SACW | 20 June 2004

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire   |  20 June,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1]  Pakistan: Transcript of interview with [...] 
President Pervez Musharraf (Victoria Schofield)
[2]  Pakistan: Pluralism and Qazi Hussain (Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy)
[3]  Pak-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy: No to guns, yes to roses
+ Pakistan-India peace march on PIPFPD's 10th anniversary in Sept
[4]  Bangladesh: An interview with Naeem Mohaiemen
[5]  India: The government must speedily 
implement the CMP to make its emancipatory mark
Reap the harvest  (Praful Bidwai)
[6] India: Reduce Nuclear Risk With Pakistan (Editorial, The Hindu)


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

[1]

The Telegraph [UK]

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT PERVEZ MUSHARRAF
By Victoria Schofield
(Filed: 20/06/2004)

How successful are operations against al Qa'eda 
and Taliban supporters in South Waziristan?

As far as this operation is concerned it is 
fairly successful. We do not know the results as 
yet. The operation is still on. We need to see 
the results once we flush out everyone and enter 
those complexes, then only we know what damage 
has been caused, the exact number of casualties. 
Firing was very accurate from our side, therefore 
a lot of damage must have been done.

Will this have an inflammatory effect on the rest 
of the country and in tribal territory?

No, I don't think it is going to spread in the 
tribal territory because of the right policies we 
followed. We followed the political path first. 
The jirga took certain decisions and the jirga 
ordered a lashkar to be formed and a laskhar was 
formed and it went inside but it failed and 
therefore according to regulations we were 
authorised to take certain actions against the 
subtribe which had failed to deliver, and that 
was followed by this military action.

In fact, we suffered casualties because of 
certain actions by the militants and therefore 
all the more reason that we undertook this 
military operation. I don' t think it is going to 
spread to other tribal regions. But it can have a 
fall out - these people have contacts elsewhere 
in the country and they can retaliate in the rest 
of the country in the form of bomb blasts, 
attacks on important persons and installations - 
and so we have to guard against that.

Looking at the law and order situation in 
Pakistan with frequent bomb blasts, the recent 
attack on your Corps Commander in Karachi - how 
connected is this with what is going on in tribal 
territory?

We are not very sure if it is related to Wana. We 
have apprehended the people who were involved. We 
will show them on television also at the right 
time. But we are not really sure if there is 
linkage with Taliban, al Qa'eda and the people 
who carried out this terrorist attack against the 
Corps Commander.

Now seems an ideal time to work towards 
incorporating tribal territory into Pakistan, but 
in view of the confused situation, are you having 
to go slow on plans to 'democratise' tribal 
territory?

Under the present circumstances we have to go 
slow. Because we don't know the undercurrents 
working there. It is a society which has been 
deprived in the past, ill educated, backward so 
we would not like to take actions where religious 
extremists get some kind of a hold in some areas, 
which could be counter-productive to the 
democratic process,

Because there would be a vacuum if you moved against the tribal leaders?

Yes, so we would much prefer acting with the 
tribal leadership - the maliks - who we are sure 
are not religious extremists.

Recently there have been a number of suicide 
bombings, is this a new phenomenon and much more 
difficult to control?

Yes - it is a new phenomenon. But it is not 
widespread; there have been a few incidents in 
Pakistan but it is not as bad as Palestine or 
Israel or Iraq. Because most of the incidents 
which you are seeing are not suicide bombings.

There are a few. However yes it is the most 
dangerous act because counter measures are 
difficult. We have to take coun ter measures in 
the form of breaking the groups. And may I very 
proudly say that the Intelligence agencies are 
doing an excellent job in breaking these groups. 
As I said the Corps Commander's attack was just a 
few days back and we have already got the people 
who were in the action.

So I think it's a great achievement if we can 
keep breaking these various factions who are 
either operating under sectarian extremism or 
religious extremism. Both these groups have to be 
battled with.

You are not prepared to release the names of 
those involved in the Karachi attack.

Not as yet. There are a few more left. We are 
very hopeful that we will get them in a few days. 
Until that time I don't want to comment.

In your talks with the government of India over 
Kashmir: you are intending to approach the 
Kashmir issue with flexibility - can you outline 
what Pakistan's position might be in terms of 
that flexibility?

I have used this word 'flexibility' very boldy. 
It does not go well in our domestic environment 
because there is a UN Security Council resolution 
of 1948 which says there has to be a plebisicte. 
Now our stand is unchanged. It does not meant 
that when I say flexibility that we have given up 
on our previous stand We are still holding onto 
the stand that there is a United Nations Security 
Council resolution.

However when we come to the negotiating table to 
find a solution, that is the time where I 
personally feel that each party needs to give up 
- you can't hold on to your maximalist position. 
Each party - Pakistan, India and the people of 
Kashmir. Maximalist positions will have to be a 
compromised by all in a spirit of flexibility. 
And that is what I meant.

All the groups have to show this spirit of 
flexibility. If we keep sticking to our rigid 
maximalist positions, then we will never reach a 
solution. So this issue of flexibility should be 
seen in that context. It cannot be unilateral, it 
cannot be one sided. It has to be by all parties 
involved.

If the Indian government says that there will be 
no change in its policy to Kashmir, will the 
peace process break down? Or will you continue 
with the confidence building measures?

I am afraid if there is no movement forward on 
Kashmir, then there can be no movement on 
Confidence Building Measures. There is no doubt 
in my mind that the core issue bedevilling 
relations between India and Pakistan is the 
Kashmir dispute.

But Pakistan is prepared to resolve all disputes 
in a sincere and honourable manner. But if this 
core issue is not being addressed and if India is 
intransigent and they say that is all, we are not 
moving forward, and this core issue is out, then 
all the issues are out.

Then effectively the peace process is being held hostage to this one issue?

No, it is not a hostage. The peace process is 
Kashmir. We are not fighting on the [inaudible] 
and Wular dams and Sri Creek.

But in terms of normalisation, easier access, 
trade - would you see that going forward?

Where there is hatred, when there is mistrust, 
how can we normalise? When you have cultural 
activites, these are between countries which have 
cemented friendly harmonious relations. How can 
you have trade relations, commerce, cultural 
activity between countries who are fighting wars 
and killing each other daily on the line of 
control. Isn't that very unnatural.? How is it 
possible?

Some people might say if there was movement on 
cultural exchanges, then there would be a better 
spirit of goodwill and it might be easier to 
resolve the Kashmir issue.

That is putting the cart before the horse. 
Anybody who is saying this, is not realistic.

Or they have ulterior motives of shelving the 
Kahsmir issue and just going ahead on culture and 
trade and commerce. I don't think it is 
practical..

After the revelations about Dr AQ Khan last 
February, he was put under house arrest, what is 
his position at the moment?

He has been pardoned. He is not under house 
arrest. But he is in Islamabad in his house. For 
his own security he is not moving much at all. 
But certainly the family is moving around, the 
children are going to school. There is no 
restriction on them at all. They can move around 
but in their own interests and for their own 
security, it is better that they stay in one 
place as much as possible.

But he is not permitted to make any statements?

There is already too much confusion. We would not 
like to any create more confusion by the media 
going in and interacting and then coming up with 
all kinds of stories.

There have been reports of his supporters 
infiltrating the police and armed forces.

I do not think he is into any extremist gangs. This is absolutely wrong.

Earlier you said that he could 'keep his money'. 
Is this still the position or are you making any 
effort to remove any funds that he managed to 
amass?

We don't know where his funds are.

Are you confident that there are no more leakages from AQ Khan's associates?

Until now whatever we have investigated, we are 
reasonably sure that this is it, that we have 
extracted all the intelligence from them. I can't 
guarantee that something more crops up. And we 
will again have to investigate and find out our 
involvement.

As far as our nuclear programme is concerned, we 
have put the best possible custodial measures 
protecting our installations. We have a National 
Command Authority, the highest body controlling 
our strategic assets, then there is a very well 
organised strategic planning division, headed by 
a very capable lieutenant-general who is looking 
after all our strategic assets.

As far as those assets are concerned, they are 
under very strong controls of the armed forces of 
Pakistan. Here we have created an Army Air Force 
Navy strategic forces command, commanding all 
these assets. So I think we are very well 
organised.

As far as our strategic organisation is 
concerned, the intelligence and security 
arrangements have been beefed up, they have been 
strengthened. All possible doubtful areas have 
been removed. I think we have taken tremendous 
action. I am very sure that there cannot be any 
proliferation, there cannot be any assets falling 
into wrong hands. I am very sure about that.

There have been two serious assassination 
attempts on your life recently - if a further 
attempt is successful, what measures have you 
taken for your successor so that the initiatives 
you have taken are carried forward?

No - I haven't taken any political measures, if 
you are talking of some kind of succession.

There is a political system in place. The 
Assemblies are functioning, the Senate is there. 
If I am not there, it is the chairman of the 
Senate who is the President of Pakistan until 
such time as the Assemblies elect a new 
President. The political institutions are in 
place to find a new President.

I don't see this an issue of succession, there is 
no monarchy going on. There is a parliamentary 
democracy in place and through the political and 
democratic system, a successor has to be found to 
everyone.

Is your alliance with the MMA pushing you in a 
direction you would prefer not to go ?

There is a total misperception. There is no 
alliance with the MMA. There was an agreement 
with the MMA on the Legal Framework Order. We 
reached an agreement with them and passed the LFO 
in the interests of bringing political stability 
with a two-thirds majority.

We could have reached an agreement with the 
Peoples Party but somehow they did not come 
forward. So we reached an agreement with the MMA 
and we put the LFO issue aside. Now they are in 
the opposition. The leader of the opposition is 
Fazul ur Rehman of the MMA

Do you think you will be able to move forward on women's rights?

I think on women's issues the vast majority in 
the assembly will support, I am very confident 
that these bills need to be drafted, hadood, 
blasphemy, honour killings, all these must be 
debated and we must bring in any change which is 
required, but without violating the Islamic 
tenets, but ensuring that no victimisation is 
done against anybody. Whatever elements of these 
issues are not in line with Islamic tenets should 
be removed or corrected. And we will do it.

Are you intending to honour your pledge to take 
off your uniform and step down as COAS ?

I will take a decision when we reach it. I will 
cross the bridge when we reach it. Or shall we 
put it like this, there is the 17th amendment 
which has been passed in which the Legal 
Framework Order is a part.

I will adhere to the 17th amendment to the 
Constitution of Pakistan. I will adhere to the 
Constitution of Pakistan. Having said that, my 
word that I gave - that I will remove the 
uniform- if the MMA is talking - because they are 
talking of the word, of the pledge, that I gave - 
they themselves have violated two pledges that 
they gave: firstly, to support my vote of 
confidence in the Assembly and the second was the 
National Security Council Bill, supporting that.

They backed out on both. And so therefore I have 
no qualms at all as far as my word to them. They 
have broken their word and so I am under no 
obligation of pleasing them. So that can be set 
aside.

Now the issue that has to be taken into account 
is: firstly, sticking to the Constitution, and 
secondly, the national interest. Now these are 
two issues which I need to consider seriously and 
then only will I reach a conclusion.

What about the pledge to the people?

Insofar as the people are considered, I know that 
the vast majority of people are alarmed at why 
did I give my word. The number of letters, 
telephone calls, and the number of people who 
have contacted me asking me why did I give my 
word to step down. There are a lot of people are 
pressurising me not to give my word. It has had 
an opposite effect that I should not have given 
my word.

When will a decision will be taken - perhaps in August?

I would not be able to comment, obviously it is 
closer to December. August is my birthday all 
right, but there is no link.

Would you consider stepping as COAS but retaining 
your military links by making yourself a Field 
Marshal like Ayub Khan?

I have no intention of assuming the office of 
Field-Marshal. It would not have a good impact at 
all. I do not want to promote myself.

What achievements are you most proud of in the 
four/five year period since you took power?

Economic revival, of course. Setting the economy 
- bringing health to the economy, that is the 
biggest achievement. - all the macro economic 
indicators, that is an achievement.

Secondly, I would like to comment on the local 
government - that is the greatest achievement I 
would like to convey to the Commonwealth, if they 
are talking about real democracy, which was not 
existing here. We were living in a colonial 
period where the people were governed by a Deputy 
Commissioner, one man, a bureaucrat, who used to 
be king in his district. We have broken that and 
made the people govern themselves. Now the DCO 
comes under the people's representative who is 
the Mayor or Nazem. Now this is our greatest 
achievement - introducing democracy at the grass 
roots level and empowering the people 
politically, administratively, financially.

This is the real development, the real future of 
Pakistan. There are also many other issues, 
emancipation of women...

Do you feel that Pakistan will be suspended again 
from the Commonwealth if you don't step down as 
COAS?

It's a pity if they do that. I don't accept any 
conditionality. Pakistan does not accept any 
conditionality. Pakistan should not be taken for 
granted. It is a pity and very saddening very 
annoying, when I see my country being taken for 
granted and conditions laid on it. This is just 
not on.

We will take our decisions in accordance with 
Pakistan's dictates and not according to the 
Commonwealth's dictates. If they can't understand 
what democracy is really in its holistic form, 
then they should leave Pakistan alone on deciding 
on what is the best form of democracy for us, and 
they should not base our inclusion into the 
Commonwealth on any future actions of mine.

How successful have you been in eradicating 
corruption, as you pledged four years ago?

Corruption has been checked in a very big way at 
the top level. The corruption of billions, the 
loot and plunder of banks, all banks were 
bankrupt, all our organisations, our 
corporations, PIA, steel mills were bankrupt 
because of the loot and plunder from the top. 
That has been stopped. That is our biggest 
achivement.

At a practical level, the lower level corruption 
continues and that has a lot to do with many 
issues, it certainly has a mindset, an attitude 
and a social problem. And the government 
structure, maybe the salaries are defective. It 
is a complex issue which leads to corruption at 
the lower level which we need to tackle. We have 
identified that the basis of corruption at a 
lower level is when a person's salary is not in 
consonance with what he needs and not sufficient 
to give him security for him and his family and 
his future retired life.

We have to make sure that the salary structure 
ensures these things. This is the root of the 
elimination of poverty and corruption at the 
lower level. At a higher level, where there is no 
reason for the person to be corrupt because they 
already have sufficient resources, punitive 
measures, very harsh actions are the only action 
because they don't deserve any sympathy.

Are you satisfied with your relationship with the 
United States? By your critics you have been 
called a puppet of the West.

We are very satisfied with our relationship with 
the United States. There is concern domestically 
with people thinking that we have become the 
puppet of the United States. That is not true at 
all. People who do understand do realise that.

Some politicians keep harping on this issue 
because they want to put me down on any issue 
which can be controversial. So we have got this 
issue of my being dictated by the United States, 
but we don't get dictated to by anyone. There are 
many areas where we have followed a different 
line from the United States (for example on 
nuclear issues, Iraq, the issue of handling 
terrorism in Pakistan, of handling al Qa'eda in 
tribal territory ).

We are following what we want, we are handling 
these issues in the interest of Pakistan; if our 
interests in this issue of handling terrorism is 
the same as US interests, then that is perfectly 
fine, and that is the case, what is in Pakistan's 
interest happens to be in US interest also, then 
we are acting in perfect cooperation and 
coordination.

Did the US want a more direct presence in tribal territory?

Initally they did. They thought we might not be 
able to handle. But that could not be allowed and 
we did not allow it

What about reports of American aircraft overflying Pakistani territory?

Unnecessarily they make an issue of these minor 
issues. Whenever there is a violation which can 
be totally innocent without knowing where the 
boundary is, because not everyone knows where the 
boundary is.

These are not deliberate violations. They are 
unintentional. We launch our complaints and 
protests; they normally apologise and say they 
will not do it again. So let's not create a 
problem out of of a very minor issue.


_____


[2]


Dawn [Pakistan]
June 19, 2004

PLURALISM AND QAZI HUSSAIN

By Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

In summer 2001, while visiting the University of 
Maryland, I went to hear Qazi Husain Ahmad, Amir 
of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Pakistan lecture at the 
Brookings Institute in Washington DC. He spoke on 
Islam, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. What I heard 
both surprised and impressed me.
Much of what Qazi sahib said was more or less 
along the expected lines - Islam being 
misunderstood in the West, unfair US embargoes 
upon Pakistan after the nuclear tests, the 
unwarranted hostility towards the Taliban 
(although he disagreed with their rejection of 
education of girls), etc. But the rest was 
refreshingly new and remarkably enlightened.
In his opening remarks Qazi sahib praised the US 
for being a "pluralist" society where he could go 
to a mosque and freely proselytize, pointed 
proudly to his shalwar-kameez and declared he 
could dress as he pleased, and remarked that 
those of his family members who had migrated to 
the US felt quite at home.
I had never heard him speak publicly in English 
earlier, nor had I expected such a sound 
appreciation from him of "pluralism" (a word that 
he repeated at least twice).
In essence he had anticipated General Musharraf's 
celebrated "enlightened moderation" by three 
years. His acceptance of the fact that different 
groups within a society could accept a plurality 
of beliefs and philosophies, and still live in 
harmony, was welcomed by all. I left with a new 
respect for his values and skills, as did many 
others in the audience.
It therefore saddened me to read Qazi sahib's 
article in Dawn (June 10, 2004) wherein he 
espouses values that stand diametrically opposed 
to those he declared at Brookings.
This article apparently negates his former stand 
on pluralism and tolerance. Instead, he now 
adopts a menacing tone towards Ismailis, 
referring to them thrice as a "religious 
minority" without conceding that they are a 
Muslim sect.
He darkly hints that they may meet the fate of 
the Ahmadis in Pakistan, and claims that there 
are deep conspiracies to undermine Pakistan by 
attempting to change the school curriculum "by 
taking over the country's education boards".
It is important to put the record straight on the 
education issue, especially since this has become 
such an important issue recently. The fact is 
that none of Pakistan's 24 examination boards 
(referred to as "education boards" by Qazi sahib) 
is authorized to change the national curriculum.
The Aga Khan board, if and when it becomes fully 
functional, will also fall in the category of the 
other boards in this respect and will be required 
by law to teach only those materials approved by 
the government.
Thus Qazi sahib's claims are unsupportable. 
Indeed, by an act of parliament passed in the 
mid-1970s, only the Curriculum Wing of the 
Ministry of Education can prescribe what can be 
taught in Pakistan's schools. The spirit behind 
the legislation was to create a Pakistan that 
would stay together in spite of its religious, 
ethnic, and linguistic diversity.
What happened, tragically, was very different. 
Under General Ziaul Haq, with full support from 
Islamic parties, ideologically charged 
individuals hijacked the Curriculum Wing.
Over the years, they steadily converted Pakistani 
schools into zealot factories. Children were 
taught that heinous conspiracies explain the 
plight of Islam and Pakistan today, told to hate 
Hindus and non-Muslims, and have the desperation 
of the besieged.
The curriculum required students to "collect 
pictures of policemen, soldiers, and National 
Guards", explained to them that the exercise of 
democracy was why East Pakistan had separated 
from West Pakistan, and gave them the notion that 
the "Ideology of Pakistan" stood for zero 
tolerance of dissent and diversity.
In contrast with the relatively open-minded 
education during Pakistan's earlier years, 
schools bred ignorance and violence. Militant 
jihad became part of the culture on college and 
university campuses.
Armed groups flourished, set up offices 
throughout the country, collected funds after 
Friday prayers, and declared a war without 
borders. Over time the Afghan-Soviet jihad 
metamorphosed into the Kashmir jihad, from there 
to the jihad of Sunnis against Shias and the 
jihad of Shias against Sunnis.
Ultimately the sponsors of jihad - the Pakistani 
state and the army - fell victim to their own 
success. The attempts on the lives of top army 
commanders, suicide bombers, the violence in the 
Northern Areas over the issue of curriculum, and 
the Wana debacle, eventually convinced at least 
some people in the establishment that the time 
for change has come.
To forestall that possibility, the MMA organized 
street rampages to ensure that General Zia's 
curriculum would not disappear. Feeling the heat, 
General Musharraf's minister of education, 
Zubaida Jalal, promptly declared herself a 
fundamentalist. Under pressure, the government 
has now withdrawn every little piece of 
moderation and good sense that had somehow crept 
into the curriculum.
Although the MMA leaders are free to declare this 
as a minor victory, and a demonstrative example 
of how street power can make a weak government 
bend, one still hopes that they will look at the 
broader interests of the country.
If Qazi sahib thinks that pluralism in the US is 
a good thing, then by extension it should also be 
a good thing for Pakistan. Teaching hatred and 
lies to the nation's children can only result in 
its future citizens being embittered, 
conspiracy-ridden, fearful, and traumatized.
Although I agree with Qazi sahib's point that 
educating Pakistan's children should be our 
responsibility rather than that of the West, he 
appears rather dismissive about Pakistan's 
educational backwardness and the need for 
modernization.
The only thing he appears to see is foreign 
donors frantically pumping money into the 
education sector for their "nefarious" ends. 
Whatever one may think of foreign aid, there can 
be little progress towards creating a modern 
Pakistan without a well-educated, scientifically 
literate, and technologically accomplished 
populace.
It is impossible to do science with a medieval 
mindset, impossible to create functioning 
institutions when torn by sectarian conflicts, 
and impossible to effectively participate in 
today's globalized knowledge-based economy and 
culture.
Not surprisingly, democracy steadfastly refuses 
to grow roots in Pakistan. The distance between 
India and Pakistan - already huge - threatens to 
grow even more. Finally, I cannot see why Qazi 
sahib chose to bring US foreign policy and Abu 
Ghraib into his article.
This is not even a matter of debate - every 
person in Pakistan is deeply critical of American 
aggression in Iraq and Palestine. For that 
matter, the majority of people on this planet 
loathe George Bush's mad imperialism. But this 
does not mean that they want to opt for religious 
tyrannies. Indeed, the people of India booted out 
the BJP precisely for this reason.
If Qazi sahib wishes for a prosperous and 
peaceful Pakistan - a country to which one's 
relatives might wish to immigrate into rather 
than emigrate out of - then he, better than 
anyone else, knows that pluralism and 
multiculturalism has to be the way.
The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University in 
Islamabad and is the editor of "Education And The 
State - Fifty Years of Pakistan", published by 
Oxford University Press in 1997.


_____



[3]

The Daily Times
June 20, 2004

Pak-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy: No to guns, yes to roses

Staff Report
LAHORE: Indian and Pakistani peace activists have 
demanded both governments promote friendship.
The Asr Resource Centre arranged a reception in 
honour of the six-member Indian delegation of the 
Pak-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy 
(PIPFPD) on Saturday. Tapan Bose, a peace 
activist, said, "PIPFPD is striving for the 
promotion of friendship between the two 
countries." He said the forum would have to work 
for the new generation. He said both countries 
were spending their finances on defence but not 
on health, the education and other social sectors.
"People have been kept in the dark by their 
rulers," Mr Bose said. "Please, don't have the 
misconception that army generals from both sides 
want peace." Peace was a plural process, he 
added. Anees Haroon said the Pakistanis had 
nothing but flowers for Indians. "Let us enhance 
political, economic, trade and friendship 
circles," she said, adding the forum would hold a 
peace march in Lahore on September 4. "A 
candle-light ceremony at the border will be held 
on the independence days of both countries," she 
said. Similar celebrations would be held on the 
Sindh-Rajhistan border. Syed Mazher Hussain, Amit 
Kumar Chakraborty, Sumit Chakravartty, Jatin 
Desai, Pushpa Anant Bhave, Nighat Said Khan, 
Kishwar Naheed and people from Azad Jammu and 
Kashmir also addressed the meeting. The meetings 
of the PIPFPD joint committees on Kashmir and 
minorities would be held today.

o o o

The Daily Times
June 19, 2004

Pak-India Peoples' Forum for Peace and Democracy: 
Activists, journalists walk across Wagah

* Pakistan-India peace march on PIPFPD's 10th anniversary in Sept
By Waqar Gillani
LAHORE: Indian human rights' activists and 
journalists from the Pak-India Peoples' Forum for 
Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) who crossed the 
Wagah border on Friday at noon said Pak-India 
relations would be strengthened with increased 
public involvement and people-to-people contact.
The five-member delegation from PIPFPD reached 
Lahore after crossing the Wagah border on foot. 
Dr Mubashir Hasan, Saida Deap, Kamran Islam, 
Idrees Sheikh, ASR Resource Centre people and a 
number of PIPFPD activists received the 
delegation at the Wagah border.
The head of the delegation, noted human rights 
activist, Tapan Bose, has already arrived in 
Pakistan. The delegates who arrived on Friday are 
Syed Mazher Hussain, Amit Kumar Chakraborty, 
Sumit Chakravartty, Jatin Desai, and Pushpa Anant 
Bhave. Two delegates are expected Saturday 
morning. The meetings will be held at Asr 
Resource Centre, where the delegates are also 
residing.
The delegation is scheduled to attend the 
meetings of the PIPFPD joint committees on 
Kashmir, minority rights, a proposed peace march 
from Karachi to Delhi and a peace convention.
The delegates told Daily Times that they hoped 
Pak-India relations would improve even more in 
the new Congress regime.
"Manmohan Singh is not political in that sense. 
The atmosphere might be more conducive for peace 
under the Congress regime," Ms Bhave said. "We 
have been striving for peace for the last 10 
years on the PIPFPD platform."
Ms Bhave said Kashmir was the major bone of 
contention on which both sides would have to 
change their attitudes. She also said Kashmir 
should not be made a target of external powers 
like America.
"We must be especially cautious of America's plan 
to split Kashmir because of its strategic 
importance," she said. "Also, we should not let a 
religious division take place. Kashmiris must 
come ahead to decide what must be done."
Journalist and editor of weekly newspaper 
Mainstream, Mr Chakravartty said the change in 
the Indian government was qualitatively a 
different situation. He said Congress and Sonia 
Gandhi had taken positive stands on peace process 
and that the Indian Foreign Minister, Natwar 
Singh, in a recent meeting with Mr Chakravartty 
had been very honest about the peace process. "We 
have to settle everything including Kashmir," 
said Mr Chakravartty, quoting the foreign 
minister.
Mr Chakravartty appreciated President Musharraf's 
stance and the invitation extended to Sonia 
Gandhi for a meeting in December. He said another 
positive development was the strength that the 
left wing parties had acquired in this Indian 
election.
Mr Desai, another senior journalist and human 
rights activist, hoped that the upcoming meetings 
of the Pakistani and Indian foreign ministers 
would strengthen the peace process. "Relations 
are bound to improve with the support of the 
people and their aspiration for peace," he said. 
He mentioned that the ruling United Progressive 
Alliance (UPA) in India had displayed cordial 
relations with its neighbours in the Common 
Minimum Programme (CMP), specifically with SAARC 
countries, which included Pakistan.
"Kashmir is a sentimental issue for both sides," 
Mr Desai said. "Importance should be given to the 
Kashmiris and their involvement in the process."
Another delegate and HR activist, Mr Hussain, 
however, expressed that the regime change in 
India would retard the peace process to some 
extent since the governments would take time to 
get comfortable with each other.
"The new government will not undermine the peace 
process but can definitively delay it," he said. 
Mr Hussain said the aim of the meetings in 
Pakistan was to enhance people-to-people contact.
"There has to be decision making on the part of 
political leadership," said senior office bearer 
of the PIPFPD, Mr Chakraborty, who was also 
doubtful of the expected progress in peace 
relations. He said the governments would have to 
be forced into better relations by the public.
Dr Mubashir Hasan also from the PIPFPD told Daily 
Times that the forum representatives would 
discuss the Kashmir issue, minorities and gender 
issues.
"A proposal for a convention and a Pakistan-India 
peace march on PIPFPD's 10th anniversary in 
September 2004 will also be discussed," said Dr 
Hasan. He said different meetings had been 
arranged to develop the programme.
Talking about peace relations and the new 
Congress regime, he said Pakistan-India peace was 
a vital issue for the Pakistani and Indian 
governments and new governments could not 
undermine major foreign policies of a country
The Asr Resource Centre is hosting a dinner in 
the honour of the delegation on Saturday night.



____


[4]

The Daily Star [Bangladesh]
June 20, 2004

AN INTERVIEW WITH NAEEM MOHAIEMEN
'In Rangpur, they kidnapped and tortured 15 
Ahmadiyyas, forcing them to do tawba and renounce 
Ahmadiyya Islam. What kind of Islam is this?'
Naeem Mohaiemen is the New York-based director of 
Muslims or Heretics? a documentary about the 
persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims. He previously 
co-produced Rumble in Mumbai, a documentary about 
globalization. Muslims or Heretics? screened for 
five weeks at different venues in Bangladesh and 
is presently screening at festivals in the US. 
The Daily Star's Zafar Sobhan recently caught up 
with Mr. Mohaiemen to ask him a few questions 
about the Ahmadiyya issue.


DS: What was your main intention with the film? What do you hope to accomplish?

NM: The main intention is to build up public 
opinion in Bangladesh against the government's 
ban on Ahmadiyya books. Our government must come 
to its senses and lift the ban. The government 
claims they imposed a ban for the sake of "law 
and order." Well, law and order has not been 
restored by this ban. The anti-Ahmadiyya group 
Khatme Nabuwot has actually increased its 
campaign since the ban. Now they have given a 
June 30 deadline of declaring Ahmadiyyas 
non-Muslim. They have also started calling 
themselves the "International Khatme Nabuwot" 
which makes you wonder who is funding them.

Khatme Nabuwot now has an executive committee 
with 33 members, which had pledged to go from 
village to village in Bangladesh until all 91 
Ahmadiyya mosques are "liberated." In Rangpur, 
they kidnapped and tortured 15 Ahmadiyyas, 
forcing them to do tawba and renounce Ahmadiyya 
Islam. What kind of Islam is this? Did the 
Prophet Mohammed (SM) teach us to torture in the 
name of Islam? Khatme Nabuwot is perverting the 
meaning of Islam and giving a black eye to all 
Muslims. The government cannot be a passive 
spectator. They must step in and arrest the 
zealots of Khatme Nabuwot. And they need to take 
quick action to remove the ban.

DS: What sort of responses did you get at the 
screenings? Were audience members urging 
government action in this matter?

NM: One journalist made an excellent point at a 
screening at the Goethe Institute. He said, "Any 
time there is any sort of communal trouble, our 
liberal Muslim neighbors come forward and say, 
'We will protect you.' But why should people need 
to protect people? That is the state's role. Only 
if the state mechanism is broken does this sort 
of 'people protecting people' need to happen." I 
agree with that sentiment. The state needs to 
play a positive role in safeguarding minorities. 
And the state has done that at times. When some 
major riots happened in India, the Bangladesh 
government played a positive role in making sure 
retaliation riots didn't happen here. But the 
state has failed in the case of Ahmadiyyas and 
given in to the extremists.

When the police and local administration takes 
take affirmative steps, such as in Barisal and 
Patuakhali recently, they have successfully 
stopped persecution of Ahmadiyyas. But for the 
most part, the government has not taken any steps 
to prevent attacks against Ahmadiyyas, and 
certainly they have not reversed the book ban. 
The problem is, this coalition government is 
beholden to both the Jamaat and the Islami Oikko 
Jote. The religious parties have cunningly 
decided that this is the issue they want to push. 
There are always political points to be scored by 
beating up on a minority. In Rangpur, for 
instance, the persecution has taken place in a 
constituency which is at present controlled by 
the Jatiya Party and has been targeted by the 
four-party alliance in the next election. The 
anti-Ahmadiyya campaign is their first shot at 
establishing a presence there with the ultimate 
goal of taking the seat.

DS: Recently [US Assistant Secretary of State for 
South Asia] Christine Rocca visited Dhaka, and 
expressed concerns about the ban on Ahmadiyya 
books. What are your feelings about this sort of 
visit, especially since you live in the US?

NM: It actually infuriates me that the government 
will respond to US officials when they complain 
about this issue, yet we Bangladeshi activists 
have been protesting about this for over six 
months. The government doesn't feel any need to 
respond to domestic human rights activists. ASK 
and three other organizations filed a "Demand Of 
Justice" notice the day after the ban, but the 
government has yet to respond to that petition. 
Ultimately, Bangladesh's problems have to be 
solved by us. You can't solve these problems 
through external pressure. Even if external 
pressure causes something to happen, it is a 
temporary fix. We have to build up the 
infrastructure and support for human rights and 
tolerance from inside Bangladesh. Also, I don't 
want my work co-opted by those who would divide 
the world into "us and them." I am fighting 
religious extremists, but I don't consider Bush's 
"Pax Americana" project to be my ally.

DS: How does the Ahmadiyya issue intersect with 
your other work as a political activist?

NM: In the context of the US role in today's 
world, I am always interested in making linkages 
and parallels with other global situations. One 
of the things I have talked about at these film 
screenings is my own experience working with 
people like Blue Triangle and Not In Our Name in 
the US. These groups work to protect the civil 
rights of Muslim immigrants. In fact, Muslims are 
victims of the same racial profiling that 
tormented black Americans for decades. Now, in 
the post 9/11 hysteria, Muslims have become the 
new disenfranchised minority in America and 
Europe. Yet, in our own country where we Muslims 
are the majority, we do not hesitate to 
disenfranchise our own minorities. So, global 
activists cannot condemn only oppression against 
Muslim minorities in America. We have to speak 
out against oppression being carried out by our 
fellow Muslims. Otherwise it's a double standard.

DS: Any theories as to religious political 
parties and their sources of strength?

NM: One disturbing trend is that a lot of people 
in Bangladesh think the religious parties are the 
only ones resisting neo-imperialism. Therefore, 
they tolerate and quietly support the religious 
parties. I keep hearing how the mosques and 
religious parties in Dhaka brought out large 
rallies against the Iraq war. In fact, this is 
the failure of the Bangladesh left. Why couldn't 
they bring out massive rallies against the Iraq 
war? Kolkata had a very strong anti-war movement. 
They even mobilised a very successful boycott of 
American products. But the Kolkata left organized 
this, not the religious parties.

In fact, there are many ways to resist 
imperialism. In America, some of the strongest 
voices against the war have been families of GIs, 
Vietnam vets, labor unions, artists, musicians 
and black and Latino groups. So I have found 
other allies in the fight against imperialism, I 
don't feel any need to cozy up to the religious 
parties.

Zafar Sobhan is an Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.


_____


[5]

The Hindustan Times
June 19, 2004

THE GOVERNMENT MUST SPEEDILY IMPLEMENT THE CMP TO MAKE ITS EMANCIPATORY MARK -
REAP THE HARVEST

BY Praful Bidwai

If markets were everything, flesh-and-blood 
people wouldn't matter. Politics, even social 
life, would become meaningless. This applies a 
fortiori to India's share markets, in which less 
than two percent of our households invest, 
accounting for just four percent of our savings. 
Dalal Street is only distantly related to the 
real economy, and even more remotely to the 
social processes that shape it.

The United Progressive Alliance would do well to 
remember this as it strains to soothe the 
part-rigged, part-speculation-led volatility in 
the markets. More importantly, it must know its 
mandate is to move India from "market-driven 
politics" (the title of Colin Leys' excellent 
book) to politics as if people mattered. Besides 
a resounding rejection of Hindutva, that is the 
cardinal message of the electoral verdict. (See 
Platform, May 28).

Forging a people-oriented politics against the 
forces of neoliberal globalisation, while tapping 
energies from diverse sources, including the 
market, is an exciting project. The UPA's Common 
Minimum Programme encapsulates this in many ways, 
although it falls short of defining its 
inspiration as an emancipatory Social Democratic 
Vision. Yet, that's precisely what the "six 
principles for governance" spell, including 
social harmony, empowerment of the 
underprivileged, a "safe and viable livelihood" 
for all, equality of opportunity, especially for 
women, Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs and religious 
minorities. The CMP marks a considerable 
improvement even on the United Front's 1996 
common programme.

If successfully implemented, the CMP will ensure 
the UPA's survival for the full term. More 
important, it will inflict a decisive defeat upon 
retrograde forces of communalism and social 
conservatism. The first 100 days of the UPA's 
rule will set the tone for this transformation 
and its imprint upon society and politics. Three 
areas of the CMP are of critical importance: 
economic measures, social policy, and an 
independent foreign policy orientation. The UP 
must deliver something tangible in the coming 
weeks, not months. What is the very minimum the 
government must do?

The greatest economic promise lies in the pledge 
of Employment Guarantee Act to provide "100 days 
of employment Š on asset-creating public works 
programmes every year Š for at least one 
able-bodied person in every rural, urban poor and 
lower-middle class household"-and "in the 
interim, a massive food-for-work programme". The 
rationale is frankly Keynesian.

No less important is the commitment to 
significantly step up public investment in 
agriculture, rural infrastructure and irrigation, 
and double the flow of rural credit in the next 
three years, with an emphasis on small and 
marginal farmers. This must be front-loaded, 
through the writing off of burdensome loans, and 
pumping-in of massive credit for the coming 
kharif season. The enactment of a National 
Minimum Wage Act for agricultural workers-our 
most underprivileged people-is vital.
Two measures are of key value: correcting fiscal 
imbalances and reducing regional disparities. The 
first involves eliminating the revenue deficit, 
now over 3 percent of GDP, and pruning subsidies 
for the affluent. (The CMP promises a "roadmap" 
within 90 days.) The second is imperative for 
balanced development through stepped-up public 
investment in backward areas, enforcing priority 
bank lending (now well below stipulated norms), 
enhancing minerals royalties, reducing interest 
on loans, and transfer of Centrally-sponsored 
schemes to the states.

These programmes can be financed-if the UPA 
raises direct taxes. These currently account for 
an abysmal 3.5 percent of GDP, utterly 
unacceptable in our mass-deprivation society. Our 
rich have to contribute more than a miserable 1.6 
percent of GDP through income-taxation.

Social policy presents a challenging agenda in 
health, education, culture, food security, 
panchayati raj, welfare of women and children and 
Dalits and Adivasis. The CMP's commitment to 
raising public spending in health from the 
current 0.85 percent to "at least 2-3 percent" of 
GDP is long-overdue. It will prevent India's 
further slippage into a cesspool of disease, 
stunted growth (of half of our children) and 
waste of human life. It must be implemented at 
the earliest. The government must not hesitate 
about widening control of essential drug 
prices-no matter what the "markets" say.

The UPA must ruthlessly cleanse all educational 
and research institutions of "obscurantist and 
fundamentalist elements". This means detoxifying 
communalised textbooks and getting them rewritten 
by unbiased and thoughtful scholars, dissolving 
the existing Councils of Social Science and 
Historical Research and reforming the UGC, whose 
numerous committees has been saffronised. The 
government must not allow itself to be deterred 
by semi-literate ranting about "witchhunts". The 
real culprits are those who subvert a pluralist 
and multicultural vision of India and introduce 
outrageous courses in astrology and karmakand. It 
is equally vital to revive the National Literacy 
Mission. 

In culture, a complete overhaul of the Akademis, 
the museums, the Archaeological and 
Anthropological Survey and the IGNCA is 
imperative. The existing bodies must be dissolved 
forthwith and incompetent and communal elements 
systematically weeded out. Any delay in this and 
in purging Doordarshan and AIR of bigotry will 
cost us dear. There's no other way to halt and 
reverse Hindutva's Long March through the 
institutions. No less important is legislation to 
ban Togadia-style hate-speech and punish 
hate-acts.

Ayodhya presents a big opportunity. The 
chargesheets in the litigation must be rectified 
to reinstate the conspiracy charge-what else 
caused the Babri demolition, prepared over long 
years by BJP-VHP leaders? A bold effort must 
simultaneously be made to negotiate a just 
temple-plus-mosque solution. This must happen 
within the coming 60 days. Nothing else will take 
the wind out of the communalists' sails. The UPA 
would be ill-advised to wait for a judicial 
verdict.

