Guess the place

Imagine a place in the sub-continent which has the following features. It is an idyllic valley and among the most popular tourist destinations. Half of its total sanctioned police strength has either deserted or proceeded on leave on one pretext or the other. Only one of the 600 police recruits trained by the military has volunteered to go and serve in this area. The others have plainly refused to head to what they call the valley of death. Militants have taken over its vast portion. The State's writ runs in just 36 square kilometres of the total 5337 square kilometres. Even in these 36 square kilometres the militants routinely carry out patrolling. Just recently they dumped 27 bodies with a warning not to remove the corpses during the deadline fixed by them. They carried out sniper attacks forcing the traffic police to flee in despair. At least one person who defied them was made an example for others. It may sound ironic that the military operation against the militants draws greater flak from the people. It is alleged that the military has killed more civilians than the militants. To quote a report in a responsible section of the media, "the public perception has been reinforced by rising civilian casualties, shrinking state authority, militants' ability to strike anywhere and any time and military's over-reliance on long-range artillery than putting boots on the ground." It is feared that the figure of civilian deaths runs into "hundreds" although no exact count is available. The damage caused to property and infrastructure since the eruption of the militancy is evaluated at Rs 3 billion. Bridges have been blown up. Schools have been destroyed --- more than 180 of them accounting for the highest possibly in any insurgency anywhere in the world. The militants have managed to control airwaves as well, thanks to a 500-KV transmitter, among other things, to defeat government's efforts. Frustration is mounting in the political class. For its part the military too is unhappy because of adverse publicity. Its version as articulated by an officer is: "We have lost 142 men since July last. This is not child's play. This is no friendly match…We should have had the back-up support from the police and the civil administration which is not there. This has put us on the back foot." On the other hand the politicians wonder: "When you see that the operation is not effective and is going on and on, causing more collateral damage, then how can you remain indifferent?...We have been constrained to rethink our support to the military operation."

Do not some of these details sound familiar? The Kashmir Valley too is picturesque and a tourists' paradise. We are reminded of the unpleasant reality that bodies of the militants' victims would lay unattended in the streets of Srinagar for hours; nobody would remove them for fear of inviting the killers' wrath. Again in the Summer Capital Yusuf Halwai was an exceptional political activist who was killed for he refused to obey the terrorists' diktat to observe blackout. The comparison almost ends here. Democracy has neutralised negative elements in the Kashmir region. The place we have not named above but is being ruthlessly ravaged is the charming Swat Valley in Pakistan. It is burning.

MEN , MATTERS AND MEMORIES
By M L Kotru
Delhi, Srinagar must trust each other

The death recently in Srinagar of Ghulam Mohammad Shah, a former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir brings to mind a most sordid affair in the State's turbulent relationship with New Delhi. Indeed the induction of the late Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's son-in-law as the Chief Minister, stage-managed in a coup of sorts by Central Congress leadership, was eventually to be a watershed in the recent history of the State, giving birth notably to the insurgency there.

I was an accidental witness to the coup, if you will. It was past 10-30 in the night when I got out of my hotel room in Srinagar to check the source of a heated debate going on in the suite next to my room. I had barely stepped out into the corridor when a voice greeted me with the remark "what are you doing here this hour?" The voice belonged to a senior Minister who had also served as the Deputy Chief Minister of the State. He invited me to the ante room of the suite, offered me a large drink, and confided that some 20 odd MLAs were in the suite "to wipe out the Abdullah clan" from State politics.

It turned out that the group included 12 MLAs of the ruling National Conference, of which my informer was a member, who were set to topple Farooq Abdullah's government and Governor Jagmohan was waiting for word from them. Thus Farooq's doom was sealed and his brother-in-law Ghulam Mohammad Shah was elected the leader of the legislature party and soon thereafter sworn-in at an unearthly hour as the new Chief Minister. History had been repeated.

For, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, by far the tallest of all Kashmiri leaders, had been removed from the "Prime Ministership" of the State and put under arrest in Gulmarg, the golden meadow not far from Srinagar in an almost identical manner. That was on August 9, 1953 and the Sheikh's old friend Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister of India. Sher-e-Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah spent the next 11 years in various jails until a sick Nehru sought him out once again and after much emotional banter persuaded the Sheikh to go as his emissary to Pakistan, specifically to hold talks with Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the military ruler of that country.

The Sheikh started off well while in Pakistan, given unprecedented ovation wherever he went. This, at a time and in a country where people had yet not forgotten how the Sheikh had rebuffed Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah's many overtures before the dawn of independence. The Sheikh had been opposed to the partitioning of the country and indeed on one occasion, when Jinnah suggested that the Sheikh's National Conference and the J&K Muslim Conference then led by Chaudhury Ghulam Abbas, should merge the Sheikh shouted back at Jinnah, saying he was opposed to division of the country.

He had in the meantime given his "Quit Kashmir" call, asking the Dogra Maharaja of the State to quit his gaddi. The treaty of Amritsar between Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab and the British, the Sheikh had often stated at his public meetings had sold each Kashmiri at a price less than that of an egg. The Sheikh subsequently led the All India States People's Conference, representing the people of 600 odd princely States of undivided India providing a counterpoint to the Princes Chamber. The immediate pre-independence years saw him in the Maharaja's jail, lasting almost till the day the State acceded to India with Sheikh at the helm of affairs now.

His arrest in 1953 was largely the result of his fears concerning the fate of Kashmirs in a post-Nehru India, a feel which was aggravated by some of the fiats issued from New Delhi which he firmly believed ran contrary to the special Constitutional provisions for the State. He more or less saw Kashmir as an internally autonomous part of the Union, the refrain which his grandson Omar Adbullah, the youthful new Chief Minister of the State, appears to have adopted as his own. Omar has on many occasions in the past pleaded for restoration of the pre-1953 relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union.

To return briefly to the 22-month Chief Ministership of Ghulam Mohammad Shah, a tenure which came to be associated more with the number curfew orders he issued rather than any other significant achievement. His collapse found Farooq Abdullah entering into a suicidal coalition with Rajiv Gandhi's Congress and the subsequent massively rigged elections which ensured Farooq's victory but also provided enough ammunition to Muslim groupings in the valley like the Muslim United Front (MUF) to close their ranks which in turn led to the insurrectionary movement fuelled actively from 1989 by Pakistan. All that and what followed is recent history and therefore not necessary to mention here.

Back to Sheikh Abdullah, Nehru's emissary to Pakistan. The Sheikh according to Ayub's biographer, Altaf Gohar told the Pakistani leader that whatever he thought of Nehru he was in command and it was necessary for him (Ayub) to deal with him. "Ayub replied somewhat impatiently that confederation (Indo-Pak) was the one solution totally unacceptable to him. All federations came to be commanded by the dominant partner. In any case Pakistan could neither align herself with some of India's misconceived policies nor accept the legacy of India's political blunders…" The Sheikh promised to apprise the Indians of the possibilities so that they understood the Pakistani viewpoint.

He then suggested that Ayub visit New Delhi for direct talks with Nehru, Rajagopalchari, Jaya Prakash Narain and Dr. Radhakrishnan. Ayub agreed to do so. But fate had ordained otherwise. Nehru died the next day and "the whole exercise undertaken by Sheikh Abdullah with the concurrence of Nehru lost its purpose". Sheikh Abdullah cut short his stay in Pakistan to attend Nehru's funeral.

But as Gohar Ayub has it "Ayub was greatly impressed by Sheikh Abdullah and after their second meeting said I wish I had someone like him (Abdullah) with me. In his last conversation with Sheikh Adbullah Ayub advised him to move slowly… and let the squabbling end before getting personally involved". That the Sheikh's endeavours had not been in vain was evident in Ayub's broadcast to his nation on Nehru's death: "India and Pakistan are neighbours for better or worse. Why let it be for worse, and not try the alternative of living together for better". Almost simultaneously the Inter Services Intelligence Agency, headed by Brig. Riaz Hussain believed that the moment for decisive intervention had arrived. "Bhutto (Z.A.) too was trying to impress upon Ayub that India was facing a leadership crisis and the growing agitation in Kashmir offered Pakistan opportunity to act…." They did try but ended negotiating in Tashkent with Lal Bahadur Shastri.

Many years later I had an opportunity to travel on the Srinagar-Delhi flight with the Sheikh. This was around the time Indira Gandhi's emissary G. Parthsarthy and the Sheikh's representative, Mirza Afzal Beg were working out an accord which would eventually see Sheikh Adbullah's return as the Chief Minister of the State. In the course of our conversation Sheikh Sahab said "You know but for Panditji's (Nehru) death we should have been able to arrive at some peaceful arrangement with General Ayub. I remember when upon my release I went to see Jawaharlal at Teenmurti House, he put his arms over my shoulder, tears in his eyes. He said to me 'Sheikh Sahab mere se galti ho gayi thi … But you can't expect the same reaction from his daughter, she's so haughty… she won't listen; not even when I asked a simple question like 'why are you (Indira) tampering with the basic character of the Aligarh Muslim University by appointing a Shia Communist like Nurul Hasan as the Vice Chancellor".

There are lessons to be learnt both in Srinagar and in New Delhi from l'affaire Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the Sher-e-Kashmir. First and foremost they must learn to trust each other, the basic premise being that no further divisions are possible. The rest can be negotiable and not on separatist terms.

Expectations from Obama

By Kalyani Shankar

Come January 20 and the world will be glued to television sets to watch the glittering swearing-in of Barack Obama as US President. It is fascinating how a Senator who was little known in January 2008 (even in the US) has become a household name today.

It will be a touching moment to see the first Black president taking oath of office using Abraham Lincoln's Bible in Capitol Hill with almost one million people cheering him from the Mall. When Chief justice of the US, John G Roberts Jr, administers the oath, the Bush era will end and Obama regime will begin.

Expectations are high and Obama will have to plunge into work right away. In fact, along with his transition team, Obama is already doing a 24-hour job keeping abreast of events unfolding in the world including the Mumbai terror attack and the Israel -Palestine problem

Will Obama be able to deliver the " change" that he has promised? It is all very well to make promises during the presidential campaign. But implementing them is no easy task. Will he become a pragmatic leader who would usher in a new era ? What would be his policy on South Asia and Middle East? Will he withdraw American forces from Iraq? How will he deal with Iran? These are some of the questions that need answers. India will be eagerly watching his approach to the region..

Obama is taking over the presidency at a difficult time. The US is war-weary; it is facing the worst economic recession. The most immediate problem is to find jobs for millions of Americans. The job situation is at its worst going by the recent figures released by the US. The $700 billion economic package has not brought quick results and much more needs to be done. The new president has a historic chance to show pragmatism, by re-regulating the economy, resorting to bold healthcare and social security programmes and initiating large-scale public works. He could also create a new image for the US in the world. To accomplish this daunting task, Obama needs a new team although the transition team has done the spade work and identified people of merit. He has shown magnanimity by choosing his opponent Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State and retaining the Defence Secretary.

How will Obama's presidency deal with South Asia and particularly India? While India and Pakistan were not on his priority list earlier, it has moved up his "To do " list after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The US now realises that terrorists can attack any hotel or installation in the US in a similar manner. Subsequent investigations both by the FBI and India have come up with evidence of Pakistani involvement and pressure is being put on Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice.

Kashmir is yet another issue. Since the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi has argued that linking these to the Kashmir issue would amount to encouraging cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. While Pakistan denies involvement in the Mumbai attacks, it wants an amicable solution on Kashmir to remove tensions between the two neighbours. Obama's campaign statements on Kashmir are unlikely to translate into actual policy, which will have to keep in mind India's reservations on the issue. After the peaceful elections in Jammu and Kashmir and the high voter turnout, Obama may think twice about interfering in Kashmir. As his transition team recently clarified, the US remains committed to supporting the bilateral dialogue to resolve the Kashmir tangle. To add to this, a recent US Congressional report has suggested that the US should stay away from any 'high-visibility' focus on the Kashmir issue, cautioning that it might evoke resistance from New Delhi and increase Pakistani expectations of a favourable settlement.

Moreover, Americans are more worried about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, which may fall into the hands of rogue elements. A weak civilian government in Pakistan and a lame-duck government in Delhi are unable to meet the challenge. Pakistan would also resent any attempt to encourage Indian influence in Afghanistan. The visit by a host of top US dignitaries including Vice-President elect Joe Biden to Pakistan sends a signal that Obama is on the right track. Biden revealed that the Obama administration would work towards reducing tension between India and Pakistan. Obama needs a full-time diplomat to handle Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Iran affairs in view of the magnitude of the problems in the region. Tactful Richard Holbrook's name is being mentioned as a special envoy for South Asia.

Things are going out of control in Afghanistan. Al Queda and Taliban are rearing their ugly heads again and Pakistan is on the way to becoming a failed state. A key challenge would be stability and success in the war on terror in Pakistan which would help resolve the Afghan problem and put Indo-Pak relations on a positive footing. The Obama administration has to decide whether to continue the Bush policy or review it. The other issues pertaining to India like deepening strategic partnership, tackling the problem of outsourcing and taking forward the nuclear deal would not be jeopardised in view of the growing ties. There are many friends of India in the new administration including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Fortunately, there is tremendous goodwill for Obama. Most people want him to succeed. If he makes proper use of this opportunity, Obama presidency will be a shining example. (IPA)

Evidence galore

By Chandrahasan

As was only to be expected, Pakistan rejected the Indian 'information' supplied to it about Pakistan's involvement in the 26 November terror attacks in Mumbai, perhaps even before the 'information' had reached Islamabad! In case India fails to take a serious note of its rejection, Pakistan is now getting ready to unleash its own propaganda blitz against India by preparing a 'dossier' which will provide 'solid evidence' of India's involvement in all the terror acts in Pakistan-from Balochistan, NWFP to the heartland of Punjab and Sindh.

There was a prize catch in Pakistani custody just after the Mumbai attacks. An 'Indian' from Kolkata was arrested for a 'terrorist' attack in Lahore. Never mind if the world is not likely to pay any heed to that or all the laborious efforts of Pakistan to shift attention from its universally known terrorist proclivities.

The so-called 'war of words' between India and Pakistan is beginning to resemble the theatre of the absurd with plenty of bizarre inputs from Islamabad. That with few exceptions nobody in the world is ready to pronounce Pakistan 'not guilty' of the charge of its complicity in the Mumbai terror attacks has only made Pakistan renew its asinine attempts to portray itself as the 'victim' of the Mumbai tragedy while mocking at India's loss.

The Pakistani response has been accompanied by veiled threats of a nuclear attack on India. After all Pakistan has its limits of patience in accepting frequently levelled charges of its culpability in terror plots executed outside its boundaries-in India, Afghanistan, Asia, Africa, Europe, the UK and the US. By now every Pakistani is raising anguished cries about the Indian 'campaign' to 'vilify' their 'peace-loving' nation, which is intended to get the land of the pure declared a terrorist state so that Islamabad might be stripped of its nuclear capability. The wily Indian 'Banias' have devious plans to establish their unquestioned 'hegemony' in the sub-continent!

One of these anguished Pakistanis said the other day that unlike India, the Pakistanis have not lost their 'equanimity'. His profound statement was supported promptly by two developments within a matter of few hours. One, by the acceptance, rejection and again acceptance of the fact that Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone survivor among the Pakistani terrorists who had attacked Mumbai, is a Pakistani national; two, by the sacking of the Pakistani national security adviser, Maj Gen (retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani, for confirming to the media that Kasab is indeed a Pakistani national.

No one need be surprised if by the time these lines appear the Pakistani spokesmen have changed their minds about Kasab's nationality several times. The manner in which Pakistan has responded to Kasab's nationality is a useful pointer to the state of 'equanimity' of the two pillars of the country-the almighty military and its puppet, the civilian government.

For more than a month the dominant voice from the Pakistan was shouting that Kasab is certainly not a Pakistani; the hint was that he was an Indian national because he had reportedly used some Hindi words in his confession to the police. Great exhibition of detective skills! This was, of course, before his letter had reached Islamabad. Patient Pakistani officials, undoubtedly, found that Kasab's letter, written in Persian (Urdu) script, was full of grammatical and linguistic flaws, including misplacement of the all-important 'nukhta' (dot) on certain Urdu letters.

When some media reports and even the initial investigation by a former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, spoke of Kasab being a Pakistani, the government came out with the answer that there was no record of Kasab or his family in the (incomplete) national database. A family in a dusty village in Pakistan's Punjab that had claimed Kasab to be its estranged son was quickly shifted from its village to an unknown place and the villagers told not to talk about Kasab to any stranger.

Indian security personnel, who face the charge of making people 'disappear', may be envious of their Pakistani counterparts who can not only turn one of their nationals into a 'non-state actor' but also banish his entire family into oblivion with no trace of their existence on any official document.

The fact of Kasab being a Pakistani was mentioned in the exhaustive Indian 'information' on Mumbai terror attacks that was given to Pakistan, which had rejected all that it contained as false. The Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, might not be the only one on earth to wonder how could Pakistan be so prompt and 'positive' in rejecting the entire Indian 'information' without even looking at it.

That summary dismissal of the Indian 'information' also conveys a sense about the Pakistani 'equanimity'. Indians are likely to wonder if the Pakistani insistence on India accepting its offer of a joint investigation into the Mumbai terror attacks is really meant to sabotage progress in the probe into the Mumbai attacks.

Pranab Mukherjee, must have rubbed salt into Pakistani wounds when he reminded the Pakistanis that they seem to have no faith in their own investigating agencies. How could India take their offer of joint investigation into the Mumbai terror seriously when no less a person than the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, had rejected out of hand the idea of a Pakistani agency probing his wife's murder in December 2007 at the end of an election rally she had addressed in the garrison town of Rawalpindi.

In fact, the Zardari Government has asked the United Nations to take up the investigation into the murder of Zardari's late wife, Benazir Bhutto, who had served two truncated terms as the country's prime minister. But Mukherjee was also being somewhat considerate towards 'Mr Ten Percent', the current head of Pakistan, by refraining from mentioning anything about the latter's alleged complicity in the murder of his brother in law, one of the two brothers of late Benazir Bhutto. There were rumours that relations between Benazir and Zardari had savoured after that murder.

Pakistan has developed great expertise in making its own nationals disappear or refuse to accept them as Pakistanis. Recall the Pakistani refusal to accept the bodies of its soldiers during the Kargil war. When not very long ago Pakistan's Supreme Court asked the government to trace missing persons whose number ran into hundreds just a few could be produced before the court.

In Kasab's case, if the Pakistani government now sticks to the fact that he is indeed a Pakistani national it will do another trick by resurrecting Kasab's vanished family. But that is no guarantee that Pakistan would accept the bodies of the other nine terrorists killed in Mumbai or, indeed, any role played by its agencies in perpetrating the Mumbai terror attacks. (Syndicate Features)