THE Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) completed 40 years of its existence last week. It was set up in Rabat, Morocco on September 25, 1969, in reaction to an arson attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque on August 21, 1969, in Al-Quds, carried out by an Israeli.

The meeting was the first unified expression of the Muslim Ummah of its determination to safeguard its interests, speak with one voice and ensure the progress and well being of the Muslims in the world.

It took an organised shape in March 1970, setting up a secretariat in Jeddah and appointing a secretary-general as its head. Two years later, a charter was adopted demonstrating that the OIC’s purpose was to strengthen solidarity and cooperation among Islamic states in all fields.

OIC members represent 22 per cent of the world population, have 2 per cent of the world’s GDP, 1.3 per cent of the world trade and only 1.5 per cent of the investments. Twenty five per cent of OIC population does not have access to medical facilities or safe drinking water.

Half of the population lives below the poverty line classified as the most poor. No Muslim country is in the top list of the Human Development Index or in any other global economic indicators.

This depressing picture of the Islamic countries is not limited to the economic and social spheres, in the realm of education and technology the facts are equally disappointing.

The OIC member countries possess 70 per cent of the world’s energy resources and 40 per cent of available raw material but their GDP is only 5 per cent of the world GDP. Muslim countries miserably lag behind in education and technology.

They produce only 500 PhDs each year as compared to 3,000 in India and 5,000 in the United Kingdom. None of their educational or research institutions or centres of excellence find place in the top 100 in the world.

The last regular summit was held in Putrajaya, Malaysia, in 2003. Under the dynamic leadership of Mahathir Mohammad, the OIC’s performance was judged as unsatisfactory. He identified political inertia, economic underdevelopment, lack of democracy and unrepresentative governments as examples of the malaise afflicting the OIC.

The summit therefore, decided to craft a strategy to suggest reform and restructuring. A commission was set up to draw appropriate recommendations and a special summit was held at Makkah in December 2005 to examine these recommendations.

The Makkah Summit took stock of the OIC’s performance over the previous years and identified its weaknesses and shortcomings.

The Makkah summit made an intensive analysis and issued an ambitious plan of action for the next decade. However, as has been the history in the past, these summits and their declarations are long on promises and short on delivery.

The Makkah Declaration referred to the need for a “fresh vision” to turn the tide in the face of the external threats that have helped exacerbate the Ummah’s current plight and called for a plan for the future of the Ummah. The summit urged the member states to “focus on good governance, wider political participation, establish rule of law, protect human rights, apply social justice, transparency, fight corruption and build civil society institutions”.

The OIC today has 57 Muslim member-states and has held 10 summits in response to the challenges confronting the Muslim world. Since its establishment, the Islamic world has suffered five major catastrophes which have reduced it to almost a non-factor in international politics.

The break up of Pakistan through armed intervention by India in 1971 , the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982, the Iran-Iraq war, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the US occupation of Iraq, have dealt a mortal blow to the unity, dignity and sovereignty of the Muslim world.

The OIC has failed to respond meaningfully to any of these crises or demonstrate any unity of thought and action apart from issuing high-sounding declarations at the end of each summit. Nothing was done to contain the crises or avert the tragedies. The OIC remained merely a silent spectator.

The Muslim world has abjectly failed to grasp the demands and requirements of the 21st century. The absolute need to introduce and embrace modern technology has not dawned on its leaders, reflecting their distressing intellectual poverty.

Pakistan’s suggestion to establish a multi-billion dollar fund for the promotion of science and technology did not receive support from the GCC countries, who alone could establish or run this multi-faceted fund.

Pakistan has made some extremely useful proposals to lift the Islamic world out of its present dilemmas.

The suggestions related to: (i) an institutional mechanism for conflict prevention and resolution with member states; (II) a network of centres of excellence in science and technology; (iii) establishment of a permanent forum of Islamic thought to provide guidance and opinion; (iv) allocation of adequate financial resources to implement these proposals; (v) allocation of at least 0.5 per cent of the GDP by the member states for implementing OIC objectives; and (vi) a dedicated department in the OIC secretariat for promoting intra-OIC trade.

The OIC has set up a number of institutions to help in capacity building, knowledge networking in areas of knowledge-driven economy, trade and investments, ICT, quality and productivity, sustainable development, governance and poverty alleviation but to date have no achievement to their credit.

Unless OIC members are willing to face the present challenges boldly and demonstrate political will to assert their role in the world affairs, the OIC will continue to fail its members. The current crisis between the West and the world of Islam is yet another opportunity for the OIC to prove its relevance by playing a constructive role by building bridges through an informed dialogue between Islam and other faiths.

THE following three developments which have evolved in the last few weeks will have direct impact on the future of Pakistan: The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009, popularly known as Kerry-Lugar Bill; the direction of aid under the Friends of Democratic Pakistan; and the possible lease of land to Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries. It may be said that the Zardari government is on trial with respects to these developments because they are of historical significance for the country.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill is aimed at the existential reality of extremism in Pakistan, with a multifaceted strategy to promote stability in the country. It is of paramount importance from the point of view of security of the US. While increased troop deployment in Afghanistan is under consideration, the possible expansion of Taliban activity in Pakistan cannot be ignored according to this point of view.

It is a pre-emptive move and it will be for a long-term commitment because the targets are inter-related and would need to be strengthened with continuity in the flow of aid. It is not accurate to describe the bill ‘to fight extremism with economic development’, because economic development is only a factor included in it, albeit a significant one. Several conditions and caveats are an important feature of the bill.

Under the Act, non-assistance payments and direct cash security-related assistance will be offered to the civilian authorities of the civilian government; with a requirement to demonstrate a sustained commitment to combat terrorist groups. One would have to have some idea about total official transfers in order to understand the significance of what is stipulated for the civilian authorities.

In any case, the present situation in Pakistan represents a delicate relationship between the government and the military, with the former being a weaker partner. There is a general impression in the knowledgeable circles that historically the military has been directly involved in maintaining links with some jihadi elements. How will the Zardari government establish its moral authority on this issue to fulfil the conditions of the Act?

It cannot accept just a proxy relationship with the military in order to demonstrate a ‘sustained commitment’ to combat terrorism. This will be an important challenge for the Zardari government.

Under section 302 of the Act, assistance to programmes, projects and activities will be made available to the country. How these programmes and plans will go forward will apparently be determined by mutual agreement between the aid provider and the recipient.

Obviously there would be local input and a formal endorsement from the government. By itself this mechanism would offer no guarantee that the local point of view would prevail as against US security considerations. The assessment of the programmes after all will be based on broader criteria as enunciated in section 101 of the Act. This will present another challenge to the Zardari government.

There is, however, a specific requirement for allocation of assistance under sub-section F of section 302 and it relates to the need for increased oversight on curriculum in madressahs ‘including closing madressahs with direct link to the Taliban or other extremist and terrorist groups’. This will be an interesting responsibility put on the coalition government, especially with reference to the question of curriculum which was consistently ignored by the Musharraf regime and has not been changed during the present civilian rule.

The latest national education policy recently announced seems to promote more obscurantism in the name of Islamic teachings in schools. Also, at least one coalition party would not cooperate for a critical review of the madressah curriculum.

What exact process will be used to determine progress in this regard and who will make the final decision remains unclear. It is not difficult to assume, however, that whoever pays the piper will be able to determine the tune. Zardari government is likely to get caught in this scenario, between the responsibility to fulfil the commitment under the bill, and hostile reaction from the religious groups.

Coming now to the second development, about the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP), the group of countries put together in this forum have enthusiastically endorsed the need for assistance to the country. The bid to raise billions of dollars by Mr Zardari for his ‘Pakistan’ was, however, in the last resort dumped into the lap of the Word Bank.

The implication of this decision is to make sure that the assistance dollar will be allocated within the framework of the criteria established by the IFIs (WB, IMF, etc.), and not left at the discretion of Zardari government.

It would probably require Pakistan to follow through necessary fiscal and economic reforms, including improvement in revenue collection and extending the tax base to other eligible taxpayers. It may also call for other measures such as further privatisation and liberalisation of the economy, in conformity with the nostalgia of Washington Consensus. The consequences that will follow from this would increase poverty and further increase in the inflationary pressures in the economy. With popularity already at a very low level, the government will likely become more unpopular.

The underlying message of both the Kerry-Lugar Bill and the FoDP is to demonstrate recognition of urgent need of assistance for Pakistan, but with its disbursement based on viable and transparent criteria. With so many caveats included in the Bill about accountability and periodic reports to Congress about allocation of funds, and with FoDP decision to bring WB as the intermediary, it is obvious that Zardari government suffers from credibility gap in the eyes of the international donors. It does not speak well for the government and promotes poor image for the country. Contrary to the claim made by the spokesman of Mr Zardari, the president’s recent foreign trip cannot be called a success.

The latest report of Transparency International came out almost concurrently with the other developments, but as an annual event its publication was in accordance with its schedule. The section on Pakistan presents a strong indictment of the government. The rumour mills are churning out all kinds of accusations from diverse sources, from a baker to a banker to a business tycoon, all leading to the top. The recent disclosure about the rental power plants lends further support to this rapidly expanding literature on the subject.

The government will be saddled with a very serious responsibility for the remaining four years of its tenure. Kerry-Lugar Bill will especially keep them busy, something they are not used to, from parliamentarians to the top. The obvious fact is that the Bill calls for extensive cooperation between Pakistan and the USA, and a greater presence of the Americans in the country than ever before, apparently guiding, advising, assisting their counterparts in Pakistan, to fulfil the objectives of the Bill.

That will not go down well in the country. A leader with ‘soft-power’ could reach the people directly to give them assurance and hope, but Mr Zardari does not have the facility with the language.

The third development is not directly related to the above two, but as a challenge to the credibility of the government is parallel to them. It is about the plan, in progress according to reports, to lease agricultural land to Saudi Arabia for growing crops to fulfil its needs. Why should this favour be done to the Saudis is an important question. They do seem to enjoy the role of patrons of politics in Pakistan, from time to time, and they are part of the FoDP, though it is difficult to understand what interest they would have in a `democratic` Pakistan.

Land lease to produce crops for export by the lease-holder at his discretion fits in with a model of plantation economy, with tenancy laws in Pakistan no better than which prevailed in the old colonies that used slave or indentured labour. If the lease-holder becomes the monopoly exporter of a single or a few crops, his activity would bring Pakistan to the level of a banana republic. Also, water scarcity is not far away, in rivers as well as aquifer- wells and tube-wells.

The interesting point is that all this is being promoted by a self-proclaimed secular and a modernist party, with a link with the legacy of Z.A. Bhutto. And there is not a peep from the other main parties about this matter, not PML-N, not MQM, not ANP, not Insaf Party.

DOMESTIC violence against women is rampant mostly amongst the low-income illiterate segments of Pakistani society. The reported cases may be running into thousands every year. If the reported and the unreported cases are put together, one finds more than 90 per cent of women in these segments are subjected to violence. It is rare to come across a poor uneducated woman who is not beaten up quite often. Family members usually do not intervene. Some actually watch with a nod of approval. Many of the persecuted women also find comfort in seeing another woman being thrashed.

While society in general and the low-income sections in particular believe in the superiority of men, this belief is shared by many women too. This is one of the reasons why violence is not resisted at the individual, family and community level.

The paradox is that the act of beating up of women is considered bad as well as men’s divine right at the same time. It is this latter view that women fall back on to justify their sad existence. This inhuman act is thus granted social legitimacy and is viewed as a “family affair.”

The Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill recently passed by the National Assembly takes a jab at the “legitimacy” given to violence against women. Passage of the bill by both the houses will simply transform beating up of women from a “legitimate” to an illegal act. In the process, its legitimacy will be called into question.

However much people may dislike their legislators and the government, laws once framed describe and define acceptable behaviour. Once the legislation is enacted, perpetrators of domestic violence will be unable to defend it on social grounds too.

Regardless of the differences of opinion between the male and the female family members, the new law of the land will declare beating unacceptable.

Women will thus be allowed a say in family matters and the male-female equation within the household will be redefined. Violent communities with an air of self-righteousness about them will have another view.

The domestic violence bill is, therefore, a major milestone transforming socially legitimised domestic violence into an absolutely illegal act and a crime. Now it will a crime whether perpetrated on a family member within the chardiwari or on an unrelated person outside the house. The bill remains to be passed by the Senate.

Remedy should, however, be specified to rectify behaviour. The bill appears to have soft pedalled the correction part.

It is unclear if it is a bill for future prevention and protection after a complaint is lodged or whether it also provides for penalty for the violence that led to the complaint.

Court will issue protection orders after complaints are received which, if violated, will lead to a moderate punishment including 1/2 years’ imprisonment plus fine.

This is inadequate deterrence for the chronic practitioners of violence who cannot tolerate any dissent from women in any matter. Rigorous imprisonment terms must be specified for criminal acts of domestic violence against which complaints are lodged. Fairness and justice would demand penalty in proportion to the degree of crime usually committed with sticks, metallic rods, and belts. At times, women are tied up and doors locked from inside to beat women with the rest of the family sitting smug outside. On many occasions, the perpetrator is instigated by the immediate family members to fix the woman who probably “thinks too much.”

If the new law is meant to truly prevent violence, it should attempt to pre-empt all acts of violence before they are committed and not just after violence has occurred. It should aim at the “greatest good of the greatest number” by significantly penalising the very first act of violence also that is currently not the case.

The apprehension is that the domestic violence bill in its current (lenient) form might not be able to prevent much of violence. And, there is the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) fretting about the divorce rate going up with this law.

But probably the divorce rates may not be adversely affected because in this socio-economic segment, women are either bread winners or they play a strong supportive economic role. The fear may then be that one earning woman might be substituted by another earning woman.

But the man will run the same risk of litigation if he treats the second woman similarly. So, why change the woman? Also, with their large number of children from a young age, possibility of another woman taking responsibility for the first wife’s children is remote and so is the possibility of divorce.

The male’s dependence on woman that is currently taken for granted will be redefined under the new scenario eventually leading to healthier relationships, quite contrary to what the CII thinks.

The law on the anvil will make the men see limits of their high-handedness as they will be compelled to trade-off some of the free rein they give to their egos with the fear that the law will put into them.

While actual implementation will remain fraught with pitfalls due to deeply ingrained customs and social ties, mavericks will lead the way and set examples for others to follow until violence against women loses its legitimacy.

The practical battle will be a long drawn out one. Nonetheless, the domestic violence bill is the first step in the right direction that, at least, begins to write the theory of gender parity in contemporary times as we all ignore God’s injunction, “….we do not disregard the work of men or women (as they are not special over each other) since they are from both genders….” (A ‘lay Imran: 195).

THE meeting between Iran and six major powers — five permanent members of the Security Council who are all established nuclear powers, plus Germany, a major European player — in Geneva on October 1 wasn’t only the first contact between them in 15 months but also turned out to be a catalyst in melting the ice on the much-ballyhooed Iranian ‘ambitions’ on nuclear power.

It was also the first face-to-face contact between high-ranking American and Iranian officials in 30 years. Tehran further sweetened the pot for its western interlocutors by agreeing to let its spent nuclear fuel be reprocessed in Russia, its main partner in harnessing nuclear power. They also agreed to meet later.

It was a sigh of relief, in the truest sense of the term, for a world that had distinctly heard the shrill war drums being beaten with obscene alacrity at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

The Pittsburgh conclave at the end of September, on the heels of the annual UN General Assembly circus in New York, was, otherwise meant to put together the heads of world’s leading economic and industrial powers — some established, others emerging — to find a panacea for global economic ills. But all that was put on the back burner to give primacy, instead,

to the western world’s fad of Iran-bashing.

The show put up by Barack Obama, and cohorts Gordon Brown of Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy of France was carefully calibrated and well orchestrated, both in its theatrics and semantics. Obama, looking as glum and worried as he could for the battery of television cameras, blamed Iran for developing a secret nuclear enrichment site on the lam. Sarkozy, successor to those ‘pioneers’ of clandestine French support to Israel that enabled that country to become a nuclear power in stealth, groused about Iran posing a dire threat to world security. But the centre-stage was hogged by Gordon Brown who intoned with all the gravity of a gladiator facing a hungry beast that Iran was forcing the West to “draw a line in the sand.”

The theatrics, patently pedantic, had been triggered by the ‘sensational discovery’ by US spy satellites that Iran was working on a secret nuclear site in the mountains outside the holy city of Qum, which had never been disclosed to the IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog in Vienna. That revelation was deemed appropriately inviting by the western leaders to mount the pulpit to denounce Iran in so many words.

But the orchestrated stage appearance of the three western leaders, designed to embarrass Iran, was dishonest. There was no truth at all, as independent news sources have subsequently revealed, that Obama and his two musketeers had been given the news of Iranian ‘cheating’ in the thick of the G-20 proceedings. The satellite snooping had been known to them for several weeks. However, its disclosure to the world — a day after President Mehmoud Ahmedinejad had addressed the UN General Assembly — was cunningly timed to cause maximum damage to Iran’s reputation.

The Iranian government itself had pre-empted the Obama cabal’s amateurish antics by at least two days by informing the IAEA of its second nuclear enrichment site near Qum, and IAEA duly acknowledged the fact, subsequently.

Technically the Iranians have been in no error or default as far as disclosing the facility to IAEA is concerned. Under the terms of its obligations under NPT — to which Iran is a signatory while Israel is not — Iran is obligated to inform the IAEA of any new facility only 180 days before it commences enrichment work; the Iranian official sources contend that the Qum facility has at least 470 days to go before it enters the enrichment phase. Even otherwise, too, Iran is on a solid wicket as far as the technical merit of its protestation that its nuclear ‘ambition’ is fired only by peaceful intent is concerned.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a so-called ‘mother’ of all U.S. spy networks and agencies, affirmed in 2007 that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme as far back as 2003; NIE is not inclined to budge from that well-informed conclusion even under relentless pressure from the well-heeled, Israel-friendly, lobbies in the US.

But the most reliable word in the debate kicked up by western badgering of Iran is, of course, that of IAEA, which reiterated, once again, in the midst of the latest uproar, that there is “no credible evidence” that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons course.

The retiring head of IAEA, Mohammad El Baradei, did rap Tehran on the knuckles by saying it was “on the wrong side of the law” in not disclosing its upcoming Qum facility to his agency. However, being a man of principles, for which he is highly regarded in the scientific community but understandably vilified by Israel and its purblind partisans, El Baradei rushed to Tehran, last Sunday, to talk to the Iranian officials face to face. El Baradei’s remarks, after meeting the Iranians at the highest level, that there is a noticeable ‘shifting of gears’ in the Iranian policy on the nuclear file most succinctly sums up the latest ploy in the Iranian policy, vis-à-vis a wolf-crying West, and most pointedly towards Washington.

The shifting of gears that El Baradei has found impressive and tantalising couldn’t be just a tactical manoeuvre by Tehran to douse the flames the western leaders’ theatrics aimed to ignite.

Indeed, Iran couldn’t have failed to see through the aim of these western shenanigans, which reminded the world of those dark and dismal days of the 1962 Cuban missiles crisis that had brought it so perilously close to WWIII. More pointedly, it was a déjà vu of 2003 when warmongers of Washington had conjured up the spectre of a world getting dangerously close to a Saddam-inspired Armageddon from his weapons of mass destruction, which were never there.

Most independent observers of the Iranian scene believe the shift of gears in Tehran points to a strategic objective: Tehran would like to mend its fences with Washington and turn the corner in the tortured course of bad and strained relations of the past 30 years between the two countries. The Iranians have cogent and rational reasons for seeking a tectonic shift in their relations with US, the most solid of which is the presence of Barack Obama in the White House.

True that Obama is being haunted, and also taunted, at every step of the way, by the wolves that pack the Republican party’s echelons as well as those well-endowed special interest groups that object to his liberal ideas; his close encounters with them on the national health insurance is just one proof of his myriad handicaps. And yet he isn’t a George W. Bush. He has shown a willingness to reach out to the Muslim world, and has publicly accepted Iran’s prerogative to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The Iranians couldn’t be blamed for reaching the conclusion that this could well be their best, if not last, chance to put their relations with Washington on a normal footing. However, they are right to insist that the larger onus of injecting sanity in the strained relations is on Washington, whose efforts in these 30 years have been riveted solely on barricading Iran and making it an international pariah.

But the joker in the pack, a nasty and robust one, is Israel and its overwhelming capacity to influence US policies, especially in regard to the Muslim world.

Israel has a power-drunk warmonger like Netanyahu as its leader who thinks Iran poses an “existential threat” to the Jewish state. Netanyahu has powerful backers in the US, especially in the Republican ranks infused with a crusading zeal to bring down Barack Obama. One of these Zionist votaries, the Senate Minority Whip, Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said unabashedly in reference to policy on Iran on NBC’s Sunday morning Meet the Press: “What we’re trying to do here eventually is get a regime change.”

Senator Kyl’s candid but provocative regime-change gambit is reminiscent of what the Bush neocons sought in regard to Iraq under Saddam. This is a direct challenge to Obama who is seeking to put US relations with the Muslim world, including Iran, on a more humane and rational keel. So it’s Obama who now has the onus on him to thwart the Zionists and their cohorts in the US from derailing what many are calling as a desire for détente with Iran. But with hounds like Netanyahu lurking menacingly in the shadows, none should rule out the Iranian willingness for détente with Washington being rebuffed or shortchanged.

The writer is a former ambassador.

It was the discovery of a stocky Japanese wheat variety Norin-10 that the US military advisor, Dr D C Salmon, sent back home in the early 1960s that changed the face of global agriculture. This was the variety, the only known semi-dwarf traditional wheat strain, that Dr Norman Borlaug was keenly looking for. Crossed with the rust-resistant varieties that Borlaug had developed at the International Centre for Wheat and Maize Research (CIMMYT) in Mexico, the world got the miracle improved varieties that made history.

These semi-dwarf plants developed by Dr Borlaug responded to the application of chemical fertilisers and produced a bountiful grain harvest. The yields multiplied under favourable conditions, and Borlaug knew that the best place to apply the new technology was obviously India, with the largest population of the hungry and starved in the world. “I tried my best to convince the Indian politicians about the utility of these semi-dwarf varieties in fighting hunger, but they were not interested,” he had once told me.

“When I didn’t see much headway being made, I played the political card knowing the political rivalry between India and Pakistan,” he went on to explain. “I told India that if you don’t want these varieties, I will give them instead to Pakistan.” I am not sure whether it was because of the political astuteness of Dr Borlaug or the domestic necessity, India imported 18,000 tonnes of wheat seed of the semi-dwarf varieties in 1966. Within a few weeks of the import, the seed was made available in 5 kg packs and distributed widely.

The rest is history. India emerged out of ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence. Although hunger prevails, famine certainly has become history.

For several years after the Green Revolution was launched, I had the pleasure of accompanying him on his annual visits to the Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana. As a young journalist I was always in awe of Dr Borlaug, and found him to be a simple and dedicated scientist. He would spend hours in scorching sun in the wheat research fields and was always keen to visit farmers. At one such evening at a farmer’s house, I remember the host saying: “The three major inputs for raising wheat yields are: farmers, improved seed and Borlaug.”

Green Revolution spread to parts of Asia and Latin America. It did enable a number of developing countries to emerge out of the hunger trap. Agricultural scientists globally promoted the technology — cultivating the water guzzling high-yielding varieties of wheat (the same technology was subsequently applied in rice) application of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides — and were never able to understand why the environmentalists were opposed to the technology.

Such was the blind faith in the technology that Borlaug developed and promoted that agricultural scientists refused to see the flip side which was clearly evident through the deterioration of the plant ecology and the destruction to the environment. Several years after Rachel Carlson published her historic work The Silent Spring, I asked Borlaug whether he had read the book: “She is an evil force,” he reacted angrily, adding: “These are the people who do not want to eradicate hunger.” I didn’t agree with him, and asked him why agricultural scientists can’t accept that chemical pesticides simply kill. “You too, Sharma,” he quipped, and then replied: “Remember, pesticides are like medicines. They have to be applied carefully and safely.”

He would often tell me that if India had not followed the Green Revolution technology, the country would have required bringing an additional 58 million hectares under cultivation to produce the same quantity of food that was being produced after the high-yielding varieties of wheat were introduced. My argument to this was that although the country saved 58 million hectares but 40 years after Green Revolution, more than double — close to 120 million hectares — are faced with varying degrees of degradation.

Borlaug never pardoned me for espousing the cause of long-term sustainability in agriculture. He never accepted that the world could produce enough food with Low-external Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) techniques. In fact, knowingly or unknowingly he did espouse the cause of corporate control of agriculture.

Although Green Revolution did bypass small farmers, Borlaug knew and appreciated the role farmers played in producing food. Perhaps the world does not know that it was for the sake of farmers that he had even decried a Nobel prize for Poland’s popular leader Lech Walesa. At a time when Lech Walesa had emerged as the leader of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, the Nobel Prize committee constituted a small team to go and find out whether Walesa deserved a prize.

The team was headed by Dr Borlaug.

Upon return, he told me that how appalled he was to learn that all that Walesa was talking about was cheaper food for the industrial workers. He was not bothered nor did he care to know as to what would happen to the livelihoods of millions of farmers who were producing food for the industrial workers. “My report had therefore categorically ruled out a Nobel for Walesa.” It is however another matter that Walesa did receive a Nobel Peace prize.

He told me during one of his visits to Pantnagar University: “When people stop talking about farmers, when people fail to recognise their role in feeding the country, be sure there is something terribly wrong happening in agriculture.” These prophetic words hold true today. In India, it no longer hurts when farmers commit suicide or quit agriculture. For quite some time, farmers have disappeared from the economic radar screen of the country. This is a clear pointer to the terrible agrarian crisis that prevails.

ISLAMIC finance comprises financial services, instruments, and transactions that comply with provisions given in the Quran and the Sunnah. While there are financial norms common to both Islamic and western financial systems, certain norms are exclusive to Islam. In fact, some of the restrictions imposed by Islam are severe enough to render certain western financial practices and transactions absolutely void.

Prohibition of riba and gharar are two of the main restrictions imposed by the fundamental Islamic texts. The general view is that riba includes both interest and usury. Some Muslim scholars hold that it only includes usury — many non-Muslim countries prohibit usury as well. Gharar signifies ambiguity, uncertainty, or lack of specificity in the terms of a financial contract.

Claiming to be in conformity with these principles, there is a variety of Islamic financial instruments and transactions available in different markets. These include musharaka, mudaraba, salam, istisna, qard, murabaha, ijara, tawarruq, sukuk, etc.

Regarding the validity of some of these transactions and instruments, there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars. There are scholars who oppose certain practices because they find hidden elements of riba and gharar in them. Some products appear Islamic only in form, not substance. Tawarruq, bai-al-dayn, and bai-al-einah are among the transactions that are either disallowed or deemed controversial by some scholars.

Most financial institutions conducting Islamic operations have a panel of Muslim scholars, called “shariah committee” or “shariah board” that determines whether a product or practice complies with Islamic provisions. Shariah scholars usually receive a fixed fee for their services. Inn some cases, scholars approved conventional products as Islamic if they get “the right price”. Thus, the critics of Islamic finance came up with the term “rent-a-sheikh”.

The number of these experts comes to between 100 and 200 but 12 of them are the most sought after. As reported in Financial Times, these twelve are making millions of dollars a year. They not only serve on many shariah boards, they even give their advisory services to the rivals. Malaysia, in 2005, restricted scholars from serving on more than one board or committee.

As shariah can be given different interpretations, the shariah committees, at times, give conflicting rulings. A product approved by one committee can be rejected by another board within the same jurisdiction. For instance, in Jordan, a prominent shariah scholar criticised the penalty imposed on a defaulting client in murabaha, and declared that it is a kind of riba. Similarly, in Britain, a famous Muslim scholar advises against taking out Islamic mortgages due to the structure being interest-bearing debt in disguise.

Also, in 2008, Accounting and Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) openly questioned the Islamic credentials of sukuk structures — which must have been approved by some shariah scholar or committee — and claimed that 85 per cent of them were in violation of Islamic law. The fact that sukuk, not complying with AAOIFI’s opinion, have been successfully issued, it is another example of this conflict of opinion. Differences also arise and exist between countries: in Malaysia, Islamic financial restrictions are construed more liberally than in Saudi Arabia.

There are bodies and organisations — AAOIFI is one of them — that are trying to address this lack of standardisation. However, without a consensus among religious experts there cannot be a binding, universal set of Islamic financial rules. In fact, there is a proposal to set up a supreme shariah board. Indonesia serves as a good example where a national shariah board issues rulings that are mandatory for all shariah boards in the country.

Another shortcoming confronting Islamic finance is the shortage of qualified professionals at all levels. Not many people are skilled in conventional finance as well as Islamic law. A person well acquainted with conventional finance can easily understand any Islamic product; however, one cannot successfully develop or market such a product without knowing the rules and institutions unique to Islam.

Though the share of Islamic finance is very small in the global financial industry, it is showing an impressive growth. Islamic financial institutions have been set up not only in Muslim countries, but also in non-Muslim jurisdictions like England and the US, that have Muslim minorities. Financial bodies like Citibank, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Swiss Re, Munich Re, etc., are engaged in shariah compliant operations.

Islamic financial institutions take pride in the fact that, unlike their conventional counterparts, they have emerged relatively unscathed from the global financial crisis. In fact, in England, two Islamic banks were launched, in 2008, when governments in Europe were busy bailing out their banks. And while Lehman Brothers collapsed, Islamic Bank of Britain launched an Islamic residential mortgage.

However, it must be kept in mind that, due to the prohibition of riba, Islamic financial institutions have never been exposed to the risks that have affected their conventional counterparts.

Due to the prohibition of riba and gharar, the real Islamic financial products generally tend to be less profitable than conventional ones. In order to make Islamic financial transactions more profitable, the Islamic institutions often manipulate and re-engineer Islamic contract forms to achieve the same results as offered by conventional transactions. According to Moody’s “Many of the current sukuk types adhere to AAOIFI in form, but not in substance.”

There are transactions in conventional markets, having no Islamic origins and names, which are totally in compliance with Islamic principles. For example, the private equity investments in technology companies in the Silicon Valley completely satisfy shariah requirements.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a lawyer based in Lahore.

EDUCATION of the poor, by the poor and for the poor seems to be the message of the new Education Policy announced recently. This is in response to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of universal primary education to be achieved by 2015 by all nations of the world. Pakistan is among these nations but its literacy rates are abysmally poor by world standards or even South Asia standards.

The present government’s emphasis on this aspect in the education policy needs to be commended. But the solution it comes up with of the problem is the setting up of “Apna Ghar Schools” to provide education to the poor. It is highly questionable. Why build new schools to educate the poor when 145,000 public or government schools which are already on ground can be utilised, upgraded and improved to fulfil the needs. Free education up to primary level (Education Policy 1972) and free education up to matriculation (Education policies 2002 &2009) has already been promised.

It would be in order to remind ourselves that according to Unesco, “education is a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise of all other human rights” and that the United Nations and Unesco lay down international legal obligations for the right to education which must be promoted and developed as the right of every person to enjoy access to education of good quality, without discrimination or exclusion. In Pakistan’s context the real challenge lies here.

Despite the MDG vision, millions of children and adults worldwide remain deprived of opportunities to get education, mostly because of conditions of poverty. Recently, a joint effort by the Unesco Institute for Statistics (UIS) and Unicef of global statistics in education states that one-third of the world’s out-of school children live in South Asia. This region also has one quarter of the world’s primary school age population and out of 162 million school-age children, 42 million are out-of-school. The highest share of out-of-school children in South Asia is found in Pakistan where more than eight million of almost 20 million school-age children (or 40 per cent) are out-of-school.

