Nuclear deterrence

THE possibility of a civil-nuclear deal between the US and Pakistan may have been prematurely leaked to the media, but with the joint statement following Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to the White House emphasising nuclear matters and Gen Raheel Sharif expected to visit the US this month, Pakistani officials have noticeably stepped up their public comments about nuclear-related matters in South Asia. Led by the Foreign Office, the official Pakistani comment is on the Indian conventional arms build-up and the emphasis that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is defensive and shaped by destabilising moves by India. To be sure, the massive Indian investments in its military and weapons-buying spree are of concern and do have implications for peace and stability in South Asia. Yet, it is the increasingly explicit connection between India’s weapons build-up and the Pakistani nuclear doctrine that is also worrying.

The adoption of so-called full-spectrum deterrence has been projected by the Pakistani security establishment as a strategic guarantee that Pakistan will be safe from an Indian attack, either small-scale or large-scale. But is that true and at what cost, particularly in terms of risk, is full-spectrum deterrence being pursued? Within the strategic community and at least among senior retired military officials, there are questions quietly being asked — if the Indian arms build-up is unwelcome, isn’t the Pakistani counter-response of full-spectrum deterrence exacerbating the dangers and increasing the risk of catastrophic conflict in South Asia? There are serious questions at both ends of what can effectively be termed a new deterrence strategy. Does Pakistan fundamentally need long-range missiles to hit the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to deny India a secure second-strike capability when Pakistan is not known to have the technology to track Indian land-based missiles? At the low end of the spectrum, which is where the main international concern appears to be, is Pakistan really committed to the idea of launching small nuclear missiles on its soil, even if against rapid Indian invasion forces?

Unhappily, even asking questions of the country’s evolving and more muscular nuclear policy is considered problematic by the security establishment. But does the use of seemingly scientific language and the adoption of exotic strategies really make Pakistan safer and better protected? Time and again, be it 1965, 1971 or 1999, the country has woken up to disasters that were created by what were argued to be the most robust of assumptions and infallible of theories. There is surely a case to be made that Indian military build-up is a problem for Pakistan’s security and peace in South Asia. But must the answer to those new challenges increasingly and automatically be a nuclear response by Pakistan? Perhaps the more uncomfortable truth is that twice in the new century, the threat of war between India and Pakistan has been triggered by terrorist attacks. To what extent will Pakistan go to neutralise that threat?

LNG quagmire

MORE than six months after starting the commercial operations of its first LNG import terminal, the petroleum ministry continues to struggle to find a proper arrangement through which to import the vital fuel. According to the latest reports, the ministry and three government-owned companies that operate under it, have asked for a 28pc hike in the price of RLNG for it to be a viable venture. The oil and gas regulator, Ogra, had approved $8.64 per unit price for imported gas, while the new rate being demanded is $11.2 per unit. But high-level Ogra officials have reportedly pointed to complications in entertaining such a request, arguing that the law does not allow for revision in the price of RLNG now that it has been declared as a petroleum product instead of gas.

The continuous muddling through in the matter of arranging LNG imports is becoming tiresome. If a hike in the price of LNG is being demanded now, after Ogra has already fixed the import price and after a raft of resignations from the state-owned oil and gas companies by executives who refused to be coerced into signing contracts that were of dubious legality, then it only serves to highlight how the petroleum ministry is writing the LNG script on a day-to-day basis. The big obstacle to LNG imports is the great disparity in price between imported and domestic gas. If important commercial consumers of natural gas — fertiliser, power, vehicular — are getting domestic gas at a heavily subsidised rate, where is their incentive to opt for imported gas? This disparity ought to have been the first thing to address when venturing into LNG imports. The petroleum minister was rather triumphant around the same time last year in announcing that CNG station owners would now be allowed to import their own LNG consignments and sell them directly to the consumers, without elaborating how the pricing regime would need to be reformed in order to make that happen. Over the year since then, he has tried to address every issue regarding LNG imports, from the technical merits of the proposal to the importance of LNG for the future of Pakistan’s energy, without once going into the question of the price reforms necessary to make imported LNG possible. The net result is the quagmire that the project has become, with no clear future on how sustained imports of LNG will work.

Snap Turkish polls

BARRING an upset, it is difficult to see how another general election within five months can help either Turkey or the man behind this extraordinary decision — Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The results of the June election were a blow to the ruling AKP, for it lost its majority after winning three successive general elections. It still had a plurality and could have run Turkey with a coalition partner. Unfortunately, no party was willing to share power with Mr Erdogan’s AKP, even though the cabinet was led by an otherwise likeable prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. Most observers of the Turkish scene agree that today’s polls are unlikely to produce a radically different result, and that changes in the voters’ preferences at best will be marginal. In practical terms, this means there could be another period of political void, unless some party agrees in the larger national interest to share power with the AKP, which, as most observers agree, is likely to retain its position as the Turkish national assembly’s largest party.

The election couldn’t have come at a more unfortunate time, for Turkey faces serious domestic and foreign policy crises. The biggest foreign policy issue is the multilateral war in Turkey’s underbelly, the menacing rise of the self-styled Islamic State, the mass flight of Syrians to Turkey and beyond, Russia’s greater military involvement in the Syrian conflict, the American reservations about Russia’s choice of targets, and terror attacks blamed on the IS. Domestically, the breakdown of the truce with the PKK has shattered hopes for a peaceful settlement of the Kurdish insurgency, while Mr Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian style of governance has aroused anger in civil society and polarised the nation. All this has served to undermine Mr Erdogan’s achievements, which include the assertion of civilian supremacy and an economy that is the world’s 15th largest. The issue is Mr Erdogan’s personality. He should give up feeling he is indispensable and should show flexibility when his party sets out to negotiate a stable coalition.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 1st, 2015

THE review of Pakistan’s GSP Plus status with the EU, scheduled for January, will have to run into the issue of the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty and the resumption of executions following the implementation of the National Action Plan. The commerce minister has made a round in Brussels to try and persuade EU officials to renew the GSP Plus scheme for Pakistan and is trying to build his case around the 27 UN conventions that Pakistan has ratified and ‹ implemented as part of its commitment to secure GSP Plus status from the EU. Additionally, he has also spoken about the benefits of Operation Zarb-i-Azb and the return of stability to Pakistan, perhaps in an attempt to remind his hosts that there may be special circumstances in Pakistan making it necessary to resort to the death penalty as a means of dealing with terrorism. Whether or not his hosts will be convinced by this presentation remains to be seen. But as late as July of this year, a resolution passed by the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU said that the “EU urges Pakistan to reinstate the moratorium immediately”. It went on to add that Pakistan is a signatory to three important conventions that “affirm the right to fair trial, prohibit the death sentence for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age and require prompt and impartial investigation where there is reasonable ground to believe that torture has been committed”. The resolution clearly stated that implementation of these resolutions “is a requirement under the GSP Plus scheme”. The GSP Plus scheme has been very beneficial to Pakistani exporters due to the market access it gives to the EU, and its renewal is very important. The review currently under way and the efforts of the commerce minister are a reminder that decisions made in haste can end up having negative consequences that cascade into other domain. The state here would do well to consider this aspect of economic interaction.


AS the brutal Syrian civil war grinds on, one fact seems to have dawned on the movers and shakers of the international community: unless a settlement is found, the collapse of the Syrian state will create an unimaginable security nightmare. There are even signs that earlier rigidly held positions are loosening, if only slightly. ‹ A number of major powers met in Vienna on Friday to try and chart a course towards ending violence in the Levant. While the Americans, Russians, Saudis and Turks have been part of earlier peace efforts, the recent meeting significantly featured Iran at the table.


Little of substance was achieved at the meeting, yet the fact that global and regional powers that have been backing opposing sides in Syria chose to discuss the issue with each other is indeed positive. While Russia and Iran have stood by Syrian ruler Bashar alAssad, the US, Turkey and the Gulf Arabs have been arming, training and funding the opposition. Hence if these external backers of Syria’s warring factions can come to an agreement, there is a strong likelihood that the bloodbath in the Arab country can eventually give way to normalcy. As it is, Syria is a tangled web, where a variety of geostrategic opponents have been squaring off. This includes the Americans competing with the Russians, as well as the Saudis and Iranians crossing swords in the proxy battlefield of the Levant. In the meantime, caught between the regime, the opposition and the ruthless, self-styled Islamic State, the Syrian people have had to face an extended nightmare. The fact that Barack Obama has authorised the deployment of US ground troops in Syria will further complicate matters; Russia has already reacted negatively to this. Getting back to the efforts in Vienna, the international powers have proposed a ceasefire followed by the formation of a transitional government and have pledged to meet again in two weeks. All parties need to make these proposals succeed. Russia and Iran must not make Mr Assad sacrosanct, while the US and the Gulf Arabs must not insist on regime change on their terms. Peace in Syria will require plenty of compromises by all parties, and the goal must be to allow the Syrian people to decide their own fate in a democratic manner. If this opportunity is lost, there are fair chances Syria will collapse further into anarchy and violence — an eventuality few would want to support.



AS the UN marks the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists today, it is worth asking why this particular turn of phrase is being used. According to UN figures, over the past decade, 700 journalists have been killed the world over during the course of discharging their duties. This averages out to one death a week. In 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming Nov 2 as IDEI — the date commemorates the murder of two French journalists in Mali that year. Obviously, violence against those who work in the media is far more endemic when the figures beyond the number of deaths are tallied. And as the UN points out, the issue is not just about violence but also the culture of impunity within which the violence is unleashed. “In nine out of 10 cases,” the UN notes, “the killers go unpunished. Impunity leads to more killings and is often a symptom of worsening conflict and the breakdown of law and justice systems.”
In Pakistan, journalists operate in an environment that is far from safe or enabling. Yet, a curious sort of paradox is in operation. On the one hand, the growth of the electronic and other media, and their general raucousness, mean that there is considerable freedom to report, including on topics that were until recently taboo; the country does not figure on the list of 10 countries where the Committee to Protect Journalists has shown the most censorship takes place. On the other hand, though, violence against journalists is a serious issue, as is the culture of impunity. Since 1994, the CPJ counts 56 journalists killed in Pakistan where the motive was confirmed as related to the work they were doing. Beyond this ambit, the actual numbers of media workers’ deaths rises exponentially. The suspected perpetrators include non-state actors as well as state-sponsored elements, as believed to be in the case of Saleem Shahzad. Further, journalists — especially in hotspots such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — are regularly threatened and attacked. Many are caught in the cross hairs of both the militants and the security forces.
The way out — on paper at least — is fairly simple. The state needs to investigate and prosecute all cases where journalists are targeted. The reality, unfortunately, is that the state has failed to demonstrate any resolve. The killers of Daniel Pearl were tracked down as a result of sustained international pressure, while the murderers of Wali Babar too were tried, found guilty and sentenced after much prodding. But these are the only two cases where any meaningful progress has been made. In doing so, the state sends out the signal that it will stand and watch as journalists’ voices are silenced. Until this changes, there can be little for Pakistan to be proud of in terms of media freedoms.

Published in Dawn, November 2nd, 2015
www.dawn.com

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)

A SHORTFALL in the revenue target thus far in the fiscal year means a raft of new taxes is about to be introduced in order to ensure that the government will keep its fiscal deficit target for the year. This was decided during the ninth review of the ongoing IMF programme, and the Fund’s mission chief went on to add that these new revenue measures will be classed as “prior actions” to be implemented before the next review. This leaves the government with very little wiggle room, meaning the new taxes will have to be announced soon, and will therefore fall almost entirely on those already within the tax net. Industry representatives now wait with anxiety to discover who will be asked to bear the additional burden. The review overall has been successful, and as expected, the Fund will release the next tranche from the loan programme by December, following approval of the executive board. ‹ The Fund has been shown a revenue generation plan that the government intends to implement to ensure that the shortfall of Rs40bn in the collections target since July will be met by the time of the tenth review. Against this plan, Fund staff has approved the release of the next tranche for Pakistan. Now it is incumbent on the government to reveal what this plan is in all its detail. It is disappointing to witness this sort of ad hocism in the management of government accounts at this stage — by now, it ought to have been a part of our distant past. It hearkens back to the days of minibudgets in the 1990s.
For its part, the Fund owes us a clear and unapologetic explanation of where things have failed in the revenue effort of the government. In addition, since the talks in the ninth review were also part of an Article IV consultation, an annual exercise undertaken to draw up a detailed assessment of where things stand in the economy, a comprehensive explanation ought to be given for the repeated delays in the implementation of a few important structural reform measures, particularly those that are related to the power sector and privatisation. In the past, the Fund has been criticised for soft pedalling its pressure on the government to act on reforms that are vital to reinforcing the underlying sustainability. Whether or not the staff feels this criticism is warranted, they should be more mindful that their professional obligations to the citizenry of Pakistan, the ultimate stakeholders in the enterprise, trump all other considerations. And the citizenry has a right to know how this borrowed money is being utilised, and how much real progress is being made to ensure that the need to live on borrowed money is being reduced. We need a realistic appraisal of how the Fund’s resources, and the window of opportunity they have created, are being put to use.



