Manmohan-Aziz gesture
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

As I write Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is moving into the room where he will have an exchange of views on ''matters of mutual interest'' with his Indian counterpart. Aziz, as we have been told in advance, is here (a) to review the SAARC's working during the time Pakistan chaired the regional organization, (b) and, more importantly, to try to remove the cobwebs that have gathered round the Indo-Pak dialogue these past few weeks. References to Musharraf's unofficial ''concepts'' will stay to the minimum even as they get an airing.

Manmohan Singh is most likely to explain the implications of what exactly he meant by what was said in his public addresses during his stay Jammu and Kashmir and why India is not overly keen to accept the Pakistani assumption that the Hurriyat, the moderates as well as the hardliners, deserve to be made a party to the bilateral Indo-Pak dialogue.

This last point was rebuffed by the Indian Prime Minister when he responded to Shaukat Aziz's marathon meetings with the two Hurriyat factions on Tuesday night, by inviting leaders of the two leading mainstream parties in the State, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, to his fete in honour of the Pakistani visitor.

The latter gesture may seem meanigless to many but it needed to be made. The symbolism was hard to miss. The Pakistani propaganda mills have never ceased to project the duly elected Government of Jammu and Kashmir as unrepresentative and conversely, the Hurriyat as representative of the people. The Indians probably have realised that they have failed to project the duly elected Government in the State as representative of the people. Not all of them necessarily have an identical view on matters affecting the State and its relationship with the Union.

I again repeat my ignorance at the moment of writing what exactly transpired at the meeting of the two Prime Ministers and their high-level delegation including any number of Ministers on either side and don't you forget the ubequitous bureaucrats whose job for the most part is to keep a watchful eye on all the warts they spot on rival visages. In this context let me allow myself the liberty of ignoring the Kashmir element of the dialogue and instead look at the possibilities that a friendly cooperative relationship between the two major South Asian neighbours is capable of unfolding.

I am venturing to do so in full knowledge that most observers of the cub-continental scene do not think that Musharraf's ''food for thought'' served at his Iftar Party weeks ago, envisaging a plan of action to solve the Kashmir tangle, was for real. Stephen P Cohen, of the Washington-based Brookings institute says he believes Musharraf proposals may be acceptable to some Kashmiris (Geelani look-alikes), but not to the Indian Government. In his view any solution that is acceptable to all parties is viable. ''I see a long period of dialogue and negotiations, especially within Pakistan, before we get closer to a settlement,'' Cohen says. Pressure of public opinion may finally embarrass the Pakistani military establishment to work out a solution at the negotiating table. Why would a military dictator allow the reopening of the bus route between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad building a bridge as it were over the line of control that splits Kashmir. If the opening up of mobile telephony is an indication the thud of the footfalls across the LOC would certainly drown the arguments for division.

Musharraf is prone to publicity for his ''honest and forthright'' moves through the media and his pet clamour continues to be international participation. Of this he will get a lot soon when he meets George Bush, his ''friend'' and mentor, and with whom he is soon to mount the biggest ever manhunt for Osama bin Laden. He is also likely to give the Americans a freer hand in their search for the elusive Osama, sometimes reported to be in the NWFP, sometimes across the border in Afghanistan.

Back to the composite dialogue. We have the word of experts that to disentangle Kashmir will take a lot longer than perceived by some. Let's talks of the boundaries separating the nations of the South Asia region. These are an artificial and unnatural legacy of colonialism the Radcliffe award that partitioned India into India and Pakistan, the Durand Line, that separated Pakistan and Afghanistan, obviously defy principles of nationhood. The last half century of existing national bundaries has left a deep impress on national consciousness of the people of the region.

To my mind the exampe of European Union presents a solution. If, as in the EU, the countries of the South Asian region were to opt for common defence, common market, free movement of labour and capital and later perhaps a common currency, it would become much easier in the light of such comments for Governments to consider rationally the quantum of autonomy for Pushtuns straddling the Pak-Afghan border, the baluchis whose struggle against, Islamabad has never ceased and may be even in Jammu and Kashmir.

In the immediate future see how much India and Pakistan would stand to gain if just one project- the pipeline from Iran and Central Asia is allowed to pass through Pakistan. Islamabad alone will stand to gain 600 million dollars annually as a kind of royalty. If the trade between the two countries were to be expanded the region would become the largest single market. More than anything else a EU type of union among the nations of the SAARC would make the area virtually, conflict free, enabling their peoples to an expeditious entry into an era of peace and prosperity.

Us laments Pak defending Dawood
Men and Matters

By B.L. Kak

Even as Pakistan's ruler, Gen. Parvez Musharraf, continues to be the 'stalwart ally" of the US Government, Washington has had no reservation as it took exception to Islamabad's unwanted defence of Pakistan-based Indian underworld don, Dawood Ibrahim. Obviously, it was beyond the expectations of Islamabad when the United States virtually brushed aside the former's plea to rectify the statement on Dawood Ibrahim—the statement declaring him as a 'Global Terrorist' with a Pakistani passport.

