Months of frenetic campaigning and weeks of saturated print and electronic advertisement, as well as heated television debates have, thankfully, come to an end. The nation now expects both winners and losers to close the chapter on electioneering frenzy and work together to strengthen the democratic policy. The winners need to show magnanimity in victory; the losers to avoid sulking in defeat. Moreover, both need to recognise that the elections represent a watershed in the country’s political evolution. In coming out in record numbers, the people defied threats hurled by terrorists, while also spurning exhortations of the boycott lobby, proving their abiding faith in the democratic system.

The media, barring a few notable exceptions, played a critical role in arousing a sense of pride in the process, galvanising voters to recognise the value of their votes. Consequently, political leaders had to focus on specific programmes and policies, rather than on vague promises or rhetorical flourishes. This helped to draw in the urban, tech-savvy youth, hitherto sceptical of elections, into the process. This represents a major development that augurs well for the country.

This moment of collective glory repudiates many of the myths about the unsuitability of democracy in poor, impoverished Muslim states and constitutes a rejection of foreign-inspired experiments in democracy.

It is, however, important to reiterate that it is not enough to have elections. They must also result in performance and delivery, which is where we have been historically weak. The challenges confronting the next government will demand leadership of extraordinary abilities, with its feet firmly on the ground. The state of the economy has been perilous, literally at the edge of the abyss, trapped in a trajectory of low growth, high inflation, poor governance and high levels of corruption. These have pushed additional millions into a state of poverty.

These problems would be enough to send any lender or investor scurrying away from our shores. They, however, become frightening when reinforced by the realisation that the country lacks even an understanding of what constitutes national security strategy. The new government has to appreciate the need to evolve a comprehensive national security strategy, given the complexities of globalisation and enormity of challenges confronting the state. It may sound like a cliché, but it is an acknowledged fact that there is an intrinsic linkage between domestic and foreign policies, as well as between foreign and economic policies. These have to be meshed in to produce a smooth, effective and credible national security strategy. The validity of this can be seen in the damage done to the nation’s security and economy, as well as to its image and credibility abroad, because of the scourge of extremism and militancy. The problem has of course, been acknowledged, but not seen as linked to both domestic and foreign policies, which is why our response has been inadequate and half-baked.

All states, even the most powerful, face challenges that have to be met with resolve, flowing from national consensus. In the case of Pakistan, given the neighbourhood that we live in, the emergence of powerful states in our vicinity and the strong interest in and involvement of the global powers in our region, the task of Pakistan’s leaders is even more complex and daunting.

Consequently, the failure to recognise that foreign policy by itself cannot confront external challenges, unless reinforced by an effective and credible domestic policy, would resulted in continuing drift that has already damaged us badly. Moreover, the concessions accorded to foreign actors — both state and non-state — have left us exposed and subject to external pressure and internal blackmail. These challenges are so colossal that they would tax the ingenuity and resources of even stable, well-established polities and Pakistan has to begin addressing them, if we are to survive as a truly independent and sovereign state.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 15^th, 2013.

Over a year ago, President Barack Obama announced his country’s strategic “pivot” to Asia, shifting away from traditional Euro-centric policies — on the plea that China had failed to “engage constructively” — and pursuing a threatening build-up of its armed forces. While the US “pivot” has been welcomed by some in the region, others have expressed concern that a more muscular US policy, coupled with encouragement to others to adopt a similar attitude, was adding to existing uncertainties.

China’s own response, which had earlier remained somewhat disjointed, appears to have finally crystallised, after the once-in-a-decade leadership transition. This explains why experts and scholars attached importance to the publication late last month of China’s national defence policy paper. The defence ministry document is viewed as an authoritative rebuttal of the US rationale for the “pivot” to Asia.

Though not accusing the US of being directly responsible for increased tension in the region, the policy paper alluded to this factor when stating: “Some country has strengthened its Asia-Pacific military alliances, expanded its military presence in the region, and frequently makes the situation tenser.”

On the other hand, the policy paper asserts that the leadership is not worried about the changed US policy, confident that China has “seized and made the most of this important period of strategic opportunities for its development”, adding that its “modernisation achievements have captured world attention”. In this context, it also highlights the advantages accruing to it because of improved relations with Taiwan.

While some observers welcomed the policy paper for being softer than earlier media pronouncements, it was accompanied by an important commentary in the official People’s Liberation Army Daily, which adopted a harsher, nationalist stance, accusing the West of trying to contain China. It asserted, “currently, the world situation is undergoing its most profound and complex changes since the end of the Cold War”. Reflecting the army’s tougher attitude, the paper added: “Hostile western forces have stepped up their strategy of imposing westernisation on our country and splitting it up, and they are doing their utmost to fence in and contain its development”.

However, another important indicator of a subtle though important change may be the fact that the policy paper omits to reiterate earlier assurances that China would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. A few days earlier, President Xi Jinping, in his first appearance before a foreign audience in China, at an international gathering known as the Boao Economic Forum, described the situation in Asia as one in which “hot spot issues keep emerging and both traditional and non-traditional security threats are confronting Asia”. At the same time, he warned, “no one should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gain”.

President Xi did not, however, ignore the territorial disputes hovering over the region, giving an assurance that while China would “properly handle differences and frictions with relevant countries”, it would continue to press its claims. This speech was viewed by observers as a “good neighbour policy”, with emphasis on strengthening economic linkages with the region. However, on another occasion, President Xi had described nuclear weapons as creating strategic support for the country’s status as a major power.

These remarks and developments could encourage further stiffening of anti-China sentiments in the US. That would be unfortunate, for these reactions could as well be a product of China’s increasing concern at the US “pivot”. After all, there is considerable validity in Carnegie Endowment’s James Acton’s observation that “Chinese defence planners worry that the US may one day develop those defences to the point at which they could neutralise its long-range nuclear forces as well, a fear exacerbated by US investments in conventional-strikes capabilities”. In this situation, it is incumbent on both sides to work together rather than to ratchet up tensions, in a region already beset with major problems.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 7^th, 2013.

The US and Nato forces have another year and a half to go before they leave Afghanistan and yet, the debate has already begun as to who and what is responsible for the dismal failure looming large in that country. This was inevitable but the fact that this has begun so early is primarily because of the growing conviction amongst scholars and diplomats that for all the hundreds of billions spent in Afghanistan and many valuable lives lost, the US and its allies may have little to point to in terms of justifying any of the much-vaunted reasons advanced for the invasion of Afghanistan.

This debate has been triggered primarily because of an explosive book by Vali Nasr, a well-regarded scholar, closely associated with the administration’s Af-Pak policy. As a confidant and adviser of President Barack Obama’s Special Representative, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, he had a unique opportunity of witnessing and participating in the formulation and execution of US policy, or lack thereof.

Though Nasr’s The Dispensable Nation makes his sympathy for Holbrooke clear, there is no doubt that the book has valuable comments on the Arab Spring and US policy in the Middle East. Since we are, however, primarily concerned with this region, Vali’s well-reasoned analysis need to be considered by policymakers in the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

His most interesting comments relate to the power and influence of the US military intelligence lobby and its increasing success in dominating the foreign policy debate. This has always been true though it has certainly gained strength since President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech warning of the growing threat from the military-industrial complex. Since 9/11, this coalition has been reinforced thanks to the close collaboration of the intelligence agencies, a phenomenon which cannot but arouse a quiet chuckle among Pakistanis — so accustomed are they to the clout of this powerful coalition.

The second and more disappointing revelation relates to the confirmation of constant interference by the White House political appointees in any serious initiative by the State Department to set relations with Pakistan on a durable basis. Holbrooke was right to highlight the importance of Pakistan, not only in the context of Afghanistan but also in its own right. This was to be done by not simply enhancing economic assistance but by transforming relations with Pakistan to make them truly “strategic”. His recommendations were not only turned down by the White House but failed to win the support of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who chose to side with the military intelligence, perceiving this as more advantageous in burnishing her hawkish credentials and assisting in her future political ambitions. But it was not Clinton alone who was influenced by domestic considerations. Obama, too, ignored Holbrooke’s sensible policies, convinced of the need to shield himself from Republican criticism by giving primacy to the military surge, while protecting himself from disappointment in his own ranks, by signalling a time frame to “quit” this theatre of operations. Consequently, the focus of foreign policy shifted from diplomacy to crude pressure on Pakistan, which in Nasr’s view, was responsible for inconsistent policies that resulted in intense anti-American sentiments in Pakistan and weakened American influence in the Middle East.

This reinforced Pakistan’s fear of history being repeated — being “used” and then being “abandoned”. On the other hand, the Americans were outraged at what they saw as Pakistan’s duplicity. Resultantly, mutual doubts and misgivings fed on each other, bringing relations to an unprecedented low, from which climbing out has not been easy. The results are right before us, with a “reconciliation” process, which neither side is serious about, adding to uncertainty and concern with each passing day, described by the outgoing French Ambassador last weekend as the fear that post-2014, Afghanistan could be engulfed in a “perfect storm of political and military upheaval”.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 1^st, 2013.

History is replete with instances confirming the indisputable wisdom of the well-known saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This may explain why Almighty Allah warns in no uncertain terms that sovereignty in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him and to Him all things will return (Surah 24, Ayat 42).

This revelation was proclaimed more than 1,400 years ago, when the rest of the world was still trapped in concepts as abhorrent as the “divine right of kings” and the “mandate of the heavens”. Gradually, and only after centuries of struggle, the insurmountable thirst of humans to be the arbiters and custodians of their own destinies enabled them to extract concessions from their despotic rulers, that eventually evolved into what we now call democratic governance and the rule of law.

Ironically, however, the overwhelming majority of Muslim states have remained prisoners of authoritarian regimes, wherein individuals or families have imposed systems that are a throwback to the discredited medieval concepts. Our own blessed land — though created through expression of the popular will and whose founding fathers were committed democrats — has also been caught in a vicious cycle of dictatorships ousting elected governments, at frequent intervals. The ignominy of seeing a messiah come charging in, proclaiming his resolve to clean the proverbial Augean stables and “save” the country has deeply traumatised the nation and left an indelible scar on its soul.

The enormous fallout of this oft-repeated folly has been to destroy institutions of state, sow seeds of disillusionment in the smaller federating units and create fresh fault lines in the federation. We have been through this experiment four times, with each one a greater disaster than the one before, which is why the departure of the last usurper was greeted with relief and joy.

However, just when it appeared that we had seen the last of the despised dictator, he decided to return to “save Pakistan”! Though people’s memories are proverbially short, no one has forgotten what this country experienced during those eight turbulent years: trashing of the Constitution, brutal imprisonment of an elected prime minister, forcible exile of another, rigged referendum, creation of a fake political party to give a civilian façade to an authoritarian rule, as well as the duplicitous policy of hunting with the Americans and running with the Taliban. But the “icing” on the regime’s achievement was the dismissal, house arrest and physical mishandling of the chief justice, which finally woke up this country’s hitherto sleepy civil society.

When the dictator was finally eased out, the nation renewed its commitment to the ideals of its founding fathers and began the painful task of repair and rehabilitation of the democratic institutions, to re-enter the international community of nations with the dignity and respect that it deserves. This also explains the overwhelming enthusiasm in the populace for the forthcoming elections.

But then, this great general was always known for bluster and braggadocio — camouflaged as bravery and courage — rather than for sagacity and judiciousness. His own biography is a testimony to his strong streak of narcissism and his lifelong self-delusion that he was not only physically irresistible but intellectually overpowering as well. So long as he was merely commanding troops, his fanciful ideas were merely irritants to his colleagues. But when he took command of the finest body of soldiers, his faults were to bring unprecedented disaster and ignominy to the country.

After eight years of strutting the stage proclaiming his virtues, while giving free rein to his vices, we now have the bizarre spectacle of the commando fleeing from the courtroom, while his lawyers protest the living conditions of his own house, where he is currently imprisoned. It appears that his infatuation with his own vanity and craving for admiration have finally led him to enact a farce, after having inflicted a tragedy on this nation.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 24^th, 2013.

Foreign policy holds little interest to voters in most countries, especially in difficult times when “bread and butter” issues assume greater relevance to the overwhelming majority. This is particularly true of Pakistanis, even with their great interest in the outside world. When it comes to casting their ballots, voters are influenced less by the finer points of foreign policy or even of political programmes and economic policies and more by ethnic, linguistic, tribal and caste factors, or personal attachment to or admiration for a particular leader.

It is, therefore, not surprising that some political parties have chosen to say little on foreign policy or national security, other than merely reiterating clichés. Others have taken refuge behind slogans such as defence of  “national honour and dignity”, which are not only attractive but also enable them to sound patriotic, while ignoring growing international concern that the country has not only become exceedingly corrupt, insecure and chaotic, but continues to be viewed as the “epicentre of global terror”.

