[RIGHT]22nd April, 2011[/RIGHT]

More sparring

WHATEVER hope there may have been that Adm Mike Mullen`s visit to Pakistan would help reduce tensions between Pakistan and the US eva-porated when the admiral trotted out the Haqqani-ISI links to criticise the security establishment here in unusually specific language for public statements. The response from the Pakistani side was swift, with the army chief, Gen Kayani, rejecting the “negative propaganda” of the US and the American claim that the army lacks “clarity” on the way forward in the fight against militancy. The back-and-forth between the American and Pakistani military principals appears to suggest that the tussle to renegotiate the rules on American activities in Pakistan is far from being resolved. Unhappily, then, the potential for a further deterioration in ties remains high.
What prompted Adm Mullen to make the speci-fic allegations against the ISI at this point? In the murky intelligence world, particularly looking in from the outside, nothing can be said with certainty. But it would appear that as the ISI has pushed fiercely following the Raymond Davis incident to limit the American presence and the sphere of activity inside Pakistan further, the American national security establishment is seeking to push back against the ISI in order to preserve, to the extent possible, US activities inside Pakistan. However, Adm Mullen`s comments have had the unfortunate consequence of broadening the immediate dispute to once again bring in longstanding problems on Afghanistan. Given the intractable nature of some of the problems between the two countries, anything which broadens an immediate source of disagreement is unwelcome. Indeed, on Afghanistan there has been a more positive atmosphere between the US and Pakistan in recent times. The US has not shut down attempts by the Pakistan security establishment and political government to engage the Karzai government on the issue of reconciliation with the Taliban, while in Pakistan analysts familiar with the army`s views have been keen to drum up the `convergences` between the thinking of the American and the Pakistani sides on Afghanistan as the American endgame in that country approaches.
When the highest echelons of two states seem willing to spar, is there anything that can be done to bring down the temperature? Perhaps only when reality reasserts itself. Unhappy as the US administration and the Pakistani establishment may be with one another, the relationship is ultimately one of interdependence. And to a large extent there remains a common enemy: militancy. The militants of most concern to the US may differ from the ones of most concern to Pakistan, but the more the US and Pakistan disagree, the more the militants as a whole may benefit.

Wealth of information

THE customary disclosures of lawmakers` assets and liabilities always make for interesting reading. As per a report in this paper, the financial details of members of the National Assembly furnished to the Election Commission show that many of our lawmakers are extremely well-off. In fact, the prime minister has shown that even in these dire financial times it is possible to save — he has managed to save more than half a million rupees from his annual salary, which, apparently, is his only source of income. While Mr Gilani manages to make ends meet with his salary of just under Rs1m, other members of the house appear to be financially much better off. Several MNAs have assets worth billions of rupees. One of them, Mehboobullah Jan of the PPP, represents Kohistan, one of the nation`s poorest and most under-developed districts. And while opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar has not declared the value of his assets, the fact that he owns several plots, considerable acreage and two luxury vehicles indicates that his assets are significant Also, as many Pakistanis struggle with financial hardship, lawmakers such as Faryal Talpur and Shah Mehmood Qureshi have seen the value of their assets rise by tens of millions of rupees. Other disclosures are clearly farcical. Several powerful politicians have said they do not own cars while some have said they have no cash in the bank.
While those lawmakers who have declared their assets deserve praise, clearly a lot about the origin and extent of MNAs` wealth has gone unsaid. Though such declarations are essential for the creation of a transparent democratic culture, many questions remain about what has and has not been disclosed. Such figures show that moneyed individuals are well represented in the legislatures. The question is: would these people be interested in changing the status quo and, for example, widening the tax net so that the state can more equally distribute wealth? We are a nation of contradictions; one of these is that the representatives of the people lead lives the majority of the population can only dream of. Unless these contradictions are addressed, change for the better is unlikely.

Bahrain: need for restraint

WITH its roots in what is basically a domestic issue, the Bahrain crisis could aggravate if regional states do not exercise restraint. The expulsion of some Iranian diplomats by Kuwait, the support which the European Union has lent to the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran`s sharp criticism of the Bahrain government`s handling of the pro-democracy stir have served to heighten tensions. In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, the GCC and the EU called for respecting “the sovereignty of GCC member-states” and, more ominously, said the latter had the right to “take all necessary measures to protect their citizens”. At the same time, Bahrain and Kuwait government leaders have displayed considerable harshness in their diplomatic rhetoric and accused Tehran of trying to dominate the Gulf region and threatening Bahrain`s sovereignty. While the Kuwait foreign minister accused some Iranian diplomats of spying, the Bahrain foreign minister said Tehran had adopted “a sustained campaign” against the sheikhdom. Reacting to Tehran`s criticism of the Saudi-led GCC force in Bahrain he said the force was there to “deter an external threat” — a clear reference to Tehran. However, like the GCC and EU, he ignored Nato air strikes in Libya.

The pro-democracy protests in Bahrain are part of the larger freedom wave that has rocked the Arab world and seen the fall of such strongmen as Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, with Muammar Qadhafi fighting for survival. As in Yemen, Syria and Jordan, so also in Bahrain the uprising is an internal issue, and the Bahrain monarchy should try to address the cause of the stir through internal reforms. The involvement of the EU and other non-regional actors in the Bahrain situation will only aggravate the crisis, while Iran should know that an escalation of the Iran-GCC tension will divert attention away from the opposition`s just struggle for democratic reforms.

It’s a dog’s life
By Irfan Husain

OFTEN, when I`m stuck for an idea for a column, by sheer serendipity a reader sends me material from a random source that sets my mind galloping off on the trail of an article.
This time, two readers have emailed me news about an Iranian plan to outlaw keeping dogs as pets. Apparently, a bill has been tabled in parliament that would make it illegal to own dogs. Apart from so-called public health hazards, dog ownership is also deemed to “pose a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West”.
Really? I suppose other aspects of Iranian life and culture are all locally derived. The cars Iranians drive or aspire to, for example, must have been invented by the ancient Persians, as is the nuclear programme they are working on so secretively at such vast expense. But hang on, that technology was sold to them by our very own Dr A.Q. Khan.

Surely even the ideologues of the Iranian revolution cannot pretend that dogs evolved exclusively in the West. Salukis, also known as Persian greyhounds, are one of the oldest breeds of domesticated dogs. They are lovely beasts greatly prized for their grace and poise. Across the world, people have bred dogs for hunting, farming and just companionship.
Our Jack Russell terrier, Puffin, is a great squirrel chaser, and makes sure none of the rodents eat our flowers. Originally, Jack Russells were bred to kill rats that infested farms, and Puffin is happiest when he is ferreting out the pests in friends` sheds and barns. And of course, he demands his daily walks that keep me reasonably fit.
Often when I`m working on my computer, he jumps onto my lap so he can look out of the window and see if any squirrels are in sight. I`m not entirely sure he doesn`t also read what I`m writing: he seems to understand much of what we say to him, so I wouldn`t be surprised if he could make sense of what appears on my laptop screen.
In any case I`m glad he didn`t see the other article sent to me by a reader about the Chinese penchant for eating dogs. Now I`m not particularly squeamish about what I eat as long as it tastes good, and doesn`t make me ill. Indeed, in my time, I have eaten some very odd things. But dog? Even my hardened digestive system rebels at the thought of roast Puffin.
I am well aware of the aversion to dogs most Muslims seem to share. But a Google search for any prohibition on owning dogs in the Holy Book drew a blank. And among the many Islamic websites I explored, there was no unanimity: while some questioned the accuracy of the hadith on the subject, others advised against keeping dogs.
So I`ll just let the theologians sort out the matter while continuing to enjoy the company of dogs. Puffin doesn`t know it yet, but the fact is that I have been unfaithful to him. In Karachi, my brother has a beautiful Dalmatian called Tabs who is as thick as he is affectionate. As soon as I arrive, he is all over me, and as he`s a big, strong dog, he needs a lot of persuasion before he settles down.
At our holiday home in Sri Lanka, we have four beach dogs. Lucky was a puppy my wife rescued before the house was built; Kalu arrived on the building site, and was immediately adopted; our housekeeper fell in love with Pinky and brought her in without our permission; and a new dog I haven`t met so far has joined the pack.
Then there are the three Boxers my son keeps. Manek, the oldest, is getting on and has to be taken to the vet regularly. The youngest was named Grommit by my grandson Danyaal. While visitors are understandably nervous about entering the house, it is only Manek who occasionally bites strangers. But he is invariably gentle with my two little grandsons.
Ever since I can remember, we have had dogs running in and out of the house. My father had a succession of collies who kept him company after he lost his eyesight towards the end of his life. Once, after a TV interview in our house, the producer remarked on the presence of Sandal at my father`s feet, and inanely said he seemed to be very fond of his dog. “I prefer dogs to most people”, was my father`s dry reply.
While I was checking websites about dogs, I came across a lot of information about the health benefits of keeping them as pets. Apparently, dog owners tend to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol because of the regular exercise they get through walking their pets. In addition, they are less prone to depression and loneliness. According to one study, keeping a dog can add a couple of years to your life.
In Pakistan, sadly, it really is a dog`s life for most canines. The first instinct of a young boy on spotting a stray dog is to pick up a stone to hurl at the poor animal. One reason for this widespread antipathy is the fear of rabies. Although this disease is now rare, the fear of dog-bite still conditions people`s reaction to dogs.
Luckily, the terrifying course of 14 anti-rabies injections in the stomach is now outdated. But when I was bitten by a strange dog last year at the French Beach, I had to get some shots because the owner refused to provide me with an assurance that his pet had been inoculated. Indeed, Zahid Maker has still not apologised for his dog`s aggressive behaviour on a public beach.
In England, of course, millions are dog barmy, and simply cannot understand the aversion Muslims have towards man`s best friend. Frankly, nor can I. How can anybody dislike animals that give total and unquestioning loyalty and love?
A study carried out in England a couple of years ago suggested that over a lifetime, a small dog can cost his owners around £14,000. Our Puffin has undergone three expensive operations that have added to this figure. But I don`t grudge a penny spent on him.
Finally, my best wishes for a very happy Easter to all my Christian readers.
(irfan.husain@gmail.com)

Forgotten Bahrain
By Qasim A. Moini

AS Libya and Syria dominate headlines as far as unrest in the Middle East is concerned, the tiny Gulf monarchy of Bahrain has slipped off the international community’s radar.
A little over a month since the Bahraini state decided to crack down on the opposition demanding political change and social reform, the situation on the strategically important island remains tense.
Human rights watchdogs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as credible international media outlets, have all reported on the Bahraini state’s alleged suppression of domestic dissent. According to the Bahraini opposition around 500 people are in detention while midnight raids and ‘enforced disappearances’ carried out by the security
forces have become common since the sheikhdom was placed under martial law on March 15.
Doctors, lawyers and human rights activists have all been hauled up while several deaths in custody have also been reported.
Yet in the face of these serious allegations of state-sponsored violence, the US and the European Union have offered only weak criticism. As for the UN and the Organisation of Islamic Conference — the supposed voice of the ‘Muslim world’ — there has been largely deafening silence. Hence it is legitimate to ask why those who call the shots on the world stage appear overly passionate about protecting the human and civil rights of some people, yet appear less interested about the welfare of others.
The movement for change in Bahrain took off in mid-February when thousands of Bahrainis took to the streets demanding political reform. It was a decidedly non-sectarian struggle, yet official spin doctors have succeeded, to an extent, in painting it as a communal tussle between the island’s Shia majority (supported by Iran and Hezbollah) and the Sunni Al Khalifa royal family. This version of events is debatable.
What made matters worse, apart from martial law, was the arrival of Saudi troops under the Gulf Cooperation Council umbrella. From thereon, the Bahraini government has taken a very rigid stance, perhaps permanently alienating the majority community. While Hillary Clinton has condemned the “Syrian government’s brutal repression of demonstrators” and Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief, has said “the Syrian people must be allowed to express their grievances without fear of intimidation, repression and arrest”, the American and European criticism of Bahrain has been much milder.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has defended the GCC intervention in Bahrain, termed by that country’s opposition as an ‘invasion’, for reasons of ‘stability’. Pakistan has also agreed to “greater defence cooperation” with Bahrain; the military’s Fauji Foundation and Bahria Foundation have already recruited former servicemen to beef up Bahrain’s security apparatus.
The western approach towards speaking up for the human rights of different populations appears a selective process. While many western governments have spoken out against rights abuses allegedly carried out by the Syrian, Libyan, Iranian and other governments, Bahrain has been treated with kid gloves. There are reasons for this. For example, the US is not willing to withdraw support (yet) for beleaguered Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh, despite his bloody suppression of dissent, as he is seen as a bulwark against Al Qaeda in Yemen.
Similarly, many in the West believe the autocratic Gulf sheikhdoms are their best bet against growing Iranian influence. But are (unfounded) fears of preventing the creation of a mini-Islamic Republic at the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula a good enough justification for ignoring the alleged abuses of these states against their own people? Once again the desire for ‘stability’ seems to be much stronger than any desire to uphold human rights.
As far as Pakistan and other Muslim-majority nations are concerned, the double standards are just as glaring. It is not clear whether the Muslim world fears change or leaders of Muslim nations want to keep the status quo.
Clearly, the human and civil rights of Bahrainis and Yemenis are just as important as those of Syrians, Iranians or Libyans.
There is an inherent problem with the policy many western governments pursue of speaking softly to allies who flout human rights, but carrying (and often using) a big stick against regimes they don’t like. There cannot be special exceptions to preserve ‘stability’. So what can be done about the situation in Bahrain? For starters, the US and the EU should stop supplying regimes accused of crushing domestic dissent with the toys and technology these regimes can and do use against their own people.
The OIC must break its terminal silence over internal disputes in member states and speak out with the same passion with which it criticises atrocities against Kashmiris and Palestinians, whenever governments in member states use force against their own people.
As for Pakistan, if it can’t speak out against excesses, the least it can do is stop acting like a cheerleader and supporting ‘brotherly’ Gulf countries in their endeavours to crush domestic dissent. The military should also prevent its allied firms from supplying manpower to serve as mercenaries for regimes that crack down on their own people.
Bahrain is not a sectarian or strategic issue. It is a human rights issue and must be treated as such. The world
should avoid looking the other way for reasons of realpolitik and ‘stability’.
(The writer is a member of staff.)
(qasim.moini@dawn.com)

Money power in polls
By A.G. Noorani

OF the three states in India which went to the polls on April 13, it was Tamil Nadu, the erstwhile province of Madras, which saw an unbridled play of money power during the election campaign.
The three-member Election Commission, headed by a respected civil servant S.Y. Qureshi, the chief election commissioner, did an excellent job. Rs54 crores, meant for disbursement among the voters, were seized.
That despite the EC`s best exertions money was so brazenly spent to bribe voters should serve as a wake-up call. For, it is very unlikely that those Rs54 crores represented the entire amount which the offending party spent.
In 1967, the Congress was ousted from power in this state which has since been run by two Dravidian parties, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) headed by 86-year-old Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and its offshoot the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), headed by the former actress J. Jayalalithaa. Since 1967, one or the other of the two has held power.
In truth, the wake-up call was given exactly half a century ago, early in 1961 when one of Jawaharlal Nehru`s close associates, the affluent industrialist Biju Patnaik systematically used money power in the Orissa assembly elections. Those were the days of energetic fund collectors who were party bosses in their respective states. A decade later, Indira Gandhi established her ascendancy and recruited chief ministers as fund collectors.
In 1956, Tata Iron and Steel Company (Tisco) applied to the Bombay High Court for confirmation of amendments to its memorandum of association enabling it to contribute funds to political parties. The court allowed the amendments, subject to full public disclosure.
In doing so, Chief Justice M.C. Chagla remarked: “Democracy would be vitiated if results [of elections] were to be arrived at not on their merits but because money played a part in the bringing about of those decisions. The form and trappings of democracy may continue, but the spirit underlying democratic institutions will disappear.”
He referred to the dangers posed by “big business and moneybags” and appealed to parliament to review the law. This was on the eve of the general election in 1957.
A decade later, business houses were spared. J.R.D. Tata told president R. Venkatraman in August 1987 that “since 1980, industrialists had not been approached for political contributions and that the general feeling among them was that the party was financed by commissions on deals”, mostly defence deals.
Some industrialists do not wait to be approached. They volunteer aid. A close nexus has developed between some of them and some politicians; the identity of the partners is no secret, either. Party expenditure has mounted and the sources of finance have diversified. Not a few politicians solicit donations. These donations are not only for elections or for the party but for their own upkeep.
In a little over the last decade, one has seen politicians of modest means acquire affluence inexplicable by any success in a profession or business. No magistrate dares bring them to book on a charge of vagrancy as men without any ostensible means of livelihood.
Election law has not been reformed to deal with these changes. It has been amended for the worse. The Supreme Court ruled on Oct 3, 1974 that money spent by a political party specifically for its candidate in a constituency should be included in his election expenses. An ordinance was promulgated to override it.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 on the exemption to political parties under the Income Tax Act. “A political party which is not maintaining audited and authentic accounts and is not filing the return of income before the income tax authorities cannot justifiably plead that it has incurred or authorised any expenditure in connection with the election of a party candidate.
The expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party can only be the expenditure which has a transparent source.”
This ruling and the EC`s strict enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, by limiting disbursements during election campaigns, have helped to some extent. By itself state funding of poll expenses will not be a cure. The pioneering model commonly cited is Germany`s Law on Political Parties 1967. But state funding was only one part of the law.
The other two receive little attention in. Chapter II on internal organisation is the heart of the law, and obliges political parties to maintain written statutes and programmes. The rights of members are defined. Free elections to party organs are mandatory. The executive committee must be elected at least every second calendar year. Elections to party organs are decided by majority vote. The party executive and representatives to assemblies of delegates must be elected by secret ballot.
Likewise, party candidates for election to parliament must be elected by secret ballot by the party. Besides, Section 21 of the Federal Electoral Law lays down that a party`s candidate must be elected in an assembly of party members in his constituency. In short, it is not open to any cabal or party bosses to hand out party tickets to persons whom they select as candidates for election. State funding does not line the pockets of the party bosses. Chapter VI contains a statutory obligation to publish audited accounts. It is these neglected parts of the law which make state funding worthwhile.
But which law can bar political parties from lavishly offering freebies, at state expense, as the DMK and the AIDMK have done? The bill for their promises could reach Rs2.5 lakh crore in a state facing a debt of Rs1 lakh crore.
M. Karunanidhi promised free mixers and grinders to women voters, J. Jayalalithaa offered a free fan, wet grinder and mixer; if Karunanidhi offered laptops for all students, Jayalalithaa promised free laptops to Class 11 and 12 students irrespective of economic considerations.
Promises of freebies are an insult to the voter. Money power must be curbed but no solution will work unless public opinion is aroused to the menace it poses to democracy.
(The writer is an author and a lawyer.)

HEC at a crossroads
By Mohammad Waseem

THE Higher Education Commission (HEC) is once again in the midst of a controversy in the context of the transition to provincial autonomy after the 18th Amendment.
There has been a decade-long debate about the conceptual framework put forward by HEC`s first chairman, as well as about his overly technocratic approach to the development of higher education in Pakistan.
The issue was initially conceived in terms of the proposed promulgation of the much-maligned University Ordinance. The idea was to have a uniform approach to higher education all over the country, along with a centralised system of control for preparing the curriculum, regulating the standards of teaching and research, and taking the nation to the desired goal of development. The whole approach smacked of regimentation.
Not surprisingly, several universities rejected the ordinance, because their faculty feared a loss of institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the name of higher education. The ordinance was finally shelved.
That was followed by the transformation of the University Grants Commission into the HEC. The `discarded` ordinance was now implemented by default.
The new institution moved beyond `grants`, and became a regulatory authority par excellence. It focused on: support from the military dictator, both political and financial; projection of wild and somewhat irresponsible developmental goals through media and various other public forums; and the use of control over funds as the means of overriding resistance from universities.
The founder-chairman of HEC relied heavily on his mastery over statistics — dead data, bland oratory and blatant dismissal of all criticism for being against the spirit of nationalism.
The Musharraf–Atta-ur-Rehman formula for the salvation of higher education was extremely ambitious, totally misdirected and unbelievably costly to the national exchequer. One could pardon Musharraf for being rigid and unimaginative, given his lack of exposure to higher education. But Atta-ur-Rahman should have known better as a university professor. Thousands of PhD and M.Phil students at home and abroad are on top of the list of HEC`s pyrrhic achievements. No serious educational analyst would find universities in the public sector in a better position after a decade of HEC input. The foreign faculty has been a grand joke.
No professor with a name and career would leave his/her job in a western university to come to teach in a non-oil-producing, poor and increasingly violent country such as Pakistan. Only those from the erstwhile Eastern Bloc or the Pakistani diaspora found their way in.
Scholarships have been doled out in plenty. It was not uncommon to see winners of HEC scholarships perform badly in the interview for admission in a university department. At other times, HEC officials allegedly put pressure on chairpersons of university departments to give prior faculty positions to those who were going abroad on HEC scholarships. The rules and regulations and proper procedures for appointment of faculty were seen to be brushed aside as roadblocks on the way to progress.
Not surprisingly, the mention of university autonomy had a jarring effect on the ears of the educational bureaucracy in the heyday of the HEC. Policymaking from outside the campus for students and faculty inside the campus became the new mantra. The fact that it is the university which produces knowledge was lost on the new educational barons. They claimed to manage higher education in the `national interest` and marginalised those who disagreed with the HEC`s policy and practices.
There is a basic flaw in the HEC`s thinking: it believes that quantity leads to quality. In a recent TV interview, Atta-ur-Rahman took pride in the fact that he had increased the number of universities in Pakistan from a mere handful to over 100. The HEC`s leading perspectives revolved around methodology — not theory, the mother of all knowledge.
The idea was to provide access to data, to journals and to libraries. It was assumed that high-class research would follow automatically. Some believed in this idea, and poured billions of rupees into the venture. But the crisis of higher education in both the natural and social sciences continues unabated. No state can allow its functionaries to disinvest in its future to such a horrible extent.
What will happen when the HEC is `federalised` in pursuit of provincial autonomy? The centralist mindset of the last six decades would judge devolution as the death of quality, which was never there in the first place. Instead, the centralising, `uniforming`, conforming policies saw the stunting of intellectual growth and lack of productivity.
It is time to turn to those who operate in the classroom, on the campus and around various meeting points of the state and society, policy and practice and faculty and students. The assumption of a high moral ground on the part of the HEC hierarchy and its lobbyists in the media and part of the academia against devolution carries the imprint of the centralist steamroller stamping on the nation`s intellectual landscape.
The HEC`s transformation is part of the larger phenomenon of transition of several ministries currently in the process of devolution. There are concerns relating to lifestyle, family situation, educational facilities for children and scores of other amenities available in the federal capital that could be working against the HEC`s devolution. Otherwise, there is no case for imagining the governments in Peshawar, Karachi, Lahore and Quetta being unconcerned with, incapable and unworthy of establishing merit in their respective orbits.
The political consensus on the 18th Amendment was a real feat of performance for politicians. Ishaq Dar`s resignation as deputy chairman of the Implementation Commission on the issue of HEC`s devolution is an unfortunate example of succumbing to pressure tactics and making political capital.
All democratic systems produce long-term egalitarian tendencies, both vertical in terms of class, and horizontal in terms of region. Under Musharraf, both the crystallisation of elite power and the establishment of centralist control reached a peak. Under the present democratic dispensation, power in all its forms — political, administrative, financial and educational — must disperse and control over education must be decentralised.

(The writer is a professor at LUMS)

__________________
At a certain point in our lives...our lives become controlled by fate. That's the world's greatest lie.