OBAMA AND INDIA: NO ROOM FOR APPREHENSION NOW

During the last month or so, President Barack Obama has taken some significant steps that, viewed in totality, should make India more than happy.

When Obama entered the White House a little under a year back, there were serious apprehensions in India about where in his world view India would fit. If there was one country in the world where his predecessor, George Bush, was not hated, it was India. And that was because of the manner in which he forged a new strategic partnership with this country, as exemplified by the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, which would never have gone through had it not been for his personal push and commitment.

India's misgivings about Obama were centered around two main issues: Kashmir and the Nuclear Deal. A couple of months before he became President, in an interview with Joe Klien of Time magazine, Obama spoke about working with India and Pakistan to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way. That set off alarm bells. What was overlooked then was that, at that point of time, he believed that was the best way to go to get Pakistan off Kashmir to better face "the biggest threat...coming from the Afghan border". His views on non-proliferation, consistent with his broad vision of a nuclear weapons free world, and a few steps taken by him subsequently, also made it appear as if the Nuclear Deal was all but off. Again, his statement that he remained committed to it was swallowed with a heavy dose of skepticism.

I, for one, was always certain that for India, Obama would prove to be even better than Bush. In an article written just two days after he became President, I explained in detail why I believed that would happen. Almost a year of uncertainties later, that belief, semantics apart, is beginning to be proved right.

The Nuclear Deal, despite many hiccups since it was signed, is all but through, as Obama and Dr Manmohan Singh clarified during the latter's recent visit to the US. In fact, Obama sprang a small surprise when, during his welcome speech, he referred to India and the US as "nuclear powers". The final agreement regarding reprocessing should be signed soon, and the chapter closed to India's satisfaction.

Obama has been clear from day one that the US faces a real, direct threat from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not Iraq. Before he became President, he may have thought that getting India to make some concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir would help the latter focus on the war in Afghanistan. All that has changed during the last one year. Obama is evidently no longer in any doubt that Kashmir and Afghanistan are two sides of the same terror coin. And that the war against it has to be won in Pakistan. I had little doubt that he would grasp this fundamental fact after he became President, and reach the logical conclusion that any deal on Kashmir that is seen as even a small victory for terrorists would lengthen rather than strengthen the war on terror.

That is why he is no longer pushing India for a deal on Kashmir. That is why he has quietly expanded the war inside Pakistan by widening the areas covered by drone attacks operated by the CIA against militants and sending additional spies there. That is also why, in a two-page letter to President Zardari last month, he asked Pakistan to stop using insurgent groups like the LeT as a strategic tool, and warned that if it did not deliver against the terrorists, the US would be impelled to use "any means" at its disposal. What General James Jones, US National Security Advisor, delivered to Pakistan is much more than a letter. It is a defining shift in US strategy. For the first time, the LeT, which operates in Kashmir and the rest of India, has been bracketed with five other terror groups that are active against the US in Afghanistan. Obama has asked Pakistan to stop using it for pursuing its policy goals, warning that any ambiguity in its relationship with the LeT and other groups could not be ignored.

Above all, after deliberating for a couple of months over the recommendation of General Stanley A. McChrystal for an additional 40,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, Obama has authorised sending of 30,000 US troops to that country and asked NATO allies to chip in with more. With this, the strength of US forces will go up to around 100,000, in addition to 40,000 troops from other NATO countries. Although he has also made it clear that the this commitment is not open-ended and announced that the withdrawal of troops will begin in July 2011, he has also said that he will bring this war to a successful conclusion, and has reminded Americans that the "security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake."

Some Indian analysts, citing India's experience in Kashmir, believe that the troop surge is too little. They forget that combat power available to US troops is enormous. In contrast, Indian forces have been operating for two decades with little firepower beyond their personal weapons. That is why we keep seeing the spectacle of a couple of militants holed up in a house holding up hundreds of soldiers for days. Indian policy makers are happy to let soldiers keep dying, but will not allow any collateral damage at all to prevent their deaths. That will not happen in Afghanistan; missiles, helicopter gun ships, jet fighters, satellites - the works - are force multipliers that drastically reduce the number of boots required on ground.

There is also the ever-present apprehension that the US will hand Afghanistan back to Pakistan and scoot. But Obama has made it clear that the US is not just going to walk away this time, and will continue to support Pakistan "long after the guns have fallen silent." Till the Al Qaida and other extreme elements with a similar mindset are not fully defeated and the danger of their acquiring nuclear weapons not completely eliminated, there is no way that the US is going to pull out; the risk simply cannot be taken. One more attack on the mainland and the picture will become crystal clear to Americans and others. A nuclear 9/11? Unthinkable.

Obama has no choice but to say at this point of time that Pakistan is its ally in this war. He needs it to fight the cancer that it has given birth to and is giving life to. 80% of the requirements of troops in Afghanistan pass through Pakistan and he needs it to protect that supply line. He cannot, yet, allow US troops to enter Pakistan to strike at the roots of terror; Pakistan's military has first to be made to kill its own creations - the controllable enemy has to be used to kill the wild, dangerous one. Perhaps Obama is aware that Pakistan's military establishment may not able to do that to his entire satisfaction. That is why he has threatened to use "any means", if it doesn't. He has also, manifestly, come to realise that if the US leaves Afghanistan with even the LeT intact, the ideology that ignites it will again attempt fierce retaliatory attacks on the mainland. The situation could well get out of control.

The US, therefore, cannot afford to be defeated in Af-Pak; for its own security, India too needs to see it win the war there. Afghanistan remains the doorway to India, particularly with a fundamentalist Pakistan in between. In that sense, it is no less important than Kashmir. So, make no mistake: this is India's war too. That is why it is India which is America's natural ally in this war and beyond. Obama understands that now more than ever before. George Bush got this one right.

So far India has been lucky to be no more than a distant bystander happily watching the US do its dirty job for it. That luxury may not be available forever, if Obama wants to win and de-induct US troops in a reasonable time-frame, and Pakistan does not play up as it must. It is now up to India's leaders to prepare the nation to do whatever may be asked of it to ensure the victory of "secular forces" in Af-Pak. In India's supreme national interest.
'

CAN CHINA'S MIGHT A MONK'S POWER FIGHT?

China seems to be more afraid of the Dalai Lama than most of us suspect. The Tibetan spiritual leader has been troubling them no end for decades, and their apprehensions are only increasing with every passing day. For those who believe that non-violence is powerless in these times and that without the gun nothing can be achieved, there is no better example than the Dalai Lama of the enormous power that the path of unyielding truth can generate.

Is it not ironical that super power China is today seriously concerned about virtually no one save a monk in ochre robes? With all their nukes and guns and tanks they can pressurise, even defeat, most nations on the battle field. But with what do they fight a man whose only weapon is the truth he speaks and the spiritual power that all can feel but none can see?

At stake is no small piece of land "on which not a blade of grass grows", that can just be written off, Nehru style; the fight is for a vast region the size of Western Europe, a land that was invaded by China's People's Liberation Army in 1950.

For 60 years, China has systematically replaced Tibetan language and culture with Chinese, and attempted to change the demographics of Tibet by pushing in Han Chinese settlers into it. Estimates of the number of Chinese living there now vary widely, due to opaque Chinese administrative structures, but in many cities, including capital Lhasa, they now outnumber Tibetans.

China claims that Tibet is a part of China; Tibetans believe otherwise. Both cite history to support their claims. Be that as it may, the fact is that 60 million Tibetans do not accept that their country is a part of China. In 1912, the 13th Dalai Lama stated that the relationship between the Chinese Emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest" and that Tibet was an independent nation. The present Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959 following the Chinese invasion has, however, accepted the reality of Chinese rule and has been demanding genuine autonomy within China, with three conditions: a) Beijing to control only defense and foreign affairs, b) the regions of Kham and Amdo to be added to Tibet and c) Han settlers to leave. For the Chinese, obsessed with total control and Han domination, this is absolutely unacceptable.

But the Dalai Lama cannot be wished away, as China desperately wants. 50 years after he left Tibet, he continues to exercise enormous influence among most Tibetans living not only in Tibet but also in China. It is surprising that communist China has not realised so far is that the more it tries to demonise him to assert its claim over Tibet and justify what it is doing there, the more respected he becomes in the eyes of Tibetans and the more the power that the Tibetan people's undying quest for freedom from its yoke gets.

The Chinese are afraid of this rising non-violent power that, it may be recalled, was seen by the whole world when it erupted suddenly in 2008, despite choking Chinese control. They remember the energy that Mahatma Gandhi unleashed, the undying fire that an incarcerated Nelson Mandela lit. So they are desperate to knock it out, before it is too late. But they just don't have the right tools to do it. So, almost like mindless robots, they continue to repeat the same mantra ever time the Dalai Lama visits a country and is honoured and received with respect by heads of state. The more he travels, the more vicious becomes China's criticism of him; the more China abuses, the greater the honour this holy man of peace receives.

That is probably why China seems to be losing it. Concerned about reports that President Obama will meet the Dalai Lama on his return from a visit to China, it has made an absolutely absurd call to America's first African-American President. It has likened slavery in America to the state of Tibetan society under the Dalai Lama!

"He is a black President and understands the slavery abolition movement." These are not words of Tibetans who want freedom from Chinese occupation and slavery, but of Beijing which wants Obama to buy this ridiculous line and shun the dangerous and "splittist" Dalai Lama. In fact China is even claiming that its stance is like Lincoln's; it too is abolishing slavery in Tibet. If China is to be believed, the Dalai Lama is the racist that the US must shun, and Hans and Tibetans are actually one people!

The US has already yielded to China's pressure. President Obama did not meet the Dalai Lama when he was in the US recently, to avoid annoying the Chinese before his visit to that country. The US may give in even more; supreme national interest and China's growing economic and military might will dictate policy.

Of what use is that awesome power when it comes to tackling a man of God? Communist China has lost its connect with its own spiritual past. It now almost exclusively follows Mao's dictum that "political power grows through the barrel of a gun...whoever has an army has power, for war settles everything." That certainly applies when you deal with nations and people ready to fight you with guns of their own.

But what do you do when someone refuses to pick a gun but also refuses to yield? How do you fight him? The British were not able find out and they left India. The Chinese can also not fight the power of a monk with their might alone. But they can find the answer; they only have to look into their own rich history, the values which they have discarded almost completely. Once they do that, may be they will want to leave Tibet on their own. It is also equally possible that then Tibetans will happily accept being part of China on honourable terms that both have experience of.

One thing is for sure. By continuing to abuse His Holiness the Dalai Lama - he has even been called a "jackal in ochre robes" - China is only accumulating bad karma. It is never going to win over the non-violent people of Tibet or legitimise its oppressive rule over them this way. It has to either annihilate them or yield. The latter will happen; it is only a question of time.

UPDATE

Barkha Dutt spoke to the Dalai Lama after this post was written. Watch him and listen to his words. An illuminating experience:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read: China and India: competition of civilisations

OBAMA GETS ANTICIPATORY 'NO'BEL

As we all know, President Barack Obama did nothing earthshaking in the 11 days he was in office before the closing date for filing of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, he promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and banned torture and extreme interrogation techniques. That was surely not enough to tip the scales in his favour.

Clearly, for perhaps the first time in the not-so-noble history of the Nobel Peace Prize, the jury has given it in anticipation of what Obama had promised to deliver to the world before he became President rather than what he has done after he entered the White House.

I am an ardent admirer of President Obama and believe that he has a vision and a world view that no American President before him has had or could have had. His multi-racial, multi-cultural background and the years he spent as a boy in Indonesia with his mother and step-father, have enabled him to see things from a perspective that would not have been possible had he grown up as white man in the US. It is largely due to this upbringing that he has become the man he is, with Gandhi and Dr King as his idols.

Only Obama could have made that stirring speech in Berlin where he said on July 24, 2008: "People of the world, this is our moment, this is our time". Men of destiny often arrive at their destination even as others believe they are still on the way and are not sure whether they will reach. On that day when I watched him speak and listened to what he had to say to the people of the world, as if he was the leader of them all and not just of the people of the United States, I had little doubt in my mind that he was destined to grace the Oval Office and lead not just America but the whole world, and not just as a political leader but as a unifying, inclusive beacon of morality and hope.

Nine months into his Presidency, Obama has shown that his pre-poll promises were not like the ones we are used to seeing in India, and has taken steps to give concrete shape to them. The Nobel jury has also noted "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between nations" and his campaign for nuclear non-proliferation. Notwithstanding all that, the hard fact is that as far as real achievements worthy of the award are concerned, he still has a long way to go.

The cynical, therefore, cannot be faulted for alleging that this Peace Prize has been rigged.

Some Indians will surely be pleased to hear this, for till now it was believed that rigging was a typical Indian specialty. This was always evident in the Padma Awards doled out by the government of India. How often have we seen them being given to 'inclusive' historians, 'exclusive' politicians, 'political' journalists, 'connected' nobodies and the like? But, who has not noticed that, of late, even gallantry awards have been similarly corrupted, as they had to be, into 'entitlements' for some who either simply die in a bomb blast or get shot dead by terrorists?

Though I too believe that Obama has been given the Nobel too prematurely, there is little doubt that he has got it because of the enormous impact that he is expected to make on the world in his eight years of Presidency, if he gets a second term. The jury can be faulted for assuming that the promise will become reality; it cannot be accused of giving it to someone who is not deserving, as it has been on occasions in the past.

In law there is a provision for granting anticipatory bail to someone fearing arrest, to prevent him from being arrested. In giving President Obama an anticipatory No'bel', the jury may have unknowingly tied him down to delivering on his many promises. If the Peace Prize acts as a catalyst to make Obama work even harder to usher in the many pioneering changes that he has spoken of, it would have done its job and found a truly deserving recipient.

Picture: The New York Times

NUCLEAR DEAL: MANMOHAN DID RIGHT

Last year, when Dr Manmohan Singh threatened to resign if the Indo-US Nuclear Deal did not go through and the communists withdrew support to the government on this issue, there was one question that was asked by a lot of people: what is the hurry to get the Deal through? That question has been more than satisfactorily answered. No one is in any doubt that Barack Obama would not have given such a Deal to India. He did support the Deal before he became President and says even now that he will honour it. But it is evident already that there is a fundamental mismatch between his views on proliferation of nuclear weapons and what the Deal promises to India.

Well before he became President, Obama had spoken of his vision of a nuclear-weapon free world. That is something he has reiterated often since as a long term global goal which he admits will not be achieved in his life time.

But, there is no doubt whatsoever that he is serious about setting in motion measures that will lead to the achievement of that vision. Towards that end he has already taken some concrete steps. A few of these are:

• In the first week of July, he reached an outline agreement with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev. As per that "joint understanding" signed in Moscow, the strength of deployed nuclear warheads of both countries will be reduced to below 1,700 within seven years of signing a new treaty.
• He has also announced that he would seek ratification of the CTBT which the US has signed but not yet ratified.
• The US, along with other nuclear weapon states among the G8 members, has also decreed a moratorium on production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices and is working towards a treaty that bans it. G8 members have also called upon all states to declare and uphold a moratorium on production of such material.

This defining call made by the G8 to all states, undoubtedly under the leadership and urging of Obama, to declare a moratorium on production of fissile material, has gone largely unnoticed in India. This is a major step towards putting a lid on proliferation of nuclear weapons. From this flows logically the much talked about interim ban imposed by the G8 on enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items and technology sales to the countries that have not signed the NPT. There are only three countries who have not done that yet: India, Pakistan and Israel.

The G8 Statement on Nonproliferation marks a shift in the position of the nuclear powers as far as India's ambitions and plans as a de facto nuclear power are concerned. The Indo-US Nuclear Deal concluded between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George Bush allows India to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities with only the latter being placed under IAEA safeguards. India, thus, has became the only non-nuclear weapons power that is free to pursue its nuclear weapons program without attracting sanctions or facing a ban on import of dual use technology items, something that it had faced ever since it exploded its first nuclear device, stymieing its efforts to generate power through the use of nuclear energy.

The imposing of the ENR items and technology ban by the G8 effectively re-imposes the ban on some critical dual use items and dilutes the Deal to some extent. The government, possibly caught on the back foot by this development, should have seen this and more coming ever since Obama got into the White House. Russia and France have reportedly signed agreements with India that permit India to reprocess imported nuclear fuel on its soil. But that may mean little if these members of the G8 individually refuse to overlook the very ENR ban that they have collectively imposed a few days back. Will they do it?

The real picture is likely to emerge only after India starts talks with the US on a reprocessing deal to operationalise the Deal. Will it be possible for the US to say one thing at the G8 and do exactly the opposite with India thereafter? Or will it cite the 123 Agreement to make an exception in the case of India? After extracting it pound of flesh, of course! The decision that the US takes will set the tone for all other members of the NSG. A negative for India decision by the US will inadvertently see China achieve without effort what it failed to do surreptitiously at the NSG meeting in Vienna last year.

The G8 statement needs to be seen in the light of the nuclear test carried out by North Korea on May 25, 2009, the nuclear program being pursued by Iran and the real danger of nuclear weapons and/or technologies falling into the hands of terrorists. These immediate concerns coupled with the pacifist vision of Barack Obama have resulted in the statement which may impact India adversely and make it appear as if India has blundered in entering into the Deal with the US. But if you look more closely, it will become clear that is not so.

Would India have been better off today had it not signed the Deal? The answer is unambiguously in the negative. Without the Deal, its nuclear weapons program would have remained as illegitimate as that of, say, North Korea or Pakistan and it would not have been able to get the nuclear power plants that it is planning to now, from any country, to generate 20,000 MW of power by 2020. Even if the ENR ban stays, for whatever reason, for some time, the situation will still be better than it was before the Deal was signed. At least with the Deal and the NSG approval in place, India has a solid and exclusive platform to work on; it had nothing earlier. And if India continues to outgrow the rest of the world economically, soon it will even have much better bargaining power than it has ever had till now.

Barack Obama's views on nuclear proliferation may, at worst, see some temporary erosion in a few provisions of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal that Dr Manmohan Singh was astute enough to insist on pushing through when Bush was US President. It is now on the alertness of India's leaders and their negotiating skills to ensure that such erosion is minimal. It is also important that Obama's position on the subject is viewed holistically and not narrowly as anti-India.

India also needs to remember that Obama will have at best eight years as President. The Deal will outlast him. And who knows how the next US President will look at things and what the global security scenario will be then, particularly in the light of China's furious efforts to build a strategic military capability to rival that of the US? Let us give Manmohan due credit. He did right in pushing the Deal, as time will tell.

OBAMA, OSAMA, ISLAM AND THE WORLD

In his inaugural speech on January 20, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama had spoken of seeking "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect" with the Muslim world. Nearly five months later, he significantly chose the "timeless city" of Cairo to tell Muslims across the globe that America and Islam were not exclusive and did not need to be in competition. Quoting from the Holy Quran, he also sensitively sought to drive home the point that America's fight against "violent extremism" was not a war against Islam, or a manifestation of a clash of civilisations, and that the US and the Muslim world had to confront this challenge jointly. For perhaps the first time ever, Muslims across the world listened to an American President with open minds and many even welcomed his words.

Thanks to his multi-cultural and multi-racial background, Obama has taken a road no white US President could have even considered. Jack Shaheen sees elements of King and Gandhi in Obama, and believes he is a leader "who has respect for all faiths; he has the vision to see the commonality among all faiths; and is a leader who respects their differences". That is why, when Obama says that America is not and will never be "at war with Islam", his words don't ring hollow and do not sound like that of an average politician trying to make a clever political statement. That is why, even though on ground America's policy on terror remains undiluted and its "war of necessity" in Afghanistan is being prosecuted with renewed focus and vigour, Obama's carefully chosen words are designed to make them more palatable to Muslims and not arouse the kind of hostility against the US that they had till now.

As far as Af-Pak is concerned, Obama's words and actions are also likely to make it that much more difficult for Osama bin Laden to justify and find recruits for his brand of war as a holy jihad against the great Satan America. It was not surprising, therefore, that a few days before Obama spoke in Cairo, an alarmed Osama bin Laden attempted to undermine his efforts to isolate the Al Qaida and the Taliban and project America's war against them in Afghanistan and Pakistan as no more than one against violent extremism that had nothing to do with Islam. In a taped message broadcast by Al Jazeera, Osama tried to whip up emotions against Obama saying: "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley...Elderly people, children and women fled their homes and lived in tents as refugees after they have lived in dignity in their homes. Let the American people be ready to reap what the White House leaders have sown...".

A couple of years back, Imran Khan, Pakistan's westernised playboy cricketer with a Talibani mindset had blasted President Musharraf for joining America's "war on terror" because that had led to "Muslims killing Muslims" as against Muslims killing non-Muslims earlier. That statement had echoed the then popular, black and white sentiment in Pakistan that the US was at war with Islam and had to defeated, not befriended. That is why Musharraf was so unpopular. That was also one reason why Pakistan was simultaneously fighting against and with the Taliban, in the hope that eventually the Americans would be forced to cut their losses and pull out, leaving the trophy, Afghanistan, back in the hands of Pakistan.

Obama is attempting to change that perception through this speech and many other gestures and words that add up to portray him as a sensitive, visionary and determined leader who can feel and share the pain of Muslims, but wants them to also know at the same time that he will not rest till the extremists are defeated and Af-Pak ceases to pose a security threat to the US.

That clear determination has most likely prompted Colonel Imam, the retired ISI officer who ran a training program for Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989 and trained Mullah Omar, to say that the Taliban will never be defeated. Imam also seeks to demolish the "good Taliban" theory of Fareed Zakaria, saying that there are no number two Taliban and that those who break away from mainstream Taliban have no place in society. The Americans, he adds, must negotiate with Mullah Omar who is the only man people listen to in Afghanistan. In short, the face-saving solution that Imam is offering to the Americans is one which will restore the position as it was on 9/11, and leave the Al Qaida intact.

In support of this capitulation strategy, Imam recalls the defeat of the British in Maiwand in 1880 and that of the Soviets in 1989, saying that the Afghans "couldn't care less about loss of property or loss of life...the more you kill, the more supporters will come". The Taliban will not win, he admits, but believes that in the end the Americans will tire. Imam does have a point: Afghans have little property to lose and decades of war has made them impervious to loss of life too. But, he forgets that they too are humans. He may revel in the fact that they can keep counting the dead and not flinch, but must know that there has to and will come a point when they too will tire; and when they do, it will be for a very, very long time.

Obama's words and follow-up actions will aim to de-couple this fight in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan from Islam and take the jihadi fire out of it. If he succeeds in achieving this objective in some measure, the will to fight will evaporate and the tiredness of centuries of fighting and deprivation will take a firm grip. Osama and Imam perhaps recognise this. That is why this response and that is why we must expect some spectacular attacks in the near future as the Al Qaida and Taliban try to grapple with loss of support, low morale and fewer recruitments.

Apart from these predictable responses, Obama's speech has been generally favourably received in Muslim countries, including the Arab world, that has tuned into Obama rather than Osama. It has also drawn its share of criticism from across the world, the sharpest being from some Westerners who don't like the idea of there being something called the "Muslim world", see little good in Islam and believe that there is as much common ground between Islam and Christianity as can be found between a mass murderer and Mother Teresa. Pakistanis are unhappy primarily because he did not mention Kashmir and lost an opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis. Some Indians are not pleased because not only did he not talk of India, but also because he all but apologised to Muslims for what America had been doing without finding any fault with Islam or them, while others feel that he touched heights of greatness . Then there are those who have found him great in eloquence but lacking in substance. Such reactions indicate the influence that the Obama phenomenon has begun to exercise over the whole world.

One speech, as Obama said himself, is not going to change perceptions and prejudices overnight. He has made a beginning, an honest one, to reconcile mainstream Islam with the rest of the world based on mutual respect. No one is in any doubt about the sincerity behind this vision that has the potential of radically altering societal dynamics not only in the US but across the world based on greater tolerance and acceptance of different view points and religious beliefs, and rejection of religious extremism and violence. No one, at the same time, should also be in any doubt that this is not going to be easy.

What happens in the Hindu Kush mountains and the plains of Pakistan in the next few years will determine whether it is the vision of Obama or the viciousness of Osama that will prevail. A tectonic change that will profoundly impact the course of all mankind is under way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. For India if Bush was good, Obama will be better
2. Obama: closet 'Hindu' or secular world leader?
3. Obama and Biden Vs Osama bin Laden: coincidence?

AF-PAK: LESSONS FROM KASHMIR

The recent advance of the Taliban in Swat and Buner has greatly encouraged the Al Qaida that now smells blood and is "intoxicated by the idea of a jihadist takeover in Pakistan". In an article in The New York Times of May 10, 2009, Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt say that while it remains unlikely that Islamic militants could seize power in Pakistan, the concern is that by extending their territorial gains they could create "mini-Afghanistans" around Pakistan that would allow them even more freedom to plot attacks.

That the Al Qaida needs sanctuaries in Pakistan to survive and give shape to its long-term goal of establishing the rule of Wahhabi Islam over the West and the rest of the world is a no brainer. The real question is whether, given that objective, it will be satisfied with a few safe areas in that country. Only the naïve will believe that Osama bin Laden will leave present day Pakistan, a Muslim but "non-Islamic" country as per his definition, in its present democratic form while taking on the rest of the world. For the Al Qaida to sustain global operations, keep attracting new recruits and maintain the motivational levels of its operatives, it cannot for long live with the de facto defeat that its failure to convert the whole of Pakistan into a pre-9/11 Afghanistan will be seen as, sooner or later.

The Arab Al Qaida and its Pakistani arm, the Taliban, therefore have no choice but to convert the whole of Pakistan into a fully Islamic state. If they fail to do so, over time, the movement that Laden started will whither and die. Powerful jihadi type elements in Pakistan's establishment have evidently been aware and supportive of this plan and will be more than happy to turn Pakistan into what they had made Afghanistan before the Americans landed there after 9/11. This desire, coupled with Pakistan's strategic territorial ambitions both to its east and west, is mainly why for years, Pakistan played a double-game with the Americans.

Thanks in no small measure to the Bush blunder of going into Iraq and taking the focus off this region, Pakistan was able to appear to be fighting with the Americans while helping the Taliban to defeat them. But with the Obama administration now concentrating on winning this war - defeat not being an option at all - and holding Pakistan accountable for delivering quick and visible results, its leadership has finally been jolted into taking action. Much against the wishes of powerful elements in the military and civil establishment, it has been forced to fight against the Taliban in a manner that perhaps no one in Pakistan would have even dreamt of before 9/11. The presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan's critical dependent on US dollars for the very survival of the state is making Pakistan listen to the US and do what it wants, even if half-heartedly.

Troops have recently been pulled out by Pakistan from its eastern border against India and deployed to throw the Taliban out of Buner as well as Swat, where it had earlier entered into an agreement to hand over the valley to the Taliban. As per reports, commandos have been dropped into Taliban strongholds in both areas and have secured important towns and facilities that had fallen to the Taliban. The operations have sparked off a humanitarian crisis with more than half a million frightened civilian refugees streaming out of the three districts ripped apart by fighting.

American troops stationed in Afghanistan cannot as of now cross into Pakistan to hunt down the Al Qaida and the Taliban. On the other hand, the border is virtually non-existent for militants who can cross over to Afghanistan at will to launch attacks on NATO troops and then pull back into the safety of Pakistan, if and when the situation demands. So far, the US has deployed drones to target specific targets inside Pakistan. These attacks will force the Al Qaida and the Taliban to change tactics but will not be enough to defeat them.

The Americans are facing in Afghanistan what the Indians have been in Kashmir for two decades. There too, the border does not exist for militants, though the heavy deployment of Indian troops one one side makes movement relatively more difficult, despite Pakistani troops often helping militants to cross over. Indian troops also cannot go into Pakistan, nor can they use any other overt means to target jihadists in Pakistan, which is their nursery as well as sanctuary.

In short, Kashmir is India's high cost war and Pakistan's low cost one. Thanks to India's refusal to tackle it at source, it has lasted for so long, with no end in sight, unless something extraneous happens. India is not likely to do anything to force a closure; Indian blood is manifestly not so valuable, there is no political will and the military also lacks the punch to deliver a decisive blow below the nuclear threshold.

If the Americans want to win their war in Afghanistan without avoidable delays and pitfalls, they need to look at the lessons that India should have learnt from its war in Kashmir but hasn't, and the lessons that Pakistan has successfully learnt and is now using against the Americans. As the aforementioned developments show, it appears that they have begun to look at both quite closely.

The Afghan war has to be won in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, both physically and ideologically, no matter what recent history says about what happened to the British and the Soviets under very different circumstances. Unlike India, the US can compel Pakistan to use its military to kill the monsters that the latter has created. It has begun doing so, and some results are also beginning to come in. It can also exert pressure on it to choke the growth of Wahhabi Islam in the country by cracking down on Madrasas and other institutions that are involved in spreading it. This is absolutely critical for achieving enduring success. The US can, if required, also send special forces into Pakistan. It will most likely have to do that to go after really high value targets that Pakistan cannot take out or does not want to.

Only time will tell whether Pakistan will actually do enough to decisively destroy its "strategic tools" and re-calibrate the objectives that led it to create and deploy them. In all probability, Pakistan will try prolong this fight to tire the Americans to the point where public opinion forces the US President to do a Vietnam. That seems to be its current unstated objective. It will also attempt to double-cross the US about the situation in Pakistan and lull it into believing at some point of time that it has done the needful and that the US can withdraw its forces from Afghanistan without worrying about any resurgence of the Al Qaida and the Taliban.

India can afford to keep half a million troops in Kashmir indefinitely and still hope to tire Pakistan out, though at great human cost. The US, for many reasons, cannot do that in Afghanistan. It has to achieve victory as soon as possible. If it pulls out from the region before achieving total success, as the Al Qaida, the Taliban and powerful elements in Pakistan want it to, the consequences, as Americans will discover, will be disastrous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Zakaria's Afghanistan strategy: salvage or surrender?
2. Understanding and defeating the ideology of terror
3. Kashmir and Afghanistan are two sides of the same terror coin
4. India and Pakistan are not victims of the same terror

BUSH SCORES OVER OBAMA STILL!

Barack Hussein Obama has completed 100 days in office and his honeymoon with the American people is not over yet. But Indians still love George W Bush, perhaps not as deeply as Dr Manmohan Singh told him when the two met last, but certainly more than they do Obama. Obama's successful visits to a number of countries, his bowing to greet the King of Saudi Arabia, his offer of talks with Iran, his almost winning over Hugo Chavez etc have not impressed Indians deeply yet, if the results of a poll on this page are to be believed.

"Will Obama be better for India than Bush?" This was the question that readers were asked to vote on. Of the 202 readers who voted, only 63(31%) said "Yes" while 89(44%) felt exactly the opposite. 34(16%) were not sure - "May be" - and there were 16(9%) good souls who did not hesitate to say that they were "Clueless!".

Evidently, Indians still remember the support that President Bush gave to India on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal to scuttle the efforts of China and Pakistan to influence the Nuclear Suppliers Group against it, and the personal interest he took to push it through the Congress before he left office. That one solid gesture of support that he showed for India makes him a very popular man here, perhaps the only place on the planet where he is not hated or ridiculed.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has not yet demonstrated unequivocally that he too is India's friend. There is a certain uneasiness among Indians about his new Af-Pak policy for dealing with the serious problem that the US and even Pakistan faces from the Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His statement on Kashmir during his election campaign is the source of that suspicion. Although he has been careful not to link Kashmir with the ongoing war on terror in Af-Pak after becoming President, many analysts apprehend that he will quietly put pressure on India to make some concessions on the issue to enable Pakistan to concentrate fully on eliminating the increasing threat that it faces from the Taliban and Wahhabi type of Islam. If he falls for that dishonest Pakistani line, it will just not go down well with Indians. In fact it will simply not be acceptable.

My understanding is that he will soon realise, if he has not already, that any concession given by India to Pakistan over Kashmir will be projected as a victory of the jihadists, of Islam, over infidels. As a result, rather than reduce tensions between the two countries, it will lead to a surge in terrorist attacks in Kashmir and the rest of India, and also attract more young men to jihad. Both against India and the Great Satan, the US, in Afghanistan as well as the mainland. Perhaps the much maligned Bush had understood this basic fact early on. That is why he backed India unequivocally where he could, without appearing to be anti-Pakistan.

Obama will follow suit too. With American troops in Afghanistan and their supply lines running through Pakistan, the US cannot afford to appear to be anti-Pakistan. At least not yet. And when this is better understood by Indians, his popularity will perhaps far exceed that of Bush. The tone of his administration is already beginning to change; Pakistan's bluff is being increasingly called and results are being demanded. This is a development that needs to be watched very carefully.

Perhaps Obama should visit this country in the next few months. Whenever he does, there is little doubt that Indians will be bowled over by this visionary American President who has has caught the imagination of people of the whole world in a manner that has not been seen in recent history. He too will not go back without being profoundly affected by the people of the land of Gandhi, the great leader that he too admires.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. President 'Blessed' Obama, this is our moment
2. For India. if Bush was good, Obama will be better
3. Obama: Born to be President
4. Holes in souls and soles
5. 100 days: Barack Obama

LAHORE UNDER ATTACK, PAKISTAN UNDER SIEGE

Terrorists have struck in the very heart of Pakistan once again, this time even more dramatically and more purposefully than when they had attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team on March 03, 2009. Wearing police uniforms, around 20 heavily armed terrorists attacked the Police Training Centre in Manawan area of Lahore this morning, killing at least 12 and wounding 70 others.

As per reports coming in as this is being written, the terrorists have taken control of the centre and are holding 800 policemen hostage. Attack helicopters are circling the sky, the city has been placed under curfew, armoured carriers have moved in and the Special Action Group of the Army is preparing to launch an assault to eliminate them and free the hostages. Almost seven hours since the attack was launched, firing is still on, one terrorist has been killed and a couple of them have been injured. This time, the terrorists are clearly digging in for a long fight to the bitter end. The similarities with what happened in Mumbai on November 26, 2008 are striking.

Pakistan is under attack. From within. Just a couple of days after President Barack Obama said that "Al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within", unidentified jihadis have graphically demonstrated that the threat they pose is real and that the American President has his finger on the button about the danger that Pakistan faces to its very existence in its present form. Pakistani President Zardari has been saying for long that his country is in danger of being taken over by the Taliban. But his country has so got used to being in a state of denial since 1947 that it has simply lost the capacity to honestly accept the reality that has steadily hollowed the state from within and brought it to the brink of collapse.

When terrorists attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team, to me it was clear that the message of their attack was beyond the obvious and was far more dangerous and fundamental than was immediately apparent. Expectedly, Pakistan relapsed into a denial mode and there were even allegations that India was behind the attack. Certain that Radical Islam was now aiming for the very heart of Pakistan, for the state of Pakistan itself, I had then anticipated that the attack on the Sri Lankan team would be followed by a graduated increase in attacks on "un-Islamic" symbols like cinema halls, music shops, girls not fully covered up etc. to convert Punjab and Sindh also into fully Islamic territories. With the Taliban already less than 150 kms from Islamabad and operating with relative ease even in other parts of Pakistan, the danger was too stark to be dismissed.

Today's attack on the most visible symbol of the law and order machinery of the Pakistani state in the heart of Punjab province which itself is the heart of Pakistan shows that the Islamists are in a real hurry to devour the whole nation. Worse, the ease with which they have planned and executed this attack and the previous one proves that their tentacles have already spread deep and wide, including within many organs of the establishment. That is a disturbing fact that has to be faced squarely by not only sane elements in Pakistan but also the US and India. Only then can the challenge of radical Islamists be successfully countered.

The Americans say that the ISI is continuing to help the Taliban fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan by giving them money, supplies and strategic planning guidance. If the ISI is double-crossing the Americans so blatantly, is anyone under any illusion as to what it would be doing with terrorist groups that it has spawned to take on India? Why do you think there was such a coordinated effort to deny any involvement of Pakistan in the Mumbai terror attack till there was no choice but to admit it? Why do you think even after the admission that part of the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan, the trail has gone cold? Why do you think that after the cosmetic arrests of a few Lashkar-e-Toiba leaders in the wake of Mumbai 26/11, the outfit is continuing its activities as vigorously as ever, as the recent encounter in Kashmir in which 17 terrorists were killed shows?

The fact that the ISI is able to do operate unchecked against both the Americans and the Indians without any fear of the state should leave no one in any doubt that support for its covert operations has the blessings at the highest echelons in the Pakistani military establishment. General Pervez Kiyani was heading the ISI under Musharraf before he took over as Army Chief from him. If he does not know how the ISI operates and what it is up to then who will? Musharraf himself has repeatedly being saying that it is the ISI and the Army that all but define the state of Pakistan. Need anything more be said? If both of them do not know what is happening in the ground beneath their feet, then it is either a shameless lie or Pakistan is inexorably headed into a dark, dangerous abyss.

Lahore is under siege. Jinnah's Pakistan is under attack. Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik says that this is an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan. He believes that the elements operating in Afghanistan are most likely behind this attack. The Taliban have dramatically arrived in the heart of a seemingly helpless Pakistan much before any one thought they would. They could not have reached there in this manner without a measure of local support and the help and guidance of a section of the establishment.

This leads straight to the deduction that it is not the Pashtuns alone who have come under the influence of radical, Wahhabi Islam and the Al Qaida which is its most visible, militant face. There are many Punjabis too who have crossed over ideologically. They are the ones who are using the structures of the establishment that they are part of to destroy it and replace it with the set up that they had put in place in Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out of that country.

What happened in Afghanistan earlier led to 9/11. What is happening in a nuclear Pakistan has frightening implications for the whole world, should Radical Islamists succeed in overrunning the remaining parts of the country, its heartland. The Americans already know that the Al Qaida and the Taliban are thriving in the Western parts of Pakistan. That is one reason why President Barack Obama has said that Pakistan is central to America's war in Afghanistan.

Today's attack in Lahore is a clear sign that Radical Islamists have moved into Pakistan's core. America's war on terror has now all but spread physically to the whole of Pakistan. More ominously, its enemy must soon include the ISI and will eventually include a significant chunk of Pakistan's military leadership, if not its rank and file. Fighting and defeating such elements who are part of and often indistinguishable from the liberal elements that define the state of Pakistan is not going to be easy. Nor is this war going to be short.

The the future of the whole world is inextricably linked to the drama of death that has been unleashed by the Al Qaida and similar Islamists who want to establish the rule of their version of Islam over Pakistan and the whole world. This is the one "world war" in which defeat is not an option, no matter what the cost.

UPDATE

Pakistani security forces have succeeded in ending the siege 8 hours and 40 minutes after it began. One terrorist has been killed, three have blown themselves up and one, believed to be a Pashtun, has been captured. The injured are being screened to find out if there is any terrorist among them. The interior Minister of Pakistan says that the attack was carried out by the Taliban.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Zakaria's Afghan strategy: salvage or surrender?
2. India needs to ready itself for a post-Pakistan scenario
3. All cylinders on fire, where is Pakistan heading?
4. Kashmir and Afghanistan are two sides of the same terror coin
5. Attack on Sri Lankan cricketers: no room for pretence now

ALL CYLINDERS ON FIRE, WHERE IS PAKISTAN HEADING?

Really, are Pakistanis that dumb? People with even elementary intelligence will not continue to fool themselves into believing for so long that they can keep playing with fire and making a fool of everyone else, and yet emerge triumphant at the end of it. Particularly when things are falling apart all around them. But that is exactly what the many actors who define the state of Pakistan are doing even though the whole world can see that the dangerous games they are playing are leading their country straight into the pages of history.

How can almost an entire nation be so blind? Or is it that it has come so far on the path of consciously plotting the destruction of others that it is now impossible for it to turn back and get onto a track it has never been on, never believed? Why hasn't the nation's survival instinct kicked in yet?

President Asif Ali Zardari, no less, tells the world openly that his nation is in danger of being run over by the Taliban, a possibility that is already beginning to look like a reality. The world, naturally, reacts with due understanding and sympathy thinking that the democratically elected government that he is heading is innocent and the real villain is the military. But, within days of making that chilling statement, Zardari supports the capitulating deal to hand over the Swat Valley to the Taliban saying that force is not the answer to defeat them. Simultaneously, he shows no qualms in playing dirty political games again to defeat his principal political opponent, Nawaz Sharif, with whose support he had got Musharraf thrown out.

It may be recalled that Zardari had earlier to manipulated his way to become President in a swift move that left Sharif stunned and fuming. Then, after getting into that chair, he went back on his two key promises of giving up the enormous powers that Pervez Musharraf had illegally given to the President, and reinstating the judges of Supreme Court who had been sacked by Musharraf to save his Presidency. In effect, Zardari is now theoretically as powerful a President as Musharraf was, provided the Army lets him be, which it won't.

If that dishonesty was not enough, he has now manifestly got the Musharraf-appointed judges of the Supreme Court to declare Nawaz Sharif ineligible to contest elections and also declare null and void the election of his younger brother, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, leading the fall of his government and imposition of Governor's rule. Predictably, protests have broken out all over Pakistan and the situation has once again become unstable and ripe for another former military takeover. Nawaz Sharif, in fact, is now talking of starting, yes, one more jehad in Pakistan, this time against Zardari.

Given this political turmoil, will the military seize power again or has the wily Zardari struck a double-deal with the Army and the US to ensure his survival in the Presidential Palace with Army Chief Kiyani calling the shots? The latter seems likely. But what has happened once again in Pakistan is that its civilian leaders have proved that they are no better than petty tribal chieftains who cannot see beyond themselves and are completely unfit to rule and run their country. That story, which began almost immediately after Pakistan was created, is having another sickening re-run. No one seems to have learnt any lesson yet even though the country broke in two in 1971 and is going to pieces now.

What about the military? Has it learnt any lessons from 9/11 and the spread of the Taliban into large parts of Pakistan? Has it realised that the double-game that it has been playing with the US since its troops landed in Afghanistan cannot be continued indefinitely? Or does it think that a few nukes and America's dependence on Pakistan to sustain its war in Afghanistan is sufficient insurance that will work till the Americans, like the Soviets before them, accept defeat and leave that country back in the hands of Pakistan, just like it was before?

It may be recalled that before 9/11, Pakistan's military was virtually in control of Afghanistan through an almost seamless relationship with the Taliban that it had nurtured and armed to overthrow the Soviets, with generous American assistance. For Pakistan, Afghanistan was then all but it own territory that, as per its military "thinkers", provided "strategic depth" to Pakistan. That view has still not changed. Pakistan cannot allow a strong, secure and truly independent Afghanistan to re-emerge before the US leaves that country. It wants it remain its private backyard. That why General Kiyani, who headed the ISI before taking control of the Army, talks of Talibani commanders like Jallaluddin Haqqani as "strategic assets". That is why, while pretending to be on the side of the the US, Kiyani continues to blatantly back the Taliban who are fighting US troops in Afghanistan. He reckons he will need them after the Americans leave.

David E Sanger has written in his book "The Inheritance" that as per an American intelligence report, "Taliban were making huge inroads into Afghanistan and... other militants saw an opportunity over the next two years to attempt the first violent overthrow of a nuclear-armed state: Pakistan. The country was ripe for the picking: Its weak, corrupt government faced national bankruptcy, an insurgency was at the doorstep of the capital, and the Pakistani government had no comprehensive strategy to confront either threat. Nor did it seem to want one...Pakistan’s aid to the Taliban was no act of rogue Pakistani intelligence agents, but instead was government policy".

If Pakistan's aid to the Taliban, despite the US on its back, is not an act of rogue elements but remains government policy, then is there any doubt as to what its policy about the likes of Lashkar-e-Toiba and other terrorist outfits operating against India will be?

The whole drama that Pakistan has been enacting since Mumbai 26/11, from the initial outright denial of its involvement in the attack to the slow and reluctant change to its acceptance of the involvement of only a few rogue Pakistanis operating in isolation is not a case of innocent ignorance as it is pretending. It is no less than a concerted effort on part of the government and the military from day one to prevent exposure of the damning fact that carrying out terror attacks on India continues to be a central part of government policy and that Mumbai 26/11 was just a visible manifestation of that. India needs to understand clearly that nothing has changed in Pakistan's avowed policy of bleeding India to death by inflicting on it a thousand cuts. All this official talk of Pakistan being a victim of terror etc is just to hide that ugly fact so that the international community does not react too harshly.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, Ajmal Kasab has provided enough clues to show that the attack on Mumbai was not done by "non-state actors", a new term coined by Pakistan to con gullible Indian media personalities and others. The charge sheet filed by the Mumbai Police points to the involvement of a serving Colonel, whose name Ajmal Kasab has revealed, and a serving Major General in the attack. It goes without saying that Kasab, a lowly operative, would not have been given direct access to Kiyani himself. But the fact that two senior officers were in touch with him at the lowest rung of the whole operation tells us that they in turn would have had been operating under the orders of much higher ranked officers in the military hierarchy. Mind you, we are not talking about the rogue ISI here. It is the Army that is directly involved. Col Sadatullah, whom Kasab has named, has already been traced by Indian media.

Who can believe that the Pakistani establishment has not known exactly who all were involved in the attack from the very beginning? If there were really a few small-time rogue elements responsible for the attack, would there have been such an elaborate exercise to shield them and deceive India and the world for so long?

It is amazing how a country that is a basket case, that is being torn apart internally, that is lead by warring political leaders with minds of petty, feudal tribal chieftains, and that has all but failed as the state it started out to be, can simply refuse to see reality and live in peace with itself and its size. Even as it is cracking apart, it still wants to make-believe that it can usurp Afghanistan and Kashmir, destroy India and be in the vanguard of the jehad that seeks to establish Islamic rule over the whole world. Somehow, its nuclear-tipped military thinks it is almost invincible and can successfully achieve all this and more. These sweeping and dangerous ambitions make even Adolf Hitler look benign, as indeed he was mistakenly believed to be by some before he launched the Blitzkrieg. Can there be a more explosive recipe for unmitigated disaster?

Barack Obama has already hyphenated Afghanistan with Pakistan. By now almost everyone in the US has come around to the conclusion that Pakistan is the ground zero for the central war on terror that the US is fighting. The realisation that there cannot be a peaceful and genuinely independent Afghanistan till there is a Pakistan in its present shape will also come soon. The same goes for Kashmir too, no matter what Pakistan might say to try and de-link it from what it has been doing in Afghanistan. From that will flow the logical understanding that the present state of Pakistan has to be fundamentally altered and reconfigured to give abiding peace in the region a real chance.

If all these illuminations come to Pakistan itself in time, then the country might yet survive in its present form and shape. Will Pakistan be able to see light and save itself from the inevitable? Tribal minds are perhaps the most obdurate of them all. Not only can they not see beyond narrow limitations, they are not at all amenable to being told what they should do in their own interest. Add to it the many jehads that have been unleashed by and in the country, and it does not appear likely that Pakistan will be able to transform itself as it needs to. On its own.

With all its cylinders on fire and no fire extinguisher in sight, Pakistan does not need a crystal ball to see its 'future'. It is staring it in the face. But its eyes are still wide shut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Kashmir and Afghanistan are two sides of the same terror coin
2. India needs to ready itself for a post-Pakistan scenario
3. A vote to save Jinnah's Pakistan: Will it?
4. Pakistan: Dangers of the multi-ethnic Islamic state

INDIA NEEDS TO READY ITSELF FOR A POST-PAKISTAN SCENARIO

When the Head of State of a nation admits unashamedly to the world that his country is under real danger of being captured by rogue elements, then it can no longer be pretended that the threat is remote. Nuclear weapons and missiles, and a huge military are no protection whatsoever against such assaults from within. Talibani termites have been eating away the woodwork that defines the state of Pakistan for a number of years, encouraged by strong pillars of that very wooden frame that mistakenly believed, some still do, that these termites were programmed to attack and weaken only other structures that were inimical to it. Now it can no longer be hidden that the hollowed structure is on the brink of collapse.

In an interview with CBS, President Asif Ali Zardari has said that Pakistan is fighting for “survival” in the face of an onslaught by the Taliban who have “established themselves across a large part of the country”. "We are aware of the fact it’s ... Taliban... trying to take over the state of Pakistan. So, we’re fighting for the survival of Pakistan. We’re not fighting for the survival of anybody else." The Taliban, he added, had been taken for granted for a long time. "It's been happening over time and it's happened out of denial. Everybody was in denial."

When were such words heard last from the President of a country? Some analysts believe that this admission is meant to get the US to give Pakistan more aid and even get Kashmir back into focus. It seems they are all missing the point. Pakistan is actually under a grave and unprecedented threat, a threat of its own making and a threat which powerful elements in the military and the ISI still want to deny. Zardari's statement also indicates that there is a bitter power struggle between him and Army Chief Kiyani who, as per Imran Khan and others, is effectively in control of the government. When Zardari says "We have weaknesses and they are taking advantage of that weakness,” he is probably referring to the nexus between the Taliban and the military which has allowed the former to get to a position where they can take over the whole country, with the help of elements of the military who are still supporting it

As per William Dalrymple, "Saudis have invested intensively in Wahhabi madrasas in the North-West Frontier Province and Punjab, with dramatic effect, radically changing the religious culture of an entire region. The tolerant Sufi culture of Sindh has been able to defy this imported Wahhabi radicalism". The Taliban and the Al Qaida are the visible militant faces of this version of Islam which is completely intolerant of all other faiths, including Shia Islam. They are, therefore, the perfect ideological weapons that can be exploited to oppose both the Western world and India with the ultimate aim of ushering in the political rule of Islam all over the world.

Since Wahhabi Islam rejects other versions of Islam too, it should have been anticipated by the handlers and trainers of the Taliban that, sooner or later, they would try to establish their version of the rule of Islam, the one they had in Afghanistan before 9/11, in Pakistan too. Up to a point, the military did have the Taliban and other militant groups bred with similar ideology by their "tooti" (penis), as a Pakistani general had once boasted. That was a long time back. Today it is clearly the militants led by the Taliban who have got the state of Pakistan by its "tooti".

President Obama is alive to the fact that terrorists are operating against US forces in Afghanistan from safe havens in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Quit naturally, he wants the state of Pakistan to fight and defeat them within its territory. Is that going to happen any time soon, if at all? If the world has heard Zardari right, that is almost an impossibility. Because the "weakness" is within, inside Pakistan's military and the ISI. And that situation is not likely to change on its own. The investment of these two organisations in the terror infrastructure is so heavy and so deep-rooted that it is realistically not possible for them to become enemies of the very men that they have trained and used for decades as their own, integral tools of state policy.

Is it, then, possible for Pakistan to continue to exist as one state with very strong elements pulling it in opposite directions? Will Pakistan succumb to Wahhabi Islam completely, with its military and the Taliban becoming indistinguishable from each other? Will the civil society of the areas still not overrun by the Taliban meekly surrender to the birth of an altogether 'new' country, a photocopy of the primitive and horribly oppressive Afghanistan that the world saw before 9/11? Or will Sindhis and Punjabis resist this speeding slide?

Will America and the world allow a nuclear power to become completely Talibanised and pose unimaginable danger to the whole world? The answer is a clear no. Is a strong and stable Pakistan possible with the Talibanis and Wahhabi ideology in control of large parts of the country and threatening the rest? Of course not. What, then, is likely to happen?

Will Pakistan suddenly and quietly collapse one day like the Soviet Union did and get confined to Punjab and Sindh, with most of its establishment and military intact? Or will it 'explode' first in one form or the other before it emerges from the fire and smoke in a new avatar that the world can comfortably live with?

India, indeed the world, has to start preparing for a post-Pakistan scenario that may be upon us sooner than we think. Before that, India needs to ready itself for any contingency that may suddenly arise necessitating the deployment of its combat power in support of elements in Pakistan in the highly possible event of an intense power-struggle and even a Bangladesh-like situation arising there.

Zardari knows what he is talking about better than most outside of Pakistan do. And he is clearly talking at a tangent with the dominant view in the military and the ISI. Pakistan's survival is perhaps no longer possible in its present form. Zardari's cry is probably one of despair and helplessness than of any realistic hope. India needs to listen to it very carefully and ready itself for a post-Pakistan scenario in which it may well find Zardari as the President of an Independent, Wahhabi-free, Sufi Sindh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Kashmir and Afghanistan are two side of the same terror coin
2. Understanding and defeating the ideology of terror
3. 9/11 to 9/19: Beads on a string that needs to be cut
4. A vote to save Jinnah's Pakistan: Will it?
5. A thousand cuts bleeding Pakistan
6. Pakistan: Dangers of the multi-ethnic Islamic state

HOLES IN SOLES AND SOULS

Yes, you are seeing it whole. That is Barack Obama, the man with holes in his soles. And he is not on a dole. He is the President of the Unites States, the richest country in the world, pole to pole. No designer shoes for him with shining soles. They they don't embarrass or belittle him, these holes. There are none where they can diminish or even demonize him, his soul.

Can you even imagine any young Indian politicians with pretensions of being Indian Obamas having holes in their designer shoes? Can you ever catch them with clothing and accessories, top to bottom, like those worn by ordinary Indians? Forget holes, you will not find even an expensive stitch out of place. Remember Home Minister Shivraj Patil, India's Home Minister, who was careful enough to be seen in three different dresses in three different places within three hours even as Delhi was being hit by serial blasts and people were dying minutes away from him?

The holes in Barack Obama's soles are impressions made by hard work and character. They are badges of pride for a man of character and integrity. They tell the world that the man does not have holes where they are unacceptable in a leader. That is why, when he announces a salary cap of $500,000 for top executives of companies that receive taxpayer-funded largesse, he does not sound phony. He walks the talk.

Smart Indian politicians, on the other hand, may well be found spending $35,000 on a commode, like the ex-chief of Merrill Lynch did or $15,000 on an umbrella stand, like the one bought by former Tyco boss Dennis Kozlowski. Holes in soles? Are you kidding? You won't find them there, ever! The holes that they have are not in their impressive external embellishments; they are in their souls.

Barack Obama may not be President of India. But this photograph of his should be given to all Indian political leaders and they should be asked to meditate on it for at least 15 minutes each day. May be then their holes might shift to places where they can, with due humility, show them to all Indians with pride.
'

OBAMA: BORN TO BE PRESIDENT

Barack Obama has been US President for under 10 days. But, watching him go about his brand new job, one that his predecessor always looked weighed down by, it appears as if he has been in the Oval Office for a long time and that the job sits lightly on his shoulder. And this when he has inherited an America that, in eight of George Bush, has literally plummeted from the heights of invincibility to the the depths of vulnerability that it has not seen for a long time.

Already, America and the world are beginning to see a new America that wants to lead the world by example and respect rather than by making examples of others and bulldozing its way by its arrogant might. Obama's first act as President was to sign an executive order to shut down the inhuman Guantanamo Bay Prison. His first ever interview as President was to Al Arabiya, an Arabic channel based in Dubai, to send a clear message to the Muslim world that he makes a clear distinction between ordinary Muslims and Muslims engaged in terror activities. His offer of meaningful dialogue with Iran and North Korea, his decision to stop development of new nuclear weapons, his hyphenation of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the war on terror and the de-linking of India and Kashmir from it etc, are some of the other dramatic steps that he has already taken in these few days.

Not only has Barack Obama signaled a clear break from many past policies, he has put his personal stamp emphatically on them already. It may be recalled that during the election campaign, his biggest weakness was perceived to be lack of experience. John McCain never tired of saying how he knew all about most issues because he had seen and experienced them over many years. But Obama's promise of real change based on his unusual vision caught the imagination of many over the limitations and conditioning of experience that McCain offered.

America and the world is beginning to discover the paradigm shifts that are possible by a vision not entrapped by the inertia of experience. There is no naïveté in Obama's world view. There is a luminous transcendence to it, a transcendence that has been honed in his razor-sharp mind thanks to his multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-nation upbringing, that has no parallel in the Western world. That is why he able to see beyond the obvious and immediate, beyond confrontation to reconciliation and beyond narrow national destinies to the shared global destiny.

No wonder, therefore, that after 100 hours in office, a Gallup poll shows that he enjoys about a two-thirds approval rating for his performance as President. It is not that racism is dead in America. It is simply that with Obama, you are forced to look beyond the colour of his skin. The content of his character, to borrow the words of Dr Martin Luther King, the force of his intellect and the sheer audacity of his positive vision have virtually mesmersied Americans and impressed and filled with hope many others around the world.

When George Bush became President, his body language and words gave away the fact that he had landed in an office to which he would take time to grow up to. That happens to most people when they move up to the next rung in the hierarchical ladder; there is a certain vulnerability, an uncertainty that dissolves only over time, before a man becomes fully comfortable and one with his new station, if at all.

But with Barack Obama, right from the moment he gave his inaugural address, there have been no false steps, no nervousness of unfamiliarity, no awe that he, a black man, is now through the biggest glass ceiling in the world. And this, despite the massive jump in status that his elevation means. He is so supremely confident that you would think that he has been living in the White House and sitting in that chair in the Oval Office forever. It appears as if he was born to be the President of the United States of America and the leader of the world.

In India, the Obama phenomenon has sparked a hunt for his desi version. Many names have been discussed and some have even claimed that they have it in them to create thousands of Obamas in India. Is there an Obama anywhere on the Indian horizon? Can you close your eyes and imagine any Indian leader who, when he becomes Prime Minister, will look like one born to the office from the moment he steps into it? Concentrate. Is an image beginning to emerge? Or is it still a blank slate?