Economic miasma

THE IMF’s forecast that the global economy will grow just 0.5 per cent in 2009 — the lowest growth since the Second World War — is a devastatingly bleak assessment. Economic data can sometimes seem aseptic, but the dire numbers emanating from all corners of the world are nothing short of traumatic. What once seemed like the comeuppance of Vegas-style capitalists overindulging in obscure financial instruments like derivatives has now become a systemic crisis that has seen jobs vanish, wealth deplete and production decline in eye-popping numbers. More worrying perhaps is that the world’s best financial and economic experts have no real idea when the world will touch the bottom of this crisis, or indeed of how bad the global economy may get.

Here in Pakistan, the months and years ahead must be eyed with a great deal of apprehension. Last year, a global liquidity crunch and a spike in international commodity prices were the main reasons for key economic indicators blinking red furiously. But the worst may be far from over; indeed, stubbornly high inflation and high interest rates are ricocheting through the real economy and causing cutbacks that will not be aggregated for months, though needless to say their effects on such headline figures as unemployment and GDP growth will be grim. Pakistan’s GDP is expected to grow between two to four per cent in 2008/2009, which would be at or near recessionary levels. And with global demand falling and the domestic energy situation likely to get worse before getting better, whatever competitive advantage Pakistani exports may have enjoyed following the plunge in the value of the rupees is likely to be cancelled.

While the Pakistan government may not be able to do much about the global economy, there are several things it can do to cushion the blow. Consider the situation with rice, wheat and sugar. Government intervention has distorted the market and appears to have benefited middlemen, profiteers and big landlords at the expense of small growers and consumers. Elsewhere, a report in this paper yesterday has suggested that meat prices are increasing across the country as a result of the government’s decision to allow the export of livestock. These are all policy and regulatory issues which if handled better and with greater political will can mitigate the worst effects of the global economy on consumers. In addition, there is much talk of increasing our tax-to-GDP ratio, rationalising development expenditure and cutting back non-development expenditure. Each of these measures is necessary if Pakistan is ever to move into the stratum of middle-income countries; however, the measures have been championed a number of times before, only to slip off the radar when the times are better.

Gestures aren’t enough

A DAY after President Barack Obama reached out to the Muslim world a second time, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, his Iranian counterpart, asked the new American leader to apologise for “crimes” against his country. On Tuesday, as a follow-up to his inauguration speech in which President Obama sought “a new way forward” with the Muslim world, the American president had told the Muslim world in an interview to an Arab channel that “Americans are not your enemy”. He had a point when he said America “was not born as a colonial power”, and he wondered why his country and the Muslim world could not have the relationship they had “20 or 30 years ago”.

While these sentiments are no doubt pious, the president should note that America’s behaviour, especially during the Bush presidency, has been little better than that of a colonial power. After all, it is the Muslim countries that have borne the brunt of American firepower, which has mostly killed Muslim civilians. More shockingly, America attacked Iraq even though the Hans Blix commission had found no ‘smoking gun’. In that process America was responsible for the death of at least 300,000 Muslim civilians. What has also antagonised Muslims the world over is America’s rigidly pro-Israel policy controlled in large measure by a strong Jewish lobby in the US. Since his inauguration Mr Obama has done little to suggest that the Democratic administration will do away with old attitudes and adopt a non-partisan approach. This latter is important if the goal of a Palestinian homeland is to be achieved. In the 2006 war the Bush administration maintained a criminal silence when Israel killed 1,000 Lebanese civilians and destroyed Lebanon’s infrastructure. In much the same way, as president-elect, Mr Obama chose to keep quiet during the 22-day Israeli blitz that killed 1,300 Palestinian civilians. The new president will have to be forthcoming in his condemnation of such acts by Israel if he is to demonstrate an even-handed policy.

Where South Asia is concerned, Mr Obama now plans a surge in American troop levels in Afghanistan, and going by the frequency of drone attacks, he seems to have embraced Bush’s Fata policy whole hog. We hope that his desire for a new chapter in relations with the Muslim world will be translated into action, and that he possesses the common sense to realise that it is unresolved issues like Palestine and Kashmir that breed terrorists.

Parallel courts in Swat

IT is important to keep morale high and not succumb to defeatism. It must also be noted that the army says it is stepping up efforts to root out militancy in the once idyllic valley of Swat. That said, the talk coming from officialdom must match the reality on the ground if it is to be taken seriously. Talking to a veteran Pakhtun leader who is valiantly defying the Taliban in Swat, President Asif Zardari said on Wednesday that “We will not allow [the militants] to set up their parallel judiciary system and threaten the local people.” This statement may have enjoyed currency had it been made several years ago. Not allow the Taliban to set up a parallel judiciary? They had already done so, without asking for anybody’s permission, long before the recent ‘summons’ was issued to area politicians and elders. It has been reported that more than 70 Taliban ‘courts’ are functioning across the Swat valley. The Taliban don’t just threaten but torture and murder local people with impunity on an almost daily basis. It is the welfare of ordinary residents that should head the government’s list of priorities.

Instead of insisting that the situation is under control, Islamabad would do well to admit that things are out of hand. Only then can the executive branch and the military devise a strategy that stands a realistic chance of success. Conceding that you have hit rock bottom is the essential first step in the journey towards a healthier state of affairs. Finding something undesirable is one thing, being in a position to disallow it quite another. A parallel may be drawn here with the government’s claims that violations of the country’s sovereignty will not be tolerated. The Americans continue to bomb us nonetheless. How, in any way, are we going to ‘not allow’ drone strikes from happening again? Jirgas, which also represent a parallel judiciary system, are held regularly in Sindh, a province where they are banned. Sindh is free of militancy, yet the government is powerless to stamp out this barbaric practice. We are waiting to see how it will disallow Taliban courts.

OTHER VOICES - Pushto Press

Larawbar, Kabul

Kabul’s differences with Nato

THE government officials in Kabul say that if Nato does not support the participation of the Afghan National Army in fighting against the Taliban, they will turn to the people of Afghanistan and ask for their verdict in this regard. According to government sources, the Afghan government has sent a new plan to the general secretary of Nato and this contains credible recommendations that should stop the Nato forces from acting on their own. The government … is of the opinion that Nato’s unilateral assaults against the Taliban have created problems because of the lack of understanding of the local culture.

The Afghan platoons will guide the Nato forces because the Afghan army understands and is sensitive to the local culture and traditions. The Afghan government is of the view that insensitivity towards local culture and traditions on the part of Nato forces has done more harm than good in the war on terror. The Afghan government which has of late come under attack from the international community due to a number of reasons has developed differences with Nato and the United States in this regard.

The officials say that they would turn to the people of Afghanistan if Nato does not respond to the new strategic plan by the Afghan government within a month. Although the ‘verdict of the people’ has not been explained, it seems that the Afghan government is aware that Nato regards it with mistrust. If this is the case, the Taliban insurgency will become stronger in the near future because of the differences between the Afghan government and Nato. — (Jan 29)

Selected and translated by Khadim Hussain



MANY of our ulema and theologians usually claim that Islam has given the highest position to women, but having said so they still treat women just as man’s property.

By doing so they go against all Quranic positions on women and apply all their medieval values and juristic formulations to degrade women and make Islam a laughing stock. A recent case in point is the treatment being meted out to women by the Taliban in Swat. There is concrete evidence for what I am saying.

I have long been fighting for women’s rights as given to them by the Quran, and have succeeded in convincing many Muslim women who thought that Islam was a source of oppression for them and hence their salvation lay only in secular laws. By quoting extensively from the Quran I convinced them that Islam gives them an equal status with men. But some ulema keep negating all this by issuing fatwas to the contrary.

Recently I came across two fatwas from the Darul Ulum Deoband, which is among the most respectable Islamic institutions and can even rival Al Azhar. One of their fatwas says that if a man takes a second wife and his first wife resents her husband’s decision and is not happy with the new wife, the second marriage stays valid. Thus, a man can take a second wife. Period.

Another fatwa is about divorce. It says if a man types an SMS to his wife with the intention of divorcing her but does not send the SMS for some reason even then divorce will take place simply because he typed the SMS with the intention of divorcing her. I really find this shocking beyond belief. Does it not amount to treating a woman as man’s property? I read one article by a respected scholar that when man unjustly divorces his wife Allah’s wrath descends on him and heavens above him begin to shake, Even then these ulema do not hesitate from issuing such fatwas. Which position is right? Why such glaring contradictions in the approach of our ulema? Can the two positions ever be reconciled? Our jurists and religious leaders need to answer these questions.

The Quran never treats polygamy as a licence for men to marry up to four wives, as many of the ulema will have you believe. There are strictest possible conditions and two verses on polygamy, 4:3 and 4:129, when read together, clearly imply that one should not take a second wife as and when one likes. It should be only in the rarest of rare cases and that too under strict conditions. Justice is a must. And, then, how can a marriage without the consent of the first spouse be valid if justice is to be done? Pakistan’s law requiring the wife’s permission for a second marriage is fully justified.

The traditional ulema only inquire about the number of wives one has before performing another nikah, and never ask as to why a man wants to take another wife. The Quran on the other hand requires a thorough inquiry as to why one may be taking another wife to avoid injustice being done to the existing wife. It should never be permitted if no need to take a second wife is established. According to a proper reading of both the verses of the Quran on polygamy, it is as good as banned.

For divorce, too, the Quran first of all requires an attempt at reconciliation between husband and wife. Along with the husband, the wife has also been given the right to appoint her own arbitrator and the two arbitrators together can decide after hearing both the parties whether divorce should take place or not. In most cases reconciliation can be effected. I think it is the most modern concept which all secular courts also resort to. Quranic formulations are quite compatible with the modern-day approach to marital disputes.

But many of our ulema give more importance to a medieval interpretation by jurists over such formulations. It is important to note that the Quran, except in two verses, does not even use the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. Instead, it uses words like zawjain (couple), indicating a complete equality between the two. The words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ imply that the husband has an authority over the wife and hence the Quran desists from using such terms.

What is the way out? I think it is very important that those who are leading women’s movements should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the Quranic formulations and also obtain knowledge of factors like culture, feudal values, patriarchal social structure, etc., which contributed to the early formulations of the Sharia positions. The Quran is the word of Allah and binding on all. In the Sharia, on the other hand, there are many differences among scholars, and that is why so many schools of law exist among Muslims.

I hope Muslim women will take the initiative and learn the Quran thoroughly well along with hadith literature, adopting an analytical approach towards the genuineness of the traditions and bringing about a change in Muslim women’s position. There seems to be no other way out.

The writer is an Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.



“WHICH is the best cooking oil?” I asked a group of housewives in a focus group discussion (FGD) that was brimming over with random cooking oil users in an exercise to ascertain general brand preferences in the category. Most of them hastened to recall one particular brand so I had to ask why they preferred this particular one. “It’s good for health,” was the reply. Why? I asked. To which the ladies said, “Because it’s light.” The response pushed many parts of the picture together — it was a brand with a top-of-the-mind (TOM) recall, an established brand equity supported by a clear reason-to-believe (RTB) proposition. I felt relieved. Little can be as soothing as this when it comes to the brand one works for.

But never in all my years of marketing and advertising have I ever thought of the day when TOM recall for a personally dear brand would spell gloom rather than pride; a brand that is indispensable for most of us — Pakistan. Here’s a look at the competitive picture of Pakistan in the world — TOM: Pakistan; brand equity: terrorism; RTB: incidents and elements of terror.

With the world after us for being a breeding ground for terrorism and itching to lynch us at any given opportunity, we really do not need FGD findings on the subject as data support. Pakistanis die everyday subjected to various forms of terrorism franchised by our foes and friends in the East and the West. We continue to be everyone’s favourite punching bag; torn out of shape yet forced into prolonged service for the bullies around us.

The Mumbai incident saw our top-of-the-mind recall reaching new, fearsome heights when the Indian media raised the banner of Pakistan-bashing from the first few moments of the siege. Frenzied details of the involvement of Pakistani players flooded the all-too receptive ears of the West. That was followed by ritual oppressive arm-twisting by our American friends and abusive browbeating by our Indian neighbours. Very soon we found ourselves on our toes, and yet again, we demonstrated our level of subservience by swooping down on clinics, schools etc run by certain organisations in the country without much proof in our possession, it is believed. Our immediate compensation was the violation of our airspace to the east and the violent landing of missiles to the west.

So the question is: what does one do about our top-of-the-mind recall that makes rogues out of us and a soft target for all and sundry? The least we can do is to be sensibly aggressive about our stance in our own media. We should assert, sans ambiguity, that Pakistan is a victim and not a perpetrator of terrorism and the presence of extremist elements in the country is the offspring of the West’s past fancy for Afghan jihad and the subsequent patronage of the dictator regime in Pakistan.

The media should also create an uproar over the terror treatment of Pakistani citizens in various corners of the world. In the absence of their government’s assistance and protection, Pakistanis have become scapegoats for countries eager to either show their performance in the war on terror — e.g. the case of seven innocent Pakistanis killed in March 2002 by Macedonian police presumably to please the US — or to appease their friends. The latter stance is demonstrated in reported cases of missing Pakistanis in Nepal. Some believe these involve alleged abductions by Indian agencies who would want to use their victims as the main cast in acts of terrorism in India.

How they are able to show the identity cards and other documents of alleged Pakistani terrorists that many ordinary citizens don’t always carry remains a wonder. If the Indian media can perpetually employ substandard, anti-Pakistan tirade in absolute unison, why should the Pakistani media not follow a determined course to defend the country’s image? We need hasty measures on the subject, before our top-of-the-mind brand recall eventually turns us into a generic name for terrorism.

The writer worked as a senior executive in advertising and marketing companies.

__________________
Regards,
P.R.