Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

People important than
Pak Army's budget ?

By Samuel Baid

On the Eid day on November 4 General Pervez Musharraf went to Muzaffarabad in occupied Kashmir and made a statement that sounded like an Eidi (Eid gift) for the quake-smitten Kashmiris. The Eidi was his announcement to the media that Pakistan was deferring the purchase of F-16 planes from the United States so that the money meant for them was spent on relief and reconstruction work. ''I am going to postpone that. We want to bring maximum relief and reconstruction efforts,'' he ......more

A View Point
New thinking on Kashmir

(The article 'New thinking on Kashmir' by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq Chairman, All Parties Hurriyat Conference was read by him at ''the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit' New Delhi. The Daily Excelsior publishes the article verbatim with minor changes) Editor

For the greater part of its history, Kashmir has maintained an independent existence. Its individuality has been shaped by its distinctive natural setting, the diligence and craftsmanship of its people, its long experience of phases of growth and decline and its sustained traditions of amity and tolerance between the different religious or cultural communities. .........more

EDITORIAL

Secessionist blues

On the face of it Tehreek-e-Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani has encountered yet another reverse with Mr Masrat Alam quitting his immediate company. The latter has returned to his parent organisation Muslim League. After all, the veteran separatist leader had appointed Mr Alam as one of his three political successors the other two being Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai, one of his oldest colleagues from the Jamaat-e-Islami days, and Mr Ghulam Nabi Sumji who had parted company with moderate Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Bhat to launch his own version of the Muslim Conference. This was when he had fallen sick. In addition, Mr Alam had also been appointed secretary-general of Mr Geelani's party. What has provoked Mr Alam to say good-bye to the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat at this juncture is not clear. If one goes by his public utterances he has been unhappy because of the confusion over the dual membership issue involving Tehreek-e-Hurriyat and the Jamaat-e-Islami. However, the tug of war between Mr Geelani and the Jamaat leadership is not a new development and the fact that Mr Alam has lived with it for too long during the crucial formative years makes it difficult to straightway accept his any such claim. Possibly he has been marginalised by the forces formerly close to the Jamaat which apparently call the shots in the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat. At least four other leaders including Mr Nayeem Khan of the National Front and Mr Ghulam Mohammad Hubbi, a former associate of slain People's Conference (PC) supremo Abdul Ghani Lone, have also moved away from Mr Geelani in the recent months. They have expressed disagreement with Mr Geelani's stubborn resistance to the dialogue process. Mr Khan has moreover given vent to his anguish over Mr Geelani's penchant for taking unilateral decisions without involving other colleagues. Apart from the National Front and Mr Hubbi's PC for whatever it was worth the Anjuman-e-Shar-e-Shi'an and People's Movement have left Mr Geelani. All of them have severed relations with Mr Geelani's Hurriyat Conference, which is widely known as the hardcore Hurriyat. On the other hand, Mr Alam continues to remain a constituent of the conglomeration --- as a temporary sojourn or for good one can't say with confidence.

With this background in view Mr Geelani may appear to have been cut off from the rest of the secessionist crowd. He has seriously strained relations with the present Jamaat leaders notwithstanding that he has been one of the main architects of the fundamentalist organisation in the State. What is worse if strictly seen from his angle is that he does not enjoy the trust of even the current Pakistan establishment. Yet, he is the most ardent pro-Pakistan voice in the State and explains away his predicament by distinguishing the Musharraf Government from the people of the neighbouring country who he believes are with him. He is encouraged by surprisingly good response to his public meetings on either side of the Pir Panjal and appears to be enjoying his increasing isolation which he evidently finds splendid. There is no change in his approach to eulogise the militants including foreign mercenaries for their role in the State. Given the increasing bonhomie between New Delhi and Islamabad he is being unrealistic. He does not, however, agree with this view. Apparently he feels that his stance is moral that the issue of Kashmir should be decided in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

It may be a coincidence but one finds it interesting that Mr Geelani's arch ideological foe Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) too is undergoing discomfiture. There is no unity in sight between its two main factions led by the Muzaffarabad-based Mr Amanullah Khan and Mr Yasin Malik who functions from Srinagar's Maisuma Bazar. The two leaders had agreed five months ago to "take sincere, constructive and practical steps to again reunite the organisation." A six-member committee headed by Jammu-born Rawalpindi-based medical practitioner Farooq Haidar (he had long ago switched his support from Mr Khan to Mr Malik) which was set up in pursuance of this agreement is stated to have finalised modalities about reunification. However, the differences have again cropped up among them. Some observers attribute it to the dissimilar styles of functioning of Mr Malik and Mr Khan. The latter in fact had openly expressed resentment about his younger follower-turned-rival's "arrogant" behaviour in an inter-action with the touring Indian journalists in Muzaffarabad last winter. Now again one of his spokespersons has blamed "self-centred approach of some people" for frustrating the reunity attempt. Care has been taken this time not to mention Mr Malik or any of his close colleagues by name. It implies that they are still hoping against hope for a breakthrough. Several other groups are also functioning globally in the name of the JKLF. However, the one led by Mr Malik is considered to have a comparatively wide support. On the other hand, Mr Khan's presence as an uncompromising champion of "united, secular and independent" Jammu and Kashmir gives credibility to his faction whose support base, however, is suspect. Whatever that may be the secessionist spectrum has been divided and sub-divided over the years for varying reasons. The process as one can see goes on.

Joy in Poonch

Eventually the trauma of the October 8 earthquake was partially overcome in Poonch district on Monday when nine persons walked across the Line of Control. Chakan-ka-Bagh on the LoC thus became the second point to witness the movement of human beings, the first being the Kaman Bridge in Uri district. On November 7 when it was first opened for exchange of relief for victims of the tremor a large crowd had gathered in the Pakistan-held part in anticipation of crossing over. Some of them had actually run towards what was a minefield on way to the LoC and had to be deterred by the Pakistan security forces by resorting to lathicharge and teargassing. Of the nine travellers six are from Mendhar and one from Poonch who have been motivated mainly by the desire to meet their worse-hit relatives on the other side. The other two are actually residents of the occupied area. They had come to the State via Kaman Bridge before the quake rocked their home region and have now walked back through the new route. For this mother-and-son duo a shock must have awaited on the devastated home turf which when they had left was in a perfect condition. Poonch was one of the districts which were virtually split in the middle in 1947. It has a large number of divided families. They now have something to cheer even in these painful days.

People important than Pak Army's budget ?

By Samuel Baid

This statement of General Musharraf was baffling because just on October 31 he was emphatic that the country's defence budget would not be cut for the sake of relief and reconstruction work in quake-affected areas. Pakistan's security was more important, he said. He made this statement in Rawalpindi, which houses Army's headquarters or GHQ. The reason for his contradictory statements in two different places is simple: in Rawalpindi he dared not say what he said in Muzaffarabad and in Muzaffarabad, where quake-affected people are in a revolting mood because of the Army's delayed and inadequate help, he could not say what he said in Rawalpindi.

It appears General Musharraf's statement had no prior approval of the Army or the National Security Council- leave aside Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's Cabinet. Army spokesman Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan fumbled when BBC Urdu asked him about General Musharraf's Muzaffarabad statement. His reply was that a decision to that effect had not been taken and it was the practice that funds from one department's budget were not diverted to another department. Also, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who was replying to people's questions about post-earthquake relief work in the Talking Point Programme of BBC Urdu on November 8, did not once refer to General Musharraf's statement about delaying the purchase of F-16s. On the contrary, the Prime Minister strongly defended the country's defence budget. In reply to a question about the enormity of Pakistan's defence budget, he said it were the Army men who went to far-flung areas, unmindful of their own security , to do the rescue and relief work. He repeatedly said the Rs 25,000, he sanctioned for each destroyed house, should be enough to make one room to provide shelter in the coming winter.

Even if Islamabad halves its defence budget in an effort to restore normal life in PoK, it will not be doing something equal to the benefits it has derived from this territory in the past 56 years. Pakistanis call it their lifeline and in September 2001, when he announced his decision to join the US-led war against global terrorism, General Musharraf described it as his country's asset.

Pakistan has estimated that it will need five billion dollars for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the quake-affected areas of PoK and North West Frontier Province (NWFP). But the world community is not prepared to foot this bill. General Musharraf complains that the world has not responded as generously to the quake in Pakistan as it did in the case of Tsunami because Western tourists were not trapped by the quake in Pakistan. The United Nations says it needs 550 million dollars for help to quake victims, but it received pledges only of 133 million dollars.

One reason for the world donors' hesitation to pour help into Pakistan to Islamabad's satisfaction could be the fact that Pakistan itself is not willing for self-help by diverting money from defence to helping its own people. Its proposed defence budget for 2005-06 is whopping Rs 223.5 billion which is 20.3 percent of the total expenditure and 3.3 percent of the GDP. This allocation does not include pensions given to ex-servicemen, salaries to defence production officials, armed forces civilian employees, Rangers, Frontier Constabulary, Coast Guards and Army schools. These expenditure are shown in civilian budget.

A month after the quake the Military Government has not taken a definite decision to divert money from defence allocation to relief and rehabilitation work. It seems to believe that this work is the responsibility of foreign donors. Secretary-General of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Iqbal Haider says : ''Why the donors would give us aid if we can waste more than 10 billion dollars on purchasing F-16 aircraft and frigates.. There is no justification for purchasing these toys. They will serve no purpose if they protect our graveyards.''

Pakistan Peoples Party leader Farhatullah Babar speaking for his party, quoted a Swedish newspaper to say that while people were dying in PoK and NWFP, General Musharraf was busy supervising the reported purchase of six Saab 2000 radar-fitted surveillance aircraft at a cost of more than one billion dollars. Mr Babar suggested that in view of the current emergency caused by the October 8 quake, the Army suspend the construction of the new GHQ building in Islamabad at least for two years and use the money thus saved for quake victims. The present GHQ building in Rawalpindi was good enough, he said.

He also suggested that the military officers dispose of their luxury cars to raise money for quake victims. Another suggestion was that the huge defence outlay be diverted to human security and defence of the helpless people against starvation, disease, homelessness and vagaries of weather.

It is said the quake has left more than 87,000 dead and many maimed. This tragedy will be more tragic if this time the Pakistani Army again does not learn a lesson from it that protecting its people's life and rights is no less important than defending the country's borders. The Pakistani Army had given a very poor account of itself when it came to helping cyclone-devastated people of East Pakistan in 1970. Its failure convinced the Bengalis that their lives meant nothing to the Pakistani Army. That was a major booster of Bengalis' determination to liberate themselves from Pakistan. The 1971 events showed that the Army could not defend the country's borders because it had no will to protect people's lives and rights in East Pakistan.

A View Point
New thinking on Kashmir

(The article 'New thinking on Kashmir' by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq Chairman, All Parties Hurriyat Conference was read by him at ''the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit' New Delhi. The Daily Excelsior publishes the article verbatim with minor changes)

Editor

The conflict over the disputed territory of Kashmir is soluble only if pragmatic, realistic and tangible strategy is established to help set a stage to put the Kashmir issue on the road to a just and durable settlement. Since, we are concerned at this time with setting a stage for settlement rather than the shape the settlement will take, we believe that it is both untimely and harmful to indulge in, or encourage, controversies about the most desirable solution. We deprecate raising of quasi-legal or pseudo-legal questions during the preparatory phase about the final settlement. It only serves to befog the issue and to convey the wrong impression that the dispute is too complex to be resolved and that India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir hold equally inflexible positions. Such an impression does great injury to the cause. Anymore, complexity is in the eyes of beholder. There is not a single international issue that is not complex. If there is an interest then the complexity becomes a motivating factor. And, if there is none, then complexity becomes an instrument of passivity and inaction.

I believe that peace and justice in Kashmir are achievable if all parties to the dispute make some sacrifices. Each party to the dispute will have to modify her position so that common ground could be found.

Therefore, the plan should be such which neither promotes nor rules out any conceivable settlement of the dispute-accession in whole or in part to India or Pakistan, the eventual joining or separation of any two regions, independence or quasi-independence etc etc. The whole idea behind it is not to impose or recommend any particular solution but instead to get the representatives of the different regions of Kashmir themselves to decide a settlement without pressure either from India or Pakistan and even from one dominant region or another.

Let it be said that Hurriyat does recognize the diversity within the State. It has repeatedly acknowledged, advocated the representation of these diversities and in such recognition have mooted a ''United States of Kashmir''. This may or may not be acceptable to the State's diverse population. But to verify that we need an atmosphere in which we, the diverse people of the State can meet freely without fear of labels, talk amongst ourselves, understand each other and determine what is practicable. Clearly the Government of India and Pakistan need to be generous to allow this internal dialogue amongst ourselves.

The Hurriyat favours a mechanism that I have often described as ''triangular dialogue.'' What we mean by this is that the leadership from across the ceasefire line of the State be allowed to talk to the Indian and Pakistani leadership separately and alternatively and to return to its populaces with their views. This will take time and it will require effort. But let it be said here and now, both will be needed in generous amounts if we are to embark on the road to the resolution of the Kashmir problem.

We have welcomed the initiation of talks between the Governments of India and Pakistan. We owe it to the interests of peace to enter two caveats along with this welcome. The first caveal is that as the dispute involves three parties-India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir who are the most directly affected-any attempt to strike a deal between the two without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement. This has been made unmistakably clear by the flimsy agreements that were contrived in the past. The agreement between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1952; and the pact between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1975; and an agreement between Mr Farooq Abdullah and Mr Rajiv Gandhi in 1980's sought to bypass Pakistan, leaving the basic issue of Kashmir unsettled. Likewise, the Tashkent Agreement of 1966 between India and Pakistan; the Simla Agreement of 1972; and the Lahore Declaration of 1998 sought to bypass the people of Kashmir and it resulted in a failure. So the time has come that talks need to be tripartite.

It is quite obvious that no formula that fails to command the consent of the Kashmiri people will be worth the paper on which it is written. The idea is neither novel nor grasping. Sinn Fein was a negotiating partner in Northern Ireland, the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the Middle East, East Timorese leaders in East Timor, and the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA) in Kosovo. The policy that aims at merely defusing the situation, and buying time whatever that may mean and not encouraging a credible settlement has not paid in the past. It is likely to do even less now.

We all know that the best remedy for any tragedy is the coming together of people from all walks of life. Nothing has dramatized the cruelty of the artificial lines that separate and divide us in Kashmir than the recent earthquake that had devastated Muzaffarabad and laid much of the State on either side of ceasefire line to waste. Again we appreciate the moderation in Delhi and Islamabad in allowing people from the two sides to meet, share our grief and help each other. I urge India and Pakistan and the State of Jammu and Kashmir in its entirety to expand this new season of trust and apathy. It is this, that is normal; it is this, that is natural; it is precisely what is needed if we are to end the uncertainty that has plagued the politics of South Asia, a population of almost a billion and a half, for over half a century.

It must be noted, that although we commend India and Pakistan for allowing the five points of entry along the Ceasefire Line to be opened, and the restraint displayed by India for not retaliating or building up troops on the borders. Until the people of Kashmir are able to freely travel from one side of the Cease-fire Line to the other, the Kashmiri people will still be faced with a feeling of seclusion and imprisonment. We understand the concerns of India and Pakistan regarding security issues, and that by opening the crossings for aid to travel freely to both sides is an incredible concession and confidence building measure for both sides, and they should be commended for putting people before politics. But more needs to be done....

Recently, both Dr Manmohan Singh and General Pervez Musharraf have taken some initiatives towards a new re-thinking of Kashmir, an approach that both sides have come to embrace. Additionally, both leaders have involved input from Kashmiri leadership, something that has always been a necessity to finding a solution. I can personally tell you that the talks have been fruitful, and that our input was well received, and received in good faith. We only hope that this will continue, as we believe the more Kashmiri leadership is involved and received in good faith by Pakistan and India, the greater the results will be witnessed on the ground.

In another sign of moving forward, President Musharraf stated last month that it is time for Kashmir to be demilitarized. Both Indian troops, as well as Pakistani and troops throughout the regions of Kashmir. This would not only benefit India and Pakistan, but this would pave the way for further dialogue between both sides of Kashmir to become closer with one another.

Therefore, the urgent necessities are :

a) To demilitarize the arena of conflict- the state of Jammu and Kashmir-through a phased withdrawal of the troops (including para-military forces) of both India and Pakistan from the areas under their respective control.

b) To take the sting out of the dispute by detaching moves towards demilitarization of the State from the rights, claims or recognized positions of the three parties involved. In order to do this, it might be necessary to make the demilitarization of the State the first step towards the reduction of Indian and Pakistani forces on their bordes outside of Kashmir.

c) It is after the peace-process is set afoot that the rights and claims of the parties can be considered in a non-violent atmosphere.

Contrary to some pundits who revel in teaching what they don't know that the Kashmir conflict is neither fueled by Islamic fundamentalism nor the mechanisations of extremism and terrorism. Militancy is not the only aspect of the Kashmir issue. It began decades ago in 1931 before the so-called ''Afghan Arabs'' appeared on the international terrorism and before Islamic ''fundamentalism'' was even minted by the Western press; the resistance displays no particular affection for any country.

More so, the term fundamentalism is inapplicable to Kashmiri society. It has a long tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism. The Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits), though a tiny minority-just less than 2 percent of the total population-flourished under the Kashmiri Muslim majority. They equally believe, as do their Muslim compatriots, that the resistance in Kashmir is not communal. It cannot be commnal and should not be. The compulsions of Kashmir's history and the demands of its future alike forbid religious conflict or sectarian strife.

Despite some cultural divergences, Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits are tied harmoniously together a common history, folklore, tragedies, habitat, seasons, soil, language, heritage, customs, and socio-economic interdependence.

Their commonalities dwarf their differences, and explains their remarkable record of fraternity and solidarity.

The present situation inside Kashmir makes it clear that, if talks between India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir are to mean anything, they must be accompanied by practical measures to restore an environment of non-violence. Nevertheless, the continued talks between India and Pakistan and Kashmiri's can be useful if they reflect a sense of urgency and prepare the ground for an earnest effort to frame a step-by-step plan of settlement. If a response to the gravity of the situation is intended, we firmly believe that the following measures are essential :

i. The immediate and complete cessation of military, Para-military and militant actions.

ii. Withdrawal of the military presence from towns and villages;

iii. Dismantling of bunkers, watch towers and barricades;

iv. Releasing of political prisoners.

v. Human Rights violations especially custodial killings continue apace and are often dismissed as one of aberrations. This cavalier attitude must cease.

vi. Annulling various special repressive laws;

vii. Restoring the rights of peaceful association, assembly and demonstrations;

viii. Permitting to travel abroad without hindrance, Kashmiri leadership who favour a negotiated resolution;

ix. Issuing visas to the Diaspora Kashmiri leadership to visit Jammu and Kashmir to help sustain the peace process;

x. Creating necessary condition and providing facilities for an intra-Kashmiri dialogue embracing both sides of the Cease - fire Line.

xi. Allowing a transitional phase, a phase of detoxification, before its decisive elements are put into effect;

I would like to conclude my presentation to you on a personal note. As many of you know, many of my colleagues and I had an opportunity, a few months ago to visit the other side of the ''ceasefire line'' that divides us. When we boarded our cars at the Hurriyat office, I was intensely aware that I was taking the same route that my grandfather, Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah, had taken in 1947 when he was exiled. I remember thinking, as I boarded the bus, that those were bitter times. A bitterness that had dominated us for almost six decades.

The time has come to change that. And we traveled further up the roads that links the two sides of Kashmir, I remember committing myself to preventing my children from living in the atmosphere that we had experienced in our times. It convinced me that I must personally contribute towards the process that will end the bitterness and bring resolution to the dispute. The Kashmir problem, is a human tragedy. The time has come to end it and move forward. We in Kashmir are ready.

The roar of the gun in Kashmir will stop it has to stop but what needs to be addressed is the roar in the minds and hearts of the Kashmiris. I believe that with Kashmiri participation, anything is possible. Without it, nothing is.

(Note : Kashmir means entire State of J&K as it existed on 14th August 1947)