[sacw] SACW #1 | 10 Feb. 02

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #1 | 10 February 2002

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

#1. Afghanistan is likely to be yet another area where the Indian and
Pakistani diplomats will compete and are sure to succeed in creating more
bad blood. (MB Naqvi)
#2. Pakistan/ India: A region in flux (Irfan Husain)
#2. India: Pakistan: "War and Peace" documentary film by Anand 
Patwardhan wins award
#3. Kashmir: Dialogue of pain (Kalpana Sharma)

________________________

#1.

Letter from Pakistan

M.B. Naqvi

Karachi Feb 9:

Pakistan's Afghan policy was hardly ever a part of its normal foreign
policy. Long before the days of Gen. Ziaul Haq and the recent regimes, it
was an arena of cold war between India and Pakistan and various political
games were played by those who thought that national security was their
exclusive concern. That translated into Pakistan Army's high command acting
through mostly intelligence agencies and Frontier's Political Department.
The nominal civilian governments really had very little scope to do
anything constructive or different.

A new chapter is said to be beginning after America's new War on Terrorism
which so far has been a war on the Taliban regime of Afghanistan which by
extension has more or less destroyed Pakistan's influence from the country.
During the Taliban regime, at least for the rest of the world believed that
here was a country where Pakistanis were thought to be the movers and
shakers of things. The regime was perceived to be beholden to Pakistan and
it was supposedly under Islamabad's influence. It did turn out that there
were limits to Pakistan's ability to manipulate things in Afghanistan and
that Taliban did enjoy a certain amount of its autonomy that they jealously
guarded. At any rate, whatever degree of friendly cooperation that existed
between Pakistan and the Afghan government that actually governed is now
only a memory.

Today nobody counts in Afghanistan except the US, although there are
soldiers of many countries that want to be counted. Their position is not
so much better than that of Pakistan --- and that includes India, although
the Americans look benignly on the rapidly-growing relations between New
Delhi and the new rulers of Kabul --- if only the latter can make their
writ run in their country. Doubtless, there are historical reasons for the
revival of Indo-Afghan relations that, prior to 1980s, were excellent. But
in the current phase these relations depend ultimately on the goodwill of
the Americans themselves.

At one stage India was the third largest donor to Afghanistan. When the US
more or less withdrew from the Afghan scene in the 1960s, India became
number two, after Soviet Union. But in the 1980s, thanks to the Americans,
Pakistanis were eagerly awaiting the collapse of pro-Soviet regime. That
date formally came in April 1992, though a detailed Pakistani influence on
the ground had already established itself in the last few years of 1980s.
In recent months there is a sea change for the fledgeling Kabul regime:
Pakistanis are out and Indians are in. But there are certain demands of
geography.

Mr. Hamid Karzai, the Chairman of the new interim regime that is still a
political, was in Islamabad on Friday (Feb 8). Effusive words about
'burying the hatchet' were bandied by President Pervez Musharraf and Mr.
Karzai in their joint press conference. Both sides pledged to forget the
short interlude of misunderstandings. There were mutual assurances of
future cooperation, including in the reconstruction field. Doubtless
history, geography and demography cannot be ignored and a certain amount of
cooperative relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have necessarily to
be maintained because of the thousand and one overlaps of culture and
indeed concrete Pushtoon-speaking tribes that straddle the frontier between
the two countries.

Pukhtoon belts exist in Afghanistan, NWFP and Baluchistan all the people in
which regard themselves as one people with one language, culture and race.
But that runs smack into other facts of political geography. Pakistani
state boundaries divide the Pushtoons between Pakistanis and Afghans.
Between them stands the Durand Line that is over a Century old. That used
to rankle in the hearts of Pushtoons on both sides and the earlier Afghan
governments, prior to 1980s, used to have a certain stance: they were
theoretically committed to establishing a Pukhtoonistan the definition of
which differed from time to time from a wholly independent sovereign state
to all the Afghan areas of Pakistan joining Afghanistan, to renaming the
NWFP and Pushtoon parts of Baluchistan as Pukhtoonkhawa or Pukhtoonistan.
There is likely to be a revival of this demand. So think some observers.

That would, once again, give an advantage to India, which can quickly begin
supporting that old demand. In the meantime, from 1980s onward, the Durand
Line has become virtually non-existent. Pakistan has now a task in
re-establishing it. Its Political Department in NWFP and Baluchistan has,
whether as a thought-out-policy of Islamabad or on its own local
initiative, started building a Durand Wall in Torkham near Peshawar and
they are said to be building, or have built, 3000 meters of it. This is in
part an ominous political symptom or snare; much travail might result. At
any rate, Afghanistan is likely to be yet another area where the Indian and
Pakistani diplomats will compete and are sure to succeed in creating more
bad blood.

______

#2.

Dawn
09 February 2002

A region in flux
By Irfan Husain

As the world changes around us and we try and reorient Pakistan's 
deeply divisive domestic policies, our foreign agenda remains largely 
unchanged. The president has shown fleeter footwork than our 
flatfooted foreign minister in dealing with the rapidly changing 
circumstances, opportunities and dangers.
In the early euphoric days of our return to our much missed role of 
frontline state, conventional wisdom had it that we would be able to 
leverage US support into pressuring India to return to the 
negotiating table and wrest some concessions from New Delhi over 
Kashmir. In those days, there was a line of thinking in Washington 
that showed some concern for tackling the root causes of terrorism in 
Palestine and Kashmir, among other hotspots.
But when the Taliban collapsed 'not with a bang but with a whimper' 
and the streets of the Muslim world failed to erupt, the hawks in the 
American administration stood vindicated and felt free to pursue a 
much more aggressive 'anti-terror' policy.
India perceived this change early and took full advantage of the 
attack on its parliament in December, holding Pakistan directly 
responsible, and deploying its forces on our border. Since then, 
Pakistan has been reduced to a defensive, reactive stance, fending 
off pressure from every quarter. Even Musharraf's "historic speech" 
announcing a complete turnabout in our Kashmir policy as well as an 
end to the jihadi culture fostered over the years by the ISI failed 
to elicit any reduction in the pressure.
Currently, the sticking point with New Delhi is the demand to hand 
over alleged criminals, 15 of whom are Indian. Our foreign minister 
first made the counterclaim that the Pakistan government has a list 
of its own of Indian terrorists we want extradited. When he was asked 
by New Delhi to produce the list, he backed off. Then the government 
dug up some 55-year old charge against Advani, India's hawkish home 
minister. Next, Sattar announced in Berlin that one of the accused in 
the Daniel Pearl kidnapping case made calls to three "highly placed 
Indian officials in New Delhi". Not surprisingly, the Indians asked 
for names and our foreign minister has again retreated.
This kind of flippancy makes it impossible for anybody to take him 
seriously. A sine qua non of diplomacy is a certain gravitas and a 
modicum of dignity. Mr Sattar has displayed neither of these 
qualities of late. Perhaps suddenly being elevated to international 
forums has caused oxygen starvation to set in. At a more serious 
level, we need to do some fundamental rethinking about the rapid 
changes taking place in our region, and thus far, there is little 
evidence to suggest that this is being done. One thing is clear and 
that is that Afghanistan is not going to be our backyard for the 
foreseeable future. No more pipe dreams of 'strategic depth'. If 
anything, the new government in Kabul has bad memories of our 
meddling in their affairs and prolonging their civil war. Their 
gratitude to us for helping them fight the Soviets has worn thin. As 
most of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan were Pakhtoon, their tribes 
often supported the Taliban who are now history, so very few brownie 
points to cash in here.
Thus while we have many fences to mend and a lot of atoning to do, 
there are no signs that this is currently on the foreign office 
agenda. Basking in the glow of being Washington's blue-eyed boys is 
all very well, but Afghanistan is right next door while American 
interest in Pakistan is transient. We need to quickly develop a 
healthy relationship of equals with Kabul based on respect and shared 
values.
In the Central Asian republics, the politics of oil and gas are 
taking on a tempo of its own. The American military presence in the 
region is causing growing concern in Moscow and Beijing. There are 
dangers and opportunities in the situation, but again, there is 
little to suggest that these issues are being debated in Islamabad.
The recent visit of the Chinese prime minister to India with a large 
delegation shows once again that nothing is static in international 
relations. Now that China has become a member of the WTO, it is 
seeking business opportunities in the region. As it builds up its 
economic and technological base, the last thing it wants is a 
confrontation on its south-western borders that could conceivably 
drag it in. The Chinese leadership has been quietly and publicly 
urging Pakistan to sort out the Kashmir issue with India bilaterally.
When Mr Sattar asks all and sundry to mediate the Kashmir problem, he 
forgets that unless both parties to a dispute are willing to call in 
a mediator, it just won't work. And as India has consistently refused 
to even consider a third-party role, what is the point of harping on 
it? The truth of the matter is that leaders in both countries have to 
be mature enough to untangle the Kashmir mess so that the rest of us 
can get on with life.
In a recent opinion poll commissioned by the monthly Herald, when 
people were asked what they considered their most pressing problem, 
31% said it was unemployment; for 21% it was the fear of an 
Indo-Pakistan war; 15% thought inflation; and a mere 4% felt it was 
the Kashmir issue. So much for 'Kashmir being in our blood'.
According to one estimate, Pakistan subsidizes Azad Kashmir to the 
extent of four billion rupees. Add to this the further billions that 
we spend on our perpetual confrontation with India and you get an 
idea about the wastefulness of this senseless conflict. Both sides 
have been chanting their respective mantras on both sides of the 
border; far too often, they exchange artillery shells and bullets. 
Countless lives have been lost and destinies blighted. Surely it is 
high time we shed this albatross and moved on.

______

#3.

The Documentary film "War and Peace" [Jung aur Aman ] made by Anand 
Patwardhan just won the "best film" of the Mumbai International Film 
Festival (MIFF) award.

7th Mumbai International Film Festival
for Documentary, Short & Animation Films
3-9 February, 2002
http://www.miff-india.com/

[Last week it won the grand prize at the Earth Vision Global 
Environmental Film Festival in Tokyo, Japan, 31st Jan to 1st Feb 2002
http://www.webfront.ne.jp/~earth-vision/top-e.htm ]

______

#4.

The Hindu / Magazine
Sunday, Feb 10, 2002

Dialogue of pain

KALPANA SHARMA

Women in Kashmir ... the need to heal.

THAT dreaded "K" word kept popping up all over New Delhi last week. 
Not in security-related meetings. But in conclaves of women, where 
there were no barriers between the personal and the political. As a 
result, they focussed on the human dimension of conflict, something 
that is so easily and conveniently overlooked by policy-makers, 
think-tank-wallahs, and the media.

Thus, last week in a distant suburb of the national capital, a group 
of women sat together and pondered over the problems of their home 
state, Kashmir. They were Muslim women, who lived in the valley, and 
Hindu women, the majority of whom had once lived in the valley. Most 
of them had never met each other before. Some of the younger women 
from the valley had never listened directly to Kashmiri Pandit women 
and their tales of how and why they left the valley.

The dialogue was not easy. It was full of pain. There was much that 
remained unspoken. But there was more that was said than would have 
been possible under normal circumstances. This is because the women 
wanted to talk about their pain, wanted to convey their different 
perspectives, wanted to strive for some kind of solution.

What was particularly fascinating in the brief encounter I had with 
these women was the gap between the younger and older women. For the 
young, the valley has been a different place for the last decade and 
more. There are not many Hindu families left. And all they know of 
the days that led to the exodus of Kashmiri Pandit families from 
Srinagar was what they were told by their elders.

For the first time, these young women heard older Kashmiri Pandit 
women, many of them respected professionals, narrate how they fled 
one night with just the clothes on their backs and a small suitcase, 
how their Muslim neighbours sheltered them and helped them and yet 
could not give them any assurance of a safe future if they chose not 
to leave. Most of these women have never been back to see what has 
happened to their homes.

Others, who have returned, even though they left the valley before 
the current problems set in, recall the emotion and sentiment with 
which they were greeted in their old neighbourhoods. But they also 
noted the reserve and coldness of the young, who saw them not as part 
of the fabric of Kashmir but as outsiders.

Such dialogues might seem immaterial when the issues are being 
determined by the politicians and armies of two countries. They might 
seem a needless attempt to open old wounds better forgotten. After 
all, the women who were forced to leave have found ways to cope with 
their loss in the last decade. Therefore, why remind them when there 
is no solution that seems imminent?

Yet, one can hope that such dialogues could be one small brick in the 
foundation on which the dream of a peaceful Kashmir could be built. 
For while politics remains central to finding a solution to the 
problems faced by the people of Kashmir, even if such a solution is 
found, there will still be a great deal of healing that will need to 
be done.

At another meeting in the capital, which is always abuzz at this time 
of the year with seminars and workshops on a dizzying array of 
subjects, the facts about the price of conflict on the lives of women 
was presented. In a paper prepared for a conference on widows, Dr. 
Hamida Nayeem told the story of the 20,000 widows in Kashmir. She 
reminded us, for instance, that while August 31, 1988 is considered a 
significant date marking the beginning of militancy in Kashmir, women 
had confronted the authorities earlier on issues such as erratic 
power supply and increased electricity rates.

She also recounted the hardships families faced when round-the-clock 
curfew was imposed. Many organisations were formed to help families 
meet the shortage of supplies. Some of these were linked to political 
groups and subsequently forced to close shop. Ironically, even a 
branch of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, which had begun disbursing 
funds to orphans, closed down. In contrast, local religious 
organisations, which had sufficient funds, gave just a pittance to 
only 60 of the thousands of widows in need.

This is the other reality in Kashmir, the minimal presence of civil 
society and non-governmental groups that can be the neutral conduit 
to ensure that people, and particularly destitute women, get their 
entitlements. It is an uphill struggle for most groups. Their sources 
of funding are closely scrutinised for political connections both by 
the state and the militants. In the process, many urgent needs of 
ordinary women and men are not being addressed.

Tragically, even funds without an obvious political agenda are not 
being released by the State Government, says Dr. Nayeem. For 
instance, journalist and Rajya Sabha MP, Kuldip Nayar has apparently 
given some of the money from his constituency development fund to 
help victims of violence in Kashmir. Although this money was given in 
1998, it is still with the Deputy Commissioner in Srinagar, says Dr. 
Nayeem.

Apart from the monetary compensation, what remains a much greater 
burden is the social ostracism that young widows, in particular, must 
bear. Dr. Nayeem points out that while widows are not treated as 
outcastes in Kashmir, the "sin" of being a young widow follows her 
everywhere. Such women are not allowed to mix with men, they are 
looked upon with suspicion and quite often they are forced to marry 
men who are old enough to be their fathers.

Life is a casualty in Kashmir, in every sense of the word. Injecting 
new life is a job that governments are certainly incapable of doing. 
The task remains that of concerned individuals and groups outside the 
terrain of politics. This is where dialogues, such as the one between 
Muslim and Hindu Kashmiri women, become important.

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

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.
--