ite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confro

"Democracy can mean different things to different nations" -- a rhetorical ploy often used by practically every tyrant in the world to justify himself or herself in the event any voice is raised against their autocracy. It was hardly amazing, then, when Saddam Hussein used it to justify his own brutal rule. Nor amazing either, in Nepal, when King Gyanendra and his henchmen uttered phrases like "internal matters" and "democracy can be defined differently in different countries" in attempting to justify the tyrannical methods imposed against the Nepali people and to hoodwink international concern for democracy and popular rule in Nepal.

Not only democracy, but also practices like autocracy and terrorism have similar effects on a people under their sway, no matter where they prevail. Like autocracy, the modern form of terrorism perpetrated by radical Islamist groups, in addition to victimizing innocent fellow citizens, have targeted people of other nations, like blameless citizens of the U.S., Britain, India, Pakistan, or Nepal, and others. As a Nepali, I will never forget how Islamist terrorists in Iraq cold-bloodedly killed 12 innocent Nepalis who had gone there merely looking for work. A variety of factors could underlie the birth of any form of extremism or terrorism, but their insane acting out can be unleashed against any utterly uninvolved bystander.

Likewise, a tyrant would try to variously rationalize his/her rule, but what the world has experienced to date is that tyranny cannot paper over or extenuate political instability. Our basic yearning is to live in liberty, to exercise the right to elect the best candidate for office, and to experience our individual welfare as stemming from the mere fact of our citizenship -- all these are basic to democracy, transcending any national boundaries or any ruler's self-justification.

Let's examine the government of Pakistan, where a military general brutally discarded an elected government and assumed power with the same rhetorical flourish, "to safeguard the country from political instability." It's true to some extent that, traditionally, Pakistani politics have been unstable, even before General Pervez Musharraf took over the presidency. Some critics blame the instability of Pakistani politics as inviting the takeover.

Judged by Musharraf's rhetoric, how far has the regime been able to right the political wrongdoings of the past? This could be a question for debate. Besides the surfacing of civil unrest in a province like Balochistan after the suppression of democratic rights, there are the militant groups based in the Pakistani part of Kashmir that constantly threaten the region's political stability.

Critics do contend that the regime's oppressiveness could have fostered the emergence of extremism and terrorist groups, and that this could also be specifically the case with Pakistan, in view of its growing number of Islamist militants and the terrorism espoused by radicalized groups. As the U.S. is considered the most powerful, and India as the largest democracy in the world, their common fight against Islamist terrorism could be a rational approach. As Pakistan has also pledged its full support in the "fight against terrorism," U.S. support for the regime in the cause does seem coherent to some extent.

But simply indulging the tyranny without understanding that this very despotism could itself be a significant reason for terrorism to thrive, cannot help deal with the underlying causes of terrorism nor sustain the "fight against terrorism" in the long run. Terrorism is a threat not only to the people of the U.S., India, and Pakistan, but to people everywhere. Moreover, a full-fledged ideological offensive and not just military intervention could be decisive. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems to be overlooking the fact that the regime, despite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confron

s, like blameless citizens of the U.S., Britain, India, Pakistan, or Nepal, and others. As a Nepali, I will never forget how Islamist terrorists in Iraq cold-bloodedly killed 12 innocent Nepalis who had gone there merely looking for work. A variety of factors could underlie the birth of any form of extremism or terrorism, but their insane acting out can be unleashed against any utterly uninvolved bystander.

Likewise, a tyrant would try to variously rationalize his/her rule, but what the world has experienced to date is that tyranny cannot paper over or extenuate political instability. Our basic yearning is to live in liberty, to exercise the right to elect the best candidate for office, and to experience our individual welfare as stemming from the mere fact of our citizenship -- all these are basic to democracy, transcending any national boundaries or any ruler's self-justification.

Let's examine the government of Pakistan, where a military general brutally discarded an elected government and assumed power with the same rhetorical flourish, "to safeguard the country from political instability." It's true to some extent that, traditionally, Pakistani politics have been unstable, even before General Pervez Musharraf took over the presidency. Some critics blame the instability of Pakistani politics as inviting the takeover.

Judged by Musharraf's rhetoric, how far has the regime been able to right the political wrongdoings of the past? This could be a question for debate. Besides the surfacing of civil unrest in a province like Balochistan after the suppression of democratic rights, there are the militant groups based in the Pakistani part of Kashmir that constantly threaten the region's political stability.

Critics do contend that the regime's oppressiveness could have fostered the emergence of extremism and terrorist groups, and that this could also be specifically the case with Pakistan, in view of its growing number of Islamist militants and the terrorism espoused by radicalized groups. As the U.S. is considered the most powerful, and India as the largest democracy in the world, their common fight against Islamist terrorism could be a rational approach. As Pakistan has also pledged its full support in the "fight against terrorism," U.S. support for the regime in the cause does seem coherent to some extent.

But simply indulging the tyranny without understanding that this very despotism could itself be a significant reason for terrorism to thrive, cannot help deal with the underlying causes of terrorism nor sustain the "fight against terrorism" in the long run. Terrorism is a threat not only to the people of the U.S., India, and Pakistan, but to people everywhere. Moreover, a full-fledged ideological offensive and not just military intervention could be decisive. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems to be overlooking the fact that the regime, despite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confro

al brutally discarded an elected government and assumed power with the same rhetorical flourish, "to safeguard the country from political instability." It's true to some extent that, traditionally, Pakistani politics have been unstable, even before General Pervez Musharraf took over the presidency. Some critics blame the instability of Pakistani politics as inviting the takeover.

Judged by Musharraf's rhetoric, how far has the regime been able to right the political wrongdoings of the past? This could be a question for debate. Besides the surfacing of civil unrest in a province like Balochistan after the suppression of democratic rights, there are the militant groups based in the Pakistani part of Kashmir that constantly threaten the region's political stability.

Critics do contend that the regime's oppressiveness could have fostered the emergence of extremism and terrorist groups, and that this could also be specifically the case with Pakistan, in view of its growing number of Islamist militants and the terrorism espoused by radicalized groups. As the U.S. is considered the most powerful, and India as the largest democracy in the world, their common fight against Islamist terrorism could be a rational approach. As Pakistan has also pledged its full support in the "fight against terrorism," U.S. support for the regime in the cause does seem coherent to some extent.

But simply indulging the tyranny without understanding that this very despotism could itself be a significant reason for terrorism to thrive, cannot help deal with the underlying causes of terrorism nor sustain the "fight against terrorism" in the long run. Terrorism is a threat not only to the people of the U.S., India, and Pakistan, but to people everywhere. Moreover, a full-fledged ideological offensive and not just military intervention could be decisive. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems to be overlooking the fact that the regime, despite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confro

in view of its growing number of Islamist militants and the terrorism espoused by radicalized groups. As the U.S. is considered the most powerful, and India as the largest democracy in the world, their common fight against Islamist terrorism could be a rational approach. As Pakistan has also pledged its full support in the "fight against terrorism," U.S. support for the regime in the cause does seem coherent to some extent.

But simply indulging the tyranny without understanding that this very despotism could itself be a significant reason for terrorism to thrive, cannot help deal with the underlying causes of terrorism nor sustain the "fight against terrorism" in the long run. Terrorism is a threat not only to the people of the U.S., India, and Pakistan, but to people everywhere. Moreover, a full-fledged ideological offensive and not just military intervention could be decisive. Meanwhile, the U.S. seems to be overlooking the fact that the regime, despite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confro

ite the claim that it does well by some of its citizens, could be breeding terrorists at the grassroots level. By ensuring that democracy prevails there, it could more effectively help tackle the toxic elements that feed regional as well as widespread terrorism.

Terrorism should be countered globally and nationally, as it is not only a threat to the U.S., but also its allies, including India and Pakistan. Let us by all means declare a global war against terrorism by trying to get into its underlying causes and combating it through countervailing ideological viewpoints rather than depending solely on armed intervention. For this, nations should come together, despite their strategic differences, for the common good -- globally. At the same time, it also seems crucial for the U.S. and other leading powers not to allow any despotic regime, like Pakistan's, to rationalize their authoritarianism just because they are "fighting terrorism."

While confronting terrorism and the toxic effects of radicalism, the U.S. and its allies should also proceed diplomatically to reestablish democracy in Pakistan, appealing to much wider public support, making it easier to penetrate the principal causes of terrorism. A democratic environment could afford a glimpse into the mindset of ordinary people, and a democratic Pakistan would be an ideologically much more secure and powerful nation with the wider support of its citizens, and could sort out and deal with the toxic elements of proto-terrorism associated with various forms of dissatisfaction and radicalism within some groups.

Meanwhile, there is discomfort over speculation on the parliamentary and presidential elections in Pakistan, to be held in 2007-2008. While Islamist forces have come into the forefront since 2002, critics argue that there has been scarcely any progress made on the democratic front. Some analysts characterize next year as crucial for democracy in Pakistan. Suspicion does linger, however, that, once again, the Pakistani military, rather than Islamic political parties, will decide the upcoming elections, and only a faint hope remains for the election as a free and fair exposure of the undemocratic structure still dominating the country.