Zohra
Yusuf suggests how the governments of
Pakistan and India can find common ground to
ease tension and promote peace between their
two countries.
It is proposed that representatives of civil
society organizations be co-opted in any
peace talks. Regional citizens groups, such
as the Pakistan-India Peoples' Forum for
Peace and Democracy, the Kathmandu-based
South Asian Forum for Human Rights, and the
newly formed South Asians for Human Rights,
represent people who have been struggling
against odds for peace and friendship for
many years. Over time, they have succeeded
in building bridges and winning the support
of a fairly broad-based section of citizens.
They have a deep understanding of the
impediments and an insight into possible
solutions. They have, in the past, held
meetings with representative groups from all
sides of the conflict and have worked on
recommendations and strategies. In the
interest of both the current critical
situation and long-term sustainable peace,
it is important to develop and channel South
Asian expertise.
The business of achieving and ensuring peace
on the borders should not be left to the
generals and the political leadership of
India and Pakistan. The presence and
participation of civil society
representatives will bring moral pressure
and ensure wider acceptability of any peace
agreement.
* * * * *
The world community, particularly
international organizations working for
peace, should invest in the development of a
young leadership in South Asia that would be
free of the baggage of the past...
The young civil society leadership,
developed through such a programme, should
be encouraged to enter the political
mainstream to bring about meaningful change
- within each country and the bilateral
relations between them.
Settling border issues is only one aspect of
conflict resolution. Certain initiatives
need to be taken within each country of the
region for long-term peace and amity. First
of all, we need to make peace with history
in order to achieve peace on our borders.
The division of the subcontinent led to
minorities (a large percentage in the case
of India; a small one in the case of
Pakistan) suddenly becoming vulnerable to
discrimination - and even violence - by the
majority. Hindus in Pakistan came to be
identified with India and Muslims in India
with Pakistan. They also became victims of
the worst form of stereotyping.
Regrettably, successive governments in both
countries have, for political expediency,
exploited prejudices and suspicion. This
tendency is most apparent whenever elections
are held and emotions are high. Its
consequences on the most vulnerable sections
of society are overlooked for immediate
electoral or political goals.
A starting point towards the achievement of
peace between India and Pakistan is striving
for amity within communities in each
country. The status of minorities in each
country is too closely linked to the
hostility between the two to be excluded
from any analysis - or proposed solution.
Certain measures should be proposed to the
two governments:
• Ensuring security to the minorities in
their countries: Minority communities in
each country are extremely vulnerable to
reprisals as a consequence of events in the
other country. Often the perpetrators are
the police. Law enforcement officials must
be trained and sensitized to respond to
situations in a way that reassures the
minorities of equal protection and access to
justice.
• Integrating minorities fully in the
democratic process and governance: After
twenty-five years of a separate electorate
system, Pakistan has finally returned to a
joint electorate system. However, the
discrimination of a quarter of a century has
led to the marginalization of minorities
from mainstream Pakistani societies. Laws
that discriminate against them - and, in
some cases, target them - have been a
further setback to their status. Pakistan
must be persuaded - or pressurized - to
repeal all laws that have proved to be open
to exploitation and are clearly against all
norms of democratic governance and human
rights. These include the infamous
'blasphemy' laws that have resulted in the
killings and imprisonment of hundreds of
non-Muslims.
Indian leaders, on their part, have tended
to see Muslims either as valuable vote banks
to be wooed during elections - or as
scapegoats for the country's problems when
under pressure from the Hindu majority.
Indians advocating for peace and coexistence
must lobby with their leadership to follow,
in letter and spirit, the secular principles
on which the country was founded.
• Providing equal opportunities: Statistics
in both countries point to the
underprivileged status of minorities. While
India promises constitutional equality - and
Pakistan not even that - official and
societal prejudices have denied similar
opportunities to minority communities. In
Pakistan, non-Muslims form too small a
component of the population to pose any
challenge to the government. In India, the
discrimination and sense of insecurity
experienced by Muslims are leading many,
particularly the youth, to join extremist
groups. From Kashmir, this sense of despair
has spread to other parts. Since the
constitution and laws in India do provide
equality, the basis for recommendations for
improvement in the status of minorities has
to lie elsewhere - perhaps in monitoring
groups set up by NGOs or the National Human
Rights Commission, or by encouraging
judicial activism. In the case of Pakistan,
constitutional amendments would be required
to introduce true equality before the law.
• Disallowing anti-India/ Pakistan tirades
in election campaigns in both countries:
Regrettably, both Indian and Pakistani
leaders see mutual bashing in public as
proof of patriotism. This kind of posturing
hardens positions on each side and is a
setback to any attempt at conflict
resolution. It is recommended that in the
interest of peace in the region, election
commissions of both countries are asked to
ban criticism of neighbouring countries in
election campaigns.
• Reviewing textbooks to remove all
anti-India/Pakistan or anti-Hindu/Muslim
references or overtones: Pakistan's school
textbooks, unfortunately, have always
contained material that is anti-Indian and,
by implication or even explicitly,
anti-Hindu. Generations of Pakistanis have
grown up both in suspicion and hatred of
their larger neighbour. Textbooks have also
tended to perpetuate stereotypes, adding to
the feeling of hostility for the 'other'.
Some Pakistani scholars have done a
commendable job of analyzing textbook
contents and documenting resultant
prejudices in school children against India.
Recent initiatives in India to review and
rewrite textbooks - which critics have
called the 'saffronization of education' -
are disturbing trends that need to be
checked and reversed. In December 1988,
during a summit of SAARC (South Asian
Association of Regional Countries) held in
Islamabad, the then prime ministers of India
and Pakistan had agreed to review all
textbooks and remove prejudicial material
against each other's countries.
Unfortunately, no concrete steps were taken
for implementation. Both governments should
be lobbied for the implementation of this
pact, with improvements where necessary - or
generations will continue to be held hostage
to history and the distorted version taught
through school textbooks in both countries.
• Implementing media policies that are fair
and not biased towards either country or the
minority communities: The media, in both
countries, official or private, have tended
to cater to perceived populist passions.
This tendency is exemplified in the
production of the TV epic Mahabharata in
India or the routine negative stereotyping
of Hindus in television dramas in Pakistan.
There is also a discernible dichotomy in the
print media (at least in Pakistan). While
the English language press is, by and large
liberal, the vernacular press tends to
express its patriotism through a narrow
vision of India and Indian society. In times
of tension, the Urdu language press has been
known to incite emotions. For example,
following the Babri mosque destruction in
December 1992, Urdu newspapers appeared with
black borders on their front pages with the
headline 'Bahari Mosque martyred'.
Recently, the Pakistan government, in a move
that can only be described as
'retrogressive', forced cable operators to
ban Indian satellite channels. Satellite
channels may not be broadcasting the most
intelligent of programmes, but they provide
a window to life and people in other
communities and countries and they must be
restored. This ban was lifted after several
months of protests by viewers and cable
operators.
As part of any peace initiative, India and
Pakistan must mutually agree to not only end
negative propaganda, but also make a
conscious effort to provide fair coverage to
the other country.
• Encouraging pluralism in society through
the promotion of diverse cultures and
languages: This is more applicable to
Pakistan where non-Muslims are an
insignificant percentage of the population.
Pakistani society has, therefore, veered
towards being monolithic with only token
acknowledgement of other cultures and
lifestyles. Recognition of the multiple
identities of its citizens even if small in
number would help Pakistan become a more
pluralistic and tolerant society.
Minorities' cultures should be promoted
through festivals of the arts and theatre,
as well as through the electronic media.
In India, the decline of Urdu is also seen
as a reason for the backward educational
status of Muslims in the north and
northeast.
• Review of emergency, special and
anti-terrorist laws that mainly target the
minorities merely on the basis of religious
identity: Both India and Pakistan have shown
a propensity to promulgate harsh special
laws, apart from emergency provisions that
are part of their constitutions. However,
post September 11 both governments have
placed an unprecedented priority on
security. Pakistan already had
anti-terrorist courts. India has introduced
POTA. These laws end up as being special
instruments of repression in the hands of
security and law enforcement agencies,
leading to widespread violation of basic
human rights. Their targets are, more often
than not, members of the minority
communities suspected of being more loyal to
the country across the border.
Strategies need to be devised to challenge
these laws. South Asian human rights
activists should collectively lobby with
both governments for the repeat or amendment
of such laws, which violate universally
accepted principles of human rights and
human dignity.
9. Criticism of human rights situation by
either country should not be seen as
interference in internal affairs: When
Pakistan raises a voice against the killing
of Muslims in India, or India expresses
concern over the treatment of Hindus in
Pakistan, charges of interference in
internal affairs fly fast and furious. At
the same time, both countries are on the
defensive when the critics are the Western
powers. Both countries must realize that the
world has gone beyond territorial
considerations and accept the universal
values of human rights. Concern expressed at
the right time can lead to ensuring the
safety of human lives in jeopardy as a
result of violence across the border.
And finally, principles of secularism must
abide. In Pakistan, the first constitutional
assembly determined the Islamic character of
the constitution by making the 'Objectives
Resolution' its preamble. The government of
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that came into power in
Pakistan, following the creation of
Bangladesh, found the country isolated
internationally as a result of the military
operations against the Bengali freedom
movement. It began to look to the Middle
East - the Gulf states and the staunch
Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia - for
economic assistance. Increasingly, the
country began to identify more closely with
the Middle East and to lose its South Asian
consciousness.
The military dictatorship of General Ziaul
Haq exploited religion to prolong his rule.
Claiming legitimacy on the basis of the need
to 'Islamize' society, his regime started
the process by promulgating harsh laws that
continue to discriminate among citizens. The
damage that the politicization of religion
has done to principles of democracy and
tolerance is clear. Apart from the dangerous
strategy of raising fighters for jihad in
various conflict zones, the predominance of
religion has also led to frequent sectarian
killings in all parts of Pakistan.
In the interest of peace within Pakistan and
on the borders, Pakistan must adopt the
principles of secularism. Admittedly, this
is a challenging and difficult proposition.
It is idealistic and may be dismissed as
impractical, and far removed from real
politics. However, it is my belief that
adherence to the principles of a secular
state (separation of state and religion) is
crucial to achieving peace within Pakistan
and on its frontiers. It is worth noting
that in Pakistan 'secularism' as a term is
misunderstood - or deliberately propagated -
to imply godlessness. The process of
shedding the ideological baggage will have
to be gradual, and the word 'secularism'avoided.
However, a significant first step would be
its recognition as an alternative to the
ideological direction the state has
established for itself.
Zohra Yusuf
has been a council member of the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan since 1990.
She has recently helped set up the
secretariat of South Asians for Human Rights
in Colombo.
This report brings together the papers
presented by participants at a workshop on
new intiatives and risk reduction in South
Asia. It contains contributions by Masako
Ikegami, Ravinder Pal Singh, Salman Haider,
Talat Masood, Wajahat Habibullah, Zohra
Yusuf, Jehangir Karamat, Moti Dar, Pervez
Hoodbhoy, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Francesco Calogero,
Joseph Harahan. |
|
|
