By Ishtiaq Ahmed Without Punjabis from both sides agreeing to normalisation there can be no progress on Kashmir.
The reason is not only the geographical contiguity between the two Punjabs and the two Kashmirs, but also the fact that the traumatic memories of what happened in Punjab and Kashmir during 1947 have to be shed through sincere reconciliation and mutual forgiveness India and Pakistan are to start a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad from April 7, 2005.
The move will not prejudice the respective positions of the two sides on Kashmir.
Moreover, an agreement has in principle been reached on establishing a bus service between Amritsar and Lahore and with Nankana Sahib and other religious places in the two Punjabs.
India also conveyed its readiness to start the Khokrapar-Munnabao railway link between Sindh in Pakistan and Rajasthan in India from October 2005.
All this happened miraculously when the Indian external affairs minister, Natwar Singh, paid a visit to Pakistan and held talks with Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, in Islamabad on February 15-17.
Such talks would not have got anywhere without General Pervez Musharraf and his generals approving such moves.
An elected civilian government would never have dared take such bold steps.
So, indeed I can say on this count: Pak Fauj ko salaam.
Who would have believed that this was possible when in December 2001 more than a million men from both sides faced each other on the border ready to lay down their lives or kill others if their leaders ordered them.
Thank God we were saved the horror of an unparalleled slaughter that would have additionally destroyed the chances of normal life in South Asia for thousands of years, had the commanders decided to pull the triggers of their newly-acquired play things: nuclear weapons.
Between those terrible days of December 2001 and February 15-17, 2005, the world seems to have changed, hopefully forever, and now we can begin to direct the genius of our people towards productive pursuits.
I have no doubt that the people of South Asia are as enterprising and as hardworking as any other.
All they need is a sympathetic and constructive leadership.
But we must remember that if the two establishments do not sincerely agree on abandoning the use of force to resolve disputes the gains of these few days can prove a chimera.
Therefore now is the time to begin preparing to rebut rightwing assaults from jingoistic lobbies on both sides on the peace process.
We are already hearing from the Indian side that agreeing to let Kashmiris from Azad Kashmir travel to the Indian side without passports can prove detrimental to Indian interests and some quarters in Pakistan are clamouring that the two-nation theory will be in jeopardy if Indians begin to visit Pakistan regularly Orthodox leftists would do us all a favour if they desist from indulging their favourite conspiracy theory of a sinister US hand behind such rapprochement.
I think the present agreement is premised on a sound realisation that the status quo cannot be maintained anymore, but simultaneously that the dispute over Kashmir cannot be resolved through the use of force.
Perhaps more importantly the realisation is that whatever solution is finally agreed it will be preceded by a slow but steady input of confidence building measures.
Among them the involvement of the people of both Punjabs is imperative.
Without Punjabis from both sides agreeing to normalisation there can be no progress on Kashmir.
The reason is not only the geographical contiguity between the two Punjabs and the two Kashmirs, but also the fact that the traumatic memories of what happened in Punjab and Kashmir during 1947 have to be shed through sincere reconciliation and mutual forgiveness.
Therefore the bus service between the two Punjabs is a most crucial factor in the overall peace process.
I would especially hope India convinces Pakistan that the Baglihar hydroelectric power project does not adversely affect the latter's interests, for if it does and India shows no flexibility then it would be truly tragic.
It would be a repeat of the formalistic and legalistic attitude which in the past proved so disastrous to the unity of the subcontinent.
Here, I am referring to the Indian National Congress refusing to co-opt the Muslim League into a power-sharing formula after it won the 1937 elections; it repeated the same mistake when it rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan in May 1946.
India is undoubtedly the bigger and stronger state in the region: it can therefore act generously without compromising its security or economic interests related to Kashmir.
While doing so, there must be enough scope for accommodating Pakistani concerns over the sharing of water as laid down in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.
There can be no denying that the economic prosperity of both northern India and Pakistan depends on the Punjab rivers.
Equally, Pakistan must realise that its spectacular rise as a young industrial nation during 1956-65 was subverted when some of its adventurous civilian and military leaders embarked upon the so-called Operation Gibraltar in 1965.
Any serious Pakistani economist can vouch that a clearly inverse relationship exists between Pakistan's military adventures and its economic progress.
Consequently we should reserve the doctrine of jihad for fighting aggression if and when it takes place.
International law upholds the right of a nation to resist and defeat aggression, but there is very little place for liberation struggles fought in the name of religious ideologies and by fanatical cadres.
So, if all the players involved in the decision-making processes act sensibly and largely-heartedly then indeed the magic moment is now.
Imagine South Asia becoming a common market in which sufficient safeguards are provided for all national interests to be balanced and the most-backward areas are provided funds to develop.
Thus instead of destroying scarce resources and squandering the hard labour of our people on weapon purchases we should return them their due share of the national wealth by providing cheap and subsidised education and better health facilities.
We can also liberate Dalit (so-called untouchables) groups in the various South Asia states from the clutches of caste oppression and feudal parasitism.
Although Hinduism receives most abuse for its continuation it prevails elsewhere in South Asia too, though in a modified form, despite the egalitarian messages of Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism.
We can direct our genius to promoting trade and commerce and in the not-so-very-distant future this region can claim its rightful place in all international fora as an economic giant and a worthy contributor to peace and prosperity in the world.
So, the magic moment is now.
We better seize it.
*(The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University.
He is the author of two books.) -(Courtesy: Dailytimes) Man-made mouse By Mohinder Singh The man-made mouse was invented in 1968 by one Douglas Engelbart.
And has come into common use in the last twenty years.
The mouse arrived with the Apple personal computer.
And is now a part of all computer systems.
Instead of remembering a string of commands and then typing them, users simply move the cursor with the mouse.
It's a very convenient arrangement.
The standard mouse has a ball in its belly that is rolled across a smooth surface.
Sensors translate the ball's motion into signals that move a cursor.
The man-made mouse didn't look like a mouse in the beginning; it was just a blocky piece.
But soon it was given curves to improve comfort and reduce hand strain.
It's now designed to fit into the hollow of the user's palm and curved to fit the right thumb.
The left and right switches slope away from the centre and click nicely.
New models look more and more like a live mouse.
The man-made mouse has been a great invention.
Yet someday the man-made mouse will go.
Technological advances hold promise of voice-response systems replacing keyboards.
Users would operate computers by speaking at them.
No finger typing, no mouse moving.
In contrast, the mouse in nature--a beautiful creature, its skin sleek and soft--has been there before the birth of man.
Despite its short legs and bad eyesight, the mouse has managed to spread all over the globe more than any other mammal.
And all that in the face of stiff opposition by man.
Indeed, untold riches await someone who succeeds in designing a perfect mousetrap.
The man-made mouse would be gone some day.
But the mouse in nature will always be there with us.