NEVILLE Chamberlain said in July 1938: “In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.” A close look at post-war Europe would prove him right in many ways. The former enemies have developed organizations advancing the cause of continental security, cooperation and integration at the political and economic levels besides the US-led NATO.

In the aftermath of World War II, the rivalry between the two superpowers remained, more often, limited to ‘cold war’ till the collapse of the Soviet Union. While it is too early to assess the post-Sept 11 scenario objectively, Chamberlain again appears to be relevant. The winning-side had started as the aggrieved party owing to the atrocities of the Black Tuesday. It was morally and legally qualified to seek justice.

The US government, however, appears to have been divided between fire-brands and the level-headed. The former wanted to destroy every country on earth which was perceived to be acting contrary to the global interests of the only superpower in any conceivable manner. To their ilk, this tragedy provided a unique opportunity for getting rid of all kinds of irritants in inter-state dealings on the Caspian trail.

By their logic, bombing recalcitrant countries, located beyond Europe, out of existence would produce ‘A Brave New World’ wherein the interests of the surviving countries would be seen to be compatible with the US. As most of such persons represent the well-known military-industrial complex, so the method in their madness is understandable.

The level-headed stick to cool deliberation before committing anything in public. In their focus is the long-term view reinforced by diverse implications of any tactical action for a proper strategy. Without jumping the gun, this group is more likely to accomplish a mission without a whimper what their irascible counterparts may spoil with every bang.

George Bush played a great balancing game between the diverse schools of thought. He built up a coalition to wage a ‘war against terrorism’. However, it was decided by the US government, duly acquiesced by the UN, that the “prime suspect” for such horrendous crime against humanity was Osama bin Laden who must be produced in the US “dead or alive”.

The death and destruction and the human disaster caused in Afghanistan is current and well-known. Starting as the aggrieved party, the US position has become debatable because of the scale of devastation it inflicted on that poor country which was too weak to defend itself.

The rag-tag militia, isolated at home and abroad, fought courageously against the only superpower but it was a contest between a pen-knife and an automatic weapon. The US would also be haunted by the massacre of Qala-i-Jangi besides other such depredations of the strange-bedfellows it was obliged to enlist to wage the ground-war inside Afghanistan.

The US used to be the bastion of freedom and individual’ rights. The introduction of ‘Patriot’ legislation appears to have scarred the soul of America. Despite the high-profile efforts of President Bush, widespread discrimination against the Muslims particularly, the Middle Eastern types, reportedly, stalks the biggest immigrant country. The surreptitious ‘racial profiling’ and without due process detentions made by the agencies with the enthusiastic approval, reportedly, of the Attorney General should be anathema to any freedom-loving people, more so the Americans.

The American people are, generally, nice but the initial rhetoric of the government and the media provoked a hysteria which will take time to wear down.

The losers include all Afghan Muslims. While it heralded a boom for the Northern Alliance ushering in a dramatic change of political fortunes, on balance their conduct does not inspire much confidence. The ousted Taliban regime is part of history for the time-being. While its major support has collapsed, it would be wishful to assume in the flush of victory-hoopla that the movement may not survive.

Three factors will influence its future viability. First, the conduct of a provisional broad-based government in Kabul. If a minority government is improvised and foisted by the US, that could lead to reconciliation between various Pakhtun factions. History proves that the Afghans have mercurial temperament wherein change of stance is conditioned by many considerations. Secondly the commitment of the US to provide financial resources for the re-building of the devastated country. One report indicates that the US, to-date, spent about $ one-and-a-half billion on the asymmetrical war.

To win over the majority of the Afghans, the US must spend many times more on developing new infrastructure which would enable a new social sector to operate for providing the desperately-needed relief to these miserable people. Thirdly, the Afghans now must learn to look beyond ethnicity, which in such vicious form, is antithetical to the teachings of Islam. While the Soviet Union and the US have annihilated Afghanistan for different reasons, the Mujahideen groups are, almost, equally guilty.

