Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

The plea made by hotel associations of Jammu to give this picturesque region a fair deal should be taken seriously only to the extent of encouraging tourism in the region. It makes........more

COMPROMISE ON KASHMIR
A sure disaster for peace

By Brigadier (Retd.)
S N Sachadeva

United States of Jammu
& Kashmir: A resolution

By O P Modi

Replying to a Pakistani journalist at Hague, who had asked about Musharraf’s proposal to demilitarise regions in J&K, Manmohan Singh said, "J&K.....more

US upset by Myanmar’s
ties with India

By Prof Ramachary

The Western world, especially the US, was at its hypocritical best in expressing its 'concern' about the visit of the Myanmar president, Than Shwe, to India-the first......more

EDITORIAL

Not a conflict zone

It is unimaginable that Democratic Freedom Party leader Shabir Ahmed Shah should have joined the ruckus at the Hazratbal shrine during Id prayers. Normally a stickler for disciplined conduct he seems to have been carried away by the desire to score a political point against Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. There was commotion, according to a report in this newspaper, when the Mufti got up to address the meeting and the public address system broke down. Some persons stood up and shouted slogans against him. Mr Shah, who was among nearly 50,000 devotees, seized what he clearly thought was a chance to add to the Mufti's discomfiture. He raised the issue of the shameful episode of the rape of a mother and daughter in Handwara and demanded that the Chief Minister should own the moral responsibility. His intervention appears to have stoked the fire. At this stage more people joined the protest. As a consequence the Mufti was whisked away by his security staff. What is to be regretted is that because of the tension thus generated a great majority of people could not offer their prayers --- only about one-tenth of them returned to start them once again. How does such incident do any credit to hecklers on the whole and to Mr Shah in his personal capacity by joining their ranks? While the public rage over the Handwara incident is totally understandable how any responsible leader can overlook certain actions taken by the Government and other concerned authorities to bring the alleged culprits in uniform to book. Are they not aware that the officer stated to be responsible for the most heinous offence has been already suspended without any consideration of his senior rank and a full-fledged inquiry is already on? Has the Mufti himself not described the occurrence as serious? Has his daughter who is also president of the People's Democratic Party leading the ruling coalition not contacted the two victims to put across their concern?

What is worse is that one of the holiest shrines in the country --- Hazratbal is considered very sacred because it has a relic of the Prophet --- has been used as a platform for settling political scores. Admittedly, the shrine had been used in the past as a platform by Sheikh Abdullah to make policy assertions. As long as he could Dr Abdullah has too made political appearances on this forum much like Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq does in the case of Jama Masjid in keeping with his family tradition. In the case of the Mufti it would have been an entirely novel experience had he managed to speak on the occasion: he does not belong to the vicinity of the shrine, considered a traditional stronghold of the National Conference before the party itself developed cold feet. His claim, apart from being the Chief Minister, is that he heads the Muslim Auqaf Trust, which manages most of these places of worship. He ought to have been given the chance to express his mind.

It would have been perfectly valid for anybody to make objections had the Mufti tried to carry out a personal agenda (nobody would dare do so whenever the late Sheikh took the mike; Dr Abdullah was not able to visit Hazratbal for years lest his cavalcade from the city came under fire in the narrow streets -- he in fact had lost control over the management of shrine even before the long spell of terrorism). What is important is that everyone concerned should realise that these important places are intended for a specific religious purpose that should be strictly followed. If they were allowed to become arenas for irrelevant activities they would lose their status and sanctity. One should never fail to remember that the perpetrators of terror have no regard for these shrines in any case: they don't fight shy of killing innocent persons even while they offer prayers in mosques. These criminals would only feel more encouraged in their deadly pursuits if they find out that the self-professed apostles of non-violence are not averse to using mosques for their own petty interests.

Case for Jammu

The plea made by hotel associations of Jammu to give this picturesque region a fair deal should be taken seriously only to the extent of encouraging tourism in the region. It makes sense that Jammu's potential should be fully exploited: it has a remarkable geographical diversity, rich religious and architectural heritage and an unparallel history. Time and again the authorities too have talked about chalking out projects for developing pilgrimage tourism on this side of the Pir Panjal. From the plains of Kathua bordering Punjab to the high mountains of Doda district close to Himachal Pradesh there are many fascinating spots. Each of them can hold anybody's attention. However, the visitors would find it economically feasible if the majority --- if not all --- of these places are linked together and presented as a package. This province is fortunate as it has been blessed by Vaishno Devi: the millions of pilgrims turn up every year at the Trikuta hills contributing in turn to the economic prosperity of their surrounding areas including this city. Essentially it is a question of managing their convenience that can lead to enviable tourism promotion. They must feel tempted to lengthen their post-darshan itinerary instead of returning to their homes straight from Katra. The Patnitop circuit has been planned keeping this objective in view. However, even after it is completed it would not be able to accommodate more than 20,000 tourists which is just a drop in the ocean given the enormous number of five million and more Vaishno Devi pilgrims in a year. It appears that Jammu hoteliers have a complaint that the funds meant for them have been diverted to the Kashmir Valley. Since they have not given relevant statistics and these are not immediately available either to give credence to their charge of discrimination one would like to resist the temptation of hurrying to a judgment. In any event it is a simple matter of verification which the concerned authorities should be able to sort out without any trouble. This, however, can't be the ground for denying what is due to the owners of hotels and houseboats in the Valley who have suffered a great deal during the peak of militancy. Any argument like the one put forward by one hotelier that this region couldn't be treated merely as the gateway to the Valley is not based on sound economic reason. What do they expect to gain by shutting their eyes to those travelling through Jammu to go across the Jawahar Tunnel? Do they want to lose their business on this count?

A better way for Jammu hoteliers would be to provide the best of facilities for all those coming to this land. Most of old hotels in the city particularly can't claim to have eye-catching looks. In most cases it appears as if houses have been hurriedly improvised. Modern tourism is a two-way traffic: the visitors will come lured by environment but they will stay put only if they have necessary comforts. It needs to be remembered.

COMPROMISE ON KASHMIR
A sure disaster for peace

By Brigadier (Retd.) S N Sachadeva

Whatever the merits of General Pervez Musharaff's latest suggestion on Jammu and Kashmir, there is no avoiding the conclusion that India has accepted the Pakistani position that state is disputed territory. This is a dangerous development, but in fairness to Mr Manmohan Singh it must be said that it is not a new one. J&K's status as an integral part of India was first jeopardised in the 2001 summit with the Pakistani dictator.

Although former Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has denied a US role in facilitating (read pressuring) India into talking to Pakistan, there is no other rational explanation for the NDA's volte face after the horrible price paid to regain Kargil in 1999. Worse, citizens monitoring the Agra show on television were dismayed to find the BJP-led regime overly anxious to accommodate the usurper-turned-President's desire to talk Kashmir on Indian soil. The heavy duty sound-bytes from members of the Pakistani delegation created fears that New Delhi would concede actual territory to Pakistan.

It seems this was narrowly averted. But Pakistan succeeded in projecting Kashmir as disputed territory, and the Indian public has since received shocks regarding possible surrender of territory. In Mr Vajpayee's time there was talk of converting the Line of Control into an international border with adjustments giving Pakistan a town falling on both sides of the LoC. Recently, there has been talk of giving Islamabad two key towns that would facilitate a hostile takeover of the valley.

And now the General has proposed that the two countries grant "autonomy" (whatever that means) to parts of Jammu and Kashmir. What this really means is that New Delhi walk out of the state district by district so that the Pakistani army can move in without bloodshed. And instead of snubbing the General, the Foreign Ministry lamely asserted that serious proposals should not come through the media! Does this mean India will consider the proposal when the US State Department next visits?

In my view, we must urgently scrutinise the US-Pak axis and its potential to damage our security. The American failure to control the ground situation in Iraq has rejuvenated the Islamic fundamentalists. According to Al Qaeda's Voice of jihad, the US is in a greater strategic mess in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It is said that for all practical purposes Washington has abandoned the war. The excitement of the jihadis is reflected in their websites which regularly broadcast images of Western hostages pleading with their abductors as well as their respective governments to spare their lives before being beheaded "live" to shock and awe civilians across the globe.

The US-Pak axis comes into play here because, according to western analysts, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Pakistan's largest militant group, seems to be shifting its focus from Kashmir (no doubt only temporarily) to Iraq. Recently LeT's online Urdu publication gave a call for holy warriors to go to Iraq to avenge the tortures at the Abu Gharaib prison and the alleged "rapes of Iraqi Muslim women" The site alleged that Americans were "dishonoring our mothers and sisters", and hence jihad against America had become mandatory. While it is difficult to assess the impact of this appeal, the Americans have already captured Pakistani members of LeT in Iraq. Hence the State Department's desperation to turn to canon-balls back towards India. Howsoever cynical, makes sense.

Of course, even a weak Indian government cannot accede to such a blatant assault on our sovereignty and interests. Mr Manmohan Singh will greatly enhance his credibility if he unambiguously asserts Jammu and Kashmir's Indian identity, and puts curbs on the absurd policy of open border or soft border, which only facilitates Pakistani access to secessionist elements in the state. This is all the more necessary because, since General Musharraf's 2001 visit, discerning citizens have observed a broad accord between ideologically disparate political parties to undermine the traditional consensus that Kashmir is an inalienable part of India. Prior to General Musharraf's arrival in New Delhi, the principal left parties discussed Kashmir with the then Pakistani High Commissioner, even though former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto had questioned the General's legitimacy and authority to discuss such sensitive matters with the Indian Government.

Since then, selective voices are being propped up to clamour for a soft, de-militarised border, even though the Army is emphatic that infiltration has not declined. The officially-sponsored proponents of "India-Pakistan bhai bhai" are, however, unwilling to heed this warning. Those who think the Kashmir border is too porous have been rendered politically incorrect and ineffectual.

It is shocking that neither the UPA Government nor the principal opposition party has asked the General to apply his formula to Occupied Kashmir, and allow India to observe its success. There can be no question of parity or quid pro quo on this issue because occupied Kashmir is mainly populated by non-Kashmiris such as Punjabis, Mirpuris and Pashtuns, who were settled there as part of a deliberate policy of demographic rearrangement. The native Muslim population of PoK is truly oppressed and figures nowhere in the General's proposals. India's Jammu and Kashmir is occupied by its indigenous population, barring of course, the Kashmiri Pandits who have been driven out.

With Al Qaeda cells being unearthed in almost all parts of the country. New Delhi cannot be perceived as soft on Pakistan's jihadi generals and mullahs Certainly, we cannot pander to a harebrained American scheme to placate Pakistani fundamentalists with Indian blood and territory. Nationalist Indians would do well to petition President Abdul Kalam to advise prime minister Manmohan Singh to keep the Indian people fully informed about the nature of talks with Pakistan or third parties like the Americans or British on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

On his part, Mr Manmohan Singh would do well to remember that he heads a coalition government and that the people of India have not given him a mandate to cede territory to hostile neighbours. Indeed, no political party has such a mandate. Politicians of all hues should know that so long as our Generals and soldiers tell us they are willing to shed their blood for the defense of the motherland, so long as they do not publicly declare that they can no longer face the war of a thousand cuts, we will stand firm. The fatigue of old and tired men cannot be attributed to the nation: hence no political party or coalition has the right to take action inimical to the national interest. INAV

United States of Jammu & Kashmir: A resolution

By O P Modi

Replying to a Pakistani journalist at Hague, who had asked about Musharraf’s proposal to demilitarise regions in J&K, Manmohan Singh said, "J&K is an integral part of India and it is not a matter for discussion with outside agencies". He also told the journalist: "Well, if we receive it formally as a proposal, then we will react in an appropriate manner".

The most appropriate response by New Delhi to Musharraf’s ambiguous, impracticable and funny proposition would be to make an offer of autonomous status, under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, to the people of PoK and the Gilgit Agency (now called Northern Areas). Strangely India never thought of giving a call to the people of these parts of J&K to demand reunion with their kith and kin in the Valley and Jammu region? This needs to be tried. We know that the people in PoK are treated as vassals by Pakistan? It is a well known fact that there is no freedom of press and platform in PoK. While the Northern Areas have been merged with Pakistan the people there do not have citizens’ rights whatsoever. Article 370 does not differentiate between the people of Pak held areas from those living in rest of Jammu & Kashmir. According to oft repeated pronouncements whole of the state is an integral part of India; therefore the people of Pak occupied areas are as good citizens of India as those living in the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. It follows that New Delhi is duty bound to ask Pakistan to end its illegal occupation of those areas. That is the only issue concerning Kashmir that needs to be discussed with Musharraf.

A new set up for the state should be worked out to accommodate Pak held areas and to satisfy the aspirations of people of all regions that formed the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir; that is to say. as it stood prior to 27th October 1947. The best arrangement would be to allow a federal set up in the state under article 370. The federating regions would be granted full fledged statehood. A Senate comprising of elected representatives from each such state would govern the reunited J&K; acting as the state’s central administration with subjects of common interest under its control. There are five regions of J&K and not seven as deceptively mentioned by General Musharraf in his new formula. The five regions are: Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, PoK and the Gilgit Agency. These five regions will unite as federal states to constitute the United States of Jammu & Kashmir.

Each state so constituted will have its own Legislative Assembly. While the regions held by Pakistan should be guaranteed maximum autonomy with only Defence, Communication and Foreign Affairs remaining with New Delhi the Kashmir region may be granted autonomy as demanded by National Conference. Likewise Jammu and Ladakh, the other two federating partners that are asking for greater integration with rest of the country too will have the option of retaining, rejecting or adding any Central Law as might be recommended by their respective Legislative Assemblies. This way all the internal dissentions will also vanish and the economic progress of each participating state assured.

Coming back to General Parvez Musharraf’s latest "food for thought" on Kashmir it can be said with certainty that it is a proof of Pakistan conceding defeat in its Proxy War waged by it in 1989 to take the valley by force. Having been defeated in four conventional wars against India, since 1947, Pakistan has once again met with failure in the Proxy War to capture Kashmir by large scale armed infiltration and subversion. The war by proxy is now sought to be turned into a war of attrition against India and Musharraf’s first attempt in that direction is his "new formula" to solve the so called Kashmir problem. The rule in war of attrition is that the one, who wears out first or gets tired of defending oneself, will finally be conquered by the other.

The concoction for Jammu & Kashmir that General Musharraf has offered now is to divide the state on communal lines. He says that while Pakistan holds two India has five regions of the state under its control. Which are those five regions? He says those are to be identified. But going by the two nations theory because of which Pakistan was created one can be sure that the five regions that are in the mind of Parvez Musharraf are Kashmir Valley, Kargil, Rajouri-Poonch (all Muslim majority areas) and Jammu and Udhampur (Hindu majority districts). "Identify the regions, demilitarise them for ever and change their status". He talks of granting independence to some region or regions and put them under joint control or under the UN mandate.

Having realised that Kashmir Valley will in no case support merger with Pakistan Musharraf may opt for its independence because that is what is aimed at by his masters the Americans. America is after this strategic region as it will give it the dominating position in South Asia. The change of heart on the part of Musharraf is not because of any softening of attitude but simply due to the American pressure on him. The hard fact that the recently visiting scribes from Pakistan have realised after their tour of the valley is what Mr. Imtayaz Alam, the General Secretary of SAFMA and the leader of the visiting journalists has stated; "Kashmiris expect Pakistan to support their independence, but that does not mean they want to be part of Pakistan. Most of the Kashmiris want independence". He further said that there is diversity of opinion among the Kashmiris. The people in Jammu had entirely different view of the situation than those in Srinagar. The visiting Pakistani journalists were accorded hostile reception with anti-Pakistan slogans. The fact is that while majority in Ladakh and Jammu region is for greater integration with rest of the country many Kashmiris want autonomy.

Recently, following media reports of Musharraf’s confusing new Kashmir formula a number of learned writers have expressed their views through print and electronic media. These range from its approval to its modification. Examples of Greece and Turkey’s fight for control over Cyprus and over three decades terrorism against Britain by Northern Ireland militants have been cited. Settlement of Kashmir issue based on Andorra formula by which it has been made autonomous region, linked to both France and Spain by trade and treaty, has also been suggested. Some writers have provided their own way out of the vexed Kashmir problem. Most of the writers have placed India and Pakistan at par in their dispute over Kashmir. They have overlooked the fact that Pakistan is an aggressor and that it cannot be equated with India to which the state has lawfully acceded in 1947. It is forgotten by them that the clash here is that of the ideologies. While India is a secular nation that is made up of people of all religions, colour and creeds Pakistan stands for one religion and that too for one stream out of it. Not to speak of minorities even Ahmedias and Shias in Pakistan are treated differently. While defending Kashmir India is fighting for the same objectives as it fought against the partition of the sub-continent that took place on the basis of religion. Can India accept another partition of the country?

To keep the secular ideology alive and functioning India should not allow continued possession of PoK and Northern Areas by Pakistan. It should not shy away from asking the people of those parts of the state to demand reunion with the people on this side of the LoC. By making an offer of autonomous status to Pak occupied areas of the state a process will be initiated to strengthen the philosophy of secularismwhich is the bed rock of oneness of this country.

US upset by Myanmar’s ties with India

By Prof Ramachary

The Western world, especially the US, was at its hypocritical best in expressing its 'concern' about the visit of the Myanmar president, Than Shwe, to India-the first by a Myanmar head of state in almost quarter of a century. While the Myanmar leader was leaving the Indian shores, in Washington the US State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, was either being condescending or was warning India audaciously: 'The government of India is aware of our concerns about the situation in Burma (Myanmar)'.

The implication was that since India was 'aware' of the 'concerns' that the visit had provoked in that distant but the world's mightiest land, New Delhi had earned the American wrath, which, as everybody knows after Iraq, can be a precursor to US invasion. Boucher added: ' We hope that the government of India will convey to Than Shwe during his visit concerns shared by the international community.'

If he was 'warning' India, Boucher had chosen a rather circuitous way. According to a media report, Boucher was reacting to an outburst against India by a 'powerful' US senator, Mitch McConnell, against the visit. This worthy upholder of America's double standards in international relations had said in a choleric statement laced with evangelical sermons: 'It is absolutely appalling that the world's largest democracy is embracing one of the world's most repressive and illegitimate military juntas. The community of democracies should expect more from one of its members.'

No, this is not all that he has to preach India. Adds this US senator, a Republican and presumably one of the neo-con admirers of President George W. Bush: 'I hope it is not lost on India's leadership that their long-term interests are best served by a Burma rooted in democracy, freedom and justice.' His last bit of gratuitous advice: 'India has served as an exemplar for non-violence and should do more for those Burmese who continue to courageously and non-violently struggle for democracy.'

The world's 'largest' democracy may be up to vile things, if McConnell is to be believed, but what about the record of the world's 'oldest' democracy? Why does the US continue to support many 'repressive' and 'illegitimate' military juntas in the world-not only in the third world but also in the 'new' Europe? And does India need US advise on how best its long-term interests are served?

Americans like McConnell have neither the capacity nor the willingness to take an inward look because they think that it has become America's divine right to 'reform' the 'erring' and 'sinning' nations of the world who do not measure up to the US-defined concepts of democracy and freedom.

A hallmark of that US definition is that a country can still be counted among democracies even if ruled by a military general who usurps power from an elected leader as long as that general is held dear by the Americans. Obviously, the Myanmar military strongman is no favourite of the Americans and, hence, unacceptable to Uncle Sam.

Textbook definition of democracy demands acceptance of dissent. As the self-style champion of democracy in the world, is it too much to expect the US to snap its relations, much less (burgeoning) trade ties, with a country that massacres protesters gathered for peaceful demonstration at the capital's prominent square are clearly? Particularly when such a country happens to be talking to Myanmar all the time.

Make no mistake about it. Few, if any, in India support the suppressive ways of the military junta of Myanmar. There is a great deal of support and sympathy in this country for the jailed Aung San Suu Kyi who had graduated from New Delhi's prestigious Lady Sri Ram College while her father was her country's ambassador in India. The human rights record of Myanmar is indeed deplorable. Add more unpleasant facts about Myanmar if you wish.

But is India the only democratic nation in the world, which has engaged a military dictatorship in a dialogue? Myanmar has a contiguous and quite a porous border with India, which has made it possible for many insurgents in India's northeast to set up camp in the jungles of Myanmar. These insurgents who seek to disintegrate India will find it difficult to operate from within Myanmar if New Delhi can persuade Yangoon to act against those rebels.

In the past, an 'isolated' Myanmar was assiduously cultivated by China which was able to gain access to one of the islands near the Indian waters to establish military surveillance facilities much to the discomfort of India. China continues to woo Myanmar but since it is not a democracy, the US believes Beijing is free to expand multi-layered relations with the Myanmar regime.

It has to be presumed that a Yangoon regime more friendly towards New Delhi would not allow Indian insurgents to use Myanmar territories for their anti-Indian activities. There is this question of border trade, especially between Mizoram and Myanmar, which requires the two countries to building better roads. Much of the illegal trade between the two countries has to be stopped in favour of legitimate business ties. McConnell will be living in a fool's paradise if he thinks that India has no right to protect its interests by talking to its eastern neighbour.

It may be regrettable but it is a well-known principle of international relations that a nation fashions its bilateral ties with another nation on the basis of its own interests and as long as they do not pose a serious and real threat to a third country, no country, including the US, has any right to poke its nose in affairs concerning two sovereign nations.

Americans like McConnell tend to forget that it is the US, which is the most ardent practitioner of this unwritten first principle of international relations. But then men like McConnell also tend to overlook lots of other things-such as the fact that the US has proved to be a sham supporter of democracy and freedom and while it uses human rights as a whip against countries it does not like or that refuse to genuflect before it, Washington has no qualms about brazenly acting in violation of human rights.

In Guantanamo Bay foreign nationals can be tortured and held as long as the US pleases and nobody has the right to question it. Citizens of countries occupied by the US become lesser mortals. Their sufferings and even death are to be seen as part of 'collateral' (hence, incidental) damages brought by their American 'saviours'. The US violates no human rights or rules of dignified behaviour with human beings when it freely humiliates and ill-treats visitors and residents; it can seek a man or a woman anywhere on earth by branding him or her a person inimical to self-defined US interests.

Such concessions in human rights violations are naturally exclusive to the sole superpower, the US. The CIA gained worldwide 'fame' not just for spying on other countries but after one of its main concerns became dethroning and assassinating the once-favourite dictators in Latin America and elsewhere because they no longer served US interests.

A valid reason for US anger against the Burmese military junta leader is that he is a dictator. Dictatorship and democracy do not go together. But the US has a long and distinguished record of either propping up a string of dictators in various parts of the world or lending them support as long as they kowtow to the US diktats.

The US is perhaps so deeply worried about the growth of terrorism in the world that it finds it difficult to sustain its ardour for promoting democracy in certain parts of the world. But that does not stop McConnells of the Yankee land from lecturing countries where democracy has taken firm roots.

The likes of McConnell need to acknowledge that much of the terrorist outfit in the world owes its birth to the US efforts in Afghanistan where during its occupation by the erstwhile Soviet Union, the US and Pakistan had joined hands to raise an army of religious fundamentalists who effortlessly morphed into today's Islamic terrorists.

These forces are challenging the US to dare plant democracy in countries ruled by despots and military strongmen; but McConnells of the US are worried only about India talking to a military regime in its neighbourhood. (Syndicate Features)