PROF R.A. KHAN The United States wants Pakistan to play a key role in the war against extremism and terrorism. Every responsible American leader has highlighted Pakistan's importance and called upon his government to boost Pakistan's capacity- economically and militarily-and not allow any element to jeopardize the process. US special representative, Richard Holbrooke, for instance, is the view that" Pakistan is of such immense importance to the United States, strategically, and politically, that our goal must be to support unambiguously and help stabilize a democratic Pakistan." President Obama himself in a key address pledged to bring Pakistan out of its present economic crisis and help establish Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ), schools, hospitals and roads. Kerry and Lugar, likewise, have called for tripling US civilian aid to Pakistan to 1.5 billion dollars a year for the next five years. Their declared aim is to strengthen democratic institutions, improve the educational system and boost Pakistan's military clout to defeat insurgent elements. "We need to create a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan," says Congressman Howard L. Berman, "one that transcends our mutual counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism goals and speaks to the needs of average Pakistani citizens." US vice president Joseph Biden has gone a step further and set up a benchmark to distinguish between Pakistan's friends and enemies. "The United States", he says, would support those elements who want to stabilize Pakistan and not those who have designs to destabilize it." What perplexes one in the light of Mr. Biden's categorical statement is that while the United States considers Pakistan a vital strategic partner and wants to bolster up its economy and fire power, Bharat - a close ally of the US - views Pakistan as an arch enemy and is zealously engaged in destabilizing it. Is Bharat an "element" that is undermining US efforts or is her case one divided loyalties? What, one may ask, is Bharat up to? Is Bharat's hatred for Pakistan pathological or is it so deep-seated as to bulldoze even its own commitment against terrorism and its obligation to the US? The roots of Bharati animus lie in the distant past. Some historians are of the considered view that a thousand years of Muslim rule injected a deep sense of inferiority in the Hindu psyche. Antipathy and resentment were the result for how else could a sneaky, caste-ridden subject community react. Some Bharati readers may damn this bit of reasoning as utter balderdash and hogwash but the truth is that the Hindu loves to flaunt his anti-Muslim/anti-Pakistan sentiments as if it were a matter of pride. In the middle of the nineteenth century the British seized the reigns of power from the dysfunctional Muslim rulers. Decades later when Britain's grip on India began to weaken, the heirs of Chattarpati Sivaji crawled out of the woodwork and the long repressed anti-Muslim virulence came to the fore. Weird characters like Gowalkar, Savarkar,Moonje and Hedgewar spoke of establishing an authoritarian Hindu regime in the manner of the Nazi leaders. They dreamt of a free Hindu India. To Hedgewar, Muslims were 'snakes' and the greatest danger to Hindu national cause. Shiv Sena, Bharatiya Janta Party, Hindu Vishwa Parishad etc. are the progeny of these psychopaths. The Hindu Congressmen were and are no different. Gandhi and Nehru vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan and accused the Muslims of' 'vivisecting the motherland.' Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the iron man of the Congress and a militant leader of the Hindus, was furious at the Muslim demand for Pakistan. "Give Jinnah his state,"he said in disgust. "It would not survive any way. In five years, the Muslim league would be knocking at the door begging for India's re-unification." It was hoped that with the division of the subcontinent things would fall in place. Sadly, that did not happen. The Hindu mindset did not change. On the contrary, Bharat's venom and hostility gathered momentum. In 1971, Indira Gandhi tore Pakistan into two. K. Subramanyam, Bharat's spy chief at the time, openly declared his country's cold-blooded intentions: " The break up of Pakistan", he said, " is in our interest and we have an opportunity the like of which will never come again." Bharat dismembered Pakistan but her appetite for evil has not diminished. Even today it is fanning trouble in Baluchistan and running terrorists operations from its missions in Mazar, Jalalabad and kandahar. Not very long ago it masterminded a premeditated multi-vengeful attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. The Congress and the BJP fire vitriolic salvoes every now and then accusing Pakistan of aiding and abetting terrorism. Bharat's object, evidently, is to create chaos and confusion. It is, moreover, building three dams on the Indus river in clear violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and to the detriment of Pakistan. With water sources under its control could play havoc with Pakistan. Her armed forces stand poised along Pakistan's eastern border. Bharat is hands in glove with Israel and the Zionist lobby. It has penetrated the upper echelons of the US administration and is tendering advice that is manifestly at odds with Pakistan's self interest and sovereignty. Its genetic small-mindedness may be gauged from the fact that it has the cheek to accuse Pakistan of being unfair to the minorities and imposing 'jazya'( religious tax) on them while it forgets the Babri Masjid carnage and the butchery of Muslim men, women and children of Gujarat. "Why beholdest thou the mote in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Lately for some odd reason President Obama has been led to believe that the Pakistan army has changed its perspective and no longer considers India as enemy No 1.President Obama has also observed that the obsession with Bharat as a mortal threat to Pakistan had been misguided and their biggest threat right now came from extremism. He made the same observations in an interview with Newweek a fortnight ago. President Obama is indeed naive if he thinks that centuries of resentment and prejudice could be washed away just for the asking. One does not need a phenomenal intellect to understand that the Pakistan Army would never end its suspicion of Bharat. No sea change has occurred in the strategic outlook of the Pakistan army. Pakistan's military leadership put all such speculations to rest when it categorically announced on May 16, 2009 that the armed forces would not be moved from Pakistan's border with India and deployed at the western border because on the issue of national security Pakistan did not trust any kind of international guarantees. The message of the high command is loud and clear. The "obsession with Bharat as a mortal threat" was not misguided and would prevail. No matter how wishful his thinking and how inaccurate his assessment of the Pakistan Army, President Obama and his administration appear strongly inclined to ease tension between India and Pakistan to enable the latter to concentrate exclusively on the task in hand namely, the war against extremism. The US has suddenly awakened to the fact that this objective could be achieved if the decades-old conflict over Kashmir could somehow be resolved. Though Obama had made frequent reference to Kashmir on the hustings, his new strategy ignores the issue for fear that it would upset India. Richard Holbrooke and Admiral Mike Mullen, who visited new Delhi not long ago, were consequently chary enough to steer clear of the Kashmir issue. However, Centcom commander General David Petraeus, did not mince his words: "There are people," he observed, "who have rightly said that Ambassador Holbrooke's title should be Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Now just let me tell you his portfolio includes India." Washington cannot back off from the Kashmir issue. It must understand that Kashmir generates its own dynamic of militancy. British foreign secretary David Miliband was one of the first in recent months to sound the tocsin when he stated that an early resolution of Kashmir was imperative as it was the root cause of extremism. The US should know that Bharat is a wily customer when it comes to bargaining and negotiation. Bharat instinctively subscribes to a two faced-policy. For example, on the one hand it denounces terrorism while on the other it sabotages US objectives by pursuing ant- Pakistan policy. Bharat, infact, seeks its inspiration from its very own ancient "mentor and guru" name Kautilya - "before whom Machiavelli pales into insignificance" Says Kautiliya (i) Never let the lust for power and conquest of other countries die.(ii) All neighbouring states should be treated as enemies.(iii) You must not think of peace even if the entire world wants it. However, lip service to peace and good neighbourliness should continue as a camouflage. With pearls of wisdom such as these to guide Bharat's overt and covert enterprises, her neighbours have no choice but to be eternally on the alert. Bharat's Gandhian, ahisma-loving, secular, liberal face is hypocritical and misleading. Her credo is akin to Lady MacBeth's famous advice to her husband: "Look like an innocent flower/But be the serpent under't. The United States will have to keep Bharat's idiosyncrasies in mind if and when it broaches the subject of Kashmir. Kashmir remains at the top of Pakistan's South Asian foreign policy agenda. Sixty years have gone by but this potentially explosive issue remains unresolved because of Bharat's penchant for chicanery and casuistry. "India is the spoilt child of the world," said Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto forty six years ago in the National Assembly. "India gets away with all its machinations by irrational explanations. Powers which are not familiar with India's mentality are only too eager to accept India's policy at their face value. That makes it possible for India to continue to menace the peace of the region and the world." (Speech NA 1963). Bhutto was right. He had discovered Bharat's 'spoilt child syndrome.' There can be no peace in the world unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. Bharat's broken promises, arrogance and intransigence and persistent hostility has driven the two countries into an undeclared war of sorts. The Kashmir dispute has to be settled - if not bilaterally, then multilaterally - with perhaps, Mr. Richard Holbrooke as arbitrator. Pakistan would not allow Bharat to retain its stranglehold on Kashmir. Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan. The writer is an academic