A: Serve them right! The missile attacks will surely deter them.

B: Serve whom right?

A: The fundamentalists, of course.

B: Several questions arise. Are you sure the American missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan are not designed to divert attention from Monica Lewinsky?

A: Missile attacks on another nation are not launched by presidential whim. There is no morality in international affairs. In many instances, might is right. The US bypassed the UN. But this is not the first time the US has resorted to illegal action. Americans picked up Noriega from Panama; they invaded Grenada, bombed Libya and all but embarked on Desert Storm Two in February this year.

B: Are you also justifying such actions?

A: Well, I am being a little cautious. I am trying not to be too critical of the Americans these days.

B: Why?

A: We have annoyed them enough with our nuclear tests. Moreover, the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott talks are at acritical stage.

B: These talks are being held in such secrecy that it is impossible to know what is going on. Meanwhile, did you see Tom Pickering's statement? He says America can hit terrorist bases but not India. And now Bill Clinton has asked Yeltsin to discontinue military ties with India. Would you still bootlick the Ameri-cans for some larger national purpose?

A: No question of bootlicking. Even Pri-me Minister Vajpayee was not too critical of the American missile attack. He talked of joint action against terrorism.

B: But Pakistan has been bleeding us in Kashmir. Surely it helps us if that country is hit.

A: That country was hit (indirectly) not because 30,000 Indians were killed in Kashmir. It was hit because there were 12 Americans among the 250 who died in Nairobi. Pickering very nearly said as much. That is unspeakable American arrogance which you seem to be so timid about.

B: The Americans and the Saudis are thick as thieves. The Saudis have bankrolled the Taleban. Pakistan's ISIprovides logistical leadership, and Saudis are still backing the Taleban. How did the Americans attack Taleban-controlled areas on the risk of annoying the Saudis?

A: What can the poor Saudis do? Moreover, the attacks were not on the Taleban but on camps ostensibly run by Osama bin Laden who is a Saudi dissident. In fact, by this logic, the attack could have been with tacit Saudi support.

B: And Pakistani support? After all Pakistan and Saudis are together.

A: Possibly. But Nawaz Sharif cannot afford to be seen to be collaborating in this action. A huge and a very angry constituency would turn upon him.

B: Is that why Nawaz Sharif raised the banner of Islam by adopting the Shariah? Also, why is the Jamaat-e-Islami criticising him for becoming that much more Islamic?

A: Of course he has resorted to the Shariah to save his own skin. The Jamaate-e-Islami is criticising him because he has stolen their platform.

B: Is this Islamisation a temporary measure?

A: It will be resisted by the urban middleclass which will be embarrassed by lumpenised Islam. You must remember, more Black Label Johny Walker is drunk in Pakistan than is manufactured in Scotland. If Taleban go about flogging this lot, Pakistan's drinking classes will expire from withdrawal symptoms.

B: Gen. Zia-ul Haq imposed Nizam-e-Mustaf but it was gradually and unobtrusively discarded.

A: The situation now is different. A more pronounced variety of Islam is required to placate the ISI and control the Taleban. And you must never forget the most important aspect of Pakistani statecraft. Every time Islam is injected into the Pakistani body politic it faces resistance because a large section of Pakistanis is still part of the South Asian ethos, the composite culture which tones down religious extremism. This section of Pakistanis would, in conditions of peace, be very much like us. This ``similarity'' unnerves the authors of the Pakistani state whose continuous effort is to create, through incremental doses of Islam, a Muslim personalitytotally different from the creatures of the composite culture. They want a Muslim identifying more with the Arab world than with an Islam tempered with the civilisation of South Asia.

B: Is it in America's interest to support a Pakistan inclined towards Islamic extremism?

A: If American oil interests can access Central Asian hydrocarbons through Afghanistan, the US will cite constructive engagement as the rationale for continued support for Islamabd. But if the northern alliance can upset the status quo tilted in favour of the Taleban, the game is wide open. That alliance will take care of the terrorist bases in Afghanistan. Americans must toss the coin: do wish to access Central Asia, Taleban et al, or contain terrorism?