CONCERN ON THE ENTANGLEMENT OVER THE BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT

By Priya Venkatesh

Entanglement over the Baglihar hydropower project in Kashmir continues as the careens of the nations involved stand differentiated. The situation over the so- called controversial design of the dam has become topsy-turvy and has brought in such ramifications of having a neutral civil Swiss engineer, Raymond Lafitte to sort out the issue!

Despite World Bank negotiations over the disputes that prevailed between India and Pakistan on the utilization of water from the existing facilities way back in 1960 via the Indus Water treaty, its hapless that both nations have again run into a dead lock.

PROVISIONS OF THE INDUS WATER TREATY, 1960
Way back at the time of independence, the boundary line between India and Pakistan was laid right at the Indus River basin. The contraventions that arose over the utilization of water for irrigation from the existing facilities at the Indus river by both the countries climaxed in the signing of the Indus Water Treaty at Karchi on 19th September 1960 by the then President of Pakistan Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan and the then Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the presence of Mr.W.A.B.Ill of the World Bank.

The treaty was put into effect from 01 April, 1960.Usage of water from the eastern rivers of the Indus (The Sutlej, The Beas, The Ravi) were apportioned to India and of the western rivers of the Indus (The Chenab, The Jhelum and the Indus) were apportioned on a larger scale to Pakistan allowing a restricted usage of water by India in the latter.

BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT – DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
In continuation to this, India started off with a double-phase 900MW hydropower project (phase 1 providing a potential of 450MW) in the Chenab River in Kashmir at the southern Doda district in Chandrakot in 1999-2000. The vantages of hydropower are inexplicable. It not only serves as a renewable resource free from pollution but also sustains minimal running costs in the long run.

This project was enquired by the Central Water Commission and a report was prepared by the latter on the same in the year 1984.It also states that the geological investigations were done in 1962-1978 by the geological survey of India and in 1987, The project was reported to have been transferred to NHPC. After almost a decade of dormancy, the construction of the mega hydropower project started in 2000.

Being the only power project of the state, it promises to provide unrestrained electricity to the region which has been incessantly suffering from daylong power cuts.

This project on successful completion anticipates bringing about harmonious developmental strategies with respect to the supply of electricity to the whole of Kashmir and redeems a prosperous socio-economic environment in the otherwise impoverished city of Doda.

LOCATION AND FEATURES OF THE HYDROPOWER PROJECT
As per the data presented by the two small rivers, The Chandra and The Bhaga rising from the South-East and North-West of Baralacha pass at a height of 4,891 meters merge together at a place called Tandi at a height of 2,286 meters and becomes the ChaderBagha river.

This in turn passes through the Chamba district (as the Pangi valley) in HP and enters the Podar valley of Kashmir.

In Kashmir, the Chenab River drops another approx.2000 meters and flows into Pakistan near Akhnur.

India sees this drop in elevation of the Chenab River in Kashmir as a tremendous potential for Hydropower generation. This urged India and led to the idea of the implementation of the gigantic Baglihar Hydropower project.

FRI Reservoir level: 840m
MDDDI Reservoir level: 838m
Average reservoir level: 839m
Submergence area at the full reservoir level: 12994.17 Kanals
Power generation: 450MW

Plans for the Rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by the construction of this project are in the pipeline.

WORK-FORCE INVOVLVED IN THE PROJECT
As per the reports of the “Daily Times”,

· the project is said to involve 7000 workers including skilled labor and engineers.
· The talks between the Project chief Engineer Ghulam Hassan Rather and Mufti Muhammed Syed during his visit to the site in early may 2005, communicates that the civil works were being executed by contractors Jaiprakash Associates of the Jay Pee group while electric works were being implemented by a German Consortium Voith Siemens & VA Tech. Another German company, Lahmeyer International is supervising the work on behalf of the Kashmir government

PROJECT DESIGN –THE HEART OF CONTROVERSY
The controversy over this started at the design of the Baglihar dam in the Chenab River. The president General Pervez Musharaff approved a plan to coerce India to redesign the project on November 21, 2004 stating that it was a clear violation of the dictates of the Indus Water Treaty, 1960. He made it clear that the intervention of the International court of justice would be sorted to if in case the controversy heightens in spite of political and diplomatic efforts undertaken by both the governments concerned.

Pakistan raised its opposition to the construction of the gate-like structures present in the design stating that it would divert water to India, which otherwise is destined for Pakistan. It also emphasizes the fact that the successful implementation of this project would deprive Pakistan of 6000-7000 cusecs of water per day. It also emphasized in reducing the planned height of the dam(470 feet) for which the Indian authorities allege that the 450MW capacity would come down to a mere 50MW.

India upholds to state that the construction would in no way disrupt the water flow of the river or the canals of Pakistan. India alleges that the problem of augmentation of sludge is overcome only by abnormal flushing which in turn is unfeasible but for the presence of gated spillways.

With reference to this, talks were held between India and Pakistan in July, August and October 2003.But the repercussion was just a stalemate. Formal notices were issued by Pakistan to resolve the issue with the intervention of neutral experts twice in July and October 2003.The deadlines for India’s response were set up at December 31, 2003.

As per the postulation of the Indian government, a 3-day talk between the Indian and Pakistani authorities was convened at the Permanent Commission of Indus Water (PCIW) in January 2004.

The political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue broke down even when the stakes to do so at the bi-lateral government level were quiet high. Talks continued again in January 2005 but ended up in vain. The issue still remained a blind alley.

Arbitration by the World Bank was sought for by the Pakistani authorities in early 2005.As a consequence, The World Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte, a Swiss national civil Engineer cum Professor to sort out the longstanding issue on May 10,2005.Professor Raymond Lafitte is with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne. He was a former expert on dam safety with the Swiss government.

Lafitte held confluences with the delegates from India and Pakistan on the assorted issues over the disputed project in Paris, in the wake of June 2005.

A NOTE ON THE TIMEFRAME AND VALUE OF THE PROJECT
The highly controversial Baglihar hydropower project is expected to race towards its completion by June 2006. The Union minister after his recent visit to the site in mid-June 2005 is reported to have said that the project would be completed and dedicated to the nation by June next year.

As per the versions of many leading dailies, out of the estimated overall cost of erection of about 4000-crore, a sum of 2700-crores has already been used up and almost 71% of civil works and 81% of electro-mechanical work of Phase-1 has been completed till date.

WHAT’S ON THE RUN AND WORK AHEAD
As the backwash of the World Bank arbitration towards reaching a consensus in this issue, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, the then Union minister for Water resources confabulated the site of construction on June 17, 2005 to produce a detailed report on the same.

Inspection by the Pakistani delegates and by Lafitte is in the pipeline in the next few months.

It is believed that by resorting to World Bank arbitration, a Pandora’s box has been opened up. Will there be a resolution to this controversy in the nearest future? Much awaited is an accord in this issue between the nations concerned in the nearest future!

Will the World Bank take the quickest measure to resolve the issue? Will a consensus be reached between the two nations still remains an unanswered question!

POSSIBLE ENTAILMENTS OF ARBITRATION
Arbitration on its march ahead may end up with the renegotiation or revocation of the Treaty with the consent of both the nations concerned. Sequel of the treaty and operation within the scope of the Indus Water treaty is a must for the increasingly agriculture dependent Pakistani side. With the declining water storage at the Terbela and Mangla of Pakistan, revocation of the treaty would emphatically not auspicate the Pakistani side positively.

Further delay in sorting out the issue will have bad reflection on the Indians for two reasons. The first being the finance involved in this project that have taken up huge tolls of money and second being the unrestrained supply of electricity that would be available to Kashmir on successful implementation. Arbitration if prolonged will also strain both the nations financially.

Considering the nook and corner of this complex dispute, the candid facts with respect to the issue has to be pondered upon

· Abrogation of the treaty would never have a positive reflection to the Pakistanis and continuance of the arbitration will have negative contemplations on the Indians

· Political tension and administrative friction at the government level has to be swept aside. The functional side of the issue has to be brought under discussion. Negotiations should be concluded within the shortest stint of time and an accord has to become a reality on operational basis.

· Cognitive upbeat decisions must be taken at the functional level scraping out the political differences thus paving way to renegotiations of the Indus Water Treaty.

Whatever be the resolution to this indefinitely unsolved issue, let us hope that it should surface within the shortest possible stint of time and it should be to the fullest benefit of both the countries involved.

CONCERN ON THE ENTANGLEMENT OVER THE BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT

By Priya Venkatesh

Entanglement over the Baglihar hydropower project in Kashmir continues as the careens of the nations involved stand differentiated. The situation over the so- called controversial design of the dam has become topsy-turvy and has brought in such ramifications of having a neutral civil Swiss engineer, Raymond Lafitte to sort out the issue!

Despite World Bank negotiations over the disputes that prevailed between India and Pakistan on the utilization of water from the existing facilities way back in 1960 via the Indus Water treaty, its hapless that both nations have again run into a dead lock.

PROVISIONS OF THE INDUS WATER TREATY, 1960
Way back at the time of independence, the boundary line between India and Pakistan was laid right at the Indus River basin. The contraventions that arose over the utilization of water for irrigation from the existing facilities at the Indus river by both the countries climaxed in the signing of the Indus Water Treaty at Karchi on 19th September 1960 by the then President of Pakistan Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan and the then Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the presence of Mr.W.A.B.Ill of the World Bank.

The treaty was put into effect from 01 April, 1960.Usage of water from the eastern rivers of the Indus (The Sutlej, The Beas, The Ravi) were apportioned to India and of the western rivers of the Indus (The Chenab, The Jhelum and the Indus) were apportioned on a larger scale to Pakistan allowing a restricted usage of water by India in the latter.

BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT – DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
In continuation to this, India started off with a double-phase 900MW hydropower project (phase 1 providing a potential of 450MW) in the Chenab River in Kashmir at the southern Doda district in Chandrakot in 1999-2000. The vantages of hydropower are inexplicable. It not only serves as a renewable resource free from pollution but also sustains minimal running costs in the long run.

This project was enquired by the Central Water Commission and a report was prepared by the latter on the same in the year 1984.It also states that the geological investigations were done in 1962-1978 by the geological survey of India and in 1987, The project was reported to have been transferred to NHPC. After almost a decade of dormancy, the construction of the mega hydropower project started in 2000.

Being the only power project of the state, it promises to provide unrestrained electricity to the region which has been incessantly suffering from daylong power cuts.

This project on successful completion anticipates bringing about harmonious developmental strategies with respect to the supply of electricity to the whole of Kashmir and redeems a prosperous socio-economic environment in the otherwise impoverished city of Doda.

LOCATION AND FEATURES OF THE HYDROPOWER PROJECT
As per the data presented by the two small rivers, The Chandra and The Bhaga rising from the South-East and North-West of Baralacha pass at a height of 4,891 meters merge together at a place called Tandi at a height of 2,286 meters and becomes the ChaderBagha river.

This in turn passes through the Chamba district (as the Pangi valley) in HP and enters the Podar valley of Kashmir.

In Kashmir, the Chenab River drops another approx.2000 meters and flows into Pakistan near Akhnur.

India sees this drop in elevation of the Chenab River in Kashmir as a tremendous potential for Hydropower generation. This urged India and led to the idea of the implementation of the gigantic Baglihar Hydropower project.

FRI Reservoir level: 840m
MDDDI Reservoir level: 838m
Average reservoir level: 839m
Submergence area at the full reservoir level: 12994.17 Kanals
Power generation: 450MW

Plans for the Rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by the construction of this project are in the pipeline.

WORK-FORCE INVOVLVED IN THE PROJECT
As per the reports of the “Daily Times”,

· the project is said to involve 7000 workers including skilled labor and engineers.
· The talks between the Project chief Engineer Ghulam Hassan Rather and Mufti Muhammed Syed during his visit to the site in early may 2005, communicates that the civil works were being executed by contractors Jaiprakash Associates of the Jay Pee group while electric works were being implemented by a German Consortium Voith Siemens & VA Tech. Another German company, Lahmeyer International is supervising the work on behalf of the Kashmir government

PROJECT DESIGN –THE HEART OF CONTROVERSY
The controversy over this started at the design of the Baglihar dam in the Chenab River. The president General Pervez Musharaff approved a plan to coerce India to redesign the project on November 21, 2004 stating that it was a clear violation of the dictates of the Indus Water Treaty, 1960. He made it clear that the intervention of the International court of justice would be sorted to if in case the controversy heightens in spite of political and diplomatic efforts undertaken by both the governments concerned.

Pakistan raised its opposition to the construction of the gate-like structures present in the design stating that it would divert water to India, which otherwise is destined for Pakistan. It also emphasizes the fact that the successful implementation of this project would deprive Pakistan of 6000-7000 cusecs of water per day. It also emphasized in reducing the planned height of the dam(470 feet) for which the Indian authorities allege that the 450MW capacity would come down to a mere 50MW.

India upholds to state that the construction would in no way disrupt the water flow of the river or the canals of Pakistan. India alleges that the problem of augmentation of sludge is overcome only by abnormal flushing which in turn is unfeasible but for the presence of gated spillways.

With reference to this, talks were held between India and Pakistan in July, August and October 2003.But the repercussion was just a stalemate. Formal notices were issued by Pakistan to resolve the issue with the intervention of neutral experts twice in July and October 2003.The deadlines for India’s response were set up at December 31, 2003.

As per the postulation of the Indian government, a 3-day talk between the Indian and Pakistani authorities was convened at the Permanent Commission of Indus Water (PCIW) in January 2004.

The political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue broke down even when the stakes to do so at the bi-lateral government level were quiet high. Talks continued again in January 2005 but ended up in vain. The issue still remained a blind alley.

Arbitration by the World Bank was sought for by the Pakistani authorities in early 2005.As a consequence, The World Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte, a Swiss national civil Engineer cum Professor to sort out the longstanding issue on May 10,2005.Professor Raymond Lafitte is with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne. He was a former expert on dam safety with the Swiss government.

Lafitte held confluences with the delegates from India and Pakistan on the assorted issues over the disputed project in Paris, in the wake of June 2005.

A NOTE ON THE TIMEFRAME AND VALUE OF THE PROJECT
The highly controversial Baglihar hydropower project is expected to race towards its completion by June 2006. The Union minister after his recent visit to the site in mid-June 2005 is reported to have said that the project would be completed and dedicated to the nation by June next year.

As per the versions of many leading dailies, out of the estimated overall cost of erection of about 4000-crore, a sum of 2700-crores has already been used up and almost 71% of civil works and 81% of electro-mechanical work of Phase-1 has been completed till date.

WHAT’S ON THE RUN AND WORK AHEAD
As the backwash of the World Bank arbitration towards reaching a consensus in this issue, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, the then Union minister for Water resources confabulated the site of construction on June 17, 2005 to produce a detailed report on the same.

Inspection by the Pakistani delegates and by Lafitte is in the pipeline in the next few months.

It is believed that by resorting to World Bank arbitration, a Pandora’s box has been opened up. Will there be a resolution to this controversy in the nearest future? Much awaited is an accord in this issue between the nations concerned in the nearest future!

Will the World Bank take the quickest measure to resolve the issue? Will a consensus be reached between the two nations still remains an unanswered question!

POSSIBLE ENTAILMENTS OF ARBITRATION
Arbitration on its march ahead may end up with the renegotiation or revocation of the Treaty with the consent of both the nations concerned. Sequel of the treaty and operation within the scope of the Indus Water treaty is a must for the increasingly agriculture dependent Pakistani side. With the declining water storage at the Terbela and Mangla of Pakistan, revocation of the treaty would emphatically not auspicate the Pakistani side positively.

Further delay in sorting out the issue will have bad reflection on the Indians for two reasons. The first being the finance involved in this project that have taken up huge tolls of money and second being the unrestrained supply of electricity that would be available to Kashmir on successful implementation. Arbitration if prolonged will also strain both the nations financially.

Considering the nook and corner of this complex dispute, the candid facts with respect to the issue has to be pondered upon

· Abrogation of the treaty would never have a positive reflection to the Pakistanis and continuance of the arbitration will have negative contemplations on the Indians

· Political tension and administrative friction at the government level has to be swept aside. The functional side of the issue has to be brought under discussion. Negotiations should be concluded within the shortest stint of time and an accord has to become a reality on operational basis.

· Cognitive upbeat decisions must be taken at the functional level scraping out the political differences thus paving way to renegotiations of the Indus Water Treaty.

Whatever be the resolution to this indefinitely unsolved issue, let us hope that it should surface within the shortest possible stint of time and it should be to the fullest benefit of both the countries involved.

CONCERN ON THE ENTANGLEMENT OVER THE BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT

By Priya Venkatesh

Entanglement over the Baglihar hydropower project in Kashmir continues as the careens of the nations involved stand differentiated. The situation over the so- called controversial design of the dam has become topsy-turvy and has brought in such ramifications of having a neutral civil Swiss engineer, Raymond Lafitte to sort out the issue!

Despite World Bank negotiations over the disputes that prevailed between India and Pakistan on the utilization of water from the existing facilities way back in 1960 via the Indus Water treaty, its hapless that both nations have again run into a dead lock.

PROVISIONS OF THE INDUS WATER TREATY, 1960
Way back at the time of independence, the boundary line between India and Pakistan was laid right at the Indus River basin. The contraventions that arose over the utilization of water for irrigation from the existing facilities at the Indus river by both the countries climaxed in the signing of the Indus Water Treaty at Karchi on 19th September 1960 by the then President of Pakistan Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan and the then Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the presence of Mr.W.A.B.Ill of the World Bank.

The treaty was put into effect from 01 April, 1960.Usage of water from the eastern rivers of the Indus (The Sutlej, The Beas, The Ravi) were apportioned to India and of the western rivers of the Indus (The Chenab, The Jhelum and the Indus) were apportioned on a larger scale to Pakistan allowing a restricted usage of water by India in the latter.

BAGLIHAR HYDROPOWER PROJECT – DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
In continuation to this, India started off with a double-phase 900MW hydropower project (phase 1 providing a potential of 450MW) in the Chenab River in Kashmir at the southern Doda district in Chandrakot in 1999-2000. The vantages of hydropower are inexplicable. It not only serves as a renewable resource free from pollution but also sustains minimal running costs in the long run.

This project was enquired by the Central Water Commission and a report was prepared by the latter on the same in the year 1984.It also states that the geological investigations were done in 1962-1978 by the geological survey of India and in 1987, The project was reported to have been transferred to NHPC. After almost a decade of dormancy, the construction of the mega hydropower project started in 2000.

Being the only power project of the state, it promises to provide unrestrained electricity to the region which has been incessantly suffering from daylong power cuts.

This project on successful completion anticipates bringing about harmonious developmental strategies with respect to the supply of electricity to the whole of Kashmir and redeems a prosperous socio-economic environment in the otherwise impoverished city of Doda.

LOCATION AND FEATURES OF THE HYDROPOWER PROJECT
As per the data presented by the two small rivers, The Chandra and The Bhaga rising from the South-East and North-West of Baralacha pass at a height of 4,891 meters merge together at a place called Tandi at a height of 2,286 meters and becomes the ChaderBagha river.

This in turn passes through the Chamba district (as the Pangi valley) in HP and enters the Podar valley of Kashmir.

In Kashmir, the Chenab River drops another approx.2000 meters and flows into Pakistan near Akhnur.

India sees this drop in elevation of the Chenab River in Kashmir as a tremendous potential for Hydropower generation. This urged India and led to the idea of the implementation of the gigantic Baglihar Hydropower project.

FRI Reservoir level: 840m
MDDDI Reservoir level: 838m
Average reservoir level: 839m
Submergence area at the full reservoir level: 12994.17 Kanals
Power generation: 450MW

Plans for the Rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by the construction of this project are in the pipeline.

WORK-FORCE INVOVLVED IN THE PROJECT
As per the reports of the “Daily Times”,

· the project is said to involve 7000 workers including skilled labor and engineers.
· The talks between the Project chief Engineer Ghulam Hassan Rather and Mufti Muhammed Syed during his visit to the site in early may 2005, communicates that the civil works were being executed by contractors Jaiprakash Associates of the Jay Pee group while electric works were being implemented by a German Consortium Voith Siemens & VA Tech. Another German company, Lahmeyer International is supervising the work on behalf of the Kashmir government

PROJECT DESIGN –THE HEART OF CONTROVERSY
The controversy over this started at the design of the Baglihar dam in the Chenab River. The president General Pervez Musharaff approved a plan to coerce India to redesign the project on November 21, 2004 stating that it was a clear violation of the dictates of the Indus Water Treaty, 1960. He made it clear that the intervention of the International court of justice would be sorted to if in case the controversy heightens in spite of political and diplomatic efforts undertaken by both the governments concerned.

Pakistan raised its opposition to the construction of the gate-like structures present in the design stating that it would divert water to India, which otherwise is destined for Pakistan. It also emphasizes the fact that the successful implementation of this project would deprive Pakistan of 6000-7000 cusecs of water per day. It also emphasized in reducing the planned height of the dam(470 feet) for which the Indian authorities allege that the 450MW capacity would come down to a mere 50MW.

India upholds to state that the construction would in no way disrupt the water flow of the river or the canals of Pakistan. India alleges that the problem of augmentation of sludge is overcome only by abnormal flushing which in turn is unfeasible but for the presence of gated spillways.

With reference to this, talks were held between India and Pakistan in July, August and October 2003.But the repercussion was just a stalemate. Formal notices were issued by Pakistan to resolve the issue with the intervention of neutral experts twice in July and October 2003.The deadlines for India’s response were set up at December 31, 2003.

As per the postulation of the Indian government, a 3-day talk between the Indian and Pakistani authorities was convened at the Permanent Commission of Indus Water (PCIW) in January 2004.

The political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue broke down even when the stakes to do so at the bi-lateral government level were quiet high. Talks continued again in January 2005 but ended up in vain. The issue still remained a blind alley.

Arbitration by the World Bank was sought for by the Pakistani authorities in early 2005.As a consequence, The World Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte, a Swiss national civil Engineer cum Professor to sort out the longstanding issue on May 10,2005.Professor Raymond Lafitte is with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne. He was a former expert on dam safety with the Swiss government.

Lafitte held confluences with the delegates from India and Pakistan on the assorted issues over the disputed project in Paris, in the wake of June 2005.

A NOTE ON THE TIMEFRAME AND VALUE OF THE PROJECT
The highly controversial Baglihar hydropower project is expected to race towards its completion by June 2006. The Union minister after his recent visit to the site in mid-June 2005 is reported to have said that the project would be completed and dedicated to the nation by June next year.

As per the versions of many leading dailies, out of the estimated overall cost of erection of about 4000-crore, a sum of 2700-crores has already been used up and almost 71% of civil works and 81% of electro-mechanical work of Phase-1 has been completed till date.

WHAT’S ON THE RUN AND WORK AHEAD
As the backwash of the World Bank arbitration towards reaching a consensus in this issue, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, the then Union minister for Water resources confabulated the site of construction on June 17, 2005 to produce a detailed report on the same.

Inspection by the Pakistani delegates and by Lafitte is in the pipeline in the next few months.

It is believed that by resorting to World Bank arbitration, a Pandora’s box has been opened up. Will there be a resolution to this controversy in the nearest future? Much awaited is an accord in this issue between the nations concerned in the nearest future!

Will the World Bank take the quickest measure to resolve the issue? Will a consensus be reached between the two nations still remains an unanswered question!

POSSIBLE ENTAILMENTS OF ARBITRATION
Arbitration on its march ahead may end up with the renegotiation or revocation of the Treaty with the consent of both the nations concerned. Sequel of the treaty and operation within the scope of the Indus Water treaty is a must for the increasingly agriculture dependent Pakistani side. With the declining water storage at the Terbela and Mangla of Pakistan, revocation of the treaty would emphatically not auspicate the Pakistani side positively.

Further delay in sorting out the issue will have bad reflection on the Indians for two reasons. The first being the finance involved in this project that have taken up huge tolls of money and second being the unrestrained supply of electricity that would be available to Kashmir on successful implementation. Arbitration if prolonged will also strain both the nations financially.

Considering the nook and corner of this complex dispute, the candid facts with respect to the issue has to be pondered upon

· Abrogation of the treaty would never have a positive reflection to the Pakistanis and continuance of the arbitration will have negative contemplations on the Indians

· Political tension and administrative friction at the government level has to be swept aside. The functional side of the issue has to be brought under discussion. Negotiations should be concluded within the shortest stint of time and an accord has to become a reality on operational basis.

· Cognitive upbeat decisions must be taken at the functional level scraping out the political differences thus paving way to renegotiations of the Indus Water Treaty.

Whatever be the resolution to this indefinitely unsolved issue, let us hope that it should surface within the shortest possible stint of time and it should be to the fullest benefit of both the countries involved.

TERROR EXPLOSIVES SHATTER LIVES IN KASHMIR VALLEY

By Athar Pervaiz / Srinagar

Maimed victims of landmines in Kashmir are struggling to pay for medical treatment and prosthetic limbs with the menial government compensation on offer. With many farming families forced to sell land and beg as a result, the impact of such accidents lasts long after the detonation.

Aadil Khan and his two siblings had been playing as usual behind their house in the village of Diver, 110 kilometers north of Kashmir's capital, Srinagar, when they came across what they thought was a "plaything" laying on the ground. But no sooner had they picked the object up than it literally shattered their innocent lives into pieces. 

'PASHMINA GOATS' BECOMING EXTINCT IN KASHMIR

By Abu Yousuf / Srinagar

In Kashmir valley, world famous Pashmina goats are becoming extinct due to various reasons. Since January, 13 percent of the Changra goats has been wiped out, threatening the lucrative Pashmina industry in the Kashmir Valley.

This summer, Pashmina shawl weavers like Ashiq Ahmed have a tough choice to make. They can either buy raw wool at inflated rates or abandon the 600-year-old weaving craft.

LETHAL INJURIES FROM 'NON-LETHAL' WEAPONS

By Mirza Shoeb Khan / Srinagar

Despite the call by human rights organizations to stop the use of weapons such as pellet guns and chilli grenades in tackling riots or mob fury, security forces in the Kashmir Valley continue to deploy the same with impunity. This has led to debilitating injuries and even death.

India grapples with the Obama era

By M H Ahssan

What prompted the spokesman of India's ruling party, Congress, to recommend that the Bharat Ratna - the "Jewel of India" - be bestowed on George W Bush, we might never know. India has conferred its highest civilian honor on only two foreigners, one of whom was Nelson Mandela.

The Congress politician apparently got carried away on a balmy winter day with nostalgia hanging heavily in the air, as he faced a select audience of Delhi's elite, who formed the gravy train of India-US "strategic partnership" in the Bush era.

Ironically, even as he spoke last Friday, a delegation was setting out from the United States for India to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence, who inspired Martin Luther King, who in turn remains a constant source of inspiration for US President Barack Obama.

The bizarre coincidence was driven home when at a special ceremony at the US State Department marking the visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "India is a reminder that the struggle for civil rights and justice has always been and continues to be a global mission; it knows no borders."

The two unconnected events underscored the dilemma facing India's policymakers as the Obama era gets under way. Indeed, it is an extraordinary statement that the first American delegation to visit India after Obama took office should be a "Gandhian" delegation. Is Obama "demilitarizing" India-US strategic cooperation? "Mil-to-mil" cooperation was at the core of US-India relationship during the past eight-year period. In recent years, India conducted more than 50 military exercises with the US.

All dressed up, nowhere to go
Yet a pall of gloom has descended on New Delhi's elite. There is a pervasive nostalgia for George W Bush. The Bush administration officials claimed that the US regarded India as the preponderant power in South Asia and as a key Asian player that would shape up to be a viable counterweight to China militarily. The expectation was that the US would extricate India from the morass of its South Asian neighborhood by arm-twisting Pakistan.

Under constant encouragement from the Bush administration, the Indian elite placed faith in the country's emergence as a global player. They began working "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, just as Bush's officials urged. Now, Indian strategists find themselves awkwardly placed - all dressed-up but there's nowhere right now for them to go.

Three factors have shaken up the Indian complacency. First, Indian strategists seriously underestimated the military stalemate that was developing in the war in Afghanistan and the consequent acute dependence of the US on Pakistan's cooperation. This may sound surprising, but the knowledge of Afghan affairs remains shockingly poor among Indian strategists.

