Annually, some Pakistanis kill themselves because of their extreme poverty. Initially, the self-killings shocked us. But as the suicides went on increasing their ability to shock us went on decreasing. Thank God, a time has come when we have grown utterly case-hardened. Today, a self-killing leaves us as cool as the extinction of a starving animal in a jungle. In order to eradicate the self-killings we ought to have cancelled the citizenship of our poorest citizens and ordered them to commit suicides beyond our frontiers. But we did not. We did not because we are a free nation. We have granted full freedom to our poorest citizens to kill themselves whenever they feel like doing it. They have been making full use of this freedom. Incidentally, a Pakistani who kills himself because of his poverty is a benefactor of the country. Had he somehow been able to feed himself, he would, like the poor Pakistanis in general, have devoted all his energy to producing babies. This abundant production would positively have worsened our population problem. Pakistan is a land of extremes. We have a tiny minority which is fabulously rich. And we have a large majority which is fabulously poor. Naturally, one is curious to know the reason. There is a very simple reason. We have granted all our resources to the tiny minority and all our problems to the masses. Those who have resources have no problems and those who have problems have no resources. Thus we do not mix resources with problems. We are an adulteration free country. In every jungle there are some animals which live on the flesh of some other animals. Most of the countries of the contemporary world are human jungles. In such countries, the rulers live on the flesh of the masses. The masses somehow have an inkling that they are not born to live but are born to be eaten by some of their compatriots. This kind of cannibalism may be called 'brotherly cannibalism' may be called 'brotherly cannibalism'. The rulers always console the masses: "Don't be dismayed. You are destined to be richly rewarded for your sufferings here during your eternal life in the hereafter. Instead of complaining, you should be grateful to us." The masses always ask the rulers: "Why have you monopolised all the resources and left us nothing but pre misery?" The rulers hit back: "We did not monopolise the resources. It is the resources which have monopolised us. They passionately love us. They love our friendship. But they are allergic to your companionship. Actually, you yourselves are creators of your miseries. Why were you not born as rulers? Why were you born as masses? You are being condignly punished for not being born as rulers like us." There are terrorist organisations located in our neighbourly countries. They keep attacking. We are waging a war against them. But there is a terrorism which is our own creation. It is the poverty of the masses. There is a fundamental difference between the terrorism practised by human terrorists and the terrorism practised by poverty. The human terrorism kills publicly. The poverty terrorism kills secretly. We have been doing all we can to conquer human terrorism. But we have turned a blind eye to our poverty terrorism. Had we dealt with our poverty terrorism as we have been dealing with the human terrorism, our poverty terrorism would have fled the country ages ago. In a jungle, an animal must live all on its own or perish. The constitution of a jungle does not guarantee subsistence to the inhabitants of the jungle. A country whose constitution does not guarantee subsistence to its citizens is a human jungle. There are numerous such countries in the world. If the poor citizens of a country keep dying of starvation, the deaths are the result of the country's terrorism against its own citizens. This brand of terrorism is more bestial than the 9/11 terrorism. Lately, President Bush was addressing a press conference in Baghdad. An Iraqi journalist threw his shoes one after the other at the president and shouted: "It is the farewell kiss, you dog." Obviously, by calling Bush a dog, the journalist intended to insult Bush publicly. In reality, by calling Bush a dog, the journalist highly praised him. In the West, dogs are loved more than babies. Generally, a Westerner prefers to bring up a dog in place of a baby. Bush must have enjoyed the honour of being called a dog. When the journalist dubbed Bush a 'dog' he betrayed his utter ignorance about the Western culture. He drew upon his own Arab culture. Had he been knowledgeable about the Western culture, he might have dubbed Bush a 'vulture', not a 'dog'. A vulture loves carrion. Because of Bush's occupation of Iraq, the country has virtually become a warehouse of human carrion. During his presidentship, Bush has used the word 'terrorism' more frequently than any other word. Whatever he dislikes, he denounces it as 'terrorism'. When the journalist fired his shoes at Bush, Bush ought to have involuntarily shouted: "Terrorism, Terrroism." He did not. Why he did not? It is a mystery The writer is an academic