Obama keema, Obama daal
By Shahid Husain
Last night my fellow journalist Syed Raza Hassan suggested we should ask our wives to establish an NGO (non-governmental organisation) since we could hardly make ends meet with our present salaries. I agreed with him as usual.

comment
Movement not over
Though weakened, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan retains the capability to strike at soft targets and to offer resistance to the security forces
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
There is no doubt that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has suffered significant losses in recent months due to the sustained operations by Pakistan's armed forces in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The US drone attacks have also taken out some of its commanders including Baitullah Mehsud and curtailed the activities of those operating in South and North Waziristan. However, the militant organisation is far from finished. It is down but not out.

War of the words
No breakthrough in India-Pakistan relations despite claims and counter-claims
By Waqar Gillani
Almost a year has passed since Mumbai Attacks that caused a deadlock between the arch-rivals, India and Pakistan. India has alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) for masterminding these deadly attacks. It has also blamed Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of LeT and chief of banned Jamatud Dawa (JuD).

RIPPLE EFFECT
More honest bureaucrats, please
By Omar R Quraishi
I didn't know that Punjab had a DCO who was so good at his job that he was finding it hard to make ends meet -- he was not corrupt and wanted to remain that way. Several questions need to be asked with regard to former Zubair Bhatti's story as district coordination officer for Jhang -- the very district as a blogger quite rightly said gave the country organisations like the Sipah-e-Sahaba and people like Azam Tariq. However, Zubair Bhatti's case is obviously different. Though he cropped up in the national media only recently, via a report in this newspaper, which quoted a story in The Economist showcasing the former DCO (a story that I have not read myself), Mr Bhatti had been an atypical bureaucrat in the making for quite some time. In 2003-04, according to the ADB website, he was a Robert S McNamara scholar and he had degrees from Beijing University, Imperial College London and Princeton.

Around 192 heads of state and government and representatives of their countries gathered to discuss persisting economic crisis, climate change, nuclear disarmament and terrorism at the 64th session of the United Nation's General Assembly debate held here in New York.

The most notable, however, remained climate change and its threat to the world. About 101 heads of state and government from 163 countries participated in the largest-ever summit on climate change at the UN headquarters. Besides UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, US President Barack Obama and several other leaders spoke on the issue and sought political commitment of the member states to seriously tackle this challenge in future.

All heads of state except Pakistan's -- a country worst hit by climate change in the form of severe drought, devastating floods and fast going down of water table -- were present at the climate-change summit. Despite President Asif Ali Zardari, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi and other federal ministers already in New York, Dr Asim Hussain -- chairman National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) -- represented Pakistan at this crucial debate.

Since Brazil was the first country that addressed the first-ever session of UN General Assembly, the country opens the debate on September 23 every year, and then head or representative of the host country (US) speaks to the world body. President Zardari, unfortunately, even did not attend this traditional opening debate where all heads of state and government were personally present.

As mentioned earlier, climate change was the widely discussed subject at the GA forum. Most of the world leaders are going to meet in Copenhagen in December this year at a conference to wrap up negotiations on an ambitious new agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions that would go into effect in 2012.

Ban Ki-moon, who visited the Arctic ice rim earlier in September and witnessed first-hand the rapid impact of climate change, expressed regret over the "glacial" speed of negotiations and urged leaders to take "the long view" to meet their people's needs. He termed climate change as the pre-eminent geopolitical and economic issue of the 21st century and stressed it redraft the global equation for development, peace and security.

The atmosphere at the General Assembly was different. Unlike his predecessor George W Bush -- who hardly took UN on-board in the decision related to world peace and security -- President Obama attended all the sessions held at the UN premises, his speeches generally appreciated.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, who was hitherto extremely critical of President Bush and his policies, amused the world leaders when he came to the rostrum and said the current US president was an intelligent man: "It doesn't smell of sulphur here any more, it's gone. It smells of something else." Last year, he had told the session the hall smelt of sulphur -- referring to US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan where, he said, President Bush killed thousands of innocent people.

President Zardari spoke mostly about Pakistan's sufferings in its fight against terrorism and the country's contribution in eliminating the menace of extremism and violence. President Zardari said Pakistan had witnessed profound democratic change and had entered a new era of democracy, rule of law and human rights and urged the international community to help the country sustain democratic culture. At the time of President Zardari's speech, most of the leaders of big powers had left for Pittsburg to attend the G-20 meeting. Senior analysts covering the UN for years observed a policy shift in Pakistan's erstwhile stance regarding two core issues -- Kashmir and Palestine.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai could not attend the session due to controversy regarding the presidential elections. Foreign Affairs Minister Rangeen Spanta represented the country, instead. He said the growing gap in prosperity between and within nations was a reminder that the world was still far from meeting the ideals of the United Nations Charter to create a just and secure society for all. He stressed the need for an urgent restructure of the UN agencies.

He said the UN was not a forum for lip service, adding that rather than just reacting to problems, the world body must find ways to address structural causes of the world's problems and conflicts. He said the Islamic world was in urgent need of an intellectual renaissance, and rising "Islamophobia" meant that nations must seek effective ways to confront racism and discrimination.

Rangeen Spanta said negative media coverage has overshadowed many positive trends since the collapse of the Taliban regime. As long as terrorist sanctuaries remained protected, Afghanistan, the region and the world would be at the mercy of their totalitarian ideology, he said.

The environment turned quite tense when Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad came to the podium. Western media was extremely harsh on President Ahmadinejad for his contribution in equipping Iran with atomic facilities. Without a care about the anti-Iran atmosphere everywhere in the streets of New York and in the US media, he spoke candidly about various issues and stressed on changing the present financial system.

He said the engine of unbridled capitalism, with its unfair system of thought, has reached the end of the road and is unable to move on. Without naming names, he said those who define democracy and freedom and set standards while they themselves are the first to violate fundamental principles can no longer be both the judge and the executor.

Ahmadinejad was the only one to speak about the Palestine issue saying the entire population of a country had been deprived of their homeland for more than 60 years with their legitimate right of self-defence denied. He said certain governments unconditionally supported the occupiers against defenceless, "oppressed men and women" who were subjected to heavy economic blockades, the result of which was "genocide". He warned that such "militaristic logic" would have dire consequences and exacerbate the problems in the world.

Like others, he too suggested reforms in the UN itself, particularly the structure of the Security Council and the abolishment of veto rights.

In his 40 years of rule, Libyan President Colonel Muammar Al-Qaddafi came for the first time to the US. It was his first-ever speech at the UN General Assembly. He irked the delegates when his address went beyond the time limit. Qaddafi highlighted the discontentment of other member nations with the UN and its working saying that some member states were not present when the UN was created by a few countries years ago.

He criticised the veto wielding power of the Security Council, and said he neither accepted nor recognised it. The Charter's Preamble, he said, stated that military force should not be used unless there was a common interest but 65 wars, with millions of victims, had broken out since the creation of the UN. He also challenged the UN preamble saying if there was aggression against any country, UN members would check it. Despite that, countries which held the veto used aggressive force against "the people", even as the charter said no nation had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another.

He suggested when there were equal votes in the GA there should be equal votes next door in the Security Council. The 15-member body practiced "security feudalism" for those who had a protected seat, saying "It should be called the terror council."

Referring to President Obama, the aging Libyan president said Africans were proud and happy that the son of Africa was now governing the United States of America and it was a great thing -- a glimmer of light in the dark of the past eight years.

How can Iran be stopped from going nuclear?

By Dr Moonis Ahmar

Iran's test-firing of two long-range missiles on September 28 capable of targeting Israel and most of the Arab countries invited a quick reaction from Washington.

The US-Iran nuclear standoff resulted in the imposition of sanctions against Tehran. Is Iran's nuclear opacity over or does the Iranian leadership want to exercise patience while giving a practical shape to its nuclear ambitions?

President Ahmedinejad's assertion that his country was not interested in manufacturing nuclear weapons has failed to convince the West, particularly the United States. If Iran crosses the 'red line' and goes nuclear like India and Pakistan, what will be the response of the West, Israel and IAEA?

The scheduled meeting of P5+ Germany and Iran in Geneva on October 1 will be another attempt to resolve the nuclear issue by diplomacy and negotiations. While Russia has expressed its concern over fresh reports about Iran's uranium enrichment programme, China has insisted on seeking a diplomatic, rather than a coercive path to pursue a course of action against Iran.

The implications of ending Iran's 'nuclear opacity' may be far reaching. Unlike the nuclear tests of India and Pakistan of May 1998 which ended their 'nuclear opacity' the case of Iran will be different. Albeit the concept of 'Islamic bomb' -- which Israel and the West related to Pakistan's nuclear programme -- neither the nuclear weapons of India nor Pakistan posed any threat to Israel or the Western interests.

Growing confidence and assertion within the Iranian leaders is noticeable particularly since the test firing of its long-range missiles. For instance, Iranian revolutionary guards' air force commander Hossein Salami warned that, "our response will be strong and destructive to those who threaten the existence, independence, freedom and values of our regime. They will regret it."

Four important implications of ending Iran's 'nuclear opacity' will not only isolate the region but will also cause enormous change at the international level. First, before Iran is able to cross the nuclear threshold, it may face pre-emptive strike from Israel. Although, Iran and Israel do not share direct borders and barring their conflicts on the alleged support of Tehran to Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no serious bone of contention between the two countries. Yet, Israel perceives a nuclear armed Iran a major threat to its security particularly since the tirade of the Iranian President against the existence of holocaust and his resolve to 'wipe out' Israeli from the map of the world.

Second, Israel is not the only country which will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Arab countries, particularly those situated in its vicinity, will also react negatively. There is a long history of Arab-Persian discord and animosity and the seeking of nuclear weapons by Iran will augment the Arab drive to pursue nuclear ambitions. Consequently, the whole region of the Middle East will be destabilised if Iran ends its 'nuclear opacity' and is able to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Third, hawks in the United States will exploit Iran's going nuclear by hardening their criticism on President Barack Obama's drive for nuclear disarmament. In his speech before the UN General Assembly the other day, the first point of the four-point plan which he outlined before the international body was serious efforts for sharp reduction in nuclear arsenal. Already, hardliners in the United States reject Obama's move for nuclear disarmament by terming it as a sign of weakness and if Iran goes nuclear, they will certainly not allow the Obama administration to slash nuclear arsenal.

Finally, the end of 'Iran's nuclear opacity' may have a domino effect and may trigger a new generation of nuclear arms race particularly in the Middle East. The failure of P-5 countries to prevent the spread of nuclear proliferation will further deepen if Iran achieves a nuclear status.

How can Iran be stopped from going nuclear? So far, the Iranian leadership is determined to reject the allegations of pursuing a plan to manufacture nuclear weapons. Instead, the Iranian President and other high-ups argue that their country's nuclear programme is for 'peaceful' purposes and is not aimed to manufacture nuclear weapons. Such arguments were also presented by India and Pakistan for years till the two countries replaced their 'nuclear opacity' by testing nuclear devices in May 1998.

With the examples of de facto nuclear states getting away with their nuclear weapon's programme will surely create justification for other countries, including Iran who reject the duplicity and double-standards of permanent five countries as far as the goal of nuclear non-proliferation is concerned.

If Tehran is determined to seek a nuclear status despite all the pressures, there is no way it can be stopped from following the nuclear road.

The only way the threat of nuclear proliferation and arms race can be dealt is by launching serious and concerted efforts on the part of P-5 countries, particularly Russia and the United States to ensure deep cuts in their nuclear arsenal. The UN Security resolution number 1887 passed on September 25 calling for a nuclear arms-free world by creating conditions for a world without nuclear weapons no doubt is a milestone and a landmark in terms for making a fresh start for nuclear arms control.

Countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran have only exploited the grey areas in the non-proliferation regime as those who called for a complete ban on nuclear test, control over the spread of fissile material etc. are the once who failed to take the first step for ensuring a world free of nuclear weapons. Therefore, as long as, the established nuclear powers fail to denuclearise, there is no way a country like Iran or North Korea or any other country belonging to any region of the world can be restrained from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

(The writer is Professor & Chairman, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. amoonis@hotmail.com).

Last night my fellow journalist Syed Raza Hassan suggested we should ask our wives to establish an NGO (non-governmental organisation) since we could hardly make ends meet with our present salaries. I agreed with him as usual.

In fact the news that the US has decided to disburse all funding to Pakistan through NGOs gave impetus to the thought that henceforth every thinking Pakistani should establish an NGO. However, given the fact that there is a plethora of NGOs in various sectors already, some fresh ideas must be sought, we thought.

I cover human rights and often visit the office of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) where fellow journalists are served only tea and biscuits after they've heard lengthy press conferences of Co-Chairman Iqbal Haider. The office is in bad shape too. Clearly HRCP has not been able to attract US funding. Probably it is dubbed a "left organisation" by 'them' because several employees of HRCP were previously involved in progressive politics. So making an NGO in Pakistan on human rights, it seems, is not feasible.

I thought about establishing an NGO on women's rights. Again, there are too many women rights' organisations in Pakistan and, unfortunately, doing pretty well. There is Aurat Foundation run by Anis Haroon, our great debater of yesteryear. Then there is Women's Action Forum (WAF). And War Against Rape (WAR) that has almost convinced me that every Pakistani is a potential rapist, if not actually one. I once asked a woman leader at a seminar: "Why is it that we are holding seminars and rallies almost on a daily basis against rape? What about seduction? Why can't it be discussed at a seminar?" Embarrassed she conceded that that too was an issue. Should then an NGO be established that works to expose seduction?

Somehow I was not convinced the Americans would agree to fund an NGO on seduction. Besides the acronym doesn't sound that great -- as opposed to WAR, our will be called WAS. Not a great name for an upbeat here-and-now NGO of ours.

My mind started rolling again. HIV/AIDS? Many NGOs are already making great strides in this area. Besides, I thought, the vast majority of our youth has no access to sex (relying mostly on dreams, poor things!). Telling them about safe sex practices would not hold much ground.

We also have several NGOs working in the domain of environment and it would be difficult to compete with them.

What should be done?

Suddenly a great idea struck my mind. President Obama had said some time ago that he could cook qeema and daal. In an interview with a leading Pakistani English daily some time ago, he was asked if he had any plans to visit Pakistan and he had said:

"I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani room-mates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; …in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook," said Mr Obama.

"What can you cook?" the interviewer asked.

"Oh, keema … daal … You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets."

So if we float an NGO that promotes 'keema…daal' and get it branded as "Obama Keema" and "Obama Daal" we are likely to hit the jackpot. We can request our twice Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to become patron of our NGO because he is so fond of eating 'paya' and 'nihari' and other delicious foods. People even say that when a certain general came to meet him at his residence to choose him as a new horse in Pakistani politics several decades ago, he was busy eating 'dahi barre' at a Lahore eatery.

President Obama's picture published in newspapers on Sept 25 and the keenness with which he is listening to the speech of President Asif Ali Zardari indicates he is essentially a simple man. Sitting besides Asfandyar Wali, he resembles a Baloch activist associated with Baloch Students Organisation (BSO) who somehow got a fellowship and settled down in the United States.

So there are bright chances that our NGO would be patronised by no less than President Obama himself and he would definitely like to taste our delicacies whenever he gets to visit Pakistan. Maybe our products become popular on a global plane just as McDonalds, Pizza Hut and KFC are popular across the world!

This optimism of ours got marred by some depressing thoughts though. To ensure a smooth and sustainable funding for our NGO, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will have to show tough resistance for many years. Because if they performed as badly as they did in Swat recently, or are defeated after all, the US funding would stop and our NGO would cease to exist!

Though weakened, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan retains the capability to strike at soft targets and to offer resistance to the security forces

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

There is no doubt that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has suffered significant losses in recent months due to the sustained operations by Pakistan's armed forces in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The US drone attacks have also taken out some of its commanders including Baitullah Mehsud and curtailed the activities of those operating in South and North Waziristan. However, the militant organisation is far from finished. It is down but not out.

Baitullah's death, along with his wife, in the US missile strike on the night of August 5-6 in his father-in-law Maulana Ikramuddin's house in Zangara village near Ladha town in South Waziristan was certainly the biggest loss for TTP since its formation in December 2007. As the founder and Ameer, or head, of the TTP until his death, he alone appeared capable of holding it together. Following his death, the organisation predictably faced strife in its ranks as disputes arose over Baitullah's successor. This was understandable because strong leaders such as Baitullah hold an iron grip over the affairs of the people under their command and seldom allow someone among their followers to be groomed as successors.

It must have been difficult even for an unchallenged leader such as Baitullah to keep the TTP intact and united. That he did so explains his organisational abilities and, more importantly, his possession of resources that he could generously provide to various chapters and commanders of TTP to win and retain their loyalty. The components of the TTP active in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and districts espoused different causes and at times pursued rival agendas. Some had apparently no other goal but to fight the US and its allies in Afghanistan and, if need be, also in Pakistan. Others had almost given up fighting Nato forces across the border after becoming involved in the fight against Pakistan's military in the tribal areas. The rest included anti-Shia extremists, Jihadis angry with the Pakistan Army for abandoning them after having collaborated with each other for years in Kashmir and Afghanistan, and local militants with limited agendas such as those belonging to Maulana Sufi Muhammad's Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-i-Muhammadi (TNSM) seeking establishment of Shariah in Swat and rest of Malakand division. Jobless young men, fortune-seekers and criminals also joined the TTP as its influence spread across the Frontier and beyond.

Despite all his strength and resources, even Baitullah was unable to persuade two important militant commanders to join the TTP. Hafiz Gul Bahadur, commander of the Taliban in North Waziristan, was offered the position of senior deputy head in the TTP at the time of its launching, but he opted to stay out of this umbrella organisation of Pakistani Taliban. Maulvi Nazeer, commander of the Taliban in Wana inhabited by the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe, also refused to become part of the TTP. He even fought and expelled Uzbek militants affiliated to Tahir Yuldachev's Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) from Wana and Shakai, pushing them into the lap of Baitullah and earning the enmity of the TTP.

Though both Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazeer in the last months of Baitullah's life closed ranks with him in the fight against Pakistan's security forces and the US and revived their dormant alliance primarily as reaction to the increase in American drone attacks in the two Waziristans, the two militant commanders still refrained from formally joining the Baitullah-led TTP. This alliance known as Shura Ittehad-i-Mujahideen might not remain as vibrant and effective as it was in Baitullah's life. In fact, it could become dormant again as the country's intelligence agencies were using every means to neutralize Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazeer and persuade them not to join the fight when Pakistan's military undertakes its expected air and ground offensive against Baitullah's men in the TTP stronghold in South Waziristan's Meshed tribal territory.

It appears that the government has made some progress by reviving contacts with Maulvi Nazeer, who is under pressure from his tribe to demand punishment to the killers of the 17 Ahmadzai Wazir tribesmen reportedly murdered by Uzbek militants in Meshed territory held by Baitullah's men. It is possible to win Maulvi Nazeer's neutrality by prevailing upon the US military authorities not to fire, for the time-being at least, missiles from their drones in Wana and Shakai area. The same method could appease Hafiz Gul Bahadur, though the US would be reluctant to do so after having dramatically increased the number of drone attacks in his North Waziristan stronghold in recent months.

Beside Baitullah, whose death was reconfirmed recently through a Taliban-released video footage of his body before his burial, a number of other TTP figures have been killed or captured recently. Maulana Shah Dauran, deputy leader of Swat Taliban, is believed to have been killed in military action. He would be the most high-ranking Taliban leader to die in Swat after commanders Khan Khitab, Ali Bakht and Hussain Ali alias Tor Mulla. If one were to believe the government and the military, the Swat Taliban head Maulana Fazlullah too has been seriously wounded in fighting. In fact, the media-obsessed interior minister Rahman Malik raised false hopes when he recently told sections of the media that Fazlullah would become history in 24 hours.

The Swat Taliban also suffered a major setback when five of their shura members, including spokesman Muslim Khan and commander Mahmood Khan, were captured in a sting operation in Swat after being lured through some US-based Swatis to hold peace talks with the military authorities.

Taliban have also suffered losses in tribal regions of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Darra Adamkhel, Orakzai, Kurram and Waziristan and in the districts. A number of their fighters have been captured, suicide bombers were apprehended before they could strike and their financiers and supporters were nabbed. Though many innocent people were also arrested in the military and police crackdown and human rights violations are now common, the raids also netted militants and troublemakers. The TTP central spokesman Maulvi Omar was also captured with the help of a pro-government lashkar, or tribal armed force, in Mohmand Agency. As the fear of Taliban recede in areas where they have become weak, the people are now coming forward to raise and join lashkars. Surrender of militants is also being reported, though some appear stage-managed.

Far more debilitating for the TTP is the reported strife in its ranks following Baitullah's death. Though both Hakimullah Mahsud and Maulana Waliur Rahman, the two major contenders for Baitullah's job, insisted in their joint phone call to some reporters that they were united, there are indications that the transition wasn't a smooth affair. The tussle for the TTP leadership was apparently resolved by appointing Hakimullah the new TTP head and giving the powerful post of Taliban commander for its South Waziristan stronghold to Waliur Rahman. But the TTP until now hasn't been able to conclusively refute the government claim that Hakimullah was killed and Waliur Rahman was wounded in a shootout between their supporters following an argument over appointment of Baitullah's successor. The government officials both at the centre and in the NWFP are insisting that a brother of Hakimullah resembling him has taken his place and is giving media interviews. They even claim that Qari Hussain, a cousin of Hakimullah and known as the trainer of suicide bombers, too was killed in a bombing raid in South Waziristan.

But Qari Hussain responded by recently granting a brief interview to a reporter in Mir Ali in North Waziristan to claim that the TTP wasn't weakened after Baitullah's death and to threaten more suicide and other attacks to avenge his killing. Though certain government officials still believe that Qari Hussain was dead, his imprint was there for everyone to see as his suicide bombers struck repeatedly in a new wave of attacks recently in the NWFP in Peshawar, Bannu and elsewhere. In Qari Hussain's words, the TTP had resumed its murderous campaign of suicide bombings after waiting for a while for the government to change course, stop military operations and refuse to work for the US agenda in the region. The spate of recent suicide bombings proved that though weakened the TTP retained the capability to strike through its bombers at mostly soft targets and to offer resistance to the security forces in some of its tribal strongholds.

War of the words

Almost a year has passed since Mumbai Attacks that caused a deadlock between the arch-rivals, India and Pakistan. India has alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) for masterminding these deadly attacks. It has also blamed Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of LeT and chief of banned Jamatud Dawa (JuD).

This time, the countries have again been caught up in a war of words. A number of high level meetings -- even the latest between the foreign ministers from the two sides in the sidelines of UN General Assembly in New York -- have been futile. While India has been blaming its neighbour for not doing enough, Pakistan asserts the proofs are not substantial to take concrete steps against Hafiz Saeed and his aides.

I A Rehman, secretary general Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and a veteran journalist, believes the two sides are not serious enough. "They keep saying talks will start but it seems they do not want talks despite the need to increase contacts with each other," he said, adding, "They should enhance trade, students' exchange, youth exchange and other contacts but this seems quite difficult because of their apparent intentions to delay the talks."

Rehman raised the question the two countries should realise who the beneficiaries of this conflict: "Many fundamentalists, bureaucrats, politicians etc. who promote anti-India sentiments in Pakistan and vice versa." He says the hate sentiments were quite obvious during the recent Indian elections. "Hate India constituency is also strong in Pakistan and even some sections of media are openly pleading it. The constituency of peace has not been developed yet and people are feared because extremists can exploit it in many ways."

Rehman views that despite their internal conflicts, the two countries should focus on dialogue seriously. "Surprisingly, no full-scale discussion was held on the Mumbai Attacks since November 2008."

Three important meetings have been held between the two countries after Mumbai Attacks -- Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Premier Manmohan Singh first met, after the attacks -- in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in June this year; the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani held in Sharm-El-Sheikh on the sidelines of Non Aligned Movement conference; the latest meeting between the two foreign ministers. These have all proved fruitless.

Pakistan detained Hafiz Muhammad Saeed who was later ordered to be released by the court on the ground that the government had not supplied any grounds to detain him. This gave India more reasons to pressurise Pakistan and seek help from the international community. "External forces can just bring the horses to the water but cannot force them to drink it," believes Rehman.

Political analyst Prof Hassan Askari Rizvi does not see much hope either: "It seems very difficult that other CBMs and contacts between the two countries can help progress in the current situation." He says India wants to pressurise Pakistan, also by seeking external help, to come on the negotiating table taking Mumbai tragedy as a main issue, while Pakistan wants to engage India in the terrorism discussion according to the CBMs. Pakistan does not want any exclusive sitting with India just on Mumbai, he views. However, he is hopeful that the discussion could start within three to four months. He says Pakistan is also taking up the Kashmir issue in response to counter the Indian pressure.

Foreign policy is another hurdle in developing smooth relations between the two countries. The war on terror is not going well in Afghanistan and US policy on Afghanistan is yet to come. Both countries have their interests in Afghanistan. They are waiting for the new US policy on Afghanistan. The American plans to counter terrorism will also help the archrivals determine their separate policies and chalk out a future strategy for bilateral relations.

"Both countries cannot make progress in this issue because of internal situations and foreign policy issues," views former finance minister of Pakistan and human rights activist Dr Mubashir Hasan. "CBMs and talks are not hurdles but both sides don't want to engage themselves in these issues, currently," he said. "They will keep on repeating the rhetoric in this blame game until and unless they are ready to start talks."

I didn't know that Punjab had a DCO who was so good at his job that he was finding it hard to make ends meet -- he was not corrupt and wanted to remain that way. Several questions need to be asked with regard to former Zubair Bhatti's story as district coordination officer for Jhang -- the very district as a blogger quite rightly said gave the country organisations like the Sipah-e-Sahaba and people like Azam Tariq. However, Zubair Bhatti's case is obviously different. Though he cropped up in the national media only recently, via a report in this newspaper, which quoted a story in The Economist showcasing the former DCO (a story that I have not read myself), Mr Bhatti had been an atypical bureaucrat in the making for quite some time. In 2003-04, according to the ADB website, he was a Robert S McNamara scholar and he had degrees from Beijing University, Imperial College London and Princeton.

In the report (one wonders why Zubair Bhatti's good work was noticed only by a foreign publication) it was mentioned that during his time as DCO of Jhang he managed to bring down corruption significantly and not at any extra cost to the government or him -- but rather by exhibiting a novel sense of innovation and enterprise. For instance -- and this I read on blog (with the post being made over a year ago) -- he devised an excellent system to ensure that the offices in his district which dealt with public dealing and were known for being very corrupt were held accountable by him if they asked the general public for bribes to get their (the public's) work done. The office monitored the most was that of the patwari, usually notorious for being among the most corrupt in small-town Pakistan, more than even the legendary local thana. What Mr Bhatti would do would be to ask the patwari for a record of all daily transactions -- which usually involved locals coming to the patwari's office for work involving land transfers, mutations and so on -- and also the phone numbers of those who came for the said transactions. He would then, on random, ring these citizens to check for himself whether they paid any bribes or were asked for one by the patwari.

Over time all the patwaris of Jhang district were instilled with the fear of god as a result of this system devised by the then DCO. Of course, the issue now becomes that how many DCOs in the country would bother themselves with this -- something that they would see as an unnecessary chore. After all, for most of them, the most important daily work is to brown-nose their superiors, the local nazim, their immediate supervisor in the bureaucracy and the local MPA, MNA and of course the chief minister of the province.

In July of last year, several newspapers carried a small report that Bhatti had resigned from the Civil Service and was shifting to the private sector. Either the money was far better or he had realised that he could only do so much while being a bureaucrat -- or it could have been a mixture of both (though all of this is a conjecture because one does not personally know the man).

However, the issue, for one, is that why don't other bureaucrats display the kind of conduct that Zubair Bhatti displayed? Why are we stuck with civil servants who are neither really civil in their dealings with taxpayers and certainly don't consider themselves servants of any kind. Take for example the excise and taxation department in Karachi's Civic Centre where one has to go to register a new vehicle, or to transfer ownership. The whole place is so Byzantine and infested with corruption that the charge for getting the work done now includes the commissions and bribes that have to be paid to expedite matters.

And this is nothing new -- it has been going on for years. I remember in 2000 I had to register a then-newly purchased car and I had to pay a couple of thousand rupees over and above the official charges and no questions could be asked because that was the done thing.

Come 2007 and another car had to be registered and the showroom owner from whom this car was purchased said that the rate was Rs 5,000. And, again one could not ask any questions that why was this being done and how come the Sindh government did nothing about it?

Of course, the answer to the last question should be obvious to all and sundry -- that going by the number of vehicles registered every month and given the average 'commission' transaction, this was at least a scam of several hundred million rupees and hence everyone at every level was 'benefiting' from it. This can be the only logical explanation why even today one has to pay a hefty extra charge over and above the official government rates if one wants to register one's new vehicle without any red tape and/or hassle.

The example of the 'innovation' and 'enterprise' at the excise and taxation office is just one of hundreds all over the country. The worst in all probability is the police where just to get anything done one needs to pay a bribe. I remember a couple of years back when I was living right on Zamzama in Karachi's DHA, I had left my car on the street opposite our house right next to a large empty plot. The neighbours, paranoid as they obviously were, rang 15 and soon enough a police mobile came to ascertain who the car belonged to. They were shown all the relevant documents and even after all their queries were satisfied they kept on insisting for 'chai paani' -- until they were politely but firmly told 'no'.

As for Zubair Bhatti, after he resigned from the Civil Service, he is said to have joined the ADB -- one could be wrong about this though but the point one is trying to make is that Pakistan lost an honest, able and conscientious civil servant. In all likelihood the number of others like him are working in our bureaucracy is probably less than a dozen for the whole country.

The writer is Editorial Pages Editor of The News. Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk