PROs :Signs of infinitesimally faint & flickering hope -Independence of Judiciary in Pakistan--JPR
CONs --excerpt
Masood Azhar, one of the terrorists released by New Delhi in exchange for the passengers and the crew of the hijacked plane. Azhar is touring Pakistan, openly saying that he is recruiting men for a jihad against India.
That doesn't sit well with India, USA or Big T-averse nations-- T for Terrorism. Clean up your act, Mushhead. JPR
dawn.com
By Kuldip Nayar
"HOW would you describe the perennial tension between India and Pakistan?" A foreign journalist
asked me the other day. I told him that like the weather in the subcontinent, it is hot, hotter and
hottest. These days it is the hottest. Since I have watched the climate for the last four decades, I
would not be surprised if it deteriorated further and developed into a serious confrontation.
To avert such a situation, the temperature has to be brought down. This cannot be done by a third
party; India and Pakistan have to do it themselves. They have to realize that things can go out of hand
if they do not pull back.
Disengagement in Kashmir is only one part. The overall atmosphere of enmity demands immediate
talks. Even after the wars in 1965 and 1971, the two countries sat across the table and negotiated a
settlement: the Tashkent declaration after the first war and the Simla agreement after the second.
In today's scenario, when their relationship is at its worst, the statements from both sides suggest talks.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has said more than once that India is prepared to have a
dialogue with Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan, too has said many a
time that he wants to resume talks with India. Still, there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of
negotiations soon. The reason is not that any party is putting prior conditions. It is the absence of a
proper climate for a dialogue which needs to be created.
People on both sides can build up opinion to pressure their respective country. But they have been fed
with stories which are mutilated and even concocted. There is no way for them to know the truth.
Even otherwise, the media hype is so much and the official stand is so motivated that detecting facts is
like looking for a needle in a dark room. The mood is so foul that any independent, much less critical,
word will be pounced upon by those who peddle hatred.
US Senator Brown, whom I met at a dinner party a few days ago, asked me when India would start
negotiations with Pakistan. I told him: "Nothing on the horizon." I said that the point at issue was not
'time' but 'climate.' No negotiations would be worth the effort if the guns went on booming. They have
to be silenced first. Peace is a prerequisite for conciliation.
I made the same point at a peace conference of South Asian countries in Calcutta a few days ago.
Some retired senior military officers were in the delegation from Pakistan. They spoke in friendly
terms. The resolution passed at the conference urged both Delhi and Islamabad to hold talks without
any preconditions. However, it made it clear that violence should stop forthwith.
Violence is the crux of the problem. Those who are trying to keep India-Pakistan relations or Kashmir
separate from violence are shutting their eyes to the realities. Terrorism and militancy have to stop
first. Only then will there be a proper climate for negotiations.
If the Pakistan government believes that talks can be held while it goes on encouraging militancy, it is
mistaken. There was a time when the militancy in Kashmir did not stall the talks. The militancy was
mostly local then. The Kargil intrusion killed the spirit of goodwill that the Lahore process had
initiated. I believe that Vajpayee was even rung up by President Clinton on starting a dialogue.
The Indian prime minister's reported replay was that he had to keep in mind Indian public opinion
which, he said, was not prepared for any talks until Islamabad gave up the proxy war it was fighting.
A Muslim country, which is friendly to India as well as Pakistan, has made a suggestion: "Let all guns
be silent, to begin with, for six months." The stoppage of cross-border terrorism is an integral part of
the proposal. The security forces in Kashmir will also have to cease firing under the agreement.
The Pakistan government's stand that it is giving only moral support to the militants may be all right for
propaganda purposes. But it is an open secret that even the Pakistani troops have been fighting within
the Indian side of Kashmir. As for the militants, there is no doubt about Islamabad giving them
training, weapons, funds and shelter.
When Musharraf admitted in an exclusive interview to an Indian daily that "all were on the board"
regarding Kargil, he was not only stating that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who feigned
ignorance of the operation, was a party to it but also conceding that it was a well-planned scheme. It
is now known that the militants were in the forefront in the Kargil intrusion.
When the call for withdrawal was given after Sharif's visit to Washington, the militants too left. In fact,
there was a rumpus in Pakistan that the militants, who were supposed to have occupied some key
positions in Kargil, were called back.
Not only that, Washington has asked Islamabad to close down the terrorists' camps.
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba were specially named. And what does India or, for
that matter, the international community, infer from the threats hurled by Masood Azhar, one of the
terrorists released by New Delhi in exchange for the passengers and the crew of the hijacked plane?
Azhar is touring Pakistan, openly saying that he is recruiting men for a jihad against India.
Pakistan cannot expect India to believe its statements that it had nothing to do with the hijacking of
Indian Airlines aircraft. Even the Clinton administration, which was slow to react initially, has said that
a terrorist group supported by the Pakistani military was responsible for the hijacking, although he is
quibbling over firm evidence.
The very fact that Clinton has so far refused to stop over in Pakistan while visiting India in March
should make Islamabad sit up and ponder why a 'trusted friend' is being treated this way. All this can
change if India and Pakistan talk to each other. For that a suitable climate is necessary. Islamabad can
create it.
When the state is mixed up with terrorism, the redeeming factor in Pakistan is its judiciary. It has
retrieved the country's name, which politicians and military commanders have smeared for the last four
decades. By refusing to take a fresh oath of office, swearing allegiance to the military regime, six
Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, have proved that it is the
Constitution and the law they serve, not any particular regime. The late General Zia-ul-Haq had also
gone over the same exercise and had asked the High Court and the Supreme Court judges to swear
loyalty to the military rule. Many judges declined to take oath and went out of office. Many among
them are now Pakistan's leading lawyers.
|
