[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Another attack on PN vehicle[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]April 29th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Just a couple of days after two Pakistan Navy buses were targeted by roadside bombs in Karachi, killing four personnel and injuring many more, we have yet another attack on the force. This time a bus was hit in the Karsaz area of the city, which is one of the metropolis’ more affluent neighbourhoods, and is close to several military installations, killing five people. Initial reports said that a bomb was laid in a gutter by the side of the Karsaz bridge and it exploded as the vehicle drove by, suggesting a high level of reconnaissance on the part of the planners. Yet another bomb was reported to have been defused following the two initial attacks.

The tactics of the militants are clear. They have obviously picked on the Pakistan Navy as a relatively easy target in a city which till now had not seen too many attacks on military installations or personnel. Till this bout of bombings in Karachi, the bulk of such attacks were focused in Punjab, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and, of course, Fata. The fact that a third such attack was successful in the country’s business and commercial capital makes one wonder what our intelligence agencies are doing. Were they not able to get any leads from the first two bombings? And why weren’t any changes made to the routes of Pakistan Navy buses and the security employed during their travel in the city?

Without such intelligence coming in there is no way to prevent attacks of the kind we have seen. Given that similar attacks have taken place in the past, it should not be hard to pinpoint which groups are most likely to be responsible. We must also assume that, over the years, intelligence agencies have been able to infiltrate at least some of these groups and, through their men on the ‘inside’, gain advance information about their activities. The successive naval attacks indicate this does not seem to have happened, and this amounts to an unacceptable intelligence failure that leaves us at the mercy of the militants. The message is clear: The militants are not down and out and can strike targets of their choosing, with impunity.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]State of relations with Afghanistan[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]April 29th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Cross-border mortar fire on the South Waziristan border with Afghanistan has caused casualties on both Pakistani and Afghan sides, each claiming the other had fired first ‘without provocation’. The Frontier Corps (FC) and the Afghan National Army (ANA) clashing is not a good sign but when forces face each other during a bad political phase, incidents like this are inevitable. No one will know who is to blame, but many will remember that earlier in the month, the ANA had attacked Lower Dir, killing and wounding several on the Pakistani side. You can spin it any way you want: The latest attack on Angoor Adda on April 27 could be the second instalment of the ANA tactic of escalation; or, judging by the Afghan troops killed, the attack by the FC could be a kind of retaliation for what the ANA had done earlier.

Things are not going well in the war against terrorism. The Isaf-Nato operations seem to have hurt the Taliban north and south of Afghanistan amid allied claims that the enemy is on the run and that only 500 Taliban operatives remain in the field. This was followed by a jailbreak in Kandahar with as many of them fleeing the prison. It was much like Islamabad claiming that the ‘back of terrorism in Pakistan was broken’ and then seeing a string of attacks in Karachi with the typical Taliban imprint. Yet the irony is that both parties committed to fighting terrorism are carrying out a war of words with each other with ominous consequences. Each claims that the outcome of this war of words will go badly for the other.

What should one make of Islamabad’s recent approach to Kabul? On April 15, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and the army command visited Kabul and agreed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to establish a two-tiered Afghan-Pakistan joint commission to work with the Afghan High Peace Council, led by former president of Afghanistan, Burhanuddin Rabbani, a Tajik who makes the Pashtun Taliban see red. Both sides had agreed that their senior civil and military leaders would work jointly for peace in Afghanistan through this council. The latest incident on the border probably indicates that more effort needs to be made to improve the Pakistan-Afghanistan equation and that entrenched positions must be made more flexible before good results can be achieved.

However, if the visit by our prime minister was meant to head off the Americans and strengthen President Karzai’s hands enough to allow him to follow ‘independent’ policy, it has not yielded good result — at least for now. The two big players are America and Pakistan, the former by reason of foreign troop presence and the latter by reason of its much-exaggerated hold on the Afghan Taliban. But the Americans have the additional advantage of exploiting the ethnic divide in Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun, hurt by the Pakistan-backed Pashtun-dominated Taliban government in the past, see their security in backing the Americans rather than obeying President Karzai. It is said that the ANA border force that attacked Angoor Adda is dominated by non-Pashtuns.

The Americans are vulnerable because politics at home is not going right after over a decade of expensive military stalemate in Afghanistan. Pakistan is vulnerable because of the complex map of violence emanating from two types of Taliban in league with our old formerly state-backed jihadi militias. We distinguish between the Afghan Taliban and the home-grown ones who support them but kill Pakistani civilians; but this distinction remains highly dubious because of ethnic overlap deeply embedded in a nationalism that subliminally seeks the undoing of Pakistan. There is also the flawed logic of seeing the Taliban as a temporary phenomenon caused by American presence, which will disappear the moment Pakistan ends it ‘slavery of the Americans’. The entire effort — being achieved with the force of extremist reaction — challenges Pakistani strategists to think less in Manichean either/or choices and more in complex regional terms. The biggest drawback a strategist may face during any phase of planning is the level of international isolation of the state he is defending. This should weigh against any sentiment of national ‘honour’.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Trade ties[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]April 30th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The progress may be slow, but at least it is there. Like the fable involving a race between a rabbit and a hare, the contest may eventually be won by moving on slowly but steadily. After two days of fairly intense trade talks between the commerce secretaries of India and Pakistan, it has been agreed that Pakistan will eventually grant most-favoured nation trading status to India. Perhaps, more importantly, there has been agreement that work will begin towards removing the hurdles that impede trade and have acted as roadblocks, preventing items to move across the border. The ‘positive list’ maintained by Pakistan, as part of a peculiar arrangement that permits only 1,946 items to be imported from India, is to be abolished by Islamabad by October. It is to be replaced with a ‘negative list’ that bars fewer items from being exported by India to Pakistan. A similar list maintained by India will also be done away with, and working groups are to be set up to look into other issues.

This is good news. Only minor niggles remain, such as India’s refusal to discuss the lifting of restrictions on trade with Pakistan by the EU and Islamabad’s similar reluctance to discuss trade by India with Afghanistan through Pakistani territory. These will take time to be sorted out. But any progress is good and a great deal has come out of the talks. The value of discussion cannot be undermined. The real dangers come when it stops all together. Stepped up trade between India and Pakistan is the only logical way to move forward. The geographical proximity of the two countries makes it practical and the potential benefits are immense — it is grossly unfair to deprive people of these. The realisation that we need to move forward in this area has been delayed for far too long. But the steps being taken now to improve matters are positive. We must hope they culminate, as the two trade secretaries have envisaged, in increased trade and an unwinding of the red tapism that Pakistan has said stands in the way of progress. There is really not much choice but to move forward, given the desperate need to bolster trade and help both countries boost their economies.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]An unusual alliance[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]April 30th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Pakistani political parties have always been willing to enter cynical coalitions for the sake of power. But even then, the alliance between the PPP and PML-Q is quite extraordinary. That these two parties are relying on each other for power and relevance represents an about-turn from previous policies, but one that was necessary.

The PPP has been bleeding allies since it came into power. Its grand coalition with the PML-N dissipated after a few months. As its popularity sunk, the PPP lost the JUI-F, while the MQM has adopted a revolving-door policy to the coalition, entering and leaving seemingly at will. The upcoming budget will include some tough economic measures and there is no guarantee that the PPP has the votes to get it passed. Just for that reason alone, this alliance makes sense. It is likely, too, that the PPP-PML-Q partnership will continue beyond the next election. This marriage of convenience is the only way for the PPP to unseat the PML-N from the Punjab government. The PML-Q, meanwhile, has been so marginalised that it was losing its members to the PML-N. Allying itself with the PPP represents the PML-Q’s only hope for staying relevant.

Related political developments could conspire to further weaken the PML-N’s electoral fortunes. And conspire is the right word to describe a likely coming together of the PTI, MQM and assorted religious parties. Reports have been swirling that intelligence agencies, repeating their Islami Jamhoori Ittehad experiment, are looking to cobble together disparate political parties as a safeguard. Due to the PML-N’s anti-establishment rhetoric of late, the party may well have to deal with some damaging consequences in the next election. The sudden healing of the PTI and MQM’s fractured relationship, coupled with the PTI’s anti-drone rally in Peshawar that coincided with the establishment making noise about the issue, are the first signs that suggest that there is more to the situation than meets the eye. These developments could well split the PML-N’s vote and this will only be to the PPP’s and the PML-Q’s benefit.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Powerless people[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]April 30th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The beginning of summer has arrived with a special wrath. Power outages, notably in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, exceed anything seen before. People have come out on the streets in anguish. There has been little official word on the scale of the problem and what is being done about it, but the general perception seems to be that things will worsen as temperatures rise and demand for electricity increases. A shortfall of over 4,800 megawatts is already being reported. This translates into seven or eight hours of loadshedding in Lahore and up to 20 hours in smaller towns. Peshawar, too, has been badly hit. The erratic nature of the power cuts make matters worse.

Unsurprisingly, as workshop and factory owners as well as others who can only watch as their businesses collapse, contemplate financial ruin in times that are already hard, people have come out onto the main GT Road and the streets of Lahore to register their protests. Smoke rises from burnt tyres. But does anyone see it? Is anything being done to deal with the ruin people face? Textile workers, fearing layoffs, have already ransacked the offices of power companies. But the minions who face their wrath are themselves unable to do anything to tackle the situation. Only policies made at a far higher level can achieve this.

But we see no evidence that such policies are being devised. While there have been offers from various countries in the neighbourhood to sell power at reasonably cheap rates to Pakistan, these have not been taken up. There seems to be a lack of clarity about what other schemes are being devised. Certainly, things over the past few years have continued to worsen stage by stage. The result is crippled factories and a consequent downturn as far as the economy goes. This is not something we can afford — but the question is, who will come to the aid of powerless people who feel only a sense of helplessness as the lack of power hits lives everywhere?

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]A requiem for workers’ rights[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 1st, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

What happened in 1886 in Chicago — a workers’ rally got fired upon, and many workers were killed — has become an annual occasion for remembering that workers have rights too. Starting from the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century to 2011, workers around the world don’t have uniform laws under which they work. Socialism was born to protect them, revolutions were staged to set up states where workers would rule instead of being slaves of rulers, and welfare states were created under capitalism in recognition of their rights.

The socialist or workers’ state died because of lack of economic realism and the success of capitalism. Colonising states were able to add value to their coercive exports, thus earning enough to spend on workers, after being forced to allow labour unions in conditions of scarcity of labour. In the post-colonial period, newly independent states have to cope with workers’ problems without the advantage of the coercive colonial diktat. Like Pakistan, third world states have more manpower than can be employed, and it is not skilled enough to be put to jobs available in the market. Unlike advanced states, in a country like ours, state and private sectors live side by side, one observing the labour laws the state has made, the other ducking them to increase profitability.

At the bottom of it all is the rule of supply and demand; in other words, the tyranny of the capitalist economy. If the birth rate is high, the economy will lag behind in education and will be unable to impart skills needed for the industry. Unskilled workers are cheap and unprotected because of excess supply. Labour unions emerge to protect them from the market forces. There are laws in the statute books to prevent them from being exploited. But nothing works in conditions of labour glut. The capitalist entrepreneur ducks the laws by keeping his employment on the low side, below the number required before labour laws start biting. The result is a plethora of ‘unregistered’ small enterprises; and there are economists who say the Third World survives because of this unrecorded industrial growth.

The post-socialist global order has made the use of cheap labour — unprotected workers living on starvation wages — the basis for the law of comparative economic advantage. Poor countries start up sweat shops where the masses are exploited to manufacture exportable goods. Because these goods are cheap, they break into the advanced markets of the First World to save capitalism from the curse of inflation. But who gets crushed in the process? The Third World worker who labours in subhuman conditions (barring some sections of the industry abiding by pro-worker rules set down by the First World as preconditions for trade). The comparative advantage doctrine has led to ‘outsourcing’ from the First World and the rise of economies, such as that of China, as world powers.

Pakistan has comparatively few skilled workers because of its small industrial base, but what about the farm labourers enslaved by the large agrarian sector in conditions that can only be describes as hair-raising? In the cities, small-scale enterprises take advantage of an over-supply of manpower to exploit the poor, unmindful of the effect of such exploitation in the shape of poor quality products. Labour unions are easily penetrated by capitalists who don’t pay the taxes they should be paying. As for the labour leaders, they eventually start behaving like a mafia unto themselves, forgetting their commitment to the workers.

Can a country cut down on population growth while improving its quality through good ‘functional’ — as opposed to ‘ideological’ — education? We need to increase the number of the educated in the country, especially women. In Pakistan, al Qaeda targets girls schools, against which Pakistan must stand as one. It is only when the quality of our manpower improves that market forces favouring workers come into play. With the current state of education in Pakistan, the workers will pass each May Day without seeing any improvement in the standard of their working conditions.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The royal wedding[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 1st, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Outside of the House of Windsor, it is hard to know exactly why anyone should care about the marriage of Prince William to his long-term girlfriend Kate Middleton. But care they did. A global audience of hundreds of millions tuned in to watch the son of the heir to the British throne take the first step to one day becoming king himself. In Pakistan, the event constituted a major news story, with all local television channels showing live wall-to-wall coverage. Several channels had shows devoted entirely to the event, and it seemed as if the marriage struck a chord with many Pakistanis, long accustomed to a dose of suicide bombings, target killings and long power outages. The British monarchy is an anachronism in this age of democracy and yet, despite the death of Princess Diana and numerous scandals, it retains its charm and relevance for many around the world.

For those who are not British, the charm in the royal wedding lay in its opulence and, perhaps, order. Kate Middleton’s wedding dress, with its veil, long trail and understated elegance proved a universal hit. The controversy over the guest list — the Syrian ambassador uninvited while the Bahraini representative was present — and with Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown inexplicably left out, while Tories John Major and Margaret Thatcher were issued invitations, was soon forgotten as celebrities and royals poured into the abbey. For the British, it was a day to forget about the recession and the brutal spending cuts that have accompanied it. Yes, it may seem ironic that the British government is cutting public services while continuing to subsidise a purely symbolic royal family. But symbols and traditions matter.

When the British are facing a national crisis, as they did during the Second World War, they turn to the royal family for some good old-fashioned English stoicism. That gauntlet must now be taken up by Prince William, who has taken a new step forward in his career as a symbol of the United Kingdom. We wish him and his radiant new bride all the best as they try to navigate the minefield of British royalty.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Silence is not golden[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 2nd, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The ecstatic welcome given to the four men of the Mastoi clan, acquitted after nine years in jail on charges of raping Mukhtaran Mai, is disturbing. Sweets were distributed as four of the five released men returned to their Moza Ram village. Despite her incredibly brave fight following the gang rape she suffered in 2002 on orders of a panchayat, Mai has failed to change mindsets. There is immense danger inherent in this. It means there is a possibility that in the future we will see more violent crimes against helpless victims carried out on the orders of tribal gatherings. Such gatherings have been becoming frequent in our society — partly as a result of the flaws of a system that has failed to offer people access to justice.

There is another dimension to the garlanding and cheering that met the freed men. Mai, the NGOs that stood by her and the ‘West’ have all been vilified, with the acquitted men and even older village women accusing the victim of ‘evil’ acts and of going against culture. The insinuation is that Mai should have kept quiet — and perhaps we are to believe gang rape is a cultural norm that we should accept. As part of the same process, it is being said that Mai, now described as an ‘influential’ figure, may implicate her rapists in a new case.

It seems no one spoke up for Mukhtaran Mai. Perhaps younger women wished to, but were too scared. Maybe the influence of the Mastois sealed lips. But we need to assess how such mindsets can be changed. Education, the media and mosque imams must be used as tools. The case has exposed much of our society. Efforts have to be made from many quarters to alter how people think. It is sad that even Mai’s astonishing story has failed to do anything to achieve this change. But many people stand by her. The challenge we face is to find a way to give them a voice.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]
Back in step?[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 2nd, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The place of dance in our society has changed since the days when it was treated as some kind of evil by General Ziaul Haq. Gradually, dance is regaining its acceptability. Of course, certain impediments remain, such as periodic official bans on it — Lahore being a recent case in point. However, that may be because the form that appears in stage plays, though popular with audiences, is deemed to be out of sync with local traditions. That said, other forms have become more acceptable. Classes in all kinds of dance, ranging from classic to salsa, are available in some cities, schools offer lessons to pupils, women folk dancers have returned to the stage and the stigma imposed by one man’s brand of ‘Islam’ has begun to slowly, but distinctly, fade away.

Dance has been a part of our culture for centuries. However, there are still issues that stand in the way of progress. The state patronage available to classical dance in India is not available in Pakistan; this impedes the growth of the art form and is a major hindrance in its steady evolution and progression. The same problem applies to other classical art forms. Now that dance, and also music, is growing in popularity, the state needs to promote it. Dance is not just a form of entertainment, it is an important form of human expression.

We must be thankful that the attempt to banish it from our part of the globe has failed. But extremist groups still oppose it and bomb blasts have often targeted venues where dance and other performing art events were being staged. The fact that dance was pushed underground has also meant that there has been a loss of technical expertise. Many teachers and exponents felt they had no choice but to go abroad. A bigger effort is needed to restore the status of dance and move it into the centre of our cultural space.

Osama bin Laden and after
 

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Osama bin Laden and after[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 3rd, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Osama bin Laden’s death will be good for Pakistan in the long run, even as the threat of retaliatory acts of violence by jihadi outfits is a very real one. Moreover, those who think that the war against terrorism is over, are mistaken because the ideology spouted by bin Laden and his ilk, coupled with perceived injustices caused by American foreign policy, will leave the impetus for attacks against the US, its interests and its allies more or less unchanged. There may well be some adverse impact on Pakistan’s relations with America as well, depending on what exactly happened in the run-up to the operation in Abbottabad that eventually killed arguably the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The words used by the US president would suggest that it was an operation carried out exclusively by the Americans and the Foreign Office’s statement, issued several hours after the news broke, also confirmed this. American news reports have said that the Pakistanis were not told of the identity of the ‘high value’ target till just before the operation began. If all of this is true — and it really seems fantastical on the face of it that something like this could have happened without Pakistan’s tactic or overt approval/assistance — then the obvious question arises that what was Osama bin Laden doing in Abbottabad, a garrison town, in a house that was a stone’s throw from the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA). How was bin Laden’s presence not detected by Pakistani intelligence agencies given that Abbottabad is not some remote, relatively inaccessible location in, say, Fata, but is less than two-hour drive from Islamabad, and is a tourist spot in itself. The character of Abbottabad city is stamped with military symbols, its economy dependent on an unusually large military presence. Abbottabad is also close to Mansehra where, right after the Mumbai attacks, a training camp run ostensibly by the Lashkar-e-Taiba was shut down by the Pakistani authorities.

The US president said that he had known about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad since August 2010 but decided on the operation only “last week”. The question to ask here is, that was this operation kept under wraps from Pakistan as well, and if so, was this because of the recent tempestuous relations between the ISI and the CIA? Mr Obama did say that there was intelligence cooperation from the Pakistanis, though the statement by Pakistan’s Foreign Office said that the operation was an American one, in line with America’s stated policy of using all the resources at its disposal to get bin Laden.

According to reports, the Americans have captured two wives of Osama along with some children. Once they land in the US, we may well expect some more revelations. The Arab wives may not know much about the geographic landmarks of Pakistan but their ‘debriefing’ could well reveal a lot about the range of movements they made with Osama and without him, about who gave them shelter and who took them around, and who was responsible for their day-to-day housekeeping. How did they get to reside in a large house barely a 15 minute walk from the PMA? Who or what provided bin Laden with the feeling of security he needed before settling in Abbottabad?

Many questions will be asked, if not in Pakistan then outside Pakistan. Was bin Laden given a sanctuary by the Pakistanis, in a place least suspected of being a hotbed of terrorism, in return for concessions on the Taliban front? Or whether the intelligence that led to his death, in fact, came from Pakistan, and if so, why isn’t Pakistan owning up to this and claiming credit for snaring a universally wanted man? In all of this, one thing is clear: Pakistan should have hunted the man down on its own, because America is not the only country that has suffered at the hands of al Qaeda and its allied jihadi outfits. Pakistan and its people have suffered thousands dead and many more maimed. Clearly, it was very much in our own interest to cut down al Qaeda and dismantle it, but it seems some people had other ideas. Every time an American official said Osama could be in Pakistan — the last one who said this was US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Pakistan’s answer was, give us ‘actionable intelligence’ and we will take action against him. Was ‘actionable intelligence’ shared by the CIA with the ISI, considering that President Obama has mentioned “cooperation” from Pakistan in his speech? If that is the case, then a new chapter of fence-mending may have started between the two agencies.

The war against terrorism is not over, but certainly a very important chapter has come to an end. Osama bin Laden was the central icon of a movement that has engulfed the entire Islamic world. He was a magnet to the Arab warriors but it is likely that al Qaeda itself will not die with him and will be run by Ayman alZawahiri.

Pakistan’s jihadi organisations have owed allegiance personally to Osama, with the Taliban calling him “Sheikh Osama” in their pamphlets. A Pakistani, a former army commando, by the name of Ilyas Kashmiri will likely be alZawahiri’s second-in-command. Chances also are that Osama’s death will trigger revenge attacks from al Qaeda and its local affiliates, that is, if Osama’s rather tame death in Abbottabad does not imply the beginning of the end of terrorism in Pakistan.

Pakistan may well also face the brunt of global backlash and criticism if it still denies the presence of al Qaeda operatives on its soil. That said, Pakistan’s home-grown extremism and anti-Americanism will create problems for the establishment as well as the elected government in case any strategic adjustments are made in the wake of bin Laden’s death and the blatant rebuttal of the Pakistani claim that he was not in Pakistan. The ‘al Qaeda connection’ that began during the war against the Soviets and continued later in the nexus with Pakistan’s jihadi militias, has done Pakistan no good. The state has virtually lost its internal sovereignty even as the Pakistan military strives to protect its external sovereignty. It is morally unjust for the state to deny that the war against terrorism is Pakistan’s war. Coupled with economic collapse, this policy of isolationism can irreparably damage Pakistan unless some corrective measures are now taken.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Violence in Karachi[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 4th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The country’s business and commercial capital has once again descended into chaos and was shut down for the second time in as many days, on the afternoon of May 2. Another leader of a powerful political party in the city, the MQM, had tragically been gunned down in a targeted killing. In the latest incident, the police chief has stated that the event seemed geared towards triggering ethnic violence.

The refrain is so familiar now that people are no longer surprised. A political party leader is killed, and all chaos erupts; shops and businesses are shut down, billions are lost and massive traffic jams ensue, with a smattering of cars put on fire as people rush home. In the commotion, another four or five people are usually killed; in this case the driver and cleaner of a truck carrying construction material among others, were gunned down.

What comes after is also no surprise. The major political players in the city ‘strongly condemn the incident’ and play blame games, and the government of the day is invariably criticised for failing to ensure law and order or provide security to the citizens. No group or individual is eventually held responsible, with each claiming the other is attempting to malign its name. At some point, all these players will join hands and pledge peace, which will hold till the next targeted killing.

It is the ordinary Pakistani who is most affected by the vagaries of the players in this drama. At any odd day, he or she will not get access to fuel, (petrol pumps being the first to shut down, lest they become targets of arson), or even be able to get access to basic food items, unless they find the one or two shops that continue to operate behind lowered shutters. And the economy in this process, of course, suffers greatly.

It is time those hoping to come to power on the basis of votes show that they are worthy of delivering good governance, by making real and meaningful attempts at providing people with their basic need of security. It is sad, indeed, when those who claim to want to protect us, cannot refrain from violence themselves.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]PPP and PML-Q: A divisive alliance[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 4th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The forming of coalitions, the reaching of power-sharing agreements and negotiations between political groups are generally supposed to bring political parties closer together. Just the opposite may have happened in the case of the PPP-PML-Q alliance, with 10 ‘Q’ ministers taking oath. Whereas the arrangement serves what may be the primary purpose of delivering a blow to the PML-N in its fortress in Punjab, the PPP and the PML-Q, too, seem to be facing some ricochet.

Within the PML-Q there is annoyance over the deal agreed on by the Chaudhrys, with a number of new ministers dissatisfied with their portfolios. The fact that three immediate relatives of the Chaudhry clan were given cabinet posts has only added to the angst, while others within the party believe it should never have linked up with the PPP in the first place. The situation is not a happy one and Shujaat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi are said to have reached the deal almost on their own, with much internal resistance. There is also conjecture that more factions may form within a party that is already splintered. Within the PPP, too, all is not well. Questions of ideological integrity have been raised, Raza Rabbani has quit his post as minister and disquiet is said to run down the ranks, overtaking workers who see the Chaudhrys as arch-enemies of the Bhuttos and of their beliefs.

These issues have for now taken centre-stage. But there are other elements to the agreement which could assume great significance in the years ahead. There has been a consensus on carving out two new provinces — one in the Seraiki belt and one in Hazara. The implications of this are many; questions arise over opting for provinces on the basis of ethnicity alone. This will become a key election issue — provided the alliance holds and is able to work together despite significant issues that have arisen even before the new ministers walk into their offices or assume the other trappings of power.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]
After bin Laden: The sound of uncertainty[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 4th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

A rather unusual silence stalks Pakistan following the death of Osama bin Laden. There is a reluctance on the part of politicians to comment, and those who do so are careful in their choice of words. The fear of retaliatory action by extremist militants lurks in many minds. The comments that have come forward have been contradictory and out of sync. Some hours after the event, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani described it as a “great victory”. It is unclear who the victors are — given that the operation was primarily a US one. What is more, even their triumphant celebrations ignore reality: Osama had become less and less relevant to al Qaeda and was, according to some accounts at least, a desperately sick man.

In direct contrast to the prime minister, we have our envoy to the US, Husain Haqqani, stating that the intelligence failure in the Osama case will be probed. This failure has been the subject of much comment; the fact that Osama had lived less than a kilometre away from the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul, raises all kinds of questions. An inquiry is needed. The president has taken a relatively more sensible line than the prime minister when he talks of past intelligence-sharing with the US, while steering clear of the immediate details of the Abbottabad operation.

But there are matters Pakistan will need to address. One is what it will do to go after the extremists who still patrol the tribal areas. The splintering of groups, some of whom have only loose affiliations with al Qaeda, adds to the complications. The Abbottabad operation has left Pakistan looking somewhat foolish. It now needs to find ways to make amends, both by assessing why Osama’s presence in a huge mansion was not detected and by going after the militants, taking swift advantage of the demoralisation or confusion that may exist within at least some outfits as they consider their future strategy.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Ambivalence over Osama’s death[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 5th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death has Pakistan reeling under contradictory impulses. The Foreign Office (FO), ever hewing close to the army, has categorically denied, on behalf of the government of Pakistan and the Army, having “any prior knowledge of the US operation against Osama bin Laden carried out in the early hours of May 2, 2011”. The official protest by Pakistan to the US against the operation confirms this position.

The FO also carefully denied complicity with the origin of the flight of the helicopters involved in the operation, while accepting that intelligence was exchanged with “the CIA and other friendly agencies about some foreigners in the surroundings of Abbottabad till mid-April 2011”. But this ‘help’ to the US operation is qualified: “Taking advantage of much superior technological assets, the CIA exploited the intelligence leads given by us to identify and reach Osama bin Laden, a fact also acknowledged by the US president and secretary of state in their statements.”

Why is the FO at pains to dissociate the government and the army from the operation, after admitting that Pakistan was acting in accordance with its commitment to the war against terrorism? The following formulation in the FO press release makes it clear: “The government of Pakistan and its armed forces consider the support of the people of Pakistan to be its strength. Any actions contrary to their aspirations, therefore, run against the very basis on which the edifice of national security is based.”

It is clear that in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, Pakistan is restrained by public opinion, which is split in favour of the terrorists. This bestows special importance to the CIA statement that Pakistan was not informed prior to the operation “because that could have resulted in the operation not being successful”. The ambivalence on the part of Pakistan springs from public opinion; and the lack of confidence the US has in Pakistan springs from this ambivalence. That Pakistan is still committed to the war against terrorism is clarified by its claim that it has ‘broken the back of terrorism’. However, anyone examining this from the outside will seriously question this position.

The statements emanating from the Presidency — which published an article in the American press under President Asif Ali Zardari’s byline — and the prime minister tend to be less troubled about admitting to feelings of triumph at getting rid of Osama bin Laden. Both statements do not necessarily contradict the FO line, but the willingness to defy the so-called public opinion in Pakistan is better expressed in their statements. One must keep in mind that the FO has admitted to exchange of intelligence on bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad up to April 2010.

The ISI, which has had trouble working with the CIA, has admitted that it is “embarrassed to have failed to capture Osama bin Laden” but has defended its record against mounting criticism of complicity between it and al Qaeda. It says it stopped keeping an eye on Abbottabad after 2003 (it doesn’t say why), but it is at pains to claim that it had fought al Qaeda: “The number of people of al Qaeda we have captured and killed, runs to hundreds. The number of people that we have picked up from the Taliban also runs to the hundreds, so one failure makes us out to be incompetent?” Finally the ISI statement says: “Had we known he was there, we would have captured him and handed him over to the Americans to silence the critics.” Would the people of Pakistan have forgiven the ISI for that?

The question which will continue to haunt us is: Why was the ISI neglectful of the Abbottabad situation while the CIA was not? Outside Pakistan, there will be other questions. When will there be a crackdown on organisations that are known to be involved in terrorism? Yes, there have been operations in Swat and Fata but what about jihadi outfits operating in Punjab and other parts of the country? It seems we are either unwilling, or unable, to take action against these organisations, many of which have been declared terrorist by the UN. The world outside also sees the establishment in Pakistan split over the terrorists and has been talking of ‘rogue’ elements within it. Only we can change that perception, through our actions.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Consumer concerns[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 5th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The consumer courts set up under the Punjab Consumer Act of 2005, have quite dramatically altered life for people across the province. The courts appear also to be expanding their scope, taking up a wider variety of cases, with air-conditioner retailers being penalised for selling defective machines and mobile phone companies being warned against misleading advertising. Citizens everywhere are taking advantage of this as the existence of the courts becomes better known. The latest case before the courts involves charges of negligence against two doctors of the General Hospital in Lahore.

A petitioner from Kasur has stated that his wife was operated on at the hospital by a person who was not a doctor. He has sued two doctors for Rs237,000, for botching the surgery and cited both the mental anguish he suffered, as well as the financial strain involved. The chief executive of the hospital, one of the doctors who has been sued, has denied the charges and stated that two fully qualified surgeons had treated the patient. The findings in the case will be closely watched by many concerned over the state of health care offered in our public sector facilities. If the charges of the surgery being carried out by someone not qualified to do so, turn out to be accurate, we gain a shocking insight into the level of professionalism in the health sector — although, of course, it cannot yet be said whose account is correct. Doctors everywhere complain of patients taking up cudgels each time things go wrong, as is sometimes inevitable in medicine.

But the fact is also that instances of negligence in our hospitals have been growing. Mercifully, in this case, no life was lost. Others dependent on public sector care, or indeed even those who can afford expensive private facilities, have not been quite so fortunate. The courts taking up cases of medical negligence is a good omen. Perhaps it can play some part in offering justice to wronged people, and encouraging doctors to exercise greater care and display more conscience when treating the people who turn to them in search of relief.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Laugh or cry?[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 6th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry in response to Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir’s press conference of May 5. Much of what he said the government and the military establishment should have enunciated right after the Abbottabad raid took place. And the remarks about criticism in the media being unwarranted, was wholly unnecessary and was indicative of an enduring inability in many of our state institutions to look inwards and see the reality. Perhaps, the foreign secretary is merely a messenger himself, in that what he is saying to the media is something that the Foreign Office has to say, by way of being the point where information to the public at large is being disseminated on the matter.

Yes, criticism of the whole operation has been sharp, at least in the English press, and increasingly in some sections of the electronic media, as well, but what does officialdom expect? The facts of the episode have already been recounted here and elsewhere in full detail and the many questions that have arisen as a result are also being much debated in the country. Without belabouring the point, surely those whose job it is to guard the country from external threats and aggression have been found severely wanting in carrying out their responsibilities. How could the presence of someone like Osama bin Laden not have been detected in a city such as Abbottabad? And if indeed he was under our radar, as is now being suggested, then why not own up to our involvement in his eventual death? After all, he was no angel and al Qaeda on more than one occasion had publicly called for attacks to be carried out against the Pakistan state and its army — and in many instances these were carried out resulting in deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.

The media is merely doing its job of being a watchdog and pointing out to the state’s institutions that they have erred in a way that has set back the interests of all Pakistanis. If it weren’t saying that, the media wouldn’t be carrying out its professional responsibility. Those who serve the state are better off trying to do put their own house(s) in order.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Back to basics[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 6th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

After a series of intense meetings in both Karachi and Islamabad, the MQM has decided to step back into the federal cabinet. Portfolios and other details will be decided later but their return marks a huge success for the PPP and, along with the alliance forged with the PML-Q, secures its government, which, at one point, had seemed somewhat shaky. The MQM’s delicately balanced position of supporting the government but not taking up ministries obviously meant it was in danger of withdrawing support at any time and leaving the government teetering.

The restoration of smiles as an MQM delegation made up of senior leaders met the interior minister and others comes in part as a response to the exit of former Sindh home minister Zulfiqar Mirza, whose curiously inappropriate comments had led the MQM to walk out in the first place. There is some suggestion that Mirza’s former post may be taken by an MQM man, as the final details of the new power-sharing agreement are worked out. This would also mean that the party takes on responsibility for law and order in restive Karachi, and there may be a certain degree of advantage in this, given the political realities of the city and the lines of influence that run through it. Either way, it is high time that peace was restored to the country’s commercial and business capital.

Predictions that the PPP had lost its hold on the government have been proved inaccurate. Indeed, the hold seems firmer than ever before. The alliance is now a truly effective one, reaching into each of the four provinces. This could also mean an improvement in the quality of governance. So far, much energy has been lost on dealing with internal issues. Perhaps it will now become possible to focus on matters that need solution and not on the question of dealing with the crises that arise with coalition partners and throw the government into chaos. For now, these will hopefully come to an end with the coalition standing on solid ground.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The stigma of rape[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 6th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

A woman subjected to rape is a victim twice over: Once when the crime actually takes place, and then again when she decides to speak out about it. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 350 women were raped and 445 women were gang-raped in Pakistan in 2008. But many incidents of rape go unreported since women are scared of speaking out about a crime which will likely go unpunished but which will certainly stigmatise them for the rest of their lives – making it difficult for them to marry, get a job or even live as a respected member of society.

The rape victim faces a mixture of pity, scorn and being ostracised. Almost invariably, the first response to a recent well-politicised rape case in Karachi was: What was she doing out that late at night? Similarly, in 2006, Ghazala Shaheen was raped and later denied a teaching spot because the school said its reputation would suffer.

In Pakistan, it is not rape that is treated as a crime, but the act of speaking about it. The release of Mukhtaran Mai’s accused rapists has been interpreted as a judgement for breaking the silence on rape. Why else would those celebrating the release of the accused rapists curse Mai ‘for her bad deeds’?

A report by the Pakistan National Commission on the Status of Women says that “an estimated 80 per cent of women” in jail in 2003 were there because “they had failed to prove rape charges and were consequently convicted of adultery.” Little wonder then that many victims commit suicide rather than live with the ‘shame’ of having been raped. Laws need to be strengthened but even more importantly, our collective mindset needs to be overhauled. At present, there is a silent endorsement of rape as a means of punishment and revenge, and this is made possible by the objectification of women. The media and NGOs can change attitudes at the grassroots level by shifting the focus away from the victim and towards the unacceptability of the act.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Honour and sovereignty[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 7th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, through his Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) wing, has hit back at the US in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, warning of “dire consequences” if the country’s sovereignty is violated again. He said that “any similar action violating the sovereignty will warrant a review of military and intelligence cooperation with the US”. He has already asked the US to reduce the strength of US military personnel in Pakistan.

The tough reaction is clearly in response to the aggressive opinion in the US Congress and the western press, calling in doubt Pakistan’s commitment to fighting terrorism, with the innuendo that the ISI could have been actually involved in providing a safe haven to Osama. The charge was not accepted in the partial GHQ rebuttal, which was that the CIA had taken the ISI’s initial intelligence on Osama but withheld further developments from the ISI.

More indication of the source of this aggressive stance was contained in two references made in the statement: 1) Pakistan’s nuclear assets were in safe hands, and “unlike an undefended civilian compound, our strategic assets are well protected and an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place”; and 2) any similar attack or raid undertaken by India “will be responded to very strongly”.

The Foreign Office has spoken along the same lines, making it manifest that the government of Pakistan stands together with the GHQ. It warned India about a “terrible catastrophe” if it mimicked US ‘unilateralism’. As if on cue, the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen Association (Pesa) has declared its intent to stand firmly with the people of Pakistan who, it said, are “deeply humiliated” by the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by the US. Earlier, the Foreign Office, too, referred to the compulsion of the army and the government ‘to stand with the people’. Similarly, the army chief had said that he would not accept “welfare of the people at the cost of national honour”.

Popular obsession with honour expressed through ‘state sovereignty’ is quite manifest. In the aftermath of Osama’s death, the media has given it the hype it did not deserve. While internal affairs have to be dealt with under the law, foreign policy is always allowed some elbow room for realistic adjustment to the exigencies of power relationships in the world. Going with the passions of the people may not be the right course in the current situation. If Pakistan is internationally isolated, any proud assertion of sovereignty will be of no use. Therefore, the Pesa ‘advice’ on the launching of a diplomatic offensive on an already angry world is beside the point.

First of all, when democracy is in place, no direct reference to the people is either necessary or correct. Secondly, if the elected government de facto abjures the domain of foreign policy and is forced to go along with whatever the army thinks, the principle of ‘indirect democracy’ — representative and not ruled by the mobs — is violated. Thirdly, in the eyes of the world, Pakistan’s sovereignty is violated not by the US as much as by the foreign warriors brought in by al Qaeda after 2001.

The army and the Pesa cannot explain why the jihadi militias linked to al Qaeda are operating in Pakistan with their banned publications poisoning the minds of an already brainwashed public. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa, banned by the UN but not by Pakistan, has held posthumous funerals of Osama all across Pakistan — it held a similar funeral for the al Qaeda senior operative Abu Musab alZarqawi in 2006 — while the world accuses the Wahabi outfit of being affiliated with al Qaeda.

Honour is an extremely isolationist concept, like the plight of the Greek hero in classical literature who had to die after completely isolating himself, for the sake of attaining honour. As far as the Pakistani people are concerned, nothing could be more is more dishonourable than being poor. Their welfare should be sought at all cost and honour should not be made to weigh against it.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Chapters in carnage[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 7th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The chapters telling the story of violence in Balochistan, written out on the sands of the province, seem to be growing longer and longer with each passing day. They tell a tragic story of growing chaos and of killings based on motives that range from the nationalist to the criminal, with many shades in between. Sadly, unlike most marks made in sand, these are not so easy to wipe out and have coloured the province a deeper and deeper shade of red, as spilled blood continues to seep deep into its hungry soil.

The latest attack seems, at first sight, to be sectarian in nature — though it may be too early to rule out an ethnic motive. Eight members of the Shia Hazara community, gathered at a graveyard on the morning of May 6, were killed and some 15 others injured when unknown assailants drove up in two cars and fired rockets at them. This was followed by a volley of gunfire as bodies tumbled to the ground amidst the graves. The attack took place in a predominantly Shia area of Quetta. Across the province, attacks on both sectarian and ethnic lines have taken place before. There have been no claims of responsibility, but it seems likely extremist forces were behind the killing, carried out with deadly precision and an obvious element of prior planning.

The extent to which the once laughing city of Quetta has changed tells us, in a nutshell, much about Pakistan. Into the early days of independence, relatively cosmopolitan Quetta enjoyed a reputation as a glittering urban centre where entertainment flourished. Today, grime and dust have taken away the city’s sheen, marking the transformation of Quetta in more ways than one, turning it into a place where militants of many different kinds brandish arms and where no one feels entirely safe. Will it ever recover its lost identity and its abandoned gaiety? We do not know — but as more weeping households receive the bodies of those they loved, there appears tragically to be no sign of this.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Al Qaeda after Osama[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 8th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

After a decade of violence, Osama bin Laden is dead. He spent half of this decade hiding in Abbottabad, away from his organisational centre, while the Islamic world responded to his charisma and offered al Qaeda new recruits. His last message to his wives and children said that he feared he would be killed “because of his own people”, and advised his sons not to join the organisation.

Al Qaeda was founded in Peshawar in 1988 by bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian philosopher who also taught at Islamabad’s International Islamic University (IIU) at the time. Azzam was killed in Peshawar together with his two sons in 1989, most probably by Egyptian doctor Aymen alZawahiri, who differed with him on his strategy of international terrorism. Sometime in 2005, alZawahiri probably also differed with bin Laden and put him away in Abbottabad, totally incommunicado.

Bin Laden is gone, after a total of 15,000 people dead around the world, including in countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe and the US. In Turkey, the explosions that killed Turks and a small Jewish community were planned and executed by a Kurdish member of al Qaeda who also taught at the IIU. (The university was attacked by al Qaeda after the PPP government tried to de-radicalise it under a secular vice-chancellor.)

Has bin Laden’s death registered in the Islamic world? Barring Pakistan, not at all. In African-Arab states, where the ‘revolution’ started by Arab youths is calling for democracy, no one has taken note of bin Laden’s death. In Iran, there is a sigh of relief; and in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the Shia are happy that the war he had started may end in al Qaeda’s failure. In distant Indonesia, democracy has also brought in the trend of putting al Qaeda members on trial instead of idolising them.

AlZawahiri is now said to be in charge — a most predictable outcome. It is said that Osama had nominated his successor, but he must have known, as he sat in Abbottabad, that no one will stand by him. AlZawahiri himself faces the same kind of ‘problems of exposure’ as his dead chief who had became a liability with the passage of time. AlZawahiri, too, cannot stand under the open sky wherever he is right now. When the drones were not flying he was nearly killed by an aerial operation in Bajaur. Now he has to be somewhere where drones are not flying — as yet — to keep himself alive.

The stream of Arabs that came to Pakistan first through Muridke (near Lahore) and then through Iran — which facilitated al Qaeda against America — has slowed to a trickle because of the toll the drones have taken on them. In the days to come, this supply of warriors is going to drop to a minimum. The absence of the charisma of the tall, saint-like figure of Osama will have its effect too. Drones will continue to fly, but their effect will also spread to the al Qaeda affiliates hiding in the Tribal Areas. Nek Muhammad and Baitullah Mehsud were killed by drones while Hakimullah Mehsud has had to cut down on operations because of his compulsion to stay underground in North Waziristan.

That leaves Pakistan. All the religious parties are out protesting, calling bin Laden a shaheed, but no political party apart from Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf has mobilised its cadre against America, thus implying support for al Qaeda. Politicians — those in power and those in opposition — are speaking out against America, but the opposition is actually using the rhetoric to unseat the government. The jihadi militias that the state favours — Deobandi and Wahabi — will carry the flag of al Qaeda, toting alZawahiri’s model constitution for Pakistan in the shape of his critique titled The Morning and the Lamp. This gives hope to a rather depressed al Qaeda.



[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The dangers of jirgas[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 8th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

As if the acquittal of those accused of gang-raping Mukhtaran Mai under the orders of a panchayat wasn’t distressing enough, yet another outrageous ‘verdict’, this time in interior Sindh, is sure to shock the conscience. A jirga in Ibrahim village near Sukkur, relying on the archaic concept of collective punishment, settled a murder case by decreeing that 12 girls from the accused family be handed over to the aggrieved party. The girls are all minors aged between five and 15 years, which should only add to the outrage. Even though the practice of vani has been technically banned in the country, a law that is routinely flouted and rarely prosecuted provides scant protection to the vulnerable.

Tempting though it may be to blame the jirga, the local and federal government and the courts — and all of them certainly deserve varying degrees of blame — it is also incumbent on us as a society to accept responsibility. The jirga and panchayat systems, despite operating outside the law, continue to wield power only because too many Pakistanis seek quick justice from them. The standard defence of those who rely on jirgas is that the courts are too sluggish in providing justice. Certainly, the courts could do a better job of clearing their backlog. At the same time, the way courts work is that multiple avenues for appealing verdicts exist to minimise the chances of erroneous verdicts and protect the rights of the accused. This system isn’t perfect but it is vastly preferable to the speedy, but usually faulty, verdicts handed down by jirgas.

The chief problem is one of enforcement. The district police officer of Sukkur has ordered that FIRs be filed against the jirga members and they be arrested. This encouraging first step invariably leads to disappointment. Jirga members are among the most influential in their areas and tend to escape the clutches of the law. Anyone who dares challenge them in their villages is dealt with mercilessly. And yet the only way out of this morass is a collective refusal to accept the jirga system, backed by the full force of the law. Anything short of that, and barbaric verdicts will continue rolling in.