[sacw] SACW #1 | 16 Jan. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #1 | 16 January 2002

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

#1. Time to provoke peace (Beena Sarwar)
#2. Letter from Pakistan Peace Coalition to General Musharraf
#3. What Pakistani citizens should be loudly asking the government of Pakis=
tan
#4.Pakistan: HRCP urges govt to enforce ban on militant groups
#5. India must de-escalate and match Musharraf (Praful Bidwai)
#6. Way Ahead For Peace Between India & Pakistan (Statement by=20
Admiral Ramdas & other Indian Peace activists)
#7. Peace Groups Worldwide Call On India, Pakistan, To Step Back=20
>From The Brink
#8. India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 60
15 January 2002
________________________

#1.

The News International (Pakistan)
January 15, 2002

Time to provoke peace

Beena Sarwar

The Jaish-e-Mohammad spokesman in Muzaffarabad vowed (reported on Jan=20
4), that there would be "no scaling back of the jihad against Indian=20
rule in Kashmir despite a clampdown by Pakistani authorities".=20
Talking to AFP he declared, "We are not afraid of war. Rather, we=20
want it to take place because Kashmir can only be liberated by=20
military means."

Obviously the Jaish have it all figured out; they are not afraid to=20
die and they have no qualms in causing the deaths of millions of=20
others, which is what will happen in case of a war between India and=20
Pakistan. Although these fighting words were spoken before Gen=20
Musharraf's address of Jan 12, such groups are unlikely to desist=20
from violence because they know nothing else.

But without Pakistani support, how far will they get? Perhaps it's=20
time to call their bluff and find out. Already, thousands of enraged=20
parents are on the prowl against the religious leaders who incited=20
their sons to fight in Afghanistan; their rage makes these leaders=20
reluctant to emerge from the Pakistani prisons that they have=20
requested and been granted, asylum in. Interestingly, their own sons=20
and daughters are in even safer havens, the far away colleges and=20
institutions in the jaws of the Great Satan itself.

General Musharraf had begun cracking down on militant groups even=20
before September 11 - the term 'jihadi' is a misnomer for them, since=20
there is nothing holy about them. Since joining the so-called=20
coalition against terror, the General had redoubled his efforts. And=20
after December 13, he took further steps - none of them sufficient to=20
placate New Delhi, which seemed intent on matching the militant=20
groups in provoking war until his speech of December 12.

The visible short term gains of continuing hostilities would tempt a=20
greater statesman than Atal Behahi Vajpayee, not least being the=20
forthcoming UP elections of February, and the chance to 'put Pakistan=20
in its place'. But steer India out of this mood and arise from these=20
politics, he must.

A journalist friend in New Delhi commented on Gen Musharraf's=20
address: "It will please the US and erode the advantage that India=20
had gained over the present situation. More importantly, however, it=20
has the potential of charting a brave new course for Pakistan. If the=20
internal dynamic of Pakistan becomes non-jihadi, it will be good for=20
us in India too."

Mr Vajpayee would do well to pay heed to voices like these in India.=20
It is not in India's long term interests to have a Talibanised=20
Pakistan next door: provoking war or a war hype will only strengthen=20
the jingoism and religious militancy on either side of the border.

A recent poll on the Tehelka.com website drew a negative answer from=20
89.9 percent of those who responded to the question "Is Pakistan=20
sincere in cracking down on the terrorist groups?" One can't really=20
blame them, given the amount of times Pakistan's sincerity has been=20
tested and found wanting. To cling to such a view at this point is=20
self-delusional. Pakistan has no choice but to take action against=20
these groups, not just for the sake of peace with India but for its=20
own internal security. Such groups have caused as much or more havoc=20
within our own borders as they have elsewhere.

It is a situation that the leadership of Pakistan has brought upon=20
itself, in the process dragging along a population that has never=20
been involved in the formulation of these policies. What the people=20
do know is that their leadership has betrayed them time and again,=20
that independence from 'British rule' and 'Hindu domination' did not=20
usher in freedom, justice and tolerance, and that they are not=20
allowed to live in peace.

Withdrawing support from these elements in Afghanistan while=20
fraternising with their brethren in Kashmir will not work. Even those=20
who supported the Taliban think that Kashmiris should be left to sort=20
out their own affairs. Take Abdur Rehman, who fought against the=20
Soviets in Afghanistan for eight years. "My jihad now is to feed,=20
clothe and educate my family," says this bearded, unlettered man from=20
Waziristan, who now drives a taxi in Karachi and looks far older than=20
his 35 years. What about Kashmir, would he go there to fight for=20
their liberation? An unequivocal no is the answer. "Let the Kashmiris=20
take care of their own problems. What's happening there now is not a=20
jihad, it's mercenary fighting."

Kashmiri groups have welcomed Pakistan's announcement that it will no=20
longer provide any support other than moral and diplomatic; this=20
tacit admission of other support has long provided India a stick to=20
beat the Kashmiris with and drawn accusations that their struggle is=20
fuelled by outside sources. The reality is that Kashmiri uprising=20
against New Delhi started indigenously, and it will continue after=20
Pakistan withdraws tactical support. In fact, the infiltration of the=20
Kashmiri fighters with foreigners has hijacked what began as a=20
secular, progressive movement against Indian repression. As in=20
Afghanistan, they give the Kashmiri uprising its militant Islamic=20
colour; their pressure forces Kashmiri women in the cities to don=20
burqas or face acid attacks.

People the world over are sick of violence. Ordinary citizens are=20
raising a voice against the latest war threat arising from tensions=20
between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Rallies against the war=20
hype have been held in Kolkota, Mumbai, and New Delhi. Hundreds of=20
signatures, from individuals, parliamentarians and peace=20
organisations, have been obtained on a memorandum urging restraint,=20
calling for dialogue and demanding the restoration of road and rail=20
links between India and Pakistan. Over 250 parliamentarians and=20
organisations worldwide, including Pakistan and India, Australia, UK,=20
USA, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan, particularly anti-nuclear=20
groups, have urged a resumption of dialogue.

In Boston and San Francisco, Pakistanis and Indians have come=20
together to call for a halt to hostilities. In one recent=20
demonstration on Jan 5, members of Boston's South Asian community,=20
many of them students - Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and=20
Americans - held a demonstration demanding that India and Pakistan=20
resolve their differences peacefully, and defuse the mounting=20
tensions between the two countries.

In San Francisco on Jan 7, a group of students, Silicon Valley=20
professionals, scientists and engineers held an anti-war=20
demonstration outside the Indian Consulate, under the banner of a=20
loosely organised group called 'Friends of South Asia' (FOSA).=20
According to information received on email, "The group had brought=20
with them an anti-war petition to the Indian Prime Minister signed by=20
over 100 Indians, Pakistanis and other peace-loving citizens across=20
the world and a memorandum of demands to both governments to take=20
concrete step to deescalate the present crisis."

Those motivated to demonstrate in San Francisco include ordinary=20
people with no political affiliations, like Usman Qazi, a scientist=20
of Pakistani origin, who was disgusted by a radio interview of local=20
Pakistani and Indian consular representatives. "It was revolting to=20
hear them fight like children and parrot their governments' points of=20
view." An Indian participant, Akhila Raman was motivated after seeing=20
films by documentary film-maker Anand Patwardhan. "Both governments=20
have to negotiate peace through dialogue and plan phased cutbacks in=20
military spending. We are both poor countries."

The attitude of the Indian and the Pakistani governments speaks=20
through not only the actions of the Karachi police and the Lahore=20
Rangers which disrupted peace rallies here, but also through the=20
refusal of functionaries of the Indian Consul for Political Affairs=20
in San Francisco, who refused to keep a scheduled appointment with=20
the demonstrators.

The memorandum they wanted to present to him was to be sent to both=20
governments urging them to resolve the tension by diplomatic=20
initiatives and pull back the military build-up at the border, and=20
"to start an unconditional and honest dialogue on Kashmir, one of the=20
main causes of the dispute".

It asks India to "refrain from military strikes against Pakistan,=20
resolve the issue of terrorism in the International Court of Justice=20
by submitting evidence, reinstate full diplomatic relations with=20
Pakistan and restore air, bus and train services". It asks Pakistan=20
to "take honest measures to eradicate the long-standing issue of=20
terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of India and to stop the proxy=20
war against India by cracking down on the so-called 'jihadi' groups".

Back home in Pakistan, a peace demonstration in Karachi on the same=20
day, Jan 7, was forcibly disrupted by a nervous police force despite=20
the presence of women and children. Earlier, peace demonstrators=20
marching to the Wagah border on December 31 were violently stopped by=20
the Rangers. In both cases, the demonstrators included ordinary=20
citizens who had arrived at the venue on learning of the event; they=20
included teachers, IT specialists, doctors, lawyers, retired armed=20
forces officers, and 'housewives'. They were individual as well as=20
members of non-government organisations, trade unions, political=20
organisations, women's and human rights groups.

The interest of ordinary people is evident in the number of phone=20
calls received at newspaper offices in Lahore asking for how they=20
could participate in the Wagah rally - so much so that the widely=20
circulated daily Jang was pressurised to announce the time and date.=20
In Karachi, a 60-year-old housewife in Gulshan-e-Iqbal learnt of the=20
rally and came to participate in it, the first time she had taken=20
such a step. After the police disruption, she offered her own house=20
for future meetings of the peace group.

It is time for the Musharraf regime to demonstrate its sincerity not=20
just by cracking down on the militant organisations but by allowing=20
those organisations which are working for peace, justice and=20
tolerance, to function without hindrance.

_____

#2.

>From Pakistan Peace Coalition (Karachi, Pakistan)

To:
General Pervaiz Musharraf 14th=20
January 2002
President of Pakistan and Chief Executive
Chief Executive's Secretariat,
Islamabad.
=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
Fax: 051-9203694 / 82009528
=20
(Chief of Staff to CE)
Dear Mr. President,

Pakistan Peace Coalition, Sindh Chapter, welcomes the package of=20
measures announced by you in your address to the nation on 12th=20
January 2002 to counter the rising tide of religious extremism,=20
intolerance and violence in the country.

The truth, Mr. President, is that, had these measures been taken some=20
years back, these dark forces of ignorance and terror would have=20
been unable to endanger peace within the country and indulge in=20
mindless killings of innocent citizens in the name of religion, or to=20
cause a host of serious and unnecessary complications in Pakistan's=20
relations with neighbouring countries.

The disastrous policy of creating and sustaining such forces by the=20
state did reflect in the foreign relations pursued by past=20
governments, especially in the last two decades.

It has been one of the founding principles of Pakistan Peace=20
Coalition that peace within the country and society at all levels is=20
a pre-requisite to the evolution of our foreign relations on the=20
basis of seeking peace beyond our borders.

PPC hopes that your Government will resolutely ensure the strict=20
implementation of the measures you have announced, given the=20
collaborative role played in the past by state institutions.

How India or the international community looks at these measures may,=20
of course, be important, but what is most of important of all for the=20
people of Pakistan is the speedy transformation of the Pakistani=20
society from a terror and violence ridden one into one of peace,=20
tolerance, justice, progress and democracy.

PPC Sindh Chapter assures you of its support in the successful=20
implementation of these measures.

Yours sincerely,

B.M.Kutty & Karamat Ali
On behalf of
Pakistan Peace Coalition (Sindh Chapter)

______

#3.

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:48:43 +0500

[With apologies to regular Dawn readers. This column "Views from=20
Margalla" by Onlooker sums up very eloquently what all of us should=20
be loudly asking the government of Pakistan. Nayyar]
o o o

DAWN (Pakistan)
<http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/14/fea.htm#2>http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/14/fe=
a.htm#2

Need for HRC-like inquiry commission

President Gen Musharraf perhaps articulated the precise sentiments of=20
the entire nation when he warned India on Saturday that it should not=20
dare cross the Line of Control. He was also right on the dot when he=20
said in his speech on the national hookup that nothing can keep=20
Pakistan from extending political, diplomatic and moral support to=20
the people of occupied Kashmir. And he would certainly find the=20
entire nation backing him on the issue of Pakistanis wanted by India.

His invitation to the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, to=20
come forward and help create peace and harmony with a view to=20
resolving all disputes through peaceful means and dialogue is also in=20
line with what the nation wants. And he was again reflecting the=20
sentiments of the nation when he asked the US to play its role in=20
resolving the Kashmir dispute.

Above all it is highly reassuring to note that India has responded=20
positively to Gen Musharaf's repudiation of 'cross-border' terrorism.=20
He did not say it in so many words. But this is what perhaps he had=20
wanted to convey in effect to the Indians when he announced the=20
banning of all those Jihadi organizations which were known to have=20
been very active in the Indian Held Kashmir and also by making a firm=20
commitment to punish those who would be found using Pakistani=20
territory for launching terrorist activities in other countries.

This is exactly what the Indians had wanted him to do in Agra in=20
return for agreeing to treat Kashmir as the core dispute between the=20
two countries. But for some reason he did not oblige the Indians in=20
Agra. Perhaps he was waiting for an opportunity like the one offered=20
by the December 13 to respond positively to the Indian demand. Well=20
as they say, all is well that ends well.

The president's speech has, however, raised a number of questions on=20
the domestic front, though. And there are many in Pakistan who would=20
like Gen Musharraf to answer the following questions so that the=20
whole thing of religious extremism in this country is put in its=20
proper context and effective measures are taken to keep it under=20
control in the future.

These questions are: Who had he meant when he referred to 'those' and=20
'they' when he said "'Those' who set up Afghan Defence Council did=20
not do any service to Pakistan and Islam rather 'they' got hundreds=20
of innocent Pakistanis killed by sending them to take part in the=20
so-called Jihad in Afghanistan"? Who had actually created the=20
organizations like the banned Jaish-i-Mohammad (JM), Lashkar-i- Taiba=20
(LeT), Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Tehrik-i-Jaferia Pakistan=20
(TJP), Tanzim-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM)? Who had=20
encouraged the setting up of those Madaris which he said were=20
involved in encouraging hatred, violence and terrorism? Who had=20
encouraged the 'religious extremists' to defy the writ of the=20
government and why? Who had authored the policy of interfering in the=20
affairs of others (countries) and using violence as a means to thrust=20
our point of view on others? Who had actually sponsored and=20
strengthened the policy of allowing Pakistan to be used for carrying=20
out terrorist or subversive activities in and outside the country?=20
And who had actually allowed foreign Muslim extremists to use=20
Pakistan as the hub of their activities?

Simply put, it appears that in his speech the President had tried to=20
blame every 'sin' related to violence in the name of Afghanistan,=20
Kashmir and sectarianism inside and outside the country in the last=20
15 years or so on the so-called religious extremists. A very=20
convenient way of side stepping accountability of the Establishment=20
itself which has attained an uncanny mastery in finding scapegoats=20
for its own sins and getting the nation as well as the world accept=20
its version of the story lock stock and barrel!

What is actually needed, therefore, is another inquiry body to be set=20
up on the lines of Hamoodur Rehman Commission which should go into=20
the 'hows' and 'whys' of the emergence of the so-called 'Jihadi'=20
elements in this country. Of course, every body knows the genesis of=20
modern day Jihad. It goes back the US war against the USSR in=20
Afghanistan in the decade of 1980s. The Americans had given global=20
respectability to the terms 'Jihad' and 'Mujahid' for their own=20
purpose. They funded these Mujahideen and armed them to teeth. And=20
these misled Mujahideen flocked to Afghanistan from the Muslim=20
countries to fight the American 'Jihad' against the Soviets.

After they had won this 'Jihad' for the USA, their benefactor just=20
walked away leaving them high and dry. This is when they were adopted=20
by Pakistani Establishment. And why not? The Pakistani Establishment=20
had the grandiose visions of extending its 'strategic depth' to the=20
northern borders of Afghanistan and bleeding India in the Indian Held=20
Kashmir. The Establishment sponsored these Mujahideen without a Jihad=20
with money, guns and another Jihad.

Even the Pak-Afghan Defence Council was formed at the behest of the=20
Establishment. Remember the formation of IJI in 1988 and the money=20
the ISI is supposed to have distributed among politicians then to get=20
them to stop Benazir Bhutto-led PPP from sweeping the 1988 elections?=20
Well an affidavit to the effect by the then ISI chief, Lt-Gen (Rtd)=20
Asad Durrani, the present Pakistan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is=20
pending before the Supreme Court.

If the ISI can spend money to interfere into the internal affairs of=20
Pakistan what was there to stop its external wing using the=20
hard-earned money of the taxpayer as well as that doled by the=20
foreign donors in doing the same for achieving its global objectives?

The President cannot pass the entire responsibility for this on his=20
predecessors? In December 1999 when Masood Azhar of Jaish emerged=20
from the hijacked Indian airline in Kandahar Musharraf was the all=20
powerful military ruler of this country who could exile Nawaz Sharif=20
with a stroke of pen, stop Benazir Bhutto from coming back and ban=20
legitimate political activities of the mainstream political parties.

Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, whom Gen Musharraf arrested only last=20
week, had the full field to themselves and they could go to any place=20
in full public view, hold meetings, display arms and issue threats to=20
India. Nothing was done against them. And when just before he was=20
about to embark on his Agra Yatra, he was asked by an Indian=20
journalist if he would like to ask these Jihadis to curb their=20
activities now that peace talks were starting his answer was in the=20
negative.

So, the Pakistani Establishment cannot escape its role in promoting=20
the Jihadi culture in the country. And it will have to be held=20
accountable for this, if as Gen Musharraf says the Jihad culture has=20
brought such a bad name for Pakistan. We must find out who corrupted=20
the simpletons of Madaris and the mosques. Unless we do this we=20
cannot hope to have repudiated violence completely. -Onlooker

______

#4.

DAWN
15 January 2002

HRCP urges govt to enforce ban on militant groups
Bureau Report

PESHAWAR, Jan 14: Asking the government to enforce the ban on=20
militant organisations, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has=20
hoped that Islamabad's present drive would open the way to reducing=20
tension in the region without compromising the rights of the people=20
of Kashmir which could not be sacrificed under the slogan of war=20
against terrorism.
In a press release issued here on Monday, HRCP Chairperson Afrasiab=20
Khattak and Secretary General Hina Jilani stated that the authority=20
had at last recognised that militants operating under the garb of=20
religion had become a state withinthe state and law unto themselves.
"Civil society had for years been pointing out the threat these=20
elements were posing to the integrity of the state and the interests=20
of the population.
It would have been better if the measures announced on Saturday had=20
been adopted earlier when they would have indicated a self-propelled=20
change of heart and nobody might have been confused by the existence=20
of external pressure. Yet, however the present decision might have=20
been taken, it must now be implemented with the utmost sincerity and=20
vigour," the release said.
"It may not be fair to put the entire blame for Pakistan's problems=20
on the misguided clerics.
The state in particular and the people in general must subject their=20
conduct over the past several decades to a thorough reappraisal,=20
however painful and bitter. Thus, Pakistan's problems will not end by=20
merely putting the militant groups out of action. What is needed is a=20
complete recording of the state priorities and policies solely in=20
public interest.
While the state should respect the various religious faiths of the=20
population, belief should be treated strictly as an individual's=20
private affair," the HRCP said.
It hoped that the next natural step to this process would be the=20
democratisation of society, and the authorities would be able to=20
deliver to the people of Pakistan, "with the same fervour they=20
exhibit in fighting for the cause of the Kashmiris, the right to=20
elect their own representatives."

______

#5.

Jan 14, 02

Special to Inter Press Service

India must de-escalate and match Musharraf

By Praful Bidwai

New Delhi, Jan 14:

India, which accorded a cautious, mixed, and ambivalent reception to=20
President Pervez Musharraf=EDs landmark =ECanti-terrorist=EE speech, will=20
probably have to change its position and reciprocate Pakistan=EDs=20
moves. It is certain to come under increasing pressure to appear more=20
appreciative of Musharraf=EDs actions against jehadi militants, and to=20
de-escalate the massive military build-up along its western border.

The defusing of tension between the two South Asian arch-rivals, both=20
nuclear powers, could herald a breakthrough in their deeply troubled=20
relationship. The ball is now in India=EDs court.

If New Delhi drops the US-style aggressive posture it adopted=20
following a militant attack on its Parliament building on December=20
13, it could engage Islamabad in negotiations to ratchet down=20
tensions, restore normality, and prepare the ground for a peaceful=20
resolution of all problems, including Kashmir.

If India chooses, for short-term domestic political reasons, to=20
remain adamant, and demands that Pakistan surrender all the 20=20
terrorists it has named, it could lose a unique chance for=20
reconciliation.

Worse, it could contribute to precipitating a ruinous and prolonged=20
military conflict, with possible escalation to the nuclear level,=20
with horrific consequences.

India has said that while it =ECwelcomes=EE Musharraf=EDs speech, it will=20
watch if its promises get translated into =ECeffective action=EE. Some of=20
the action is already evident--with arrests of over 900 jehadi=20
militants in Pakistan=EDs biggest-ever crackdown. Musharraf has=20
categorically ruled out handing over Pakistani nationals to an=20
external agency, but said he could consider acting against=20
non-Pakistani suspects if they are found to be in his country.

The question India faces is how far it should push for the=20
extradition of terrorist suspects. India and Pakistan do not have an=20
extradition treaty. Neither can be compelled under international law=20
to hand over suspects to the other.

A way out could be found if a =ECneutral=EE agency like Interpol is given=20
custody of suspects for interrogation. But if this is made a=20
precondition for military de-escalation, India-Pakistan border=20
tensions could persist for a dangerously long time. World opinion,=20
especially the United States=ED view, would seem to be averse to that.

US secretary of state Colin Powell, scheduled to visit India and=20
Pakistan later this week, can be expected to counsel a quick=20
resolution of the issue. India will find it hard to resist US=20
pressure. It has allowed America to become a key player in the=20
post-December 13 confrontation with Pakistan.

Indeed, India=EDs strategy has been brinkmanship--building enormous=20
military pressure on Pakistan in revenge for December 13, and=20
extracting concessions through coercive diplomacy.

This pressure has been exercised through a mediatory agency, the US,=20
by frightening it with the prospect of a South Asian nuclear=20
confrontation, and getting it to tell Pakistan to act against=20
terrorists.

Thus, Pakistan froze the accounts of terrorist groups (Lashkar-e=20
-Toiba and Umma Tameer-e-Nau) within hours of the US putting them on=20
its =ECforeign terrorist=EE suspect list on December 23/24. Similarly, it=20
arrested LeT chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed soon after India announced=20
halving the strength of diplomatic missions, and cancelling all=20
travel-and-transportation links with Pakistan.
Although it has produced favourable results, this brinkmanship has a=20
menacing nuclear dimension, which is inconsistent with New Delhi=EDs=20
professed position against =ECnuclear blackmail=EE and threat-mongering.

But in the process, New Delhi has become more vulnerable to US=20
arm-twisting. It will find it hard to resist the US as a mediator or=20
facilitator, by whatever name, on Kashmir.

Officially, the Indian stand is that Kashmir is a strictly bilateral=20
issue which must be resolved through peaceful negotiations. But in=20
practice, India will have to make some concessions to =ECthe=20
international community=EDs=EE (read, the US=EDs) opinion.
India has been courting the US as a =ECstrategic partner=EE. After=20
September 11, it uncritically supported the new Bush Doctrine=20
equating terrorists with their harbourers. It entered no reservations=20
when the US launched the Afghanistan war bypassing the United Nations=20
system. And it has not had a word of criticism of the construction of=20
a US military base at Jacobabad in Pakistan.

New Delhi has tried to mimic Washington in numerous ways: by equating=20
December 13 with September 11 as an attack on =ECdemocracy=EE itself, by=20
rejecting genuine multilateral diplomacy, and by targeting, in=20
keeping with the Bush Doctrine, terrorism=EDs =ECsupporters=EE (Pakistan).

India has been partially motivated by resentment at having been=20
sidelined by the so-called global =ECanti-terrorist=EE coalition, which=20
favoured Pakistan.
However, an equally important motive has been domestic--related to=20
the trademark politics of the Hindu-sectarian, right-wing Bharatiya=20
Janata Party. For the BJP, the =ECanti-terrorism=EE slogan has become a=20
stick to beat Muslims with, and to mobilise Hindu-chauvinist votes.

These votes are crucial to the BJP=EDs electoral gamble in Uttar=20
Pradesh, India=EDs largest state, where it faces a make-or-break=20
contest next month. If it loses Uttar Pradesh, its national coalition=20
would itself be in jeopardy.

In a desperate bid to avert a rout, the BJP has exploited the=20
post-September 11 climate by promulgating a draconian=20
=ECanti-terrorist=EE law, and through malicious propaganda equating Islam=20
with =ECterrorism=EE.

Musharraf=EDs decoupling of Kashmir from terrorism has thrown a spanner=20
in the BJP=EDs works. It cannot claim that Musharraf=EDs =ECconcessions=EE=
=20
represent its triumph. Nor can it acknowledge their significance=20
without losing face.
The BJP would have been in a less unfortunate position had Musharraf=20
confined himself to banning LeT and JeM. But, on January 12, he=20
announced a paradigm shift by severing the connection between=20
religion and politics, and putting Pakistan on to the road to=20
secularisation and =ECtolerance=EE.

The agenda is probably the most far-reaching programme of change that=20
any Muslim-majority society has attempted since Kemal Ataturk.

The Indian government cannot claim this is the result of its coercive=20
diplomacy or military preparations. It will eventually have to=20
respond by reciprocating Islamabad=EDs moves. The less hesitation it=20
shows, and the fewer its nitpicking reservations, the better for it.

The main obstacles in India=EDs way are its own right-wing hawks. One=20
of them is reduced to pleading that India must not =ECde-escalate the=20
crisis=EE to =EClet Pakistan off the hook=EE. This, he admits, =ECwill not=
=20
only show that it had been bluffing, but also next time it will not=20
be able to mount a credible threat of force.=EE
That brutally shows up the limits of brinkmanship. Like a game of=20
poker, brinkmanship inevitably involves a degree of bluffing. But the=20
good gambler should know that once one=EDs bluff is called, there is no=20
point attempting an even bigger bluff. It is time for mutual=20
give-and-take and dialogue.

Dialogue could open doors that have remained shut in South Asia for=20
half a century.--end--

______

#6.

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:18:51 +0530
From: [Admiral] lramdas [ former chief of the Indian Navy]

Dear Friends,

The morning after the General's TV appearance, which we watched and=20
listened to very carefully,we drafted this note which we hope will be=20
released today to press and media across the country on behalf of the=20
Pak India Forum and a few other groups as well.

We encourage as many groups and individuals as possible to either=20
endorse this, or draft other messages - basically to consolidate=20
moderate opinion in favour of de-escalation and dialogue as the=20
immediate first step.

We believe that there is an urgent need to take action at several=20
levels simultaneously if we are to use this small window of=20
opportunity that has opened up.

1) Reaffirm and Strengthen the positive features of the Statement by=20
the President of Pakistan. We are well aware of all the lacunae which=20
are already being pointed out by several people in both countries!=20
But those debates will continue - as they must - and form an=20
important part of the tough process of re-building democracy within=20
Pakistan.

2) Reaffirm and strengthen those sections within the Indian=20
establishment who are willing to give the general the `benefit of the=20
doubt' and `time to implement his promises' - as Jaswant Singh's=20
statement and Press Conference brought quite clearly. (WE have read=20
some of the reports in the Pakistani Press regretting the `lack of=20
warmth' ! Anyone who has seen our Foreign Ministry in action will=20
realise that this is their style - and not something reserved=20
especially for Pakistan!)

2)However, right now, as a Peace Constituency in the region - there=20
is an immediate, difficult, but critical role and task ahead of us.=20
Already one can hear the `macho' voices getting more and more=20
strident - demanding that there should be no compromise with the=20
other - and that `national honour' (whatever that means!) must be=20
upheld at all costs. The seductiveness of the `war' option is=20
frightening as it is widespread among certain segments. Alas, those=20
segments are also vocal and visible - and seem to have strong allies=20
within some sections of press and media. This might take different=20
shape and form in each country .

In India it is created by building on the "terrorism, trust betrayed,=20
and dont lose the opportunity now" theme which has already been so=20
skillfully kept in the public eye. And it is precisely these=20
constituencies and voices which need to be engaged immediately by all=20
those of us who can - wherever we happen to be situated.

Large Peace Rallies could be one of our endeavours, but=20
simultaneously we need to seek out all opportunities to talk with=20
colleagues - youth in particular - providing facts - pointing out the=20
potentially catastrophic scenario of the war option for both sides.

So while we continue to analyse the speech - examine all the gaps and=20
historical background - let us keep in mind the immediate situation=20
and utilise every possible opportunity to buy time and push for=20
de-escalation and lowered levels of rhetoric.

Greetings,

Admiral Ramu Ramdas and Lalita Ramdas

Pak India Forum for Peace and Democracy(PIPFPD)
Indo-Pak Soldiers for Peace Initiative (IPSI)
Asia Peoples Alliance
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India)

The statement is given below and is also available as an attachment -=20
please add/amend but keep the issue alive.

***************************************************************************=
**********

WAY AHEAD FOR PEACE BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Millions of people around the world, including many of us in the=20
Peace Movement in India, heard His Excellency,
Gen Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, address his nation last=20
night 12 January 2002. Most of his address
was focussed on domestic issues concerning extremism and the role of=20
Madrassas inside Pakistan. The General
outlined several courageous and determined steps in order to end=20
religious fundamentalism and all forms of
terrorism, and to restore tolerance and balance in Pakistan. By any=20
standards, these measures were indicative of
a radical turn around from the views subscribed to by previous=20
Pakistani regimes since Gen. Zia ul Haq.

Gen Musharraf has imposed a ban on many terrorist groups functioning=20
out of Pakistan, including the two groups
identified by India , namely the LeT and the JeM. Whilst condemning=20
the terrorist acts of Sept 11, Oct 1 and 13
Dec in unambiguous terms, he has also made it very clear that no=20
terrorist groups will be permitted to function
from within Pakistan to carry out militancy outside Pakistan,=20
including in Jammu and Kashmir. One hopes that this will be=20
translated into action on the ground in the near future.

In a special message to the Prime Minister of India, the President of=20
Pakistan once again re-iterated the need to
move away from `old mindsets and historical baggage=92 and resume the=20
dialogue process to resolve all bilateral
issues including J & K.

We welcome the initial response of the Govt of India as set forth by=20
Mr Jaswant Singh in his Press Conference of Jan 13 2002. However we=20
would like the Govt of India to demonstrate its acknowledgement of=20
the positive
nature of the steps announced by General Musharraf and to do the=20
following as an initial act of goodwill:

** restore communication links including, air, land and rail=20
transport between our countries to the pre Dec 31st
status.
**defuse and de-escalate the current `eyeball to eyeball=92=20
confrontation along the International border and Line of Control in=20
J&K.
** resume the dialogue process as soon as possible

______

#7.

EMBARGOED TO WEDNESDAY 16 JAN 2002
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA
PEACE GROUPS WORLDWIDE CALL ON INDIA, PAKISTAN, TO STEP BACK FROM THE BRIN=
K

In a letter faxed yesterday from Sydney, over 250 peace groups, environment
groups, non-governmental organizations and parliamentarians worldwide have
called on the governments of India and Pakistan, to step back from the
brink of a possible nuclear war.

In spite of a significant lessening in the tension between the two
countries and statements and actions from Pakistan (In particular
President Musharraf's recent speech) that indicate that it is willing to
clamp down on cross-border terrorist activity as demanded by India, the
situation between the two nuclear-armed countries remains tense and
potentially explosive, with no room for error.

Friends of the Earth Australia and antinuclear groups in India and
Pakistan have coordinated the letter, which points out that nobody will
gain from a conflict that could turn nuclear, and that no conceivable
national interest of either country could possibly be served by such a
conflict.

The letter asks that troops be moved back from the border and that
transport links be restored. It asks that discussions be started to
eliminate the risk of a nuclear exchange between the two countries, that a
dialogue be commenced on Kashmir, and that there be discussions to produce
lasting peace and stability in the region.

According to the coordinator of the letter, Friends of the Earth Australia
nuclear weapons spokesperson John Hallam,

"It is significant that at a time of tension between these two
nuclear-armed rivals, over 250 major international organisations and
parliamentarians have signed this letter at very short notice. We hope that
it will have the desired effect in helping to calm the subcontinent."

The letter has been signed by major international groups including
Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth International, and
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), major
national groups such as CND in the UK, and by members of the European
Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, the Belgian Parliament, the British
Parliament, and the Australian Parliament. A large number of major Indian
and Pakistani peace organisations have signed the letter.

Comment can be had from:
John Hallam, Nuclear Weapons Spokesperson, Friends of the Earth Australia
61-2-9567-7533 h61-2-9810-2598
Praful Bidwai, (Delhi) 91-11-435-7278

_____

#8.

India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 60
15 January 2002
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/message/71

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

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.