[sacw] SACW #1 | 4 Feb. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 4 February 2002

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

#1. Sri Lanka: A limited peace agenda (Jayadeva Uyangoda)
#2. Pakistan / India : Ambassadors of peace (Narendra Kusnur)
#3. New directions for South Asia (T. K. Oommen)
#4. Pakistan: Ulema vow to fight against secularism

________________________

#1.

The Hindu
Monday, Feb 04, 2002
Opinion

A limited peace agenda

By Jayadeva Uyangoda

All indications are that the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE are=20
unlikely to move into discussing political or constitutional issues.=20
Their primary focus will be on de-escalation.

WHILE SRI LANKA'S newly-elected United National Front (UNF)=20
Government is preparing to celebrate the nation's 54th Independence=20
Day on February 4, the political management of the protracted armed=20
conflict appears to be at the top of its agenda. The informal, and=20
unilaterally declared, ceasefire between the Government and the LTTE=20
has now entered its second month. Reports indicate that the two sides=20
are likely to sign a formal ceasefire agreement, the terms of which=20
are being worked out by Norwegian mediators. However, concrete=20
evidence is yet to emerge to suggest when and where the=20
much-anticipated `peace talks' would begin. In case negotiations are=20
not forthcoming in the weeks ahead, the peace process may run the=20
risk of losing momentum.

Most serious among the obstacles to early direct talks between the=20
Government and the LTTE is the question of the LTTE's=20
de-proscription. The LTTE is banned as a terrorist entity under the=20
draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act. The LTTE argues that=20
de-proscription is necessary for it to come to the table; that it=20
will not talk to the Government as long as it is treated as an=20
illegal, or criminal entity. Although the Ranil Wickremesinghe=20
administration earlier appeared willing to lift the ban, strong=20
resistance from the Opposition parties and the powerful Buddhist=20
clergy has compelled it to find an alternative. Hence, talks about a=20
temporary suspension of the ban.

The question of the LTTE's de-proscription runs deeper into the=20
complexities of peace negotiations. For the LTTE, the ban has placed=20
the movement in a state of inequality - a sort of structural=20
asymmetry vis-a-vis the Government at negotiations. The LTTE's=20
position is that it would participate in the talks as an equal of the=20
Government, and not as a mere terrorist or guerilla group. This=20
parity in status is a crucial precondition for the LTTE leadership to=20
convince itself that the negotiation is a politically meaningful=20
exercise. It is a belief emanating from the position that the LTTE=20
represents the political aspirations of a nation with a right to=20
sovereignty. For the LTTE, the Tamils are not an ethnic minority but=20
a nation. As the LTTE leaders have been very careful to say during=20
the past so many years, the Sri Lankan conflict is not about a=20
minority problem or an ethnic question, but a national question=20
parties to which are two nations, the Sinhalese and the Tamils. The=20
LTTE's recent strategy of forcing most of the Tamil parties and=20
groups to form one political unit, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA),=20
and then act as its political mouthpiece, needs to be understood in=20
this context.

This time around, the Sinhalese nationalist opposition to the=20
Government's political engagement with the LTTE is also centered on=20
this question of de-proscription. As its spokespersons have recently=20
argued, not incorrectly, de-proscription would grant the LTTE the=20
status of parity with the Government. Some politically savvy=20
Sinhalese nationalists argue that they are not opposed to=20
Government-LTTE talks as such but are against removing the ban as a=20
pre-condition. This argument also reveals a deep-seated ideological=20
position held by Sinhalese nationalists of all hues: since Tamils are=20
not equals with the Sinhalese, why share political power with an=20
inferior, unequal minority?

