A step forward

8216;8216;It's like trying to cross a treacherous river8217;8217;, the GUARDIAN quoted an unnamed MEA official from India. 8216;8216;Y...

8216;8216;It8217;s like trying to cross a treacherous river8217;8217;, the GUARDIAN quoted an unnamed MEA official from India. 8216;8216;You do it one pebble at a time8217;8217;. But the problem, the paper pointed out, is that large immovable rock in the middle of the river. The problem is Kashmir.

If the WASHINGTON POST is to be believed, though, that problem may just be getting less intractable. A long report in the paper this week put together bits and pieces from Pakistan and came up with this startling new picture: Now some influential Pakistanis are daring to ask a question that has long been off-limits: 8216;8216;Is Kashmir worth fighting for?8217;8217; A 8216;8216;swelling chorus8217;8217; of voices is beginning to challenge the official set of priorities. Academics, advocacy groups, media commentators and even some government officials contend that instead of pouring resources into the debilitating conflict, Pakistan should focus on developing its economy, including trade with India.

According to the POST, this change in the tenor of public debate on Kashmir is not confined to the English language newspapers. It is showing up in the widely circulated Urdu language press as well. Advocates of warmer relations with India are being sighted on government-controlled television and radio, religious political parties have given 8216;8216;cautious approval8217;8217; to the rapprochement and the consensus among senior military and intelligence officers is that Vajpayee8217;s offer 8216;8216;appears to be serious and should be pursued8217;8217;.

The POST scrupulously put in some contrary voices in its report as well. But the larger point was irrepressible. It quoted a recent editorial in the DAILY JANG, Pakistan8217;s largest daily newspaper, which noted that the country spends a third of its budget on defence and called on the government to pursue a settlement with India 8216;8216;even if it means compromising on Kashmir8217;8217;.

Bush up, Blair down

THE NEW YORK TIMES reported this week that Americans8217; trust and confidence in the military has soared, even as it has declined in other institutions. A poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics, based on interviews with 1,200 college undergraduates last month, found that 75 per cent said they trusted the military 8216;8216;to do the right thing8217;8217; either 8216;8216;all of the time8217;8217; or 8216;8216;most of the time8217;8217;. Two-thirds of the students said they supported the Iraq war. Acerbic columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that Bush runs a 8216;8216;trust us, we8217;re 100 per cent right8217;8217; regime and America8217;s young want to take it on faith.

Tony Blair must have itched to swap countries with Bush this week. As the British Prime Minister became the first foreign leader to touch down in post-war Iraq, trouble was raging back home in Britain. With the Bush administration conceding for the first time that Iraq8217;s alleged arsenal of weapons might never be found, the GUARDIAN reported that 8216;8216;Blair faces revolt as US admits doubts8217;8217;. The INDEPENDENT8217;s headline: 8216;8216;The case for war is blown apart8217;8217;.

Target Iran?

Notwithstanding the unfound WMDs and 8216;8216;The Undead8217;8217; al Qaeda THE ECONOMIST8217;s description, speculation is rife in the western media about the next stop for Washington8217;s portable War on Terror.

Story continues below this ad

Amid daily US noises on Iran this week, the WASHINGTON POST8217;s editorial noted that there is good reason for the surge of concern about that country. Apart from its longstanding crimes, Iran stands accused of the following new ones: racing to acquire nuclear bombs; giving refuge to senior operatives of al Qaeda; backing some of the most radical clerics in neighbouring Iraq.

Game of words

8216;ROAD MAP8217; pops up with growing frequency in the world media as Washington focuses on the world8217;s troublespots. But the conflict most responsible for giving that term a new lease of life has moved on to another one.

In the old Middle East conflict, the new word is 8216;8216;occupation8217;8217;. Ever since Israeli PM Ariel Sharon told Likud members of Parliament in a heated discussion that 8216;8216;You may not like the word, but what8217;s happening is occupation8217;8217;, he may have shifted public debate in Israel and in the region just a bit. Sharon pulled back subsequently 8212; his attorney general said that the legal term is 8216;8216;disputed8217;8217; rather than 8216;8216;occupied8217;8217; territories 8212; but it was too late.

P.S.: THE ECONOMIST offered a not-so-startling prediction about India: Don8217;t expect economic liberalisation that challenges influential vested interests until after the elections. That is, little might happen till early 2005.