The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Faster than light
Right or wrong, it’s a triumph of scientific spirit

Albert Einstein, who came up with the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, is credited with saying that ‘a person who never made a mistake, never tried anything new’. It is, therefore, safe to presume that the great physicist would have been delighted at scientists claiming to have discovered particles which can travel faster than light. It would disprove Einstein’s theory based on the axiom that nothing travels faster than light. For over a century, however, the theory has repeatedly been tested but not once has it been disproved. That explains the shock and disbelief in the scientific community over the claim of European scientists that subatomic particles called neutrinos, fired near Geneva, travelled through 730 kilometres at 60 billionth of a second faster than light before crashing into a brick wall at Gran Sasso in Italy. The experiment apparently has been conducted over the past several years and as many as 15,000 neutrinos fired before the finding was made public. Still, conscious of the revolutionary potential of the discovery, scientists await even more conclusive tests before daring to prove Einstein wrong.

Two possible explanations have already been offered by a sceptical scientific community. A large number of scientists have expressed their doubts over the accuracy with which the distance and speed may have been measured between the CERN laboratory near Geneva and the facility at OPERA in Italy. Others have speculated about the possibility of an unseen energy field, which could have speeded up the journey for the neutrinos. While pointing out other potential sources of error, some scientists have also wondered aloud if the particles could have taken a ‘shortcut’ through an ‘extra dimension’, making it appear as if they were travelling faster.

Arguably the most profound discovery, if proved, in the last 100 years in physics, it would not only turn the science upside down but will also open up, we are told, the theoretical possibility of travelling back in time. But then false alarms are not all that rare in science. Meanwhile, as physicists grapple with the imponderable, people must be thankful to the scientific community for continuing to question even those theories, which appear to be cast in stone.

Armed to kill
Need to curb illegal firearms

GUNS kill. The very reason for the existence of a gun is its capacity to hurt or kill someone. Murder by gunfire accounts for around 12 per cent of all killings — nationwide, 6,219 in 2008. India comes low in comparison to many advanced states worldwide, with South Africa, Columbia, the United States and the Philippines leading the charts. Strict gun controls in India are indeed a blessing, since there are only 63 lakh licensed guns in the country.

Of more concern, however, are the unlicensed guns, which are the cause for 92 per cent of the firearm deaths in the country, as highlighted by a UN-sponsored study recently. Obviously, states where policing is not effective have higher number of unlicensed weapons, and thus it comes as no surprise that the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand are most unsafe, accounting for over 66 per cent of the total number of murders committed in the country. Meerut earns the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous city, followed by Allahabad, Patna, Varanasi, Kanpur, Agra, Indore and Delhi. It is indeed unfortunate that the nation’s Capital also figures on the list of cities that have unduly high number of gunshot fatalities.

While the procedure for issuing licences for guns is stringent, it has often been observed that sometimes the system of controls that the police and civil authorities are supposed to exercise while considering candidates for gun licences is subverted by vested interests. It is unfortunate that instead of setting an example by eschewing guns, 750 MPs bought confiscated arms. Instead of buying arms, they should ensure that the nation is so safe that its citizens do not feel the need to have arms to protect themselves.

Thought for the Day

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

— Albert Einstein

ARTICLE

Threat to secular ideals
Politics getting new direction
by S. Nihal Singh

India's politicians seem to believe in the Oscar Wildean adage of nothing succeeding like excess. Ever since Mr L.K. Advani inaugurated the age of rath yatras (courtesy Toyota) painting the country red and catapulting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power in New Delhi for the first (and so far only) time, he is understandably fixed on the yatra route to power for his party and himself. And since Anna Hazare lit a spark in the country by undertaking his famous fast, Mr Narendra Modi undertook his symbolic fast to anoint himself as the pre-eminent leader of his party and a man eminently suited to be the Prime Minister of the country.

While Mr Advani chose the anti-corruption theme further to milk the resonance the issue has had with the public, particularly the youth, Mr Modi had a more specific theme of harmony with an eye on seeking to lay the ghosts of the 2002 pogrom against Muslims in his state. If either of them has sought, or will seek, to rekindle the magic of the Anna movement, they have misjudged how political movements gel.

There have been many currents and cross-currents swirling around politicians and parties, all pointing towards individual ambitions and anticipation of a general election that could be sprung upon the country earlier than the stipulated five years. But two trends stand out. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is focusing on shepherding the BJP on its version of Ram Rajya, which would inevitably discriminate against minorities, Muslims in particular. Second, the hoary Congress party is meeting its moment of truth in testing the abiding appeal of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in the form of Mr Rahul Gandhi.

It is no secret that the BJP has much homework to do. The Modi show could have been useful in projecting his trajectory but it also showed his large-sized ego and how he treated himself as a monarch on the stage in the setting of an airconditioned university hall while his fellow party men seemed mere props there to pay tributes to the great leader. Mr Modi answers to one aspect of an RSS, and perhaps the country's, desire for a strong leader. The problem, of course, is that strong leaders bent upon one view of India's salvation would exclude much of the population belonging to other religions and perspectives in a multilingual and multi-religious nation. The outcome can only be strife. This remains the case in spite of Mr Modi's juggling with various headgears while refusing the Muslim skull cap.

The relative success of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee coalition in Delhi was due to two factors: his own acceptability as a tolerant and catholic soul, despite his periodic obeisance to the RSS, and the mood in the country conducive to trying out a non-Congress government for a change. Neither of these factors is at play today. To impose Mr Modi on the country as a prime ministerial candidate would merely magnify the gulf that exists between the RSS and the national ethos. This brings us back to the other contestants for office, not entirely discounting Mr Advani.

The two primary contenders are, of course, the leaders of Opposition in the two Houses of Parliament, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley. The former is an effective speaker in Hindi but does not command the kind of respect one expects of a prime ministerial aspirant while the latter, fluent as an English speaker, always has his brows knitted and seldom, if ever, smiles. No disadvantage would be too great for an aspiring prime ministerial candidate were he or she to receive the RSS imprimatur. Unlike in the past, with the RSS being an influential factor but not the supreme arbiter in the BJP, the scales have tipped in favour of the former, which has sometimes defined itself as a cultural organisation.

The transmutation of the RSS into the BJP's overlord has immense consequences for the political outlook of the country. It means the concept of secularism as understood in the country is being frontally challenged by a political party which had earlier contented itself with a weak justification of a Hindu India by criticising the Congress as indulging in "vote bank politics". In future, the BJP promises to be a more assertive Hindu organisation visualising an RSS-oriented India view in which minorities would live on tolerance as in other religious-oriented countries. In other words, there would be little to distinguish between the BJP as a political party on the one hand and the larger Sangh Parivar composed of such worthies as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and, of course, the mentor RSS.

Thus far, the Congress has not shown the sagacity or verve to meet the challenge. To begin with, it is saddled with the awkward arrangement of a dual set of levers on power comprising Ms Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh, and Mr Rahul Gandhi, the party's heir apparent, has not shown the self-confidence to project himself as the future leader of the country. Besides, one does not know how far Ms Sonia Gandhi's physical ailment will limit her in taking charge of a situation full of pitfalls.

Much will depend upon the set of impending assembly elections, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, but the stark fact remains that the Congress will be fighting the next general election with its back to the wall. Too many problems have piled up, and instead of winning kudos for letting law take its course, including the jailing of ministers, the general impression abroad is one of a government of scams. Innovative initiatives such as the Right to Information Act and village labour employment schemes are taken for granted.

The BJP has not covered itself with glory by equating opposition to the government with preventing the smooth functioning of Parliament. Parliamentary democracy is a treasure. No opposition party should seek to score cheap points by negating the very basis of a functioning democracy. The RSS, which could have commanded the BJP to behave like a responsible opposition, is perhaps not unduly worried because it seems to believe that the system of parliamentary democracy is an alien concept in its vision of Ram Rajya. The future promises to be as full of imponderables as at any stage of the country's political development.

MIDDLE

Let things be
by Manisha Gangahar

A week, 10 days and now almost a month. Mr Roshan Bhatia, another patient’s attendant, states the usual: “It is tragic; your mother has been in coma for a long time now and you have nobody. You are alone.”

“Yes, indeed” is all I can come up with.

What am I expected to say, do and feel? What can, what must, I?

To begin with, cry. But I did that the first week, without punctuations. It still continues. Mom can’t see them, doctors can’t help, relatives aren’t there to sympathise, and for myself, friends are not in close proximity, I feel even more miserable.

Perhaps, I should just feel sorry for myself. Or, let people feel sorry for me.

How about calling them; talking should help? But how many times can I narrate my misery! Even if I can count till the very end, how far will the one on the other side count?

The number, I believe, would never touch the double-digit bar.

I am alone.

Talking to myself. Yes, this would be the next best thing to do. But what do I tell myself, talk about what?

The first thought is the fear of future or regret of the past… but certainly nothing about present.

Is it a moment of catharsis, a moment to release unconscious conflicts — pity, regret, sorrow, love, anger and helplessness? But are they flowing in or out of my system?

What I did or not did for my mother is not that worries me. What about me? That’s the question. Call me selfish or brutally honest, but the agony is still “I”. I want her back for me.

When you are losing a relationship, you fear losing a part of you. Parent, friend, lover, child, neighbour and even a good boss, relationships complete you, define you, keep you sorted, make you feel cared for.

I had them too; still am left with some. “I am just a phone call away,” somebody had said to me, I remember. Of course, I am not alone.

They have their reasons to take my call, but how many times they do it without a frown is my worry. My friend would begin counting from one every time I call her to say that mom is still not out. My partner would forget the count each time I call to say it is status quo. Perhaps, my neighbour wouldn’t mind a call to know if her neighbour is coming back. Even my boss would only be glad to know if I am coming to work tomorrow. I hope so!

Does that mean I have people who care, who are concerned? It is unconditional to quite an extent.

And when they’ll stop picking up my phone, I’ll message. Everybody reads every SMS one gets. Or, will mine just be deleted without being viewed? But at least I would never know that… better than hearing a ringtone and knowing that your call is intentionally being missed.

Eventually, what could be worse? Even if alone, it isn’t as bad as lonely. Or is it? Hard to say, can’t make sense. Let things be. That is all I can do.

OPED — NEIGHBOURS

Improbable but not impossible
Pakistan’s military planners and jihadi `handlers` are known to privately argue that with foreign forces leaving Afghanistan, Afghan militants will be sympathetic to Islamabad. But these planners have been wrong on so many counts in the past.
Abbas Nasir

Security personnel carrying the body of a terrorist involved in the suicide bomb attack at the US Embassy in Kabul on September 13.

MANY Pakistanis will struggle with what to make of the latest statement of the retiring chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, before the US Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mullen, who has often talked about his close relationship with Pakistan army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani, accused the military and the ISI (institutions that his `friend` heads) of supporting assaults on the US embassy in Kabul and other specific targets of import to the US there.

These were ominous words. A country`s embassy is internationally acknowledged as the `soil` of that country. So, can we interpret Adm Mullen`s statement to mean that Pakistan`s government and the military should now prepare for the consequences of supporting an attack on the US?

The Mullen statement also said: “In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan — and most especially the Pakistani Army and ISI — jeopardises not only the prospect of our strategic partnership, but also Pakistan`s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence.”

So, is this the end of Pakistan`s `strategic partnership` with the United States? More ominously, are the two countries now heading towards some sort of a military confrontation over the alleged sanctuaries of the Haqqani network in North Waziristan?

Well, we don`t have to speculate. Towards the end of the same statement Adm Mullen also said no matter how flawed or difficult the relationship with the Pakistani military, it was better than no relationship and that the military cooperation and the flow of information across the border was improving.

Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta spoke in terms of (still merely) putting pressure on Pakistan to deal with `militant sanctuaries` along eastern Afghanistan but chose his words carefully when asked if Pakistanis understood what could happen if they didn`t act: yes, they won`t be surprised with actions we might/might not take.

Clearly, these remarks were an indication of the growing US frustration at the frequent breakdown of security in Afghanistan as President Obama appears in no mood to alter his troop drawdown schedule and is asking his military leaders and commanders to deliver the right conditions for it.

This pressure was telling as both Adm Mullen and Secretary Panetta carefully described the recent Taliban attacks on Kabul targets as `headline-grabbing` and spectacular rather than really reflecting the overall security situation which, they claimed, was better than the same time last year.

When President Obama announced the troop `surge` in Afghanistan but also set an 18-month drawdown plan, the former leader of Britain`s Liberal Democrats Paddy Ashdown had the most astute reaction in The Times newspaper.

“What the President intended was for audiences in the US and Afghanistan to hear different things. His message to the domestic audience was supposed to be `troops to be home in 18 months` and to the Taliban `30,000 extra troops`. My worry is that the wrong people got the wrong message….” Perhaps, the `good` Taliban`s backers also got the wrong message.

But before the Pakistanis gleefully start pointing towards these contradictions and start celebrating the Americans` dilemmas in Afghanistan, they need to reflect foremost on their own interests and acknowledge that many of Pakistan’s troubles today can be traced to that country or our ambitions there.

It was the success of the CIA-ISI partnership mainly in arming, indoctrinating and training fanatical fighters that forced the exit of the Red Army from Afghanistan and, as some would argue, even led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The success of the Afghan `jihad` intoxicated the Pakistani defence establishment and spurred official patronage to jihadi hordes which were deployed to Kashmir to `slow-bleed` India. They all but destroyed the “freedom movement” in the valley.

The jihadi fighters were seen by the world as brutal foreign mercenaries, discrediting and diluting the legitimacy of the cause, and alienated the locals by their intolerant, extremist beliefs. The setback to the indigenous Kashmir movement was so severe that it took almost a decade (and nearly a generation) to recover from it.

And now they are running amok at home. Have our great and good commanders learnt any lessons from this? They don`t appear to have. Any Pakistani can understand the need for stability on our western border and a friendly Afghan government but we also need to realise the price we have already paid for our obsession with contrived `strategic depth`.

Had we followed robust, and not roguish, policies to protect our interests perhaps we wouldn`t have buckled when threatened with being `bombed to the Stone Age` by the US. We could have said `no` as Turkey did ahead of Iraq`s invasion when asked by the US to allow use of its soil for opening a second front.

Even now, if the US and its allies were to abandon Afghanistan totally in another three years and withdraw all their forces, should we support zealot hordes which force their way to power and do as they did when last in control or back a different, possibly elected, set-up or, better still, leave who governs Afghanistan to the Afghans?

Pakistan’s military planners and jihadi `handlers` are known to privately argue that with foreign forces gone from Afghanistan, the Afghan militants will head/stay home and be sympathetic to Islamabad. But these planners have been so wrong on so many counts in the past.

What if having `defeated two superpowers` and restoring the Islamic Emirate at home, the Afghan militant inspires and supports a jihad for a similar set-up here. Wouldn`t our quest for strategic depth turn tragically into a complete strategic disaster if it hasn`t already?

An improbable scenario, you may argue, as we speak. But let me ask you if you believe it to be impossible too.

By arrangement with Dawn, Islamabad. The writer is a former editor of the paper.

The (un)manageable crisis
Cyril Almeida

THE Haqqanis are back in the news and, to hear the Americans tell it, Afghanistan would be a land of milk and honey were it not for the Haqqani thorn. Fair enough or plain rubbish? Doesn`t matter really.

It`s what the Americans have decided for now and Pakistan will have to live with it until the Americans decide that the Haqqanis aren`t the central problem after all.

Similarly, the official Pakistani response to American cage-rattling has been recycled, boilerplate stuff: go fix Afghanistan; interdict the Haqqanis on the Afghan side of the border if you want; we`re doing enough from our side, etc.

But scratch the surface and a shift is visible: we have started to own the Haqqanis.

For years, the security establishment pretended it had nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan. We won`t help them, but we won`t harm them either was the official line on the Afghan Taliban.

And as the North Waziristan hub of terror grew, the security establishment even suggested it understood the necessity of an operation and that selective action in the non-Haqqani areas would begin once SWA was sorted out and the NWA environment had been `shaped`.

But now the pretence has dropped. In private, circles close to the establishment readily admit what they used to dance around before: the Haqqanis are our assets; they are our boys; they are the ace up our sleeves.

Along with that ownership claim, there is a new willingness to sketch out a narrative of what has gone wrong in the region since 9/11, at least according to the army-led establishment.

This is the narrative. Afghanistan is a mess, always was a mess and probably always will be a mess. But turmoil is relative. As long as foreign forces are waging a full-blown war in Afghanistan, the turmoil will remain at its maximum. For reasons of history and culture, the establishment narrative goes, the Afghans will never accept a massive foreign footprint on their soil.

Unhappily, the American superpower thought it could rewrite history. Its war machine felt it could defeat the Taliban and tame Afghanistan.

What was Pakistan to do as the mighty American bull snorted and dug at the ground with its hooves? Get out of the way and let it charge at the puny Talibs, that`s what.

The result was always going to be the same. The cunning Afghans would dodge the charging American bull forever and plunge their rusty swords into its back whenever they could. The mightiest war machine in history would eventually be brought to its knees, exhausted and out of money and the will to fight.

But turmoil at its maximum in Afghanistan for an indefinite period isn`t good for Pakistan, according to the narrative. For one, the knock-on effects inside Pakistan would be difficult to control while jihad is going on next door. For another, shaping an Afghanistan that is more favourable to Pakistan would prove infinitely more difficult while regional and global powers are all active in the Afghan equation. But the Americans can be stubborn, so they needed to be encouraged to see common sense sooner than they would have of their own accord. Hence, the helpful allies like the Haqqanis and others.

What happens to Afghanistan, and Pakistan, after the Americans respond to the only language they understand, the sting of a military defeat? If they withdraw fully, the turmoil will subside and become more manageable for Pakistan, according to this narrative.

Factional warfare in Afghanistan wouldn`t have the jihadi flavour that tends to turbo charge turmoil. Afghanistan would still be messy — remember, it`s always been, always will be a mess — but at least Pakistan could go to work then and figure out a way of managing the permanent crisis that is Afghanistan.

As for the turmoil in Pakistan, it is linked, like conducting atoms, to the jihadi turmoil in Afghanistan. Starve the fire here of the jihadi oxygen in Afghanistan and it will slowly burn itself out.

And what if the Americans opt to keep some troops back for a CT-heavy agenda, as is expected?

Well, no approach is perfect in a place like Afghanistan. With the foreign presence successfully diminished, Pakistan could recalibrate its approach to deal with the revamped American objective.

The focus, according to the establishment narrative, should be on what happens to Afghan society and its people while foreigners are stalking its land for prey: Afghan society will remain in a state of acute, though not always visible, agitation and that would have devastating consequences for Pakistan and its interests.

It`s a neat narrative. An active American war machine in Afghanistan equals maximal turmoil and an unmanageable crisis. Remove the direct American element from the equation and Afghanistan would settle down to its old equilibrium: unrest and turmoil, but of the more manageable variety. Here`s the problem: there`s no real reason to believe that an Afghanistan in which the Taliban are ascendant, or big players at least, would be any more `manageable` for Pakistan.

The Tailban tend to do what they like, and last time round it didn`t quite work out to Pakistan`s advantage. Another problem: bringing down the jihad temperature in Afghanistan may not make it any easier for the establishment to deal with the domestic threat from militancy. Militancy here probably no longer needs the oxygen of an Afghan jihad to sustain itself: Pakistan may continue to burn long after the second Afghan jihad is extinguished.

By arrangement with Dawn, Islamabad