The Pakistani state is committed since 1947 to provide all basic facilities to the country’s children including education which has been reiterated and re-emphasised in the Constitution of 1973. Even after 63 years, Pakistan faces low enrolment, a high drop-out rate and a significant gender gap. According to the 2006 Unesco study, 8.1 million children were not enrolled in schools in 2002-04. The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) ranks Pakistan 134th in the list of 177 countries and this low ranking is due to Pakistan’s poor performance in education. (Development Studies, 2005)

In Punjab province, the provincial government is focusing on providing quality schools for the poor under a scheme called ‘Daanish School’. This ambitious project defines itself as “Aitchisons for the poor” and, again, this can be called in question as to why we need such schools. Aitchison College was meant for the sons of Rajas, Maharajas and Nawabs to grow them into ‘brown sahibs’ during British rule in the subcontinent. In 1835, Lord Macaulay’s famous Minute on Education had stipulated English education for the minimal numbers of Indians and the ‘trickle-down’ concept was to take care of the poor masses. These Aitchisonians would act and think like Englishmen despite their skin tones being brown.

Post 1947, this college caters to the elite of Pakistan and the culture of the ‘brown sahibs’ is still being maintained. Will the ‘Daanish Schools” provide the poor with an education that will also cater to making them into English gentlemen? Maybe, the concept of Aitchison means large grounds, grand buildings and state of the art laboratories and libraries. Even so, does a nation which is constantly begging for its running costs be able to afford such grand schools? It will take a huge amount of money to build these schools and then the government will have to bear the running costs of maintaining these schools and their facilities.

Pakistan is still an underdeveloped country and must adopt a realistic approach to providing education to all its citizens, to meet the MDG goals. One may learn from the example of Bangladesh which has improved its literacy rate by introducing a ‘one room, one teacher’ schools. This is a good starting point to make a large population of children literate. However, in our country the problem continues to be a misconstrued approach towards the education of the poor. We are constantly lagging behind in the race to create equal opportunities for the poor when opportunities to catch up are becoming more and more impossible.

Lyndon Johnson, in 1965, started the Head Start programme under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It is the longest running programme in the US to address systemic poverty. Although the concept of Head Start is to try and give children from disadvantaged backgrounds a fairly good start to education which fortunate children take for granted. But studies of the Head Start pre-school education raised the issue that the “children who finish the programme and are placed in disadvantaged schools (i.e. for the poor) perform worse than their peers by second grade.

Only by continuing to isolate these children (such as dispersing and sending them to better-performing school districts) can the gains be captured? Thus, schools just for the ‘poor’ cannot give the same results that mainstream public schools of a high standard can do to facilitate the children’s educational growth. Here, a few “Daanish Schools” for excellence and mainstreaming bright students can be thought of. The NGO schools in Pakistan should work on the early childhood and primary stage of education of the disadvantaged. The children could then be placed in mainstream quality public schools to be given the best chance at social mobility.

The whole approach to the problem of putting children into schools has to be carefully considered so that it can be easily implemented as well. Many NGOs are already trying to educate children at no cost to the parents. This effort can only be a drop in the ocean for the numbers we are looking at in terms of Pakistan’s ever increasing population. The solution would then be to go back to the initial project of public schools providing education at low cost to the nation’s children. Most countries of the world depend on the public sector to fill this gap of schooling for the population at large. This also provides the children with a right to education by their country rather than being labelled as being from a ‘poor’ school for the rest of their lives. Public schools provide the best level playing field to children from all backgrounds.

However, if the Head Start concept is problematic for Pakistani standards in terms of organisation and money, early childhood education can be serviced by television programming for learning and teaching. The number of private television channels which operate can easily make programmes for literacy and numeracy to target the 3-5 year age group and of educating children up to primary level (5-10 years) if the government is willing to spend money here for the greater good of poverty-stricken families. Radio and television could have made many out-of-school children literate over the years even though schooling had been denied to them.

What is needed is a sustained effort by the government to provide education to the children who are denied this right as a result of poverty. Moreover, it is not just a matter of enrolling children into “poor” schools but, also to make sure they complete primary schooling equipped with a comprehensive set of literacy and numeracy skills. Conditions of out-of-school children need to be studied alongside needs of educational quality and learning outcomes.

Quality and quantity must go hand in hand for any further interventions in the education sector for optimum results. Our survival lies in redeeming the public schools for the greatest good of educating the people of Pakistan rather than making more and more variety of schools at higher expense. All the ‘missing facilities’ of public

schools quoted ad nauseum in policy documents can be rectified if the will to do so is there. Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, wisely said, ‘Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.’

THE ‘Initial Assessment Report of the Situation in Afghanistan’ by General Stanley McChrystal has caused the Afghanistan issue to again assume centre stage.

The strategy review was received by Pentagon in August but was withheld by the Robert Gates and leaked to the media late September. McChrystal resource request was separated from the review and its release delayed in order to gauge public and Congressional response to the review itself and allow America's compliant corporate media to prepare domestic audiences for the possibility of largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan's history by leaking guesstimates.

The review was not authored by General McChrystal himself. A group of about a dozen civilian security experts, mostly from Washington think tanks wrote the review. Spencer Ackerman writing in the Washington Independent says very few of these experts are primarily Afghanistan experts and “no one out of these …… primarily studies Afghanistan”.

In view of this it is difficult to say how accurately the review presents the military commanders’ professional perspective, but the debate that ensued, raised three fundamental questions: America’s mission, strategy and resources for Afghanistan.

The Mission: President Obama has still not been able to convince his people, or the world, as to the mission of the Afghan campaign. Other than repeating the Bush rhetoric about Al Qaeda being a threat to American security, Obama administration had nothing concrete to add, although it is believed that only about 100 Al Qaeda members remain in Afghanistan.

No one has explained why over the last eight years the American and Nato forces have been unable to locate and eliminate top Al Qaeda leadership, when in the ’90s the Americans easily hunted down Aimal Kasi in Balochistan, a much lesser fugitive, for his role in the first WTC bombing. Obama’s case becomes weaker in the backdrop of Bush and senior members of his administration having said that locating Osama bin Laden and his close associates was never their priority during the Afghan war.

Consequently, nine months into his administration and Obama’s own party strongly questions the objectives of this war, which the chief of British armed forces estimates will last decades.

The New Strategy: The review highlights very difficult and complex conditions on the ground that make the prospects of defeating the Taliban bleak. It recommends a new strategy that changes the very fundamentals of the war.

Its main focus is intensified counterinsurgency war. General McChrystal calls it the ‘population security strategy’ that was tried by General Patraeus in Iraq with some success and both generals now want to replicate it in Afghanistan. It aims at ‘providing security to the Afghan population against fear that drives them to support the Taliban.

McChrystal slams Nato's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for lacking clear objectives and for waging a directionless war. According to him "ISAF requires a new strategy that should be executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency operation…”

The review states that the war will not only escalate within Afghanistan but will also be stepped up inside Pakistan and may even target Iran. It claims: "Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with Al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI.”

The review also accuses Iranian Quds Force of training fighters for certain Taliban groups, which appears to be a prevocational fabrication.

The Resources: Since the new strategy involves a full blown counterinsurgency campaign, it is resource intensive. McChrystal wants a total of 500,000 troops and enough resources to sustain the campaign over a five year period. This would include 68,000 US troops that will be in position by this year’s end, 35,000 Nato troops currently available, 240,000 Afghan soldiers and 160,000 Afghan policemen. Despite efforts, the non-availability of Afghan soldiers and policemen in required numbers will have to be met by additional 40,000 US troops that McChrystal will likely ask, raising their strength from 68,000 to over 100,000.

In his stark assessment McChrystal makes the key point: Although more troops will not guarantee victory in Afghanistan, the lack of them could lead to defeat because the Taliban insurgency has grown stronger than US commanders anticipated. Pentagon’s civil leadership and the Congressional Democrats are uncomfortable with such high demand for resources, while the military high command is united behind this proposal.

The civilian advisors are keen to explore less costly options such as persuading Taliban to give up fighting, thereby weakening the Taliban and isolating Al Qaeda.

Obama has delayed his decision about additional resources pending in-depth review of the proposed strategy. "I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question," Obama said on CNN. He said he understands "the public's weariness of this war" and wants "to make sure that I get the best answers possible, particularly before I make decisions about sending additional troops into the theatre."

His dilemma is: he is damned if he concedes to his commanders and he is damned if he doesn’t. He has to choose between a ‘certain defeat’ now and a ‘possible victory’ half a decade down the road. A possible victory is a slightly better option but comes at a much higher cost that includes escalation of war for a longer period.

The Afghans are very concerned about the growing size of the coalition forces which they look upon as an occupation force. McChrystal argues that the Afghans can be won over when, under the new strategy, they see foreign troops providing security and rebuilding their country. His premise is wrong. This rather simplistic assumption fails to read the psyche of the Afghans and their inherent despise for foreign invaders. Earlier this year Carnegie Institute concluded that the presence of foreign forces is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban.

REVERBERATIONS of the devastating offensive by Israeli defence forces against Gaza in January are still in the air. In a 22-day onslaught launched in response to rocket fire from the Palestinian enclave, IDF killed 1,417 civilians including 400 children under 16. On the Israeli side three civilians and 10 soldiers died.

Not content with this brutal response, Israel has imposed total blockade of Gaza and has spurned UN appeal to allow relief supplies, to the besieged population -- clear violation of the international humanitarian and human rights laws.

The vast destruction of civilian infrastructure and indiscriminate demolition of the houses aroused international anger and outrage. Richard Falk, UN special representative on human rights, condemned Israeli practices as violation of Fourth Geneva Convention and a crime against humanity.

The level and range of Israeli brutal offensive were so disproportionate and inhuman that UN Human Rights Council in Geneva decided to send a high-level delegation to fully investigate the war crimes committed by Israel. The delegation was led by Richard Goldstone, a Jew and former chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Israel refused to cooperate and did not allow the Commission to visit Israel.

The Goldstone commission presented its report on September 14 saying “actions amounting to war crimes and possibly in some respect crimes against humanity were committed by the IDF.” The 575-page report is replete with cases of barbaric practices where civilians were shot while leaving their homes trying to run for safety, waving white flags and sometimes even following IDF instructions. Targeting of a mosque at prayer time killing 15 people was also mentioned as an illustration of “a direct and intentional attack”.

Goldman, a former judge of South Africa Supreme Court and Constitutional Court was also critical of Palestinian armed groups for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing rockets at cities in northern Israel. The report understandably has been rejected by both Israel and its mentor — the US. A State Department spokesperson expressed “very serious concern” on commission’s recommendation that the issue may be taken up at international forums, outside Human Rights Council and national courts of country, not party to the conflict.

The damning indictment of IDF for war crimes has also been supported by International NGOs such as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Right Watch (HRW). The AI report corroborated Goldman commission’s findings and held Israel guilty of war crimes. “Much of the destruction was wanton and resulted from direct attack on civilian objects” AI concluded by appealing for International arms embargo against Israel. ‘Intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective is a war crime’, said AI.

It rejected Israel’s allegation that Hamas used civilians as human shield. The report mentioned a number of instances where “women and children were shot at short range when posing no threat to the lives of Israel soldiers.” According to AI report 300 children were among those killed. It also documented the use of white phosphorous and high precision weapons by Israel.

New York-based HRW carried out a similar study in March 2009 and arrived at similar conclusions. It noted the IDF ‘s indiscriminate use of white phosphorous shells over densely populated areas of Ghaza. An Israeli NGO — ‘Breaking the Silence’ interviewed and collected testimony of 30 Israeli soldiers stating that massive destruction wrecked on Palestinian population was “a direct result of IDF policy.” Based on these interviews the study established that whole sale demolition of the houses, wilful killings and use of civilians as human shield was a deliberate policy.

Amnesty International has demanded that in view of unassailable evidence of Israeli crimes, the Goldstone report must be implemented. It should be referred to the Security Council and victims should receive justice and reparations that is their due and that perpetrators do not get away with murders.

Despite these facts, there is little likelihood of any meaningful action from the international community. George Kaufman, a British Jewish MP, has succinctly summed up the unwillingness of world powers to condemn Israel for its brutal inhuman policy in Gaza stating — “the present Israeli governments ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from the gentiles over the slaughter of the Jews in Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians”.

The Goldstone report was presented to the 47-member Human Rights Council in Geneva on September 17. It was expected that Israeli practices would be condemned through a resolution as recommended by the commission. However, the move was postponed until next session scheduled in March next year as a result of intense lobbing by the US. It was argued that any precipitate action by HRC would adversely affect the restart of peace negotiations by the US.

Pakistan on behalf of Arab, Islamic and African sponsors moved a resolution on October 2, but the group under strong US pressure withdrew the resolution “to give more time for broad-based and comprehensive consideration”. The Palestinians also capitulated under “intense US diplomacy” and in surprising move dropped support for the resolution. The uncritical US support has encouraged Israel to commit crimes with impunity. The issue has been postponed until the next session of HRC in March 2010 but in effect the matter has been adjourned sine die.

UNDER normal circumstances, some of the conditionalities in the Kerry-Lugal Bill could be considered as highly intrusive in the affairs of Pakistan. But these are not normal times in the unhappy life of the country. The problem then is not with conditionalities per se (which are never desirable as a rule), but with the messenger, the feudalistic and oligarchic regime of President Zardari.

Much has been written on the furore over the bill. But there is scope for further discussion since the matter has long-term implications for Pakistan. In their denunciation of the bill, the political leaders as well as commentators in the media, especially electronic media, have used words such as ghairat (honour), waqar (dignity), sell-out and attack on sovereignty. Some have gone as far as to suggest that the offer should be declined and equivalent of $1.5 billion be ‘saved’ by ‘living within our means’ and by ceasing military operations against militants who are anti-West and anti-India in any case. All this is the stuff for Alice in Wonderland. Rejecting the bill will have far-reaching effects, extending to facilities from IFIs (IMF, etc.) FoDP (Friends of a Democratic Pakistan), and the EU. And the militants are not just anti-West, they have a distinct worldview, unacceptable to a vast majority in Pakistan.

The fact is that the bill went through several drafts, in consultation with Pakistan authorities, and that Mr Zardari is reported to have said that amendments were made in it in accordance with their suggestions. Also, the final act was approved through a bi-partisan support from Democrats and Republicans, and that many Republicans had serious reservations about this offer but they accepted the final draft. Moreover, whatever role was played in this episode by Mr Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to US, it could not have been done without knowledge of his master. After all, the bill is a pro-democracy package, according to Mr Zardari, and that it should be defended in all forums.

The lobbyist Mark Seagel, who was a friend of Benazir Bhutto, had claimed that the bill was a historical breakthrough. He has recently been replaced with another million-dollar lobbyist, Cassidy and Associates, a well-known company in Washington D.C. where Robin Raphael was a senior partner until her recent appointment as US security advisor for Pakistan.

From all these facts, it is not difficult to draw the obvious conclusion that President Zardari was confident about his role that he had made tangible achievements during his sixty-day sojourn in the US, as claimed by Farhatullah Babar, with Kerry-Lugar bill as the foremost among them. Obviously, in an important aid package such as the bill, some diplomatic exchange must have become part of this kind of large-scale arrangement. In this regard, what understanding he had given to the US administration when the future of General Musharraf was being decided would have played an important role, but nothing much is known about it.

Perhaps he had expected a welcome to the news of his successful mission upon his return to Pakistan along with some criticism from the usual sources from political opposition. But the intensity of raucousness over the bill must have come to him as a surprise.

What then has gone wrong? The short answer is that Mr Zardari has a problem with his credibility, and one source of trouble in this regard is his style of governance. He has established no meaningful interaction with political leaders, least of all in the opposition camp. The Charter of Democracy, for example, which could have been the basis of a dialogue is now history. The Murree Agreement which he had reached with Mr Nawaz Sharif has suffered from his Machiavellian manoeuvre. The coalition government which he put together to form PPP-led government is an alliance of convenience, with no shared views about the course of future legislative agenda for the country.

Then there was confrontation over the issue of reinstatement of deposed judges. Above all, the structure of government created by General Musharraf is still intact. He also combined the office of co-chairman of his political party with that of being president of the country, just as Soekarno of Indonesia did. In addition, rumours are floating around about misdemeanours and abuse of power along with special favours for friends and family members. These are not confidence-building measures.

The bill is under attack from politicians as well as the army. Concerning the position of the army, it is a well-know fact that for historical reasons it has been an important ‘political’ force in Pakistan. They adopted the India-centric policy which made it possible for them to divert a big chunk of the national budget to their defence related expenditure, including power and perks, patronised jihadi elements, and devised the plan of action for so-called strategic depth. They have become a state within the state.

In the political system established after February 2008 elections, Zardari government has been a virtual junior partner in its relations with the army. The Kerry-Lugar bill aims at bypassing this equation. In section 302 (15) of the bill, civilian oversight and approval of military budgets, of chain of command, of process of promotions for senior military leaders, and civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning are called for.

Can the historical pattern of military’s position in Pakistan be changed ‘overnight’ so to speak, by fiat, used by the foreign benefactor, through the edict of Kerry-Lugar bill? It is not likely and Mr Zardari does not have the moral fortitude to be able to do so. The spokesmen of the PPP government have suggested that the army should not have gone public on this issue. But the point is that Mr Zardari probably knew about this sub-section in the bill. The chief of the army surely could have been offered the courtesy about this fact.

On principle one cannot support a situation where the army maintains exclusive relations with Washington as it had for example during the Bush era. But part of the reason for this reality has been the weak political leadership. Now the foreign minister has again gone back to Washington for necessary changes in the bill to allay the military’s serious concerns. Since the bill cannot be changed, an explanatory note, mutually agreed, has been added to the bill which serves the purpose. Shah Mehmood Qureshi has called it a ‘historic agreement’. Besides, the US military may not want to alienate their counterpart in Pakistan.

In the media much has been made of the power of certification included in the bill among its conditionalities. The problem is that this proviso is a US prerogative and is an important part of the bill to make that its objectives are being fulfilled. It is an integral part of the arrangement that extends to five years and therefore progress report would be an essential part of the long run commitment. Similarly, there is a clear provision for full accountability of the funds disbursed through the bill. This point certainly has not been picked in the furore about the bill. One can assume therefore that public opinion is in favour of this requirement.

Pakistan has limited choice in regard to Kerry-Lugal bill because of various factors. First, terrorism in Pakistan has reached a menacing proportion and is supported by some strong domestic elements. International cooperation is a necessity for the country in this regard. Secondly, the state of the economy is so fragile that it cannot be restructured without foreign assistance. Third, in addition to providing cooperation in meeting the terrorist threat, the bill calls for dismantling of nuclear supply network, and for strengthening democracy (notwithstanding some clumsy sentences used in the bill) — the objectives which would contribute to promoting stability in Pakistan, subject of course to the direction which Mr Richard Holbrooke, the US ‘viceroy’ and ‘Governor General for Af-Pak region’ would establish for implementation of the aid package.