By Sameera Aziz
WE used to have a few sessions for sharing thoughts as part of my PhD warm-up course. In one such session, we had a heated debate on an issue that got my professor angry, as unfortunately, most of our elders cannot stand contradictory views from their students. It should not be surprising for a person like me (who has been practically involved in journalism since almost a decade) to express my views straightforwardly. Our respectable professor wanted me to accept his point of view that “war is the only way to bring peace”. He supported the old American notion by presenting the historical fact that America got independence as a result of the Revolutionary War.
Before the American War of Independence (1775 – 1783), the colonies did not want to be taxed without representation. Hence, the war started in the North American continent between the 13 united former British colonies and Great Britain. It finished in a global war between several European great powers.
My view (which may have supported the British Empire) was based on the rejection of the war. I argued that war vanished 13 colonies, costed a lot financially, resulted in the loss of an unknown number of lives, and, eventually, the outbreak of disease claimed more lives than the actual battle. I was not convinced with the idea of war, even if it was for a good cause. I just hate any idea of destruction.
Our respectable professor is among those teachers who want to suppress minds. He told me to leave the hall immediately because he thought I was influencing other students, as a result of which, the debate entered into the Iraq war issue. This took place during the twilight of the Bush administration in the US, and prior to Obama’s presidency.
I was supporting Obama’s views, quoting the speech he delivered on October 2, 2002, at the first high-profile anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago. He gave a thumbs down to ‘dumb wars’, saying, “So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.”
Furthermore, he said, “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.”
I left the hall as it was my duty to respect the order of my respectable teacher, but I kept supporting the notion of peace. At present, we see that President Obama is opening the doors for peace and has declared that America will be ready to talk to the Taleban. American forces are prepared to make overtures to the moderate Taleban commanders using an approach that saw insurgents in Iraq turn against Al-Qaeda.
Why do we not think about peace dialogues? Are we crazy to think about war in this era of nuclear weapons? Today, wars can never bring positive revolutions. Instead they only bring disasters to humanity. It is time that each and every atomic power in the world should sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to secure all dangerous nuclear weapons and materials for a worldwide peace, including countries in South Asia. India and Pakistan should sign the treaty together in a ‘peace ceremony’. Moreover, it should also be considered that the ratification of the CTBT by America and Israel will trigger other ‘non-ratifiers.’
Besides the signing of the CTBT, peace and prosperity in South Asia can be achieved by completing the peace process of India and Pakistan. The diplomatic efforts of composite dialogues between India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir problem should be effectively, practically and seriously addressed. The 26/11 Mumbai attack was indeed a gruesome incident in the world’s history that spoiled the important five-year-long peace talks.
However, a ray of hope has emerged again as Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gilani, and Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, are meeting today in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Every peace loving person is wishing for the resumption of a back channel peace process in the same tacit way that had once started during Pervez Musharraf’s time, giving us hopes of a peaceful solution for Kashmir.
India is willing to meet Pakistan “more than half way” if it cleans up militants that it blames for the Mumbai attacks. In response, Pakistan is also aiming to make keen efforts. But, it would be unproductive to merely talk about the blamed militants while neglecting the Kashmir issue which is linked with the fundamental rights of more than 17 million Kashmiri people.
India and Pakistan have had many rounds of talks earlier as well. They have failed to make effective development on core issues. Indeed, the terrorists’ network should be uprooted effectively from both the countries and the people of Jammu and Kashmir should also be a part of the peace process for a satisfactory solution.
America needs to pay heed to the Kashmir issue in order to get rid of terrorism as well as to win the war in Afghanistan. Talks are the best solution to bring peace, but these should just not be mere talks. Peace needs agreements, treaties, bonds, will and honesty.
The consequences of war are terrible and the sacrifices are untold. Nonviolent measures are the only solution for a peaceful world today. – SG
0 comments:
Post a Comment