After watching Pakistani news channels yesterday, the 25th December of 2008, one can come to conclusion that all the major news channels including GEO, ARY, Express and AAJ, observed the day not as Quaid-e-Azam Day, but as Benazir Day.

Excluding few programs and talk-shows on Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which did not make a total of around 4 hours transmission on each channel, all telecasted commercially viable programs which covered mostly the death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto. Moreover, the headlines of hourly news were also dominated by the hot and spicy political news.

All these great news channels should be given a round of applause for achieving another day that was full of profit. The quest for money in these media giants have reached to such an extent that now they cannot afford to spend from their pockets for such programs or documentaries through which they could convey the message and ideology of Jinnah to our youth. In-fact media dont feel anymore that nation-building is one of its important responsibilities.

Full marks to media, for giving a secondary status to the birthday of nation's founding father. I am now thinking that who has more importance in Pakistan, Jinnah or Benazir ?

It seems as if India has succeeded to convince the world that Pakistan was responsible for Mumbai terror attacks. India has achieved this goal only with the help of enormous propaganda campaign by Indian and Western media.

But, is it really true that west has been convinced by India ? Or the west is just pretending that it believes on what India is propagating ? Why the western countries ignored the wide and clear loop-holes in the stories which India is telling about Mumbai attacks ? The answer is very simple. What else could west do other than accepting the Indian allegations on Pakistan ? After all, India is an extremely huge consumer market of western products. Denying India's point of view could result as a severe economic loss for Europe and USA. For western countries, India is their major buyer of electronic equipments, cosmetics, weapons (fighter-jets, nuclear reactors, missile defense system, submarines, etc.). So, by encouraging India against Pakistan, west will get more access to the Indian market. In return, India will be able to buy more weapons from west in order to build up its military power further (just as we saw that after few days of Mumbai attacks, India signed an agreement with Russia to buy 4 nuclear reactors).

Capturing a market of over 1 billion customers of India is not the only reason for supporting Indian point of view. In-fact Mumbai terror attacks came with two-fold advantages for west. Putting more pressure on Pakistan to isolate it from international community is the second advantage for west out of Mumbai terror attacks. Maligning the Pakistani government, Pakistan Army and ISI has become a common objective of India and West. And definitely after weakening the Pakistani government, army and ISI, Pakistan's nuclear assets are the real target behind the brotherly give and take relations of India and West.

Unfortunately, west and India are not realizing the consequences of destabilizing Pakistan. A destabilized Pakistan does not mean that everything would be fine then for India, or even for USA and Europe. When, at one side, the world is unable to control around 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq, who will be going to control 170 million people of a destabilized Pakistan ? Can anyone imagine when there would be no centralized power or government in Pakistan, who will stop the people from crossing the border and entering in Afghanistan or India ? The day such a thing will start happening, it will be the beginning of India's downfall, and it will be the beginning of departure of Western forces from Afghanistan.