<a href="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/March/opinion_March101.xml&section=opinion&col=">http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/March/opinion_March101.xml&section=opinion&col= </a> Khaleej Times Online Not by words alone BY IRFAN HUSAIN 30 March 2006 IN THE wake of President Bush's visit to South Asia, observers have contrasted the nuclear deal he signed with India with the lecture on the need to fight terrorism more effectively he read in Islamabad. This glaring discrepancy in approach figured prominently in the recent parliamentary debate on Pakistani foreign policy.Speaker after speaker criticised the government, complaining that despite Pakistan's key role in the war against terror, Bush had not invited it to enter into a similar nuclear deal. General Musharaf's critics charge that this imbalance is the result of Pakistan's poor foreign policy. While official spokesmen insisted that the visit had been a success, the fact is that Bush's priorities during his visit is a reminder of the changing equation in the subcontinent. The Pakistani foreign minister termed the American tilt towards India as 'unacceptable'. Actually, neither Washington nor New Delhi need Pakistan's 'acceptance' of a bilateral deal. Even General Jehangir Karamat, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, lectured his host country on the subject: "Instead of a country-specific deal on a subject as critical as nuclear technology, there should be a package for both India and Pakistan." The theme running through the statements of various official spokesmen reflects a common Pakistani perception that for some reason, Washington should treat India and Pakistan as equals. However, reality dictates otherwise. By any yardstick, India is now a major player on the global stage. Simultaneously, Pakistan has moved in the opposite direction, descending into sectarian and ethnic strife, and seen to be harbouring gangs of terrorists on its soil. It is true that 9/11 has boosted its economy as well as its standing as a strategic ally in the American 'war on terror'. But remove the '9/11 factor', and we are left with a dysfunctional state in terminal decline. Pakistanis naturally find these harsh truths difficult to digest. However, unless we face reality unflinchingly, we will fail to understand why the rest of the world views us as it does. Equally importantly, we need to see India's rise not in relation to Pakistan, but as an important regional and global event in its own right. For years after Independence, the Indian economy grew slowly, choked by an over-centralised bureaucracy. By contrast, the Pakistani economy grew faster, propelled by a greater commitment to the free market. But in the Nineties, the picture quickly changed: plagued with political instability and military interventions, the Pakistani economy went into sharp decline, while terrorism played havoc with the entire system. Across the border, India shook off some of its self-imposed shackles, and began making rapid progress. Its large pool of well-educated computer personnel drove Indian information technology to the centre of the world economy, and moved en masse to cutting-edge American IT firms. A growing middle class provided the market for a consumer boom, and now, Indian businessmen are competing around the world. Bollywood movies are hits abroad, and Indian fashions are seen on catwalks from Milan to Madrid. In London these days, seven young men are being tried on terrorism charges, and the trial is making headlines across the world. Six of the seven are of Pakistani origin, and are alleged to have received training in bomb making in Pakistan. The prosecution is producing a damaging amount of evidence, so whatever the outcome of the case, it will remind the world of Pakistan's role in the global jihad. Similarly, most of the suicide bombers involved in the terror attacks in London last July were of Pakistani origin. During a conference on Pakistan organised by the Economist in London last month, several speakers dwelt on the country's investment opportunities, as well as its liberal policies. But the elephant in the hall was the security problems involved in doing business there. A British CEO of an energy firm operating in Pakistan did speak about the need for security guards, and mentioned the recent killing of three Chinese engineers in Balochistan. But the Pakistani speakers did not discuss the issue, perhaps because they are so used to it. For investors, the bottomline is the physical security of their employees. When extremist mobs attack outlets of Western fast food chains, for example, images of the torched buildings flash across the globe in a matter of minutes. The most recognisable image of Pakistan abroad is now one of angry faces, long beards, and men armed with Kalashnikov rifles. General Musharaf often boasts of Pakistan's role as a key ally in the 'war on terror' by pointing to the large number of Al Qaeda suspects killed or captured on our soil. But the question to ask - and one asked frequently abroad — is what they were doing in Pakistan in the first place. In investigations into extremist terrorism across the world, the 'Pakistan connection' has cropped up time and again. And when we talk of a nuclear deal, we forget just how much damage Dr A. Q. Khan's supposedly freelance activities have done to Pakistan's reputation as a responsible nuclear power. If he acted on his own, it is a poor reflection on the security in our nuclear installations exercised by the army. The other possibility is that he was officially encouraged to export atomic secrets to foreign buyers. In either case, to imagine that the Americans would now supply us with the latest nuclear technology is to ignore reality. Now when we ask to be treated at par with India, foreigners smile politely, but everybody knows where the reality lies. Had it not been for 9/11 and the ongoing Western operations in Afghanistan, it is likely that Pakistan would have been relegated to the backwaters of the world, together with Myanmar, Somalia and Rwanda. We are responsible for the mess we are in, and we can clean it up, provided we accept the fact that we are in a mess. The first obvious step is to understand that there is no place in today's world for state-sponsored or even state-tolerated terrorism. The presence of thousands of armed men loosely organised under various fundamentalist and ethnic banners is unacceptable to the rest of the world, and should be unacceptable to us. General Musharaf must realise that words are not enough to stamp out this plague of endless violence. His mantra of 'enlightened moderation' must be matched with action, something that has long been missing from his agenda. What is needed is a sustained, consistent campaign. But political will is required, and for this, a consensus has to be built up. But the reality is that our current military dispensation has been just as divisive as the previous ones were. Now, even when he makes eminently sensible proposals, they are rejected by a fractious opposition that no longer trusts Musharraf. Far from providing a solution, he has now become a part of the problem.