Several Pakistani intellectuals who had descended on Washington DC to attend 11th International Kashmir Peace Conference (July 28-29, 2010) were neither intellectuals nor interested in peace.

Wasting time and resources, Pakistani representatives (with very few exceptions) read from a script crafted decades ago at the GHQ – slightly changing words.

I bet if you took the text of their speeches and ran it through sophisticated software to check intellectual integrity you will find an abundance of plagiarisms.

Negativity of approach was so overwhelming that ‘Kashmir issue’ lost more currency instead of gaining ground. With WikiLeaks dominating the mind share, American media barely covered the event.

In discussions, both private and public, Pakistani speakers demanded that America must broker a settlement in exchange for the ‘sacrifices’ Pakistan has made in war against terror. All accused America of betraying Pakistan, an ally of nearly 60 years. “Under Bush administration, the neo-cons have steered US towards India and away from Pakistan,” a Pakistani intellectual claimed. And, he explained that is “because Jewish-Hindu lobby dominates policy making in Washington.”

In abundance was child like envy over growing India-US ties, and old and tired threats that if Kashmir issue is not resolved there will be no peace in either Afghanistan or India. Unfortunately, many who “spoke for” Kashmir lacked intellectual depth, and understanding of imperatives that drive strategic diplomatic ties.

All agree that last decade has been a truly transformational one in the India- U.S ties but cannot explain why. In November last year when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came to Washington on the first State visit of the new U.S. Administration, it was a clear indication that Democrats on the Hill will continue to see India through the prism it first located during the BJP government. India’s proverbial ‘openness’ has yielded rich dividends in terms of cooperation in many areas, underscoring the vitality and the relevance of India-US strategic partnership.

It was therefore, not surprising when Obama administration recalibrated her earlier stance of bracketing “Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan” together. Afghanistan and Pakistan are ‘pain points’ but Washington sees India as a center of influence in the 21st century.

A Pakistani diplomat had whispered in my ears that Americans realize that they cannot “clean the mess in Afghanistan without our help. And of course we want a solution to Kashmir issue in return.”

A friend who also spoke at the conference claimed that Washington is finally realizing that India and Pakistan are equally important in that region. I beg to differ!

I would urge you to look at the transformation of DC-Delhi relationship against the backdrop of India’s initiatives to reform its economy and the geopolitical changes in the post-Cold War world.

Indian officials would claim that their ties with US are primarily due to shared values of democracy, pluralism, tolerance, and respect for fundamental freedoms. You may not agree with this assertion – I don’t buy this argument in entirety either.

But we can’t deny that growing economic linkages and people-to- people contact between India and US are real. Over the last two decades, Indian and American businesses have formed strong and mutually beneficial partnerships touching the lives of ordinary people; a fairly balanced trade in goods and services has grown astronomically.

Most importantly, Pakistanis tend to forget that both Indians and Americans share an increasing convergence of interests on major global issues.

By using the 11th Kashmir moot in Washington DC as a venting session, Pakistanis basically lost an opportunity to build the zone of trust. Kashmir issue is real, and solution will emerge only when Pakistan and India stop exploiting the people of Kashmir. It has become a financial drain for India and Pakistani strategy to use rag-tag army of fundamentalists has cost Pakistan in orders of magnitude more than anyone every estimated.

There is a broad-based political support both in India and Pakistan to finally let the people of Kashmir speak for themselves but these pseudo intellectuals who had come to attend the conference are not ready to move on.

Instead of allowing the GHQ to drive India-centric foreign policy, we will do Pakistan and Kashmir more justice if we were to expand our diplomatic orbit. If we establish mutually beneficial economic ties with Brazil and Venezuela, South Africa and Kenya, Chile and Bolivia, Malaysia and Indonesia – Pakistan will have more allies in the world and we will not have to run to Washington DC to beg Americans for stewardship on Kashmir issue.

