May 28, 2012
Huma Yusuf

IT is a shame that Pakistan declined at the last minute to sign a pact on a new liberalised visa regime with India. Although the governments agreed in principle to ease restrictions on business travellers, they were unable to finalise a broader agreement to facilitate cross-border exchanges.

The need for increased people-to-people — as well as business-to-business — interaction across the eastern border cannot be stressed enough. Despite the reluctance of politicians in Islamabad, gains towards improving bilateral relations were made in Mumbai where Indian and Pakistani journalists came together to call for improved cooperation. Since Pakistan’s independent media has demonstrated its ability to shape bilateral relations, this was a significant step towards stronger India-Pakistan ties.

The journalists gathered at the Mumbai Press Club, which was celebrating ‘Karachi Week’ in honour of a visiting 14-member delegation comprising media professionals from Karachi and Hyderabad. Representatives of the Mumbai and Karachi press clubs called for visa liberalisation for journalists from both sides.

They also identified the need for an online news and information exchange system to boost cross-border media cooperation. Most importantly, the journalists urged their peers on both sides of the border to cease using hateful language when reporting on each other’s countries.

This positive signalling shows how far we’ve come, and portends well for how far we could go, towards normalising relations
with India. After all, Pakistan’s independent media was itself liberalised over a decade ago in an effort to counter ‘Indian propaganda’.

The Pakistani establishment first recognised the need for a diverse and proliferating media landscape during the 1999 Kargil war. At the time, in the absence of a private Pakistani broadcast media, millions of Pakistanis tuned into Indian channels via illegal satellite dishes to learn about the conflict, only to be bombarded in hysterical detail about the Pakistan Army’s setbacks during the operation.

Our military also perceived that its position before the international community was compromised as a result of the vocal and virulent anti-Pakistan stance of the Indian media.

Having lost the media war along with Kargil, the establishment acknowledged the need for an indigenous media that could counter the Indian narrative. Over the years, we have seen the media live up to this mandate by weaving numerous conspiracy theories, blaming Indian agents for suicide bombings, vociferously denying Pakistani involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks and reporting on fake Wikileaks cables aimed at undermining the Indian military.

But now, thanks to initiatives such as the meet-up in Mumbai, we’re seeing elements of an industry that was conceived as an instrument of hate transform into a conduit for dialogue.

This transformation, however gradual, is an important dimension of improved Pakistan-India relations. At present, Pakistan’s national narrative about India is determined by Zia-era school curriculum, anti-India organisations, rabid clerics and, sadly, certain sections of the media.

Progressive elements within Pakistan’s popular, trusted private media may be the only ones who can challenge the national narrative about India and prime the Pakistani public for increasing cross-border engagement. Officials in Islamabad and New Delhi who are seeking improved trade relations should also facilitate media cooperation — the two will necessarily go hand in hand.

At early stages, journalists’ exchanges can substitute for or amplify any people-to-people contact: reporting from across the border on non-security issues can help humanise the previously demonised other and begin to alter perceptions of the perennial dushman.

More collaboration and information-sharing between media professionals from Pakistan and India will also create a sense of accountability to colleagues across the border. This could create an opportunity for both media industries to improve their standards: in Pakistan and India, booming, competitive industries have led print and electronic outlets to resort to sensationalism and misreporting to get the highest ratings. An understanding to produce jingoism-free news coverage of bilateral issues could serve as an incentive to be more fair and factual.

Media buy-in to the idea of normalised relations is also important at a political level. Pakistan and India pursue policies of ‘incrementalism’ whereby a step-by-step, confidence-building path towards resolving major issues is established. As governments take small steps (business visas, counterterrorist information exchanges), the media can help publics stay focused on the bigger picture (regional stability, trade corridors, shared energy grids) rather than the setbacks that occur en route.

Moreover, if a significant event such as a terrorist attack threatens to derail the normalisation process, an unbiased, fact-based media response from both sides of the border could prevent the situation from spiralling out of control and circumvent the need for populist responses to a political problem.

During a meeting of Pakistani and Indian journalists in 2009, the editor of the Indian Mail Today expressed scepticism at the media’s role in improving relations: “India and Pakistan do not determine their relations and national interest based on what the media saying.” That is not entirely true. In Pakistan, the media has accrued the power to whip up public sentiment and that sentiment increasingly backs policymakers into uncomfortable political corners.

Consider how the Pakistani media has been used as a negotiating tool in the context of US-Pakistan relations. The establishment pointed to the (initially manufactured) anti-American narrative in the media to explain Islamabad’s inability to accept certain requests from Washington. But the media’s staged indignation opened a Pandora’s box of authentic anti-Americanism and suspicion among the public.

Now, when the political and security establishment is seeking a working relationship with the US, it is constrained by the resentment of an angry public that froths at the mouth at any mention of US-Pakistan cooperation. Learning from past mistakes, the government should now turn to the media as a positive influence in the trajectory of Pakistan-India relations.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

Twitter: @humayusuf
-Dawn

May 29, 2012
Amit Ranjan

On May 25-26, 2012, once again, India and Pakistan were engaged in a bilateral dialogue. Prior to it, umpteen times they have carried on this process but have failed to resolve even a single contentious issue out of many lying between them.

The mother of all conflicts between the two is the present status of the Kashmir Valley, which both of them want to change in their own favour. All other issues have erupted and could not be resolved because of hyper-nationalism generated by chauvinistic forces on both sides of the border on this one issue. On the Kashmir issue, the two countries have tried and tested all means, from multilateral negotiations to bilateral engagement. They even went for various forms of war like ‘total war’, ‘limited war’, ‘proxy war’, etc. However, despite all those steps, the status of the Kashmir Valley is as it was in January 1949, when a ceasefire was declared by the United Nations to stop the first Indo-Pak war of 1948. In 1954, 1963, 1972 and 2008, this issue, as claimed by negotiators and the media, was almost resolved.

Besides Kashmir, other contentious issues between them are not as complicated as the two sides are projecting them. Ayesha Siddiqa wrote in Indian Express that issues like the Sir Creek estuary and demilitarisation of Siachen glacier are the easier ones to resolve. Still various rounds of talks over the years have taken place on these issues, with no results.

Now the question arises why India and Pakistan, in spite of engaging in various rounds of talks and negotiations, have failed to resolve even a single and or even the easiest issue between them. The fault lies in both their intentions and their approach to negotiations. For both countries, negotiations are a zero-sum game and instead of resolving the issue at hand, they look for drawing relative gains from any sort of outcome or result. Against this form of negotiation, there is another one that has led to the breaking of the ice between the archrivals. In this form, the centre of attention is the ‘issue or problem’. The negotiating team focuses upon resolving it, rather than having relative gains out of the solution. In this, both parties make certain compromises and try to adjust to the grievances of the other. During their talks, particularly on Kashmir and on other issues too, the negotiators from the two countries adopt the former method instead of the latter. The Indus Water Treaty, to share the water from the Indus River System could be successfully negotiated and signed because during the eight-year long negotiations, the focus was on catchment areas and not on the two countries.

Then they are still practising a structured form of diplomacy where the talks are hierarchical in nature. It starts with a joint-secretary or a secretary level, then a ministerial level and finally, heads of the states meet to give their final authority. Many times, both countries have started the talks at a joint secretary or a secretary level; a few times, ministers have met too, but less than a few times, political heads have formally shared the dais together. This means, somewhere or the other, there is an institutional conflict and lackadaisical attitude towards the talks. In the past, either the political heads or the bureaucrats were not very supportive of this bilateral negotiation process. The Agra summit was derailed due to that; the infamous verbal fight between Foreign Ministers S M Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi at Islamabad occurred in front of the global media. Both times, it was ‘insiders’ who set up a plot to foil the dialogue.

Finally, a negotiation is a process that takes time. The amount of time depends upon the nature of the political relationship the two countries share. To get some result out of the negotiations and to boost a dialogue, the negotiating countries adopt certain Confidence Building Measures (CBMs). These CBMs reduce the trust deficit and lay the foundations for further engagement. The problem between India and Pakistan is that the CBMs between the two take longer than the required time period to take off. For example, even a simple thing like the granting of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India by Pakistan is taking a long time. More often than not, these CBMs are suspended whenever they are being tested due to some untoward incidents.

To conclude, it is better for the two countries if they are serious to resolve a few of their disputes to move issue by issue, instead of going for a comprehensive dialogue on many issues in one go. Only after resolving one, they should move to another. Secondly, all issues should be treated as an independent entity, with not even an iota of linkage with another. Finally, continuity should be there in negotiations. Channels of communication must not be closed even during the worst times. The leadership must learn the art of not succumbing to chauvinistic forces.

The writer is a PhD student at the South Asian Studies School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He can be reached at amitranjan.jnu@gmail.com
-Daily Times

Manmohan’s outburst

March 09, 2013


Addressing Lok Sabha on Wednesday, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh claimed that New Delhi was continuing to hold dialogue with Pakistan to normalize relations but Islamabad was not delivering on terrorism. He described the recent flare-up on the Line of Control (LoC) as a negative influence on dialogue adding that progress had been possible in some areas like trade and people-to-people contacts, but he had yet to see tangible progress on dismantling the terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan and bringing to justice culprits of the Mumbai terror attack.

Dr Singh forgot conveniently India’s failings in improving bilateral ties. Recent unprovoked firing on Pakistani soldiers across the LoC by Indian troops has made the strains in relations severer. The hostile outburst of Hindu extremist outfits Shiv Sena and cancellation of snooker team’s visit to Karachi have further vitiated the atmosphere. Pakistan has always wanted the relations to look up, but India has done nothing to resolve the long-pending Kashmir dispute. The controversy over the proposed private visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to Ajmer has added salt to injury. Such attitude would take the two major SAARC partners nowhere.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...p-gas-pipeline

March 07, 2013

According to press reports, Hindu extremist outfit Shiv Sena has strongly opposed the private visit that Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf intends paying to India next Saturday to do his homage to Hazrat Khawaja Gharib Nawaz in Ajmer. Its precondition: he should bring with him the severed head of the Indian soldier that New Delhi alleges Pakistani troops killed across the Line of Control last January. Islamabad’s categorical denial has been of no avail and both the Indian leadership and media keep harping on the theme, in and out of season, and, thus, the assiduous efforts of Pakistan to create goodwill among the Indian public go to waste; the climate of ill-will persists rather than fade away.

The experience of the past 66 years has proved the point that whatever Pakistan might do to develop friendly, or just good neighbourly, relations with India and forget the rancour that led the Muslims to part company with the Hindu majority, it would not respond positively. For example, the confidence building measures that Islamabad took to create a ‘suitable atmosphere’ to discuss and resolve disputes, in line with New Delhi’s wishes, have not paid off. The immutable logic holds: unless the differences between two entities, whether individuals or states, are first removed on the basis of justice the superstructure of artificial bonhomie they raise would crumble the moment any misunderstanding occurs between them. Instances where India took cover behind assumed hurt to disrupt dialogue with Pakistan could be cited. Worse still, it has shied away from settling disputes (Sir Creek, Siachen) even after mutual agreement to that effect has been reached. As for the core issue of Kashmir, it has not, since the talks began nine years ago, been able to bring itself around to discuss it with the aim of bringing it to a meaningful end. Nothing could be more pertinent to prove its malafides.

One the other hand, India would keep asking Pakistan to cede to its demands but, as stated above, not address its legitimate concerns. The pity is that, as in the case of a host of other policies, we have never learnt our lesson from history. While it had cancelled the visit of its snooker team to Pakistan, we have not changed our mind about sending the women hockey team to India. Somehow, we have lost the self-respect inherent in independent, sovereign states to not exert ourselves if the other party wishes to have nothing to do with us. The apathy of our leadership to New Delhi’s blatant diversion of water flowing into Pakistan that would render vast expanse of our land barren is simply criminal. Common sense demands that the Indus Basin Water Council Chairman’s charge of complicity with India against Prime Minister’s special assistant for water Kamal Majidullah be thoroughly investigated. And there should be no hesitation to take up the case of the Kishanganga project at all appropriate international levels before serious damage has been done.

http://www.nation.com.pk

Reduce the mistrust

Since the unfortunate January incident on the LoC, the mistrust between India and Pakistan has continued to increase despite attempts by saner elements from both sides to bridge the gulf. When reports regarding the incident of the beheading of the soldier come to light, responsible voices in Pakistani media had demanded an enquiry into the incident. Similarly their Indian counterparts had underlined the fact that Indian army too could not be exonerated of the ignominies of the type. It is unfortunate that an agreement on enquiry could not be reached between the two sides. Meanwhile the issue was used by the extreme right to enflame public opinion in India. It is unfortunate that the political and military leadership on the other side of the border was also swayed by public sentiment. Gradually a number of agreements to promote harmony brokered after great effort were rolled back. The measure to liberalise the visa regime for senior citizens was the first casualty. Now the group visa tourist facility has also been stalled in the wake of the attack on Indian security forces in Srinagar without fully confirming the identity of the “foreigners” involved.

The outgoing foreign minister Khar has called on the Indian leadership not to remain hostage to its domestic politics. This is an advice that Pakistani leaders too need to follow. The governments on both sides also need to have a better oversight of the military matters that impinge on their relations to avoid becoming victim to institutional prejudices or intelligence shortcomings. In the case of the January affair, New Delhi took the report of its MI as gospel truth while refusing to a joint or independent enquiry.

While it is difficult to satisfy those committed to exacerbating the tensions on both sides of the border, there is a need to expose the bogey raised by the leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley. To put the record straight Pakistan’s National Assembly did not pass any resolution to condemn the hanging of Afzal Guru. What the resolution called for was the return of Guru’s body to his family for proper burial. The rest of the resolution reiterated Pakistan’s official policy on Kashmir which did not stop former BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit Pakistan and become a signatory to Lahore Resolution. The mischief is based on the mistaken headline of a Pakistani newspaper which is not supported even by the text under the headline.

Political leaders in Pakistan and India have to act like statesmen. The long term interests of the people of South Asia demand peace and mutual cooperation. Statesmanship requires pursuing the goal without falling victim to prejudices or being swayed by opinions dictated by party or institutional interests.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013...-the-mistrust/

March 17, 2013 .

Indian government’s decision to call off the bilateral series is being bitterly criticised in diplomatic and sports circles. Secretary Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF), Asif Bajwa has rightly denounced it as a disappointing gesture. An extreme step of the sort provides a peep into the kind of policies New Delhi believes are needed to dictate its relations with Pakistan. There is no denying Mr Bajwa’s contention that New Delhi’s attitude has harmed sports. Pakistani hockey team was scheduled to travel to India first. India’s tour of Pakistan was planned from April 23 to May 2 in Karachi, Faisalabad, Sialkot and Lahore. It is a crying shame that this incredible opportunity to the players to hone their skills as well as to the audience to entertain themselves has been squandered. A report appearing in The Indian Express says the decision to cancel the series was taken on Friday on the directive of the Ministry of External Affairs, who refused to grant visas to the Pakistani players following the recent terrorist attacks in Srinagar and Pakistan's stand on the hanging of Afzal Guru. It may be mentioned that twice in three months’ time, Pakistani players have been denied opportunity of playing in India. Pakistan must lodge a strong protest against this abrupt decision. At the same time, PHF must bring the matter to International Hockey Federation’s notice as well as the International Olympic Committee. There is absolutely no use dragging sports into politics; the attempt by the Indian government to sacrifice hockey at the altar of its prejudices is highly unfair.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...harming-sports

By:Usha Ramanathan Usha Ramanathan

By hanging Afzal Guru secretly so that he could not approach the courts, and ignoring the pending case that could have affected his sentence, the Home Minister acted illegally

On March 6, 2013, in response to an RTI request, the President’s Secretariat made available documents pertaining to Ajmal Kasab’s mercy petition. People from across the country and the globe had written to the President asking that he used his clemency power so that the power of the state to take life would be reined in. Recurring with unexpected frequency was an appeal that, if the mercy petitions were to be rejected, the “President and the Ministry of Home Affairs respect the practice of promptly informing the individual, his lawyers, his family, of the decision, reasons for the decision, and proposed date of execution as well as the public of any scheduled execution”. Ajmal Kasab was hanged in secrecy on November 21, 2012. Less than three months later there was another secret execution, of Afzal Guru.

In India, of course, this is not about a ‘practice’. It is the law. On February 9, 2013, when Afzal Guru was hanged, was the law followed?

Procedure flouted

The disturbing truth is that Afzal Guru’s execution was illegal. The government flouted the procedure established by law in executing Afzal Guru the way it did; and the Constitution is categorical, in Article 21, that no one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Jail Manual is clear: “On receipt from the Administrator of the final confirmation about the date of execution of a convict, the convict and his relatives shall be informed about the date of execution by the Superintendent.” ‘On receipt of’ the ‘final confirmation’, the convict is to be informed. It is, however, reported that Afzal Guru was not informed till 5am on the day that he was hanged; a mere two hours before he was taken to the gallows. It is impossible, not merely improbable, that the superintendent did not know about the date of execution till that last minute. By not informing Afzal Guru, the superintendent breached the law.

The relatives too “shall be informed” about the date of the execution on receipt of final confirmation. To inform is not to send a letter or other missive; the duty cast by the law on the superintendent is to ‘inform’. The point of the provision is to give notice of the impending execution of the convict. Afzal Guru’s family learnt of the execution when the rest of the world heard about it, and through the press. The letter sent by speed post reached them two days after he had been executed. Informing the family is not, as some have suggested, about humanitarian considerations; this is about a violation of the law in the process of depriving a person of life.

It is reported that Afzal Guru was buried in jail “in accordance with a directive from the Delhi administration, with the jail authorities saying that there was no request from the family to claim it” (Economic Times, 15-2-2013). This was a deliberate and self-serving distortion of facts.

The Jail Manual prescribes that the convict may “if he so desires, be permitted to prepare a will in accordance with his wishes. If the convict does not desire to prepare his will, his statement to that effect shall be recorded by the Superintendent”. Was Afzal Guru given time to decide about his will? If he was informed of his impending execution at 5am, as is reported, could that have provided him with the opportunity to decide about his will? He had not met his family in a long time. He had no time to get legal help — something that evaded him at every turn. And he was being informed of his execution, literally, on his way to the gallows. Does this constitute conformity with the law? Plainly not.

Deliberate breach

It appears from pronouncements following the execution that these breaches were not caused due to oversight; that they were deliberate. If there are no adverse consequences for these deliberate violations of the procedure prescribed while taking life, it will clear the way for absolute power over life and death. Afzal is beyond reach, so the wrong done to him cannot be undone. His family, however, has borne the pain that this injustice, and violations of the law, have brought to them. Few would disagree that the family has been wronged. There have to be consequences. A public apology which will be an acknowledgement of the wrong done — that will also dilute the impunity that is growing every passing day. Reparation, to the family that has been wronged. And, action against those who were in violation of the law; that would be an act of respect for the rule of law.

Secret executions seem to have acquired the status of state practice. When Kasab was hanged, surreptitiously, in the early hours of November 21, 2012, the home minister explained that one of the reasons for practising secrecy was to avoid the possibility of anyone approaching the court, which could delay the execution. He repeated it, as one would a formula, after Afzal Guru’s execution. This is unconstitutional. No one can be deprived of his or her right to judicial recourse. For the home minister of the country to ensure secret execution so that such judicial recourse may be denied is against all norms of civilised jurisprudence.

A Bench of the Supreme Court has reserved orders on the effect of delay on the execution of the sentence of death. The judgment of the court, which is yet to be delivered, would have had a direct bearing on whether Afzal Guru’s death sentence could be carried out, or not; he had been under the shadow of the death sentence for over 10 years when he was hanged. On 20 February, 2013, when a three judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed the execution of the four alleged aides of the forest brigand Veerappan, it was on the express recognition that the decision of the court that had reserved orders was of direct relevance to the convicts before the court.

This was the judicial consideration to which Afzal Guru was entitled. The punishment is irreversible, and, for that reason, should have been deferred till the outcome in the pending challenge. By executing him secretly so that he may not approach the courts, and by ignoring the pending case that could impact on his death sentence, the home minister acted illegally. The court needs to demand an explanation from the minister about the nature of the power he seems to think he has.

Lack of representation

On 11 February, 2013, two days after he had been executed, a case was quietly disposed of in the Supreme Court. Early in 2011, Afzal Guru had filed a petition in the Supreme Court asking for his transfer to Srinagar Central Jail so that his family, which included his mother, wife and young son, could visit him — something that distance and cost was making prohibitive. This case was filed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, but the lawyer was repeatedly absent from the hearings, which prompted the court to ask the SCLSC to look into it and submit a report to the court.

As reported by V Venkatesan in The Hindu (19-2-2013), the lawyer told the court on 23 November, 2012, that someone else would be representing Afzal Guru; the court asked the SCLSC to find an explanation for the tardiness and submit a report to the court; the status of the case, on 4 January, 2013, did not indicate that any report had been filed. This was just one more time that Afzal Guru was left without proper representation. And, a single judge, in chambers, on 11 February, merely took judicial notice of the execution, found that the hanging had made the petition infructuous, and dismissed the petition!

The least that this calls for is an enquiry, followed by consequences for violations of the law, an apology and reparation to the family of Afzal Guru, an end to secret executions and a guarantee of non-repetition.

The writer is research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, teaches law at the Indian Law Institute and is a regular guest professor in many universities around the world.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013...-an-execution/

By: Dr Kamal Monnoo | March 20, 2013 . 4

As Pakistan moves forward to further liberalise trade with India (a positive move), one comes across this quiet kind of confidence in the Pakistani textile sector about its ability to compete successfully with its Indian counterpart; of course, if it is provided with a level playing field.

No harm, since confidence and perception are key hallmarks of any business success story, and more importantly if the growth in Pakistan’s textiles has to be sustainable, then the sector needs to achieve this by competing against the best in this business. However, often one has seen that confidence if not accompanied by prudence can easily lead to complacency.

And given Pakistan’s industrial track record, one cannot help but notice that it is in being complacent, and not being proactive and innovative where our weakness lies. While we may be ready to compete with India in the traditional items based on comparative costs, quality and designs, it is the long-term vision where we seem to be way behind.

A significant portion of future global growth and profitability is going to come from endeavours that save on energy and natural resources, and are environmentally friendly, ‘Green Textile Production’, as it is referred to. And this is where India appears to be far ahead of us in comparison.

Scientists from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi, are close to releasing a type of fabric in the market that will not pick up dirt and even if it does after prolonged use, it can be washed with sunlight. At the heart of this experiment lies nanotechnology, which is being applied by Indian scientists to improve the performance of textiles; something that is generating global interest.

Nano stands for one billionth of a meter. The nature’s nanotechnology has been perfected over a billion of years. For example, the self-cleaning properties found in the nano-structured surface of lotus leaves are natural designs, referred to as the ‘Lotus Leave Effect’.

Going forward based on this, the coating of nano titanium dioxide particles on clothes has ‘photocatalytic properties’, which can break direct particles in the presence of sunlight. If this works, dirty clothes can be ‘cleaned’ by merely putting them in the sun. The cloth will also not pick up any dirt because of nano particles.

Yet, another fabric that IIT is researching is based on nano-composite polymer coating, which will have improved strength and gas barrier property. Once developed, it can be useful in key defence applications, e.g. inflatable gear requirements in aerostat and aerial delivery systems.

Research and Development on other new textiles areas, being actively pushed by India’s Textile Ministry include Antibacterial, UV (Ultraviolet light) protective and water repellent breathable fabrics. A range of antimicrobial textile finishes and products based on nano-silver have already been commercialised and are finding use in the medical sector, such as sutures and wound dressings and other health and hygiene textiles.

Over the last decade, India has been the blue chip for the fast evolving retail sector that is riding high on the lifestyle products, especially fashion apparels, home textiles, jewellery and footwear. Today, the size of its retail sector that sells mainly via brand outlets and malls is approximately $30 billion. Nearly 30 percent of this turnover is for the major lifestyle products, including apparels and textiles.

The steady growth of the retail sector and the growing consumer preference of branded lifestyle products, especially the branded apparel and innerwear, is the impact the now open Indian economy is having from the Western markets. The onslaught of branded fashion wear has also created a stream of premium products carrying the green theme by way of textiles of natural or organic materials.

Driven by the increasing demand from the global Multinational Corporations (MNC) retailers, the green theme in India is the fastest growing textile sector (both in terms of volume and value) and has created a plethora of new and innovative fibre blends and blended yarn fabrics, which are in vogue by the fashion industry.

A direct impact of this green movement in Indian textiles can be gauged by the increasing interest and growing demand for organic cottons, which are now being grown in selective farming areas in central India under the supervision of accreditation agencies, such as Organic Exchange (OE) and Oeko Tex. India has become the largest producer of organic cottons at 25-30,000 tons per annum, with a share of nearly 25 percent in global organic cotton production.

If Pakistan’s textiles are to go the ‘next’ step, then our industry like its counterpart in India, needs to become increasingly aware of the sustainable production challenges. The global demand for textiles, especially lifestyle and premium fashion products, is being driven strongly by a very large ‘youth’ population (below the average age of 30 years old, as per the survey by American Textiles’ Consumers Association). This group is educated, well employed, fashion savvy and has the necessary disposable income for indulging in consumer tastes, influenced by ethical, moral and responsible behaviour. Meaning that, they are sensitive to global warming and green movements.

The Indian Textile Ministry and manufacturers both have become increasingly aware of the sustainable production and global growth challenges, which can primarily be countered by developing products that conserve energy and natural resources, are environmentally friendly and are organic in nature in order to minimise pollution, effluents and the process usage of hazardous materials. Pakistan also needs to follow suit.

It is all very well for our textile industry to moan and cry about gas shortages, etc, which one agrees need to be resolved at least in the short term, but if they are to meaningfully grow in the long term, their focus will need to shift to innovation and adapting of the evolving international trends - something that will not only give them sustainable growth, but also higher earnings.

The writer is an entrepreneur and economic analyst. Email: kamal.monnoo@gmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...istan-vs-india

By: Tariq Osman Hyder | March 20, 2013 . 8


The national requirement for strategic restraint for any country is derived from its political judgment given its location and the prevailing strategic environment. The cutting edge lies in the military domain and the contours of the quantum of strategic restraint depend on the military capabilities of the country concerned and the threats it faces both current and foreseen. While the military potential has its own impact on objectives and developments, it is largely in the diplomatic field in which efforts are launched and sustained in bilateral and multilateral engagement to reach the political objectives that define strategic restraint, and to deal with situations in which calls for such restraint go unheeded.

Seven facts should be clear to any objective observer in the context of South Asia:-

i First of all, Pakistan as the smaller country with a correspondingly smaller economy, defence budget and armed forces has vested interests in better relations with India that include strategic restraint. This would allow Pakistan to devote a larger amount of its limited resources to nation building and the welfare of its people.

i Secondly, any such policy and objectives require positive response from India.

i Thirdly, Pakistan has already experienced to its cost its division into two countries at the hands of a military intervention by India in 1971: the first example of a state being dismembered after the end of the Second World War.

i Fourthly, the international community has the ability to act in a manner which facilitates strategic restraint in South Asia or in a manner which leads to its destabilisation.

i Fifthly, the empirical approach of India has been to keep Pakistan off balance and to destabilise it through a number of actions. These include trying to control the flow of waters guaranteed by the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), destabilisation of Balochistan through Afghanistan, hostile propaganda at every level, including in multilateral forums, and unwillingness to tackle core issues and disputes in the composite dialogue peace process that is switched on and off at India’s will. Senior Indian strategists, including policymakers, continue to assert that India has no interest in Pakistan not breaking apart, if it remains obdurate to Indian demands. Other influential Indian voices predict that Pakistan will break apart, a consistent theme since 1947 of the RSS and its offshoots as well as of numerous other Indian nationalists.

i Sixthly, Pakistan’s strategic environment has deteriorated due to the occupation of Afghanistan, which has led to the rise of extremism and terrorism within Pakistan, as well as a now hot Western border.

i Seventhly, the increasing narrative of the Western countries is that Pakistan must exercise strategic restraint by curtailing its rather limited fissile material production and its nuclear capability, including by supporting FMCT negotiations. The Western analysts also advise Pakistan that developing and deploying tactical nuclear weapons would be counterproductive.

That is the mise-en-scene. Now to turn to the strategic restraint dimension. As soon as both countries became overtly nuclear, Pakistan offered to India its Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) proposal, with its three interlocking elements of nuclear restraint, conventional balance and dispute settlement. The SRR has remained on the table since then and, most recently, has been reoffered to India in the current Nuclear and Conventional CBMs talks that began in 2004. India has consistently rejected Pakistan’s SRR. Nor have the Western countries since 1998 demonstrated any interest in, or support for, this regime.

On the contrary, the Western countries and Russia continue to build up India’s strategic capabilities in both the nuclear and conventional fields. Massive conventional arms sales dominate the bilateral agendas of the major Western powers and Russia vis-à-vis India.

On the nuclear side, the US-India nuclear deal, compounded further by the exemption that undermines the NPT given to India by the NSG, and followed by liberal bilateral nuclear agreements for nuclear technology and uranium supplies, demonstrates that rather than nuclear restraint, nuclear licence is the Western objective for a combination of reasons commercial and geo-strategic. Paramount among these is the build up of India as a key partner, both regionally and globally, particularly in the context of China. The support for India’s candidature for Permanent Membership of the Security Council is a pillar of this policy.

Conversely, in respect to Pakistan that is more fossil fuel deficient than India, in a clearly discriminatory approach, similar access to civil nuclear energy for power generation, critical for Pakistan’s energy security, has not been given.
The US-India deal has excluded from safeguards eight Indian reactors, well suited for weapons-grade Pu production, which have the ability to produce 240 nuclear weapons a year. There was no justification for such an exemption by an agreement that the USA disingenuously termed an advance for the global objective of non-proliferation. The entire ambitious Indian 13 breeders reactors programme that will exponentially increase its plutonium stocks and with the first breeder about to come online has similarly been left out of safeguards, despite the fact that the rationale for all breeder programmes worldwide has always been to extract the maximum from limited uranium supplies and not to produce unsafeguarded fissile material. The Indian Prime Minister stated in Parliament that no part of India’s nuclear programme would be placed under safeguards, if it was of a strategic nature. The dual use purpose of the breeders programme is, therefore, clear.

The supplies of uranium from NSG countries free up India’s own limited uranium reserves for weapons production. Furthermore, the overhang of India’s unsafeguarded Pu has been left out of safeguards. The International Panel of Fissile Material (IPFM) in its 2010 publication stated that India’s 6.8 tons of unsafeguarded plutonium was sufficient for 850 nuclear weapons, even if it be totally of reactor grade plutonium. Probably, due to low burn-up, a significant portion would be of weapons-grade plutonium. However, the nuclear weapons capability of this Indian Pu overhang is never taken into account by Western critics of Pakistan.

One measure of the level of discrimination in the energy field towards Pakistan is the fact that, unlike India, all of Pakistan’s nuclear reactors for power generation are under safeguards, and the GOP has avowed that all future power reactors will also be safeguarded. In the US/NSG-India deal, India has been given the right to keep future reactors out of safeguards.

Pakistan, the last nuclear country to start fissile production, is criticised for increasing its modest plutonium production capacity from one to four dedicated reactors, but it would have to build some 150 more to match India’s existing weapons-grade plutonium production capacity.

Another example is that while energy shortages constitute a very major challenge to Pakistan’s economy and ability to generate resources for both development and internal security, the gas pipeline project with Iran is opposed by the USA, which, however, has taken no concrete action to initiate the gas pipeline project with Turkmenistan through Afghanistan that in its first incarnation began promisingly in the mid 1990s. In fact, the US made UNOCAL withdraw and disband the consortium, not heeding Pakistan’s argument that beginning work on the pipeline would show all Afghan factions that from peace they would gain more than from war. Had that gone ahead, the moderate Taliban would have come out on top and the history that followed may well have been different. The same holds true today. The Iranian pipeline is closer to completion now by far, although eventually over time South Asia will need at least two pipelines.

To the people of Pakistan, it thus seems that they are consigned to the status referred in the Bible as “hewers of wood and drawers of water.”
In the peace dialogue, Pakistan has responded positively to India’s main interests in trade and people to people contacts. However, India has not budged on Pakistan’s core concern of Kashmir or on resolving the Siachen and Sir Creek sea boundary disputes, and has hardened further its position on all three, as well as on the Indus Waters where it seeks not only to control their flow in violation of IWT, but also objects to vitally needed Pakistani dams downriver to the extent of attempting to block construction assistance from the IFIs.

Even on progressing on nuclear and conventional CBMs and in observing those agreed upon, India continues to drag its feet as if wanting to delink from Pakistan. It ignores the wise maxim coined in the environmental arena that a country must “think globally but also act locally.”

Recently, India carried out two SLBM launches that require pre-notification to Pakistan under the terms of their bilateral legal agreement, but did not do so, coming up with a vague response - after much delay - that the missile were not ballistic, despite the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation press releases to the contrary. This is a troubling development for a CBM that had worked well so far, better, for instance, than the Hague Code of Conduct regime for missiles pre-notification. One hopes, it is not the start of a trend.

India and Western analysts oppose Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons, without taking into account the need to close the gap posed by the aggressive Indian Cold Start/Proactive Doctrine aimed at placing India in a coercive position to threaten Pakistan with strikes to seize territory while remaining under the nuclear overhang.

Pakistan is quite transparent that if forced to, in extremis, it can use nuclear weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons, to defend itself. However paradoxically, India and others who hold that Pakistan should publish a nuclear doctrine, criticise this unambiguous Pakistan assertion, implying that it is ‘unfair’ to limit India’s otherwise available options accruing from its conventional superiority. The Western analysts suggest unconvincingly that it may be disproportionate and against the concept of “just war” to use nuclear weapons against conventional attacks to seize Pakistani territory - as if aggression by conventional forces, a breach of the UN Charter, was permissible and deterring by any means such aggression was impermissible.

Hence, when our friends are interested in discussing themes such as restraint with us, they should think of what would make sense to Pakistan. Even in this area their definition of restraint seems driven by the objective that Pakistan should slow down production of its nuclear weapons. They conveniently ignore the responsibility of their own countries to exercise restraint in supplying India with conventional, non-conventional and strategic weapons and technology. They have also showed no restraint in accommodating our neighbour into multilateral export control regimes, while denying us such participation. They do not object to Russia supplying nuclear submarines to India, which can carry nuclear cruise missiles and critical technical assistance to India’s nuclear submarine programme, as acknowledged by the Indian PM.

It is curious to note that the major Western powers advocate bilateralism with India on the Kashmir dispute in order to create a comfort zone in which they do not annoy India. On the other hand, when Pakistan insists on a bilateral approach on strategic issues in South Asia, our Western friends follow the Indian position and bring in concern over China to excuse India from conventional or strategic restraint. This despite the fact that the major part of India’s military assets is deployed against Pakistan

In terms of the unilateral strategic restraint advocated for Pakistan, one can see what is in it for India and for its Western and Russian friends, but the question is: what is in it for Pakistan? The 180 million people of Pakistan cannot afford that the country falters or falls under external threat. The existence of a strong nuclear capable Pakistan is also a considered a source of strength, like the concept in naval strategy of a “fleet in being”, by Muslim countries and their people, the Muslims of India and also by the Muslim Diaspora worldwide at a time when Islam, and its adherents in Muslim countries and elsewhere, are perceived to be under threat.

Pakistan’s proposals in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in the nuclear and missile areas affirm the restraint DNA of Pakistan. The irony is that our friends advocate restraint only when they see Pakistan responding to a strategic environment facilitated and supported by them. They need to develop strategic clarity and realism as well.

To conclude with the way forward. Much depends on India reciprocating Pakistan’s objective and proposals for strategic restraint and much also depends on the international community supporting this objective in an even-handed manner.

The writer is a retired ambassador and has led Pakistan’s delegations in Nuclear and Conventional CBMs talks with India on 2004-2007. This is from a presentation he made at the CISS–IISS Workshop on Defence, Deterrence and Nuclear Weapons in Islamabad on March 7, 2013. Email: ambassador.tariqosmanhyder@gmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...-in-south-asia

March 26, 2013 58



There should be little doubt by now that, for all the protests that Islamabad has been making against New Delhi’s water terrorism committed with the aim of depriving Pakistan of its legitimate share of this life-giving nature’s gift to humanity, it is bent upon building projects in the upper reaches of rivers flowing into Pakistan that would turn them dry. Numerous water diversion schemes have either been completed or are being carried out on rivers that have been designated for exclusive use by Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Consequently, once the granary of the entire subcontinent, it would become a barren land, ruining its agriculture, the very base of its economy. Already, their impact is being strongly felt. The Baglihar and Kishanganga projects are two of these big projects.

India's attitude towards us since then is a standing indictment of the partiality of its apologists. And plans like raising hydel power projects like Ratal, Kanai and Mayar are sufficient proof of India’s bad intentions. According to a press report, a meeting of Indus Waters Commissioners of Pakistan and India was held in Lahore on Saturday and Sunday where the Indian representative presented the designs of these three projects for scrutiny by Pakistan. The Pakistan commissioner, however, rejected all of them after thoroughly scrutinising them since they would seriously impinge upon the country’s right to its due share of water, as assigned to it under the IWT. While New Delhi would give the impression that they are run-of-the-river electricity-generating schemes that would not curtail the water flowing downstream, the engineers acquainted with their details would know the exact logic behind their rejection. The report does not enlighten the reader of the reasons for not agreeing to the designs. However, considering the practice India has been following in the past in the case of such hydel projects, the new projects could be another case of creating reservoirs upstream of them to be utilised for irrigation purposes as well. Thus, it is inconceivable that the water flow downstream would not markedly come down.

The point now is that the rejection of these designs ought not to be the end of the exercise. Pakistan must prepare a strong case, built on facts and figures and actively pursue the matter, first with the Indians to have either the designs suitably amended or the projects altogether abandoned. No delaying tactics should be accepted. In case of failure, we should have recourse to the appropriate international forum for redress. At the same time, Pakistan should not waste time and build water reservoir projects like Kalabagh and Diamir-Bhasha and any other, big or small, that could prove feasible, both for the generation of cheap power and for irrigation purposes.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...s-vicious-plan