[sacw] SACW #1 | 15 Jan. 02

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:08:38 +0100


South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 15 January 2002

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

#1. India-Pakistan standoff - Breaking the Gordian knot (M. B. Naqvi)
#2. Non-Muslims in Pakistan Seek a Political Voice (David Lamb)
#3. After The Kathmandu Handshake - Resume Indo-Pak dialogue (Praful Bidwai=
)
#4. Mistrust in the air channel war (Nadeem Iqbal)
#5. Pride and Prejudice in Indo-Pak tension (V.B.Rawat)
#6. Thin line holds back war (Luke Harding)
#7. India: Book Reading & Discussion - Shauna Singh Baldwin and Urvashi But=
alia

________________________

#1.

India-Pakistan standoff
Breaking the Gordian knot

By M. B. Naqvi

As the recent Kathmandu Summit showed, the deadlock between India and
Pakistan is far deeper than a mere military confrontation; it is a clash
of two ideologies based on sick nationalisms. It has lasted all of 54
years. Two things are clear: the confrontation is unsustainable and a
war will result, if not resolved soon. Why it is unsustainable is
because it tends to escalate and both are nuclear powers. A nuclear
exchange under any circumstances will be a disaster; there can be no
victory in a nuclear war; both will lose. Apart from expressing mindless
bigotry, neither side can achieve any rational objective by even a
non-nuclear war.

The immediate consequence of the current standoff is that the issue of
Kashmir has truly been internationalised. Most foreign powers have
offered their mediation and good offices, with the US in the lead.
India=92s lobbying of the US, Britain and Russia to pressurise Pakistan is
inviting them to play a role in South Asia. Needless to say Pakistan
wants nothing better than a third party intervention, preferably by the
US. The international background is not favourable to second and third
rank powers: it is a unipolar world par excellence. As the American war
on Al-Qaeda and Taliban has demonstrated, the US is determined to play a
strong hand in Asia --- primarily for its own benefit. All others are
required to facilitate it --- unless they want to risk becoming an
adversary. India willingly and Pakistan under duress are a part of the
American-led Coalition against Terrorism. Americans are militarily
present in Pakistan, operating from four or more military bases. India
had offered the use of all its available facilities for the task; that
the US has not made use of them is due largely to its needs. Let no one
make a mistake: Americans and the British are already playing a decisive
role in restraining India from doing what it would have liked to do;
they are protecting Pakistan for the time being, though they are
implicitly promising to deliver Pakistan=92s compliance to the Indian
purposes by their own inimitable ways of persuading. But isn=92t it a
third party intervention?

The other side of the unipolarity coin is on display too. Scope for
freedom of action by second and third rank powers is on the decrease.
India had hoped that South Asia should somehow be kept out of
international rivalries; thanks to its political weight, the two cold
warriors deferred to India --- up to a point. There developed a tacit
d=E9tente between the US and USSR over the Subcontinent --- despite
Pakistan having been accepted into the western alliance system largely
due to its need for dollars. The superpowers thus did not conduct active
rivalry in South Asia. That restraint is no more. The US feels free to
do what it thinks necessary in the pursuit of its War on Terrorism. The
American military presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan, with strong political and diplomatic activities elsewhere in
central Asia is threatening to suck in the Subcontinent into a
maelstrom.

America calls it leadership role; it is geo-strategic mastery over large
parts of Asia if we remember the American influence in Japan, Southeast
Asian countries and not to ignore Taiwan and South Korea. But
geo-politics does not hang in the air. The leadership role is no longer
an end in itself as was the case with kings of yore. It now confers
financial benefits. Ignoring new names, the old fashioned concept of
shperes of influences applies. Only this sphere must become a safe
market for investments and WTO rules are a help. The nexus of
geo-politics with economics was never absent, no matter how passionately
and sincerely the political aims are articulated. It is immaterial
whether the financial or economic gain is immediate aim or results from
new equations. What South Asians must examine is: where do they stand
and what is their true status. There is a strong undertow that is
propelling them to America-ward. Their true independence of action is
being preempted and their stature is eroding in the process, though for
Indians a prize of ambiguous significance, recognised regional
influential in a Pax Americana.

The =91vision thing=92 is unavoidable really. Can Subcontinental people not
see where they are heading thanks to Indo-Pakistan confrontation that
has now become unsustainable. It is not contributing to any state=92s
progress or enhancing stature. The two antagonists are running
unacceptable risks. They are holding up the progress of the rest of the
South Asia and the latter is complaining.

The rhetoric about dire poverty of the masses in both countries, and
indeed in the rest of South Asia with its illiteracy, ill health and
backwardness is overworked. But it is true. Much of this can be traced
to excessive militarisation in India and Pakistan and clearly wrong
priorities that have favoured narrow elites to prosper while the masses
have remained in penury and widespread unemployment. The present crisis,
in essentials, is compulsive clash of the two elites that may lead to
utter self-destruction if they stumble into a nuclear war. This latter
threat cannot be ruled out.

There is a notion abroad in India: Maybe the Americans can be persuaded
to do something about Pakistan=92s nuclear arsenals. Supposing the
Americans do perform this near miracle, would the outcome be to India=92s
advantage? Would it not make for the permanence of US overlordship over
South Asia? Would that enhance India=92s greatness? Would not the US also
want to take the Indian nuclear capability under its supervision? May be
they would want to repeat or would want to repeat the performance in
some fashion or pretext. At all events, the stature of India and all
others in South Asia would diminish.

There is another vision: a people-to-people reconciliation between the
Indians and Pakistanis can become a core round which all of South Asia
can be made into a zone of peace and common friendship. The disputes
that have dominated newspaper headlines and grabbed popular attention
can then be relegated eventually to insignificance by freezing them more
or less indefinitely. Should the priorities shift from purely
militarised security concepts, popular weal can be directly aimed at for
reducing poverty through aiming at jobs for all. In lieu of jobs a
minimal kind of social security should be statutorily compulsory. This
can be progressive as the economies develop. Regional principle for free
trade and economic cooperation, indeed integration, needs to be taken up
with zeal in conditions where the need for the Indians and Pakistanis to
use the SAARC veto would not arise. Thanks to the resource base, sky can
be the limit of prosperity that South Asia can achieve. There would also
be political benefits. Without trying to become great powers in the
classical sense their inherent stature would go up; they would be
admired for their cultural advances. Are there any buyers of this
vision?
______

#2.

Los Angeles Times
January 13, 2002
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000003300jan13.story

Non-Muslims in Pakistan Seek a Political Voice
Asia: A "separate electorate" system discriminates against=20
Christians, Hindus and other minorities in the Islamic republic.

By DAVID LAMB, Times Staff Writer
LAHORE, Pakistan -- The Christmas tree festooned with lights and=20
tinsel still stands in Cecil Chaudry's living room, a cluster of=20
unwrapped presents at its base. He knows, of course, that most other=20
Christians in this Islamic republic have already taken down their=20
trees, but he has dawdled, preferring to keep the spirit of the=20
season alive.

Besides, he has been busy. A retired air force general and highly=20
decorated veteran of two wars against India, Chaudry is at the=20
forefront of a challenge to change the soul of Pakistan. He wants to=20
end what he calls the "religious apartheid" that was written into the=20
constitution in the 1980s and has given an unrepresentative voice to=20
the heavy-handed tactics of an extremist Islamic minority.

Chaudry is one of at least 1 million Pakistani Christians, the=20
country's largest non-Muslim minority. Lahore's cathedral is full for=20
Sunday Mass, and Catholics worship there without fear of persecution.=20
But the day he was passed over for promotion in the air=20
force--because, he believes, he is Christian--he left to fight a new=20
battle.

At the heart of grievances Christians and Hindus have is the=20
"separate electorate" amendment that Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the late=20
military ruler, wrote into the constitution. It takes religious=20
minorities out of the political and social mainstream and represents=20
one of many attempts by former dictators to manipulate for personal=20
political power the one force without which Pakistan wouldn't have=20
existed--Islam.

Population Is Divided Into Five Groups

The law divides Pakistan's 140 million people into five groups:=20
Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis (an Islamic sect whose members=20
are viewed as apostates and thus non-Muslims) and other, smaller=20
religions. Pakistan is about 97% Muslim. Each group votes separately=20
and is represented by candidates of similar faith.

Muslim politicians have local constituencies; non-Muslims do not. The=20
latter are elected at large as national representatives and often=20
represent Hindus or Christians many hundreds of miles away. The=20
217-seat parliament guarantees 207 seats for Muslims, 10 for=20
non-Muslims.

"This is the problem in Pakistan--the state has legislated against=20
minorities," Chaudry said. "This has led to sectarianism and laws=20
that are then grossly abused by the religious extremists. The laws=20
have created a wall that divides people and makes religion part of=20
politics. It means we live in groups. Eventually, I am sure, we can=20
end this system, but it will take time."

Chaudry and his supporters collected 200,000 signatures in 40 days=20
last summer, asking President Pervez Musharraf, who suspended the=20
constitution after coming to power in a 1999 coup, to scrap the=20
"separate electorate" system in favor of "joint electorate." When=20
Musharraf refused, most Christians and Hindus boycotted local=20
elections last August.

Death threats notwithstanding, Chaudry continues to lobby for=20
religious tolerance, if not secularism, aware that Muslim zealots=20
consider it un-Islamic to kill a national hero who has fought for his=20
Islamic homeland.

For a campaign of this sort, Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city,=20
is the perfect battlefield. It is the cultural and educational center=20
of Pakistan and, in many ways, the country's political nerve center.=20
It is a hotbed of debate and conflict between extremists and=20
moderates. When people take to the streets in Lahore, residents like=20
to say, governments change.

"Through the 1970s, this was a very moderate Islamic country," said=20
Kamila Hyat, 33, joint director of Pakistan's feisty, independent=20
Human Rights Commission, which has its national headquarters here.=20
"My generation didn't know discrimination against any group. We were=20
all just Pakistanis. But since the '80s, religion--rather than=20
becoming less important as it has in many societies--has become more=20
important."

Nation Undergoing 'Talibanization'

In its report for 2000, the most recent available, the commission=20
lists 315 women who were victims of so-called honor killings for=20
being unfaithful to Islam, the vandalization of at least five Hindu=20
temples, plus rapes and other crimes that authorities failed to=20
investigate when they learned that the victims were Christian.=20
Musharraf said Saturday that 400 people were killed last year in=20
sectarian violence.

The strife is testimony to how far Pakistan has moved from the vision=20
of its founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who studied law in=20
England, was married to a non-Muslim and created a state that was=20
secular, tolerant and moderate.

The incremental steps toward the "Talibanization" of Pakistan have=20
subjugated the timid majority that still believes in the Jinnah=20
principles to the zealous minority that has never shown strength in=20
elections or attracted vast crowds at rallies.

In 1956, Pakistan became an Islamic republic. Bars and nightclubs=20
were closed and alcohol banned. In the 1980s, Islamic law, Sharia,=20
was imposed, including amputations for thieves and stoning to death=20
for adulteresses. The penalty for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad=20
was death. The harsh penalties have not been carried out, nor have=20
blasphemous infidels been executed, but religious parties continue to=20
agitate for Sharia's enforcement.

Ironically, many Pakistanis are now hopeful that another military=20
dictator will turn the country back toward Jinnah's vision.

Gen. Musharraf started moving against religious extremists a month=20
before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Since=20
then, Musharraf, a secular man, has continued his crackdown and=20
spoken of the need to make Pakistan a country viewed by the world as=20
a decent and responsible place. Thus far, the religious parties have=20
been uncharacteristically acquiescent.

"People used to think that if we acted against the militants, there=20
would be mayhem and violence," Hyat said. "But sometimes when a bully=20
gets punched in the nose, he runs away and you discover he doesn't=20
have the strength you thought he did. For the first time, the=20
religious militants don't have the backing of the establishment, and=20
it was that backing that gave them the strength to destabilize=20
governments."

______

#3.

The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning January 14

After The Kathmandu Handshake
Resume Indo-Pak dialogue

By Praful Bidwai

It is typical of the clumsy working of India's and Pakistan's foreign=20
offices that there should be endless speculation over what transpired=20
in Kathmandu between the two foreign ministers, and during Gen=20
Musharraf's "informal interaction" with Prime Minister Vajpayee.=20
Although the camera captured their interaction, New Delhi and=20
Islamabad both ham-handedly deny it. But it is clear that Messrs=20
Jaswant Singh, Brajesh Mishra and Abdul Sattar met three to four=20
times for informal "conversations". They discussed a possible "road=20
map" for de-escalating their on-going confrontation and resuming=20
dialogue. Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga facilitated the=20
interaction, with the US prodding from behind.=20

New Delhi has since hardened its stand, in line with Mr Advani's US=20
visit. But one must hope it will respond positively to Islamabad's=20
latest anti-terrorist moves, which Gen Musharraf is expected to=20
announce any day. Regardless of his new measures, and their adequacy,=20
the time has come for both states to radically re-orient their=20
postures. India has so far pursued a strategy of nuclear=20
brinkmanship, while Pakistan has reluctantly yielded to=20
"anti-terrorist" demands.

India's brinkmanship involves an aggressive warlike posture, backed=20
up by large-scale ground-level military mobilisation, calculated to=20
get the US to exert pressure on Pakistan. Deliberate ratcheting up of=20
hostility and harsh diplomatic sanctions are part of this strategy.=20
India calculates this will deliver more than outright war (to which=20
there will be significant domestic opposition). Pakistan can be bent=20
to its will, through American mediation.

Although cynical, this strategy has admittedly had some success.=20
Islamabad started acting against Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed=20
within 48 hours of the US banning them. It has since rounded up 300=20
suspects. The freezing of terrorists' accounts might not have had=20
much effect (thanks to the advance notice some got), but that can't=20
be said about Hafiz Mohammed Saeed's arrest. And yet, the success is=20
not such that the BJP can declare triumph.

India's brinkmanship is fraught with grave dangers. It is directed=20
more at the US than at Pakistan, and depends on variables outside the=20
India-Pakistan relationship. Military build-ups have their own logic.=20
In the superheated subcontinental context, a skirmish can snowball=20
into a battle which can precipitate war. India's objectives are=20
somewhat diffuse and open to subjective interpretation (how effective=20
is "effective" action?). It is hard to decide where to draw the line.=20
In New Delhi, there is no clarity about how far Gen Musharraf can go=20
in meeting India's demands. There is severe underestimation of the=20
opposition to him from jehadi groups, who have staged bomb explosions=20
and killed his home minister's brother. Above all, brinkmanship risks=20
a nuclear conflagration. This itself is a strong argument for a=20
change in New Delhi's strategy.

For its part, Islamabad must become firmer in its anti-terrorist=20
action. The wide world knows how deeply implicated its Inter-Services=20
Intelligence has been in shadowy operations--in India, Afghanistan,=20
and Pakistan itself. After the Afghan war, "plausible deniability" of=20
its role is becoming incredible. Gen Musharraf will make a signal=20
contribution to Pakistan's stabilisation and normalisation if he cuts=20
the umbilical cord between the ISI and Kashmiri militantsjust as he=20
did with the Taliban.

Gen Musharraf is under enormous pressure from the US, which in turn=20
faces pressure not just from India, but from its powerful pro-Israeli=20
domestic lobby, which is seriously alarmed at the possibility of a=20
clandestine transfer of Pakistan's nuclear technology to=20
anti-Western, anti-Jewish militants. The US is deeply suspicious of=20
the ideological, political, financial and military support Islamabad=20
has extended over the years to extremist groups in South, Southwest=20
and West Asia. It has offered special funding to Gen Musharraf to=20
modernise and secularise Pakistan's madrassas.

However, Gen Musharraf cannot be pushed beyond certain limits without=20
jeopardising his very survival. His decision to arrest LeT's Hafeez=20
was an extremely tough call, preceded by consultations and=20
preparations of a kind never before undertaken. A new US=20
Congressional research report says that a crackdown on madrassas=20
could cost him his job. It is one thing to act against the gangsters=20
and Khalistanis who have taken refuge in Pakistan. But Kashmir is=20
another matter--because it is linked to Pakistan's core identity and=20
Partition's "unfinished agenda". No Pakistani ruler can be seen to be=20
indifferent to Kashmir.

India's leaders probably lack an intelligent, informed assessment of=20
how much Gen Musharraf can deliver. Pushing him to breaking point=20
would be extremely counterproductive. What is needed is good, clean,=20
straight diplomacy. The critical test lies in deciding just what to=20
settle for in the prevailing conditions--so that what is achieved=20
conforms to certain principles, and advances both the national and=20
regional interest. If India were to ask, for instance, that all the=20
20 named men, including Masood Azhar, be handed over to it, it would=20
be exceeding the limits of feasibility and legality.

There is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan.=20
International law does not compel states to hand over even known=20
criminals without such a treaty. That too can be only done for=20
specific offences, not some general category called "terrorist=20
activity". Indian and Pakistani laws require that extradition=20
requests be referred to a magistrate who must confirm that a prima=20
facie case exists.

In the absence of a legal mandate, it should be enough for India if=20
Islamabad hands over to Interpol or a third party one or more persons=20
in the suspects list, who have international Red Corner Notices=20
against them. Once this is done, the two governments should fully=20
resume dialogue and negotiate other confidence-building measures,=20
including joint patrolling of the LoC. That could inaugurate a new=20
era in their relations, based on cooperation and good faith. It is of=20
paramount importance that the Vajpayee government recognises a good=20
deal when it is offered one. Or else, a precious window of=20
opportunity could soon slam shut.

The central question is, will the BJP/NDA leadership muster the=20
courage to open a new chapter in India-Pakistan relations? For=20
decades, the Jana Sangh/BJP/RSS have thrived on hostility with=20
Pakistan, which in turn is linked to their anti-Muslim prejudices.=20
For Hindutva, Indian Muslims are Pakistan's "Fifth Column", just as=20
Pakistan is the external expression of Islam's "internal threat" to=20
Indian "nationhood". No wonder, Mr Vajpayee--who occasionally sounds=20
"moderate" in New Delhi--becomes indistinguishable from rabid=20
communalists in Lucknow, as on January 2. Besides ideological bias,=20
the BJP faces a pressing political issue too--the coming Uttar=20
Pradesh elections. If it loses them, the NDA could come tumbling down=20
nationally. By all indications, the BJP is set to do extremely badly=20
in UP. Its score could be as low as 70 to 100 seats in the 403-member=20
Assembly, nowhere near what is needed for a halfway-viable coalition.

The BJP has tried every trick in the book to avert defeat in UP--from=20
browbeating the Opposition to bribing potential supporters. Its last=20
two trump-cards were, ironically, mandal and mandir. It created=20
quotas within OBC quotas for the Most Backward Castes, promising=20
40,000 jobs. But there is no money to back that promise. And the MBCs=20
aren't taken in by what they consider a "Brahmin-Bania" party. The=20
March 12 temple "deadline" plank isn't turning out to be a=20
vote-catcher. The "anti-terrorism" platform seems more productive. Mr=20
Vajpayee has himself advised the VHP to play down the temple; he is=20
roping in the Kanchi shankaracharya to further pressure the BJP.

"Anti-terrorism" allows the BJP to combine jingoistic nationalism=20
with its anti-Pakistan, anti-Muslim agendas. It can claim to be=20
talking "tough" to Islamabad--to the point of "courageously" risking=20
war. It also hopes to communally polarise the situation and even put=20
the secular parties on the mat. These parties, it hopes, will become=20
less combative, making its own defeat less likely.

This may turn out to be a desperate, even futile, hope. Wars and=20
macho anti-Pakistan postures are not as popular as might seem. The=20
Kargil war, despite the politicisation of coffins and of=20
death-as-a-spectacle, didn't prevent the loss of half the BJP's UP=20
Lok Sabha tally in 1999. The BJP's opponents, especially the=20
Samajwadi Party and Congress, are far more upbeat than two years ago.=20
Eventually, there may not be much purchase in the terrorism plank,=20
barring a vote gain of one or two percent.

Will the BJP stoop so low and recklessly pursue its brinkmanship for=20
such a measly gain? Will it be so foolishly mindless as not to=20
recognise that its best medium- and long-term bet lies in putting=20
Pakistan firmly on the road to moderation through cooperation, not=20
confrontation? Will it choose unstable, compromised power in UP over=20
the abiding national interest in mending relations with Pakistan and=20
seriously combating the scourge of militant-group terrorism?

Here is Mr Vajpayee's litmus test. If he has any real leadership=20
qualities, he should seize the present moment to bring about a=20
breakthrough with Pakistan. This is also his chance to think beyond=20
provincial calculations. Can he rise to the occasion? Or will he=20
plunge a billion people into war, and a vicious cycle of unending=20
terror and yet more violence?--end--
______

#4.

The News on Sunday (Pakistan)
13 January 2002

Mistrust in the air channel war
By Nadeem Iqbal

In a tit-for-tat bout of restricting cross-border links both India=20
and Pakistan have banished each other's TV channels. Politics of the=20
decision apart, the ban serves no positive purpose
The banning of Indian TV channels did not happen even when the whole=20
Indian media was calling the Kargil conflict of early 1999 an all out=20
war. Later that year, in December 1999 to be precise, the hijacking=20
of an Indian airliner too failed to elicit such a step. And this was=20
despite the fact that the Indian government had banned Pakistan=20
Television and the website of a Pakistani newspaper for Indian=20
viewers during both these events.

And the result was not bad either. Pakistanis -- watching Indian=20
channels during both these episodes in Pakistan-India relations --=20
not only appreciated Pakistan government's sagacity but also greatly=20
criticised Indian news TV channels for indulging in cheap propaganda.=20
As a consequence, many Indian channels -- Zee News being at the top=20
of them all -- stood discredited in Pakistani public's eye.

But Islamabad's decision to ban all these channels in the wake of an=20
attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 shows that the=20
government, rather than being sane, was altogether unable to control=20
their transmission back in 1999. This was because it did not have any=20
control over their reception through dish antennas.

A lot of things, however, have changed since then. For one, many TV=20
channels have become digital and their transmission can no longer be=20
received through dish antennas. You can receive them only if you have=20
got decoders and special cards. And this needs huge investment --=20
which very few, if any, can afford to make for a single household.=20
Hence the need for cable operators who cater to whole neighbourhoods=20
and sometimes to whole cities.

To be a cable TV operator, moreover, is different from being an=20
individual viewer because you need a licence to run a cable network=20
of your own. This requirement for licensing has enhanced government's=20
ability to regulate the working of cable operators and by extension=20
the transmission of the channels they show their viewers.

The government body that does all this licensing is Pakistan=20
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) -- formed in January 1996 under a=20
parliamentary act primarily to regulate telecommunication sector in=20
the country. Since June 2000, it has been given the added=20
responsibility of regulating the cable TV networks.

To understand the importance of licensing in the whole affair all you=20
need to do is to go through the government directive issued on=20
December 29, 2001 to cable operators for shutting down the Indian TV=20
channels. The directive reads as follows:

"Indian TV channels beamed through satellite in Pakistan as well as=20
beamed by Star satellite channels are propagating injurious material=20
against the security of Pakistan thus violating the conditions of the=20
licence issued by PTA to cable TV operators. PTA hereby directs all=20
cable TV operators to stop relaying all Indian and Star satellite=20
channels over their networks forthwith. Any violation to these=20
instructions would automatically lead to cancellation/withdrawal of=20
the licence under section 9 of the licence conditions. Any complaint=20
on non-implementation of these instructions by cable TV operators may=20
be communicated to PTA."

This ability to regulate foreign TV channels has, for the first time,=20
enabled Pakistan to retaliate to the Delhi's banning of PTV=20
transmission for Indian viewers. And this fact has been corroborated=20
by none else than the PTA Chairman Maj-Gen Shahzada Alam Malik who=20
said the decision had been taken in protest against the Indian=20
decision to block Pakistan Television programmes.

According to PTA figures, there are 826 cable operators in the=20
country with around two million subscribers. A PTA official, however,=20
told TNS the number could be much higher because still a lot of cable=20
operators are operating illegally and the PTA does not have the staff=20
to check them. The official figures put licensed cable operators in=20
Islamabad/Rawalpindi/NWFP at 101, in Lahore at 348 and in Karachi at=20
373. There is no way to confirm whether the unregulated cable=20
operators are conforming to the government directive or not but one=20
thing is sure -- all licensed operators have immediately complied.

But if digitalisation enables governments to exercise more control=20
then PTV may be an exception because it is still non-digitalised and=20
hence receivable through a dish antenna. It, therefore, remains to be=20
seen as to how effective is the Indian government decision to ban PTV=20
transmission not only in the Occupied Kashmir but in the whole of=20
India, an official told TNS.

All said the fact remains that switching of TV channels by both India=20
and Pakistan is by all means a backward step in the age of=20
information explosion.

Moreover, the channels are closed down on the accusation of their=20
being 'propaganda-intensive'. It was obvious that the heat was too=20
intense for Islamabad and Delhi to be able to refer to the two=20
bilateral agreements they have reached during the recent past. In=20
June 1997, during a meeting between the foreign secretaries of=20
Pakistan and India, it was agreed upon that both Delhi and Islamabad=20
would take all possible steps to prevent hostile propaganda and=20
provocative actions against each other. Similarly, in July 1989 both=20
sides agreed to exchange radio and TV programmes, and vowed to=20
facilitate exchange of newspapers and allow each other's film for=20
participation in film festivals.

But media experts believe that Pakistan government -- before banning=20
the Indian channels -- should have informed people of the specific=20
propaganda stuff the Indians were poisoning Pakistanis with. Also,=20
Islamabad should have quantified how much increase has occurred in=20
the percentage of the propaganda in the wake of ongoing conflict, the=20
experts say and add the government should have also specified what=20
percentage of propaganda was permissible. Because the outright=20
banning of all Indian channels without detailing the reasons for it=20
only symbolises the government's mistrust of the intellect of the=20
masses, they observe.

But what about the unwanted propaganda disseminated through PTV=20
itself. For example, by being unable to send its own reporter to=20
Afghanistan our official TV channel has to rely on western channels,=20
especially CNN, to know whatever has been happening in that country=20
in the wake of US attacks. Unwittingly though, all PTV has been able=20
to do through this arrangement is to propagate the US view of the war.

In retrospect one can surely claim that information links help. For=20
example, during the Agra Summit, PTV collaborated with the Star News=20
for of a Musharraf breakfast which really turned the table on the=20
Indians. Now even the Star News stands discredited, at least in the=20
eyes of the Pakistan government.

______

#5.

Pride and Prejudice in Indo-Pak tension
By V.B.Rawat

India and Pakistan have been fighting a verbal war for the last fifty=20
years. These verbal wars some time escalates and turns into the real=20
war killing thousands of people, poor soldiers and destroying the=20
already crippled economy of the subcontinent. But Pakistan and India=20
are, at the same point of time, each other's shield for nationalism=20
and national pride. Therefore, India must be defeated at all cost in=20
the cricket or Hockey match and in return Indian's would always want=20
a Sachin Tendulkar hitting Wasim Akram for a six. Our national pride=20
is actually strengthened by destroying the other. Even things, which=20
have similarity, based on common culture and language, have become=20
victims of this prejudice. Thus the Pakistani ruling elite despite=20
the known fact of trans-border appeal of Bombay films, tried to stop=20
this import of information and entertainment on the pretext that they=20
are harmful for country's pride. No doubt, the Pakistanis are not=20
hundred percent wrong, as Indian films always need villainy Pakistan=20
to make them superhit. Recent example of Gadar Ek Prem Katha and=20
Border reflect this filmy nationalism very well. Therefore, when the=20
national pride comes, the Bombay films and their tax evaders are=20
first in cashing for it. It is therefor natural for the likes Shabana=20
and Javed Akhatar to resort to rhetorics in terms of condemning=20
Pakistan and singing Vande Mataram.

India and Pakistan, for a very unfortunate reason, have not accepted=20
each other's existence. For the past fifty years, Indian=20
intelligentsia has not completed its partition thesis putting the=20
entire blame on Muslim League and particularly on Jinnah terming him=20
as a highly communal man. On the other hand, Pakistan's history=20
starts from everything that haunts India. Hence invaders like=20
Muhammad Gauri become their heroes while Akbar is decried because he=20
believed in pluralism and consulted Hindus too in his kingdom. We, in=20
India don't even know that Pakistan has some of the most beautiful=20
places. Our young generation doesn't know that Pakistan have modern=20
cities and Hardpan civilisation, beautiful mountainous regions like=20
ours. There are very few Indians who know that Mohd Ali Jinnah was=20
termed as Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by none other than=20
Sarojini Naidu for his glorious role in the Lucknow Convention.=20
Similarly very few Pakistanis would know that Gandhi died for their=20
cause. That he was shot by a Hindu lunatic who considered that Gandhi=20
was doing a favor to Muslims as he wanted the Government of India to=20
pay 36 crore Rupees to Pakistan. It is a paradox that Jinnah had=20
opposed Khilafat movement and Gandhi had supported it against the=20
sane advice of Jinnah who said that mixing politics with religion=20
will create dangerous precedent. How many of our people know that=20
Jinnah had outrightly rejected the demand for a Separate Pakistan=20
when the idea was narrated to him by Chaudhury Rehmat Ali.

So charges and counter charges are always there but information flow=20
should not stop. Unfortunately some of our friends feel that it is=20
just Indian's who believe in social justice and human rights and that=20
Pakistan is some how a notorious state. It might be possible that=20
Pakistan is a victim of its own identity and creation. It is a victim=20
of ethnic crisis that erupted in that country after partition as the=20
country's different ethnic groups asked for their share in power.=20
Some of them were denied their due democratic right and therefore=20
Bangladesh came into existence. But then all these were challenged by=20
Pakistanis. People revolted as well as questioned the motives of the=20
ruling elite. To scuttle people's genuine voice the religious card=20
was played in Pakistan and certainly Hindu India and its 'persecuted'=20
Muslim minority became the talk of the nation to communalise the=20
situation there and legitimise the rule of the army. Similarly the=20
ruling elite in India is busy in

Legitimising its misadventure and failure in Kashmir and hence their=20
first target is civil liberties and democratic rights which were=20
crippled in Pakistan for the same reason. That

India is a very soft state and we need stringent laws to tackle=20
terrorism, as some our friends in media and political spectrum have=20
started complaining for the past few years. Ofcourse, Pakistan has=20
been a theocratic state dictated by the military junta for long yet=20
there are people who have been fighting for the civil liberties and=20
human rights in that country. Does current Indian dispensation is=20
following the same Pakistani pattern to create a theocracy here? If=20
nationalism, jingoism and war cry are any signal then one cannot be=20
wrong in assuming such a notion.

It will not be correct to blame just the Hindutva philosophy of the=20
BJP for this problem. The entire congress dispensation was Hindutva=20
oriented in its policy towards Pakistan in the similar way as their=20
various governments had the same policy towards India. It is clearly=20
a Hindu India pitted against Muslim Pakistan in both the ways though=20
the fact is that India had more Muslims than Pakistan. One needs to=20
ponder over as why India and Pakistan still haunt each other. What is=20
the problem?

And the most important answer comes in terms of flow of free and open=20
information in our society. Basically, we are a closed mindset who=20
pretend to be very open and liberal. The governments of both the=20
countries use this closed mindset wrapped in a sweet pill of=20
nationalism played by the ' so-called' liberal media to create hate=20
against each other. It is the 'misinformation and disinformation war'=20
that both the governments are fighting with each other. Hence as I=20
have mentioned earlier Pakistanis have fetched the information from=20
the Jamat e Islami and PTV which is just fanatically giving details=20
how Muslims are insecure in India. For PTV Indians are a poverty=20
stricken country where the government and opposition speaks in=20
different tones while in Pakistan every countrymen is solidly behind=20
the General. How can different opinion expressed in a democratic=20
country be termed as differences on the national issue. Pakistani=20
elite always exploits this difference of opinion in India for its own=20
dubious purpose. One can see on the official government's website the=20
Kashmir reports of civil liberties organisations in India because it=20
suits their purpose. However, one must ask this question to the=20
Pakistani government as how much it respects its own human rights=20
organisations. Everybody knows how Nazam Sethi, editor of Friday=20
Times, was hounded and humiliated by Nawaz Sharief and how the=20
current dispensation in Pakistan is after Ashma Jahangir terming her=20
as anti national.

However, Pakistan is living under a dictatorial regime while India=20
claims not be under any dictatorship. The biggest 'proof' of India's=20
openness is its TV channels and news-papers which are 'independent'.=20
True, during the congress regimes the only source of news was=20
Doordarshan and people never believed in it as it was always termed=20
as 'Rajiv darshan' and 'Indirawani'. But now the government of the=20
day is much smarter than Indira and Rajiv as they are working on the=20
long-term agenda. Hence, Indian TV channels may claim to be=20
independent but as far as foreign policy is concern and matter=20
towards Pakistan are concern, their ideological perspective is as=20
narrow-minded as PTV's. Ofcourse, the rhetorics of softstate has been=20
initiated by the TV channles. Are these TV channels free from=20
prejudice and bias? I am sure no right thinking Indian considers=20
these TV channels free from bias.

After the Parliament was attacked by the terrorists, the Police=20
immediately swung into action and the 'culprits' were arrested. Delhi=20
Police has the quality to arrest the culprits within 24 hours, they=20
did it in the Lalquila shootout case and finally shot an innocent=20
person in Okhala and here also they acted immediately. The next step=20
that the police did was to get Mohd Afzal, a person arrested relating=20
to Parliament shootout case, interviewed by India's 'independent' TV=20
channels in which he said that he had been planted by the Pakistan's=20
notorious ISI to spread terror in India. One does not know how these=20
people just repent after the events like the Mumbai's filmy villain=20
who would apologize after committing the crime. Anyway, Afzal's trial=20
through media is well planted in the same way as yesterday PTV's=20
presentation of five people who they claimed have been arrested by=20
the pakistani authorities, came from India to spread terror in that=20
country. One is amused by media trial being sought by the authorities=20
in both the countries. Justice, therefore, become the casualty in=20
such cases.

This one way controlled information has damaging effect as people are=20
supposed to believe what is being fetched to them by the media in=20
their respective countries. Now, Star TV's new anchor in her news=20
programme speak to a senior journalist in Pakistan and ask him what=20
does he think when President Bush phoned to Pakistan president=20
Musharraf and asked him to deal seriously with the terrorists hiding=20
in that country. The Pakistani journalist clerealy inform her that he=20
has not come across any news, which says Bush has directed Musharraf.=20
How is this direction for Musharraf only ? Why not Vajpayee but the=20
media in each country is doing its best to serve the 'national=20
interest'. National interest and political interest today are=20
becoming synonymous and that's why the media secular-communal both=20
variety did not like any political leader questing the failure of=20
security aspect in the Parliament shootout. They wanted us to behave=20
like US which was solidly behind 'Captain Bush'. Now it is a bit too=20
much by the Indian journalists. And truth is the biggest casualty as=20
Vajpayee's visit to US recently was a disaster by all sorts but=20
Indian media tried to inform the people in a very different way. If=20
American media write about India in the same way as it does about=20
Pakistan than Indian complain of white skin's prejudices. Every=20
country manipulates press releases and talks of their senior leaders=20
according to their own concept. So when Blair would be in the=20
subcontinent the PTV will claim that he supported President Musharraf=20
and his fight against terrorism and asked India to have a peaceful=20
dialogue with Pakistan, while Indian TV channels would fume that=20
Blair blamed Pakistan for its support to terrorists hiding in=20
Pakistan.

The New-York Times story in this case is a classic example which said=20
that President Musharraf has ordered Inter Services Intelligence (=20
ISI) not to support any non Kashmiri militant group fighting for=20
Kashmiri cause and therefore has accepted that there are terrorists=20
in Pakistan. Indian government used this story for its own charges=20
that terrorists are hiding in Pakistan, especially notorious Dawood=20
Ibrahim, Masood Azhar, who was released after the Kandahar hijacking.=20
Now government of Pakistan clearly disowned the statement while India=20
played heavily on the report to prove its point. It must be mentioned=20
here that the same Indian government has refuted stories published in=20
various newspapers in the very same way as Pakistan is doing. It is=20
like using Amnesty International's reports about each other in our=20
respective countries while rejecting the same organisation's report=20
about it.

The matter is serious as why our elite don't want to share=20
information. The fact is that if the people of India and Pakistan=20
were allowed free flow of information then the biggest casualty would=20
be our bureaucrats and political elite. The media is playing clearly=20
in the hand of ruling elite and is imposing its viewpoint on the=20
masses. A mass hypnotisation campaign is on to create a war hysteria=20
in the minds of the people. Clearly Indian media behave as a big=20
brotherly fashion when Pakistan is the case. Prime Minister Vajpayee,=20
his home minister Advani and his defence minister George Fernandese=20
of the coffingate and Tehelka fame, made loud noises about war and=20
hot pursuit from the bullet proof glass houses. It is an attack on=20
democracy and our democratic institutions said Vajpayee forgetting=20
how many times the local Sanghies have threatened to blow up the=20
democratic structure of the country. One is not denying the gravity=20
of this attack on Parliament but one is amused by the rhetorics and=20
talks of hot pursuit and nuclear war by the responsible people of=20
democracy. The paradox of the situation is that the military dictator=20
is trying to behave in a matured democratic way while the=20
democratically elected leaders are talking the military hardware=20
language. Is not it a fact that General V.P.Malik clearly advised=20
against hot pursuit and said India must be high on military=20
preparedness and low on rhetorics?

Pakistan becomes a justification of every ill that our polity has=20
imposed upon us in the same way as India has been portrayed in=20
Pakistan. Pakistan has still not forgotten creation of Bangladesh in=20
the same way as India has not forgotten creation of Pakistan.=20
Unfortunately, when our political leadership should have been=20
visionary and our open media should have asked the government to be a=20
bit patient than the Pakistanis, Vajpayee went on rhetorical way to=20
please the Sangh gallery for the UP elections as BJP faces the worst=20
ever challenge in Uttar-Pradesh. What they fail to understand in this=20
war cry, the future of the children of the subcontinent. Clearly war=20
mongering did not come from Pakistan but Indian ruling elite.=20
Musharraf may be hiding Dawood Ibrahim in Karachi and Masood Azhar=20
elsewhere yet he seems to be best choice for India. India cannot=20
eliminate Pakistan as being threatened by George. It cannot change=20
its neighbor. And the leadership is behaving in such a fashion as if=20
Pakistan is Afghanistan and India mighty as the US. US itself=20
followed certain norms in attacking Taliban. Definitely terrorism is=20
the biggest issue that we face but that does not make Kashmir a=20
non-negotiable problem. Unfortunately, government's latest initiative=20
in the valley will further alienate people from the country. By=20
closing STD, ISD Pco booths and Internet services, the government is=20
trying to give more space for rumor mills than the actual news.=20
Tomorrow, the same bureaucrats may ask to ban TV set like the=20
Talibans did in Afghanistan so that people are unable to be in touch=20
with outsiders. How blinked is this vision? It has been proved beyond=20
doubt that the terrorism thrives on the most modern weaponry and=20
technology of the world. Hence just by banning STD/ISD in Kashmir the=20
government may not be able to do anything to the militants but would=20
just create more problems for the innocent citizens whose basic=20
rights are violated in this case. India will continue to face problem=20
as long as it consider Kashmiri people as problem and Kashmir problem=20
as administrative problem. Advani must ponder over his Kashmir policy=20
which has been a failure. India must ponder that Musharraf is the=20
best bet for India in Pakistan as he seems to be better than Zia ul=20
Haq and the likes of Jamaat e Islami and has taken against the=20
Islamic militants. Ofcourse he cannot shed his anti India feelings in=20
the same way as Lal Krishna Advani because of his political=20
compulsions.

As far as peace initiative between India and Pakistan are concern,=20
they are led by the powerful elite, which has been part of the=20
establishment at some point of time. They did nothing when they were=20
in power. This elite is also a ruling elite in both the countries far=20
away from the oppressed masses. This powerful ruling elite itself has=20
not accepted partition gracefully and hence their prejudices never go=20
off. Due to their elite structures these peace initiatives are just=20
meant for being in the news. Unless, free and open information is=20
allowed and more get together of people from each region,=20
understanding the ethnic issues and communal strife and not invoking=20
political rhetoric's, peace will always be an illusion. India and=20
Pakistan are two separate sovereign nations and they must speak with=20
each other on equal basis with out any preconceived notion about=20
community. Unless this is done, peace will remain with peace marchers=20
only for a page three of the English newspapers in both the countries=20
and oppressed masses in both the countries will be sacrificed at the=20
cost of our false 'national pride.'

______

#6.

The Observer
Sunday January 13, 2002
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,631944,00.html

Thin line holds back war
On either side of the Wagah border, the only crossing between India=20
and Pakistan, soldiers perform a ritual that could be turning into=20
tragedy

Luke Harding

It could almost have been a script out of Monty Python. Cheered on by=20
rival crowds, two sets of goose-stepping soldiers hurtled towards=20
each other before slamming shut their own large metal gate. The=20
afternoon flag-lowering ceremony on the border between India and=20
Pakistan is the stuff of pure comedy - until, of course, you remember=20
that both sides could soon be blowing each other's brains out.

The ceremony in the dusty village of Wagah used to be little more=20
than a tourist attraction. From the tiered balconies on either side=20
of the border post, curious Indians and curious Pakistanis had a rare=20
opportunity to scrutinise each other and shout patriotic chants.

But these days the pantomime ritual, played out by John Cleese-like=20
avatars, has a deadly seriousness about it.

On either side of the Wagah border - the only road crossing between=20
India and Pakistan - troops from both sides are furtively preparing=20
for war. Soldiers have hidden thousands of land mines among the=20
serene fields of green wheat next to the electrified border fence.

A little further back, Indian soldiers armed with machine guns=20
conceal themselves in bunker posts dug into a raised mud embankment.

Hundreds of villagers living in farmhouses next to the border have=20
been turfed out. The army has moved in. It has brought ammunition,=20
heavy weaponry, anti-aircraft guns and tanks.

'We don't want a war. Wars never solve any problems,' one Indian army=20
officer on the front line admitted yesterday. 'But if it does happen=20
we have to be prepared. The Pakistanis have been doing the same thing=20
as us: laying mines and digging anti-aircraft emplacements. If either=20
side tries to advance now, there will be maximum casualties,' he=20
added.

The gravity of this latest crisis between India and Pakistan -=20
prompted by the lethal militant attack last month on India's=20
parliament building - can be measured in its sheer scale.

In the past, troops on both sides have routinely traded mortar fire=20
across the Line of Control, the porous border that divides Indian-=20
ruled and Pakistani-ruled Kashmir.

But the conflict has now swept across India and Pakistan's entire=20
border - down from the snow-covered Himalayan mountains, to the=20
glittering plains of Punjab, the village of Wagah and the swirling=20
deserts of Rajasthan.

The losers by this unprecedented mobilisation have been ordinary=20
people. 'I'm very unhappy. My wife was forced to leave the village 25=20
days ago and she is no longer sharing my bed,' Dilbagh Singh=20
complained. 'So far we have only one child. I would like to have=20
another one.'

Singh's scruffy village, Daoke, is less than 500 yards from the=20
international border with Pakistan. Until three weeks ago, villagers=20
were allowed to cross over the fence and plant their crops in=20
no-man's-land. From here they could see Pakistani villagers doing the=20
same thing - although they were not allowed to talk to them.

Now, however, almost all of the land surrounding Daoke has been=20
transformed into a giant minefield.

The women and children have left. 'Our cattle are going to die=20
because we have no fodder to feed them,' Singh said. 'The government=20
has not given us any compensa tion at all. Even our tube wells have=20
been mined. We are unable to water our crops.'

The scene at Daoke was tranquil enough yesterday: donkeys munched in=20
the sunshine; the strains of the Koran wafted from a loud speaker on=20
the Pakistani side of the fence. Residents are shrewd enough to know=20
that, if diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad fails, their=20
village will be turned into an inferno of shellfire and death.

But among even educated Indians, the enthusiasm for a war with=20
Pakistan is depressingly overwhelming. 'I want to teach them a=20
lesson. I don't want further generations to suffer the same=20
humiliation that we have,' Riddhim Dhawan, a 21-year-old IT student=20
from Amritsar, said, cheering on the Indian guards during yesterday's=20
flag-lowering ceremony. 'Our people are being killed. Our brave=20
soldiers are sacrificing their lives,' he added.

The ostensible problem is 'cross-border terrorism'- the attacks by=20
Pakistan-backed Islamist militants against Indian security forces in=20
Kashmir and elsewhere. It is these militant groups which are now the=20
focus of a crackdown inside Pakistan, largely as a result of pressure=20
from the United States.

But there is also a lingering sense that, ever since partition in=20
1947, Pakistan - a much smaller, and therefore presumably inferior,=20
player - has too frequently got the better of its Indian sibling.

This resentment has grown since Pakistan's wily, media-friendly=20
ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, seized power in October 1999. He=20
rarely misses an opportunity to score some PR points off India, a=20
strategy that leaves its ageing leadership unhappy and frustrated.

Tony Blair's optimistic trip to the subcontinent this month did=20
little to reduce tensions and is already almost forgotten here.

'I don't think his trip made any difference,' Gurmit Singh Pannu, a=20
prosperous Sikh businessman from north London on holiday in India,=20
said yesterday, while waiting for the Wagah ceremony to begin. 'I=20
have met John Major. I liked him. I haven't met Tony Blair yet, but I=20
like his smile.'

Who did he think was at fault? 'Since Pakistan has been created the=20
problems have always come from Pakistan,' he said. 'Pakistan should=20
not have even one inch of Kashmir.'

On the Pakistani side of the border, the crowd is divided into=20
separate seating for men and women. On the Indian side, the only=20
distinction made is between ordinary people and VIPs, who get their=20
own separate enclosure.

There are more Pakistanis, and they sense that one of their guards is=20
the star of the show - an enormous 6ft 8in bearded officer, whose=20
swaggering gestures reveal genuine malevolence.

The ceremony over, the Indian and Pakistani guards stand with their=20
backs turned to each other and pose for pictures. They are less than=20
one foot apart; their countries light years.

_____

#7.

Shauna Singh Baldwin and Urvashi Butalia at a forum

His Excellency and Mrs. Peter Sutherland, Canadian High Commissioner
to India and Harper Collins India will host a reading and public discussi=
on
between
Shauna Singh Baldwin author of the novel "What the Body Remembers"
and
Urvashi Butalia author of "The Other Side of Silence"

at the Canadian High Commission Residence
4 Aurangzeb Road
New Delhi, India
on Jan 17, 2002 at 6 pm.

More information from Harper Collins India: harper@d...

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

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.