|
Ashraf Jahangir Qazi
NEVER have India-Pakistan relations been so bad for so long. They barely exist today. In a polarised but interdependent world, with the Doomsday Clock tick-tocking towards midnight, this is an unfortunate situation, to put it mildly.
The need for improved relations between these neighbouring nuclear weapons countries, one with the largest population in the world and the other with the fifth largest, should be obvious.
Pakistan, as the smaller of the two countries, has a relatively greater interest in restoring at least a minimum of exchanges and cooperation, and the restoration of informal or indirect discussion on how to address the more serious differences in a mutually acceptable manner.
India, on the contrary, has evinced a more or less complete lack of interest in any substantive interaction with Pakistan. It sees Pakistan as a failing terrorist state with few, if any, options from which it merely needs to protect itself. Accordingly, it sees no point in entering into discussions with such a state.
How can discussions between the two countries be more fruitful?
Even in Track 2 meetings, these attitudes prevent any serious discussions which could feed back into official policies of the two countries towards each other. Discussions, even when friendly and polite, tend to degenerate into accusations and counteraccusations reflecting official, indeed national, attitudes towards each other. They tend to become zero-sum point-scoring, which eventually becomes uninteresting and a waste of time.
The question arises: how can a broader spectrum of people from both countries, including officials, intellectuals, journalists, business people, all kinds of professionals and specialists, cultural representatives, students, tourists, etc, have greater interaction with each other which could, over time, feed positively into political attitudes towards each other?
In the absence of such a process, discussions on any issue, whether Kashmir, terrorism, water issues, treatment of minorities, increasing trade and investment, confidence building measures or other items on the agendas of past dialogues, become infructuous.
So, how can discussions between the two countries be more fruitful? Two conditions need to be met. One, the interlocutors must share an objective which they believe is attainable. And two, the interlocutors should have the capacity to introspect and acknowledge the need to address the concerns of each other.
This is not easy. Recently, when an Indian acquaintance asked how India-Pakistan relations might move forward, I suggested Pakistan might ask itself what it might do to address some Indian concerns, and India needed to similarly ask itself what it might do to address Pakistani concerns. He responded saying India needed to tell Pakistan to forget Kashmir, stop its terrorism, accept it had lost its contest with India, accept India’s dominance in South Asia, and accordingly disband its nuclear arsenal. I suggested he may have articulated India’s goals but did not seem motivated by any desire to address Pakistan’s concerns. Instead, he was likely to elicit a matching response that India refrain from policies of hegemony, interference, assassinations, genocide, etc. That would, of course, end the discussion.
So, can we move beyond such barren exchanges? To the extent that some accusations may be justified, they should be addressed, even unilaterally. Accordingly, can we fashion a substantive statement on some of the outstanding issues between our countries, including those of core concern, along with agreed recommendations which we might refer to our respective governments for consideration?
Given mutual empathy, not just personally, but also as citizens of estranged neighbouring countries which share so much in common, we might begin to make progress towards overcoming the obstacle of a common but turbulent history which has ‘over-shaped’ our attitudes towards each other. Instead, we might allow more room for what we share in common to inform and broaden our attitudes towards each other.
Such conversations will need to be progressively elevated to Track 2, Track 1.5 and official levels. Can we agree that such a process should get started as soon as possible? If so, can we agree on reviving Saarc, which currently is moribund? Can we revive confidence and security building measures which have been agreed upon, implemented, and cancelled or allowed to fall into disuse? Can we, in today’s circumstances, summon the political will, despite the risks, to seriously probe the possibilities for an improvement in relations? Or are countervailing forces just too strong and the will to overcome them just too weak?
A whole new generation of Indians and Pakistanis need to know more about each other and why they feel and think about each other the way they do. They may discover they agree on much more than they thought. Should that happen, addressing each other’s concerns may become much less intractable than it seems today.
With exchanges of all kinds, lobbies for mutual understanding and mutual profit can emerge, especially in bordering regions. Such lobbies are likely to have far more influence than academics, experts and intellectuals in the politics and government decision-making of their countries. Apart from the potential of cross-border trade and other exchanges, Indians and Pakistanis, no matter what the state of their diplomatic relations, remain incorrigibly interested in each other as people — in their art, entertainment and sports.
Coke Studio Pakistan, for example, seems to have more fans in India than in Pakistan. Javelin throwers Arshad Nadeem and Neeraj Chopra momentarily brought our two people closer not just with their outstanding performances in the Paris Olympics, but with their mutual friendship and support — and topping them were their mothers, who described the two champion athletes as their sons.
Unfortunately, politicians and governments of both countries, as well as specific interests, are less large-hearted and are more obstacles than facilitators. This is an initial and understandable given. But people of goodwill, imagination and determination must begin to make a difference if India, Pakistan and South Asia — home to a fourth of humanity — are to move from conflict management to dispute resolution — and collectively help bring about a safer, more prosperous and happier world.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China, and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan. The article is a slightly revised note prepared for a recent meeting of concerned citizens of India and Pakistan.
ashrafjqazi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2024
==============================================================================
An important article to understand international politics surrounding our country
Jawed Naqvi
A CURSORY glance at Wikipedia shows that Pakistan has had as close a relationship with Ukraine as India ever had, or possibly better, including vital defence ties. In fact, in the late 1990s, shortly after gaining independence, Ukraine sold Pakistan 320 Ukrainian T-80UD main battle tanks in a deal worth $650 million. According to the Kyiv Post, the deal literally saved Kharkiv Malyshev Tank Factory from bankruptcy.
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute databases, from 1991 to 2020, Ukraine completed arms contracts with Pakistan with a total value of nearly $1.6 billion. After war broke out between Ukraine and Russia, Pakistan continued to support Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”, which is the precise phrase Prime Minister Narendra Modi used as he hugged President Volodymyr Zelensky in widely televised images on India’s behalf in Kiev on Aug 23. On the other hand, Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, during an earlier visit to Pakistan, thanked the country for supporting Ukraine’s stance on its sovereignty and security. India’s ace TV journalist Karan Thapar has quoted a host of things that Zelensky told Modi or said of him that breached diplomatic courtesy.
As with India, Pakistan has also been mostly consistent in abstaining on UN resolutions on Russia and has avoided criticising Moscow. So what did Modi do or say in his much-hyped meeting with Zelensky which takes the story forward? What was the point of departure?
In the absence of a clearer official explanation, one is tempted to see the tight hug of Zelensky as a sweetener for the following day’s defence talks with the Pentagon team in New Delhi. The two sides upgraded their defence ties on Aug 24, with China in the crosshairs. The package of deals, including intelligence and surveillance support, would have perhaps looked rather odd in the backdrop of the globally watched embrace Modi was locked in with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
In this context, recent events may be deemed instructive. Regardless of the explanation available in official quarters in Pakistan — and allowing for accepting that two events that otherwise looked intertwined were not actually linked, as is so unremarkably claimed — Imran Khan was forced out of power after meeting Putin in Moscow after Russia attacked Ukraine. Likewise, in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed was evicted from power and luckily found sanctuary in India days after visiting Beijing.
Another foreign trip of Modi that raised eyebrows in Delhi, although it went largely unnoticed elsewhere, was when he was barely sworn in for a third term. Inexplicably, he dashed off to Rome. The ostensible purpose was to join an audience of Global South invitees to watch the spectacle of a G7 summit. Of the other invitees, not everyone found the time or saw the need to show up.
There were two clips from the Modi visit that offer a telltale record of the spectacular non-event. One was shown by TV channels close to the prime minister. The other found its way to regale followers of YouTube news channels. The clip played on TV showed a selfie of Modi and his Italian host, Prime Minister Georgio Meloni, in which he grinned from ear to ear with a likeness to Peter Sellers playing Hurundi Bakshi in The Party. Meloni, on the other hand, had the time of her life by inventing a name for the clip — “Melodi”.
The other video showed Modi looking impatient behind a screen, waiting alone to be escorted to his car. Busy Italian officials appeared more focused on the arriving and departing G7 leaders. Here, too, an explanation for the visit has not been easy to figure out. The last trip to Rome by a Pakistani leader shows up a troubling fact for India. It was president Pervez Musharraf in 2004, who signed off the trip to Rome with a declaration with the host, both agreeing to oppose the expansion of the UN Security Council membership, a not so oblique reference to India’s aspirations. If Modi succeeded in changing the Italian stand before or after the Meloni clip, he would deserve to be applauded for a diplomatic breakthrough.
Modi has been slammed at home by political critics for allegedly posing for photo-ops dressed as diplomatic gain. Adding to the problem is the towering presence of his bête noire, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the diplomatic firmament. Modi was hosting senior African leaders at the start of his first tenure as prime minister. He gave them a long spiel about India’s historical ties with Africa. It was left to the visitors to remind him of Nehru’s legacy in befriending and embracing newly independent countries everywhere.
It was thus that Modi’s party manufactured a TV ad promoting him as a diplomatic heavyweight during the parliamentary polls. A girl, overwhelmed by the alleged return of Indian students from Ukraine, confides to her father: “Usne jang rukwa di, Papa!” (Modi managed to stop the war, father — to pull out the stranded Indian students from Ukraine.)
The video was an unwitting reminder that it was not Modi who had the confidence of warring rivals to suspend hostilities, but Nehru who had successfully, and creditably for India, helped end the Korean war. India Today magazine went gaga recently. “The crucial role played by the country’s first PM is an interesting chapter to revisit as Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Ukraine amid the devastating Russia-Ukraine war. The world has expectations that India, an assertive and diplomatically mature nation, could play a role in bringing about an end to the Ukraine-Russia war.”
In the early 1950s, the magazine recalled, “India played a crucial role in the peaceful resolution of the repatriation of prisoners of war, addressing a big humanitarian challenge in the armed conflict in the Korean peninsula. Seventy-five years later, an Indian Prime Minister is visiting a war-torn nation at their invitation — this time, it’s Ukraine in the West.” Well!
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2024
===============================================================================
The following article is not very important but it is thought-provoking
Syed Sikander Mehdi
EVEN a cursory review of discussions in Pakistan on the subject suggests that a desperate search for a shortcut to development has been going on for decades. How to attain fast-paced development seems to be the main concern of policymakers and institutions, and not what kind of development and development for whom.
Enthusiasts support the idea of ‘development first’ and ‘development at any cost’. Some suggest, directly or indirectly, that democracy and freedom can wait and a ‘transitional government’ — a sort of national government, a government run by technocrats, a strong autocratic government — should be established for a period of 10 to 20 years to deliver. The Chinese, Malaysian, Singaporean, South Korean, and, until recently, the Bangladeshi models of development have been cited to justify authoritarian governance and market the narrative of development without freedom.
In the case of Bangladesh, the events following the Dhaka University students’ protest against the quota system in government jobs, which led to the toppling of Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed’s government earlier this month, clearly show that development without freedom is no guarantee of political stability and sustainable development.
Since it emerged as a sovereign country in 1971, Bangladesh has passed through many storms and evolved like a number of other post-colonial societies. Pre-1971, the eastern wing struggled for equal rights and democracy. However, on attaining statehood, it drifted away from its cherished goals. By and large, its post-independence history remains overshadowed by authoritarian governance, mob violence, successful and unsuccessful military coups, the assassination of political leaders — including Bangladesh’s founder Mujibur Rahman along with most of his family members in August 1975 and Lt-Gen Ziaur Rahman, the sixth president of Bangladesh, in May 1981 — stifling of the media, rigged elections and rampant corruption. A country created in the name of democracy, freedom, and prosperity for all ended up as a typical Third World country.
However, the long and uninterrupted autocratic rule of Sheikh Hasina Wajed from 2009 to 2024 did transform the country into a roaring economic success. Small wonder, then, that the rise of the country as one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia was noticed worldwide.
What was less noticed, however, was its mediaeval style of politics. The new history of Bangladesh, written on the premises of the universities, colleges and schools of Dhaka and other cities and towns, and on the streets and paddy fields of the country, has revealed that spectacular development without freedom is akin to building a gigantic building structure on a very weak foundation.
In less than a few weeks, the pyramid of power and economy was brought down by a popular uprising. This uprising was not led by any towering opposition leader, nor by the front-ranking, military-supported Bangladesh Nationalist Party, nor by prominent social reformers and civil society leaders, including Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, who now heads the post-Hasina Wajed government. Led by little-known student leaders, this historic movement rejected the idea of development without freedom.
Amartya Sen, leading Indian economist and Nobel laureate, published an important study in 1999. This study, which is titled Development as Freedom, exercised considerable influence on the international discourse on development and change. In this study, he puts forward the idea that development is freedom, because it increases the freedom of choice.
The idea of development at any cost, and the Chinese, Ma-laysian, Singaporean, South Korean and, later, the Bangladeshi model of development, seem to have impressed many development experts and policymakers in Pakistan. The viewpoint is quite widespread that rapid development should be attained even if freedoms and rights have to be sacrificed. Being fascinated by the authoritarian brand, many pay little attention to the consequences of the rapidly spreading fascistic tendencies in various societies around the world.
Worse still, it is little noticed and much less appreciated that countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and US, and several others, have been enjoying sustainable development because of the blending of democracy, freedom, rule of law and development in their political, economic and social system.
The writer, the former chairperson of the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi, is a leading peace scholar from Pakistan.
sikander.mehdi@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2024
============================EDITORIALS============================================
BAD news keeps coming from Balochistan. Since Sunday night, in a series of coordinated militant attacks across the province, over 70 people, including security personnel, the assailants and ordinary citizens, have lost their lives.
Starting with the execution-style killing of 23 travellers in Musakhail, the terrorists blew up a railway bridge in Bolan, set several vehicles on fire at a Levies station in Mastung, and gunned down 11 people in Kalat before raiding an FC camp in Bela. This has been the most widespread assault in years. The separatist terrorist outfit BLA has claimed responsibility, maintaining that it had seized control of a big portion of the FC camp and most highways.
ISPR asserted that the security forces and law-enforcement agencies responded immediately to these criminal attacks, especially in Musakhail, Kalat and Lasbela, and killed 21 terrorists in ensuing clearance operations. However, it also said that 10 security forces soldiers and four LEAs personnel were martyred during the operation.
These horrific attacks suggest that Baloch militants have intensified their violent campaign against the state and security forces. The army has vowed to bring the “instigators, perpetrators, facilitators and abettors of these heinous and cowardly acts to justice”.
Balochistan has been in turmoil for many decades. The last two decades, especially following the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti in an army operation, have seen the emergence of several armed secessionist groups. Strong evidence is said to link some of them to India and other neighbouring countries, who are opposed to the idea of a secure Pakistan.
These groups have targeted security forces, public installations, Chinese interests, unarmed Punjabi workers in Balochistan, and politicians who, as opposed to the militants, believe in a democratic struggle for the political and economic rights of the Baloch. Their violent acts and the killing of innocent people must be strongly condemned. The intensity of these attacks should put the whole country, especially its military and political guardians, on alert.
That said, although kinetic action against those who target the province so mercilessly is necessary, the civil and security leadership must look deeper into the Balochistan question and identify the factors that have intensified the tension between the Baloch and the state. The reasons behind this wave of disaffection that have led young middle-class men and women to protest are well-known; they pertain to human rights violations, poor socioeconomic conditions, and the denial of political rights. These factors provide a fertile recruiting ground for terrorist groups on the lookout for angry, frustrated elements to join their ranks.
The centre cannot ignore Baloch voices anymore, especially those who condemn violence and want peace and genuine efforts for change. It is only by listening to and cooperating with the people of Balochistan that the terrorists can be eliminated.
Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2024
===============================================================================
Ugly Sectarianism
AFTER a period of relative calm, a dangerous bout of sectarianism rocked Karachi on Sunday, leaving at least two men dead, several others injured, and a number of vehicles torched. The incident occurred in the city’s Gulbahar area as a rally organised by the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat — a violent extremist group that was proscribed by the National Counter-Terrorism Authority in 2012 — was passing by a local imambargah. As per reports, slogans were exchanged between the rally participants and the locals, and later gunfire was traded. After this violent episode, the Sindh government started making the usual statements about ‘keeping the peace’ and ‘not allowing anyone to target communal harmony’. Yet Sindh’s rulers, and indeed the country’s security institutions, must be asked why a banned group was allowed to take out a rally, that too on the eve of Chehlum, passing by some of the city’s most sensitive neighbourhoods. When groups known to indulge in hate speech are given free rein, why does the state express shock when there is violence associated with their activities?
Thankfully, the situation was contained before it could lead to further unrest. Mobile service in Karachi and other parts of Sindh was suspended on Monday, presumably to prevent hatemongers from exploiting the Gulbahar incident. While saner elements from the ulema representing both major sects must act immediately to put out the fire whenever such incidents occur, it is the state’s responsibility to prevent hate groups from fanning the flames of sectarianism. It is true that Pakistan has been spared the kind of sectarian violence seen in some countries in the Middle East. But this is no reason for complacency. The state must be clear: hatemongers and communal troublemakers from any sect will not be allowed to spread their toxic message. Unless this is ensured, the state will only be fooling itself and the citizenry when it talks about maintaining harmony.
Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2024
===============================[THE END]=======================================
|
