[sacw] SACW | 15 August 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | 15 August 2002

__________________________

#1. Have India & Pakistan Both Failed In Kashmir?
A Voice From Kashmir - Abdul Ghani Lone interview (Lawrence Lifschultz)
#2. Pakistan -India: Let the Children play (Shahid Nadeem)
#3. Pakistan - India: It's far easier to make a bomb than to educate 
400 million people (Arundhati Roy)
#4. Pakistan - India: Candles lit for peace at Wagah border Post
#5. Pakistan - India: Just Like Me (Dilip D'Souza)
#6. Pakistan : A sad August (Masooda Bano)
#7. U.K.'s Sangh Parivar swears by Godse (Hasan Suroor)
#8. India: Hanging by the coat-tails (Shamsul Islam)

__________________________

#1.
Publication * 1 August 2002
Final Approved Shortened Frontline Text 4478 Words

HAVE INDIA & PAKISTAN BOTH FAILED IN KASHMIR?
A VOICE FROM KASHMIR (*)
* * *
-Abdul Ghani Lone-
1932-2002
* * *
Abdul Ghani Lone was assassinated in Srinagar on May 20, 2002 during 
a gathering commemorating the twelfth death anniversary of his 
friend, Kashmiri leader Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq. What follows is an 
outspoken and detailed interview given by Lone to the writer, 
Lawrence Lifschultz, who is currently at work on a book entitled 
Kashmir: Is There A Way Out Of The Impasse? The interview, published 
here for the first time, took place at Lone's residence in Srinagar 
in June 2001. Lone speaks frankly on the ``colonial attitudes'' of 
India and Pakistan toward Kashmir and how the Kashmir policies of 
both countries have consistently failed the people of Kashmir.
* *

Lifschultz: Mr. Lone, can you describe the history and circumstances 
that drew you into Kashmiri politics? What was the process that 
changed you from a member of the Congress Party into an opponent of 
Congress rule?

Lone: After I completed my law degree I came into contact with an 
interesting judge in whose court I was often arguing cases. This 
judge said to me: "You also are responsible for what is happening. If 
MLAs are trying to intervene in cases, it is due partly to the fact 
that there is no one to oppose their activity. You are the first 
person from your area to have educated himself. You are an advocate 
now. You must come to the rescue of your people."

In those days, G.M Sadiq had formed the Democratic National Council. 
Sadiq was the only man in Kashmiri public life at the time that I can 
say was absolutely honest. Sadiq convinced me that if we fight this 
mighty Government of India we will end up nowhere. Instead, he argued 
that we should become part of the system and persuade India to 
recognise that people in Kashmir cannot be ruled by force.

I was convinced. I became an MLA and joined the National Congress. 
Ultimately, after having served in the Legislative Assembly and 
having been a Minister [until 1973], I finally came to the conclusion 
that the system was trying to make me cow down. I came to believe 
that I couldn't contribute anything to my cause.

I believed then, as I do now, that India cannot retain this territory 
by force. If India had any chance to retain Kashmir, then India would 
have to convince the people. It is India itself that introduced the 
basic principle that the people of Kashmir had available to them the 
``right of self-determination.'' The erstwhile ruler of Kashmir 
acceded to India absolutely without conditions. Yet it was the 
Government of India that in turn declared that this accession would 
be subject to ratification by the people.

After Partition when tribesman from Pakistan intervened and began 
advancing into the disputed territory, the Government of India 
approached the United Nations. The application that India made under 
Article VI unequivocally stated that once the territory of Jammu and 
Kashmir has been cleared of those that had intervened and peace had 
been restored, the people would be free to decide their future, by 
means of known democratic norms -- either a plebiscite or a 
referendum -- under international supervision. Not only did India 
make this commitment, but it asserted it again and again, both 
nationally and internationally. It consistently maintained that the 
right of the Kashmiri people to determine their future was available 
to them.

Lifschultz: Throughout the 1960s, despite the fact that neither a 
plebiscite nor a referendum had been held, you still believed that 
you could make the "system" work on behalf of Kashmir?

Lone: Yes, we still believed that we could convince the Indians that 
unless and until you settle the issue of Kashmir with the people of 
Kashmir, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to run a 
"normal" administration in this territory. Either India had to 
convince the Kashmiri people that they are a part of India or they 
had to give them the chance to decide their own future. Unless India 
did one or the other, the crisis was bound to continue.

Lifschultz: What finally changed your mind?

Lone: What happened is that once again India came to terms with 
Sheikh Abdullah. This was 1975. I thought that if Sheikh Abdullah 
came to power he was still in a position to convince his own people. 
Yet, I also was convinced that Mrs. [Indira] Gandhi was not willing 
to give Sheikh Abdullah a free hand to rule. In 1976 I issued a 
statement saying that Mrs. Gandhi should detach herself from the 
local Congress Party in Kashmir, and permit it to join with Sheikh 
Abdullah's National Conference. This would have given Sheikh Abdullah 
a free hand to rule in Kashmir. Under these conditions he could still 
have convinced the people to accept India. For this statement I was 
expelled without notice from the Congress Party. I was then a 
Congress Party MLA. Nine other [Congress] MLAs supported me.

I also came to the honest conclusion that `the Old Man doesn't have 
the guts and courage to do anything.' He had lost his fire. He was 
now very much afraid of New Delhi. After having been so long in jail, 
he was also under pressure from his family at that time.

In 1977, I fought in the election on the Janata Party ticket and won. 
However, within a year I resigned from the Janata Party and formed 
the People's Conference. It was the same problem. At that point we 
were fighting for the restoration of "internal autonomy" in Kashmir.

Lifschultz: What did you precisely mean by "internal autonomy"? Had 
not the provisions of Article 370 already been eroded?

Lone: When the former ruler of Kashmir acceded to India after 
Partition, he surrendered to India authority in only three areas -- 
defence, communication and foreign affairs. At the time of the 
accession, Kashmir was a semi-independent state. In my opinion, 
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that was later drawn up had, 
in fact, nothing to do with autonomy. Article 370 was a bridge used 
by India to erode the autonomy that we originally possessed following 
Partition. The Government of India could only legislate on those 
subjects identified by the erstwhile ruler in the `Instrument of 
Accession'. Under that `Instrument', the Government of India could 
only provide administration in the three subjects.

Later Article 370 was introduced. Under '370', the President of India 
could do away with these limits at any stage provided the state 
government makes an application to the President and provided this 
request is supported by the Constituent Assembly of the state. It 
also stated that any Act passed by the Indian Parliament could be 
applied to the state of Jammu and Kashmir provided the state 
government makes an application to the President. What happened was 
that this state's governments went on making applications and the 
President started issuing presidential orders. By those presidential 
orders, our autonomy was subverted.

Various orders were issued. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of 
India was extended into J&K in various ways. The authority of the 
Auditor General of India was introduced. The permit system was 
abolished. At the time of the accession no one was allowed to come to 
Kashmir without a permit issued from Srinagar. We had our own Income 
Tax Department. We had to surrender that also. All these were taken 
away. The right of citizenship was also taken away from the Kashmiri 
state. By this I mean Kashmiri citizenship. During the Maharaja's 
time, only residents of Kashmir could acquire land in Kashmir. Others 
could not directly purchase land. They could only lease land.

In 1964, the biggest blow to our autonomy occurred during the 
government of Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq. The measure that destroyed our 
autonomy was known as the "Presidential Application Order of 1964." 
This took away what we call the "Nomenclature." Until then Kashmir 
had its own head of state, the Sadr-e-Riyasat, or President, who was 
elected by the state legislature, and the President of India would, 
in turn, formally recognise him as Sadr-e-Riyasat of J&K. The 
qualification was that he must be a state subject-a citizen of J&K. 
No one else could become President. The Prime Minister was the head 
of administration. There was no Governor then. The first 
Sadr-e-Riyasat was Maharaja Karan Singh. He was the first and the 
last. The People's Conference, a party we formed after I resigned 
from the Janata Party, was committed to a restoration of Kashmir's 
"internal autonomy."

Lifschultz: In 1987 there was an election in Kashmir that, in 
retrospect, represents a watershed. Many people date the emergence of 
the present militancy which has spanned the last decade from the 
intense alienation that followed the election. The election is 
generally considered to have been rigged at various levels. Bring me 
to where we are today, and tell me where we are going tomorrow?

Lone: We are nowhere. We don't know about tomorrow. But at the moment 
we are nowhere. You see the colonial attitudes of Indians and 
Pakistanis. We have been in "this moment" for the last twelve or 
thirteen years. Our belief is that this dispute has taken the lives 
of more than 70,000 people. We know that more than 15,000 houses have 
been blasted or torched by the Indian Army. More than 3,000 people 
have been killed while in custody. Approximately the same number have 
"disappeared". Thousands of our daughters and sisters have been raped 
or molested. These have been the weapons of war used against us. We 
have suffered all these sacrifices.

It is as if we have suffered only for their pleasure. It is as if 
there isn't a freedom struggle going on. It is made to appear as if 
there is only a dispute between India and Pakistan. Our freedom 
movement has been hijacked by the confrontation of these two 
countries. So we stand nowhere.

Lifschultz: If you were permitted to stand "somewhere" and Kashmiris 
were able to have a real voice, what would a "just solution" to the 
Kashmir question look like? Over many decades India and Pakistan have 
been stuck in intransigent positions. They tacitly accept that there 
are only "two options" for Kashmir and each rejects the option the 
other supports. The choice is either accession to Pakistan or 
accession to India. Do the "two options" represent a plausible way 
forward or does a "third option" exist?

Lone: Yes, I believe if it is left to Kashmiris they will go for the 
"Third Option." If a plebiscite had been held within three or four 
years after Partition, the results might have been different.

(*)

[FULL TEXT OF THE INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE AT
Frontline (Chennai, India)
Volume 19 - Issue 16, August 3 - 16, 2002
COVER STORY

A VOICE FROM KASHMIR
Lawrence Lifschultz interviews Abdul Ghani Lone (1932-2002).
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1916/19160200.htm ]

_____

#2.

Daily Times (Lahore)
August 15, 2002

Culture Vulture: Let the Children play

Shahid Nadeem

Will the actors with big moustaches and tight turbans stop playing 
their sordid border games and let the children play their 
"Border-Border" all over the region, a play that has cross-border 
appeal

Independence Day this year (today) is marked by the arrival in 
Pakistan of two prominent peace activists from India, Nirmala 
Deshpande and Arundhati Roy, to participate in the official launch of 
Daily Times. That they have been permitted to visit Pakistan is a 
welcome sign and raises hopes that people-to-people contacts will 
once again be permitted in a region where governments have dismally 
failed to learn to live like good neighbours. The cross-border forays 
by peace activists are one way of jump-starting the stalled peace 
process: it's time for cross-border pacifism.
Wagah is one place where independence days of both India and Pakistan 
are celebrated with great enthusiasm. Flags are hoisted high and the 
gates are decorated with ribbons of national colours. The Rangers and 
BSF personnel look even taller and stiffer on this occasion, more 
aggressive towards each other, more devoid of human feelings. With 
their immaculately pressed uniforms and starched, tightly bound 
turbans, they are embodiments of empty, rhetorical patriotism, 
something which has become outdated and redundant in many parts of 
the world. The Theatre of the Absurd which takes place at Wagah every 
sunset is perhaps the oldest-running show in the world: 55 years of 
non-stop performances and still going strong.
The evening show at Wagah attracts big crowds. At the flag-lowering 
ceremony, the grotesque ritual of hate and aggression is taken to an 
absurd extreme. The slamming of the gates with violent movements, the 
well-trained movement of face muscles to express contempt for each 
other, the aggressive gesturing, the exchange of mean looks, and the 
orchestrated applause seem like comedia del arte mixed with 
Kathakali. This comedy would be very funny if the consequences of 
this 'patriotism' weren't so horrendous. The shallowness of these 
gestures can be seen from the picnicking mood of the spectators, who 
have seen similar performances in their films and TV plays.
A few days ago, a funny situation developed at Wagha. Peaceniks from 
both sides had decided to meet up at the border and light candles. 
They included human rights activists and showbiz people. In order to 
ensure a decent turnout, a Pakistani journalist published news that 
Shah Rukh Khan and Madhuri were also expected to be at Wagha. The 
next evening, the scene at the border was unbelievable. Patriotic 
Pakistanis had converged at Wagha in thousands and the Rangers, like 
the march-organisers, were caught unawares. The crowd could not be 
controlled. The security of the all-important borders was being 
threatened by these Indian-Star lovers. Mounted police were called in 
to disperse the crowd and the gates were shut even more firmly. But 
the zinda-dilans of the September-City would not leave; they wanted 
to see their Shah Rukh Khan and Madhuri. Eventually they did get a 
glimpse of Raj Babbar, Gulzar and Hans Raj Hans.Even the Indian 
marchers were taken aback by the enthusiastic Pakistani response. I 
am not a great fan of Bollywood movies but that day I realised that 
artists and entertainers can give a big boost to the peace campaign. 
It also became evident that for the common man or woman in both India 
and Pakistan, there is no conflict in their patriotism and their 
admiration for Shah Rukh Khan and Madhuri.
Similar mood was revealed at a children's theatre workshop we 
recently held at the Arts Council. During an improvisation on the 
theme of peace, the children were asked about the consequences of a 
nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. One of them voiced 
serious concern about a bomb destroying Bombay: " Not Bombay, all our 
favourite stars will be killed". When the Kargil conflict was its 
peak, as also during the recent standoff, the demand for Bollywood 
videos never dropped even in the cantonment area.
Last June, Ajoka Children's Theatre crossed the border to work with 
Indian children and jointly produce a play on peace. The play, 
"Border-Border," exposed the hatred-breeding policies that encourage 
stereotyping of the other side. The play showed two groups of 
children who have been brought by their parents to see the Flag 
Ceremony at the border and accidentally cross over to the other side. 
The police and parents find it very difficult to locate the children 
while the kids have a great time playing with their peers on the 
other side. The combined children's workshop in Chandigarh was a 
memorable experience for the children, who realised that they have 
much more in common than their governments would let them believe. 
The way they befriended each other was very moving and educative. If 
the young and the innocent could see how love and friendship can 
conquer all, why can't the grown ups, those in power, see it.
The plan at the Indo-Pak children's workshop was that Pakistani 
children will perform Pakistani roles in the play and the Indian kids 
will play Indian roles. It seemed the obvious thing to do. At the end 
of the workshop, the kids decided that there was no need for such a 
distinction. Right person for the right role should be the criterion, 
they insisted. That's what happened. That seemed to be the logical 
thing to do. When the play was performed before a packed and 
enthusiastic Tagore Hall audience in Chandigarh, no one could tell 
who was Indian and who was Pakistani among the cast. For the audience 
they were all children.
The play was to be performed in Lahore last December. But then the 
big players decided to play their own grotesque comedy with the same 
title. Ajoka children want to know when they will have the return 
visit from their Chandigarh co-actors. I am sure the children in 
India are asking the same question. This is the second Independence 
Day since the performance in Chandigarh. Will the states let the 
children play their "Border-Border" all over the region, a play that 
has cross-border appeal? Let the future generation start building a 
peaceful and friendly South Asia.

Shahid Nadeem is a playwright and TV producer of repute

_____

#3.

BBC News
Thursday, 15 August, 2002, 15:02 GMT 16:02 UK

Author slates governments over Kashmir

Roy was recently released from a jail sentence for her anti-dam protests

Booker prize-winning author Arundhati Roy has lashed out at the 
governments of India and Pakistan for their stance over disputed 
Kashmir.

Speaking in Islamabad on her first trip to Pakistan, the 41-year-old 
Indian author said the peoples of the two countries had to solve the 
problem, rather than their governments.

It's far easier to make a bomb than to educate 400 million people

Arundhati Roy

"My position on Kashmir is that I don't have one," she told an 
audience of by 200 journalists, academics, students and businessmen.

"I don't have inflexible policies, I'm not part of the state.

"It's the people that really want - and need - to solve the problem."

The author, who won the Booker prize for her 1997 novel The God Of 
Small Things, has become known for her radical political stances.

She was briefly jailed in India earlier this year after a campaign of 
opposition to India's Narmada Dam project.

Arundhati Roy: "Deeply suspicious of nationalism"

Speaking at a peace seminar organised by the Daily Times in Islamabad 
on Wednesday, she said she was not "anti-national", but against 
nationalism.

"To be an anti-national suggests that you are against that nation and 
therefore pro some other nation," she said.

"I am deeply suspicious of nationalism. I am terribly worried about flags.

"I see them as bits of cloth that shrinkwrap people's brains and then 
are used as a shroud to bury the willing dead."

And she added that both Indian and Pakistani governments used the 
Kashmir issue to deflect attention from domestic concerns.

"When we talk about the Indo-Pakistan or Kashmir problem, we are 
assuming they are problems and that people are searching for 
solutions," she said.

"I don't think this is the case. I think that for the governments of 
both Pakistan and India, Kashmir is the solution - it is the rabbit 
they pull out of the hat every time they face domestic problems."

'Betrayal'

The author said she has not written any fiction since God Of Small 
Things, which sold six million copies in 40 languages, but has 
concentrated her energies on political activism.

At the Islamabad seminar she called India's development of nuclear 
weapons "the final act of betrayal of a ruling class that has failed 
its people".

"The truth is, it's far easier to make a bomb than to educate 400 
million people," she said.

The criticisms came after renewed tension along the territory's line 
of control, where India and Pakistani forces are massed.

The two countries have gone to war three times over Kashmir since 
their independence from the UK in 1947.

o o o

Related Report in the Times of India

The Times of India
FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2002
Arundhati Roy in Pak for peace

REUTERS [ FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2002 1:43:44 AM ]
ISLAMABAD: Award-winning writer and activist Arundhati Roy sees 
herself as an 'insect' burrowing into established institutions to 
force social change.
This week, in a radical step, she has made her first trip to 
Pakistan. If she has a message for the people of both the countries, 
it is simple: "Don't listen to your governments."
Speaking to Reuters on Wednesday after addressing a peace seminar in 
Islamabad, Roy said ordinary Indians and Pakistanis must stand up for 
themselves.
"We are all members of an ancient civilisation, not a recent nation. 
We have so many things in common and there is absolutely no reason to 
point nuclear weapons at each other.
"Eventually we have to ally ourselves with each other and we have to 
blow a hole in this huge dam between us," she said.
"Bigots, fundamentalists on both sides can twist things to suit their 
own needs. I am terrified of that happening both in India and 
Pakistan... It is not about Muslims, Hindus. It's about fascism, 
majoritarianism, bigotry, these things."
"The governments raise the rhetoric whenever it suits them, and now 
they are sulking because people are taking their rhetoric seriously 
and saying: 'how can they think that we will probably have a war?"'
Her comments came as leaders of both countries traded insults over 
Kashmir, using some of their strongest language on the emotive issue 
since stepping back from the brink of war in May.
Reading from one of her essays at the seminar, Roy called India's 
development of nuclear weapons "the final act of betrayal of a ruling 
class that has failed its people" and added: "the truth is, it's far 
easier to make a bomb than to educate 400 million people."
"This issue of social justice in both our countries is the 
fundamental issue, and as long as these issues are not addressed, we 
are going to be very, very weak tinpot countries."
At the Islamabad seminar Roy struck a chord, being warmly applauded 
throughout by 200 people including journalists, academics, students 
and businessmen.

_____

#4.

The Hindu
Aug 16, 2002

Candles lit for peace at Wagah

WAGAH AUG. 15. The India-Pakistan military stand-off notwithstanding, 
Indians extended a hand of friendship and peace to people on the 
other side through a midnight candle light vigil outside this joint 
border check post.

At the stroke of midnight, journalist and Rajya Sabha Member, Kuldip 
Nayar, led his friends from the Indian chapter of the Hind-Pak Dosti 
Manch and other organisations to light candles. They chanted 
``Hind-Pakistan Dosti Zindabad'' slogans about 200 metres from the 
Radcliffe Line.

There was, however, no reaction from across the border to this 
symbolic gesture attempting to rekindle peace and friendship.

The Border Security Force (BSF) officials disallowed the Manch 
activists from entering the check post zone due to security reasons.

Later, talking to presspersons, Mr. Nayar claimed that Pakistan's 
human rights activist, Asma Jehangir, led a handful of women to their 
side of the border during the retreat ceremony in the evening and 
chanted slogans of unity.

Ms. Jehangir was, however, not allowed to carry out the candle light 
vigil by Pakistani security officials, he claimed.

Mr. Nayar, along with the former chairperson of the National 
Commission for Women, Mohini Giri, said Punjabi and Sufi singer, 
Hansraj Hans, and about 10,000 peace-lovers, started the ``peace and 
friendship'' journey by lighting a torch at the historic Jallianwala 
Bagh in Amritsar.

Mr. Hansraj Hans set the tone for the night by singing ``yeh mere 
Punjab ki dharti hai, wo mere Punjab ki dharti hai'', indicating that 
despite the Partition, the land of five rivers (Punjab) was still one.

UNI

_____

#5.

Rediff.com
August 14, 2002

Dilip D'Souza

Just Like Me

Deep-seated religious hatreds ... a cycle of violence, death, and 
retribution; irreconcilable differences over land and sovereignty.' 
Would it surprise you if I said that those words refer to India and 
Pakistan? How accurate a description is it of the dreary, 
blood-drenched war story our two countries have scripted together for 
55 years?

'Speaking only for us Indians: after all, our differences with 
Pakistan over land and sovereignty have indeed eluded any solution. 
If they are not irreconcilable, they are pretty close. The cycle of 
violence, death, and retribution wheels on and on, and not just in 
Kashmir. I still shudder at the memory of the man I met last April in 
Dehlol, a village in Gujarat. The massacre of Muslims in his village 
and elsewhere in Gujarat, he told me through clenched paan-stained 
teeth, was nothing but a justified retaliation. Because "they" cause 
so much trouble for us, coming over as "they" do from Pakistan into 
Kashmir. And certainly the hatreds between religions are deep-seated. 
They are getting more deep-seated every day: my experience in Dehlol 
is just one example.'

Fit us pretty well, those words. Right? Only, they are from a recent 
editorial in England's The Observer, titled 'Peace Lessons from 
Ireland'. They comprise a short list of "parallels" between Northern 
Ireland and the Middle East. Nothing to do with India, Pakistan, and 
Kashmir, yet how familiar they seem. They could have been written 
about us.

In a climate like that, whether in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 
or our subcontinent, how do you find peace? What would such a peace 
look like? (I'm not even asking the more fundamental question: do 
enough of us even want peace in the first place? I can only assume 
and hope so.)

Over three weeks in June and July, 36 13- and 14-year-olds from India 
and Pakistan (and many more from all over the Middle East) found 
themselves thinking about those questions. I write this to give you a 
flavour, as our two countries wallow in now middle-aged hostility and 
mistrust, of what they went through.

The kids met at a programme called Seeds of Peace. Since 1993, SoP 
has brought together Israeli and Palestinian kids every summer at a 
camp on a calm lake in rural Maine, USA. In this gorgeous spot, 
chosen for its seclusion and serenity, the kids play, talk, live, and 
eat together. In doing so over the three weeks of camp, they learn 
that those others from across the battle-lines have human faces: 
which is the first prerequisite for making peace, which is therefore 
the lesson that they are never able to learn at home.

But that recognition of humanity comes not just from playing and 
eating and then, having had a boatload of fun, declaring a joint 
belief in some universal, but chimerical, brotherhood. After all, 
humans come fully equipped with fears, hatreds, and prejudices -- 
just as much as their capacity to have boatloads of fun. So SoP 
deliberately pushes the kids to face up to and explore their 
differences, their prejudices. Because it's only when you have 
addressed these things in each other, and found ways to understand 
them, that you form real bonds. It's such bonds that give you a 
foundation to start exploring what real peace might look like.

The SoP idea is that by going through this experience, these kids 
will then become ambassadors in their home countries for the idea of 
peace. And in those violence-wracked spots, amid the hatreds and 
cynicism their elders feel that fuel the bloodshed, these kids might 
just be the only hope for peace.

India and Pakistan joined the SoP programme in 2001. This year, I was 
one of two adults who took an 18-member Indian delegation to the camp.

I'll admit: I was sceptical when we got there. Just observing all 
that goes on around me in my country, I have long grown cynical about 
such terms as "tolerance" and "religion" and even "peace". Few of us 
know what tolerance means. Religion is so perverted by the very 
people who claim it guides them that every religion nauseates me. And 
peace? When war, killing and hatred are honoured guests in too many 
drawing rooms, I'm not sure any more what peace is.

What was going to come of one set of kids meeting another in far-off Maine?

I arrived at camp bathed in this cynicism, but holding on 
nevertheless to a faint hope that the kids would erase some of it. 
Very selfishly, I was looking to these enthusiastic, articulate 
children to give me new meaning for those terms. That's what I wanted 
from this trip.

The amazing thing: I was not disappointed. But it took a while.

When the Indians and Pakistanis first met, they delighted in all they 
had in common, and quickly became friends. It was good they started 
that way, because there were some traumatic moments ahead. Soon 
enough, the kids got into the meat of their time at camp -- their 
"coexistence sessions" with the Pakistanis. At these, trained 
facilitators draw out the kids' differences, nudge them into airing 
their disagreements and stereotypes about each other.

And this produced outrage. There is no other word to describe the 
feelings of the Indians when we met them after their first two or 
three coexistence sessions. The first complaints we heard were that, 
in contrast to themselves, the Pakistanis were "over-patriotic" and 
"religious patriots", and how could they be that way at a camp like 
this? After that, every single belief they had about Kashmir and 
Pakistan -- about India, for that matter -- was suddenly challenged 
as never before. The way they regarded figures like Jinnah and 
Gandhi. Their ideas about events from our history. Their sense of 
being Indian. Their assumptions about everything to do with Kashmir. 
And of course, their up-close and personal encounter with that 
much-worn truth, that my terrorist is often your freedom-fighter. And 
vice-versa.

All this and more changed what had been unquestioned truths into a 
morass of hard, wrenching questions. Not that the Pakistanis were not 
similarly shell-shocked. They were, and a couple of them were even 
reduced to tears. And the facilitators told us that the kids on both 
sides had been equally eloquent and passionate about their own 
countries: neither had been particularly more or less "patriotic".

Yet it took only a few more sessions of coexistence for the outrage 
to mellow into a quiet thoughtfulness. If the Pakistanis have their 
own views and hold them every bit as strongly as we do, can it really 
be that we are wholly right and they are wrong? (What do right and 
wrong mean here anyway?) Do they have a right to their views as we do 
to ours? Is there some sense -- even if we disagree with it -- in 
what they believe? Should we be open to re-examining our views in the 
light of theirs? Are their fears and impressions about us any less 
real than ours about them? Can we understand those fears? Is it 
really un-Indian, unpatriotic, to even acknowledge the opinions 
Pakistanis have? Is it really Indian to believe that whatever 
happens, whatever they think, we are right? In fact, what does 
patriotism itself mean?

How do we build relationships, find peace, through all these 
questions? Through our differences? Can we dare to trust? Can we 
afford not to?

In all they learned, but especially by their introspection, the kids 
-- Indian and Pakistani alike -- taught me two lessons. One: peace is 
hard work, and these teenagers now realise that. Hatred and war are 
the easy options, which is why there are enough people in our 
countries demanding them. Two: yes, peace begins with an 
acknowledgement of humanity. The friendships the Pakistanis and 
Indians built in Maine are embodiments of that -- and most of all 
because they had not shied away from their differences, but examined 
them thoroughly.

They may not have found answers to all their questions, but at least 
the kids were thinking about them.

Akshaya Shankar, a 14-year-old seed from Goregaon in Mumbai, summed 
things up like this: "I think this patriotism hinders coexistence." 
That one line, if you think about it, might just be the story of our 
55 years. But if seeds sprout and grow, perhaps it won't be the story 
of the next 55. Perhaps more of us will know what Lahore's Fahad Ali 
Kazmi now does: "The enemy," he said, "is just like me."

_____

#6.

The News International (Pakistan)
Friday August 16, 2002-

A sad August

Masooda Bano

The writer is an Islamabad-based columnist with background in 
development research

It is true for countries like ours where frustrations and grumbles 
are part of the life that at least on Independence Day we should 
celebrate what we have got and show hope for the future. But, there 
are times when it becomes difficult to keep hope alive even on these 
rare occasions. This August is one of those times.

It marks an end of a very turbulent and difficult year for Pakistan 
that among all other things is notable for the birth of a completely 
new breed of violence in the country. The two recent attacks on 
missionaries in Murree and Taxila just before the Independence Day 
being the reminders of that. And it heralds in an era of equally 
great uncertainty as the country prepares to go to polls to elect a 
government, which under the proposed constitutional amendments would 
either have to be content with being a puppet government or will most 
likely not survive. Squeezed between a traumatic past year and a 
volatile future promising nothing but political chaos this 
Independence Day marks a very sad August.

The rise in attacks on the foreigners and the Christians in Pakistan 
is a sad reflection of the wrong policies of the successive Pakistani 
governments especially the military establishment. It shows how 
dangerous it is to play with ideologies and how they can back fire. 
The exploitation of Islam in Zia ul Haq period to create mujahideen 
culture, which was done basically to serve his personal interest of 
winning US support, is now coming back to haunt the country.

Also, it shows how lack of consultation, and arbitrary rule creates 
grounds for civil unrest and divide. After every fresh attack on 
foreign or Christian interest in the country, the present government 
makes an announcement that it is a reaction to the regime's liberal 
policy to side with the West on the war on terrorism. But, when 
General Musharraf was so openly siding with the west and soaking in 
the praise that west showered on him, and was going around the world 
taking photographs with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair at a 
time when there was strong resentment within major sections of the 
population against the attacks on Afghanistan, did we not expect this 
to happen. Of course it was expected.

It was wisest then to keep the association with the west a bit low 
profile at least in the public. But, General Musharraf with his 
military mind thought he can order and the whole of Pakistan would 
listen while he wins praise for himself in the international arena. 
Sadly, societies do not operate like that. People have different 
agendas within the same society and the whole concept of a leader is 
that while making decisions he keeps in mind the various interests 
within the society and how to tackle them. Going to extremes 
eventually leads to civil unrest and that is what we are witnessing 
in Pakistan right now. It is not how much we supported the west, but 
how much we published it, that has been the real problem.

The bigger issue is that the same approach of ruling the country by 
giving orders is visible in all the actions of the present government 
none more so than the forthcoming elections. "Too many cooks spoil 
the broth" is the famous quotation from one of General Musharraf's 
speeches in the past months where he was justifying his use of power 
to bring major changes to the constitution and reserving power in the 
hands of the president. But, then the birth of this new breed of 
violence in the country is exactly what happens when there is no 
consultation among the various groups in the society. General 
Musharraf and his team of advisors need to realise this.

Democracy cannot be engineered by order. Its very spirit lies in 
descent among the people, the right of each and every individual of 
the nation to express his or her choice, where eventually the choice 
of the majority rules. Pakistan has to get back on the path of real 
democracy where the military goes back to its original role of 
defence of the border after the elections rather than spending all 
its energies intervening in the civilian affairs.

When one thinks what potential this country had and still has it 
makes the review of the current scenario even sadder. Pakistan might 
not have had a strong industrial base at the time of partition of 
India but it got a very fertile land of Punjab, which was known to be 
the granary of India. Any work on the history of partition always 
refers to how for India losing this part of Punjab was a big loss in 
terms of its agriculture productivity.

Pakistan had a good natural resource base and hard working people. It 
attracted a lot of foreign aid from quite early time especially in 
the General Ayub Khan period. It registered six percent growth rate, 
which was among the highest in South Asia, for most of the early 
decades. But, today not only the wrong policies have retarded the 
economic performance of the country but worst we today stand behind 
most other South Asian countries in terms of our human development 
indicators. It has been an elitist model of growth all along where 
wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few with no distribution to 
the larger population.

Estimates of poverty now suggest forty percent of the population 
living in poverty. Sixty per cent of the population remains 
illiterate. Similar percentage of the population has no access to 
basic health services or sanitation facilities. Above all the 
population growth rate estimated around 2.8 to 3 percent remains one 
of the highest in the world. This is in sharp contrast to both India 
and Bangladesh where successive government policies and 
non-government sector programmes have helped bring the population 
growth rate down to 2.1 percent.

There are lessons to be learnt here from these countries, especially 
Bangladesh, which with its Muslim population has still been able to 
implement successful family planning programmes. The excuse that the 
Mullah in the rural areas in our country is one of the main causes of 
failure of our family planning programme is thus not acceptable. Ways 
can be found to win over the Mullah to cooperate in these programmes 
provided the real will is there. Just like ways can be found to 
tackle other problems. Lack of funds the most often quoted excuse on 
the part of successive Pakistani governments does not hold any 
ground. The real issue is the abuse of funds, which are available.

In the development literature there is a lot of talk about 'social 
capital' nowadays in addition to economic and human capital. 
Expressed simply, the idea behind social capital is that voluntary 
networks of people are critical for development of a society as when 
people come together they develop associations and build trust, which 
then contributes to a stronger civil society that can then create 
pressure on the state to deliver. The strength of US democracy and 
society is today being explained by some academics in the light of 
the large number of voluntary organisations that US has traditionally 
had. In case of Pakistan if there is one thing that is most important 
today that is to build this social capital. For Pakistan today the 
only hope is for the educated Pakistanis to come together to form 
groups, associations, and networks among themselves, to develop 
alternative visions of what Pakistan should be, and then to challenge 
the state on these issues. Otherwise left to its vices, the state in 
this country will never change itself.
_____

#7.

The Hindu
Friday, Aug 16, 2002

U.K.'s Sangh Parivar swears by Godse
By Hasan Suroor

LONDON AUG.15 . Britain's Sangh Parivar celebrated India's 
Independence Day today by resolving to ``advocate Godse's outlook and 
action'' and challenge ``every anti-national Mulla-Commie'', a 
shorthand for Muslims and communists.

In an e-mail to the Parivar members, Bipin Patel, a hard-core 
Hindutva activist and believed to be close to the Deputy Prime 
Minister, L.K. Advani, warned that ``every drop of blood needs to be 
avenged. And we are ready at any cost''.

Declaring that a ``morally decadent and decomposing nation cannot be 
saved even by nuclear weapons'', it said: ``We see the merit in 
Gandhi's, (sic) but only after all theology-inspired terrorists are 
reduced to dead meat. Till that goal is not achieved, we advocate 
Godse's outlook and action. And if, in the meantime, a Gandhi comes 
to create hurdles in the way, then that Gandhi would need to be put 
out of the way''.

This was attributed to a ``discussion board''.

The mail starts innocuously by asking its recipients to observe ``at 
least a minute's silence in memory of those who sacrificed their life 
for us'', and then goes on to say: ``Also, let us resolve to 
challenge every anti-national Mulla-Commi.

The battle is hard-particularly when the Indians are not united for 
Bharat Mata - but not difficult at all. Every drop of blood needs to 
be avenged. And we are ready at any cost.

Together, and together alone, we will win. Jay Bharat Mata, and Vande 
Matram. Bipin''

This is followed by the Godse bit from a ``discussion board''.
_____

#8.

The Hindustan Times
15 August 2002
Hanging by the coat-tails
Shamsul Islam
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_37746,00120002.htm

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

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.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|