KASHMIR: TIME TO MOVE FORWARD

By Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal
Spearhead Research

Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid’s recent wish that: ‘it is high time India and Pakistan move forward together hand-in-hand’, is rather captivating. Recent overtures from both sides clearly indicate that two neighbouring countries want prosperity in the region and for that they agree that resolution of all disputes, including Kashmir, is a priority.

Pakistan has all along been pursuing this objective. It is unfortunate that some of very meaningful peace processes between the two countries went astray on one reason or the other. As Pakistan is likely to be a beneficiary in case of equitable resolution of most of territory related disputes, Pakistan is always keen to see the conclusive phase of the efforts aimed at resolving these issues. Unfortunately, the two countries have not been able to achieve anything worthwhile in territory related disputes.

Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has recently said that India wants to resolve all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, with Pakistan through dialogue. Indian Independence Act had laid down clear terms of reference for the rulers of princely states. They were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent, while doing so they were to take into account the aspirations of their people. Ruler of Kashmir failed to do so, and while under duress, he invited the Indian armed forces to invade his own state.

Kashmir is certainly at the pinnacle of India-Pakistan disputes – an issue recognized by the UN, and on which settlement framework has also been specified in the relevant UN resolutions. To remind the world about the continuation of the conflict, UN Observers mission continues to be stationed in the region. The first group of United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) arrived in Jammu and Kashmir on 24 January of 1949 to supervise the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The UNSC resolutions remain arguably the best and judicious way out for settling this dispute. While addressing the 67 ^thsession of the General Assembly, President Zardari had rightly attributed the non-resolution of Kashmir dispute to the failure of the UN system.

Therefore, to succeed, any durable peace initiative between Pakistan and India must cater to break the stalemate on this important issue. It would have been in the fitness of thing had the Indian foreign minister put forward any fresh proposals on the Kashmir issue as well. Without demonstration of political will to tackle the Kashmir depute, even fairy tale wishes remain, at best, just noble desires; devoid of implementation tools.

Spells of Kashmir intifada, in their scope and scale, visibly get out of India’s control despite Indian army’s heavy presence. There is now considerable resistance from the Indian mainland as well, where conscientious members of the civil society have started to censure the central government for continued occupation of Kashmir. World watches with dismay that even by stationing of around 600,000 combatants for over a decade, India has not been able to subdue the spirit of Kashmir’s of the IHK.

IHK has the unenviable distinction of being the most militarised zone in the world. The hardest hit victim of the conflict has been the socio-economic fabric of the Kashmir. Agriculture which forms about 48 percent of the state domestic product is witnessing a negative growth. Tourism involving the livelihood of thousands of people has also been badly hit by the conflict. During October 2012, two reports were released pertaining human rights situation in the IHK. Reports by Amnesty International (AI) and Citizen’s Council for Justice (CCJ) were released in a quick succession. Both dossiers have adequately exposed the deplorable Human Rights (HR) conditions in IHK.

To make the people of Kashmir feel secure, it is necessary to scrap all the draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Public Safety Act, Disturbed Areas Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act etc. Moreover, as confidence building measure, it is essential to retrieve the armed forces to their barracks and let the police take care of the law and order. IHK government should also release all prisoners of conscience.

Pakistan has consistently maintained its stance on Kashmir. It wants the resolution of Kashmir issue in line with the wishes of Kashmiri people, as ordained by a number of UN resolutions and as envisaged by universally accepted democratic principles of the right of self determination. Pakistan will continue diplomatic and political support of Kashmiri people in their struggle to achieve their right to decide their future.

In this backdrop, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has extended an invitation to 8 members of the executive council of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), to visit Pakistan from 15 to 22 December 2012. The initiative has been taken to begin a consultative process between the political leadership of Pakistan, AJK and pro-movement leaders of IHK. This initiative is expected to jump-start the process for peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue. Kashmir experts believe that such visits by the Hurriyat leadership suit both sides. Pakistan envisages that APHC could act as a catalyst in bridging the gap between the respective government’s standpoint and public aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

From Kashmiri perspective, leaders of both side of Kashmir should be facilitated to meet each other frequently to narrow down their perceptional gaps. And at the same time, India and Pakistan should continue with their good-will initiatives kick-started during President of Pakistan’s non-state visit to India, because this could enable both the countries to discover common grounds for conflict resolution. Pakistan feels that the Kashmiris of both sides should take advantage of the current improvement of relations between India and Pakistan, and it is in this context that APHC leadership has been invited.

Rumours have it that under pressure from India’s hawkish politicians and media elements, hurdles could be created to disrupt the process. Some elements of Indian media have started a negative campaign against the visit of APHC leaders branding them as ‘Separatists’. Understandably, some elements from India are not sincere towards resolution of Kashmir issue through consultative process. They do not want Kashmiri leadership to visit Pakistan and interact with Pakistani and Kashmiri political leadership. Their motive is to jeopardize the consultative process initiated by Pakistan. These disruptive elements are focusing at creating divide within the pro-movement camp by allowing only a few leaders to visit Pakistan. It would be unfortunate if India lets this opportunity slip by through administrative manipulation to deny right of travel to all the invitees. This will indeed be the first test of the new foreign minister of India.

Plunder of India

Unknown to the world – and especially to Indians – Indian ‘citizens’ have approximately 1.4 TRILLION US dollars stashed away in foreign accounts. Wikileaks just exposed the ones in Swiss banks.

The fact remains that India suffers from the most corrupt, nepotistic and money-hungry administration ever seen in its history. The fact that Manmohan Singh jee was responsible for ending the license raj and removing bureaucratic red tape in India’s economy is being used to the hilt by Congress and its favourites. India also “lost” 462 billion US dollars, but India’s politicians and businessmen believe that India and its poor can tolerate such a loss if it benefits the rich.

India’s corruption perception index is 3.3, and India ranks number 87 in the list, showing how the people are aware of rampant corruption and that common public and political perceptions are cognizant of corrup activities, regardless of the INC or BJP being in power.

All hopes are vested with Anna Hazare and his embryonic movement, so that India’s growth and development can finally trickle down to the poorer masses who have suffered for too long.

Plunder of India.pdf
ZoneAsia-Pk

India’s corrupt politics

SOMEHOW he remains a figure of unruffled equanimity. As members of parliament erupt, banging their desks and screeching with rage, Manmohan Singh sits stiff, silent and smiling. For the past week opposition parties-the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lined up unusually with the Communists-have been in a frenzy, accusing the prime minister of lying to parliament and of dismally weak leadership. They have repeatedly called on Mr Singh (pictured here with the BJP’s Lal Krishna Advani) to quit. For the moment, he is going nowhere.

The furore follows publication by the Hindu, via WikiLeaks, of embarrassing American diplomatic cables that include an envoy’s account of meeting officials of the ruling Congress party before a confidence vote in July 2008. The diplomat said they showed him two chests full of cash to bribe opposition MPs-the going rate was $2.2m each. Mr Singh narrowly won the parliamentary vote, which had been called over a controversial civil-nuclear deal with the United States.

The cable seemed to confirm what many long assumed. In it, Congress members bragged about how they could even offer opposition MPs jet planes for their votes, yet fretted over how crooked parliamentarians failed to keep their word. Pressed about the affair on March 18th, Mr Singh “absolutely” denied any bribes. A lie, howled the opposition, insisting on a special parliamentary debate to discuss his statement. On March 23rd they got it, after the BJP stormed out of a session on financial reforms.

The drama will take a toll even on the serene Mr Singh. A run of corruption scandals has already battered his government. Now his political judgment looks impaired. Unedifying was his claim that, since voters re-elected Congress in 2009, it was somehow irrelevant to ask whether MPs were bribed earlier.

Yet India is unlikely to get a new prime minister soon. Congress hopes a bright showing in state elections next month-in West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Kerala-will change the political momentum. Even if it does not, the party will shun a reshuffle at the top. Sonia Gandhi, Congress’s boss, who would have been prime minister herself but for the accident of being born in Italy, is at least as responsible for the government’s poor political choices. If the technocratic Mr Singh were forced out, attention would turn to her.

No obviously better prime minister stands by to replace Mr Singh. The likeliest candidate is Rahul Gandhi, Sonia’s son and the scion of India’s chief political dynasty. Most assume he does not want to step up until elections in 2014. Some in Congress think he will never be ready. Another leaked cable, gleefully reproduced in the press this week, passed on observations by a friend of the Gandhi family, in 2005. Rahul, the friend said, was proving to be a lacklustre leader, with “personality problems” that “are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM”.

Unlikely Person at the Heart of India’s Scandal

BY: LYDIA POLGREEN

NEW DELHI - He was a small-town lawyer from a regional political party in a southern Indian state. By almost any measure, Andimuthu Raja, who had no background in telecommunications or in business, seemed an unlikely candidate to be the government minister presiding over the fastest-growing cellphone market in the world.

Andimuthu Raja

But he had the only qualification that mattered: the ironclad backing of the political chieftain of his party, a crucial ally of the governing Congress Party. Without his party’s 16 members of the lower house of Parliament, the government cobbled together from squabbling allies would collapse.

Mr. Raja is now at the center of what may turn out to be the biggest political corruption scandal in Indian history. He is accused of using his post to sell off valuable mobile telephone spectrum licenses in 2008 at rock-bottom prices. His decisions may have cost the Indian treasury as much as $40 billion, according to a government investigative report released last week.

The widening scandal, coming on the heels of two major political scandals involving senior Congress Party officials, has eroded faith in India’s government. Last week, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, widely regarded as a figure of unimpeachable integrity, was rapped by the Supreme Court for failing to investigate quickly. The scandal also threatens to undermine one of the cornerstones of India’s rapidly growing, technology-driven economy.

The story of how Mr. Raja rose from small-time regional politician to telecommunications minister is emblematic of how politics in India, the world’s largest democracy, really work. Small, regional parties, often formed along family or caste lines, hold outsize sway here, taking command of crucial and potentially lucrative parts of the government to fill their pockets and party coffers.

“When there is a multiparty coalition at the center, you have got to turn a blind eye to the actions of some of the less principled parties,” said Prem Shankar Jha, a political analyst.

Since 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi’s government went down in defeat in the wake of a corruption scandal involving military contracts, no party has won an outright majority in Parliament. As a result, forming a government has required complicated and often messy coalitions with smaller regional parties. These parties often have no national agenda and see power in the center as little more than an opportunity to loot.

The Congress Party has had no shortage of corruption scandals of its own. But it currently controls the most crucial government functions – internal security, foreign policy, defense and finance – and has entrusted them to seasoned leaders with unassailable credentials. But the realities of coalition politics, in which crucial allies must be given important posts, have left some large ministries in the hands of smaller parties, which have in turn put questionable politicians in important jobs.

This has led to embarrassing scandals and mismanagement in the past. In 2006, the coal minister, Shibu Soren, a politician from the eastern state of Jharkhand and an important ally of the Congress Party, was forced to resign after he was convicted on murder charges. India’s railways, the country’s largest employer, are in the hands of Mamata Banerjee, a populist leader whose sole aim appears to be defeating the Communist Party of India in West Bengal and putting her party, the Trinamool Congress, in power.

Mr. Raja’s party, the Tamil Nadu-based Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, or D.M.K., was once a liberation movement built on Tamil nationalism. But the party has largely jettisoned ideology. An octogenarian, wheelchair-dependent patriarch named M. Karunanidhi and his plentiful and perpetually feuding progeny run it, and it more closely resembles a sprawling family business empire than a political party.

When the Congress Party returned to power in 2004, it won narrow advantage over the center-right Bharatiya Janata Party, whose former ally, the D.M.K., linked up instead with Congress. The D.M.K.’s reward was the telecommunications ministry and several other posts.

Mr. Karunanidhi sent his grandnephew, a local media tycoon named Dyanidhi Maran, to Delhi to become telecommunications minister. But Mr. Maran fell afoul of Mr. Karunanidhi’s eldest son. In an effort to quiet the burgeoning family feud, Mr. Karunanidhi replaced Mr. Maran, a powerful political player in Tamil Nadu, with Mr. Raja, who was much less well known but who had a close relationship with Mr. Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi, who is also a powerful party figure.

Mr. Raja had a history of party activism dating to his college days. He had been a minister in a previous government. He was the most important politician in the state from the Dalit, or formerly untouchable, community, and giving him a big job would secure Dalit votes.

“He was loyal and he was not a threat,” said Vaasanthi, an analyst who has written extensively about Tamil Nadu politics and who goes by one name. “That was his qualification for the job.”

Mr. Raja may not have been a threat to Mr. Karunanidhi’s children, who jealously guard control of the party as their birthright. But his handling of the spectrum sale has undermined confidence in what initially appeared to be India’s most stable and competent government in years.

Even Mr. Singh, widely seen as one of the most upstanding politicians in India, has been tarred in the scandal. While no one has suggested he was involved in corruption, India’s Supreme Court criticized him last week for failing to respond to a call for an investigation into Mr. Raja’s handling of the spectrum sale.

Mr. Singh has pledged to punish anyone found guilty in the scandal, but questions linger about why he did not act sooner to remove Mr. Raja, leading some to conclude that the Congress Party will sacrifice almost any principle to hold on to its governing coalition.

Mr. Raja resigned under pressure on Nov. 14, but he has denied any wrongdoing. India’s Central Bureau of Investigation is carrying out a criminal inquiry.

The Congress Party has faced its own corruption scandals in recent weeks. The senior politician who was in charge of the disastrous preparations for the Commonwealth Games last month had to resign from a minor party position amid multiple inquiries into fraud and graft. The chief minister of Maharashtra, the state that includes Mumbai, was also forced to step down after it was discovered that members of his family had improperly received valuable apartments meant for war widows.

Such scandals, analysts say, could undermine efforts by the Congress Party’s chief, Sonia Gandhi, and her son Rahul to win an outright majority in the next election, in 2014.

Full text of the joint memorandum submitted by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik

“Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds.

“Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us… However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.” – Jawaharlal Nehru, Speech to the Indian Parliament, August 7, 1952

“When a question becomes an international question like the Kashmir question, this Parliament can take many steps, of course, but it cannot solve the international part of it… the accession of Kashmir to India… was in that sense complete, not subject to anything except subject to the goodwill of the people of Kashmir… It is a very important thing and by that declaration we are going to stand. It is left to their decision… Now it is before an international forum and how can I or this Parliament take it away?” – Jawaharlal Nehru, Speech to the Indian Parliament, March 25, 1952

The All-Party Delegation from Delhi comes to Srinagar on the heels of some of the most vexed circumstances that Jammu & Kashmir has faced. The assault on the life and dignity of the average Kashmiri has been relentless. Daily life in our homes and streets has been turned into a nightmare as an entire population is treated as hostages on their own soil.

Just a simple act of stepping out of our own houses has been turned into an act fraught with danger, threat and menace with unprecedented prolongation of the brutal curfew, ruthless persecution, topped up by some of the most uncivilized acts by a nation that claims to abide by democratic practice and the rule of law.

The blockading of food, fuel and medical supplies with even life-saving drugs and ambulances being prevented from reaching their destinations, nocturnal raids and illegal detention of children and teenagers, clampdown on the local media and thrashing of media persons in recent days, is clearly an attempt at bullying and humiliating the Kashmiri population with base and inhuman tactics employed earlier only by rogue regimes in some notorious instances of international shame like in Kampuchea, Bosnia Palestine and Sri Lanka.

We cannot help but feel that we Kashmiris have been corralled into a concentration camp of concertina wires, jack-booted surveillance and vengeful assault by the Indian State, which deliberately chooses to deny this part of its ‘claimed’ nation the constitutional guarantee of ‘the Right to Life’.

And we have not even begun talking yet about the more than 100 Kashmiri youngsters senselessly but brutally killed by the Indian security forces in just over 100 days. It follows the thousands of lives already lost over the past decades due to the unresolved Kashmir Dispute.

All this precipitates your visit today.

We had hoped the 21st Century would offer our children a new world of opportunities. Indeed, both Prime Ministers Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh gave us reason to hope for an honourable and lasting solution to the Kashmir Dispute through their multiple public declarations on Kashmir. We believe these statements represented not only their personal or partisan views but a commitment on behalf of the Indian people which your delegation today now represents.

We started this decade with the intention of engaging in a meaningful process to resolve the Kashmir Issue and we continue to be committed to that objective. However, for the people of Jammu & Kashmir, this first decade of the century has only been one of continued human misery, unfulfilled promises, false hopes and failed efforts to resolve the issue.

Failure has bred cynicism and destroyed hope.

In recent times, the struggle in Kashmir has transformed from a violent to a non-violent movement and the new generation has adopted the mode of democratic protest rather than the gun to voice its aspiration. It leaves us shocked and resentful that rather than listening to and engaging with this call from the streets of Kashmir, India is responding to it with bullets and violence.

We are at a threshold and it is vital that a new generation of Kashmiris should not be pushed to the wall. Dialogue and negotiation must come to the front, not a new chapter of violence and instability. Nobody will gain and we will all lose, if such a situation develops.

The passage of time over the past 63 years has, in fact, made the Kashmir Problem more, rather than less, intractable. Allowing this dispute to fester will only extract increasing human costs from the people of Jammu & Kashmir and, for that matter, the people of India and Pakistan.

Frankly, today we hope to make a break from the past.

What we have seen for the last 63 years and what we are seeing in the current bloodshed is an aggregation of failed approaches. Above all we are seeing a failure to develop and evolve a sustainable, purposeful, results-oriented process of dialogue and negotiation aimed at tangibly resolving core issues rather than dealing with the crisis of the day.

We are concerned that domestic politicking in India has again started to create hurdles on the way to developing a meaningful process of negotiation. This has been a phenomenon right from the inception of the Kashmir Conflict. Due to domestic politics in both India and Pakistan, the windows for working towards a solution to Kashmir have been narrowed or interrupted and, as a result, the people of Jammu & Kashmir have had to suffer dearly.

It is disconcerting that today the BJP has taken a hard line on Kashmir. This is the same party whose veteran leader Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee went to Lahore and declared from the base of Minar-e-Pakistan: “It is my dream and wish to resolve the Kashmir Issue.” This is the same BJP who initiated peace talks with the then united APHC under the chairmanship of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. This is the same party that engaged Hizbul Mujahideen in a cease-fire and talks process in the Summer of 2000. This is the same BJP that declared a unilateral cease-fire in the Month of Ramadhan and then offered talks “under the constitution of Insaniyat”. This is the same BJP whose Prime Minister Vajpayee laid out an inspiring agenda on Kashmir from Kumarakom on January 2, 2001: “We shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past. Rather, we shall be bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asian region”.

We are now disheartened to see the same party advocating a contrary view as the principal Opposition in the Indian Parliament. It is time to develop a peace process on Kashmir that is immune to domestic politics and power tussles, both in India and Pakistan.

On many occasions, in 2004 and again in 2006 from Amritsar, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh talked boldly about engaging in an irreversible process of dialogue to reach a political solution on Kashmir. We are concerned that the recent statements of the Prime Minister suggest that the Kashmir Problem is being seen as a matter of unemployment and that conditions are being imposed on the dialogue process.

For an entire generation, more than 20 years, we have engaged in multiple exercises of dialogue and talks with the Government of India. We took risks to do so and some amongst us sacrificed their lives to tread the path of peacemaking, while others amongst us paid with our credibility. we give some suggestions with a view to generating a favourable political climate for a purposeful dialogue like (a) revocation of draconian laws, (b) release of political prisoners (c) withdrawal of troops and (d) zero tolerance for human rights etc but these suggestions were not taken seriously.

We are now wary that your visit today, however well-intentioned, represents only an effort at short-term crisis management and that there is no clear commitment nor path towards effective resolution of the Kashmir Issue and addressing the aspirations and interests of the people of Jammu & Kashmir.

We have seen in the past that it is only when a major crisis erupts that visible efforts are made to engage and understand our aspirations. And as soon as the immediate crisis subsides, the demonstrated and inherent political complacency and negligence is restored.

Today in light of the concerns expressed above and to voice our unequivocal condemnation of the killings of our children and youth, we choose not to meet with your delegation

Today, we ask not for unilateral political concessions but rather a joint commitment to a meaningful process that guarantees results. We believe this is possible only if serious efforts are made to create a conducive environment for dialogue by removal of the harsh and repressive measures that are in force here, to suppress our aspirations and our fundamental democratic rights.

We look forward to entering into a dialogue based on the following shared commitments:

To create a beginning and to sustain the process of dialogue we need to create a process in which all views and options – most of all Kashmiri aspirations will be considered and explored before arriving at an acceptable solution.

Let resolving the Kashmir Dispute in accordance with aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir become a Common Minimum Programme shared by all political parties in India and in Pakistan. Achieving a solution to the Kashmir Issue should now rise above vote bank politics and be taken up as a national agenda shared by all, worked for by all, and risked for by all major political parties of India.

Let the Government of India act on the suggestions given by the Kashmiris and facilitate to establish and empower an official body, a Kashmir Committee, consisting of senior representatives of all major Indian political parties to develop and enter into a process of engagement with the representatives of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. Let this process be transparent designed to deliver a negotiated solution to the Kashmir Issue that is mutually worked towards by and acceptable to all parties concerned.

We believe that a similar Kashmir Committee, bringing together all political forces, should also be established in Pakistan. We will advocate to the political parties in Pakistan that this be done. This will ensure that all major political forces in India and Pakistan are on board with the peace process and it will help institutionalize and sustain the process to resolve the Kashmir Problem. We must render the process immune from domestic politics and tendencies to act as spoilers

On our part we are ready and willing to engage and sustain a meaningful and irreversible process of dialogue designed to avoid the failures of the past and to jointly develop and implement a solution to the Kashmir Dispute that is acceptable to all sides – India,Pakistan and above all the people of J&K

Sincerely,

SD/
Mirwaiz Umar Farooq
All Parties Hurriyat Conference

SD/

Muhammad Yasin Malik
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front

Indian APC on Kashmir ends in deadlock

The Nation

NEW DELHI (Agencies) – An all parties conference, which was convened by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resolve spiralling protests in Occupied Kashmir, ended in a deadlock on Wednesday, even as five more protesters were killed in police clashes.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan’s APC came two days after 18 people were killed in the worst single episode of violence in two decades of Kashmiris struggle against Indian rule and are the latest in a three-month long series of protests.

The five-and-a-half hour meeting, during which PM Manmohan, United Progressive Alliance Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, BJP leader LK Advani and leaders of other parties presented their views, however, was unanimous over the need for internal dialogue within the framework of Indian Constitution.

The meeting failed to arrive at a consensus on the issue of withdrawal or dilution of a widely-hated law – Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) – that gives the Indian occupation army and paramilitary forces immunity from prosecution in case of civilian killings in the region. The only decision taken was to send an all-party delegation of politicians to Kashmir to assess the ground situation, dates for which were not announced immediately.

The AFSPA also enables the army and paramilitary forces to detain people indefinitely and is seen as fuelling a sense of injustice and military occupation for Kashmiris.

A statement issued at the end of the marathon meeting said the leaders agreed that the Indian Constitution provides ample scope to “accommodate any legitimate political demand through dialogue, civil discourse and peaceful negotiations.”

“The leaders agreed that the delegation should meet all sections of the people and gather all shades of opinion,” the statement said.

The fact-finding mission will help inform policy making, the government said.

The Opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, the army and some government members oppose any lifting of the act.

Calling for calm, Indian PM Manmohan told the meeting at his residence in New Delhi that he was “shocked and distressed” by the demonstrations engulfing the region, saying that dialogue was the only way out of the crisis, but that peace and calm had to be restored first.

“The only path for lasting peace and prosperity in Jammu and Kashmir is that of dialogue and discussion,” he said.

“While some of these protests may have been impulsive or spontaneous, it cannot be denied that some incidents were orchestrated by certain groups,” he said.

“What we have seen over the past three months must persuade us to reflect and deliberate on the way forward. We have to talk to each other.”

The leader of the ruling Congress party, Sonia Gandhi, urged the government to listen to the angry new generation “that has grown up in the embrace of violence, of conflict and brutality.”

“We must give them hope, we must understand and respect their legitimate aspirations,” she added, while stressing that the region was an integral part of India.

She urged all political parties to put aside their ideological and political differences. She said; “The challenge is too serious to allow differences to get in way.”

Adding further Sonia said, “I share the anguish of those who have lost their loved ones.”

Expressing satisfaction over the result of the meeting, Union Minister for Renewable Resources Farooq Abdullah told the media persons that PM Manmohan has no trust deficit in Omar Abdullah’s government in IHK.

The Opposition leader of J&K and PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti said mere words are not enough. The government should take a concrete and not a cosmetic step forward in this direction. “Unconditional dialogue is crucial and pro-freedom Kashmiri leaders should be included in the talks to find a meaningful solution to the crisis.”

During the meeting, Mehbooba favoured immediate revocation of AFSPA and withdrawal of armed forces from civil areas and release of political prisoners and “innocent detenues”.

APHC Chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani denounced the outcome of the meeting as “cosmetic”, and called for Indian troops to leave the state.

“We will intensify our struggle if India does not accept our demands,” he said.

National Conference, which was represented by its chief Farooq Abdullah, also sought revocation of AFSPA, at least partially, failing which amend it to make it “humane”.

However, parties like the BJP, the Shiv Sena, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal opposed any such move, saying nothing should be done to demoralise the forces.

Let’s move on, Mr Singh

The News International

The mood in India after the Mumbai attacks was ugly. All India had to offer was revenge. One recalls being confused that official India, not the Indian herd, was acting in the manner that it was. Its stance was so naïve, so self-defeating, so Americanesque that one actually began to fret, much as one does here at the utterances of our leaders.

Why was Manmohan Singh acting so? Did he not understand that Mumbai was a terrorist ploy to keep India and Pakistan at daggers drawn and wreck years of painstakingly constructed agreements emerging from the Composite Dialogue. Or was he, like his best friend Bush, also someone who speaks a moment or so before he thinks? And was he so weak, so much a populist, so given to bending with the wind, that he would rather wager war than risk unpopularity for the sake of preserving peace? We have the answer to that question from Mr Manmohan Singh himself.

After Mumbai Indian public opinion demanded that Pakistan be held to account. India had hoped that this would give it leverage to coerce Pakistan into paying greater attention to India’s concerns, but unfortunately that had not happened; the results were not as expected. That is why, at Thiumphu, his effort was to find ways and means of getting the two countries once again back on the path of a dialogue: “If we don’t want to go to war, then engagement and dialogue are the only way forward,” as he told Indian newspaper editors on Sept 7. Welcome aboard, Mr Singh; you have got it right, finally.

If Mr Singh cares to recall, this is what some of us had said would occur. As for the Indian herd, namely the public and their opinion, Disraeli said there is no such thing as “public opinion,” there is only “public sentiment.” Besides, one knows how this sentiment is formed. It is a brew of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, sound bites, headlines and newspaper paragraphs. As a politician Mr Singh must no doubt bear public opinion in mind for the next election, but as a statesman he must think of the next generation. Hence, he should not let truth go a-begging. He should tell his compatriots that nations do not make peace with friends but rather with unsavoury enemies, like Pakistan, and persuade them to let him work at it. It appears that he may be getting around to doing so. He therefore deserves support.

In case Mr Singh fears for the future, so do we; because the closer India and Pakistan get to cobbling peace the greater the prospect-nay, certainty-of another terrorist attack on India emanating possibly from Pakistan soil or with Pakistani connections. Hence, when that happens, despite all our precautions, Mr Singh should not go tub-thumping and making menacing gestures, and accuse Pakistan of promoting it; or queer the pitch for negotiations once again. We need to get a grip on the terrorist monster more than India does. By helping Pakistan Mr Singh will be helping India. Threaten Pakistan, and Osama bin Laden, if dead, will be smiling in his grave; attack Pakistan and bin Laden, if alive, will be doing a jig around his dialysis machine.

Mr Singh should now proceed with alacrity because he has wasted enough time to:

- Announce that India is now ready to resume the Composite Dialogue where it was broken off; offer to conclude the agreement on Sir Creek that has been finalised, and remove the persisting small difference on Siachin.

- Announce, further, that he will be sending/allowing Indian officials to testify against those arrested and now on trial in Pakistan for complicity in the Mumbai attacks in the hope of securing their conviction and not to let the guilty off merely on account of non-fulfilment of procedural requirements.

- Understand that while he can deal with the Naxalites as he wishes, when it comes to Kashmir he cannot, at least not without enraging us across the Line of Control. Mr Singh should deal with the Kashmiri leadership; and to understand how they define Azadi and to see if there can be a meeting of minds. It is true Pakistan cannot wrest Kashmir by force from India. But is it not equally true that India cannot retain Kashmir by force and expect that India’s image and peace of mind will not suffer the consequences, to say nothing of its security?

- Be prepared to address Pakistan’s reasonable military concerns, and specifically what meaningful measures could be taken that would lessen the threat of an armed Indian incursion into Pakistan. India will not need to disarm to appear accommodating because there are many ways of skinning this cat. And, of course, to abandon Cold Start, a pernicious doctrine that has triggered endless preparations for a hot response.

- Finally, offer to revisit the Indus Waters Treaty to take into account Pakistan’s concerns. Eventually this treaty will have to be revised. Climate change, rather than any other factor, has made this obvious.

Such steps and/or others similar in nature would have a huge impact on the atmospherics. They will lend efforts for peace considerable momentum. They would also put Pakistan under considerable pressure to respond. They would strengthen the hands of those here who believe that an equable relationship with India is not only possible but essential. If then Mr Singh truly desires peace, as many feel that he does, he should not follow a path that makes it impossible.

Needless to say hurdles will arise and on occasions despair may result. That is in the very nature of India-Pakistan negotiations. Often we are our own worst enemies. However, that is not reason enough to give up. Moreover, his having been instrumental in righting India’s economic policies, what would be a more fitting legacy for Mr Singh than to complete a distinguished period in public life by aligning India’s relations with Pakistan in a manner that the single-biggest threat to India’s security and steady economic growth is diminished, if not entirely removed.

Go for it, Mr Singh; you have cogitated long enough. The globe-trotting Shah Mehmood Qureshi would be in Delhi in a jiffy at the first signs of a change of heart on your part. Let’s not live as if we are going to live forever.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

Bhopal still waits for justice

Praful Bidwai

The contrast between BP’s response to the outrage over the oil spill in the US and Union Carbide’s attitude to the uproar over the Bhopal disaster of 1984 couldn’t have been sharper. Confronted by a hostile public and a president who wants to “kick ass”, BP has pledged $20 billion in initial remediation and is mobilising another $50 billion – although its legal liability is only $75 million.

Carbide got away with $470 million, equivalent to its insurance cover plus interest, for causing the world’s greatest industrial disaster. It didn’t even have to liquidate major assets. The spill’s death-toll (11) is tiny beside Bhopal’s, although the impact on fisheries and the environment will be enormous. But BP’s bosses are in trouble. Its chairman had to apologise repeatedly for referring to the affected fisherfolk and petty businessmen as “small people”. Its CEO Tony Hayward got serious flak from the administration for attending a yacht race at the height of the crisis.

Carbide chairman Warren Anderson was briefly arrested in Bhopal. But he was released within hours, treated like a VIP, and flown to Delhi in a state plane. Why, he had a meeting not just with Foreign Secretary Rasgotra, but also with India’s president.

In the US, corporations and politicians are straining to align themselves with strong anti-BP public opinion. In India, companies and industry associations have been largely silent on the June 7 Bhopal judgment which treated the disaster on a par with a traffic accident. Worse, some business leaders, including Deepak Parekh – one of India’s best-regarded executives, who serves on many companies’ boards – found the verdict harsh. They warned it would scare independent directors away from companies.

They ignore the notion of strict or no-fault liability. Negligence which causes public harm can only be deterred if severely punished. Being corporate decision-makers, directors are liable – even if they aren’t personally responsible for every design detail or operational hazard.

Their culpability is greater – as in Bhopal – if they have prior knowledge of the hazards. Union Carbide’s directors clearly knew of the Bhopal plant’s potential for fatal accidents. These had occurred before December 1984.

This doesn’t argue that the US government and legal system are pro-people, only that India’s legal system is institutionally flawed. Its self-appointing higher judiciary is unaccountable. It hasn’t developed instruments for punishing corporate crimes. The Indian establishment is, like those in the neighbourhood, cravenly pro-rich, pro-corporate and pro-American. This includes top judges, lawyers, opinion-shapers and bureaucrats who inherit a colonial state structure indifferent to the people.

Yet, so great has been the public outrage over the latest Bhopal judgment that the government reconstituted the Group of Ministers on Bhopal, which has submitted its report. On its positive side are recommendations for a curative petition on the judgment and the 1989 compensation award; expediting Anderson’s extradition; and speeding up the case against Carbide’s successor, Dow Chemical, in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

On the negative side are its silence on Dow’s liability and its paltry recommendations for relief to the victims.

A curative petition asking the Supreme Court to modify its 1996 order downgrading criminal charges against UCC, Carbide’s fully-owned Hong Kong-based subsidiary Union Carbide Eastern, and its 51 per cent-subsidiary Indian subsidiary Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), is welcome. But this shouldn’t stop at restoring the charge of culpable homicide.

The Indian Penal Code clearly defines murder in subsection 4 of Section 300: “If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury ….”

Carbide indisputably committed such acts by operating an unsafe, poorly designed plant – which, it knew, would lead to large-scale fatalities. The plant’s pipeline design was faulty. A 1982 safety audit said it had 30 major flaws. Logically, the accused must be re-tried for murder.

Yet, Anderson and UCC and UCE directors weren’t even tried in Bhopal because they absconded. This violates a condition stipulated in Judge Keenan’s order, which sent the case back to India – namely, they would stand trial in India and abide by an Indian judgment.

Not only does this warrant Anderson’s extradition; it allows India to press fresh charges against UCC in the US, including contempt of court. This must be done expeditiously. The 1989 compensation award was based on the assumption of 3,000 deaths. But the official death-toll is five times higher and the number injured 10 times greater. The average compensation for death was Rs100,000 – a travesty given that death in rail accidents and natural disasters is better compensated.

In Bhopal, about 200,000 people were significantly injured, but 574,000 were given compensation. This reduced the amount paid to the seriously affected. This couldn’t even pay for their medical treatment, leave alone get damages for suffering or disability. The victims’ categorisation was arbitrary. Over 92 per cent were categorised as having “minor” injuries. Only 3,241 people (0.7 per cent of those affected) were categorised as severely injured. This makes nonsense of surveys by the Indian Council of Medical Research and other agencies.

The GoM-proposed enhanced compensation looks impressive. But it will cover only 42,208 people and exclude 91 per cent of those affected. This is grossly unjust.

The GoM report fails to mention the need for a high-level Empowered Commission on Bhopal, including medical and rehabilitation experts, NGOs, and the victims’ representatives, which collates all available evidence and organises adequate compensation and medical treatment. This was demanded by the victims and agreed to by the government in 2008. But the GoM doesn’t even mention it.

Yet, new medical facilities must be urgently established so the victims can live with dignity, and freedom from pain and humiliation. These must be staffed by competent, sensitive professionals who understand the need to rebuild the survivors’ lives in their entirety.

Now, consider the GoM’s negative side. It doesn’t hold Dow liable for land and water contamination around the Bhopal plant because Dow doesn’t own it. What matters is that Carbide created a liability over and above the accident through the contamination. Carbide knew this and its likely effects, having conducted numerous site surveys. By natural justice principles, a successor company inherits both the assets and liabilities of the corporation it purchases. Dow is clearly obliged to clean up the Bhopal site and compensate the 30,000 people who are forced to drink the polluted water.

To evade this responsibility, Dow’s chairman Andrew Liveris has pressed his nefarious case through business leader Ratan Tata, Home Minister P Chidambaram and other bigwigs. He has twice met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. However, it’s imperative to hold Dow liable as Carbide’s successor.

If the government presses charges against Carbide in the US for violating the conditions under which the litigation was sent to India, the issue of liability will inevitably arise. That must be settled now.

The effort to bury the Bhopal legacy is misguided. Unfortunately, the legacy lives on. Justice demands that it is brought to an honourable, dignified closure in a fair and transparent manner. The GoM has failed to do that.

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and human-rights activist based in Delhi.

Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in

‘Strengthen nuclear capability to avert Indian designs’

IANS

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan must outstrip India in the nuclear race to counter its neighbour, which is “fomenting instability” and was aiming to dismember this country as part of an American-Indian-Israeli “satanic alliance”, an editorial in a leading Urdu daily said Monday.

“To create tension in the region, foment instability in Pakistan and to break it up into two to four pieces, a satanic triangular alliance of America, India and Israel and their intelligence agencies has come about,” the editorial in Nawa-i-Waqt said.

It claimed that Indian spy agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has “already created a network in Afghanistan using Indian consulates where terrorists were being trained and being infiltrated into Pakistan in the guise of the Taliban”.

The editorial, which began by accusing former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Salah of working at the dictates of RAW to cause instability in Pakistan, castigated “fashions” such as “Aman ki Asha” peace initiative and sought to warn Pakistani intellectuals and politicians of the “real face” of India, with which no peace was possible.

It said there was “sufficient evidence of and witnesses to” the Indian involvement in various terrorist attacks in Pakistan, including the last month’s attacks on two Ahmadi places of worship in Lahore.

“Talking of peace with India is akin to feeding milk to a snake and instead of feeding the snake, it should be crushed. For this, we have nuclear power (capability). Until we defeat India in the nuclear race, it will keep on conspiring against us,” the editorial maintained.

As for Salah, who resigned June 6 after the Taliban attack on a peace jirga in Kabul, the editorial said he had spent his whole life working against Pakistan’s interests and was in constant touch with RAW, which had even provided him staff for his “nefarious designs”.

He was also accused of being behind reports in The Sunday Times and by the London School of Economics that charged Pakistan’s spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of still covertly supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Also, Salah had demanded a free hand for his “work” from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and on being refused, threatened to plunge the entire region into bloodshed, the editorial said.

It said after his resignation, Salah – an ethnic Tajik from the Panjshir Valley who had worked with charismatic guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Masood – was working full time for RAW.

Apart from involvement in various terrorist outrages in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Multan, the editorial alleged that RAW operatives had tied up with violent criminals in Balochistan in an attempt to cripple Pakistan’s economy.

It said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had given proof of this to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh during their meeting on the margins of the Non-Aligned Movement summit at Sharm-el Sheikh and demanded that these activities be stopped forthwith.

Manmohan Singh had promised to assess the evidence but the opposition, including from his own party, he faced when he returned to India, prevented any action and these activities continued unabated, the editorial said.

Pakistan calls for talks with India to build trust

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan called on Monday for “sustained and meaningful” dialogue with India after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a trust deficit was the main obstacle in ties between the two countries.

Talking to leaders of Pakistan-ruled Kashmir, Gilani said his government remained committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute. – AP (File Photo)

Speaking at a news conference in New Delhi, Singh said India was willing to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan but “the trust gap is (the) biggest problem”.

Delhi under pressure to send army to quell Maoists

By Krittivas Mukherjee

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is under pressure to look at whether to send in the military to quell a growing Maoist insurgency in central India after an attack left 35 police and civilians dead on Monday.

A string of deadly attacks this year has undermined the government’s claim to be winning the war on the Maoists. The rebels blew up a bus in the mineral-rich state of Chhattisgarh. Last month 76 police were killed in a similar attack.

The decades-old movement is now present in a third of the country and while they have made few inroads into cities, they have spread into rural pockets of up to 28 states and now hurt potential business worth billions of dollars.

I forced India to talk on Kashmir, water and terrorism: Gilani

ANI

Islamabad, May 4 (ANI): All those mentions of ‘positive’ and ‘spirited’ talks between Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in Thimpu seem to be misplaced, as the latter has claimed to have ‘forced’ New Delhi to discuss Kashmir and water sharing issues.

“I forced India to talk on all issues, including Kashmir, water and terrorism,” said Gilani while responding to a point of order raised by the Leader of Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the National Assembly.

Political Cartoons

India’s Maoist Revolt: Internal Crisis, External Reach

Though Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the communist insurrection India’s ‘biggest internal security threat,’ the attack that massacred 76 security personnel in central India indicates it has become a much bigger issue, writes Sudeshna Sarkar for ISN Security Watch.

By Sudeshna Sarkar in Kathmandu for ISN Security Watch

The attack by Maoist guerrillas in India’s tribal heartland Chhattisgarh state on 6 April – described as the deadliest in nearly five decades of communist insurgency – killed 76 security personnel and marked a rise in both the frequency and intensification of the offensives.

Last year, the Maoists carried out 10 major operations in India, killing nearly 200 people. This year, with the ambush in Dantewada district, they have already executed three major attacks in three states, killing at least 110 people.

P. Chidambaram, Whose ‘Home’ Minister? Just Plain Resign And Go!

By Trevor Selvam
Countercurrents.org

Instead of offering to quit, Mr. Chidambaram should very simply have resigned and walked away. That would have shown some genuine morality, not the play acting and drama associated with trying to salvage his bruised ego by “offering”to resign.

Real moral people make up their minds, talk to their family and friends the night before, take their special South Indian two yard coffee from stainless steel cups in the morning and then send in their resignation. Khalas! No ifs or buts, sir!— as you had clearly stated a while ago to the Maoists. No conditions, no tentativeness-please ABJURE from drama therapy. The nation does not need it.

Mr. Chidambaram is not up to the task that he has defined for himself. He is a lawyer, a business executive, a one time academic, expert in corporate representation, suave spokesperson for collapsed megalomaniac organizations like Enron and enviro-pillaging Jurassic outfits like Vedanta. How can he be a Minister for “Homes”? Why does Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put up with such ineptitude camouflaged by hollow intellectualism and pedantic pronouncements on law and order?

To be a Home Minister (quaint term is it not for someone who has razed 640 villages to the ground and displaced a few hundred thousand people from their HOMES into strategic hamlets?) you must recognize 62 years of ineptitude at HOME, first. He should first try and understand why several million citizens of this country, who regard the hills and mountains as their “homeland” and were the first citizens of this country, do not want to be moved from their “homes.”