Defence Secretary Robert Gates said it bluntly — something outside normal Washington-Islamabad diplomatic parlance. Does it mark US’ frustration with her ally in war on terrorism or a lollypop to New Delhi interlocutors?

Obama’s Af-Pak diplomacy seems to have ebbed after India refused to accept envoy Holbrook’s extended role. With that the nagging pressure on New Delhi for a breakthrough in Kashmir logjam got partially defused.

Close on the heels of all this comes India’s reiteration of no meaningful bilateral talks with Pakistan unless she dismantled terrorist structure on her soil.

Gates’ blunt statement indicates assertive posture of policy planners at the White House. Behind it lies the full pack of intelligence dossiers unveiling clandestine tactics of Pakistani Army and the ISI in their trilateral dealings, — TTP, Taliban and Kashmiri Jihad Council.

With terrorist structures of Kashmir Jihad remaining in place, India has little space to help douse the Af-Pak raging flames.

US defence secretary’s priority list does not include Kashmir. Hillary Clinton will surely find it amusing and something like trespassing of her front yard.

In recent past, Kashmiri jihad managers have stepped up attacks in Kashmir. Reports obtained from arrested jihadis reveal that a sizable number of suicide bombers and jihadis with better weapons and logistical reinforcement are concentrating at various points along the LoC to infiltrate into Indian side. Some of their attempts have been foiled.

However, with given level of motivation, terrorist attacks are likely to increase in the valley. More lives will be lost. Major attacks like 26/11 could also happen.

Serious divergence of opinion between Pakistani presidential palace on one hand and the prime minister’s office and the GHQ on the other impose constraints on Washington to strategize more effectively in the region.

The news of Washington intervening to forestall Pakistani Taliban access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has to be analyzed and assessed in this background.  Furthermore, drone missile attacks on Taliban and affiliates inside Pakistan–Afghanistan border reveal aggressive and also unilateral stance of Alliance forces.

With internal crisis deepening, public resentment to Pakistan Army’s action in Waziristan rising, and the trust of the US and NATO Allies in Pakistan’s Army and civilian commitment to the eradication of terrorism collapsing, circumstances promise no redemption for the beleaguered nation. Unfortunately, at the top of all this is the absence of statesmanship of vision and of global reach in Pakistan.

In these circumstances, a repeat of Bangladesh situation cannot be ruled out. Whether New Delhi policy makers have taken such an exigency into consideration or not, is not known to us.

An option, which Islamabad may exercise, is to force eyeball to eyeball stance on India.  Her frustration may induce her to seize upon Kashmir issue to push that option in the vain expectation of diverting mass opinion about a failed state. A massive and multi-pronged attack on Kashmir or a repeat of 26/11 could, according to Pakistan’s calculation, evoke India’s retaliation.  This is the contrivance how various Pakistan-based terrorist and rabid Islamist groups and non-state actors can be galvanized into combined move against the traditional enemy.

The nitty-gritty of Pakistan’s precipitate action is whether to use or not to use the nuclear option against India in a situation of impending defeat and disaster?

In this scenario two crucial questions of far-reaching consequences can arise. One is how far does New Delhi trust Islamabad to stick to no-first-strike agreement existing between the two countries.  The second question is how far can the US actually succeed in controlling Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal from being unleashed in a state of desperation?  If we have a convincing answer to the second question, the first question loses its relevance.

The inkling is that Washington is seized of a dangerous situation developing on the sub-continent.  If Robert Gates’ statement that India is likely to lose her patience in face of another 26/11–like attack carries subtle allusion to the danger of unleashing of a nuclear clash, then we can presume Washington is seriously considering neutralizing Pakistan’s WMD option.

Gates has cautioned Pakistan: he has done a right thing at a right time. His statement means he does not entertain Islamabad’s pretension that terrorists in Pakistan are non-state actors. At the same time, he has indirectly made New Delhi conscious of need for extraordinary patience with her roguish neighbor. If the US is genuinely concerned about peace in the region and eradication of terrorism, it is her moral and historical responsibility to ordain effective check on misuse and mishandling of Pakistan’s nuclear industry. In the event of a nuclear flare up in this part of the world, interests of the US and the western world will be faced with dire consequences. World community led by the US must evolve effective mechanism to blunt the sharp edge of Pakistan’s nuclear option. How best that can be done is what needs very serious attention. New Delhi cannot lose sight of the reality that Baluchistan and Sind are simmering with deep-seated political unrest to the extent that Baluch dissidents now openly work for independent Baluchistan.
(The writer is he former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

At first, implications of Pakistan Supreme Court verdict of 18 December quashing the corruption amnesty did not seem alarming. But as the debate on the issue intensified in political and legal circles, it started unraveling the gravity of situation.

Even leading commentators have begun to express unease that political and administrative situation in Pakistan is becoming rather chaotic.

US official reaction to the quashing of NRO that it is Pakistan’s internal matter and that Washington has nothing to do with it sounds bizarre. Who does not know that the NRO of July 2007 was the brainchild of US and UK handlers who wanted a reconciliation formula brokered between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Washington and London both wanted Pakistan to have some semblance of democratic dispensation because of growing unpopularity of Pervez Musharraf.

.Pro-Zardari groups assert that the enemies of the President like the Army, ISI and PML (N) want to use the Supreme Court to remove President Zardari. They feel convinced that Zardari’s detractors influence the judiciary, which inducted the element of politics into the realm of law?

However, this argument does not seem tenable. One important condition put forth by Mian Nawaz Sharif at the time of forming the PPP-led coalition government was that of reinstating the illegally ousted Chief Justice and other judges of the High courts in Pervez Musharraf regime.

But Zardari as president went on dilly-dallying on the commitment that ultimately led Mian Nawaz Sharif to break association with the coalition. Only after great public pressure mounted and the lawyers threatened to bring out a massive demonstration, did he agree to the reinstatement of the ousted CJ and other judges.

To adduce political motivation to the verdict of nullification of NRO seems a farfetched idea.

Moreover, reinstatement order of ousted chief justice and some judges of high courts actually meant undoing illegal ordinances of Pervez Musharraf. By the same analogy, rejection of NRO can be safely interpreted a pure legal decision with no apparent political motivation.

In normal course of things, quashing of NRO has its fallout of some serious nature. For example, 248 persons implicated in various charges are brought on exit control list. Arrest warrants will be revived in some cases, and court proceedings in others can also be taken up. Accounts of the accused in foreign banks can be frozen, and the Swiss authorities can be asked to resume the process of accounting for the bank deposits.

Under existing law, the President of Pakistan is immune to the verdict of the court. But observers think that his position has become tenuous on moral grounds. There is the allegation of him having amassed 1.5 billion dollars wealth in foreign banks.

The US and UK, both are closely watching the developments in Pakistan and are assessing its impact on regional strategy especially in the context of war against terror in NWFP and Afghanistan.

Though the rumours of President Zardari’s exit have been discounted by the spokesman of Presidential office, yet strong opinions are expressed by important circles that his tenure cannot hold too long.

On-going internal situation of Pakistan is definitely a matter of great concern for Washington and London. If Zardari quits under the pressure of circumstances, Washington has to look for a president who understands and sympathizes with American interests in current regional strategy.

The nagging question is: will Pakistan relapse into another long spell of military rule? Will all the efforts of the policy planners in Washington and London of helping democratic dispensation take roots in Pakistan come to naught? What would be the new regional strategy if that is going to happen?

Zardari is being accused by the Army and its affiliates that he is too close to the Americans. His ouster could add to the strength of the Army for not allowing his successor to be outright pro-American. In that case, the US might have to re-think her anti-Taliban and anti-Al Qaeda strategy because the new regime in Pakistan might not be too willing to go a further mile with the American Army in the region.

At the same time the verdict of the Supreme C0ourt has many bizarre aspects to it. Interior Minister Rahman Malik, figuring in the list of accused persons. has been directed to issue himself with a warrant of arrest.

Quashing of corruption amnesty by the Supreme Court has given a rude shock to the Federal administrative structure in Pakistan. Senior bureaucrats with political clout and moles in the Army are defying the authority of the ministers. One senior secretary, when asked how dare he defy the orders of the Minister said the minister had no authority to direct him on state affairs because the one under whom he was supposed to work was legally out of office and he would not carry out his orders or instructions. The worst effect is observable in the important Interior Ministry because the country is involved in fighting the insurgents in North Waziristan and terrorists activists blasting bombs and unleashing mayhem in the cities and towns of Pakistan.

It appears that the ruling authorities in Pakistan had premonitions of a bizarre court verdict that would seal the fate of many a political leader. Apprehensive of a sharp turn in the situation, Pakistan foreign office had as early as the closing days of November last asked Wajid Shamsul Hasan, its High Commissioner in London to rush to Switzerland and get hold of the Swiss Case Documents from John J Brunt, the lawyer. 12 cartons of documentary proofs against Zardari were then handed over to the special team of Pakistani officials. Obviously, the sole motive of such a pre-emptive measure is to secure the otherwise vulnerable position of President Zardari.

Pakistan has to survive the serious situation prevailing in the country on domestic as well as foreign relations level. If Pakistan remains geographically and politically intact, it will help stabilization of peace in the region. Unfortunately, by and large, the crisis in Pakistan is home grown. Had not Ziau’l- Huq rejected the “peanuts aid” and asked for mountains of arms and ammunition from Washington, and had he settled for nationalization instead of radicalization of Pakistan, and refused to let religious organizations and seminaries become the arbiters of the destiny of people, Pakistan would have been in a much better condition today.

re: response to article of strategy of war on terror

Dear Editor:

The cogent and specific point in the analysis of George McGovern (A sharp turn toward another Vietnam, 13 Dec) is that Taliban, as such, are not pronouncedly anti-America. They are fighting the American troops for the reason that US wants to impose a puppet government on them, no matter corrupt or not corrupt. Their fault is that they have opted to protect Osama bin Laden, the villain of 9/11, and thus have come to be identified with anti-American Theo-fascists responsible for that carnage. Before launching attack on Kabul, which put an end to the Taliban control of the capital, the US should have made all efforts to cut a deal with the Taliban clarifying that in case of their refusal to provide Osama shelter and military support, the US would have no objection to their return to power in Kabul. But that was never done and the battle was carried all the way to the rugged terrain of NWFP.  Noticeably Osama sought hideouts in NWFP, which is under the control of Pakistan, just because he knew that the strong Theo-fascist segment of Pakistani society and sections of her military and administrative establishment would provide him and his operation network crucial protection and logistical facility to evade arrest or liquidation. In addition, his jihadi legions are regularly reinforced by ideologically indoctrinated and physically trained Islamic student volunteers churned up in thousands of seminaries in Pakistan. The US and NATO have not done good homework to identify the real enemy and the region that should have come under their direct assault. Pakistani leaders played the game with far greater smartness. While denying any knowledge of the whereabouts of Osama and his networks, they extracted more than the pound of flesh without making any tangible concession. It is still time for the US to have a new look on Afghan imbroglio, change the stance and reach the real targets in Pakistani cities and villages so that supply of recruits is choked. George McGovern is right in saying that in Afghanistan, the US is going the Vietnam and Iraq way. Theo-fascism is not breeding in the rugged mountain terrains of Afghanistan. It is breeding in thousands of towns and villages of Pakistan.

Dear Editor:
Anne Applebaum’s analysis (In Switzerland, towers of fear, 8 Dec) is fairly objective. Nearly thirty million Muslims, mostly from less developed Asian and African countries, have immigrated to the Europe and US in search of economically better and politically more free life. Secular and democratic structure of western society provided them equal rights and opportunities with their own nationals. From immigrants, they graduated to become citizens, and now they are aspiring to be recognized as dominant civilizational entity. They refuse to integrate into the social milieu of the countries to which they have immigrated, and, as exclusivist and separatist, they have generally created their ghettoized segments.

Now they are out to disparage the very laws and practices that helped them change their lives from ridicule to sublimity. This is not because of either economic or political deprivation: it is because of the teaching engraved on their mind that their faith sent down by Allah is superior to all other faiths and thus has to prevail, and hence the separatist and exclusivist mentality. Of course, there can be many among them who have changed their outlook and come closer to the life-style of native people. Since these immigrants owe much to the western civilization, one expects them to stand up against terrorism, the scourge of humanity, and raise legions and militias to actually fight the evil in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In doing so they will be paying back the debt of gratitude they owe to the western civilization and its upholders. That will make fruitful interaction between two great civilizations of the world so that their adherents live in peace and harmony.

The warning of NSA, General (retd) James Jones to President Asif Ali Zrdari that “if Pakistan cannot deliver, the U.S may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan’s western and southern borders with Afghanistan” is variously interpreted by Pakistan watchers.

Well-informed sources read in these blunt words Washington’s embarrassment over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, containing something like 80 – 100 nuclear warheads. Should they fall in the hands of Islamic insurgents, it would mean holocaust.  

Pakistani as well as American media hype of military operations, first in Swat and then in South Waziristan, overshadowed fast deepening crisis within the Pakistani polity.

Away from the fighting on the battle front and proliferating suicide bomb attacks on military and civilian targets by various Islamist insurgents in that country, a fierce struggle for power among various political identities on the one hand and growing rupture between the Presidential House and GHQ on the other can bode disaster for the beleaguered nation.
 
Seymond Hersh’s revelations in the New York Times of 16 November invited quick refutation by Pakistan’s Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Tariq Majid. Pakistani media just ignored a debate on the subject.

Hersh had said in his article that Pakistan was discussing undertakings with the US that could see specialists take sophisticated nuclear triggers out of the country to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.”

Despite Pakistan’s intermittent assurances, Washington continued to be diffident of her ability to provide foolproof safety and security to her nuclear industry. For example, given her entrenched animus against India, Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure could have turned into a holocaust but for the great patience and foresight of Indian leadership.

In March last President Barack Obama asked Pakistan to take more aggressive action against Taliban enclaves inside Pakistan. Simultaneously, consultations between the two sides became more brisk with focus on the question of security of Pakistan’s nuclear installations.

Taliban attacks on sensitive targets like the GHQ and police headquarters caused more discomfiture to the Americans. Along with that, the rising controversy on National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) which had to expire on 28 November brought State Department’s Pakistan Desk under severe pressure.

Last month Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and her team held long consultations with Pakistani side and particularly the Army Chief.  Indications of US having faith in the General were clear and loud.

Interaction between Admiral Max Mullen, US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff and his Pakistani counterpart General Kiyani on the issue of safety of Pakistan’s nuclear industry deepened, and on the American side, the Departments of Defense, State and Energy were also involved. The crucial part of discussion veered round America’s demand of taking sophisticated nuclear triggers out of Pakistan. That, argue the US interlocutors, will not only ensure safety against the Islamist extremists but will also immensely help in reducing tension with India and normalization on the Indo-Pal border.

Only last week, news came that President Zardari had handed over the control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to the Prime Minster. The rationale given by Pakistani media was that since elected Prime Minister was in place, the control of nuclear arsenal had to be reverted to him according to the existing rules.

Actually on November 11, 2009  Fazal Pechuho, Chairperson of National Assembly Standing Committee on Defense had sent in her 11-member committee report seeking immediate legal enforcement to the NCA Ordinance of 2007 which sets out a multi-layered structure for control of nuclear arsenal. 

Mian Nawaz Sharif, the leader of opposition in the National Assembly objected to President Zardari maintaining control of nuclear arsenal and demanded that the authority should rest with the Committee of which President is the Chairman and PM is the Vice Chairman besides the three chiefs of defense forces and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He demanded that the leader of opposition should also be a member of the Committee.

These developments gradually led to the isolation of President Zardari.  Mian Nawaz Sharif expressed no trust in the President’s ability to keep Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal safe. Washington, too, pandered to same line of thinking and General Kiyani was too willing to play the role that Pakistani army has always, meaning the arbiter of the destiny of the nation.

When President Zardari indicated that he was not prepared to shed his constitutional powers like appointing armed forces chiefs or dissolve the parliament etc. Mian Nawaz Sharif threatened to stage a massive street demonstration. In order to bring more pressure on him, Army forwarded a list of some persons it wanted the President to remove for the reasons of security of the state.

On the top of the list is the name of Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador in the US and formerly a veteran journalist. The allegation against him is that he is too close to US administration. Earlier, the army had said that Haqqani was soft towards India. The second person on the list is the Interior Minister, Rahman Malik, against whom the allegation is that he is too close to western intelligence agencies bypassing military establishment. There are other big persons on the list.

While this fracas is eating into the vitals of Pakistan polity, yet another bizarre piece of performance on Pakistan’s political stage is in the offing. The former Army Chief, Emergency Administrator and self-styled President namely General Musharraf is trying hard to stage a come-back. Eager to float a new political party and jump into the political arena of his country, Musharraf is planning his entry by distributing his enormous wealth lavishly among his former aids that had stood by him when he staged a coup and grabbed the reins of power. His donors are among the wealthiest like Muamar Qadafi of Libya. Reports say that he received 30 million dollars from UAE via his top banker and 3 million dollars from a Pakistani Cellular Company. He is reported to have already passed on one million dollars to one of his former aids to launch his political party.  Musharraf also banks on his close connection to Saudi Royalty and other more powerful sources. Through them he is trying to convince the Americans of his ability to fight and eradicate terrorism.

The simmering pot of Pakistan will undoubtedly unfold new situation and strategy in the region in months to come. At the bottom of these strategies lie two essential moves: one is Pakistan army’s search for cutting a deal with the tribal chiefs in NWFP by virtue of which normalcy would be restored in the area and partial tribal autonomy would be reiterated. The second is of US cutting another deal with Afghan Taliban which will isolate Al-Qaeda and pave the way for forming a coalition government with nationalists.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

In its first response to President Barak Obama’s new Afghan strategy, Pakistan has been literally blowing hot and cold. To be or not to be is her nerve-breaking dilemma.

Ahmad Rashid, the stalwart journalist and expert on Pakistan-Afghanistan politics made a cryptic but meaningful remark:  “It is now going to be much more difficult for Pakistan who has been in a state of denial about it (shielding Islamic insurgents). It is crunch time.”  

Despite all the bravado, which Pakistan foreign office usually exhibits on terror-related issues, it had only to offer a crestfallen reaction to Obama’s New Point military base speech.

Preview of Obama’s speech draws our attention to a two-page letter he had sent to Pakistani President through his National Security Adviser, General (retired) James Jones a couple of weeks before his historic speech.

Warning Zaradari that Af-Pak region remained enduring threat to US’ security, Obama said, “Islamist insurgents including members of Al-Qaeda have for years enjoyed a sanctuary in the lawless tribal area of Pakistan.”

President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals “cannot continue” The offer “includes an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India.”

The importance of Pakistan in the context of war against the Islamist insurgents can be understood from the fact that it remained the hot core of the months-long strategy review at various levels in the US foreign office.  The long-term consequences of failure in Pakistan, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan.

Obama called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups, and his letter named five: al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan’s relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored.

James Jones, who delivered President Obama’s letter to Pakistani President, was blunt in his conversations with top Pakistani government and military officials. The US and foreign officials said that “certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan’s security”.  “If Pakistan cannot deliver,” Jones warned, “The United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan’s western and southern borders with Afghanistan. “

”Al-Qaeda has a base in Pakistan,” British Prime Minister Brown said in an interview with Sky News. “That base is still there — they are able to recruit from abroad. The Pakistan authorities must convince us that they are taking all the action that is necessary to deal with that threat,” he added.

Obama administration’s perception of Af-Pak scenario may be summed up as this: (a) Pakistan is the epicenter of international terrorism (b) Pakistan has adopted a double role of fighting the terrorists that threaten the government but clandestinely supporting the terrorists who venture cross border terrorism for political purposes, (c) need for adopting strict carrot and stick policy towards Pakistan, and (d) ensuring safety of Pakistan’s nuclear industry which would not preclude American military intervention if needed

Pakistani Taliban attacks on GHQ and other sensitive installations have generated an atmosphere of uncertainty about the security of nuclear industry in that country. At a time when world community is bringing pressure on Iran to downgrade her nuclear weapon capability, the danger of nuclear vulnerability in Pakistan is a source of extreme concern for Washington.

Within the US official circles, it is clear that in a situation of escalation of fighting in Af-Pak region, the US and NATO forces would not be deterred by anything to give a hot pursuit to the terrorists deep inside Pakistan territory.

Pakistan somersaulted over her reaction to Obama’s carrot and stick policy. In its statement, the foreign office spokesperson tamely expressed his country’s willingness to be the strategic partner of the US and gloated over the role, which the US would assign her in a bid to bring peace and security to the region.

But then, it said it had reservations because there was not clarity on some of the things stated.  It expressed concern about the location where additional US troops would be deployed and it wanted assurance that the new plan did not hurt Pakistan.

In the course of US-Pakistan interaction Islamabad has been reportedly insisting on US’ commitment on two issues. Pakistan wants India’s exit from Afghanistan, so that no role is left for her. including humanitarian assistance. But the US has discounted Pakistan’s allegation that India is using Afghan soil for providing arms and ammunition to Pakistani Taliban fighting Pak army in Waziristan.

Indo-Afghan friendly relations pre-date emergence of Pakistan as a sovereign state in 1947. Afghans in the length and breadth of the country had condemned destruction of Bamiyan Buddha statue at the hands of Taliban in 1999.

The second demand is of resolving Kashmir dispute with India.  India has agreed to ease the situation on her western border assuming that Pakistan puts an end to her India-centric terrorism. Some internal changes in J&K state are under consideration to assuage the feelings of a handful of anti-India people. However, the Prime Minister made it clear in Washington that there will not be any redrawing of the lines in Kashmir.

Obama’s new strategy of taking on the threat of Islamist insurgents and terrorists is a major policy decision that will have impact on global strategies.  His war against international terror is not only America’s war; it is the war of free world to protect a civilization that has been created and sustained through tears and toil, sacrifice and dedication over several millennia. Obama is leading a historical and crucial fight against the forces of darkness and destruction which have put humanity under siege.

India, a victim of terrorism, much before the tragedy of 9/11, and a declared target of terrorist outfits, must put its act together to lend outright support to the effort of the US-NATO forces engaged in eradicating the menace. We, as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation comprising nearly one fourth of the world’s population and wedded to secular democratic arrangement, cannot stand by as idle onlookers when the free world is fighting the battle of entire humanity and its coming generations. This is no time to be satisfied with a situation in which perpetrators of terrorism are faced with their Frankenstein. A responsible nation cannot afford to behave like sadists.

India must re-shape her relations with the United States in the light of very bold and courageous leadership of President Obama. No Indian government can escape the responsibility of protecting the life of her citizens against Theo-fascism and terrorism wherever its source lies. We must understand that we can no more bring the onus of a terrorist attack to the doorsteps of our neighbour.  We have to fight our battle ourselves.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Dear Editor:
Contrary to what Applebaum says (Superpower without a partner, Nov. 24) China earnestly though subtly pursues the three-fold agenda in a different style – anti-terror campaign, nuclear non-proliferation and country or country block alignment. She knows the language which terrorists understand and hence brutally decimated fundamentalist-terrorist uprising in Xingjian where nine of them were executed recently. She joined Big-5 in imposing sanctions on India for her nuclear blast in 1998, and she is a close ally of an Asian country with which she has a defence pact and which she supplied nuclear parts and technology to contain her arch-rival India. She created the SCO, a virtual strategic country bloc to checkmate growing influence the US/Russia in energy-rich Central Asia.
Nor is the US left a lone super power. In his joint statement with Chinese leadership in Beijing, Obama embraced China as America’s close partner in their strategies in South Asia. With this new alignment of two polar powers EU is put on defensive.

Tajikistan, a less known country of Central Asia owing to its small population and 98 per cent of mountainous terrain in the lap of Badakhshan mountains is poised to perform an important role with far-reaching consequences to the existing socio-political scenario in the East.

In September last, President Imomali Rahman declared 2009 as the year of Imam Azam Abu Hanifa, the greatest 8th century Sunni Hanafi theologian of Islamic world who formulated the shria law to occupy centre stage in Islamic theological science. 

Commentators unnecessarily attached political undertones to President Rahman’s initiative. Who does not know that Islamist extremists were vigorously active in Tajikistan soon after she, like other eleven states, declared herself independent from Soviet Union? In the same vein, Uzbekistan has been the hotbed of religious extremism with extensive links among Taliban and Al Qaeda ranks in Afghanistan and NWFP. Islam Karimove the President of Uzbekistan was forced to come down with a heavy hand on insurgents centered in Ferghana Valley.

Tajik President has made a good study of the causes of rise of religious extremism in and around his country. In a bid to revive and reinforce social philosophy of Imam Abu Hanfia to find a solution to the cataclysmic situation of contemporary Islamic society, he has opened a door for new strategy and new approach which hopefully would defy outright rejection by the orthodoxy. This has to be a debate within the Islamic fold.

More than half of the world Muslim population adheres to the Hanafi theological school brought by Imam Abu Hanifa 1300 years ago. Included among them are the Muslims of Central Asia, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and many other countries. Although we have four prominent theological schools of Islam but the popularity and response which Hanafi School has received remains unsurpassed.

On 5-6 October 2009, three prominent socio-cultural organizations of Tajikistan with the collaboration of Tajik government organized an enormous international symposium on the life and thoughts of Imam Abu Haifa in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. More than five hundred delegates from nearly one hundred countries participated in the symposium that was very meticulously organized and conducted. Included in the delegations were the leading Muslim scholars and erudite like the Rector of Al Azhar, and celebrated Imams of Turkey, Paksitan, India, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries. It lent the symposium grace, credibility and dignity that it rightly deserved.

In his hour long address to the delegates assembled in the magnificent Barbod Auditorium in Dushanbe, President Rahman made a historic speech, which will one day resound in many religious and secular gatherings in the Islamic world. The crux of his address was that if we follow the social philosophy of the Great Imam, we shall find that there is no scope for what is erroneously called “war of civilizations”. But there is every scope of “dialogue between civilizations”. This he said emanates from the conviction of Imam Abu Hanifa that people are free to observe their faiths and Islam does not in any way block the prospect of coexistence with other faiths which are also sent by God.

Appreciating  independent views of Imam Abu Hanifa, the President said that we don’t have another example in Islamic history that a distinguished scholar of of Islamic jurisprudence of his status refuses the offer of Qadi made to him by the Abbasid Caliph. He had rejected both houses of the caliphs viz. the Ummayids and the Abbasids as non-consistent with the basics of Islamic polity. Owing to his firm belief in and original interpretation of Islamic theological concepts, he tried to create universal appeal and profile of Islam. Thus his services to the faith and Islamic civilization are without parallel.

The impact of this move of the Tajik President may not be immediately felt or recognized but the fact is that he has opened the door for a big debate among contemporary Islamic scholars, theologians and politicians. If Muslims are able to spread the right word of this great Imam, it would generate a friendly atmosphere for logical discussion of issues facing Islamic society today.

Tajikistan has seen worst days of civil war rooted in religious extremism in post-independence period (1991- 1996).  Through is sagacity and farsightedness, the Tajik President brought about rapprochement with the dissenting groups in 1996, which stabilized the economy and law and order situation in the war-torn country. Today, Tajikistan is gradually marching  towards prosperity and reconstruction under the able guidance of her President. The change is visible in almost all walks of life. The country promises to come out of woods within another decade if peace and tranquility prevail in the region. His move to galvanize Muslim society into positive and constructive dialogue without any harm to the basics of faith and religion, is aimed at striking balance between reason and faith not by invoking the philosophy of great Greek philosophers but by invoking the precepts of great doctors of Islamic theology like Imam Abu Hanifa.  One can say with confidence that other Muslim societies will emulate his example.

(The writer is the former Director of Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

re: Iraq Elections

Dear Editor:
This refers to the editorial ‘Forgotten War’ (14 Sept). Any attempt to short cut forthcoming elections in Iraq like district-wise polling would be a Himalayan blunder. Only free flow of democratic process will earn credibility to the US. Moreover, seeking referendum to the presence or withdrawal of American forces from Iraq with a view to raise the stock of Al Maliki, again, will not be a healthy sign. Free and fair elections in Iraq will not only bring credibility to the US but will also provide her an excellent opportunity to wriggle out of Iraq imbroglio. But to think that free elections followed by American withdrawal will prevent Al Qaeda spreading its tentacles in Iraq is wishful thinking. Unless Taliban in Afghanistan and their cohorts in Pakistan are uprooted lock stock and barrel, Al Qaeda’s clandestine expansion cannot be blocked. The rumour of the US engaged in Track II talks with Taliban is no guarantee of containing Al Qaeda because its network is much more active outside Pak-Afghanistan region.

On 29 August 2009, Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Gilani announced a political-cum administrative package for Northern Areas, which proposes replacing the existing Northern Areas Legislative Council with a representative legislative assembly, appointment of a Governor for Northern Areas, a Prime Minister heading a 6-member Council of Ministers with specific subjects to administer. Pakistani newspapers reported ten items specifying the thrust of the package in addition to noticeable change of the nomenclature of the region from Northern Areas to Gilgit-Baltistan.

Pro-establishment circles and sections media called it a great and bold initiative on the part of the present government ascribing it among the achievements of PPP. They have also claimed party’s historical empathy for the people of Northern Areas since it was late Z.A Bhutto who had taken the initiative of setting up the NALC way back in 1971. 

But there are others, and in particular, the nationalist parties and groups in Gilgit-Baltistan who have called the package an eye-wash, re-asserting that nothing short of full measure of autonomy and total withdrawal of Pakistani troops from their homeland will satisfy them.

The Balawaristan National Front (BNF) chief Abdul Hamid Khan, who has been given asylum by the Belgian government, has repeatedly invoked the UNCIP resolution of 1949 in which Gilgit and Baltistan region has been recognised as the third region of the original State of Jammu and Kashmir (Indian and Pakistan parts being the other two regions) and the specific recommendation that Pakistan should withdraw its fighting forces from this region within three months. As that condition was never fulfilled, rather further reinforcements were made from time to time therefore, according to all nationalist parties of Gilgit and Baltistan, the area is under illegal occupation of Pakistan.

Not only that, these strongly nationalist groups have been bringing the onus of their plight to the doorsteps of the Indian State arguing that Maharaja Hari Singh had signed the accession of the entire state and not only of any part or parts. As such, Gilgit and Baltistan being one of the three components/regions of the original state, India should have intervened vigorously. They further state that the so-called accession of Northern Areas to Pakistan on the behest of the insurgents in November 1947, who had beaten the state forces and taken Governor Ghansara Singh as prisoner of war, worked on the behest of Pakistani army commanders and instructions of colonial political adventurers. The accession of Northern Areas to Pakistan did not reflect the free will of the people ascertained through any legally recognized instrumentality. Therefore it was illegal.

Conscious of the fact that she had no legal and constitutional claim over the region of Gilgit and Baltistan because with the lapse of the British sovereignty over India, this region given to the British India on lease in 1935, had automatically reverted to the parent state of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan manipulated a legal document on April 28, 1949 which she called Karachi Agreement. She staked the claim that by virtue of this agreement, PoK had “handed over” the administrative authority of Gilgit and Baltistan to Pakistan, which she re-christened Northern Areas.

All nationalist parties and groups of Gilgit and Baltistan have vehemently rejected this claim and the so-called Karachi treaty both. It has remained a perpetual irritant between the people of the region and the rulers in Islamabad. Political activists of Gilgit and Baltistan have been making a very cogent point in saying that those who signed the agreement were neither from the region nor represented the people. Sardar Ibrahim Khan was the President of “Azad Kashmir”, Chowdhury Abbas was the Head of Muslim Conference and Gurmani was a Pakistani Federal Minister who had signed the agreement. There was none from Gilgit-Baltistan. As such it was an illegal document and Pakistan was illegally posited in Gilgit. Pakistan’s position became very embarrassing when a few years ago PoK High Court gave a landmark judgement saying that Northern Areas are part of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Before we proceed to examine the hardcore of Pakistani Prime Minister’s package in question for Gilgit-Baltistan, it has to be recorded that within a day of the announcement of the package, New Delhi come out with a statement expressly rejecting the step and questioning the right of the Government of Pakistan to legislate for Gilgit and Baltisan. The statement said that the area is part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which has legally acceded to the Indian Union in 1947 and as such Pakistan has no right to legislate on it.

Having said that, let us examine the package what it really carries. A close study shows that it is the old wine in new bottle and there is nothing that may be called a substantial gain for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. Under the package, real authority will rest with the Governor who will replace the Chief Executive but will be appointed by the President of Pakistan for indefinite period. The Governor will appoint the Prime Minister from the elected body called legislative assembly. The administrative apparatus of the so-called autonomous region cannot legislate on a variety of subjects like defence, foreign relations, finance, security, inter-state relations etc. The “autonomous” region will not have the status of a province but it will have the Governor, which is an anomaly

Proposed Legislative Assembly will have 24 elected members who will elect 6 women and 3 technocrat members. The Assembly of 33 members will elect the Chief Minister but the Chief Minister has not the right to select his cabinet. That right rests with the Governor. As far as the Governor, the package says that he should have completed 35 years of age and shall have all qualifications that make him a member of the Pakistan National Assembly. This is indirectly to say that the Governor of Gilgit and Baltistan will be from Pakistan. As it is sufficiently indicated that the pattern will be the one existing for PoK, it is obvious that the Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and the IGP will not be locals but from Pakistan. 

A close study of the package reveals that the way in which the legislative assembly will be constituted and the powers that are given to the Governor and the crippling of the authority of the chief minister are a clear indication of covert intentions of the rulers in Islamabad. They want to get the accession of the region to the Islamic State of Pakistan done and ratified through surreptitious means. At the same time, it is to put the ball in the court of India in regard to the demand for full autonomy among a section of political leadership in Kashmir. A comparative study of the proposed package with what is obtaining in our State should convince anybody that the package offered to the people of Gilgit and Baltisan is only an illusion with the potential of making them a colonised nation for all times to come.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir).

re: Democratic movement in Iran

Dear Editor:
This refers to the editorial ‘The Tumult in Tehran’ (27 August). Though the regime has unleashed  brute force to chase away protesting crowds on the  streets of Tehran yet the authority of the government shows clear signs of erosion. More significant is the challenge to the authority of the supreme religious leader not only from the protesting crowds but also overtly from the hardliner president Ahmadinejad. Apparently not only on nuclear proliferation but on other vital foreign policy issues as well uncertainty and confusion have overtaken Tehran regime. If on account of this  Washington unilaterally decides to extend the  deadline for Iran for responding to de-nuclearization, it will give the regime breathing time to further stifle the voice of political dissent. Washington should avoid everything that is likely to halt the movement for democracy in Iran.

Once again a row has been kicked up in the legislative assembly over the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA). Acrimony between the ruling and opposition MLAs on the issue showed that more or less both sides were pandering to subjective approach to the matter.

In bringing accusations and counter accusations against one another, the spirit and the purport of invoking the act gets submerged under trivialities.  It is rather ludicrous for any political party to change stance on serious national issues when out of power.

The essential question is whether political parties seriously want to address the phenomenon of abnormal conditions created by militancy that have led to immense harm to the state, or are they just trying to politicise it for gaining some sort of political mileage.  

What the representatives of the people in the assembly should have done was to initiate a serious debate on the ground situation in the state, the level of infiltration and subversion and the extent to which security forces have been able to restore normalcy.  As a precursor, this kind of debate would have facilitated a sensible and pragmatic handling of the matter without acrimony or animus.

Mr. Muzaffar Baig, the PDP MLA initiated a serious debate on the subject by raising the point that since Sheikh Abdullah had not accepted the amendment of 1972 to the AFSPA of 1958 when he returned to power in 1975, therefore, neither the Act nor the amendment was applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

But instead of debating the constitutionality and the applicability of the Act, the house got embroiled in accusations and counter accusations leaving the contentious issue simmer for another flare up sometime later.

The roots of this Act, known as Armed Forces Special Power Act (Jammu and Kashmir) 1990 are to be found in the history of colonial rule, which had made enactment in 1942 to suppress Gandhi Ji’s Quit India movement. In 1958, it appeared in its present form when armed insurgency surfaced in Assam and Manipur. Later on the Union Government extended the reach of the Act to other North Eastern states where insurgency had spread.

When armed insurgency broke out in Kashmir in early 1990, it was the then Governor Jagmohan who declared Kashmir a disturbed area and imposed AFSPA.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that if the Governor of a State or the Commissioner of a union territory is convinced that there is much disturbance in the state, law and order are threatened and normal administration is likely to be disrupted, he can declare the area as disturbed. The next action to follow is the implementation of the Act.

The purpose is to help restore civilian authority in the disturbed area as soon as possible and withdraw imposition of the Act

It is a fact that when Mufti Muhammad Saeed was the Union Home minister, the AFSPA was enforced in the valley on his recommendation to the Union Cabinet.

It is also a fact that during his party’s three-year term in the office, no attempt was made to raise the question of continuation or otherwise of the AFSPA.

This answers the point raised by Mr. Muzaffar Baig of PDP in the state assembly session.

The crux of the matter is whether the conditions that forced government to declare Kashmir a disturbed region in 1990 have been eradicated or not. If they no more persist then continuation of AFSPA has no justification to be in vogue. In other words, the focus has to be on the nature, viability and intensity of ground situation rather than the Act itself.

Who is to adjudge and pass a verdict on the ground situation in the valley: certainly not the armed forces.  It is the people who have been bearing the brunt all these years, who will decide what they want. Since in our democratic dispensation they articulate through their elected representatives, therefore, the local mainstream political parties will have to debate and decide whether ground conditions have changed or not. Obviously, keeping in mind the response of the legislators, we find here is divergence of opinion on the question. As such a decision on the withdrawal of the Act becomes elusive for want of consensus of opinion. Agreeing that consensual politics is nothing less than a wishful thinking, nevertheless the elected representatives have to shun disagreement on the basic pre-requisites of a normal peaceful civilian life in the valley.

If we take the recent pronouncements of the Prime Minister into account, which he said were based on reliable input from various sources including the intelligence agencies, then the inference is that in terms of security the country cannot lower its guard.

Knowing the meticulous planning and extensive networking of terrorists operating in the region, and their avowed thrusts deep in the country, Kashmir situation cannot be dealt with in isolation. In most cases investigated by security agencies so far, Kashmir appears to have been converted into focal point of terrorist planning for strikes at different places in the country. Therefore application of AFSPA has to be viewed in broader perspective than just in the context of Kashmir.

Nevertheless, there are indications that militancy in the valley has come down in terms of internal subversion and suicide bombing. It is possible to move about much more freely in the cities and towns of the valley today. It is also true that ordinary people in the valley are not willing to give shelter to the militants aiming at selective strikes or subversion.

This could surely pass for improved security conditions. The credit has to go to the security forces including the state police. From that point of view AFSPA has been successful to a considerable extent in restoring normalcy in the valley.

However, it is generally believed that AFSPA is a ‘Draconian Law’ or a ‘Black Law’. As a commentator put it, the law makes the Armed Forces much more powerful than the powerful Supreme Court in the country. And when such vast powers are vested in an organization, it can misuse them; in many cases it has misused them leading to violation of human rights.  Such wrongdoings cannot be pardoned. No government will be happy with these lapses when they take place.

Many Human Rights organizations like Human Rights Watch have protested against the Act as a license to violation of human rights of the victims. Not only that, even the Commissioner of the UN Human Rights Commission, Mr. Navnetham Pillay asked the Government of India to repeal the Act as it was “a legacy of the colonial rule.”

All these factors prompted Home Minster Chidambaram to remark during his recent visit to the valley that the Act needed to be revised.

India is a democracy and no government can keep the people disgruntled for one reason or the other. As such, it is in fitness of things, that the government re-visits the essential clauses of the Act and examines if a via media can be explored. More offensive and arbitrary clauses should be crippled or made partially ineffective. The objective is to revive peoples’ trust in security forces as guardians of life and property.

We know that the opposition parties made AFSPA an issue following the ugly and unfortunate incident in Shupian.  Without condoning acts of highhandedness, if any, of armed forces, we now know that Shupian incident is unrelated to AFSPA. It is not at all in the interests of the people of the state if sporadic incidents happening in the valley are attributed to the armed forces only to incite pent up sentiments of the people. In most cases, enquiries instituted into incidents have revealed that the armed forces were not involved. And if they were, the army authorities have taken proper action.

It is also important to look at the other side of the coin. While the opposition has made AFSPA an issue to indirectly discredit the armed forces, why should not they think it necessary to denounce militancy and militancy related activities. Is it not the duty of political leadership to make peace and tranquilly, law and order as prime issues, which we in the state needs to address? The simple formula is this: if there is no militancy, there is no presence of the army and there is no application of AFSPA or any other ordinance. Militancy will not be prevented or discouraged by letting the security men become the sitting ducks.

In final analysis, we think both pro and anti – AFSPA need to debate the issue with a spirit of seeing that peace and tranquillity are restored in Kashmir. It is not to win mileage over the opponent. While proper and adequate amendment to the AFSPA should be welcome, the parties with smooth relations with separatists and secessionists too need to impress upon them the need to understand that they are gradually loosing the support of the masses. The interests of the people of the state have to be uppermost in handling sensitive issues like this.
(The writer is the former director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

By Kashi N Pandit, AUG-10-2009

Dear Editor: It should be possible for many analysts to presume that Bill Clinton’s recent visit to Pyongyang was motivated by his humanism to rescue two American journalists. The trip has to be de-linked from Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation issue. A former US president is not supposed to talk on a highly technical and politically a very sensitive issue in a casual trip like the one Clinton made. Moreover, North Korea is not really considering a visit by the high level US dignitary as something to boost her international status ( Refer to The North Korea Fallout…’ of August 9). Rather it is her good gesture of humanism that will increase her profile in the eyes of comity of nations, a profile that has been tarnished over the years by relentless western media hype. Clinton’s trip should hopefully open a new chapter in the history of  bilateral relations between the two countries. If that happens, Bill Clinton will find a place for himself in the annals of the history of peace and reconciliation in our times.

re: The right way to help the Uigurs, By Ellen Bork, July 10, 2009:

Dear Editor:

Juxtaposing Xingjian situation with Tibet or invoking US policy towards Uighurs along the line for Taiwan and Hong Kong is unreasonable. (The Right Way to Help ,,.. 10 July) Human, civil and political rights cannot become the shield behind which elements determined to subvert country’s sovereignty would take shelter. Demand for autonomous state for the Uighurs of Xingjian has been there for many years. But all sovereign states are bound by domestic and international law to protect life, property and culture of its citizens. Alleged links of Uighur demonstrators with deadly religious extremist organizations and actors in Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbekistan region is a very serious matter for the Peoples Republic of China.  Remember that China is a partner of world community in its war on terror. Beijing’s timely action of sealing all mosques in Urumchi does not seem to be motivated by denying religious freedom to any religious or ethnic group. It is to foil any attempt of proliferating religion-based terror in the region in tandem with sympathizers around. From that aspect, China has shown that curbing the menace of terror before it spreads out its venomous fangs has to be the operative part of war on terror.

re: Xingjian ethnic clashes, July 08, 2009:

Dear Editor:

Fifty million Sunni-Muslim Uighurs of Eastern Turkistan, belong to Turkic-Mongoloid race. Under Maoist authoritarianism, demographic change was effected by settling a large number of Han Chinese in the region, which caused friction between two major ethnic groups. (Scores Killed in Ethnic Riots in China?, July 7.  Angered by this and Beijing’s old discriminatory policy, the Uighurs responded vigorously to Pakistani radical Islamic organizations that started exploiting their religious sentiments soon after the Saudi-sponsored Sunni Wahhabism began wresting the initiative of Islamic revivalism from the hands of Iranian clerics in mid 1980s. Chinese authorities arrested some rabid Pakistani Islamist activists in Xingjian in post 9/11 period, charged them with inciting secession, executed two and deported the rest. Ever since, Uighurs of Xingjian are in the eye of Pakistan-based radical Islamists of Wahhabi orientation. They are now fully indoctrinated and what has happened is only the tip of the iceberg. The future will unfold more.

WASHINGTON – The United States is hoping to get support from the Pakistan Army in its offensive in Afghanistan, but the hostility between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not allowing the US-led allied forces to carry out an all out offensive in the region and is impeding their success, The Washington Post reports.

The U.S. troops are struggling to overcome decades of enmity between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the rough terrains of the border area, the report said …

… U.S. officials said that they must have the support of ‘deeply suspicious’ Pakistani forces to stop the flow of Taliban fighters across the 90-mile stretch of border.

They said that a border coordination center on the Afghan side where commanders from all three countries could plan operations should be operationalised in order to counter and address the real threat.

“Our goal is to get everyone focused on the common enemy,” Dempsey said. (ANI). (full text).

Dear Editor:

A change from theocratic to secular-democratic regime in Iran can be brought about only by the masses of Iranian people and not by a decree from any disinterested religious leader in or outside Iran (No velvet revolution, 29 June).

Iranians brought in theocracy through street power in 1979. The same formula still holds good for its ouster.

Kashi N. Pandit

A major event in the sub-continent that tookplace during last two weeks is the defeat and elimination of LTTE in Sri Lanka after its thirty-year-long armed insurgency against the state. LTTE, the world’s most dreaded terrorist organization had been declared a terrorist organization by the US keeping in view especially the suicidal bombing in which it indulged. Most of the Tamils in Sri Lanka still do not believe that Villapai Prabhakaran, the chief of the organization has been killed in action. Such was the aura of redoubtable strength he had projected about the organization and himself.

LTTE had built a strong international network and Tamil emigrants in western countries had formed strong complexes to raise funds and push their cause on international fora. Thirty-year long struggle had created an impression with the mediators that it was a Gordian knot to resolve. Yet their efforts especially of the NGOs in Netherlands tried to break the jinx. Nothing happened.

The defeat and destruction of this thirty-year old armed conflict in South Asia has brought a sigh of relief for the Sri Lankan government and the peace loving masses of that country. It makes South Asia a safer place indeed.

But that is just a mask covering the entire story. How come that such a formidably armed organization crumbled and got eliminated with such rapidity? There is certainly more than what meets the eye.

Indian policy planners may be happy in their hearts for what has been the end of LTTE. At least, they can boast that no armed insurgency can challenge the might of the state and apply the formula to Kashmir insurgency and thus take some solace from the event.

But in terms of security concerns India has incurred a serious situation in the context of Sri Lankan developments. Bogged with domestic politics in Tamil Nadu, the previous UPA government showed reluctance to Sri Lanka in selling her much needed arms and ammunition to fight terrorism. New Delhi’s refusal to oblige showed that India’s methodology of fighting terror is selective, erratic and insincere. After all it does compromise national security not only in the case of Sri Lanka but also in the case of Kashmir.

Desperate to accelerate its anti-terror fighting capacity, Sri Lankan government welcomed offer of military assistance and tactical back up from two of our primary rivals in the region, namely Pakistan and China. Both of them found Sri Lankan approach a windfall. Pakistan offered crucial war material including it ace Al-Khalid tanks to Sri Lankan army. China offered her 350 million dollars aid to buy ammunition from Beijing used for land, air and sea assaults. China also provided her F-7 jets to counter Czech made aircrafts operated by LTTE. Chinese offer of F-7 was free of cost. In addition, both China and Pakistan offered military tactical advice as well to combat the insurgents in peculiar topographical conditions.

The rapid success with which now well-equipped Sri Lankan army decimated LTTE was a shot in the arm of Pakistani and Chinese policy planners. As usual, they found another common constituency to work against their common rival, viz. India. Under the aegis of their unholy alliance, the blue print is now under preparation according to which India’s reach in the Indian Ocean will be curbed and curtailed to a large extent. The expanse of neutral waters will get squeezed in due course of time. China has already built the seaport of Gawadar on the Makran coastline of Baluchistan, which Pakistan will use as an alternative strategic seaport for controlling the warm waters. Now China is constructing a new seaport on the southern tip of Sri Lanka named Hambantota. When ready, a triangular maritime link — underground nuclear submarine base on the southern tip of China’s Hainan Island – Hambantota – Gawadar — will bring about complete naval encirclement of India in the Indian Ocean. This could happen by 2011.

With Nepal under deep Maoist influence and Bangladesh preparing to be the eastern front of ISI against India, and Naxalites-Maoists penetrating deep into the entrails of the country, India is at the worst of its security situations as of now.

It sounds bizarre that in 2007, in the course of his visit to Colombo, Indian National Security Adviser Narayanan advised Sri Lanka to approach India for any assistance instead of looking towards Beijing or Islamabad. Such is the naivety of our security planning.

India maintained low-lying, nay almost cowardly stance vis-à-vis Sri Lankan army’s decisive onslaught on the LTTE just because the Congress would not want to displease Karunanidhi in his antics of showing solidarity with the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Imagine how this country compromises its national security for the sake of vote bank.

In a very guarded and laconic statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh advised Sri Lankan government to think seriously of a federal system of political arrangement for his country. He confined himself to humanitarian aid of the victims of conflict in Sri Lanka. If this is the conviction, then the Prime Minister should have the same measuring rod for the conflict in Kashmir and affected Eastern parts of the country. If his humanitarian concerns are sincere for the displaced people of a neighbouring country, he should have at least the same level of concern, if not more, for the refugees from Kashmir whom his government sadistically calls “migrants” while it calls the Tamils in Sri Lanka as “IDPs”. Political expediency of such sliding levels is alternately called cowardice in the lexicon of political punditry.
(The writer is the former Director of Centre of Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir).

Exporting democracy to the Asian countries was a much-hyped mantra of Bush administration. Iraq was destroyed to bring her the gift of “western type democracy”. Now Afghanistan and more lately the tribal areas of Pakistan are going to be painted democratic by combined US-Pakistan army operations. This is democracy through the barrel of the gun.

Americans make loud noise about democracy in Pakistan. Under this rubric, Washington egged on Musharraf to quit.  Their sponsored process for democratic Pakistan began with a warning shot, namely the assassination of one who was deemed to symbolise democracy in that country. Benazir’s assassins signalled they would implement sharia rule and not Westminster-type democracy.

However, when the exercise began, western type democratic process could not be rejected or replaced and sharia rule was not adopted. Pro-sharia champions began responding with Kalashikovs, rockets, firefight and suicide bombing. They claim creating moles in all segments of Pakistani civil society, army, intelligence agencies and higher echelons of her bureaucracy with networks all over the country and abroad.

The ”democratic” government is now locked in fierce battles with and resistance to the proliferating sharia activists who seem to be logistically on more firm ground. The state is at war with itself.

Democracy does not mean just voting by the electorate and forming the government of representatives and meeting in assembly and swearing by democratic rule. Democracy, in fact, is a culture and a way of life. That culture and that way of life are not allowed to grow in Pakistan. Therefore her democracy is only something in letters and not in spirit. Its perpetuation is not only uncertain but also assuredly impracticable.

Why did not that culture develop in Pakistan? There are solid reasons. A country cartographed on the basis of religion has to be a theocratic state, and theocracy, in whatever form and structure it is, is anti-democracy. A state that is raised on the foundation of hatred and animus against other communities and a faith other than its official religion cannot become democratic. It undercuts the element of tolerance that is crucial to the growth and perpetuation of democratic culture.

Democracy does not accept class distinction, nor does Islam, because that encourages factional rule. Three segments of Pakistan’s society have been working in tandem ever since the creation of that state. These are the Generals, landlords and the upper echelons of bureaucracy. They have common economic interests having extensively and intensively cemented the triumvirate through economic and matrimonial alliances.

Had democratic culture been part of Pakistan’s political life, Bangladesh would not have separated; Mohajirs would never have formed their separate and hostile entity, Balochis would not have needed to be bombarded, Nawwab Bugti would not have been massacred and  Zilfiqar Ali never hanged.

In order to promote their vested interests, this combine stonewalls passing of political power to the masses of people.  Whenever under specific circumstances or foreign pressure, a semblance of democracy is created; it ends up in a fiasco with a powerful military general overthrowing the elected government, grabbing the reins of power and justifying his action by swearing to bring in democracy. With one stroke of pen the General removes the elected ministry, the national assembly, and country’s democratic institutions and then unilaterally declares his amendments to the constitution.

A constitution is a sacred document embodying the philosophy of the state and the aspirations of its people. It is set forth after a great debate among the elected representatives of the people. The elected representatives can amend its clauses only through a great and serious debate in formal sessions of national assembly.  But the General, who assumes power as a result of a coup, has the audacity to throw the wishes and aspirations of the people to winds and announce arbitrary amendments to the constitution only to suit his ambition and personal interests.

The province of Punjab dominates the entire country. A province with the largest population, manpower, agriculture and water resources has dominated all walks of life leaving other nationalities deprived of their legitimate share. The process of integration of Pakistani society has remained elusive. The Sindhis, Balochs, Mohajirs, Seraikis, Pushtoons, Swatis, Baltis and Kashmiris, all have litanies of complaints of deprivation and discrimination, very real in most cases, against the rulers in Punjab. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a formidable impediment in the way of democracy taking roots in Pakistan.

Created on the basis of two-nations theory, and projected as the state for the Muslims of the sub-continent, Pakistan’s chance of survival has come to its logical conclusion. It is the promulgation of sharia rule. Is it not ironic that a country created on the basis of religion should have delayed implementation of cherished religious law and way of life for last sixty years of her existence? Does it not speak of a split personality? Pakistan is virtually ruled by four systems of law at one and the same time. These are the law of colonial period (in part), Pakistan Penal Code, Sharia law (in part) and now the Pakistani Taliban or puritanical Islamic law envisaging explicit Wahhabism. To add to this, the tribal laws are a class by itself in the NWFP for which local people have much more regard than any other law.. In this matrix of vast juridical contradictions and complexities, religious extremists are justified in demanding rejection of all extraneous laws and retention and full enforcement of sharia law.

Sectarian hatred and raising armed sectarian brigades is a sign of vanishing law and order and dragging society to the abyss of disaster. It cuts at the roots of democracy. In democracy, power should rest in the hands of the elected government and no group can take law into its hand.

Endemic hatred and animus against India and stupendous propaganda against her has made Pakistani rulers believe in their hypocrisy.  Dreaming of grabbing Kashmir through muscle power is part of that entrenched “belief in hypocrisy.”  A country that nurses rank hypocrisy is not capable of letting democracy grow and prosper as it should.

These being the reasons why democracy is not able to take roots in Pakistan, it has to be noted that that country will continue with her search for stabilised personality for another century to come. Induction of democratic culture means egalitarianism in which people become the owners of the source of production. Unless Pakistan stops her policy of maintaining religious militias as second line of defence in her fight against India, closes down the madrassashs – the breeding ground of anti-India hatred – and allows open-minded Muslim intellectuals play their role intensively and extensively in re-shaping the Pakistani mindset, not much hope remains for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
(The writer is the former Director, Centre of Central Asian studies at Kashmir University).

In recent weeks alarm about fast deteriorating economic situation in Pakistan has received sudden hype in the US and western media. Political punditry in the US made wild predictions of a catastrophe looking straight into that country’s eye. It talks of things like the state having reached the brink of economic collapse, state on the verge of balkanization along ethnic lines, failure of law and order and imminent take over by the radicals etc.

A gloomy picture like this is painted to create impression in world community, but more particularly in the west, that in the event of imminent implosion, the Taliban-Al Qaeda combine would take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and with that, the threat of a holocaust would loom large over the fate of entire humanity.

In this background, political pundits in western capitals sermonized that the limping economy of a near-to-failed state of Pakistan has to be provided with crutches to avert economic collapse. With much pride and élan they declare that this was not the first time when aid prescription is proposed for Pakistan. Spoon-feeding the country, which, by general admission, has become the breeding ground of international terrorism, has been their desk-book policy ever since it was created six decades ago. Its military regimes were supported and now under the rubric of democracy, its war machine is being boosted considerably.

This time the justification for huge funding for Pakistan has been found in the problems created by large-scale displacements from strife torn Swat and Malakand regions of NWFP. Official, non-official and NGO circles vie with one another in raising the numerical graph of IDPs which means updating each day the quantum of aid needed to provide relief to the IDPs.

Concerned planners and strategists have subtly linked international political and financial organizations with the crisis in Pakistan. It is to justify providing crutches to a roguish client-state in South Asia forgetting that creating war hysteria in a part of the country or the region is what serves the interests of the Punjabi ethnic hegemony in that country.

Official circles in the US computed the number of IDPs to the tune of two million souls, an increase of half a million from an earlier estimate specifying that the displacements had happened owing to Pakistan military operations against the Taliban insurgents. Mr. Ron Rodmond, spokesman of UN High Commissioner for Refugees broke UNHCR’s normal practice of desisting from playing the game of numbers, and made threadbare statement on the subject. Calling it “the biggest internal displacement after that of Rwanda genocide of 1990”, he pleaded that “Pakistan needed 455 million US dollars to help estimated 1.5 million IDPs from Swat and Malakand.” This UN subsidiary never said a word about three hundred thousand people of a minuscule religious minority hounded out of its ancient habitat in Kashmir in 1990. The UNHCR did not even make a mention of what happened to them in their displacement leaving aside estimating the cost of their support.

Asia Society, a pro-American organization, declares that Pakistan needed 50 billion US dollars in next five years to prevent economic collapse lamenting that production had fallen by 8 % owing to disturbed situation in the country. The IMF did not lag behind and rushed to relax Pakistan’s financial deficit target for 2009-10 in order to boost growth.

In this well-laid out political background, Pakistani President proceeded on a formal three-day visit to the US last week. Besides meeting with President Obama, he had brief meetings with the British Prime Minister and the French President in Paris. By all standards this was a very successful visit abroad and Pakistan was able to achieve its objective to a large extent, thanks to Pakistani diplomats who had prepared the ground for the event.

The US House of Representatives has approved US dollars 1.9 billion by way of aid to Pakistan for her “war on terror”. UK committed 640 million pounds (989 million US dollars) for next 4 years. Under President Obama’s “New Strategy of War on Terror”, the US is likely to pour more funds into Pakistan’s kitty.

But the support committed by the French President Sarkozy to Islamabad is revealing. France agreed to transfer civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan to help her overcome energy deficiency. Actually France will be competing with the US that has concluded a civil nuclear deal with India late last year and the French President bluntly said that his country would bring Pakistan at par with India in civilian nuclear technology sector. Besides this, France has committed 409 million US dollars as her share of aid to Pakistan.

During last week’s tour aboard, President Zardari has also concluded bilateral agreements with Libya over a range of bilateral economic and financial cooperation, banking sector and opening of a Pakistan-Libya Bank besides subsidiaries for oil, gas and agricultural projects.

All this hefty package of financial aid comes on the plea that Pakistan is fighting America’s war on terror. But taking the reports of huge financial assistance to Pakistan into view, there is no conditionality clause anywhere though in words much is said about Pakistan desired to take “more action” on the ground. Pakistan claims that 1.4 million people are displaced and over half a million have been lately added to them who are now registered in NWFP. According to an estimate made by official circles in Pakistan, the government needs 600 to 800 million US dollars by way of support to the IDPs from war-torn regions in NWFP. Pakistan Humanitarian Response Plan has asked for 544 million US dollars but says that in case of expansion of conflict, many more people would get uprooted and the estimates of restoration plan would consequently escalate.

The concept behind vast funding is that prevention of economic and political dismemberment of Pakistan is a guarantee to the security and safety of her nuclear arsenal. This is a bizarre piece of logic taking into account the past history of rise of theo-fascism in the region. The question is that when a strong section of Pakistani Army, especially the cadres below the age of 30, a formidable segment of powerful ISI and the feudal lords are all in unison over the power crescendo of militant organizations in that country, will these enormous cash doles cure the disease afflicting Pakistani society or work as just pain killers and sedatives? Would it not be more realistic for the US and her western allies to deal directly with traditional tribal chiefs and warlords of NWFP eschewing the intermediation of US’s blue boys in Pakistan politics? Three centuries ago the British colonialists had thoughtfully devised that rewarding strategy.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).