By Nasim Zehra
The next morning, 12 hours after the top military command had briefed him on Op KP, the prime minister summoned key cabinet members to the PM House. Sharif chaired the meeting, which was attended by Sartaj Aziz, Gen. (r) Majeed Malik, Minister for Religious Affairs Raja Zafarul Haq, Minister for Information Mushahid Hussain and the defense secretary. The defence secretary registered his concerns, warning that escalation would be inevitable and the “Indians would not take it lying down.”
Gen Iftikhar complained that, without consulting anyone or taking any one in confidence, a “few paper tigers” had started the Kargil adventure. The foreign minister also reported that his ministry was getting panic calls from their missions abroad. Aziz complained that his ministry had no clue about this operation. Malik protested that he was Minister for Kashmir Affairs and he was shocked that he had not been taken into confidence. After hearing these outpourings, the prime minister contacted the army chief.
The army chief arrived at the PM House within an hour. There were only three people present at the time of this crucial moment of the Kargil crisis: the PM, the defence secretary, and the army chief. The PM asked Musharraf, “Did you cross the LoC?” Musharraf responded, “Yes, sir, I did.” “And on whose authority?” queried the prime minister. The army chief was quick to respond, “On my own responsibility and if you now order, sir, I will order the troops’ withdrawal.”
Nawaz Sharif turned to his defence secretary and said, “Did you see? He has accepted his responsibility!” Sharif, perhaps visualising himself as the ‘liberator’ of Kashmir, added, “Since the army is part of the government, from today onwards we will support the army.” After this rather brief meeting, the army was to get the complete support of the country’s leadership.
The public message at this stage from all stakeholders, in Islamabad, Rawalpindi and abroad, was identical: the international community must rein in India. The same day, the prime minister said Pakistan was committed to dialogue with India. On May 19, the COAS Gen Pervez Musharraf said Indian violations of the LoC would be taken seriously. On May 20, in Baku, at the Council of Ministers Conference, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Siddiq Kanju, asked the world community to help resolve Kashmir. On May 21, Pakistan’s newly-appointed ambassador to France, Shahryar Khan, assured his hosts that Pakistan was involved in “serious talks” with India.
Meanwhile, on the policy front, the prime minister, aided by his key advisers, made important decisions. After the May 17 meeting, at an informal huddle between the prime minister and his trusted men, Shahbaz Sharif, Gen Iftikhar and Chaudhry Nisar, the decision was taken to support the army. The three said that Nawaz Sharif should institutionalise the issue and bring it to the DCC. Several formal meetings were subsequently held. The informal consultations with his trusted men also continued. On May 23, a highlevel meeting was held between the prime minister, the COAS and the CGS to discuss Kargil.
In fact, once the cover blew from Op KP, the government sought regular military updates from the Kargil clique. The Kargil planners, too, were keen for a political buying to Op KP. The GHQ organised briefings for the president, senators and parliamentarians, which included special prayer sessions for the success of the operation. At one of the prayer sessions at the ISI headquarters, led by the CGS Gen. Aziz, the Minister for the Interior Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain was also present.
Stunned at Hotel Scheherazade
The prime minister sought an assessment of the situation from his senior diplomatic team before the Defense Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) meeting scheduled for the end of May. Accordingly, Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz convened a high-level meeting at the Foreign Office, formerly the grand hotel Scheherazade, to discuss the military and diplomatic developments. The participants of the May 23 meeting included senior Pakistan Muslim League leader Raja Zafarul Haq, Minister for Petroleum Chaudhry Nisar, Secretary Defence Lt. Gen. Iftikhar Ali Khan, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Siddiq Kanju, Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad Khan, Additional Secretary Prime Minister’s Secretariat Tariq Fatemi, Additional Secretary UN Riaz Mohammad Khan, COAS Gen Pervez Musharraf, CGS Lt. Gen Aziz, DirectorGeneral ISI Lt. Gen Ziauddin, Commander 10 Corps Lt. Gen Mahmud, deputy Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Aliuddin, and Vice Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Abdul Aziz Mirza.
The briefing was given by Gen Aziz. Aziz said we did this to interdict the Siachen road, thereby forcing India to solve the Kashmir issue. Most of the civilian participants realised the scale of Op KP for the first time. They asked probing questions regarding the objectives of the operation. The army chief was asked about the objectives of Op KP and Pakistan military’s ability to retain the territory occupied across the LoC. The confident army chief’s response was, “We can defend every inch of our own territory and we are firmly entrenched in the positions we are holding in Kargil.”
There were many critics of the operation. For example, many questions came from Majeed Malik, who had himself commanded this area as a corps commander and, earlier on, as division commander. He said that, if Pakistan had to interdict this road, it could have been done from lower heights instead of taking our troops to the Kargil peaks, where the weather would be their worst enemy. Malik pointed especially to the difficulty of maintaining supply lines for the troops. The worried elderly Raja Zafarul Haq nearly reprimanded the Kargil planners for not taking others in the government into confidence if their objective were to highlight the Kashmir issue. All future action must now follow proper consultation, he emphasised.
The consensus among senior navy and air force officers was that opening of new fronts by India could not be ruled out. They asked why they had not been consulted earlier since any defence plan in case of Indian retaliation had to be an integrated armed forces defense plan. Criticism kept piling up. The deputy air chief also wondered, “After all, what will we achieve from all this?” CGS Aziz’s response was that, by applying pressure on the main supply artery NH1, India would be forced to the negotiating table on Kashmir.
Senior Foreign Office officials in the meeting warned that this operation would be indefensible on global forums. Additional Secretary UN Riaz Mohammad Khan categorically stated, “If it comes to the UNSC [UN Security Council], our position will be undercut.” The Chinese along with other UNSC members would simply ask Pakistan to respect the LoC and vacate the areas occupied across the LoC in Indian Occupied Kashmir, he told those gathered. Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad expressed concern regarding the possible expansion of the conflict and told the participants, “I cannot guarantee that India will not attack on the international borders.” The foreign secretary cautioned the army against repeating the miscalculation made prior to the 1965 Operation Gibraltar, when the key military and civilian officials had guaranteed that India would not retaliate across the international border. The confident army chief dispelled these concerns and maintained, “We can defend every inch of our territory.” Discussions bordered on being polemical rather than strategic. One of the generals asserted, “Whatever we may say here, our animosity with India is eternal.”
Those diplomats with an institutional memory of Kashmir questioned if the Op KP-related discussion could actually help to highlight Kashmir at the UN. Seasoned diplomat Riaz Mohammad Khan pointedly said, “If it is brought to the UN, our position will be undermined.” There had already been discussion within the international community about undermining the sanctity of the LoC. In 1965 and in 1971, when the Kashmir case was taken to the UNSC for discussion, the decision on both occasions was on the ceasefire and not on the Kashmir issue. In the case of Kargil too, had the matter been taken to the UNSC, it would have called for withdrawal and led to the further strengthening of the LoC. The army insisted that the line was fuzzy and in some places the Mujahideen were also involved in the fighting. When asked by one of the foreign office officials how the Mujahideen could fight so valiantly against the wellequipped Indian army, the army spokesperson Rashid Qureshi said, “Because the Indians from the plains are not acclimatised and they die!”
At the conclusion of the meeting, the three ministers — Sartaj Aziz, Majeed Malik and Raja Zafarul Haq — held a postmortem of the DCC meeting in Sartaj Aziz’s office. There prevailed a feeling among these experienced men that the operation was likely to cause serious military and diplomatic problems. Yet, sudden withdrawal, leading to high casualties, was not an option. Indeed, with the army already claiming it a success, who would bell the cat of asking the Kargil clique to withdraw? Nevertheless, Zafarul Haq believed the deficiencies in Op KP had to be addressed. The planners would interpret recommendations regarding the operation as a signal to continue. The civilian government may be held responsible in case Op KP failed. What followed could also be an army takeover.
The three senior ministers then shared their concerns and conclusions with the prime minister, who agreed with them on the need to take the navy and air force on board in all future discussions on Op KP.
Whose war is it anyway?
Around this time, Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (MI) also got active. Its Director-General, Major Gen Ehsanul Haq, invited the military attachés of Western countries to GHQ for a briefing on Op KP. The DG MI and the DGMO conducted the briefing followed by a question-and-answer session. The defence attachés left the briefing with the understanding that these senior Pakistani military officials had acknowledged that Pakistani troops were involved and it was not a Mujahideen operation. The Western military attachés, including the American and the British, reported back to their embassies and subsequently to their headquarters that fighting was actually taking place on the Indian side of the LoC. Publicly, however, Islamabad still maintained that only the Mujahideen were involved. The media, based on Western embassy backgrounders, reported that the DG MI had acknowledged that there were Pakistani troops across in the Indian side of the LoC. Interestingly at this time, Islamabad’s own diplomats, stationed even at the headquarters, were groping in the dark for information about the reported flareup along the LoC.
After the MI briefing, the US military attaché in the embassy informed his ambassador William Milam that fighting was going on on the Indian side of LoC. The American information until then was that it was a group of Mujahideen. The military attaché had attended the briefing at the GHQ given by the DG MI and the DGMO. Following the briefing, the attaches snooped around for more information. The military attaché met his counterpart while the political attaché met with retired military officers. With confirmation that Pakistani troops had crossed the LoC, the “really excited US diplomats” told Washington about it. The US State Department responded by issuing its first statement, calling upon Pakistan to withdraw its troops.
This statement prompted the Additional Secretary of the Foreign Office Tariq Altaf to call in Ambassador Milam and ask why Washington had accused Pakistan of fighting across the LoC. The US ambassador informed him that it was the Pakistan Army itself who had given them this information. Upon hearing Milam’s response, it seemed that “Altaf had been kicked and his face fell”, according to US ambassador Milam himself.
Following the AltafMilam exchange, Foreign Minister Aziz called the DG MI and complained about the faux pas he had committed. The MI chief said he had been misquoted. Nevertheless, the stories of the defense attaché regarding Pakistani troop presence remained in circulation.
Towards the end of May, the prime minister decided to take his cabinet into confidence on Op Kp. He convened a cabinet meeting at which the DirectorGeneral ISI Lt. General Ziauddin Butt was to present a briefing. Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad and Defence Secretary Iftikhar were also present. Although in his private meetings with the prime minister the DG ISI was critical about Op KP, at this cabinet meeting he presented broad details of the operation. He talked of the freedom fighters and held that the operation was progressing satisfactorily. The intelligence chief, however, opted to not share his own assessment of the operation. Similarly, the foreign secretary, who had expressed some reservations about Op KP at earlier meetings, at this cabinet meeting opted to pick no holes. He gave no hint of the operation being a potential source of any diplomatic disadvantage for Pakistan, and, instead, indicated that some benefit could be derived from it.
A barrage of hard questions followed Butt’s briefing. The majority present, however, was pleased with the progress reported on Op KP. The Minister for Water and Power Gohar Ayub praised the army for doing a “great job” and advocated support for the operation. Minister of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs Sheikh Rashid Ahmad also praised the army, while the minister for religious affairs said, “The time is now ripe for jihad.” There were also critics of Op KP. These included Minister for Communications Raja Nadir Pervez and Minister for Health Makhdoom Javed Hashmi.
The most vocal critic, however, was the secretary of defence. The retired general spoke for about 20 minutes, warning that Op KP would either end in all-out war or a total military disaster for Pakistan. … Implying that the army command had launched Op KP without clearance from the government, the defence secretary emphasised that the army was not an independent body and had to take orders from the government. He was also critical of placing jihad as the central element in Pakistan’s defence structure. He wondered, “Why have we after 52 years realised the importance of jihad?” The defence secretary’s brother, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, also raised hard questions. The thrust of Nisar’s remarks was that based on his information, Pakistan was heading for a military disaster in Kargil-Drass. “Who had ordered the operation?” the minister rhetorically asked the military presenters. Nevertheless, Nisar’s caution was against an operation already underway.
Some altercation among powerful men ensued. Reacting to the defence secretary’s presentation, the visibly distraught Gohar Ayub asked why the defence secretary was opposing the plan of the army chief. Sheikh Rashid also queried why the defence secretary was revealing “secrets.” … The prime minister called the meeting to an end. He was now facing a divided house within and mounting pressures from the outside. The Kargil planners, meanwhile, saw no reason to pay heed to any concerns expressed in the cabinet meeting.
Imran Khan-Batting for Peace
By K. K. Shahid
In his victory speech the day after the July 25 elections, in which the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) won by a convincing margin, Imran Khan underlined a willingness to take up a progressive brand of diplomacy. This was punctuated by an exhibit of the proverbial open arms towards India, with Khan saying that “if India took one step forward, we would take two.”
Consequently, it was surprising that a detailed sketch of the diplomatic strategy was missing from his inaugural address as the Prime Minister of Pakistan on August 19, triggering fears of pressure being exerted by the military leadership, which has historically enjoyed hegemony over diplomacy and veto power over the India policy.
As Khan takes over the reins of government, Pakistan faces a wide range of diplomatic challenges in which India features heavily. These challenges, in turn, are linked to the state’s security and economic policies, over which the PTI-led government is making significant noises.
But while PTI’s economic vision is a continuation of its pre-election narrative, it is on the diplomatic front that Khan has made a U-turn.
“One must differentiate what is said during election campaigns from what happens when a political party or leader comes into power,” says Husain Haqqani, former ambassador to the US and author of India vs Pakistan: Why Can’t We Just Be Friends? “Every Pakistani civilian prime minister, irrespective of what he or she said during an election campaign, has understood the need to improve relations with India.”
Haqqani adds: “If Pakistan wants to prosper economically and grow, then the only way is to improve relations with one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India. For Pakistan to stabilise politically and rid itself of the menace of terrorism, again what it needs is better relations with India and changes in the policy of sponsoring jihad.”
The view in India with regards to Imran Khan’s win has been particularly pessimistic with the media underscoring him as the ‘Army’s man.’ Khan addressed this in his victory speech as well, calling out the Indian media for portraying him as a ‘Bollywood villain.’
“From Benazir Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif to Gen. Pervez Musharraf to Imran Khan, all political leaders or quasi-politicians in Pakistan have employed the rhetoric of peace and dialogue with India only to be followed by something sinister,” says Aarti Tikoo Singh, Senior Assistant Editor at The Times of India.
“While Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was talking peace with Benazir Bhutto, she and the Pakistani Army were sending hordes of terrorists to Kashmir. Similarly, while Atal Bihari Vajpayee signed the Lahore declaration with Nawaz Sharif, Gen. Musharraf was quietly launching a war against India in Kargil. “So Imran Khan’s post-election change of heart is nothing but good optics to impress the West. Only a naive leadership in the world would trust Imran Khan’s rhetoric.”
A major reason why scepticism prevails with regards to Imran Khan playing a role in improving relations with India is a combination of the army’s influence in helping him become the premier, and the military leadership’s security policy.
It is this security policy that Nawaz Sharif had vowed to challenge in what eventually became the Dawn Leaks scandal. And considering that the army leadership propped up groups affiliated with Hafiz Saeed – the man that the civilian leadership has had to account for around the world – it became evident that the military does not plan to switch any gears on that front.
This further handicaps Khan’s diplomatic ambitions, should they exist, as he portrayed in his victory speech. For it isn’t New Delhi alone that points fingers at Islamabad for providing safe havens to militants; similar allegations have been levelled by each country that borders Pakistan.
Afghanistan maintains that a majority of the attacks on its territory originate in Pakistan – an allegation that Islamabad reciprocates – while Iran and China have maintained that jihadism has spilled over from Pakistani soil into theirs.
Last year Tehran said it was ready to strike militant ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan when 10 Iranian border guards were killed by groups based in Pakistan. China says jihadists based in Pakistan enter Xinjiang to participate in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement.
Professor Shameem Akhtar, a former Dean at the International Relations Department at Karachi University, says Khan is saying the right things to address allegations of cross-border militancy. “He wants open borders with Afghanistan, to promote people-to-people contact. This undercuts misunderstandings and has a positive influence on the psychology of the states. For if there’s no tension between the masses, why should states be hostile towards each other?” he says.
“Also, since the US is ready to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan, it would need Pakistan. And a Pakistan under Imran Khan would be best placed to negotiate with the Taliban.”
Professor Shameem Akhtar says Imran Khan might even be able to finally fulfil Pakistan’s long-held ambition of mediating between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
“We have traditionally been the agents of Saudi Arabia, especially under Nawaz Sharif, who was indebted to the al-Saud family. Imran Khan is in a more neutral position and he might be able to fulfil Pakistan’s desire of being the reconciliatory force between Saudi Arabia and Iran,” he says.
While Islamabad’s diplomacy is intrinsically linked to its security, Pakistan’s economic woes have also created foreign policy challenges. The most prominent among these has put Islamabad in the middle of an economic warfare spearheaded by the US and China in the region, with Pakistan’s need for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) providing the latest battleground.
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has asked the IMF not to bail out Islamabad. “Make no mistake. We will be watching what the IMF does. There’s no rationale for IMF tax dollars, and associated with that, American dollars that are part of the IMF funding, to go to bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself,” he said.
With the IMF set to ask Islamabad to ensure transparency of transactions pertaining to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a precondition for the expected bailout, Pakistan finds itself in a tough spot. “Pakistan is in the middle of the fight between China and the US, and considering our economic vulnerabilities it will naturally face tough diplomatic choices,” says economic theorist and political analyst Farrukh Saleem. “Unfortunately, given the fact that we’re carrying a begging bowl, it makes it harder for us to take decisive action, and it is more likely that things would be imposed on us.”
While the battle between Beijing and Washington poses an external challenge for PM Imran Khan, domestically he faces the risk of alienating his heretofore backers in the military leadership, if he were to attempt to uphold civilian supremacy.
“Offering talks, shaking hands and meeting their Indian counterparts is the easy part. The challenge every Pakistani civilian prime minister faces arises when he or she tries to actually change policy,” says Husain Haqqani.
“Will Imran Khan dare to confront the military and intelligence services that helped him win? Or is the military leadership looking to normalise ties with India and will encourage Imran Khan to take steps they prevented his predecessors from taking? The answers to these questions will determine the path ahead.”
Of Lions and Dogs
By D. Raja
The RSS has sought to engage with the civil society and political formations without substantially altering its sectarian, divisive, communal and fascist outlook. Its diabolic adherence to the unconstitutional proposition of Hindu Rashtra was best manifested in the pronouncements of the RSS sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, at an event in Chicago organised to commemorate the 125th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda’s historic address. While calling for Hindu unity and consolidation, Bhagwat disparagingly said: “If a lion is alone, wild dogs can invade and destroy it.”How can any outreach be based on such a disdainful attitude and approach to a substantial section of society? It is ironic — and tragic — that in Chicago, where Vivekananda, in his mesmerising lecture delivered on 9/11, 1893, outlined the defining aspects of Hinduism in terms of tolerance, acceptance and interpretation of truth in a variety of ways, the RSS chief negated whatever the swami stood for.
If the RSS chief had cared to read the speeches of Vivekananda, he would have found that the swami had used the word lion in the context of the awakening of consciousness among all human beings. It was to remind people that they are not weak and fragile and they are children of pure nectar born to tune in with infinity, even while leading life in the finite spheres and dimensions. He explained the idealism guiding human destiny based on the ideals enshrined in the Upanishads, which are at the core of Vedanta.
In Chicago, Vivekananda rejected the description of human beings as sinners and invoked the Upanishads to call them children of immortal bliss. He boldly stated that “the Hindu refuses to call you sinners” and added, “Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal; ye are not matter, ye are not bodies; matter is your servant, not you the servant of matter.” Such assertions highlighting the positive aspects of all beings irrespective of their faith became the defining feature of Vivekananda’s expositions on spirituality. He also said that “religion is not the crying necessity of India”.
He turned the searchlight inwards when he wrote to a disciple that, “No religion on earth preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty strain as Hinduism and no religion on earth treads upon the necks of the poor and the low in such a fashion as Hindusim”. The RSS and its chief must learn from the life and work of Vivekananda, who described himself as a socialist and interrogated Hinduism with honesty.
Vivekananda proclaimed his self-esteem and pride as a Hindu because as he said, it was Hindus who built mosques for Muslims and churches for Christians. On December 6, 1992, the BJP and RSS mobilised people to demolish the Babri Masjid in the name of Hindusim. This was contrary to the vision of Vivekananda and ethos of the freedom struggle. No wonder that the then chairman of Rajya Sabha, K R Narayanan, said on the floor of the House that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was the worst tragedy India faced after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
The Dravidian movement since its inception has been fighting caste domination. An editorial in the 1920s in Justice, the organ of Justice Party, recalled Vivekananda’s words that the chief goal of spirituality is to put an end to all privileges even as differences remained. Justice also quoted Vivekananda as saying Lord Buddha was the chief destroyer of all caste privileges. That legacy deeply inspired the movement for equality and equal opportunity to all.
Vivekananda went to America to find remedies for the poverty and inequality in India. He, therefore, needs to be understood not only in terms of his exposition of Hinduism and spirituality but also in terms of his explanation of social and economic problems. He famously spoke of Islam as a mighty force for equality and brotherhood and held that as the reason why many “untouchables” embraced Islam. He said India needed the Vedantic brain and Islamic body.
Death: an inevitable reality?
By Ishtiaq Ahmed
A few days ago, a student wrote to me, recommending that I discuss death: something we all know is a reality which nobody can deny. Let me define death, as the termination of metabolism in the human body so that it ceases to function. The heart stops beating, the brain stops working and all normal processes of life come to standstill.
The question philosophers, founders of religions, kings and emperors, businessmen, sportsmen, workers — all pose to themselves from time to time is the following: is there a purpose of life and what happens when we die? As far as we know, only human beings reflect about the purpose of life and about death. Other living creatures are too concerned about their survival. The survival instinct is inherent in all forms of life, but for human beings who can think and reason and remember the past and so on, death has always been the ultimate challenge to their intelligence and power.
The biggest appeal of religion is that in one way or another, it offers hope of an existence beyond physical death. That is why a belief in God or some Supreme Spirit or Supreme intelligence is common to all cultures. Some societies are obsessed with such concerns and strive to their utmost to connect salvation in the hereafter with life on earth.
When I was young, I thought death is something for others, something which will happen to me far away in time. Now at 71, I do think about it more often, but I am not afraid death. Or so I believe. I would like to live to be over a 100 years old, like my paternal grandparents, but would prefer to die quickly instead of suffering a slow, painful death.
What I know for certain is that in the last 100 years or so, longevity has increased dramatically. People live longer, healthier lives, more babies survive and thus the world population has been increasing, which in the long run can be a big problem.
All this has been possible because of improvement in healthcare, better medicines and improving diet and lifestyles. Have miracles or religious mantras made any difference except in some psychological sense? That can be discussed and should be discussed because without proper information, no contribution to knowledge is possible.
However, how long will I live is not in my control — more or less, though some people want to decide to finish a painful and meaningless existence, and I think that is their choice. The prevailing ethical thrust is that life should be preserved at all costs and not destroyed. That limits individual choice on this matter.
Of course, one would like never to break the link with people one loves and cares. All the friends and other wonderful people one has come across make life enriching and rewarding. The fact however is that, one day that linkage is going to break and nothing can prevent that from happening. That is the saddest aspect of death. When one wants to live it is because of all the associations which one cherishes and treasures.
The most central question people seek an answer to is whether there is life after death or not. Frankly speaking, only religion can answer that question. Science, experience and observation do not verify that conclusively. It has to remain a matter of belief and faith.
Before writing this op-ed, I watched some videos about people claiming reincarnation happens. Panels of doctors, scientists and academics gave examples of it happening. How reliable are their studies, mostly done in the United States? One can always be wonder. What they seemed to say was that such things happen to very few people and it is not a general experience or claim.
The above discussion on death is based on historical evidence and contemporary experience. However, things may change in the future. I also watch videos of projections about advances in science and technology for the year 2050. I learnt that by that time, the length of life would extend to 120. Cancer will be eradicated and many other fatal diseases as well.
Not only that, but it will be possible to save memory, and thus death would become obsolete and meaningless. However, reproducing a body which will never decompose may take much longer. If that were to happen, death in the sense of memory being disrupted would not only be overcome but it will continue in a body which may also be renewable and thus forever.
By 2050, robots will be taking over many tasks now performed by human beings. The amusing thing and good news are that people will partner with robots instead of only human beings. Just as same-sex marriage is now getting acceptance in parts of the world, a relationship with a robot will initially be a novelty but then become simply another choice. That would transform sexuality and increase infinitely freedom of choice. There is of course, the danger that robots may become too intelligent and start defining and determining the lives of human beings.
Alas for people like me, that future is too far away, but children born now may come to live in a very different world. All this would be possible if, as we say in science, ‘All other things remaining the same’. By that I mean, if human beings do not destroy one another in wars of religion, sect and nationalism using nuclear weapons and other instruments of mass destruction. Ultimately, it all depends on how human beings use their intelligence.
For many of us reading this, it is sad that we will not be around in 2050. Death is a reality and for us, the story will be over sooner or later. However, we should not fear death because when we are dead we would be free from the worries of the living.
Subscribe to our mailing list and get breaking news and updates to your email inbox.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.