.

EDITORIAL

POSITIVE CHANGE

There is a very welcome and positive change in American policy vis-a-vis sub-continental nations of India and Pakistan. American Assistant Secretary of State Mr Karl Inderfurth elaborates the new approach in the sub-continent which contrasts totally from the erstwhile approach that had visible pro-Pak tilt. American global think-tank in continuously on and upgrades its policy perceptions and approach the world over. One tends to take cognisance.....more

MAINTAIN OFFENSIVE

There are very encouraging reports coming from all sectors of mercenaries and other pro-Pak militants being killed by the day. This acceleration rate of elimination of Pak sustained ultras should in any case be more than rate of fresh infiltration. This calls for maintaining present momentum....more

Washington was forced
to dump Nawaz Sharief

MEN AND MATTERS

From B L Kak
The Britishers have, of late, been providing something...more

Yours Randomly
The desire, and
the deserving......

By Dr. R. L. Bhat
The God said: let there be light and, there was light...more

Caught in the Web
of Legal illiteracy

Woman the world over face one unchanging reality...more

EDITORIAL

POSITIVE CHANGE

There is a very welcome and positive change in American policy vis-a-vis sub-continental nations of India and Pakistan. American Assistant Secretary of State Mr Karl Inderfurth elaborates the new approach in the sub-continent which contrasts totally from the erstwhile approach that had visible pro-Pak tilt. American global think-tank in continuously on and upgrades its policy perceptions and approach the world over. One tends to take cognisance of it because USA is the only super power and being also the mightiest its words and actions go unchallenged. Recent indiscriminate bombardment of Yugoslavia amply proves that other global players like China, Russia and France remained mute spectators to the wholesale destruction of the country on grounds that were solely internal problem of Yugoslavia. It is also on record how America continues to blast Iraq even after that country is totally crippled economically. In Security Council, it is the American writ and word that is the clincher. This means, America remains an unchallenged power and it has the ways and means to do and mould the approach of others as it deems fit and what fits in its global strategy. It is exactly in this context that American upgraded approach vis-a-vis tackling Pakistan has to be appreciated.

First, America hates to dump Pakistan totally. It does not hide the reasons for following this course. If military dictatorship is allowed to persist long enough it is sure road to Talibanisation of Pakistan with strict Islamic order. The only way America can have say in it is to continue engaging Pak military rulers in constructive talks to bring home the point that democratic order is more in the interest of Pakistan itself than others. This is sought to be achieved by economic pressure even while America talks to Pak dictators. It is further elaborated as regards supply of American aid and military equipment to Pakistan. Inderfurth confirms that neither sanctions would be relaxed nor any weapons supplied until democracy is restored in Pakistan. For India, there is no such condition. Not only sanctions can be lifted but other strategic and economic cooperation would get fresh impetus. He confirms that India and America are 'natural allies' by virtues of being the largest and oldest democracies respectively.

Second, Brijesh Mishra, National Security Advisor, is already in USA and has an immediate date with Talbot. Incidentally, the topic for discussion is how to contain military rulers of Pakistan so that it does not drift towards fundamentalism any further than what it is today. Total Islamic order poses serious threat not only to neighbours but also world peace as a whole when such order has a visible and strong blend of terrorism. For the first time America is prone to discuss Pakistan with India to subserve the common objective of peace in the sub-continent and containment of fundamentalism. India has nothing to lose from such cooperation. In fact, it gains tremendously because Indian stand on terrorism is well recognised and appreciated. Even nuclear India poses no danger but nuclear weapons in the hands of any military dictator with fundamentalist overtones is risky affair. This obviously implies that America is now reconciled to the Indian doctrine of having 'minimum nuclear deterrent' American worries obviously relate to nuclear technology or material being sold by Pakistan to other Islamic countries, including terrorist outfits, because of religious and fundamentalist affinity besides acute resource crunch and cash starved Pakistan. That is why Inderfurth says that it would like both India and Pakistan to actively contribute to signing of Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) which forbids export or transfer of nuclear materials/weapons/technologies to other countries.

Third, which is by far the most important positive change in American policy on Kashmir is that Inderfurth insists that Pakistan must pull back from LoC and stop cross-border terrorism. Then and then alone Lahore process for solving contentious issues can make further progress. This is exactly that India has been saying. American support is thus direct and unconditional. It also does not amount to interference in that the question is posed to Pakistan and advice is for that country and America likes to pursue this course actively. This is surely advantage India. If Pakistan withdraws its forces from LoC and ceases infiltration of mercenaries into J&K, the terrorism would end in 24 hours because J&K people are fed up with it. Another development relates to declaration of Hurriyat as non-representative body as it is confined to only fundamentalism and that too what is dictated from across the border or other Pan-Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and Libya.

Above all the theme of America and India being 'natural allies' can fetch rich dividends for this country. All this may by attributed to American global strategy but India definitely fits favourably when compared to either Pakistan or China. India can thus go ahead more confidently in its economic integration globally as also recognition of mainstay of peace in Asia in Particular. Meanwhile entire world would watch with interest the magnitude of Indo-American joint strategy that would help Pakistan move away from fundamentalism and march towards democratic order.

MAINTAIN OFFENSIVE

There are very encouraging reports coming from all sectors of mercenaries and other pro-Pak militants being killed by the day. This acceleration rate of elimination of Pak sustained ultras should in any case be more than rate of fresh infiltration. This calls for maintaining present momentum and upgradation of strategy in tune with emerging situation. These successes have been possible because of larger presence of armed forces in the militancy-infested areas besides tightening of security grid. Much more than this is the political back-up for the current offensive both from State Government as also the Central Power apparatus. It may be recalled that Dr Farooq Abdullah during electioneering had openly voiced his concern for the acceleration in terrorism and had warned that none would be spared and that each one of them and their harbourers/contact chased ruthlessly to their grave-yards. Home Minister Advani had also mentioned free hand for the armed forces in putting the final nail in the coffins of those who have inflicted terror and injuries on the body and mind of all people of J&K. It seems things are moving as per plans if one goes by the type of weapons now put at the disposal of BSF to have effective weapons superiority in firepower vis-a-vis ultras' possessions. Special forces are also created or in the process of being created to ensure that terrorism is wiped out in the State as part of overall exercise in improving internal security in the entire country. It obviously calls for accelerating pressure to put the enemy on the run or get eliminated if he fails to run at required speed.

Musharraf takes over from where Zia-ul-Haq left
Men, Matters, Memories
By M L Kotru

Pakistani people have always fas-cinated me. Between the 70s and early 90s I must have visited the country 30 odd times. And the more I saw of the land ad its people the more fascinated I was. At one level they always reminded me of home-very friendly, very effusive, warm and extremely hospitable. At the personal level, I still believe, they are among the warmest people you can hope to meet anywhere, be it in the streets of Lahore and Karachi, Kissakhwani Bazar in Peshawar, picturesque Quetta or even in the barren wastelands that take you to Torkhum, the last Pakistani outpost on Pak-Afghan border, beyond Khyber.

Imagine the Manager of a Government-run hotel offering me to get a liquor permit on a national holiday--of all days the Prophet's birthday -- in the early 70s. Just because I happened to mention to him about my liking for Dehradun. The man, was a Rimcolean and, therefore, honour bound to make me feel good. Gen Zia-ul-Haq asking a senior General, Sarwar Khan to vacate his seat next to him on the flight from Karachi to Lahore so that "my friend from India" could sit with him for a chat. Or, a New Year's eve party in 1989 in Karachi at a banker's house which would have left the best knon Bombay hostess gasping. Or, Tufail Niazi, the great Punjabi folk singer, singing for me for an hour at this modest Islamabad home after I tell him that I had heard one of his songs at the Lok Virsa (national heritage home of Pakistan). Or, again Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief, as Prime Minister on 1993, insisting that I join him in Lahore the next day (a Thursday) to watch him play cricket and then driving me to a friend's house, en route confiding how lucky he had been not have had the right kind of "sifarish" (right connections) to make it to the Pakistani national team. "I did play for the Board President's XI against the West Indies. That was about all." "Thank God for that," he adds.

Yet, how dissimilar they are from us. We as a people, felt stifled in 19 months of Indira Gandhi's emergency. So much so that she had to quit, albeit only to return as Prime Minister in the elections held some two years later. Acceptance obviously comes to them far more easily than it comes to us. I don't know whether they believe in Karma or are fatalists but they have rarely resisted "authority", whatever be the form it takes. They have lived half the life of the nation under military dictatorship; they have allowed themsleves to be exploited by politicians, mostly coming from the ranks of feudals, the zamindars and the Waderas. Religion is perhaps the antidote they have turned to whenever under stress. Or could it be that they have a sense of humour. It expresses itself when they "in private" would retail jokes about dictators ranging from Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan to Zia-ul-Haq and even the populist Zulfiqar Ali Butto, who had them eating out of his hands with his high pitched ravings and rantings, promising them everything from "roti, kapada, makan" to a thousand-year war with India.

If their personal warmth and friendliness has always fascinated me, the Pakistanis' inability to rise against homegrown dictators continues to baffle me. May be in the end they are more gullible than the people on this side of the border. May be they haven't yet been able to shake off the yoke of feudals and the new class of feudals which the frequent Army takesover has spawned. The Nawaz Sharief phenomenon, leading upto the takeover of the country by Gen Parvaiz Musharraf, best illustrates the continuing Pakistani dilemma. Here was Nawaz, coming from a noveau riche background, serving his political apprenticeship under Gen Zia-ul-Haq, finding himself ensconced as the Chief Minister of the country's most populous (60 per cent of the total population of Pakistan) province, Punjab, and subsequently becoming Prime Minister of the land. The Prime Ministership of course, came later. That was after Zia's death persuaded President Ishaque Khan to call for elections which saw Benazir as Prime Minister only to be dismissed and replaced by Nawaz Sharief in 1990. Three years later Sharief's term ended abruptly and Benazir was back as Prime Minister. Benazir's handpicked President, Sardar Farooq Leghari dismissed her "unpopular" government on grounds of corruption and fresh elections returned Nawaz with a massive mandate. What does Nawaz do? He promises people the moon. They can make direct phone calls to him to air their grievances; he will provide them with roads, water jobs, housing. You ask for it and he had it. Simultaneously, he began the further enrichment of his family and his cronies. To make sure that there was no let or hindrance in his endeavours, he first forced Leghari to resign, appointed instead a family retainer Rafiq Tarar as the President, clipped his powers via a constitutional amendment that deprived him of the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and giving himself the power to appoint the Service chiefs. He played havoc with the judiciary, sending his storm troopers into the Supreme Court hearing a petition against him. He dismissed three Naval Chiefs, sacked the Army Chief Jehangir Karamat. Sought cover under Islam by introducing Sharia as the law of the land which should have become law but for the fact that he didn't have adequate numbers in the Senate to get it passed. Corruption and the corrupt flourished under his benign eye. So driven was he by his ambition that he decided to take on a sulking post-Kargil Army for what he thought was to be a knock out blow. He had planned well, it must be added. For at the time of sacking Karamat he had picked a less assertive Gen Musharraf for the Army Chief's post, very much like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had gone over the heads of many senior Generals to appoint a then unknown, presumably considered lacklustre by Bhutto, Gen Zia-ul-Haq as his Army Chief. What Zia did to Bhutto is history but Nawaz Sharief overplayed his hand by trying to sideline the Army which had over the years been part of the troika ruling the country--the Army, the President and the Executive headed by the Prime Minister. Gen Karamat in fact lost his job only when he went public to demand a role for the Army in the administration. So, when Nawaz wished to do a Karamat to Musharraf the Army Chief and the GHQ struck back-and with vengeance too. How long the Musharraf era will last is a matter of conjecture but it has certainly put Nawaz Sharief in the dog-house.

That brings me back to the people of Pakistan and the sense of deja vu that marks their attitude to games the politico-military elite has played on them this past half century. Iskander Mirza, the first President of Pakistani politicians. He had always looked for some pretext to banish the noisy rabble and to proclaim "What shall we do with the bauble? Take it away," an allusion to a Cromweallian discourse. Mirza, a member of the Indian Political Service under the British was Ghulam Muhammad's Home Minister with the Commander in Chief Gen Ayub Khan doubling up as the Defence Minister. Mirza ridiculed the idea of elections. "Angels won't fly out of the ballot box," he would say to anyone who brought up the question of elections. According to Altaf Gohar, a close Ayub aide and biographer, Mirza had waited a long time to pull down the curtain on the democratic pantomime and assume direct control of the affairs of the country. What he did not know was the Gen Ayub Khan too was waiting in the wings. So, Iskander kept the Presidency, only to end up in exile in Iran, and Ayub became Prime Minister and promptly imposed martial for an initial four years with himself as the Chief Martial Law Administrator. Ayub Khan at the time said that the armed forces were as sick and tired of the politicians as the people, but there were good reasons whey he had not intervened in the political process earlier. He had wanted to built the army into a truly national force "free from politics, a model of devotion to the people, capable of effectively defending the country." He recalled how on several occasions Governor General Ghulam Muhammad had asked him to take over the country but he declined to do so in the belief that he could serve Pakistan better from where he was (commander in Chief) and he had "a faint hope that some politicians would rise to the occasion and lead the country to better future." Events had falsified these hopes: "A perfectly sound country has been turned into a laughing stock." (Not very dissimilar from what Gen Musarraf had to say in his first telecast).

Ayub ruled for 11 years from 1958 to 1969 before he was undone by his protege and Foreign Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who prompted Gen Yahya Khan to reimpose martial law; the easy-going Yahya disappeared from the scene after the debacle in Bangladesh handing over power to Bhutto in 1971. Bhutto who had by now emerged as the supreme leader, in the words of Gen KM Arif who was Zia's Chief of Staff, brought about his own downfall. "He KM Arif who was Zia's Chief of Staff, brought about his own downfall. "He weakened judiciary, terrorised bureaucracy into submission, destroyed State institutions, and disbelieved in the concept of the loyalty of the Opposition to the country. For him democracy meant his staying in power. The means employed to achieve that end were irrelevant; and process that kept him in power was right. Paraphrase this and you will find how close Gen Musharraf's description of the Nawaz Sharief Government is to it. But listen to Gen Arif once again when he describes what made Gen Zia instantly acceptable (for the moment atleast) to the people. "He was seen as a military professional, a technician, God-fearing and religious, calm, relaxed, competent, a person who had intervened reluctantly (shades of Musharraf again) in the national interest whose sincerity was above board and who was expected to keep his word." Only he did not keep it even as he continued to promise elections and return to democracy almost routinely until death intervened in that air crash which killed him.

Gen Musharraf appears to be taking ove from where Zia-ul-Haq left, the then year democratic interregnum having proved to be an utter disaster. But then even a benevolent dictatorship of which the Ayub years, atleast in part were an example can be no substitute for democracy. Gen Musharraf must know it.

What seems to be popular endorsement of his coup now is more in the nature of protest against the failure of politicians. It's people saying "plague to all your houses" to politicians rather than a welcome to the Armed Forces to entrench themselves in power. The Army's record, particularly of the officer corps, during all the previous coups has been as unwholesome in the long run as that of the politicians. And they are not subject to any form of accountability, as Musharraf must know.

Caught in the Web of Legal illiteracy

Woman the world over face one unchanging reality: the demon of discrimination in some form or the other in some place or the other. This harsh fact of life is brought home to the young girl in a slum when she is kept home and her brother goes to school. At times it is such a quick and brutal lesson that the learner does not even know it, as the little infant girl has already been killed as in Rajasthan or Tamilnadu.

Yet Indian women have some advantages when compared to even women born in what we call developed country of the West which seem notoriously tight fisted when it comes to handing out rights to women.

A recent UNIFEM report bears evidence to this. For example in Canada a woman cannot fill out her tax return forms, her husband has to do it for her ! It seems like she has merely the capacity to earn and not to be able to comprehend any matter to do with these earnings.

Social factors however often prevent Indian women from reaching the utopian goal of equality. Legal literacy for a woman is very necessary if she has to combat such discrimination. For example, most women in India do not know that laws exists giving them rights over property or any civil matter. The only law they know of is the criminal. Many times this ignorance is used as a successful tool for exploitation.

A primer imparting basic literacy to Delhi's adult women shows the picture of a judge for one alphabet and that of an advocate for another. All the 50 odd women, living in Delhi slums, who were asked what kind of cases the judge or advocate dealt with, replied that they dealt with murder, division of land or theft. They could not think of any other possible cause and had not heard of any right for which they could seek the intervention of the judge and the advocate.

In India the law does not recognise most forms of discrimination amongst women. At least on paper they are sought to be projected as equal. Though anomalies do exist for example in family law cases, the law does not encourage partition of agricultural land. This means that the woman of the family has only the rights of maintenance with regard to such property. This is especially true in the state of Punjab.

In the Republic of Kenya the constitution explicity states that prohibition of discrimination against women does not apply to matters regarding property. In other countries of which two are Zimbabwe and Swaziland very limited rights are given to women to own land. In Togo inheritance laws limit a woman to property owned by her father or husband and she may be deprived of all her husband's property by her husband's relatives with no redress.

In many countries laws that have the synonym of tradition are different for the different levels of society. This is the case even in India. So when laws are given the sanction of uniform application they sometimes defeat are very purpose they were enacted for. If after they overcome this hurdle and go on to have equal rights then red tape and enormous administrative procedures discourage women from claiming these rights.

In very many Islamic countries even though women have rights to land and property on paper, the control and decision making authority concerning this property is in the hands of the husband and so the effectiveness of any laws relating to this are enormously curtailed. Even women's earnings are not subject to their total control. At the very beginning is the problem that they are not paid for their labour an equal amount as the men. Secondly their contributions are not recognised as labour. Yet some bright spots indicate that it is possible to hope for better times.

There is a very heartening example from the narrow lanes of Old Delhi. There are many entire families here engaged in zardosi-embroidery work. Men, women and children work.

But every women is paid and her earnings are her own. Even if it is the enterprise is her husband's she is paid for the work she does.

This is in sharp contrast to the school teacher from a middle income household who has to deposit all her income with her husband at the beginning of every month. The husband decides how her money should be spent.

Unfortunately, this is usually the norm in India, and the zardosi workers are the exception.

It is therefore fairly obvious that social reforms need to catch up with legal reforms for the existing legislation to make a difference to women. Literacy and general awareness of women has to be improved.

A great percentage of illiterate women are totally in the dark about their powers and only live in the language of limitation.

A holistic approach has to be adopted towards the legal dilemmas and society has to step in to initiate the balanced development of law by getting the people ready to make use of it. - Unnati Feature