The bad-blood between various ethnic elements has been an unfortunate part of the Afghan history. My brother visited Kabul immediately after the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1972. On his way to Mazar-i-Sharif, he stopped over to have his lunch in a restaurant. He was greeted by some Afghans sitting at the next table who sympathized with him for the tragedy that befell Pakistan. My brother was greatly impressed by their demonstration of solidarity with Pakistan.

Gen Musa had been the COAS before Yahya Khan replaced him and later seized power leading to the ignominious surrender of East Pakistan by Gen Niazi. One of the Afghans told my brother,” you know we had high hopes of your fighting capacity against the Hindus; but those were wrong. After all, what is a nation which appoints a Hazara as the chief of the army.” My brother kept quiet as in Pakistan we do not think on those lines.

Osama’s dissociation from the Afghan ethos should be an opening for the promotion of moderate Islam in the region. This can’t be brought about by threats of destruction or use of platitudinous rhetoric. Pakistan is a moderate Muslim country. With some friendly gestures from the West, the reformers will gain the upper hand in Iran.

However, massive financial help would be required by Pakistan to provide an efficient educational system whereby the children of poor families are not forced to join madressahs, as is happening currently. Similarly, Afghan educational system should be revived with the same objective. The US may consider reviving the Peace Corps started by John F Kennedy for this region to promote cooperation in this field. If the end result is promising, it will create immense goodwill.

The product of such social uplift should be marketable at home and abroad. Development should be geared up in the area to sustain economies which have the capacity to provide jobs to such educated persons.

Unemployment would again produce radical trends in the youth because the North-South dazzling disparity cannot be explained away by cliches and shibboleths, the genuine urge for coexistence notwithstanding. In addition, preferential treatment should be given to the Muslims in the US for educational, employment and immigration purposes to undo the current trend. In fact, the US government should employ genuinely qualified Pakistanis and Afghans with good record in high-profile jobs in the Department of Justice etc to further win the minds and hearts of the Muslims in the US and the world over.

Pakistan, despite some policy fumbles, has got along well with Afghanistan. Our good relations with the Taliban regime, despite tensions prompted by differing perceptions, were also designed by our concern for peace in the neighbouring country besides the much scandalized “strategic depth” dictated by India.

However, the US also shared our perception, generally, about Afghanistan. The Benazir government made all-out efforts, to encourage a coalition between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance between 1995 and 1996. Our American input came for Robin Raphael and Ambassador John Monjo.

If the US is seriously interested in promoting peace and harmony in this region, it should focus attention on the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan’s relations with India are bedevilled by the latter’s illegal occupation of that unfortunate state with the help of over half-a-million occupation forces. It has been trying to suppress the valiant freedom struggle launched by the Kashmiris wherein the Kashmiris from across the border and their relatives help in all possible manners, like the experiences of the bad days of a divided Berlin.

Pakistan remains on tenter-hooks because India has hegemonic ambitions felt by all its small neighbours in South Asia. Normalizing Pakistan-India relations would also exert salutary effect on the situation in Afghanistan which each tries to influence. The US should take whole-hearted initiative to rid South Asia of this dangerous problem which can result in a disastrous shooting war with horrendous consequences for the region.

The writer is a former interior secretary of Pakistan.

EVER since the September 11 terrorist outrage against the US, the BJP government has been trying to create situations that would lead to Pakistan being designated a terrorist state. The clumsy incident of the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight from Mumbai ended with egg on the face of those who had begun pointing an accusing finger at Pakistan.

The “terrorist” incident of December 13 in the Indian parliament represents the latest attempt to whip up war hysteria against Pakistan. And now India has recalled its ambassador from Islamabad and announced withdrawal of the Delhi-Lahore bus service and the Samjhauta Express rail link from January 2002.

Any objective observer could see from the way the blame was pinned on Pakistan, whose suggestion for an impartial inquiry was imperiously rejected, that this was a stage-managed incident to malign Pakistan. Indeed the warlike rhetoric appeared to constitute an attempt to create the scenario for a military response of the type Israel had carried out in Palestine against the hapless Arabs.

Despite all the bluster, and threats, Pakistan refused to be intimidated, and warned India to desist from adventurism that might compel Pakistan to defend itself with all the means at its disposal. The major powers, notably the US and China, saw through the game, and urged both sides to exercise restraint. As it was the BJP-led government in India that was threatening to unleash a conflict to punish Pakistan, while refusing the offer by the US to help determine responsibility, this really meant that they called on New Delhi to refrain from adding to the tension.

Watching the evolution of events since December 13, an objective assessment of the actions and statements of the Indian government raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the alleged terrorist attack Immediately after the news of the attack on the Indian parliament broke, President Pervez Musharraf condemned the attack, and expressed sympathy over the loss of innocent lives. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in Kashmir also condemned the attack, and made it clear that it had no hand in it.

However, the BJP stalwarts proceeded with a show of strong indignation, accompanied with threats against Pakistan. The Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi was summoned, and a demand conveyed to him for the Pakistan authorities to take action against two organizations in Pakistan, including the arrest of their leaders.

Though Pakistan has started clamping down on Jihadi groups, and is complying with the UN Security Council Resolution 1273 on terrorism, it cannot be expected to move against its own citizens without satisfying itself that they are guilty. This is a universal practice, and the demand for a joint inquiry by Pakistan should have been accepted if a sovereign country (Pakistan) was to arrest and punish certain individuals.

Even the US Government recognized the legitimacy of a proper investigation and offered the services of the FBI to help verify the facts needed for the apportionment of the guilt. India indignantly turned down both — a joint inquiry by India and Pakistan, as well as the assistance of the US government. The BJP leaders proclaimed that as the incident took place on Indian soil, no outside power or agency would be allowed to interfere.

The rhetoric adopted by the BJP stalwarts during the debate in the Indian parliament on the incident also left little doubt about their objective of condemning and pressuring Pakistan. The ruling party secured “unanimity” over its approach to the terrorist incident by declaring that those not with the government would be deemed to be supporters of terrorism.

No wonder the opposition parties that normally exercise their function of moderating the extremism of the BJP found themselves compelled to go along with the intemperate attacks on Pakistan, accompanied by threats of the use of force. It must be stated to the credit of some Indian newspapers, such as the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, and the Hindu that they urged the government to desist from creating war hysteria. They pointed out that Pakistan was not Afghanistan or Palestine but a nuclear power with which any adventurism could prove very costly.

The Indian interior minister L.K.Advani, was in his element in beating the drums of war and in questioning the very basis on which Pakistan was established, by calling the two-nation theory “unacceptable”. His attitude, with which Prime Minister Vajpayee did not differ till later, owing possibly to external pressure, was to virtually call for administering a decisive military blow against Pakistan. He seemed to relish the opportunity offered by the attack on the parliament to play the anti-terrorist card against Pakistan.

A careful analysis of the campaign launched against Pakistan reveals many holes. The New Delhi commissioner of police, whose press conference was televised at length to establish the link between Pakistan and the terrorists involved, made some statements that give cause for doubting the credibility of the alleged plan to target the political leadership of India in the parliament.

He stated that the terrorists first went to the airport but found the security too tight. They then made their way to the parliament. Thus the commissioner of police himself established that the attack on the parliament was an afterthought. How does this fit into the accusation being made vociferously by Mr. Vajpayee himself, that the attack on the parliament was premeditated and carefully planned?

Another interesting aspect of the incident is that all five terrorists were killed, and the “proof” of Pakistan-based organizations was obtained from two Indian citizens in New Delhi, and another two persons from Kashmir. This cannot but create legitimate doubts about the credibility of the inquiry, conducted by the Indian government, which has rejected proposals from Pakistan for a joint inquiry, as well as the offer of the US for assisting with the investigation.

It would reflect very poorly on any militant organization, to plan and execute a terrorist attack of this kind, which would play straight into the hands of India, and strengthen its hands in intensifying the repression in Kashmir. It is the type of incident that would do little good to the cause of Kashmir, or to the image of Pakistan, but is tailor-made to serve the Indian goal of pinning the terrorist label on Pakistan. These are the reasons which raise serious doubts about the genuineness of the terrorist attack, and have led many to conclude that the episode was stage-managed to enable India to exploit the current global concern over terrorism.

After the initial few days, when India appeared to be spoiling for a military response to this incident, Mr. Vajpayee has again come out for moderation, and has even sought to rein in the BJP “hawks”. He has voiced a preference for a solution through diplomatic means, while retaining the other options for the use of force or intimidation.

However, the concentration of Indian armour along the Rajasthan border with Pakistan, and the heightened activity along the Line of Control are meant to keep Pakistan under pressure, in a situation where Islamabad has been obliged to divert some of its forces to the border with Afghanistan. The rhetoric from many Indian leaders and media persons is still warlike.

The real Indian goal since the September 11 attack is to suppress the indigenous Kashmiri movement for self-determination, for which nearly 75,000 Kashmiri freedom fighters have already made the supreme sacrifice since 1989. While most of those involved are from Indian held Kashmir, they do get support from Kashmiris across the Line of Control. Indian repression has been greatly stepped up since September, and the BJP government appears determined to pin the label of terrorism on the struggle, so that it can suppress it by recourse to extreme measures.

Pakistan has been pressing for the resumption of the dialogue that had been started at Agra, because that is the approach most suited to establishing an environment of peace and stability in South Asia. But India apparently feels that it has an opportunity to resolve the Kashmir issue on its own terms by exploiting the anti-terrorist wave in the world. Mr. Vajpayee has even refused to have any bilateral contact with President Musharraf during the SAARC Summit in Kathmandu in early January.

Since December 13 incident, India continues to insist that Pakistan should move against the “terrorist” organizations it has named, and arrest their leaders. In the meantime, it makes such a great display of indignation over Pakistan’s allegedly hostile attitude, that it has refused to send its hockey team to Kaula Lumpur next month for a tournament hosted by Malaysia, because it might have to play with Pakistan. The sense of outrage that continues to colour India’s actions and words cannot create any confidence that peace will be maintained. That is why the Pakistan leadership is issuing warnings that any provocation along the international border or the Line of Control would be resisted with full force.

The leaders of many countries, and the UN secretary General have all counselled restraint. The most reasonable solution for the current tension is for India to agree to an impartial inquiry into December 13 terrorist incident. As long as India continues to reject this path, doubts would persist that the incident was stage-managed by India to exploit the current anti-terrorist wave.

ALEXANDER Evans, a young English academic who has been working on Kashmir for several years and could well be one of the best-informed men in the West on the subject, wrote after September 11 that militant groups in Kashmir would come under sharp pressure in the coming months to cull their ranks of Osama bin Laden supporters. That seems already to be happening.

He wondered what direction the uprising that began in 1989 would now take. Noting that it was and had remained “exclusively Muslim”, Evans argued that while it was a Muslim revolt against Indian rule, it was not necessarily an “Islamic” revolt when it began. In my view, the “Islamization” of the movement, when it came, was a mistake as it guaranteed that the support available to the long Kashmiri struggle for self-determination in many parts of the world would be lost.

After some heady successes which saw the Indian military force humbled, the control of the movement increasingly shifted to those who had agendas that went beyond Kashmir. They saw Kashmir as part of a larger crusade against a large assemblage of enemies, among them, the nebulous entity called ‘The West‘ and the “infidel” forces of “disbelief” dedicated to the destruction of Islam. Thus the movement in Kashmir took a course different from the one the peaceful marchers to the UN office in Srinagar who had been fired upon in 1989 had intended.

India took full advantage of this, arguing that what it was facing in Kashmir was not a popular, indigenous uprising but a fundamentalist, terrorist-inspired insurrection. This plea fell on many sympathetic ears in western capitals. It even received a positive hearing from many Muslim governments who had their own reasons to fear the onset of “jihad”. For instance, Osama bin Laden’s principal target was his own country’s government and the ruling house of Saud. Though he broadened his agenda as time passed, the Saudi monarchy and its policies remained his main motivation for the destructive and ultimately suicidal effort he launched, first from Sudan, then Afghanistan.

Coming back to Kashmir, in Evans’s view, a “brutally effective Indian counter-insurgency with scant regard for human rights decimated the first generation of militants” with the “young romantics” making way for a more “professional group of fighters”. The arrival of the “guest militants” on the scene modified the nature and objective of the Kashmiri struggle.

Today, as the war in Afghanistan winds down and the destruction of the Taliban receives its lethal finishing touches, the focus will shift to Kashmir. The commitment of guest militants is ideological, not mercenary. But the ideology that fires them has the whole world arrayed against it now. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have in that sense done the greatest disservice to both Islam and to the causes which sought inspiration from it. Prof. Anwar Syed, whose reaction I sought, said he found Evans’s view “optimistic”.

Evans believes that an end to militancy in Kashmir will strengthen Pakistan’s hand. “It would also, for once, empower Kashmiris, whose voice could not be dismissed as that of a small gun-ridden minority. India, instead of condemning the proxy war it sees in Kashmir, would have to grapple with the real underlying issue... And without militancy rendering Pakistan’s pleas for international action on Kashmir suspect, there could be scope for renewed UN involvement in the Kashmir issue. If Pakistan was to end covert support for militancy, India would face intense US pressure to offer something by way of return.”

A few years ago, the admirable British academic Alistair Lamb who, Yusuf Buch once said, had “put every Kashmiri in his debt”, called for a fresh look at Kashmir since the two sides were so bogged down in history and so convinced of the merit of their positions that they could have no meeting point. He argued that the “liberation” of Kashmir “really means doing something about the Vale”, as the “bulk of the remaining Muslim-majority bits of the old state has in one way or another already been ‘liberated’.” He ruled out a “unitary plebiscite” as laid down in the UN resolutions which, people tend to forget, are advisory, not mandatory.

Lamb wrote, “It is unlikely in the extreme ... that any unitary plebiscite can now be implemented in the state ... In this rather restricted sense, the United Nations resolutions of 1948 plus the UNCIP resolution of 1949 are indeed obsolete ... If they cannot be implemented through Indo-Pakistani cooperation, no one else is going to enforce them.”

He said there was no question of Pakistan acquiring Ladakh or much of Jammu or, on its part, ceding control of the Northern Areas or Azad Kashmir. He argued that the same communal criteria that had formed the basis of Punjab and Bengal’s partition in 1947 should have been applied to Kashmir. He went on to suggest that were that to be done today, it would reduce the extent and area of the Kashmir conflict. He said were a plebiscite to be held in the Valley whose result favoured Pakistan, India would not accept it. If the result favoured India, it would be rejected by Pakistan.

According to Lamb, the Ceasefire Line will need to be extended to the Chinese border to end the Siachen conflict which will mean India accepting the 1963 Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement.

Lamb wrote that if the Valley was to become autonomous with India and Pakistan guaranteeing its autonomy and sharing or dividing responsibility for defence, external relations etc., perhaps a mutually acceptable arrangement could be worked out. He said a settlement was possible if certain conditions were met. First, Indian and Pakistani leaders must genuinely wish to find a settlement. Pakistan, though “lacking the arrogant assertion of absolute right” like India, should realize that the demand for a “unitary plebiscite ... is hardly conducive to compromise”, nor is there any “international enthusiasm” for such a course.

Lamb suggested that Pakistan should drop its claim to the “clearly non-Muslim” areas of the state and India should accept the Pakistani position in the Northern Areas which would “reduce the dispute in territorial terms to Azad Kashmir and the Vale”. No settlement should involve the direct transfer of sovereign territory from one side to the other, he stressed. That would leave Azad Kashmir and the Vale which might be declared “autonomous regions, each with its internal self-government but with defence and external relations in the hands of Pakistan in the case of Azad Kashmir and India in the case of the Vale” with both sides agreeing as to the degree of their military presence.

The Indo-Pak agreement, he proposed, could be supplemented by an agreement between Azad Kashmir and the Vale defining a “special relationship”. Local elections could be held to ratify the arrangement. He called it the “Andorra solution”, that being the region between France and Spain which rests under the protection of both but is internally autonomous.

Both India and Pakistan, Lamb wrote, “must be prepared to waive established concepts about the nature of the dispute ... and replace economic polemic with a basis of fact derived from a careful examination of what, as far as can be ascertained, actually happened ... They must be prepared to accept the legitimacy of the interest in the dispute of the other party, or parties, a process which is in practice rather more difficult than it at first might sound ... There must be informed debate. It is not necessary for everyone to agree with everyone else about every single point. It is essential, however, that all aspects of the problem be questioned and re-examined.”

That this advice comes from probably the best friend the Kashmiri people have in the West, we must remain mindful of.

IN our media age, it was inevitable that we’d finally see terrorist home videos. How long, one wonders, before they come out in DVD format?

The Osama bin Laden home video released by the US on Dec 6 gave a fascinating look at the head of a fanatical Muslim cult receiving a visiting Saudi sheikh. According to the accompanying translation from Arabic to English — made by the US government and checked by two US-based Arabic experts — Osama bin Laden clearly appears to voice his culpability for the suicide attacks on New York and Washington DC.

In the most damning admissions, a gleeful-looking Osama says, ‘We calculated in advance the number of casualties from (sic) the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower.’ And ‘we had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day.’

The US government is delighted by the smoking gun tape, which was mysteriously ‘found’ in Afghanistan a few days ago. The White House says the tape should dispel any lingering doubts that Osama bin Laden was not behind the Sept 11 mass killings.

But two other Arabic experts say the tape’s audio quality is so poor that almost nothing Osama says on it can be verified. To my ears, well accustomed to Arabic, half of bin Laden’s words were inaudible. The translation was sometimes out of sync with the action on screen. Osama bin Laden’s statements looked cut up and edited.

Cynics suggest the tape was a clever forgery made by Russian intelligence or the US government, with incriminating statements spliced into an otherwise boring exchange of pleasantries between Osama bin Laden and a visiting admirer. This is possible. In 1990, the US used retouched satellite photos to convince the Saudis that Iraq was about to invade — which it was not.

The old Soviet KGB was extremely fond of planting faked documents to embarrass the West. Russia wants to keep President Bush’s crusade going because it takes the heat off Moscow’s own brutal war in Chechnya, distracts the US, and earns cash IOUs from Americans.

The tape’s fortuitous ‘discovery’ came as the Bush administration was being increasingly criticized for failing to find Osama bin Laden, and for its huge blunder in allowing Russia to grab half of Afghanistan — a remarkably timed present for Washington, just in time for Christmas. Whether the tape is real or a fake, there remains little doubt that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on the US. But, as Prince Nayef, head of Saudi security observed last week, Osama bin Laden is largely a figurehead. Its real leaders, said the prince, echoing what in this writer’s view remain as yet unknown and are likely outside Afghanistan.

Two of Al Qaeda’s leaders are in Afghanistan: its Egyptian CEO — known to all as ‘the doctor’ — Ayman al-Zawahiri and his number two, Abu Zubaydah. They are still believed alive and in hiding with Osama bin Laden. The late Mohammed Atef, a former Egyptian policeman, was considered the military leader of Al Qaeda, until he was killed by a US bomb.

The roots of Al Qaeda and other loosely linked anti-American organizations remain where they originated: in Egypt. Even though 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Saudis, it is likely the operation was planned in Egypt by members of two militant groups, Egyptian Jihad and Gamma al-Islamia., with Osama bin Laden serving as a symbolic spiritual guide.

In this sense, Osama was re-enacting the role of the dreaded medieval head of the cult of the Hashishins, Hassan al-Sabbah, known as the Sheik al-Jebel, or Old Man of the Mountain. From his lair in the Syrian mountains, the Sheikh’s suicide assassins, crazed on hashish and armed with poisoned daggers, terrorized much of the Muslim world and the Crusader states of the Levant. The Mongols finally stormed the sheikh’s aerie, Alamut, and put a bloody end to the Hashishins, from whom we got the term, ‘assassin.’

Americans need no more convincing that Osama bin Laden was behind the Sept 11 attacks. Washington released the obviously self-serving tapes to convince the many doubting Abduls of Muslim world of Osama’s guilt.

Some Muslims will certainly accept the tape at face value and turn with disgust against Osama bin Laden as a fanatical mass murderer. Few Muslims accepted his wild claims or calls for jihad against the West. But one suspects many Muslims and other Third Worlders will still believe Osama and his henchmen gave the United States what it deserved, payback for decades of bloody meddling in their affairs — revenge, as the tape mentioned, for the ‘martyrs’ of Palestine.

Third Worlders do not always accept our western view that when states kill huge numbers of innocent civilians, c’est la vie, but when private enterprise killers strike, that’s unacceptable terrorism.

To many, the fanatical Osama bin Laden will still represent the hand of retribution against the arrogant western powers and their local satraps. New avengers will follow in his footsteps. Suicide bombers are the poor man’s version of cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, B-52s, fuel air explosives, and 15,000 lb bombs.—Copyright Eric Margolis, 2001.

IS Afghanistan, the country where America has played and is playing Rudyard Kipling’s great game “ I shall go far and far into the north, playing the great game”?

Afghanistan, the war ravaged land of rugged terrain, the land where the chakadaria valley meets the Phagam Range, and the Hindukush scrapes the sky, presents a medieval panorama of warlordism, where power, personal ambition overrides loyalty, where warlords claim their levy and territory, where drought, despair, doubt abound.

Economic poverty has decimated this land of various tribes, comprising Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Daris, Durranis, Shinwaris and Gamzias. Their lives blighted by war. Amir Hassanyar, chancellor of Kabul’s sixty three-year old university says, “Afghans had always experienced economic poverty. Now we are moving towards cultural, poverty, which is very dangerous.”

Following the mujahideen’s success in overthrowing Soviet army in 1989, various factions factions formed shaky coalition govt, which failed to find unity and instead fragmented. Out of this ebb and flow of lawlessness and disillusionment emerged the Taliban.

Bonn has given a flicker of hope in the form of an interim government to be headed by the Pakhtun leader Hamid Karzai. Threatened by the power struggle within the northern alliance, the traditional mistrust of Uzbeks and Tajiks who detest each other, the Hazaras who suspect both, Gamzias who have been traditionally left out of power and the Pakhtuns who have always enjoyed a greater leverage of power are factional rivalries as a reality to be confounded with, by this interim government as political power, individual ambition and personal rivalries ebb and flow in the Afghan heartland.

The power struggle between various factional leaders after the fall of Taliban can in essence be viewed as having the Tribal element at its heart. Different factions are exerting political power within their tribal areas.

The question arises: can any solution, interim government, or elected government last without the participation of the Tribal chiefs? Can a solution be imposed on Afghanistan by an outside force? History bears witness no such solution will last. For this land of clans and tribes Loya Jirga is the answer?

Even now after the fall of Taliban, from, amidst the ruins of Kabul, the message is clear. No country can impose any solution on Afghanistan. Rebuilding Kabul means rebuilding the nation’s past heritage, understanding its cultural complexities. What Kabul needs is for America, its allies, and indirect surrogates to stop playing what Rudyard Kipling called the great game. For great games lead to great disasters.

Let the people of Afghanistan participate in creating their own destiny, a Loya Jirga of Afghanistan, by Afghanistan and for Afghanistan.

The writer is a free-lance journalist based in occupied Kashmir.