[sacw] SACW #1 | 24 Jan. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #1 | 24 January 2002

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

#1. The Getaway - Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift.=20
(Seymour M. Hersh)
#2. The General's Dream - The Inside Story of Musharraf's Bold=20
Reforms (Newsweek)
#3. People for Peace meet in New Delhi (24 Jan 2002)
#4. Bangladesh: Police Attack on Landless Peasants' March
#5. Global Vigil For Peace Between Pakistan and India (Palo Alto, CA,=20
27 January 2002)
#6. Kashmir: When the boat became a coffin - Violence has changed the=20
landscape of Kashmir but the artists continue to hold on to memories=20
of peace. (Mufti Islah and Vidya Shivadas)

________________________

#1.

The New Yorker Jan. 28, 2002
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020128fa_FACT

FACT - ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY

The Getaway
Questions surround a secret Pakistani airlift.
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Seymour M. Hersh is a staff writer and the author
of "The Target Is Destroyed" and "The Price of Power: Kissinger in the
Nixon White House."

In Afghanistan last November, the Northern Alliance, supported by American
Special Forces troops and emboldened by the highly accurate American
bombing, forced thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to retreat
inside the northern hill town of Kunduz. Trapped with them were Pakistani
Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers who were fighting
alongside the Taliban. (Pakistan had been the Taliban's staunchest
military and economic supporter in its long-running war against the
Northern Alliance.) Many of the fighters had fled earlier defeats at
Mazar-i-Sharif, to the west; Taloqan, to the east; and Pul-i-Khumri, to
the south. The road to Kabul, a potential point of retreat, was blocked
and was targeted by American bombers. Kunduz offered safety from the bombs
and a chance to negotiate painless surrender terms, as Afghan tribes often
do.

Surrender negotiations began immediately, but the Bush Administration
heatedly=97and successfully=97opposed them. On November 25th, the Northern
Alliance took Kunduz, capturing some four thousand of the Taliban and Al
Qaeda fighters. The next day, President Bush said, "We're smoking them
out. They're running, and now we're going to bring them to justice."

Even before the siege ended, however, a puzzling series of reports
appeared in the Times and in other publications, quoting Northern Alliance
officials who claimed that Pakistani airplanes had flown into Kunduz to
evacuate the Pakistanis there. American and Pakistani officials refused to
confirm the reports. On November 16th, when journalists asked Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the reports of rescue aircraft, he was
dismissive. "Well, if we see them, we shoot them down," he said. Five days
later, Rumsfeld declared, "Any idea that those people should be let loose
on any basis at all to leave that country and to go bring terror to other
countries and destabilize other countries is unacceptable." At a Pentagon
news conference on Monday, November 26th, the day after Kunduz fell,
General Richard B. Myers, of the Air Force, who is the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about the reports. The General did not
directly answer the question but stated, "The runway there is not usable.
I mean, there are segments of it that are usable. They're too short for
your standard transport aircraft. So we're not sure where the reports are
coming from."

Pakistani officials also debunked the rescue reports, and continued to
insist, as they had throughout the Afghanistan war, that no Pakistani
military personnel were in the country. Anwar Mehmood, the government
spokesman, told newsmen at the time that reports of a Pakistani airlift
were "total rubbish. Hogwash."

In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking
military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a
series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush
Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a
limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an
unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters
managed to join in the exodus. "Dirt got through the screen," a senior
intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
did not respond to a request for comment.

Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999
coup, had risked his standing with the religious fundamentalists=97and
perhaps his life=97by endorsing the American attack on Afghanistan and the
American support of the Northern Alliance. At the time of Kunduz, his
decision looked like an especially dangerous one. The initial American aim
in Afghanistan had been not to eliminate the Taliban's presence there
entirely but to undermine the regime and Al Qaeda while leaving intact
so-called moderate Taliban elements that would play a role in a new
postwar government. This would insure that Pakistan would not end up with
a regime on its border dominated by the Northern Alliance. By
mid-November, it was clear that the Northern Alliance would quickly sweep
through Afghanistan. There were fears that once the Northern Alliance took
Kunduz, there would be wholesale killings of the defeated fighters,
especially the foreigners.

Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the
humiliation of losing hundreds=97and perhaps thousands=97of Pakistani Army =
men
and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival.
"Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf," an American
intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his
understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the
White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani
leader. The airlift "made sense at the time," the C.I.A. analyst said.
"Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership"=97who
Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According
to this person, "Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card
on the table" in future political negotiations. "We were supposed to have
access to them," he said, but "it didn't happen," and the rescued Taliban
remain unavailable to American intelligence.

According to a former high-level American defense official, the airlift
was approved because of representations by the Pakistanis that "there were
guys=97 intelligence agents and underground guys=97who needed to get out."

Once under way, a senior American defense adviser said, the airlift became
chaotic. "Everyone brought their friends with them," he said, referring to
the Afghans with whom the Pakistanis had worked, and whom they had trained
or had used to run intelligence operations. "You're not going to leave
them behind to get their throats cut." Recalling the last-minute American
evacuation at the end of the Vietnam War, in 1975, the adviser added,
"When we came out of Saigon, we brought our boys with us." He meant South
Vietnamese nationals. " 'How many does that helicopter hold? Ten? We're
bringing fourteen.' "

The Bush Administration may have done more than simply acquiesce in the
rescue effort: at the height of the standoff, according to both a C.I.A.
official and a military analyst who has worked with the Delta Force, the
American commando unit that was destroying Taliban units on the ground,
the Administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a
special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue
flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan, about two hundred
miles away. The order left some members of the Delta Force deeply
frustrated. "These guys did Desert Storm and Mogadishu," the military
analyst said. "They see things in black-and-white. 'Unhappy' is not the
word. They're supposed to be killing people." The airlift also angered the
Northern Alliance, whose leadership, according to Reuel Gerecht, a former
Near East operative for the C.I.A., had sought unsuccessfully for years to
"get people to pay attention to the Pakistani element" among the Taliban.
The Northern Alliance was eager to capture "mainline Pakistani military
and intelligence officers" at Kunduz, Gerecht said. "When the rescue
flights started, it touched a raw nerve."

Just as Pakistan has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, Pakistan's
arch-rival India has supported the Northern Alliance. Operatives in
India's main external intelligence unit=97known as RAW, for Research and
Analysis Wing=97reported extensively on the Pakistani airlift out of Kunduz=
.
(The Taliban and Al Qaeda have declared the elimination of India's
presence in the contested territory of Kashmir as a major goal.) RAW has
excellent access to the Northern Alliance and a highly sophisticated
ability to intercept electronic communications. An Indian military adviser
boasted that when the airlift began "we knew within minutes." In
interviews in New Delhi, Indian national-security and intelligence
officials repeatedly declared that the airlift had rescued not only
members of the Pakistani military but Pakistani citizens who had
volunteered to fight against the Northern Alliance, as well as
non-Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. Brajesh Mishra, India's
national-security adviser, said his government had concluded that five
thousand Pakistanis and Taliban=97he called it "a ballpark figure"=97had be=
en
rescued.

According to RAW's senior analyst for Pakistani and Afghan issues, the
most extensive rescue efforts took place on three nights at the time of
the fall of Kunduz. Indian intelligence had concluded that eight thousand
or more men were trapped inside the city in the last days of the siege,
roughly half of whom were Pakistanis. (Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and
various Arab mercenaries accounted for the rest.) At least five flights
were specifically "confirmed" by India's informants, the RAW analyst told
me, and many more were believed to have taken place.

In the Indian assessment, thirtythree hundred prisoners surrendered to a
Northern Alliance tribal faction headed by General Abdul Rashid Dostum. A
few hundred Taliban were also turned over to other tribal leaders. That
left between four and five thousand men unaccounted for. "Where are the
balance?" the intelligence officer asked. According to him, two Pakistani
Army generals were on the flights.

None of the American intelligence officials I spoke with were able to say
with certainty how many Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were flown to
safety, or may have escaped from Kunduz by other means.

India, wary of antagonizing the Bush Administration, chose not to denounce
the airlift at the time. But there was a great deal of anger within the
Indian government. "We had all the information, but we did not go public,"
the Indian military adviser told me. "Why should we embarrass you? We
should be sensible." A RAW official said that India had intelligence that
Musharraf's message to the Americans had been that he didn't want to see
body bags coming back to Pakistan. Brajesh Mishra told me that diplomatic
notes protesting the airlift were sent to Britain and the United States.
Neither responded, he said.

