A
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aaj key KAALAM 11 June, 2009
- Thread starter arshad_lahore
- Start date
- Promote your thread
More options
Promote your thread
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Budget 2009-10 and the public-private mantra
Governance
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Dr Sania Nishtar
The government has decided to increase spending in the development sector in the coming year as is evidenced by the expansionary fiscal policy adopted in the forthcoming budget for the year 2009-10. Approval of the highest ever Public Sector Development Programme by the National Economic Council comes at a time when many fiscal space constraints are evident -- decline in revenues, competing priorities particularly in the wake of the ongoing security situation and efforts to curtail the fiscal deficit in order to keep it within stipulated limits. The rationale for the approach has fueled a debate among subject experts -- a positive development indeed given the potential within constructive and substantive technical dialogue to shape policy decisions in national interest.
The purpose of this comment is not to dwell on that debate but to draw attention to the related issue of strengthening the public-private interface as a policy option to assist the government in achieving the development objectives envisaged in the budget. Two areas appear important in this regard.
The first area is infrastructure development. In today's environment, investments in infrastructure are critically needed, as they can generate economic activity and create employment. In the 1930s, one of the factors responsible for United States' recovery from the Great Depression related to Roosevelt's policies of investment in huge public work schemes, which enabled the generation of employment. Efficient infrastructure can also boost economic recovery through promotion of local and foreign investment and business productivity and expansion -- all of which are needed in today's context.
The currently prevailing power shortage -- though attributable to some extent to the issue of circular debt, the decades-long intransigency to invest in water reservoirs and the crumbling state of public transport and social infrastructure in the country also reiterate the need to invest in infrastructure. Pakistan's overall infrastructure needs were previously estimated at $24 billion per year; as opposed to this, last year's PSDP allocations (2008-09) for infrastructure development approximately stood at Rs176 billion -- and not all of this was expended. This year there might be an increase, but the huge shortfall will persist. In view of resource limitations, the government has decided that many infrastructure projects, particularly those related to the transport sector, should be developed and implemented through public-private partnership under the umbrella of the Infrastructure Project Development Facility (IPDF) with support from PPP Infrastructure Cell of the Planning Commission. If appropriately structured, this approach can save PSDP expenditures.
While it is critically important to undertake projects in the PPP mode, it must be appreciated that this has implications for government's capacity. Infrastructure projects have traditionally been funded by the public sector in Pakistan in the past. The government has some level of experience with PPPs through engagement in this mode with Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in the 1990s; PPPs have also been used in the past in the transport sector using the Build Operate Own, Build Operate Transfer, Rehabilitate Operate Own and Rehabilitate Operate Transfer modalities of engagement. However, in order to undertake major infrastructure projects in the PPP financing mode, transformation of the government's capabilities and governance capacities is needed to plan, execute and implement.
The government must therefore plan to enhance its institutional competencies in the area.
Fortunately, some arrangements are already in place but need critical inputs, consolidation and/or transformation. A PPP policy is in place at the federal level but legislation needs to be enacted. A draft PPP law has been pending action in Punjab for over five years and needs to be built upon further to develop a national legislative framework. Steps have been taken to develop transaction advisory capacity -- IPDF has been created as a statuary entity under the Companies Ordinance (as a Section 42 Company) to provide technical oversight, help state agencies procure transaction advisers and technically support government agencies in processing and developing projects through the PPP route. It is important to ensure support to the organisation from the highest level of government to enable it to serve its role. In order to ensure availability of long-term financing for PPPs, various financing arrangements -- Viability Gap Fund, the Guarantee Fund, Infrastructure Project Finance Facility and Project Development -- have been designed for some time now but have not been fully established. The PPP Infrastructure Cell in the Planning Commission also needs to be supported and strengthened to plan and procure infrastructure with private sector investment. This arrangement with appropriate linkages and technical inputs from IPDF can be mandated to review all infrastructure projects for their viability regarding being channelled for private sector funding before going down the CDWP/ECNEC route in the Planning Commission. In many countries of the world, it actually has to be proved that infrastructure cannot be built with private sector investment before soliciting support for public financing such as is the case in South Africa and the highway sector in India.
An important caveat relates to capacity of the government to regulate. Infrastructure PPP's are complex arrangements involving a range of stakeholders -- public companies with official relationships with public institutions, transaction advisers that are procured by public agencies (IPDF in Pakistan's case), operators, service purchasers, sponsors and contractors; there are various sources of cash flows and revenues and organisational objectives that have to be handled. In view of this diversity and complexity, the success of these arrangements depends upon fiscal and legal prudence of governments and their ability and transparency to build safeguards and share risk in a manner that is mutually beneficial, both to the public and private sectors -- most importantly, to the population at large.
The other reason why the government needs to engage with the private sector is to enhance its capacity to deliver social services -- health and education in particular. Pakistan has traditionally engaged in service delivery in a 'welfare mode' assuming that it bears the responsibility, both of financing as well as providing services but has under-resourced its infrastructure and service delivery arrangements; on the other hand, the regulatory environment has allowed burgeoning of the private sector in these areas with minimal -- in some cases no -- regulatory controls. As a result of this and the disparity in incentives in the public vis-a-vis the private sector, a characteristic abnormality has emerged; this manifests itself in public functionaries working in the private sector, and closed and underperforming health facilities and schools. This limits the ability of the government to target welfare to its citizens.
In order to address these challenges, action is required at several levels -- in each, the role of the private sector is critical. In order to better manage public facilities, the government can rely on the private sector's entrepreneurial talent either by contracting out management or applying private sector management principles and incentivise public sector delivery and in order to expand the outreach of services, the government can involve non-state providers of services. The decision by governments to act as payers for welfare services and only partly have responsibility for direct delivery of services has important consequences for shaping a social policy. However, the government will have to develop a new set of institutional norms and regulatory frameworks and change the way they have been doing business in the past in order to achieve this important goal.
The discussion on infrastructure development and sustainable macroeconomic growth and effective targeting of welfare service becomes more important and challenging today than it has ever been in the past in view of the unique pattern of conflict and violence that has emerged in our deeply polarised environment. The need to maximise synergies between the public and private sectors has therefore become an imperative. However, the results of such actions will only be as good as governments can make them. Governments with limited capacities cannot remedy their deficiencies by seeking to yoke the private sector on their own uncertain cart.
The writer is the founding-president of the NGO think tank, Heartfile.
Governance
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Dr Sania Nishtar
The government has decided to increase spending in the development sector in the coming year as is evidenced by the expansionary fiscal policy adopted in the forthcoming budget for the year 2009-10. Approval of the highest ever Public Sector Development Programme by the National Economic Council comes at a time when many fiscal space constraints are evident -- decline in revenues, competing priorities particularly in the wake of the ongoing security situation and efforts to curtail the fiscal deficit in order to keep it within stipulated limits. The rationale for the approach has fueled a debate among subject experts -- a positive development indeed given the potential within constructive and substantive technical dialogue to shape policy decisions in national interest.
The purpose of this comment is not to dwell on that debate but to draw attention to the related issue of strengthening the public-private interface as a policy option to assist the government in achieving the development objectives envisaged in the budget. Two areas appear important in this regard.
The first area is infrastructure development. In today's environment, investments in infrastructure are critically needed, as they can generate economic activity and create employment. In the 1930s, one of the factors responsible for United States' recovery from the Great Depression related to Roosevelt's policies of investment in huge public work schemes, which enabled the generation of employment. Efficient infrastructure can also boost economic recovery through promotion of local and foreign investment and business productivity and expansion -- all of which are needed in today's context.
The currently prevailing power shortage -- though attributable to some extent to the issue of circular debt, the decades-long intransigency to invest in water reservoirs and the crumbling state of public transport and social infrastructure in the country also reiterate the need to invest in infrastructure. Pakistan's overall infrastructure needs were previously estimated at $24 billion per year; as opposed to this, last year's PSDP allocations (2008-09) for infrastructure development approximately stood at Rs176 billion -- and not all of this was expended. This year there might be an increase, but the huge shortfall will persist. In view of resource limitations, the government has decided that many infrastructure projects, particularly those related to the transport sector, should be developed and implemented through public-private partnership under the umbrella of the Infrastructure Project Development Facility (IPDF) with support from PPP Infrastructure Cell of the Planning Commission. If appropriately structured, this approach can save PSDP expenditures.
While it is critically important to undertake projects in the PPP mode, it must be appreciated that this has implications for government's capacity. Infrastructure projects have traditionally been funded by the public sector in Pakistan in the past. The government has some level of experience with PPPs through engagement in this mode with Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in the 1990s; PPPs have also been used in the past in the transport sector using the Build Operate Own, Build Operate Transfer, Rehabilitate Operate Own and Rehabilitate Operate Transfer modalities of engagement. However, in order to undertake major infrastructure projects in the PPP financing mode, transformation of the government's capabilities and governance capacities is needed to plan, execute and implement.
The government must therefore plan to enhance its institutional competencies in the area.
Fortunately, some arrangements are already in place but need critical inputs, consolidation and/or transformation. A PPP policy is in place at the federal level but legislation needs to be enacted. A draft PPP law has been pending action in Punjab for over five years and needs to be built upon further to develop a national legislative framework. Steps have been taken to develop transaction advisory capacity -- IPDF has been created as a statuary entity under the Companies Ordinance (as a Section 42 Company) to provide technical oversight, help state agencies procure transaction advisers and technically support government agencies in processing and developing projects through the PPP route. It is important to ensure support to the organisation from the highest level of government to enable it to serve its role. In order to ensure availability of long-term financing for PPPs, various financing arrangements -- Viability Gap Fund, the Guarantee Fund, Infrastructure Project Finance Facility and Project Development -- have been designed for some time now but have not been fully established. The PPP Infrastructure Cell in the Planning Commission also needs to be supported and strengthened to plan and procure infrastructure with private sector investment. This arrangement with appropriate linkages and technical inputs from IPDF can be mandated to review all infrastructure projects for their viability regarding being channelled for private sector funding before going down the CDWP/ECNEC route in the Planning Commission. In many countries of the world, it actually has to be proved that infrastructure cannot be built with private sector investment before soliciting support for public financing such as is the case in South Africa and the highway sector in India.
An important caveat relates to capacity of the government to regulate. Infrastructure PPP's are complex arrangements involving a range of stakeholders -- public companies with official relationships with public institutions, transaction advisers that are procured by public agencies (IPDF in Pakistan's case), operators, service purchasers, sponsors and contractors; there are various sources of cash flows and revenues and organisational objectives that have to be handled. In view of this diversity and complexity, the success of these arrangements depends upon fiscal and legal prudence of governments and their ability and transparency to build safeguards and share risk in a manner that is mutually beneficial, both to the public and private sectors -- most importantly, to the population at large.
The other reason why the government needs to engage with the private sector is to enhance its capacity to deliver social services -- health and education in particular. Pakistan has traditionally engaged in service delivery in a 'welfare mode' assuming that it bears the responsibility, both of financing as well as providing services but has under-resourced its infrastructure and service delivery arrangements; on the other hand, the regulatory environment has allowed burgeoning of the private sector in these areas with minimal -- in some cases no -- regulatory controls. As a result of this and the disparity in incentives in the public vis-a-vis the private sector, a characteristic abnormality has emerged; this manifests itself in public functionaries working in the private sector, and closed and underperforming health facilities and schools. This limits the ability of the government to target welfare to its citizens.
In order to address these challenges, action is required at several levels -- in each, the role of the private sector is critical. In order to better manage public facilities, the government can rely on the private sector's entrepreneurial talent either by contracting out management or applying private sector management principles and incentivise public sector delivery and in order to expand the outreach of services, the government can involve non-state providers of services. The decision by governments to act as payers for welfare services and only partly have responsibility for direct delivery of services has important consequences for shaping a social policy. However, the government will have to develop a new set of institutional norms and regulatory frameworks and change the way they have been doing business in the past in order to achieve this important goal.
The discussion on infrastructure development and sustainable macroeconomic growth and effective targeting of welfare service becomes more important and challenging today than it has ever been in the past in view of the unique pattern of conflict and violence that has emerged in our deeply polarised environment. The need to maximise synergies between the public and private sectors has therefore become an imperative. However, the results of such actions will only be as good as governments can make them. Governments with limited capacities cannot remedy their deficiencies by seeking to yoke the private sector on their own uncertain cart.
The writer is the founding-president of the NGO think tank, Heartfile.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Heading towards victory
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Zafar Hilaly
Some weeks ago a divided establishment, a confused nation and a parliament cringing with fear and irresolution wallowed in self-pity. Everyone else was to blame for our pathetic plight beginning with malevolent India, Mossad agents and the ubiquitous CIA. Telegenic ex-ISI DGs (who unlike other soldiers neither die nor fade away) were on most channels warning that our nuclear assets were about to be pilfered by the Americans. Imran Khan and the Jamaat-e-Islami cried, "Free yourselves from the American yoke and the machinations of the Indians and Israelis. Stop fighting the Taliban, they are your brothers, hearken to us!" Mr Zardari's heir apparent, Nawaz Sharif, could not get himself to utter a bad word about the Taliban or a good word about the army. Old and aged Foreign Office colleagues reared on a rich diet of mindless hate, which took them far in their careers but the nation nowhere, were pouring out anti-US venom in articles and cameo appearances on TV.
For a horrible moment it seemed that they might have struck a cord with the public. Desperate, and at a loss for direction, some started paying heed to what Imran and the Jamaat were saying and wondering whether they might be right. Imran Khan's reverse swing, from the Americans to the Taliban, looked like the answer. Ziaul Haq's ilk, hitherto marginalised and bedraggled, felt resuscitated and warned of Armageddon. Prominent anchors prattled on in torrents. They ran amuck posing questions and, without waiting for the reply, themselves supplied the answers with a superior sneer. Dr Shahid Masood, always too clever by half, had a field day. Hamid Mir as usual only heard what he wanted to hear. Talat Hussein was drowning in righteous piety and Kamran Khan straddling all fences forgetting that he had only two legs.
And then, mercifully, out of the blue there emerged, not Mr Zardari, who was abroad as usual, but the Taliban themselves. They helped the public make up their minds, they helped the army do what it should have done much earlier, which was to fight, they encouraged parliament to acquire some spunk and the establishment to do likewise and they set Mr Zardari free to plan his next trip abroad. The rest is history.
Pakistan's victory in the present war against the Taliban is foreordained for no other reason than that the nation is finally united against the enemy. Of course, the Taliban frontline has yet to be eliminated, yes, there will be reverses and sadly the cost will be high in terms of lives lost and suffering; and there is always the possibility that the fickle public may recoil but the outcome is not in doubt. Pakistan's Pashtuns are too free spirited and savvy to mortgage their future to savage rural hillbillies. The pristine medievalism that the Taliban promise has few takers among the urban Pashtuns; and where the towns lead the rural community follows, in due course. Besides Pashtuns have a multitude of scores to settle for the murder, rape and pillage that the Taliban have inflicted on them in Swat and elsewhere.
The country that will emerge at the end of this process will be very different from the one that entered it. To prepare for such an eventuality a pitiless process of self-examination needs to begin. Every facet of our society must be scrutinised. Political, moral, economic and intellectual failings must be recognised and discussed frankly and then remedied. The onrushing crisis of demography has to be tackled. Pakistan is woefully short of water, food, electricity, schools, roads and infrastructure. We are deficit in everything but people and nuclear warheads which, alas, we can neither trade (not any longer) nor eat. No less crucially absent are a political structure that works and a system that can cope. While all these defects will have to be addressed, even as the war is being fought, some matters must take priority over others.
Foremost, without doubt, is the structure of the state. Pakistan cannot be run from Islamabad. There must be five power centres with the federal capital as the weakest. One centre may eventually lead to four countries. We are a voluntary association of peoples that are compelled to live together. The army exists to protect us not herd us together. East Pakistan and now Balochistan are lessons that we must heed. How such changes are enacted is for those entrusted with the task to suggest. The present constitution, suitably amended, provides ample leeway to bring this about.
Second, we cannot let our preferences trump our needs. We must engage with India wholeheartedly. War is not an option any longer hence neither is the acquisition of Kashmir by force. We must not bleed India, nor let the Indians bleed us by inveigling us into an arms' race. Minimum credible defence is a good policy not an excuse for increasing defence expenditure. And that will only be possible if the gap in our respective defence outlays is made up by constructive engagement with India so that each passing year reduces the prospect of conflict and lessens the need for expensive new weapon systems.
If India continues on its mad splurge of defence spending impervious to the suffering caused to the hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken Indians it does not mean that we should follow suit. Our people deserve better. Having wonderful battlements for a bankrupt nation is pointless.
If relations improve the burgeoning Indian economy will be eyeing the cost of production advantages that may exist in Pakistan, we should hope so. And, because it is pointless and absurd to cut your nose to spite your face, we should be sourcing raw materials and finished products from India rather than Australia. We can no longer let pride or prejudice determine economic policy or commercial decisions. And it is now, rather than in retrospect, that such policies should be judged and discarded. If no man is an island unto himself, in today's world this adage also applies to nations.
Third, a madressah policy must evolve and be implemented urgently. What changes are required in the curricula have been identified. The monitoring, supervision and ascertaining the source of funding of madressahs are relatively routine tasks. What is challenging is whether the government has the gumption to take on the fundos who will oppose such a move. Perhaps now is the best time to do so with the army in the field.
Finally, the Quaid had always maintained that Pakistan would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting with the people. And as Mr Jinnah said in a radio interview in 1947: "Nationality rather than religion is the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India." (Tahir Wasti in 'War against Taliban' (Dawn: May 21, 2009). Furthermore, in the same article, Wasti writes that "the statement often quoted as proof of the ideology that created Pakistan, 'Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Ilahlah Illallah' was in fact one that had never been raised from the platform of the Muslim League. An election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet during the 1945 elections to decide the partition of India, it was vehemently opposed by Jinnah himself at a meeting of the Muslim League held under his chairmanship in 1947. The incident is quoted in the memoirs of a member of the council of the Muslim League."
The sooner our leaders recognise that invoking God's help, while doing nothing themselves to earn it, will find no favour with Him or their public, the sooner Pakistan, now reduced to penury on a par with the most wretched nations of the earth, will be able to cope with the onrush of fanatical militant groups like the Taliban. The army is rightly tackling the enemy on a war footing; the government should tackle the country's myriad problems in the same mode.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Zafar Hilaly
Some weeks ago a divided establishment, a confused nation and a parliament cringing with fear and irresolution wallowed in self-pity. Everyone else was to blame for our pathetic plight beginning with malevolent India, Mossad agents and the ubiquitous CIA. Telegenic ex-ISI DGs (who unlike other soldiers neither die nor fade away) were on most channels warning that our nuclear assets were about to be pilfered by the Americans. Imran Khan and the Jamaat-e-Islami cried, "Free yourselves from the American yoke and the machinations of the Indians and Israelis. Stop fighting the Taliban, they are your brothers, hearken to us!" Mr Zardari's heir apparent, Nawaz Sharif, could not get himself to utter a bad word about the Taliban or a good word about the army. Old and aged Foreign Office colleagues reared on a rich diet of mindless hate, which took them far in their careers but the nation nowhere, were pouring out anti-US venom in articles and cameo appearances on TV.
For a horrible moment it seemed that they might have struck a cord with the public. Desperate, and at a loss for direction, some started paying heed to what Imran and the Jamaat were saying and wondering whether they might be right. Imran Khan's reverse swing, from the Americans to the Taliban, looked like the answer. Ziaul Haq's ilk, hitherto marginalised and bedraggled, felt resuscitated and warned of Armageddon. Prominent anchors prattled on in torrents. They ran amuck posing questions and, without waiting for the reply, themselves supplied the answers with a superior sneer. Dr Shahid Masood, always too clever by half, had a field day. Hamid Mir as usual only heard what he wanted to hear. Talat Hussein was drowning in righteous piety and Kamran Khan straddling all fences forgetting that he had only two legs.
And then, mercifully, out of the blue there emerged, not Mr Zardari, who was abroad as usual, but the Taliban themselves. They helped the public make up their minds, they helped the army do what it should have done much earlier, which was to fight, they encouraged parliament to acquire some spunk and the establishment to do likewise and they set Mr Zardari free to plan his next trip abroad. The rest is history.
Pakistan's victory in the present war against the Taliban is foreordained for no other reason than that the nation is finally united against the enemy. Of course, the Taliban frontline has yet to be eliminated, yes, there will be reverses and sadly the cost will be high in terms of lives lost and suffering; and there is always the possibility that the fickle public may recoil but the outcome is not in doubt. Pakistan's Pashtuns are too free spirited and savvy to mortgage their future to savage rural hillbillies. The pristine medievalism that the Taliban promise has few takers among the urban Pashtuns; and where the towns lead the rural community follows, in due course. Besides Pashtuns have a multitude of scores to settle for the murder, rape and pillage that the Taliban have inflicted on them in Swat and elsewhere.
The country that will emerge at the end of this process will be very different from the one that entered it. To prepare for such an eventuality a pitiless process of self-examination needs to begin. Every facet of our society must be scrutinised. Political, moral, economic and intellectual failings must be recognised and discussed frankly and then remedied. The onrushing crisis of demography has to be tackled. Pakistan is woefully short of water, food, electricity, schools, roads and infrastructure. We are deficit in everything but people and nuclear warheads which, alas, we can neither trade (not any longer) nor eat. No less crucially absent are a political structure that works and a system that can cope. While all these defects will have to be addressed, even as the war is being fought, some matters must take priority over others.
Foremost, without doubt, is the structure of the state. Pakistan cannot be run from Islamabad. There must be five power centres with the federal capital as the weakest. One centre may eventually lead to four countries. We are a voluntary association of peoples that are compelled to live together. The army exists to protect us not herd us together. East Pakistan and now Balochistan are lessons that we must heed. How such changes are enacted is for those entrusted with the task to suggest. The present constitution, suitably amended, provides ample leeway to bring this about.
Second, we cannot let our preferences trump our needs. We must engage with India wholeheartedly. War is not an option any longer hence neither is the acquisition of Kashmir by force. We must not bleed India, nor let the Indians bleed us by inveigling us into an arms' race. Minimum credible defence is a good policy not an excuse for increasing defence expenditure. And that will only be possible if the gap in our respective defence outlays is made up by constructive engagement with India so that each passing year reduces the prospect of conflict and lessens the need for expensive new weapon systems.
If India continues on its mad splurge of defence spending impervious to the suffering caused to the hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken Indians it does not mean that we should follow suit. Our people deserve better. Having wonderful battlements for a bankrupt nation is pointless.
If relations improve the burgeoning Indian economy will be eyeing the cost of production advantages that may exist in Pakistan, we should hope so. And, because it is pointless and absurd to cut your nose to spite your face, we should be sourcing raw materials and finished products from India rather than Australia. We can no longer let pride or prejudice determine economic policy or commercial decisions. And it is now, rather than in retrospect, that such policies should be judged and discarded. If no man is an island unto himself, in today's world this adage also applies to nations.
Third, a madressah policy must evolve and be implemented urgently. What changes are required in the curricula have been identified. The monitoring, supervision and ascertaining the source of funding of madressahs are relatively routine tasks. What is challenging is whether the government has the gumption to take on the fundos who will oppose such a move. Perhaps now is the best time to do so with the army in the field.
Finally, the Quaid had always maintained that Pakistan would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting with the people. And as Mr Jinnah said in a radio interview in 1947: "Nationality rather than religion is the basis for a separate homeland for the Muslims of India." (Tahir Wasti in 'War against Taliban' (Dawn: May 21, 2009). Furthermore, in the same article, Wasti writes that "the statement often quoted as proof of the ideology that created Pakistan, 'Pakistan ka matlab kya, La Ilahlah Illallah' was in fact one that had never been raised from the platform of the Muslim League. An election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet during the 1945 elections to decide the partition of India, it was vehemently opposed by Jinnah himself at a meeting of the Muslim League held under his chairmanship in 1947. The incident is quoted in the memoirs of a member of the council of the Muslim League."
The sooner our leaders recognise that invoking God's help, while doing nothing themselves to earn it, will find no favour with Him or their public, the sooner Pakistan, now reduced to penury on a par with the most wretched nations of the earth, will be able to cope with the onrush of fanatical militant groups like the Taliban. The army is rightly tackling the enemy on a war footing; the government should tackle the country's myriad problems in the same mode.
The writer is a former ambassador.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Better alive than dead?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
The ISPR has stated the victory over the Taliban would not be complete until the top leadership was defeated.
This of course makes sense. The dramatic story of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, who were eventually forced to surrender after a 25-year struggle as they were cornered in a piece of jungle barely larger than a football field, is one that ends too with the death of
Velupillai Prabhakaran the elusive leader who pioneered the suicide belt and from his jungle hide-out ordered a series of high-profile kidnappings, including that in 1991 of Indian Prime Minsiter Rajiv Gandhi. But in the context of Pakistan, where death is associated by extremists with martyrdom, the army suggestion that final victory can come with the killing of men like Maulana Fazlullah, who the ISPR says has already been targeted thrice, raises some questions.
This is also borne out by the chilling interview given to 'The Sunday Times' by the man known as 'Colonel Imam'. Between 1979 and 1989, Amir Sultan Tarar, himself trained at Fort Bragg and courted by US presidents, helped raise the mujahideen army that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan and then played a key role in raising the Taliban force that eventually over-ran the country. Men like Mullah Omar rank among his pupils. Like a handful of ISI officers, he is believed to have retained links with the militants even after his former US mentors changed their stance. Today, Tarar warns the Taliban can never be defeated and that each death will lead to more supporters rising to replace the man who fell. This may be an exaggeration, but it would be unwise to completely dismiss the warning. The building up of militants as martyrs has played a part in their phenomenal growth. This is true not only in the tribal areas, where the notion of an 'eye for eye' justice remains strongly rooted, but even in towns like Gujranwala where squares have been re-named for jihadi 'heroes' and which has seen a series of crimes motivated by extremism, including the 2007 murder of Punjab minister Zill-e-Huma, shot dead by a fanatic who opposed a role for women in public life. Similar sentiments can be detected in other places. Even in Lahore, there are those who seek still to defend the Taliban, and to blame the bombings in our cities on some plot hatched in Washington.
These factors mean that the state may need to rise above ideas of vengeance and revenge. Rather than deliberately attempting to kill Fazalullah and others who form the top tier of Taliban leadership, perhaps we need to focus on the need to bring them to courts and to lay out the truth before people. Too many facets of this truth remain hidden. People in Swat need a chance to talk openly of Fazalullah's own role in extortion; of rape and sodomy committed by his men. The refusal by state agencies to come clean is one reason why men like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are able to walk out unpunished after periods in detention, waving confidently to supporters and making speeches about 'moderation'. The stories told by 'Colonel Imam' testify to the close links that have existed between the state and the extremists. The existence of this nexus alone explains why men like Hafiz Saeed or Maulana Masood Azhar seem able to time and again escape the reach of the law without even facing charges. We need now to squarely confront this past; to talk about it openly and to admit to mistakes made. Otherwise the blackmail hold of militant leaders who threaten to divulge details of these ties in order to coerce the authorities into silence will remain intact and prevent the process of prosecution and justice that is at this point essential.
Through history, there are many examples of the manner in which death bestows immortality. We need to guard against this. The sight of men like Fazalullah and Muslim Khan in the dock would help dispel the myths that still persist. In Swat there is some evidence that these are being deliberately propagated, by the remnants of the Taliban, who speak of their 'escape' as evidence that God has sided with them. There is a need to challenge such assertions and the myths that will in time evolve.
More too needs to be done. Looked at it retrospect, there is no doubt the Afghan war that began with the Soviet invasion of that country in 1979 altered the contours of our society. General Ziaul Haq's opportunistic 'Islamization' and the US policies pursued at the time contributed to this. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has accepted this without further attempts to deny the past. But in the period that followed the dark Zia years, fundamental errors were made. After every war, an attempt to re-assimilate combatants is necessary. People engaged in fighting need to be re-introduced to the different pattern and priorities of life in times of peace, assisted in the role of re-adaption to changed circumstances. This requirement has been completely overlooked. The thousands of young fighters who were encouraged at various points to take up arms in the name of 'jihad' were never deprogrammed or offered other roles in society. In Swat, those who went with Sufi Mohammad Khan to Afghanistan in 2001 to fight US-led forces were in many cases simply released back into society when they returned as angry, defeated warriors some of whom had faced mistreatment in Afghan jails. These men, some no more than teenagers when they were recruited by Sufi, today form in many cases the ranks of the Taliban in the Valley.
We need a rehabilitation plan for them and for others who have since been herded into madressahs and other training institutions. For many of these boys, power stems only from the gun they see in the hands of others and yearn to hold themselves. A similar phenomenon was seen in Kashmir as militancy emerged in that once-peaceful region. A well-planned policy is needed to turn it back and to demonstrate to people that there are indeed other ways of getting ahead in life. Somehow, the cycle of vendetta and violence needs to be broken. Simplistic arguments being put forward say the people of NWFP, the families who lost loved ones in the current conflict will seek revenge. It is said suicide bombers include those who lost relatives as a result of armed action in Waziristan or elsewhere.
There may be some element of truth in these assertions. But what needs to be emphasized is the importance of moving beyond it, of lifting people up from their past and encouraging them to look towards the future. The government now needs to work towards carving out this future. For many people none currently seems to exist. Involving them in the process of creating one, by offering education, jobs, opportunity and at the same time dispensing justice in an open and fair manner may be the key to turning back the tide of militancy and ensuring it does not in the future return to flood our society.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
The ISPR has stated the victory over the Taliban would not be complete until the top leadership was defeated.
This of course makes sense. The dramatic story of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, who were eventually forced to surrender after a 25-year struggle as they were cornered in a piece of jungle barely larger than a football field, is one that ends too with the death of
Velupillai Prabhakaran the elusive leader who pioneered the suicide belt and from his jungle hide-out ordered a series of high-profile kidnappings, including that in 1991 of Indian Prime Minsiter Rajiv Gandhi. But in the context of Pakistan, where death is associated by extremists with martyrdom, the army suggestion that final victory can come with the killing of men like Maulana Fazlullah, who the ISPR says has already been targeted thrice, raises some questions.
