[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The al Qaeda question[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 9th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

For years, we have been taught to regard al Qaeda as a powerful organisation, capable of carrying out attacks like 9/11. Since then, partly as a result of US-led media hype, the body has continued to be regarded as a threat to the entire world, led by the evil figure of Osama bin Laden, who was seen by younger extremist elements as a kind of demi-god.

We now learn that al Qaeda may, in fact, have been the victim of bitter infighting and that Osama may have been given away by his deputy, Egyptian doctor Ayman alZawahiri, who many believe has been one of the chief masterminds behind al Qaeda operations. It seems he is also a man with ambition. According to a report in a Saudi newspaper, Zawahiri may have acted as a player in the action against Osama, and the courier who led US forces to him may have been his man. The purpose, it appears, is to facilitate a takeover of al Qaeda by an Egyptian faction. It is also thought Zawahiri may have begun to put his plan in action as early as 2004, when Osama became unwell.

We have, then, a divided organisation. Who knows how many splinters exist within it, what their agenda is and what role they play. In recent years, the encouragement given to all kinds of other groups, ranging from the sectarian to those with other lines of thought, has been the main role played by al Qaeda. These outfits have been operating under the large al Qaeda umbrella. But we are now beginning to learn that this canopy may have developed a great many holes, bringing it to a point where it may be falling apart. Zawahiri himself will be aware that the hunt may now centre around him. Who knows if there is someone waiting in the shadows, ready to give him away and, by doing so, taking al Qaeda one step closer to complete disintegration.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Archiving crime[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 9th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

One must laud the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) for having accomplished the Herculean task of digitising Karachi’s crime records and building an archive of 766,398 First Information Reports (FIRs), something the police force itself has not been able to do. Computerised Criminal Record Management, as the database is called, has cases from as far back as January 1, 1987 and is now being updated on a daily basis. This will benefit intelligence agencies, Rangers, foreign missions and local and foreign companies by making background checks quicker, criminals easier to trace and crimes easier to identify — but the biggest beneficiary is the police itself. In fact, according to the CPLC chief, Ahmed Chinoy, the database showed that some constables currently working in the police force had been named as suspects in FIRs in the past. Potentially, this archive could be an important step towards cleaning up the police force and restoring the public’s faith in its functioning. At present, this database contains only cases in Sindh, but merits expansion to include cases from other provinces too. This is something that the CPLC should look into.

Since its establishment in 1990, the CPLC has gone from strength to strength, working closely with the police in resolving kidnapping and ransom cases. Its recent move to expand operations to Hyderabad so that it can work on ransom and kidnapping cases in interior Sindh has been a positive development. The CPLC also proved its value in the aftermath of bank heists when it was asked to verify the credentials of security guards, after a special police cell set up for the same purpose failed to do so. In one respect, though, the CPLC has failed: One of its key functions was to narrow down the credibility gap between the police and the public. This has not happened; trust in the police is at such a low ebb that people shy away from even reporting car thefts. A recent report stated that the FIRs of more than 50 per cent of vehicle thefts were never lodged at police stations. Bridging the trust deficit between the citizens and the police is what both the police force and the CPLC should now focus on.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Swat’s power crisis[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 9th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

It appears that for the people of the Swat Valley, crisis never ends. This time, it has come not in the form of militancy or floods, but loadshedding that lasts up to 20 hours a day. This also means severe water shortage. The cost and the loss of time can only be imagined. So, too, can the decline in productivity at workshops, factories and other commercial enterprises. While there had been hope of a tourism revival in Swat this year, taking forward the trend seen last summer, hotel and guesthouse owners know it is unrealistic to expect holiday-makers to brave accommodation with no power and no running water. A major source of revenue in Swat is being badly affected — but it seems no one cares.

Local politicians are demanding that the government act. They claim that the crisis is ‘created’ and could easily be tackled if there was a will to do so. Debate about the nature of the power crisis has raged everywhere, with many smaller towns especially badly affected. But the situation in Swat is all the more critical, given the need to bring about an economic revival in the area, help people scramble back on to their feet and, by doing so, ward off a return of the militants who use government incompetence as a means to gain support.

Lately, there has been more and more talk of developing alternative means of power to overcome the critical energy situation we face. There have been suggestions that natural waterfalls in rivers could be used to generate power. This would appear to be a practicable solution for an area such as Swat, where there is a river running through the Valley. Other solutions, too, need to be thought of and the voices from a struggling region heard, before a still grimmer summer of suffering is imposed on people who have already suffered greatly over the past few years as a result of many different factors.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]We owe it to ourselves[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 10th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Let us be honest, in the post-Abbottabad situation, the American administration is careful in its posture towards Pakistan, compared to the American press. President Obama says Pakistan must have had a support network for Osama bin Laden for him to live for over five years, so near Islamabad, in a garrison city, adding that there was no evidence whether such a support system was linked to the state or not.

As Pakistan embarks upon an inquiry into the Abbottabad operation, the intent should be to determine the nature of this support system about which the ISI had informed the CIA in 2009.

US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon went further in Washington’s efforts not to rubbish Pakistan the way it is being done in America’s large opinion market: ‘More terrorists and extremists have been captured or killed [through Pakistani cooperation] in Pakistan than anyplace else’. There is no doubt that sane voices under the Obama administration have not ignored the importance of Pakistan as a pivotal partner in the world’s war against terrorism.

In Pakistan, there is a larger factory of emotional splurge asking the government and the army to take revenge against America for the operation in Abbottabad. Television channels are busy churning up the most reckless aspects of Pakistani nationalism whose requirements cannot be met without going to war. It is difficult to say whether the channels reflect what the people of Pakistan think or are simply moulding the public opinion in a grand but unthinking act of brainwashing which will cause more regret after the fact. The staple of this brainwashing, assisted by retired army officers, including a retired ISI chief, is that Osama could have been killed in effigy to cause rifts inside Pakistan to destroy its security.

Domestic political bias is undermining what is put forward as national interest. The networks are talking of revisiting the NRO to see if the PPP had signed away more of Pakistan’s sovereignty to the US than is apparent. The call for the resignation of President Asif Zardari and the PPP government is echoing in all living rooms; but, more ominously, there is also the unfortunate demand for the resignation of the army chief and the chief of the ISI.

The extremist outbursts on television channels should not, however, incline us not to think of reforming a system that has been lurching through the 1990s and is now dysfunctional in 2011. On one channel, when a journalist began to describe how Pakistan’s failures have emanated from the army’s control of external and internal policies, he was prevented from completing his statement. But the English-language press on May 8, 2011, did carry at least five articles either suggesting that the army’s extended remit should be curtailed or recommending that it change its current posture of unrealistic defiance in foreign policy. That the Urdu-language press was less outspoken confirms that whereas the English media scrutinises the functioning of the state, the Urdu side scrutinises the state of Pakistani nationalism.

In most states, the army is a part of the paraphernalia of the state’s nationalism, but it is never given control of the state so that under democracy moderate rather than extreme policy decisions are taken in crises. Pakistan has suffered because of the paramountcy of the army in the power structure of the country. In the past, wrong decisions by army commanders, followed loyally by political parties midwifed by the army, have brought damage in their wake, the last one being the infamous Kargil Operation. Let the army leadership beware the hubris of aggression and step back from its hurriedly put together enunciations of ‘ghairat’ versus ‘welfare’ and take the position allowed it by the constitution. We owe it to ourselves to investigate honestly what happened in Abbottabad five years ago. We know that Osama is a cult figure in Pakistan; we know that his creed is largely embraced by the people living under the influence of the clergy; and we know that a policeman can kill a governor because he believes in the religious aggression propagated by al Qaeda more than in law. But we must know the truth to be able to carry out the self-correction we direly need.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Caring for mothers[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 10th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The annual mothers’ index, prepared by the respected US-based NGO Save the Children, was released in conjunction with Mothers’ Day and the results, at least for Pakistan, make for grim reading. The study, which measures health and social conditions for mothers and children, ranked Pakistan 77th out of 79 less-developed countries.

Our neighbour, Afghanistan, was firmly at the bottom of the list while the Scandinavian countries were considered among the best, with Norway topping the rankings among developed countries. On just about every metric used to devise the index, be it female life expectancy, maternal morality or access to health care for women, Pakistan was considered among the worst in the world.

There are a host of measures the government can take to improve the lot of mothers in this country. For starters, legislation should be passed mandating generous paid maternity leave for all women. This is particularly needed for women who do back-breaking work in the agricultural sector and in factories. Then there is the harder task of ensuring all women have access to health care. One of the reasons Pakistan has a high infant mortality rate and so many women lose their lives during pregnancy is that often women are forced to give birth in unsanitary conditions without a doctor or midwife present. This, too, needs to change.

Above all, there needs to be a change in society’s attitudes towards mothers. It is no surprise that four of the top five countries in the mothers’ index are progressive Scandinavian countries while more traditional societies rank among the bottom. A society that treats women as nothing more than child-producing machines is one that fails not only women but all of society. We should also keep in mind that societal inequality affects women more than men. It is they who are denied education, a voice in government and equitable pay. Legislation alone is not enough to remove these structural inequities. This year many of us brought gifts and cards for Mothers’ Day but precious few of us pondered the plight of mothers in this country. The odds are already stacked against women; it is time to try and level the playing field.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The al Qaeda question[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 9th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

For years, we have been taught to regard al Qaeda as a powerful organisation, capable of carrying out attacks like 9/11. Since then, partly as a result of US-led media hype, the body has continued to be regarded as a threat to the entire world, led by the evil figure of Osama bin Laden, who was seen by younger extremist elements as a kind of demi-god.

We now learn that al Qaeda may, in fact, have been the victim of bitter infighting and that Osama may have been given away by his deputy, Egyptian doctor Ayman alZawahiri, who many believe has been one of the chief masterminds behind al Qaeda operations. It seems he is also a man with ambition. According to a report in a Saudi newspaper, Zawahiri may have acted as a player in the action against Osama, and the courier who led US forces to him may have been his man. The purpose, it appears, is to facilitate a takeover of al Qaeda by an Egyptian faction. It is also thought Zawahiri may have begun to put his plan in action as early as 2004, when Osama became unwell.

We have, then, a divided organisation. Who knows how many splinters exist within it, what their agenda is and what role they play. In recent years, the encouragement given to all kinds of other groups, ranging from the sectarian to those with other lines of thought, has been the main role played by al Qaeda. These outfits have been operating under the large al Qaeda umbrella. But we are now beginning to learn that this canopy may have developed a great many holes, bringing it to a point where it may be falling apart. Zawahiri himself will be aware that the hunt may now centre around him. Who knows if there is someone waiting in the shadows, ready to give him away and, by doing so, taking al Qaeda one step closer to complete disintegration.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Whose failure is it anyway?[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 11th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, on May 9, read out a prepared speech in answer to US President Barack Obama’s remark that Osama bin Laden had enjoyed some sort of ‘support system’ in Abbottabad for over five years. The prime minister rebutted the charge, made in and outside Pakistan, that his government had suffered an intelligence failure. He dismissed as ‘absurd’, American accusations that Osama was able to hide in the country due to ‘either an official support network or the incompetence of Pakistani authorities’.

The burden of the message was hidden in the following lines, more meant for domestic consumption: “I have full confidence in the high command of the Pakistan armed forces and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)”. He tried to palliate the impact of the charge against Pakistani intelligence by saying that what had actually happened was a ‘global intelligence failure’. The ISI, to whose chief his government had granted an extension in service, was not to blame. That took care of the ‘unofficial’ American charge that the ISI could have been, not merely ‘negligent’, but ‘complicit’ in providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden.

But the opposition in the National Assembly was not going to back him on what he said on the basis of any solidarity born out of anti-Americanism. PML-N’s Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called for the resignation of President Asif Ali Zardari and the Gilani government. After that there was an exchange of familiar accusations, although the PPP’s latest alliance-making in parliament had ensured security to anyone being suspected of ‘complicity’ in the Osama affair.

The prime minister went a little overboard defending the army. He accused the US of going through the operation to take Osama without informing Pakistan — and thus infringing its sovereignty — implying that after the ‘global failure’ of intelligence, Pakistan’s failure should have been treated at par. The facts on the ground actually indicate that the US intelligence had succeeded and not failed — while Pakistan was trying to curtail the presence of US intelligence personnel on its soil. To pre-empt any criticism, Mr Gilani referred to the ISI’s sharing of intelligence with the CIA in 2009. He took offence at the implication that the agency was, as alleged in the western media, in cahoots with al Qaeda. He somewhat cryptically added: “The Abbottabad episode illustrates that Pakistan’s military quickly responded to the American forces’ covert incursion”.

Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was more aggressive about the American operation, had complained that Pakistan’s civilian authorities had spoken with many tongues, thus rendering Pakistan’s riposte to the American accusations less robust. He must have in mind the article President Zardari contributed to an American paper immediately after the Abbottabad operation. President Zardari had tried to defend the army in it but less emphatically, allowing more space to the commonality of views with the US on the subject of terrorism, saying that 85 per cent of the people in Pakistan hated al Qaeda.

It may well happen that the truth may be obfuscated behind the government’s defence of the army and the opposition’s demand for the resignation of the government. Ever since the raid, there has been vociferous protest, led mainly by the religious parties and the jihadi militias which in the past were supported by the establishment, but which ordinary Pakistanis fear. Most of the TV channels are conveying these anti-American passions; and the military has said that it will stand with the people and is not prepared to barter the nation’s honour. This then creates a situation where the elected government comes under pressure.

The failure is ours. We don’t answer the questions that the world is asking us. How is it that global terrorism, one way or another, originates in Pakistan? How is it that Pakistan doesn’t feel that its sovereignty is being trampled underfoot by foreign terrorists on its soil? Why is the state not acting against areas where terrorists and militant outfits seem to have safe havens? (Some of these outfits have UN-mandated bans on them.) If the prime minister’s speech seeks to unite a nation that stands completely isolated in the rest of the world, what good is that unity, except that it ensures continuity in wrong policy and certain self-destruction?

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Getting to the truth about Abbottabad[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 12th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The chief of the PML-N, twice-former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and once thought to be the proverbial offspring reared by the military, has said the right thing by calling for an independent investigation into the raid by US Navy SEALs that led to Osama bin Laden’s death. To be precise, Mr Sharif is in essence rejecting the planned launch of an internal inquiry by the military into the whole affair. The PML-N chief is right in saying that the fact that US helicopters and special forces soldiers were able to penetrate deep inside Pakistan shows not only that our sovereignty has been severely compromised but also that those whose job it is to secure our frontiers have failed the nation. No less important is the issue that how could someone as notorious as Osama bin Laden be living in a relatively large city with such a high military presence, so close to the federal capital, for several years? This last question is particularly important because right now the rest of the world, as do many Pakistanis, are sceptical of the ‘answer’ given so far, that our intelligence agencies failed to track his presence. Of course, there is a lot of confusion as well because it has been suggested by the Foreign Office that Pakistan was cooperating with the US on intelligence on this as recently as April.

Then there is the issue of how the Americans managed to penetrate so far, leading to questions that if they could do it, what could prevent the Indians from doing the same thing on, say, Muridke (Muridke being much closer to the Indian border than Abbottabad to Torkham). In this as well, the reasons given so far by the air force, that the radars were working but “inactive” (and hence it must be assumed that they weren’t able to detect the flight of the helicopters) need urgent clarification.

The situation that the military establishment in particular must be finding itself in presently is that of a classical Catch-22, or so logic would suggest. For example, if its intelligence agencies really did not know that the world’s most wanted terrorist was hiding an hour’s drive from Islamabad, then it should have a lot to answer for, to Pakistani taxpayers if nothing else. For an institution that gets the largest chunk of the federal budget every year, and in a country that spends more than double on defence than on either health and education, it would be infuriating to taxpayers, and ordinary Pakistanis, to find that their hard-earned rupees are being spent on air defences and radar systems that apparently don’t do their job. Unfortunately, these hard facts don’t make it vast sections of the media, in particular the one in Urdu and television, where truths such as the military being the biggest recipient of US aid are brushed under the carpet and abuse is laid at the door of civilian governments. And if bin Laden, was, for the sake of argument, indeed a ‘guest’, then questions must be asked that who took such a decision, at what level, and to what end? What benefit could a civilian government or the military possibly have for keeping under its care someone as infamous and hated as bin Laden? If the thinking, again hypothetically, is that he could be used as a bargaining chip then why would he be given up without even the slightest of resistance?

Keeping all these things in mind, it makes much sense for an independent inquiry to be carried out into the whole affair. And by ‘independent’, one would mean that it cannot and should not be conducted by the institution — the military and its intelligence agencies — whose performance is being evaluated. To be credible and meaningful it must be carried out by another equally important institution of state. Hence, Mr Sharif’s demand that it be done so by a judicial commission comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the chief justices of the high courts makes eminent sense. The people of this hapless land need some answers, and it would help if they were close to the truth.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The daylight game[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 12th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

In the face of an energy crisis that threatens to get worse with the summer heat, the government, according to a report in this newspaper, is planning an energy summit at the end of the month. A meeting to be chaired by the prime minister and attended by all chief ministers will hopefully tackle a problem that only seems to be getting bigger with each passing year. But we cannot really be confident of solutions. The measures to be put forward offer no obvious improvement on those from previous years and revolve essentially around the same ideas: Moving clocks an hour forward to save daylight, a five-day working week, the closure of markets by 8pm and the turning off of street lights at night.

We have, over the two years since 2008 when these measures were put in place, seen no evidence that such measures helped save energy or eased the power shortfall that results in shutdowns for up to 18 or 20 hours in some parts of the country. Scientific evidence based on Pakistan’s latitude would also suggest that Daylight Saving Time serves little purpose in a part of the world where there is an abundance of light. This is one reason why daylight saving is not a common practice in the region. Enforcing it in the middle of summer, just days away from the summer solstice when sunlight patterns begin to change again, makes even less sense. We have seen in the past widespread displeasure with the measure which people feel simply complicates life, while shopkeepers, facing times that are already tough, will undoubtedly be up in arms about an early closure, drastically reducing shopping time. In the context of inconvenience to people, the two-day holiday is hardly a move that will be welcomed either. So far people have seen no relief from load-shedding as a result of these measures. That is what they seek most of all and planners must make this their priority at a summit that will also take up issues of gas sharing between provinces and the provision of gas to CNG stations.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Defence of the nation[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 13th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

As the budget for the next fiscal year occupies the attention of planners, the Defence Ministry has moved rapidly, seeking more funds — a whopping 18.4 per cent more than the amount allocated for defence last year. The ministry has given the National Assembly a briefing on the rising needs for security. The scenario is, of course, a familiar one for all of us who have through the years seen the armed services walk away with more and more of the budgetary pie. At this particular moment, so soon after the fiasco at Abbottabad, when US aircraft were able to enter and leave our territory undetected, the demand seems especially galling. Many citizens are asking quite what the military does for the citizens of the country anyway, given the continued inability to defeat militants or keep our borders safe.

Following a tradition set many years ago and strengthened by the long periods of rule we have endured under military dictators, such ‘requests’ have usually been honoured. There are indications this may indeed happen again, with the Chairperson of the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance Fauzia Wahab saying the proposed budget outlay of Rs495 billion for defence may be increased. The response is unsurprising and to a degree understandable. But as a nation, we need to rethink the national security paradigm we have based policy around and reconsider if it is really doing us much good at all.

We need to learn to put the interests of people ahead of all else. The armed forces have yet to accept that there can be no security until the future of the people is secure. It is the collective task of politicians and civil society to drive this message home. There are mindsets in many places that need to be altered. To build a future for ourselves, we must also provide people with services in the health and education sectors, among others, to help them live with dignity. The armed forces, as a truly patriotic institution, should be offering to cut their own spending to help others. If funds for development cannot be found, we will continue to live in a state of perpetual peril from which no amount of spending on conventional defence needs can offer us safety.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Levying the RGST[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 13th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

There seems to be some hope now of an improved economic order. The decision made by the federal cabinet to propose the Reformed General Sales Tax (RGST) bill before parliament, along with other proposals for the coming fiscal year, raises hopes that the IMF may approve the $11.3 billion loan programme it had suspended late last year after Pakistan went back on a June 2010 promise to impose the tax. Reports at the time also stated IMF officials were, to put it mildly, not amused by Pakistan’s failure to deliver on its word. The decision to move on with the RGST should make for a somewhat more cordial meeting in Dubai where Pakistani officials are conducting talks with their IMF counterparts.

The RGST had, of course, been gone back on after ferocious protests by the PML-N as well as some other parties. Politics, rather than practicality, appeared to be behind these because clearly the levy of the tax would help bring more of the economy under the tax net, increase tax revenue, and hence help bridge the widening fiscal deficit. The latter by itself places inflationary pressures on any economy, and is also one reason why social sector development programmes being embarked upon have been under severe strain.

While IMF conditions may seem tough to some, in this particular case, the prescription is one that Pakistan should have pursued on its own in any case. It is worth pointing out that this also has a link to the whole issue of reduced or eroded, so to speak, sovereignty. Since Pakistan is unable to widen the tax net and increase tax revenue, the government ends up relying on aid from foreign lending institutions and countries. Such assistance almost always comes with conditions — and that is understandable since anyone giving a loan would want to ensure that the loan is paid back — and hence the logic that a measure like the RGST is in our long-term interest. One only hopes that come budget time, the government will not backtrack on this measure like it did last year.

[B][CENTER][U][SIZE="5"]
Saudi Consulate attack[/SIZE][/U][/CENTER][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 13th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Pakistan may have experienced the first violent reaction to Osama bin Laden’s killing as men on motorcycles hurled two grenades at the Saudi consulate in Karachi. The attack was an amateurish one and no one was killed. Still, the attackers managed to escape and thus law-enforcement agencies are clueless as to who was behind the attack. Since Saudi interests are rarely targeted in the country, it is reasonable to assume that this may have been a response to the US operation that killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad. Saudi Arabia, remember, had refused to accept Bin Laden’s body and reports have emerged in recent days revealing that the Saudis had been providing intelligence to the US.

After Bin Laden was killed, Pakistan, and indeed the world, had been expecting enraged terrorists to strike out in anger. If indeed this was the opening salvo from the militants, we should be thankful that it caused no loss of life. It would not be too pessimistic to predict that they will try and strike again. Thus, it is disheartening that the heavy police and security presence outside the Saudi consulate was unable to stop and apprehend the attackers. The Saudi consulate has protection from the police, the Rangers, the Frontier Constabulary and even private security guards, yet none of them were able to do their jobs properly.

It is imperative that the government beef up security at all embassies and consulates across the country. Already, Pakistan stands isolated in the world. The inability to protect our few allies will only hasten our descent to the status of an international pariah. Time and again, terrorists have demonstrated the ability to attack state institutions and sensitive targets at will. The key here is good intelligence so we can thwart such attacks at the planning stage rather than reacting helplessly after an attack has taken place.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]The DG ISI’s offer[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 14th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The offer by the head of the ISI during a closed-door briefing to members of Parliament on May 13 to resign, if Parliament orders him to, perhaps amounted to throwing the ball back into the latter’s court over the Abbottabad issue. The ISI chief is reported to have admitted that the agency had failed in its duty but is also reported to have said that this was “unintentional” and did not amount to negligence. Without getting into the semantics of the whole situation, it is perhaps worth saying at the outset that had such a security lapse happened in a truly democratic country, the heads of the institutions responsible for the lapse usually resign on their own, without offering caveats and/or qualifiers. If failure is being admitted to, then it is unclear why the nation’s forgiveness is being sought because the issue of protecting the frontiers of the country from external threat is related to the preparedness of our defence forces, and, in this particular case, our intelligence and radar systems.

If the head of the country’s premier intelligence agency is admitting before Parliament that his institution failed in tracking the world’s most-wanted terrorist then perhaps the sensible thing would be to resign. In any case, the offer by the head of the ISI does not, and should not, take away from the fact that an independent inquiry into the failure of intelligence and the radars should be carried out, which means that it should be conducted by civilian organs of state. There is another, perhaps even more important, issue that will have to be touched upon very soon by both the legislature as well as the executive. And that has to do with the fact that what has happened is perhaps an outcome of our security and strategic doctrines as well as chunks of our foreign policy relating to our neighbours, in which, by and large, elected civilian governments have had little or no role or say. Questions such as whether Osama bin Laden was in fact sheltered by elements sympathetic to his cause and ideology, or why we don’t hunt down terrorists hiding in veritable sanctuaries on our own soil, also need immediate answers.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Charsadda: A wake-up call[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 14th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The tragedy that happened in Charsadda on May 13 was regrettably, inevitable, in that militant outfits in Pakistan were likely to avenge Osama bin Laden’s death. While a senior official has said that suicide bombing on a paramilitary training centre may have been in response to an operation in Mohmand Agency, it has also been claimed by the Tehreek-i-Taliban, whose spokesman warned of more such attacks. Given that it was inevitable that the militants would strike back, and that, too, at a state installation, the first question that needs to be answered is why this academy was not given sufficient protection. Time and again, militants have been able to successfully attack targets that should have been impenetrable. The chances of Osama bin Laden’s followers lashing out after his death were all about certain; yet there seems to have been no plan to foil them.

The attack should also serve as a wake-up call to our bickering politicians. While they have been loudly complaining about the violation of our sovereignty by the US, a mix of foreign and local militants have already made a mockery of our sovereignty. It is curious that political parties get so worked up when the US kills the very terrorists we should be fighting but underplays how foreign militants have a free hand in Pakistan. We need to now work with the US to fight those who carried out this and dozens of other similar attacks in the country, rather than straining relations at a time we can least afford it.

The army, too, needs to be less myopic. It has refused to take any responsibility for Osama’s presence in Pakistan. As Nawaz Sharif has demanded, it is vital that an independent enquiry be held into Osama’s presence in Abbottabad. If the army leadership was interested in looking beyond its own interests, it would realise that this is in the interests of the military as a whole. It is the army that was attacked in Charsadda and which has been attacked countless times before. And if the army doesn’t get serious about tackling militancy it will be attacked again.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]
LHC verdict[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 14th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict barring President Asif Ali Zardari from engaging in active politics has added a potentially new complication to events in the country. There can be no doubt that in principle the head of state should be above political goings-on and not a part of the day-to-day manoeuvrings that take place in any set-up. But, at the same time, it must be pointed out that Pakistan today is a country in a state of transition. After so many years of military rule and the consequent destruction of democratic institutions it seems somewhat unfair to expect a perfect democracy to unfold as if by magic. It will take time for things to develop along these lines and there will be some flaws as the effort continues to put democratic traditions in place.

There is also the question of quite how the LHC expects its ruling to be implemented. It is, after all, not easy to monitor what happens behind the high walls of the presidency. There are also other technical points to be addressed. Legal experts would argue that there is some lack of clarity within the constitution on whether the bar on holding dual office for the president applies only to those posts for which remuneration can be drawn or to others as well. To make things even more complex, Asif Ali Zardari is co-chairperson of the PPP, which is not a registered party in the country and, in fact, the PPPP, which is the one formed in parliament, is headed by Makhdoom Amin Fahim. So has a breach of principle occurred at all? To this, some will say, however, that for all practical purposes, the president does run the party and that is something that should be left to someone else while he holds the office of president. The tradition in most democracies is that the party chief and the head of government or state are not the same person, precisely because of the inherent conflict of interest involved in the matter.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Our failure to see our own faults[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 15th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

After a 10-hour deliberation and several drafts of a unanimous joint declaration, parliament has taken the foreign policy of Pakistan out of the hands of the PPP coalition government. Since the foreign policy was never completely in the hands of the elected government, the shift will not matter much, and the state will proceed in the same old direction, led by the army whose aggressive stance has now been approved by the MNAs and senators of Pakistan.

If this is not a paradox, there was more of it in the military’s plea that it be guided by the ‘sovereign’ parliament, only to hear that the parliament was in favour of acting tougher towards the United States; more than the military had done so far. Yet more paradoxically, the government has gone along and celebrated the emasculation of its own mandate. If there was any mismatch between the post-Osama posture of the government and the army, it has been removed by the joint declaration. Now it will be the task of the military to temper the extremism of the joint declaration, at the risk of violating its content.

Foreign policy is not governance; that is why governments retain a lot of leeway in their realistic conduct. The only way a foreign policy measure can be blocked by parliament is when a vote called by the opposition is carried through with a majority. This happened to Manmohan Singh’s government when it signed a controversial nuclear agreement with the US; but in that instance, the government was strong enough to break the majority and counter the opposition. It is in deference to the requirements of flexibility of approach that in both, India and Pakistan, ratification of treaties with foreign powers is carried out by the cabinet and not by parliament. In the US, the president has a lot of latitude in the conduct of foreign policy but even his freedom is curtailed through the ratification process in the US Congress.

The parliament in Pakistan has passed joint resolutions in the past and, quite understandably, they have been observed more in the breach. Parliament wanted the so what , and it wanted to handle the menace of terrorism through talks. And what happened? The US did not call off the drones, even as the terrorists did not prefer talks and carried on killing innocent people. The policy towards the terrorists and al Qaeda required that they first give up their weapons, which they did not do. Also, parliament’s assertion that Pakistan’s territory will not be used for acts of terrorism in any other country was laughed at by the world after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Ironically enough, the joint declaration demands ‘policy change’ but wants to retain its anti-India and anti-US direction as practised by the military. The air force says it can shoot down the drones, without clarifying what will be the effect of doing so and also ignoring the fact that many fly from bases in Pakistan and hence, must have tacit sanction of the government. The PPP, which clearly as a result of the whole Abbottabad incident, stands exposed as being weak and not willing to assert itself in any manner whatsoever, has sought an alternative to Pakistan’s policy on America, but the effort may come to naught.

The joint resolution suggests no reform in the military’s India-centric outlook and suggests no change or review of the overall national security doctrine/strategy either. In fact, the status quo seems to have been endorsed. And the terrorists must feel the better for it as they kill 82 paramilitary troops at Shabqadar the same day. This is not good because it can only lead to international isolation and a reinforcement of a mindset, common among many of us, which blames the rest of the world for our ills and refuses to even see inward, let alone take corrective action. Now is the time for us to review/re-examine policies such as ‘strategic depth’, categorising the Taliban as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and treating them in different way, and of tolerating sanctuaries where terrorists and militants can find easy refuge. These policies have clearly not worked or helped us and, if anything, will only serve to further push us to a pariah-like status. This needs to be realised and a correction must take place. That would be in our national interest.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]High horizons[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 15th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The feat by Hasan Sadpara from Skardu, who becomes only the second climber from Pakistan to scale Mount Everest, should make us all proud. What is more, Sadpara made the ascent without supplementary oxygen — a feat first achieved by the legendary Italian climber Reinhold Messner and his Austrian partner Peter Haebler in 1978. Another Pakistani, Nazir Sabir, had successfully reached the summit of the world’s highest peak in 2000.

The achievement by the little-known Sadpara underscores the extent of the mountaineering talent that lies within Pakistan. With fewer and fewer international climbers visiting the country due to security concerns, we sometimes forget that some of the world’s highest mountains stand in our northern areas. Sadpara, before proudly planting the Pakistan flag on the peak of Everest in Nepal, had successfully reached the tops of K2, Nanga Parbat and Broad Peak in his own country. The ascent of Nanga Parbat is considered by many in the mountaineering community to be the toughest of all high-altitude climbs.

Sadpara has also achieved something only a handful of people around the world have managed, despite a paucity of money and training. Mountaineering at the levels he has achieved requires many resources. The climber from Skardu has demonstrated just how much potential we have in the country. Just months ago, two female skiers from the Northern Areas won gold and silver medals in the South Asian Winter Games and this also demonstrated the skill that often lies hidden and unexplored in our people. The need is to develop such skill and, by doing so, encourage our young people to take up new challenges. The Alpine Club of Pakistan, which launched Sadpara’s expedition, also needs to be applauded. We must hope the climber will get the recognition he deserves and that his act will inspire others, who can remind the world that Pakistan deserves a place on the globe that is not linked to terrorism or other violent events which too often make headlines around the world. The media must take a lead in this and help Pakistanis everywhere to see themselves in a more positive light than is currently the case. This would be good for all of us.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Welcome words[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 16th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The reassurance from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that India is “not like the US” and would not stage a US-style raid in Pakistan is welcome. Over the last few days, since the action in Abbottabad, fears in Pakistan of a dangerous precedent being set and further action on the same lines as that staged by the US have been expressed on more than one occasion, and questions raised as to whether Pakistan has the ability to adequately defend itself. Few answers have been offered up by the military — and, in this scenario, the Indian pledge that they would not speed ahead with a similar adventure is reassuring.

This is all the more so given the rather harsh tone we have heard in recent days from New Delhi. With some sense of gloating, hawks in India have pointed out that the dramatic capture of Osama bin Laden proves Pakistan is a terrorist safe haven while lists have surfaced of ‘fugitives’, among them Hafiz Saeed of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Masood Azhar of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, who are based in Pakistan. This, of course, heightened concerns in the country. In this scenario, the Indian prime minister’s words are reassuring. It is also a good sign that they have come in Kabul, another country where there has been significant talk of Pakistan acting as a centre of terrorism and as such, threatening the world. Perhaps Dr Singh’s words can add some sanity to a situation that has grown more and more hostile for Pakistan.

Of course, the fact is that in the longer term Pakistan’s best guarantee of security lies in developing a relationship of greater trust with India. As he has done in the past, Mr Manmohan Singh has demonstrated friendly intent, while declining to elaborate on India’s strategy against terror. His phrasing that India is not like the US, in fact, suggests some tacit disapproval for the events in Abbottabad. For Pakistan, this is excellent news and should allow it to breathe a sigh of relief as its worst fears, that India would consider emulating the US and go after targets in Pakistan, are at least partially allayed.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]A radicalised society[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 16th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The arrest of a Karachi University student for being a member of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was another stark reminder of the radicalisation of our society. If the TTP has infiltrated one of the largest campuses in the country, there is likely no nook or cranny of society in which the Taliban are not present. The Islami Jamiat Talaba (IJT), the students wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami, has always had a major presence at the Karachi University campus. According to a senior police officer, some members after disillusionment with their group, went to Waziristan for training.

This arrest raises a number of troubling questions. Even though the IJT is an ostensibly mainstream student group, it has been involved in countless campus scuffles which often involve the use of arms. It is then fair to ask if the IJT is serving as a gateway to Taliban membership. The ideology of the two is perilously close, even if their methods are different. After his election, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced that he would lift the ban on student groups. He has not fulfilled this promise yet but were he to do so it is vital that groups like the IJT, which have not eschewed violence, either give up arms or remain outlawed.

The campus authorities also have a lot to answer for. Periodic bouts of violence have taken their toll on the university but the influence of student political groups prevents meaningful action being taken. Rangers are posted on campus but they do not have the authority to take any action other than aerial firing and checking cars. Members of influential student groups like the IJT are the true masters of the campus. Having already imbibed the toxic ideology of Islamic groups, it is no surprise that some of them have decided that the IJT and the JI are too timid.


[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]State of our children[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 16th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Though it contains nothing that we did not already know, the State of Pakistan’s Children 2010 report makes for grim reading. The report is a shocking picture of the plight of children who are beset with problems ranging from natural calamities to terrorism.

Last year’s floods have worsened the already precarious health and education infrastructure. Out of the six million affected children, 3.5 million remain at high risk, plagued with malnutrition and disease. With the schools left standing being used as refugee camps, education is low on the agenda. The dropout rate is likely to be high, as families driven further into poverty by the floods will force children to leave school for work. Around 126 schools have also been destroyed by militants, mainly in the tribal areas and other areas affected by militancy, such as Swat and Dir.

While child labour seems to be decreasing worldwide, in Pakistan it is actually increasing. The chilling case of Shazia Masih which came to light early last year, drew outrage and condemnation but in the absence of a law regulating child domestic labour, children working in homes continue to be abused and deprived of their basic rights to education, health, play and decent accommodation. According to another NGO at least six children are abused across the country every day, with girls often abducted for sex and boys for sodomy. Not only are children inadequately protected against sexual abuse, programmes for psycho-social rehabilitation are virtually non-existent.

In short, there is little to cheer at, and even less to hope for. Nothing could be further from the goals enshrined in the UN Convention than the state of Pakistan’s children. Meanwhile, the development expenditure from which they could benefit is being slashed and the elected government, from which there were high hopes, no longer even pretends that children are a priority. In such a scenario, little change can be expected.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Between a rock and a hard place[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B][B][RIGHT]May 17th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

It would be fair to assume that the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, during his visit to Islamabad would have delivered a tough message to Pakistan. On May 15, he said that ties between the US and Pakistan had reached a “critical phase” with mounting calls in America, especially Congress, to cut aid to Pakistan over the perception in the US that it was involved in sheltering Osama bin Laden, or at the very least, that it is not being forthcoming and truthful on the whole affair. In fact, the Massachusetts senator has already publicly said that members of the US Congress want a reduction in aid to Pakistan until it gets “serious” about fighting terrorism.

The senator also met the Pakistan army chief the same day and according to an ISPR press release, the latter “apprised” the former of the “intense feeling of rank and file of Pakistan Army on the Abbottabad incident”. Several US news organisations said, quoting a “Pakistani official” that the senator had “presented” the army chief with a “list of demands”. Although these have not been made public, one can make an educated guess that these would be related to the alleged presence of Mullah Omar in Pakistan and/or the reluctance of the military to, so far, launch an operation in North Waziristan.

The speculation in the media was that there would have been tough talk between them and with the prime minister and the president, whom he met on May 16. And this is being said for two reasons. One, that before leaving for Pakistan, Senator Kerry had told his American audience that he would press the Pakistani leadership to demonstrate “real commitment to fight terrorism”. And two, the military, fortified by a defiant joint resolution of parliament, would signal to the US that it was no longer a pushover. Is the ‘friendly senator’ here to deliver a stern, terminal warning which America delivered to Pakistan in 2001?

The fact is that today, the situation is different. The US has not gone to the UN on the matter of al Qaeda, although it may have the European Union behind it. Operation Geronimo was not in the same category as the Nato-Isaf assault on Afghanistan, and there are questions about the legality of what America has done. On the other hand, is Pakistan in a defiant posture today that it was not when General Musharraf submitted to the American threat in 2001 and the Foreign Office in Islamabad took the UN resolutions seriously? Has parliament given a charter of reckless diplomacy to those who handle our foreign policy?

There are two aspects to the reactions that have taken place on both sides after the Abbottabad operation. In the US, there is understandable outrage in the public which is dangerously undivided on the hard line the media is generally recommending. Yet, in the Obama Administration and among the Democrats in Congress, there is a word of caution on how to handle Pakistan after Osama’s death. This strand of thinking is of the view that care should be taken and Islamabad should not be coerced on this issue. It recommends a two-pillar strategy based on an ‘induced bilateral partnership and a reshaping of Pakistani perceptions of the regional strategic environment’.

Parallel to the dangerously uniform American public mind after Abbottabad, there is a Pakistani public consensus against America. When such uniformity of mind appears in democratic societies it is usually a dangerous sign, opening up possibilities of grand mistakes and blunders. The US faced it before attacking Iraq in 2003 and Pakistan is facing it now after the joint session of parliament emotionally placed the onus of defying America on the military. Yet, what appeared in the Pakistani press was not all in uniformity with public emotion. The questions asked related to the possibility of there being collusion from the Pakistani side in the provision of safe haven to Osama, endorsed by ex-army chief Pervez Musharraf who thought it was possible that some ‘rogue’ elements sheltered Osama without the high command knowing about it.

It is not time for Pakistan to isolate itself in the world and follow ‘strategic defiance’. Islamabad may find itself between a rock and in spite of that it must make the correct choice.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Another attack[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 17th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

The shooting of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi on May 16 would appear to carry forward the spirit of revenge we are seeing following the death of Osama bin Laden. Though the motives for the murder of a man believed to be a consular agent, after four motorcyclists followed the car through the Defence area of Karachi and then opened several rounds of fire, are being examined it is hard to imagine the incident is not linked to events in Abbottabad earlier this month. Just days ago grenades had been lobbed at the prominently located Consulate building. The Taliban, initially suspected to be behind Monday’s incident, have denied responsibility.

For Pakistan, the attacks, and especially the death on its soil of a Saudi national are embarrassing. They demonstrate a lack of ability to maintain law and order, and perhaps, especially, the inadequacies of our intelligence agencies which need to assess their performance in some depth. Without input from them, it is obviously difficult to put adequate security measures in place. The situation at present is an especially sensitive one. Relations with the US are already tense. Islamabad can simply not afford to lose the goodwill of other key allies. It is also becoming clear that the fall-out from the Bin Laden raid will be a severe one, felt at its most intense in the country. We do not know what is being planned by groups that support al Qaeda, but it is becoming clear that they mean business. The recent suicide-bombings in Charsadda district and the targeting of the Saudis are evidence of this. It is obvious too groups active in different cities are all active; we do not know if they are working collectively or alone.

The action in Abbottabad was carried out by the US on its own. The aftermath must be dealt with by Pakistan. Apologies, such as those made after the hurling of explosives at the Saudi Consulate by the Sindh chief minister will not be enough. Instead our security apparatus needs to work out a strategy and demonstrate it is indeed able to defend the country from the enormous threat it faces from within its own borders.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Some pragmatism, finally[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 18th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

Many who thought that the US and Pakistan were heading for confrontation and actual hostilities after the Bin Laden affair, will be disappointed to read the joint statement issued at the end of talks held by US Senator John Kerry with our civil and military leadership. It brings the severely-jolted relationship back to some cohesion, with both sides relenting in their extreme postures. The American side has committed to combined action against terrorist “high-value targets” and, according to one interpretation, will allow only the Pakistani side to carry out such operations.

Pakistan reiterated its position on al Qaeda: “Osama bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. Al Qaeda had declared a war on Pakistan and launched a wave of suicide attacks against its people. Pakistan is now being hit by a spate of revenge attacks.” The American assurance on future attacks on high-value targets, came in the wake of General Kayani’s briefing to Senator Kerry about the “intense feelings in the rank and file of the Pakistan Army over the Abbottabad incident”. And Pakistan digested the message Mr Kerry had brought from Washington: To cooperate or accept an aid cut-off from the US. An important part of the give-and-take was Mr Kerry’s personal assurance “written in blood”, that the US was not interested in taking out Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The visit has managed the patch-up it promised; and pledges have been made by both sides to expand and deepen bilateral cooperation against terrorism. The blocked information pipeline between the ISI and the CIA will be opened, but the rest of the plan for renewed cooperation will probably unfold in the coming days when the American side is forthcoming on the greatly-occluded civilian aid pipeline. The thaw was also expressed through Pakistan’s willingness to return the wreckage of the helicopter lost during Operation Geronimo.

Senator Kerry will now go back home to strengthen his so-called pro-Pakistan lobby which is not in favour of punitive measures against Islamabad. His advocacy will be buttressed by the joint statement and the content of the “frank and candid” exchange he has had with Pakistani leadership. More visits from the US, in quick succession, are planned to smooth the disturbed feathers of this equation. This diplomacy will be needed to prevent a rocky year so far in US-Pakistan relations from getting any worse.

Pakistan has chosen to ignore the extreme views — and some lies — recommending strategic defiance and jihad against America. For instance, a former army chief was has been quoted as saying that Osama bin Laden was not killed in Abbottabad and that his look-alike was brought from Bagram Jail and killed in front of Osama’s family. He said Bin Laden had been killed much earlier in Afghanistan and his body was still being kept in cold storage. He said that the drama of Abbottabad was staged to make President Obama win his second election and to corner Pakistan before destroying its nuclear weapons. Pakistan has ignored the ‘ghaibana’ funerals offered for Bin Laden all over Pakistan by the banned jihadi organisation Jamaat-ud-Dawa and has, also, not taken heed of Lal Masjid cleric Abdul Aziz’s assertion that he was ready to adopt Bin Laden’s children. The latter has said: “This is as much a murder as the murder of my brother Ghazi. Osama bin Laden is a hero for us and for every Muslim.”

The Manichaean Pakistani mind thinks that Islamabad should take an either/or one-time option in which the US is rejected in favour of either Russia or China, or both together. Neither Russia nor China is in a state of cold war with the US; in fact both are in the process of improving their already close economic contacts with it, in the interest of their economies. Pakistan has long-term economic and governance problems — corruption and the narrow tax-net — that cannot be solved in quick time and needs assistance from its friends. In an either/or option, it tends to lose rather than gain. Keeping all its friends inclined in its favour, it has to face the facts on ground and not listen to extremist voices of which there is no dearth.

[B][U][CENTER][SIZE="5"]Words — not deeds[/SIZE][/CENTER][/U][/B]
[B][RIGHT]May 18th, 2011[/RIGHT][/B]

At face value, Shahbaz Sharif’s words, stating that Punjab would not accept foreign aid, but set an example, for others by demonstrating how we can instead depend on our own resources, sound like a brave demonstration of patriotism. We certainly need more of that in our lives. But looking a little harder and going beyond the basic rhetoric, a number of questions come up. The first, perhaps, is that aid or loans from other countries are not necessarily a bad thing; the economies of many countries — including that of the US — run on such loans. The real problems that arise are when countries — like businesses or individuals — are unable to pay back loans or use them for non-productive purposes, with the result that more loans are needed to pay off previous ones taken. Pakistan has faced this problem, and its poor creditworthiness is one reason why other nations are reluctant to lend to it. In this context, perhaps the province should be focusing on raising resources to pay back what has been borrowed.

In this context, he has also spoken of ‘many hardships’ when aid is turned down. We wonder if this means hardship for ordinary people or the government. Certainly, denying people who already have too little of schools, healthcare and the other benefits aid can bring, simply to prove a rather dubious point, seems inherently unfair. It is these people who would bear the brunt of such a move — and not the wealthy who live lives of enormous privilege. Their ranks, of course, include almost all government members.

It should also be noted that the war on terror cannot be regarded simply as a single dimensional issue. It has many contours and curves and loops that cannot be ignored. Militancy, after all, is not just about the US or issues of sovereignty. It also requires efforts of our own to root out groups. In this context, we can only wonder why the jihadi organisations in Punjab remain able to continue their activities. Some of the latest terror attacks have been their doing, and Mr Sharif would do well to turn his attention to going after them.