Causes of Growing Global Terrorism

The United States has never wanted peace in the world. Every country of the world is compelled to obey the United States out of fear. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States got the title of "sole superpower." International community should make the United States understand that elimination of terrorism is necessary but regretfully Americans do not want to end the causes of terrorism?
Post World War Scenario
The United States appears to be standing behind every war since the World War. More than 2 million Koreans were killed in the Korean war from 1949 to 1953. When the Vietnam war was fought in the next decade, more than 4.1 million Vietnamese were killed from 1959 to 1975. These include the citizens of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Cambodia. The confrontation was still on when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 and 1.3 million Afghans were killed. Then, the flames of Gulf war engulfed the entire region. Thousands of Iraqi children died a helpless death. Thousands of people craved for medicines in hospitals and severe food shortage emerged. The world was still recovering from this shock when the United States landed its troops in Afghanistan. The United States invaded the resource-rich country to hunt Osama Bin Laden. Later, Iraq was also ruined and the United States claimed that Iraq had chemical weapons.
Similarly, Kashmir issue remains unresolved until today in spite of having been recognized at international level. Many other devastations of this nature hit the world over the past eight decades but most of them were related to natural calamities. If matters are closely observed, it would appear that the United States is behind all these devastations and wars in one way or another. The United States launches wars under one pretext or the other and then devastation becomes the fate of the country where it enters. The United States is, at present, the largest arms supplying country. The United States sold weapons worth $800 million in 2007, whereas its own defense budget is over $700 million.
US intellectual Noam Chomsky has been drawing the world attention to this since long. According to him, the United States is assuming the role of an international rascal. On one hand, the United States is raising the attractive slogan of the "war on terror," and on the other, it has assumed the role of the greatest terrorist. Moreover, the United States is pursuing the communist ideology of telling lie and then standing firm in it.
Noam Chomsky considers the United States an international terrorist country in this situation. If we take stock of the international situation after 1990, we will be compelled to believe in what Noam Chomsky says. The way in which the United States made unjust intervention into different countries clearly proves that it is following the policy of imperialism.
US Intervention in Middle East
The greatest responsibility lies on the United States if peace could not be established in the Middle East to date. The United States openly supported the Jewish Israel. The United States supports atrocities being committed against the unarmed Palestinians. If Israel makes the lives of Palestinians miserable in flagrant violation of the UN resolution, the United States recklessly uses its veto in the UN Security Council to support it [Israel]. Thousands of Palestinians have been living in refugee camps in inhuman conditions since 1948. Not only this, Israel massacres innocent Palestinians even in the refugee camps. The killing in the camps of Sabra and Shatila is a clear instance in this regard. Ever since the establishment of Israel, the United States used it like a policeman in the Middle East and did so for the accomplishment of its agenda and to ensure protection of its national interests, particularly the oil supply. Even the United States declared the recent Israeli excesses just that it committed in the form of attack on Lebanon. The United States did not condemn the killing of hundreds of Lebanese citizens and recklessly used its unjust right in the Security Council in support of Israel. As a result, the war continued for approximately 40 days and scores of human lives were lost. The United States set up a puppet regime in Iraq to seize the country's oil reserves. Moreover, the potential threat that Jewish Israel could have faced from a powerful Muslim country [Iraq] has been eliminated. Having tightened Iraq into its clutches, the United States wants to fully focus on Iran, which aspires to acquire nuclear power. It is obvious from the problems that the United States had to face in Iraq regarding Iran, that it will not launch such an attack on Iran.
The US intervention in Afghanistan is approximately 26-year-old and its consequences are before us. Despite all of their drawbacks, the Taliban had succeeded in establishing a stable government in Afghanistan, but the United States made hundreds of Afghan target of its bombing on the basis of suspicion and pushed the country back into the Stone Age and established a puppet regime there. The prevailing situation in Afghanistan is such that innocent people are being killed every other day and the US brutality has crossed all limits.
Antihumanity Measures
When the Islamists set up a stable government in Somalia, which had plunged into civil war and peace started to return to the country, the United States attacked Somalia with the help of Christian Ethiopia. The United States annihilated approximately four Somali villages in the very first attack. The civil war has been going on there ever since.
The man of the contemporary world is fed up of these US antihumanity measures. Smaller and weak countries have started considering it "superpower" to remain safe from its mischief. It is necessary to reign in the US aggression if the terrorism is to be eliminated because it is promoting terrorism.

Omar Abdullah's Concept of Autonomy for Kashmir

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been repeatedly saying that Kashmir is a political problem, and it could not be solve through economic measures. He says mere economic packages would not help.

Omar Abdullah's tone and tenor shows he is proud of efforts to find a political solution. Omar says he said this openly even before Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh that power supply in Kashmir cannot solve the issue. A political solution has to be found for a political problem.

Need For Political Solution
Some political observers feel Omar Abdullah has not said anything new, whereas others feel that by avoiding calling Kashmir an integral part of India, Omar Abdullah has been creating doubts in the mind of the federal government. Some leaders of Omar Abdullah's party consider his attitude as dangerous. This time, by talking of the need for a political solution recently the chief minister has shown that he did not mind openly expressing his views.

No one protests when Omar Abdullah talks of a political solution. One has to agree with him that power and water supply cannot resolve the Kashmir issue. However, there are doubts that his boldness may cost him dearly. The reason is that there are many people in New Delhi who consider Jammu and Kashmir to be an economic and not a political problem. They feel people have been agitating for basic economic necessities and not for right to self-determination or autonomy. Such elements can be angry with the chief minister.

Demand of Situation
As far as Omar Abdullah is concerned, he finds it in his favor that Home Minister P. Chidambaram has already said that Kashmir is a unique problem, which needs to be solved politically. The differences between the chief minister and separatists are no secret. Their stands are poles apart.

However, they must have been impressed by what Omar Abdullah has said. At the same time, communal leaders in India may dub Omar Abdullah as a separatist.It can well be asked from Omar Abdullah what is his concept of autonomy, on the basis of which he has been demanding a political solution.

UN Commission Report on Benazir Bhutto's Assassination

As the UN commission report on Benazir Bhutto's assassination has tried to make many things clear, it has also created many confusions regarding hosing down the site of the incident. The United Nations is said to be a representative body of all the nations, but it also serves the United States. It is either Kofi Annan or Ban ki-Moon, they have been holding the slot of secretary general of the United Nations just to the extent of splitting hair.

The former and the present secretary general of the United Nations may have high qualities and wisdom as persons, but whatever line they adopt is controlled by the United States on one side. Thus, to presume that the United Nations is an independent, autonomous, pro-justice, bold and a high moral-value body may be greatness of a thinker, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Suspicions and Apprehensions
The United Nations is so great institution that when the United States intended to hit Iraq or Afghanistan, all the representative nations like wolves in sheep's clothing passed the resolutions overnight according to the US aspirations giving it the license to deal with these countries as per its whims, and they would have no objection to it.

They never noticed oppression and tyrannies being committed in Kashmir and Palestine. Rather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, himself took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations; however, later, his attitude towards peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue through the UN remained negative. India's such an attitude still continues. The United Nations has never been in the position to take some steps while preaching justice based on purely human and moral values. The United Nations is a weak puppet, which is being controlled by uncontrolled the United States.

Anyhow, reverting to the UN report on Benazir Bhutto's assassination, there does not seem anything new in it. The report is more or less based on the points, which have been mentioned by our Television channels' anchors from time to time. For instance, why was the site hosed down? Why was post mortem not conducted? Why did the reserved vehicle in the motorcade left the scene earlier?

However, if the UN report has stated anything new, it has been narrated in a way that it seems like killing several birds wit h one stone. For example, the report said that the then DPO (District Police Officer) Rawalpindi said to a third person that an intelligence agency chief called him asking him to wash the site. Thus, the martyrdom of Benazir was attempted to be given two directions so that the things proceeded in a way that the facts remained on the background.

As the United Nations has always been kind to Pakistan, how could its constituted commission remain behind in expressing love for Pakistan? The Pakistani Government moved to the United Nations with sincerity and good intentions. However, it depends on the United Nations how it slants its reports and applies them to the Third World countries. They created a mischief, which is likely to create more suspicions and apprehensions regarding Benazir's martyrdom.

However, the incumbent government immediately formed an investigation committee. A senior civilian bureaucrat was appointed as its head and two other members -- one civilian and one military man -- were made its members so that they could determine whether a military person was involved in washing the site. In addition to the general, Saud Aziz, the then DPO Rawalpindi and some other persons also appeared before the committee and they recorded their respective statements. The statement of Saud Aziz exposed the UN report by claiming that the decision to wash the site was taken by him. He must have adjudged that as the ground was paved for emergence of confrontation among institutions by unnecessarily complicating the issue, the people are also facing an uncertain situation. He, thus, put the facts before the nation that no intelligence agency head interfered in this issue.

UN Intentions
What a great job was done by the UN commission? It pocketed heavy amount as fees and instead of informing people about the causes of the death of Benazir Bhutto, it started blaming the Pakistan's secret agencies, and also tried to involve them in this dirty game. The Pakistani nation is well-aware of the intentions of the United Nations and its commission, and knows that it will never receive any good news from them.

Even then, we have no other option and we have to depend on the United Nations and its commissions in our matters. And this society perhaps developed an acquaintance with the word 'commission', and every commission looks that it is our own, though it is an investigation commission instead of any financial or deal commission.

Institutions and Intelligence Agencies
As for the UN commission's report, if the SHO of Liaqat Bagh Police Station is encouraged to probe into the incident 'just for the sake of God', he may bring about better facts and disclosures than that the United Nations. Our own institutions and intelligence agencies are quite efficient. They are so efficient that they can be dubbed as 'Shan-e Kai' in the words of Iqbal. Then why is investigation of any incident occurring on this land not assigned to them? May God save this country from the enemies who are in the form of friends! If the United Nations is not an enemy to Pakistan, it can even not be described as a friend. The more we remain alert from it, the better it would be, as no one ever saw this institution speaking its own voice.

US Negative Approach Toward Pakistan Plans

Pakistan has been nursing an aspiration since long that the United States should reach a civilian nuclear agreement with it on the lines of India. For the fulfillment of this desire it has been repeatedly urging the US leadership.

Yet, its endeavors proved futile once again when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told in no uncertain terms to Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi that there was no question of signing a civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan. He is currently holding talks at the high strategic level with Hillary Clinton. On this occasion, she categorically stated that the United States has no intention to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.

Nuclear Military Treaty
The United States has been extending all support to Pakistan, yet it is unwilling to cooperate with Pakistan on the issue of a new military nuclear treaty with Pakistan because Pakistan has failed to build an image of a responsible nation on the nuclear support issue at the international level. Its nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan did not behave with a sense of responsibility. A charge is leveled against him that he passed on nuclear know-how to North Korea and Iran. That is why these countries also are in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons. There are also alleged reports that nuclear weapons have found their way in the hands of militants.

Meanwhile, India has fully fulfilled its obligations in respect of the nuclear issue. The country has lived up to the world expectations. That is why the world's superpower, the United States, has inked a nuclear deal with India. After the India-US nuclear agreement other countries have also reached such deals with India. Pakistan, on the other hand has failed to build an image of a responsible country. Pakistan has earned a bad name on the issue of terrorism all across the world. By signing a nuclear military treaty with Pakistan, the United States does not want to be entrapped in a fresh controversy. Hence, India should welcome the US clarification on the nuclear treaty with Pakistan.

Kashmir Issue
The US stand on the Kashmir issue also can be termed positive from the Indian viewpoint. The United States never gave an occasion to India to interfere in the bilateral issues with Pakistan when India did not have a high stature at the international level as it is at present. Today, India is considered a major power at the global level.

In the present international scenario, the United States does not desire to spoil its good image by interfering in the Kashmir issue. Hence, it can be commented that the United States, by adopting a highly balanced approach, has conveyed to Pakistan that it should make some demand from the United States only by restraining itself within a certain limit.

Secular Pretence Exposes India's Weakness Before Pakistan

Pakistan is continuing its cunning maneuvers and India is constantly trying to improve relations under US pressure. Pakistan made the move for talks with US support in order to improve its image in the world.

It proved to be a mere sham in the long run. It was the Indian Government's weakness to deviate from its original resolve "not to have any discussions with Pakistan until it stops all anti-India activities on its soil."

Measures Against Terrorists
Pakistan's morale seems to have gone up by this change. It was elated that India had been caught in its trap. That is why Pakistan adopted a rigid stand in the dialogue. It neither gave up the Kashmir slogan nor did it make any commitment on taking stern measures against terrorists. Why does Manmohan Singh fail to realize that relationship with a country, which has always been hostile to India and has adopted the policy of humiliating and destroying it, can never be developed?

Because of India's weak policy and lack of determination, Pakistan repeatedly vents its anger on us and advises us to improve relations. A fitting reply can be given to Pakistan through determination and on India's own strength.

How can the United States pressure India into talks? No country can earn respect in the world by sacrificing its prestige for the sake of international relations. Has the prime minister forgotten this simple principle of foreign policy? Pakistan and the United States complement each other in their foreign policies and designs. Some time ago, US President Barack Obama had asked China to keep a watch on the situation in South Asian countries. Its direct implication was that China should mediate between India and Pakistan. Later, Pakistan's foreign minister said, during his visit to China, that Pakistan would welcome any role assigned to China to reduce tension between India and Pakistan. This mentality does not certainly go in India's favor.

Dancing to Tune of US
What is the point in dancing to the tune of the United States? It only reveals India's weakness. The United States is forming an equation with Pakistan to protect its own interests. But ignoring India's welfare and respect in this process can never be tolerated nor should the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government allow this.

That Pakistan had taken the dialogue lightly was evident from the meeting that Pakistani foreign secretary had with Hurriyat Conference leaders, blatantly just before the dialogue began. Was this not meant to irritate the Indian Government? What could be more ridiculous than the description of the dossiers handed over to the foreign secretary as "mere literature"? Pakistan was actually pretending to hold talks.

It was not at all serious about them. That is why, its foreign secretary had asked India not to make terrorism a part of the dialogue before he came to India. But terrorism and Pakistan's role in it are the main cause of tension between India and Pakistan. Having a dialogue without including them in the agenda can serve no purpose. Pakistan was not serious about the talks at any level nor was it eager for them to be conclusive. That is why the talks failed.

Resumption of Dialogue
Just two days before the resumption of the dialogue, Pakistan violated the cease-fire and started firing on the Samba region on the India-Pakistan border. Does this not prove that Pakistan's hostile mentality has not changed at all? On the other hand, the Taliban have beheaded two Sikhs for refusing to pay extortion money and to convert to Islam.

Another Hindu was abducted and a ransom of a hundred thousand rupees was demanded. The Manmohan Singh government did not refer to these atrocious activities in the dialogue. This silence exposes the secret of its "secular character."

As against this, the prime minister's reaction to the burning of churches in Orissa was quite different. After the ruthless murder of Swami Lakshmanand in Orissa, people went on a rampage and destroyed some churches and hurt Christians. The prime minister was in France at that time. But this did not stop him from describing these incidents as a "national shame". However, the same government fails to react to heinous activities like killings of Sikhs, demanding extortion money from them, compelling them to convert to Islam and abducting Hindus. What does it imply? Ignoring these happenings that occurred just before the resumption of the dialogue is in consequence with the government's secular thinking?

Its secular pretence was further exposed when the Congress party spokesperson stated that it was the government's responsibility to bring artist M.F. Hussain safely back to India, even though he paints obscene pictures of Hindu gods and goddesses! Contrary to this, the government compels Taslima Nasreen to leave the country repeatedly because she exposes the doings of fundamentalist clerics through her writings. How can such a hesitant secular government having a weak moral counter Pakistan's depravity?

India-Pakistan Talks: A Review

A number of problems between Pakistan and India have been awaiting solution since the partition of the Indian-Pakistani subcontinent. Major problems among these are Kashmir, Sir Creek, distribution of water, Siachen Glacier, and now terrorism is also a problem that has contributed to widening of the gulf between the two countries.

In addition to leadership-level talks between the two countries, dialogues were also held at ministerial and secretaries level between the two countries during the last 63 years to solve the problems. During the course of time, wars were also fought, which broadened the gulf of mistrust further, and the Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 pushed the level of mistrust to an extreme end.

The latest, the foreign secretary-level talks between Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir was held after a long time, which ended without any positive results. The Pakistani Government is making efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue and other disputes. However, the Indian Government's stance was limited to talks on terrorism only. Now, these talks again proved meaningless and serving no purpose, and became a thing of the past like those held previously.

Salman Bashir declined to hand over the mastermind of the Mumbai terror attacks, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, to India, saying that it is futile to link the Hafiz Saeed issue with the dialogue process. Meanwhile, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao raised the terrorism issue at the talks with Salman Bashir and demanded the arrest of Hafiz Saeed because India has been the victims of terrorism attacks from the Pakistani side since a long time. India also entrusted to Pakistan a dossier of the list of 40 terrorists, but whether Pakistan would make any comment on it, is doubtful.

The manner in which the two sides were engaged in filling the blanks shows that the dialogue was held without much preparation. Those who consider this to be another failure of India's foreign policy cannot be totally dismissed. This is because our rival country, which had made India agree to talks even if that meant coming to New Delhi, seems to have been successful in claiming this to be a diplomatic victory. It could achieve this feat without changing its viewpoint after 26 November 2008.

Ministerial Level Talks
The first session of Pakistan-India ministerial level talks was held on 27 December 1962 in Rawalpindi. Pakistan was represented by Foreign Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and India by its Foreign Minister Suran Singh. These six-phase talks concerning the Kashmir issue remained inconclusive. The second phase of these talks was held in New Delhi from 16 to 19 January 1963, while the third phase from 8 to 11 February ended inconclusive in Karachi. However, it was decided to hold one more meeting in Calcutta (Kolkata) to find new ways for solution to the problem. Hence, the fourth phase of talks kicked off on 11 March in Calcutta where the proposal of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was agreed on, saying the Kashmir problem should be solved on the basis of economy and not religion. Yet, no permanent solution to the problem was reached, and it was decided to take the matter forward and holding of another session of talks was agreed.

Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru once again emphasized on solution to the Kashmir and other issues. The fifth phase of ministerial-level talks began in Karachi on 22 April 1963, which ended without yielding any results. The sixth and last phase of these talks began in New Delhi on 15 May 1963, which proved unsuccessful on 16 May when Pakistan suggested making the Kashmir an international issue. In this way, these ministerial-level talks comprising six phases concluded without yielding any results.

There had been no ministerial or diplomatic contact between the two countries for almost seven years; rather, India attacked Pakistan in 1971, resulting in disintegration of the country into two parts (inception of Bangladesh); Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Indian prime minister signed Shimla Pact thereafter.

On 31 July 1971, the Pakistan-India diplomatic staff held bilateral negotiations at Rawalpindi to bring the political situation to normalcy. On 29 November 1974, the diplomats from the two countries held negotiations at New Delhi to remove ban from the bilateral trade, imposed in 1965. On 24 January 1975, Pakistan and India signed a trade agreement at Islamabad. Negotiations on Pakistan-India trade were arranged at Karachi from 12 to 13 January 1976.

The Indian cricket team, after a 17-year gap, came to Pakistan on a two-month long tour on 24 April 1978. On 4 February 1980, Indian Foreign Secretary R.D. Sethi along with a four-member delegation came to Pakistan to hand over Indira Gandhi's letter to President Ziaul Haque, in which meetings with Pakistani Foreign Secretary S. Shah Nawaz for bringing relationships of both the countries to normalcy and situation of Afghanistan were discussed.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ghulam Ishaq Khan and his Indian counterpart Narasimha Rao held a two-phase meeting on 10 June 1981, in which discussions were made on the international situation and the bilateral relationships. Pakistan and India held negotiations on No-War Pact and bilateral relationships on 30 January 1982.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Yaqub Khan held a 50-minute meeting with his Indian counterpart Bali Ram Bhagat to discuss bilateral relationships. The second round of this meeting was held in New Delhi on the issue of Siachen Glacier.

In October 1978, the two countries arranged negotiations at Islamabad on the Wooler Barrage dispute. On 31 December 1988, multiphase meetings were held between Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her Indian counterpart Rajiv Gandhi. On 1 January 1989, Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi signed three bilateral accords: No attack on each another, solution of bilateral taxation dispute, and cultural cooperation.

Secretary-Level Negotiations
The first round of the secretary-level negotiations between the two countries was held at Islamabad on 17 July 1990, in which Foreign Secretary Tanvir Ahmed Khan represented Pakistan, while Indian Foreign Secretary Machkana Darbe represented his country. These negotiations were of seven phases. The second round was held in New Delhi from 10 to 11 August 1990, third round in Islamabad between Pakistani Foreign Secretary Sheheryar Khan and his Indian counterpart Machkana Darbe and J.N. Dixit from 18 to 20 December 1990 and seventh round in Islamabad from 2 to 3 January 1994.

In these negotiations, which were held after a 17-month gap, nuclear nonproliferation, Kashmir, and Siachen disputes and reduction of weapons were discussed. However, these negotiations didn't bear any fruit. On 28 March 1997, Pakistan-India negotiations at the foreign secretary-level resumed in New Delhi after the lapse of three years. Shamshad Ahmed Khan represented Pakistan, while Salman Haider represented India. The second round of these talks was held in Islamabad from June 19 to 22 1997.

Negotiations at the foreign secretary-level restarted at Islamabad on 15 October 1998 after a gap of 13 months, in which Shamshad Khan represented Pakistan, while Raghunath participated from the Indian side. Discussions were made for the restoration of confidence building environment. As a result of these meetings, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Pakistan in 1999.

In 2003, the Pakistan-India contacts were restored at the foreign secretary-level, in which the India forwarded 12 suggestions for confidence building and stress was laid on the reopening of land, water and air routes. Pakistan showed positive response to almost all of the suggestions. However, it partially rejected one of the suggestions, and also imposed some conditions.

Also, in addition to this, four suggestions were presented from Pakistan's side: Increase in the number of delegation staff and starting Lahore-Amritsar bus service in place of increase in number of buses on Lahore-Delhi route were suggested. On 6 January 2004, a meeting was held between General Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the SAARC leaders' conference in Islamabad where both of them agreed to hold purposeful negotiations in February for restoration of relationships.

As a result, negotiations at the secretary-level were held from 15 to 17 February 2004 in Islamabad, which broke down the three-year deadlock. The second round of these talks started in Islamabad from 27 to 28 December 2004, in which Foreign Secretary Riaz H. Kokar represented Pakistan, and from the Indian side Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran forwarded 20 suggestions for restoration of confidence over strategic and regional issues and the Kashmir dispute.

This peace process fell in jeopardy after the seven bomb explosions in Mumbai trains on 11 July 2006, in which approximately 200 people were killed. As expected, India put the responsibility of the explosions on Pakistan and talks at the foreign secretary-level were halted. And it is also said that the Pakistani diplomatic staff was deported from India. However, the deferment lasted for a very little duration and, once again, negotiations started at the foreign secretary-level in New Delhi from 14 to 15 February 2006. In the third phase of this meeting, the Khokhrapar Monabao border was opened on 1 February 2007.

An agreement was signed in March 2007 to prepare combined mechanism against terrorism. However, important, complicated and solution-seeking issues between the two countries remained unresolved. And most importantly, India kept rolling back on its own 12 suggestions that it had forwarded for confidence restoration in October 2003.

During the SAARC Council of Ministers meeting on 7 December 2007 in New Delhi, Pakistani Caretaker Foreign Minister Inamul Haq met his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee and emphasized on negotiations. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Pakistan from 21 to 22 May 2008, and another meeting was held in Islamabad for the evaluation of the fourth round of Pakistan-India negotiations.

On 27 June 2008, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi visited India and invited his counterpart for negotiations, after which the fifth phase of negotiations at the foreign secretary-level started on 21 July 2008. Under these negotiations, friendly cooperation in various sectors was ensured and discussions were made on suggestions of availability of resources for easy issuance of visas and increasing people-to-people contacts.

Pakistan and India agreed for confidence rebuilding over the Kashmir dispute and steps for amalgamation of the divided families. However, no agreements over the Kashmir dispute and other issues came to forth.

Disastrous Point
26 November 2008 proved to be a very fatal day for the Pakistan-India peace process when approximately 170 people lost their lives in the massive terrorist activities in the Indian city of Mumbai. India held Pakistan responsible for these activities and one again the negotiation process suspended. And now India is laying stress on negotiations only over the agenda of terrorism.

And news published in various dailies show the bias that India at the moment does not want to deviate from its stance and talk about other issues. One this occasion, we are recalling/remembering these words of the Indian prime minister, which he had spoken on 12 July 2001 for war: "If India and Pakistan remain busy in peaceful and sincere bilateral negotiations for removing mutual differences, then none of the problems could linger unresolved."
Assessment
If the responsible people sitting on the negotiations tables recall these words of Vajpayee, without any doubt, peaceful environment will be established in the region, which will guarantee development of all.

The most important aspect of the 25 February talks is that Pakistan's foreign secretary came here and our foreign secretary talked to him. Even if both of them repeated their old allegations full of resentment, at least it broke the silence. It should be noted here that during the time when formal talks between the governments remain stopped, politicians on both sides spread much more hatred among their people. Before leaving, Pakistani foreign secretary extended an invitation to the Indian foreign secretary to come there. We must continue this sequence.

To conclude, I am also recalling a quote of Jawaharlal Nehru, which he had uttered soon after independence: "A prosperous and secure Pakistan would benefit India; with which (Pakistan) we can establish close and friendly relations." In the light of these words, India should not miss this opportunity at any cost. And it (India) should take such steps that help Pakistan become a stable and prosperous country, so that it also has positive impact on India.

India-Pakistan Dialogue: No Success Achieved Again

Even after conveying its repeated reluctance for talks to Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at Yekaterinburg (Russia) and later with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh.

In the wake of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, India took a clear stand that unless and until Pakistan does not dismantle the terrorist infrastructure on its soil and hand over the conspirators of the Mumbai attack to India, or prosecute them in Pakistan, India will not hold composite dialogue with the same.

Dialogue Process
The process of dialogue with Pakistan was set in after the Lahore bus journey by Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was the prime minister then, and the meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was arranged, but the Musharraf-sponsored Kargil conflict and the army camp in Pakistan dashed all hopes toward this end. Later, the Agra Summit failed and the process of dialogue remained suspended for a long time.
Finally, the talk process could be resumed during the term of Vajpayee as prime minister. After the attack on the Indian Parliament, roads, rail, and air links with Pakistan could be restored. Later, during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's term, the bus service and trade between the two Kashmirs resumed.
Nevertheless, Pakistan from the very beginning stuck to its wont of harping on Kashmir. From the times of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his daughter Benazir Bhutto, later Musharraf and currently Pakistani leaders persisted with their agenda of harping on the Kashmir issue. Now, under the US pressure, the New Delhi talks at the foreign secretary-level began in the midst of mutual apprehensions and with their respective stands.
Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna maintains that terrorism should be the main issue in the India-Pakistan dialogue. It is a clear stand of the Indian Government that if improvement is to be brought about in the India-Pakistan relations, then there should be an atmosphere free of terror between the countries. However, Pakistan has been constantly trying to avoid the terrorism issue in the dialogue process.

Latest Talks Failed
The visiting Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir on 24 February declined to hand over the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks, Hafiz Saeed, to India, saying that it is futile to link the Hafiz Mohammad Saeed issue with the dialogue process. Meanwhile, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao raised the terrorism issue at the talks with Salman Bashir and demanded the arrest of Sayeed because India has been the victims of terrorism attacks from the Pakistani side since a long time. India also entrusted to Pakistan a dossier of the list of 40 terrorists, but whether Pakistan would make any comment on it, is doubtful.
In connection with the Mumbai attack, Pakistan also admitted in its various documents that the attack was sponsored and launched from Pakistan. The links of the recent explosion at Pune are connected with terrorist kingpins based in Karachi. Not only that Pakistani infiltration is accelerating in Jammu and Kashmir and terrorist attacks are also increasing.

Violating Cease-Fire
In an encounter with militants at Sopore on 24 February, two soldiers and a captain of the Indian Army were killed. The same day, Pakistani troops violated the cease-fire and opened heavy firing in the Samba sector in which one Border Security Force personnel was wounded. Earlier, Taliban in Pakistan beheaded two Sikhs in the tribal area and abducted another Sikh.
A wave of terror has spread among Sikhs living in Pakistan in the wake of such incidents. It is astonishing that whenever India-Pakistan talks are held or take place, firing by Pakistani troops at the border has increased.
Zardari has once again spoken in terms of raising the Kashmir issue in the fresh India-Pakistan dialogue, and told Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani that the Pakistani Army was strong enough to face the Indian challenge.
Whenever, any Pakistan leader or bureaucrat visits India, Hurriyat leaders arrive in Delhi to meet him. Hurriyat leader Ali Shah Gilani met Salman Bashir and asked him to raise the Kashmir issue as the main issue instead of river water issue at the renewed India-Pakistan talks.

Neglecting Terror Issue
Keeping in view all this, union Home Minister P. Chidambaram was not optimistic about the talks at the secretary level. The truth is Pakistan is unwilling to realize that terrorism is dangerous for both countries. Although a democratic order exists in that country at present, the fact remains that it cannot do anything without the consent of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the military. These two are the obstacles in the India-Pakistan relations.
This time around, differences cropped up between the two sides. Therefore, no joint statement was issued. Instead, Pakistan raised the Baluchistan issue and things remained unchanged on the whole, and the position is, "they came, held talks, and left."

Pakistan's Hypocrisy Over Resolution of Kashmir Issue

Judging the present war of words between India and Pakistan on the foreign secretary level talks to be held in New Delhi, only a miracle can make them successful. The problem is not just that Pakistan is insisting on a composite dialogue whereas India wants terrorism to be the focal point of the talks. At the same time, Pakistan is trying to convince the world that its diplomatic skill has compelled India to climb down.

India's Alleged Interference in Balochistan
It is quite ridiculous for Pakistan to want a successful dialogue and also have the liberty to raise any issue like Kashmir, distribution of river waters, and India's alleged interference in Balochistan during the talks. Pakistan seems to be preparing for a wrestling bout rather than a dialogue. Right now, it is difficult to predict what kind of atmosphere will prevail during the talks and what issues will be raised. However, what is promising is that India has apparently abandoned its defensive attitude.
If Pakistan wants to add to India's problems on the pretext of discussions it is imperative for India to adopt the tit-for-tat policy. There is no other alternative. Even if Pakistan professes to want the Kashmir issue to be solved on priority basis, frankly speaking, Pakistan is least interested in settling the matter. Pakistan has been trying to corner India on the excuse of Kashmir only due to its weak diplomacy. Rightfully speaking India should have isolated Islamabad on the issue of Occupied Kashmir. After all, it is Pakistan that has forcefully occupied part of India's territory.

Basic Change in Kashmir Policy
India should now at least make a basic change in its Kashmir policy, which will convince the world that Pakistan is the obstacle in solving the Kashmir issue. If this is not done, Pakistan will continue to mislead the world by comparing Kashmir with Kosovo, Palestine etc. Instead of being accountable for the Kashmir problem, Pakistan has been acting arbitrarily on Occupied Kashmir, which is highly inappropriate.
Terrorist organizations have complete freedom there. Activities of Chinese companies in Occupied Kashmir are a problem that should be raised not only before Pakistan but also at an international level.

Pakistan's Discomfiture
As a matter of fact, every issue that will add to Pakistan's discomfiture should be raised. That is essential since Pakistan is demonstrating a diplomatic bias instead of heading toward a solution of problems. India should not hesitate to convey to the world that having a dialogue with a prejudiced Pakistan is sheer waste of time.
The dialogue, which is to be held between the countries, might please Pakistan and satisfy the United States. However, India is unlikely to gain much from the same.

Creation of South-Central Asian Economic Bloc

Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan signed a joint statement recently in Islamabad. The statement is a good omen as all three countries have agreed not to interfere in each other's internal matters, and have expressed their resolve that neither country will let their respective territories to be used against each other.
Foreign ministers of the three countries released the joint statement at a press conference in Islamabad. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki, and the Afghan counterpart Rangin Dadfar Spanta further announced that the second trilateral summit would be held in Islamabad during the current year. In addition, meetings of interior ministers will be held in Islamabad, finance ministers in Kabul, and the intelligence chiefs in Teheran.

Joint Decision
The foreign ministers' conference also decided that the scope of the alliance would be expanded to another three neighboring countries and in this regard, foreign ministers of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan will meet in Tehran. The intellectuals say that everything sans geography of a country can be changed in the world. Similarly, every material blessing in the world can be purchased, but a neighbor is such a blessing that cannot be purchased. The geography of your country will continue to exist and you will have to accept your country's neighbor.
It has been Pakistan's bad luck that relations with its neighboring countries never improved. The Kashmir issue was waged with India in 1947; four wars were fought; one of them bifurcated the county, and one wing of Pakistan became Bangladesh. The Pashtunistan imbroglio with Afghanistan started in the same year, 1947. However, this issue has never led to any war. However, relations with Afghanistan remained cold until 1975. Then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto extended a hand of friendship toward Afghanistan (President Sardar Muhammad Daud). Sardar Daud and Bhutto had agreed to form an economic bloc for regional cooperation between the two countries. Both of them met the same fate they were killed.
After 1978, Afghanistan and Pakistan were trapped in a war that has been underway for the last 31 years. From 1978 until 1990, this was a war actually between the United States and former Soviet Union, but after 1990, it turned into a war of US occupation over Afghanistan. In this war, Pakistan was declared the frontline state and is being used as a "sand bag."
Until monarchy remained in vogue in Iran, the Shah (king Raza) ruled the country. The Iranian emperor was considered to be a US agent. Until then, good relations existed between Pakistan and Iran. The US interest in the region was that both the countries remain committed to peaceful coexistence and jointly abide by the US dictates.
In 1979, a revolution took place and democracy was established in Iran. It hurt the US interests and the United States started using neighboring countries including Pakistan against Iran. Washington united Iraq, Kuwait, and other Arab states in the world and manipulated a war against Iran that lasted for eight long years. The United States also created a rift in relations between Pakistan and Iran.
China is also our neighboring country. It is the only country in the world that has helped Pakistan against all odds. The United States repeatedly perpetrated terrorism in China and attempted to shift its blame on Pakistan.
Russia is also our neighboring country. During the Cold War era, a wrong decision by then Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan turned Pakistan into a US ally against the former Soviet Union. Then, the United States used Pakistani territory against the Soviet Union. The Russian leadership is still suspicious of Pakistan and does not trust the same.
Since 1999, Pakistan has been isolated on an international level. General (retired) Pervez Musharraf's regime is known as a period of frequent failures of Pakistan on the foreign policy front. Even during the period of the incumbent democratic government, no heed has been paid to Pakistani ministers on the international level, which means that Pakistan is still confronted with international isolation.

Painstaking Task
The only panacea to bring Pakistan out of international isolation is to improve its image and credibility on a regional level. The blemish of being a US ally on Pakistan must be removed. Pakistan's entity as an independent and sovereign country must be established. This is a very painstaking task. However, an alliance comprising of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan can make positive headway in this direction.
Until 2009, the Pakistani people used to complain that the United States was using the Afghan territory against their country. The people of Iran and Afghanistan also had the same complaint that the Untied States was using the Pakistani territory against the same.
A trilateral summit of these countries (Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan) was held in Teheran in 2009, in which the said issues discussed. The foreign ministers of all three countries, during their meeting in Islamabad, pledged that they would not allow any one to use their territories against each other.

Economic Development
The Afghan Parliament by rejecting the pro-US nominees for the new cabinet of President Hamid Karzai twice has proved that Afghanistan has wakened up. Similarly, in camera session in 2009, the Pakistani parliament also raised an effective voice against the US interference. Last week, the parliamentary committee on national security released a draft memorandum, in which flaws in the foreign policy were highlighted and a halt to the US steps against the territorial integrity and security of Pakistan was demanded.
The latest Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan trilateral statement is a good omen, as it recommends the inclusion of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan into the fold of regional cooperation. It is imperative that that this trilateral alliance is turned into a regional bloc involving China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan also. It will help isolate the duo of India and the United States, and prevent their hegemony from being established in the region. It would also usher in a new era of development in the region. China has emerged as a role model of economic development in the new century.

Assessment
By adopting this model, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other neighboring countries can get rid of the West's hegemony and slavery and can also touch new heights of economic development. This is how the energy crisis in Pakistan can be overcome. It is time that the media, civil society, political parties and the Pakistani people consider to move forward "minus the United States" that is without relying on the US assistance. This sole option will guarantee the stability, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Pakistan's internal security.