Unfortunately, the new super-powers in Asia, China and India, are beset by inherent contradictions that hinder their ascension into a free, enlightened humanity but the malaise is considered politically expedient. Chinese Communist Party finds dictatorship irreplaceable while Indian politicians have used religious fragmentation for political control. No wonder that Judges in Allahabad preferred political pragmatism over demands of justice.

Terrorism of Islam has gained notoriety with Saudi-Wahabism and Pakistan army’s use of Jihadi religion, but the peace loving facade of Hinduism covered by meditation and yoga promotion blew itself off into the open many times. Oppression against Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Dalits makes it to the front page of newspapers and magazines and the secular state caught in a compromising position is not a new story either. But the judiciary that contemplated for decades came out empty. This is a failure of a higher degree.

Brahminism that exterminated Buddhism in India, shares its belief system with monotheism of Islam and the trinity principle of Christianity. As discriminating as Islam and Christianity are towards women, Brahiminism refuses to acknowledge women within its fold as Hindu. “The Brahminical Social Order (BSO) comprises the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Sudras. This is Chaturvarna. According to Brahminical literature, all the Kshatriyas were exterminated by the Brahmin leader, Parasuram. The Brahmin sacred text, the Gita, says the Vaishyas, Sudras and women belong to papyoni (Gita 9/32). That means the Vaishyas, Sudras and women (including Brahmin women) also automatically become non-Hindus.”

Besides discriminating against women, this religion deems poverty necessary. “If in this world, there were none to beg, would there be any glory for the rich? – Tirukkural 101 Ch.106. 1059”

What is wrong with Ayodhya verdict?

1) India cannot satisfy concerns of its minority though it claims to be mighty.
2) India continues to keep itself mired in trivial religious conflicts instead of investing in human resource and development.

Look at a so-called pragmatic decision of elite court that builds two places of worship out of one that was empty and locked for decades. The education level of Indian judges is abysmal as their Pakistani counterparts. Yet our Indian friends want us to believe in stability and future of India.

A pragmatic decision would turn this religious bickering into a lesson to learn by making this site free of religion or they could grant it to minority and celebrate the victory of plural, secular India. Like the communist dictatorship of China, Hindu fascism comes across as India’s greatest burden.

Voices that ridicule religious bonding is growing within Muslims. This is a social advance compared to the rise of ‘Hindu-Jamaat-e-Islami’ in India, though Muslims are going through immense pain during this rebirth.

Taliban, Pakistan army/ISI and General Musharraf with so-called ‘progressive-Islamic’ agenda, still dominate the corridors of power but trust in such rhetoric and traditional-political elite has completely evaporated.

Stepping out of the fallacy of religion could likely deliver advancement to societies residing in the geographic boundaries of Pakistan, Egypt or Iran as soon as they free politics and business from religion. The utter dominance of religious fascism has passed its prime in these neighborhoods.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Indians argue that that it will take at least three years before Agni-V becomes operational, since it will require four or five more tests, series production, and user-trials by the armed forces. Indians also claim that the 5,000-km strike range of Agni-V is trifling when compared to China’s DongFeng 31A missile, which can hit targets 11,200 km away. An unnamed official source quoted in Indian newspapers state: “China’s missile and nuclear arsenal is leagues ahead of India, capable as it is of hitting any city in India. We can never compete. Our entire focus is on building only credible minimum deterrence against China, not active offensive capabilities.”

I agree—India can never compete with China, and I don’t understand the logic of building “deterrence” when by its own admission India recognizes it is not in the same league as China. Of course there is always more than meets the eye. Agni-V will be mobile and can be moved closer to the Chinese border on short notice, bringing even China’s northern-most city, Habin, within the missile’s strike envelope.

India is also developing Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) warheads for the Agni missiles. An MIRV payload is basically several nuclear warheads carried on a single missile, which can be programmed to hit different targets, independent of each other. In effect, this means that even ballistic missile defense systems can be overwhelmed by MIRVs.

Indians claim this is aligned with their nuclear doctrine, which says, “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.”

The gravity of this doctrine can be accurately understood when you look at other news items in Indo-Sino relations last week.

Indians have been making a commotion about the Brahmaputra dam and China’s alleged involvement in Azad Kashmir. In November 2006 India and China agreed to establish an Expert Level Mechanism to discuss trans-border river issues in an institutional way. Three meetings have been held so far. The Chinese maintain that there are no plans to build any large scale diversion projects on the Brahmaputra River.

But Indians can’t seem to trust this statement or any other promises from China. Reports from New Delhi claim that the Indian government will “ascertain whether there are recent developments that suggest any change in the position conveyed to us by the government of China.”

When Indian premier Manmohan Singh met Chinese president Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the ASEM summit in Beijing, the two men devoted most of their time discussing the Brahmaputra.

And as if clashes over Agni-V and the Brahmaputra were not enough, Indians have been clamoring about Arunachal Pradesh and Azad Kashmir. India has been critical of China’s development activities in Azad Kashmir, and Indian external affairs ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash was quoted saying, “We hope that the Chinese side will take a long term view of the India-China relations, and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied by Pakistan.”

During a meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani last week, the Chinese president outlined a major project to upgrade the Karakoram highway, which connects the two countries overland, and coordinated Chinese help in the Neelam-Jhelum hydroelectric project in Kashmir. “Howsoever, the international situation may change. The people of China and Pakistan are always joined in hearts and hands,” Hu said at that time.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) also claimed that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is an integral and inalienable part of India. The statement was issued by a Ministry spokesman shortly after China expressed “strong” dissatisfaction over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Arunachal Pradesh for electioneering.

I can’t keep myself from wondering: Why is India so angst-ridden?

Surely, it cannot be because China has expressed solidarity with Pakistan; after all, Pak-Sino relations reach back through six decades of trust. What is rather interesting—and must also be disconcerting to India— is Russia’s emergent ties with China. It was not long ago that India ditched Russia to draw nearer to the U.S. Until that point, ‘Hindu- Rossi bhai bhai’ was the most popular slogan in India. But things have changed. Both Chinese and Russian media have given extensive coverage to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit to China on October 12-14, speaking highly of the trip and expressing optimism over the prospects of Russian-Chinese ties.

Last week China and Russia signed 12 agreements, whose total monetary value exceeds $4 billion. The premiers of each country convened to hold their fourteenth regular meeting in Beijing, which included a framework agreement on Russia’s export of natural gas to China, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on high-speed trains, and an agreement on mutual notification of ballistic missiles and launch of carrier rockets.

The burgeoning dynamics between China-Russia and China-Pakistan are unraveling India, and the New Delhi foreign ministry appears to be in a tail spin.

اس بار میں اُن سے ملاقات کے لئے پہنچا تو ذہن میں دو سوال تھے۔ ایک یہ کہ عالمی سطح پر بھارت کی خارجہ پالیسی کیا ہے اور دوسرا امریکا کے جنوبی ایشیاء میں کیا مقاصد ہیں؟۔ دل میں خوش تھا کہ اس بار بھی میں اُن سے انٹرویو کرنے والا پہلا پاکستانی صحافی ہوں گا، لیکن یہ دیکھ کر  حیرت کی انتہا نہ رہی کہ پاکستان کے نجی ٹی وی چینل ‘‘آج’’ کا نمائندہ پہلے سے وہاں موجود تھا۔ یقینی طور پر وہ بھی بہت سے پیچیدہ اور الجھے ہوئے سوالوں کے جواب تلاش کرنے آیا ہو گا، لیکن میرے لئے بہرحال یہ ایک خوشگوار حیرت تھی کہ کوئی دوسرا پاکستانی صحافی بھی Noam Chomsky کے خیالات پاکستان کے عوام تک پہنچانے کی کوشش کر رہا ہے۔

Noam Chomsky نے میرے سوال تحمل سے سنے اور نہایت دھیمے، لیکن مدلل انداز میں جواب دینا شروع کیے۔ بھارت کی پیچیدہ خارجہ پالیسی کے بارے میں Noam Chomsky نے تمہید باندھے بغیر کہا کہ بھارت پیچیدہ جنگ لڑ رہا ہے۔ ایک طرف چین سے اُس کے تعلقات استوار ہیں تو دوسری طرف تنازعات بھی چھیڑ رکھے ہیں، یہ تو مبہم بات ہے۔ کہنے لگے کہ بھارت نے ایران سے بھی تعلقات قائم رکھے ہوئے ہیں جبکہ یہ بات امریکا کو پسند نہیں ہے۔ اسی وجہ سے بھارت پاک ایران گیس پائپ لائن سے تو پیچھے ہٹ گیا ہے، لیکن اپنے مقاصد کے پیچھے اب بھی بھاگ رہا ہے۔ امریکا دیکھ رہا ہے کہ بھارت کیا کر رہا ہے۔ اُس کی نظریں ایران کی جانب سے ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے حصول کی کوششوں پر بھی ہیں۔ آپ دیکھتے ہیں کہ ایسی خبریں روزانہ اخبارات کے پہلے صفحہ کی زینت بنتی ہیں۔ کبھی اُس کے نئے ایٹمی پلانٹ کا ذکر سامنے آجاتا ہے اور کبھی میزائلوں کا۔ یہ سوال بھی زیر بحث ہے کہ آیا وہ امریکا اور یورپ پر حملے کی صلاحیت رکھتا ہے یا نہیں۔ تو اس وقت ہماری تمام توجہ ایران کی ایٹمی سرگرمیوں پر ہے۔ اسی سلسلے میں اقوام متحدہ کی سلامتی کونسل نے قرارداد بھی منظور کی ہے جس کا خصوصی ہدف ایران ہی تھا، لیکن آپ یہ دیکھیں کہ عین قرارداد کی منظوری کے وقت بھارت نے سرعام اعلان کیا وہ این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کرے گا۔ وہ کہتا ہے کہ اُس کے پاس 2004 ٹن ایٹمی ہتھیار ہیں اور یہ امریکا اور روس کی جدید ترین جوہری صلاحیت کے برابر ہے۔ ابھی چند دن پہلے ہی آئی اے ای اے نے اپنی قرارداد میں اسرائیل سے کہا ہے وہ ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے عدم پھیلاؤ کی کوششوں میں معاونت کرے اور اپنی تنصیبات کے معائنے کی اجازت دے۔ امریکا اور یورپ نے یہ قرارداد رکوانے کی کوشش کی اور ناکامی پر اس کی مخالفت میں ووٹ دیا۔ خود اسرائیل نے بھی یہ قرارداد مسترد کر دی ہے۔

اپنی بات جاری رکھتے ہوئے Noam Chomsky  مزید کہنے لگے کہ اگر بھارت پہلے سے موجود اہم ایٹمی پروگرام کو توسیع دیتا ہے تو پاکستان بھی ایسا ہی کرے گا۔ ماضی میں یہ دونوں ملک دو بار ایٹمی جنگ کے قریب پہنچ چکے ہیں۔ دراصل دنیا میں تین ملکوں نے کبھی این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کئے۔ اُن میں بھارت، پاکستان اور اسرائیل شامل ہیں۔ ان تینوں نے ایسا امریکا کی حمایت سے ہی کیا ہے۔ اسرائیل کو تو امریکا کی کھلی حمایت حاصل ہے۔ پاکستان کو امریکی صدر ریگن کے زمانے کی حمایت حاصل رہی جب وہاں ضیاء الحق امریکی انتظامیہ کا فیورٹ ڈکٹیٹر تھا، لیکن وہ ہتھیار تو بنا رہا تھا۔ بھارت نے ایک سال پہلے ہی امریکا سے ایٹمی شعبے میں تعاون کا معاہدہ کیا ہے۔ بظاہر تو اس کے الفاظ یہ ہیں کہ امریکا ایٹمی آپریشنل انرجی میں بھارت کی مدد کرے گا، لیکن حتمی طور پر یہ سب تو ایٹمی ہتھیاروں میں ہی بدل جائے گا۔ وہ یہاں Noam Chomsky کچھ دیر کو رکے اور اگلے ہی لمحے کہنے لگے ‘‘حقیقت میں اقوام متحدہ کی قرارداد صرف ایران کے خلاف ہی نہیں بلکہ ان تنیوں ملکوں کے خلاف بھی ہے جنہوں نے این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کئے’’۔

