When I advocate reform in Pakistan’s power structure or express hope that democracy will soon hold sway in Pakistan, my critics often label me an ‘American agent.’ Many young Pakistanis also opine that questioning ISI’s role is tantamount to compromising the country’s sovereignty.

Taking a look back at Pakistan’s history, however, exposes the hypocrisy of such assertions.  It was, in fact, during Gen.Zia ul Haq’s rule that the US was allowed to construct five ‘intelligence and recon basses’ in Pakistan. It was under Gen. Musharaf’s rule that Pakistan compromised the security of it’s nuclear assets, allowed drone attacks, handed over Pakistani civilians to the CIA and allowed Blackwater to launch covert operations.

By now we all know about Seymour Hersh article in New Yorker. I have been wary of Mr. Hersch’s unnamed sources and questioned timing of his stories.

But Jeremy Scahill who writes for The Nation Magazine is a straight shooter. In his latest article in The Nation journalist Jeremy Scahill has revealed that Blackwater is secretly operating in Pakistan under a covert program that includes planning the assassination and kidnapping of Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects. Blackwater is also said to be involved in a previously undisclosed U.S. military drone campaign that has killed scores of people inside Pakistan. Blackwater operatives have been working under a covert program run by the Joint Special Operations Command, the military’s top covert operations force. The previously undisclosed JSOC operations would mark the first known confirmation of U.S. military activity inside Pakistan.

This was possible because in 2006 Gen. Pervez Musharaf struck a deal with the Bush administration that allows U.S. Special Operations forces from the Joint Special Operations Command to enter Pakistan with the understanding that they were, “following the target.”

Indeed, if you read Pakistan’s short history you will find that our Army has always served America’s interest and its foreign policy has been congruent with US policy in the region. Although our nation’s key decision to stand in America’s camp pre-dates the Ayub regime, it was during our first martial law that Pakistan’s anti-imperialist forces were completely crushed.

America was the clear winner when, on April 17^th 1953, Pakistan’s third Governor General Malik Ghulam Mohammad dismissed Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin who had then enjoyed the confidence of the parliament. Mohammad Ali Bogra was appointed to form a government the same day. Looking through declassified documents at the US National Archives you will understand that the main benefactors of the change were always two elements, Pakistan’s army and the US.

Please see blow the US ambassador’s telegram from the embassy in Karachi sent on April 18^th, 1953.

Two more significant telegrams sent from the US embassy in Karachi clearly indicate that: America was fearful of Pakistan’s left inclined politicians and Ayub Khan was being encouraged to take control ie. “a coup by a military dictatorship”.

I will be adding to more documents here to deconstruct the notion that Pakistan’s army is anti-imperialist. Secondly, I will also continue to question the assertions of many that Pakistan’s Army is truly religious.  It only promoted and protected Islamist elements to serve U.S. interests. Ironically Pakistan’s army also promoted westernized voices in early parts of it history, also at the behest of it’s American masters. A religious bigot like Zia ul Haq was built-up when America wanted to exploit religious sentiments. And, Gen. Musharaf was nurtured as a ‘westernized’ voice when that was the need of the day.  This willingness to be anything the U.S. wants is often observed by Pakistan watchers who say: if America wants a transvestite, the Pakistan army will hurry up and promote a hijra through it’s rank.

پاکستان میں جمہوریت عبوری دور سے گزر رہی ہے، اور اس کا مستقبل غیر یقینی ہو سکتا ہے۔ اپنی اس دلیل کی وضاحت میں اس طرح کروں گا کہ پاکستان میں سیاسی قیادت نے سیاسی خلاء تو پُر کر لیا ہے جس کا اس سے پہلے کوئی وجود تک نہیں تھا، لیکن سیاسی قیادت ابھی ریاست کے تمام شعبوں پر مکمل کنٹرول نہیں کر پائی ہے۔ سیاسی جماعتوں کی فتح آٹھ سال کی طویل آمریت کے بعد جمہوریت کے لئے منزل ثابت ہوئی تھی۔ پاکستانی عوام کو یہ فتح اس لیے نصیب ہوئی کیونکہ چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل اشفاق پرویز کیانی نے انتخابات میں جان بوجھ کر غیر جانبدار رہنے کا فیصلہ کیا تھا۔ اُن کے اس فیصلے کا مقصد اپنے پیش رو جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف سے مختلف ہونے کا تاثر دینا تھا۔   

اس پیش رفت کے باوجود فوج اور حکومت کے تعلقات میں اداروں کی سطح پر نہایت معمولی تبدیلی آئی ہے۔ فوج پاکستان کی سیاسی زندگی میں اب بھی مرکزی کردار ادا کرتی نظر آتی ہے۔ پاکستان کے خفیہ اداروں میں اصلاحات کے حوالے سے سیاست میں فوج کا کردار نہایت اہم معاملہ ہے۔ خفیہ اداروں کا کردار ہمیشہ سے بے انتہا متنازع رہا ہے کیونکہ یہ ادارے متعدد بار ملک کی اندرونی سیاست میں مداخلت کے لئے استعمال کیے گئے۔ جنرل ایوب خان، یحیٰ خان، ضیاء الحق اور پرویز مشرف کی فوجی حکومتیں ہوں یا ذوالفقار علی بھٹو کی سیاسی حکومت، تمام حکمرانوں نے خفیہ اداروں کو سیاسی مقاصد کے لئے تواتر سے استعمال کیا، تاہم خفیہ اداروں کو اپنے اپنے مقاصد کی خاطر استعمال کرنے کے لئے اُن پر سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کی جانب سے کنٹرول کی حد الگ الگ رہی ہے۔

اختلاف رائے رکھنے والے سیاستدانوں، دانشوروں اور معاشرے کے دیگر سرگرم افراد کے خلاف کئی آپریشن کیے گئے جن میں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت انہیں ہراساں کرنا، ڈس انفارمیشن، جعلی مقدمات کا قیام، اغوا، تشدد اور قاتلانہ حملے تک شامل ہیں۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں باقاعدہ نظام کے تحت سیاسی رہنماؤں کی وفاداریاں خریدنے کے لئے بھی استعمال کی جاتی رہی ہیں۔    

ملٹری انٹیلیجنس (ایم آئی) اور انٹر سروسز انٹیلی جنس (آئی ایس آئی) جیسے خفیہ ادارے اپنی پیشہ ورانہ ذمہ داریاں ایک طرف رکھ کر فوجی حکومتوں کے سیاسی مخالفین کی نگرانی کرتی رہی ہیں۔ یہی خفیہ ادارے سول حکمران مقرر کرنے کے لیے اُن کے انتخاب کے ماسٹر مائنڈ بھی رہے ہیں۔ انہوں نے مذہبی اور نسلی جذبات سے بھی فائدہ اٹھایا اور پاکستانی سوسائٹی کی اُن تمام کمزوریوں کو بھی استعمال کیا جن کی وجہ سے معاشرہ پہلے ہی تقسیم ہو چکا ہے۔ ملٹری ایجنسیوں نے ایسے طریقے اپنائے جو دراصل اُنہیں پاکستانی عوام کے خلاف ہونے والی دہشت گردی کو ختم کرنے کے لئے استعمال کرنے چاہیے تھے۔ 

مختلف اوقات میں خفیہ اداروں نے سیاست دانوں کو آسان ہدف سمجھ کر قَصُور  وار  بھی ٹھہرایا ہے تاکہ سازشی گٹھ جوڑ کے ذریعے اُن کے سیاسی زوال کو درست ثابت کیا جا سکے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلیجنس اداروں نے سیاسی پیش رفت کے متعدد معاملات میں مرکزی کردار ادا کیا ہے۔ ماضی کی حکومتوں میں یہ ادارے دوسروں کو کنٹرول کرنے کے دل پسند ہتھیار کے طور پر استعمال ہوتے رہے ہیں۔        

 ملک میں ابھی جمہوریت کمزور ہے، لیکن ان حالات میں اس جانب فوری توجہ دینے کی پہلے سے بھی زیادہ ضرورت ہے تا کہ کسی قسم کے پوشیدہ آپریشن کا پہلے سے سدباب کیا جا سکے۔ یہ نکتہ اس تناظر میں اہم ہے کہ ماضی میں پاکستان کی حکومتیں ایجنسیوں سے بُری طرح متاثر ہوتی رہی ہیں۔ اب اگر نئی اور بہت ہی کمزور حکومت ملٹری کنٹرول کا براہ راست مقابلہ کرنا چاہتی ہے تو اُس کو کسی طور پر بھی پاکستانی سیاست میں انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کا نہایت اہم کردار نظر انداز نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔ خفیہ اداروں کی اصلاحات ناگزیر ہیں اور انٹیلیجنس کے عمل کو غیر سیاسی بنانا طاقت کے استحکام کی طرح قومی مفاہمت کا ہی ایک عنصر ہے۔ 

مغربی تجزیہ کار پاکستانی انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کی بات کرتے ہوئے علاقائی سطح پر اس ادارے کا کردا اور شدت پسند اسلامی تنظیموں کی حمایت کو ہی مدنظر رکھتے ہیں، لیکن وہ یہ بھول جاتے ہیں کہ یہ حمایت ہی پولیٹیکل کنٹرول کے عمل کے اہم پہلو کا تعین کرتی ہے۔ آئی ایس آئی کی جانب سے اسلامی شدت پسند گروپس کی تشکیل صرف خارجہ پالیسی کے مقاصد تک ہی محدود نہیں، بلکہ یہی ملکی تناظر میں بھی استعمال ہوتی ہے۔ 

اگر ہم صرف اسلامی گروپس کی حمایت کا پہلو لے کر بیٹھ جائیں تو ایک اور بڑی حقیقت پس پردہ چلی جاتی ہے۔ وہ حقیقت بظاہر سیکولر جماعتیں ہیں جن میں ایک متحدہ قومی موومٹ (ایم کیو ایم) ہے جو سیاسی عمل کے تعین کی اہم کردار ہے۔ یہاں یہ بات بھی مدنظر رکھی جائے کہ ایک وقت میں یہ جماعت بھی اسی تشکیل کا شکار رہی ہے۔   

 اس کی مثال یوں لے لیں کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیاں ایک ایسے معاشرے میں شدت پسندی کے خطرے کا نظریہ پھیلاتی ہیں جہاں پہلے ہی یہ رجحان پایا جا تا ہے، اس طرح سیکورٹی کے لحاظ سے فوجی حکومت کا اقتدار میں رہنا ناگزیر ہو جاتا ہے، تاہم یہ بات بھی اہم ہے کہ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات صرف قانونی اور آئینی مسئلہ نہیں ہے۔ انیس سو نوے کی دہائی میں فوج نے نہ صرف کبھی آئی ایس آئی کے ڈائریکٹر جنرلز کی نامزدگی کی براہ راست مخالفت نہیں کی بلکہ ان عہدوں کی منظوری بھی نہیں دی۔ اس لحاظ سے دیکھا جائے تو اس نے کبھی قانون شکنی نہیں کی، لیکن دوسری جانب نہ صرف جمہوری عمل کو  نظر انداز کر دیا بلکہ حکومت کے نامزد افراد کو اس طرح جلاوطن کر دیا کہ اُن کی قیادت غیر موثر ہو کر رہ گئی۔ 

اصلاحات کا یہ عمل صرف ادارتی ڈھانچے میں تبدیلی کا معاملہ نہیں ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس کا نیا کلچر لانے کے لیے اداروں کے فلسفے کی دوبارہ تشریح کرنا ہو گی۔ اس کے ساتھ ساتھ انٹیلی جنس مشن اور ترجیحات کی بھی از سر نو  ترتیب اور تشکیل کی ضرورت ہے۔ انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں میں اصلاحات کے لئے نہ صرف ظاہری صورتحال بلکہ اُن لوگوں کی سوچ بدلنے کی بھی ضرورت ہے جو  ان تمام معاملات سے منسلک ہیں۔ 

