|
CONTENTS
|
(posted by South Asians Against Nukes) originally in 17 September Issue of Dawn
(posted by South Asians Against Nukes) originally at "http://www2.healthnet.org/MGS/V5N2Mian.html"
The conference was held on 27th and 28th February 1999. It was very soon after the Lahore declaration and much before the citizens on both sides had any inkling about what lay in store at Kargil. It was organised by the Pakistan Peace Coalition, which is a coalition of groups working for peace in different parts of Pakistan. The prominent among these are, the Action Committee Against Arms Race (ACAR) in Karachi, the Lahore based Joint Action Committee for Peoples Rights (JAC), and the Citizens Peace Committee in Islamabad-Rawalpindi. The conference was locally hosted by ACAR.
In the words of the organisers, "The guiding theme of the conference is the root causes of war and a culture of peace, as a comprehensive approach to the delegitimisation of violence in national governance and of armed conflict in international disputes. We come together to share national, regional and global perspectives; reflect upon the obligations of and opportunities for civil society; and draw upon our strengths for solidarity in social, national and international resistance and reform. Our goal is the promotion of all human rights for all, including civil, political, gender, environmental and economic rights".
The most impressive aspect of the conference was the extent of the participation. There were about 400 participants who came from all the four provinces of Pakistan, Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and the North Western Frontier Province (NWPF). All of them bore their travel expenses themselves and paid a registration fee of Rs. 200/-. They represented a wide cross section of people. There were a large number from different NGO's, journalists, trade unionists, human rights activists, womens groups, retired military officers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, artists etc.
Apart from the Pakistani participants, there were about 25 from India, one each from Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, representatives of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the Hague Appeal for Peace & Justice (HAPJ).
After some opening plenary talks, the conference broke up into working
groups
that discussed different aspects in detail. Representatives of the groups
summarised the discussions the next day and the floor was open for comments
from all the participants. The topics of the working groups were,
1. Security and disarmament.
2. Economics of war and peace.
3. Peace politics in the mass media.
4. Art, culture and peace.
5. Gender and militarisation.
6. Advocacy for peace.
7. Peace education.
8. Regional conflicts (including Kashmir).
9. Peace politics in the labour movement.
I will not dwell on the details of what was discussed but just present some
of the impressions that I came back with.
The perspective of the Pakistani participants was not restricted to the nuclearisation of South Asia and Indo-Pak relations but, as can be seen from the theme, wider and more holistic. There was a lot of concern expressed about the violence within their society, the harmful effects of Islamic militancy and extremism leading to a growing gun culture. However, several people also pointed out to me that though the communal elements in Pakistan were very vocal and visible, the Jammmat-e-Islami gets less that 5% of the votes. The distinction between the state and the people was clearly made by many of the speakers as also the fact that the policy followed by the state is not always consistent with the opinion and the interests of the people.
All the participants clearly recognized the fact that an improvement of relations with India was important for the development of both the countries. The Lahore process was universally welcomed and Prime Minister Vajpayee's gesture of visiting the Minar-e-Pakistan was widely appreciated. There is a feeling among some sections of Pakistanis, that India has still not accepted the creation of Pakistan and cherishes the idea of an Akhand Bharat that includes it. The significance of the gesture was that it was perceived as symbolising the acceptance of the existence of Pakistan. Several participants that I talked to also expressed the view that the army had a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive since then they could then use the bogey of an Indian invasion to justify a larger share of the resources. The need to increase people to people contact between the two countries was emphasised. Steps to facilitate this like the relaxation of the present system of city specific visas, opening of more rail/road travel points eg. at Khokhropar (Gujarat-Sindh border). There was strong sentiment expressed for the need of South Asian unity and cooperation and the need to strengthen the SAARC movement.
When I introduced myself to the participants as a member of a group of Indian scientists working against nuclear weapons, the general response was, "Aap bahooth achha kaam kar rahe hai} (you are doing very good work)". The disastrous social and economic costs of the nuclearisation and the consequent arms race was a very serious concern. As many pointed out, one of the first things that happened in Pakistan after Chagai was that the fundamental constitutional rights of its citizens were suspended so that dissenting voices could be suppressed. The inevitability of an escalated arms race and the consequent drain of resources was clearly recognised.
I had participated in the working group on "Security and disarmament", which discussed the issue of the nuclearisation. There was consensus that we should work towards getting rid of all nuclear weapons from South Asia. Some of the Pakistani participants wanted to work towards asking their Government to declare a no first use policy. However there were also dissenting voices who thought that making such a demand is, by implication, accepting the weaponisation.
One of the participants, Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy of Islamabad University, narrated an interesting conversation he had with some Pakistani army officers from an institute of strategic studies. He asked them under what circumstances did they visualise Pakistan using its nuclear weapons. They said that if there was a major war with India and if the Pakistani army lost ground and was on the verge of losing a major city, then it would use its weapons. He then pointed out that in such a situation, an Indian nuclear retaliation would be inevitable and would lead to very large scale death and destruction. So even under those extreme circumstances, it was not in Pakistan's interest to use its nuclear weapons. One of the officers replied "Professor Hoodbhoy, what you are saying is very rational, but, the Pakistan army cannot lose ! Herat ka sawal hai ! (it is a question of honour)".
In my opinion, there are two important lessons for us from this conversation. Firstly, unless we plan a major invasion of Pakistan, its nuclear weapons do not pose a danger to us and I cannot envisage a situation where such an invasion is necessary for our national security. Secondly, it illustrates the flaws of deterrence theory which assumes rational action all the time. Rationality is an inevitable victim of war. Even during the relatively small Kargil conflict, we saw very irrational statements emanating from the RSS about the use of nuclear weapons. Under the extreme circumstances of a major war, it is likely that considerations like Herat will be the deciding factors. When that happens, anything is possible.
Kashmir was of course perceived as the major stumbling block in Indo-Pak relations. The general wish expressed was that some suitable solution to the problem be found so that good neighbourly relations could be developed. It was also generally felt that the people of Kashmir should have a major say in what happens to them.
The relevant portion of the report of the working group on regional conflicts reads "On Kashmir, the group affirmed that Kashmir is not merely a territorial issue, that the matter involves the lives and rights of the Kashmiri people, and they - the Kashmiri people, are the principle party to the issue. No outside party has the right to impose its will on them. Peace activists in both India and Pakistan should make efforts to enable people from both sides of the divided territory to come together and decide their future. Meanwhile, the state of Jammu and Kashmir must be demilitarised, troops withdrawn, all forms of violence should end, foreign inspired militancy should stop, and peoples human rights respected. It was agreed that while meaningful talks should continue, this issue should not be allowed to hold back Indo-Pak cooperation in all possible fields, especially trade and culture....".
The few days I spent in Karachi were far from enough to get to know it. However, on both the evenings of the conference, we were taken around the city by some of the local participants and I also had a couple of days after the conference to go around a bit. I did not get any feeling of hostility in the streets, though, from the cut of my kurta-pyjama, it must have been obvious that I was Indian. On the other hand, there were a couple of heart warming incidents.
A couple of other Indian participants and I were being shown the sights of Karachi one evening by a Pakistani lady. We went to see the Mazaar of Quaid-e-Azam (M. Jinnah's tomb). We got there about an hour after the time the monument is closed to the public and so the caretaker would not let us in. Our host remonstrated with him saying that these people were from India and would be leaving the next day etc. etc. but he remained adamant. As we were turning away, I told him that we were going with no hard feelings and understood that he was only doing his duty. Immediately his sense of duty was overcome by his sense of hospitality and he said "Mehmaan log aayen (the guests please come)", requested our Pakistani host to remain outside and showed us, the Indian mehmaan, around.
Two of us were shopping in a clothes store. After all the haggling was over and the price settled, we were making small talk. My companion mentioned that we were in Karachi for a peace conference and what we wanted was that "Aman ka mahoul ho} (there be an atmosphere of peace)". There was hearty agreement all around, the shopkeeper and all his assistants saying "sahi hai ! sahi hai ! (thats right ! thats right !)".
People present:
Politics, these days appears quite divorced from ''reality". Politicians and decision makers rather prefer to perceive and project ''reality" which is suitable for political games and gains.
For instance lets look at the recently released NUCLEAR DOCTRINE. This document has been put forth for public debate by National Security Advisory Board. The timing of release of this document to the Press just before onset of elections in the country with a Care Taker Government at the Centre raises few questions regarding their intentions. After the Pokharan-II tests the country had to face a ''small" war at Kargil for which costs paid were ''huge". The Kargil, Nuclear Doctrine and current political scenario are not delinked. Lets ask few questions: Firstly, why the document(Doctrine) could not await till the new government was sworn in? Secondly, coming to contents of doctrine itself, does it carry any hope of peace in the region or sub-continent? Living with words like ''First strike", ''second strike", ''retaliation" doesn't sound very peaceful, its more like always living under threats of destruction. Experts say deterrence theory doesn't rule out ''small" wars!! Moreover the very basis on which the theory stands is of continuation of tension, existence of enmity, perceiving threats, assuming "striking" motives, ability and capability of other countries...diplomatic failures and then wars. Its an amazing logic!!! What about ''small" wars? what about existing problems regarding Kashmir? Are these politicians interested in solution at all? Also equally amazing is the willingness to indulge in huge weaponisation ventures which would just bleed the economy of small countries like Pakistan and countries with huge population pressures like India.
In reality the common man in countries like India and Pakistan can't survive on empty strength of nuclear weapons. He needs to be armed with education, he needs healthy environment to live in, he needs food, shelter, surviving ability and capability. We ask for healthy future, we talk of next millennium, we dream of simple needs...and they harp about the need to retaliate and leave the opponent in deep crises!!! Who are these opponents? who are these enemies? why so much sense of insecurity and fear? Which era are we living in? Once again we shall see economy giving priority to defense budget at the cost of other important areas. Are we still savages incapable of mutual understanding and cooperation?
Are there no other alternatives or choices? Is ''reality" really so ''grim" as it is being portrayed to the electorates? Hey! I want to get off...I fear we are being taken for a ride!!!