WITH the Indian Mujahideen claiming responsibility for the bomb blasts in Jaipur, the three main countries of South Asia have acquired the distinction of having their own Islamic militant outfits.

This will at least obviate the necessity of playing the blame game that militants coming from across the border are indulging in sabotage.

The three countries must realise that the bomb blasts are meant to destabilise them. What happened at Jaipur was also meant to derail the talks in Islamabad on the eve of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s arrival in Pakistan. The two countries should put their heads together to find a solution. This may mean a joint South Asian team, an Asian version of the Interpol, for the purpose of identifying terrorist organisations and combating them.

But this does not seem to be happening as yet because one country exploits negative feelings towards the other to build up support. For example, India is still an ‘enemy’ both in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In the same way, the two countries are seen as the source of terrorism taking place in India. Since the establishments in all three countries have come to believe that their posture of hostility evokes mass support, they continue with a stance that puts the onus on their neighbour.

What they do not seem to visualise is that terrorism has made people insecure. They want harsher laws. This is a time when liberty and human rights are at risk of being violated. Bomb blasts are an expression of what the fundamentalists have in mind. In reality, they want to spread the cult of violence and foment communal riots. Since governance is weakening in all three countries, there is always an effort to make peace with fundamentalists. For example, the agreement which the government in Pakistan has made with militants along the Afghan border and the Swat Valley is like buying peace. These militants belong to Al Qaeda and the Taliban whose agenda includes the imposition of a theocratic order on the NWFP and Afghanistan.

In India, when the government seeks peace with the hostile Nagas and the ULFA, it is following the same line. In Maharashtra, the Congress-led government has made peace with the Shiv Sena by not moving against its chief Bal Thackeray indicted by the Sri Krishna report in the Mumbai riots of 1992. There can be no rapprochement with people who want to have their way through violence. This is no more an ethical argument; it is a necessity to establish the rule of law.

While confronting these problems, governments in the three countries have to build a polity where religion is separated from politics. Even in India, which is a secular state, the government has not been able to ban communalism because some political parties covertly pursue a religious agenda. The country has seen evidence of this in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Mumbai bomb blasts and the Gujarat carnage.

The BJP, the Shiv Sena and the latter’s virulent form of campaigning against the north Indians are responsible for Islamic fundamentalism in India. First, terrorists came from across the border in the name of jihad. Now they have developed a group within the country. Not too long ago, Indian Muslims refused to heed the cause of jihad in Afghanistan. They didn’t even care to support Kashmiri militants appealing in the name of Islam. Since then, it is apparent that some desperate elements have taken to the dictum of tit-for-tat.It is true that the administration is contaminated. It is equally true that the police tend to be one-sided. But it is also true that those who have taken to bomb blasts or other violent methods are on the destructive path. Communalism cannot be tackled by communalism. What happened in Jaipur, Ajmer or elsewhere shows desperation, not foresight. The BJP government in Rajasthan is far from secular, but how does the killing of innocents, both Hindus and Muslims, help?

And if one were to translate the Jaipur tragedy in the context of the entire country, it is the Muslims who will be the worst sufferers. Hindutva adherents will gain the most. There are only 11 months to the Lok Sabha elections. The bomb blasts may consolidate the Hindu vote on the side of a pro-Hindu party. No liberal in the country would like that scenario.

A fatwa against terrorism has come from Deoband, historically one of the global centres of Islamic theological discussion. But the books and teaching contents at this centre have undergone little change and do not fit in with the slogan raised for the battle against jihadis. Scholars are still going their own way and even meetings held by a group of Deobandis show that they are reluctant to change their archaic and parochial thinking.

The new generation of Muslims wants to compete in the world of information technology and economic challenges. True, Deoband cannot be progressive overnight and participate in affairs that are far removed from theology. But it can at least help members of the Muslim community shed conservatism and those outdated dogmas in which most of them are stuck. Terrorism is not only anti-religion, it is also anti-Muslim because Muslims lose the most whenever such an atmosphere spreads in the country.

Pakistan does not help in any way when it encourages infiltrators, however small their numbers, to penetrate India. The Samba incident in Jammu is a case in point. It has linked instances of terrorism to the ISI. Once again, pro-Hindu groups benefit and the process of conciliation between the two countries weakens.

People in all three countries still have not overcome their mutual suspicion and mistrust. They continue to be buffeted by the winds of religious propaganda and fall prey to the appeal of chauvinists who want them to pick up arms and implement an agenda of hatred and revenge.

The governments and political leaders are too shackled by their parochial agenda. Civil society in the three countries must assert itself. The intelligentsia should come together and devise ways of how to fight against those parties that stoke the fires of parochialism. Inaction on this front can be suicidal.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

THE new government’s foreign policy, especially its links with the US, need to be critically examined. There are many who believe that the new regime will act to do America’s bidding. In fact, some even believe that a lowly police SHO is transferred on the orders of the US embassy in Islamabad.

Such a perception is problematic at a time when Pakistan and the rest of the world are confronted with the war on terror. Greater scepticism about this relationship is bound to create mistrust which does not help anyone.

Recently, the current US ambassador to Pakistan indicated her surprise at the anxiety that middle-class Pakistanis feel and express towards the US. A few inquiries would help her discover the reason for this. In fact, if she were to investigate a bit more she would know how firmly ordinary Pakistanis believe that their country is run with the help of the three A’s: the army, America and Allah. A popular perception is that nothing moves in Pakistan without direct orders from Washington, D.C., and that the change of government and the restoration of the judiciary are two matters partly determined by taking into consideration American interests.

Even ambassador Anne Patterson’s frustration over why Pakistanis dislike the US, despite its military and economic assistance, is not something new. Her predecessors probably felt the same way. Although US-Pakistan relations date back to the 1950s, there is no improvement in terms of the public perception of the relationship. The reason for this lack of any visible improvement is quite simple. The US has always focused on Pakistan’s elite, the policymakers and the government which tend to abandon the US in times of political crises to earn greater legitimacy. Historically, Islam and anti-Americanism are two agendas which are used by leaders to win public support during troubled times.

Surely, there are huge problems in America’s larger foreign policy scheme that creates anxiety among the general public in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world. However, it is important to recognise that the leadership which Washington so trusts has never tried to minimise the credibility deficit in Pakistani and American societies. For instance, the previous regime was in the forefront of trying to project itself as the only protector of US interests in Pakistan while the rest of the Pakistanis were portrayed as fundamentalists and extremists.

The bulk of Pakistan does not know the US or even share the windfall of the financial benefits enjoyed by the policymaking elite in Islamabad. However, the common man experiences the impact of the troubled relationship every time there is an embargo or when they are told that the country has been abandoned by the US yet again.

Bilateral relations date back to the 1950s when Pakistan joined two American-sponsored security alignments, Seato and Cento. Financial and material assistance played a major role in building up and strengthening the military and civil bureaucratic infrastructure which many believe was the main cause for the imbalance between the military and political institutions in Pakistan. During the 1950s, Pakistan received almost the same amount of aid as, perhaps, Israel. However, the relationship came to a standstill with the first embargo in 1965 during the second India-Pakistan war. Later, the alignment was resurrected during the 1980s ending with another decade of sanctions in October 1990.

On both occasions, the relationship began to change at the end of the period of convergence of objectives between the two countries. The security alignment was meant to fight the communist power and not India. America’s allies in Pakistan never told the general public that they were in the relationship not under coercion but due to mutual interests. The Ayub and Zia regimes were interested in money and material benefits. The policy was made as much on the basis of realpolitik from this side as on the other. At times, benefits were at a very personal level as in the case of Pakistan’s finance minister under Ayub Khan who had links with the CIA.

As far as the US was concerned, successive leaderships in Pakistan pursued their interests. However, the stakes were very personal in nature. It is also a fact that the American engagement with Pakistan since the 1950s has resulted in dividends, as far as Washington’s interests were concerned, in terms of creating a strong pro-US lobby inside Pakistan’s corridors of power that included the armed forces. These are the elements that find the US beneficial both financially and politically.

While the engagement brings money and other benefits, the period of disengagement is used to gain political capital. Our Israel policy is a clear example of the gaps in our own policy. While leaders tend to build personal links with Israel to benefit personally, very little effort is made to take the nation along or to educate the people about these initiatives.

The main problem with the relationship has always been the lack of institutionalisation. While individual leaders or prominent government functionaries developed greater understanding with individuals or institutions on the other side, very little was done to develop institutional links that would strengthen bilateral relations.

An example of comparative patron-client relations includes ties between Israel and the US versus Pakistan and the US. In the former’s case, greater dividends have accrued to Tel Aviv from the linkage because of its ability to lobby American policymakers and its own internal political strength which has never been Pakistan’s forte.

Today, Islamabad cannot disengage itself from Washington because it will not serve our national interest not to have cordial relations with a global power. It is not just about the war on terror but making use of the relationship to build our human resources and carry out other infrastructural development. Surely, this involves opportunity cost in terms of watching over American interests in this region.

Politics is rarely about moralpolitik. It is mostly about realpolitik. However, power politics does not mean capitulation to a bigger ally. There have been occasions when Islamabad stood its ground, as its independent stance on the nuclear programme and relations with India and China. So, it cannot be argued that Pakistan does not have the capacity to act independently while cooperating with Washington.

Nevertheless, we must understand that a lot of the problems which seem to occur in conducting our foreign relations are really a product of our own political weakness rather than the power of our bigger ally. If those problems persist, rumours of toeing a particular line without getting sufficient benefits will haunt us yet again.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s appointment of businessman and media tycoon Salman Taseer — his friend and a former PPP parliamentarian — as governor, Punjab, set off howls of protest from the PPP’s chief coalition partner, PML-N, as well as from what some arbitrarily call ‘civil society’ and others term the ‘chattering classes’.

The controversial appointment followed the PML-N announcement that its federal ministers were resigning because the pre-Nov 3, 2007, judiciary had not been restored by the May 12 deadline announced after the Murree Declaration.

More important than this deadline though, was the PML-N and PPP’s agreement that the judiciary must be restored. This is a goal that the two parties agree upon and it is significant for their continuing coalition. Their differences arise in the modalities. Nawaz Sharif wants a dramatic political gesture, an executive order that underscores his stated commitment to the cause while Asif Ali Zardari, embittered by his own experiences at the hands of some of these judges, wants a constitutional package that strengthens the institution — as envisaged by the proposed 18th Constitution Amendment Bill.

The Murree Declaration itself was greeted with the incredulity reminiscent of the amazement that followed an earlier pact between the PPP and PML-N: the Charter of Democracy of May 14, 2006, signed in London by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, envisaging a joint struggle to rid the country of military rule. The second significant point for the coalition is that the two major parties realise the importance of ending the military’s interference in politics.

There are powerful forces at work playing up their differences and trying to drive a wedge between them. These include western powers like the US and the UK who are more comfortable with their man Musharraf and the PML-Q, than the wild card PML-N. Also ranged against the coalition are the Pakistani ‘establishment’ and its allies in the media where speculation is often presented as news. Together, these forces keep pushing the PPP towards the president and his ‘Q’ League.

Zardari appears to be merrily playing into their hands, letting two deadlines lapse without restoring the judges and appointing non-elected persons to positions of power. And then he showed Sharif the proverbial stick with the Taseer appointment (the president reportedly rejected the other nominees). The PML-N had until now been riding high, feasting on carrots in the high-stakes Punjab province where it remains in government as the senior coalition partner and has made thousands of transfers and postings. But the coalition remains intact as the PML-N remains on the treasury benches rather than the opposition in the National Assembly.

The game of politics continues with Zardari requesting the prime minister not to accept the federal minister resignations and asking Taseer to curb his anti-Nawaz rhetoric. The third significant point about the coalition is that the PML-N needs it as much as the PPP does.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, reiterating that the deposed judges will be restored as soon as the modalities are worked out, termed the Pakistani people as ‘mature, intelligent and patient’, wanting ‘to give the government time’. He may well be correct but for most people, sky-rocketing prices are the most pressing issues and the description sounds like wishful thinking when it comes to ‘civil society’ and the lawyers.

Certainly, pressure must be maintained on the government to fulfil its promises but grand rhetoric, dramatic gestures and street agitations will only endanger the coalition. This will make the PML-Q very happy as well as the foreign and domestic powers who want Zardari to join hands with Musharraf and the Q League.

In this situation, the All Pakistan Democratic Movement’s announcement of a national moot on June 1 to strategise about the government’s ‘failure to restore the deposed judiciary’ appears provocative and premature. What is needed at this juncture is a little more patience. It is unrealistic to expect that a mess which was in the making for years will be satisfactorily resolved within a couple of months.

Had the PPP not agreed to a deadline the PML-N would not have joined the federal cabinet to share its burden. The PML-N may privately hope for mid-term polls, but has commendably taken the public position of supporting the government and saying it should complete its tenure. After all, going along with the PPP pressure has proved beneficial before, since Benazir Bhutto convinced Nawaz Sharif to contest the elections instead of boycotting them.

Zardari has a tough act to follow. Thrown into the deep end by Benazir Bhutto’s murder, he does not have her experience, stature or statesmanship (her detractors maintain that she herself lacked the last two). He demonstrated flexibility and sagacity after her assassination, countering the slogans of ‘Pakistan na khapey’ and keeping the party together. He proved central in cobbling together a coalition government, countering the establishment’s old machinations of dividing the politicians and confounding critics who couldn’t even envisage a Sharif-Zardari alliance.

Persistent rumours about Zardari’s prime ministerial or presidential ambitions are still unfounded. Perceptions that the National Reconciliation Ordinance provides a cover to corruption persist even in cases that have nothing to do with the NRO. In any case, with the PPP in power, the Ordinance is irrelevant since the cases it waived were instituted by the government of the time.

In the current fraught political atmosphere, a bit of breathing space to the main coalition partners may have long-term benefits. It is worth bearing in mind a plea Zardari made to a group of journalists, lawyers, artists and writers visiting Naudero to condole with him soon after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. “If we slip up and make mistakes, please be patient with us,” he said. “We are dancing on broken glass.”

The writer is a freelance journalist and documentary film-maker currently based in Karachi.

beena.sarwar@gmail.com

ONLY deluded Clinton loyalists now believe that the Democratic presidential candidate will be anyone but the surprising senator from Illinois Barack Obama.

Even more deluded, one might imagine, are American news pundits who assert that Republican candidate Senator John McCain, whose policies are nothing more than shabby photocopies of Bush’s disastrous agenda, has a fighting chance in November.

Yet Republicans are supposed to be a force to reckon with in the next election despite launching an illegal aggressive war, despite a horde of their high officials deserving to face criminal charges for gross misconduct, despite shovelling public funds freely into the coffers of corporate and financial cronies.

Predicaments abound. Take healthcare alone. While tens of millions simply cannot afford skyrocketing medical insurance or drug costs, at least half the citizenry, inadequately insured, is in for a shock when they do try to get private companies to pay up. The firms snip off 30 per cent for themselves before they dish out the first dollar’s worth of care to anxious and overcharged customers.

Polls consistently show two-thirds or more of Americans want a national healthcare system, want to get out of Iraq, want the rich to pay their fair pre-Bush share of taxes.

The classic problem for the richest strata in all democracies frankly is how to persuade people who aren’t rich to vote for them. Owning the mainstream media is a big help, as is owning most of everything else, including many legislators. Americans are indeed alert now to the scandalous lobbying power of moneyed interests but can do little so far to curb it through campaign reforms.

The policies that serve the rich are really not calculated to help anyone else, no matter how often they plead otherwise, so it would seem to be a hard sell anyway. Hence, the Republicans resort to invoking the flag, religion, the military, traditions (at least those that don’t interfere with amassing money), law and order (but not for CEOs) and low taxes.

A few principled conservatives do care about quaint things like civil rights and keeping government in check, but they are a tiny muffled minority in Bush’s party, whose buccaneering behaviour would horrify Edmund Burke or any other conservative democratic theorist of note. Yet savvy people in the media say McCain, who vows to carry on Bush’s misdeeds, has a chance. The shame is that he does. And here’s why.

The November election will produce a landslide victory for the Democrats in both Houses as well as the presidency, if all votes are counted. That’s the catch. Stellar reporter Greg Palast, among other investigators, already has shown that the Democrats will start out the next election at least 4,500,000 votes down due to a variety of Republican disenfranchising gimmicks, ranging from illegal disqualifications of minority voters (who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats) to legal measures such as voter ID schemes under consideration in 19 states. This latter scheme is designed to cure the non-existent problem of voter fraud — instances are few and far between — but really to keep the Democratic vote down.

Schemes to discourage Democrat votes range from intimidation at polling places, to phony felon lists, to allocating too few machines in Democratic districts. If you are black in the US the chances of having your vote discounted is nine times higher than for a white voter. The odds are five times higher for a Hispanic vote being invalidated as for a white, and 20 times higher for a Native American (which enabled Bush to win crucial New Mexico in the 2004 election).

Don’t get us started on the horror of privatised control of vote-counting via electronic machines, manufactured by a few fanatically committed Republican firms. The Democrats have made slow progress since 2004 in the absolutely vital task to make these crazy machines verifiable, or, better yet, dump them altogether. So the upcoming election will be closer than it needs to be.

If one looks philosophically at what ill winds blow, there is no doubt that it took two terms of blithering callous upper-class Bush to enable so talented and intriguing (and unknown) a figure as Obama to come to the fore — a black man, even something of an intellectual. Obama, over the next few months, needs to offer a restoration of the old ‘New Deal’, and he is indeed beginning, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932, to get the message across to hard-pressed American families that he is on their side. But the ardent sense of entitlement to power that militant conservatives feel has to be seen on their blogs and heard on their radio stations to be believed.

The race card matters, though not as much as it used to, and will be played. The election ahead is going to be extraordinarily dirty. The media wants a race to sell advertising and will endlessly talk up McCain. For all the overblown liberal credentials of the average reporter, it is their bosses —who are not conspicuously liberal — who decide what goes in the news and what angle is permissible. Yet most white working class voters won’t give a darn even if they believed silly rumours that Obama is Muslim (despite his highly publicised problems with Reverend Wright), not when they have endured having their pockets picked for the last decade by professed Christian fundamentalists.