THE escalating violence in India frightens me. Still more frightening is the shape it is taking. It has turned communal, regional and ideological in various places. Whatever its direction, it indicates a trend where the rule of law is lessening and force is gaining recognition.

I had imagined that political parties would not stoke fires and would, in fact, find a way to douse them. Instead, I find some of them organising their cadres and arming them to jump into the fray. For the first time, Hindu terrorists are also active.

The Maoists, however misdirected, are at least saying that they do not believe in the ballot box. Their trail is marked by blood in at least half the 200 districts they dominate. There is no stopping the Maoists who have targeted civilians, apart from the security forces. How do they serve their cause, which is supposed to be the welfare and emancipation of the people?

The stone-pelting incidents, believed to be instigated by the Hurriyat, against security forces in Indian Kashmir are taking place every now and then. This has been the scene for the last one year.

The excesses committed by the security forces there are reprehensible and there should be an inquiry by a judicial commission to find out why they indulge in violence. The promise of zero tolerance doesn’t mean anything when children are killed in action taken against agitators. I do not expect anything from the extremist elements because they are out to destroy the polity and disfigure democracy. It is for New Delhi to ensure that no force runs amok and there is proper punishment for those found guilty.

The latest addition to the list of brutality is ‘honour killing’. In recent months, one has heard about scores of such killings taking place in northern India, particularly in Haryana, where the khap panchayats have openly backed these killings. Several young boys and girls getting married have been the victims. In some cases, the couples were driven to the edge and committed suicide.

The neighbouring state of Punjab too has joined the law violators. A strange example is that of a non-resident Indian killing his stepdaughter because he did not approve of her marriage to a low-caste Sikh in Brussels. Television networks have rightly brought such brutalities to light.

But one unfortunate fallout is that people are beginning to equate violence and ‘honour killings’ with a tainted system. Their confidence in it is turning into cynicism. They are finding the law and order machinery an instrument of tyranny in the hands of rulers and their cohorts who stage-manage false encounters to eliminate the opponents and trump up cases to harass the critics.

Whether it is a single-party government or a coalition, the methods employed are no different. The worst culprits are civil servants. The ethical considerations which once guided their action have dimmed. The desire for self-preservation has become the sole motivation for their behaviour.

In the process, the people have been disillusioned. They have come to believe that justice is only a relative term. They have lost the awareness of what is right and do not realise what is wrong. They find the dividing line between right and wrong, and moral and immoral, sinking in the sands of opportunism and oppression. They are at a loss as to how to act. No wonder they fall prey to what is promised by a demagogue or the person with the gun.

Political parties should realise that any appeal to violence in India is particularly dangerous because of its inherent disruptive character. We have too many fissiparous tendencies in the country to take such risks. Violence, even otherwise, leads to conflict and disruption. It is absurd to imagine that the result of a conflict would be the victory of socially progressive forces. I find the Left sometimes thinking along these lines.

In India, diversity, which to date had been the nation’s forte, is turning into separate entities. Consensus, which is the cornerstone of democracy, has become so difficult that even the basics cannot get the approval of parliament. Yet there is inherent unity at which foreigners marvel.

I recall that when I was India’s high commissioner to the UK, the Soviet Union was tottering. Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the then British prime minister, told me about the advice she had tendered to Moscow: learn from the example of India which has stayed together for hundreds of years despite people professing different religions, following different castes and speaking different languages.

Mrs Thatcher asked me what I attributed it to. It took me some time to explain to her that we in India did not divide things into black and white. We believed there was a grey area which we had been expanding for decades to strength our pluralism. Twenty years later, I feel what I told Mrs Thatcher is changing to the detriment of India.

Unfortunately, the spirit of tolerance or the sense of accommodation, which provided the glue for India’s integration is fading. Parties which are attempting to deny or defeat the ethos of secularism are harming the country’s unity and its catholicity. They have their own agenda and want to pursue it even at the expense of the nation’s unity. Methods do not matter to them.

I believe in the basic dictum that the wrong means will not lead to the right results. This is no longer an ethical doctrine, but a practical proposition. India can disintegrate like the Soviet Union if the nation does not awaken to the dangers of conflict. The Maoists and all political parties should eschew not only violence but also the language of violence which instills division and hatred. The situation is too uncertain for the country to remain complacent.

Author: Kuldip Nayar

The decision of Pakistan’s federal government on July 22 to give second 3-year-term to the Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has important ramifications for Pakistan’s war against terrorism, its interaction with the military establishments of the allies and internal political dynamics. Now General Kayani will hold on to his office until November 28, 2013.

This decision did not surprise anyone because it was expected that the Army Chief would get an extension. The decision is welcomed by most political parties and leaders, although the PMLN was cautious in talking about the extension and the Islamic parties, known for their sympathy and support for the Taliban and other militant groups were not happy.

Unlike the military operations in the tribal areas in 2003-2007, the new operations launched under the leadership have been quite successful. The Army, the Air Force and the Paramilitary Forces launched an effective operation in the Swat area in the last week of April 2009. The South Waziristan operation was pursued in October-December 2009. During 2010, the Army is active in other tribal areas where it has weakened most militant groups. However, the problem is far from completely tackled.  This made it imperative to let the present Army leadership continue with its counter-terrorism policies.

The continuity in the army is also relevant to sustaining international equations with the U.S. and NATO military command in Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command, NATO military establishment and the Pentagon.  These relations are critical to pursuing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. Further, given the fact that the political track is gaining more attention with an emphasis on exploring dialogue with and accommodation of selected Taliban groups, the continuity of Pakistan’s security leadership and a relationship of mutual understanding between Pakistan and the security command of the U.S. and the NATO is critical.

In the domestic Pakistani context, Kayani’s focus has been on rehabilitation of the image of the Army, especially its top command, tarnished in the course of the Lawyers’ movement against  General Pervez Musharraf.  Most serving army officers were gradually pulled out of civilian assignments (2008-2009). The Army and the ISI maintained a nonpartisan disposition in the 2008 general elections.

The Army top brass focused attention on morale building among its personnel. Greater attention was given to providing material rewards to junior officers, NCOs, JCOs and soldiers that were neglected during the Musharraf’s days.  Special attention is being assigned to the welfare of the families of the personnel killed in counter-terrorism operations. This goodwill will help Kayani in the second tenure.

Kayani has not generated extra ordinary pressure on the civilian government and has stayed aloof from the speculative report in the media that the military and judiciary would join together to dislodge President Zardari and the PPP-led federal government.  Only two issues generated some tension between the civilian leadership and the Army top brass. These were the attempts by the civilian government to place the ISI under the control of Interior Ministry and the objections of military top brass on various references to the military and the intelligence agencies in the Kerry-Lugar bill in September-October 2009.

The on-going counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency has created a relationship of interdependence between the military and the civilian leadership. The latter cannot cope with militancy and terrorism without the full support of the military. However, the military needs civilian ownership of the current security operations.

There is a shared decision-making on key foreign policy and security issues, including religious extremism and terrorism, by the President, the Prime Minister and the Army Chief. This guarantees political stability and greater civil-military coordination.

This is not the first time that an Army Chief has been given extension.  General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan who completed his first four year term in January 1955 got a full term’s extension up to January 1959.  In June 1958, Prime Minister Feroz Khan Noon extended his tenure by another two years up to January 1961. However, he assumed power in October 1958. He resigned from the Army command and appointed General Mohammad Musa Khan the Army Chief on October 28, 1958. Musa Khan got an extra full term in 1962. Three Army Chiefs gave extensions to themselves while they held the levers of political power. They were Yahya Khan, Zia-ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

Kayani’s extension means that only one Lieutenant General loses the chance of becoming Army Chief; others would retire anyway.  The Army looks nicely after retired senior officers, i.e., perks, post retirement jobs, etc. Further, such a person can be accommodated in some other important position. The Chairman, Joints Chiefs of Staff is retiring in October which makes the senior most position available.

Kayani’s professional stature and political clout will depend on the performance in countering terrorism and his role in helping Afghanistan and the U.S. to find an honorable way out of the ongoing internal strife.

Any direct involvement of the military in politics and governance will divert its attention from the primary task of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency that gives respectability to the top military command both at the global and domestic levels.  Even if the civilian government performs poorly, the top brass of the military should show restraint and patience.

Author: Hassan Askari

Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral would always say that a solution between Pakistan and India had to be evolved, not presented to the people, as if a magician had pulled a rabbit out of a bag. He had a point.

The two sides — particularly the politicians and the establishments — had to chew the solution and then gulp it down, which is a slow process. This is like a building which would be erected brick by brick. Therefore, people-to-people contact is the obvious way out for the two countries to discuss and debate the various issues facing them at length, without even reaching a consensus of any sort.

My experience shows that the contact comes to be confined to those who can get a visa or are lucky enough to be part of a Track-II committee. Governments on both sides are frustratingly cussed and slow.

They have hardly left any scope for contact among the common people on both sides. India’s home ministry is further tightening visa eligibility criteria so that it can keep out “unwanted elements”. Norms under discussion include indicating income criteria and minimum educational qualifications for entry into India. This is an approach meant to allow in only the elite.

The meeting between foreign ministers of the two countries is a step forward after the talks between the two home ministers and foreign secretaries. What they say and the steps they take are important for the two countries to normalise relations. And they should do it quickly because the people want normalisation without further loss of time.

Yet the most important thing is how to disabuse minds on both sides. The feeling of national solidarity is nurtured on the two sides by emphasising the ‘misdeeds of the other’. When nationalism feeds on downing the ‘enemy’, there is little hope in building an atmosphere of confidence. Nationalism, in fact, is prejudice.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s remark that trusting and verifying the sincerity of Pakistan may be justified because of India’s feeling of betrayal after many successful attempts to reach an understanding. Yet it only underlines the depth of distrust. Who is to verify what and how? These are ambiguous questions and should not be raised when the two countries are yet to outline even the agenda of talks. New Delhi does not want to give them the name of a ‘composite’ dialogue, the phrase which Pakistan prefers.

People in both countries have to overcome the memory of partition’s traumatic experience. Happenings of those days are still being passed by one generation to the other. I can tell you from my experiences — I travelled from Sialkot to Amritsar on September 13, 1947 — that there was no difference between the Hindus and Muslims in killing and looting members of the other community.

They killed one million people and uprooted nearly 20 million families. I was pained to see the Pakistani establishment telling one side of the story. It has put up boards at the Wagah border to show how Muslims were killed by Hindus and Sikhs. The Muslims were no less guilty. It would be better to consider that incident an aberration in a long history of amity between Hindus and Muslims.

But the tragedy of partition is only renewed again and again when Pakistani textbooks arouse hatred against Indian people, not the state. Although the observations have been reportedly toned down, they still talk about “India’s evil designs against Pakistan” and identifying “the events in relation to Hindu-Muslim differences.” How can children forget what is taught to them in schools? They carry the same impression when they grow up. It is time that both countries set up a joint commission to go through textbooks and directives given to those who prepare them.

No doubt such a step will do away with the hatred cultivated at a young age. Yet the fear of a small state that Pakistan has been — the natural fallout of partition — is understandable. It feels pitted against a big state, India. And most Pakistanis still believe, even after 62 years of the formation of the country, that New Delhi wants to destroy their country. This thinking gives grist to the propaganda mills of extremist organisations. Civil society in both countries has to fight against such attitudes. Would Pakistan survive the difficulties it faces? I am reminded of what Atal Behari Vajpayee wrote in the visitors’ book at Minar-i-Pakistan: “India’s integrity and prosperity depends on the integrity and prosperity of Pakistan.”

The prisoners on both sides are a sad commentary on the attitude of rulers and bureaucrats. Indian and Pakistani prisoners languish in jails long after their sentence is over. The crime of most of them is that they had strayed into the other country. Poor fishermen particularly have become victims in the ‘hostile’ atmosphere. The fishermen of Gujarat and Diu in India and Pakistan’s Sindh suffer the worst. Unknowingly they enter into the other’s waters and get arrested. As of now there are around 560 Indian fishermen in Pakistani prisons and more than 150 Pakistani fishermen in Indian jails.

Of those arrested, 95 per cent of them are from Gujarat and Diu while a higher percentage is from Sindh. Generally they become pawns in the hands of the political leadership of the other country. They are released only when the leadership in either country feels it is politically beneficial to do so. Though both countries accept that they are innocent, they continue to stay in each other’s prisons for a long period.

When the missions on both sides have too many undercover agents, a war of spies has been seen. When one country declares an officer persona non grata followed by deportation, then there is retaliation from the other side. India and Pakistan have frequently gone through the exercise where intelligence persons have been deported in large numbers.

I still believe that people-to-people contact on a wide scale will improve the situation in the two countries and lessen fear, suspicion and mistrust. But I do not see such a possibility in the near future because terrorism has changed the scenario. It is true that Pakistan is prey to it. But so many reports by US think tanks have said that the Taliban — who attack Pakistani cities at regular intervals — are trained and funded by elements, including the ISI, from within Pakistan.

Now that both New Delhi and Islamabad are determined to fight against terrorism jointly, with the help of other Saarc nations, some kind of mechanism should be created to eliminate the Taliban.

Author: Kuldip Nayar

The inconclusive India-Pakistan talks on July 15^th have caused a major disappointment in Pakistan. Most people hoped that, as India’s Foreign Minister was visiting Islamabad for the first time after the Mumbai terrorist incident, India must have made up its mind to resume some kind of dialogue on major contentious issues including terrorism.

These talks could not produce a positive result because India insisted on Pakistan satisfying its concerns with Pakistan’s connection with the Mumbai terrorist incident. In the press conference, India’s Foreign Minister accused the ISI of being involved in the attack.   India did not want to talk on any contentious issue until Pakistan took action against the leadership of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba.  Pakistan suggested that a comprehensive dialogue be initiated on 8 major contentious issues including terrorism. These were the issues being discussed in the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan in 2004-2008.   As the gap between the dispositions of the two delegations was so wide that they could not agree on a joint strategy for improvement of relations.

However, the two sides agreed to continue talking to each other.  Any future talks are not going to produce any positive results if India did not show flexibility in its one item agenda for talking to Pakistan.

India’s posture runs counter to India’s agenda of neutralizing Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (Jamaatud Dawa). The continued deadlock in the talks and tension between India and Pakistan strengthen  the position of Islamic and militant groups in Pakistan that have been arguing all the time that India is not interested in resolving contentious bilateral issues through dialogue. These groups flourish in an environment of tension and conflict between India and Pakistan. They cash on anti-India sentiments and endeavour to reinforce these sentiments.

It seems that India’s official circles are convinced that a heavy diplomatic pressure will compel Pakistan to give in to India’s demand. Further, the Indian leaders think that global sympathy for India on the Mumbai terrorist attack can be turned into additional pressure on Pakistan.

The United States and other Western countries sympathize with India on this issue and have suggested to Pakistan to proceed against militancy, especially Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. For the U.S., other Western countries and Saudi Arabia the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are a greater threat than Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Therefore there is a limit to what India can achieve against Pakistan through international diplomacy.

There is a need of understanding the terrorist threat to Pakistani state and society. The Pakistan’s security forces are fighting the Taliban and other militant elements in the tribal areas. Pakistan’s Army has lost more people in the on-going counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations than in the wars with India in 1965 and 1971. Improvement of relations between India and Pakistan can be a major good will gesture towards Pakistan’s struggle against terrorism.

The notion of the ISI orchestrating the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and other anti-India militant groups needs a reality check in 2010. Most the militant groups that were known for enjoying the patronage of Pakistani intelligence establishment have acquired more or less autonomous disposition. They do not always listen to their former patrons.

The major obstacle to a firm action against the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is not necessarily its alleged role as a strategic asset for the future. Two major reasons explain its continued activism. First, it has developed strong societal roots by pursuing social welfare activities for the poor in the tradition of Hezbollah in South Lebanon. Second, the continued Indian demand to prosecute and convict the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba hierarchy helps it to earn respectability in Islamist and the Political-Right circles. The government of Pakistan does not want to be seen as proceeding against its top leadership under Indian pressure. Further, there is the problem of admissibility of Indian dossiers against the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba in Pakistani courts.

Instead of engaging in polemical exchanges at the official and non-official level, India and Pakistan will have to break out of the current stalemate that serves the interests of religious extremists and hard liners. They need to return to the dialogue table on the basis of a shared agenda rather than India imposing its single-item agenda as a pre-condition for normalization of relations.

Pakistan will be better placed to deal with the militant groups if India and Pakistan take measures to normalize their relations by addressing the issues that can be tackled easily. This should be accompanied by improved non-official interaction, release of prisoners and bilateral trade.

India cannot on its own tackle with the militant Islamic groups based in Pakistan. It needs to appreciate the challenges Pakistan faces from such groups and work along with Pakistan to address this menace. It will find a lot of support for this policy in Pakistan.

If the current civilian democratic arrangements collapses in Pakistan and religious extremists gain an upper hand, India will face a more problematic situation. Therefore, Indian policy makers and others need to think afresh on the post-Mumbai policy towards Pakistan.  A change in India’s policy and resumption of the dialouge will be beneficial to both.

Author: Dr. Hasan Askari

Before the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979, I used to visit Kabul regularly. I found President Mohammad Daud a fatherly figure who had no idea of what was happening in his country.

Even otherwise, he was dependent on warlords, a pattern which has not changed since. But he was not aware of the strong base that the communists had developed in the country.

How can one fight without reservation when you declare beforehand your decision to quit? –Photo by AP

This was a period of innocence. That Daud was pro-India was significant because New Delhi wanted to keep out Islamabad which stressed Afghanistan as part of its ‘strategic depth’ vision. For that reason, Pakistan denied India the use of road for transit goods to Kabul.

Later, President Hafizullah Amin, a communist, was in power for a short while. But Amin did not want Afghanistan to be a Soviet satellite. He was anti-Pakistan. Atal Behari Vajpayee told me that when he met President Amin, the latter suggested to him that the Indian forces should march into Pakistan from the east and the Afghanistan forces from the west.

Babrak Karmal came to Afghanistan riding the Soviet tank. President Amin was killed. New Delhi should have condemned the aggression, but stayed neutral because of its close relations with the Soviet Union. It was the biggest disgrace of India’s foreign policy.

Moscow’s fears that it would be sucked into a war defending Babrak Karmal’s government came true. Little did it realise that America was looking for an opportunity to bleed the Soviet Union to death. In fact, the happenings in Afghanistan at that time gave a fatal blow to Moscow and gave victory to America in the Cold War.

Washington constituted a force of fundamentalists — the Mujahideen — with Pakistan in the front. They wanted Kalashnikovs and unlimited dollars to fight the ‘infidels’ of the Soviet Union. This was the opportunity which Gen Ziaul Haq exploited not only to get maximum money and weapons for Pakistan but also to spread fundamentalism in his own country.

The US and the Mujahideen inflicted so many casualties on the Soviet Union that Moscow had no option but to pull out. But, after defeating the Soviet Union, the worst that Washington did was to quit immediately and drop everything, leaving behind weapons and the fighters it had trained. The world is today paying for the sins that America committed at that time.

Now it is committing a similar blunder of projecting its withdrawal without bothering about what would happen to Afghanistan and the region. Raised from the ranks of the Mujahideen, the Taliban became a menace and went on to foist their rule on Afghanistan. They had all the weapons that America left behind.

When America found Afghanistan as the epicentre of terrorism after the 9/11 attack on New York and went after the Taliban, it looked like it was rectifying the mistake it made earlier. Pakistan was a reluctant partner. But after having suffered the Taliban’s terrorism inside its own territory, for example in Swat, Islamabad has come on board to a large extent. But it still alleged to have contacts with the ‘good Taliban’.

Terrorism today has spilled over Pakistan’s borders. Lashkar-i-Taiba has carried out attacks even on Indian soil. The attack on Mumbai on 26/11 was the Lashkar’s doing.

For obvious reasons, America has become crucial to the area, not only because of the troops it has deployed but also because of the coalition of resistance it has put together. Washington’s focus is on the region itself.

Yet President Obama’s declaration that the US forces would begin withdrawing from next summer is tantamount to weakening “the wholehearted fight” against the Taliban. How can one fight without reservation when you declare beforehand your decision to quit? The last time when America did so, it gave birth to the Taliban government, the flagship of religious fundamentalism. This time the scenario could be worse because then the Taliban had not tasted power which they did after America’s withdrawal. At present, they are lying low and awaiting the departure of the American forces. The Afghanistan government is not viable. Nor has its military developed enough teeth to thwart the Taliban. What was needed was not the change in command — from Gen McChrystal to Gen Petraeus — but a change in American policy that is looking to withdraw its forces.

True, Islamabad has been able to keep New Delhi out. The latter has not taken up any new economic project. Pakistan has been able to convince America which needs Islamabad’s support the most that Pakistan cannot fight with all its troops because it has to keep a large number of them on the eastern border with India. Indeed, America has changed the scenario in favour of Pakistan. President Hamid Karzai who was literally abusing Pakistan till a few months ago reportedly met the Pakistani army chief to show intimacy between Islamabad and Kabul.

The basic question remains unanswered: how to eliminate the Taliban who have made Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan their playground. They have killed hundreds of Pakistanis. There is no alternative to the Taliban’s elimination. And here India can be of great help. Both countries have to evolve a joint strategy to fight the Taliban who are threatening the entire South Asian region. It may appear as wishful thinking.

If the intelligence chiefs of India and Pakistan meet to discuss how the agencies can fight against terrorism effectively, some type of joint mechanism against the Taliban may become feasible. If nothing else, the two countries have to think of ways to fill the vacuum which the withdrawal of the American troops would create. If the Taliban are allowed to step in, it would affect the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region.

Author: Kuldip Nayar

The terrorist attack on Data Darbar shrine in Lahore on July 1 is a stark reminder, if any new reminder was needed, of the growing power of militancy in Punjab.  In the past the suicide bombers used to come from the tribal areas. They parked with local militant groups that worked as the facilitator for the terrorist attack from the tribal areas. Now, local groups have acquired enough skills to engage in violence of higher scale, involving suicide attacks and bombings against the ordinary people.

The incident also showed that the political leaders and the government are divided on the threat of terrorism and some of them express sympathy for the Taliban and other militants.  This pro-militancy sentiment runs deep in the official circles and up to the middle level in the military.

The absence of unity of mind in the political and societal circles on terrorism is caused mainly by the inability and unwillingness of civilian leaders to take a categorical stand against those engaging in suicide attacks, bombings and hostage taking. Leaving aside Islamic political parties that support the Taliban and Islamic militancy, several political parties and groups maintain ambiguous stance towards Islamic militancy and terrorist attacks.

The major problem is in the province of the Punjab because the ruling PMLN maintains an ambiguous position on Islamic militancy and the Taliban.  Its leadership condemns terrorist attacks but avoids criticizing any specific militant group, including the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  The PMLN has several leaders in its senior cadre that share the Jamaat-i-Islami perspective on terrorism.  However, it also has leaders that publicly criticize Islamic hard line groups.

Nawaz Sharif has avoided giving a straight line on terrorism in order to accommodate differences of opinion in the party and to sustain its electoral support among the Islamists and the political right, making the PMLN announce some compensation for the victims of the incident.

The Punjab government does not appear to be convinced that many Islamic hard line groups and their break-away factions based in the Punjab have developed strong linkages with the Taliban based in the tribal areas. These groups are involved in four types of activities: work with some Taliban-type groups in the tribal areas against Pakistan’s security authorities deployed there; get training and return to mainland Pakistan; undertake their own violent attacks to pursue their ideological-political agendas; and serve as local handler or host for suicide bombers or other militants visiting their city on an attack-mission or for any other purpose.

There were two incidents of terrorism in Lahore. First, two religious centres of the Ahmadya Community in Lahore were attacked by terrorists in the last week of May. Two days later a small group of militants attacked the Jinnah Hospital to free one of their partners who was being given treatment after being arrested by the police. This attempt failed but it showed that these groups had become very confident of their capacity to pursue their agendas.   About 100 people were killed in these attacks.

The Punjab government was cautious in expressing sympathy for the victims of these attacks, fearing the wrath of hard line Islamic clergy.  However, there were people who rose above extreme religious views to discuss the attacks on the Ahmadya centres in the context of a nation-state and its citizens. Unlike the orthodox religious hierarchy they argued that it is the state’s basic responsibility to protect all citizens, irrespective of their religion, sect, caste and region.

The orthodox Islamic clergy was perturbed by the media’s sympathy for the Ahmadi victims of the terrorist attack. They quickly returned to their anti-Ahmadya community tirade to remind the people of their “anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam” disposition.  Some attributed the attack to what they described as an intra-Ahmadya conflict and that the Taliban could not be involved because no Muslim could ever launch such an action against a religious minority because Islam does not allow that.

The divided mindset of the leadership on terrorism and sympathy for Islamic hard line groups at the societal level gives the militants enough space to sustain and flourish. The ordinary people do not join them in their violent activities but they maintain a soft corner towards them and avoid reporting their activities to the security authorities.  This is partly because of fear of retribution by militant groups and partly because they are not convinced that violent attacks are done by these groups, including the Taliban.

The Data Darbar incident has shocked all sections of the populace because he is one of the most revered saints of Pakistan.   This terrorism incident and other incidents in Lahore and elsewhere in Pakistan during the last six month underline the need to develop a shared political stand on terrorism and the groups involved in it.   The political leaders and societal activists should take the lead in evolving a shared approach.

Terrorism has become such a threat that different political parties and societal group cannot have the luxury of playing their partisan politics. They need to recognize that unless terrorism is controlled, Pakistan’s economy cannot improve and  Pakistan’s capacity to function autonomously at the international level will be greatly compromised.

Author: Hassan Askari

A proxy object, holding the most expensive weaponry imaginable, flies from one point on the earth, crosses Pakistan’s border, and unleashes its full force over the people.

One would think I am describing the attacks Pakistan faces in the form of drone operations conducted by the U.S. to eliminate high-profile terrorist threats. In fact, I am talking about the ideological “bombs” being dropped on Pakistan’s society by the Saudis and Iranians through their militant forms of Islam.

Incidents like the savage attacks on the Ahmedies and recently the Data Darbar Sufi shrine, are ideological drone attacks waged by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. These attacks violate Pakistan’s cultural sovereignty transforming the national identity to a radical religious one.

One should ask what the incentive for Iran and Saudi Arabia is in spreading militant ideologies and supporting elements who gravely threaten the security of Pakistan? The answer is in the Cold War chapter of history where the value of proxy wars was that you compete against your arch nemesis in someone else’s backyard to avoid risks at home. As such, playing out the primordial Sunni-Shiite conflict has been facilitated for both nations in Pakistan by its own leadership.

The door was first opened by Z.A. Bhutto who jockeyed for the support of religious groups. Forgoing the fact that he was a leftist candidate, Bhutto imposed several Islamic concepts to an otherwise secular urban population (i.e. banning the gambling halls and bars of the big cities). Perhaps Bhutto realized that many of the religious political parties were funded by entities in Saudi Arabia, and thus had more cash and influence than Bhutto could fight against.

More importantly, one should simply look to the rise of the religious militancy fed by Saudi Arabia during the Zia Ul-Haq period.  During the 1980s, Pakistan was engaged in its first proxy war that brought the flood of Islamists and set the seed for extremism. Zia Ul-Haq found himself in a situation where he could not only prop himself in power, but get U.S. aid by espousing an Ummah ideal of Pakistani identity. The U.S. was comfortable with this rhetoric because it served their short-term goal of battling the Soviets in Afghanistan.

More significantly, it was during this period that Zia Ul-Haq ramped up the ideological engagement with Saudi Arabia to give weight to Zia’s call for mujahiddin to fight in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the leader of Laskar-e-Taiba, states that he was given a scholarship by the general to study Islam in Saudi Arabia, where he first learned concepts of global jihad. This seemingly insignificant administrative action, with the intent of spreading Saudi ideologies, has led to the growth of one of the most lethal insurgent groups who regularly threaten the stability of the state.

Some make the argument that today’s government is secular and does not espouse the same ideals as the puritanical Zia. Yet, the military remains greatly affected by the importation of militant Saudi/ Iranian ideologies during the Zia period. The connection between the ISI and the militants is fueled by a shared religious sentiment which they simultaneously were exposed to in the 1980’s. Further, the school systems have been left to languish which has opened the door not only to an uneducated populace, but a MIS-educated populace who no longer contemplates the idea of a Pakistani identity.

Instead of focusing on issues concerning the venomous militancy spreading throughout the nation and its root causes, the leadership seems keener on lambasting the U.S. drone attacks. While these drone attacks do violate principles of national sovereignty and have caused the death of hundreds of civilians, the ideological proxy wars being fought have a far more expansive reach in spreading chaos. Currently, we are seeing a rise in sectarian murders being carried out in cities like Karachi. The tension amongst religious sects seems to be reaching a feverish pitch both in the media and through the attacks by the myriad of militant groups.

The Dara Darbar attack best illustrates how forces within Pakistan are being encouraged to attack the oldest pillars of Pakistani society, by forces outside of Pakistan. Perhaps more news-worthy than the Data Darbar attacks were the protests that followed calling on Shahbaz Sharif to crack down on militancy, especially in Punjab.

This might signal that the populace’s honeymoon with Wahabiism and militant Shiite ideals may have come to an end. Pakistan’s leadership needs to shake itself out of playing up anti-Americanism as an easy ploy to garner popular support. The civilian government must deal with the homegrown problem of religious extremism fueled and funded by Saudi and Iranian powers. Without recognizing that hundreds of “drones” are being piloted to drop ideological bombs from Riyadh and Tehran, there can be no success in battling religious extremism and its militant wing.

Author: Waris Husain

Pakistan’s elected assemblies and the federal and provincial governments have been functioning for the last over two years but most political analysts express doubt if these will complete their five-year term.

The issues that cause uncertainty about political stability and internal harmony include poor governance, the troubled economy, persistence of religious extremism and militancy, the over-active superior judiciary  that endeavors to expand its domain and the off-again, on-gain confrontation between the federal government and an array of political adversaries.

The federal and provincial governments are performing poorly so far as governance and delivery of services to the people are concerned. This has caused alienation among people from the civilian governments who periodically engage in street protest and violence, disrupting life in major cities and towns.

The most serious challenge is in the economic domain. Pakistan is not expected to create an economy based primarily on domestic sources rather than relying heavily on external economic assistance and remittances from Pakistanis settled abroad. These constraints make it extremely difficult for the government to provide economic relief to the common people. Further, the government policies have utterly failed to reduce economic disparities between the richest and the poorest, making the latter more vulnerable to radical Islamist appeals.

Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership has shown determination to fight terrorism in Swat and the tribal areas. These efforts have been reasonably successful but this challenge is expected to haunt Pakistan for at least four-five years. This has led the government to divert some resources from socio-economic development to counter insurgency. Further, military action has displaced over one million people. The government faces an uphill economic challenge for assistance and relief to these people and their rehabilitation back home after the extremists are expelled from their home-areas.

These two challenges –the economy and extremism and terrorism – could be addressed more effectively if the opposition political parties extend full support. They appear to be more active in pointing out deficiencies in the government’s economic policies. They actively highlight the inability of the government to provide economic relief to the common people. However, no opposition party, including the PMLN –the major opposition party – has provided an alternate economic plan of action for coping with the current economic predicament.

The same can be said about the disposition of the PMLN on terrorism. Nawaz Sharif maintains ambiguity on his party’s policies towards the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Several senior members express sympathy for Islamic militancy and often criticize the government’s counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency policies. Though the party’s top leadership avoids direct criticism of the Pakistan Military, they often accuse the government of bowing to American pressures and serving American agenda in the region.  Again, no opposition provides an alternate plan to deal with religious extremism and militancy. The Punjab government refuses to acknowledge the existence of Islamic militant elements in the Punjab.

These developments have put the PPP-led federal government on the defensive, especially because their governance and economic management is far from satisfactory. The major thrust of criticism has to be faced by the PPP because its coalition partners, especially the MQM, do not own any unpopular policy. In fact, the MQM does not hesitate to criticize the federal government if it perceives a policy to go against its political interests and assets in urban Sindh. .

Another source of pressure for the federal government is the superior judiciary that invokes judicial activism to repeatedly censure the executive.  This has created a perception in the political circles that the Supreme Court might pass an adverse order against the federal government of President Asif Ali Zardari.  In addition the court-case pertaining to implementation of the NRO judgment, the adversaries of the PPP have filed several cases in the Supreme Court on the provisions of the 18th constitutional amendment, especially on the procedure for appointment of the judges of the superior courts.  Some cases target President Asif Ali Zardari.

During 1988-1999 the opposition used to woo the army top brass to apply pressure on the civilian government. Now, in 2009-2010, as the army avoids direct role in politics because it is engaged in counter-terrorism, the PPP’s adversaries are approaching the Supreme Court with the hope that it would knock out the PPP government or President Zardari.

Nawaz Sharif made extremely hard hitting statements on May 25 and June 26 on the performance of the government and advised them to implement the orders of the Supreme Court.  These statements were meant to increase pressure on the federal government as well as to communicate a subtle message to the Supreme Court that the major opposition party would support the Court if it passed an adverse order against the federal government.

Democracy cannot endure if the major political players do not work in harmony within a democratic and constitutional framework. Pakistan faces so complex challenges that a single political party cannot cope with them. If PMLN comes to power today, its government will face all the problems that have adversely affected the present federal government.  The opposition should not seek extra-parliamentary options to knock out the government. This will shift the initiative to non-elected state institutions.

Author: Dr.Hassan Askari

With such positive talks between India and Pakistan recently, the tragic happenings in Kashmir seem more than a coincidence.

That the youth in the valley are angry for not getting their due is known to all. But why should Kashmir be on the boil when relations between India and Pakistan are on the mend?

Kashmiri protestors clash with Indian police in Srinagar. Thousands of Indian troops enforced a strict curfew in parts of Kashmir on June 30, stemming three weeks of deadly protests that have claimed 11 lives and led to soaring tensions. – AFP Photo

Kashmiri leader Syed Gilani took advantage of the killing of one young man at the hands of the security forces to incite the people to come on to the streets. The Hurriyat Conference gave a call to start something new. Political parties jumped into the arena. All this developed into huge protests in four cities – Srinagar, Sopore, Anantnag and Baramulla.

An inept Kashmir police and the Central Reserve Police Force which has only guns at their command to tackle the protests aggravated the situation. The use of force against the protesters agitating against successive killings in the firing was excessive and what the security forces did was without restraint. This is a matter to be looked into by an inquiry committee.

Yet the fact remains that extremists in Kashmir strike whenever an atmosphere of goodwill begins to prevail after some kind of engagement between India and Pakistan. Pro-India elements have become irrelevant. They, in any case, are too elitist, seldom mixing with the common Kashmiris. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah leads the exclusive club. But their distance from the people is a contributory factor — not the factor itself.

Underlying the situation is the belief of the Hurriyat leaders that violence alone can lead to a solution in Kashmir. That the problem must be solved quickly goes without saying. But the extremists only stall the issue by instigating violence. They should have themselves come on to the streets to lead the protests in a peaceful manner to focus attention on the unresolved issue of Kashmir. They should understand that no discussion is possible at gunpoint.

One welcome development of the Islamabad talks was that nobody, except for a few hawks, implicated Pakistan in the Kashmir happenings. This means that the talks between the two foreign secretaries and the home ministers, in that order, have reduced to some extent the deficit in confidence which New Delhi has been seeking.

I do not know whether Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Interior Minister Rehman Malik discussed Kashmir. But at least the foreign ministers of the two countries should do so when they meet in Islamabad. India’s army chief has also emphasised political initiatives in Kashmir.

The talks at Islamabad have made two points clear: one, New Delhi has again enunciated Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assurance in Egypt that the terrorists’ attack would be kept separate from the talks. Many experts in India tried to quibble over the meaning of this but there is no ambiguity now. Two, the core issue between India and Pakistan or, for that matter, before the Saarc countries is terrorism.

The separation of the two points was clear when the two foreign secretaries who prepared the agenda for the forthcoming talks between their foreign ministers refrained from discussing terrorism. But they did discuss Kashmir. My information is that Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao asked her counterpart whether the ground covered on Kashmir through the back channel held good.

Pakistan’s foreign secretary had told me in Delhi that the two countries would go forward from the undertaking reached through the back channel. This should set at rest the doubts some Pakistani quarters raised that a democratic government was not bound to follow what was achieved during Gen Pervez Musharraf’s regime.

Chidambaram, who played to the gallery when he spoke to journalists at Delhi, was more responsible and vividly sober in his remarks in Islamabad. For him to say that he did not doubt the intention of Pakistan should be an eye-opener for retired Indian foreign secretaries who continue to follow the hard line they had taken during their careers to bring the two countries practically to the point of no return. They are openly critical of Manmohan Singh who has taken the bold initiative to talk to Pakistan despite criticism from the Bharatiya Janata Party.

New Delhi expects more arrests in Pakistan after the disclosures by David Headley whom the Indian intelligence agencies met in Chicago. Manmohan Singh has reportedly drawn President Barack Obama’s attention to Headley’s confession.

Chidambaram has rightly reminded Pakistan of the status of Most Favoured Nation India extended to it many years ago. If Pakistan were to respond to it, Chidambaram’s ideas on trade and investment between the two countries could be implemented. India, with a bigger market and investment potential, can help Pakistan overcome the lack of openings and technology which puts its industry at a disadvantage.

Action against Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed remains India’s litmus test to assess Pakistan’s steps towards normalisation. His cries of war or jihad against India are not what bothers the government and the people so much as his vast network which made 26/11 possible.

In fact, Islamabad’s declaration to have a regional plan to combat the Taliban will mean a strong effort against the militants. Some elements in Pakistan consider it their duty to support fundamentalism. But religious values are the antithesis of what the Lashkar represents. Today’s world, including Muslim nations, wants religion to inculcate values, not to be used to incite violence.

New Delhi and Islamabad should ensure that their rulers meet the opposition leader when their officials visit each other’s country. India has been able to establish it for visiting presidents or prime ministers. The Pakistan government should include Nawaz Sharif on the list of dignitaries during the visit of top Indian leaders.

Author:Kuldip Nayar

Clenched fists are associated with radicals from the left. The BJP is associated with wooden sticks and khaki knickers, which its mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has prescribed. There is no doubt that the party has to change if it wants to be relevant. But it cannot do so by clenching its fists. It has to jettison the RSS.

This means that the party has to get away from the ideology of Hindutva. It is a ‘yesterday party’, as its former ideologue Jaswant Singh said when he was ousted by the BJP. True, he is trekking back into the fold. But it does not indicate that the party is giving up its philosophy of parochialism. Nor has it clarified its stand on Mohammad Ali Jinnah, praise for whom landed Jaswant Singh in trouble.

Jaswant Singh had blamed Jawaharlal Nehru for partition, not Jinnah. The reason why the party has to clarify its stand is the hostility the BJP shows whenever Jinnah’s name crops up. L.K. Advani had to step down from the party leadership after he said that Jinnah was secular.

The issue that the BJP has to sort out is not whether Jinnah was responsible for the division of the subcontinent but whether his exhortation not to mix religion with politics is acceptable to the party. When it parades Narendra Modi at the party’s national executive meeting, it projects the same policy of preferring religion for achieving pre-eminence in politics.

Modi is implicated in several cases related to the Gujarat carnage and the anti-Muslim riots. When the BJP invites him to its Bihar sitting, the party sends the message that he is the party’s mascot in the forthcoming state assembly election and ultimately in parliamentary polls.

It was obvious that the BJP was provoking Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar who has a secular image and who leads the coalition with the BJP but wants to convey that he is not guided by what the BJP thinks or does. Therefore, he had to cancel the dinner for BJP executive members and return the Rs5 crore that he had received from Gujarat for flood relief in Bihar.

Following its own agenda, the BJP placed in regional newspapers an advertisement showing Modi and Nitish together on a platform. Bihar has a large Muslim population which could not have been happy to see the photo. Nitish had to assure the Muslims that the publication of the photo was the BJP’s doing.

His party, Janata Dal (United), tried to show the differences as if it was a personality clash. But Nitish Kumar’s approach was fundamentally different. He does not think that he can live with personalities like Modi. Whatever his party may think, it seems that Nitish Kumar would like to take an independent position when the state holds polls. He may well pave the path for a third front, badly needed in the country.

The BJP is beginning to understand Nitish’s long-term policy. It may therefore fight the state election on its own. Turning its back on Nitish, the BJP under the leadership of Nitin Gadkari, an RSS man, has made it clear that the party would rather sacrifice even an assured victory under Nitish than give up Modi who it would like as its prime ministerial candidate in the next Lok Sabha election. But the party has gone over this exercise before and has found that Modi is not an acceptable face.

Rightist parties all over the world have been a wellspring of new ideas. Why is the BJP stuck in a groove? That Hinduism is in danger is not accepted by Hindus, who constitute 80 per cent of India’s population.

The electorate in Pakistan or Bangladesh do not return the candidates sponsored by religious parties. In these countries the Muslims who constitute the bulk of the population do not think that Islam is in danger.

The BJP is still the second biggest party in parliament and rules in some seven states. Its validity is not because it placates Hindu extremist elements but because it is considered by the voters as an alternative to the Congress. The left is still absorbed in its outmoded ideology. What do the people do? They want a viable alternative. Therefore, they turn to the BJP when they find the Congress increasingly corrupt and intolerably arrogant.

Were the BJP to become a centrist party and shed its anti-Muslim image, it could provide the alternative. Why doesn’t the party talk about economic programmes? The Congress adopts at every party meeting an economic resolution. The BJP does not even attempt to do so.

The Conservatives in the UK were out of power for several years because they were seen as a bunch of right-wingers. They recovered only when they were seen to adopt progressive steps. With the type of communal agenda the BJP has —periodically there is an outcry for building the Ram temple where the Babri mosque stood — the party has little future. The mood of the country is different. It is looking forward to development.

In fact, I am surprised why Jaswant Singh is returning to the BJP without ensuring that it changes. True, his dilemma is that a politician has to have a platform to survive. But this is no basis for compromising on one’s principles. Or, maybe, this is the way the politicians function.

What is being said is that his return may coincide with the return of maverick Uma Bharti. She qualifies because she was joyful when the Babri mosque was being pulled down, stone by stone. I thought Jaswant Singh was a sensitive person.

Author: Kuldip Nayar