Farcical talks
November 29th, 2010
The element of farce that marks the effort to tackle the Taliban and win peace in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is sometimes hilarious but also immensely disturbing given the gravity of the situation. We have heard accounts recently of the totally inept and confused attempts by the American administration to find a means to tackle the situation. Problems of a different nature exist in Pakistan and now it seems that the Afghan government, which has for some time been promoting peace with the Taliban as a bid to win much-needed peace in a country that threatens to crumble into anarchy, may have been duped by an imposter who portrayed himself as top Taliban commander Mullah Mohammad Mansoor, a member of the Quetta Shura, who reportedly met the top Aghan leadership, including President Hamid Karzai, in Kabul.
To rub salt — and a spot of chilli — into the wounds, Mansoor was stated to have been flown into Kabul by Nato — which has publically claimed it has no role in advocating peace with the Taliban, but is said to be tacitly involved. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke has been the latest to harp this line, which not everyone believes. The embarrassing story of the arrival of the convincing imposter has appeared in the US press and in the International Herald Tribune. President Karzai has denied meeting Mansoor, a man once tipped to take over as deputy head of the Quetta shura, but then the Afghan president’s credibility is not the best among world leaders.
Is it possible Pakistani intelligence had some role in all this? Their links with the Quetta Shura have been commented on often and it is hard to believe they would not know Mansoor. But this is only conjecture. What the latest little side story from a war, that simply refuses to end, tells us is that quite a lot is amiss. Till it is remedied we will see only more chaos, more disarray and, as such, a growing sense of the panic we now see in Washington and also Kabul.
Violence against women
November 29th, 2010
According to a report in this paper on November 24, 80 per cent of Pakistani women are victims of domestic violence. This is corroborated by the clinical experience of senior psychiatrists and by data collected by the Aurat Foundation, which showed that reported incidents of domestic violence have increased from 281 to 608 from 2008 to 2009. Overall, violence against women rose 13 per cent in 2009. The news report highlighted that while wife beating is generally associated with alcoholics and the less educated, the fact is that it is pervasive in pretty much all segments of society, including the so-called ‘educated’ ones.
Unfortunately, this kind of violence is difficult to monitor and almost always goes unreported, taking place as it does in a sphere of private life not open to scrutiny. Often, the victim herself becomes an accomplice, making excuses and covering up for the behaviour of the abuser. Lawmakers have a crucial role to play as far as equalising gender relations is concerned. The Domestic Violence (Protection and Prevention) Bill, introduced in 2004, has yet to be adopted as a law. In 2009, the opposition of the Council of Islamic Ideology to the bill came as a blow to those who had hoped for a level playing field for men and women.
It is fallacious to draw validation of domestic abuse from the Holy Quran, and it is time that the mullah brigade changes their stance and advocates civilised spousal relations to those who follow their teachings. Having said that, the pervasiveness of domestic violence shows that it is not merely the blind faithful who deem it appropriate to use force against the ‘weaker sex’ — members of the enlightened class, who may not necessarily ascribe to Islamic values, behave exactly the same way as their more ‘faithful’ counterparts. It is time we stop turning a blind eye to domestic violence and recognise it as a crime.
Ruckus over the RGST
November 29th, 2010
It is impossible to raise new taxes without minor inflationary consequences. And it is evident that the government of Pakistan needs to raise new taxes. One would therefore conclude that debate over new taxes would revolve around which taxes would minimise inflationary impact. Instead, the opposition is convinced that while the government must raise taxes, it must do so with no impact on inflation. This is nothing short of highly irresponsible populism which may win them some votes but at the unacceptable price of jeopardising the financial future of the republic.
We understand that the government has been deficient in making the case for the value added tax, including renaming it the reformed general sales tax (RGST), which fails to explain what the tax is: it replaces an older tax and reduces the rate of taxation. It raises more revenue for the government by bringing more people into the tax net and helping to document an otherwise largely undocumented economy.
There will inevitably be a slight increase in the rate of inflation. But the experience of other countries suggests that the inflationary effects of the VAT are lower than those of most other taxes. And the administration seems to be actively designing the tax to minimise its impact on the poorest segments of society. If the opposition disagrees with the specifics, they should outline their arguments. But yelling populist slogans in parliament without presenting an alternative will not do the country any good.
It is also time to debunk the myth that the RGST will be more inflationary than the MQM’s proposed alternative: the agriculture tax. Food constitutes over half of what ordinary Pakistani household spends money on. To assume that it is possible to tax agriculture without an inflationary impact on food prices (which are exempt from the RGST) is folly at best and deliberate dishonesty at worst. The country deserves better from our elected leaders.