[sacw] SACW #1 | 10 June 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 10 June 2002

South Asia Citizens Web:
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

South Asians Against Nukes:
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html

__________________________
#1. A Patriot's Choice (Sherry Rehman)
#2. Life without the clergy (Hafizur Rahman)
#3. Military Force is No Solution - Dispel the clouds of war ( Praful Bidwa=
i)
#4. Statement of Shared Concern (Sanctuary Asia)
#5. Anti War Demo by South Asians (June 9, Ottawa)
#6. India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 85
#7. Splitting The Difference (Amitava Kumar)

__________________________

#1.

The Daily Times (Lahore) June 8, 2002
A PATRIOT'S CHOICE
By Sherry Rehman
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_8-6-2002_pg3_3

_____

#2.

The News (Pakistan)
Saturday June 08, 2002

Life without the clergy

Hafizur Rahman

In a letter appearing in a Lahore newspaper a resident of that city=20
has informed its readers that he has decided to give up=20
congregational prayers in his local mosque, even on Fridays, because=20
of the blatant ignorance of the maulvi and the unseemly language used=20
by him in his sermons. He has sought advice where to go on Fridays=20
where the sermon is truly representative of the progressive and=20
humanitarian spirit of Islam.

This is the second instance of the kind that has come to my=20
knowledge, although such individual withdrawals from mosques may be=20
going on all the time. The first was some twenty years ago when a=20
senior member of the Urdu journalistic fraternity of Lahore, Sardar=20
Fazli, used to live in Beadon Road near the Chitti Masjid. He told us=20
that he had arranged to shift to some other locality because the=20
imam/ of that mosque was obsessed with sexual matters and invariably=20
made them the subject of his addresses to the faithful. Fazli had=20
grownup daughters and said that whatever sexual education and=20
information about personal hygiene they needed would be imparted to=20
them by their mother and that they could do without the instructions=20
gratuitously conveyed to them through the mosque loudspeaker.

Despite the fact that our ulema never had it so good as during=20
General Ziaul Haq's eleven years, they made no effort to trim their=20
attitudes and their speeches to suit the modern young mind which,=20
frankly speaking, regards them with thinly veiled contempt.

There have been, after partition, notable exceptions among the ulema.=20
One may not agree with all that they spoke from the pulpit, but there=20
was no doubt about their learning and their scholarship in Islam. The=20
Jamaat-i-Islami and the two Jamiat-ul-Ulema Pakistan and Islam too=20
have many dedicated maulvis, but their appeal is limited by the=20
political angle they adopt, which sometimes appears to be more=20
important for them than religious. For instance, their recent=20
outright support to the Taliban whose narrow-minded brand of Islam=20
had never before been witnessed in any part of the world.

I was once closely associated with the maulvis of Islamabad for some=20
time, at least those who were imams and khatibs of Auqaf mosques in=20
the capital. In 1976, I was their afsar, as they affectionately=20
called me. A couple of them were learned enough to grace the Badshahi=20
Mosque but the majority were of average intelligence, even mediocre.=20
Their salaries and other benefits were appallingly insufficient, and,=20
without exception, they were hand to mouth.

Now, after 26 years, their grades of pay are much improved, most of=20
them own cars --- certainly motor cycles and scooters -- and there is=20
hardly anyone among them who doesn't have a side commercial or=20
financial interest based on official patronage. This is by way of a=20
permit or licence or a plot of land granted during the Zia regime.=20
This phenomenon of the maulvis' prosperity can be seen all over the=20
country, so much change has occurred in their circumstances since=20
July 1977 when General Zia struck. Who says he did nothing for Islam?

It is my firm opinion that if all mosques in Pakistan were to=20
suddenly become bereft of maulvis (I know this is not possible but=20
let me have my dream), they could be adequately manned by the lay=20
citizens themselves. Among them can be found innumerable truly=20
religious persons, without bigotry, not only learned in theology but=20
also enlightened in the real sense of the word. They would be doing=20
the job without salary and leftover food but for the love of Islam=20
and the edification of their fellow Muslims.

I am sure that if this could come about the entire national attitude=20
towards life would undergo a healthy change within a matter of weeks.=20
For one, there would be no sermons of the type that made Sardar Fazli=20
change his neighbourhood, the persisting sectarian strife would come=20
to a sudden halt and fatwas of kufr and heresy would no longer be=20
issued against one another.

People would find that many more means of entertainment could be=20
enjoyed without the threat of fire and brimstone in the hereafter.=20
Some time ago we had this fatwa in a small town in Punjab that one's=20
nikah became null and void by watching television, though the maulvi=20
didn't say what happened to unmarried people. In fact, the country=20
would wear a new spiritual and intellectual look without detracting=20
from the fundamentals of Islam.

And, most of all, a community wish would come true in respect of the=20
mosque loudspeaker, which spares neither infants nor the sick nor=20
scholars. Some people allege that after the morning azaan and the=20
Fajr prayer, the maulvi himself goes back to bed. What we hear on the=20
loudspeaker after that is a recorded cassette playing at full volume,=20
though the ban by the military regime on loudspeakers has done much=20
to alleviate the torture.

Forty years or so ago there were no loudspeakers in mosques. Were we=20
lesser Muslims because of that? Even in such a vast place of worship=20
as the Badshahi Masjid, the great scholar and khatib, Maulana Ghulam=20
Murshid, would only countenance the loudspeaker for azaan and nothing=20
else. Today, if you do not live in the close neighbourhood of a=20
mosque you can follow the actual prayer ritual on the amplifier from=20
half a mile away, apart from the other ear-splitting items broadcast=20
in the name of Islam.

In Punjab whatever else one may say about the intellectual level of=20
maulvis in general, they are reasonably lettered and even function as=20
schoolteachers. But in many other parts of the country it is not=20
unusual to come across the illiterate variety. In Peshawar once I had=20
to arrange a friendless person's nikah. I got hold of the imam of the=20
nearest mosque. When I asked him to sign the nikahnama, he said in=20
Pushto that he would affix his thumb impression!

Frankly we may not need maulvis of the existing breed, but we do want=20
imams and khatibs for our mosques, and religious teachers for schools=20
and colleges. And they have to be properly educated, reasonably up in=20
English to be able to argue with the modern youth, acquainted with=20
the sciences and devoid of the narrow outlook about what comes from=20
the West. Most of all, they should think of themselves as educators=20
in religious matters and not try to act the middleman between the=20
ordinary Muslim and his God.

____

#3.

[The Praful Bidwai Column for the week beginning June 10, 2002]

Military Force Is No Solution - Dispel the clouds of war

By Praful Bidwai

Going by the signals emanating from Almaty and Singapore, and from=20
Washington, New Delhi and Islamabad, the level of official rhetoric=20
of India-Pakistan hostility has come down by a few decibels during=20
the past week. This must be heartily welcomed. But the lowering of=20
the pitch of hostility is not consistent and pervasive, nor yet=20
reflected on the ground. The military mobilisation at the border=20
remains as frightful as ever-with more than a million soldiers=20
eyeball-to-eyeball, and on high alert. Not only is this the greatest=20
military mobilisation anywhere since World War II. It has an=20
extraordinarily scary and unique nuclear dimension too.

Compounding this grim reality are shrill calls to discard all=20
diplomatic options in favour of =ECdecisive battles=EE to settle=20
India-Pakistan disputes =EConce and for all=EE. These calls emanate from=20
official sources (e.g. Ministers Vasundhara Raje Scindia, Uma Bharati=20
and I.D. Swamy), political leaders (e.g. Jana Krishnamurthy and=20
Giriraj Kishore), and Right-wing commentators known more for=20
obsessive militarism than for wisdom. As if this weren=EDt bad enough,=20
there is generalised smugness about the danger of a nuclear=20
catastrophe, whose very possibility is being denied.

Hopefully, if present trends continue, some of the war hysteria will=20
get diffused as the realisation sinks in of how seriously alarmed is=20
the rest of the world about a possible nuclear outbreak in South=20
Asia. The news of thousands of foreign nationals leaving, tourist and=20
hotel bookings being cancelled, business contracts being put on hold,=20
and the economy being badly hit will have an impact, favouring a=20
cooling of India-Pakistan tensions. As will the visits of Messrs=20
Rumsfeld and Armitage.

The best news, however, is that New Delhi says General Pervez=20
Musharraf finally seems to be acting on his assurance that he would=20
put an end to infiltration of militants into Kashmir. The Indian=20
government has intercepted messages to this effect. If this trend=20
holds, Pakistan will have substantively addressed the issue that=20
aroused India=EDs anger and precipitated the present crisis in the=20
first place.

The time has come to defuse tensions, de-escalate the alert level and=20
demobilise troops. It is important to reiterate the argument against=20
war and even against =EClimited strikes=EE. Politically, in the present=20
circumstances, war against Pakistan is an inappropriate and wrong=20
means to resolve the issue of =ECcross-border terrorism=EE. There is no=20
doubt whatever that Islamabad has over the years fomented and=20
supported such terrorism. But there is plenty of doubt about its=20
involvement in recent incidents like the May 14 Kaluchak killings and=20
Abdul Gani Lone=EDs assassination. No clinching evidence exists of=20
this. Pakistan=EDs relationship to jehadi militants changed=20
post-September 11, especially after the stationing of US troops on=20
its soil. It makes little sense for Gen Musharraf to order the ISI to=20
conduct terrorist operations when he is under close US watch. If=20
rogue elements carried out such operations, it makes no sense for=20
India to punish the non-rogues. Militarily, war is a bad, high-risk=20
option. There exist no military targets close to the border, which=20
match specific political objectives and which can be attacked-without=20
provoking major retaliation, with a spiralling potential for=20
full-scale confrontation. There is some ambiguity even about the=20
existence of the 36 (or is it 70?) makeshift =ECtraining camps=EE in=20
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Indian army itself believes many have=20
been disbanded. Hitting non-specific targets risks reprisal. There=20
are no crisis-limitation mechanisms, and no confidence-building=20
measures between India and Pakistan, to prevent limited engagements=20
from escalating to full-scale war.

Full-scale war spells a likely nuclear catastrophe. In nuclear war,=20
there are no winners, only losers. It doesn=EDt matter if a nuclear=20
adversary has 15 or 60 atomic bombs. One bomb can produce a=20
Hiroshima-lakhs of deaths, and devastation lasting thousands of=20
years. Nuclear weapons are Great Equalisers. The damage they cause is=20
mind-boggling. Studies show that a single nuclear bomb is liable to=20
kill 800,000 people in Mumbai or Karachi, and poison vast swathes of=20
land, and water and vegetation, with over 200 radioactive toxins,=20
some of which won=EDt decay for hundreds, even thousands, of years. For=20
instance, the half-life of Plutonium-239 is 24,400 years. And the=20
half-life of Uranium-235 is 710 million years!

There can be conventional wars that are just, e.g. against tyranny=20
and occupation, or for liberation. There can never be just nuclear=20
wars. There is no justice or legality in a war that kills=20
non-combatant civilians massively, and produces damage lasting a=20
number of generations. Yet, our hawks irresponsibly talk of =ECcalling=20
Pakistan=EDs nuclear bluff=EE.

This is an extraordinary proposition. Pakistan isn=EDt bluffing. There=20
is no doubt that it possesses nuclear weapons and the means to=20
deliver them to many big Indian cities. By teasing, chiding or=20
challenging Pakistan to use them, our hawks are in fact threatening=20
millions of us citizens with genocide. This is morally sickening. It=20
is irrelevant that India has a second-strike capability and Pakistan=20
lacks it. Retaliation against a first strike can only be an act of=20
senseless revenge, not one of gaining security.

A second reason why hawks like K. Subrahmanyam and Brahma Chellaney=20
cavalierly dismiss Pakistan=EDs nuclear threat lies in their fond hope=20
that the US will somehow =ECneutralise=EE Islamabad=EDs arsenal before it=20
can be used. The assumption is that the US knows where each missile=20
and warhead is stored, and can safely, reliably, destroy these with=20
its own weapons. Alternatively, Gen Musharraf will voluntarily hand=20
America the key to his arsenal.

This assumption is dangerously wrong. No Pakistani ruler will give up=20
control over that jealously guarded strategic =ECasset=EE or =ECtrump=20
card=EE. There have been credible reports since October that Islamabad=20
has been looking for (and found?) sanctuaries for its nuclear=20
weapons, possibly in China. It has also dispersed them within its own=20
territory. The US cannot find or destroy such weapons without risking=20
a catastrophe. The costs of American failure in this regard will be=20
colossal. Clearly, our hawks=ED uninformed but wildly wishful thinking=20
knows no bounds.

Diplomatically, India has not exhausted all its options to impel=20
Pakistan to sever links with Kashmiri =ECfreedom-fighting=EE terrorists.=20
It hasn=EDt even attempted to move the UN Security Council invoking=20
Resolution 1373 which obligates all states to act against=20
terrorism-on pain of punitive sanctions. New Delhi has only practised=20
=ECcoercive=EE diplomacy based on nuclear brinkmanship. This is now=20
working against it, just as it is working against Pakistan. There is=20
all-round condemnation the world over of =ECirresponsible South=20
Asians=EEthe caption of a New York Times editorial-for causing today=EDs=20
stand-off.

The exodus of diplomats and citizens of many major states from South=20
Asia will have damaging consequences. Aid cut-offs and sanctions=20
could follow if the standoff continues. Gen Musharraf seems to have=20
understood this and ratcheted down his bellicose rhetoric. Mr=20
Vajpayee too must read the writing on the wall-especially because=20
there is action on the ground, via interception of militants=ED=20
border-crossing.

This is not a plea for trusting Pakistan and naively accepting that=20
the interception is permanent. This must be rigorously verified. The=20
verification should be done not by the US, the UK or NATO, as is=20
being proposed by the Americans. It is best done by a neutral,=20
independent multilateral agency on an institutionalised long-term=20
basis. The road-map for troop demobilisation and restoration of full=20
diplomatic relations should now be clear:

India and Pakistan should thin out their troops and withdraw from the=20
International Border and the Line of Control. They must immediately=20
hold a summit to formalise a solemn commitment to oppose terrorism=20
and violence in all its forms, to negotiate serious=20
confidence-building measures, to sanitise their border, and discuss=20
all disputes and differences in the spirit of the 1972 Shimla Accord=20
and the 1999 Lahore agreement. Above all, they must move towards=20
reducing the nuclear danger either through bilateral=20
denuclearisation, or by creating a nuclear weapons-free zone in South=20
Asia, which all major states respect and guarantee.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from the present crisis is that there is=20
no alternative to ridding this part of the world of nuclear weapons.=20
So long as these weapons exist in South Asia-the world=EDs sole region=20
to have experienced a continuous hot-cold war for half a century=20
between the same two contiguous rivals, there will always be a danger=20
of nuclear catastrophe. Preventing one is the legitimate business not=20
just of India and Pakistan, but of the whole world. The consequences=20
of nuclear war are global. The global community has every right to=20
prevent such a war.

New Delhi and Islamabad must not wait until such nuclear-restraint=20
arrangements are put in place. They must return to the Shimla-Lahore=20
agenda after rapidly restoring diplomatic relations and communication=20
links. A Shimla-II will, of course, demand will and boldness on the=20
part of Messrs Vajpayee and Musharraf. In India, Mr Vajpayee must be=20
pressed by all political leaders and the public to shed the sectarian=20
sub-agenda behind the border build-up related to the BJP=EDs narrow=20
political calculations-of diverting attention from misgovernance and=20
the Gujarat carnage, while fomenting communalism.-end-

____

#4.

Sanctuary Asia [Bombay]
June 10, 2002
http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/features/detailfeatures.php?id=3D202

We the undersigned invite you to add your name to our Statement of=20
Shared Concern, in the belief that we can collectively achieve what=20
may not be possible individually. In the words of the=20
musician-prophet, John Lennon: "Imagine all the people living life in=20
peace."

STATEMENT OF SHARED CONCERN
To the leaders of all countries that currently possess, or aspire to=20
possess nuclear weapons, we submit the following statement and=20
petition.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is unthinkable, for the=20
people of both nations, the region, and the world. We therefore call=20
on the governments of India and Pakistan to renounce the use of=20
nuclear weapons; abolish nuclear weapons from their respective=20
countries; and seek political solutions to the conflict over Kashmir.

Furthermore, a two-tier world in which some countries destroy their=20
nuclear arsenals while others maintain them is an inherently unstable=20
world. We therefore call on the United States, which bears the=20
primary responsibility for global nuclearisation, and the other=20
nuclear weapons states, to take the same steps: renunciation of=20
nuclear weapons; and the unilateral, verifiable and unconditional=20
abolition of nuclear arsenals. Until these steps are taken by all=20
nuclear weapons states around the world, the survival of humanity,=20
and of all life on earth, is threatened.

Background

In the interests of life, of democracy, of feeding the hungry,=20
healing the sick, protecting the young, and sharing a healthy planet=20
with all non-human species; and in the belief that where governments=20
endanger the very survival of their citizens, those citizens must=20
lead; we call for a global campaign for the unilateral, independent=20
and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.

We cannot wait for political systems, institutions, and leaders to=20
institute change at a glacial pace. We have seen that this amounts to=20
opting for the status quo, with extended multilateral negotiations=20
and mothballing for future use, rather than the immediate destruction=20
of all nuclear weapons. We are motivated by the current military and=20
political crisis between India and Pakistan, and the nuclear threats=20
being delivered by both sides. The crisis reminds each of us that the=20
use of nuclear weapons would not simply represent another way of=20
waging war. Nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous of all weapons=20
of mass destruction, harming human generations yet unborn, and=20
destroying the ecological foundations upon which any future peace=20
could be built.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is unthinkable - for the=20
inhabitants of those countries, for the region, for the world. It is=20
estimated that twelve million people in India alone - and millions=20
more in Pakistan - would die immediately in a full-scale nuclear war.=20
Many, many more would die in the following days, weeks, and months.

We call on the governments of India and Pakistan to seek political=20
solutions to the conflict over Kashmir, solutions, which respect=20
democratic and human rights of the people in the region. And we call=20
on the governments of India and Pakistan to immediately renounce the=20
use of nuclear weapons, and to implement a process leading to the=20
abolition of those weapons from both countries.

The situation between India and Pakistan cannot legitimately or=20
effectively be addressed in isolation from the rest of the world. The=20
threat posed by nuclear weapons world-wide is a dual one: from the=20
arsenals of the original nuclear powers - the United States, Russia,=20
China, Great Britain, and France - which collectively possess some=20
35,000 nuclear weapons; and from the ongoing spread of nuclear=20
weapons around the globe.

Although the U.S. is urging the Pakistani and Indian governments to=20
step back from the nuclear brink and seeks the role of regional=20
policeman, what credibility can those efforts have, in the eyes of=20
its own people, of Indians and Pakistanis, of the world? More than=20
any other country, the United States, with its active plans for=20
continued development and deployment of nuclear weapons, and its=20
pursuit of military, political, and economic hegemony, serves as the=20
primary catalyst for the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide.

More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is finding=20
new justifications to maintain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. The=20
U.S. has proposed a policy of "offensive deterrence," under which it=20
threatens preemptive attack, including possible nuclear attack,=20
against nations that acquire or threaten to acquire weapons of mass=20
destruction.

The Moscow Treaty signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in May 2002 is=20
pure political theater: it does not require the destruction of a=20
single nuclear warhead, nor does it constrain or eliminate tactical=20
nuclear weapons or short- and medium-range nuclear delivery vehicles.

What better definition of "state-sponsored terrorism," or "rogue=20
state" could there be than the nuclear policies of the current=20
American administration? Russia, China, Great Britain, and France=20
also bear heavy responsibility for the spread of nuclear technology=20
and delivery systems, such as advanced aircraft and missile=20
technologies to countries in South Asia and the world.

The actions of the United States and other nuclear weapons states do=20
not excuse the pursuit of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass=20
destruction by other countries. But if the United States truly wishes=20
to lead, in the conflict between India and Pakistan and elsewhere, it=20
ultimately can only lead by example.

We call on the governments of the United States and all the nuclear=20
weapons states to abide by their obligations under international law=20
and Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty by renouncing the use=20
of nuclear weapons, and taking immediate, unilateral and verifiable=20
steps toward abolition of their nuclear arsenals. Further, we demand=20
that the United States sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and=20
continue as a signatory to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

We also call on the United States and the other nuclear weapons=20
states to cease the global trade in conventional weapons because it=20
promotes the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as regional=20
arms races that could make the use of nuclear weapons more likely.

Any campaign calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons that does=20
not acknowledge the permeable boundary between the military and=20
so-called peaceful uses of nuclear energy, will fail. We call on the=20
United States and all other nuclear states to phase out their=20
civilian nuclear power programs that contaminate the earth for=20
generations, and replace them with non-nuclear renewable energy=20
sources.

Whatever risks there may be in pursuing disarmament are completely=20
outweighed by the risks inherent in continued global nuclearisation.=20
Living under the threat of nuclear cataclysm undermines the dignity=20
of human life. Indeed, all life on earth is betrayed by the existence=20
of nuclear weapons. We call on all citizens to join us, in the belief=20
that change will come because, finally, we will make it come.

Signatories

Mrs. Lalita and Admiral L. Ramdas, Retd. Chief of Indian Navy and=20
Chairman, National Committee, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and=20
Peace, India
Harsh Kapoor, South Asians Against Nukes
Achin Vinayak, New Delhi, India
Bittu Sahgal, Editor, Sanctuary Magazine, Mumbai, India
Jennifer Scarlott, Sanctuary Magazine, New York, USA
Philip Carter, Vancouver, Canada
Debi Goenka, Bombay Environment Action Group, Mumbai, India
Nityanand Jayaraman, Corpwatchindia, India
Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, Pune, India
Hugues Vitry, Republic of Mauritius
Ajit Kaujalgi, Intach, Pondicherry, India
Ann Leonard, Director Multinationals Resource Center, USA
Vijay Crishna, Mumbai, India Jyoti Punwani, Mumbai, India
Nicholas Claxton, London, U.K.
Lata P.M., Mumbai, India
Pervin Jehangir, Mumbai, India
Sarosh Framroze, Mumbai, India
Rao Tarte, India
Shashi Mehta, India
Rajni Bakshi, India
Dr. Udayan Desai, India
Dr. (Mrs.) Rajani Desai, India
Kush Singh, India
Mayank Gandhi, India
Sudipt Sen, K-West Citizen's Association, Mumbai
Joanne Landy, New York

To add your name to the petition, please email info@s...

_____

#5.

Dear Friends
The situation in India and Pakistan is very critical with the=20
governments of the two countries in full military preparation for a=20
war which will have catastrophic consequences for the region as well=20
as the world in general.
So please
JOIN THE PEOPLE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN TO
SAY YES TO PEACE AND NO TO WAR IN SOUTH ASIA
YES TO DISARMAMENT AND NO TO THREAT OF NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST
YES TO COMMUNAL HARMONY AND NO TO PLANNED MASSACRES AGAINST MINORITIES
SUNDAY JUNE 9, 2002 DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE INDIAN AND PAKISTANI=20
HIGH COMMISSIONS IN OTTAWA
12:00 P.M. OUTSIDE INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION-10 SPRINGFIELD ROAD 2:00 P.M.
OUTSIDE PAKISTANI HIGH COMMISSION-151 SLATER STREET
3:00 P.M. PEACE FLAME ON PARLIAMENT HILL
[...]
CONTACTS Daya Varma: 937-4714
Dolores Chew: 485-9192
Sarwat Viqar: 939-2522

CERAS CENTRE SUR L'ASIE DU SUD/SOUTH ASIA CENTRE
2520 LIONEL GROULX SUITE 13 MONTREAL QC H3J 1J8 , CANADA

______

#6.

India Pakistan Arms Race & Militarisation Watch (IPARMW) # 85
9 June 2002

_____

#7.

[ SAJA--South Asian Journalists Association
AWARDS 2002 (winners for work executed in calendar year 2001)

The essay below by Amitava Kumar is one of the winners of the The=20
Daniel Pearl Award for Outstanding story on South Asia Print ]

o o o

<http://web-dubois.fas.harvard.edu/transition/wagah.htm>http://web-dubois.f=
as.harvard.edu/transition/wagah.htm

SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE

The weather was frightfully hot,
And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
A continent for better or worse divided.
-- W. H. Auden

On the day when they behold the angels, the evildoers will not rejoice.
The angels will say to them: "You shall never cross that barrier."
-- The Holy Qur'an

[by ] Amitava Kumar

There is a tall brick gateway on each side of the border. One side=20
proclaims in Hindi, "Mera Bharat Mahan." Our India Is Great. On the=20
other side, the sign is written in Urdu: "Pakistan Zindabad." Long=20
Live Pakistan.

I had arrived in Lahore a few days before, on a Pakistan=20
International Airlines jet. Passport in hand, I took my place in a=20
line before a row of desks where customs officials sat. Two men in=20
mufti fell in beside me, and one of them asked for my papers. He had=20
recognized my Indian passport. His right eye was filmy, and it=20
remained fixed on something to my left while he questioned me about=20
my itinerary: where I was going, where I would stay, how I knew my=20
hosts. I looked up to notice that the line had disappeared. An=20
official waved me over, ignoring the plainclothes policemen. "Welcome=20
to Pakistan," he said.

It's a forty-minute drive from Lahore to Wagah, where the border=20
lies. The road to Wagah wends its way through small pastoral villages=20
full of brick kilns, buffaloes, and mustard fields. There were boys=20
playing cricket in dusty plots by the roadside. There were gaudily=20
decorated buses -- one of them had an F-16 painted on the driver's=20
side, with the word "Pilot" emblazoned underneath. There were cattle,=20
bullock-carts, and turbaned men on foot. Every few minutes, we passed=20
another emaciated dog, barking insistently, guarding its stretch of=20
broken highway. I was just thinking how similar this was to the=20
landscape on the other side of the border when Anwar Muhammad, my=20
driver, asked, "Do you have wide roads like this in India, too?" I=20
lied and said no. I was trying to be friendly to each and every=20
Pakistani. I was going to the border, after all.

Suddenly, Anwar pulled over. We would have to walk the rest of the=20
way. Anwar explained that the only vehicle allowed to cross the=20
border was a bus that ran between New Delhi and Lahore. The route was=20
opened in early 1999, and Atal Behari Vajpayee, the prime minister of=20
India, had made the inaugural trip. The words "Sada-e-Sarhad" (Call=20
of the Border) were painted on both sides of the bus. Vajpayee had=20
greeted his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, here=20
at Wagah. But only a few months later, war broke out. The fighting=20
was once again along the Line of Control that functions as the border=20
in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The battle was fought in and=20
around a town called Kargil, among snow-covered Himalayan peaks. Soon=20
after the cease-fire that ended the fighting in Kargil, Sharif was=20
deposed in a military coup. Still, the bus soldiers on, rolling=20
through the gates at Wagah four times a week. When we got out of the=20
car to walk, I noticed that Anwar was carrying a light machine gun.

As I approached the border post, a young Pakistani guy walked just=20
ahead of me, cigarette in hand. Two men were sitting on chairs by the=20
side of the road. One of them gestured sternly at the cigarette. The=20
azaan, the call to prayer, had just sounded from a nearby mosque.=20
"It's Ramzan," the man said in Urdu. The smoker quickly stamped the=20
cigarette out. The man on the chair told Anwar to remove the magazine=20
from his gun and give it to the guards farther up the road.

After passing under the arched gateway, you walk for a long stretch=20
toward a guard who protects a white line across the tar road. This is=20
the Zero Point. The border between India and Pakistan is=20
approximately 1,250 miles long, but the Zero Point is the only place=20
where you're allowed to cross. White arrows point at the line from=20
either side, as if you could miss it.

* * *

Wagah. Throughout the subcontinent, that single word conjures=20
memories of Partition, the monumental act that carved Pakistan out of=20
India in 1947. The idea of a separate Muslim state, free from Hindu=20
domination, had first been voiced in 1930 by the poet Mohammed Iqbal.=20
Seventeen years later, when the idea became a reality, the creation=20
of a new country for Indian Muslims was accompanied by unimaginable=20
violence. More than a million people died. Partition precipitated the=20
largest exodus in recorded history. How many migrated across the=20
brand new border? Fourteen million? Eighteen million?

The British, preparing to grant India its independence, had announced=20
the plan in June of 1947. Three weeks later, they set up a Boundary=20
Commission to separate the Muslim-majority areas from the=20
Hindu-majority ones. In a matter of weeks, the British had created=20
Pakistan. Little thought was given to the millions who lost their=20
homes overnight. People who had only just won their freedom from=20
Britain were now told that they were refugees. The principal=20
architect of Partition, Cyril Radcliffe, had never been to India=20
before. He knew nothing about it, save what he picked up in five=20
weeks in a New Delhi office, studying unreliable maps and outdated=20
census statistics. The day before Independence, Radcliffe wrote to=20
his nephew:

Down comes the Union Jack on Friday morning and up goes -- for the=20
moment I rather forget what, but it has a spinning wheel or a=20
spider's web in the middle. I am going to see Mountbatten sworn as=20
the first Governor General of the Indian Union at the Viceroy's house=20
in the morning and then I station myself firmly on the Delhi airport=20
until an aeroplane from England comes along. Nobody in India will=20
love me for the award about the Punjab and Bengal and there will be=20
roughly 80 million people with a grievance who will begin looking for=20
me. I do not want them to find me. I have worked and traveled and=20
sweated -- oh I have sweated all the time.

When you go to Wagah and stand near the white line that divides the=20
two countries, it is impossible not to think of Radcliffe. Perhaps=20
it's too easy to blame the British. The novelist Khwaja Ahmad Abbas=20
once asked, "Did the English whisper in your ears that you may chop=20
off the head of whichever Hindu you find, or that you must plunge a=20
knife in the stomach of whichever Muslim you find?" And yet Indian=20
nationalism was a response to British rule. The ideology of=20
nationalism is an ideology of difference, a return to roots, a vision=20
of wholeness. That's why so many visitors to Wagah seem to take=20
comfort in a white line painted on the ground. The line assures the=20
viewer that the border exists, clearly defined and zealously=20
protected. The line returns more than one-sixth of the world's=20
inhabitants to a moment in their history, more than fifty years ago,=20
when they awoke to freedom.

Those who seek such reassurance are severely tested by other lines.=20
I'm thinking of the lines composed by Urdu and Hindi writers who=20
write about Partition. Many of those visiting Wagah are familiar with=20
Saadat Hasan Manto's classic short story "Toba Tek Singh." It tells=20
of Bishan Singh, an old inmate of a lunatic asylum, who is also=20
called by the name of his village in Punjab: Toba Tek Singh. When he=20
is told about Partition, Singh exclaims, "Uper the gur gur the mung=20
the dal of the laltain." That is neither Punjabi nor English nor=20
Hindi nor Urdu -- it's just gibberish. In the story, no one seems to=20
know whether Toba Tek Singh belongs in India or Pakistan, and his=20
insanity becomes a mirror that reveals the fundamental absurdity of=20
maps and nations. "Toba Tek Singh" ends with an aerial view of its=20
eponymous character.

There, behind barbed wire, on one side, lay India and behind more=20
barbed wire, on the other side, lay Pakistan. In between, on a bit of=20
earth which had no name, lay Toba Tek Singh.

Where did Toba Tek Singh lie? If the painted line is the border, then=20
where is the "bit of earth" in between? In Wagah, that's what the=20
young man who'd been asked to extinguish his cigarette wanted to=20
know. He addressed his question to a Pakistani Ranger. At that=20
moment, the guard was showing me the hobnailed soles of his=20
standard-issue sandals. He looked up at the young man and gestured=20
vaguely toward the barbed wire.

* * *

A week later, I was at a literary festival in Delhi, listening to=20
Gulzar, an Urdu poet and filmmaker from Bombay. Born in a village=20
called Deena in what is now Pakistan, Gulzar crossed into India by=20
train during the riots in the months before Partition. As he=20
remembers it, "I was still a child then, and I had to step over the=20
corpses." At the festival, Gulzar sat on a panel devoted to Partition=20
literature, and he had invited me because he knew that I had just=20
been to Pakistan. The meeting was held in a sunlit brick=20
amphitheater, with strings of marigold hung from the surrounding=20
trees; mustard flowers waved in the fields beyond. Gulzar read a=20
series of works, concluding with a poem entitled "Toba Tek Singh."

Gulzar's poem is faithful to the details of Manto's story: the poem's=20
narrator wants to go to Wagah in order to tell Bishan Singh that the=20
ordeal of Partition still continues. There are hearts that have yet=20
to be divided; 1947 was only the first partition. Bishan's Muslim=20
friends have succeeded in crossing the border, though some only as=20
corpses. Bishan's daughter used to visit him once a year, an inch=20
taller each time; now she is diminished by an inch with every passing=20
year. The poem opens with the narrator hearing the call from Wagah:

I have to go to Wagah and meet Toba Tek Singh's Bishan
I have heard that he is still standing on his swollen legs
exactly where Manto had left him.
He still mutters "Uper the gur gur the mung the dal of the laltain."

Listening to Gulzar read his poem, my thoughts returned to the young=20
man in Wagah. The truth is, there is no neutral territory between=20
India and Pakistan. In his new book Amritsar to Lahore, Stephen Alter=20
writes:

One of the great disappointments of my own journey was to discover=20
that there is no such thing as a no man's land. At both the railway=20
and road crossings, the territory of each country is entirely=20
contiguous. Nothing separates these two nations, except for manmade=20
structures like fences and gates. . . . Pakistan ends precisely where=20
India begins.

So why is the myth of the no man's land so persistent? I think it has=20
something to do with the power of literature. Alter himself admits=20
that Toba Tek Singh came to mind when he visited the border. Indeed,=20
for many readers, Toba Tek Singh has long been the symbol that=20
captures the meaning of Partition. Bishan is the fool who does not=20
know whether he belongs to India or to Pakistan, and his no man's=20
land is a limbo of existential doubt and despair. But I think another=20
reading is possible. Maybe Bishan is staking a claim to the "bit of=20
earth which had no name." Maybe he is saying yes to both nations. And=20
maybe a no man's land is the only place where he can do that.

* * *
On May 11, 1998, three explosions rocked the desert wastes of=20
Rajasthan. Hours later, Prime Minister Vajpayee held a press=20
conference, announcing that the world's largest democracy had=20
conducted a test of its nuclear weapons. Of course, this was no mere=20
scientific experiment; the test was a threat, intended to intimidate=20
Pakistan. Newspapers and governments around the world denounced the=20
detonations, but India was unbowed. By the end of the month, Pakistan=20
had exploded its own nukes, realizing the dream of an "Islamic bomb"=20
and answering India's challenge in kind. When fighting in Kargil=20
erupted the following year, Indian and Pakistani leaders exchanged=20
nuclear threats no fewer than thirteen times. The most remarkable=20
thing about the contest of tests was the rhetoric, a kind of medieval=20
machismo. Bal Thackeray, leader of the Hindu nationalist Shiv Sena=20
Party, was positively exuberant: "We have proved that we are not=20
eunuchs any more." India had named its missile system Prithvi, Hindi=20
for "earth." But Pakistan assumed the Prithvi in question was Prithvi=20
Raj Chuhan, a twelfth-century Hindu king who resisted the Afghan=20
invader Shahabuddin Ghauri, founder of the first Muslim kingdom in=20
India. As it happened, Pakistan had just named one of its own missile=20
programs after the aforementioned Afghan invader.

To all appearances, the two countries were more divided than ever.=20
And yet despite all the military posturing, ambivalence about=20
Partition runs deep. Indeed, even as they flaunt their nuclear=20
arsenal, the ultra-nationalists of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata=20
Party (BJP) harbor fantasies of erasing the border: their dream is to=20
reunite the territories, by force if necessary, in order to create an=20
undivided India. Theirs is a dream of unity -- albeit a murderous=20
dream. The dream exists on the other side of the border, too. In=20
Pakistan, a militant Islamic group recently resolved to wrest Kashmir=20
from Indian control and then use the province as a beachhead for a=20
jihad against the whole of India. No one better embodies this=20
Pakistani dream than Maulana Masood Azhar, leader of the militant=20
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen group, who was released from an Indian jail on=20
New Year's Eve 1999 in exchange for hostages from a hijacked Indian=20
Airlines flight. Azhar has warned India:

Allah has sent me here, and if you cast an evil eye towards my=20
beloved country, I will first of all enter India with 500,000 of my=20
mujahideen, inshallah. That is why I am touring almost the whole=20
nation these days. Half a million are ready, and according to the=20
messages I am getting from across the country, I have many more=20
mujahideen than these. The mothers are giving me their sons and=20
asking me to make them like Bin Qasim [the Arab conqueror of Sind in=20
710 A.D.], not the worshippers of the West. The sisters are handing=20
me their brothers and asking me to convert them into the warriors of=20
Islam. The elders are telling me that our beards are white but even=20
today we are ready to take up guns and come with you.

For fundamentalists on either side, the present is just a prelude to=20
the past. Both sides dream of rolling back the clock -- and rolling=20
back the border.

These competing fantasies of unity have bred a new kind of affinity=20
on the subcontinent. As the filmmaker and peacenik Anand Patwardhan=20
puts it, "Cross-border solidarity has been the only silver lining in=20
the mushroom cloud." We were sitting in a makeshift editing room in=20
Patwardhan's Bombay apartment. As we talked, I looked at a=20
freeze-frame on his monitor. It showed a famous Bollywood=20
personality, mouth open, in the midst of uttering a patriotic inanity=20
about how each bit of dirt is sacred to Indians. Patwardhan=20
continued: "Ever since India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in=20
1998, relations between peace activists in India and Pakistan have=20
blossomed." While much of the country was celebrating the first=20
nuclear blast, he explained, Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace=20
and Democracy deepened a dialogue between citizens who want to work=20
for peace in both countries. In seven years, the forum has sponsored=20
four successful conferences, and peace activists now gather every New=20
Year's Eve at Wagah for a candlelight vigil at the border.

Do good fences make good neighbors? The peace activists certainly=20
want better relations between India and Pakistan, but they aren't=20
lobbying for unification. Although they are eager to ease=20
restrictions on travel and trade across the border, they nevertheless=20
want the border itself to remain intact. In a better world, they=20
suggest, borders won't mean so much; indeed, the nuclearization of=20
the subcontinent reveals the arbitrariness of the division. Who needs=20
armed guards and a white line when you can exterminate a city with=20
the push of a button? The white line at Wagah seems almost obsolete,=20
an artifact from an era when fighting a war meant moving troops=20
across a border.

* * *

The metal gates on both sides are pulled shut at sunset, at the same=20
precise instant, by opposing teams of guards. This evening ceremony=20
is called Beating Retreat, and it's the most popular tourist=20
attraction in Wagah -- on the night I saw it, there were visitors=20
from all over the world. Soldiers from both India and Pakistan=20
present arms. Then the national flags are lowered amid much blowing=20
of bugles. Commanders from the two border patrols march up to one=20
another and shake hands. The tourists applaud. Before the event is=20
over, spectators on both sides are allowed to rush forward and gaze=20
at each other from a distance of about fifteen feet. Throughout this=20
ceremony, the guards mirror each other perfectly: their=20
goose-stepping, their aggressive gestures, their shouted commands,=20
all in sync. But the two enemies make sure not to cross the line that=20
holds them apart. So how do they learn to perform this intimate=20
dance? How well do we know each other? How hard do we work to remain=20
enemies?

>From Transition 89
Copyright =A9 2001 by Duke University Press and the W. E. B. Du Bois Instit=
ute.

--=20
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996.
To 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.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|=
//\\|//|//\\|//