Sabina Zaccaro

BIODIVERSITY in agriculture is about culture. Traditional knowledge and culture are as important as research and investments aver farmers, researchers and academicians who are gathered in Rome to celebrate International Day for Biodiversity on Saturday.

While many will be talking about preserving panda and other endangered animal species in the biodiversity day, here the focus is on food and agriculture, "which are equally key for nutrition and to feed the world despite the impacts of climate change", says Emile Frison, Director-General of Bioversity International, which is based in Maccarese, outside Rome.

BI, which is dedicated to the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity and a part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research is organising in Rome, Biodiversity Week (20-23 May), to discuss the key role of biodiversity in agriculture.

And it does so by highlighting the link between nature, food and culture, since "the diversity of crops and livestock not only provides nutritional security but also in economic development, history, culture and the struggle against climate change for everyone on the planet," Frison said.

According to Bioversity there are about 30,000 edible plant species of which three, rice, wheat and maize, provide 60 percent of calories for human beings.

However, the value of these staples is hardly recognised. "When you talk about biodiversity people around the table are essentially from ministries of environment, and they come from a background of nature conservation and protection. For them, traditionally, agriculture has been the enemy, the one that encroaches on the environment,’’ Frison told IPS.

"What we realise today is that there is much greater attention [paid] to biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems and also to agricultural biodiversity itself. We can no longer just care about protected areas, but now we must look at how we can make the entire biodiversity more useful to people."

If the challenge is to acknowledge the cultural dimension of nutrition to achieve more sustainable and diverse agriculture, this can only be done with the direct involvement of farmers.

In the international year on biodiversity, we cannot forget agricultural biodiversity and also the farmers who make a huge work of recovery, valorisation and use of agro-biodiversity, Antonio Onorati of the International Planning Committee for food sovereignty told IPS.

Being not only the custodians but also the creators of biodiversity, farmers ask "to be responsible for the diversity of what we plant, producing our seeds, creating new varieties, in cooperation with researchers, but in the fields," Onorati said.

It is called participatory plant breeding, and many examples can be found in the world. These programmes are based on the dynamic collaboration between plant breeding institutions and farmers, and designed to ensure that research is directly relevant to farmers’ needs.

These programmes can effectively maintain and improve agricultural biodiversity, Onorati said, and also empower farmers since seed production and the choice of variety are made in alliance with them.

Researchers quite recognise that traditional knowledge is a value. According to Frison, the traditional farmers’ system of exchanging seeds - now overwhelmed by the industrial production - is the key to maintenance of traditional varieties that can better adapt to new climatic conditions.

"We must give voice to the food communities,’’ said Carlo Petrini, the founder of Slow Food International that gave life to Terra Madre (Mother Earth), the world meeting of food communities that gathers farmers and food producers from 155 countries – all committed to defend and promote environmentally friendly modes of production, natural resources and biodiversity conservation.

"The virtuous conservation practices of thousands of food communities can really compete with the big economic entities, and with the market. In this sense, they are an economic subject, not a political subject, though they are not heard by decision-making powers," Petrini said.

Traditional farmers’ knowledge should be preserved and transmitted to future generations, according to Petrini who has a dream, creation of the ‘granaries of memory’, a documented collection of old people, women and indigenous groups who have dedicated their life to the land.

"The knowledge and the memory of humble people are extraordinary, and they must be transmitted to future generations; they will serve as a granary of knowledge when, one day, we will be affected by shortage of ideas."

Here women have a major role to play. An example is the Italian community of Teramo, in the Abruzzo region, Petrini told IPS. "Here since centuries, in May, women do the so-called ‘virtues’; they collect all the leftovers from the winter such as dried fruit or leftover pork."

"When spring arrives, all this food is put together and cooked with fresh vegetables in a dish called ‘virtu terramane’, which is a masterpiece of flavour and represents the fight against food wasting. The message is no food must go waste," he said. [Courtesy IPS]

BACK

The execution of an ISI agent

Ishtiaq Ahmed

IT must be an embarrassment for SAARC that recently conferred an award on Hamid Mir for conscientious journalism. That the same individual networks with two of the most bloodthirsty terrorist organisations in the world is an interesting case of duplicity.

A controversy is raging in Pakistan these days over the events that led to the execution on April 30, 2010 of a former ISI agent, Khalid Khawaja by a hitherto unknown group called the Asian Tigers. He was found dead in Miranshah, North Waziristan on April 30, 2010 — a month after being kidnapped by the Asian Tigers. He had gone there along with the legendary Colonel Imam (Sultan Amir Tarar) and a Pakistani-origin UK journalist Saad Qureshi who was making a documentary on the life of Colonel Imam. Khalid Khawaja’s body was found riddled with bullets. A written note left by the executioners stated that such was the fate of all agents of the US. Khalid Khawaja was a squadron leader in the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) before he changed career to become an ISI officer. He was very close to Osama bin Laden. Apparently he was dismissed from the ISI for his outspoken views on jihad and in support of al Qaeda.

Some years ago, I saw him on an international television network, telling the interviewer something like this: ‘You value life, we consider worldly existence a transition so how can you fight with us?’ These were probably not the exact words he used but the message he wanted to convey was precisely what I have said: to deride the secularised western world’s emphasis on the importance of life on this earth while Khalid Khawaja claimed that he subscribed to a weltanschauung that valued life after death. He was of course presenting the jihadist point of view, which has in recent years produced hundreds of suicide bombers who while destroying thousands of lives have themselves put an end to theirs in the hope of milk and honey and doe-eyed damsels awaiting them.

On that occasion I could not help noticing the irony in Khalid Khawaja’s derision of life on earth: he had himself succeeded in growing middle-aged and some white hair in his beard could also be seen. He had not volunteered to become a suicide bomber, but had probably been very successful and satisfied in snuffing out the lives of many others. Now of course he has been executed by some group who found him to have been a CIA agent, a Qadiyani and all that. His wife, however, claims that he is a shaheed (martyr) and therefore already in paradise. I find all such arguments arbitrary and meaningless.

What is at stake is the fundamental question: should one not value life on this earth and give every person an opportunity to live his life in as fulfilling a manner as possible? It is possible that there is some existence even after death but I do not know of any culture where taking life is celebrated. So, the comparison between those who value life and those who value an existence after death is fundamentally a flawed one because of the ‘two states of being’, only one is confirmed and in all cultures when someone dies those who love or care for that person are struck with grief. Khalid Khawaja’s son Osama Khalid has decided to go to court to find out who was responsible for the execution of his father. That is a perfectly understandable response of a son devastated by the death of his father. Nobody would give him the love and affection that his father could. That is why I believe Khalid Khawaja was incontrovertibly in error for making fun of those who value life.

The second question is: who released the tape that shows Hamid Mir allegedly telling a Taliban — most certainly a Punjabi because of the accent — that Khalid Khawaja was an American agent and a Qadiyani? There is little doubt in my mind that the tape is genuine. Hamid Mir is known for his links with the Taliban and al Qaeda. His attempts to deny that he had said all that the people hear him say, makes him appear pathetic.

However, there must be someone willing to betray Hamid Mir, and the question is why? Is it because recently Hamid Mir made some very uncharacteristic statements condemning the genocide in Bangladesh, and that may have earned him the ire of those who think what we did in Bangladesh was justified and therefore Hamid Mir should have kept his mouth shut? Perhaps like Khalid Khawaja even Hamid Mir has become a liability and is therefore expendable.

It would be good if Hamid Mir’s alleged complicity in the murder of Khalid Khawaja is properly investigated. It must be an embarrassment for SAARC that recently conferred an award on Hamid Mir for conscientious journalism. That the same individual networks with two of the most bloodthirsty terrorist organisations in the world — al Qaeda and the Taliban — is an interesting case of duplicity.

Some years ago, I met a young man at a party in Lahore who turned out to be the son of a hero of the 1965 War. I felt obliged to say some words of praise for his father. That brought a smile to the young man’s face. As soon as I moved into another circle at the party, somebody who had overheard me commented with the usual Punjabi flare for abuse that the fellow I was being so nice to was involved in bringing nuclear waste from the West and dumping it in Pakistan. If true, that for me was the most unpatriotic thing to do and the fact that the son of a war hero was making quick bucks out of it showed that we as a nation are for sale or rent rather easily.

When did all this start happening? It is impossible to put a date on it. All I know is that unlike India where a freedom struggle went on for a long time before freedom was granted, we got Pakistan because the British believed Pakistan would be the more reliable ally willing to provide the bases needed to patrol the Persian Gulf and to contain the Soviet Union. All this started some years before we gained independence. That of course was not the jazba (feelings) of the masses who believed that Pakistan will be their liberation from want and hunger.

[Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg Courtesy dailytimes.com.pk]

BACK

Kashmir: No formula, build trust-3

Urmilesh

THERE is no dearth of formulas for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Innumerable suggestions, demands, proposals and formulas have cropped up since 1947-48. Some of them were discussed at bilateral forums, others reached international platforms.

Later he formulated his ideas into a four-point formula. In his much-debated formula, Musharraf suggested: (*9)

1. Kashmir’s border can remain intact but people of both sides should have the guarantee of free movement.
2. Both sides of Kashmir should have autonomous (not independent) governments.
3. Both the countries withdraw deployment of army in a phased manner
4. Joint Supervision Mechanism be set up with representatives of India, Pakistan and Kashmir

• CONSENSUAL APPROACH IN HAWANA

India did not offer any response to these proposals immediately but maintained the scope for dialogue over them by neither accepting, nor rejecting Musharraf’s formula. After some months, top officials of the two countries met and stressed the need for confidence-building measures. Some prisoners languishing in each other’s jails and fishermen who are detained after they strayed into alien waters were released. Many more such measures were taken. Later, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Pakistani President in Cuban Capital Hawana in an extremely constructive and cordial ambiance. The two sides agreed to set up a joint mechanism. The novel idea of joint mechanism was possible because of change in Musharraf’s thought process. Musharraf originally wanted Kashmir as the third party but it was agreed only representatives of India and Pakistan would be included. Musharraf yet again made an important observation in 2006. He said Pakistan can withdraw its old claim from the United Nations Security Council if the two countries developed a bilateral understanding on certain points. (*10) He even offered to abandon the plebiscite proposal. Musharraf also explained that his formula does not envisage Kashmir’s azaadi (independence) but only proposes autonomous government.

* CONCLUSION

There cannot be a readymade formula for the complex Kashmir problem. But an effective initiative based on autonomy or self-rule to solve the problem may definitely be helpful. It is unfortunate that most of the mainstream political parties baulk at the very mention of autonomy or self-rule and even refuse to debate this idea. They dismiss this as a separatist plank. This is an erroneous perspective. Basically, there is not much difference between autonomy and self-rule. Both have the same theme even as their form and language sound different. Self-rule or autonomy formula can indeed show positive results towards resolution of the Kashmir dispute. But this will require sincere empowerment of the common people. This is possible with greater involvement of the people in governance and socio-economic affairs of the state. Good governance and visionary leadership are the prerequisites for making this work. Otherwise, even self-rule or autonomy will benefit a chosen few. Concentration of power in a party, group, family or individual will render this formula meaningless. Kashmir problem cannot be solved without people’s participation. Only responsible governance and people’s empowerment can make a difference. It is inexplicable that mainstream political parties are scared of autonomy. They should understand separatism in Valley is accentuated by administrative discrimination, oppression and corruption. The special provision of article 370 was done with everybody’s approval; the Jan Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was then a member of Nehru’s Cabinet.

In the later days, the historical Delhi Agreement reached between the Indian Government and Sheikh Abdullah was unnecessarily buried. The unified image of Indian nation-state wouldn’t have cracked up because of posts like Sadr-e-riyasat and Wazir-e-azam. Cracks appear in the unified image of India when some “sena” in Maharashtra launches a sinister campaign to drive out fellow Indians or people of one state get into conflict with each other on such feudal grounds like caste and community. Autonomous or self-governed J&K should have internal arrangement of regional autonomy, too. Indian and Pakistan can develop a transparent institutionalized joint mechanism keeping in mind the sentiments of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. The joint mechanism should have a direct role in empowerment of local autonomous bodies and also defining their rights and responsibilities. This can also have a say in general safety arrangements and border management. If a good beginning is made, the rights and responsibilities of the joint mechanism can be reviewed and altered at a later stage on the basis of practical experience.

Finally, certain aspects of Kashmir problem need to be explained in historical perspective. Any solution or formula can be viewed only in the light of these facts:

1. Kashmir problem is as old as the country’s partition. This problem needs sensitive and cautious handling. Both the countries can begin accepting the Line of Control as international border.

2. India and Pakistan are doubtless the two main important parties in this issue but the relevance of the third party – people of Jammu & Kashmir – cannot be ignored. Any solution must have their approval.

3. United Nation’s Plebiscite proposal could have been a balanced relevant basis for solution but things have changed after so many years. It is difficult to dust off the proposal and convince every party this at this late stage.

4. In the new perspective, a broad agreement can be reached on a proposal worked out of suggestions of PDP’s self-rule, NC’s autonomy and Musharraf’s formula. The two sides should agree on a mechanism for security and monitoring ensuring self-rule/autonomy in both sides of Kashmir. Even if the borders don’t change, there should be a guarantee of free movement of people across the border. The governments can issue simple permits for a convenient system, or note down names of travelers at entry points, but there should be no requirement of visa.

5. In Ladakh and Jammu and Gilgit of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, along with a few other places, some experiment of regional autonomy or the concept of internal federalism can be done according to the demands of people and requirements of administration. But this should not be done on the basis of communal division as envisaged in the Chenab formula. Some amendments can be done to restore posts of Sadr-e-riyasat and wazir-e-azam so as to provide constitutional legitimacy to autonomy/self-rule in J&K. But under present circumstances, the Centre must have a role in the selection of Sadr-e-riyasat.

6. Division of state on communal basis cannot resolve the Kashmir dispute. Such initiatives will aggravate the crisis. The RSS proposal for reorganization of J&K is nothing but communal division of the state. The NDA’s Vajpayee Government had been contemplating reorganization of the state on these lines but the move could not fructify owing to some internal and external turn of events.

[Urmilesh is Delhi-based writer-journalist. He has six Books to his credit. Among two are on different aspects of Kashmir .Presently he is Political Editor with Business Bhaskar. This paper was presented for Panos south Asia Sania Hussain Indo-Pak Media Fellowship in Oct.2007.]

BACK