The release on bail of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the head of the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, has not just sparked a highly negative reaction from India, but has also highlighted some of the reasons why Pakistan, supposed because of its British legacy to be an ideal place where the War on Terror could be fought, has become a place where the Western freedoms for which the War is being fought are reducing the ability of the state to be coercive. Hafiz Saeed was detained without charge under the Maintenance of Public Order. He had been linked to the Kashmir Jihad, and most recently to the Mumbai blasts. India has waxed very furious over his release, and has threatened not to move ahead with the talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours which it suspended when the attacks occurred, and which it has hinted at restarting now that the Indian elections are over, and the re-elected Manmohan Singh government has no real excuse to offer for not talking to Pakistan. The USA, and those members of the international community that follow its lead, are interested in India and Pakistan reaching a settlement for two reasons. The first is that they are nuclear armed, and any conflict over Kashmir (and there have been four in the past) that went nuclear would not merely be a bilateral or regional disaster, but a global one. Second is the War, which Pakistan says it cannot contest fully until its issues with India are sorted out. However, the USA does not want a solution in line with internationally acknowledged principles of justice, or according to the UN resolutions on the subject, but in accordance with the Indian aims, even though such a solution would still leave Kashmir as a festering sore on the Indian body politic. Having thrown aside the principle of fairness, the USA has simplified the problem down to finding a government for Pakistan which will deliver such a solution to India and sell it to the Pakistani public as a splendid victory. Hafiz Saeed and his party won favour because of a proven readiness to engage in activities which the army wanted done, but did not have the time for. One example was the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, when the Jamaat was very active in the relief activities. For its pains, it was left to carry on the mission of the Lashkar-i-Taiba, its parent organisation, which was banned in Pakistan in 2002, along with several other organisations as terrorists, as part of the Pervez Musharraf contribution to the War. One aspect as to convert the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination into terrorism against India. This was the result of the War on Terror which India worked hardest on. Pakistan under Musharraf furthered this by declaring repeatedly that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorist activity. Pakistan thus provided India guarantees of protection. Yet India misused the attacks in Mumbai last November to blame Pakistan, and it chose the Jamaat-ud-Dawah as the vehicle by which to lay the blame. Pakistan may have rid itself of Pervez Musharraf, but had replaced him with an equally pro-American regime, that of the PPP under Asif Zardari. Hafiz Saeed became the target of the laws which had been brought to the subcontinent by the British, such as the MPO, which provided for something which the British law found repugnant, as well as the whole American discourse on human rights, preventive detention. After the Mumbai attacks, India managed to get the UN Security Council to pass a Resolution against the Jamaat. However, as mentioned by Hafiz Saeed's lawyer, he was not mentioned in the Resolution. However, the Pakistani state used the MPO to act against Hafiz Saeed and the Jamaat, the latter being put under an administrator. Preventive detention was retained in Pakistan, though it was abhorrent to the spirit of the 1973 constitution, by means of a special procedure, laid down in the constitution itself, involving a special tribunal consisting of high court judges. The MPO is usually used against political opponents of the regime, and normally bail is obtained quite readily under a civilian government. However, it allows something which is considered vital in the War on Terror: the detention of any person without framing any charges. Even though Hafiz Saeed may not have had any knowledge of the Mumbai attacks until they occurred, India wished that he carry the blame, and it accused him. Even though it had not provided the Pakistani government the requisite evidence for the framing of charges against Hafiz Saeed, it required him arrested. As the Indian authorities well knew, because they too have the same law, there was the good old MPO. And the Pakistani authorities were only too glad to comply, because they hoped to avert a war this way. However, the Pakistani judiciary did not wish to comply. This was a judiciary which had restored its head after a year-long lawyers' movement, and after it had enlisted a lot of political support. Therefore, Hafiz Saeed obtained bail when his case moved up to the Supreme Court. This dashed the credibility of Pakistan as a wild sort of place where anything went, and where the state has virtually untrammelled powers to detain whoever it wants for as long as it wills. The Supreme Court, at least, does not agree that reasons of state are good enough to deprive a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Interestingly, Islam, even the version favoured by Hafiz Saeed, promotes the kind of rule of law under which he was released. It too does not acknowledge the reasons of state which led to his detention in the first place. However, it also does not allow any admixture from any other legal system, and consists only of the orders of Allah and His Prophet (PBUH). These laws are also the reason why the War on Terror is being fought. Though US President Barack Obama has again denied that it is a War on Islam, whenever it is a question of the laws of the Almighty, the Americans and their cohorts appeal loudly to the rights which they claim will be violated. Hafiz Saeed's case cannot disguise the fact that the subcontinent was festooned by the British with several 'black laws' which could not be introduced in the home country, and which are not only still on the books, but are still being used. These laws are intended to control restive populations, which is what the locals have again become, as a result of the War on Terror.