Mishra also said that Indian intelligence was convinced that many of the
airlifted fighters would soon be infiltrated into Kashmir. There was a
precedent for this. In the past, the Pakistani Army's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency (I.S.I.) had trained fighters in Afghanistan and then
funnelled them into Kashmir. One of India's most senior intelligence
officials also told me, "Musharraf can't afford to keep the Taliban in
Pakistan. They're dangerous to his own regime. Our reading is that the
fighters can go only to Kashmir."

Kashmir, on India's northern border, is a predominantly Muslim territory
that has been fiercely disputed since Partition, in 1947. Both India and
Pakistan have waged war to support their claim. Pakistanis believe that
Kashmir should have become part of their country in the first place, and
that India reneged on the promise of a plebiscite to determine its future.
India argues that a claim to the territory on religious grounds is a
threat to India's status as a secular, multi-ethnic nation. Kashmir is now
divided along a carefully drawn line of control, but cross-border
incursions=97many of them bloody=97occur daily.

Three weeks after the airlift, on December 13th, a suicide squad of five
heavily armed Muslim terrorists drove past a barrier at the Indian
Parliament, in New Delhi, and rushed the main building. At one point, the
terrorists were only a few feet from the steps to the office of India's
Vice-President, Krishan Kant. Nine people were killed in the shoot-out, in
addition to the terrorists, and many others were injured. The country's
politicians and the press felt that a far greater tragedy had only
narrowly been averted.

In India, the Parliament assault was regarded as comparable to September
11th. Indian intelligence quickly concluded that the attack had been
organized by operatives from two long-standing Kashmiri terrorist
organizations that were believed to be heavily supported by the I.S.I.

Brajesh Mishra told me that if the attack on the Parliament had resulted
in a more significant number of casualties "there would have been mayhem."
India deployed hundreds of thousands of troops along its border with
Pakistan, and publicly demanded that Musharraf take steps to cut off
Pakistani support for the groups said to be involved. "Nobody in India
wants war, but other options are not ruled out," Mishra said.

The crisis escalated, with military men on both sides declaring that they
were prepared to face nuclear war, if necessary. Last week, Colin Powell,
the Secretary of State, travelled to the region and urged both sides to
withdraw their troops, cool the rhetoric, and begin constructive talks
about Kashmir.

Under prodding from the Bush Administration, Musharraf has taken action
against his country's fundamentalist terror organizations. In the last
month, the government has made more than a thousand arrests, seized bank
accounts, and ordered the I.S.I. to stop all support for terrorist groups
operating inside Kashmir. In a televised address to the nation on January
12th, Musharraf called for an end to terrorism, but he also went beyond
the most recent dispute with India and outlined a far-reaching vision of
Pakistan as a modern state. "The day of reckoning has come," he said. "Do
we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state? Do we believe that
religious education alone is enough for governance? Or do we want Pakistan
to emerge as a progressive and dynamic Islamic welfare state?" The
fundamentalists, he added, "did nothing except contribute to bloodshed in
Afghanistan. I ask of them whether they know anything other than
disruption and sowing seeds of hatred. Does Islam preach this?"

"Musharraf has not done as much as the Indians want," a Bush
Administration official who is deeply involved in South Asian issues said.
"But he's done more than I'd thought he'd do. He had to do something,
because the Indians are so wound up." The official also said, however,
that Musharraf could not last in office if he conceded the issue of
Kashmir to India, and would not want to do so in any case. "He is not a
fundamentalist but a Pakistani nationalist=97he genuinely believes that
Kashmir 'should be ours.' At the end of the day, Musharraf would come out
ahead if he could get rid of the Pakistani and Kashmiri terrorists=97if he
can survive it. They have eaten the vitals out of Pakistan." In his
address, Musharraf was unyielding on that subject. "Kashmir runs in our
blood," he said. "No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir. . .
. We will never budge an inch from our principled stand on Kashmir."

Milton Bearden, a former C.I.A. station chief in Pakistan who helped run
the Afghan war against the Soviet Union in the late nineteen-eighties and
worked closely with the I.S.I., believes that the Indian government is
cynically using the Parliament bombing to rally public support for the
conflict with Pakistan. "The Indians are just playing brinkmanship
now=97moving troops up to the border," he said. "Until September 11th, they
thought they'd won this thing=97they had Pakistan on the ropes." Because of
its nuclear program, he said, "Pakistan was isolated and sanctioned by the
United States, with only China left as an ally. Never mind that the only
country in South Asia that always did what we asked was Pakistan." As for
Musharraf, Bearden said, "What can he do? Does he really have the Army
behind him? Yes, but maybe by only forty-eight to fifty-two per cent."
Bearden went on, "Musharraf is not going to be a Kemal Atat=FCrk"=97the
founder of the secular Turkish state=97"but as long as he can look over his
shoulder and see that Rich Armitage"=97the United States Deputy Secretary o=
f
State=97"and Don Rumsfeld are with him he might be able to stop the
extremism."

A senior Pakistani diplomat depicted India as suffering from "jilted-lover
syndrome"=97referring to the enormous amount of American attention and
financial aid that the Musharraf government has received since September
11th. "The situation is bloody explosive," the diplomat said, and argued
that Musharraf has not been given enough credit from the Indian leadership
for the "sweeping changes" that have taken place in Pakistan. "Short of
saying it is now a secular Pakistan, he's redefined and changed the
politics of the regime," the diplomat said. "He has de-legitimized
religious fundamentalism." The diplomat told me that the critical question
for Pakistan, India, and the rest of South Asia is "Will the Americans
stay involved for the long haul, or will attention shift to Somalia or
Iraq? I don't know."

Inevitably, any conversation about tension between India and Pakistan
turns to the issue of nuclear weapons. Both countries have warheads and
the means to deliver them. (India's capabilities, conventional and
nuclear, are far greater=97between sixty and ninety warheads=97while Pakist=
an
is thought to have between thirty and fifty.) A retired C.I.A. officer who
served as station chief in South Asia told me that what he found
disturbing was the "imperfect intelligence" each country has as to what
the other side's intentions are. "Couple that with the fact that these
guys have a propensity to believe the worst of each other, and have
nuclear weapons, and you end up saying, 'My God, get me the hell out of
here.' " Milton Bearden agreed that the I.S.I. and RAW are "equally bad"
at assessing each other.

In New Delhi, I got a sense of how dangerous the situation is, in a
conversation with an Indian diplomat who has worked at the highest levels
of his country's government. He told me that he believes India could begin
a war with Pakistan and not face a possible nuclear retaliation. He
explained, "When Pakistan went nuclear, we called their bluff." He was
referring to a tense moment in 1990, when India moved its Army en masse
along the Pakistani border and then sat back while the United States
mediated a withdrawal. "We found, through intelligence, that there was a
lot of bluster." He and others in India concluded that Pakistan was not
willing to begin a nuclear confrontation. "We've found there is a lot of
strategic space between a low-intensity war waged with Pakistan and the
nuclear threshold," the diplomat said. "Therefore, we are utilizing
military options without worrying about the nuclear threshold." If that
turned out to be a miscalculation and Pakistan initiated the use of
nuclear weapons, he said, then India would respond in force. "And Pakistan
would cease to exist."

The Bush Administration official involved in South Asian issues
acknowledged that there are some people in India who seem willing to
gamble that "you can have war but not use nuclear weapons." He added,
"Both nations need to sit down and work out the red lines"=97the points of
no return. "They've never done that."

An American intelligence official told me that the Musharraf regime had
added to the precariousness of the military standoff with India by
reducing the amount of time it would take for Pakistan to execute a
nuclear strike. Pakistan keeps control over its nuclear arsenal in part by
storing its warheads separately from its missile- and aircraft-delivery
systems. In recent weeks, he said, the time it takes to get the warheads
in the air has been cut to just three hours=97"and that's too close. Both
sides have their nukes in place and ready to roll."

Even before the airlift from Kunduz, the Indians were enraged by the Bush
Administration's decision to make Pakistan its chief ally in the
Afghanistan war. "Musharraf has two-timed you," a recently retired senior
member of India's diplomatic service told me in New Delhi earlier this
month. "What have you gained? Have you captured Osama bin Laden?" He said
that although India would do nothing to upset the American campaign in
Afghanistan, "We will turn the heat on Musharraf. He'll go back to
terrorism as long as the heat is off." (Milt Bearden scoffed at that
characterization. "Musharraf doesn't have time to two-time anybody," he
said. "He wakes up every morning and has to head out with his bayonet,
trying to find the land mines.")

Some C.I.A. analysts believe that bin Laden eluded American capture inside
Afghanistan with help from elements of the Pakistani intelligence service.
"The game against bin Laden is not over," one analyst told me in early
January. He speculated that bin Laden could be on his way to Somalia, "his
best single place to hide." Al Qaeda is known to have an extensive
infrastructure there. The analyst said that he had concluded that "he's
out. We've been looking for bombing targets for weeks and weeks there but
can't identify them."

Last week, Donald Rumsfeld told journalists that he believed bin Laden was
still in Afghanistan. Two days later, in Pakistan, Musharraf announced
that he thought bin Laden was probably dead=97of kidney disease.

A senior C.I.A. official, when asked for comment, cautioned that there
were a variety of competing assessments inside the agency as to bin
Laden's whereabouts. "We really don't know," he said. "We'll get him, but
anybody who tells you we know where he is is full of it."

India's grievances=97over the Pakistani airlift, the continuing terrorism i=
n
Kashmir, and Musharraf's new status with Washington=97however heartfelt, ma=
y
mean little when it comes to effecting a dramatic change of American
policy in South Asia. India's democracy and its tradition of civilian
control over the military make it less of a foreign-policy priority than
Pakistan. The Bush Administration has put its prestige, and American aid
money, behind Musharraf, in the gamble=97thus far successful=97that he will
continue to move Pakistan, and its nuclear arsenal, away from
fundamentalism. The goal is to stop nuclear terrorism as well as political
terrorism. It's a tall order, and missteps are inevitable. Nonetheless,
the White House remains optimistic. An Administration official told me
that, given the complications of today's politics, he still believed that
Musharraf was the best Pakistani leader the Indians could hope for,
whether they recognize it or not. "After him, they could only get
something worse."

_____

#2.

Newsweek
23 January 2002
Cover Story

The General's Dream
The Inside Story of Musharraf's Bold Reforms
Will They be his Undoing ?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/691105.asp
Web exclusive interview with Musharraf
http://www.msnbc.com/news/690376.asp

_____

#3.

23.1.2002
Dear Friend,

As you are well aware, the tension between India
and Pakistan seem to have receded for the time being. But no
one can be sure of the course of action the political
establishments in both the countries would undertake in course of
time.

Hence, a meeting has been organised to discuss about the future
course of action of the People for Peace. You are cordially invited
for the same.

Venue: Indian Social Institute, 10, Institutional Area, Lodi Road,=20
New Delhi 110003 [India]
Date: Thursday 24.1.2002
Time: 4.30 pm

For People for Peace
Prakash Louis

______

#4.

PRESS RELEASE

HUMAN RIGHTS' VIOLATIONS ON THE INCREASE:
POLICE ATTACK ON LANDLESS PEASANTS' MARCH

On January 21st last, a peaceful March staged by thousands of=20
landless peasant
men and women in a distant region along the coast of Bangladesh, was=20
violently attacked
by police forces, seeking to prevent the peaceful take-over of=20
fallowland by landless peasant women and men. The peasant march and=20
the police intervention, which resulted in the dispersal of the=20
march, in some fifty injuries and in the arrest of an estimated one=20
hundred fifty landless, followed shortly upon the holding of a mass=20
rally, under the leadership of the Krishok (Peasant) Federation and=20
the Kisani Sabha (Peasant Women's Association), two organisations=20
which advocate implementation of existing government regulations on=20
the distribution of fallowland. The local administration, besides=20
having scores of landless participants put behind bars, has also=20
declared it will reward people helping to round up local leaders of=20
the landless. These measures of repression well illustrate that human=20
rights' violations continue to be on the increase under the BNP-led=20
government which has come to power three months' back.

First, the peasant rally and march in the coastal area,=20
called Patharghata, as stated were explicitly based on existing legal=20
regulations regarding the distribution of fallowland. Ever since the=20
1980s, undernourished landless peasants have eagerly looked forward=20
towards implementation of a law that gave recognition to their demand=20
to get access to land. The Land Manuel, adopted way back in 1987,=20
stipulated that all plots registered as fallow land, khas, which land=20
areas notably include numerous newly emerged lowlying areas along the=20
coast and in Bangladesh's large rivers, should be allocated to=20
landless families. The Manuel further assigned land rights to=20
landless women at par with men. Subsequently, during the rule of=20
Awami League (1996-2001), the government has partly amended these=20
legal rights. Yet under the pressure of the Krishok Federation, the=20
Kisani Sabha and other representative organisations, the main demand=20
of landless peasants was upheld, and a very modest start was made=20
with legalisation of land rights in lowlying areas where settlements=20
had previously been built.

The demand for distribution of fallow-land, consistently=20
voiced by the Federation and the Sabha for well over a decade, has=20
also received considerable international backing. The European=20
Parliament, for instance, in its landmark resolution on development=20
cooperation with Bangladesh, adopted last year, gave full support to=20
the demand that landless women and men each receive one acre of land=20
in agreement with longstanding legal promises (resolution=20
B5-0048/2001/rev.1). Further, a host of prominent personalities and=20
institutions interested in human rights have cautioned the=20
Bangladeshi government in the past not to use indiscriminate violence=20
and state-repression against the landless' peaceful actions. Thus, in=20
a letter addressed to the country's Prime Minister in 1997, the=20
worldfamous author Susan George, four Members of the European=20
Parliament, and a series of international feminist authors, jointly=20
championed the rights of landless women and their families in the=20
South of Bangladesh. Bangladeshi Ministries have also received=20
repeated protests over landlord- and police-violence from the=20
Germany-based international campaign FIAN.

In view of the prolonged non-implementation of existing legal=20
regulations, the January 21 police-action against the peasant march=20
in Patharghata can only be termed a travesty of justice. Moreover,=20
the action appears to indicate there is a qualitative difference=20
between the attitude of the BNP-government which ruled Bangladesh=20
from 1991 til 1996, and the BNP-led coalition government formed late=20
last year. In the firstmentioned governmental period, the attitude of=20
the police was generally benevolent and the country's courts, from=20
the local court upto the High Court, frequently upheld the legal=20
rights of landless settlers. Now, given the nature of the present=20
regime, which includes the notorious Jamat-Islam, - there is an=20
urgent need for international pressure, to defend civil and=20
democratic rights in Bangladesh. BPSC calls upon human rights'=20
organisations to demand that the authorities immediate release the=20
landless peasants arrested on January 21st, that they refrain from=20
harrassment of peasant leaders, and that instead the government=20
swiftly take the long-delayed implementation of regulations on=20
khasland forward.
BPSC, January 22, =
2000

BPSC
Bangladesh People's Solidarity Centre
P.O.Box 92066
1090 AB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel/fax: +31 20 6937681

______

#5.

GLOBAL VIGIL FOR PEACE BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA

Organized under the banner:People for Peace Between Pakistan and India
When: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5.30p.m.-6.30p.m.
Where: Lytton Plaza, 220 University Ave.
(at Emerson, next to the former Burger King),
Palo Alto, CA. 94301-1711. USA.

Background:=20=20=20=20

Distressed at the continued threat of violence in South Asia,
concerned people all over the world are planning to have a
vigil for peace on Sunday, January 27th. The situation on the
India-Pakistan border continues to be tense and it can easily
evolve into a disastrous war: A war that would only bring
death, destruction, misery and impoverishment to the citizens of
the two nations like the previous wars; A war that could culminate
in a nuclear holocaust annihilating millions in both countries
and endangering the whole world.

Peace-loving people and groups in Pakistan and India, and all over
the world have decided to demonstrate for peace. These groups are
arranging SIMULTANEOUS PEACE VIGILS in India and Pakistan, and
around the world on the last Sunday of every month between 5:30
and 6:30 p.m. (local time). These simultaneous meetings will take
place under the banner of "People for Peace Between Pakistan and
India". As part of this program of SIMULTANEOUS PEACE VIGILS,
the first vigil in Bay Area is being held as listed above.

Memorandum:

We urge the governments of both Pakistan and India to
1. Open up all communication and travel links between the two
countries.
2. Immediately sign a No War Pact.
3. Set up a Permanent Dialogue Process for continued and
uninterrupted negotiations to settle all outstanding issues
(including the issues of i) Kashmir, by also involving the people of
Kashmir on both sides of the border, ii) cross border terrorism, etc.).
4. End and reverse the nuclear weapons race; actively engage in
Global Nuclear Disarmament initiatives.
5. Immediately establish trade and commerce links.

We would like to call upon all peace-loving people to come to
this candle-light vigil and we request you to sign on the above
memorandum.

PLEASE COME TO THE SIMULTANEOUS GLOBAL PEACE VIGIL. BRING ALONG YOUR
FAMILY AND FRIENDS. PLEASE COME AND STAND UP FOR PEACE.

Friends of South Asia 408-265-2795
Qaumantri Punjabi Bhaichara Group Of California 408-935-9160
newsmailus@y...

More Information: http://www.mindspring.com/~akhila_raman/vigil_main.htm

If you wish to sign the memorandum online or for contact info
in Bay Area, send email to: AKHILA123_1999@Y...

For Directions and Parking to the venue:
http://www.mindspring.com/~akhila_raman/vigil1_directions.htm

For a copy of this flyer in MS-Word and HTML formats:
http://www.mindspring.com/~akhila_raman/globalvigil_flyer.doc
http://www.mindspring.com/~akhila_raman/globalvigil_flyer.htm

______

#6.

Indian Express
20 January 2002

When the boat became a coffin

Violence has changed the landscape of Kashmir but the artists=20
continue to hold on to memories of peace. Mufti Islah and Vidya=20
Shivadas report

The colours on the canvas has changed - troubled reds have displaced=20
the luminous greens and blues. The sketches of the Dal lake and=20
chinar trees no longer celebrate the beauty of the valley. Today they=20
are morbid metaphors, filled with a sense of foreboding - lotus=20
leaves have become green helmets and the only association painted=20
orchids evoke are of the cemeteries on which they are placed. But=20
what else would one expect after 12 years of pain, violence and=20
tragedy?

Kashmir is not what it used to be. And the artists are only too aware=20
of this reality. Sculptor Shabir Mirza has a way of dealing with the=20
transition - by dividing his works into the pre and post '90s era.=20
The latter phase transformed him into a ''witness and a victim''.=20
''Earlier I made landscapes, mountains and lakes but later my work=20
began to mirror the deteriorating situation,'' says Mirza, who has=20
been an art teacher at Srinagar's Institute of Music and Fine Arts=20
(IMFA) from 1977 onwards. His Portrait of a Family series depicts=20
heads of people and soldiers who died in the last 12 years. ''How can=20
I not talk about the terrible times that engulf the people living=20
here,'' he asks.

But for someone like Veer Munshi, who migrated to Delhi in '90, it is=20
the long 'exile' that conditions his art. ''These works would have=20
never happened if I had stayed on in Kashmir. But to leave my home=20
with the intention of returning in a month and then realise that I=20
could never go back had a profound effect on my psyche. Overnight I=20
became a minority, a refugee,'' he says, seated in his Chittranjan=20
Park residence.

''I remember trying desperately to make pretty paintings to sell as I=20
needed the money. But they just wouldn't come. Then I made a painting=20
Terrorist on a Floating Land, and began a two-year long series on=20
Kashmir,'' he adds.
"These works wouldn't have happened if I hadn't left Kashmir. The=20
fact that I was a refugee had a profound effect on my psyche" -Veer=20
Munshi

Eleven years later, the memory is fading away. ''Today I view Kashmir=20
alternatively - as a nostalgic memory and as a problem. But the=20
immediacy has gone away,'' he admits. What has emerged instead is a=20
deeper understanding of the situation, visible in the installation he=20
made in 2001 - a boat, once a symbol of livelihood for the Kashmiris,=20
had been turned over to become a coffin. On the sides hang 10=20
garlanded photographs of the artist, each labelled secessionist,=20
refugee, displaced, fundamentalist etc. ''In the last decade, the=20
average Kashmiri has been called so many things. But
no one wants to tackle the problem, they only want to kill people,'' he sig=
hs.

While artists like Munshi and Jammu-based Bhushan Kaul address=20
political issues in their works, a number of other artists continue=20
to subscribe to the long Kashmiri tradition of landscapes and=20
spiritual abstraction promoted by the likes of G R Santosh, Dina Nath=20
Wali and Bansi Parimoo. Sculptors like Gayoor Hassan and Rajinder=20
Tikoo, who have made a name in the contemporary Indian art scene,=20
subscribe to this trajectory.

Delhi-based Faiyaz Dilbar feels this might be because of an inability=20
to take a stand on the issues ''Everything on Kashmir is so=20
polarised. It becomes easier to simply evade the question and turn to=20
landscape which has always been a part of our psyche.''And others=20
like Zargar Zahoor, who teaches art at the Jamia Milia Islamia, say=20
matter-of-factly, ''I have to go back to Srinagar every year and I=20
don't want to get into any trouble.'' His landscapes, however, betray=20
a deep sense of isolation and sadness: ''When I go home, I see the=20
beautiful scenery. But all it conveys to me is a feeling of=20
insecurity and chaos, as if everything is moving away from me.'' He=20
uses paint as it is done traditionally by the paper-maiche artisans -=20
moving from a black background to white and other lighter colours. On=20
the canvas, at least, people seem to have found a way to transform=20
the darkness into brilliant, luminous colours.

FOR many the choice to hold on to the language of abstraction and=20
landscape is deliberate. Like the late Manohar Kaul, who when asked=20
why he never wanted to refer to the tension and the violence in his=20
paintings replied, ''I would rather show everyone how beautiful=20
Kashmir was. Then they will get the strength to change it.'' Agrees=20
artist Shabir Santosh, son of the legendary G R Santosh, ''People are=20
obsessed with the political situation, they spend the entire day=20
talking about it. There is no work either. What is the point of=20
talking about the same things in our paintings?''

''The role of art is to make people see - to show them the fantastic=20
light that hides in our mountains.'' He talks of his father, a Shia=20
Muslim, who embraced Kashmir Shaivism after visiting Amarnath and=20
embarked on a series of Shiva-Shakti paintings and works that=20
explored the therapeutic value of colours. ''Kashmir, in those days,=20
was so liberal,with our culture of Sufism. We have regressed by 500=20
years today.''

The conditions in Kashmir are not exactly conducive to creative=20
growth. Militancy apart, job opportunities and spaces to show works=20
are almost nil. Mehraj-ud-din Dar, a young sculptor, has taken up=20
television production to sustain himself. And like him, most of the=20
IMFA graduates have given up art. Akthar Hussian, who studied applied=20
arts from IMFA in 1999, runs an internet cafe to survive. ''No one=20
wants to take the risk of starting their careers here,'' says Arshad=20
Salai, another young artist.

But not all have the time to moan over the lack of state patronage.=20
In fact, P N Kachru, who came to the Capital in 1989, doesn't even=20
think it is worth his while to mope over the loss of his home and=20
studio in Srinagar. ''The only thing that bothers me still is the=20
destruction of my library. It had 7,000 books and years of=20
research,'' hea dds sadly. ''But let it go, I don't want all these=20
mundane details of my life to creep into my canvases,'' says this=20
founder member of the Kashmir progressive artists group that was set=20
up in the late '40s.
In the deeply spiritual landscape of Kashmir, artists have opted out=20
of finding solutions for people. Those living in the valley are only=20
trying to cope with their circumstances. ''My art cannot escape the=20
times even if I run away from my surroundings,'' says Mirza. And the=20
ones away from it are trying to exorcise themselves of the nostalgia=20
and the longing to return.

While in strife-torn Sri Lanka, artists are constantly expressing=20
their dissent by making political art in public spaces, Kashmiri=20
artists continue to hold on to the old-fashioned power of beauty - in=20
its power to heal. That and the hope that they will regain the land=20
they once knew. Beyond that, as Kachru says, ''I don't know what is=20
the need of my paintings. All I can say is that it is me.''

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

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.