Few seem to recognise that thanks to the unprecedented advancements in science and technology, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US’s increasing inclination to pursue unilaterally its narrowly defined national interests, the classical concept of  “state sovereignty”, as had been understood ever since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, has undergone a remarkable transformation. Though “multiple centres” of power have emerged, the above developments have made the task of crafting a meaningful and sustainable foreign policy and thereafter, executing well-defined aims and objectives to promote national interests, far more complex than is generally appreciated. This is especially true of countries that are not only weak and corrupt but thanks to the concessions and privileges granted to foreign powers by their authoritarian rulers, have lost many of the essential attributes of independence and sovereignty.

The consequences of this harsh reality have, however, not dawned on some of our leaders, who suffer from the misconception that mere acquaintance with popular tabloids and magazines equips them to hold forth on the intricacies and subtleties of national security. Sadly, the truth is far more nuanced and complicated. More worryingly, there appears little realisation that no country can have an effective foreign policy unless it is backed by a strong economy and good governance at home. The inherent linkage between domestic policy and foreign policy is lost on them, with many viewing the two as separate compartments, rather than as mirror images of one another.

Even well-meaning foreign friends have emphasised that Pakistan faces daunting challenges because failures on both fronts have reinforced the image that the state has become increasingly chaotic and ungovernable. While some may wish to take issue with such prognostications, there is no denying that the next government will be faced with daunting issues over the entire gamut of foreign relations.

The list is long, but it is terrorism that impacts on both domestic and foreign policies. It demands an unprecedented national resolve and a long-term and comprehensive plan of action that can come about only after a transformed mindset.

As regards relations with India, there is now an appreciable consensus amongst major political parties on the need to promote the normalisation process, but there is also concern at the lack of reciprocal enthusiasm. And, in addition to the existing laundry list of differences, the water problem is assuming alarming urgency for Pakistan.

It is, however, Afghanistan and more particularly, the post-2014 scenario that will surely be the biggest challenge. Unless this issue is handled with great skill and resolve, it could drag Pakistan into an Afghan civil war that would not only threaten our relations with the outside world, but also affect the country’s peace, stability and well-being. These call for a tested and tried leadership, not novices looking for on-the-job training.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 17^th, 2013.

What is it about Pak-Afghan relations that just when you sense an improvement, they descend into another crisis? Recent events have renewed these fears. This would be deeply disappointing, particularly as it appeared that after the tumultuous developments of 2011 that dragged Pakistan-US relations to a new low — with its inevitable fallout on Pak-Afghan relations — both Islamabad and Kabul appeared to be taking important, measured steps to bring their ties back on track.

Since the last quarter of 2012, Western diplomats have acknowledged detecting a tangible desire by Pakistan to work closely with both Washington and Kabul to promote the peace process in Afghanistan. Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s trip to Kabul in November 2012 to sign an agreement to improve border security and, thereafter, his joining former foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar in the Brussels’ meeting in December to agree on joint counter-terrorism efforts in the region, were seen as a confirmation of this trend. This was followed by an understanding between Islamabad and Kabul on establishing a hotline between their respective military and intelligence wings for “structural interaction” and finally, facilitating talks with the Taliban via a Taliban office in Doha. These initiatives appeared to reinforce the impression that Islamabad and Washington were finally operating on the same wavelength and that Pakistan had succeeded in removing misgivings about its earlier attachment to the “strategic depth” concept as regards Afghanistan. Incidentally, this impression had been reinforced by Ambassador Richard Olson during his Senate confirmation hearing in August 2012, when he stated that “the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government have moved away” from the strategic depth doctrine.

Notwithstanding these seemingly reassuring developments, new wrinkles have emerged in Pak-Afghan relations, giving rise to renewed anxiety with regard to peace prospects in Afghanistan. Even though the mercurial Afghan president is known to engage in public tirades against both friends and enemies and his close associates, too, tend to go off on a handle, the recent eruption by Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin took observers by surprise. Accusing Pakistan of  “shifting” its position on the peace talks and of  “changing the goal posts”, he threatened to go it alone on the peace process without Pakistan’s assistance. Islamabad’s reaction to these accusations was calculatedly moderate and restrained. But a day later, another Afghan official charged that Pakistan was setting  “pre-conditions” for backing the reconciliation process. Kabul also alleged that Pakistan was unilaterally constructing a border post, charging that “these activities are against accepted international norms and unacceptable to the Afghan government”.