True, the US, at the time of issuing Dawood-related notification, talked of the underworld don's residence in Karachi. But Pakistan's demand asking the US to rectify its statement carried little weight as Dawood Ibrahim continued to live on the soil of Pakistan — somewhere in the vicinity of Islamabad.

The US intelligence machinery, undoubtedly, has had quite a few reverses in the recent times. But American sleuths have found it difficult to digest Pakistan Government's statement denying the presence of Dawood Ibrahim on Pakistani soil. It would be holding the stick from a wrong end if anyone in Pakistan tried to ignore or reject the US notification regarding Dawood's criminal activities in India and the Gulf.

Dawood Ibrahim is in Pakistan. For obvious reasons, he is avoiding to stay but in his Islamabad residence for longer periods. He is being moved around to 'safe-houses' of Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) in Rawalpindi and Peshawar. The US Treasury Department has already moved to freeze Dawood's assets within America. Such a step is mandatory after the official determination that he had engaged in international terrorist activity.

What was most significant about the US action was that it upheld long-standing Indian claims that Dawood was in Pakistan. The US Treasury Department believed that Dawood, operating from Pakistan, ran an extensive narcotics-trafficking empire, which he shared with terrorist organisations such as the Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Toiba. Funds raised by running narcotics to Western Europe were in part used to shore up terrorist activities in India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.

The US cannot, and should not, be faulted for the way in which it provided additional proof, if any indeed was needed, of Pakistan harbouring underworld don, Dawood. This, in plain language, nailed the lie of Pakistani President and Army Chief, Gen. Parvez Musharraf, who had, on more than one occasion, categorically asserted that the man responsible for engineering death of 202 people in the Mumbai blasts of 1993 was not in Pakistan.

Gen. Musharraf's spin-doctors may well claim that it is impossible for him to know each and every person in his country. But Dawood Ibrahim is by no means an ordinary man. And the public focus of the media, especially in Pakistan in recent times, including the reported linkage with Dawood funding the ISI from narcotics trafficking to the extent of one billion dollars a year, could hardly be ignored indefinitely.

Dawood fled to Pakistan from Dubai in the wake of 1993 serial bombing of Mumbai. The principal accused in the outrage, Dawood also faces a welter of other terrorism-related charges in India. India has, once again, demanded Dawood's extradition from Pakistan along with 19 other terrorists. Will Islamabad oblige New Delhi? Pakistan is unlikely to hand over Dawood. Pakistan has an interest in protecting Dawood Ibrahim because he knows too much.

Not long ago, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) were both designated terrorist organisations by the US. But their leaders continue to operate openly within Pakistan. Pakistan did act in the matter of some accounts allegedly held by these organisations. But there was little substantive impact on their activities. Fund-raising by the JeM and the LeT continues in Pakistan, as do transfer of funds to these organisations from Islamist groups based in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Large sections of Indian population do not know that the list of 20 was shortened from a preliminary list of 42 that was prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs when the NDA Government with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister was in power at the Centre. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, chief of Lashkar-e-Toiba, by some account also featured on the official list. Saeed's rise was, in large measure, the outcome of patronage by the Pak military dictator, Zia-ul-Haq, who granted the Markaz Dawa wa'al-Irshad its sprawling campus at Muridke near Lahore. The Markaz is an organisation committed to prosely-tisation, and which happens to be the patron of the LeT.

The LeT was set up to give the ISI a direct role in terrorist operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Within two years, the LeT achieved a big success, namely, setting up of a number of cells in J&K and elsewhere in India. From the outset, the LeT has made it clear that it sees the 'war' in Jammu and Kashmir as 'just a stepping stone" to establishing Islamic rule throughout South Asia.

Equally important name in the list is that of Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammed. Major case against him: FIR No. I of 1993, filed by Counter-Intelligence, Jammu and Kashmir Police, under Section 3&4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. No FIRs, however, were registered for subsequent JeM attacks. In 1989, he was forced to drop out of his first, and only, arms training course with the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen because he was overweight. But by 1993, he was second only to the Harkat chief, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, having established himself as a fund-raiser and ideologue.

After his release in the Indian Airlines IC-814 for hostages-for-prisoners swap in December 1999, he founded the Jaish-e-Mohammed. It is the most feared terrorist group in Jammu and Kashmir today. Several attempts were made to secure Azhar's release by means of kidnappings, notably one by Syed Omar Sheikh, released along with him in the IC-814 deal. The Sheikh, a British national and London School of Economics graduate, remains Azhar's close aide. Both Jaish leaders have close links with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Mohammed Yusuf Shah, better known by his nom de guerre Syed Salahuddin, also finds an important place in the list forwarded to Islamabad by New Delhi. Salahuddin has led the dreaded Hizbul Mujahideen since November 1991. Curiously, there are no FIRs (first information reports) against him relating to crimes committed prior to 1991. It was only in 1997-1998 that the J&K Police made serious efforts to build a legal case against him.