‘Have a nice budget speech’

Hussain H Zaidi

“Sir, I’m here to brief you on the upcoming budget. My team has burnt the midnight oil in drawing up the proposals.”
“Oh, really? I appreciate the efforts you have put in. But my advice to you is not to take budget-making that seriously. Yes, every year the government goes through the rigmarole of preparing a budget and getting it passed by parliament, because it’s a constitutional obligation. And this to me is the most important thing about the budget. We’ve already struck an alliance with a key opposition party, which gives us a comfortable majority in both houses of parliament. So rest assured that, whatever your proposals, they will be carried through parliament. The rest doesn’t hold much significance for me.”
“But with due respect, sir, budgeting is one of the most crucial decisions that the government makes, and prudence dictates it must come out with the optimal allocation of resources.”
“Well, I’m not an economist and have no taste for the jugglery of figures, which you put together to make the budget document. But I know that you can never draw up a budget which is palatable to all sections of society. I give you some examples: Either you subsidise the public sector or not. If you subsidise, the donors will come hard on you; if you don’t, you will invite the wrath of those who are addicted to consuming at the state’s expense. Either you increase the salaries of government employees or not. In case you do so, you will come in for criticism for lack of austerity; in case you don’t, you will be run down for having turned your back on the masses. By the same token, either you fix minimum wages or not. If yes, you’ll be termed anti-businesses; if not, you’ll be branded as anti-workers.
“Either you push up taxes or not. In the event you do, it will be regarded as an attempt to throttle the growth of trade and industry; in the event you don’t, you will be charged with lacking the political will to broaden the tax base. I can go on and on, but the crux of the matter is that whatever you do, you will give rise to criticism. The media, need I remind you, are keen to sniff out anything which they can turn into breaking news and point the finger at the people in power just for the sake of doing so. The columnists and the anchorpersons, who labour under the delusion that they can make and unmake governments, dabble with issues of which they know nothing. Of course, I don’t mind being criticised – I know I am the most hated person in this country. But when you know that in any case you will run the gauntlet of those who don’t like your face, you should make light of such criticism.”
“Sir, you have hit the nail on the head. These opinion-makers write and speak from force of habit rather than out of conviction. The reason I need your attention right now is that some budgetary proposals may have significant political implications for us; so we need your consent before we go ahead with them.”
“Yes. I’m all ears.”
“We need to increase public revenue. Fiscal deficit is on the increase and the only way to bring it down is to broaden the tax net.”
“What stops you from widening the tax net?”
“Who should we impose new taxes on? Big landlords? Rich industrialists? Wealthy stockbrokers? No one in this country wants to pay taxes.”
“I know governments in the past toyed with the idea of levying agriculture income tax but lacked the will to do so. I would have no problem with the landlords being taxed, were they not our important vote bank. Likewise, the capitalists are our financiers. Any other proposals?”
“At least we can act against tax evaders.”
“Everyone who matters in our society is a tax evader. Aren’t you and your colleagues? If we start taking on the big guns, we’ll soon end up by being nowhere. At any rate, we believe in grand reconciliation, and when I say reconciliation, I mean reconciliation with those who matter and not with every Tom, Dick and Harry. I trust you don’t want our reconciliation policy to fall through.”
“Not in the least, sir. But it means we’re not going to have new taxes. But if that’s the case, how will the government meet its expenditure?”
“May I remind you that your job is to answer rather than ask questions? Now, tell me how does every year the government spends more than it earns?”
“By borrowing.”
“What’s wrong with persisting with borrowing?”
“Sir, since external assistance has dried up, we have to borrow in the main from the central bank. Like a faithful servant, the bank is always at our beck and call. But the problem is that for every penny that the central bank lends us, it has to print money.”
“Isn’t the State Bank authorised to print money? I mean, we conveniently borrow from the bank, which, on its part, prints money. To me this seems to be a perfect arrangement.”
“I’m afraid it is not, sir. Creation of money by the central bank drives up prices.”
“I am not an expert in money matters. But I know that when prices go up, businesses are better off and economic activity increases. So then what makes inflation a problem for us?”
“To make things simple, inflation drives down people’s purchasing power and hits wage-earners hard.”
“You mean the ordinary people, who are our main vote bank.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Why don’t we increase their salaries, the majority of them, I believe, are government employees?
“With due respect, sir, this is no solution to the problem. Last year we had a hefty increase in salaries and pensions, but the wage earners continue to grumble about the rising cost of living.”
“Maybe. But aren’t you familiar with the psychology of our people? They love numbers and for them bigger is better. Faced with the choice between low prices and low wages on the one hand and high prices and high wages on the other, nine out of ten will go for the latter option. So announce a pay and pension raise, and don’t bother about inflation. Have a nice budget speech.”

The writer is a freelance contributor based in Islamabad.
Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com

The drone dilemma

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Public Enemy Number One is inflation. Public Enemy Number Two is terrorism. Public Enemy Number Three is unemployment. In January 2011, Gallup Pakistan, the Pakistani affiliate of Gallup International, carried out a survey of a nationally representative sample of 2,754 men and women in rural and urban areas of all four provinces of the country. They were asked the following question: “In your opinion which is the biggest problem currently faced by Pakistan?”
A total of 55 percent considered inflation the biggest issue currently faced by Pakistanis, followed by 21 percent who considered terrorism the biggest issue and 16 percent who said unemployment was the biggest problem (eight percent gave other responses).
Conclusion: For 92 percent of all Pakistanis, drone attacks are not the “biggest problem currently faced by Pakistan.” (http://gallup.com.pk/Polls/27-01-11.pdf)
There have so far been a total of 249 drone strikes since the first strike on June 18, 2004. Of the 249 strikes, 70 percent have landed on targets in North Waziristan Agency (NWA). As per the 1988 census, the NWA has 361,246 residents. When was the last time that these residents protested against these strikes?
Next, of the 249 strikes, 24 percent have landed on targets in South Waziristan Agency (SWA). As per the 1988 census the SWA has 429,841 residents. When was the last time that these residents protested against these strikes?
Next, Golden Arrow, the 7th Infantry Division of Pakistan Army’s XI Corps is our “oldest and most battle-hardened division.” The men and officers of Golden Arrow have fought in the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965, 1971, the ongoing Siachen War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1999. Among its notable commanders are General Yahya Khan and General Asif Nawaz.
Major General Ghayur Mehmood (Tamgha-e-Basalat) is the current General-Officer-Commanding Golden Arrow. The 7th Infantry Division with its 20,000 plus officers and men, is currently deployed in Miranshah, the headquarters of the NWA.
On March 9, 2011, Major General Ghayur Mehmood called a media briefing. The general said: “Myths and rumours about US Predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hard-core elements and a sizable number of them are foreigners.”
Next, according to the BBC, “Recent research by the Ariana Institute in Islamabad found that around 80 percent of people interviewed in Pakistan’s tribal belt felt that targeting by the drone strikes was accurate. Many said that foreign fighters (Arabs, Uzbeks and Tajiks, among them) in particular were being affected. Dr Khadim Hussain, director of the institute, says research about whether or not Waziris resented the drone strikes proved inconclusive.” (BBC News - America's secret drone war in Pakistan)
Next, there is no statistical correlation between drone strikes and suicide attacks. To begin with, the first suicide attack in Pakistan took place on November 19, 1995 that killed 17 and injured more than 60 in Islamabad. In 2002, there were two more suicide attacks. Suicide attacks peaked in 2009 when there were 78 attacks but drone attacks kept on increasing from 53 in 2009 to 117 in 2010.
Next, the Pakistan Army has over the years developed-and refined-a highly complex combat doctrine called the ‘Riposte’ (French for ‘retort’). In essence, it is a limited ‘offensive-defence’ fully focused towards India, Pakistan’s archenemy. Our man-portable air defence systems, medium-altitude air defence systems, high-altitude air defence systems and our anti-aircraft guns are all focused towards India.
Truth, it is said, is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies. A lie is known to travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. To be sure, truth makes nations strong, not weak.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

When blasts are ‘disaster tourism’

Rahimullah Yusufzai

One resisted the temptation to join the more curious people rushing towards the neighbourhood site of the low-intensity blast around midnight in the Khyber Super Market locality in Peshawar Cantonment on June 10. It was a wise decision, prompted perhaps more by luck than any other consideration, as eight minutes later there was another, much bigger bomb explosion at the same crowded place.
The next moment there was an electricity breakdown, though, strangely enough, the power transformer that caught fire as a result of the blast provided some light as death and destruction visited the Lala Restaurant and its surroundings on a massive scale. Those inside this small eatery and the smaller one across the street and in the adjacent shops and flats had nowhere to go as the two blasts had occurred so close to them, but onlookers crowding the congested place probably suffered more as they stood exposed to the shrapnel of the explosives flying in every direction. It was yet another lesson that it is dangerous to rush to the place of occurrence after a bomb explosion because there are always chances of another blast. And yet this lesson isn’t learnt and not sufficiently repeated by our media and government departments tasked to educate the people about preventive measures needed to tackle terrorism.
Incidentally, both the militants and the regular armies largely employ the same tactic nowadays. There is often a second bomb blast after the first one to target the police, rescue workers and others who gather at the place of occurrence. And there is also a second bombing run or a drone strike by the US and Nato forces and, sometimes, by the Pakistani military operating in the conflict zones with the intent to get the maximum number of militants and their supporters rushing to rescue the dying and the wounded. It is another matter that often most of those killed and wounded in the second bomb explosion, aerial bombardment or drone strike are civilians.
The police and members of the media, particularly from the television, are required to rush to the site of bomb explosions and other manmade and natural disasters due to the nature of their job. They are often untrained and ill-equipped to cope with such situations and neglect or enthusiasm on their part sometimes lands them in trouble. The cops and the media professionals ought to be wearing bullet-proof jackets and helmets while working in conflict areas or tackling the aftermath of bomb explosions, but it is rare to see this happening.
More alarming and careless is the way common people gather at the place of occurrence within minutes after a bomb explosion. It is a kind of “disaster tourism” and many among them start taking pictures and making videos with their cell phones, oblivious of their personal safety. It isn’t, though, that everyone around is a detached onlooker because many in the crowd become rescue workers and start saving lives by helping the injured on self-help basis.
When journalist Nasrullah Afridi was killed by a bomb planted in his car metres away from the same Khyber Super Market locality on May 10, one could see scores of men filming the bombing. Afridi, a tall and handsome man from Bara in the neighbouring Khyber Agency, had been burned but there wasn’t any organised rescue operation to save his life. Mercifully, the perpetrators of the bombing had no plans to cause carnage on that occasion as their lone target was the independent-minded tribal journalist. They could have done that easily by triggering a second explosion through a remote-controlled device to kill the hundreds of people gathered there to witness the gory spectacle.
This intent to kill as many people as possible was certainly evident in the planning of the June 11 twin bombings at the Khyber Super Market, an improperly named and ill-planned locality of over 20 high-rise buildings lacking security, car-parking space and cleanliness. Plazas have been built in violation of the Cantonment Board’s building codes, but there has been no accountability. Hundreds of students belonging to different parts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and unable to find space in college and university hostels live in cramped conditions in rented rooms in these buildings. Students and office-goers make up the bulk of the population in this locality. As many media organisations have offices in the locality, it is often frequented by journalists. Asfandyar, a journalist struggling to find a proper job, lost his life in the blast and several others were wounded. Most of the dead were students and low-paid employees. Bodies were sent to Bajaur, Mardan, Kohat, Waziristan and other far-off places for burial, which explains the critical importance of Peshawar where students from all over the province and the tribal areas come to study and where jobless men flock in search of livelihood. Unemployment and inadequate educational and health facilities in other cities and towns and the presence of a large number of Afghan refugees have over-burdened Peshawar and turned it into an overcrowded and insecure metropolis.
Police officials are insisting that the second and more powerful explosion at the Khyber Super Market was caused by a young suicide bomber riding a motorcycle. They must have reasons to make this claim and not to absolve themselves of any responsibility because we all agree that tackling suicide bombings in most cases is well-nigh impossible. However, there wasn’t any important government or security target that could be hit and no soldier or policemen was killed in the attack. Instead, innocent civilians were slain and maimed. This could be the reason that the outlawed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) didn’t claim responsibility for this latest bombing in Peshawar by arguing, somewhat unconvincingly, that it didn’t attack public places and was instead focused on targeting the security forces and the law-enforcement agencies. However, a TTP chapter operating in the semi-tribal Darra Adamkhel area subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack by pointing out that some tribal elders from the Khyber Agency were its target. This shows the lack of coordination between the central TTP and its decentralised branches now largely operating on their own. There is no evidence that any known tribal elder was killed in the attack. Besides, killing 39 innocent people and injuring over one hundred just to target a few pro-government tribal elders is unjustifiable and barbaric. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that public opinion has turned against the militants.
The Khyber Super Market bombings and the innumerable acts of terrorism before it in Peshawar exposed the absence of a proper security and rescue plan to cope with such happenings. The authorities should have prevented citizens from converging at the site of the first bomb explosion, emergency lights should have been provided to rescue workers who had to work in darkness for a while when electricity supply broke down and fire-tenders and ambulances need to be alert to do a quick and proper job in such emergencies. Peshawar, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as a whole and FATA have been suffering intermittently from bomb explosions since the 1970s and there is no end in sight to acts of terrorism in this region. But, sadly enough, arrangements to cope with the challenge are far from satisfactory.
Most depressing are healthcare facilities at public hospitals. The Accident and the Emergency Department at the Lady Reading Hospital, said to be state-of-the-art, and the newly established mass emergency block at the Khyber Teaching Hospital are hopelessly placed to efficiently tend to bomb blast victims. Both were found lacking in coping with the emergency after the Khyber Super Market bombings as severely wounded patients remained unattended for quite some time and attendants had to buy medicines from private stores. As victims mostly suffer burn injuries in bombings, one is appalled to find after every bombing that Peshawar and the province and tribal areas don’t have a single specialised burn care unit and patients, whether they can afford the treatment or not, have to be referred to Kharian, Islamabad or Wah Cantonment for treatment.

The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar. Email: rahim yusufzai@yahoo.com


Source: http://e.thenews.com.pk

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

A non-serious budget

Dr Ashfaque H Khan

Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh presented his second budget on June 3. The federal budget for 2011-12, the present government’s fourth, is a non-serious budget because it understates expenditures and overstates revenue and thus injects elements of risks. No sensible finance minister and his team would prepare a budget replete with serious risks.
There are several risks associated with revenue, expenditure, budget deficit, and financing of fiscal deficit. On the revenue side, the first and foremost risk is the tax collection target of the FBR itself. The FBR is targeted to collect Rs1,952 billion in 2011-12, up 23 percent over this year’s revised collection of Rs1,588 billion. Whether the FBR could collect Rs1,952 billion next year is dependent upon its collection of Rs1,588 billion this year, the chances of which are slim. With all its efforts, the FBR may collect revenue – including a one-off collection from the energy and banking sectors in the range of Rs1,530-1,540 billion.
Any slippages in this year’s tax collection would make the task even harder for the FBR to collect Rs1,952 billion next year. Tax elasticity in Pakistan has fallen below unity (0.9), hence the autonomous growth in tax collection would lead to a collection of Rs1,760-1,770 billion next year. The FBR has taken various tax measures in the budget which, instead of raising revenue, has in fact estimated to be Rs23 billion in the red. The FBR is trying to bring its house in order and striving to improve its efficiency. Assuming that its efforts will bear fruit, an additional amount of Rs30-40 billion could be added to the next year’s tax collection, thus taking the total tax collection to Rs1,790-1,800 billion – Rs150-160 billion short of the target.
There are three major risks associated with non-tax revenue. The first is the expected sale of licenses of third generation (3G) cellular services. Rs75 billion have been added in the non-tax revenue under the sale of licenses. Interestingly, the government had kept Rs50 billion under the same heading in non-tax revenue last year as well. Can the PTA sell these licenses in a transparent bidding process this year? The answer is in the negative, and as such the Rs75 billion may not be collected.
Secondly, the government expects to receive Rs119 billion under the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) in the next budget. In the current year it has received Rs63 billion ($742 million) and is striving hard to get the remaining amount in the next two weeks. Can Pakistan get the remaining amount this year? Can we expect $1.35 billion (Rs119 billion) under the CSF next year from the United States? Certainly, there are serious risks involved in such inflows.
Thirdly, the government has targeted Rs200 billion from the profit of the State Bank of Pakistan in next year’s budget. To deliver Rs200 billion to government, the SBP will have to further hike the discount rate and also allow the government to borrow directly from the SBP to finance the budget deficit. I expect neither of these to take place in the next fiscal year, and as such there is risk attached to the Rs200 billion from the SBP.
Let me now turn to the risks on expenditure side. The Inter-DISCO tariff differential has fluctuated wildly in the current budget. The government had targeted a power-sector subsidy of Rs30 billion in last year’s budget, but the year is expected to end with Rs240 billion. The government has targeted a power subsidy of Rs50 billion in next year’s budget – a reduction of Rs190 billion. How credible is this number? Is the government ready to increase power tariff in the range of 22-25 percent next fiscal year? Has the power tariff hike resolved our power-sector issues? An increase in power tariff alone has not worked, is not working and will not work in the future. By raising the power tariff the government is perpetually financing the inefficiencies, theft, corruption and overstaffing of WAPDA/PEPCO and the power distribution companies. Thus, like last year, there will be massive slippages in power-sector subsidies, given the fact that Budget 2011-12 is an election budget as the finance minister has himself proclaimed.
The government has targeted a budget deficit of Rs851 billion, or four percent of the GDP, consistent with the IMF requirement for the next fiscal year. The federal government deficit is targeted at Rs976 billion, or 4.6 percent of the GDP, and it is assumed that the provincial governments would generate surpluses of Rs125 billion or 0.6 percent of the GDP to arrive at the targeted deficit of 4.0 percent of the GDP. The governments of Sindh, Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa have already presented their budgets with combined surpluses of less than Rs1 billion. In other words, the budget presented on June 3, 2011, will not even see the light of the new fiscal year. Pakistan will begin the new fiscal year with a budget deficit target of 4.6 percent of the GDP, instead of four percent. Slippages on both revenue and expenditure sides, as stated above, would certainly take the deficit to over six percent of the GDP; that is, in line with the average deficit of the last four years.
There are risks on the financing side of the deficit as well. The government will need Rs976 billion to bridge revenue-expenditure gap. On external sources of financing, the launch of Euro Bond amounting to Rs44 billion is not going to be materialised. Similarly, Rs118 billion is expected to come under programme loan as against the revised estimate of Rs39 billion this year. What would make such a large difference in the next fiscal year?
From the foregoing, it is safe to conclude that Budget 2011-12, far from being people-friendly, is a non-serious and a non-functional budget whose fate will not be different from the current budget.

The writer is principal and dean at NUST Business School, Islamabad. Email: ahkhan@ nbs.edu.pk

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Sidelining Pakistan

Munir Ahmed Baloch

A Nato air strike killed 12 children and two women in the southern province of Helmand on May 27. President Karzai, then in Turkmenistan, cut short his visit and returned to Kabul in reaction to the tragedy. He called on the US military to avoid operations that kill Afghan civilians, saying this was his last warning to Washington. The toll on civilians as a result of direct air strikes in Afghanistan is a staggering 30,000 Afghan men, women and children.
The basis for US invasion of Afghanistan was said to be intended to eliminate Al-Qaeda following the Sept 11 attacks. But the death and destruction caused by the United States in Afghanistan in past decade has provided a reason to young Afghans to join the ranks of the Taliban. Their joining the Taliban is not a result of coercion. Unemployment, the absence of job opportunities and shrinking means of other means of livelihood become an added incentive for them to do so. Added to this is the powerful motivation of ideology and religion.
Now that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been eliminated by the US forces, it will be hard for the administration of Barack Obama to sell the idea of putting in more money in the war in Afghanistan. More and more people have come to realise that the Afghan war has lingered so long not because Ben Laden was the pursuit for the Americans but because they sought to use his presence as the main justification for the conflict. This is a war where American field commanders have been both judges and executioners, no matter whom they were dealing with, combatants or non-combatants. Many Republican and Democratic leaders have started questioning the wisdom of the Obama administration to continue the funding of the war in Afghanistan. In any case, there is no moral justification for the continued killing of Afghans, as in the case of the latest atrocity that took place on May 27.
The American military forces assassinated Osama bin Laden in a night raid in Abbottabad on May 1-2. His assassination was celebrated across the United States despite the fact that it was another instance of US forces meting out rough justice to the enemy. The media joined in by commenting on every grisly detail of the operation. The outburst of jingoism and anti-Muslim bigotry took a truly vulgar form when some Americans spray-painted the walls of a mosque in Portland, Maine, with slogans against Islam and Muslims.
US administration officials appear to believe that the assassination will persuade the Taliban to turn to reconciliation and engage with the state of Afghanistan. Even it that reconciliation materialises, the United States’ assumed desire to stay on in Afghanistan – in one form or another – will prove to be an impediment in the way of a permanent settlement in that country. If press reports on US-Taliban talks over the past few weeks are accurate, it would appear as if the endgame in Afghanistan is not too far off. However, the United States wants to utilise the talks’ process for two objectives: one, to augment Obama’s support for the Afghan war despite Osama bin Laden’s death; and, two, to create fissures in the Taliban ranks over their ties with Pakistan. The Taliban are being offered hefty amounts of money to distance themselves from Pakistan and in the process weaken the Taliban’s resolve to stick with the decade-old demand for US withdrawal as a precondition for any talks on reconciliation. Without any regard to Pakistan’s interests despite the great sacrifices rendered by this country in the “war on terror,” the Americans have not taken Pakistan into confidence, even though the Afghans have been briefed, as was appropriate.
The UK’s point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan told journalists in Islamabad that “the Taliban leadership was engaged in talks with various stakeholders with the full backing of the US with the sole aim of finding a solution to Afghanistan from within, without any involvement of foreign players.” This indicates the lack of trust the United States and its Nato allies have in their frontline ally in the “war against terror.”
Meanwhile, the US moves on Afghanistan fail to take into account the relationship of Pakhtun tribes across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The ancient tribal and social bonds across the divide are too strong to be affected by the existence of an international frontier.
The United States is doing everything to divide the Taliban. At the same time, it is trying to sideline Pakistan in talks on an Afghan settlement. Both efforts are destined to failure in the long term – especially the latter. It would be a great geo-strategic blunder if the Americans sideline Pakistan, rather than make use of it as a critical player in the Afghan reconciliation progress. Whether the Americans recognise this or not, Pakistan is a part of the solution in Afghanistan, not part of the problem.
Osama bin Laden’s elimination has created a historic opportunity for the United States to move forward in Afghanistan. But the opportunity will slip if Washington does not play its cards well. The United States would be committing its greatest folly if it did not take Pakistan on board in the reconciliation process. Long-term stability in that war-torn country will remain a pipedream.

Email: munir.baloch@janggroup.com.pk

Source: http://e.thenews.com.pk/6-14-2011/page6.asp#;

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

GHQ and dangerous binaries

Mosharraf Zaidi

One of the cardinal rules of public life is that every opportunity to communicate is golden, none should ever be wasted. In the age of information overload, with dozens of news channels, Facebook, Twitter and blogs galore, this principle is even more important. “Every time you say something, make it count”.
Reading the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release of June 9, 2011 therefore was a bit of a disappointment. Though it claimed to be summarising the 139th Corps Commanders’ Conference, this press release was supposed to do more. It was supposed to send a message of assurance and comfort, to Pakistan’s people, as well as to the international community. This was an opportunity for the Pakistani military leadership to address domestic and international worries about the future of Pakistan. It was an opportunity lost. Whatever the military wanted to say got buried under self-consciousness, faux religiosity and a less than stellar grammatical performance.
One could quite easily pile on more criticism to the significant chunk that the military and the ISI have been receiving. Beyond the satisfaction of lashing out however, it is not entirely clear that the criticism is helping the military leadership of Pakistan understand how deep the crisis of confidence in it really is. The 139th Corps Commanders’ Conference should have produced a contrition-laden missive that announced a series of short and long term measures designed to address the emerging nervousness that exists in Pakistan about the internal coherence and overarching competence of the military. Instead, it produced a statement that conveys confusion, fear and the growing impatience of a military high-command with a wave of criticism at home and abroad.
The twin-pronged pressure – strong and well-deserved criticism of the military and the ISI at home, and constant shellacking for not doing enough, in the US – is unprecedented. But just because something has never happened before, doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good thing. Clearly, pressure on the military leadership has built up to a point that borders on the unbearable. The 139th Corps Commanders’ Conference press release is not the work of a self-confident high command that has a clear and comprehensive plan. It is the product of hardworking and committed generals worried sick as they stare down at a crisis whose size, duration and depth is confounding and beyond any single institution’s capacity to deal with alone.
The indignity of being maligned and scrutinized is new for Pakistan’s soldiers. But Pakistani women, truck drivers, journalists, doctors, Barelvis, Seraiki-speakers, Sargodhans, Shias, lawyers, Pakhtuns, children, Baloch, clerks, Hindus, Okarans, civil servants, judges, Hazarans, politicians, Sindhis, Christians, Mohajirs, Sikhs, Deobandis, Sunnis, Ahmedis, teachers, rickshaw wallahs – all know this feeling.
Every group in Pakistan knows what it is like to be humiliated, in one way, or another. Every group except one.
The Pakistani military is supposed to be the most coherent and humiliation-proof group identity in the country. Always has been. Pakistanis that seek to help make this country a more democratic, more equal, more tolerant and more vibrant place almost uniformly want a military that is subservient to the rule of law, as defined by a parliament of freely-elected civilian representatives. What we do not want is a humiliation of Pakistani soldiers. A humiliated, weak, and delegitimized military should be unacceptable to reasonable Pakistanis.
The implicit understanding between the Pakistani military and Pakistani people is quite simple. In return for being a national institution that inspires confidence, the ordinary Pakistani will offer an astounding degree of reverence. And hardly ask any questions at all. Whether it is the costs of the almost decade-long conflict Pakistan has had with violent extremists taking their toll, or the burden of three decades long military dictatorships finally showing up, the bottom line is that mainstream Pakistan is no longer expressing much confidence in the military.
The historical narrative of national security – whether looked at through a New Delhi-Sringar lens, or a Kabul-Kandahar lens, basically paints the picture of a strategically outmanoeuvred Pakistan. The internal coherence of Pakistani identity – whether one attempts to stuff it into religious clothing (Zia), or irreligious (Musharraf), is weak and threatened.
Ironically the most urgent threats all emanate from military actions. Islamist extremists feed on anger in the tribal belt and beyond. Baloch nationalists feed on the anger stimulated by the thoughtlessness with which the province has been dealt with. Karachi boils over, as undulating waves of Pakhtun and Mohajir anger manifest themselves alternatively. In Southern KPK and Northern Punjab, a Hazara identity is stirred. In Southern Punjab, a Seraiki one awakens. At the heart of every spark of anger and rage right across the country we find the same thing, over and over and over again: implicit and explicit military interventions.
Of course, these interventions were not meant to weaken Pakistan. They were meant to make it stronger. It’s a tough neighborhood and the military’s job has always been to pre-empt danger. In its simplistic self-righteousness however, as an institution over many years, the military has produced a culture of binaries. If the military was true to Pakistan, then anyone opposing the military viewpoint was naturally untrue to Pakistan. Or so goes the thinking. Oversimplified binaries are always dangerous. They are especially dangerous in complex environments where, complexity, by definition, requires multifarious approaches. The culture of binaries has infected the Pakistani discourse to the point of paralysis.
Opposing the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code that deal with blasphemy, asking questions about the degree of Islamist extremism within the military, advocating peace with India, opposing air strikes against the people of the tribal areas, promoting the notion of an autonomous and independent Afghanistan, speaking out for victims of army heavy handedness in Balochistan, demanding greater scrutiny of the military budget – on every issue that the military either implicitly or explicitly endorses, the contrarian position becomes a dangerous one to take. In a culture of binaries, asking any of these questions necessarily puts Pakistanis at cross-purposes with the military. That’s not how things should be. Each one of those questions is inspired by a desire to live in a better and stronger Pakistan – a shared Pakistani vision, no matter whether civilian or military.
There is a deep and diverse set of long-term actions required to correct the course. But the 139th Corps Commanders’ conference was not meant to address those. It was looking for some quick fixes and short-term measures. That press release was not the answer. In the future, the military leadership may consider a number of small, but important short-term measures that would have real impact. For example, it could announce an inquiry to examine both the GHQ and the PNS Mehran attacks with a commission made up of both civilians (ex-cops and rights activists) and soldiers. It could announce a community outreach programme in Balochistan, including civilian members. It could easily scrap plans for the new GHQ in Islamabad and give up the land to the CDA, to auction and help pay off part of the national debt.
Pakistanis all listen carefully when the GHQ speaks. Is the GHQ listening to Pakistanis speak?

The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy. Mosharraf Zaidi

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

A youth(ful) predicament

Mohammad Malick


“In the little world in which children have their existence,” argues Pip in Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, “there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt, as injustice”. Pip was right. But a strong perception of manifest injustice applies equally to ‘young adults’ as well, as succinctly put by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen who observes, “What moves us, reasonably enough, is not the realisation that the world falls short of being completely just – which few of us expect – but that there are clearly remediable injustices around us which we want to eliminate”.
People react not because they generally strive for a perfectly just world but because they want to remove clear injustices to the extent they can. Remember Tunisia and Egypt? But when they fail to do even that, chaos sets in, which even if it fails in translating into an immediate dramatic grandiose revolution, the ensuing incessant turmoil unfailingly ensures the gradual deconstruction of all semblance of order. And we are witnessing the latter phenomenon right here at home.
Hundreds of millions of Pips walk around haplessly while keenly aware of the manifest injustices plaguing their everyday existence. In a country with 60 percent of its180 million citizens being under 29 years old, and millions more being added every year, one frets visualizing the consequences of a violent popular reaction to the criminal socio-economic injustice. Add to that the harrowing poverty figures and the volatility of the situation is not difficult to fathom. About 72.9 million of our population struggles merely to survive under the poverty line – a staggering 41.2 percent of the total head count. And don’t forget, 60 percent of them are young men and women with endless energy, but limited patience.
Pakistan’s biggest asset is its human capital, which if ignored, is also its greatest threat and may cause it to implode. But do we see any reflection of a realisation of this immense potential, and threat, in our national policymaking? None. Did the currently tabled federal and provincial budgets carry any innovative measures aimed at creating a motivating environment of opportunity and responsibility for the youth? Barely.
We need to engage our youth by refocusing it, giving it a sense of responsibility, and allowing it a meaningful role in participatory democracy. It must be transformed into an agent of socio-economic (and consequently political) change by dovetailing its interests into the economic policy. Micro-finance for youth is needed on a war footing because we are in the midst of a social war with an overwhelmingly young and alarmingly disempowered youth. The mantra of Finance Minister Hafeez Sheikh needs to be micro-finance for the youth. And here’s why.
Lowering the voting age to 18 is meaningless unless the role of the young is meaningfully enhanced. Japan came out of its war-induced recession not through its industrial giants but due to the collective buoyancy of its individual small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The same holds true for South Korea, Germany, China and many other countries. It was no coincidence either, that the bulk of these SMEs were the bold initiatives of young men and women, driven by their unfettered passion and the irrepressible exuberance of youth that loves challenging risks so abhorred by those advanced in years, and with tampered experience. A youth’s business initiative may fail but the youth itself doesn’t. The youth does not fear failures as it has time on its side. And it is this verve that our country needs to build upon.
A national scheme of Youth Loans must be launched to provide small loans of say Rs 500,000 to holders of masters’ degrees and graduates of recognised vocational diploma schools. These loans must be offered at a negligibly low mark up and the collateral must only be the project itself and the personal bond of the initiator. The youth should be asked to present innovative and less-capital intensive ideas, or a reasonable business plan based on an existing need or niche. Moreover, Rs 500,000 is a decent viable startup capital and resources could also be pooled by the budding entrepreneurs to start relatively bigger projects.
All our youth needs is a helping hand and a defining sense of purpose. Surely, many will fail but even if the failure rate is a whopping 40 percent, the remaining 60 percent who do make it will still give us a massive new business class running into hundreds of thousands of young energetic motivated entrepreneurs, who would in turn spawn another wave of similar initiatives. At the same time, we would also deprive the prying negative forces of their fertile recruiting grounds. A few billion rupees spent in this scheme will unquestionably yield a billion times better results than doling out Rs50 billion through the Benazir income-support fund. That arguably has its own merits but our priority must be to teach people how to catch fish rather than handing out the proverbial fish to the hungry.
Of course we must expect the finance ministry mandarins to predict 100 percent failure of this ‘fanciful idea’. But even in such a virtually impossible scenario (ongoing micro-finance projects in Pakistan have already proven it otherwise), these ‘wasted moneys’ would still end in the Pakistani economic cycle, unlike the hundreds of billions stolen by the traditional ‘big dependable business borrowers’ and stashed away in foreign bank accounts.
Last year alone, thanks to the incompetence of our ‘competent’ economic managers, millions of dollars were paid out to foreign lenders as “commitment charges” – the other name for failure. Surely, our youngsters can perform better.
The past bureaucratic policy of excluding the youth, the largest portion of our human capital, from playing a ‘game changing’ role in the nation’s economic endeavours has proven a failure. So what do we have to lose in taking a chance with the segment harbouring the greatest potential, may I ask?
Agreed, a million other things need to be done also for the youth like education and capacity building, but an immediate beginning has to be made somewhere. By empowering the youth, the nation’s ability to cause a sustainable socio-economic change starts early, and equally importantly, the youths’ personal success gets intertwined with that of the society and the country. From being disempowered and disillusioned, the youth becomes a critical stakeholder and guarantor of the system.
Ours is a country having unimaginable youth potential, a country of the future with an uncanny ability to transform and perform beyond expectations. All it needs is one good idea, and half a leader to implement it. The question is: Is Hafeez Sheikh even half the innovative leader he pretends to be?

The writer is editor The News, Islamabad.

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Myths and mindsets

Zafar Hilaly


Perhaps one of the reasons why we don’t seem to be getting anywhere when dealing with the problems that confront us is because we insist on marrying old opinions to new facts. We do this subconsciously in order to minimise the jolt and maximise our sense of comfort and continuity. Regardless of the changes that occur in our collective and individual beliefs, much of the old order still remains standing.
To take one example, the one thing that we know for sure unites us and was indeed responsible for our creation, is our religion. We believe, as a people and a nation that our common religion – Islam – helps us gel. True we always had the lunatic fringe and the odd spat between shias and sunnis would occasionally pull us apart. But these were exceptional lapses and would soon tide over.
Today, however, Muslims are literally slaughtering each other and Pakistan is in danger of being rent asunder not in the name of ethnic or linguistic nationalism, but in the name of Islam itself.
Faced with this dilemma we are at a loss when it comes to crafting a response, and unable or unwilling to identify the cause. We forget that while history is full of religious wars it is not the multiplicity of religions that produced these wars but the intolerant spirit which animated violence fuelled mostly by greed or ambition.
Another fast growing misconception is that the present conflict being basically America’s war, the departure of the US and/or our disassociation with the war would drain much of the poison and since the remaining protagonists are Muslims, and mostly fellow countrymen, resolving our differences should not pose too much of a problem.
America’s departure from the region would be welcomed by all sides in the conflict and it would undoubtedly improve the prospects of a peaceful resolution. But the fact of the matter is that, as the TTP has clearly stated, its war against Pakistan will continue until its peculiar version of the Shariah becomes the law of the land.
In other words, even if we completely ceased to have a working relationship with Washington, that would not be enough for the TTP; not even if, by some miracle, peace came to Afghanistan. The TTP has left its friends and adversaries in no doubt that it intends to achieve its goal come hell or high water, regardless of the means used.
Such an extreme mindset is, as we know, the expression of empty souls. The trouble with such dehumanised people is that if rational thinking enters their minds it is instinctively rejected. The Taliban and their credo will fare no better, but then that’s all in the future whereas the present is what most concerns us.
Were we to close shop with America it would create new challenges. For example the TTP and Al-Qaeda would likely become more emboldened using their propaganda network to press harder for their ambitions. Religion in their hands is an instrument of intimidation, depredation and oppression as we saw in full display in Swat and in Afghanistan.
Another challenge would be that other regional players, some at loggerheads with us, would increase their footprint while we would still be trying to find a way out of extremism and terrorism. There are quite a lot of extremists both foreigners and locals within our territory who would be viewed by the outside world as posing a serious threat to them, including countries like China, our only ally. Nor is the US going to wash its hands off completely even if it decides to scale back its presence. So it is naïve to think that the outside world would leave us alone or that Al-Qaeda and the TTP would follow suit if the Americans leave. It is just as credulous to think that we are capable of meeting the challenge entirely on our own.
Many of us hold views that reflect a dangerously naive understanding of international relations. Whether we like it or not there is no alternative but to sharpen our understanding and our skills in order to operate more effectively in the swirling world of international politics. Emotionalism will not do neither will a one sided approach that focuses on others while ignoring our own failings. Just as others are impure and have defiled their hands so have we and in a way that has come to haunt us. Just ask the Afghans who have been at the receiving end of our ‘strategic depth’ policy for more than two decades.
Emotionalism and one sidedness have also penetrated politics and polemics, completely overshadowing our economic interests. We simply cannot deal with any of our problems, as our socio-economic conditions deteriorate and as governance becomes more difficult in such circumstances, without first focusing on our economy and without asking ourselves what it would take to rebuild it.
Another New World challenge is that economic progress increasingly depends on cooperation with other economies, especially through structures of collaboration with those in the region itself. We are lucky in this respect on account of our location but luck alone will not take us far as we have seen to our dismay in the decades lost due to our shortsighted notions of what best serves our security interests.
The TTP is not only the biggest danger to peace and stability in the country but also to our economic prospects. Apart from the damage it has already done directly by destroying schools and infrastructure, it has created a climate of insecurity so much so that investments have virtually disappeared. And if we are to cut our dependence on foreign aid we must do whatever it takes to generate investments. The state cannot create jobs and reduce the rising cost of energy and food by throwing printed money at these problems that impact our daily lives so severely. We are past that stage. We are too indebted now and our economy is so feeble that our only hope lies in triggering private investments. It is only when economic growth picks up on a sustained basis that the state can cut its debt from the increased revenue it will receive from taxes and from widening the income tax base and continually improving tax collection capabilities.
We don’t have oil, gas, or other precious natural resource that can make up for our failure to generate wealth through economic activity. So we must give our economy our utmost attention and then work our way backward in terms of what must be done politically in order to free our economic future.
While those who influence public opinion have an important role to play to get us back on track as a cohesive nation, the lead must come from our decision makers, especially those who are in charge of strategic policy. Alas, our ultimate arbiters have achieved little beyond carrying on with their outmoded ideas.
It is tragic that while we have not been able to resolve any of our Old World problems, even issues like Sir Creek, the New World problems are fast catching up with us. One of these challenges relates to climate change, particularly its impact on our agriculture, energy generation and water for consumption and industrial use. All three are critical. And yet another New World challenge is that we must shift from relying inordinately on old military doctrines of full-blown conventional wars to asymmetrical conflicts, our nukes notwithstanding.
All these challenges require a degree of dynamism that is sorely absent right now but our survival will depend increasingly on fully grasping the reality of these growing challenges and on measuring up to them quickly. In this matter, the public is much less important than those who exercise power, especially when it comes to critical strategic issues.
Instead of getting caught up in a vortex both decision makers and civil society activists should start thinking out of the box first by perceiving themselves as being in the same boat and in very choppy waters. Infighting will only rock the boat, threatening to capsize it while it is still in narrow straits between the mythical rocks of Scylla and Charybdis. Coordination is vital when rowing a boat. And when in choppy waters, it is especially critical to survival and making a landfall.
As to how we will fare, ask yourself, do we have anyone in the current line up even remotely capable of guiding the boat? Do we even have a ‘cox’ in reserve?

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Agents of change

Dr Qaisar Rashid


Mohammad Ali Jinnah sought the division of British India on the basis that British India was united not because of its political oneness but because of its administrative unity which was enforced by a unitary and centralised administrative structure of the state. Otherwise, Jinnah argued, at the political plane there existed more than one nation, including Hindus and Muslims.
In 1947, Pakistan inherited the colonial legacy, a constitutionally unified and centralised institutional framework capable of running the country from the centre. At that time it was thought that soon political cohesion would overtake administrative unity for the realisation of the dream of one nation, one country. Not only could that not happen, 1971 the country broke up into two. Forty years later, political disunity is rampant. Criteria other than religion, such as ethnicity and language, are endangering the country’s integrity as never before. In effect, Pakistan is now a geographic entity of four provinces marked by political disunity. The Pakistan of today is more an administrative union than a political one.
In the effort to forge political unity in the country more reliance is placed on the Constitution than on political measures such as dialogue, negotiations and mutual accommodation. Ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity is a reality but, rather than contributing to the unity of Pakistani society it is destroying that unity. That should be a point of concern for Pakistanis, in particular the country’s social and political scientists. At the time of the enactment of the Constitution in 1973, and the surge of optimism it created, many Pakistanis must have expected the document to lead to the political unity which had long eluded the country.
However, nationalist and separatist movements in different parts of the country proved the objective was illusory. Owing to the centre’s frequent intrusions in provincial matters either by strengthening bureaucratic grip or launching military operations, those movements fed on the reaction of the local population against the centre. To deal with that crisis, the centre again opted for replacing the formula of developing political unity with the recipe of building administrative cohesion. The vicious cycle of mistrust continued.
Through the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010, the long-awaited autonomy was devolved to the provinces. Other than that, hardly any effort has been made to promote the political unity of the country. In provinces such as Sindh and Balochistan the centre is using paramilitary forces to enforce its writ. Generally speaking, in the eastern regions of the country the Rangers are performing their duties together with the civilian administration, while in the western parts the Frontier Constabulary is playing that role. A rationale has been found for the protracted stay of the paramilitary forces in the civilian areas. Perhaps parliament does not have time to mull over the reason why certain areas of the country are so volatile as to be governable only with assistance from paramilitary forces.
There are other questions that invite the attention of parliament, for instance as to why the spate of targeted killings is rampant in Karachi, as well as in Balochistan, though in a different form. The question is, why is the presence of the Frontier Constabulary imperative for Balochistan? With the rise in the death toll of the Baloch, that province is rapidly becoming ungovernable by the federation. Over-reliance of the centre on the paramilitary forces to manage the affairs of the country is evident of the failure of the state.
Pakistan in a state of serious crisis. Balochistan is one of those parts of the country where the intensity of mistrust between citizens and the state has grown much deeper than mere provincialism. The recent budget has revealed that Pakistan is investing more money in keeping its administrative unity secured and disorder under control than on the country’s social sectors, including such basic ones like education and health. Pakistan is employing fewer political means to address the grievances of its people: Pakistan is using numerous “state-sponsored” coercive measures to smother the voice of discontent.
Nevertheless, there is also some hope that, despite its seriousness, Pakistan’s crisis is not beyond resolution. The slogan raised by Nawaz Sharif that there is no sacred cow is a matter of relief for those who are hoping that national priorities will ultimately be set right at last. Political problems should be addressed through political means, and not through adoption of coercive measures. The long spells of military rule in the country have created stagnancy in every sector of Pakistani society. We could hope for the status quo to end only if there are no longer any “holy cows” disrupting our priorities.
There is a positive side to the tragedies Pakistan has seen recently, to name only a few incidents. Whether it is the shooting in Kharotabad, Quetta, where five unarmed Chechens lost their lives to the overreaction of the Frontier Constabulary on May 17 or the incident at the Benazir Park in Karachi where unarmed arrested youth Sarfraz Shah was shot by the Rangers on June 8, these incidents strengthen Pakistani society’s resolve that things cannot stay the same any longer.
Meanwhile, good precedents are being set. For instance, Atta Muhammad, the driver who had brought the Chechens to Kharotabad in his taxi, was not cowed by any possible threat to his life and spoke the truth before the tribunal concerned that the Chechens were unarmed. In accordance with his duties, police surgeon Dr Baqir Shah issued a forensic report which indicated that the Chechens executed in Kharotabad had exploded no bomb, which makes it clear that the victims had not provoked the police and the Frontier Constabulary into firing at them. Dr Baqir was roughed up for speaking the truth but he is undeterred.
Were it not for Jamal Tarakai, the cameraman who recorded the video of the Kharotabad incident, and the man who recorded the video of the shooting of Sarfraz Shah, the shocking truth would not have reached the public in the undeniable form that it did. All these people are agents of change in Pakistan. Pakistani society had been in desperate need of such everyday heroes, and now they are emerging, and in quick succession.

The writer is a freelance contributor.
Email: qaisarrashid@yahoo.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Indigenisation of reforms

M Zeb Khan


Every civilised and responsible citizen longs for institutions that run on merit, work efficiently, and ensure transparency in its affairs. In Pakistan, such institutions are hard to find given the pervasive corruption, cumbersome rules, and regressive mentality. This state of affairs can, however, be corrected by reforming the individuals and redesigning the underlying structures but all this requires a systematic indigenous approach and political will.
The government institutions have by and large become white elephants and dinosaurs. They are a huge burden on the public exchequer with public servants interested more in rent-seeking than doing public good. Look at the public education system, Pakistan Railways, Utility Stores, OGDC, PIA, healthcare, Pakistan Steel, Wapda, and police in addition to the core bureaucracy where we see institutional corruption and inefficiency galore. More importantly, any change that is aimed at modernising and streamlining the system is resisted by the vested interests with the result that public service delivery lags behind private sector. Cosmetic changes have, therefore, trampled down on the need for fundamental redesigning based on local requirements.
Most reforms in Pakistan have focused on restructuring to improve the performance of public sector institutions. In this context, the successive governments have experimented with decentralisation, privatisation, downsizing, and corporatisation for different purposes including reducing public expenditure, sharpening focus, enhancing responsiveness, and increasing efficiency. These reform models have generally been borrowed from countries where they have yielded the desired outcomes. The World Bank and IMF have been instrumental in introducing these reform models in developing countries including Pakistan.
Unfortunately, the structural changes have failed to deliver as promised given the lack of co-alignment with local context. In other words, the peculiar economic, political, and social conditions have been taken for granted in determining the effectiveness of various reform initiatives. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), which consists mostly of developed economies, is advocated as an ideal reform model for others to emulate.
The story of reforms in Pakistan started with a shift from conventional administration to development administration. The former was inherited from the British and its overriding objectives were to maintain law and order, administer justice and collect revenues. The later was premised on re-orientation of the government to focus on economic and social development. This was followed by some conspicuous but politically-motivated reform initiatives that in general failed to streamline let alone modernise the government systems primarily due to lack of indigenous approach, piecemeal interventions, involvement of huge expenditure, and most importantly the lack of strategic vision.
Now that the country faces complex and formidable challenges, the leaders have to find reasons for the institutional decay and take bold steps to build them on modern lines. In this regard, a national commission, with people of competence and integrity, be constituted to reinvent the entire government. The commission must be fully empowered with a strong backing from all political parties. Once in place, the commission should examine in detail the dynamics of local conditions and try to find out indigenous solutions. For example, if the word ‘haram’ is instituted in place of ‘embezzlement’ and ‘misappropriation’, it would help prevent many people from indulging in corrupt practices due to its psychological impact. There are many such ostensibly minor but impressive cultural and structural innovations that can make public sector institutions strong and vibrant.

The writer teaches at FAST-NU, Peshawar. Email: zeb.khan@nu.edu.pk

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)