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.

As 64th session of the UN General Assembly begins in New York, Kashmir has receded to the sidelines. Kashmir is not top of mind for Pakistan anymore. You will not hear the roars of ‘free Kashmir’ at the United Nations General Assembly but the issue will be debated at the margins - the ministerial meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) contact group on Kashmir. The annual co-ordination meeting of the foreign ministers of OIC member states will be held on September 28 – when the head of states would have already gone home.

In my previous pleadings I have suggested that and India and Pakistan re-visit the concept of ‘sous rature’, (a term usually translated as ‘under erasure)’ in bilateral discussions. I have proposed a sous rature for Kashmir – because the conflict is inadequately represented thus far as a territorial issue. Since this is an important issue, I propose we keep it legible yet cross it out. And, going forward use a more accurate term; water conflict.

This video reviews history of “Kashmir dispute” at the United Nations. From October 1947 to September 20th, 2009. And, concludes that the United Nations has failed to deliver a solution.

Let me be absolutely clear – I have no sympathies for characters like Hafiz Saeed who have eroded the Pakistani society and have pushed us in a state of profound crisis. These fundamentalists 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 63 years history of Pakistan.

Let me be very clear that we should cleanse our society of parasites like Hafiz Saeed – but we must do it for the right reason. We should NOT, and I repeat, NOT do this because India wants us to. Or because India has reportedly provided prima-facie evidence of his involvement in November 26^th attacks on Mumbai. India is simply posturing and preparing to renege on the joint statement signed by the two prime ministers in Egypt in July 2009. When Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers met in Sharm el Sheik they agreed, according to the joint statement: “that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”

Later this month, Foreign Ministers of both countries were expected to meet at the United Nations. But the renewed pressure from India is clear indicator that New Delhi is having second thoughts. We should make sure that India abides by the spirit of the agreement.

I write this column today because a very progressive friend – whose integrity I can never doubt told me jokingly that elements like Hafiz Saeed should be tolerated because they keep India in check. Pakistan has 500,000 plus strong army – we don’t need to bank on the imbeciles like Hafiz Saeed.  

Unexplained Phenomenon :

Winning the hearts and minds of my progressive friends is a major milestone for the retrogressive forces whose success means decline of Pakistan’s cultural steam and human decency. Undoubtedly, India is a belligerent regional hegemony and we must protect Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and dignity.  But these wayward mullahs who have managed to drown the voices of reason and rationality are rapidly destroying our country. 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.

I am very concerned about Pakistan’s outlook because there is an eerie uniformity of opinion. Even those who are tolerant, progressive, democratic are willing to condone mullahs. Whereas growing civilizations display endless variety and versatility, those in the process of disintegration show uniformity and lack of inventiveness.

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 that is unacceptable to the mullahs.  

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.

My argument here should not be construed as anti-Islam. In this holy month of Ramazan, my fast and prayers are just as good as anyone else. When I wake up in the middle of the night for sahri or make sure to pray more regularly – I do it with my free volition. It is my personal and spiritual decision. No one is forcing me to follow any rules.

I want to simply point out that religious conviction and religious doctrine have contradictory effects. Some people are motivated by their religious beliefs to challenge oppressive social systems and oppressive relations in the world. At the same time, organized religion and much of religious doctrine is used to reinforce the oppression of the masses of people, to preach submission before the established authorities and their oppressive rule. In Pakistan, rulers have used religion to oppress masses- and we must not empower these mullahs to oppress us any further. As Lenin said, every reactionary order is in need of two functions, the hangman and the priest, and they go hand in hand and complement each other.

So unless you are ready to lock-up your sisters and daughters and throw away reason and rationality, you must fight back. Without an iota of doubt these monsters will destroy Pakistan to the point where you will not be able to recognize this country. It is not enough that Jamaat-e-Islami does not win votes- their ideology has hijacked our entire parliament- our entire nation. Unless you clean up your offices, your neighborhoods, and your educational institutions from these tyrannical imbeciles, Pakistan will not survive.

Stay on high alert! Don’t let proponents of past take over your beautiful cities like Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.

Sat Sari Akal from Pakistan!

As a native of Pakistan – I am excited to have a sagacious leader at the helm of affairs next door. Especially as our countries have a history of bitter relations having fought three wars since our independence from Britain in 1947. We both claim the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is divided between us.

Mr. Prime Minister, I feel it’s about time that we both re-visit the concept of ‘sous rature’, (a term usually translated as ‘under erasure)’ in our bilateral discussions. I am proposing a sous rature for Kashmir – because the conflict is inadequately represented thus far as a territorial issue. Since this is an important issue, I propose we keep it legible yet cross it out. And, going forward use a more accurate term; water conflict.

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 in your second term you will demonstrate the courage expected of a ‘fair’ regional power and not insist on building dams that will deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies.

Mr. Prime Minister, I am hoping that you will address the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. I am sure you are aware of our position that this dam will disrupt the flow of water into the Jhelum River, which flows into Pakistan. This dam clearly violates the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. You must know that the World Bank-mediated 1960 Indus Water Treaty stipulates that we share the Indus River and its five tributaries – the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Under the treaty, we received exclusive use of waters from the Indus and its westward flowing tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab, while the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers were allocated for your country’s use.

Mr. Prime Minister in your haste to win this second term you have withheld millions of cubic feet of water upstream on the Chenab in Indian-administered Kashmir, and you are storing it in the massive Baglihar dam in order to produce hydro-electricity. Mr. Prime Minister you know it is in breach of the 1960 treaty. I know you decided to stop entertaining this discussion after the Mumbai attacks- but why are you punishing the poor farmers of Pakistan for the crimes committed by a few mercenaries?

We have heard your position that India has a right to ‘’run-of-the-river’’ projects but ask 10 independent scientists and they will confirm that the Baglihar dam reduces the flow of water to Pakistan in violation of the 1960 treaty. Come down to Pakistan and bring those World Bank appointed experts who had cleared the Baglihar project so they can understand the implication of their decision as well. If these experts are not blind- I am sure they will notice that the levels of both the river and groundwater have fallen substantially. Indeed, from our side this doesn’t even look like a river anymore; it is more like a puddle.

Mr. Prime Minister I don’t want to bore you with details, but the 1960 treaty guaranteed us 55,000 cusecs of water. Yet, this year we have received between 13,000 cusecs during the winter and a maximum of 29,000 cusecs during summer.

We have also heard the Indian argument for the Wular dam; that you will make a shallow 12 mile stretch of the river in order to ease “navigation” during the dry summer months. And that this is allowed under the 1960 treaty.

Let’s be honest Mr. Prime Minister- this is an open attempt to store water and control how much will be allowed to flow to Pakistan. It may not happen overnight – but there are no guarantees that you will continue to win elections in India for next 30-40 years.

Mr. Prime Minister- you may ignore this appeal but at least pay attention to more than 20 different UN bodies who have warned that the world may be perilously close to its first water war. Take these dam projects off the table and you will win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis. Moreover, you will bring the two nations closer to a more peaceful and prosperous coexistence.

Congratulations are due to you again, Mr. Singh. After waiting anxiously for nearly three hours outside the conference room in Sharm el Shaikh when we finally received the joint statement, I thought it was a moment for Pakistani Prime Minister to establish himself as a regional leader. And, I was wrong.

By taking a considerable leap of faith, you have positioned yourself to be recorded in South Asian history as Sane Singh. What appeared to both Indian and Pakistani journalists as you ceding too much ground to the Pakistani Prime Minister was actually reflection of your grander goals. We were (both Indians and Pakistani) particularly fixated on a line saying that the peace process should no longer be linked to Pakistan’s progress in cracking down on militancy. A Pakistani colleague called it a ’diplomatic coup’ for Pakistan. Thumping his chest he told his TV channel that Pakistan had come out a victor. Must admit, I made the same mistake. When my anchor asked why India was playing on the ’back foot’, I implied that India was under tremendous international pressure to forge peace and reduce tension with Pakistan.

You can’t blame us. De-coupling of terrorism from bilateral talks was a reversal of India’s position since the Mumbai attack.

My Indian counterparts were angered by the inclusion of a reference to Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan, where Pakistan says India’s intelligence service is supporting a separatist insurgency. In the past India had always denied that, and resisted making the issue part of the two countries’ dialogue.

I watched your speech to the Indian parliament during a heated two-day debate on recent foreign policy issues. I know you watered down some parts of the joint statement, but you stood by the basic position that India needs to talk to Pakistan directly: admitting that the only alternative is another war.

I am glad that you were firm on your Baluchistan position: if you have nothing to hide why not put this out on the table as well. If India is not interfering in Baluchistan we will soon put this behind us.

I know you will not win the favor of  Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) but you have won my support. And, as long as you stick to the peace process you will continue to win hearts and minds of many Pakistanis like myself.

Mr. Singh- I know I speak for many like minded Pakistanis when I say: Justice and fairness should be the first and foremost priority of any future dialogue. I can assure you that majority of Pakistani people are willing to reciprocate.

I know Mr. Singh that your domestic critics will remain unconvinced: I saw that BJP walked out of Parliament in protest over the Baluchistan issue. But you have been blessed with an opportunity of historic proportion. Your opponents are still in disarray after their dismal performance in this year’s election, whereas Congress now has an even stronger mandate and greater control over its coalition.

Mr. Singh, successful leaders are not afraid of taking unpopular positions. So even if it seems unpopular at present you should press ahead and resume composite dialogue with Pakistan.

In my past pleadings to you, I have proposed a “sous rature” for Kashmir – because the conflict is inadequately represented thus far as a territorial issue. Since this is an important issue, I propose we keep it legible yet cross it out. And, going forward use a more accurate term; water conflict.

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.

You have demonstrated the courage and wisdom I expected from our sagacious neighbor and I hoping you will drop the idea of  building dams that deprive Pakistani farmers of vital water supplies. Please resume the composite dialogue and address the critical issue of the Tulbul Navigation project on Wular Lake in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir.

I know Mr. Singh you have taken a considerable risk to repair the relationship and for that you deserve credit. Hats off to, Sir!

Now let’s address the water crises right away.