Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence.

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Santosh Bhatt's Blog

It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908.

At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion,

Gandhi made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.

A few days later, on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi’s house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks.

They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi’s life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims.

An example would help the reader to understand the matter. On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim assassin called Abdul Rashid stabbed Swami Shraddhananda to death, when the swami was ill and lying on his bed. The reader may recall that Swami Shraddhananda was a pracharak (whole time worker) of Arya Samaj and he started a Suddhai Yajna to bring the converted Muslims of this country back to Hinduism.

But his activity was detested by the Muslims. A couple of months earlier a Muslim woman came to the Swami and expressed her desire to return to Hinduism with her children. However her husband brought an allegation of abduction in the court of law against the Swami. But the court quashed the allegation and set the Swami free. The incident turned the Muslims extremely furious and within a few days Abdul Rashid assassinated him.

After a few days of this incident, Gandhi went to Gauhati to deliver his speech at the national conference of Indian National Congress. The atmosphere was depressed and gloomy due to unusual death of Shraddhananda.

But Gandhi made everyone dumbfounded and began his speech by addressing the assassin Abdul Rashid as “Bhai Abdul Rashid”. Without caring for the reaction of the listeners, he continued, “Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother,

and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.” Thus he indirectly held Swami Shraddhananda responsible for his murder, as he was propagating hatred through his Suddhi Yajna.

Moreover, he wrote in the obituary note, “He (the Swami) lived a hero. He died a hero.” In other words, if a Hindu falls victim to the knife of a Muslim’s assassin, Hindus should consider it a heroic death.

It should be pointed out here that the said policy of Muslim appeasement originated by Gandhi, under the garb of (pseudo) secularism was responsible for the Partition of the country in 1947. Many of our countrymen, still today, firmly believe that Gandhi was against partition as in the public meetings, he used to say, “Vivisect me, before you vivisect India”.

When he was saying this in public meetings, he was expressing just the opposite view through his writings. The reader may recall that, on March 26, 1940, the leaders of the Muslim League raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them. Hardly a couple of weeks later, supporting demand, Gandhi wrote, “Like other group of people in this country, Muslims also have the right of self determination.

We are living here as a joint family and hence any member has the right to get separated.” (Harijan, April 6, 1940). A couple of years later, he also wrote, “If majority of the Muslims of this country maintain that they are a different nation and there is nothing common with the Hindus and other communities, there is no force on the earth that can alter their view. And if on that basis, they demand partition that must be carried out. If Hindus dislike it, they may oppose it”, (Harijan, April 18, 1942).

The reader should also recall that the Congress Working Committee, in its session on June 12, 1947, decided to place the partition issue to be placed before the All India Congress Committee (AICC) for a debate and the AICC approved the issue in its session held on June 14-15, 1947.

In the beginning of the debate, veteran Congress leaders like Purusottamdas Tandon, Govindaballav Panth, Chaitram Gidwani and Dr S Kichlu etc. placed their very convincing speeches against the motiom. Then Gandhi, setting aside all other speakers, spoke for 45 minutes supporting partition. The main theme of his deliberation was that, if Congress did not accept partition (1) other group of people or leaders would avail the opportunity and throw the Congress out of power and (2) a chaotic situation would prevail throughout the country. Many believe that, in the name of ‘chaotic condition’, he tacitly asked the Muslims to begin countrywide communal riot, if the Congress did not accept the partition. Till then, Sardar Ballavbhat Patel was on the fence regarding the partition. But Gandhi’s speech turned him into a firm supporter of partition and he influenced other confused members to support the issue. In this way, Congress approved the partition issue (History of Freedom Movement in India, R C Majumdar, Vol-III, p-670).

It may appear to many that, up to partition, Gandhi’s policy of nonviolence and Muslim appeasement in the name of secularism indeed harmed the country a lot. But a close look will reveal, it has done severe damage even after partition, or to speak the truth, it is causing serious damage even today. During independence, the Muslim population in undivided India was 23 per cent and this 23 per cent Muslims, got 32 per cent land area as Pakistan. The most appropriate step after partition was to carry out population transfer, or send the entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring all Hindus from Pakistan to India. This population transfer was included in the proposal for Pakistan by the Muslim League and after communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India to carry out population transfer as early as possible. But Gandhi was hell bent not to undertake out the process and said that it was an impractical and fictitious proposal.

Mount Batten, the then Governor General of India, was a staunch supporter of the said population exchange and advised Jawaharlal Nehru to do the same without delay. But Nehru submitted to the will of Gandhi and refrained from doing so. It is needless to say that, from the practical point of view, the said population exchange was urgently necessary and had it been carried out at that time, many problems of today would not have arisen. But due to the policy of Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, Muslims happily stayed back in this country, while Hindus had no alternative but to come to India as refugees or penniless beggars.

Many of us perhaps do not know that due to strong opposition by Gandhi, “Bande Mataram” could not be accepted as the National Anthem” of this country. In his early life, Gandhi had a great affinity for the song and while he was in South Africa, he wrote “It is nobler in sentiment and sweeter than the songs of other nations. While other anthems contain sentiments that are derogatory to others, Bande Mataram is quite free from such faults. Its only aim is to arouse in us a sense of patriotism. It regards India as the mother and sings her praise.” But later on when he could discover that the Muslims dislike the song, he at once stopped singing or reciting the same at public places. Hence ultimately the “Jana Mana Gana” was selected as the National Anthem. During the debate over the matter in the Constituent Assembly, Nehru argued that Bande Mataram is not suitable to sing along with military band while Jana Gana Mana is free from this difficulty.

In the present context, it should also be pointed out that Gandhi was not pleased with Tri Color, the National Flag of today’s India because the Muslims disliked the same. In this regard, Sri Nathuram Godse has narrated an incident in his “Why I Assassinated Gandhi”, which deserves to be noted in this context. During his Noakhali tour in 1946, a Congress worker put a tricolor over the temporary house where Gandhi was staying. One day an ordinary Muslim passer by objected to it and Gandhi immediately ordered his men to bring flag down. So, to please an ordinary Muslim, Gandhi did not hesitate to disgrace and dishonor the flag revered by millions of Congress workers. (pp-75-76). It should also be pointed out here that in his early life, Gahdhi was very fond of the Hindi language and used to say that it was the only language having the potentiality to play the role of the national language. But to please the Muslim, he, later on tried his best to make Urdu, under the garb of Hindustani, the National Language of India. (Koenrad Elst, Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, p – 89).

A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus’) existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. … We are destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it?” (speech delivered on April 6, 1947

In a similar occasion he said, “The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me, asked me, “What about those who still remain in Pakistan?” I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue.” He also said, “Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody? You should realize that even if they are killed, they have had a good and proper end” (speech delivered on November 23, 1947)

In this context, Gandhi also said, “If those killed have died bravely, they have not lost anything but earned something. … They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.” (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi, p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of India, p-121). In another occasion when he was talking to a group of refugees, said, “If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices.” (Collins and Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him either a fool or a lunatic, but we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or a Great Soul.

Gandhi believed that Muslims were brothers of the Hindus and hence they should never take arms or wage a war against the Muslims. He used to say that the foreign policy of independent India should always be respectful to Islam and the Muslims. Moreover, independent India should never invade a Muslim country like Arabia, Turkey etc. Gandhi also said that Rana Pratap, Guru Govinda Singh, Raja Ranjit Singh and Raja Shivaji were misguided patriots because they fought war with the Muslims. In his eyes Goerge Washington, Garibaldi, Kamal Pasha, D Valera, Lenin etc. were misguided patriots as they encouraged violence.

Gandhi’s utterances painting respected Hindu heroes as misguided patriots aroused widespread commotion among the Hindus. Most importantly, calling Raja Shivaji a misguided patriots put entire Maharastra on boil. Later on, Nehru could pacify their anger partially by begging apology on behalf of Gandhi.

The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.

Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that “He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister” (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).

From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said “Gandhi was really a Mohammedan” (D Keer, ibid, p-237)

Dangers of terrorism and a Talibanised Pakistan

By Joginder Singh, IPS (Retd.)

The problem is that military rulers have tried to present themselves as Pakistan’s last hope. But unfortunately, the civilian leaders have done so, as well.

In an audacious attack, on Pakistan's powerful military establishment on October 10, 2009 heavily-armed. Taliban terrorists with automatic weapons in battle fatigues stormed into the Rawalpindi’s Army general headquarters.

They have claimed responsibility. for attack on army headquarters attack on October 11, 2009, which left 19 people dead after a day long siege.

The spokesman for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan movement said "We claim responsibility for the attack on GHQ (General Headquarters). It was carried out by our Punjab branch...We have the capability to strike at any place in Pakistan... We can target many more important places." Again in Pakistan Punjab, suicide terrorists trained by Pakistan, struck again at FIA Headquarters, and five other places including headquarters, of a number of other security agencies, in Lahore, on October 15, 2009, killing 39 and injuring hundreds of them.

Over the past two years, more than 2,500 people have been killed in suicide bomb blasts across the entire Pakistan. It was hoped that after Pakistan was carved out of India, in 1947, Pakistan would become a heaven and a model Muslim State for the whole world. More so, after ethnic cleansing of the minorities, both victims and perpetrators are Muslims.

The problem is that military rulers have tried to present themselves as Pakistan’s last hope. But unfortunately, the civilian leaders have done so, as well.

Instead of thinking for themselves and the best interest of their country, every Pakistani leaders has deliberately encouraged the United States to develop a stake in the country’s political and military affairs. Pakistani policies are more attuned to US interests, than to Pakistani interest.

In turn USA supports Pakistan for every single anti Indian step it takes. India is the whipping guy for everything going wrong in Pakistan, whether it Balochistan or Afghanistan. Countries with the largest Muslim populations in 2009 include:

Indonesia - 203 million
Pakistan - 174 million
India - 161 million

Pakistan’s rationale both for creating trouble in Kashmir and rest of India is based on the premises, that it is the custodian of Muslim interests, everywhere and more so in India. Having tried four wars and after having been worsted in all of them, it is putting up a brave face, before the world, by fathering motley terrorist group, to wage a low intensity war in India, by ensuring their strike at all prominent places like

Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Surat, Varanasi, Lucknow, Jaipur and many other places. After having tightening leash at the entry points, India has been able to control infiltration to some extent.

India has more than once expressed its goodwill. But Pakistani rulers have forgotten that nemesis is one of the God’s handmaid. God’s mills grind slowly, but surely. US war on Taliban has driven both Al Qaeda and Taliban forces to Pakistan, as well as repeated attacks, on Indian embassy in Afghanistan. It is impossible to predict the precise, unintended consequences of any US or Pakistani action. But the way things are shaping therein shows, that neither US nor Pakistani Government has any control on the Taliban activities. A weakened Pakistani Government and a recalcitrant army and ISI, pose a danger to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, a part of which might either fall or be handed over or seized by the terrorist groups therein. The strengthening of such groups either consciously or unconsciously, poses a direct threat to India, as India will be their only target.

Pakistan has never made a secret of its hostility and antagonism against India. It is a matter of record that US has been fighting battles away from its own borders, whether it was Vietnam or Cambodia, or Kuwait or Iraq or Afghanistan, despite mostly being outdone there.

These days, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are its side shows. India has scrupulously kept itself away from international controversies in the interest of its own people. Wars, destruction, and prosperity cannot coexist with fundamentalism and prosperity. Pakistan is caught in its imprudence, indiscretion, misdemeanour and wrongdoing, where in one year, it had a series of terrorists strikes on almost every day, including the one on Sri Lankan cricket team.

Pakistan must realise, that it cannot undo geography and it has to live with the neighbours. Depending upon what suits it, Pakistan has been blowing hot and cold. Its rulers have been proclaiming that they would not support Kashmiri and Pakistani terrorist groups operating not only in J&K, but also in other parts of India, from the territory of Pakistan. However while generally agreeing to eliminating terrorism, have never taken any practical steps. Indeed, it appears to have been used as a subterfuge, to lull India, while planning and aiding terrorists attacks like the 26/11.

Now chicken have come home to roost. By obliterating the difference between its army and terrorists, it is turning some of its soldiers rogues, who have become extremists and jihadis.

Angered by the US attacks on Pakistan tribal areas, local terrorists, have promised retribution against the ''U.S and its proxies.'' The revolving door policy of encouraging its trained soldiers to join or train the terrorist like the ones, responsible for 26/11 is coming home to haunt Pakistan. Indeed in all major terrorist attacks all over the world, including in USA, UK and other countries, the signature of the Pakistani terrorists is clear.

Of course, this is not acknowledged, either by Pakistan or USA. So far as India is concerned, it is very clear, that there has been no change in Pakistan’s policy of using terrorism, as a weapon against India to achieve its objective of forcing a change in the status quo, which, it hopes, would lead to its acquisition of the Muslim majority areas of J&K, if not the entire State. This approach is just like the thin edge, to make similar claims on other parts of India and destroy the communal harmony in India.

Muddled Pakistani policies of hunting with the hunter and running with the hare, are recoiling on it. If Pakistan wants domestic harmony and peace, it cannot adopt a doubled faced policies, of spreading terrorism abroad and running training centres for them and expecting the Talibans not to bite the hand, that has trained it. Pakistani terrorists have already issued their dictate, that Pakistan should stop obeying USA and they will cease their attacks.

Despite Pakistan claiming that it was not only fighting its own war but also of the international community against terrorism, the truth is that it remains a fertile ground for terrorists operations and training against India. At least nobody in India, takes their claims seriously and they are only burning in their stew. What is being done to it, is what it has done to India. It should better look within.

(The writer is former Director, CBI, India, jogindersinghfdips @rediffmail.com)

Is Pakistan the hub of World Terrorism?

Many world leaders now feel that Pakistan is the hub of most of the world's most dangerous terrorism. Look at the views below:

1. The United States State Department has said that Pakistan in the "epicentre of terrorism" and called upon the world to take action against terror from Pakistani soil.

2. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has warned that every major terrorist threat confronting the world has ties to Pakistan. He says that in Pakistan Al Qaeda had established safe haven and was training a “bench of skilled operatives.”

4. According to Time Magazine, which reported of a new parallel state called Talibanistan which has sprung up in Pakistan and Afghanistan: "the tribal region of Pakistan, a rugged no-man's-land that forms the country's border with Afghanistan--and that is rapidly becoming home base for a new generation of potential terrorists. Fueled by zealotry and hardened by war, young religious extremists have overrun scores of towns and villages in the border areas, with the intention of imposing their strict interpretation of Islam on a population unable to fight back. Like the Taliban in the late 1990s in Afghanistan, the jihadists are believed to be providing leaders of al-Qaeda with the protection they need to regroup and train new operatives. U.S. intelligence officials think that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may have found refuge in these environs."


5. Referring to more than 50 terror outfits are active in Pakistan, US President Barack Obama said Islamist extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan posed a grave threat that his new administration would tackle as a single problem under a wider strategy.

6. A spokesman for India’s ruling Congress party on Saturday called on the international community to consider declaring Pakistan a terrorist state in the wake of the release of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's nuclear scientist who leaked nuclear secrets to rogue countries like Iran. He is still a free man even though he helped export nuclear weapons to terrorists.
.
7. The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan has links with the terrorist oufits based in the country, and the US is making an allout effort to ensure that these links are cut-off completely, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher has said. Boucher said that it is evident that the terror groups involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attack were operating from the Pakistani soil, and his country wanted to eliminate this menace.

8. According to Der Speigel: For years a kind of death industry has been taking hold in Pakistan's tribal areas. There are hundreds of Koranic schools which could better be described as cadet schools for Islamists. Boys as young as five are sent here by their impoverished parents. The idea is to condition or brainwash them. The goal is jihad. As young men these warriors are given military training which underscores their so-called spiritual training.

9. According to Wikepedia: Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has often been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks across the world including the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States,[16][17][18] terrorism in Kashmir,[19][20][21] Mumbai Train Bombings,[22] London Bombings,[23] Indian Parliament Attack,[24] Varnasi bombings,[25] Hyderabad bombings[26][27] The ISI is also accused of supporting Taliban forces[28] and recruiting and training mujahideen[28][29] to fight in Afghanistan[30][31] and Kashmir[31]

10. Wikipedia continues: Pakistan is also said to be a haven for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda,[32] Lashkar-e-Omar, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba. Pakistan is accused of sheltering and training the Taliban in operations "which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support," as quoted by the Human Rights Watch.[33]

‘Operation against drugs in Pakistan impacts Taliban in Afghanistan’

‘Weapons, money drying up’

* Intelligence official calls public, political support for Pakistan Army a ‘critical change’

LAHORE: Among Taliban groups along the border in Afghanistan, weapons are drying up, money is drying up, said Col John Spiszer of the army unit responsible for patrolling north-eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistani border.

Pakistan’s military offensive against the Taliban has slowed the flow of arms and fighters into Afghanistan, US officials have said.

According to a Los Angeles Times report, this has prompted intelligence analysts to issue new assessments of Islamabad’s ability to contain violent extremists.

Intelligence and military officials told the newspaper the revised outlook reflected a series of developments over the last few months.

“All of a sudden military operations are being imbued with a kind of legitimacy, popular support and political support they have never had before,” said a senior US intelligence official.

Major shift: The official described it as a “critical change” in a nation where the government has for years been reluctant to take on the Taliban for fear of being accused of turning the Pakistani military against its own people.

US military officials said the operations in Swat and South Waziristan were already having a measurable effect on the amount of equipment and violence spilling into Afghanistan.

“There’s a definite impact, and I think it almost can't be overstated," Spiszer said, adding Taliban elements appeared to have concluded that they could no longer afford to send as many fighters or weapons into Afghanistan.

Last year was the deadliest for the US-NATO coalition in Afghanistan, with 294 troops killed. This year, 153 more have died with 35 have been killed in June so far – the highest monthly toll of 2009.

A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the military had begun “commando-type, special forces operations” aimed at Baitullah Mehsud and was seeking to strengthen his rivals. daily times monitor

Home | National

Public Platform : India's Challenges

1.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:03 am

Link
Several comments regarding your editorial on what India should do in regards to Pakistan. You are right, India showed remarkable restraint in not attacking Pakistan after the Mumbai attack. Especially since the Indian government believes that elements of the Pakistani army/intelligence were involved. In addition, your paper reported sources in the US intelligence organization that Pakistan's ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed two senior Indian officials.

Even if US aid is not used directly to build Pakistani nukes, money is fungible, and the resources freed up by the aid will be used by the Pakistani's to build nukes.

So to ask India to unilaterally stop developing additional nuclear material and to go into arms control talks with Pakistan and China is unrealistic. Do you really think that China wants to have arms control discussions? China is a major security concern for India and the US. India's military calculus is more centered on China than Pakistan. Your proposal is a non-starter.

As far as Kashmir is concerned, India would have agreed to converting the current Line of Control as the International border. That is the only pragmatic solution. There are several precedents to this. Bengal was divided between India and East Pakistan. Punjab was divided between India and West Pakistan and Pashtunistan was divided by the Durand line. Pakistani leaders have come close to accepting such a deal in the past but unfortunately have been overtaken by events in their own country before consummating the deal.

The reason that there is a strong presence of the Indian army near the Pakistani border is to prevent infiltration by terrorists from Pakistan. Often under cover fire from the Pakistani army. Every week there are reports in the Indian press of pitched battles as the Indian forces try and stop the terrorists from entering India. Do you really think that any Indian government can order its military to withdraw from the border while terrorists are entering on a regular basis.

The only way the US Af-Pak strategy will work is if the ruling elite in Pakistan (i.e. the Army ) finally realize that it is not in their best interests to keep India as the bogeyman. Until now, the demonizing of India has allowed the Pakistani army to control Pakistan. Like some one correctly said, Most countries have an army while in Pakistan the army has a country. That calculus will have to change for the Pakistani elite. India getting stronger v.vs. Pakistan will help that cause not the other way around as your editorial suggests.

— Sanjiv, San Jose, CA
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:09 am

Link
It is commendable to exhort India to show regional leadership because of the stable mandate. However - Pakistan's nuclear activities have little correlation to whether India shows leadership or not. Just because its a next door neighbor does not make India a big brother to Pakistan. Pakistan's big brother has always been the United States - and her nuclear activities and stability are directly correlated to US policies and funding. In fact, many of the suggestions made in this editorial have already been pursued ad nauseum by India with different Pakistani regimes - yielding very limited results. Kashmir has had democratically elected government for quite a while now. Asking India to "resolve" the Kashmir issue without specifying what the resolution is expected in this editorial makes it a very weak argument. India has lots of other challenges besides Pakistan that could have been addressed in this editorial. Trust me - Pakistan's nuclear activities were hardly in the Indian voter's mind when they were selecting one party over another.

Both the title and contents of this editorial are misleading. But I agree that the concern is genuine.
If there's a key to changing things in Pakistan one way or the other, it lies with the United States - and that mandate was given not last week - but on November 4th, 2008. I hope we see a game changer there.

— Susmit, PA
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
3.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You are not making any practical sense when you come up with these kinds of editorials. India has two main challenges..reducing poverty and keeping itself safe from the insanity around it. Arms control talks with Pakistan and China? Where's the US in all of this? India has to make Pakistan happy over Kashmir so Pakistan can do the US bidding? Stop unilaterally refining nuclear fuel when its surrounded by China and Pakistan, two of the worlds biggest proliferators?
Come one guys. Get a modicum of common sense before you come up with this kind of stuff. Its laughable.

— gr, Glenview, Il
Recommend Recommended by 44 Readers
4.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
History is testament to the fact that the United States has been on the wrong, short-sighted, self-serving path when it comes to the subcontinent. As a result, Pakistan is now a pathethic caricature of a client state. Its leaders have been reduced to barricading themselves from the extremists in their palaces whilst at home and shamelessly begging for unaccounted aid when abroad. India has taken a different path and must continue on it. Relationship with the United States is important but comes at a great cost. India must do what is in its own best interests, develop its own foreign relationships and defend its own self interests. It can not, and must not, reduce itself to being a pawn on a global chessboard as its neighbor has.

— Nuz2Me, Utah
Recommend Recommended by 26 Readers
5.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Does India really need advice from the editors at the New York Times ? For that matter, do they need advice from anyone in the west?

From what I read, Indians still believe in hard work, free markets and capitalism. Maybe we should be taking advice from them.

— m. jones, nm
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
6.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You guys mess up with every one and others have to take responsibility. You should probably stop being selfish and develop a human heart.

— Suresh, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
7.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
As long as this idea is being shoved down Pakistan's throat that India is the dominant power and Pakistan needs to submit to their leadership in the region, nothing can be resolved.
You talk about India's "constructive" role in Afghanistan. For Pakistan it is very suspicious why India being a country with no cultural or geographic affinity with Afghanistan is being allowed to have a dominant role there. On the other hand Pakistan which has a 2200 km long border with that country and a significant population which has cultural affinity with Afghanistan is being used with no regard to its own strategic interests.
I think the idea is very clear here. Pakistan is being encircled to fall in line with India's regional leadership role with the ultimate objective of countering China. The problem with the plan is that Pakistan is getting nothing in return and it is being left to India's goodwill to solve all mutual disputes. This kind of plan can easily backfire because although Pakistan is smaller than India, it is not insignificant.
I think it would behove the US to try and deal with Pakistan seperately from India in a way that takes into account Pakistan's interests also. That is the only way of dealing with this situation in fair manner.

— SAM, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
8.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
How can you deal with a state based on religion which preaches hatred of other religions? Until Pakistan gives up it's religious bigotry, accepts both pluralism and democracy, there is no hope for Pakistan. India might as well ask "Am I brother's keeper?"

— V.R.Anil Kumar, Mysore, India
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
9.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Pakistan is only sane to fear India. With India greatly expanding its conventional as well as nuclear capabilities, build more nuclear bombs is the only way Pakistan can balance India off. In terms of military buildup, there is no significant difference between India and Pakistan. Both are very poor countries in terms of living standard of their people, but both are spending disproportionally on arms. They created real fear and contempt toward each other, because they let pride get in the way and can not master pragmatism. India was colonized by the British for a long time, that damaged their self-confidence. India need a bold leader to turn their national psyche around, but sadly, we have not seen one in the past 50 years.

As for Pakistan, India and China to get together to negotiate arms control. This is just wishful thinking. The U.S. is directly and indirectly arming India as part of "League of Democracy" to contain China; China is arming Pakistan directly and indirectly as a way to squeeze India. Those relationship are deeply entangled. Without a grand bargain that also involve the shape of U.S.-China relations, south Asia will not see true tranquility in a long time to come.

— horsham, north carolina
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
10.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Asking India to negotiate with Pakistan is like asking Israel to negotiate with Iran - we don't hear that from you a lot, do we? Did United States negotiate with Iraq or Al Queda? Pakistan's nukes have only one purpose - to destroy Hindu civilization when it goes down.

— TruthPrevails, Mumbai, India
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
11.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
It is a fantasy to think a parliamentary-elected govt. could take a leadership role. Each member of the parliament is loyal to its special interests and.or ethnic group. Parliament-elected govts. are weak. They are the whips that the U.S. and more stable dictatorships like Iran crack.

— Lee Walker, Oakland, CA
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
12.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link

Yeah. Right. You keep pumping billions of dollars, and selling fighter jets to a crazed Muslim country with no history of democracy or even stability; that has nukes it cannot or barely control; cannot effectively control its own regions; whose army intelligence apparatus is autonomous of the government --

and then not just advocate India to show restraint -- which by the way it shows in ample measure, but to complain that it has not done enough?!!

What hutzpah!

— krish, SF Bay Area, CA
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
13.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You are right - it is high time India solve the Kashmir issue by forcing Pakistan to vacate part of Kashmir it illegally grabbed in 1948. Pakistan can't control its own territory, how can it govern the land it illegally grabbed? India should take back its own country and do a better job than Pakistan.

Also to solve problem of terrorism, India should pull another Bangladesh on Pakistan. US has pampered and spoilt Pakistan for a long time and India had to bear the brunt of terrorism eminating from Pakistan. Even now US is following the same misguided policies. So let US wollow in its own ignorance and wishful thinking. By breaking Pakistan in four countries and spliting the army, the problem of terrorism will be solved once and for all.

— umok, WA
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers
14.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Article:"Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough"

Every reader should remember the there were thousands of nuclear bombs in the hands of extremists for eight years, starting January 20th, 2001. Recall all the talk about from that administration about "needing" to use nuclear bombs as bunker-busters in Iraq. We almost became the third nation to use nuclear weapons, as well as the first and second such nation.

— Ken Belcher, Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
15.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
I agree. India must tell Pakistan that it has no intention to conquer or de-stabilize Pakistan. As widely felt in India, a vibrant and secular Pakistan is good for India as well. As an ordinary Indian citizen, I would want Pakistan to prosper on all fronts and develop tolerance for people of other faiths. If it happens, India will be at peace as well. With China, India competes in economic activity. It should not have any aspiration to counter China militarily. Because if it does, it would drain its already scarce resources which it should deploy in development and welfare of its people.

India must sign NPT. One nuclear bomb or 100 would not give security enough to any nation. In a nuclear war nobody wins. She should not support any nation that has nuclear ambitions and if possible destroy all its nuclear weapons. Even if Pakistan nukes India, nuking Pakistan will be act of revenge and destruction of common man, and what would we have achieved in the end?I am not saying do not protect yourself. But nuclear weapons are no means to achieve security. Besides, there won't be any invasion at nation's level anymore. All wars currently are low intensity conflicts. So we don't need nuclear weapons.

Kashmir can be made independent if Kashmiris of all faiths are part of it and want independence. Just Muslims and not Pandits desiring so, would not enable any peace process to reach its end. Pakistan should also ask for an inclusive Kashmir that has Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus unlike herself, where ethnic cleansing has been going on for the past 60 years.

Finally, India should control its extreme right. We were always a peace loving and a spiritual nation. Let us retain that image and move towards economic prosperity.

— dram48, Bangalore, India
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers
16.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
This is Washington's prescription for India for Washington's own good. This is the line which Obama administration would expect India to toe. Whether these policy reccomendations are in India's interests needs to be debated. Washington has been seen as a Pakistani crony in India and the perception there is that Washington has ignored all of Pakistan's past sins, co-habited with China and spawned regional terrorism. The very fact that Washington has been unable to curb Pakistan's nuclear programme is reason enough to believe that the Obama administration is failing to use its leverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America cannot afford an indifferent India which is also assidously being courted by the Chinese too. Ignoring India may just mean that the powershift to China may happen a lot sooner.

— James Baker, Toronto, Canada
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
17.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Maybe the US should lead the way by cutting off billions of dollars of its own taxpayers dollars sent as aid to Pakistan that is ultimately used to fund terrorist training camps and purchase nuclear weapons. An American professor I know still finds the ignorance of US representatives in Pakistan about the perils of giving billions of dollars to any hand that is stretched out, unbelievable. He was called in by the USAID head in Islamabad to give a briefing about what to do with the cash pile that organization was sitting on. She had no idea what was going on in the country and was giving away funds to anyone who approached her. Maybe you should send people who have some knowledge about the ground realities there.

— Skasster, India
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
18.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
The possibility of good India-Pakistan relationship is far from being practical! Past experiences have shown that Pakistan government (or to be precise, Pakistani military!) can't be trusted! It is just that they thrive on propagating a sense of hatred towards their secular neighbour.So the government in India can do absolutely nothing about it!( But they won't admit it!!)

— ranjan, india
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
19.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
While the spirit of the article is acceptable, the tone leaves a lot desired. Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid while India gets sermons. What kind of logic is this?

Yes Pakistani citizens and civil society is suffering and that has to change. Also India and Pakistan can live together with harmony as there are many concerns that are common to both countries. Pakistan has a huge responsibility in making this happen. How come the economy of Pakistan is in doldrums yet they find resources to expand their nuclear arsenal and for what purpose? In the name of assisting Pakistan in fighting Taliban, looks like US creating another Frankenstein's monster in South Asia. US should not absolve itself of its moral responsibility in the damage it is causing by continuously pouring money into Pakistan without demanding and ensuring accountability.

Looks like even Obama is also gradually subscribing to the myopic approach that US embraced for the last four decades vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. India needs no sympathy from US. It needs US to be fair and firm in its dealings with Pakistan and India. Looks like this is not going to happen

— Vish, UK
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
20.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
There is nothing India can do in Pakistan. They are a lot that grew up on poison fed daily that "Hindu" India is going to get them eventhough is Pakistan that started three wars. Pakistan can only validate its existence by proving that a multicultural multireligious India is not feasible. And there are its partners..us and China pumping billions and arming them to the teeth despite knowing that they help Al Qaeda and Taliban will be nourished.

Funny reading this editorial-- our government is contemplating billions more aid, and at the same time asking that India refrain! Why? So that the "freedom fighters" won't send another plane to New York? Are Indian lives cheap?

Throughout history, we seem to have sided with despots and dictators. When will we change? If you believe democracy is a good thing, then there are over a billion people that voted peacefully just now. How about a security council seat for India that is a 6th of humanity?

How about partnering with India in fixing up Pakistan and Afghanistan? America had always dared to take bold steps throughout history when compelled with moral problems. Let us get it done!

— Veetri, Phoenix, AZ
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers
21.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
India's reelection of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world's most capable and prudent heads of government, is heartening. The fact that he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be reelected after serving a full term suggests that India may indeed be entering a phase of stable growth. That should appeal to those investing in the subcontinent’s future, and comfort those, like the United States, who are increasingly reliant on it as an ally. Additionally, the success of this exercise in democracy at such a large scale also resonates in countries like China, who have resolutely contended that such a system cannot work in nations of such complexity and scope.

To continue the discussion, please visit www.twitter.com/halwoods

— Hal Woods, Chicago, IL
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
22.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
It is past time the US understood its predicament in Pakistan. You can neither stop nor continue feeding the beast that controls Pakistan - its army. The former risks implosion of the country and the latter explosions worldwide. Sorry, India cannot help you out of this mess. You cannot lay the blame for Pakistan buying nukes out of US aid for development or fighting terrorism on India. Pakistan does not need more nukes to avoid the threat of India. Pakistani army needs them to scare the US into parting with its money, which will be used to perpetuate the feudal stranglehold over ordinary Pakistanis. Honestly, does anyone still believe that India seeks any of the extremist-ridden Pakistani territory?

Please learn not to mollycoddle dictatorships for short term gains next time you are revisiting policy. Tutorial one: Start with Saudi Arabia which I heard builds most Madrassas in Pakistan.

— SK, NY
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
23.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Expecting India to play a role in stabilizing Pakistan in any manner, let alone through progress on Kashmir seems rather naive! Progress towards any solution on Kashmir is likely to cause serious internal problems for even a stable government in Pakistan, let alone the current lame-duck administration of Mr. Zardari. It's also important to understand that with most of India's neighbors, anti-India rhetoric and posturing is de rigeur for everybody in the political process - and more so in the case of Pakistan. Any attempt by India to get involved in "stabilizing" Pakistan would probably prove counter productive.

On a related note, the US Administration and policy wonks need to get real about the fundamental nature of the Pakistani State. 60 years of an Islamist foundational doctrine, virulent anti-Indianism, and 30 years of (american-sponsored) jihadism have given these ideologies deep roots in every facet of the state, and the transition that is being expected of them today requires that these very roots be torn from the ground.

The recent confrontation with the Taliban in Swat constitutes the first credible signal from the State of its willingness to transform itself and the US needs to hold the Pak Govt to this course.

The Indian Govt would be happy to move on Kashmir (as back channel negotiations on the subject with Musharraf were testament to), but the Pakistanis must necessarily abnegate recourse to terrorist proxies as instruments of state policy, and extradite known terrorist offenders currently claiming sanctuary there under the patronage of the intelligence services, before any Indian govt could reasonably reengage in a dialogue.

— Sreeram, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
24.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
This article shows naivete in discussing the region.
1. "Demand assurances" from pakistan? Who from, precisely? The President, who controls nothing? Or the Army, which took $10 Billion in the past to further their own interests? "Assurances" from any Pakistani institution means nothing.
2. "Persuade" Burma's regime? Are you aware that China and India are in competition for influence there, and that China is far ahead? That most of North Eastern Burma is full of chinese, and chinese currency is freely used there? India's interest in Burma are based on realpolitik vs China not on what the rest of the world wants vis a vis democracy etc.

— jetlagged, Northern Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
25.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Oh dear. This editorial needs a translator well-versed in imperialese. I'll give some of it a go.

"[A]rguably the most dangerous country on earth" means "Oops, we gave billions to a country to help it oppress its own people, and now this seems to no longer work it turns out they also spent much of it on nukes instead of bombing villages. Whatever shall we do? Note: get out of other peoples' business is not a valid answer."

"Resolving issues over Kashmir" means "India and Pakistan should get their act together - but whatever you do, don't take the wishes of the people of Kashmir into account. That would set a bad precedent."

"India must assume its responsibilities" means "We need a local policeman for the Empire. India has just been volunteered."

— Christian Haesemeyer, Los Angeles

26.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
India should not deal with a state which has shown little regard to its citizen's basic rights to education and social empowerment. Washington's advice on engaging the leader of Pakistan should be voiced to the country which remains its strongest ally both economically and in terms of providing military hardware - China.

— Nitin, Wellington
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
27.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Kashmir problem will be solved in no time if the US stops giving military aid to Pakistan. Pakistani governments of both civilian and military varieties are experts in fooling US into thinking that Pakistan is a US ally in whatever the US wants to accomplish in the region - a base fro US operations against USSR, a conduit for arms to fight Soviets or holding the line against Al Queda. Whatever the US policy, the army ends up with more weapons and gets enriched and to maintain it's position the army tells the Pakistani population that India is the enemy.

— Lordknow, Palo Alo, CA
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
28.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
The editorial indeed makes some valid points about India’s rightful regional role, yet it overlooks a major barrier. And that is the Pakistan’s army and ISI who benefits immensely by having India as a perpetual enemy. Their constant, and often unjustified, blackmail of the Pakistan’s populace by creating the specter of India’s unbridled aggression gives them justification for fleecing the Pakistan’s national budget. Thus any overtures by India, except for delivering the Kashmir on a silver plater, will not placate the two institutions that have held their own country, and now the world, hostage. And even after such an overture, given their record there is no guarantee that the Pakistan army and ISI will not find any reason not to continue the enmity. In fact, it may embolden these two institutions, just as making concessions to Taliban in Swat valley gave the Taliban encouragement to reach for more. Moreover, for the last 20 years, the Pakistan army and ISI have come to believe that the western nations and the US need the Pakistan army badly enough to let them extract their pound of flesh and still get away with much more. Amassing nuclear weapons while receiving billions of dollars from the US to allegedly fight a war on terror is an excellent example Pakistan army’s strategy. Twisting India’s arms to make concessions is no guarantee that the game that is being played for the last 20 years will change. Negotiating arms treaty to include China is a good suggestions but it should be separated from the India’s relations with Pakistan which should be strictly a bilateral issues. Mixing the two, although they are somewhat interrelated, is not advisable. Suggestion on broader talks on environment and water with Pakistan is indeed a good one since it directly helps the people of Pakistan, and an issue that India should take seriously.

— PK, Sacremento, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
29.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
It is preposterous to suggest that India should initiate arms control when Pakistan is bulking up on fighter jets and nukes, ostensibly to fight the Taliban. The government should first get down to the task of taking care of the development of the country, driving growth and combating terrorism (both within and Pakistan sponsored)

— Jeejo, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
30.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
the indian congress's victory should enhance india's image in the world besides bringing stability to indian government for the next five years. most election observers expected a fragile coalition to emerge from the election. the thumping victory for prime minister manmohan singh has given him a second term, an event that has only occured once before in india's post-colonial history when jawaharlal nehru was re-elected.manmohan singh's government has promoted programs for the low income sections of indian society.the manmohan singh led congress government has actively tried to improve relations with the united states. although the new york times opposed the us-india nuclear deal, it was important for india to sign the deal and maintain it's credibility with the bush administration. to manmohan singh's credit, he was firm and determined and saw the deal through,even though his communist allies withdrew their support and his government almost collapsed. he is also viewed as a person of integrity.india's growth has slowed due to the global economic downturn.manmohan singh's past background and experience as an economist should serve india well.

india's voters ignored the talibanization in neighboring pakistan, and communal and divisive politics in electing a party that defends the country's secular values.

india is one of the top troop contributers to UN peacekeeping operations. kashmir's accession to india in '47 was legal and it's constitution is closely aligned with india's after the last 60 years.unlike pakistan which is an islamic country, indias people view themselves as a secular society and kashmir,a state that has both hindus and muslims, as an integral part of their country. india is one of the largest troop contributers to un peacekeepingg efforts and has partnered with the us in the efforts to rebuild afghanistan.

india faces daunting challenges including a large budget deficit and a need to modernize it's infrastructure.

the indian congress's win has increased hopes that economic reform will continue in india.it's communist allies opposed these reformsin recent years.however, india will have to proceed cautiously in opening it's market in view of the global downturn.

pakistan's nuclear and arms build up,and the mumbai attack last november are reminders of india's external challenges.

— amber, us
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
31.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
It is true that India has to assume greater role in Asian Subcontinent. But when it comes to Pakistan, we can not ignore the fact that Kashmir is not THE main problem, as it was impressed in the Editorial. Rather securing Pakistani state from Taliban and Separatists is the main issue. When it is not clear who exercises what influence in which part of the total Pakistani set-up (Government, Legislature, Armed forces, Judiciary and Media)with whom should India engage regarding Kashmir? What assurances can be given from the negotiating party that the rest of the stake holders agree? Please, let us all give Pakistani state time to set house in-order and then bring upon them additional burdens.
One at a time - Brick by Brick, a long lasting solution.

— Srikumar, Mumbai
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
32.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
The tone of the editorial is rather condescending. As the saying goes, for a person with a hammer the whole world seems like a nail. Not a single line in this editorial is really about India but more about protecting American's interests and ambitions - for example "...use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights". Can you please add preparing a venti tazo chai-latte with soy milk for President Obama to the list?
I am not here to suggest that none of this is important but please we have enough problems on our own. We are not sure how the recession would play out in India, what to do with farmer suicides, how to have an inclusive growth, what to do with the Maoist problem and growing terrorist strikes and ways to protect the secular fabric of our nation. The people of India voted on these issues more than anything and I am really glad that the people of India gave an almost decisive mandate for a sincere and hardworking man in Dr. Manmohan Singh. India should engage with the world on its terms and conditions and when it chooses and not at the bidding of anyone.

— KM, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
33.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
'India's challenges' reads a lot like 'What the US would like India to do'. How about the real challenges: economic reform and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, the environment and securing natural resources for future growth? Yes, Pakistan is important, but India seems to have limited ability to affect outcomes in its disintegrating neighbour.

— shaloub, Toronto
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
34.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am

Link
Well, I suppose Manmohan Singh and the South Block mandarins in New Delhi should profusely thank the NYT editorial for their generous sermon. What better way could one celebrate the successful conclusion of the largest democratic exercise in human history that led to significant upsets (e.g., the routing of the Communists in Bengal).

Note the number of times "should" and "must" are used. Such patronizing editorials, unfortunately, confirm that the reputation of the arrogant American is often well-earned.

Such a patronizing laundry list of action items would be laughable but is instead disturbing coming from a prestigious newspaper. Do we Americans have a better grasp of what's good for India than the Indians themselves?

It's interesting that NYT now considers Pakistani to be "arguably the most dangerous country on earth". India had made this point over a decade ago. Unfortunately, it took another 8 years after 9/11 for this thought to dawn to our mainstream media.

Let me offer an alternative view. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. A stable Pakistan is one ruled by the Army, with arms purchases funded by our taxpayer money, and planning and executing mischief against India.

The dismantling of the Pakistani nation state into smaller states is in the best interest of India in particular and for the stability of South Asia in general. I would assume that India would do her best to exercise influence in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistani nuclear weapons would not be stationed there out of range of Indian Air Force (the "strategic depth" sought by the Pakistani Army). If the Indian administration has any strategy, it would be to assiduously work towards breaking up Pakistan.

I suppose it would take another decade for NYT to come to a similar conclusion that a feudal state devoid of a national identity cannot be propped up by foreign handouts and a common dislike of India.

Till then we will listen to the sermons over morning coffee :)

— Ajit, Sunnyvale, CA
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
35.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am

Link
and Srilanka...India in spite of fatal losses (e.g., Rajiv Gandhi) has failed to address Tamils concern in Sri Lanka for over 25 yrs now. Its initiative for peace keeping forces and to aid Sril Lankan military would not have been necessary had India has supported the cause of Tamils in Srilanka. In these post-mortem efforts, Indian government stance has also earned the wrath of its own people (in TamilNadu).

— Balaji Raman, Singapore

Editorial in New York Times : India’s Challenges, Also Readers' Comments

Published: May 18, 2009

The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.

It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.

We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.

Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.

India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.

It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.

India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.

India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan.

It's the terrorism, stupid; not India: US message to Pak

24 Apr 2009, 0424 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
WASHINGTON: The United States will institute benchmarks that Pakistan will have to meet, including scaling down its confrontational posture
against India, if Islamabad is to earn the massive foreign aid Washington and its partners are lining up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated on Thursday. ( Watch )

The benchmarks will include moving troops from its border with India to its insurgency stricken areas to fight its homegrown terrorism problem, Clinton suggested, following up on the broad US prescription and advice to Pakistan that its grave domestic situation, and not India, constituted the biggest danger to its existence.

Clinton provided the assurances about benchmarks at the urging of some lawmakers, but said she would prefer they remain an executive decision rather than legislative so that the administration would not be paralyzed. Some of the benchmarks would be classified, but the administration would share them with Congress.

"You know, on a simple measure, is the Pakistani military still amassing hundreds of thousands of troops on the Indian border, or have they begun to move those toward these insurgent areas?" Clinton explained at a Congressional hearing, citing the example of one such benchmark. "What kind of kinetic action are they taking? How much? Is there increasing up-tempo or not? Is it sporadic, so they start in and then they move back?"

"I agree with you completely that we need the internal benchmarks," she told an anxious lawmaker, adding the approach would be across the government. "The intelligence community will have certain measurements; the Defense Department will; we (the State Department) will look as well."

The Pakistani government — and some of its supporters like Senator John Kerry — has opposed legislative benchmarks, especially those which condition US aid to Pakistan ending its sponsorship of terrorism against India, saying they are humiliating. But lawmakers on the House side are against giving Pakistan a free ride given what they say is its history of double-dealing.

"I've been around this place 40 years. My experience with Pakistan during all that time is that it has always been Pakistan, which means it's a country of dealmakers, but they don't keep the deals," said Congressman David Obey. "I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the existing Pakistani government to do one blessed thing."

Other members also complained about Pakistan's double-dealing – paying lip service to fighting terrorism while cutting deals with extremists. "How do we succeed in Pakistan if the Pakistanis themselves are either unwilling or incapable of making the tough choices and taking the tough action needed to confront the insurgency?" asked one Congressman.

Following up on President Obama's assurance that there will be no blank checks for Pakistan, Secretary Clinton also re-iterated what has become a virtual mantra in Washington in recent weeks: Repeated advice to Pakistan that it is not India, but Islamabad's own home-grown terrorism that posed an existential threat to it.

In an indication that US aid to Pakistan will be contingent on its India policy, even if it is not incorporated into legislation, Clinton said US officials have been "spending countless hours in really painful, specific conversations," to convince Pakistan of the changed situation. Pakistan was slow to understand this, she suggested.

"Changing paradigms and mindsets is not easy," Clinton told anxious lawmakers, adding, "I want to underscore the feeling we get, which is that if you have been locked in a mortal contest with someone you think is your principal — in fact, only — real enemy, and all of a sudden circumstances change, it just takes some time."

Similar policy prescriptions and sentiments (It's not India, it's home-grown extremists) were expressed at a Harvard lecture earlier this week by General David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command with oversight of Pakistan and the middle-east, indicating that US interlocutors are all reading from the same page.

"The existential threat" facing Pakistan "is internal extremists and not India," Petraeus said in the speech at the Kennedy School of Government, adding such an idea was "intellectually dislocating" for the institutions of Pakistan fostered on decades of projecting confrontation against India.

Over at the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the Pakistan crisis was taking a lot of President Obama's time. Defense Secretary Robert Gates too chipped in, asking Islamabad to recognize the danger and take action.

On her part, Clinton told lawmakers there is a growing understanding of the changed circumstances within the Pakistani leadership.

"Now, there are no promises. They have to do it (act against extremists)," she warned.

‘Pakistan should worry about terrorism, not India’

LAHORE Daily Times Monitor

* US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman says tensions with India over Kashmir are diverting Pakistan from fight against extremism
* US Senate’s Homeland Security chairman says it’s difficult to convince Pakistani establishment of extremism being the
real threat

The greatest threat Pakistan faces today comes from terrorism, not India, two US leaders have said.

Speaking at Harvard University, General David Petraeus of the Central Command on Monday said the government in Islamabad needed a change in its mindset towards its neighbour similar to what happened in the US after the Cold War.

“The existential threat facing Pakistan,” he said, “is internal extremists and not India.”

Diversion: Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.

India realises the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters. But the five-year peace process between the neighbours has been stalled since the November attacks in Mumbai. India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for the assault, which Petraeus called “a true 9/11 moment” for India.

Many in Pakistan’s government recognise that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.

According to government estimates, terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.

Separately, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank, “Pakistanis have to understand that their major enemy in the region is no longer India, but it’s extremism. In fact, they have a common enemy in that with the Indians.”

Difficulty: Lieberman, chairman of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, admitted, however, that it was difficult to convince the Pakistani establishment. “That’s a tough sell,” he said.

Responding to questions, Senator Lieberman reiterated his view that any new aid to Pakistan needs to be conditional.

Experts predict Pakistan’s collapse

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
WASHINGTON | A growing number of U.S. intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials have concluded that there’s little hope of preventing nuclear-armed Pakistan from disintegrating into fiefdoms controlled by Islamist warlords and terrorists.

“It’s a disaster in the making on the scale of the Iranian revolution,” said a U.S. intelligence official with long experience in Pakistan who requested anonymity.

Pakistan’s fragmentation into warlord-run fiefdoms that host al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would have grave implications for the security of its nuclear arsenal; for the U.S.-led effort to pacify Afghanistan; and for the security of India, the nearby oil-rich Persian Gulf and Central Asia, the U.S. and its allies.

“Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American Army, and the headquarters of al-Qaida sitting in two-thirds of the country which the government does not control,” said David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency consultant to the Obama administration.

“Pakistan isn’t Afghanistan, a backward, isolated, landlocked place that outsiders get interested in about once a century,” agreed the U.S. intelligence official. “It’s a developed state.”

He added: “The implications of this are disastrous for the U.S.”

The experts interviewed by McClatchy Newspapers said their views aren’t a worst case scenario, but a realistic expectation based on the militants’ gains and the failure of Pakistan’s leadership to respond.

“The place is beyond redemption,” said a Pentagon adviser who asked not to be further identified. He continued: “If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants.”

That pessimistic view has been bolstered by Islamabad’s surrender this week of areas outside the frontier tribal region to Pakistan’s Taliban movement and by a growing militant infiltration into the rest of the nation.

Pakistan: an imploding nation

On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful; it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.

Dire warnings about the fate of Pakistan have become daily fare now. The country’s Afghan border frayed a while ago. Now the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have taken the war to its heart: Swat yesterday, Buner today, will Islamabad fall too?
Possibly in one to six months, if David Kilcullen is to be believed. Kilcullen is an adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made those controversial remarks to the Washington Post in March. He explained the rationale of his statement in an interview to Mint on Wednesday.
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite is inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.
This is not a vision of doom. On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful. It never was a promised land for the Muslims of South Asia. The first blow came with the secession of Bangladesh. Then came the Baloch and Sindhi insurgencies. Finally, by the time the last Soviet tanks moved out of Afghanistan in 1989, it was well on its way to turning into a powder keg of feuding ethnic groups, competing regionalisms and a heady brew of medieval Islam. Twenty years later, it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
The question that India and Indians need to address is: What is to be done? Any Indian help is certain to be construed as a conspiracy to dismember the country. That path should be avoided. Apart from practical arrangements (for example, occupying certain territories in a pre-emptive fashion so that the Taliban do not threaten India), there should be efforts at thinking about envisioning alternative political futures for Pakistan. Should there be a confederation of states such as Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab? Should the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas be merged into a greater Afghanistan? Or should the present territories remain with all powers to the states and residuary powers with a weak centre? These are questions that cannot be ignored any longer.
Can Pakistan remain a viable nation state? Tell us your views !

Pakistan: the epicentre of Islamist terror

In the lush, green valleys of the Punjab, young men are being schooled in the principles of mass murder.
By Sean Rayment, Security Correspondent

Some 70 miles north of Lahore, in a 200-acre camp that also houses a large mosque, swimming pool and fish farm, volunteers are taught how to assemble bombs, fire weapons, create terrorist networks and communicate covertly using the internet and mobile phones.

They are also instructed in resistance to interrogation techniques and how to create cover stories in the event of being captured.

This is the headquarters of the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) – which in Urdu translates as "army of the pure" – the organisation widely believed to be responsible for the Mumbai massacre in November which left 172 people dead.

LeT, which professes to be a peaceful organisation, is known to have close links with al-Qaeda and is understood to train around 40,000 young men every year at its madrassas (religious schools) and military bases.

Some of the trainees at its base in the Punjab are British.

Many of those who graduate from the camps are sent to the front line in Kashmir to wage war against the Indian army, others venture north to Afghanistan to fight against Nato forces, while many of the British return to the UK and begin plotting.

Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer are both thought to have visited the camp several times before carrying out the 7/7 suicides attacks on the London Tube network.

Mohammed Ajmal Khan, who was sentenced to nine years in March 2006 for fundraising for terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan, also admitted visiting one of the organisation’s camps.

Virtually all of the al-Qaeda terrorists convicted in Britain since 2001, including the 7/7 bombers and Dhiren Barot – the so-called "Dirty Bomber" – received training in Pakistan.

Gordon Brown recently stated that three quarters of all British terror plots originate from within the state.

However, monitoring everyone visiting or returning from Pakistan is an impossible task for Britain’s police and MI5.

Up to 400,000 British Pakistanis visit the country every year, the vast majority for completely legitimate reasons. Up to 10,000 young Pakistanis enter the UK every year on student visas.

It is also believed that some of the 12 terrorist suspects arrested in Wednesday’s Operation Pathway may have been trained to form a covert cell in Pakistan before entering Britain.

LeT is a hardcore terrorist organisation committed to using extreme violence to achieve its aim of forcing India to leave the disputed area of Kashmir.

But in the 18 years since its creation, the movement has forged links with other terror groups, most notably al-Qaeda, and has become a major threat to many western countries.

After the Mumbai attacks, it emerged that the group had compiled a worldwide hit list of 320 targets. Yet despite being banned by most western countries, the Pakistani authorities stand accused of effectively having turned a blind eye to its operations.

And the organisation is not alone. Another militant group, Lashkar-e-Janghvi is believed to have been behind the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore last month, also operates openly, while other groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen are understood to be expanding their influence in Punjab, an area with strong British connections.

In one area of Kashmir roughly the size of the West Midlands, 25 militant groups are known to operate with impunity.

Many of their volunteers sign up here for jihad – or ‘holy war’ – before taking the next step of joining other organisations committed to attacking the West.

It is against this backdrop that Pakistan has now acquired the dubious distinction of being epicentre for Islamist terrorism in the world.

At the same time, MI5 and the CIA are becoming increasingly worried by the country’s inability to clamp down on militants.

Pakistan is now a very dangerous country for Westerners to live and work. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office only allows its diplomats to work in the country unaccompanied, meaning partners, wives and children must remain behind in the UK.

As far as the FCO is concerned, Pakistan is as dangerous as Afghanistan, which is currently in the grips of a full-blown insurgency.

The rise of militant Islamist groups in Pakistan began in the early 1980s under the country’s then leader General Muhammad Zia-ul-Huq, largely in response to the growth of Shia fundamentalism in Iran and in a bid to support the Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviets in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Over the last 30 years, the country’s leaders have been content for various Islamist groups to train and recruit in Pakistan, and to wage a proxy war with India over the disputed Kashmir region. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Inter-Services Agency (ISI), the intelligence wing of the Pakistan army, funded the Mujahideen and, later, the Taliban in the mid-Nineties.

Although Pakistan is fighting its own counter-insurgency war against militants, the ISI is believed to have firm links with groups like the Taliban and even al-Qaeda, much to the consternation of Britain and the US.

MI5 treats any intelligence passed to it by the ISI with caution, given that much of it is politicised, although the relationship between the two organisations remains strong.

But the US, which over the last few years has funded the Pakistan military and therefore the ISI to the tune of £7 billion, is said to be increasingly frustrated with rogue, Islamist-supporting elements within the ISI.

Washington wants the Pakistani government to clamp down on the militant groups operating within the country and to cleanse the ISI of Taliban and Islamist sympathisers.

Admiral Michael Mullen, the US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs and America’s most senior officer, recently called for the ISI to make "fundamental" changes in its relationship with militants.

But despite the frustrations, there have been some major advances.

The bilateral agreement between Pakistan and Washington, which had been a secret until recently and allowed America’s heavily armed unmanned aircraft, known as Reapers, to attack al-Qaeda and Taliban targets inside Pakistan, have produced enormous dividends.

Security sources said the various strikes over the past 12 months have severely disrupted al-Qaeda operations in Pakistan and their lines of communication back to the UK.

MI5 are convinced that the current lack of so-called "late-stage plots" – in which "cells" of terrorists are close to launching attacks – is partly down to the Reaper strikes in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border regions.

Pakistan, however, remains a country on the brink of catastrophe.

The ‘Talibanisation’ of the Swat Valley in the tribal areas of the northwest frontier province serves to illustrate how the central government is beginning to lose control in certain areas.

It is in this region that more than 75,000 soldiers of its Frontier Corps are waging a bitter counter-insurgency war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The war has reached a stalemate and is causing deep divides within the Pakistani Army. While the officer class support the war, the rank and file see little honour in killing fellow Muslims. The potential for revolt within the Army is very real.

The economy is also in freefall, with some estimates suggesting that Pakistan will be bankrupt within six months, a position which will play further into the hands of the militants, who already recruit the majority of their foot soldiers from the poorest areas.

Pakistan is a country of 150 million people, many of whom are trapped in poverty. It is in desperate need of help, probably more so than neighbouring Afghanistan.

If the economy implodes, the Army revolts and the Islamists gain power – a sequence of events that is entirely possible – the problems for the West will dwarf anything seen in Iraq or Afghanistan and will take international terrorism to a new infinitely more dangerous level.

For the first time since the Cold War, the West would have an enemy with a nuclear capability.

Pak should shift focus from India to curbing terror inside: US

New York (PTI): Warning that terrorists operating in safe havens in Pakistan were preparing to attack that country and Afghanistan, a top US military commander has asked Islamabad to change focus from fighting India to combating militants within its own borders.

"The Taliban, in particular, are going both ways now," Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, said.

"They are coming towards Islamabad and they are actually going towards Kabul. I am completely convinced that the vast majority of leaders in Pakistan understands the seriousness of the threat".

Mr. Mullen, who has worked extensively to build a relationship with Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani, noted that the Pakistan army had difficulties transforming from its military that recruited, trained, deployed and promoted its officers on performance along the eastern front with India to one that focussed instead on terrorists within its own border.

But, he admitted "that's not going to change overnight".

His remarks come as the US Defence Department unveiled a $ 3-billion plan to train and equip Pakistan's military over the next five years, New York Times reported.

The funds, the paper said, would pay for helicopters, night-vision goggles and other equipment and counter-insurgency training for Pakistan's special forces and paramilitary frontier corps.

Flogging of a teenage girl by Taliban in Swat, Pak Govt unable to control fanatics, says Human Rights activist Asma Jahangir

Published: April 04, 2009

LAHORE - Chairperson Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) Asma Jahangir, while denouncing the flogging of a teenage girl by Taliban in Swat, has announced to hold a protest rally organised by the Citizens of Lahore at 4:30pm, from GPO Chowk to the Punjab Assembly on Saturday. Addressing a news conference on Friday, Asma warned that the government’s writ on the extremist elements in the country appears as non-existent and it is yet not clear to what extent they will go.
Flanked by Iqbal Haider and others, she strongly condemned the terrorist attack on the training centre in Manawan terming it as an extremists’ assault on the whole of Pakistan.
Turning back to the flogging incident of the girl in Swat, she said Taliban are now occupying the whole area and they are doing whatever they want.
Expressing deep concern over the incident, she accused Taliban of forcing the women to marry them and subjecting those to harshest punishment who refuses to obey their orders. Asma said the matter is very serious which would not be resolved sitting at home but doing something practical to check advancement by Taliban.
She said Taliban has spread panic in Swat, Dir and other parts where no school and other pubic institutions are safe at their hand. They have created such a strong scare that even local parliamentarians are reluctant to go to their respective constituencies, she added.
It is an eye opener to everyone, she said adding, the terrorists have reached to our cities and time demands of every patriotic Pakistani to stand up to check their way.
Replying to a question, she said the HRCP did not accept at all US drone attacks on the tribal areas, but that could not be taken as a justification of the terrorist attacks. She said Swat accord has brought the citizens to a greater danger at the hand of Taliban.
She invited every citizen of the country to join them for protecting the country from internal threats of Taliban and other jihadi outfits that are responsible for alarming rise in militancy.

A novel way to tackle Pakistan

COMMENT By Sreeram Chaulia

A new study entitled "World at Risk" by a bipartisan American Congressional commission reveals that if one were to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) today, then "all roads would intersect in Pakistan". It warns that the next attacks on America might originate from Pakistan and urges the US president to take steps on a priority basis "securing" Islamabad's biological and nuclear weapons. Paraphrasing the report, the New Yorker magazine commented that Pakistan as a "nation itself is a kind of WMD".

Coming on the heels of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, which were planned and organized by Pakistani fundamentalists, the American warnings reflect a major dilemma facing international
policymakers - how to make the world safe from Pakistan? The nature and extent of this challenge has been summed up by former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, "Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. It has nuclear weapons, it has terrorism, extremists, corruption [and is] very poor ... "

What options does the world have to counter the multiple threats to international security and peace being posed by a dysfunctional and dangerously adrift country? Should a country that is itself a WMD be allowed to possess actual WMDs, which are not only liable to fall into the "wrong" hands but also be used by the "right" hands for emotional blackmail?

Irfan Hussain, a leading Pakistani newspaper columnist, recently bemoaned that "Pakistan was the only country in the world that negotiates with a gun to its own head. Our argument goes something like this: If you don't give us what we need, the government will collapse and this might result in anarchy, and a takeover by Islamic militants. Left unstated here is the global risk these elements would pose as they would have access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal." A state which threatens to explode and destroy everyone else on the planet unless it is pampered is akin to a suicide bomber whose message to his enemies is to change their policies "or else".

The issue to ponder for world leaders is whether an "international migraine" and "suicidal" state should be allowed to possess WMDs or, for that matter, be self-governing? Sovereignty, as an organizing principle of world affairs, is not merely a bestower of rights but also comes with certain responsibilities towards one's own people and to other sovereign countries. Pakistan's track record is one of waving the red flag and screaming SOS to assert its rights as a sovereign country, without fulfilling the corollary obligations.

While many developing countries may have failed to live up to the expectations of their populations to improve living standards and governance, Pakistan has the extra cachet of exporting terrorism and extremist religious values to other countries. The controversial call for "international humanitarian intervention" over the failure of a state to protect its own people from grave human rights abuses is premised on what is happening within a country. To be fair, Pakistan has not fared worse than many other developing countries on domestic human development indices. Albright's mention of corruption and poverty as causes for concern about Pakistan is not relevant as these are not unique failings.

What stands Pakistan apart, though, is its ability to breed terrorism, extremist ideology and nuclear fecklessness and project these outwards at the rest of the world. The correct international response to this should not a "humanitarian intervention" but one based on global collective will, represented by the United Nations. Given the sui generis mixture of threats presented by Pakistan, an equally novel response is warranted. Since Pakistani sovereignty has been misused to impair the sovereignty of its neighbors - Afghanistan to the west and India on the east - the first strategy of an international collective will should be to circumscribe the country's sovereignty and place it under custodianship.

After World War I, when a transfer of colonies occurred between the losing German and Turkish empires to the victorious European ones, a mechanism called "mandate" was introduced at the League of Nations. Mandated territories were deemed unfit for self-rule by the victors of the war and taken over as de facto colonies "until such time as they are able to stand alone". After World War II, successors of the League mandates were rechristened "Trust Territories" and passed on to the UN to be "prepared for independence and majority rule".

Although mandates were thinly disguised veneers for colonial aggrandizement, they contain the germs of an idea for application to the now universally acknowledged "Pakistan problem". Both mandates and trusts were believed by practitioners at the time to be temporary waiting phases before a land could earn the spurs of a fully sovereign state. Although the judgement of whether these wards had the attributes of sovereign states was left to imperialist calculations, the notion that an international legal agreement could decide when and whether a country should be allowed to be sovereign is informative.

For Pakistan to be rid of its WMDs, hate preachers, terrorists and their infrastructure, only a handover of its sovereignty to a UN-designated custodian authority will be effective. Since sovereignty is closely associated with nationalism, such a grand experiment will undoubtedly meet fierce resistance within the Pakistani establishment and society. But there is no other way for the country's Augean Stables to be cleaned. Washington's pressure and protestations from Kabul or New Delhi have come and gone in vain for years without any concrete change in Pakistan's behavior.
A spell of international custodianship over Pakistan is the only feasible means for long-term transformation of the sub-continent's problem child. Those representatives of the Pakistani state who wish to strengthen moderation will benefit from a handover of sovereignty to the UN because the move promises to enhance civilian power and demilitarize policymaking. For Pakistani civil society, which has been struggling to counter what Harvard University professor Jessica Stern called the "jihad culture", a decade or so of international custodianship would open the space needed to rebuild the country with the cement of civic consciousness and religious tolerance. Pakistani activists should welcome coming under a UN trust and ally with like-minded forces pressing for this solution.

Besides Pakistani nationalism, an international campaign to bring the country under UN custodianship is bound to run into two stumbling blocks. The 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is likely to vote as a bloc in the UN General Assembly to stymie efforts to constrict the foreign and domestic powers of one of its members. Pakistan is no ordinary member of the OIC because of its possession of the so-called "Islamic bomb" and losing a nuclear-armed Muslim power will rankle with the OIC.
The other hurdle is China, for which the temporary loss of Pakistan's sovereignty will be a big blow to its strategic vision of dominating Asia by tying down India. The Chinese veto has been used sparingly in the UN Security Council, but it will definitely come down with a thump on the table if Pakistan is proposed to be delivered to international custodianship.

Can the OIC and China be convinced by a determined international movement to vest Pakistan's sovereignty in the UN's trust? Can Pakistan as a nation come around to accepting this bitter medicine as a necessary prelude to renaissance? These questions need to be answered soon for the sake of world peace. The longer the delay in legal takeover of Pakistan, the greater the chances are that the "WMD nation" will explode.

Sreeram Chaulia is a researcher on international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in Syracuse, New York.