A new start

GIVEN the enormity of the problem, the road ahead is bound to be rocky and fraught with danger. But a new start seems to have been made in Pakistan’s tenuous and often stormy relationship with Afghanistan, and that is a huge positive in itself. The civilian set-up in Islamabad has managed to open up new lines of communication with Kabul, a move that bodes well for the fight against militancy which needs coordinated effort if it is to be successful. The acrimony that marred relations with our neighbour to the west started dissipating soon after Mr Musharraf vacated the presidency, a confirmation perhaps of reports that the bad blood between him and Mr Karzai may have been rooted more in a clash of personalities rather than national interests. That may be so, but the turning point came when the army started showing greater honesty of purpose under a new chief of staff who was quick to distance himself from politics. Unlike Gen Musharraf, Gen Kayani did not need to keep the bogey of terrorism alive to win favours from the West. Instead, acting on the directives of the government, the army became single-minded in its pursuit of the Taliban. This change of tack naturally went down well with Kabul. Mr Musharraf’s double-game of ‘tackling’ militancy and letting it flourish at the same time was obvious to all: to civil society in Pakistan as well as the leadership in Afghanistan. Things are different now.

Presidents Asif Zardari and Hamid Karzai took the changed relationship to a higher plane on Tuesday when they committed themselves and their countries to full cooperation in the fight against the mutual enemy, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Afghan and Pakistani foreign ministers also signed a declaration calling for a “new visionary chapter” in relations between the two countries. That said, rapprochement between Islamabad and Kabul may not go down well with some other regional actors who could make it a point to try and derail the peace train.

The danger is self-evident and Kabul would do well not to play into the hands of third parties.

The Karzai-Zardari talks came on the heels of a visit to Kabul by Gen Parvez Kayani. A top US commander in Afghanistan has since confirmed that Pakistani and Nato troops are sharing intelligence in Operation Lionheart, which aims to quell insurgency on both sides of the Durand Line through action in Bajaur and Kunar. Cross-border infiltration from Pakistan is also on the decline, he said, as are Taliban attacks on allied troops. Whether this is on account of a winter lull or because the Taliban’s capacity has taken a hit in recent months remains to be seen. In any case, Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to have realised that they cannot go it alone.


FOR a region that figures so prominently in Pakistan’s national imagination, the goings-on in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly barely registered on the national radar. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan was unseated by a forward bloc of his ruling Muslim Conference that linked up with opposition parties, including the People’s Party of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (the local PPP). The vote in the 49-seat assembly was denounced by Sardar Attique, who accused the federal government in Islamabad of orchestrating his ouster. However, the truth is more complex. The prime minister’s downfall began when he alienated a faction of the MC supported by Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan, former prime minister and president of AJK. The complaints of the MC rebels read like a typical political chargesheet: corruption, inefficiency, arbitrary decision-making, sidelining the cabinet, spending too much time away from the capital, etc. Were it not for the rebel group, Sardar Attique’s government, which had a comfortable majority in the AJK assembly, would have faced no threat.

Yet it is also apparent that the no-confidence vote succeeded because the PPAJK, which has seven seats, supported it. In the end, the 25 votes (32 including the PPAJK) mustered by Mr Attique’s opponents were numerically enough in the 49-seat assembly, but it was the PPAJK’s addition that had a galvanising effect on the opposition. Aware of the PPAJK’s role, the pro-Attique camp lashed out on Jan 4 against unnamed federal ministers for attempting to “topple the elected Muslim Conference government through horse trading, coercion and inducement”. The rivalry between the

MC and the PPAJK, the two largest parties in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, is old, but intensified in 2006 when the Musharraf regime supported the MC and helped it capture a majority in the July election.

The regime is also believed to have encouraged a split in the PPAJK, which came to pass when Barrister Sultan Mahmood set up the People’s Muslim League and won four seats in the election. Since the election the PPAJK regularly vowed to bring down the ‘corrupt regime’ of the MC, something it has now helped achieve — although another faction of the MC will still head the government. All of this may seem par for the course in Pakistani politics. But with a democratic dispensation in Islamabad, the extent of the federal government’s influence on AJK politics needs to be questioned as well as whether or not this is aiding liberal politics in Kashmir.


THE head of the Inter-Services Intelligence appears to have said all the right things in a rather candid interview with a German magazine. What Gen Pasha divulged should come as music to anyone interested in democracy in Pakistan and peace in South Asia. His remarks showed a clear understanding of the issues involved. That he took his orders from the president; that terrorism was the real enemy; and that there should be no war in the region are the right noises that were made. Given this nation’s history and scepticism with the army’s role in politics, on the face of it, what the ISI chief has said is refreshing. His stated willingness to go to India to help out with the Mumbai siege probe, if the government so decides, is also welcome. It is an indication that the army, for now, is only interested in its professional duties and not playing backdoor politics.

There will be some who may find faults with the ISI chief talking to the media or saying that he reported to the president as opposed to the prime minister, as the law of the land prescribes, but that’s nitpicking, really. Who else but the ISI should at all times have a good sense of reality? As the constitution stands today after Gen Musharraf’s tinkering with it the president is the pinnacle of state power for all practical purposes. That both the president and the prime minister represent the same governing party is a blessing that must be counted; there are no differences between the head of state and the head of government which in the past has been the cause of derailing the democratic process. Nothing that Gen Pasha said in his interview contradicts the government’s stated policy. Perhaps the exercise was meant to put a human face to the much maligned institution that he heads. Whether one interview where he sometimes used “accent-free” German to articulate his position is enough, or more will be needed, will become clearer in the days to come.


BESIDES the unprecedented scale of death and destruction, the ruthless Israeli aggression on Gaza has triggered a massive humanitarian crisis. The rate of civilians killed by the Israeli air, sea and land bombardments is 40 to 50 per cent of the total number of the casualties.

This high level of civilian fatalities proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Israeli war machine is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

When this high figure of dead civilians is added to the picture of starvation, lack of water, medicine, bombardment of hospitals, schools, houses and other civilian infrastructure, the picture that emerges is one of a large-scale humanitarian crisis that, despite its size, seems to go unnoticed by the outside world.

... Effective international intervention is desperately needed. Killing 40 people sheltering in a school, or tens of worshippers praying in a mosque is no attack on “military” objectives. It is heinous crime, genocide, pure and simple.... — (Jan 7)

…THE Sultanate’s 2009 budget has been presented after a necessary revision owing to the wild fluctuation of oil prices internationally. What is remarkable about the functioning of those charged with implementing the budget is that they are willing to go back to the drawing board in the event of a major upheaval.…

... [T]he would-be critic should look around Oman and begin counting the ... projects ... launched and ... downsized or abandoned over the past five months ... [he] would find none. ... [A] number of [Oman’s] neighbouring countries… have been hit hard.... Oman is at times described as “laid back” but this criticism is not justified because it is due to this very cautious approach ... that Oman can claim that it would be able to minimise the impact of the global financial meltdown on itself. It is a matter of record that most countries ... are not able to meet the budgetary targets.... It is a matter of record too that Oman has consistently been able to meet its budgetary commitments.... — (Jan 5)


HUSAIN’S example keeps the spirits and heads high and the battles running. Pakistani newspapers stand testament to the Imam’s presence in all spheres of life and to his quality of uniting people around a cause that may initially have had the support of a few dozen souls.

For the crowd has grown in size and spread all over ever since a handful of committed souls took on the regime in the battle at Karbala, providing us with the most powerful metaphor against oppression.

There are more mentions of Karbala in the Pakistani discourse than any other event in history and the metaphor is used to describe all kinds of struggles — from a campaign against unreasonable or oppressive local authorities to a fight with national and international despots. The president of the country takes solace in the Husaini ideal as he presses his credentials as the heir to a legacy that is founded on the ultimate human sacrifice, of life. The lawyers’ movement is described by someone as the Husaini Qafela or caravan, the distress a Pakistani is faced with in everyday life is sought to be relieved by calling to mind the hardships the most revered of all came across in Karbala around 1,400 years ago, the reports about the alleged efforts to stop the flow of water to Pakistan are greeted with calls for invoking a Karbala-like spirit to fight these designs.

If this is not universal enough, we have rallying cries that woo the faithful to throw their weight behind the biggest identified cause of today: that of defeating the world power that has dared to undertake a conquest of land in and around Karbala on charges as flimsy as flimsy can be.

This is a selection of only a few random allusions to the Imam and the grand precedent he set at Karbala. A more detailed study would show innumerable other instances from present-day life where we lean on Imam Husain whenever we are pitted against the odds. Yet, the tendency is to long nostalgically about a past of greater harmony, a past of greater tolerance in society… a past free of television debates of now that boast one scholar each from ‘either school of thought’. The lament about the present is not without reason and even people not so old routinely talk about times that were so much better.

The old-timers are particularly perturbed by the brand of harmony being flaunted at public forums these days. Invariably, the narrative takes us to the period before this type of tokenism took such deep root in society that finding an anti-thesis to it became difficult. The youngsters who have grown up in times of rampant sectarianism listen to these repeated reminders about how things once had been with wonder, as if it was another country.

It is not that joint ceremonies have gone totally out of vogue. There are still gatherings, specially in Muharram, which draw people from all ‘schools’, but surely, the cultural lines are becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. Obviously, the need is for someone to emerge and speak for everyone around, relying on a common charter that brings people closer.

When, some 78 years ago, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the famous translator of the Holy Quran into English, addressed a Yaum-i-Ashur majlis in London, his topic was the universal acceptance of Hazrat Imam Husain’s sacrifice. The observations he made on May 31, 1931 are still valid for those laying a claim to the common legacy.Mr Ali began by speaking of “sorrow as a bond of union” and concluded his speech by highlighting that Husain’s example not only brought Muslims together but also held special attraction for non-Muslims. He said: “The martyr bears witness, and the witness redeems what would otherwise be called failure. It so happened with Husain. For all were touched by the story of his martyrdom... And Muharram has still the power to unite the different schools of thought in Islam, and make a powerful appeal to non-Muslims also.”

The need is to go beyond the officially-convened meetings of ulema of “all shades” for ensuring peace in Muharram. This is a moment of reflection for all those who can and who must preach unity over and above the duty they may feel towards representing their school.


RUSSIA’S energy giant, Gazprom, is at the heart of a new cold war pitting the Kremlin against Washington. In the old Cold War, Soviet gas still flowed west at the height of rows between Reagan and Brezhnev — but post-communist Russia is proving less pliant than the “evil empire”.

Gazprom is at the heart of modern Russia. Its former chairman is the country’s president, and many key executives work part-time in the Kremlin. It is, above all, not only Russia’s biggest company but the world’s biggest energy supplier. Back in the sleepy Brezhnev days it was run like your local gas board with as much geopolitical significance. Now the West’s fear is that Gazprom is beginning to play a role like that of America’s oil companies or BP in the days when the West’s energy interests determined who ran countries such as Iran.

Gazprom’s dispute with Ukraine is multilayered. The West prefers to focus on the strategic significance of Russia’s desolate neighbour, while the Russians put money first. It makes sense for Washington to see the issue solely in great power terms because America doesn’t depend on Gazprom like the EU.

Last month, in the dying days of the Bush administration, Kiev signed a “strategic partnership” with Washington. Keeping Russia hemmed in is why Ukraine matters to America. Apart from its status as a geopolitical pawn, Ukraine is little more than a pipeline route for Gazprom’s exports.Washington’s indignation about a Russian energy oligarch sitting in the Kremlin does not extend to Ukraine’s energy oligarch, Yulia Tymoshenko, sitting as prime minister in Kiev. Qualifying as a market economy used to be about buying cheap and selling dear, but now politics trumps economics in western estimations.

Although its EU allies pay around $500 per unit, Washington wants Gazprom to subsidise the anti-Russian coalition government in Kiev by charging the poor Ukrainians only $175. Gazprom’s response is market economics red in tooth and claw.

The West wanted Russia to be a market economy, but Russia never asked how countries become market economies. Is a political-economic juggernaut like Gazprom just a relic of the Soviet days? Didn’t so-called chartered companies — monopolies in effect — like the East India or Hudson Bay companies play a huge role in the development of Britain’s model market economy? Without their protected profits and ability to call on the government in London to back up their trading practices with power, would Britain’s economy have taken off 300 years ago?

This spat at the gas tap has hit Western Europe, but the region is yesterday’s growth market so far as Gazprom is concerned. Apart from Britain, where the blinkered market-makers set free by Tony Blair failed to anticipate demand, let alone invest to meet it, there are no new importers from Russia in the EU.

New pipelines via the Baltic to Germany and through the Balkans to Italy are primarily to cut out the risk of destitute ex-communist states “doing a Ukraine” and siphoning off unpaid gas while demanding their rich EU partners stick up for them in Moscow.

Gazprom is looking for new clients, and US policy helps. American sanctions on Iran suit Russia well; Washington has pressed Turkey not to buy gas from Iran, so Gazprom offers the alternative. Chaos in Afghanistan has hit the prospect of a pipeline from Turkmenistan to India — which, with Japan and above all China, is tomorrow’s market for Gazprom. While Western Europe sweats over whether to pressure Ukraine to pay so Russian gas can flow, or to fight Washington’s new cold war by proxy, Moscow is building new routes east and south. Medvedev announced a new pipeline to China on entering the Kremlin.

Western triumphalists marked Russia down for inevitable decline. Certainly so long as Yeltsin let his crony capitalists plunder the country and deposit the loot in London and New York, pessimism was justified. Now, however, Russia’s capitalist crew are not fly-by-night asset-strippers but ruthless capitalist politician-businessmen of the sort Britain used to produce.

Gazprom’s executives are the 21st-century equivalent of Britain’s 18th-century pioneers of unscrupulous national power and wealth. Suddenly, yesterday’s proponents of the unbridled free market have discovered a distaste for the brute realities of supply and demand. Rather like poker players who have won all the chips on the table, western states recognise that the odds will turn sharply against them, so they insist on the economic equivalent of a whist drive. But will the hard young men running Gazprom take up this granny’s game?

The writer is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford University.

— The Guardian, London

__________________
Regards,
P.R.