AS someone who has lived in the West — mostly Britain — since she was seven-year-old, I offer my perspective on the issue of the day. Those of us who are Muslim by birth or by faith (or both) naturally feel a connection to every Muslim person in this world. When fellow Muslims suffer, we also suffer.

During the last few years, Islam has been demonised because of terrorist activity, fanatical regimes and radicalised individuals. The US and Britain have both experienced terrorist tragedies on their soil and responded by war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

Now, I do not know whether a conspiracy is going on in the world, and a game is being played out there. But if there is an international plot then I do believe that the puppeteers are not just Americans and Zionists but also Muslims, Christians and atheists.

What has been going on in Israel for the last 60 years is disgusting. That America and Britain support Israel is also equally disgusting. There are many, many indigenous, white, British people who abhor what the Israelis are doing. Some of these people have carried their protest into Israel and stood in front of the Israeli soldiers with Palestinians behind them, and have received the shots intended to kill Palestinians. When Britain went to war with Iraq, many indigenous, white British people staged anti-war demonstrations, the largest Britain has ever seen.

Now we need to separate the British people from the British government. The Muslims in the East make the mistake of condemning the West wholesale. They should be careful because the ordinary, decent person in the street feels appalled by Israeli atrocities. They can do nothing to stop Israeli repression but they do express their disgust by demonstrating against Israel and giving to charities like Amnesty International, etc.

Muslims make up 2.8 per cent of Britain’s population and thus have little power to change things, given the fact that even indigenous British voter has been unable to make a dent in the policies of successive British governments. The question cannot be “What can we do about the awful things that are happening in the Holy Land?” because the answer is: Nothing. The question should be “How do we Muslims live and behave and order our lives in countries that are acting against Muslims?”

By asking that question, we have already declared that we want the benefits of living in a secular, western country that has a regulated infrastructure, a well-developed and well-enforced legal system, a welfare state that prevents starvation and privation, a free healthcare system (I am talking about Britain here) and tolerates immigration to a point where in some major cities or parts thereof 30 per cent to 70 per cent of the population consists of ethic minorities and cultures. Britain today is unrecognisable as an ethnically white country in London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. Add to this the visible and radical forms of Islam, and we are putting the indigenous British in the position of natural hostility to Muslims.

My 21-year-old step-son, who is white, English, was ambushed when he was 19 years old in Croydon high street by a well-known gang of 20 or more Muslim teenagers who call themselves South London Muslims. They offered him two choices: either become a Muslim or get beaten up by 20 gangsters calling themselves Muslim. They do this as a mission activity on a daily basis by all accounts. To get himself safely out of their clutches, what do you think he did? How do you think he felt about Islam then? He did not tell his mother or father about it, but he told me, his Muslim soon-to-be step-mother.

I was sickened. I am also sickened by the two radicalised members of my larger family who have said to me that they want to live under a regime which physically punishes men, women and children who do not pray five times a day. Both those family members are born, educated and live in Britain. I do not think they deserve to be in this country. They are hypocrites and traitors to humanity.

Muslims demonise the West as all-evil. Yet, we want to live here because of the stability, opportunities, education and other benefits available to us. I speak for myself when I say that I do not want to live in Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country. I do not want to live under Sharia law. I have been educated well enough to think in an analytical manner and come to my independent decision about what is and is not the truth. I seek liberation, not oppression and therefore prefer the West to the East. I do not want the U.K to become Muslim or Islamic or adopt Sharia. If it did, I would leave and go to France.

And, do we think Muslims do not oppress and are all good? If you do then wait till Taliban take over Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan and go and live under their regime! Or go to Saudi Arabia now. Do not be a hypocrite and enjoy the benefits of the West while deriding it and trying to change it into the East. Also, the attacks by Sunnis on Shias are not something that can be blamed on the West. This has been going on for generations in the East. Let's not pretend that this is black and white with the Muslims being angels and westerners being devils. That is simplistic, childish and downright incorrect.

As for the West declaring it to be secular, there are degrees of secularity. France is strictly secular to the point that if you wear a large Christian cross around your neck, you will be prosecuted. Britain is secular and yet has been extremely tolerant of visible religious symbols and practices. I understand the same is true of America.

If you want to live in the West then embrace the western world as your world and consider yourself a western person, taking the West’s best qualities and leaving the worst as is your right. You must adapt or you will be differentiating and segregating yourself from everyone else and creating a self-imposed apartheid for yourself and your community. This will make you weak and vulnerable. Try and meet people of all faiths and no faith without the secret agenda of converting them to your point of view.

Open your mind and see all God's creatures as your brothers and sisters as they are. Integrate and contribute to the welfare of your country and fellow citizens. Be one with the people of your adopted countries in Europe and on the American continent. None of this necessitates a loss of your Muslim identity, unless your Muslim identity is one of isolation and elitism — in which case, you need to think, question, explore and change your ideas.

The writer is based in London.

THE foreign secretaries-level talks held in Delhi on February 25 had started with a lot of bang but ended, not unexpectedly, with a whimper. There was hardly anything spectacular about them, except for the nostalgic comfort for some that the venue of these uneventful talks was the once-ornate Hyderabad House, symbol of the Muslim princely splendour of the Raj.

In a purely cynical sense, it was a befitting finale because neither of the interlocutors went into the talks with any grandiose ambitions. It was, at best, a conclave of reluctance, at least for the side hosting them.

So there was little wonder when, at the end of a get-together that had received world-wide television coverage — more in the western world than perhaps anywhere else — the two sides just laconically sufficed to quip that they had taken the ‘first step’ toward mending their fences.

The talks that have almost become blasé about the cyclical nature of their bilateral relations, had received a lot of media billing in the western world, particularly in the US and Britain, whose media had covered the Mumbai mayhem of November 2008 to saturation point. Political pundits in these countries had for long been hoping that the dialogue rudely disrupted by the gory drama of Mumbai would be restored sooner than later.

That also focused attention on speculation that these talks in Delhi had been induced and incubated, in vitro, by a country that has become a neighbour to both India and Pakistan — as indeed to any other country in the world — by virtue of its fortuitous status of the lone superpower of the day. The US has long been the elephant in the room and, thus, casting a long shadow over India-Pakistan relations.

Washington’s interest in reviving the dialogue is understandable. Obama’s ongoing military ‘surge’ in Afghanistan — in the province of Helmand so close to the Pakistani border — isn’t just a military tactic only. It’s a ploy to create a political ambience that would facilitate an honourble withdrawal from Bush’s horribly miscued Afghan adventure. For that face-saving he needs Pakistan much more involved in Afghanistan than it is presently.

But Obama knows that Pakistan can’t be persuaded to focus single-mindedly on Afghanistan as long as the old wound of Kashmir on its body politic continues to bleed. And Kashmir will continue to fester and bleed as long as India maintains its stranglehold over the valley and refuses to talk business seriously with Pakistan.

Obama’s perception on the centrality of Kashmir in the Indo-Pakistan imbroglio is as crystal-clear as was that of one of his icons, President John F. Kennedy.

Back in 1962 when Pandit Nehru’s ill-advised Himalayan adventure went awry, and China administered a humiliating riposte in kind, Kennedy came to India’s rescue with a rush-job of filling its near-empty arsenal of weapons. But Kennedy also understood that for India to shore up its defences, it must settle its deeply disrupted equation with Pakistan on Kashmir. He had corralled General Ayub Khan and kept his hands off any military incursion of his own into Kashmir to wrest its control from India. But a statesman like Kennedy was also convinced that Ayub and Pakistan had to be consoled with some progress on the Kashmir issue with India. It was at his prodding that the two sides began a round of talks with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Swaran Singh as star negotiators. But it never got any traction, just as this latest bout has obviously licked the dust.

Obama may have been keen, even remotely sincere, to lean on India and Pakistan to give candid discussion a shot at peace-making. For him the timing of his move was ideal — in the teeth of a costly military offensive aimed at making a dent in the fierce Taliban resistance, pushing them on the defensive, and thus compelling them to sue for peace.

But while Obama had few cobwebs in his agenda the same couldn’t be said about the agendas of India and Pakistan. So while he managed to bring the horses to water they were reluctant to drink it because they were focused on positions that were poles apart.

Delhi relented to talk in order to please Washington and get it to lean hard on Pakistan to make room for India at the Afghan table. The Lancaster House conference of last January in London left a bitter taste in India’s mouth when it was completely sidelined by Pakistan. Indians have invested a lot in Afghanistan since Karzai came to power five years ago — 1.3 billion dollars, according to independent sources. But much of this investment is geared to facilitate India to use its new footholds in Afghanistan to the embarrassment and detriment of Pakistan.

Pakistan could be blamed for being obsessed with Kashmir, a core issue in its book. But India, since Mumbai, has no less been obsessed, if not paranoid, with its file on the Pakistani terrorists allegedly master-minding the Mumbai massacre. It has made an issue of Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, of Lashkar-e-Taiba fame, now heading the charity of Jamaat-ul-Dawa. India is adamant Pakistan must hang Saeed although two courts in Pakistan have found him not guilty.

There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t bridge the divide between us. Civilised countries around the world have been solving major problems between them by talking to one another candidly and objectively. The two countries have come a long way in more than six decades of their independent existence in terms of their intellectual quantum. There are bright and far-sighted people in both countries that can look beyond their nose to see that a peace dividend is much too weighty to be brushed aside or ignored. All that’s needed is for interlocutors to come out of their straitjackets and defreeze mindsets that have aggravated the prejudices and augmented the problems.

It’s pure humbug of the Islamic-centrics in Pakistan to claim that our Pakistani roots are in the Arabian Peninsula. Our religious roots may indeed be in that part of the world but roots of religions are universal. On that basis we’ve as much in common with the Arabs as with the Muslims of Indonesia and Malaysia, or any part of Africa, for that matter.

What matters most to nations is their culture, and on the cultural wicket we’re sub-continental. If this wasn’t the case Pakistanis wouldn’t be lining up outside two cinemas in Karachi to see Shah Rukh Khan’s latest film, and the Indians wouldn’t be taking to Pakistani television drama serials like moths to a flame.

But, over the past decades, instead of building on our common heritage we’ve focused on accentuating the differences, so much so that with every opportunity to coalesce gone begging the distance between the two people of the same cultural milieu has increased and the gap widened.

This is regrettable given the inspiring role models of a saint like Gandhi and a quintessential liberal and humanist like Jinnah to inspire succeeding generations of India and Pakistan. Jinnah stands out telling an American journalist, just before partition, that he envisaged a US-Canada-like open and unarmed border between India and Pakistan and unfettered flow of peoples across it.

To clear the deck of all debris of mistrust the Kashmir issue will have to be addressed with the boldness of interlocutors determined to think out–of-the-box. Some adjustment of borders is warranted otherwise no Pakistani government could sell it to its people in any package deal with India. The Americans understand this and some savvy think-tanks are now suggesting to Washington to dangle the carrot of a permanent seat on the Security Council to India — that may be irresistible to Delhi — in return for territorial adjustments in Kashmir to placate Pakistan.

The Indians and the Pakistanis would be well advised to refresh their clogged minds with the opening sentence of the preamble to the UN Charter: “since wars take place in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that defences of peace must be erected.”

So let’s strive on, beyond this ‘first step’ in Delhi to cut the Gordian knot that has kept us apart for so long. Let Gilani and Manmohan Singh pick up the thread when they meet in Washington at Obama’s nuclear summit, next month.

It’s not going to be a cakewalk, as our American matchmakers are so fond of saying. Achieving peace, as the great sage Aristotle said, is more difficult than war. And Aristotle wasn’t just conjecturing; he was the mentor of one of history’s most belligerent warmongers, Alexander the Great.

IN August 2007, USAF lost track of six Cruise Missiles armed with 150-kiloton nuclear warheads for 36 hours. These were loaded onto a B-52 Bomber at USAF base in North Dakota, were improperly and illegally flown around the continental US and were eventually discovered at a USAF base in Louisiana. It is illegal for the US military to load nuclear weapons on a plane and carry them over US territory.

The US Air Force called it a “big mistake” — the result of "widespread disregard for the rules" regarding handling of nuclear weapons, writes Dave Lindorff. Ignoring this breach of nuclear security, the United States, its officials, lawmakers, defence experts and journalists continue to pontificate on threats to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal including a possible terrorist takeover.

Assurances by Pakistan that its nuclear safeguards comply with international standards are ignored. General Kidwai, head of the Strategic Plans Division, which is tasked to ensure security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, had this to say to David Sangers of NewYork Times: “Please grant to Pakistan that if we can make nuclear weapons and the delivery systems, we can also make them safe. Our security systems are foolproof."

Consistent refusal to accept Pakistan’s position should ring alarm bells in Islamabad. Is this an orchestrated effort aimed at targeting Pakistan under a false pretext, just as it was done in Iraq?

In the caves of Tora Bora Osama bin Laden could not be accused of possessing WMDs but he could certainly be accused of ‘having an interest in acquiring them’. A supposed meeting (of which intelligence reports were “frustratingly vague” — said George Tenet, the CIA Chief) between a ‘renegade’ Pakistani nuclear scientist, Bashiruddin Mahmood, with Al Qaeda leaders was used as ‘proof of this deep interest’. And since at the same time a band of rag tag militants had created an environment of terror inside Pakistan, a picture perfect theme was presented: “Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was at risk of being grabbed by Al Qaeda for use against the West”.

The story line is ridiculous. It is universally known that due to high level of difficulty in acquiring and using nuclear weapons, very few terrorist entities are capable of using or have shown significant interest in seeking nuclear weapons or material. There is no evidence that Al Qaeda is one of them.

But the hype about the insecurity of Pakistan’s nuclear assets continues. The western media and commentators raise doubts about Pakistan being a viable state, the possibility of its nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands and A.Q. Khan episode being repeated.

David Sanger writing in NYT quoted Graham Allison, supposedly a nuclear expert, as having said “when you map WMDs and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan." Though he concedes that "the nuclear security of the arsenal is now a lot better than it was”, he goes on to say “but the unknown variable here is the future of Pakistan itself, because it's not hard to envision a situation in which the state's authority falls apart and you're not sure who's in control of the weapons, the nuclear labs, the materials".

Shaun Gregory (University of Bradford, UK) writing in West Point's Counter Terrorism Center Sentinel claimed without citing evidence that “Pakistan’s nuclear facilities have already been attacked at least thrice by its home-grown extremists and terrorists over the last two years.” He then concludes that “the challenge to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from Pakistani Taliban groups and from Al Qaeda constitutes a real and present danger”.

Sadly, such assessments are either biased, based on disinformation or deliberate distortion of facts. This also shows how ill-informed, naive and myopic some American experts and intellectuals can be.

