Ever since this paper was put on the Internet, I have been getting hundreds of e-mails from readers every month. This interaction with strangers has been hugely rewarding as it has enabled me to get input from people around the world.

The volume of mail has increased considerably after 9/11 as the global village began to scour the Internet for explanations for the devastating attacks against American targets. I don't want readers to get the impression that this digital traffic consists only of fan mail: I get my share of hate mail, too. By and large, this does not bother me as everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, and I am open to views from any quarter, specially if they are cogently argued and well expressed. Unfortunately, much of the critical mail takes the form of semi-literate abuse bearing accusations that I am on somebody's payroll.

Many readers have assumed that I am an employee of this newspaper and have demanded to know what I am paid for writing whatever it was that upset them. I have had to patiently explain that I write freelance and am paid a pittance for my efforts. Others are convinced that I am either on the payroll of the ISI, RAW or CIA. Again I have to inform them that none of these agencies have thought it worth their while to recruit me. All too often I have been charged with a singular lack of patriotism because I have been critical of some government policy or the other.

It is true that I do not agree with that old dictum: "My country, right or wrong". This is precisely the mindset that allows rulers to assume that the silent majority is with them when actually it often is not. When I disagree with a policy or a politician, I use this column to say so, otherwise what is the point of writing a weekly op-ed piece? But our tendency to brand those we disagree with as traitors reflects a failure of the intellect as we bandy charges of treachery when we cannot rebut an argument.

This is a tradition established by our politicians, who have been accusing rivals of this crime for years, when all they are guilty of is the same desire to get into power. Thus, whenever a leader has tried to forge a sensible foreign policy that has called for improving relations with India and/or the West, he or she has immediately been accused of treason. The army, too, uses the same vocabulary and accuses those politicians who do not conform to its vision of ideology of selling out the national interest. Never mind that it is the sole author and custodian of the elusive definition of national interest.

During Benazir Bhutto's second stint in power when I used Mazdak as a pseudonym, an old, respected friend told me he was in the information secretary's office when his (green) scrambler-phone rang. Apparently it was the prime minister who demanded to know why Mazdak had turned against her. The secretary is reported to have replied that he neither knew who Mazdak was, nor was he aware why he had 'turned against her'. BB could simply not visualize that I had earlier supported her party and government because I had certain legitimate (and in the event, ill-founded) expectations of the PPP. Having been thoroughly disillusioned by all the stories of scams that swirled around the First Couple culminating in the Surreygate scandal, I had reverted to the columnist's role of critic. To her, my changed stance was nothing short of a personal betrayal. But I must say that to her credit, when PM she was not vindictive to me, then a civil servant.

This could not be said of Nawaz Sharif who lashed out at people like Najam Sethi and Hussain Haqqani, apart from setting his minions against the Jang group of newspapers. The fact is that just about everybody in power is touchy about criticism. Thus far, the present military government has resisted the temptation to muzzle the press, even though General Musharraf has occasionally complained about inaccurate and unfair coverage. However, this is a far cry from the tight control his predecessors in khaki have exercised over the media.

Even long stints in free, democratic societies has not opened up the minds of many of our fellow South Asians: much of the hate mail I get is from readers of Indian and Pakistani origin who have spent decades in the West but have not got used to the right of individuals to their views. Whenever I have been critical of Pakistan's failed policies in Afghanistan and Kashmir, hundreds of Indian readers have applauded me for my 'objectivity'; but when I have questioned and criticized New Delhi's position, I have been lambasted by the Indians living abroad. Pakistani readers who have settled in the West berate me regularly for taking a position that is critical of my country's policy, charging that this gives the Indians ammunition to use against us.

All this reveals the kind of mental confusion we are prone to: by trying to stifle public discourse and debate on fundamental issues by silencing critics and calling them traitors, we play into the hands of those very leaders who have kept our destinies hostage for so long. Instead of calling each other names, Indians and Pakistanis should be engaging each other in a constructive dialogue aimed at breaking the spiral of invective and violence our leaders have locked us into. It never ceases to amaze me that normally intelligent people like the South Asians have continually fallen into the trap of mindless mudslinging and point-scoring without even attempting to sort out our problems like mature, reasonable adults.

Recently, a very perceptive and learned Indian reader wrote me a long e-mail in which, among other things, he argued that over time, large groupings of disparate nationalities like India would break up into their component parts which would then be more vibrant entities, freed from the stifling stranglehold of the centre. He felt when this happened, we would finally be rid of the albatross Kashmir has become for both India and Pakistan. When I argued along similar lines in a column written over a year ago, I was flooded with indignant e-mails accusing me of advocating the fragmentation of India. All I had done was to point out the example of Europe in which proud nation-states with ancient cultures were willingly surrendering their sovereignty for the greater good. If they can do it, can't we even begin thinking outside the box?