1. Well you did it hurry in joining academy. First you should have vistied the academies and then made up mind after consultations.
I am thinking to join officers but let my few mates first experience the taste . May be i ll join some academy in sometime about 3-4 days.....

n i ll inshallah paste productive material here. Dont worry
2. Yar aap mere kahin aas paas he rehte ho. Isnt it great if could c each other sometime. Find out some time so that v could have an interaction. Be it productive.....
rashid_hrt@yahoo.com
if you have yahoo id then log in. Lets have a chat on our plans...

Regards

waise b i think dat both of us r going to b the part of the same group!!!!!
then y not have a good relations and better chamstry to b developed btween us so that both of us cld b able to becm a source of inspiration...

Yeah teh same i do think as well....
You will be probably in group discussion with me as well and other tasks as well.

n probably on interview day we ll be sitting together tow ait for our turn, lolz

Tou hamari manzil aik he hai. If we could share things with each other it can definitely lead us to better results......or kuch nahin tu atleast v can support each other

wt u think???

Regards

__________________
“The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude.”

Nuclear facet of Pak-US Strategic Dialogue

Business Recorder Logo EDITORIAL (October 23, 2010) : The successful completion of a decade of CHASNUPP-1 operation on Thursday comes indeed as a happy tiding to the people of Pakistan, particularly at a time when good news is in short supply. Not only the operation of the 325MW power plant was trouble-free throughout this period, its availability factor also remained very high, confirming Pakistan's scientific and technical prowess to undertake more such complex ventures.

The achievement at Chashma is not the first of its kind; Pakistani nuclear engineers have added 10 years of extended life to the KANUPP, in Karachi, by upgrading the reactor, all by themselves. Thirty-five years of experience of running nuclear power plants, highly trained manpower and a well-established safety and security culture rightly then justify the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission target to produce the 8,800MW by the year 2030.

Speaking on the occasion, the Director-General of Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Khalid Ahmad Kidwai (rtd) praised the achievement of the plant operation, especially efforts 'to indigenise the plant's operation and maintenance'.

In the meanwhile, work on CHASNUPP-2 is almost complete and the reactor is likely to come on stream next month. Throughout the installation of these reactors, the donor country, China, has been fully co-operative, transferring nuclear technology - unlike Canada, which left the KANUPP starving for fuel after India conducted its first Pokhran nuclear test in 1974.

But even with additional contribution by the second unit at Chashma included, the total nuclear generation would be about 1,100MW, which is not more than 4 percent of 21,450MW installed electricity production capacity. Given that the addition of hydel power generation in a significant quantity is hostage to political obstinacy and thermal generation is both costly and environmentally polluting, nuclear energy comes out as the most viable option.

Thanks to the Pak-China all-encompassing friendship and co-operation, Beijing is willing to give Pakistan another nuclear power reactor, probably twice the size of the one now in operation. What China requires as a condition is fuller compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other international safeguards, and that is no problem as all such safeguards are effectively in place on our operational plants.

Pakistan as a coalition partner of the United States expects similar nuclear assistance from Washington also. Since the US has made it available to India - also a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), like Pakistan - there is no genuine reason to say no.

The propaganda that Pakistan's nuclear facilities can be taken over by extremists was put paid by President Obama himself some time back when on the eve of his departure for Prague, for the bilateral reduction of nuclear weapons agreement with Russia, he conceded the complete security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

If the low-toned, non-committal comment by Richard Holbrooke to the visiting Pakistani journalists is any indicator, President Obama's perception doesn't seem to have been imbibed by his administration. Of course, Ambassador Holbrooke admits "it's one of the many things we have talked about frankly, in private with our friends in Pakistan". But now the shoe is on the other foot; says he in the same breath: "We have asked (from Pakistan) for more information on the Chinese-Pakistan arrangement to see how they fit in (their agreement, under which China will give Pakistan a bigger nuclear reactor) with international regimes".

In the same media encounter, Richard Holbrooke also point-blank rejected the possibility of the United States playing any mediatory role in resolving the Kashmir dispute. With Foreign Minister Qureshi appeasing American public by criticising Iran's nuclear programme and the Pakistan's nuclear gun, General Kidwai, missing from the entourage, the media could not get more than this from Holbrooke.

In fact the media attempt at probing this issue was not entirely misplaced. Supposedly the meetings in Washington were part of the Strategic Dialogue and if these miss out civilian nuclear co-operation or trivialise the Kashmir dispute as Pakistan's strategic concern, they might be anything but not a strategic conclave.

No wonder some retired Pakistani diplomats have described the Pak-US relationship as 'transactional', confined to time-bound co-operation in the fight against terrorism. But, on the other hand, with India, the United States has established a strategic relationship that is durable and tends to negatively impact Pakistan's strategic interests. No question, America's concern over international terrorism is genuine and it is an international obligation for all member-states to join hands in the fight against this curse.

But there is no logic in Pakistan getting short-changed as a partner. Unless Washington creates balance in its offer and demand, the people of Pakistan remain suspicious of American policy in the region, even the government is fully co-operative and collaborative. Not too infrequently, democracies present situations where wide perceptional mismatches obtain between the government and public over the content and conduct of the foreign policy.

Executive Summary of the Economic Survey 2009-10
June 5, 2010 – 7:46 pm

ISLAMABAD, Jun 4 (APP): Following is text of Executive Summary of the Economic Survey 2009-10 released here on Friday.

“A measure of macroeconomic stability achieved over the past two years has kindled a moderate recovery in the economy, despite one of the most serious economic crises in the country’s recent history.The economy grew by a provisional 4.1% in the outgoing year, after a modest growth of 1.2% in 2008-09. However, the recovery is still fragile and the stabilization needs to be consolidated so that the gains over the past two difficult years are not lost.

First, the durability of the economic turnaround is far from assured given the significant challenges the economy faces.

Second, not all sectors of the economy or regions of the country appear to have participated so far in the modest upturn. Finally, in order to meet the employment aspirations of the large number of entrants to the labour force, a higher sustained growth rate will need to be achieved in the medium-term.
A combination of limited fiscal space and rising spending, debt, and inflationary pressures, significantly reduce the government’s ability to spend in order to stimulate the economy.

Under the circumstances, the prudent course for policy in the near term remains the pursuit of greater fiscal consolidation through domestic resource mobilization, in conjunction with reducing the size of government, and improving the efficiency of public sector spending.

The macroeconomic context remains difficult in the near term with continuing challenges. The global economy remains in turmoil, with uncertain prospects for demand for Pakistan’s exports. In addition, the energy and water shortage, and the internal security situation, could constrain growth in 2010-11.
However, the economy could benefit from large initial productivity gains as capacity utilization begins to increase from a low base. For the longer term, however, without a resolution of Pakistan’s perennial structural challenges, such as raising the level of domestic resource mobilization or promoting higher productivity in the economy, growth and investment will continue to be constrained, and the growth prospects volatile.

Growth

Despite severe challenges, the economy has shown resilience in the outgoing year. Growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2009/10, on an inflation-adjusted basis, has been recorded at a provisional 4.1%. This compares with GDP growth of 1.2% (revised) in the previous year.

For the outgoing year, the Agriculture sector grew an estimated 2%, against a target of 3.8%, and previous year’s growth rate of 4%. While the Crops sub-sector declined 0.4% over the previous year,Livestock posted a healthy rise of 4.1%. Industrial output expanded by 4.9%, with Large Scale Manufacturing (LSM) posting a 4.4% rate of growth. The Services sector grew 4.6%, as compared to 1.6% in 2008-09.
Economic Survey 2009-10

overall, the Commodity Producing Sectors are estimated to have expanded at a 3.6% pace, which represents a significant turnaround from the anaemic growth rates of the previous two fiscal years. The stronger pace of economic growth in 2009-10 has occurred on the back of several favourable developments, which have included:

Substantial transfers to the rural sector over the past two years via the government’s crop support price policies, which, combined with higher worker remittances, have sustained aggregate demand in the economy;
A larger-than-expected cotton output, which offset the moderately negative impact on the wheat crop caused by a delay in seasonal rains; An ongoing improvement in external demand for Pakistan’s exports, mainly textiles; The revision of previous year’s growth rate, a downward adjustment from a provisional 2% to a revised 1.2%, has also provided support to the headline growth rate for the current year, with the impact estimated at over one percentage point.

The more positive out turn for economic growth in the current fiscal year comes in spite of costs the economy has had to bear in the last two years on account of the internal security situation, combined with the severe energy shortfall. The latter is estimated to have reduced overall GDP growth by approximately 2.0% in 2009-10. Despite the security situation, overall military spending as a proportion of budget outlays has declined. Another focus has been the rehabilitation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and reconstruction of affected areas. It is pertinent to note that during 2009, Pakistan had one of the largest IDPs population in the world, with an estimated over 3 million people displaced from their homes in Swat, Bajaur, Malakand division, and South Waziristan agency (SWA).”

The timely availability of water for agriculture was also significantly lower this year, continuing a secular trend of decline over the past several years. Water availability has now become one of Pakistan’s top inter-generational policy and development concerns.

A shortfall in the inflow of external assistance, including from the Friends of Pakistan consortium, combined with delays in the release of refunds from the Coalition Support Fund, led to heavy borrowing by the government in domestic credit markets, leading to valid fears of crowding out of credit to the private sector.
Signs of a turnaround in segments of the economy notwithstanding, there are continuing areas of concern and reasons for caution. The recovery in economic growth is fragile, and will remain so till the weaknesses in the macroeconomic framework are forcefully addressed.

In order to effectively provide sustainable employment opportunities for the young entrants to the labour force, a higher growth will be needed. In fact, according to the latest Labour Force Survey (for 2008-09), the unemployment rate has increased to 5.5% (from 5.2%), largely due to the increase in urban unemployment to 7.1% (from 6.3%).

Furthermore, the observed trend of improvement in the headline growth rate is likely to have been restricted to the more formal, and hence larger-scale, part of the economy, given its relatively greater insulation from energy shortages.

The small and microenterprise sectors, which employ the bulk of the non-agricultural labour force, and are less well captured in the national accounts data, are much less State of the Economy insulated, and therefore significantly more vulnerable to shocks such as wide spread disruptions to energy supply.
It is important to address the structural constraints to long run sustainable growth. This will also provide greater visibility to markets and investors with regard to Pakistan’s economic prospects in the medium to longer term, and will be a key catalyst for higher private capital inflows and investment.
Given the long standing constraints under which macroeconomic policy is operating, with high inflation, low domestic resource mobilization, and rising debt servicing pressure, it is clear that Pakistan cannot afford an expansionary policy stance at this stage. A policy stimulus, without the requisite reserves or fiscal space, will only worsen macroeconomic imbalances.

On the other hand, greater fiscal consolidation can have longer lasting and more far-reaching effects on growth, by reducing the crowding out of the private sector through public sector borrowing leading to lower interest rates.

Investment

At current market prices, Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) has been estimated to have declined 0.6%, after recording a 5.5% increase in 2008-09. A decline in fixed investment by the private sector has accounted for the overall change, with an estimated contraction of 3.5% for the year. The bulk of the decline has occurred in Electricity & Gas, Large Scale Manufacturing, Transport & Communication, and
Finance & Insurance.

Clearly, this development is not salutary for the long run prospects of the economy. However, given the challenging circumstances in which the economy had to operate during 2009-10, it is not surprising that the private investment response has remained subdued. A substantial decline in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows for the period also contributed to the decline in fixed investment in 2009-10.

FDI accounts for a high share of gross fixed investment in Pakistan, with a share of close to 20 percent. The decline in FDI inflows was in line with the steep drop in global flows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which fell 32 percent in 2009 according to estimates of the International Institute of Finance (IIF).

For the period July to April 2009-10, FDI totalled US$ 1.8 billion as compared to US$ 3.2 billion in the same period of FY09. This represents a decline of 45 percent.

A large part of the decline in FDI for the period was recorded under Telecommunications (a net decline of US$ 607 million), and Financial Services (a fall of US$ 548 million). Combined, the decline in these two sectors, which related to a few “lumpy” transactions last year, amounted to 81 percent of the overall
reduction in FDI in 2009-10. Investment levels in some sectors remained healthy, including in Oil and
Gas exploration (FDI of US$ 605 million), Communications (US$ 222 million), Transport (US$ 104 million), Construction (US$ 86 million), and Paper and Pulp (US$ 81 million). Despite a steep decline, inflow of FDI into Financial Services was recorded at US$ 133 million for the period.

A worrying development was the large net disinvestment recorded under the IT Services sector for the year (amounting to US$ 95 million). Overall, out of the major industry categories, 12 recorded higher FDI for the period, while 24 industries witnessed a net reduction in FDI inflow.

Stabilization

Pakistan has achieved impressive initial gains in restoring macroeconomic stability in the aftermath of the balance of payments crisis of 2008. As a result of determined policy effort:
Economic Survey 2009-10

The fiscal deficit was reduced to 5.2 percent of GDP in 2008/09, from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2007/08, a fiscal adjustment of 2.4 percent of GDP. For 2009/10, the fiscal deficit is aimed to be kept in check at 5.1 percent of GDP, despite the absorption of unprecedented security-related spending.
The external current account deficit was contained to 5.6 percent of GDP (US$ 9.3 billion) in 2008/09, from a high of 8.3 percent of GDP in 2007/08 (US$ 13.9 billion). The current account deficit is expected to decline to under 3 percent of GDP in the current year;

Foreign exchange reserves have been rebuilt to nearly US$ 15 billion, from their low of under US$ 6 billion in October 2008, though much of the accumulation is due to releases from the IMF;
Inflation declined from 25% in October 2008, to a recent low of 8.9% in October 2009, though it has accelerated sharply of recent and is showing persistence;

International credit rating agencies upgraded Pakistan (from CCC+ to B- by S&P, while Moody’s revised its outlook to Stable [August 2009]); However, challenges in consolidating these early gains have emerged, with inflation in the economy reappearing, and fiscal pressures increasing.

Inflation

After a period of containment, inflationary pressure has intensified since October last year on account of a number of adverse developments, including the washing out of the base effect from the previous year and a sharp spike in global commodity prices that has persisted since 2008 and which is exerting strong upward pressure on domestic prices.

To some extent, this also reflects the excessive public sector borrowing, as well as adjustments in public utility prices, generated by losses in the public sector enterprises, especially electricity.
As a result, after easing to a recent low of 8.9% in October 2009, overall CPI inflation accelerated to 13.3% year-on-year in April, with food inflation at 14.5% and non-food inflation at 12.2%. Core inflation, as measured by the rate of increase in prices of non-food, non-energy components of the CPI basket, registered an increase of 10.6% year-on-year. On a period-average basis, overall inflation was recorded at 11.5% for July to April.

The State Bank of Pakistan expects the average CPI inflation for the current fiscal year to remain close to 12%.

The refuelling of inflationary pressure is evident in all price indices, with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) rising steeply, from, from 0.3% in August 2009 to 22% in April 2010. Similarly, the Sensitive Price Index (SPI) has recorded a 16.7% year-on-year increase for April, versus 6.7% in October 2009.
The resurgence of inflation is not restricted to Pakistan and is both a global as well as a regional phenomenon, though with varying orders of magnitude. Global food inflation, as proxied by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation’s FAO Food Prices Index, had risen to 20 percent year-on-year in January 2010, before declining to 13 percent in April, while India’s food price inflation rose over 19 percent year-on-year in December 2009, before settling at 17 percent in March.

By comparison, year on-year CPI food inflation in Pakistan was recorded at 14.5 percent in April. In terms of mitigation strategies, policy options have been limited for much of the current fiscal year in the backdrop of high – and rising – international commodity prices.

Imports under these conditions are not likely to dampen domestic prices, except to the extent of excess pressure caused by domestic State of the Economy shortfalls, if any.

Improved availability through better administrative measures against hoarding is likely to have some effect at the margin. This will have a greater effect, however, if employed in conjunction with close vigilance of use of bank credit for commodity purchases by the private sector.
The revival of the price magistracy system can also be an effective “localized” tool in the fight against price inflation in essential food items.

In the longer run, improvements in agricultural productivity hold the key to mitigation of food price inflation. So far, governments have followed an extensive farming policy, using the crop support price as an intervention tool. However, there are clear limitations to this strategy, including the diminishing responsiveness of output to price incentives, the impact on the general price level, and the implication for recourse to budgetary resources, especially in the case of wheat. A shift to more intensive agriculture is the need of the hour, with returns to farmers linked to better yields (volume-based) rather than to a price-based mechanism of support.

A further critical element in the containment of price pressure in the economy will be continuation of prudent macroeconomic policies, including monetary policy, which is essential to prevent a spill-over from food and energy components of the CPI to the broader household consumption basket – which to some extent is inevitable under the circumstances.

Demand management is still an essential component of the overall policy mix to prevent an entrenchment of inflationary expectations. Segments of society vulnerable to the effects of policy-induced price adjustments will require wider – but better targeted – coverage of social safety nets.
Poverty & Income Inequality

In the absence of an official recent poverty survey, it is unclear what the distributional effects of developments in the global as well as domestic economic landscape over the past two years have been.
The reduction in inflation from 25 percent to single digits represents the most significant benefit of the stabilization as far as the poor are concerned. Yet greater unemployment and the fairly steep adjustment in administered prices of food and energy, has, in all likelihood, adversely impacted vulnerable segments of the population, especially those on low and fixed incomes, and in the urban areas.

On the other hand, a substantial rise in inflows of worker remittances, partly in response to a government policy initiative, combined with unprecedented transfers in 2008 and 2009 to the rural economy under the government’s crop procurement program, are likely to have provided significant support to large segments of the population.

Cash transfers under the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP), amounting to an estimated Rs. 35 billion in 2009-10, are very likely to have been an additional source of support to those in need.
Hence, on the whole, a more careful examination of the distributional impact of recent developments is required, in order to design better-targeted policy responses.

Public finances

Pakistan’s public finances have come under increasing strain over the past two years due, in large part, to substantial outlays on electricity subsidies. Despite a sharp upward adjustment over the past two years, amounting to over 60% for some consumer categories, electricity tariffs have still not reached economic Survey 2009- 10 cost-recovery for the public sector utilities. In large part,this is due to two adverse developments in operation for much of the last over one year. First, lower rainfall reduced power generation from the dams. Second, the adverse shift in the energy generation mix towards fuel oil, has been accompanied by a near-doubling of international oil prices between January 2009 and April 2010.
The continued haemorrhaging of fiscal resources by the power sector is also partly a result of unchanged end-user tariffs between 2003 and 2007.

Lower than budgeted external assistance pledges also compounded difficulties in fiscal management during 2009-10. It led to sharp cutbacks in outlays for the public sector development program, which had been pitched at an unrealistically high level. The heavy recourse by the government to borrowing from the domestic banking system led to fears of crowding out of the private sector. However this was obviated by weak credit demand from the private sector, as well as improved liquidity in the banking system. Nonetheless, there was an unintended consequence: interest rates moved upward as a result.

After a sluggish start, however, and despite a difficult economic situation, tax collection has risen nearly 14% for July to April 2009-2010, as compared to the corresponding period of 2008-09. As a percent of GDP, however, tax collection remains low.

All told, the developments outlined above are likely to result in a moderate over-shoot of the budgeted target for the overall fiscal deficit. Against a budgeted 4.9% of GDP, the revised out turn in 2009-10 is projected to be 5.1%.

During the outgoing year, the basis was laid for two fundamental, potentially “game-changing”, developments in public finances. First, the Seventh National Finance Commission (NFC) Award was successfully concluded after a lapse of 19 years, with a fundamental shift in the basis for determining the vertical (from Centre to Provinces), as well as horizontal (between Provinces) distribution.
Effective from July 1, 2010, the 7th NFC Award will more than double the quantum of annual resource transfer to the Provinces. With the devolution of expenditures to the Provinces under the 18th Constitutional Amendment set to become effective from 2011-12, the interim period is likely to cause a degree of strain on federal finances.
Second, in a major policy effort to broaden the tax base, legislation was laid before the national as well as provincial assemblies to introduce an integrated, broad-based and modernized system of the GST (leading to a Value Added Tax (VAT)) as originally intended in 1990.
Key elements include concerns about the lacunae introduced in the legal framework over time. This requires needed amendments to the law at both national and provincial levels. In addition, modernization of the tax administration to ensure arms length dealing with taxpayers, with verifiable and timely refunds, and addressing concerns with rent seeking and governance in the FBR.
It is estimated that the move to VAT could yield up to 3 percent of GDP in additional revenue over a period of three to five years, although the estimates for the coming year by leading tax experts are appropriately modest at around 0.7 percent of GDP.
Looking ahead, easing the budget constraint assumes even greater urgency. Addressing two decades of under-investment in critical sectors of the economy – social sector, water reservoirs, physical infrastructure, including the increasing need for maintenance of existing capital stock – cannot be postponed for much longer and will require vast resources. Catering to a rapidly rising population, in State of the Economy conjunction with the need to put in place targeted social safety nets, will further add to the resource requirements.
Meeting the expected expenditure requirements in the medium term will require redressing the fundamental weaknesses in the structure of public finances. These perennial weak links have remained unaddressed in the past, and include a low, and declining, ratio of tax collection to GDP; weak incentives for improvements in provincial finances, which could possibly have been weakened further by the new NFC award; and, leakages in public sector expenditure. Economic reform Cognizant of the limitations of the growth strategy followed in the past, which has inevitably produced boom-bust cycles followed by a balance of payments crisis, the government has embarked on a fundamental change of the development paradigm.
The new development strategy seeks to foster sustainable and more equitable growth by means of structural improvements in the productive sectors of Pakistan’s economy, involving a broad range of policy actions across sectors. The current status of some of the important reforms is as under:Raising the Tax-to-GDP ratio is a key pillar of the government’s economic strategy. To this effect, a proposed law to implement a broad-based Value Added Tax (VAT) with minimal exemptions from July 1, 2010 has been presented to Parliament.
In addition, other measures such as improving tax administration and reinstating tax audits have been taken. The cumulative effect of these policy measures is expected to be an increase of Pakistan’s Tax-to-GDP ratio to 13 percent by 2013 (from 8.9 percent in 2008-09).
Under Social Protection, the government has launched the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP). An allocation of Rs 70 billion has been made in the Federal Budget 2009-10, with the aim of targeting 5.5 million poor and vulnerable Households in Pakistan with a cash transfer of Rs 1,000 per month to each. The size of BISP makes it the largest social protection scheme in the country’s history, and it works in conjunction with other safety nets such as Bait-ul-Maal, Zakat Fund, and provincial programmes such as the Sasti Roti scheme.
A Cabinet Committee on Restructuring (CCoR) has been formed to restructure key Public Sector Enterprises (PIA, PEPCO, Railways, TCP, USC, Pakistan Steel Mills, NHA) with a view to stop leakages caused by annual losses amounting to approximately 1.5% of GDP. The eventual aim is to turnaround these PSEs into profitable, self-sustaining ventures under Public-Private Partnership mode.
Under reform of the power sector, electricity tariffs have been raised between 40-55% in less than two years, in an effort to reduce the level of subsidies absorbed in the budget, while simultaneously moving to a full cost-recovery tariff for the power utilities. Under a new Act of parliament, adjustment in tariff for changes in fuel prices for power generation has been made automatic.
The government successfully concluded the Seventh National Finance Commission (NFC) Award – only the fourth in Pakistan’s entire history, and the first for the last 19 years. This Award greatly augments the quantum of resource transfer from the Centre to the Provinces.
In conjunction with the higher resource transfer to the provinces, the Centre will also devolve some major functions/expenditure heads to the sub-national governments in line with the provisions of the Economic Survey 2009-101973 Constitution.
External Account
Amid still-difficult global economic conditions, large costs to exports imposed by the war on terror, and a severe energy crisis faced by Pakistan’s economy, the external sector witnessed an overall improvement during 2009-10.
This recovery was mainly contributed by a sharp narrowing of the current account deficit which more than offset the declining financial account surplus during the period. In addition, macroeconomic stabilization measures taken by the government also significantly contributed to overall improvement in the external sector of Pakistan.
The external current account deficit is expected to contract to around 2.8 percent of GDP in the outgoing year. This large improvement is mainly on the back of a steep decline in imports for much of the year, improving exports as world demand is gradually restored, and a continued increase in worker remittances, which are expected to reach 4.8 percent of GDP for the full fiscal year. Worker remittances have increased from US$ 6.4 billion in July-April 2008-09 to US$ 7.3 billion in ten months of the current fiscal year (July-April).
A large part of the recent increase in remittances, which appears to be secular in nature, has emanated from a policy initiative of the government in early 2009 called the Pakistan Remittance Initiative (PRI). With the potential for formalising the remittances market estimated between US$ 16 billion (World Bank) and US$ 21 billion (PRI) annually, further success on this front can have far-reaching positive effects on stability of Pakistan’s balance of payments in the years ahead.
An added factor that is likely to extend support to the external account in the months ahead, and possibly for much of 2010-11, is the collapse in global commodity prices induced by the Eurozone-wide contagion from the ongoing Greek debt crisis. Since the start of the difficulties in Greece earlier in 2010, international oil prices have fallen by over 11 percent. However, developments on this front could potentially also impact remittances and exports, especially if the fall out is not contained, and spreads to other regions. On balance, it appears for now that, in immediate terms at least, the deflation in import payments will outweigh the other factors, as evident from Figure 2. If so, this could insulate the external account from pressure in the near term.
Public debt
Pakistan’s total public debt stood at an estimated Rs. 8,160 billion as of end-March 2010. At this level, public debt is equivalent to 56% of GDP, and 379% of total budgeted revenue for the year. Of the total, Rupee-denominated debt amounted to 31% of GDP, while foreign currency-denominated debt was the equivalent of 25% of GDP.
The bulk of the increase in public debt in the first nine months of 2009-10 has been recorded under higher-cost domestic debt, with the government forced to borrow from the onshore credit markets in the absence of meaningful flows of external assistance, barring disbursements under the IMF loan.
Domestic debt rose 22% in annualized terms during July to March. Another source of increase has been the depreciation of the Rupee against the US dollar between July 2009 and March 2010, amounting to 4.4%. The weaker Rupee added 17% to public debt in the first nine months of the year.
Public debt has risen rapidly since 2005-06. While the relative debt burden, measured either as a percent of GDP or of total revenue, does not depict a significant deterioration in the debt dynamic, the net annual addition to the debt stock has been fairly rapid over the Past 4 years.
State of the Economy
The primary sources of accumulation in the public debt stock since 2005-06 have been: Currency translation losses on foreign exchange-denominated debt. For 2007-08 and 2008-09, the cumulative depreciation of over 25% of the Rupee against the US Dollar is estimated to have increased the public debt stock by approximately Rs. 235 billion, or a total of 11% increase on this count alone over the past two years.
Non-recognition of large subsidy payments to the oil and power sector from prior years that were absorbed in the budget in 2007-08 and 2008-09;A sharp reduction in non-debt creating inflows, such as FDI, in the wake of the global financial crisis;The augmented access to IMF resources provided to Pakistan in the form of the Stand By Arrangement (SBA) signed in November 2008, amounting to a total of US$ 11.3 billion, of which approximately US$ 7.3 billion has been disbursed; Overall, a lower inflow of external assistance, which forced the government to higher-cost domestic borrowing; Lumpy repayment of maturing Defence Savings Certificates (DSCs) since 2007, that had not been budgeted for;
?? The inability of the government to take advantage of the historically low interest rate environment in the 2003 to 2007 period, by locking into longer tenure debt such as the five- and ten-year Pakistan Investment Bonds (PIBs). In terms of servicing of the public debt, interest payments were budgeted at 4.4% of GDP for 2009-10, while total debt servicing including repayment of foreign loans and credits, was budgeted at 5.8% of GDP.
Budget estimates of interest and principal repayment of foreign loans and credits during 2009-10 amounted to nearly 40% of total revenue, and approximately 30% of expenditure.
It is important to note, however, that the figure for public debt does not include publicly-guaranteed debt, such as borrowing by state-owned enterprises for commodity operations against an explicit government guarantee. In addition, in line with international convention and past practice, only that portion of the IMF loan that has been used for deficit financing by the government is recorded under public debt, while the remainder is shown under “monetary authorities” (i.e. the central bank).
In the context of a rising stock of public debt, it is important to make the nexus between, on the one hand, the weak tax effort that has characterised Pakistan’s policy landscape for the last several decades, and on the other, the reversal of the favourable debt dynamic that had been set in motion earlier. If Pakistan’s tax-to-GDP ratio had been a modest 13% since 2005, when economic conditions were extremely favourable for a breakthrough in broadening the tax base, instead of around 10%, the public debt would have been around 44% of GDP currently, or a full 12% of GDP lower.
The lower public debt stock would have translated into savings in interest payments since FY05, which would have represented a substantial expansion of the resource envelope the government is currently working with.

Outlook for the economy
The medium term prospects for the economy are promising, provided the current path of reform is not abandoned. Pakistan has achieved fairly impressive early success in its efforts to stabilize the economy from a parlous state of affairs in the aftermath of the macroeconomic crisis of 2008. Protecting the Economic Survey 2009-10 recovery is of paramount importance, and the government needs to keep a restrictive stance on public spending.
Greater realism about the prospects and accurate forecasts about resources and available funds for the development plans at each level of government is needed.
A number of interlinked actions are needed in the coming year:
Checking inflation-this involves limiting borrowing by the government and the public sector. Bringing people to the centre stage, by appropriately designed employment and training programs to protect those in strife-affected areas, and new entrants to the labour force. But there are major risks to the growth and stabilization prospects if there is Non-implementation of the reform of the GST, leading to a VAT, or other significant tax broadening measures; This might affect the phased nature of fiscal devolution envisaged under the Eighteenth Constitutional amendment (to be effective from 2011-12), in the context of the frontloaded transfers to the provinces under the Seventh NFC Award (effective from July 1, 2010);
Larger-than-budgeted security related expenditures;
Inadequate targeting of subsidies,
Failing to reform public sector enterprises, including the power sector, with no resolution of the energy circular debt issue;
Continued overhang of commodity financing debt stock, if unchecked, threatens to constrict access to bank credit by the private sector, while simultaneously increasing the interest rates in the economy;
A deterioration of the internal security situation. The tipping of the world economy into a severe recession in the wake of the Euro-zone debt crisis, could hurt Pakistan’s exports as well as remittances on the one hand, but could reduce international prices of key commodities such as oil, on the other. With relatively low levels of capacity utilization in the economy, a turnaround in investor confidence can unleash large productivity gains even with low levels of fixed investment. Nonetheless, overall, a combination of rising fiscal pressures, a developing debt overhang, and an uncertain path of inflation in the near term, significantly reduces policy space to stimulate the economy.
For the longer term, efforts to meaningfully address Pakistan’s perennial structural challenges, such as the abysmally low tax/GDP ratio and low overall productivity in the economy, are more than likely to unlock Pakistan’s substantial economic potential.

Pakistan and the Afghan peace talks

Business Recorder Logo EDITORIAL (October 23, 2010) : Extensive US-backed talks to end the war in Afghanistan have been underway for a while between the Karzai government and the high-level Taliban commanders. Briefing journalists on the situation, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley acknowledged that Pakistan "has a role to play in resolving the situation, because, as he put it, "there are historical interests here. There are relationships here. That is why we have asked Pakistan to play a constructive role in supporting an Afghan-led reconciliation process."

Pakistan, in fact, has an even deeper interest in ending the war, which is its own peace and security. It shares with Afghanistan not only a 2,700-km long border, but Pashtun people living on both sides of the border who are bound by ethnic as well as blood ties. What happens on the other side has an impact on this side. Hence no other country of the region has as high a stake in the success of the peace talks as has Pakistan.

"The whole world has acknowledged the fact that Pakistan is part of solution and any step towards dialogue sans Pakistan would not succeed," Prime Minister Gilani told the members of Diplomatic Correspondents Association yesterday.

The Kabul government has been negotiating with senior Taliban commanders representing what is called the Quetta Shura. According to The New York Times, Taliban commanders are secretly leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of Nato troops. Equally important, it says, Afghan leaders have also been holding discussions with leaders of the hard-line Haqqani network, which has been sheltering in North Waziristan.

Apparently, true to their reputation of being uncompromising, the Haqqanis are not as flexible in responding to US conditions as it would want them to be. It, therefore, is putting pressure on Pakistan to use force to soften them up in their North Waziristan refuge. Crowley said as much, telling journalists in Washington that for the Afghan government, "solving its challenge within Afghanistan involves effective action on the Pakistani side of the border."

The link between the two, he said, is "an essential element" of the US strategy for the region. In other words, the US is saying the problem will not be resolved until the Pakistan Army delivers punishment to the Haqqanis. Doing so, though, would have dangerous consequences for Pakistani society, also resurrecting with a new vigour the old 'our' or 'their' war debate.

Peace in Afghanistan is the key to bringing an end to the violence ravaging our tribal areas, and its bloody spillover almost everywhere in this country. That Pakistan has to play an important role in this process is also more than obvious, given its unique location and the close contacts that are said to exist between elements in the Pakistan Army and the Afghan Taliban factions, especially the Haqqanis. Unchallenged reports have been circulating for sometime that COAS Ashfaq Parvez Kayani had offered to deliver the Haqqani network in the Kabul peace talks.

The NYT report that they have already been in a face-to-face discussions with the Kabul government confirming those reports. It is not known yet what exactly the stumbling block might be. Understandably, from the US perspective the most important condition has to be the ouster of al Qaeda from its Afghan sanctuary. Regarding the rest of the issues, the Afghans should be left alone to settle them between themselves.

IP gas pipeline: OPIC seeks to divert Pakistan''s attention

RECORDER REPORT

Business Recorder Logo ISLAMABAD (October 26, 2010) : The United States (US) is pressing Pakistan to opt for importing liquefied natural gas (LNG), instead of importing natural gas through the proposed Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline, it is learnt. When contacted, US Embassy spokesman stated that there was "no statement at this time."

However, officials requesting anonymity said: "Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a US Government agency that sells investment services to assist US companies invest in a large number of emerging economies, has offered support for LNG projects to divert Pakistan from IP gas pipeline project," officials said. Sources in the Ministry of Water and Power said that there were discussions on US support for Pakistan's energy plan during the strategic dialogue recently held in Washington.

Sources close to Petroleum Minister Naveed Qamar expressed concern over the distinct possibility that if the US-led sanctions were imposed by the United Nations, Pakistan would be unable to proceed with the IP project. "We are moving ahead, hoping that US and Iran (would) mend fences and pave the way for implementation of this project," sources said. Pakistan and Iran have finalised the gas pipeline project, which is expected to start natural gas supply to Pakistan in 2014. The pipeline will connect Iran's South Fars gas field with Balochistan and Sindh provinces.

The government of Pakistan had extended the sovereign guarantee against the performance guarantee and liabilities of the Inter-State Gas System (ISGS), which is responsible for the IP gas line project on behalf of Pakistan. National Iranian Oil Company has issued a letter acknowledging that Pakistan has completed all Conditions Precedents (CPs).

Pakistan will construct about 700 km pipeline from the border, via Makran Coastal Highway, to connect with its existing gas transmission network at Nawabshah. A 42-inch diameter pipeline will be built at an estimated cost of $1.65 billion. Pakistan is facing severe electricity shortages and this project is targeted to generate about 5,000 megawatts electricity. Under the Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA), Pakistan will import about 750 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) with a plan to increase it to 1 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd).

The import volume would be about 20 percent of current gas production of Pakistan and the agreement is for a period of 25 years, renewable for another five years. There would be an annual saving of $735 million for Pakistan, if the equivalent quantity of LNG was imported for power generation, and the saving will increase depending on the global crude oil price.

Judicial Activism in Pakistan

By Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate.

Introduction :

The advent of parliamentary democracy in 1985 marks a water-shed in Pakistan’s political development. The renewal and strengthening of the political process has also brought to the fore the concomitant advantages associated with such a process. Pakistan’s print media is growing in the exuberance of total freedom, a luxury it has never enjoyed in Pakistan’s history. A participatory and democratic polity has integrated all foci of separatism in Pakistan. For the first time, there is no active secessionist movement in any of Pakistan’s provinces. Pakistani federalism is at its strongest; regional leaders hitherto hankering for separation are now very much a part of the political process, holding important offices in the center as well as the units.

The most significant blessing of the strengthening of the democratic process has been the assertive stance being exhibited by Pakistan’s superior judiciary. Judicial activism has never been a feature of Pakistan’s polity. Instead, our judicial history is replete with landmark decisions which legitimized executive arbitrariness and extra-constitutional adventures.

Our higher judiciary has condoned, at various times, the dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly and the proclamation of martial laws in 1958, 1969 and 1977. It would be short-sighted to put all the blame for the above on the judiciary alone. A free and assertive judiciary does not grow in vacuum. It needs a free and democratic dispensation to nurture it. Thus, the much talked about judicial activism is a result of Pakistan’s return to constitutional government.

What is judicial Activism?

Before we dwell on the causes and features of judicial activism, let us first understand what it is. A modern democratic state is built on the principle of trichotomy of powers, i.e. the judiciary, executive and legislature have to perform their won designed functions.

However, it has been observed that even in developed polities, the functioning of the legislature and executive leave a lot to be desired. Instead of being vigilant and acting as a check on executive persecution, the legislature becomes its hand-maiden. In addition, it is slack in enacting laws.

To fill the vacuum resulting from this legislative-executive mal-functioning, the judiciary has to assert itself by providing relief to the sufferers of tyranny and by interpreting laws, which are either deficient or vague.

Origins :

Historically, the architect of Judicial Activism was Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States. In two landmark cases, Marbury vs Madison and Mccullough vs Maryland, he laid the foundation of the doctrine of Judicial Review i.e. the judiciary should have the power to determine whether a law enacted by the legislative or an act done by the executive was constitutional or not. In the 1930’s, Roosevelt’s attempts to pack the supreme court with his favorites back fired.

Judicial Activism in Pakistan :

As already identified, Pakistan’s judicial history is replete with cases like overturning of Maulvi Tamizuddin’s appeal, Dosso’s case and the Nusrat Bhutto case, where the judiciary bowed to the executive’s pressure. However, things changed after 1985.

In the Saifullah case in 1988, in spite of the executive’s strong pressure, it was made mandatory that elections would be held on party basis. Later, the LHC and the SC both declared that the Junejo government was dissolved unconstitutionally. By a very active interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution, the Nawaz Sharif government was restored in 1993. Had the SC interpreted the article textually, the case should have been heard by a High Court at first instance.

However, it was in 1996 that two landmark cases changed Pakistan’s political landscape decisively. First, the Supreme Court, by repeated instructions to the effect, forced the government to promulgate the Legal Reforms Ordinance, 1996, which separated the judiciary from the executive at the lower level. This ordinance rectified an anomaly and aberration in our democracy, which had been tacitly supported by ever government in order to enjoy political clout.

Then in the path breaking “Judges case” of March 29, 1996, the SC declared that the Chief Justice of Pakistan would have primacy in the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. The “consultation” with him by the executive, regarding the appointment of judges, would have to be “purposive, meaningful and consensual.” This case has effectively put an end to the executive practice of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary by over-riding the advice of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah thus brought about a “one man judicial revolution” in the country. A novel committee, the Chief Justices Committee was formed, which routinely castigated executive excesses publicly.

After being rushed through Parliament, the 14th Constitutional Amendment was hailed as the remedy against the scourge of floor-crossing, which had de-stabilized the democratic political system in the post-Zia ul Haq era. To this extent, of course, it was a much needed step. However, it was widely criticized for going far beyond the anti-defection intent and eroding the very basis of democracy by stifling dissent and meaningful debate and, thus, violating the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution. Furthermore, by vesting party leaders with sweeping powers to unseat legislators and denying judicial redress to the latter, it was seen as having imposed party dictatorships and political regimentation.

All these issues went before the Supreme Court and its 6-1 verdict has only partially validated the controversial Amendment. The six judges in favor have struck down the portions curbing the legislators’ right to express dissent inside and outside Parliament. However, almost certainly with an eye to the bitter realities of our political culture, they were unswayed by the conscience-voting argument and maintained the compulsion for legislators to vote according to party dictates so as to “bring stability to the polity” by eliminating floor-crossing.

Even in allowing this right of verbal dissent, there was a 4-2 split among the honorable judges. Justices Saiduzzaman Siddiqi and Irshad Hassan held that even dissent outside the legislature was ultimately damaging to party discipline inside the House and, thus, for political stability generally. The believed that principled dissent required the legislator to resign the seat won under a party flag. Hence, they favored upholding the 14th Amendment in its entirety.

However, the six judges were unanimous in diluting the vast powers given to party bosses by upholding the right of an unseated legislator to seek remedy from the High Court and the Supreme Court.

In another landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has declared as invalid several provisions of the controversial Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), and asked the government to amend the law accordingly. Headed by Chief Justice Ajmal Mian, a five-member bench of the apex court heard the case, and upheld the view taken by the Lahore High Court in an earlier judgement. Among the specific sections of the Act pronounced as ‘violation of the Constitution’ and recommended for suitable amendment are provisions relating to arbitrary powers given in the law-enforcing agencies to search, open fire and record confessional statements. But, above all the apex court has ordained the jurisdiction of the High Courts over the special courts established under the ATA, abolishing the ‘appellate tribunals’ which were hitherto empowered to hear appeals against convictions by the special courts.

The striking down of the anti-terrorism law, which critics had from day one judged as a hasty and ill-conceived piece of legislation, is a welcome judicial intervention. The Supreme Court, being the watchdog of the constitution, has done what is expected of it. Needless to say, without a system of checks and balances, even the cherished ideal of the supremacy of parliament can end up in the tyranny of the majority. Moreover the casual approach of our elected representatives in the crucial task of law-making is matched only by the pre-occupation of the executive with arrogating to itself the sole authority to run the system. Notwithstanding pious intentions, the government’s prescription to combat terrorism was widely seen as an attempt to circumvent the due process of law, rather than streamlining the system to cope with the imperative of speedy justice.

The Supreme Court judgement has once and for all rejected the concept of summary trials, and dealt a blow to the executive-sponsored moves to create a parallel judicial system. Thankfully, the apex court has held in check the pronounced tendency for arbitrary functioning. It has reaffirmed the independence of judiciary, and thus safeguarded fundamental rights and civil liberties. Hopefully, this message has been forcefully brought home to the government. There should now be no “ifs and buts” in its response to the Supreme Court’s verdict to recast the Anti-Terrorist Act.

Activism in aid of the oppressed :

Perhaps the brightest side of Pakistan’s tryst with judicial activism is the increased relief being provided to common citizens in the shape of Public Interest Litigation and suo moto notices. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid provided relief to thousands of illegally incarcerated youth during 1993-1996. He also stood up against the building mafia. He provided sue moto relief in the famous Feroza Begum case when he ordered the release of a tortured MQM worker, whose mother was being forced to change her party loyalties.

The bright side:

Judicial activism is the last refuge against an arbitrary and irresponsible government A vigilant judiciary upholds the constitution, confining the legislative and executive to their constitutional spheres. It acts as a check against the privileged power abusers of the society i.e. the building, crime and drug mafias, corrupt parliamentarians and the influential ‘law molders.’A benevolent judiciary alleviates the agony of the underprivileged by providing suo moto relief.

The dark side:

However, if judicial activism is hijacked by individuals for personal aggrandizement and not for the common man, then it can bring to a standstill the whole government machinery. This was witnessed recently. Because of the whims and caprices of one man, the judiciary, instead of asserting itself for upholding the constitution, became the center stage of confrontation. Contempt cases and political dueling became the order of the day. Mercifully, the crises was resolved amicably.



However, it was instructive. Judicial activism was well received and admired when it was exercised in public interest. However, when activism was turn into a personal vendetta even after the five judges had been appointed to the Supreme Court, public opinion decidedly tilted against the Chief Justice.

Conclusion :

It is heartening that judicial activism has come to stay in Pakistan. However, we still need to remove constitutional lacunae that impinge on the freedom of the judiciary.

Conscientious judges can be dumped in the Federal Shariat Court. Benches of “troublesome” High Court judges can be changed by executive fiat. All these provision need to be removed from the constitution. Also, we need to expand the judiciary to dispose off the backlog of pending cases.

One must be grateful of the fact that strong democratic traditions are taking roots in our political system. A strong judiciary increases the faith of the common man in the system. It also leads to political stability and constitutional harmony.



In interpreting the constitution and the law, some of the judges pay close attention to the text and go by the generally understood meaning of the words used, intent of the original lawmaker and relevant precedents. This disposition on their part is known as judicial restraint.


Then there are others who interpret the law in the context of their own philosophical persuasions and their understanding of the circumstances and needs of the time. They feel free to ignore precedents. Their approach is called judicial activism. It has often been adopted by the US Supreme Court since the mid-1950s when the civil rights movement was gaining strength.


In a parliamentary system the three branches of government have their own designated domains. The executive being an agent of the legislature, the two do mingle. But the higher judiciary is largely separated from the other two. Its interaction with them is like that of an external auditor.


This separation implies that judges will not take on functions that belong to the legislature or the executive. They will, for instance, not make policy or go out in the field to look for thieves and robbers. Yet they have on occasion taken action, or ordered action to be taken, which urgent public interest requires and which the directly concerned officials have not been taking.


For instance, a few years ago the Indian Supreme Court ordered all public transport vehicles in Delhi, running on diesel and emitting pollutant fumes, to convert to gas or electric power within a specified period of time. It should have been the city government’s function to order this change. But since it had been neglecting it for years, the Supreme Court acted to protect the public interest.


Judicial restraint was the norm in the case of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It did bend the law at times to placate autocratic rulers or generals who had appeared gun in hand, overthrown the existing political order, and seized the government. In these situations the judges were acting under duress. Otherwise, rarely, if ever, did they take suo motu notice of a wrong being done somewhere in society and proceed to right it.


This attitude gave way to judicial activism with the advent of Iftikhar Chaudhry as chief justice of Pakistan. The court no longer limited itself to settling issues and correcting wrongs that were brought before it by the aggrieved parties. It began to act on its own initiative to identify cases in which an individual’s rights had been violated. It would summon those in charge of security and order to produce persons who had gone missing because they had been taken away by government agencies, and explain why they were being held. It ordered the suspension of public officials who had neglected its instructions or otherwise failed to cooperate with it. And it ordered police officers to heed the reports of crimes that the victims had come to report and register cases against the accused.


These actions of the court evoked mixed reactions. The parties whose grievances were being addressed and alleviated, and who had not found relief in the concerned organs of the administration, applauded the court’s intervention. But many students of government and politics felt that the court had been overstepping the bounds of propriety, and that it had been invading and usurping the domain of the executive branch.


Needless to say, the court’s actions greatly annoyed the executive and persuaded its head, Gen Pervez Musharraf, to suspend the chief justice in March 2007. The general’s move led to a crisis that caused the country’s system of governance a great deal of trouble. A few months later the Supreme Court voided Musharraf’ action and restored Justice Chaudhry to his office. But Gen Musharraf’s imposition of emergency in November 2007 again ensured his suspension. This time he remained out for a much longer period.


Recalling his earlier interventions to help out neglected complainants, all manner of persons have been appealing to Justice Chaudhry for help with problems they are having with government agencies or private organisations. They are going to him instead of taking their grievances to their representatives in parliament or higher echelons within the administration itself. They want his intervention even when the redress they seek does not lie with the judiciary.
We witnessed a curious turn of events a few weeks ago. Acting on a provision in the current year’s budget, which parliament had already approved, the government levied a tax on carbon products that would bring in about Rs120bn in additional revenues. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, requesting an annulment of this levy. The court suspended the collection of this tax, and said it would fix a date for hearing the petition after it had studied a report on a related subject prepared by a commission headed by a former Supreme Court judge, Rana Bhagwandas.


Several hosts on news and talk shows on private television channels applauded the court’s order, saying that it would bring relief to the oppressed taxpayers in the country. They asserted that the tax violated the citizen’s fundamental rights. They reasoned also that there must be a place in the system to which the people could turn when other government agencies did not provide relief. The Supreme Court, they said, was this place of last resort.
Other commentators, including former judges of the Supreme Court, criticised the court’s action on the ground that the levying of taxes was the parliament’s province, and that it was none of the Supreme Court’s business. It had invaded and attempted to usurp the parliament’s domain.


The government levied the same tax under a slightly different name. A petition seeking its annulment was again filed. The petition was turned down on technical grounds. There are indications that Justice Chaudhry may be stepping away from judicial activism. Addressing a district bar association recently, he observed that those who expected a conflict between the judiciary and the executive were wrong, for nothing of the kind was going to happen. The two branches of government were going to remain within their respective spheres of responsibility as appointed by the constitution.


The court may, after all, be moving towards a posture of judicial restraint.

Judicial activism, its limits and power:

“If a law written by the legislature conflicts with the Constitution, the law is "null and void." Only laws which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution'' are to be the supreme laws of the land.” Chief Justice of the United States of America John Marshall.

The concept of judicial activism which is another name for innovative interpretation was not of the recent past; it was born in 1804 when Chief Justice Marshall, the greatest Judge of the English-speaking world, decided in case of Marbury v. Madison that “"an act repugnant to the Constitution is void.” . He observed that the Constitution was the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and "it is for the court to say what the law is".

''The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States;'' Marshall began his discussion of this final phase of the case, ''but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.'' First, certain fundamental principles warranting judicial review were noticed. The people had come together to establish a government. They provided for its organization and assigned to its various departments their powers and established certain limits not to be transgressed by those departments. The limits were expressed in a written constitution, which would serve no purpose ''if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.'' Because the Constitution is ''a superior paramount law,'' it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and ''a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.''

He concluded that the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions. That a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that the courts as well as other departments are bound by that instrument. If there was conflict between a law made by the Congress and the provisions in the Constitution, it was the duty of the court to enforce the Constitution and ignore the law. The twin concepts of judicial review and judicial activism were thus born.
How onerous the exercise of judicial power was very aptly stated by Chief Justice Marshall:
"The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other is treason to the Constitution."
Observations made by the Supreme Court in Asif Hameed v. State of J&K:
"Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution-makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. ... Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of the State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social economic justice."
The Indian Supreme Court in a recent decision, speaking through K. Ramaswamy, J., in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee made very pertinent observations:
"In this ongoing complex of adjudicatory process, the role of the Judge is not merely to interpret the law but also to lay new norms of law and to mould the law to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and reality. Therefore, the judge is required to take judicial notice of the social and economic ramification, consistent with the theory of law."
It is the duty of the executive to implement faithfully the laws made by the legislature. When the executive fails to discharge its obligations, it becomes the primordial duty of the judiciary to compel the executive to perform its lawful functions. In the recent times, much of the criticism aired against the judiciary concerns this area. When crimes are committed by men in power and attempts are made to conceal them by rendering the official machinery ineffective, recourse to judiciary becomes inevitable. It becomes the duty of the judiciary to take cognizance of the executive's lapses and issue appropriate directions as to the method and manner in which the executive should act as ordained by the Constitution and the laws. If the judiciary fails to respond, it would be guilty of violating the Constitution, a treason indeed.
Neither the political executive who is responsible for laying down the policy nor the permanent executive comprising civil servants who are enjoined to carry out the policies of the executive can act in any manner contrary to what the Constitution prescribes. When all the three organs of the State - the legislature, executive and the judiciary - owe their existence to the Constitution, no single organ can claim immunity from accountability.
Chief Justice of the Untied States once said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” (Speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Elmira, New York (May 3, 1907)

Judicial activism may lead Pakistan towards a military intervention

A fresh tussle between the Pakistani President Asif Zardari and the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry over the appointment of the superior court judges has snowballed into a major political crisis which may lead to yet another military intervention by Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who is due to retire this year and wants his tenure to be extended.

Judicial activism seems to be in top gear in Pakistan as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry has literally revolted against the President by rejecting his decision to elevate two judges of the Lahore High Court, including the chief justice of the Punjab province despite the fact that they were elevated in accordance with the seniority principle. The chief justice, who was sacked by President Musharraf in 2007 over corruption charges and reinstated by President Zardari in 2009, insists that the president’s decision was unconstitutional because he was not consulted as per the law of the land. In a dramatic move in the after hours on February 13, the Supreme Court of Pakistan took suo moto notice of the presidential action and suspended the elevation of the two judges by President Asif Zardari.

However, the government circles say the SC chief justice is trying to impose “judicial dictatorship” by undermining the elected parliament. They add that the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had recommended elevation of a junior judge of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court while retaining a senior judge, Khawaja Sharif, as Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. They argue that the chief justice’s recommendation was in violation of the apex court’s own verdict in 2002 which had set out the principle of seniority for appointment and elevation of the superior court judges. Therefore, they add, the recommendation was rejected by President Zardari.

While the main opposition leader Nawaz Sharif has decided to openly side with the judiciary in the fresh battle between the executive and the judiciary, dubbing the president as the biggest threat to democracy, the government circles say the chief justice has openly declared war against a fragile democracy at the behest of the Pakistan army and the right wing pro-Taliban leaders of the Muslim League. According to Fauzia Wahab, the central secretary information of the ruling PPP, the right-wing military-judiciary-opposition parties’ axis of evil has taken its dagger out for a final attack on the democratically elected government of the left-wing Pakistan People’s Party.

However, the federal government intends to challenge the apex court’s action. The official circles in Islamabad claim that the chief justice was consulted but his recommendation was rejected by the president because he happens to be the final authority to appoint and elevate judges of superior courts. Yet those close to the chief justice say he is contemplating to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the president and the prime minister from February 18 for overlooking his recommendations for elevation of the two judges who are considered close to Zardari’s political rival and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. Therefore, it is said, the president wanted to get rid of the Lahore High Court’s chief justice Khawaja Sharif and therefore elevated him to the apex court. It may be recalled that the majority of judges currently sitting in the Supreme Court and Lahore High Court are of Punjabi origin, most of them are known for their loyalties to right-wing Pakistan Muslim League and Jamaat-e-Islami; some of them are also known to have a populist anti-West and pro-Taliban inclination.

According to legal experts, the constitutional position pertaining to the elevation of the superior court judges is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is only a consultee, and it is the president of Pakistan who has the ultimate authority to take a final decision. However, the chief justice, having suspended the presidential orders on February 13, has already constituted a three member apex court bench which is to decide whether or not the presidnetial action of February 13 was constitutional. But the chief justice’s action of suspending the presidential orders within three hours of their issuance has been described by the PPP circles as a judicial martial law which might eventually pave the way for yet another military intervention by the outgoing Army Chief General Kayani.



NOTE: The date above is comprehensive enough to cover JUDICIAL ACTIVISM topic with greater convenience. It includes Introduction, History, Current Outcomes, implications, future predictions and even conclusion as well. I hope it will be beneficial

__________________
“The greatest discovery of all time is that a person can change his future by merely changing his attitude.”

India-US relations: Changing scenario
Sameer Jafri

The US President Barack Hussein Obama recent Indian visit was significant in many aspects. Unlike the earlier visits of American Presidents to India, Obama’s visit has come on the heels of biggest economic recession facing the US since 1930s Great Depression and a losing war in Afghanistan. Just before his visit, Obama faced the wrath of American people in the mid-terms on account of mismanagement of economy and increasing unemployment. Thus creation of jobs in the US is his objective for the time being. The US economy is in dire straits. American businesses desperately need markets to sell their products. They are looking towards the developing world with great optimism. India, being the second fastest growing economy after China, is a major consumer of everything ranging from sports bikes to aircraft, nuclear power to defence equipment.

Besides, Obama also declared to lift the ban of high-tech and dual-use exports to the Indian agencies- Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL). Moreover, Obama administration has supported India’s full membership in Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australian Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. It is being said that these concessions will help India to develop its space technology and defence industry. So far so good. All this might seem to be the generosity of Obama administration towards India, but the reality is different. Apart from eyeing economic gains by the sale of high-tech and dual use products, the US also wants to make geo-political impact in Asia. It is well known fact that worried by the rapid rise of China, America wants to create a counterbalance in Asia by allying India with itself.

On the last day of his visit, Obama addressed the Indian Parliament. He said many things which India wanted to hear and many which India doesn’t necessarily share. The most important was Obama’s vocal support for a permanent seat to India in the reformed U.N. Security Council. Since nothing from USA comes without conditions attached, he asked India to play an active role in passing and enforcing sanctions resolutions during its 2-year stint as a non-permanent member. By this, he wanted India to change its consistent stance on Iran. This was also reflected in the joint statement issued by both the countries. On Iran, it said both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to diplomacy and discussed the need for India to meet its obligations towards the IAEA and the UNSC.

On Pakistan, in line with the Indian expectations, Obama said that terrorist safe-havens within Pak borders are unacceptable and also called on Pakistan to punish the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks. This was the most an American President could do notwithstanding the lack of strategic convergence between India and the US on Pakistan. While for America, Pakistan is a ‘part’ of the solution, for India, it is the ‘heart’ of the problem. America badly needs Pakistan in its war against Al Qaeda and Taliban in AfPak region. On the controversial issue of Kashmir, repeating his earlier stance, the US President said Washington couldn’t impose a solution and it is on both sides to resolve the issue bilaterally. His silence on Kashmir was ensured by the above aircraft and defence deals.

Stressing on the term “two largest democracies”, Obama sought to send indirect message to China that development can be achieved by following democratic norms and values. This was in contrast to his visit to China where he talked about “G-2” leading the world. It clearly shows that the US seeks to “contain” China in Asia by supporting India. In reality, India and China cannot be compared. China has more than $2.6 trillion of investment in American securities. Moreover, the annual bilateral trade between the US and China is over $500 billion with balance of trade in favour of China. So, China has leverage over USA and this haunts Uncle Sam. Also, in his speech, Obama questioned the silence of India on human rights violations in Myanmar and maintained that being upfront on such issues did not mean interference in the affairs of other country. Well Mr. Obama, the same applies to the US policy towards Saudi Arabia and other West Asian allies, where citizens even don’t know the meaning of Human Rights. Moreover, no sane person can condone the worst Human Rights violations by the US in Abu Gharib & Guantanamo Bay jails.

This visit was different in the sense that it was a give and take event unlike earlier visits of the US Presidents in which they only used to extract out of India, as much as they could. Obama apparently gave many concessions and assurances to India. Still, there are many such issues on which both countries do not share a common view. India, being a sovereign nation, has always followed an independent foreign policy. Our defined principles determine our relations with the neighbouring countries and the world.

@ All aspirants of css 2010

Dear brothers and sisters u all r welcom to discuss interview tips, techniques and all about it. I recorded interviews of 200 to 250 candidates from interview center. u study interview portion of this forum. It will b very helpful for u. Dont waste time in acadmies. They all r money making factories. U have won the 75% game, only 25% remaining.

BEST OF LUCK INTERVIEW ASPIRANTS

__________________
People will always throw stones in your path, it depends on you whether you make a wall of difficulties or a bridge of success.
Fail to Plan is Plan to Fail.