THE BOSTON BRAHMIN

By Anjum Niaz

Since all the worthy columnists have exhausted the KLB, the new name for the Kerry-Lugar Bill, I have nothing remarkable to add to their sound and fury. Let's instead turn to a small housekeeping matter like: is Foreign Minister Qureshi's son working for Senator Kerry? Zain H Qureshi's (ZHQ) business card is circulating the cyberspace these days. It says that he is a legislative fellow in Kerry's Washington DC office. When I called up Kerry's office and asked for Qureshi, the voice at the other end immediately said, "He does not work for us". The woman appeared primed for such a question. She said she had received a similar query earlier that day. Incidentally the cell number on ZHQ's call card has been disconnected; while the mail box belonging to "Zain Qureshi" was "full!" So, I couldn't get to him.

After a number of phone calls to Senator Kerry's office, I finally found out from one of Kerry's male staffers that ZHQ did indeed work for Kerry but had now left. Why has ZHQ gone into hiding? Did he do something wrong? Yes. And the Foreign Office finds itself between a rock and a hard place. How can it condone its boss's act of getting his son a job with Kerry when the KLB talks were at a critical stage? Even if fate smiles upon ZHQ because he's the favoured son of our foreign minister and the doors of the high and mighty in Washington open up for him, we have the right to know whenever the son's job compromises his dad's position. More importantly if it is in direct conflict with Pakistan's interests.

Would you not call this a conflict of interest? Should the foreign minister resign? And if Zardari cannot afford to let him go, then the FM must seek a public apology.

The Boston Brahmin, Senator Kerry is complicit in this act. Boston Brahmins are New England's aristocracy like the Makhdooms of Multan, i.e. Shah Mahmood Qureshi and his tribe. These guys claim to fame is blue-blooded ancestry, wealth, influence and the right to rule. He said the following during his 2004 presidential campaign: "There's a great passage in the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.' And I think everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith . That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

Senator Kerry must practice what he preaches. Would he have given ZHQ the time of the day had the young man not been the son of Pakistan's foreign minister?

Why do the good folks fighting Pakistan's case in Washington DC become the usual suspects? In Musharraf's time it was Dr Nasim Ashraf. One wondered whether the Maryland-based millionaire doctor's heart bled for Pakistan or for Musharraf or for himself. Today, Ambassador Husain Haqqani is under fire from certain Pakistani quarters who accuse him of working for Washington and not Islamabad. Haqqani is hitting back via email messages to anyone wondering what's cooking in Washington. Yours truly is one of the unlucky recipients. Surely our ambassador must have known that his boss's son was working for Kerry. Good counselling from Haqqani to Qureshi would perhaps have saved the latter the embarrassment he is facing today?

Another glaring example of how the Democrats are enticing the Pakistani leaders is the recent banner headline: "Zardari far ahead in popularity." According to Democracy International, an affiliate of the Democratic Party of America, Zardari is ahead of Nawaz Sharif in the popularity contest. To anyone with an iota of intelligence, the timing of this screamer is suspect. What has Zardari achieved in recent days for "51 per cent" of Pakistanis to suddenly fall in love with him? His jiyalas, one fears, would declare October 1, the day the survey was announced, as the President's Day – the day of the great revelation. Declaring it a public holiday perhaps?

And when the polls go against the sitting president, these foreign busybodies are kicked out of Pakistan. Gen Musharraf asked IRI (the International Republican Institute), an affiliate of the Republican Party to wind up their office in Pakistan and leave when he got bad ratings from them. Not sure if indeed it was IRI that offended Musharraf, I called up their office in Washington. "What is your column about?" asked Lisa (I couldn't catch her last name) from the press section. I told her politely that it was not possible for me to provide her details of my column. "If you can't tell me what your column is about then I can't help you," she replied sternly. This is just a small example of how Masonic these polling outfits are. They think they have the writ to go around Pakistan poking their noses into our affairs, but when it comes to asking a simple question like if Musharraf asked them to wind up their office in 2008, they get so cagey.

Sadly, the epicentre of our knowledge is the received wisdom from such dodgy polls conducted by Democracy International and the International Republican Institute (IRI). Hey, where's Gallup Pakistan? Have we become so incompetent or doped that we can't even conduct popularity polls in our own country and must therefore rely on America?

We are the opium-eaters. We swallow whatever comes from Washington. While the Democrats tell us that Pakistanis love Zardari because of KLB, the Republicans via their polling affiliate the IRI sing a different tune. Their August polls conclude that "Pakistanis continue to hold onto the opinion that conditions in the country are problematic and President Zardari is perceived as being responsible." If this does not sound confusing enough to an ordinary Pakistani trying to work out the popularity ratings of Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, have another go. According to September 9 report in the Christian Science Monitor, "Zardari's popularity sags - will it undermine Pakistan's fight with Taliban?"

Here's another twister from the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads: "Zardari at fault for low rating?" This gem was published on August 31. "Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari is aware that his popularity has sunk to new lows at a time when his arch rival Nawaz Sharif -- who heads the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) -- is boasting high popularity, a media report said. He is widely viewed in Pakistani society not as a helmsman, but a bystander. It's an image that is largely of Zardari's own making, say analysts who contend that he has failed to forge any kind of connection with the Pakistani public.Last but not the least is the recent poll by the Pew Research Centre, a Washington-based institute, which says that "less than a third of Pakistanis have a favourable opinion of Mr Zardari. The president was widely reviled after being accused of demanding kickbacks while he served in Benazir Bhutto's Cabinet in the late 1980s and again starting in 1993."

Give us a break! If by now we don't get it that the US is using these polls as a weapon for manipulation of third world dictators (Gen Musharraf) and corrupt rulers then Pakistan, I'm afraid to say, is going down the tube fast.

Conflict of interest, eh? Here's yet one more example. Do you know how many Pakistani parliamentarians and cabinet ministers hold foreign nationalities, including our president?

The writer is a freelance journalist with over twenty years of experience in national and international reporting

Courtesy The News

MAHTAB BASHIR

0333 5363248

FORGOTTEN LESSON OF HISTORY

By Roedad Khan

On Saturday last, the army launched an operation, code-named Rah-i-Nijat against Mehsud strongholds in South Waziristan. "Both air and ground troops are taking part", Major General Athar Abbas, Chief of the Inter-Services Public Relation told the journalists. Earlier Army Chief General Kayani briefed the political leadership on the "imperative" of the operation against the Mehsuds. The die is cast. An invisible Rubicon crossed.

With this operation Pakistan is launched on the path to a protracted, inconclusive war in the mountains of Waziristan. The decision to commit our forces to such a war is, in my view, a tragic error. Waziristan may not be Vietnam but it has its own river of history that General Kayani is now stepping into.

Once again, there is a dry wind blowing throughout Waziristan and parched grasses wait the spark. Now that the match is lit, the blaze may spread like wildfire throughout the tribal area. Talking about Waziristan, a Mehsud tribesman told a missionary doctor at Bannu: "When God created the world there were a lot of stones and rocks and other lumber left over which were all dumped down on this frontier".

In the early 1900s, a crusty British general, Andrew Skeen, wrote a guide to military operation in Waziristan. His first piece of advice: "When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire".

The British decision to send troops into the Khaisora valley in November 1936 which transformed Ipi's agitation into a full scale uprising almost over night and set Waziristan on fire which lasted until after 1947. The British failed to capture Ipi and the campaign had to be called off. The judgment displayed by the British and the poor intelligence upon which they based their decisions were chiefly to blame for the disasters that followed. This was the last major rebellion in Waziristan which stemmed from an abrupt change of policy.

The tribesmen's unrivalled fighting record, their ability to intervene in Afghan affairs and to involve Afghans in their own affairs, were factors ignored by the British that made Waziristan different from other Frontier areas. This disastrous attempt to "pacify" Waziristan was the last of several major incursions into tribal territory during the hundred years of Britain's presence in Northwest India. On each occasion the tribes and the mountains won a strategic victory, despite local tactical reverses, and the bulk of the Indian troops were forced to withdraw back into the plains of the Indus valley. The British soon learned that you can annex land but not people.

When the British left, Pakistan had reason to be glad that it had inherited a secure North West Frontier. In September 1947, Mr. Jinnah took a bold decision to reverse the "pacification" policy, withdrew regular troops from Waziristan and entered into new agreements with the tribes. Cunningham, the new governor of NWFP, appointed by Mr Jinnah was a Frontier expert. His disillusion with the "pacification" policy was complete. "I think that we must now face a complete change of policy. Razmak has been occupied by regular troops for nearly 25 years. Wana for a few years less. The occupation of Waziristan has been a failure. It has not achieved peace or any appreciable economic development. It ties up an unreasonably large number of troops, and for the last 10 years there have been frequent major and minor offenses against the troops." The change in policy produced dramatic results and paid rich dividends.

All this has now changed. Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy which had stood the test of time has been reversed. Our troops are back in Waziristan. Some time back, the commander of the US led troops in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Borno, let the cat out of the bag when he said that US and Pakistani forces were working together like "hammer and anvil" to trap Osama and Al Qaeda forces along the border".

Those who know the Frontier are deeply concerned. The Pakistan government is playing with fire. By reversing Mr Jinnah's Waziristan policy, at the behest of Americans, it has alienated powerful tribes in Waziristan and unsettled our western border which had remained peaceful for 62 years since the birth of Pakistan.

The nation is beginning to see the rapidly unfurling consequences of General Musharraf's fateful decision to join the "coalition of the coerced". America's dreaded war on terror has indisputably arrived on Pakistan's soil. Pakistan is slipping into anarchy and stands on the brink of civil war. A perfect storm is looming on the horizon.

We have stumbled into a war that we cannot fight and win for the simple reason that we don't seem to realize what guerrilla war is like. We are sending conventional troops to do an unconventional job. I can foresee a perilous voyage. The war in Waziristan cannot be won because it is perceived as the white man's war. It could be won only if perceived by the powerful tribes as Pakistan's own war. That, unfortunately, is not how they perceive this war. The conflict will, no doubt, be long and protracted. We will suffer more because not even a great power can beat guerrillas. The enemy cannot be seen: he is indigenous to the country. My fear is that we will get bogged down.

War against our own people is too terrible a thing to resort to. Many questions spring to mind. Was the decision to go to war determined by the absence of other viable options? Why was it not debated in parliament? Why deploy military means in pursuit of an indeterminate and primarily political end? Was there a geopolitical imperative to resort to war in Waziristan? Aren't we Pakistanising the American war on our soil? We must also recognize the limitations of modern, high technology, military equipment in confronting highly motivated guerrilla movement in a treacherous terrain.

We must also recognize that the consequences of large-scale military operations – against our own people – particularly in this age of highly sophisticated and destructive weapons – are inherently difficult to predict and control. Therefore, they must be avoided, excepting only when our nation's security is clearly and directly threatened. These are the lessons of history. Pray God we learn them. But as George Bernard Shaw said: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

The writer is a former federal secretary.

Courtesy The News

MAHTAB BASHIR

0333 53 63 248

Kerry-Lugar Bill: Can It Bridge the Trust Deficit?

The debate over the US $7.5 billion (over five years) Kerry-Lugar Bill - The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act - passed by the U.S. Senate late September seems to have have generated great confusion, bemusement, anger and frustration. Sometimes, all at the same time.

Pakistan Army considers the Bill to be an “insult,” that Pakistan’s Prime Minister sees it as a “big success for democracy,” that India is “upset” about it, and that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is chiding the Bill’s critics to “read the Bill first.” Even as the entrepreneurial classes in both Washington and Islamabad dream up big plans and salivate at impending windfalls, it is difficult to tell whether it is the political pundits in Washington who feel more insulted or the political pundits in Islamabad. Suffice to say, both are seething with anger, even when it is not at all clear why.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill is a five year commitment for up to US $7.5 Billion for developmental assistance, with up to US $ 1.5 Billion available each of the next five years, which amounts to a tripling of the U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan. Responding to what has been a call of many Pakistanis over many years, it directs this assistance towards civilian, and especially infrastructure, uses and not towards military aid. It also tries to respond to the fears about corruption by the bureaucracy and politicians by asking for strong oversight over use and effectiveness.

So, what is there not to like about the Kerry-Lugar Bill? Speak to the Bill’s proponents in Washington and they will ask you: “Isn’t this exactly what you guys have been asking for all along? More money. Money for civilian development projects. Money that will be accounted for and used properly. So, why aren’t you all dancing in the streets and hugging us in gratitude?” Many Americans are clearly feeling insulted because what they see as a case of their generosity not being appreciated.

For its critics the answer is straight-forward and can be summarized in one word: conditionality. The critic’s wrath is not really about what the Kerry-Lugar Bill promises; it is about what the Kerry-Lugar Bill demands. Call it concerns about sovereignty, about imperialism, about national pride, or whatever else, but many Pakistanis are clearly feeling insulted because they think they have been presented with a ‘bill of demands’ and being asked to sell out cheap.

One can dissect things deep in search of hidden meanings and clues. Too many people are already doing that and it really does not help. The problem is deep. But it is not hidden.

The debate we are now seeing is one more manifestation of the deep deficits of trust that have marked all US-Pakistan relations. In the absence of trust, Pakistanis - even those who might otherwise support this Bill - simply refuse to accept that America could possibly be interested in Pakistan’s interests. For the very same reasons, Americans - even those who strongly wish to see a stronger Pakistan - simply refuse to acknowledge the intensity with which Pakistan has always sought “friends, not masters.”

The fact of the matter is that if the U.S. had any trust whatsoever in the Pakistani state or the Pakistani people, this Bill would not have been crafted in the language it is. By the same token, if Pakistanis had any trust whatsoever in the United States their reaction would not have been what it is even if the Bill were written as it is. The US-Pakistan relationship is a most reluctant international relationship. The Kerry-Lugar Bill is a good example of this. Here is support that the Americans would much rather never have been ‘made’ to give to Pakistan. Here is support that Pakistanis would much rather never have been ‘made’ to accept.

And herein lies the real problem of Pakistan-US relations. Neither trusts the other. Each can give many reasons - and some of them, in each case, are very valid - why, but that matters little. The result is a tainted and reluctant relationship.

When I visit Pakistan, I am often asked: “What do Americans think of Pakistan?” In USA, I am often asked “What do Pakistanis think of America?” The answer to both questions is exactly the same: “They think of you exactly what you think of them. They don’t really like you, they certainly don’t trust you, but right now they think they need you.”

It is no surprise, then, that there is no US-Pakistan ‘relationship’; there are only US-Pakistan transactions.

Here is a Bill that should have been, and still could be, used as a means to build that trust. The trust without which this relationship will forever be tainted, reluctant and prone to constant frustration. If the two sides (and it really is about what both sides do) continue to look at this as a transactional episode - of services provided and paid for - then five years from now Americans will find themselves asking what the point of spending (’wasting’) all this money was, and Pakistanis would be heard questioning whether they would have been better off never having accepted this largess. Both have been there before and both are likely to end up being there again.

On the other hand, if - and this is as big an ‘if’ as you will ever find in international relations - the two sides really do get past the ugliness in the discourse right now and use this opportunity to move from transactions to a relationship then, as Humphery Bogart said in the movie Casablanca, this could well become “the start of a beautiful friendship.”

But for that to happen, too many things would first have to change in both Islamabad and Washington. At this point, unfortunately, it is not clear at all that either is interested, or capable, of those changes.

Courtesy Adil Najam

.... And here's why men have sex

READING the list of reasons why women sleep with men, David Thomas wondered: Don't they ever do it because they like us?Does desire mean anything to women? Because it certainly does to men.

In our youth, desire can be indiscriminate. A young man's relationship with his sex drive is like a dog-walker's with an ill-disciplined dog: he is led from pillar to post without hope of discipline or control. Some men, no matter how old they are, will never stop chasing women for sex.

But for most of us it's different. We've realised that girls, instead of being the pointless, silly creatures we took them for, are the most amazing, fascinating, desirable creatures on the planet.

They can make your heart soar with a glance, and crush your spirit with a sneer.

Women don't have to do anything to hold men in their power. Just existing is enough.

Why else would men have written countless poems and love songs? Why else would they have painted them, sculpted them, gone to war for them?

It's men, not women, who are the true romantics. We want sex because it feels great, reinforces our self-worth and, for us, physical intimacy is the proof and expression of emotional intimacy: to be denied sex is to be cast out.

This makes sex as frightening as it is intoxicating.

We hate to admit it, but we are dependent on women and worry about our ability to satisfy them.

In this Sex And The City age, we fear that every act of love will be analysed over cocktails like a premiership game on Match Of The Day.

Over time, lust and capacity fade. So sometimes we have sex just to prove we can. But most of all, ladies, we want sex because we love you.

themercury

Women really can't keep a secret: TONGUES START WAGGING AFTER JUST 47 HOURS

Ever wondered how long a woman can keep a secret? Well the answer, it seems, is less than two days.

Researchers found that they will typically spill the beans to someone else in 47 hours and 15 minutes.

A study of 3,000 women aged between 18 and 65 also found that four in ten were unable to keep a secret, no matter how personal or confidential the news was.

More than half admitted that alcohol could prompt them to dish the dirt. Boyfriends, husbands, best friends and mothers were most likely to be initial recipients of the information.

Michael Cox, UK Director of Wines of Chile which commissioned the research said: 'It's official - women can't keep secrets.

'We were really keen to find out with this survey how many secrets people are told. What we didn't bank on was how quickly these are passed on by those we confide in. 'No matter how precious the piece of information, it's often out in the public domain within 48 hours.

'That means every single Brit who has confided in a friend should be worried because they don't know where their secret is heading.

'The fact they offload gossip to someone completely unrelated to the matter or in a different social group can be comforting, but while nine in ten girls deem themselves trustworthy - they still have spilt the beans.

'And juicy gossip can really flow after a couple of glasses of wine.'
The study found that the average woman hears three pieces of gossip each week, and will pass it on to at least one other person.

Three in ten 'have the urge' to reveal secrets, with nearly half telling another to 'simply get it off their chest'.

However, two thirds end up feeling guilty after spilling the beans. Three quarters claim they are capable of keeping quiet about a secret, and 83 per cent consider themselves 100 per cent trustworthy.

Yet more than four in ten think it is acceptable to share a friend's secret with someone who does not know them, with over 40 per cent saying their husband is their ultimate confidante.

Intimate issues, true cost of purchases and affairs emerged top of the secret-keeping list. Fortunately for some, 27 per cent said they forgot what they were told the following day. MAIL

BED SHARING 'BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH'

Couples should consider sleeping apart for the good of their health and relationship, say experts.

Sleep specialist Dr Neil Stanley told the British Science Festival how bed sharing can cause rows over snoring and duvet-hogging and robs precious sleep.

One study found that, on average, couples suffered 50% more sleep disturbances if they shared a bed.

Dr Stanley, who sleeps separately from his wife, points out that historically we were never meant to share our beds.

He said the modern tradition of the marital bed only began with the industrial revolution, when people moving to overcrowded towns and cities found themselves short of living space.

Before the Victorian era it was not uncommon for married couples to sleep apart. In ancient Rome, the marital bed was a place for sexual congress but not for sleeping.

Dr Stanley, who set up one of Britain's leading sleep laboratories at the University of Surrey, said the people of today should consider doing the same.

"It's about what makes you happy. If you've been sleeping together and you both sleep perfectly well, then don't change, but don't be afraid to do something different.

"We all know what it's like to have a cuddle and then say 'I'm going to sleep now' and go to the opposite side of the bed. So why not just toddle off down the landing?"

Tossing and turning: He said poor sleep was linked to depression, heart disease, strokes, lung disorders, traffic and industrial accidents, and divorce, yet sleep was largely ignored as an important aspect of health.

Dr Robert Meadows, a sociologist at the University of Surrey, said: "People actually feel that they sleep better when they are with a partner but the evidence suggests otherwise."

He carried out a study to compare how well couples slept when they shared a bed versus sleeping separately.

Based on 40 couples, he found that when couples share a bed and one of them moves in his or her sleep, there is a 50% chance that their slumbering partner will be disturbed as a result.
Despite this, couples are reluctant to sleep apart, with only 8% of those in their 40s and 50s sleeping in separate rooms, the British Science Festival heard.

MSN

ARE YOU MISTAKING LUST FOR LOVE?

In terms of mature relationships and love, most of the times, people fail to distinguish

Every Cinderella longs to find her Prince Charming and live happily ever after. We all want to fall in love. Why? Because that experience makes us feel completely alive. Our emotions get magnified, senses get heightened, and we are flying in seventh heaven. It may only last a moment, an hour, a day, but that doesn't diminish its value....

But are you sure it’s love that we are talking about?

Why do independent, smart women become emotional wrecks after a romantic break-up? Why do older men gravitate towards younger women? Could it be estrogen and testosterone hormones that addict us to our lovers? In terms of mature relationships and love, most of the times, people fail to distinguish between the true meaning of love and lust.

Have you ever been swept off your feet by a man/woman standing next to you in a queue? Is it merely infatuation, a strong shot of chemistry, or budding love - the real thing? Is Cupid playing a prank or bringing you true love forever?

Love at first sight is not believable. Love takes time. Lust at first sight sounds much more accurate. A study done by testing the blood samples of twenty couples, who claimed to be madly in love for less than six months, revealed that serotonin levels of new lovers were equivalent to the low serotonin levels of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder patients.

It's hard to tell if you are in love because there’re no set defining characteristics of love. The dictionary says it's "a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection" or "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person." What exactly is this feeling or attraction?

The question evoked the thought process of Paramita Roy, a fashion designer; she was surprised that she had never thought of this aspect of her relationship before. After much silence she concluded, "Emotions are not sufficient to suggest whether a relationship is that of love, no matter how strong the attraction may be." Sadly, there is not much awareness to distinguish between lust and love and that is why we have so many emotional and social problems.

Since time immemorial we are hearing that love is blind. But that’s a mistake; real love is not blind. Quite the opposite, it is a relationship in full awareness. Over time, through good communication and wisdom, you can start knowing your partner. Gradually, you become aware of his/her flaws and try to work your differences in a healthy way.

Lust, on the other hand, could be perceived as being "blind" as it usually distorts reality, especially when you're so involved that you don’t care to find out the real persona of your partner. According to Shruti Bhatia, a psychologist, we often idolize our partners, magnify their virtues and find a way to explain their flaws. This basically happens because many movies, books and songs paint an unrealistic portrait of love, which further builds a false perception of love in our minds.

When Sameer Nagpal, a commercial pilot by profession, was asked whether his six-year-old relationship was based on love or lust, he was quick to reply, "Love is full of sacrifices, trust and respect whereas lust is built on physical attraction, fun and thrills. Real love is commitment. I cannot categorize my relationship as a short sensational affair of love is in the air."

Do some real soul searching today and identify your relationship. If you're in a relationship which does not have fondness, respect, affection, devotion along with passion, it would be wise to back off. Or else, one day those wonderful romantic feelings will be gone and you will wonder what happened to your perfect romance. Accept the fact that you or your partner is not ready for commitment. After all, commitment is a choice which is backed up with actions and maturity.

Courtesy ToI