Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala
The WTC bombing has seen the stock markets collapse world over. Global recession is now being seen as a near certainly. But.....more

Unreliability of Pak rulers

By D R Ahuja
It is not known at what stage Pakistan came to be defined as "the citadel of Islam", one took note of it in the early 1970s, when Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto .....more

Refugee status for
displaced persons

By Mohan Singh Kala
Sikhs, Hindus and some Muslim families were uprooted from POK in 1947 as a result of invasion of state by Tribals from Pakistan, after partition of the ....more

The lucky generals

By Anupam Mishra
The terrorist attack in USA and the subsequent coalition formulated by the world’s sole superpower to fight the terror off the globe has put Pakistan and ........more

EDITORIAL

WHOLLY VICIOUS

The world now has come to realize that terrorism is something the world must not be asked to live with. Here American attempt to divert the war on terrorism to obtain its specific 'national' aims and shielding Pakistan are developments that actually stand to negate all the gains the world has made in recognizing the true danger of this world menace. Analysts have pointed out that the growth of terrorism and its taking the whole world in its sweep cannot be delinked from myopic nature of the policies that America has been following for the last several decades. Here national interest came to be defined in an excessively selfish manner where anything, anywhere was legitimate so far as it served the immediate American interest. Thus its alignment with the retrograde regimes was as easily condoned, as was its encouragement of retrograde ideas and influences accepted as a legitimate policy. It is this policy that fattened bin Laden and allowed him to spread his terrorist network all over the world. It was the 'national interest' of America that supported and secured unholy regimes ruling over the people of Pakistan and condemned the Indian subcontinent to a perpetual fight with terrorism.

For fifteen long years America propped, peppered and pampered 'fighters' who were going fast on the backwards trail in Afghanistan. It helped it to fight the soviet occupation forces. Even if the American position on Russian presence in Afghanistan were accepted, it does not justify their encouragement of sworn obscurantists for the purpose. Yet she funded and supplied them with arms and facilities, in fact set them on that path of high intransigence, just because it helped the American interest. That interest not only helped Zia to consolidate his hold in Pakistan but also encouraged him to become the architect of a new fundamentalist orientation there. It is a moot point whether Zia would have been able to keep Pakistan in long thrall without the American aid and support. That same thing applies to America propping sundry dictatorships all over the Asia and Africa. That policy did not quite go with the American ethos of democracy, yet few Americans in legislative houses or political arenas criticized that policy. The 'principles of democracy' were just wrapped up here. Those wrapped principles are now back as the dark clouds of terror and stalk the American skies.

However, the purpose here is not to lay the blame for rise of terrorism at the American door. Though much of responsibility does lie there, the other, innate and original roots of this terrorism must not be ignored. Else we shall be giving the terrorism an undeserved justification. Many intellectuals who point to this American complicity have actually fallen into that fallacy. American blame lies in the fact that it did not think twice before succumbing to capitalize on this obscurantist proclivity. This terrorism was born in other causes and would have grown inspite of America, but the later did speed up its growth in its pursuit of very selfish, very narrow aims. Unfortunately it is that high lesson that America is tending to forget in its new worry to bring Taliban to their feet. Earlier, she disregarded the essential vicious nature of an evil and paid for it. Today she is again on the path of politicking right and left to corner Taliban and Laden. She may down Taliban or capture Laden by this 'strategy' but the world which includes America cannot be said to have been made secure against terrorism, if the mainsprings of high terrorism remain intact. Propping and pampering Musharraf is only the other most evident instance here.

GEORGE SIGNS IN

To take a few metaphors from the Internet world, George is his 'ID', Siachen the 'password', and with the latest visit to Siachen George Fernandes has finally 'signed in' as the defense minister of the Republic of India. Remember Siachen was the point with which he had begun his earlier stint as the country's defense minister. With Siachen he also underscored his feeling for the defense forces and also made the nation realize how great the sacrifices that are being made by the defense forces of this country. And, how little we appreciate those sacrifices. His act of sending the mandarins of the defense ministry to Siachen to experience firsthand the harsh climate there and thus underscoring the need, in that instance, of good snow fighting paraphernalia had been appreciated by the nation as very apt. George Fernandes' plain speak on defense and India's enemies may have lacked the diplomatic finesse, but it has always rung knowing bells from the people of the country. Yet there is nothing strange in a 'life-long rebel' having such a fine feeling for army, which is usually considered the most dependable arm of the establishment. It only shows that the 'rebellions' and 'protests' are meaningful within the limit of the national security and integrity. That the national imperatives cannot be ignored must not be ignored at any level.

Unfortunately we do not have many people in the arenas of politics and rarified worlds of intellectualism who adhere to this essence of nationalism, that 'opposition' and 'dissent' must remain subservient to the primary imperative of the integrity and security of the nation. For, who lives if India, god forbid, dies? It is one of the weaknesses of his nation that these principles are not always in evidence when the politicians and intellectuals vex eloquent over their pet topics. While for the former anything, any issue is 'open' for politicking the latter tend to go to the very extremes while theorizing on the 'principles'. Few of them appear to remember, then, that it is this particular nation and ethos that allows them that open politicking and high intellectualism. The first imperative here is to keep the nation above everything else. All royalties belong there. All reasons, too. Nationalism is a blind faith and must be pursued so. It is the only one of the blind faiths that is legitimate. That is what the American lesson must teach. That is what many lives here arounds illustrate. To use the Internet metaphor again, all Indians must to 'sign in'.

War economy

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The WTC bombing has seen the stock markets collapse world over. Global recession is now being seen as a near certainly. But such may not happen at all. Private spending- both for consumption and investment- is bound to decline but, at the same time, public spending in war-related activities can, and historically has, boosted demand. It is quite likely that this war will turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the economy.

Recession occurs when people do not spend their incomes and, instead, save it for bad days. The savings finds its way into the banking system. Now, there is little demand in the market because people are saving rather than consuming. Therefore, the business is slow and businessmen do not borrow and invest either. The result is that there no demand either for consumption or investment. And, that is recession.

Let us say the people of India produce Rs 100 worth of goods-bread, cloth, machnery and cars-- and get paid Rs 100 for the same. If they spend this income of Rs 100 than there is adequate demand in the market and all the goods produced are sold. If, however, they spend only Rs 80 and deposit Rs 20 in the bank as savings then the demand is less. This leads to a recession.

Let us say the people of India produce Rs 100 worth of goods-bread, cloth, machinery and cars-- and get paid Rs 100 for the same. If they spend this income of Rs 100 then there is adequate demand in the market and all the goods produced are sold. If, however, they spend only Rs 80 and deposit Rs 20 in the bank as savings then the demand is less. This leads to a recession.

Now, if the businessmen borrow the Rs 20 from the bank and put up factories then they would buy machinery from the market and the demand arises again. But if the businessmen are afraid that the people will not buy their goods and they do not borrow then the Rs 20 lies idle with the banks, there is less demand and the economy still falls into a recession.

The positive role of the businessman can also be discharged by the government. If the government were to borrow the Rs 20 from the banks and use it to construct bridges or canals or pay salaries of the policemen, the money would come back roaring into the economy and the recessionary tendency would be broken.

The fall of the WTC is, in economic jargon equal to is 'consumption'. The billions of dollars of steel and glass in the WTC has now been 'consumed'. The drones that were downed over Afghanistan too have been 'consumed'. Just as having consumed a piece of bread we go out to buy another, so also having 'consumed' the WTC and the drones, and the US economy can get on with the task of producing another.

War is, therefore, a solution for recession. The fall of consumer demand which was already in place before September 11 and was leading the US economy into recession may, in fact, be reversed by the war. The final result will depend on the relative strengths of the decline in private consumer demand and the increase in government defense demand.

This is the global situation. The impact will not be the same on different countries. In the recent past the people of Europe and Japan were saving in a big way. Their savings were being invested in the US treasury bonds. The US banks were loaning that money to the US consumers and they were buying Japanese cars. On the global scale the savings and consumption were matching each other and the world economy was chugging along.

The immediate problem is that the US consumer may not borrow and consume as he was doing till recently. His confidence has been badly shaken. A Reuters poll expects the consumer confidence indiex to fall to 105 from the eight- year low of 114. It is not surprising that the shares of the Japanese car companies are badly hit--Toyota has already fallen 24%, Honda 32% and Nissan 40%.

The other part of the virtuous cycle of the yesteryears was the plowing of global savings into the US economy which was perceived as a safe haven. That too has changed. The dollar is down to 115 Yen against 120 Yen before September 11. This raises doubts whether the global investors would continue to buy US treasury bonds.

A global recession, therefore, appears to be imminent. The world's investors may not provide the US with the money and the US consumer may not purchase the goods from the rest of the world.

But things may not turn out this way. The missing parameter is that of government spending. If the governments of the United States or the Northern Alliance open up their treasuries to fight the war then the demand would bounce back up.

The Dow Jones, for example, fell 12% immediately after the launch of the Korean war but was up 19% within six months. The corresponding figures for the bombing of Cambodia are (-) 14% and (+) 21%; Russian invasion of Afghanistan (-) 4% and (+) 19%. These indicate that the immediate declines in consumer spending was more than made up by the revival of government spending soon after the hostility.

There is a crucial difference though. All these wars were dought outside the US borders. The confidence of the American consumer about his own security and the vitality of the American economy had remained more or less intact. The WTC bombing has shaken that confidence. The repeated threats by the militants that more attacks are in the offing do not help. It is likely that the confidence of the US consumer would be in the dumps for some time.

The central question is whether the increases in government spending in the Afghan 'war' would compensate for the decline in private demand. The US government has come up with a $40 billion package to help rehabilitate the victims of the WTC bombing. A $15 billion package for the US airlines has also been announced. These government expenditures could compensate for the decline in private demand.

Yet the war may change the situation between nations. It is quite likely that the US government would be making most of the spending. It is likely that the dollar will fall as the US government either prints notes or borrows to sustain its war expenditures. This was is, therefore, likely to level of the US economy much the same way that the Second World War levelled off the British.

It is time for us to benefit from this hostility, howsoever unfortunate that may be. The US had gained massively in the Second World War by producing and lending armaments for the Allies. The British Empire was shattered by the War because it bore the brunt of the War expenditures. The US economy emerged on the top of the world because it supplied materials to those at war.

It is time that we do the same. We should produce the goods required by the warring people and benefit from the same. While the US economy will weaken, ours would become stronger. We could emerge as a Global Economic Powerhouse. If we, instead, join as a member of the Northern Alliance then our economy would weaken as well and we would have missed an opportunity.

Nevertheless, the war will boost the global economy. The recession will prove to be a short one. The people, however, would be 'consuming' the collapsed WTC and the drones instead of bread.

Unreliability of Pak rulers

By D R Ahuja

It is not known at what stage Pakistan came to be defined as "the citadel of Islam", one took note of it in the early 1970s, when Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto repeatedly referred to it as such. But there is stark inconsistency between this definition and this country’s history which is filled with conspiracies, intrigues, deceit, backstabbing and false promises. These characteristics have shown themselves both in its foreign and domestic relations and affairs.

In foreign affairs, Pakistani rulers have simultaneously displayed two contrary traits; unreliability and loyalty. Broadly speaking, they have been unreliable for the third world countries specially to the Muslim country, and loyal to the West. But this loyalty cannot be described as total. For example, Pakistan stole nuclear secrets from the Western countries and having built a nuclear bomb by 1984 it kept on swearing to the United States that it had no intentions of acquiring nuclear power. And gullible Mr George Bush, then President of the United States, kept on giving Pakistan a certificate that it was not engaged in the development of nuclear weapons. For the American public, Pakistan has been a loyal friend since the early 1950s when it joined the US-led defence pacts. But the Americans also know Islamabad’s objectives.

Pakistan always swears by friendship with China, but it has not even spared this country. In the 1950’s, it joined the US-led SEATO which was especially formed against China. Also, President Ayub Khan offered a joint defence pact to India which again was aimed at China but Ayub evaded a reply to Mr Nehru’s questions : defence against whom ?

Also Pakistan has been giving training to Muslim rebels from the Chinese province of Sinkiag. Pakistani religious parties, many of whom are the protege of the Pak army and the ISI, are very much involved in the separatist activities in this province.

In 1972 Pakistani newspapers carried reports saying that PIA planes, flying to China, were fitted with espionage equipment. PIA which practically operated under the control of Pak Air Force, was reportedly doing this job for the United States.

Once Ms Benazir Bhutto remarked that Pakistan was run an three "As" —America, Army and Allah. What is the role of the last "A" in the affairs and politics of Pakistan is debatable. It has been mostly used to exploit simple masses religious sentiments and force them to submission.

It is the first two "As" which have played a vital role in shaping Pakistan into what is it today. These two factors belie the claim that Pakistan is a citadel of Islam.

In 1956, Pakistan sided with US-led forces against brotherly Egypt during the Swez Canal crisis.

But that was not the only occasion. In 1990 Pakistan again decided to be part of US-led forces to attack Iraq. Then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told his people that Iraq had never supported Pakistan on Kashmir or served the cause of Islam.

The Pakistani army and the ISI are responsible for the mess Afghanistan is in today. Gen.Ziaul Haq, for the stability of his own unconstitutional rule joined the United States and other Western countries turn a nationalist struggle in other Western countries Afghanistan into Jehad and thus- laid the foundation of future destability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and promoted terrorism in the name of religion. That in the final analysis brought bad name to the whole Muslim community. Since the Afghan war Pakistan has made terrorism an important component of its foreign policy. It is, therefore, not yet willing to snap its diplomatic ties with Taliban. Today, it is in a peculiar situation: it is standing by the US against Taliban but is also a well-wisher of Taliban. This dual policy has confronted Pakistan with a crisis it has never faced before in its history.

At home, Pakistani rulers have always cheated their people. Mr Jinnah demanded Pakistan on the basis of Islam but after this demand was ‘accepted by the outgoing British government, he told the Constituent Assembly an August 11, 1947, that in Pakistan Hindus Sikhs and Muslims would have equal rights because the state would not have any religion. But the same Assembly passed the Objectives Resolution in 1949 making Islam the basis of the future constitution. Thus the minorities who felt reassured by Jinnah’s August 11 speech found they were in for an unending nightmare. Since then the plight of minorities has worsened.

But Maharaja Hari Singh the ruler of the Jammu and Kashmir state was the first person to be deceived. He was all the time encouraged by Mr Jinnah and the Muslim League to opt for independence. Pakistan also signed a standstill Treaty with him. But in less than four months of partition Pakistan sent armed tribal invaders into the state to kill, loot and rape innocent Kashmiris and annex the state. Subsequent UN resolutions called upon India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. But the ground for the plebiscite was to be prepared by Pakistanis withdrawal of its troops and the armed tribals it had sent into Kashmir, from the areas it had occupied through aggression- Pakistanis never did so but has since been trying to convince Kashmiris that it was the champion of their right of self~ determination as envisaged ‘in the UN Resolutions. In 1958 the army and the bureaucracy frustrated the political leaders’ plan to hold country’s first elections by abrogating the constitution and imposing Martial Law. President Iskander Mirza, who conspired with the army to prevent the election of a representative government, was made to 90 into exile a few days later by his own protege Gen Ayub Khan, who had been made the chief Martial Law Administrator by him. This kind of backstabbing and betrayal were repeated a number of time later.

The people of East Bengal were given an assurance that having won absolute majority in the December 1970 elections, they would be allowed to form the government in Pakistan, but at the same time preparations were on in Islamabad to exterminate the Bengali population. It is said they killed lakhs of Bengalis and raped their women as a strategy to pollute the Bengali race.

That these Bengalis were Muslims did not bother anybody in Islamabad.

Later in the 1970s we see a bloody military crackdown on the people of Baluchistan because they had totally rejected the Pakistan People’s Party at the December 1970 elections. During the 1990s we see Muhajirs, who made most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan, being -subjected to a brutal military crackdown because the rise of the MQM had corroded the influence of religious parties and feudals in urban areas of Sindh.

The way Iskander Mirza was backstabbed by his protege Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced a worse fate. He was deposed by Gen Zialul Haq and hanged. He had picked up Zia to be the Army chief superseding about half a dozen senior generals. And now deposed and exiled Nawaz Sharif must also be regretting his choice of Gen Musharraf as the Army Chief.

But perhaps the worst victims of Pakistanis rulers’ unreliability and betrayal are Taliban. Pakistan produced them for the protection of its interests in Central Asia to keep India away from this region and to be a source of trouble for India in Kashmir. But now the army rulers think their political interests are safe by letting down Taliban.

Refugee status for displaced persons

By Mohan Singh Kala

Sikhs, Hindus and some Muslim families were uprooted from POK in 1947 as a result of invasion of state by Tribals from Pakistan, after partition of the Sub-Continent. In this hollcaust Sikhs who were in majority in Muzaffarabad and Poonch were the worst sufferers like others and they continue to suffer because of neglect by the State and Central Government from 1948 to-date. Sharnarthi Action Committee headed by late S Bachan Singh Panchi fought against this injustice. But little support was extended to him by political and other parties and displaced persons. There was infighting in the Committee and with his death the Action Committee split. This weakened the struggle. Present Action Committee (one led by Hardit Singh Panchi and the other by Subedar Nand Lal) could not muster support of majority of displaced persons. There aim is limited. There is need to form a large scale organisation to launch a struggle for achieving their legitimate rights such as granting of refugees status, payment of compensation, relief, conferring of proprietory rights of land allotted to DP's and making of deficiency of land and other issues. At the same time DPs should not overlook the efforts of the Sharnarthi Action Committee. As a result of efforts of this Committee a parliamentary standing committee in the home affairs visited State (Jammu Province) to find out the truth and to see for themselves the plight of DPs of 1947. In the report given by the Committee they found that Sikhs who formed bulk of DPs suffered the most in life and property. The word 'Sikhs' used in the report does not exclude others. It should have not been given a communal twist in the media. Being worst sufferers it called for the attention of the Govt to their misery and were sympathetic in granting of refugees status to all such uprooted persons. But the stand point of J&K Govt. formed on the premise that POK formed part of whole of J&K State. As such granting of refugees status to these DPs seems difficulty. To that extent the report of the Central committee is based on facts.

State Govt is largely responsible for the misery of the DPs. From the very beginning step motherly treatment was meted out to DPs of 1947. DPs from Muzaffarabad were not allowed to settle in Kashmir valley. They were sent to Jammu and allotted land at scattered places, in Jammu, Kathua and Udhampur districts. As a result of this they have suffered politically, economically and socially. They were not given financil aid. No seats were reserved for students in professional colleges and recruitment in the services was almost nil. DPs of 1947 had to work hard for their livelihood. Deficiency of land has not made up and proprietory rights over the evacuee land have not been conferred so far. They are hanging in the air for the last more than 50 years.

Policies of National Conference Govt pursued consistently along pseudo-secular lines, is reflected in its policy towards DPs. Sheikh Mohd Abdullah worked against the interests of non-Muslim as is evident from the fact that he will produce land reforms and other policies and enacted laws for bringing awareness and political awakening among the Kashmiri Muslims. Why to blame Parliamentary Committee for ommitting the words other than Sikhs in their report ? Blame the State Govt for all the miseries of DPs of 1947. For this Central Govt. is also responsible. Central Govt could have taken care of DPs of 1947 as they have done for migrants of 1989 and 1990 from Kashmir Valley. POK is for all practical purposes part of Pakistan, as Pakistan never accepted the legal accession of Kashmir to India. It will never part with the area under its control. Because of compulsions of National honour neither India nor Pakistan will give up the respective parts of the State under their control to the other side. No Govt on either side of the borders has the moral authority, political will and courage to do so. When such is the position, how state govt still considers POK as part of the whole of J&K State. Let India get it vacated, which it cannot, and send us back. We should not be late to wait for centuries. State Govt should sign a way out for granting of refugees status to DP's of 1947. Our fate should be linked to granting of refugee status. As recommended by the committee state govt deprives DPs of 1947 of the benefits which are being given to migrants of Kashmir Valley. Without granting them the status of refugees. Till refugee status is granted to DPs of 1947 they should be given all the benefits as is being given to the Kashmiri migrants. Let their be no discrimination.

In this connection I would like to remind Dr Farooq Abdullah, Chief Minister of J&K of his public commitment on the occassion of birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev in 1996.

The lucky generals

By Anupam Mishra

The terrorist attack in USA and the subsequent coalition formulated by the world’s sole superpower to fight the terror off the globe has put Pakistan and more importantly its President-cum-Chief Executive-cum-Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff-cum-Chief of Army Staff General Parvez Musharraf back in favour with the rest of the world. The US sanctions are off with Britain and Japan following suit. In fact money is being doled out to help Pakistan help rest of the world combat the global terror in general and facilitate capture of the enigma called Osama bin Laden in particular.The IMF has put aside everything else to prepare a rehabilitation programme for Pakistan.

The very dictator who was being lambasted by the West and particularly the US for ousting a democratically elected Nawaz regime and putting the prime minister in jail before putting him on a one way flight outside the country alongwith his entire clan, is now being pampered by the same world leaders who sometime back refused to be photographed with him. Every effort is being made to bail him out of the tight, near fatal financial situation he has led his country into, and even his anti-US and anti-West stands are being viewed sympathetically making concessions for his domestic compulsions.

The last Pak ruler to receive this type of favourable attention was the Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, though it is quite an irony that he made his bread and butter out of creating this terror called Taliban, controlling and fighting which will now provide General Musharraf with his piece of cake. Pity the civil leaders in Pak never had this type of unsolicited honeymoon with the West despite all their best intentions !

General Zia-ul-Haq dethroned Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1978 and followed the exercise with a mock trial leading him to the gallows. Bhutto’s popularity at that time was on the downswing but no one can dispute the fact that he still remains the most charismatic leader in the history of Pakistan. But there was practically no protest against the decision within the country and all the international appeals for mercy fell on the deaf ears of a general who was very sure of what he had in his evil mind. Zia was immediately declared an outcast in the world community and was having a hard time on the global scene when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

Overnight the general had a reversal in fortunes as he became the most important figure on the international scene after the US and the Soviet heads.With Iran showing a much more independent and defiant character Pakistan was left as the only front-line state to check the Red empire from reaching the strategic waters of the Indian Ocean. General Zia couldn’t believe his luck as the US wooed and cheered him a with a fervour Abraham Lincoln would have envied, and the crafty general took the game of brinkmanship to its best as he spurned the initial US grant of $ 300 million as "peanuts". This indeed was peanuts as compared to what followed for the next decade as Pakistan was flushed with western money and arms and its one time military dictator could now do absolutely no wrong. US, Europe, Japan, IMF, World Bank all competed with each other to help Pakistan fight this against the expansionist intentions of the Soviets, creating Taliban in the process.

Unfortunately General Zia’s vision outside his ability to hold on firmly to power turned out to be pretty narrow. While on one hand he kept his generals and commanders in good humour by allowing them to blatantly misuse and loot the grants that could have been used to turn around the economy, he encouraged and used the fundamentalist sections of the society to strengthen his grip on the country and keep the liberals at bay. A pity his death in the plane crash allowed him to escape the results of his 11-year- long draconian rule. This was the time when the Soviets had withdrawn from Afghanistan and the US and the West had no further use for a nuclear armed, fundamentalist society headed by a military dictator. In reality Pakistan had been used as a condom to penetrate Afghanistan by the West and now with act over it was sharing the fate of a used condom. Had Zia survived it would have been interesting to see him come to terms with this changed scenario.

Now compare these free runs enjoyed by these generals to the pressures brought upon the civilian regimes of Bhutto and Sharif by the US and the West, as well as the IMF and the World Bank These democratically elected leaders were challenged on their nuclear ambitions, grilled on the development of missiles, snubbed on their relations with China and lambasted on their human rights record. And the irony was that everyone knew that it was the Army which was responsible for all the above, and no political leader in Pakistan hoped to survive if he made any attempt whatsoever to curb the army’s role, not that he had any means to do so in the first place.

These self appointed crusaders of global democracy and freedom made no attempt whatsoever to strengthen the hands of the elected governments in Pakistan so as to give the democracy in the country some time to take roots. Even as these civilian governments tried to strike a near impossible balance between their domestic compulsions and demands of the global economy, with the generals breathing down their necks, absolutely no sympathy or understanding was shown to them by the West and their controlled financial institutions.As they ruthlessly made the Pak governments toe their lines with hard reforms in the economy paying no heed to their domestic woes, the common man fumed and rose against their own government making it unpopular and thus providing the military with a moral edge, not that it needed one !

It is high time the West and particularly the United States should have a serious thought over the issue. A few but understanding nods with the civilian leaders could have saved them the subsequent and compulsory shakes with the military dictators of this unfortunate country. The Western world must realize that their actions are running contrary to their wishes of a democratic, stable and safe South Asia.