On Blasphemy

The recent public debate on blasphemy reminded me of an article I wrote, as part of a column called Miscellany-at-Law (A Diversion) that was published, for a while, in The Friday Times around about, I think, 2001/2002. There's an element of time-warp in the column because, I'm posting this on 12 Rabi ul Awwal and there's a cricket World Cup underway (the relevance of this becomes clear because of the case referred to in the last paragraph).

On Blasphemy

Readers will no doubt be aware of the recent violence in Nigeria, precipitated by some unwarranted comments about the Holy Prophet and the contestants of this year’s Miss World competition, scheduled in Lagos on 7 December 2002. The violence protesting against the blasphemous remarks cost some 200 lives, and has resulted in the competition shifting to the safer environs of London.

Readers will also no doubt be aware of the local pathans who had taken umbrage against an allegedly blasphemous letter written in the Frontier Post last year. Their overreaction to this letter has seen the destruction of that newspaper’s offices as well as (non-sequitor) a cinema. The law of blasphemy has had an infamous past in our country, and much has been written about the merits and demerits of this legislation. Notwithstanding the ludicrous over-reaction of the Allah-fearing tribesmen of Peshawar – what with going on a violent rampage when a more dignified response would have been adequate – there have been other occasions where these laws have been pressed into service with amusing (at least in these cases) results.

For example, Muslims are not the only religious community in Pakistan who have been subject to blasphemous remarks. In 1952, an advocate of the Lahore High Court, Khawaja Nazir Ahmad, published a book called “Jesus on Heaven and Earth”. The book was forfeited over a year later by order of the Punjab Government on the grounds that “it was a vituperative attack on four fundamental Christian beliefs.” The book said that “Jesus was born of the wedlock of Mary and Joseph, that he did not die on the cross, but was removed while still alive, that after his wounds had healed, he and his mother went to Muree where the latter died, that thence he proceeded to Kashmir where he also died, that Muree has been named after Mary who grave is also found there, and that the grave of Jesus is in Srinagar.” On a somewhat different note, the narrative of the book resembles the plot of one of Sultan Rahi’s famous films: Hitlar. In it, it is shown that Hitler did not, in fact, commit suicide, but instead retreated to the Punjabi heartland to raise an equally malevolent son.

The case was argued by the Khawaja Nazir Ahmad himself who, as Mr. Justice M.R. Kiyani of the Lahore High Court observed, needed “some little assistance by Mr. Yaqub Ali on the legal issue”. Justice Kiayani went on to describe Nazir Ahmad’s rhetoric as full of “religious fervor, touching occasionally the high-water mark of fanaticism, so essential for a missionary.”

Justice Kiayani found the contents of the book clearly fell into the mischief of section 295-A, but added by way of warning against the misuse of the blasphemy laws that “although the religious beliefs of the Christians have been insulted by this book, it will not be easy to presume on the strength of the words used, that the author had ‘deliberate and malicious intention of outraging’ their religious feelings. The intention is burdened by so many heavy adjectives that [sic] attack be very clearly abusive, obscene or vulgar before it can cause [sic] mischief of s. 295-A, or to Christians, or indeed to any religious body.”

Justice Kiayani also had a few words to say about the two Christians, Mr. C.E. Gibbon and Mr. S.P. Singha, both representatives of the legislative assembly, who sought to be made party to this case, or for that matter anyone who sought to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy. He felt that the matter was between the government and the publishers. He also had some advice for the government, which had taken two years to take action against the book: “It was unnecessary for Mr. Gibbon to file an affidavit, and it was futile to argue that Mr. Gibbon alone was offended. We do not expect Mr. Gibbon to arm himself with a kirpan and preach violence from the steps of the Assembly building to a very peaceful community. But if we look for resolutions and protests meetings, and processions carrying blackened faces on donkeys and fireworks and tear-gas before we take action, then we foster cold contempt and hatred and sap the foundations of the State.” Words that are relevant even today. (In the matter of the Book “Jesus In Heaven on Earth” and in the matter of Woking Muslim Mission And Literary Trust, Lahore and of the Civil and Military Gazette, Limited, Lahore v. The Crown PLD 1954 Lah 724.)

Even the High and Mighty have not been spared. In the summer of 1977, the Chairman of WAPDA, Maj. Gen. Fazal-i-Raziq gave a rousing speech to the officers of WAPDA, impressing upon them the importance of “haqooq-al-abad”, the need to earn an honest livelihood and to complete Tarbela Dam as early as possible in order to rebuild the economy of the country (the more things change, the more they stay the same…). A few months later, one Riaz Ahmad filed a complaint against the Chairman under section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code on the grounds that the otherwise innocuous speech was a deliberate and malicious attempt to outrage the religious feelings of the Muslims of Pakistan. The law reports are silent as to his motives, but do disclose that, he had only recently been removed from his post as Superintendent of the WAPDA House in Lahore. Res ipso loquitor.

The complaint was quashed on technical grounds, with the Lahore High Court holding that prosecutions under section 295-A, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were to be taken up only on the authority of the Federal or Provincial Governments, and not by way of private complaint (Major General Fazal-i-Raziq, Chairman WAPDA v. Ch. Riaz Ahmad PLD 1978 Lah 1082). Readers will be aware that the other sub-sections of section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code do not have such a safety provision, rendering the legislation susceptible to the abuse of private individuals. Readers will also remember that attempts to modify these laws in order to make blasphemy prosecutions the sole responsibility of the Government have been met with violence, much like that seen in Peshawar recently.

More recently, however, even the publishers of the Holy Quran have not been spared against allegations of blasphemy. In the case of M.M.K.A. Zai v. The Director General FIA (PLD 1988 Kar 505), the Taj Company itself was accused of blasphemy. The petitioner found that some of the hard-cover bindings of the Holy Quran hid “nude and indecent pictures” (what the Petitioner was doing ripping up covers of the Holy Quran was not questioned during proceedings), and sought the Company to be tried under section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. An investigation of the Taj Company’s premises revealed three more Qurans containing “objectionable material”. Even the Taj Company was stumped.

Subsequent FIA investigations revealed that in 1980, the Company had placed an order of 12,500 copies of the Holy Quran from an Italian firm, If-Ghifo of Milan. This Italian concern, as things turned out, must not have been aware of the purpose for which they were being asked to prepare the bindings for so many books, and had used material from old art magazines. That explained the nudies. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah (as he was then) of the Sindh High Court held that as nobody in Pakistan was blame for this reprehensible act, and as the Taj Company was taking the necessary steps to recall the books, no legal action was needed.

Discerning readers will also be aware that M.M.K.A. Zai is one of the first public interest litigants in the country. In 1988, he filed a writ in the Sindh High Court, attempting to ban the broadcast of the semi-finals of the Reliance Cup (M.M.K.A. Zai v. Incharge, Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. PLD 1988 Kar 307). He contended that the date of the match coincided with 12 Rabi-ul-Awal, and good Muslims should be “reciting Darood, Salaam and Naats” on that auspicious occasion rather than being distracted by cricket. Religious fervor must have made him overlook the venue of the match: Bombay. Dismissing the petition, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, no doubt a cricket-lover, observed that Bombay “is not only outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court but it is also outside the country.” Case dismissed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For anyone's who's got this far, two confessions:

First, that the name of the column, Miscellany-at-Law was shamelessly lifted by me from the name of the wonderful series of diversions on the law by R.E. Megarry, V-C. Megarry's wit and marvellous grasp of legal trivia made, in many ways, my understanding of the law easier and infinitely more fun. In defence to any charges of plagiarism, I will happily reply by stating that imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Second, almost every one of the articles I wrote in this series of columns, and I think they were over two-dozen, give or take, began with "On". Thus On Blasphemy or On Goondas or On Honour Killings and so on. I ascribed to this pretentious affectation because, I confess, of a great admiration of The Master Essayist himself, Michel de Montaigne. Montaigne started each of his essays (other than An Apology for Raymon Seybond) with "On", I was only happy enough to pretend to I could do so too.

A glimpe into how the city works

City pages come and go, but it's rare to find a story that reveals to you how the a city like Lahore is actually run. Ali Raza has, for quite a while, been handling the environment beat at The News' Lahore office. I've been following him for some time now because he has the knack of finding real environmental stories where everyone else doesn't go beyond "cleanliness drives".

Ali Raza seems to have shifted beats because this piece today is about a the construction of a parking plaza behind Lahore's civil courts. Either way, it's one of those newspaper reports that, if you read between the lines, speaks volumes of how the business of government and urban planning is run in this city.

ETPB, commissioner tussle over parking plaza
By Ali Raza
LAHORE
The News, 23 September 2010 - Lahore Section

THE Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) and the Lahore division commissioner have locked horns over the construction of a parking plaza as the board wants to complete the project while the commissioner terms it a security risk.

Sources in the ETPB said the board wanted to resume construction of a multi-storey building at one of its vacant plots on Dev Samaj Road while the Lahore division commissioner was not allowing it. The plot measuring 3 Kanal, 7 marlas and 58 Sq Ft bearing Khasra number 2486 belonged to Sir Dayal Singh College Trust and the property vests in the ETPB.

It is situated adjacent to the office of the Lahore division commissioner while other important buildings around this property are Punjab Civil Secretariat, Civil and Family Courts Complex (Aiwan-e-Adl), ETPB Head office, LDA’s building and Election Commission of Pakistan.

The plot in question is located behind the Lahore Civil Courts and sort of right between the head office of the ETPB and office the Commissioner, Lahore Division. This used to be where the DCO used to sit (the DCO has been moved to the Magistrates Court, which is where the old Deputy Commissioners office used to be).

A couple of years ago, when it was run by Mushraraff appointee General Zulfiquar, the ETPB auctioned off (or tried to auctions off some the properties in its portfolio. Remember, the ETPB was established after Partition to hold in trust all the lands and properties left behind by Hindu and Sikh migrants who, having overnight become non-Muslim community in a new Muslim country, thought it better to pull stumps and leave for the newly created India. Most of these properties were later transferred by the ETPB to Mulsim migrants who had abandoned their homes and their lives to come live in the newly created Pakistan but many, especially properties themselves dedicated for religious or charitable, were left for the ETPB to manage, as trustees, in furtherance of the wishes of the founders of those trusts and charities.

Because it manages so many properties of Hindu and Sikh religious significance, the ETPB has earned the nickname "Hindu Auqaaf" and which is why, the Diyal Singh Library in Lahore falls under the administrative management of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

All this is not to say that the folks over at the ETPB don't have a good nose for real-estate. In the mid-naughties (Is it fair to call this past decade of the 21st Century "The Naughties"?), when property markets shot through the roof, these folks must have persuaded the ETPB to get on the bandwagon. Dozens of notices were issued seeking expressions of interest from contractors and real estate developers in the many properties the ETPB has peppered all over the country. One of these properties was this little plot between the ETPB head office and what was then the office of the DCO. Given the parking and congestion problem caused by having a school, the DCO's office, the Civil Courts and the Lahore Development Authority Complex crammed together, someone must have thought a parking stand would be a great idea. For the ETPB, it was a great idea: It would raise revenue from the auction of the plot and then earn money through a toll-sharing arrangement with the parking thekaydar.

Sources in the EPTB said that the plan of constructing a 12-storey parking plaza on this plot was the brainchild of the former ETPB Chairman General Zulfiqar. They said construction on this plot was started during his tenure and a basement was completed.

After the general elections in 2008 the new government removed General Zulfiqar from the seat and ongoing construction work on the structure was stopped. Sources said the ETPB’s new chairman, Asif Hashmi, put the project on his top priority list and resumed the construction work, which was stopped by the town municipal administration Data Town on the pretext that building plan of the plaza was not approved.

Now here's the interesting thing. The ETPB undertook its auction and development plans without consulting any local government of LDA bye-laws. The law is clear: You can't just build a plaza without authority, and the DGB Town Administration had the authority to issue the order directing them to stop construction.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm all for having something relieve parking congestion. I just don't think transforming trust property that was dedicated for religious or charitable purposes into a parking lot is the job of the ETPB; in fact it looks terribly close to breach of fiduciary duty). Also, the prohibition by the DGB Town must have had some element of wanting to charge "regularization fees" in order to turn their back on the bye-laws. This isn't surprising. It happens almost everywhere else.

What's interesting is that a local government took on the federally controlled ETPB.

Sources said the ETPB chairman took up the matter with the Punjab government and according to Asif Hashmi, Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Rana Mashud told him that Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif had shown his consent to allow the ETPB to construct the plaza.

Note how the new Chairman of the ETPB went to the Government of Punjab (my guess is that he must enjoy some patronage from the PPP federal government which gives him access to the PPP partners in this Government of Punjab's coalition government) and not to the DGB Town Administration. Under the law (that Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001), it's very clear that zoning and spatial plans are the sole jurisdiction of Town Administrations. Also what's interesting is that if one asks the Government of Punjab about building permission in Lahore, final authority apparently comes from the Chief Minister himself. That should tell you quite a lot about how the city and province is run.

However, Lahore Additional Commissioner Mirza Mahmood-ul-Hassan, on August 20, 2010, sent a letter captioning “Security threat-under construction building for car parking at Dev Samaj Road, Lahore” to the chairman, ETPB. The letter was also sent to principal secretary to the Punjab chief minister, Lahore DCO, DO (Spatial Planning and Commercialization), Lahore and other authorities concerned. After giving the technical details and ownership of the plot, the letter states, “Construction of parking plaza or any such building to be used for commercial purpose is likely to be a permanent hazard to the security of surrounding government offices.

Therefore it is not appropriate to construct any such building at the risk and cost of security of surrounding important government buildings.”

The local government does not envisage the office of Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. They are officers appointed under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and don't have anything to do, technically, with the urban planning of the city. But the way it's working here now, the Chief Minister needed, when he took power, to control the development expenditure of elected local government Nazims. This he did by (i) waiting for the tenure of the elected representatives to expire and then; (ii) making Commissioners unofficial overseers of any development project in excess of Rs. 200 million.

But anyway, this is where the knives come out. The Commissioner's office issues notice to ETPB saying that "security" is the reason they can't build the parking plaza. Now I can't tell you how often "security" get bandied around to justify strong armed tactics. Everyone know "security" is just an excuse to stop something from happening. In this case, its stopping the ETPB from constructing a plaza on land that it owns. Of course, there's no law that authorizes public officials to affect property rights using "security" as an excuse.

The additional commissioner concluded the letter by saying that in view of the above, he was directed to request that the plot in question may be leased out to the provincial government for extension of government offices at a negotiated price.

Now this is hilarious. I had this client who was a member of the Model Town Residents Association. That's not the Model Town Society, but an independent association of Model Town residents who, it seemed, couldn't get elected to office in the Model Town Society. Anyway, they always have a gripe about how the Model Town Society is basically running the place right into the ground. Once I got a letter - said client copies me on all his correspondence with the Model Town Society - complaining about how the Model Town Society had allowed private individuals to operate billboards. "Billboards are illegal in Model Town", raged my client's letter, "and moreover, the Model Town Society was charging less than market rates for it."

So, not only is it wrong, but you're not charging enough for it. What chutzpah.

It's exactly the same for the Additional Commissioner. After telling the Chairman of the ETPB that they couldn't use the plot to build on because of the security situation, the Additional Commissioner's asking whether the ETPB would auction the plot to them. If what looks like a duck and walks like a duck IS a duck, then this is highway robbery.

Seems none of the legal teams for the ETPB Additional Commissioner are familiar with the rigorous procedure to be followed before the ETPB can auction it's land.

ETPB Chairman Asif Hashmi while talking with The News accused that the Punjab government through the City District Government Lahore and its officials was trying to take possession of this prime land but the ETPB would not allow this ‘daylight robbery.’ He said the government machinery was using various tactics, including arrests of labourers and contractor of the site to pressurise the ETPB to lease out the land to it. He said the ETPB was a federal department and Punjab government could not take possession of the land without the consent of the ETPB and federal government.

So I said highway robbery and the Chairman used the phrase "daylight robbery". Same difference. But leaning on labor; that's extortion.

Answering to a question about the letter of additional commissioner who termed construction of the plaza a security risk, he said the presently abandoned site was a security risk and anyone including terrorists could hide in it. He said rainwater had filled the basement of the plaza which was a security risk for the nearby buildings. He said another real security risk outside the Secretariat was the parking of all kind of vehicles on main Multan Road outside Aiwan-a-Adl. “Why the government is not taking any measures to remove these present security risks,” he questioned. He said the ETPB wanted to construct a 12-storey plaza on the land out of which basement of the plaza and two floors would be used for parking while flats and offices would be constructed on the rest of the floors. When contacted, the Lahore division commissioner was not available for comments.

Another example of hyperbole and prejudice being passed off as knowledge. The "it's dangerous because terrorists could hide in it" argument was used by the Government of Punjab when it cut down some of the trees in GOR-I after building a wall around it. It was the argument they put forward when they ripped the sidewalks out of GOR-I (because terrorists could plant bombs under them!) and to protect their action.

Water and Irrigation in Pakistan

An enlightening talk by Dr. Danish Mustafa of Kings' College London

War or Peace on the Indus

Dr. John Briscoe is a former World Bank official who specialized in water. He is now the Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Engineering, Harvard University.

Dr. Briscoe makes a strong case regarding water sharing between India and Pakistan through the Indus Water Treaty. It is cool calm voice in a sea of hysteria, and it should be given serious consideration.

Taken from The News (http://www.thenews.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9&arc_date=4/3/2010)

Anyone foolish enough to write on war or peace in the Indus needs to first banish a set of immediate suspicions. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani. I am a South African who has worked on water issues in the subcontinent for 35 years and who has lived in Bangladesh (in the 1970s) and Delhi (in the 2000s). In 2006 I published, with fine Indian colleagues, an Oxford University Press book titled India's Water Economy: Facing a Turbulent Future and, with fine Pakistani colleagues, one titled Pakistan's Water Economy: Running Dry.

I was the Senior Water Advisor for the World Bank who dealt with the appointment of the Neutral Expert on the Baglihar case. My last assignment at the World Bank (relevant, as described later) was as Country Director for Brazil. I am now a mere university professor, and speak in the name of no one but myself.

I have deep affection for the people of both India and Pakistan, and am dismayed by what I see as a looming train wreck on the Indus, with disastrous consequences for both countries. I will outline why there is no objective conflict of interests between the countries over the waters of the Indus Basin, make some observations of the need for a change in public discourse, and suggest how the drivers of the train can put on the brakes before it is too late.

Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan?

The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan.

The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season. The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled.

Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation?

If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India's capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of "live storage" (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers.

While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas.

This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt. The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism – limited live storage – which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.

If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects – Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa… The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month's worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.

Views on "the water problem" from both sides of the border and the role of the press

Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India's views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, "when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir -- the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say."

This apparently remains the case. In the context of the recent talks between India and Pakistan I read, in Boston, the electronic reports on the disagreement about "the water issue" in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Economic Times. (Respectively, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Water-Pakistans-diversionary-tactic-/articleshow/5609099.cms, http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ article112388.ece, http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/india/River-waters-The-next-testing-ground/Article1-512190.aspx, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Pak-heats-up-water-sharing/583733, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Pak-takes-water-route-to-attack-India/articleshow/5665516.cms.)

Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case ("no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans"), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was "analysts" and "experts" -- in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India.

Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).

A way forward

This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India. In my view, four things need to be done.

First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan.

Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC – Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America.

Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil's and Bolivia's binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme.

The public and press in Brazil bayed for blood and insisted that Bolivia and Paraguay be made to pay. So what did President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva do? "Look," he said to his irate countrymen, "these are poor countries, and these are huge issues for them. They are our brothers. Yes, we are in our legal rights to be harsh with them, but we are going to show understanding and generosity, and so I am unilaterally doubling (in the case of Paraguay) and tripling (in the case of Bolivia) the payments we make to them. Brazil is a big country and a relatively rich one, so this will do a lot for them and won't harm us much." India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour's point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour.

Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With good will there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win.

Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O'Brien once remarked, "Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again."

And finally, as a South African I am acutely aware that Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, chose not to settle scores but to look forward and construct a better future, for all the people of his country and mine. Who will be the Indian Mandela who will do this – for the benefit of Pakistanis and Indians – on the Indus?