Perhaps, the present United National Party (UNP) leadership=20
understands this dilemma well and the Prime Minister is now trying to=20
work around it in a most interesting manner that may or may not=20
produce positive results. Mr. Wickremesinghe's inaugural policy=20
statement in Parliament, presented two weeks ago, focussed=20
extensively on the proposed negotiation and its complexities. But he=20
was careful not to describe the problem as an ethnic question. To=20
him, what he had to handle was the `North-East war'. And it had to be=20
resolved due to two main reasons: economic compulsions and the=20
pressure of the international community. If we take this statement as=20
a guide, there is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka for the UNF=20
Government to resolve. Rather, there is a `war' to be terminated, or=20
managed.

All indications are that the UNF Government and the LTTE are most=20
unlikely to move into discussing political or constitutional issues.=20
Their primary focus will be on de-escalation. After all, this is the=20
so-called `realist' approach to peace. This reveals a fascinating=20
convergence of approaches between the Government and the LTTE on=20
`peace'. They seem to have a shared understanding of peace:=20
de-escalation of war. In theoretical jargon, we may describe this as=20
`negative peace'. Which means the absence of war. It is basically a=20
conflict management, pragmatic approach that falls far short of=20
`positive peace', meaning the eradication of conditions that=20
produced, and may re-produce, the conflict. Positive peace entails=20
more than negotiations between the two adversaries. It involves=20
redressing the structural causes of the conflict, reforming the state=20
and political structures, community reconciliation and peace=20
building, democratisation, returning to normal politics, human=20
rights, re-integration of communities and many more reconstructive=20
measures. It seems that both the UNF Government and the LTTE are not=20
interested in any of these transformatory objectives. Against such a=20
backdrop, the present round of `peace talks' may not produce anything=20
beyond de-escalation. For both sides, containment of war has become a=20
politically desirable goal. Facing a disastrous economic collapse=20
with a negative growth rate, the UNF Government finds itself unable=20
to finance the high intensity war, which is the legacy of the=20
previous PA Government's mishandling of the ethnic conflict. For the=20
LTTE, in the context of the global `war' against terrorism, political=20
engagement with the Government for some time to come is a basic=20
compulsion. So, there is every reason for the present ceasefire to be=20
formalised and extended for an indefinite period. But, prospects for=20
a negotiated `settlement' do not seem to be as strong.

But, for those who seek lasting peace in Sri Lanka through ethnic=20
conflict resolution, a limited peace process has positive=20
consequences. One is that the Government and the LTTE have opened up=20
a political front and want to stay in it for some time. Then, there=20
is the international community to make the two sides accountable. If=20
the present ceasefire extends for some time to come, it may generate=20
new dynamics. Normalisation of civilian life, the return of the=20
refugees and the displaced, re-construction and re-integration of the=20
communities, people-to-people contacts - all these are possibilities.=20
These can make conflict resolution preferable to conflict management=20
of the pragmatic kind.

As international experience and Sri Lanka's own past clearly=20
demonstrates, lasting peace is too serious a matter to be left to the=20
two adversarial elites alone. A peace initiative requires multiple=20
and parallel processes that can complement the negative peace pursued=20
in track one. This is where civil society has a direct role to play=20
in creating a sustainable peace process. This is also exactly where=20
Sri Lanka's peace constituencies need to re-assess their own=20
thinking, strategies and interventions.

(The writer is the Head, Department of Political Studies and Public=20
Policy, University of Colombo.)

______

#2.

Mid Day (Bombay, India)
Jan 27, 2002, Sunday

Ambassadors of peace
By Narendra Kusnur

narenk@m...

EVER since its song Sayonee became a hit in 1998, Pakistani band=20
Junoon has been regularly performing in India. Besides popularising=20
songs through albums, the group has often talked about peace between=20
the two countries.
Having played alongside Delhi-based Euphoria at the United Nations=20
General Assembly in October, the members of Junoon - guitarist Salman=20
Ahmad, vocalist Ali Azmat and bassist Brian O'Connell - are now=20
looking for new ways to spread their message. And since they=20
represent the younger generation of Pakistanis, they have their own=20
views on how relations should improve.
When contacted over the telephone, Salman gears up for an exclusive=20
interview on the subject of peace. Excerpts:

How would you describe Junoon's efforts in promoting peace through=20
its songs, and through interactions with Indian musicians?
Music is the most powerful force of love. It has amazing healing=20
powers. When I quit medicine to become a composer/musician, I knew=20
right from the beginning that our music would have to serve a dual=20
purpose - to entertain as well as to spread a message of peace,=20
tolerance and love. Growing up as a child in Lahore, I got to know=20
Indian culture through Hindi films and music, especially SD and RD=20
Burman's compositions. They gave me an insight into India, which was=20
starkly different from the hostility and rancour of Indo-Pak=20
relations. Significantly, it was through playing Sayonee (soulmate)=20
in India that we were able to reach the hearts and minds of so many=20
young Indians. In return, we showed India an alternative glimpse of=20
Pakistani youth culture, which they had not been exposed to.
Are these peace efforts a natural extension of your musical ideology,=20
or are they a responsibility you seek to play under the given=20
political circumstances?
As an artiste, I've always been sensitive to my environment. I could=20
never be happy just writing escapist art, because it would be a=20
denial of my social environment and a betrayal of my conscience. I=20
never believed in "money for nothing and your chicks for free"!
Does sharing the same platform with Indian musicians help in=20
spreading this message further?
Junoon has had the pleasure of sharing its peace message with Sonu=20
Nigam in Dubai and recently at the UN General Assembly in New York=20
with Euphoria. These will forever remain deeply cherished memories -=20
Indian and Pakistani artistes standing on the same platform asking=20
our governments to "give peace a chance." In Dubai, 15,000 Indians=20
and Pakistanis came. I saw posters in which fans had drawn hearts=20
using both the Pakistani and Indian flags. During the finale, when=20
Sonu and Junoon sang each other's songs, there was a great feeling of=20
friendship and brotherhood which extended from the stage to the vast=20
audience.
And how successful have your efforts been? Don't you think much more=20
needs to be achieved in this direction?
Clearly, Junoon's efforts are just a drop in the ocean. Peace will=20
only come when the farmer and the fisherman, the actor and the=20
musician, the student and the socialite all join in the chorus for=20
peace. I know there's a desire in both our countries but the silent=20
majority needs to speak out loudly.
People of the young age group are more concerned with issues like=20
their career and their future, than about political issues. Do they=20
like peace messages from musicians?
Iqbal once wrote "Zamaney kay andaaz badley gaye, naya raag hai saaz=20
badley gaye, Khirad ko ghulami se azaad kar, jawaanon ko peeron ka=20
ustaad kar" (the ways of the world have changed, the tune is new, the=20
instruments have changed, free the intellect from slavery, make the=20
youth teachers of the old). I think our respective youth are far more=20
socially conscious than the previous generations. They realise better=20
than anyone else that without peace, there can be no career and no=20
real future.
Have politicians ever felt upset at your efforts?
Politicians come and go but the music always stays. In the past,=20
politicians have used Indo-Pak hostility as a means to stay in power.=20
But it's a dangerous game of diminishing returns in which no one wins.
Of late, there's been an increase in the popularity of Sufi music,=20
thanks to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Abida Parveen. You too have used=20
the poetry of Baba Bulleh Shah in your songs. Should efforts be made=20
to consciously promote Sufi music, so that people are influenced by=20
its thoughts and message of peace?
The Sufis believed that you can't love God if you don't love=20
humanity. Our music is deeply inspired by Sufi poetry. All the Sufi=20
saints sang of peace, harmony and brotherhood. Following the=20
September 11 events, the Sufi message is one that the entire world=20
could benefit from.
In the current state of Indo-Pak relations, what role could musicians=20
in general be playing? Will it help to have shows in each other's=20
countries?
We obviously need to do more of that in each other's countries. I've=20
requested President Pervez Musharraf to give us permission to hold a=20
concert on the Wagah border and I'm quite sure once this crisis=20
simmers down, we'll get the permission to perform with our friends=20
from India, Inshallah.

_____

#3.

The Hindu
Monday, Feb 04, 2002

New directions for South Asia

By T. K. Oommen

If durable peace is to prevail in the SAARC countries, the notion of=20
state or national religion should be abandoned by the members.

THE SOUTH Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is not=20
expected to discuss bilateral issues in its meetings. But most=20
tensions and conflicts in the region are bilateral and their source=20
is cultural. Of the two prominent dimensions of culture - language=20
and religion - it is the latter which foments most of the persisting=20
tensions in South Asia. Therefore, an important step to substantially=20
reduce conflicts in the region is to de-officialise religion.=20
Conversely, language is often a cementing force even when those of=20
the same linguistic community are distributed across boundaries of=20
sovereign states.

Most polities in the world today are multi-religious, the common=20
pattern being one majority religion and a few minority ones. This=20
holds true for South Asia too. There are three majority religions in=20
SAARC countries - Buddhism in Bhutan and Sri Lanka (70 per cent);=20
Hinduism in India (82 per cent) and Nepal (90 per cent); Islam in=20
Bangladesh (86 per cent), Pakistan (97 per cent) and the Maldives=20
(100 per cent). In all the SAARC countries except India the religion=20
of the majority is privileged. While in Sri Lanka Buddhism is=20
declared the `national' religion, the religion of the majority is=20
state/official in all other SAARC countries.

Two observations are pertinent here. One, the usual tendency to=20
perceive some religions as more accommodative, catholic and tolerant=20
is not necessarily correct; if so, Buddhism would not have been=20
privileged in all the Buddhist-majority countries. Two, the widely=20
held perception that democracy is more conducive for nurturing=20
religious pluralism is not sustainable. The first democratic nation=20
in the world, the United Kingdom, still has an official Church. Among=20
the SAARC countries, Sri Lanka has the best record of democracy=20
(India's internal emergency partially tainted its record) and yet it=20
has privileged Buddhism as national religion.

However, among the positive features of democracy are: (a) avoiding a=20
majoritarian hegemony, (b) providing for equal citizenship=20
entitlements to the minorities and (c) respecting the cultural=20
specificities, identities if you will, of the minorities. While the=20
majority does not need state patronage and protection, the urge to=20
sustain the cultural specificity of the majority is also natural and=20
cannot be denied either. That is, democracy willy-nilly implies the=20
respect for the cultural specificities of all communities, including=20
the majority. But when the values and institutions specific to the=20
majority are privileged as official and/or national by the state, it=20
necessarily leads to a majoritarian hegemony and alienation of the=20
minorities. This is the danger in officialising majority religions.=20
Therefore, if durable peace is to prevail in the SAARC countries, the=20
notion of state or national religion should be abandoned by the=20
members.

If religion is to be de-linked from the polity, language should be=20
brought to centre stage. This is so because language is an inevitable=20
feature of all societies. Religion is an optional element in human=20
life in that one can be an atheist, agnostic, secularist and/or=20
rationalist. That is, while there are alternatives to religion, no=20
one can live without language. There is yet another interesting fact=20
to be noted here. While the possibility of alternatives exists in the=20
case of religion, it is non-accommodative of these alternatives. No=20
one can be a "true" Hindu and a Muslim, notwithstanding widespread=20
religious syncretism and liminality, or an atheist and a believer, at=20
the same time. In contrast, the space for accommodation is=20
substantial in the case of language; one can learn several languages=20
without necessarily diminishing the importance of one's mother tongue.

It is important to recognise here that most of the cultural=20
attributes do not have much bearing on religion although the tendency=20
to link the two is perennially present. For example, literature,=20
music, architecture, food, dress or language get `communalised' and=20
pose problems only when they are identified with a religious=20
community. This happens because of the tendency to mistake the=20
cultural attributes of the foundational community as those of the=20
religion wherever it spreads.

Further, when religion is the basis of constituting states the=20
cultural attributes of the dominant religion will be projected as=20
`national' characteristics. This necessarily alienates the minority=20
religious communities.

To overcome these problems, South Asian polities should be visualised=20
as multi-layered federal states, within which there would be=20
language-based provincial states, cultural regions, zilla parishads=20
and panchayats, each of these having a decentralised but connected=20
system of politico-administrative arrangement.

In India, the biggest of all South Asian countries, ,there are only=20
91 regional-cultural-linguistic communities some of which are big and=20
viable enough to have a provincial state, but others may have only=20
cultural-regional or local self-governments (zilla or panchayat).

The point I am making is the need to arrive at a set of criteria to=20
establish Governments at the appropriate levels, instead of falling=20
an easy prey to the tactics and stratagems of unscrupulous=20
politicians.

I must now spell out the rationale in invoking language as the major=20
basis of politico-administrative units. All the existing/persisting=20
secessionist movements in South Asia combine religion and language to=20
sustain their mobilisational vitality. This is a lethal combination=20
from the perspective of escalating conflicts in the region.

Cultural features are more common to linguistic regions than=20
religious communities. For example, there is a greater commonality=20
between Pakistan Punjab and Indian Punjab or Bangladesh and West=20
Bengal in terms of food, dress, music, literature and architecture=20
than say Pakistan Punjab and Sindh or Indian Punjab and West Bengal.

Experience the world over clearly demonstrates that in order to bring=20
about participatory development, effective communication with people=20
is an imperative. Adequate communication is possible through the=20
mother tongues.

Most languages, irrespective of their graphemic status, are capable=20
of effective communication in the context of everyday life - primary=20
education, religious worship, transactions in the market place,=20
expression of emotion and love.

My suggestion then is wherever it is feasible based on population=20
size, financial viability and territorial concentration, it is=20
desirable to establish politico-administrative units based on=20
language. These units could be panchayats, zillas, autonomous regions=20
and provincial states vertically layered in a federal state.

However, urban settlements, particularly metropolitan centres, are=20
bound to be multi-lingual in some of the SAARC countries. The local=20
self-governments of these settlements will have to be designed=20
keeping this in mind. That is, political federalism and linguistic=20
diversity are two sides of the same coin.

(The writer is Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, JNU.)

______

#4,

The News International
February 04, 2002-

Ulema vow to fight against secularism

By our correspondent

LAHORE: The Difa-e-Pakistan Ulema Convention on Sunday rejected=20
government actions against religious parties, electoral reforms,=20
foreign policy and presence of US Army in Pakistan. A joint=20
declaration issued after a moot organised by the Muttahida=20
Majlis-e-Amal at Mansoora, which was chaired by Maulana Shah Ahmed=20
Noorani, said: "The country is facing both internal and external=20
threats and its geographical and ideological frontiers are in danger.=20
After the passage of 54 years, the political structure, economy,=20
judiciary and armed forces are still in the clutches of the=20
British-trained people.

"Ulema will not let turn Pakistan into a secular state and Qur'aan=20
should be the supreme law in the country. Interference by an illegal=20
government in religious Madaaris should be stopped and the Madaris=20
administrations will themselves decide on their syllabus." The=20
declaration demanded that a ban imposed on religious parties be=20
withdrawn, fundamental rights of citizens be restored and all=20
arrested religious leaders be released.

The convention demanded that after the Taliban ouster, the US army in=20
Pakistan be asked to leave and airspace and airports facilities be=20
withdrawn from them. Steps should be taken for the release of=20
Pakistanis arrested by the Northern Alliance and, later, handed over=20
to the US.

The declaration said a movement be launched by people from all walks=20
of life to bring the country out of the present chaos and get rid of=20
the 'tyrant' rulers. A strict policy should be adopted towards India=20
as far as Kashmir is concerned, it added.

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

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.