The unity government in Kabul is gradually moving into action on various fronts. But the most formidable challenge it faces is how to push the national reconciliation process because both Dr Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah Abdullah are caught between two conflicting narratives on the issue of talks with the Taliban. Lets first recap who says what. Mullah Omar continues to peddle the idea of an Afghan-inclusive government based on Islamic principles. Dr Abdullah Abdullah insists that most Afghans are against Taliban ideology and “we are not prepared to compromise to please a small number of militants.” The civil society initiative Afghan People’s Dialogue on Peace talks of “armed opposition, illegal militias” and urges “disarmament of illegal groups.” President Ashraf Ghani has been requesting the Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami to enter political talks but says, “We didn’t invite Mullah Omar. He’s on the terrorist watch list.” It is a sort of a divided house. As far the external players, the United States, Pakistan, and China are concerned, they have been supportive of political reconciliation through talks with the Taliban. Advisor on national security and foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz, in a policy statement at the Council on Foreign Relations (which he reiterated at an Islamabad seminar) declared that “Reconciliation is an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led process, but if they want our help, whatever help we can give, we will. But it is an Afghan initiative how they want to approach this task and what exactly do they want us to.” Indian and Russian positions are more in synch with that of Abdullah Abdullah who rejects talks with the Taliban. In this context, a Russia Today commentary by Rajeev Sharma on post-2014 challenges to India and Russia is quite instructive and perhaps reflects what Indian and Russian policy establishments think. “Thus the Indian and Russian strategic interests coalesce over the post 2014 Afghanistan. Both of them want to see the back of Taliban in the...

Secularism is about equality, provision of basic human rights to all indiscriminately, freedom of belief, and guarantees of justice and welfare. Secularism in Australia is enshrined in the constitution which predominantly ensures state, religion separation. The societal change will not happen until appropriate policy choices are made. Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have many similar issues which are different than the western settings, therefore the panacea lies in home-made solutions tailored to the relevant contexts, not imported! These were the notions expressed by the two member delegation of speakers each from Australia and Bangladesh, during the dialogue at Quaid-i-Azam University and a Roundtable at Heinrich Bӧll Stiftung (HBS), Islamabad on Oct. 20, 2014 as a part of a dialogue series “Governance, Community and Religion (GOCORE)” with Pakistani universities students, intelligentsia, academia and civil society jointly organized by Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) in collaboration with Heinrich Bӧll Stiftung (HBS). The speakers for the dialogue series include Dr. Ann Aly, one of Australia’s foremost academics dealing with counter-terrorism and Mr. Shahab Enam Khan, one of Bangladesh’s eminent scholars and researchers in the fields of international relations, security studies, media, and public policy. These speakers from Australia and Bangladesh shared their respective experiences of dealing with multicultural diverse societies and ensuring religious freedoms as well as states’ impartiality towards different religions and ethnic groups. They underscored the need to embrace concepts such as tolerance for diversity and equal citizenry in a multi-faith society. Dr. Ann Aly, a research fellow in the Department of Social Science and International Relations at Curtin University, Western Australia said that we might think of secularism and democracy as a form of government, a way of life, a system of organization, a set of values or beliefs, western...

Pakistan and India are back to their mutual blame-game – accusing each other of “unprovoked firing” across the 190km working boundary separating Jammu in India from Sialkot and other Pakistan towns. But the entire issue is worth taking a dig at in the historical perspective to decipher the mindset that is working behind this brinkmanship. For this, Reuters news agency and India Today offer some critical reading. Both sides have their own versions. During his recent interaction with the Pakistani and foreign media in the Sialkot sector, the commander of the border security forces Major-General Tahir Javed Khan rejected the Indian accusations of cross-border infiltration from the Pakistani side and also wondered about the motives. “The type of infrastructure which you have (on the Indian side) in terms of barbed wire, the gate control with them, fully lit at night with poles at 100 meters distance each, four search lights on each pole and then the bunkers spaced 75 meters to 100 meters all along the working boundary. Now, when firing is taking place everyone is alert, the lights are lit. How would that be possible that during this period, intense firing and once everyone is alert, some infiltration can take place?” Voice of American quoted Khan as saying. For several weeks, Indian BSF officers spurned telephone contact He also complained that for several weeks, the Indian BSF top tier officers spurned telephonic contact, either not taking phone calls via the hotline or saying the relevant officers were not available. “Reasons best known to them (India) but they are becoming more aggressive with each passing day. The number of [cease-fire] violations, the number of rounds they have fired and the number of [Pakistani] posts and villages they have engaged that is increasing with each passing day. And the number of rounds which they have fired in five days, probably this much volume was not fired even during the actual wars between India and Pakistan,” said Khan. Across...