AT the end of his visit to India last month, President General Pervez Musharraf declared that it was “very successful” and beyond his expectations. It was reported earlier by the Indian foreign secretary that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his talks with President Musharraf had ruled out the redrawing of boundaries but had assured him that every other possible step would be taken to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Considering the importance that Pakistan attaches to the peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute and its known position that the LoC is the problem and not the solution of the Kashmir dispute, the president’s assessment of his visit was not easily understood. Certainly it had little to do with the joint statement of April 18, which basically expressed the resolve of both sides to enhance confidence building measures, not allow “terrorism” to impede the peace process and to seek solutions to the Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen issues. Significantly, there was no linkage between the enhancement of the CBMs and the progress on Kashmir.

Pakistan in the past had taken the position that the progress towards the settlement of the core Kashmir issue must take place simultaneously with the building up of the CBMs. India, on the other hand, had insisted that the general improvement in the climate of bilateral relations and progress in CBMs would pave the way for a final settlement of the Kashmir issue. One doesn’t have to be a genius to see from the latest joint statement that Pakistan finally has fallen in line with the Indian point of view. The public in Pakistan at large was, therefore, justified in wondering what had been achieved that was “beyond expectations”.

It seems that Pakistan’s foreign policy establishment on a rebound from the strategic disaster of Kargil and in a precipitate rush to settle the Kashmir dispute is content to make unilateral concessions to India to keep the dialogue process alive. Instead of this extreme swing of the pendulum, it would be advisable to practise some “enlightened moderation” in our handling of relations with India and the Kashmir dispute. We should avoid the extremes of a confrontational approach towards India, which we can ill afford, and the talk of making the borders irrelevant and economic union between India and Pakistan which would negate the very rationale of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s policymakers appear to be caught in contradictions of their own making. They have raised hopes in Pakistan of an early settlement of the Kashmir dispute on terms which are satisfactory from Pakistan’s point of view, knowing full well that under the current ground realities taking into account the national, regional and international security environment, such a settlement most likely would be on Indian terms. That may explain the tendency to claim progress even when there is scant evidence of it.

One is also struck by the absence of a long-term and comprehensive strategy in dealing with the Kashmir dispute. Instead, the pre-occupation is with short-term gains, imaginary or otherwise, in accordance with the known tendency of our rulers to find a solution to the Kashmir dispute during their own tenure in office and based on the mistaken assumption of their indispensability.

There is also over-emphasis on the military dimension of the Kashmir policy to the neglect of the political and economic aspects. This is not surprising, considering Pakistan’s internal political history in which the military has played a predominant role that is still as regrettable as it is counter-productive. Obviously, our policymakers have not drawn the right lessons from history and world events such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Finally, negotiations with India on such a major issue as Kashmir must be based on a national consensus reached within the framework of a generally agreed political framework, and finalized taking into account the views of all stakeholders. This would result in the stability and continuity of policies, far more confidence-boosting than the assurances of any individual howsoever highly placed and sincere he may be. It also provides the necessary strength to the negotiators engaged in the delicate task of finding a solution to as complicated an issue as Kashmir. This has been India’s main strength and more often than not our greatest failing, particularly in recent years.

It is clear that the concessions that we made in the joint statement of January 6, 2004 for the resumption of the composite dialogue and since then, have not been matched by India. So the change in policy has taken place primarily, or even exclusively, on the part of Pakistan. How does India look at this change? Kuldip Nayar in a recent article which appeared in this newspaper had the following to say on the subject:

‘Has Musharraf changed?’ I posed to former Prime Minister Inder Gujral. ‘What option does he have?’ Gujral replied. ‘His country faces innumerable problems. He also finds India growing taller and taller. His friends, the Americans, have told him not to rock the boat.’ (Foreign Minister Natwar Singh sensed this when he was in Washington two days before Musharraf’s arrival in New Delhi.)” Kuldip Nayar observed in the same article: “There is ample evidence to underline that Islamabad’s policy towards New Delhi has undergone a change. Kashmir has become one of the confidence-building measures, not the core issue.”

From the foregoing it appears that the Indian foreign policy establishment views Pakistan as under tremendous pressure internally and externally. From India’s point of view, therefore, this is perhaps the best time for a final settlement of the Kashmir issue which is likely to be on India’s terms rather than those of Pakistan as the power configuration at the national, regional and international levels favours India. And we need to remind ourselves that in the existing power-based international system, it is power rather than international law and morality which plays the decisive role in the settlement of important strategic issues like Kashmir.

More recently, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated in Lok Sabha on May 12 that while he and President Musharraf were committed to making the peace process irreversible, “much will depend” on the alleged infiltration after the snow-bound passes in Kashmir opened in summer. Mr Singh said that he had pointed out to President Musharraf that he would not be able to continue the composite dialogue process and the quest for abiding peace if repeated extremist acts against innocent men, women and children continued.

What are Pakistan’s options in the face of the current realities? To begin with, Pakistan must make a strategic choice for peace with India but peace with honour which safeguards and promotes Pakistan’s supreme national interests. Hopefully, the reference to the irreversibility of the peace process in the joint statement of April 18 means that both Pakistan and India have made a choice for peace. Such a choice would serve their interests as both have suffered in various ways because of wars, armed conflicts and high tensions in their bilateral relations in the past. In any case, the possession of nuclear weapons by both Pakistan and India leaves them with no other viable option.

Pakistan-India disputes, particularly the Kashmir dispute, would act as major obstacles in the way of the peace process. Both sides, therefore, need to make serious and sincere efforts for a peaceful settlement.

In general, the more serious a dispute and the more historical and emotional baggage it carries, the more difficult it is to settle in the short term to the satisfaction of both sides. Given mutual goodwill, technical disputes like Baglihar are easier to settle through negotiations. But the fact of the matter is that Pakistan and India could not solve even this technical dispute and the matter has been referred to the World Bank. In comparison, Kashmir is a much more complex issue with far-reaching implications for the security of both India and Pakistan. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect in the short term a peaceful settlement of the dispute which is satisfactory from Pakistan’s point of view.

The situation calls for a more sophisticated approach in dealing with Kashmir. It should start with the understanding that a peaceful settlement of Kashmir in the short term is not feasible. We should, therefore, adopt a two-phase approach in tackling the Kashmir issue.

In the short term, Pakistan and India should aim at reaching an interim solution. As part of this interim solution, both sides should continue to undertake confidence building measures and encourage bilateral trade and people-to-people contacts between them to create a climate conducive to the final settlement of outstanding disputes like Kashmir. Simultaneously, they must focus on improving the human rights situation in the Indian occupied Kashmir, demilitarization of the territory or at least the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian troops as militancy goes down, greater autonomy for the Indian-occupied state and increased contacts between the Kashmiris on either side of the LoC. During this period, we must maintain our recognized position calling for the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Obviously, India would be free to maintain its well-known position on Kashmir in the interim period.

As for the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute, both Pakistan and India should agree to set it aside for an extended period of say 25 years, to allow emotions to cool and mare it possible to reach a negotiated settlement which would necessarily involve concessions from all the parties concerned.

The case for a two-phase approach to Kashmir is based on the fundamental assumption that Pakistan’s performance in various fields, particularly in political and economic fields, would be much better in the future than it has been in the past. Undoubtedly this is a brave assumption, but hopefully, not a totally misplaced one.

If we want to be in a comparatively stronger position vis-a-vis India after this long interval of a quarter of a century, we need to strengthen internal political stability through establishing the primacy of the representative institutions within the framework of a nationally agreed political framework, building up institutions rather than individuals, and strengthening the rule of law and the principle of taking decisions on merit.

Simultaneously, we should accelerate economic growth of the country through allocating a much higher proportion of the national resources to the task of economic development and according greater priority to education, science and technology in our economic planning. This would require tight control on our military expenditure while maintaining a credible deterrent at the lowest possible cost.

The case for a headlong rush towards a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute is based either on a serious misreading of the current realities or on the assumption that Pakistan’s future would be no better than its past, an assumption which is too pessimistic and defeatist to be acceptable. As our experience of the last year or so shows, India is also likely to exploit our eagerness for a final settlement of Kashmir by drawing unilateral concessions out of us.

Pakistan has pursued a flawed strategy for more than half a century for the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute with predictable results. Today, we find ourselves in a much worse condition vis-a-vis India than, let us say, 40 years ago or even 15 years ago. The answer to Pakistan’s predicament lies in not rushing into a final settlement of the Kashmir issue that we might regret later and instead opt for a two-phase approach as proposed above.

The need of the hour is to bring about fundamental changes in our Kashmir policy drawing lessons from our own experience as well as the experience of other nations who faced similar problems, while taking our time over a final settlement. We have waited for more than half a century for a satisfactory solution to the Kashmir dispute and the heavens will not fall if we have to wait another quarter of a century or even more for the achievement of this objective.

The writer is a former ambassador.

WITH shopping plazas mushrooming all over, new restaurants springing up, car showrooms proliferating and the advertising industry enjoying a boom, how can one say that consumerism in Pakistan is not on the rise.

With people equating personal happiness with the possession of goods and services, the cosumerist culture has been actively promoted as an intrinsic part of the government’s economic policy in the post-9/11 period.

In the last three years or so, the country has been awash with cash — some from the remittances by the Pakistani expatriates, and some from the aid given by the West to reward Islamabad for its cooperation in the war on terror.

When a policy to kick-start the economy was introduced, interests on bank loans were lowered drastically, returns from saving schemes were cut phenomenally, leasing for the purchase of cars, air conditioners and other household goods became good business, and banks made loans available for the asking. In fact the banks went on an aggressive drive to extend loans and telephone calls were received from banks offering loans for the purchase of a house or tempting people to obtain a credit card.

What was the result? People responded. Those who had one car bought a second car because they were made to believe that it was their need. Those whose car was two years’ old and in perfect condition felt that they had to buy the latest model to keep up with the Joneses (or should we say the Jans). Those who had done without a car all their life found they could now buy second-hand cars being disposed of by the rich. The more enterprising obtained a loan from a leasing company and went in for a new car.

Look up the Pakistan Economic Survey, 2003-04 and you will see how the production of consumer items has suddenly shot up. The manufacture of cars (that are basically sold in the home market) jumped up by 63.5 per cent in 2003-04 compared to the previous year. The production of vegetable ghee and cooking oil increased by 13.6 and 22.9 per cent respectively in the same period (something that will not overly please the cardiologists). The manufacture of refrigerators was up by 68.8 per cent. And of course, there is the ubiquitous cell phone, now a necessity for the new lifestyle and a status symbol for every class. The number of users has registered a whopping increase of 54.2 per cent with 3.7 million cell phone owners in the country.

This has certainly activated the national economy. But at what cost? By the State Bank’s own admission inflation was 8.5 per cent in June 2004 and the Economic Survey concedes that the contribution of food inflation to overall inflation has been 50 per cent and that is why the low income classes have suffered most. Food inflation was 13.4 per cent (for those with an income under Rs 3,000 it was 15.1 per cent).

Apart from the economic impact of consumerism, which can be negated by corrective measures, the grim repercussions of a policy based on demand side economics that blatantly promotes consumerism are felt most in the social behaviour of the people.

We have always been famous for being spendthrift with poor saving habits. Now we are being actively encouraged with official backing to borrow and spend. It would be interesting to note a few years later what the recovery rate of loans will be, that is, if defaults are not already taking place. That will of course have economic consequences.

But this is going to affect our social environment as well, as is already happening. The first impact is that the divide between the rich and the poor is growing. Worse still, it is very visible because consumerism also brings in its wake conspicuous consumption. Many goods are purchased as status symbols — the brands are important and not the utility. After that the latest model acquires equal importance. There comes a stage when people lose the ability to distinguish between need and desire. If they want something they feel it is their basic need, even if it is not.

Where do the poor stand in this race between need and desire? The government’s own exercise to assess poverty has led it to the happy conclusion that poverty is on the decline in Pakistan. Patting the policymakers on the back, the Economic Survey says that “the incidence of poverty at the national level has declined by 4.2 percentage points ... These results are not surprising as there has been a 35 per cent increase in the average monthly consumption expenditure of households ... Other social indicators and living conditions have also exhibited significant improvements”.

According to this calculation, people are better off because their caloric intake has improved, school enrolment ratio is up and a bigger amount is being spent on social sectors, especially education and health care (Rs118 billion in 2003-04). But have our planners ever cared to ask where this money is going? It is obviously not going into the right channels because the quality of education and health care remains poor. Corruption, which has been the bane of this country for decades, is now on the rise.

Economists and sociologists would do well to estimate how much consumerism has contributed to the growing corruption. When people live beyond their means they have to cut corners by cheating to meet their expenditure. If they were not being encouraged to buy air conditioners through offers of easy loans, they would not feel the need to operate kundas to make optimum use of the air conditioners because of which their electricity bills shoot up to the sky.

The incidence of crime has also been growing. At one time, Conventional wisdom held that those deprived of the means to fulfil their basic needs, mainly the indigent, committed crimes such as theft for their sustenance. But now we know many of those involved in crimes are children of affluent parents who are not satisfied with the money they get to spend.

While all this is bad enough, one must also address the erosion of human values that has come in the wake of a selfish, market-driven consumerism. Martin Jacques, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, identifies three trends that are profoundly changing the very basic nature of society. One is the rise of individualism. The second is the spread of the market in every area of society that has led to greater competitiveness and third is the spread of communication technology which is “contracting our private space erasing our personal time and accelerating the pace of life”.

These changes are not good omens. Add to this the tendency to look for avenues to make a quick buck. Gone are the age-old ambitions of people to work hard for a lifetime to earn enough to achieve their dreams.

Consumerism will undermine the human values and relationships we have cherished for generations. It is sad that the market is making people identify strongly with the products or services they consume, especially those with commercial brand names that are considered prestigious. Globalization has exacerbated the crisis as all major multinationals are now operating in Pakistan. Isn’t it time that this policy of promoting consumerism was halted? Why does all the investment have to go into the manufacture of consumer items? It is a myth that this policy has created jobs, for unemployment has gone up — from 5.8 per cent (2.3 million) in 1999 to 8.2 per cent (3.7 million) in 2004.

It is time the long term effects of the consumer culture were studied and alternatives found such as diversification of the economy, increasing the real purchasing power of the people, curbing inflation and checking the easy leasing policy for consumer items.

SOMEBODY, thought to be very wise, once said, “Look behind any successful man and you will see a woman.” Maybe this wise somebody never married and was too unenterprising to have a girl friend. Had he been really wise and famous and had the woman behind him been discovered, I could never have forgotten his name.

You must have read scores of interviews of men of world fame — politicians, scientists, showbiz people, artists and writers — admitting with studied modesty that “had it not been for my wife I would not be here today.” One doesn’t really know if they are speaking the truth or merely giving credit to the little woman out of fear or nepotism.

But Haji Ejaz Ahmed of Sheikhupura would be speaking nothing but the truth if he had been interviewed in the judicial lock-up and had said, “Had it not been for my wife I would not have been here today.” Add to this the unbelievable distinction that his wife was also with him in the lock-up, as if only to prove the veracity of his assertion.

This is the height of marital affection and loyalty, to be with one’s spouse through thick and thin, instead of gallivanting about in Dubai, London and New York like BB. And this can happen only in the East where women are taught (and sometimes even forced) to sacrifice everything for the sake of the husband, even to the extent of committing ‘suttee’ on his funeral pyre.

Men in the West are not so fortunate and are denied such felicity on the part of wives. Look at Marjorie Wiggins, the novelist wife of Salman Rushdie. She threw up her hands in despair some six years ago and decided to chart her separate course in life, the first lap of which took her out of Britain, while Salman, bored to death, languished in the solitude of his hiding place.

Ms Aneela was Haji Ejaz Ahmed’s wife and life partner in the real sense of the word. She was an equal sharer with him in preparing fake passports and counterfeit visas. Unlike most wives whose only contribution is to provide hot meals to hard-working husbands, she had taken up her part of the difficult and delicate job on the basis of professional equality.

They were jogging along merrily, earning a decent living, the epitome of conjugal harmony and happiness, till they were told by the meddlesome police one day that what they were doing was illegal, howsoever helpful it might be for the public. The police also felt that, under the circumstances, the couple would be better off behind bars than at home. How mean official organizations can be sometimes!

Experts on the subject of so-called bribery and corruption — experts who are unable to indulge in these activities themselves because of lack of opportunity or initiative and can only pontificate — claim that more than half the practitioners of dishonest money-making in the government are in the field because of the prompting of greedy wives who egg them on.

Since most of these women would love to share the official duties of their husbands but cannot, they encourage them to explore ways and means to earn an extra income on the side. That is their way of participating in the bureaucratic joys of labour. Everyone of them can’t be an Aneela who can give you a brand new passport for France (to see the sights of course) or get you a visa for Sweden (just to meet friends) with as much expertise as her husband. Aneela deserves to be honoured in a Hall of Fame which the federal Women’s Division should set up in Islamabad.

Madame Aneela’s enthusiastic immersion in husband Haji Sahib’s work takes my mind back to a story that my father used to narrate to us children about pre-independence days. It was about the wife of a British executive engineer in Punjab’s irrigation department. It was this lady’s practice to sit in the bathroom attached to her husband’s office in his residence during the hour fixed for public interviews. Her orders to the staff were that anyone who came to see the sahib with an application should be made to pass through the bathroom.

Here, attended by the sahib’s reader, or whoever it is who assists an XEN in such matters, she exacted a sort of toll tax from zamindars seeking remission of abiana and other government dues. My father didn’t remember whether the English XEN was aware of his memsahib’s extracurricular activity or not. But what an enterprising wife!

Seen in the correct perspective, that was nothing unusual, except for the bathroom part of it. Western women are known for the assiduity with which they share the duties and toils of their husbands.

It is only when our own women, who are not so advanced or enlightened, take an initiative in this regard that it becomes really praiseworthy and makes news, as did Aneela’s foray into counterfeiting state documents.

The story of Aneela and her husband Haji Ejaz Ahmed’s joint partnership in crime was published in most of the papers some time ago, but it was left to a popular Urdu daily to describe this unique lady as “young and attractive.” This made her contribution all the more sensational. I mean, with her youth and good looks, instead of deciding to make an exciting career in television or in modelling, she chose to help her husband in the task of faking passports and visas. You must admit, however, that the work had its own excitement and suspense, apart from giving the couple a feeling of creative achievement.

When we agree with reformers and social workers that women should work shoulder to shoulder with men, we should also be prepared to see them participating in the bad as well as good pursuits of their menfolk. A change is definitely in the air, for we hear of more and more cases of crime by women, sometimes abetting with men and sometimes striking out on their own. I suppose this is true gender equality.

IN A song flung up to heaven, the African-American poet Maya Angelou recounts why, 40 years ago, she decided to return to the United States from Africa. “Malcolm X,” she writes, “had announced a desire to create a foundation he called the Organization of African-American Unity.

His proposal included taking the plight of the African-Americans to the United Nations .... The idea was so stimulating to the community of African-American residents that I persuaded myself I should return to the States to help establish the organization.”

From the airport in New York, she called Malcolm, who offered to come and pick her up. She explained that she was catching a connecting flight to San Francisco, to visit her family. “I’ll call you next week when I get my bearings,” she told him.

A few days later, while visiting a family friend, she received a call from Ivonne, her “first adult friend”, who sombrely berated Angelou for returning. “Maya, girl, why did you come home?” she asked. “Why did you come back to this crazy place? These Negroes are crazy here .... Otherwise, why would they have just killed that man in New York?”

Angelou didn’t need to be told who “that man” was.

After regaining her composure, she was persuaded by her brother, Bailey, to take a walk. Strolling through the neighbourhood, she was “shocked to see life going on as usual”, assuming it could only be because “they don’t know”. Bailey disabused her of that notion: “They know. They don’t care.”

In a bar, disconcerted to find that, “only hours after their champion had been killed, black men and women were flirting and drinking and revelling as if nothing had happened”, she rushed out and burst into tears. Her brother gently comforted her. “Let me tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “In a few years, there are going to be beautiful posters of Malcolm X, and his photographs will be everywhere. The same people who don’t give a damn now will lie and say they always supported him.”

Bailey may just have been trying to placate a grieving sister, but the consolation he offered turned out to be remarkably prescient. In his time, Malcolm X was a controversial figure, demonized as a hate-mongering demagogue by the white establishment and shunned, for the most part, by the emerging black establishment.

Race politics became a lot more volatile and violent in the aftermath of Malcolm’s assassination. The Black Panthers may not have shared Malcolm’s religious beliefs, but they understood what he was all about. Like him, and unlike Martin Luther King Jr, they did not see any virtue in turning the other cheek. Today, Malcolm X is widely acknowledged as a key figure in the struggle for African-American emancipation, his legacy claimed by both left and right; accepted as a useful icon by the white liberals he could never quite bring himself to trust, his proud visage has even graced a US postage stamp. And, of course, he’s been Hollywoodized.

Although it could reasonably be argued that non-violent resistance to the American version of apartheid played a crucial role in transcending that shameful state of affairs, it is also not too difficult to empathize with Malcolm’s view. Non-violence was anathema to him because the other side didn’t practise it; let the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizens’ Council and the police be non-violent, he used to say, and we will reciprocate. Until then, it is incumbent upon blacks to defend themselves.

While this attitude wasn’t an empty militant posture, Malcolm was also well aware that what the white authorities looked upon as extremism was invaluable in creating a space for the moderate movement to succeed.

In 1964, sharing a platform at a mass meeting in Selma, Alabama, with Coretta King while her husband was in jail, he leaned over and told her that he was only trying to help. “He said he wanted to present an alternative; that it might be easier for whites to accept Martin’s proposals after hearing him [Malcolm X],” Mrs King later recalled. “He seemed rather anxious to let Martin know that he was not causing trouble .... but that he was making it easier.” Addressing the crowd at the same meeting, Malcolm said: “Whites better be glad Martin Luther King is rallying the people, because other forces are waiting to take over if he fails.”

This was the Malcolm who emerged, not so much chastened as enlightened, from his experience as a leading light of the Nation of Islam (NoI). He had been converted while serving a prison term for robbery; before that, Malcolm Little had been guilty of a lot else, having evolved from a shoeshine boy into a drug dealer and a pimp. His plight in those days was at least partly a consequence of the prevailing social conditions. When Malcolm, at the age of 12 or so, had said in class that he wished to be a lawyer when he grew up, the aspiration earned him a reprimand from his white teacher, who said, in effect: Don’t be unrealistic, negroes don’t become lawyers — think in terms of carpentry.

In the 1940s and ‘50s racism wasn’t a conscious choice among white Americans, it was simply a fact of life, and “niggers” — as African-Americans were then more or less routinely known — were expected to know their place. Such discrimination and callousness, experienced on a daily basis, made Malcolm, and many others like him, ripe for conversion to a creed that went further than calling for equality: it postulated black superiority and declared the white man to be the devil incarnate.

As Malcolm eventually discovered, the NoI was a cult that bore only a passing resemblance to Afro-Asian Islam. In fact, some of the myths it propagated would be considered positively blasphemous from a Muslim point of view, such as confusing the cult’s founder, Fard Muhammad (a light-skinned man who purported to have been born in Makkah as a member of the Quraysh tribe, but may in fact have been an immigrant from New Zealand, and who disappeared without trace in the early 1930s), with the Supreme Being and describing his successor, Elijah Muhammad, as a prophet. For a long time, the NoI’s places of worship were known as temples rather than mosques, and the month of fasting was always observed in December.

There can be little question, however, that initially the new-found faith, conveyed to Malcolm by his siblings, lifted him out of the cesspit he had fallen into. It brought discipline into his life, he improved his writing skills and, hungry for knowledge, went through innumerable books in the prison library. He also began corresponding with Elijah Muhammad — who, accustomed though he was to preying upon prison inmates, was particularly impressed by this new recruit.

Malcolm became active in the Nation upon being paroled and before long found himself catapulted into the ministry. Provocative, articulate a media savvy, within a few years Malcolm X became the best-known Black Muslim in the US (at least until Cassius Clay — under Malcolm’s guidance — metamorphosed into Muhammad Ali after snatching the world heavyweight boxing crown from Sonny Liston). By then, Malcolm had fallen out with Elijah Muhammad.

The rupture ostensibly was caused by Malcolm’s remark upon John F. Kennedy’s assassination that it was a case of the chickens coming home to roost, whereupon Elijah silenced him for 90 days. Malcolm realized there was more to it than that: his high profile was causing jealousy. At about the same time, evidence began coming to light of Elijah Muhammad’s promiscuity and hypocrisy. What really opened Malcolm’s eyes, however, was a trip to Africa and a pilgrimage to Makkah: that, arguably, was when he truly became a Muslim, liberated from the NoI’s more absurd tenets.

Malcolm was a changed man by the time he returned to New York, disinclined to uphold racial exclusivity any longer and more eager than before to sound off on the evils of imperialism, with particular reference to the Congo and Vietnam. He was also unwilling to turn the other cheek to attacks upon his credibility from the NoI.

He knew this was a high-risk strategy, confiding to Alex Haley, the writer with whom he was collaborating on his autobiography (and who acquired international fame a dozen years later with Roots), that he didn’t expect to live long enough to see his book completed. I know what those people are capable of, he said of the NoI’s armed cadres, “because I trained them.”

Malcolm’s wife Betty Shabazz (post-Makkah he had changed his name to El Haj Malik El Shabazz) and their four young daughters were present in New York’s Audobon Ballroom on February 21, 1965, when three gunmen shot him at close range, snuffing out a life that mirrored America’s ills as well as its redeeming features, silencing a voice that, no longer raised in support of a largely indefensible cult, promised to be more profoundly effective in the years ahead.

In a distant coda to the tragedy, in 1995 Malcolm’s daughter Qubilah was accused of hiring a hit man to kill NoI leader Louis Farrakhan, whom she considered guilty of arranging her father’s murder. Two years after that, Qubilah’s troubled 12-year-old son, also called Malcolm, set fire to his grandmother’s apartment; Betty died of severe burns.

If Malcolm X had lived, he would have been 80 tomorrow. His legacy may be a mixed one, but parts of it have certainly stood the test of time. Not least, his injunction to seek emancipation “by any means necessary” may prove invaluable in the immediate future.

E-mail: mahirali1@gmail.com