General Kayani did seek to calm the disturbed waters during separate meetings last week with Nato chief General Joseph Dunford and with Centcom chief General Lloyd Austin by reiterating that Pakistan remained committed to working for the success of an “Afghan-led and Afghan-owned” peace process. There can, however, be no denying that recent events have raised fresh questions as to the post-2014 troop withdrawal scenarios in Afghanistan, in the absence of genuine cooperation between the neighbours.

While no specific reason has yet emerged to explain this unexpected setback, analysts believe that given the tortured history of Pak-Afghan relations, such twists should not be a surprise. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his close associates continue to harbour lingering doubts about Pakistan’s intentions, while also remaining sceptical about its protestations of having abandoned its strategic objectives in Afghanistan. No less important are Karzai’s growing fears about his own future and his desperate need not to become irrelevant when his term ends in 2014. Notwithstanding the above, it is essential that Pakistan not weaken in its resolve to promote a genuine peace process, not as a favour to Afghanistan, but in its own supreme interest.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 10^th, 2013.

Recently, American think tanks have claimed that Pakistan and China entered into a new understanding in mid-February for the construction of another nuclear reactor in Pakistan, which in their view, would violate Beijing’s commitment to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

While China has strongly denied this, a few facts about proliferation in South Asia need to be recalled. India’s nuclear test in May of 1974 generated huge concern, prompting Pakistan and regional countries to galvanise world opinion in favour of South Asia being declared a nuclear weapons free zone. Over subsequent years, Pakistan made other proposals aimed at keeping the region — which had already seen more than its share of conflicts — safe from this scourge. India, however, chose to ignore these initiatives. Consequently, Pakistan initiated its own programme and succeeded in emulating India when the latter carried out fresh tests in May 1998. And yet, Pakistan did not abandon hopes of managing this “scourge”, offering to India the Strategic Restraint Regime, containing three interlocking elements of nuclear restraint, conventional balance and dispute settlement. To Pakistan’s regret, this comprehensive proposal has failed to evoke any response from its neighbour. While the merits of Indian policy could be debated, the attitude of many major powers continues to puzzle Pakistanis and others interested in restraining proliferation in South Asia.

India’s huge market for nuclear technology beckons many a reactor manufacturer, but surely, governments should take a more measured and responsible view, which is why the Bush Administration’s decision in 2005 to offer a civilian nuclear deal to India was so shocking. It ridiculed not only US domestic laws, but called for exemption from provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the NSG that virtually destroyed the very rationale of these global understandings. This has been followed by bilateral agreements by others for supply of nuclear technology to India that calls into question their commitment to the concept of non-proliferation, as the US-India deal excluded from safeguards eight Indian reactors suitable for weapons-grade plutonium production. Similarly, the 13 breeder reactors have been left out of safeguards and to leave no ambiguity, the Indian prime minister has affirmed that no part of India’s nuclear programme would be placed under safeguards if it was of a strategic nature. The US, however, claims that these concessions to India serve the cause of global non-proliferation.

Notwithstanding, Pakistan’s modest nuclear cooperation with China continues to draw criticism from the US, with Pakistan being accused of engaging in nuclear proliferation and China of violating its commitments to the NSG. Yet, it is well known that Pakistan and China signed a 30-year civil nuclear cooperation agreement in September 1986. Subsequently, additional agreements were entered into prior to China joining the NSG in 2004, under whose provisions it has been engaged in building nuclear reactors in Pakistan. Consequently, China is under no legal bar to assist Pakistan meet its massive energy needs. Nor is Pakistan under any obligation to end its cooperation with China, especially as all of Pakistan’s nuclear reactors for power generation, including those planned for the future, would be under safeguards. As Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment pointed out in a recent piece, there is nothing in the NSG guidelines that prevents continuing Sino-Pakistan cooperation as “the NSG guidelines are voluntary understandings of governments”. And Mark Krepon, a well-known expert in this field, has emphasised: “The NSG has become less consensual and the NPT weaker”, as a result of the US-India deal.

Pakistan is convinced that if NPT signatory states, such as France, Russia, the UK, Japan and the US, can offer nuclear technology to India, a non-NPT signatory state, the US and its allies have little moral standing to suggest that Pakistan and China refrain from similar cooperation.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 3^rd, 2013.

It may have been the Greeks who gave us the concept of hubris, defining it as overweening pride and a loss of contact with reality, but it is the Holy Quran which recognises this common human failing, admonishing humans to be aware of its grave consequences, in this world and the next.

In Pakistan, we have had more than our share of people suffering from this weakness, which has brought their inevitable fall, but only after they have done immense damage to the federation, both physically and emotionally. This explains why the former military strongman’s pronouncement that he had returned to “save” the country has been treated with the contempt that it deserves.

Admittedly, given the track record of the government over the past five years, there is an urgent need to focus on remedial measures to ensure recovery from its many failures and shortcomings. However, the military dictator’s arrogance borders on delusion, which is why his return has added another notch to the national barometer of worry and concern. In fact, many of his former colleagues and associates have publicly expressed concern that his entry into the national political scene could upset the delicately poised political power structure especially at a time when the country is preparing for the upcoming general elections and attempting to ensure the first ever peaceful political transition that will, hopefully, set it firmly on the path of democratic dispensation.

Not surprisingly, therefore, this has raised — once again — the question of what it is about generals that makes them itch to ride into town on a white charger seeking to “save” the nation? Do they not know that so many of our self-fancied Mansteins and Guderians ended up causing the country great grief and sorrow? Are they not aware of the fact that the legacy of all our four military rulers has been less than exemplary? They first engaged in a 10-year long policy of willful neglect and discrimination that sowed the seeds of anger and alienation in the eastern wing. This flowered into an insatiable thirst for separation that was further intensified by the genocidal policies of his successor and quenched only after military intervention by a neighbour long waiting for such an opportunity. The third left us with the legacy of extremism and militancy, as well as a deep scar on our national psyche by sending an elected prime minister to the gallows. And finally, our latest incarnation of the “saviour” undertook an ill-advised and unauthorised military adventure that not only resulted in the death of hundreds of our brave soldiers, but also brought the region to the brink of nuclear conflagration. And yet, notwithstanding his commando pretensions, he succumbed to a single phone call, happily agreeing to humiliating concessions.

Though our politicians have been no paragons of virtue, at least none of them can be accused of coming close to the disastrous policies pursued by the authoritarian rulers — in particular, the commando-general. But even if one were to set aside these transgressions for a moment, what does one make of the violations — not once, but twice, of the Constitution? The impunity with which sacred oaths were dishonoured, the judiciary humiliated, the chief justice physically assaulted, the politicians hounded out of the country and the media and civil society thrashed is still fresh in our memories, while the country is still in the early stages of recovery from the ravages of those eight years. If our “saviour” does have any love for this country’s tormented souls, he would seek their forgiveness and leave for greener pastures to enjoy his not inconsiderable wealth. It may have taken the Argentinians a decade, but Augusto Pinochet’s fate should be a warning that nemesis inevitably follows hubris, as surely as night follows day.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 27^th, 2013.

Though an American President’s visit to the Middle East is generally expected to generate excitement and expectation, President Barack Obama’s current visit to Israel is, however, being treated by both sides as a virtual non-event!

Not only has Secretary John Kerry dampened any expectation, the president, too, has reassured American Jewish leaders that he was not planning to deliver “a grand peace plan” but urge the sides to enter into a dialogue. He also confided that his primary objectives would be: (i) to reiterate Washington’s “unshakable support” for Israel; (ii) stand by Israel against all challenges in the Middle East; (3) send a clear message to Iran that all options are on the table; and (iv) find a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

What explains President Obama’s cautious approach? For one, the early unpleasant experience of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the resultant conclusion that in the face of the prime minister’s intransigence and skill in manipulating the powerful pro-Israeli lobby in the US, there was little possibility of the White House taking any meaningful initiative on the peace process. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are stuck with a weak and increasingly isolated president on the West Bank and an elected — though unrecognised — leader in Gaza, with both at loggerheads and unable to present a united front.

There are, however, some reports to the effect that President Obama may ask the Israeli leadership for a detailed plan for withdrawal from the West Bank, to consider whether he can float plans to promote the establishment of a Palestinian State by 2014. But the current situation is tailor-made to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advantage. With President Obama lacking Congressional support to apply pressure on the Israeli leader even on a temporary freeze of settlements, and the Europeans unwilling to go beyond mere diplomatic demarches, there is little likelihood of any meaningful initiative being taken for the resumption of the peace process.

Some observers see room for optimism in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in finally knitting together a coalition. But it embraces such disparate politicians as Yair Lapid — a moderate — and Naftali Bennett — an extreme right-winger, who has ruled out a Palestinian state — which means that Israel will have a weak and fragmented government unable to agree on any initiative, especially when there is little support in the country.

Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu is well versed in American politics. He has rightly claimed, both publicly and privately, that his strength is in the Capitol, not the White House. Consequently, he sees no reason to entertain any initiative, attaching preconditions to the resumption of peace talks, vowing to make no compromise over Israel’s claim “that united Jerusalem will remain its eternal and indivisible capital”. He has also refused to dismantle the illegal settlements while rejecting the Palestinian right of return and demanding that any Palestinian entity in the occupied territories be demilitarised and not have a border with Jordan. In other words, Prime Minister Netanyahu envisages a Bantustan, with municipal powers, not a sovereign state, as mandated by the UNSC resolutions.

With Palestinians disunited at home and neighbouring Arab states in a state of turmoil that has reduced even further their less-than-usual support and solidarity for the Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu may well feel that the status quo is Israel’s best option. This allows him to continue with current policy, eventually making annexation of the West Bank a reality, taking Israel’s borders to the Jordan River. The Israelis, nevertheless, need to ponder the consequences of ruling over 2.5 million angry disillusioned Palestinians, living in an apartheid-like situation. What will it do to Israel’s claim of being a democracy or even of its Jewish identity, as forcefully brought out by six former Israeli security chiefs? The US, too, must appreciate that though its requirement for Middle Eastern oil is dwindling rapidly, a Middle East in a state of permanent ferment does not serve its purpose, or those of its allies.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 20^th, 2013.

Pilgrimage has many manifestations and differing rituals, but it is at the core of all faiths and beliefs, including the three major monotheistic religions.

In some sects and groups, there is also the tradition of visits to tombs or shrines of those renowned for religious piety and lifelong devotion to the faith, though some orthodox sects are uncomfortable with this practice. Motives for undertaking a pilgrimage can vary, ranging from search for “truth”, or fulfilment of a vow, doing penance, or seeking a miraculous cure.

In the subcontinent, ziarat of holy sites has been a well-established practice, even though many of our founding fathers, while good Muslims, generally refrained from projecting their faith, viewing it as something that needed to be pursued with quiet dignity.

Much of what we see now — loud and offensive proclamation of one’s faith and aggressive adherence to rituals rather than compliance with its ennobling core principles, is a phenomenon that should be credited to the late General Ziaul Haq. Since his passion to visit the Holy Land and that too, not alone or merely with family members, but with a planeload of sycophants and hangers-on, this practice has become de rigueur for our ruling class, with none refraining from turning this private act of piety into a public demonstration of personal adherence to the faith and fealty to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Unlike John Bunyan’s central character, who experienced excruciating pain and mortal dangers as he journeyed from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City, our leaders have devised not only a hassle free, but an all expense paid road to salvation.

But our current prime minister has gone one up on his predecessors. With days left before his term in office ends, he embarked on a pilgrimage to India, at a time when the country is in the throes of an unprecedented economic crisis and the populace haunted by a virtual breakdown in law and order. A visit to Ajmer Sharif and the opportunity of offering prayers at this holy site is, of course, a fond wish of many of us. But if he was so very moved by the idea of seeking forgiveness for his transgressions, surely he could have waited to become a private citizen to undertake this “mission”, rather than take advantage of the state’s resources to jet off with the entire family, that apart from costing a hefty sum of money to the cash-strapped state, sent all the wrong signals. Is there no one to tell him that there is no such thing as a private undertaking by any prime minister, especially to a neighbouring country, with which any interaction is not without an element of speculation? He may not have been told this, but Indian leaders are not too amused at the proclivity of our leaders to turn up uninvited, at the pretense of visiting holy sites. In fact, his visit would have earned him greater kudos had he embarked on it as a private citizen and travelled at his own expense. Surely, Raja sahib, thanks to foresight and imagination in his ventures, would not have found it too onerous a financial strain.

Compare this with the reticence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has spurned repeated invitations to visit Pakistan, if for no other reason than to pray at Sikhism’s highly revered sites, by reiterating that the state of our bilateral ties did not merit such an initiative. In fact, the timing of Raja sahib’s visit could not have been more inappropriate, with Singh declaring only days before that Pakistan was not doing enough against terrorists and this had “cast a shadow on the bilateral dialogue process”. With the normalisation process in a hiatus that is not likely to change, with both countries focused increasingly on pressing internal issues and governing parties playing safe prior to the elections, we need well-planned initiatives not spur of the moment efforts at personal edification.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 13^th, 2013.