Middle East after Arafat

The demise of Yasser Arafat in a Paris hospital not only brings to the close a life devoted to the Palestinian cause, but also gives what the US and Israel call a new lease of life to the Middle Eastern peace process.

Despite the fact that the Palestinian leader had renounced terrorism and conceded Israel's right to exist as a result of the Oslo accords, he was somehow always regarded as an obstacle to a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Indeed, even as the Israeli government headed by Ariel Sharon undermined the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority headed by Arafat, the Israelis continued to blame him for failure to rein in the militants.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the pace of progress in negotiations with the Palestinians has been set by extremists, like Sharon. Their game has been not to implement the UN resolutions No. 242, and 338, that require complete withdrawal of Israel from the territories occupied in 1967, including a part of Syrian territory, namely the Golan Heights. With full US backing, Israel has consistently obstructed a fair and peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.

Sharon's current plan, to withdraw fully from Gaza, a narrow and crowded strip extending from the Egyptian border north-wards, cannot be considered as adequate for achieving a viable Palestinian state. Israel has already taken possession of about 15 per cent of the West Bank, by building its security fence that takes in numerous Israeli settlements.

The network of roads controlled by Israel to connect the Jewish settlements built in violation of earlier accords will have the effect of creating a number of Palestinian "Bantustan".

Not only will Israeli withdrawals not correspond to the requirement of the UN resolutions, but would not be consistent with the goal of creating a sovereign and viable Palestinian state.

Colin Powell's resignation strengthens the position of the conservatives, who have determined the Bush agenda in the Middle East, and whose belief in America's right to determine the region's future boundaries and ideological direction on the basis of its power remains unshaken.

The other major influence on Bush has been that of the evangelical Christians who believe that a total Israeli victory over the Arabs will create conditions for the second coming of Christ.

The expectations aroused by the re-election of Bush that he will return to the traditional diplomacy of the US by creating a multilateral basis for resolving international disputes has been negated by the departure of Colin Powell. The war against terrorism is to be pursued through force, with little regard for addressing the root causes of terrorism.

The first indicator of US intentions will be if sufficient pressure is put on Sharon to allow elections in the areas supposed to be controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Doubts are being raised if this democratic process will be allowed to help raise the new leadership that will represent the Palestinian side in following the roadmap. The ambivalence of Bush on the territories taken over by Israel creates doubts if a viable Palestinian state will be allowed to emerge.

When putting forward the roadmap with the support of Russia, the European Union and the UN, Bush had projected the implementation by the year 2005. After his re-election, he repeated his commitment to the two-state solution, but extended the timeframe to the end of his second term.

Apart from stepping up the military operations in Iraq, as evident from the operation against Fallujah, US diplomacy has returned to exercising pressure on Syria and Iran for supporting terrorism and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.

Since both the US and Israel have adopted the stance that the passing away of Yasser Arafat removes an obstacle to the peace process, we have to see how Condoleeza Rice performs though Colin Powell will continue to function till her appointment has been confirmed by the Senate.

His effectiveness will be reduced by his "lame duck" status, and the hard decisions will come from the White House. The Arab and Islamic countries feel at a disadvantage, given the ideological alliance between Bush on the one hand, and Israel and the conservative Christians on the other.

Signs of disaffection are visible in the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco though the heart of this world lies in the Middle East. The way Bush proceeds to tackle the Palestinian problem will hold the key to peace and stability in this oil-rich region.

So far, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq has reached the stage where the American concept of democracy has prevailed. Karzai in Afghanistan, and Ayad Alawi in Iraq are functioning under close US protection, and unless more is done to accommodate local sensitivities, and US good intentions shown in Palestine, the antipathy to the US-Israeli alliance will continue.

Arafat is being eulogized because he showed commitment and patience in support of the rights of the people of Palestine. If the Israeli extremists or the US conservatives believe that they can impose an unjust settlement on the Palestinians, they will find that the legacy of Arafat will inspire the Palestinians to maintain their resistance.

Indeed the very belief in democratic values that the US preaches would keep the Palestinian resistance to an unfair settlement alive, while the disaffection among the Islamic countries over the US policy will prevent any meeting of hearts and minds.

