The Kerry-Lugar Bill is at best Orwellian in character, with an abnormal desire to monitor and control and thus reshape Pakistan in its own image. The impression the Bill conveys is holistic - it reins in civil administration, the armed forces, the alleged proliferationists, and the foreign policy apparatus. Thus the day the Bill was passed it stirred a wave of pain, anguish, and worst a sense of humiliation across the nation. In law, the concept of cui bono is of crucial signification and is often invoked to locate the culprit behind a crime scene. The judge as well as the jury has to answer the question - for whose benefit a crime has been committed. The Bill throws up two beneficiaries - US and the Zardari Administration. The benefits for the US (section 203 (2)) are immense as it places Pak Army under their command. Similarly, section 203 (c) gives them access to nuclear scientists, including Dr A Q Khan, because the generality of the said clause brings everyone under its purview. It is also beneficial to the incumbent president for it narrows down security options in the region and ties Pakistan armed forces down to the US strategic goals. A long-drawn conflict on the Western border can cause heavy casualties to the troops and have depletive effects on them, leaving them to lick their wounds for years to come. At the same time, it gives the government enough temporal space to perpetuate itself in power, with the army blindfolded and gagged by the Bill reminiscent of the designed debasement of the army in 1971. Unfortunately our politicians, exception allowed, hold armed forces in contempt to cover up their incompetence as the executor of the national will. Already Zardaris two observations that India should join the Friends of Pakistan Club, and that India poses no threat to Pakistan, have raised serious doubts about his ability to perceive the nations sensitivities on India and its self-respect. Furthermore, the proponents of the controversial Bill and its supporters have said many things in their desperate attempt to convince the nation that it should be accepted as it is in their interest, and that the US has no designs on Pakistan, while saying in the same breath that Pakistanis are poor in understanding English. However, when it comes to the text, there is no complication in it - the text as well as its thrust is clear. Besides, the interpretation of any text is determined by its evident meaning and the rules of the language. For example, when the text calls for direct access to Pakistani nationals for information relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapon-related materials from the Western suppliers, it has no meanings other than authorising the US to bypass the government. Does it dignify the PPP or any other party in power when the things will be done over their heads? Would it not demean scientists who have served their nation, giving them the feeling that they have to serve two masters? Worse, would it not encourage disloyalty, even treason among our citizens when they would be seduced and intimidated by the US? Or for example, when the Bill section 301, 7(b) says that it is critical to Pakistans long-term prosperity and security to strengthen regional relationships among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, does it not give Pakistan a straitjacket role to pursue? The language here for sure is neither dense nor ambiguous and so is the framers intent, which aims at drying up the choices in formulating foreign policy options for Pakistan, circumscribing the space to work within, and foreclosing avenues of seeking creative approaches to achieve its national goals. If one reads section 301, 7 (b) on US strategy, it is clear that it is not the long-term prosperity and security of Pakistan that the US seeks but its own national security goals. To say that Pakistanis need tutoring in English is to garble the issue. Maybe the incumbent president and his bloated team of 92 ministers are short on English and need special education in reading treaties and agreements. The Bill whether revised or not, deserves to be ignored with warm thanks. It is not only objectionable, for it encroaches on our national sovereignty, it is also deficit in trust - a situation harmful to international amity and collaboration. Under the circumstances the minimum Zardari administration can do is to ask his envoy Husain Haqqani to quit. He is too close to the US for our nations comfort. His stay as the nations ambassador to Washington despite clash of interests will continue to traumatise us. The writer is a freelance columnist.