Another R. Davis?

[T-Faz]

Historically, these people are unreasonable people -- look at the example of Kamal Pasha, no amount of his reasoning, pleading and cajoling succeeded with these people, until the entire framework had to be dismantled -- and unfortunately these Islamist lunes will continue to push until no other option is left.

The worst thing is that they will destroy their own country in pursuit of unrealistic ideological goals, look at how we are in the worst position today, all because they want to assert their religious authority.

Why should these people have any authority over this country, they opposed it and they continue to curse it?

To save this nation, nationalism has to be pursued otherwise there won't be a Pakistan tomorrow and a lot of countries are working to achieve this goal.

You either want Pakistan or the Ummah?

That is what these people should be told.

 

[MilSpec]

MAY BE IT WAS THESE GUYS:

 

[muse]

Safriz Please stop with these lies - please.

Quaid e Azam made Pakistan - and he never used Islam-ism, he rejected it completely --

See, Safriz, when you or anyone else begin arguing that Islam and islam-ism are the same thing, you just lose us Muslims - we will never be Islamists, we are Muslims, our creed is faith in God, not ideology, for us Muslims Quran is God's Mercy, not a Green version of the "Little Red Book"

So, please spare us lies --
Kamal Pasha bad? Sure, he was awful -- and now what did the intransigence of the Ulema get them?? What was the effect on Islam as a whole?? TFaz has it right, Islamists should have been finished off when their former communist journalist turned Mullah leader first organized and labeled Pakistan, Napak-istan

 

[Perceptron]

I'd suggest you re-evaluate your assessment. It's flawed. Part of learning is confirmation or rejection of any thesis. I've spent four years here and much, much more elsewhere trying to understand your very interesting region of the world.

I've learned that my assessment in 2007 of this war is turning to truth before my eyes. Yup.

Lieven's five proffered myths are, for the most part, accurate. So? What element of my discourse essentially contradicts his findings?

Did I say Pakistan was America's ally in the WoT? No. I said America was Pakistan's ally though. Did I say Pakistan is an ally of the afghan taliban? No. I said Pakistan has harbored the Afghan taliban leadership...and Pakistan has. Lieven suggests it's Pakistan's desire to retain the Afghan taliban as post-American proxy weapon in a looming civil war. I've long-said EXACTLY that. There is a simple but subtle difference which eludes many. Perhaps even you.

Have I said an islamist revolution is coming to Pakistan? Absolutely not. I've indicated clearly that Pakistanis are happy to foist upon the afghan people that which they won't accept for themselves.

Massive U.S. aid hasn't gained us one iota of traction towards removing Haqqani or Omar from the equation. To this end, most here whom rail at their Pakistani civilian government should instead offer credit where due. Zardari, Gilani, et al have done a superb job of offering lip service to the U.S. government while not commiting yourselves to a thing. Almost certainly self-preservation yet the net result is they're hardly our stooges as so-often implied here at def.pk.

I know that and we haven't even addressed your army. So let's do so-

"...none of this means that the United States should pursue more aggressive policies against Pakistan to win the war on terrorism. Pakistan’s enormous population, nuclear weapons and 500,000-strong military limit American options. Any U.S. action that endangered the stability of the Pakistani government would be insane. Nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists, along with huge quantities of conventional arms. Still embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, President Obama has no choice but to work with Pakistan and its military..."

Now Lieven is wrong suggesting we're "embroiled" anywhere but Afghanistan. Our military drawdown in Iraq is nearly complete. Our engagement in Europe's lil' Libyan affair is peripheral at best. He's also wrong suggesting Pakistan's 500,000 man army limits our options. Your vaunted military are a non-issue. Obama does have a choice and is slowly exercising it-withdrawal.

You write of a divergence of interests. No kidding. Tell me something I don't know please? Now...while we may be your ally Pakistan is America's enemy. You sustain a proxy war against our forces today and have for the entire length of this war. To that end there's American blood already on Pakistan's hands. I understand that. We can't be more diverged than such. My government has naively held out hope that might change-one for all and all for one global community of nations sh!t.

Not I. I pray for our departure-the sooner the better. Of course Pakistan shall emerge triumphant. Gloatingly so, likely. That's fine. Into what shall you emerge though?

Here's where the "great game" to which you allude becomes interesting. Your afghan taliban may have their way for the most part. Never, though, shall they have all. As such Afghanistan is condemned to perpetual civil war with the primary actors Pakistan, the afghan taliban, northern alliance (again), India, Russia, Iran and the CAR states. All will play their part.

Pakistan? Your TTP won't be going away anytime soon. You've set up their afghan brothers all-too-nicely and sanctuary awaits them across the border. So too other helpfully meddlesome hands. As it is you've not nor can eliminate the threat now. Add to the threats, though, because Balochistan will only get worse. Not better. Meddlesome opportunities abound there as well. Pakistan can be assured others also know how to play the proxy game.

America? We'll be fine. Our energy doesn't come from there nor likely shall anytime soon. Meanwhile CAR's development as a resource repository for the world will wait a never-ending civil war.

"...in the long run, the US must deal with why she does not have deep or mutually friendly relations with a single Muslim majority country..."

You are correct that we don't have such a relationship but you're incorrect to assume we must anytime before "the long run". The fact is there's not a muslim-majority nation of sufficient worth to have a deep and meaningful government-to-government relationship.

Have you recently looked at a map? America is accused of propping despotic regimes all over the muslim world. Of course we'll ignore Iraq as they could easily CHOOSE to again become a despotic sh!thole...not that they aren't offered a chance otherwise. Still, the list is non-existent...including Pakistan. Of course, what would muslims say were we to 1.) withdraw all contacts and/or 2.) militarily intervene in, say, Syria...or Iran...or Pakistan.

OTOH, do you recall what nation gave the afghan taliban the most humanitarian aid through the auspices of the U.N. during their reign? Allow me to remind those here. America.

Friendly relations with muslim-majority states is a fascinating discussion that merits further exploration sometime. Let's do so, shall we?

Sir, i am really glad to admit that you are but a handful of the Americans to understand of the role that the PA( with its illegitimate arm, the ISI) has been playing and is about to play to destabilize Afghanistan in the near-future, pending the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. It has been in Pakistan's interest to NOT let Afghanistan stabilize, owing to their imminent blood-curdling fear of being encircled, due to which they would love to retain their Haqqani-Hekmatyar-Omar asset trio, which will be their best bulwark against a "hostile" (according to them) Afghanistan. Their paranoia about Indian ambitions (which is purely economical and not geopolitical) prevents them to actually pursue and finish the Afghan Taliban off. They seldom believe that the Afghan Taliban is as vicious and sly a snake as the TTP is, and in that gloat, they tend to do what they have done best in the past (nurture more Frankensteins to wage asymmetric warfare with their neighbors).

 

[Safriz]

Safriz Please stop with these lies - please.

Quaid e Azam made Pakistan - and he never used Islam-ism, he rejected it completely --

See, Safriz, when you or anyone else begin arguing that Islam and islam-ism are the same thing, you just lose us Muslims - we will never be Islamists, we are Muslims, our creed is faith in God, not ideology, for us Muslims Quran is God's Mercy, not a Green version of the "Little Red Book"

So, please spare us lies --
Kamal Pasha bad? Sure, he was awful -- and now what did the intransigence of the Ulema get them?? What was the effect on Islam as a whole?? TFaz has it right, Islamists should have been finished off when their former communist journalist turned Mullah leader first organized and labeled Pakistan, Napak-istan

Stalin created Soviet nationalism,and if you ever met the old people who were there when Stalin was doing that,you will realize it wasn't nice.It was an ugly process..Although the end result was one of the strongest countries in the whole world...I don't know what Kamal Pasha did,but i been to Russia and i have talked to their old timers..Stalin's way of creating "One from many" was to burn all religious institutions,be it mosque,church,pagoda or any other place of worship.Burn heaps of Quran,Bible or whatever religious book that existed..This way he washed away all religions from people's lives and minds.
Then was the irritation factor of many different ethnic groups speaking many languages..His approach to wipe off their separate identities was to forcibly send people from their place of origin to a far flung part of USSR..So for example Kazakhs were sent to Chechnya and Chechen were sent to Azarbaijan and so on.That way people finally lost their ethnic identity and Soviet union was their common country and only identity.

Can we do something similar..Will Pashtoons ever give up calling themselves Pushtoons and be Just Pakistanis..Will Baluch sindhi or Punjabis Give up their languages and adopt one common language and stop calling themselves Baluch,saraiki,Kohistani and such and be pure Pakistanis? This was done not long ago in Britain when the scottish were banned from speaking Gaelic,and irish were banned from speaking irish to create one united UK...

Under the current circumstances i will support solidarity of one Pakistani nation..As far as religion is concerned i am not in favour of caliphate as we as Muslims are not ready for this,and pure shariah laws as national legislation will be hard for people to obey..looking at the fact that most of us cant even get up in the morning for a "Farz" Fajar prayer.O
Those who want to practice islam will do it anyway,whether its supported by state or opposed by state,that doesn't really matter.

I dont know if "Pakistani nationalism" and this alone can be created unaided by other "Binding factors"
Well these are my ideas...if you can suggest how exactly you think Pakistani nationalism can be created,it will be an interesting read.

 

[Slides]

Always knew that you guys were trying to protect the terrorists by finding and arresting the CIA. You guys are scrambling to find more to prevent another fiasco over the death of Osama Bin Laden. The CIA found him and now you are trying to prevent another one. Stop protecting them.

Always knew that Americans thought they owned the world. Pakistan is under no obligation to let CIA thugs and contractors roam around like rambos.

 

[Oldman1]

Always knew that Americans thought they owned the world. Pakistan is under no obligation to let CIA thugs and contractors roam around like rambos.

Based on what the ISI do you should understand. Don't forget what happened to the Pakistani reporter.

 

[Safriz]

Based on what the ISI do you should understand. Don't forget what happened to the Pakistani reporter.

ISI has a difficult task at hand and collateral damage is inevitable.

 

[muse]

Stalin created Soviet nationalism,and if you ever met the old people who were there when Stalin was doing that,you will realize it wasn't nice.It was an ugly process..Although the end result was one of the strongest countries in the whole world...I don't know what Kamal Pasha did,but i been to Russia and i have talked to their old timers..Stalin's way of creating "One from many" was to burn all religious institutions,be it mosque,church,pagoda or any other place of worship.Burn heaps of Quran,Bible or whatever religious book that existed..This way he washed away all religions from people's lives and minds.
Then was the irritation factor of many different ethnic groups speaking many languages..His approach to wipe off their separate identities was to forcibly send people from their place of origin to a far flung part of USSR..So for example Kazakhs were sent to Chechnya and Chechen were sent to Azarbaijan and so on.That way people finally lost their ethnic identity and Soviet union was their common country and only identity.

Can we do something similar..Will Pashtoons ever give up calling themselves Pushtoons and be Just Pakistanis..Will Baluch sindhi or Punjabis Give up their languages and adopt one common language and stop calling themselves Baluch,saraiki,Kohistani and such and be pure Pakistanis? This was done not long ago in Britain when the scottish were banned from speaking Gaelic,and irish were banned from speaking irish to create one united UK...

Under the current circumstances i will support solidarity of one Pakistani nation..As far as religion is concerned i am not in favour of caliphate as we as Muslims are not ready for this,and pure shariah laws as national legislation will be hard for people to obey..looking at the fact that most of us cant even get up in the morning for a "Farz" Fajar prayer.
Those who want to practice islam will do it anyway,whether its supported by state or opposed by state,that doesn't really matter.

I dont know if "Pakistani nationalism" and this alone can be created unaided by other "Binding factors"
Well these are my ideas...if you can suggest how exactly you think Pakistani nationalism can be created,it will be an interesting read.

Safriz


Excellent example -- Soviet Union -- BTW, whatever happened to the Soviet Union? Was Stalin really Successful in his attempts to kill religion and Ethnic identity?

See, Safriz, you are looking at things like pluralism in religion, and diversity of ethnicities, as threats, whereas they are in fact strengths

Let me simplify for you what your response is about -- a united Pakistan --right?

Now, United over what? Islam? OK, sure we are already united about that, doing a "arab" job on us has led to people asking which sect, which Islam and which Shariah -- look, when everybody is equal before the law, there are no such questions - everybody is equal -- and that can unite us -- and it makes the defense of one the defense of all -- so it does not matter if the Pashtun is proud to be Pashtun or the Baloiuch, or the UPite or Dehliwaleh, or Gujju-rati, Pounjabi, Hyderabadi, Bhopali, Bangali - be proud of all of these heritages and all of these are honored in Pakistan

And what of Christians and Hindus and others?? -- ALL are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW -- see these values unite us, not divide us -- lets allow the example of the Soviet Union to die in it's trash bin of history.

 

[muse]

S2

What is your take on the piece below:


The widening gap between the Muslim world and America
By Shahid Javed Burki
Published: June 5, 2011

The writer is former vice-president of the World Bank and former finance minister of Pakistan

US President Barack Obama seems to be the only person of any significance in Washington who seems to understand that the game has changed for his country in the Muslim world — not just in Arab countries but also in those of Islamic faith but of different ethnic origin. Among the non-Arab parts of the Muslim world, the countries where Americans are fast losing influence are Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was lost decades ago in Iran. These four countries have a total population of 350 million, considerably more than the total for the Arab world. Why has this happened? There are several reasons for this, of these three are particularly important.

The first is the approach adopted by President Obama soon after assuming the American presidency. In a much anticipated speech delivered at Al Azhar University in Cairo on June 4, 2009 the American president said that his country’s approach to the Muslim world will be different while he was in charge of the making of foreign policy in Washington. “We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and the Muslim world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate,” he told his Cairo audience. “The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought about by modernity and globalisation led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”

President Obama promised to change these attitudes. “I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and dignity of all human beings.”

The second reason for the widening of the gap between the West and the Muslim world is the Arab Spring — the string of explosions that have rocked the Arab street in several countries. This has resulted in the demise of two long-serving regimes, and threatens several others. While the West – including the United States – was slow to appreciate the significance of this development, one consequence of this change has become clear. When the history of this extraordinary movement gets to be written, it will be recognised that the address by Obama in Cairo played a big role in emboldening the Arab street.

The policy towards the West in these countries will not be made by authoritarian regimes that could ignore the sentiment of the street. Strong rulers, often supported by their militaries, were able to ignore the aspirations of their people and opt for favoring the strategic positions that suited the West, in particular the United States. Egypt and Pakistan were at the forefront of these moves. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with the state of Israel without asking for the settlement of the Palestine dispute. Pakistan, under three different military regimes, aligned itself closely with Washington, even when some of what it promised to do in return for support by America was not in its strategic interests. With the Muslim street having shown that it can mobilise quickly when the regimes in power adopt unpopular policies, it is highly unlikely that the rulers of this part of the world will have the same room for manoeuvre compared to when they operated in simpler times. The policy space in which they work has been considerably narrowed.

There is also an increase in confidence among the leaders of several countries in the Muslim world. Leading the way is Turkey, a country that had for decades attempted to become a part of the western world but is now governed by a party and an individual who are determined to follow an independent line. According to Anthony Shadid, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writing for The New York Times, “there is a longstanding debate over whether Turkey has tilted east after decades of embracing the West as a Nato member and almost reflexively allied with the United States. It still nominally embraces the goal of joining the European Union, carrying out reforms mandated by the entry process that have made Turkey a far more moderate place. But sensing a decline of American power in the region, Turkish officials have become sharply more assertive in the Middle East, priding themselves on keeping open channels to virtually every party”.

Even Afghanistan, beholden to the United States for keeping an unpopular regime in power and pouring billions of dollars into the country for what is called nation-building, has become assertive. Hamid Karzai, the country’s president, has warned Nato that he will not tolerate any more air attacks on civilian targets, even if they are suspected of harbouring the enemy. Pakistan is passing through a similar reassessment of its relations with Washington, especially after the May 2 attack on Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden. There are many in Pakistan — perhaps a large majority — who believe that the rise of Islamic extremism has to be checked and that the people operating outside the purview of the law have to be brought under control. Terrorism cannot be tolerated as a way of forcing onto the rest the worldview of a small segment of the population who wish to follow a different way of life and have a different approach to the world outside. That said, there is a seeming consensus emerging in the country that the war against terrorism will have to be fought on Pakistan’s terms and not on terms dictated from the outside.

The narrowing of the space within which policymakers can operate in the Muslim world will have enormous consequences for the countries in the region. One result will be the widening of the gap between them and the West, unless the latter makes some fundamental adjustments of its own.

 

[Safriz]

The worst thing is that they will destroy their own country in pursuit of unrealistic ideological goals, look at how we are in the worst position today, all because they want to assert their religious authority.

Why should these people have any authority over this country, they opposed it and they continue to curse it?

To save this nation, nationalism has to be pursued otherwise there won't be a Pakistan tomorrow and a lot of countries are working to achieve this goal.

You either want Pakistan or the Ummah?

That is what these people should be told.

The concept of a pan islamic brotherhood or "Ummah" is something similar to the pan European brotherhood called European union.
EU is based on a geographical relation between many countries and people based on being from same continent..Ummah is based on brotherhood and cooperation based on a common way of life called islam...Its not a bad concept and very conceivable..Europe is already doing something similar...Although under current circumstances when we do like to banter a lot about islam but is seldom in practice in our everyday lives,any such idea can cause confusion.

 

[S-2]

"What is your take on the piece below:"

I'm generally underwhelmed. People in various muslim (near exclusively arab) nations appear seeking a greater voice in their nat'l affairs. So? I can't recall America as having ever been opposed to such.

Before you pile on the litany of despotic repressive regimes we've "supported", however, remember that so too has the rest of the non-muslim world. That includes the former and present communist nations.

In short, we all worked within the prevailing paradigm for raison d'etat and realpolitik. Alternatives? Disengagement altogether? Not realistic.

"Pakistan is passing through a similar reassessment of its relations with Washington, especially after the May 2 attack on Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden."

If correct, why do you think this is so? Are Pakistanis upset that OBL is dead? Dead by our hand? Or that we didn't deign to a "joint" operation?

From a five year presence next to your nat'l military academy to the presence of Omar, Haqqani senior and junior, Ilyas Kashmiri, LeT Hafiz Saeed et al ad nauseum have engendered issues of trust. Sorta goes without saying.

So Burki didn't I suppose.

"...There are many in Pakistan — perhaps a large majority — who believe that the rise of Islamic extremism has to be checked...That said, there is a seeming consensus emerging in the country that the war against terrorism will have to be fought on Pakistan’s terms and not on terms dictated from the outside."

Sure...whatever those unusual terms might be. They remain to be seen. I recall in April 2009 the near conquest of Swat and Buner with the whole world BEGGING Pakistan to use its vaunted army to defend itself. This was, evidently, an unusual and difficult dilemma for Pakistanis to overcome.

Afterall, you'd be making war upon some entity other than India.

Now I read and hear wails of self-righteous indignation at the so-called sovereign violations inflicted upon Pakistan by America's use of drone attacks...like that which recently offered up Ilyas Kashmiri to eternal hellfire (no pun intended).

Not a peep, though, about the afghans Omar and Haqqani and their minions upon your lands for ten years. I suppose that's what Mr. Burki means about "...a seeming consensus emerging in the country that the war against terrorism will have to be fought on Pakistan’s terms and not on terms dictated from the outside..."

Only now "emerging"? Really?

Not a blink of concern here and elsewhere about the cost to the muslim afghan people from harboring such creatures-

Afghanistan Annual Report On Protection Of Civilians In Armed Conflict-UNAMA/Afghanistan Independant Human Rights Commission 2010

"Of the total number of 2,777 civilians killed in 2010, 2,080 deaths (75per cent of total civilian deaths) were attributed to Anti-Government Elements2, up 28 per cent from 2009. Suicide attacks and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) caused the most civilian deaths, totaling 1,141 deaths (55 per cent of civilian deaths attributed to Anti-Government Elements). The most alarming trend in 2010 was the huge number of civilians assassinated by Anti-Government Elements. Four hundred and sixty two civilians were assassinated representing an increase of more than 105 per cent compared to 2009."

Those heinous activities were directed by afghan men living comfortably upon your lands. Is that how fighting this war on "your terms" is defined by Mr. Burki?

 

[Slides]

Based on what the ISI do you should understand. Don't forget what happened to the Pakistani reporter.

So if the ISI is out of control as some believe, we should also let foreign operatives and contractors also run wild in the country? Nice logic.

 

[Slides]

S2, looks like you need a history lesson about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Which by the way has still not been accepted as the official border by the Mayor of Kabul. The tribes on either side of the border share a lot in common. And the Haqqanis joined the insurgency precisely because of bad American planning. Anand Gopal has done extensive research on the Haqqanis.

 

[muse]

Still angry S2 -- your positions have not changed in 4 years because you are like the author who blames his low readership on his readers being thick and lazy - but of course your prerogative - but below is an interesting piece - it seems to suggest that Pakistan have been isolated from India on the topic of Afghanistan - and perhaps it's time to examine some options and perhaps this may provide some hint to "own terms" - but of course this just one facet, of a multi-faceted beast -- and you have no reason to go defensive with me Before you pile on the litany of despotic repressive regimes we've "supported" - I wasn't going to go there, what I would point out however, is that if you thought dealing with populations in dictatorships who don't care much for US policy was tough, wait till these people are free and then we'll see how much the US likes the take of these populations on US policy - So on to Afghanistan, or rather out of Afghanistan:



Balancing interests in Afghanistan
By Tanvir Ahmad Khan
Published: June 5, 2011

The writer was foreign secretary from 1989-90 and is a former chairman of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

In a decade-old military intervention in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the US has fundamentally altered the existing factors of power in the states and societies it has engaged with. The overthrow of the Pashtun-dominated Taliban produced an unprecedented increase in the power and influence of non-Pashtun nationalities, comprising the Northern Alliance that had provided foot soldiers to follow up the fierce American assault by air. The dramatic reconfiguration of ethnic equations fuelled the Taliban insurgency. The counterpart to this enterprise in Iraq was the reversal of power on a sectarian basis and the resultant ‘Sunni’ insurgency.

The rearrangement of internal power relations in Afghanistan had grave implications for Pakistan. Ethnicity and religion warranted that its Pashtun tribes provide sanctuary and assistance to the Taliban. Haunted by the fear that the Northern Alliance was implacably hostile to Pakistan, the Musharraf regime played a complex game of being allied to the US-led war on terror and, at the same time, protecting Pakistani interests in a future post-conflict Afghanistan through a Pashtun proxy. India and Iran (together with Russia) had generously assisted the Northern Alliance and saw, in the emerging situation, an opportunity to establish their influence. Because of overall American dominance, Iran opted for creating covertly pockets of influence as in the post-invasion Iraq; India set its sights high on the assumption that the US and Nato would allow it to piggyback on their occupation. It established an impressive network of economic assistance and intelligence services.

For a time, the Indian assumption seemed to be correct. India had forged a strong strategic partnership with the US and expected Washington to prefer a secular and economically powerful India to a volatile and ideologically ambivalent Pakistan. Pakistan’s baggage of ‘strategic depth’ was made to look heavy even when it scaled down its ambitions. India kept on insisting, till very recently, that the Taliban be militarily destroyed before considering any disengagement from active combat.

It was at an enormous cost that Pakistan played itself back into the equation. General Kayani played a dexterous hand at demonstrating Pakistan’s salience in the quest for success in Afghanistan. Together with the political leadership, he carried conviction in Kabul and, to a degree, Washington, that Pakistan would be a source of future stability in Afghanistan. In Century Foundation’s impressive report, Afghanistan: Negotiating Peace, (2011), Lakhdar Brahimi and Ambassador Thomas Pickering observed: “Pakistan — long a champion of an inclusive political settlement — will be critical to the viability of a peaceful resolution…”. Pakistan was gradually getting reconciled to legitimate Indian interests in Afghanistan, though veteran observers of South Asia, Howard and Teresita Schaffer, have just repeated the charge that Pakistan wants to freeze India out of Afghanistan.

There are indications that this slow balancing of interests is threatened by recent events, principally by the strain in Pakistan-US relations in the wake of the Raymond Davis case and the Osama affair. India has opportunistically modified its stand on the Taliban. Realising that Marc Grossman’s emphasis on accelerated negotiations reflects President Obama’s resolve, India now seeks a role in the process of talking to the Taliban. A vocal lobby in the US has resumed citing Pakistan’s fragility and ‘unreliability’ to recommend a bigger role for India. Pakistan has a joint commission with Afghanistan and a core group that adds the US to the two countries as a hedge against this ill-advised lobby, but nothing will constrain Washington’s penchant for secret negotiations of their own, which may seem to be sidelining Pakistan. India-Pakistan rivalry in Afghanistan has a long and vexed history and it will continue indefinitely. What can be done is to manage it better and make it more compatible with the interests of the regional states as the US becomes more responsive to the need for a regional consensus. Perhaps it is time for an informal exchange of views between the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan to reduce misperceptions.