Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

More peace vibes

The face of winner

Kashmir: a third world paradigm

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Voters show seperatists their place

By Samuel Baid

Musharraf tinkering with religious extremists

By Tushar Chran

Given his 'indispensability' in the farcical war against 'terrorism' that the US is engaged in, Gen Pervez Musharraf might .. .....more

EDITORIAL

More peace vibes

Will the tenth declaration of cease-fire in the last four years between Israel and Palestine click? The truce worked out by two hostile neighbours in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm-el-Sheik early this week is the first after the death of Palestinian hero Yasir Arafat. To quote Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, ‘the Palestinians have agreed to stop all attacks against the Israelis, and that attacks on Palestinians by Israelis would also stop’. Admittedly, the doubts will persist whether this unwritten accord will be lasting. Every such peace formula in the past has been torn apart with the resumption of violence. There is a greater chance, however, that this time it might work. Both the sides will have to show better appreciation of each other’s difficulties. Only if they were able to isolate the extremists (whatever their self-professed nationalities) opposed to sanity exhibited by them and treat them as their common enemies they would have achieved half their mission. There is another sound reason that they might finally succeed. One is encouraged to visualise such a possibility because of the dramatically changed global scenario in the wake of 9/11. First of all, the world powers appear to have realised (notwithstanding the aberration in Iraq) that it does not pay to play their own games in other strife-torn regions. Secondly, there is increasing awareness among countries across the world that peace is a better option than the war to settle mutual scores and no purpose is served by creating monsters of terror. It has taken a series of gory events to create such consciousness. We need to draw attention to just one in our region, in Afghanistan. The United States and Pakistan had pushed Taliban to the forefront to neutralise the Soviet influence in that ill-starred country. They may have achieved their immediate objective but have ended up facing far more adverse effects of the wicked idea they had conceived and executed by pumping in arms and ammunition.

Despite being an Islamic State, Pakistan is going through the worst form of religious fanaticism and sectarian violence that the neighbouring country’s human rights commission has done well to record. On the other, the US had its invincible image as the sole superpower on the earth after the collapse of the Soviet Union seriously dented because of 9/11.

Happily, the US and Pakistan are wiser after their own experiences and are cooperating in the war against terrorism. Prima facie it marks the turning point in search of wider peace. The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has set a lofty example of how the nations can join hands to eradicate the menace of violence. It has taken exemplary action against the militants operating from its soil against India. No country gains by providing sanctuary to the unfriendly forces operating against the other. Unfortunately, Pakistan and Bangladesh in South Asia have yet to fully come to terms with this truth. That does not mean, however, that there has been no development in the positive direction. Evidently Pakistan has told anti-India terrorists living under its patronage to keep a low profile as it is seriously pursuing a peace agenda with India. During the last more than one year both India and Pakistan have taken a number of steps to achieve mutual cordiality. This raises hopes that the irritants would be amicably removed.

Peace is the watchword in today’s parlance. It knows no geographical boundaries. Generations have suffered because of violence. The present generation is making all possible efforts to end this trauma once and for all. It augurs well for the emerging world scenario.

The face of winner

It is often that highly ambitious persons beseech their influential relatives having some political connection to get them the ‘ticket’ for the elections. For them, neither a party matters nor an ideology. They would be more than satisfied if they get personal projection to employ that in turn to cultivate other greener pastures. They don’t even apply their mind to the simple fact why a well-disciplined outfit should be sympathetic by giving mandate to a rank outsider. In one such real-life incident, a person in order to escape embarrassing pestering day after day took up the case of a relative with the leader of a recognised party. The leader with his eyes wide open nearly shouted: "What makes him think that he will win? He will lose his security deposit". When told that his hope was based on the presence of a large number of nearest and dearest and the members of the community in one particular constituency, the leader had a hearty laugh and posed a counter-question: "Do you also feel that the kith and kin vote for one among them in the elections?" His calculation was that the party had significantly lost its base in that region and there was no possibility that it would be able to regain it by the time the polls were held. Evidently, in a calculated strategy to recover the losing turf, the party went on to field one of its top stalwarts but this gamble too failed and he suffered his worst ever electoral defeat. This incident comes to mind in the wake of a report that prominent media persons, medical practitioners, business magnets by our local standards and seasoned political activists have performed miserably in the just-concluded elections to the Jammu Municipal Corporation. They are apart from those who don’t have any claim to popularity even in their smaller areas and have polled only one vote --- possibly their own!

Everybody is entitled to thump his chest and claim ‘I am the winner’. After all there is no dearth of social scientists telling us that optimism is the key to victory. In the recent times Cassius Clay alias Muhammad Ali alone perfected this art matching his boxing skills with loud tongue which he used to his tremendous advantage before the actual fight. He was, however, the performer and master of an individual event. Elections are an altogether different game whether they are for local bodies or legislatures at a higher level. Their outcome does not depend upon the combatants but on those who have the twin benefits of first watching the fun from the ringside and then sitting in judgment by exercising their franchise. In the case of panchayat and municipal polls the candidates are better exposed to their electorate for obvious reasons. Each constituency is comparatively small with the result that its inhabitants are known to each other having stayed in the same vicinity for years, if not for generations. Therefore, there is little chance of a candidate gaining an extra edge at the last minute by adopting any innovative measure. Having closely watched his or her personal and public conduct and approach to social issues the people usually make up their mind about their favourite candidate the moment the nominations are filed. They can’t be easily taken for a ride. Of course, the nominees of political parties gain because of the established ground support. Individuals stand a sound choice in civic polls if they have maintained perfect rapport with their neighbourhood. Prisoners of their own image stand to lose. Is there any doubt about this?

Kashmir: a third world paradigm

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Almost all states in the Third World have one or more minority groups within their national territories, and minorities frequently live on different sides of state borders. Consequently, the treatment of minorities presents a moral and political dilemma with both domestic and international ramification. In this sense, Kashmir is a paradigm and the lessons learnt here have implications for all Third World nation states grappling with the problems thrown up by heterogenity and the demands of a pluralistic society.

The modern nation state, undoubtedly one of the world’s most enduring institutions, is facing major challenges: it is going through a period of stress and strain that may not only alter the political map of the world but also transform the very notions of sovereignty and nationhood. States are being pressed in different unpredictable and politically violent ways by ethnic, religious forces. The results are visible not just in the turmoil in most Third World states. Even in all the seemingly more stable and established nations. Canada is an interesting example, but the results of the 1996 referendum came as a sobering influence on many of the minority groups who try to break away from the established states, as well as on those who advocate referendum as a solution to such problems. In appreciating the difficulties encountered by the Third World states, it should not be forgotten that the process of state-making in Europe, home of the modern nation state, followed a gradualist pattern. It took decades and several bouts of unprecedented violence to stabilise these states.

Even the USA went through a tumultuous period culminating in the historic Civil War. Even so, imperfections remain. A case in point is Britain with its unruly mixture of Scots, Welsh and the English, and there was a war zone in Northern Ireland. Sub-surface ethnic tensions persist in the United States as well due to the complexities of race relations and the continued (and often illegal) inflow of new migrant races. For the newly independent countries it is not time alone that constrains their journeys to nationhood. They have to tackle the political, social and economic dimensions of the de-colonialisation process simultaneously, rather than through a process broken into phases as was the case with the Western developed states. The Western nation states were fortunate in having the chance to solve some of the intricate problems of nation-building well before they had to face the ordeal of mass politics. This makes the problem of nation and states a more difficult and complicated task in the Third World.

The unfortunate part is that Western leaders and intellectuals often try to foist their values and ideas - democracy and human rights - which have centuries to evolve to nascent Third World states for their own interests and in the process sometimes de-stabilise the process of nation building. Given this theoretical framework, Kashmir is no exception, and in fact shares the experiences of other pluralistic societies.

All the countries of Southeast Asia with the single exception of Singapore, have problems of some national groups trying either to assert their autonomy or to secede from the state. While armed communist movements constituted the most serious threat to regime survival in post-colonial Southeast Asia, armed separatist movements involving indigenous ethnic minorities are challenging the very basis of statehood and national identity in the region. Southeast Asia is home to at least 32 ethno-linguistic groups and the entire world’s major independent rebel groups have organised armed campaigns against the state structure within the ASEAN countries.

In the case of Myanmar (Burma), for instance, about 10 sub-ethnic groups are demanding sovereignty ever since the country became independent. Burma since ancient times has been dominated by the majority Burman ethnic group.

In Thailand too the problem of ethnicity affects the stability of the state and of national integration. The country is predominantly Buddhist, only 4 per cent of the entire population follows other faiths. About 3.82 per cent of the population is Muslim, the rest being Christian. It is this minuscule Muslim minority that has most vociferously opposed the national integration plans in matters of administration and other governmental activities.

The Philippines is also not free from such ethnic separatist movements. Ever since the country’s independence, the central government at Manila had tried to assimilate the Moros, who are Muslims living in a predominantly Christian country and who have always looked to the Malay world and to the middle east for cultural and religious sustenance. But under former president Marcos, who ruled from 1966 to 1986, the movement for a "Bangsa Moro’ began to gain momentum.

Though a not Third World example, 12-year of war in Chechnya, hundreds of dead and thousands of maimed civilians brought many other troubles to the Chechen and Russian people. The tragedies in Kizlyar and Beslan are mourned by the entire Russian nation. The economy is ruined. The unbalanced psyche of those who have returned from this war outwardly healthy, have created problems which will not be cured for a long time. If Moscow succumbs to terrorist pressure for independence for Chechnya, it will open a Pandora’s Box for the very survival of Russia as a nation state. The return of the republic to the legal lap of Russia is the only solution for the people of Chechnya for prosperity and well being.

Nearer home, an interesting aspect of the movement for independence in Kashmir is that it is directed not only at the Indian state in terms of secession but also at the established ruling groups within Kashmir. Its social origins are neo-bourgeois and its philosophy a combination of "Kashmiriyat" and Islam. Depending upon the weightage given to each of these two elements respectively, we have the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the two main militant groups. The current crisis is the culmination of many years of perverse democratic politics within the state, compounded by rampant corruption and sluggish socioeconomic development. All this fanned political disenchantment especially among the growing numbers of educated unemployed Kashmiri youth. Also, the sense of alienation from the Indian state among the Kashmiri emergent middle class is due in part to a feeling of discrimination by New Delhi. Rightly or wrongly, this feeling is deeply embedded in the Kashmiri psyche.

The winds of fundamentalism and the stories of ‘heroic terrorism’ across the world provided the inspiration for many Kashmiris to adopt militancy. These feelings within Kashmir constitute a great opportunity for Pakistan to exploit. Given the past history of the subcontinent, a further division or granting of independence to any of the constituent units of India will not solve any religious, linguistic or other ethnic disputes. The same is true for Pakistan. The case of Bangladesh was very different because the two former wings of Pakistan were not only physically separated by another country, but they also had nothing in common except religion.

Kashmiri movement continues to receive support from an external source, which in this case is Pakistan and a few other Islamic countries. Second, the Kashmir movement cannot be solved by force alone. The case of Thailand and to an extent the Philippines shows that a more considerate policy towards minority groups succeeds in diminishing alienation and with it the problem of armed insurgency and terrorism.

The Kashmiris need to be reminded that secession is unacceptable. The solution to a dispute like that in Kashmir cannot be the fragmentation of the Indian state. In essence, polarities created through ethnic diversities and strife among people can be aggravated through insensitive handling by central governments. There are lessons to be learnt from Kashmir just as those from other strife-torn regions with pluralistic societies. The fragmentation of the state is no solution. INAV

Voters show seperatists their place

By Samuel Baid

It was a victorious week for the devotees of democracy in Iraq and Jammu and Kashmir against the dark forces who use guns or specious arguments to keep the masses from exercising their right to choose their own Government. These forces had created an atmosphere of terror in Iraq to sabotage the January 30 elections. In Jammu and Kashmir, terrorists and the Hurriyat Conference tried to prevent people from voting in the civic elections by hurling threats and imposing curfew in Srinagar.

In Iraq, the prophets of doom, who predicted the elections would not take place, had failed to take note of the masses' determination and aspirations. Voters came out in large numbers (the turnout was 60 per cent) making anti-election terrorists feel small. Similarly, the voters in Jammu and Kashmir have once again shown terrorists and the Hurriyat their place.

Elections in Iraq, Palestine and earlier in Afghanistan belied once for all the propaganda that the peoples of Muslim countries are generally allergic to democracy. In fact, we must acknowledge that these people can stake their lives for democracy like no other voters in a democracy. In 1971, we saw the sacrifices made by Bengalis of Bangladesh for democracy. In Jammu and Kashmir democratic urges are not in any way weaker. A large number of democracy-loving people in this State have been gunned down since the start of militancy in 1989. When terrorism was at its peak in the State then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao decided to hold State Assembly elections in 1996 after extended spells of Governor's rule, it appeared a task impossible. But once the elections were announced the response was revealing--a large number of people had been quietly waiting for a chance to excercise their right of electing their own Government and restore the State's political, economic and social life. Of course because of senseless killings by terrorists the voters' turnout was not very big but nonetheless they gave a rude shock to terrorists, separatists and their supporters across the LoC who had taken themselves for granted.

The people got disillusioned with the National Conference they elected in 1996 and replaced it with People's Democratic Party (PDP) led coalition Government in 2002. Here again they faced threats to their lives if they stirred out of their homes to cast votes. They defied these threats. They did it again at the time of elections to the Lok Sabha in 2004. And they have done it again in 2005 at the time of civic elections.

But understandably, militants and the Hurriyat, for their own survival, cannot acknowledge message the Kashmiri voter has repeatedly given. In 1996, they opposed elections saying ''80,000'' Kashmiris had not laid down their lives for these elections. This again is a fallacy: since 1989 most Kashmiri civilians have been killed by so-called mujahideen infiltrated by Pakistan into Kashmir. Here one is surprised to note that separatists did not think that the elections being held in occupied Kashmir at the same time did not militate against whatever their stand on Kashmir. That betrayed their duplicity- a duplicity that aimed to keep the people of Kashmir without their constitutional, economic and educational rights for an indefinite period and in the meantime masquerade as their leaders. Since 1996, they have always repeated their stand at the time of elections. Both the factions of the Hurriyat opposed the civic elections on the plea that they would not resolve the Kashmir issue. This stand had absolutely no relevance to these elections unless they wanted the people to live with the problems of light, water, dirty drains, broken roads, bad transport etc. Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed correctly observed that these elections were meant to give people the right to rule at the grass-root level and that they had nothing to do with the resolution of the Kashmir issue.

The vested interests who unsuccessfully tried to frustrate elections in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, were just a handful but capable of causing terror not only by bombs and guns but also with false and emotional slogans. the enthusiastic participation of the people in these elections must have broken their back. And to that extent the United States-led war on global terrorism has been successful. One of the weapons President George Bush is using to crush terrorism is democracy.

The anti-democracy terrorists in Kashmir should read the writing on the wall specially because their patron, Pakistan, is caught in a situation in which it has to willy-nilly side with US war on terror.

Musharraf tinkering with religious extremists

By Tushar Chran

Given his 'indispensability' in the farcical war against 'terrorism' that the US is engaged in, Gen Pervez Musharraf might continue to fool the US and the rest of the Western world into believing that he is steering his country from the path of hardline Islam to a moderate and 'enlightened' society.

But those who are willing to look at Pakistan beyond the cobweb will find that recent events there once again point to the fact that extremism and intolerance as well as bigoted leadership are an 'indispensable' part of Pakistan's identity. The so-called Northern Areas in Pakistan, the northern part of the composite state of Jammu and Kashmir, have just witnessed another round of serious Shia-Sunni clashes, resulting in deaths, much violence and imposition of curfew in Gilgit and other areas.

Only last summer, the majority Shia community in these areas had faced the bullets of the Pakistani army when they were demanding changes in the religious textbooks that they thought presented their sect in an unfavourable light. The changes are still to be made and the tension continues even as the Pakistani rulers seek to restore order with the help of their security forces.

Clashes between Shias and Sunnis are not unknwon in the Muslim world and in India also such clashes do occur. After all differences between the two sects go back over 1000 years. In the 20 years or so of frequent and intense sectarian violence in Pakistan, about 5000 have lost their lives.

What makes these clashes in Pakistan different is the fact that the Pakistani dictator has been telling the world that he has cracked down on religious extremists in his country, banning their outfits. What he does not tell the world is that the 'ban' is nothing but a joke as the so-called banned outfits resurface under a different name. Since his famous U-turn (following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington) on encouraging religious extremists, Musharraf has made at least too much trumpeted announcements of 'banning' these groups, both in 2002 and 2003.

The root of religious extremism with all its attendant consequences has not weakened in Pakistan despite Musharraf's tight control. The reason why he cannot uproot the extremists groups in his country is that he also uses their services to keep his 'low intensity' war against India going.

It is under his benign supervision that some of the 'banned'' Sunni extremists groups have forged close ties with the Al Qaeda to extend their operation from Kashmir to a worldwide jihad against the infidels. Some of these Pakistani Sunni groups are now turning out to be Frankenstein monsters for Musharraf himself as suggested by the alleged attempts on his life and the death of the mastermind of one of these attacks, Amjad Farooqi, some months ago. However, the Pakistani hand continues to be prominent in most terrorist attacks in different parts of the world, despite a concerted effort by the Western governments and their media to underplay it.

A recent and clearer manifestation of the deep intra-religious schism- and intolerance-within Pakistan has come from a most unlikely quarter. Following a request from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Pakistan had agreed just about a year ago to introduce machine readable passports (as do many countries in the world).

From the Pakistani point of view a noticable difference in the new passport is that it has done away with the practice of having a column to note the religion of the passport holder. It was another military dictator, the late Gen Zia-ul-Haq who had introduced the religion column in Pakistani passports as part of his Islamisation policy that had so pleased the religious fundamentalists.

The six-party politico-religious outfit in Pakistan, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MAM) is up in arms against the new passport format, alleging that it was an 'attack on our identity as Muslims'. How ? Well, the good Muslims of Pakistan who include the President and 99 percent of the establishment do not recognize one of their sects, the Qadianis or the Ahmedias, as Muslims, calling them 'non-Muslims' and thus placing them under the category of 'minorities'.

Just how insecure and unsafe the minority groups in Pakistan are is not hidden from anyone in the world. Pakistan took away the identity of Qadianis as Muslims 30 years ago, in 1974, and the fact was enshrined in the country's constitution.

According to the MAM leader one of the 'dangers' posed by the abolition of the column mentioning religion in the passport is that the Qadianis would be able to travel to Mecca on pilgrimage that is strictly open only to Muslims. Implied in this suggestion is that every Qadiani arriving at the holy city will be a subversive and hence under no circumstances should he or she be allowed to touch the Saudi Arabian soil!

Interestingly, the Saudis, who are even more conservative when it comes to religion than the Pakistanis, have offered on objection to the format of the new Pakistani passport. And while over 300,000 'new' passports have been issued in Pakistan in the last 12 months or so, no one has heard of a Pakistani Qadiani soiling the holy soil at Mecca with his or her footprint.

The hullabaloo raised over the new passports in Pakistan is not a passing issue kicked up by those who have now turned against Musharraf. The ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML), also called the King's Party, recently met and passed a resolution demanding that the column on religion be brought back on the passports.

The PML meeting was presided over by Shujaat Hussain, one of the three prime ministers to have served under Musharraf. The incumbent Prime Minister was also present at the meeting though being more loyal to his 'maker' the President, he is not a supporter of the demand.

Some Pakistani watchers see the 'threat' issued by the PML as nothing more than a game of one-upmanship, with Shujaat Hussain as head of the party trying to show that he controls the party even though he was unceremoniously thrown out from the high chair because he was too 'soft' on the Opposition.

Another reason advanced for this show of 'defiance' by the former Prime Minister is stated to be the fact that the country's sole 'boss', Gen Musharraf, may have been cutting a secret deal to win over the PML's rival, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), after releasing from prison the long incarcerated husband of PPP's supremo Benazir Bhutto.

Of course, all that could be only political speculation. Pakistani watchers also believe that the Government is about to captulate before the demand of the religious parties and add the religion column to the new passport to satisfy them. That will be another demonstration of the half-hearted manner in which Musharraf is trying to rid his society of the scourge of religious extremists and intolerance.

If indeed this is going to be scenario, then it is a case of history repeating itself- rather quickly. As the army ruler Musharraf is only following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Gen Zia-ul-Haq, in taking one step forward to distance himself from the extremists but taking next, not two but, three steps to genuflect before them. Oh, yet, the man is indispensable to George Bush & Co.

(Syndicate Features)