Trial of Jesus Christ: the negation of justice

INEQUITY and injustice are intolerable and abhorrent to human nature. To be in the wrong, to persecute and prosecute the innocent is sad enough, but then to contend that one is serving and upholding the law is the very negation of truth and justice. One such trial, probably the most consequential trial ever, was the trial of Jesus Christ.

The supreme national-religious body of the Jews was the great Sanhedrin court. The power of the Sanhedrin continued under Roman rule. The Romans permitted their Jewish subjects complete freedom in all religious matters as well as considerable autonomy in civil affairs.

The Romans enforced the decisions of the Sanhedrin. The only exception was the implementation of the death penalty, which required confirmation by a Roman magistrate. The most important person tried by the Sanhedrin court was undoubtedly Jesus Christ.

The story of the trial dramatically unfolds when Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ, betrayed his master. The betrayal had been foreseen and foretold — “In truth, in very truth I tell you, one of you is going to betray me” (Bible- New Testament, Gospel of John 13:21). The price of this betrayal reverberates down the ages as the accursed “thirty pieces of silver”. The ‘pieces’ were silver coins and the currency the shekel, the same name which the founders of the modern state of Israel gave to their currency. The secret, which Judas betrayed, was the place in which Jesus would be found in the garden of Gethsemane.

He also identified Jesus — “whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he”. The thirty pieces of silver were paid to Judas by high priests of Judaism. The love and veneration in which the people of Palestine held Jesus required that the arrest be made and the case be tried with stealth and speed to prevent a public outcry.

“The chief priests and

the elders of the people gathered together in the court of the high priest, Caiphas, and they took counsel together on how they might seize Jesus by stealth and put him to death. But they said: Not on the feast, or there might be a riot among the people” (Gospel of Matthew 26: 3-5).

The betrayal proceeded as planned. The high priest’s Temple attendants led by Judas arrested Jesus after he was identified in accordance with the pre-determined signal. The apostle Peter, “having a sword he drew it and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear”. But Jesus admonished Peter: “Put back thy sword into its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Gospel of Matthew 26:52).

With a touch Jesus healed the wounded man’s ear. Jesus was then led away by his Jewish captors in the middle of the night to stand trial in the Jewish Sanhedrin court. A mock trial ensued.

Jesus was charged with having committed blasphemy. The ex-high priest, Annas, performed the function of the chief prosecutor and began by questioning Jesus about the charge. Jesus responded: “I have spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews gather, and in secret I have said nothing. Why dost thou question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them” (Gospel of John 18:20-21). This response solicited a blow from the servant of Annas. Assaulting a prisoner in court was not tolerated even in the most barbaric of courts, but neither Annas nor the court admonished Annas’ servant for striking the prisoner.

The Sanhedrin was presided over by the high priest, Caiphas, who was the son-in-law of the chief prosecutor Annas. No credible witness came forward to sustain the charge though the law required that a minimum of two were necessary. The high priest, Caiphas, eager to secure a conviction, contrary to established Sanhedrin court procedure, joined the prosecutor in directly questioning Jesus. “Tell us whether thou art Christ [Messiah], the son of God”. Actually Caiphas asked two questions. Whether Jesus was the Messiah and whether Jesus was the son of God. Only an affirmative answer to the second question would have constituted the crime of blasphemy. Caiphas either deliberately asked the two questions together pretending that the two meant the same or wanted to trick the prisoner.

Jesus answered by saying, that: “If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I question you, you will not answer me” (Gospel of Luke 22:67-68). Caiphas and the other priests took this answer as a confession of the charge and further enquired: “You are the son of God, then? ... and he [Jesus] replied, “It is you who say I am.” They said, ‘Need we call further witnesses? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips’ “ (Gospel of Luke 22:70-71).

With this the sad excuse of the trial concluded and Jesus was awarded the death penalty by the Sanhedrin court. The sentence however could not be executed till the Roman rulers confirmed the same.

The Sanhedrin then referred the case to the local Roman procurator, Pilate. However, with a view to securing a conviction a new and twisted charge substituted the original charge of blasphemy. “We found this man subverting our nation, opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a Messiah, a king” (Gospel of Luke 22:2).

Pilate however disappointed the high priests of Judaism by holding that, “I find no case for this man to answer.” It transpired that Jesus was from Galilee, which lay beyond Pilate’s jurisdiction, and was within Herod’s, and therefore Pilate referred the case to him.

Despite a vigorous pressing of the case by the chief priests and lawyers Herod too found Jesus innocent and referred the case back to Pilate. Pilate was again harangued by the chief priests, but Pilate observed, “Clearly he [Jesus] has done nothing to deserve death” but with a view to placating heightened Jewish sentiment added “I therefore propose to let him off with a flogging” (Gospel of Luke 23:16).

The sentence of flogging probably compromised Pilate’s position because it suggested that the guilt had been established and only the sentence was being debated. Here the high priests gained the upper-hand and “insisted on their demand ... their shouts prevailed and Pilate decided that they should have their way ... and gave Jesus up to their will” (Gospel of Luke 23:23-25).

The aforesaid account of the trial of Jesus is based on the Bible (the New Testament) and other Christian sources. The Quran does not offer a different version and as such the Christian account is not contrary to Muslim belief. The divergence that takes place between the Christians and the Muslims is on account of the crucifixion (the Muslim view is based on surah 4:157-159 and surah 3:33-60 of the Holy Quran).

The trial of Jesus Christ is the story of a powerful establishment and its highest functionaries bending their own laws and procedures to victimize and persecute an innocent person.

A tale that is as poignant today as it was two thousand years ago. Kenneth Cragg, a renowned Christian scholar, who has compassionately and with great insight explored Islam, notes that: “Islamic poetry and the suffering Jesus come forward together significantly again in this century ... by the intrusion of harsh and highly charged distress into Muslim experience in recent times ... Most bitter of all, the Palestinian tragedy had kindled a poetry of ‘resistance’ in which perhaps inevitably, the figure of Jesus is drawn. Palestinianism is, of course, a shared experience between the Muslim and the Christian Arab.

The common history of exile, dispersion, dispossession and injustice could readily make also common the symbolism of pain and travail central in the faith and the rite of one of the partners.

There is also perhaps, sadly and perversely, the impulse to focus on Jesus because the same ‘oppressors’ can be emotionally identified ... For the confrontation with the actuality of Zionism and the depth of the Lebanese despair evoke an almost overwhelming sense of history which sanity, hope and compassion cannot restore or repair” (Jesus and the Muslim, Kenneth Cragg).

Cragg proceeds by reproducing some highly charged poetry. One such poem entitled ‘My country’ by Mahmud Darwish reads: “My love to you has brought me nothing save the wood of my cross”. Another poem he cites captures the pathos of the poet’s and his people’s tribulation. “What is the value of man, without country, with no flag, bereft of identity, what is the value of man?”

Overwhelming despair is not God’s refrain. “And when Allah said: ‘O ‘Isa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve, and I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve till the day of Resurrection. Then you will return to Me and I will judge between you in the matters in which you used to dispute” (Al Quran 3:55). Those who have been wronged in this world await the Judgment of God’s Court.

The world after Sept 11

A FEW weeks ago, I contributed two articles to this space on Pakistann’s economy before and after September 11. The main point made by me in those two articles was that the frontline status assigned to Pakistan by the West had changed its economic situation quite dramatically.

It appears that the United States and its partners are willing to support a serious effort by Pakistan to restructure and revive its economy. But Pakistan — one of the world’s emerging economies — may be affected by a change in the attitude of the West towards the developing world. Should the developing world anticipate a major change in the way developed countries will now deal with it? Will the process of globalization that had begun to integrate developing countries into the global economy in many different ways be seriously influenced by the events of September 11?

We should answer these questions by first looking at the economic relations that have been forged in recent years between the developed and developing countries and then wonder whether these relations are likely to be disturbed in the post-September 11 world? We should also separate the impact of the recessions in America and Japan and a slowdown in Europe from the possible consequence, for emerging markets, of the events of September 11. There is no doubt that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington plunged America into a recession that is likely to be much deeper than anybody had anticipated a few months ago. This sharp slowdown in the American economy will no doubt negatively impact the developing world. However, once America recovers from the recession sometime in 2002, will the developing world return to status quo ante?

For the emerging markets, globalization has produced many important links with the developed world. Many of these are old; some are new. For a country in Pakistan’s situation four of these links are of critical importance. What are they? One, globalization has brought a great deal of foreign direct investment into the emerging markets. Two, it has resulted in a significant amount of activity on the part of transnational corporations — the TNCs. Three, it has contributed to an enormous expansion in world trade. And, four, it has helped the emerging markets to take advantage of the pronounced demographic asymmetry between them and the developed world.

I don’t believe any of these links the developing countries now have with the developed world would be seriously disturbed as a result of the terrorist attacks on America and the war on global terrorism led by the Americans. This may be a very optimistic view since a number of countries — including Pakistan — have felt the negative impact of the events of September 11. For many countries, freight charges, and insurance coverage have increased. For some, export orders were cancelled. I know of several Pakistani students whose applications for admission to American universities have been summarily rejected. But these are knee-jerk reactions to a horrific event. I don’t expect them to be long lasting or to bring about a structural change in the West’s relations with countries such as Pakistan.

Let me get back to the discussion of the four types of relations that now exist between developed and developing countries and see what might happen to them as a result of September 11.

One of the most significant consequences of globalization is the enormous increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) in emerging markets by the agencies of the developed world. There has been a steady increase in FDI flows to emerging markets over the last decade — from $58 billion in 1993 to an estimated $163 billion in 1999. This near tripling of investment flows over an eight-year period means a growth rate of 14 per cent a year. In other words, FDI flows increased at a rate more than three times the rate of growth of the combined GDP of the developing world.

FDI is not only the most significant part of foreign flows to emerging markets. It has also compensated for the volatility in other types of flows. In normal times when all types of flows to emerging markets are positive, FDI accounts for well over one-half of the total. The last time all flows were positive was in 1996 when net FDI amounted to $120 billion out of a total of $235 billion.

The steady increase in FDI has not meant a steady increase in the flow to all emerging markets. FDI is concentrated in two regions — East Asia and Latin America. During the early part of the nineties, East Asia received twice as much foreign direct investment as Latin America, but Latin America caught up in the second half of the decade. In 1999, Latin America received $110 billion compared to $100 billion for East Asia. The following year, however, the flows to Latin America declined significantly while those to East Asia increased enormously. This suggests a zero-sum game between these two regions. It appears that transnational corporations first decide what they will invest in before they decide where they will invest.

From the perspective of emerging markets, the second important manifestation of globalization is the cross-border activity of transnational corporations. This activity has increased enormously over the last two decades. Gross product output associated with these corporations increased from $3 trillion in 1980 to $14 trillion in 1999. In other words, one-third of the total world output in 1999 was produced by transnational corporations (TNCs). The output of the TNCs operating across national boundaries is now twice as high as global trade.

While the world’s top 100 TNCs, based almost exclusively in developed countries, are the principal drivers of international production, the number of corporations working across national frontiers has increased enormously. Now 63,000 parent firms with 690,000 foreign affiliates are engaged in international production.

The sharp rise in FDI in emerging markets is the result of the increased activity by TNCs. The TNCs have concentrated their attention on the countries which have improved the environment for foreign investment. Most of these countries are in East Asia. China is the most favoured of these countries. Unfortunately, the TNCs have done little in South Asia or West Asia. This is one reason why the amount of FDI going to these two regions has been relatively modest compared to East Asia and Latin America.

Mostly as a result of successive rounds of trade negotiations that have brought significant reductions in the rates of tariffs on most manufactured exports, there has been a significant increase in world trade. World trade was also helped by the establishment at the WTO of a dispute resolution mechanism. These changes in global trade governance have had a profound impact on the quantity and content of global trade. In 2000, while the world product increased by 3.5 per cent, international trade expanded by nearly four times as much — by 12 per cent. A significant proportion of this trade was in products and services with a high knowledge content.

In 2001, however, there was little increase in world output and no increase at all in global trade. But these two downturns — in output and trade — had begun to take place even before September 11. The reason was the recession in the United States. The recession may have become more severe as a result of September 11, but it was not produced by it. I expect the US recession will last for about 9-12 months. We should soon expect both a revival of world output and a bounce back in world trade.

An important — but largely ignored and little understood — difference between developed and developing countries of today is in demographics. While almost all industrial countries will see a rapid decline in their populations over the next several decades, developing countries will continue to see their populations increase. Those developing countries that have good educational systems can benefit from this demographic asymmetry. This benefit will come from the expanding economic role of knowledge.

Knowledge industries are responsible for the most dynamic parts of the global economy and, as already remarked, for the rapid increase in world trade. Since knowledge industries need skilled workers and since developed countries are now facing severe shortages of people with skills, TNCs have gone to emerging markets in search of workers with needed skills. This is one reason for the large share of East Asia in foreign direct investment, global trade, and in the output of knowledge industries.

As I have already indicated, I don’t believe September 11 will hurt anyone of these four relations. I don’t think transnational corporations will stop investing in emerging markets as a result of September 11. I don’t think the role of knowledge in promoting economic development will be adversely affected in the post-September 11 world. I believe both world trade and output will rise in 2002. I don’t think developed countries — notwithstanding the current hostility towards migrants from the developing world — will stop importing people with skills from all parts of the globe. What may change is the geographical focus of TNCs. At most we might see TNCs become more selective about location and more interested in working out of the countries that don’t involve a great deal of long distance travel.

Notwithstanding these relatively optimistic conclusions, I believe emerging markets have come under a sharper focus — particularly by the spotlight thrown by transnational corporations. Only those parts of the emerging world will do well that have taken advantage of the more dynamic elements in the global economy — in particular in creating institutional infrastructure that the TNC would find inviting and also in creating knowledge-based industries that the TNCs also find attractive. Does Pakistan belong to this category of countries and if not, why not? That is an important question to which we should devote a lot of our attention.

Season’s greetings: ALL OVER THE PLACE

THE year is ending, ring out the old, ring in the new. It won’t be that easy. 2001, in many crucial respects, brought us face to face with the new world order and what lies ahead does not exactly fill us with good cheer.

Even before September 11, the world had seemed a dangerous place but the dangers were specific, localised and not threatening enough on a global scale except in respect of pollution and of poverty but neither posing any challenge to the power-structure.

September 11 changed everything. It saw the emergence of a credible enemy, without geographic boundaries, with no focal point, with no list of grievances except of the vaguest kind, no ransom note as it were. The world was not unfamiliar with acts of terrorism but September 11 was no ordinary act of terrorism. Had a nation state been involved in it, there is no doubt that it would have amounted to a declaration of war as defined in international law and the United States and its coalition partners are treating it as such.

The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were barbaric acts, targeted, as they did, thousands of innocent men, women and children. It would have been unthinkable that the United States would not have retaliated and it has done so but this retaliation has taken a life of its own and the wholly justified, initial anger has been transformed into a new global strategy which looks suspiciously like an attempt to impose a Pax Americana.

Thus there is a fear that the end of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida and the Taliban may not be the end and the Truman Doctrine which was a policy of confrontation with the Soviet Union and a containment of communism wherever it reared its ugly head will be converted into some other doctrine with terrorism as the avowed enemy and we will find ourselves in a new kind of cold war, a permanent hostility against an unseen enemy but an enemy all the same. But the danger lies in the inability to define terrorism just as it did to define freedom during the cold war.

Freedom meant freedom from communism. It did not mean freedom of the Algerians from the French. On the contrary, the Free World took to its bosom a plethora of despots and tinpot dictators who crushed all vestiges of freedom in their own countries. Terrorism must not become similarly one-dimensional. That the reign of terror unleashed by the Israelis is an act of self-defence.

Ali Kazak who is Ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu reveals the nature of this “self-defence” in an article. He writes: “Without going back to describe all the massacres, killings and crimes Israel committed in the last 53 years, but in the last 14 months alone Israel killed and injured thousands of innocent civilians, this includes the killing of more than 200 children. It hit and destroyed over 4,500 apartments, houses, factories, hospitals and places of worship including churches, a synagogue and mosques.

“It inflicted havoc on the economy causing losses of $7 billion, representing 80 per cent of the annual national income of Palestine, bringing unemployment to a staggering 57 per cent and pushing 65 per cent of the population below the poverty line. Since the peace process began, settlements have increased by 60 per cent and the number of Jewish settlers by 77 per cent.”

The writer considers all such Israeli crimes, killings, collective punishments and settlements buildings as war crimes as defined in international law. At the same time he points out that Israel is the superpower of the region, it has t he strongest army and possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons and the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the region. “Israel uses the pretext of security as a rubber band which it stretches to justify its occupation, oppression of Palestine.”

Our neighbour, India is also using the war against terrorism to gain maximum mileage. Ever since September 11, it has tried to climb on the bandwagon of the war against terrorism and started to beat the drums, proclaiming the fight against Indian occupation of Kashmir by the people of Kashmir as “terrorism.” They feel that the general climate is favourable to pass off the aspirations of the Kashmiri people as terrorism, concealing at the same time, their own brutal oppression in Kashmir which is, by any definition an occupied country and a police-state in the bargain.

We have this drama of an assault on the Indian Parliament and an attempt to hold Pakistan responsible. The Indians seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world is as gullible as are the Indian people. Pakistan’s offer of a joint inquiry has been snubbed and the reason one of the spokesmen has given is that India is a sovereign country. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the meaning of the word ‘sovereignty’. India is, obviously, of the opinion that everything it says must be believed on trust. Its own track record on Kashmir makes it impossible to do so.

It has not been a happy year. And the one that will follow it will be even less happy. So, rather than a happy new year, our wishes and prayers should be for a safe one.

God bless

THERE are so many people to thank this Christmas, I don’t know where to begin.

First, I would like to thank the People’s Sweat Shop of Shanghai for the beautiful American flag glove and scarf set, which makes me feel very patriotic.

To the Taiwan Watch Factory, who made it possible for me to have a knock-off of a Rolex, I send my appreciation. No one could tell the difference and it only cost $19.50. (The one with diamonds cost $29.95.)

And I don’t want to forget the luggage with the Stars and Stripes on it, made in Child Labour Factory Number 4 in the Philippines. It looks exactly like a real Louis Vuitton and even has a lifetime guarantee.

My gratitude to the government inspectors in Sri Lanka. The tennis shoes with an American flag stencilled on them were a size 7 and I’m an 11. I am sending them back. I thank you for letting me exchange them.

I would also like to thank the woman in Nepal for the cashmere sweaters on which she knitted “God Bless America.” If you bought one you got one free. So my wife now has two.

And lest we forget, I’ll always be grateful for the Bavarian cuckoo clock from Korea that plays “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” on the hour. Please wish all the prisoners who worked on it in Seoul Prison Number 3 my best regards.

There are so many people I’d like to thank for making my holiday such a great one.

The toy U.S. Marines from Bombay, India were a hit with my son and he hasn’t stopped playing with them.

And the woman Naval flying officer doll was a smash with my daughter.

Another big hit was a dancing Santa Claus holding an American flag in his hand made by the Hutus in Madagascar. Everyone loves it.

Unfortunately, the Mother Soon Wong fruitcake from Hong Kong arrived smashed, but we’re not blaming Mother Soon Wong. She didn’t know it was being sent through the U.S. Postal Service.

It’s amazing how many individuals can contribute to one’s Christmas. The people who make these products are as happy as those who received them. Did I tell you about the prescription drugs I got from Tijuana, Mexico? My wife wrapped them in a beautiful box, which said, “Take 50 percent off tagged price.” I did get a wrapped bottle of men’s cologne called “America’s Best,” with “Made in the USA” printed on it. I asked the family, “How did this get in here? We’d better open it in the garage.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Will India launch a ‘limited’ war?

THE attack on Indian parliament is worrisome. Such attacks are likely to increase instability in the region — a development that could prove fatal in a nuclear South Asia. The reaction of the Indian leadership points towards a direction that New Delhi wants to pursue in the post-September 11 international political environment. However, what needs to be assessed immediately is the implications of the ‘hot pursuit’ option being considered by some segments of India’s policymaking elite.

What Pakistan’s leadership needs to consider is the efficacy of not reining in the various jihadi outfits, immediately.

Of course, all of this is linked with both countries reviewing their traditional stance on Kashmir. Unless the two states agree to negotiate with each other and sort out the outstanding issues between them, the subcontinent will continue to be on the brink of a war. What is more, a conventional conflict has a chance of escalating into a nuclear conflict that would devastate both countries.

Since the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, there have been various statements issued from New Delhi, including Prime Minister Vajpayee’s reaffirmation of India’s determination to safeguard its security. Even without demanding evidence regarding Lashkar-i-Taiba or Jaish-i-Mohammad’s alleged involvement in this attack, it is clear that India wants to use the opportunity to root out the Kashmiri insurgency which, it claims, is being fuelled by Pakistan. The prevailing environment favours India because, after all, the US did not provide convincing evidence against Osama until much later.

The video tape linking Osama bin Laden with the attacks on the US was discovered and telecast only after the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, the September 11 attacks on the US and the developments thereafter provide sufficient evidence that the world community is strongly averse to the militant agenda of any non-state actors no matter how strong the grievance driving them. Perhaps, the question that the Indian leadership is asking itself at the moment is that if it is permissible for the US in the form of a military attack on Afghanistan or for Israel in respect of the bombardment of Palestinian territory, why shouldn’t the same option be available to New Delhi?

One may debate India’s allegation of Pakistan’s involvement in the attacks in India endlessly, but the fact is that New Delhi may consider the evidence available thus far regarding Pakistan’s intelligence community’s links with the militants in Afghanistan and Kashmir as sufficient to build a case for a retaliatory action against Pakistan. A point of quiet comfort for the Indians is that the recent attack is likely to make Washington bitter about Islamabad as the latter was being politely warned against its continued links with the jihadi elements.

The Americans, especially those focusing on Pakistan, understand that Islamabad has not reversed its policy regarding the militants as yet. Washington may counsel restraint on both sides, knowing that any India-Pakistan hostility at this stage would militate against the current operation in Afghanistan. Indeed, the whole exercise would become more complex if a medium-intensity conflict were to start in the subcontinent. The question is how keen would the Indians be to listen?

The point is that New Delhi might consider the current environment as favouring the adoption of an aggressive policy against this country. For instance, Islamabad’s current economic, political and military conditions are far from enviable. The post-September 11 developments have taken their toll on Pakistan’s economy. The country has lost millions of dollars in export earning.

Any recovery, especially after getting relief from the Paris Club, will not start within the next six months to a year. Also, it is not certain if Islamabad would be allowed to divert its resources towards an arms build-up. The political situation is also in a bit of disarray because the ruling regime’s and the political parties’ inability to have a decent dialogue with each other.

A similar situation pertains to military preparedness. The arms embargo imposed by the US since October 1990 has brought Pakistan to a situation where its capability to hold out against an external conventional military thrust may have been reduced to a 10-15 days of war. Moreover, the continued downturn in economic activity has not helped either in improving the state of the existing military assets.

This apparent weakness must not be taken as a lack of resolve of the Pakistani leadership to defend the country. General Musharraf has clearly stated that Islamabad is ready to respond to any threat to its security. Indubitably, the military is ready to stop any ‘hot pursuit’ operation by the Indian forces, especially the air force. The PAF has sufficient number of interceptors to defend the territory against a limited attack if not to launch a massive offensive operation of its own or withstand a sustained offensive for long. The air defence is also in good shape to counter any air space violation. However, the issue is not whether Pakistan can fully defend itself but the long-term effects of even a limited military encounter for the two countries.

By launching a limited war the Indian leadership might primarily want to deter Pakistan from aiding and abetting the militants in Kashmir. However, in view of the bitter antagonism between the two sides in certain situations, there is no knowing where even an originally intended limited military offensive might lead to. One possibility is that it might snowball into a wider conflict, involving the risks of a resort to nuclear weapons at some stage by one or the other. It would be naive to ignore such dire possibilities while contemplating any military move in the context of Kashmir.

If in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Indian parliament, New Delhi must observe restraint, it is also time for Pakistan’s leadership to re-evaluate its policy regarding the jihadi outfits. Aiding or abetting such elements has a high cost attached to it. While the jihadis have not managed to deliver Kashmir to Pakistan, they have created serious internal security problems.

Although India’s main objective in adopting a threatening posture is to build up a hype to stop Pakistan from aiding militants instead of launching an attack, a better option would be for India and Pakistan to resume negotiations on a variety of issues, including Kashmir.

Perhaps, a lot could be gained if negotiations were to resume with the ultimate goal of resolving the issue within the next five to ten years. This timeframe will allow the leadership in both countries to prepare their constituencies for a compromise solution. One wonders if turning the LoC into international boundary may be the only option left for serious consideration.