|
The world's only Muslim nuclear power, Pakistan, has bowed to the combined will of India, the U.S., and U.K. to end its support for the freedom struggle in Kashmir, where some 700,000 Indian soldiers guard the occupied terrain.
Pakistan's self-appointed President General Pervez Musharraf, who also doubles as chief of the military, after delivering orders required of him on Jan. 12, promptly received a telephone call from U.S. President George W. Bush. According to U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack, Bush thanked Musharraf for his Jan. 12 speech, in which he pledged to ensure his country would not be used as a base for terrorism and to crackdown on religious extremists.
The same day, in a conversation with the Hindu fundamentalist Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Bush discussed Musharraf's speech.
Bush, according to the White House, won pledges from both men to try to end the standoff. However, Indian External Affairs Minister Major Jaswant Singh said Pakistan had to clamp down on the militants before it ended its massive military build-up, adding: "We have to go not by the stated intent, but by action on the ground."
The "clampdown" being demanded by the retired Indian army major-turned-diplomat is a tricky issue indeed. One must remember that India has stalled a U.N. mandated plebiscite in Kashmir for some 52 years, arguing that the requisite peaceful conditions for the vote have not been obtained in Kashmir. Similarly, India can maintain tension on its borders with Pakistan for decades, citing that the "clampdown" has not been implemented.
The greatest obstacle with the U.S.-ordered "clampdown" is that it only places responsibility on controlling the freedom struggle without any let up in human rights violations by India. Gen. (ret.) Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has rightly pointed out: “As long as there is a Kashmir liberation cause, young men will always find a way to get into Kashmir and the people will welcome them.”
Perhaps Musharraf's harsh policies, and Indian minefields, may be able to prevent the slippage of supporters across the Line of Control, but what about Kashmiri freedom fighters inside Indian Occupied Kashmir. Of course, India calls them "foreign agents" and a dead man can never tell his name or nationality. India, which has killed over 70,000 Kashmiris since 1989 alone, can kill many more and brand them "cross-border terrorists", and even "al-Qaeda", and continue its siege, citing Pakistan's failure at a "clampdown".
The Indian deployment on the border began after an attack on India's parliament on December 13, blamed by New Delhi on “Pakistani-based militants”, despite the fact that India has yet to offer a proof that it was indeed Pakistan-based or even connected to Kashmir.
In an Oct. 17, 2001, speech, Musharraf has told the Pakistani people he had agreed to American diktats in order to secure a deal on Kashmir. Instead, what the Pakistani people saw was an Indian-ordered diktat being dictated by Bush through his errand boy, who also serves as the U.K.’s prime minister.
In the Jan. 12 speech, Musharraf has once again sprinkled references to Kashmir, but all he managed to say to his ordering authority is that they "must play an active role in the solution of the Kashmir dispute for lasting peace in the region. The people of Kashmir cannot be suppressed. You [U.S.] ask India to bring an end to state terrorism and human rights violations in Kashmir. U.N. peacekeepers should be allowed to monitor activities in Kashmir."
The international community has merely advised "dialogue" between India and Pakistan, although it is an established fact that a dialogue with India has never worked, especially when the Kashmiri people have not been included in the talks.
Pakistanis who do not suffer from amnesia may be able to recall that when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ordered by then U.S. president Bill Clinton to withdraw support from the Kashmiri freedom fighters in Kargil, it was promised that the Kashmir issue would be brought into focus. Instead, Clinton went ahead and made India an important ally.
Daydreams?
The President-General also announced a grand scheme to modernize madrassahs (religious schools). The reality is that the madrassahs gained prominence because the government-run educational system completely failed. No one disagrees with the General that quite a few of these madrassahs produce nothing but semi-religious Ulema (scholars). However, government schools do not even produce semi-literate clerks.
Musharraf has declared, "We should teach all subjects in madrassahs." However, the issue is: where will the General find the funds to modernize these madrassahs when he cannot even fix the broken-down government schools. Perhaps the people of Pakistan need to ask him this question.
The General had given indications that joining the U.S. camp would bring economic betterment, but Pakistan has received not even a pittance as of yet. At least, former military ruler Gen. Zia-ul Haq was offered "peanuts" for joining the U.S.-led Afghan campaign in the 1980s, but he improved his initial deal.
The Pakistani people perhaps remember what destruction took place when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto nationalized industry and education in the 1970s. The question now becomes: how much interference does Gen. Musharraf plan in the madrassah system? Because, with all their shortcomings, the madrassahs are at least providing some level of social service to the poor. The President is perhaps aware of the level of corruption in Pakistan, and government regulation of madrassahs and mosques can only serve to further line the deep pockets of the bureaucracy.
Reports emanating from Pakistan indicate that bureaucratic corruption continues unabated, with people not being able to get simple things like attestation of documents done, without greasing necessary palms. The corruption that may accompany the regulation of madrassahs and mosques will only raise tensions and not heal them.
Ironically, however, the ultra-fundamentalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) - part of the Indian ruling alliance - has said that India should take a cue from Musharraf's speech and regulate the establishment and functioning of mosques and madrassahs in that country.
Divorcing Pan-Islamism
Muslims believe that they are part of an Ummah (community of believers), which transcends political borders. However, the President-General would like Pakistanis to forego this fundamental belief. He has expressed his anger that Pakistanis "tend to show much concern" on international conflicts, and "jump into such international disputes without thinking, especially those in which Muslims are involved." He added, "This is the responsibility of the government."
We can agree with the President that "you must have a force behind you before you intend to jump into the disputes of others," but the issue then of even being a nuclear power, that we could not stand before Indian terrorism, then where else can we be effective? In effect, Musharraf would like Pakistanis to act like the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) - simply issuing weak-worded statements when Muslims are deprived of their rights. |
