General Pervez Musharraf believes any further support of the Taliban could "endanger our very existence." Are we sure that with supporting the US-$ and terror-led campaign we are not digging our own grave? "If you are facing two problems and you have to choose one, it is better to take the lesser evil." General Musharraf said in his address. Is it really a choice between two evils? Or it is a choice between digging our own grave and letting the US do it for us?

General Musharraf claims that opponents to his decision are only 15 per cent "extremist elements." Are they really just 15% with no weight of their opinion whatsoever.

The self-declared "moderates" do not want the Pakistanis to ask these questions. All they want, really, is to take as much advantage of their liberal posture as they can. Existence of Pakistan or threat to Islam is all but meaningless to them. We fail to understand that although the "New US War" is waged under the banner of terrorism but it is absolutely not against terrorism alone. No matter what the US may claim to the contrary, the main objective is to bring an end to all the hopes of Islamic revival and establishment of an Islamic government anywhere in the world.

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post (September 15) testifies to this fact in clear words: "This is not a war between nations, religions or classes. It is a broad conflict that pits moderates against extremists within Islam." Very few among the Muslims have been trying in vain to explain that there is no "liberal," "moderate" or "fundamental" classification of Islam. However, the western media kept on pumping these ideas and as a result, opinion makers like Jim Hoagland now advise the US that exploiting these "dichotomies is the great challenge, and the great opportunity, for the United States now."

The widely propagated myth is that Islamic "fundamentalists" are in minority. Algeria and Egypt are reaping the wrath of this misconception. Treading the same line, although General Musharraf said that only 15 percent of the Pakistanis opposed his support for the US anti- terrorism efforts, Reuters reported that nearly two out of three Pakistanis questioned in a Gallup Poll said they opposed Pakistan's joining any US-led coalition. It means, 66 per cent of the population is being considered as a "minority." It also means that at least this 66 per cent of the population is being perceived as militants while the rest is law-abiding citizens. The "moderates," who in real terms would not even make one per cent of the population, believe that Mr. Musharraf now has a golden opportunity to directly tackle the "fundamentalists." From now onwards we would indirectly serve this specific objective of the US.

"Deweaponising Pakistan" was all but a preparation in this direction. According to Farhan Bokhari of the Financial Times, the "country's opinion-forming classes believe such confrontation is both necessary and inevitable."

Reinforced with the American pressure to crush "Islamic opposition," the grand misconception that people with strong religious affiliations are in "minority" would lead us into an unprecedented crisis. The impending civil war in Pakistan would pale the Algerian situation by comparison. What all the Muslim countries would now be asked to follow is already practiced by the Egyptian and Algerian dictators. The "crusade" as Mr. Bush calls it, is waged in the name of "freedom and democracy," yet the Algerian government is asking for weaponry to "crack down on opposition" which won the election but is now demonised as "Islamist militants" (Financial Times Sept. 19). The same pattern would repeat throughout the Muslim world.

With the blessing of Washington, we may never have any financial problem in Pakistan as we may prove ourselves entitle to receiving an yearly package of $2-3 billion. But we would be having a president like Hosnie Mubarak for life. No one would dare to raise voice against any of the US policies. From writers to the political and religious leaders, to doctors, engineers and traders, whosoever may oppose the US and president-for-life policies would end up behind the bars for an indefinite detention. The US must also bear in mind that there has been a steady supply of recruits from Algeria since the generals who stand behind Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the president, cancelled elections in early 1992, which the FIS was poised to win. It shows, we would not have freedom and democracy but still the US would also not be able to reduce the risk of further outrages with its propping and supporting more and more repressive regimes.

As far the choice between the two evils and the Indian role in it is concerned, Musharraf presented himself to be choosing between the consequences of supporting and not supporting the "US New War." Apparently the evil of supporting the US policy has less negative consequences in the short term. However, over a period of time, a direct confrontation with the marginalized "minority" at home and a hostile Afghanistan - be it under the Taliban or another US appointed Hosnie Mubarak - abroad would make our life miserable. We cannot follow the India in every step that it takes. Wasn't it India that played a central role in expanding the British Empire, particularly in providing and paying for the soldiers needed to secure imperial objectives? India provided Britain with two million men (traitors) for British Indian Army (BIA) - the largest of all-volunteer mercenary army ever created in the history of the world.

Faced with the same dilemma as we do now, over half a million misguided and ignorant Muslims joined the BIA which destroyed Muslim power in South Asia and fought against other Muslims in Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan and even the Chinese in the Opium Wars. During the First World War, the BIA was used to bolster British influence in the Persian Gulf, especially southern Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Muscat and Aden in the first decade of the twentieth century. BIA played a critical role in the British campaigns in what was then called Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) where troops were used as cannon fodder. As many as 60,000 BIA troops died fighting for Britain.

Our justifications that assisting the US war on Afghanistan is not against the tenets of Islam reminds us of General Allenby who colonised Palestine in 1917 and acknowledged the significant contribution made by Muslim troops in helping Britain colonise Palestine. "I have taken up service for my king," wrote a Muslim soldier, adding that he and his brother-in-arms "must be true to our salt and he who is faithful will win paradise." The options before us are thus not to support or not to support the US. The choice is between subordinating and sacrificing the good of Islam and the Nation for the fear of a super power and calling a spade a spade with reason and logic and without any emotion.

We put the blame on India that it offered facilities and support to the US and subsequently we had to offer our services as well. Following every step that India takes might end up this nation falling into a bottomless pit. India wants to divide us and we are doing the same in a very effective manner. It says there are "moderate" and "fundamentalist" Muslims and we repeat the same mantra day and night. Just like the present architects of Babri Mosque's destruction sitting in the Indian seats of power, in the past the Hindus raised their orthodox men to the status of Mahatmas, and we ridiculed ours as "Mad Mullah" and "Fanatical Faqir."

Of course, India can take advantage of supporting the US in its war against Islam under the banner of terrorism. However, we are surely going to lose despite jumping on the American bandwagon. It's the same story of Hindus fostering martyrdom and heroism for the cause of Hinduism, and Muslims fostered minionism and helotism against the cause of Islam. It's the same story of Hindus inspiring their youth to defy, and to die fighting, against the British, and Muslims teaching and tempting theirs' to obey, fight and die for the British. With our cooperation in a war on a brotherly Islamic country, are not we repeating the history when the Hindus, in loyalty to the Jati, opposed the British designs on the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal, but the Muslims, in treachery to the Fraternity, enlisted as mercenaries in the two million strong BIA?

We need to correct our perceptions about Islam and the Muslims and the American designs to exploit artificial dichotomies in Islam. We need to repeat that there is no fundamentalist or otherwise Islam. Just imagine the magnitude to which this dichotomy can be exploited. Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani, writes in Los Angeles Times (Sept. 19) that the "real problem lies in fundamentalist Islam's concept of brotherhood, or Ummah, before nationhood." If it is the concept of fundamentalist Islam: do the other kinds of Islam not believe in Muslim brotherhood. Or the "moderates" and "liberals" have some other views about this verse of the Holy Qur'an that says: "The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to Allah that ye may haply obtain mercy" (49:10). This is the advantage that the western policy-makers and analysts are now taking of the confusion they created about Islam.

Following the new American war we are soon going to end up facing the use of terror by Muslim governments against their own citizens who oppose their pro-US or pro-Israel policies. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with the confusion about Islam to an extent that we have failed to recognise its diversity in real sense. Islamic movements arise out of the legitimate needs and grievances of the oppressed people who see the US responsible for their suffering. The objective of operation Infinite Justice is less to get Osama and more to make the Taliban a lesson for those who are thinking of establishing an Islamic government. The plan is to strip us from our identity to neutralise (or "moderate") our stance to the American misdeeds. Contrary to the US expectations, this loss of identity, however, would pull many more to embrace something that can provide the structure, worldview, and purpose through which to rebuild their lives. Islam is a faith that offers a clear sense of social ! justice, a feeling of empowerment, and an obligation by individuals to challenge those who cause the injustice. Thus, with the intensification of US campaign to dislodge the Taliban the problem would get from bad to worse.

If the US wants to eradicate the roots of anti-Americanism, it must practically follow its war banners and respect the longing for real democracy and freedom in Muslim countries as well. It must cease its support for autocratic regimes and encourage greater political pluralism. The political, military and religious leaders must understand the ulterior motives of the US latest crusade. Efforts shall be made to save religious parties from getting marginalized. The perceived "minority" shall be allowed to compete in a relatively open political process. The more radical elements observable in many Islamic movements are usually a reflection of the denial of their right to participate in political discourse. If the Islamic movements are kept under siege and sidelined from major decisions regarding the fate of their respective nations their rage at the west and its lackeys is likely to grow.