The September Indo Pak Visa Accord

by Ayesha Siddiqa

So, why are India and Pakistan in such a hurry, building a media campaign to sign an agreement?” A friend’s tweet made some of the conciliatory steps taken by foreign ministers SM Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar in Islamabad on 8 September sound gigantic. Such scepticism was not limited to this particular tweeter but was also reflected in the attitude of many journalists covering the meeting. There were many who were keen to present this “big leap” in relations since 1965 as “short change”. Why wasn’t there any roadmap on Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan? Why were Pakistani leaders so eager to visit India when Singh was not keen to reciprocate? “Was this yet another move by the West to get hold of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?” my friend piped again.

Such reaction is more than an expression of hawkishness. It is about creating mental firewalls to protect one’s mind that has grown with the idea of natural animosity. In fact, my response to the friend was: “Do you call 66 years of anger and violence as being in a hurry?” The relaxed visa regime, confidence-building measures across the Line-of-Control and increased trade will help in diluting some of the negative perceptions held by the general population about each other, mainly because the people of India and Pakistan don’t know each other. Despite all the Indian movies watched in Pakistan or the common heritage, the fact is that the average Pakistani and Indian are complete strangers divided by an iron curtain that very few are able to penetrate. There is a general tendency in India to look at a Pakistani from how people view India’s Muslims, which is a faulty lens. The two neighbouring countries are indeed two kinds of experiments in post-colonial State-making, which makes them different on many counts but similar in certain others; all of this can only be understood when people get a chance to explore the other.

There are others who tend to look at the current peace process through the prism of short-termed political realism — Manmohan Singh wants to leave a legacy behind and Zardari is keen to showcase this as a political achievement. While such short-term gains may be true, these do not necessarily explain the multiple layers of interests that seem to have pushed the current peace process, especially from Pakistan’s side.

For Pakistan’s political leadership, peace with India is an existential issue. This is perhaps the only way they can make a dent in the net value and power of the armed forces. However, peace with India still remains an existential issue for the armed forces, too, as strengthening of the peace process is bound to drive an internal demand for a peace dividend in the country.

But then, why would current army chief Gen Kayani underwrite the ongoing peace initiative, as is the general impression? What was negotiated and agreed upon by the two foreign ministers in Islamabad is also the result of the consistent pressure put on the General by the business community. Indeed, Gen Kayani must find himself stuck in a “between the devil and the deep blue sea” situation — the country’s mounting economic pressures on one hand versus the need to keep the Indian bogey alive for the morale of his men.

Given the fact that Pakistan’s economy never went under a strategic restructuring and depended largely on foreign remittances and aid, there was no thinking regarding the survival of small-and medium-scale industrial enterprises, which collapsed under tremendous pressure from the dumping of Chinese goods. With added threat from unceasing power cuts and shortage of natural gas supply, especially in Punjab, the medium-and large-scale industry is struggling hard to survive. In fact, experts are of the view that there is limited growth of industrial capital in the country, which will be further reduced in the coming years due to numerous reasons, including poor governance. Under the circumstances, the mercantile capital that exists is looking for markets for survival and making gains. Hence, the real devil versus the deep blue sea is actually about being forever economically challenged or opening up trade with India to counter the pressure built due to Chinese economic gains in the Pakistani market.

Big industrialists in Punjab and other parts of the country such as Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Elahi are eyeing the Indian market for trading the fast-consumable items they produce, like sugar and cement. The Sharif family and even the militaryrun sugar production units had benefited during the 1990s from sugar export to India.

However, Pakistan has limited options when it comes to tradable commodities. Some experts believe that greater benefit will accrue by Pakistan, eventually becoming a transit route for both China and India. This will certainly be a tough one for Gen Kayani, who, as many believe, may be supporting peace on the eastern front so that he could engage on the western front. This naturally raises a question about how long will this peace initiative survive?

Surely, in Kayani’s mind, the peace process is a tap that could be turned off at will as has happened in the past. A related scenario is that the tap could be turned off if there is guarantee of some financial supply from the US, China and West Asia. While China is not keen to directly bankroll Pakistan’s deficit spending, and relations with the US are on a slippery slope, the money from West Asia and other Arab States will tantamount to nothing but short change. Economically, Pakistan’s strategic depth may lie in its South Asian neighbours.

The army has not made any visible move to disengage from the militant non-State actors, especially those whose main raison d’être was war with India. This could be for several reasons such as using these assets on the western front, inability to unwind them in the short term, or the uncertainty of India’s commitment to eventually resolving territorial disputes, which Kayani thinks may be the peace process’ eventual outcome. Thus far, the military-friendly-banned outfits have their influence and relevance, which was obvious in the case of The Hindu’s bureau chief being denied a visa for Krishna’s visit. There is yet another issue of Kayani’s capacity to take his generals along, particularly in the eleventh hour of his career. Earlier on, Musharraf had also claimed complete support of his generals, until it proved otherwise. While many would term the previous about-turn as being caused by the inherent insincerity of the Pakistani army high command, it’s also important for Indian policymakers to consider GHQ’s lower threshold for waiting for longer spans to see some positive results of peace. The Generals easily get nervous when they don’t see something tangible happening. Some could even link a possible visit by Manmohan Singh as one of the few indicators of good intent.

As the political leadership on both sides keep their fingers crossed, hoping for the best outcome, the one positive development is that there are additional actors in Pakistan who want to see the peace process flourish. How effective are they at the game of peace roulette turning in their favour remains a million-dollar question.

The Indo-Pak Visa Imbroglio

The year 1947 holds tremendous importance in the lives of the people of the subcontinent. It marked a shift in ideologies of. The repercussions of the partition spread far and wide across this massive region, with reactions of the populace ranging from indignation and fury to joy and happiness.

This monumental event has been marked in history with bloodstains of a million men, women and children who lost their lives in the partition of India.

Sixty-five years later, families on both sides of the border are still suffering; though not because of persecution or lack of representation or due to the status of a minority, but primarily due to the volatile nature of relations between the governments of India and Pakistan.

Whilst economists and businessmen argue that recent years have seen an increase in trade between the two nations, the superficial cordiality established between the two countries, which have gone to war thrice  since these 65 years, has not lessened the worries of travellers across the border between India and Pakistan.

Visa requirements for Pakistani citizens travelling to India include a form which can only be completed online and a sponsorship certificate that must be filled in by the hosts in India, stating their income status and testifying that the Pakistani visitor is of good character. After being filled in, the certificate must be sent to Pakistan via courier.

Furthermore, the hosts in India must also send via courier, copies that confirm their address and identity and the visitor from Pakistan must obtain a Police Certified Character Certificate. Amongst the pre-requisites for travelling to India is a salary greater than Rs25, 000 per month.

For Pakistani citizens belonging to a low socio-economic stratum of society, these requirements make the prospect of travelling to India to visit their near and dear ones, close to impossible.

Processing of visa forms takes a minimum of 30days and at present – unless the visitor happens to hold a diplomatic passport – stay in India cannot be extended for more than thirty days, even if the applicant is a former Indian citizen who has ‘adopted Pakistani citizenship due to marriage. Multiple entry visit visas are out of the question and Pakistani travellers to India are normally not allowed to visit more than two cities.

The government of Pakistan’s visa policies for Indian citizens are no different than the latter’s policies for Pakistani visitors.

Whilst the governments of North and South Korea – two nations oft meeting at points of conflict – have taken collaborative measures to facilitate travel of families broken by borders, one can’t help but wonder when Indo-Pak relations will reach a point where members of broken families will be able to cross borders with ease.

R Advani, who migrated from Lahore to Simla post-1947, says, “It’s been 64 years and the ice hasn’t melted; you can’t expect contentious relations to thaw overnight. But you can’t lose hope either. You can’t break the bond between the people of the subcontinent. We’ll skirt the restrictions, find ways to travel, make do with what we have and hope for a peaceful, cordial future.”

Is the Move to Invest in India a Trick?

Depending on one’s point of view, India’s move to open up investment from Pakistan can be welcomed or become cause for cynicism. Arguments against it stem from anxiety about Pakistan’s own weak economy and a desire to protect it: domestic problems mean investment here, both domestic and foreign, is falling. Pakistani investors are already sending their own money out to other countries, and this will give them one more destination. India recognises this, and wants to use the opportunity to attract more foreign investment for itself. But there is more at stake here than these near-term concerns.

More trade between India and Pakistan is a good thing, and the reasoning for this — beyond the well-established economic benefits of trade — is simple. It is likely to increase stakes in each other’s stability over time, and any ties are better than no ties if the two are ever to move towards a closer relationship.

India’s move is particularly important because other initiatives on the commerce front that seemed to be within reach appear to have been stalled, such as granting MFN status to India and liberalising visa regimes. There are indications that Pakistan is delaying these out of fear that political and territorial disputes will get left by the wayside. But that defeats the purpose of the new diplomatic approach the countries are supposedly trying to pursue, in which closer trade links become the basis for building confidence and eventually addressing the tougher problems.

India’s announcement is simply a starting point, and a lot more would have to be done to really open up trade and investment. Pakistan would have to make it easier for Indians to invest here, for example, and consulates would have to be opened in Bombay, Karachi and perhaps even smaller business hubs such as Hyderabad in India and Lahore.

And it isn’t clear yet to what extent India’s announcement will benefit Pakistan. Much will depend on the specific rules India frames on such things as investment levels allowed in different sectors and repatriating profits. But allowing Pakistani investors in was an important signal, and Pakistan should respond by speeding up trade liberalisation measures on which it is dragging its feet.

Is This What We Call Aman Ki Asha?

India to Impose Life Time Ban On Rahat Fateh Ali Khan

Whеrе іѕ thе Aman Ki Asha?

Due tο thе professional jealousy аnd fame οf Pakistani singers іn India, Indian film Singers Association hаѕ bееn demanding thе Indian government tο ban Pakistani singers permanently frοm entering іn India fοr concerts οr recordings.

Where Will Water Come From in Pakistan a Few Years From Now?

By Jayita Mukhopadhyay
Water is life’s matter and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.
     ~ Albert Szent-Gyorgyi  

World Water Day is celebrated on 22 March every year at the behest of the United Nations to sensitise everyone inhabiting this planet about the profound importance of conserving water.

Since time immemorial, availability of water has shaped the establishment and growth of human civilization.

The blue gold is fast surpassing oil as the world’s scarcest critical resource and the World Bank has already prophesied that the 21st century will be an era of war over water.

Modern agriculture, industrialisation, urbanization and the spiralling population growth have all contributed to an exponential rise in the demand for water. And, as of now, water has no substitute.

Experts have sounded an alarm that within the next 25 years, half of the world’s population could face problems in finding enough fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

According to the 2006 United Nations Human Development Report, the access to water is inadequate for an estimated 1.1 billion people in developing countries. The per capita consumption of water is directly proportionate to the economic strength of a country and the standard of living of its people. The average per capita (per person/per day) use of water in Africa is 47 litres/person/day whereas in the USA, it is 578 litres/person/day. Millions of women and young girls are forced to spend hours collecting and carrying water, restricting their opportunities, their choices and even foregoing education.

Beyond the household, the competition for water as a productive resource is intensifying.

Symptoms of that competition include the collapse of water-based ecological systems, declining river flows and large-scale groundwater depletion. Conflicts over water, particularly the issue of control over fresh water sources, are intensifying within countries ~ posing a serious threat to world peace. The Middle East and North Africa are contending with water conflicts. In the Jordan river basin, there is intense competition among Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank for control over the available water resource. Israel uses the largest volume of water available in the basin, and next in line is Jordan. The Israeli-occupied West Bank uses the minimum amount ~ a true reflection of the power equation in the Middle East.

The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of International Rivers, adopted by the International Law Association in 1966 and similar other customary international laws have tried to provide the necessary legal framework for solving the water-sharing disputes concerning trans-boundary rivers. But most of these conflicts seem intractable.

Even if one accepts the claim made by the USA and its allies that the 2011 ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Libya was driven by the altruistic zeal of these self-styled protectors of human rights to deliver the people of Libya from the oppressive yoke of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, there is no gainsaying that the regime change has, conveniently, given them a scope to control not only Libya’s rich reserve of oil but also, more interestingly, its huge reserve of underground water.

In 1953, the search for oil led to the discovery of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS), the world’s largest known fossil water aquifer system. It is located underground in the eastern end of the Sahara desert and spans the political boundaries of four countries in north-east Africa-Sudan, Chad, Libya and Egypt. Experts suggest that if used in a controlled manner, it can be a source of water for Africa for the next 1000  years. In 1983, Gaddafi started the Great Manmade River Project, as part of which, water extracted from the aquifer, through a network of pipelines, was diverted to faraway places to give a boost to agriculture. The consequent prosperity made Gaddafi more arrogant or construed differently, more oblivious to the dictates of the West. This perhaps served as a powerful motivation for the West to come down heavily on Libya. Critics have drawn uncharitable conclusions from the fact that during the 2011 war, one of the plants manufacturing pipes for the project was destroyed by a NATO air strike.

In South Asia as well, water is a contentious issue in inter-state relations. For India, the sharing of trans-border rivers is a point of discord between Pakistan, China and Bangladesh. India, with 16 per cent of the world’s population, has only 4 per cent of the world’s fresh water resources.

In India, the per capita availability of fresh water has dropped from 5,177 cubic meters in 1951 to 1,820 cubic meters in 2001. Spatial and temporal variability in the availability of rain water, the main source of river waters, is a serious challenge. The monsoon rain is available for three months; there is an acute water shortage during the arid months in large parts of the country. In the past, the Cauvery river water dispute and the imbroglio over sharing the Krishna water have not only soured inter-state relations, but have also fuelled parochial sentiment, even riots and arson.

The policy of constructing large dams has been opposed because of the huge damage in terms of ecology and human life. The proposed interlinking of rivers has run into rough weather for similar reasons. Such alternatives as rain water harvesting call for extensive community-based projects. The cost factor can also be prohibitive.

Water, essential for human existence, cannot be treated as a commodity accessible to only those who can pay for it. It is a basic right. Hence, while supporting the cause of collecting taxes from those who can afford to pay the cess, the government must fulfil this basic requirement of the underprivileged by setting up public funded facilities. The needs of the common people and the developmental needs of society should be delicately balanced. The human race must be saved from a possible apocalypse through judicious use and conservation of life’s essential.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Women’s Christian College, Kolkata

Resolution of the Kashmir Issue is the Only Way to Prevent a Nuclear Arms Race in S Asia

India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Arms Race

by Dr Syed Ghulam Nabi Fa

‘The Christian Science Monitor’ in its column on April 25, 2012 said it all by emphasizing that “Ritual Aggression: India and Pakistan’s missile tests, following peace talks.”

We know that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.  Both have now tested intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Both are adamant against inking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Both feature domestic constituencies that universally celebrate their muscular nuclear postures; no political party or serious private association champions nuclear controls or disarmament.  India and Pakistan have warred three times since their respective births in 1947, and two occasioned on the disputed territory of Kashmir. In the best of times, India and Pakistan are no more friendlier than the Montagues and Capulets on the streets of Verona.

Two not mutually exclusive approaches are available to the United States to turn back the nuclear clock in South Asia; a region that former President Clinton has lamented is the most dangerous place on the planet.  The first emphasizes restraints on nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles; the second gives primacy to eliminating the probable cause of nuclear exchanges.  The US has chosen the first, and given but lip service to the second.

All experience teaches that neither India nor Pakistan will accept non-trivial limits on their nuclear arsenals in the foreseeable future. India’s intransigent position for more than 44 years is no nuclear constraints unless every nation abandons its nuclear forces and stockpiles, including the big five nuclear powers under the NPT: the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France.  India has now tested intercontinental ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to the Beijing and Shanghai.  Pakistan reciprocated with just few days. The United States did not say anything that gives cause for Indian military anxieties. India’s nuclear and missile fixation pivots on her national ambitions and self-perception as the hegemonistic power in South Asia she routinely meddles in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives, and annexed Goa in 1961 and the Kingdom of Sikkim in 1975 by force of arms.  Thus, nothing but an overwhelming nuclear disarmament incentive could cause India to entertain the idea.  At present, such an incentive is chimerical.

According to the United Nations, Kashmir is a disputed territory. When the Kashmir question got erupted at the UN in 1948, the world powers took the stand that the future of Kashmir must be ascertained through plebiscite conducted by the United Nations.  India’s plebiscite obligation has been defied with both insolence and impunity for more than half a century, which substantially explains the chronic convulsions and ubiquitous indigenous Kashmiri resistance to India’s illegal military occupation.  Contrary to popular myth, cleverly peddled by India, the resistance in Kashmir is indigenous & popular; and infiltrators or terrorist “Afghan Arabs” are marginal to the Kashmir conflict.

The nuclear clock in South Asia thus can be turned back only by addressing the source of the proliferation, i.e., Kashmir.  If the 65-year-old Kashmir conflict is settled with fairness and justice to all parties, then the possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan will be dramatically less worrisome.  Britain and France, for instance, do not fret that the other is a nuclear power.  And the United States and Russia are engaged in serious nuclear arms reductions, but it came only after the end of the Cold War.  In sum, Kashmir is the key to spiking the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

I do not mean to suggest, however, that tackling Kashmir will not be difficult.  But here are my thoughts about a new and promising approach.

First, recognize that Kashmir is primarily about the 17 million Kashmiri people, their human rights and right to self-determination under international law and still binding United Nations Security Council resolutions.  It is not a border quarrel between India and Pakistan, nor a fight between Hindus and Muslims, nor a struggle between secularism and theocracy.

Second, third party intervention and mediation is indispensable.  India and Pakistan have negotiated for 65 years without result. All the flowery declarations from Tashkent, Simla, Lahore and other summits have proven sound and fury signifying nothing.  To persist in the same course after 65 years of dismal failure conjures up many adjectives, but none are flattering to the cerebral faculty.

Third, the US should urge the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint a special envoy on Kashmir. More importantly, the United States should insist on the inclusion of genuine representatives of the Kashmiri people at the negotiating table.  It is their political destiny and human rights which are at stake, and no solution that fails to command their consent will endure.  That same reasoning explains the United States support for Sinn Fein representatives in the Northern Ireland talks, PLO representatives in talks with Israel, East Timor voices in negotiations with Indonesia, KLA leaders in negotiations with Yugoslavia, and Muslim, Croat, and Serb politicians in discussions over Bosnia.

Fourth, the US should mount a campaign of moral suasion against India’s illegal occupation of Kashmir.  At present, its moral voice has been as silent as the Sphinx. Moral suasion generally works slowly, but is not Pollyannaish.  It accelerated South Africa’s dismantling of apartheid and the end of the international slave trade.  It promises no miracle in South Asia, but is nevertheless superior to all other peace and non-proliferation alternatives.

Finally, all tactics aiming at progress over Kashmir must be exercised with supreme prudence, without which, as the inimitable Sam Johnson sermonized, knowledge is useless, wit ridiculous, and genius contemptible.

How many more soldiers need to die before India and Pakistan create a Siachen Glaciar demilitarised zone?

Some of the harshest weather conditions in the world may be experienced on the Siachen Glaciers and it is this very location that two of the bitterest enemies of the region maintain bases.

The Siachen Glaciers are the highest glaciers on earth and some of the bases are situated at over 6,000 metres. A result of a conflict that started in 1984, during the military government of General Zia, with India’s successful Operation Meghdoot, Pakistan lost control of the glacier and was forced to retreat west of the Saltoro Ridge.

India established control over the 70 kilometre-long Siachen Glacier and all of its tributary glaciers, as well as the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier. Pakistan was able to maintain control of the glacial valleys immediately west of the Saltoro Ridge but it lost more than 1,000 square miles (3,000 km2) of territory because of its military operations in Siachen.

In recent years both sides of lost hundreds of men to the vanity of maintaining control over a system of glaciers where nothing grows, no minerals are to be found and where even the grass is afraid to grow. There is no sane reason to sacrifice even one more human life. The recent tragedy is a result of the warmongering attitude of both governments that are willing to spend billions of dollars a year to maintain control over what is nothing more than an icy hell.

It is a conservative estimation that each year 100 Pakistani soldiers and 200 India soldiers are killed by avalanches or inclement weather. On April 7, 124 military personnel and 11 civilians were engulfed in an avalanche that buried them under an estimated 80 feet of snow and ice. Rescue attempts were foiled from the very start by the weather and conditions which prevented rescuers from reaching the site. Bulldozers and excavators are being used to shift the ice but due to the conditions, progress is slow. Three days after the incident not one victim had been located, dead or alive and their chances of survival decrease with each passing hour. According to one official, “If the avalanche broke into the military barracks, then the survival chances are very low; if not, then we can hope they may be safe”.

In addition to American and British relief teams around 200 military personnel and 100 civilians are taking part in the rescue operation. The Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is also reported to be present at the site which is a unique situation as the vast majority of the army hierarchy is content to sit in the comfort and safety of their offices in Islamabad. Recently there have been reports that the two governments are beginning to realise the futility of maintaining these bases at the cost of millions of rupees a day. Reportedly they are hoping to reach an understanding to demilitarise the glaciers. According to another report civil society organizations in both countries are calling upon their respective governments to set an example by converting the Siachen Glaciers into the first ever ‘peace park’ at a height of 22,000 feet.

One can only wish that sanity will prevail and both the countries will withdraw their forces and use the money they will save to bolster their education and health sectors.

Mansoor Ijaz Had Advised Benazir Bhutto to Divorce Zardari

Efforts at resolving Kashmir have often involved people who never exist in public imagination, and they are used to achieve informally what is impossible or difficult to defend publically for the governments. Iftikhar Gilani profiles the role Mansoor Ijaz, who is at the center of a controversy in Pakistan, may have played during the NDA regime inNew Delhi.

The Lobby of Bristal Hotel in Gurgaon, in the outskirts of New Delhi was bristling with activity in November 2000. Many non-resident Kashmiris, who for years had claimed representing Kashmiri sentiments in the world capitals — be that Dr Shabir Chaudhry of JKLF or Dr Nazir Gilani, a familiar face at the annual UN conferences and others had perhaps for the first time landed in Delhi on a peace mission. But the cynosure of both the media and the politicians was aspecious looking person Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani American businessman, now  at the center of ‘Memogate’ controversy that is taking a toll of the government of Pakistan President  Zardari in Islamabad.

Ijaz had appeared from nowhere since the summer of 2000, claiming to have an American mandate to mediate and settle the issue of Kashmir for India and Pakistan.

Soon after US President Bill Clinton left South Asia, after aweek long tour in March 2000, wheels of peace had appeared turning, like the short-lived ceasefire by Kashmir’s only formidable militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and later cessation of hostilities and a Ramadan ceasefire, by the Indian Army. Fresh from Kargil hostilities, the west was keen to find ways to stabilise relations between the nuclear neighbours.

Nobody till then had heard the name of Ijaz, who many believed was working for the CIA.  He had successfully led Indian intelligence agencies particularly the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) sleuths andKashmir’s separatist politicians to a garden path. He claims having made first known contact between the JKLF chief  Mohamamd Yasin Malik and then RAW commissioner (who later became its chief) C D Sahay, in his hotel room.

But, how did he penetrate in the Clinton Administration? He is believed to have volunteered and cajoled R James Woolsey, the director of the CIA under President Bill Clinton to get him the Kashmir assignment.

Woolsey has been an influential and unrepentant voice in championing hawkishUS foreign policies. He was an outspoken proponent of invading Iraq even before 9/11. Like other neoconservatives, Woolseyis a staunch backer of Middle East policies similar to those of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party, including the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territory.

Ijaz had reportedly helped the RAW to undertake its scoop of decades,to successfully airlift the then HM operational commander Abdul Majeed Dar toSrinagarvia,Karachi,DubaiandDelhiin May 2000, to enable him to announce a unilateral ceasefire. The operation was so secret that other intelligence agencies be that IB or MI had no wind of the plans. The Army and the para-military forces had even, begun arelentless campaign of search operations and siege of north-Kashmir’s Kupwara district in the spring of 2000, after their own contacts across the Lo Chad reported that Dar was missing from HM headquarters.

Later, Ijaz was also involved in attempting to broker a Kashmir solution betweenIndiaandPakistanin 2000 and 2001, as an unofficial interlocutor, as claimed by then US President Bill Clinton.

Though India opposes any third party mediation on Kashmir, the then NDA government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee accorded Ijaz a status befitting high-profile emissaries and at least on two occasions he visited New Delhi on special “out-of passport” visa, with full secrecy on his identity and itinerary.

He made half a dozen trips to India and Pakistan at that time to arbitrate the Kashmir dispute and in an interaction with the media ata hotel in the outskirts of Delhi claimed he was not acting on behalf of the US government but was drawn to the Kashmir problem because”oppressed people have no capacity to speak for themselves and stop violations that occur against them in the name of religion or politics or money.”

Ijaz himself describes the Hizb ceasefire as “a momentous event in the tumultuous history of the Kashmir valley,” which opened a door tosearch for an earnest resolution of the conflict.

Recalling his visit to Delhi, he heaps praise on C D Sahay, a top RAW officer who he believes was the key man to make India’s hawks understand that peace in Kashmir meant giving the Kashmiris a stake – economic, moral,emotional – in the success of their choice to remain with India or become a semi-autonomous region.

“In my hotel suite in New Delhi in November 2000, I brought Sahay and a prominent Kashmiri activist, Yasin Malik, together after nearly a year of painstaking negotiations following the military coup in Pakistan,” he claims.  Maintaining, that Yasin Malik had taken an unprecedented risk in dealing with Sahay, secretly, Ijaz claims having persuaded even the toughest Kashmiri loyalist, Syed Geelani, to at least not oppose progress toward a permanent peace.

JKLF leader Mohammad Yasin Malik while clarifying the details of his meeting with Mansoor Ijaz stated that in the last week of November 2000, he was invited for a Kashmir Conference organized by a Bombay-based think-tank Strategic Foresight at the Bristol Hotel, in the outskirts ofDelhi. Some 70-80 people from Kashmir had descended to attend the meeting, which included representatives of Jammate Islami Firdous Asmi, Mohammad Muzaffar Jan and others including some professors from KashmirUniversity. Abdul Majeed Matoo, also an activist of then united Hurriyat Conference was also present along with the CPI (M) leader Mohammad Yusuf Tarigmi.

Yasin made his presentation on the first day of the conference. In the evening, he saw media persons swarming the venue. He was told that  some person claiming himself envoy of then US President Clinton was also attending the meeting. It was for the first time then he saw Mansoor Ijaz. He spoke at the meeting and virtually attacked and criticized Muslims and Kashmiris in particular. His utterances made Yasin’s blood to boil. He even went to the extent callingKashmirmovement an outcome of radicalism and being financed by the Arab Sheikhs.

The Kashmiris got incensed at his speech, and Yasin alongwith Abdul Majeed Matoo and other Kashmiris present there, stood up and protested against his speech, which was totally uncalled for. It almost led to a scuffle. The Kashmiris shouted him down.  Yasin grabbed the mike and spoke again that day, refuting allegations and impressions Ijaz had created about Kashmir movement.

Next day, Yasin Malik got a message from Ijaz, saying he regretted his speech and wanted to apologize personally. He invited him to his hotel room, which he accepted out of courtesy. He was staying at Taj Palace Hotel. When he received him in his room, he saw another person (who by appearance looked a native Indian) in the room. He didn’t introduce him to the man. (Ijaz claims having arranged a meeting between C D Sahay and Yasin Malik).

Ijaz regretted the incident and his speech. He told Yasin he was mentally disturbed. He also apologized for his utterances against Muslims and Kashmir movement. Yasin got pity on him and accepted his apology. Yasin Malik had been released quite recently in June 2000 from Jodhpur prison; and Ijaz sympathized with him.

Unidentified person in the room was quite during the whole discourse. He intervened once, and without introducing himself, attempted to persuade Yasin to meet then RAW chief A S Dulat.  Earlier also some persons had through some friends had been persuading Yasin to meet Dulat. Even during Yasin’s incarceration inJodhpur, he was persuaded to interact with the RAW chief. But, he had repudiated such attempts.

Yasin didn’t pay much attention to what this unidentified person was trying to say. It was also a shock for him, a person trying to persuade him to meet RAW chief. Before, R K Mishra, had even tried to persuade him to meet Dulat. Seven month after this conference, Yasin was in London and met Benazir Bhutto at her residence. Ahead of the meeting, Benazir had an appointment with Mansoor Ijaz.

She also enquired from Yasin what kind of person is this Ijaz?. She confided to Yasin, that this man (Ijaz) was offering to negotiate, Benazir’s return toPakistan, provided she seeks separation from her husband Asif Zardari. She had also rebuked this specious person.

Therefore, Yasin challenged, if anybody proves, that he ever met any RAW chief; he said he would retire from public life. Yasin said that he has met intelligence sleuths. They do come to see the Kashmiri leaders, when they are in jails. You cannot stop them, when you are yourself helpless and caged. But they had been all sleuths from Intelligence Bureau, and never from RAW.

Ijaz also reveals that Khalid Khawaja, a former ISI official who had piloted Osama bin Laden’s aircraft in  Afghanistan during the Afghan resistance, had also taken unprecedented risks in bringing him incontact with the Syed Salahuddin, the chief of HM and also allowed him to hand carry his written messages back to President Clinton at the time. Khawaja was assassinated by Taliban militantsin April 2010.

He talks of a mid-January 2001 meeting of political and militant leaders in Islamabad to set a common agenda for talks with New Delhi and take Gen Musharraf into confidence about the merits and rationale for the talks. “There will also be a clear effort made to deal with the so-called mercenary problem whether or not to allow non-indigenous Pakistani-backed insurgents a seat at the peace table. Once the internal agenda is agreed upon and the various Kashmiri parties are united on a message and a delegation, Indo-Kashmiri dialogue canbegin.”

Ijaz also referred to ground ceasefire modalities and a possible Musharraf-Vajpayee summit and said in that interview that “the Kashmiris will be free to suggestPakistan’s inclusion either partially or wholly in political dialogue aimed at a permanent solution. Delhi understands this as a condition for beginning talks with the Kashmiris.”

Stressing that “Pakistan is a party to the (Kashmir) dispute, he had gone on to affirm: “But Gen Musharraf is rapidly, flexibly and correctly adapting the Pakistani position to the reality that Islamabad’s pursuit of Jihad-based resistance in Kashmir has not worked.

As head of state rather than just head of the army, his responsibility to the larger interests of the Pakistani people go far beyond the narrow pursuit of an ideological war that is decimating an innocent population while deeply scarring the image and vitality of Pakistan as a nation.

“That is why Gen Musharraf is wisely preparing the people ofPakistanfor a policy of maximum flexibility in its negotiating stance. By doing so, he accommodates growing Kashmiri will power to test India’s sincerity for peace and resolution while maintaining a firm bottom line that protectsPakistan’s security interests.”

Ijaz’s ‘Mission Kashmir’ did not take a toll of the Vajpayee government for allowing a mediator against India’s declared policy since he always maintained a low profile. This was unlike his views in an article written by him in a British paper and aimed at strengthening President Zardari, which rather boomeranged while narrating how he felt threatened from encroachments by Pakistani Army chief General Kayani.

If he is to be believed, Zardari had sought him out, after the US Navy Seal raid to extract Obama bin Laden from Abbottabad on May 2, to convey its insecurity to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff and avowed “friend” of General Kayani, to fend off a possible coup. Ijaz reportedly drafted and dispatched a secret “memo” portraying the Pakistani military as being part of thep roblem rather than the solution to America’s dilemma in Afghanistan.

Once the “Memogate” became public, Ijaz tried to prove his credibility by revealing all, though he may no longer be sought by anyone any longer as a credible and confidential interlocutor. It is because of his reveal-all mess that the Pakistan military has turn edits guns onHussain Haqqani,Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, it has been gunning for over a decade.

Running afoul of Musharraf in 2002 for his critical newspaper columns in Urdu and English, Haqqani had fled to the US where he wrote his seminal book on the ‘unholy’ historical nexus between the Mosque and Military inPakistan. Since he was appointed Ambassador toWashingtonin 2008, thePakistanmilitary is embarked upon a campaign to defame him.

 

India’s Violations of the Indus Water Treaty Analyzed

The article III of the Indus Water Treaty, binds the Government of India not to hinder the flow of the western rivers, i.e. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, to Pakistan, and India cannot store any water or construct any storage works, on the above cited rivers, having been given total rights since March 1973,of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, we get flood surplus of these rivers which is released in case of excessive rains, which helps in recharging our ground waters levels, but that too will cease after the second Ravi-Beas Link is made.

Today while we slumber,Indiahas started works on, the following projects:

• Pakal Dul 1000MW,
• Kiru 600MW,
• Karwar 520 MW,
• Baglihar (eventual 900MW),
• Sawalkot 1200MW (two 600mw units),
• Salal 390 MW,
• Sewa-ll 120 MW,
• the Bursur project on the Marusudar river, which, is a major tributary of Chenabriver. Indiaintends to build a massive water storage dam, which will control and regulate the flow to maintain levels of Pakal dul, Dul Hasti, Rattle, Baglihar, Sawalkot and Salal Hydro-projects, on the Chenab.

Jhelum will be connected with Kishanganga 330MW and Uri-ll 240MW.

After the failure of the foreign secretary level talks on the Baglihar dam, on the Chenab, between 4-6 January 2005, the GOP contacted the World Bank, to resolve the issue with India. However the feed back of World Bank through its letter dated 19 January 2005 was that World Bank was a signatory to the Treaty is not its ”guarantor”!

We lost the case against the Baglihar dam due to gross professional incompetence of our team.  The GOP had hired the services of a lawyer, by the name of Mr. James Crawford, who forgot to bring the memorials of the case during the final hearing of the case!

Now Nehru had, in the past, hired the services of an outstanding German international lawyer and an expert on river waters, a Professor F.J. Berber, and for years till the signing of the Indus Water Treaty, he remained an employee of India, though he did join the Munich University later, but remained a consultant to the GOI.

The works, of P.J. Berber translated in English i.e, Rivers in international Law’ to date remains an authority. The London Institute of World Affairs, had the book published.

The other reason why Nehru had the date of ratification of Industreaty, back dated from September 1960 to 1st April, was because on 1st April 1948, they had shut down our waters, from the UBDC!

Two sets of laws govern the water disputes, first is the Harmon Doctrine, named after, a ”Judson Harmon”, who was the Attorney General of USA in 1895, when a dispute arose between Mexico and USA over the usage of Rio Grande waters. Mexico was lower riparian; the above cited doctrine gives ”Absolute Territorial Sovereignty” to the upper riparian, as goes the usage of water resources passing through its lands, though the matter was resolved, by a convention held between USA and Mexico, on May 21 1906 by which Mexico got its share of waters.

Indus valley river system is an ‘International Drainage Basin’, as the geographical area extends and covers the administrative boundaries of more then two states, from Afghanistan to Chinese administered Tibet, in the north east’ and to Indian occupied Kashmir. Technically Indiacannot claim sovereignty over Kashmiras it remains a disputed state, and matter in reference before the world courts, having over a million troops holding it.

In 1966, the ILA (International Law Association) drafted a set of rules called as ”the Helsinki Rules”. These rules define the perimeters in case of water related disputes, and in cases where the drainage of a basin is International, as stated above, eleven main points/clauses govern the rights of a lower riparian. These points relate to the geography of the basin; extent of drainage, and area in the territory of each basin state; the hydrology of the basin; past history of water flow; population dependent on the waters; economic and social needs of each basin state; and the degree to which the needs of a basin state may be satisfied without causing injury to a co-basin state!

Indiaas is seen follows the Harmon Doctrine, while we twiddle our thumbs!

Naveed Tajammal is a renowned historian with many research papers on historical investigative research to his credit. He has over 28 years of research in the field to his credit. He is a regular contributor to Pakpotpourri Group of Blogs. 

Fishermen on Both Sides of the Pak-India Maritime Borders are treated as prisoners of war — A Story of Tears…

By Qurat Mirza
“We are the prisoners of war… Our dreams have been doctored. We belong nowhere. We sail unanchored on trouble seas. We may never be allowed ashore. Our sorrows will never be sad enough. Our joys never be happy enough. Our dreams are never big enough. Our lives are never important enough, to matter.” (God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy)

Fishermen are treated and exchanged like prisoner of the war as many countries are facing the trans-boundary cases all around the world like Indonesian Fishermen in Australia, Papuans in Australia, Eritrean and Yemen fishermen, Senegal and Mauritania, Kenyan in Somalia, Thai fishermen in Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia, Pakistan and Iran, Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen, Indian and Bangladeshi fishermen and Indian and Pakistani fishermen.

The Issue in the Pak-Indo context: The practice of apprehending each other’s fishermen, along with their boats, has been followed by Pakistani and Indian forces since the time of the patrician and for the last more than half century poor fishermen on both sides have suffered immensely due to this cruel practice. The Maritime Security Agency (MSA) of Pakistan is responsible for the arrest of Indian fishermen when they reportedly enter Pakistani waters while for India, the Coast Guard, Border Security Force (BSF), Customs or the Indian navy does the same to Pakistani fishermen. Pakistani and Indian civil societies have been continuously raising the issue with their respective authorities and due to these efforts many fishermen have been released from time to time. However, the problem has not yet been solved for good. What is seemingly a simple issue has been made complicated because the two states have been maintaining a policy of enmity and rivalry all along after their independence and thus arresting each other’s fishermen. This is a tit for tat game between the militaries of the two countries. Similarly, the punishment for crossing into the other country’s water by fishing boats may be imprisonment for a few months but due to the hostility between the establishments/ruling classes of these countries, the fishermen languish for years in detention centres even after completing their imprisonment.

Laws and the dispute: The fundamental freedom of the indigenous fishermen is not only protected by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), But the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) also allows the coastal states to protect their territorial waters and economic zones and hence Pakistan and India have framed their corresponding laws. The Sir Creek dispute between the two countries received more importance after the UNCLOS because the claims of the two countries may have implications for the main maritime boundary between them in the Arabian Sea.

Traditionally, Indian fishermen might have been fishing in the creek in the past; so now Indian boats may deliberately enter the creek to stake a claim for sharing the creek. The Indians have all the sophisticated equipment to monitor their positions and therefore they cannot make a human error. In a nutshell, we can conclude that both the states are arresting each other’s fishing boats to maintain and compound the Sir Creek dispute.

The role of civil society: Though the families and relatives of the detained fishermen have been raising the issue with the authorities of both the countries and the media had been highlighting the travails of these prisoners there has been no real breakthrough. In the mid nineties, alarmed by the serious human rights violation against the detained fishermen CSOs/NGOs of Pakistan and India went into action. The notable organizations in Pakistan had been the HRCP, the PILER and the Anjuman Samaji Behbood of Ibrahim Hydri in Karachi which later grew into the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF). Their continuous struggles bore fruit when in the Malè SAARC Summit in July, 1997 the prime ministers of Pakistan and India announced the release of 195 such prisoners from both countries. Though apprehending the fishermen’s boats did not stop, human rights activists and fisherfolk communities themselves became more vocal about their conditions including this problem of arrests at sea. As the South Asia Labour Forum (SALF) also brought this issue into the limelight, various international organizations started paying attention to this human rights issue and it became an international level concern. At present, the fisherfolk’s movement has become strong enough to give a vociferous knock at the doors of the authorities. So much so that the issue of detained fishermen has become a permanent mention in India-Pakistan foreign relations and dialogues.

Miseries the detained fishermen’ families face: When the boats do not return in accordance with their expected time the grief and gloom of a death scene is cast over the whole village to which the apprehended fishermen belong. Families and close relatives rush for more information and through various means it is confirmed that their loved ones actually were arrested, these days it is possible to confirm quickly because of the communication links between the fishermen organizations on both the sides of the border; previously it used to take months just to do that. In some cases, when other boats have seen the capture while escaping in time, the families are at least saved from the anxiety and fear of the unknown.

Fishermen who are captured at sea are generally poor people; they work for the boat owners on a catch-sharing basis. Once these bread earners are arrested, most of their families face serious economic crises. In worst scenarios fishermen belonging to the same family fall in the hands of the enemy’s security forces. In any case women, old and children of the affected household quickly run out of food and savings if any. For a few days some neighbour or the boat-owner or a well-off relative may take care of them but after a month or two they are on their own.

Can we imagine what happens to the family when the only bread-earner of a family is arrested by the coast guard or border force? Their laughter and happy moments turn to grief and sobs; children are forced to leave their schools and start begging; their health deteriorates; everybody in the community looks downs upon them; veil-observing women are compelled to come out and resort to domestic labour. All they earn is one time food in 24 hours; their dignity is gone and they have to face an insensitive world all around.

Legal aspects and obstacles: Once the arrested fishermen are sent to jails they are at the mercy of the legal systems and practices in the respective countries. Legal institutions in both the countries are not much different when it comes to the prisoners. The situation is worse in case of foreigners, in particular Pakistanis detained in India or Indians in Pakistan. The procedures are so cumbersome and slow that the fishermen languish in jails for two to three years irrespective of their due punishment based on the charges framed against them.

Whatever the charges, poor fishermen are not told anything about these charges and their implications. They do not have their counsels and cannot prepare any legal defence against these cases. So the judges of these courts take full liberty in dealing with such cases. Once they have served their sentences they are out of jail but cannot go to their homes and hence are detained in different places and sometimes these are worse than a jail.

Performance of government institutions and lack of information: Logically speaking, ministries of the interior (provincial and federal) or home ministry must have all the records and pursue the cases as they are supposed to protect their citizens. The officials of these ministries do not proactively work on the issue but rather wait for the information from the FCS or an NGO or fishermen’s families. For confirmation they just refer the case to police stations so as to confirm the identity of the detained fishermen, which takes months. They seldom approach the apprehending party across the border directly and quickly; in fact they do not have any direct contact, nor would they like to pursue the cases, as it is not included in their duty. In the meantime there comes a meeting of the secretaries or the ministers of internal/external affairs of the two countries and these official scramble for information so as to use it as a bargaining chip on the negotiating table. That is how the need of consular access to their citizens is felt and the move to issue a notification from the foreign offices is made.

One must keep in mind that the number of staff in the Pakistani and Indian High Commissions are determined by mutual agreements and they usually are not enough. Telephone communication across the border is either tapped by the intelligence agencies or there is simply fear that it is not safe to call somebody across the border. In any case it is culturally and socially prohibited to make a phone call across the border.

There is no consolidated information about detained fishermen because it is not updated regularly. As regards Indian fishermen MSA keeps the record, which seems authentic and updated, because of the simple reason that it is the only force, which apprehends the Indian fishing boats. FCS maintains the file of Pakistani fishermen arrested or released but its source is nothing but fisherfolk families. Government departments and ministries depend on the communications from MSA or FCS or CSOs. In any case there should be a record somewhere, which consists of all the names of all the detained fishermen with their particulars including date of arrest & release and the address of the jail.

Reasons behind the arrests: There are various reasons behind this whole phenomenon. Some of the incidents are just circumstantial or accidental or due to ignorance; sometimes these may be interest-driven or due to desperation while there are also deep-rooted systemic problems behind these arrests. There is no physical boundary in the sea. In most cases fishing boats can unwillingly and unintentionally cross in the other’s territories because of tidal currents, engine failure, wind force and cyclones.

Fishing is like hunting; once the fishermen have spotted the fish, they are engrossed in the pursuit of their expected catch and in managing their nets. Meanwhile they might have crossed the so-called border and are not even aware that the apprehending force is keenly watching and following them. The fish resources have also been depleted significantly, boat owners now are mostly investors and have a pressure on the captain and the crew not to return empty handed. In any case fishing boats may take a little risk in getting close to the boundary. And if by bad luck the armed contingent of the other country is hell-bent on performing a patriotic duty to catch the ‘enemy’, they are readily arrested. But these are not the only causes; in fact there are deep-rooted systemic defects, which are reflected in the states’ policies and practices in relation to the whole fishing sector and the fisherfolks. Moreover, the rivalry between the two states is the main cause for the travails of fishermen.

Fishermen: Pawns in the states’ game of rivalry: Prisoners in general and jailed fishermen in particular have become a permanent agenda item in Pakistan-India negotiations, relations or dialogues. The two states have not come out of the inherent rivalry/animosity since their inceptions. The political leaders and governments have tried to normalise their relations but other powerful state institutions like the defence establishments or civilian bureaucracies have a way of foiling such initiatives.

Indo-Pakistani relations are marked by a primitive kind of exchange that defines the relationship between individuals and communities in many societies: handshakes are exchanged for handshakes, stranded fishermen are exchanged for stranded fishermen, prisoners are swapped for prisoners, visa restrictions are slapped to avenge visa restrictions and diplomats are insulted and retaliate. Such a mindset of the two establishments can complicate the fishermen

Recommendations: The India-Pakistan Judicial Committee on Prisoners has come up with a set of recommendations, but these are conceived by assuming that Pakistan and India maintain a status quo in their existing relations which is not enough as regards the fishermen’s rights and livelihood is concerned.

Nevertheless one of such suggestions is that the camps, parking for the apprehended boats and jails for fishermen should be close to the maritime border, somewhere near the mouth of Sir Creek. This whole area may be declared as no man’s land so that Pakistanis and Indians could visit it without passports and visas. In addition, it is recommended that fishermen should be trained by the agencies on both sides so that they can protect themselves and don’t get arrested.

Fisherfolk communities, families of the detained fishermen and the civil society of South Asia would demand that arresting the fishermen in mid sea should be stopped and those already imprisoned or detained should be released immediately and unconditionally. Maritime boundaries between India and Pakistan should be quickly defined and agreed. These boundaries should be visible and identifiable to the fishing boats. The Maritime Zones Acts of both the countries should be amended so that entering of foreign fishing boats into these zones is just a misdemeanour and after warning these boats and their crews should be released.

This includes long-term developmental strategies for the fishing communities, Marine resources of South Asia should be protected from industrial trawlers and marine pollution, the marine resources should be declared as the ownership of traditional fisherfolk and they should have exclusive rights to carry out their centuries old profession. Government should develop the fisheries sector and other development programs should be carried out in the areas of the fisherfolk communities and fishermen of all coastal countries in South Asia should have rights to fish anywhere in the Economic zones of South Asian Countries.

The author may be contacted at: qurat.mirza@ahrc.asia