وہ کہتے ہیں کہ سلامتی کونسل کی قرارداد تمام ملکوں پر زور دیتی ہے کہ وہ طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیاں نہ دیں۔ انہوں نے میری طرف دیکھتے ہوئے سوال کیا کہ طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیاں کون دے رہا ہے؟۔ پھر خود ہی کہنے لگے کہ ایسا تو امریکا اور اسرائیل ہی کر رہے ہیں ناں۔ تو یہ قرارداد بذات خود امریکا،ا بھارت، اسرائیل اور کسی حد تک پاکستان کے خلاف ہے۔

Noam Chomsky بحث کو مزید وسیع کرتے ہوئے یورپ میں امریکی میزائل ڈیفینس سسٹم کی تنصیب سے پیدا ہونے والے تنازع کی طرف لے گئے۔ کہنے لگے کہ یورپ میں امریکا کی جانب سے میزائل سسٹم نصب کرنے کا جو تنازع پیدا ہوا ہے، دراصل اُس کا محور بھی ایک ہی یعنی ممکنہ ایرانی حملے کا دفاع کرنا ہے۔ کیا کسی نے اس بات پر سنجیدگی سے غور کیا ہے کہ ایران کی جانب سے امریکا اور یورپ پر حملہ اُس کے لئے کس قدر تباہ کن ثابت ہو گا۔ اُس کے لئے تو یہ خودکشی کے برابر ہو گا۔ دراصل یہ دفاع کے لئے تیار کردہ میزائل نظام نہیں بلکہ پیشگی حملہ کرنے کا مہلک ہتھیار ہے۔ کوئی بھی میزائل نظام پیشگی حملے کا سسٹم ہی ہوتا ہے۔ دوسرا یہ کہ یہ امریکا اور اسرائیل کی جانب سے طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیوں کو توسیع دینے کی ایک اور کوشش ہے۔

اب اگر آپ دوسری طرف نظر دوڑائیں تو دیکھیں گے کہ امریکا کئی ممالک میں اپنے بڑے سفارتخانے بنا رہا ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں بغداد، کابل اور پاکستان کی مثال سامنے ہے۔ ایک طرح سے وہ ان ملکوں میں مستقل ٹھکانہ بنا رہا ہے جو طویل عرصے تک وہاں قیام کرنے کے اُس کے ارادوں کا مظہر ہے۔

پہلے سوال کا اس قدر تفصیلی اور جامع جواب پا کر میں نے دوسرا سوال کیا کہ امریکا جنوبی ایشیاء میں کیا چاہتا ہے اور وہاں اس کے مقاصد کیا ہیں؟۔ Noam Chomsky کا کہنا تھا کہ افغانستان اور پاکستان نہایت اسٹریٹیجک مقام پر واقع ہیں۔ ایک طرف اس خطے کی سرحدیں مشرق وسطیٰ سے ملتی ہیں تو دوسری طرف بے پناہ وسائل سے مالا مال ہے۔ توانائی کے وسائل اور پیداوار کے حوالے سے اس کی اہمیت اور حیثیت مسلمہ ہے اور بیک وقت سورس آف انرجی اور سیکنڈ سورس آف انرجی ہے۔ یہ خطہ سرحدوں اور وسائل پر کنٹرول کے لحاظ سے بھی کئی تنازعات میں گھرا ہوا ہے۔ شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم خطے کے لحاظ سے اہم کردار ادا کر رہی ہے جس میں چین، روس اور وسط ایشیائی ریاستیں شامل ہیں جبکہ پاکستان نے مبصر کے طور پر شرکت کی ہے۔ اس تنظیم کا مقصد ایشین انرجی سیکورٹی کا قیام عمل میں لانا ہے جو امریکا سے بالکل الگ ہے۔ دراصل اس تنظیم کے رکن ملک طے کر چکے ہیں کہ امریکا خطے سے واپس چلا جائے اور  انہیں وسائل پر حق دیا جائے۔ جنوبی ایشیاء میں ایک اور اہم تنازع ابھرتی ہوئی معیشت بھارت کی جانب سے توانائی کے حصول کی کوششیں ہیں۔ دیکھنا یہ ہے کہ بھارت کس طرح توانائی کی ضروریات پوری کرتا ہے کیونکہ ایران سے گیس کے حصول کا ارادہ اس نے ترک کر دیا ہے۔ اگر وہ اس منصوبے میں حصہ لیتا ہے تو امریکا اس کی مخالفت کرے گا کیونکہ امریکا ایران کو تنہا کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ اب امریکا کی خواہش ہو گی کہ بھارت اپنی ضروریات ترکمانستان کے گیس کے وسیع ذخائر سے پوری کرے۔ افغانستان، بھارت، پاکستان اور ترکمانستان کے درمیان گیس پائپ لائن پرانا آئیڈیا ہے، لیکن یہ ابھی بھی ڈرائنگ بورڈ پر موجود ہے۔ امریکا کا مقصد بھارت کو ایران سے گیس کے حصول سے روک کر ترکمانستان کی طرف راغب کرنا ہے تا کہ وہ تہران پر ایٹمی پروگرام روکنے کے لئے دباؤ ڈال سکے جبکہ روس بھی نئی دہلی کا دوست ہے۔ خطے میں افغانستان کی اہمیت کے حوالے سے Noam Chomsky کا کہنا تھا کہ افغان صوبہ قندھار متنازع ہونے کے ساتھ ساتھ نہایت اہمیت کا حامل بھی ہے۔

بعض ماہرین کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے وہ یہ بھی کہتے ہیں کہ جنوبی ایشیاء میں دراصل وسائل پر قبضے کی جنگ جاری ہے۔ امریکا مشرق وسطیٰ میں تیل کے ذخائر کی عالمی اہمیت کو سمجھ چکا ہے اور مستقبل میں طاقت کا انحصار اسی خطے کے وسائل کے استعمال پر ہو گا۔ اسٹریٹیجک لحاظ سے یہ دنیا کا سب سے اہم علاقہ ہے اور اس کے قدرتی وسائل پر قبضہ کرنے والا ملک ہی پوری دنیا پر قبضہ کر سکتا ہے۔ امریکا اپنے اسی خواب کو شرمندہ تعبیر کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ یہ تمام باتیں کسی سے ڈھکی چھپی نہیں بلکہ دنیا کے سامنے آ چکی ہیں۔ ہاں مگر۔ اس معاملے میں پاکستان کو مرکزی حیثیت حاصل ہو چکی ہے ۔ پاکستان کے چین سے نہ صرف دوستانہ تعلقات ہیں بلکہ معاشی اور اقتصادی میدان میں بھی دونوں کے رابطے کافی گہرے ہیں۔ امریکا کو اس بات پر تشویش ہے کہ مستقبل میں چین خودمختار طاقت کے طور  پر سامنے آ سکتا ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں بڑی پیش رفت شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم کا قیام ہے۔ اس تنظیم کو اقوام متحدہ قبول کر چکی ہے جبکہ امریکا اس سے خوش نہیں ہے۔

مجھے میرے سوالوں کا مکمل اور تفصیلی جواب مل گیا تھا۔ جو آپ کی خدمت میں حاضر ہے۔ 

دنیا بھر میں Noam Chomsky   کا نام کسی تعارف کا محتاج نہیں ہے۔  اُن کی وجہ شہرت امریکا کی خارجہ پالیسیوں کو تنقید کا نشانہ بنانا ہے۔ یہ کام وہ آج سے نہیں بلکہ انیس سو ساٹھ کی دہائی میں ویتنام جنگ سے کر رہے ہیں۔ وہ متعدد کتابوں کے مصنف بھی ہیں۔

اس بار میں اُن سے ملاقات کے لئے پہنچا تو ذہن میں دو سوال تھے۔ ایک یہ کہ عالمی سطح پر بھارت کی خارجہ پالیسی کیا ہے اور دوسرا امریکا کے جنوبی ایشیاء میں کیا مقاصد ہیں؟۔ دل میں خوش تھا کہ اس بار بھی میں اُن سے انٹرویو کرنے والا پہلا پاکستانی صحافی ہوں گا، لیکن یہ دیکھ کر  حیرت کی انتہا نہ رہی کہ پاکستان کے نجی ٹی وی چینل ‘‘آج’’ کا نمائندہ پہلے سے وہاں موجود تھا۔ یقینی طور پر وہ بھی بہت سے پیچیدہ اور الجھے ہوئے سوالوں کے جواب تلاش کرنے آیا ہو گا، لیکن میرے لئے بہرحال یہ ایک خوشگوار حیرت تھی کہ کوئی دوسرا پاکستانی صحافی بھی Noam Chomsky   کے خیالات پاکستان کے عوام تک پہنچانے کی کوشش کر رہا ہے۔

Noam Chomsky   نے میرے سوال تحمل سے سنے اور نہایت دھیمے، لیکن مدلل انداز میں جواب دینا شروع کیے۔ بھارت کی پیچیدہ خارجہ پالیسی کے بارے میں Noam Chomsky   نے تمہید باندھے بغیر کہا کہ بھارت پیچیدہ جنگ لڑ رہا ہے۔ ایک طرف چین سے اُس کے تعلقات استوار ہیں تو دوسری طرف تنازعات بھی چھیڑ رکھے ہیں، یہ تو مبہم بات ہے۔ کہنے لگے کہ بھارت نے ایران سے بھی تعلقات قائم رکھے ہوئے ہیں جبکہ یہ بات امریکا کو پسند نہیں ہے۔ اسی وجہ سے بھارت پاک ایران گیس پائپ لائن سے تو پیچھے ہٹ گیا ہے، لیکن اپنے مقاصد کے پیچھے اب بھی بھاگ رہا ہے۔ امریکا دیکھ رہا ہے کہ بھارت کیا کر رہا ہے۔ اُس کی نظریں ایران کی جانب سے ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے حصول کی کوششوں پر بھی ہیں۔ آپ دیکھتے ہیں کہ ایسی خبریں روزانہ اخبارات کے پہلے صفحہ کی زینت بنتی ہیں۔ کبھی اُس کے نئے ایٹمی پلانٹ کا ذکر سامنے آجاتا ہے اور کبھی میزائلوں کا۔ یہ سوال بھی زیر بحث ہے کہ آیا وہ امریکا اور یورپ پر حملے کی صلاحیت رکھتا ہے یا نہیں۔ تو اس وقت ہماری تمام توجہ ایران کی ایٹمی سرگرمیوں پر ہے۔ اسی سلسلے میں اقوام متحدہ کی سلامتی کونسل نے قرارداد بھی منظور کی ہے جس کا خصوصی ہدف ایران ہی تھا، لیکن آپ یہ دیکھیں کہ عین قرارداد کی منظوری کے وقت بھارت نے سرعام اعلان کیا وہ این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کرے گا۔ وہ کہتا ہے کہ اُس کے پاس 2004 ٹن ایٹمی ہتھیار ہیں اور یہ امریکا اور روس کی جدید ترین جوہری صلاحیت کے برابر ہے۔ ابھی چند دن پہلے ہی آئی اے ای اے نے اپنی قرارداد میں اسرائیل سے کہا ہے وہ ایٹمی ہتھیاروں کے عدم پھیلاؤ کی کوششوں میں معاونت کرے اور اپنی تنصیبات کے معائنے کی اجازت دے۔ امریکا اور یورپ نے یہ قرارداد رکوانے کی کوشش کی اور ناکامی پر اس کی مخالفت میں ووٹ دیا۔ خود اسرائیل نے بھی یہ قرارداد مسترد کر دی ہے۔

اپنی بات جاری رکھتے ہوئے Noam Chomsky   مزید کہنے لگے کہ اگر بھارت پہلے سے موجود اہم ایٹمی پروگرام کو توسیع دیتا ہے تو پاکستان بھی ایسا ہی کرے گا۔ ماضی میں یہ دونوں ملک دو بار ایٹمی جنگ کے قریب پہنچ چکے ہیں۔ دراصل دنیا میں تین ملکوں نے کبھی این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کئے۔ اُن میں بھارت، پاکستان اور اسرائیل شامل ہیں۔ ان تینوں نے ایسا امریکا کی حمایت سے ہی کیا ہے۔ اسرائیل کو تو امریکا کی کھلی حمایت حاصل ہے۔ پاکستان کو امریکی صدر ریگن کے زمانے کی حمایت حاصل رہی جب وہاں ضیاء الحق امریکی انتظامیہ کا فیورٹ ڈکٹیٹر تھا، لیکن وہ ہتھیار تو بنا رہا تھا۔ بھارت نے ایک سال پہلے ہی امریکا سے ایٹمی شعبے میں تعاون کا معاہدہ کیا ہے۔ بظاہر تو اس کے الفاظ یہ ہیں کہ امریکا ایٹمی آپریشنل انرجی میں بھارت کی مدد کرے گا، لیکن حتمی طور پر یہ سب تو ایٹمی ہتھیاروں میں ہی بدل جائے گا۔ وہ یہاں Noam Chomsky کچھ دیر کو رکے اور اگلے ہی لمحے کہنے لگے ‘‘حقیقت میں اقوام متحدہ کی قرارداد صرف ایران کے خلاف ہی نہیں بلکہ ان تنیوں ملکوں کے خلاف بھی ہے جنہوں نے این پی ٹی پر دستخط نہیں کئے’’۔

وہ کہتے ہیں کہ سلامتی کونسل کی قرارداد تمام ملکوں پر زور دیتی ہے کہ وہ طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیاں نہ دیں۔ انہوں نے میری طرف دیکھتے ہوئے سوال کیا کہ طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیاں کون دے رہا ہے؟۔ پھر خود ہی کہنے لگے کہ ایسا تو امریکا اور اسرائیل ہی کر رہے ہیں ناں۔ تو یہ قرارداد بذات خود امریکا،ا بھارت، اسرائیل اور کسی حد تک پاکستان کے خلاف ہے۔

Noam Chomsky بحث کو مزید وسیع کرتے ہوئے یورپ میں امریکی میزائل ڈیفینس سسٹم کی تنصیب سے پیدا ہونے والے تنازع کی طرف لے گئے۔ کہنے لگے کہ یورپ میں امریکا کی جانب سے میزائل سسٹم نصب کرنے کا جو تنازع پیدا ہوا ہے، دراصل اُس کا محور بھی ایک ہی یعنی ممکنہ ایرانی حملے کا دفاع کرنا ہے۔ کیا کسی نے اس بات پر سنجیدگی سے غور کیا ہے کہ ایران کی جانب سے امریکا اور یورپ پر حملہ اُس کے لئے کس قدر تباہ کن ثابت ہو گا۔ اُس کے لئے تو یہ خودکشی کے برابر ہو گا۔ دراصل یہ دفاع کے لئے تیار کردہ میزائل نظام نہیں بلکہ پیشگی حملہ کرنے کا مہلک ہتھیار ہے۔ کوئی بھی میزائل نظام پیشگی حملے کا سسٹم ہی ہوتا ہے۔ دوسرا یہ کہ یہ امریکا اور اسرائیل کی جانب سے طاقت کے استعمال کی دھمکیوں کو توسیع دینے کی ایک اور کوشش ہے۔

اب اگر آپ دوسری طرف نظر دوڑائیں تو دیکھیں گے کہ امریکا کئی ممالک میں اپنے بڑے سفارتخانے بنا رہا ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں بغداد، کابل اور پاکستان کی مثال سامنے ہے۔ ایک طرح سے وہ ان ملکوں میں مستقل ٹھکانہ بنا رہا ہے جو طویل عرصے تک وہاں قیام کرنے کے اُس کے ارادوں کا مظہر ہے۔

پہلے سوال کا اس قدر تفصیلی اور جامع جواب پا کر میں نے دوسرا سوال کیا کہ امریکا جنوبی ایشیاء میں کیا چاہتا ہے اور وہاں اس کے مقاصد کیا ہیں؟۔ Noam Chomsky کا کہنا تھا کہ افغانستان اور پاکستان نہایت اسٹریٹیجک مقام پر واقع ہیں۔ ایک طرف اس خطے کی سرحدیں مشرق وسطیٰ سے ملتی ہیں تو دوسری طرف بے پناہ وسائل سے مالا مال ہے۔ توانائی کے وسائل اور پیداوار کے حوالے سے اس کی اہمیت اور حیثیت مسلمہ ہے اور بیک وقت سورس آف انرجی اور سیکنڈ سورس آف انرجی ہے۔ یہ خطہ سرحدوں اور وسائل پر کنٹرول کے لحاظ سے بھی کئی تنازعات میں گھرا ہوا ہے۔ شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم خطے کے لحاظ سے اہم کردار ادا کر رہی ہے جس میں چین، روس اور وسط ایشیائی ریاستیں شامل ہیں جبکہ پاکستان نے مبصر کے طور پر شرکت کی ہے۔ اس تنظیم کا مقصد ایشین انرجی سیکورٹی کا قیام عمل میں لانا ہے جو امریکا سے بالکل الگ ہے۔ دراصل اس تنظیم کے رکن ملک طے کر چکے ہیں کہ امریکا خطے سے واپس چلا جائے اور  انہیں وسائل پر حق دیا جائے۔ جنوبی ایشیاء میں ایک اور اہم تنازع ابھرتی ہوئی معیشت بھارت کی جانب سے توانائی کے حصول کی کوششیں ہیں۔ دیکھنا یہ ہے کہ بھارت کس طرح توانائی کی ضروریات پوری کرتا ہے کیونکہ ایران سے گیس کے حصول کا ارادہ اس نے ترک کر دیا ہے۔ اگر وہ اس منصوبے میں حصہ لیتا ہے تو امریکا اس کی مخالفت کرے گا کیونکہ امریکا ایران کو تنہا کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ اب امریکا کی خواہش ہو گی کہ بھارت اپنی ضروریات ترکمانستان کے گیس کے وسیع ذخائر سے پوری کرے۔ افغانستان، بھارت، پاکستان اور ترکمانستان کے درمیان گیس پائپ لائن پرانا آئیڈیا ہے، لیکن یہ ابھی بھی ڈرائنگ بورڈ پر موجود ہے۔ امریکا کا مقصد بھارت کو ایران سے گیس کے حصول سے روک کر ترکمانستان کی طرف راغب کرنا ہے تا کہ وہ تہران پر ایٹمی پروگرام روکنے کے لئے دباؤ ڈال سکے جبکہ روس بھی نئی دہلی کا دوست ہے۔ خطے میں افغانستان کی اہمیت کے حوالے سے Noam Chomsky کا کہنا تھا کہ افغان صوبہ قندھار متنازع ہونے کے ساتھ ساتھ نہایت اہمیت کا حامل بھی ہے۔

بعض ماہرین کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے وہ یہ بھی کہتے ہیں کہ جنوبی ایشیاء میں دراصل وسائل پر قبضے کی جنگ جاری ہے۔ امریکا مشرق وسطیٰ میں تیل کے ذخائر کی عالمی اہمیت کو سمجھ چکا ہے اور مستقبل میں طاقت کا انحصار اسی خطے کے وسائل کے استعمال پر ہو گا۔ اسٹریٹیجک لحاظ سے یہ دنیا کا سب سے اہم علاقہ ہے اور اس کے قدرتی وسائل پر قبضہ کرنے والا ملک ہی پوری دنیا پر قبضہ کر سکتا ہے۔ امریکا اپنے اسی خواب کو شرمندہ تعبیر کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ یہ تمام باتیں کسی سے ڈھکی چھپی نہیں بلکہ دنیا کے سامنے آ چکی ہیں۔ ہاں مگر۔ اس معاملے میں پاکستان کو مرکزی حیثیت حاصل ہو چکی ہے ۔ پاکستان کے چین سے نہ صرف دوستانہ تعلقات ہیں بلکہ معاشی اور اقتصادی میدان میں بھی دونوں کے رابطے کافی گہرے ہیں۔ امریکا کو اس بات پر تشویش ہے کہ مستقبل میں چین خودمختار طاقت کے طور  پر سامنے آ سکتا ہے۔ اس سلسلے میں بڑی پیش رفت شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم کا قیام ہے۔ اس تنظیم کو اقوام متحدہ قبول کر چکی ہے جبکہ امریکا اس سے خوش نہیں ہے۔

مجھے میرے سوالوں کا مکمل اور تفصیلی جواب مل گیا تھا۔ جو آپ کی خدمت میں حاضر ہے۔