As for Pakistan’s viability, past set-backs notwithstanding, its viability has never been in doubt. The nation is resilient, united in crisis and its security ensured by a nuclear-armed defence forces, counted among the best in the world. Contrary to Western perception, the country is not overrun by Islamic militants but inhabited by moderate Muslims who reject extremism.

The militants, who in western perception will seize Pakistan’s strategic assets, are in fact a hodgepodge group of religious bigots, illiterate, rogue elements from tribal areas and stateless Uzbek, Tajik and Chechen fighters from earlier Afghan wars who style themselves as Taliban-i- Pakistan. They are neither ideologues nor do they espouse any religious or political cause. Launched into Pakistan to commit acts of terrorism, they are widely condemned and have limited support of a small minority of orthodox and illiterate tribal and rural populations.

Incapable of breaching sophisticated security systems of sensitive establishments, they limit their attacks to easier high visibility targets such as main entrances of army’s General HQ or an ordinance factory, and easier still, on unsuspecting security personnel in places of worship or the streets.

It is ludicrous to treat such acts of terrorism as worst case scenario. These attacks are no evidence that Pakistan’s security apparatus is crumbling or the army is about to capitulate. Neither do these militants pose any existential threat to the state.

Asked about threat of takeover of nuclear weapons by militants, General Kidwai told NYT "this is all overblown rhetoric”. Pakistan’s strategic weapons programme is under formalised institutional control and oversight. National Command Authority effectively controls, manages and monitors strategic organisations. Its 8,000-men Security Division secures nuclear assets and materials.

Congressional Research Service Report (RL-31589) on Nuclear Threat Reduction Measures for India and Pakistan observes about Pakistan: “Fissile material components (pits) are thought to be kept separately from the rest of the warhead. Such a physical separation helps deter unauthorised use and complicates theft”.

To-date Pakistan’s nuclear material or radioactive sources have remained safe from theft or pilferage nor has there been any attempt by terrorist elements to gain access to weapons or fissile materials. Guarav Kampani of Center for Nonproliferation Studies admits, “despite such speculative scenario building among policy and security analysts, there is little public evidence to suggest that the safety or the security of Pakistan’s nuclear installations or its nuclear command and control mechanism was ever in jeopardy from internal political instability or Islamists or terrorist forces inside Pakistan or nearby in Afghanistan, either during the American ‘War against Terrorism’ in Afghanistan or during 2001-2002 India-Pakistan military standoff”.

As for militants using stolen fissile materials to produce nuclear weapons, IAEA experts admit this to be highly unlikely. A May 2004 report by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom states that nuclear attack would be among the most difficult types of attacks for terrorists to accomplish.

Even if Al Qaeda, supposedly on the run, manages to acquire hazardous unshielded radioactive materials, it is inconceivable for it to overcome road blocks such as knowledge of nuclear technology, diagnostic and testing labs, engineering and industrial facilities needed to fabricate a nuclear device and delivery mechanism.

Similarly, even if the terrorists acquire a bomb, there is no way they could carry this huge hazardous device by land, air or sea all the way to Europe or America undetected by intelligence agencies, customs and security check points along the route and use it without a delivery mechanism and the electronic code.

Why, one may ask, would Al Qaeda draw the ire of Pakistan army and engage in a highly risky exercise of seizing nuclear devices or materials, when it cannot use them?

Doubts have also surfaced about the possibility of a coup by military officers sympathetic to Al Qaeda in a bid to snatch nuclear assets. For anyone familiar with the organisation of Pakistan’s defence forces, this is hogwash. Pakistan is no banana republic.

The army’s officer’s cadre inherited liberal British traditions but recent years have seen some shift towards moderate Islam, which is quite natural. There is, however, no shift towards any kind of extremism. The half million plus strong army remains a highly disciplined force, well structured and organised, led by a four-star general who commands 9 corps and other formations headed by a large number of generals.

The sheer size of the service, its command structure, strict adherence to chain of command and established traditions of loyalty to service and the state preclude possibility of such a coup taking place, or succeeding even if an attempt is made. Caution is also taken to prevent radicalisation of senior ranks.

Besides, the disconnect between the corps of officers and the affiliate bodies of National Command Authority that guard and control nuclear assets, except through an elaborate multilayered institutional mechanism at the very top, would not allow any breach of nuclear security.

One can go on arguing about the fallacy of western approach towards the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, but apparently this will make no difference. Irrespective of how safe these are, the West would continue to berate them, for it has its own agenda to follow.

WHEN more than 6,000 candidates vie for just 325 seats of the Iraqi parliament, it’s a sure sign of democracy catching the fancy of the Iraqi people, if not exactly striking firm roots, yet, in their body politic.

Elections in what the western media patronisingly describe as ‘troubled states’ arouse tremendous interest for them, for sheer carnival ambience if not for anything more. Elections in Iran and Afghanistan last year engaged world-wide interest, although the western media gurus, as also their political masters, were quick to label both as ‘tarnished’ and/or ‘stolen.’ The former label was affixed on the Afghan presidential election while the latter was reserved for the Iranian.

But the March 7 elections for the Iraqi parliament surpassed the level of interest evinced in Afghanistan and Iran, for simple reason that Iraq is still regarded as the most dangerous place in the present world; but Pakistan has lately been threatening to dethrone Iraq from that position.

But notwithstanding the media excitement, or punditry by think-tank genre of intellectuals and crystal-ball gazers, the just-concluded elections warranted close scrutiny by the world for a good variety of reasons.

First, its comparison with the last general elections, of 2005 — which were also the first elections since the overthrow of the ancien regime of Saddam Hussain and one taking place under direct occupation by the invading American forces — these second elections were a healthy and noticeable progress by any yardstick.

The 2005 elections were held not only under American bayonets but the stir of fear and intimidation was so thick that it could be cut with a knife. Iraq was then in the fearsome grip of terrorism gone berserk. Violence and mayhem was at its peak. So scared for their lives were politicians and leaders that, in order to protect candidates for office against murderous attacks by terrorists, that the ballot papers didn’t carry their names; only their party affiliations were mentioned.

None of that fear or intimidation was anywhere in evidence this time around in the election campaign. Baghdad and other cities, town and even villages had walls of city blocks plastered with full blown coloured photographs of the candidates. It was just like anywhere else in a free and liberated society.

Second, there was massive participation in the electoral process by political parties and groups of all stripes and persuasions. As many as nearly 90 political parties and factions threw themselves with real zest into the election maelstrom. Even those Sunni groups that had boycotted the 2005 elections — because they had serious reservations about them — took to the elections avidly. They realised that by sitting out the last elections they had axed themselves from the political mainstream.

Their plunge into the political process also took the sting out of the sectarian divide that has marred the Iraqi political landscape since the Americans became masters of the land and deliberately accentuated the sectarian divide, which the Saddam rule, howsoever cruel or undemocratic, had kept a firm lid on. This bodes well for the future of democracy in Iraq; the essence of democracy is participation by all in the political process, and the Iraqis are furnishing ample evidence of their awareness of this cardinal principle.

Third, these elections were poles-apart from the grave security and political ambience of 2005, when American presence over everything was so evident and loomed like a colossus. This time, the only evidence of the Americans still being there — but staying well out of the limelight — was the visibility of American helicopters buzzing the sky over Baghdad and other urban centres. Otherwise, security on ground was provided entirely by the Iraqi troops and militias trained, no doubt, by the Americans over the past years.

The overall American military presence in Iraq has, for the first time since the invasion of 2003, dropped down to below 100,000. it stands around 90,000 currently but should be dropping down to 50,000 before the end of the summer this year under President Obama’s plan, which should also see the last American soldier being out of Iraq before the end of 2011. But like all other schemes and initiatives launched by Obama since entering the White House his right-wing detractors and critics have been beating their chests like wounded gorillas that his timing of drawing down the troops in Iraq is deeply flawed and unwarranted. It remains to be seen if Obama would still go ahead as planned or buckle under the conservative backlash.

Fourth, disregarding the American ultra-right’s wild lamentations that the Iraqi security forces were not up to the job, they have apparently done a decent job of maintaining order in a country of 18 million eligible voters and more than 5,000 polling stations. The voters’ turnout at the polls, at 62 per cent may have been lower than the 75 per cent reached at the 2005 elections, but so was the level of violence and bloodshed kept at a much lower level than before.

Whatever violence took place in the context of the elections happened only in Baghdad, while the rest of the country remained remarkably calm and violence-free.

This wasn’t surprising and, in a cynical sense in fact, underlined the success of the security measures taken by the government to ensure tranquillity and calm during the polling. Whatever violence occurred in Baghdad was the result of mortars, small rockets lobbed at crowded places with the clear intent to terrorise the people. The terrorists had the obvious intent of reminding the people that they weren’t safe where the presence of the security forces was most concentrated and obvious. They used plastic bottles and other crude devices to explode bombs underneath parked cars or hidden at unobtrusive places.

But the death toll of 36, all of it in Baghdad, was small by the Iraqi standard. It wasn’t uncommon, until not too long ago, for the daily casualty toll to run into three digits in Baghdad, Ramadi or Mosul.

By holding largely violence-free and, in a sense, fairly disciplined elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has established his credentials as a leader who has come a long way in the years since he was thrust on to the national and international stage after the elections of 2005. He has proved his critics — most of them in the West — wrong that he was not his own man, or that he was under the Iranian thumb.

The latter accusation has, in fact, fallen more flat than any other stigma against Maliki. He hasn’t been hostile or unfriendly to Tehran. Yet, he isn’t as close to the Iranian leadership as was his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaffri, who was hounded out of office by the Americans because they suspected him of cozying up too much to the Iranians and, in their fertile imagination, taking his cue from Tehran.

However, disregarding the vitriol from those in the US who hate the idea of relaxing their hold over Iraq in any manner, the fact remains that holding free and fairly disciplined elections in a place regarded by most in the West as the most dangerous in the world, Maliki has achieved only half the success, and that the other half of the challenge confronting him is going to be not only much tougher but will test his mettle to the hilt.

Election results are not expected to be available until quite a few weeks hence. But there’s consensus among those claiming expertise on Iraq that the outcome is almost certain to produce a hung parliament, with no single party in a position to form a government by itself.

Coalition-making has always been a formidable challenge to political leaders in Iraq since the dawn of a new, and supposedly democratic, age in the country. The sectarian divide is bound to loom large over any effort at putting together a workable government representing all the dominant political factions, the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds.

The Sunnis of Iraq, having learned a bitter lesson from their boycott of 5 years ago, have, interesting, hitched up an alliance with the Iraqi Nationalist Movement (INM), a predominantly Shia movement of secularists headed by Iyad Allawi, who was the first interim PM of Iraq under the Americans. Allawi, who was once close to Saddam Hussain, too, is well-regarded by the Americans for his supposed secularist credentials. Many an American pundit would be betting their money on this marriage of convenience between the Sunnis and Allawi outpacing Maliki’s Iraqi National Allaince (INA) for a crack at government-making.

But more realistic pundits, with their ears plugged to the Iraqi political terrain, don’t give much of a chance to this ersatz group to bother Maliki much. Instead, they would be watching the maverick young cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr who has a very large following among the Shia youths of Iraq and is believed to be anti-American and pro-Iranian.

Both these assumptions about Al-Sadr could be dead wrong. He could, in fact, be more pro-American than pro-Iranian. But irrespective of what label could stick on him, or what cap would fit on his head, the young fire-brand cleric — with immaculate family pedigree and credentials — could still become the most formidable challenger to Nouri al-Maliki.

The Cassandras among the American right-wingers and war-mongers, who hate the idea of vacating either of their two turfs in Afghanistan and Iraq, could be cynically hoping for Moqtada pulling a huge upset and unseating Maliki from power. Such a development, in their bizarre perception, may force Obama to go back to his drawing board and rethink the plans to pull out completely from Iraq by next year.

Whichever way the throw of the dice works out in Iraq, now that the Iraqi people have voted, the next few weeks, and perhaps months, will force Iraq-watchers to hold their breath. None could, however, refute that Iraq is rapidly maturing in its march to genuine democracy, no matter how painful or demanding this task ultimately proves to be.

Does the National Reconciliation Ordinance have anything in common with Misaq-i-Madina, also known as Charter of Madina.? A petition seeking review of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NRO seems to be making such an attempt. The petition was returned by the registrar of the SC on some technical grounds. Whether an amended petition has been filed or not is not clear. But it is obvious that some circles close to Mr Zardari, are inclined to defend the promulgation of the NRO on the grounds that `No bigger or greater precedent (for reconciliation) can be presented in the court of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan` as this step taken by the Holy Prophet in Madina.

This claim is not only absurd but is outright insulting. In Madina, during the Prophet’s first year of hijra, the rudiments of a distinct society had started to gradually take shape. At that time, a covenant was prepared by the Prophet as the Messenger of God, originally described as a Kitab, (written script, a code of action) establishing the security needs of the city, recognising the Jews of Banu ‘Auf as one community with the believers, each with their own religion, their freedom and their person. The text of the Misaq is available in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (translated from Sirat Rasul Allah), being the pioneering work in Islamic hagiography.

Many commentators have interpreted this covenant as a guarantee of equal citizenship for all in an Islamic society. Others hold the view that this document could be construed as a special agreement produced to focus on special circumstances. Whether one understands it as a covenant or a document aimed at special circumstances, the principle of equality of citizenship had been established within the limits of the fledgling structure of Madina.

The comparison of Misaq with NRO is insulting, therefore, because the former was aimed at security issues for all the residents of the city, and the latter was designed to provide blanket amnesty to a selected group of people in the context of a selected period of time. Who deserved to receive the benefit of ‘reconciliation’, was planned by fiat of a dictator. It is obvious that the objective of the covenant was to promote equality to fulfil the objective of security, but NRO was based on the principle of discrimination, a point emphasised in the Supreme Court judgment.

When Mr Asif Ali Zardari became President of Pakistan in September 2008, he moved into a framework of highly concentrated power at the top, which had originally been set up by General Ziaul Haq and was re-introduced by General Pervez Musharraf. He gave no indication that he was planning to start a process to democratise the constitution without delay (e.g., Murree agreement and Charter of Democracy were shelved as not being word of God or Hadith). It can be said that in fact he felt quite comfortable to have at his disposal the exclusive powers to appoint judges, chief of the army, and other senior officers of the government. As co-chairman of the governing party he also has control over the political process followed by the government.

What motivated him to follow this course of action? A partial answer has emerged from the developments which have taken place since the recent judgment of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring NRO unconstitutional.

He had taken the top position, bringing with him a very heavy personal baggage, which in due course would become a consideration for him in performing his presidential business with other government institutions. For the NRO not to become a problem for him, for example, he could rely on the constitutional immunity and, if necessary, on the `doctrine of necessity` as a last resort. This option was closed when the pre-PCO judges returned to their positions. But he had assumed nevertheless that SC judgment would confine itself to declaring NRO as unconstitutional, but the court took the next step and established a mechanism to supervise its progress. It placed the Zardari government in a tight corner concerning implementation of the verdict.

His advisers had also failed to inform him that there was another side to the distorted constitution which could prove to be the Achilles’ heel for him. In the changes that Ziaul Haq had introduced in the constitution, he had added sections such as 62 and 63 in order to promote his version of Islamic profile for parliamentarians. Concerning the issue of Swiss accounts kept by Mr Zardari, the SC has focused its attention on the criteria established in the two sections, bypassing the question of constitutional immunity. The verdict declares that NRO was not in consonance with injunctions of Islam and that the state has a right to recover whatever monetary gains were made by the persons charged with corruption.

Many of the clauses introduced by Ziaul Haq had been lying dormant with reference to constitutional issues facing the country. To invoke these clauses in defence of its position, the SC may have opened up a hornet’s nest in the body politic of the country, though these clauses are a part of the existing operating constitution. The consequences of this approach could take the country farther away from Jinnah’s Pakistan. But then there has not been much emphasis on the Quaid-i-Azam in the Zardari perspective about the founding values of the country. Nor is there any inclination in the PPP government to streamline the constitution in this respect.

The NRO in any case was a highly discriminatory piece of legislation, as the Supreme Court agreed with Dr Mubashir Hassan, one of the petitioners and a founding member of the PPP.

Has the SC transgressed its functions in establishing the mechanism to keep a watching brief on the progress in the implementation of the verdict? It is a controversial issue, but has been defended by a majority in the legal community in the context of the prevailing circumstances. In mature democracies, there is a strong presumption that the judicial verdicts, even when they may affect political figures, will be implemented.

In emerging democracies, this pattern also has been taking a clear shape. With several senior members of the government and with the man on the top implicated in the allegations, the PPP government would have definitely put the issue on the back burner if the SC verdict had been confined to the core judgment. The government attitude still seems not to have changed, only that the other dimension added by the SC has to be overcome by it. The government has been accused of trying to create cracks in the judicial solidarity.

Whatever the results which would follow from this conflict, the social structure of the country will be the main casualty. It is strange that the People’s Party has become hostage to one man’s sins, and he is no social democrat by any standards and has no political philosophy. In the PPP alliance, only MQM is committed openly to a secular agenda, though there are social democratic elements in the PPP but they have been made irrelevant under the present leadership. He has been able to hold the party together because as an ex-spouse of Benazir Bhutto and co-chairman he has been able to impose effective discipline on the party. The real business for which the PPP government was elected is receiving scant attention; economy is declining and terrorism is flourishing.

The situation calls for a pause to reflect how the military dictators have done a lot of damage to Pakistan. Ayub Khan did it. Yahya Khan did it. General Musharraf, with the blessings of the administration of President Bush, and persistent lobbying by Benazir Bhutto in Washington, D.C., produced the monster of NRO. How to disentangle this legacy will take time. I should add that Benazir Bhutto would have perhaps used the soft power of persuasion to explain the situation. Her husband, the accidental president, leans more heavily on cronies, and on political alliances, but lacks credibility.

The crux of the dilemma is that Mr Zardari holds a position which gives him extraordinary powers through the distorted constitution of Musharraf-Ziaul Haq legacy. Nevertheless, in transferring these powers to the prime minster, some strong judicial and parliamentary checks and balances would have to be established, in light of the historical experience. As a ceremonial president, he might get through the rest of his term without producing too many waves. He does not have the background and the experience in which he could demonstrate the confidence of conviction to play a role as an effective leader.

IN March 2007, Ken Livingstone, the then Mayor of London, formally apologised for London’s role in the slave trade, days before the 200th anniversary of its abolition. Earlier, Tony Blair said that he feels “deep sorrow” about the slave trade. In February 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised in the Australian parliament to all Aborigines for laws and policies that “inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss”.

On March 26, 2010, Bangladesh will celebrate the 39th birthday of its declaration of independence. This is a day of soul-searching for every citizen of Pakistan. A formal apology from the federal government of Pakistan for the atrocities committed against Bengalis has yet to come. However, more important is learning from the mistakes of the past.

A retrospective view of the fall of Dhaka brings one to the conclusion that unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh was created through a violent political struggle. The peaceful way in which Pakistan was created is undoubtedly remarkable. The founding fathers of the country had set great ideals for this country. Unfortunately, the federal, parliamentary and democratic governance in the country degenerated into self-righteous, unmindful military dictatorship.

Ambitious and short-sighted political leaders took advantage of the situation to further their insular interests and carve their mini-kingdoms out of their motherland. They lacked patriotic outlook and sense of sacrifice for their homeland. The narrow-minded rulers of both the wings betrayed the united Pakistan and the promise it held. Their opportunism led to temporary parochial triumph, but in the long run it proved to be more destructive for all of them.

Fragmenting a country into small parts is always easier, since it requires only parochialism, myopia and opportunism, but building a great country and a strong nation from fragmented and scattered entities is difficult, because it requires greatness, foresight and sacrifices.

There is no doubt that the demands of East Pakistanis for provincial autonomy were legitimate and rightful, but the manner in which it gained independence was far from being legitimate or rightful. An electoral victory of a political party does not mean that it should forget about the very integrity of its country and build a new country from its strongholds. Instead, it should achieve compromises, fight for its rights within constitutional and legal limits and endeavour to strengthen the country. Unity in diversity is always better than division, no doubt the former requires great efforts and sacrifices, but once achieved, it is a source of strength and makes the country a great-power. There is no doubt that had Bangladesh remained an autonomous province of Pakistan to-date, it would have been greatly beneficial for both Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In 1971, the Eastern wing became Bangladesh, not mainly because of the love of Bengal but because of the euphoric detestation of its exploitation. Except for its name, Bangladesh inherited everything from Pakistan — military take-overs as well as undemocratic, centralised and authoritarian rule — no wonder governance in Bangladesh is not much different from that of Pakistan. Just like Pakistan, Bangladesh has also been plagued by army coups, assassination of founding fathers, bitter political rivalries, exiled leadership and low ratings on Human Development Index. Both the countries have learned nothing from their history.

If policy-makers in Pakistan do not learn from the debacle of Dhaka, they would be condemned to repeat their mistakes and East Pakistan like situation will soon develop in Balochistan. The federal government needs to realise that the demand for provincial autonomy of Balochistan is a legitimate one. The proposals put forward in “The Aghaz-e-Huqooq-e-Balochistan Package” should be implemented in letter and spirit by the federal government, without further delay.

In 2002, General Pervez Musharraf, the then president of Pakistan, implicitly apologised for the atrocities committed against Bengalis in 1971. However, there was a stark contradiction in his words and actions. He used ruthless force against Balochs, just as General Yahya did against Bengalis. An apology should be more than empty words. It should be explicit and honest. It should be reflective of self-accountability and changed attitudes. The mistakes of the past should be boldly admitted and compensated for. Every nation makes mistakes, but only those nations are great that admit them, learn from them, make amends and resolve not to repeat them.

The writer is in the Foreign Service of Pakistan.

IN India, Brinjal is in the eye of a storm. With the environment minister Jairam Ramesh putting a moratorium on the introduction of what could have been India’s first genetically modified food crop — Bt brinjal -- the nation has been saved from a poisonous food. Pakistan too is in fast track mode to cultivate GM crops. Bt cotton is already being grown in certain districts by illegally importing its seed from India, and an impression is being given that the GM crops are absolutely necessary for the country’s progress and better output.

The hard fact remains that there is no GM crop in the world which increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops we have actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of the normal varieties.

There is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than one billion people are going to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the non-availability of food. The same holds true for India and Pakistan, where one third of the population cannot even buy food that is available. Poor people find it even difficult to buy wheat and rice. The question therefore is not of production but access and distribution.

Bt cotton was also released under a false pretext of increasing productivity. Now we are being told that Bt brinjal will increase crop yield. This is not true. Bt gene acts like a pesticide, and therefore only reduces crop losses. It acts more or less like a chemical pesticide which is sprayed from outside, whereas Bt produces a toxin within the plant.

If the Bt gene increases productivity, we should also accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity. Why do scientists not accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity? But in case of Bt crops, they don’t mind creating a false illusion to misguide the farmer.

Bt is a biological pesticide. It releases poison in the plant. It has been established that compared to Bt biopesticide sprays, the concentration of Bt toxin in Bt brinjal is one thousand times more. Bt biopesticide sprays are harmful, imagine the impact Bt brinjal toxin will have on the environment.

Bt crops releases a toxin in soil through the roots. It has affected beneficial soil microflora, and studies at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have proved this. There have been animal deaths from grazing on Bt cotton leaves in Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. The GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) has simply brushed this aside even though the Andhra Animal husbandry department has warned farmers not to let their livestock graze in Bt cotton fields.

In India like China, insects are developing resistance to Bt cotton. That is why the need to bring in Bollgard-II with two Bt genes. But no scientific study is being undertaken on pest resistance in Bt cotton. As far as pesticides consumption on Bt cotton is concerned, its cultivation has in reality increased the application of pesticides. In 2006, pesticides worth IRs 640 crores were sprayed on cotton. In 2008, it had increased to over IRs 800-crore. Even in America, where herbicide-tolerant crops are prevalent, the usage of herbicides has increased. There are several USDA reports stating this.

Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that Bt in particular and GM in general poses tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto's own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have terrible problems with their body organs — kidney, liver, pancreas, blood etc, and also can result in serious diseases and allergies.

All those scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs by the proponents of the GM industry. The only human safety trial conducted so far establishes that the alien gene in the human body does transfer to the gut bacteria. This can have serious implications. The concentration of Bt gene in the plant is one thousand times more than what is normally in the Bt biopesticide sprays, which means Bt brinjal is one thousand times more poisonous than the Bt sprays. If Bt biopesticide sprays can kill insects, imagine what would happen to human bodies after consuming food that has one thousand times more toxins inside.

These deformities can pass on from generation to generation, like some studies on pesticides have now shown.

Instead of the 29 tests that should be conducted before GM food is allowed to be served, the GEAC had expressed ‘satisfaction’ with some 4 to 5 tests and that “too done in a shoddy manner.” Interestingly, the GEAC says that it had conducted tests as per the international protocols, but the fact is that there are no accepted international scientific protocols so far.

Even in tests on rats, the tests have been conducted only on ten rats for 90 days. The results show that the rats did suffer serious abnormalities in kidney, liver and blood. How can the GEAC simply ignore the health abnormalities seen in rats, even if it is in one rat?

The normal life span of rats, corresponding with the human beings, is for 2 years. Since it has now been found that the impact of chemical pesticides for instance are passed on from generation to generation, and are even felt in the third generation, the human safety tests for Bt brinjal need to be conducted for several generations. After all, we are going to eat Bt brinjal all through our life. How can its safety be determined by rat studies for only 90 days and that too inconclusively?

Dr M S Swaminathan has himself said that smoking cigarettes for 2-3 weeks does not cause cancer. To know whether smoking cigarettes can cause cancer you have to carry out tests for several generations. Why is the industry not willing to perform tests for several generations in rats to know the health impacts from continuously consuming genetically modified crops?

The GEAC recommendations were rigged. It had set up an Expert Committee—II (called EC-II) which had some members who were also involved in developing Bt crops. This was a sure case where a conflict of interest was evident. How can people who develop GM crops also sit on the approval process?

The norms and bylaws of the EC-II were lowered to suit the interests of the private seed companies. All experiments were conducted by the private companies, and the GEAC had accepted the data provided by the private seed company. Let us also not forget that these private seed company had refused to share the analysis with the general public, and it was only after the Supreme Court’s directive that the research data was made public.

The entire regulatory process is a sham. Jairam Ramesh’s decision is clearly an indictment of the GEAC. The report is full of inaccuracies. At the same time, the report blatantly ignores the dangerous impact of Bt brinjal on the body organs of rats and other animals, and also the environment. The chairman of EC-II himself has said that he is not sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal.

There should be an open debate on the regulatory process. If the GEAC decision is found to be wrong and unscientific, the chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars. After all, we cannot allow anyone to play havoc with the lives of the masses.

If we leave harmful technologies in the hands of people, the world would die an unnatural death sooner than later. Cigarette smoking for instance cannot be left to people. Even though every packet contains a bold statement 'cigarette smoking is injurious to health' and yet its sales goes on increasing. Because it was unhealthy and dangerous, governments have stepped in and banned its usage in public places. Was that a wrong decision?

Similarly, GM crops cannot be left to the farmers to decide as an option. Farmer too gets lured by the marketing blitz of the companies. The entire state machinery — agricultural universities, farm extension depts, companies and the media have been promoting GM crops. With such a powerful marketing blitz how do one expect the farmer to make informed choices? Also, if the farmer was so sensible, the usage of chemical pesticides should not have multiplied to the present dangerous levels?

Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed upon them. How many more farmers do we want to be killed before stopping the killer technologies from being used?

The writer is a New Delhi-based food analyst.

THE saga of Pakistani diaspora began in 1970s with the beginning of the era of petro-dollars in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia in the wake of massive construction activity attracting Pakistanis labour to these destinations.

The government of the day felt absolved of its duty and commitment and instead of creating an infrastructure ensuring large job opportunities, it encouraged the citizens, skilled or otherwise, to leave for greener pastures. The exodus of the educated and technical unemployed youth solved the employment problem and the ‘Dubai-chalo syndrome’ created a frenzy for leaving the shores of Pakistan. Soon the number of expatriate Pakistanis swelled to millions and they became a hefty source of foreign exchange earnings, now amounting to almost $10 billion per annum.

While these opportunities brought much-sought prosperity for the dependents of the workers, none cared about the extremely hard, in many cases horrible, conditions in which these people worked. The unscrupulous agents and bureaucrats indulged in human trafficking, with connivance of all so-called law-enforcing agencies. The phenomenon of fake passports, visas and illegal crossing into foreign countries spread like a cancer in society. A mafia composed of FIA, immigration officials, PIA and other related agencies became operative with impunity, fleecing the poor who ventured into hazardous journeys to unknown lands after paying huge amounts. The criminal conduct of the mafia did not receive the attention until 9/11 when security factor became a dominant, almost obsessive, element with foreign countries.

The foreign governments applied harsh regulations for immigrants at the airports and other entry points. Those living within the country were also subjected to severe security checks and quite a few instances of deportation of Pakistanis on grounds of illegal entry or stay became the norm.

The problem now has reached epidemic proportions. Official reports have indicated horrendous figures. In the year 2004, from Muskat alone, 10,294 job seekers were deported; last year, the number increased 12,600. These people were smuggled to Oman by crossing Pak-Iran border illegally through Balochistan. Most of these deportees returned in pathetic conditions, both mental and physical, as they were kept in prison under harsh conditions, before deportation.

According to official statistics, during last two years, a total of 87,963 Pakistanis were deported from 34 countries and another 658 were detained in 13 European countries. The number of detainees in UK alone is 360 on various charges, such as illegal documents or overstay.

The ‘War on Terror,’ in which Pakistan has become the frontline state, also paradoxically put Pakistanis in the dangerous or unwanted category as evident from the attitude of most countries. On slight suspicion, Pakistanis have been detained, harassed and even killed. In Macedonia, in 2002, eleven Pakistanis were shot dead for illegally crossing the border.

Recently, there has been a scandal in Greece where 22 legally resident Pakistanis were arrested, interrogated and tortured by British intelligence authorities in the wake of 7/7 events in London. Initially, the British refuted the allegations of M16 involvement, but later admitted when the media came out with more details and evidence.

The net result of these incidents has been that now an average Pakistan is a persona non grata, an object of suspicion and target of humiliation and intimidation, with no avenue, national or international, to turn to for justice.

This inhuman behaviour and unlawful attitude is not only limited to the US and Europe, but even in Malaysia and Thailand, similar stories have surfaced; 187 Pakistanis are facing criminal charges in Malaysia. More than a hundred Pakistanis are languishing in jails in Thailand and the agreement to deport them to Pakistan is caught in red-tapism.

The story of 15,000 kid jockeys from Rahim Yar Khan employed in the Gulf States is shocking and shameful. According to a study by a Swedish NGO, children employed as jockeys for camel races, between the ages of 5 to10 years and weighing less than 25 kg, are subjected to inhuman treatment to keep their weight less. The therapy includes electric shocks, 15-20 times daily. Often their heads are held under water at intervals of 20-30 times daily to get their weight reduced. Such inhuman stories are legions. The brutal practices recently invited attention of the human rights NGO and UAE was forced to give compensation to the affected families and has also stopped the sport.

This brief but disturbing account of maltreatment of Pakistanis demand most urgent and effective measures by the government, which merely pays lip-service to the expatriates for their contribution to Pakistan’s economy.

Recently parliament was informed that there are 2145 Pakistani in prisons abroad on charges of drug trafficking. Of them 693 are in UAE, 567 in Saudi Arabia, 231 in Kuwait and 131 in China. While on immigration violation 935 Pakistanis have been arrested; of them 175 are in China and 162 in Saudi Arabia. Several Pakistanis are reportedly languishing in Bagram and Pul-i-Charkhi prisons in Afghanistan.

The issue of Pakistanis abroad has become burning subject with Aafia Siddiqui’s case. The agonising case has put the government in a spot and exposed its total failure to protect the interest of its citizens. Aafia, an MIT neuro-scientist, has gone through most despicable and horrible treatment, since her arrest in most mysterious circumstances. She was convicted and sentence for life, last month. The Aafia case represents the dark side of rulers’ lack of concern and of their obligations.

The silver lining on this unfortunate episode is the role of Supreme Court. A three member bench dealing with “missing Pakistani” has made a telling observation. “Pakistan nationals are jailed just like that, without any uproar but a hue and cry is raised and adverse reaction comes whenever a foreigner is detained even for a minute here (Pakistan)”.

Our leaders keep shouting from the rooftop that Pakistan is a nuclear power, the second largest Muslim nation and an Islamic republic. The truth is that ours is not even a humane republic, let alone Islamic, where justice is denied to its citizens and discrimination, even cruelty, by foreign employers does not evoke any compassion or concern. Nations achieve respect and recognition for protection of their citizens and rule of law and not just by becoming a nuclear power.

The writer is a former ambassador.

MARCH 23 is celebrated as the Pakistan Day, because on that day in the year 1940 the Pakistan resolution (at that time called the Lahore resolution) was passed. However, it has another significance. On that day in the year 1956, the country, hitherto governed under the Government of India Act 1935 and the Indian Independence Act 1947, shunned its dominion status and became a republic with the promulgation of its own constitution.

The 1956 constitution was the fruit of deliberations of two constituent assemblies—seven years by the first and two years by the second. It provided that Pakistan shall be a parliamentary democracy with effective executive powers vested in the cabinet responsible to a popularly elected National Assembly. Pending the popular elections, the Constituent Assembly was to serve as the National Assembly. The idea was to set up a government representing the popular will in both its composition and actions.

However, as the events unfolded themselves, the idea of a responsible government has not been realised. Democracy in Pakistan has had a chequered history. Twice the country’s constitution has been abrogated (1958 and 1969) and thrice suspended (1977, 1999 and 2007). No prime minister has yet completed his or her tenure. They have been either dismissed by ambitious presidents or adventurous generals or forced to resign. Parliament in Pakistan has seldom if ever been its own master, and has been used generally as a rubber stamp to validate the decisions made elsewhere. These are hard facts and make even a robust optimist sceptical about the future of democracy in the country.

The political system of Pakistan is not strong enough to grapple with the challenges facing the country and remains vulnerable to extra-political interventions. After every ten years, the democratic process is disrupted in the name of saving the country. Consequently, our political culture is markedly deficient in healthy political conventions, such as respect for institutions and rule of law, which lie at the heart of democracy.

On paper, Pakistan may have all the ingredients of a democratic system. However, merely having a democratic system, though exceedingly important, does not guarantee the preservation and growth of the democratic order. For, as Aristotle pointed out, there may be a difference between what a political system on paper is and how it actually works. The political system created by successive constitutions has been a democratic one in form but has seldom been made to work in a democratic fashion. What really guarantees the preservation and growth of democracy is strong democratic institutions.

But this can only be achieved if politicians on both sides of the political divide make their personal and party interests subservient to those of democratic institutions and work for the success of democracy. When democratic institutions are strong, transfer of power is smooth. But when these are weak, the transfer of power is likely to be a crash landing.

Strong and stable institutions are essential for growth of democracy. Not only do they protect a democratic order against extra-constitutional steps; they also provide a stable and predictable environment for the growth of democracy. Unfortunately, in case of Pakistan political institutions could not be developed, which is a capital cause of its democratic instability. Governments have by and large shown little respect for institutions. It is customary on the part of political leaders to clamour for independence of institutions when out of power but staff them with their own loyalists, perceived or real, when in the government.

For instance, almost every government in Pakistan has tried to impair the independence of judiciary. Ziaul Haq under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) and Pervez Musharraf first under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) and then under the PCO invited only “pliant” judges of the superior courts to take oath, while the rest were sacked. Z.A. Bhutto amended the constitution (through fifth and sixth amendments) to control the superior judiciary. Throughout the tenure of Ziaul Haq, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was not confirmed and the incumbents worked on acting charge basis.

In 1994, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto elevated Justice Muhammad Ilyas to the Supreme Court and then appointed him as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. He was used by the government for making political appointments in the High Court. Some of these appointments were so controversial that they led to the Supreme Court verdict in the famous Judges Case of 1996. The Nawaz Sharif government got the Supreme Court attacked to prevent it from hearing a contempt of court petition against the Prime Minister.Both Z.A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif as prime ministers sought to consolidate their position by trying to control the army instead of strengthening political institutions. Both successfully removed one Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and each appointed a “loyal” junior officer as COAS. However, both were dislodged from power by their respective COAS.

Musharraf, until he was forced to step down in August 2008, ruled like an absolute ruler, amending and suspending the constitution at will. Though a democratic set-up was installed in 2002, it was democratic only in name. Parliament was no more than a rubber-stamp, which validated every Musharraf decree and also elected him twice in uniform to the office of president. Since a docile parliament was no threat to him, it was allowed to complete its tenure and instead the judiciary, which showed signs of independence, faced his wrath.

A strong political system embodies a consensus among political forces against political authoritarianism, which is the hallmark of a truly democratic polity. In India, for instance, there are parties of the right, centre and the left, which may differ on certain issues but all agree that India should be a multiparty democracy. Probably it is this agreement that more than any other factor has prevented any military adventurer from stepping in. Conversely, in Pakistan, military takeover has always found a lot of political support and sympathy. As one author puts it, “Most Pakistani politicians have the habit of appealing to the army when cornered by opponents.”

A democratic system should be tuned to serving the people, who must have high stakes in the continuation of the democratic process, otherwise they will care little whether a civilian or khaki rules them. Democracy in the end means empowerment of the people. Economic emancipation is an important component of the people’s empowerment. Hence, in most of the countries, such as those of western Europe, pro-people economic growth has played an important role in the strengthening of democracy.

Although, on the whole, Pakistan’s economy has grown at a healthy rate; the benefits of the economic growth have not trickled down to the ordinary people. That is why the increase in per capita income has been accompanied by widening income disparities. As one economist points out, if growth and prosperity exclude large sections of the population, the potential for social strife increases. Consequently, the faith in the political/democratic process erodes and the military is increasingly seen as a peace maker.

As far as job creation and poverty alleviation are concerned, most civilian governments have not come up to the expectations of the people and were unable to implement their economic agenda. One reason may be that nearly half of the federal government’s budget is allocated to debt servicing and defence expenditure leaving a narrow fiscal space available to it to undertake developmental projects. Presently, public resources are increasingly being spent in the war on terrorism at the expense of social sector development. Besides, the current wave of terrorism is having a telling impact on the economy and the people most severely affected are the poor and low-income sections of society. In such circumstances, people tend to be disenchanted with democracy.

The February 2008 elections brought back the PPP to power amid promises to establish a responsible government and restore the powers of parliament curtailed by the seventeenth amendment to the constitution. After dilly dallying over the repeal of the seventeenth amendment during last two years, the government is finally amending the constitution to get rid of the aforementioned amendment and other constitutional anomalies.

In 1972, Prime Minister Bhutto had warned: “Looking into the future, if we messed it up, if we didn’t make the parliamentary system work, if our constitution breaks down, then there is the possibility of the army stepping in again”. Regrettably, Bhutto himself did not pay much heed to this warning. One hopes that his present-day successors would do so.

IT was in the third week of July 2004, while traveling toward Khunjerab, that we stayed for a few hours at Atabad. The locals drew our attention towards a ‘crack’ in the slope above their village.

The crack approx 1 1/2feet wide also passed through some of the hamlets. It was generally felt that the November 2002 earthquake caused this crack, while some felt that the heavy snow accumulation of glaciers could have put pressure on the slope.

Authorities were informed by the locals of the crack, which kept on widening, but no one took notice of it. I personally felt, that if no remedial measures are taken, this huge chunk of mountain side would one day slide into the river. No interest was shown at any level, and ignored was the willingness of the local people to be shifted to Punjab.
It was most disturbing, therefore, when on January 4, 2010 the news came, that the mountainside had actually collapsed, killing 13 people.

A steadily rising artificial lake, upstream of the blockage, continues to inundate vast stretches of agricultural lands and orchards, the only source of livelihood for thousands of people.

The increasing water pressure has the potential of breaching the massive debris, which has dammed the natural flow of the Hunza River for 2 km, if rapid preventive measures are not undertaken.

The effect a sudden breach would have downstream is unimaginable, as the Tarbela dam is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy, its agriculture and hydropower. Due to the loose nature of the debris which at its lowest point is 100m above the riverbed, and in the absence of any controlled spillway, this landslide dams may fail without any warning and can carry massive sediment (debris) with it. A common failure scenario may occur with a variety of failure processes which includes overtopping, seepage and sudden sliding caused by piping.

As the debris blocking the Hunza River is mainly fine-grained material, boulders and pebbles which do not have the capacity to support this dam much longer, especially since piping has already started. It is not unknown that a force of water can destabilise massive deposits and cause extreme devastation downstream.

The Indus River is one of the world’s largest rivers in term of water sediment loads and this massive debris (sedimentation) would have serious impact on Tarbala dam, as it could completely dislodge the vast delta which dramatically expanded over the past decades at the mouth of the Indus.

In case the dam created by the debris breaches, flash floods with a height of between 60 to 80 feet would create disaster along the embankments of the Indus River.

In other countries, risk analysis study would immediately have been undertaken by a team of remote sensing, GIS, hydrology and risk management experts to quantify the potential risk in case of a breach in the artificial lake/dam.

There is an urgent need to develop a high-resolution digital terrain model (DTM) to determine longitudinal profiles and cross-sections of the river at 500 meters interval up to Junction of Hunza and Gilgit River and then through to Besham Qila.

Simultaneously, a team of metrological department and Wapda needs to conduct a quick but comprehensive study using remote sensing images, digital elevation and housing data, hydrological and spatial analyses to quantify the potential risk in terms of affected population size and estimated property losses.

Emphasis needs to be placed on the characteristics of the breach, i.e. the geometry of a possible breach and how long it would take to develop needs to be formulated. Different types of dams tend to collapse in different ways and hence breach characteristics have to be defined first.

If this dam/lake is not thoroughly assessed and properly disposed of, it can pose a catastrophe for downstream areas including a major threat to Tarbela dam.

Given the loose nature of Attabad-Hunza landslide and the absence of a controlled spillway, this landslide dam may fail without any warning and can lead to downstream flooding with massive sediment (debris) flow.

A common failure scenario could occur by overtopping, seepage and sudden sliding through excessive piping. Therefore, priority should be given to engineered breaching with precise technique to control sediment flow before we have another “Zalzal Lake.” The “Zalzal Lake” was formed due to earthquake-2005 in Azad Kashmir and on February 09, 2010 its sudden failure caused water flooding onto the lower areas.

The best model for our experts is the case of the Tangjiashan Lake. It was created during 2008 Sichuan earthquake in an extremely rugged terrain of Tangjiashan mountain in China. The water level was rising at the rate of 8 feet a day.

When the capacity of lake reached more than 200,000 acre-feet, Chinese engineers, scientists, and army discussed the emerging threat and considered three options.

One was to use engineering techniques, including blasting, to release the water. The second was to reinforce the dam during the flood season. The third was to restructure the quake lake into a reservoir.

All three possibilities were evaluated after the speedy risk analysis study, including development of a high-resolution digital terrain model (DTM). After assessing all threats more than 250,000 people were evacuated from downstream area in anticipation of the Tangjiashan Lake dam bursting.

In May 2008, before the start of flood season it was finally decided to breach the dam. Chinese army took ten days to drain water from the lake.

Chinese army engineers used recoil-less guns, bazookas and dynamite to blast boulders and other obstructions in the channel and after final massive blasts broke through the “bottleneck” in the spillway, the water outflow speeded up drastically. So the Tangjiashan Lake was emptied and the threat of a huge disaster was averted.


The writer is advisor (Energy and Environment) CRSS-Islamabad.