Repeal of POTA with retrospective effect brooks 
no delay. The UPA has rightly refused to treat 
Naxalite violence as "merely a law-and-order 
problem", it's "a far deeper socio-economic 
issue". This must be translated into practice. As 
also the pledge that "false encounters" will not 
be permitted.
The test of independence of foreign policy is 
already upon us-with the installation of Iraq's 
Interim government. This is a puppet regime which 
cannot conceivably enjoy "sovereignty" while the 
military occupation continues, when it cannot 
change any laws or policies of the occupation 
regime and has no control over the US-led forces. 
It is of the utmost importance that India does 
not recognise this government or send troops to 
Iraq-irrespective of manipulated UN resolutions.

The UPA has rightly reiterated its commitment to 
Palestinian nationhood-in sharp contrast to the 
NDA's blatantly pro-Zionist policy. But it must 
do more to help the Palestinians in their 
grimmest hour since 1967. Today, the threat of 
their national territory being broken up into 
countless Bantustans looms large. The UPA must 
reverse the NDA's attempt to construct an 
exclusive strategic triad with Israel and the US, 
re-examine weapons-purchase agreements, and cease 
intelligence-sharing, joint military exercises 
and counter-insurgency "cooperation".

It's only thus that the UPA can actualise its 
pledge "to promote multi-polarity in world 
relations and oppose Š unilateralism", while 
putting relations with Washington on an even 
keel. Sustaining the India-Pakistan 
dialogue-for-peace process is a major imperative 
today. Equally important is reducing the grave 
regional nuclear danger through risk-reduction 
measures, most importantly, non-deployment of 
nuclear weapons. The first step in India's 
re-assuming its advocacy of global nuclear 
disarmament is to withdraw support to the US's 
Ballistic Missile Defence programme and reject 
its offers of cooperation.

The UPA has a historic opportunity on its 
hands-to transform domestic politics and India's 
global role. It must not squander it through 
indecision or pusillanimity.


_____


[6]

The Hindu [India]
June 19, 2004
Editorial


URL: www.hindu.com/2004/06/19/stories/2004061901471000.htm

REDUCE NUCLEAR RISK WITH PAKISTAN

THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of India and Pakistan have made the region
a much more dangerous place is in the nature of an axiom that only advocates
of the discredited doctrine of deterrence will bother to contest. Nuclear
weapons are weapons of mass destruction, instruments of genocide. In India,
democratic opinion has always regarded such weapons with horror. However,
subsequent to the Pokhran and Chagai explosions of mid-1998, there has been
a concerted effort by the so-called strategic affairs community and by
influential sections of the political establishment to legitimise, even
glorify, nuclear weapons as acceptable means of achieving regional and
global power. The sophisms of deterrence theory and false claims made to the
effect that nuclear bombs are political weapons meant not for use but for
self-defence and national empowerment have been recruited to the job of
inuring public opinion to the real implications of producing, stockpiling,
inducting and deploying these weapons of mass destruction. Until Pokhran-II,
official Indian policy ranged itself firmly against the doctrine of nuclear
deterrence. That position was subverted by a bizarre South Asian variant: a
`minimum credible nuclear deterrent' not backed by any coherent doctrinal
elaboration. An extraordinarily hawkish nuclear doctrine was drafted only to
be left on hold; nobody knows what India's nuclear doctrine amounts to in
practice. A fallout from Pokhran was that India's voice was virtually
silenced on issues of global nuclear disarmament. Indeed its establishment
became a late convert to the discriminatory global nuclear bargain, going so
far as to welcome the National Missile Defence and Theatre Missile Defence
proposals of the United States. There was also dubious posturing: India's
nuclear weapons, it was claimed against the evidence, were not
Pakistan-centric.

The new Congress-led Government in New Delhi is yet to indicate its nuclear
doctrine. However, the Common Minimum Programme adopted by the United
Progressive Alliance promises that while "maintaining a credible nuclear
weapons programme," the Government will evolve "demonstrable and verifiable
confidence-building measures with its nuclear neighbours" and, on the
international stage, "assume a leadership role in promoting universal
nuclear disarmament and working for a nuclear weapons-free world." Against
this background, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh's informal advocacy
of a "common nuclear doctrine" to be worked out among India, Pakistan and
China holds much appeal; so far as the first two neighbours are concerned,
it looks like an idea whose time may have come. The first ever official
meeting between Indian and Pakistani experts to discuss nuclear confidence
building measures, which opens in New Delhi today, provides an opportunity
to identify common ground and work on a practical agenda to reduce nuclear
risk in South Asia. In this connection, an article by M.V. Ramana and R.
Rajaraman, both physicists, published on the editorial page of The Hindu
(June 4, 2004) made two eminently sensible recommendations that "do not
compromise national security in any real sense." The first is that the
Indian Government should offer not to deploy nuclear weapons. The second is
that it should stop installing early warning systems that clearly, in the
specific South Asian context where the response time is dangerously short,
increase the risk of accidental or unauthorised nuclear war. These two
positive elements could constitute the basis of a common nuclear doctrine
with Pakistan - and prove far more credible, as confidence building
measures, than repetitions of the `no-first-use' mantra that has virtually
no practical value. But a red herring must be got out of the way: the quest
for some kind of nuclear parity with China, which is in a different league
and poses no strategic threat of any kind - any more than nuclear weapons in
the hands of the United States, the United Kingdom, France or Russia
threaten India.


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

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on 
matters of peace and democratisation in South 
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit 
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South 
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
The complete SACW archive is available at: 
bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

South Asia Counter Information Project a sister 
initiative, provides a partial back -up and 
archive for SACW:  snipurl.com/sacip
See also associated site: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--