India and Pakistan May Need a Cricket “Test Ban Treaty”

by M.M. Ali

Not only is English beef suddenly not edible, another proud British tradition is in jeopardy. Cricket—a game that is played throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations and which symbolizes the courtly traditions of the British Empire—is not just a sport; it is a national obsession wherever it is played.

But things are changing. Violence on the field and in the stands has given England and Germany a bad name in soccer. Ice hockey no longer is televised in prime time in the U.S. because of the unacceptable level of violence among the players. By contrast, cricket was always known as the “gentleman’s game” and test-matches at one time were played for five days at a stretch. Not any more. The recently completed Will’s World Cup Cricket Tournament brought to the fore some harsh realities. True, the game itself is not to be faulted. The politics of the subcontinent had a lot to do with incidents that marred several tournament encounters.

When Pakistan lost to India in the quarter-finals at Bangalore, India, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao rushed to congratulate the Indian team on its victory. In Pakistan, the National Assembly in Islamabad wanted to conduct “an inquiry” into the performance of Pakistan’s team. Pakistani captain Wasim Akram’s home in Lahore, Pakistan, was pelted with rotten eggs and stones and the entire team went into hiding on its return from India.

Things got even worse when tiny Sri Lanka defeated giant India in the semi-finals in Calcutta, India. Infuriated Indian onlookers stormed the field before the game was over, burned the stadium and threatened to kill the Indian team’s captain, Mohammed Azharuddin, who is an outstanding batsman, an unmatched fielder, a gentleman 2's gentleman and the only Muslim on the Indian team. The government of India had to post armed guards at his residence.

The entire disgraceful Calcutta episode was televised live via satellite to the world. Although Indians apologized, they and the Pakistani fans were shamed. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankans went on to beat Australia in Lahore and take the world championship.

It is likely, as the later incidents demonstrated, that had Pakistan defeated India in the quarter-finals on Indian soil, the lives of the visiting Pakistani team would have been in jeopardy and the result could even have sparked Hindu-Muslim riots in India. Several Pakistanis thanked Allah for the loss. But one Pakistani fan committed suicide because his team did not win. However one may describe the way the game was played in the subcontinent this year, it certainly was not cricket.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was approved by 178 nations last year. This year the United States would like to see the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) signed by “as many states as possible.” The 38 nations that have been meeting in Geneva to work out an acceptable CTBT have found that they still are far from a consensus.

The U.S., France and Britain want a total “zero yield” test ban. Russia also wants a total ban but is not clear on the modalities of its implementation. China would like to leave the door open for “peaceful” nuclear tests. Among the known three threshold states—India, Pakistan, Israel—India now wants a complete nuclear disarmament with a specific timetable. And Pakistan will sign the CTBT if India does so. “We are relatively close together, we are drawing closer…This historic opportunity must not be lost,” observed Warren Christopher, the U.S. secretary of state. However, not many share Christopher’s optimism.

While the states are discussing the need and the prospects of CTBT, a spate of scary stories has been circulating in the subcontinent in recent weeks. In a powerful op-ed article, Jessica Matthews wrote in the March 25 Washington Post: “If there is a political snarl anywhere in the world for which there does not seem to be a promising solution, it is surely the India-Pakistan-China nuclear tinderbox.” Pointing at the current nuclear and missile capability race between India and Pakistan, Matthews observed: “India is poised to derail the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, China’s continuing violations of the NPT threaten the integrity of that accord and Pakistan has stymied efforts to reach a global ban on production of weapons fuel.”

It is unfortunate that even well-intentioned international proposals aimed at securing peace have to fit with regional realities. China is destined to play its big brother role in Southeast Asia. India, which is desperately trying to achieve economic and technological viability but knows it has several bridges to cross, finds the nuclear route a faster way to flex its muscles and be recognized sooner.

Pakistan, which is unsure of U.S. support in this post-Cold War period, can ill afford to lose the friendship of an old enemy’s enemy, China, to maintain some semblance of a power balance in South Asia and safeguard its own security.

Chronically tense South Asian geo-politics do not allow any of the regional countries to sign off on international disarmament treaties. India no longer enjoys the luxury of pontificating on international issues as it did in the 1950s. Pakistan likewise has grown out of the military pacts with the West to safeguard its frontiers. It’s a new ball game today.

However, with the spread of nuclear know-how in the subcontinent and with major disputes like Kashmir still unresolved, South Asia poses a serious threat to world peace. The question arises: should CTBT be pushed down Indian and Pakistani throats, or should points of friction between the two countries be removed first so that the prescribed potion of nuclear ban is taken willingly?

International proposals need to address regional demands as well. Timing is equally important. Election year is a bad time in any country to make controversial decisions. India is faced with a very critical election this year. Recent polls have shown that nuclear testing is a very popular issue with Indian voters and every political party supports it.

If New Delhi has been advocating a comprehensive nuclear disarmament with a definite time frame, its posturing is understandable. If Warren Christopher himself remains in office next year, it would be the right time to talk to the Indians. CTBT should not be pushed at this time.

Elections in India

In the absence of meaningful political opposition, the Indian National Congress party under the charismatic leadership of the Nehru dynasty went about holding one election after another for more than 40 years with confidence and complacency. The India of the 1990s is a different country, however. The Congress party has lost its hold, and three generations of national leaders of the Nehru family are gone, at least for the time being.

Several states have rejected the Congress. West Bengal remains under the Communist party. Uttar Pradesh has been changing hands between Congress and nonCongress groups. Janata Dal has formed a government in Bihar; AIADMK controls Tamil Nadu; Maharashtra is being run by a Bharatiya Janata Party combine; and Andhra has Telegu Desham. The Congress under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao hangs on to power precariously at the center. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an extreme right-wing Hindu organization that scorns the secular positions of the Congress party, has made serious inroads into the Indian electorate and today is poised to replace Rao.

Elections in India are scheduled for April/May 1996. With leaders from both the Congress and the BJP involved in the hawala (bribery with money laundering) case presently sweeping the country, Narasimha Rao is willing to make alliances with questionable opposition groups across the country. He also is wooing the Muslims and the depressed communities.

BJP has once again launched its Rath Yatra (the carriage pilgrimage procession) to whip up Hindu frenzy. The last such Yatra culminated in the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya in 1990, and touched off rioting in many places.

Elections in India are to be completed in phases in different parts of the country. Voting was scheduled to start in some parts on April 27 and move on to other areas on May 2, May 7 and May 21st. Vote counting was to be done on May 8, May 9 and May 23rd, with the results withheld until the whole process is completed.

The staggered arrangement is “to allow security forces to move across the country to protect the 590 million people eligible to vote.” Interestingly, election dates for the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir also have been announced, although Presidential Rule continues in the state and local administrative and political machinery remains suspended. The elections scheduled for Kashmir are limited to filling seats in the Indian parliament. New Delhi may be able to hold some kind of elections in the Jammu and perhaps in the Ladakh parts of Kashmir, where Hindus and Buddhists are in the majority. It is highly doubtful, however, if elections can be held in the Valley of Kashmir, which comprises the major part of the state and where the Muslim majority has declared strong opposition to the polls.

The leading Indian magazine, India Today, observed on April 15: “The administration faces a logistical nightmare as it prepares for Lokh Sabha [lower house of the Indian parliament] polls in Kashmir: at least 70,000 security personnel have to be in the Valley by May 21 to conduct elections in three constituencies; 15,000 employees will have to be brought from Delhi and Chandigarh since state employees are likely to boycott elections; doctors will have to be flown from outside as the local health department also will be on strike; rations will have to be carted to 430 polling booths which are off the roads.” The Election Commission also faced an unanticipated problem in several constituencies where hundreds of candidates filed to run for a single parliamentary seat, creating serious administrative problems. In such areas the chief election commissioner postponed elections for another month.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao started negotiations with a group of Kashmiris but has failed to draw any mainstream leader into the talks. The most recent military confrontation with the Kashmiri mujahideen at the Hazrathbal shrine in Srinagar has added to the general distrust. New Delhi may have to find a way out of the quagmire again unless it wants to return candidates under heavy guard and elected by fewer than acceptable numbers.

Election-eve headaches for both the Congress and the BJP kept mounting. Members who failed to obtain party tickets to run for Lokh Sabha seats walked out and joined other parties. Congress’s unholy alliances with other parties also have caused several Congress stalwarts to resign from the party. Given the recent politics of India, and more pertinently, the current fluid environment, predictions are that no single party will be able to gain a clear majority. In all probability, it will be a hung parliament in June. The real results, however, will emerge after political bargaining is completed between different political parties after the elections.

Another Election in Bangladesh

The Wall Street Journal, in a totally different context, made an April 2 editorial comment that applies directly to the situation in Bangladesh. The paper said: “What discredits democracy is when people go to the polls and nothing changes.”

Begum Khaleda Zia’s “landslide” electoral victory on Feb. 15 turned out to be one of those electoral events. (See the January 1996 Washington Report.) Less than two months later, faced with a relentless campaign launched by the combined opposition led by Awami League leader Shaikh Hasina, Prime Minister Zia was forced to give in to demands that she resign and ask President Biswas to form a caretaker government and call for new elections.

The parliament, in an overwhelming vote, adopted legislation providing for the formation of a caretaker government. Soon after, the president dissolved the parliament and appointed former Justice Habibur Rahman to assume the office of the prime minister and hold elections within 90 days.

The crisis that had started with the mass resignation of all opposition members of the parliament in December 1994 and continued with demands for the resignation of Khaleda Zia, thereafter led to mass demonstrations and violent street clashes.

The February elections that were boycotted by the opposition led to even bigger trouble. The following two months saw heightened tension in the country with daily strikes literally paralyzing normal life. It was estimated that each day of strikes cost the already economically strapped country $50 million. The deteriorating law-and-order situation finally convinced Khaleda Zia to make way for holding “fair and impartial” elections.

Ironically, the current interim period may prove to be the most peaceful time in the short history of Bangladesh. It is likely Shaikh Hasina, who now is riding on a wave of popularity, will be elected as the next prime minister. Bangladesh still is not likely to move toward political stability, however. Instead, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) may follow the example of the Awami League and resort to street politics to destabilize Hasina’s government. It is not clear how or when the cycle of violence can be broken.