The News article (“Kashmir on world agenda: Armitage”, The News, 5 September 2002) quoted Richard Armitage as saying, “Kashmir is on international agenda like never before and there is a lot of concern in the world community to resolve the issue.” Ijaz Hussain, however, argued that the US will not assist Pakistan’s Kashmir policy, (“Can the US deliver on Kashmir”, Daily Times, 4 September 2002). He states, “If the US was so susceptible to Indian sensitivities during the Cold War, it is highly improbable that it would do otherwise at a time when it desperately needs India in a variety of ways, particularly to act as a counterweight against resurgent China. In this backdrop, it would be least prepared to force a solution down the Indian throat. In our judgement, the chances of the US delivering on Kashmir are quite problematic.” 

   Zubeida Mustafa questioning whether “a government in Islamabad (would) be able to resist the temptation of keeping the Kashmir pot boiling” (“How we can help the Kashmiris,” Dawn, 2 September 2002) argues, “There is quite a substantial section of public opinion - maybe even a majority - which feels it is time the government modified its stance on Kashmir…They know where their priorities lie. They strongly believe that the country should not be held hostage to the Kashmir dispute. It is now being openly said that the time has come to focus on the multitude of our economic, social and, of course, political/constitutional problems. Without a strong - not so much militarily as economically - and unified Pakistan, it is foolish for the government to try to take on India on behalf of the Kashmiris.”

Internal Politics  

   Analysing the role of political parties since independence, Ghani Chaudhry (“Political Parties in new role,” Dawn, 2 September 2002) comments, “The party system in the country has resisted change in its political complexion. Same families, and in many cases, the same faces continued to occupy parliamentary benches for generations. The middle and lower middle class, the major part of society, is not adequately represented in our parliament. The new constitutional amendment making college degree as condition for parliamentary candidates and the induction of 60 women seats in the national assembly will largely change the complexion of the house in one leap.”

   On the need for political participation in the forthcoming elections, veteran journalist MB Naqvi observed (“Who will vote for what and why”, The News, 4 September 2002) that, “Voting is a moral and political duty; he must exercise his option to preserve or change the government - or fight for that right... Unless an informed citizenry creates a government for the specific purposes that the aware citizens set for it, there will be no progress. The country will continue to flounder in the thoughtlessly created crises. The required change is for the people becoming citizens, taking themselves seriously and becoming sovereigns by simply acting like citizens. It is their business to drive politics out of the well-appointed drawing rooms and persuade common citizens to get involved qua citizens in bringing in a new government that would tackle the problem of unemployment squarely.”

   In an interesting editorial (“Meerawala is not just about punishment”, 5 September 2002) on the mass rape incident and the punishment by the anti-terrorism court, The Daily Times, on how to make tribesmen conform to state laws, concludes, “There is obvious need for the state to act more than just as a colonial power. Since the problem is multi-dimensional, in the long run the state cannot merely rest content with occasionally wielding the stick. It has to reach out to the periphery, not just intervene as a foreign power to set things right only to make them worse. As things stand, the state has left large sections of society on the periphery and in the process lost the moral right to address the issues. With the loss of moral authority, it is left with nothing but brute force.”

The US 

   Commenting on US foreign policy, Anwar Ahmad (“American Jihad,” The News, 2 September 2002) writes, “The Cold War domino theory is at work again, this time in reverse. Pakistan, particularly, has all the makings of a villain - WMDs and delivery systems supplemented by strident (though rootless) Mullahs. Iran has missiles and Ayatollahs, Saudi Arabia money and madrassas. It is only the question of Uncle Sam deciding when it's time for whom.”

   The Nation in its editorial (“Welcome stand on Iraq”, 4 September 2002), appreciating Musharraf’s statement that Pakistan would not be a party to the US military action against Iraq, commented, “Already our fateful decision to join hands with the US has exposed us to serious dangers of internal disharmony... Among the pro-Taliban elements, the committed lot has shown its teeth on more than one occasion and targeted, in particular, the minority Christian community, unfairly associating it with US designs… The intrusive US presence on Pakistani soil, especially in the tribal areas, is also disquieting, and causes resentment.” On the same issue, Prof Rasul Bakhsh Rais (“Changing the Iraqi regime”, The News, 7 September 2002) wrote, “The American allies in the region are genuinely concerned about the ramifications of war aimed at removing an Arab leader. Their populations may get restless if they offered their territories or lent support in any visible manner to the American war against Iraq. The war would certainly muddy the already anti-American psychological and political climate and prove counterproductive to the very objectives of stability and security in the region.”

Nuclear War in South Asia  

   Responding to an article that appeared in the Indian media, Shaukat Qadir argues that it would be “unwise for India to resort to conventional conflict” (“Threat of nuclear war in South Asia”, Daily Times, 7 September 2002). According to him, “Conventional Indian forces were presently incapable of inflicting a military defeat on Pakistan (though this equation could undergo a change in India’s favour in a few years). Consequently, unless the Pakistan military was totally incompetent, which it is not, the inevitable outcome would be a stalemate - viewed by the world as a victory for Pakistan, since the mighty India would have been unable to defeat the puny Pakistan.”