اصلاحات کو سول اور فوجی حکومتوں کے تعلقات کے وسیع تناظر میں سمجھنا ہو گا اور اس کے لیے سب سے پہلا کام  اعتماد کا بحال ہونا ہے، تاہم یہ کام ماضی میں سول ملٹری تعلقات کے تناظر میں اور ایجنیسوں کے ادارتی ڈھانچے کی وجہ سے مشکل ہے۔ اعتماد کا فقدان اس سوال پر پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ آخر ایجنسیوں کو کنٹرول کرنے کی ضرورت کیوں پیش آئی ہے۔ اگر انٹیلی جنس ایجنسیوں کے کردار کا دوبارہ تعین کر لیا جاتا ہے تو  ملکی سیاست پر اس کے دور رس اثرات مرتب ہوں گے۔ خفیہ ادارے ہمیشہ ہی کسی ریاست کے بنیادی کردار کا اظہار ہوا کرتے ہیں، لیکن پاکستان کے معاملے میں ان اداروں کی سرگرمیاں آرمی کے روایتی غلبے کی عکاس ہیں اور  بدقسمتی سے اسی کو رہنمائے اصول بنا لیا گیا ہے۔ یہ ادارے اپنے طور پر  انفرادی اور اجتماعی لحاظ سے لوگوں میں خوف و ہراس پھیلانے، رشوت ستانی، بہ وقت ضرورت قتل اور عوام کی سیاسی نگرانی جیسے کام انجام دینے لگے ہیں۔   

پاکستان میں جمہوریت کے استحکام کے لیے ملک کے خفیہ اداروں پر سول حکومت کا کنٹرول ناگزیر ہے۔

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington DC next week his priority number one will be to dispel any doubts of Washington’s commitment to New Delhi in a region where it rivals China and Pakistan — both seen as U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Indian diplomats and White House representative tell us that two leaders will discuss issues ranging from environment to accelerating the completion of a landmark civilian nuclear deal signed last year with Bush administration. It is rather interesting that Mr. Singh will be in Washington a week after President Obama in Beijing pledged to strengthen ties with China.

It is no secret that America views India as a countervailing force against rising China. America encourages India’s increasing involvement in Afghanistan, and calculates that Indian and American interests coincide in seeking to develop pipelines that would draw central Asia’s oil reserves toward the Indian Ocean.

Analysts argue that the current Indo-US relationship is good, but lacks a central defining issue, such as the civilian nuclear deal, that shaped the relationship during the presidency of George Bush.

Singh and Obama will try to regain some of the momentum back- with possibly more Indian involvement in Afghanistan.  India has been critical of the Obama administrations Afghan strategy and claims it’s focus on Pakistan comes at the expense of other regional stakeholders such as India. India and the US have been concerned with China’s engagement in Afghanistan as well.

Indian policy makers viewed the Afghan war a godsend – an opportunity to reverse Pakistan’s increased influence in Afghanistan and more importantly to advance its geopolitical interests in oil-rich central Asia. It was based on these two key fundamentals that India decided to support the US invasion of Afghanistan. India facilitated contact with  Northern Alliance and provided intelligence from ground.

Just like America had showered Pakistan with ‘blessings’, Bush administration also expanded ties with India for being it’s eyes and ears on Afghan soil. This romance developed so rapidly that the US declared its eagerness to assist India in becoming a “world power.”  For the services rendered to the ‘new masters,’ India received a unique status within the world nuclear regulatory regime – despite being a non signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But India has been sensitive to Washington’s perceived growing ties with China and Pakistan. During his presidential campaign, Obama had committed to addressing regional issues including Kashmir.

India has also complained abut Obama administrations’ stance on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India has refused to sign the CTBT on the grounds that it could imperil the development of India’s “strategic deterrent,” i.e. its nuclear weapons arsenal.

This week Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement pledging to “promote peace, stability and development” in south Asia. Indian Foreign Ministry fired back: “The Government of India is committed to resolving all outstanding issues with Pakistan through a peaceful bilateral dialogue in accordance with the Simla Agreement. A third country role cannot be envisaged.”

India has been inserting itself in Afghanistan in past years. But India is not completely behind Karzai government either- Hamid Karzai believes a negotiated solution of Afghan problem is possible. He is intent on persuading sections of the Taliban to enter into peace negotiations and ultimately incorporating them into Afghanistan’s government. Indian officials and media commentators have repeatedly declared that there is no such thing as “good Taliban.”  Indians fear that Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan will grow significantly in the event of a rapprochement with elements hitherto associated with the Taliban.

Obama is likely to assure Singh that his country’s interest will be protected in Afghanistan.

Singh needs this assurance specially because General Stanley McChrystal in a confidential report submitted to the US President Barack Obama on August 30 wrote: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.”

Needless to say Indians did not fancy McChrystal’s recommendation.

The Indian government has invested more than $1.2 billion since 2001. Mr. Singh will want Obama to ensure that McChrystal’s reports lands in the trash and a guarantee Obama will facilitate India’s regional hegemonic role. From what I hear in Washington DC, it seems Singh will leave happy.

Indians were busy today (Friday) on the Hill to make progress on the civilian nuclear deal. America wants guarantees from New Delhi — that it won’t pass on its nuclear know-how. In other words- India will not proliferate but India refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

During her recent visit to India Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a deal allowing two US companies, General Electric and Westingouse, to build a pair of new nuclear power reactors at a cost of $10 billion. Before any contracts are signed, the US companies are asking the Indian parliament to pass legislation which would limit the companies’ liability in case of nuclear accidents.

Before this deal goes any further, Indian law needs to be modified to set limits on the liability assessed to American companies involved with any kind of nuclear development. Even in the United States, liability is limited to about $11 billion, whereas the damage caused by accidents at nuclear power plants are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. US companies want similar liability protections, and it remains to be seen whether the Indian parliament will satisfy those requests.

Under current international law, the nuclear industry, or rather, state-owned nuclear enterprises, operate under sovereign limitation. In other words, Russian and French nuclear reactors can protected by the built-in liability insurance provided by their respective governments, since they are publicly owned. However, Westinghouse and General Electric are not accorded this same security, as they are privately owned. In an analogous circumstance, during the US-Russia negotiations over the use of Cold War plutonium, including surplus plutonium from weapons in Russian reactors, the failure to arrive at a liability agreement was the major stumbling block in the execution of the deal.

The Convention on Supplementary Compensation is a UN convention responsible for limited liability, and its aim is essentially to deny fair compensation. Basically, the US wants India to sign and ratify this convention as a precondition of their participation in the deal. This is a topic that has not been the subject of the domestic debate as of yet, because there were bigger barriers the governments of India and the US government had to cross. Now that those obstacles have all but been bulldozed, this issue of liability protection is bound to be quite politically sensitive. The text of the defense agreement has not been made public, and chances are slim that it will be made public in its full form. Nor do we know, as of now, the future locations of the specific reactor sites.

(Professor Nauman, a leading Marxist, a well know activists who had touched lives of many of us in Karachi passed away last week. Below is a work in progress : a fellow activist recalls how Professor Mohammad Nauman, associate professor with the NED University made an impression his life.)

A convention of National Students Federation (NSF) Karachi was scheduled to be held on January 7, 1973 but members were sharply divided over issues ranging from an earlier stance of Bangladesh-Namanzoor to loyalty towards Meraj Mohammad Khan.

I was new to the organization and believed that the two groups formed thus far could pitch their candidates and let the general members decide through votes. But senior members of the two groups felt that election on convention floor would split the organization.

Therefore conciliation efforts started. Dow Medical College was the venue of hectic politicking. Nauman, who was pitched for President by one group represented one side in these talks while the other side was represented by Zahid Hussain. After days and nights of negotiations the two sides reached a settlement. A cabinet of NSF,

Karachi, consisting of the two groups was agreed upon. Ghafoor Kasi became President and Sohail Ahmed was declared General Secretary. Nauman made the central working committe.

However, this patch-up did not last long and the members finally split a few months later. During those few days, I was approached by both sides and opinions on every political issue under the sun was expressed. Nauman was quite articulate in expressing his views and criticized the other side without raising his voice. Though I decided to align myself with Rasheed Hassan Khan's group and they retracted from their stance of Bangladesh-Namanzoor, but Nauman left a deep impression on my mind because of his rational arguments and gentle demeanor.

The US-China summit level joint pledge of support for the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan is a significant first step towards possibility of peace in the region; that is if you are a Pakistani. For, Indians yesterday’s joint statement was affront to their national pride; how dare China tells them to befriend Pakistan. 

As the world keenly watched leaders of the two world powers Obama and Hu appear in the Great Hall of the People overlooking Tiananmen Square people saw what they wanted to see. For Pakistani analysts it was a sign of substantial progress in China-U.S. relations over the past 30 years, but to others this summit was “increasingly important to both countries, but also curiously bereft of warmth or intimacy.” For American observers, Obama walked away without any concrete agreements on currency, environment or human rights issues, but for my Chinese friends at the United Nations, it was the dawn of a ‘new era’ of global cooperation. 

For South Asian analysts the mention of India and Pakistan in the joint statement was significant. China and the United States voiced support for  peace and stability in South Asia. According to the joint statement both countries support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability, and achieve sustainable economic and social development. Their statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan was expected.

Surprising, however,  was the joint pledge to support “improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan.”  

The joint statement said: “the two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”

This statement has dual implications; first, Afghanistan-Pakistan security concerns are viewed through the larger regional perspective which includes India, and secondly, India’s perceived regional role. Although India has restrained itself and there were no immediate official responses (at the time of writing of this article), but Indian analysts have begun taking note.

I juts saw Natwar Singh, former External Affairs Minister telling an Indian TV:“ Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu Jintao are confusing hope with facts. India has consistently extended its hand of friendship to Pakistan but the response has been wholly unsatisfactory. The government and the people of India want warm and cordial relations with Pakistan, so do the people of Pakistan. Regrettably the establishment of Pakistan is not in favor.”

Salman Haider, former Foreign Secretary, was upset that such a ‘pledge’ was made because the U.S. knows it would be regarded as some sort of provocation to India. He told the Indian TV: “the statement should not give a message to Pakistan that it could start attempting the involvement of others in our bilateral affairs. We have repeatedly told our friends not to interfere. This is not a good formulation and is not at all helpful.”

Indians have become accustomed to the American administration talk about South Asian countries, but ‘red flags’ go up when China mentions Indo-Pak ties. India has a baggage of confrontational diplomacy with China- history of war, border conflicts, water rights issues, and lately economic and military competition.  India has amplified its rhetoric against China, and Beijing has been frank in expressing concern over India’s planned Agni-V ballistic missile test. From Arunachal Pradesh to Azad Kashmir, there have been several key instances recently in which Indian foreign policymakers seem to have been unnerved, even alleging China is constructing a dam on the Brahmaputra.

Indian External Affairs Minster and Foreign Secretary were unhappy about this US-China joint statement because China has a long history of cooperation with Pakistan; relations that reach back through six decades of trust.

Although it was a good surprise for Pakistan but it did not have all the elements to make it substantial. The Obama-Hu joint statement did not invoke the Kashmir issue. Meeting soon after the Pokhran tests in 1998, the then U.S. President Bill Clinton and the former Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, had issued a statement that was more specific on Kashmir. The statement expressed the “commitment” of the U.S. and China to help peacefully resolve “the difficult and long-standing differences between them including the pending issue of Kashmir.”

I agree with the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs that one should not expect “that the waters would part and everything would change over our almost 2 1/2-day trip to China,’’ but I am hoping that the sObama administration start looking at India as a key variable for security and stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Resolution of the India-Pakistan conflict, I am convinced, will bring peace and prosperity to the region.

Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies, and in our case, a territorial dispute. Unless Kashmir’s link with water is addressed and resolved, these other crises may intensify leading to further political insecurity and conflict at various levels.

It is abundantly clear to most educated Pakistanis that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved until every Pakistani citizen is assured access to water – today, tomorrow and for times to come. I am hoping that China and the US will have the courage to stop India from building dams that will deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies.

Joint statements without concrete follow-ups serve no purpose. I am hoping China and the US will play an active role in resolving the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir.

Do you wonder why have the Pakistani pundits stopped complaining about imperialist tyranny and exposing the onerous conditions of Kerry-Lugar Bill? Why all of a sudden KLB is a non-issue? I was curious and I spend last several days in Washington DC trying to understand how Obama administration managed the PR fiasco.

Conversations with several insiders and subject matter experts point to a set of meetings on October 19^th in Islamabad.  General David Petraeus  and US Senator John Kerry reached Islamabad on Sunday (October 18^th). It was reported in local media that the meetings were about Waziristan operations but in reality talks with top Pakistani General were limited to the $7.5 billion dollar aid package. “They wanted to understand how this aid package violates Pakistan’s sovereignty. And, they wanted to hear it from the horses mouth,” said a diplomatic source.

Gen. Patreause and Sen. Kerry were sent to Pakistan after US President Barack Obama signed a record 7.5 billion dollar package tripling non-military aid to the nuclear-armed Muslim nation to boost its campaign against a virulent Islamist insurgency. Although the Zaradari government defended the package, Pakistan’s powerful military sparked a domestic showdown, expressing grave reservations about conditions that hinge some of the funds on efforts to battle Islamist extremism. The bill prevents the funding from being used for nuclear proliferation, to support militants or to attack neighboring countries — namely India — and calls for a cut-off in aid if Pakistan fails to crack down on extremists.

United States Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus and Chairman Senate Foreign Affairs committee Senator John Kerry on Monday October 19^th  held separate meetings with the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashraf Kayani and the outcome of those meetings were an immediate yanking of the anti-KLB campaign from Pakistani private TV channels. When Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus went to the GHQ he categorically told Gen Kayani to halt anti-KLB campaign. “Gen. Kayani was told in absolutely clear terms that the Obama administration will not tolerate another Honduras,” said a source very close to this conversation. 

It is interesting that three of my sources mentioned Honduras while talking about the possible outcome of anti-KLB campaign in Pakistan.

On June 28th Honduran soldiers roused democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint and flew him to Costa Rica. The coup d’etat was the first in Central America in over a quarter century. The coup, led by the Honduran Gen. Romeo Vasquez, was condemned by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of American States and all of Honduras’ immediate national neighbors.

The Obama administration initially did not legally classify Zelaya’s ouster as a coup, which would automatically trigger a suspension of aid. However the administration subsequently suspended military cooperation with the country. Honduran controversy has been extremely embarrassing for the Obama administration which had come to power on the rhetoric that America should seize supporting tyrants and military dictators.

In Pakistan, Zardari administration was portrayed by the media as too deferential to the United States. Pakistani journalists who unconditionally support their Army started the campaign against KLB and coalesced anti-Western politicians, and Muslim fundamentalists — implausibly claiming that Pakistan’s sovereignty was undermined and the country could end up as a U.S. neo-colony. Some of it is untrue!

To begin with, Pakistan has been an American neo-colony for last six decades and most of that time it was under a military dictorship. And, most importantly Pakistan has been an American satellite state because of it’s army. Pakistan’s military operates on the U.S. financial and technological assistance and it will receive even more support in the near future as it targets Taliban strongholds. Therefore conditions placed by the U.S. Congress on $7.5 billion in economic aid to Pakistan over the next five years should not have been of major consequence to Pakistani generals.

Sen. Kerry brought the carrot while Gen. Patreus had the stick.  Gen. Kayani was assured that his military will get monies and equipment that he has asked for but if he pulled a fast one, the Obama administration would at once severe its ties with Pakistan army. 

Sen. Kerry’s meeting was held earlier in the day and Gen. Patreaus arrived at the GHQ in the afternoon. General Kayani counseled his peers and advisors and by the end of October 19^th and it was decided that Kerry-Lugar Bill will not be publicly condemned. Five Pakistani journalists were contacted the very same night and told not beat the dead horse.

It is undoubtedly true that Pakistani government is too deferential to the Americans. Not that I condone it but this is not new.  Bone of contention here was the ‘non-military’ aid. This aid package was historic because it earmarked monies for health, education, infrastructure and civil society. Pakistan army felt left-out.  Although Pakistan army has backed out of KLB but democratic government is still hanging on the balance. NRO, food security, energy crisis all loom over Zardari’s head.

Pakistani media is packed with stories of corruption – same TV anchors who had become Hugo Chavez of Pakistan on army’s behest opposing Kerry-Lugar bill have now launched vociferous campaign against Zaradri government exposing corruption of ruling politicians. Not a single anchor has ever asked what happened to corrupt Generals. Why are corrupt army officials beyond criticism?

From trafficking heroin to grabbing precious land; from taking kick-back on purchase of equipment (sub-marines included) Pakistan army has looted everything we have ever had. Why then, I wonder, Pakistanis only discuss civilian corruption? Managing PR fiasco was easy for the Obama administration. They had to remind the source of opposition of an old proverb: you can’t bite the hand that feeds you. Pakistani Generals understood and complied.