India, Pakistan and America’s Mixed Signals

Ras
``The December 13th attack on the Indian Parliament was either of local Indian origin or the work of someone that wants to poison the waters and embarrass Pakistan.``

``We have to take into consideration of what people are telling us before we get hit in the head by a hammer to recognize a problem. India needs to be similarly reminded. Kashmir needs a solution, one that respects the wishes of its people.``

Ras, either the attack on Parliament was engineered by India and hence was not a `hit on the head by a hammer` or it was a terrorist attack NOT engineered by India in which case it was a `hit on the head with a hammer`. You can have it only one way not both.

There is enough video footage of the attack to identify a few of the attackers, btw, and as a honest journalist interested in maintaining credibility, one would have expected you to at least mention this before making these allegations against Indians.

In either case, any Kashmir settlement you hope for, would need to be agreed to by the same MPs who were under fire on Dec 13. Donot expect these
MPs to capitulate to threats of violence, things just don`t work that way anywhere in the world, yeh jihad ki dalaali cchod dijeye and take to some more profitable profession.

MILITARY MIND,

This should be a lesson for the geriatrics of delhi, a general can only respond to threats, threats to the military that sustains him. There can be good from a threat. from dawn of today

Musharraf`s message delivered to Benazir

ISLAMABAD, Dec 30: The government on Sunday contacted former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, in exile in Dubai, to discuss current tensions with India, her party said.

A Pakistan People`s Party statement said that Pakistan`s consul-general in Dubai, Amanullah Larik, met Ms Bhutto on Sunday morning and delivered a message from the government.

Ras,

Good article, and especially like the history repeats itself theme by drawing back to 1971. One can only hope that this latest standoff will not escalate into war. Though I am of the opinion that even if India backs down, that in another 6 months to a year another issue will rear it`s head and the two armies will be staring each other down yet again.

I too am very skeptical Pakistan would even have given ``moral support`` to any Kashmiri groups to attack the heart of the India these days.

It simply doesn`t make sense, Pakistan and especially Musharraf had recently been annoited America`s new ``best friend``. Billions of aid dollars were flowing in again, along with a loosening of numerous trade restrictions.

This would obviously help to rebuild Pakistan`s shattered economy. Why on earth would they willfully now go and provoke India which is nearly 10x larger in population to go to war with them? Especially with US in their backyard talking about stamping out terrorism everywhere?

Quite frankly it does seem a little too conveniant that an act of terrorism occurred on Indian soil at precisely this time to take attention away from Pakistan/USA`s best friend status and put Pakistan back in the camp of countries that harbour terrorism.

If war does erupt and spirals out of control, Pakistan will eventually be the loser. Pakistan simply can`t afford a war drawn out of any significant period of time with India. It`s remaining finances will be depleted. Potential devastation in the cities along with the depletion of military strength. The LoC could potentially shift in this potential war. And it`s best friend USA will in the end pressure the weakening Pakistani military to show ``restraint`` and concede to the new LoC borders.

Long term - USA needs to build a stronger relationship with India to balance against the Chinese and Russian spheres of influence in that region. Should war erupt and India is the clear aggressor, it would be unlikely that Bush/Powell would do more than express ``dissappointment`` in this matter and in the end tilt their bias towards India once Osama Bin Laden is found - dead or alive...

Fozia

Ras,

``Why would Pakistanis pick this moment of all times to support terrorism in India, especially when the rest of the world including their own leadership is fighting a war against it? India in particular has threatened a military response against “terrorism” emanating from Pakistan. Nobody mentions the fact that Pakistan needs terrorism today like it needs a hole in its head.``

Here we go again. Did pakistan need kargill invasion when the lahore declaration was being signed. Ask the great pak general. Military cares only about the military, when the sanctions were lifeted the first request from the general was for F16s. Do you think pakistans top most need was F16s. Do not try to find comman mans reasons for jihadic thinking, that permeates the pak military.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

[Much has also been said and written about the “questionable” safety of Pakistan’s nukes in the past few months (India’s Nukes are safe?).]

Yes, India`s nukes are safe. The nuclear pits are with the Atomic Energy Commission, the detonation assembly is with the military, they are far apart and cannot be put together except under the express order of the civilian government. Pakistan is reported to have fully assembled nukes and they are supposedly not mated to either the rockets or the F-16 aircraft but the nukes are under the control of the Pak military. So any rogue in the Pak Army could conceivably launch a nuclear attack. Also, fully assembled nukes means that a mob could storm the storage location and get the nukes out and create a DEFCON (defense condition) for the world.

[Many Muslims feel that Pakistan is being given negative reporting in the western media because of the fact that it is an Islamic country with nuclear weapons.]

It is being given negative reporting because of its unsavory association with Osama bin Laden, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and a host of people beyond the pale. It is getting proper recognition for the fact that the Taliban are the students of madrassahs in Pakistan funded and run by fundamentalist religious leaders with the full support of the Pak government and the ISI. The best way to avoid negative publicity is not to engage in stupid things. You do not have the ``deniability`` factor when any reporter can walk into these madrassahs and see posters asking for donations for jihad.

[It would be interesting to find out who is giving these ideas to our media here but let me stress the point that any attempt to take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets by any party will not help America’s war against terrorists. It will be viewed as a collective war against Islam period.]

As id the world gives a sh!t about the Ummah`s opinion. So, what are you going to do even if it is a war against Islam? Fight America? Fly more planes into buildings?

Ras:

``..Nobody mentions the fact that Pakistan needs terrorism today like it needs a hole in its head...``

So, are you saying that there was time (before `today`) that Pakistan needed terrorism? Is that not an admission of guilt? Of formenting terrorism?

``The December 13th attack on the Indian Parliament was either of local Indian origin or the work of someone...``

Since you are implying that at some point Pakistan `needed terrorism`, then why should you be surprised if someone takes advantage of the situation in which Pakistan has painted itself (assuming that it was not the handiwork of the JeM/LeT who have offices in Pakistan)? You see, one can only be tarred with that allegation if one has been less than forthcoming and ambivalent about the nature of terrorism.

To listen to some geriaritic hippies is to acknowledge that Allah did send some folk to earth to serve as warning & specimen of His cursed ones.

The important thing to remember is that the Soviet Union is no more.Communism & Socialism are DEAD....Extinct,Kaput,No more!---& this was done by the Islamic Mujahideen(Never Never forget this!) with the help of that great Nemesis & Qehr on the red,pink,& purples.

The crushing of the theory & concept of communism is the start only.Some rats & roaches are trying to find cover under the fancy names of humanism,secularism,& relativism.They will be exposed even if they masquerade as Democrats.

What happened in Afghanistan(& Iraq) is nothing but business deals gone sour between individual interests.It has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam or Muslims or nations---but such is the tragedy & reality that individual snubs,insults & put-downs sometimes assume proportions of national pride & result is involvement of countless unnecessary deaths(both sides).Any other ``theory`` of history is nothing but an attempt to perpetuate tenure & wage-scales for the professors & advisors.

__________________________________________________

Nothing is going to happen.The US has no interest whatsoever in the affairs of India or Pakistan.These are already enslaved nations and if there is some row in the servant-quarters then it is just a minor annoyance.There has not as yet a better invented device than the bomb to achieve population parity with the `civilised` world.These countries are not Sierra Leonne, Zaire,or Somalia where rare metals abound & the chip-market would become ground zero in no time.

__________________________________________________

All the belligerance in India is to get the BJB & RSS rule buttressed before the next election or a vote of no-confidence.India is terrified by its muslim constituency & it can convince it only by making Pakistan look vulnerable.The confidence that got eroded in 1971 was replenished by the detonation of the bomb---and the Indian Muslims deep inside know the ruse of secularism.It is good to play along till the time is ripe & right.

The hindus just cannot afford to live without some former master looking over their shoulder.They are simply not used to it.Like a Dalit who will continue to be submissive to a brahmin even though he might achieve equality legally.I remember a South African Indian who was kind of uncomfortable by the thought that he could enter any theatre,go to any park,visit any place he wanted to....even after aparthied was no more.

__________________________________________________

The posturing by both the Bhoora-goraa slaves is to prove their deep loyalty to their former masters.They impress the world on CNN & BBC by their americanised & british accents.They leave no stone unturned to prove to their masters their profound knowledge about Disney-characters & prevailing fads & fashions.

__________________________________________________

Slaves have no right to `Analyse`.They are supposed to agree with the masters.They must speak like them,eat like them,dress like them.They must take orders from their `born-here` offspring because they themselves were `born-there`.They must learn to accept their offsprings` nakedness & vulgarity & constantly PROVE that they have ``evolved``.They must never be seen around proud muslims but apologise relentlessly for their colour & sound.Even Zoo animals keep the dream alive to be free one day.Not the Bhoora-Goraas! They urge the master never to abandon them & should trust them to leave the cage doors open.

Ras Sahib,

Good to see one of your works again.

You write, encapsulating one of the several fundamental thrusts of your article, that

``We are being made to believe that these two countries are the now somehow fighting the same war. ``

They certainly seem to be. In the cases of all three, the US, India, and Israel, what we see is the use of certain genuine political grievances to mercilessly assault, kill, and maim innocent people by the terrorists. Add to that the fact that each of the three countries thus affected is a representative democracy which in itself is a kindred bond. It is naive to believe that these countries do not somehow see a similar theme, if not similar groups, amongst these assaults. Indeed, one can argue that the attacks in NYC, Delhi, and eastern Jerusalem are part of a thematic barbarian attack on democracy itself.

Let us not kid ourselves. Whether it is the foreign mercenaries in Kashmir or the Saudi funded zealots elsewhere, they are simply enemies of freedom. The sooner other countries join India/Israel/USA to exterminate the vermin, the better.Rabid conspiracy theories (Israel did WTC or RAW planned the Parliament attack) are not going to wash this time, no matter how hard the apologists try.

What did the world expect India to do? Sit and wait until the Afghan war was over and then send diplomatic protests to Pakistan? No country can or should tolerate an attack on her Parliament, an institution that sets free peoples apart from others. In the case of the Delhi attack, it has symbolism far beyond India. After all the seat of the world`s biggest democracy was attacked. The only fault in India`s response, so far, has been her lack of it. One recalls Britain`s swift retaliation when the Nazis bombed the Mother of Parliaments sixty years ago.

In attacking PArliament House in Delhi, the perpetrators have attacked the very concept of free governments. The sooner they are exemplarily punished, the better.

``Now is not the time for verbal swordplay, for unlikely flights of imagination and wildly shifting perspectives, for metaphysical conceit, for wit. . . .Now is a time for simplicity. Now is a time for, dare I say it, kindness.`` - Margaret Edison, ``W;t``, Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for drama, 1999

Thank you Ras. It was very honest and much-needed.

Aamir

SEND THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS!

STOP WAR IN SOUTH ASIA

All who value peace and human life need to intervene and stop war in South Asia. India and Pakistan are poised to engage in such a misadventure as their respective troops and missiles (possibly nuclear) face each other on their border and on the Line of Control in Kashmir. This is happening while we in the United States are busy watching the news from neighboring Afghanistan.

People of Indian and Pakistani origin especially need to wake up to the reality of what kind of misery this conflict will produce. Our armchair warmongers of South Asian origin who now make their homes outside the region, in Europe, Canada and here in the United States need to get a large dose of reality.

Some Pakistanis are arranging a peace march at a Northern California venue (exact date and place to be decided) this week and urge all from the South Asian (aka “Desi”) Diaspora and their friends to protest against the possibility of war between India and Pakistan. I hope that Americans will join us and show solidarity with the pursuit of sanity in the region. Let us have a happy, peaceful and prosperous new year in a part of the world where the misery of poverty already rules the streets. Help us stop this looming war.

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 09 2002



Cover story

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7-2002013426%2C00.html



A state of war



BY TREVOR FISHLOCK



The dispute over Kashmir has brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. But why has this beautiful state become the subcontinent`s powder keg?



Poets hymned it as a land of love and languor. In 1627 the dying emperor Jahangir, who shaped its blissful gardens, was asked to name his last desire. “Only Kashmir,” he murmured. “Only Kashmir.”

India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised melodramatically that its name was written upon his heart. Today, millions make the same emotive claim.

Passions for Kashmir run hot and bitter, the bayonets almost touch and the urge for war is strong. Two rivals, two ideas, two faiths stand nose to nose in one of the world’s most dangerous places. One mistake or misjudgment and the spark falls on the fuse.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir. The great bulk of their armies are based along the frontier that runs through Punjab and Kashmir. The border is always tense.

In Kashmir there has been an almost permanent grumbling small war of artillery bombardment. Apart from the all-out conflicts, India and Pakistan have two or three times pulled back from the brink, and now the assessments of their military power have to include their nuclear capability. There was a particularly dangerous stand-off in 1990.

It was inevitable that the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13 would bring India and Pakistan once more to the edge of the abyss. It was an echo of the October suicide bomb attack on the Kashmir assembly. The Parliament in Delhi is the heart and emblem of what India stands for. Now India is raging.

Poor Kashmir. It lies in the Himalayan ramparts where the borders of India, Pakistan and China rub together. Reality mocks its beauty. There is no escaping the permeating melancholy of a land that lies under the gun. It is as if malevolent gods, jealous of its loveliness, placed a curse upon it.

The poison entered the garden in 1947 when the war-weary British quit their Indian empire and partitioned it. They had no wish to cut it up: one of their imperial achievements, they said, was to have united India and made it secure. They divided it to meet the demands of Muslim leaders who said that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in one country, that the communities formed two separate nations. Pakistan was therefore created as a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims.

Britain ruled India with the co-operation of more than 500 Indian princes, a galaxy of maharajahs, rajahs, ranas, raos, khans, mirs, jams, nizams and nawabs, loyal to the British crown, well-oiled with flattery, some fantastically rich and a few of them barmy. In the summer of 1947, these rulers had to choose whether to take their states into India or Pakistan. It was a personal decision, without referendum.

Public opinion hardly came into it. Most princes joined India. Most knew that they would be extinguishing themselves as a ruling class, but it was clear to all but a few that the game was up. On the eve of independence, all the princes had made up their minds except four.

The Maharajah of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, was one of the ditherers. He was vain, pompous and addicted to hunting bears and shooting ducks. As a young man he had an unfortunate scrape in London, being found in bed with a woman at the Savoy Hotel and milked for a lot of money by a blackmailer pretending to be the woman’s husband.

At Partition, Kashmir, more fully known as Jammu and Kashmir, was in a key position: a prize because it was a large state and famously beautiful, a honeymooners’ resort of lakes and cool alpine meadows.

Given its place on the map, it could have swung either to India or to Pakistan. Because of its overwhelming Muslim majority, Pakistan’s new leaders expected that it would join their Islamic entity. But the maharajah had to decide — and he was a Hindu. This was not unusual. In princely India, Muslims often ruled Hindus and vice versa. But Hari Singh dithered. He could not believe that the British would really go home. He did not want to join Pakistan because he could not bear the thought of his state being subsumed. He dreamt that Kashmir could somehow be an independent country and he could keep his power.

India and Pakistan became independent in August. Hari Singh was still dithering in October. As he fiddled, the storm broke. Thousands of Pathan warriors from the North-West Frontier, bordering Afghanistan, rushed into Kashmir, vowing to seize it for Pakistan. Although they were a rabble, they might have succeeded. They were close to Srinagar, the capital, when they were delayed by their lust for loot and women. While they pillaged towns and raped girls and nuns, the hapless Hari Singh gathered up his diamonds and Purdey shotguns and fled his palace in a motorcade.

India acted fast and decisively. In a flurry of action the maharajah agreed to join India, and Indian forces flew to save Srinagar. This was the first Kashmir war, not an all-out confrontation but a series of fights and communal conflicts. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistan, wanted to send the new Pakistan regular Army into action, but did not do so when the absurdity of the situation was pointed out to him: the forces of India and Pakistan shared a commander-in-chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, while many officers on both sides were British.

Kashmir was left divided along the line where fighting stopped in 1948. A United Nations ceasefire came into force on January 1, 1949. In 1965 Pakistan tried and failed to annexe Kashmir and was defeated in brief and bitter fighting. At one stage Indian forces were almost at the gates of Lahore and could easily have taken it. Pakistan’s leaders believed that Kashmiris would welcome Pakistani troops as liberators. It was a shock that they did not. In 1971 India and Pakistan went to war again, India assisting the secession of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh. Pakistan was left truncated and humiliated.

Yet the story of a vacillating maharajah and the ensuing bloody quarrel over territory is only the half of it.

Kashmir is a tragedy for its divided people and a continuing source of danger in a subcontinent inhabited by a fifth of the world’s population. The tragedy has deep roots. Kashmir is the offspring of bitterly divorced parents. Pakistan aches for it but will never possess it. India will never let it go: it is not negotiable. The trouble is that both sides define themselves by this feud.

Their mutual suspicions date from the 8th-century Muslim conquest of western India and the many hundreds of years of Mogul rule that were brought to an end by the British Raj. For India’s Hindu majority, independence in 1947 was a reclamation of their vast land, the end of centuries of foreign domination. Nehru and others believed passionately that this new India would be a daring concept, an embracing of all its religious, linguistic and regional diversity, a magnificent secular state.

The steely and intractable Jinnah did not believe it. His new country of Pakistan grew out of that scepticism, the belief that Muslims in India would be vulnerable, second-class citizens.

Pakistan was an invented state, a by-product of the great Indian struggle for independence. It evolved in the last few years of British rule among people who wanted to escape religious and political discrimination in the new order. Landowners especially thought they would lose out in India. Democracy barely made the journey to Pakistan.

In a sense Pakistan remains stranded in 1947. Its great debate has centred for half a century on what it is for and what it should be. Jinnah mused that it could be a secular country. But in that case, what was the point of Partition? Some of his successors said that Pakistan was nothing if not Islamic and determined to make it more so, a military theocracy.

Yet Islam proved an unreliable glue. It did not cement Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bangladesh erupted as the assertion of Bengali language and culture. Nor did it cement the disparate parts of Pakistan itself — Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the North- West Frontier — or, indeed, the many shades of Islamic belief. Thus Kashmir is useful, the “unfinished business of Partition”. However much Pakistanis disagree about the nature of their society, they find common cause in Kashmir, the belief that they were robbed in 1947. This is the unifying insult. It is why Pakistan has supported Kashmiri insurgents. India’s treatment of Kashmiris during the long years of internal strife are held as proof that Jinnah was right, that Muslims needed their homeland.

It is true that India could have managed Kashmir more wisely, less roughly. But Pakistan has to live with the fact that there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world: evidently Hindus and Muslims do live together in a secular society, Nehru’s idea of India, even if it is not always easy. And Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, is in Indian minds the shining fact of secular India. Its existence throws the question to Pakistan again: what was Partition for? India has a powerful idea of its identity. It is the giant of South Asia, its Armed Forces are huge and it is proud of its democracy, even if this is somewhat battered. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not enjoy such a positive identity. It thinks of itself in terms of its neighbour and endures the negative of being Not India.

It means that even if the impossible were to happen, that Kashmir should somehow become part of Pakistan, the anxieties and insecurities of Pakistan would endure. There would have to be another issue by which Pakistan could seek to establish its identity and purpose.

In the meantime the two nations face each other again — and judging from what we see and hear, there are many on both sides desperate to fight. Centuries of prejudice are poured into the funnel of Kashmir.

People on both sides treasure the slights of history. There is an endless misunderstanding of each other’s beliefs and opinions. Estrangement is total. Trivial matters become huge. Hindu nationalists complain that Muslims cheer for Pakistan during Test matches. In both India and Pakistan, keen teams of monitors comb through guide books and encyclopaedias searching for maps that might contain instances of “cartographic aggression” — inaccuracies that seem to favour one side or the other.

Words are traps, and there is a sense that a comma could cause a crisis. But the opinions of outsiders are not welcome. For this is a feud between cousins, a quarrel in the family. It could hardly be more acrid and perilous.

Iran fills a void left by Pakistan`s decline

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/008/nation/Iran_fills_a_void_left_by_Pakistan_s_decline+.shtml

By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 1/8/2002

SLAMABAD, Pakistan - Long the regional heavyweight, Pakistan now finds its role in Afghanistan has all but vanished, dealing a blow to the nation`s influence in southwestern Asia and leaving an opening for rivals like Iran, diplomats and officials say.

Iran is seeking to capitalize on the dramatic shift in Pakistan`s fortunes with moves to tie its economy more closely to Afghanistan, according to officials here and in Washington. Pakistan`s longtime rival is opening links to Afghanistan by air and road, the officials said.

``There has been a complete flip-flop on who was the major player, and it has gone from Pakistan to Iran,`` a Western diplomat in Islamabad said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``The Iranians are good about not gloating over that fact.``

Iran`s entry into the void shows both the extensive diplomatic realignment in the region since Sept. 11 and how far Washington has come in its perceptions about Iran, a state it still lists as supporting terrorism. Moreover, diplomats said, it underscores how far Iran itself has come in moderating its policies and playing a more assertive international role.

The decline of Pakistani influence here is remarkable, given the formidable authority Islamabad wielded in the US-backed fight against Soviet troops in the 1980s and the far-reaching support it provided the Taliban during its rise to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Today, Pakistan`s once-extensive intelligence network in Afghanistan has gone the way of its Taliban allies. In Kabul, it faces an Afghan government with a still-vivid memory of Pakistan`s support for the Taliban and consequently an intense distaste for any hint of Pakistani meddling.

Mushahid Hussain, a member of Pakistan`s Parliament and a former government minister, said that in his nation`s pursuit of `` this flawed policy to install a friendly government in Kabul, we promoted favorites, we ditched friends, we suddenly had a romance with the Taliban.

``Of course after Sept. 11, we realized that our pro-Taliban policy was buried in the wreckage of the World Trade Center.``

Iran played a more extensive role than has generally been acknowledged in reaching the agreement in Bonn last month that made possible the provisional government in Kabul, the diplomat said. Tehran has also taken on a higher profile inside the war-shattered country by providing aid, including the funding of teacher salaries in Kabul for the next six months.

In a farther-reaching effort, Tehran has sought to bolster its links by road from Mashhad in western Iran to Herat, an Afghan border city with longstanding links to Iran. Iranian officials have urged the United Nations to make more use of the Iranian port of Chabahar on the Arabian Sea to ship aid into southwestern Afghanistan, and an Iranian diplomat in Islamabad said that direct flights would begin ``in the near future`` from Tehran to Kabul.

``They`re not missing a beat,`` said the Western diplomat.

He and other diplomats agreed that the Iranians appear to be a force for stability in Afghanistan, so US officials have so far raised no objection to their growing role.

``It`s obviously something we`re going to keep an eye on, but it`s not causing alarm to the extent that we`re trying to stop it,`` a State Department official said.

Pakistan`s diplomatic retreat from Afghanistan is occurring as the nation is losing ground in other ways.

For example, Washington is not only cooperating more with Iran, but is also diluting its reliance on Pakistan by forging closer ties to nations in the region such as Uzbekistan and, of course, Afghanistan itself. And the United States is reshaping the situation on the ground by increasing its military presence in the region, with Russia`s blessing.

Pakistan is also stinging - and presumably has lost ground in the region, at least for the time being - as a result of its ongoing military confrontation with India.

Although the Bush administration has pressured both sides to avoid war, the most intense efforts have clearly been made in Islamabad, which has reacted with unprecedented crackdowns on the Islamic militants it had been supporting. The result has been to make Pakistan seem less of a force, particularly compared with its archrival, India, which has offered no apparent concessions.

Some analysts say that next to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan has lost the most as a result of the US campaign.

``Everything seems to have boomeranged against Pakistan, both in the east and in the west,`` said Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan`s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

It is hard to overstate the extent of Pakistan`s loss of influence, especially within Afghanistan.

After the Soviet invasion in 1979, Pakistan had treated its neighbor to the west as its strategic backyard, shepherding the US-funded resistance by the mujahideen that eventually led to a Soviet withdrawal a decade later.

But it was under the Taliban that Pakistan enjoyed its greatest influence.

From 1994 on, Pakistani intelligence fostered the Taliban as a military client, providing help in recruitment and training, logistics, money, weapons, and even military intervention on the Taliban`s behalf.

Hundreds of Pakistani volunteers, many fired by religious fervor, populated the Taliban`s ranks. And the religious militia drew on Pakistan`s religious parties, groups that grew in prominence during the 1990s, for financial and ideological backing. In 1997, Pakistan led the way in granting diplomatic recognition to the Taliban.

``If you look at Afghanistan, the Taliban regime was probably the most friendly to Pakistan in the last 100 years,`` said Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, a Pakistani think tank.

That very success with the Taliban, analysts said, is the reason the retreat has been so sweeping: Pakistan invested so much in the Taliban that it was left with virtually nothing to show once the Taliban disintegrated before the American military onslaught.

Diplomats and former officials said Pakistani policy is in shambles, reeling from the loss of influence in Afghanistan and with no realistic prospect of exerting any.

Pakistan has yet to open an embassy in Kabul, though a Foreign Ministry spokesman said that would occur ``sooner rather than later.``

``Where does Pakistan stand after 25 years of making sacrifices for Afghanistan?`` said Gul. ``Pakistan has no relevance as of now. It has completely pulled out.``

Gul, who supported Pakistan`s policy of fostering the Taliban, blames the US government. Washington broke promises to keep the Northern Alliance from taking power, he said. ``Pakistan was used as a pawn, not as a partner by the Americans.``

But other analysts here put the blame squarely on Pakistan, part of an assessment of policy here that some compare to US discussions over the victory of communists in China in 1949.

``Pakistan`s policy toward Afghanistan was one vast failure,`` said Hussain.

``Judge by the results. Ultimately what did it produce? It didn`t produce stability for the region, for Pakistan, or for Afghanistan.``

For now, Pakistani officials say they will support UN efforts to form a government in Kabul that represents Afghanistan`s mosaic of ethnic and religious groups. That in itself is new, said one senior Pakistani official.

``In the past, there were preferences for certain people and certain parties,`` the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ``That has proved to be a disaster.``

But given Pakistan`s ties of language, culture, and ethnicity, the official predicted that its influence would once again grow in Afghanistan.

``Whatever government ultimately emerges in Afghanistan will have to deal with Pakistan,`` he said. ``We are not worried about it.``

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 1/8/2002.

RSaxena:

“btw, there`s nothing wrong with having dinner with a guy, as long as you don`t hold hands or light candles to stare in the other fellow`s eyes...”

….it may not rock your boat, but what’s wrong with guys holding hands and staring into each other’s eyes?…

RSaxena:

``i told you...the thing with bombay is that a lot of it is it indeed hard-earned money, but it`s daddy`s hard-earned money!..``

At least it`s someone`s hard earned money. Delhi money is more often than not, dirty money. Money earned through bribes and corruption, not hard work. That has percolated down to overall cynicism and negativity which is the hallmark of Delhi. It`s absolutely repulsive. Some may say it was always there, and maybe that`s right. Maybe I had to leave to come back and see the difference.