The person who has emerged as the most likely successor to Arafat is Mahmoud Abbas who enjoys a certain credibility with the US and even Israel for his moderate views.

If the Palestinian electoral process moves ahead smoothly to elect a new leader by January 2005, he may get the mandate. Thereafter, the US, prodded in part by the Europeans, could play its due role as the superpower to find a just settlement of the Palestinian problem.

The New York Times, in an editorial on November 19, 2004, called the demise of Arafat as a moment of opportunity and urged Sharon to announce a freeze on settlement activity which would shore up the credibility of Mahmoud Abbas.

Next, Mr Sharon should do whatever is possible to facilitate voting by the Palestinians. The US paper then envisages a peace deal based on the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem shared, a final border based on 1967 lines, and a symbolic right of return by the Palestinian refugees to Palestine.

The Paper recalls that there have been only a few moments of opportunity in the gloom and doom that have surrounded the Palestine problem, among which it mentions the Oslo accord, and Camp David.

As Mr Sharon has long claimed that he is ready to do business with a moderate Palestinian leader, the paper would like Mr Sharon to board the peace train with Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Mr Abbas.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Freedom in cage

The history of Cyprus is replete with the tales of miseries of peace-loving people of the island. Not to talk of the era of monarchy or dictatorship, even during the twentieth century, the fundamental rights of the Turkish Cypriot community were usurped by religious godfathers.

History witnessed some of the worst types of traumatic events on the island. The Greek Cypriots cannot remember what happened between 1963 and 1974 and this the Cypriot Turks cannot forget.

In July 1974, Turkey came to rescue the oppressed Turkish Cypriot community. The island was then ethnically divided into North Cyprus and South Cyprus, dominated by Turk Muslim Cypriots and Greek Cypriots respectively.

In February 1975, a semi-independent Turkish Cypriot state was proclaimed in North Cyprus. Subsequently, on November 15, 1983, the Cypriot turks declared their independence as the Turkish Republic Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

The Turkish intervention was first welcomed by the West but the European Commission of Human Rights declined to recognize the new setup. The declaration of independence by the parliament was not acceptable to the hawks of the United Nations. The UN Security Council declared 'the purported secession - legally invalid.' Sanction was then imposed against the newly born state.

Embargo of the TRNC supported by the UN is perhaps the longest embargo still in operation against any peace-loving state. In fact the people of the TRNC have been made hostage for their dream to live in peace with freedom. The world body kept them in cage. Freedom was allowed but within the cage.

Turkey is the only country that has recognized the TRNC as an independent nation and having diplomatic relations with them. Pakistan has also allowed its representative mission to operate in Islamabad on the fringes of diplomatic norms but not granted full de jure recognition to the TRNC. Other countries, particularly the rich Muslim states have not yet taken up the issue even on humanitarian grounds.

The Arabs' reluctance is very much political as they feel little sympathy for the Turks because of Turkey-Israel factor. But this proposition is questionable in case of those countries who played a vital role in the creation and expansion of Israel.

The ground reality is that Southern Cyprus is enjoying the benefits of generous investment of petrodollar from the Arabs, whereas the other part of Cyprus is being treated as non-existent.

The people of TRNC are friendly, humble and peace-loving by nature; they are intelligent and sensible as well. They always demonstrated a sense of responsibility and tolerance on every crucial occasion.

Turkish intervention was vehemently supported by the masses, people's verdict led to the declaration of independence through parliament, the successive governments were always formed through the will of the people.

Irrespective of government policies and directives, the people of the TRNC always expressed their will independently in the larger interest of peace and prosperity in the region.

The Latest example is the referendum on Annan plan held on April 24, 2004. Contrary to the president's will, Northern Cypriots gave their 'yes' vote to the UN's reunification plan, whereas 'no' vote was given by Greek Cypriots.

By the result of this referendum, the world should be convinced that the people of Northern Cyprus want to live together peacefully, whereas the Greek Cypriots are still not willing to tolerate the existence of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Kofi Annan had described the referendum as the 'last throw of the dice for the much sought-after Cypriot unity' but the 'no' vote by Southern Cyprus completely ruined his plan.'

By now, too much water has flown under the bridge. The agony of injustice to the TRNC by awarding 'freedom in cage' through generation-old embargo is now being realized by other countries. European Union is now opening its door to the TRNC by ending its long isolation.

As a quick move the EU announced an economic aid package. Similar actions are likely to be taken by the US. Some other countries are also considering recognizing Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state.

The UN secretary-general has stressed the need 'to take concrete action to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impending their development.'

Prime Minister Mehmat Ali Talat of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has said in an article published in Washington Times: "If the Turkish Cypriots people hope for future and their continuing vision for a settlement is not to be dimmed, the international community must act now.

The package of largely economic measures announced in July by the EU commission gives us hope. It is disheartening, however, that the Greek Cypriot administration strongly opposes these measures and even threatens recourse to European courts to prevent their realization."

He said, "clearly, integration of the Turkish Cypriots with the international community does not, and should not, stop at economics. A host of other measures are needed from culture to sports participation in international events and instruments.

No political argument can justify leavings the Turkish Cypriots outside the international system, particularly in an ever globalizing era. If the Turkish Cypriots cannot even play a sanctioned soccer match either with Turkey to the north or with Greek Cypriots to the south, let alone any other country, the international community should reconsider its benign neglect treatment of the Turkish Cypriots case."

Prime Minister Talat also emphasized, "towards these objectives, international transport, particularly direct flights, should be encouraged by governments and made possible for international air carriers.

This is the only way tourism can be developed to its potential and significantly boost the Turkish Cypriot economy. Free and direct trade between Northern Cyprus and the EU, the US and the world at large would be in the interest of all."

The international community must take note of the prime minister's approach and persistent compromising attitude towards Greek Cypriots for peace and tranquillity on the Island. A recent move by EU the US for economic assistance package and to end 30 years old isolation paves the way for other countries to confer sovereignty on the TRNC.

Bhutan leads the way

Somebody had to lead the way, but who would have thought that it would be Bhutan? Last week, the tiny Himalayan kingdom became the first country to ban smoking altogether: indoors, outdoors, on mountain-tops, in the out-house, everywhere.

It is now illegal to sell tobacco in any form in Bhutan: individuals caught doing so will pay a $210 fine (two or three months' wages for the average Bhutanese), and businesses will lose their licences. But you know that what the Bhutanese government has just created is a smuggling industry.

The government know it, too. "If any foreigner is caught selling tobacco products to Bhutanese nationals, he will be charged with smuggling," Karma Tshering of the Bhutanese customs told the British Broadcasting Corporation just after the ban went into effect.

"Tobacco will be treated as contraband" like alcohol during the Prohibition era in the United States, or like "drugs" during the current wave of moral panic in the world.

Bhutan's tiny underworld will start to grow and get rich off the tobacco ban this week, but it will be some time before outright bans on tobacco in bigger countries create the kind of global bonanza for criminals that the alcohol and "drug" bans did.

Smoking bans are probably coming too, however: the pattern of agitation by groups who claim to be concerned about health risks, but who are really driven by intolerance for self-destructive behaviour in others, is exactly the same this time.

It is true that smoking tobacco is a bigger health risk than consuming "drugs" (including the so-called "hard drugs" like heroin). It's even greater than the health risk involved in drinking alcohol. But it very rarely hurts anybody except the user, so why is it anybody else's business?

In public spaces that must be shared, it is everybody's business: non-smokers have a right not to be annoyed by other people's smoke. But to extend that ban to all indoor public spaces including bars that wish to cater only to smokers and their consenting friends, as New York City did last year, Ireland did this year, and even Poland will probably be doing in five years' time - the Californification of the planet marches relentlessly eastwards - is simply intolerance fuelled by ideology.

It's a relatively small act of intolerance, but more will follow. The Bhutanese, being a bit out of the mainstream, have misread the cultural signals and jumped the gun, but absolute bans on tobacco use even in private are probably no more than five or ten years away in some major jurisdictions.

That will, of course, create the same pattern of organised crime and the same huge illegal cash flow that previous bans on alcohol and "drugs" did. Why would it be any different this time?

Organised crime has grown to its present impressive scale almost entirely by providing goods and services that large numbers of people want, but that local laws forbid: gambling, prostitution, alcohol, and narcotic and psychedelic drugs.

This is quite clear to everybody in the business: the Colombian cartels would no more vote for the legalisation of cocaine today than Al Capone would have voted for the end of alcohol Prohibition in the America of the 1930s. And in due course, there will be a new mafia that specialises in the supply of illegal tobacco.

The proportion of persistent smokers in the populations of developed countries will probably stabilize in the end in the same ten-to-fifteen percent range as the number of regular "drug" users in those societies whether or not there is an outright ban on tobacco.

Smoking rates have been dropping steadily for decades now due to medical fears and social pressures, but an irreducible residue of hopeless addicts and determined rebels will remain in every country no matter what is done. The temptation will be to punish them for their persistence and rationalise it as being "for their own good." It is a temptation that should be resisted.

More lives would undoubtedly be saved by an outright ban on smoking than would be lost to its side-effects, like an upsurge in organised crime. -Copyright

Out of prison, at last

The release of Asif Zardari from his eight-year detention last week, after the Supreme Court granted bail in the BMW reference where a petition had been pending for 18 months, had all the trappings of high drama.

The dramatic tension that accompanied the decision, coiled like a watch spring, was released with such fresh precision that it left both supporter and detractor gasping. The action of the Supreme Court has been seen as a triumph for the PPP lawyers, who for years had been raking dust and scurf out of the legal foliage.

The verdict has, however, finally brought to an end the second longest detention of a political figure in the country's history - the dubious distinction of the first being, of course, the Jeay Sindh leader, G.M. Syed, who quarrelled with both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League.

The release was front page editorial matter in the nation's newspapers. And so it should have been, for the news was as sensational as it was unexpected. A beaming Asif Zardari popped up also now and again on a couple of local news channels, in spite of the cricket and football tournaments, the gloomy attic of American satellite repeats and the music and dance extravaganzas, which are increasingly turning into black holes that appear to distort every other channel by their gravitational pull.

PPP supporters are jubilant, though the majority of them probably don't realize the fact that Asif Zardari is technically on bail and could be hauled back to prison at any time, should the administration so desire.

He is still implicated in a number of cases, in spite of statements from NAB that there are no outstanding issues, and assurances from the ubiquitous information minister, that no case would be instituted against him.

Today Asif Zardari has more sympathizers than ever before. Even Chaudhury Shujaat, in his brief stint as prime minister, raised quite a few eyebrows when he made oblique references against the way NAB targeted out-of-power politicians instead of netting some of the bigger fish who still yielded the stick. But, as the cynic says, the history of this country is littered with examples of people going back on their word. There's something about this episode that doesn't quite gel.

The response from opposition political leaders, headed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman, has been, predictably, most generous. Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who spotted a more sinister motive in the move, was, however, a little more cautious.

His advice, which has obviously not been followed, was that instead of celebrating in the traditional way, the country's second largest party in parliament should be asking why the husband of the chairperson of the PPP had been locked up for so many years, when the administration could not prosecute any of the cases against him. Qazi Hussain added an interesting rider. It was time the government created the necessary legal machinery to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen in future.

The release of the "bete noir" of the establishment is seen in some quarters as a prelude to a national reconciliation of all parties to facilitate the government to function properly.

Zardari in his crowded press conference had dropped strong hints that "he was ready to serve as a bridge between political parties." He even advised them to talk to the establishment "to bring the country back on the right path," whatever that is supposed to mean.

So far, the king's party in the National Assembly and the Senate enjoy the dubious distinction of not having passed any law, which could be even vaguely construed as having been in the national interest.

The way they botched up the law pertaining to honour killing, is a shining example of how retrogressive tribal and national prejudices insinuate themselves at the drafting stage.

Benazir Bhutto and her husband have denied that either of them had struck any deal, however tenuous, with the government, and that the Supreme Court's decision was a triumph of justice. But as this is a nation of cynics, it was hinted that since a sinister plot had been hatched in the corridors of power to use Asif Zardari to defuse some of the rancour being shown by the obdurate Qazi Hussain Ahmed on the uniform issue, there might have been a friendly nudge from the establishment to the judiciary, to do the government's bidding.

However, anybody who has even the briefest acquaintance with the personality and integrity of the present head of the apex court, would know that Mr Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, is not only unapproachable, and operates in vacuo, but is also a stickler for applying the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, for many political analysts, there must have been the nagging thought that the whole process of Asif Zardari's imprisonment was politically motivated. Their thoughts must have been fired by the memory of how, after his initial 30-day detention, which was declared illegal by the Sindh High Court, he was implicated in so many cases, that had the law taken its course, he could have been kept in prison for many more years.

Whatever the current motives of the government, one must admire the courage with which Asif Zardari endured eight years of imprisonment. He made no mercy petitions; scorned deals slipped in through the backdoor and refused offers of a life in exile, at a time when a former prime minister, Jamali, was desperately trying to cobble together a government.

He clung tenaciously to his belief that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty, and continued to profess his innocence in all the cases instituted against him. In jail, he was admired by other prisoners and his stubbornness in the face of adversity, made him something of a folk hero.

Asif Zardari, who derived his importance essentially from being the husband of a former prime minister, accused of committing a series of white-collar crimes, has, through the ineptitude and callousness of the government, been turned into a political leader. This is certainly not what the government had planned to do or expected to happen.

The general perception is that the establishment wanted him to stew in jail for a little longer, while a deal could be made with the PPP, which is the only party that has a meaningful representation in all four provinces of the country.

The release is going to hang like a millstone around the necks of the people is Islamabad who pull the strings that make the marionettes dance, and may very well give them king sized headaches in the days to come.

The euphoria hasn't yet died down, but some of the celebratory spirit and ardour was dampened by the strange and extraordinary remarks of the chief minister of Sindh, Arbab Ghulam Rahim.

During a break in the proceedings of the provincial assembly, he confided to a clutch of newsmen that Asif Zardari would be safer in jail than outside, as there were still charges of murder pending against him.

He added that the latter would be well advised to move about in public protected by his own body guards. And almost in the same breath the stated that the government would be happy to provide the necessary protection, should it be requested, adding, almost as an afterthought, that they could always lock him up again on a charge of stealing goats.

Surely, it is the duty of a provincial chief minister to provide protection to a political figure whose safety he believes could be threatened. Whether Arbab Rahim is worried by the possible resurgence of the PPP, who might make forays into the government party, and after concluding a series of new alliances, topple the provincial government, or there is some personal enmity between the two political figures, this is hardly the way to usher in a new understanding.

Now that Asif Zardari has been sprung, what about Javed Hashmi and Yousuf Raza Gilani? The president made a gesture when he telephoned Nawaz Sharif to condole the death of the latter's father.

The sixty-four million dollar question now is, whether he would make another couple of calls to Riyadh and to Dubai. Who knows, a national government might be just the thing the country needs.

Hard talk on Kashmir

You can best fly a kite if you are firmly entrenched on the ground; but, try and fly with the kite and you are likely to fall off the wall like Humpty-Dumpty. The Kashmir euphoria commenced with Vajpayee-Musharraf concord last February.

This hot air balloon gained momentum after the Manmohan-Musharraf talks in New York last August, and with the opening up of a debate on 'options' and the withdrawal of 3,000 Indian troops from advanced areas.

The ongoing debate on 'detente' with India has opened the flood gates of sweet expectations in the mistaken belief that what could not be obtained by force of arms can be obtained otherwise. These expectations pave the way for later disappointment.

Following our dicta not to fly with the kite, let us recall some basics by standing firm on 'terra-firma':

• India is not likely to agree to any change in Kashmir status, such as joint sovereignty or UN mandate. Reason: This will require a constitutional change passed by the Indian parliament, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

• Pakistan is not likely to accept the LoC as an international border. Reason: We have been offered this consolation prize since the 1950s and its rejection has been the cornerstone of our Kashmir policy ever since.

• A modicum of clear-headed thinking will concede that there has never been a Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) problem as such. The problem relates to the Valley alone. There is no secessionist movement in any part of the old J&K state currently controlled by India or Pakistan. All parts of J&K excepting the Valley are better integrated in Pakistan and India than say FATA in Pakistan and NEFA in India.

