DAWN, 12-11-2011


THOSE who were expecting results must have been disappointed, for the prime ministers of Pakistan and India on Thursday achieved little that could be considered progress, much less a breakthrough. The reason why there was hope for something tangible has a basis: since Yousuf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh met in Thimphu in 2010 and decided to restart the normalisation process — if not the abandoned `composite dialogue` — the two governments have been holding regular talks at various levels. The two prime ministers met in Mohali this year; so did their commerce and foreign ministers as well as their foreign secretaries in New Delhi and Islamabad. Yet, barring pious intentions, these meetings did not achieve much. On her maiden visit to New Delhi as foreign minister in July, Hina Rabbani Khar told journalists she and her Indian counterpart wanted to continue the normalisation process without interruption. While there has been some forward movement — for instance, on the trade front — the absence of concrete progress on even peri- pheral issues has been disappointing.

In Addu on Thursday, the two prime ministers predicted the beginning of “a new chapter” in the history of their bilateral relationship. While Mr Singh said the next round of talks would be far more productive and “practical-oriented”, Mr Gilani stated that future sessions would be “more positive, more constructive and will open a new chapter in the history” of the two countries. The intentions may be there, but we still don`t know where and when they or their foreign ministers or officials will meet to start the promised chapter. At least one gain of sorts could have been made. The MFN status decision will, no doubt, take some time before it goes into effect, for it has to overcome many hurdles, including the removal of non-tariff barriers India maintains on Pakistani goods. But Mr Gilani could have made a formal announcement of his government`s decision to agree to it in principle. He did not.

We are unaware of any behind-the-scenes tensions, but the Indian side is reported to have asked Pakistan to take action against militant outfits believed to have been involved in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. This shows that troublesome issues can block progress even on subsidiary issues — like a liberal visa regime and greater cultural contact. Given their history of hostility, both sides must show greater resolve in tackling issues that have led to their distrust of each other. They should realise that they have come a fair distance from the Mumbai attacks and that mutually acceptable solutions are within their reach — if they put their minds to achieving them.


WHILE there can be little doubt that Pakistan`s religious minorities face discrimination, it is possible to read too much into the recent study Connecting the Dots: Education and Religious Discrimination in Pakistan. Sponsored by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the study concludes that many textbooks foster intolerance against religious minorities, particularly against the Hindu community. As a result of this “teaching discrimination”, the likelihood increases that violent religious extremism will continue to grow in the country, weakening religious freedom in the process. Yet given the relatively small scope of the study — 107 textbooks reviewed, 277 students and teachers from 37 public schools and 226 students and teachers from 19 madressahs interviewed — it appears too sweeping a definition of teaching practices in thousands of schools and madressahs across the country.

That said, however, the findings should serve as a wake-up call when we consider the many ways in which religious prejudice is implanted in the minds of youngsters. The emphatic conclusion of the study would suggest that fostering religious intolerance through textbooks is a systematic move, underpinned by malicious intent. No doubt, there was much mischief done during Gen Zia`s regime. But in recent years, guidelines have been provided for revising textbooks — even though we are not sure how far these have been implemented to remove the biases that many books still contain. It is far more likely that the attitudes evident in the books, and testified to by the interviewees, are inadvertent betrayals of a parallel societal prejudice that has seeped into every aspect of public life. Over the years Pakistani discourse vis-Ã -vis minority communities has grown more discriminatory — and increasingly violent. The prejudice is to some extent rooted in historical circumstance and its portrayal is stoked by a societal psyche where the perception of the `other` is suspect in the eyes of the majority and exploited by religious extremists. This being the case, Pakistanis need to turn their gaze inwards. It was her compatriots` refusal to drink water offered by a Christian, after all, that led to Aasia Bibi being charged and sentenced for blasphemy.

WITH the recent release of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran`s suspected nuclear weapons programme, temperatures in the Middle East and beyond are heating up once again. The IAEA says there is “credible” evidence Iran is working towards the bomb. But some observers point out that the document contains regurgitated information, only in greater detail. International reactions have varied greatly. The US and its European allies have called for more sanctions against Iran while Russia and China have expressed scepticism. In fact, the Russian foreign ministry has called the report “biased” and compared it to the ill-founded American claim in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. While Israel has hinted at pre-emptive strikes to disable the Gulf country`s nuclear facilities, Iran has hardened its tone, saying any military action would be met “with full force”.

There is a need for common sense to prevail all around if further hostility is to be avoided. The UN secretary general has opposed military action and emphasised a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. In this respect, the sanest voices seem to be coming from Moscow and Beijing. While it is true that Russia and China — both veto-wielding members of the Security Council — have extensive economic ties with Iran, there can be no disagreeing with their position that dialogue and engagement with Iran is the only solution. The Iranian government, on its part, must tone down its rhetoric and eschew the path of confrontation. Meanwhile, one report must not be made the basis for further squeezing Iran with sanctions or military action. The West must realise that several years of sanctions have accomplished little, and that military aggression against Iran will have devastating consequences for regional — if not global — peace and economic stability.