ISLAMABAD: The US special envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has said that the Taliban do not believe in ideology of Pakistan given by father of the nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah and want to destroy the ideology and the democracy.

In his ever first interview with Dr. Shahid Masood in “Meray Mutabiq” here on Friday, he said that Baitullah Masud, Fazlullah, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are those people who do not ready to accept moderate and democratic Pakistan rather want to destabilize it.

When asked that the name of militants are not disclosed killed in the drone attacks, he said that Islamabad is responsible to answer the question as the US is working with it against the terrorism but everybody knows these people like Baitullah Masud, Fazlullah, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar who penetrated into Pakistani society to threat Pakistan.

He went on saying that the news published in some sections of the US media regarding secret agreement between Bush-Musharraf administrations on the drone attacks as Islamabad will only condemn the attacks but to know the truth it is better to ask such questions from the previous administrations.

He said that it is very necessary for people of Pakistan to know the truth about these attacks as they are protesting against them both at the public and the parliament level; therefore, the issued should be clarified.

He, however, rejected Islamabad’s claims that the attack are creating hatred among Pakistanis against the US saying that the US came here to help Pakistan against militants who are posing threats to integrity and ideology of Pakistan.

When asked regarding the US reservations about ISI, he said that ISI Chief Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha is doing everything in the interest of his country. Rejecting the news published in media that Lieutenant General Pasha declined to meet him and Admiral Mike Mullen during their last visit to Islamabad, Holbrooke said that he and Mullen held meeting with him and on another occasion he and ISI Chief discussed situation of the region in detail.

Responding another question regarding tension in Pak-US relations, he said that there is no such difference between Pak-US administrations over the war on terror as both the countries are combating with the common enemy. He said that all terrorist are jointly working against Pakistan to destabilize it; therefore, without joint Pak-US efforts the terrorists cannot be defeated. He went on saying that the terrorist are not only threat to Pakistan and US but also to India as well, the Mumbai incident is the clear example of it.

He said that Pakistan is the only country which leadership was invited twice during last three month which shows the close Pak-US close ties. President Obama is eager to meet with President Zardari during his up coming visit in May.

When asked about US role regarding restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on the night of March 15, he said that the US played mediatory role between PML-N and PPP and asked them to work together for betterment of the country. He said that at last President Zardari took positive decision of restoring Chieef Justice Chaudhry which normalized the whole situation.

Answering to a question regarding the US dealing with whom—- President Zardari or General Kayani, he said that it is exactly difficult to answer as everybody has different approach in democracy. He, however, rejected the autonomous image of Pak army saying that General Kayani and General Pasha are completely supporting to the government.

To another question about Indian role, he said that Indian is the second largest country of the world; so, it is necessary to talk to Pakistan’s neighbors including China and Afghanistan to resolve its issue. He, however, said that US never urged India to do any thing in Afghanistan.-SANA

KARACHI: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said Saturday that Pakistan will share its counter? terrorism policy with the United States administration during the forthcoming talks next month. He was responding to a question at a press conference at the Chief Minister House here after presiding over a special session of Sindh Cabinet.

Sindh Governor Dr. Ishrat?ul? Ebad Khan, Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah were also present on the occasion. The PM said it was a wrong impression that Pakistan does not have its policy on war on terror. “Our policy is ready,” he said adding that Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi will visit the United States in the first week of next month to share this policy with the American administration.

PM’s Advisor on Interior Affairs, DG ISI and other relevant officials of law enforcement will accompany the foreign minister. President Asif Ali Zardari might also visit US in this regard, he said. To a question, he said the government wants to have good relations with neighbours including Iran, Afghanistan and India.

Relations with India had been improving till the Mumbai incident that affected them negatively. “We need to start confidence building measures (CBMs) afresh with India. However, it will take some time,” he said. To a question regarding the demands of Sindh in the context of National Finance Commission (NFC), he said that he will consult with the Advisor on Finance who was on a visit to Japan and China with President Asif Ali Zardari.

He said that Nizam-e-Adl accord was linked with restoration of peace in Swat. If there is peace in Swat, the accord will remain intact, he added.The PM said that government functionaries including Secretary Interior and IG NWFP had visited bazars in Swat on Friday and met with people. However, there was still room for improvement, he added.

Replying to a question about the development projects being built in Sindh, the Prime Minister said these constituted top priority of the federal government. He said “We will support these projects and complete them.” He said “extremism, terrorism, talibanisation posed a threat to the country and we have to jointly fight against them”.

He said the government was pursuing a policy of reconciliation. We have a three? pronged policy and that included dialogue, development and deterrence. The government will talk to only those who lay down their arms and and are ready to hold dialogue.

Gilani said Pakistan has prepared its own policy to deal with terrorism and we take our decision according to this policy which is based on ground realities, traditions, customs, self respect, honour, dignity and sovereignty .

We are trying to convince the United States and we hope we will be able to convince them . They know that Pakistan is the victim of terrorism, he observed. The Prime Minister said that his party was taking along two different ideological parties MQM and ANP as coalition partners and it was his effort to defuse the situation.

To a question about Sindh government’s performance, he said it was satisfactory during the last one year. He said that Ms Sherry Rehman and Senator Raza Rabbani are an asset for the party and their help is being sought on various important matters. Gilani said that people had voted for a change in February elections and PPP was on the path of democracy and politics of reconciliation to bring in economic stability. We need to show political maturity, he said.

To a question, he said all the chief ministers have been invited to submit their point of view regarding new education policy. He also announced to raise the salaries of police staff in Sindh in accordance with the raise in Punjab police. Responding to a question about two systems of justice, the Prime Minister said the people of Northern Areas have different traditions. Swat was the last to announce its accesion to Pakistan in 1969.

We will not touch their customs. We respect their heritage which is a speedy justice. Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had also allowed their system of justice in 1994 and former president Musharraf in 1999. Gilani made it clear that no law in Pakistan was repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.-APP

With a set of old glories neatly arranged in the background, flanked by his Secretaries of State and Defense, President Barack Obama announced a comprehensive strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Af-Pak Strategy). President announced,

“So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

Apparently, the strategy was more of an escalation of Bush policy than a policy shift. However, foreign policy experts like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski remain skeptical of the goals set for, what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called, “long slog” war.

Not long before President’s announcement, Secretary Gates was lowering nation’s expectations for winning the war. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he cautioned against setting unrealistic goals, “This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan”. He warned, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Considering, no power has ever been able to hold Afghanistan for too long, his warning was right on the money.

Despite bipartisan approval of Obama Af-Pak Strategy, experts believe the policy is fraught with unrealistic optimism, unattainable goals and erroneous calculations. Even worst, it fails to meet the tenets of the Powell Doctrine. Many analysts hail the doctrine to be the Holy Grail of modern warfare. According to the Doctrine, before America takes a military action its tenets would have to be answered affirmatively:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Coincidently, with the exception of the first tenet, Obama policy falls short of affirming every other tenet. However, before glancing over the negations, a retrospective accounting of genesis of the Af-Pak crisis might assist in understanding the crisis.

Roots of the current mess can be traced back to the political and administrative vacuum left by the CIA, when it suddenly left Afghanistan without even saying bye to its wartime partners, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Mujahideen – who used to frequent White House as state guests. Its premature departure was resented by the abandoned, which gave birth to equally cold-hearted phenomenon of Talibanization. They controlled over 80% of Afghanistan; hence, they became its default government. In exchange for financial support, the cash-strapped Taliban provided safe heavens to terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda.

At least initially, Al Qaeda’s core was made up of the CIA funded and trained Mujahideen; who should been rehabbed after the Soviets withdrawal. Unsupervised and forsaken by Americans and their native countries, these fighters who knew no other trait but guerrilla warfare searched for new causes. When none found, they invented their own.

Similarly, Pakistanis also found themselves deserted and heavily sanctioned by their allies. On its Eastern borders India was still as hostile as ever. Pakistanis decided to defend themselves by creating a buffer through a proxy. Pakistanis diverted thousands of idle guerrilla fighters from Afghanistan to Kashmiri. The buffer kept India engaged in an asymmetrical warfare.

After the 9/11 attacks, instead of seeking assistance of the patrons of Taliban and its time tested partner ISI, America aligned itself with a pro Indo-Iran-Russian mercenaries, the Northern-Alliance (NA). Soon after the American lead invasion, the Taliban dispersed into the civilian population. By placing an ethnic minority NA government (Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) in Kabul, the allies further alienated the Pushtoon majority.

If things weren’t already complicated enough, Bush team made the worst possible mistake; it allowed a massive Indian influx into Afghanistan. Indians who were itching to settle scores with Pakistan wasted no time in opening at least 11 consulates on the western borders of Pakistan. Pakistanis viewed these consulates as launch pads for the subversive elements tasked to destabilize Pakistan. The Pakistanis felt entrapped by what they interpreted as a hostile Indian encirclement. They countered the move by reassembling the Taliban proxy.

That is when an Afghanistan, which was apparently turning to normalcy, took a turn for the worst. It became the shooting gallery for many; including the NATO, India, Iran, Pakistan, and non-state elements like Al Qaeda, Pakistan Sponsored Taliban (PST) and RAW/CIA Sponsored Taliban (RCST). The RCST were primarily tasked to infiltrate PST and to conduct subversive activities inside Pakistan. Additionally, it was meant to erode public support for the PST and to generate anti-Taliban sentiments among the global community. The risky strategy runs a too realistic danger of destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan to a point of no return. Pakistan may end up fracturing into multiple unmanageable pieces, each with its own share of extremists. Clearly the strategy violates tenets 2 and 3 of the Powell Doctrine.

While analyzing President Obama’s European (G20) trip with Charlie Rose, both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski offered their criticism of Af-Pak review. Henry Kissinger warned of an unmanageable mess, if something is not done soon to stabilize deteriorating conditions in Pakistan. He called Af-Pak policy a “fluid military strategy.” Mr. Brzezinski was more specific with his criticism. He asked, “how do we really get Pakistan to help us?” Then he answered, “Pakistanis are convinced they are under threat from India.” But Af-Pak policy does exactly the opposite. It recommends a greater role of India in Afghanistan, which only adds to Pakistan’s fears and goes against the prevailing wisdom of stabilizing Pakistan. A contradiction of the 3rd tenet.

President’s special representative, Richard Holbrooke announced Af-Pak exit strategy,

“The exit strategy includes governance, corruption, but above all, and this is the single most difficult aspect of what we are talking about today, it requires dealing with Western Pakistan.”

The unattainable and ambiguous exit strategy stood in stark contrast of the 5th tenet of the Powell Doctrine. He explained,

“If the current situation in Western Pakistan continued, the instability in Afghanistan will continue.” Meaning, success in Afghanistan is tied to the threats in the ‘Western Pakistan’.

An interdependent strategy gives birth to a range of new complexities: either, the US will have to depend on Pakistan’s resolve and capacity to deal with the extremists, or it will have to root them out itself.

America has already voiced its mistrust of Pakistan’s resolve to fight the extremists. If Pakistan cannot be trusted then US will have to do it itself. It will have to: either divert the resources from Afghanistan, or send additional troops to Western Pakistan. But the resources from Afghanistan cannot be diverted, until Afghan National Security Forces are first brought up to a level where they could function independently; an ambitious goal, considering Afghan president still can’t leave his Kabul palace without the protection provided by the US Navy SEALS. The other option is equally impractical, because it will require pumping-in additional American troops – paralleling the numbers deployed during the ‘Gulf War’.

Since American allies are already fatigued from the long drawn Afghan war, they want to leave Afghanistan altogether. Allies, like Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (head of Britain’s armed forces), also expressed their reservations over the practicality of the American strategy. He advised, “Just as in Afghanistan, that kind of insurgency cannot be defeated by conventional military means. It can only be dealt with, in the long term, through politics.” An obvious negation of tenet 8 of Powell Doctrine.

US will have to dip into its own pool to exercise the second option, because no amount of covert/shoot & scoot missions can stem the militancy. No Pakistani government will be able to ignore populous’ demands to fight the invaders. It will be compelled to fight with any or all means at its disposal. Naturally, a Pakistani reaction cannot be calculated, without invoking the forbidden phrase of ‘nuclear exchange’. Much to be desired to affirm the 6th tenet.

Reportedly, even Vice President Joseph Biden argued against the troop surge in Afghanistan. Moreover, American public is not in mood to embark on another never-ending war. Besides, neither the US nor its allies’ economies are hardly in a shape to be able to afford yet another trillion dollar war. Cardinal sins, per 7th and 8th tenets.

Despite thumbs up from the Afghan and Pakistani presidents, the public remains extremely suspicious and resentful of the American policy. Reportedly, between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, 60 UAV hits in Pakistan killed 14 Al Qaeda men, 687 innocent civilians, including women and children. Fairly or unfairly, an ordinary Afghan or a Pakistani believes, West is in there to destroy their faith, their country and the Muslim world altogether. If the war is to be won, then Obama’s team will have to reevaluate and reform its strategy.

The emphasis should be on winning hearts and minds of Afghans and Pakistanis. Before exercising the military option, a really heavy dose of diplomacy, political and financial support will have to be thrown in the mix. Above all, US will have to win back the trust and goodwill of their Pakistani counterparts. Suspension of UAV attacks and phenomenal reduction of Indian presence in Afghanistan would be good starting points in generating goodwill and normalcy in the region.

Secretary Gates was prophetic when he said, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla [in Afghanistan], we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money”. Listen to him!

WASHINGTON: Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen. Shuja Pasha arrived in the United States on a two-day visit for talks on intelligence cooperation, government sources said Tuesday. Accrding to sources ISI chief is expected to meet senior US officials to discuss ways of enhancing intelligence cooperation between the two countries in the fight against Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

It is told that Lt Gen. Shuja Pasha’s visit to the US is due to increasing concerns raised by US generals regarding the ISI’s alleged relationship with militant organisations. During a recent visit to Pakistan, Admiral Mike Mullen briefed a select group of media personnel on US apprehensions regarding the ISI’s support for certain organisations, conveying a message that the US wants such support to end. However, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi came to the ISI’s defence in recent interviews, saying the ISI is fully on board with the government.

Input from Agencies

ISLAMABAD: Former President retired Pervez Musharraf strongly defended role of Inter-Services Intelligence saying, “the ISI has played vital role in defending country, it carried out proactive policy to nab terrorists and operatives of Al-Qaeda and it is an organisation which ensures formidable defence of Pakistan in an era of ‘operations other then war’. He was speaking to journalists at the Benazir Bhutto International Airport Sunday night before his 10-day visit to China.

He said, “those foreign powers or individuals are now critical of ISI they know it well that same organisation has crushed cells of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s main cities and made Al-Qaeda operatives on the run”.

He opposed President Obama’s planned drone attacks inside Pakistan saying, “if the US-led NATO finds any high value target Pakistan government and security agencies be taken into confidence before striking at them.

When he was asked about his reaction to several case to be instituted against him in Pakistan’s several courts, he said, “I am not running away if and when any court calls me I will not hesitate to face courts”.

Responding to a question about Red Mosque Operation during his tenure where a large number of people were killed in July 2007, Musharraf said, “only 93 people were killed and we acted after lot of persuasion to clerics of Red Mosque to give up militancy’.

He said, “I am going to China for 10 days and later I will be visiting United Arab Emirates at the invitation of two countries and I will come back to Pakistan. Referring to recent decision of Zardari administration to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar chaudhry, “its the action of present government I will not comment on it”.

Musharraf said Pakistan is facing grave threats from militancy, extremism and terrorism. He said we have to combat these challenges in a strong manner”. When asked will he join politics, he replied, “when you will invite me I will join politics”.

KARACHI: Former President Pervaiz Musharraf on Monday said that he would disclose the real story behind National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) on appropriate time. Addressing a press conference here on Monday on his return from India, he said that whatever the decision was taken during his era, all had reasons and he would let the nation know about them on the time.

When asked, why deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was not being restored, he asked the journalists to read out the reference sent to the Supreme Judicial Council against him in order to know the draw backs of Iftikhar Chaudhry’s personality and let the nation decide that such a person could deserve for the post of Chief Justice of Pakistan.

He also criticized the Ex-Servicemen Society terming them as used bullets and said that he was feeling insult while talking about them. He also said that he had a lot to tell the nation about their deeds but he would make it public on proper time. He also termed them as useless and rejected part of the society.

When inquired about his enmity with PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif, he said that Nawaz himself responsible for whatever the action was taken on October 12, 1998, however, he said that there should be politics of reconciliation and the principle ‘let be gone by be gone’ should be followed.

He said that he did not have enmity with any one; however, he criticized the usage of langue by PML-N leadership for him saying the civilized language should be used. When asked about his and President Asif Ali Zardari’s contact in the context of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer’s appointment but he did not give proper answer of the question.

When inquired about Swat peace deal, he said that the agreement was not made with Taliban rather the demand of the local people was fulfilled as they had been demanding for speedy justice since long. Musharraf said that the US authorities did not understand the situation of the area; therefore, it was necessary to take them into confidence; however, he categorically stated that the foreigners were living in the tribal areas and the government had to deal them with iron hands.

To a question, he said that the country was facing challenges in the political, economical and law and order sectors and these were needed to be addressed within no time for the country’s survival.

Regarding ISI, he said that he conveyed to Indians that ISI was doing what RAW, CIA or other secret agencies were doing to safeguard their national interests; therefore, it was not fair to single out ISI and to make it as subject to criticism. Musharraf regretted over the voices being aroused inside the country against the army and ISI. He, however, hailed India Today for organizing an international level seminar on “Challenges for Change” he said that it was held under extremely friendly atmosphere where the views were exchanged freely.-SANA

KABUL: The top US diplomat in Kabul warned ­ that Pakistan posed a bigger security challenge to America and the world than Afghanistan, as Islamabad grappled with the latest terrorist attack on its soil and the escalating Taliban on its north-western border.

Christopher Dell, who currently runs the US embassy in Kabul, was speaking in the aftermath of the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore and the news that Pakistani Taliban groups had formed a common front to attack NATO troops in Afghanistan, in what is widely expected to be a bloody and possibly ­decisive summer this year.

“From where I sit [Pakistan] sure looks like it’s going to be a bigger problem,” Dell said in an interview in the heavily fortified US embassy in Kabul. “It is certainly one of those nuclear armed countries the instability of which is a bigger problem for the globe.

“Pakistan is a bigger place, has a larger population, its nuclear-armed. It has certainly made radical Islam a part of its political life, and it now seems to be a deeply ingrained element of its political culture. It makes things there very hard.”

Fears over Pakistan’s ability to cope with the rise of violent religious extremism were intensified by claims yesterday that police in Lahore had abandoned the Sri Lankan cricketers whom they were supposed to be protecting when gunmen opened fire on Tuesday. Surveillance ­footage showed three of the attackers walking down the middle of a street, apparently under no pressure. But Pakistani officials pointed out that six police officers died in the attack.

Senior officials in the Foreign Office and the Obama administration have privately expressed concern that Pakistan could prove to be more of a danger to global peace and security in the long run than Afghanistan, because of its nuclear ­weapons and its highly politicised and Islamicised secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

Barack Obama is particularly alarmed at the decline in Pakistan’s stability, and appointed a special envoy, Richard ­Holbrooke, to Afghanistan and Pakistan to coordinate diplomatic efforts. In a ­reflection of rising anxiety in Washington, Dell expressed those concerns openly.

Dell, who is serving as the US chargé d’affaires in Kabul after a similarly outspoken stint as ambassador in Zimbabwe, said there were signs the rate of infiltration of insurgents across the frontier from Pakistan’s semi-autonomous tribal areas had increased in recent days. He said it was possible the increase was a result of ceasefire deals agreed by militants and the Pakistani government.

“Every time the Pakistanis have signed a peace deal, two things happen,” Dell said. “There is an uptick in the fighting on this [the Afghan] side, and the peace deals have fallen apart quickly. We think we’ve already seen an increase of fighters crossing the border.”

The epicentre of the problem is Pakistan’s Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) which have become a ­stronghold for an array of jihadist groups including al-Qaida and various splinters of the Taliban. “Everybody says: ‘We’ll go into the Fata and clean out those nests’. Well, you know you could do that in theory. But you’d only create another problem with the backlash against the presence of American or other foreign soldiers,” Dell said.

“There are no easy solutions in Pakistan. There is no silver bullet out there that we’re going to discover one day that will make the problem go away. I think for all those reasons it’s a deep challenge, and yeah, probably harder than Afghanistan.”

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that three warlords in Fata had settled their differences, formed a group calling itself Shura Ittihad-ul Mujahideen, or Council of United Holy Warriors, and had agreed to focus their efforts on launching attacks in Afghanistan.

Major General John MacDonald, the new deputy commander of US forces in Afghanistan, told the Guardian the insurgents were “most dangerous when they begin to collaborate with one another”. “We think we have already seen an increase in the number of fighters coming across the border particularly in the Kunar area right opposite Bajaur,” he added. He predicted that the coming surge in the number of coalition troops in Afghanistan would lead to an increase in fighting.

About 17,000 more US troops are due to arrive in the country in the next few months, and between three and five thousand are expected to reinforce British forces in Helmand province. General MacDonald said those troops would be used to push into places hitherto considered no-go areas for Nato troops. “So yes, this summer you will see more violence,” he said. “We’re just about to kick a beehive.”-SANA

Instead of banning opinion polls during election time, the government should ban subversive academic organisations like Kolkata’s Indian Statistical Institute (ISI). Opinion polls and exit polls are way off
the mark, so why bother? A ban only betrays the nervousness of a government anxious to come back to power, but uncertain about how this will happen.

It is true that the slightest shift in the electoral demographic could send a government from the heaven of office to the hell of irrelevance. But does the Cabinet of Dr Manmohan Singh and the party of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi actually believe that the Indian voter sits biting his nails before a television set in order to make up his mind about how he will vote?

The really accurate psephologist is not a pseudo-scientist available on hire, but the social scientist whose name you do not know.

The facts that are moulding the mood of the voter have been gathered by the ISI, based on data collated by the National Sample Survey Organisation from about 124,000 households across the country. Get
ready for a sharp crack in your first illusion. The UPA government, through its economic spokesman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, has sold us the bait that poverty has gone down under its watch. Fact: the number of
people living below the poverty line has actually increased by a horrifying 20%. India had some 270 million people below the poverty line in 2004-5, when the present government took office. That number has gone up by 55 million, or 20%, after five years of policies named after the “aam aadmi” (common man) but shaped for the “khaas aadmi” (vested interests).

The economic map of India has shifted the axis of tension. The old notional north-south line that divided the country into broad politico-cultural halves is passé. There is a new poverty diagonal that separates the nation on a north-west to south-east arc. The India to the east is sinking towards Bangladesh and Burma; India to the west is rising, and becoming the stuff of popular aspiration and fantasy.

If you want to know why Mamata Banerjee could undermine the ramparts of the red fortress in Bengal, pore over the ISI report. A stunning 14 out of Bengal’s 18 districts are among the 100 poorest in India, after
three decades of Marxist rule. The most indigent district in the country is not in Bihar, Orissa or Jharkhand, but in Bengal, Murshidabad, capital of a principality that once included the whole of Bengal, Orissa and a significant part of Bihar. When Robert Clive stepped into Murshidabad in 1757 after victory in the Battle of
Plassey, he looked around in wonder and exclaimed that it was richer than London. Today he would look around and find women slaving away, making bidis at the rate of Rs 41 for a thousand, out of which the
middleman keeps six rupees. In percentage terms, the rich pay far less to their middlemen.

Muslim-majority Murshidabad has a population density of 1,102 per square km against a national average of 590. Among its constituencies is Jangipur. Its Member of Parliament is the present Finance Minister
of India, Pranab Mukherjee. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Marxists were pushed back in Bengal but won Jangipur, as the law of accountability began to extract its price? The job losses that could cross over a
hundred million by March are going to have significant impact on voter mood. January saw a fall of 24% in exports from last year. Realists consider the Reserve Bank of India’s projection of 7% growth optimistic.

Rising India might be under a cloud for the last six months, but Stagnant India has been in gloom for years. There is little coverage of this gloom since media is driven by advertising; advertising is interested in consumption, and the hungry do not even consume food. It is extraordinary how political parties shy away from decisive facts, and chase ephemeral ones. The extended BJP family is sending vigilantes to check on what the young are doing in their leisure time, but displays little interest in what the young really want — someone to worry about their workplace. It is understandable when a ruling party shies away from the economy because it has no answers. Why should an Opposition party be averse? All it has to do is ask
questions.

The political discourse, on all sides, is consumed not by issues that are relevant to the voter, but by posturing and negotiations for partnerships of convenience. The parties do not even pretend to have any ideology in common, or even a purpose that is vaguely similar. Everyone knows that the negotiations for office after the results will have little to do with the manifestos that will be printed before the elections. There is only one weight that will be placed on the scales of judgment, the weight of numbers. [The scales of justice have no place in politics.] One is often reminded, while watching the pantomime, that when you dance with a bear you don’t stop. Those who stop get mauled before they can walk off.

A friend reminded me of an even more appropriate aphorism, and was kind enough to add that this had become relevant to the whole of South Asia. The quotation was from the Bible of South Asian democracy, Alice in Wonderland. If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.

The best thing to have happened to Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s proposed trip to Washington, in the dying days of a disappearing administration, is that it has been postponed. We all know that Chidambaram is a good lawyer when not engaged in politics, but what precisely did he hope to achieve in the last week of George Bush’s unlamented rule?

He was ostensibly going to present evidence on the role of Pakistanis in the terrorist attack on Mumbai. Is there any paper in his travelling files that is so secret that it could not have been handed over to the FBI in Delhi? Chidambaram was going to talk, and therein lay a minor opportunity and a major danger.

Chidambaram might be justified in believing he has a persuasive tongue, but he might have returned with a problem, instead of solving the one he went to pursue. To start with, Washington does not need to be convinced that there are terrorist outfits in Pakistan that have India in their gun sights. They know this already. They deal with these groups, and have the most extensive intelligence on them, information built up not just during the current war in Afghanistan-Pakistan, but over at least two decades. According to one American assessment, Osama bin Laden has placed India at the top of the list of the world’s soft targets, now that America has hardened its security regime. Washington has already accepted Delhi’s line as credible. So the only subject for real discussion is follow-up action. This is where the dangers lie.

Chidambaram would have been the last foreign politician to do business with the Bush administration. Was this fortuitous or deliberate? Deliberate, I reckon. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is still bathing in the glow of a special relationship he manufactured with George Bush, and believes that Bush will be as loyal to him as he has been loyal to Bush. After all, in that unique opinion poll taken by Dr Singh, every Indian loves Bush. But Bush has no real authority to take any serious decisions, apart from whom to invite for a picture opportunity. Every strategic matter now awaits the arrival of Barack Obama on 20 January. There is no foreign policy issue more important on Obama’s table than the Afghan war. His views are known: a big stick in one hand, and lots of carrots in the other. The “surge” has already begun, and by the middle of this year America will have 63,000 troops in Afghanistan. While the Taliban is being “tamed” on the battlefield, bribes will be liberally distributed to tribal chiefs to wean them towards the side of American civilisation. Pakistan is an invaluable ally in both operations. Its forces will be asked to sanitise those regions in Pakistan, which are a base for Taliban, while its famous Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence (popularly known as ISI) will be invaluable in identifying the recipients of carrots. Obama will need Pakistan far more than Bush did.

No deal with Delhi, nuclear or strategic, can change a basic fact. As long as America is in Afghanistan, India is a friend and Pakistan is an ally.

This alliance has been integrated into firm institutional relationships, beginning with the Cold War when Pakistan bought into Pentagon goodwill by offering Peshawar as a base for spy reconnaissance missions across the Soviet Union on U2 planes. This was further honed during two Afghan wars, against the Soviet Union and now the Taliban, into an intimate interaction between intelligence services. The CIA and the ISI are sister agencies. The ISI first flourished when it became the major conduit for funds and arms to the Mujahideen against the Soviets. It now has some 10,000 regular employees on its payroll. Washington will not jettison this equation because of a terrorist attack in Mumbai. Organizations like the Lashkar-e-Toyeba have emerged from the murk in which a war with parallel, and occasionally shifting, loyalties is being fought.

The head of the ISI is clearly the second most powerful general in the Pak Army. Former ISI chief Ashfaq Kayani was fortunate enough to be in the right place when Pervez Musharraf first fell from grace and then fell from power. When the present chief General Ahmed Shuja gives an interview it is front-page news.

Washington gives the ISI and Pakistan a great deal of leeway in deference to ground realities. It understands that the political structure in Islamabad is wobbly at best, and it will do nothing to weaken it further by backing such Indian demands as may be unpopular in Pakistan. The FBI has already said that it is not interested in picking up suspects from the Lashkar-e-Toyeba, noting that Pakistan is quite capable of trying them in its own courts.

Washington could also place linkage on the table in any talks with Delhi on Pak-sourced terrorism. We have, with great difficulty and greater diplomatic consistency, finally managed to convince America and Europe to treat Kashmir as a bipartisan issue after the disastrous reference we made to the United Nations in the winter of 1947-1948.

Pakistan has responded to our diplomatic offensive after the Mumbai attack by seeking to once again internationalise Kashmir through the “root causes” argument. Islamabad’s line is not very complicated: terrorism is fuelled by despair over Kashmir, so if you want to end terrorism, you have to solve the Kashmir dispute.

Washington would, in all likelihood, have raised this during talks with Chidambaram since it has accepted Pakistan’s argument that if the war in Afghanistan deserves the full attention of Pak armed forces, then its security concerns on the eastern front must be neutralised by a settlement of the Kashmir problem. Ergo, settle.

There is a signature petition being circulated in the Kashmir valley at this moment seeking Obama’s intervention, amid expectations that the new President will be receptive. He comes to office riding on a promise (“Yes we can”), but without that optimism pinned to any delivery system. It might take him 18 months or two years to realise that in Kashmir, “No we can’t”. It would be naïve to offer Washington an inroad into the Kashmir dispute before experience in office has taught Obama that intellect is not necessarily synonymous with wisdom.

The Soviet Union’s first foreign minister and Marxist ideologue Leon Trotsky had a message that is still relevant to new leaders bubbling with hope and audacity: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” Israel and Palestine have already started a war that is interested in Obama. He would be wise to limit Afghanistan’s battlefields to either side of the Durand Line. Even good intentions can engender a slip into the treacherous quicksands of South Asia that would send us all into a toxic swamp.

I never thought I would write this so soon, but one is already turning nostalgic for General Musharraf: he understood the healing powers of the status quo.

ISI is protecting the national security of Pakistan and combating any viable threat to its borders from outside and since 1971 from within. It is not different to the work of the CIA, KGB, RAW, Mossad, and MI5 & MI6 who work day in day out to avert any threat to the security of their own respective countries. The passionate work of this institution though is hardly in the public domain but is paramount when the threat is looming from its neighboring country on its borders, heavy presence of a foreign force on its western borders, and the presence of groups like ‘Makti bahni’ which are promoted, financed and cultured inside Pakistani bordering areas by its enemy. The need of their passionate work become more imperative when the corrupt elite of the country wish to derail the sovereignty of the country and endanger the security of the state by forging an alliance with super power in lust for power putting aside national interest.

Pakistan army unfortunately has spent around 4 decades in power corridors and no other but indecisive & corrupt politicians who lack political will, weaker institutions, tame judiciary and selfish & unprofessional bureaucracy is cumulatively responsible for not erecting a viable democracy where rule of law, good governance, justice and constitutionalism holds sway. In fact, non action on ‘Murree accord,’ continued violation of our air space by drones and China’s support of unchallenged UNSC Resolution no. 1267 is a self evidence of our politician’s poor performance. In fact, our rulers allegedly in an ultra parliamentary decision requested china to let go of the technical hold, making it a strong case for Parliamentary intervention to probe unless they seek army intervention by their default. Former premier Nawaz Sharif is through his vision calling those who are calling shots to make their promises to learn lessons from the history before its too late and is foreseeing those coming who never went out of politics. In the absence of Parliament which stood on 12 Oct 1999, it will be an uphill struggle to put barricades in the way of military unless Charter of Democracy is enacted forthwith, though it is not looking imminent. I think Q league’s Mushahid Hussain has put forward a claim for national government but to many when air force is on high alert and any time Indian air forces may attempt to target some of the MDI outlets emphasises the need of ‘national security government’ due to a weaker political leadership who endanger the security more. That National Security government may be a joint work of DSC and Parliament where army and civilian leadership in conformity work to safeguard the country and avert the threat of aggression against its borders as it’s do or die stage for Pakistan.

As long as all stake holders do not sit on one table and see eye to eye with each other and have a joint aim to safeguard the national interest, promote supreme parliament concept and produce a good governance. In the absence of a failure of the implementation on COD and negation of 18th Feb mandate, I am afraid we will keep seeing illusions everywhere. Pakistan no doubt, is in a very critical situation but sending DG ISI will not solve problems with India. India is playing at the hands of others and going to aggression will ignite a fire within India too which will not be easily put out. With Bombay attacks India is coercively rewarded and Pakistan’s hand is twisted to do more. Pakistan though is committed on war on terrorism but wishes to redraw the procedure under which he will contribute.

Pakistani leaders need to decide whether they wish to move forward democratically or are ready to cave in meagerly at the hands of US pressure as matters have gone ahead of drone attacks now. In this cloud the work of ISI is praiseworthy, As it is combating major intelligence forces in the region and in particular Indian threat successfully. Its a thankless job, unlike Army Generals who enjoy the perks and privileges but the work of this agency is far more difficult then one can comprehend. Extremism has given new twist to international information sharing process, and India has rightly advantaged this weakness. Their aim is to weaken the country and do not allow it to flourish an economic or military power. They also wish it to remain weak on political front with a military run regime where legitimacy always question their viability as a state. I think ISI made Pakistan stronger in the wake of emanating threats from around since 1971 and no doubt, it has advanced in order to meet the 21st century requirements and has developed from human intelligence to scientific knowledge. It’s a high time that people sees ISI separately than army rule. In army rule ISI’s job is doubled but in civil they revert to their old task to safe guard the state from any danger to its ‘national security’ from outside. Looking at the bleak situation of Pakistani rulers, there is not much help to this institution from our incumbent leaders and this freelance protector of national security is carrying on its job silently, rewardlessly and quietly in the line of its duty. Pakistanis need to understand that their country’s security from foreign espionage is intact despite the high level of threat