Ali Malik's blog

Thank you, President Zardari!

2011-12-08T10:15:00.000+05:00

Thank you Sir for leading Pakistan on the way to constitutional reform which has seen it get rid of legacy of decades of autocracy. Thank you for presiding over an economic restructuring that leads to more even distribution of resources between urban and rural and between north and south. Thank you for steering Pakistan though its worst economic years and worst energy shortages with minimum of damage. And Thank you for standing up against the terrorists while risking your own life.
Thank you for your initiatives on women's rights. Thank you for your voice for minorities and thank you for being there for all liberal and freedom causes. Thank you for the vision and stamina to stick to the politics of reconciliation and thank you for demonstrating that a successful democracy is about inclusion and cooperation above anything else.
Thank you for defending Pakistan against the terrorists and thank you for protecting its interest on international forums. Thank you for your efforts to restore the civil-military balance. Thank you for defending our Armed Forces when their image was at an all time low. And yes, thank you for saving institutions from being destroyed by their own madness.
Thank you for bearing with your opponents with patience and demonstrating the significance of tolerance. Thank you for demonstrating freedom of press amid smear campaigns against your person. Thank you for your belief in liberties and freedom and thank you for spreading it.
And above all Thank you for holding together PPP and Pakistan when many thought they had buried them with the corpse of BB. Thank you Sir! Stay healthy for the struggle left is still longer than the road that stretches out ahead. Thank You!

Prediction Time

2011-12-04T00:38:00.000+05:00

After an eventful day, Prediction Time. No inside info. Based on my analysis.

Yousaf Raza Gillani will have the longest term of any Prime Minister in the history of Pakistan yet.
#SC will not be able to harm President or the system on account of #MemoGate or #NRO.
Army will feel compelled to protect the President in #MemoGate.
In next 6 months, civil-military imbalance will have significant changes.
In near future, there will be a party hostile to Chinese' trade surplus and influence in Pakistan.
In near future, if it ever comes to showdown between US and anyone, in final tally Pakistan will be in US Column.
Next Election is the last election in which #PMLN will contest with perception of a significant player.
#PTI wave will be the strongest in Central Punjab and Army Belt (Attock, Khoshab, Jhelum, Chakwal).
PPP-Sherpao will be the most significant player (significant may not be the largest) in #KP
Imran Khan (PTI) might not be the largest Right-wing party by no of seats yet he will remain central in new right-wing politics.
If Imran Khan manages to lure Arbab Rahim in #Sindh and Sherpao in #KP, #PTI will be the central right-wing national party in the system.
#Lahore will have #PTI as the single largest party with a 3-way split mandate.
Spending money on media (except for good paid ads) will be bad investment. Media has little influence over voters.

Nawaz Sharif will blame everything for his downfall when he himself is sole responsible. (It's not a prediction but an observation).

Peak of Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan will end starting early 2013.
There will be #Basant!
Imran Khan will have a good show in Karachi on Dec 25th.
Religious right & MQM's effort to replace ANP w/ PTI in Pashtun Karachi will fail.
Imran Khan has more potential as Urdu Speaking's leader than Pashtuns'.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi will lose his seat in #Multan but will win one from #Lahore.
#BilawalBhutto will not be a key player for #PPP in next election. His bid begins in 2017. (God protect him and his family!)
Politics of #Pakistan, in foreseeable future, will revolve around two Jawai(s) (Punjabi word). #Babay

In national interest and in interest of Peace and Stability, I withhold prediction on outcome of next general elections.

Let Pakistan Move beyond Old Establishment Order

2011-11-12T22:37:00.001+05:00

As the elections approach, the talk of establishment's meddling in political system is resonating again. Only today, two statements by two of the leading political leaders of the country hint at establishment's (read security establishment's) role in country's politics. Both Nawaz Sharif and Ch. Shujat Hussain today hinted at hidden hands' intervention in political space. This follows a series of acquisitions that security establishment or elements in it have been at the center of Imran Khan's rise and PTI's successive political activities. This all is not only unpleasant and unfortunate but also seems a waste of energy on part of those trying to engineer politics. What Pakistan needs is to move beyond the existing notion of establishment to create a more broad based, all inclusive establishment. The new establishment will comprise a civil-military compromise on key national security issues where Army will have a decisive say in military, combat-security, and military administration issues while Army's security considerations and civilians' considerations vis-a-vis economic and trade relations and other foreign policy issues will define the core of national security policy. The players in Pakistan's power politics, includng Army, will be damaged heavily if they do not succumb to this emerging reality.
On none the responsibility of establishment of the new order of civil-military relationship is more than on Army and PPP. For its part Army must realize that time to create and recreate artificial alternatives to popular leadership is over. If they fail to come to terms with this fact, for elements within Army, the failing of Imran Khan led alliance in the next general election to secure a sizable share of seats will make the reality clearer. In all likelihood, it will be 3rd or 4th largest bloc in the next elections. Also, past four years must have shed many of Army's fears of nation's leadership's vulnerabilities on national security. Let me take the liberty to say that the views of civilian and military leadership of the country have never been closer on the national security outlook. More importantly, in past four years, Pakistan has experienced the emergence of a mechanism where the Army's key concerns vis-a-vis security get addressed with civilian leadership taking the bulk of brunt of these decisions and gives valuable input on policy definition. For the first time, Army has made itself accountable to parliament with successive briefings on key national security issues. We have entered a phase where things are slowly but gradually moving in a direction where Army will act as an influential and powerful player in policy making under civilian rule, as happens in mature states. These developments, alone, should give Army the confidence to move beyond creating and recreating its political prodigies. This coupled with the fact that Army's ability to create a prodigy is significantly curtailed in today's time should keep it away from any such misadventures which potentially could damage its image and power significantly. And lastly, Army's last two creations in the political arena, Nawaz Sharif and religious extremists, are enough to nip any such thoughts on part of Army. In a time when almost all major political entities of the country are ready to work on national security issues in consultation with Army, misadventure of creating prodigies will be counter-productive and will damage Army's interest as an institution and Pakistan's interest as a state.
But it is not Army alone which needs to move beyond the old establishment order towards a newer one. Political parties also have an important role to play. In past, Army's meddling in politics and its drive and ability to marginalize political forces led to a mentality in political parties where they would portray themselves as victims of Army's assault. With curtailed ability of Army to meddle in politics and because of its efforts to distance itself (extent of this is arguable) from politics, now political class must also move beyond that victim mindset.
To its credit, PPP leadership has tried to move beyond but its core and cadre still has memories of Army rules in the country. It is the responsibility of leadership to make the workers and voters make this transition and train them to make the transition from party of opposition to party of power. With Pakistan's political landscape, PPP has to assume this role of party of power for long and it will be unfortunate if party's ranks and files are not ready for the new role.
As for the statements of two leaders, NS and Shujat, a journalist friend said that Shujat has no complaints with Army or ISI but his complaints were directed at ex-servicemen residing in West Ridge and other areas of Rawalpindi who are using their influence in bureaucracy, political class, media, and ranks of Army and ISI (and let me add extremists) to bolster Imran Khan and to an extent Nawaz Sharif.
As for Nawaz Sharif, he is one politician who needs to move the most to get in sync with today's Pakistan. He still is stuck in 90s and believes in the fallacies that he and his patrons created then. His core political aim seems vendetta against Pervez Musharraf and Army for the humiliation he faced. He must realize that the very fact that his party came to power in Punjab and the same Musharraf was forced to take oath from his ministers was a vendetta enough. It is time to move on and embrace the system. The times when the hidden hands would arrange for him mandates are gone and now he will have to find his ways within the system with the mandate and vote bank he has. If MQM can become powerful with its 25 seats, Mr. Sharif can do a lot more with his 50-100 seats. More so, unlike MQM, his numbers in present political setup allowed him to consolidate and expand gradually into forming a government in elections ahead. An opportunity he let pass because of his own follies and failure to read the situation.
As for PTI, well they are too new to contribute anything, but with time when the injections of their backers will fail to bring them into any decisive position in nation's power politics, they will realize that their politics will rely on working within the political system, cooperating with political parties. It will be either this or PTI's current urban Punjab popularity will fade like Tehrik-e-Istaklal's popularity of mid-60s.
At a time when Pakistan's civil and military leadership is moving together in carving a way ahead for nation in Eurasia, South Asia, and global economic and political order, and through a turbulent Middle East, it is imperative that they also consolidate this new era of civil-military partnership to establish a new establishment order. Not everything is settled between the civilians and military but the way ahead is through mutual consultation and moving with realization of power realities. Many things will correct in civil-military relationship in the due course but in a way in which civilians' gain will not seem Army's humiliation but a joint effort for a better Pakistan. We have wasted so many energies in civil-military confrontation and the time is ripe to channelize energies for a harmonious and strong Pakistan. The new establishment order is not merely a hope but is the only way forward for Pakistan.

Democracy Memoirs of Pakistan

2011-10-28T13:06:00.001+05:00

1951: A young man from a prominent, knighted Sindhi feudal family marries an Iranian merchant's daughter. Young man fears backlash from his father and to ensure secrecy relies on two of his closest friends then (One for sure was Ilahi Bukhsh Sumro, other I think was cricket commentator and business executive Omar Kureshi). Begins the story of Bhuttos. Young man was Z. A. Bhutto, the woman became Nusrat Bhutto.
Mid-60s: Nusrat, compelled by traditions of the family, forces the daughter, Benazir, to wear veil on trip to family estate of Larkana. ZAB gets furious and categorically declares that his daughters will not wear veil. Coming from a family where his sisters were married to Quran, ZAB's most revolutionary act was to send his daughters to Harvard and Oxford.
Sept 1967: ZAB is arrested by Ayub regime and it seems that the movement gaining momentum will die leaderless. Appears a tonga on Mall Road carrying 3-4 women. One of them was Nusrat Bhutto. People recognize her and flock around her. The movement against Ayub is alive again and leads to his end and ultimately leads to 1970 elections.
July 5, 1977: Martial Law is imposed, Bhutto detained, family sent back to Karachi. Nusrat advises her three children studying abroad to attend their studies. Benazir and Nusrat are the only two left to deal with Zia's tyranny.
December 16, 1977: Bhutto women face the first, of many, assaults of tyrants. Attempt to mobilize people takes them to cricket match in Lahore. Crowd erupts with "Jiye Bhutto" slogans. Police starts baton-charge. A woman's voice roars: unhain kyun mar rahay hu mujhe maro (why are you hitting people, hit me). Police complies, hitting her head leading to blood spilling all over. An image that epitomizes Pakistan's struggle for democracy and fundamental rights.
April 4, 1979: ZAB is hanged in Rawalpindi Jail while Nusrat Bhutto and Benazir are in confinement a few miles away in Sihala. They are not allowed to attend the funeral rites.
February 1981: Nusrat Bhutto forgives political leaders who asked Zia to takeover and forms MRD with them. Whichever way you look at it, it was a game changer in Pakistani feudal-mindset politics. It is where reconciliation got introduced to Pakistani politics. And this, to me, is her biggest gift to Pakistani politics.
July 1985: Bhutto tragedy continues. Shahnawaz, the youngest son of Bhuttos, dies as a result of poison intake (many believe it was act of Zia regime). Only Benazir is allowed to accompany the body back to Pakistan.
December 2, 1988: Benazir Bhutto becomes Prime Minister of Pakistan after PPP wins November polls. Nusrat Bhutto become Senior Minister. She wins from a constituency in Chitral, a conservative bastion where women find it difficult even to vote.
Nov. 18, 1992: Nusrat Bhutto is baton charged again at Bhatti Chowk, Lahore. Wounded, she manages to break the cordon and leaves Lahore for Long March.
September 20, 1996: Bhutto tragedy continues. Murtaza Bhutto is killed by police. Iron lady can't take it any more. Health deteriorates and Alzheimer takes memory away. She is not in to take any more pain.
From Ayub to Zia and later, there is no single person who symbolizes Pakistan's struggle for democracy like Begum Bhutto (not even ZAB and BB). And for all her agony, she had the resolve to live till the fruits of her struggle are finally here. Iron lady's resolve did outlast of those she fought against. The state mourning by elected governments all across the country, was a divine justice for her struggle.
For all the miseries and hardships, the lives like Nusrat Bhutto are not to be mourned but to be cherished and celebrated for their struggle, resolve and commitment. RIP Begum Sahiba! It has been an honor and pleasure having you with us.

Living in a Zero-Sum game - Explaining Pakistan's Foreign Policy by Aparna Pande (A book review)

2011-10-19T22:26:00.001+05:00

Good friend Aparna Pande's book hit the bookstalls in May this year. While I had been privileged to go through excerpts of it, it was an absolute pleasure reading this book. Explaining Pakistan's Foreign Policy - Escaping India, published by Routledge is among the most insightful of books on complexities of South Asian foreign policy.
Book discusses how Pakistan's foreign policy has evolved over time because of fear of a large neighbor India with whom Pakistan has shared the blood-feud of partition. It discusses in detail how the desire to counter India has been at the fore of Pakistan's desire for an Islamist identity, its quest for strategic depth, its efforts for Pan-Islamism and having a mid-eastern identity, and its opening up to China. The strongest, and at least for me the most insightful, portion of book is the one that deals with analysis of how events before and soon after partition led to an increased insecurity vis-a-vis India. Dr. Pande has not let her Indian nationality come in the way of objective analysis of how mistakes by Indian leaders cemented those fears and that makes her criticism of Pakistani policies on terrorism and Pakistan's insecurity of India all the more relevant.
The book is among the most honest attempts at dealing with Pakistan's foreign policy issues. Dr. Pande in the concluding section also discusses in detail the achievements of Pakistan and why it does not make much sense to continue with policy of insecurity any more. However, one thing that Dr. Pande has not covered in this book and I am sure she will in her subsequent books is the changing orientation of Pakistan's foreign and security policy.
In last two decades, Pakistan's foreign policy has moved from escaping India to countering India to now seeking a broader role in the region. Though defining a national identity remains an issue for Pakistan, the differentiation vis-a-vis India is becoming less and less an issue as the partition generations on both sides are fading into oblivion and indigenous generations are taking over the affairs. As the time passes, the military with its slow but gradual waning influence will also find it difficult to exploit India factor for her own survival. These factors along with a desire to be the energy conduit between Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy reserves and their markets, and focus on securing water reserves is changing the focus of Pakistani foreign policy. A lot of events of 2000 and beyond must be seen in light of these changing developments.
It is perfectly legitimate for Pakistan to pursue these national interests but the real challenge for policy makers will be not to repeat the mistake of using terrorism as a tool of security policy which ultimately hits the hardest back home. Whether Pakistan succeeds in achieving its security and foreign policy objectives sans terrorism will in great part determine the destiny of Pakistan. And I am sure Dr. Pande very soon will reward us with another book on South Asia encompassing emerging realities.
Till then, go grab a copy of the book. You might or might not agree with all that you read but you will finish it being more informed and more knowledgeable about Pakistan and evolution of its security and foreign policy and in admiration of Dr. Pande's intellect and her deep insight into the issue.

Creating Jobs in a Structural Meltdown – Reviving US Economy

2011-10-01T01:05:00.002+05:00

http://econowise.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/creating-jobs-in-a-structural-meltdown-reviving-us-economy/

Karachi - between fairness and practicality.

2011-09-02T22:05:00.000+05:00

Zulfikar Mirza's press conference has brought to fore the reality which everyone knew but no one wanted to spell. That MQM sits on top of a mafia and uses violence to further its political objective is a no-brainer. Also is no-brainer the fact that the other parties including ANP, PPP, Sunni Tehrik have resorted to organized armed wings in Karachi in retaliation to MQM's violent tactics. So, for all the obvious reasons, Mirza's press conference has been hailed by vast majority, Sindhis, Balochs, Pathans, Punjabis etc. Mirza is a hero of PPP voters in Sindh as well as PTI and PML-N voters and ANPers. And just when the Pandora has been opened, there are calls for Justice and cutting MQM to size. These demands for justice and fairplay, however, go beyond the realm of practicality for one simple reasons. They ignore the fact that MQM, apart from being a mafia is also a political reality having predominant support among Hindi-belt migrants and there will be strong political consequence of any action aimed at crushing MQM, for it still has more fire power and voters than any of its opponents in Karachi. In short, the desire simply ignores the fabric, support, corporate backing and fire power of MQM.

Let us have a brief roundup of what is happening in Karachi and why? Migrant community of Karachi has always counted on political leadership that has been different from the leadership recognized by the mainstream of Pakistan. However, despite that rejection, all political forces had been allowed to operate freely in Karachi and at different points had drawn partial political support from the metropolis. In 1980s, in retaliation to JI's armed domination of campuses emerged a force (MQM) which not only dominated the political scene of Karachi but also made it a no-go area for all other political entities through mafia network. MQM's main political strength stemmed from migrant community that formed the majority of Karachi's population back then. Through mass support and violent tactics, any opposition to MQM in Karachi was suffocated more and more every passing day. In late 80s and early 90s MQM had held the city and could cripple the national economy anytime it deemed fit by choking Karachi. Elements of State realizing the situation tried to hit back at MQM in 90s thrice. Though political compulsions of establishment hampered and reversed the progress, as a result of operations, specially the second one under Gen. Babar, the violent capability of MQM was reasonably curtailed. Then came General Musharraf and with him two things happened. First, MQM was allowed a free run. Its mafia men detained were freed. Its operatives who had fled the country in 90s were allowed to return to Karachi. And according to intelligence sources, through Shipping ministry, it was given a free ride to import any amount and type of weaponry into Karachi. Just when this was happening, Karachi was undergoing a major demographic shift. Migrants who used to be a majority in the city were turning into a minority because of influx of people from KP and Balochistan. According to 2008 statistics, Migrants now constitute 49% of Karachi population.
On one hand, the people from non-migrant communities, started seeing economic sense in creating mafias. On the other, the political parties were troubled by MQM's hijacking of polling stations to deny them their fair share of the mandate. This led to political patronage of mafia by other political parties. PPP, which had a stronghold in Baloch areas, started patronizing Baloch mafia. ANP, in the mean time, had taken over the Pashtun mafia. And so the gang-wars in Karachi turned into high profile political turf wars.

There are some suggestions that the rise of these counter-MQM mafias was in part facilitated by Establishment, for Establishment was vary of MQM's muscle, post discovery of RPGs and Anti-tank weapons from MQM operatives, and wanted to counter MQM's strength. So, now we are at a point where these mafias exist in Karachi and they are in a battle to wield control over markets and turf. This battle is what has caused trouble in Karachi in past three years. For others, battle will end only if MQM gives them control as per their share (which some of them think is the whole pie). For MQM, concession might lead to a never-ending spiral of losing control over the city it has controlled for three decades.

MQM, the mightiest of them all, can take them all but the process will be very costly for MQM. On the other hand, there could be an all out security operation in Karachi to cleanse the city of its mafias. But, just when this operation is capable of wiping out mafias, including the one run by MQM, the economic and political cost of it will be unbearable.
With this balance sheet, in sight, rather than going for an all out operation that would be long and will cripple national economy, the State has decided to create a power equilibrium where all sides are given a share based on their relative size and strength and ensuring that if anyone wants to break the equilibrium, everyone will be destroyed. If it is enforced by the backing of State, State being the mightiest of actors, could take on anyone who goes beyond his specified share and thus all will be forced to stay in line. For MQM, it will be a better alternative to an all out security operation, in which the economy will suffer but MQM will ultimately be damaged significantly. This practical solution presents the best solution for all sides. State will end up creating a balance of power where sides are pitched in such a way that none of them could move to disturb the equilibrium. MQM will avoid an all out operation. And ANP, PPP and others will get their relative share of the political bargain. This equilibrium is the plan being rolled out in Karachi for now.
But implementing this bargain will be a tough nut to crack. It will be hard for MQM to let go part of what it used to own. Even if leadership agrees, the local splinters of mafia can rebel against the leadership and thus take things to an all out operation. It is in this context that Altaf Hussain has given the message to his cadres that going back to India is not an option and MQM supporters and migrants community has to live here. My sense is that just when the final bargain will be relative to each side's size, MQM will be given slightly more than its due share to compensate for what it will concede.
Implementation is an issue on other side as well. Pathan and Baloch (backed by ANP and PPP) mafias feel they have cornered MQM in last few years. They smell the blood and think that they can go for the kill. Same is the feeling among many of Sindhi cadre of PPP. Just when the top leadership of ANP and PPP seems to be on-board for a new equilibrium, because of these sentiments, they too fear rebellion in their ranks.
What the local cadre of ANP and PPP fails to realize is the fact that MQM is not only a mafia and political party but a mafia raised by Corporate Karachi to preserve its interest. Hit worst by 70s nationalization, MQM was aided and funded by Karachi's business tycoons, created at the first opportunity they got post-nationalization, to make sure their interests are protected in the State. Such mafia exists in every major business center sans a strong corporate law infrastructure. MQM has delivered its end of the bargain with business community. Be it protecting the businesses, facilitating transactions, or protecting interests of business community on issues like VAT, it has always been there. It was this business community which introduced MQM to military junta of Zia. So, contrary to Mr. Mirza's plea to business community to back him sans Bhatta, Karachi's business community will not abandon MQM. Even the State knows that pushed pass a brink, MQM will be left with no other option but to retaliate. Thus leading to the option of an all out operation. So despite their wishes, MQM can be cut down but can certainly not be forced out.
The fear of rebellion among splinters is the biggest obstacle in attaining the new equilibrium. It also seems that Altaf Hussain's consent for the arrangement is tentative to say the least. On his part, as architect of the formula and political head of establishment, President Zardari is likely to go all out to ensure the success of this equilibrium formula. He will have full backing of Asfand Yar Wali, though concessions will be hard to be drawn from ANP. Whether the new equilibrium is attained or impractical wishes for a fair solution lead us to circumstances which the State wants to avoid remains to be seen.
In the mean time, let us keep speculating whether Mr. Mirza represents the rebellion among local cadres who think that MQM can be wiped out or is there to force Altaf Hussain to the bargain.

Refuting the schizophrenia named Imran Khan

2011-07-02T23:39:00.000+05:00

Imran Khan has been in Pakistani politics for good 16 years now. He, however, has never been scrutinized for his policies, his understanding of issues and his ideology. Probably the prime reason of this absence of scrutiny is the fact the he and his party never came with their position on key issues except for jargons and political rhetoric. Recently, however, for the first time, he was grilled on his views vis-à-vis War on Terror and Af-Pak situation in an interview in “Sirf Sach”. His views were also reproduced in an article on Afghan War by Jemima Goldsmith in Daily Independent. An in depth analysis of his understanding of the issue highlights serious flaws and contradictions in comprehension and reasoning.
The key reasoning behind Imran’s regional view stems for an assertion that Afghans can never be ruled by a foreign power and the region somehow is a graveyard of empires. This narrative was promoted by Brits after their failure to conquer Afghanistan, probably to hide embarrassment and was subsequently adopted by radical Islamists for the reasons obvious. For someone whose only self-stated credential in foreign policy is the fact that he deals with British aristocracy on equal footing, it is not surprising to buy this narrative as is. A review of history, however, suggests otherwise. Afghanistan has, for most part of its existence, been ruled by foreigners. Be it the Persian Empire, whose rule over Afghanistan has extended many periods throughout the known history of the region, or the Delhi Sultanate which has controlled much of Pashtun Afghanistan for almost 400 years, the Afghanistan has been part of the foreign sovereign. Had it not been for American assistance, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan could not have been overturned by Afghans themselves. For most part of last 20 years, the most dominating entity in Afghanistan has been ISI (dominated by Punjabis), which has controlled Afghan polity throughout 1990s. So, it is merely a myth that Afghans cannot be conquered.
Two key lessons from Afghan history that Mr. Khan conveniently ignores are however of more significance to the Afghan solution. First, Afghanistan has rarely been a united country throughout its history. And two, the foreign sovereigns had wielded their influence in Afghanistan through powerful proxies in a society that is still tribal in nature. These two assertions call for active international and regional engagement in Afghanistan to bring Afghans to a common national charter (constitution) which safeguards the interests of diverse communities who had rarely been unified under one state. This is the only hope for unified and stable Afghanistan and this requires weakened Taliban and stronger international and regional engagement. It is a fact worth mentioning that even the most sympathetic surveys put Taliban support in Afghanistan 26%-35% and thus Afghanistan should not be left for them to rule through the barrel of the gun.
In proposing a solution, one line of argument that Mr. Khan takes is that if Americans are talking to Taliban why cannot Govt. of Pakistan do the same. This reasoning again is flawed because Afghanistan is in the process of state building and so talks with offshoots make perfect sense. Secondly the purpose of the talks is not to surrender to Taliban but to bring them into the fold of the political process in Afghanistan. Pakistan, on the other hand is an established state with a near consensus constitution. More so, in Pakistan, Taliban demand is to ask the state surrender itself to them. Last I checked, in statecraft, states consider this option only when they are defeated. Govt. of Pakistan has time and again offered to talk to Taliban factions who lay arms and are willing to find solutions within the ambit of constitutional framework.
Imran’s views on terrorism also need retrospection. He believes that terrorism is the result of American invasion of Afghanistan and will go away if Americans leave the region. What he conveniently ignores is that the Jihad machinery in this region has a clear global agenda and nation states do not fit in it. So whether 9/11 or not and whether Americans had come to the region or not, they would have challenged the State of Pakistan anyways. In fact, when Sufi Muhammad revolted in Malakand in 1994, there were no American troops present in the region. Even the terrorism has been rampant in Pakistan in 80s and 90s as well despite no US boots in Afghanistan. Pointing to American presence in the region as the root cause of terrorism is a delusion that obstacles dealing with the problem.
Needless to say that his assertion that terrorists are those whose relatives get killed by US attacks is factually incorrect. Not even once has it been proven that the suicide bomber had any relative killed in drone or any other strike. On the contrary, there has been extensive evidence that teenagers from South Punjab and FATA, with no direct link to those killed in strikes, had been either brainwashed or forced to wear suicide vests and blow themselves. The people whose relatives (themselves terrorist ring leaders) get killed in drone strikes do not wear the vests themselves. They brainwash others to do their dirty work.
Imran’s opposition to drones is another example of naivety of his policies. He completely ignores the fact that these are drones that have led to elimination of key terrorists threatening Pakistan and Afghanistan. More so, even the Army believes that drone strikes have helped them consolidate control over FATA. As for the reaction of FATA residents to drones is concerned, I have found highly favorable view of drone among most. Mr. Khan points that locals are outraged by this. We both could be wrong. However, if the indifference of IDPs in camps near his Peshawar Dharna is an indicator, FATA residents at least did not bother much about joining Anti-Drone demonstrations.
If his views and beliefs on WoT stand on flimsy foundation, his political beliefs seem inspired by strong personal biases. For instance, when he says that PPP and Pakistan cannot coexist, he assumes the moral high ground where he assumes the mantle of deciding what is right for the state. More so, this rhetoric of his is a reminisance of 90s Nawaz Sharif (when he too was under the influence of Gen. Hamid Gul and spirituals like Prof. Rafique Akhtar). Nawaz Sharif’s assertion then and Imran’s now suggests that even if people of Pakistan vote for PPP, because PPP does not fit into their ideological mold, it should be crushed and denied any opportunity to breath in Pakistan, despite any amount of public support for it. Mr. Khan fully knows that the radical ideology he propagates day in day out does not sell even with his core constituents. For this reason, allegedly, in private meetings he tells his DHA, Model Town supporters that we will use molvis to get into power and once in we will reform the system. He too conveniently ignores that in the game he is playing, the hand on trigger ultimately calls the shots.
He also says that if next elections do not bring change (read people do not vote for him), there will be bloody revolution. Unfortunately, no matter whichever way you read it, it reads that if you, ordinary masses, do not elect me and approve of the the ideology of urban elite that I represent, we have the power to destroy it all. To me Mr. Khan’s banking on another Nizam-e-Mustafa is misplaced and is another reflection of his political delusions.

Let Us Think about Nukes

2011-05-30T00:37:00.000+05:00

I thought but never thought as much as I did for this piece. The patriot in me is asking me to stay silent but the human in me has forced me to write this.

Ever since the PNS Mehran attack almost everyone is convinced that the job was an inside job. The attack at the largest Naval Base of the country is no small affair. More so, the attack followed a similar attack at the heart of Pakistan's Security Structure on GHQ in April 2009. In between, the world's most wanted terrorist was killed in one of the largest cantonments in the country. These incidents raise serious considerations about Pakistan's capability to secure its strategic assets. What aggravates the matter is the fact that the threat comes from within. The world which already considered Pakistan a failed, rogue and volatile state seems even more convinced of dangers Pakistan poses. And what adds to world's fears is the fact that Pakistan possesses nuclear arsenal. Nuclear Arsenal in a fragile state, facing a threat from within and unable to secure its key military bases, should be the worst nightmare of anyone concerned about the world peace and concerned is the world.

Post-unleashing of the enemy within, there are serious questions of perception and morality that have been raised vis-a-vis Pakistan's nukes and we as nation must consider and answer them honestly. If we have to live in the world as an integrated and responsible member of international community, we must ensure the world that our nukes will in no way become a threat to the world peace by falling into the hands of extremists or by being taken over by extremists. The cost of not acting to undo this perception will be mammoth financially, diplomatically and militarily. But perception is not my main concern.

My main concern is a moral imperative. If terrorists could infiltrate, through extensive inside support, the bastions of our security establishment, so can they in our nuclear installations. Our strategic assets have been infiltrated with personnel who are aligned with a certain "takfeeri" ideology. So it, now, is not impossible for nuclear assets to be attacked or infiltrated by militants. Nukes falling into the hands of terrorists should not be the concern of the west but of every human. We do not know where they are going to detonate them, in Karachi, in Lahore, in Mumbai, in Jerusalem, or in NYC or London. If there record is anything to go by they have killed 10 Pakistanis for every Westerner they killed. More so, no matter where the dirty bomb reaches, it is going to cause serious damage to thousands of people. And it is this realization that has made me speak.

If one does not speak realizing the imminent danger; if the worst happens, the blood of thousands will be on his/her hands. It is time we acknowledge the problem and try to deal with it. There can be solutions that can be considered to prevent this disaster.

First, of course, is a complete rollback. This might be a painful solution but will have the potential of winning us the most diplomatic leverage in this sorry state of ours. We can workout a security arrangement where major powers of the world, including US and China jointly take responsibility of our security interests sans nukes. When the nations acquire power organically, they start developing security might as well and so will we and so as a confident active nation, letting go nukes should not be end of world for us. Brazil, South Africa and Argentina gave up nukes and became stronger, we can too. But in case this option turns out to be a hard-sell, there is a second option too.

Second option is to keep the nuclear program but to put it under international safeguards for 8-10 years till we cleanse ourselves from within. This way, we will be able to preserve our nuclear arsenal. Knowing our deep distrust of United States, the international control could have significant Chinese leverage along with other global powers. This should satisfy concerns about western designs while protecting nukes from the hands of militants.

Knowing our vulnerabilities, we do not know how much time we have. But we should seriously think of these questions. If a dirty bomb traced back to Pakistan blows anywhere in the world, the blood of thousands will be on our hands - on the hands of us all.

Understanding Pakistan Army

2011-05-22T13:49:00.000+05:00

A few months ago, mostly accidentally, I happened to meet a few officers of Pakistan Army who have served in South Waziristan and other areas of FATA, the epicenter of war on terror. What I heard from them made me explore Army's view on War on Terror further. Coincidently, my inquiry into Army's view on War on Terror coincided with killing of Osama Bin Laden. An incident that has put spotlight on Army's role in War on Terror and its allegiances in the war like never before.
On the onset, let me make a few things clear. My opposition to Pakistan Army's strategic doctrine and its repeated interventions in political system is well known. I think Army made a mess of itself and of the country when it assumed the role of national savior, policy-maker, a and custodian of a pseudo doctrine of "Nazriya-e-Pakistan". Neither was it helpful for anyone but Army men, when the institute, which should have been a symbol of national pride, turned into a corporate machinery having wings from FMCG to Real Estate. Actions damaged Army's reputation and its image in public. The actions also led to creation of monsters which we and Army are fighting to date.
Having these opinions about Army and being ultra-critical of Army, I still think that Army needs to be reformed not destroyed and if Army or some in it want to take the course of reform, they should be encouraged rather than being taunted for their past follies. If world has to have a chance at dealing with the menace of terrorism in Middle East and Central Asia, the best route goes through Pakistan Army. It is imperative for the world not to let go on this best route. But in the light of events of May 2, the onus now is more on Pakistan Army to show to the world that it is ready to pursue the task with clarity of purpose and single-mindedness.
So what is Army's view on WoT? To be honest, based on my inquiries and interviews, it is confused. But in this confusion lies some arrays of hope. First and foremost, any number of soldiers I talked to who have served in FATA areas or Swat have nothing but remorse for terrorists. They feel that eliminating these terrorists is the only solution to deal with the menace.
Secondly, talking to many a people who have been involved in planning at the middle-tier there's one recurring theme. We realize that we are in a mess. We have been with the terrorists for more than three decades. Now, in the process of detachment, we cannot abandon all of them outrightly. Our best approach is to divide them and have some on our side when we deal with the rest. About Haqqani network, they also say that what Americans fail to realize is that we need Haqqani on our side for this is essential to our control in an otherwise wild FATA.
Talking to most of the people who had been involved with WoT, one also finds a recurring theme that we need Americans and they need us to fight this mess. Without us, they cannot control Afghanistan and without the help of their technology and intelligence-sharing we cannot control our maniacs. Though the need for cooperation is well realized, there exists an element of distrust as well. Army feels that US is covertly supporting some of the terror organizations linked with TTP to pressurize Army and create a counterbalance for Haqqani Network's activities in Afghanistan. There also are hints of communicational and cultural issues between American and Pakistani mid-tier officials.
It seems that Army top leadership though fully aware of the threat of Islamists and fully realizing that we cannot part ways with US if the state has to survive, gives an impression of being Anti-American. The explanation is that this helps keep anti-American sentiment in check and will not let it turn into anti-State or anti-Army sentiment. Army, in particular, is afraid of backlash from Islamists with in the Army. There have been many (not majority but a sizable minority) in Army who outrightly refused to join WoT on ideological grounds. Another explanation is that approach of keeping a facade denies a wildcard entry to Americans in the arena of positive public perception in Pakistan, and having doubts about what Americans need in the region this is what Army thinks it should do. What Army fails to realize is that by creating this impression, it is letting itself side with the extremists, at least in public perception. This is only strengthening extremists rather than weakening them. Also, without clearly knowing where the Army stands, people (urban classes aligned with Army in particular) seem swayed to move to extremists. It is about time that Army openly and categorically declares its position on War on Terror and let the people of Pakistan know which side it is on. There can be a way to clearly define where our interest converges with US and where we have reservations. Army must declare the reality that working with US is in our national interest when we fight the existential threat to the state and the society.
Based on what I found, two things remain unchanged and unmoved in Army's perception. First is the sense of superiority and the sense that civilians are not capable of dealing with their affairs and affairs of policymaking and statecraft, and second is Army's tribal-age perception of Indian threat. What Army's planning also ignores is the immense potential the exercise of soft-power holds.
Aftermath of OBL death provides an opportunity for those of us who wish to reform Pakistan Army with an opportunity. It also offers an opportunity for people within the Army to do soul-searching and reinvent themselves. What we must realize in the process is that reforming an Army that has reached where it is as a result of events of past 6 decades cannot be an overnight process. We will have to patient, mindful of follies Army is capable of committing but also be generous in letting go past in the event of a genuine effort of reform. Forcing Army into humiliation is going to destroy all. First step should be Army's distancing from mercenaries it created itself. More than anyone, it is Army that should realize that for a functioning state the first step is to create state's monopoly on use of violence. Second and third logical steps will be more civilian control over Army and strategy-making, and having a realistic world and security-vision inline with the realities around us more of which will be based on economic and not military considerations.
Army cannot continue this path created on delusional world view and a knee-jerk reactionary approach. For nation and for itself, it will have to reform. Good thing is, there are signs.

Defining Pakistan's Middle East Policy

2011-04-09T23:20:00.000+05:00

Ever since Zahir Shah's dethroning led to a cycle of chaos in Afghanistan, no issue, not even 9/11, had the potential of impacting Pakistan more than what is happening in our West in the Middle East. A movement has spread from Iran to Morocco, shaking the very foundations of the order that has dominated the region for past century. The print and electronic media that blabbers day in day out on every non-issue has completely blacked out one of the most critical debates that should be taking place in Pakistan. The think tanks, pseudo intellectuals, and retired bureaucrats and generals are mum. And yet what is happening around has most far reaching consequences for Pakistan and calls for an open debate on a broad based policy formulation vis-a-vis the Mid-Eastern crisis. This piece is an attempt to discuss the guidelines of a comprehensive Middle East policy.

Whether what is happening in Middle East is a consequence of CIA conspiracy, as is alleged by Saudis, Iranians and others, or is in the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, the rage of the masses of a region that has missed out on entire 20th century at discovering of their loss through the 21st century technology, can be argued. But more important than arguing on what led the region here is to see how to deal with what is at hand. And this proactive response should be the cornerstone of Pakistan's Middle East policy, for the country has lacked any till now.

Following more or less sum up Pakistan's key strategic concerns in Middle East:

Ensuring that the conflict does not turn into a sectarian war and any transition or consolidation of power in the region should not lead to igniting more sectarian conflicts or give the impression of dominance of one sect over the other.
Any transition that needs to take place should take place in the smoothest of manners possible.
Not only our oil supplies but the oil prices should remain stable for the smooth functioning of a volatile economy like ours.
Ensuring safety and job security of the Pakistanis working in the Middle East.
The policy should, in principle, support human rights and aspirations of the masses.

A few months back, I had this thought that the stability and peace in Pakistan can be achieved through either being part of a South Asia that is at peace with China or being part of a Middle East that is politically and ideologically at peace with the US. First scenario seemed a tough ask but the second seemed outright impossible. And yet with in weeks an opportunity has arisen where because of the crumbling of the old order the region can actually move in a direction where it could harmonize with the free world's values. Pakistan has the opportunity to help the region move in a direction that could eventually let it be in sync with the modern world. And the million dollar question is, are the powerful of Pakistan willing to go that route?

Looking at Pakistan's vital interests makes one thing crystal clear. There actually is no difference between the US interests in the region and the Pakistani interests. I am ready to debate anyone who suggests that the Pakistani interest is different from American interest in light of the emerging reality in the Middle East. Not only does the situation converge American and Pakistani interests, it also converges Pakistan's interests with its eastern neighbors i.e. India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. They all would want stable oil supply and flow of expatriate remittances from Middle East and would want to avoid the fallout of a sectarian conflict.

Problems in Middle East have serious sectarian dimensions. In many countries, Shia populations (majorities or significant minorities) have been ruled by non-Shia regimes notorious for suppression of human rights. With the recent turmoil, if the chaos ensues, the Middle East can fall into an endless cycle of sectarian violence, civil wars and wars. Post Iranian revolution radicalization of sects by Arabs and Iranians in Pakistan have turned the country into a stockpile of explosives which will be on fire in the event of eruption of sectarian conflict across Middle East. The delicate balance of our society, specially amid other challenges the nation faces, is not likely to survive this fire. The only survival is in proactive prevention.

The reliance of Arab regimes on Pakistan to deal with the situation gives Pakistan an opportunity to influence Arab regimes to take a path of smooth transition to more representative governments and more open societies. Any support to the regimes should not only be linked to job security of Pakistanis and supply of oil but should also be conditional to a commitment to a schedule of reforms. Pakistan should collaborate with US and other neighbors to convince the regimes of the inevitability of changing course. Pakistani establishment and Arab regimes, both, must realize that the time for the old order is gone. They can either find their way through the new realities emerging in the region or will be swamped by the flow of events.

Pakistan must also be mindful that its security assistance to the Arab regimes, though needed to control the chaos, can potentially be viewed as an Anti-Shia act by Shia populations of Middle East and outside. To quell this perception, it is high time that Pakistan initiates a contact with masses in Middle East and Shia leadership in the region. Our Middle East policy, thus far, has been being cronies/mercenaries for the monarchs with no emphasis on engaging the people of the region. Opening up of contact with Ayatollah Sistani should be the minimum Pakistan should do. Just as Pakistan and allies need to convince Arab regimes on rapid and intense reforms, so do they need to convince Shia leadership in the region to avoid sectarian power play. Most importantly, all stakeholders must ensure that Iran does not take undue advantage of the turmoil in Sunni-ruled Arab states. For Mr. Sistani, any transition that gives suppressed populations more say in the power structure will be a welcome move as has been evident in Iraq. For Iran, however, cornered by its own internal mass uprising, turning the conflict sectarian will provide a much needed respite from internal chaos and will give it an opportunity to enhance its influence in the Arab world. This runs contrary to the interest of all stakeholders in the region.

Despite my strong opposition to Pakistan's intervention in issues beyond its borders, the situation in Middle East has potential repercussions that require a proactive Pakistani role in the region. The role should be based on two key principles:

Supporting the aspirations of the people of the region and
Achieving these aspirations in a manner as smooth as possible without violence or chaos

The help we extend to regimes should strictly be inline with these guiding principles. I hope Pakistani establishment does not repeat the mistake of picking up favorites or letting the foreign policy be hostage to religious/sectarian ideology. The situation requires careful handling. Success or failure can ultimately determine our future and our internal stability.

Why should Pakistani Establishment opt for Liberal Democracy?

2011-01-30T13:53:00.002+05:00

The pace of events in Middle East has caught many by surprise. It seems a matter of months if not weeks before the existing order in the Middle East will pave way for a new order. What shape will the new order assume is uncertain for now. However, theocracy or elected governments on sectarian lines are two very probable outcomes. Just when because of its strong political parties, Pakistan does not face the direct threat of Middle East style revolts, the ripples of the above-mentioned eventualities have dire consequences for Pakistan.

We are already too late into foreseeing what could happen in the world around us and have paid a heavy price for being blinded. Yet again, the changes that are going to happen in our west are likely to be costly unless we take the necessary measures to control the damage.

If there has even been a reason for Pakistani establishment to push for a secular, liberal democratic Pakistan, it is now. Asian Middle East is the only region in the Muslim world with Shia majority. With regimes falling like dominoes, because of lack of any considerable political alternatives, the replacements are most likely theocracies or democracies elected on sectarian lines (do not believe me see what happens in only two democracies of the region i.e. Iraq and Lebanon). If this happens and Iranian regime survives, we will have a Shia arc on our west from Iran to Lebanon comprising Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. This arc will not only be a strong regional bloc aligned because of same sect theocratic regimes but will also challenge the Sunni dominance in the region. Sunnis comprise 2/3rd to 4/5th of the Muslim population outside Middle East. This event has a very strong potential of dividing the Muslim world on sectarian lines and is most likely to create rifts between Shia and Sunni populations across the Muslim world. Outside the Middle East, the rift will be felt the most in Pakistan, North Africa, Afghanistan and India. Worst come worst, if the holiest of Muslim sites come under the authority of Shia rulers, the backlash among the Sunni populace will be violent.

I hope good sense prevails in the Middle East and the people there opt for governments on political and not the sectarian/religious lines but keeping in view the ground realities, the chances of this happening in next few decades are minimal. So it is left to us to save our society, a predominantly Sunni society with significant Shia population, from the wrath of the events in the Middle East. And the only way to do it is to strongly push the society towards liberal democratic ideals and letting the state assert fundamental human rights. This is the only way the stark events happening on sectarian lines in the Middle East will have minimal impact on us.

The history tells us that the religious societies ultimately become sectarian societies. We have witnessed this in Pakistan as well. If our establishment thinks that it is fine for us to govern this multi-ethnic, diverse sectarian society of ours on sectarian lines, good luck to us all. Else, the sane elements in establishment should realize the chaos and bloodshed that can ensue and should put their weight behind the only sane solution. Time is of essence.

Salman Taseer

2011-01-25T19:45:00.002+05:00

This piece is dedicated to Governor Taseer. A man who had the conviction in his belief and fought for it till the very end. A brave man whom, in the words of Shakespeare, the death took with pride. It is a death that should be mourned for the bravery and courage of the dead, and for the loss of multi-faceted life full of positive energy that has been lost.

My knowledge of Governor Taseer was of third person. In fact, I was not a fan of him when he became Governor and yet in few weeks, he made me his fan. His candidness, confidence, quick wit and analytical mindset coupled with his popular politics made him a trend-setter in the politics of Punjab which has been marred by pseudo, scripted, thoughtlessly conservative and tunnel-visioned politicians for most part. That he was a successful entrepreneur and business tycoon, a dedicated political worker, a successful political administrator (whom his opponents feared), and had a social circle spanning from cart-food owners to the top businessmen, speaks volumes of the full life, the Governor led. Lives like this should not only be cherished but be shared with the coming generations as role models. This role model is the only hope of return to normalcy of a society whose educated have been brainwashed to be conspicuous, narcissist, reactionary, and are devoid of the understanding of the value of a human life in the name of religion and as a result of a Utopian world view.

Any talk of this brave man and this courageous death will be incomplete without the talk of the manner of death and the talk of the issue of blasphemy. That the murder happened in the name of Prophet and then was hailed and cheered by a section of society without any rational discussion on the issue and merely on the hearsay speaks volumes about the selectivity that gets exercised in the matters of religion. Most people who try to defend this murder not only rely on twisted and misinterpreted logic but when challenged on their logic resort to a very baseless line of reasoning that highlights the dominance of their political inclinations and raw emotions. This murder for this, highlights not only the manipulative power that the abuse of the name of the religion possesses but also how religion could be used as an excuse to justify motives political and personal.

For those who are cheering the death, just one question for them. Has not the reality dawned on them that they, deep down, have forgotten about the value of a human life and are cheering a murder without delving into any retrospect on grounds Islamic or human?

For the rest of us, I leave us with three questions. The time has come to answer these and the answers will determine the future of our society. The answers will determine our value set and the realization of our value set will make us contribute to the creation of the society based on those values. But answer the questions on your own. Research, contemplate, think, and listen to your inner voice. Listen to all points of views and read and explore all you need to, but the answer in the end should not be an answer dictated to you by some Allama or Maulana or politician or a book written by a human being. The answers should be yours. I would just leave you with the questions in a manner simple and frank, unbiased and blunt. Let us start answering them.

First, what is the value of a human life? What merits taking a human life? And for those merits whether the individual should do it or the state?

Second, when the issues as sensitive as blasphemy have divergent views from jurists like Malik and Abu Hanifa, can the law of the land and social code of the society be based on Shariah? If so, how? Will we opt for Malik's punishment on blasphemy or Abu Hanifa's? Jaffer's view of stature of Prophet or Hunbel's?

Third, what is our role model? Do we want to be like Arabs or like Americans/Singaporeans (look around, there broadly are no alternatives in this time and space)? (for this please think deep)

Answer them not emotionally but honestly. They might reveal to you a lot about you that you, in the euphoria created by media and Mullah's syllabus, do not realize.

Tail piece: I leave you with a video clip that shows religious clergy distorting Quranic verses to support their view of blasphemy law.

With this is the verse of Quran (2:159), "Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse,"

Now I am not a fatwa factory but I leave it to your good judgment whether this was blasphemy or not? Do not take it for my word, research and think yourselves. However, if you are convinced that this is blasphemy, label the blasphemers, liars and blasphemers, but be compassionate. For the human that I am and the Muhammadan religion of compassion I have been raised in, makes me compassionate. May they and their offshoots see the light and humanity.

Tunisia - What next?

2011-01-16T22:40:00.000+05:00

The events of Tunisia have stirred the whole world and have raised questions about the future of Tunisia, the Arab world, and the developing world's bastions of stability in the cyclical boom of 90s and early 2000s. As the events keep unfolding in Tunisia, the world awaits answers to four key questions.

What Happened?

Whether what happened was a consequence of something deep rooted or was it a knee-jerk reaction is yet to be seen. Arab world, rewinding back 4-5 decades or so, has a tendency for knee-jerk revolutions without any unifying agenda or leadership. Whether what happened this time was a repeat of 60s or is it a more aware revolution with a defined set of compatible and workable ideals is yet to be seen.

Another perspective on events, and with significant credibility, is that the Army in Tunisia realizing that the anger on streets is getting out of hand decided to make Bin Ali the scapegoat. If this is true then the success of the revolution in achieving its objectives will be determined by the steam in the revolution. Based on past precedence of such scenarios, most likely both sides will have to compromise and the tug of war will continue for years between the army and those who want to break the status quo.

What Next for Tunisia?

Tunisia has four possible paths from where it is. First the revolutionaries could succeed and Tunisia moves to become a pluralistic, liberal democracy and the forces of status quo get wiped out from the power structure completely. If this happens, the country will slowly but surely start to develop its institutions and leadership will start emerging in a country where till now no viable consensus alternative to Bin Ali can be seen. However, because of lack of centralized leadership among opposition and absence of a clear national agenda, this outcome though the most desirable for the people of Tunisia is least likely.

Then there is the real threat that in the chaos that has ensued, the militant Islamists will hijack the movement and attempt to takeover the government. This is exactly what happened in Iranian revolution where a revolution by the combined opposition was hijacked by Ayatullahs for they were the only opposition with guns. Though Tunisian society is liberal compared to its neighbors and does not have strong radical Islamist elements, the presence of militant radical Islamist movements in its neighborhood make this threat a potent one for Tunisia.

It might just be that when the steam of revolution subsides, the current establishment regains complete control of the situation through new faces. This will be the real test of Tunisian revolution and should be a reason enough for the opposition parties to come up with a minimum common agenda.

Last scenario will be a compromise between the ruling elite and the revolutionaries in which the ruling elite will give concessions to the opposition and give them a share of the power structure. From there on, how much the opposition proceeds towards a completely democratic Tunisia with strong institutions and a representative rule will depend on the unity of Tunisians as well as the vision of the leadership at the helm of affairs. If other examples are anything to go by such transition is always a painful process with a lot of disappointments along the way. To reach their desired goal of a democratic Tunisia, the Tunisians will have to be ready for disappointments and will have to be patient for the system to work and flourish. It will be high time for international players, particularly United States and Europe to back the representative government in Tunisia. The path will be hard to travel but seems the only viable route for people of Tunisia to claim their place in the world. If Tunisia descents further into chaos, this will not only be a blow for progressive forces in the Middle East but will also be dangerous for the continent in the north of Tunisia. Just when in the past, the western governments, particularly the European ones, seemed complacent with Bin Ali regime and the status quo; for their own interests ranging from curbing illegal immigration and drugs into Europe to fighting radical Islam, they will have to side with a liberal democratic Tunisia. This gives me hope of transformation of Tunisia into a liberal democratic nation.

Will it Spill over to other Arab Nations?

The revolution has been cheered by almost the entire youth in the Arab world. It is unclear whether this support will translate into similar attempts in other Arab countries or not. One thing is however clear, the ideal of Pan-Arabism was never dead and is back with full force. Whether this idea remains a nationalistic idea or gets influenced by Islamist movements is yet to be seen. It seems that the revolution spells trouble for non-oil importing nations more than it does for the oil-rich nations; with most vulnerable being the North African neighbors of Tunisia. Though not vulnerable immediately by the events, the real threat for the oil-rich Arab nations is the hijacking of the movement by Islamists for they have the strongest presence of militant Islam with in their frontiers.

These events are a wakeup call for autocratic regimes of Arab world who have mastered the art of suppressing their masses and have created crony-centric economies that have severely marginalized the majority of have-nots. It is about time that the governments themselves start introducing wide-ranging political and economic reforms aimed at representation and inclusion. In absence of these, the chaos will make them more and more vulnerable to the forces of change.

Next few years will be Arab world's real test. The outcome will be determined less by the actions of the ruling elites and more by the vision and wisdom of the masses. The ruling elite and masses can embrace the progressive ideals and be part of the modern world or can fall into the hands of the forces of radicalism and oppression. There is no choice for Arabs but progress and the smoother the Arabs make this transition the better it will be for them and for the rest of us.

How will the governments cope with rising inflation?

With the excess liquidity present in the global financial system as a result of bailouts and the inflation expectation built into the prices of energy and food, high inflation is likely to persist in most parts of the developing world. Countries like India, China and oil-exporting countries have some cushion to absorb the impact of this rapid inflation through subsidies. For the rest of developing world, the inflation will be a threat for the political and economic systems. If not dealt properly, the threat has a potential to drag the world into a crisis that can reverse the progress many decades backward. The nations of the world are already late in planning for the crisis awaiting us. They need to start acting now or the chaos might lead us to destination none of us desired.

Battle for Pakistan's Soul

2011-01-08T18:45:00.001+05:00

A picture says it all!

Why the hope lives on?

2011-01-07T09:55:00.002+05:00

Born and raised in a society of impulsive/emotional (and often wrong) responses, I, too, have this tendency to respond impulsive and this reflects in some of my posts on this blog too. When Benazir Bhutto got killed, my response was of anger and grief. I wanted to write so much on it here, driven by that anger and grief. But somehow something within me stopped me from writing immediately. I didn't realize it then what it was. My piece on that came good four days after the assassination and it was not driven by the impulsive emotion and had the impact of the reality seeped in well. When I heard the news of the assassination of Governor Taseer (may his spirit be in peace), my response was of anger, of grief, and of shock. And yet something, from within, stopped me from writing impulsively on this too. My inner voice says it is maturity.

Similarity between Governor's death and BB's death doesn't end here. In case of BB, same anchors on national media tried to justify suicide attacks on PPP camp on CJ rally and Karsaz attack, labeling them responses to BB's stand on Lal Masjid (if you don't believe me, read and watch Ansar Abbasi, Irfan Siddiqui, Hamid Mir et al. during July and October of 2007 and their beepers to various TV channels). They, in a way, tried justifying those attacks. BB was a larger than life figure and Pakistanis related to her lot more than they do to anyone else and that led to such overwhelming response on her death that even her worst haters could not abuse her again for at least one year into her death. Had this not been the case, someone would have justified her killing for her Lal Masjid stance as well. Same happened with Governor Taseer. Without discussing the merits and demerits of his stance on Blasphemy Law, same anchors, tried creating hysteria against the Governor which, in part, led to his assassination and was later used to justify his assassination by the same people. Whether the media houses let it happen intentionally or it happens for reasons purely commercial is something the media houses should think about.

That, for reasons vested and political, the people were enticed to kill Governor should send chill up our spines. Think rationally, what has happened is not an act of murder in the name of the Prophet, deep down human emotions have been channeled to entice an individual to murder. Emotions attached to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) are intense and massive. But this exploitation cycle, if allowed to persist in the society, can lead us to a death cycle that will be never ending and that will kill the society we live in. If one side has enticed the emotions in the name of Prophet now, who will stop the other side to do the same when its time comes? What if some vicious element within us decides to print the pictures of holy-sites related to Prophet and Islam which have been demolished for the expansion in Mecca and Madina? With emotions fueled to this degree, who will stop an endless cycle of violence among the faithful then? Abbas Kumaili has sided with clergy opposing Governor and sympathizing with the killer, what if someone starts exploiting the difference of opinion Muslims have over sahaba and even on the varying interpreted stature of Prophet Muhammad in the eyes of different sects?

And why end at the Prophet? If emotions are to be exploited, they could be exploited for names and causes having much less intensity and appeal. When ZAB was hanged in 1979, the attacks on his alleged killers continued till 1982 including assassination attempts on Zia by Bhutto's followers despite appeals for non-violence by mainstream of PPP and his wife and daughter. The attacks were motivated by people who wanted to go all the way to take law into their own hands without any fear of consequences. For them too, it was a holy war. Had it not been for a deliberate and forceful effort by Nusrat Bhutto and BB, you never know how long that cycle of death continued. And why end at Bhutto, there are issues innumerable and personas innumerable in our society, on which, people could be motivated to kill whomsoever. You will find many devotional followers in Pakistan who with little enticing can be ready to be walking bombs for their social and religious leaders. Weren't the emotions exploited in the same manner when people were sent to kill Ahsan Elahi Zaheer, Sadiq Ganji, Sunni Tehrik leadership, Sarfaraz Naeemi, Hassan Jan, Benazir Bhutto, and Indira Gandhi. That exploitation, in most cases, was not in the name of the Prophet but was in the name of the idea, the religion, the sect, or the personas less superior to the Prophet. If a tit for tat on this starts, there is no shortage of killers. And most of you would have access to psychologists who could tell how easy it is to manipulate a devoted human mind. The talk above is little blunt and discomforting but I fear endless bloodshed on the mother earth and plead you all to stop. Do not play with the fire that could spread in your own direction Sirs.

I thought that in this post I will confine myself only to the social repercussions of what happened and will not delve into addressing the broader debate. But the fear of bloodshed in this land and on the earth made me revisit my initial thought. I will just raise some questions which I think are relevant and need be answered by every individual here with honesty and rationality. I have faith in the collective wisdom of mankind and in inherent good and sanity of humans and I am sure when the reality sinks in, the good will prevail.

When I interact with people around, my views might sound offbeat. But I have been given the same Muslim upbringing anyone else would have had in a Punjabi house. I have been taught about the same religion we all follow. And in the teachings two things stood out. One, despite the worst persecutions of Meccans, Islam kept spreading for the inherent force of its idea that is universal and indefinite in time and space. And two, it is the most logical religion of all. I am sure we all have been taught this. Now take a deep breath and ask yourself one simple question. If a religion had the power to spread in the times of infancy against the worst persecution because of the power of the idea that is divine and universal, how would it be endangered by some abuses by a handful at time when Muslims are the masters of their own destiny in this land of the pure? Either you believe Islam is the most logical, divine and universal ideal that can be logically debated and discussed against any onslaught and thus become tolerant and articulate, or you, God forbid, are denying the divinity, universality and ideal you claim to defend. For a Muslim, if this is not blasphemy, I don't know what is? And if in our view, a man as grand as Muhammad (SAW), on whom, in belief of all Muslims Allah and the Angels send peace continuously, needs Hanif Jalandhari or Mumtaz Qadri to defend his honor, then, God forbid, we are contemptuous.

Irony of the situation is that those who need a law to punish people for blasphemy are supporting someone who in the presence of the law took matters into his own hands. If the issues need to be settled out of the court, are not they themselves eroding the basis for having any such law in the first place?

Then there are the fence sitters like Haroon Rasheed. They say that the killing was wrong but they can understand why Qadri killed Governor for his provocative statement and that such matters should not be debated at all in public. The only problem with this argument is that if we give Qadri license to kill for he found governor's opposition to blasphemy law provocative, where will we end? What if some sect demands repealing on zakat law as it stands right now? What if someone like Nawaz Sharif wants a Shariah amendment for his own dictatorial powers the day after tomorrow and someone finds it offensive to oppose the amendments because they are named Shariah? And what if some devoted follower of Asif Zardari finds opposition to an amendment aimed at making him life-time president offensive? What if a Barelvi kills a Deobandi because he doesn't consider Prophet noor? or a Shia kills a Sunni for he does not consider Ali the wali? We cannot start handing licenses to kill for issues sentimental. Rather than forcefully condemning the killing and injustice that has happened here, these fence-sitters are indirectly trying to justify an act which they themselves consider wrong. Rather than encouraging people to debate differences openly in a civilized manner, they want to silence the thought. Quresh used to say, ‘what You say is right but how can we defy what we follow?’ These apologists are saying, ‘what has happened is wrong, but it’s justified in line of our belief?’ Do we see any similarity here? O’ self-deceivers, what if in your sleep or in Its blessings, the light of the Prophet asks, why you do injustice in My name?

Whether I agree with it or not, the law of blasphemy is part of the statute of Pakistan and I have to abide by it. It did not emerge in the law of the land magically, the people put it there and we the people of Pakistan need to have the tolerance to modify or amend any such law through a prescribed procedure. Polity does not work disconnected with the society and so if the majority of Pakistanis have certain wishes with regard to any law, any modification in the law cannot be distant from society's sentiments - specially when the law-makers have to go back to the public to seek fresh mandate. Anyone who suggests otherwise doubts the religious affiliation of the people of Pakistan. For issue sentimental to them, they will vote in any coming election to ensure that it gets resettled as per their desire.

The incident raises questions for the state of Pakistan and those at the helm of affairs of its organs as well. Who has been killed was the sitting Lat Sahab of Punjab. That fact, coupled with the manner of killing, raises serious questions about sustainability of the state itself. I am not sure if the masters of the state realize that these tendencies, if not checked here, will keep attacking the state harder and harder. They have shown their ability to hit in any institution at any level. I hope the intensity of the situation is realized among the masters of state institutions.

We have fallen deeper into a ditch. For our ways have become unsustainable, is the writing on the wall. Do we change them on our own or we are forced to do this, is the question. If our problems become others' problems, they could settle them through B52s. But if our problems remain our problems, none will lose except us. Law of natural justice makes me convinced this cannot go on like this. I do not really know if we know where we are and what lower we are headed to. Contemplate and correct or be ready for a forced correction.

And I am hopeful for I believe in the resilience of human spirit. A little over a year ago, everyone thought that Pakistanis are blinded in their support of Taliban and they cannot realize the cancer that is eating them from within. It was labeled blasphemous talking against the terrorists. Media was trumpeting the jingoistic Taliban tune. And yet the collective conscience of this nation ultimately realized the danger we faced and the world was surprised to see how swiftly we moved against the Taliban in Swat and Waziristan. Our flag was hoisted in Swat again and the majority of us rejected the idea of Talibanization.

Now again, we face the existential threat. A threat caused by intolerance and exploitation at the hands of vested interests. Media is trumpeting the same beat and we have been exploited in the name of ideas, ideals and the Persona dear to us. Everyone is hopeless and thinks that we will remain blinded and enter into an endless cycle of death and bloodshed. Yet I have not lost hope in the collective wisdom of human beings, in the ability of mankind and my people to realize the reality, though with some delay. We have to ask ourselves the questions we have been prohibited to ask in the name of blind faith by the vested interest. We have to listen to our inner voices. The voice that is closer to us than our heart is, closer than our jugular vein. The voice that is the light of the ages.

All Hail the Champions!

2010-11-20T11:32:00.000+05:00

Winners of Asian Games Women Cricket - Team PAKISTAN!

Mesaq-e-Pakistan aur Truck ki Batti (Charter of Pakistan and a rush to Mirage)

2010-11-05T10:22:00.000+05:00

The more I think about the idea of charter of Pakistan, the more I get struck by the absurdity of it. I think even Sharif himself is not sure what he means by Charter of Pakistan. If he means changes in constitutional structure, I believe that already is a settled matter in 18th amendment. May be there is some more room for issues pertaining to provincial autonomy and civil service reforms, but the forum for that is parliament. We are not living in Charter of democracy times any more and the country has a functional parliament that could pull something like 18th amendment unanimously and provides ample room to Mian Sahab to raise his concerns and seek consensus.

As far as the 25 year planning of economy etc goes, it is an absurdity to even think about it. We are way pass the raw-Keynesian economic times, where the central planners used to decide the direction of the economy. It is a near consensus that the best role for government is to monitor and control the free flowing economy through regulation, monetary policy and fiscal policy. Now all three, by their very nature, cannot have long term policy setting and are more of on-the-go mechanisms. We sitting here just cannot decide whether we should be investing in Textiles or automobiles or agriculture, for we cannot predict how the global economy will shape up and with this our competitive advantage and the viability of these sectors.

So the question is why did he talk of it? Four words, it's politics stupid! Mian Sahab is being marginalized severely in the power structure of Pakistan. It can only be attributed to his follies and miscalculations and his dependence on his backers (who want to retain their clout through him). He, in two years post-Musharraf, has failed to emerge as the only leader of the right-wing (Muslim League). He has not been able to make in-roads into his previous support base of Army. His party is non-existent in 4 out of 5 provinces and even in his stronghold of Northern Punjab, he is losing constituencies to PPP and PML-Q. He had banked a great deal on judiciary over the last two years. But with lawyers back with PPP, his two blue-eyeds soon to retire, and no overt support visible for anti-government crusade from powers-that-be, this support base is shrinking fast too. This puts Sharif in a very tight spot, not only as a politician but also as a chief oligarch of oligarchy of radicalism cultivated under Zia. The oligarchy is desperate to make a come back and is likely to revert to extreme measures in weeks to come. Not sure of success, his best hope is to create chaos that takes events to the point where powers-that-be are forced to deal with him for a stable setup.

He is banking on MQM support for a no-confidence motion against the PM, thus trying an in-house change. This seems unlikely. First, MQM's first preference will be to resolve issues within the coalition. And second, no such attempt can be successful unless it has the support of entire parliamentary body of PML-Q. Second option is chaos on the streets. He controls government in Punjab and that can be used as the only base for an unrest. He might opt for a long march. However, he himself knows that it will be difficult to repeat a March 15th for reasons of lack of broad-based appeal and upward movement of PPP on learning curve. Unrest could also be sparked using sectarian rift during Moharram. The most fearful scenario will be an attempted mid-rank coup within the Army, instigated by some court order or independent of it. All these desperate measures will be aimed at ensuring at least enough chaos to force concerned powers to talk to Sharif. He has very little time to execute it because the politics of unified Muslim Leagues and growing clout of Chaudharys has posed existential threat to his power base. Charter of Pakistan is his rhetoric to serve as a justification for any of these extreme measures. Khadim-e-ala does not talk of khooni inqilab (bloody revolution) in thin air. Through this, he threatens the System to come to a compromise. It seems Sharifs never learnt the art of consolidation and growth. Only way they know is back doors and bullying.

In desperation of Sharifs and radical right, expect more turbulence and chaos in weeks to come. The question is will their party stand with them?

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words!

2010-11-01T02:32:00.000+05:00

Farida Turya Turya ja!

2010-10-26T13:01:00.000+05:00

Attack on the shrine of Baba Farid in Pak Pattan is another attack of the barbaric gang of global terrorists on peace loving Pakistanis. Unlike Ali Hajveri and Abdullah Shah Ghazi, who too emphasized on the virtues of tolerance and integrated societies, Farid is different in one aspect and that is his poetry. A poetry which talks of retrospective self-analysis, harmony, peace, and tolerance.

For his remarkable works of poetry, this 13th century poet and mystic is revered by poets, intellectuals, mystics, and people of faiths and ethnicities in South Asia and Persia. His works of poetry talk of common human beliefs of independent thought process, equality of human resource, equity in social governance, and denouncing of violence and intolerance. bhumi rangavali is one such work talking of peace, non-violence and harmony.

Farīdā bhumi rangāvalī manjhi visūlā bāg

Fareed, this world is beautiful, but there is a thorny garden within it.

Farīdā jo taīN mārani mukīāN tinhāN na mārē ghumm

Fareed, do not turn around and strike those who strike you with their fists.

Farīdā jā lab thā nēhu kiā lab ta kūṛhā nēhu

Fareed, when there is greed, what love can there be? When there is greed, love is false.

Kālē maiḍē kapṛē, kālā maiḍā wais,

GunahīN bhariyā maiN phirāN, Lōk kahaiN darvēsh

Laden with my load of misdeeds, I move about in the garb of black garments.
And the people see me and call me a dervish.

GallīN cikkaṛ dūr ghar, nāḷ piyārē nīNh,

ChallāN tē bhijjē kamblī, rahāN tāN ṭuṭṭē nīNh.

My promise to my love, a long way to go and a muddy lane ahead
If I move I spoil my cloak; if I stay I break my word

(Source: Sufis - Wisdom against Violence The South Asian, April, 2001.)

His most revered work probably is Farida turya turya ja. Below are two version of this masterpiece of poetry, one sung by Bhai Sinder Pal Singh Patiale Wale and the other (the same piece) sung by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

The blasts might have caused scars and smoke, but the people will keep listening to songs of love by the likes of Baba Farid to keep the hope and inherent good of humanity alive.

One will stab, the other will back-stab.

2010-10-20T19:53:00.000+05:00

Tomorrow Supreme Court will give judgment on 18th amendment case. I sincerely hope that my apprehensions and fears turn out to be unfounded, but it seems that the Supreme Court will stab the democracy and parliament with her judgment. It most likely will strike down some key parts of 18th amendment, specially the ones pertaining to the appointment of judges of the the superior judiciary. In this the Supreme Court will strike down the principle of sovereignty of the parliament. It will be striking down a legislation that has been unanimously approved by both houses of the parliament and has the support of all electable political forces in the country. Not only that, the Supreme Court will do it despite the clear guide lines provided in the constitution, which it claims to uphold, as is given in 239 (6) : "(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.]". This amounts to rewriting the constitution, which the supreme court has started since July 20, 2007 and has been carrying on through NRO verdict, July 31st verdict and many other judgments in the course of judicial adventurism. I hope I am wrong but tomorrow will mark an assault on democracy and parliament in this country similar to the ones carried out by military dictators.

Post the stab of the judiciary, what awaits this nations and the system is a back-stab by PML-N. PML-N has been blowing the trumpet of COD (which is the foundation of 18th amendment). It has been a signatory of 18th amendment and its members voted in favor the amendment in both Senate and the National Assembly. Its leaders and particularly the Sharifs of Jeddah speak of supremacy of parliament and democracy day in day out. Yet, post the SC judgment to strike down parts of 18th amendment, PML-N will not be standing with the parliament but will be standing with 17 unelected officials, born out of a PCO, who are on the course to rewrite the constitution of this country. SC stab will be hard to handle but PML-N back-stab will cause way more damage to the democracy and the country. Just when the parliament should have stood together to counter an encroachment on its territory, PML-N's stance might force other right-wing political forces to turn it into an issue of Judiciary vs. Govt. rather than an issue of sovereignty of the parliament, for their own political compulsions. This, of course, will have repercussions for the country and democracy here for years to come. Despite the faith in PML-N by many democracy-lovers, to me, the court will challenge the parliament at the behest of Mr. Sharif, for it is Mr. Sharif who controls the courts through his cronies.

Mr. Sharif is the only stakeholder in the current political set-up who gains from disruption of the system. With his ever-shrinking political base, he needs a chaotic situation where the powers concerned will be forced to have a settlement with him on his terms. He, of course, will have full backing of his local and global backers in such settlement. Once in the system, he can start rolling the agenda that has remained close to his and his backers hearts for decades. Other than Mr. Sharif, most political leaders and parties are to gain from the continuation of the system and this makes Mr. Sharif even more desperate.

Now the question is, will the system survive this combination of the stab and the back-stab. My analytical guess is yes. It will be hard. It will lead to further chaos, uncertainty, instability and confusion but I believe that ultimately the system will prevail. I believe that the 2007 experiment is a well thought out plan for Pakistan which is based on the vision of key influential powers in Pakistan. Its custodians are powerful just as its enemies are. My guess is that by virtue of being at the helm of affairs for years, the custodians of the system will outmaneuver its enemies. More so, in the great game of Pakistan, the power of custodians and their allies has been on the rise compared to that of the enemies.

Many players in the great game of Pakistan are holding their cards close to their chests for now. Post SC judgment, everyone, institutes and entities both foreign and local, will have to show where he stands and the show is likely to hold many surprises. The call of show is likely to lead to confrontation with in the bureaucracy, the security establishment of the country and the judiciary. This will lead to chaos and instability and the situation will likely get worse before any signs of stability start emerging. How soon the stability emerges will depend on the response of PML-Q and MQM in the political domain and the result of the conflict with-in the judiciary. How long the instability will last and how much damage will it do, no one knows. But a few things I dare predict are; SC will overstep, the Sharif's will side with unelected judges against the representative rule and democracy, a chaos will ensue, and system has the capacity to survive this combo of stab and back-stab. Stabbers would not gain but the people of Pakistan will lose.

Nawaz Sharif's Moment of Disgrace!

2010-09-26T13:56:00.000+05:00

Nawaz Sharif has come out fully exposed. There is not even an iota of doubt now as to who is behind the current political turmoil. Unlike the few previous turmoils, where he did not let himself be fully exposed, he has come out with gloves off. It in a way is good, for now, on the table where every power player was upping the antes, now the time for show is here.

I am not surprised at Nawaz's rush to the show. Circumstances and political events taking place in last two months made this move more and more inevitable. The political space in which he is operating is getting more and more squeezed and so his act had to be one of desperation. First, even if his supporters would deny it and even if the political pundits on idiot box would portray otherwise, Nawaz's mandate in 2008 elections was partly engineered. Lot of his candidates were given a favorable push in areas of north and central Punjab (only two areas in the whole country where he has political presence) at the expense of PML-Q and PPP. More so, he won those areas to saturation and from here on he can either retain them or lose them but cannot gain. Any of his gains had to come from other areas and we have seen his inability to move and get support anywhere else. And even in his strongholds, he is losing ground. In last six months, he lost Mansehra, Bahawalpur, Sargodha and Gujranwala. The trend seems to be persisting. PPP and PML-Q are gaining in electoral politics at his expense. And if the system continues, next election seems to be a real nightmare for Sharif of Jeddah. His main worry is the squeeze in Punjab and thus his main targets this time are Babar Awan and Governor Taseer.

Another issue hastening his move was the extension of Gen. Kiyani which signaled continuation of the system of which General has been one of the architect. More so, Nawaz Sharif, for his ways of ruling in 90s has become a unreliable figure among some elements in the Armed Forces and he hoped that as more and more officers retire, he will have a chance to click again with the Army. Contrary to this aversion, because of him being the head of Zia-Ul-Haq (fundo) oligarchy, he does have sympathizers in Army and establishment and uses these sympathizers to exert influence on Army leadership for a political change. Third is floods, which in his calculation has made PPP strongholds paralyzed and might have caused loss of support for PPP. So for him time to act is now and is ripe. Forth is the rift developing between MQM and ANP/PPP over control of Karachi which offers a glimmer of hope for an in-house change.

There are a few broader issues which need to be understood before one gauges Nawaz Sharif and his political ambitions and maneuvers. One is the lingering issue of Americans' desire to have a more and more direct relation with Pakistan rather than seeing Pakistan through the prism of two friendly countries. This desire puts those countries at a significant loss of influence in Pakistan and they are trying tooth and nail to retain that influence. This change in policy comes at a time when the future of some of the key resources (material as well as logistic) has to be decided. Mr. Sharif is indebted to these countries for reasons personal and political. More so, he represents an oligarchy that represents the interests of Central Punjabi elite which has dominated business opportunities in Pakistan for last 5 decades and with the new economic opportunities in the country emerging mostly in the south of the country, the hegemony seems to be in threat. And last is the fact that under the democratic system without any blatant intervention (on the scale of 1990 or 1997), he simply has no chance of having a majority in the National Assembly. You, of course, cannot end up ruling Pakistan by having presence in only 14 districts. So the only bet is to destabilize the system and hope that in the chaos, through his backers in judiciary and Army, he gets a favorable deal. To me all the talk of Technocrat Government is a facade for the chaos to try to bring the Sharif of Jeddah at the helm of affairs once more.

These all longterm strategic objectives and short-term political circumstances have made Nawaz Sharif act against the democratic system right from its very inception. Just when his ministers were preparing to take oath for a coalition cabinet with PPP, his media managers were minting stories against PPP leadership. And since then he has not missed a single opportunity to undermine the system and the government.

Mr. Sharif (with help from clutches of media) pretends to be a democrat just when every action of his has been a stab at the democracy. Against the will of the majority of elected representatives in parliament, he got his judiciary restored through bureaucracy's mutiny in central Punjab. All his rhetoric starts and ends with talk of Charter of Democracy and he still accuses PPP of not implementing it. Last I read the charter, all of it is implemented except the clauses regarding PCO Chief Justice for whom Mr. Sharif had a sudden change of heart. Then he talks about soft revolution, a term coined by the fundo maestro Gen. Hamid Gul. What I fail to understand is for a believer in the system (as he claims), how the talk of a revolution could make any sense? Recently, he has come up with the jargon of Charter of Pakistan. He failed to provide any details on this but what one gathers from word of mouth is that he wants government to reduce the term of NA to 4 years and also get rid of Babar Awan and Governor Taseer (who are squeezing him further and further every passing day).

He asserts that mid-term change is inevitable for the government has failed to deliver. What he forgets to mention is that compared to any other government, Punjab government has failed the most. No government in Pakistan is thus far running on an over-draft but Punjab's. No province in the country has people from different sects complain that the government is supporting terrorist outfits but of Punjab. No province has the law and order in shambles to the degree that brutal killings by mob become a common occurrence and Police takes pride in extra-judicial killings but Punjab. Needless to say that bulk of the scandals and stories of misconduct in this regime have come against PML-N members. Be it charges of rape or credit card theft or protecting gold smugglers or domestic violence or you name it. So if the system is failing, it is failing because of PML-N the most and so may be the change should be in Punjab.

Rhetoric aside, failure to deliver never is a pretext of ousting an elected government. George Bush's support reached to high 10s coupled with the worst economic collapse and two unpopular wars but no one in US demanded his resignation. 2/3rd of Brits according to surveys labelled Tony Blair a liar yet no one asked him to quit or call mid-term elections. Blair went into elections, won them and then it was his own Labour Party which ultimately forced him to give way to Gordon Brown. And in last two and a half years, no disaster of ours matches the shame that the preparation of Commonwealth Games brought on India, but no one calling for a regime/system change there. This is how democracies work. Mandate, delivering or not, is for the full term. In the term, the party/ alliance in power has the free hand to implement policies, introduce legislation and appoint officials. If we have to have a go at the true democracy, that is the route for us. If the government will deliver, it will get reelected. If it will not, it will be wiped out in the next elections. In the mid-way if the government loses the confidence of the house, it be replaced. This is how the democracy works. Any other demands (including intervention through courts) is undemocratic and unconstitutional. And no matter how many anchors and pundits you have as sympathizers or on your payroll, this does not change the reality. Upholding this fundamental principle of democracy is the basic test for any democrat in Pakistan. If we want the system to be strengthened, this is the only way.

Nawaz's desires are not only unprincipled, they are impractical as well. If he thinks that in the present circumstances, he, through his Punjabi judges and his influence in the ranks and files of the Army, can derail the government, he is seriously mistaken. Any such action will at least lead to the resentment with in the minor provinces (whose charge-sheet against Punjab and Establishment is ever growing) and at the most will lead to an all out civil war. Results of both will be disastrous for Pakistan's federation and the social fabric of the societies we live in. We all know where our federation was in the last days of 2007 and the improvement in it is attributed only to the noise and chaos of the democracy. Democracy taken out and we will fall even lower.

Nawaz, of course, is in no position to muster a no confidence move. His attempt is to create pressure through undemocratic tactics through influence in media and judiciary and secure some unprincipled political gains. He has been trying it from the day one of the present setup and every time he tries it the only thing I fear for is a coup with in the Army in the chaos that ensues. He and his fellow judges, in the process, have made a mockery of the country's justice system. Clear, comprehensive clauses of constitution have been given twist in manner which even shames the spin doctors of Nazis. The apex courts in the country seem to have performing only one task and that is to undermine the PPP. As my good friend Kashif Ul Haq says, we, the urban Punjabis, cheered when Zia came or when Musharraf came, in hindsight we call them our darkest days, let the dust settle and the present day encroachments of judiciary and media will make us regret too.

Nawaz Sharif has tried his cheeky tactics all along yet rather than getting stronger he is becoming weaker and weaker. He should take a pause and ask himself whether post-restoration of his judiciary, he has become stronger or weaker politically. The journey from there on has been downhill for him - he losing more and more space to his political opponents in Punjab and Mansehra. Any cheeky tactics for short-term gains are not going to help him in the future either. Democracy is here to stay and so is the new power equation with in the country and with the foreign powers. His best bet is to be part of the system and play by the rules. For this, he will have to come out of the womb of the Kangaroo Courts and will have to shun the media steroids. He will have to reinvent himself as a true democrat for now for a claimant of being a democrat, this is his epic moment of disgrace for the historians of future.

Nawaz Sharif’s Moment of Statesmanship

2010-09-06T22:30:00.002+05:00

Mansehra, Sargodha, Gujranwala and now Bahawalpur, if I were PML-N or their supporter, I would be going back to the drawing board and reviewing where one erred. The myth of even a Punjab-dominating (or 13 districts only party) is busting in the midst of electoral politics. One can keep denying it behind fake Gallup (Ijaz Gillani) surveys or the media steroids that lifted PML-N all along but it is about time that PML-N leadership and its leaders try analyzing what went wrong.

Before we delve into the troubles of PML-N and their cure, let us first analyze the political landscape. First and foremost, for all the media and right-wing propaganda, PPP is still strong and getting stronger. They won a seat in Bahawalpur with a huge margin of 26000 votes just when the Islamabadi media pundits prophesized their demise in the floods. The constituency is in South Punjab, an area affected worse by floods and the constituency itself is 50-60 miles from some of the flood affected areas. PPP victory there is a sign that hopes for a dent in its support base are extremely exaggerated and yet unfounded. Secondly, if the trend persists, which it has for last 2 years (even under Punjab Administration’s heavy hand and manipulations), it must be a relieving feeling for Chaudhary’s and PML-Q. Needless to say the PPP is the one that seems to be gaining the most. It does not end here. Next elections will be the first elections after 1977, where PPP will be having a regime conducting the elections that would not be bent on destroying PPP. More so, unlike 1977, this time PPP is friends with many a political parties rather than a foe. Above all, thanks to its politics of reconciliation, PPP is the only party in position to do local seat adjustments with any party. It has done seat adjustments with PML-N, PML-Q, ANP, PTI, PKMAP, Baloch Nationalist Parties and JUI in the by-elections. It also has not burnt its bridges with PML-Musharraf, MQM and JI. These factors are strengthening its position in the power structure of the country. Another cause of concern for PML-N should be the strengthening of PML-Q which has seen its worst in last general elections and has managed to survive, and can only go up from here. More so, the local alliances between Q and PPP are proving real thorny for PML-N.

Mian sahib realizes that his options san system are highly curtailed. He does not have the capacity to topple the government on his own. If anyone else does it, the chances are that Mian Sahib will also be dispatched. There are two entities that could disrupt the on-going system, Taliban and Army. Taliban are being dealt with forcefully by all forces of the system to curtail the threat of an overall takeover. And as far as the Army goes, the situation is not ripe for it to take control. If things lead to anarchy, the things will go in the hands of elements with firepower, Taliban in NWFP and Punjab, BLA etc and Taliban in Balochistan, MQM is Southern Sindh and a mesh of Taliban, Local Bandits and BLA in Balochistan. In none of the cases, Mian Sahib seems to be getting anything. Thus comes his strong and very forceful resistance to disruption of system, a resistance that is worth applauding.

This resistance to disruption of system and things like his brave stance on Ahmadis issue make me like Mian Sahib and it irks me that such a worthy element in the system is getting marginalized thanks to his hawkish policies in last two years. For one thing, Mian Sahib needs to come out of the influence of confrontational hawks surrounding him.

Post 2008 elections, Mian Sahib in reality was the only viable alternative to the then government (and not for proclamation by media or Gallup Pakistan). Yet in two years, his influence and power is on decline evident from by-poll defeats in his political strongholds where he and his party run administration. It surely is a time for him to take a pause and ask himself what went wrong.

I think his troubles trace back to his realization of the emerging system and emerging Pakistan. He failed to read the system that emerged after 2008 elections. He did not realize that 2008-onwards Pakistan is governed by a new order and PPP, by virtue of its national outreach and its vote bank will remain a central element of this system. The other elements within the system, for circumstances, were either willing to or have been forced to accept PPP as an insider. Like any political system, there was room for other players as well but the size would matter and also the days of PMLs and right-centric only Pakistani establishment were over. 2008 election has been the beginning of the gradual fading away of a right-centric establishment. If elements in military and intelligence failed to understand this, they can be pardoned for their lack of political acumen, but Mian Sahib misreading it calls for a serious contemplation.

His second miscalculation stemming from the first one was that the country will head for snap elections real soon. So his policies and maneuvers were short-sighted. It turns out that the system has proven to be more resilient than what pundits thought. His biggest mistake has been pulling out of the federal cabinet where his ministers enjoyed powerful portfolios. Moving out of the cabinet in hope of snap elections did not only diminish his influence in the federal government but also opened up avenues for PPP to reach out to Q League, MQM and other Pro-Musharraf elements. So if PPP is in a position to ally with all parties, left right and center, it should thank Mian Sahib for it.

His next folly came when he decided to side with Iftikhar Chaudhary rather than the democratically elected government. I am not debating the merits of his stance but as it turns out politically it is turning out to be a costly mistake. Yes he has got a favorable judiciary and decisions but he certainly did not get the credibility for them that he hoped for. What he failed to realize was that post-election, his first objective should have been to consolidate his grip on the right-wing of this country, specially Punjab. It required marginalizing Musharraf and PML-Q. This he could have done the best siding with PPP and not against it. He being an ally would have made it very hard for PPP to sell softening towards Q or MQM to its core constituency. Yet he opted for a confrontational course. This created rift between him and PPP. And this forced him to try to control Punjab at the expense of PPP rather than in collaboration with PPP. In a collaborative environment, PPP would have gained but Mian Sahib would have gained complete elimination of Q post-2008 elections.

Then were his party’s policies in Punjab which were driven by a desire to have short-term publicity gimmicks (miscalculating quick snap elections), and vengeance. First made a mockery of governance in Punjab and left the province cash-strapped. And latter threw more and more elements in bureaucracy and polity in the arms of PPP.

His is a star on decline and yet it can be recovered. His salvation lies in reconciliation and not confrontation. If he thinks a softening on PPP will be tough to sell to his constituency, he is underestimating the faith his loyal-base has in him. If he fears others in the right-wing like Imran Khan etc could take his political capital away from him, he must realize that no minos can take over a giant that he is. All of them put together are 0+0=0. What he should realize is that he should do what is sound in long-term and is the correct course for a stable Pakistan and system. All else will follow.

Analyzing the setbacks in core constituencies and knowing limitations, if I were Nawaz Sharif, I would be doing two things. Getting rid of hawks in my circle of advisors and party organization and picking up the telephone and calling the President offering him an era of cooperation and mutual trust. Pakistani nation will embrace this era – it just needs a heart of a statesman on part of Mian Sahib. Another moment of truth might come real soon for him in 18^th amendment case. He has an opportunity to right some of his recent wrongs by siding with the parliament. An action contrary might give him short-term media applause but will neither disrupt the system nor will give him any real political mileage.

Politics on Floods 2 - Save Pakistan!

2010-08-29T13:08:00.002+05:00

As I have started getting firsthand accounts of devastation of flood in the province of Sindh, my concern is growing. The concern is not limited to the floods alone but the political and social implications of the floods and their aftermath too.

Before I delve further into the issues that trouble me, I will like to highlight a fact that contributed to worsening of the flood situation in country’s south, a fact completely ignored in the coverage of the floods. Between 10^th and 16^th of the lunar calendar, due to the rise of sea (sea tides), the Arabian Sea does not accept any water from River Indus. In fact, the sea water gets pushed about 30 miles inside the Indus Delta. So if the floods were not disbursed during these days and were let downstream, Karachi was at risk of a very heavy flooding. To save this, the water had to be disbursed more in upstream.

With this explanation, let me move to the issue at hand, and a grave one. First and foremost, the demolition of dykes and levees has been carried out by Army and Army alone and the prime consideration has been given to preserving the military installations. Now it makes sense to preserve sensitive military installations like Pannu Aqil Cantonment or Shahbaz Airbase, but the people in Sindh claim that even relatively smaller installations have been protected at the cost of massive populations. Not only that but also the local landlords, most of whom are politicians of both opposition and government parties, have been blamed for the demolitions of dykes and levees. Most of the large landowners of Sindh have part or whole of their land under water. Only those survived whose lands were in the vicinity of any military installation or water structure.

But started a smear campaign against local landlords and politicians that is fueled by the media (which as reported by Ali Sethi in New York Times cannot blame Army and has to sell sensational stories as well). It is also alleged that the campaign has covert backing of Pakistan’s powerful military establishment. MQM chief has jumped the bandwagon and is enticing people to encroach on landlords’ lands. He fully realizes that this situation will only lead to a chaotic stalemate, in which the social fabric of Sindh will be fragmented. Anyone fueling this sentiment does not realize the dangers inherent in this. The apathy of Sindhis is at an all time high with the federation of Pakistan. Their wounds of past and recent past are still fresh. The fact that their towns and villages were drowned in the middle of the night, that their homes and shops were looted, and that they had to live under the sun over water without food and aid for days has only increased this apathy. Things like stopping them from entering Karachi or Hyderabad for refuge during the recent floods is only adding to the apathy. In this scenario, if someone thinks that he could control a political maneuver to serve the vested interest by pitching masses against landlords or people of one town against the other is only and only playing with the fire. If the chaos begins, no one has the means to control it. It can quickly lead to an anti-state revolt or worst still a social suicide. If this fire spreads, nothing will be safe. Landlords, no matter how bad, are a buffer in this time of chaos; we should not undermine them, at least for now. The time will come, if needed.

I do not have any hope of sanity from Pakistani media. It is a gone case. But I do expect sanity from political leadership, in particular Mr. Altaf Hussein. I do not know what his political calculation is (and he knows his calculations in last 2 decades have been more wrong than right), but he should know that any fire around his core constituency might or might not turn into an increased vote bank or preservation of the existing vote bank, but will definitely burn his constituency first and with it the already fragile state as well. And above all, I have hope of sanity from country’s military establishment, who should realize that even in these floods, the politicians and landlords have been their last line of defense. If some shoulder takes your blame, you don’t break that shoulder.

Politics on Floods!

2010-08-15T23:59:00.001+05:00

Pakistani media and country's right-wing is ripe with stories about poor aid response and poor donor response. It is about time things be put in perspective. For nothing has the potential of hurting rehabilitation more than this smear campaign.
First, as I have dealt with it earlier, the issue of poor response. The disaster is way bigger than the earthquake of 2005 or any other disaster known in human history. A lot of areas needing rescue and relief are still flooded and are hard to access. The disaster is spread across 1/5th of the country or an area of appox. 160,000 sq. km. No state would be equipped to deal with any disaster of such magnitude. Our state, with its limited resources, is trying her best to do what it could. We must thank our Western allies and particularly United States for their help and any help in this regard should be welcome (including Indian). The floods are not over and there still are many important installations and populated cities/towns that need to be protected/rescued before the waters enter Arabian Sea. The governments (federal and provincial) are not equipped to deal with such magnitude of relief and rehabilitation. Even if they had the money and the resources, their ability to disburse the relief goods to the affected areas will be limited because of operational limitations. Even the private sector organizations find it difficult to jump in because of issues like lack of access and lack of fund raising (because of economy as well as the fact that most of the country is under water). This is a reality that we face and we must deal with it head on with hope and with courage rather than crying despair from safe houses and News Vans.
Second is the issue of donor fatigue. To me, the first and foremost reason of donor fatigue is global economic crisis. All governments in the world, specially the rich ones, are undergoing a belt-tightening phase and persuading them to donate will be harder than usual. Secondly, the reports of use of 2005 aid on military infrastructure and stories of corruption by civil bureaucracy during 2005 earthquake rehabilitation have made governments around the world reluctant to donate. But what is making the situation worse is the noise of our own trumpets and their friends abroad. They took a line from day one that no one could be ready to trust this government because it is corrupt. It is a win-win argument. If the aid does not come, government fails and they will hail it as a victory and if aid flows in they will jump on to claim that it was our cry that ensured transparency. This is the same mantra that we heard before Friends of Pakistan pledges (and pledges came and are materializing except anything significant being pledged by Saudis who are missing here too), we heard this when Kerry Luger was under process (we were told that the issue is that no one trusts this govt - what we found out was that this govt was the only entity Americans were willing to trust while raising doubts on both military and civilian bureaucracy), and despite this same mantra flew the aid for IDPs (of course all from our friends in West). Our bureaucracy is a corrupt bureaucracy and this is not a new phenomenon. We have to deal with this phenomenon and we have hope that despite this the aid will flow from our friends abroad. Of course, we need to make sure that the aid received is spent on the people affected by floods, the best it could. But anything that comes will be better than no aid for flood victims. It disturbs me that our leading media houses and our key political figures are overtly and covertly trying to raise this issue of corruption, just when the priority should have been to let as much money flow in as was possible. It is meanly vested on their part. Even the educated Pakistanis, for their hate of one man (who by the way still heads the most popular political party in the country) raise this corruption issue without realizing what the priority should be now. If you have doubt about credibility of the government, do not donate, but please just do not make hue and cry about it, for it will create doubts in the minds of even those who were willing to commit. Hate for one man could blind people to this extent is just beyond me. More so, this cynicism of well-to-do educated Pakistanis is not limited to government alone, even private aid agencies are finding it hard to raise funds for flood victims even in cities like Lahore and Karachi. The crisis is here and we have this government, this state machinery and these private sector organizations. This is the hand we are dealt with. We either give it our best shot or lose.
Another factor that is worth keeping in mind is that usually the business houses remain at the fore of any donation activity for such calamities. Because of poor global economy, and the suffering the local economy has due to terrorism and recent floods, the businesses are unable to contribute to their fullest. Our best hope is international aid and I am optimistic that the world will not leave us alone in this crisis of need. Jemima Goldsmiths and Over-Bennett Jones will try distracting the world at the behest of their friends in Pakistan but I have faith in human spirit worldwide and I am sure the aid will flow in, from sources internal and external.
By the way, a word of caution for any political party or elements within the establishment. If someone is calculating that this crisis could be their chance to disrupt the system, go through your game-board one more time, for the chaos that would ensue as a result will give none nothing. The results of any such playing with the fire will lead to secessionist tendencies, weakening of the state, and a political conflict that would make the still fragile state and federation of ours crumble. More so, the threat that we face from Islamic extremism, makes any such chaos and crumbling of state highly dangerous for our social fabric and social code, the consequence will be devastating and neither elements within the establishment nor PML-N will eventually gain anything from it. Even a "revolutionary" Islamist takeover will be short-lived and will suck us all into an internal and global conflict where West might or might not bleed but this society and these Islamists surely will be destroyed fully.
We as a nation have seen crises and we have survived them. Together we will come out of this too. We will rebuild our farms, our power plants, our roads, our bridges. We will move on. But we will never forget those who were grinding their own axes through actions aimed at discouraging help from the world and from within. We will remember that we were being stabbed by those whom we held in high esteem as Prime Ministers, as Super Stars, as Visionaries. This too will pass - but the wound of betrayal will remain.

Our Hope Will Triumph Their Despair! - Happy Independence Day!

2010-08-13T22:16:00.000+05:00

The dry spell of almost 10 years ended with torrential outpour that led to the worst flooding in the recent history. On the eve of Independence Day, 15 million people are left affected by one of the worst floods in human history. On the eve of Independence Day, the words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said in Chittagong on Pakistan Day of 1948 elaborate the best, the struggle and resolve of this land and its inhabitants: "The Story of Pakistan, its struggle and its achievement, is the very story of great human ideals, struggling to survive in the face of great odds and difficulties."

This is what we have been and this is what we will always be - the survivors in the midst of all odds.

I wished my piece here, in the midst of this tragedy, on the eve of nation's 63rd Independence Day, did not talk of divisions, but divisions I have to be talked about. For the existential threat that this country of ours is facing, is trying to turn this tragedy to its advantage. From TTP, to PTI, to Media fundos, to Sharifs themselves, everyone is trying to build on the chaos which the natural calamity ensued. There idea is to portray this natural calamity as a consequence of society's distancing from their perceived religious beliefs and a curse brought upon because of the rulers. They are hell-bent on ensuing guilt, extending misery of mind and thought, and spreading hopelessness. Some, like Hamid Mir, have gone as far as inculcating the thought of all out rebellion built on the misery. Some of them have been shameless enough to openly portray the message that the government in Pakistan and its infrastructure is corrupt and thus the international community should refrain from helping Pakistan while their comrades among Taliban have asked Pakistan to shun any foreign aid for their offer of $20million.

Coming as no surprise to me, the so called liberal left, while ignoring the key existential threat to our nation, has joined the bandwagon of criticism and hopelessness. Some of them have even prophesied an economic collapse of Pakistan. Rest are at the forefront of government bashing and Zardari bashing. Even in this most troubled moment of our national history, the issue for our main stream media, our fundo politicos and our liberal trumpets is the alleged shoe pelted at the President.

It is imperative that we take the issues raised by fundos and "liberals" one by one. First and foremost is the wrath of God argument. Thing I fail to understand is, how the wrath somehow skips the more corrupt Islamabadis and Lahoris and falls on the poor villagers living hand to mouth, day in day out? Am I the only one who sees wrong with the divine justice here?

Second, the infidel, corrupt rulers. If that is true, how would I justify the drought that covered the length and breadth of Afghanistan during the entire Taliban rule, with the first rain falling after the collapse of Taliban in 2001? And how do I justify the flood disaster in Punjab, where the House of Sharifs rules? And again, the divine justice would be flawed, if it would punish the poor masses for the deeds of a handful of rulers - wouldn't it be? Natural disasters happen and happen randomly. We all are fond of quoting the tales of drought that swept through the empire during the rule of Caliph Umar. Do I need say more? Clergy and fundos thrive on playing on our vulnerabilities. If things are not going their way and are running fine, it's Allah's rope extended for the cruel. If the misery strikes, it is Allah's wrath. They have it both ways and that is not all. If they have things going their way and a misery strikes, the message is, it is Allah's way of testing its chosen ones. Awake will my countrymen to the games of clergy. To no one will we let exploit our misery.

Second issue is of the slow and insufficient response. First things first, being an underdeveloped state, our ability to respond to natural calamities cannot be top of the line. In the first world, Katrina struck in 2005 and New Orleans rehabilitation has not fully been done till now. It took months for Americans to cap one little oil spill in Gulf of Mexico recently. So to assume a perfect or near perfect response to natural calamities from Pakistan is a bit unfair. Secondly, earthquake of 2005 was a tragedy that took place in one minute. Once it was over, the helicopters could be airborne and the trucks and cars could swiftly move to the affected areas. More so, the tragedy was spread over an area of around 2000 sq. km. This tragedy is different in its nature. We are two weeks into it and it is still unfolding. Secondly, the flash floods that caused havoc in KP, Balochistan, AJK and GB were caused by rains and because of water on the roads and downpour, neither trucks nor helicopters could be moved into the affected areas. And lastly, it has affected the entire length of the country, all six administrative areas. I wish our news channels rather than encouraging their reporters to dramatize the situation would have given them a handbook on rescue and relief practices so that rather than spreading the despair, they could have guided the people in other parts of the country on what to do to help the victims when the rains ease.

More importantly, like anywhere else in the world, Army remains at the forefront of any relief and rescue operations of such scale. So any criticism of the government has covertly been a criticism on the Army (some have openly criticized NDMA led by Army) in the time when the Army has regained its credibility post Musharraf. Other more cynical ones are trying to play Army against the government using this tragedy. I can understand people having their vested interests and I can expect anything from the fundo mafia (relics of Zia) in this country. I can also expect anything from the irrationality of our urban-educated elite. Yet, at times, it baffles even me that the people could be so venomous against the interests of the land the live in and that of the people they live with intentionally or unintentionally. Natural calamities should be dealt with unified, overlooking any mistakes on part of one another. It is for later the postmortem is reserved for.

Despite their talk of despair, the aid is pouring in, bit by bit. We have reached US$ 100 million+. In the world, heading for a wheat shortage, we most probably still have surplus wheat. Our refineries and power plants will be up and running again in weeks, if not days. We will rebuild our fields, our roads, our bridges, our homes. For we have hope.

60 odd years back, you called us Kafirs for demanding a homeland. You were agents of despair then. We did not listen to you and we recreated this beautiful state of ours. You tried ensuing among us the most draconian of laws and brought on us dictatorships, we fought back. We have survived the earthquake of 2005 and are moving on. We resettled the displaced IDPs of Swat in 3 months and are moving on. These obstacles come to test the human spirit, and HELL! Our Spirit is intact and high! You can keep spreading despair; our hope will keep overcoming it. No matter how hard you try, we will fight back. We will pull it back all the way, even if we have to pull it back from the very brink. We would not let you succeed in your dark designs of militant extremism, of dictatorship, or of the rule of elitists' Philosopher King. For we are the hopeful people of Pakistan and we make Hilary Clinton's of the world acknowledge our ability to keep writing the story of rebuilding each day. These troubles come and they go. They help us see who is with us and who is against us (the Ummah except UAE). Who is in with us for hope and who is against for despair.

With humility and gratitude, we say to thee, Happy 63rd Birthday Pakistan and you surely will have many more. For our Hope will triumph their Despair!

Power Structure of Pakistan and What Should Nawaz Sharif Do?

2010-07-25T14:01:00.000+05:00

First and foremost, my heartfelt condolences to Mian Iftikhar Husain, whose son was gunned down by the terrorists. It is yet another example of the sacrifice, the liberal political leadership of this country is giving to save this country from falling into the darkness of Talibanization.

Secondly, regarding the extension of General Kayani, the information I had was that all the stakeholders wanted to give General the extension and he was a little apprehensive in accepting it. If my sources are to be believed the decision of extension was finalized around May and coincided with General's visit to Washington D.C. Just when United States was interested in ensuring an extension of General's tenure, it was also desired by the ruling coalition here in Pakistan. The extension, unlike an extension of a previous liberal, professional soldier Gen. Kakar, was not going to draw strong criticism from the opposition as well. Despite some criticism from Jamat-i-Islami, the response more or less will be muted. Though the extension will go in PML-N as a setback to their attempts at a mid-term change or securing a ruling majority in the 2013 elections through a hidden hand, it also offers them something. This extension has clipped the wings of Pervez Musharraf even before his flight. For Gen. Kayani as COAS will ensure that Musharraf does not portray himself as candidate of all powerful military establishment and savior of Army's interest in the power structure.

As for Nawaz Sharif, rather than being disappointed at the current shape of events, he should see them favorably. It seems that the Mian Sahab, ever since his arrival back from Jeddah is doing politics on wrong hypothesis. Even after the debacle of Punjab Assembly last week, where Mian Sahab has ruined his credibility as a leader by ditching his own peck, he might do himself a lot of political good if he could get some basis right.

First and foremost, it is Pakistan of 2010 and not 80s or 90s. It seems that the politics and policies of Mians is stuck in a decade old political framework. Schemes like sasti roti might have been a way out in 90s for Mian Sahab's urban middle class constituency but people here do not need such gimmicks now. Globalization has exposed people in general and Mian's constituency in particular to an endless economic opportunity. They do not need government to be a big nanny taking care of them. They now need a government which could simplify the bureaucratic procedures for them by weakening the hold of bureaucracy and with the wealth they have attained in recent months, they want to have entertainment without the fear of being harassed by the police. Mians are doing exactly the opposite under their authority. This has led to undermining of their popularity as well as an increase in corruption and mismanagement in the lower ranks of bureaucracy.

Second miscalculation which probably is the biggest miscalculation on part of Mians is their inability to understand the new power structure. The new power structure, because of the way it has emerged, will have PPP as the party of order. Now there is a room for one or more parties of order besides PPP but the structure cannot work without PPP, and so Mians' hope that they will go back to the heydays of 90s where they were the only party of the order are unrealistic. If Mians could correct this second miscalculation, it should lead to another realization - a bitter one but better be faced than put under the carpet.

In the current power setup, no one is equipped to take on PPP politically. The only way it can be thrown out is through a military coup and the probability of it is close to negligible (except for a mid-rank Islamist coup which would destroy it all for everyone). First, why do I say no one can take on PPP politically? Flashback, 80s and 90s. In a post Zia era, with highly controlled polity and electoral process by the establishment and PPP feeling the brunt of establishment's wrath, it had taken the alliance of all electoral politics political parties (ALL) to deny PPP a victory in general elections. Be it 1990 or 1997, PPP was facing an alliance of ANP, MQM, religious right, and key Baloch nationalists to take on PPP - needless to say there was a unified Muslim League with all its constituency candidates (Junejo was in, in 1990). Even if we ignore the acquisitions of rigging in those elections, the mere fact that it took all to bring down one, says a lot about this country's electoral politics and it is a fact the political parties should acknowledge before making political moves.

It is no 90s and I see it unlikely that PPP could be thrown out of the new power structure that has emerged in Pakistan. And just when there is role for other players in the structure, the playing field will be level for PPP this time around and so, at least in the foreseeable future, it seems hard to bring down PPP. Mind you, PPP has won all by-polls since it came to power and that includes the Dasti poll where all the power of media and judiciary was against it and Multan poll where the son of the Prime Minister had to face the wrath of Punjab Police for a few hours.

If Mians could acknowledge these realities, the political planning will become much easier for them. Their first task should be and should have been to bring as much of League into their fold as they can. With Musharraf out of the field, thanks to the extension to Gen. Kayani, they will have to battle Chaudharys. They have lost their opportunity of an alliance with Chaudharys already. The differences between leagues are of power and personality and seem unlikely to be bridged. If my sources are to believed, Mian Sahab held indirect talks with Musharraf camp during his present trip to London which got stuck on key issues. Sources reveal that the reason Hamza accompanied Mian Sahab was because he is the only one from family who had channels in Musharraf camp by virtue of being the only one present in Pakistan during General's rule.

In absence of any opportunity of an alliance on their terms, Chaudharys will see more benefit in distancing from Mians, with PPP at the helm of affairs and in control now. Also, PPP is the only party which can do seat adjustment with all potential Leagues in the 2013 polls. It has not burnt its bridges with Musharraf or Hamkhayals or Functional. It has been on good terms with Q and Chaudharys, and above all it has remained close enough to PML-N to let the latter fall astray. Add to it the South Punjab card, a card that makes Sindh Card look dull and it sure seems to have an upper hand vis-a-vis Leagues.

Any snap election pre-2013 seems unlikely and for 2013 elections, keeping in view the power structure of Pakistan and the politics of PMLs, the best bet for any League willing to extend its political hold in Punjab is to be closer to PPP rather than confronting it and thus denying herself the perks of federal bounty and sabotaging any chances of seat adjustment/ post-election alliances with PPP.

The name of the game for Mians is to consolidate and redefine themselves as a party of liberal right in sync with the realities of 21st century Pakistan. Opposition for the sake of opposition and playing for media is only making them ineffective administratively and eroding the support among the constituency candidates. If they want to have a dent in PPP's vote bank and national reach, it will be done not by confronting them but being close to the later. Human are by nature tribal and loyal and to lure them you have to befriend their tribe rather than confront it - for with confrontation you leave yourself one option conquest and it would no good in vote bank politics. He should also realize that the foreign friendships can only let you land the Karachi/ Lahore airport, the tough path to the power from thereon is for you to traverse. Wait, realignment and consolidation is the name of the game for Nawaz Sharif. His moments will come his way, he just needs to be ready and wait for them rather than conspire in haste.

As for PPP and the President, part luck part patience has delivered them a hand they can marvel. They are in safe, enjoying and bearing the transformation into the new party of the order. At this pace, it is just a matter of time when the media and elite which has identified itself with establishment will start coming to them. After fighting three decades for survival, PPP can finally start focusing on governance.

P.S. Reaction of liberal left to Gen. Kayani's extension was understandable. But the strongest reaction is coming from the religious right and journalists and generals thought to be close to ISI. This indicates that though in control at the very top, COAS has not been able to tame the intelligence agency fully. The security establishment of Pakistan comprises three classes. The religious ideologues, the modernists and a silent majority. It's this silent majority which holds the balance of power and though getting inclined to an anti-Taliban view, still holds dear the cliches of strategic depth, hatred towards India and a duty to "Islam". How this fragile balance plays up will determine the course of Pakistan and the region. For now, as per me, threat of a rebellion of fundamentalists in military is HIGH.

Where's Sovereign's Right of Expression?

2010-07-10T21:26:00.000+05:00

The media circus that has ensued in Pakistan post-private media is beyond any sane head. Since the opinion-making and evangelism in the nation has been given in the hands of people with 3rd Division BA/FA degree holder journalists, the country appears a chaotic fragile mess on idiot box. Recent mayhem, starting in reaction to Punjab Assembly's unanimous resolution against irresponsible journalism, has had media up in arms portraying the resolution as an attack on freedom of expression. In the whole one-sided hue and cry, what is ignored is whether the elected representatives sitting in the sovereign bodies have any right to express themselves or not?

It was a resolution presented by an individual elected representative and was adopted unanimously by the house. It manifests the will of the house which is the only representative body of the people of the province of Punjab. Rather than leading to any soul searching as to what went wrong, media is up in arms discrediting the sovereign institutions and the elected representatives.

More disappointing is the response of top political leadership. Rather than condemning the unnecessary politician bashing and scandalized being done by the media, and raising their concern against the most yellowish of journalism, the leadership has opted for the convenient route of justifying media's transgressions and irresponsibility. Political parties think that it is they who need media on their side. What they fail to realize is that because of lack of intellect and innovation on media's part, it is the media which needs political parties. If the leading political parties' spokesmen stop participating in the 7-12pm talk shows, every hour top of the hour, five days a week on a dozen and a half news networks, the revenue streams will dry for the media channels. It's not the media which is keeping polity alive, it rather is the polity that is the lifeline of the media.

If media wants to talk as a responsible entity for a framework where it is ensured its freedoms (which have not been stepped upon in the present regime), while agreeing to an acceptable accountability mechanism comprising a press council with powers to impose fines and order bans on anchors and newsmen who commit foul, it should be engaged in a dialog. If it is trying to bully its way through blackmailing on this issue and others, it's time to put the foot down. Realistically speaking, it seems the political class will fail itself again and thus will lose the golden opportunity to tame an age-old instrument of establishment.

I am not sure how many of us realize what is at stake here. But for me as an individual of Republic of Pakistan, I am raising my voice for the Right of Expression of the most superior and the sovereign body - the elected Parliament.

It's Hopeless....

2010-07-02T23:41:00.000+05:00

I came to know about the blasts at Data Darbar at about 4:30 in the morning. My reaction then was normal and remained so till late afternoon. Then when I was driving back home from Gulberg, around 6, something hit me. I am not sure if I was crying or not, I think I wasn't but I don't know for sure. For I was driving and was thinking and image after image passed my eyes. It was not the feeling of sadness or disappointment or anger. It was sheer nostalgia. And with the nostalgia came the hopelessness.

I have been given a Muslim upbringing with a strong sufi flair. The family I have been raised in had strong sufi inclinations and central to, it like any such family in Lahore, was the shrine of Ali Hajveri. I remember going to the shrine with my grandmothers, my mother, my cousins, my aunts, my uncles. Going there during day, at night and even at midnight. I remember the place from the days when it was painted in pink and had congested halls for males and females and didn't have the new mosque complex. I remember the days I would walk on the marble floor of the compound barefoot and will eat free sweet-balls being distributed there. Since my school was just next to the compound, the bunk from school would lead to the food stalls and audio shops around the compound where one could listen to the music full of drumbeat and could eat all sorts of exotic fried foods.

In 1980s on frequent Thursday nights, Zia Ul Haq would make unannounced appearances at the shrine where he was greeted by the then emerging core constituency of his, which I call Muslim League (Data Sahab Group). It was a bunch of influential bureaucrats, judges, businessmen, politicians of the city with strong anti-PPP and pro-Islam leaning, all devout Barelvis and followers of the shrine. In someways, the blasts of last night is ironical for it hit the very place from where the Ziaisation of the society began which culminated in the mayhem we are all in. Had it not been for the support of those strong quarters, Zia would not have succeeded and neither would have his experiment of Islamization.

So when the whole event of last night sunk in me, it brought to me the memory of the times when we had peace and festivity. We did not have Taliban, suicide blasts, an electronic media that has turned us into a extreme cynics and above all we did not have this sense of insecurity and uncertainty. And crept in nostalgia and with it, as I mentioned earlier, a feeling of hopelessness.

I have always prided myself in being an optimist, the one who always tries to find a way out of the worst. But now, I am hopeless. Leave aside the political leadership, which even, at the best, succeeds in stopping the decay, could not save everything from crumbling as a result of the decay that has already been, for our problems are not political. At the core lies an even bigger issue with the society and the individual. I see no hope of things getting better for our society has its thought-process hinged on inaction. If you are a liberal, you would blow the Noam Chomskey trumpet that everything that is wrong is wrong with the US and so it is US that should correct itself and we need to do nothing. And then these liberals have their own axes to grind. The bulk of liberals in this country are not liberal at the core and would become irrational if anything linked to the core of the religion or their sect or their beliefs gets questioned. I was shocked at the reaction of majority of Shias (whom I consider next in line if this madness continues) on the massacre of Ahmadis. The Shias, and above all the ones claiming themselves liberals, turned out to be the strongest voices justifying Anti-Ahmadi legislations of 70s and 80s.

If you are a peaceful religulous, you would be waiting for some Messiah or Mehdi, some Khomeini who would rise from nowhere and will heal all ills. And if you are a fanatic religulous, you would think that the cure to all ills is implementing a strict interpretation of Sharia and then everything will fall into place. How Sharia or Messiah will make our GDP grow, or make us, the lazy rent-eaters, productive is just beyond me. Or how will they correct the ills that are ours, our ethical shortcomings, our lack of direction, our lack of confidence and intellect? It's as if we have mastered the art of crafting excuses and then sticking to them. With all this sense of inaction on all sides, I wish we were like Jews. Small in numbers, persecuted badly, risking extinction but knowing fully the nature of the threat we face and focusing on how to deal with it.

I am hopeless also for against this menace that we face, the only line of defense, our security agencies, are infiltrated heavily with those sympathizing with these violent extremists. In recent days I happened to listen to first hand accounts of two Majors of Pakistan Army. First one being posted to South Waziristan was of the view that he is going there to fight Americans and not Taliban and it is Americans who are the real evils. The second one said that if posted to Waziristan, he would resign rather than fight his own brethren. If someone has an idea of Armed Forces of Pakistan, these are not the minority views, but the views shared by the mainstream. And with a thought process like this, how could one expect the Army to take a decisive action against these mercenaries of death. And if political or military leadership decides to move decisively against the radicals, wouldn't the men with such feelings dominating the armed forces and holding the most fierce firepower, topple that leadership?

We blame US, we blame India, we blame Taliban, we blame the opposite sects, we blame politicians. We say no Muslim can kill another Muslim and cannot attack a shrine or mosque, we deny it when the reality faces us in our eyes. We await Messiah, we await West to correct its course. We blame, we say, we deny, we await, and yet the violence and volatility is increasing with the religion at the very core of it. May be we should think of a solution that cleanses the well for real - a solution that might stem from challenging the very basics.

Engage in the Middle East

2010-06-23T14:10:00.001+05:00

Two phenomenons that are taking shape in the region to our West hold extreme significance for us. One is the continuing isolation of Israel and the other is nuclear ambition of Iran. Before I analyze these and suggest what in my view is the best course of action, let me make one thing clear. In no way, we should commit the same mistakes of the past of trying to force our solution, exporting militancy to deal with the potential threats, and to close channels with one or more sides of the crisis.

Both these issues are likely to damage the balance of power in the region which will have severe consequences on our western borders. Not only that, but because of the global spread of sectarian militancy, the ripples will be felt all across – with Pakistan being at the helm of the fallout.

A nuclear Iran is not in the interest of Pakistan. There cannot be any contrary rational argument on this. And it does not have to do with an Ayatullah-controlled Iran, even an Iran under Shah with nukes would have been equally dangerous. First and foremost, we cannot afford a nuclear Iran in the neighborhood of volatile Balochistan and Afghanistan. This will seriously undermine our security, trade routes, energy routes, and influence in the region. Secondly, a nuclear Iran will lead to a nuclear race in the Middle East with serious impacts on the economy and social fabric of the society in the surrounding regions. More importantly, Middle Eastern ruling elite, still entrenched in tribal and pre-modern mindset, is not mature enough to be trusted with the nukes. Third, a nuclear Iran has a potential of drawing up the ire of the West and might open another war frontier on our western border. Forth, even if the West shows restraint, a nuclear Iran has every likelihood of enticing Israel to unilaterally take steps aimed at curbing nuclear Iran. This act of Israel, one way or another will drag all regional and international players into a conflict that will start as a religious war but can soon turn into a sectarian and racial one (Arabs vs Iran). This would destroy the whole political and social fabric of Middle East and the region will have to pass a long period of turbulence and pain before the new equilibrium could emerge. We cannot be immune to the effects of this pain and turbulence.

Palestinian people have suffered a lot in past six decades. They have been wronged by Israel, the world, their neighbors and by themselves. I feel for the plight of Jews spanning centuries. But the solution somehow neither ended the plight of Jews (who still face uncertainty and anti-Semitism) nor has it been kind to the Palestinians. West, which to counter the nationalist movements in Middle East had come close to Israel, now sees a benefit in distancing itself from Israel to gain sympathy and credibility among the Muslims. The politicians in the West also face pressure from their liberal constituents on account of Israel’s human rights record. From the perspective of the West, the current change of direction makes perfect sense. Ask the parties to resolve their differences and if they do not, use it as a pretext to keep distancing away from Israel. To be fair to the West, as first resort, it tried for last two decades to broker a mutually agreeable peace accord between the rivals, only to be sabotaged by the radicals in Israel and the rise of more militant religious movements among the Palestinians (allegedly initiated by Israeli Intelligence apparatus to counter PLO but later hijacked by global Jihadis, Saudi Arabia and Iran).

In the wake of these events, the only two possible outcomes have a huge risk for the region and beyond - a region with which we have very strong correlation. Amidst its continued isolation, Israel might opt for a more militaristic response. This will suck the region into a conflict which will not remain an Arab-Israel conflict. Just like the Lebanon war of 1980s, beyond Israel, the conflict has a huge potential of leading to a sectarian warfare in the region and beyond among militias backed by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Second outcome, not mutually exclusive from the first one, is weakening of Israel. This will start a snowball reaction with educated Israelis migrating to the lands with more opportunity. The problem with this outcome is that this will be termed as a victory for the religious fanatics and will boast the morale of Jihadis across the region. The potential consequences for us need no elaboration. Another victim of this fallout is surely going to be the present autocratic order of the Middle East. I am sure that riding on the wave of a moral victory over Israel, Islamists in their regions will become too powerful to be tamed by the existing rulers. If Hamas comes on top in claiming the fruits of the victory, it will be Wahabi radicals, and if Hizb Ullah does this, we will have Shia insurgencies at hand across the Middle East. It is naïve to think that the monarchies and Iran will be able to control their powerful, militant proxies fully.

Palestinian rights need to be secured but not at the cost of radicals running wild in the region spanning from Indonesia to Morocco. This radical dominance will be more devastating, more damaging and more regressive than the present dispensation. Palestinians’ plight, of both living in Palestine and those living in refugee camps, has to end but not at the cost of the same misery for Jews and not at the cost of another mass exodus. I do not have an answer for what will be a permanent solution to the problem. I am not sure whether it will be the one-state solution or the two-state solution. That is for all concerned to figure out and when humans act in good faith, they always do. All I know is this. Any solution should not come as a victory for radicals, Shias, Sunnis or Jewish. Any solution has to correct the mistakes made in past century (or centuries) but should not be abrupt and should ensure least jittery transition from present state of affairs to the newer one.

And on broader Middle East, the autocracy should lead to more representative rule but the representative rule should be based around broad-based social involvement and should be transitioned to smoothly. If bringing democracy to Middle East would result in establishment of Shia theocracies replacing Wahabi/Sunni autocracy, it will neither lead to stability nor modernity. More so, it will be detrimental to the heterogeneous social fabric of Pakistan.

So what should Pakistan do? The simple answer is engagement. Engage with the Mid-Eastern monarchies and help them devise a mechanism aimed at opening up of political system with least impact to the political and economic interests of the rulers in the short-term. We need to help our friends understand that the status quo cannot prevail and they will be better of accepting the change and controlling it to the extent they can.

We need to use all tools of soft-power available with Iran to bring it out of isolation and to convince it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. We have a long list of common interests with Iran including Afghanistan, Balochistan, energy security, trade and economic interests.

Most importantly, we need to open up to Israel. The time is ripe for taking a populist Anti-Israel stand but that will be detrimental to our interest as well as that of the region. Israel needs to be engaged now more than it has ever been needed. An Israel communicating with Pakistan and through it to the other regional players, might feel more confident taking steps to peace. We also need to engage with the West on its Mid-East policy to ensure least turbulence and to be in loop regarding the shaping up of events. The time also calls for opening up with soft-radicals (moderate Hamas, modern Taliban) – the radicals whose agenda is not to uproot the system, but whose demands are more around social, economic and political concessions.

On the other hand, apart from these preventive measures, we need to take corrective measures as well. We need to root out militant and sectarian tendencies in our motherland before the potential time-bomb of Middle East explodes. We need to resolve the Balochistan issue and we need to try to put our weight behind anti-radicalism drive in Afghanistan. We need to do this all to minimize the damage of a turbulent Middle East. Just when we should be prepared for the worst, we need to act, in good faith, with the hope that the human suffering could be prevented.

Note: The purpose of this piece is to initiate the debate on the issue which has so far been dealt with emotional response.

A Sad Day!

2010-05-20T16:24:00.000+05:00

Yesterday was a very sad day in the history of Pakistan. A country created by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a staunch liberal and supporter of modernist values saw in despair a court banning internet websites. And the bureaucracy acted with an unprecedented haste. In between, it seemed Pakistan has no chief executive. It's a successful test run of a judicio-bureaucracy coup. With this successful test run, now it will be easier for the court to sentence elected officials, for the bureaucracy to execute the orders without a single armed man moving. It in itself is a scary thought. Add to it the report that some of the blogs and political websites, with strong anti-militancy lines and audio of Hamid Mir's conversation, have also been blocked.

My sentiments on the whole issue are of anger. It is my first realization that I do not have freedom living in this land and that if I have to live here, it has to be as per the judgement and values of a hardcore, fundamentalist, militant right-wing. This is a hard realization, even harder to digest. Probably, unacceptable. It's a question of freedom and fundamental rights.

Secondly, this has happened under the watch of a PPP govt. A party which represents the liberal Pakistan. Yet, in the whole saga, the inaction of the PPP government is disappointing to say the least. If the party stands for certain values, now is the time to stand up for them. Throughout its history, from Mr. Bhutto banning alcohol, to Benazir becoming more Islamized in her appearance, to the present criminal silence in the wake of one of the most blatant attacks on fundamental rights in this country, the party has tried to appease the religious-right, ironically with no positive results. So probably it is about time that the party stands up against this dictum on fundamental rights. It is a fight worth-fighting for reasons principled alone. Yet, the political dimension of the fight (a possibility of a judicio-bureaucracy coup) makes it all the more worthy.

For us here, the choices are only three. Surrender your freedom to religious fanatics in judiciary, media and other segments of the society. Fight them and change the system. Or opt out.

I am really sad. SAD!

Getting it right!

2010-05-09T16:50:00.006+05:00

Worst fears of many of us in Pakistan and in the United States realized on May the 1st when a car full of explosives was found on Times Square in New York City. Much to the relief of many in the United States and Pakistan, the authorities got alerted timely and a major fiasco got averted.

Two narratives have emerged so far of what had happened. First narrative suggests that Faisal Shehzad, the accused, was a lone wolf, who as a result of a multitude of factors including economic depression, incitement by a radical cleric, and brainwashing by right-wing media of Pakistan, committed himself to blow-off infidels. Second narrative suggests that he was working in close collaboration with Pakistani Taliban and has been trained in the sanctuaries of North Waziristan.

The incident will put focus on Pakistan, its tribal areas, and the Pakistanis living in the West. A ghost, which we have been trying to part-kill, part-brush under the carpet, is facing us right into our face. To me, it is an opportunity for getting it right before some lunatic actually succeeds in his evil designs, killing westerners and in the process bringing us to a cycle of chaos which would lead to unimaginable destruction.

We have two paths to tread. Stick the course. Play the usual blame game and bury our head in the sand. We have crafted ample reasons to sooth ourselves. Faisal Shehzad was an American national, why should Pakistan be blamed? It is a CIA conspiracy to force Pakistan to do more. Faisal Shehzad was one individual, why should all Pakistanis be blamed for it. It is the US Media that is maligning our image. Our problem is of perception and of lack of PR. All convincing enough to sooth us with our conspiracy-centric thought process. Yet, none of them stands the test of logic and facts.

First things first, agreed Faisal Shehzad was a naturalized US citizen. Yet he was born and raised in Pakistan, in the house of the highest ranking military official (giving credence to the world's claims that the radical Islam has penetrated deep into the security establishment of Pakistan). More so, last I checked, there are no sanctuaries that train militants for preparing/detonating bombs in Arizona. Neither do American news networks justify the acts of people blowing themselves or their cars up to kill infidels for killings in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a problem rooted in our land. If Americans helped us create it in 1980s, they have abandoned it long ago. Only we kept glued to it, ensuring its spread. Using it as a foreign policy tool in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, in India and in Chechnya. Not only that, we brainwashed a whole generation, not only in Madrassahs, but also in the public schools, teaching them a bigoted version of Islamiyat and Pakistan Studies. There is no way, one can stop people questioning Pakistan for what Faisal Shehzad did. They have every reason to point fingers at us.

As for it being a CIA conspiracy, the whole rationale is absurd and can only come from someone as illogical as Gen. Hamid Gul. The theory goes that Americans arranged the whole thing to force Pakistan to launch an operation in the North Waziristan region. Now, is it not the same North Waziristan from where, according to us, the American and Indian prodigies are launching terrorist attacks against us? We should have moved their much earlier, in our interest. And why does CIA want its prodigies killed? Am I the only one who finds it absurd? Stop living a life delusional, my fellow countrymen.

That takes me to the last thing, the perception problem. I was at a talk at Harvard a year or so back. There Asad Umar, the CEO of Engro Pakistan, summed up the perception problem in a one-liner by saying, "if you do not like the perception, change the reality". The world, including us, works on perception and if ours is a problem of perception, we need to change it ourselves. Be damned Talat Husains, we need to change our perception by changing the reality for our own good. We need to be seen moving against the terror networks and radical militant groups. We need to look serious in our efforts to distance ourselves from any segments of Afghan or Pakistani Taliban. And we need to come out of the conspicuous mindset and xenophobia we live in. Living in US, I found Pakistanis to be the most isolated community, living in their silos, rarely intermingling with other communities, specially the non-Muslim ones. It is another Britain in making.

We need to wake up to the reality that we have a problem inside. Our society, out state, our values and ourselves need undergo a serious restructuring. We have become the exporters of terrorism to the whole world. No one ever said that a Palestinian blew himself up in an American city. No blame has ever been fallen on Iran for training terrorists on its soil yet (despite the animosity between the US and Iran). Rather than seeking the convenient route of, everyone is after us and conspiring against us, the issue needs a serious consideration. We need to start the task of undoing the brainwashing that took place for last 30 years. It is going to be a hard and painful process, but somewhere a first step needs be taken. We need to look for ways to be part of the modern world rather than detesting it and be mere spoilers. The world is moving, as it has always been, be with it or be left out.

Changing Region and 18th Amendment

2010-04-23T13:48:00.000+05:00

In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent got divided and emerged two nation-states of India and Pakistan, it was Pakistan which was the natural ally of the Anglo-Saxon block. The leadership which created India, on the other hand, was more inspired by the Socialist ideals of China and Soviet Union, and ultimately got cozy with the Soviets as a natural consequence of Sino-Indian Conflict.

Ever since 1947, there has been a strong desire on part of a significant section of India, specifically business classes, to open up to Anglo-Saxon block. Similarly, both the Anglo-Saxons and their allies in the older Europe had this deep desire to have India on their side in the global great game. But India's leaning towards the Soviet Block effectively did not let the channels open up as were desired by the two Western blocks and their like-minded entities in India. In fact, India's very origin stems from resistance against the Anglo-Saxon colonization. Despite repeated attempts, the serious efforts to open up channels could not start till Rajiv Gandhi's regime.

The difficulty in engaging India, coupled with a whole range of Geo-political compulsion in the region made Anglo-Saxons rely on India's smaller neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan, for all her disadvantages, was an ideal candidate to be a key Anglo-Saxon ally in the region for a number of reasons. Its political, administrative and military classes had great admiration and regard for Anglo-Saxon civilization and ideals. Its majority of population (especially in the West) was either indifferent to the Anglo-Saxons or had a favorable opinion of them, in latter’s conflict with the Soviets. However in early decades, in the presence of Iran in the region, the role set for Pakistan at the best was of a second fiddle ally.

In case of Pakistan, another problem for the Anglo-Saxons and the anti-Soviet West was the presence of a strong leftist movement in the country. In Pakistan, just like in Iran, to crush the movement, the West and in particular Anglo-Saxons started getting cozier with the non-representative forces rather than trying to engage the masses. It started supporting military regimes and a hard-line religious right to suppress the left-leaning movements. The most decisive lost opportunity for Anglo-Saxons came when after the fall of East Pakistan, Z.A.Bhutto assumed power in the rest of Pakistan. Bhutto, though a politician with a leftist agenda, was inclined to resettle the equation with the Western world, in particular dominant Anglo-Saxons, at new terms. Despite his views on “the myth of independence”, Bhutto was ready to strike a new deal with the Anglo-Saxon nexus. More importantly, the more radical leftist resistance was in the east of the country, which was now Bangladesh and situation was relatively favorable for the West in remaining Pakistan, i.e. West Pakistan. However, since the policy of West regarding Pakistan was ad-hoc and was rooted in colonial, supremacy mindset, and Mr. Bhutto himself could not detach himself from colonizer-colonized thought process, the opportunity got lost. This and other factors, with insecurity vis-à-vis India being a significant one, made Mr. Bhutto shift even more towards China and open up towards the Soviets as well. At the same time, this snub coupled with the Arab-Israel conflict and Americans new found love for Israel, gave Bhutto (and Faisal who himself felt cornered by the Pan-Arab movement) the opportunity to play the Pan-Islamism card on the hope of getting a collective bargain for nations in the region in the form of new terms of engagement between the West and the region and also to quell internal and external threats to those at the center of established order in the region. What Mr. Bhutto failed to realize was that if a bargain with the West is a long-shot for Pakistan alone, how can a collective bargain be any easier specially keeping in view extreme inherent contradictions that laid in Middle Eastern reality.

In my view, had the good sense prevailed on part of the Anglo-Saxons and Mr. Bhutto back then a lot of troubles of the present times could have been avoided. Mr. Bhutto could have been instrumental in creating a left-leaning force in the region that would have been closer to Americans than Soviets in values, just as it happened in Europe and Scandinavia. What is even more ironic is the fact that the opportunity was lost at a time when the West was opening up to China and thus Sino-Pak relations could have made Bhutto's task of creating the West-friendly front in the region easier.

What West failed to realize was that though Bhutto's ideology is left-leaning and he needs a fairer deal on resource distribution between the powers of the West and those who mattered in Pakistan and the region, his political and ideological orientation and social circle was more in line with Westerners rather than the Soviets or Chinese. The cultural ease that existed between Pakistan and the West, thanks to the era of colonization, alone gave the West a big head-start over the Soviets. Just as America or Singapore, once colonies ended up being independent states, entrenched in the Anglo-Saxon values, Pakistan could be the same. The trouble stemmed from the fact that unlike earlier Pakistani regimes, Bhutto wanted relationship of near equals. West's little display of magnanimity and a realization that colonization and supremacy's time is up then, could have saved us all a lot of trouble.

The West on its part kept relying on its trusted allies in Pakistan, i.e. Mullah and Military. Not only that, but for her close proximity to Mullah, Saudis were allowed to increase their influence in Pakistan over Mr. Bhutto's head. When Bhutto got overthrown by Zia, the harsh reality of a hardcore Islamic radical flank, with values in conflict with the Anglo-Saxon values, started to unleash in Pakistan. On the watchdog of Americans, an attempt to radically change the values of the state, the elite, and the society started which led to a state with confused cultural identity that is based on suspicion and hatred for anything non-Muslim or even non-Sect. First, and probably the biggest, setback to the dominant Anglo-Saxon block in the region was this attempt at changing the social values from their core Anglo-Saxon beliefs to a hybrid nationalist, hate-based value system in the name of Islam. Though the followers of this confused and hybrid ideology are a small minority in Pakistan, because of the ruling Mullah-Military alliance under a blind-eye of the West, this ideology took root in the civilian and military establishment of Pakistan. A monster was growing that was to haunt the West in times to come. Not only that but the monster, led to a growth of radical tendencies among the British Pakistanis, who for a number of reasons were one of the least integrated and least resourced communities there. The process allowed Saudi Arabia to enhance her influence in the region which after the demise of the Shah had assumed the role of the key US ally in the region and was desperate for an influence on sectarian lines in the region to counter Shia-Iran.

US and West were not only ignorant of the fatal consequences of this shift in Pakistani value system by their local allies (Mullah and Military), they also assisted the process. Joanne Herrings in the midst of their crusade against the infidel communists helped spark the religious fervor to even greater intensities. Not only that, but the terms of engagement between Americans and the local allies were not clear either. That led the local fanatics to believe that Americans have implicitly given a node to their regional agenda of creating an Islamic Caliphate. For this reason, when the US, after realizing that the damage has been done (albeit conveniently at the end of the cold war) decided to move against the rise of Militant Islam, it left its former allies, like Col. Imam, Gen. Hamid Gul and GIK bitterly disappointed.

The West had lost the influence in the country, first by not settling issues in a bargain with Bhutto, and then by letting Zia erode the country's Anglo-Saxon value system. This conflict with her former allies, led it to take the comfortable route - leaving Pakistan in isolation. This route then seemed all the more easy for India after 40 odd years was finally opening up to the West. So who needed Pakistan, when you could befriend Indians. More so, pleasing Indians and Pakistanis at the same time is close to impossible. Also, though Pakistan had little more utility than Indians in the Middle East, Americans (and Westerners) were still hopeful that like Vietnam, they will be able to settle their issues with Iranians and no other ally is potentially more worthy in the region than Iran. So began an era of estrangement with Pakistan.

The opening up of relationship with India was very warm. The rise of China had made India a lot more desirable ally. Indians wanted to make the best use of Service Outsourcing opportunities in the wealthiest economies during the two most prosperous decades. Soon, Pakistan, now left isolated and in the hands of a power-circle with hard-core religious alignment, started emerging as part of the problem because of rising Islamic Extremism in the region and the export of Jihad. Rather than increasing their direct dealing with Pakistan, Anglo-Saxons decided to deal with Pakistan through Saudis (on whom the reliance had increased because of oil boom as well). Obviously it was a folly for Saudi Arabia’s interest in preserving the Militancy to counter the threat of any popular leftist or Shia revolution in the Middle East, only helped grow the very nexus which had become West's biggest trouble in 90s. Also, the inherent conflict between Saudis and the West, or for that matter an autocratic Mid-Eastern regime and the West, was the conflict of values. Western values of liberty and democracy were a direct threat to the values of their Monarch allies.

9/11 was the first major alarm for the West to rethink their strategy in the region. It probably raised questions but in the aftermath of 9/11, at least in the near-term, the word was no-change. But the problems in the original policy started becoming more visible as the time progressed. The reliance on a military dictator, coupled with double-cross by a religious-oriented Pakistani Military, made rethinking of the strategy inevitable. In the broader scheme of things, the issues such as Pakistan's security establishment's reservations about Indian ambitions in the region also came to fore. The reality on ground remains that no matter how logical cordial relations between India and Pakistan sound, they are not practical in the short-term.

In the last three years, a new blue-print for terms of engagement in the region is in offing. The key postulates of the engagement seem engaging both representative elements and the military in the broader solution, addressing security concerns of Pakistan, initiating covert diplomacy to resolve issues between India and Pakistan, assuring Pakistan of a long-term strategic engagement rather than a temporary alliance, and accepting Pakistan's (in particular its security establishment's) role in Afghan solution at the expense of Indian influence in Afghanistan seem key components of the rehashed strategy. One can see that some of these postulates are self-contradicting and can only work if either because of some magic-wand, Pakistan and India resolve their differences, or West makes a clear choice between India and Pakistan. I strongly believe that cordial relations with the countries in the region, and most importantly with India, are in the best interest of Pakistan and the region, but the time is not ripe for them.

Another set of realizations seem to be in play in the calculations and make choice easier for Westerners. To deal with the economic mess, Anglo-Saxons needs to opt for a more protectionist economy and thus have to curb outsourcing to India also played a part in the overall calculation. In near future, the economic battle between India and the West (especially US) seems even more intense than any potential row between China and the West. Western economies are service-oriented economies and during the protectionist phase, the impact on services outsourcing is likely to be harsher. Also there is this realization that Iran, for now is not likely to be back as a US-ally in the Middle East and so a suitable ally is needed in the region. And for all its conflicts with the West, Pakistan seems the country closest in the region to the Anglo-Saxon values (even after 3 decades of Islamization attempts). So just when the West hopes of having both Pakistan and India on their side, the focus is more on security Fortress Pakistan for now.

US's direct dealing with Pakistan and its encouragement to non-fundamentalist elements in Pakistan's representative and military establishments for a role in Afghan solution has also troubled Saudi Arabia. This has enabled India and Saudi Arabia to open up the diplomatic channels. Both countries are actively backing a compromise between Taliban and Hamid Karzai on top of Pakistan and the US to ensure their influence in Afghanistan. This latest development has also created differences between the key Western powers (especially the US) and the Indians. Americans have been very categorical in recent times that now is not the time to engage Taliban, after successive failed attempts in the recent past. They have also communicated in clearer terms that any Afghan solution or opening up to Taliban will include Pakistan (read Pakistan Army).

18th amendment in Pakistan’s constitution has unleashed another possibility for Pakistanis and Americans by enhancing provincial autonomy and resolving the issue of the name of NWFP. I do not think that this resolution was a direct result of the situation in the region but it opens up an opportunity for the region. The impulsive reaction of Pakistani Security establishment has been negative vis-à-vis 18th amendment for the fear that it will facilitate disintegration, if and when the situation arises.

For now, the Anglo-Saxons and in particular the US have put their full weight behind protecting the Pakistani federation and this should be treated as a positive development. Despite the fears in Security Establishment of Pakistan, there is a very strong probability that the loosening up of the federation could turn out to be contrary to the thinking of Security Establishment. If Pakistan comes back in the Anglo-Saxon camp, largest populated Pashtun and Baloch areas in a federal, democratic Pakistan will always be a threat to the vulnerable and chaotic/autocratic regimes in Afghanistan and Iran with significant Pashtun and Baloch populations respectively. A Pakistan with harmonious Pashtun and Baloch populations will ensure that if a state arises when the regions’ borders need to be redrawn, the process could be completed with least fragmentation ensuring lesser chaos and more control.

The key of course will be loosening the federation to strengthen it further and to ensure continuation of a representative regime from federal level till the very grassroots. There is a lot between the cup and the lip, but the journey to the lip might have just begun.

Note: This in no way is a prediction of expansionist glorification of Pakistan. In fact, it is just an insight into one of the possibilities that might unleash around us. This is one of the many permutations in the entire probability set. So should be analyzed and explored further but should not be turned into any expansionist schizophrenic ideology.

It's Power Politics Stupid!

2010-03-27T07:25:00.002+05:00

A lot has been said and written about Mr. Sharif's recent U-turn on constitutional reforms. A series of explanations has been given regarding what led to this sudden change of heart on part of Mr. Sharif. To me, the reason actually is lot simpler than any uttered by newsroom pundits. It's simple power politics.

No matter what the media pundits make us believe, Mr. Sharif's is a 14 districts party (and that too with 50% or less votes in those districts). There is no way he can ever get an electoral majority without a combination of forging an alliance with many other regional parties, backing of powerful sections of establishment and a demoralized PPP. In this regard, he finds himself in a very sorry state of affairs. His stances on provincial autonomy and Taliban, and his personal vendetta against PML-Q and Pervez Musharraf has alienated key political forces i.e. MQM, ANP and PML-Q. Army for the debris of Musharraf era has its options cut out and also in some ways for Mr. Sharif's past record a section of Army is reluctant to extend him the support he had in 90s. Also, the recent settlement between the civilian setup, Army and US on key national agenda items has left Mr. Sharif frustrated. And then the PPP, for all its troubles, seems a united front with a charged-up base. With all this on the ground, Mr. Sharif's best option in the power structure is his judges. And he wants to make sure that their powers are maximized and protected. For his political survival, he has no option but to rely on his last bastion of hidden powerful hands that is judiciary. So comes the deviation from PCO judges clause in COD and the deviation from agreed upon process of appointment of judges.

In fact since his fall from power (read grace) in 1999, it is only judiciary from where Mr. Sharif has got relief and that relief has been touching the bounds of unfairness. So how can Mr. Sharif be a party to something that limits his only power base in the power structure. I can only sympathize with friends of mine who were cheering for an independent judiciary. They had been used so tactfully (yet again) by fundamentalist flank led by Sharif to restore their judiciary. Now with Sharif holding on to a bastion of power that has the capacity to destroy the political system as well as the state and does not shy away from displaying its lethal ability, we can only hope that the constitutional reforms get pushed despite Mr. Sharif's opposition to them.

We tried to reach consensus, it seems unlikely because of divergent power interests of Mr. Sharif and fundamentalist flank. May be it is time to assert the will of rest of Pakistan, the 81% of Pakistan (Mr. Sharif's party had 19% of total votes polled - included help of hidden hands).

Theocratic Judiciary - Aurangzebi Justice

2010-01-22T08:31:00.002+05:00

There is so much to write about the absurdities apparent in the NRO decision, on the issue of appointment of judges, and overall anti-democratic and anti-system posture of a JI/Deoband inspired judiciary that one post might not be enough for it all. However, I will try to tackle all of them one by one here.

First and foremost of course is NRO issue. I would not delve into the apparent political bias in the judgment or lacuna in it as is pointed out by eminent lawyers like Asma Jahangir and Ali Ahmad Kurd and many others. I would not even talk about the timing of release of detailed judgment late into the night in retaliation to the news that the President using his discretion has stalled the appointment of Justice Ramthey's appointment as an ad hoc judge of the apex court.

My concern is much bigger and overlooked in the heated political discourse around the judgment and the concern stems from continuous reference to the era of Aurangzeb and other such strictly Deobandi/ JI references in the judgment when it was not necessary at all. It seems as if the judiciary was under the influence of the likes of Shabir Usmani and Mododi and popular among sections of migrant Punjabi community to hijack the democratic republic of Pakistan and return it to some theocratic autocracy inspired by the likes of Aurangzeb.

There literally are many jewels of wisdom spread all across the detailed judgment which are enough to raise alarm bells for majority of Pakistanis who believe in a modern, democratic, republic of Pakistan and are not obsessed with return to any Utopian system that we are made to believe ever existed. These jewels were not relevant to the case at all and we all would have been better of if they were avoided.

Here are a few sample pearls of wisdom.

“During the period of the Muslim rule, sub continent was rich in all spheres of life. It is interesting to note that rate of literacy was very high above 90 percent as highlighted by Frishta while writing history of the sub continent…Subcontinent was almost surrounded by mountains and large open area due to which according to the western countries this area is known as “Soonay ke Chiria”. The kingdom of Britain and France had entered in sub continent for the purpose of business.” p.257

What the judgment failed to add was - "aur sari duniya hamare hi masale khati thi".

“After death of Aurangzeb the system of justice, established by the Muslims, was totally dis-regarded and Muslims were fighting with each other for securing power.” p.257

Rebuttal: Aurangzeb is glorified by Deoband school of thought and propagators of theocracy. It is worth having a look at his record. First and foremost, it was right after his rule that the Moghal empire collapsed in India. This was more like collapse of Iraq post Saddam Husain or decay of Pakistan post-Zia. Regressive policies usually outlive their perpetrators before the signs of decay starts emerging. Aurangzeb in a rational political analysis was the worst thing to have happened to Subcontinent in ages for following reasons:

1. Just when the Moghals were notorious for a lack of system of succession, Aurangzeb took it to another level by killing 3 brothers and making the ailing father (Shahjahan) hostage to grab throne which was not his.

2. In a mutli-sectarian society of Subcontinent, he took measures which made majority Hindus feel as second grade citizens, waged wars against Sikhs in Punjab, and even suppressed Shia Muslims badly during his rule. This, in any rational analysis of subcontinental history, was the biggest reason for the collapse of delicate social and political fabric of Indian subcontinent which led to a chaos only to be calmed a century later by complete dominance of Brits.

The role of Aurangzeb to India was not different from the role of Saddam for Iraq and glorifying him serves no purpose for social good except for extending the JI/Deoband doctrine of theocracy and autocracy.

“This judgment cannot be completed without having a glimpse of Islamic Legal System. Mr. Vijay Kumar Dewan in his Book Prosecuting System in India (Practice and Procedure) discussed the legal system of Islam in the following terms:– “As like the Hindu law the concept of Muslim Law also held that the king derived his authority from Qura’n and the ruler was subordinate to law the main source of Islamic law of Muslim Law i.e. Shar in Qura’n and Sunnah or Hadis….” p.262

“Muslims had launched freedom movement in 1857 but could not succeed due to their internal contradictions and on account of non cooperation of the Hindu community with the Muslims.” p.264

Rebuttal: I am still at loss with what it had to do with the case except for spreading hatred against Hindus (who by the way are 4% of our population). Is it a mere coincidence that SC is issuing such comments when the Deoband inspired media persons and pseudo intellectuals are spreading the war rhetoric around another vaguely crafted ideology of Ghazva-e-Hind.

“The best example in the recent history of human society is of China when this nation with its birth two years after Pakistan, has attained a position of super power (an economic joint and a permanent member of the security council).” pp.265-266

Rebuttal: China for those who have experience of working in China is among the most corrupt public systems in the world. It seems that the commentary is driven by cliches and not by intensive fact checks (Even an unreliable Corruption Perception Index puts it @ 72nd spot far from perfect in terms of transparent nations).

“The word “Ameen” difined in the following books which is to the following effect:
1 The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam at page 41:
“al-Amin. A name of the Prophet, given to him by the Quraysh before the revelation of Islam, meaning the ‘Trustworthy One’. The word is used as a title for an organization official in a position of trust, such as the treasurer of a charitable organization, a guild, and so forth”.

2. Urdu Daera-e-Maharafil Islamia at page 279-80″

3. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) Vol.1 at 436-37

“Amin, ‘safe’, ‘secure’; in this and the more frequent from amin (rarely ammin, rejected by grammarians) it is used like amen and (Syriac) amin with Jews and Christians as a confirmation or corroboration of prayers, in the meaning ‘answer Thou’ or ‘so be it’ see examples in al-Mubarrad, al Kamil, 577 note 6; Ibn al-Diazari, al-Nashr, ii, Cairo 1345, 442 f., 447. Its efficacy is enhanced at especially pious prayers, e.g. those said at the Ka’ba or those said for the welfare of other Muslims, when also the angels are said to say amin.” pp.266-268

“Morality” The word “morality” is not used in any narrow sense, but in a general sense, such as the law of conscience, the aggregate of those rules and principles of ethics which relate to upright behavior and right conduct of elected representatives and prescribe the standards to which their action and in particular those who are Muslims, who are guided by the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah should conform, in their dealings with each other or with institutions or the State”. M. Saifullah Khan Vs. M. Afzal. PLD1982 Lah.77.” p.269

Rebuttal: That just makes me ask one simple question, before trying beneficiaries of NRO, will it not be better for SC to go through the merits of allegations against the sitting Chief Justice. The July 20, 2007 verdict of SC knocks down the reference against him on technical grounds and not on the grounds of merits of the allegations. Worst still, the judgment did not provide with any avenue for accountability of the Chief Justice. Will it not be better to decide once and for all the merit of allegations against the sitting CJP to ensure that the first tweet gets cast by the one he who hath not sinned.

And now to the appointment of judges. Here again we have two issues, first appointment of Justice Ramthey as ad hoc judge of the SC. Here we have two issues again. First is the principle that SC itself set in the new judicial policy which stops any judge from seeking any govt office after his retirement. As was rightly cited as a reason for this, this stops judges from giving judgments in favor of government in the hope of getting a lucrative post post-retirement. Now, by setting the precedence of appointment a retired judge as an ad hoc judge, his Lordship himself is violating the principle he set himself. For, if the precedence is set, it will make it very difficult for judges to go against the Chief Justice in hope of a lucrative judicial post post-retirement.

Second, under article 182 of the constitution, the appointment of an ad hoc judge is discretion of the President. More so, the President has taken a position that if Supreme Court needs more judges, the number of permanent judges in SC can be increased. That takes away any need for appointment of an ad hoc judge. In this case, as well as in the case of Kh. Sharif, it is said time and again that the government has a vested interest in doing things certain way. And I ask, govt. comprises politicians and politicians always try to manipulate things for political gains as part of their job. However, both these issues, the one to appoint an ad hoc judge as well as an out of turn promotion for a High Court judge as a judge of Supreme Court are initiated by the Chief Justice himself and the pertinent question is what is the interest of Chief Justice in it? Or is it obvious?

As far as the issue of appointment of Justice Saqib Nisar goes, it is against the norms set by the SC itself in Al Jehad Trust case (given at the end of this piece). But that is not my point. My point pertains to the obvious political dimensions of the decision. Justice Sharif, in speeches and in writings, has time and again displayed his open admiration for Shahbaz and Nawaz Sharif. He was appointed to LHC by Sharifs. He owes his entire career to Sharifs. And under him LHC granted many a decisions that favored Sharifs of Jeddah politically. And he seems indispensable for Sharif's mismanaged Raj in Punjab.

Last note is on Al Jehad trust case itself. In contrast to the clear wording of constitution on appointment of judges, the Supreme Court has given Chief Justice the sole authority to appoint judges. Now this authority is against the letter and spirit of constitution and is against the prevalent norms of any modern democratic system where the elected representatives are the final authority in appointing judges. It is about time that the parliament corrects this and the method is given in Charter of Democracy. For the sake of survival of this country, the parliament must act fast to ensure that the clauses related to judiciary in CoD are implemented immediately. Else it might be too late to resist the theocratic onslaught.

Key Points of Al Jehad Trust Case

1. The opinion of the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justice of the high court as to the fitness and suitability of a candidate for judgeship is entitled to be accepted in the absence of very sound reasons to be recorded by the president/executive.

2. Permanent vacancies occurring in the offices of the chief justice and judges should be filled within 30 days except for unforeseen situations when the period may be extended to 90 days.

3. No ad hoc judge can be appointed to the Supreme Court while permanent vacancies exist.

4. The most senior judge of a high court is entitled to be appointed as chief justice except where concrete and valid reasons are recorded by the president/executive.

5. Additional judges of the high courts are entitled to be confirmed, if vacancies exist and if they are recommended by the chief justice of the high court concerned and the chief justice of Pakistan.

6. The political affiliation of a candidate for judgeship may not be a disqualification provided the candidate meets the eligibility test and is appropriately recommended.

7. Any appointment/confirmation of a judge without the mandatory consultation with the consultees identified in the constitution would be invalid.

A Call for Faith in Democracy

2010-01-07T21:03:00.003+05:00

On January 4th, while talking to the reporters in Quetta, Mr. Nawaz Sharif said that he will not pick democracy at the cost of the country. If this was not enough, on January 6^th, three member bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan, headed by his Lordship Justice Javed Iqbal ruled that the system is on the verge of collapse and someone needs to intervene. It is obvious that the underlying theme of both the statements is dissatisfaction with the system and a deep desire to change it. These statements coming from two powerful quarters raise serious concerns. But more than being a cause of concern in a country as volatile as Pakistan, they raise serious questions for both Mr. Sharif and honorable institute of Judiciary.

Mian sahib has been more explicit in his definition of the system and has not shied away from stating that he will prefer country over democracy. Now that raises the foremost question that is it not the same Mian sahib who said it time and again in Musharraf era that the country’s survival lies in democracy and democracy only and country has no other solution for its ills. What has changed now? Was he wrong in his assessment then or was the talk of democracy only a potent political weapon then to counter Musharraf or was it that he did not realize while advocating democracy that the democracy will lead to the government of PPP that has more national outreach than any other political party? It is a riddle that either Mian sahib should himself solve for us all or we should solve for ourselves and for him.

Another thing that Mian sahib needs to explain is what is the line where he thinks the country and democracy will become either/or choices? Will it be something born of his political compulsions or will it be based on some tangible national interests he can identify? And last thing Mian sahib needs to explain is that if not democracy than what better alternative he has for the country, if it ever comes to his proposed showdown between the democracy and the country? For the sake of us all, can Mian sahib be clearer in his position on democracy just like he needs to be clearer on extremism and Taliban.

The statement of Mian sahib raises another question and that is for us all. Do we really believe that there is any other solution for our survival than democracy? Haven’t we realize in every dictatorial regime that the only system that can keep us floating is democracy for all else leads to sinking in the abyss of non-existence? And if the answer to the question is in favor of democracy, then we need to ask ourselves how serious should we take those who are trying to confuse us?

Now for their Lordships, for the sake of clarity I must emphasize that their Lordships have not in any way casted doubts over the democracy. However, what concerns me the most about the statement of their Lordships is the fact that it in its essence sounds a lot similar to what has been used as an excuse for four military coups that have taken place in this country. We have been told every time that the system has collapsed and so the Army has intervened to clear the mess. None of them badmouthed democracy either. Rather they vowed to bring to the nation the basic democracy, the pure (saleh) democracy, and the true democracy. The comments of their Lordships sitting in the apex courts of the country ring alarm bells (even if not intended as such) for all who think that the present constitutional arrangement is the best system we have and any attempts at altering it in the name of improving it have been based on ill-intentions and have brought harm and only harm to the country.

From their honorable Lordships, the nation seeks the role of a judge and not of a Messiah and they will be praised, remembered and respected if they confine to the role reserved for them. I am sure that their Lordships are fully aware of the fact that the intervention in the system has only done harm to the Army and the country and this intervention by any other organ of the state will do the same to that organ and to the country.

On this bumpy road to the transition to democracy, it is a test of our faith in democracy and in us. We might not like Zardari or Gillani or PPP, but I am convinced that if our past is anything to go by, the system we have is the optimal system and we need to strengthen it and cleanse it from within rather than derail it or destroy it or seek intervention. If the people we dislike/like do not deliver, the process will eliminate them in the due course, at the polling booths, and if they do – we all benefit.

Lahore after Predator (Drone) Attacks

2009-12-31T12:57:00.003+05:00

As a result of cheap executive of Punjab's fascination with the cheap justice, Lahore looks like a city hit by multiple Predator strikes. Almost every road has sites of destruction and damaged buildings.

There could have been a saner way to penalize the violation of laws as happens in the civilized world. However, the "speedy justice brigade", obsessed with some middle-aged justice model knows no other way. For the rest, I will let the pictures speak for themselves.

Attack on Ashura Procession!

2009-12-28T19:39:00.003+05:00

(Image Courtesy: http://www.dawn.com)

Taliban have once again struck at Pakistan. The attack this time has been on the Ashura procession and target was Shia community in the sourthern city of Karachi. Whatever my views be on religious zeal and religious rituals, the underlying reality remains that this was an attack on innocent unarmed civilians who gathered to be part of a spiritual gathering. It cannot get any barbaric than this.

Karachi has long been associated with Islamic Extremists. The roots of it date back to 1979 and the Jihad Inc. that emerged as a result. Unfortunately, even before that Karachi remained a strong hub of Islamist elements with strong vote bank for JI and JUP. Post 9/11 at one point, around 2004, it was dubbed as the city with most concentrated Al Qaeeda presences. Not only that but most Al Qaeeda activists in Pakistan have been captured from Karachi.

In a history of sect related attacks, in 2003, a bus of SUPARCO carrying Shia worshipers was attacked. Appox. 8 people were killed in the attack. Shia community widely suspected Deoband aligned Taliban for the attack. In retaliation to the attack, Mufti Shamzai, a strong supporter of Taliban, their ideology and methodology and religious mentor of Mullah Omar and Baitullah Mehsud was killed in 2004.

Apart from sect-directed terrorism, the city has been a target of large scale terrorist attacks, including the one on the welcome reception of Benazir Bhutto in October 2007, killing around 350 people.

Karachi had been spared from the recent wave of terrorism that had hit NWFP and Punjab. A part of it could be attributed to strong law enforcement while another significant factor stated was the fact that Taliban do not want to disrupt Karachi for it is acting as a hub for money and ammunition supply to them (even through bank robberies).

With three attacks in three days, it is to be seen whether TTP has decided to target Karachi full throttle or was it just an incidental escalation to target Shia community during Moharram?

In the wake of these attacks, Altaf Hussain, has asked the nation to socially boycott the political, intellectual and other elements who still support Taliban or hold sympathetic views towards these beasts. I hope this time of test and sorrow makes us unite against the enemies of Pakistan and humanity and their supporters in polity, in media and in society. It is a with us or against us moment and nations assert their sovereignty and national character not through some fake posturings but through mobilized and unified response to their enemies and their supporters.

Ae Dost Zara Aur Kareeb-e-Rag-e-Jan Hu!

2009-12-27T11:09:00.001+05:00

We are the agents of good. We identify problems and we devise solutions. If as a result of our solutions, more problems start emerging, among us people appear and fix them. And this goes on, through times.

And then come times, when the solutions devised by those among us, become too complicated the problems with time, for the vested interest in the dust of time manipulates them and turns them into sanctums. That's where the agents reemerge and cleanse the thought.

Agents come and they preach and they struggle. And they take the brunt of the hostile reality that surrounds. In grief and in death, they pay for the wrongs that the solutions of the agents did - for the mistakes of theirs or for others. For those who were agents were all beloved - and for why they did what they did was with purest of intentions.

It is battle for a better world, a battle for evolution of human spirit, a battle for progress and peace, a battle for a grave, and a battle to let humanity achieve what is divinely ordained - the God's design as one of us had said.

And rarely does it happen among the agents of good that the power and spirit converges, as it did in thy. And once you left doing your bit, it separated again. Power to the worthy and the spirit to where it belongs. But this time, power will stay with those unto whom it has been bestowed until spirit keeps protecting them. And the spirit pledges to keep up the work of good.

Seek for us the peace and prosperity and the love for what is this beautiful life and the understanding of what this body and spirit is meant for. Seek for us the light and the courage to spread it. Be blessed comrade!

(It was long overdue)

Ankh ke taroon ki corruption - II

2009-12-21T18:24:00.002+05:00

Nawaz Sharif Contd.:

In a story reported by all major newspapers in Pakistan on Nov. 12, 2009, it has come to public knowledge that one of the cases withdrawn by Pervez Musharraf under "Jeddah Deal" was a money laundering case.

Ironically, there exists a confessional statement of Ishaq Dar, a close associate and father-in-law of Nawaz Sharif's daughter, confessed before interrogating agencies that he helped Sharifs do money laundering of around US$ 15 million through Hudabiya Paper Mills accounts. It is also worth-noticing that Sharifs during there second term gave deadline for those owning black money to turn it legal.

Ironically, neither the money laundering of Sharifs, for which Ishaq Dar gave a confessional statement, nor the general amnesty given under Sharif's for money launderers has ever been taken up by the "azad adaliya". Neither did "azad adaliya" intervene to ask that under what law the investigation and case of money laundering against Sharifs was dropped despite Ishaq Dar's confessional statement (Link).

Sharifs' spin doctors said that Mr. Ishaq Dar gave the confessional statement under torture and the allegations were politically fabricated. Now here lies the inherent hypocrisy of the whole accountability crusade. Even PPP claims that cases against them are politically motivated. Not only that on at least two occasions, the courts (when SC turned HC judgment and forced HC judges to resign on grounds that the trial and judgment were biased against BB and AZ) and the prosecutors (Musharraf issuing NRO) have accepted that the trials were politically motivated. Also, unlike Sharifs there has never been a single confessional statement of any accused. Even then, the Sharifs of Jeddah want to persecute PPP while want to remain untouched and their beloved judiciary so far is ensuring this for them.

With such track record of judiciary and a one-sided focus on accountability, it seems evident that the "crusade" against corruption is yet another false start.

Supreme Court ki ankh ke taroon ki corruption - I

2009-12-18T19:38:00.003+05:00

In the hearing on NRO cases, NAB admitted that it had spent over PKR 2 billion on investigations against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari. Despite spending this hefty amount, nothing could be proved against the two. In this series, I am trying to highlight the allegations on Right-wing politicians, bureaucrats, army officials and media personnel. For the sake of justice, I want these allegations to be thoroughly investigated with an equivalent inflation adjusted amount spent and brought to logical conclusion. In the spirit of investigation against BB and AZ, I would suggest that the fairness demands that the prosecution team for these allegations be chosen by PPP leadership to have a level playing field.

Nawaz Sharif:

Here is a list of allegations of corruption against Nawaz Sharif - in a five clip series.

Nawaz Sharif had two convictions against him, one is a case of hijacking and treason and the other of corruption in purchase of a helicopter. He had a number of corruption cases pending against him and many inquiries under way. As a result of the presidential pardon given in response to written request by Nawaz Sharif and other family members, the inquiries were stopped, all cases were dropped and sentences were removed as a result of a presidential pardon.

Nawaz Sharif himself acknowledged the deal (worse than any NRO) - Express Link. The guarantors intervened to force Nawaz Sharif to stick to the deal till Benazir Bhutto and NRO paved way for his return (Dawn Link).

Ironically, without probing into the detail of the allegations, investigations dropped and convictions, Supreme Court in a haste set aside all allegations against Nawaz Sharif. Unlike NRO, it did not question non-probing of Federal and Provincial Govts. on political grounds.

Another shameful allegation against Mr. Sharif is his involvement in attack on Supreme Court.

Mr. Sharif and his cronies say that Musharraf could not find anything against him in his 9 years. It's a blatant lie because under Mr. Sharif's exclusive NRO (known as Jeddah deal for Sharif's of Jeddah) Musharraf dropped all allegations, cases and investigations against him and his family and they were never opened during his tenure. Nation needs a thorough investigation into these allegations on the lines of allegations against Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Zardari and trial of all cases against him under international observers.

His foreign business interests and assets should also be probed much the same way as has been done against President Zardari. It's a fair demand and I invite you all to support me on this.

Understanding Militant Extremism

2009-12-09T19:17:00.003+05:00

Unfortunately the definition of and discourse on militant extremism in Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular is being defined by the same elements who are this extremism's biggest proponents. With Pakistan and the society facing the existential threat at the hands of militant extremism, understanding the true element of militant extremism is an exercise worthy.

The most popular conception is that extremism stems from poverty and injustice. However there has never been given any empirical evidence to prove either. For all the arguments around, the argument of injustice is the most bizarre. Never even once have we been shown that the suicide bomber who detonated himself was actually related to someone directly affected by war. Neither was any of the executioner of 9/11 or any later attack in the West a Palestinian, Afghan or Kashmiri. Saying that injustice causes those affected to seek revenge is biggest divergence for commoners to identify the root cause of extremism.

Same goes for poverty and illetracy, just when they are labeled as causes of extremism, the reality is a little bit contrary. Before I move on, let me clarify that I in no way am saying that poor or illiterate do not indulge in militant extremism. On the contrary, they too do. But the real cause of them indulging in such activities is not poverty or illiteracy but something we will discuss from here on. If poverty would have been the reason for this, how come the men at the helm of this "terrorist jihad" rich and famous?

An objective review of the situation and we will realize that the rise of extremist tendencies in Pakistan is because of educated, well-to-do individuals. If one tries to profile these individuals most of them will be in seek of recognition, mostly confused about their individual as well as national identity, and with the tendency to be assertive without any objective knowledge. Their quest for recognition gets fully exploited by Religion Inc. and in the process they get the importance they so desperately seek. Piety becomes their tool for recognition and in the process they start treading a path to become holier than thou. In the process, they seek a schizophrenic state where they start considering them divinely ordained to do God's work. These people, often educated and wealthy, use their influence to rope in the have-nots in their circle of influence.

To ensure that it hooks them to fullest, Religion Inc. indoctrinates the disciples fully with a world view where they find themselves the most wronged and also the ones with the divine ordeal to right the wrongs. This indoctrination inculcates biases and hate that is the root-cause of the ills of religious terrorism. No amount of military operations or economic support can root out the menace of terrorism till this indoctrination in the name of hate is stopped. World will need to review the doctrine of free speech in the light of this emerging reality. A balance needs to be created between protecting the sacred ethos of free speech and curbing the inculcation of hate in the name of free speech.

For our part, the menace that we are facing requires us to adopt stronger anti-hate speech and anti-enticement to terrorism speech laws than any of the anti-hate laws the world has ever known. We need not be confused with all the rhetoric of exploitation of anti-hate laws to curb the free speech. For me the line is clear. One has the right to criticize anything and everything but using the criticism as a tool to justify acts of violence or terrorism or inculcating hate against a race or community must not be tolerated. This is where the devil will be chained.

Need for a Charter of Security

2009-11-28T11:30:00.004+05:00

Is anyone else also at loss with the recent assertion of PM Gillani that a rise in US troops will lead to increased militancy in Pakistan as a result of influx of Taliban from Afghanistan? Is it not that a few weeks ago, when Waziristan operation was launched our security apparatus showed its displeasure at lack of American troops on the other side of the border and the fact that this leads to Taliban fleeing into Afghanistan? And is it not that it is Pakistan who since 2005 is asking Americans to do more? Then why this sudden change of heart? Where is the consistency in country's security doctrine? Or is there a security doctrine in the first place?

The fundamental problem with Pakistan's security doctrine is that the security establishment in the country thinks critical to their strategic interests the elements (read Taliban and other extremists) and tactics (read blatant intervention) that have become extremely unpopular with the people of Pakistan. To defend them the establishment is ducking behind one facade after another from raising hue and cry about Indian involvement to blaming US for doing less and doing more in the same breath.

Something that makes this fundamental problem aggravate is the fact that for most players in the country's security doctrine, the beliefs seem not be based on ground realities but cliches. I do not think it has been since ages (I think since the days when Mododites under Zia inculcated the Jihad doctrine as the cornerstone of security/foreign policy) that a candid review of the emerging realities in our region and the direction for foreign and security policy has been undertaken.

Just when it is a pathetic situation to be in as being world's 7th nuclear power, it offers an opportunity as well. For just 5 years back, the country had no internal doctrine as well just as it does not have an external doctrine. The political forces in the country, the biggest two, seized the moment and initiated a dialogue which led to the Charter of Democracy. Charter of Democracy provided a comprehensive consensus on the movement ahead on the internal issues and is fast turning into the first consensus document since 1973's constitution. Slowly but gradually, it is helping democracy take root in the country and address the balance of power between civilian institutions. And despite political opportunism (which must be taken as a ground reality), it has helped set the game plan and rules which act as a deterrence when the hostility goes overboard.

What the nation needs is a same effort on the lines of Charter of Democracy for its security and foreign policy doctrine. All political parties and political leadership has either been naive or cautious in not treading the courses on security doctrine which fall out of the realm of existing cliche. It is high time that country's leadership comprising all segments of a diverse Pakistani nation sit together and answer some fundamental questions like

What should be the broader objectives of our foreign policy? And in line of these objectives what goals should we pursue across the globe in line with the existing ground realities to best serve Pakistan's interests?
Where lies the ownership of the policy?
Who will be responsible to implement what goals?
To what degree should the intervention be part of our security doctrine?
A candid analysis of how soft power can help further our security/foreign policy objectives?
Do we want to be an expansionist state or not?
Who would have the power to modify and monitor the objectives?
What should be the role of 6 key external players (US, China, Saudi Arabia, UK, Iran and India) in Pakistan's international relations?
How to devise a mechanism to review and change the foreign policy objectives in line with ever-changing world around us?

I have views on each and everyone of these issues. For instance, I do not agree with the doctrine of strategic depth, but if after a genuine dialogue between the representative forces (read political parties) emerges on continuing with it, so be it. Army and Intelligence Services should be involved in the process, for they are at the forefront of security issues. But Army and Intelligence Services should enter into this to debate and not to bully?

Army must also realize the squeeze in which the nation is and must acknowledge that the old doctrine and methodologies need be changed. Army by its design and mandate is an executing authority and despite the brainy resource pool is incapable of security and foreign policy formulation because of the constraints in the very make of an executing institute. Even the security doctrine that Army followed for the last 4 decades was conceived by a civilian Z. A. Bhutto. Everything that stands at the center of our security doctrine (except the ideological fervor of Madodites) was Bhutto's mastermind be it nuclear weapons, intervention in Afghanistan, hostile posture towards India, pan-Islamism, opening up to China, removing Middle Eastern influence from Balochistan; it was all a civilian's brainchild which Army made cornerstone of its doctrine. However, having operations and not strategy focus, it failed to realize what were the objectives of these doctrines and when to get the best bargain for changing the policy.

A critical external element in this strategy will be to take US and China on board. I think of a number of international issues that they are trying to settle between them, a consensus policy on Pakistan should be a priority. US must realize that her decision to abandon Pakistan in 1990s has cost her influence here that turned out to be China's gain. As a fair bargainer, it should be willing to pay the price for her action while trying to consolidate what it could.

Army is a powerful institution but consensus among main political players of the country on foreign policy, safeguarding national and party interests, will be very hard for Army to go against. We have little time left and the challenge of devising a rational and coherent foreign and security policy and a corresponding monitoring/control framework awaits our political leadership. On it hinges survival of democracy and of Pakistan.

An assessment of Pak-US Relationship!

2009-11-12T09:32:00.001+05:00

Diagnosing Pakistan  
By Kathy Kemper - 11/10/09 02:34 PM ET

Husain Haqqani offered a candid assessment of where Pakistan stands at my IFE / INFO Global Connections Public Policy Roundtable last Friday. In addition to being Pakistan’s youngest ambassador to the U.S., Haqqani was a strong advocate of the late Benazir Bhutto, who stood as a symbol of democracy in a country where dictatorship has long prevailed.   

Pakistanis, Haqqani noted, believe that the U.S. has long used their country, not engaged it. Hillary Clinton’s trip there was significant to the extent that they saw a different side of our country. In attending town halls and visiting colleges and universities, she tried to demonstrate that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with Pakistan’s welfare. Polls showed that Pakistani approval ratings of the U.S. went up by 7 percent after her visit. Unfortunately, though, one high-profile visit is unlikely to do much, because many of the country’s woes are historically rooted. Pakistanis had no idea what suicide bombers were prior to 9/11. The U.S. supported radical Islamists in their fight against the Soviet Union, but it’s precisely those Islamists who are now waging jihad across the globe, including in Pakistan; many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as an existential threat to their country.

Although Pakistan’s economy is back on track (largely due to IMF lending), insecurity limits its ability to achieve sustained economic growth. It shares a border with a hostile neighbor (India), with a desperately poor country in which the Taliban is reasserting its influence (Afghanistan), and with a nation that’s in the midst of tremendous domestic upheaval (Iran). Being in a near-constant struggle against internal and external threats, real and imagined, has its consequences: Pakistan spends far more on defense than education, with the result that the country has only a 38 percent literacy rate. As both Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan and Ambassador Husain Haqqani say, "We live in a dangerous neighborhood."

Haqqani noted that India is perhaps the biggest elephant in the room. Pakistan is wary of the Indo-U.S. relationship, which is robust and multifaceted. He mentioned that India is Boeing’s largest customer, and also that 26 members of the Obama administration are Indian-American; facts like these naturally make Pakistan nervous.

As much as it’s concerned with India, Pakistan is also anxious to see how its relationship with the U.S. evolves. Haqqani noted that Pakistanis want to receive credit for their counterterrorism efforts; Pakistan has killed or captured more al Qaeda leaders than has any other country. He concluded by saying that the U.S. won’t truly be able to win hearts and minds there until it adopts a more comprehensive engagement strategy — one that has a political element and a socioeconomic element. Haqqani encouraged American companies to invest in Pakistan, offering a Thomas Friedman-like thought that Pakistanis need to be making boxer shorts for Wal-Mart, not boxes of bombs.

Whether or not that hope is realized will depend a lot on how Pakistan’s military fares against the Taliban. Let’s hope that it succeeds.

Kathy Kemper is founder and CEO of the Institute for Education, a nonprofit foundation that recognizes and promotes leadership and civility locally, nationally and in the world community.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/67203-diagnosing-pakistan

Power Play in Pakistan - Analysis and Consequences

2009-11-05T12:30:00.001+05:00

On recent political developments, I would not waste my time on dealing with the principled arguments, for post mid-night GHQ meeting, the Jeddah dealers (who happened to be convicts as well) had taken the highest moral ground in opposing NRO (a law for mere accused). Neither am I going to ponder on the dichotomy that the biggest beneficiary of NRO, MQM has become its principled opposition. For in power play, talk of principles is waste of time.
The realistic analysis thus should revolve around the following questions:
• Why Army wants Asif Ali Zardari out?
• In this battle of Army (Establishment) vs. PPP, will army succeed in ousting Asif Ali Zardari?
• What are the options that Army has, and how practical they are?
• What are the options of Asif Ali Zardari?
• What will be the consequences if establishment succeeds? What will be the consequences if it fails?
I think the reason to oust Zardari can be traced back to PPP’s confrontation with Army on issues like India policy, Kerry Lugar Bill, civilian control over ISI, difference of opinion on good Taliban vs. Bad Taliban doctrine of national security establishment, and difference of opinion on permanent settlement of Afghan issue. More importantly, there is a genuine fear on part of elements in Army that if the current process is allowed to get unchecked, it will close the doors for a military intervention forever because of public mood against military intervention and commitment of international powers for a democracy in Pakistan.
Asif Ali Zardari has been continuously under attack by his opponents led by Army. Starting from Long March, when Army’s support seemed covert (though civilian bureaucracy’s was overt) to Kerry Lugar Bill and now NRO, it seems the design to undermine the reemergence of PPP to the helm of affairs in Pakistan through the Frankenstein of judiciary is well on its way. The only difference is that this time the PPP’s rise is backed by a wave of a massive international support coupled with her large vote bank.
Till now the establishment has succeeded in undermining PPP on at least two occasions, one on the issue of restoration of judges and the other on NRO. On the contrary, in the greater scheme of things, PPP’s wins have been securing all key political posts and a victory on Kerry Lugar Bill issue.
Establishment, led by Army, in this battle has been organized and is in full control of mass media. On the other hand, PPP seems to have her share of gaffes when it comes to managing the issues of on-going power play. First it erred in not having a comprehensive plan to tackle the post-Governer Raj situation in Punjab. You cannot plan on stopping long march while having Shahbaz Sharif’s loyal bureaucracy in place. It seems the docile, all-compromising nature of Prime Minister Gillani was to be blamed for it. Another failure came on media management front. If you plan on surviving in a hostile power game, you cannot do it with Fauzia Wahab as your media manager. Even bigger folly came in taking the support of allies for granted on KLB and NRO, without realizing their close relationship with the establishment.
From where things are, Asif Ali Zardari seems under considerable pressure. But for now, he cannot be taken out through any constitutional process, for 2/3 majority in parliament is not there to impeach him and because of immunity he enjoys being the president; he cannot be removed through courts even if NRO is set aside by the courts. Army’s best bet is to pressurize him, force his closest team members out through courts, and in the process hope that a larger chunk of PPP MPs breakaway.
Army’s another problem is that if PPP is ousted; no coalition can be formed without combining Q and N factions of PML. This arrangement will be hard to negotiate. Army will be hoping on a breakaway in the PPP led by PM Gillani for its plan to fall in place. Army’s biggest advantage is that it has shown beyond doubt that it still controls enough political parties in Pakistan to turn a government with comfortable majority into a minority government. Another thing on which Army is banking is that in the present regional situation, US and Western powers will overlook any political adventure on part of Army because of their reliance on it. We analyze this in detail below.
For Asif Zardari, he still holds card of PPP vote bank and his strong support in Sindh. He will also be banking on support from Western powers. The biggest variable, yet unknown for its silent style of diplomacy, is China. How far will China go to extend support to any post-Zardari government and how clear it signals her role in post-Zardari Pakistan will be a key piece to solve the political puzzle of Pakistan. Same goes for United States. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that America wants to cut-and-run from Afghanistan, just as they did in Iraq. This assertion to me seems flawed on two accounts. First, a deep analysis of Americans withdrawal plans from Iraq clearly indicate that US is not leaving Iraq for foreseeable future and second, it is not showing any signs of disengagement from Afghanistan to the extent it is disengaging from Iraq. Also, any quick disengagement from Afghanistan will be preceded by something on the lines of Joe Biden’s Pakistan first doctrine where drone attacks on Quetta etc are highly likely. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that because of its inevitability, US will accept its actions. Now whether US is willing to revert to a policy of 90s, leaving Af-Pak to Pakistani and Saudi security apparatus, is yet to be seen. One thing that can be said for sure is that positions US and China take will play very heavy on the eventual outcome of this conflict. But above all, Asif Zardari’s survival will depend on his ability to mobilize a resistance in the event of his ouster and how well he displays the potential resistance at his ouster to his opponents.
If the present setup falls, Pakistan is likely to head into a period of extensive political instability. The length of this period will depend on the relationship between Q and N and the success of establishment in tearing apart PPP’s parliamentary party. It will also depend on the response of Mr. Zardari and PPP workers to any such act. Moreover, removal of Mr. Zardari is likely to lead to a major policy shift in war on terror where the distinction between good and bad Taliban will be back and will lead to a resurgence of religious extremism under government’s patronage carried out by good Taliban. Ouster of Mr. Zardari also has a potential of increasing Pakistan’s international isolation and economic hardship. More so, it will escalate the already existing threat of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan if, God forbid, another Mumbai like incidence happens.
For his part, if he survives this recent attack, Mr. Zardari and PPP will emerge stronger and it will be first major setback to Pakistan’s establishment in their fight with civilian leadership. Ironically, this battle for civilian supremacy, once again, has to be fought by PPP and PPP alone.

Sugar Crisis – Shouldn’t we be thinking free market?

2009-11-03T08:55:00.000+05:00

On October 29th, in Supreme Court, during a suo motto notice on sugar prices, Federal Govt. and mill owners agreed to sell sugar at a price fixed by the Lahore High Court. This has averted a standoff for now. However this seems to be an ad hoc arrangement on the pricing and is unlikely to address the shortage issue. There remain issues that need to be debated for they are not only linked with the current sugar crisis but go way beyond the sugar crisis to our overall economy. Unfortunately, the whole sugar debate has been argued in the gambit of superficial of greed and oppression and the real reasons for these events are a little deeper than what appear on the surface.
Pakistan’s economy has always been a variant of a socialist economy. The state has been sitting on the most lucrative economic opportunities directly (i.e. through nationalization) and indirectly. This is the reason of a whole range of economic issues we face and by devising a price formula, a problem created by the state’s intervention is being fixed by the same.
The food industries in general and sugar industry in particular are the most heavily regulated industries in Pakistan. The government has been controlling prices through imposition of import/export quotas and fixing prices. For sugar, the aim in the last decade was to protect a noncompetitive dying sugar industry. In real economic sense, the issue is not the higher price now but the price that people paid in the past to support a noncompetitive industry. If an industry is competitive no more, it better die down rather than being supported at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. To fix our economic mess, we need to consider this not only in the case of sugar but a whole range of other industries. Successive governments, in vain, have been trying for years to protect the textile industry. Same is for sports good industry and IT industry. And for this protectionism, a consumer in Pakistan is paying on average $1000-$3000 more for an average car of the same built and make and of poorer quality than does one in India. When the competitive advantage is lost, the smart societies plan a smooth transition of resources to the sectors which are still competitive. For us, protectionism remains our first big folly that has led to the present disaster.
Second folly is price control itself. Assume that some 25 miles from Lahore in Amritsar, the sugar is sold at India Rupees 32 (Appox. PKR 60). Sugar has a very large distribution network, involving dealers and sub-dealers in thousands across the country. When the government fixes a price at mill that is significantly below the regional price and enforces mills (the only entity where government can practically manage the price) to sell sugar to dealers at PKR 36 assuming that it will be sold at the retail at PKR 40, it leads to nothing but hoarding or smuggling to Amritsar or Afghanistan. Distributors can simply wait till the shortage forces the government to allow the import of the sugar at a higher than PKR 40 price thus allowing them to sell their stock at a higher price. Even if 10% of the distributors indulge in this, what you get in market is shortage of the commodity. One can argue that this act on the part of distributors is cruel but it does not change the ground reality and the public policy needs to be formulated on rationality and not the utopia.
Price fixing, at the best, partially solves problem in the short-term while making it emerge more severely in the future. Last year, we were dealing with shortage of wheat which we decided to fix with fixing the price of wheat. That has led to the lower production of sugarcane and a sugar crisis. Now, the rice crisis is on the horizon. This cannot go like this. Someone needs to take a bold step of deregulating the food market completely. Government’s intervention in the market has made the market inefficient and has led to rampant corruption on the part of bureaucratic bodies like TCP and PASSCO. It is time that the government leaves the market to its own and let the prices and supply and demand settle based on market dynamics. Government’s role in food supplies should, at the best, be to have buffer stock of food for security needs and to deal with famine like situations.
The process will be painful initially. This is a pain that has to be suffered, for if delayed, these long queues for food items will descent us into a chaos similar to that of former communist bloc. You suffer a bit now or you suffer a lot later is the choice we have. The short-term solutions, like paying to poor and philanthropy, will somewhat ease the pain on an inevitable path. In the longer run, we need to focus on increasing the purchasing power of our masses, for in a globalized economy, we will be crushed if we do not increase our spending power. We as a nation have very little time to be agents of change or else we will become its victims.

Pakistan Army - A Need to Change the National Security Doctrine

2009-10-16T22:30:00.007+06:00

We live in a world that sits on the brink of a world war. Never has there been more volatility in the world since early twentieth century. The volatility is of the magnitude that gave birth to two world wars and ended with the emergence of a new global order of post-colonial era.
Of a few possible flash points of this imminent conflict, the most serious are Af-Pak and Indo-Pak issues. Pakistan Army, marred by a series of internal and external changes on ground, has to take this factor into their calculation when they devise any strategy in their bid to hold on to the absolute power, they have enjoyed in Pakistan in last five decades.
Army in part created and in part allied with conservative fundamentalist elements who drew their strength from either religion or a perceived Ideology of Pakistan or a combination of both. It had done this historically against a strong liberal leftist movement, having special attraction among poor and among people of smaller provinces. In fact, Pakistan Army served as a gun to protect and ensure protected economy where certain classes, within and outside Army, thrived on a system of perks and privileges granted by the state.
Initially, it was Army through whom the derived their power. However, with time the conservative elements gained enough strength to become a force to reckon with. Thus started the infighting between the establishment of Pakistan on many fronts. On one level, Nawaz Sharif's fight with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Asif Nawaz and ultimately Pervez Musharraf was a manifestation of this infighting amongst the ruling establishment of Pakistan. On another level, the fight between fundamentalist elements and Pakistan Army, especially in the backdrop of Lal Masjid Operation reflects this infighting.
Things have reached a point where in the triangle of Army, conservative elements and liberal democratic Pakistan, Army needs to ally with one of the two remaining elements to survive. Army realizes that the existential threat to all things Pakistani, including Army, comes from the conservative base who are not only fighting an armed war against the state but have penetrated into country’s bureaucracy, judiciary, media and even Army itself. This ideology has no room for an Armed Force modeled on British Military practices. If and when these forces triumph, the Army, just like all the other institutions, will be among the targets of these forces. Unfortunately, in the wake of this eminent threat that has weakened but not subsided, the debate within the Army seems to be stemming from the ideological beliefs of individuals, a strong sense of xenophobia, and a world view that has been proven wrong many times in last 7 years. Sometimes it seems as though the same elements are shaping/reshaping the debate within the Army. Army needs to weigh her options carefully and figure out how best to protect its power from complete erosion in Pakistan.
What Army needs to realize is that the near-collapse Pakistan was facing in 2007-08 was not because of one man. It was the result of an ideology and policy that spans more than 4 decades. It is through a series of surgical and cosmetic initiatives that The State of Pakistan has recovered a bit from abyss. Resorting to the same policies and embracing the same ideology will lead to similar consequences.
For now, Army seems bound to cut to size the present democratic setup. For this, it will need full support of PML-N, a conservative political party with substantial sympathy for Taliban and other hard-line organizations, along with covert support of outfits like JI, Tehrik-i-Insaaf etc who are open in their support for militants. This move is likely to strengthen these elements. The question both sides need to ask themselves is what will happen once PPP is out of picture. A rational analysis on part of Army is lacking as to whether it is better of letting the present setup work, root out the conservative challenge to its hegemony and to the state of Pakistan of which Army is the biggest stakeholder or to side with conservatives, root out the present setup and then settle score with conservative elements. In latter, Army will not have the much needed backing of liberal political forces, especially PPP, which was instrumental in Swat operation and other such gains Army has made against militants. Where things stand right now, it seems highly unlikely that Army will succeed in ensuring that it is not subservient to some other element in the new power equation. The question is whether it decides to be subservient to conservatives or to a genuine democratic setup.
In an impulsive thought process, one distant probability could be that Army, sensing the change in global power balance, is biding time by ensuing chaos through collaborating with fundamentalists. The only drawback of this approach is that once things reach the tipping point in chaos, they do not remain in control of anyone. Even if successful, the end result of this approach seems more likely to be advantage fundamentalists rather than advantage Pakistan Army. If the calculation is that the political conservatives Army is planning to ally with will be able to compensate for the popular support of the present setup, it seems unlikely. The political forces it is planning to align with will lose bulk of their support base the moment they start siding with Army against militants. Where will N or TI derive support if it becomes a part of a pro-US armed assault? And how can JI support any assault of armed militants?
To start with, this approach of siding with conservatives is not sustainable because of international considerations. Just when US and allies are willing to offer reward for Taliban who might renounce their previous ideology and are willing to accommodate Pashtuns in any permanent Afghan setup, it will be naive to assume that they are going to let go Afghanistan any time soon or are going to agree to a pre-9/11 status quo in the region. This is the biggest factor being overlooked by Pakistan Army in their strategic calculations. If history is anything to go by, Pakistan Army has time and again failed to realize the geo-political realities of the region and to come up with a practical strategic roadmap for the institution as well as the country and it seems this time its calculations are no different.
Army might be thinking that because of its vitality in the region, as has been the case in the past, US will tolerate any of Army's misadventures in the domestic political scenario of Pakistan. In my humble opinion, post 9/11, US has not spent US$ 2.1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq to agree to a status quo. It seems evident that greater civilian control through elected representatives in Turkey, Pakistan and Lebanon (the buffer states between the modern world and the Middle East) remains cornerstone of US/West’s policy in the new world order. My fear is that if Army pushes too far against the democratic setup and present regime, it will have to face a very sharp response from international community. In this course of conflict, the day will be very unfortunate for Pakistan when international forces warn Pakistan's Security Apparatus to ensure the physical safety of President of Pakistan.

Army might be hoping that in any open conflict with West, China or KSA will come to their aid. In case of China, this assertion has been proven wrong time and again in recent times (most notably Kargil and situation emerging after attack on Indian Parliament). Also, China is apprehensive of growing militancy and rise of conservative elements in Pakistan and considers it a destabilizing factor in its western areas. As for Saudi Arabia, it does not have enough clout to pull such Anti-US venture through in a region like Af-Pak.
No matter how one sees it, short of an all out chaos, Army's best option is to agree to a subservient role to the civilian setup and sit with the civilian govt. to layout parameters for national security doctrine ensuring the preservation of Army's clout to the degree it can be protected and ensuring that Pakistan's vital interests vis-a-vis India, Nuclear Program, and economic affairs are safeguarded. If Army's concerns are these issues, I am hopeful that civilian setup and Army can reach a consensus. If Army wants to assert itself as the dominant player in policy making and national politics, then I am afraid the days for it are numbered. In that case, Army must be ready to face the monster, the conservatives in this country are. I would recommend that this is high time that an informal think-tank should be established comprising sane heads from all political parties in parliament and of notable national security professionals and analysts to analyze the security, foreign affairs and defense affairs. The forum should debate openly all the issues confronting Pakistan’s national security and discuss possible courses of action without the fear of being labeled unpatriotic etc. The aim should be to come up with bare-minimum consensus on key national security issues san hypocrisy in light of emerging global realities. It is time to be true to ourselves rather than being marred by a world view created in utopia. Without it our survival seems at stake.

Kerry Lugar Bill and Pakistan's internal power game

2009-10-10T00:08:00.002+06:00

The cat is out of the bag. Pakistan is heading for the most decisive moment of its political history. The issue at stake is not merely the survival of PPP government but also of future direction of Pakistani politics, foreign policy and social fabric. What bothers me the most is that all the debate around this bill is mere rhetoric. The opponents of this bill in Pakistan are playing on rhetoric and have no substance to offer. Not even one article or discussion has actually pointed to the sections of the bill on which the opponents of the bill have objections. The usual buzz words of ghairat, sovereignty etc are used without substantiating the points of contention in the bill.

In fact, the whole line of attack of the opponents of the bill is absurd and opportunistic. Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan and PML-N etc a week ago were saying that US does not trust the present civilian setup of Pakistan and thus will not give them any aid. Now once the aid is here, the same elements are saying that the civilian govt. convinced Americans to insert these clauses. Now I am confused on which of their assertions should I believe. How could the govt. on which Americans were not willing to trust to give aid overnight convinced Americans to insert these clauses and what does this contradiction tell us about the credibility of opponents of this bill? More importantly, in the words of Sheikh Rasheed, is American Senate or House a “sola saal ki dosheza” who got swayed by Ambassador Haqqani to add these clauses to the bill? Come on, talk sense and give us a break, you propaganda organs of military establishment.

Also, the opponents, aligned with the Pakistan Army, say that we do not need aid on such humiliating conditions. Now, as the bill states and we can all read this that all the conditions are for military aid. Now if the military does not need the aid on these conditions why all this fuss. If there will be no military aid, there will be no conditions. And if military itself needs military aid, then sir beggars cannot be choosers is what your media mouth organs tell us day in day out.

From food aid coming on camels with placards of “Thank You USA” to the conditions of Pressler amendment, in which 12 Presidential certificates were required on issues ranging from democratization, to rollback of nuclear program, to human rights violations came under Zia Ul Haq regime and the Amir ul Momineen and father of these ghairatmunds accepted all aid (total $ 3.2 billion in 5 years, peanuts compared to $ 7.5 billion current aid) under it, it was not humiliating for these ghairatmunds. In 2003, under the regime of COAS Pervaiz Musharraf, $ 3 billion for 5 years (again peanuts compared to $ 7.5 billion) aid was sanctioned on condition of presidential certification on restoration of democracy, nuclear non-proliferation, and countering terrorism. Not only this, but under COAS’s regime, military aid was linked to Pakistan’s assurance of not letting “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir’s” territory to be used for terrorist camps. Neither media henchmen nor PML-N or Pakistan Army created any fuss about such “humiliating conditions” and accepted and consumed all the aid.

And how can we blame Americans for asking us to ensure nuclear nonproliferation, when under our COAS President, country’s chief nuclear scientist acknowledged his role in nuclear technology smuggling on national TV? Or how can we blame Americans for asking us to ensure that our land will not be used to export terrorism when our COAS president banned six outfits blamed to be involved in terrorist activities in India on January 14, 2002? Can these rhetoric machines talk any sense to start with? Is any honesty left in Pakistani journalism?

The fuss is not about aid or any of the rhetoric these clones talk about. Nor is it about Army’s concern for national security. It’s a power game where Army sees its power being seriously curtailed as a result of changing times and geo-political realities of the world and the region. The converged interests have made the Army under-siege by fundamentalist political forces join hand with the same forces. The target for now is Asif Zardari and in the hatred of the man both sides are overlooking what will await them, if they succeed.

I wonder how Army can be so short-sighted to have joined hands with the same elements whose websites even today have clips portraying it as a barbaric force committing human rights atrocities in Swat? Has Army forgotten how ruthless these elements have been in their propaganda against Army when their interests collided? Has Army forgotten the blowing up of Army convoys in the aftermath of Lal Masjid and the support by these same elements of these attacks?

On the other hand, these fundamentalist elements will at the best reach a regime like Musharraf regime even if Zardari is out of the picture. The fundamentalist forces need complete control of state and Army wants the same. Zardari for now is the common enemy but even if he is out, both sides will be up in arms against each other. If fundamentalist elements think that Army will give them the same political backing that they enjoyed in 80s and 90s, then this is not going to happen anymore for now Army and fundamentalist political forces need absolute power for themselves.

The role of PML-N in the whole episode has been highly disappointing. The party, who wanted to hang Musharraf for set an example for any future military interventionist and portrayed itself as flag bearer of democracy, ran on one call from COAS for a mid-night secret meeting. As Ahmad Faraz once said

Bus is kadar tha ke darbar se bulawa tha – gadagaran-e-sukhan ke hajoom samne hain

Also, Aitzaz Ahsan who would give us lectures on why this state should be turned from a national security state to social welfare state is silent when the emotional exploitation is on in the name of national security once more. I was expecting a dharna of Wukala bradari against the blatant interference of Army in the affairs of civilian government.

I personally think that it is a storm in teacup. Army just wants to stretch herself and see how far it can go in the wake of attempts to curtail its political dominance in Pakistan. They want to give a signal to US that they still have politicians in their pocket in Republic of Pakistan and also want to see how serious Americans are in their determination to democratize Pakistan? They also want to gauge the response of other international players in the wake of threat of military takeover in Pakistan. They will specially be looking for silent consent of China and UK for such action to see if they have the ability to do another coup or intervention in the future.

This, however, is a dangerous strategy. Army’s action has raised the stakes for all political players. And events might take turn where impulsive actions might lead to a situation leading to things which are not intended, including a military takeover or agitation on streets by elements backed by Army.

What options does the political government have? First and foremost, it has no room to budge. Budging now will be the beginning of countdown for this setup which cannot be afforded. What is at stake is whether Pakistan will become a modern democratic state or will it become a lawless jungle controlled by dictators. Govt. needs to stand firm. It needs to make sure that it gets the bill in its present form endorsed through the parliament and then take a massive restructuring of armed forces and intelligence agencies to assert its writ. As for masses, I am sure they do not care about conditions imposed by US.

Govt. should also initiate the proposed Anti-Terrorism Force under Interior Ministry. If Army decides to stage a takeover, this time it should be a final showdown. PPP should give call to masses to do dharna outside the parliament house to protect the civilian setup and should challenge Army to come crushing these masses. This is how Russians protected their newborn democracy in 1992 and this is what we should do in Pakistan. I, for my part, am ready to do this. It’s a make or break decision for us all. So get ready for this my countrymen. Unlike the media perpetrated dharnas of last one year, this time, if things come to this point

Tu jena hu ga marna hu ga – dharna hu ga dharna hu ga

If Govt. fails in getting this bill passed, the government should go for new elections. If it wins well and good, if it does not, then let us see how these ghairatmunds run Pakistan without the aid and loans for even 6 months in these turbulent moments of our history.

For some reason, I personally think that tide of time is in favor of us the people. Sooner the Mododites and Army realize this, the better they and Pakistan will be. In the words of Manmohan Singh, no force in the world can stop the march of an idea whose time has come. Time of Army’s exit from country’s polity, midnight GHQ deals and rhetoric based exploitation is over in Pakistan. We are moving forward. Join us or be left out.

On Opposition to Kerry Lugar Bill and Other Emotional Exploitation in the name of Anti-Americanism

2009-10-05T19:36:00.004+06:00

Below is complete text of Kerry Lugar Bill. The fuss about the bill has been that it's a sellout of national interest to US. I don't think anyone criticizing the bill has actually read this bill. So I invite the readers to read this bill before commenting on it.

First and foremost, the civilian aid has no strings attached to it. The only conditions are on military aid (which is not part of $ 1.5 billion/ yr). Even these strings are far from sellout that our right-wing fundo toddies are bound on telling us.

What are the conditions? In Section VI of the bill they are stated as:

(c) Certification- The certification required by this subsection is a certification to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, that the security forces of Pakistan--

(1) are making concerted efforts to prevent al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan;

(2) are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan; and

(3) are not materially interfering in the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

Now I can understand, like anyone else, what is pinching these toddies the most. It's the 3rd clause which emphasizes US's support for constitutional process in Pakistan. These toddies (rightly called as Syapa Group by Abbas Athar) have always thrived on such military interventions in the past. So, it makes sense that it hurts them. But for people of Pakistan, nuclear non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, ensuring that Pakistan's territory is not used for attacks in neighboring countries (including China and Central Asian states which had such complaints in last 20 years), and a commitment of USA to democracy in Pakistan are all issues of consensus.

It is just that the forces of regression, whose seed was sowed in our land by Mododi's philosophy and which have infiltrated deep in our media and academia under the patronage of various military regimes (most in Zia-Ul-Haq's) are bound on putting Pakistan on path of confrontation with not only United States but everything that stands for modern world. These Majid Nizamis, Hamid Guls and Jamat-I-Islamis and their prodigies in political classes, judiciary, media, business community and academia have thrived on this isolation of Pakistan. Ghairat, hamiyat, khudmukhtari etc are emotional catch phrases whose repeated utterance in media arouses the educated classes of Punjab and with out looking at the facts and applying their brains to analyze issues, they fall for the cliches so cleverly created by the Mododi's media in Pakistan.

There first argument was the government wouldn't succeed in getting the aid. When it became eminent that this wouldn't be the case, the line was that because of the credibility of the government, no direct aid will be given to the civilian government. In the actual bill, there is complete trust on political government. In fact, reading it will give you a sense that all the conditions are a clear indication that the mistrust US has is on civilian and military bureaucracy of Pakistan and so it wants to make sure that the constitutional process continues for the proper disbursement of this aid to Pakistanis. So now anokha ladlas had no option but to call this bill a sell out and flare the anti-US sentiments among people of Pakistan.

This misled and deceitful exploitation of emotions is not limited to Aid alone. Another instance of such misleading Anti-US propaganda can be seen in opposition to Drone Attacks. All the hue and cry on drone attacks comes from Punjab or Mullah elements of Pashtun areas. It is claimed that these attacks are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. This is something which again is an arousing argument repeated time and again on media and has resonance with urban educated classes of Punjab. Here is the other, and I think more clearer side, of the picture. Drone attacks take place in areas on which Pakistan has lost control and are made against elements who have declared themselves to be enemies of Pakistan and have taken responsibility of attacks inside Pakistan. Now, what should I call these Hamid Mirs, Ansar Abbasis, and Imran Khans opposing these drone attacks, if not 5th columnists. For just like when Allied Forces were fighting Nazis to free France, the Hamid Mirs of France (the 5th columnists) were saying that Allied Forces are violating the sovereignty of France. This is the level of absurdity of this Anti-US campaign carried out by Mododi media and accepted by the urban educated classes of Lahore and Islamabad.

Yes we need to thrive for economic self reliance but this is something that the government cannot do. No govt. in the world has done this for its citizens. This is something that the society and its entrepreneurial spirits does. So my countrymen let us join hands to revive that entrepreneurial spirit in our land rather than taking this anti-American bait of inaction. Till then our friends across the world are trying to help us, so let us accept their help on terms that are more in our best interest than theirs.

Instead of wasting our anger at Anti-US sentiments flared up by Mododi media, let us focus on ensuring that we put pressure on our government to take to task the supporters and inciters of terrorism in our society including TV anchors, political leaders and scholars. This is a war of our survival in which our men, women and children are losing their lives day in day out. It is not America's war. It's our own war since late 70s when these monsters started blowing our mosques and markets. We have to fight it for our survival and we need to combat everyone who is on their side with word or with sword.

To the Mododites, the time for a modern, democratic and liberal Pakistan walking side by side international community towards prosperity is here. Join us wholeheartedly or you will be left out.

S.962

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The people of Pakistan and the United States have a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.

(2) In February 2008, the people of Pakistan elected a civilian government, reversing years of political tension and mounting popular concern over governance and their own democratic reform and political development.

(3) A democratic, moderate, modernizing Pakistan would represent the wishes of the Pakistani people and serve as a model to other countries around the world.

(4) Economic growth is a fundamental foundation for human security and national stability in Pakistan, a country with over 175,000,000 people, an annual population growth rate of 2 percent, and a ranking of 136 out of 177 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index.

(5) Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.

(6) The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past 7 years.

(7) Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more al Qaeda terrorist suspects have been apprehended in Pakistan than in any other country, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Abu Faraj al-Libi.

(8) Despite the sacrifices and cooperation of the security forces of Pakistan, the top leadership of al Qaeda, as well as the leadership and rank-and-file of affiliated terrorist groups, are believed to be using Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan as a haven and a base from which to organize terrorist actions in Pakistan and globally, including--

(A) attacks outside of Pakistan that have been attributed to groups with Pakistani connections, including--

(i) the suicide car bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 58 people on June 7, 2008; and

(ii) the massacre of approximately 165 people in Mumbai, India, including 6 United States citizens, in late November 2008; and

(B) attacks within Pakistan, including--

(i) an attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3, 2009;

(ii) an attack at the Marriott hotel in Islamabad on September 9, 2008;

(iii) the bombing of a political rally in Karachi on October 18, 2007;

(iv) the targeting and killing of dozens of tribal, provincial, and national holders of political office;

(v) an attack by gunfire on the U.S. Principal Officer in Peshawar in August 2008; and

(vi) the brazen assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.

(9) In the 12-month period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act, Pakistan's security forces have struggled to contain a Taliban-backed insurgency that has spread from FATA into settled areas, including the Swat Valley and other parts of NWFP and Balochistan. This struggle has taken the lives of more than 1,500 police and military personnel and left more than 3,000 wounded.

(10) On March 27, 2009, President Obama noted, `Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.'.

(11) According to a Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-08-622), `since 2003, the administration's national security strategies and Congress have recognized that a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support--was needed to address the terrorist threat emanating from the FATA' and that such a strategy was also mandated by section 7102(b)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 22 U.S.C. 2656f note) and section 2042(b)(2) of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 22 U.S.C. 2375 note).

(12) In the past year, the people of Pakistan have been especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages, with two-thirds of the population living on less than $2 a day and one-fifth of the population living below the poverty line according to the United Nations Development Program.

(13) The people of Pakistan and the United States share many compatible goals, including--

(A) combating terrorism and violent radicalism, both inside Pakistan and elsewhere;

(B) solidifying democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan;

(C) promoting the economic development of Pakistan, both through the building of infrastructure and the facilitation of increased trade;

(D) promoting the social and material well-being of Pakistani citizens, particularly through development of such basic services as public education, access to potable water, and medical treatment; and

(E) safeguarding the peace and security of South Asia, including by facilitating peaceful relations between Pakistan and its neighbors.

(14) According to consistent opinion research, including that of the Pew Global Attitudes Survey (December 28, 2007) and the International Republican Institute (January 29, 2008), many people in Pakistan have historically viewed the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as a transactional one, characterized by a heavy emphasis on security issues with little attention to other matters of great interest to citizens of Pakistan.

(15) The election of a civilian government in Pakistan in February 2008 provides an opportunity, after nearly a decade of military-dominated rule, to place relations between Pakistan and the United States on a new and more stable foundation.

(16) Both the Government of Pakistan and the United States Government should seek to enhance the bilateral relationship through additional multi-faceted engagement in order to strengthen the foundation for a consistent and reliable long-term partnership between the two countries.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(2) COUNTERINSURGENCY- The term `counterinsurgency' means efforts to defeat organized movements that seek to overthrow the duly constituted Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan through violent means.

(3) COUNTERTERRORISM- The term `counterterrorism' means efforts to combat al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), or other individuals and entities engaged in terrorist activity or support for such activity.

(4) FATA- The term `FATA' means the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

(5) NWFP- The term `NWFP' means the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, which has Peshawar as its provincial capital.

(6) PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS- The term `Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas' includes the Pakistan regions known as NWFP, FATA, and parts of Balochistan in which the Taliban or Al Qaeda have traditionally found refuge.

(7) SECURITY-RELATED ASSISTANCE- The term `security-related assistance' means--

(A) grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763);

(B) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.);

(D) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456); and

(E) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 368).

(8) SECURITY FORCES OF PAKISTAN- The term `security forces of Pakistan' means the military and intelligence services of the Government of Pakistan, including the Armed Forces, Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, Intelligence Bureau, police forces, levies, Frontier Corps, and Frontier Constabulary.

(9) MAJOR DEFENSE EQUIPMENT- The term `major defense equipment' has the meaning given in section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(6)).

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States--

(1) to support the consolidation of democracy, good governance, and rule of law in Pakistan;

(2) to support economic growth and development in order to promote stability and security across Pakistan;

(3) to affirm and build a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship with Pakistan;

(4) to further the sustainable economic development of Pakistan and the improvement of the living conditions of its citizens, including in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, by expanding United States bilateral engagement with the Government of Pakistan, especially in areas of direct interest and importance to the daily lives of the people of Pakistan;

(5) to work with Pakistan and the countries bordering Pakistan to facilitate peace in the region and harmonious relations between the countries of the region;

(6) to work with the Government of Pakistan to prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, or elsewhere in the world;

(7) to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate military, paramilitary, and police action against terrorist targets;

(8) to work with the Government of Pakistan to help bring peace, stability, and development to all regions of Pakistan, especially those in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, including support for an effective counterinsurgency strategy;

(9) to expand people-to-people engagement between the United States and Pakistan, through increased educational, technical, and cultural exchanges and other methods;

(10) to encourage and promote public-private partnerships in Pakistan in order to bolster ongoing development efforts and strengthen economic prospects, especially with respect to opportunities to build civic responsibility and professional skills of the people of Pakistan; and

(11) to encourage the development of local analytical capacity to measure progress on an integrated basis across the areas of donor country expenditure in Pakistan, and better hold the Government of Pakistan accountable for how the funds are being spent.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS.

(a) Authorization- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President, for the purposes of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2009, up to $1,500,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 2010, up to $1,500,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 2011, up to $1,500,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 2012, up to $1,500,000,000.

(5) For fiscal year 2013, up to $1,500,000,000.

(b) Availability of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the funds appropriated in each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a)--

(A) none of the amounts appropriated may be made available after the date of the enactment of this Act for assistance to Pakistan unless the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report has been submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in accordance with subsection (j); and

(B) not more than $750,000,000 may be made available for assistance to Pakistan in any fiscal year after 2009 unless the President's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan submits to the appropriate congressional committees during that fiscal year--

(i) a certification that assistance provided to Pakistan under this Act to date has made or is making substantial progress toward achieving the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan contained in the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to subsection (j)(1); and

(ii) a memorandum explaining the reasons justifying the certification described in clause (i).

(2) MAKER OF CERTIFICATION- In the event of a vacancy in, or the termination of, the position of the President's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the certification described under paragraph (1)(B) may be made by the Secretary of State.

(c) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.

(d) Sense of Congress on Foreign Assistance Funds- It is the sense of Congress that, subject to an improving political and economic climate in Pakistan, there should be authorized to be appropriated up to $1,500,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for the purpose of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

(e) Sense of Congress on Security-related Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that security-related assistance to the Government of Pakistan--

(1) should be provided in close coordination with the Government of Pakistan, designed to improve the Government's capabilities in areas of mutual concern, and maintained at a level that will bring significant gains in pursuing the policies set forth in paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) of section 4; and

(2) should be geared primarily toward bolstering the counter-insurgency capabilities of the Government to effectively defeat the Taliban-backed insurgency and deny popular support to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are based in Pakistan.

(f) Use of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used for projects intended to benefit the people of Pakistan, including projects that promote--

(A) just and democratic governance, including--

(i) police reform, equipping, and training;

(ii) independent, efficient, and effective judicial systems;

(iii) political pluralism, equality, and the rule of law;

(iv) respect for human and civil rights and the promotion of an independent media;

(v) transparency and accountability of all branches of government and judicial proceedings;

(vi) anticorruption efforts among bureaucrats, elected officials, and public servants at all levels of military and civilian government administration;

(vii) countering the narcotics trade; and

(viii) the implementation of legal and political reforms in the FATA;

(B) economic freedom, including--

(i) sustainable economic growth, including in rural areas, and the sustainable management of natural resources;

(ii) investments in energy and water, including energy generation and cross-border infrastructure projects with Afghanistan;

(iii) employment generation, including essential basic infrastructure projects such as roads and irrigation projects and other physical infrastructure; and

(iv) worker rights, including the right to form labor unions and legally enforce provisions safeguarding the rights of workers and local community stakeholders;

(i) broad-based public primary and secondary education and vocational training for both boys and girls;

(ii) food security and agricultural development to ensure food staples and other crops that provide economic growth and income opportunities in times of severe shortage;

(iii) quality public health, including medical clinics with well trained staff serving rural and urban communities;

(iv) vocational training for women and access to microfinance for small business establishment and income generation for women; and

(v) higher education to ensure a breadth and consistency of Pakistani graduates to prepare citizens to help strengthen the foundation for improved governance and economic vitality, including through public-private partnerships; and

(D) long-term development in regions of Pakistan where internal conflict has caused large-scale displacement.

(2) FUNDING FOR POLICE REFORM, EQUIPPING, AND TRAINING- Up to $100,000,000 of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) should be used for police reform, equipping, and training.

(g) Preference for Building Local Capacity- The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contacts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.

(h) Authority To Use Funds for Operational and Audit Expenses-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a)--

(A) up to $10,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses of Federal departments and agencies in connection with the provision of assistance authorized by this section;

(B) up to $30,000,000 may be made available to the Inspectors General of the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and other relevant Executive branch agencies in order to provide audits and program reviews of projects funded pursuant to this section; and

(C) up to $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary to establish a Chief of Mission Fund for use by the Chief of Mission in Pakistan to provide assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.

(a) Limitation on Certain Military Assistance- Beginning in fiscal year 2010, no grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) and no assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) may be provided to Pakistan in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(b) Limitation on Arms Transfers- Beginning in fiscal year 2012, no letter of offer to sell major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and no license to export major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to such Act in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(1) are making concerted efforts to prevent al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan;

(2) are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan; and

(3) are not materially interfering in the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

(d) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsections (a) and (b) if the Secretary determines it is important to the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.

(e) Prior Notice of Waiver- A waiver pursuant to subsection (d) may not be exercised until 15 days after the Secretary of State provides to the appropriate congressional committees written notice of the intent to issue such waiver and the reasons therefor. The notice may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

(f) Annual Report- The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the progress of the security forces of Pakistan in satisfying the requirements enumerated in subsection (c). The Secretary of State shall establish detailed, specific requirements and metrics for evaluating the progress in satisfying these requirements and apply these requirements and metrics consistently in each annual report. This report may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COALITION SUPPORT FUNDS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) Coalition Support Funds are critical components of the global fight against terrorism, and in Pakistan provide essential support for--

(A) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to destroy the terrorist threat and close the terrorist safe haven, known or suspected, in the FATA, the NWFP, and other regions of Pakistan; and

(B) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to protect United States and allied logistic operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan;

(2) despite the broad discretion Congress granted the Secretary of Defense in terms of managing Coalition Support Funds, the Pakistan reimbursement claims process for Coalition Support Funds requires increased oversight and accountability, consistent with the conclusions of the June 2008 report of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO-08-806);

(3) in order to ensure that this significant United States effort in support of countering terrorism in Pakistan effectively ensures the intended use of Coalition Support Funds, and to avoid redundancy in other security assistance programs, such as Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales, more specific guidance should be generated, and accountability delineated, for officials associated with oversight of this program within the United States Embassy in Pakistan, the United States Central Command, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and Budget; and

(4) the Secretary of Defense should submit to the appropriate congressional committees and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a semiannual report on the use of Coalition Support Funds, which may be submitted in classified or unclassified form as necessary.

SEC. 8. PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS STRATEGY.

(a) Development of Comprehensive Strategy- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and such other government officials as may be appropriate, shall develop a comprehensive, cross-border strategy that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, humanitarian, law enforcement support, and strategic communications and information technology--for working with the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan, NATO, and other like-minded allies to best implement effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measurers in and near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas.

(b) Report- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed description of a comprehensive strategy for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas containing the elements specified in subsection (a) and proposed timelines and budgets for implementing the strategy.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--

(1) recognize the bold political steps the Pakistan electorate has taken during a time of heightened sensitivity and tension in 2007 and 2008 to elect a new civilian government, as well as the continued quest for good governance and the rule of law under the elected government in 2008 and 2009;

(2) seize this strategic opportunity in the interests of Pakistan as well as in the national security interests of the United States to expand its engagement with the Government and people of Pakistan in areas of particular interest and importance to the people of Pakistan;

(3) continue to build a responsible and reciprocal security relationship taking into account the national security interests of the United States as well as regional and national dynamics in Pakistan to further strengthen and enable the position of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally;

(4) seek ways to strengthen our countries' mutual understanding and promote greater insight and knowledge of each other's social, cultural and historical diversity through personnel exchanges and support for the establishment of institutions of higher learning with international accreditation; and

(5) explore means to consult with and utilize the relevant expertise and skills of the Pakistani-American community.

SEC. 10. TERM OF YEARS.

With the exception of subsections (b)(1)(B), (j), (k), and (l) of section 5, this Act shall remain in force after September 30, 2013.

Passed the Senate June 24, 2009.

Baseless Hue and Cry on Kerry Lugar Bill

2009-09-29T22:18:00.001+06:00

A section in Pakistan media has raised a storm in a tea cup about Kerry Lugar bill and has called it a sellout. Looking at it rationally it seems the best deal Pakistan got get and has got in its history.

In the 1980s the US congress passed the Pakistan Aid Bill for US $ 3.2 Billion over a period of 5 years and the Bill, which required 10-12 Presidential Certifications (at different times) every year including on restoration of democracy, human rights protection, nuclear non proliferation and drugs control.

In the 2003 Congress again passed Pakistan Aid Bill for US 3 billion over a period of 5 years and that too included Presidential waivers certifying Pakistan is moving toward restoration of democracy, nuclear non proliferation, countering terrorism etc.

Kerry- Lugar Bill is the first Pakistan Aid Bill that does not carry Presidential certification every year. However the Secretary Of State has to certify that Pakistan is moving on path to democracy, nuclear non proliferation and control of democracy. This is also Pakistan State Policy.

In any case, it is for US Congress to determine US conditions and for Pakistan to reject aid with conditions it deems unacceptable. In case of the Kerry Lugar bill, the Govt of Pakistan does not consider any condition onerous or unfulfillable. All branches of the Pakistan government have examined and understand the implications of the bill as passed and the Govt is confident that it does not impose humiliating or restrictive condionality. Needless to say this aid package is the best deal Pakistan can get. What is most surprising is that just when Army itself has become custodian on democratic rule why are these fundo elements of media trying to create chaos?

The media fundos cannot digest a Pakistan moving on the path of political and economic stability and have resorted to tactics of lie, deceit and propaganda.

Whom does Punjab belong to?

2009-09-06T12:49:00.003+06:00

Our media pundits always portray Nawaz Sharif as the sole leader of Punjab and PML-N as the dominant political force in Punjab. A closer look at the facts and figures and one can find out that this too is an eye-wash created by the media. For its limited nationwide penetration, PML-N needs steroids of the media to rally its limited base. For this a lot of myths have been created about it, the biggest being its dominance in Punjab.

If results of 2008 elections are anything to go by, N is no where close to the dominant status that we are made to believe. We have taken NA results as a benchmark because the larger constituency size makes them more representative of a district. Here are the facts:

Of 36 districts in Punjab, N one at least 1 seat in 26 districts, PPP won at least 1 seat in 24 districts.
N has more than 50% of seats in 11 out of 36 districts, PPP has more than 50% seats in 9 of 36 districts.
N swept 4 districts, PPP 2.
Of 5 big cities of Punjab, N is far behind PPP in terms of number of seats in Faisalabad (2nd largest) and Multan (4th largest).
In districts north of Okara, N did not win a single seat in 4 districts - of total of 22 districts. For the same area, PPP did not win a single seat in 9 seats.
In districts comprising Okara and South, PPP did not win a single seat in only 2 districts (of total 14 distrcits - almost 40% population of Punjab). In comparison, N didn't win a single NA seat in 6 districts of the same area.
PML-N won 60 NA seats (41%) compared to PPP's 45 seats (31%).
For Provincial Assembly N won 111 seats (37%) compared to 82 seats by PPP (28%).

Above statistics clearly indicate that just when PML-N is the largest party in Punjab in terms of parliamentary presence, it is far from being the dominant force in Punjab.

The media anchors and columnists who are trying to portray Punjab as a one-party province are doing a great disservice to Pakistani Federation on two grounds.
1. It pitches any issue between ruling coalition and PML-N as a clash between Punjab vs Rest (something that is not true based on political map of Punjab shown above).
2. It is undermining the national out-reach of PPP, for now the only national party of Pakistan. Not only that but when it comes to national out-reach (till next elections prove otherwise) even Q has greater national outreach than N.

This smear propaganda coming from the saviors of "Pakistan's ideology" and democrats (like Nusrat Javed and Talat Husain) is, deliberately or unconsciously, a very sinister attempt to make Pakistani political landscape more divisive on ethnic/ regional grounds and must be checked in the larger interest of the Federation.

Kissa sote jagte ka

2009-08-27T10:00:00.016+06:00

The establishment which had our country in her grip for decades is exposed as a result of their infighting. But most surprisingly, the "independent media" is desperate to cover their beloved elements of the establishment (read Nawaz Sharif). Anchors, columnists, spin doctors of PML-N and media in their attempts to cover this mess are creating stories at par with Alif Laila and Kissa Sote Jagte Ka. This Kissa Sote Jagte Ka has signs of their desperation and changing times.
It all started with Supreme Court's hearing of petition against Nov. 3 actions of General Musharraf. Supreme Court, partly riding on vendetta and partly on the quest for limelight, in one of its observations on July 29th proclaimed that if Cromwell's skeleton can be hanged after his death, it is time to punish the violators of the constitution in Pakistan. (Below is an image of Express News' next day coverage of Daily Express).

Next day, Supreme Court had a complete change of heart ruling they do not have the authority to initiate a treason trial of Musharraf (Image of Daily Express report below). Now, this statement coming from a very proactive Supreme Court famous for her ability to take suo-motto notices and extending her domain to issues of taxation (which by the way is a prerogative of parliament under the principle of "taxation with representation" which remains the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy) was a surprise to say the least. Not till you read a news in July 30th's The News (News Link) mentioning a meeting held between the Principled Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan and COAS. And so the Supreme Court conveniently passed the ball to Parliament.
Then the principled Aitzaz claimed that Parliament can decide to try Musharraf, Govt. can move with the case or even an ordinary citizen can go to Supreme Court for Musharraf's trial. What the Principled forgot in the due course was that he being the ordinary citizen of Pakistan should do it himself. (By the way an individual Zafar Ali Shah’s petition has been thrown out of Supreme Court on grounds that Supreme Court is not the forum to do Musharraf’s trial).
On August 6, fiery Ch. Nisar Ali Khan continuing the assault on the PPP-led Govt. (in N's trademark spirit of cooperation and stability) on the floor of National Assembly announced that PML-N will table a resolution demanding Musharraf's trial for high treason under article-6 of constitution. Then came the invisible hands and the upright and uncompromising PML-N had to back down from their commitment (N Backtracks). They needed an escape goat and so firebrand Ch. Nisar Ali Khan blasted MQM in NA for protecting Musharraf. In his rhetoric he even acknowledged that the operation against MQM was done on the behest of PML-N (a confession which since then PML-N is trying to dispell). This drew a sharp reaction from MQM led by Haider Abbas Rizvi. The reaction caught N off-guard and opened a Pandora’s box. Things got worse for PML-N when Brig. Imtiaz acknowledged that the allegations of Jinnah Pur on MQM were fabricated and the operation had the consent of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This drew a sharp response from Altaf Hussain and N was on defensive. But N being N, they and their media anchors tried to avert the issue in many different ways.
On one hand, the response was that MQM should also talk about PPP's operation without realizing that both MQM and PPP have apologized for past mistakes including the operation of 1995-96. On the other hand, they pretended as if Nawaz Sharif was kept in dark about operation against MQM (on this a friend of mine who supports PML-N jokingly said, Nawaz didn't know of operation against MQM in his first term, of Kargil in his second term, and we punks will make sure that the dumb gets the third term).
Another line of attack was that our Army and Agencies work on their own and so the spin was to blame everything on Army/ Intelligence officials. This line of defense also suits fundamentalist elements’ desire to malign Army when it is taking the Islamist Militants to task. For this, the instances were cited including Operation Midnight Jackal.
This started with "pseudo Liberal" Nusrat Javed's assertion on Live With Talat that this whole fuss is created by Army and Agencies to corner Nawaz Sharif. Nusrat allegedly quoted sources of Agencies saying that two more stories of wrong-doings and they will be able to control Asif Ali Zardari but the bigger trouble is Nawaz Sharif with his mass popularity. In his desperation to absolve Nawaz Sharif of the allegations regarding Midnight Jackal, Nusrat brought in many people in his program to discuss Midnight Jackal and pass the blame solely to Army and Agencies. But the truth could not be hidden. In the first episode, the fingers were openly pointed to Nawaz Sharif as being at the center of Midnight Jackal conspiracy. In desperation, in the second episode, Zahid Sarfaraz was brought in to deny Brig. Imtiaz's claims. He claimed that Brig. Imtiaz was no body in no-confidence motion. In the same interview, Mr. Zahid Sarfaraz also narrated a story which rather than absolving Mr. Nawaz Sharif of his role in the dark chapter of Pakistan's political history drags him further in. Mr. Sarfaraz claims that Arif Awan (A PPP MNA approached by Brig. Imtiaz to switch loyalties) asked a meeting with Nawaz Sharif. Now the very assertion proves that both sides (Imtiaz and Arif Awan) agreed that Nawaz Sharif was the key figure in the saga. Not only that but Mr. Sharif's agreement to meet Arif Awan at the request of Brig. Imtiaz proves a link between Brig. Imtiaz and Nawaz Sharif in Midnight Jackal.
If this was not enough came the statement by Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani that he on the behest of Gen. Aslam Beg distributed PKR 140 million to leading politicians including Mian Nawaz Sharif. Despite repeated questioning by Express News, Pervaiz Rasheed, NS's spokesman, refused to categorically deny the allegation. Now the myth of Principleds in shattered and assertions by the likes of Talat Husain that N wouldn't come down easy are desperate attempts to do the damage control. Question is not whether Brig. Imtiaz did it on behest of Army or Agencies or a long-shot Husain Haqqani? Question is whether what has been said is true or not? These spin doctors are trying to divert attention from the real issue. If Agencies are to be blamed for controlling the polity, the politicians who collaborated with them must not be absolved either.
So in the spin of media and N, following are the real issues - without any spin - give them a thought my fellow countrymen:

Try Musharraf for breaking constitution and try him and his aides and those who abetted him, but not for Nov. 3, 2007 but for October 12, 1999. Not only Musharraf but try Zia Ul Haq for his act of July 5, 1977. Try Aslam Beg, Hamid Gul, and Brig Imtiaz for their role in Midnight Jackal, creation of IJI and rigging of 1990 General Elections. Also, try those who collaborated with them.
Nawaz Sharif should live up to the standards he preaches or should preach what he has practiced.
Alleged involvement of Prince Naif, Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden must be probed and made public.
Saudi Arabia must be warned never to interfere in political affairs of Pakistan again and must be demanded a public apology for the past deeds.
And in the spirit of national reconciliation, all the trials must not be aimed at vendetta and sentencing the culprits but to set the record straight.
As for Nawaz Sharif’s popularity, of Pakistan’s 107 districts, N has presence in only 28 (a mere 26%). In Punjab, of 34 districts, N has parliamentary presence in 24 districts (71%). Also in Punjab, there are only 11 districts where N has more than 50% of seats (a mere 33%). N neither has a nation-wide spread nor a dominant penetration in Punjab as we are made to believe by the media and opinion polls.
And last but certainly not the least, Armed Forces of Pakistan must let the political process take its due course without any intervention in future. My fear is that with Nawaz Sharif’s image being tarnished, knowing their history, some in the Defense Establishment of Pakistan might be thinking of creating an alliance comprising Aitzaz Ahsan, PPP-SB, PTI, elements from PML-N and Hamkhayal’s to raise a counter force to PPP. This has not succeeded in past and is not likely to succeed in the future. The Army must learn their lessons from the debacle of Creation and Glorification of Nawaz Sharif. In the continuation of political process, ultimately a counter force to PPP will organically emerge. We must wait for that rather than engineering things and creating more mess.