Two, Indian strategists underestimated the gravity of the global financial crisis that erupted last year. They couldn't comprehend that the crisis would fundamentally change the world order. Even hard-nosed Indian strategists placed a touching faith in the "New American Century" project.

Three, the Indian establishment failed to grasp what Obama meant when he spoke of "change". The Indian skepticism about Obama's capacity to change US policies remained fairly widespread. The Indian establishment concluded that Obama would ultimately have to work within the box, hemmed in by America's political, foreign policy and security establishment. It failed to see that the US's capacity to sustain its global dominance was itself weakening and that necessitated radical changes in Obama's policies.

From this perspective, the past week offered a reality check. The visit by the newly appointed US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the region underscored that Islamabad's support for the US war strategy in Afghanistan has become critical. The war is at a crucial stage and salvaging it appears increasingly difficult.

More to the point, given the overall fragility of the political situation in Pakistan, a stage is reached beyond which the US cannot "pressure" Pakistan. Therefore, in a change of approach, the US will have no choice but to work with Pakistan. In the coming period, as Holbrooke gradually opens the political track leading to an Afghan settlement, need of Pakistan's cooperation increases further.

Meanwhile, the revelation that the US Predator drones operate out of Pakistani bases underlines how closely Washington and Islamabad have been working. The US's acquiescence in the release of AQ Khan revealed the great latitude towards Pakistan's concerns. The Indian strategists who fancied that New Delhi was Washington's preferred partner in South Asia are stunned. Clearly, India is nowhere near as valuable an ally as Pakistan for the US for the present.

Looking ahead, Obama's decision on Wednesday approving a troop buildup in Afghanistan constitutes a defining moment. He has put his presidency on the firing line. From this week onward, Obama's war has begun. The war can well consume his presidency. Either he succeeds, or he gets mired in the war. Yet, the new US strategy is still in the making. Delhi takes note that it is at such a crucial juncture that the Pakistani army chief, General Parvez Kayani, has been invited to go across to Washington for consultations.

The message is clear: Washington will be in no mood to antagonize its Pakistani partner and Delhi is expected to keep tensions under check in its relations with Islamabad.

Dollar courting yuan
But there is another aspect in Obama's new foreign policy that worries India even more. Obama's China policy renders obsolete the Indian strategic calculus built around the US containment strategy. Hardly two to three years ago, the Bush administration encouraged India to put faith in a quadrilateral alliance of Asian democracies - the US, Japan, Australia and India - that would strive to set the rules for China's behavior in the region.

According to reports, State Department officials had originally proposed that India be included in the itinerary of Clinton's current first official tour abroad, but she struck it out. As things stand, Clinton meant every word of what she wrote last year in her Foreign Affairs article that "our [US] relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century".

In a major speech at the Asia Society in New York last Friday before embarking on her tour of Asia, Clinton said, "We believe that the United States and China can benefit from and contribute to each other's successes. It is in our interests to work harder to build on areas of common concern and shared opportunities". She argued for a "comprehensive dialogue" and a "broader agenda" with China.

The Washington Post cited State Department officials as saying, "It is symbolically important that Clinton is the first secretary of state in nearly 50 years to intensely focus his or her maiden voyage on Asia". The story is easily comprehensible. The US needs to have new opportunities to export more to China; it should persuade Beijing to accept a realistic dollar-yuan exchange rate; and, it should convince China to keep investing its money in America. But what is unfolding is also a phenomenal story insofar as a new chapter in their mutually dependent relationship is commencing where the two countries become equal partners in crisis. This was simply unthinkable.

Dennis Blair, the newly appointed director of national intelligence, in his testimony before the US senate intelligence committee on January 22, struck a fine balance when he said, while the United States must understand China's military buildup - its extent, its technological sophistication and its vulnerabilities - in order to offset it, the intelligence community also needs to support policymakers who are looking for opportunities to work with Chinese leaders who believe that Asia is big enough for both of us and can be an Asia in which both countries can benefit as well as contribute to the common good.

However, this is precisely where a serious problem arises for India. In the Indian perception, South Asia and the Indian Ocean just aren't "big enough" for India and China.

Dragon encircles peacock
This was rubbed home when Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Port Louis, Mauritius, on Tuesday on the final lap of his latest odyssey to Africa. Hu nonchalantly handed out a generous US$1 billion aid package for Mauritius, which India traditionally regarded as its "sphere of influence" in the Indian Ocean. No doubt, it was an audacious gesture by Beijing to a country the majority of whose 1.3 million population are people of Indian origin - at a time when China too faces an economic crisis and analysts say anywhere up to 40 million migrant workers may lose their jobs this year.

Arguably, Beijing regards Mauritius as a value-added platform between China and Africa from where its entrepreneurs could optimally perform. But Hu has convinced the Indian strategic community about China's "encirclement" policy towards India. A leading Indian right-wing daily commented that Hu's visit was "anything but ordinary ... It underscores Beijing's relentless thrust to secure a permanent naval foothold in the western Indian Ocean ... That, of course, would only come at the expense of the Indian navy, which has been the principal external security partner of Mauritius all these decades".

It is precisely such hubris that gets punctured by the shift in the Obama administration's new priorities in the Far East and southwest Asia. A difficult period of adjustment lies ahead for Indian policymakers. India needs good relations with the US. At any rate, the India-US relationship is on an irreversible trajectory of growth. There is a "bipartisan" consensus in both countries that the relationship is in each other's vital interests. But the US's current strategic priorities in the region and India's expectations are diverging. Given the criticality of Pakistan in the US geo-strategy, Obama administration will be constrained to correct the Bush administration's "tilt" towards India.

Kashmir beckons
New Delhi pulled out all the stops when rumors surfaced that Holbrooke's mandate might include the Kashmir problem. Obama paid heed to Indian sensitivities. But at a price. It compels India to curtail its own excessive instincts in recent years to seek US intervention in keeping India-Pakistan tensions in check.

In short, New Delhi will have to pay much greater attention to its bilateral track with Pakistan. And, of course, Pakistan will expect India to be far more flexible. Rightly or wrongly, Pakistan harbors a feeling that India took unilateral advantage from the relative four-year calm in their relationship without conceding anything in return.

In a sensational interview with India's top television personality, Karan Thapar, on Thursday night, Pakistan's former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri confirmed what many in New Delhi suspected, namely, that through back channel diplomacy, Islamabad and New Delhi had reached a broad understanding on contentious issues such as Sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir as far back as two years ago.

The Indian prime minister was expected to visit Pakistan to conclude some of the agreements but the Indian side apparently began developing cold feet and it is "sheer bad luck", as Kasuri put it, that the momentum dissipated.

To quote Kasuri, "If the Prime Minister of India had come when we [Pakistan] thought he would, we would have actually signed it, and that would have created the right atmosphere for resolution of other disputes, particularly the issue of J&K [Jammu and Kashmir]. We needed the right atmosphere."

In other words, there is always a lurking danger that at some point, Holbrooke may barge into the Kashmir problem by way of addressing the core issues of regional security. The Bush administration had been kept constantly briefed by New Delhi on its back-channel discussions with Islamabad regarding Kashmir. Retracting from any commitments given to Pakistan becomes problematic at this stage.

At the same time, the Indian government has done nothing so far to sensitize domestic public opinion that such highly delicate discussions involving joint India-Pakistan governance of the Kashmir region have reached an advanced stage.

Thus, in a manner of speaking, with Holbrooke's arrival in the region this past week, the clock began ticking on the Kashmir issue. Pakistan will incrementally mount pressure that Obama must insist on India moving forward on a settlement of the Kashmir problem in the overall interests of peace and regional stability.

And New Delhi will remain watchful. Holbrooke's visit to New Delhi on Monday was kept low-key. The Indian media fawned on any mid-level official calling from the Bush administration, but Holbrooke was tucked away as if under quarantine. And no wonder; there could be many among New Delhi's elite who feel nostalgic for the tranquility and predictability of the Bush era.

India grapples with the Obama era

By M H Ahssan

What prompted the spokesman of India's ruling party, Congress, to recommend that the Bharat Ratna - the "Jewel of India" - be bestowed on George W Bush, we might never know. India has conferred its highest civilian honor on only two foreigners, one of whom was Nelson Mandela.

The Congress politician apparently got carried away on a balmy winter day with nostalgia hanging heavily in the air, as he faced a select audience of Delhi's elite, who formed the gravy train of India-US "strategic partnership" in the Bush era.

Ironically, even as he spoke last Friday, a delegation was setting out from the United States for India to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence, who inspired Martin Luther King, who in turn remains a constant source of inspiration for US President Barack Obama.

The bizarre coincidence was driven home when at a special ceremony at the US State Department marking the visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "India is a reminder that the struggle for civil rights and justice has always been and continues to be a global mission; it knows no borders."

The two unconnected events underscored the dilemma facing India's policymakers as the Obama era gets under way. Indeed, it is an extraordinary statement that the first American delegation to visit India after Obama took office should be a "Gandhian" delegation. Is Obama "demilitarizing" India-US strategic cooperation? "Mil-to-mil" cooperation was at the core of US-India relationship during the past eight-year period. In recent years, India conducted more than 50 military exercises with the US.

All dressed up, nowhere to go
Yet a pall of gloom has descended on New Delhi's elite. There is a pervasive nostalgia for George W Bush. The Bush administration officials claimed that the US regarded India as the preponderant power in South Asia and as a key Asian player that would shape up to be a viable counterweight to China militarily. The expectation was that the US would extricate India from the morass of its South Asian neighborhood by arm-twisting Pakistan.

Under constant encouragement from the Bush administration, the Indian elite placed faith in the country's emergence as a global player. They began working "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, just as Bush's officials urged. Now, Indian strategists find themselves awkwardly placed - all dressed-up but there's nowhere right now for them to go.

Three factors have shaken up the Indian complacency. First, Indian strategists seriously underestimated the military stalemate that was developing in the war in Afghanistan and the consequent acute dependence of the US on Pakistan's cooperation. This may sound surprising, but the knowledge of Afghan affairs remains shockingly poor among Indian strategists.

Two, Indian strategists underestimated the gravity of the global financial crisis that erupted last year. They couldn't comprehend that the crisis would fundamentally change the world order. Even hard-nosed Indian strategists placed a touching faith in the "New American Century" project.

Three, the Indian establishment failed to grasp what Obama meant when he spoke of "change". The Indian skepticism about Obama's capacity to change US policies remained fairly widespread. The Indian establishment concluded that Obama would ultimately have to work within the box, hemmed in by America's political, foreign policy and security establishment. It failed to see that the US's capacity to sustain its global dominance was itself weakening and that necessitated radical changes in Obama's policies.

From this perspective, the past week offered a reality check. The visit by the newly appointed US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the region underscored that Islamabad's support for the US war strategy in Afghanistan has become critical. The war is at a crucial stage and salvaging it appears increasingly difficult.

More to the point, given the overall fragility of the political situation in Pakistan, a stage is reached beyond which the US cannot "pressure" Pakistan. Therefore, in a change of approach, the US will have no choice but to work with Pakistan. In the coming period, as Holbrooke gradually opens the political track leading to an Afghan settlement, need of Pakistan's cooperation increases further.

Meanwhile, the revelation that the US Predator drones operate out of Pakistani bases underlines how closely Washington and Islamabad have been working. The US's acquiescence in the release of AQ Khan revealed the great latitude towards Pakistan's concerns. The Indian strategists who fancied that New Delhi was Washington's preferred partner in South Asia are stunned. Clearly, India is nowhere near as valuable an ally as Pakistan for the US for the present.

Looking ahead, Obama's decision on Wednesday approving a troop buildup in Afghanistan constitutes a defining moment. He has put his presidency on the firing line. From this week onward, Obama's war has begun. The war can well consume his presidency. Either he succeeds, or he gets mired in the war. Yet, the new US strategy is still in the making. Delhi takes note that it is at such a crucial juncture that the Pakistani army chief, General Parvez Kayani, has been invited to go across to Washington for consultations.

The message is clear: Washington will be in no mood to antagonize its Pakistani partner and Delhi is expected to keep tensions under check in its relations with Islamabad.

Dollar courting yuan
But there is another aspect in Obama's new foreign policy that worries India even more. Obama's China policy renders obsolete the Indian strategic calculus built around the US containment strategy. Hardly two to three years ago, the Bush administration encouraged India to put faith in a quadrilateral alliance of Asian democracies - the US, Japan, Australia and India - that would strive to set the rules for China's behavior in the region.

According to reports, State Department officials had originally proposed that India be included in the itinerary of Clinton's current first official tour abroad, but she struck it out. As things stand, Clinton meant every word of what she wrote last year in her Foreign Affairs article that "our [US] relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century".

In a major speech at the Asia Society in New York last Friday before embarking on her tour of Asia, Clinton said, "We believe that the United States and China can benefit from and contribute to each other's successes. It is in our interests to work harder to build on areas of common concern and shared opportunities". She argued for a "comprehensive dialogue" and a "broader agenda" with China.

The Washington Post cited State Department officials as saying, "It is symbolically important that Clinton is the first secretary of state in nearly 50 years to intensely focus his or her maiden voyage on Asia". The story is easily comprehensible. The US needs to have new opportunities to export more to China; it should persuade Beijing to accept a realistic dollar-yuan exchange rate; and, it should convince China to keep investing its money in America. But what is unfolding is also a phenomenal story insofar as a new chapter in their mutually dependent relationship is commencing where the two countries become equal partners in crisis. This was simply unthinkable.

Dennis Blair, the newly appointed director of national intelligence, in his testimony before the US senate intelligence committee on January 22, struck a fine balance when he said,

While the United States must understand China's military buildup - its extent, its technological sophistication and its vulnerabilities - in order to offset it, the intelligence community also needs to support policymakers who are looking for opportunities to work with Chinese leaders who believe that Asia is big enough for both of us and can be an Asia in which both countries can benefit as well as contribute to the common good.

However, this is precisely where a serious problem arises for India. In the Indian perception, South Asia and the Indian Ocean just aren't "big enough" for India and China.

Dragon encircles peacock
This was rubbed home when Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Port Louis, Mauritius, on Tuesday on the final lap of his latest odyssey to Africa. Hu nonchalantly handed out a generous US$1 billion aid package for Mauritius, which India traditionally regarded as its "sphere of influence" in the Indian Ocean. No doubt, it was an audacious gesture by Beijing to a country the majority of whose 1.3 million population are people of Indian origin - at a time when China too faces an economic crisis and analysts say anywhere up to 40 million migrant workers may lose their jobs this year.

Arguably, Beijing regards Mauritius as a value-added platform between China and Africa from where its entrepreneurs could optimally perform. But Hu has convinced the Indian strategic community about China's "encirclement" policy towards India. A leading Indian right-wing daily commented that Hu's visit was "anything but ordinary ... It underscores Beijing's relentless thrust to secure a permanent naval foothold in the western Indian Ocean ... That, of course, would only come at the expense of the Indian navy, which has been the principal external security partner of Mauritius all these decades".

It is precisely such hubris that gets punctured by the shift in the Obama administration's new priorities in the Far East and southwest Asia. A difficult period of adjustment lies ahead for Indian policymakers. India needs good relations with the US. At any rate, the India-US relationship is on an irreversible trajectory of growth. There is a "bipartisan" consensus in both countries that the relationship is in each other's vital interests. But the US's current strategic priorities in the region and India's expectations are diverging. Given the criticality of Pakistan in the US geo-strategy, Obama administration will be constrained to correct the Bush administration's "tilt" towards India.

Kashmir beckons
New Delhi pulled out all the stops when rumors surfaced that Holbrooke's mandate might include the Kashmir problem. Obama paid heed to Indian sensitivities. But at a price. It compels India to curtail its own excessive instincts in recent years to seek US intervention in keeping India-Pakistan tensions in check.

In short, New Delhi will have to pay much greater attention to its bilateral track with Pakistan. And, of course, Pakistan will expect India to be far more flexible. Rightly or wrongly, Pakistan harbors a feeling that India took unilateral advantage from the relative four-year calm in their relationship without conceding anything in return.

In a sensational interview with India's top television personality, Karan Thapar, on Thursday night, Pakistan's former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri confirmed what many in New Delhi suspected, namely, that through back channel diplomacy, Islamabad and New Delhi had reached a broad understanding on contentious issues such as Sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir as far back as two years ago.

The Indian prime minister was expected to visit Pakistan to conclude some of the agreements but the Indian side apparently began developing cold feet and it is "sheer bad luck", as Kasuri put it, that the momentum dissipated.

To quote Kasuri, "If the Prime Minister of India had come when we [Pakistan] thought he would, we would have actually signed it, and that would have created the right atmosphere for resolution of other disputes, particularly the issue of J&K [Jammu and Kashmir]. We needed the right atmosphere."

In other words, there is always a lurking danger that at some point, Holbrooke may barge into the Kashmir problem by way of addressing the core issues of regional security. The Bush administration had been kept constantly briefed by New Delhi on its back-channel discussions with Islamabad regarding Kashmir. Retracting from any commitments given to Pakistan becomes problematic at this stage.

At the same time, the Indian government has done nothing so far to sensitize domestic public opinion that such highly delicate discussions involving joint India-Pakistan governance of the Kashmir region have reached an advanced stage.

Thus, in a manner of speaking, with Holbrooke's arrival in the region this past week, the clock began ticking on the Kashmir issue. Pakistan will incrementally mount pressure that Obama must insist on India moving forward on a settlement of the Kashmir problem in the overall interests of peace and regional stability.

And New Delhi will remain watchful. Holbrooke's visit to New Delhi on Monday was kept low-key. The Indian media fawned on any mid-level official calling from the Bush administration, but Holbrooke was tucked away as if under quarantine. And no wonder; there could be many among New Delhi's elite who feel nostalgic for the tranquility and predictability of the Bush era.

India grapples with the Obama era

By M H Ahssan

What prompted the spokesman of India's ruling party, Congress, to recommend that the Bharat Ratna - the "Jewel of India" - be bestowed on George W Bush, we might never know. India has conferred its highest civilian honor on only two foreigners, one of whom was Nelson Mandela.

The Congress politician apparently got carried away on a balmy winter day with nostalgia hanging heavily in the air, as he faced a select audience of Delhi's elite, who formed the gravy train of India-US "strategic partnership" in the Bush era.

Ironically, even as he spoke last Friday, a delegation was setting out from the United States for India to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, the great apostle of non-violence, who inspired Martin Luther King, who in turn remains a constant source of inspiration for US President Barack Obama.

The bizarre coincidence was driven home when at a special ceremony at the US State Department marking the visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "India is a reminder that the struggle for civil rights and justice has always been and continues to be a global mission; it knows no borders."

The two unconnected events underscored the dilemma facing India's policymakers as the Obama era gets under way. Indeed, it is an extraordinary statement that the first American delegation to visit India after Obama took office should be a "Gandhian" delegation. Is Obama "demilitarizing" India-US strategic cooperation? "Mil-to-mil" cooperation was at the core of US-India relationship during the past eight-year period. In recent years, India conducted more than 50 military exercises with the US.

All dressed up, nowhere to go
Yet a pall of gloom has descended on New Delhi's elite. There is a pervasive nostalgia for George W Bush. The Bush administration officials claimed that the US regarded India as the preponderant power in South Asia and as a key Asian player that would shape up to be a viable counterweight to China militarily. The expectation was that the US would extricate India from the morass of its South Asian neighborhood by arm-twisting Pakistan.

Under constant encouragement from the Bush administration, the Indian elite placed faith in the country's emergence as a global player. They began working "shoulder to shoulder" with the US, just as Bush's officials urged. Now, Indian strategists find themselves awkwardly placed - all dressed-up but there's nowhere right now for them to go.

Three factors have shaken up the Indian complacency. First, Indian strategists seriously underestimated the military stalemate that was developing in the war in Afghanistan and the consequent acute dependence of the US on Pakistan's cooperation. This may sound surprising, but the knowledge of Afghan affairs remains shockingly poor among Indian strategists.

Two, Indian strategists underestimated the gravity of the global financial crisis that erupted last year. They couldn't comprehend that the crisis would fundamentally change the world order. Even hard-nosed Indian strategists placed a touching faith in the "New American Century" project.

Three, the Indian establishment failed to grasp what Obama meant when he spoke of "change". The Indian skepticism about Obama's capacity to change US policies remained fairly widespread. The Indian establishment concluded that Obama would ultimately have to work within the box, hemmed in by America's political, foreign policy and security establishment. It failed to see that the US's capacity to sustain its global dominance was itself weakening and that necessitated radical changes in Obama's policies.

From this perspective, the past week offered a reality check. The visit by the newly appointed US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to the region underscored that Islamabad's support for the US war strategy in Afghanistan has become critical. The war is at a crucial stage and salvaging it appears increasingly difficult.

More to the point, given the overall fragility of the political situation in Pakistan, a stage is reached beyond which the US cannot "pressure" Pakistan. Therefore, in a change of approach, the US will have no choice but to work with Pakistan. In the coming period, as Holbrooke gradually opens the political track leading to an Afghan settlement, need of Pakistan's cooperation increases further.

Meanwhile, the revelation that the US Predator drones operate out of Pakistani bases underlines how closely Washington and Islamabad have been working. The US's acquiescence in the release of AQ Khan revealed the great latitude towards Pakistan's concerns. The Indian strategists who fancied that New Delhi was Washington's preferred partner in South Asia are stunned. Clearly, India is nowhere near as valuable an ally as Pakistan for the US for the present.

Looking ahead, Obama's decision on Wednesday approving a troop buildup in Afghanistan constitutes a defining moment. He has put his presidency on the firing line. From this week onward, Obama's war has begun. The war can well consume his presidency. Either he succeeds, or he gets mired in the war. Yet, the new US strategy is still in the making. Delhi takes note that it is at such a crucial juncture that the Pakistani army chief, General Parvez Kayani, has been invited to go across to Washington for consultations.

The message is clear: Washington will be in no mood to antagonize its Pakistani partner and Delhi is expected to keep tensions under check in its relations with Islamabad.

Dollar courting yuan
But there is another aspect in Obama's new foreign policy that worries India even more. Obama's China policy renders obsolete the Indian strategic calculus built around the US containment strategy. Hardly two to three years ago, the Bush administration encouraged India to put faith in a quadrilateral alliance of Asian democracies - the US, Japan, Australia and India - that would strive to set the rules for China's behavior in the region.

According to reports, State Department officials had originally proposed that India be included in the itinerary of Clinton's current first official tour abroad, but she struck it out. As things stand, Clinton meant every word of what she wrote last year in her Foreign Affairs article that "our [US] relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century".

In a major speech at the Asia Society in New York last Friday before embarking on her tour of Asia, Clinton said, "We believe that the United States and China can benefit from and contribute to each other's successes. It is in our interests to work harder to build on areas of common concern and shared opportunities". She argued for a "comprehensive dialogue" and a "broader agenda" with China.

The Washington Post cited State Department officials as saying, "It is symbolically important that Clinton is the first secretary of state in nearly 50 years to intensely focus his or her maiden voyage on Asia". The story is easily comprehensible. The US needs to have new opportunities to export more to China; it should persuade Beijing to accept a realistic dollar-yuan exchange rate; and, it should convince China to keep investing its money in America. But what is unfolding is also a phenomenal story insofar as a new chapter in their mutually dependent relationship is commencing where the two countries become equal partners in crisis. This was simply unthinkable.

Dennis Blair, the newly appointed director of national intelligence, in his testimony before the US senate intelligence committee on January 22, struck a fine balance when he said,

While the United States must understand China's military buildup - its extent, its technological sophistication and its vulnerabilities - in order to offset it, the intelligence community also needs to support policymakers who are looking for opportunities to work with Chinese leaders who believe that Asia is big enough for both of us and can be an Asia in which both countries can benefit as well as contribute to the common good.

However, this is precisely where a serious problem arises for India. In the Indian perception, South Asia and the Indian Ocean just aren't "big enough" for India and China.

Dragon encircles peacock
This was rubbed home when Chinese President Hu Jintao arrived in Port Louis, Mauritius, on Tuesday on the final lap of his latest odyssey to Africa. Hu nonchalantly handed out a generous US$1 billion aid package for Mauritius, which India traditionally regarded as its "sphere of influence" in the Indian Ocean. No doubt, it was an audacious gesture by Beijing to a country the majority of whose 1.3 million population are people of Indian origin - at a time when China too faces an economic crisis and analysts say anywhere up to 40 million migrant workers may lose their jobs this year.

Arguably, Beijing regards Mauritius as a value-added platform between China and Africa from where its entrepreneurs could optimally perform. But Hu has convinced the Indian strategic community about China's "encirclement" policy towards India. A leading Indian right-wing daily commented that Hu's visit was "anything but ordinary ... It underscores Beijing's relentless thrust to secure a permanent naval foothold in the western Indian Ocean ... That, of course, would only come at the expense of the Indian navy, which has been the principal external security partner of Mauritius all these decades".

It is precisely such hubris that gets punctured by the shift in the Obama administration's new priorities in the Far East and southwest Asia. A difficult period of adjustment lies ahead for Indian policymakers. India needs good relations with the US. At any rate, the India-US relationship is on an irreversible trajectory of growth. There is a "bipartisan" consensus in both countries that the relationship is in each other's vital interests. But the US's current strategic priorities in the region and India's expectations are diverging. Given the criticality of Pakistan in the US geo-strategy, Obama administration will be constrained to correct the Bush administration's "tilt" towards India.

Kashmir beckons
New Delhi pulled out all the stops when rumors surfaced that Holbrooke's mandate might include the Kashmir problem. Obama paid heed to Indian sensitivities. But at a price. It compels India to curtail its own excessive instincts in recent years to seek US intervention in keeping India-Pakistan tensions in check.

In short, New Delhi will have to pay much greater attention to its bilateral track with Pakistan. And, of course, Pakistan will expect India to be far more flexible. Rightly or wrongly, Pakistan harbors a feeling that India took unilateral advantage from the relative four-year calm in their relationship without conceding anything in return.

In a sensational interview with India's top television personality, Karan Thapar, on Thursday night, Pakistan's former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri confirmed what many in New Delhi suspected, namely, that through back channel diplomacy, Islamabad and New Delhi had reached a broad understanding on contentious issues such as Sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir as far back as two years ago.

The Indian prime minister was expected to visit Pakistan to conclude some of the agreements but the Indian side apparently began developing cold feet and it is "sheer bad luck", as Kasuri put it, that the momentum dissipated.

To quote Kasuri, "If the Prime Minister of India had come when we [Pakistan] thought he would, we would have actually signed it, and that would have created the right atmosphere for resolution of other disputes, particularly the issue of J&K [Jammu and Kashmir]. We needed the right atmosphere."

In other words, there is always a lurking danger that at some point, Holbrooke may barge into the Kashmir problem by way of addressing the core issues of regional security. The Bush administration had been kept constantly briefed by New Delhi on its back-channel discussions with Islamabad regarding Kashmir. Retracting from any commitments given to Pakistan becomes problematic at this stage.

At the same time, the Indian government has done nothing so far to sensitize domestic public opinion that such highly delicate discussions involving joint India-Pakistan governance of the Kashmir region have reached an advanced stage.

Thus, in a manner of speaking, with Holbrooke's arrival in the region this past week, the clock began ticking on the Kashmir issue. Pakistan will incrementally mount pressure that Obama must insist on India moving forward on a settlement of the Kashmir problem in the overall interests of peace and regional stability.

And New Delhi will remain watchful. Holbrooke's visit to New Delhi on Monday was kept low-key. The Indian media fawned on any mid-level official calling from the Bush administration, but Holbrooke was tucked away as if under quarantine. And no wonder; there could be many among New Delhi's elite who feel nostalgic for the tranquility and predictability of the Bush era.

How 'Wazawan' came to Kashmir and the secret of its sensual flavors?

When done right, Kashmiri cuisine is a feast for all the senses and not just the palate.

Kashmiri Pandits celebrate the birthday of Sharika Devi, the Mother Goddess of Kashmir on the ninth day of the month of Ashad in the Hindu calendar (June-July in the Gregorian calendar). On this day, throngs of devotees carry offerings to propitiate the Devi in her sanctum on the summit of a hillock in Srinagar named Hari Parbat, or peak of God. One of the offerings served to the Goddess is the traditional Pandit dish of Tahar (turmeric rice) mixed with tcharvun(cooked liver).

WHAT DOES CHINA WANT FROM INDIA?

By Rajinder Puri / Delhi

There is widespread speculation about China’s motives after its troops encroached into Ladakh and camped there before the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Premier  Li Keqiang. I present my take on the subject. I know of course that it is only of academic interest. It is futile to discuss foreign policy as long as moronic puppets continue to dominate India’s political scene.

To assess Chinese motives there is need to appraise the personality of China’s new leader  Xi Jinping; China’s new priorities in a changing world; and Beijing’s assessment of India in the perspective of China’s future global role.

Special Report: Why Blame Mufti On 'Masarat Alam', When BJP Wooed 'Separatists'?

The saffron party allegedly reached out to NDFB insurgents in Assam during the Lok Sabha elections.

It is very easy to adopt a hardline national interest view and hurl fire and brimstone at Mufti Mohammad Sayeed for ordering the release of Masarat Alam, supposedly the architect of the 2010 protests.

The BJP, being part of the ruling coalition in Jammu and Kashmir, is party to the government's decision to release Alam.

If BJP Failed Miserably, Why Are TV 'Analysts' Miserable?

J&K and Jharkhand elections results: Expert analysts are so out of touch with reality that they beat Rahul Gandhi in not seeing the obvious contest.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried, so said Sir Winston Churchill. You would agree that there's nothing better than a system that gives people the right to choose the bad guys. It gives us elections that give us results that give us so many laughs. 

Are 'Terror Groups' Zeroing On Kashmir As 'Battlefield'?

By Rubiana Wani | Srinagar

EXCLUSIVE  Are foreign terrorist organisations zeroing on Kashmir as their next battlefield? 

In an exclusive interview with INN Live, Asiya Andrabi, the founder and president of the lone women separatist wing in Jammu and Kashmir Dukhtaran-e-Millat, has claimed that some people from Saudi Arabia, belonging to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and al Qaeda met her at her residence in Srinagar in 2012.

Exclusive Interview With Hafiz Muhammad Saeed

By Paagal Patrkaar / Delhi

India calls him 26/11 mastermind while Pakistan calls him just another beautiful mind. Yes we are talking about none other than Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (also known as Shri Hafiz Saeed Sahib in parliamentary language).

This writer got an opportunity to interview him; here is an excerpt from the interview.

Writer: First question, how does it feel to be Hafiz Saeed?
Hafiz Saeed (HS): It feels as if I am the Kohinoor of Pakistan. US has declared $10 million bounty on my head, only $15 million short of Osama bhai. Miles to go before I sleep.

Hangul, The Rare Kashmir Deer, May Soon Go Extinct

By LIKHAVEER | INNLIVE

The endangered hangul, also known as Kashmir deer, is in the throes of extinction, largely because of human intrusions and domestic livestock grazing at its only habitat here.

Wildlife experts and activists claim they have been raising the alarm, calling for stringent measures to check human intrusions at Srinagar's famed Dachigam National Park, the main concentration of the endangered elk species.

Brain Stormer: What Should The Prime Minister Speak On Independence Day?

By M H AHSSAN | INNLIVE

Prime Minster Narendra Modi has set a new trend by asking people’s views for his Independence Day speech. His attempt to draw closer and closer towards the people will make the Government perform better and realise the demands and problems of millions. So far 1100 suggestions have come up ranging from attack on Dalits and Muslims to simmering conflicts in Kashmir. Realising the sensitivity of caste, religion and Kashmir, he must focus on delivering his I-Day speech.

Solution For Ending Of Kashmir’s Cycles Of Violence: 'Respecting Rights, Ensuring Justice'

By MEENAKSHI GANGULY | INNLIVE

The authorities have failed to address deep-rooted grievances and end impunity for abuses.

At least 24 people have been killed and hundreds injured in protests that have broken out in Jammu and Kashmir after Indian security forces killed a 22-year-old self-proclaimed militant, Burhan Wani,on July 8.

Into The Heart Of Darkness

Special Report

M H AHSSAN visits Muridke, the headquarters of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, and goes behind the mask of piety to discover the face of terror.

You are in an educational complex but you are from India and you work for HNN, so it will take you time to change your mind,’’ is what Abdullah Muntazir, (my guide and the spokesperson for the foreign media), threw at me within minutes of us reaching Muridke, believed worldwide to be the headquarters of the Lashkar-e- Tayyeba (LeT). It was perhaps, for the first time, that due permission had been granted to any Indian journalist to visit the sprawling campus that lies 40 kms out of Lahore. The barricade that leads to the complex is heavily guarded, and no one can enter without prior consent.

The guided tour took me through a neatly laid out 60-bed hospital, schools for boys and girls, a madarsa, a mosque, an exorbitantly large swimming pool and a guest house. Nestled between tall trees and a meshed wire boundary, the 75-acre complex has manicured lawns, turnip farms and a fish-breeding centre. The students who enroll in the school pay a fee while those who study in the madarsa and pass out as masters in Islamic studies can come for free. Learning English and Arabic from class one on is compulsory, as is a course in computers.

“Welcome to the headquarters of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. You think a terrorist organisation will be based just a few metres away from the main Grand Trunk Road?’’ is the next loaded statement. The administrators of the complex, drawn from the LeT’s political wing, Jamaat-ud- Dawa, are clearly at pains to disassociate themselves from the group widely believed to be behind the terror attack in Mumbai on 26/11. Other foreign journalists were guided through the complex a few days before my visit. During their orchestrated tour, they saw students working in chemistry and physics laboratories, peering into microscopes and connecting electric circuits.

None of us went there thinking we would see firing ranges or target shooting in progress, but the tour itself is surreal, because even as you walk through the neatly trimmed lawns and veer left or right to see the hostel or the mosque or the hospital, the conversation itself is dotted entirely with words like terrorism, lashkar and in my case, Kashmir. Even though the gates have been opened — after clearance from Pakistan’s security agencies (read ISI) — to dispel the impression of Muridke being the training camp that “India has made it out to be,’’ the conversation is not about the school syllabus but wholly about how India is an enemy.

A day after I visited Muridke, I met a family whose sister-in-law lives right next to the complex. “But of course it’s a training ground. You can hear slogans for jehad blaring out of loudspeakers in full volume and you can also sometimes hear the sound of gunfire,’’ members of this family confided. But during the two hours that I spent within the complex, there was enough conversation about jehad even if there were no signs of it being a sanctuary, not just for the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, but for Ramzi Yousef, an al-Qaeda operative, and one of the conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

Kasav, the lone terrorist who was captured alive in Mumbai, is supposed to have studied here, according to his interrogators, and its time to ask some straight questions.

So did Kasav study here, in Muridke? Even if he did, we are not responsible for what any one of our students do after passing out.
Do you support the LeT? We used to. You used to? Yes, we were like-minded but the group was banned after Indian propaganda following the attack on its Parliament, which was done by the Jaishe-Mohammad and not the LeT. We used to provide logistical help to the Lashkar, collect funds for them and look after their publicity.

Did you also provide them with arms?
They must have bought weapons with the money we gave them. They were obviously not using the money to buy flowers for the Indian Army.

The Lashkar has claimed responsibility for the attack on the Red Fort in Delhi and the airport in Srinagar.
We do not consider Kashmir to be a part of India. It is a part of Pakistan. Those who attack the security forces are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters.

President Musharraf moved away from the position that Kashmir either secede or be given independence. He proposed joint control.
Pervez Musharraf did not enjoy any legitimacy. He had no business making such proposals.

Do you consider India an enemy?
Without doubt. India is responsible for the attack on Islamabad’s Marriot hotel, for the bomb blasts in Peshawar. Sarabjit Singh has been convicted of being a RAW agent.

Your Amir, Hafiz Sayeed, has given calls for jehad.
He supports the freedom movement in Kashmir. We think it is right. It is ridiculous to call him a terrorist. When India is even pricked by a thorn, the whole world stands up. Why did Condoleezza Rice not put pressure on India for handing over Narendra Modi after the Gujarat carnage?

Kashmir is no longer entirely indigenous. Foreign fighters like Maulana Masood Azhar were arrested in Anantnag.
He was a journalist and still is an inspirational writer. Anyone from here can go to Kashmir. We do not see it as part of India.

Did you sanitise this place before bringing me in?
This is an educational complex and the Jamaat-ud-Dawa is a charitable organisation. There are very few people here because of the Eid break.

Does the ISI support you?
He just laughs.

The Jamaat-ud-Dawaa, which was banned by the US in 2005 for being a Lashkar front, draws patronage from the ISI and though proscribed abroad, has a free run in Pakistan. It has branches all across the country and is as famous for the social work it renders, as it is infamous for its terror activities. It sees itself as a movement and not an organisation and has appeal to many in rural and urban areas. When the Observer correspondent went to Kasav’s village in Faridkot, just off a town called Depalpur close to the border with India, to establish if he indeed was a Pakistani, he was told that “religious clerics were brainwashing youths in the area and that LeT’s founder Hafiz Sayeed had visited nearby Depalpur. There was a LeT office in Depalpur, but that had hurriedly been closed down in the past few days. The LeT paper is distributed in Depalpur and Faridkot.”

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa has a wide base and operates 140 schools and 29 seminaries in different towns and cities of Pakistan. According to the Jamaat’s website, “Islam does not mean following a few rituals like performing prayers, keeping fasts, performing the pilgrimage to the Ka’ba (Hajj), giving alms (Zakat), or donating to charitable works, but in fact, it is a complete Code of Life. That is why Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s struggle is not limited to any particular aspect of life only; rather, Jamaat-ud-Dawa addresses each and every field of life according to the teachings of Islam. Jamaat-ud-Dawa is a movement that aims to spread the true teachings of Islam, and to establish a pure and peaceful society by building the character of individuals according to those teachings.” Its appeal extends to urban professionals like doctors who were out in large numbers in Muzaffarabad (the capital of Azad Kashmir or POK, depending on which side of the line of control you are on) in 2005, after a devastating earthquake. Unlike the Taliban, the Jamaat is modelled after Hamas and is not merely an army with gun-toting members but a complex and intricate organisation with a social and political agenda. It has a huge following and reports have often indicated that in its annual congregations, where Hafiz Sayeed gives a call for jehad, as many as 100,000 people are present in the sprawling Muridke compound.

IT IS groups like the Jamaat and the Jaish-e-Mohammad — started by Maulana Masood Azhar soon after he was set free in Kandahar — that both India and Pakistan are up against.

The complete U-turn, post 9/11 when General Musharraf lent complete support to George Bush, saw Pakistan take a slow but sure journey that has today placed it on a dangerous crosshair. While Musharraf joined the war against terror — forced to by Bush who had infamously said you are either with us or against us — he also got isolated from his own people who took to the streets, openly protesting his support of America that was bombing and strafing civilians, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The last straw on the camel’s back — to use a cliché — came when his own army stormed the Lal Masjid in Islamabad in mid-2007. Reports of machine guns being used against innocents who got trapped in the Masjid, converted many within the army and the ISI and those who had retired from these outfits. It was the tipping point for former ISI chief Lt Gen Assad Durrani, who says, “It was the most blatant homage paid to the Americans. The mosque is located under the nose of the ISI headquarter and you cannot first allow it to become a fortress and then fire on people who were willing to surrender.”

The storming of the Lal Masjid was a tipping point in more ways than one. If the release of Masood Azhar and the subsequent formation of the Jaish saw the advent of fidayeen attacks in Kashmir, the Lal Masjid operation led equally to the birth of intense attacks by suicide bombers. The suicide attacks were not just targeting civilians, they were seeking men in uniform and the figures, in fact, tell the story. The first half of 2007 saw 12 such attacks all over Pakistan, between January and July 3, and an estimated 75 people were killed. But after the Lal Masjid operation which reduced large parts of it to rubble, 44 suicide attacks took place between July and December, killing 567 people, mostly the members of the military and paramilitary forces, ISI and the police. December also saw the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a grim reminder of the fact that the militants had declared a war against their ex-masters. The attack on Islamabad’s Marriot Hotel, the city’s most high-profile landmark, only confirmed the fact that terror can strike at will, any time and anywhere. It confirmed also that terror was not restricted to Pakistan’s tribal belt alone. President Musharraf himself had, in fact, also survived three assassination attempts and now lives under extremely tight security. The terror threat in Pakistan, can, in fact, be gauged from the fact that both President Asif Zardari and the Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, in a complete first, offered Eid prayers at their respective residences on December 9.

The wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan does not just testify to the revival of al Qaeda and the Taliban networks but as Ahmed Rashid, strategic writer and author of several books on the jehadi networks, says, “The army is embroiled in fighting these forces in the Frontier and one-third of the country is not even in the state’s control. This is hardly the time to pick a fight with India.”

The Ratcheting up of tension and animosity between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai terror attack on 26/11, points to another dangerous faultline — while the Pakistani Army joined the global war against terror, it never completely gave up its support to the jehadi network that is active on its border with India. Even after Lashkar and Jaish were banned, neither were their back accounts frozen, nor was there any attempt at forcing them to shut shop. The Army and the ISI continued to support fronts like the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which does more than just equip men with arms. It motivates and indoctrinates minds, and as Rashid points out, “Musharraf used to place Hafiz Sayed and Masood Azhar under house arrest for Western consumption. He may have stopped infiltrating them into Kashmir too under international pressure, but there was no attempt to stop their activities in Pakistan after they were banned. They were just allowed to hang loose.” Concurs former interior secretary Tasneem Noorani, “There was no effort to mainstream the radicals.”

Kasav’s journey from a remote village in Faridkot to Mumbai is a testimony to this. So is his revelation to his interrogators that he was trained by a ‘Major’. Zardari may have been right when he attributed the Mumbai attack to ‘nonstate actors’ because the Major does not necessarily have to be a serving officer employed with the ISI. “Retired ISI officers are helping the Pakistani Taliban and they have become more Lashkar than the Lashkar,’’ is how Rashid puts it but any number of strategic and security analysts will testify to this dangerous trend — to how ex-ISI officers are still in business because they have now attached themselves as advisors to militant organisations like the Lashkar and the Jaish. Admits one such analyst, who prefers not to be named, “You don’t need large training camps. Ex-servicemen are imparting arms training within the compounds of their homes. Different officials are attached with different groups.”

The switch from one alias to another — Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Markaz-e-Toiba, Markaz-e-Dawah-Irshad, Jamaat-ud- Dawa — speaks of the Establishment’s (the Army and ISI combine are referred to as the Establishment in Pakistan) more than subtle support of groups that are used against India. The long-standing relationship between the Establishment and the India-bound militants is now under pressure. The overriding message from America after the Mumbai attack is for these groups to be reined in. This is testing not just the army’s carefully crafted support for the militants but has also focused attention on yet another faultline — the equation between the Establishment and the civilian government.

Committed to better relations with India, Pakistan’s top-most civilian representatives responded instinctively to the horror in Mumbai, in keeping with what Zardari had told the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, held a few days before the gun and grenade battle at Nariman House and the Taj and Oberoi hotels. In what took the Indian Government by surprise, Zardari committed Pakistan to a no-first-use of nuclear weapons. It was the first major securityrelated statement to come from Pakistan’s Government after the February 18 election and more than just surprise the Indian Government, it caused unrest amongst its own Establishment. The next statement, made by Prime Minister Gilani — and confirmed through a press release issued by his office — pertained to the civilian government agreeing to sending its top-most ISI officer, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to India on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s request.

The sequence of events following Gilani’s offer and Zardari’s quick retraction, saying they had agreed to send a director and not Director General Pasha, in fact speaks of the internal battle of supremacy between the Establishment and the civilian authorities, especially on the crucial issue of national security, which the army believes to be its exclusive domain. As Imtiaz Alam, a peace worker and head of the South Asian Free Media Association, who had dinner with Zardari a day after the Mumbai attack put it, “Zardari is very firm on terrorism. He thinks democracy is a better weapon but the terrorists have succeeded in creating a psychological gulf between India and Pakistan. Instead of Pakistan fighting the jehadis, it has become a fight between India and Pakistan.”

Senior journalists in Pakistan admit that briefings from the ISI changed the post-Mumbai discourse. Reacting perhaps to the loud, jingoistic demands on Indian television channels for action against Pakistan, the ISI told a select group of journalists that India had in fact ‘summoned’ their chief. In these briefings, the ISI is also surprisingly and shockingly supposed to have reffered to Baitullah Mehsud — Benazir Bhutto’s assasin — as a ‘patriotic Pakistani’. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa Amir, Hafiz Sayeed — with a clear nod from his handlers — appeared on one news channel after another, making the same points: that the list of 20 most wanted which also includes him, was old hat, that India was playing the blame game without evidence, that India had its own band of ‘Hindu terrorists’ and India should give freedom to Kashmir and end the matter once and for all. The leak soon after, of the hoax call, purportedly made by Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherji to President Zardari, sealed the debate — India bashing was back in business. The jingoism overtook the more important debate of the threat Pakistan itself faced from terror networks flourishing on its soil.

Pakistan news channels went on overdrive and as some even blared war songs, the question that gained importance through all the din, was — who really runs Pakistan? Who is in control?

The answers to the questions are both easy and complex. Mushahid Hussain, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate, is clearheaded on the answer: “War on terror, national security and relations with India, Afghanistan and China are the domain of the army. Thanks to India, the army has been rehabilitated and the war bugles are all over. No one person, no one institution is running Pakistan. Musharraf ran a one window operation and the army and the ISI used to report to him, but now decision making is murky and that is causing confusion. The hoax call and the DG ISI controversy are symptomatic of that.”

There are other examples. Only a few months ago, Zardari quickly retracted on his effort to bring the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry. And even as the Pakistan Government’s response to Indian pressure to rein in the terror networks, plays itself out on a day-to-day basis, it is evident that the civilian authorities have had to embrace the Establishment’s point of view vis-a-vis India. Therefore, the talk that India should provide concrete evidence. Therefore, Zardari’s statement that the guilty — if found guilty — will be tried on Pakistani soil. That the 20 most wanted will not be handed over. Even on sourced reports, put out in the local media, that Masood Azhar had been put under house arrest, Prime Minister Gilani went on record to say that no such report had come to him yet.

If India believes that Pakistan’s response has been poor — two Lashkar men, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Zarrar Shah have been arrested in Muzaffarbad — it is because the government here is tied down by the Establishment and pressure from its own people. It cannot be seen to be buckling under pressure either from India or the US.

Some moves seem to be on the cards, including the banning of the Jamaat-ud- Dawa. But Lashkar was banned in the past, as was the Jaish. Prime Minister Gilani has committed to not allowing Pakistani soil to be used for terror attacks, but then Musharraf had made the same exact promise on January 12, 2002 soon after Parliament was attacked in New Delhi.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has gone as far as to say that “Pakistan needs to set its own house in order’’but he is in the Opposition and he can afford to make such statements. If Pakistan has begun to resemble a house of terror, it is because the army and the ISI are yet to change their stance, not just vis-a-vis India but vis-a-vis the terrorists they create and support. Until then, the sprawling compound in Muridke will continue to remain in business. If the Jamaat-ud-Dawa does get banned, all it will need is another alias.