The difficult road to peace
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Abbas Rashid
A recent poll carried out in Pakistan and India has yet again confirmed that despite the mutual grievances and setbacks to the process in recent years, the great majority in both countries remains committed to peace. It is at the leadership level that things become more complex. It is nearly six months since the meeting between the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers in Sharm el-Sheikh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in July 2009. The agreement to de-link the resumption of the dialogue from the issue of terrorism, recognised as a threat to both countries, was swiftly put aside as Manmohan Singh came under pressure not only from the BJP-led opposition but also his colleagues in the Congress party. The 'concessions' to Pakistan were deemed unacceptable and charges of a sell-out flew thick and fast.
Nevertheless, there have been some positive developments as well. Significantly, for instance, India has withdrawn some 30,000 troops from Kashmir, at least half of them in the last year. It is fair to say that by itself this may not mean much given the approximately half a million military and paramilitary forces estimated to be deployed in the area. However, this development should be viewed in conjunction with the opening of what appears to be an attempt at a serious dialogue between the central government of India and the Kashmiri groups that have struggled for the rights of Kashmiris over two decades. How it fares remains to be seen. Leaving aside the elements expected to subvert the process of seeking a solution acceptable to all, other developments regularly vitiate the atmosphere, making progress more difficult.
Consider, for example, the bolt from the blue delivered last November by none other than the Indian army chief about the possibility of a limited conventional war between the two countries under a 'nuclear overhang'. It was a highly irresponsible statement and not one for him to make, in any case. It did not help that on our media it was more than once articulated as 'limited nuclear war' by talk show hosts and guests, underlining the need for a greater sense of responsibility and professionalism on the part of the media. More recently, at the end of December, he thought it fit to speak about the capability of the Indian military to fight a two-front war simultaneously against Pakistan and China. The reaction from the Pakistani side was predictable, with both the political and military leadership responding in no uncertain terms to the provocation. But the question is, why does the Indian army chief continue to make such statements? Clearly these are not an individual's random pronouncements and more likely the articulation of a hard line sentiment within the military.
If the army chief's statements were meant to encourage a hardening of positions on this side of the border, then to an extent that objective may have been met. In a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet earlier this week it was agreed between the civilian and military leadership that a soft approach towards India was unwarranted. The statement by President Asif Zardari declaring that Pakistan was ready to fight India for a thousand years for Kashmir was widely in evidence in the Indian and Pakistani media. But then there was also in his speech the reminder that in using that phrase, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had never meant to rule out negotiations. Indeed the Simla Agreement followed in due course. It could well be then that much of the tough rhetoric on both sides can be largely put down to posturing. But there is need for some caution given a regional situation that is less than stable. To that extent a special responsibility devolves on the political leadership in India and Pakistan to stay the course, notwithstanding the bitter legacy of the past and the many obstacles in the way of achieving peace.
The media too needs to play a supportive role rather than focusing disproportionately on the negative aspects, and resist the temptation of playing to the gallery. The South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) has been doing useful work in this context for some years now by facilitating extensive interaction between media persons belonging to the region, not least those from India and Pakistan. This has contributed to greater sensitivity to each other's perspectives and concerns. But there is obviously a long way to go as was so clearly depicted by the media coverage in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008. In that context it is certainly good news that two large media groups in Pakistan and India have joined hands in a commitment to work for peace between the two countries. Both have extensive outreach and can also help in setting the tone for many others in the media whose role has not been particularly helpful.
Postscript: According to a report in this paper on Friday, most of those protesting the actions of the principal of Kinnaird may not be currently enrolled students. This would suggest that the issue is being deliberately politicised. Whether Dr Bernadette Dean's actions constitute unfair persecution of some teachers and undue favour to others or an attempt aimed at raising academic standards should be a matter of careful assessment rather than summary judgment. And, if the 'autonomous' status of the institution means anything we should be hearing a little more from the Board of Governors.
--Pakistan's Daily Times
A recent poll carried out in Pakistan and India has yet again confirmed that despite the mutual grievances and setbacks to the process in recent years, the great majority in both countries remains committed to peace. It is at the leadership level that things become more complex. It is nearly six months since the meeting between the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers in Sharm el-Sheikh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in July 2009. The agreement to de-link the resumption of the dialogue from the issue of terrorism, recognised as a threat to both countries, was swiftly put aside as Manmohan Singh came under pressure not only from the BJP-led opposition but also his colleagues in the Congress party. The 'concessions' to Pakistan were deemed unacceptable and charges of a sell-out flew thick and fast.
Nevertheless, there have been some positive developments as well. Significantly, for instance, India has withdrawn some 30,000 troops from Kashmir, at least half of them in the last year. It is fair to say that by itself this may not mean much given the approximately half a million military and paramilitary forces estimated to be deployed in the area. However, this development should be viewed in conjunction with the opening of what appears to be an attempt at a serious dialogue between the central government of India and the Kashmiri groups that have struggled for the rights of Kashmiris over two decades. How it fares remains to be seen. Leaving aside the elements expected to subvert the process of seeking a solution acceptable to all, other developments regularly vitiate the atmosphere, making progress more difficult.
Consider, for example, the bolt from the blue delivered last November by none other than the Indian army chief about the possibility of a limited conventional war between the two countries under a 'nuclear overhang'. It was a highly irresponsible statement and not one for him to make, in any case. It did not help that on our media it was more than once articulated as 'limited nuclear war' by talk show hosts and guests, underlining the need for a greater sense of responsibility and professionalism on the part of the media. More recently, at the end of December, he thought it fit to speak about the capability of the Indian military to fight a two-front war simultaneously against Pakistan and China. The reaction from the Pakistani side was predictable, with both the political and military leadership responding in no uncertain terms to the provocation. But the question is, why does the Indian army chief continue to make such statements? Clearly these are not an individual's random pronouncements and more likely the articulation of a hard line sentiment within the military.
If the army chief's statements were meant to encourage a hardening of positions on this side of the border, then to an extent that objective may have been met. In a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet earlier this week it was agreed between the civilian and military leadership that a soft approach towards India was unwarranted. The statement by President Asif Zardari declaring that Pakistan was ready to fight India for a thousand years for Kashmir was widely in evidence in the Indian and Pakistani media. But then there was also in his speech the reminder that in using that phrase, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had never meant to rule out negotiations. Indeed the Simla Agreement followed in due course. It could well be then that much of the tough rhetoric on both sides can be largely put down to posturing. But there is need for some caution given a regional situation that is less than stable. To that extent a special responsibility devolves on the political leadership in India and Pakistan to stay the course, notwithstanding the bitter legacy of the past and the many obstacles in the way of achieving peace.
The media too needs to play a supportive role rather than focusing disproportionately on the negative aspects, and resist the temptation of playing to the gallery. The South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) has been doing useful work in this context for some years now by facilitating extensive interaction between media persons belonging to the region, not least those from India and Pakistan. This has contributed to greater sensitivity to each other's perspectives and concerns. But there is obviously a long way to go as was so clearly depicted by the media coverage in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008. In that context it is certainly good news that two large media groups in Pakistan and India have joined hands in a commitment to work for peace between the two countries. Both have extensive outreach and can also help in setting the tone for many others in the media whose role has not been particularly helpful.
Postscript: According to a report in this paper on Friday, most of those protesting the actions of the principal of Kinnaird may not be currently enrolled students. This would suggest that the issue is being deliberately politicised. Whether Dr Bernadette Dean's actions constitute unfair persecution of some teachers and undue favour to others or an attempt aimed at raising academic standards should be a matter of careful assessment rather than summary judgment. And, if the 'autonomous' status of the institution means anything we should be hearing a little more from the Board of Governors.
--Pakistan's Daily Times