[sacw] SACW | 21 Jan. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 21 January 2002

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

#1. Sri Lanka: 'Include human rights measures in Govt.-LTTE MoU'
#2. Rethinking Education at the Time of War (Avijit Pathak)
#3. Musharraf's Landmark Speech - De-escalate right now! (Praful Bidwai)
#4. Pakistan: Yest another set of Reforms (MB Naqvi)

________________________

#1.

Sri Lanka: 'Include human rights measures in Govt.-LTTE MoU'

We the undersigned members of the Peace Support Group welcome the=20
efforts facilitated
by Norway to formalize the cessation of hostilities by the government=20
and the LTTE in a
ceasefire agreement between the Firmly convinced that the durability=20
of such an agreement
and this contribution to a political settlement of the ethnic=20
conflict will be invaluably enhanced
by the explicit inclusion of human rights and humanitarian=20
considerations, we strongly urge
that the following issues be included in it or form the basis of a=20
separate Memorandum of
Understanding between the government and the LTTE at the outset of=20
the reactivated
peace process.

The issues to be included are:
* Freedom of expression, association and movement.
* Freedom of movement of food and other essential items.
* Release of detainees and prisoners.
* End to extra-judicial killings, including political assassinations
* End to torture.
* Protection of the civilian population and prevention of attacks on=20
civilian targets.
* Prevention and investigations into rape in custody.
* Prevention of the recruitment and deployment of child combatants.
* Strengthening of independent judicial processes.
* Strengthening of democratic institutions at the national and local levels=
.
* Respect for the independence and integrity of civil society=20
organizations and groups.
* The establishment of a mechanism of independent, international human righ=
ts
monitoring with the help of the Office of the High Commissioner of=20
Human Rights.
* Respect for international humanitarian norms applicable in=20
situations of internal armed
conflict.
* Immediate halt of the laying of Anti Personnel Landmines. Clearing=20
of such mines
already laid. We reiterate our firm belief in the pivotal importance=20
of human rights
concerns in peace making and urge that they be addressed at the outset of t=
he
reactivated peace process.

Signatories:
Sunila Abeysekera,
Sunanda Deshapriya,
Sunil Bastian,
Rohan Edirisinha,
Ketheshwaran Loganathan,
Jehan Perera,
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu,
Javid Yusuf,
Joe William,
Radhika Coomraswamy,
Jeevan Thiagarajah.

_____

#2.

Mainstream (New Delhi)
December 22, 2001

Rethinking Education at the Time of War

AVIJIT PATHAK

We are witnessing war, violence and terrorism. In a way, we are=20
experiencing hatred, narcissism, divisiveness, competitiveness and=20
sado-masochism. When we participate in war, indulge in violence,=20
plead for the inevitability of war, and even legitimise war in the=20
name of protecting 'peace' and 'justice', we reveal our inability to=20
relate to the world in a fashion that radiates love and harmony,=20
symmetry and recipriocity.

The question, therefore, arises: why is it that we cannot minimise,=20
or even diminish, the possibility of war? Maybe we are not adequately=20
trained, socialised and civilised. Maybe the light inside us has not=20
yet been awakened. Or, maybe we are not truly educated!
It is in this context that we are striving for an alternative form of=20
education: a new way of seeing and feeling the world that would=20
enable us to look beyond the 'rationale' of war, overcome hatred and=20
narcissism, and realise the supreme power of love and togetherness.

I. Crisis in Modern Education

WHAT is important to notice is that defence experts, Army Generals,=20
diplomats, politicians, military scientists and technologists-in=20
fact, all those who plan for or participate in war-are 'educated'.=20
Because they come from universities, they possess 'expertised'=20
knowledge, and are supposedly intelliglent and well read. This means=20
that war or violence is not incompa-tible with what we regard as=20
education in our times. Instead, with more and more modern education,=20
we have excelled in the science of war, brutality and violence. This=20
is the reason why we need to rethink education. It is in this context=20
that we wish to make two points.
First, modern education celebrates what can be called a purely=20
techno-scientific and instrumental orientation to the world: natural=20
as well as social. Its roots could be seen in the Baconian=20
understanding of knowledge. Knowledge, for Francis Bacon, is power,=20
and this power emerges out of a value-free, objective and detached=20
observation of nature, and eventually man's ability to control nature=20
for his supremacy and well-being. It would also be seen in Descarte's=20
notion of the duality of mind and body; the way the Cartesian=20
thinking would see nature as a machine to be used for instrumental=20
purposes, and plead for abstract/disembodied knowledge that separates=20
the knower from the realm of emotions and feelings.
It would not be wrong to say that this techno-scientific/instrumental=20
orientation has become the dominant consciousness in modern times.=20
Knowledge has become increasingly divorced from metaphysics. We find=20
amidst ourselves a series of hierarchical dualities: science and=20
metaphysics, techno-instru-mental knowledge and poetic sensitivity,=20
rationality and spirituality. Metaphysics, poetry and spirituality=20
are marginalised in the domain of modern education. It celebrates=20
science, technology and rationality as legitimate tools of cognition.=20
And these tools are totally divorced from any=20
higher/divine/transcendental quest. No wonder, modern education,=20
despite its tremendous growth in the domain of secular/empirical=20
knowledge, loses its philosophic depth. Instead, it becomes merely=20
instrumental, technical and practical. As it is devoid of a higher=20
purpose, it begins to worship itself, and becomes directionless. We=20
see the mindless accumulation of information, endless production of=20
books, theses and documents. But nothing relaxes us, softens our=20
minds, and alters ours conscio-usness. We get burdened by our own=20
creation. Abstract/disembodied reason becomes violent and oppressive;=20
science becomes merely linear and cumulative without any direction;=20
technology becomes a monster, and refuses to be controlled by a=20
divine purpose. In the name of reason, science and technology we work=20
in our libraries and laboratories, produce life-killing weapons and=20
demonic technologies.
Second, we notice an unbridgeable gap between modern education and a=20
higher ideal of life practice. Because education has become merely an=20
exercise that stimulates the intellect for achieving purely material=20
goals: wealth, power, fame and success. Its only function, it seems,=20
is to prepare us for a terribly violent/competitive milieu. It does=20
not expand our horizon. Nor does it inspire us to merge with the=20
transcendent and the infinite. Instead, it restricts the flow of the=20
spirit; it limits one to purely instrumental goals. Its motto is the=20
following: reduce knowledge into quiz contests, acquire discrete=20
pieces of informa-tion without an urge to see their=20
interconnectedness. Study science, but do it for your career. Study=20
technology, but use it for the profit of the company you are working=20
for. Study literature, but do it for intensifying your 'cultural=20
capital'. There is no other purpose-higher/transcendental=20
purpose-that directs education. No wonder, modern education becomes a=20
mechanical/linear journey: pass through ordered stages, acquire=20
'certificates of excellence', and isolate yourself from all those who=20
have 'failed' in the process! This causes arrogance, arouses the=20
divisive mentality, and intensifies the killer instinct.
Is there any reason to be surprised, if an educated being becomes=20
ruthless, violent and even a terrorist?

II. Philosophic Foundations of New Education

IT is, therefore, important to alter the priorities of the existing=20
education, and create an alternative agenda. What is absolutely=20
necessary is to relate the phenomenal order to the transcendental=20
order, to restore higher/nobler purposes in the objectives of=20
education, and to inspire the learner to see beyond discrete pieces=20
of information and realise the deeper truth: the truth that unites=20
and transcends differences. Perhaps the meaning of this new agenda=20
would become clearer if we situate it in the context of divergent=20
debates on the destiny of human civilisation.
For example, the alternative education we are visualising ought to=20
have a critical engagement with modernity. Modernity is a=20
double-edged pheno-menon. Its promises and achievements-generating=20
choices, arousing criticality and making everyday existence smooth=20
and comfortable-are remarkable. Yet, as we have already discussed,=20
modernity has become arrogant, violent and instrumental. Because of=20
its excessive certainty, it refuses to hear any transcendental/divine=20
voice. The new education, therefore, must transcend modernity. This=20
transcen-dence does not, however, mean that we should remain ignorant=20
of, say, science, technology and other modern epistemologies.
We would learn everything, but learn from a spiritual perspective.=20
This is like saying that the power of science/technology would be=20
seen as a manifestation of the divine. We would learn to see=20
science/technology not as hegemonic/triumphant power, but as a kind=20
of divine play. It would, therefore, create the possibility of a=20
symmetrical dialogue between a physicist and a mystic, a poet and a=20
technologist, a saint and a rationalist. In other words, the new=20
pedagogy would inspire one to learn from multiple sources:=20
Ramakrishna and Newton, Tagore and Einstein, Sri Aurbindo and Charles=20
Darwin. This openness would spiritualise modernity; make it humble=20
and truly enabling.
In this context it is important to speak of post-modernity. In our=20
times post-modernists have interrogated the project of modernity-the=20
way it has colonised the world, annihilated cultural differ-ences and=20
promoted a phallocentric/ Eurocentric thinking in the name of=20
scientific reasoning. But then, the problem with post-modernity is=20
its relativism and nihilism, its inability to transcend heterogeneity=20
and see the deeper spiritual unity amidst cultural differences. As a=20
result, despite their ability to provide a meaningful critique of=20
modernity, post-modernists cannot show us the solid spiritual=20
foundations of new education.
In fact, the agenda of new education would derive its inspiration=20
from some ancient ideals. A careful look at the philosophy of ancient=20
education suggests that it attached great importance to the=20
transcendental order. It was believed that knowledge without the=20
realisation of the transcendental order world remain incomplete. It=20
is avidya because it confuses the non-eternal with the eternal, the=20
temporal with the transcendental. It cannot realise the self that is=20
pure and eternal, infinite and devoid of all attributes. No wonder,=20
as we see in some of our ancient texts, from the Upanishads to the=20
Samkhya philosophy, the ideal of education is filled with austerity,=20
egolessness, humility, non-violence and compassion. The kind of new=20
education we are visualising must give importance to these ideals.=20
This does by no means suggest that we are thinking of a regressive=20
journey. Nor does it mean that in the name of ancient ideals we wish=20
to protect Brahminism as an exclusivist/hierarchical doctrine. As a=20
matter of fact, we wish to remain creatively engaged with these=20
ideals so that their emancipatory potentials can have universal=20
applicability.
The alternative pattern of education we are visualising is,=20
therefore, strikingly different from any form of=20
conservative/fundamentalist doctrine. Because it is not limited to a=20
caste/class/sect/religion. It is neither Hindu nor Christian, neither=20
Western nor Eastern. It is for all because it is a way of living and=20
being. It unites, not separates; whereas a=20
conser-vative/fundamentalist education divides and causes hatred. Not=20
solely that. Fundamentalist breeds insecurity. It fears modern=20
epistemologies. But in our vision of education the learner acquires=20
the strength of wisdom and inner knowledge to engage with modernity,=20
and eventually transcend it to reach a higher order of synthesis.

III. Implementing New Education

THE moot question is : How do we operationalise or implement the=20
alternative pattern of education? Here we wish to propose the=20
following pedagogic measures.

(a) Coming closer to nature
A major crisis confronting the present system of education is that it=20
separates the learner from nature, its open/vast/expanded domain, its=20
rhythm and beauty. Learning in this urban/industrial civilisation=20
takes place in closed/structured/bonded buildings-totally separated=20
from the mountains, the sky, the river, or to put it otherwise, the=20
beauty of the natural landscape. In a way, the prevalent practice of=20
education denaturalises the learner. He/she learns not by relating to=20
nature, but through printed books, computers and factory produced=20
tools, toys and other learning materials. Furthermore, the excessive=20
importance attached to techno-scientific learning (seeing nature as a=20
machine, and evolving an abstract/mathematical/instrumental=20
orientation to it) tends to deprive one of the ability to relate to=20
nature with love and wonder. This disenchantment or desacrilisation=20
of nature, it has to be realised, is a source of violence in our=20
times.
Against this unnatural form of learning we propose a new culture that=20
would try to bring the learner closer to nature. This requires the=20
willingness to come out from the classroom, and make a visit as=20
frequently as one can to the mountains, the sea, the river and the=20
forest. As Tagore would have argued, the meaning of learning amidst=20
natural surroundings is to look at and experience the wonder of=20
creation, its beauty, its vastness, and its significance in one's=20
life.

(b) Relating to pain and suffering
It is often believed that the goal of education is to create a=20
'privileged minority'. Education, as a result, becomes elitist. It=20
isolates its 'bright products' from the domain of pain and suffering.=20
It creates a notion of happiness that is centred on power, prestige=20
and wealth. Education, it is argued, must assure success, and success=20
has nothing to do with pain and suffering! But then, this notion of=20
successful/happy existence is utterly superficial. It is escapist. It=20
cannot acquire the depth of existence because it avoids what is real.
That is why an alternative form of education must encourage the=20
learner to relate to life: the experience of pain, suffering, hunger=20
and death. This active engagement would enable the learner to realise=20
our shared humanity. Even in terms of pedagogy it would serve a great=20
purpose. For example, when a student of sociology/philosophy visits a=20
hospital, nurses a patient, and listens to his wounded psyche,=20
his/her perception of life becomes mature. No book can replace this=20
spirit of learning through relatedness. Likewise, it is important for=20
a student to engage with people in divergent emancipatory projects=20
relating to health, literacy and empowerment. Knowledge grows;=20
communicative interactions unite theory and practice; the learner=20
becomes humane, and succeeds in evolving an ethics of care and=20
responsibility. This new ethics, it has to be understood, is not what=20
is fashionably called 'social service' as a form of=20
'extra-curricular' activity. Instead, the ethics we are talking about=20
becomes an integral component of new pedagogy. Learning, under new=20
circumstances, would take place also in the sites of pain, suffering=20
and struggle: hospitals, prisons, refugee camps etc. It would=20
restrain the element of elitism in education, it would cultivate the=20
music of harmony.

(c) Learning through doing
Learning through doing ought to be seen as a radical form of=20
pedagogy. The tragedy is that the existing pattern of education=20
attaches excessive importance to intellectual labour and, therefore,=20
separates the learner from the doer. This causes a duality between=20
intellectual labour and manual labour, and makes one believe that the=20
aim of education is to free the learner from the 'burden of work'. No=20
wonder, this leads to an unbridgeable separation between a university=20
professor and a peasant, a civil engineer and a construction worker,=20
a doctor and a nurse, a theoretician and a worker. Second, it makes=20
learning incomplete because complete learning demands the unity of=20
theory and practice. It demands, as Gandhi visualised while=20
formulating the agenda of 'basic education', the ability to learn=20
abstract symbols through concrete/productive engagements. That is why=20
we propose integral education that would unite the brain and the=20
heart, the mind and the body, abstract theorisation and concrete=20
work. For example, under new schemes, it would be desirable on the=20
part of every learner to engage in some kind of agricultural=20
practices. The reason is that through agriculture one realises the=20
beauty/greatness of one of the fundamental activities that nurture=20
and sustain us. Agriculture also enables one to see and appreciate=20
the earth as our mother, and the cyclic process of creation, life and=20
growth. Likewise, it would be desirable for a student of physics to=20
learn by working with, say, ordinary workers engaged in motor=20
repairing activities. And let a student of history learn by=20
participating in folk cultures and collective memories of the=20
subaltern masses. This form of learning, we hope, would make one=20
humble, soften one's intellectual power, bridge all sorts of=20
dualities, and intensify the culture of love, reciprocity and=20
relatedness.

(d) Learning together
The spirit of cooperation and togetherness needs to be operationlised=20
in the domain of new education. The prevalent practice of education,=20
we all know, rests on the individual; the individual is awarded,=20
ranked, promoted and failed. This individual-centric education,=20
needless to add, promotes egoism, isolates 'bright' students from=20
those who 'fail', cultivates the 'killer instinct', and makes it=20
almost impossible for one to share one's knowledge and insights with=20
others. Against this violent form of learning we propose a new=20
culture that inspires and motivates one to cooperate with others, and=20
understand the world together. There are many ways through which this=20
method can be practised. For instance, the teacher can ask her=20
students to constitute a group, and work on a project collectively.=20
In the process of working together they would realise one another's=20
strengths and weaknesses, they would realise that working together=20
means working better, and knowledge grows when it is shared. This=20
emphasis on togetherness does not mean that we deny the autonomy of=20
the learner. In fact, it is important to realise that autonomy=20
manifests itself in the ehtos of relatedness. For example, a student=20
who is good in mathematics sharpens his mathematical skill when he=20
works with others. Not solely that. In the process he may also=20
realise that someone else, although not good in mathematics, excels=20
in, say, poetry. This awareness of the potential hidden in other=20
human beings is likely to arouse what is important for gaining=20
knowledge: a sense of humility!

(e) A process of evaluation that is enabling
We need an alternative mode of evaluation. It is tragic that the=20
learner as a being with his/her qualitative distinctiveness is=20
forgotten. Instead, he or she is quantified on the basis of a uniform=20
scale. No wonder, examinations, as Michel Foucault demonstrated with=20
great insight, become ceremonies of power, exams cause perpetual=20
fear, tension and anxiety; exams make it impossible for the teacher=20
and the taught to have a symmetrical relationship. Exams declare=20
one's 'success' or 'failure'. Exams do not show one's possibilities.=20
Instead, exams give the final judgment, and reduce one to a fixed=20
category: 'bright' or 'dull' , 'intelligent' or 'stupid', 'good' or=20
'bad'.
We, however, wish to propose a new mode of evaluation that, instead=20
of quantifying one's perfor-mance, would show one one's=20
possibilities, the way one can improve and excel. This does not mean=20
that the new system is 'easy' or free from challenges. Instead, it is=20
more rigorous and more demanding, because the learner would be given=20
multiple forms of problems and challenges to solve. And the teacher=20
as a catalyst would enable him/her to discover his/her swadharma. For=20
example, a student may be weak in the so-called academic pursuits.=20
But instead of declaring him as a 'case of failure', the teacher=20
would try to see his hidden potential. Maybe he is good in music, or=20
good in social work. In other words, instead of stigmatising one, the=20
new mode of evaluation would show one's promises and possibilities.=20
It would soften the culture, and intensify our faith in human=20
capabilities.

(f) Learning the art of silence
It is important to develop the art of silence and contemplation.=20
These days, as we notice, seldom does the culture of education enable=20
one to look at one's inner self. Instead, it makes one perpetually=20
restless for external achievements: more marks and grades, more=20
visibility, more success, and more knowledge of the outer world.=20
Education, as a result, manufactures ruthless, violent, technical=20
mind-sets, but not those who are relaxed, who can see beyond, and=20
listen to the inner world. It is, therefore, important to encourage=20
the learner to cultivate the art of remaining silent, controlling the=20
fluctuations of the mind, and undertaking a journey to the inner=20
world. This is the beginning of peace, harmony and tranquillity.
It is not our contention to argue that an innovation in the domain of=20
education alone would be able to eradicate war from human society.=20
There is, after all, something called the political economy of war.=20
Yet, education as a radical life practice, we would argue, is capable=20
of altering the destiny of human civilisation. It should not be seen=20
as a 'secondary' factor. Furthermore, we must realise that it is not=20
'utopian'; it is not something that would happen in an imaginary=20
future. In fact, the process must begin. There are two things that we=20
can do, here and now. First, we must overcome our silence, and=20
articulate the need for new education. Second, we can begin to=20
innovate-sensitising ourselves and our students, seeing beyond 'war=20
heroes' and recalling the prophets of peace and harmony, altering the=20
culture of our classrooms, and thinking of many other 'small' acts=20
that matter.

______

#3.

The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning Jan 21

Musharraf's Landmark Speech

De-escalate right now!

By Praful Bidwai

Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf, has done something=20
few heads of states ever do--especially when they are beleaguered and=20
in crisis. He has subverted a major component, no less, of the=20
ideological foundation which has sustained the edifice of Pakistani=20
politics for two decades. He has begun a major surgical operation on=20
the tumour of militant political Islam which has long afflicted that=20
country's body politic. And he has launched an ambitious programme of=20
reform of Pakistani society, the like of which South Asia has never=20
seen before.

Gen Musharraf's January 12 address will go down as a landmark--even=20
if it were to remain a catalogue of the many disorders that Pakistan=20
suffers, and a list of pious intentions. But it is likely to turn out=20
to be much more than that. It was preceded, and followed, by South=20
Asia's biggest-ever crackdown on communal bigots and terrorists.=20
Already, 1,600 suspects have been rounded up, five organisations=20
including Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed banned, and 300 of=20
their offices closed down, locked and sealed.

It will not do to minimise Gen Musharraf's address as a defensive=20
"public relations" exercise aimed at appeasing Western powers on the=20
terrorism issue. More than two-thirds of his speech was devoted to=20
diagnosing the pathology of Pakistani society and politics, and to=20
outlining an agenda for internal reform, rather on making concession=20
on "external" issues like India's demand to take "decisive" action=20
against its list of 20 terrorists. Of course, there was a degree of=20
flamboyance that went with the much-publicised speech, but PR=20
considerations, alone or mainly, cannot explain its thrust.

What Gen Musharraf has unveiled is a plan to put Pakistan on the road=20
to modernisation and secularisation by severing the links between=20
political Islam and the state, between the military and the mullahs,=20
and between Kashmir and terrorist violence. At the heart of the plan=20
is trenchant criticism of Pakistan's dangerous mix of religion and=20
politics, and the disastrous consequences this has had on the state=20
and civil society. Whether the General succeeds in achieving his=20
objectives or not, and how soon, it must be conceded that his agenda=20
represents the most ambitious reform programme undertaken in any=20
country barring Turkey under Kemal Ataturk to deal with the issue of=20
religion and politics.

This reform programme represents a complete reversal of the=20
Islamisation project launched by Zia-ul-Haq to acquire a figleaf of=20
legitimacy for his brutal military dictatorship and to transform the=20
very character of Pakistan. The logic of Zia's project eventually=20
unfolded in its most developed form through the Taliban, through=20
Pakistan's attempt to virtually annex Afghanistan and acquire=20
"strategic depth", and through the promotion of a variety of militant=20
groups in West and South Asia, especially in Kashmir.