WHEN Pakistani citizens encounter legal problems in foreign countries, it is the obligation of the state to provide the maximum possible assistance to them. Unfortunately, quite often foreign missions are found to be uninterested in the plight of Pakistanis who have had run-ins with the law overseas. In a similar vein, the reaction of federal Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan to suspend a readmission accord for illegal immigrants with the European Union seems hasty and void of compassion. Chaudhry Nisar said on Friday that “we will not allow any planes carrying deportees” unless the latter’s details have been verified. It is fair to assume that caught between European states that do not want them and Pakistan that refuses to take them back, the migrants will remain in limbo. Suspending the accord is inadvisable; if Islamabad feels the agreement is not being implemented in its true spirit it must take up the issue with the EU and resolve the problem amicably. Kneejerk reactions will not help anyone, least of all the migrants. Looking at the broader picture, a proper and sustained policy is needed which can provide assistance to Pakistanis facing legal issues abroad. For example, the Lahore High Court has recently raised the issue of Pakistanis languishing in foreign jails, while members of the Senate have also been critical of diplomatic missions’ attitudes when dealing with citizens in distress. One figure says over 8,000 Pakistanis are imprisoned abroad; around half of these individuals are incarcerated in the Gulf states. Often in these countries, the legal system is opaque and labyrinthine, and without the help of Pakistani missions able to provide legal aid according to local laws, navigating it can be a nightmare. In fact, there have been reports of some individuals remaining incarcerated in foreign jails despite completing their sentences, as well as indications that women and minors have also been put in jail. Those familiar with the issue say some foreign governments don’t cooperate with Pakistani missions when it comes to giving them access to citizens in detention. In this case, the matter must be taken up at the highest levels as consular access and the provision of legal help are a fundamental right of every Pakistani. For starters, an accurate database of Pakistanis imprisoned or undergoing trial abroad must be formulated; this can help in the creation of an effective policy designed to offer assistance to Pakistanis dealing with foreign legal systems.


HIS opponents are not at all pleased by the sight of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif distributing cheques among the farmers in Lodhran and Sialkot. And they appear to have got it right when they say that this generous gesture will result in the government gaining some valuable points at a time when polls in the two districts are approaching. The government knows this. The opposition is worried about it. The farmers are happy to get some much-deserved and long-awaited attention. What if it is the search for votes that has brought into focus the one who tills his heart out in the field — the farmer would rather cash in on the moment than sulk over how he has been neglected. Away in the cities, where dwellers matter more, many in the intelligentsia will happily declare that if the party in power was offering relief because of its fear of opposition politics, it is a sign that democracy is working. According to one view, far from taking issue with the package the PML-N was offering to the farmers, the PTI would have been better off claiming credit for forcing the government to address the woes of the agricultural sector. This is a valid argument that the PTI has applied to situations in the past and perhaps it is still using it as it attempts to woo the voters. Yet again, the discussion on when a government scheme can be called a blatant, opportunistic and unfair bid to garner votes is worth it at this juncture of the country’s democratic development. It suits the PTI which, apart from being a party very much interested in contesting power at all tiers, has been running a campaign to improve the electoral system in Pakistan. There is clearly a case for more stringent rules to ensure as fair a contest as possible at all levels. The case is strengthened by the Election Commission of Pakistan’s reservations regarding the launch of development schemes too close to a vote.

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2015
http://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)

A PLACARD denouncing the US is hardly a novelty in most parts. But when it is hoisted aloft at a protest in Kabul against the stoning to death of a woman in Afghanistan and reads “Ignorant Taliban are the mercenaries of Pakistan and America”, it indicates that more is wrong with US policy in Afghanistan than many Americans appreciate. While the US has been rightly accused of many errors in Afghanistan in the war it has fought against the Afghan Taliban and in its support for an inclusive Afghan state and society, it is troubling for American policymakers that they have not convinced Afghan civil society that the US stands with them against the Taliban. ‹ That is the only real measure of a counter-insurgency — you cannot lose the very people whose goodwill you are fighting for. Perhaps the protest placard is a sign of fresh divisions in a state and society that is worried about the potential collapse of the post-Bonn Afghanistan and that blames the US for its seemingly soft approach on the Taliban now. What is undeniable is that yet again the lack of foresight in American policy has ended up poisoning relations with the people of a country that it is US policy to support.

While the US may have belatedly — and rightly — corrected its approach on the Taliban, the Afghans are likely to resent the change of heart. This paper has long argued that it was a mistake to exclude the Afghan Taliban from the national political settlement in Bonn after their 2001 overthrow. Similarly, it took long for the US to accept that a political settlement between the government and the Taliban was the viable option for stability. That the US only now has come around to this point of view — when US political considerations made the continuation of a large-scale war effort in Afghanistan untenable — has underlined the fecklessness of American foreign policy. Pakistan, too, has made many mistakes and there is still ambiguity in state policy towards Afghanistan. But when the American superpower errs, it has lasting consequences.*



IT is an unfortunate hallmark of governments in Pakistan, whether at the federal or provincial level, that they have been slow in fully thinking through the needs dictated by new realities, and as a result, end up undercutting gains in one area by losses in another. ‹ Consider, for example, the paramilitary Rangers that are present in Karachi in large numbers. For decades now, successive provincial governments have deemed them essential in keeping the peace in this lawless city, starting from the 1980s when a volatile political climate led to the force being ushered into the premises of Karachi University. Over 25 years later, their footprint has expanded far beyond the university, and since the personnel need space in which to live and work, they have been allowed control of a number of buildings that successive governments ought to have been protecting to the full strength of their capability. The historic Jinnah Courts, whose grace spreads over several thousand yards in the heart of the city and which is protected under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994, serves as the Rangers’ headquarters; the building that used to provide service as student hostel has for years remained out of reach of the public, sealed off by barbed wire and sand bunkers. Also under Rangers’ occupation and serving as a barracks is the Mitha Ram Hostel, which, too, is protected under the heritage protection act. In April, the provincial government decided to go a step further still and declared the colonial-era sandstone building a sub-jail. The latest premises that seems in danger of falling under the thrall of the Rangers is the historic Radio Pakistan building. The staff was told that personnel would be stationed here for Muharram-related security, but upon visiting the premises the media found that the men had settled themselves in empty rooms, indicating that temporary might turn into permanent. In apportioning blame, it would be easy yet incorrect to entirely focus on the Rangers. The fact of the matter is that it is the Sindh government that requires the paramilitary’s presence in the city, and it is its responsibility to provide the latter housing and space to plan its operations. Further, it is the Sindh government’s responsibility to ensure that no protected or heritage building comes under threat of any sort, whether from unsuitable use or for any other reason. In the case of these buildings, the provincial government is failing twice over.


TODAY, the National Assembly will re-elect Ayaz Sadiq as speaker of the house.

The PML-N has already flexed its political muscles and turned what should have been the immediate re-election of Mr Sadiq at the start of the new session of parliament into a celebration of the PML-N’s electoral superiority over the PTI. ‹ Even the otherwise dignified Mr Sadiq was unable to resist landing a few punches against his political opponents after the bruising battle that was the by-election in NA-122 last month. But what are Mr Sadiq’s, and the federal government’s, plans for reinvigorating parliament itself? Almost halfway through its term, the federal government appears to have no legislative agenda – and the National Assembly itself has once again become a desultory body largely oblivious to its constitutional role of oversight of the executive. Clearly, there is a problem of political will. When it comes to contesting by-elections and purportedly protecting the sanctity of the National Assembly by ensuring that the speaker is not tarnished by rigging allegations or the inability to retain his seat, the PML-N has shown no shortage of enthusiasm.

In the NA-122 by-election campaign, ministers, MNAs, MPAs and Sharif family members were deployed as though the fate of democracy itself hung in the balance. But parliament itself has largely been treated as an inconvenience by the PML-N. Having delayed the start of the new National Assembly session for an unprecedented three months to ensure Mr Sadiq could return to the speaker’s office first, the PML-N has not even made a pretence of unveiling a legislative agenda. Just two facts tell the story of the PML-N’s parliamentary indifference. First, the country still does not have a fulltime law minister. The ever-busy Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid doubles as law minister and a group of aides and advisers are steering the day-to-day affairs of the law ministry. Without a law minister, can there really be a governmental legislative agenda? Second, the only significant legislation passed by the present parliament has come at the behest of the military– infamously, the 21st Amendment and before that troubling changes to anti-terrorism laws. Where could the government start? If it wanted to, there is the issue of electoral reforms – something that Mr Sadiq himself should take a personal interest in, given his electoral troubles. If elections are to be free and fair – and parliament is to be seen as legitimate and representative – there must be electoral reforms. Putting together a parliamentary package on electoral reforms should not take very long; there have been long debates and many suggestions and ideas mooted in recent years. Another potential area for quick legislative action, given the composition of the Senate and Chairman Raza Rabbani’s interest in legal reforms, could be speedy justice reforms. As ever, the space for action is vast, if the government demonstrates the will.

Published in Dawn, November 9th, 2015
http://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)

A RESOLUTION to expand access to VIP services for the spouses and children of former parliamentarians mercifully fell off the wagon last evening during the Senate session. Three of the lawmakers involved in garnering support for it withdrew their names, and the remaining who had signed it failed to show up when it was brought up for discussion. The country needs fewer VIP services, not more. The resolution in question would have allowed access to the so-called blue passport issued to dignitaries to ease passage through various processing requirements at airports abroad. Reportedly, the resolution had been brought up at the urging of a few former senators, including a former chairman of the upper house, who argued that they faced “embarrassment” at seeing their families undergo additional processing at foreign airports when they themselves were exempted. The senators who supported the resolution initially did so arguing that its impact would be minimal, and that it would not expand the VIP culture at all. This was a shameful little moment in the upper house, betraying legislative business at its worst. It was an absurd move to bring up this resolution in the first place, and to go around trying to garner support for it. The powers of parliament do not exist to serve the personal needs of parliamentarians, they exist to serve the people of Pakistan. One silver lining in the episode is the scale of the VIP culture that was revealed in the run-up to the resolution’s presentation on the floor. All sitting and former members of the upper and lower house are entitled to many VIP services. According to one senator pushing for support, all government servants above grade 16 enjoy some measure of VIP service, as do members of the military above a certain rank and their spouses. This creates a separate tier of citizens altogether — one that is seen as above the other tiers. The level of frustration and anger in the public against such practices is clear. The space, culture and perverse incentives they create need to be shrunk, and not expanded. Those who initially lent their support to this disgraceful resolution, only to withdraw it once the heat was turned on, would be better advised to spend their time in the Senate looking for ways to restrain the expansion of the upper tier of citizens, with the ultimate aim of doing away with it altogether.



THE cynicism and blatant point-scoring to which politics in Pakistan often falls prey can be seen once again in the decision taken by the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to announce a public holiday on Iqbal Day that was observed yesterday. It came across as a move to undercut the central government’s efforts to curtail the number of public holidays the country currently enjoys. The decision came from the desk of PTI chief Imran Khan, who tweeted “Iqbal Day is different from other days” and that he had asked the KP chief minister to settle the matter. The fact that he stated in the same breath that he disapproved of too many holidays betrays the move as petty politicking on his part. There is no argument, of course, with the immense significance of Allama Iqbal in the annals of this country’s history and today, but the PML-N government took a step in the right direction — though it should have made the announcement much earlier — by choosing to keep the wheels of government and everything else turning. Important days can be observed without public holidays being declared — which in any case number too many on the official calendar. Indeed, the government needs to conduct an exercise aiming to further rationalise the number of gazetted holidays, squeezing them to the bare minimum so that losses in terms of work output and money are minimised. The country’s news media has already taken the lead in this. The electronic news generation machine does not stop — in fact, days of commemoration see escalated levels of work judging by the extensive programming on Iqbal yesterday. The print media, too, has drastically reduced the number of days in the year when the presses are silent. This government is led by a party which, during a past stint in power, took the laudable step of bringing the weekly holiday in line with international practice so that the country would not have to lose a day of business. It needs to build on this.


The rejection by voters of the BJP’s communal-baiting and incendiary campaign in the Bihar state elections is a victory for right-thinking people everywhere — though perhaps it is too early to know if Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP strategists will reconsider their approach to politics going forward. Without a doubt, however, the Indian voter has dealt Mr Modi and the BJP a serious setback. While the BJP did lose the prestigious state election in Delhi in January, Bihar, one of the most populous states in India and with significant representation in parliament, is both a key electoral battleground and considered a reliable indicator of national electoral trends. What is particularly telling about the BJP-led coalition’s loss to an electoral alliance led by incumbent chief minister Nitish Kumar is that the loss occurred despite a great deal of effort by the BJP leadership. No less a person than Mr Modi himself was made the face of the BJP campaign — similar to other regional BJP campaigns where Mr Modi has also been front and centre rather than local party leaders being in the position — while BJP president Amit Shah campaigned hard.

The high-profile campaign made the tone of the BJP propaganda all the more alarming. When so-called beef politics becomes a key talking point and anti-Pakistan sentiment is introduced in a regional election — Mr Shah infamously asked Bihar’s voters if they wanted Pakistan to set off “firecrackers” in the event of a BJP defeat — there is clearly something fundamentally wrong. Bihar’s voters appeared to realise that too. As veteran Indian journalist Shekhar Gupta has written, Modi “needs no more evidence after Bihar that polarisation cannot deliver election victories to him, that in India of 2015 there is no vote for beating up anybody, and that Pakistan and terrorism may be issues of great passion and partisanship on warrior news channels and Twitter but not in the world of real public opinion”. In the end, as is often the case in regional elections, voters chose to ignore fear-mongering and hysteria and apparently voted with stock issues — inflation, jobs, agriculture — in mind.

Now, Mr Modi and his team have a choice ahead of them. There are several more state elections due where the BJP will have the chance to correct course. But it will not be easy. The fear is not that the BJP has not been opportunistic or desperate in its appeal to communal sentiment so far, but that religiously inspired politics is at the core of the Modi agenda. The Indian voter has demonstrated an early and decisive rejection of communal politics. Mr Modi would do well to listen to the voter. An India lurching to the right is a threat to domestic cohesion and regional stability. Instead of trying to vilify Pakistan, perhaps Mr Modi may want to reflect on what the Indian voter makes of the BJP’s ugly politics.

Published in Dawn, November 10th, 2015
http://www.dawn.com/newspaper/editorial

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)

NAP’s patchy progress

THE third ‘high-level’ review of progress under the National Action Plan since August has produced the same statements of intent that every other such appraisal has generated since the plan began to be implemented earlier this year.

Once again, the list of areas where progress has been found to be lacking is the same: terror financing, madressah reform, moving against proscribed organisations and hate speech.

A patchy track record of action in each of these areas testifies to the immense difficulties facing the state in tackling the roots of militancy in the country.

Also read: Gen Raheel stresses need for govt cooperation to counter terrorism

It is crucial to address each item on this list if militancy and acts of terrorism are to be truly eradicated. Otherwise, the successes scored by the Rangers in Karachi and Operation Zarb-i-Azb in the northwest will be little more than mowing the grass, only to watch it grow back again.

We don’t know what exactly was discussed regarding these gaps in the implementation of NAP, but the impression emerging from all these reviews is that the leadership — both civil and military — appears to be stuck in deciding how to move forward in these areas.

There is little surprise in this. Fighting militants on the ground is a far simpler task than rooting out their networks of supply and support. The former represents a guts-and-glory type of a fight.

The latter is more cerebral, requiring nerve and brains, as well as the capacity to mould the discourse and regulate the flows of funds and materiel within the economy. In short, the latter task rubs up against all the key weaknesses of the state itself — its civil-military fault lines and the fact that the wheels of the state — its very writ in fact — rarely touches the ground.

The case of terror financing is a case in point. Where the standard law-enforcement bodies of the country have struggled to detect and intercept terrorism funds, the Rangers in Karachi have used extraordinary powers granted to them under an amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act passed in the run-up to their operation, to apprehend all manner of people — from politicians to political workers and street criminals, to hardened members of banned outfits — and charged them mostly with terror financing simply to be able to hold them for 90 days.

Very few, if any, of those apprehended have actually been charged, and even fewer convictions have been obtained. This muscular approach, with open-ended targeting, is the wrong way to intercept terror funding.

The right way is to ratify those international conventions that will activate the assistance from authorities in central banks around the world to trace the movement of funds, and develop an automated system for flagging potentially troublesome flows in the financial system. Thus far, progress on NAP is patchy, mainly because the implementation has been more brawn and less brain.

Obama-Netanyahu talks

THEY met after more than a year and ritually emphasised the need for peace. But to any observer of US-Israeli relations, it is obvious that peace in the holy land was hardly the agenda when President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held talks at the White House on Monday.

A lot has happened to sour relations between the two. Israel is furious with the Democratic administration for the nuclear deal with Iran because it feels that Washington overruled its objections and has shown haste in signing the treaty.

More shocking for Tel Aviv, the powerful Israel lobby failed to pressure Congress into blocking the nuclear accord, thus paving the way for a gradual easing of sanctions against Tehran.

It is also widely believed that Israel felt that, for all practical purposes, the US-led agreement with Tehran undermined its military option against Iran.

The face-to-face meeting must have been embarrassing for the two because of the unprecedented insults heaped on a sitting American president and secretary of state by Israel’s new spokesman, Ran Baratz. On social media, Mr Baratz accused President Obama of “anti-Semitism” and showed contempt for Mr John Kerry, saying he had the “mental age” of a 12-year-old.

The issue for President Obama has been how to mollify Mr Netanyahu and the Israel lobby to ensure that the White House continues to have a Democratic occupant.

There is, of course, the price Mr Netanyahu may exact, for media reports say American taxpayers’ annual dole to Israel could go up from $3.1bn a year to $5bn. Against this background, the two made a ritual reference to peace, while violence continues on the West Bank.

Before they met, President Obama said he would try to bring Israel and the Palestinian Authority on “a path toward peace” while Mr Netanyahu spoke of the two-state solution.

The only bit of realism came from unnamed American officials who said President Obama doesn’t expect peace in Palestine till he leaves the White House in January 2017.

SBP Act amended

AFTER delaying the move for many years, the National Assembly finally voted to pass the amendments to the State Bank Act that had been languishing for at least three years.

The amendments seek to create a more independent decision-making process at the central bank, especially regarding monetary policy.

The regulatory framework has also been strengthened by giving legal cover to any interventions that might be needed to come to the aid of a scheduled bank facing liquidity issues.

The biggest change the amendment has brought about is the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee, which has been empowered to “formulate, support and recommend the monetary policy” as well as to “approve and issue the monetary policy statement”.

These powers used to vest in the executive board, but following notification amendments to the law, they will pass to the MPC instead.

The passage of the amendment is an important step, long in the making, but whether or not it will bring about greater autonomous action on the part of the State Bank remains to be seen. The government’s influence over the bank’s decision-making powers has been considerable.

One of the principal conduits through which this influence was exercised was the presence of the secretary finance on the board, giving the federal government an important seat at the table where decisions that impact the cost at which it can borrow are made.

The MPC’s constitution does not specify a seat for Q block, but three of its members are to be nominated from the board, which could well include the secretary finance.

The amendment is also silent on the matter of publication of the MPC’s minutes, which has been flagged as an important ingredient of the legislation by the IMF.

Greater transparency is essential, and if the legislation does not specifically call for publication of the MPC’s minutes, the board should certainly require it when they formulate the rules under which the new committee will operate.

We can now look forward to the notification of the law, and the names that are nominated to the MPC, which will give us an early clue to how far the State Bank’s autonomy is really envisioned to go. But the real test will be when we all get a chance to read the first monetary policy statement put out by the new MPC, and see if and how it differs from those that the bank has been issuing thus far.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Night of terror in Paris

THE sheer terror of the Paris attacks is difficult to comprehend. Like the Mumbai attacks and the Peshawar school tragedy, there are some crimes that numb the mind for their monstrousness. Nine-eleven was the turning point in the fight against Al Qaeda. Paris may well prove to be the turning point in the fight against the militant group calling itself the Islamic State. If that fight is to be won, however, the nature of the threat must be understood and the instruments and policies used to fight it informed by lessons of the past, particularly those in the global fight against Islamist militancy over the past decade and a half. The eerie similarities between the Mumbai, Peshawar and Paris attacks all underscore a simple truth: radicalised militants view everyone as an enemy — Muslims, Christians, Hindus, non-believers, everyone. Just as Al Qaeda killed indiscriminately, so does IS. Yes, religiously inspired militants claim to be following the tenets of Islam, but they are wrong. And there is no more obvious refutation of that claim than by looking at the identity of the victims of Islamist militancy globally. Al Qaeda was a threat to the civilised world, as is IS now.

Religiously inspired militancy is no ordinary threat, however. Just as once the Afghan jihad morphed into the global Al Qaeda threat and Al Qaeda’s pre-eminence has been usurped by IS, defeating IS alone will not be the answer. Nor will it be easy. As is now widely accepted, a series of errors, spanning the last decade and a half and catalysed by the historic mistake that was the US invasion of Iraq, has led to the rise of perhaps the most formidable militant threat in modern history. How France, other Western powers and the US in particular will react to the Paris attacks will have potentially long-lasting effects. Already in Syria, there is more of a policy disaster than any semblance of a winning strategy. Moreover, as was seen in the aftermath of the toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, it is equally important to have a well-informed strategy for stabilising post-conflict countries. Otherwise, all military gains will be lost — and even deadlier threats than Al Qaeda and IS spawned.

Where, though, is the Muslim world in all of this? The destructive competition of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Middle East and the Muslim world in general appears to have stifled any pan-Muslim initiatives. Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia — each has a large population and high stakes in helping defeat militancy. In the Middle East, there are states that could urgently lobby the Muslim world for a united approach. But each and every Muslim-majority country appears to have some reason or the other to not provide leadership — even though Islamist militancy is perhaps a greater threat to the Muslim world than to the non-Muslim world.

Fata’s future

IN most of the rest of Pakistan, Fata is viewed as a rugged no-man’s land populated by hardy tribesmen. The tribal region has also attracted negative attention for playing host to an array of militant actors, many of whom have declared war on the state. But often lost amongst these one-dimensional descriptions is the fact that the people of Fata do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of the country and are governed under a largely colonial regime. Yet calls for ‘reform’ in the tribal areas are getting louder and more frequent. On Thursday, senators from various parties in a special committee meeting criticised successive governments as well as the military establishment for failing to bring the tribal belt into the mainstream. During the proceedings, Federal Minister Abdul Qadir Baloch put forward three options for Fata’s future: maintain the status quo and introduce a few legal changes; merge the region with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; or make it a separate province. Some months earlier, tribal MNAs had also called for merger with KP and rechristening Fata as a Provincially Administered Tribal Area.

Whether Fata is merged with KP or made into a separate province, two things must be considered: the changes should be well-thought-out and they cannot be put off indefinitely. After all, Fata’s situation is not like Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir — ie linked to a future cross-border settlement — and can be resolved relatively easily. What is essential is that Fata’s MNAs, the national parliament as well as the KP Assembly work in tandem to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to the tribal population. Central to the final settlement should be the extension of the Constitution and fundamental rights, as well as Pakistan’s judicial system, to the region. Moreover, the changes ought not to be merely cosmetic; the region needs the education, health and economic infrastructure that can help bring it on a par with the rest of Pakistan. Yet those familiar with tribal society caution that change must not be abrupt; it should be incremental, and more importantly, have the input of local people. Much of the tribal region is currently witnessing counterterrorism operations by the military. The state needs to plan ahead so that once the military succeeds in permanently uprooting militants from the region, a viable system of civilian governance can be put in place. Fata must be brought in from the cold without delay.

PPP’s new ‘uncle’

IT was a considerable treat for the followers of politics. Imran Khan donned the mantle of the wise elder to lecture Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on how to do politics; in response, Bilawal House sent the PTI chief some urgent reminders about what is — was — a good age to retire. Age has been a problem with both the PTI and PPP. Conventional thinking casts the young as impatient. On the other hand, the hasty steps taken by Imran Khan are often explained away by referring to his lateral entry into politics. Meanwhile, the age of its leaders is a source of some extra trouble for the PPP. But just as ungentlemanly remarks about the very experienced Sindh chief minister, Qaim Ali Shah, are routine, Mr Khan and others have frequently been found impolitely trying to ridicule the young Mr Bhutto Zardari. He has been painted as a naïve, simple scion who ceremoniously flaunts the pictures of his grandfather and mother.

Let’s not dispute Mr Khan’s credentials as adviser in this case. Indeed, as an icon for Pakistan’s youth for many generations now, he could say from experience when it is apt for a young lad to be pacing himself through a renowned university or a cricket field and when exactly a man is ready, or desperate enough, to try his hand at politics in Pakistan. He can further say that the ‘uncle’ is only repeating what father Asif Zardari declared not too long ago: Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is inexperienced and not ready for politics. But as he is known to display a childlike innocence and haste in doing things, Mr Khan is, perhaps, unaware of an important piece of history: when it comes to the incentive to fight, a PPP leader can respond to a challenge thrown by an ‘uncle’ or two. As the PPP seeks to recover its old anger and vigour, it is perhaps hoping to make good use of the presence of a new acrimonious, hostile ‘uncle’ towards making possible political gains.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 15th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Signals from Washington

AFTER the hype surrounding last year’s trip, Gen Raheel Sharif’s second visit to Washington DC as army chief was more workmanlike in tone. Following civil-military tensions that erupted in the run-up to Gen Sharif’s trip, it appears both the American hosts and their Pakistani visitor want to send a signal that the security-focused talks were not meant to sideline the political government. They only partly succeeded. The official White House readout on Gen Sharif’s meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden referred to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s breakfast meeting with Mr Biden on Oct 22 and seemed to suggest that this week’s visit was a follow-up. But such elliptical messages can only go so far. A far more powerful signal would have been sent if the two trips had been merged and the prime minister and army chief travelled to the US together. While there may be problems of protocol with a joint trip and Gen Sharif has specialised military issues to discuss with his American counterparts, a joint set of meetings would have signalled that the civilian set-up is not considered peripheral to national security and foreign policy.

Yet, there are undeniably important bilateral issues to be discussed regardless of the state of civil-military relations inside Pakistan. While details are scarce — the ISPR has offered only the barest of outlines regarding the various meetings and US officials have been similarly reticent — it is likely that the results of the discussions will start to be felt in the weeks and months ahead. Most obviously, given the uptick in activity surrounding the resumption of stalled talks in Afghanistan, there could be some kind of fresh push for peace negotiations. With the Pakistani state having demonstrated its bona fides when it comes to making talks a possibility, perhaps it is time for the outside powers to take Pakistan’s concerns more seriously. While Afghan President Ashraf Ghani still appears to be a potentially credible peace partner, Pakistan has legitimate complaints when it comes to the actions and rhetoric of the more hawkish elements in the Afghan state apparatus. From better border management to curbing the activities of anti-Pakistan militants in Afghanistan to working with Pakistan to nudge the Taliban to the negotiating table, it is also counterproductive to put the full weight of expectation on this country alone. If stability in the region is to be a shared goal, then achieving it must be a shared responsibility.

Lessons must also be learned from the abortive talks between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban earlier this year. There is a fine line between encouraging the process of talks and rushing it. Immediate breakthroughs are unlikely and the process is likely to be very frustrating for all sides. Hopefully, Gen Sharif and US officials are working towards a road map for a sustained reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

Militancy far from over

AS three separate incidents in different parts of the country showed on Friday, despite continuing military and law-enforcement operations in the northwest of the country and Karachi, the militant menace is far from defeated. If anything, these attacks show that extremist fighters are lying low and waiting for opportune moments to hit back at the state and society. In the first incident, four Rangers’ personnel were gunned down in the Ittehad Town locality of Karachi outside a mosque they were reportedly guarding during Friday prayers. Meanwhile, in the KP town of Charsadda, two traffic policemen were killed in what police officials have dubbed a targeted attack believed to be linked to militants. In the third incident, two workers of a media house were injured when the offices of the organisation came under grenade attack in Faisalabad. Punjab counterterrorism officials had issued a warning that extremists linked to the militant Islamic State group would attack media houses in Lahore, as well as army and police targets elsewhere in Punjab. On the other hand, police officials in Karachi believe fighters from the banned TTP’s Swat chapter may be involved in the attack on the Rangers. The group has maintained an on-again, off-again presence in the Sindh capital, and appears to have struck when it found the ‘right’ moment. The Rangers have led the law-enforcement operation in Karachi that was launched in September 2013 and which has largely zeroed in on religiously as well as politically motivated militants, along with other violent criminals.

Due to advance intelligence, security around media houses in Lahore had been tightened, which is possibly why the attackers turned their attention to Faisalabad. The lesson, then, from Friday’s incidents is that actionable intelligence can be critical in pre-empting or raising defences against terrorist attacks. Therefore, the military and civilian intelligence and security apparatus need to keep an ear to the ground to intercept militant communications in order to thwart future attacks. Moreover, the momentum against militant outfits must be sustained as these groups are far from neutralised. An important element in defanging militant groups in the long run — apart from dismantling their infrastructure and ability to organise — is to prosecute those elements in society who are unabashed cheerleaders of violent religious militancy in Pakistan. The clerics of Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, who have again resumed their activities, are a prime example of this breed of militant sympathisers.

Bangladesh trials

GREAT harm can be wrought if the line separating punishment from vengeance becomes blurred, making it all the more urgent to not just ensure that justice is done, but that it is also seen to be done. Unfortunately, Bangladesh stands poised on the brink of this misstep as regards the controversy that surrounds the trials taking place of people accused of having committed atrocities during the period of the 1971 war. The process of investigating the alleged abuses was initiated in 2010 by the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed with opposition parties maintaining that the trials were being used as a political tool. The government denies this, but given that there are doubts that the proceedings meet international fair trial standards, the distrust remains. This latter point was underscored on Friday when Human Rights Watch, while urging the Bangladesh government to suspend the executions of two opposition leaders convicted of war crimes, said that “Justice and accountability for the terrible crimes committed during … [the] war are crucial, but trials need to meet international fair trial standards. … Unfair trials can’t provide real justice, especially when the death penalty is imposed.”

The two opposition leaders whose executions are being referred to here are Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, secretary-general of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, earlier a legislator from former prime minister Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Both have been handed down the death penalty for war crimes and on Wednesday, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected their final appeal against their sentences, paving the way for their execution unless the president grants them clemency on the basis of their mercy petitions. For the convicted men, the death sentences ought to be suspended in the interests of humane treatment and the irrevocability of this penalty — which this newspaper has always opposed. But for the reputation of Bangladesh itself, it is important that the standards that prevail at these trials be drastically improved and the process be stripped bare of any vestige of political motivation.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 22nd, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Time to review detention laws

IT has been two years since parliament passed an amendment to the Anti Terrorism Act of 1997 that vested extraordinary powers in the Rangers in Sindh to detain people on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, or of facilitating terrorism.

The amendment is called Section 11EEEE, and it was passed to put some teeth into the Karachi operation that had begun only a few weeks earlier.

Since then, the amendment has been used widely to detain all manner of people, from members of political parties to extortionist gangs and individuals belonging to banned outfits, as well as officers of a state-owned gas company.

Originally, the Rangers were the sole agency vested with the powers under this extraordinary amendment, but as of this summer, the Counter Terrorism Department of Sindh Police and the FIA have also been notified to exercise the same extraordinary powers of detention contained in this law.

The powers empower the notified law-enforcement agency to detain for up to 90 days on ground of suspicion alone, and without any judicial oversight.

Dr Asim Hussain is probably the most high-profile individual detained under this law, and the scope and depth of the investigation carried out against him is quite possibly unprecedented.

But the charges levelled against him in the FIR contain no reference to terror financing, showing that whatever else he might be guilty of, not a shred of evidence appears to have been found implicating him in the original charge under which he was detained.

The case — and many other cases that have a similar pattern — illustrates the dire need for a review of Section 11EEEE of the ATA to ensure that the extraordinary powers granted to law enforcement through it are not being misused.

Thus far no data exists of the number of people detained under this law, yet we know from observing court activity that most of those detained are either released without any charges, or are charged with criminal activity that has little or nothing to do with terrorism.

This apparent pattern makes it important to conduct a review of how well this law has served to advance the fight against terrorism and militancy specifically, for which it was designed.

The review should aim to provide us with answers to three specific questions: how many people have been detained under this law thus far?

How many of them have been charged with an offence? And how many convictions have been obtained?

If the federal government proves reticent in initiating such a review, an MNA should raise these questions as part of question hour in the National Assembly and demand a response from the government.

It is crucial to determine whether the tools designed to fight militancy and terrorism are not being used for purposes other than those they were specifically meant for.

Grounds for change

THE build-up to change seems to have intensified. Away from Pakistan’s own little experiments with various formats of the game, international cricket is currently facing an onslaught of new ideas.

At one place, the debate is about doing away with the toss at the outset of a match and letting home teams decide whether they want to bowl or bat first.

At the same time, the proposal for four-day Test matches has been revived with some seriousness against the backdrop of quick finishes such as the one in Nagpur last week in which India defeated South Africa inside three days.

And if this were not a repulsive enough idea for the leisurely gentleman in white flannels, he is left to frown upon the first-ever day-night Test where he is made to chase an unfamiliar pink ball that cannot, to the conventional mind, ever rival the feel and shine of the old cherry.

Some protest at the death of values and tradition — before the incorrigibly hooked find new ways to reconcile with the new, more instantaneously gratifying offerings inside a cricket field.

On the other hand, there are discussions about the variety available to connoisseurs of the game and to the excited, non-traditional fans. In reality, however, this debate about changes is a realistic reminder that the look of the game may change sooner than anticipated in the past.

Just as Pakistan tries — quite unsuccessfully at the moment — to be equally competitive in all formats of cricket, it can be said that some of the old varieties of the game are being nudged onto the fast lane towards their eventual exit.

It’s been a few years since those who proudly stood by the five-day Test were asked to turn up in considerable numbers at the stadium in order to save their favourite format from becoming obsolete.

The response to that warning has been patchy and popular attention appears to be turning towards the faster versions on the market.

So much so that on occasion even the 50-over-a-side brand tie is considered too laborious and time-consuming when an outcome and plenty of revenue can be had from a contest lasting 40 overs. The countdown continues.

A country can have three different teams playing three different formats — Tests, one-dayers and T-20 games.

The game cannot quite continue to have enough spectators for all three categories to prosper.

Filthy nation

THE disastrous state of affairs that prevails in many sectors in Pakistan is frequently commented on.

The one that citizens and administrations both seem to have become inured to, however, is also the most easily discernible: the abysmal state of the civic apparatus in most cities and towns, the filth that lines our roads, and the rapidly falling standards of the ecology and environment.

The problems have become so big, and so entrenched, that the highest court of the land is diverting its attention to them.

Taking up a case relating to pollution and environmental degradation in Islamabad on Wednesday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court rhetorically asked whether it should have to intervene all the time to keep Karachi clean.

Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that it was difficult to imagine how people were living in some of the smaller towns and cities, adding that there were armies of employees in the departments concerned, who were drawing salaries but sitting idle.

The judges’ comments, acerbic in the extreme, showed the level of their frustration; and, indeed, this must be shared by the vast majority of people who must breathe air that is toxic, drink water that is contaminated and undertake commutes surrounded by piles of burning garbage — all because, as the Supreme Court noted with reference to the polluting industries in our cities, “until it suits them the government turns a blind eye towards the big fish”.

Pakistan must urgently rationalise and strategise in this regard. The answers are simple to formulate; what is needed is strong political will and action on the part of the civic agencies.

Why is Islamabad, for example, a notable exception in terms of the quality of the environment and the relative success in enforcing land-use rules?

The grim truth is that those who are in positions to initiate effective clean-up drives and formulate strong policies are the ones who never walk the city streets. Here too, it is the disconnect between the public and their elected representatives that is at fault.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 29th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Parliament’s supremacy

IT should be a settled — and democratically obvious — fact, but the frequent suggestions to the contrary indicate there is some way to go yet before constitutional and democratic norms are deeply entrenched and become irreversible. Senate chairperson Raza Rabbani was moved on Friday to remind the country that parliament must remain the supreme institution in the land — that there should be no supra-parliamentary National Security Council and that all institutions must follow the edict of parliament. The occasion for Mr Rabbani’s comments was a book launch in Islamabad at which it was suggested that the country needs a powerful NSC over and above parliament. It is precisely such suggestions that make democrats in Pakistan wary of a full-fledged NSC, even though it is clear that national security decision-making needs to be structured and aided by a full-time secretariat and staff. Short of that, national security policymaking will continue to be opaque and ad hoc — with predictable consequences for the country’s security.

Why though is a basic democratic notion as the institutional supremacy of parliament still resisted, actively and philosophically, by some sections of the state apparatus? Part of the reason is surely power — a supra-parliamentary body would be unaccountable to the elected leadership of the country and would be able to implement undemocratic plans and vision for the country’s security. But a part of the answer lies also in the shortcomings of the civilians themselves. Consider the fate of the revamped Cabinet Committee for National Security that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif created two years ago. It was suspected then that the revamping came at the behest of the military leadership — like the recent appointment of a retired general as national security adviser to the prime minister — and therefore was likely to suffer from disinterest by the civilian government. This has proven to be the case, with the secretariat to the CCNS yet to take off and the body itself being moribund. Perhaps not coincidentally, the so-called apex committee meetings and one-on-one meetings between the prime minister and the army chief have virtually replaced all other national security forums.

Where the civilian government has failed — even accepting that the political government has been marginalised in national security matters, and that bureaucratic resistance and civilian disinterest have helped accelerate that process — so too has parliament. There is no intelligence oversight by parliament — and none that is being considered. The Senate Standing Committee on Defence is active, but seemingly mostly to arrange field trips and inviting speakers to make speeches. There is no meaningful contribution of parliament that can be discerned. Strangely, there are voices inside parliament that occasionally demand a joint session of parliament to debate significant national security and foreign policy events as if that can be a substitute for the job of serious and sustained policy input. Yes, parliament must be the supreme institution — but it is parliament itself that must lead the way.

Exemplary work

AS the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation in Karachi marks four decades of service to humanity, it is worth reflecting on the countless lives it has saved and improved. The result of the efforts of its founder, Dr Adibul Hasan Rizvi, and of the fleet of healthcare professionals who work alongside him, the institute has stayed true to its philosophy: that every person in need has the inalienable right to free healthcare of high quality. In this world, where quality is in general the domain of only those who can afford it, SIUT continues to prove that not only does it not have to be that way, but that where the provision of healthcare is involved, this is a course of highly dubious ethics. Run entirely on public donations, the facility takes no fee from the thousands that flock to its corridors, the bulk of them living in poverty. If there is a parallel to SIUT’s work, it is to be found in the work of Abdul Sattar and Bilquis Edhi, and the foundation they have created, which also caters tirelessly to the needs of the poorest, most marginalised sections of society. Here, too, the vast charity network encompassing orphanages, mortuaries, shelters and a fleet of ambulances in every city that are usually the first to arrive at the scene of any accident or catastrophe, is run exclusively on donations.

While the work of these two giants is exemplary, it is nevertheless relevant to ask of the state why it has so easily abdicated its responsibilities, both in terms of the healthcare sector and protecting the vulnerable. SIUT and the Edhi Foundation exist because there was a glaring gap in the provision of services, the responsibility for which rests with the state, the government of the day and its subsidiaries. And while it is admirable that these entities have stepped up to the plate and continue to improve thousands of lives, it is sad that state has achieved virtually nothing in terms of capacity-building. Even a cursory look provides a negative answer. Pakistan and its people can count themselves lucky that there are individuals and institutions such as these, for without them our collective lot would be far worse; but supporters of these institutions as well as their beneficiaries have the option of lobbying with the state and those who steer it in order to drastically and immediately improve healthcare and welfare services.

Reforms for Saudi women

THEY may still not be allowed to get behind the wheel, but the wheels of change have finally begun to move for Saudi women. The kingdom has announced that widows and divorced women will be issued identity cards in their own name, a measure that will enable them to take independent decisions in several important matters. These include the power to register their children in school, access records and authorise medical procedures. With family cards made in their husbands’ names, women are dependent either on spousal permission or court orders to perform these tasks. Moreover, on Dec 12, for the first time, they will not only be able to vote in municipal elections in their country, there will also be women among the candidates. These women, more than 900, have been campaigning since late November, albeit under rules meant to maintain the segregation of the sexes. These include: no holding of rallies attended by men and no meeting directly with male voters — a male spokesman will, instead, communicate with them on a woman candidate’s behalf.

It must be said that any change for the better in the status of women in Saudi Arabia — suspended in amber since some time — is something to celebrate. In fact, it is no less than revolutionary that Saudi women may soon have the chance to be considered adults capable of making basic decisions in their lives, even if they have to be divorced or widowed to do so. Ironically, that could be the proverbial silver lining in what is undoubtedly an emotionally fraught situation. Participation in the electoral process, both as voter and candidate, also confers a degree of agency not hitherto granted to Saudi women. However, it is a very controlled loosening of the reins: Loujain Hathloul, who was detained for two months by Saudi authorities when she tried to drive into the kingdom from the UAE, was disqualified from standing for election. Change has begun, but there is a long road yet to travel.

Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, December 6th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !