The summit that failed

K.N. Pandita

General Musharraf came with one-point agenda viz. Kashmir. Diplomatic finesse seldom recommends one-point agenda stunt; hence the failure and disaster. He had gone about orchestrating an "open mind" approach not understanding its nuances in diplomatic parlance. Fundamentalist-terrorist upswing in Kashmir had raised the expectations of every Pakistani that India would be willing to hand over Kashmir to them on a platter. Even the General, as a run up to the summit was emphatic in saying that India under pressure from the jehadis had agreed to initiate the talks lifting the pre-conditions of stopping cross boarder terrorism. This is the world of fantasy, in which Pakistan’s military rulers imagine they are living.

Pakistan will try to play the failed summit against India. Of course, the General wants to strengthen his home constituency, viz. the aggressive corps commanders, the jehadis and the extremist religious organisations. But the two major political parties that had declared their unwillingness to endorse any agreement the General might sign at Agra could take some credit for the failure of the summit. It may reinforce them against the military rule.

The failed summit puts Musharraf in an embarrassing situation. The militant outfits of the religious extremist organisations, against whom the General had poured out a rebuke, will feel vindicated. How is the General going to deal with them on the one hand, and the Americans on the other, under whose pressure he had shown his resentment to the jehadis?

India’s gains from the failed summit are not small by any stretch of imagination. India had agreed to talks by withdrawing its two-year old pre-condition that Pakistan should stop facilitating terrorist infiltration into Kashmir. This could be called the third initiative India took to straighten Indo-Pak relations. Each time Pakistan behaved with intransigence. Inviting the Hurriyat, a known anti – government outfit -- to meet with the visiting President, the announcement made by the General at the height of bilateral talks that Pakistan recognizes the armed men in Kashmir as "freedom fighters" and not terrorists and jehadis, and finally his assurance to them that Pakistan’s continued "moral, diplomatic and psychological support" to the terrorists, all speak for the diplomatic naivete of the General and his entourage. Linking Kashmir case with Bangladesh struggle for self-determination and finally its separation was another diplomatic failure. The General forgot that he was not addressing an army unit over a bara khana but that he was in the midst of high diplomatic exercise critical as well as crucial. To say that a ring of hard-core politicians not interested in peace process surrounded the Indian Prime Minister shows how much the General has to learn about the functional democracy. This is the fundamental difference between a military regime and a democratically elected regime.

India has to learn some lessons from this exercise. A military regime in Pakistan, where real power rests with the corps commanders and their affiliates among the feudal segment, is not the party to talk to for normalization of relations. Kashmir imbroglio is the life-blood of the Generals. Its resolution means strangulating their own throats. That is precisely what happened with Benazir when she had arrived at an agreement with Rajive Gandhi over Kashmir issue. The ISI whisked her away from the crucial moment. That is what precisely can happen with a General in Pakistan particularly when comes from Mohajir stock.

The fall out of the failed summit has to be witnessed in Kashmir. During the three days of parleys at Agra, violence unleashed by the terrorist outfits in Kashmir escalated and at least 70 persons were killed in the ensuing conflict. This is an indicator of what the jehadis would be think of in days to come. Indian security forces should gear up to the impending attacks at vulnerable points. Violence is to me met with planned retaliation.

New Delhi can think of two recourses to adhere to. One is to continue confronting the jehadis militarily but trying its best not to hurt the civilians. Of course, in some cases it may be unavoidable to save all the civilians that are caught in the crossfire. However, the minimum loss of life is to be ensured. The second thing is that Pakistan has openly declared that Kashmir is to it what Bangladesh was to India. This speaks much for their intentions. Infiltration, escalation of violence, smuggling of sophisticated weapons, disinformation campaign, desecration of religious places, use of missiles and more advanced weapons and many more things are to be expected. Gunning down of political activists too cannot be ruled out. Destabilization of the government through inside saboteurs is also one of the possibilities. Further alienation of the people is not to be ruled out. At the same time the demands of the people in all the three segments of the State plus the demand of the Pandits for a homeland will get intensified essentially because the NC government is unable to cope with the security threat and administrative inefficiency. In view of this, New Delhi must concentrate on geopolitical restructuring of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the best interests of providing security to the innocent people against whom the Pakistani sponsored lashkars and jayshes are likely to intensify their attacks. The NC should begin a move of geopolitical restructuring which could be for a minimum period of 15 – 20 years in the first instance. The ruling party should open a debate on the proposition and take it very seriously because there is general resentment against them among the masses for its inability to deliver the goods. The NC should read the writing on the wall and dispel the lurking suspicion that geopolitical restructuring is any thing aimed at undermining the demographic complexion of the state. It should understand the seriousness of the threat posed by Pakistan and its inadequacy to meet it without taking radical steps. Instead of pushing autonomy demand, the NC should introspect and re-examine its position in the light of the clear threat handed down by the Pakistani military regime that it takes Kashmir are the repeat of Bangladesh.

Malaysia: Squatters Rights

By Selvi Gopal

Tucked between the sparkling new sky-scrappers and housing estates in Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur, lie pockets of squatter colonies ruining the beauty of the otherwise postcard-perfect shot. Close to two million people have made Kuala Lumpur, the smallest but fastest growing metropolis in South East Asia, their home. But not all of them have a decent roof over their heads. These squatter colonies, for instance, house close to 400,000 poor Malaysians and migrant workers seeking their fortune in this multi-racial country.

Poor living conditions and fighting for survival in the squatter colonies has had another fallout - violence, which is often classified as racial between Malays and Indians. Recently when a group of Malays and Indians crossed swords, the government announced that the squatter areas would be restructured and proper houses provided to the poor to prevent recurring violence.

The promise of decent housing for the poor, however, is not new. Dr Nasir Hashim, President of Suara Warga Pertiwi, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) working with squatter communities, for one, is not impressed by the concern shown by the government and the politicians. "The government has often talked about providing more low-cost houses for the urban poor but unfortunately very few get built. The reality is that the poor have no\ choice but to stay in squatter colonies as they have nowhere to move to," says Hashim.

Squatter colonies became a prominent feature in the Malaysian landscape in the 1970s, when the government encouraged urban migration as a solution to the lack of human resources in the fast growing manufacturing industry in the country. People moved to Kuala Lumpur to take up low paying jobs in these factories. The city at that time had insufficient housing facilities and as a result the new work force built wooden homes on vacant land.

Two decades later, while the influx of people to Kuala Lumpur continued, land became a scarce commodity. The squatters were constantly forced to move and wherever they went, eviction notices followed because the land was often acquired for either commercial development or new housing estates.

Since then, the government has been promising that the poor would not be forgotten. And it did take a few steps, at least in theory, to achieve this. For instance, property developers were required to build low-cost homes for squatters for every residential development they took on. But such steps have not borne any fruit.

Says Hashim, "The reality is that houses that are built don't always end up for the poor. People with connections buy these houses and rent them out to the poor. Others resort to paying money under the table to get the houses as they are restricted to only those people who earn minimum wages."

Moreover, these houses are priced high - between USD 10,000 and USD 12,000 - and hence they are often beyond the reach of the poor. "Squatters with stable jobs are often too old to get bank loans while others can't raise the 10 per cent deposit to buy the houses," explains Hashim. According to him, people who live in squatter colonies are under a lot of pressure and stress but it is these people who are needed the most by society. "If the squatters were to leave Kuala Lumpur, the city could come to a standstill as these people sweep the roads, clean the drains and collect garbage. Yet, they are not appreciated. They have no security as their homes are constantly under threat," says Hashim.

At another level, it is believed that people living in squatter colonies are prone to more violence because of the pressures of coping with poverty. Hashim also adds that Malaysian society is crisis-oriented. "Something drastic has to happen before the government acts. People have to resort to violence before their welfare is considered. What the government does not acknowledge is that the people who turn violent are angry poor people. We are not a poor country but we have warped priorities," says Hashim. According to Hashim, Malaysia's greatness does not lie in its ability to build the tallest building in the world but in its ability to promote racial harmony. "But first we have to provide the poor with a secure roof over their heads," he adds. WFS