WHEN people say that India and Pakistan are born of the same womb they have in mind the cultural, religious and historical links between the two countries.

But few realise the ties that continue still to bind us together. Constitutionally and internationally shocking? Not really.

Every one knows that we owe freedom from the common colonial power, Britain, to the same statute enacted by its parliament. However, the Indian Independence Act, 1947 did more than declare in the first clause of the very first section that as from Aug 15, 1947 “two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known, respectively, as India and Pakistan”.

What is little remembered is that it so bound the two that neither state could question the other’s boundary with a third state. Pakistan cannot question the McMahon Line, India’s eastern boundary, no matter how close its relations with China. India cannot question the Durand Line no matter how close its relations with Afghanistan. Indeed, neither quite did so even in the worst days of their cold war. The professionals would have warned them and for good reason.

The Act was not enacted by the British unilaterally. It was vetted by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan on behalf of the Muslim League and by Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel on behalf of the Congress. They were huddled together with their legal advisers in the viceroy’s house in New Delhi since the confidential draft was not to be removed from its premises.

The Partition Council, comprising the top leaders of both parties, was set up with the viceroy, Mountbatten, in the chair. It set up committees galore. Expert Committee IX, comprising representatives of India and Pakistan, considered the impact of the partition on ‘foreign relations’. It drew up a list of 627 treaties and agreements which India had signed when it was under British rule. Item No.143 referred to “the Indo-Tibetan Boundary agreement of 1914” laying down the McMahon Line. Item Nos 149-158 concerned the Indo-Afghan frontier, the Durand Line.

On Aug 6 representatives of India and Pakistan arrived at an agreement on “the devolution of international rights and obligations” upon the two countries. This accord was given legal sanction by the Indian Independence (International Arrangement) Order made by the governor general on Aug 14 under Section 9 of the Independence Act. The Order states that “rights and obligations under international agreements having an exclusive application to an area comprised” in either country devolved upon it.

Is this of no political consequence today? Pakistan has been complaining of India’s ‘activities’ in Afghanistan and India of Pakistan’s ‘activities’ in Nepal. Neither country should expect an exclusive relationship with its neighbour. Both should respect each other’s legitimate security concerns in its immediate neighbourhood. We do not need anything as crude as the Churchill-Stalin accord in Moscow on Oct 9, 1944 which Churchill recorded in his memoirs.

“I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper. Romania/Russia 90 per cent, the others 10 per cent; Greece/Great Britain 90 per cent (in accord with the US). Russia 10 per cent; Yugoslavia 50-50 per cent; Bulgaria/Russia 75 per cent, the others 25 per cent. He (Stalin) made a tick upon it and passed it back to us.” Churchill suggested, “Let us burn this paper.” “No, you keep it,” said Stalin. The US opposed the deal. But nor did it address Stalin’s security concerns. The Cold War followed.

Last July, Karl F. Inderfurth, US assistant secretary of state for South Asia from 1997-2001, and Wendy Chamberlin, US ambassador to Pakistan from 2001-2002, made a fervent but realistic plea for India-Pakistan cooperation on Afghanistan: “Pakistan and India also should build on their positive diplomatic developments over the past several years to tackle the very sensitive issue of Afghanistan…. But it won’t be easy…. India will claim it has legitimate interests in Afghanistan and that it is a major donor in the international effort to rebuild that country. Pakistan will charge that India is running operations out of its many consulates in Afghanistan to stir trouble across the border, especially to fan the flames of the anti-Islamabad insurgency in Balochistan…. But these long-standing concerns are now being trumped by a new reality, the need for India and Pakistan to look beyond their traditional rivalries and agree on a joint strategy to confront the extremists operating along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.”

Nor are they the only ones to make this plea. Xenia Dormandy, executive director for research at the Belfer Centre at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, pleads for an India-Pakistan understanding on Afghanistan: “This is going to require a fundamental change in attitudes in both the Indian and Pakistan governments ... Unless a way to mitigate the underlying Pakistan-Indian tension in Afghanistan is found, the country will continue to be a battleground for this largely unspoken war.”

India and Pakistan must intensify their efforts to build on the broad consensus on approaches to a Kashmir solution. Some say that even the broad outlines of a deal have been drawn up. Accord on Afghanistan will strengthen the India-Pakistan friendship. We can at least make a beginning with a frank exchange of views. Some have advocated a regional approach. It will fail unless there is a broad consensus between Pakistan and India.

Meanwhile truths long ignored are being accepted. The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, a military solution is impossible. The Taliban are militarily more powerful than the West imagined. Politically no solution is possible without their concert.

These harsh truths sum up the grim realities of the situation created by the panicked and reckless American attack on Afghanistan after 9/11. That, as Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged, was not Afghan aggression against the US but a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda and deserved to be addressed as such.

The writer is an Indian lawyer and an author.

I WAS called a prophet of doom by someone I met a couple of years ago at a dinner while discussing the economic scenario of Pakistan.

This guy, with a sheet of cloth wrapped around one of his shoulders was based in the US and was apparently an ardent admirer of Musharraf. I would love to meet him now; and others who sang Musharraf’s praises during the past eight years.

The world is going through an unprecedented financial crisis which may even get worse before it turns around. Pakistan’s economy is obviously no exception. However, the unbearable load-shedding, sloppy governance, and unstoppable corruption have absolutely nothing to do with this global phenomenon. Our rulers should be given the credit for our mess, from which there is no way out in sight.

Pakistan is an important country in the world, not so much because of its geopolitical situation as our policymakers would like us to believe but because 160 million people live here. The world community shudders at the thought of this state failing and such a large number of people suffering and becoming disgruntled due to unemployment, underemployment or for a number of other reasons. We hate the Americans for opposing our nuclear programme but never bother to ponder about the possibility of the militants ever getting hold of a single bomb. The militants won’t blink an eye before using it.

The country needs drastic changes and a visionary approach. And this is not feasible with a simple change of faces. One of the major reasons that Pakistan is going through a deteriorating situation decade after decade is because the same class remains in power, and only the faces change. We swing between military and so-called democratic rule but people hardly feel the change. The reason is simple: the ruling class remains the same. It is the same set of rulers who care more about their business interests than about Pakistan’s economy. They are constantly thinking about the next deal which may get them a few hundred thousand in commission to finance their next holiday.

We somehow have come up with the idea that the be all and end all of democracy is free and fair elections. Someone needs to tell us that elections are a means to democracy. True democratic rule only comes when the rulers are answerable to and respectful of public opinion. We have never been able to appreciate why an elected official resigns at the first hint of financial or moral impropriety in a true democracy. This happens much before the charge is proven against the person. He simply is deferential to public opinion and resigns in the greater interests of his office and the nation. In our polity, the nation and the country come last.

Pakistan needs to start from scratch with a totally new class of rulers who are imbibed with the idea of clean governance and who hold the nation’s interests supreme. This should be a class that declares its assets upon coming to power and refrains from adding to its wealth. We had such rulers once in South Asia who led us to independence during the 1940s and thus we need not wait for aliens to land.

Almost every Pakistani has given up on the issue of corruption and we have taken it as a way of life. We fail to realise that corruption is tantamount to a parallel government as it amounts to another form of taxation. One needs to pay to get things done just like we have to pay taxes and duties to the government; the only difference is that a bribe is exacted not by the state but by a state functionary and the money is thus pocketed by him rather than going into the state coffers. Consequently, the state and the whole nation suffer as there is less money available for our welfare.

Corruption in our midst is worse than elsewhere as here it is coupled with incompetence and inefficiency. Our education system is in shambles and is producing millions of graduates without skills one can be proud of. It is a consequence of this neglect that scarcely anything is working; problems are encountered in everything from the power sector to managing banks to construction of overhead bridges to telephone connections. People are in a laid-back mode, questioning why they should be expected to work, let alone efficiently, when nobody else is.

The problem is the lack of a good example set by those at the top. What are others expected to do when ministers and secretaries are not in their offices before 11 a.m. and seldom remain there after 3 p.m. The party starts early for them unless it is delayed by a few rounds of golf. Also gone are the days when high court judges used to be in the courtroom by 8 a.m. In such a bleak atmosphere, lower officials and staff are hardly inspired to work.

It is for this reason that Pakistan desperately needs a new set of rulers who are role models for the nation. The country needs honest and sincere leaders who work hard to improve the lot of the common man. Pakistan is an unfortunate country which is bestowed with almost all that a state needs to succeed. All it needs is sincere leadership.

It is time that people who feel the need for positive change unite to make a difference regardless of their political affiliations. Ideologies in the current political environment hardly matter as it is difficult to distinguish between the programmes, if any, of various political parties. The manifestos of almost all the parties read more like a memo or a report written by a bureaucrat than visionary statements for citizens. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

One need not destroy one’s enemy. One need only destroy his willingness to engage. — Sun Tzu

WITH the truth coming first in the line of fire, the stories of any war are often carefully prepared half-truths, selected truths and non-truths delivered in a psychologically accommodating manner to an information-starved audience.

Psychological operations or psy-ops have now acquired an essential status in the conduct of war. They involve conveying selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately the behaviour of groups and individuals. Psy-ops exploit the adversary’s psychological weaknesses to create uncertainty, fear and confusion, thereby lowering the enemy’s morale and the will to fight.

Leaflets distributed, pasted on walls or dropped from aircraft, FM radio broadcasts, vehicle-mounted loudspeakers, release of carefully constructed audio tapes and videotapes, wall-chalking and face-to-face rumours are some of the standard techniques used in psy-ops.

Some 29 million leaflets were dropped by coalition forces during the 1991 Gulf War, with some estimates suggesting that 40 per cent of all surrenders and desertions were due to psy-ops tactics. The same was done in the Iraq war with even better results. From whom did the Taliban learn these techniques? Any observer of the war in FATA would readily recognise the effectiveness with which the Taliban, supported by their foreign patrons, have successfully used psy-ops to gain an advantage and to create confusion, uncertainty ad fear amongst its opponents. The fact that the entire population of Pakistan is gripped with anxiety on account of an unknown fear, unknown future, unknown enemy and even unsure friends speaks volumes about the manner in which the Taliban have deployed these techniques in Pakistan.

Maulana Fazlullah of Swat was one of the first to put psy-ops to practical use. He not only converted the youth to his brand of jihad, but also convinced people about the ill effects of female education and the impact of polio drops on future generations.

Single-handedly he defeated the WHO’s $196m anti-polio campaign and made sure that 160,000 children did not receive polio immunisation. His message, a fine blend of religion and chemistry, that “polio immunisation is a conspiracy of the Jews and Christians to stunt the population growth of Muslims” was targeted at the psyche of the religiously inclined, emotionally charged, illiterate masses.

As a result of his teachings, thousands of inhabitants voluntarily destroyed their electronic goods, disconnected their cable TV, stopped sending their girls to schools and took up arms. Psy-ops produce outstanding results when whatever you say is believable and also contains a small element of truth.

The Taliban have effectively used many other psy-ops techniques. They distribute dos and don’ts leaflets, send messages through local mosques, use loudspeaker-mounted vans, hold well-advertised press conferences, induce soldiers to desist from fighting, send strong messages through brutal killings and lower the soldiers’ morale by meting out insulting treatment to prisoners.

Even the rapid-response justice system (executing either the accused or the complainant) is intended to send a message of control and power. The Taliban groups enforcing amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar (promotion of virtue and suppression of vice) operate freely, execute punishments, burn shops, shut down schools and force people to revert to an archaic way of life.

Pakistan has put up a brave front against the Fata militants, but has maintained a low profile in its intelligence and psychological operations. It could undertake many activities to pressurise and influence the militants. It could airdrop leaflets asking militants to surrender, highlight the losses, injuries and dislocation caused to innocent citizens, create incentives for surrender and warn of strong retaliation against those who insist on fighting.

Pakistan has not done enough to expose the facts, pictures, captured militants and weapons that are supplied by other countries for fighting against Pakistan. These facts and pictures should be sent to the world media to expose those who ask us to ‘do more’ on the one hand and directly or indirectly supply weapons, vehicles, money and techniques to the militants on the other.

Pakistan needs to do better than Maulana Fazlullah at sending correct, educational and informative messages to the public at large in Fata. The public needs to be clearly told of the size and nature of the insurgency, how it has destroyed the lives of millions of innocent citizens and how it is sponsored by foreign powers. The Taliban create terror and fear by publicly executing those who report on their whereabouts. How does Pakistan protect its citizens against such punishments and how does Pakistan create its own friendly informants?

Intelligence and psy-op play a vital role in modern warfare. To use them effectively could save many lives and a lot of fighting. We need to know more about who we are fighting, what is the source of their weapons and supplies, and their locations, hideouts, electronic signatures, movement patterns, local contacts and foreign sponsors.

Engaged in a complex war that threatens our very survival, we cannot hope to win unless we adopt more serious and scientific techniques that combine dialogue, force, technology and incentives that are significantly superior to the one offered by the enemy.

naeemsadiq@gmail.com