Creating new provinces
By
Mohammad Waseem

Later, the PML-Q was exposed to internal divisions on the issue of creating the Hazara province. Prime Minister Gilani has promised to put the Seraiki province on the agenda after the next elections. After partition, India acknowledged language as a legitimate entity for the political community. It took up the comprehensive project of reorganising the states on a linguistic basis. This removed a major irritant in the way of national integration by redrawing boundaries and thus strengthened the federation.

However, Pakistan condemned the language-based identity of provinces as a recipe for national disintegration. This policy kept ethno-linguistic sentiments alive and weakened the federation. The army and certain right-wing politicians supported proposals for new provinces commensurate with existing administrative units such as divisions, thus cutting across ethnic lines.

The ethnic communities of Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were incensed at the non-recognition of their community rights and the lack of provincial autonomy. The 1973 constitution ushered in the era of recognition of the `majority` communities of the `minority` provinces as flag-bearers of their respective nationalisms. While these communities developed stakes in the preservation of the classical boundaries of their provinces, the respective `minority` communities became restive under the new scheme of things.

In addition to the centralist army and bureaucracy, ethnic leaderships have been befuddled by the complexities of the situation on the ground that hampered their agenda for provincial reorganisation. For example, the Pakhtun leadership would not take up the issue on a linguistic basis because of a sizeable community of Hindko-speaking people living in their province, not only in the Hazara division but also in the heart of the province — the Peshawar valley. Any attempt at reorganising the province would reduce the size of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This is anathema to Pakhtun nationalists.

Two areas of Pakhtun concentration outside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that could have boosted the strength of its core community, i.e. Fata and the Pakhtun belt of Balochistan, remained hostile to their amalgamation with that province. Especially Fata`s illusory gain as an autonomous region proved to be a net loss to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in terms of demography, strategic importance and an enhanced status in the federation.

The Baloch leadership has been similarly shy about the agenda of reshaping their province on a linguistic basis that would mean the loss of a large chunk of northern Balochistan populated by Pakhtuns. Furthermore, the Brahvi-speaking people of the Mengal tribe can pose a problem in the event of the political mobilisation of language, threatening a further cut in the size of the province. In this way, Balochistan stands to lose considerable territory and population. This would further marginalise it in the national scheme of things.

Sindh remains a confusing case for the agenda of creating new provinces. On the one hand, it is the `sacred` homeland of Sindhis who would not like to see it vivisected. On the other hand, the ethno-linguistic divide between Sindhis and Mohajirs is deeply embedded in the political imagination of the two communities. The movement for a separate Karachi province has been simmering under the surface for four decades. But, geographical and demographic dimensions of the issue pose a daunting challenge to the MQM leadership.

There are Mohajirs living in Karachi as well as in the rest of urban Sindh. A Karachi province would destabilise millions of Mohajirs of the second category who would thus be stranded on the wrong side of a bloody line across the map of the province. They would be obliged to seek shelter in the new province in the wake of ethnic riots. Similarly, non-Mohajirs in Karachi would be rendered clueless and insecure, some even considering migration in the reverse direction. The perspective of a replay of the 1947 partition poses a horrendous challenge to the political leadership in Sindh.

Meanwhile, the Sindhi elite has developed considerable stakes in Karachi. Previously, one heard some Sindhi voices in favour of `giving` Karachi to the Mohajirs and thus securing the rest of the province for their community, along with access to a seaport through Malir. However, Sindhis have made inroads into the bureaucracy and strengthened their pockets of support in the city. Meanwhile, the ANP has posed a new challenge to the erstwhile control of the MQM over the city. Sindhis` hopes for a shared space in the city have been rekindled.

In Punjab, the ethnic mix has kept the whole issue of creating the new Seraiki province on the back burner. The first-wave migrants, i.e. settlers in the newly opened canal irrigation colonies were joined by the second-wave migrants of partition mainly from Punjabi but also non-Punjabi stock. The situation was further complicated by rivalry between Bahawalpur — the princely state in British India that enjoyed a `provincial` status after partition — and Multan, the classical hub of the regional culture and language.

The project of the Seraiki province remains mired in controversy. Students and intellectuals have generally taken the lead in mobilising for a separate entity. But the political leadership of southern Punjab has traditionally looked towards Lahore rather than Multan as the symbol and focus of their ambition for power. Settlers and migrants favour mainstream Punjab and thus the PML-N leadership, while `locals` who uphold the cause of Seraiki are partisans of the PPP. Some Mohajir strongholds in areas such as Rahim Yar Khan represent a spillover from the adjoining areas of Sindh.

The demographic complexity without a corresponding level of political mobilisation has led to status quo in different provinces. There is the additional requirement for a constitutional amendment to create new provinces, in the absence of a consensus on this issue. While the PPP and PML-Q have formally agreed to pursue the agenda for the Hazara and Seraiki provinces, it is difficult to predict any significant progress in this direction in the near future.

The writer is a professor at LUMS.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” — Martin Luther King.

The inhumanly brutal, criminal and reprehensible killing of five Chechens including a seven month pregnant woman by the trigger happy Frontier Corps (FC) and police at Kharotabad checkpost eventually stirred the collectively comatose conscience of the Balochistan government to form a tribunal to investigate these brutal murders. The victims died in a hail of bullets fired from close range, collectively sustaining 21 bullets. I wonder if investigating the fact that the wounded were callously left to die while the FC and police concocted lies is in its ambit.

The pangs of conscience here are always highly selective and expedient, so it is extremely unlikely that any tribunal to investigate the relentless and remorseless killing of the Baloch would ever be formed. It would ruffle too many feathers and rub the ‘sensitive agencies’ the wrong way. The Baloch anyway are considered ‘children of a lesser god’ and undeserving of such respect and rights and their sufferings seemingly do not affect anyone but them.

If you do not already know, let me inform you that in the recent killing spree, July 2010 to date, more than 160 Baloch activists have been killed. This however does not mean that previously compassion was the cornerstone of the policy towards the Baloch. From Monday to Wednesday, this week, six bodies were recovered, including the body of Abdul Hameed Baloch, an intrepid activist, picked up by the FC while travelling to Panjgur from Quetta on December 13, 2010.

Any Baloch expressing resentment at the denial of rights becomes a legitimate target for the Pakistani state. During the recent briefing session, when one of the spineless Baloch parliamentarians somehow found the nerve to suggest to the DG ISI that the problem of killings and human rights abuses in Balochistan be addressed, he was tersely silenced with the answer: “Public installations should not be attacked.” This supposed crime is considered enough of an excuse to justify the continued killing of any Baloch they decide to abduct. This is the sort of justice and attitude that has prompted the people of Balochistan to resist the Pakistani state and has seen a groundswell for an independent Balochistan.

Aijaz Mehar of BBC Urdu Service, in April, interviewed family members of missing Baloch persons and all unequivocally supported the independence of Balochistan. What else could be expected? None was impressed with the packages and promises that exist only on paper. A young lady, Sehrish Baloch, whose brother’s body had been recovered, said that packages have brought them nothing but dead bodies. Now no amount of spin can convince the Baloch otherwise.

Aijaz had also interviewed Major-General Ubaidullah, commandant of FC Balochistan, who alleged that the Baloch were being funded and trained by foreign powers. He denied involvement of FC ‘death squads’ in abducting and killing Baloch activists and alleged that people wearing FC personnel uniforms were doing this. He also claimed that the militants forced the media to blame the FC for these killings. This certainly is the height of absurdity. When reminded that the FC’s actions and attitudes are alienating the Baloch, he admitted that the FC is not a ‘democratic force’ and for it implementing the ‘writ of the state’ was more important than its reputation.

When pressed on Baloch abductions and killings, the FC head conceded that when the state and justice system become weak and break down, then some forces within society take up arms to mete out justice. When asked by Aijaz that did these vigilante extrajudicial killings not signify the complete failure of the state and agencies like the FC, he replied that the FC does not have the resources for investigation but the FC is not involved in these killings. Apparently, justifying the extrajudicial killings, he counter-posed that who should be mourned, the ten innocents killed or ten criminals? When asked if this would imply that other state agencies are involved, he replied he is not saying that. His responses were a bundle of contradictions.

(This interview and of the families, in Urdu, can be seen on this link: ?BBC Urdu? - ????????? - ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????????). Access the FC head’s interview by clicking on “Koi death squad nahin” (There is no death squad) in the above link.

The Supreme Court (SC) was recently informed that the provincial government had distributed Rs 127 million among the families of victims of targeted killings during the last three years. To the best of my knowledge, no family of Baloch targeted by the agencies have demanded or received any funds. Moreover, these killings carried out by the state do not qualify for compensation. The SC was also informed about an under consideration proposal of giving Rs 60,000 from the Bait-ul-Maal to the missing persons’ heirs. The government has now put a price tag on the agony and angst of the families of missing persons and sufferings of the missing.

In mainstream media and civil society there is, with a few exceptions, complete silence on the killings of the Baloch, probably because most people are taken in by the logic that the DG ISI or the Commandant FC present as the justifications for these killings. It is time that we all realised that silence makes us a party to the crimes committed in the name of the ‘writ of the state’. The flames of injustice eventually burn all as is apparent from the flawed ‘strategic depth’ policy due to which ‘strategic assets’ committed atrocities in Afghanistan and for which now all suffer, thus indubitably proving the veracity of “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” All people have the moral responsibility of opposing crimes against humanity.

This silence at the atrocities against the Baloch and selective outrage at some transgressions reminded me of another Martin Luther King quote from Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution (March 31, 1968). He says: “On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ And Vanity comes along and asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But Conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.” The ball now is in the court of all those of us who have so far chosen to remain silent.

The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The present era of science and technology has squeezed the world into a global village. The warfare has shifted its objectives from the capture of ground and killing of enemy to the capture of hearts and minds of people and use the targets as slaves to suit own its agenda. The role of media and psychological operations takes a lead over military operations. The myth of psychological warfare (PSYWAR) to support military operations has taken a 180 degree turn and now is used as a mainstay, while a military operation only supports to achieve the psychological objectives. The main supporting components of the army, air force and navy are replaced by the media, intelligence and covert ground operations to win the hearts and minds of the target population through building and harnessing perceptions. These perceptions are the tools used to confuse the target population, but they fail to recognise the difference between friend and foe.

In this context, the Pak-US relations are based on their national interests. The objectives seemed converging till the recent past. The statements of US officials in Pentagon and State Department praised the role of Pakistan’s security forces and its intelligence agency in the so-called war on terror. The Mullen-Kayani understanding has been widely discussed. During the decade-long anti-terrorism campaign, Pakistan has killed and arrested more than 400 Al-Qaeda affiliates, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Faraj-al-Libbi and Umer Patik, at the cost of huge human and material losses and it is a fact that the world recognises.

However, the increased role of foreign intelligence agencies and media operators inside Pakistan and their use to limit Islamabad’s options and decisions in its national interest has now emerged as an apple of discord. Nevertheless, the handling of Pak-US relations by the administration in Washington, especially after the Raymond Davis fiasco and Osama’s killing in Abbottabad, show emerging difficulties in the foreseeable future. Such distrust at this crucial time – that is, the US/NATO forces’ exit from Afghanistan – has regional as well as global implications.

Meanwhile, the statement issued after USA’s operation in Abbottabad by Jiang Yu, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswomen, reflects international concerns. She said: “China holds that the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of any country should be respected….We will continue to support Pakistan in instituting their own anti-terrorism strategies and carrying them out based on their domestic situation, and we appreciate Pakistan’s active participation in the international anti-terrorism cooperation.” Hence, Pakistan as a nation needs to focus on the unfolding of events, know the foreign interests and differentiate between facts and perceptions.

So if we follow the shaping of events for the media and the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, and keep filling the mosaic with happenings, a clear picture may emerge. Open source intelligence (OSINT) and the study of think-tanks is no more an intellectual discourse based on hallucinations. The faction of the society taking such studies as conspiracy theory may revisit the ground realities. The present happenings require the acceptance of a new warfare environment and its demands. For instance, Selig S. Harrison, who predicted the 1965 Indo-Pak war 18 months before the balloons went up and is currently member of the Afghan study group, discussed the US interests in a seminar held in April 2011. He said that Washington has strategic interests in Balochistan for its oil supply. Besides, an independent Balochistan will reinforce USA’s South Asia policy oriented to India, which will help to keep a check on China and Iran in the region.”

Then one of the objectives of the Kerry-Lugar Bill for aid to Pakistan being projected by the US is “support for the promotion of a responsible, capable, and independent media.” According to the report dated February 27, 2010: “The Obama administration plans to spend nearly $50 million on the Pakistani media this year to reverse anti-American sentiments and raise awareness of projects aimed at improving the quality of life, confirms a Washington insider.” Consequently, the same issue came into the limelight during a controversy over the massive expansion plans of the US Embassy in Islamabad. The construction of a large size media cell was being considered inside the proposed complex. However, the issue of visa to undercover journalists and so-called businessmen through already neutralised channels is yet another issue.

Same is the case with the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). The first attack was repulsed when a move to restrict its functioning was effectively checked. I have reproduced the following extract from an article of December 2008 that said: “With barely a month left for US President-elect Barack Obama to officially enter the White House, influential Democrat Senator and likely next head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, made it clear that the Obama administration will ask the Pakistan government to bring the ISI firmly under civilian control.”

Yet, the ISI played an effective role to control the CIA contractors after the Davis issue and a large number of them were asked to leave Pakistan. The obvious pressure was felt and the reaction could be assessed from General Kayani’s statements. During his address to the PMA cadets in April, the General said: “Pakistan Army is fully aware of the internal and external threats to the country and will come up to the expectations of the nation.” Again on Youm-e-Shuhada he said: “There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the people of Pakistan and army are one single entity. Our real national strength is unity, mutual trust and perseverance. Our national resolve is quite evident from the sacrifices and support the public has extended to the army in our fight against terrorism….We fully realise that only a prosperous Pakistan is a guarantee for a stronger Pakistan. Therefore, all our efforts should be towards making our people prosperous and secure. But we cannot sacrifice our honour and dignity for the sake of prosperity.” General Kayani’s assessments indeed highlight two important areas: The public and the army, and no more compromises on the country’s honour and dignity.

It was against this backdrop that the world saw USA’s unilateral action in Abbottabad and the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. CIA Chief Leon Panetta said that Osama’s presence is either due to sheer incompetence or connivance of Pakistan’s intelligence. The trust deficit between the partners touches the peak. A breach of 120kms inside Pakistan’s territory to kill Osama is indeed a matter of grave concern for which voices are being raised demanding an inquiry into the matter. It seems that the US has extracted some important information from the shared sources of the ISI and CIA that led to the Al-Qaeda leader through double crossing. The biggest vulnerability that Pakistan faces now is that some of its own assets may have been exposed or double crossed and could be used to blackmail it in the coming days.

However, the failure of our air defence system to respond certainly raises doubts. Ernest K. Gann, a US army pilot and famous writer of the early nineteenth century, wrote: “If we slide into one of those rare moments of military honesty, we realise that the technical demands of modern warfare are so complex that a considerable percentage of our material is bound to malfunction even before it is deployed against a foe.” The systems are deployed in layers to ensure that some elements of information do manage to alert, which has been the practice in recent past, even during a 10km or a five-minute violation. The electronic systems are reinforced with human elements wherein even a lowest commander in a border post is trained to immediately report a violation or activity in real time. So why such a credible system failed needs scrutiny.

Accountability is the way to progress for any institution or nation, but we must understand which type of investigation will help Pakistan and its army, which remains as one of the few credible institutions of the nation, and what will help the foreign agenda that is being resisted for years now. The leadership, both civilian and military, has to move with caution, but on solid footings.

The writer is a freelance columnist.---The Nation

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Not all economic crises look the same. You can have your basic cyclical downturns, classic textbook cases of over investment, too much supply and not enough demand. Or you have your crisis of confidence, marked by rapid capital flight, plummeting investment, dwindling reserves. We’ve had periodic bouts of these, almost every 10 years on cue.

For the textbook variety of crisis, the ones driven by over investment, the doctor prescribes a stimulus. For many decades, governments have been able to spend their way out of a recession, the most famous example being the Reagan administration.

A crisis of confidence can be trickier, yet also easier in many ways, requiring a clear signal from the government that difficult decisions are about to be made. If the first variety of crisis requires spending, a crisis of confidence requires reforms. Confidence can be easy to restore, given a little bombast from key government leaders, followed by hard and visible steps to restore liquidity in the system and get people to start transacting again. A classic example would be Shaukat Tarin proudly declaring that Pakistan would default “over my dead body”, followed by a successful approach to the IMF. A little over the top by some reckonings, but exactly what the doctor ordered in those days: Firm and decisive leadership.

But today we’re looking at crises of an altogether different variety. These are your epoch-making crises, those that mark a deep rupture between different eras. Globally, what was a credit crisis driven by plummeting asset values has given way to a sovereign credit crisis driven by plummeting sovereign debt sustainability. In both these cases, no shoe fits and the doctors have no remedy. The stimulus in America and the Eurozone has run its course. No further stomach exists for continuing with it and the spectre of recession and job loss lingers on, this time compounded by the prospects of sovereign default.

It’s entirely possible that history will look back at the so-called subprime mortgage housing crisis of 2008 and the impending crisis of sovereign debt as a single event, an event that marked a rupture from the era of dollar hegemony. What route the world economy takes from here on, and what currency steps in to replace the dollar, are open questions at this stage, but the future of the world economy hinges on them.

In Pakistan, too, the economic crisis we are living through is not the same as the ones we have seen before. The circular debt, for instance, is only the tip of the iceberg, the symptom, the outward manifestation of a deeper reality. That reality is our diminishing gas reserves. Ever since the discovery of the Sui gas field, we have become accustomed to cheap gas — piped into our homes, converted into fertiliser to fuel our agriculture, and more recently, used as fuel for power generation and vehicular transport. It’s difficult to overstate the importance of natural gas to our economy. It is the fuel of choice for every sector, and we’ve been devouring it at a growing pace.

But now it’s running out. All projections show that in 2010 we passed the moment of ‘peak gas’, if you will. With declining gas reserves come rising oil imports, and the consequent hike in the price of fuel and electricity. Thus far we’ve been putting off the inevitable price hikes by either not paying, or borrowing from the banks to make episodic payments to power producers. That means we’re consuming our savings, literally shovelling the money with which we’re supposed to build our children’s future into the furnaces of our power plants.

The circular debt and the larger power crisis we are passing through is better seen as a rupture with an era of cheap gas, an era that can be said to have begun with the discovery of the Sui gas field in 1952, and ended when this crucial natural endowment entered into decline in 2010. For us, too, the question is one of managing a rupture with the past, of building a bridge between an age of abundant natural gas and an age of fuel scarcity. How we build this bridge will decide what sort of country we have.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Return of food, fuel crises

The recent surge in global food and fuel prices has emerged as an issue of serious concern for the Asia-Pacific region in a manner reminiscent of the 2007-2008 periods. The global food and fuel prices have been on the rise in a sustained and synchronised manner since early 2010. Such developments are highly detrimental for the poor and vulnerable sections of the population in the region.

In its 2011 survey, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia-Pacific (ESCAP) has estimated that as a result of higher food and fuel prices, up to 42 million additional people may slip below the poverty line, in addition to the 19 million who experienced a similar fate in 2010. The survey also reports that in a worst-case scenario in which food price inflation doubles in 2011 and the average price of oil rises to $130 a barrel, the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals with respect to poverty may be delayed by up to five years.

What are the factors responsible for the resurgence of food and fuel prices? How should we address these issues? Will domestic policy alone be enough or would we require policy coordination at the global level? What should Pakistan be doing to handle the resurgence of food and fuel crises?

Food prices are up to the extent of 35 percent in various countries within the region. Various factors are responsible for the recent surge in food prices. These include supply shocks as a result of adverse weather conditions, conversion of food into bio-fuels, export bans, hoarding and heightened speculative activity related to food commodities.

Numerous disruptions due to adverse weather conditions have affected key cereals production, especially wheat. Furthermore, one of the leading exporters of wheat, the Russian Federation, announced an export ban in August 2010, thereby pushing the wheat price further up. Rising oil prices are putting greater pressure on food prices through the channel of bio-fuels. Such fuels have begun to emerge as competing utilisation of grain crops, as one-third of the United States’ corn production has been diverted to ethanol production.

The recent surge in food prices is also the result of financial speculation. In fact, the ESCAP survey suggests that some $300 billion has entered in the commodity markets for speculative purposes. This level of investment was not seen even before the start of the 2007-08 financial crises. The massive liquidity injected by the United States and other advanced economies in the aftermath of the global financial crisis is finding its way into tangible assets markets such as commodities, including gold.

There are increasing concerns about the negative impact of the recent surge in oil prices for developing countries in the region. A gradual recovery in global economy, the weakening of US dollar vis-a-vis major currencies, financial speculators entering into the oil markets and the recent instability in the Middle East have been the main contributing factors to pushing the oil prices upward.

How to address the issue of rising costs of food and fuel at the national and international levels is an important challenge for the region. Higher food and fuel prices are contributing to the inflationary build-up in the region. At the national level, the authorities are pursuing a tight monetary policy to address the issue of inflation.

Monetary policy as a way to address the issue of inflation caused by supply-side shocks is constrained by its own limitations. The world has seen the inability of monetary policy to contain inflation in the 1970s when inflationary build-up was caused by supply-side shocks. Tight monetary policy plunged the global economy into stagflation (stagnation plus inflation).

What is required at the national level is to avoid the aspirin approach to monetary policy. Instead of tightening the monetary policy, the authorities must address the supply-side causes of food price increases. The prices of food and fuel can also be reduced by lowering tariff and/or taxes.

The issue of rising price of food and fuel cannot be addressed effectively at the national level alone. International efforts are required to address such issues. In this connection, G-20, a major forum for global policy coordination on economic issues, will have to play an important role. The G-20 must act decisively to deal with the volatility of oil and food prices.

In the area of oil price volatility, the G-20 being the group of all major consumers can match the power exercised over the oil markets by the cartel of producers, that is, OPEC. OPEC, representing the interest of oil producers, and the G-20, which represents the interest of its consumers, can work out a benchmark “fair” price of oil and agree to restrict the oil price movement within a band. Additionally, the G-20 can create a global strategic reserve for oil and release it when it is high in demand.

In the case of food-price volatility, the G-20 may act to regulate the speculative activity in food commodities in financial markets, and discipline the conversion of cereals into bio-fuels. The G-20 can enhance its credibility and effectiveness by evolving a mechanism for consultation with the non-member countries through ESCAP. It was arranged by the former prior to the Seoul Summit.

Pakistan must take the resurgence of food and fuel crises seriously. It is not imprudent to suggest that the persistence of food inflation at a high double-digit level for the last 40 months in a row has been devastating for the poor in Pakistan. Such a high rate of food inflation is the likely cause of pushing millions of people below the poverty line in the last three years. Pakistan must freeze the wheat support price at the current level for the next three years. On the fuel side, Pakistan must review its taxation policy on petroleum products as currently it is a highly taxed sector. The domestic price of petroleum products has gone out of the reach of even the middle class.

The writer is principal and dean at NUST Business School, Islamabad. Email: ahkhan@ nbs.edu.pk

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The recent controversies surrounding Pakistan’s army have left considerable bitterness across the country where the institution is ironically also seen by many as the ultimate guarantor of national security.

The recent killing of an innocent young man in the southern city of Karachi by army troops deployed under a paramilitary formation forced the rare and publicly acknowledged replacement of a serving Pakistan army major general.

The army is supporting a high-powered investigation meant to probe the exact circumstances surrounding this incident. But the controversy is a powerful reminder of a long-term challenge which is fundamentally anchored in the issue of the army’s exposure to one internal civilian conflict after another.

These conflicts have engulfed the army as the institution presided over Pakistan for more than half its life as an independent state.

To illustrate this point further, conditions in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Balochistan provide a powerful insight to this very challenge, where years of recurring military operations followed by consolidation exercises have only sharpened criticism of the army.

Today, while the army appears to be seeking to scale down its exposure to a primarily nationalist conflict in Balochistan, its ability to lift its image remains in question.

In Balochistan, a number of loose ends range from the fate of the civilians who disappeared and remain unaccounted for, to the future of enabling a civil order to take charge. An ultimate de-escalation of the conflict in Balochistan and the restoration of order remain powerfully compelling questions without any credible answers.

Elsewhere too, the Pakistan army remains embroiled in what could broadly be characterised as unhappy situations. The conflict with the Taliban and Al Qaida along the border with Afghanistan has drawn the Pakistan army deep into a situation where the end result seems difficult to predict.?National consensus

The conflict in the border region can indeed be qualified as a necessary battle, thrust upon Pakistan due to circumstances beyond its control.

But the same cannot be said about the necessity of maintaining paramilitary deployments in Karachi to tackle violence in a city with a population of 18 million.

There are no easy or obvious answers to the ‘de-militarisation’ of such civilian conflicts from where an immediate withdrawal of the army may not be possible. But the writing on the wall clearly suggests that a withdrawal of the army has become necessary, largely for the sake of restoring the standing of the Pakistan army as an institution primarily responsible for guarding Pakistan’s frontiers.

Ahead of a withdrawal, Pakistan’s civilian rulers must first work to build a national consensus on the way forward. On the one hand, this consensus must not only work to support a conceptual change but also protect the Pakistan army as a vital national institution.

The conceptual change must be about a well-considered plan to beef up what are essentially weak civilian institutions.

This will require a well thought out debate in parliament to bring diverse stakeholders on board in agreeing on a way forward, while the Pakistan army must simultaneously plan a fuller focus on its primary duty of defending the frontiers.

On the other hand, there has to be a focus on how best to tackle the continuing conflicts in Pakistan, notably the conflict in Balochistan. At the same time, new mechanisms must be evolved in locations such as Karachi to ‘de-militarise’ the city by putting a greater onus of responsibility on police and the local administration to gradually but surely take over duties that presently lie in the Pakistan army’s domain.

There is no simple or straightforward recipe to the way forward. However, a vital first step must be the recognition that a long exposure of the Pakistan army to civil conflicts has caused more harm than good to the institution itself. In such civilian conflicts, controversies are inevitable given the nature of the challenge.

As these conflicts raged, Pakistan’s past regimes — both civil and military — went for a knee-jerk reaction and quickly deployed the army or army-run paramilitary forces to deal with the challenge.

But in doing so, they probably failed to recognise that the deployment of units by the army — an institution primarily responsible for securing Pakistan’s borders — offered no enduring solution. Indeed, the recent controversies have only demonstrated the futility of this approach.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Poor governance & poverty
By
Shakeel Ahmed

Theoretically governance is defined as the manner in which political and administrative power is exercised in the management of a country’s social and economic resources for development. In the case of Pakistan this need not be the case as political and administrative power can be and is in fact utilized for the economic and financial well being of the leadership in power.


Good governance requires a vision and an executive and administrative understanding and capacity to utilize public revenues for human development such as education and health. Measured on this yardstick the government of President Zardari does not get even a passing grade. Good governance is held to be an essential pre-condition for pro-poor growth as it establishes the regulatory and legal framework essential for the sound functioning of land, labor, capital and other factor markets. This agenda is missing from President Zardari’s radar screen.

The overthrow of an elected government in 1999, the scrapping of the Constitution and the adoption of other unlawful actions clearly established that governance including adherence to the rule of law was the country’s foremost problem. The discontinuity in the democratic process accelerated corruption. Political instability resulted in disastrous consequences for the economy. For the first time in Pakistan’s chequered history, poverty reared its ugly head. Notwithstanding the import of private banker Shaukat Aziz as the country’s Finance Minister, and the installation of another World Bank import as the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan business confidence continued to wane, economic growth continued to worsen, and the country’s debt profile continued rising despite major debt relief granted by the donors in the wake of 9/11. The rich began to grow richer. Nearly one third of the country’s population fell below the poverty line.

The right to education and health is a basic entitlement. Development allocations in these sectors showed no improvement. With the introduction of devolution, there was a visible decline in the governance abilities. The deterioration is evident from the fact that funds allocated for education and health could not be fully utilized. The surrender of scarce funds at the end of the financial year was not treated as criminal negligence. No action was ever taken against those failing to fully perform this nation building task. Corruption flourished in the delivery of public services. There were hospitals and basic health units without medicines. Medicines meant for these health facilities were regularly sold in the market. The existence of ghost schools was endemic. Salaries were drawn regularly. The teachers never showed up for work. Artificial enrollment reports were sent to those who cared to receive them. Women and girls were the worst to suffer in this situation. The rich could afford to send their children for studies abroad or in expensive English medium private institutions at home. Children of the poor had nowhere to go. Those who have somehow managed to go on to colleges and universities are ill-motivated and abhor the acquisition of knowledge. Pakistan has rapidly fallen behind in the human development index.

Poverty is considered intolerable where strong state institutions exist. There was a serious undermining of state institutions when in the name of devolution, the age old and well established institution of the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner was abolished. Governance took a nose dive. The familiar and functional police system was also tinkered with in the name of reforms. The lack of public confidence in state institutions, including the police and judiciary, eroded their legitimacy and directly contributed to worsening conditions of poverty, public security and law and order. The present Government has been unable to carry thorough reforms to restore the legitimacy and performance of many institutions that are in desperate need of rehabilitation. These include the executive, administrative, and magisterial organs of the state. Its focus of attention is in promoting cronyism and ignoring their rapacious tendencies.

Investment helps generate employment and alleviate poverty. A stable and well functioning democratic system and an independent judiciary is fundamental to the creation of an enabling environment for domestic and foreign investment to take place.. The lack of transparency in public sector planning, budgeting and allocation of resources in Pakistan has ensured that those who do not constitute the political elite (read the poor and the vulnerable) are unable to make political leaders and the Government responsive to their needs or accountable to promises. This has led to a supply driven approach to service provision, with development priorities being determined not by potential beneficiaries but by an inefficient, dishonest and incompetent bureaucracy and a political elite which appears to be completely out of touch with reality.

In order to tackle the rising trend of poverty, the government of President Zardari should re-arrange its priorities and assign improvement in governance as the foremost task. This is a key determinant of long term poverty. Poor governance tends to exacerbate the vulnerability of the lowest income groups in times such as those that have been ushered in by President Zardari”s government.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

U.S.-Pakistan Ties: Uneasy and Essential
By
Deborah Jerome

The already fractious relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been further strained in recent days by a series of developments: Pakistan's reported arrest of several citizens for allegedly assisting the May 1 raid by U.S. forces that killed Osama bin Laden; a surge in U.S. drone attacks that have killed suspected militants in Pakistan (BostonGlobe); and reports that intelligence shared by U.S. authorities with Pakistani counterparts about bomb-making factories resulted in a tip-off to the bombmakers (UPI), helping them elude capture.

Heightened tensions between the two countries come as Washington is due to announce new details on a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which starts next month, and continues to want Pakistan's help in killing or capturing the remainder of al-Qaeda that fled to Pakistan; this could well include al-Qaeda's new leader, Ayman al Zawahiri (CSMonitor). The United States also wants Pakistan's acquiescence in the drone attacks the United States has increasingly used to target militants in Pakistan's tribal areas. Islamabad's tacit support for such methods is now looking increasingly in doubt (Telegraph).

White House spokesman Jay Carney insists that the two countries continue to work together (USAToday). And Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, along with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say the relationship between the United States and Pakistan (NYT) contributed to stability in the region. But voices of skepticism are being heard in Congress. The House Appropriations Committee on June 14 approved a defense spending bill that would withhold 75 percent of the $1.1 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan (AP) until the Obama administration informs Congress how it would spend the money. Last week, the CIA's deputy director, Michael J. Morell, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Pakistan's level of cooperation on counterterrorism (Bloomberg) was "three" on a scale of one to ten.

It seems unlikely that the relationship will be repaired anytime soon. Regional expert Bruce Reidel points out that Pakistan's army has been humiliated and embarrassed (CNN) by the bin Laden killing and recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan. He also says the United States is justified in its concerns that Pakistan continues to support "various parts of the Jihadist Frankenstein that it has created over the last quarter of a century even as it fights other parts of that Frankenstein monster." Many analysts have noted that the Pakistani army wishes to maintain links to militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Afghan Taliban.

Still, a number of experts support continued U.S. funding for Pakistan for development and security, saying even a flawed Pakistani state is vital to U.S. interests. A CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force report from late last year says while "militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose a direct threat to the United States and its allies [and] jeopardize the stability of Pakistan," the United States should continue current levels of funding in Pakistan and pushes for "continued and expanded training, equipment, and facilities for police, paramilitaries, and the army." A recent Center for Global Development report urges a development-centered agenda in Pakistan -- one of the world's poorest countries -- to supplement the focus on security.

And in this new Policy Innovation Memorandum, CFR's Daniel Markey argues that the United States should adopt an indirect approach that leverages the power of influential Pakistanis, the credible threat of curtailed U.S. assistance to Pakistan and U.S. sanctions, pressure from Pakistan's closest allies, and the hard edge of U.S. military force in Afghanistan.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

On June 23 and 24 this year, the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India will meet in Islamabad to discuss various issues such as peace, security, Kashmir and friendship.

However, Pakistan has been conducting fruitless dialogue with India. In this regard, the fact of the matter is that India has been using delaying tactics and is only fulfilling formalities as part of its shrewd diplomacy by playing a double game with Islamabad.

It is of particular attention that on the one hand, India has been emphasising that it wants to promote friendship with Pakistan by continuing the new phase of talks, while on the other, it has intensified anti-Pakistan activities and a deliberate propaganda campaign against Islamabad. This could be judged from the recent developments. On June 16, Indian Navy ship Godavari obstructed the operation, being carried out by Pakistan Navy ship Babur for Merchant Vessel Suez—also undertook dangerous maneuvers in relation to the release of hostages, captured by Somali pirates. While acting upon the misperceptions of some US high officials, on May 25, Indian Defence Minister AK Antony stated that India is concerned about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal after a group of terrorists laid siege to a heavily guarded naval air base. He also revealed, “Our services are taking all precautions and are ready round-the-clock.”

Besides, in the aftermath of Osma’s death in a US military raid in Pakistan, India has left no stone unturned in maligning Islamabad and distorting the image of the latter. In this respect, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram said that the killing of Bin Laden “deep inside Pakistan” shows that world’s terrorists “belonging to different organisations find sanctuary in that country.” Without naming Pakistan, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna stated that the world “must not let down” its united effort to eliminate the safe havens that have been provided to terrorists in its neighbourhood. New Delhi, while urging the Pakistan government to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, also accused Pakistan’s spy agency, ISI of supporting the militants.

As regards the Mumbai catastrophe, the true story has been exposed recently when a day after the Indian media exposed the name of the terrorist, Wazhul Qamar Khan whose name was included in the list of 50 alleged terrorists given to Pakistan in March. On May 18, 2011, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram was compelled to admit that what the media described an embarrassing lapse, but disowned responsibility for preparing the list. On the other hand, Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies were desperately looking for Wazhul Khan and had his name not been made public. But Wazhur Qamar “is living in the suburbs of Mumbai with his family” and “is regularly reports to a court that gave him bail” as reported by The Times of India.

India has also failed in supplying solid proof to Pakistan in relation to Mumbai tragedy except providing a self-fabricated story which was quite fake—full of loopholes, created by Indian secret agency, RAW. Neither, India provided Islamabad reciprocal information about Indian officials involved in Malay villages and Samjotha Express blasts in which Indian mastermind Lt. Col. Srikant Purohit was found guilty in targeting Muslims nor it took action against the concerned culprits.

Nevertheless, India and Pakistan had decided to resume the dialogue process through their home secretaries who had held talks on March 28 and 29, this year on a host of issues. These talks were the first structured bilateral home secretary-level meeting on counter-terrorism after the Indo-Pak decision to resume comprehensive talks.

In the recent past, although Foreign ministers of Pakistan and India ended their dialogue with a positive note as both the countries termed their talks ‘useful’ and vowed that the talks would pave the way for serious and sustainable dialogue, yet the same failed without producing tangible results. In this context, Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had remarked that India was not mentally ready for talks, as it wanted to discuss only selective issues.

During their joint press briefing, to a question regarding Indian involvement in Balochistan, Indian counterpart Krishna indicated that the issue had been mentioned in the Sharmel Sheikh declaration. Qureshi stated that during the meeting, he had also mentioned reports that Baloch separatist leader, Brahamdagh Bugti had obtained an Indian passport. Although Krishna had pointed out, “I agreed we have cordial and frank exchange of views on all outstanding issues. Effective action against terrorism is required,” and “India is committed to being a sincere partner to establish peaceful and progressive relationship with Pakistan,” yet he had used those words in language of diplomacy because no progress was made in those talks due to Indian intransigence.

But in 2008, New Delhi suspended the process of ‘composite dialogue’ under the pretext of Mumbai terror attacks which were in fact, arranged by the RAW. Meanwhile, Indian rulers blackmailed Islamabad that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of Mumbai catastrophe. In 2002, under the pretext of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, New Delhi again postponed the process of dialogue.

Indian leaders forgot that there is no chance for the success of Pak-Indian talks in wake of a threatening policy, coercive diplomacy and arms-twisting tactics. This is a lesson especially for New Delhi to learn from its experience of dealing with Islamabad during the last six decades. For example in 2001-02 and 2008, India failed to secure Pakistani compliance to its illegitimate demands even though half a million battle-ready Indian troops marched up to the international boundary with Pakistan.

Despite various crises which were availed by New Delhi in order to suspend the process of negotiations, previous Pak-Indian dialogue could not produce any result due to Indian delaying tactics. In this context, Indian diplomats have always tried to make the longstanding issues difficult, intricate and complex, challenging Pakistani stand so that no settlement could be made regarding any issue, especially the Indian-held Kashmir. As a matter of fact, history of Pak-India dialogue clearly shows that India is not serious and sincere in resolving any issue including the key dispute of Kashmir. Hence, New Delhi has always used one or the other justification so as to delay the peace process. In this regard, slow peace process in the Sub-continent is because of Indian obduracy.

It is notable that Indian adamant stand in relation to Pak-Indian parleys are not without some sinister designs. In this connection, India is determined to keep its hold on Kashmir which is considered by it as integrated part of the Indian union. India wants to continue state terrorism on the innocent Kashmiris who are waging a ‘war of liberation’ for their legitimate rights. New Delhi also wants to blackmail Pakistan by stopping the flow of rivers’ water towards Pakistan as major rivers of our country take origin from the occupied Kashmir. In this regard, India has constructed various dams so as to starve Pakistan owing to severe consequences of shortage of water. However, by controlling the Kashmiri territories, New Delhi intends to get leverage over Islamabad by resolving the dispute in accordance with its own will.

Particularly, India also desires to destabilse Pakistan. Notably, for the last seven years, Pakistan’s various regions have been facing suicide attacks and targeted killings by the militants who entered the country from Afghanistan where tentacles of terrorism exist. For this purpose, India has set up secret training centres in Afghanistan where its military personnel in collaboration with RAW, Mossad and CIA have been imparting training to the youngsters so to weaken Pakistan because it is the only nuclear country in the Islamic world. These secret agencies are also supporting insurgency in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and separatism in Balochistan.

Regarding various terror-events, Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik and ISPR Spokesman, Maj-Gen. Athar Abbas have repeatedly indicated foreign involvement behind the attacks—saying that terrorists “are the enemies of the state” and “are mercenaries who receive arms from Afghanistan to destabilise the country.” In such a situation, it is false hope as some political experts think that unlike 1997-98, the present attempt to settle Kashmir within the framework of the new dialogue including other issues may have a greater chance of success.

The fact is that India resumed the present peace process under international pressure, especially of the United States. In this respect, Indian political party, BJP has already pointed out that the Congress-led government re-initiated the ongoing Pak-Indian dialogue under American duress. Besides, by fulfilling the formality, Indian rulers also want to show to the western countries that India is willing to settle all the outstanding disputes with Pakistan. Nonetheless, it is owing to India’s non-seriousness and duplicity with Islamabad that Pakistan’s dialogue with India is proving fruitless.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Gen. John Abizaid used the phrase “the long war” to describe America’s battle with Islamic extremism after Sept. 11, 2001. When I first heard him say it in the dark days of 2004, as Iraq was spiraling downward, I had the feeling that it would last for most of our lifetimes.

Behind this decades-long battle, Abizaid said, was the political modernization of the Islamic world — the explosive process of change that he likened to the revolutions and anarchic movements that swept across Europe in the 19th century.

This is the overarching conflict from which Barack Obama wants to withdraw American troops — not because the turbulence is over but because big American expeditionary forces aren’t the right answer. He suggested this larger shift Wednesday night. After a “difficult decade,” he said, “the tide of war is receding. .?.?. These long wars will come to a responsible end.”

You can fault some of the particulars of Obama’s policy. I’m scratching my head about the logic of his timetable for reversing the surge he announced 18 months ago: Pulling out 10,000 troops this year is okay, but why yank out an additional 23,000 in the middle of next year’s fighting season? That encourages a battered Taliban to hang on awhile longer rather than bargain for a truce. It repeats the tip-your-hand mistake I thought Obama made back in December 2009, when he set a date for beginning the withdrawal of his surge forces even as he ordered them into battle.

But on the larger theme, I thought Obama had it right. This period of expeditionary wars does need to come to an end — not just because America is weary and broke but because the dialectic of history has brought the world to a new place. If American military might has been shown to have limited effect in shaping events over the past 10 years, so have the terrorist strategies of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

When Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in the 1990s, he made two assumptions, both of which turned out to be wrong.

First, he argued that if America were hit hard by a terrorist attack, it would run away, just as it had from Lebanon after the 1983 bombings and from Somalia in 1994. In his last moments, bin Laden surely knew that this bet on American softness had been mistaken. “The message,” said Obama, quoting an unnamed American soldier, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

Bin Laden’s second conviction was that al-Qaeda could supplant the corrupt, autocratic rulers who had perverted governance in the Arab world. They are indeed in retreat — al-hamdulillah, as Arabs would say — but not because of al-Qaeda. What’s powering the Arab Spring are citizen movements for democratic change. Wherever al-Qaeda has tried to impose theocratic “emirates,” as in Iraq’s Anbar province, it has burned itself out. As for the Taliban, its chief weapon in Afghanistan is raw physical intimidation. This isn’t a movement on the rise.

What was striking about Obama’s speech was the lack of fanfare and triumphalism that so often accompany U.S. rhetoric about foreign policy. Rather than offering upbeat word pictures about plucky Afghan schoolgirls, he admitted the reality that “we won’t try to make Afghanistan a perfect place.” While talking about America’s “singular role,” he wasn’t imagining us as a shining city on the hill but as a nation bruised by recent experience — one that is “as pragmatic as we are passionate.” My translation: No more Teddy Roosevelt charges into the fray, at least not for a while.

What worries me, thinking about the future that Obama outlined in Afghanistan, is U.S. reliance on the harshest weapons in our arsenal — the killing machine that is America’s counterterrorism force. With Predator drones and the “capture or kill” night raids of the Joint Special Operations Command, America has found a way to punish its enemies without risking large U.S. casualties.

Obama concluded that this counterterrorism side of counterinsurgency works far more reliably than the uncertain, nation-building side. The embrace of counterterrorism tactics makes sense as an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and as a continuing check against al-Qaeda. But America should understand that this is a dark face of war — something perilously close to combat by assassination. It needs more debate before it’s elevated to a cornerstone of American strategy.

davidignatius@washpost.com
Source: Washington Post

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins