[B][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][U]Khyber air strikes [/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]

Tuesday, 13 Apr, 2010


Saturday’s bombings in Khyber Agency have shocked the nation and an official apology is in order, not just from the civilian administration but also the armed forces. It is clear from eyewitness accounts that the 60 or so people killed in aerial bombardments in Sra Vela were innocent tribesmen with no links to the militancy wracking the tribal belt.

Even as the military establishment denied that civilians had been killed, it was reported that the victims would receive significant monetary compensation in addition to food supplies. In effect, it has been acknowledged that a huge blunder was made, one that has scarred the lives of dozens of families. The incident reflects poorly on the security apparatus’s intelligence-gathering capacity and has the potential to erode the support the government currently enjoys in its battle against Taliban-inspired militancy. A bomb dropped on the house of a serving army soldier was followed by another even more devastating attack when area residents rushed to the scene. Such actions defy description and an explanation is in order from those who ordered the assault.

It was realised quite some time ago that avoiding ‘collateral damage’ is a key factor when it comes to winning hearts and minds. This cannot be achieved when people who are most directly affected by the savagery of the Taliban also come under unintentional attack from the state. True, US drone strikes have become more precise in recent months, leading to fewer civilian casualties. Also, the military’s decision to confront the militants head-on by putting more boots on the ground has to some extent reduced the collateral damage caused by long-distance artillery assaults. But Saturday’s incident in Khyber Agency shows that dangerous intelligence gaps persist and that these need to be rectified forthwith. Damage control alone cannot suffice.

As we said at the outset, any repeat of the Sra Vela tragedy can undermine the fight against militancy. The heartbreak caused by such attacks strengthens the hands of the Taliban who want public opinion to turn against the state. Considerable gains have been made in recent months with the military going on the offensive and tribesmen raising their own anti-Taliban fighting units. A reversal of fortunes is simply unaffordable. Then there are several ‘conservative’ and outright extremist players in the political arena who have much in common with the Taliban and want to see an end to the military operation. Civilian casualties in the battle arena give them more vitriol with which to embellish claims that this is America’s war, not Pakistan’s. They must be denied the chance to add fuel to the fire.








[B][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][U]Abbottabad violence[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]






Political violence in Pakistan is difficult to decipher from afar. But what happened yesterday in Abbottabad appears to be tied to a struggle between the PML-Q and PML-N in the first instance and the lack of a prompt public-awareness campaign in the Hazara region generally by the ANP-led provincial government.
The renaming of the NWFP as Khyber Pakthunkhwa has gone down badly in the Hazara region and there appears to be genuine grassroots dissent against a name that the non-Pakhtun, Hindko-speaking population of the region does not identify with. Sensing an opportunity, the PML-Q has tried to capitalise on the emergence of the malcontents at the expense of the PML-N.

In the February 2008 elections, the PML-N trounced the PML-Q in the areas which have traditionally been Muslim League strongholds. Now with the PML-N voting in favour of ‘Khyber Pakthunkhwa’, the PML-Q is trying to portray itself as the real defenders of the rights of the people of the Hazara region and perhaps make a comeback in the region. The alacrity with which the PML-Q has grabbed the opportunity can be gauged by the fact that erstwhile rivals, some might say bitter enemies, in the party have come together to stand up for the ‘rights’ of Hazara’s people.

But the main reason the PML-Q has been able exploit the unhappiness in the Hazara region is the negligence of the ANP-led provincial government. Yes, the demand for the ‘Pakhtunkhwa’ name is legitimate and has the support of the majority of the province. But the ANP should have taken more care to reassure the people of the Hazara region, and even the Seraiki-speaking population in southern NWFP, that the name change would not impact the rights of the ‘minority’ ethnicities. The ANP has appeared more obsessed with the renaming issue than the everyday concerns of the people of the province. Identity matters, clearly, but so do things like jobs, reducing inflation and improving public services. So elated has the ANP been at the fulfilment of a century-old demand, that it appears to have forgotten there are more pressing issues that the people of the province care about

[B][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][U]Nuclear security [/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]


[B]Wednesday, 14 Apr, 2010[/B]


IF public stances are a reliable indicator, and in this case they seem to be, the trust deficit that has long hampered relations between Islamabad and Washington has narrowed considerably.



The turning point came when Pakistan’s civilian and military establishments made it clear came some months ago that their side of the story cannot be ignored. No other country, it was pointed out, had suffered as much in the war against militancy, on the battlefield as well as at the hands of terrorists. It was emphasised that Washington’s constant demand that Islamabad should ‘do more’ must end as there was no longer any justification for that mantra. Pakistan was doing all that it could given its resources, and it was now America’s turn to deliver on promises to shore up its ally on both the military and socio-economic fronts. Concerns about India’s intransigence and growing influence in Afghanistan were also conveyed at the highest levels. This stronger line prompted the US to rethink its relationship with Pakistan and change the tenor of its statements regarding the country. Some visiting US officials met with politicians, journalists and civil society representatives and went away with an improved sense of what fans anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. The top-level ‘strategic dialogue’ held last month in Washington also helped defuse tensions and chart a future course of action.

This greater understanding was in evidence this week during Prime Minister Gilani’s trip to Washington for the nuclear security summit. Not for the first time, President Obama expressed his confidence in Pakistan’s ability to secure its nuclear arsenal. He further emphasised that the US had no “sinister designs” vis-à-vis Pakistan’s nuclear programme, while PM Gilani reciprocated by thanking Mr Obama for his public position on the issue. While at the summit, Mr Gilani also asked that Pakistan be allowed access to civil nuclear
technology to address the crippling energy shortfall facing the country.

A civil nuclear deal of the sort America signed with India in 2008 has as much to do with symbolism as substance. Yes, Pakistan’s economy and its people are reeling under the energy crisis and would certainly benefit from new nuclear power plants. Even if a deal were to be struck, however, such plants will be years in coming while our needs are immediate. As such what Pakistan is asking for right now is simply an acknowledgment of its right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. What Islamabad is seeking first and foremost is parity with New Delhi. It feels discriminated against and Washington would do well to address this concern.



[SIZE="5"][B][CENTER][COLOR="darkgreen"][U]Remission order [/U][/COLOR][/CENTER][/B][/SIZE]






IT seemed innocuous enough: as a goodwill gesture to celebrate the passage of the 18th Amendment in the National Assembly, President Zardari issued a remission order, as he is constitutionally entitled to do, that waived a fourth of all prison sentences in the country (except for some concerning the most serious crimes). But nothing is as simple as it first appears.



The PML-N has come out against the remission order, claiming that the president only did so to favour a single individual in jail — the recently sacked additional director general of the FIA, Ahmed Riaz Sheikh. The FIA was of course forced to sack Mr Sheikh after the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of his reinstatement despite being a convict who had got relief under the now defunct NRO.

The centre-Punjab dispute raises two questions. First, a technical question of the law has to be decided. Does the president exercising his powers to remit sentences under Article 45 of the constitution have to consult the provinces before doing so? Whatever the legal position, it would appear desirable to at least have all the stakeholders on the same page in such matters. The convicts who may be released early will, more likely than not, live in one of the four provinces of the country, and as such it would make sense to get the input of provincial authorities on matters that may have an impact on the law and order situation. Second, is this yet another instance, as the PML-N charges, of the presidency thumbing its nose at the SC and trying to rescue a favourite of Mr Zardari from trouble? If so, is the PML-N raising questions at this stage less with an eye on law-and-order issues and more as a result of political calculations to show its ‘solidarity’ with the SC? However, if Mr Zardari is in fact trying to rescue Mr Sheikh, it shows the presidency in a very poor light indeed. It would then come across as a move potentially jeopardising the safety of ordinary Pakistanis simply to score points in an institutional tussle. The presidency must give a full, trans-parent explanation.

[CENTER][U][B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Land reform [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/U][/CENTER]

[B]Friday, 16 Apr, 2010 [/B]





Land reform is no more on the government’s agenda. The closest it has come to providing land to tillers is by distributing state-owned land under Programme for Grant of Land to Poor Landless Haris in Sindh. However, of the 212,000 acres earmarked for distribution only 41,000 acres have been distributed in the last two years.

Speakers at a seminar have pointed out that Pakistan’s food crisis will not be resolved until ‘true’ land reforms are introduced and food security is provided to peasants. The truth of this assertion is supported by evidence from countries that have adopted a policy of equitable land distribution.

The problem in Pakistan has been of a historical nature. The pattern of landholdings in this country that is rooted in the feudal structure was inherited from the colonial era, and allowed the rulers to exploit the system to their own advantage. This system also empowered the big landholders who ensured that land reforms were never introduced. That is why the three land reforms announced in the country — by Gen Ayub in 1959 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1972 and 1977 —have been flawed and have not changed the power equation. The concentration of land in the hands of a few has meant low crop yields. Thus according to the International Fund for Agricultural Development over 10 per cent of cultivable land in Pakistan is owned by 0.3 per cent of landlords with farms of over 150 acres. They lack the motivation of the small farmer who depends on land for his livelihood.

Land reform is no more on the government’s agenda. The closest it has come to providing land to tillers is by distributing state-owned land under Programme for Grant of Land to Poor Landless Haris in Sindh. However, of the 212,000 acres earmarked for distribution only 41,000 acres have been distributed in the last two years. But possession could not be taken in many cases because the feudals had encroached on it or the land was waterlogged. If the government agreed with the view that a peasant who owns his own land produces higher yields it would seriously consider land reforms and a change in tenancy laws.



[CENTER][B][COLOR="darkgreen"][B][SIZE="5"][U]Accountability bill [/U][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR][/B][/CENTER]



Accountability’ has been a much-abused word used in Pakistan mostly as an instrument of persecution in the hands of the government of the day. Ziaul Haq debased this noble concept, while the political regimes that followed, and later the Musharraf government, seemed to have taken a leaf from the general’s book.



Invariably, accountability was selective, and those willing to collaborate were either ignored, or adequately rewarded; those who resisted were made to suffer humiliation, jail terms and property confiscation. More regrettably, the armed forces’ personnel and the judiciary enjoyed immunity from prosecution. Against this background, the draft bill approved by a parliamentary committee on Wednesday seems to break new ground, for it doesn’t consider judges and generals to be infallible demigods with a licence for corruption. Approved by consensus by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice after a year’s deliberations, the draft bill defines a public office according to the constitution’s Article 260. This expands the proposed law’s net and ropes in those who indulged in financial corruption, misuse of powers and circumvention of law because they knew they enjoyed a carte blanche for crimes that ranged from financial shenanigans to human rights abuses.

Two other healthy features of the draft bill need to be noted. First, the National Accountability Commission that will replace the existing National Accountability Bureau will be headed by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court or a person qualified to be an SC judge. Second, the prime minister will nominate the head of the NAC but the nomination will have to be approved by an eight-member parliamentary committee drawn equally from both sides of the aisle. This is a breath of fresh in Pakistan’s traditionally murky politics. The consensus on the 18th Amendment shows that the much-maligned politicians — often they deserved to be — are quite capable of working democracy and sinking party differences for the greater good of the people. The draft National Accountability Commission Act is a step in that direction. We hope it will have a smooth sailing through parliament like the 18th Amendment which the Senate passed on Thursday.

[U][CENTER][B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]An avoidable calamity[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/CENTER][/U][B]
Saturday, 17 Apr, 2010 [/B]

If there is one unmistakable conclusion that can be drawn from reading the Benazir Bhutto commission report, it is this: Ms Bhutto was left at the mercy of her killers.

Who the masterminds of her death are is uncertain. The report simply notes: “Ms Bhutto faced serious threats in Pakistan from a number of sources; these included Al Qaeda, the Taliban and local jihadi groups, and potentially from elements in the Pakistani establishment.” Why any of those groups may have wanted to kill can be speculated about endlessly. But this much is clear: her tragic death was completely avoidable. To even the untrained eye, the security provided to Ms Bhutto was terribly, wretchedly inadequate. Pakistan knows how to protect its VVIPs when it wants to: ask Gen Musharraf or his top generals or his favourite politicians; on his watch, they were as safe as safe can be. But Ms Bhutto was given none of the protection that, among all the pretenders and jesters who received it, she alone deserved to have been given.

The exact language of the report bears being repeated, for it points to the presence of, in its purest and most real manifestation, an evil intention: “Particularly inexcusable was the government’s failure to direct provincial authorities to provide Ms Bhutto the same stringent and specific security measures it ordered on 22 October 2007 for two other former prime ministers who belonged to the main political party supporting General Musharraf. This discriminatory treatment is profoundly troubling given the devastating attempt on her life only three days earlier and the specific threats against her which were being tracked by the ISI.”

Ms Bhutto could and should have survived the Dec 27, 2007 attack; she didn’t because of the monumental, and very deliberate, sin of omission on the part of Gen Musharraf & Co. Where was the security she deserved and the Pakistani state had the proven capability to offer?

The whys can be debated endlessly. Perhaps a clue may lie in new revelations about the ‘deal’ between Ms Bhutto and Gen Musharraf whereby the former prime minister was allowed to return to Pakistan. The UN report notes: “While their discussions included the issue of an eventual power-sharing arrangement, the final terms were never agreed.” Perhaps Gen Musharraf, fighting for survival in the bare-knuckled politics, thought Ms Bhutto’s safety could be a bargaining chip in their negotiations characterised by extreme mutual suspicion. With Gen Musharraf now in self-imposed exile, the country is unlikely to ever learn the truth. But the country will always know this: Ms Bhutto’s killers succeeded because the government deliberately failed to protect her.


[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"][U][CENTER]
Police reform [/CENTER][/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]



The Supreme Court’s directive, during a hearing of a suo motu notice against torture by police officials in Chiniot, to revive the district public safety commissions is a positive move towards police reform.

But more action is required to transform the police into a professional, people-friendly force. The creation of public safety commissions is a highlight of the Police Order 2002 reforms and an unprecedented measure aimed at making the police more service-oriented by ensuring its oversight by elected and nominated commission members. However, since 2002, the establishment of these commissions has been sporadic.

Even where they have been set up, the commissions have not resolved public grievances against the police. This is due as much to the lack of political will and bureaucratic support for the reforms as to the introduction of subsequent amendments to the Police Order 2002.

Since independence, there have been many attempts at reforming the police. These attempts comprised more than 20 commissions, committees and foreign missions on police reforms but no major recommendation could be put in place until the Police Order 2002. However, a modern police force can only come about if we stop amending and diluting the police order and invest wholeheartedly in reform.

The latter will not only have to include empowering accountability mechanisms and managerial bodies, like the public safety commissions and the national police management board, but also address other issues like inadequate training and investigation facilities, poor salaries and service conditions, structural disparities between senior police leadership and junior officers, and the lack of a standardised system of hiring, transferring and promotion. Police functioning can also be improved by having parliament review the Police Order 2002 and by setting up a parliamentary subcommittee to deal exclusively with policing.


[B][CENTER][COLOR="darkgreen"][SIZE="5"][U]Senate’s approval [/U][/SIZE][/COLOR][/CENTER][/B]




Only President Asif Ali Zardari’s signature is needed now for the historic 18th Amendment bill to become an act of parliament. The 100-member Senate finally passed the monumental 102-clause bill on Thursday, with all the 90 present voting ‘yes’.

Sceptics who thought the emotions and violence generated over the NWFP’s nomenclature could block or perhaps delay the bill’s passage were wrong. There was, of course, some noise, but the PML-Q, the party leading the opposition to the switch-over to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, failed to show solidarity on the issue, and only 12 of the party’s 21 senators voted against that particular clause. The president and the prime minister rightly welcomed the bill’s passage, with Prime Minister Gilani calling it a victory for democracy. Similar sentiments were expressed by Nawaz Sharif, who said the bill constituted a defeat for dictatorship.

More than two and a half decades after Ziaul Haq mauled the 1973 Constitution through a decree, and some seven years after the 17th Amendment was passed by a parliament that was under the military’s thumb, the 1973 Constitution stands restored, as close as it has ever been, to its original form given to the nation by lawmakers led by Z.A. Bhutto, Pakistan’s first elected prime minister. Gen Zia had introduced the infamous Article 58-2(b) that enabled the president to sack a prime minister even if he enjoyed the Assembly’s confidence and dissolve the Assembly itself.

Mr Sharif amended the basic law to abolish this clause, but Gen Pervez Musharraf re-inserted it through the 17th Amendment. The damage this clause did to the democratic process was enormous, because between them Gen Zia and presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari abused it four times to dismiss governments enjoying parliament’s confidence.

Constitutions must be flexible enough to be responsive to a nation’s changing political and social conditions. The 18th Amendment shows that our political representatives are quite capable of meeting the challenge. We hope that our legislators will perpetuate the spirit of compromise and accommodation they have shown in clinching this constitutional victory and move forward to consolidate democracy through ongoing constitutional reform.

[U][B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][CENTER]A new plan [/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/U]

[B]Thursday, 22 Apr, 2010 [/B]


AN energy conservation plan expected to be unveiled today may be hailed as the first serious government attempt to control, through conservation measures, the country’s electricity problems. There is never enough energy to waste and we must learn to use our resources efficiently. Hopefully, the present power crunch has taught us a lesson. It goes without saying that a government that wants its people to use electricity efficiently must invest in the power distribution system to curb line losses, and take steps to prevent theft. The two-day national conference on energy conservation that concluded on Tuesday left it to the subcommittees to finalise the details of the recommendations. However, the participants — mainly the federal and provincial governments — agreed on the basic contours of the energy conservation package. Apparently, the conference agreed on a five-day working week for six months, staggered industrial closure once a week, the closure of commercial activity at sunset, partial diversion of gas from industries to power-generation, and advancing the clock by an hour. These measures are projected to slash the electricity demand by 2,400MW, almost half of the official demand and supply gap of 5,000MW on any given day. In theory, therefore, these measures should ease the crisis, but only temporarily as the demand is likely to go up further with higher summer temperatures.

The conference has rightly recommended that the federal government pay Rs116bn in 15 days to power companies to revive all or part of their idle generation of 1,300MW. But it is unclear where this money will come from. Probably the government will borrow it from the banks as it did over the past year to pay off a circular debt of over Rs160bn. Another 2,225MW of electricity is to be generated through the fast-track completion of approved thermal projects over the next eight months.

The implementation of the proposed energy conservation plan should not be an issue because, unlike the past, this time the federal government took all the stakeholders — the provinces, private sector and others — on board before finalising the measures. In the past the stakeholders felt that the federal government’s decisions were being imposed on them. Moreover, the measures will be implemented uniformly and in a non-discriminatory manner for all regions and sectors of the economy. That would also take care of Punjab’s complaint that it is being subjected to a lopsided treatment. More than that, it will be a sign of a democracy at work — especially given the recent passage of the 18th amendment to the constitution and the finalisation of the National Finance Commission award last year.



[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]Breaking the bond [/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]




A COURT ruling in a case involving the Higher Education Commission and government academics should facilitate the resolution of the thorny issue of Pakistani scholars breaking their signed commitment to serve at home after completing their studies abroad. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has reprimanded the HEC for getting the FIA to place the names of such students on the Exit Control List. On the other, the court has facilitated the HEC’s efforts to recover the money it has spent on these scholars’ education by asking it to pursue such cases in civil courts. This comes as a relief to scholars who on their return often feel they are a misfit in the educational system at home. Many prefer to work abroad. At the same time, it is only fair that these scholars — or their guarantors — return the money the government has spent on their education.

Ironically, the Fellowship Scheme, under which the students proceeded abroad, is designed in a manner to dissuade the scholars from remaining abroad after completing their studies. The mechanisms include provisions that discourage foreign employers and universities from hiring these students. Since the HEC is concerned at the number of scholars who do not want to return, it should improve its scholarship selection process so that it funds the studies of only those who are likely to return and serve in Pakistan. Another important measure is to improve policies so that there is an incentive for students to return and join the academic mainstream at home. The latter would have to include addressing the concerns of returning scholars about their future in Pakistan. Many Pakistani researchers abroad would be willing to return and serve their homeland if they know that their talents will be fully exploited.




[CENTER][B][U][COLOR="darkgreen"][SIZE="5"]Soft on militancy? [/SIZE][/COLOR][/U][/B] [/CENTER]



MONDAY’S suicide bombing in Peshawar’s Qissa Khwani bazaar was an outrageous suicide attack that left some two dozen people dead and many more injured. The victims were mostly Jamaat-i-Islami supporters attending a rally. It is still not certain whether the target was the JI rally or a police contingent guarding it. Nevertheless, what is clear is the party’s flawed logic, for it failed to utter a single word of condemnation against the bomber, his handlers or even those orchestrating the violence. While the Jamaat leaders reiterated their stance that they considered the US a ‘terrorist state’, they also said that the bombing was the result of government failure, and called upon the provincial government to quit. That was all.

The JI and other rightwing parties, such as the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam and the Tehrik-i-Insaf, have every right to oppose the military’s anti-terror operations. In fact, they may be doing so in good faith. But what is bad form and poor politics is their failure to unequivocally condemn the continuing targeting of innocent women, men and children. We are not sure of the JI’s views but its public reaction to every act of carnage makes it sound more and more like an apologist for those perpetrating this senseless violence. Matters have come to this pass in the erstwhile NWFP and the adjoining tribal areas as a consequence of the cowardly Musharraf regime’s duplicitous stance on the militants. The blame must equally fall on the then provincial government of which JI was a part. It acquiesced in, if not encouraged, the activities of the marauding militants as the latter expanded their influence.

However, we still believe that despite a perceived ideological affinity with the militants, that perhaps forces the JI to keep quiet over terrorist activities of the sort witnessed in Peshawar, the party needs to consider one fact. Notwithstanding its many contradictions and lack of electoral support, the JI still seems to strive for its aims within the ambit of the law and the democratic process i.e. through the ballot box. Therefore, it should not allow itself to be viewed as allied with those who push their agenda by indiscriminately killing innocent Pakistanis.

[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][U][CENTER]Nuclear treaties [/CENTER][/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]


[B]Friday, 23 Apr, 2010 [/B]

THE US under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen Tauscher, has declined to insist that Pakistan, and India, sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And with good reason. In its present form, there is simply no way Pakistan can sign the treaty. The NPT stipulates a cut-off year, 1968, after which no country can become a nuclear-weapons state. Since Pakistan joined the nuclear club subsequently, unless the present structure of the NPT is amended, Pakistan becoming a signatory is a non-starter. In some ways, the debate is not even that relevant anymore.

For many years, experts suggested that an NPT+3 structure be negotiated to accommodate India, Israel and Pakistan — all of which developed their arsenals after the NPT cut-off date expired and none of which is a signatory. But Israel has never formally acknowledged its arsenal, rendering the idea of ‘special status’ moot. And since the quasi-recognition bestowed on the Indian nuclear programme by the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, India has entered a different league and is unlikely to be worried about ‘special status’ within the NPT. Which leaves Pakistan; but the state here has consistently maintained it will only enter the NPT framework if two conditions are met: one, that India also joins the NPT, and two, that the Pakistani nuclear programme is given genuine international recognition. Recognising the impossibility of convincing Pakistan or India or even Israel in the present circumstances, the US has backed off, as Ms Tauscher’s comments suggest.

Problems for Pakistan on the nuclear front still exist though. For one, President Obama has shown genuine interest in reviving the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty that was essentially relegated to oblivion by the US Senate’s rejection of it in October 1999. On the CTBT, Pakistan has taken a similar line to the NPT i.e. ‘we will sign if India signs’. There is some sympathy for Pakistan’s position on the CTBT and that is unlikely to vanish any time soon. The negotiations over a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty could prove more problematic though because Pakistan is playing the role of spoiler and is increasingly isolated. The nuclear establishment here maintains that the FMCT will lock in forever a disparity in the fissile material stocks the two countries possess.

But experts outside the nuclear establishment are not convinced the position is straightforward, nor that Pakistan is taking the best route advisable. Thus far the Obama administration has generally held back from putting pressure on Pakistan on nuclear issues. International isolation is not in Pakistan’s interest, and the nuclear establishment must keep this in mind going forward on the FMCT negotiations.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]Gandhara in Paris[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]



THE opening of a four-month-long Gandhara art exhibition in the French capital’s Guimet museum that houses art treasures from Asia is a welcome step towards promoting Pakistan’s rich cultural heritage abroad. Over the years the Guimet has acquired an impressive array of Gandhara artefacts as a permanent collection which it is exhibiting this summer. A total of 200 relics dating back to 100BCE to 600CE are on display for culture and history enthusiasts converging on Paris for the city’s summer exhibitions. The show is expected to attract a large number of visitors interested in the Greco-Roman art of Gandhara, which was the first school of art to authoritatively reflect on the life of the Buddha in a human, sculptural form. The Guimet was gracious enough to invite Prime Minister Gilani for the inauguration ceremony but the suspension of flights to Europe prevented his presence. The Pakistani government should realise that the world remains in awe of our historical treasures. It should project these at home and abroad with full ownership.

The priceless relics from the Indus Valley (2500BCE) civilisation have only gathered dust in our museums. Their neglect at Karachi’s National Museum, supposedly one of the best-stocked repositories of Indus Valley artefacts, is a case in point. Relics from the Gandhara period have fared somewhat better in museums elsewhere in the country. Because of a lack of tourism activities in the country — militancy in the northwest is just one factor responsible for this — there is an urgent need for the almost entirely state-run museums to encourage and facilitate at least school visits to their premises. This can be done at no extra cost and will help instil a sense of ownership and pride in the younger generation regarding our rich cultural past. Textbooks too must place due emphasis on this neglected heritage.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]JPMC blackout [/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]




FOR patients, their attendants and the staff at Karachi’s Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Wednesday’s unannounced power-cut was nothing short of torture. The 1,200-bed hospital — one of the city’s largest public-sector health facilities — was subjected to the two-and-a-half-hour nightmare by the KESC because it had not paid its dues amounting to some Rs22m. Panic ensued at the hospital and it is a miracle that nothing tragic occurred, thanks to the back-up generators that were immediately activated. Had the power-cut been of longer duration, the generators too might have stopped working. As it is, surgeries were under way when the power supply was cut off while the sultry weather outside made conditions inside the wards almost intolerable for patients and doctors alike. Power was restored only after the intervention of senior provincial and federal government officials.

No doubt, it is praiseworthy that officialdom has finally woken up to the need for urgent measures to conserve energy and to penalise those who do not pay their power bills — although the collection of dues so far has not been an even-handed exercise. However, cutting off the power supply to a hospital can only be described as a callous, unthinking act. It would not have occurred to anyone possessing even a modicum of compassion to turn off the power supply to a hospital as this could mean the difference between life and death. And yet the KESC appears to have had no qualms about doing so, disregarding the fact that the JPMC is the largest emergency-care facility in the metropolis. Those responsible for issuing the orders in the privatised entity should be called upon to explain their decision. One hopes that the funds that are awaited from the federal health ministry, which runs the hospital, are released soon. Meanwhile, a line must be drawn and flexibility shown when it comes to hospitals and other government institutions that deal extensively with the public. The KESC must pursue more humane methods of recovering its dues and refrain from jeopardising lives in the process. It must ensure that such folly is not repeated.

[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][U][CENTER]The economic cost [/CENTER][/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]


[B]Tuesday, 27 Apr, 2010 [/B]



The World Bank’s Global Monitoring Report 2010 has acknowledged the economic and financial costs Islamabad has incurred due to the security situation in the country. The report places Pakistan among the conflict-affected countries where political uncertainty and fighting continue to disrupt economic activity.
Two other countries in the region — Afghanistan and Nepal — have found a place in this category. Compared to other nations in South Asia, the report says, these three are expected to face more moderate growth outturns. The report also places Pakistan among those countries whose economic growth has been the weakest because they entered the global crisis with large internal and external imbalances. Countries that entered the crisis with stronger economic fundamentals, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan and India, faced up to the problems better.

Pakistan’s internal security problems have worsened in the aftermath of 9/11. It has experienced more violence, particularly acts of terrorism, in recent years than elsewhere in the region. A recent research paper published by the Lahore University of Management Sciences points out that the per capita incidents (of violence) in Pakistan have increased far more rapidly in the last five years than anywhere in the region, mainly because of the insurgency in the northwest of the country. Even Sri Lanka, once considered to be the most violence-prone nation in South Asia, has recently seen its internal security situation improve after the successful quelling of the Tamil separatist movement.

Islamabad has paid a huge economic price for its role in the war on terror. The direct costs of economic disruptions include rapid increases in internal and external security spending at the expense of education and health. Thousands have lost their lives or suffered permanent or temporary destruction of property. Indirect costs include a slowdown in economic growth and manufactured exports. The country’s image has suffered enormously. Foreign buyers are reluctant to travel here and investors have lost confidence in the country. A government estimate puts the direct and indirect costs incurred by the national economy from 2002-2008, because of the war on terror, at just below $5bn. Concessionary funding from multilateral lenders or grants from friendly countries are no solution to Pakistan’s problem. This kind of assistance only encourages consumption, adding to internal and external imbalances. What we need is investment in our energy sector and manufacturing. We need market access in developed countries for our exports. Our economic woes will not go away unless fresh investments are made in the power and manufacturing sectors for job generation and sustainable growth. But before all that we need to formulate sound policies to restore the investors’ confidence.



[B][CENTER][U][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]MQM in Punjab [/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/CENTER][/B]





There are various reasons why the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s holding of simultaneous rallies in Punjab’s major cities on Sunday is a healthy sign for Pakistani politics.
These rallies are being viewed as an attempt by the urban Sindh-based party to move beyond its comfort zone to make electoral inroads in other provinces, where at present it is largely a political non-entity. This marks a departure from the past and the party’s ‘ethnic’ roots, much more so than when the party changed its nomenclature from ‘Mohajir’ to ‘Muttahida’ in the late 1990s. It is a welcome step towards national cohesion.

What is also welcome is the Punjab government’s tolerance of other political forces. There were fears that the provincial government might try and obstruct the MQM’s efforts to hold rallies in Punjab, but the PML-N-led government showed prudence. There can be little argument with Shahbaz Sharif’s comments that the essence of democracy means that all political parties are free to go anywhere in the country.

However, if the MQM wants to raise its profile beyond urban Sindh it must squarely confront its violence-prone past and reflect on current accusations of the use of strong-arm tactics. While the party has sent members of the middle class to the assemblies, the stigma of the violence attached to it refuses to go away. A recent example is the spurt of killings in Karachi and Hyderabad targeting members of the breakaway Haqiqi faction. Fingers have been pointed towards elements associated with the MQM. The party must ensure it severs ties with those who take the law into their own hands. It should fight its battles solely at the ballot box. One hopes the trend of political parties moving beyond parochial interests and attempting to establish themselves catches on across the country as that is good for Pakistani democracy.


[B][U][CENTER][COLOR="darkgreen"][SIZE="5"]The Saarc summit [/SIZE][/COLOR][/CENTER][/U][/B]



It is unfortunate that the 16th Saarc summit that opens tomorrow in Thimphu has drawn public attention less for its role as a forum for regional cooperation, and more as a barometer of India-Pakistan ties.
The focus so far has been on whether or not the leaders of the two countries will meet on the sidelines. Unfortunately, animosities between the two South Asian neighbours have dogged Saarc ever since its inception 25 years ago. Although many do not admit to this major impediment to progress in regional cooperation, the fact is that India and Pakistan tend to dominate and influence multilateral developments in South Asia. This is unavoidable given their size. The Saarc founders were aware of this when they inserted a proviso in the association’s charter that contentious political issues of a bilateral nature would not be taken up by the regional body. That principle may have been observed strictly but it has not prevented the agenda of Saarc from being overshadowed by bad patches in India-Pakistan relations.

At times meetings have had to be postponed because New Delhi and Islamabad have been squabbling over issues of concern to them alone. Also, agreements reached on issues of regional concern, such as the convention and protocol on terrorism, have yet to take off because the two largest members have chosen not to implement them. This factor cannot be overlooked in any exercise to assess Saarc’s success or failure in meeting its goals.

It is important that India and Pakistan understand their part in making Saarc an ineffective body. Initially each had feared that the other would use the rest of the members as a tool to promote its own interests in South Asian affairs. Mercifully that did not happen. But by allowing their frustration with each other to be reflected in the working of Saarc they have done a great disservice to the regional body. It is time Islamabad and New Delhi kept their bilateral dealings out of Saarc’s way so that cooperation on trade and socio-cultural issues is allowed to grow. In fact, this could pave the way for better bilateral ties.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]Indian diplomat’s arrest [/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]



[B]Thursday, 29 Apr, 2010 [/B]


A second secretary in the press and information section of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad is detained in Delhi amid allegations of possible espionage on Pakistan’s behalf.

The arrest comes on the eve of the Saarc summit in Bhutan, on the sidelines of which the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers are to meet (the meeting is likely to happen today). Coincidence? Very unlikely. The timing of the Indian government’s announcement sends a clear signal: India is not ready to move towards improving ties with Pakistan any time soon. While the spying case has not completely overshadowed the Bhutan summit, it has competed for headline space and buried any talk of positive developments.

Pak-India relations have been held hostage by Indian intransigence since the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. India wants Pakistan to shut down the Kashmir- and India-centric militant groups before it is willing to talk to Pakistan again. But by reducing Pak-India relations to a single-point agenda, the Indian side is ensuring that South Asia remains one of the world’s danger spots. True, Pakistan has historically more often than not been the spoiler itself. But when it comes to the present, the Pakistani state has taken a reasonable line: Pak-India relations cannot be held hostage to acts of terrorism and there remain some fundamental issues, headlined by Kashmir and water sharing, that need to be resolved. Even on the terrorism issue, not talking serves no real purpose. India tried and failed to isolate Pakistan diplomatically in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, with diminishing returns on that policy setting in very quickly.

The highly publicised arrest of Madhuri Gupta suggests that India is in no mood to change its policy towards Pakistan. In the world of diplomacy, it is unthinkable that a spying case could be revealed by a government if it is interested in improving ties with another country. So going forward, Pakistan should continue to do what it has been doing lately and emphasise that it would like to restart the dialogue with India but without preconditions. It isn’t ideal, but it’s the best that can be done in the circumstances.




[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"][CENTER][U]Time to deliver [/U][/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]


Hard times call for stern action that may not be palatable to all. Take, for instance, the energy-management measures adopted by the government over the last few days.
The country’s traders, shopkeepers and other members of the business community are vociferously opposed to the decision stipulating that all marketplaces must close by 8pm. Their concerns are genuine: in short, even more business will be lost in a recessionary time when sales are dwindling anyway. And on Monday the government announced that gas supplies to CNG stations and industrial units will remain suspended for 24 hours once a week to increase power generation capacity across the country. Again, the plan has irked some CNG dealers’ associations though a conditional agreement on adhering to a closure on Tuesday has been reached in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. At the time of writing, deliberations were also under way in Sindh and Balochistan to identify a day for the weekly shutdown.

The bottom line is this: there simply isn’t enough electricity to meet everyone’s optimal demands and sacrifices are required across the board. It is possible that the industrial and commercial concerns that will bear the brunt of the energy-management scheme will eventually accept the reality, however grudgingly. But for that to happen the authorities too must live up to expectations. Topping the list in this regard is a significant reduction in loadshedding. Some power cuts are inevitable but they must follow a fixed schedule so that industrial, commercial and domestic consumers can plan their day accordingly.
Two, there must be no relaxation in energy-saving measures pertaining to government offices, street lights and billboards or neon signs. Mega parks that are lit up like cricket stadiums should also follow the same regimen. Three, the authorities can no longer take refuge behind the argument, however valid, that the current power crisis is the creation of the Musharraf regime. Those at the helm now have been in office for two years and have done little so far to increase generation capacity. Lastly, the energy-conservation drive must deliver palpable results quickly. If it doesn’t, it will be rejected by the people.



[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Game plan?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]







According to media reports, South Waziristan is heating up again — and it’s because the Pakistani state has still not figured out its game plan in North Waziristan Agency.

What exactly is going on in the agency is hard to discern from afar, not least because the area is largely an intelligence ‘black hole’. But at least two things are apparent. First, the Pakistan Army must overcome what is suspected to be a case of extreme uncertainty, perhaps even paralysis, in the face of the unfolding American plan in Afghanistan. Seasoned observers of national security believe that the wait-and-see approach of the army high command is allowing the situation in North Waziristan to fester longer than it should be allowed to.

The army’s logic appears to be as follows. The Americans have given themselves until the middle of next year to see if Gen McChrystal can dent the Taliban insurgency before adjusting their game plan accordingly. Pakistan isn’t very sure exactly how successful the counter-insurgency will be (indeed, no side is). In this atmosphere of uncertainty, the army is hesitant to act forcefully and emphatically in North Waziristan for fear of stirring up a hornet’s nest (the agency has become a hub of militancy that pushes out in all directions).

Yet, the wait-and-see approach is detrimental to Pakistan’s security interests. If it takes more troops on the border to seal the agency, then so be it. If it takes more arm-twisting of the Gul Bahadurs of the area, then so be it. If the Gul Bahadurs have lost influence and new, more virulent, strands of militancy are in the ascendancy, then they must be taken on now before they grow too strong. If there is one lesson from Malakand to South Waziristan, it is this: the Pakistan Army’s ‘red lines’ have been dangerously deep, allowing the enemy to enlarge from a local nuisance to a national security threat. Waiting is not helping at all. To an extent, the army has been reluctant to open multiple fronts and with good reason. But the waiting period, i.e. waiting for positive action against a dangerous militant foe, is growing uncomfortably long once again.

The second major point that the conundrum raises is the need to decapitate the leadership of the militant groups. The families and tribes refusing to return to South Waziristan are doing so for fear of being attacked, a fear that is exacerbated by the fact that many top commanders are still at large. The counter-insurgency will not be won simply by eliminating the top leaders, but it definitely won’t be won without doing so

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]SC judgment [/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]


Friday, 30 Apr, 2010


The specifics of the case are mired in a legal thicket. But a few observations on the saga of the bureaucrats promoted by Prime Minister Gilani but demoted by the Supreme Court are in order.
First, the massive number of promotions last September was unprecedented but not completely tainted by politics. While the question marks over certain beneficiaries were larger than over some others, as a cohort the selections were not gratuitously and thoroughly politicised. Second, the SC must always be mindful of respecting the discretion accorded to other institutions. In the present instance, though, the SC appears to have taken a reasonable line: it has not barred any specific candidates from promotion and has instead focused on the need for reasons to be given, both for passing over certain candidates and promoting others. Reason-giving promotes transparency and increases confidence that candidates are chosen on merit, so it must be encouraged.

Third, the government must look at the rules governing such promotions and appointments and devise a mechanism to make them less controversial. Traditionally, key posts in the bureaucracy have been saved for the favourites of the government of the day, encouraging bureaucrats to vie for the attention and support of their political bosses. This, for obvious reasons, is an unwelcome state of affairs. In addition to promotions, the transfer of bureaucrats to various departments is also considered to be a highly politicised affair and results in frequent and disruptive reshuffling of the bureaucracy. To be sure, it is the elected representatives who should ultimately be in charge of the bureaucracy. But being in charge isn’t the same as riding roughshod. The edifice of the executive crumbles when its innards are frequently rejigged to suit political preferences. Mr Gilani has time and again talked of the necessity of good governance. It is impossible to have good governance if one’s lieutenants are themselves selected on the basis of whims and political considerations.

Fourth, the bureaucrats must disabuse themselves of the notion that seniority is akin to merit. The principle of Buggins’s turn — promotion by seniority — should have no place in a meritocratic system. True, adhering to seniority is one way of limiting the discretion of governments who routinely have tried to stuff the bureaucracy with their favourites. But the insistence should be on a process that is transparent and based on reason rather than an automatic ‘right’ to promotion. As the SC’s intervention proves, bureaucrats are no longer existing in a milieu where access to justice is impossible. Finally, the perceived judiciary-executive ‘clash’ should not cloud every judgment. Judicial oversight is part and parcel of the democratic project.




[U][B][COLOR="darkgreen"][SIZE="5"][CENTER][U]Coal-based energy[/U][/CENTER][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/U]


Pakistan’s growing electricity troubles that result in soaring prices demand that low-cost, indigenous fuels like coal be utilised for power generation. Coal is being used worldwide as a major source of energy despite global warming concerns.
Currently, it constitutes 30 per cent of the total energy mix in America, China and India, the three major economic powers. But official lethargy and bias against coal-based generation has so far prevented exploitation of the vast reserves of Sindh and Punjab. Instead, the authorities have encouraged (the depleting) gas resource as an alternative to furnace oil for generation. Consequently, we have only one coal-based power plant in Lakhra. But attitudes are undergoing a change. The government realises that thermal power based on imported fuels is making electricity unaffordable and dragging down growth. It is also putting pressure on its budget.

Though electricity produced from coal-fired power plants is more expensive than that generated from hydel sources, it is cheaper than energy generated from gas and costs only a fraction of power produced from furnace oil. The prime minister’s recent announcement to produce 35,000MW of electricity from coal-based projects reflects this change in official policy. The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority has also advised the Private Power and Infrastructure Board to encourage projects to be run on imported coal until the Thar deposits are exploited and used for generation because furnace oil is becoming unaffordable.

The inferior quality of local coal is believed to have delayed the utilisation of this resource. Investors have shied away from putting their money in coal mining because the mineral has no domestic usage and has no buyers in foreign countries. The establishment of power plants will make coal mining in the country profitable for investors. A private investor is trying to set up a 1,200MW coal power plant in Sindh that will use Thar coal as fuel for generation. Its successful setting up will pave the way for more coal-based generation. Nevertheless it is the official resolve to shift power generation to coal that will actually determine the future of coal-based power generation in the country.




[COLOR="darkgreen"][B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][U]Unsuccessful polio strategy [/U][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][/COLOR]



The recently concluded nationwide polio immunisation campaign is a reminder that although we have had more than 60 such mass outreach campaigns to administer the oral polio vaccine to children below five, we remain a polio-endemic country.
As such, the Expanded Programme on Immunisation, which aims to vaccinate children against polio and other preventable childhood diseases, has not been very successful. So far this year, 13 cases of polio have been reported; the total number of cases last year was 89. Contrast this with China’s performance. China experienced polio outbreaks in 1989-1990. Cases soared to 5,000. Like Pakistan, China had launched its first National Immunisation Day in 1994. However, it was able to control the virus within two years.

The closest Pakistan has ever come to eliminating the poliovirus was in 2005 when 28 cases — the lowest annual figure for the country — was recorded. But the resurgence of polio cases has prevented Pakistan from achieving its target of zero poliovirus prevalence in 2010. Last year, the World Health Organisation identified some of the hurdles in the way of eradicating polio in Pakistan. A major cause is the inadequate outreach of routine immunisation that is further hampered by poor security in the north and northwest of the country, and poor commitment to implementing the EPI programme at the sub-district level in certain areas.

The latest polio NID was held in conjunction with a National Vaccination Week to create greater awareness about the role of the immunisation programme in achieving the Millennium Development Goals — one of which calls for reducing the mortality rate among children. But to achieve the goal, we will need to go beyond occasional national immunisation campaigns and improve our primary healthcare system.

[B][SIZE="5"][COLOR="DarkGreen"][CENTER][U]Soft breakthrough? [/U][/CENTER][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]
[B]Saturday, 01 May, 2010 [/B]


The meeting between the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in Bhutan has yielded what appears to be the softest of breakthroughs.

South Asia’s two largest countries are to return to the negotiating table at some point without any ‘preconditions’. No specifics or details were given; there wasn’t even a joint press conference. But so dismal has been the state of relations between the two countries since the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 that even the vaguest of commitments should be applauded. So while the smiles of Pakistani and Indian officials were not the widest in Bhutan, at least the grimaces and prickly Indian references to a ‘terrorism-first’ approach were not in evidence. More promisingly, the foreign ministers of the two countries are to meet to, as the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao put it, “work out the modalities for restoring trust”.

Going forward from here, some things ought to be flagged. First, talks about talks or desultory talks themselves will not be good enough. The reaction to the news from Bhutan on both sides of the India-Pakistan border has been positive, but a process that achieves little or nothing is likely to quickly lead to disillusionment and a sense of yet another lost opportunity. Prior to the Mumbai attacks the composite dialogue had been limping along, leading to small breakthroughs and agreements here and there but not achieving much in terms of substance. Arguably, the lack of meaningful results contributed to the widespread support in India for a complete stoppage of the dialogue. The mistake must not be repeated; talks must be focused and result-oriented.

Second, it is worth noting the recent comments of former Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, who has suggested that Pakistan and India had been very close to inking a deal on Kashmir. While it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy of Mr Kasuri’s comments, the very fact that a deal’s contours could be discussed with a military dictator in Pakistan suggests a peace deal is not fundamentally unachievable, as some claim. Even the hawkish BJP in India talked peace with Pakistan when in power. So with liberal, secular and genuinely elected governments in place in both India and Pakistan at the moment, surely peace is not a chimera.

Finally, the shadow of Afghanistan looms large. The Americans are believed to have leaned heavily on India to talk to Pakistan once again, and no doubt that pressure had something to do with the announcement in Bhutan. It may be a stretch too far at the moment, but perhaps sustained American pressure could push Pakistan and India closer to an accord.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"]Cheating in exams [/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]


It is unfortunate that cheating in exams is shrugged off as an inconsequential matter, in fact one that is no longer deserving of condemnation. It has become an accepted part of our academic culture as was witnessed by journalists during the Intermediate examinations in Sukkur, which commenced on Tuesday.

Within minutes of their distribution, the question papers had made their way out of the supposedly secure examination centres and into the hands of friends and relatives of the candidates. The papers were solved and photocopied, and then ‘smuggled’ back into the examination halls. Photocopying outlets were selling solved papers at affordable rates, despite the regulation requiring such shops to close down during exam hours. Far from enforcing the law and preventing candidates from gaining undue advantage, low-level employees of the examination centres and policemen posted there were seen participating in this despicable charade. Even some members of the invigilation staff that is supposed to ensure there is no foul play, were seen to be helping students gain access to solved papers.

A source at the Sukkur Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, which is conducting the examinations, told this newspaper that 206 candidates were caught copying and cheating, while 15 persons were found to be impersonating the actual candidates.

While we hope that these cases will be investigated in an impartial manner, the fact remains that wide-scale cheating represents the utter erosion of respect for rules, fair play and honesty in the country. The message disseminated is that it is acceptable to get ahead by any means possible, and that it is reasonable to lie and cheat as long as one doesn’t get caught. It is this mindset that must be changed if the project to weed out corruption from all levels of Pakistani society is to be successful.



[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"][COLOR="darkgreen"][U]A critical look at Saarc. [/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]



Saarc’s 16th summit in Thimphu proved to be an occasion for some soul-searching. The tone for this exercise was set by the host country when Prime Minister Jigme Thinley called on the bloc to take a “long, critical look” at itself. And it did precisely that.
In fact so heartened were the smaller members that they spoke up against their two quarrelling bigger neighbours, India and Pakistan, whose rivalry has prevented Saarc from forging a South Asian community to raise living standards as its charter stipulates. The smaller members focused on issues such as climate change, trade and poverty. A $300m fund has been set up for poverty reduction. This is to be used for projects that empower women, promote healthcare and build infrastructure. Considering the growing poverty in the region the fund appears small. But it can still be put to good use if there is a feasible strategy to reduce poverty. Critics will be sceptical because Saarc has tried this before. The seventh summit at Dhaka in 1993 had adopted a strategy to eliminate poverty by the year 2000. Social mobilisation was considered central to the approach to be adopted. But nothing came of it, and South Asia remains mired in under-development and poverty, with small islands of affluence in each country.

The Thimphu summit holds out hope. At least the smaller member states who resent being held hostage to India-Pakistan disputes appear keen to work out a common approach. In the setting up of the fund, they should not attempt to give money as charity to the poor. The aim should be to facilitate the attempts of the impoverished to take up income-generating activities and to empower them by strengthening their skills. Some members, such as Bangladesh, have demonstrated that they have the political will and the social capital to work for the improvement of the quality of life of their people which the bigger members lack. Given the common experience of its members, Saarc can now proceed to draw up an action plan even if it means not taking the mutual recriminations of India and Pakistan into account.