Gen Musharraf has started cutting the umbilical cord between the=20
Pakistani state and jehadi terrorism. One can argue that this is only=20
the beginning of what is likely to be a prolonged process which will=20
inevitably involve purging the army of pernicious religious-political=20
influences, and even cleansing the ISI. It is by no means certain=20
that Gen Musharraf will succeed. The Pakistan situation is fraught=20
with uncertainty, strife and danger. His agenda will antagonise some=20
of his own military colleagues. He has hit out at the bigoted mullahs=20
who for years have been the mainstay of fanatical groups. Successive=20
governments, including Gen Musharraf's, have found it hard to rein in=20
such men. Numerous jehadi militants, inflamed by the Taliban's defeat=20
in Afghanistan, are only waiting to get their claws into Gen=20
Musharraf.

Gen Musharraf has thus embarked on an extraordinarily bold and risky=20
mission. He may have done so under pressure, even compulsion. But=20
that should not detract from the importance of his endeavour and=20
coherence of his purpose. Far-reaching changes are sometimes brought=20
about not because there is a "genuine" change of heart, but because=20
"soft" options vanish, and there is a compelling need to change.

Therefore, it would be sheer nitpicking and pettifogging to fault Gen=20
Musharraf for the many omissions in his speech. True, he didn't refer=20
to the "Lahore process" or the "Shimla agreement". Of course, he=20
didn't own up the damage that Islamabad militants have caused to=20
Kashmiri civilians, or apologise for it. But that was hardly the=20
function of his address. Did we ask if he apologised for what the=20
Taliban had done in Afghanistan when he joined the US-led=20
"anti-terrorist" coalition? What is relevant is that Gen Musharraf=20
unconditionally condemned all forms of terrorism and the "Kalashnikov=20
culture" of all religious extremism. Of equal significance is his=20
insistence that Pakistani groups must not mess around in other=20
countries--no matter what the cause.

Backing this up is Gen Musharraf's internal agenda, including the=20
redefinition of jehad as a fight against poverty, illiteracy and=20
backwardness, and strict regulation of madrassas and mosques through=20
a system of registration. His radical plan can potentially transform=20
Pakistan into a modern, forward-looking, open society which is no=20
longer obsessed with religion, or crude, intolerant, interpretations=20
of it. He has clearly posed the choice between this future, and a=20
grim fate for Pakistan if it chooses to be a paranoid, closed,=20
religion-obsessed, backward society.

Gen Musharraf of course asserts that Kashmir "runs through our=20
blood". But he has been careful to decouple Kashmir's "freedom=20
struggle" from terrorist militancy. And he has offered a dialogue on=20
Kashmir. India must accept this in a spirit of openness, good faith=20
and generosity. It just won't do to acknowledge--as New Delhi=20
does--that Kashmir is an issue, a dispute, a problem, albeit a=20
bilateral one, and then refuse a bilateral dialogue on one pretext or=20
other. There is a real danger today that failure to discuss Kashmir=20
bilaterally, which India agreed to do at Lahore and Agra, will invite=20
external intervention, with unpalatable consequences.

The US is in a uniquely powerful position today as a hegemonic power=20
which is courted by both New Delhi and Islamabad. India has used the=20
US as the central interlocutor in its post-December 13 strategy of=20
brinkmanship. Having allowed America such a pivotal role, it cannot=20
easily resist its friendly (or not-so-friendly) involvement in=20
Kashmir--if bilateralism fails. Bilateralism must be made to work in=20
its authentic spirit.

Equally important, India must immediately de-escalatise its military=20
build-up on the western border. It would be ill-advised to wait for=20
Pakistan to "surrender" any of the 20 terrorists it has named. Gen=20
Musharraf cannot be easily pressurised into handing over any of the=20
Pakistani nationals in that list to Interpol, leave alone to India.=20
Equally unlikely is the surrender of Dawood Ibrahim or Chota Shakeel,=20
who in any case are gangsters rather than terrorists. India could=20
perhaps get some former Khalistanis exiled in Pakistan handed over to=20
some external agency. But that would be a minor consolation in=20
relation to the substantial gain from Gen Musharraf's outlawing of=20
JeM and LeT.

It would be unwise as well as unrealistic for India to cast itself in=20
the mould of a superpower by demanding that Pakistan give up the 20=20
suspects, or else ... For one, India has not established convincing=20
links between them and the Parliament attack; it has just cited or=20
raked up old cases. For another, the US was itself wrong, as this=20
Column has earlier argued, to use military force in Afghanistan,=20
without exhausting legal and diplomatic possibilities. It has ended=20
up killing at least 3,700 innocent Afghans--500 more people than were=20
killed in New York's Twin Towers. And for a third, India cannot bend=20
its near-strategic equal Pakistan to its will, as the US could with=20
its adversaries in Afghanistan. India is not a superpower which can=20
arrogate to itself the "right" to crush terrorism outside its borders.

It is in New Delhi's own interest to de-escalate the current=20
eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. The present build-up is the largest=20
ever, with half a million armed men pitted against one another.=20
Anything can go wrong: a terrorist attack inspired by a rogue agency=20
out to sabotage Gen Musharraf's plans, an overzealous local commander=20
on either side getting hyperactive, or a plain South Asia-style=20
goof-up. The consequences would be disastrous.

The longer India waits, the greater the chances of a mishap. Today,=20
the Vajpayee government can draw some satisfaction from the fact that=20
Gen Musharraf has taken concrete action against JeM or LeT--although=20
not entirely under India's muscle-flexing. Gen Colin Powell during=20
his visit has delivered a message in favour of dialogue and=20
de-escalation. If the government acts on its own, rather than under=20
US goading, it might even claim a minor victory and hope that this=20
will help BJP a little in Uttar Pradesh. But Mr Vajpayee must draw=20
the line here. Instead of indulging in more brinkmanship, he should=20
try to find an imaginative solution to the Kashmir issue by widening=20
the opening that has emerged in the Valley both as a result of the=20
Taliban's ignominious defeat and Gen Musharraf's new turn against=20
jehadi terrorism. But first of all, he must de-escalate.--end--

______

#4.

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:52:10 +0500

Yet another set of reforms

By M.B. Naqvi

Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff and the President of Pakistan,
has 'ordered' changes in the political system he wants to preside over
after coming October 1. These are in fact some of the many constitutional
amendments he has been authorised to make by the Supreme Court of Pakistan
to the distress of many. Other changes in the Constitution are to follow as
he implements his overall scheme of socalled reforms.

The first of these changes is to increase the number of seats in the
National Assembly from the present 207 to 350. This increase includes 60
reserved seats for women, 25 for technocrats and 58 are net addition to
general seats. Women and technocrats, 85 in all, will be elected by the
newly elected Assembly through proportional representation system. The rest
of the NA members will be elected on the 'first-past-the-post' system as
hitherto. There will be reservations for minorities.

Thereby hangs a tale. Minority members will be elected through the joint
electorate for a given reserved NA seat. The reservation applies to the
candidate being from minorities. This has caused criticisms from the
religious parties and many Pakistan Ideology wallahs in the Muslim League
and a few other obscurantists. Joint voting of Muslims and non-Muslims
would seem to defile Pakistan which is perhaps too pure or sacred. Regional
nationalists in Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP, majority opinion among
minorities' spokesman and all the liberal-minded support joint electorates.

It was Gen. Ziaul Haq with his mission to further Islamise the Islamic
Pakistan, who had arbitrarily enforced separate seats and separate
electoral rolls for minorities, creating grave difficulties for them
Perhaps a minor reform is that for an NA member to be one must have a
bachelor's degree. This too has been strongly articulated on the ground
that wisdom and degree holding do not always go together.

Three simple points seem obvious. These 'reforms' are a regular feature of
every military takeover. Every dictator has justified his putsch by
denouncing (a) the politicians as corrupt and incompetent; (b) democratic
system as too sophisticated, unworkable and unsuited to the genius of
Pakistanis who presumably hanker after an unaccountable dictator; (c) hence
he did not fail to give his 'reforms' in the system. The precise purpose of
these reforms was to legalise and, hopefully, legitimise his own position
while conferring extraordinary powers on the President to override whatever
the 'reformed' legislature might do, if necessary.

Secondly, these particular reforms, per se, are intended to take away
Pakistan from ideological hocus pocus invariably in the name of Islam ---
that were elaborated or implemented in the days of military dictators,
especially under Zia. The current context is the U-turn that Gen. Musharraf
has made on Kashmir policy. He has accepted the basic Indian demand that
cross-border terrorism in Kashmir must end. This has followed in quick
succession to this earlier (in September last year) U-turn on Afghanistan
in which he ditched Taliban regime. Now he has on Jan 12 ditched the
Jihadis in Kashmir, banning for the present only those two organisations
that the Indians had specifically demanded. That Musharraf sounded as if he
was doing all this for domestic purposes proves only his virtuosity in PR
technique.

Thirdly, the current military dictator has capitalised even on the military
tensions on the borders that India had ordered as one of several punitive
measures. His political schemes were not making much headway earlier when
the US arm-twisted Musharraf into joining the international coalition to
fight terrorism. What followed in Afghanistan initially created an uproar
from religious lobbies he had to attend to. During this period he
concentrated on securing American goodwill. US President George W Bush had
to declare that he will work to stabilize the Musharraf Presidency. But
with India massing troops menacingly, all possible opposition to him was
silenced with the calls to patriotism: the enemy is threatening to invade
and he is coming. Out are coming the 'reforms' in driblets; he has deftly
chosen an opportune moment for starting the process --- after he had
hesitated and lost much time.

Despite this unwitting help from Mr. A.B. Vajpayee --- and may be Musharraf
is lending BJP leader a similar service by his truculent tone in the four
State Assemblies polls next month --- many political troubles lie ahead for
the military ruler. There is the perennial problem of Pakistani generals
wielding too much power and who do not permit any democratic system to work
successfully; they encourage vociferous propaganda of politicians'
venality, corruption and incompetence by word of mouth, in print and
through secret intrigue. After a period, when inspired propaganda has
discredited civilians sufficiently, they takeover. It is usually for the
same venal reasons: desired corruption.

But the issue is that all said and done people --- despite their
haplessness, poverty and widespread illiteracy and the rigours of surviving
feudalism with its degrading culture --- begin to show signs of restiveness
and discontent when a dictator has stayed long enough. There is a record of
virtual (i.e. peaceful) revolts against dictators in parts of the country.
It usually takes a decade or so. But now, many analysts claim, speed of
change in thinking has quickened. President Musharraf cannot hope to have
the next ten years of undisturbed personal rule; something is sure to give
way.

There is a larger dynamic at work. The military takeovers, four in fifty
years, have played havoc with Pakistan's national unity and essential
integrity. The first open dictator created the East Pakistan Crisis. The
second presided over the denouement and reaped a harvest of woes, with a
humiliating military defeat and dismemberment of Pakistan. The third, Zia,
--- only less than seven years later --- worked very hard to destroy the
very possibility of national unity and integrity by his cunning but myopic
tricks to encourage all manner of fissiparous tendencies only to weaken the
main opposition party, PPP. The Zia period (1977 to 1988) has damaged
Pakistan polity immeasurably.

The result is that no one takes the Army to be a neutral agency. It is seen
as an instrument of Punjab's control over the whole country's resources,
economy and politics in all the three minority provinces: Sindh,
Baluchistan and NWFP. The favourite phrase is: when normal methods do not
prove effective, Punjab plays its ace of trumps: Army Chief takes over! A
military regime is a tight unitary government and it effectively suppresses
everything that characterises a federation.

Provincial discord that Musharraf talked about when he took over two and
quarter years ago, was so pronounced --- today's silence prevails because
of massed Indian Army on the borders --- that a virtual war was going on
among various bureaucracies. The Sindh or Baluchistan's bureaucracies go on
resisting what the Punjab and central bureaucracies say and do. There are
non-stop struggles between central agencies dealing over Indus waters,
power, distribution of funds and others, on one side and the minority
provinces, on the other. Musharraf's rule has done nothing to impose peace.
So much so that 1991 Census could not be held in time while 1981 Census has
remained controversial between Punjab and Sindh. Disputes over Indus river
waters is so intense between Punjab and Sindh that Army's fiat succeeds, in
winning over a settlement that holds for one season alone; there is bitter
dispute again when the next season approaches. Disputes over electricity
between the Sindh government and WAPDA, a central agency, can only be
called an unending struggle.

When it comes to these 'reforms' by Musharraf it is easy to see that they
are sure to divide the parties and various schools of opinion. Take for
instance the increase in the number of general seats, up by a small
percentage. How will these be divided among provinces, especially between
Sindh (where population has increased) and Punjab (from where an exodus has
taken place). No one trusts the delayed 1998 Census. Which province will
have how many seats in the National Assembly and how should Provincial
Assemblies be reconstituted after recent demographic changes are all
matters of controversy.

At each step the provinces will want to know how a proposed measure will
affect them. Ideological struggles between Islamic zealots --- these may be
shell shocked today but are sure to rise again --- and secular and semi
secular elements are by no means over. These two old themes of discord are
far from having played out. Interventions of the military actually prevent
the people from sorting these problems out through democratic means on a
stable basis.

______

#5.

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

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.