WITHIN two days of this writer’s arrival in the US, the sensational terrorist plot to target as many as 10 flights, bound from the UK to the US, by use of plastic explosives shifted the focus from the war in Lebanon to the ongoing war against terror. The tip-off to the UK authorities was provided by the Pakistani intelligence.

The British authorities arrested 23 British citizens of Pakistani descent. The key person among the seven detained in Pakistan was also a British Pakistani with alleged Al Qaeda links and who had apparently provided training to two of the 23 persons detained in Britain on August 10.

While the valuable collaboration of the Pakistani authorities that gave a timely warning has been acknowledged, many analysts are tending to identify Pakistan as potentially the most dangerous centre of terrorism.

The recent history of the region has resulted in different streams of religious radicalism and extremism affecting its stability and peace. That is why this region, extending from the Gulf, Afghanistan to South Asia has been often described as the “arc of crisis”. One major cause of tension and conflict has been the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan and India fought three wars between 1947 and 1971, and the disputed state continues to be a major hurdle to normal relations between them.

As India is several times the size of Pakistan, the latter has had to maintain credible military deterrence. When India tested nuclear weapons in 1974, Pakistan felt obliged to start a nuclear programme of its own. When it achieved some progress by 1979, the US under President Carter imposed economic and military sanctions against Pakistan.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 turned Pakistan into a frontline state, especially as its government took the principled stand of supporting the Afghan freedom struggle. Under President Reagan, the US extended large-scale military and economic aid to Pakistan and ways were found to allow Pakistan to build up its nuclear deterrence.

One of the major initiatives taken by the US to bolster resistance to the Soviet occupation was to encourage and build up Islamic jihadism as an effective counter to the communist invaders. The Mujahideen were assembled from all over the world and sent to Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, a Saudi dissident, played a leading role in organising them.

The mobilisation of the Mujahideen played a major role in the defeat of the Soviet Union which withdrew its forces from Afghanistan in 1989. The US took some radical decisions after becoming the only superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union. With communism defeated, it declared that the new threat to the West was posed by radical Islam.

The Islamic revolution in Iran, in 1979 had initially produced a drive against US power, and the effort made to defeat Iran through the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 failed.

The second threat recognised in the post-Cold War era was from nuclear proliferation, and Pakistan was placed under sanctions following the Gulf War of 1991. The elder George Bush stationed US forces in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden, at the head of thousands of Mujahideen in Afghanistan, declared war on the US, aiming to eliminate its presence from holy Muslim sites.

An insurgency broke out in Kashmir in 1989, and numerous organisations were formed to support the liberation movement. In addition, sectarian tendencies in Pakistan grew as the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia led to the creation of the Shia and Sunni militias in Pakistan.

It is worth recalling that despite these developments the overall approach of the Pakistani people remained moderate and religious parties never polled more than five per cent of the vote in general elections held in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1997. Their support ballooned after 9/11 when the US attacked the Taliban regime, and utilised the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to cause indiscriminate slaughter in that unfortunate country that had already endured a decade of Soviet occupation, followed by 12 years of civil war.

Pakistan’s geostrategic situation is such that its support was critical in the US war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It has rendered effective assistance to the US in the war on terror. President Musharraf’s government has cooperated closely with the US. But the broadly anti-Muslim agenda of Washington, and its close links with Israel and India have generated anti-US sentiments, which find expression in the support to the activities of remnants of Al Qaeda which have moved into Pakistan, after the occupation of Afghanistan by the US, with the growing involvement of Nato.

As such, there can be no mistaking that anti-US sentiment is widespread. President Bush’s remark that the US was at war with “Islamic fascists” following the London bomb plot caused general resentment among the Muslims of the US who feel increasingly insecure.

Though some US analysts go to the extent of suggesting that the US should turn its guns on countries like Pakistan and Iran, rather than Afghanistan and Iraq in an election year, the basic requirement is for Washington to play its proper role and address legitimate Muslim discontent; Israel was given the green light to invade Lebanon, to destroy Hezbollah, and it was the resistance of Hezbollah that frustrated Israel’s aggressive plans, despite the full military support of the US.

It is doubtful if detailed investigations will reveal a plot of 9/11 proportions in the UK. It is the Blair government’s policy of supporting George W. Bush’s policies that has alienated the Muslims of Pakistani origin born in the UK. One hopes that with 60 per cent of the US population disapproving of the war in Iraq, its leadership will return to its tradition of backing the UN, to ensure a more just and peaceful order in the world. Pakistanis are unlikely to turn to terrorism if democratic avenues of peaceful change remain unavailable.

At the 10th Islamic summit in Malaysia, in 2003, President Musharraf’s proposal that the Islamic world should base its future course on its traditional principles of “enlightened moderation” had received unanimous support. However, he had also called upon the major powers, led by the US, to help resolve issues like Palestine and Kashmir. The West needs to do more to create a just political and economic order in the world.

The writer is a former ambassador.

PAKISTAN declared a senior Indian diplomat, serving at Islamabad, persona non grata after he was caught red handed on August 5 receiving sensitive documents from his contact in the vicinity of Lahore. A few hours later, India also declared a Pakistani diplomat in New Delhi persona non grata that was clearly an act of retaliation.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomat Relations, states that the receiving state may, at any time, inform the sending state that the head of its diplomatic mission or any other member of the staff is not acceptable. However, according to the diplomatic practice, there have to be solid reasons for such an extreme step. In the case in point, Pakistan was justified in declaring the Indian diplomat persona non grata and asking him to leave country as his personal conduct was incompatible with his status.

However, the expulsion of the Pakistani diplomat from India was not not because of any instance of misconduct and, therefore, the action taken by the Indian government against him for the sake of parity was highly questionable. A diplomat is never declared persona non grata by the host government on whims if he has not done anything objectionable or offensive. New Delhi’s action, being in violation of the spirit of the diplomatic practice, also reflect poorly on its respect for the Vienna Convention and universally accepted diplomatic norms.

According to Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, the Vienna Convention rules are also intended to ensure that, if for whatever reasons, a diplomat becomes unacceptable to the receiving state, the matter is to be handled with utmost prudence. For this very reason, Pakistan had suggested to the Indians to keep the matter in question under wraps and out of the media glare. Regrettably, however, the Indians, even after having accepted this suggestion, arbitrarily decided to go public, evidently to sensationalise the event with malicious intentions which is confirmed by the fact that it has since started a blame game and unleashed baseless propaganda against Pakistan on this issue.

Indian diplomat’s involvement in the espionage activities against Pakistan is highly regrettable in spite of the Indian government’s oft-repeated claim of non-interference in its neighbours’ internal affairs. It is unfortunate that New Delhi has not been able to restrain its diplomatic staff from pursuing covert and parallel diplomacy in most of the countries in the region with ulterior motives. India’s diplomats have been accused of espionage activities in many of its neighbouring countries. Recently, there have been reports of the Indian involvement in Balochistan.

Following a decision, taken at the highest level in Pakistan and India, a process of composite dialogue is going on between the two countries to resolve all their outstanding problems, and disputes, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The peace-loving people in both the countries have pinned their hopes on the peace process. Prudence demands that the Indian diplomat’s misconduct in the present case should not be allowed to plunge the two countries into another crisis that may damage the already fragile peace process between them.

There is indeed a pressing need to normalise relations between Pakistan and India for which a meaningful approach is necessary. The leaders of both countries have to realize that owing to the unique historical circumstances both Pakistan and India have gone through nerve-wrecking crises since their independence. As a result, both of them look at each other with suspicion and distrust which have not only been a serious impediment in normalising their relations but on a number of occasions brought their latent tension into the open. The two countries fought at least three major wars since their independence in 1947.

Fortunately, however, in recent years the leaders of Pakistan and India have been able to reduce tension between the two sides. A score of mutual confidence-building measures, though slow in instilling confidence, have helped in stabilising their decades-old strained political relations. It is, therefore, extremely important to guard against a spiral of tension once again between the two nuclear neigbours. If serious tension continued to exist between them they will not be able to live in peace with each other in peace and harmony.

Despite the deep-rooted mistrust that unfortunately still persists between them Pakistan and India can come to terms with each other by putting an end to the culture of adversial politics between them, or else South Asia will continue to lag behind other regions that have normalised their adversial relationships by showing a greater sense of political pragmatism and perseverance. Both Pakistan and India need to draw a lesson from their experience. It has, however, to be understood that the only effective way to remove the continued stress in their relations hinges on addressing the underlying sources of conflict that have driven the two countries to almost perpetual hostility. However, only far-sighted and bold leadership in these countries can do so.

The ongoing composite dialogue between the two countries needs to be pushed forward and pursued with the same spirit of cordiality, goodwill and mutual accommodation that was witnessed in recent years. One of the more effective ways of proceeding in this arena might be to pursue the composite dialogue at the political level.

Discussions that are currently being held at officials’ level have only produced cosmetic results. There has been very little progress so far on the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir that has remained unresolved for more than five decades after it erupted. The fear is that the continued stalemate on this vital front might even subvert the whole peace process between the two countries.

ZHUANGZI, the great Daoist sage who lived in the 4th century BCE, told an illuminating story about Confucius. One day his favourite disciple Yan Hui triumphantly announced that he could not remember anything Confucius had taught him.

“What do you mean?” Confucius asked uneasily. “I sit quietly and forget!” beamed Yan Hui. Instead of being dismayed, Confucius acknowledged that his pupil had surpassed him. The intellect, he explained, could only “tally things up”, but the deepest core of the human being, whence enlightenment comes, was vacant and receptive. “The Way is found in emptiness. Emptiness is the mind’s fast.”

I was reminded of this story last weekend, when I learned with horror that because of the new security restrictions I would not be allowed to take a book on to my flight home from New York. How on earth was I going to “sit quietly” with an empty mind for seven hours? This Daoist ideal is alien to our pragmatic modernity. We are happy to limit our intake of food to achieve bodily health and agility, but the idea of deliberately starving our minds to achieve greater spiritual acuity is repugnant — even frightening. So is the Daoist principle of wu wei (doing nothing). We feel a duty to be active and productive.

But poets and artists have always known how to hold themselves in an attitude of silent waiting. Keats called the creative process “negative capability ... when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason”. Wordsworth understood that the poet needs “wise passiveness” and “a heart that watches and receives”. When our minds are stuffed with current ideas, we cannot be truly creative because there is no room for anything new. Creation is ex nihilo: out of nothing, the “wild and empty waste” described at the beginning of Genesis.

We cannot all be poets and mystics, but we now face unprecedented dangers, and need to be creative as never before. This means that we must “forget” old ideas that cannot speak to our present situation. The policies of the cold war, which was between nations and empires, cannot be effective when the enemy is within. An American rabbi told me that, in his view, the ideal response to the atrocities of September 11 would have been for the US president to declare a traditional 40-day period of mourning and to do nothing until the horrifying new reality had been fully accepted and understood. Such wu wei was, of course, unthinkable. Incapable of enduring the uncertainties and doubts of the post 9/11 world, politicians irritably reached after short-sighted policies — Afghanistan, Iraq, threats against Iran — that have only made a bad situation worse.

In our restlessly talkative culture, we find silence difficult. We expect instant soundbites from our pundits and politicians about “Islam” and the so-called “clash of civilisations”. We find it hard, to “sit quietly” and take time to look at these highly complex matters impartially and in depth, admitting that we may not fully understand what we are talking about. But strident dogmatism abounds. Debates in parliament or in the media are emotional, aggressive, and often self-serving, when what is required is a coldly critical diagnosis of the crisis, empty of received opinion, prejudice and self-interest. At this terrifying juncture of history, we have to be ready to “forget” — to start from scratch and experience the frightening void of unknowing.

People who have no religious beliefs are often willing to talk to contemplative nuns, because these women, who have embraced silence and emptiness, know how to listen. Listening is rare in our chattering society. It is often all too clear that, while their interlocutor is speaking, participants in talk-shows and phone-ins are not really listening, but thinking up the next clever thing that they want to say. I am certainly guilty of this myself.

If we are to break the deadly cycle of escalating violence — of strike and counter-strike, atrocity and enraged reaction — we must listen intently to what everybody, even our enemy, is saying, and be sincerely ready to let it change us: to get beyond the rhetoric, decode the imagery, and hear the subtext of rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred and despair.—Dawn/Guardian Service

THE fourteenth of August came and went with the usual pomp and ceremony; though this year some of the open air rituals were disrupted by an unusually heavy downpour and ended up as soggy, squelchy affairs.

However, the spirit of independence was kept alive by the customary clutch of patriotic songs on the glass bucket, the nationalistic articles in the press and the incessant roar of motorcycles with their silencers removed.

On such occasions, it is usually the major stars of the independence movement who are exhumed and resuscitated, and given prominence. Unfortunately, nobody seems to bother about the lesser folk, the ordinary people who stand way down in the pecking order, who nevertheless worked tirelessly behind the scenes, and who in their own quiet, unobtrusive way had the wonderful feeling that they were making a contribution, however small, in the great drama of Pakistan. Its time somebody also gave them a paragraph or two in the national press.

It is one such individual that this writer would like to remember on this auspicious occasion. He is the late Commander Ghaffar Ahmed Muraj, formerly of the Indian navy, a dapper, handsome naval officer who rarely talked about himself or the adventurous life he led in the service of king and country. Because of the special position he enjoyed he became a frequent target of the RSS in Bombay, who made a number of attacks on his life and once succeeded in pushing his car off a pier into the ocean — while he was still at the wheel.

However, he will be chiefly remembered for the numerous risks he took to save his countrymen while Muslims were being attacked all over riot torn Bombay. Day after day and night after night, at great personal risk to himself and his family, he crammed hundreds of Muslim refugees onto the overcrowded decks of naval vessels and merchant ships headed for Karachi, and succeeded in bringing over around 25,000 Muslims to Pakistan in the stormy days that followed Partition.

One such refugee was the learned scholar, Dr Abdul Haq, whom he transported to Karachi along with his entire library of books — a treasure trove of Urdu literature. He even managed to take three days casual leave, so that he could clear the entire consignment of precious tomes and manuscripts with the Karachi customs, and was delighted at the cooperation and courtesy he received from the men in white.

There were also lots of other important people who he managed to bring across. The list reads like a page from ‘Who’s Who’ of 1947 and 1948; Dr Mahmud Hussain, A.T. Naqvi, Akbar Mirza of the C.I.D., Sami Mohammed Khan of the police, Brigadier Jalal M. Shah of the army. The list goes on and on and includes numerous British and Australian officers such as Commodore Little, Major J.E. Davis and Captain G.T. Lenworthy, who were shipped along with their families to Karachi, after the United Kingdom High Commission in Bombay refused to accept responsibility for their safety.

Lt. Muraj, as he was then known, was destined to live a life of danger. In 1938, whilst in the Indian merchant navy, his ship was plying the Red Sea routes between Jeddah and Aden. Whilst his ship was anchored at the northern port, it was bombarded by Italian war planes It was the first time he had seen real action. But like most Dufferin-trained officers, he remained unfazed. Miraculously the ship survived.

Subsequently, as a navigating officer on HMIS Nulchira, stationed at Vizagapatam for minesweeping duties, Japanese war planes suddenly came out of the sun and attacked his ship from 10:30 in the morning until sunset. Providence once again smiled on the gallant crewmen and the vessel.

And then on Easter Sunday, while stationed in Calcutta on HMIS Berar, Japanese war planes once again came out of the clouds and strafed and bombed his ship. In the fierce battle which ensued with Ack Ack guns blazing and bombs falling all over the place, there were quite a few casualties. One report, however, stated that the gunners had managed to wing an enemy aircraft and cheered wildly as the propeller-driven aeroplane nose-dived into a watery grave in the Bay of Bengal.

Lt Muraj arrived in Bombay on Christmas Day in 1943. He got married and lived at 30 Dhanraj Mahal in Apollo Bunder, which became one of the focal points for the glitterati of the city.

The decor in the apartment was a highly ornamented rococo fused with the latest in Malacca and rattan, while potted Erica palms fringed the walls of the huge sitting room and the spacious balconies. His wife was a highly cultured and elegant Burmese lady and an exceptional hostess.

She threw numerous dinner parties which were attended by an assortment of diplomats, military men resplendent in bemedalled corpulence, journalists like Frank Moraes of the Times of India and film stars like Ashok Kumar and Nargis. Guests sampled the finest of Burmese delicacies permitted under a war economy and swayed to the exotic rhythms of Xavier Cugat and the Lecuona Cuban Boys.

Because of the sensitive nature of his assignment the place was also crawling with intelligence men who ranged from the seedy stereotype of the sleuth in the mackintosh hanging around street corners with his collar up — to polished officials in starched white uniforms — insouciant masters of disinformation. There was often a Casablanca-like atmosphere. The British-Indian army was fighting the Germans and the Japanese. The Indian National Army of Subhas Chandra Bose was fighting the British. And the Hindu nationalists had their own scores to settle with the Muslims.

Lt. Muraj’s duties as Pakistan’s naval liaison officer in Bombay were vast and onerous and he was at times asked to perform duties which, in the services, are described as “over and above the call of duty.” These he performed with diligence. In India he received considerable support from Commodore H.R. Inigo Jones, Captain Thompson, and Commander Sampson. And in Pakistan there was Admiral J.W. Jefford, Commodore Bailey and Admiral H.M.S Chaudhri — an upright officer with a passionate interest in maritime history. All these gentlemen leant a hand.

Lt Muraj was fond of narrating that delightful story about the time when Admiral Chaudhri was due to visit the naval establishment in Portsmouth. The terse telex that was sent from Karachi read ‘H.M.S. Chaudhri arriving Portsmouth tomorrow.’ Back came the reply. ‘Please indicate measurements and tonnage.’

Ghaffar Ahmed Muraj commanded six ships while serving in the Royal Indian navy with the prefix HMIS — Test, Carnatic, Tir, Baroda and Avenger. And five ships in the Pakistan Navy with the prefix PNS — Jhelum, Shamsheer, Malwa, Attock and Chittagong. On March 23, 1956 he was awarded the Sitara-i-Basalat and retired three years later from Pakistan government service.

He was fascinated with the Indonesian islands and visited Java 15 times and made numerous friends in high places, cherishing his close friendship with the late President Soekarno and former President Suharto. On one occasion, he was successful in obtaining an L.C. for the export of 10 million dollars’ worth of Pakistani cotton, yarn and cloth.

Shortly before his death, this writer visited him in his modest home in Karachi. He was sitting in his study filled with Chinoiserie, Burmese and Indonesian curios and other oriental bric-a-brac. In the background, one could hear the strains of ‘Bengawan Solo’, the most famous and most beautiful of the Javanese Kronchong melodies, and there was the unmistakable aroma of Erinmore Flake.

Suddenly he pulled out a file from the odd hundred that lined the wall and selected a dog-eared letter yellowed with age. It was a note of thanks from the scholar everybody referred to as Baba-i-Urdu, who praised him for preserving a part of Muslim history. Somehow that letter meant more to him than the other nine hundred.

When a Pakistani naval historian writes a book about the forgotten naval heroes of the late ‘40s, one hopes he will give a paragraph or two to the intrepid Commander Ghaffar Ahmed Muraj of the Indian navy who on August 15, 1947, hoisted the Pakistan flag on HMIS Nerbudda, later renamed HMPS Jhelum, and who collected five war medals and awards in the land of his birth — and three decorations in the land of his adoption. In the words of a former naval C-in-C he was a sailor who never said ‘no’ and for whom the word ‘impossible’ just didn’t exist.