Overconfidence - Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you could survive the odds beating you.”


Miss/Mrs/Mst/Mr Roshni!

Before advising me the traits how to express views in forum you had better review your post and then comment. I do not take fig for your post, whether u r Baloch or otherwise…? But try to be a Human Being first. I perceived your knowledge; perception and way of thinking so narrow so limited. I am sure you are suffering from, Sympathic Overactivity Disorder; you should consult a Physician so soon so possible. I do never prefer having chit chat with low manta approaching people. First try to come on the desired frequency then comment on such Issues. Who was Bughti, Why died I have no interest into the matter, I just asked you that being a human being you should refine your way of expression. For instance I asked your name and instead of going towards the objective answer you replied, I live in Karachi, My father is a Businessman and my Name is………..? I reiterate I am not a Baloch but if you call yourself Baloch, then you do not have the right to call your self Baloch.

See how emotional you stated your self, this is contrary to the framed rules of CSS, I hope u are not fit for CSS. Do not try to be the noble one first bring amendments into your conception then appear in such high based exam.

May God Make you understand with a Urdu poetry Bye

Na who Samjay hay na Samjay gay
Ya Rub Ya un ko Akal dey ya meray zubah to funna karday.

Only for Roshni Baloch review.


A.S.Khan.

This meddling must stop

IT is a matter of concern that India should have chosen to stoke the fire in Balochistan by sending arms and ammunition to the militants. On Monday, while President Musharraf informed a high-level meeting about the routes through which terrorists in Pakistan were getting Indian arms, the Foreign Office spokesperson accused New Delhi of trying to destabilise this country. The president’s statement is significant, for it absolves the Afghan government of any involvement against Pakistan. Even though Afghan territory was being used for subversion in Pakistan, the president did not believe the Karzai government had anything to do with it. Instead, he said the Indian consulates in Afghanistan and Iran were organising the supply of weapons to militants in Balochistan. According to the president, the arms were being smuggled across the India-Pakistan border at Rahimyar Khan, reaching Balochistan via Sanghar and Jacobabad, while on the western border Zhob and Chagai served as the conduit for arms. RAW, India’s intelligence agency, was pumping arms and money into Balochistan, but the president said his government had sealed all the routes.

It is difficult to see how the peace process can move forward if the present slide in relations between the two countries continues. The big blow to the detente came with the Mumbai blasts of July 11, with the Indian media accusing Pakistan of involvement in the carnage even before preliminary investigations had begun. Then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh implicitly accused Pakistan of involvement in the blasts and announced a freeze of the peace process. Visiting Mumbai after the tragedy, Dr Singh said the peace process would remain frozen “until Islamabad starts acting on its assurances to crack down on terrorists”. The Indian government took a unilateral step towards freezing the peace process by cancelling the secretary-level meeting scheduled for Islamabad on July 20-21. The secretaries later met at Dhaka on the sidelines of the Saarc ministerial committee meeting, but, like all Saarc conferences, it produced nothing positive. Instead, India accused Pakistan of failing to carry out its obligations under the South Asia Free Trade Area. August saw two more unpleasant developments: first, there was a tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats, and on Aug 15, speaking on India’s independence day, Dr Singh repeated the threat that the peace process would remain frozen unless Pakistan took “concrete steps” to rein in terrorists. Things hit a new low when, following Nawab Akbar Bugti’s killing, India came out with a bit of gratuitous advice to Pakistan on how to deal with its domestic problems. This was astonishing, since Balochistan is Pakistan’s internal problem and it does not need to be told how to go about it.

In sharp contrast, the Pakistani attitude towards India’s domestic problems has been one of restraint, even though India is vulnerable on several counts. For instance, whatever is happening in India’s north-east has attracted the attention of international rights agencies and some of India’s own NGOs, besides censures from the US State Department’s annual reports on the atrocities being committed on the civilian population by India’s security forces. Yet Pakistan has chosen not to meddle in India’s internal affairs. The basic question is India’s sincerity about the peace process. New Delhi has two choices: either it should push the process forward, or it can choose to destabilise Pakistan. Pursuing the two objectives at the same time is contradictory.


