplomatic measures against Pakistan, signalling that it is playing=20
for extremely high stakes in the mounting confrontation. By all=20
indications, India has broadened its demands upon Islamabad and now=20
wants "effective action" against a wide range of militant groups=20
besides the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. It has also=20
declared that Pakistan's December 26 moves against them are=20
"cosmetic". More punitive diplomatic measures are in the offing.=20
Worse, a military confrontation seems likely. Indeed, it may well=20
have begun before these lines appear in print.

Nothing could be more unfortunate in strategic terms, undesirable in=20
social, political and economic consequences, or more unproductive in=20
countering terrorism, than an India-Pakistan war. A military attack=20
on Pakistan, however limited, must be averted at all costs--in favour=20
of diplomatic means. To say this is neither to minimise the gravity=20
of what happened in Delhi on December 13, nor to ignore Islamabad's=20
overall complicity in terrorist activities, especially in Kashmir.=20
Rather, the argument's rationale is that India's diplomatic options=20
are far broader and worthy of trial. It is India's duty to explore=20
and exhaust them before even considering armed action.

The top brass of our armed services is opposed to the use of military=20
force in the present circumstances. It has repeatedly expressed this=20
reluctance in the Cabinet Committee on Security and even in public=20
statements. This is also the mood among a majority of retired=20
generals and admirals who have spoken, including V.P. Malik, L.=20
Ramdas, Shankar Roychowdhury, V N Sharma and V.R. Raghavan. The=20
restraint they advocate contrasts sharply with our political leaders'=20
sabre-rattling and daily quota of hostile anti-Pakistan rhetoric. In=20
fact, we may be witnessing the first disconnect since Independence in=20
perceptions between our political and military leaders. Even when Gen=20
Sam Maneckshaw offered to quit in early 1971 over pressure to=20
prematurely attack East Pakistan, he disagreed with Indira Gandhi not=20
over the basic military strategy, but only the timing.

The services chiefs believe that attacks on Pakistani territory will=20
yield poor results and carry high risks. The forces lack accurate=20
information on the location of such few "training camps" as remain of=20
the originally claimed 158; most were shifted deep into Pakistan.=20
(Most Kashmiri militants do not undergo rigorous training which needs=20
elaborate permanent facilities, as opposed to temporary parade/drill=20
grounds and firing ranges.) Given information constraints,=20
high-altitude air strikes will be largely ineffective. Low-flying=20
planes will be vulnerable to ground fire. Heavy artillery won't work=20
because most suspect camps are beyond its range.

That leaves the options of "pro-active" ground attacks and "hot=20
pursuit". These too are chancy and fraught with high casualties. "Hot=20
pursuit" over land, as distinct from the sea, is legally problematic.=20
Any ground-troops operation will escalate. Today, there can be no=20
such thing as "limited war" or swift "surgical" strikes between India=20
and Pakistan. Given their relative strategic parity, any military=20
confrontation will be prolonged and last several weeks. This means=20
opening up more fronts than the Jammu & Kashmir LoC. India is=20
vulnerable on some of them, e.g. in the Chicken's Neck in Jammu.

An Indian military attack will certainly trigger retaliatory strikes.=20
Gen Musharraf cannot afford to be seen cowing down to India. After=20
the Taliban's defeat and collapse of Islamabad's quarter-century-old=20
Afghanistan policy (including his reversal of it), he has no option=20
but to hit back hard. Already, he is under flak from the religious=20
Right for "selling out" to the Americans and losing Afghanistan's=20
"strategic depth". A protracted war will all but destroy Pakistan's=20
fragile economy and prove unaffordable for India. Our economy will be=20
set back by many years. Besides, there is a strong likelihood that=20
the war will escalate into a mutually suicidal nuclear conflagration.

We must pause and ask what New Delhi will achieve even if, short of a=20
nuclear holocaust, it "wins" the war--leading to Gen Musharraf's fall=20
(or assassination), a general collapse of Pakistan's state, and its=20
disintegration along ethnic lines. A failed state collapsing on one's=20
borders is disastrous enough--as Pakistan discovered with=20
Afghanistan. A nuclear power so disintegrating would be catastrophic.=20
The legitimate purpose of a military operation against "terrorism"=20
cannot be the disintegration of Pakistan. What's needed is effective=20
action to curb extremism and put Pakistan on the road to moderation=20
and normalisation.

By embarking on an open-ended confrontation, New Delhi will have=20
pushed Pakistan's extremists further down the terrorist path. This=20
would be horrendously self-defeating. One cardinal lesson of=20
September 11 is that all states, no matter how powerful, are=20
vulnerable to terrorist attacks on their homeland. We must therefore=20
recognise that our military options against Pakistan are limited,=20
fraught with grave danger, or ineffectual. Instead of discouraging or=20
deterring terrorism, they will, at minimum, further encourage=20
extremist, irresponsible conduct on the part of an embittered=20
neighbour.

However, tragically, India's present rulers are=20
contemplating--indeed, they may be on the verge of--such a course,=20
driven by a bloody-minded, vengeful attitude. Their motivation is=20
profoundly irrational. It is to teach Islamabad a US or Israeli-style=20
"lesson". Yet, they know that Gen Musharraf probably did not order=20
the Parliament attack. He would have to be insane to do so when he is=20
on the backfoot and under American scrutiny. His interior minister's=20
brother was recently killed in revenge by extremist groups. They=20
today describe him as a "traitor" and "sellout". In all probability,=20
December 13 was an amateurish operation by a group acting=20
independently of Gen Musharraf. Even assuming that some rogue=20
elements of the ISI were behind it, a military misadventure would=20
only strengthen them.

Yet, the Vajpayee government is planning just a misadventure because=20
it is under Right-wing pressure. There is strong evidence of this. On=20
December 20, Mr Vajpayee was grilled for two hours by Mr Rajnath=20
Singh at a meeting attended by top-notch BJP-RSS leaders including=20
Messrs L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Jana Krishnamurthy and=20
Kushabhau Thakre. (The Telegraph and The Asian Age, Dec 22.) They=20
reportedly told him that all of Mr Singh's pro-Hindutva work in Uttar=20
Pradesh would be wiped out unless India launches military strikes to=20
show it is not a "soft state". If the BJP loses UP, the fractious and=20
ramshackle NDA could itself come tumbling down nationally.

Mr Vajpayee has repeatedly capitulated to the hardliners. He is now=20
under pressure to make a further "graduated" response by ratcheting=20
up hostility till war becomes likely, even inevitable. The measures=20
being contemplated (e.g. cancelling Pakistan's most-favoured-nation=20
trade status) are even more extreme than halving the staff strength=20
of diplomatic missions or banning Pakistan Airlines overflights. The=20
government is thinking of abrogating the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty to=20
starve Pakistan of much-needed water.

All such measures will progressively erode India's diplomatic=20
leverage and inflict heavy punishment upon Pakistan, thus breeding=20
more resentment and hostility--without encouraging moderate,=20
reasonable, conduct on its part. For large numbers of Pakistanis who=20
stand for moderation, they will signify a mendaciously unreasonable,=20
bloody-minded, penalty. Abrogating the Indus Treaty would be=20
tantamount to laying economic siege to a country, which is=20
impermissible under international law. (We once almost invited stiff=20
Security Council sanctions for choking off the flow of the Ganges to=20
Bangladesh).

There is a saner, rational, cool-headed alternative to such=20
destructive moves. India should take the December 13 terrorist issue=20
to the wider world, in particular to the Security Council, on the=20
basis of solid evidence, and invoke Resolution 1373, mandating=20
anti-terrorist action by all states--on pain of sanctions. This will=20
generate the right pressure on Gen Musharraf to take effective,=20
verifiable measures, including the arrest of extremist leaders,=20
clampdown on their facilities and assets, and destruction of their=20
ISI links. There is no earthly reason why Masood Azhar and Hafiz=20
Saeed should be freely roaming Pakistan's streets.

This course has the merit of winning--and retaining--the support of=20
the international community and of coaxing and coercing Gen Musharraf=20
into eradicating a menace for which Pakistan has paid heavily. This=20
will help New Delhi build upon today's favourable situation in=20
Kashmir. The Taliban's defeat has had a huge impact on the Valley.=20
This creates a big opening to revitalise the political process and=20
get the All-Party Hurriyat Conference to participate in the next=20
Assembly elections. War will close that opening. Good diplomacy will=20
enlarge it and create conditions in which terrorism gets thoroughly=20
discredited, foreign militants get isolated, and a peaceful Kashmir=20
solution becomes possible.

However, a precondition here is that the government abandons the=20
military-adventurist approach. That's why Centrist parties like the=20
Congress, Samajwadi, Bahujan Samaj and the NDA's "secular" components=20
must not lend the government's "anti-terrorist" fight uncritical,=20
unconditional support in the name of a nonexistent "national=20
consensus". Such life-and-death issues are too precious to be left to=20
any one group, especially to the devious, cynical politicians of the=20
BJP-RSS. The Opposition, indeed the general public, must exercise its=20
rational judgment and demand that there be no war. It is imperative=20
to give peace--and wise diplomacy--a chance.--end--

_____

#5.

Action Plans:

1. A meeting has been organised on "Peace Initiatives
between Indian and Pakistan" by the People for Peace.
Venue: Indian Social Institute, Lodi Road, New
Delhi=20=20=20=20
(Near Sai baba temple)
Date: 2.1.2002 (Wednesday)
Time 4.00 pm
2. Attempts are made to contact leaders of political parties
to elicit their support for peace initiatives.

People for Peace=0F
=
=20
We are alarmed and immensely saddened at the disturbing
developments following the deplorable December 13
terrorist attack on Parliament House, which has triggered a
dangerous round of India-Pakistan hostility. The two
governments have become increasingly belligerent. There
is a fearsome military build-up on the border, reportedly
including deployment of nuclear-capable missiles. This
bears no logical relationship to the stated objective of
countering terrorism, or of bringing the culprits of December
13 to book.

It is imperative to immediately cool the fevered hostility and
defuse the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. India must
forthwith reverse the harsh diplomatic measures imposed
on Pakistan. Pakistan must reciprocate. Breaking
communication links, and severely downgrading diplomatic
missions, can only impose hardship upon peace-loving
citizens and further vitiate today=92s climate, without
encouraging a cooperative response from either
government.=0F

Nobody has a greater stake in fighting the scourge of
terrorism than Indian and Pakistani citizens. State-
sponsored and militant-group terrorisms have both taken a
huge toll of their life and liberty. However, wars, driven by
devious or jingoistic agendas, cannot combat terrorism, nor
can draconian measures crush freedom.=0F

At the centre of the confrontation is Kashmir. The problem
cries out for a peaceful, non-sectarian, democratic
resolution through consultation with its people.=0F

South Asia stands at a historic crossroads. If sanity and
wisdom prevail, we could begin a new humane era of
cooperation, peace and prosperity. Or else, over one billion
people will become hostage to unending enmity and
destruction, even a nuclear holocaust. We appeal to our
leaders to pull back from disaster=92s brink.

signed:

Nirmala Deshpande Syeda Hameed
Praful bidwai Dinesh Mohan
John Dayal Prakash Louis
Aurobindo Ghose Prabir Purkayastha
Kamal Chenoy Brinda Singh
R.M.Pal Felicio Cardoso
N.D. Pancholi Azra Rizvi
Iqbal Ansari Vasum
Tapan Bose Somen Chakravarti
Mary Scaria Naheed Tabam
Mahi Pal Singh Vijayan

For =96 People for Peace

Prakash Louis
Indian Social Institute
Lodi Road
30.12.2001
prakash@u...

_____

#6.

The Hindu
Sunday, Dec 30, 2001
Magazine

`Peace be with you'

C.RAMMANOHAR REDDY

BY the time this short piece appears in print we will know if we have=20
taken one step closer to a war with Pakistan or taken two back from=20
the edge. There cannot be a more depressing note with which a=20
newspaper column ends the year: there can be no certainty about even=20
a few days of "peace" in South Asia. The unfortunate part is that=20
even if better sense prevails and an open war is avoided, this does=20
not mean that India and Pakistan will be any closer to living in=20
peace. It only means that we return to a situation which we seem to=20
have become inured to over the decades: open animosity and permanent=20
low-level conflict.

The strange thing about the widespread anger that has followed the=20
December 13 terrorism is that while most middle or upper middle class=20
Indians are usually contemptuous about politics and politicians, they=20
have lost no time in displaying a hurt pride about the terrorist=20
attack on Parliament. If only such anger was regularly channelled=20
into making our democracy work better, perhaps we would be in much=20
better shape. What we have instead is the frightening ease with which=20
many of the defence (un)thinkers, media commentators and the=20
jingoists have been able to whip up a war hysteria in which all of us=20
are either active participants or silent accomplices.

A day or two after the December 13 attack, there was one of those TV=20
shows in which pundits of different kinds answer questions from an=20
audience. These programmes seem more useful for what they reveal of=20
the minds of the (selected?) audience than for any informed debate.=20
This one was true to form. A college student asked a question which=20
went like this,``If the United States can bomb Afghanistan, if Israel=20
can bomb Palestine, why do we hesitate to bomb Pakistan?''As I have=20
subsequently learnt this is a widespread view. Even our former Prime=20
Minister Mr. V.P. Singh, who these days likes to wear the cap of a=20
wise senior statesman, has posed a similar question. There are many=20
things horrifying about such a query. It takes for granted that the=20
U.S. bombing of Afghanistan is just retribution for the murders of=20
September 11. It says that Palestine deserves to be bombed and that=20
Israel has nothing to answer for. And that all this applies as well=20
to any Indian attack on Pakistan. (If it was disconcerting that a=20
young Indian in his teens could articulate such a view, it was just=20
as worrying that none in that TV panel of pundits even bothered to=20
debate the premises of the question.)

The U.S. war on Afghanistan will henceforth confer legitimacy on the=20
action that any country may take any where in the world in revenge=20
for attacks on itself - real, imagined or threatened and irrespective=20
of whether or not the "target" country is guilty. That is the real=20
legacy of the U.S. bombing - not the end of the Taliban or the=20
Al-Qaeda network. As an aside, do we know what the civilian=20
casualties in such a war are? A friend recently referred me to a=20
careful compilation of the civilian deaths in the bombing of=20
Afghanistan. (Readers may want to see the site=20
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/index.html for this=20
compilation.)

On a very conservative basis, the barest minimum number of innocents=20
killed in Afghanistan between October 7 and December 3 was 3,752. The=20
actual toll is likely to have been much more. Nobody is raising any=20
questions about these dead civilians. Not the world media. and=20
certainly not the United Nations. The Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi=20
Annan, may have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, but this year will=20
also go down as one in which the U.N. finally lost its fig leaf of=20
independence.

The civilian dead in Afghanistan number the same as the people=20
murdered in the terrorists attacks in the U.S.. An eye for an eye=20
then, except that we know that this is not going to end terrorism by=20
fundamentalists. In much the same way, we all know that a limited war=20
against Pakistan is not going to bring peace to Kashmir. Even when it=20
comes to destroying training camps, senior Army officers tell us that=20
these camps are little more than squares for drills and target=20
practices. Bombing the camps will not wipe out terrorism. It only=20
makes more likely the possibility of an open war between two nuclear=20
powers and with that the eruption of an Armageddon in South Asia.

There must be something wrong when peace becomes a contrarian theme.=20
But gloomy as such times are, one can only pray for peace in 2002.=20
Miracles may indeed happen.
_____

#7.

Shiv Sena's rituals for soldiers invites Maharashtra govt's wrath

By Shiv Kumar, Indo-Asian News Service

Mumbai, Dec 26 (IANS) The Shiv Sena party and the Maharashtra government
have locked horns after the former began ceremonies at temples here to pay
homage to those who were killed in the Parliament attack on December 13.

Since Saturday, a number of units of the party have been holding a series o=
f
mass prayer meetings in the neighbourhoods of Dadar, Parel, Prabhadevi,
Kurla,
Dharavi.

Residents in these neighbourhoods are mobilized to attend the religious
ceremonies that are preceded by political speeches, according to police
officials.

The congregation is then called to pay homage to the security people and
other who died fighting terrorists attempting to storm Parliament.

The Maharashtra government has however warned that strict action would be
taken against Shiv Sena activists if they violated the Supreme Court ban on
playing loudspeakers after 10 p.m.

Maharashtra's Deputy Chief Minister Chagan Bhujbal, who is in charge of the
state's home department, told reporters here that police stations have been
ordered to enforce the orders of the apex court.

Inquiries with police stations, however, indicate that the court's orders
are observed though the congregation usually leave the premises in large
groups.

"We, however, ensure that no clashes erupt between the Shiv Sainiks and
people of other communities," a police officer at Dadar police station told
IANS.

Shiv Sena leaders have told newspapers that the ceremonies or "maha-artis"
would continue till peace returned on the India-Pakistan border. Relations
between the two countries are tense with India and Pakistan placing their
armed forces on full alert.

Activists of the Shiv Sena had earlier organized these maha-artis in Octobe=
r
when the Maharashtra government decided to strictly enforce the 10 p.m. ban
on loudspeakers during the nine-day Hindu festival of navratri.

The Shiv Sena put an end to these protest rituals after it was pointed out
that such moves could be construed as contempt of court.

Home department officials say the term maha-artis used by the right-wing
parties has negative connotations.

Maha-artis conducted by the Shiv Sena during the Hindu-Muslim riots of
1992-93 resulted in rampaging mobs from both communities clashing on the
streets of Mumbai leaving scores of people dead, according to police.

--Indo-Asian News Service

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

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.