India today has free pass to commit unthinkable violence on Kashmiri people partially because we have lost all legitimacy. How can we raise our voices and wave our fists when it is an undisputed fact that Pakistan army used rag-tag warriors of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e- Mohammed, the Taliban, and more with intent to make India bleed in Kashmir? What moral grounds do we stand on?

We can’t be running to the US or Israel for support – we must build a broad based multi-lateral framework of developing nations to counter Indian belligerence in Kashmir. We must stop thinking about Kashmir as a ‘disputed territory’ and start working for the safety and security – both physical and financial of the people of Kashmir.

No cause can justify terrorism – Kashmir is no exception. Both India and Pakistan have a vital interest in defeating terrorism and in this context, our bilateral cooperation on terrorism is crucial.

Mos importantly- both India and Pakistan should immediately cease terrorizing Kashmiri people.

India and Pakistan were both poor countries in 1947; both were countries divided by colonial opportunism, and religious bigotry. Both had similar problems, India just had more of them because of its diverse population and scale.

But India prioritized its focus on higher education and people were conscious enough to keep their elected leaders honest. One can arrive at the conclusion that democracy is what Pakistan should learn from India’s somewhat success in education.

There is hardly any difference between the two countries, statistically speaking, in their educational development, or lack thereof. But where India scores much higher is in a few of its select academic institutions. These institutions raise the educational quotient of the country to a high, world class level, and by their very presence, they tend to pull up other institutes of learning simply by peer pressure.

Pakistani Education System, Statistics and Demographics

The Pakistani education system is divided into the primary, secondary, and high school levels. Following High School, plenty of private and government-sponsored colleges/universities operate with the charter of Higher Education Commission (HEC). Generally speaking the provincial governments are responsible for the day-to-day management of education; while the federal government have the onus-ensuring budget and quality.

If one was to believe government released statistics, literacy rate in Pakistan increases by 10% with every passing generation, with male literacy rate of only 68%, and the female rate of 48% percent.
Literacy rate alone is not a strong indicator of education.

A better indicator is enrollment in higher education; about 5% of Pakistani men and 3% of Pakistani women have a college education. To further complicate this situation most of the colleges and universities are not of international standard.

Between 1947 and 2003, Pakistan did not have a single university that could be ranked as world class. But in last seven years, Times Higher Education Rankings have ranked the National University of Science and Technology at No 376, while 3 universities have been ranked in the top 300 in the field of natural sciences.

This progress, one might suggest is significant keeping in mind that Pakistan spends only about 3% of its GDP on Education. Tremendous gender disparity further skews any quantitative analysis. The disparity has not been helped by the enforcement of a ban on female education by the Taliban, notably in the scenic Swat valley.

Indian Education System, A Chronicle of Moderate Progress

According to latest figures, the literacy rate of India stands at 64.84%; male literacy is 75.26% and female literacy stands at 53.63%. About one-third of the population, 300 million Indians, is absolute non-literates.

The government spends about 3.5% of the nation’s GDP on education. There are about 400 universities and 16000 colleges in the country, with a system of academic institutions covering technology, management, and medical sciences.

As for higher education, about 9% of Indians have a college education. The figure is about 4 times higher for urban areas. This is about 4% higher than in Pakistan; still not a huge difference.

Statistical and Other Metric Comparison | Centers of Excellence

There is hardly any difference between the two countries, statistically speaking, in their educational development, or lack thereof.

Admittedly, the literacy rate is higher in India by about 8 percentage points; the female literacy rate is about 7% higher as well. Enrolment in higher education is about 4% more overall, in India. It is still nothing compared to, say the US, which has 29% of its people with a college degree.

But where India scores much higher is in a few of its select academic institutions. These institutions raise the educational quotient of the country to a high, world class level, and by their very presence, they tend to pull up other institutes of learning simply by peer pressure.

In science and technology, there were a few institutions like the various IITs (Indian Institute of Technology) and the IISc (Indian Institute of Science) that had made a name for themselves in the world academic arena even 30 years ago. At a time when the economy was closed and the present day “economic stability” was unimaginable, these few institutions still used to bring out world-class talent.

Most of this talent had to go out of the country to establish themselves; and it was their overseas presence, that gave their alma maters global reputation.

Over time several other institutions become ‘world class’ in science and technology. IITs of India has raised the bar for various RECs (Regional College of Engineering) and the BITS Pilani institute, the Tata Institutes of Education (TIFR), and even a few state-run universities are slowly making a name for themselves in technological fields.

In the management and finance domain, the ISB is ranked number 12 among world MBA schools by the Financial Times of London. Besides, the various IIMs and a few other b-schools also rank very high. Similarly, in the medical field, the AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) has been at the forefront in the development of medical treatment in India, and has spawned, by sheer peer pressure, a number of best of breed medical institutions.

The Situation in Pakistan

When it comes to higher education, Pakistan has not been able to make its mark. Although a few institutions (I am thinking HEJ, IBA and LUMS) can be recognized as emerging leaders – because of highly educated faculty, intelligent management, and above all an intellectually stimulating, liberal environment. But, these institutions also acquiesced to the religious zealots and allowed conservatism to slowly creep-in.

HEC has also failed – it has failed to establish centers of excellence: standards without monitoring and compliance cannot yield results. There is nothing comparable to the IITs, there is nothing comparable to the IIMs and other b-schools.

Although the statistics put Pakistan and India in very close affinity when it comes to literacy rates, Pakistani students do not have the opportunity to attend top-notch colleges/ universities

Democracy in India has provided opportunities to some who were neither generals nor feudal lords, and these middle class and lower-middle class public servants had the foresight to nurture the few higher institutes of learning.

Religious extremism has destroyed whatever institutions Pakistan had pre-Zia-ul-Haq. And, things have gotten even worse with Talibanization – a large population not willing (or afraid) to send its women to go to schools. I know it sounds cliché but it is absolutely true: when you teach a woman you teach a village.

What Pakistan Can Learn From Indian Education

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian philosopher of education, contended that given the history of European imperialism, an emancipatory education of the oppressed involves a dismantling of colonial structures and ideologies.

Independence of nation states, such as Pakistan and India, from the clutches of colonial master was not the end of the colonial culture that supported foreign, non-representative, and repressive rule of colonial power.

Independence from colonial rule was only the beginning of the process of nation building and decolonization. Pakistan, after independence, failed to establish representative and participatory governance and became a non-representative and repressive government. The dictatorial regimes in Pakistan banked on the pre-existing colonial culture and political support of colonial masters to maintain their autocratic rules.

Colonial culture is built and maintained on master-slave relationship between the ruler and the subjects. The dictatorial regime survives as long as this relationship of ordering and obeying is practiced. Master uses coercion as a tool to discipline the slaves. A slave must obey or gets whipped, this has been the law since time immemorial and it still prevails in Pakistan.

Frantz Fanon in his book “The Wretched of the Earth” demands anti-colonial and modern education for native populations. Humanistic society alone can truly be an anti-colonial society.

One can arrive at the conclusion that democracy is what Pakistan should learn from India’s somewhat success in education.

India is spending $11 billion on buying arms from US, Russia and others. If they spend one billion on buying weapons from the Pakistani military-industrial complex, they could have a reasonable chance of making peace with a vowed enemy in their backyard.

The eternal enmity that ensued with the partition has caused enough death and destruction in the sub-continent already, and the looming threat of nuclear war makes the future insecure. Some visionary leadership is needed to steer the future clear of this imminent death threat hanging over 1.5 billion lives.

Terrorism being the stumbling block, all efforts at negotiations between India and Pakistan came to naught once again. The suffering of the people and environment were ignored over patriotic ambitions, conspiratorial war-mongering and supremacy. In a conflict between two in-equal entities, initiative rests on the one who is bigger. A proactive approach, that engages Pakistan’s war-machinery in trade, might have some merit in diffusing this hostility that has the potential to produce the deadliest-ever-witnessed disaster, in the history of mankind.

The Krupp of Germany used to sell armaments to many countries that fought wars against Germany. A British company ‘Vickers’ was given the license to make Krupp time-fuses before WW1. Vickers was supposed to pay Krupp a fixed sum for every shell fired. After the defeat of Germany, Krupp claimed that money and settled with the British for a lower amount. There are examples in history on trade of weapons between hostile countries.

Dominance of the army over Pakistan is not a secret. The democratic set-up had to comply when Kerry-Lugar aid bill was disputed by the powers. Political signals of peace with India changed into rhetoric of un-ending war over Kashmir, in plain public view. It is the army of Pakistan that survives and thrives with an anti-India manifesto. Jane Perlez reporting on the extension of service for the ISI chief wrote in New York Times, “The announcement extending the tenure of Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha as director of the spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, was formally made Wednesday by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. But it had been clear for weeks that General Kayani planned to keep General Pasha at his side, and that the weak civilian government would have little choice but to go along with it.”(Report dated March 10, 2010.)

Terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India is a proxy-war causing immense suffering and death. President Karzai of Afghanistan, on his recent visit to Pakistan said, “Afghanistan does not want any proxy wars on its territory. It does not want a proxy war between India and Pakistan on Afghanistan. It does not want a proxy war between Iran and the United States on Afghanistan. It does not want any country… to engage in any activity against another country in Afghanistan.” (Excerpt from the Dawn report, March 11, 2010.)

Afghanistan sent into oblivion after the defeat of Soviet Union, came back to haunt. No matter how deadly the enmity, no country could be dispatched to hell like that. Let alone a nuclear armed country like Pakistan. Those who patronize the indulgence in terrorism must be engaged in peaceful transaction. USA and China invest heavily in building Pakistan army. India, with the ambitions of becoming a super-power cannot afford to postpone involvement indefinitely. A policy of directly engaging Pakistan army in a lucrative deal could see the end of terrorists who commit carnage across the border.

Mitigating the influence of USA and China in Pakistan requires innovative thinking in terms of Indo-Pak relations. IK Gujral, former Prime Minister of India, explaining his 5 point doctrine at Bandaranaike Center for International Studies in 1997 said, “We need neighbors who are developing at least as fast as we are to avoid imbalances which feed dissatisfaction and political problems.”

Many years ago, a Bangladeshi pharmacist asked me, “Do you know the difference between stupid and crazy?” He went on to explain that stupid will never rip a dollar bill. Only crazy could do that. My humble recommendation is based on the assumption that Pakistan’s military leadership is not crazy and India’s democratic representatives could muster the courage and wisdom required for proactive measures to ensure peace in the region. I could be wrong. After all this is just another cry for peace.

Dear Mr. Shashi Tharoor,

I have always been an admirer of your work. It began from reading Riot – an exceptionally well narrated story, followed by a few interactions at the United Nations. I remember telling my son several times, “now, here is a South Asian who should be your role model.”

I was impressed with your professional demeanor, intellectual curiosity and principled negotiating skills. I admired how skillfully you always introduced Gen. Pervez Musharraf whenever he came to address the United Nations Correspondent Association.

And, on a very personal level – I was very impressed when you helped a fellow Pakistani journalist find employment when he was facing hardship in New York.

When you entered the race for the United Nations Secretary Generals office, I was among several other Pakistanis who wanted you to succeed. I was actually optimistic when you took the important position of External Ministry of India. I thought, here is a real cosmopolitan man. He has lived in London and New York, he has worked for the UN for such a long time, and he will be beyond legacy politics. Boy was I wrong!

You lost me, Sir, when you rejected Pakistan’s request for the resumption of dialogue and said no progress can be made until Pakistan brings the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks to justice and dismantle ‘terror infrastructure’ on its soil.

I am disappointed because I know you can negotiate better. Remember Mr. Tharoor that South Asian issues can only be settled when the goal is a win-win for both India and Pakistan. Statements of most Indian politicians have focused on a single issue position – all mutual interests have been shelved to the back burner.

I feel Pakistan has been anxiously trying to resume dialogue – inventing options for mutual gain but India has not moved an inch. You maybe thinking that you are looking for an objective criterion – and your domestic compulsions push you to demand arrests of alleged Mumbai attackers. I can understand that.

But, from Pakistan’s vantage point you stick your heels deeper in the proverbial ‘sand.’ May I suggest that you engage Pakistan’s democratically elected leadership in principled negotiations; forget for a moment the adversarial history and modify your goal to reach an outcome efficiently and amicably?

May I suggest Sir that you try to put yourself in the shoes of your Pakistani counterpart. May I suggest that instead of negotiating through the media just pick the phone and call someone in Pakistan. Pakistani politicians have more in common with you than it appears. Why don’t you look for the similarities instead of highlighting your difference?

You are a bright man – please think of how you can solve a problem and the people on the other side of border as your partners eager to help you find a solution.

I am sure you would agree that it is in our interest that both India and Pakistan come out feeling they have a fair agreement from which both sides can benefit.

I am sure if there is a will Pakistani and Indian leaders can together find a solution that satisfies our collective interests.

When Prime Minister Gillani ordered the release of 100 Indian fishermen, he was actually inventing options. He was opening up and sending very clear message that Pakistan wants peace. I wish India had jumped all over it and appreciated it wholeheartedly. I would urge you to broaden the options on the table and stop looking for a single answer.

Both, India and Pakistan can be worse off and both sides can gain. It is not about who wins. We either win together or we loose together. What is your alternative to a negotiated settlement? You can’t go to war with Pakistan; and you shouldn’t simply let the terrorists win.

Though there is still much to discover about the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre, there is no doubt that the purpose of this abominable act was to disrupt the peace process between India and Pakistan, an hence, the IPI Pipeline negotiations. To that end, they have been successful; and India has helped them ensure success.

It is India’s responsibility to pro-actively support Pakistan’s democratic structure. It is your responsibility to wage peace.

Statements that suggest India’s unwillingness to engage with Pakistan’s democratically elected government is counter productive. I was very disappointed when Indian Prime Minister Singh told Fareed Zakaria recently: “I don’t know whether we have a partner right now. I think when General Musharraf was there, I used to ask him. And he said, “Well, I am the army. I represent the armed forces. I represent the people.”

This style of thinking can never yield positive result.

Mr. Shashi Tharoor, here is your chance to win Noble Peace Prize. Roll up your sleeves and prepare your acceptance speech for Oslo.

You have a chance of a lifetime to put the dialogue back on track. I trust you are capable of turning India’s position on resumption of composite dialogue. Sooner the better!

Let me leave you with an advise from Fisher and Ury’s , Getting to YES: “the first thing you are trying to win is a better way to negotiate – a way that avoids your having to choose between the satisfactions of getting what you deserve and of being decent. You can have both.”

Today we mark the one year anniversary of the darkest day in South Asia’s history. On November 26, 2008, ten misguided young men who were being controlled by a command  center in Pakistan reached Mumbai in a small fishing boat. Before entering the shores of Mumbai these terrorists had already killed the captain and crew of the boat.

HBO today televised a documentary narrated by Fareed Zakaria, a Mumbai born American journalist. ‘Terror in Mumbai.’ an extremely informative documentary compresses three days of mayhem – three days when ten Pakistani young men who had mobile phones and machine guns killed 170 people and wounded 300 more, sending shockwaves of fear around the world. I was horrified watching this 360-degree view of the terrorist act, recounted in harrowing detail – especially because these young men came from a country, I call my own.

Phone calls intercepted and recorded between these men sent on ‘jihad’ and their commander in Pakistan were heart wrenching. And, so was statement of Kasab, the only gunman who survived. As this documentary depicted, these young Pakistan men received instructions over the telephone, leaving a trail of evidence that led Indian investigators to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a group fighting Indian rule in the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan’s military and ISI were also accused of backing the militants, a charge Islamabad has denied. New Delhi named 38 people in an 11,000-page charge sheet filed in a Mumbai court in February.

At some level I feel sorry for these lost souls- poverty stricken, uneducated young men who were fooled by conniving leaders of LeT and other fundamentalist organizations,  However, I have no sympathies for their leaders- whomsoever they maybe. These characters have eroded the Pakistani society and have pushed us in a state of profound crisis.

I can’t forgive them because these morally corrupt LeT leaders have pushed us in a crisis that is complex, and multi-dimensional with facets that touch every aspect of our lives: our health and livelihood, the quality of our environment and our social relationships, our ideology, economy, and politics. It is a crisis of intellectual, moral, and spiritual dimensions; a crisis of a scale and urgency unprecedented in Pakistan’s 63 year history..

As a Pakistani, I stand today with my head down – embarrassed that my country has been hijacked by illiterate and irrational people – from self styled clergy to the army. These men will do anything they can to pursue their fantasy. Even if that means hoodwinking simple, young Pakistani men and murdering of innocent civilians on both sides of Indo-Pak border.

Undoubtedly, India is a belligerent regional hegemony and we must protect Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and dignity.  But these wayward leaders who exploit religion and patriotism have managed to drown the voices of reason and rationality. With Petro dollars supported tribal and Wahabi influence Pakistan’s social structures and behavior patterns have become so rigid that this country can no longer adapt to changing situations, it is unable to carry on the creative process of cultural evolution.

Read response to my earlier blogs and you will find an eerie uniformity of opinion. Even those who are tolerant, progressive, democratic are willing to condone terrorists in the name of Islam and nation. This uniformity and lack of self-reflection  are clear signs that our society is in the process of disintegration.  

As I watched this documentary I was reminded of acts of terrorism Pakistanis witness everyday- every Pakistani is a victim. Unless Pakistan’s progressive and democratic forces are willing to take on the retrogressive elements we will concede our right to opinion, education and way of life.  Fundamentalists will prohibit freedom of expression and use all coercive apparatus to crush opposition. Education will be discouraged and whatever little is allowed, will be subverted by distortion of curricula. You can argue what is new- it has always been the case? It is the intensity that will change. We are not talking about FATA or NWFP or the tribal areas. This monster is already in cosmopolitan cities like Karachi and Lahore.

I was horrified to hear the Punjabi accent of those controlling these 10 terrorists. I was horrified when these young men were ordered to shoot hostages- I can’t express my anger and fear.

We, the Pakistani people should seek forgiveness from the families of those who lost loved ones in Mumbai. We should let the people of Mumbai know that we are just as much a victim. We should let them know that we don’t condone these acts of violence.

We, the Pakistani people should let our rulers know that they can’t indulge in adventurism like LeT anymore. We should let ISI and MI know that we will not pay their salary if they do not immediately cease all relations with all terrorist outfits.

Update:  To all those who have suggested that my article assigns direct responsibility for Mumbai to the Government of Pakistan, let me be clear that is not what I am saying.  One can apologize for acts done in the name of one’s nation, or in this case one’s religion, by their governments, or by their citizens, without assuming direct and absolute responsibility; just as many anti-war Americans have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and apologized to the people for the war waged upon them by the U.S.  government.  I think here of the group September 11th Families for a Peaceful Tommorrow who have actively protested the war in Afghanistan and have even travelled  there to apologize directly to the people of Afghanistan.  It takes a big heart and courage to take such a position.  Pakistanis should muster up the courage and do the same.

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.