Pak-India skirmish

VIOLENCE along the Working Boundary between Pakistan and the India-held portion of Kashmir has been a regular feature for much of the past year. Sadly, New Year’s Eve was to be no exception.

In typically murky circumstances, with both sides trading accusations and offering contradictory accounts, several Pakistani, and at least one Indian, border guards were killed — the only certainty being that both sides did fire on the other.

What is alarming about the latest, however, is that the Pakistani version suggests that two Rangers were lured into a flag meeting with their Indian counterparts and then killed in a hail of gunfire.

If true, it would be an astonishing breach of the rules of engagement and would surely make managing the peace in an already fraught environment infinitely more difficult.

Also worrying is the Indian defence apparatus’s seeming determination to resort to the use of disproportionate force and then boast about its disproportionate response. When responses are measured in multiple killed for every dead body, something is surely terribly amiss.

Consider also that Jan 1 is supposed to be a day when a spirit of pragmatic cooperation prevails between India and Pakistan.

Exchanging lists of nuclear sites and prisoners is an archetypal confidence-building measure. It indicates that even rivals can develop rules and systems to manage the risk of conflict and the fallout of potential conflict. But CBMs such as the exchange of lists on Jan 1 between Pakistan and India can only go so far; they are not meant or designed to replace real dialogue on substantive issues.

In the immediate term, what is needed is some meaningful work on reducing the LoC/Working Boundary tensions. Whenever uniformed Pakistani and Indian security personnel are shooting at each other regularly, there is always a possibility of escalation, no matter how carefully the two sides believe the issue is being managed or choreographed.

The only effective guarantee of peace is to make sure the guns fall silent. Otherwise, the unthinkable becomes frighteningly more possible than officialdom on both sides would like to project.

On the Pakistani side, it seems inconceivable that with an army heavily deployed in Fata on counter-insurgency duties and a military leadership preoccupied with the response to domestic terrorism in the wake of the Peshawar carnage, conflict with India is part of the agenda at the moment.

While the state here has quietly pledged to defend the eastern borders against any threat, there has been no real belligerence in evidence. Still, the ground between not wanting a fight and learning to avoid one can be wide.

The political and military leadership of both sides needs to come together to bring an end to this turbulent phase along the LoC and the Working Boundary. Surely, no one could argue that distracting Pakistan from its fight against militancy is a good idea at this stage.

Raids against Afghans

A RECENT feature in this paper on security action against Afghans in this country paints a depressing picture of the difficulties and everyday challenges faced by the community, against the backdrop of a much-publicised ‘crackdown’ on those Afghans living illegally in Pakistan.

In fact, it has come to the point where even uttering the word ‘Afghan’ in today’s insecure environment can give rise to dark labels of suspicion being instantaneously attached to the unfortunate community in the country.

The popular perception has been strengthened over time by frequent raids in ‘Afghan areas’ in the wake of a security threat or an attack by militants. This is the formula that has been in practice in Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi as well as in some smaller towns.

One consequent impression of the police fixation on rounding up Afghans is that this is all the security agencies are capable of doing: cracking down on the community and hoping to find a link with some terror operators or their facilitators.

The impression, unfortunately, holds despite all the talk about the prime minister and other government functionaries supporting a non-discriminatory and comprehensive purging of militants.

The security campaign remains focused on stereotypes, which are reinforced by unqualified, sometimes even irresponsible statements that have found their way into the discussion in the wake of the Peshawar school tragedy.

On Thursday, for instance, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Pervez Khattak attached much stress to the need for sending the Afghan refugees back home, apparently to overcome the menace of terrorism in the country.

To prevent it from becoming a witch-hunt against the Afghans or one particular ethnic group, our officials need to be a little more elaborate and a lot more careful in what they are saying.

Since this factor is often missing the message conveyed is that all Afghans are a security risk to Pakistan, and that if Pakistan could somehow get rid of these refugees, its militancy problem would be as good as resolved. Both assumptions are dangerous — for those who make them and those against whom these are made.

A more sensible approach would be to solicit the help of members of the community that has to be surveyed for any disturbing elements present within, and use the intelligence thus gathered to weed out the unwanted. This may be a more time-consuming exercise but is perhaps the most effective and safest.

Hard country for media

AS the year drew to a close, there was yet another reminder of the dangers that stalk those whose profession demands that the truth be told.

On Wednesday, the International Federation of Journalists released its 24th annual list of journalists and other media persons who have died in work-related targeted or crossfire incidents, showing that the tally of 2014 lies at 118 — an increase of 13 killings as compared to last year.

This figure does not include those who died in accidents or natural disaster whilst on assignment. While the Asia Pacific region had the highest death toll, it was Pakistan that topped the unenviable list of countries where media workers were killed, with 14 people in this profession having been cut down during the past year.

The Federation warned that these findings were a “reminder of the gravity of the safety crisis in media” and called upon governments to urgently make the protection of journalists a priority.

There can be no argument that Pakistan’s circumstances have for years made it a dangerous country in which journalists must discharge their professional obligations.

Even so, the past year has seen some distressing new lows, from a major news network being forced off the cable operators’ list to a political figure hurling threats at journalists and the National Assembly’s standing committee wanting to impose restrictions on what can be reported on.

Meanwhile, the targeting of journalists by both state and non-state actors has continued with absolute impunity, with hardly any instance of the state going after the perpetrators with anywhere near the necessary resolve.

As the nation gears up for the long fight against militancy and terrorism, the situation is in danger of deteriorating further as the push and pull over information intensifies.

The answer lies in the hands of the government: were it to signal, through strong prosecution, its intolerance of attacks on journalists, the air of impunity would be dispelled. That would be a good start to defending this country’s hard-won media freedoms.

A sad day

IN the end, our political leadership proved unable to defend the constitutional and democratic roots of the system or resist the generals’ demands.

Pakistan is to have military courts once again. To establish them the politicians have agreed to distort the principle of separation of powers, smash the edifice of rights upon which the Constitution is built and essentially give up on fixing decrepit state institutions.

Yes, we need a coherent strategy to fight militancy and political and military leaders to work together. But military courts are not the answer.

First, let there be no doubt why the country must now prepare to live under the shadow of military courts: the military leadership wanted these courts.

Yesterday, the ISPR quoted army chief Gen Raheel Sharif as having told the multi-party conference in Islamabad that military courts “are not the desire of the army but need of extraordinary times”.

A day earlier, the ISPR quoted him as having told a corps commanders’ meeting that “bold, meaningful decisions” were needed to ensure “stern action vs terrorists, their sympathisers” and warned that the “much wider political consensus” should not be “lost to smaller issues”.

It is a sad time for democracy when an army chief so openly directs the political process.

Second, while it is parliament’s right to amend the Constitution and the idea of a basic structure to the latter was only given a fresh lease of life because of the tussle between parliament and the Iftikhar Chaudhry-led Supreme Court over the judicial appointment process, one hopes that in a democratic system parliament will not undermine civilian-run institutions, least of all to hand yet more power to an institution that has overthrown the Constitution several times in the past.

Consider that where previous constitutional amendments during civilian dispensations were designed to clear the mess left behind by military dictators, this time it is the civilians who will be muddying the document to empower the army further. The 22nd constitutional amendment will stand as a monument to the betrayal of the civilian, democratic cause.

Third, nothing — nothing — has prevented the government or parliament from urgently strengthening the existing legal system and judicial process other than the government and parliament itself.

Had the same time and effort spent on winning consensus for military courts gone into urgent reforms and administrative steps to fix the criminal justice structure, the existing system could have been brought into some semblance of shape to deal with terrorism.

Sadly, the political leadership has abdicated its democratic responsibilities. Surrender perhaps comes easily.

Bitter taste of sugar

SUGAR mill owners in Sindh are up in arms again in what is turning out to be one of the most troubled sugarcane crushing seasons in recent memory.

They are demanding that the price of sugarcane be set at Rs155 per 40kg after the Sindh government notified Rs 182 via a notification issued on Dec 9, 2014.

The dispute between the mill owners and the growers has been simmering for months. Thus far, the provincial government has see-sawed between the two because both have strong representation within the provincial assembly and strong lobbies within the ruling party, although it seems that the growers’ lobby in the government is bigger.

Unable to decide firmly, the government had first notified Rs182 as the price, then capitulated to the protests of the mill owners and revised it to Rs155, only to submit once again when the growers raised a hue and cry — within days it changed the price back to Rs182.

Meanwhile, procurement of the crop has been massively disrupted across the province as many mills have delayed firing up their boilers and refused to procure sugarcane at the government price.

Now, less than three weeks following the last notification of the procurement price at Rs182, the mill owners are mounting a renewed campaign to bring the price down to Rs155 again, threatening a shutdown of all crushing activity.

Their petition asking the Sindh High Court to intervene has been dismissed, and they are now planning to approach the Supreme Court with their grievances.

This is a surprising threat coming from them, considering the right to set sugarcane procurement prices has been properly devolved to the provinces via the 18th Amendment.

Additionally, sugar mills in Punjab have had no such issue and crushing has been proceeding steadily throughout the province with a procurement price of Rs180. This makes it difficult to understand why mill owners in Sindh cannot make things work at the same price.

The Sindh government needs to stop vacillating and exercise its mandate with more autonomy and more decisiveness than it has been doing so far.

More swings in setting the price are not acceptable. While the Sindh High Court has dismissed the petition of the mill owners, the provincial government still needs to justify its earlier action of changing the fixed price more than once.

If the government decides to favour the growers over the mill owners, it will also have to keep the interests of the consumers in mind.

Newsmen in prison

THE decision by Egypt’s top court to order a retrial of three convicted Al Jazeera journalists deserves to be welcomed, leading to hopes that they might eventually be released.

The charges on which they were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment were difficult to justify and appear to have been motivated by political considerations.

Relations between Egypt and Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based, deteriorated after Gen Abdel Fattah al-Sisi overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government, arrested Mohammad Morsi, Egypt’s first freely elected president, and launched a crackdown that killed a large number of Brotherhood supporters.

The three journalists — Peter Greste, Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed — were doing their professional duty and were in no way involved in what they were charged with ie “spreading false information”.

Egypt is now a dictatorship worse than Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime. Mr Mubarak replaced Anwar Sadat when he was assassinated. But Mr Sisi overthrew a democratically elected government and then had himself elected president through a bogus election.

All dissent has been crushed, and the Egyptian press is not free. When the Egyptian government can arrest and throw foreign journalists into prison, we can only imagine the conditions in which Egyptian newspersons operate.

The three Al Jazeera correspondents might have talked to opposition leaders, including Brotherhood sympathisers, and reported for their channel. But that does not constitute a crime. That the judicial process was flawed became obvious when the Court of Cassation ordered a retrial.

The journalists’ family members were disappointed by Thursday’s verdict and thought the three newsmen should have been released. As an Al Jazeera official put it, “Their arrest was political, the sentencing was political and their being kept in prison is, for us, political”.

Their conviction has been denounced by journalists’ unions and rights bodies, including Amnesty International, which called the trial a “complete farce”.

A family member’s hope that relations between Egypt and Qatar will improve so that the journalists are released is not the issue; the issue is media freedom.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Damage limitation

NOW that the government has decided to take the plunge, the details still remain to be worked out. And, as ever, much of the devil lies in the details. Early drafts of the different pieces of legislation, including a constitutional amendment, that are needed to ready military courts to put on trial civilians accused of terrorism suggest that the government is attempting to protect some semblance of the fundamental rights it has decimated by maintaining the right to appeal to the superior judiciary for individuals convicted in military courts of the new offences being drawn up. If – if – the final legislation approved by parliament envisages such safeguards, it would suggest that the political class is at least aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing the military to completely usurp the judicial process. Anything that circumscribes limits and tightly patrols the new military courts ought to be welcomed: the fewer the exceptions, the shorter the duration, the quicker the imminent constitutional deviation can be recovered from.

There is, though, a basic problem. In attempting to maintain a right of appeal while denying terrorism convicts the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the government — and parliament by extension – is trying to avoid a contradiction that cannot be avoided. In essence, there is a two-fold purpose in opting for military courts: ensuring a quicker, more streamlined process for anti-terrorism trials, and lowering the threshold of evidence needed to secure convictions. If the right to appeal is maintained, the government will be hoping that the superior courts will decide appeals based on the lower threshold of evidence, and fewer due-process and fair-trial protections, that military trial courts require, and not the higher threshold that the regular court system allows. But that will be up to the courts themselves to decide. Will the Supreme Court participate in a system that denies the superior judiciary the right to enforce fundamental rights while still allowing it to hear appeals of terrorists convicted in military courts? That only the SC can decide and the country will only know when the new system is in place and the laws are challenged and convictions appealed.

In truth, now that the government — the entire political class, really — has acquiesced to the military’s demand for expanded military courts, the only thing it can really do to try and return to a fundamental rights regime in the quickest timeframe is to reform and improve the criminal justice system, the state prosecution service and the police investigation process. Two years is what the army has demanded for expanded military courts. Two years should also be the time the government takes to ready the normal judicial process to deal with the terrorism threat inside the country. It can be done. But only if the government gets serious about governance and reforms.

SBP taking sides

THE State Bank of Pakistan, the lead regulator for the financial system, is supposed to be a neutral party to the various claims to superiority that various banking products often try and project for themselves through their marketing campaigns. It is not supposed to endorse one product as superior to another, least of all in the very area it is supposed to be regulating. Yet recently we have seen a number of ads appearing in the press, put in by the SBP, urging people to opt for Islamic banking as the place to keep their deposits in order to avail religiously sanctioned returns. What’s more, the ads imply that other banking products are against Islamic principles and the only way to obtain “peace of mind” with returns on savings and deposits is to opt for Islamic banking products. The ads clearly show that the regulator has taken sides in granting religious legitimacy to one set of products, and has implicitly declared rival products to be against Islamic principles and thereby injurious to religious sentiment. If this were a marketing campaign being run by a private bank in order to promote its product offerings, that would be a different matter. But coming from the regulator, it is a problematic message to be sending out.

The State Bank should be meticulous in its neutrality when dealing with the wide array of financial products offered by the banking industry. It should avoid promoting one set of products over another. This is particularly the case since unlike the early 1980s, there is no policy decision in place at this time to phase out all banking products not specifically registered as Islamic. Since 2001, the policy decision has been to run two parallel systems of banking in Pakistan and leave it up to the consumer to choose between them. Yet for almost a year now the SBP has been going quite the distance in portraying Islamic banks as being more resilient to financial storms and superior in capital adequacy ratios, amongst other things. Now we’re seeing the regulator raising the stakes further, by adding its voice to marketing campaigns that seek to delegitimise all other product offerings by conventional banks. There is nothing wrong with seeking to encourage Islamic banking, but the regulator should restrict itself to strengthening the regulatory framework rather than becoming a party to the marketing messages put out by the industry.

Zikris under fire

THE traditionally secular nature of Baloch society has been under threat for some time, and things appear to be taking a turn for the worse. A report in this paper recently detailed the growing persecution of the small community of Zikris — a little-known Islamic sect — who are concentrated mainly in southern Balochistan. In July, several Zikris were injured when a bus carrying members of the community was the target of a roadside bomb in Khuzdar, and the following month their Khana-i-zikr in district Awaran was attacked. Six worshippers were killed and seven injured. Around 400 Zikris have moved out of the area after the incident. Members of the community have also been singled out in various cases of looting in Awaran and Turbat. These incidents have reportedly begun to vitiate the traditionally harmonious relationship between Zikris and other Muslim sects whose lives are often intertwined through ties of kinship.

Although the Zikris — unlike the Hazaras — are ethnic Baloch, there has been a consistent effort led by religious parties in the province to marginalise them on account of what are considered their unorthodox practices. These efforts gained further strength from regional developments, such as the Afghan war of the early ’80s, which led to the proliferation of madressahs in the province churning out jihadis for the next-door theatre of war. Upon returning home, the governance void that has long been Balochistan allowed them to entrench themselves, and sow discord among the Baloch along religious lines. By doing so, they also served the interests of state elements cynically patronising ideologically-driven extremist groups to counter the Baloch insurgency which, like the society from which it arises, is secular in character. A people divided are, after all, easier to control. This provincial government, with its nationalist credentials and representative aspects, is better placed than many others to demonstrate a real understanding of the problems that bedevil the province. But it has yet to demonstrate it has the courage to do something about them.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Agreement needed

DAMAGING as the anti-terrorism military courts era will be to democracy, the PML-N and PTI have somehow contrived to inflict yet more damage on the democratic process in the midst of an extraordinary session of parliament.

In a better, more democratic world, the PML-N and PTI would have had a binding agreement to resolve their dispute by now.

The PTI would have been present in parliament to explain to the country its position on the 21st Amendment and to vote on it. The PML-N would have announced the formation of a super commission to investigate alleged electoral fraud in the May 2013 general election.

The country would have been able to move on from a long-running political crisis and focus on matters of governance and the fight against militancy.

Unhappily, none of that has happened as somehow the issue of a commission to investigate alleged electoral malfeasance in May 2013 has yet to be resolved.

From the government’s perspective, with so much happening on the legislative and anti-terrorism fronts, perhaps a speedy resolution of the elections-related dispute with the PTI was not realistic. But that overlooks a rather basic fact: negotiations have been conducted in various phases with the PTI over so many months that there is nothing new left to be explored at all.

In fact, once the PTI supremo Imran Khan backed down from his demand that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resign, permanently or temporarily, there was little to stop a deal from being reached immediately — nothing other than the PML-N’s seeming determination to not cede an inch to the PTI, even where the PTI has just and legitimate demands.

Of course, where the PML-N can be stubborn, the PTI can be destructive, often even self-destructive. Had the PTI allowed its MNAs to appear in parliament and participate in the 21st Amendment process, it would have sent a signal that the party has returned to the democratic, parliamentary scheme of things and made it that much more difficult for the PML-N to continue to hold out on sealing an agreement with the PTI.

Sadly, though perhaps predictably, the PTI chose the politics of grandstanding and confrontation instead. If Peshawar has changed everything, if it has helped create a consensus that the first priority of the country should be to defeat terrorism and militancy, then surely the two biggest political parties — in terms of votes in May 2013 and relevance to the national political discourse today — need to be able to settle eminently solvable political disputes.

Barring proof of systematic rigging that changed the overall election result in May, 2013, it seems unlikely the PTI will be able to force the PML-N from power in the post-Peshawar environment. Similarly, was serious electoral fraud to be discovered, it seems unlikely the PML-N could cling to power now. The country needs this dispute settled once and for all.

Schools’ security

THE shadow of the Army Public School carnage hangs heavy, leaving students and parents, to say nothing of school and provincial administrations, unsettled.

The reopening of government-run and private schools has overwhelmingly been delayed by varying numbers of days (depending on when the winter vacations were originally set to come to a close) in different cities, and provincial administrations have asked schools to beef up security.

In Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Islamabad Capital Territory area, schools and other educational institutions have been categorised according to the threat assessment as perceived by the authorities, and the standard operating procedures issued to them include raising boundary walls, topping them with concertina razor wire, hiring security guards and installing closed-circuit camera systems. (Balochistan and Sindh have for different reasons not yet undertaken such measures.)

Private-sector schools must arrange their own funding, and while public-sector schools have been promised some financial help, few — if any at all — have seen it materialise.

After the extended winter vacation, schools are now to open on the 12th, subject to their having met the new security protocols. But the situation does not look conducive to students being able to resume their academic activities.

With few institutions — barring some schools, colleges and universities that have ample financial resources — having being able to improve security, most complain of a lack of funds, insufficient time and question even the viability of the measures proposed.

Consider the fact that there are well over a 100,000 schools in Punjab alone, many without even the most basic of facilities and some that aren’t even registered with the government. Is it plausible to expect them to hire private security? Or for schools that don’t even have boundary walls — there are some 50 such institutions just in Islamabad — to now build them to required standards?

The issue is far too complex for the one-size-fits-all approach taken by the administration. No doubt, there is urgent need for educational institutions to improve security; another APS-style horror can simply not be contemplated. But institutions are well within their rights to ask what provincial and federal authorities are doing to also protect them, and keep attacks at bay.
Surely, the problem in its most basic iteration is this: until the state comes up with an effective and long-term strategy to contain the terrorism threat, and starts implementing it immediately, there is very little individuals and institutions can do to protect themselves.

Elected dictatorship

FOR all practical purposes, Bangladesh is now an elected dictatorship. A year ago, Prime Minister Hasina Wajid stole the general election and then went on to consolidate her rule by crushing all dissent, wreaking vendetta on her foes and hanging opposition leaders through a judicial process condemned as flawed by world rights bodies.

On Sunday, the Bangladesh National Party’s head office was sealed and its leader, Khaleda Zia, confined to the party office for what the government called her own security.

The real reason was to crush the countrywide strike called by Ms Zia to demand a fresh election, because Ms Wajid had abolished the constitutional clause providing for a caretaker, neutral government to hold the polls. This was a provocation to the opposition, because since 1991 general elections in Bangladesh had been held by caretaker governments.

No wonder, the BNP and 17 other parties boycotted the polls in which Ms Wajid’s Awami League ‘won’ 153 of the National Assembly’s 300 seats because the opposition fielded no candidates. The fraudulent majority in parliament has since then enabled the ruling AL to persecute the opposition.

The most blatant form of the government’s use of courts to destroy all dissent is to be seen in the flawed trials of many opposition leaders, especially those belonging to the Jamaat-i-Islami, which has for long been waging a campaign against the AL government. Several JI leaders have been hanged for their alleged war crimes during the 1971 insurgency, and many more leaders, including those belonging to the BNP, are on trial.

The BNP-led strike may not lead to a fresh election, but the violence seen on Monday could snowball and throw Bangladesh into anarchy. Persecution of the opposition and judicial farce are not what Bangladesh needs. The rivalries between the two leaders and periodic strikes have done enormous harm to Bangladesh’s fledgling democracy and have hurt its economy.

What the country needs is national reconciliation and peace to consolidate democracy and speed up economic development.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Disservice to democracy

SOME objected but then either abstained or voted in favour anyway; others tried to defend the law; fewer still tried to justify their vote — the sombre mood in parliament yesterday, and on Monday too, suggests that politicians were at least aware of the great disservice to the democratic project they had gathered to inflict. But inflict they did and, now, with the passage of the 21st Amendment in parliament, the country must live with the spectre of anti-terrorism military courts for the next two years — assuming the civilian leadership has it within itself to deny an extension if sought two years hence.

While several parliamentarians, especially from the government side, did try and claim ownership of the idea of expanding the military court regime to try civilians accused of terrorism and militancy, few who understand the structure of power in this country would have been convinced. Consider when the idea was first mooted: after a meeting of the national political and military leadership. Within days, perhaps even hours, of that meeting what was agreed to in the presence of the military leadership was quickly reopened for debate by sections of the political class.

Then, after the army chief publicly insisted on the need for courts via the ISPR — including while the last All Parties Conference on the matter was in session — the politicians again endorsed anti-terrorism military courts unanimously. Between that last meeting and the vote in parliament however further doubts were expressed by various parties, or at least the leaders of several parties. In the end, though, with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and PPP boss Asif Ali Zardari deciding to back the courts, the numbers in parliament were always in favour of the easy passage of the 21st Amendment.

Perhaps, though, it would be wrong to suggest that the politicians were completely coerced into accepting anti-terrorism military courts. As has been evident in the national debate over military courts, the focus shifted from the failures of the civilians to the need to do something against Taliban-type militant groups. Indeed, in supporting the courts, politicians may even have found themselves on the right side of popular opinion, thereby deflecting much of the anger over Peshawar away from themselves.

Finally, as has been evident during the proceedings on Monday and Tuesday, the political leadership is still not willing to take complete ownership of the fight against militancy. There was, for example, no meaningful call for urgent reform of the criminal justice system, the civilian-led state prosecution service and the police investigation process. Without those reforms, two years from now it seems highly unlikely the civilian side of the state will be in any shape to deal with anti-terrorism prosecutions.

If there is one thing that has been reinforced during this sad episode it is this: the civil-military imbalance will worsen unless the civilians learn to deliver.

Kerry’s visit

JOHN Kerry’s visit to Islamabad comes in the wake of some major developments in Pakistan and the region. While to the west Afghanistan braces itself for a transition full of hazards in the wake of America’s withdrawal, in the east India has upped the ante, with skirmishes between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control and the Working Boundary resulting in the deaths of soldiers and civilians.

However, the most seminal development, and positive in character, is the emergence of a national consensus on terrorism in Pakistan. Voices that regularly claimed that the war on terror was not ‘our war’ or that the mass murder of civilians could be attributed to America’s drone attacks have been silenced in the wake of the massacre of schoolchildren in Peshawar. In North Waziristan, the stupendous task of rehabilitating the area and the displaced people remains to be done, but Operation Zarb-i-Azb has destroyed the Taliban’s operational base and crippled their ability to send out death squads against the people and the state from the comfort of their safe haven. Pakistan and America, thus, have a great deal to talk about when the strategic dialogue begins next week.

The immediate problem is Indian belligerence, and that’s where Pakistan can legitimately hope that Mr Kerry will use his good offices to emphasise to the Indian leadership the need for a quieter border with Pakistan — and not only during President Barack Obama’s visit. Since hitting a low in 2011 following Abbottabad, Salala and Raymond Davis, America and Pakistan now seem headed towards a more stable relationship. A cooperative relationship between the two is in their mutual benefit, given Pakistan’s strategic location on the meeting place of South Asia, Southwest Asia and the Gulf — a region in which America has vital economic and geopolitical interests. Washington, thus, can ill-afford to lose Pakistan.

In turn, Islamabad has to realise the damage done to Pakistan’s national interest by the way the establishment overreacted to what undeniably were challenges to Pakistan’s sovereignty in the summer of 2011. But actions such as the choking of the Nato supply line were arguably not commensurate with the degree of provocation. Without compromising the country’s national interests, our foreign policy managers need to view Pakistan’s relations with the US in a global perspective, and realise the pitfalls inherent in an adversarial relationship with the US-EU combine at a time when India is attempting to emerge as America’s ally in Asia.

World Cup challenge

THE failure of senior all-rounder Mohammad Hafeez to clear a second biomechanics test over his bowling action in Chennai has come as the latest blow to Pakistan’s preparations for the upcoming ICC Cricket World Cup beginning in Australia and New Zealand next month. Hafeez, who had failed his first biomechanics test in Loughborough, England, in November after being reported by umpires in the first Test against New Zealand in Abu Dhabi, could not consistently measure up to the ICC’s permissible limit of 15 degrees set for bowlers and has now been definitely ruled out as a bowling option for Pakistan. However, he still remains in contention for World Cup selection purely as a batsman due to his rich experience in the game.

With ace spinner Saeed Ajmal already having been ruled out of the World Cup for a similar offence last year, Pakistan’s spin bowling resources for the World Cup appear considerably depleted. Most critics have pointed to the short-sightedness of the Pakistan Cricket Board in the Hafeez saga as they say that the all-rounder should have been withdrawn from the New Zealand Test and ODI series after being reported by the umpires and sent to an academy for correction. They further argue it was injudicious to send Hafeez to India instead of making arrangements for his test and training at the best-equipped biomechanics lab in Brisbane, Australia.

There’s no doubt that Pakistan will direly miss the bowling services of Hafeez as he has taken over 120 wickets in this form of the game and has been instrumental in many a victory for his team. In all likelihood, it will be left to veteran all-rounder Shahid Afridi, leg-spinner Yasir Shah and rookie Haris Sohail to share the major burden as spin bowlers in the World Cup. The World Cup is likely to be the swansong for a number of stalwarts and it is imperative for the PCB to do all things right to make it memorable for the departing players.

Published in Dawn, January 7th, 2015
http://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

China FTA

IF any further proof were required that too much emotion in our relationship with Beijing is harmful to our interests, the disclosures from the ongoing review of Pakistan’s Free Trade Agreement with China ought to be sufficient. The FTA became operational in 2007 and is now being reviewed for possible modifications. On the face of it, the trade data shows that Pakistan has reaped substantial benefit from the agreement, seeing its average monthly exports to China climbed from a range of $40m to $50m at the start of the period to beyond $200m by 2012, with peaks approaching $300m during some months. One could attribute this increase to the FTA, which it can be argued has made China the second-largest country destination for Pakistani exports after the United States. So far so good.

But a deeper look is revealing. For one, the biggest jumps in monthly export volume have come in times when the price of cotton saw a spike. In the middle of 2008, 2009 and towards the end of 2010, each period saw a jump in the value of exports to China, and each period coincided with a spike in the price of cotton. The last period carried total exports beyond the $200m per month mark. The data appears to suggest that most of the increases have come about due to cyclical fluctuations in the price of cotton rather than a broad basing of our exports to China. The commerce ministry is right to point out that the effect of similar FTAs granted by China to other Asean countries has had a negative impact on Pakistan’s ability to compete in the Chinese market, and that the failure to broaden the base of exports to China has stymied the benefits for Pakistan, whereas the massive growth of imports from China has negatively impacted domestic manufacturing.

This is the right time to take up a tougher line on the FTA and seek to renegotiate the terms of agreement keeping the concerns of domestic manufacturing in mind. This is also a reminder that in all our other dealings with China, in energy and infrastructure, emotion ought to be avoided since it tends to cloud judgment. Caution is needed when devising the terms of Pakistan’s engagement with its northern neighbour, to ensure that we don’t end up bargaining away our own industrial and commercial interests out of blind faith.

Curbs on politicians

BEFORE, during and after the votes in favour of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution were cast on Tuesday, several parliamentarians openly struggled with their need to abide by the decision of their party chiefs to support the amendment. But that only emphasised the undemocratic spirit of certain constitutional requirements and the utter lack of internal democracy within political parties. Perhaps unknown to many, no parliamentarian had the individual right to choose how to vote on Tuesday — that decision belonged to the party thanks originally to the 14th Amendment. Passed in 1997 in an era where floor-crossing and the buying of votes in parliament was rife, the 14th Amendment sought to address the problem by denying individual parliamentarians the right to switch sides after election or vote against party decisions.

Subsequently, the newly added Article 63A of the Constitution was narrowed via the 17th and 18th Amendments, but three exceptions have been maintained. A parliamentarian stands to be disqualified if he votes against his party in the election of the prime minister; a vote of confidence or no-confidence; and a vote on a money bill or, post the 18th Amendment, a vote to amend the Constitution. Thus, any parliamentarian who opposed the 21st Amendment could vote ‘no’ and either immediately resign or suffer the potential ignominy of being unseated by his or her party leader. Where once party discipline in a sea of rampant, anti-democratic indiscipline may have made sense, the restraints on parliamentarians are now acting as a brake on the democratic system. Sad as it was to see a democrat like Senator Raza Rabbani shed tears in parliament, the present era of parliamentarians must also share some of the blame: the clause in the Constitution preventing parliamentarians from voting against their party in constitutional amendment votes was added by the 18th Amendment — a process that Senator Rabbani himself stewarded.

Even four short years ago, in 2010, many of the very same representatives in parliament today decided that it was safer to have consensus than to allow members to choose whether to support a constitutional amendment. Perhaps none of them realised they could be called upon by their own parties to vote against the spirit of the Constitution itself. The other problem is, of course, how the parties are run — and how decisions are made inside parties. When every member of nearly every major party owes his or her position in the party to the party leader, the possibility of a challenge to the leader’s decision is remote. Simply, without intra-party democracy there can be no real democratic decisions. When the leader is the party, when the leader is for life and when the leader decides who else gets what position, it is difficult to have spirited debate or meaningful dissent. Can the constitutional constraints and intra-party realities be changed though?

Banned groups

An event organised by Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat in Chakwal at the weekend showed how banned groups continue to advertise their presence in the country and how the local administration does not want to or is not able to block their activities. As per the usual practice, the proscribed group was given full freedom to announce its meeting, and a news report noted how the busy squares in the city were decorated with ASWJ banners in the run-up to the meeting. A local official said it was not the ASWJ but its ‘parent’ body, the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan, that had been banned. He was wrong. Both he and the state need to go over the list of banned groups once more before they allow themselves the innocence with which they approach this very serious matter. As things stand, the moment an organisation is given the title of ‘proscribed’, it is seemingly freed from any control or oversight by the state.

A banned outfit assumes the status of a force that instils fear in everyone around. It is a group which cannot be challenged and that is above reproach. There may be a change in name, but that’s about all the adjustment needed. The proscribed Jaish-e-Mohammad took up a new identity as Tehreek-i-Khuddam-ul-Islam and Lashkar-e-Taiba was renamed Jamaatud Dawa; in essence though they retain their original character. The sameness of ideology, leadership and ranks in the new groups that have emerged from the embers of the old ones, should negate any impression that they are different. It then becomes very clear that unless strict measures are put in place to disperse the ranks of such groups and to put curbs on the activities of their leadership, a common past and shared objectives will reunite them. Any exercise in banning an organisation would be of cosmetic value unless there are legal provisions, as well as a willing government, to stop individuals — the leaders of the group — from resorting to hate-mongering in the name of ideology.

Published in Dawn January 8th , 2014.
http://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Paris attack

MUCH of the world is reacting in shock and grief over the massacre at the offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Paris on Wednesday. Nevertheless, regrettably enough, some are still trying to contextualise the attack by bringing in the larger issue of provocation in matters of faith, extremist Islamists` demonstrated tendency to resort to violence in such situations, and the marginalisation from the mainstream that Muslims in many countries feel despite being perfectly law-abiding. Of these people, there is a simple question to be asked: in choosing to adopt such an abhorrent method of voicing their disapproval of the publication`s editorial choices, did the perpetrators of the attack do their religion and its 1.6 billion adherents any sort of positive service? Or have their actions poured yet more fuel on the fires of prejudice and fear that are lighting up in many parts of the West regarding the inherent `otherness` of Muslims? In the minds of those who are neither Muslim nor immigrants from Muslim countries, did the three gunmen’s decisions do anything to further the fact that the ones responsible are merely a minority of violent extremists, and not the overwhelmingly peaceful majority or the system of belief itself? Obviously, the answer is no. Once again, Islam and Muslims are in the spotlight, and once again, it is for all the wrong reasons.

That strong denunciations are coming from Muslim sources too is exactly as it should be. It is fitting that the Al-Azhar University in Cairo called the attack `criminal` and reiterated that Islam denounces `any violence`, while the Arab League has also condemned the massacre, echoing Pope Francis who called it `abominable`. But much more needs to be said and done, particularly given the deep divisions that are springing up between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West.

This latest in a string of atrocities, the perpetrators of which claim refuge in religion, was certainly not the will of the majority, and neither does it reflect their mindset. A large number of commentators and ordinary people across the world are clear enough thinkers to refrain from the temptation -led by fear of tarring all with the same detestable brush. Nevertheless, amongst many others, there is unease; there is a growing lack of understanding of the way the religion is being misused and misquoted by fringe extremist elements. If further evidence were needed, attention only has to be paid to what is happening in Germany, where thousands have participated in anti-immigrant demonstrations. This is the reality that Muslim societies and countries need to recognise, and counter. The push back can only come from what is within their own purview: inculcating tolerance, clamping down on extremist tendencies, and controlling violence in their own societies, thus giving the signal that assaults such as that in Paris are universally, utterly, indefensible.

The core challenge

THE year recently concluded saw several lows for the country; among these was the rampant, seemingly unstoppable march of polio. Nearly 300 cases were reported in the country in 2014, said to be the highest number since 1998. Though the state has never given polio eradication or other health issues the attention they deserve, it is also true that the government’s efforts were stymied by an incredibly fragile security situation. Even so, there seems to be some hope on the horizon in 2015. As reported in this paper, the federal government is all set for the countrywide launch of the Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) from July, which will be included in the Expanded Programme on Immunisation.

This particular vaccine, said to be effective in combating polio, is already in use in some parts of the country, including Balochistan and Fata. Though it is a costly vaccine, it will fortunately be provided free of cost to Pakistan till 2018. Gavi, the global vaccine alliance, will bear the cost while China has provided technical and logistical support.

Though terrorism is no doubt Pakistan’s biggest present challenge, the fight against polio must be joined concurrently. The tally of cases recorded last year must be reduced significantly and for this to happen polio must feature significantly on the national agenda.

The introduction of the IPV is a welcome development, but brings its own challenges. Though the vaccine`s high cost will be covered for the next few years, it must be ensured that there is enough trained manpower to administer the injectable vaccine. Also, we must not forget that whether the health authorities are administering the injectable or the oral polio vaccine, the core challenge remains the same: accessing all the target children. The method of administration is indeed important, but getting to all the children in violence-prone and remote areas is equally so, as is countering harmful and baseless propaganda against the vaccine spread by obscurantist quarters. While moulding its counterterrorism strategy, the state needs to prioritise the safety of vaccinators. Pakistan indeed remains polio’s final battleground. The new year provides the government a fresh opportunity to ensure that no child is left unvaccinated and that polio is eradicated from this country as soon as possible.

Water filtration plants

A STRING of reverse osmosis (RO) water desalination plants has been installed across the province of Sindh in what must be one of the most energetic initiatives undertaken by the provincial government. The latest plant was inaugurated in Mithi, Tharparkar, by former president and co-chairman of the PPP, Asif Ali Zardari, accompanied by one of his daughters who was shown prominently in all the promotional photographs released after the event had taken place. Salutary rhetoric accompanies the photographs, announcing that the latest project is one in a line of 750 such plants to be set up in Tharparkar, and declaring the plant to be `Asia`s largest solar RO plant`, with a capacity to filter almost eight million litres of water every day.

Over the years, so many such plants have been installed across Sindh that one loses count, and almost all of them appear to be sourced from the same company.

Providing clean drinking water to the people is an important priority without doubt. But it is also important to ask a few basic questions regarding these plants. For one, the filter on these plants is the main cost, and needs to be changed every few months. Whose responsibility is it, under the contractual terms on which the plants are being procured, to monitor and replace the filter and bear the costs of doing so? Given how high-maintenance these plants are, exactly whose responsibility is it to keep them in operational condition, and how well is that party discharging that obligation? If utilised properly, there is no doubt that RO plants can help provide clean drinking water to the people of Sindh. But considering the growing investment that the provincial government is making in high-maintenance plants of this sort, the need for more disclosure regarding their maintenance contracts and records is becoming increasingly urgent. Somebody in the provincial assembly should take the lead by asking for disclosure of the maintenance contracts and operational status of all the plants installed thus far.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Twisting the narrative

OBFUSCATION, deception and wrongful conflation are the usual tools of the religious right when it comes to attacking any form of consensus on the need for state and society to focus seriously on the fight against militancy. Now, it is the turn of Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the JUI-F to try and create doubts in the minds of the public about what the principal internal threat is in Pakistan and suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy afoot against madressahs, conservative Muslims and the religious right here. Clearly, the 21st Amendment is a deeply flawed, undemocratic piece of legislation, and anti-terrorism military courts for civilians are a blow to the democratic project. There are many good and proper reasons to oppose draconian laws on grounds of principle and in practice too. But in criticising the 21st Amendment to the Constitution and an amendment to the Army Act for singling out religious militants for trial in military courts and threatening to launch a national movement, the JUI-F chief is simply pandering to his base and doing his best to confuse issues.

To be clear, the principal internal threat in Pakistan today is terrorism and militancy in the name of religion simply, the Islamist militancy, terrorism and extremist threat. In trying to lump other groups carrying out political violence together with Islamist groups waging war against the Pakistani state and society, Maulana Fazlur Rehman appears to be deliberately trying to dilute the national consensus and create fresh discord between state and society.

Political groups embracing separatist or sub-nationalist ideologies inside Pakistan do resort to violence. But, inspired by a sense of disenfranchisement and exclusion from mainstream Pakistan, those non-religious, secular movements need to be won over by political action at the macro level and thwarted in their violent agenda by more effective law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering at the micro level to prevent attacks. To its credit, the wider political class understands the very fundamental difference between the overarching Islamist militancy threat and small-scale, regional groups that have turned to violence to achieve otherwise justifiable political aims of inclusivity and equality. Hence the very specific focus in the new legislation on the much bigger and more potent Islamist threat.

It is fairly obvious that by demanding all forms of armed militancy be treated in the same way i.e. the new military courts regime be used against all groups that have resorted to any kind of political violence, the JUI-F is trying to drive a wedge between state and society and ensure that the effect of the National Action Plan and military courts embedded within that plan is minimal. To do so makes sense for the JUI-F because of an unpleasant truth: the party continues to sympathise with and have allies in the world of Islamist militant groups here. The JUI-F is yet positioning itself on the wrong side of a democratic, inclusive, moderate Pakistan.

Asset declarations

THE Election Commission of Pakistan should tell us what the point is of asking politicians to declare their assets when no action is taken on the basis of the information collected. Now that all politicians who won in the last election have finally declared their assets, what exactly will be done with this information other than letting it stir the news flow a bit? Some of the numbers presented strain credulity. For example, in many of the declarations, more money has been shown as cash in hand or in bank balances than in assets.

Will anybody be inquiring about the source of the funds? Also, will anybody study the assets of politicians from declarations past and look at the trends? If somebody`s declarations over the years contain wide swings in the assets held, will that inspire questions? Will the ECP liaise with the FBR to determine if the individual`s tax filings are consistent with their asset and bank balance declarations? For too long now, these asset declarations have been quietly shelved as if the whole exercise is nothing more than a ritual meant for media consumption.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to build a template that contains information from declarations past as well, so we can get a snapshot of each candidate’s declared net worth following each successful election bid. Without such a template, the information is largely useless, and the fact that the ECP has done nothing to build one suggests it has no serious intention of following up on any of the data generated from the exercise. Without a longitudinal view, how can anybody realistically reconcile the information disclosed with the taxes paid over the years? And the failure to develop such a template shows that no meaningful attempt has been made to conduct such an exercise. The ECP should step up its scrutiny of a candidate`s eligibility to hold high office.

People whose assets are out of sync with their cash holdings or their declared incomes or even their lifestyles should be asked where the money is coming from, or what tax liabilities have been paid against the incomes from where the assets have been accumulated. One wonders what the disclosures would need to show to prompt action.

Without probing more deeply into aspects such as reconciliation against declared incomes, taxes paid and declarations past, and asking the relevant questions, the whole point of the exercise is lost.

Liver transplant facility

ONE of the unfortunate characteristics of Pakistan is the large number of projects that look viable enough on paper but come to grief on the ground. Thankfully, though, also available are a few endeavours that, in their success and commitment, stand out like beacons. One that immediately comes to mind is Abdul Sattar Edhi`s vast enterprise; another is the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation in Karachi, which has over the years proved the steadfastness of its dedication to serve all patients alike, free of cost, and with the highest standards of professionalism. It is in this context that the latter institution`s desire to set up a liver transplant facility must be framed. On Thursday, the provincial health department sent a summary to the chief minister for the approval of a request to provide a grant of Rs1bn to SIUT for the establishment of such a centre. And in the interest of patients who need help in this regard all over the country, there is really no reason why the request should not be approved.

As a summary noted, the facility already has full infrastructure for a large-scale kidney transplantation department, with the requisite technical expertise and trained staff that provide `qualitative healthcare services`. The facility has the space, having set up a new building alongside the original premises of the Karachi Civil Hospital. And there is no denying the issue: official estimates say that there is an `acute need` to save lives through transplantation since some 150,000 patients need the procedure every year. The institution has spearheaded a campaign Pakistan desperately needs, ie countering people`s resistance to and misunderstanding of cadaveric organ donations. But in the case of liver transplants, fortunately, even this stumbling block is not there: the science for live-donor liver transplantation has been in practice for over a decade since this is the only organ in the body that can regenerate itself. For the larger benefit, SIUT ought to be provided funds for furthering its healthcare services.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

A warning sign

THE state’s action against militants in the aftermath of the Peshawar tragedy was bound to produce a bloody reaction. Friday night’s bombing of an Imambargah in the garrison city of Rawalpindi seems to be the first major salvo fired by the extremists as part of this blowback. A number of people were killed and injured in the explosion at the entrance of the place of worship as a milad ceremony was under way inside the premises. It is a small miracle the bombing did not occur within the crowded Imambargah, or else the body count would have been much higher.

On Saturday, a foreign news agency quoted the spokesman of the banned TTP`s Jamaatul Ahrar faction claiming responsibility for the atrocity. While this claim needs to be verified by the security establishment, it must be noted that Rawalpindi has in recent times seen ugly sectarian violence; the caretaker of the targeted Imambargah was also murdered a few years ago. Local police are reportedly looking into these angles, too.

Whether it is places of worship, schools, markets or other public spaces considered `soft targets` by the militants, in the days to come both state and society will need to redouble efforts to thwart terrorist attacks. While Peshawar may have shaken the leadership out of its slumber, dismantling the militant infrastructure across Pakistan will not be an easy task, considering how deeply entrenched militancy is within this society. Thinking that battling the militant hydra will be a surgical, bloodless operation is a fallacy. What the nation needs is preparation and resolve to confront the challenge. But while the security forces have been carrying out raids and there are efforts to shore up the defences of schools, much more needs to be done on the ground to reassure citizens that the state is ready to tackle the problem. And preparing the nation for the blowback is firmly the responsibility of the government.

However, while the elected leadership has activated itself on the security and legislative fronts, where public interaction is concerned it still needs to improve its efforts. Just saying we are in a state of war is not enough; the prime minister and the top leadership need to reassure the nation that steps are being taken to ramp up security and uproot militant infrastructure. Things like regular public contact through the media, visiting survivors of terrorist attacks or condoling with heirs can go a long way in reassuring people that their government stands with them. What is certain is that more attacks like the Rawalpindi bombing will only further demoralise the nation, even as Peshawar`s pall of gloom still hangs heavy. It is time for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to lead from the front and for the elected leadership to be seen at the front and centre of the fight against militancy.

Power of ballot box

THE outcome of Sri Lanka`s presidential election has many lessons for Pakistan, the most important being the people’s wisdom as seen in the power of the ballot box. It also shows in unmistakable terms that even a successful war against terrorism doesn`t have to be at the expense of democratic values, for that is where Mahinda Rajapaksa was vulnerable, and lost. Seeking a third term as president, Mr Rajapaksa was voted out of office for the authoritarian policies he pursued to turn his regime virtually into an elected dictatorship. That the angry Tamil, Muslim and Christian minorities voted against him was only one of the factors in Maithripala Sirisena`s victory. The Muslims were alienated by the activities of Bodu Bala Sena, an extremist Buddhist organisation, besides the riots in which Muslim villages were burnt and thousands rendered homeless in southwestern parts of the country. The Tamils and Christians, too, felt insecure in an atmosphere where the freedom to protest was increasingly being restricted. However, the major factor in Mr Rajapaksa`s defeat was the division within the majority Sinhalese community.

Mr Sirisena, the victor in Thursday`s election, is like Mr Rajapaksa, Sinhalese, and hit him hard where he was most vulnerable, especially his persecution of journalists and rights groups agitating against war crimes during and after the war on the Tamil Tigers. Mr Rajapaksa had called the election two years earlier, because he thought the opposition would not be able to field a common candidate. However, Mr Sirisena, once general secretary in Mr Rajapaksa`s Freedom Party, sprang a surprise by mobilising all dissent and launched a campaign that appealed to a wide variety of people. He accused Mr Rajapaksa not only of human rights violations, persecution of the media and war crimes but also of `plundering` the country and the natural wealth, and turning government into a family enterprise by placing his brothers and son in key positions. Mr Rajapaksa`s defeat emphasises the fact that a successful war on terrorism is no guarantee of a regime`s stability and continuity, and that voters go by a leader`s success or failure in addressing the people`s grievances. A denial of human rights or curtailment of freedoms in the name of a war on terrorism doesn`t necessarily win the people over. The election was held on Thursday, Mr Rajapaksa conceded defeat, and on Friday Mr Sirisena took the oath of office, signalling a smooth transition.

Trade deficit widens

IN a time when oil prices are falling, it`s surprising to see the trade deficit continue to widen. Latest figures show that the trade deficit in December grew by 31pc compared to the same month last year. Since the fiscal year began, the trade deficit has expanded by 34pc for the first six months. By December, the impact of a falling oil price had begun to be felt in the external account, so it remains a puzzle why imports should continue to grow. Between November and December of 2014, for instance, imports grew by 6.3pc, even as exports grew by 9.7pc. The continuously widening trade deficit over the course of 2014 is a cause for concern because it is happening at a time when the country`s external debt service obligations are also about to rise. Reserves remain healthy, which is why the outflows are not leading to an adjustment in the exchange rate, but given the persistent increases in the trade deficit it is worthwhile to ask how long this can be sustained.

There are still no clear answers as to why the trade performance is going so poorly. The government needs to conduct a detailed study on where the increases in the import bill are coming from, and why export growth is unable to keep pace. Is the poor trade performance due to supply-side problems such as the power shortages or is the currency being kept at too high a level given the state of competitiveness of our exports? Whatever the problem may be, it needs to be clearly spelled out and a course of action should be adopted to arrest the slide, especially given the outflows on the external account that are about to kick in. Exporters will naturally point towards incentives they require in order to increase performance, for example on the tax side. But a clear picture of the reasons behind the widening deficit ought to be provided before any further concessions are granted.

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')

Selective action the wrong approach

OF the 72 banned militant groups in Pakistan, many are of the religiously inspired variety — precisely the category that the National Action Plan focuses on. But, according to a report in this newspaper yesterday, the interior ministry is drafting a plan to focus on a very small sub-set of the banned groups. The immediate question: why? The political and military leadership has, particularly after the Peshawar massacre, been clear that the era of differentiating between militant groups operating on Pakistani soil is over. No more good Taliban/bad Taliban, no more good militant/bad militant, and no difference between those attacking state and society today and those who harbour designs to eventually do so. Even as the leadership made those statements, there were doubts whether they had the will to follow through on them. Now, it appears, the doubts were well founded and possibly true.

The report in this newspaper yesterday quoted officials in the interior ministry as having claimed that in the so-called first phase action would only be taken against groups that have taken up arms against the Pakistani state. Consider the many reasons why a narrow focus on a sub-set of religiously inspired militant groups is a bad idea. To begin with, if each of those militant groups in that particular category does not represent a threat to the Pakistani state and society, why is it on the banned list in the first place? Surely, when the classification was originally made, it was done because each of those groups was either directly implicated in violence or was advocating violence. After the Peshawar massacre, with a national consensus against militancy and terrorism, what reason could there be to delay action against groups that embrace violence and operate on Pakistani soil?

Perhaps an argument could be made that operationally it is preferable for the law-enforcement apparatus to start at the top of the list, with the very worst offenders, and then methodically make its way down. However, there is a danger in that approach, specifically that delaying action at this stage will translate into no action later. Given the very large number of militant organisations here, there will always be a reason to delay action against certain groups. It is also the identity of the banned groups against which action may be delayed that is revealing. Anti-India and pro-Kashmir groups with long-standing links to the army-led security establishment may not have a reason to take up arms against the state, but they are still very much incubators of hate and extremism.

With vast networks of mosques, madressahs and welfare organisations, those groups have penetrated deep into society, from where they pump poisonous ideologies and hateful messages into the bloodstream of this country. Consider also the reality that in the not too distant past, most of the leadership of the banned TTP and likeminded groups was not considered a serious threat to the Pakistani state. If Pakistan is to win the fight against militancy, all militant groups must be dismantled.

Beyond military courts

MILITARY courts are a bad idea, but it’s also worthwhile to ask why there has been so much erosion of faith in the judiciary and the traditional law enforcement apparatus. Judges have been threatened, and are sometimes wary of handling cases involving high profile members of banned militant outfits. Witnesses recant their testimony in the majority of cases, and the police are either too afraid or otherwise unable to build a solid case. Prosecutors either don’t do their homework, or don’t have the materials with which to build their case, or are too intimidated to make a determined push.

The justice system stands on three legs: the investigation where the facts are collected, the prosecution where the facts are pieced together, and the judgment where the case is decided on the facts. All parts of the justice system need to work together for a proper outcome. At present, the conviction rate for Anti-Terrorism Courts in the province of Sindh, as an example, is 32pc, as reported by this paper last week. Either the wrong people are being apprehended, or the system is failing to build a proper case against them, or is too fearful to pass judgment. What’s more, eight out of 33 ATCs in the province had a 100pc acquittal rate, and more than 2,700 cases are still pending whereas less than 800 cases have been disposed of.

A choked pipeline and a poor conviction rate speaks of a dysfunctional justice system. In some cases, such as the trials of Malik Ishaq and Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, judges have requested transfers rather than preside over the case. Unless this state of affairs changes, two years down the road there will be no choice but to continue with military courts. In Swat, for instance, security functions have still not been handed over to civilian authorities five years after the operation because there was no action plan for transiting out of the military operation. The two years for which military courts will be functioning now ought to be seen as a window during which the powers of investigation and prosecution can be strengthened. The protection of judges and witnesses also needs to become a priority.

It is painful to see the military courts being set up, but it will be far more painful if the military were to find justification for pressuring the government to extend their functioning when the mandated two years’ validity expires.

Lyari stars

AT the auditorium of Karachi’s National Academy of the Performing Arts on Wednesday, the audience had gathered to enjoy not a professional performance, but one put up by a group of school students — extraordinary, for this venue. The schools they are from is what made this event worthy of note. On stage were a group of 60 boys and girls from Lyari, an area which is characterised by high levels of poverty, crime and gang warfare, who had attended a six-month course at the MAD [Music, Art, Dance] School Society under a programme called Lyari Stars. Here, they learned to act, sing, dance and play music. Wednesday’s performance put on display a considerable amount of talent, for which the students and their teachers deserve commendation.

Yet what underscored the value of the programme was the personal stories of some of the students that had been woven into the piece: tales featuring guns and police chases, about jacking cars and being put into lock-ups, and experiences of ethnic rivalries and fears about safety. In setting up the programme, the aim of the MAD School and the Karachi Youth Initiative, which provided financial support, had been to open up horizons, and draw upon the power of creative fields to build bridges, promote peace, and foster confidence and ambition. And, indeed, in the view of the students and their parents, the experience had been an uplifting eye-opener.

This method of tackling crime and restlessness has been put into practice in ghettos and slums in many places, and everywhere it has been found that it offers considerable benefits in terms of integration and co-existence. There is every reason to replicate such an endeavour urgently in Karachi, and in other towns and cities in the country, too.

There are many ways to tackle the issues of lawlessness and a divided society, and offering young people creative, healthy alternatives is one way of encouraging them to keep their outlook — and their deeds — positive. We could benefit greatly from more such initiatives.

Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2015

__________________
"But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail." _Shakespeare, 'Macbeth')