Will President Bush succeed for an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty?

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

During his three-day visit to the Holy land from 9th January, President George Bush urged an end to "the occupation" of the West Bank and pushed for a peace treaty to be signed within a year. The time framework seems to be before his own time of leaving the White House in January 2009.
   President Bush gave mixed and confused signals to both sides with his words. It appears that he carefully chose his words to please both sides.
   He used the word "occupation" to placate Palestinians. The US rarely uses the politically charged word "occupation" to describe Israel's hold on lands captured in the 1967 war. It is a term Palestinians seeking a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip employ frequently to describe their plight.
   He met with Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and visited Bethlehem. After meeting Abbas the President said: "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967."
   President Bush said: "The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it." Some Arabs say that late Palestinian leader Arafat would love his words in his grave.
   Bush's language could cause political pain to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose right-wing coalition parties usually become annoyed at such remarks.
   During his visit to Ramallah, the President said that Israel should be allowed to keep settlements it built on seized West Bank land in defiance of international law and opinion. It firmly supports Israel on two of its three core demands: no return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders; no right of return for Palestinian refugees; and the retention of all of Jerusalem, including the Arab east, as its "eternal capital".
   He also dismissed long-standing United Nations resolutions calling on Israel to end the occupation and to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what is now Israel.
   He went further in West Jerusalem that night, indicating that the 4.25 million Palestinian refugees should be given monetary compensation and a right of return, only to some future Palestinian state.
   Bush pressed the Palestinians to rein in militants. He said any negotiations must also ensure Israel has "secure, recognised and defensible borders" along side a "viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestine".
   Challenging sceptics of his new push for peace on the first US presidential visit to Ramallah, he told a news conference with Abbas, I believe it is going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office."
   The President appointed US Lieutenant General William Fraser to monitor steps both sides are supposed to take under the road map as part of a peace process revived at the international summit in Annapolis last November.
   "President Bush might be serious about it, but the question is whether peace is obtainable or not, and I think all the experts will tell you that it's probably not," said Professor Gabriel Sheffer, an expert on Israeli-US relations at Jerusalem's Hebrew University.
   Professor Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University in the occupied West Bank, said: "We need to see if the US is prepared to put pressure on Israel to stop building settlements and to make real concessions, and if he isn't prepared to do that we'll be stuck in the same old vicious circle."
   Why Washington is pushing for peace?
   President Bush has been so much obsessed with events in Iraq that until recent months he did not pay any attention to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He did not even listen to his best friend Tony Blair's advice to give priority to solution of the Palestine conflict along side with Iraqi war.
   This was partly because the President thought that the conflict was a bilateral issue and partly because he was fed with the suggestion that solving the Palestine problem had no bearing on Iraq's sectarian warfare. Furthermore President Clinton in 2000 failed to make any headway to resolve the issue.
   It seems belatedly the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has understood the importance of the resolution of conflict in the context of the Iraqi war. She met President Abbas of Palestine and the Israeli Prime Minister and visited more than six times the region.
   Meanwhile, the US and Israel have realised that to curb Iran's power and influence in the region, Sunni Arab nations need to be convinced about their sincerity to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
   Against the background, there has been a push from Washington to engage itself with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
   Critics say there are hurdles for a peace treaty before the President leaves the White House in January 2009 for several reasons, some of which are described below:
   First, both the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian Chairman are politically weak to take tough decisions. Olmert is a Prime Minister of a government that is fragile and some of the right-wing coalition partners are likely to withdraw from his government if Israeli Prime Minister returns lands for peace. Chairman Abbas, on the other hand, has no control over the Gaza Strip and he is unable to take decisions on behalf of all Palestinians because Hamas will reject any peace agreement with Israel unless it has a voice on it.
   Second, difficult questions, such as borders, status of Jerusalem, return of Palestinian refugees and dismantling of Jewish illegal settlements in the West Bank, are not likely to be solved within one year as it dragged on for the last 40 years so long Israel and the US back down their current positions.
   Third, unless Syria is involved in the negotiations for a comprehensive peace including withdrawal of Israeli occupation from the Golan Heights, peace would remain elusive in the region.
   Fourth, Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be confused or merged with other several simultaneous major issues in the Middle East including the Lebanon situation, US-Syria feud, a high profile US-Iran-Europe-IAEA contest on nuclear programme in Iran, and a widening cycle of terrorism. Some of these are linked and many are not. The US may identify the distinct nature of most of the issues and not linkages with Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
   Fifth, the US has never articulated and has not held diplomatic middle ground on this issue. The US has always exercised its veto powers in the Security Council whenever any issue relating to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian lands came before the Council.
   Sixth, change in policies and conduct of the Bush administration will only happen if a single standard of morality and law is applied to Israelis and Palestinians. If a double standard remains the norm, President Bush's attempt to force a certain policy on this issue will only generate resistance and defiance.
   There is a view that if the Bush administration revitalises a policy of inclusion and impartiality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it may see the light in resolving one of the most intractable disputes n the world. President Bush may partially turn around his current image as a "war monger" if he succeeds for a comprehensive peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians by 2009.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador
   to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Fatima Bhutto rejects dynastic politics in Pakistan

Jeremy Page in Karachi

When Fatima Bhutto heard that her estranged aunt had been assassinated she put aside decades of family feuding to mourn with her relatives at the ancestral home in Pakistan.
   Three days later, when Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, was anointed head of the Pakistan People's Party, Fatima maintained a respectful silence, despite whispers that she was the real Bhutto heir.
   But now, two weeks on, she has broken that silence to launch a blistering attack on her cousin's appointment, accusing those around him of perpetuating dynastic politics and trying to cash in on his mother's blood.
   In an interview with The Times - her first with the Western media since Benazir's death - the 25-year-old newspaper columnist also rejected her own claim to the Bhutto legacy, calling for a new era of politics based on platforms rather than personalities.
   "That's the problem - it's a field that's held hostage by so few and it's become in a sense the family business, like an antique shop, where it's just 'So and So and Sons' and then grandsons and great grandsons. It just gets handed down," she said.
   "The idea that it has to be a Bhutto, I think, is a dangerous one. It doesn't benefit Pakistan. It doesn't benefit a party that's supposed to be run on democratic lines and it doesn't benefit us as citizens if we think only about personalities and not about platforms." At a news conference in London a few days back, Bilawal denied that the party had been handed to him "like some piece of family furniture".
   Fatima's remarks are unlikely to dent his support, but they reflect the concerns of many about his party's democratic credentials ahead of parliamentary elections on February 18. And while she says her doors are "always open" to Bilawal and his sisters, her criticism is almost certain to dash hopes of a family reunion and carry the epic feud into the next generation.
   "We were there for those three days of mourning," she said. "So it's up to them now." Fatima's father was Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir's younger brother and the eldest son of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was Pakistan's first populist Prime Minister until he was deposed in a coup in 1977 and executed.
   Murtaza led a resistance movement from Afghanistan, returning to Pakistan to challenge Benazir's leadership of the PPP. He was killed in a police shootout in Karachi in 1996, while she was Prime Minister. Murtaza's Lebanese-Syrian wife, Ghinwa, has always blamed Benazir and has run a splinter faction of the PPP ever since. Benazir, meanwhile, derided Ghinwa as a "belly dancer" and disputed her inheritance of the family homes in Karachi and Larkana. "It was not a pleasant relationship we had at all," Fatima said.
   The PPP says that Benazir left a will appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as party chief and that he stepped down in favour of Bilawal, a history student at Oxford. Bilawal added "Bhutto" to his surname and said his father would run the party until he completed his studies. Mumtaz Bhutto (ZA Bhotto's cousin), leader of the 700,000-strong Bhutto tribe, has disputed that, saying Bilawal's name change did not make him a "real Bhutto".
   Fatima said that neither she nor her 17-year-old brother were the rightful heirs - even though they are the offspring of the male line. The issue, she said, was whether Bilawal was a suitable choice, given that by law he must wait another 6 years to run for Parliament - and 16 years to stand for Prime Minister. "Ultimately the party workers believe that nobody can head the party but a Bhutto, but I don't think the workers believe that on whomever you put the Bhutto name can lead," she said.
   "They seem to be a party in a hurry and they seem to be desperate to cash in on her blood. There was a certain coterie around her that benefited richly from her Government and they plan, it seems, to benefit richly from her death as well."
   Fatima, like Mr Zardari, rejected the Government's claim that Islamist militants were behind Benazir's assassination, but she also questioned Mr Zardari's motives. "I think at some point the will should be made public, if indeed there was one," she said.
   The parallels between Fatima and her aunt are striking: Benazir studied at Harvard and Oxford before returning to Pakistan and taking over the PPP aged 24. Fatima returned to Pakistan two years ago after completing a BA in Middle Eastern studies at Columbia University and an MA in South Asian government and politics at SOAS in London.
   Fatima has also published a book of poetry aged 15 and another on the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir.
   So far, she has resisted the urge to run for Parliament, confining herself to campaigning for her mother and writing her weekly columns. She admits, though, that politics is in her blood. "If there was an opportunity for new faces to come up and new voices to be heard and if I could be of service in some way, I wouldn't say no," she said. "But I'm not interested in being a symbol for anyone."
   Courtesy: The Times of London

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Fakir S. Ayazuddin in Karachi

The lessons of history have been lost on us. While the leadership class is fighting for their political survival, the poor Pakistani is fighting for his bread -literally, and what is on offer is beyond his reach. In the past Marie Antoinette lost her head and the throne for the bread riots in France two hundred years ago. Her retort "Let them eat cake," was a warning to all subsequent rulers in the world that their foremost obligation was to provide food at affordable price to their citizens.
   This vital duty is not being fulfilled, and to see people standing in the long queues for 3 to 4 hours at a time at the Utility Store outlets is a pitiful reflection on the Government. The present Government cannot be blamed for they have themselves only just arrived. The President should take action into the previous officers, for it was their follies that have Pakistan to this sorry state. I have said this so many times before, that the crises cropping up seem to be never ending, and the President has to bear the brunt of the attacks.
   If the mismanagement at the central level is so extreme, why do we have a huge secretariat at Islamabad? We have a sugar problem. A Power problem and of course the water in the pipes will never be enough, and most of the time what we get is polluted water. The petrol prices are about to go through the roof! These points are to be raised at the election platforms, but it would be safe to say all the past Governments have faced the same problems, but could never solve them successfully.
   I am truly surprised that our people are so patient and that they have not yet taken to the streets. But how long will they suffer, before they visibly show their anger?
   The President obviously has not been reading the newspapers, nor does he see the haunted look on the faces of people in the queues for flour. Does he not realise he is President of 160 million people whose basic needs are his responsibility. If we the people are suffering we would like to see the responsible officers punished for causing us these problems. That would give us some solace. But to see them going about- business as usual is doubly painful.
   No wonder the CJ is missed. He took Suo Moto notice against every infraction. At least he cared, and took action on these issues. While the Prime Ministers swank about in bullet proof buggies at colossal state expense, without even deigning to consider the peoples' problems. This being appreciated by the public, has the cloistered Chief Justice way ahead in the popularity sweepstakes?
   The point that is not understood by many is the luck of the President that has till now stood by him since January '07 when the dark forces started their action to destabilise him, starting with the Lal Masjid. Then came the CJ affair with its long march, and the May 18 massacre; culminating in the murder of Benazir. The conspirators have tried everything, to remove Musharraf but have failed so far. The public however, has suffered, and continues to do so. With the President focusing solely on the defence of his position, all else has been overlooked. It again seems that the ship of state is rudderless. Surely with the agencies including Scotland Yard hard at work, some clues must have been unearthed?
   The body count in 2007 is staggering. Now with the latest Lahore High Court bombing, the figure has climbed. The Nation is shell shocked. It appears that there is a determined push to savage the country.
   Will someone please take control? It is sad that when the Lal Masjid events were unfolding, many of the Ministers were sending crossed signals which emboldened the Mullahs into hardening their stance, till a bloody shootout ensued. And many of the dead were given misplaced martyrdom.
   The brutal murder of Benazir is far from being settled, and while the ripples of sorrow are echoing throughout the world, we have such inhuman acts, in the heart of Lahore. The public is confused. We are not at war with anyone, yet we are being pounded, bled by these wanton acts by an unknown enemy with a yet unknown agenda. This is making our streets and our leaders unsafe, while our citizens mortally afraid to venture out.
   Whoever the enemy may be, he has certainly been able to establish a fear writ large upon the nation.
   I have repeatedly stated Pakistan is a soft target, and we have been brought into the cross hairs. Their attacks are carried out with impunity, and we do not have the strategy to deal with them. It has to be a mix of political will and military strength, one without the other is not working.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

BHUTTO: 'WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN'

Politicians scrambling to assume her mantle lack her stature

William B Milam

It will be weeks by the time this is published, but the feeling remains acute that some malevolent force has again ripped away what could have been a turning point in Pakistani history. Whittier's words came to me the moment I heard of Benazir Bhutto's murder and have stayed with me since: "For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, 'it might have been.'"
   In Pakistan, I fear that, more than in most countries, promise itself is dangerous, and those who embody promise do so at great personal risk. Liaquat Ali Khan was killed on almost the same spot as Ms Bhutto in 1951 for reasons as yet dimly understood, but perhaps linked to the promise he symbolised that the policies of Jinnah would continue. Ms Bhutto's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as long as he was alive, implied a promise of a return to civilian dominance in politics. In these cases in which promise was thwarted by violence, and there are a number of others, society and politics have been wrenched away from a path of change which might have led the country in a far different direction.
   Of course, "what might have been" works on two levels.
   At the national level, it is what might have happened if Ms Bhutto had lived, taken political power, and carried out her promises and programmes. The country would have been different.
   The other level is personal. Was her determination to take on all elements and refusal to be cowed by threats an effort to make up for two failed tenures of national leadership? Was this her last chance to make good on the long-delayed promise she had shown in her early years?
   I am sure, like other traumatic events, we will all remember exactly where we were when we learned of her assassination. I was spending a day in London in transit back to Tripoli, Libya when the news reached me. It came like such news frequently does - the VOA television service called on my cell phone to ask if I would give an interview about the implications and the consequences of Bhutto's murder. Unfortunately, in this era of cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet, one cannot duck away from being involved, on some level.
   My phone rang many times that afternoon until I turned it off. The calls were all from American media outlets, and all had the same first question: who would have committed this heinous crime? When I dared to mention that Al Qaeda and the Taliban had the most to gain from her death, the callers seemed clearly surprised and sceptical. It became clear that at least that part of the American media calling me shared the feeling that appears to have dominated in the Pakistan media, that the Musharraf government must have been involved in her murder.
   The government's fumbling and error-prone response did not help quell such suspicion. Perhaps the investigation into the assassination that is now, after a good deal of slippage, underway with the outside help of Scotland Yard, will reduce the doubts. However, given the slip-shod way it was handled in the first few days after the attack that took her life, I doubt that there will ever be complete confidence that the government's role was benign, if careless. But, while the spotlight is on the question of culpability, it is not the sole question we should be contemplating.
   The encomiums began immediately-paeans of praise for her courage, her determination, her tenacity, her firm opposition to jihadi extremism, her beauty, her qualities as a mother, her foresight, her liberal and modern outlook, her defence of equality for women, her firm belief in democracy, and much more. There is a quality of truth to it all; many of those virtues were apparent in her actions and speech but not all in equal proportions.
   A friend of mine wrote a day or two after the assassination that we could expect that demonisation would also follow hard on the heels of praise. Sure enough, not long after, articles began to appear in the press and on the net that reviewed the charges of corruption that led to her two dismissals from office and, finally, her exile. The demonologists also laid at her feet the alleged corruption of her husband. Additionally, her second government's support of the Taliban in Afghanistan was thought unseemly and unwise. Finally, critics believed that she sought power above principle.
   If nothing else were in the negative ledger, her writing a will that handed down PPP leadership to her son and husband in case of her death was the action of a dyed-in-the-wool feudal, a believer in dynastic succession in politics, not a passionate democrat, as she had claimed to be on the campaign trail. There are scattered voices questioning whether she wrote that will, but we haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
   Clearly, she was not the perfect vehicle for the expression of the general yearning for a better, more modern, democratic Pakistan. Yet who else was there? Look around! Is there another national leader, one who commands solid support among the people, who can replace her as the voice of moderation, and democratic change for Pakistan? She was it!
   For all her faults and flaws, it seems to me that she spoke to some inner part of a large segment of society who want to live democratically and peacefully in the 21st century. Her appeal appeared to transcend ethnic boundaries (though there seems much effort now to ethnicise her death) and patronage claims. It was vaguely ideological and stretched across traditional political categories.
   Whittier's words raise, thus, the question that will continue to haunt us long after the facts of her murder and her will are generally known and accepted. What direction would Pakistan have taken if she had remained alive and had been part of, perhaps head of, the next elected government? Would she have risen above the unseemly history of her first two governments to be a truly national leader and one with a fixed modern vision for Pakistan? We will never know now. The assassins saw to that.
   None of the politicians now scrambling to assume her mantle - not just as PPP leader, but also as a national leader who can bring civil society together to face the twin enemies of jihadi extremism and militarism - has her stature. The woman embodied the hopes of millions for a democratic and modern Pakistan. That is what might have been: a Pakistan led by a civilian politician who could articulate a specific vision of modernity that appealed throughout the society, even if she hadn't always lived it.
   Isn't that what societies need to move ahead on the hard path of modernisation and democratisation - leaders who not only embody the hopes and aspirations of their people, but are able to articulate them in words that the average citizen can understand and relate to. Benazir Bhutto appeared to do that for many Pakistanis. Tragically her message calling for modernisation of the society led to her death. Another such leader will appear, but when and in what guise is unclear.-SAN-Feature Service
   The author is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh. His columns reflect his personal views and not those of the United States Government.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Prescription for disaster: The 'Modi model' of governance in Gujarat

Bharat Dogra

In a relatively short time Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, has become one of the most widely discussed political figures in India. Although the discussion around him is mostly in the context of his collusion in the communal massacre in Gujarat in 2002, there have also been laudatory references to efficient administration facilitating high rates of growth. It is therefore useful to see what exactly constitutes 'the Modi Model' of governance and development.
   If one has to identify one predominant, defining characteristic of the 'Modi Model', then surely it is 'aggressiveness' - aggressiveness against minorities, aggressiveness against people's movements and human rights organisations, aggressiveness against the central government, aggressiveness against opposition parties, aggressiveness against colleagues in his own political party - in fact, an aggressiveness so pervasive that it enters even into close relationships involving colleagues and those closest to him.
   This aggressiveness proved disastrous in a highly sensitive situation in the year 2002 that needed a deep commitment to peace and communal harmony. Instead Modi played the role of aggravating tensions and asked his administration and police not to intervene to stop communal violence for three days. These three days witnessed genocide against Muslims involving the worst forms of cruelty, resulting in the killing of about 2000 people and the economic ruin and dislocation of lakhs (one lakh is equal to a hundred thousand) of people. The violence continued off and on for nearly three months.
   Even though it became well-known early enough that the most unspeakable cruelty including highly cruel rapes had taken place, from day one the Modi government tried its best to cover-up the truth. Towards this end, people were tortured to give false evidence, people directly involved in violence or those close to them were given a leading role in investigating the crime. In fact, the entire legal process was so faulty that the Supreme Court ordered 2000 cases to be reopened. It also became clear from Tehelka tapes (Tehelka is an Indian weekly magazine) and other sources that those who led the violent mobs considered Modi to be their saviour and protector. They said Modi took several steps, even ensured that judges were changed to secure their release despite the evidence of most serious crimes against them. It was also revealed that the leaders of this massacre had earlier been identifying potential targets of violence, collecting weapons, making bombs, diverting dynamites meant for mining.
   In view of this reality, it is not surprising that the Modi regime had to launch one of the most persistent, relentless, large-scale cover-up campaigns ever associated with a state government. In fact, the most important task for the Modi government in recent years has been to cover up the truth of communal violence. Can a government so persistently occupied with covering up the truth ever be expected to be transparent in its dealings? This cover-up is in fact seen in the context of a host of other issues including the killing of the government's own revenue minister Mr. Haren Pandya, encounter killings, farmers' suicides etc.
   How can a government so utterly devoid of transparency be credited with good, efficient administration. Efficiency in what? Efficiency in protecting mass murderers? Efficiency in subverting truth? Efficiency in dismantling relief camps even before the minimum relief had been provided to the victims of violence?
   The stigma of the crimes of communal violence could have been reduced to some extent if at least sincere efforts were made to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of violence and the resulting displacement. But the Modi government behaved as if it did not care for the victims, providing the minimum relief at its camps and then dismantling these camps all too soon. This reveals how aggressive and deep-rooted the Modi mindset is towards minorities - an aggressiveness that prevents any amends being made even for the worst wrongs.
   This aggressiveness towards significant sections of the population makes Modi a threat to democracy. A similar aggressiveness is seen while promoting regional interests, at times leading to aggressiveness against central government and at times against people's movements. This can also be very dangerous for democracy. When the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save Narmada Movement) raised the issue of displaced people and tried to argue that without sacrificing Gujarat's interests many people can still be saved from displacement, Modi became extremely aggressive and his tantrums created a situation where a free debate based on facts could not take place. But the same Modi government could not get ready the canal infrastructure in time to use the available water properly. The same Modi government actually snatched away the share of Gujarat's water-starved villagers to allocate more water to big industries and cities.
   This aggressiveness is so widely pervasive that it even alienates Modi's colleagues within the government, the ruling party with its sister organisations. Haren Pandya, his revenue minister, had pleaded with journalists not to name him as the source of information which indicted Modi for his role in communal violence fearing that he would be killed if his role in providing this information became known. Nonetheless, he was eventually killed. Ultimately, this all-pervading aggressiveness has even alienated those who were closest to Modi in his professional and personal life.
   So what is the society that the 'Modi Model' seeks to create? In the Tehelka tapes one of the perpetrators of the year 2002 carnage speaks in boastful details, right in front of his wife, about a woman he raped. Such are the people who are called the defenders of faith in Modi raj. There cannot be any doubt that the 'Modi Model' is not only a very divisive one - it is also a society in which the worst hypocrisy is practised as shocking injustice, violence and discrimination are allowed under the garb of protecting faith and promoting religion.
   When hypocrisy rules, is it any wonder that inconvenient data is shoved aside and other data is given new interpretations to create a false impression; of prosperity in a situation of increasing farmers' suicides, indebtedness and displacement. At a time when in terms of narrow GDP indicators, the entire national economy is recording fast growth, it is only to be expected that a coastal state always known for its lead in trade and entrepreneurship will record somewhat higher than national growth. But the 'Modi Model' can not run away from the reality of increasing malnutrition, displacement, farmers' crisis, indebtedness and threats to food security. Industries introduced rapidly without consideration of their environmental and social costs may inflate investment figures today, but can prove costly tomorrow.
   Stable, sustainable, balanced development is likely to take place when creative energies of diverse people can be harnessed for the common goals of achieving welfare of all. But when aggressiveness at various levels of society spreads alienation and hostility, the inflow of outside funds alone cannot create the conditions for balanced development. The cause of development is not helped when peace and harmony are deliberately violated. The 'Modi Model' can not provide sustainable development which needs conditions of peace and harmony as well as concerns for environment and livelihoods protection and safety.
   -Third World Network Features

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Glimpses of Dhaka visited after decades

Jonaid Iqbal

This column is in remembrance of old Dacca, now Dhaka, which has changed beyond recognition. The old landmarks have disappeared. After arriving in Dhaka I composed an agenda to take a tour along the krishnachura-studded road past the old Amtala of old Dhaka University building, with Kusum in tow.
   Kusum, by the way, was a celebrity student of the 1960s. She now lives in the USA, but came to Dhaka about the same time I arrived.
   When I disclosed my plan to my class-friend, Anisuzzaman, he said it would be a waste of time since the glory of Krishnachuras had departed, and the roadside trees had been cut down. This is a pity: it seems that in planning a new city the planners entirely forgot to preserve old heritage.
   Dhaka is now full of hundreds of high-rise concrete buildings. The phenomenal development is reflected in the multiplying number of banks and IT universities. Walk past any road and you find signposts of at least a dozen foreign banks as well as new universities housed in high-rise buildings, instead of the sparkling campuses.
   
   Shining Zinjira
   The stamp of development could be witnessed at the floating terminal at Sadarghat, once lined only with boats ferrying people across the River Buriganga to village Zinjira, on the other side.
   Zinjira is a new shining high-rise town. About the pace of development during the past 36 years, a former minister, who belongs to Sylhet, Abdul Munim Chawdhury, casually mentioned, "Pakistan would not have done so much [development] here."
   In spite of seething anger for the cruel 1971 days Bangladesh people still remember Pakistan fondly. This is a plus point for us Pakistanis, because the antipathy towards India is much more. As a friend told me, there is not a time when India does not remind Bangladesh of its role in creating Bangladesh.
   In that context, my friend, Tajul Islam, narrated a story he told an Indian diplomat with who he had struck up friendship. "You rescued a beautiful girl from a brigand on the street, and after rescuing her you want that the beautiful girl should show her gratitude by sleeping with you. So, she remains in the same position she was helped from. What's the difference?
   
   Mourning for Benazir
   People here were genuinely sad about Benazir Bhutto's assassination. They looked upon her as a kind of international icon, as well as a sensible politician, who could get Pakistan out of the extremist jam, and also, because she was beauty personified.
   "Weren't we half-brothers once," asked Ataus Samad, a senior journalist, once on the BBC reporting team during the heady days following, what every Bangladesh citizen refers to as independence from Pakistan, achieved after16 December 1971.
   Raju Apa (Razia Amin) former professor of English at Dhaka University, and daughter of Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan, the first Speaker of Pakistan National Assembly, who was fired from his position when Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the Pakistan National Assembly in Oct 1954. She recalled her father's old country with fondness.
   Razia does not live in the same house where her celebrated father lived. The house was rented, from one Mujibur Rahman, a Pakistani, now living in Karachi. Mujibur Rahman still calls her from Karachi and respects the late Speaker. Why doesn't the owner gift or sell out the house to Pakistan government to transform it into a memory place for united Pakistan? This was my thought while I was talking with her.
   "With all these happy memories, why did your people want to desert Pakistan?" I asked her. She replied that she was asked the same question in Pakistan when she went there to receive civil award on behalf of her father.
   
   Midnight knock in 1971
   She then said, "When you receive midnight knock, and see your father, uncle, husband, brother and sister taken away from your sight, never to see them again, what would you have done?" The journalists asking her questions remained silent and said they understood, and asked no further questions.
   That is why newspapers keep on reporting the sad events of 1971. Even now Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, has arrived in Bangladesh to drum up a campaign for the trial of Bengalis who sided with Pakistan Army in those days.
   Bangladesh citizens say they are willing to forgive the horrid past if Pakistan would apologise. "Hadn't President Musharraf done that, when he came here," I ask. "He only expressed regrets; we want an apology in the same way that the US apologised to Japan."
   
   Plight of Biharis
   If Bangladeshis were our half-brothers once, then our 160,000 real blood brothers, Urdu-speaking population --- the stranded Pakistanis or Biharis, as they are called --- live in the ghettoes of Mohammadpur and Mirpur in Dhaka.
   Seven or even more, including father, son, uncle, daughter, daughter-in law, are huddled in 8X8X8 shanty rooms, with sewerage running parallel in the two or three feet lanes that separate rows and rows of series of dirty and indecent hovels. They are served by community toilets without the facility of running water or school.
   These people get no employment. As soon as they mention their Geneva camp address, doors are shut on them. Their only means of livelihood is the tri-wheeler cycle rickshaws which scars their bodies like any thing.
   Only 50 yards away from the camp we noticed shiny mansions and university buildings. Few Bengalis have any feeling for these stranded Pakistanis. "They wanted to go away to Pakistan, and therefore Bangladesh owes no obligation," is the standard reply. But aren't they humans too? Hasn't Bangladesh an obligation under the Charter of Human Rights, that it was signed? I asked.
   Logically, Sajida Iqbal, Press Minister at Pakistan High Commission, refers to them as stranded humanity, hoping to induce the Bangladesh public to treat them compassionately.
   
   Promised Land
   Sayed Kamaluddin, the Holiday editor, and a number of journalist friends, have promised to raise this matter in their newspapers. An avante garde film producer, Tanvir Mokammel has caught their tragic life in a film titled The Promised Land that sets 60 years of their lives after these people trekked to build what was then East Pakistan.
   Happily, 60 per cent of the stranded Pakistanis have thought things over and have realised they should adopt Bangladesh as their permanent home.
   An Urdu-speaking lawyer, M. I. Faruqui argued in the Supreme Court and won a ruling that those born here on and after August 14, 1947 were citizens of Bangladesh. Since then, the Bangladesh Election Commission has decided to enroll them in the voters' list. "Their enrolment in the voters' list is crucial, since after enrolment they would become Bangladesh citizens and all discrimination would go away", film director Tanvir answered.
   Still, there are 40 per cent or more among the stranded people who pine for reaching Pakistan, mostly because their sons or daughters live in Pakistan, and they have not seen them for all these 36 years. Heartrending, isn't it.
   Clearly, this is a case of divided families, and Pakistan ought to do something more to solve the problem. In fact, when President Musharraf visited Bangladesh, and met a delegation led by Naseem Khan, the late leader of the Biharis or stranded Pakistanis, the latter promised to do so but it seems he has forgotten due to exigencies of politics.
   In the film The Promised Land the former Pakistan High Commissioner in Dhaka Alamgir Babar has been shown talking rather glibly of the tripartite agreement and how Pakistan had met the responsibility of taking in divided families.
   Yet, Mr Babar could have overlooked the fact that East Pakistan once comprised Pakistan territory, and by this logic it should be legal for Pakistan to own responsibility for all citizens living here, until the day in February 1974, when it recognised Bangladesh as a sovereign state. So much for those with closed eyes and clouded vision.
   Invited one afternoon to lunch at the Dhaka Club two gallant gentlemen came forward and clasped me saying how happy they were in seeing me after 36 years. We were contemporaries at the university. The fact that they hugged me meant that neither me, nor my country, was forgotten.
   
   Chaos in Pakistan
   All this became clear when Col. (Retired) Mujibur Rahman, then Instructor at the Kakul Military Academy, said he had spent the best years of his life in Pakistan. His wife, now dead, came from Lala Musa, and accompanied him to Bangladesh where he relocated after 1971. Looking back at the scale of disorder, he asked me seriously, whether Pakistan would survive the chaos.
   I had no answer except to say that we would muddle through in the same way as we had done after 1971 crisis. "Pakistan broke in 1971. When a nation is cut into half one does not say it had survived, did one?" he argued.
   Manju, the maid in Tajul Islam's house where I lived, asked me for a trinket from my country. So, I gave her a ten-rupee Pakistani note, which she shows around this memento to every person of her age. By the way, Pakistan currency is not popular.
   Yet, Pakistan will live in the memory of my friends such as Barrister Zahir (he was nearly taken away in Dec 1971 until his father Justice Asir, a tall robust handsome fellow, came from his room to see what was happening at his door, and called out to the boors in chaste Urdu, to get lost).
   I met Mahmud Hasan, Ruhul Amin Majumdar, Syed Mizanur Rahman, two former retired CSPs Mizanur Rahman Shelley, Bangladesh former Information Minister (he asked me to convey his greetings to Saeed Mehdi, former Secretary to ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sarif); Hasnat Abdul Haye; and VOA correspondent Khusrau.
   At the Holiday, Fakhruddin Sahib desired audio discs and albums of classical vocalist Ustad Rawshan Ara, Ustad Salamat-Nazakat brothers, Ghazal singer Malika Pukhraj and vocalist Suraiya Multanikar. He also requested me to locate the wife of the late Kazi Nurul Islam, a cousin of Bangladesh's National Poet Kazi Nazrul Islam. A member of Pakistan Finance Services, Kazi Nurul Islam was a close friend of Bangladesh's foremost painter Zainul Abedin, S. M. Sultan and others. I am told, Mrs. Kazi Nurul Islam, a former Pakistani civil servant, lived in Islamabad in the 1990s.
   Speaker of Bangladesh National Assembly Barrister Jamiruddin Sarkar recollected his time in pre-1971 days.
   Former President of National Press Club, Reazudddin Ahmed, Editor of the News Today, Mohammad Zamir once a Pakistan Foreign Service officer, and many others whose names would fill a newspaper.
   All said and done, there is a lot of goodwill around here and the bottom line is that Pakistan would need to enhance that friendship.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Political solution can end ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

Jehan Perera in Colombo

The move taken by the Sri Lankan government is well thought-out. After its sudden decision to abrogate the ceasefire agreement with the Tamil tigers, the government has embarked on a campaign to demonstrate its interest in a political solution to the ethnic conflict. But this is going to be an uphill task at a time when the government has activated its preparations for war to a maximum with its nationalist allies in Parliament who give it crucial support to maintain its parliamentary majority. The political accommodations and trust building necessary to generate an acceptable political solution do not fit well with the ethnic nationalism necessary to prosecute the war against the LTTE to a finish.
   This is a problem that the government headed by President Chandrika Kumaratunga also faced when it waged its ultimately unsuccessful "War for Peace" from 1995 to 2001 on a two-fold platform of war and political reform. One prong tended to undercut the other. So far the government's maximum offer appears to be limited to one of full implementation of the existing Provincial Council system that was established two decades ago in 1987 as an outcome of the Indo Lanka Peace Accord. Unfortunately the 20 year experience of the Provincial Council system is that it has been deficient as a means of devolving real power to the regions. The two key requirements of genuine devolution of power have not been found within the 13th Amendment that set up the Provincial Councils. The first is that decision-making power that is devolved should not be undermined by actions of the central government. The second is the provision of adequate resources to enable the regional authorities to make a real difference to the life of the people.
   In addition, the radical element within the 13th Amendment that gave it a new dimension of power sharing was the notion of the temporary merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces. Successive governments did not wish to disturb that merger because they realized it represented the most important compromise between those who had fought to divide the country and those who fought to keep it united. Today, however, the possibility of the 13th Amendment being the basis of a solution to the ethnic conflict is further undermined by the de-merger of the two provinces last year.
   
   International acceptance
   Therefore, in the present circumstances of the Northern and Eastern provinces being de-merged and the government stepping up its military offensive in the north, the prospects of any sort of political solution are extremely bleak. The prospect that faces the country is escalated warfare without any agreement on the political solution. The mere promise of full implementation of the 13th Amendment is unlikely to evoke a positive response either from the Tamil community, the international community or those sections of the Sri Lankan polity who have not been co-opted by the government.
   However, the government continues to act as if believes that the international community will acquiesce in its plans to bring the ethnic conflict to an end after defeating the Tamil tigers on the military battlefield. The government appears to be counting on the international antipathy to terrorist entities as epitomized in the US-led global "War against Terrorism" and to the near total loss of international sympathy for the LTTE. It appears that at the present time the LTTE has no external support for itself except from the Tamil diaspora.
   On the other hand, the desire for the negation of the Tamil tigers' war machine must not become a license for the suppression of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka and their long unfulfilled aspiration for equality, power sharing and regional autonomy in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The ruling party headed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa initially proposed District Councils last year as the solution to the ethnic conflict and is now proposing Provincial Councils. This highlights the lack of empathy for community rights that remain as Tamil aspirations. The system of District Councils was tried in 1981 and failed and was replaced by the system of Provincial Councils in 1987 that has not succeeded either.
   The other aspect that cannot be accepted is the violation of the individual rights of the Tamil people. A few months ago there was a sharp build up of public opinion and media coverage about the kidnapping and ransom taking from Tamil people in Colombo and other parts of the country. After the high profile arrest of some suspects with government connections and the gradual diminishing of media coverage of these stories, it seemed that the problem of ransom taking and kidnapping in Colombo, at least, had gone away. But it appears that this was not the case.
   
   Ransom taking
   There continue to be allegations of ransom taking and threats of kidnapping that terrify sections of the Tamil community, even those living in Colombo. A mere telephone call threatening to kidnap a family member results in money being paid as ransom. There is a grievous lack of confidence in the ability and willingness of the Police to check this type of crime among the members of the Tamil community. As a result many Tamils are said to be paying the ransom and not speaking about it to anyone. Others who feel that if they have been targeted once they will be targeted again and again are even leaving the country.
   On the positive side, the police are now trying to improve their relations with the general public. A recent development is the appointment of police officers charged with improving community relations. An initiative by one of the police stations in the Colombo area to summon a meeting of residents in that area suggested their positive desire to build good relations between the community and the police. The issues raised by the residents revolved around registration requirements to safeguard themselves when there are search and arrest operations.
   But another issue that was raised at the meeting that I attended was that men in plainclothes, calling themselves CID intelligence officers, would stop Tamils even in broad daylight and question and search them. This could be a license for harassment and abuse. Even criminal elements can claim to be from the CID and get people to open the door to them, or ask people to hand over their personal belongings, such as their wallets or handbags, to be inspected. An ordinary citizen, especially if Tamil, faced with such a request would be inclined to comply as the risk of being defiant might mean incarceration in a police cell somewhere in the city, or even far outside, as recently occurred during the mass arrests of Tamils in Colombo.
   Trust in the institutions of governance and in those vested with positions of authority is the glue that holds society together. A government that is unwilling, or unable, to ensure the fullest protection for its law abiding Tamil citizens is not only unworthy to govern the country, it will be unable to win the confidence of the Tamil people in its proposed political solution. A government that is unwilling and unprepared to stop the violation of individual rights of Tamil people, even in Colombo, will not be trusted to find the way to ensuring the community rights of the Tamil people, which has been their struggle with a succession of governments for the past sixty years, since Sri Lanka received Independence from the British.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE