AFTER the 1974 Indian nuclear test, according to his famous autobiography ‘My Country: My Life’, Indian BJP leader L. K. Advani equated the significance of this event with that of the Indian Army entering triumphantly into the streets of Dhaka in December 1971.

The euphoria was not limited to the right-wing leaders in India. The director of nuclear policy at the prestigious Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington D.C., George Perkovich quotes the suave left-leaning Indian former prime minister I.K. Gujral, in his award-winning book ‘India’s Nuclear Bomb’, that the entry within the UN Security Council is possible only for those with either economic wealth or nuclear weapons. Hence, for India, building and detonating nuclear weapon was a short cut to great power status.

In response to the Indian nuclear test in 1974, ironically called ‘Smiling Buddha’ by the Indian government, Pakistan proposed to declare South Asia as a nuclear weapons free zone and in 1979 suggested simultaneous adherence to NPT by both India and Pakistan, but was curtly shrugged off by India on both occasions. The docile response of the international community and the sobering experiences of naively entrusting external powers with the provision of security against a huge neighbour during both 1965 and 1971 wars, almost forced Islamabad’s hand to follow suit.

On the international, legal and diplomatic fronts, from the very outset, the nuclear disarmament commitment of the five states, recognised as the only nuclear weapon states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, was questionable at best. The common intention of the permanent members of the UN Security Council was to confine the scope of NPT to limiting horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and its related technology. In plain words, no other states should build nuclear weapons in future.

However, their acceptance of indefinite vertical proliferation obligations and nuclear disarmament was a reluctant arrangement and the 1995 NPT review conference almost gave up on its cause of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states, by indefinitely extending NPT. This drastically eroded whatever leverage the non-nuclear weapon states might have had over the nuclear weapon states to progress towards general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament. In 1995, NPT ceased to be a tool for nuclear disarmament and conferred upon the five nuclear powers not only a legitimate but also an indefinite nuclear power status, imposing no specific timeframe whatsoever within which to eliminate their nuclear weapons.

According to the International Court of Justice’s unanimous opinion issued in 1996, the Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) goes beyond the mere obligation of conducting the negotiations in good faith but also to conclude the negotiations. In fact, initially Germany, Italy, Japan and Switzerland insisted that the nuclear weapon states should disarm before rendering their own non-nuclear weapon status, but in the end they also gave up their insistence. Most probably, the US presence of extended nuclear deterrence over Western Europe and Japan might have something to do with it.

In terms of elimination of nuclear weapons by nuclear states, the NPT has completely failed as all the five nuclear weapon states have continued to develop and improve their nuclear weapons. One must rest assured that the recent bilateral New START Treaty between the US and Russia is not motivated by a sudden inspiration by Article VI of the NPT, nor any mysterious desire has overtaken the either side to eliminate their nuclear weapons. This bilateral arrangement, which is yet to be ratified by the US Congress, primarily aims at more effective and efficient management of their ever evolving nuclear arsenals rather than their complete elimination. This discriminatory approach has not only weakened the international nuclear non-proliferation efforts but has also encouraged states aspiring to acquire nuclear weapons, considering it as the ultimate tool to achieve big power status.

Three years after the eventful 1995 NPT Review Conference, in order to rectify the gaping strategic imbalance within South Asia and to pacify BJP leadership’s belligerent threats to retake Azad Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan, the second series of Indian 1998 nuclear tests, left Pakistan with no option but to respond in kind.

The initial international reaction to the Indian and Pakistan nuclear tests was that of shock but was coupled with a nascent hope that the ‘overt nuclear dimension’ will lead to restrain in conventional arms race, conflict resolution and eventually peace. After the end of the World War II, similar hopes were expressed but the Berlin crisis and Korean War proved that the acquisition of destructive capability does not necessarily lead to an increased sense of responsibility.

The experience of the past twelve years in South Asia has also been no different. The Kargil war turned Kashmir into a ‘nuclear flashpoint’ and the tense military standoff in 2001-2002 led Islamabad to once again use the nuclear threat to deter India from carrying out ‘hot pursuit’ against Pakistan. Moreover, thanks to a sustained global arms shopping ‘spree’, today the Indian conventional superiority over Pakistan has reached such unprecedented levels that despite ‘operationalisation’ of nuclear weapons and deployment of various ballistic and cruise missiles by both countries, the Indian military leadership seems hell bent to test the ‘credibility of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent’ by planning for another conventional war against Pakistan, in the form of its Pakistan-specific ‘Cold Start’ doctrine.

In this context, the Pakistan’s Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen. Tariq chose the recent National Defence University convocation in Islamabad as the appropriate time and place to tell both friends and foes that ‘the retention of nuclear capability was a compulsion not a choice for Pakistan, which has to be mindful of the military preponderance in its eastern neighbourhood. Although supportive of non-discriminatory non-proliferation efforts, Islamabad will not accept Pakistan-specific treaties such as Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) and the world needs to be sensitive to its security concerns, including those in Afghanistan.’

Micael Krepon, who is the founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington D.C., and has authored 13 books and more than 350 articles on international nuclear and strategic issues, told me last month that since the dominant motive behind the Indian quest for nuclear weapons was big power status, New Delhi will not settle for merely a ‘nuclear weapon capability’ but despite its obvious political, diplomatic and economic costs and inevitable international condemnation, will not stop short of acquiring ‘the thermo-nuclear weapon’, which thanks to its hundreds of times more destructive power than a nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima by the US in 1945, is the ultimate international status symbol, and is possessed and tested by all five big powers.

It seems that the western powers have resigned to the inevitability of the Indian rise as a major power to such an extent that even when a Canadian supplied reactor and US supplied nuclear material destined solely for peaceful purposes was utilised by New Delhi for its nuclear test in 1974, and under the 123 Agreement, New Delhi has been allowed by the US and Nuclear Supplier Group to keep its current and future reprocessing plants and fast-breeder reactors outside international safeguards, the world sees little or no harm in it.

However, Pakistan, a state which despite not signing the NPT, voluntarily keeps its KANUPP, Chashma I and Chashma II reactors, under IAEA safeguards, has had its nuclear fuel denied by Canada and a reprocessing plant declined by France under overt and sustained US pressure. During one of his visits to Pakistan, the US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had threatened the Pakistani prime minister Z.A. Bhutto with grave consequences if the country did not shut down its modest nuclear programme.

In his autobiography, L.K. Advani describes the US counter-proliferation policy in South Asia as based on three Ds — ‘Double standards, discrimination and duplicity’. On the contrary, the Indian breach of international trust and confidence by the diversion of Canadian and US supplied nuclear technology and materials towards its nuclear test led to the formulation of Nuclear Suppliers Group and passing of US Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, 1978. These historical facts and US own laws were bypassed and international non-proliferation regime seriously dented, when the US voraciously pursued the Indo-US nuclear deal, which neither took into account the history of Indian nuclear programme nor imposed any restrictions upon New Delhi from raising its ‘unsafeguarded fissile material’ stocks, and keeping its Fast-Breeder nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants outside IAEA safeguards.

It is strange that despite a major energy crisis being faced by Pakistan, the acquisition of Chasma III and Chasma IV, which like the other three reactors mentioned above, are purely for civilian energy purposes and will also be under international safeguards, is being severely criticised by Washington, which according to recent reports, has decided to oppose it in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

This is an unfortunate development for the economic and energy security of a major ally of the US which has sacrificed more than any other state in the war on terror, and more so when the Chinese Foreign Ministry has assured the international community that ‘the civilian nuclear co-operation between China and Pakistan is in line with each side’s international obligations and it is purely for peaceful purposes and under the strict supervision of the IAEA’. Pakistan already has an indigenous nuclear weapon programme and acquisition of Chinese power reactors, whose complete operation will be under IAEA safeguards, will have no relevance or effect on the issue of either vertical or horizontal nuclear proliferation and both China and Pakistan are willing to guarantee that.

One cannot help but recall that the Indian 1998 nuclear tests were vehemently criticised by prime minister Manmohan Singh as the leader of the opposition and had warned of grave consequences of the Indian tests and a costly arms race, which could send the defence expenditure skyrocketing to a point where ‘ there would be nothing left to defend’. Today at a whopping 32 billion dollars, the Indian annual defence budget is higher than ever. Moreover, compelled by the Indian scientists community and driven by long-term global political and strategic aspiration of acquiring a big power status, senior US nuclear experts like Michael Krepon are predicting a resumption of nuclear tests by India in the foreseeable future.

These unfortunate historical ironies point to the fact that the world continues to remain an anarchic place, whose diverse dangers force small and insecure states to pursue security through various means. Of these, over time none has proven to be more effective at preventing war than instilling the element of fear of destruction in the minds of adversaries.

The strategic stability resulting from this credible threat of unacceptable and unimaginable destruction is a fragile but effective tool rather than an end in itself, toward preserving the state structure in an anarchical world and to give societies an opportunity to pursue the higher goals of economic, social and environmental security, under the shadow of nuclear weapons, as the Western European and North American democracies did during the cold war. The historical paradox is that fear is the key to security.

The writer is associated with the Strategic and Nuclear Studies Department of the National Defence University, Islamabad.

THERE has been no sustainable national policy in any field of activity in the country over the past six decades. Consequently, a consistent national health policy (NHP) has eluded us so far. Each successive regime has tried to formulate a policy on ad hoc basis which could be implemented only partially.

Neither any civilian nor the military regimes had a credible manifesto to follow and they lacked not only political stability but also a national will or direction. The private sector provided major part of primary health care while the public sector was responsible for most of the secondary and tertiary care at the time of partition.

The pattern has changed over the years. Private sector is now responsible for a large part of the secondary and tertiary care as well as primary care. The shift has been promoted and facilitated by the state owing to economic capacity constraints which have become more acute in the last couple of years. According to the Economic Survey 2008 and 2009 the expenditure on health has shown a declining curve.

It may be pertinent to point out that even the highly developed nations, with the exception a few Scandinavian countries, have not been able to achieve the goal of Health For All set in Almata years ago. The state-sponsored health delivery system (HDS) in Western Europe does not cover every citizen and in the US almost half the population lacks access to basic medical services.

The recent Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is being trumpeted as a great achievement of the Obama administration offers most but not all Americans the opportunity to purchase health insurance from a federally regulated insurance company. The challenges facing the HDS in Pakistan have been multiplying due to the ever-increasing burden of population, unplanned urbanisation, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, economic, socio-cultural, environmental and other demographic changes.

Also included in the list are competing sectoral priorities among curative, preventive and promotional health care, between primary, secondary and tertiary care, double burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases, provision of clean drinking water and sanitation and in addition the formidable legacy of mismanagement of the past.

The abolition of the concurrent list under the 18th Amendment will change the overall context of the respective roles of the federation and provinces. The NHP 2009, Punjab HC Bill 2010 and similar exercises in other provincial capitals have become redundant and shall have to be revamped completely. A downsized Federal Health Division should retain the portfolios of international and inter-provincial coordination, national database collection, drug control and medical education.

The provinces shall work out strategies according to their own requirements and the new responsibilities assigned to them. As a prelude to all future policy planning the concept of the right to health as a fundamental human right, indeed as a basic constitutional right, must be accepted by the state as is the case in many countries. It also has to own the overall responsibility of the performance of all stake-holders in the provision of health care.

The private sector has so far functioned without any regulatory control of quality of service and profit margins. The public sector too needs reordering of its priorities and better administration and management to ensure efficiency and cost containment. Regulatory reforms of the entire health care system are urgently required.

Since the Federal Ministry of Health, the provincial health departments, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and the Institute of Health and Management Sciences are incapable of carrying out these functions, the proposal for appointment of a Care Quality Commission/Ombudsman in each province may be given serious consideration. The concept of public-private partnership since its inception was suspected of harbouring ulterior motives.

The apprehension was not misplaced because the government over the decades has been surreptitiously abdicating under this garb its own responsibilities, thereby allowing the private sector to have a field day in a free market of global commercialisation. It has therefore become imperative that the respective roles, modalities and procedural framework of participation of the two sectors should be clearly defined and legislated with the governmenty being in the driving seat. The economics of HC is as usual the key to successful implementation of any policy. The hope expressed in the 10th Five Year Plan 2010-2015 that the allocation for health and education will be enhanced from 2.5-7 per cent during this period may only be a distant dream.

The 2010-11 federal budget does not reflect the good intentions, it rather posits a cut of Rs6 billion in the allocation for health sector under the Public Sector Development Program. The 29 per cent compulsory increase in the defence budget and the yet again failure of the government to impose taxes on agriculture, capital gain, property and wealth are a manifestation of the bankruptcy of the national policy planning. The Nato Allies should be asked to compensate us for the expenditure on the war on terror campaign.

The huge amounts of non-developmental expenditure incurred on provincial and federal ministers, oversized beauracracies, their foreign tours, treatment abroad etc. should be slashed drastically under a national austerity plan. A mere 10 per cent reduction in the salaries of cabinet members is just an eyewash. It may be best to monetise all perks.

The priorities of development projects also need to be reset. Town beautification schemes, building of flyovers, underpasses and ring roads etc. may be deferred in favour of more urgent humanitarian requirements such as provision of clean drinking water and sanitation. The responsibility of health care delivery under the new dispensation now rests on the provinces.

Their capability, commitment and performance shall be tested in the years to come, and the apprehension that the social sector development programmes are bound to suffer in the transition phase may not be misplaced. The present state of affairs demands radical and fundamental reforms in the entire health care system in the country.

The areas of urgent concern include medical education, career structure of doctors, nurses and paramedics in government service, quackery and drug control policy. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council has to be completely reconstituted under a new charter. The induction, promotion, salaries and working conditions of all health care personnel in public sector should be streamlined along with the highly contentious and long debated issue of private practice within or outside the institutions.

All forms of quackery should be abolished forthwith. Availability of standard quality and required quantity of drugs at affordable cost is the responsibility of the state. The Generic Scheme of 1972 which was not allowed to be implemented by vested interests needs to be revived in its pristine form.

Unfortunately there are no policy planning cells or think tanks in the state sector, political parties, universities or the civil society. Health Division of the Planning Commission is the sole organisation which could be expected to undertake such a function but its performance like its parent body has declined over the decades. The precise mandate of the National School of Public Policy is a myth and its contribution if any since its establishment a few years ago is yet to be seen.

It is indeed a dismal scenario and the only hope lies with the government taking the lead to strengthen and widen the scope of these two institutions and to create permanent research cells in all provincial health departments. These cells should comprise of highly qualified technocrats inducted from the profession at large, with impeccable reputation for integrity and sincerity of purpose and having no conflict of interest.

The writer is a retired Lieut-General and professor of cardiology.

ASK Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu what a world of difference three months can make in what he boasts is a very special relationship.

The last time the Israel leader visited the US, he was given a frosty reception. It was so cold that Obama wouldn’t even allow a photograph of their meeting in the Oval office be released to the press.It was a calculated rebuff to Netanyahu for the insult he’d heaped on Vice President Joe Biden, in Jerusalem, when plans to build another 1600 new homes in Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian lands were unveiled during his presence.

But that was then, when Biden’s feathers had been ruffled by the Israelis with a hard-to-hide disdain, and Obama seemed determined to teach the Israeli pharaoh a lesson.

This time, on July 6, the White House was all warmth for him to match the Washington summer. Netanyahu came like Caesar returning to Rome after vanquishing the Visigoth. His triumphant gait and body language said it all. It presaged what his host would say and how he would behave. He wasn’t wrong, at all.

Obama couldn’t disappoint him and acted exactly as the powerful Jewish interest groups would have expected him to. Netanyahu was hosted a luncheon at the White House to make up for the lapse of last time’s; Michelle Obama also played out her part, as scripted, hosting a special tea for Mrs. Netanyahu.

The script played out to perfection at the Oval Office media briefing, after the two leaders had held their talks, to let the world know that nothing had changed in the pattern of US-Israeli relations that has held good for at least the past four decades, if not longer, with Obama reassuring Netanyahu that bonds between his country and Israel were ‘unbreakable.’ Netanyahu, on his part, put more icing on the cake by reminding one and all that media suggestions of a rift in the ‘special relationship’ were ‘flat wrong.’

But Obama seemed distinctly uncomfortable while delivering all those familiar phrases that all of his predecessors have said on such occasions innumerable times. The same Obama who had stood tall before Netanyahu, three months ago, looked almost obsequious and obsessed in making sure that he didn’t say anything that wouldn’t please the Zionists in Israel and their influence-peddling and arm-twisting cohorts in Washington.

He didn’t refer, at all, to that brazen act of piracy on the high seas by the Israeli commandoes, last May 31, in which nine innocent Turkish activists had been killed in cold blood. Nor did he remind Netanyahu of his obligations under international law but seemed taking pride in drawing his pampered guest’s attention to the tough new sanctions his administration had worked so hard, lately, to get imposed on Iran.

But that apparently wasn’t enough to satisfy the Israeli war-monger who still insisted — while giving grace marks to Obama for thumbing his nose at Tehran — that ‘still tougher’ sanctions must be slapped on Iran because of the ‘existential threat’ it poses to Israeli security.

Obama was effusive when he praised Netanyahu for his desire for peace and for being ready to make ‘hard sacrifices’ for this purpose. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, had likewise bestowed on the now-comatose Ariel Sharon a similar honour by calling him a ‘man of peace,’ when Sharon was decimating the Palestinians in their refugee camps and killing them like flies.

And what did Netanyahu do to deserve all these plaudits and accolades?

All that he did, before embarking on his Washington safari, was to only slightly loosen the suffocating noose the Israeli blockade has on Gaza by throwing in a few more things on the list of goods the Gazans would be allowed to import. For instance, chocolates for children would no longer be contraband as an item of ‘dual-use’.

But building material will still be off-limit to the Gazans; no cement, for instance, to repair or rebuild hundreds of houses and buildings intentionally destroyed by the Israeli raiders when they rampaged Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009.

Likewise, Gaza will not be allowed any outlet to send its goods out of the territory, making sure, in this punitive manner, that the ravaged Gazan economy should never recover and remain a basket case, perennially.

Obama dared not nudge Netanyahu to further ease the blockade against Gaza, because the Israeli government sources let it be known, before Netanyahu blessed the White House with his presence, that the concessions granted in the package were final and not negotiable.

Obama couldn’t afford to strike a tune different from the chorus of praise already being sung in Washington’s media and congressional circles about Netanyahu’s ‘generosity.’ Of course, from Obama down, none has any interest in questioning the legitimacy of the blockade arbitrarily imposed on Gaza. The Americans did this against Cuba, for decades, and snuffed the life out of Iraq by similar tactics after the first Gulf War.Obama’s sole concern in the Israeli-Palestinian problem is to keep the charade of talks going, while knowing full well that Israel’s sole intent in going through the motions of proximity or direct talks with the Palestinians is to buy time, in order to create what Sharon lauded as ‘facts on ground’, illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, in simple language.Hundreds of these illegal settlements have sprouted on the Occupied West Bank in the 18 years since direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis were first begun under George Bush Sr. in the White House. But while these talks under the so-called ‘Madrid Process’ have been going on, in fits and starts, the Israeli settlement populations has trebled, to more than 400,000. For sure, these settlements have largely been built with support money provided by US, and the settlers living in luxury are the most ardent votaries of Netanyahu and other hard liners sharing power with him in the current coalition government in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu’s core interest is riveted in further expanding the settlements. He’d relented to a ten-month, temporary, ‘freeze’ on settlement-building under intense Obama pressure last December. That freeze is to expire at the end of September and all indications are that building activity will resume with gusto as soon as the freeze is over. Netanyahu’s coalition hawks are anxious that he shouldn’t give in to American demand to extend the freeze, and there was no inkling of any pressure from Obama in the latest talks that he wanted the freeze to stay.

The boom in settlement building is rapidly delivering a fatal blow, by the day, to any prospect of a two-state solution to the conflict, which Obama has adopted as much for his own cosmetic purpose as did some of his precursors in office.

As the main Palestinian spokesman, Saeb Erekat, recently lamented, settlements are eating away the territory on which the supposed Palestinian state should one day materialize. An Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, corroborated this recently and revealed that Israeli settlements have already gobbled up more than 40 percent of Palestinian land in the Occupied West Bank.

So Obama’s road map for a two-state solution seems to be going nowhere, just as his quest to get the Palestinians and the Israelis talking face-to-face with each other is getting derailed in the steam of Israeli obduracy.

Netanyahu’s latest visit to Washington was calibrated to corner Obama and show him, as clearly as anybody else, who was in command to call the shots. It was Netanyahu and not Obama. The timing of the visit was perfect, as per the Israeli agenda.In less than three months, Americans will be heading into mid-term elections to Congress, which is always regarded as a litmus test of a president’s popularity or otherwise. Netanyahu didn’t need a refresher course to remind him that no American law maker seeking re-election, in either of the two houses of Congress, would dare being seen as party to pressure on him and his government. Past experience tells all such ambitious congressmen that those who dared to cross swords with Israel perished prematurely. Obama’s own Democrats wouldn’t allow him to do anything unpleasant for Israel.

So Obama is in a classical bind, even if he has any serious intention of doing anything more than a cosmetic exercise of pleading for talks between the adversaries on the ME chessboard. He’s clearly in no position to call Netanyahu’s bluff. On the contrary, Netanyahu would be all too eager to call Obama’s bluff on Iran.

It’s no secret that the top priority agenda for Israel is to create a situation that would force US to take on Iran just like George W. Bush had been bamboozled into the Iraqi invasion plan — then on top of the Israeli agenda. Obama should be counting his blessings that he doesn’t end up playing into the Israeli hands the way Bush was made to.

STRATEGIC dialogue at the ministerial level between Islamabad and Washington, initiated during President Bush’s visit to Islamabad in 2006, has been revived with vigour. The last session was held in Washington in March and the next is due in July in Islamabad.

The dialogue is aimed at providing a wider and durable base and inter alia has focused on priority areas like the economy, energy, education, science and technology and agriculture.

The optimism associated with this process, however, has fallen short of the efforts. Official circles in Pakistan are wary of the assurances and commitments of the US administration. Several rounds of discussions in the two capitals over the last four years have failed to accomplish or craft the vision of a broad-based long-term and enduring partnership.

The reasons include not only time and resource constraints but also lack of mutual understanding and divergent interests. India is yet another factor that has frayed the mutual relationship. The US’s obvious tilt towards India in preference over Pakistan’s interest has denied strong public support, the bedrock for any sustainable and durable relationship.

Lack of meaningful action on the proposals and promises made for economic measures, such as establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ), Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and Free Trade Area Agreement (FTA), have frustrated Pakistan.

Similarly, bracketing Pakistan with Afghanistan has hurt the sensitivities of public opinion, entirely unhelpful for developing a strong foundation of a mutually supportive relationship. Long-lasting friendships can last only if the emotional and psychological make-up of the nation is reckoned with and policies designed in conformity with its ethos, culture and history.

The great sacrifices made by Pakistan and enormous suffering that the nation has endured over the last 8 years of the war against terror have remained unappreciated and non-recompensed. To add insult to injury, the CIA based in Afghanistan has been conducting drone attacks in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and in total disregard of the government’s protests.

US media reports have, however, repeatedly alleged that the drone attacks have tacit understanding and approval of military authorities in Pakistan. Pakistan’s ambassador to the US indirectly confirmed this, in a press briefing on July 2: “Pakistan has never said that we do not like the elimination of terrorists through predator drones.” This duplicity primarily stems from the public reaction to Islamabad’s acquiescence to the drone attacks.

The drone attacks have been disproportionate to their objectives, causing avoidable loss of human life and resources. The drone strikes are counter to any move to bring the two partners together. They have remained a sad reminder of US’s lack of concern by a friend also claiming to be a strategic partner.

The US’s refusal to stop these attacks or to provide drone technology to Pakistan to meet its security interests and also to carry out attacks with moderation and where absolutely unavoidable, do not meet the spirit of President Obama’s assurance that “America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity, long after the guns have fallen silent.”

The US must recognise that no matter what the volume of economic assistance given to Pakistan, it will never inspire any feelings of friendliness and partnership until the recurring drone attacks are stopped in accordance with the national milieu.

Drone attacks are reprehensible not only in their violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty but also for the civilian deaths they cause and which are becoming increasingly frequent. So far, 144 drone strikes have been carried out in the tribal areas with 1,366 civilian casualties, according to the US National Counterterrorism Center.

These attacks are causing deep hatred of the US and their military value is also questionable. In May 2009, in a testimony to US Congress, US Advisor to Gen. David Kilmulllen, asked the Obama Administration to call off the drone attacks stating, “We have been able to kill only 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders since 2006 and in the same period, killed over 700 Pakistani civilians.” The unkindest cut of all was delivered by President Obama who dismissed Pakistan’s protests against drone attacks: “We cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.”

These attacks have proved counterproductive, both in military and emotional terms. A US think tank has assessed the impact stating, “Predator strikes have inflamed anti-American rage among Afghans and Pakistanis, including first and second generation immigrants in the West as well as elite members of the security services.”

Drone attacks are now broadening the area of concerns. Philip Alston, the UN Human Rights Council’s investigator, in a report to the UNGA has warned that “drone strikes employed to attack target executions may violate international law.

The onus is really on the government of the US to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions and extrajudicial executions are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons.”

The legal and juridical aspects of the drone strikes are not only becoming a subject of scrutiny and denunciation internationally, but domestically too the debate is extending to legal forums.

Tehrik-e-Insaaf chairman Imran Khan has moved the Supreme Court to declare the predator drone attacks a war crime and violation of sovereignty of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court, in another case, has asked the government to adopt measures to stop them.

Public resentment against these attacks, it is argued, is being exploited by rightist elements to maintain that the US does not wish to see any strong Muslim state and that the US and its strategic partner India are bent on destabilising Pakistan.

Whatever the impact of such feelings, there is no doubt that drone attacks have become a rallying cry for militants feeding the flow of volunteers as is evident from the terror strikes and suicide attacks in Pakistani cities.

Pakistan must raise the issue of drone attacks in the forthcoming round of the strategic dialogue and firmly state that Pakistan’s role in the war against terror would be in proportion to US compliance with Pakistan’s security interests. The drone issue will determine the future of relations with the U.S. The sooner the two sides comprehend, better for them.

The writer is a former ambassador.

STRATEGIC dialogue at the ministerial level between Islamabad and Washington, initiated during President Bush’s visit to Islamabad in 2006, has been revived with vigour. The last session was held in Washington in March and the next is due in July in Islamabad.

The dialogue is aimed at providing a wider and durable base and inter alia has focused on priority areas like the economy, energy, education, science and technology and agriculture.

The optimism associated with this process, however, has fallen short of the efforts. Official circles in Pakistan are wary of the assurances and commitments of the US administration. Several rounds of discussions in the two capitals over the last four years have failed to accomplish or craft the vision of a broad-based long-term and enduring partnership.

The reasons include not only time and resource constraints but also lack of mutual understanding and divergent interests. India is yet another factor that has frayed the mutual relationship. The US’s obvious tilt towards India in preference over Pakistan’s interest has denied strong public support, the bedrock for any sustainable and durable relationship.

Lack of meaningful action on the proposals and promises made for economic measures, such as establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ), Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and Free Trade Area Agreement (FTA), have frustrated Pakistan.

Similarly, bracketing Pakistan with Afghanistan has hurt the sensitivities of public opinion, entirely unhelpful for developing a strong foundation of a mutually supportive relationship. Long-lasting friendships can last only if the emotional and psychological make-up of the nation is reckoned with and policies designed in conformity with its ethos, culture and history.

The great sacrifices made by Pakistan and enormous suffering that the nation has endured over the last 8 years of the war against terror have remained unappreciated and non-recompensed. To add insult to injury, the CIA based in Afghanistan has been conducting drone attacks in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and in total disregard of the government’s protests.

US media reports have, however, repeatedly alleged that the drone attacks have tacit understanding and approval of military authorities in Pakistan. Pakistan’s ambassador to the US indirectly confirmed this, in a press briefing on July 2: “Pakistan has never said that we do not like the elimination of terrorists through predator drones.” This duplicity primarily stems from the public reaction to Islamabad’s acquiescence to the drone attacks.

The drone attacks have been disproportionate to their objectives, causing avoidable loss of human life and resources. The drone strikes are counter to any move to bring the two partners together. They have remained a sad reminder of US’s lack of concern by a friend also claiming to be a strategic partner.

The US’s refusal to stop these attacks or to provide drone technology to Pakistan to meet its security interests and also to carry out attacks with moderation and where absolutely unavoidable, do not meet the spirit of President Obama’s assurance that “America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity, long after the guns have fallen silent.”

The US must recognise that no matter what the volume of economic assistance given to Pakistan, it will never inspire any feelings of friendliness and partnership until the recurring drone attacks are stopped in accordance with the national milieu.

Drone attacks are reprehensible not only in their violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty but also for the civilian deaths they cause and which are becoming increasingly frequent. So far, 144 drone strikes have been carried out in the tribal areas with 1,366 civilian casualties, according to the US National Counterterrorism Center.

These attacks are causing deep hatred of the US and their military value is also questionable. In May 2009, in a testimony to US Congress, US Advisor to Gen. David Kilmulllen, asked the Obama Administration to call off the drone attacks stating, “We have been able to kill only 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders since 2006 and in the same period, killed over 700 Pakistani civilians.” The unkindest cut of all was delivered by President Obama who dismissed Pakistan’s protests against drone attacks: “We cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.”

These attacks have proved counterproductive, both in military and emotional terms. A US think tank has assessed the impact stating, “Predator strikes have inflamed anti-American rage among Afghans and Pakistanis, including first and second generation immigrants in the West as well as elite members of the security services.”

Drone attacks are now broadening the area of concerns. Philip Alston, the UN Human Rights Council’s investigator, in a report to the UNGA has warned that “drone strikes employed to attack target executions may violate international law.

The onus is really on the government of the US to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions and extrajudicial executions are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons.”

The legal and juridical aspects of the drone strikes are not only becoming a subject of scrutiny and denunciation internationally, but domestically too the debate is extending to legal forums.

Tehrik-e-Insaaf chairman Imran Khan has moved the Supreme Court to declare the predator drone attacks a war crime and violation of sovereignty of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court, in another case, has asked the government to adopt measures to stop them.

Public resentment against these attacks, it is argued, is being exploited by rightist elements to maintain that the US does not wish to see any strong Muslim state and that the US and its strategic partner India are bent on destabilising Pakistan.

Whatever the impact of such feelings, there is no doubt that drone attacks have become a rallying cry for militants feeding the flow of volunteers as is evident from the terror strikes and suicide attacks in Pakistani cities.

Pakistan must raise the issue of drone attacks in the forthcoming round of the strategic dialogue and firmly state that Pakistan’s role in the war against terror would be in proportion to US compliance with Pakistan’s security interests. The drone issue will determine the future of relations with the U.S. The sooner the two sides comprehend, better for them.

The writer is a former ambassador.

IF the 1973 constitution had taken its normal course under the leadership of Mr Z.A. Bhutto, Pakistan would have been declared an Islamic state in accordance with the criteria of the orthodox ulema by 1982. From this vantage point, it was only a small step for General Ziaul Haq to introduce his Islamic order based on the constitution he inherited.

In the two decades since the convention of the ulema held in 1951 (see my article Religious Orthodoxy during Ayub regime, Encounter, July 4, 2010), the religious leaders managed to get a constitutional guarantee to accomplish their goal. The convention had claimed to represent various schools of thought, albeit the main thrust of their 22-point Basic Principles of Islamic State reflected the orthodox Sunni views. Now during the constitutional debates under Mr Bhutto, even that pretence was discarded and a vocal minority among the traditionalists started to claim to represent true Islam.

It was openly stated by many ulema that different Islamic interpretations would prevent enforcement of the objective of Islamic State. Later, during the Ziaul Haq regime, the chief architect of his ‘Islamisation’, Tanzilur Rahman had categorically emphasised this point.

This is a historical fact which is often ignored in Pakistan that states which claim to be defenders of the faith become strictly denominational. Among Muslim countries, the states that have claimed to be officially religious have either been based on Sunni orthodoxy (e.g. Saudi Arabia) or Shia doctrine (e.g. Iran).

With reference to the well-known speech of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, delivered to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947 it could be said that he wanted Pakistan to be a Muslim state with no sectarian group claiming superiority over other sects, and all citizens to have equal rights. It is worth noting that he had asked Lahore-based poet Jagan Nath Azad to write the first national anthem of Pakistan. To ascribe his carefully written August 11, 1947 speech and other actions including this decision to his ‘old age and loose thinking’ would be highly uncalled for, to say the least, as a writer belonging to the era of Ziaul Haq has tried to do.

Mr Bhutto was a western-educated and a westernised politician, like Mr Jinnah. The 1973 constitution, drafted under his leadership was unlike the previous two constitutions. The 1956 constitution called for further study of the demands by religious leaders, though it kept the title of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Ayub Khan’s constitution had introduced Islamic features with a view to reconstructing religious thought in the context of modern times. The 1973 constitution, however, gave full accommodation to the ulema. It was debated in the Constituent Assembly that represented political parties based on the results of 1970 elections. Actions taken by Mr Bhutto in this regard then must necessarily be related to his style of leadership and his political goals.

Fortunately a number of studies are available that shed light on this matter, and among them I have relied mainly on the writings of Anwar Syed, Stanley Wolpert, Lawrence Ziring, and Tariq Ali. But first the Islamic provisions in outline, as follows.

The constitution includes Objectives Resolution in its preamble, and also confirms the title of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Article 1. In Article 2, however, it further adds that ‘Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan’. This does arouse some curiosity about the need for inserting this clause.

The only viable explanation seems to be that the body politic, the collectivity constituting the government of the people in the territory called Pakistan is not neutral about the role of religion but is committed to one religion, Islam. One gets a sharper focus on this point when one compares it with Jinnah’s speech of August 11, 1947 in which he declared that the state had nothing to do with religion and that it was a personal matter.

Concerning the main section on Islamic provisions, The Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology (ACII) of Ayub Khan constitution was now no longer advisory in its title, It became Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) with the stipulation that its members would be appointed from among those with knowledge of economic, legal or other disciplines (substituting ‘and’ of Ayub Council).

Also in a separate sub-section, it was proposed that ‘so far as practicable various schools of thought …’ would be represented on the Council — Article 228 (2) and (3-a). The diversity provided in 1962 constitution disappeared with `so far as possible`, as it soon became apparent that members from minority views had started to withdraw from the council, making it more homogeneous in its composition. As mentioned above, this has been the objective of the orthodox Sunni ulema, in any case.

The main function of the CII remained to be advisory but to strengthen the importance of its recommendations, Article 230(2) reiterated a section of the Objectives Resolution, and by requiring the Council to suggest ‘ways and means of enabling and encouraging the Muslims of Pakistan to order their lives individually and collectively in all respects in accordance with the principles and concepts of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.’ There are loud echoes of promoting Virtue (Ma’aruf) and preventing Vice (Munkar) in this section.

This brings me to the point I made at the beginning. 1973 constitution, Article 230 (4) required the CII to ‘submit its final report within seven years of its appointment….Parliament and the Assembly, after considering the report shall enact laws in respect thereof within a period of two years of the final report.’ In simple arithmetic the deadline for the enforcement of Article 230 (4) would have been 1982, as mentioned above.

We need to underline the fact that from 1971 to 1973 it was a turbulent period in the political history of Pakistan. According to 1970 general elections, Shaikh Mujibur Rahman had the right to form the government at the centre. This was the advice Mr Bhutto received from his senior PPP colleagues.

But wedded to the military strategy about East Pakistan, he chose the course of action in which he would be the main beneficiary. With departure of Yahya Khan, he became the Chief Martial Law Administrator, and started to show signs of being imperious and arrogant. Political violence, often with official blessings to his newly formed Federal Security Force became routine. Dissent was not tolerated and those who spoke were punished.

Using full forces of the government resources at his disposal, the main objective of Mr Bhutto was to construct a permanent majority that would ensure the longevity of his administration.

He wanted to be the president of Pakistan but was persuaded that the parliamentary system would be preferable with extraordinary powers for the prime minister in order to establish stability in the country.

In the negotiations he focused mainly on this aspect of the constitution, leaving other matters including Islamic provisions for other members of the Constituent Assembly. It was a trade-off, between his preferred Articles and Clauses and emphasis of the conservative and traditionalist members on Islamic order. Article 230 (4) became the basis on which the 1973 constitution was approved by consensus.

In my view this arrangement put Bhutto in a bind that came to haunt him in 1977 general elections, when the orthodox ulema from the United Democratic Front and now an important part of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) had campaigned to deny him an absolute majority in the elections.

And with the announcement of the results, it became obvious to all sides that rigging had been done on an extensive scale. In fact Bhutto had sensed the power of this movement, but decided to ignore it. As the political analysts point out, history was against him. There had started a new surge as part of the soul-searching following the loss of East Pakistan: a refuge in puritanical Islam, as mentioned above, preached by a vocal minority. The slogan of Islamic bomb and the 1974 Islamic Summit had further fanned the sentiments. The strength of the religious groups in the PNA should have come as no surprise to him.

In the end he became the victim of the new-born Salafis. But more on this at a later date.

The writer is a retired professor of economics; his areas of special interest include a critical study of Islamic economic system.

THE BJP government in Karnataka state passed the Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill last month. There has been a strong opposition to this move from the civil society. Some critics have described the bill as “communal in intent and anti-farmer in consequence”.

Mr. Girish Karnad, the noted film director-actor, asked “As long as their choice of food is not affecting others, why its consumption should be prohibited?” It is interesting to note that Gujarat, where such a law already exists, has become a leading beef exporter in the country.

The bill, if implemented, would discourage farmers from rearing cattle and will lead to a shortage of milk.

It is not the first time that the debate around cow slaughter bills and beef eating is taking place. When BJP-led NDA was in power it went to the extent of appointing a committee to go into the matter and the committee concluded that cow protection should be made a fundamental right by setting up a Central Rapid Protection Force to prevent cow slaughter, and also to invoke POTA to detain those smuggling cows!

The cow obsession of BJP is a part of deeper agenda of targeting Muslim minorities as they plan to Brahminise the society by creating situations where beef eating becomes a taboo for large sections of society.

Needless to say, beef is amongst the cheapest sources of proteins for the poor, especially dalits and adivasis. Till a couple of decades ago there were many communities who were preferring beef to other expensive protein rich food. At the same time the minorities, Muslims and Christians, for whom, beef is neither a taboo nor a compulsion, are being looked down upon on this pretext.

Propaganda campaigns are being carried out under which minorities are being demonized on the issue of beef eating and cow slaughter. One recalls an incident in Jhajjer where 5 dalits were done to death on the suspicion of killing a cow and VHP’s Acharya Giriraj Kishore justified the event as saying that cow is so sacred for Hindus that killing of dalits does not matter. Similarly, Sheikh Rahman, a cattle trader, was killed in Orissa on the cooked up charge of selling cows for slaughter.

When Uma Bharati became the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister she converted her official residence into a sort of Goshala, (cow shed). Currently the products from cow dung and cow urine are being promoted as divine medicines to cure many ailments.

Even patents have been obtained for drinks based on cow urine. There are fears that this issue will be used to divide the communities. How can faith of a section of one religious community dictate the policies of the state is difficult to understand.

BJP propaganda says that beef eating was brought to India by Muslims. But most of the research into the sacred Hindu book, Vedas, has shown that beef eating was a norm in Vedic times. Studies by Mahmahopadhya Bharat Ratna Pandurang Waman Kane’s ‘Bhartiya Dharmgrantho Ka Itihas’ (History of Hindu Holy books), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s “Did The Hindus Never Eat Beef?” and the contemporary Historian, D.N. Jha’s The Myth of Holy Cow, all point out that beef was a popular food in Vedic times.

After the advent of agricultural society, rise of Jainism and Buddhism the concept of non-violence came up in different forms and later after 8th century Brahmanism projected cow as its icon.

Since then cow is projected as sacred, as ‘mother’ and gradually large sections of Hindus started regarding it so. In deference to the sentiments of Hindus, most Muslims kings prohibited cow slaughter. Babar in his will to Humayun writes, “Son, Hindusthan has different religions. We should remove all the differences from our heart and do justice to each community according to its customs. Avoid cow-slaughter to win over the hearts of the people of this land. Don’t damage the places of worship and temples.”

During the freedom movement the communalists have been resorting to all the tricks to rouse emotions around matters of faith. So killing a pig and putting it in the mosque and cow slaughter have been their standard practice. It was during freedom movement that we see Mahatma Gandhi, a vegetarian, offering beef to his Muslim guest.

The writer is associated with Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

OUR society is facing existential threat from terrorists and extremists. Mosques and shrines, markets and streets, campuses and offices, plains and mountains nothing is safe from their onslaught. While the government is making efforts to root out terrorism, success will remain elusive unless society by and large puts its weight behind these efforts by a fundamental shift in its thinking.

To begin with, we must own the war against terror and get rid of the misconception that the war against terrorism is not ours, that it is essentially America’s war and that the hell that has let loose on the people of Pakistan is the result of the country’s role of a frontline ally of the US in the campaign against extremism following the 9/11 incident.

This notion regarding the ownership of the war against terror is incorrect for at least two reasons: One, the roots of terrorism go back to Pakistan’s involvement in the US-led war against its prime antagonist, the erstwhile USSR precipitated by the latter’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

In fact, it was through Pakistan that the US fought its war against the USSR in Afghanistan. The war was given religious meaning by the then ‘Islamist’ military regime of Pakistan, itself looking for legitimacy as well as political and economic support, to justify its involvement in it.

Hence, the Afghan war became a jihad and the Afghans fighting on the US side mujahideen. The people of Pakistan were made to believe that the communist USSR invasion of Afghanistan had endangered nothing less than Islam and therefore it was the religious duty of the government and the people to fight in the war on the side of America, which was said to be fighting for Islam.

However, the Americans had no love for Islam and their interest in Afghanistan sprang from their counter-communism strategy. Hence, in the wake of Moscow’s decision to pull out from Afghanistan in the second half of 1980s, the US involvement in the war fizzled out leaving the various Afghan factions to fight among themselves for supremacy.

For Pakistan the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. Since the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, it gave birth to the breed of zealous religious militants, who knew only one way of living — living by the sword. In order to live by the sword, one also needs an enemy, real or perceived, on which one vents one’s aggression and the enemy is not difficult to find. In case of the jihadis, once the external enemy had gone, they turned their guns to the ‘enemy’ within, which they found in the followers of rival creeds. The result was sectarian bloodbath, which well preceded and had nothing to do with the 9/11 incident.

Hence, to those who maintain that the terrorism in Pakistan is the gift of the country’s post- 9/11 alliance with the US one may put the question: Were the mosques and other religious places in Pakistan safe before the 9/11? Or were not the people killed in the name of ridding the society of ‘evil’ and promoting ‘good’ before that fateful event occurred?

What the 9/11 did was to bring home to the extremists the usefulness of suicide blasts as a method of large-scale manslaughter. It did not sow the seeds of terrorism, because they had been sown years before.

Two, the war against terrorism is our own, because simply it is our society that has been turned into an inferno. While Americans are safe in their home (and there is no reason why they should not be), our people are suffering physically, emotionally, economically.

Women are being rendered widows, children turned orphans, and parents are being made childless. Businesses have been forced to shut or dislocate, growth and investment fallen and people made jobless. Hyper fear and an acute sense of insecurity is what the people have, thanks to the Taliban’s jihad.

According to the Economic Survey of Pakistan (2009-10), direct and indirect economic cost of the war on terror has exceeded US$ 40 billion as increasing amount of already meagre national resources are being spent on security-related expenditure at the expense of development programmes. But still surprisingly we are not ready to own this war!

In the second place, there is the widespread view that terrorists, particularly when they target a place of religious significance — such as a mosque or a shrine — are not Muslims and that it is the work of foreign forces, which are antagonistic to Islam and Pakistan being the sole Muslim nuclear power state.

Thus though people were shocked and shaken when terrorists recently struck at the Data Darbar, the famous shrine in Lahore, they hardly believed that such a heinous act could be perpetrated by Muslims. “The attack on as sacred a place as the Data Darbar cannot be the work of a Muslim,” was how the people by and large reacted. We had a similar reaction earlier in the year when a bomb went off during a Shia procession on the 10th of Muharram.

Such a view however is erroneous and reflects a weak aspect of our national psyche: the failure to accept the responsibility for our predicament and the irresistible tendency to shift the blame on others.

While the involvement of foreign forces in the acts of terrorism perpetrated on our soil cannot be dismissed altogether, they are, if they are doing so, simply fishing in the troubled waters. The hell that we are in is the creation of our own acts of omission and commission. There is little doubt that the perpetrators and planners of the acts of terrorism are Pakistanis and Muslims, whether such acts take place in the mosque or on the road, in a shrine or in the street. In fact, the terrorists take delight and pride in killing others, because they believe it will open for them the gates of paradise.

Denying that terrorists are part of our society has not done us any good and would do us no good, because the denial implies that the cause of the malady is not within us but without. If we cannot diagnose the malady correctly, we can never treat it. Therefore we must accept the bitter truth that the people behind acts of terrorism are part of us and therefore it is our society that needs treatment.

In the third place, while religious places are of tremendous symbolic significance, homicide is equally bad whether it is of a Muslim or non-Muslim, of a Shia or a Sunni, whether it takes place in the mosque or on the road. To those who have no regard for human life, it does not really matter where they kill the people as long as they kill them.

Therefore, acts of terrorism no matter where they take place or who is the victim should be condemned with equal force, otherwise those who defend or remain indifferent to one act of terrorism will find themselves at the receiving end another time. Every one who is in inferno is condemned to burn sooner or later. Therefore, instead of labouring under the delusion that the fire will not burn us, we should try to extinguish it.

In the fourth place, we should erase once and for all the notion from our collective consciousness that Pakistan was meant to be a citadel of Islam and that it is the responsibility of the government and people of Pakistan to actively support Muslim resistance movements all over the world.

In the past, misguided by this notion, the jihadis made their way into different countries from China to Chechnya to take part in Muslim resistance movements. In turn, Pakistan received militants from different parts of the world, who found in the country a safe haven.

The result is that far from being a citadel of Islam, our country has become a fortress of terrorists. There are more than fifty other Muslim countries but none of them has claimed to be a citadel of Islam. At any rate, it is ridiculous for a country which itself is in the grip of diabolical forces of religious extremism and terrorism and which needs foreign assistance to survive economically to have such a ‘lofty’ claim. The prime responsibility of a government is to its own people and it should work for their security, welfare and happiness.

Finally, religion and politics should be kept apart. Religion ought to be the private affair of the individual and the state should not try to make them good Muslims; rather it should try to make them good, law-abiding citizens.

The state should treat all people equally irrespective of their caste and creed and ensure that no one, including the state itself, imposes his beliefs on others.

ACAUTIOUS reading of Shahzeb Khan’s “How the British influenced Indian culture” which appeared in this space on June 6, 2010 shows that he has tried to build his entire critique of British period on the basis of a proverb “give a dog a bad name and hang him”.

While analysing the events of history and their impact one has to be accommodative of positive aspects of the perceived adversary and at the same time be critical of the faults of the ‘victim’ without any prejudice. Only then outcome will be objective.

While assuming that we, as Muslims, have lost self-confidence although we happen to be the inheritors of a great ancient civilisation, not because of our own weaknesses but on account of adopting the British lifestyle and being under their cultural influence, the writer has failed to appreciate that Hindus were also colonised and they too embraced the British way of life but it did not cause any obstacle in their march towards economic progress and development.

What is more, the majority of freedom movement leaders including Qauid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal and Motilal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Moulana Muhammad Ali Johar, Allama Inayatullah Mashraki et al were all educated in the West. It was their incessant struggle which forced the British to leave the subcontinent. So much so that Indian National Congress which became leader of the independence movement was founded in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume, a member of Indian Civil Service and a political reformer.

Needless to say the British initially came to India as traders but afterward became its rules. The moot point is how power changed hands, from the mighty Mughals to a small trading community having its power base thousands of miles away in a small island?

The story of the Mughal downfall begins with the war of succession between four sons of Emperor Shahjehan (1628-1658). In these bloody conflicts, Aurangzeb succeeded after killing Princes Dara, Shuja and Murad and weakening imperial might considerably.

He imprisoned Shahjehan, his father and the legitimate Emperor (who died in captivity in 1666) and occupied peacock throne in 1659 and proclaimed himself Emperor of India.

Unfortunately, Aurangzeb remained engaged in ceaseless hostilities for 26 years in Deccan. First, he annihilated powerful Muslim kingdoms of Bejapur and Golkanda and then fought wars with Shivaji, a Maratha warrior, till his death in 1707. He was buried at Khuldabad in Deccan.

The absence of emperor from the seat of throne for more than two and half decades weakened central authority and also affected the treasury. After his death, another bloody warfare began between his sons for succession to the golden throne.

These endless wars further drained the treasury while the seat of power went to Bahadur Shah-I, an imbecile and septuagenarian son of Aurangzeb, who ruled an unmanageable and economically shattered country for about four years.

Between 1711 and 1858, anarchy prevailed in the empire as of the next eight emperors whose combined reign covered only 52 years, four were murdered, one deposed and only three died peacefully.

During this worse period, a curse descended on Delhi in the shape of Nadir Shah of Iran who attacked India in 1738 and sacked Delhi. As a result, the already fragile empire started disintegrating.

The key provinces of Oudh, Orisa, Bengal and Deccan seceded and declared autonomy which emboldened Maratha freebooters to harass and destroy most of the dominion till they were defeated in 3rd battle of Panipat in 1761.

The imperial power was subjected to more assaults by the first Afghan King, Ahmed Shah Durrani, who invaded Delhi four times before fighting Marathas at Panipat in the fifth invasion: hardly a solace to the emasculated Mughal authority.

When General Lake entered Red Fort in 1803, Delhi was under the control of Sindia chieftain of Maratha Confederacy and Shah Alam-II; the hapless blind Emperor (blinded by Ghulam Qadir Rohilla in1788) was in their captivity. It was Lake who restored Shah Alam to throne.

In this environment, beginning from the death of Aurangzeb (1707) till 1858 every facet of social life, including education, suffered immeasurably. The absence of central authority led to formation of bands of Pindaris and Thudgs who plundered the countryside making life of the people miserable.

In Europe, on the other hand, with Age of Renaissance (14th Century), reformation (16th C) and revolution (18th C) remarkable advancements were made in every sphere of human activity. When India was bleeding from wars of succession, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1723) discovered the law of gravitation (appointed professor at the age of 28 in Cambridge).

The Universities, Oxford established in the 12th Century and Cambridge in the 13th Century, no doubt taught initially theology but by the 17th Century these institutions were vibrant seats of learning producing eminent names in the field of social as well as empirical sciences.

Abu Talib known as ‘Londonee’ an Indian traveller who visited London at the end of 18th Century in his travelogue has discussed vast advancement Britain made in the filed of science and education. At the time of visiting Oxford he found 16 colleges in the town and Library of every college stocked with more than one hundred thousands books.

The intellectual activity came to a grinding halt in the Islamic world, first after the sack of Baghdad (1258) and then in 1492 when Spain was finally lost. The atrophied mindset continued even during the periods of great Mughals and Ottomans.

Although by and large Mughal Kings were fond of learning but surprisingly when Sir Thomas Roe, the first British, attended the Mughal court, Jehangir showed no interest in finding out how he had travelled across the seven seas. The Ottomans who ruled over one-third of Europe paid no attention to the discovery of Americas and even reacted against the fall of Grenada. Neither of the two empires established any university or encouraged learning of science and other modern disciplines.

So much so that even Emperor Akbar, who was otherwise a great patron of art and literature, refused to accept a printing press brought by the Portuguese in the 16thcentury on the plea that it will render the ‘katibs’ unemployed. The rejection of printing press alone kept the subcontinent backwards by at least two hundred years.

There were times when Muslim scholars translated ancient Greek works into Arabic when the Christians had closed the window of Greek thought as early as the 4th century by calling it anti-religion. It was not until 15th century when Reformists defied the edict of established Church. It was Al Farabi (Alpharabius) (871-951) who is considered the ‘second master’ after Aristotle who wrote, ‘On the Perfect State’ which was the first serious attempt to harmonise the Greek political thought with Islamic ideals.Likewise Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (980-1037) interpreted Aristotle, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126-98), commentator on Aristotle and Plato, authored classic defence of philosophy, the incoherence of the Incoherence. He held that domains of faith and reason did not conflict. He remained influential in the West well up to the Renaissance.

Shahzeb is correct when he says that while the British built educational institutions such as King Edward Medical College in the 20th Century, Mughals constructed huge monuments for personal reasons such as Taj Mahal in the 17th Century. The correct example however is Adolph Gustav II (1594-1632) King of Sweden whose consort also died of child birth like Queen Mumtaz Mahal. Nevertheless instead of building a monument in her memory at the expense of sweat and blood of people, King Gustav established the first network of midwifery in Sweden which ensured that no women died of child birth thereafter.

This is no gainsaying the fact that the Mughal rule of India remained laissez-faire (Sher Shah Suri was an exception) where duty of the state was restricted to security of country from invasions and collection of revenue whereas in Europe transformation had already occurred from medieval feudal to modern system of governance and the state involved itself in developmental activities.

It is for this reason that Mughal emperors built great forts, great mosques and impressive necropolis and the British when they assumed power after 1857 started building modern educational institutions and communication works such as railways, roads, postal and irrigation networks.

After the British left the subcontinent, two sovereign states came into being. The Indians chose to establish a functional democracy, drawing benefits from the institutions British had left and progressed unhindered. On this side of the border soon after independence, however, feudal-bureaucratic alliance grabbed power, rejecting the ideals outlined by the Quaid-i-Azam.

THE conflict in Kashmir seems to be unending and the way it is being handled by Indian armed forces, especially the CRPF, is further aggravating it. Unfortunately, it is still being addressed primarily as a law and order problem and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir and their problems hardly matter.

Our armed forces go on violating human rights and they know only how to kill. This way instead of solving the problem, we will reduce Kashmir to a vast cemetery. More and more young protestors are dying and death hardly deters these young protestors from demonstrating.

It is not that people of Kashmir are really anti-India and want to opt for Pakistan. A recent UK think tank survey concluded that not more than 4 per cent Kashmiris want to align with Pakistan. They have their own aspirations and problems which must be addressed but they are not being addressed and, to the contrary, bullets are fired at them. Now at the all-party meeting it was decided that lethal weapons will not be used and instead pepper gun will be used which does not kill but produces, psychological impact similar to real bullets.

Should it have taken so much time to take this decision after killing 15 young people resulting in angry protests? Even CRPF has suffered great casualties, more than 273 Jawans have been injured in last one month and 1980 over one year. This decision could have been taken earlier and young lives would have been saved and CRPF Jawans from injuries? Or was this technology of pepper gun invented only before the all-party meeting. Do we have to kill so many innocent civilians before using appropriate technology? Had this decision been taken in time it would have saved several lives and would not have pushed the valley on brink of such a serious crisis.

I was in Kashmir in June for a workshop on peace and conflict resolution and talked to several people there as to what they thought could be the solution. I talked to a cross section of people, including intelligentsia, activists and even common people in the bazaar. One thing which emerges is that Omar Abdullah has failed to deliver on every front and sentiments are overwhelmingly in favour of Mufti Saeed.

Mufti is considered more mature and capable of talking frankly with the Centre and could handle Kashmir problem more satisfactorily. Omar Abdullah has lost grip over the situation and, besides, lacks courage to talk boldly with the Centre. This is what I can conclude from my conversations with local residents. Also, the separatist sentiments are not as strong as it is thought to be from outside. They are very angry at the mess in which Kashmir finds itself today.

The youth is interested in employment and an improvement in economic situation. Most of the young people I met bitterly complained about lack of economic opportunities in the valley. Even highly qualified persons do not find satisfactory jobs. They are either unemployed or underemployed. The separatists exploit this anger and frustration. However, neither the state government nor the centre is serious about it and keep on condemning separatists for creating this situation.

Also, in case of Kashmir there is a serious political dimension that is of our constitutional commitment to ensure autonomy and Nehru-Abdullah pact of 1953 had further reinforced it but under political pressure from rightwing elements this promise of full autonomy to Kashmir was never fulfilled. Again after the militant movement in Kashmir during late eighties and nineties the then Prime Minister Mr Narsimha Rao promised Farooq Abdullah, whom I had met during my visit to valley in late nineties, that he would grant autonomy to Kashmir and when Abdullah asked him how much, he told him ‘sky is the limit’. These words ring in my ears even today.

However, nothing happened and then the BJP led Government came to power whose agenda was to remove Article 370 from the constitution itself instead of giving even a small element of autonomy to the people of Kashmir. Also, the way the Centre had been conducting elections in Kashmir since independence never inspired confidence among the people. In fact the militancy in Kashmir began after 1988 elections were rigged and Salahuddein, a school teacher and now head of Hizbul Mujadidin, was declared defeated though, most of the Kashmiris think, he had won.

It was only in 2004 that for the first time fair elections were held and when I visited the valley I found new confidence among a section of Kashmiri people and some of them told me that if fair elections were held in future too, things could qualitatively change in Kashmir and people there will align with India. The elections in 2009 too were more or less fair but unfortunately Omar Abdullah does not seem to be in control.

After long years of militancy and violence people of Kashmir have realised one thing, and I am saying this after interacting with a large number of people in the valley that violence does not pay and that peaceful solution is the only way out. But they want peaceful solution with honour and dignity and one which addresses a host of their problems including Kashmiriyat, their regional autonomy and pride in their culture and institutions.

We, in India, do have a problem with Pakistan; we do not want to internationalise the Kashmir problem and that we do not want to go for plebiscite. All this is fine but what is coming in the way of our winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri people? The way our forces indulge in fake encounters and seriously violate human rights is not the way to win their hearts and minds. With such actions we are greatly alienating ourselves from them.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the valley in August 2006 for a roundtable conference with Kashmiri leaders he had asserted that there will be zero tolerance for violations of human rights. But then there were again fake encounters in the valley. Immediately thereafter I conducted a peace workshop and some participants taunted saying, is this the zero intolerance to violations of human rights?

Unfortunately, the situation is worsening in the valley rather than showing any signs of improvement. Day by day human rights violations are increasing. Few months ago two young women were raped but till today no suspect has been arrested. Even CBI did not hold proper inquiry, it is alleged and it is suspected that military and police officials are involved.

Again, my interaction with people in the valley showed that except a small section of Kashmiris, as also referred to in the survey by the UK think tank, no one is for joining Pakistan. All they want is peace and honourable existence. The government of India and the state government have to do everything possible to ensure this. People feel that Mufti had succeeded in seeking some concessions from the Centre which Omar Abdullah is unable to do either because of his inexperience or lack of courage. Whatever the reason, opinion is swinging in favour of Mufti.

Even Ghulam Nabi Azad is considered a better chief minister. The government of India, in order to stop bloodshed, will have to show political courage and determination to take bold steps and strictly discipline the army and not tolerate their violations on the pretext that any action could ‘demoralise’ them. Such an approach will play only in the hands of the terrorists and keep on aggravating the situation.

Fake encounters have absolutely no place in democracy and it is nothing but serious failure of governance if innocent citizens are killed by the police or army. Such unscrupulous officers must be rigorously punished. Such killings can lead to serious trouble even when there is no separatist or terrorist movement, much less in sensitive areas like Kashmir where issues of regional culture and identity are politically extra-sensitive.

Regional autonomy in many countries is a serious problem whether other countries are involved in it or not. For example, the question of Basque nationality in Spain is a serious question and only the other day the Basque nationalists organised a demonstration with 2.5 million people to press their demand. Basque nationalists also resorted to violence for long and exploded bombs. However, they too realised that violence will not enable them to achieve their goal.

We have to sort out Kashmir problem on two fronts, our own internal front and Pakistan front. Here I do not want to comment as far as Pakistan front is concerned. Here my main concern is our own internal front and ensuring peace in the valley and people of Kashmir, in my opinion, are ready for non-violent and honourable peace. Firstly, development will play a very important role. The youth must be won over through ensuring employment. Faisal Shah’s case is an important example. All Kashmiris felt proud that one of their own has been selected and stood first in IAS examination. Indian Muslims too felt very proud and organised a series of receptions for him throughout India.

Thus to solve Kashmir problem internally what is needed is a measure of negotiated autonomy, economic development, greater recruitment of Kashmiri youth in and outside Kashmir in the government sector which will give them greater sense of belonging to India, expeditious development of Railway network and ensuring non-violation of human rights and minimising presence of armed forces except in border areas can lead to internal peace.

The writer is an Indian scholar and chairman of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.