P A G E
Thursday, March 18, 1999
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Thursday, March 18, 1999 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Commission
loses its heads
DISPUTE
OVER KASHMIR |
 |
Even
The Dawn’s tone has changed
Destination
Lunglei
Situation
at Jaiton |
||||||||
 |
|
Commission loses its heads FILCHING and mismanaging funds in the European Commission in Brussels is as old as, well, the commission itself. That is why the severity of the criticism by an accounting team and the collective resignation of the president and all 20 commissioners have come as a surprise. Given its structure and staff composition, the chances are that it would take several rounds of reform and years of vigil to clean up the working. Money comes from the 15 member-countries under a complicated system of dues and goes to most members for a variety of purposes. Then some countries jack up their claim for assistance, particularly as agricultural subsidy. The 17,000-strong bureaucracy is very highly paid, the average annual salary runs to a spectacular $130,000 with generous perks thrown in. But it cannot supervise spending as tightly as it should. Nor is there any motivation. Every year there is a fresh crop of corruption charges, newspapers go to town reporting rival claims and then the scandal dies a natural death. It has been dramatically different this time and thereby hangs a tale. One Commissioner, Ms Edith Cresson of France, went a bit too far in treating the Commission as a charitable agency offering high salary to those with low qualification. This former Prime Minister of France appointed a dentist from her town (she is also the mayor there) as a research officer; she is in charge of research. This act of unalloyed nepotism outraged the normally complaisant Members of European Parliament (MEPs) and they threatened to sack the whole lot of commissioners and the president. A five-member audit committee took slightly more than a month to deliver a stunning blow. It has not named names, barring that of the formidable Ms Cresson. But the tenor of the report is such that the top team, very much like a Cabinet, could well have been dismissed. And it is to pre-empt that disgraceful eventuality that all commissioners resigned en masse. Why did the MEPs become
overactive this year and at this time of the year? Well,
they face an election in June and a burst of energetic
cleansing on the eve of voting cannot hurt their chances!
At least the opponents cannot make political capital out
of the scandalous financial management at Brussels. The
MEPs themselves are equally “graciously” paid
and draw fabulous allowances on a scale that makes the
more powerful MPs in all countries envious. The
commissioners are elected MEPs but are not accountable to
the European Parliament, which sits in Strasbourg, in
France. Each member-country nominates the commissioners
and seven of the outgoing commissioners are seeking
renomination and will get it. Among them is Neil Kinnock,
a former leader of the British Labour Party. In every
member-country there are those opposed to a united
Europe, the so-called Eurosceptics. They have all along
been saying that the commission and the related wings are
a wasteland, good only at providing a sinecure to
ill-deserving men and women. Now they will crow, “We
told you so!” |
The maddening frenzy DESPITE the secular spirit of our Constitution and the precious legacy of social co-existence, recent religio-communal occurrences have shown that the temper of the nation is no more guided by the principle of societal harmony. There have been several Dangses before the troubles seen at Dangs in Gujarat. In fact, Dangs is not a mere geographical name; it is a symbol of the decline of our nationhood and democratic culture. In Gujarat, just as in Orissa, several disgraceful acts have happened. The minds which have bred so much of unprecedented violence have been conditioned by the camouflaging element of imaginary divinity and community. Jawaharlal Nehru warned us in a speech in Parliament 51 years ago: "The alliance of religion and politics in the shape of communalism is a most dangerous alliance, and it yields the most abnormal kind of illegitimate brood." We have paid no attention to his thoughts and, therefore, we are having the recurrence of socially abominable acts like the killing of Graham Stewart Stain, who had been engaged in anti-leprosy work in Orissa for over three decades, and the burning alive of his two minor children in Manoharpur village in Keonjhar district in Orissa (on the night of January 22). Last Sunday and Monday overwhelmed us with the examples of continuing anti-religion lunacy. On Sunday, a few persons, living in and around Rananai village in Gajapati district of the state of Lord Jagannath, defaced a Cross painted on a hillock years ago. This was a provocation for unrest. Tension gripped the village on the following day. Two hundred houses belonging to the Christian community were set ablaze. Those who resided in huts were subjected to blunt-weapon attacks and gunfire. Subsequently, says Chief
Minister Giridhar Gamang, a peace committee, was formed.
The Block Development Officer became active. The district
police turned "vigilant" and platoons of
security forces were despatched to the hapless hamlet. As
we had warned earlier, all Christian pockets in Bihar,
Orissa and West Bengal deserved meticulous policing at
least for a period of three months. But who cares?
Predictably, Dangses, Manoharpurs and Rananais will be
repeated in vulnerable parts of the country. Crocodile
tears will be shed at the loss of the life and property
of innocent citizens. Resolutions will be passed saying
that in our secular and social democratic set-up, no
aberrations, conceits and deceits will be allowed or
overlooked. There is no sanctity in such apparently pious
declarations. Look at the condition of the Justice D. P.
Wadhwa commission, which is supposed to probe the
Stain-burning episode. The judge says that there is no
infrastructure for the commission. The government, he
adds, has failed to provide the wherewithal for a proper
inquiry. His counsel has said: "The conduct of the
Central Government, and in particular its officers who
had interacted with the secretariat of the commission, is
plainly unsatisfactory and inadequate." If a
commission of inquiry is thwarted in such a brazen
manner, what result does one expect from the assurances
of the government? It is necessary to add Rananai to the
brief given to Justice Wadhwa. Go back to Nehru and
listen carefully: "I want the narrow conflicts of
today in the name of religion or caste, language or
province, to cease, — and a classless and casteless
society to be built up where every individual has full
opportunity to grow according to his worth and
ability." The Bajrang Dal has been mentioned in the
context of the arson and violance. The Prime Minister, Mr
Atal Behari Vajpayee, should look into the matter and see
to it that the guilty are brought to book. |
Bus service of hope PRIME Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Lahore yatra by bus last month marked the beginning of the process of normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan. On March 17, less than a month after Mr Vajpayee’s historic journey, the process of building bridges of friendship and trust through people-to-people contact gained further momentum when the promised bus service between the two countries was formally introduced at simple ceremonies in Lahore and Delhi. Going by the reactions of the passengers who took the inaugural bus journey from Lahore to Delhi and vice versa it can be said that in the long run bus diplomacy may help the two countries achieve more in terms of improved bilateral ties than without the periodic bureaucratic and political exchanges have achieved thus far. However, given the long history of mistrust and mud-slinging cautious optimism rather than boundless joy over the mutual attempt to put relations in the right gear may be in order. After all, it does not take long for the political leadership in Pakistan to spoil the party, as it were, with or without a valid reason. For instance, Pakistan is not likely to stop crying itself hoarse over the Kashmir issue in the near future. In very many respects it is both a compulsion and a habit for the Pakistani leadership to talk of Kashmir, primary for the domestic audience. At a certain level Pakistan is still uncomfortable with the idea of totally normal relations with India. Perhaps the leadership
believes that the creation of Pakistan was the result of
the two-nation hysteria unleashed by the fundamentalists,
and the only way to sustain the nation born out of blood
and turmoil is by not allowing the anti-India utterances
to be discarded from political discourse between the two
countries. How else does one explain the issues raised by
the High Commissioner of Pakistan in India, Mr Ashraf
Jehangir Qazi, on the eve of the inaugural bus service
between Lahore and Delhi? In the first public statement
after the Lahore Declaration he speaks of the
“rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in
exercising their UN-acknowledged right of
self-determination” while the passengers from
Pakistan are shown expressing the hope that the bus
service between the two countries would help improve
relations between a people who share the same history,
speak the same language and whose culture too is more or
less identical. The only discordant note was struck by
the Indian High Commission in Islamabad which was
reportedly not as prompt in issuing visas to prospective
travellers to India as its counterpart in Delhi. Requests
for tickets for the inaugural journey from Delhi to
Lahore had to be turned down while the bus from Lahore
reached Delhi half-empty because of the visa hassles
created by the Indian High Commission. Perhaps, it has
not been adequately briefed about the significance of the
bus service between Lahore and Delhi. It is a service of
hope which has the potential of generating boundless
economic and social goodwill through increased
people-to-people contact. All it needs is a bit of fine
tuning and not the irritants reportedly created by the
Indian diplomatic staff in Islamabad. |
DISPUTE OVER KASHMIR INDIA has agreed that it will discuss the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. Pakistan has made it known that this is the “core issue” which must be resolved before progress can be achieved on other problems. This does not mean that a solution is at hand. This means that the two countries are prepared to discuss Kashmir. So what is now going to happen? What can be the solution? There is no answer now. The two sides have so far given no signs of giving up their earlier positions. One major change has been that Pakistan has agreed to discuss the issue bilaterally. This has come about after a long and bitter period when Pakistan was demanding the intervention of the United Nations or a third power. That Pakistan has come down to the bilateral position is a major achievement. If India can have the will and strength, it can now put third parties aside. But their pressures will not end. According to sources, the Lahore talks taking place was the result of pressure from the USA. Let us, India and Pakistan, now get out of the arena of pressures. India and Pakistan should be able to look after themselves. The Pakistani authorities have been telling their critics in their country that this is the first time India has agreed to discuss the Kashmir dispute. This has met some of the criticism of the Islamic hawks in Pakistan who opposed Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit. At the same time this is not the correct position because in the Simla Agreement signed in 1972 India and Pakistan had decided to discuss Kashmir and not seek a military solution. The Pakistani satisfaction during Mr Vajpayee’s visit somewhat satisfied the hardcore critics and took the sting out of their criticism. What options are there now? The situation in Kashmir should worry both governments. Acts of sabotage continue in Kashmir. More than 20 Hindus were killed by obvious Pakistani saboteurs on the day of the Vajpayee visit. This was like the separatists — obviously inspired by the ISI — serving notice to the two governments that Kashmir continued to be a problem and that they should not reach a settlement by themselves. The militants in Kashmir, as represented by the Hurriyat, have clearly not liked the effort by India and Pakistan to come closer. They have been demanding that the Kashmiris, mainly meaning the separatists, should also be involved. Was it because of the internal opposition the two leaders face that soon after the Lahore declaration Mr Nawaz Sharif threatened to suspend talks with India if the Kashmir issue was not resolved within a specific time-frame? He went on further to say that “Kashmiris have the moral, diplomatic and political support of Pakistan.” He added the surprising statement that he had told the Indian Prime Minister that Kashmiris “should be given the right of self-determination so that they can decide their future.” He created further surprise by claiming that Mr Vajpayee had agreed with the assertion. In New Delhi, Mr Vajpayee said that “we have not attacked any country in our fifty years of independence but we have been attacked several times and have lost our land. We are determined not to lose our land in future.” These two statements, made on the same day without any provocation, created a mystery. Neither statement seemed to have been a reaction to the other. Were the two leaders giving a quick burial to the Lahore declaration? This would perhaps be a wrong conclusion. Later happenings did not make this out. Perhaps this was said by the two leaders to meet the barbs thrown at them for the Lahore agreement. Mr Nawaz Sharif had to meet his critics but Mr Vajpayee did not have to because there was no great opposition from India. Everyone here wants to put off the bitterness with Pakistan. The Congress party, of course, did ask Mr Vajpayee to clarify his stand when Mr Nawaz Sharif claimed that the Indian Prime Minister had agreed with him on the need for self-determination. The Indian government quickly stated that Mr Nawaz Sharif’s claim was not correct. Even if the Congress had not asked him to clarify his stand, Mr Vajpayee could not have left this claim unanswered. This was too big an assertion not to be immediately put down. Pakistan has been speaking in two voices. On the day of Mr Vajpayee’s visit President Mohammad Rafiq Tarar pledged Pakistan’s continued “moral and political” support for Kashmir. This was clearly a well-thoughtout strategy — to make both kinds of noises at the same time. Mr Tarar said India’s decision to discuss Kashmir was “proof that India too has accepted Kashmir as a dispute.” He added: “Pakistan would continue its political, diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmiris on all fronts.” While talks with India were on, Pakistan could not suddenly turn its back on the Kashmiri militants whom it has been supporting diplomatically and materially. The hartal in parts of Lahore and the stoning of buses and cars even of diplomats going to Mr Vajpayee’s public reception were all indications of the anger of the hardcore fundamentalist Pakistanis. It was a brave Nawaz Sharif to ride against this kind of opposition. As far as one can see as an outsider, he is interested in improving relations with India. In this he should be strengthened and India, by its conciliatory moves, should not let the fundamentalists get the better of him. Mr Vajpayee’s situation is not easy either. In his case he has to contend with the hard core of his own parivar, the Bajrang Dal, the VHP and the Shiv Sena, to name only three. The other opposition parties, mainly the Congress, will go along with him to remove Kashmir as a thorn in Indo-Pakistani relations. There is one proposal which most people think will provide the ultimate solution. This is to let the present Line of Control become the permanent border. In other words, this will mean retaining what each has at present. Both governments are shy of promoting this solution. It has been talked about in whispers and never formally. At the Simla Summit Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is said to have assured Indira Gandhi that he would see to it that the Line of Control was turned into a permanent border. The Simla Agreement was signed in the hope of this pledge being fulfilled. India sent back all the 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and returned the conquered territory. Since the Bhutto pledge became known more recently, Pakistani spokesmen have been saying that no such assurance was given. The Pakistanis are perhaps not correct. Without an assurance of this kind India would not have signed an agreement which gave it nothing. There are two views about Bhutto’s assurance. One view is that this was a ploy to lull Indira Gandhi into confidence, make her sign the pact and go back with a tangible advantage of having got back the POWs and the territory. The other view is that Bhutto sincerely meant to create the LOC into a permanent border but he did not get stabilised in power and soon after went out of it and into death. His daughter, Benazir, who was present at Simla as a young guest, has not accepted that this assurance was given. She is interested in keeping the Kashmir issue alive. India also has not talked about this proposal formally. If it does, it may feel that it will be told that it is signing away the part of Kashmir which is now under the occupation of Pakistan and China. The only time it was formally talked about was when Dr Farooq Abdullah commended it soon after he became the Chief Minister of Kashmir after the last election. New Delhi promptly dissociated itself from it. Soon after Dr Abdullah retreated from it and he has not since talked about it. The latest to support such a proposal has been Senator Moynihan who is a former US Ambassador to India. He says that the only solution is a division of Kashmir. Other proposals continue
to be talked about. Can the situation be left as it is
and throw the Muzaffarabad route open so that there will
be a soft border with divided families meeting and border
trade and commerce flourishing? But this cannot be talked
about when men and rifles and RDX continue to be smuggled
into Kashmir. The proxy war will have to end before a
permanent solution can be discussed when Mr Nawaz Sharif
comes to pay a return visit hopefully in April. |
Ignoring the indigenous calendar INDIA'S indigenous new year 2056 begins today. This is a lunar year. There is also a solar year that runs parallel and begins on Baisakhi, generally on April 13 (this year Baisakhi falls on April 14). The day of the week (Thursday), the day of Jupiter, is designated as the King of the Year, and the day of Baisakhi (the second most important day; this time it falls on Wednesday, April 14), the day of Mercury, is called the (single) minister (mantri) of the year. Since this time both the raja and the mantri (Jupiter and Mercury) are benevolent planets, so it promises to be somewhat brighter and better than the last year, despite the few inevitable dark spots. But who bothers about the Vikrami Samvat new year, though the masses observe Navratras (nine rights) and the new year falls on the first of the Navratras? People these days celebrate January 1 as new year day with growing gusto. Notice the universal atmosphere of mutual congratulations and tonnes and tonnes of new year greeting cards, which the post-office goes on delivering till the end of January. I believe some day India’s own new year will come to be celebrated nation-wide and get its glory and importance. The year 1999 too was under-valued. It was just taken as a penultimate year, being the gateway to the year of the century and also the year of the millennium, about which every sophisticated person talks so excitedly — that such a moment comes once in a hundred years, may be once in a thousand years. In 2,000 all computers would go wrong, bringing confusion and chaos in all spheres of life. For us 1999 is not the year of transition only. The magnificent 300th anniversary of the birth of the Khalsa will be celebrated on Baisakhi, April 13-14. These promise to be gigantic global-level celebrations. For Indians in general, 1999 is the most memorable year. But the Baisakhi of the birthday of the Khalsa falls on March 30 (some say March 29); how come that there is a difference of 15 days? It is explained by the fact that the Gregorian calendar was advanced by 11 days in 1753 A.D. Also the Indian calendar consists of 365.256 days, while the Western year comprises 365.242 days — a difference of 0.014 days in a year or 1.4 days in a century and 4.2 days in 300 years (11+4 +15 days). A lunar year has 355 days. So it falls short of 10 days in the first year, 20 days in the second year and 30 days in the third year. India has specialised in astronomy since the Vedic days. So, it has a lunar year of 13 months of “Purshotam Mas” (the last 13-month year was 2053 and the next would be 2056). Otherwise the solar and lunar months would get detached. This happens in the case of the Islamic calendar. It started in 622 AD and today it is 1420 ; which would mean 2042 AD, though it is not even 2,000 AD. Jawaharlal Nehru tried to introduce the Shaka calendar as India’s national calendar, but this could not happen. The idea is now dead as dodo. The Vikrami calendar is supposed to have started in 57 B.C, while Shaka in 78 A.D. But there is no king named Vikramaditya about that time in history. The scholars state that it was started in the fifth century by Emperor Chandragupt who took the title of Vikramaditya after defeating the invaders, the Shakas. There existed a Malwa calendar, 500 years old, and Vikramaditya adopted it under his own name. Shakas as invaders tried to enslave Indians. Then why should India honour them by adopting a calendar with their name and their king Shalivahan and its starter? It is against national self-respect. Why do we continue to
celebrate Western New Year Day and not the indigenous one
(April 18) Habits of the centuries of slavery die hard.
Some day we shall be proud of everything Indian. |
Destination
Lunglei MIZORAM is a bew itchingly charming place with beautiful people and exquisite musical sounding names of places — Bungtland, Lungchem and the like. Lunglei is the second largest town and a beautiful place. In those days — I am talking of mid 80s — on some roads, mostly away from the main road running the length of the state, when you encountered a bus or a truck from the opposite direction, both vehicles had to kind of stop and manoeuvre past each other. That gave one ample time to study the passengers in the other vehicle and read the messages and pronouncements on them. Some of them were real interesting. And informative. A compilation of messages on trucks will be a best seller, I have no doubt. I found a particular message on almost all the buses in South Mizoram quite bewildering. It related to the point of origin and destination. There are buses, and there are buses. Some do not consider it necessary to give information about their destination to the general public. One has to ask drivers and conductors and roadways officials and so on to locate the right bus, if one is new to the place. For seasoned travellers, of course, it’s all in a day’s work. Then there are buses that provide this information in the local language. If you happen to be not very familiar with the script of that language, you have no choice but to ask your fellow citizens, some of whom are not the best informed citizens. Communication is not the forte of others, we learn to our utter discomfort. More often than not, we tend to encounter a person of either of the two categories. We get by somehow. That was not so in Mizoram. Or, so I thought. All information was in English, and in bold letters, and on the sides of the buses. For some reason that I couldn’t fathom, all the buses that I came across seemed to originate from a place called Hypo, or so I thought. I was reasonably familiar with South Mizoram. Never did I come across a place named Hypo. I had no idea where it was. Now, I didn’t want to sound ignorant, read foolish, and, therefore, had never asked anyone and, thus, remained blissfully ignorant. How I wish I had remained so. One fine day, a colleague and I were on our way to some place. Like always, we passed a few buses, and like always I wondered why the buses commenced journey from Hypo, and where is this Hypo anyway? Questions I wanted to ask, but was afraid of asking. This particular day I mustered enough courage to make this profound statement: “Isn’t it remarkable that bus stands in all towns are close to the State Bank of India?” Befuddled, my friend gave me a long hard look. “What on earth did prompt him to make this startling discovery?” he seemed to say. “Was it something he drank last night?” In reply to his unasked question I pointed out the message on the bus which was trying to squeeze past our jeep. It announced proudly in bold letters “Hypo to SBI Lunglei.” While I studied with interest the faces of passengers who had boarded the bus at Hypo and were on their way to SBI Lunglei, I was subjected to another “long and hard look.” He was stupefied, not without reason, as I was to learn later. “And, tell me,” I went on, bent upon making a silly ass of myself, “Tell me” I asked, “Where is Hypo?” His look said it all. “What on earth is this blockhead talking about”? Then the penny dropped. What followed is rather unprintable. You see, the word that had
caught my eye was ‘Hypothecated’. |
Even The
Dawn’s tone has changed REVISITING Lahore after an unduly long gap, I found a heart-warming change in Pakistani thinking since I was there last in 1981 on my way to Islamabad for a 100-minute interview with President Zia-ul-Haq. This impression is partly based on my talk with a cross-section of the people, including legislators, the powerful landed gentry and the youth. It is also based upon the tone and content of what I read there in The Dawn, Pakistan’s leading newspaper, which was founded by Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah and spewed venom against India for many, many years. Time was when almost every Pakistani reflected an animus towards India and had little hesitation in threatening another war over Kashmir. No longer so today. Everyone I spoke to responded positively to a question I have been posing for many years, both as a columnist and as a member of the Lok Sabha: Should India and Pakistan insanely continue to bleed each other white? All promptly agreed that this destructive confrontation must be ended and our problems resolved honourably and peacefully through dialogue, not war. This welcome change in Pakistani thinking has been mainly brought about by the cold logic of Pokhran-II and Chagai nuclear blasts. In a discussion on Pak TV on Mr Vajpayee’s visit, one panelist asserted: “The heavens will not fall if we have a dialogue. Another war must be ruled out if both our countries are not to be wiped off the face of the earth!” Reflecting the new attitude were as many as seven special articles in The Dawn of February 20 and 21 and more so the first day’s editorial — “Stepping Beyond The Symbolic” — and the main piece by Mr MP Bhandara entitled “Bus To Pakistan”. The editorial stated: “If ever two nations stood in need of talking to each other in order to remove the walls of mistrust which stand between them, they are India and Pakistan....The protest threatened by the Jamaat-e-Islami is misplaced....Mr Vajpayee is coming for discussions with his Pakistani counterpart and not to ask for the keys of Lahore Fort!” Wrote Mr Bhandara: “People are tiring of a state of permanent confrontation. Millions of people yearn to visit their, ‘roots’ in the subcontinent. It is a desire as natural as, say, mother’s love....As a matter of common sense, is it wise for a welter weight boxer to take on a heavy weight...? It is said that the nuclear bomb has wiped out the Indian military advantage. Have we thought through the consequences of this fantastic notion....” There are today few serious takers for Z.A. Bhutto’s dramatic talk of a thousand-year war over Kashmir. In fact, Gen. Hamid Gul, once the ISI chief and author of the diabolical “Operation K-2” (Kashmir and Khalistan) against India was attacked sharply in a letter to the Editor published across four columns on February 21 for advocating at a recent seminar on Kashmir that Pakistan “should use the bomb against India.” The writer, Mr Farook Ali Khan from Islamabad, not only lampooned the “Jehaadi General” for being “more active in newspaper columns and seminars than he ever was in the field of war” but also asserted: “Aren’t we lucky that a loose canon like Gen Gul does not have his finger on the nuclear button.” Earlier, the writer stated: “Ultimately, all issues get settled on the conference table...India and Pakistan will have to learn to live and let live....That was Quaid-e-Azam’s vision. Gen Hamid Gul’s destructive and negative rhetoric is harmful to the national interest.” Qazi Husain Ahmad and his Jamaat-e-Islami undoubtedly succeeded in embarrassing Mr Nawaz Sharif with his bandh on the day Mr Vajpayee arrived. But an article by Kunwar Idris entitled “Talk Before Fighting” in The Dawn on February 21 made us wiser about the Qazi who, he said, had never been able “to get even one member elected to any Assembly!” Not just that. Also ridiculed at length was the Qazi’s contention that once Pakistan demonstrated its abiding commitment to an armed struggle to liberate Kashmir, it would become a cause for the Ummah (Islamic World). Said he: “All this is day dreaming from a safe haven by a people privileged and pampered....No guerrilla force of a few thousand, riven by internal dissension, can defeat an army of a million, when it is also surrounded by a population committed not to surrender Kashmir...The passion for Kashmir is not on our side alone.” Importantly, opposition was not merely voiced against launching a jehaad in case the latest talks failed to resolve the Kashmir question. Asked Tahir Mirza, Resident Editor of The Dawn at Lahore, in his piece entitled “For a Bit of Sense and Sensibility”: “How can even the most fiery of our cold warriors believe that such a course is practicable? This is errant nonsense.” In fact, Mr Bhandara went a step further (like some people I met) and said that “Pakistan’s Kashmir policy needs serious review.” He added: “Our present policy is that a Kashmir settlement must precede the normalisation of relationship. Consequently, relations have been frozen for half a century....The time has come to question unremitting hostility. In the process we have lost East Pakistan without gaining Kashmir....Since unremitting hostility has paid no dividends, why not give the olive-branch a chance....” Strong support for this view came from Mr Irfan Husain in a provocative piece appropriately entitled: “Imagine.” He wrote: “For any progress to be made in Indo-Pak relations, we will have to delink Kashmir from other elements. Trade, travel and tourism must be opened up. It is not India which is being penalised by our Kashmir-first stance; our confrontationist policies are costing us much more....Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the unending debate on Kashmir, we have to face the reality of the Indian occupation of a large part of the state, while we occupy another. The situation is not going to change. So, instead of keeping up the plebiscite drumbeat the world is deaf to, we might as well get on with things rather than rant on about the injustices of history and geography....Obviously, there will be considerable resistance from the large number of ostriches who inhabit this country. But the Nawaz Sharif government with its huge Parliamentary majority can push the deal through.” What followed made me rub my eyes in disbelief. Mr Husain added: “And while we keep trotting out the well-worn UN resolution calling for a plebiscite to determine the will of the Kashmiri people, we conveniently forget that the same resolution called for a complete withdrawal of Pakistani forces from all parts of the state as a pre-condition to the vote. We never fulfilled this condition, thus giving the Indians an excuse to back out of their commitment. Subsequently, India made the contested state a part of the Union, thus making the UN resolution null and void....The Indians are not going to hand us their bit of Kashmir on a platter, and we have neither the military might nor the international support needed to change the status quo in our favour. Sooner or later, there will be an agreement dividing the state along the present Line of Control. Reaching this understanding sooner rather than later will save us a lot of money and a lot of frustration....The Nawaz Sharif government with its huge parliamentary majority can push the deal through.” Two other special articles also deserve to be quoted. In a piece entitled “Lahore must stand up for peace” Mr I.A. Rehman wrote: “That Kashmir is an issue that must be resolved cannot be overly emphasised....However, the objective in front of the people of Pakistan, as it should be before the Indians, is not merely to break the stalemate on Kashmir, the objective is to reject the history of five decades of mutually destructive confrontation and begin planning for an era in which the Indian and the Pakistani people can concentrate on their respective problems....We can no longer allow the Kashmir issue to divert us from this all-important objective. Times demand mutually beneficial steps in all areas that offer even the slightest opportunity.” In “Matters of Moment”, Mr Sabih Mohsin strongly pleaded for giving “serious consideration to the argument that the strengthening of trade relations might be helpful in creating an atmosphere more conducive to the resolution of political issues....After all, the policy of not having normal trade relations with India has led us nowhere nearer to settling our political disputes over the last half a century.” One could go on and on
quoting more from The Dawn articles. But suffice it to
conclude with a reference to the main article on February
21 by Mr Iqbal Ahmed entitled “The bus can bring a
Nobel Prize”. The promise of progress in
Indo-Pakistan relations, he wrote, “has caught the
popular imagination” — now that the
“euphoria over the nuclear tests has worn out, its
economic costs are being felt and its risks have begun to
be understood.” He conceded that Mr Vajpayee and Mr
Sharif were “an unlikely pair of peace-makers”
especially since “Making peace with Pakistan has
never been his (Mr Vajpayee’s) party’s
preference.” Nevertheless, he added: “It is not
uncommon for conservative leaders to accomplish what
liberal and reputedly enlightened ones fail to do. French
socialists, among them Mends France and Guy Mollet, did
not end the very savage war in Algeria. Charles de Gaulle
did. Nixon was an anti-communist crusader and even
advocated use of nuclear weapons against China. Yet, he
was the first US President to visit China. Mr A.B.
Vajpayee and Mr Nawaz Sharif may well be among those
unlikely peace-makers.” Amen! — INFA |
Situation at Jaiton THE SGPC sends up the following statement of S. Avtar Singh, Secretary of the Akali Jatha, Lahore, for publication: “I am the Assistant Secretary of the Akali Jatha of Lahore district. Forty men of my Jatha are serving at Sri Darbar Sahib, Muktsar. I went there yesterday with a view to seeing them. S. Barkat Singh, the Manager, S. Inder Singh, the Secretary of the Akali Jatha, Muktsar tehsil, and myself thought of attending the Diwan at Jaito at a little after 1 p.m. Learning that S. Rai Singh along with his other co-workers, was arrested by the police and all of them were sitting near by, we wished to see them. But the police did not allow the interview. We consequently, came
direct to the Diwan. It being the food time, some one
hundred persons were only present there. Guru Granth
Sahib was gracing the occasion with a Sevadar attending
the sewa. We went into the Gurdwara, asked S. Barkat
Singh and S. Uttam Singh about all that had happened.
They told us that a posse of police armed with lathis
attacked the Hindus of the city last night, and had dealt
them severe blows. A few of them were lying under a
precarious condition”. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
