The economists have divided the world into three categories: the First World, the Second World and the Third World. This triadic division is all nonsense. It betrays the economists' utter ignorance of the realities of the contemporary world. Some believe that this division is a gimmick to befool the common man. Some believe that the division has certain ulterior political motives. Actually, there are predominantly two categories of countries. There are countries where the masses are enviously well-off and there are countries where the masses are extremely miserable. Thus essentially our world is 'diadic' world and not a triadic one. Let a country have any sort of political system. In this respect every country must be absolutely free. But in another respect this freedom must be strictly curtailed. Every country must be constitutionally bound to guarantee the basic needs of life to its masses. If it does not, it must be scraped off the globe. In most of the countries, the masses are living like asses. They are the rulers' beasts of burden. A country where the masses are comfortable is a paradise on earth. And a country where the masses are miserable is a hell on earth. Unfortunately, there are only a few paradises and a plethora of hells in our world. Would that the hells of the masses could be transmuted into paradises The triadic division of the world must be expunged from the textbooks of economics. In its place, our 'diadic' division should be inserted. By their triadic division, the economists are misinforming the students who are learning economics. There are judicial courts all over the world for dealing with various sorts of crimes. But, unfortunately, there is no court for dealing with academic crimes. Misinforming the students is a blatant academic crime. The economists are lucky that there is no court in the world for taking a serious notice of their intellectual crime. If the masses of a country are miserable, they are miserable because the rulers do not live within the country's means. They do not live within the means because they believe that only animals live within their means. Thus in order to distinguish themselves from the animals they live beyond the country's means. They burn the country's means. And when they burn the country's means, the masses are reduced to ashes. There are two brands of terrorism: national terrorism and international terrorism. A country where the masses are extremely miserable and the rulers are extremely affluent is a terrorist country. Such a country is an example of national terrorism. Here is an example of international terrorism. President Bush wants to destroy Iran and North Korea. He believes that these countries have no right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. He has destroyed Iraq because he believes that Iraq was a danger for Israel. He is destroying Afghanistan because he believes that Osama is hiding himself somewhere in Afghanistan. Throughout human history, national and international terrorism's have flourished side by side. The individual terrorists keep changing. But the essence of terrorism remains unchanged. There was a time when there was no such a thing as man in the world. Consequently, there were no man-created devastations. Did the world miss man? One simply wonders If somehow man were to become extinct, the world would be rid of national as well as international terrorism. Would the world miss man? One wonders more wondrously. For sixty one years Pakistan has been ruled by various rulers. Almost all the rulers were carbon copies of each other. They kept filling their own pockets with the country's resources. The hunger of the pockets was insatiable. The more they were filled, the hungrier they grew. Being nothing left for the masses, the rulers grew repentant. In order to compensate the masses, the pockets of the masses were generously filled with misery. Thus our history is a very simple history. It comprises just two simple factualities: the wild rejoicing of the rulers and the heart-corroding tears of the masses. Every great country is great because it has a supreme all-powerful political system. Every ruler is a slave of the system. We detest this nonsense. Almost every Pakistani ruler has himself been a system. When a Pakistani ruler comes, he brings a system of his own. And when he leaves, he takes his system with him. We have had as many systems as we have had rulers. What an affluence of systems Pakistan is a land of extreme uncertainties. The masses are born with uncertainty-spoons in their mouthe. All their life they breathe uncertainties and eventually they are killed by uncertainties. The writer is an academic