Is al Qaeda under pressure?

January 28th, 2011

In his State of the Union address on January 25, US President Barack Obama painted a predictably upbeat picture of how his government is performing against the terrorist threat of al Qaeda. He claimed, with some justification, that al Qaeda and its agents have been prevented from attacking mainland America: “As extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities.” The reference was to an American of Pakistani origin, Faisal Shahzad, who nearly blew up Times Square in New York in 2010. The additional remark about the American-Muslim community served to placate the Muslims in the US who may have come under excessive scrutiny from security agencies.

Credit was taken for American withdrawal from Iraq in deference to American public opinion in the wake of the earlier administration’s failure, although the government in Baghdad was not comfortable with being left alone with al Qaeda looming from its western and eastern borders, courtesy a Syria-Iran joint venture. The president was compelled to concede, however, that al Qaeda was still planning attacks there. As American troops withdraw, would it be correct to say that America is taking the fight to al Qaeda? His words were: “We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad”.

In Afghanistan, in the view of most American analysts, the US and its allies have not achieved the victory against terrorism that they had hoped for. If you consider the rising public opinion against the war in the countries taking part in the Isaf-Nato enterprise in Afghanistan, the earlier the troops withdraw from Afghanistan the better. In other words, it would be difficult for Washington to keep its Nato allies in Afghanistan even during the run-up to the deadline of 2014, when the US will start leaving Afghanistan. Like the Iraqi government, Kabul is not happy about being left to its own devices after the exit. It doesn’t want to cohabit either with the Taliban or Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’.

One can say that instead of giving credence to Mr Obama’s claim that he has taken the fight to al Qaeda, most states neighbouring Pakistan are convinced that America is actually running away from the battle. There are two categories in this group: those who want America to be defeated and those who had joined the war against al Qaeda and are now getting ready to bear the consequences of American demission. Pakistan is the front runner among these states. Islamabad will take President Obama’s assertion — that “thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency” — with a pinch of salt.

A more relevant remark went like this: “In Pakistan, al Qaeda’s leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking.” It is not certain if al Qaeda can be brought under pressure in Pakistan without enhancing Pakistan’s capacity to fight the al Qaeda-directed jihadi organisations once patronised by the Pakistani state, the madrassa network aspiring to an ‘Islamic revolution’ and extremists who compel politicians and the media to propagate anti-Americanism even as Islamabad depends totally on the economic aid facilitated by the US.

Pakistan’s capacity to fight al Qaeda has been affected by a difference of objectives: the US wants to oust al Qaeda and uses drone attacks to get at its spreading tentacles in the tribal areas of Pakistan; the Pakistan Army wants to oust India from Afghanistan and is fighting the Taliban with one hand tied behind its back — that is — with the bulk of its force deployed on the border with India. Having failed to convince Pakistan to fight al Qaeda and its minions with full force, the US is said to have agreed to follow the line of action suggested by the Pakistan Army. If that is so, it will be incumbent on Pakistan to face up to al Qaeda after India has been ousted. Given the nature and intensity of Pakistan’s intra-state conflict, it is difficult to understand how the mere going away of America and India from Afghanistan will remove terrorism from Pakistan.

A shooting in Lahore

January 28th, 2011

January 27’s shooting incident on the busy streets of Lahore has all the makings of high drama reaching boiling point. At a time when anti-American passions are running high and when society is deeply polarised following Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassination, a shootout leading to deaths of two Pakistanis at the hands of a US government official could have serious repercussions. The incident itself is mired in controversy since the claim of “self-defence” used by the American citizen, who works for the US consulate in Lahore, is unlikely to be believed by many, especially those who see a conspiracy under every stone and who think that Pakistan is about to run over by the Americans and because the American may have used excessive force. That said, it is important at this point that this incident not be exploited by any political or religious group. The police, by all accounts, have quoted the American in saying that he acted in self-defence since he thought that the two men whom he shot were armed and were about to rob him at a traffic signal.

It would be fair to assume that given the law and order situation in the country and especially in volatile places such as Lahore, which has seen more than its fair share of terrorist incidents in the past few years, American, and perhaps other western, diplomats travel armed. What will need to be investigated is whether this was known to Pakistani authorities since host countries are usually notified in advance of such procedures. There are already questions being raised – and this will continue to happen – that had a Pakistani killed two Americans in, say, New York, he would immediately be locked up and given a long prison sentence or even death. However, it is imperative that the police, to the best of their ability, verify the claim that the motorcyclists were indeed robbers and perhaps weapons, if any, recovered from them could be used as proof. They also need to ascertain, and this is crucial, whether the American used excessive force. In any case, even in the US, shooting in self-defence can often result in a conviction, sometimes on a lesser charge, especially if it is proved that the person who claims to have acted in self-defence used excessive force.

Will Egypt go the way of Tunisia?

January 29th, 2011

What Tunisia sparked by revolting against its 20-year authoritarian ruler has spread to other countries in the Islamic world. The protest in Egypt has swelled into the biggest the country’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak, has ever seen.

Mass demonstrations demand freedom from dictatorship and removal of curbs on freedom of expression, but they were triggered by food inflation and elimination of state subsidies. All elements opposed to the regimes have joined in, including those who lead the Islamist wave among the Muslims of the world.

The reaction from the rest of the world has been predictable: Led by the US, it has called on the governments to respect the voice of the people and allow them a truly representational system that would help form a national consensus about who should rule and how. But the truth is that the world has dealt comfortably with the dictators so far, for trade and political reasons. There is the additional factor of Islamism that abhors ‘western’ democracy as well as ‘western’ economic devices, like interest-based banking systems. If one pays heed to what the religionists are saying, jihad, too, becomes a pillar of the state and that scares the world. Having said that, it would be fair to call America’s pleas for greater democracy, at this point in time, a bit hypocritical because without its support and military aid, Mr Mubarak would never have stayed this long in power.

Intellectually, it is untenable to ignore the right of the people to practice democracy. Even if the beginning is ruined by religious experimentation, in the long run all countries are supposed to get to the destination of liberal democracy. Disturbingly, this thesis is weak-kneed because of the Muslims’ tendency to shy away from education, in general, and liberal education, in particular, and remain largely illiterate in the modern sense. That said, there seems to be no other choice, and as one commentator pointed out yesterday, the mass protests do go to show that the two-faced nature of US foreign policy is not the sole reason for discontent and resentment in the Middle East.

That said, a quest for democracy or autonomy must not be accompanied by a curtailment of liberty (which is what happened after the Iranian Revolution of 1979) and where freethinking and dissent are punished. Under Josip Tito, Yugoslavia was a dictatorship but it was liberal; definitely more so compared to after 1999, when elections tilted its divided society towards greater intolerance. Under Suharto, Indonesia was doing well economically and was tolerant, but after democratisation it became economically worse off and socially intolerant. The prince in Kuwait wanted women to have the right to vote but the elected parliament banned women from being elected to public office.

The point is: Yes, there has to be greater freedom in the Arab world but that may come at a price. For starters, the immediate fallout will be anarchy and violence and it is not certain, especially given history, that people’s fundamental rights will be guaranteed. Liberty and freedom must be accompanied by restraint, but that may not happen in the kind of repressive climate that the Egyptians are now reacting to.

There can be no quarrel with the logic that dictatorship must end before the struggle for real, non-majoritarian democracy can begin. In the case of Egypt, years on one-man rule have left the rest of the world unsure that even if, and when, Mr Mobarak chooses to exit from the scene, what will follow. The alternate of Mohamed ElBaradei is being talked about mostly in the western press — perhaps because he is a known quantity — but it remains to be seen whether ordinary Egyptians will take to him as a leader. Or are we going to see a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood à la Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front. It could be weeks, even months, before all this clears up. As for the outside world, those who claim a role to leading it, such as America, they will have to be prepared to deal with an entirely new leadership in countries that have been traditional allies such as Egypt and to some extent Tunisia.

Mounting malnutrition

January 29th, 2011

Sometimes, we like to give ourselves some comfort by assuring that things in our country are still better than those in some other parts of the world. Countries in Africa come to mind when such comparisons are being made. But now it seems even this fluffy rug is being pulled away from under our feet. Unicef, following a survey conducted with the provincial government, has reported that levels of malnutrition in Sindh, rival those of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Chad and Niger. While levels in northern Sindh stand at around 23 per cent, the south fares only slightly better, with rates around 21 per cent. These figures put Sindh well above the WHO emergency benchmark of 15 per cent.

It is unknown for how long the people of the province have lived in this fashion, eating barely enough to keep themselves alive. The survey states that there is no way of ascertaining if recent floods are in any way responsible for the situation, or whether easier access to women and children, as a result of mass displacements, have brought forward information about their prevailing plight which was not known before. Teams of doctors from Karachi who have visited Sindh have been appalled at the malnutrition they have seen, especially among women who have borne many children and who routinely receive a less nutritious diet than their husbands or sons.

We know that Sindh houses some of the poorest people in the country. But given poverty levels in Balochistan, parts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and southern Punjab, there is every reason to believe that malnutrition is a wider problem. Certainly it is one that should be given far greater attention. The fact that people are starving in our country, while the rich and privileged indulge in extravagances of all kinds, is a disturbing one. As a country with greater resources than those of sub-Saharan Africa, we should be able to feed all our people. The abject failure on this count should make us think much harder about our policy priorities and where we are headed as a nation, which continues to struggle to provide enough to meet even the most basic needs of its people.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

Time to call it a day, Mr Mubarak

January 30th, 2011

Has the future of President Hosni Mubarak already been written out? Will the 30-year old reign of the autocratic leader now end — or will he survive, perhaps propped up by Washington where there is obvious concern about the possible loss of its most important ally in the Middle East? While the mass protests in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria, demanding the dictator step down, present the biggest challenge he has faced so far, the response has drawn still greater anger from people. Twenty-six people have been killed as police attempted to disperse demonstrators while Mubarak’s address to the nation, in which he announced he was dismissing the government, has fallen well short of the expectations of people who had hoped the aging Mubarak would himself call it a day.

The turmoil in Egypt, which has kept people across the Middle East, and many in this country as well, glued to their television sets and computer screens, drives home many lessons. The first of these is that set-ups whose survival depends almost entirely on US backing cannot hope to cling on to power forever. It is possible that the pressure exerted by the Obama administration on Mubarak to introduce reform may also have encouraged people to pour onto the streets. The stance had broken from the rhetorical calls for democracy occasionally made by the Bush government. But, of course, the main US priority is to protect its own interests. Egypt, the fourth largest recipient of American aid, is regarded as Washington’s most important ally in the Arab world. Indeed a tussle for Egyptian loyalty has been a feature of events in the region since the days of the Cold War. Even now, for all the talk on democracy and prolonged telephonic discussions between Obama and Mubarak, Washington will wish at all costs to retain its partnership with Cairo. As always, the concerns of ordinary people in that country are secondary to this.

But the mood across Egypt is angry — and rightly so, given that it has had dictatorial rule for the past 30-odd years with no significant opposition. It has been for some days, since events in Tunisia and the fall of President Ben Ali led to the beginning of similar protests in Egypt. What people want is clear. They have shouted fierce slogans calling for Mubarak to quit and attacked offices of the ruling party. So, sacking the cabinet, which the president did late on the night of January 28, or making vague promises of social reform will not do. The people of Egypt want their president to yield and resign and let the country be run in a more democratic and transparent manner. As in Tunisia, there will be a limit to the time for which they can be held off. Repressive measures, including restrictions on internet access and the disruption of mobile phone services only add to public anger. People, tired of food price inflation, unemployment and corruption have quite obviously run out of patience. The way things stand at the moment it will be hard to persuade them to return quietly to their houses. Things have accelerated too quickly for this to happen. And in this, of course, there is a message for all set-ups unwilling to put the most pressing needs of people on the top of their list of priorities.

In an address, during which he appeared calm and unruffled by unfolding events, President Mubarak spoke of the “thin line” between liberty and chaos. But the people of Egypt have spoken as well and they want a future that does not have Hosni Mubarak or any of his lackeys in it. They want greater freedom and the democracy denied to them for too long. An entire generation has grown up under Mubarak. They now seek change; a chance to have a greater say in their own future. President Mubarak’s concerns about chaos may have some basis in history and the effects that many revolutions have had on the societies that have experienced them, in terms of ensuing anarchy and violence. But the onus in this case should not lie on the people of Egypt but on Mr Mubarak — the best way to avoid all of this would be to step down and call it a day.

Releasing Raymond Davis

January 30th, 2011

A day prior to issuing a somewhat strident statement, the US embassy had said that it did not want the fatal shooting of two Pakistanis, and the running over of another by a US consulate vehicle, to cloud relations between the two countries. However, the statement released on January 29, by demanding that Raymond Davis be “immediately” released from custody since he was a diplomat and hence protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, is likely to cause an equal, if not greater, public outcry among many people. It will be seen as an attempt to subvert the course of law and justice in this particular case. It will also reinforce the widely-held view in this and many other developing countries that powerful nations like the US do not care much for the justice systems of countries such as Pakistan.

And while the workings of the legal system may indeed leave much to be desired, the focus in this case is not that. Several important questions need to be answered and sorted out before Mr Davis can be released. Perhaps the most important of these (also raised in an article on these pages today by an eminent lawyer from Lahore, a graduate of one of America’s best law schools) is the issue of Mr Davis’s identity. Is he a diplomat (according to an ABC News report, he is a private security consultant) and if so, then the immunity given to one can be waived only by his own government. Other matters relate to standard operating procedures used by diplomats in Pakistan, even those working undercover (though it is yet to be ascertained either way, whether Mr Davis was an undercover official), especially with regard to carrying weapons and travelling in vehicles with local number plates.

Were the Pakistani authorities aware of these measures, since they would presumably violate the law, and if diplomats are allowed such things then under what authority? Also, what happened to the driver of the jeep that came to Mr Davis’s rescue and in the process ran over and killed another Pakistani? What is his identity and what is to become of the suspect? Surely, these matters need to be settled before the government can make a determination to release Mr Davis.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

The begging bowl

January 31st, 2011

assistance without meeting any of the many tough, but necessary, conditions attached to it. To this end, the finance ministry is planning on enlisting the help of the US government, perhaps not realising that the Americans are just as cognisant of the need for fiscal reform in Pakistan as the IMF.

It is nothing short of embarrassing to watch the government of Pakistan beg and plead unreasonably with the Americans for money. Does nobody in the finance ministry have even the faintest desire to ensure that Pakistan can stand on its own economic feet? Must the proverbial begging bowl remain our perennial fate?

The fact remains that the IMF is being entirely reasonable in its demands of the government: increase your revenues, rationalise the tax code and end unaffordable subsidies. These measures will no doubt be unpopular. But there is also a near-consensus amongst economists that all of these policies are in our own national interest. The IMF is not some international conspiracy to strangle the Pakistani economy: it is an international institution designed to help countries become financially self-reliant.

Indeed, Pakistan has seen the benefits of the IMF’s recommendations before. The last IMF programme the government entered into, during the late-1990s and early 2000s, was a success. The Sharif and Musharraf administrations made some tough decisions that paid off: Pakistan’s skyrocketing debt was brought under control and inflation dipped into the low single digits for the first time since the 1970s. But then the profligate spending returned as President Musharraf decided to enact populist measures in a bid to win re-election, a move that failed to win him anything and badly damaged the economy in the process.

The current administration has shown promise in several areas but fiscal reform is not one of them. It has hardly taken any of the necessary decisions that are unpopular and seems to assume that American largesse will continue forever, precluding the need to raise government resources from within the country. That illusion is about to be painfully shattered and the people of Pakistan will once again suffer the consequences.

Preventing economic meltdown

January 31st, 2011

At a recent meeting of government allies and PML-N’s so-called ‘friendly opposition’, the government’s plea to pass on the recent oil price hike to the people — at the rate of nine rupees per litre — was unanimously rejected and it was advised instead to subsidise the oil consumer in Pakistan with money saved from ‘ending corruption among its ministers and appointees’. This was not something that the world outside Pakistan would applaud, because it merely meant that the opposition was playing to the gallery of vulgar opinion and wanted to push the PPP to the brink of a fall.

The last oil price rise was forced back by the opposition — which suddenly looked like having a majority in parliament — at the rate of billions of rupees a month. In the West they don’t do this kind of populist economics. France and the UK saw politicians across the board stand behind subsidy cuts in the face of unrest on the streets. In Iran, a government that earns huge amounts of foreign exchange from its oil exports removed the subsidy from local oil consumption to avoid the fall of the local currency to an extent that it destroys the buying power of the poor. Basic economics will tell us that a subsidy extends government expenditures. Pakistan’s are such that if unchecked they could lead to a budget deficit of over eight per cent of the GDP, which would in turn lead to high inflation because the deficit would have to be met by borrowing from the State Bank — in other words, the printing of more money.

It seems everybody is helpless in the face of economic populism despite bad results from past manhandling of the market. Let us have a look: Our judiciary resorted to it, flying in the face of supply and demand, and the sugar crisis did not become any less severe by its interventions. The military establishment wrongly rejected the Kerry-Lugar bill. More economics was defied by the Punjab government when it opted for ‘sasti roti’.

TV channels with ‘petrol bomb’ issuing out of the mouths of tyro newsreaders are most to blame, reinforcing the public trend of marching into the streets and destroying public property because the government refused to curb its own corruption. But the news side of the media refuses, by and large, to inform itself about what the business side is saying. No one seems to pay any attention to the pleas of the State Bank governor when he says that Pakistan must enforce the RGST as well as stop subsidising oil or when the finance minister says that a demand for turning the economy around in 45 days does not make any sense.

The Senate heard the government say on January 28 it was “on the borderline”, meaning it was moving ominously close to a financial and economic meltdown. It had provided a subsidy of over Rs412 billion to Wapda and Pepco over the past five years, almost Rs100 a year on average, the largest chunk being Rs146.5 billion in 2009-10. “Money to throw” was also taken from the pool of domestic ‘saving centre’ borrowing amounting to Rs1.527 trillion during the PPP’s tenure so far. During the last quarter, it had also borrowed Rs80 billion from the State Bank and Rs204 billion from commercial banks and had a tough time paying it back given the fact that it was not able to collect its normal revenues from indirect taxation.

There are vested interests in the country that legitimately put forward the Keynesian solution of building up deficits for the sake of growth. The industrial sector says lower the interest rate and allow the sector to function normally which would mean preventing unemployment and lessening the pressure of popular unrest in the country. Our new governor of the State Bank and the IMF both think that this won’t work and that contraction and ‘belt-tightening’ is the only way to go. And no one will deny that this belt-tightening will affect the poor of the country only. Yet, subsidising things would mean making things easy for those already well-off and it would lead to a substantial weakening of the rupee.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

How many revolutions?

February 1st, 2011

Responding to a recent statement of the United States Vice-President, Joe Biden, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said on January 30 that the situation in Egypt and Tunisia could not be compared with that of Pakistan as ‘our institutions are working and democracy is functional’. He referred to some positive signs in the economy like the foreign exchange reserves and foreign remittances, but his more relevant pointer was to Pakistan’s institutions.

One must judge Pakistan on the criterion of success or failure of the post-colonial state. Unfortunately, most Muslim states are struggling to prove they are viable. In Africa, most post-colonial states have plunged into turmoil because the ‘idea of the state’ is complicated by pre-modern ideology or tribalism. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is in a different category. Yet, one can also say that Pakistan is on the edge of the geographical boundary from where the troubled state actually begins to assert itself more emphatically.

Iran is the model that appeals to most Muslim states struggling with an ill-digested ideology after rejecting their 20th century modernist philosophers. Pakistan as a model is imperiled by the presence on its soil of religious-terrorist elements it doesn’t control.

The positive elements are clear. Pakistan gives full play to all the political entities present in the country. Unlike Egypt, it allows religious parties to contest elections; it does not ban political opposition like Iran. Restrictions placed on religious elements in Egypt and Tunisia have pushed them underground and transformed religion into an enemy of the state. In Pakistan, mainstream non-religious parties win elections and the religious parties take a much lower profile as popular entities. It is true, in the case of Pakistan, that the democratic process is the solvent of non-representational violence. Pakistan also has a vibrant and relatively free press, notwithstanding that times are dangerous for journalists and that there is some self-censorship on issues related to military coverage and corruption, for instance.

The glaring example of Egypt’s suppression of the Ikhwanul Muslimoon can be cited in contrast. This suppression has crippled the ability of the organisation to act normally and has pushed many in extremist directions. The Ikhwan made a comeback in 2005 when they posted victories in Egypt’s parliamentary elections. This was followed by more suppressive policies by President Hosni Mubarak. But the threat of the Ikhwan is felt by the secularists of Egypt.

Until Pakistan allowed international jihad outside its own armed forces, the ‘difference’ separated Pakistan’s democracy from the governance models in the rest of the Muslim world. Today, however, international brigades of warriors in Pakistan have begun to pressure the democratic process and have placed Pakistani citizens in a situation of intimidation, where the choice of either supporting the state and its democratic order, or accepting a coercive Islamic order, is destabilising the country.

What is more, the democratic process is further in jeopardy in the face of the ‘street muscle’ of the religious parties — some of them linked to al Qaeda through the madrassa network — capable of sustaining prolonged protest marches in major cities. The shrinking of the state has allowed a kind of re-tribalisation of society in some areas. Vast regions are outside its effective jurisdiction while, in the administered areas, panchayats and jirgas are busy issuing unconstitutional and illegal judgments.

Now take a look at the ironies inherent in this comparison. Non-democratic states like Saudi Arabia, Morocco and the UAE have the stability and the law and order situation suitable for economic development. Democratic Pakistan is increasingly unsuited to economic development because of the weakness of its state and terrorism. Just as the world is telling Egypt to allow more democracy, it is telling democratic Pakistan to move against its ‘non-state actors’ spreading terrorism and then using Pakistan as ground zero to spread terrorism in the rest of the world.

Running away

February 1st, 2011

What one thinks of Ram Singh Sodho’s departure for India pretty much depends on who he is, with regard to beliefs and faith. The Indian media has predictably painted it as an example of the threats under which minorities in Pakistan live, but the truth of the situation is far from clear. His own party colleagues in the PML-Q claim his move to India is more a question of his deteriorating health, rather than any physical danger he was facing. While another Hindu member of the PPP has rejected the move entirely as an attempt to defame Sindh. Without passing judgement on Mr Sodho’s motives, the fact remains that while Hindus find themselves particularly vulnerable in the increasingly violent and intolerant Pakistan of today, they are by no means the only ones feeling the heat. Stories of the Sikh community in Fata being targeted by the Taliban, have also made headlines across the world. Similarly, the kidnapping of the Hindu spiritual leader Lakshmi Chand Garji may have been painted as an attack on minorities but the fact remains that in today’s Balochistan one does not have to be a Hindu to be in danger.

The majority Muslims themselves are being increasingly divided and sub-divided into minorities of their own, pigeon-holed into the ill-fitting categories of moderates and fundamentalists, progressives and reactionaries. This is in addition to the sectarian dividing lines that have already been drawn: Shia and Sunni, Deobandi and Barelvi, and of course the Ahmadis who were expelled from the fold many years ago. Nor are the only divisions religious and ideological in nature. Ask a Pashtun based in Karachi how secure he feels in the city, or cast an eye at the mass departure of Punjabi ‘settlers’ from Balochistan and we see clearly that the painful process of exodus and exile is already underway within the country itself. Federal Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti may have been receiving threats since the Gojra carnage, but it was Salmaan Taseer, a Muslim, who paid with his life as he tried to take a stand and come to the rescue of a Christian women. No matter who we are, or what we believe, we are all minorities now in the sense that no one seems to be safe from the ever-rising intolerance.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

Useless arsenals

February 2nd, 2011

Many in Pakistan will probably feel rather proud at the thought that according to a report in The Washington Post, we now have more nuclear weapons than India. According to experts cited in the article, Pakistan now has over 100 such arms as compared to the 60 to 100 possessed by India. The thought of what it must have taken to develop these runs through the mind each time one sees a child scavenging for food or a sick person lie in the courtyard of a hospital that has no room for patients. The hawks in Pakistan will argue that the superiority in nuclear arms helps balance India’s advantage in conventional weapons. But does this really make sense? The destructive power of a single nuclear-powered weapon is enough to create havoc on an unimaginable scale. Given this reality, the possibility of firing many dozens of weapons seems remote. A single strike and the expected response from India would be enough to bring both nations to their knees.

There can be no conceivable advantage to building more and more weapons. In terms of humanism or reality, their use is not really an option. One nuclear warhead offers just as much deterrence as many more. The problem is lack of awareness among people about these weapons and the devastating effects of their use. While their acquisition, over a decade ago was hailed as a great national event — it could also be construed as a tragedy. Nuclear weapons bring with them the most terrible horrors. Sadly, people at home are not familiar with these. But if we wish truly to guarantee the security of our nation, it is people we need to invest in. Eventually their well-being holds the key to the security of the country. Arsenals of nuclear weapons, whether they number a few dozen or several hundred cannot really offer a nation any security. There is nothing to be proud off in Pakistan’s latest status as the world’s fifth largest nuclear power. In fact, it counts as a matter of shame that while these weapons are built, and scientific expertise and resources spent on this, people across the country still lack access to safe water, food and other basics of what constitutes a dignified life.

Subsidising oil prices

February 2nd, 2011

Despite a virtual cacophony of voices opposing its move, the government has decided to bow to the pressures of political expediency and continue its subsidy on fuel prices. The government is under enormous strain from its coalition allies. It is never easy to raise prices, especially in an already high-inflation environment. Yet the administration must understand that a failure to curb subsidies is likely to lead to an unsustainable widening of the federal budget deficit. In essence, the current policy of the government is a repeat of what the Musharraf administration tried in 2007. The result was a gigantic inter-corporate circular debt, which has crippled the energy sector, and high inflation. Clearly, this policy should not be repeated.

Of course, lest this newspaper be accused of advocating higher petrol prices, it should be clarified, that the subsidy created by the government to keep the price unchanged would necessarily lead to inflationary pressures. This would happen because the subsidy has to be funded by either tax collection or other revenue such as a loan or aid inflow. In Pakistan’s case, the usual route is borrowing from the State Bank, which in other words means printing more money, and that causes inflation. Furthermore, the budget deficit, which is already on its way to being well beyond its IMF-stipulated limit of 4.7 per cent of GDP, could reach as high as seven or eight per cent. The finance minister has recently commented on this, saying that such a high level would be unsustainable for the economy and that cuts in government expenditure would have to be made somewhere. If the oil subsidy is not brought down, then such cuts would have to be made in the public sector development programme and spending on social and human development would suffer.

Mineral resources and deprivation

February 2nd, 2011

A recent incident in which six persons, including, at least, two employees of the Hungarian company MOL — engaged in oil and gas exploration at the Maramzai gas field in the Kohat district — were killed after their convoy was intercepted, exposes the many sorrows that arise from decades of poor governance, especially in the smaller provinces. The incident, which has led to MOL suspending operations until adequate security can be provided, is being blamed on Taliban elements — but there are twists in the tale. Local tribesmen had been demanding jobs in the multinational firm, with complaints coming in that employees were hired from Punjab by the Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited and the Oil and Gas Development Company.

The provincial government, perhaps best placed to look after security, believed that since it received only 12 per cent as royalty from the millions earned by the federal government for the project, protecting staffers was chiefly Islamabad’s concern. There are many potentially grave implications in such disgruntlement, given that eight other foreign firms are involved in oil and gas exploration in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP), mainly in Kohat district. Demands by locals for jobs, meanwhile, arise from a situation in which there is growing joblessness and desperate poverty. Blaming the crisis entirely on militancy is therefore not quite correct. While the impact of the attack is being downplayed, the volume of gas supplied to SNGPL and the revenue of organisations engaged in the joint venture agreement with MOL will fall. There is also the fear that the incident may plant ideas about attacks on other gas fields in KP, replicating the situation already seen in Balochistan.

More than anything else, Pakistan needs investment and activity that can generate jobs. The prospects of these today seem bleaker than ever and this augurs ill for the future.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

The law and the Raymond Davis case

February 3rd, 2011

The case of American citizen Raymond Davis killing two Pakistani youths in Lahore is now with a judicial magistrate, even as the Lahore High Court has seen to it that Mr Davis does not leave Pakistan till the matter is decided under law. To ensure proper adjudication, the Punjab government’s prosecutor before the court has been removed because he had publicly discussed the case in a manner adjudged prejudicial by the high court.

The shootout took place in the midst of growing anti-American feeling in the country. News about American drones killing innocent Pakistanis in tribal areas have been relayed graphically in the media, including coverage of a protest by tribesmen appealing to the government to do something about the attacks. There is a nationwide campaign by religious parties on the question of the blasphemy law and it targets the West, America in particular — the latter is cited, in large part, as applying pressure on the government of Pakistan to change or repeal the law.

Reporting the case, the media has mostly conveyed the feelings of the people and preliminary reactions of state officials, which are negative and tend to speculate that Mr Davis killed the youths without cause and that he should be punished. Passion is aroused by further speculation that the government will let the ‘American killer’ leave Pakistan under pressure from Washington. The general opinion is that Mr Davis should be made an example of how the Pakistani state will restore its sovereignty and self-respect by subjecting him to its law.

Mr Davis has taken the plea of self-defence while the US embassy has claimed diplomatic immunity for him and called his arrest a violation of the regime of treatment of diplomatic personnel between the two countries. The plea of self-defence is based on the claim that the two men killed by Mr Davis endangered his life by pointing their guns at him. No one appearing in the media has confirmed this, although some claim has been made that the two were robbers. Two citizens have also claimed that they were robbed by the two earlier.

The waters have been muddied by the discussion of the law of immunity under the Vienna Conventions. Some legal experts believe that under these conventions, Mr Davis does not qualify for diplomatic immunity — and in this regard, a US news report has been cited in which it has been claimed that Mr Davis worked for a private company as a contractor for the US government. There is also the question of ‘practice’ between the US and Pakistan, on which the Foreign Office in Islamabad has to furnish its considered opinion. In any case, the issue of whether Mr Davis was here on a business visa or a diplomatic visa has not been officially clarified by Islamabad, leading some to wonder about the reason for such reluctance.

Then there is the unavoidable question of relations with a superpower which is an ally and a source of economic assistance to Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan has been making ‘legal concessions’ to the US, handing over terrorists without any trial. (This must be read together with the fact that judges in Pakistan are not protected against terrorist threats and have been observed letting off terrorism suspects.) The National Assembly and the Senate have, therefore, echoed with noisy appeals to let Mr Davis taste the fruits of his act.

Anywhere in the world, the legal process should not be mixed with public passions. Once this happens, everyone comes under pressure and the ability of the state to act wisely is severely curtailed. The best option now is that the court should decide the matter in the light of the law and formal reciprocal understandings should be reached between Pakistan and the US in the case of officials working in each other’s jurisdiction. And in this regard, it is the Foreign Office which must play its role without bowing to any internal or external pressure. The emotion being expressed in the media will ill-serve the cause of justice and adversely affect US-Pakistan relations.

Saddened skies

February 3rd, 2011

The Kite Flying Association, which oversees a pastime that has been a central part of life in the city of Lahore for centuries, is hoping the ban placed on the fluttering diamond of paper will be lifted for at least 15 days this year. The lack of even a single kite in the bright blue February skies during the last few years has left many sad. The city seems, quite literally, to have lost its colour. In 2005, the Supreme Court banned kite-flying on the basis of the injuries it caused. The Punjab Assembly in 2009 passed a law barring the flying of kites for all but 15 days in the year.

Who would have thought an activity pursued passionately across the country would create such a furore. The culprit, of course, is the razor-sharp string used to fly the kites. The injuries caused by it are undoubtedly tragic. But then people also die when racing motorcycles, cars and, occasionally, even when playing cricket. People drown in swimming pools and in canals. Should all these activities then be banned? There is another side to the story. Religious lobbies have, for years, opposed Basant — the only secular festival on the Pakistani calendar — on the dubious grounds that it is a ‘Hindu’ celebration. Hypocrisy reigns supreme, and this time, too, we have heard complaints that the kite-flying event is accompanied by drinking, gambling and dancing. This, of course, is also true, as far as alcohol consumption and dancing goes, of events such as weddings and even Eid. Gambling is a routine part of life in Lahore, while most of our marriage traditions have roots in our subcontinental past, where Hindu, Muslim and Sikh customs mingled.

The ban on kite-flying has left Lahore a more insipid place. It has also deprived dozens of peoples of jobs. We need to be rational. Glass or chemical coated string needs to be banned — these can catch unsuspecting bikers across the throat, often with fatal consequences, and can also cause short-circuits in overhead power cables. As is happening in India, awareness needs to be raised about the dangers it poses. But this having been said, there seems to be no sense at all in throwing the baby out with the bath water by placing a blanket ban on flying kites.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

A pitiable retreat

February 4th, 2011

PPP leader and MNA Sherry Rehman has been forced to withdraw the bill she had tabled at the National Assembly to amend the blasphemy law. She says she was not consulted on the matter, adding that even though she had not been taken into confidence, she would abide by the prime minister and her party’s position on the matter. That means further discussion of any procedural amendments to the controversial blasphemy law is now precluded, and its abuse will continue.

Her bill sought to make some humane changes in the law as it stands today. Submitted last year in the wake of what happened after the victimisation of a Christian woman under the law, the bill sought to return the legislation to its earlier formulation, allowing life imprisonment as only maximum punishment. The universally criticised aspect of Section 295-C of the Penal Code was the minimum sentence of death, which precluded bail under mitigating circumstances and tied the hands of the judge to decide on a verdict commensurate with the seriousness of the blaspheming content.

Two members of the PPP had taken a courageous stand on the victimisation of Aasia Bibi and the death sentence handed down to her by a sessions judge: Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer and MNA Sherry Rehman. The governor was killed by a policeman after the clergy joined hands across their sectarian squabbles and issued fatwas of death against him. Sherry Rehman was forced to arrange for her security because agitators in this country no longer resort to legal means of achieving their ends.

Across the world, opinion has turned negative about Pakistan, realising that in some cases even discussion of disputed laws is no longer possible. The PPP government, even if it was earlier thinking of pardoning the victim, quickly came under pressure by the desertion of its coalition partners and the opposition. It was daunted by the successful warning made by the clergy that no cleric should read or attend Governor Taseer’s funeral prayers. Not only that, all politicians decided to bury their heads in sand and the lawyers’ community came forward to glamorise and defend the killer of the governor in the court of law.

Seeing how successful their campaign was, the clergy closed their ranks and launched a further attack on the government, demanding that the bill tabled by Sherry Rehman be taken back. They also demanded that the government undo the committee formed to discuss the draft of the proposed legislation. Because of the backing of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan the clergy then started their countrywide show of strength and increased the temperature of reaction through their patently false arguments for retaining the blasphemy law as it is.

Sherry Rehman’s explanation of what she was trying to do was persuasive, but no one paid any heed to it: “No Muslim would expect not to protect the Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) name, and no Pakistani would ever suggest anything other than that. The changes I had submitted were simple: that people be given a chance to prove their innocence like in all laws, and that cases be tried at the Higher Courts, that penalties be given according to the Holy Quran, and that no one who makes false charges in the name of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), who swore always to defend the innocent and the vulnerable, go unpunished.”

The clerics came on TV channels and took advantage of the illiterate and scared TV hosts to claim that the Holy Quran clearly ordered death to the blasphemer. No one has yet shown the precise ‘hundred or so verses’ of the Holy Quran containing the edict of death. In some cases, where the verses were recited, it was discovered that the said cleric had cleverly omitted certain in-between verses to connect blasphemy with munafiqeen (hypocrites) spreading schism among Muslims who are ordained to be killed. Unfortunately, what one can say in Pakistan in English one can’t say in Urdu, with the result that the Urdu press has, by and large, allowed the controversial law to stand by default.

An opportunity to inform the people about a defective and exploitative ‘human legislation’ has been lost.

Police in peril

February 4th, 2011

The violence in Balochistan continues to grow. Its latest victims have been four policemen shot dead on a highway leading from the Bolan area to Quetta. A fifth policeman was able to escape into the mountains of the Bolan area, where the incident took place. Reports remain somewhat confused, but it seems one of the dead was the SHO of the Dera Murad Jamali police station. The policemen were not the only persons to fall victim to the militants. Six other persons, including the deputy head of administration in the town of Jhal Magsi, were abducted. Members of his family were allowed to go.

There has been no formal claim of responsibility, but it does seem that nationalist outfits may be involved. Some media reports speak of messages being delivered from them. Again, there is uncertainty. But other facts before us are crystal clear. With each passing day, Balochistan is plunging deeper and deeper into anarchy. School teachers are killed, gas installations blown up, ‘settlers’ murdered and people abducted for ransom. Some tactics, it appears, have been picked up by Baloch militants from the Taliban. In other cases, criminals seem to be involved. The degree of lawlessness is quite terrifying.

Is there a solution? One will have to be found. Things cannot drift on as is now happening. The state appears essentially to have lost control over its largest province. What is even more worrying is that very little is being done, at least as far as we can see, to remedy the situation. Last October, Amnesty International had called on Pakistani authorities to investigate incidents involving the alleged killing and torture of 40 Baloch activists. The organisation noted that these deaths came against a backdrop of stepped up military activity in the province.

There can, of course, be no excuse for murder or kidnapping. These acts need to be condemned in the strongest terms. But the reality also is that such unrest, such anger and such angst has been generated by years of perceived injustice in Balochistan. This sense of injustice runs deep through the core of the province and will need to be urgently addressed if the mayhem on the streets and highways is to be stopped and a sense of security restored.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

A smaller, better cabinet

February 5th, 2011

The decision by the PPP’s Central Executive Committee to authorise the prime minister to dissolve the cabinet, in effect paving the way towards a leaner and smaller cabinet, is a good one and should be welcomed in that it seeks to implement the Eighteenth Amendment in letter and spirit. Even after the withdrawals of the MQM and the JUI-F, the size of the current cabinet – over 50 members – was a heavy burden on the taxpayer and the focus of much public resentment and anger. One of the main reasons, the people have been told, for the dissolution was that several ministries had been devolved fully to the provinces and hence these divisions needed to be closed down since they did not need to exist at the federal level. A similar kind of exercise happened at the Sindh government level earlier this past week with 12 advisers to the chief minister being let off, and here too the Eighteenth Amendment was cited as the reason.

While it is too early to know what the size of the new cabinet will be, one hopes that it will be not more than half of the outgoing one. Also, the prime minister, one sincerely hopes, will consult with his coalition partners to choose individuals who can do justice to the portfolios that are assigned to them. In fact, that should be the primary purpose behind this “right-sizing”, as the government is calling it. The idea should also be to find new, preferably younger, faces and especially those individuals who have a moderate worldview and are forward-thinking. It would be a waste of time, frankly speaking, if the same old faces are instead picked up because as far as performance goes, apart from a few ministers – and this number can be counted on the fingers of one hand – the rest have performed miserably. That is where democracy’s missing link is found in this country – in that those who are elected by the people to parliament do practically nothing for the electorate and the result is all before us: massive levels of misgovernance and an abject failure by the government to deliver even the most basic of amenities and services to ordinary Pakistanis.

Just in time

February 5th, 2011

It is entirely in keeping with the ethos of Pakistan cricket that even a series victory is accompanied by confusion. We may have won the One-Day International series against New Zealand, following on from our victory in the Tests, but we only found out who will be captaining our side in the World Cup after the series victory was wrapped up. With the World Cup barely a fortnight away, the Pakistan Cricket Board inexplicably kept Shahid Afridi and Misbahul Haq on tenterhooks until the last minute. And so, despite Afridi’s reappointment for the World Cup, the captain, and indeed the entire team, will still be racked with insecurity. Being in a state of flux, it seems, is endemic to Pakistan cricket.

Whatever goodwill exists for the team after its comprehensive victory against New Zealand will likely evaporate today when an International Cricket Council tribunal in Doha announces its spot-fixing verdict. Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif all face potential life bans and even possible criminal prosecution in the UK — a likely possibility given their indictment by British authorities, reported on February 4. There is nothing that takes away the gloss of a victory more than the revelation that your team has recently been involved in corruption and cheating.

We can, however, take heart in the fact that the team has been able to perform so well despite all the drama surrounding it. True, New Zealand is one of the weaker teams in international cricket, but our victory comes at just the right time to build confidence for the all-important World Cup. And Pakistan has the knack of springing a surprise when one least expects it. Surrounded by a dysfunctional board, filled with inexperienced players, unsure of the leadership of the team and about to have three vital players banned, by all rights our cricket team should be in disarray. And yet, the nagging feeling persists that with a bit of luck this team could go all the way at the World Cup.

[B]

Putting things right

February 5th, 2011

One of the many advantages of democratic governments is that they listen to voices from society. Responding to just such a voice, the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Human rights has cleared a bill for tabling before the National Assembly. The National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) will have powers to act as a civil court and has been set up in keeping with a 1993 UN General Assembly resolution. As the saying goes, better late than never.

The immediate impetus to set up the body seems to have come from a report by New York-based Human Rights Watch that said 2010 was the worst year for human rights, with the rate of forced disappearances rising and more atrocities against minorities reported than ever before. While a report should not have been necessary to drive the obvious home to the government, it is encouraging that some action has been taken.

The degree to which the body can effectively deal with violations will depend on many factors. The National Human Rights Commission of India has proved effective largely because it has been able to function without intervention and has taken up cases zealously. We hope those making up the body in the country will study its example — and learn from both its failings and its achievements.

But, of course, it would be unrealistic to expect the new commission to perform miracles. The body will need to find its feet; it will also need to tackle issues that relate both to changes in discriminatory laws and the implementation of those that are not properly enforced. This is a gigantic challenge in itself. To succeed, the NCHR needs the support of the government, but no direct intervention in its affairs. The setting up of the body is a welcome step. Only the future will tell how effective it is in curbing the horrible cases of rights abuses we hear about every day.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

Reap what you sow

February 6th, 2011

In delaying its verdict on the futures of Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Amir by nearly a month, the ICC tribunal may have done Pakistani fans a favour. It has given us more time to process the inevitable, that all three are guilty of spot-fixing and selling out their country for personal enrichment. In handing down a 10-year ban (five of which are suspended) to Butt and a seven-year ban (two of which are suspended) to Asif, the ICC has effectively ended their careers. Amir is young enough to come back after serving his five-year ban although returning after a prolonged absence will not be easy. The cricketers have the option of appealing the verdict with the Court of Arbitration for Sport but, given that an British authorities intend to prosecute them for conspiracy to cheat and accepting corrupt payments, this may not be a good option.

For Butt, Asif and Amir, the future couldn’t be clearer. They will live their days out in shame and infamy. Fans will do their best to blot out the memory of this disgraceful episode and continue supporting their cleansed team. Meanwhile, the latter has had encouraging series against South Africa and New Zealand and there finally seems to be a measure of stability in the days leading up to the World Cup. To assume, however, that after the verdict all is well and good with Pakistani cricket would be a folly. Part of the reason the cricketers felt they could get away with corruption was the PCB’s head-in-the-sand stance over the years. By all accounts, match-fixing was present in the 1990s but bans were handed down against cricketers only after they had retired from the sport.

The PCB needs to ensure it is vigilant and doesn’t automatically assume a defensive posture when its cricketers are charged with corruption. As for the cricketers, while they earn far more than most of their countrymen, they are paid far less than most other international cricketers. With the PCB’s finances in a mess and international cricket halted in the country due to terrorism, they will have to accept that pride in representing their country compensates any shortfalls in earning potential.

Endgame in Egypt

February 6th, 2011

After ten days of protests in Cairo — and other cities — badly disrupting life, everyone seems ready for President Hosni Mubarak to quit. With the exception of the president himself, who insists there will be chaos if he steps down now. This argument ignores the fact that there is a situation close to anarchy already. People struggle to buy groceries, fear prevails on the streets and it seems quite obvious that things will continue to worsen unless the situation is resolved. It seems that even Washington, which ranks as one of Mubarak’s most ardent supporters, may have recognised that there is now no real choice but for the man who has reigned over affairs in Egypt for over three decades to call it a day. Still more worrying for the US is the fact that the unrest is spreading, with Yemen now feeling similar waves of upheaval.

It is always fascinating to see the manner in which dictators attempt to cling on to power. We have seen the reluctance to make an exit with grace in our own country — most recently in the case of former president Musharraf. Perhaps Mubarak has persuaded himself that he is truly needed by his people. Egoistical thinking is, after all, often a key characteristic of dictators. But the Egyptian leader needs to face up to the truth. He must step down, or see his country crumble into still greater disarray. All those who count themselves as friends of Mubarak must persuade him to do so. There is a lesson here for other dictators, across the region and elsewhere. There is a limit to the time people will accept coercive rule. The deaths that have occurred on the streets in Egypt have only added to the anger and the determination of the people that the aging Mubarak quit office. One hopes that he has the good sense to quit as soon as possible.

A festival of literature

February 6th, 2011

That Pakistanis are starved for entertainment was amply demonstrated at the Karachi Literature Festival this weekend. There was standing room only as Karen Armstrong launched the two-day event. The second iteration of the event was even more successful than the first, both in terms of attendance and the quality of panelists. The organisers, the British Council and the Oxford University Press, deserve plaudits for putting on a festival that did justice to literature in Pakistan, both in English and Urdu. At a time when terrorism has taken away international cricket from Pakistan and threatened cinema in many parts of the country, it is heartening to find out that it is still possible to host a large event where security isn’t suffocating. Perhaps the best thing about the literature festival was that it didn’t charge a fee for entrance, making it accessible to all. The venue of the event may be in a remote suburb of the city, but the large turnout showed that the location didn’t dissuade attendees. That the likes of Karen Armstrong, Mohsin Hamid and Mohammed Hanif showed up and willingly signed books and chatted with attendees is further testament to the hard work put in by the festival organisers.

After we’re done patting ourselves on the back, though, there are some questions we need to ask ourselves. Was the turnout at the event due to a love of literature or because the see-and-be-seen crowd had nowhere else to go? We also have to make sure that we go forward from this event and put on other events on a similar scale. The international media has an unfortunate tendency to paint such events as a liberal riposte to the Taliban and terrorism. Only by holding events of this nature on a regular basis will we be able to shoot down that ludicrous notion. The Karachi Literature Festival is not about fighting bombs with books. It is about having a good time in an intellectually stimulating setting.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga