Not without unleashing our own dynamic
Nasim Zehra

THIS email arrived in my mail box on October 21st, underscoring the human tragedy and the security threat we confront in the tribal areas and also beyond.
“Dear sister because of a ramshackle power supply regime in Waziristan I could not write you early. Anyhow, as I came back the sensitive South and North Waziristan agencies were tense and mournful on the eve of Eid as hundred of people in latest military offensive in North Waziristan were either killed or migrated to down towns. There prevail throughout a tension in our Shakai valley as no person except children were seen wearing new clothes or celebrating Eid... Hailing from the militancy-haunted South Waziristan agency, sister, I will be here for you for any information regarding mayhem in the tribal belt. It is for your information that the so-called war on terrorism in Waziristan and other areas in the tribal belt is changing into some sort of war of liberation as more and more people are joining the resistance force, people who lost their near and dear ones in the military operations. Your pen is likely to force the authorities to halt the operation.”
Obviously pens don’t alter policy but they must document the anguish of our times. Lingering close to the bloody threat of terrorism, which robs us of our precious Pakistanis of all ages lives, is the anguish of the many. The debate and accusations are unending. There is much sound and fury about how Pakistan is fighting Washington’s war on terror, on how Pakistani soldiers are being killed, on how Pakistani soldiers kill their own brothers and sisters in the tribal areas, on how Quaid-e-Azam promised Pakistani troops will never enter the tribal areas and so on. Conversely, there are those who insist on how the government is not sincere about confronting terrorism and how enough force is not being used to fight extremists or the Taleban. There are those who argue that the mishandling of the Lal Masjid has prompted increase in suicide bombings. Shouting as if from roof-tops their contesting positions, policy makers, politicians, policy analysts and concerned people fill newspapers, airtime and cyber space. Political proponents of violence can be multiple, ranging from Baluchistan to Waziristan and even from individuals in politics to those in power.
Lost in this passion and fury, is the complexity of the problem. We are not facing a straight forward problem of ‘bad’ guys versus ‘good’ guys. Taking in troops to kill and planes to bomb is no solution. It’s a complicated challenge with at least three different dimensions. One is of tackling the armed militias gunning internal and external targets. Armed militias battle with State forces killing more than a 1,000 troops. The numerical strength and the ability of the militias to inflict damage remains intact, if not enhanced. Two, the missionary men dictate social morality by using force in public spaces. This includes the closing of music and barbers shops, women’s hospitals, etc. They define the collective way of being by taking law in their own hands. State institutions are unable to serve as a deterrent to actions violating law.
Three, there also is the broader contextual dimension that flows from the strategic situation. Blundering US policies in Pakistan’s neighbourhood, coupled with continuing proliferation of weapons and intolerance, has made it easy for armed militias to attract individuals. Angered by what many believe are Washington’s ‘immoral, anti-Muslim and unjust’ policies, young men seek revenge from the ‘evil’ enemy. Superimposed on all of these causes are of course issues that flow from bad politics and inefficient government which provide little hope to the society’s economically disadvantaged and which perpetuate apartheid between the have and the have-nots.
All this no doubt generates a growing chaos within and fear outside. Perhaps the most disturbing political picture of current Pakistan has been sketched in the recent issue of Newsweek by Ron Moreau. In his story ‘The Most Dangerous Place?’ Moreau argues that Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don’t always do what they’re supposed to do. (Unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, there also aren’t thousands of American troops hunting down would-be terrorists.) Then there’s the country’s large and growing nuclear programme. Quoting a former NSC official Bruce Riedel he writes, “If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it’s right in their backyard.” Hence the reality of our own multi-dimensioned causes of internal security dovetails into both genuine fears and strong prejudices of the Americans. Aided by the mainstream media the dominant Western wisdom identifies Muslim behavioural patterns and religiosity largely as root causes of terrorism. The resultant policy has been flawed for its primary focus on use of force and its inability to reorient current US policy in the region beginning with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.
Pakistan’s response to growing violence and terrorism has been flawed and inadequate. The government has failed to consistently engage the local jirgas, Taleban and parliamentary members. Often Washington’s pressure has prompted Islamabad’s knee-jerk reactions of abruptly ending local accords, handing over militants to the US and Afghan governments or suddenly launching major military operations. Information dissemination by the government on the state of the battling zones too has been selective and sporadic. Committed media men covering the story have also lost their lives. Meanwhile, opposition political parties use the growing problem of internal violence and terrorism as a point scorer against the government. The government believes it can secure the opposition’s cooperation on its own terms. All this makes for a fragmented and conflicting response by Pakistan’s state and politicians. This dynamic of response further divides and confuses society. It also strengthens those who lead violence and promote terrorism.
For Pakistan the problem of internal violence predates 9/11 as does the US influence on how we tackle it. If Nawaz Sharif, under US pressure agreed to clear a ‘kidnap OBL’ plan in July 1999 which was being implemented by the ISI using ex-Pak army commandoes and Musharraf opted for complete and overt support post 9/11. Nawaz Sharif opted for force to counter growing sectarianism. Sharif the politician’s policy was subtle, locally collaborative and home-grown. Musharraf the military man adopted the aggressive and hence alienating tone. Both clearly knew the dangers of growing internal violence in the name of religion.
Pakistan needs to get the locals involved in a dialogue process at the community level. Without local support no peace will return to the tribal areas. Only a measured use of force as a last resort will work. Caving in to terrorists cannot be an option but dialogue with those who enjoy peoples’ support cannot be avoided. Yet both ideas and guns need to be carried. The government’s renewed effort to engage the local jirgas is a positive step. But it needs to be sustained and sincere. Keeping the local political forces including the politicians on the margins will not make return peace possible. Neither will any clever-by-half policy of trying to use the ‘terrorism’ card to keep genuine democracy at bay. Unless there is a complete consensus within Pakistan’s ruling establishment that the conflict in the tribal areas must not be prolonged, no half-hearted attempt will succeed. Today Pakistan is no closer to resolving the growing threat of internal violence. Pakistan needs to go for a grand reconciliation involving the PML factions, the PPP, smaller parties and high profile men like Imran Khan. But someone needs to take the lead.
Only a serious grand national reconciliation move will tell the world that in Pakistan only Pakistan’s home-grown policies, indeed factoring in genuine concerns of other countries, will be pursued. Ultimately, such an approach alone can put the US pressures on hold. We can roll back US pressures by unleashing our own dynamic of genuine reconciliation and resolution.

 —Khaleej Times

On the right track
Jing Xiaoeli

TRAVELING to Tibet by train is a cosmopolitan experience. The train carries people from all corners of the world — from China, Europe, the Americas and elsewhere — drawn by Tibet’s culture. On this particular journey among the passengers sat the peaceful 33-year-old Monlam Darjii, a master of Tibetan Buddhism, who left Tibet three years ago to preach his religion in Yunnan and Qinghai.
“It’s much more convenient for us constantly traveling monks to get to exchange programs with other temples around the country,” said the master, who has been on the Qinghai-Tibet Railway line twice. This time he was leading some 15 Buddhist monks and nuns, dressed in crimson robes, to pay a visit to a temple in Naqu, a town in north Tibet. In the same compartment sat Karen Parshall, a professor from the University of Virginia, who was on her way to a conference on the history of science in Tibet. “The crew of the train are very friendly,” she said, adding that the service and facilities were pretty good too, except for the toilet. Tourism boost
Parshall boarded the train a few days after the one-year anniversary of the line’s opening on July 1, 2007. One year ago the Qinghai-Tibet Railway was officially launched and since then it has carried 2.6 million passengers and 13 million tons of cargo, without serious accidents, according to Qiangba Puncog, Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region Government. “When the rails rattle, the money comes in” said Losang Cering, 40, of Liuwu Village, near the Lhasa railway terminal, describing the benefits the rail line has brought. “Before, we depended on the land for a living, but now my people are working in construction, running home-style hotels, and some are driving cabs. They can earn about 2,000 yuan ($265) a month now, an unimaginable sum before,” he said.
Zha’nor, Deputy Director of Tibet Tourism Bureau, said the Qinghai-Tibet Railway solved transportation difficulties that had hindered tourism development in the region. Prior to its launch on July 1, 2006, tourists could only reach Tibet by air or road. The region hosted more than 2.5 million tourists last year, including 154,800 from overseas. This year, it expects to host three million tourists and bring in 3.4 billion yuan in tourism revenue. Tibet aims to receive six million tourists from across the globe in 2010 with at least six billion yuan in tourism income, or 12 percent of the region’s gross domestic product, the regional government said.
The income generated by the trains might be huge, but some foreign travelers are not entirely satisfied with them. “The toilet is not clean,” complained 21-year-old Claudia from Austria, who traveled from Beijing to Lhasa by the train, which is installed with an advanced vacuum-toilet-cleaning system. “The toilets should be clean. But many of the passengers from the rural areas are not used to them and don’t know how to operate the flush button,” said Chief Conductor Liu Aihong.
“If people travel more often on the train they will become accustomed to using the toilets, so the situation is sure to get better in the future,” he added. While the train has brought with it great potential for tourism in Tibet, it is limited to some extent by the fact only five trains run daily bringing with them 3,000 passengers. As a result, there is a scarcity of train tickets that has led to some travel agencies having to cancel trips. According to Qinghai Vice Governor Jidi Majia, travel agencies in the province in 2006 canceled more than one thousand trips to Tibet, involving 30,000 travelers and a penalty sum of 200,000 yuan.
“We do hope the relative Central Government departments can give a thought to this and increase trains from Qinghai to Tibet,” said the vice governor, claiming that number of cancelled trips posed a threat to the good image of tourism in the province. Cultural exchange “In my opinion, the Qinghai-Tibet Railway is much more than a means of transportation. In a deeper sense the line is a culture exchange conveyer,” said Bao Luo, a researcher with the Tibet Academy of Social Sciences. Bao disagrees with critics of the line who say that it poses a threat to traditional Tibetan culture. “The railway provides an opportunity for people from the rest of the world to get a closer touch and understanding of this almost locked and mysterious land. Mutually, the local people can take advantage to develop and promote their unique culture,” he argued.
In 2006, Vice President of the Austrian State Council Anna Elisabeth Haselbach yearned for a trip to China’s Tibet. On meeting a Chinese delegation attending the China Tibet Culture Festival, Haselbach said she hoped the Qinghai-Tibet Railway built on “the roof of the world” would help bring Tibet and the rest of the world closer. According to Bao, the railway has achieved this. It has also made it easier for Tibetan scholars to reach and learn about other regions, he added. “More domestic and international conferences and festivals are being held in Tibet due to the transportation convenience brought by the railway,” Bao noted. Folk arts are also benefiting from the train. Tibetan opera, dubbed a “living fossil” of Tibetan culture, boasts a history of more than 600 years. The performing art featuring vivid masks, earthy dancing, unvarnished singing and colorful costumes faces a challenge for survival in the modern era. However, in recent years, Tibetan opera has witnessed a revival as tourism in the region has developed.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)




A certain uncertainty
M J Akbar

TWO significant news items were circulated within 24 hours of each other by the Press Trust of India, an agency that believes, correctly, that the information it distributes should be independent of its consequences. It concentrates on what, not why or wherefore. It is left to us, hence, to wonder if there are any dots that connect.
The first item reported that the next session of the All India Congress Committee would be held in Delhi on Nov. 17. An AICC plenary can be fun. It is a wonderful party mela that attracts a spectrum of shapes, shades and shrieks, a collection of the washed and unwashed, starched and silken, lords, middlemen and peasants that reflect the national character of a party which has lost a national vote but retains a national aspiration. The speeches are predictable paeans of loyalty, but that is only to be expected. Once upon a time these used to be annual affairs, with resolutions discussed in the subjects committee before being moved at the full session, and new presidents elected with their own working committees. But those days are long over. The late P.V. Narasimha Rao attempted to revive inner-party elections to the working committee (but not to his own job) at the Tirupati AICC but abandoned the exercise after checking the results. That was the end of that. Even the subjects committee is being abandoned now because very few can understand why it exists.
The last AICC plenary was in January 2006 at Hyderabad. It was a double-whammy celebration: For a well-deserved triumph in Andhra Pradesh, and a more crafted victory at the national level. Ritual homage was paid to the future in the praise for Rahul Gandhi and everyone went home to enjoy the fruits of office.
The coming AICC session in November is not a plenary, but a limited gathering of AICC members. It has been called at short notice. It has not been summoned to celebrate anything, because after three years in office no ruling party has more reason for worry than celebration. It is not being called to reassert its confidence in the leadership, because there is no question of any challenge to the president of the party, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. But it cannot be an exercise in nothing. So what is the purpose?
Is there a link to the second PTI story, which said that the American administration wants the Indo-US nuclear deal to be presented to the Congress by January next year? The specific PTI sentence is: “Harping on a yearend deadline for the nuclear deal with India, the US has said it will be good to get it voted in the Congress by the coming January.” The next meeting between the government and the left on the nuclear deal is scheduled for Nov. 14. If the January deadline is to be met, this will also be the last meeting on the subject, for the deal must then pass through the IAEA in Vienna and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The AICC session therefore is perfectly placed for three resolutions: congratulating the president of the party and the prime minister for negotiating and implementing the nuclear deal; offering it as a panacea for prosperity; and welcoming Rahul Gandhi, with his young followers, into the top echelons of the party. The Congress will fight the next elections on the twin slogans of the nuclear deal and youth. The November AICC is clearly designed to set the stage for trumpets. Generals sound the bugle only on the eve of battle. Logic suggests, therefore, that the Congress has made up its mind and will settle for a spring election, in either February or April. Expect a few “pro-poor” announcements soon.—Arab News