Reference: Editorial, DAWN. 06/09/2006

__________________
The world is my oyster!

Nation-building under stress

By Shahid Javed Burki


I AM suspending for a week the series of articles on the rise of extremism and radicalism to write about a matter of equal import: the evolving situation in Balochistan after the death of Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti in an encounter with the military. The facts surrounding this tragic incident are still not clear. Did the authorities launch the operation with the aim to kill the Baloch leader? Or was the sardar’s death the result of the collapse of the cave in which he was hiding and which had come under heavy military assault?

If the intent was indeed to kill, what did Islamabad hope to achieve by carrying out such an act? Was the action motivated by the fact that Balochistan now straddles an exceedingly sensitive geographic space? There may be nervousness in Islamabad that without a quick solution the problem could become even bigger, begin to undermine the integrity of the country and involve a number of powers in the affairs of the country.

The government has issued several statements detailing the circumstances that led to the sardar’s demise. These have left an impression of near-panic among policymakers in Islamabad. The killing itself may also have been an act of desperation on the part of a regime that seemed to be at the end of its wits in solving the problem posed by Sardar Bugti and some of his other colleagues.

There have been some high-profile killings in recent times carried out by the state in several parts of the Muslim world. These include the targeted assassinations of Palestinian and Lebanese leaders by Israel. They were justified on the ground that the leaders killed were waging war against innocent people. It was such a killing of a Hezbollah leader several years ago, that brought Sheikh Nasrallah to power in the organisation. More recently, the Americans carried out an operation that resulted in the death of the Jordanian fighter, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was, at the time of his death, the most wanted man in Iraq.

Neither the killing of the Hezbollah leader, Abbas al-Musawi, nor that of Zarqawi bought peace for their opponents and pursuers. In both cases, those who killed them created martyrs for the causes they had been pursuing. History has shown time and again that political assassinations don’t solve political problems; they simply exacerbate them.

When the state goes after the life of its opponent it is always a reflection of desperation; of not having in place a strategy to deal with the situation that has created opposition in the first place and that expresses itself through the use of violence. When US President George W. Bush said soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks on his country that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive, he was expressing Texas-style frustration with an opponent who seems committed to carrying out extreme acts of violence.

President Bush, in dealing with the problem of Islamic extremism, has shown three attitudes that have proved to be remarkably counterproductive. Unfortunately, they have set a pattern that tempts other world leaders. President Bush thinks in simple, black and white terms; things are either right or wrong, people and states are either good or evil. People and nations are either friends or foes. Friends should be coddled; foes should be punished. This leads to the adoption of a clean public policy the pursuit of which, unhappily, leads to unclean ends.

Second, he tends to personalise issues; those in opposition are branded as enemies he is happy to see eliminated. Ron Suskind in his recent book, The One Percent Doctrine, tells the story of how, on the report that Ayman al Zawahiri had been killed, and knowing that President Bush would welcome the gesture, the authorities had flown a man’s head in a special box. It was believed to be the head of Al Zawahiri. Bush was informed that he would be presented with the trophy and was very disappointed when DNA evidence showed that the head in the container belonged to somebody else.

The Third attribute that distinguishes President Bush’s style of leadership is that once having reached a public policy conclusion, he shows no willingness to change. ‘Resolve’ in his diction is a sign of political manhood. Not staying the course is seen as a manifestation of weakness. There is a lesson to be learned by all political leaders that the characteristics that have distinguished the tenure of the American president don’t lead to good policies.

It took several years of experience, most of it not very comfortable, for the American leadership to recognise that capturing or killing the leaders of extremist Islam will not result in the problem simply going away. In the articles I am writing for this space on extremism and radicalism within Islam I am trying to develop an understanding of why these movements have grown and taken such a firm hold over significant segments of the Muslim population.

The same is true of the problem Islamabad is currently facing in Balochistan. Several missteps have created a large following among the people of Pakistan’s largest (in terms of size), smallest (in terms of economy) and the poorest and most backward (in terms of the income per head of the population) province. It will take some deft policymaking by Islamabad to solve the problem before it really shakes the foundations of the Pakistani state. These foundations in any case are not very strong; they should not be subjected to any more tremors.

In this two- part article, I will examine not how the tragedy surrounding the death of Nawab Bugti occurred but why it happened. I will then go on to speculate how it would affect future developments in the country given its sorry history and how it might affect Pakistan’s relations with the world outside.

I will make three points in this article. One, the problem that resulted in the unfortunate and tragic death of Nawab Bugti has deep historical roots. It is only when a proper examination is made of how deep these roots go that Islamabad will be able to deal with the problem.

Two, the use of extreme force is never a workable solution for a problem that has deep roots. It only serves to sustain violence as a way of political expression. Three, for the problem to be solved it will require the involvement of not just the Baloch people, it will need the full participation of people from all parts of Pakistan. Only a genuine democratic process and participatory reflection on the part of all people will bring that about.

Let me begin with history, a subject that we have neglected in Pakistan to the extent that the making of public policy does not benefit from learning from its lessons. Our leaders are not aware of the country’s history and we teach it poorly in our schools and universities. In this context, it would be helpful to recall that the province of Balochistan that we know today was not a province in 1947, the time of Pakistan’s birth.

It has also a very different history compared to the country’s other provinces. Its incorporation in Pakistan also happened in ways that were different from those used to bring other provinces into what came to be called Pakistan. The Baloch story begins from the time of the founding the state of Pakistan. The way the people of the province became the citizens of Pakistan and the way they were initially governed left a deep impression on their political psyche and informed their later attitude towards central authority.

Although the British accepted the “idea of Pakistan” and agreed to the creation of an independent state for the Muslims living under their domain, they were prepared to grant that right only after the people living in the provinces that had a Muslim majority had expressed their wish to separate in an open and transparent way. They wanted the approval of the people who would be most affected by the design they had in mind.

A complicated procedure was devised to enable the people to express their preferences. Chaudhri Muhammad Ali in his book, The Emergence of Pakistan, describes the process chosen for Bengal and Punjab, the two Muslim-majority provinces where there was a sizable non-Muslim presence. The Congress party’s acceptance was given on the condition that the same logic would apply to these two provinces.

“Both in Punjab and Bengal, the same pattern of voting was followed. After the majority in the provincial assembly voted in favour of joining a new constituent assembly, separate meetings of the Muslim majority districts and the non-Muslim majority districts were held. The representatives of the latter voted by a majority for a partition of the province, and the former also by a majority against it. Since the vote by either group for partition was decisive, partition was declared.

East Punjab and West Bengal decided to join the new constituent assembly of the Indian Union; West Pakistan and East Bengal decided to join the new constituent assembly of Pakistan. Elections to the Pakistan constituent assembly from East Bengal and West Punjab were held in due course. The Sindh legislative assembly decided by a majority to join the constituent assembly of Pakistan.”

The North West Frontier Province went through an entirely a different process. The proposal to hold a referendum in the province was mooted by Jinnah and the Muslim League but was strongly resisted by the Congress and Ghaffar Khan. They were in favour for a vote in the assembly which may have opposed the creation of Pakistan and supported union with India. But Jinnah prevailed and the referendum was held on July 6, 1947. There were 289,244 votes cast for Pakistan against 2,874 for India.

This was resounding popular support for the idea of Pakistan among the Pakhtuns although, shortly before the votes were cast, Ghaffar Khan, encouraged by the Indian leaders and Afghanistan, had raised the possibility of an independent Pakhtun state. Wrote Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, “the slogan of an independent frontier state or Pakhtunistan had been provided for the Khan brothers by Gandhi. Behind this demand was the far-reaching strategy of re-absorbing the province at a later stage after continuity with it had been gained through the state of Jammu and Kashmir.” In this early history are the seeds of some of the misgivings Pakistan continues to entertain about the longer term intentions of some leaders in India.

(To be concluded)


Reference: Opinion, DAWN. 05/09/2006

__________________
The world is my oyster!

Meeting Balochistan’s needs

By Shahid Javed Burki


THE accession of Balochistan was treated in yet another way. What goes today by the name of that province did not exist in 1947. The British administered the area lightly. A few urban municipalities were governed by political agents — officials who belonged to a central service. The administration of the land owned by various tribes was left to the tribal leaders. Accountability to the central authority (for mostly law and order) was assigned to a ‘shahi jirga’.

Several states — Kalat and Lasbela being the largest — were ruled by provinces as were more than 500 other states in the British domain in India. How were the wishes of such a diverse community of people to be ascertained? Again, to go back to Muhammad Ali’s account: “For Balochistan, the viceroy decided to entrust the responsibility to the shahi jirga and the non-official members of the Quetta municipality. They voted unanimously to join the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.” But the political future of what was to become Balochistan did not end with this action. There remained the matter of the states and that proved not to be easy. One of the states, Kalat, proved difficult to absorb into Pakistan. It took military action to finally convince the Khan, the ruler of Kalat, to throw in his lot with Pakistan.

The way Pakistan was assembled into a state did not lead to the creation of a nation. The country that came into existence in August 1947 was a collection of a number of diverse geographical entities. Each unit had its own history, language, culture and — most importantly — its own form of governance. Of the four provinces that are now Pakistan, Punjab to some extent and Sindh to a lesser extent had some experience of democracy. Even in these, the landed aristocracy wielded enormous power over the people. In the Frontier Province and Balochistan, tribal chiefs and sardars had monopoly over political power. A sense of nationhood did not develop. Once the excitement of having gained a country wore off, nation-building made little progress.

This then was an inauspicious beginning; it became even more troubling once the issue of governance came to be tackled. This was the case in particular with Balochistan. Once again, the question came to be addressed in Pakistan’s formative years. The first participant in the debate was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father.

As the political scientist Khalid bin Sayeed points out in his book, Pakistan: The Formative Phase, Balochistan, at the time of Pakistan’s birth, was politically very backward as compared with other directly administered provinces of British India which had gone through constitutional changes in 1910, 1921, 1930 and 1935. “Balochistan, on the other hand, had not gone through these various stages of a parliamentary form of government.”

How to govern this area became an issue very soon after the birth of Pakistan. It was addressed by Mohammad Ali Jinnah in a speech at the Sibi Darbar on February 14, 1948. “I have come to the conclusion that our immediate object can be best achieved by making the governance and administration of Balochistan more directly the concern of the governor-general himself acting in close collaboration with the acknowledged representation of the people. For this purpose, I have decided to constitute a governor-general’s advisory council, a body which will enable the people to play their full part in the administration and governance of their province. Thus, gentlemen, in some ways you will be better off than the other provinces of Pakistan. Here you will have a governor-general’s province and you will become my special responsibility and care, and let me assure you that in this sphere of activities, the governor-general will adopt such measures as may be necessary, in consultation with the advisory council from time to time.”

Jinnah, in other words, was laying the foundation of direct central authority over the province, an issue that was to acquire enormous importance in later years. In fact, the governor-general was questioned by the press a day after the speech at the Sibi Darbar whether his suggestion that a province directly administered by the chief executive would be in a better situation than other provinces did not amount to his preference for a dictatorial rather than a democratic form of government.

That certainly was not the case, he replied. “I was thinking of provisional measures which would help in getting things done, rather than lengthy processes involved in full-fledged parliamentary discussions.” That impulse to trust central authority over the will of the people can, therefore, be traced back to the Quaid-i-Azam.

Governance in Balochistan was dealt another blow in 1955 when the leadership finally agreed to provide a governing framework for Pakistan. In doing so it decided to reinvent the country’s geography. The four provinces of the country’s western wing were merged to form the One Unit of West Pakistan. The objective was to balance the eastern wing, today’s Bangladesh. At that time the eastern wing had more people than the combined provinces in the western wing. A democratic system based on one person one vote would have tilted the political power towards Dhaka. This the elite-dominated western wing was not prepared to countenance. The solution was to create two provinces, one in the country’s west and the other in the east and give equal representation to the two in the national legislature.

This was the “principle of parity” that became the foundation of the short-lived constitution of Pakistan. It was adopted in 1956 and abrogated in 1958 when the military intervened in politics for the first but not the last time in the country’s history. The One Unit scheme made Balochistan’s common people lose their cultural and historical identity. The stage was set for the mounting grievances on the part of the people of the province. Lahore, the capital of West Pakistan, was too distant from Quetta to be of much use to the people of the province to redress their problems.

The discovery in the 1950s of vast deposits of natural gas in Sui, in the southern part of the province, provided Pakistan with a tremendously rich source of energy. Beginning with the period of Ayub Khan and continuing to the present, a vast network of gas pipelines was laid to bring Balochistan’s gas to consumers across the country. Today, Pakistan has one of the most extensive gas pipeline networks in the world. However, there is an irony in that Balochistan is the least covered area by the pipeline. While consumers in other parts of the country have benefited by gaining access to a relatively cheap source of energy no such accommodation was made for the province’s people. This was to become a major source of irritation for the people of the province, a grievance that was successfully exploited by some of the tribal leaders, most notably Sardar Akbar Khan Bugti.

That notwithstanding, the central authority could have shown some sensitivity to the mounting frustrations of the people of Balochistan and their leaders by doing two things. One, the province could have been given a more generous royalty for the exploitation of gas and other minerals that constitute a rich resource for the province. That could have been done within the framework of the National Finance Commissions that are supposed to agree on formula for the sharing of federal resources, the so-called “common pool”.

The Constitution requires this exercise to be carried out every five years. The last time it was done successfully was in 1996 when I chaired the NFC. My experience left me with one strong impression. Punjab is too large a unit within the Pakistani federation to allow other provinces to flourish. In the commission I headed, Punjab was represented by reasonable people but once they put on their provincial garb they sidestepped the national interest. They fought hard to preserve the provincial interest which could not accommodate large natural resource-based royalties to the provinces that possessed them. All provinces other than Punjab have natural resources vital for economic development. Balochistan has gas, copper, gold and granite. Sindh has gas and coal. The NWFP has gems and hydro-power. Given the stage of development of the various provinces, Punjab is by far the largest user of these resources. It should be prepared to pay for them.

The only way to preserve the Pakistani federation is to break up Punjab into three provinces, southern Punjab headquartered in Multan, central Punjab with its capital in Lahore, and northern Punjab with Jhelum as its capital. With an enormous increase in tensions in Balochistan, what is required is a radical solution which will also give the signal to the people of the province that those currently in power are determined to find a way to accommodate the interests of the smaller provinces.

The second way of keeping the provinces fully involved in national affairs and becoming working components of the Pakistani nation is to devolve power to them. That was the intent of the Constitution of 1973. However, none of the administrations that took office since the Constitution was adopted, operated the federal system as envisaged by the framers. In fact, the Constitution was subverted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the man responsible for obtaining consensus among the many groups trying to make the Pakistani nation.

One accomplishment of the regime headed by General Pervez Musharraf is the creation of a system of local government where power vests in the elected representatives of the people. The system, however, has its opponents, in particular the members of the national and provincial legislatures who must surrender some of their power to elected nazims and deputy nazims. The regime must not give up on the system.

These two systems are already in place and they can be worked on to lessen the growing frustrations of the people of Balochistan. In addition, the government also needs to rethink its development strategy in order to address the problems faced by the rapidly growing population of the province.

Something like the Marshall Plan needs to be launched that would carefully analyse the problems and prospects of the province, determine how the economic rate of growth could be accelerated, and benefits delivered directly to the people, in particular the young.

The tragic death of Sardar Bugti could become a tragedy for the nation, for national integration and for the survival of the Pakistani nation-state. Or it could be an opportunity for the leadership to take the country towards the type of fully representative federal system that was the foundation of the Constitution of 1973. In addition, a large development plan needs to be put in place; it would not be cynical to call it the Bugti Plan for Balochistan Development. It could honour a man who has become a martyr in the eyes of many because of the manner of his death.

Concluded


Reference: Opinion, DAWN. 06/09/2006

__________________
The world is my oyster!

hello
its true that no one is stronger then the Govt and it is foolish to fight when ur wrong.when u dont want to be teased then why tease others espacially when they are ur own people.we will never go anywhere if we think we r the boss .if u r a leader its bcoz of ur followers think about their welfare not urs.this world is not the end there is an eternal world also.be prepared.
regards.

Nawab Akbar bugti key barey main mai koch batain share karna cahoon ga...
hum ney nawab akbar bugti ko tareekh main 5 bar Mohib`e`watan or 5 bar shar`passand or Alahidagi`pasand qarar diya..1947 main nawab akbar bugti ney pakistan main shamil honey ka faisla kiya tu wo mohib`e`watan thay.1957-1958 wo wazeer`e`dakhala or defaa key wazeer`e`mumlikat baney tu wo mohib`e`watan thay.liken sadar Ayub key dor main jabh enn key feild marshal sey ihktelafat paida hoo gaye tu wo mujrim bhi hoo gaye gadar bhi or zalim bhi.Zulfiqar Ali bhutto key dor main wo governer baney tu wo dubara Mohib`e`watan hoo gaye.Zia key dor main unhoo ney zia ko manney sey inkar kar diya.tu wo eik bar phir Zalim or gadaar hoo gaye.Nawaz or Bay`Nazeer key dor main wo dubara Mohib`e`watan ban gaye.2003 main un key mojooda hakoomat sey ihtelafat paida hoo gaye.ess liye un ko dubara zalim or gardaar kaha geya.
Ajj jabh Akbar bugti ka intekaal hoo chuka hai tu pata chala key wo blochistan key Halakoo khan thay un ki apni zaati jailain thin.or hazaroon loogoo ko katal kiya geya tha.blochistan ka governer rahney key bawajood eik school tak na bana sahkey.
sawal yea hai key eik shaks 60 barsoo main 5 bar zalim gaadar or 5 bar Mohib`e`watan kesey hoo sahkta hai.???????????? sawal yea hai key Akbar bugti aghar Muslim leage `qaf` main shamil ho jatey wo sadar Musharaf ki hemayat ka Elaan kar detey tu wo kya hotey????? aj kaa sarkari Muarikh enhey kya likhta.? Mera khayal hai wo ess waqat pakistan key sabh sey barey Mohib`e`watan leader hotey.wo ess waqat governer blochistan hotey.

yea kya? kya paara sifat muashrey aghey bhar sahktey hain.? or kya girgit or Muashroon main koi faraq nahi hona chaiye.?or kya hum 1 rakat main 5 5 bar qibla badal kar zeayda dair zinda rah sahktey hain.?

Khuda key bando.!!! humey kahin tu rukna chaiye.humey koch tu tah karna chaiye. yea tu koi baat na hoyi key jo shaks mera dushman hai wo shaitan hai
or jo meri safoon main khara hai wo shaitan hoo kar bhi naik hai....

sabh chor hain upper sey ley kar neachey tak...apney mufaad key liye lartey hain.Mulaak key liye nahi....Roshan khayali or Etadaal pasandi ki baat kartey hain...Muslmanoo ki izat`o`Azmaat ki nahi...

ALLAH sabh ko naik kam karney or Amaal ki tofeeq atta karey Ameen..

__________________
Marna Tu Ess Jahan Main koi hadsa nahi....Ess Dor`E`NaGawar Main Jeena Kamal Hai..

HERE I AM FRIEND,roshini.WHATEVER I DID SAY IN MY PREVIOUS POST,IS A TRUTH TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE.I WOULD JUST ADD AN OTHER TRUTH HERE THAT BUGTE WAS MORE REFINED,LEARNED,TRAINED THAN YOU SOME FIFTY YEARS AGO WHEN EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN WAS NOT SO COMMON AS IT IS NOW A DAYS,HE GOT HIS EDUCATION IN OXFORD,WAS TRAINED IN THE ACADEMY WHERE YOU WILL UNDERGO THE CSP COURSE IF YOU PASS THE CSS EXAMINATION WHICH,I GUESS,YOU WILL DO IN A JIFFY AS YOU HAVE STRONG MENTAL POWER.AND YOU ALSO KNOW HOW TO SPEAK MANNERED LANGUAGE WHICH IS NOT KNOWN TO PEOPLE LIKE US WHO CALL A SPADE A SPADE IN NORMAL LIFE.ANY I HAVE A GOOD PIECE OF ADVICE,THOUGH I KNOW YOU NEED NOT IT,KINDLY LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP. .TC,BY.

AoA Members,

As you all know that this part of Forum is meant for sharing news and articles, and healthy disussions on articles are also encouraged. But we've noticed that the discussion in this thread has been turned into a personal combat. Participants of the discussion were requested to be rational in discussion but the request is over looked. And personal combats are against the Forum Policies and Rules. So this thread is being closed for further discussion.


Regards,

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete