Our basic contradictions

THAT we have had no Reformation and no Renaissance (the process which the European countries in particular and the Christian world in general passed through), and that it is the major cause of our social under-development is generally accepted by our intelligentsia. But what are its ramifications? What paradoxes has it created for us? How does it distort our world view? Does it lead to confusion, tentativeness, uncertainty that we see in Muslim societies today, or does it provide us some clarity of thought on issues relating to man’s place in the universe and in relation to God and the state?

Discussion on the above points becomes important because we are living in two worlds — in the modern times and the mediaeval ages — at the same time. Not only in physical sense but at intellectual level as well. On one side is the use of modern gadgetry in everyday life, exposure to post-modern societies, latest scientific knowledge, challenges of information revolution, democracy, human rights, separation of religion from state, and, on the other side, is the regimentation, and a mindset which refuses to accept new social and political realities.

Because of this dyarchy, our educated classes, specially the westernized elite, suffer from the twin-problem: a) lacking clarity of thought on major issues confronting the country, and b) having two contradictory thoughts in their minds at the same time — and accepting both of them, Orwellian style. No wonder confusion and muddle-headedness is the hallmark of our rulers and chattering classes, because the multitude does not matter being uninvolved and mostly illiterate.

But surprisingly with particular reference to the subcontinent, the other important segments of our society, the ordinary people and the clergy are very clear on major issues. First the common man. While he is deeply religious in his own way, he wants an improvement in life and for that, whenever given a chance, he has chosen the progressive, forward looking, secular leaders and parties.

In 1946, he rejected the Majlis-i-Ahrar, Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, Khaksar Tehreek and followed Mr Jinnah who, by all standards, was a westernized man. In 1970, once again he rejected all religious parties and voted for Mr Bhutto in West Pakistan, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in East Pakistan, both of whom were secularists. It is another thing that both of them did not come to the expectations of their respective constituents. In the last decade also, the common man either voted for the PML or the PPP at national level and the ANP and the MQM at regional level, once again rejecting orthodoxy and obscurantism.

Doesn’t it clearly show that the common man in Pakistan keeps religion and politics in separate boxes and believes that worldly affairs are too important to be left in the hands of the clergy.

So far as moulvi is concerned, he is not confused either. He is very clear on important issues like democracy and the electoral process viz-a-viz selection of Amirul Momineen; place of minorities and women in an Islamic state; role of ulema in society, Islamic code of conduct; sets of punishments for various offences e.g. Hadood, Qisas etc. Whenever they found a chance to establish Islamic states (and we have seen three in recent times: Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan) mullas have practically demonstrated what an Islamic state would be like. To this list, we can also add religious kingship of Saudi Arabia which is a model of Islamic state of its own kind.

The real problem lies with our middle classes. They are confused about everything. They are confused about the difference between an Islamic and a Muslim state. They are confused about the place of minorities in an Islamic state, and the rights of the Muslims in a non-Muslim state. They are confused about Khilafat-i-Rashida and democracy. They are also confused about ‘riba’ and interest, and about the rights of women in respect of marriage, divorce, inheritance, weight of their evidence, purdah, the right to education, etc.

Their problem is that on the one hand they want to go along with modern concepts of nation-state, sovereignty of the people, equal rights for all citizens, rule of law, principles of economic management based on interest, modern concepts of crime and punishment, codified civil and criminal laws, modern institutions to impart justice based on Anglo-Saxon system (the list can be endless). But at the same time in their heart of hearts they want the revival of Khilafat-i-Rashida, imposition of Islamic punishments to control crime (Saudi style), a judicial system based on Qazi courts, lower status to minorities, interest-free economy, and creation of institutions like ‘Amar bil Maroof, wal nahi anil munkar’. If any evidence is needed, one should go to Dr Israr’s lectures where a large number of educated people throng to listen to him on the above issues and seem to be appreciative of what he says.

Our educated classes are caught in between the cross-currents of modernization and obscurantism. On one side they see the old values, traditions and social system being eroded by the universal phenomenon of change, and on the other, the slogan of ‘back to fundamentals’ by the reactionary forces.

One can see they are neither here nor there. They do not fully subscribe to what the mulla says, but try to interpret holy Quran and ‘ahadees’ in their own way, and end up rationalizing most of the things they are unable to understand, or find mullas’ pronouncements too irksome or irrational. But the question arises how can they be better interpreters of the holy book than Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulana Maududi, Mufti Shafi or Dr. Israr Ahmed, who spent their life time studying Quran its ‘tafsir’, ‘hadees’ and ‘fiqh’. Scholarship of Maulana Maududi is not only accepted in Pakistan, but all over the Arab world. We have to accept his word against anybody else’s as far as Islamic interpretations are concerned.

Finding no satisfactory answer to their questions, these educated people emphasize the need of ‘ijtehad’. Yes. ‘Ijtehad’ is very much needed because the life has become very complicated, and is changing very fast, but the question is who can be a ‘mujtahid’? Allama Iqbal who wrote ‘Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam’ and was a great supporter of Islamic revival, or Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi who declared that there was no place for modern democracy in Islam? Will it be the parliament, the Supreme Court or a body of ulema who will re-interpret Islam? If it is the parliament or the Supreme Court, will the ulema accept its interpretations and verdict, and conversely, if it is the body of ulema, will it not negate the concept of supremacy of the people’s will? The current conflict between the parliament and the ulema in Iran on ‘vilayat-i-faqih’ should be an eye-opener for us.

Before we proceed further, a little digression will be in order. There is a general perception that Muslim societies have always been backward and under-developed, whereas western civilization has always been on the ascendancy. It is not true. If we look back, we will find that starting in the early 7th century, Muslims not only subjugated the powerful Eastern Roman Empire, Persia, Syria, modern Iraq, North Africa, Spain and part of Central Asia, but also established great centres of learning and produced philosophers, mathematicians, historians, astronomers and physicians of great renown. They were the creators of beautiful palaces, parks, places of entertainment, observatories, public libraries and mausoleums.

For the next seven or eight centuries, while most of Europe was living in dark ages, Muslim civilization remained dominant in all respects. If we take 1560 as the benchmark for a comparison between Elizabeth I of England, and Akbar the Great of India, the court of Akbar, according to European travellers, had more pomp and show. India was passing through a prolonged period of peace and prosperity. But after that the things started changing. All the three great centres of Muslim civilization i.e. Mughals in India, Safavid in Iran and Ottomans in Turkey started decaying. At the same time, we saw the rise of European powers and their continued march forward, which still continues.

What made the difference? Why our downslide started? Why have we not been able to stop the slide? Is there any hope that we will be able to catch up with the West and be able to talk to them on equal terms? These are important questions. For an answer, we will have to admit that Muslim rulers having reached the pinnacle of glory, simply continued to enjoy good life. They did not pay attention to acquiring knowledge about the world they were living in, and the changes that were taking place around them. They also ignored the importance of modern education and the universities where research could be carried out. Nor did they open up societies for free discussion and scientific enquiry. This resulted in a regimentation which in turn started fossilizing the minds. In later years, conformism which is the antithesis of rationalism and enlightenment became the norm in Muslim Societies. It stifled creativity and innovation.

But at the same time their European counterparts were passing through a process of reform and regeneration. Basically, change came in their lives in three ways. One, they focused their attention on acquiring knowledge from whatever source possible. They not only went to Greek, Roman and Latin sources, but also translated books written by Muslim scholars. For this purpose they established universities which became great centres of learning and research. Two, they took a basic decision about the role of religion in their lives, and had the courage to declare “Render unto Pope what is Pope’s and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Three, they started exploring the world around them and finding new routes for trade. It ultimately resulted in colonization of major part of the world by the European countries. It enriched them immensely while the people they subjugated were greatly impoverished.

With all these changes, their mode of production changed and this fundamental change was reflected in their newly created institutions of governance. On one side was the beginning of industrial revolution and open competition, and on the other, equal rights to all citizens and an electoral process based on adult franchise. Their journey from absolutist rule of kings to democracy was not an easy one. They had to struggle hard to reach this stage. They had their own problems - rivalries, internecine strife, genocides, Hundred Years Wars. In the last century we saw two World Wars, rise of fascism, Nazism, ethnic cleansing, nuclear holocaust. But there was no going back on the basic premise, i.e. separation of state from religion.

Now, we come back to the main subject of the article: Lack of clarity in our intelligentsia’s mind on major issues. Let us take democracy as an example. Most of our educated people (liberati, salariat, industrialists, professionals) keep on vacillating between virtues of dictatorship and democracy. They are not convinced that of all the systems of government so far tried, democracy is the best. They have little patience with the trial and error process which is sine qua non of democratic dispensation. Nor do they have any faith in the slow, evolutionary process of institutional development. Tired of the loot and plunder and incompetence of their leaders, they start rejecting the very concept of democracy and prefer an authoritative individual to run the affairs of the state single-handedly. They are obsessed with the notion of strong centre led by powerful people. They look for ‘messiahs’ who would descend from nowhere and solve all their problems.

Even our national poet Allama Iqbal decried democracy when he said: Jumhuriat ek tarz-i-hukumat hai ke jis main/ Bundon ko gina kartey hain, tola nahin kartey

But the irony is that very soon they realize that other systems create more problems than they solve. Once again their yearning for democracy starts, and so on.

Similarly, our thinking elite refuse to appreciate the reality of nation-state, and continue to be emotive and rhetorical about ‘ummah’ which is nothing more than a myth. Nation-state of course is a new phenomenon, but for the last over three hundred years, it is the bedrock of modern political system. When Islam came, there were only clans, tribes, ‘khanates’, warlords, fiefdoms princely states and very few empires.

But now when the world is divided into nations (whatever be their basis), we still find it difficult to control our passion for ‘ummah’. This puts us in a difficult situation viz-a-viz other nations, for example the Muslims living in non-Muslim states do not adjust easily and continue to harbour extra-territorial loyalties. Another problem is that if we treat the minorities as ‘zimmis’ in our own country, how can then we claim equal rights for ourselves in non-Muslim states?

To be concluded

Roots of Gujarat carnage

THE wounds of Gujarat should have healed a long time ago. It is now over six weeks since the outbreak of the carnage and the state continues to fester.

We who have visited the refugee camps and felt for ourselves the explosive desperation raging in them are worried that this potentially volcanic situation is being treated with criminal negligence. The Gujarat scenario is no longer a regional crisis. Its reverberations span the entire country today, imperilling its character and cohesion.

In a real sense, the destiny of India is at stake in Gujarat. Gujarat, for one thing, is being (mis)used as a laboratory of communal politics. What is being evolved there is sure to be repeated elsewhere in the country. The current holocaust would not have happened and persisted in Gujarat but for the electoral compulsions of the BJP outside of Gujarat. The roots of the Gujarat carnage, thus, lie outside that state, which is the reason for its persistence as well.

It is for this reason that all political parties are drawn into the vortex of this crisis. Anxiety as to what this scenario portends for the state and for the country is escalating palpably among the patriotic NRls.

The barbaric events in Gujarat have already attracted adverse international attention, denting our national credibility. Despite all these, neither the state administration nor of the Central dispensation seems to be keen on putting Gujarat back on the rails. This is not accidental.

The calculations at work here go beyond the electoral profit that the sponsors of the communal carnage hope to harvest in the state. Available indications point to a scheme of things more complex and comprehensive, which needs to be reckoned.

Gujarat signals a shift of emphasis in the Sangh Parivar strategy from the politics of hate to the politics of fear. For consolidating communal vote banks, fear is deeper, more potent and irrational than hate. A massive whisper campaign has spread into the adjoining states that, because of the severe beating that the Muslims have taken in Gujarat, they are preparing for a massive retaliation. Muslims, it is being insinuated, will not take atrocities on them tamely. “Remember, the Sabarmati Express? So, no Hindu is safe, unless governments that are partial to us are put in place at the Centre and in all states.”

Fear is the pipeline through which the poison brewed in the political laboratory of Gujarat is sought to be delivered to the rest of the country. The fires of mutual hate and mistrust could thus engulf this country, with consequences that are too tragic to contemplate. For the success of this strategy, it is imperative that Gujarat continues to convulse.

The prolongation of the unbearable misery of the Muslim riot victims could force some of them into stray acts of desperation. We are already being told by the government spokesmen that some of the inmates of the refugee camps are involving themselves in criminal and subversive activities. What we are not being told, of course, is that imprisonment is preferable to living in these camps. Anyone who has seen the squalor, misery and degradation that choke them will be surprised that its inmates have taken this injury compounded by insult for so long with monumental patience.

The readers would remember how upset Vajpayee was recently that the road from the airport to the city, one of the best roads in the city, was not smooth enough for his taste. In contrast, a month after the carnage when we visited the refugee camps, many of the inmates were still wearing the same clothes they were at the time of fleeing from their homes. Modi and his men know that no one can continue to live in these appalling conditions forever and remain sane and self-controlled. They are sure to degenerate into acts of desperation, yielding enough ammunition for stigmatizing the community as a danger to the country. This would aid and abet the Hindutva anti-minority thesis, legitimized lately in Goa by Prime Minister Vajpayee himself.

The desperation inflicted on the Muslims of Gujarat is not confined to the camps alone. By and large, the Muslims in Gujarat are, in effect, under house arrest. They cannot go out and earn their livelihood or resume their business activities. Fear has robbed them of freedom of movement. It threatens to rob them of their future too.

It is this painful truth that is writ large over the inability of 90% of the Muslim students to write the Board examinations, described by the government spokesmen as ‘boycotting the exams’! The immorality of conducting examinations when the state has failed disastrously to allay the insecurity of the Muslim community stares the whole country in the face. This will cause the present woes and handicaps of the affected community to spill over to their future.

These children, unlike their Hindu counterparts, will continue to be stamped with the stigma and burden of the riots for the years to come and so will not be allowed to outgrow this bitter memory. Also, by making the victim community alone bear the brunt of riots and by protecting all others from its adverse consequences, the government is encouraging the perpetrators of riots implicitly. This cannot but escalate the resentment and anger of the affected community.

That being the case, we make bold to appeal to our Muslim brethren in Gujarat and all over the country to meet this grave crisis with wisdom and equanimity; and this, despite knowing that it is cruel to preach restraint to the victims, and not to their victimizers.

In this they could be wiser for the strategy of Israel during the 1991 West Asia crisis. That nation refused to be provoked by Saddam Hussain’s Scud missiles into retaliation, and denied him the luxury of forcing a Pan-lslamic coalition to counter the global alliance crafted by George Bush Senior.

Any indiscreet response on the part of the Muslims, no matter in what state of desperation, will only aid and abet the Sangh Parivar in the pursuit of their communal agenda. There are times when restraint, rather than retaliation, is the best policy; and we are going through one such.

Even as we urge the Muslims in this country to meet this crisis with exemplary patience, we urge the rest of the country to unite in rejecting communal politics as well as the injustice, bloodshed and depravity that are its necessary accompaniments. Communal politics amounts to an outright rejection of dharma, which is the sole, stable foundation for our national unity and integrity.

We must wake up to the gravity and urgency of the role we have to play in a scenario that endangers the dynamism and the destiny of our country. No community can be singled out for systematic harassment overtime and expected to remain stoic over it forever. Human conduct in situations of prolonged harassment and hopelessness tends to degenerate into recklessness. If and when that happens, those who remained indifferent to the birth of this menace, not less than those who disintegrated into this trap, would be morally responsible for our collective self-destruction. This we cannot afford to.

In Gujarat, the identity of the nation lies sick and imperilled. A body-politik that is indifferent to the festering of one of its limbs is simply gambling with its future. Today we can arrest this communal gangrene and prevent it from spreading to the rest of our country. Tomorrow may be too late. The time to act is now. Let us rise and build ‘the India of our dreams’ on the foundations of dharma rather than of the adharma of communal politics.

The general’s ghosts: PRIVATE VIEW

THE referendum is come and gone like a ghost in the night, except that it was held in broad daylight and in full public view, though what the general’s men saw and what the rest of us beheld had no more in common than, say, military music and music.

While one is unable to do anything to stop the gallant governor of the province of Punjab from taking victory laps by helicopter at the taxpayer’s expense, one can only hope he would not let the permanent state of excitement in which he is to be found these days play ducks and drakes with his blood pressure. I am, of course, assuming that he is human and not of divine origin though the way he is going about this business, who can tell!

I do not believe in ghosts but I came close to doing so on April 30 after a tour of the polling stations and welcome tents put up by such thoughtful citizens as Humayun Akhtar Khan, “Qaumi Hero” (his description, not mine) Akhtar Rasul, several retired but untired majors and colonels, and prime ministers-in-waiting Mian Muhammad Azhar, Imran Khan, Pervez Elahi, Shujaat Hussain et al. There was not a soul there, except some very sleepy looking men who appeared to have been pulled out of their beds in the middle of the morning.

One Urdu newspaper columnist, who no doubt is currently under ISI watch, wrote that because the day was particularly hot, there were hardly any flies to swat around for the staff on duty at the outlets so generously set up by the country’s most famous briefcase bearer. There was hardly any traffic on the roads in a city that never seems to sleep or take rest. There were no horns blaring and no screeching tyres one associates with overtaking cars driven by young men on the go.

It was an eerie feeling as one went from polling station to polling station in the cantonment and Defence Society area itself. Where were all the voters who thousands of banners were assuring us were in love with President Pervez Musharraf and wanted him to become king emperor for five hundred years and more? Was this what the phrase ‘people voting with their feet’ meant?

In fear and trepidation, I headed home and switched on the television. Since the Indian channels have been blanked out, there were no gyrating women’s navels to be seen, which was a pity. As patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, PTV is that of bored viewers who have been denied visual access to the temptresses of India who, if Indian channels are to be believed, spend their entire lives dancing on sandy beaches and in lush mountain valleys.

But what the PTV was showing was beyond belief. I have seen much public sycophancy in my time but I have never seen a more disgusting and blatant a show of it than that day. Who would have thought it possible, but the PTV had actually excelled itself. Anchor after anchor and so-called PTV correspondent after correspondent kept assuring the viewers that the “enthusiasm” of the people to retain Gen. Musharraf in power was “unprecedented” and milling crowds of wild-with-joy voters were at the polling stations across the country to show their loyal and loving support for the general.

One wondered if these paid and unpaid hacks were talking of the country called Pakistan or if they were referring to some cuckooland dreamed up at PTV headquarters by Yusuf Baig Mirza and Syed Anwar Mahmood. If there is a medal going for spineless flattery and the Big Lie, there is no question that PTV will win it hands down. Congratulations to former IBM whiz kid Nisar Memon who thinks the Pakistani press has given him a rough deal by reporting the referendum accurately.

I went to the Avari Hotel where every day, Sundays included, gathers for midday tea and conversation a small group of journalists, gentlemen of leisure and men about town. Over the years, whenever I have been in Lahore, I have always joined that table from which have emanated some of the most amusing theories and jokes about people and politics in Pakistan.

One of the great wits of Lahore, a true and worthy successor to the prince of Lahore’s boulevardiers, the late Sardar Muhammad Sadiq, is Bhola. When I arrived, Bhola was in full form. On his day, he is like Inzamam-ul-Haq. As runs flow from his bat, great conversation flows from Bhola’s lips. Bhola had already settled the question of how the ballots were to be counted. His theory was that it did not matter whether a ballot was marked yes or no, because it was going to be placed face down and counted as a yes vote.

At an adjoining table, flanked by his party cabinet, including a most winsome young lady, sat the former Pakistan hockey star Qasim Zia who has revitalized the Pakistan People’s Party in Punjab. “There sits the PPP planning strategy,” somebody said.

However, Bhola, as always, had a different point of view. “I am going to phone Benazir in Dubai right now and tell her that her Punjab president is not out on the streets of Lahore fighting off the referendum but in the airconditioned comfort of Avari hotel, drinking tea. “The referendum was over the night before,” Qasim Zia said, “It was decided that the general was going to have 60 per cent of the eligible vote cast for him, so we are planning the next step.” I must say that the former Pakistan fullback has only been off by four per cent which is commendable.

What surprised me at Avari, however, was a queue of about twenty people in front of the polling booth set up by the management. Bhola, noting the surprise on my face, said, “You can go stand there too, because everyone who votes gets a free cup of tea and a cookie. They are not there for the general but for the cookies. It has even been advertised in the papers.” Since I was already having tea and cookies, I stayed away.

But in the afternoon I did vote at a polling station which appeared to be a “bhootoon ka basera”. Though I wasn’t asked for an ID, I did pull mine out. I also pushed forward my thumb so that the yawning agent could put an “indelible” ink mark on it and then in defiance of Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan’s appeal, I stamped the blank circle. (why was only the yes circle green, a colour associated with Islam and Pakistan?). I had cast my No vote but the results announced by the government have since proved Bhola and Qasim Zia right.

My no vote has been counted as a yes vote. Gen. Pervez Musharraf zindabad.

Post-referendum diplomatic agenda

THE referendum exercise having been completed, and General Musharraf having received a convincing mandate to continue in office for another five years, he will want to turn his full attention to running the affairs of state in a manner conducive to fulfilling his promises and obligations. While pride of place will go to his ambitious seven point agenda that focuses on domestic challenges, there is a no less daunting international agenda that affects both our security and development.

Indeed, events have been moving at a fast clip in areas of concern for Pakistan. Though they have not been neglected, they need the president’s personal leadership to engage Pakistan in a manner that serves our interests and also enhances our international standing.

The most urgent problem is that of the continuing stand-off with India. What Indian analysts themselves call the “biggest military mobilization in India’s history” has pitted the bulk of India’s armed forces on the 2700 kilometre long border with Pakistan, and the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. This is an exercise in coercive diplomacy that is increasingly considered irrelevant and even counter-productive.

India is still insisting on the handing over of 20 “terrorists”, most of them non-Pakistanis whose whereabouts are not even known. Its other demand is an end to “cross-border terrorism”.

Given the stepping up of India’s state terrorism against the hapless Kashmiri people, with a rising toll of civilian lives and property, the shoe is actually on the other foot. It is India that is in violation of recognized human rights and humanitarian laws.

The answer to the agony of Kashmir does not lie in the kind of mindless violence India is perpetrating on the lines of the Israeli model in Palestine, but in a political process that involves India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. This is the path that will not only provide a just and peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem, but also create the environment in which SAARC can achieve its potential in dealing with the challenges of poverty and development in South Asia.

Since the summit in Kathmandu last January, there have been two ministerial meetings in Islamabad under the auspices of SAARC, in which Indian ministers have participated. Yet, any real progress in bilateral relations cannot be even contemplated as long as India keeps its forces massed on our borders.

Since early this year, after President Musharraf made his historic speech of January 12, banning several extremist organizations, and committing Pakistan to a policy of eliminating terrorism in all its manifestations, many analysts and experts in India have been expressing doubts about the wisdom of India persisting in coercive diplomacy.

The fact that anti-Muslim riots are continuing in Gujarat, and British official reports leaked to the press have established that they were pre-planned should have enhanced the shame that Mr. Vajpayee admitted following the initial carnage by the champions of Hindutva.

However, the BJP government in New Delhi has persisted in backing up the state government in a manner that has encouraged the Hindu extremists to persist in their planned “ethnic cleansing”, and weakened India’s international stance.

As the president turns his full attention again to the situation arising out of the military stand-off with India, there are many factors that point to the resumption of engagement with India. Reputable Indian journalists and newspapers are calling for an end to coercive diplomacy.

The internationally respected national newspaper, The Hindu has been urging a return to dialogue, since coercion is hardly credible when India is “communally polarized and politically divided”.

President Musharraf had suggested restoration of air links at a time SAARC meetings were being affected by the ban on overflights enforced by India since December. India had ignored the proposal. Interestingly, the only proposal that had come from India for any relaxation of restrictions was for resumption of goods traffic, clearly a self-serving measure. Pakistan had naturally turned that down.

With his position considerably strengthened by the result of the referendum, the president will be considering his domestic and foreign strategy in the light of the assurance that he will be incharge at least for five and a half years, till October 2007.

This grand strategy can derive inspiration from our great neighbour to the north, China. Just as China subordinates even its foreign policy to the priority goal of economic modernization, Pakistan should keep according its highest priority to the seven-point agenda announced in October, whose continuation has been assured by the referendum.

Our primary goal should be to strengthen Pakistan internally, through all-round economic development, better governance, and greater unity and cohesion.

The handling of foreign policy should aim, again as in the case of China, to promoting an international environment conducive to the attainment of this goal.

For this, resolving outstanding differences with India should be given primacy, and we need to step up efforts for the resumption of a dialogue, which influential circles in India are also demanding, in place of the existing confrontation created by India’s coercive diplomacy.

In the post September 11 scenario, the world-wide campaign against terrorism is likely to remain at the top of international concerns. The government’s domestic agenda of fighting sectarianism and extremism should be pursued vigorously, and we may maintain our cooperation with the coalition against terrorism.

However, the distinction between popular movements for self-determination in Kashmir and Palestine, and terrorism needs to be made, recalling the relevant UN resolutions.

As the president and his advisers survey the current scene, they will become aware of great popular concern in Pakistan over the blood-letting going on in Palestine on the one hand, and Gujarat and Kashmir on the other.

Israel and India are taking advantage of the preoccupation in Washington with Islamic fundamentalism, and both are persisting in their resort to force and coercion on the basis of what they perceive as the moral backing of the US. President Musharraf might consider further consultations with friendly Muslim countries on possible diplomatic moves. The president has already met the leaders of major Islamic countries and would be touring the countries of the Maghreb (Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco) during this month. Greater solidarity among OIC countries needs to be developed and demonstrated.

Closer to home, Afghanistan is still characterized by instability and rivalries among warlords and ethnic groups. Former King Zahir Shah has arrived, and apart from the Loya Jirga, the task of economic reconstruction would have to be launched, amid a reassuring US policy to commit substantial funds and efforts for a Marshall Plan-type operation. The reverberations of whatever happens in Afghanistan will be closely felt in Pakistan, notably in the tribal belt.

The month of May will witness the summit meeting between presidents Bush and Putin in Moscow, as also between Bush and vice president Hu Jintao of China, who is expected to succeed President Jiang Zemin next year.

There are cross currents in the mutual relations of these powers, as well in their relations with the European Union, Japan and South Asia that will require active diplomacy. Above all, the conduct of our diplomacy must remain geared basically to fostering the attainment of our domestic goals.

Given the commitment of the government to its 7 point agenda, and particularly the alleviation of poverty, which affects nearly 40% of our population, the economic aspect of diplomacy would have to be stressed. There are many multilateral forums in which we are involved: SAARC and ECO in the regional context, OIC in the transcontinental context, and specialized agencies of the UN at the global level.

These would have to be activated, in a manner conducive to the attainment of our national goals.

Having identified the challenges of our diplomacy, we need to reinforce the apparatus of our diplomacy. The foreign service needs to be made a sufficiently rewarding career to attract the ablest of young people entering the Central Superior Services.

And better use needs to be made of think tanks and specialized centres in our universities, whose inputs are critical now when the world is passing through a period of transition after the end of the cold war and the 9/11 events.

The advisory group on foreign policy, formed soon after the change of government in October 1999, has almost been sidelined and could be activated to take maximum advantage of the expertise of retired civil and military officers, as well as eminent academics from all parts of Pakistan.