& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

US shouldn't ask for more

KULDIP NAYAR writes from New Delhi
EXTREMISTS at Srinagar gave their reply by killing four within 24 hours of the joint resolve by the US and India to wage a global war against terrorism. In Delhi, General J.J. Singh, the Indian Chief of the Army Staff, said that 2,000 infiltrators lodged in 53 camps were waiting along the line of control (LoC) to cross into India. Intrepid Herald, a monthly from Karachi, wrote in detail how the training camps were beginning to hum in Pakistan.
BBC said the other day that 17 lakh students attended 20,000 madrasas in Pakistan and that "many students developed an intolerant prejudice and narrowminded view of the world." Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said at Dubai that she never allowed during her regime the type of terrorist attacks which took place in London or earlier on the Indian parliament (an admission of terrorism but of a less lethal type).
All this makes eyes turn towards President General Pervez Musharraf who has himself declared "jehad" against religious extremists following the 7/7 bomb
blasts in London. He may appear to be going over the same exercise which he did after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. But he must be a worried man. Religious fanaticism that he used one time as a tool to frighten the West to support him is a menace, nearly out of his control.
In a society where fundamentalism has seeped in due to official patronage and lack of democratic temperament, there are not many options left, more so when you need the extremists for political purposes. You cannot dismount the tiger you are riding without harming yourself. Getting off without building a popular structure is equally hazardous. Musharraf knows that. The military-led regime at Islamabad is still dependent on the Muthahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a group of religious parties. Musharraf now feels embarrassed over managing the election of many religious extremists to the National Assembly. But he realises that he cannot afford to go beyond rhetoric. They are the ones who have legitimised his stay in power and they are the ones who have blessed the merger of the Presi-
dent's office with that of the Chief of the Army Staff.
The MMA government in the NWFP felt that it could get away with the Hasba law, a move towards enforcement of clerics' dictatorship in the state. Probably, it would have if bomb blasts had not taken place in London. Musharraf had to challenge the law's constitutional validity before the Supreme Court. Either he has forgotten how to ride two boats at the same time, encouraging religious elements as well as chastising them softly, or has he succumbed to pressure by Washington and London?
Unfortunately, what the fundamentalists are doing in Pakistan or their counterpart elsewhere is giving a bad name to Islam, a noble religion. Because of a few, millions of Muslims all over the world are experiencing mistrust and bias in their day-to-day life. But then if rulers use religion for their own purpose, extremists are bound to proliferate and act in the manner they do.
President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are correct when they say that
democracy should be deepened and strengthened in different parts of the world. But America defined democracy when it attacked Iraq without the Security Council's sanctions. People in horror have come to question the very ideology.
What happened first in Ayodhya and now in Srinagar are desperate attempts by religious fanatics to provoke India to stall its peace process with Pakistan. I wish the peace process had been mentioned in the joint statement issued by Bush and Manmohan Singh in Washington. At least, the latter who is meticulously following the process, should have mentioned it in his address to the US Congress. The success of the process is the best hope for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, light at the end of the tunnel.
America honestly believes that the conciliation between Delhi and Islamabad is the key to the stability in the region, including West Asia. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the bodies to give their consent to the legislation on lifting the restriction on India's purchase of the latest nuclear
technology and plants to produce energy. The joint session was the right place to say that India and Pakistan were making progress on the peace process. Islamabad would have been touched by Manmohan Singh's gesture.
However, Pakistan has been positive on America's leeway to India on the latest nuclear technology. Islamabad feels that it can probably get the same status one day. The snag, however, is that Dr A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's bomb, has been running a clandestine business to sell nuclear know-how to other countries. India's record on this point has been impeccable. Still the US administration will face a lot of difficulties in getting India the virtual membership of the nuclear club. Already a member of the US Congress has said that he will block the legislation to remove restrictions on India's access to nuclear fuel and technologies.
Reactions to the nuclear deal appear to have been conditioned by the cold war hangover. How does the handicap in piling up nuclear devices matter? One bomb is enough to wipe out northern India.
Again, the discussion is which country got more, America or India. This is what was discussed when the world was divided into two blocsone led by the US and the other by the Soviet Union. Nuclear disarmament should have been discussed, not nuclear armament.
My greater worry is that Washington may insist on New Delhi not to proceed further with the Iran gas pipeline. It may argue now that India can buy nuclear energy plants, why go for costly gas? (My impression is that nuclear power may be costlier if you take into account the money spent on maintenance, protection, etc). The Bush administration's bias against Tehran is so banal and so blatant that it would like to sour amiable relations between India and Iran. Since new nuclear policy will come up for the Congressional hearing, the administration may egg on some members to argue that if New Delhi expected reciprocity from Washington, India should also pay attention to America's sensitivity on Iran.
The question is not gas, although it is important. The issue is that of age-old relations with Iran and the Muslim countries beyond. The pipeline, passing through Pakistan, may also span the distance between New Delhi and Islamabad. This is where India's strategic interests lay, unlike America that sees nothing beyond force. Washington has already got the maximum from India by offering nuclear advance technology and the wherewithal. It should not ask for more. Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.