People's Democracy

THE latest announcements made by Pakistan president General Pervez Musharraf, in an address to his nation, have come to the world as a big, and pleasant, surprise. The address has evoked a by and large favourable reaction all over the world because of its potential of improving the situation in the Indian subcontinent.

The first thing to note about the address is that a person who was giving all-out support to fundamentalist and extremist groups at home and abroad not very long ago, has announced an intention to take firm steps against the same groups. The train of events had brought Musharraf to such a pass that he found himself sandwiched between the world public opinion on the one hand and fundamentalist groups on the other. Evidently, he had had a tough choice to make and, all said and done, the choice he has made is a correct one. It is not for nothing that, as a commentator wrote in daily Jang, Musharraf’s address is being viewed as "a compelling blow to Zia’s legacy." Similarly, The Times of India editorially described it as "the first major U-turn since Zia-ul-Haq." It is to be noted that it was late Zia-ul-Haq who embarked on the course of training, arming and utilising terrorist groups against the PDPA regime in Afghanistan and then adopted the same tactic to run a proxy war against India.

The people of Pakistan are also realising that their rulers could achieve nothing from their uncalled-for intervention in Afghanistan, and that a war or proxy war against India too is not going to take them anywhere. This is what comes out clearly from the Pakistani media.

What are these measures Musharraf has announced?

Firstly, going through the general’s address, he appears to have realised the danger terrorism and extremism have been posing to Pakistan itself. For long the country has been plagued with sectarian violence; the killing of a large number of Christians outside a church in Bahawalpur a few months ago was only an extreme case of such violence. This is how the "Klashnikov culture" has been affecting the life in Pakistan, and the general said "Everyone of us is fed up with it….. is sick of it." The situation did not improve even after the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Muhammad were banned for their role in such violence. The general says he will take determined measures against this kind of violence.

Secondly, the general has tried to redefine Jehad. Now it is to mean less of a military fight and more of a fight against "illiteracy, poverty, backwardness and hunger." He said, "This is the larger Jehad. Pakistan, in my opinion, needs to wage Jehad against these evils." This is also an attack on religious fundamentalism that has become a menace in Pakistan.

Thirdly, the general has banned five terrorist organisations. They are Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Sipah-e-Sahaba, TNSM and TJP, apart from the two organisations banned earlier. Of these, the first two are said to be involved in December 13 attack on Indian parliament. The general also said close watch would be kept on some other outfits like the Sunni Tehreek. Another announcement made on January 15 was that the ban on any of the said organisations would continue even if it assumes another name. The so-called government of the Pak-occupied Kashmir (POK) has also said it would implement these bans in the territory.

Fourthly, the general said attempts would be made to regulate and modernise the madrassas (religious seminaries). This is important in view of the role these seminaries played in the creation of the Taliban. The general said while his government has no intention to bring the educational institutions under its control, the latter would not be allowed to foment "political and sectarian prejudices." As a step in this direction, all madrassas will be registered by March 23 coming and no new madrassa will be opened without the government’s permission. Mosques will also be regulated and if any terrorist activity is conducted from a mosque’s premises, those in charge of managing it will be held responsible. The general said a new comprehensive madrassa policy would be developed for the purpose. He talked here of making Pakistan a powerful, vibrant, progressive and democratic Islamic nation.

Lastly, and most importantly in the concrete context of today, the general has delinked the issue of Kashmir from terrorism. He said no terrorist activities, or fund-raising for terrorist activities, would be allowed in the name of Kashmir. We will return to this aspect later.

These announcements came at a time when the situation in the Indian subcontinent was going from bad to worse and the sky was overcast with the clouds of war. This had created a lot of apprehensions among the peace-loving people in both countries and in the world. Having suffered two wars in 1965 and 1971, people fear that another war between the two countries would be catastrophic, especially because both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers today.

This is not to say that the situation has completely normalised. Armies are still in position on both sides of the Indo-Pak border and any rash action may trigger an explosion. But Musharraf’s announcements have indeed created the ground for de-escalation of the tension. It is now for the government of India to positively respond to these announcements.

So far, unable to understand how to react, the GoI has only adopted a wait-and-watch attitude and is demanding that the Musharraf regime must give concrete proof of its sincerity by putting these declarations into practice. A minority section of Indian media too doubted the genuineness of these announcements or the Musharraf government’s ability to put the same into practice. This is not a healthy attitude, to say the least. While it is true that no announcement whatsoever can be taken at its face value unless there is corresponding action on it, it is equally true that such announcements as Musharraf has made cannot be translated into action overnight. The general does need time to put his words into deeds and, going by the statements emanating from various countries, world public opinion too is in favour of giving him reasonable time for the purpose.

One aspect is noteworthy. Pakistan is a country where democracy is yet to strike roots. Fundamentalists have been ruling the roost here since long. The military and the ISI too have been dictating terms even to the elected governments, even when they were themselves not ruling directly, and have had a big stake in fomenting troubles against India. Evidently, Musharraf will have to face a lot of opposition while putting his words into deeds. He is in the grip of a tough situation. If fundamentalists can cause a lot of havoc in India where democracy is well entrenched, the situation in Pakistan and therefore the general’s plight can well be imagined. A redeeming aspect is that the people of Pakistan have, overall, welcomed the announcements and so far no big protest has been seen. The general also appears to be in full control of the armed forces, though nothing is certain about the future.

Quite naturally, any positive response from the GoI will go a long way in giving Musharraf strength to act on his latest announcements. A wait-and-watch policy on part of the GoI is not likely to pay dividend insofar as India’s interests are concerned. As The Times of India editorially commented, "Mr Vajpayee needs to go half way to meet the general, if only because he has promised to put his own house in order. And that means a cleaner, happier and safer Indian subcontinent." This has indeed been the general tenor in most of the Indian media and the demand is that the GoI must discharge its responsibility regarding the subcontinent.

The only disquieting thing about General Musharraf’s announcements is that he has not yet given up his claim regarding Kashmir. It is a fact of history that it was the people of the princely state of Kashmir who opted to merge in India of their own free volition and defended their decision with guns in their hands. The story is too well known to need reiteration. On the other hand, Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir has been based on the discredited two-nation theory which the people of Kashmir had themselves rejected and which the people of Bangladesh buried deep in 1971-72.

It is here that Musharraf’s claim looks preposterous. He said, "Kashmir runs in our blood. No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir." Has the general forgotten that it was Kashmiri blood which the Pak-sent raiders mercilessly shed in the immediate aftermath of our independence? Was it not, again, Kashmiri blood which the terrorists have been mercilessly shedding for the last one decade and a half? Even today, Kashmiris are in a bad plight in the POK and are not allowed to enjoy the rights they should have as human beings and as citizens.

One thing is clear. So far, all the mainstream parties in Pakistan have been trying to outdo one another in the name of Kashmir. They thus created such a situation that it became difficult, if not impossible, for anybody to talk reason on this issue. Hence Musharraf’s contention that "Kashmir runs in our blood" is not going to help him break the framework his predecessors have erected, while breaking this framework is the need of the hour. Even while delinking Kashmir from terrorism, Musharraf has not given up dubbing the militancy in Kashmir as a "freedom struggle" and has pledged to continue his "moral, political and diplomatic support" to this struggle. This is indeed a complicated and thorny issue, and the world community will be keenly watching how the situation in this part of the world unfolds in the days to come.

Here a redeeming feature is that Musharraf has offered a dialogue with India on the issue of Kashmir. Indeed a dialogue is always welcome. But he says the Kashmir problem needs to be resolved "in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people and the United Nations resolutions." This is really a tricky affair. While the Kashmiri people have expressed their wishes on numerous occasions, the Shimla agreement of August 1972 effectively nullified the UN’s role in this affair.

Two things are noteworthy here. First, India and Pakistan must no doubt hold a dialogue or a series of dialogues to resolve their mutual disputes, but there should not be and cannot be any scope for any third party in this process. The Shimla agreement, whose spirit was reiterated in the Lahore declaration issued by Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif three years ago, provides the best framework for such a series of dialogues. Let us remember that the Musharraf regime has not repudiated either the Shimla agreement or the Lahore declaration.

This is what the Indian public opinion also favours. As The Economic Times editorially commented, "In that lies hope of a lasting peace. India must play its part by helping to de-escalate tensions and not reject dialogue outright." In the words of The Asian Age, "By categorically shunning violence as a policy, General Musharraf has opened the door wide for peace. There will, of course, be immediate pressure on India to de-escalate and withdraw troops from the border." Dialogue is possible also because the general’s promise of ending terrorism in Kashmir meets the government of India’s demand about cessation of cross-border terrorism.

Secondly, Musharraf’s stand of putting Kashmir before anything else is also not a healthy attitude. As we know, Kashmir has been the bone of contention between the two countries for close to 55 years and it would be totally unrealistic to hope that a solution may be evolved overnight. In fact, a resolution of this extremely knotty issue requires a lot of confidence building between the two countries and it is here that the other pending issues between India and Pakistan assume importance. As said last week, there are a number of issues of mutual interest which both the countries may take up for resolution, and build mutual confidence in the process. The ground for it has already been laid, and the process can’t be delayed on the plea that the Kashmir issue must be solved first.

Evidently, as said above, there can’t be any scope for any third party in this process --- whether for the UN or for a country. This point assumes significance in view of the fact that while Russia, China, France, Japan and a number of other countries have supported the idea of bilateral Indo-Pak dialogue, the US has been trying to intervene in the subcontinent since long and its desire to intervene has intensified in the post-September 11 phase. When the Israeli prime minister Shimon Perez recently visited India and even went to the extent of suggesting that India should be made a member of the NATO war alliance, there is every reason to believe that it was the US administration speaking through him. The USA’s hyperactive stance is also clear from the fact that they even knew about the content of Musharraf’s announcements four days ago before they were actually made.

But the more disturbing fact is that, instead of sticking to the idea of a bilateral resolution of mutual issues, both India and Pakistan have been off and on trying to involve the US in the Kashmir issue. Our prime minister, home minister and defence minister have already visited the US and the foreign minister has made the US his second home, so to say. Like his predecessors, Musharraf too has been talking about involving the US in the Kashmir dispute.

This does not augur well for the subcontinent as a whole. As is well known, the US has its own game regarding Kashmir and wants to see it independent for the sake of its geo-political strategy for global hegemony. This was also evident before the Shimla agreement was signed, when the US sent its nuclear-armed Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal. The US has also refused to dismantle its nuclear base in Diego Garcia, directly threatening all the countries on the Indian Ocean rim, even though none of these countries poses any threat to the US.

Hence to avoid involving any third party in the Indo-Pak dialogue is the most vital necessity of today. A lasting peace in the subcontinent delicately hinges on this point. Any involvement of imperialism will not promote peace in the region but only destroy its possibilities.