RAPID and dramatic reverses suffered in quick succession in early November exposed the weakness of Taliban forces against the military might of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. Till then, 95 per cent of Afghanistan’s territory was under the control of Taliban. The ground realities changed so radically that within days Taliban’s writ had shrunk to only four or five provinces.

In sharp contrast to the defiant declarations made by the Taliban leaders, their forces vacated territories under their control without offering resistance. Their sudden vacation of Kabul took their opponents by surprise. While so doing, the eight foreign aid workers lodged initially in Kabul jail, including two ladies, were left behind by the retreating forces. They were treated well and with respect during their detention.

The CNN and Fox News report that many Afghans now feel uncomfortable for being linked with Taliban. This may be so. However, Mullah Mohammad Omar remains defiant. He told BBC that, ‘the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a big cause, — the destruction of America — we prefer death to becoming a part of an evil government.’ This wishful claim originates more from the heart than from the head.

The vacation of territories by Taliban forces reflects neither the end of the conflict in Afghanistan nor the return of peace to it. Turmoil prevails in the country. The military strategy adopted by the coalition forces shows its results. The awesome lethality of air force and its carpet bombing produced devastating effects. The air action destroyed targets, caused panic and uncertainty in public minds and eased other tasks. The US avoids conventional style ground battle to save its human lives. Its Special Forces employ small-sized teams in unconventional war against pre-selected targets to inflict casualties, destroy communication centres and deny freedom of movement to their adversary.

The Taliban militia is not a professionally cohesive, suitably organized, properly trained and appropriately equipped military force and its fighting potential in a conventional war is limited and uncertain. The military odds are heavily tilted against them and their defeat in combat is a matter of time. Their strength lies in fighting an unconventional war in the hilly terrain familiar to them.

They may adopt similar or different tactics in their new stronghold, Kandahar. They could offer resistance, reach a compromise or vacate positions, retire to the hills and start a hit-and-run guerilla war from safe hideouts. Their defeat may become the end of one phase of war and the beginning of another, a war of a different kind and style. Afghanistan’s history, rich in turbulence and strife, has taught their people many lessons.

Osama bin Laden’s recent claim that, ‘If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us then we may respond with similar weapons as a deterrent’ is rather comical. Since then, partly burnt documents recovered from a hurriedly vacated safe house allegedly used by al-Qaeda office in Kabul contain information on the paper designs of nuclear weapons and missiles. It is claimed that these papers show how plutonium can be used to make a fission device, similar to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The risk of nuclear know-how falling in the hands of unauthorized persons gives jitters to countries, including Pakistan.

To build and maintain nuclear weapons and employ them against targets requires complicated technological know-how and a set of dedicated and high-tech laboratories. It is unimaginable that Afghanistan, with no industrial base, could undertake such a complicated venture. Paper knowledge about the design of a nuclear bomb is another matter. Documented reports show that some university and high school students in the US claim to have designed nuclear weapons and unclassified published material on this subject is available in the market in that country. Such mental exercises do not mean that the students have actually made real bombs.

The Afghan society’s yearning for revenge is a part of the culture and psyche of its people. Reportedly, hundreds of Taliban were gunned down in cold blood by Northern Alliance troops in Mazar-i-Sharif. Some others were maltreated and injured by the victors in Kabul. This madness deserves condemnation and those guilty of acts of reprisal should be quickly brought to justice. Kabul simmers. Contingents of Hazara militia are on the gates of the city to defend their fellow Shiite Muslims against persecution by the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance.

For centuries Afghanistan has been a pawn in the game played by Great Powers on its political chessboard. History repeats itself once again. Terror against terror is the essence of War against Terrorism spearheaded by the US in Afghanistan. Britain takes control of Bagram airfield that will become a bridgehead to receive thousands of British soldiers. Burhanuddin Rabbani demands return of the British troops. French troops will soon control airbase at Mazar-i-Sharif. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder secures parliamentary approval to send 4000 soldiers to Afghanistan. This will be the first German military mission abroad since World War II.

Russia has sent a team of senior officials to Afghanistan ‘to establish working contacts with the leadership of the lawful government of this state.’ Russia wants a government in Kabul that is friendly and loyal to Moscow. The UN special envoy for Afghanistan blames Northern Alliance for ‘obstructing urgent efforts’ to arrange a crucial meeting on the country’s political future.

Afghanistan faces a power vacuum and a race has started for filling in the vacuum. Burhanuddin Rabbani is in Kabul ‘for peace and for not extending his government.’ Former King Zahir shah, condemns Rabbani’s return to avoid repetition of previous ‘failed experience.’ Confusion and uncertainty prevails in Afghanistan. At this critical moment in history the OIC is in hibernation and the UN works in slow motion. Three options for peace in Afghanistan are reportedly under consideration in the UN Security Council: an all-Afghan security force, a multinational force, and a UN peace-keeping force.

Despite his advanced age and prolonged absence from the country former King Zahir Shah may be a suitable choice to guide the destiny of Afghanistan, particularly during the interim period. He can play a positive role in preparing the ground for the implementation of other phases of Lakhdar Brahimi’s five-stage plan approved by the UN Security Council.

Rabbani’s lust for power is endemic. Five years ago his refusal to step down from presidentship after the completion of his prescribed period of duty created anarchy in Kabul that led to the emergence of Taliban and the division of Afghanistan. It will be wise for the people of Afghanistan to learn from the past errors.

Afghanistan faces difficult times. It needs bold and new leadership to guide the country and set a course of peace, progress and harmony for itself and with its neighbours. The policies of extremism may be consigned to the dustbin of history. Let this country adopt a policy of live and let live and become a worthy member of the comity of nations.

Pakistan should also learn from the experience of Afghanistan. It has long borne a very heavy burden of Afghan refugees the like of which has not been faced by countries anywhere in the world. This load further increased during the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Pakistan may have to co-exist with a new government in Afghanistan that is not to its entire liking. The Indian policies, ever hostile, will create additional difficulties for it.

Pakistan may neither risk its security for the sake of foreign ‘luminaries’ nor deviate from its modern and moderate ways of life prescribed for it by the Quaid-i-Azam. The people of Pakistan may never be taken in by the incendiary eloquence of the mavericks that exploit their sentiments to arouse emotions. The political parties may keep the government under pressure, if they so desire, but they may concede that the predictions of the rightist parties on developments in Afghanistan proved utterly incorrect. It is time for us to keep our eyes and ears open, remain cool and maintain unity in our ranks.

The writer is a retired general of the Pakistan army.

WHAT I used to like about former President Bill Clinton was the fact that he had been a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. It somehow invested him with a youthful enlightened persona.

Our former chairman of the Senate, Wasim Sajjad, was also a Rhodes Scholar, though he never became President, and the way things are going the chances of his making it to the Aiwan-e-Sadar are rather slim. But the distinction remains, even if not much valued in this unscholarly country.

I say this because when Cecil Rhodes (1858-1902), described by the books as “English imperialist, largely instrumental in extending British territory in South Africa and in development of Rhodesia (named after him) endowed the scholarships at Oxford University, he made rather strict and ever so high stipulations about the personality and character of the young men who intended to apply for them. In Pakistan there is a committee in the Education Ministry that advertises in August-September every year the sole seat (if the number has not been increased) and invites applications from prospective candidates.

Age is the most minor of the conditions prescribed for applicants who have to be over 19 and below 25 on the 1st of October of the annual grant. I am not writing this to publicize the Rhodes Scholarship as such; I have some other things on my mind connected with it on which I shall dwell as I proceed. I was wondering how the sons of our VIPs, who think they are entitled to the best that the country can offer, would fare in the selection.

For instances, we may have as many as a dozen legislators — central and provincial — who are less than 25 on the given date and are also first class of high second class graduates. They would be sons of old members, ex-ministers or defunct politicians who had served every kind of civil and military regime with “distinction” in their time. How many of them would qualify for the scholarship?

It is the qualifications other than age prescribed by Rhodes that might present some difficulty for the gentlemen (or the sons of gentlemen) in whom the people of Pakistan placed their trust in successive general elections. Great admirer as I am of the integrity and intellectual talent of our Assembly members, even I may be hard put to it to get any of them through the fine mesh of qualities and attributes which, in the opinion of Cecil Rhodes, candidates for his philanthropy were required to possess.

Just go through the list if you please. “Literary and scholastic attainments, qualities of truthfulness, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for the protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship, exhibition of moral force of character and of instinct to lead; to take interest in the problems of one’s fellow men; physical vigour as shown by fondness for or success in outdoor activities.”

What do you say to that? I have not made up this list. It is part of the announcement put out by the secretary of the Rhodes Trust scholar Selection Committee for Pakistan, and published in the annual advertisement in newspapers. The only person with whom one can quarrel or argue about the list is Cecil Rhodes himself, who, as I have indicated above, passed on almost a hundred years ago. Even if he were alive it is doubtful if he would agree to relax any of the essentially moral qualifications in favour of the sons of privileged Pakistani families.

In this respect Mr Rhodes could have learnt a lesson or two from our political chief ministers who were ready to relax or ignore all conditions, including basic academic qualifications, to accommodate a friendly and cooperative member’s nephew in a government job. Efficient workers are hard to come by and the chief ministers somehow knew a good chap when they saw one. In fact that is how they became chief executives of the provinces, by their uncanny ability to spot the talent required by their administrations.

I was letting my imagination run this morning. Let us suppose the prime minister (I am talking of normal times) is anxious to see a young MNA selected as Rhodes Scholar. But all prime ministers are on record for having vowed that no appointment shall be made anywhere except on merit. Otherwise he/she could simply have asked the Rhodes Trust Scholar Selection Committee to “select” the MNA recommended by him or pack up and go if it refused. We can do without Rhodes Scholars, but we can’t do without pliable MNAs.

The bright young MNA may have literary and scholastic attainments in his quiver of qualifications, having obtained credits in Kindergarten; he may have possessed physical vigour, having jogged behind girls in Lahore’s Lawrence Gardens; he may have a fondness for outdoor activities, having gone for shikar every Sunday to kill prohibited birds; but what about the rest? Would his deputy commissioner honestly testify to his “exhibition of moral force of character?” Because only a DC can do that. No one else may like to perjure himself.

One also wonders if a certificate from a Class I gazetted officer stating that the youthful MNA (or the son of a general or that of an industrialist patronized by the prime minister) actually possessed “truthfulness and devotion to duty, kindliness and unselfishness” would make him acceptable to the selection committee. There is no reason why the committee should object to such a testimonial. If a Class I officer is good for certifying my identity, my state of being married, my being a bona fide Muslim, surely he can be trusted to know that a certain young man, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, was gifted with the apparently meaningless attributes desired by Mr Rhodes.

In the exercise to “launder” the privileged young man, let us keep in mind the fact that Pakistan’s annual quota of the Rhodes Scholarship is just one. Are we then to look for just one man? That should be no problem. Surely the legislative assemblies and the hundred of billionaire elite families of Pakistan are overflowing with young men who more than fulfil the prescribed rigid (though unnecessary) moral and social qualifications. No, you don’t think so? It means you don’t have a high opinion of the intellectual and human calibre of our topmost families. Pity!

OSAMA bin Laden has survived at least ten assassination attempts mounted by the Soviets, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. But now, after the rapid retreat of Taliban forces and fall of Kabul to the Russian-backed Northern Alliance, the noose is tightening around the world’s most wanted man.

Taliban’s retreat was inevitable. Its 30,000, lightly-armed tribal fighters spread over a Texas-sized nation could not withstand massive US air attacks and Northern Alliance Tajik and Uzbek troops freshly supplied by Russia with tanks, armoured vehicles, and artillery.

Taliban’s deftly executed surprise retreat wrong-footed the US. Washington didn’t want the Alliance to occupy Kabul before it could cobble together a government of its own choosing. Taliban’s retreat that opened the way for the Northern Allinace to seize Kabul was a nasty Parthian shaft that hit Pakistan in the eye — revenge for Islamabad abandoning Taliban.

The Northern Alliance is a proxy for Russia. Its two military leaders are Gen. Rashid Dostam, a brutal communist warlord who slaughtered 30,000 civilians in the 1990 s, and Gen. Faheem, a senior officer of Khad, the former Afghan communist secret police, an arm of the Soviet KGB. Khad tortured and murdered thousands of Afghans.

To Washington’s embarrassment, the Alliance also controls Afghanistan’s opium and heroin exports. Taliban, a religious movement, had shut down the drug trade. Bush’s war against terrorism has plainly taken priority over the war on drugs.

Handing northern Afghanistan and Kabul over to the Russians appears the price the US had to pay for Moscow’s support in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Having ousted the Russians from Afghanistan in the 1980s, Washington has now invited them back in. So far, clever Vladimir Putin is the big winner in the Afghan mess.

Mullah Omar, Taliban’s leader, ordered his men to retreat into Pushtun territory in southwest Afghanistan, and into neighbouring Northwest Frontier Province. In this wild region, the birthplace of Taliban, heavily-armed Pushtun tribesmen are a law unto themselves.

Taliban says it will now wage guerilla war from the NWFP and from the central Hindukush mountains north of Kandahar. The Taliban believe guerrilla fighting will allow them to finally engage US troops hunting for Osama at more equal odds. The US military plan for Afghanistan is on schedule, though its political agenda certainly is not. The overthrow of the Taliban regime has opened the way for the US special forces to hunt down bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in cave complexes north of Kandahar that he helped build during the jihad against the Soviets. It is essential for the US to capture bin Laden or at least recover his body. If he somehow escapes, or is buried alive in a cave, the US will be unable to proclaim victory and will have to face charges that it tore apart Afghanistan, killed large numbers of civilians, and created tens of thousands of refugees, for nothing.

Last week, pro-Taliban sources reported Osama vowed he will not be taken alive, a position perfectly in keeping with his record as a courageous fighter against the Soviets and a ‘mujahid,’ ready to become ‘shaheed,’ for his faith.

The $25 million dollar reward being offered by the US for Osama bin Laden will certainly tempt local tribesmen and even some Taliban leaders to hand him over to the Americans. Sudden betrayal and double-dealing are the norm in Afghanistan. Pakistan government would also reap huge additional rewards from the US by handing over bin Laden.

Last week, President George Bush authorized closed military tribunals for the first time since World War II. They are clearly designed to avoid bin Laden and his associates, if captured, standing trial in open courts where they could defend themselves and win sympathy in the Third World. These courts are sure to hand down death sentences.

There is still a remote chance the elusive Osama could escape. He may slip across the border into the Northwest Frontier and be hidden by friendly Pashtun tribesmen. There is much sympathy for Taliban and Osama in Pakistan. Some Islamist officers of Pakistan’s army or intelligence service might aid Osama’s escape. But it will be very difficult for the world’s most notorious man to change his appearance. Bin laden is over 6 foot 4, gaunt, and, currently, the world’s most famous face.

There are very few places where Osama could hide. Nations like Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria or Indonesia would be unable to withstand American pressure to hand him over. Osama and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein are bitter enemies. Libya is lying low. Iran and the Central Asian states are his bitter enemies. China is hostile. Wherever he might find refuge, he is almost certain to be sold to the US for cash or political favours.

The day Osama openly declared a one-man war against the US over Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, this Arab Don Quixote signed his own death warrant.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2001.

THE November 22 newspapers carried the report that the US has asked Pakistan to close the Taliban embassy. And Pakistan has duly obliged.

Briefing reporters in Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that “while we still had two Americans detainees and other foreigners detained in Afghanistan, we felt it was useful for (the Taliban) office to be there, to be open to offer the possibility of communication on the subject of our detainees should that be necessary. Given the developments of the past week — the fact that the detainees are out — at this point we don’t really see any particular reason for that so-called embassy to stay open.”

If ever there were any doubts as to where Pakistan’s foreign policy is made, they should now be set aside. And if evidence was required about whether Pakistan is a vassal state tied to US apron strings, the proof is now here in unambiguous terms. Earlier too, statements by US government functionaries to the effect that they are mindful of Pakistani concerns in this regard were mere eyewash. In fact, at the very time the US President was assuring General Musharraf that the Northern Alliance will not be allowed to enter Kabul, US bombers were carpet-bombing Taliban defences on the Kabul frontlines.

At best, the US president was humouring General Musharraf; at worst, he was lying. The British prime minister also undertook a mission through the Middle East and it appeared that the West was finally serious in promoting a just solution to the crisis in Palestine. With the favourable change of fortunes in Afghanistan, US language has reverted to what it was before September 11.

The turn of events raises questions about why Muslim countries are always taken for granted. The US is, of course, pursuing its self-interest. It is under no obligation to account for our interests. The onus for pursuing our interests lies with our leadership. But the leadership in almost all Muslim countries have been found wanting in this respect. Almost all Muslim societies are grossly unequal and unjust. Almost all Muslim regimes are undemocratic, represent elite interests, and are at war with their own people. It is a situation that the US has found most convenient to its requirements. It has lent support to these monarchist and military regimes in return for their tacit agreement to be more loyal to US interests than to their own country or people.

There are critics of these regimes. However, the strategy that the ‘rebels’ in these countries have adopted is seriously flawed. When Osama bin Laden announced that he would retaliate with chemical and nuclear weapons, he merely reduced himself to the level of George W. Bush.

Undoubtedly, the people of Muslim and all developing countries have a long list of complaints against the US. From Vietnam in the east to Chile in the west, and including Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, South Africa, etc., the number of people killed by the US or US sponsored regimes over the last half a century will easily top a million. And the number of lives shattered and wasted will add up to several million.

However, we cannot and should not lock ourselves in the reactive mode. If we try to respond in kind, we would only debase ourselves. Our centuries old values based on our lofty traditions and religion provide us the basis for holding on to the high moral ground. We cannot and should not resort to terror and murder tactics. We cannot and should not compete with the US as to how many people each one of us is capable of killing. We cannot and should not stoop to the level of the US.

If we are to successfully resist US aggression and hegemony, we have to begin by reforming ourselves. To begin with we need to dispense with world views and policy formulations based on concocted ideological premises. We need to recognize the reality as it is. And one reality is that, howsoever odious the US government role may be, the American people possess many sterling qualities. The US has not become a superpower by the strength of military prowess alone.

In fact, its military power is a product of its tremendous achievements in science and technology and in industrial organization and production. The US is not just a superpower in economic and military terms but in arts and culture and music and sports as well. Their domestic judicial and political system ensures a broad measure of equality and dignity for all its citizens and has provided the framework for these achievements.

We also have to dispense with the propensity to hark back to our past glory or to look for a Jewish conspiracy with everything that goes wrong for us. We have to acknowledge all that is wrong with us. And there is plenty that is wrong. Almost all Muslim societies have elite regimes that perpetuate their rule and their privileges through lies and hypocrisy. We harp upon the glory of Musawat-i-Mohammedi, but our societies are ridden by a range of cultural, social, economic and political inequalities.

We laud Hazrat Omar’s questioning about the extra cloth for his robe, but such examples are found more in the questioning of the Richard Nixons and Bill Clintons in the US and none in our own polity.

We ritually observe Imam Husain’s example of holding on to principles even at the cost of his life, but routinely sacrifice principles for the sake of petty material gain. Our leaders orate about the rule of law, human rights and democracy, but these are merely subjects of drawing room discussions and political speeches by politicians and generals. Pledges are made about poverty eradication, but all anti-poverty programmes only enrich the already rich.

Under the circumstances, equality of opportunity is a direct casualty and talent is sacrificed at the altar of social elitism and religious bigotry.

A society that shuns the country’s only Noble prize winning scientist of international acclaim because of his religious belief cannot but be expected to be where it is today.

The principal factor underlying US technological superiority is the strength of its human resources, born out of its educational system. Their curriculum is updated to the latest levels and there is a high degree of interaction between universities and scientific, space, military and industrial organizations. University students generally work on their thesis and dissertations as part of real world projects. Even high school students have been engaged in experiments in the US space programme.

On the other hand, there is not a single centre of learning in the entire Muslim world that can match the numerable centres of learning in the US. The last one hundred years has seen the development of scientific and engineering inventions and innovations that has changed our world. Revolutionary advances have been made in production processes, transport and communications, medical technology, etc., that were in the realm of science fiction only a quarter of a century ago. None of these developments can be claimed by any institution in a Muslim country. And Muslims who have contributed to these developments have had to emigrate to the US to reach their maximum potential.

Education is not just a benign commodity provided to the people as a welfare function. It is a powerful political tool. The ruling elite in any society shape education according to its needs. The composition of the ruling elite is a function of the power balance in society. In unequal, undemocratic societies, the ruling elite commands a monopoly of political power and treats the people as subjects rather than citizens.

Such an elite is likely to ensure that education is controlled so that production modes and relations do not change, as any such change can challenge their package of power and privileges. In relatively equal and democratic societies, weaker sections of the population with higher efficiency in production modes and relations do have the opportunity to move into positions of economic and political power. And their growing strength can translate into growing strength for the country as a whole.

Most Muslim societies are grossly unequal, where the economic and political structure is postulated on an archaic feudal-tribal monarchist or military order. If crop yields in the Nile and the Indus valleys can be raised to the level prevalent in the US, Europe, Japan or Israel, Egypt and Pakistan together possess the potential to become the granary of the Muslim world. However, such a technological revolution has a social prerequisite, i.e., the reorganization of production relations.

The military is another example of archaic organization. Traditionally, the infantry is the largest and, politically, the most powerful unit within the military. Modern warfare — a la Gulf and Afghanistan wars — has, however, shown that the infantry is now an obsolete element of the armed forces and it is the hi-tech units that win or lose wars. Necessity demands that resources are reallocated and the amounts transferred to the promotion of science and technology.

If the Muslim world is to acquire a respectable place for itself in the international order, we will have to reconstruct our societies and states along modern, social democratic lines. We will have to make a genuine commitment to creating a just society, which ensures human rights and democracy. And these rights will have to include not only civic and political rights such as, the rights to equality before the law, freedom of conscience, speech and assembly, the right to cultural development, and the right to representative government, but also economic rights, such as, the right to livelihood, housing, education and health care.