|
A Tribune Special
|
|
|
End of peace journey?
Profile
On Record
|
End of peace journey?
IT has been a long haul. The people-to-people contact which we fostered like a gardener tending a sapling. My tryst with friendly relations between India and Pakistan goes back to September 13, 1947. That was the day when I crossed the border at Wagha after journeying from Sialkot, my hometown. I had seen murder and worse. Like millions of refugees, I too had been broken on the rack of history. My resolve was to make the border soft so that the people I had left behind—they were similar—could come to India and we to Pakistan without the hassle of passport or visa. But I found to my horror that anyone talking about good relations was dubbed a Pakistani agent in India and an Indian agent in Pakistan. Still my job was easier than those in Pakistan because the democratic polity on this side had given us an open society and an environment where we could criticize India whenever it was harsh on Pakistan. In comparison, India was a better place for meeting the likeminded from Pakistan. Slowly and gradually, personal relations began to fructify into relations between the two countries. Governments remained distant and they had their “track” for getting together the pro-establishment men to say their respective government’s piece. It too helped because there was a meeting of those who knew the official line and to what extent the participants could go. What really gave me strength was the visit to Lahore some 16 years ago. I had just checked into a city hotel when Khurshid Kasuri, who later became Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, rang me up to convey that Benazir Bhutto wanted me to meet her. I requested him to pick me up. He came within a few minutes and I accompanied him to his house in the cantonment where Benazir was presiding over a meeting of 23 parties wanting restoration of democracy in Pakistan. Benazir made me sit next to her and said softly: We, the political parties, would never be able to normalise relations between Pakistan and India. You (the people) would be able to do so one day provided you did not give up your efforts. Nawaz Sharif, who was then the Prime Minister, endorsed her thinking when I interviewed him. He said he would help me in the endeavour. He did so in his own way.
That was the year when I collected a few persons from Delhi and a few from Amritsar, in all 15, to light candles at the Wagah gate on the midnight of August 14-15, the time when India and Pakistan became independent. As the ceremony was held every year on the same night, the crowd grew bigger and bigger. In 2007, there were roughly 3 lakh people on this side of the border, raising the slogan: Long Live India-Pakistan Dosti (friendship). We did not provide any transport, any meals and not even cold water. People sat in the open and enjoyed the Punjabi music. Top artistes would come to sing because it was considered prestigious to appear from that stage. We invited National Assembly members from Pakistan to participate in the function. Once Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was one of the guests. He talked about peace then. But today he says that Pakistan is fully prepared for war. To our regret, none would show up on the other side when we lighted candles at the Wagah gate. Some time the Jammat-e-Islami kept the peace activists in Pakistan away from reaching the border and some time the authorities did so. The media on this side made much of the Pakistanis’ absence at the other side. It came to be dubbed a one-sided effort. This year some 50 people, men and women, from Pakistan came right up to the gate. We opened the gate but they could not. We exchanged candles and talked to each other. This was clear evidence that democracy had returned to Pakistan. But it is a pity that the Mumbai attack has also come in the same year. The entire atmosphere has changed overnight. Hardliners have overtaken us. And when New Delhi declared to curtail the number of visas to be issued from the Indian High Commission at Islamabad, people-to-people contact had a question mark against it. I have to admit that the terrorist attack on Mumbai demolished my work of 16 years in no time. When there is no option except peace between the two countries, why the hype and jingoism which the media, particularly the television channels, have built up?
Why do democratic forces come to talk in the same vein as the dictators do? Why does the fledging democracy in Pakistan begin to behaving like General Pervez Musharraf did during his rule—all denials? Ashma Jehangir can be commended for having said at Delhi that the terrorists were the Pakistanis and that the Asif Ali Zardari government should begin taking action against them instead of denying that they were not Pakistanis. But how does one explain the statement by General Asfaq Parvez Kiyani, Pakistan’s Chief of the Army Staff, that Pakistan would retaliate within minutes of India’s attack on Pakistan? There is no political party or lobby talking about war. Why is he queering the pitch? The bigger question which remains unanswered is why do peace activists become silent when they see the warlike atmosphere taking shape. This is the time when they should have been most active. In fact, some of them have turned into hawks. Is there no commitment to peace whatever the environment? Where have the voices for peace gone? We have failed so many times earlier and have still got engaged in people-to-people contact quickly. Why do I feel despondent this time? Have I got disillusioned or simply tired? Or is it what Faiz Ahmad Faiz described as: |
Profile AR Antulay
is no stranger to controversies. His career graph shows that he cannot remain on a post for long and will create problems for himself. He has broken records of the leaders thrown in the wilderness for long years and yet bounced back to power.
He kicked up yet another controversy by demanding an inquiry into the killing of Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad Chief Hemant Karkare, alleging conspiracy by the Hindutva radicals connected with the Malegoan blast case. Fortunately, the controversy was resolved amicably after Antulay accepted Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s statement that there was no truth whatsoever in the suspicion that there was a conspiracy to eliminate Karkare. He was removed from the office of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The circumstances were ignominious then and charges serious against him — indulgence in corrupt practice. No one at that time thought Antulay will surface again on the political scene and become a Union Minister. The case against him related to collection of funds for a trust set up by him for the welfare of artists including journalists and named the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan. The amount was collected through cheques and many of the donors were builders who gave the donation in lieu of cement permit, a scarce commodity then. Antulay, now in seventies, made his debut on the national scene as far back as 1976 when at the AICC session at Kamagatamaru Nagar, near Chandigarh, Indira Gandhi made him the party’s general secretary. Antulay soon made his way into the inner circle of Indira Gandhi’s advisors and came close to Sanjay Gandhi. When she returned to power in 1980, Sanjay chose him to head the Congress government in Maharashtra. It was a big jump forward for Antulay and, perhaps, the finest hour. He took oath as the Chief Minister on June 9, 1980, but within two years he started trouble for himself. It is said that Antulay tries to move as fast as he can politically. This often creates problems for him. Had he not formed the Indira Gandhi Pratibha Prathistan, he could have ruled Maharashtra for a full five-year term. He did initiate a number of schemes for the welfare of the poor. Antulay’s efforts to get back Shivaji’s “Bhavani Talwar” from a London museum made headlines. He also vowed to bring back the Kohinoor diamond. His outburst about the sword apparently stemmed out of his desire to establish and enhance his rapport with Maratha leaders. The two treasures never made it back to India. He initiated the move for a change from the parliamentary system to presidential form with usual vigour. He held the view that parliamentary democracy as envisaged in affluent countries like the UK was not suitable for a country like India. As the Chief Minister and, later, as the Union Health Minister, in the P.V. Narasimha government, Antulay was known to making surprise visits during odd hours to check whether those on duty were doing their job. Antulay is known to be an able administrator. He is credited with taking up developmental works in the Konkan region through the Konkan Development Corpo-ration, besides initiating a pension scheme for destitutes. He is known to have sought attention through his controversial utterances in the past and continues to do so. Many view his latest outbursts, which left the UPA government embarrassed, as an attempt to consolidate his position among the
minorities. |
On Record
Conversion
has become a major issue in the country, particularly in Haryana, after Bhajan Lal’s son and former Deputy Chief Minister Chander Mohan aka Chand Mohammad embraced Islam to remarry former Assistant Advocate-General Anuradha Bali aka Fiza. Both have lost their positions.
To get Muslim religious scholars’ reaction to the ongoing debate over conversion, The Sunday Tribune contacted Mohammad Jafar, vice-president, Jamat-e-Islami Hind and executive member of the Muslim Personal Law Board. Excerpts: Q: In what perspective do you see the recent happening in Haryana? A: Conversion is a personal issue. A person has the right to choose his own religion. Nobody can object to it. It is not wise to comment on Mr Chander Mohan’s idea to change his religion. According to Islamic education, we have to accept him as a Muslim if he claims to be a Muslim. There are many examples in Islamic history when Prophet Mohammad accepted non-Muslims as Muslims when they had declared faith in Islam. There is no need of any evidence. One can see through the pages of Islamic history how personnel of non-Islamic forces had declared themselves as Muslims right on the battlefield. They had announced this at a time when they were weak and it was virtually certain that they would be killed by Islamic forces. The Prophet had accepted them. Q: How can anyone be convinced when someone suddenly claims to be a Muslim? A: Faith is between God and the person concerned. There is no need for anyone to convince anybody that he or she is a Muslim. Q: Don’t you think that people embrace Islam as that entitles them to four marriages though there are certain conditions for performing more than one marriage? A: It is difficult to find out how one can claim to be a Muslim only for the sake of remarrying. In the case of Mr Chander Mohan, the story is different. He claimed that he first converted to Islam and then married. It means that he did not embrace Islam for marriage. According to Islam, if a person embraces Islam, his connection with his family members breaks until they convert to Islam. If he had a wife before conversion and she also converts, it was his duty to accept her after performing nikaah, an Islamic ritual. Q: Many non-Muslims convert to marry Muslim girls. Is there no way out in Islam to stop this kind of wrongdoing? A: The girl and her parents should be convinced about the character and credibility of the person who claims to be a Muslim. This is an issue of character. A man of strong character will never do this. All newly converted Muslims are not like that. Q: Is there no punishment in Islamic countries for such men? A: Of course, it is there. But that does not apply in India. Q: Don’t you think Islam is earning a bad name because of the involvement of Muslims in terrorism? A: Terrorism has no place in Islam. Islam imparts education of love, peace and brotherhood. Killing is prohibited in Islam. Whosoever indulges in terrorism is doing an illegal act. Islam prohibits act of rebels against the government. Problems can be worked out in accordance with the law prescribed by the government. Breaking and taking law into one’s own hand is un-Islamic. Q: Would you like to comment on terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai and elsewhere? A: Be it Kashmir or any other place, there is no change in the definition of Islamic principles. Terrorism has nothing to do with the religion. Killing of innocent people is un-Islamic. As for the audacious terrorist attacks in Mumbai, it needs to be thoroughly examined how the terrorists entered Mumbai through the sea . Action should be taken against those responsible for the security lapse. If foreigners commit such a bloodbath in our country, it’s a sign of our weakness. Q: Terrorism has not only affected India but several Muslim countries as well. European countries are also its victims. Involvement of Muslims is suspected in almost all acts of terrorism. A: This question should be put to Muslim leaders in those countries. As far as I know, terrorist activities in European and Muslim countries have increased after the World Trade Center attack in New York on 9/11. No enquiry report on the attack has been made public so far. We must know who had committed the heinous
act. |
|
|
HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |