COLUMN
The Mo Ibrahim prize
By Gwynne Dyer

There is something very appealing about the frankness of former Mozambican president Joaquim Chissano. When a BBC radio interviewer told him recently that he was being considered for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, he replied: "It's worth how much? Five million dollars? You're sure it's five million?"
Yes, I'm sure, said the interviewer. What would you do with it? "I would live better, of course," said Chissano. "I would not be shy." No guff about donating it all to starving children or other good works. He is still working for the welfare of Africans - when he was declared the winner this week, they couldn't find him because he was somewhere in northern Uganda as a United Nations special envoy trying to broker peace between the government and a very nasty rebel movement - but he deserves to live better.
There were the usual insta-critics who condemned Mo Ibrahim for giving the money to an individual rather than building hospitals in Africa, or who were offended by the "racist" notion that African leaders need to be rewarded with special prizes for doing what they ought to do anyway. The media needs two sides to every story, and everybody gets their fifteen seconds in the spotlight. But Ibrahim is right to offer the prize, and it may do some good.
I first met Mo Ibrahim about a year and a half ago, shortly after he sold his African-based telecommunications company Celtel to Kuwait's MTC and become a billionaire in the process. The Sudanese-born British citizen had looked for something useful to do with his time and his considerable pile of money, and one solution was the creation of this new prize, the biggest in the world: half a million dollars per year for ten years, and $200,000 a year for the rest of the winner's life. (The Nobel Peace Price is only a flat $1.5 million.)
Why give so much money to African presidents? Surely they must have enough already? Well, no, they don't. Not if they're honest, at any rate - and that's one big reason why so few of them are.
In the vast majority of African countries, it is politically impossible to pay presidents a salary and a pension that will enable them to live comfortably in retirement, let alone go on playing a useful role in public life. When average incomes are a few hundred dollars a year, or at most a thousand or two, you just cannot pay the president several hundred times as much. At least you cannot do it in a democratic system: any moderately competent opposition would condemn the president as a cynical profiteer totally out of touch with ordinary people, and the mud would stick.
The problem is not so bad when the president is still in office: the presidential mansion, the official limos and drivers, the entertainment expenses and the airline tickets all come for free. So do the body-guards. But if a president retires, or holds a free election and loses, all that vanishes, and nothing takes its place.
Even the ex-presidents of rich countries sometimes face this problem, as witness Bill Clinton's constant presence on the lecture circuit, but the dilemma is far more acute for Africans. As Mo Ibrahim put it, an African leader coming to the end of his term has only three alternatives: steal enough money to finance his retirement; manipulate the rules to stay in office indefinitely; or live in relative poverty.
So Ibrahim decided to offer them a fourth option: an annual prize open to all African leaders who were elected democratically, served their permitted terms under the constitution, and have retired in the past three years. The prize is not rich enough to dissuade the crooks from looting the state treasury - corrupt African leaders frequently steal a great deal more than $5 million - but it will reward honest men who have served their countries well with a decent life in retirement.
Given current conditions in many African countries, the panel of notables who chose this year's winner (chaired by former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan) had to be realistic in applying Ibrahim's criteria. Joaquim Chissano was not originally elected at all: he took over the presidency of a Marxist one-party state after the previous president died in a plane crash in 1988. Mozambique was also mired in a long civil war, and critics of the regime were lucky if they only went to jail.
But Chissano made peace with the rebels in 1992, and let them run in a free election in 1995 in which he won the presidency legitimately. He dismantled the apparatus of repression, won another tem in 2000, and retired in 2005 even though the constitution allowed him a third term. He also set the country on the road to economic growth, though it remains desperately poor.
"Africa is rich - really rich," said Mo Ibrahim in an interview with the New York Times. "It's really a wonderful continent. What we need to do now is to enforce good governance, and it's happening, perhaps not as quickly as I would like. All we need to do is push."
Amen to that.
*(Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries).

Divided we fall
By Imtiaz Mir

An unexplainable feature of Kashmir politics has been a sharp division of its political leadership, despite claiming to be aspiring for the same goal and working on almost a common agenda. The worst ego clashes and an unending fight for one upmanship within its ranks, has been the hallmark of Kashmir politics, read as one of the main reasons for the unresolved Kashmir issue. The confusing political stands taken by the Kashmir leadership & the ambiguities their policies suffer from, that confront Kashmir resolution were once well-described by famous Kashmir cartoonist Bashir Ahmed Bashir. In one of his masterpiece cartoons that appeared in Urdu daily, 'Srinagar Times', on the eve of a visiting European diplomat. The cartoon depicted the Kashmiri leaders who met the visiting dignitary stretching their arms out towards him, few asking 'Hum Ko Pakistan Chahiye' others demanding 'Hum Ko Azadi Chahiye', another asking 'Hum Ko Hindustan Chahiye', while a section asking for 'neem azaadi', autonomy and so on -- the diplomat was shown sitting in utter confusion holding his forehead by one hand while stretching the other out, saying, "Mujhe Sar dard Ki Goli Chahiye".
Kashmiri leaders should have read the satire between the lines and tried to mend their ways for evolving a consensus among them. The magnitude of tragedies that have befallen the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as a result of the on-going movement for the last now about two decades should have made these leaders wiser, brought them closer for putting a common stand in order to gain international support and also force India and Pakistan for working out an acceptable solution to the problem. Sadly this did not happen nor is there a hope of its happening in the foreseeable future. Till yesterday the differences among the Hurriyat leaders that stands divided into hard-line and soft line factions in Kashmir were confined to a war of words, but the recent incident of their hostile postures against each other, they look like proving their strength by fighting in streets.
Given the popular urge of the broad majority in Jammu & Kashmir for resolving Kashmir, and given the misfortune of its badly divided political leadership and an uncompromising attitude, this could well be a counter movement turning point for Jammu and Kashmir. Again, this all is happening at a time when the efforts of resolving Kashmir have entered a crucial phase.
Under the prevailing circumstances, people here have started losing faith in every single political leader, for they say one thing and does another. The story of betrayals in Kashmir dates back to 1953 when Sheikh Abdullah was dethroned and detained by Government of India. His successors-in-chair thus started eroding the special status of the state guaranteed under Indian constitution, in order to prove their loyalty towards India, and thereby secure a lease in chair. Bakshi Ghulam Mohd, Ghulam Mohd Saadiq, Mir Qasim and finally even Sheikh Abdullah deviated from his 22 years long plebiscite stand when offered the chair. Sheikh's return to power in 1975 was mistakenly presumed to be the end of Kashmir problem. However with the onset of armed resistance in 1989, Kashmir issue resurfaced with a big bang and the world community got awakened once again to this sensitive issue and started applying pressure on both India and Pakistan to find a solution that accommodates the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It was in this background that an entirely new brand of leadership was thrown up in Kashmir. Unfortunately the change in leadership could do little good to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. There rose no single leader who would command the political front in Kashmir. The leadership was fractured and fragmented despite their forming a loosely knit political outfit called the "Hurriyat Conference" comprising of a number of smaller political schools of thought. With the onset of years, the differences among its various constituents started surfacing and slowly the constituents withdrawing from it. Unable to accommodate each others view, not ready to accept someone among them as their undisputed leader, not ready to loose their individual political identities, finally the Hurriyat conference (Whatever was left of it) got vertically divided. The energies that these leaders were required to devote towards putting a pressure on Delhi and Islamabad for an early resolution of the issue, they used against each other. They have been accusing each other of betraying the people of Kashmir. Instead of mobilizing the public opinion in favour of a solid political movement to resolve Kashmir, they campaign against each other to raise their personal constituencies. They accuse each other of being either Indian or Pakistani agents. Unmindful of their duties towards the people of Jammu and Kashmir, these leaders have been on an unending spate of accusations and counter-accusations which has neither benefited the on going movement nor the common man in Kashmir. Instead has brought the present movement in disrepute. Both the warring factions of Hurriyat conference claim to be representing the majority sentiments in Jammu and Kashmir and not only that both Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq leading their respective factions of Hurriyat conference happen to be top Islamic scholars of the state, despite this additional moral authority with them, they have sadly failed to forge the much required unity & unify their voice to honour the sacrifices of the people. Instead, the recent incidents of violent clashes among their supporters tend to push Kashmir towards a civil war that would bring an unending devastation and destruction in Kashmir.
This is no secret that the bickerings in Kashmir leadership have been counter productive and a serious road block in moving ahead on the road of Kashmir resolution, most often than not used as a ploy to check mate the legitimate political aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The present political movement going on in Jammu and Kashmir that seeks resolution of Kashmir issue needs to be broad based, offering space to every school of thought. It should have been inclusive in its political character and social base. But what we see happening is just apposite of that. For the political leadership to have a state wide appeal and acceptance by all regions and religions they need to rise above petty political interests, shed ego's, and bring an immediate end to the bitter fights of on upmanship.
The recent violent clashes between the followers of the two groups of Hurriyat Conference are outrageous and an insult to the sacrifices offered by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. If the reconciliation efforts among the warring faction, of Hurriyat Conference fail as the indications go, the sinking boat of Hurriyat Conference will prove the proverbial, 'Hum to Dube Hain Sanam Tum ko Bhi le Dubeinge' for the people of Jammu & Kashmir.
*(The author is a practicing advocate at Doda (JandK) and can be contacted on imtiaz_mir@rediffmail. com).

Peace upon earth
By Deepti Priya Mehrotra

"Every day throughout history, human beings killed one another. Can we have one day when we pause and stop the killing?" was a poignant question once posed by Jeremy Gilley, Director of the London-based organisation, Peace One Day.
In 1998, Gilley began a campaign to persuade governments about the importance of actually setting aside such a day. As a result, in 2001, the United Nations formally adopted September 21 as International Peace Day: a day for ceasefire and non-violence. But this declaration was just the beginning. Today, people not only celebrate the possibility of peace through music and dance, but also by negotiating for actual ceasefires, with those engaged in armed conflicts in different parts of the world.
In India, a number of civil society groups got together to celebrate International Peace Day, extending it into a weeklong event. Conceptualised by Kriti, a Delhi-based NGO, the Peace Week kicked off with an eclectic collection of posters, paintings, poems and pictures on peace put up at India Habitat Centre's Open Palm Court gallery. Each participant lit candles to mark a personal engagement in the quest for peace, and a large white chart paper was put up on which everybody could freely pen or paint what they felt about peace.
The programme was fuelled by a desire to redefine peace. As Aanchal Kapur, a member of the Kriti team put it, "Peace begins with each one of us in homes, families, communities, organisations, countries, regions and the world. Peace is holistic, integrative, ecological. It is a part of our everyday life... For us, peace means diversity, justice, sustainability and nurturing. It signifies equality, compassion and harmony... Peace is a collective effort, which comes through the contribution of many."
Indeed, many people did contribute to the success of the Peace Week. Artists, including Seema Kohli, Praveen Dabas, Sonia Mehra Chawla, Shirin Mehra Agarwal and Subodh Kerkar got together to paint a Peace Canvas. Said Agarwal, "Painting is one way in which I tried to create peace in myself and in the world around me. It is a way to create some beauty in a world that is noisy, violent and difficult."
Jigri, a music band in Delhi, sang songs on the theme. Several civil society organisations set up stalls exhibiting varied material - WISCOMP's scholarly monographs focused on conflict and peace-building; TARSHI's bookmarks were on safe sexuality; Jagori's booklets gave ideas on how to make urban spaces safe; SAHMAT's books threw light on communalism and working class history; and Zubaan's publications focused on critical women's issues. Hosts Kriti presented a collection of books on ecology as well as T-shirts and bags made of recycled material.
The integral links between women and peace were brought out through an exhibit on South Asian women peacemakers - all recipients of the Right Livelihood Award, the alternative Nobel Prize. These included Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the well-known movement against destructive dams; Parmaben, midwife and grassroots community organiser with the Kuchh Mahila Vikas Samiti, Gujarat; Teesta Setalvad, initiator of 'Communalism Combat', which works with children and adults to stem communalism prejudices; and Irom Sharmila, non-violent protestor against militarisation in Northeast India.
Charu Shankar performed 'A Gesture of Peace' - a dance inspired by Irom Sharmila and her poetry. A number of powerful plays staged during the week emphasised the fact that culture, religion, environment and livelihoods are all implicated in the search for peace. Pandies Theatre's 'Margins', directed by Sanjay Kumar, depicted the role of communities in forging and maintaining peace.
'The Nandigram Project' brought out the voices of farmers struggling against state takeover of their agricultural land, some of whom were even killed in police firing. This performance was based on texts by Mahashweta Devi and Suniti Namjoshi, and directed by Parnab Mukherjee. Sanjha Manch presented `Dilli Door Hai', a play expressing what peace means to the street people of Delhi. In Safar's street play, 'Swayam', young girls and women expressed what peace means to them - safety, dignity and the opportunity to make a decent living. Ramjas College Hindi Society's play, 'Hatyaare', depicted communal harmony. In a discussion that followed the play, the students said they would continue staging the play at different venues in order to spread their message of communal harmony.
Two films - Parvez Imam's 'Random Voices from Kashmir' and Snehasis Das' `The Lake of Despair', brought to the fore the emotions of ordinary Kashmiris who want love, peace and brotherhood, but are condemned to traumatic violence due to militancy and militarism. Shikha Jhingan's film, `Born to Sing', traced the musical journeys of four Mirasans (women of the Mirasi community who sing songs on life-cycle rituals for their patrons) in Punjab, with evocative memories of Partition and the resilience of the secular and composite culture of the Malawi region of Punjab.
'War and Peace', Anand Patwardhan's classic, brought out the importance of peace activism in the face of religious fanaticism, hyper-masculinity, pogroms and wars. Kavita Joshi's film, 'Tales from the Margins', portraying Manipuri women's dramatic resistance to murder and rape committed by armed forces personnel, under the cover of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, was also screened.
Inter-cultural cooperation is essential for peace to become a reality - and this requires a transition from the present pervasive culture of war to a culture of peace. In the film, 'Peace One Day', a child soldier from Somalia admitted, "It is possible I have killed some people with my gun"; while a number of children from the same country, living in an orphanage, said, "If the war goes on it will not be good for us." The parents of these children died in the war and some of the children were found as babies on the streets, sucking at their dead mothers' breasts. Recognising that it is essential to involve children in order to make a difference, the Peace Week included an on-the-spot painting and slogan-writing workshop. Colourful visions of a peaceful world emerged like magic from the young hands as they wielded their crayons with skill and imagination.
Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, has said, "Each individual can make a difference. If each of us does all we can, collectively we can make a difference." It's important to try.
-(Courtesy: Women's Feature Service)