The dispute is Valley-centric. The one Kashmiri leader who commands a surer political base in the Valley than any other in the APHC is the spiritual and political leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.

He is reported as saying "We cannot ignore the fact that three regions - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh - represent different cultures, languages and ideologies. The people of Jammu and Ladakh don't support the freedom movement. In fact, they have a lot of complaints against us (the APHC and other freedom groups)."

The Kashmir Valley, which was once regarded as a heaven on earth because of its beauty and grandeur - and nowadays more of a hell on earth because of the blood trail - is area-wise a tiny fraction of the old J&K state which nominally included the northern territories of Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit.

I submit three prerequisites for peace, before we can think of a solution. One, India should recognize Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan as parts of Pakistan and likewise Pakistan should recognize Ladakh and Jammu as integral to India.

To legitimize this mutual award, internal referendums in these territories should be held under the supervision of the respective India and Pakistan Human Rights Commissions.

Voters be given three choices: Total integration with India/Pakistan or autonomy with special status in India or Pakistan as the case may be. I do not envisage a joint human rights referendum body.

Each referendum commission shall consist of its own well-known nationals having administrative experience and a human rights track record. Likewise, law enforcement officers should be selected on the same basis. The internal referendums should be open to international monitoring.

The second prerequisite is for both countries to remove the engines of violence. If India is to substantially demilitarize the Valley, Pakistan must ensure that the so-called "liberation" camps in Pakistan are closed down.

According to the latest Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) report, "83 training camps are in operation, 47 in AJK, 10 in the Northern areas, and 26 in other parts of Pakistan".

UN observers should be given access to any pointations made by India and as mutual confidence grows, the Indians themselves may be given this access on a mutual basis.

The third and most important part of the peace process is to grant autonomy to the Valley, where the "sky is the limit" as conceded by two former Indian prime ministers on a freshly negotiated format between the Indian government, APHC and the current government in Kashmir.

The Valley administration shall consist of its citizenry with police power drawn exclusively from locals to take care of security. The title of prime minister should be restored to the elected chief minister of Kashmir (preferably elected by open general franchise) and the Valley administration should have the power to regulate trade and immigration matters with Pakistan and other countries.

Any solution lies in a process requiring patience and flexibility. Yet another factor that helps in such emotionally charged cases is ambiguity. An example in this regard is Northern Ireland.

Ambiguity as regards the final solution has stopped violence. This is the key to any solution. If the end point is cut and dry, it will be subjected to darts and nails in the incubator. Ambiguity reinforces hope in all stakeholders to achieve their desired ends.

The Valley's historical direction has always been towards the areas which are now in Pakistan. If we were to declare that our immediate intention is a sovereign Valley there is little hope of India agreeing.

Indeed, any Indian government making such a proposal will be shown the door the very next day. But, given ambiguity, the consanguinity of peoples, the exchange of trade and visitors will over a period of time make sovereignty an irrelevant issue. The outstanding example of this is little Andorra wedged between Spain and France.

India agreeing. Indeed, any Indian government making such a proposal will be shown the door the very next day. But, given ambiguity, the consanguinity of peoples, the exchange of trade and visitors will over a period of time make sovereignty an irrelevant issue. The outstanding example of this is little Andorra wedged between Spain and France.

During a recent Kashmir conference which invited a former general well known for his jihadist views, the bottom-line of his swan song was: just slog on with the Kashmir jihad as we have for the last 15 years.

Why don't these ardent fighters make a balance-sheet of the jihadist period, which was financial bankruptcy, gaining one band of so-called friend which were the Taliban of Afghanistan and losing goodwill among our traditional friends - China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia apart from being ostracized in the western world.

The Taliban period in 1990s was certainly the most unfortunate period of our national existence. It was marked by religious extremism, sectarianism, mega- political corruption, and a collapse of economic indicators.

At the opposite end we have major political leaders who publicly and privately have questioned the creation of Pakistan. At least one major right-wing religious party, which opposed the Quaid's Pakistan tooth and nail, now makes Kashmir and jihad the cutting edge of Pakistani nationalism. Where do we proceed from here? There is only one way forward: go back to the teachings of our Founder.

The writer is a member of the National Assembly.

E-mail: murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk.