It is time to cheer the positive signals from Pakistan.

There are news reports of Pakistan trying to curb the in filtration of terrorists into J&K. The visit of India's cricket team to Pakistan is on. Increasingly, cultural delegations have been exchanging visits between the two countries.

There is a greater degree of realism in understanding the real strengths and weaknesses of each other.

The dialog enabled by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf has, for the first time in years, encouraged a reality check on both sides.

The numbers, of course, are stark and driving this process forward. Consider, for example, the statistics put together in a recent publication brought out by the Strategic Foresight Group [SFG], based in Mumbai, entitled, "Cost of Conflict Between India and Pakistan." As the report sums up, both countries have paid a price in economic and political terms.

The difference now is Pakistanis are beginning to get more realistic in estimating the costs and benefits of tension with India.

The SFG document estimates the "costs" of conflict. While it is difficult to put a number to the benefits or the costs, one thing is clear. Both countries have paid a developmental price.

As long as India was paying the greater price and the cost of "low intensity" conflict with India was not very high for Pakistan, the latter could afford to ignore the economic costs of its confrontation with India.

Moreover, the economic lifeline made available to Pakistan by the United States and Saudi Arabia and the military support line extended by both the US and China, and the developmental support extended by all three and the European Union and Japan made sure that Pakistan did not pay such a heavy price for its domestic politics and external policies with respect to India.

The difference is clear, says S. Akbar Zaidi, a Karachi-based economist of repute, "India's economic growth has by far overtaken Pakistan's, a trend which is unlikely to be reversed for some time to come." Dr Zaidi is not the only Pakistani economist to come to that conclusion, but he has done so in a paper written for the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.

This candid admission of recent economic retrogression is based on a systematic analysis of facts and figures in a paper, "Pakistan's Economic and Social Development: Domestic, Regional and Global Perspectives", that should be widely disseminated in both countries because of the many useful lessons it holds for people and governments in both countries.

Dr Zaidi neither understates Pakistan's many achievements nor over-states the problem it is presently facing. He holds a mirror to the fact that while as recently as in 1990, Pakistan's per capita income (in purchasing power parity terms) was US $1,360, compared to India's $1,380, by 2001 it was a mere $1,860 compared to India's $2,820.

If 9/11 had not happened, its fiscal and external economic profile would have been in crisis zone. Fortunately, and Dr Zaidi is not sure if it has been all that fortunate, Pakistan's re-emergence as a "frontline" state in the West's war against its detractors, has helped it improve its external economic profile.

This, Dr Zaidi believes, is a transient breather and he would like to see comprehensive economic reform and increased investment and domestic savings drive a much needed economic recovery at home.

In that home-driven economic recovery, Dr Zaidi sees a relevant role for trade with India and the rest of South Asia. First, Dr Zaidi draws attention to the fact that despite the terrible diplomatic and political relations between India and Pakistan, India remains a more important bilateral economic partner for Pakistan than Iran and is fairly close to China in this regard. "Despite hostilities, wars and diplomatic breakdown" says Dr Zaidi, "Pakistan imports more from India than it does from France, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Turkey, Iran, or even Thailand!"

Second, he reminds us that whenever either country has had a domestic economic shortage, be it onions, wheat, sugar or power, both have come to each other's rescue: "both countries, despite extremely poor political and diplomatic relations, do turn to each other in times of need". He uses words like "significant" and "tremendous" in referring to the gains from bilateral trade.
India's economic acceleration and its ability to improve its bilateral relations not just with the US but also with China, south-east Asia and the Islamic world has forced Pakistan, itself embroiled in internal political crises and under increased external pressure, to take a reality check on where it stands vis-à-vis India, vis-à-vis South Asia, vis-à-vis China and vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

If there is greater hope in the current peace process in the region, it is not just because India has a forward looking Prime Minister like Mr. Vajpayee, or because the US and China are worried about jehadi terrorism, or because Pakistan feels militarily insecure, but because ordinary Pakistanis may finally be coming to terms with the fact that they have paid a huge price in developmental terms.
The bottom line is that while India is "accelerating", Pakistan is "decelerating".
Whatever, it is time to begin to normalize the relationship. Fifty five years of antagonism between the two neighbors has not done any good to either country.

Kashmir is a complex problem, which cannot be solved overnight. Just continuing the present dialog, deepening the cultural and economic ties, should generate enough build enough between the two countries that the Kashmir issue can be tackled too.
I was born in Pakistan. One of my closest "Pakistani" friends here was born in Jallandhar. We both talk frequently talk about it and agree that our generation would love to visit countries of our births. I hope the opportunity comes before our generation moves on in another few decades.

Osama a Pawn in Bush's Poll Strategy?

Pentagon and Pakistani officials have denied an Iranian state radio report that Osama bin Laden was captured in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan "a long time ago".
The claim came at a time when Pakistan's army was hunting Al-Qaeda suspects in a remote tribal region along the border with Afghanistan, believed to be a possible hiding place for the Al-Qaeda leader.

There have been reports that military forces believed they had identified bin Laden's general location and had him encircled, but Pakistani officials have denied any specific knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts.

Iran's state radio, quoting an unnamed source, said that US Defense Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld's visit to the region was in connection with the arrest.

In Washington, another US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, also denied that bin Laden was captured. The report was carried by Iran radio's external Pushtun service. The Director of Iran radio's Pushtun service, Asheq Hossein, said he had two sources for the report that bin Laden had been captured. Iranian state radio quoted its reporter as saying the arrest happened a long time ago.

"Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election," he said.

Cheney - Fast Becoming a Political Liability

Vice President Dick Cheney's future has become Washington's current topic. The White House has said that American voters will see more of the low-profile Cheney this year, and not less. Assuming, that is, that he remains on the presidential ticket!

Political scientists and observers here say they fully expect Bush to stick with Cheney. Their caveat is that Cheney's well-known heart problems could change things, though the health of the Vice President, who is 63, is said to be sound at present.

Cheney, after all, remains a man of deep experience in Washington: as a Congressman, Defense Secretary to the first President Bush and Chief of Staff to President Gerald Ford. He has been deeply involved in White House policy-making, so much so that in the early days of the administration there were cracks about his being a "shadow president."
But some Republicans are said now to be questioning quietly whether Cheney has become more ballast than lift in a presidential contest that might end up being more competitive than had seemed likely only months ago.

As Bush has seen his own poll ratings decline in recent months, Cheney's have dropped more drastically, largely because of his close involvement in some of the controversies that have hurt the President most.

Some critics said he had pushed the CIA to provide the most damaging possible assessment of a threat from Iraq. After the war, and even after the Weapons Inspector David Kay said that he expected no banned weapons to be found in Iraq, Cheney has insisted that such weapons will be found.

Even after Bush stated that no link had been found between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Cheney said there was "overwhelming evidence" of such a tie. Cheney's ties to corporate America and the energy industry have been the source of further criticism, particularly after stories that Halliburton, the huge oil-services company he once headed, had won no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, and overcharged for some services there.

The Justice Department is investigating, moreover, whether a Halliburton subsidiary made improper payments to gain work in Nigeria during Cheney's time as the company's chief. Cheney has been unable to shake questions about a secretive task force he convened early in the administration to help develop its energy policy. The White House resisted calls for the details of the panel's workings, including even the names of its members, drawn primarily from energy company executives. And with the dispute coming before the Supreme Court, Cheney has been criticized for taking a High Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, on a duck-hunting trip in Louisiana aboard Air Force Two.

Further, Cheney's office has been a focus of an investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The leak was seen as a way of punishing her husband, who had criticized administration arguments for war with Iraq. Cheney, however, remains popular among the conservatives whom Bush views as crucial to his re-election.

What could change that thinking, of course, is if Cheney encountered new health problems. He has suffered four heart attacks. Should pressure grow for Cheney to step aside, analysts note, the health issue could provide useful cover for a graceful withdrawal.

That, of course, has given rise to the latest chapter of a favorite Washington game: speculating on who might come next. There is no clear-cut best pick as a theoretical Cheney successor, though among the names most bruited about are those of:

• Senator Bill Frist, the Majority Leader, a tough-minded and respected medical doctor, but not particularly well-known around the country;
• Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, who gained widespread respect for his handling of the crisis in his city in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, but whose positions on some social issues are more liberal than those of the President;
• Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Director, a former Pennsylvania governor who was considered for the No. 2 spot in 2000 but faced right-wing opposition for supporting abortion rights;

And Condoleezza Rice, his trusted National Security Adviser and a woman considered a bright star among Republicans, though perhaps less so after the highly contentious debate over the Iraq war. She is also, however, considered a favorite choice if Secretary of State Colin Powell steps down at the end of this term, as has been widely rumored.