Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Avoidable pinprick

Always aim high

Periscope on Pakistan
Seminaries still hotbeds
of jehad

Another move to
normalise Kashmir

By Dr Golam Yazdani

‘Nobel’ value undermined

By Tushar Charan

The honour of bestowing an international award leads to a feeling of elation in the recipient and the country he or she belongs. But not always, as sometimes it can also lead to controversies and manifestations of displeasure among large ...........more

EDITORIAL

Avoidable pinprick

It is not surprising that Pakistan has accused India of violating the 43-
year Indus Water Treaty in the construction of the Baglihar hydropow
er project on the Chinab river in Jammu region. It was only to be expected in view of the pre-determined mindset of the neighbouring country. This is extremely unfortunate, to say the least. Doubts were expressed in these columns even before the Pakistan team led by its Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Jamait Ali Shah had entered this country that the access claimed by it in the name of an on-the-spot study of the project in Doda district would merely be an eyewash. Our worst fears have come true. The latest revelation underlines the team’s pre-conceived notions. It turns out that before leaving Pakistan, the team had recommended to its Government that it should seek neutral third-party inspection of the project. After having made such a suggestion, it is odd that the team should have taken up the assignment on its own. Not once after the Indus Water Treaty had come into force in 1960, Pakistan has appreciated India’s gesture in allowing its river waters to flow uninterrupted into its territory. According to reports in the Pakistan media, the team has found fault with a dam being built on the Baglihar project. It has concluded that the dam is ‘unauthorised’ and does not match the specifications in the original map. Raising objections about the height of the dam and the water storage capacity of the project, it has found both of them contrary to the provisions of the Treaty on water sharing. The simple query why a country should permit a foreign delegation to conduct a first-hand review of one of its own projects on its own soil if it had, indeed, violated any bilateral or international treaty remains unanswered in these reports.

If anybody should be complaining, it is the State Government and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Both have watched helplessly the heart-breaking spectacle of not being able to exploit their own tremendous water potential for their collective good. Under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, they can’t store waters of the Chinab, Jhelum and the Indus for irrigation or power generation. It is only recently that the Central and State governments have begun executing run-of-the-river projects to generate at least some electricity. Salal hydropower project near Reasi in Udhampur district is a case in point. It has been functioning for quite some time. Just because it is a run-of-the-river project, it had not been able to stop unprecedented floods in the mid-nineties — washing away in their ferocity the old Karan bridge linking Akhnoor with the rest of the country. Floods at that time had not played havoc only in the Indian territory. They had caused extensive damage in Pakistan as well. That was perhaps one occasion when Pakistan would have wished that India had a big storage capacity for the Salal project! Much like the Salal project, any visitor to the Baglihar project area, particularly near Ramban where it comes into direct contact with the Chinab, can also easily notice that nowhere the flow of the world’s coldest river has been disturbed or diverted. The Chinab continues its long and majestic journey from Ramban in the midst of the mighty mountains virtually touching the foothills of the Pir Panjal in its course before making a diversion towards Reasi and finally to Akhnoor before entering Pakistan.

Clearly the Pakistan team’s report, if it is exactly on the lines mentioned in that country’s media, would further harden the widespread opinion in this country as a whole and in J&K in particular that the Treaty should be scrapped. Admittedly, it is not easy for any country to get out of an international obligation; more so for India which has always been sensitive to the need for honouring its pledges to other countries and global forums. At the same time, however, in a democratic dispensation no government can for long ignore the public mood which in this country at present is decisively and overwhelmingly turned against Pakistan. There would have been no problem at all if Pakistan had not exported terrorism in exchange for cool and refreshing water. Apart from inflicting wars on this country, Pakistan has a declared State policy to provide ‘monetary, political and diplomatic’ support to terror activities in India. Such a bloody-minded approach does not leave many options for this country. In any case a fresh look at the Indus Water Treaty is imperative to ensure the judicious distribution of the waters of the three rivers taking into account the genuine enhanced requirements of J&K which is a big loser presently. Hoping against hopes, one wishes that Pakistan seizes the golden opportunity India has recently provided by making almost a dozen offers to improve people-to-people relations between the two countries. The response of the neighbouring country, which is still awaited, would indicate whether it is prepared to give up its continuing hostility. This might also then determine the future of the Indus Water Treaty.

Always aim high

In his own quiet way, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam appears to be striv
ing to set a positive agenda for the nation. Just back from his first
foreign tour as the head of the State, Mr Kalam has made a pointed remark about the role of religion in societies across the globe. Only the biased and ill-informed will disagree with him when he says that it is ‘not religion but religious dogmas’ that have led to many conflicts in the world. Although his observation about the wars and the violence among the followers of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism has been made in a much wider context, few can miss its import and relevance in the present-day India. In this context, it must be recalled that the President had before leaving for his three-nation tour celebrated his birthday not in the Rashtrapati Bhawan but at an all-religion meeting in Surat in Gujarat. Clearly the choice of the venue for such a get-together was more than merely symbolic. Gujarat has witnessed the worst ever communal riots in the recent history of the country triggered by the massacre of passengers in a train at the Godhara station. Mr Kalam’s well-meaning exercise would provide a healing touch to the common man who has suffered in these riots. A bundle of energy, the President hardly shows any sign of fatigue. Never does he allow the infectious smile to leave his face. Recently when asked whether he does not get tired at all, the President had made a moving comment. He had said he would not rest till all those living below the poverty line were brought on par with the rest of the society.

The President has obviously come to the view that interaction with the upcoming generation is necessary for the building of a developed and prosperous India. That is why he makes it a point to meet school children where ever he goes. During his trip to Jammu and Kashmir also some time back, he had spent considerable time with school children. He always advises children to ‘aim high’ so that they can help create a healthy and vibrant society. This is one advice everybody should take seriously. Aiming high does not merely mean the material advancement of an individual and the nation. It is intended, as the President has stated, to widen the horizons of one’s mind with a view to establishing peace and prosperity on the earth. Who can ignore such sound and mature advice?

Periscope on Pakistan
Seminaries still hotbeds of jehad

To maintain the façade that the terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir is a "freedom struggle" being waged by Kashmiris from "Azad Kashmir" Pakistan has not included the occupied territory within the ban on terrorist organizations and is not averse to allowing young jehadis being trained in seminaries across Pakistan to go to "Azad Kashmir" for military training before infiltration across the Line of Control – in exactly the same manner as the Taliban was inducted into Afghanistan. Nothing has changed within the context of the "War Against Terrorism".

Mohammad Shehzad in a write-up in FRIDAY TIMES observes: "Jehad is spreading despite General Musharraf’s efforts to put a lid on it. When the weekly spoke with an Interior Ministry official, he said the government could not penalise people for donating their children for jehad or stop the youth from joining the jehadi outfits.

"Far from a downswing in jehad's popularity, there is evidence that more young men might be enlisting with militant groups to wage the Kashmir jehad. Observers say a host of factors such as poverty, unemployment the desire to acquire fame, problems with parents at home and religious passion are responsible for the steady stream of recruits for the cause of jehad. Enlistment offers honourable living and honourable death, martyrdom for Allah"

"The various groups have recruited more than 7,000 youngsters aged between 18-25 from various part of Pakistan. The most high-profile outfits Lashkar Tayyaba (LT) and Jaish Mohammad (JM) claim to have recruited-more than 3,350 and 2,235 boys, respectively. "LT's website says that around 800 youngsters had embraced martyrdom while fighting the Indian Army last year," says an Interior Ministry official.

"The young jehadis come from poor and middle-class families. When they fail to find any employment, they join the jehadi outfits that provide them food and shelter and promise them a passage to paradise through martyrdom," says Gulzar Ahmad, a peace activist."

FRIDAY TIMES adds: "Following Gen Musharraf's January 12, 2002 speech, the Pakistan government has banned all jehadi outfits but most have re-emerged under new names. The firebrand chief of LT Hafiz Mohammad Saeed told the weekly that Lashkar was banned in Pakistan but not in Azad Kashmir. Similarly, JM's chief Maulana Azhar Masood has publicly said that Jaish is not restricted from operating in Azad Kashmir. ‘We reject [General] Musharraf’s peace initiative with India; jehad will strengthen the Kashmir cause,’ Saeed of LT told his followers in Lahore.

"The jehadi outfits have their offices in Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They chase young boys and indoctrinate them on the virtues of jehad. They draw a very rosy picture of jehad. They tell innocent boys that they will go to the paradise and get 70 houris (angels) if they died in Allah's way. That's what they did to my son," said Maula Bux, father of Kalim, who was killed in Kashmir in March this year.

" ‘Of course, the most steady stream of warriors comes from the seminaries run by various outfits. The seminarians are indoctrinated over a long period of time since they join at a much younger age. When they grow up, they are sent to jehadi outfits where they are imparted guerrilla training to fight in Kashmir. Such boys join the jehadi outfits in huge numbers, though no exact figures are available for recruitment from the seminaries’, Anis Jilani, head of Society for Protection of Children Rights, told the weekly."

Reports PAKISTAN from Lahore: "Chief of the Jamaatul Dawa (new name of the Lashkare-e-Tayyaba) Mohammad Saeed has called the Pakistani rulers as stooges of the West who are betraying their own people..

"The Pentagon has issued some future maps of South Asia and in them Pakistan does not exist. Our leaders have been promoting impudence in our masses to appease US President George Bush. They are getting billions of dollars to brain- wash the people against jehad.

"Mujahideen are being declared terrorists and jehad as terrorism. Our leaders have been collecting billions of dollars from the USA and the West to change the minds of the people against jehad."

DAILY TIMES says from Karachi: "Leaders of the Tehrik Ahle Hadith (TAH) and the Muttahada Majlis Amal (MMA) met in Karachi and devised their strategy to counter ‘attacks on madrasas, by the government's secret agencies and arrest of six Indonesians including the younger brother of Hambali, and 13 Malaysian students at two Salafi seminaries in Karachi last week.

" ‘We had a detailed discussion on the issue and devised our unified strategy to launch a protest campaign against the government’s atrocities against our schools’. TAH chief Abdullah Ghazi told the daily.

"It is learnt the two parties decided to form a coordinating forum to help devise their future course of action effectively. ‘Under this forum, we will decide our unified strategy’, Allama Ghazi said. Besides, sources said, the managements of all the madrasas in the province would form a joint forum to counter any further raids on religious schools in future."

DAILY TIMES reports: " ‘Heads of all the religious schools are likely to be members of this forum who will formally elect their governing body’," Allama Ghazi said, adding the process might take a week or so.

"The forum, the name of which will be decided later, will take up the problems faced by the madrasas with the government and will have mandate to decide and launch campaigns whenever any madrasas complains about the government’s action, it is learnt.

"So far, the Jamaat Islami is the only component of the six-party religious alliance that has begun protest demonstrations and rallies on this issue. Two other components of the MMA, Maulana Noorani’s JUP and Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s JUI has the largest number of Deobandi madrasas in the country followed by the seminaries run by maulana Noorani’s Barelvi school of thought." – (Adni Bureau)

Another move to normalise Kashmir

By Dr Golam Yazdani

The Union Cabinet on October 22 took a decision, which, if allowed smooth implementation, will return Kashmir to full normalcy. The cabinet deputed Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani to open negotiations with Hurriyat leaders. This was a decision the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government had fought shy of all this time. Or, perhaps it had been waiting for the right climate to do so.

Yes, things have changed for the better in Kashmir so much that it made no sense to continue to maintain distance from Hurriyat leadership. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has said a number of times that Kashmiris are ''our own people''. It was on this principle that New Delhi started talks with the representatives of Hizbul Mujahideen in July 2001. Unfortunately, the Establishment in Islamabad used Pakistan-based Kashmiri leaders of the Hizb to sabotage these talks. But the Government has continued to regard rebel Kashmiris as ''our own people''. Prodigal sons, after all, don't cease to be the sons.

The changes in Kashmir, which have made the Cabinet's decision possible, are many. First of all, the 2002 Assembly elections in Jammu & Kashmir once again emphasised the fact of growing irrelevance of the Hurriyat Conference to the aspirations and yearnings of the people of the State. The elections were free and fair-something foreign observers vouchsafed, too. A feeling of being left out had already overtaken some constituents of the Hurriyat before the elections. The People's Conference was accused of having secretly (through ghost candidates) participated in the elections despite the Hurriyat's boycott. The Jamaat-e-Islami made an issue out of it and insisted that the erring party be expelled from the Hurriyat. This became a bone of contention within the Hurriyat as its new Chairman Abbas Ansari refused to oblige the Jamaat. But then Jamaat is itself accused of quietly participating in those elections. Between the elections of 1996 and 2002, one noticed a significant change in the Hurriyat towards the restoration of democratic institution in the State. In 1996, it campaigned against the elections. In 2002, it boycotted them but did not oppose them thus signalling its desire for peace.

The Hurriyat is now free from the liability of the Jamaat, which is known for its double speak and crusade against peace not only in Kashmir but also in Pakistan. Its leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani is a glib talker in favour of Pakistan but spits venom when he talks about India. And that is his qualification for Pakistani patronage. The Hurriyat dropped him in May this year because it was convinced that he was an obstruction in the efforts to restore peace in Kashmir.

Geelani had campaigned against Abbas Ansari accusing him of favouring talks with Indian leaders. But Ansari said the suggestion to talk to Indian leaders had come from Geelani himself. Not only that Geelani had opened his own line of communication with Indian leaders. Ansari, who welcomed the Union Cabinet's decision of October 22, was confident that Hurriyat constituents would not be an impediment in the talks. He told TV interviewers that the Hurriyat has got rid of those who could have posed any problem in talks. He did not mention the Geelani camp but it was very clear what he was referring to.

Ansari's stand on talks with Government leaders is very clear, he does not talk of trilateral talks i.e inclusion of Pakistan. There is no reason to doubt that he has the support of all Hurriyat constituents. It goes without saying that the Hurriyat can do a great service to the people of Kashmir by positively supporting these talks. By now it must have been very clear to them that the kind of pro-Pakistan stance they had been taking earlier would not help them and the people of Kashmir. They must not be seen as mercenaries of Pakistan.

At present, Geelani is said to be enjoying the support of pro-Pakistan terrorists in the State. But terrorism, even in the name of freedom struggle, has its days numbered. With the growing condemnation of terrorism worldwide, Pakistan will find it impossible to fund its agents in Kashmir. The recent observations made by the Saudi Foreign Minister in Islamabad about Indian Muslims (including Muslims in Kashmir) and Kashmir should ring an alarm bell for those who think they can indefinitely live on terrorism. That is, Pakistan is going to face pressure of Saudi Arabia also to stop supporting cross-border terrorism.

Since July this year when Ansari became the Chairman of the Hurriyat, it had been demanding talks with either Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee or Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani. This demand has been accepted now. It is now Hurriyat's responsibility to ensure the success of future talks for the sake of the people of the State and also for the sake of Kashmiris who find themselves stranded in occupied Kashmir where they had been lured and described as refugees.

‘Nobel’ value undermined

By Tushar Charan

Now, giving away an award has never an easy or a smooth task much less if it is as coveted as the Nobel prize. Despite all the efforts of the jury that selects the recipients to look fair, many deserving aspirants who are left out are bound to feel discriminated.

After all, some unintended 'subjective' considerations can always creep in. It is an 'error' that is only human. But it is still uncommon to see award hopeful airing their disappointment in the glare of media publicity as the American inventor, Dr Raymond V. Damadian, president of the Fonar Corporation has done this year.

He was quoted in a full-page advertisement, taken out by his company in the New York Times, as saying that the Nobel Prize committee had committed 'a shameful wrong that must be righted.' The good doctor pioneered the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), now a widespread medical technique for imaging the body without the use of radiation. This year's Nobel Prize in medicine has gone to Dr Paul C Lauterbur of the University of Illinois (USA) and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham (UK).

He was angry mainly because 30 years of work in his chosen field was ignored by the body that gives away the world's most prestigious award as a result of which he found that he had been 'written out of history.' The idea that denial of the award to Dr Damadian would amount to a 'historic' blunder would not have been crossed the minds of experts who overlooked his claims for this year's Nobel Prize in medicine in favour of a British—American duo. It can also be said that little or no 'politics' would have played any role in giving away this year's Nobel Prize in medicine. But if there is one Nobel prize which is often linked to some 'politics' or politial consideration and generates controversy it is the Nobel Prize for Peace.

This is not to assert that the Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, Shirin Ebadi, was not even worthy of consideration for this year's Peace Prize. But many will also argue that some other person might have better deserved the award; the choice could be many.

It has to be noted that Shirin Ebadi's selection for the award has already set off a debate in much of the Muslim world and her native Iran, which as part of the troika of 'axis of evil' (US definition), is currently under intense American focus. She might have done a lot for the rights of women and children in her country, but the truth is that outside her country not much was known about her till she was awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

But it is not the lack of familiarity in the world outside Iran about her contributions to the cause of women and children that has become the subject of the controversy in the Muslim world. It is the fact that Shirin Ebadi, a woman and a Muslim, has been selected for an award that puts her contribution to her society at odds with an influential section of Muslims in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.

The Nobel Prize is, after all, a 'Western' award and it is the West which, in the eyes of the majority of Muslims, is trying to undermine their religion and their values in the name of advancing democracy and human rights. Right or wrong, a large number of Muslims in the world suspects 'ulterior' motives behind the global spotlight thrown on persons like Shirin Ebadi who, after all, is not exactly a darling of the religious fanatics and hardliners. Though she did make some suitable noises against America ('US should keep off Iran'), she is by no means anti-American.

As part of the 'axis of evil', Iran with its alleged pursuit of a nuclear programme (with what else but Pakistani help) lives under a constant threat of an attack by the US. Internally, the situation in Iran appears to be somewhat brittle with almost an open clash between the so-called hardliners in the Government and reformists headed by President Khatami.

The Iranian society looks fractured. So much so that while one section supports Iran's flirtation with a nuclear programme, there are many others who want to see that programme terminated at once. Needless to say, the US supports the reformists and strongly opposes the hardliners. The US (and the west) also needs to swell the rank of its supporters within Iran.

The rest of the world may agree, but the hardliners in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world think that the Nobel Peace award to Shirin Ebadi is some kind of an unwanted interference and an attempt to bolster the reformists in Iran in their quarrel with the hardliners. There are many Iranians who are very happy at the honour that Shirin Ebadi received; but there are also many Iranians who feel just the opposite. Many Iranians have said that the Nobel award for Ms Ebadi 'is a support for secular movement against the 1979 Islamic revolution.

If some of the reports in the West are to be believed, in the Arab world also not everyone is enthused to see the first-ever Muslim woman being awarded the Nobel Prize. In short, their is no universal joy in the Muslim world over the award.

What has happened after this award will reinforce the belief that there is no straight method of selection for the Peace prize. In previous years also many of the Nobel Peace prizes were criticised or looked upon with disbelief. As said in the beginning, there is no foolproof way of ensuring universal praise for awarding Nobel prizes. But the jury that evaluates the merits of various aspirants, especially for an award like the Peace prize which cannot remain free from 'politics,' has to be more circumspect in going about its job.

Perhaps a beginning could be made by tightening the process of selecting the candidates for the award. The impression that in giving the award consideration is given to reaping some 'political' advantages by way of advancement of 'western' values needs to be dispensed with.

The tendency to quickly reward a personality should be avoided at all costs. That is to say that it is alright to bestow the Nobel Peace award on someone like Nelson Mandela whose life struggle won him admiration all over the world, but it is questionable to 'reward' anyone just after he or she signs on a 'shotgun' peace plan. Some other steps may also be considered.

Is it difficult to spell out some acceptable and honest criterion for gauging the contribution of candidates under consideration for the award? The point is that first and foremost, the Nobel jury has to wash away all impressions that its Peace prize has a 'hidden' political agenda behind it.

(Syndicate Features)