This is also borne out by the chilling interview given to 'The Sunday Times' by the man known as 'Colonel Imam'. Between 1979 and 1989, Amir Sultan Tarar, himself trained at Fort Bragg and courted by US presidents, helped raise the mujahideen army that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan and then played a key role in raising the Taliban force that eventually over-ran the country. Men like Mullah Omar rank among his pupils. Like a handful of ISI officers, he is believed to have retained links with the militants even after his former US mentors changed their stance. Today, Tarar warns the Taliban can never be defeated and that each death will lead to more supporters rising to replace the man who fell. This may be an exaggeration, but it would be unwise to completely dismiss the warning. The building up of militants as martyrs has played a part in their phenomenal growth. This is true not only in the tribal areas, where the notion of an 'eye for eye' justice remains strongly rooted, but even in towns like Gujranwala where squares have been re-named for jihadi 'heroes' and which has seen a series of crimes motivated by extremism, including the 2007 murder of Punjab minister Zill-e-Huma, shot dead by a fanatic who opposed a role for women in public life. Similar sentiments can be detected in other places. Even in Lahore, there are those who seek still to defend the Taliban, and to blame the bombings in our cities on some plot hatched in Washington.
These factors mean that the state may need to rise above ideas of vengeance and revenge. Rather than deliberately attempting to kill Fazalullah and others who form the top tier of Taliban leadership, perhaps we need to focus on the need to bring them to courts and to lay out the truth before people. Too many facets of this truth remain hidden. People in Swat need a chance to talk openly of Fazalullah's own role in extortion; of rape and sodomy committed by his men. The refusal by state agencies to come clean is one reason why men like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are able to walk out unpunished after periods in detention, waving confidently to supporters and making speeches about 'moderation'. The stories told by 'Colonel Imam' testify to the close links that have existed between the state and the extremists. The existence of this nexus alone explains why men like Hafiz Saeed or Maulana Masood Azhar seem able to time and again escape the reach of the law without even facing charges. We need now to squarely confront this past; to talk about it openly and to admit to mistakes made. Otherwise the blackmail hold of militant leaders who threaten to divulge details of these ties in order to coerce the authorities into silence will remain intact and prevent the process of prosecution and justice that is at this point essential.
Through history, there are many examples of the manner in which death bestows immortality. We need to guard against this. The sight of men like Fazalullah and Muslim Khan in the dock would help dispel the myths that still persist. In Swat there is some evidence that these are being deliberately propagated, by the remnants of the Taliban, who speak of their 'escape' as evidence that God has sided with them. There is a need to challenge such assertions and the myths that will in time evolve.
More too needs to be done. Looked at it retrospect, there is no doubt the Afghan war that began with the Soviet invasion of that country in 1979 altered the contours of our society. General Ziaul Haq's opportunistic 'Islamization' and the US policies pursued at the time contributed to this. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has accepted this without further attempts to deny the past. But in the period that followed the dark Zia years, fundamental errors were made. After every war, an attempt to re-assimilate combatants is necessary. People engaged in fighting need to be re-introduced to the different pattern and priorities of life in times of peace, assisted in the role of re-adaption to changed circumstances. This requirement has been completely overlooked. The thousands of young fighters who were encouraged at various points to take up arms in the name of 'jihad' were never deprogrammed or offered other roles in society. In Swat, those who went with Sufi Mohammad Khan to Afghanistan in 2001 to fight US-led forces were in many cases simply released back into society when they returned as angry, defeated warriors some of whom had faced mistreatment in Afghan jails. These men, some no more than teenagers when they were recruited by Sufi, today form in many cases the ranks of the Taliban in the Valley.
We need a rehabilitation plan for them and for others who have since been herded into madressahs and other training institutions. For many of these boys, power stems only from the gun they see in the hands of others and yearn to hold themselves. A similar phenomenon was seen in Kashmir as militancy emerged in that once-peaceful region. A well-planned policy is needed to turn it back and to demonstrate to people that there are indeed other ways of getting ahead in life. Somehow, the cycle of vendetta and violence needs to be broken. Simplistic arguments being put forward say the people of NWFP, the families who lost loved ones in the current conflict will seek revenge. It is said suicide bombers include those who lost relatives as a result of armed action in Waziristan or elsewhere.
There may be some element of truth in these assertions. But what needs to be emphasized is the importance of moving beyond it, of lifting people up from their past and encouraging them to look towards the future. The government now needs to work towards carving out this future. For many people none currently seems to exist. Involving them in the process of creating one, by offering education, jobs, opportunity and at the same time dispensing justice in an open and fair manner may be the key to turning back the tide of militancy and ensuring it does not in the future return to flood our society.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Avoiding a quagmire?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
The magnificent performance of the rank and file of the Army fighting the counter-insurgency in Swat is no surprise. Whether in Kashmir in 1947-48, Dir in 1958 and 1976, the Rann of Kutch, occupied Kashmir (Operation Gibraltar) and later in the full-fledged war of 1965, during the 1971 war, in the Balochistan counter-insurgency in 1973-5, Siachen continuously since 1985, in Kargil in 1998 and in FATA since 2004 (and many more small conflicts that would take many more pages), officers and men have kept their commitment.
The average officer-to-soldier ratio in combat fatalities during conventional operations being 1:17 or 1:18 in most Armies represents the command structure at the field level functioning adequately, young officers (including lieutenant colonels) leading rather than sending men to their deaths. In the Pakistan Army and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), the superior 1:10 or 1:11 average through many conflicts means that the young officers are far more enthusiastic at leading from the front in the face of fire. This ratio is also usually higher among commandos (Special Forces).
The 100-plus fatalities to-date reveals a disproportionate number of officers in combat-related deaths, the ratio in Swat reportedly 1:5 or 1:6 being unusually high. Sons of a number of ex-servicemen (including friends of mine) have given the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, this is a great indication (and vindication) of the moral fibre of this Army. One cannot eulogise such men, fathers and sons, in mere words.
The operational plan is sound. The concept of overwhelming force was applied, and from concentric directions. Always a difficult proposition, the problems is force-multiplied in mountainous terrain without adequate heliborne mobility. What was achieved without such capability is remarkable, a tribute to the outstanding pilots of Army Aviation. The Taliban did not expect the Army to move so swiftly from different directions and with such determination, particularly against dominating heights where they were well dug in. To limit collateral damage in the towns, the Army took the calculated risk that the Taliban would leave their fortified positions in built-up areas and come and attack them. This was a fatal miscalculation, rather wishful thinking, compounded by the fact that road exits and mountain passes were not all blocked, possibly due to paucity of human and equipment resources. That is where a shortage of helicopters was critical, but it does not seem to have been militarily appreciated. This permitted a large number of Taliban to melt away, mostly in pickup trucks, with time and vehicular capacity to even take away their generators.
It is of vital importance when going after insurgents to target their leadership, locating and eliminating leaders like Fazlullah and Shah Doran. The inability to eliminate their top leadership is most probably due to inadequate intelligence rather than intent. With the Army's presence in some strength giving the locals confidence, optimum use must be made of information gleaned from all sources. Unless the hardcore Taliban are eliminated they will always have the capacity and potential to come back in strength.
People with credibility and capability are needed to reach a sound assessment. Two outstanding veterans of different vintage with a track record of being blunt helped answer my queries. Both readily admitted that the Taliban were far better trained, equipped and motivated than the opponents they faced during their period. Capt (later Brig) Manto was the SSG company commander in the Dir operations in 1958. He took over Maj Ziauddin Abbasi Shaheed's Bravo Squadron (Sept 11) in Guides Cavalry during war and commanded 26 Cavalry in battle in Chamb in 1971. In 1976 as CO 36 Baloch Lt Col (later Lt Gen) Lehrasab, who entered occupied Kashmir as part of Operation Gibraltar in 1965 as a lieutenant and was wounded grievously, being the last to be medically evacuated from East Pakistan in 1971, took the surrender of tribals in Dir.
A well planned operation is falling short because of shortage of adequate intelligence and heliborne resources. We should brace ourselves for long-drawn guerrilla warfare that could tie the Army down while eating away the moral and material resources of the country. For a third opinion (and I deliberately did not turn to another genuine hero, my old CO Brig Mohammad Taj, SJ and Bar, for reasons that could have been embarrassing to the ISI), but someone who (like his course-mate Lehrasab) has shed blood for this country, his rifle company being almost wiped out, refusing to surrender when completely surrounded in East Pakistan in December 1971. Grievously wounded, Maj (later Brig) Akram woke up days later in captivity in an Indian Army Hospital. Nobody could recognise this hero's emaciated self when he walked out of captivity in 1973. Presently helping in relief operations deep inside Malakand, Brig (Retd) Akram sent me an SMS that about sums it all up. "Our security agencies are still doing a lousy job. They virtually have no information on extremists' leadership. Operations going very slow, lack of aggressiveness and absence of coordination is visible. Contents of daily sitrep (situation reports) as if fighting (is) taking place between two regular forces. More when we meet!"
Instead of turning to the motivated with a gift of the gab, Kayani could take counsel from the likes of Manto, Lehrasab and Akram, and many others like him who have really fought (and not just talked the good talk) for this country, even shed blood for it. Their experience and sacrifice may give you that cutting edge in a fight that we must win. And maybe spare a thought for those fathers whose sons have already given the ultimate sacrifice for their country as was their wont and earnest desire. Only superior generalship and true rendition of the cause, not pandering subservience to the Constitution as it stands today, a controversial document mutilated by the black NRO, will make their supreme sacrifice worth the blood they have spilt for this nation.
The writer is a defence and political
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
The magnificent performance of the rank and file of the Army fighting the counter-insurgency in Swat is no surprise. Whether in Kashmir in 1947-48, Dir in 1958 and 1976, the Rann of Kutch, occupied Kashmir (Operation Gibraltar) and later in the full-fledged war of 1965, during the 1971 war, in the Balochistan counter-insurgency in 1973-5, Siachen continuously since 1985, in Kargil in 1998 and in FATA since 2004 (and many more small conflicts that would take many more pages), officers and men have kept their commitment.
The average officer-to-soldier ratio in combat fatalities during conventional operations being 1:17 or 1:18 in most Armies represents the command structure at the field level functioning adequately, young officers (including lieutenant colonels) leading rather than sending men to their deaths. In the Pakistan Army and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), the superior 1:10 or 1:11 average through many conflicts means that the young officers are far more enthusiastic at leading from the front in the face of fire. This ratio is also usually higher among commandos (Special Forces).
The 100-plus fatalities to-date reveals a disproportionate number of officers in combat-related deaths, the ratio in Swat reportedly 1:5 or 1:6 being unusually high. Sons of a number of ex-servicemen (including friends of mine) have given the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, this is a great indication (and vindication) of the moral fibre of this Army. One cannot eulogise such men, fathers and sons, in mere words.
The operational plan is sound. The concept of overwhelming force was applied, and from concentric directions. Always a difficult proposition, the problems is force-multiplied in mountainous terrain without adequate heliborne mobility. What was achieved without such capability is remarkable, a tribute to the outstanding pilots of Army Aviation. The Taliban did not expect the Army to move so swiftly from different directions and with such determination, particularly against dominating heights where they were well dug in. To limit collateral damage in the towns, the Army took the calculated risk that the Taliban would leave their fortified positions in built-up areas and come and attack them. This was a fatal miscalculation, rather wishful thinking, compounded by the fact that road exits and mountain passes were not all blocked, possibly due to paucity of human and equipment resources. That is where a shortage of helicopters was critical, but it does not seem to have been militarily appreciated. This permitted a large number of Taliban to melt away, mostly in pickup trucks, with time and vehicular capacity to even take away their generators.
It is of vital importance when going after insurgents to target their leadership, locating and eliminating leaders like Fazlullah and Shah Doran. The inability to eliminate their top leadership is most probably due to inadequate intelligence rather than intent. With the Army's presence in some strength giving the locals confidence, optimum use must be made of information gleaned from all sources. Unless the hardcore Taliban are eliminated they will always have the capacity and potential to come back in strength.
People with credibility and capability are needed to reach a sound assessment. Two outstanding veterans of different vintage with a track record of being blunt helped answer my queries. Both readily admitted that the Taliban were far better trained, equipped and motivated than the opponents they faced during their period. Capt (later Brig) Manto was the SSG company commander in the Dir operations in 1958. He took over Maj Ziauddin Abbasi Shaheed's Bravo Squadron (Sept 11) in Guides Cavalry during war and commanded 26 Cavalry in battle in Chamb in 1971. In 1976 as CO 36 Baloch Lt Col (later Lt Gen) Lehrasab, who entered occupied Kashmir as part of Operation Gibraltar in 1965 as a lieutenant and was wounded grievously, being the last to be medically evacuated from East Pakistan in 1971, took the surrender of tribals in Dir.
A well planned operation is falling short because of shortage of adequate intelligence and heliborne resources. We should brace ourselves for long-drawn guerrilla warfare that could tie the Army down while eating away the moral and material resources of the country. For a third opinion (and I deliberately did not turn to another genuine hero, my old CO Brig Mohammad Taj, SJ and Bar, for reasons that could have been embarrassing to the ISI), but someone who (like his course-mate Lehrasab) has shed blood for this country, his rifle company being almost wiped out, refusing to surrender when completely surrounded in East Pakistan in December 1971. Grievously wounded, Maj (later Brig) Akram woke up days later in captivity in an Indian Army Hospital. Nobody could recognise this hero's emaciated self when he walked out of captivity in 1973. Presently helping in relief operations deep inside Malakand, Brig (Retd) Akram sent me an SMS that about sums it all up. "Our security agencies are still doing a lousy job. They virtually have no information on extremists' leadership. Operations going very slow, lack of aggressiveness and absence of coordination is visible. Contents of daily sitrep (situation reports) as if fighting (is) taking place between two regular forces. More when we meet!"
Instead of turning to the motivated with a gift of the gab, Kayani could take counsel from the likes of Manto, Lehrasab and Akram, and many others like him who have really fought (and not just talked the good talk) for this country, even shed blood for it. Their experience and sacrifice may give you that cutting edge in a fight that we must win. And maybe spare a thought for those fathers whose sons have already given the ultimate sacrifice for their country as was their wont and earnest desire. Only superior generalship and true rendition of the cause, not pandering subservience to the Constitution as it stands today, a controversial document mutilated by the black NRO, will make their supreme sacrifice worth the blood they have spilt for this nation.
The writer is a defence and political
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Waziristan -- final battle?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Asad Munir
The Wazirs are a more warlike Pakhtoon tribe than the Durranis, Lodhis, Suris and Ghalzais who ruled the subcontinent. They inhabit South and North Waziristan in Pakistan and Birmal, Matun districts in Afghanistan. Wazirs preferred a life of isolation, or they could have established a dynasty in the subcontinent.
In 1979, when the Russian forces entered Afghanistan. The Americans found an opportunity to contain communism and settle scores with the USSR. Billions of dollars were pumped in to make Pakhtoons fight against Pakhtoons. The Pakhtoons had a rich culture of tolerance, openness, moderation, music, poetry and art. In the NWFP and FATA, Sikhs, Hindus and other minorities enjoyed equal rights. Never had any communal riots occurred. Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully in Afridi and Orakzai Tirah for ages, where no Pakistani official could enter until 2002. Both North and South Waziristan were used as bases for the Afghan jihad. A few local youths, influenced by the jihadis, joined them to fight against the Russians. Though the impact of jihad, on the Pakhtoon culture of Waziristan, was not very significant, the seeds of extremism were sown in these areas.
The Durand Line divided tribes in six tribal agencies .The line, since not demarcated on ground, was never considered as border by tribal. Cross border, movement was a routine. The shinwaris of Landikotal would go to Jalalabad to play football matches. Tribal from Pakistan were member of afghan parliament. Political dynamics of Afghanistan always have a strong impact on FATA. In September 1996, Taliban captured Kabul. Inspired by their success, local Taliban became active in Mir Ali Tehsil of North Waziristan by 1998. Utmanzai Wazir and Dawar are the main tribes, while Kharsins, Siadgis, Gurbaz, and Malakshi Mahsud also reside in North Waziristan. Few men from these tribes joined afghan Taliban to fight against Northern Alliance.Baitullah Mahsud was one of them. His father, Mulana Haroon, was imam Masjid in Bannu Cantonment. Baitullah was born and brought up in Bannu. He got religious education from a madrassa in Daud Shah, Bannu and for some time he studied in a Miranshah madrassa. He remained an Imam Masjid in Mati Mamman Khel village in Jani Khel area of FR Bannu. After 9/11, he moved to his ancestral area of Shabi khel Mahsud in South Waziristan.
Foreign militants entered Waziristan in March 2002 in the aftermath of operation ANACONDA, conducted by NATO forces in Shahi Kot area of Paktiya province. Baitullah was then not well known in Waziristan. Shelter to foreign militant was provided by Ahmadzai Wazirs of Wana. Nek Mohammad,Sharif Khan,Noor Ul Islam,Omer were the prominent facilitators.Ahmedzai Wazir and Mahsuds are the main tribes of South Waziristan,while Dotanis,Suleman Khel and Urmers also inhabit the area.Mahsuds and Ahmedzai wazirs have never enjoyed cordial relations.. Since foreign militants were mainly in Wazir areas therefore to isolate them, an agreement was inked with Baitullah Mahsud in February 2005. The deal made, was in good faith, to isolate Ahmadzai Wazirs and to ensure that Biatullah men do not conduct operation across the border. During the next 2 years Baitullah consolidated, his position .He formed Tahreek E Taliban Pakistan in December 2007, with the support of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda's leadership. He was declared Amir of TTP.
The army's final battle is likely to be fought against Baitullah in South Waziristan. The remnants of terrorist from Swat,Mohmand,Orakzai,Kurram,Darra, are likely to fall back to South Waziristan.The elements of banned jiahadi organizations, lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish and other jihadis are likely to join this battle for their survival. Timely and successful completion of the Malakand operation will have immense effects on future operations. Extraordinary security arrangements should be made to make the job of suicide bombers difficult. The nation is already geared up for the cause of the IDPs. A quick, transparent and efficient mechanism for reconstruction of conflict areas should be designed and executed. Pakistan is at war and we must win it for our future generations to enable them to live a life of their choice, especially for the daughters of this nation.
The writer is a retired brigadier.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Asad Munir
The Wazirs are a more warlike Pakhtoon tribe than the Durranis, Lodhis, Suris and Ghalzais who ruled the subcontinent. They inhabit South and North Waziristan in Pakistan and Birmal, Matun districts in Afghanistan. Wazirs preferred a life of isolation, or they could have established a dynasty in the subcontinent.
In 1979, when the Russian forces entered Afghanistan. The Americans found an opportunity to contain communism and settle scores with the USSR. Billions of dollars were pumped in to make Pakhtoons fight against Pakhtoons. The Pakhtoons had a rich culture of tolerance, openness, moderation, music, poetry and art. In the NWFP and FATA, Sikhs, Hindus and other minorities enjoyed equal rights. Never had any communal riots occurred. Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully in Afridi and Orakzai Tirah for ages, where no Pakistani official could enter until 2002. Both North and South Waziristan were used as bases for the Afghan jihad. A few local youths, influenced by the jihadis, joined them to fight against the Russians. Though the impact of jihad, on the Pakhtoon culture of Waziristan, was not very significant, the seeds of extremism were sown in these areas.
The Durand Line divided tribes in six tribal agencies .The line, since not demarcated on ground, was never considered as border by tribal. Cross border, movement was a routine. The shinwaris of Landikotal would go to Jalalabad to play football matches. Tribal from Pakistan were member of afghan parliament. Political dynamics of Afghanistan always have a strong impact on FATA. In September 1996, Taliban captured Kabul. Inspired by their success, local Taliban became active in Mir Ali Tehsil of North Waziristan by 1998. Utmanzai Wazir and Dawar are the main tribes, while Kharsins, Siadgis, Gurbaz, and Malakshi Mahsud also reside in North Waziristan. Few men from these tribes joined afghan Taliban to fight against Northern Alliance.Baitullah Mahsud was one of them. His father, Mulana Haroon, was imam Masjid in Bannu Cantonment. Baitullah was born and brought up in Bannu. He got religious education from a madrassa in Daud Shah, Bannu and for some time he studied in a Miranshah madrassa. He remained an Imam Masjid in Mati Mamman Khel village in Jani Khel area of FR Bannu. After 9/11, he moved to his ancestral area of Shabi khel Mahsud in South Waziristan.
Foreign militants entered Waziristan in March 2002 in the aftermath of operation ANACONDA, conducted by NATO forces in Shahi Kot area of Paktiya province. Baitullah was then not well known in Waziristan. Shelter to foreign militant was provided by Ahmadzai Wazirs of Wana. Nek Mohammad,Sharif Khan,Noor Ul Islam,Omer were the prominent facilitators.Ahmedzai Wazir and Mahsuds are the main tribes of South Waziristan,while Dotanis,Suleman Khel and Urmers also inhabit the area.Mahsuds and Ahmedzai wazirs have never enjoyed cordial relations.. Since foreign militants were mainly in Wazir areas therefore to isolate them, an agreement was inked with Baitullah Mahsud in February 2005. The deal made, was in good faith, to isolate Ahmadzai Wazirs and to ensure that Biatullah men do not conduct operation across the border. During the next 2 years Baitullah consolidated, his position .He formed Tahreek E Taliban Pakistan in December 2007, with the support of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda's leadership. He was declared Amir of TTP.
The army's final battle is likely to be fought against Baitullah in South Waziristan. The remnants of terrorist from Swat,Mohmand,Orakzai,Kurram,Darra, are likely to fall back to South Waziristan.The elements of banned jiahadi organizations, lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish and other jihadis are likely to join this battle for their survival. Timely and successful completion of the Malakand operation will have immense effects on future operations. Extraordinary security arrangements should be made to make the job of suicide bombers difficult. The nation is already geared up for the cause of the IDPs. A quick, transparent and efficient mechanism for reconstruction of conflict areas should be designed and executed. Pakistan is at war and we must win it for our future generations to enable them to live a life of their choice, especially for the daughters of this nation.
The writer is a retired brigadier.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Victimising labour
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Umer A Chaudhry
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani reiterated expressed his government's resolve on May 30 to revise anti-workers legislation. But an ugly episode unfolded in Lahore. A labour leader associated with the Labour Party of Pakistan and the National Trade Union Federation, was arrested from Model Town on May 25 on charges of dacoity that had allegedly taken place in 2006. His real crime, however, was that he assisted the disorganised workers of a firm to form their first trade union.
When the prime minister announced his government's plan to form a new labour policy that will end all anti-workers legislation, the labour leader was presented in handcuffs at the court of the senior civil judge and the judicial magistrate at Model Town Courts for the extension of physical remand. Upon hearing the issue in detail, the judge held that the charges of dacoity against the accused had not been proved. He was discharged and the police was ordered to remove his handcuffs. However, in utter disregard of the court's order, the police refused to remove them and rearrested him. A new case was framed against him but he was finally able to win his freedom through the judiciary on June 1. However, no action has been taken against the harassment, torture and humiliation that he went through.
The man's ordeal raises some critical questions. What are the legal safeguards available to workers to limit the arbitrary power used against them when they attempt to build trade unions in their factories and industries? Without these issues being taken up, any labour policy proposed by the government will remain incomplete.
The difficulties faced by the workers in organising into trade unions cannot be over-emphasised. Leaving aside a multitude of legal lacunas in the statutes for another time, the fundamental problem lies in lack of any support to workers who peacefully gather on a platform to agitate for their demands. There is no visible and effective remedy available to the ordinary workers that can protect them from the heavy-handedness of the law enforcement agencies.
It is a fact that an overwhelming proportion of the labour force in Pakistan is highly disorganized. The promotion of "contract labour" and "temporary workers" in the industry and the gradual de-regularisation of the labour market in accordance with neo-liberal edicts have turned workers into disposable commodities. The problem is further exacerbated by the week political culture, which does not help promote unity amongst the victimised classes.
Furthermore, the Pakistani state has historically handled the workers' participation in politics very negatively. Working class organisations have been suppressed with a heavy hand, be it the times of General Ayub, when large trade union federations were banned and brutally crushed, the populist government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who sent various labour leader for pilgrimages, General Zia-ul-Haq's draconian regime when workers were brutally massacred in Multan, or the "enlightened moderation" of General Pervez Musharraf when PTCL were taken over by the army for privatisation in the face of workers' demonstration.
It goes without saying that freedom of association is not only a fundamental right but the lifeblood of democracy. There can be no conception of democracy without political associations, popular organisations, student bodies, and workers' unions. The government has to realise that the truth of its democratic credentials lie not in how long and well they can talk about democracy in their interviews, but the concrete steps that they take to allow the citizenry to form democratic institutions and bodies.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Umer A Chaudhry
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani reiterated expressed his government's resolve on May 30 to revise anti-workers legislation. But an ugly episode unfolded in Lahore. A labour leader associated with the Labour Party of Pakistan and the National Trade Union Federation, was arrested from Model Town on May 25 on charges of dacoity that had allegedly taken place in 2006. His real crime, however, was that he assisted the disorganised workers of a firm to form their first trade union.
When the prime minister announced his government's plan to form a new labour policy that will end all anti-workers legislation, the labour leader was presented in handcuffs at the court of the senior civil judge and the judicial magistrate at Model Town Courts for the extension of physical remand. Upon hearing the issue in detail, the judge held that the charges of dacoity against the accused had not been proved. He was discharged and the police was ordered to remove his handcuffs. However, in utter disregard of the court's order, the police refused to remove them and rearrested him. A new case was framed against him but he was finally able to win his freedom through the judiciary on June 1. However, no action has been taken against the harassment, torture and humiliation that he went through.
The man's ordeal raises some critical questions. What are the legal safeguards available to workers to limit the arbitrary power used against them when they attempt to build trade unions in their factories and industries? Without these issues being taken up, any labour policy proposed by the government will remain incomplete.
The difficulties faced by the workers in organising into trade unions cannot be over-emphasised. Leaving aside a multitude of legal lacunas in the statutes for another time, the fundamental problem lies in lack of any support to workers who peacefully gather on a platform to agitate for their demands. There is no visible and effective remedy available to the ordinary workers that can protect them from the heavy-handedness of the law enforcement agencies.
It is a fact that an overwhelming proportion of the labour force in Pakistan is highly disorganized. The promotion of "contract labour" and "temporary workers" in the industry and the gradual de-regularisation of the labour market in accordance with neo-liberal edicts have turned workers into disposable commodities. The problem is further exacerbated by the week political culture, which does not help promote unity amongst the victimised classes.
Furthermore, the Pakistani state has historically handled the workers' participation in politics very negatively. Working class organisations have been suppressed with a heavy hand, be it the times of General Ayub, when large trade union federations were banned and brutally crushed, the populist government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who sent various labour leader for pilgrimages, General Zia-ul-Haq's draconian regime when workers were brutally massacred in Multan, or the "enlightened moderation" of General Pervez Musharraf when PTCL were taken over by the army for privatisation in the face of workers' demonstration.
It goes without saying that freedom of association is not only a fundamental right but the lifeblood of democracy. There can be no conception of democracy without political associations, popular organisations, student bodies, and workers' unions. The government has to realise that the truth of its democratic credentials lie not in how long and well they can talk about democracy in their interviews, but the concrete steps that they take to allow the citizenry to form democratic institutions and bodies.
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A garbled sense of history
By Jawed Naqvi
Thursday, 11 Jun, 2009
PRESIDENT Obama visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reach out to Muslims. One country is known for its strict religious code, the other for its belly dancers.
If there is any clash of civilisations anywhere in the world it should be happening here. However, both countries happen to be the closest Arab allies of the United States. And they are extremely friendly with each other too.
Yet, in his address from the fabled precincts of Cairos Al Azhar university, Obama spoke of great tensions that exist between the United States and Muslims around the world. Which Muslims are not with the United States? Conversely, which Muslims are? After all, the entire range of Muslims from the fundamentalist rulers of Saudi Arabia to the secular despots of Egypt are with the United States.
As the West sees him, President Hosni Mubarak fits the bill as a modernist. He has put his Islamist rivals in jail. He had to. It was one of them who killed his predecessor at an army parade. In Mubaraks territory girls go to school, thus fulfilling a key requirement for measuring up to an ideal Muslim society as Obama visualises it.
Had the US president visited the temple of Abu Simbel in Aswan he would have found an informative plaque outside this miraculously well-preserved pharaohnic monument. It is a dedication by President Nasser, in which he invokes Allahs blessings to preserve the pre-Islamic heritage of Egypt. Indias Lal Kishan Advani would do well to learn something from the message. The Americans dislike Nasser, even though they stood by him in the Suez crisis. Mubarak they embrace.
Why? Nasser the liberal was popular with the Arab masses. He was a towering leader of the wider Non-Aligned Movement. Mubarak the modernist cuts a sorry figure with the masses at home and with the Third World abroad. The American president would have done well to bear this in mind during his well-meaning sojourn to communicate with Muslims. The complexities of Islam and its wide variety of followers run deeper than the Cairo-Riyadh nexus. Majaaz Lucknavi was an Urdu poet who once fell into an Obama-like trap due to his less than complete knowledge of Hinduism.
During the communal riots that followed Indias partition in 1947, Majaaz together with a clutch of progressive writers was ordered by their hosts in Bombay to shift to a Hindu dharmashala that was considered a relatively safe sanctuary. The chief priest had been told that the new guests, though they were communists of Muslim lineage, were Hindus. To that end they were given suitably acceptable names.
Brandishing his knowledge of the Hindu system, soon after settling down Majaaz bragged to the priest that he belonged to a family of Awadhs Saryupari Brahmins. This was, of course, totally unnecessary since nobody had asked for that particular bit of information. At which point the priest got seriously interested. He wanted to know Majaazs exact gotra, a finer subdivision in the caste heap. Foxed by the unanticipated query, Majaaz gave up the charade, but not before exclaiming aloud: Maaz Allah, isme gotra bhi hota hai? (Oh God, there are gotras in this too?)
Obama spoke of Shias and Sunnis as examples of adversaries in the Muslim world. This is the opposite of my experience in Iran, notionally a Shia country. I landed at Tehrans Mehrabad airport in the middle of 1980, brazenly confident that I would get an interview with Ayatollah Khomeini. The argument was naively simple. If Oriana Fallaci could get a famous audience with the old cleric, then why not a Shia khabarnigar. Thats how I tried to project myself in Iran. Forget the Shia bit, smiled my host from the daily Keyhaan. Are you a Muslim or not? Who knows but that might help.
The Iranians (rightly) concluded I wasnt qualified for an exclusive interview with their Imam so they threw me into a gaggle of firebrand Muslim journalists who were shortlisted to visit him socially. The lucky journalists turned out to be mostly Sunnis, quite a few of them from South Africa.
Did the US president pause to consider how many Shia-Sunni couples and their children were destroyed by the American invasion of Iraq? This is not to deny that there are divisions. And yet the Muslim social skein is not any more complex than the myriad divisions that exist among Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jews and communist groups. Reducing the argument to a Shia-Sunni conflict was simplistic if politically useful since it suits the rulers in Cairo and Riyadh better.
In the final analysis though these fine or deep divisions are quite useless. Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago pieced together a profile of those who died in suicide missions against western targets in Lebanon since the 1980s. He threw up starling conclusions.
Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the [Hezbollah] bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birthplaces, and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamist fundamentalists; 27 were from Leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a woman secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
Whether it was his unstated intention or not, President Obamas friendly demeanour in Cairo did help in weaning away crucial votes from Hezbollah in this weeks elections, although even here it would be wrong to ignore the fact that Hasan Nasrallahs Christian allies also suffered losses. Similarly, it cannot be ruled out that this weeks presidential elections in Iran would be considerably influenced too by Obamas carefully soft and civilised tone.
What Obama should have tried to understand and also explained to his audiences was that all his main sources of headache in the so-called Islamic world come from the areas that practice democracy. Take clerics in Lebanon or Iran. Or consider Hamas in Occupied Palestine or the radical Muslim groups in Algeria. They are all popularly elected. The only democracy that never does any wrong, as far as the West is concerned, is Israel.
I am glad Malia and Sasha did not accompany their father to Cairo. They would have learnt all the wrong lessons from President Obama. They were better off visiting the Eiffel Tower with their mother which, given the circumstances, was the more sensible thing to do.
The writer is Dawns correspondent in Delhi.
By Jawed Naqvi
Thursday, 11 Jun, 2009
PRESIDENT Obama visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reach out to Muslims. One country is known for its strict religious code, the other for its belly dancers.
If there is any clash of civilisations anywhere in the world it should be happening here. However, both countries happen to be the closest Arab allies of the United States. And they are extremely friendly with each other too.
Yet, in his address from the fabled precincts of Cairos Al Azhar university, Obama spoke of great tensions that exist between the United States and Muslims around the world. Which Muslims are not with the United States? Conversely, which Muslims are? After all, the entire range of Muslims from the fundamentalist rulers of Saudi Arabia to the secular despots of Egypt are with the United States.
As the West sees him, President Hosni Mubarak fits the bill as a modernist. He has put his Islamist rivals in jail. He had to. It was one of them who killed his predecessor at an army parade. In Mubaraks territory girls go to school, thus fulfilling a key requirement for measuring up to an ideal Muslim society as Obama visualises it.
Had the US president visited the temple of Abu Simbel in Aswan he would have found an informative plaque outside this miraculously well-preserved pharaohnic monument. It is a dedication by President Nasser, in which he invokes Allahs blessings to preserve the pre-Islamic heritage of Egypt. Indias Lal Kishan Advani would do well to learn something from the message. The Americans dislike Nasser, even though they stood by him in the Suez crisis. Mubarak they embrace.
Why? Nasser the liberal was popular with the Arab masses. He was a towering leader of the wider Non-Aligned Movement. Mubarak the modernist cuts a sorry figure with the masses at home and with the Third World abroad. The American president would have done well to bear this in mind during his well-meaning sojourn to communicate with Muslims. The complexities of Islam and its wide variety of followers run deeper than the Cairo-Riyadh nexus. Majaaz Lucknavi was an Urdu poet who once fell into an Obama-like trap due to his less than complete knowledge of Hinduism.
During the communal riots that followed Indias partition in 1947, Majaaz together with a clutch of progressive writers was ordered by their hosts in Bombay to shift to a Hindu dharmashala that was considered a relatively safe sanctuary. The chief priest had been told that the new guests, though they were communists of Muslim lineage, were Hindus. To that end they were given suitably acceptable names.
Brandishing his knowledge of the Hindu system, soon after settling down Majaaz bragged to the priest that he belonged to a family of Awadhs Saryupari Brahmins. This was, of course, totally unnecessary since nobody had asked for that particular bit of information. At which point the priest got seriously interested. He wanted to know Majaazs exact gotra, a finer subdivision in the caste heap. Foxed by the unanticipated query, Majaaz gave up the charade, but not before exclaiming aloud: Maaz Allah, isme gotra bhi hota hai? (Oh God, there are gotras in this too?)
Obama spoke of Shias and Sunnis as examples of adversaries in the Muslim world. This is the opposite of my experience in Iran, notionally a Shia country. I landed at Tehrans Mehrabad airport in the middle of 1980, brazenly confident that I would get an interview with Ayatollah Khomeini. The argument was naively simple. If Oriana Fallaci could get a famous audience with the old cleric, then why not a Shia khabarnigar. Thats how I tried to project myself in Iran. Forget the Shia bit, smiled my host from the daily Keyhaan. Are you a Muslim or not? Who knows but that might help.
The Iranians (rightly) concluded I wasnt qualified for an exclusive interview with their Imam so they threw me into a gaggle of firebrand Muslim journalists who were shortlisted to visit him socially. The lucky journalists turned out to be mostly Sunnis, quite a few of them from South Africa.
Did the US president pause to consider how many Shia-Sunni couples and their children were destroyed by the American invasion of Iraq? This is not to deny that there are divisions. And yet the Muslim social skein is not any more complex than the myriad divisions that exist among Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jews and communist groups. Reducing the argument to a Shia-Sunni conflict was simplistic if politically useful since it suits the rulers in Cairo and Riyadh better.
In the final analysis though these fine or deep divisions are quite useless. Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago pieced together a profile of those who died in suicide missions against western targets in Lebanon since the 1980s. He threw up starling conclusions.
Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the [Hezbollah] bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birthplaces, and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamist fundamentalists; 27 were from Leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a woman secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
Whether it was his unstated intention or not, President Obamas friendly demeanour in Cairo did help in weaning away crucial votes from Hezbollah in this weeks elections, although even here it would be wrong to ignore the fact that Hasan Nasrallahs Christian allies also suffered losses. Similarly, it cannot be ruled out that this weeks presidential elections in Iran would be considerably influenced too by Obamas carefully soft and civilised tone.
What Obama should have tried to understand and also explained to his audiences was that all his main sources of headache in the so-called Islamic world come from the areas that practice democracy. Take clerics in Lebanon or Iran. Or consider Hamas in Occupied Palestine or the radical Muslim groups in Algeria. They are all popularly elected. The only democracy that never does any wrong, as far as the West is concerned, is Israel.
I am glad Malia and Sasha did not accompany their father to Cairo. They would have learnt all the wrong lessons from President Obama. They were better off visiting the Eiffel Tower with their mother which, given the circumstances, was the more sensible thing to do.
The writer is Dawns correspondent in Delhi.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Balochistan: no short cuts
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 11 Jun, 2009
The prime ministers step-by-step approach to the task of delivering justice to Balochistan is backed by good sense but it is doubtful if his government is fully aware of the urgency of its undertaking or the need for a radical approach.
More than a month ago Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani asked for the drafting of a constitutional package to meet Balochistans needs and demands, and for the formulation of autonomy proposals by the provincial assembly. This was believed to be in preparation for an all-parties conference.
Then Senator Raza Rabbani was charged with producing a composite study based on his own 15-point package that he had presented some time ago, the Mushahid Hussain committee proposals, the Benazir Bhutto committee report and the Balochistan Assembly resolution. This report is believed to have been examined at a meeting of the PPP high command with party leaders in Balochistan on Friday last.
Newspaper reports obviously penned by friendly scribes have mentioned the prime ministers desire to personally comprehend Balochistans complex issues before the APC takes place, which is now scheduled for later this month.
While the structure of the exercise is sound it would have received greater commendation if the substance of the various reports cited above had been revealed. The reports of the committees set up to tackle Balochistans grievances have not been adequately publicised. The public has not been taken into confidence about the Balochistan Assemblys latest resolution on autonomy, if one has at all been adopted. However, Mr Raza Rabbanis 15 points are now in the public domain. These are:
1. initiation of political dialogue with all stakeholders;
2. release of political persons against whom cases are not pending;
3. expediting the recovery of missing persons;
4. a judicial inquiry into the recent murder of three Baloch leaders;5. rationalisation of the royalty formula and adoption of a uniform rate for all provinces;
6. rationalisation of the prerogative of the federal government to increases excise duty and placing it in the divisible pool;
7. restructuring of laws and roles related to the civil armed forces in the province;
8. halting the construction of new cantonments in the province until the fears of the local population are addressed;
9. announcement of the NFC Award in which population is not the prime criterion and in which size, revenue generation and backwardness should also be taken into consideration;
10. removal of checkpoints in the light of the provincial assembly resolution;
11. implementation of the resolutions of the provincial assembly;
12. withdrawal of forces from Sui;
13. defining the quantum of provincial autonomy the government is willing to concede;
14. levies to be brought in place of police, and;
15. mega projects to be initiated with the cooperation of the people of the province and their due share assured.
Some more proposals might have been added to the list but even these 15 points can help start a positive discourse, their authors cautiousness and his apparent desire to avoid spelling out concrete measures notwithstanding. The need to restructure laws related to civil armed forces and define their role is pointed out but the substance of reform is not described. The federal government is advised to define the quantum of provincial autonomy it is willing to concede whereas today it is necessary to present in detail the quantum of provincial autonomy the federation must concede.
It should not be difficult to realise that con
cessions within the existing federal framework that could have possibly satisfied Balochistans aspirations a few decades ago cannot bear fruit today. As Senator Hasil Bizenjo put it recently, two forces are operating in Balochistan: one of these is prepared to accept a significant advance towards autonomy within the constitution, while the other one does not accept the constitution itself. If Islamabad wishes to defeat the latter force it must obviously win over the former with a package considerably more radical than any proposals advanced so far.
As it is the federal governments success in attracting all political forces to its APC cannot be taken for granted. Even the nationalists who could be persuaded to join have called for the fulfilment of two conditions: one, an end to military operations and rehabilitation of affected people and, two, recovery of missing persons (thousands of people including 124 women, according to Mr Akhtar Mengal).
These demands have been before the government for more than a year. Official spokesmen say nothing about the former issue and as regards the latter they have started parroting Gen Musharrafs excuses that the missing persons have joined the jihadis. This amounts to adding insult to injury.
It is time Islamabad realised that the only way to satisfy the Baloch people on the issue of disappearances is to set up a high-level commission with powers to investigate cases of disappearance, examine witnesses and summon any state functionary who has had anything to do with these matters. Mere statements by government representatives, unverifiable and uncorroborated by independently gathered evidence, cannot assuage Balochistans pain and anger.
Further, Islamabad should have a strategy to meet the situation in case the APC idea does not work. Obviously it will be expected to reveal its own plans for winning the hearts and minds of the Baloch. A necessary condition for the success of these plans will be a substantial revision of the federal arrangement.
Fortunately, there is no dearth of ideas in this area. The many proposals debated over the past few years include: removal or at least a drastic revision of the concurrent list, increase in the powers of the Senate, effective provincial control over natural resources, revision of the NFC award basis, end to land-grabbing under any guise, power to raise security forces, freedom to organise foreign trade, and due provincial say in an active council of common interest, et al.
Even bold constitutional reforms may not work if the trust deficit is not addressed. Balochistan has been bullied, humiliated and cheated so often that it cannot be blamed for a total lack of confidence in Islamabad. Strong affirmative action by the centre to demonstrate that Balochistan has the same status and privileges as any other federating unit could perhaps help it grow out of its persecution syndrome. That will take time and there are no short cuts. Stories of foreign intervention, which may not be entirely untrue, will not help.
Writing to Ms Benazir Bhutto from his death cell, Mr Bhutto had cited the spilling of blood as the obstacle to the revival of Balochistans confidence in the centre. Instead of removing this obstacle, successive governments have extracted from Balochistan more sacrifices in blood and tears the senseless liquidation of Nawab Akbar Bugti, the mysterious killing of Balach Marri, the brutal murder of three Baloch leaders, and torture of illegally detained students, to mention just a few prominent cases. Only an unbroken record of goodwill over a considerable period will convince the people of Balochistan that such incidents will not recur.
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 11 Jun, 2009
The prime ministers step-by-step approach to the task of delivering justice to Balochistan is backed by good sense but it is doubtful if his government is fully aware of the urgency of its undertaking or the need for a radical approach.
More than a month ago Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani asked for the drafting of a constitutional package to meet Balochistans needs and demands, and for the formulation of autonomy proposals by the provincial assembly. This was believed to be in preparation for an all-parties conference.
Then Senator Raza Rabbani was charged with producing a composite study based on his own 15-point package that he had presented some time ago, the Mushahid Hussain committee proposals, the Benazir Bhutto committee report and the Balochistan Assembly resolution. This report is believed to have been examined at a meeting of the PPP high command with party leaders in Balochistan on Friday last.
Newspaper reports obviously penned by friendly scribes have mentioned the prime ministers desire to personally comprehend Balochistans complex issues before the APC takes place, which is now scheduled for later this month.
While the structure of the exercise is sound it would have received greater commendation if the substance of the various reports cited above had been revealed. The reports of the committees set up to tackle Balochistans grievances have not been adequately publicised. The public has not been taken into confidence about the Balochistan Assemblys latest resolution on autonomy, if one has at all been adopted. However, Mr Raza Rabbanis 15 points are now in the public domain. These are:
1. initiation of political dialogue with all stakeholders;
2. release of political persons against whom cases are not pending;
3. expediting the recovery of missing persons;
4. a judicial inquiry into the recent murder of three Baloch leaders;5. rationalisation of the royalty formula and adoption of a uniform rate for all provinces;
6. rationalisation of the prerogative of the federal government to increases excise duty and placing it in the divisible pool;
7. restructuring of laws and roles related to the civil armed forces in the province;
8. halting the construction of new cantonments in the province until the fears of the local population are addressed;
9. announcement of the NFC Award in which population is not the prime criterion and in which size, revenue generation and backwardness should also be taken into consideration;
10. removal of checkpoints in the light of the provincial assembly resolution;
11. implementation of the resolutions of the provincial assembly;
12. withdrawal of forces from Sui;
13. defining the quantum of provincial autonomy the government is willing to concede;
14. levies to be brought in place of police, and;
15. mega projects to be initiated with the cooperation of the people of the province and their due share assured.
Some more proposals might have been added to the list but even these 15 points can help start a positive discourse, their authors cautiousness and his apparent desire to avoid spelling out concrete measures notwithstanding. The need to restructure laws related to civil armed forces and define their role is pointed out but the substance of reform is not described. The federal government is advised to define the quantum of provincial autonomy it is willing to concede whereas today it is necessary to present in detail the quantum of provincial autonomy the federation must concede.
It should not be difficult to realise that con
cessions within the existing federal framework that could have possibly satisfied Balochistans aspirations a few decades ago cannot bear fruit today. As Senator Hasil Bizenjo put it recently, two forces are operating in Balochistan: one of these is prepared to accept a significant advance towards autonomy within the constitution, while the other one does not accept the constitution itself. If Islamabad wishes to defeat the latter force it must obviously win over the former with a package considerably more radical than any proposals advanced so far.
As it is the federal governments success in attracting all political forces to its APC cannot be taken for granted. Even the nationalists who could be persuaded to join have called for the fulfilment of two conditions: one, an end to military operations and rehabilitation of affected people and, two, recovery of missing persons (thousands of people including 124 women, according to Mr Akhtar Mengal).
These demands have been before the government for more than a year. Official spokesmen say nothing about the former issue and as regards the latter they have started parroting Gen Musharrafs excuses that the missing persons have joined the jihadis. This amounts to adding insult to injury.
It is time Islamabad realised that the only way to satisfy the Baloch people on the issue of disappearances is to set up a high-level commission with powers to investigate cases of disappearance, examine witnesses and summon any state functionary who has had anything to do with these matters. Mere statements by government representatives, unverifiable and uncorroborated by independently gathered evidence, cannot assuage Balochistans pain and anger.
Further, Islamabad should have a strategy to meet the situation in case the APC idea does not work. Obviously it will be expected to reveal its own plans for winning the hearts and minds of the Baloch. A necessary condition for the success of these plans will be a substantial revision of the federal arrangement.
Fortunately, there is no dearth of ideas in this area. The many proposals debated over the past few years include: removal or at least a drastic revision of the concurrent list, increase in the powers of the Senate, effective provincial control over natural resources, revision of the NFC award basis, end to land-grabbing under any guise, power to raise security forces, freedom to organise foreign trade, and due provincial say in an active council of common interest, et al.
Even bold constitutional reforms may not work if the trust deficit is not addressed. Balochistan has been bullied, humiliated and cheated so often that it cannot be blamed for a total lack of confidence in Islamabad. Strong affirmative action by the centre to demonstrate that Balochistan has the same status and privileges as any other federating unit could perhaps help it grow out of its persecution syndrome. That will take time and there are no short cuts. Stories of foreign intervention, which may not be entirely untrue, will not help.
Writing to Ms Benazir Bhutto from his death cell, Mr Bhutto had cited the spilling of blood as the obstacle to the revival of Balochistans confidence in the centre. Instead of removing this obstacle, successive governments have extracted from Balochistan more sacrifices in blood and tears the senseless liquidation of Nawab Akbar Bugti, the mysterious killing of Balach Marri, the brutal murder of three Baloch leaders, and torture of illegally detained students, to mention just a few prominent cases. Only an unbroken record of goodwill over a considerable period will convince the people of Balochistan that such incidents will not recur.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The balm of hurt minds
By I. M. Mohsin | Published: June 11, 2009
The subject is taken from a Shakespearean quote from Macbeth. Obama' outspread overtures to Muslims a la Cairo can fit this perspective, the prevailing cynicism notwithstanding. Promising 'a new beginning' in the US-Muslim relations, he deftly dealt, generally, with delicate issues, which dog both the parties, more so the latter who form a quarter of the Global population. Being an astute American, unlike his predecessor, he tried to project hope through 'yes, we can' paradigm about horrendous concerns shared that jar the world. However, his selection of crisis-hit areas appears to reflect the current criterion crimped in to the US policy by the China-complex.
The US President touched on matters wherein the US is seen as a party to persecution etc of Muslims, directly or indirectly. First, in Palestine it has always bailed out all Israeli regimes, which have violated the International Law with rare audacity. Time has proved that the British created this entity, with American complicity, to hold the oil-rich Muslim countries hostage to their interests. Systemic failures combined with personal enmities, inspired as well as inherent, among the leaders have tended to keep the status quo, almost, interminable. By many accounts, the Jewish state has been behaving like a barbaric colonial power of Middle Ages, which lived of the blind support of its mentor in promoting 'US interests' in the area. This has been bolstered by permanent supply of latest weapons, monetary aid and special trade terms etc.
As the Jewish lobby in the US is very powerful, no Administration can dare to alienate it by calling a spade a spade in dealings with Israel. Daddy Bush was "hustled out" of the White House when he ducked offering a financial guarantee requested by US' Jewish client. Carter ran in to much worse political climate when he expressed a desire to do justice between Israel and the Arabs. George W, being an oil-lobby man, had to follow a
foul schedule to secure the status quo to please the wire-pullers. How a corrupt PM Olmert insulted George W is recent history.
In this context, for Obama to ask Netanyahu to stop grabbing more Palestinian land in the West Bank on the pretext of making new 'settlements' is a courageous step. He has also emphasized on the two-state solution, which Israel has been cleverly undermining, with US' implicit or explicit support, over the years. Yahu tried another subterfuge by claiming that Iran was the real danger rather than the Palestinian problem. Such brazen deception is practiced basically on the strength of the US support etc even while everybody knows that Israel itself has many nuclear devices in her arsenal. The world media cried hoarse at the war crimes committed in the last occupation of Gaza, which killed about 1200 civilians besides destroying the small settlement. Even UN offices were smashed with White Phosphorus causing considerable casualties. The UN being a helpless agency, when US or its proxies get involved in serious violation of International Law, made some symbolic hue and cry 'signifying nothing.'
The apologists of Israel are already active. This lobby claimed after Obama' speech in Cairo that the 'roadmap' to peace was well-nigh dead as George W had verbally assured them. By that crooked logic, they indicated that Obama was trying to enter a no-go area like the HOLOCAUST. However, Secretary Clinton quickly reminded them that US policy could not be held hostage to private understandings between individuals representing states. Hence she stressed that Israel must stop land-snatching in the West Bank which is only aggravating the tensions.
Obama also showed immense wisdom by displaying a unique knowledge of Islam, which, through ignorance or arrogance/indifference, has remained, generally a lost-cause for most Administrations except during the Afghan war leading to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Acknowledging that military power was no solution to the predicament of the US, caused directly or by proxy as in Palestine, he offered the Muslims a relationship of mutual respect and understanding. This may send shock-waves through some Yahoos among American forces who desecrated the Holy Quran and committed other atrocities in Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps under the charm of their last Commander-in-Chief' bogus proclamation of "Mission Accomplished' to fool the public for a second term.
On Iraq he promised no permanent occupation while on Afghanistan he sounded rather realistic. Seeing the writing on the wall, he has the good sense to make conciliatory gestures.
Being a highly-educated American, he can feel that Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The latter fought bravely to earn freedom at a tremendous cost. However, the third generation of Vietnamese, as per media accounts, appear to treat their history as mythology. As against that the Afghan etc can fight foreign forces, if history is any guide, for long periods. In Pashtun culture, enmity, particularly involving infringement of liberty, is treated as a fire lit in cow-dung which seldom goes out but keeps seething.
The Muslim countries are suffering due to injustices perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by the US. Even for the systemic failures, most Muslims blame the US, which promotes her surrogates to stay in power by hook or by crook. The manipulation of Algeria remains a case in point. A disgusting feeling is spreading that democracy means only the triumph of pro-West elements in 'elections'. Hamas was created by Mossad to undermine Arafat' movement but now it is an anathema for Israel/US. If US had not, generally, danced to the Israeli-piper, most Muslims would not approve the launching crude-rockets by Hamas. However, re-enacting Nazi atrocities on Palestinians since 1967 leaves the besieged population with no alternative. But for the US arms etc, the Palestinians would have got their due, despite the Israeli nuclear weapons.
President Obama' word, despite scepticism, has generated some 'willing suspension of disbelief', generally, among the Muslims about the US' disposition. As the situation becomes desperate in war zones, US has to seek some way-out of the morass in to which she was plunged by the neo-cons. In this respect Obama's parleys with King Abdullah was another step in the right direction. The latter can influence, like Pakistan government, the extremists on religious grid to reach some honourable settlement in Af-Pak etc. The King expressed his anxiety by urging Obama to "impose a solution" on Middle East as per Al-Hayat daily. He indicated that such a development could prove to be "the magic key" for the area.
The festering wounds like Palestine, Af-Pak, Iraq, Kashmir etc are provoking mounting anguish in the Muslim countries. In our area, the extremists are also using the Indian occupation of Kashmir as a lever to aggravate the prevailing resentment. To promote peace in our region, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan have to form a front which would be able to sort out all kinds of extremists. Such collaboration would get a real boost if an equitable solution to Kashmir is contrived by the parties. A single-minded approach thereafter to terrorism by the partners with the help of US/China has great potential to deliver security to the area as well as the world.
Obama' words are like a balm. Only time will tell if he can bell the cat to earn rich dividends for US/the world. As Yeats said, "...for peace comes dropping slow"; may be Obama can make history.
The writer is a former secretary Interior
By I. M. Mohsin | Published: June 11, 2009
The subject is taken from a Shakespearean quote from Macbeth. Obama' outspread overtures to Muslims a la Cairo can fit this perspective, the prevailing cynicism notwithstanding. Promising 'a new beginning' in the US-Muslim relations, he deftly dealt, generally, with delicate issues, which dog both the parties, more so the latter who form a quarter of the Global population. Being an astute American, unlike his predecessor, he tried to project hope through 'yes, we can' paradigm about horrendous concerns shared that jar the world. However, his selection of crisis-hit areas appears to reflect the current criterion crimped in to the US policy by the China-complex.
The US President touched on matters wherein the US is seen as a party to persecution etc of Muslims, directly or indirectly. First, in Palestine it has always bailed out all Israeli regimes, which have violated the International Law with rare audacity. Time has proved that the British created this entity, with American complicity, to hold the oil-rich Muslim countries hostage to their interests. Systemic failures combined with personal enmities, inspired as well as inherent, among the leaders have tended to keep the status quo, almost, interminable. By many accounts, the Jewish state has been behaving like a barbaric colonial power of Middle Ages, which lived of the blind support of its mentor in promoting 'US interests' in the area. This has been bolstered by permanent supply of latest weapons, monetary aid and special trade terms etc.
As the Jewish lobby in the US is very powerful, no Administration can dare to alienate it by calling a spade a spade in dealings with Israel. Daddy Bush was "hustled out" of the White House when he ducked offering a financial guarantee requested by US' Jewish client. Carter ran in to much worse political climate when he expressed a desire to do justice between Israel and the Arabs. George W, being an oil-lobby man, had to follow a
foul schedule to secure the status quo to please the wire-pullers. How a corrupt PM Olmert insulted George W is recent history.
In this context, for Obama to ask Netanyahu to stop grabbing more Palestinian land in the West Bank on the pretext of making new 'settlements' is a courageous step. He has also emphasized on the two-state solution, which Israel has been cleverly undermining, with US' implicit or explicit support, over the years. Yahu tried another subterfuge by claiming that Iran was the real danger rather than the Palestinian problem. Such brazen deception is practiced basically on the strength of the US support etc even while everybody knows that Israel itself has many nuclear devices in her arsenal. The world media cried hoarse at the war crimes committed in the last occupation of Gaza, which killed about 1200 civilians besides destroying the small settlement. Even UN offices were smashed with White Phosphorus causing considerable casualties. The UN being a helpless agency, when US or its proxies get involved in serious violation of International Law, made some symbolic hue and cry 'signifying nothing.'
The apologists of Israel are already active. This lobby claimed after Obama' speech in Cairo that the 'roadmap' to peace was well-nigh dead as George W had verbally assured them. By that crooked logic, they indicated that Obama was trying to enter a no-go area like the HOLOCAUST. However, Secretary Clinton quickly reminded them that US policy could not be held hostage to private understandings between individuals representing states. Hence she stressed that Israel must stop land-snatching in the West Bank which is only aggravating the tensions.
Obama also showed immense wisdom by displaying a unique knowledge of Islam, which, through ignorance or arrogance/indifference, has remained, generally a lost-cause for most Administrations except during the Afghan war leading to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Acknowledging that military power was no solution to the predicament of the US, caused directly or by proxy as in Palestine, he offered the Muslims a relationship of mutual respect and understanding. This may send shock-waves through some Yahoos among American forces who desecrated the Holy Quran and committed other atrocities in Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps under the charm of their last Commander-in-Chief' bogus proclamation of "Mission Accomplished' to fool the public for a second term.
On Iraq he promised no permanent occupation while on Afghanistan he sounded rather realistic. Seeing the writing on the wall, he has the good sense to make conciliatory gestures.
Being a highly-educated American, he can feel that Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The latter fought bravely to earn freedom at a tremendous cost. However, the third generation of Vietnamese, as per media accounts, appear to treat their history as mythology. As against that the Afghan etc can fight foreign forces, if history is any guide, for long periods. In Pashtun culture, enmity, particularly involving infringement of liberty, is treated as a fire lit in cow-dung which seldom goes out but keeps seething.
The Muslim countries are suffering due to injustices perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by the US. Even for the systemic failures, most Muslims blame the US, which promotes her surrogates to stay in power by hook or by crook. The manipulation of Algeria remains a case in point. A disgusting feeling is spreading that democracy means only the triumph of pro-West elements in 'elections'. Hamas was created by Mossad to undermine Arafat' movement but now it is an anathema for Israel/US. If US had not, generally, danced to the Israeli-piper, most Muslims would not approve the launching crude-rockets by Hamas. However, re-enacting Nazi atrocities on Palestinians since 1967 leaves the besieged population with no alternative. But for the US arms etc, the Palestinians would have got their due, despite the Israeli nuclear weapons.
President Obama' word, despite scepticism, has generated some 'willing suspension of disbelief', generally, among the Muslims about the US' disposition. As the situation becomes desperate in war zones, US has to seek some way-out of the morass in to which she was plunged by the neo-cons. In this respect Obama's parleys with King Abdullah was another step in the right direction. The latter can influence, like Pakistan government, the extremists on religious grid to reach some honourable settlement in Af-Pak etc. The King expressed his anxiety by urging Obama to "impose a solution" on Middle East as per Al-Hayat daily. He indicated that such a development could prove to be "the magic key" for the area.
The festering wounds like Palestine, Af-Pak, Iraq, Kashmir etc are provoking mounting anguish in the Muslim countries. In our area, the extremists are also using the Indian occupation of Kashmir as a lever to aggravate the prevailing resentment. To promote peace in our region, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan have to form a front which would be able to sort out all kinds of extremists. Such collaboration would get a real boost if an equitable solution to Kashmir is contrived by the parties. A single-minded approach thereafter to terrorism by the partners with the help of US/China has great potential to deliver security to the area as well as the world.
Obama' words are like a balm. Only time will tell if he can bell the cat to earn rich dividends for US/the world. As Yeats said, "...for peace comes dropping slow"; may be Obama can make history.
The writer is a former secretary Interior
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Obama's mid-east initiative
By Burhanuddin Hasan | Published: June 11, 2009
US President Obama's landmark visit to Middle-East which began from the Saudi capital Riyadh was his first significant move to win the hearts of the Muslim world. In his own words he launched his journey from "a place where Islam began.
The son of a Kenyan Muslim who lived part of his childhood in Indonesia is the first US President who is conversant with the teachings of Islam and psyche of the Islamic world. He feels there has been an undesirable breach between America and the Muslim world which urgently needs to be breached.
Many Muslim nations harbor animosity against the U.S over its staunch support for Israel at the cost of the Palestinians, its war against terrorists and attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Americans likewise found a negative perception of the Muslim world after the 9/11 attacks on American soil by Arab terrorists.
On his arrival in Riyadh, President Obama was received by King Abdullah with graceful ceremonies. The King also decorated him with King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the Kingdom's highest Medal of Honor. Both leaders discussed the Israeli conflict, Iran's nuclear program and the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The U.S media was buzzing with the defining speech of President Obama which he was to make in Cairo, the second stop of his journey.
This speech, in fact, was an address to the Muslim world which has been described by the New York Times, a bold overture to Muslim nations over their friction with the Western world. U.S media is shocked and surprised over Obama's blunt words as he expressed sympathy with the Palestinians for what he called "daily humiliations, large and small that come with occupation". Although Mr. Obama stressed that America's bonds with Israel are unbreakable, but Americans were shocked when he spoke in equally powerful terms about the plight of the Palestinians after 60 years of statelessness putting Palestinians on parallel footing with IsraelAmerican media described President Obama's speech as the "riskiest of his presidency as he used unusually direct language to call for a fresh look at deep divisions between Israel and its neighbors and also between the Islamic world and the west. Mr. Obama categorically declared that U.S will not turn its back on the legitimate aspirations of Palestine for "dignity, opportunity and state of their own". Millions of T.V viewers in America where shocked when President Obama stated his speech with the Islamic greetings Assalamo Alaikum and also ended with this message of peace. Mr. Obama quoted from the Holy Quran several times for unity among faiths sent down by God and against unjust killings by human beings of their fellow humans.
This was the first time in the Us history that U.S President quoted from the Quran and put Israeli Jews on the same footing with Muslim Palestinians. He also advanced his 2 State formula of Israel as well as Palestine each recognizing the other as independent entities. He also clearly stated that the U.S does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and advised that construction of new Jewish settlements must stop. He clearly stated the U.S does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements and advised Israeli settlements
Mr. Obama also called on Hamas government in Gaza to abstain from violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. These are the perimeters on which Mr. Obama based his Middle East statement policy, which needs immediate implementation and cannot be delayed any further.
However, there are deep differences in the U.S Congress which has many anti- Jewish nuances. It is likely to face a pitched battle in the Congress among the Pro and anti Pro members of the plan. The strong lobby which controls most of the U.S media will certainly try to sabotage it, but hopefully President Obama will finally succeed in implementing his plan to bring about peace in the Middle East statement. It may be recalled that King Abdullah was the first Arab leader to propose broad Arab recognition of Israel in return, for its withdrawal from Arab territories occupied by it in 1967 war. President Obama has suggested that the king's peace proposal adopted by the Arab League in 2002 is now known as the Arab Peace Initiative might serve as a way to revive talks among Israelis, Palestinians and Arab nations.
A Palestinian/American Rashid Khalid who is Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia has observed that Mr. Obama should characterize the Israeli presence in Palestine, Golan Heights as an "occupation". He will have to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan also. These issues are resonating in the Muslim world and need to be highlighted in the context of the Middle East Peace Process.
According to U.S analysts Mr. Obama's Cairo speech meant different things to different people. He supported Israel, but reached out to the Muslim world in an unprecedented way. Some friends were troubled while others were reassured. Some of America's enemies denounced it but none dismissed it.
By Burhanuddin Hasan | Published: June 11, 2009
US President Obama's landmark visit to Middle-East which began from the Saudi capital Riyadh was his first significant move to win the hearts of the Muslim world. In his own words he launched his journey from "a place where Islam began.
The son of a Kenyan Muslim who lived part of his childhood in Indonesia is the first US President who is conversant with the teachings of Islam and psyche of the Islamic world. He feels there has been an undesirable breach between America and the Muslim world which urgently needs to be breached.
Many Muslim nations harbor animosity against the U.S over its staunch support for Israel at the cost of the Palestinians, its war against terrorists and attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Americans likewise found a negative perception of the Muslim world after the 9/11 attacks on American soil by Arab terrorists.
On his arrival in Riyadh, President Obama was received by King Abdullah with graceful ceremonies. The King also decorated him with King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the Kingdom's highest Medal of Honor. Both leaders discussed the Israeli conflict, Iran's nuclear program and the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The U.S media was buzzing with the defining speech of President Obama which he was to make in Cairo, the second stop of his journey.
This speech, in fact, was an address to the Muslim world which has been described by the New York Times, a bold overture to Muslim nations over their friction with the Western world. U.S media is shocked and surprised over Obama's blunt words as he expressed sympathy with the Palestinians for what he called "daily humiliations, large and small that come with occupation". Although Mr. Obama stressed that America's bonds with Israel are unbreakable, but Americans were shocked when he spoke in equally powerful terms about the plight of the Palestinians after 60 years of statelessness putting Palestinians on parallel footing with IsraelAmerican media described President Obama's speech as the "riskiest of his presidency as he used unusually direct language to call for a fresh look at deep divisions between Israel and its neighbors and also between the Islamic world and the west. Mr. Obama categorically declared that U.S will not turn its back on the legitimate aspirations of Palestine for "dignity, opportunity and state of their own". Millions of T.V viewers in America where shocked when President Obama stated his speech with the Islamic greetings Assalamo Alaikum and also ended with this message of peace. Mr. Obama quoted from the Holy Quran several times for unity among faiths sent down by God and against unjust killings by human beings of their fellow humans.
This was the first time in the Us history that U.S President quoted from the Quran and put Israeli Jews on the same footing with Muslim Palestinians. He also advanced his 2 State formula of Israel as well as Palestine each recognizing the other as independent entities. He also clearly stated that the U.S does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and advised that construction of new Jewish settlements must stop. He clearly stated the U.S does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements and advised Israeli settlements
Mr. Obama also called on Hamas government in Gaza to abstain from violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. These are the perimeters on which Mr. Obama based his Middle East statement policy, which needs immediate implementation and cannot be delayed any further.
However, there are deep differences in the U.S Congress which has many anti- Jewish nuances. It is likely to face a pitched battle in the Congress among the Pro and anti Pro members of the plan. The strong lobby which controls most of the U.S media will certainly try to sabotage it, but hopefully President Obama will finally succeed in implementing his plan to bring about peace in the Middle East statement. It may be recalled that King Abdullah was the first Arab leader to propose broad Arab recognition of Israel in return, for its withdrawal from Arab territories occupied by it in 1967 war. President Obama has suggested that the king's peace proposal adopted by the Arab League in 2002 is now known as the Arab Peace Initiative might serve as a way to revive talks among Israelis, Palestinians and Arab nations.
A Palestinian/American Rashid Khalid who is Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia has observed that Mr. Obama should characterize the Israeli presence in Palestine, Golan Heights as an "occupation". He will have to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan also. These issues are resonating in the Muslim world and need to be highlighted in the context of the Middle East Peace Process.
According to U.S analysts Mr. Obama's Cairo speech meant different things to different people. He supported Israel, but reached out to the Muslim world in an unprecedented way. Some friends were troubled while others were reassured. Some of America's enemies denounced it but none dismissed it.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
It's budget time - let us play amateur economics!
By Nadeem Ul Haque | Published: June 11, 2009
How exciting we have come to the time for amateur economics again. The budget is here! Pre-budget seminars! Post budget seminars! Talk shows with all and sundry playing economics! It is open season on economics.
At a recent budget seminar organized by the Nation a respected columnist, Mr Shamshad quite clearly told us that there is no difference between a banker, an industrialist and an economist.
What then is an economist and economics? I write this for the benefit of columnists like Mr Shamshad because much of our failed policies have been the result of this confusion on the part of our thinkers on this important policymaking skill.
First, very few of our policymakers have ever been economists! No finance minister has ever been a serious economist; the position has been jealously guarded by the bureaucracy and more recently bankers. Yes a couple of economists have been called in as advisors but have not had a choice of their staff. The position of finance secretary is a bureaucratic preserve and the rest of the economics policy complex has always been run by bureaucratic stalwarts. So please do not confuse titles with professions. Instead, we should ask how economic policy gets made without professional economists anywhere in the policy complex.
Second, industrialists are not economists. We must recognize their conflict of interest when they make policy suggestions. I am surprised how we allow people with conflict of interest into policymaking both as ministers as well as on committees and boards of key institutions like central banks. The media must be aware of such conflict of interest.
Third donor speak is not economics. Are we not all sick of repeating the donor dictums such as we only spend two percent on health and education. Given that the much of that two percent goes to maintain bureaucratic offices, houses, cars and travel, should we even spend even two percent of GDP like that? Can we not go past the simple slogans given to us by donors?
Fourth, economics is more than agriculture and industry with some reference to social sectors. For years we have been playing this game of "let us promote industry" or "agriculture is the solution." We can improve our productivity in agriculture; some crude numbers suggest that India, the US or Japan produce more wheat per acre than us. So all we need is better roads and extension and we can have that. This argument has not delivered. That should be enough to tell us that this is bad thinking. Fifth, an economist is not one who spews out random government statistics. Speakers at public occasions announce fiscal, growth, literacy, poverty, health numbers all in one go as if the relationships between these numbers are obvious. The more numbers strung together in a talk the better we consider the economist to be! This is a hangover from our planning and Akhtar days when we had to memorize numbers to show that we were economists.
Sixth, economics is considered to be a synonym for "wishing"! Speakers argue for all good things in life - higher growth, bigger government, more money creation, egalitarian distribution, poverty eradication, clean environment -- in the shortest possible period of time. For this they will think up simple solutions like we should all save more, work harder, export more and live a clean life and help each other, governments should be saintly, all-knowing, caring and like good shepherds protect us from all evil, etc. In any discussion, you hear these people impatiently asking for "policy implications" and resenting all conceptualization as too "theoretical."
Seventh the mantra of "let us have more development expenditures" too needs to be reviewed. Yes in an ideal world development expenditures should be investment into public goods. But as my friend Shahid Kardar never ceases to remind me that these expenditures include government housing, cars and much waste. Why should we not look at the waste in development expenditure before yelling for joy when the government says we are going to increase development expenditure?
If this is not economics, what then is economics? "Economics is the study of incentives!"
The central theme is that people are selfish and respond to incentives. And incentives are set all around us by structures - markets, laws and institutions, family, society and social groupings, and government and governance arrangements - that we the people create. Economics goes deep into these institutions and questions the incentives for forming these institutions and how they further our individual self interest.
Seen through the lens of an economist, the government comprises of self-interested individuals and can easily be bought out by self interested individuals and lobbies. Not surprisingly then economists argue for small governments that have little control over resources open and transparent government that can easily be seen through.
Good economists, therefore, do not so easily prescribe policy. They know that policies lead to reactive behaviour by people who respond to the new set of incentives that the policy intervention sets up. If these reactions are not well understood, we can have results that are dramatically different to what the policymaker expected. For example, a policy of maintaining artificially low interest rates for purposes of generating investment has been known in the past to lead to capital flight and hence reduce the amount of investible resources.
For example, numerous amateur economists ask job creation through industrial development. They also recommend protection and subsidy for industry.
What happens when the government accepts this advice? We set up and protect a poor quality textile sector, a subsidized milling and sugar sector, a protected low quality, no R&D car sector. All this at a huge cost to the consumer!
With these industrialists full of power and money, any talk of dismantling this system will bring forth intense lobbying and money to obtain a continuance of the protection and subsidy.
A good economist like a good father knows that favourite sons are spoilt. Our sectoral favouritism has already slowed down our growth and development by stunting domestic commerce. The cost of this to the economy could be as much as two percent of growth forgone.
So to my journalists and columnist friends, economics is a serious subject not to be confused with titles and mere wish lists. The next time you see someone spewing numbers and seeking active government intervention in markets, please look at their own vested interest. Or at a minimum, ask them to use this lesson and trace the incentive consequences of their policy prescriptions for all vested interests, current and potential.
Remember economic policy is much more than government budgets! And just as a health secretary or an owner of a pharmacy is not a doctor, an economist is a professional who should be distinguished from an industrialist and a government appointee.
The writer is former Vice Chancellor of PIDE
By Nadeem Ul Haque | Published: June 11, 2009
How exciting we have come to the time for amateur economics again. The budget is here! Pre-budget seminars! Post budget seminars! Talk shows with all and sundry playing economics! It is open season on economics.
At a recent budget seminar organized by the Nation a respected columnist, Mr Shamshad quite clearly told us that there is no difference between a banker, an industrialist and an economist.
What then is an economist and economics? I write this for the benefit of columnists like Mr Shamshad because much of our failed policies have been the result of this confusion on the part of our thinkers on this important policymaking skill.
First, very few of our policymakers have ever been economists! No finance minister has ever been a serious economist; the position has been jealously guarded by the bureaucracy and more recently bankers. Yes a couple of economists have been called in as advisors but have not had a choice of their staff. The position of finance secretary is a bureaucratic preserve and the rest of the economics policy complex has always been run by bureaucratic stalwarts. So please do not confuse titles with professions. Instead, we should ask how economic policy gets made without professional economists anywhere in the policy complex.
Second, industrialists are not economists. We must recognize their conflict of interest when they make policy suggestions. I am surprised how we allow people with conflict of interest into policymaking both as ministers as well as on committees and boards of key institutions like central banks. The media must be aware of such conflict of interest.
Third donor speak is not economics. Are we not all sick of repeating the donor dictums such as we only spend two percent on health and education. Given that the much of that two percent goes to maintain bureaucratic offices, houses, cars and travel, should we even spend even two percent of GDP like that? Can we not go past the simple slogans given to us by donors?
Fourth, economics is more than agriculture and industry with some reference to social sectors. For years we have been playing this game of "let us promote industry" or "agriculture is the solution." We can improve our productivity in agriculture; some crude numbers suggest that India, the US or Japan produce more wheat per acre than us. So all we need is better roads and extension and we can have that. This argument has not delivered. That should be enough to tell us that this is bad thinking. Fifth, an economist is not one who spews out random government statistics. Speakers at public occasions announce fiscal, growth, literacy, poverty, health numbers all in one go as if the relationships between these numbers are obvious. The more numbers strung together in a talk the better we consider the economist to be! This is a hangover from our planning and Akhtar days when we had to memorize numbers to show that we were economists.
Sixth, economics is considered to be a synonym for "wishing"! Speakers argue for all good things in life - higher growth, bigger government, more money creation, egalitarian distribution, poverty eradication, clean environment -- in the shortest possible period of time. For this they will think up simple solutions like we should all save more, work harder, export more and live a clean life and help each other, governments should be saintly, all-knowing, caring and like good shepherds protect us from all evil, etc. In any discussion, you hear these people impatiently asking for "policy implications" and resenting all conceptualization as too "theoretical."
Seventh the mantra of "let us have more development expenditures" too needs to be reviewed. Yes in an ideal world development expenditures should be investment into public goods. But as my friend Shahid Kardar never ceases to remind me that these expenditures include government housing, cars and much waste. Why should we not look at the waste in development expenditure before yelling for joy when the government says we are going to increase development expenditure?
If this is not economics, what then is economics? "Economics is the study of incentives!"
The central theme is that people are selfish and respond to incentives. And incentives are set all around us by structures - markets, laws and institutions, family, society and social groupings, and government and governance arrangements - that we the people create. Economics goes deep into these institutions and questions the incentives for forming these institutions and how they further our individual self interest.
Seen through the lens of an economist, the government comprises of self-interested individuals and can easily be bought out by self interested individuals and lobbies. Not surprisingly then economists argue for small governments that have little control over resources open and transparent government that can easily be seen through.
Good economists, therefore, do not so easily prescribe policy. They know that policies lead to reactive behaviour by people who respond to the new set of incentives that the policy intervention sets up. If these reactions are not well understood, we can have results that are dramatically different to what the policymaker expected. For example, a policy of maintaining artificially low interest rates for purposes of generating investment has been known in the past to lead to capital flight and hence reduce the amount of investible resources.
For example, numerous amateur economists ask job creation through industrial development. They also recommend protection and subsidy for industry.
What happens when the government accepts this advice? We set up and protect a poor quality textile sector, a subsidized milling and sugar sector, a protected low quality, no R&D car sector. All this at a huge cost to the consumer!
With these industrialists full of power and money, any talk of dismantling this system will bring forth intense lobbying and money to obtain a continuance of the protection and subsidy.
A good economist like a good father knows that favourite sons are spoilt. Our sectoral favouritism has already slowed down our growth and development by stunting domestic commerce. The cost of this to the economy could be as much as two percent of growth forgone.
So to my journalists and columnist friends, economics is a serious subject not to be confused with titles and mere wish lists. The next time you see someone spewing numbers and seeking active government intervention in markets, please look at their own vested interest. Or at a minimum, ask them to use this lesson and trace the incentive consequences of their policy prescriptions for all vested interests, current and potential.
Remember economic policy is much more than government budgets! And just as a health secretary or an owner of a pharmacy is not a doctor, an economist is a professional who should be distinguished from an industrialist and a government appointee.
The writer is former Vice Chancellor of PIDE
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Ahmadi, bye-bye?
By Aziz-ud-din Ahmad | Published: June 11, 2009
A popular slogan in the campaign during the Presidential elections in Iran is "Ahmadi, Bye-bye." Thousands of Iranians hope that there would be big changes in Iran's policies if the moderate Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi wins on Friday. However, thanks to the political system devised to preserve the hegemony of a handful of clerics over the Parliament and the President, any reform in Iran is bound to be slow and incremental.
The upsurge of support for moderate reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi indicates people want change. They want a free media, a more open society, more jobs, end of inflation and an end of isolation. The fight in elections is centred precisely on these issues. Mousavi is for ending the state's control over media by removing the existing ban on the private owership of television stations. He has promised to transfer the control of the security forces from the Supreme Leader to the elected President. He has vowed to review laws that discriminate against women. He says he would disband the moral police.
In foreign policy Mousavi wants reduction of tensions to pull the country out of isolation. This includes negotiating with U.S. President Barack Obama if "his actions are in keeping with his words". He believes Ahmadinejad's approach to the issue of Holocaust is inadmissible and he has condemned the killing of Jews in the catastrophe.
The younger generation is again in the forefront of the demands for reform as they were in 1997 and 2001 when they twice elected moderate reformist Mohammad Khatemi, who left power without achieving the objective. What heartens one is the electoral energy not seen in years. This leads one to hope a big turnout on the polling day. On Monday, Mousavi voters formed a human chain that ran the entire 15 mile length of Tehran. Young men and women linked themselves together with green ribbon, an audacious behaviour in Iran.
The pro-reform groups have weaknesses. Their srtrength lies mainly in big cities while the conservative Ahmadinejad who is running for a secomd term is still strong in areas dominated by ignorance and prejudice including countryside and small towns. It is here that his anti-West rhetoric, his pledges to keep the country loyal to the values of 1979 Isamic Revolution and defend the right to nulear power pull crowds.
The deteriorating economy constitutes the vulnerable chink in Ahmadinejad's armour. The inflation had only recetly peaked to 30 pc. Despite the unprcedented rise in petrol prices during his tenure, unemployment has continued to rise. The dscontent with economy which catapulted him into power in 2005, is now Ahmadinejad's bane. There are other social factors also that could turn the tde against Ahmadinejad. The boom in construction industry has been accompanied by skyrocketing prices of real estate putting even a single bedroom room apartmewnt out of the reach of young middle class professionals. Unemployment and real estate prices have given birth to an alarming "marriage crisis": all over the country. By official estimates, there are currently 13 million to 15 million Iranians of marrying age. To keep that figure steady, Iran should be registering about 1.65 million marriages each year. The real figure is closer to half that.
Mr Mousavi might win the elections if he can ensure that most of the pro-reform voters turn up on Friday. But will they?
They know that even if Mr Mousavi was to be elected, he will have to cope with the hardline clerics who wield control over the state machinery. Important reforms visualized by Mousavi require constitutional amendments. What stands in the way is the stranglehold of the Guardian Council, whose six clerics are handpicked by Ayatollah Khamenei and six Islamic lawyers appointed by the judiciary. The Council is deadly opposed to democratic and social reform. The religious conservatives also control the judiciary and security services.
Mr Mousavi hopes to nibble at the power exercised by the clergy through constitutional amendments. As things stand, the Parliament, elected last year is dominated by the conservatives, not because the people want them but because the clerics debar reformists from contesting elections.
In January 2004 parliamentary elections clerics disqualified 3,000 candidates, mostly reformists, including dozens of sitting MPs. More than one-third of parliament resigned in protest accusing the clergy of seeking to impose a religious dictatorship like that of the Taliban. Nothing happened. Before last year's parliamentary elections, the conservative clerics once again debarred hundreds of candidates considered a threat to the system.
The system is out of cync with times. Thirty years of incumbency have worn out the patience of millions. It remains to be seen if change in Iran will come through ballot or through revolution.
By Aziz-ud-din Ahmad | Published: June 11, 2009
A popular slogan in the campaign during the Presidential elections in Iran is "Ahmadi, Bye-bye." Thousands of Iranians hope that there would be big changes in Iran's policies if the moderate Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi wins on Friday. However, thanks to the political system devised to preserve the hegemony of a handful of clerics over the Parliament and the President, any reform in Iran is bound to be slow and incremental.
The upsurge of support for moderate reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi indicates people want change. They want a free media, a more open society, more jobs, end of inflation and an end of isolation. The fight in elections is centred precisely on these issues. Mousavi is for ending the state's control over media by removing the existing ban on the private owership of television stations. He has promised to transfer the control of the security forces from the Supreme Leader to the elected President. He has vowed to review laws that discriminate against women. He says he would disband the moral police.
In foreign policy Mousavi wants reduction of tensions to pull the country out of isolation. This includes negotiating with U.S. President Barack Obama if "his actions are in keeping with his words". He believes Ahmadinejad's approach to the issue of Holocaust is inadmissible and he has condemned the killing of Jews in the catastrophe.
The younger generation is again in the forefront of the demands for reform as they were in 1997 and 2001 when they twice elected moderate reformist Mohammad Khatemi, who left power without achieving the objective. What heartens one is the electoral energy not seen in years. This leads one to hope a big turnout on the polling day. On Monday, Mousavi voters formed a human chain that ran the entire 15 mile length of Tehran. Young men and women linked themselves together with green ribbon, an audacious behaviour in Iran.
The pro-reform groups have weaknesses. Their srtrength lies mainly in big cities while the conservative Ahmadinejad who is running for a secomd term is still strong in areas dominated by ignorance and prejudice including countryside and small towns. It is here that his anti-West rhetoric, his pledges to keep the country loyal to the values of 1979 Isamic Revolution and defend the right to nulear power pull crowds.
The deteriorating economy constitutes the vulnerable chink in Ahmadinejad's armour. The inflation had only recetly peaked to 30 pc. Despite the unprcedented rise in petrol prices during his tenure, unemployment has continued to rise. The dscontent with economy which catapulted him into power in 2005, is now Ahmadinejad's bane. There are other social factors also that could turn the tde against Ahmadinejad. The boom in construction industry has been accompanied by skyrocketing prices of real estate putting even a single bedroom room apartmewnt out of the reach of young middle class professionals. Unemployment and real estate prices have given birth to an alarming "marriage crisis": all over the country. By official estimates, there are currently 13 million to 15 million Iranians of marrying age. To keep that figure steady, Iran should be registering about 1.65 million marriages each year. The real figure is closer to half that.
Mr Mousavi might win the elections if he can ensure that most of the pro-reform voters turn up on Friday. But will they?
They know that even if Mr Mousavi was to be elected, he will have to cope with the hardline clerics who wield control over the state machinery. Important reforms visualized by Mousavi require constitutional amendments. What stands in the way is the stranglehold of the Guardian Council, whose six clerics are handpicked by Ayatollah Khamenei and six Islamic lawyers appointed by the judiciary. The Council is deadly opposed to democratic and social reform. The religious conservatives also control the judiciary and security services.
Mr Mousavi hopes to nibble at the power exercised by the clergy through constitutional amendments. As things stand, the Parliament, elected last year is dominated by the conservatives, not because the people want them but because the clerics debar reformists from contesting elections.
In January 2004 parliamentary elections clerics disqualified 3,000 candidates, mostly reformists, including dozens of sitting MPs. More than one-third of parliament resigned in protest accusing the clergy of seeking to impose a religious dictatorship like that of the Taliban. Nothing happened. Before last year's parliamentary elections, the conservative clerics once again debarred hundreds of candidates considered a threat to the system.
The system is out of cync with times. Thirty years of incumbency have worn out the patience of millions. It remains to be seen if change in Iran will come through ballot or through revolution.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
IDPs and international law
By Nauman Qaiser | Published: June 11, 2009
Of an estimated 45 million displaced persons worldwide, some two-thirds are "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDPs) - those who have been forced to flee their homes in order to avoid the ramifications of large-scale violence, armed conflict, natural/man-made disasters or violations of human rights, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border; and the rest are "Refugees" - the people affected as such, but who in the process of displacement do cross an International border. However, the on-going military operation, code-named "Operation Rah-e-Rast", against the militants in the restive northern areas of Pakistan has augmented the number of IDPs by a staggering 3 million, according to some estimates.
There is no doubt that the primary duty of providing relief and rehabilitation to the IDPs of Malakand operation lie with the governments of NWFP and Pakistan, which have, despite their utmost efforts, not been able to come up to the expectations; but a lot more was expected of the international community individually as well as through collective organs like United Nations.
The prime reason for this lethargic attitude on part of the world community is partly due to the absence of any binding International legal instrument that delineates the rights of IDPs and the concomitant obligations of signatory states, unlike in the case of refugees, who are addressed by a number of International laws and treaties. The main reasons for the absence of any such International treaty are the overriding concerns about sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
In order to circumvent these concerns and to ensure greater international acceptance, the United Nation General Assembly's has adopted a set of non-binding "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement", which are basically based upon various bodies of law, principally national law, various International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and, in case of an armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These principles are to serve as a touchstone to guide respective governments as well as international humanitarian and development agencies in providing protection as well as assistance to these IDPsThe Guiding Principles divide the rights of IDPs and the corresponding responsibilities of the concerned authorities in to three stages, i.e., before displacement, during displacement and after displacement. This article evaluates the extent of the government's observance to these principles during the on-going relief efforts for the IDPs of Malakand.
The first and foremost guiding principle for any state before such displacement occurs is that it should try all other feasible alternatives in order to avoid displacement; and where no alternative exist, or all have been exhausted, the authorities should be proactive, rather than being reactive in minimizing displacement and its adverse effects.
Once the displacement has occurred, the Guiding Principles enjoin that the IDPs shall enjoy same rights and freedoms under international and domestic law as other people in the country do. These rights, inter alia, include the right to life, the right to dignity, right to liberty and security of person, protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to liberty of movement, and the right to an adequate standard of living.
Needless to say that some of these rights have been trampled upon by the respective governments with impunity. First, the right to protection against arbitrary arrest or detention entails that the IDPs shall not be interned in or confined to a camp, and if in exceptional circumstances such internment or confinement is absolutely necessary, it shall not last longer than required by the circumstances. First, the Malakand IDPs are, quite contrary to their established right to protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, being forced to live in camps, else neither would they be registered nor they be provided essential day-to-day necessities along with the compensation amount of Rs 25,000 per family announced by the Government.
Second, the reported restrictions on the entry of these IDPs into some provinces on the plea that they would alter the ethnic dimensions of the province, or that some suspected militants might enter in the cloak of IDPs are in blatant violation of the inherent right of IDPs to freely move about and reside anywhere with in Pakistan. To start with, people raising much hue and cry about the exodus of a large number Pakhtoons into Sindh must remember that they themselves were once welcomed by the Province of Sindh after their migration into Pakistan in 1947 without any distinction whatsoever on the basis of ethnicity.
In short, the government and people of Pakistan have managed the relief stage by hook or by crook, without much human loss, albeit with a lot of human sufferings, in the ranks of the IDPs. As elaborated, much was expected on part of the international community, but the only help came from within, whether from the government or non-governmental entities. Although, much more could have been done to minimize the plight of our brethren in the Malakand division, but we, as Pakistanis must be grateful to the Almighty for giving us strength as well as the courage to the deal with a colossal tragedy with characteristic equanimity and tenacity of purpose.
The writer is a Research Fellow at Research Society of International Law, Lahore
By Nauman Qaiser | Published: June 11, 2009
Of an estimated 45 million displaced persons worldwide, some two-thirds are "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDPs) - those who have been forced to flee their homes in order to avoid the ramifications of large-scale violence, armed conflict, natural/man-made disasters or violations of human rights, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border; and the rest are "Refugees" - the people affected as such, but who in the process of displacement do cross an International border. However, the on-going military operation, code-named "Operation Rah-e-Rast", against the militants in the restive northern areas of Pakistan has augmented the number of IDPs by a staggering 3 million, according to some estimates.
There is no doubt that the primary duty of providing relief and rehabilitation to the IDPs of Malakand operation lie with the governments of NWFP and Pakistan, which have, despite their utmost efforts, not been able to come up to the expectations; but a lot more was expected of the international community individually as well as through collective organs like United Nations.
The prime reason for this lethargic attitude on part of the world community is partly due to the absence of any binding International legal instrument that delineates the rights of IDPs and the concomitant obligations of signatory states, unlike in the case of refugees, who are addressed by a number of International laws and treaties. The main reasons for the absence of any such International treaty are the overriding concerns about sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
In order to circumvent these concerns and to ensure greater international acceptance, the United Nation General Assembly's has adopted a set of non-binding "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement", which are basically based upon various bodies of law, principally national law, various International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and, in case of an armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These principles are to serve as a touchstone to guide respective governments as well as international humanitarian and development agencies in providing protection as well as assistance to these IDPsThe Guiding Principles divide the rights of IDPs and the corresponding responsibilities of the concerned authorities in to three stages, i.e., before displacement, during displacement and after displacement. This article evaluates the extent of the government's observance to these principles during the on-going relief efforts for the IDPs of Malakand.
The first and foremost guiding principle for any state before such displacement occurs is that it should try all other feasible alternatives in order to avoid displacement; and where no alternative exist, or all have been exhausted, the authorities should be proactive, rather than being reactive in minimizing displacement and its adverse effects.
Once the displacement has occurred, the Guiding Principles enjoin that the IDPs shall enjoy same rights and freedoms under international and domestic law as other people in the country do. These rights, inter alia, include the right to life, the right to dignity, right to liberty and security of person, protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to liberty of movement, and the right to an adequate standard of living.
Needless to say that some of these rights have been trampled upon by the respective governments with impunity. First, the right to protection against arbitrary arrest or detention entails that the IDPs shall not be interned in or confined to a camp, and if in exceptional circumstances such internment or confinement is absolutely necessary, it shall not last longer than required by the circumstances. First, the Malakand IDPs are, quite contrary to their established right to protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, being forced to live in camps, else neither would they be registered nor they be provided essential day-to-day necessities along with the compensation amount of Rs 25,000 per family announced by the Government.
Second, the reported restrictions on the entry of these IDPs into some provinces on the plea that they would alter the ethnic dimensions of the province, or that some suspected militants might enter in the cloak of IDPs are in blatant violation of the inherent right of IDPs to freely move about and reside anywhere with in Pakistan. To start with, people raising much hue and cry about the exodus of a large number Pakhtoons into Sindh must remember that they themselves were once welcomed by the Province of Sindh after their migration into Pakistan in 1947 without any distinction whatsoever on the basis of ethnicity.
In short, the government and people of Pakistan have managed the relief stage by hook or by crook, without much human loss, albeit with a lot of human sufferings, in the ranks of the IDPs. As elaborated, much was expected on part of the international community, but the only help came from within, whether from the government or non-governmental entities. Although, much more could have been done to minimize the plight of our brethren in the Malakand division, but we, as Pakistanis must be grateful to the Almighty for giving us strength as well as the courage to the deal with a colossal tragedy with characteristic equanimity and tenacity of purpose.
The writer is a Research Fellow at Research Society of International Law, Lahore
Official Siasat.pk Social Media Accounts
