Reconciliation

The Unhappiness Factory of Kashmir

Posted by

20

In an April 2012 issue of Open Magazine, the editor Manu Joseph wrote a provocatively titled essay, “Sorry, Kashmir is Happy”. Unsurprisingly, this article became the subject of heated discussion. In this InPEC article, the author – Sualeh Keen, a Kashmiri writer, poet and cultural critic – brings some perspective to this issue.  

By Sualeh Keen, 7th May 2012

Trauma in Kashmir is like a heritage building—the elite fight to preserve it. ‘Don’t forget,’ is their predominant message, ‘Don’t forget to be traumatised.’ They want the wound of Kashmir to endure because the wound is what indicts India for the many atrocities of its military. This might be a long period of calm, but if the wound vanishes, where is the justice? India simply gets away with all those rapes, murders and disappearances? So nothing disgusts them more than these words: ‘Normalcy returns to Kashmir’; ‘Peace returns to the Valley’; ‘Kashmiris want to move on’.

When Manu Joseph wrote these words in the Open Magazine article ‘Sorry, Kashmir Is Happy’, it was but expected that ‘they’ would get disgusted and outraged. ‘They’ are the intellectual writers and online activists that constitute the second generation of Kashmiri Muslim separatists, the first generation being the Pakistan-trained mujahideen who fought with AK-47s, grenades, rockets, and bombs against ‘Hindu India’ in search of Azadi (literally, ‘freedom’). While originally Azadi meant the valley’s accession to Pakistan, after the Pakistan-sponsored armed uprising in the early 90’s failed and with the onset of internal turmoil in Pakistan, the meaning of Azadi has shifted from accession to Pakistan to independence from both India and Pakistan. This demand is largely confined to the Kashmiri Muslim community of the Kashmir valley, while finding little or no support in the Jammu and Ladakh regions of the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) State. Even in the valley, opinions are divided in favour of independence, accession to Pakistan, greater autonomy or self-rule within the Indian union, and political status quo.

Continue reading →

The UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka’s Alleged War Crimes

Posted by

1

In this article, the author explores the resolution’s impact on Sri Lanka, and its probable implications with reference to Sri Lanka.

By Rithika Nair, 3rd April, 2012

The United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) judgment on Sri Lanka’s efforts at post-conflict reconstruction, invited an abundance of opinions and debate globally. Newspapers cried out country decisions to the US sponsored resolution with regard to their foreign policies, domestic policies and moral policies. In lending an ear to all the global justifications and rationalizations, the importance shifted away from what Sri Lanka had to say with regard to the resolution and its possible impact on the island.

In 2010, the Government of Sri Lanka created the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) suo moto, to look into the causes of the conflict, its consequences on the people, and to promote national unity and reconciliation. The LLRC, though criticized for overlooking the violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed by the Sri Lankan army, stated that there were “considerable” civilian casualties. This was opposed to the government claims, which insisted on a zero-casualty rate.

The international community had already begun to push Sri Lanka to begin its post-conflict reconstruction agenda.  The LLRC report increased this demand for the Sri Lankan government to act – prosecute those who were accountable for civilian massacres, and bring relief to those displaced and devastated by the war.

This never happened.

The disappointing LLRC report largely exonerating the government, and the subsequent government inaction to suggested accountability procedures encouraged the international community to act.

In March 2012, the US submitted a resolution at the 19th session of the UNHRC, urging the Sri Lankan government “to address serious allegations of violations of international law by initiating credible and independent investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for such violations.” The resolution, after being slightly amended to word that the implementation of any external advice or investigation by the Human Rights Commissioner or Special Procedures must unfold only “in consultation with and the concurrence of ” the Sri Lankan government, was passed with 24 votes in favour, 15 against, and 8 abstentions.

The closing of Sri Lankan embassies in Europe, the threats to human rights defenders and the anti-Americanism in Sri Lanka are some of the immediate effects of the resolution. But it’s long-term implications – constructive and destructive, are nothing but analytical renderings as of now.

The resolution with its honorouble intentions could be a possible check on the quasi-dictatorship of Mahinda Rajapaksa. It could be the warning hand on the back, reminding Sri Lanka of what it had promised to deliver three years ago, a paternal gesture offering assistance if needed. It could imply that dialogue and soft diplomacy may harden, and the whispers of a ‘South Asian Spring’ may jump to reality with an international demand for the removal of Rajapaksa from his throne. With the Sri Lankan Tamils still dissatisfied with their government’s empty promises of reconciliation, and Sinhalese human rights activists being called traitors if they stood up for the Tamils, it would not be long before Sri Lanka could walk the line with Maldives, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. If such a future be predicted, then the precautionary resolution – a very fair and balanced one, has been passed at a very appropriate juncture.

The resolution may have been a UN step to avoid being blamed for not taking action. Perhaps the UN was guilty of its own lack of action while the crisis unfolded over 26 years. Then, the resolution is but a ticking pendulum, softly but notably reminding Sri Lanka of its obligations and responsibility – and in doing so, delivering rehabilitation and hopeful justice to the victims of the war – the people of Sri Lanka.

On the other hand, the resolution placed the ball back in the Lankan court, and it ordered the multi-faced Lankan king to finish what he had promised to do. It asked him to submit an action plan detailing what he had done, and will do to implement the LLRC recommendations, and to address all matters that violated international law.

The king, with all ten heads, rejected the resolution.

Neither he nor his court thought that it added any value to the humanitarian and justice implementation process in Sri Lanka. They felt the resolution was ‘counterproductive’, ‘ill-timed’, and ‘an unwarranted initiative’. They perceived the supporters and sponsors of the resolution to be LTTE sympathizers – those who underestimated the violence and trauma that the LTTE had unleashed upon them. They felt that the unpunished situations in Afghanistan, Iraq and India removed the moral legitimacy of the resolution.  Lobbying against the vote in Geneva transcended into anti-America lobbying, and human rights activists and defenders of the resolution were threatened in Sri Lanka. In such circumstances, the significance of the resolution is undermined.

This resolution should not and cannot be rejected by comparing them to conflict situations where deeds committed by the sponsors and supporters go unchecked. This matter pertains to and reflects on Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka alone. This does not mean that this case supersedes any of the other situations, but the current context is Sri Lanka, and that should be respected. If the world and its leaders were to act and re-act following the policy of every eye for an eye, and every tooth for a tooth, the vicious cycle of blame and revenge would never stop spinning.

However, as the ambassador for Bangladesh very prudently stated at the Council session, if Sri Lanka is not on board, then the resolution will have a very limited impact. Without the Sri Lankan nod to implement efficient rehabilitation and accountability measures, the resolution is but an empty bell with no sound.

Afghanistan in transition: a reporter’s diary

Posted by

0

In this post, the author shares notes taken during his attendance to a popular TV show night in Kabul, called ‘Kabul Debate Live’, where participants and audience discussed the issue of ‘Reconciliation with Taliban’.

From the same author:

Photo essay: Stories from Kabul, Part I
Photo essay: Stories from Kabul, Part II

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Abhishek Srivastava, 26 Jan, 2012

It was just before 11 at night, and I was thinking of calling a cab, when Dr Walid drove up and offered to drop me at my guest house. On any other day, travelling by road would have been an affordable risk to take in Afghanistan: a country fraught with suicide attacks, kidnappings and roadside bombings.

Paul, CEO of 1TV media group, had invited me to be part of a popular television debate called ‘Kabul Debate Live’. A crowd of about two hundred Afghans occupied the swanky studio of 1TV anxiously waiting to talk about the absence of peace, and to voice their opinion on one of the most closely watched debates of the country: ‘Reconciliation with Taliban’.

As the international troops begin to withdraw, especially with America announcing a complete draw down of its decade-long presence by 2014, the Obama administration is now looking at a gradual shift from a military solution to a political one.

“It is interesting and ironic to discuss Taliban reconciliation on a TV debate, when Taliban itself had banned television viewing. Even owning a TV set was a crime. Today, I have travelled a long distance to be a part of this debate. And I hope we get answers”, said Farshad, a second-year Kabul University student.

A study conducted by Altai Consultancy in October 2010 revealed that less than a quarter of Afghanistan’s population has satellite TV equipment. Cable TV is essentially an urban phenomenon, with a penetration of only 5%, while Radio, although a dying medium, has a penetration of 68%.

“TV is mostly used for movies and dramas, while news is accessed through radio sets”, said, Ahmad Rafi Maseer, a Kabul based IT consultant.

Minutes before going live, the host and the brainchild behind this ground-breaking concept, 28 year old Samiullah Mahdi is nervous. “One of the most important speakers of the day declined to participate at the last minute, but we requested a parliamentarian to be a part of the show”, said Samiullah rushing to the studio.

The guest who declined is Taliban’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Habibullah Fawzi.

“It is disappointing not to have a Taliban voice in a discussion that talks about them. It says a lot about their commitment to the peace dialogue”, said Mostafa Mahmoud, News and Current Affairs Director of 1TV.

Samiullah enters the studio, followed by the speakers: Shahla Farid –a law and political science professor in Kabul University; Ahmad Wali Massoud –brother of the founder of Northern Alliance, the late Ahmad Shah Massoud; Professor Aminuddin Muzafary represents the High Peace Council –a loose group of people hand-picked by President Hamid Karzai to broker peace with the Taliban; and Fawzia Kofi –a Member of Parliament from Kabul.

‘What women want, is rarely a concern’

“Reconciliation with Taliban”, says Sami, throwing open the debate.

“We need to include women in any kind of peace dialogue. Women play an important role in nation-building” interjects Shahla Farid.

It is well documented that groups like Taliban and Hiz-i-Islami (Gulbuddin) have been synonymous with violent repression of women in Afghanistan.

Visuals of a burqa-clad woman squatting in the middle of a Kabul stadium, while bullets were sprayed into her skull point-blank with a Kalashnikov by a Talib, shocked the world and brought to light the barbarism of Taliban rule.

“I don’t think peace talks with the Taliban are possible because of our past experience. During the Taliban regime, women couldn’t go out; they couldn’t work or get an education. The Taliban would rather see a woman die in the streets than go to a restaurant to get food if men were around –these are the kind of people we are talking about”, said a female parliamentarian, on condition of anonymity, in an interview to Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Since the fall of the Taliban, women in Afghanistan have gained some rights and freedoms, but there are still insurmountable problems.

“I personally think the opinion of women is not given much importance in Afghanistan. But looking at the current situation, even if there is resistance they will be present because Americans want to include them, and Afghanistan is run by Americans right now”, intervened Mohammad Asif Ziar, while translating the debate for me, which was a mix of Pashto and Dari.

Majority of Afghan men are mired in a culture and belief system that hides ingrained misogynist policies. While they publicly preach a strict moral code and criminalise female prostitution, they procure young boys and sexually abuse them. The warlords who fought for Afghanistan and its ‘Islamic’ cause kept young boys as their sexual partners for long. Bacha Bazi (boy play) is a lucrative business in Afghanistan. “Just 500 Afghans for the boy to make your night”, said an Afghan friend, while making his offer.

Asif’s intervention reminded me of a conversation I had with a senior editor of a leading news agency in Afghanistan. He had sought my suggestion on marrying his junior colleague. The question seemed a bit odd, because he was already married, and the girl he wanted to marry was as old as his daughter. When I expressed my doubts, he said, “Afghanistan is an Islamic country, and I can marry four times, and the girl I want to marry has crossed her ‘marriageable’ age of 27, and she has no option but to marry elderly, married or divorced, or even handicapped men. So I am the best she can get. This is Afghanistan. What women want is rarely a concern”.

A large number of women in the Pol-e-Charkhi jail in Kabul are languishing on charges of ‘moral crimes’ that include premarital sex, running away from home, and adultery.

“If we intend to include Taliban in the peace process, then it is very important for them to recognise and acknowledge Afghanistan’s Constitution.  That should be the first condition, if they are to be included in mainstream politics”, said Fawzia Kofi. The audience rose in applause.

It is noteworthy that while Article 22 of the Afghan Constitution guarantees equality of both men and women, Article 3 states that no law can contradict the Shari’a. Therefore, even if the Taliban accept the constitution in exchange for power, their interpretation of the Constitution will only curtail women’s rights.

According to a recent BBC report, on November 10th 2011 the Taliban allegedly stoned and shot dead a woman and her daughter in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province. The Taliban had accused the women of ‘moral deviation’ and ‘adultery’. The attack happened just few meters away from the governor’s office in Ghazni city, a place which is yet to be transferred to the Afghan security forces from hands of International forces.

Despite the presence of international forces, there are areas that are still in Taliban control. Women face death threats and even acid attacks regularly. There are those whose lives are in danger for working for the Americans or for not following the Taliban way of Islam. But there are groups that run the risk of opposing the Taliban. Like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, or RAWA –an underground group that fights for secular democracy and women’s rights.

The debate moves on. A charged audience is anxious to speak after hearing the guests. Samiullah tries his best to steer the 60-minute debate.

‘Taliban, after all, are sons of Afghanistan’

“What has your organisation done for the peace process? Did you make any headway in your talks with the Taliban?”, asks Samiullah.

“People think that talking to the Taliban and bringing them back into mainstream politics will take us back ten years. I want to say that as an organisation promoting peace, we will work only towards that end, and we will care for the rights and prosperity of the Afghans”, says Professor Aminuddin Muzafary, a representative of the High Peace Council.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai formed a High Peace Council in September 2010 to further peace talks with the Taliban and other insurgent groups as part of a reconciliation process. The composition of this 70 member group raises serious concerns over the success of peace negotiations.

Head of this council was former Afghan President, and a jihadist –Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, who later helped the invading US army topple the Taliban regime in 2001. Others include former warlords Abdul Rab Rasoul Sayaf and Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq who are bitter rivals. Both have fought the Taliban. Sayaf is even accused of massacring Hazaras –a minority community in 1993. These men are an unlikely choice for peace-making with the Taliban.

A big blow to the peace dialogue came on the night of September 20th 2011, when two men pretending to be peace emissaries gained entry to Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani’s house, in a highly secured zone of Kabul, and brutally assassinated him by detonating a bomb, hidden inside the turban.

Assassinations in Afghanistan are an everyday phenomenon. In fact, a surge in the number of high-profile assassinations in recent months –including commander of the northern police zone, General Daoud Daoud; Kunduz Police Chief, Abdul Rahman Sayedkheli; and now Professor Rabbani– is being seen as a swift elimination of people standing in the way of peace favouring the insurgents, especially the Taliban, that is reminiscent of the civil war.

The Taliban has however, repeatedly denied peace talks. They have asserted that they will not enter into dialogue with the government until there is complete withdrawal of all international troops from Afghanistan.

The audience gets impatient. Sami finally takes opinions from the audience.

“All the council members are puppets of the U.S. government. They have been bought and are here only to serve their own interests. We don’t accept them. So there’s no point in them talking peace on our behalf, says Muzhary Fazal Rahman, a young journalist from Kabul.

“Taliban after all are children of Afghanistan. They are sons of our soil. Why alienate them? They are committing acts of violence because we are under American influence”, said an emotional old frail voice among the audience. This was followed by a mild applause, showing not many in the audience seem to agree.

“The High Peace Council is not in favour of omitting the Taliban from Afghanistan’s political ground, we want them to re-think their strategies”, said Professor Aminuddin Muzafary.

“The moment we acknowledge the Taliban and involve them in the ‘peace-process’, we give them the status of a legitimate organisation. So it’s better we avoid that”, said Ahmad Wali Massoud.

The intense debate that lasted 90 minutes ends with an audience poll. More than half (54.4%) say the Taliban should be defeated militarily. The rest want peace talks along with a withdrawal of foreign troops.

The debate did not bring out concrete solutions, but it symbolised hope and change, for about seven years ago such a TV programme with two women speakers would not have been possible.

Assassination

It was ten past eleven. I had finished dinner with 1TV crew and the guest speakers when we heard the news of the assassination of the police chief in Kunduz, Northern Province.

Realising that the situation had turned tense, Dr Walid Roshan, the executive manager of 1TV, walked up to me and offered a ride to my guest house.

The dark night had an eerie silence. Kabul’s streets were cordoned off and a large number of police vehicles with blaring sirens were zipping. Dr Walid had just hit the road when a police personal in an SUV across the road trained the barrel of his gun at us. I could not stop but shout, “Dr Walid, gun”! He immediately stopped and so did the trigger. After a brief chat with the police he continued driving. “Sorry, I did not realise they were coming. They saw a potential threat in us and they don’t hesitate in shooting”, said Walid.

As we made our way through the many checkpoints to reach the guest house, the entire day flashed in front of my eyes; that microcosm made me understand Afghanistan’s impending challenges. Especially the definition of ‘peace’ in a highly volatile and trigger-happy time of Afghanistan.

While Afghanistan assimilates the fragmented peace that prevails in the country, the Taliban and other insurgents groups continue to pull-off a series of spectacular attacks. In a big blow to the US earlier this month, Taliban shot down a US helicopter, Chinook, during a combat mission, killing 31 US special operation troops. According to a latest UN report, more civilians have died in the first six months of 2011 than any other time during this decade long conflict.

All these signs, coupled with the much talked about U.S. troop-withdrawal just as Karzai’s term ends, send out the message that Afghanistan might just slip into an abyss deeper than it was in 2001.