Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Avinash Shirodkar
We are "at war". It is a "war between the good and evil" and ultimately the "good will win; we will not spare the terrorists...more

Americana mean the
irrelevance of disputes
among nations

By S. K. Singh
Foreign, defence and international economic policies of every country, including India, have become completely integrated......more

The wait and watch
game in Tamil Nadu

By Jayant Muralidharan
In the game of snakes and ladders, AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha Jayaram is up the ladder right now. She comes out best while fighting her political ....more

Afghanistan disaster

By D.R. Ahuja
Pakistan military spokesman Maj.Gen. Qureshi has threat ened that his country would take some action to counter the ...more

EDITORIAL

Hollows awaiting busting!

Nobody ever thought that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be out of the attentions of the most notorious of the terrorist gangs, Al-Qaeda. Many in fact are convinced that the terrorist networks all over the country are extensions of the terrorist organizations that have taken root in this State first. With the arrest of the first Al Qaeda terrorist in Jammu comes the confirmation that the marauders par excellence have not only been situated in here but have had plans laid out to spread mayhem of the highest degree. Terrorists are not capable of mounting a regular confrontation. They are ideologically weak and organizationally constrained. They therefore are only capable of causing the gravest hurt. Then they fly out. This hit and run tactics is one the oldest means of warfare where people would strike, slay and scamper away. They do not mean to leave any permanent fixtures in place of the edifices loosened and institutions destroyed by them. Of course, they would like to have a bastion, a full fighting force, a whole structure that would become an alternative to the ones they seek to destroy.

But they can’t. Afghanistan is the prime example. None in the world expected that the ‘dreaded’, ‘dedicated’ cadres would leave Kabul without a fierce fight. Nobody believed that there would not even be a token fight. But that is how they left, Kabul, Kunduz, even Tora Bora. The cave lasted for just as long as it took the bombs to blast them out. Even while it endured, the Taliban Government could not lay any institutions that had the least promise of lasting the demise of the supreme commanders of raging terrorisms. During those six years the Al Qaeda did build a worldwide network but not a single edifice in Afghanistan. As has been pointed out, even there hang-post came courtesy the outsiders. In one of the documentaries filmed before their fall when the Taliban factotum was asked why they were using the stadium for hanging people, he simply replied that they ‘did not have anything else’. Of course, that statement was not taken in that plain implication. But it is a fact that during the half-decade they laid no foundations there, not even a hanging-post. The terrorist training camps were makeshift things and their offices remained almost ad hoc. Why?

Because this mentality and make up cannot build. It has no alternative to offer. No solutions. It only has a recipe to destroy. And they destroy. For building, for construction they have just nothing. Neither a philosophy nor a polity, neither an acceptance nor wherewithal. Nor any inclination either. Bin laden spent his millions training pilots and acquiring guns but not a penny was spent on food for the starving Afghanis. None even thought of that. And, that is the weakest link in the terrorist chain. There is little beyond their obsessions and trainings. They consequently have no appreciation of the constructive aspects. They would not be lured by good deeds, nor corrected in their paths by this facility or that, this provision or that. They know the language of terror and must be shooed out with that power. Everything else they perceive as irrelevant, if not a 'weakness' in their opponent. They exert pressure and buckle under counter pressure; they know just the barrels of the guns and understand what they stand for. The way to root terrorism out is to bust this hollow thing through and through. That is also the only way.

Making their own kills

There may still be some who believe that the world is at war with terrorism. There may, indeed, be nations that are true to the realization that dawned on the global village with the 9/11 attack. In any case, the people of the world have realised that terrorism is a common threat to all peoples, at all places, for all times until the menace is turned out of the world. But for the powers that be, the realization is all but lost. America, the 'leader’ of the war on terrorism, is busy catching its ‘offenders’ and sacrificing everything else in that quest. All the pronouncements by the American leaders over the past couple of months point to the preoccupation with getting at the people who ‘dared attack’ America. Now that is a logical thing to be expected. But what is neither logical nor expected is that their concern should be limited to catching those offenders. The 'war’ is betrayed if it gets narrowed down to ‘American revenge’. There are terrorisms ravaging other parts of the world. Among these India is the prime sufferer. The American response to this has been a self-serving call for 'restraint’.

They want India to remain restrained, while they go after Omer and bin Laden. That too, could be understandable, but in this mission they have not only gone on bolstering the original instigator of terrorisms but are actually shielding the terror machine of Pakistan. That is a travesty of the 'war on terrorism'. If you are actually helping reinstate the terrorist network of Pakistan and not calling upon it to break its nexus with terrorists the whole point of 'war' is lost. Even if US captures Omer and bin Laden after having put the Pak terrorist machinery and, more importantly, its commitment to terrorism back in place, that capture would be of little avail. And now, we have the spectacle of China joining in this selfish quest. It has reached on 'agreement' with Pakistan that they would not 'train any Uygur terrorists' or send them to Sinkiang or Xinjiang as it is called. That practically means that except Uygur terrorists and those targetting America all other terrorisms would be okay. It is a clear ditching of the world concerns by the two big powers for purely selfish interests. There they have not only betrayed the world but are actively promoting future terrorisms. That is not how terrorism is fought but how it is bred. Beware ye sly operators !

US fighting and abetting terorism?

By Avinash Shirodkar

We are "at war". It is a "war between the good and evil" and ultimately the "good will win; we will not spare the terrorists and those who harbour them". These are the emphatic words of the 43rd US President George W. Bush against terrorist attack in the US on September 11, 2001. But Mr. Bush has not showm the same enthusiasm in regard to the terrorists attack on Indian Parliament. While condemning Pakistan- based militant groups -- Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad, the American President was wobbly on facts as to please India. He has given a clean chit to General Pervez Musharraf.

The question, however, is, "at war" with or against whom? Assuming that the US is the "good", who is the "evil"? Terrorist obviously. But is the terrorist clearly identifiable as a nation or community or a religious and linguistic group? Similarly, what does the statement "those who harbour them" - imply? An individual, institution, or nation?

To fight a war against organised terrorism of religious fanatics is not a 100 or 200 metre dash of a Ben Johnson or an Armin Harry (the first man to do 100 metre in sub-ten seconds). It is a marathon race of tenacity and resilience where the ultimate victory has no place for impulsive and emotional rapid action force, The US a late starter in the game of anti-terrorist action owing to its own previous compulsions.

What are these previous compulsions of the US? It was the necessities of the Cold War - the ding dong battle between the "Capitalist USA" and the "Communist USSR" - in the post-Hiroshima - Nagasaki atom bomb era. It was the mutual retaliatory action of the rivals. Warsaw vs Nato, South Vietnam vs North Vietnam, North Korea vs South Korea, South vs North Yemen, Kasavupu vs Lumumba in Congo, India vs Pakistan in Asia, in every sphere each rival had the blessing of either the US or the USSR.

Unluckily, however, it is Afghanistan which today has blossomed as the bitter fruit of past folly of the Cold War and superpower rivalry. Unluckily because Afghanistan, as history shows, has seldom been a stable arena for diplomacy, defence and development. It has been steady only in unidirectional self-destruction and exporting terrorism. It has been a nation of flexible geography with inflexible suicidal missions, all in the name or religious belief.

The attack on Afghanistan by the US would have been a fantasy even 10-year ago when the same US with a coalition forces was fighting another war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq. Afghanistan was far from the US list of foes. Also Osama bin Laden was then a US pal and hence passive. How did a friend become a foe? Why does the past maker of bin Laden want to be his breaker now? To do so, one has to go to the past, to understand the present and face the future.

It was the (then) Soviet entry in the landlocked Afghanistan in December 1979 that endeared General Zia ul Haq's Pakistan (Afghanistan's neighbour) to Washington's geostrategic game planners. To counter Moscow, Pakistan was the geographer's delight. Both entry and exit to Afghanistan, to this day, is easiest through Pakistan . No wonder the US State Department liberalized 30 types of defence support equipment in 1980, which was allowed export to China, which along with other Islamic countries was the essential arms supplier to Afghanistan's opposition forces, the Mujahideen (the prospective Taliban).

In mid-1981 US President also waived the provisions of the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, simplifying the legal hurdles on military assistance to Pakistan. Afghanistan now got US arms through the direct conduit, Pakistan. Seeds of guerrilla warfare and future terrorism were sown, though it was then perceived as "freedom moment" of the Afghans against the "hegemony of the Soviets".

As the guerrillas and terrorists world over prefer light (but lethal) weapons for mobility, flexibility and manoeuvrability, an estimated four lakh Kalashnikov rifles reached the Afghan consumer by 1991 through the ISI (the distributor) and the CIA (the supplier), the institution responsible for the organsiation and coordination of the Afghan pipeline. However owing to rampant corruption in the Pakistani distribution channel, only an estimated 30 per cent arms reached the Afghan Mujahideen where Osama bin Laden was one of the respected figures and growing tools of anti-Soviet guerrilla operations. In fact, according to ISI itself, "Pakistan had access to 3 million Kalashnikovs, packed and greased".

Thus what started as a freedom movement against foreign occupation with a free for all and free flow of arms did not remain confined to Pakistan and Afghanistan. A glut in the small arms market in two Islamic states with low level modern education and a transparent propensity to intolerance towards non-Islamic people ensured a massive profit through the "Khalistani" operators and trainers in Pakistan in an hour of rave national crisis in the Indian Punjab. It was the beginning of crossborder terrorism and transformation of indigenous guerrilla warfare to free style terrorism. Unfortunately, for India, it got only some lip service from the US as it is getting today.

Understandably the US was preoccupied with the USSR in Afghanistan as matters had to move through Pakistan. India fitted neither geostrategically nor economically in the US radar screen. Hence Pakistan-based terrorist camps could afford to diversify from Kabul to "Khalistan". India had the population to spare, to face the Pak-Afghan exported terrorists with smuggled Kalashnikovs. The US was "helpless" owing to its global perspective. This indirect indifference to India and the explicit inability of the US to rein in Pakistan-sponsored "terrorism for export" resulted in (an estimated) 50,000 deaths in 10 years (1984-1993) in the Indian Punjab. Clearly, the US failed to visualise the future genie after uncorking the bottle.

In the Afghanistan sector, however, fighting continued the whole of 1988 with rebel holdings of surface-to-air missiles such as Stinger and Blowpipe which resulted in the shooting down of a number of both Soviet and Afghan aircraft. Military Balance 1987-88 gave a vivid account of cradle of numerous Afghan opposition fighting in the name of religion and independence. There were 130,000 guerrillas (70,000 trained) supported by about 110,000 reserves consisting of Sunni Pashtun, Sunni Tajik, Shia Hazara and other Afghan tribes.

Thus there were the Jabhat-Nijat-Milli (National Liberation Front); Mahaz-Milli-Islamic (National Islamic Front); Harakat-Inquilab-Islami (Islamic Revolutionary Front); Hizbi Islami (Islamic Party); Sazman Nasr (Organisation of Victory); Sepahi Pasdaran (Guardians of the Revolution); Shur-Inquilab Itifaq Islami (Revolutionary Council of the Islamic Union) and the Hrakat Islami (Islamic Front). Despite different names and disunity in command and control, all these Afghan militant outfits were adept in the only type of war game which they play well in the broken and treacherous terrain of Central Asia: Guerrilla warfare.

The Afghan operated on time chosen by the body of one to five Mujahideen against the modern military might of the USSR. Often the result of the combat was disastrous for the superpower owing to the uncanny knack of the guerrillas to fight unconventionally with mines, AK-47s and suicide squads. In a guerrilla warfare the advantage of date, time and place of attack lies with the force with lesser number for the obvious reasons - surprise, deception and mobility are the guerrilla's forte. One may die but it also ensures the death of at least five, if not more.

There are reports of a secret agreement between US and Pakistan permitting the American forces to operate in Pakistan in pursuit of the Al-Qaida members. That is a clear admission of the American assessment the Pakistan permitted Al-Qaida to slip in. The Parliament attack was presumably carried out to boost the morale of the terrorists as they were being evicted from Afghanistan. It could also have been intended to test how far the US would be permissive of terrorist acts committed against other nations. The recall of India's High Commissioner from Islamabed should be the first in a series of concerted moves by the international community, which will hopefully make Pakistan aware of the gravity of the situation and defuse the threat of war in the region. INAV

Americana mean the irrelevance of
disputes among nations

By S. K. Singh

Foreign, defence and international economic policies of every country, including India, have become completely integrated because the United States, the sole superpower of the present epoch has decided to deal with every country in a holistic manner. Two telling examples of this new trend in international relations: first, George W. Bush declared, post 9-11, that countries which are not with the US in fight against global terrorism will not be accepted as friends; second, the message Indians got much earlier when President Bill Clinton imposed total sanctions against India as a punishment for the "nuclear adventurism" of the BJP-led Government.

The Vajpayee Government has spent full two years mending its relationship with the US-led sanctions regime, with 9-11 giving this initiative unexpected impetus. It is worth mentioning that Indian has been very active during the last three months in improving its relationship with the US.

The so-called International Alliance against the Taliban led by the US attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. George Bush, on the basis of the Government of India statements, declared on November 9, 2001 that "We (the US and India) will fight terrorism together" and the US has a new and "fundamentally different relationship with India". This statement should have pleased the Indian political and bureaucratic establishment but, Vajpayee before meeting George Bush on November 9, 2001 publicly stated "our offered support has not brought about any concrete response from the American Government". The upshot of this description is that Indians were the first to proclaim their "full support" to the Americans on September 11, but the Americans did not ask for any material support from the Indians till November 9, 2001. India also suffered a big setback when the US stymied its efforts to squeeze into the 6+2 group around Afghanistan. The "six plus two" where Russia and US were the "two" and other six were neighbours of Afghanistan – China, Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmensitan – has no room for India. It is only on November 15, 2001, that a Group of 20 was established which included India, ostensibly "to bring Afghanistan’s ethnic groups together in a transitional government". But again India found even no sideline space in Bonn in Germany where the talks have now concluded successfully. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee-George Bush summit in Washington, had the PM say on November 13, 2001 that "In sum, my visit served to enlarge and deepen the areas of understanding and agreement with our friends and partners". In concrete terms, India and the US have established strong bilateralism in the field of hi-tech commerce, hi-tech exports to India from the US, defence purchases by Indians from the Americans and other economic related bilateral relations.

As a result of the summit, military exchanges have increased between the two countries and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and Prime Minister Vajpayee in their replies in the Rajya Sabha debates on November 26 and 27 reiterated that India’s relationship with the US has been strengthened in every bilateral field. Many important questions about India’s foreign policy as enunciated and practised by the Vajpayee Government must be raised to properly understand the totality of our relationships with the US-led Western Alliance against terrorism: Why could India not suggest that the war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan should be endorsed by the Security Council? With all its limitations, the Security Council has much greater legitimacy than the American-led alliance against terrorism. Not only this. The Western countries in the name of fighting future "terrorism" can form an alliance against terrorism because the US has many friends and many enemies around the world and India has its difficulties only with Pakistan. President Bush, while speaking on terrorism at the UN on November 10, 2001, observed that "This threat can not be ignored. Civilisation itself, the civilisation we share, is threatened. History will record our response and judge or justify every nation in this hall". Have we ever talked in such bombastic and arrogant language while dealing with Pakistan? The more worrisome situation for Indians is that Americans can unilaterally declare a state as "terrorist" or "rogue" and ask its friends like Vajpayee to support the adventurism of the Americans. George Bush observed on November 27, 2001, that "I can’t make it any more clear to other nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable".

Buying arms from the US is not the real issue. What is vis-a-vis our foreign policy is that the Government does not have any holistic framework in which bilateralism should operate. The telling example of such a missing "framework" in our foreign policy is that the government of India failed to even suggest the alterative of the Security Council overseeing the war in Afghanistan. Since the Vajpayee government does not accept the Nehru-Indira framework of foreign policy, it deserves to be reminded that India had always promoted collective action by countries, whether from the platform of the Security Council, the General Assembly of the UN, the Non-aligned countries or Afro-Asian organisations before interfering in the internal affairs of any country – civilised or rogue. Inspite of critics, Nehru preferred to refer our Jammu & Kashmir dispute with Pakistan to the Security Council. While Security Council during the Gold War phase showed some limitations, during the present unipolar, America dominated global scenario, the Security Council is the only hope for the defence of national sovereignty of Third World countries. Does pax-Americana mean the irrelevance of many alternative global fora for the resolution of disputes among nations? The Vajpayee Government is not even sensitive to the new threats and dangers that are inherent in the American-led unipolar global system. George Santayana had alerted us that "those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it", and this past of Indian foreign policy was based on an effective balance between "bilateralism" and "multilateralism".

Murasoli Maran, the Industry Minister, realised the importance of "solidarities among the developing countries" while dealing with the Western superpowers at Doha meeting of the World Trade Organsiation. India got some concessions on pharmaceutical industries and some relaxation of TRIPS only with the backing of Brazil and 55 developing African countries. This real experience at Doha compelled Maran to observe on November 28, 2001 that "the developing countries ought to form a "development alliance or a coalition" to carry forward their battle in the multilateral discussions". He wants a "rebellion of developing countries" because he himself experienced the might of Western countries at the WTO meeting. Are Vajpayee or Jaswant Singh or George Fernandes listening to their own colleague? Are they drawing any conclusions from the Doha meeting of the WTO. The Nehru-Indira foreign policy framework was based on the cognisance of creating "countervailing fora" in global afairs to checkmate the dictates and interferences by the big powers. Maran is talking precisely of Third world unity, which was believed, practised and strengthened by Nehru-Indira Gandhi during their regimes. The Vajpayee government is practising an ad hoc "bilateralism" with a real tilt towards America. It is unfortunate that Indian foreign policy makers have no large picture in this America-dominated unipolar world because the Indian corporate and business world is pushing the foreign policy makers towards the advanced western countries for capital, technology and trade.

The strategic thinkers of the BJP are completely focused on Pakistan and China; they have not addressed themselves to the conceptual framework of multipolarity versus unipolarity. Will India’s national interests be better served in a multipolar global situation or in an American-led unipolar world? INAV

The wait and watch game in Tamil Nadu

By Jayant Muralidharan

In the game of snakes and ladders, AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha Jayaram is up the ladder right now. She comes out best while fighting her political foes and she is on the top with the Tamil Nadu High Court clearing her from the Tansi case and Pleasant Stay hotel case. Although she is facing other cases, for the time being the decks are clear for her to re-enter Fort St. George and end the absurdity of proxy rule.

Ms. Jayalalitha has indeed shown better political maturity by not rushing to the Raj Bhavan immediately after hearing the verdict to stake her claim to occupy the gaddi. The DMK too did not show any haste in revealing its further course of action.

The first thing she has to decide is whether to win the elections and then take over the reins, or do it now. With the Election Commission announcing the poll dates for Andipatti constituency in February, this assumes significance. Any way, Chief Minister O. Pannerselvan is keeping the seat warm for her and Ms Jayalalitha can take her time to decide about this.

The second political vendetta. Both the DMK and the AIADMK have been indulging in political vendetta for the past decade. When Ms. Jayalalita was in the political wilderness, DMK led by Mr. M. Karunanidhi was after her. Remember how she was humiliated in the Assembly when she was the Leader of the Opposition? When she came to power in 1991, she took revenge on the DMK; the tables turned in 1996 when she went out of power. Now, the planets favour her. Will Amma mellow down after her legal victory or continue her political vendetta against the DMK chief? For the time being, she is happy that she has found her throne once again.

Ms. Jayalalitha should also settle down to concentrate on administration. The past few months had been one of uncertainty about her future with the result there was a slow down in governance. This is the second time that she has been given the splendid opportunity of bringing the State back to the forefront in the industrial and IT spheres. If wiser counsels prevails, she should certainly not let go of this opportunity.

What will be the political fall out of the Tamil Nadu High Court judgement? Indeed the verdict is a very significant one for the political career of Ms. Jayalalitha. She was, after all, facing an uncertain future in view of the legal tangle. Although she must have been enthused by the results of May, 2001, Assembly elections, and the fact that the people of the State reposed confidence in her, the court verdict has given her a new lease of life.

Look at the political scene in Tamil Nadu. A weak and divided opposition led by the DMK and a fractured AIADMK front. Ms. Jayalalitha had got rid of her pre-election allies one by one, asserting that it was meant only for the elections. The Congress party is left twiddling its thumbs with no base in the State. The Tamil Manila Congress (TMC) is now rudderless after the death of G. K. Moopanar. The party has no leader to even begin merger talks with the Congress. The PMK has returned to National Democratic Alliance and is cooling its heels. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is keeping the PMK on probation by not yet giving its members Cabinet berths. MDMK, which has supported NDA through and through, too has been marginalised.

Realignment of forces may also take place both at the Central and State level. The AIADMK has been winking at the BJP for quite some time. Ms Jayalalitha has made all the right noises amidst rumours that her party is cosying up to the NDA. The BJP too is not averse to it and more so now with Ms. Jayalalitha cleared of the corruption charges. She has also made sure that she is not with the opposition front in Parliament and has declared that the AIADMK would give issue-based support. The first issue is POTO, on which the AIADMK is supporting the NDA Government. The BJP, too, on its part has responded by sending the right signals. It is the only opposition party which is not joining the protest against Ms. Jayalalitha’s economic measures on December 7. Last month, when the transport strike was on, the BJP called it anti-national, while the DMK supported it. POTO certainly seems to have changed the BJP-AIADMK equation.

The DMK is getting jittery about the new axis that is emerging. The party is obviously opposed to POTO because it fears that Ms. Jayalalitha may misuse it against its leaders. Being two poles of Tamil Nadu politics, neither the DMK nor the AIADMK can ever be seen on the same side.

At the moment, all the parties concerned in Tamil Nadu and outside are playing a wait and watch game. INAV

Afghanistan disaster

By D.R. Ahuja

Pakistan military spokesman Maj.Gen. Qureshi has threat ened that his country would take some action to counter the increasing interaction between the designated ministers of Afghanistan government and their Indian counterparts in New Delhi.

December 12 was a day of great anxiety for Pakistan. On that day Afghanistan Interior Minister Yunus Qanooni returned to Kabul after four days visit to New Delhi on the same flight on which Indian special envoy Mr.S.K.Lamba was taking relief goods for Afghanistan. Mr Lamba returned home the same day along with Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. The same day it was disclosed that Afghanistan Defence Minister Fahmi would shortly visit New Delhi.

When asked by BBC Radio Urdu Service on December 12 how Pakistan looked at these developments, Maj. Gen. Qureshi said that Pakistan was worried and would do something about it. He did not say what step Pakistan intended to take to prevent this extent of talks of interaction between Kabul's new rulers and New Delhi but it is significant to note that attack on Parliament took place the next day.

Pakistan has not yet reopened its embassy in Kabul and is also not very clear on the question of extending recognition to the Hamid Karzai government when it formally resumes office on December 22..

Thus, with the state of continued hostility between Pakistan and heavy weights of Northern Alliance, it is to be seen what diplomatic initiative options are available to Islamabad. Hamid Karzai who stayed in Quetta since Soviet action in Afghanistan during the 1980s has, however, reported to have said that he would like to have good relations with Pakistan but as Peshawar based Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai told BBC that these powerful members of the Northern Alliance are not taking orders from Karzai. He said that these minister's visit to New Delhi had been without consultation with Karzai. Writing in the Baluchistan Post, eminent journalist Amir Mateen said that Islamabad’s predicament is contended by a decade of flawed policy where it has antagonised virtually every single group in the last decade. ‘'Even the good old Taliban loath us for stabbing them in the back. Now, all major players the Russians, the US, Iran, the Northern Alliance, the Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajeks, Pushtoons and even India have their pawns sitting at the Bonn meeting. Who is Pakistan’s proxy and how grateful is it? Will any of the official parrots inducted in our ranks to sell the so-called Afghan policy care to explain this? he asked.

Pakistan’s isolation is not just in Afghanistan but in the entire region. Even China did not support Pakistan. The crux of the argument is that Pakistan’s best hopes are based on hopes and not initiative. It hopes that Afghanistan’s long-term ethnic, geography and economic compulsions will bring it back to Pakistan but as A.B.S Jafri in his article titled "Our Taliban Policy Inventors’ writes in the Dawn "where do we stand in today’s and tomorrow’s Afghanistan? Our single minded and utterly short-sighted handling of the Afghan developments from day one to this day has always kept us limping on a limb in Kabul. There has never been any time when our relations with Afghanistan were normal, natural, smooth or only amiable, regardless of the character and composition of the regime in Kabul'’.

Tracing the history of Pak-Afghan relations, Jafri asked the Pakistanis to remember that Kabul’s was the only negative vote in the UN on Pakistan’s application for the membership of the world body. That was in October 1947 when Pakistan was two-month old baby and could not have, caused any harm to Afghanistan. Number of times Pakistan embassy in Kabul had been under attack as Pak protege, the Taliban, looked the other way. Even in trade talks, the Taliban regime had persistently rebuffed Islamabad. Only the insensitive Pakistanis will fail to worry about the damage the Taliban has inflicted on Pakistan. This is a tragedy hardly less difficult to endure than the debacle of 1971. It is in this context that many Pakistani leaders have demanded that Afghanistan’s disaster should be examined by a national commission of the status of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission so that the people who had pampered the Talibans i.e. Pakistan’s ISI and its minion Gen.(Retd.) Hamid Gul and others are exposed.