Aaj key KAALAM 12 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Side-effect



A new beginning?

Friday, June 12, 2009
Harris Khalique

A brilliant speech, undoubtedly. I find it comparable to my favourites like 'The Tryst with Destiny,' by Jawaharlal Nehru, a speech delivered in the first independent Indian parliament in 1947 and the famous 'I have a Dream' speech by Martin Luther King Junior. US President Barack Obama's 'A New Beginning', the speech he made on June 4 in Cairo, Egypt, addressing the Muslims around the world reflected a genuine desire to mend fences with those severely affected, and as a result deeply hurt, antagonised and revengeful, due to US policies over the past many decades. It was also a pledge to the Muslims that an era of cooperation and coexistence was not only possible but his country would take lead in creating an atmosphere of trust and goodwill if Muslim societies resolved to reciprocate.

Obama paid rich tributes to Muslim civilisation and culture and mentioned the great contribution made to collective human achievement by medieval academies in places like Cairo and Cordoba and the development of Algebra, the tools of navigation, pens and printing, poetry and music, calligraphy and architecture, etc. He quoted from the Quran and convinced his audience how killing innocent people was totally prohibited and how people were taught to live in peace with others belonging to different faiths and culture. He acknowledged that the mistrust between America and Muslims would not dissipate overnight or by making one speech like his but a rigorous effort in the right direction was to be made by both sides. Obama called to attention the existence of seven million Muslims in the US and the religious freedom they enjoyed. He highlighted and discussed seven issues of mutual importance for the US and Muslims alike and presented the contributions the US would make in these areas. He also listed his expectations from Muslim countries in order to make the relationship work. The issues were violent extremism, the Israel-Palestine conflict, nuclear proliferation with special mention of Iran, democracy, religious freedom, women's rights and finally, economic development and opportunity. While the rest of the speech was near-perfect, the issues of Israel-Palestine conflict and US support to democracy in Muslim-majority states stayed where they were before June 4, 2009.

No real difference was cited in the US approach towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. Even while supporting the Palestinian state and putting an end to more settlements in Palestinian areas like some of his predecessors, the basic view of the issue between the US and Muslim world continues to remain at odds. The genesis of the Jewish state is traced in the distant history and belief of a people, who were undoubtedly persecuted and killed for centuries, although mostly by Europeans. The last two independent Jewish states existed in the land of Israel from 1350 to 586 BC and from 140 to 37 BC. The difference between 37 BC and AD 1948 is about 2000 years. There is no question of rationality or contemporariness considered here. Palestinians, who were ousted from their homes with an estimated seven million still living as refugees around the world and those who are left behind are brutally oppressed and humiliated, are asked to forget 1948 and understand the contemporary reality. A fair and more reasonable dialogue is needed if the Americans are serious about Palestine.

President Obama also expressed his unyielding belief that people universally yearn for free speech, justice, transparency and the freedoms to choose how they are governed and to live as they like. Now that's ironic. The country he made his speech from is ruled by an autocrat for 28 years, who is a successor of another autocrat, both supported by the US. All major rulers of most Muslim countries are oppressive dictators or monarchs. Look at Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE. In case of Pakistan and Turkey, it's the military that the US negotiates with. Global US interests make it prefer autocracy and suppression of human freedoms over true democracy and civil rights in the Muslim world. Only a change here can mark a new beginning.



The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and rights campaigner.

 

[arshad_lahore]

South Punjab movement
By Ayesha Siddiqa
Friday, 12 Jun, 2009

MOHAMMAD Ali Durrani, the former information minister, recently went public with his plan to struggle for an independent Bahawalpur province. One can simply dismiss his views as an extension of the old Seraiki movement which people have heard about for very long.

This time round, however, the idea has been floated by a man reputed for his deep connections with the establishment. The timing of the proposed movement also raises questions about what may happen in that part of the country.

The former ministers reasons for starting the movement are quite logical. He is of the view that when Bahawalpur was merged into the One-Unit in 1955, the State of Pakistan had stipulated that the princely state would revert to its original status if the One-Unit were dissolved. Durrani believes that not only did the State of Pakistan go back on its promise, it failed to invest in the socioeconomic development of Bahawalpur. Resultantly, there is a lot of poverty and underdevelopment in the region.

What he did not mention was that land in Cholistan, Bahawalpurs desert area, is routinely distributed to people from outside the area, especially military and civil bureaucrats. Also, since Bahawalpur does not fall into the Punjab (rural) civil services or military quota, there are fewer people from the region in the state bureaucracy.

Durranis feeling for the area may not be doubted because he belongs to Ahmedpur, a city in district Bahawalpur. However, one would certainly like to ask the minister if he felt this way while he was part of the previous government and in a position to do things for the region. Did he ever ensure that his party, the PML-Q, make plans for the area? After all, Q-League stalwarts such as Ejazul Haq and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi contest elections from Bahawalpur division. Or did he ever present a vision for the government to go beyond the construction of an airport, a medical college and a university? Most of the public buildings in Bahawalpur the central library, its only hospital and others are a gift of the old nawab.

There is a possibility that Durrani might have tired of waiting for Pervez Musharraf to return to politics and assign some task or important office to his former information minister. Lets not forget that there are many prominent people from the former State of Bahawalpur who, like Durrani, belong to the local elite and have participated in politics at the provincial and local levels. Makhdoom Shahabuddin, Makhdoom Altaf, Makhdoom Khusro Bakhtiar, Makhdoom Ahmed Alam Anwar, Makhdoom Hassan Mehmood and his sons, Tasneem Nawaz Gardezi and Riaz Pirzada are some of the luminaries of Bahawalpur who have held positions in successive governments.

So it is quite pathetic to argue that these people could not convince the establishment of which they were a part to invest in social development in their region. Not only have these Makhdooms ignored the development of their areas, some are also known for keeping up the archaic tradition of not marrying off their sisters and daughters to keep the family wealth at home. The family of the Makhdooms of Rahimyar Khan is known for this. The airports built at two sites, namely Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan, are gifts from the sheikhs of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. In return, Pakistani governments award huge concessions like turning state land into private hunting grounds for these foreign dignitaries.

Yet another possibility is that a movement for an independent province is meant to mask all other socio-political activities in the region so that these might go unnoticed by the rest of the country and the world at large. This refers to the various militant organisations that continue to operate in Bahawalpur division. Although the provincial and central governments are trying their best to constrain these militant outfits, there is no clear plan of action for cleaning up the area. A total elimination of these organisations becomes difficult due to the lack of clarity or a strategy regarding militancy.

Either the central or the provincial government has come up with the brilliant idea of supporting the Barelvi movement, including its armed wing, which means that the area could suffer the way Karachi has through the conflict between the MQM and MQM-Haqiqi. And now there is this mention of a political movement that has no real support at the local level but carries the potential of creating mayhem in the medium to long term. The resulting confusion ought to leave all observers fogged.

It is true that the average Bahawalpuri talks nostalgically about the glory days of the princely state, but the fact of the matter is that the majority are no longer stuck in the past. Consequently, the family of the former nawab of Bahawalpur, which ordinary people still respect, can no longer hope to get all the votes in elections. There are new power networks and groups that have diluted the memory of the state.

For instance, the development work done by District Nazim Tariq Bashir Cheema has strengthened his control rather than that of the traditional power centres. He focused on tehsil Yazman, his personal area of interest, to procure political support for the future. Similarly, there are many other new faces that win support on the basis of services provided to constituents.

A political movement for an independent status could only be built if funded from unexplained sources. If such a movement did manage to take off, it would create such chaos that the other divisive elements which have been systematically planted in the area would be forgotten. The strategy might prove beneficial if the intention is to hide those elements and forces that have a greater impact on peace and stability in the region.

Genuine empowerment of the area will only come through greater development work and a fair distribution of resources. In any case, such a movement will only multiply existing problems rather than solve issues to the benefit of the people. Thus if Mr Durrani really wants to do something for his place of birth, he would be better off talking about improving governance, ensuring the rule of law and eliminating the terror outfits that could destroy the rich culture of Bahawalpur.

Perhaps he could start with his own accountability and a sincere assessment of the area he calls home.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

 

[arshad_lahore]

By accident or design?
By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 12 Jun, 2009

MUCH has been said about the Zardari presidency thus far and almost all of it is negative. From anyone other than his acolytes a familiar litany of complaints pours out: hes too weak; hes never here; hes autocratic; he hasnt a clue about governance; his freewheeling approach to politics is dangerous and destabilising; hes unpresidential.

And yet, from the point of view of results, Zardari seems pretty successful at the moment. Remember that there were three major issues that confronted the country at the time of the elections in February 08: militancy, a sinking economy and an uncertain transition to democracy.

Lo and behold, 18 months later, things have stabilised if not improved on each front. For the first time ever the militants have been dealt a serious blow in the north-west and it appears the military operation will switch next to the ground zero of militancy: the Waziristan agencies. Most remarkably, there is a political consensus on the need for such operations and the public and the media appear supportive too.

Economically, the country has taken a pummelling, but after a painful, arguably unnecessary, phase of macro stabilisation the international spigot is being turned on again: money is set to pour into the development sector while the IMF/World Bank/ADB have seemingly been told by the US to back off on insisting on tough targets.

And politically, after the disastrous gambles in Punjab and on the judges issue, the storm clouds over the horizon have cleared. With Zardaris nemeses, CJ Iftikhar and Nawaz Sharif, holding their fire for now, the months ahead look to be relatively plain sailing. Even within the PPP, the murmurs of discontent are lower than ever and the possibility of an imminent en masse rebellion against Zardari appears far-fetched. Dont be surprised if Aitzaz Ahsan accepts a seat at the table of power one of these days.

So whats going on? Have Zardaris detractors been so blinded by the mans reputation in the past that they havent realised a learning curve is at work; that Zardari may be growing into a job running this country that would challenge even the best and the brightest? If not quite like an ugly duckling growing into a beloved swan, could Zardari be purposefully hacking his way out of the thicket to emerge bruised and battered but still standing? The people rightly want a leader they can be proud of, but could the qualities needed to steer the country out of the mess it is in require less master orator and brilliant statesman and more huckster and hustler?

Or has Zardari just got very, very lucky, buoyed up by forces that are trying to set the country right and that have left him in place to earn the plaudits for their successes because hes the least bad option and a lucky beneficiary of happenstance?

Judging that luck or smarts? requires going to the heart of power, to know what happens in the meetings behind closed doors, to piece together the story of the Zardari presidency from evidence both public and private. And from there emerges a picture that is very unsettling.

Whether hes just not interested or simply cant grasp the basics, Zardari has still not switched gears to governance mode. He sits at the apex of the civilian government pyramid, but the flow of ideas on how to govern and handle the myriad crises afflicting the country come from outside the civilian set-up.

The usual prime suspects the army and America along with a group of international actors, the international donor agencies and friendly governments, are the ones who are gently nudging Zardaris government along. Its not quite as simple as telling the president what to do. He still makes the decisions, but its largely a case of picking from the menu of demands and suggestions and ideas that are placed before him.

Zardari does have one idea of his own: more, more, more money for the government to spend, spend, spend. Frankly, truckloads of cheap money poured into the economy somewhere, anywhere at this time isnt necessarily a bad thing, so pear-shaped has the economy gone over the last year and a half. Having said that, if a large chunk of the money is borrowed money and its funnelled into the wrong sectors of the economy, the country will be setting itself up for another painful cycle of boom and bust.

The bigger point though is that a government bereft of ideas at the top is a government vulnerable to being steered by outside forces with interests of their own. Take the issue of militancy. Yes, we are doing the right thing by fighting in the north-west and preparing to go into South Waziristan. But forget the national consensus on the issue, the operation would have been a non-starter had the army not been prepared to fight. So did the government convince the army to fight or did the army decide to fight based on its own security calculations?

There is a world of difference between those two positions going forward. If the army is still completely calling the shots on the militancy issue, were no closer to being rid of the wretched good Taliban/bad Taliban distinction. Happily, everyone can and does agree that Maulana Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud are bad. Unhappily, there is little evidence that Zardaris government has any idea about how it can convince the security establishment to go after the good militants.

The other side of the coin are US interests. At the top of the Americans agenda in Pakistan is taking out what some in our security establishment see as the good militants: the men fighting in Afghanistan. Given a choice, the Americans would happily have us eliminate the militants that worry them the most, get their troops out of this neighbourhood as quickly as possible and manage the less worrisome Pakistani militancy issue from afar. Theres no point in blaming the Americans; every country looks after its own interests first and foremost, especially in a very messy part of the world.

Neither of those positions is good for the future of this country. A civilian government beholden to neither power but striking a working partnership with both while having a very clear idea of its own policy against militancy that alone would hold the promise of a better future.

But Zardari is reactive not proactive, he weighs received ideas rather than generate his own, he sits back rather than grasp the nettle in short, hes tugged in opposing directions without having an idea of where he wants to go and how he will get there. Hes perched in the drivers seat, but controls very little in terms of real policy. The problem for the rest of us? Were stuck in the back seat of that vehicle.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Less murky than before
By Kuldip Nayar
Friday, 12 Jun, 2009

INDIAs political scene looks far less murky than before. This was reflected in the first session of parliament after the general election. There was no shouting, no boycott and no walkout. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also promised a bipartisanship approach in his first speech at the Lok Sabha.

What has really brought about the change is the demoralisation of the opposition and the confidence of the ruling Congress. The latter depended on some 12 parties to run the government after the election five years ago. This time it needed only 66 members to form the government at the centre. The needed support was provided by its pre-poll allies, ambitious Sharad Pawar in Maharashtra, fiery Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal and pro-LTTE Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu.

On the other hand, the regional netas (leaders) have been cut to size by the voters. The communists who made the Congress government possible last time are too downhearted to criticise it even when their main agenda opposition to the sale of public undertakings has been treated with contempt. The prime minister has announced their privatisation. The BJP, even with 130-odd members, feels too humiliated to challenge Manmohan Singh who was described by BJP leader L.K. Advani as a nikamma (good for nothing) prime minister during the last election campaign.

The Congress, it seems, can dictate terms if it so decides. For example, the party can get the bill on reservations for women in parliament. But it is not pushing it because the party wants a consensus which is on a 20 per cent reservation instead of the 33 per cent which the Congress promised in its poll campaigns.

Yet the party had its own Lok Sabha speaker. Meira Kumar, who has been unanimously elected, is competent and soft-spoken. But she is a member of Congress President Sonia Gandhis team of loyalists. The office demanded a person of stature. Jawaharlal Nehru once said that the speaker represented the house which in turn represented India. When Sonia Gandhi made up her mind to have a Dalit woman as the speaker, the rest followed. In the process, the position of the speaker has been devalued. She made the office of Indias president a non-office. Now she has done the same thing in the case of the speaker.

It would have always been difficult to find a successor to Somnath Chatterjee who annoyed even the communists, once his comrades, by adopting an impartial posture and giving independent rulings. But Meira Kumars feet are far too small to fit into his big shoes. But then institutions have always bothered the Nehru dynasty. Indira Gandhi demolished practically all the institutions that her father, Nehru, had built. Sonia Gandhi has completed her mother-in-laws unfinished work.

I cant figure out the fuss made over the constitution of the new council of ministers. It was given out that both the prime minister and the Congress president had to balance the demands of regions, religions, castes and the like. If even after 62 years of independence, the party that won 206 seats could not choose people on the basis of merit and integrity, it should realise its helplessness against the demon of caste it has created. True, caste has stalled communalism. But both represent forces which taint the idea of a secular India.

I also cannot understand the time 11 days taken to constitute the council of ministers. It may serve as a corrective to both the prime minister and the Congress president to know that Nehru submitted his list of ministers on August 14, one day before they were sworn in. There was no draft, no deletion and no addition to the list. Nehru wrote down the names of his ministers and their portfolios, straightaway and in his own hand.

Despite claims of background checking, some members of Manmohan Singhs council of ministers have questionable credentials. Many are round pegs in square holes. Too much has been made of the youth issue. The average age of ministers is 63. Only five are below 40 and none of them has been given cabinet rank.

I can understand the reason for dropping the two most loyal ministers to the dynasty, Arjun Singh and H.R. Bhardwaj. They had outlived their utility. But why drop a sensitive minister like Saifuddin Soz? He had the courage to write an honest report about the lack of rehabilitation by the Madhya Pradesh government of Narmada Dam affectees.

It looks to me as if there was no problem in selecting the first 11 cabinet ministers who were sworn in along with the prime minister. When it came to allotting portfolios, only six passed muster. Then it was a Mahabharat, to use the words of an insider. So powerful is Rahul Gandhi, son of Sonia Gandhi and the prime minister-in-waiting, he could force some of his close followers entry into the government. Were Rahuls nominees to become a ginger group within the party that applied pressure for clean governance, their appointments would serve the purpose.

Belonging to the upper middle class, as they are, it may be difficult for them to extend rural job-guarantee schemes to the urban unemployed because the upper half would have to carry the burden of expenditure. They are already unhappy over the governments statement that the price of oil in India would be at par with the international rate.

At the same time, the government has announced its policy of disinvestment. The sale of government undertakings will lower its earnings. Where is the leeway to spend on schemes to help the poor? It is apparent that if the wealth is spread out necessary for the lower half to benefit the eight or nine per cent growth target would have to be cut. In other words, the upper-middle-class MPs who represent Rahul Gandhis think tank may not travel the path hewn before the election to attract the aam aadmi (ordinary person).

The kurtaand pyjamais a welcome sight in the Lok Sabha because it reminds me of the post-independence parliament. The kurtaand pyjama, then in khadi, may represent the fashion, not the determination to uplift the people. All such persons are the Baba log of the British days. At the same time, a jumbo council of 79 ministers is not in keeping with our limited resources. Nehrus first cabinet had just 14 members. It is not the expenditure that I have in view. Such large paraphernalia does not send the message of austerity which the nation needs to follow.

Peace in South Asia becomes all the more important. This may help the government save the expense involved in positioning a large number of troops on the borders. The Taliban should make us realise that the old, entrenched ideas can only be defeated if a government has a moral side to it.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The situation after Swat
By M. A. Niazi | Published: June 12, 2009
The military operation in Malakand Division will continue for the foreseeable future, as the procession of Obama Administration officials filed into Islamabad, to keep the military at a task which the US Army could not carry out from the other side of the Durand Line, the pacification of the tribal areas. Once the military has cleared out the Malakand Division, it will move into Waziristan, where the core of the conflict has been. This will create many more Internally Displaced Persons, as the Swat and Buner conflicts have done. However, it is assumed that the world community this time will be readier to shoulder the burden of the IDPs created by the War on Terror.
The prolonging of the military operation is sending mixed signals on a number of levels. Not the least of the problems of the federal government, which sent in the Army, is that the provincial government is led by the ANP. Though a coalition partner in the Centre, and though it has included the PPP in the NWFP government, it is growing restive, and wants the operation to end as soon as possible. Another difficulty is that the operation in Swat was carried out after a previous operation was brought to an end and the military pulled out. However, there is little chance of a pullout now. The military is doing something it understands well in fighting an essentially 19th-century frontier war, which does not involve any speedy manoeuvring. It will continue combat until it 'wins' in Malakand Division, and then until it is 'victorious' in the tribal areas, particularly the Waziristans.
This is probably a good opportunity to ask what the victory is being gained over. The losers are not just the militants, but also the ordinary residents of these areas. In other words, ordinary Pakistanis. However, two things have inured the military to fighting against their own people. First, the awful-ness of the militants, who have challenged the writ of the state, which the Army is working to restore. Second, habit. There have been operations before, to develop the habit; martial laws have not led to this, simply because no martial law has faced any resistanceHowever, it has become clear that if the operation ever moves into the Punjab, the operation will take place here without the military having its loyalty called into question, even internally. The provincial government may provide some resistance, but in the War on Terror, the Shahbaz government will be as intolerant of any Al-Qaeda or Taliban refugees here as a PPP government might, so it will probably make little or rather no difference who rules in the Punjab, and the PPP's attempt to destabilize the Shahbaz government was for party purposes only, not for the War. The Al-Qaeda elements will therefore not gain the refuge they need within the cities of the Punjab, and which they got in the tribal areas, and which the Army is now trying to deny them.
However, it is to be assumed that the non-Pakistanis presently with the militants and now presumably in the tribal areas, will try and get out, as they have in the past. In fact, the tribal areas are not their first refuge. This time, they will head towards the Punjab. Previously, this had been attempted, but those making the attempt were few, and were killed or captured. They had gone to urban areas, but not in the largest towns. This time, with the Punjab Police more alert and more familiar with the militants' modus operandi, attempts to hide in the urban areas are likely, and without any families as encumbrances who played such an important, though inadvertent, role last time around in revealing locations. However, the Peshawar blast has revealed that provincial police forces are not very good at prevention of a determined opponent.
The blast has also revealed that the Swat operation has begun to hurt, and the militants are now trying to shift the battle to the cities, which they presumably see as more favourable ground. That will lead to the Americans using remotely-controlled drone missiles in the Punjab's cities, as they attempt to take out the Al-Qaeda elements. The Pakistan government, and the Punjab government, will be restricted to selling these attacks on the soil of both as part of Pakistan's 'existential war', as the NWFP fighting has been explained, including the vast number of IDPs created by the fighting. However, the 'existential war' is being fought for the continued existence of the Pakistani state as it is' oppressive, exacting and unable to deliver on the basic purposes of a state, including the delivery of cheap and speedy justice without discrimination. Thus the 'existential war' is being fought by those who are part of the state, against those who are outside the state, and perceive its oppressive outlines. These state functionaries have created the myth of the state as a benign presence, even if the cost is military rule, as it has been in the past, and will be in the future. An additional significance of the state is that it must also look towards American goals to determine its own, and military rule fits in here too. The military has usually stepped in after it has been used to buttress a civilian government by an operation somewhere against fellow citizens, so this operation should not prove an exception.
The only real option the government has, of genuinely and thoroughly reviewing the American alliance, it will not exercise, because it is too deeply committed to it, and because the US government is feeding it steadily with US dollars, which it is convinced it needs to avoid the economic collapse it fears would otherwise occur. It will choose other options, such as training for its police forces, or demands for additional equipment, which cannot solve the problem.
Meanwhile, the militants will continue on their path of mayhem and bloodshed, in which killing other Muslims indiscriminately plays such a prominent role. That their actions are not in conformity with the Divine Law they claim they wish promulgated, as their actions do not lead to Americans leaving Afghanistan or Iraq, which they claim to be working for, is an irrelevance in this War.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Needing a jump start
By Khalid Iqbal | Published: June 12, 2009
Congress led alliance is firmly in place to rule India for another term. Unfortunately, this government carries along its baggage of continuity, which is quite inhibiting in the context of Pak-India relations. Tough stance taken by it on Mumbai incident was presumably in anticipation to thence approaching election schedule. Hopefully, over a period of time Indian government would rationalise its standpoint. Though it is important that the perpetrators of Mumbai carnage are brought to justice, it is not prudent to keep Pak-India relations hostage to a single event.
Well wishers of this region have followed the flow of events in Pakistan-India relations, with a sense of perplexing unease. Roller coaster kind of momentum has been the signature tune of these chequered relations; giving them a resemblance to more of tribal interactions rather than inter-state affairs. Bilateral mechanism instituted for tension diffusion invariably collapses on the onset of any significant crisis.
During the preceding three decades or so, India coercively amassed its troops along the international border, on a number of occasions. These deployments created impending invasion like settings. Occasionally, these manoeuvres were purposefully done to facilitate extra regional forces accomplish their designs in the areas adjoining our western borders. India physically invaded Pakistani territory in Siachen glacier area; and continues to occupy it to date, with impunity.
Traditionally, Pakistan is the usual punching bag for virtually anything that goes wrong, or is likely to go wrong, in India. Blame game starts within a couple of hours of such occurrences. Media joins the state in a remarkable unison to orchestrate the hype, and carry on the frenzy. Significant rise of right wing influence in all the domains of Indian decision-making apparatus has effectively contributed towards intensifying this pattern of Pakistan policy, irrespective of the political party at the helm of affairs. This dysfunction has resulted in sabotaging many substantial and purposeful peace initiatives.
In the context of balance of force, India has the requisite numerical superiority, in conventional regime, to conduct strategically offensive warfare against Pakistan. Doctrinally, India aims at realising desired strategic objectives, well before international inhibitory mechanism comes into play. Nevertheless, this premise has severe limitations. One cannot outsmart today's global village realities. Near real time communication facilities connecting the key capitals trigger an immediate international anxiety, on the onset of any negative occurrence in our region. Therefore, it would be naive to hope that one fine morning world community would wake up to discover that India has gained a significant strategic gain over Pakistan, during the previous night. Moreover, Indian psyche of following a knee jerk (read trip wire) kind of strategy, that too in conventional regime, is not compatible with the comparative advantage of numbers that she possesses. Generally, it is the weaker side that generates a disproportionate response to prevent an over run. Omnipresence of nuclear overlay has its own impact on the probable patterns of future armed conflicts between these two nations.
Understandably, this strategy related contradictions are not easy to manage. However, managed these must be, if India wants a worthwhile nuclear power recognition.
Purpose of periodic military deployments, by India, has been to gain strategic space in non-military domains, through military coercion. These could be to accentuate economic pressure, negative image projection, imposition of incremental isolation amongst the comity of nations etc, and to accrue such gains with regard to our vital national interests, which would otherwise fall in the category of appeasement.
Limitations that states have while dealing with non-state actors are well known to India. Survival and progressive thriving of RSS/ Sangh Parivar, despite continual state actions by India is a good case study to indicate the inadequacies that the states confront in dealing with non-state actors of the kind. Sketchy and scanty evidence provided by India, in the context of Mumbai episode, amply indicated her inability to walk the talk. DNA fiasco indicates lack of seriousness in handling a sensitive issue that had pushed the two nuclear states to the brink, arousing phenomenal global anxiety.
Now coming to the real danger that may emanate out of Indian methodology is that a potent third party, either state or non-state, could play with the Indian psyche, and bring the two nations to a real brink of a real war, by enacting a variant of the 'Ten Men Show' and replicating it, say three times, at an interval of ten days or so. A formidable scenario indeed, if not handled with maturity and sanity.
Overall balance-sheet analysis indicates that India has not been able to gain anything worthwhile and sustainable through her intimidating policy towards Pakistan. All outstanding issues come back in circles to haunt India, and as a corollary, to Pakistan as well. The only good lesson learnt after each Pakistan bashing bout is to re-engage in substantive peace process through dialogue, to be forgotten once again, and too soon.
There is a need to make deliberate and sustained effort towards durable peace in this region by enabling bilateral institutions to handle crises. A joint standing commission could be set up to handle such situations. A home grown robust bilateral mechanism to resolve emergent occurrences would go a long way in enhancing the resilience of good neighbourly relations.
It is high time for India to grow up beyond the image of a bully child of South Asia. Rushing the troops to the borders, on every event, in an invading posture needs to end.
Encouraging and expanding formal contacts and informal interactions would go a long way in building sustained bridges of trust. There is sufficient un-scaled ground to count upon.
Need of the hour is to demonstrate requisite political will and commitment to look beyond short-term expediencies. Being a larger state, the onus of strategic patience and pragmatism rests with India. Historically, whenever she has demonstrated a will to build and reinforce bridges, Pakistan has always gone a mile extra to reciprocate.
Hopefully, the new Indian government would strive to stand above the expediential brinkmanship, practice pragmatic statecraft, and leave behind a legacy of a regime that stood for peace and prosperity of the region. Composite dialogue offers a good starting point, thus picking the threads from where they were left on the eve of Mumbai carnage. India could also generate good will by adopting a positive attitude towards lingering water sharing issues.
It's the time to jumpstart and then sustain the effort through commitment, perseverance and a resolve to succeed.
The writer is a national security analyst and a retired Air Commodore.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Cairo and beyond
By Mowahid Hussain Shah | Published: June 12, 2009
By addressing the Muslim world from Cairo during the initial days of his Presidency, Obama has implicitly acknowledged that the shape of things to come during the 21st century will hinge on how the breach between the West and the Muslim world would be bridged. Obama was prompted by concerns that US actions were galvanizing radical rage. It was a daring overture given the parameters, pressures, and priorities of US polity and society. The tone was not that of a lecture. It was respectful and the content filled with a moral message anchored in Islamic values.
Obama's speech shows the persuasive power of ideas and imagination. Indeed, his words have made more headway in the Muslim world than all the bombs, missiles, sanctions, and threats could have achieved. The force of argument proved more telling than the argument of force.
The site of the speech at Cairo University is rife with symbolism. Sayed Qutb, the dean of radical Islamic thought, graduated from Cairo University. Mohammed Atta, the alleged spearhead of the 9/11 hijackers, studied at Cairo University. The Muslim Brotherhood originated from Egypt, led by its founder Hassan al-Banna, in 1928. Then, too, Gamal Abdel Nasser took on the West when he seized the Suez Canal in 1956. And, like Lahore in the Subcontinent, Cairo is also the intellectual and cultural hub of Arabdom.
By publicly criticizing Israeli occupation policies, Obama may have created valuable space for the silent majority of thinking Americans who privately express profound reservations about the direction of US-Israeli ties. Obama's use of Islamic vocabulary and his pledge to contest negative stereotyping of Islam was a refreshing contrast to the polarizing bigotry which had characterized the Bush-Cheney administration.
One speech may mark a step forward but it is insufficient by itself to erase a legacy of mistrust and discord.
It takes two to tango. The time is ripe for a response from the 57-nation Muslim world which form nearly one-third of the world's nation states. The Muslim world may have world-class resources but its rulers lack world-class vision and will.
The Arab establishment has been a Trojan horse for outside intervention and conflicts in the Muslim world, financing Iraq in 1980-88 in its war against Iran and, in 1990, inviting US troops into the Arabian peninsula to dismantle Iraq. Publicly, it complains about Israel. Privately, it warns Western policy-makers about the 'threat' posed by Iran. This inconsistency has helped stoke the embers of radical fury.To meet the challenge raised by Obama's outreach, a four-pronged strategy may need to be developed:
(1) Islamic veto. The 1.5 billion strong Muslim community has to develop a de facto Islamic veto power in the UN Security Council. Muslims should be players, not spectators. Otherwise, the United Nations will continue to be used as a key tool of Big Power machinations. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of Palestine which led to the formation of Israel. 43 years later, on November 29, 1990, the United Nations voted (resolution 678) for use of force against Iraq. Both resolutions were midwifed by the United States, essentially favoring Israel.
(2) Pan-Islamic Force. A pan-Islamic force can be formed under the aegis of a rejuvenated OIC - it is not too late to rejuvenate it - composed of Muslim countries with the men and materiel to take responsibility for inter-Muslim disputes and deter against outside intervention.
(3) Islamic Fund. A significant sum of money needs to be set aside to focus on educational and technological uplift. Also, it can lay the foundations of international caliber Muslim think-tanks which can prepare battle-ready youth to compete in the battle of ideas.
(4) Rule of Law. Although Islamic teachings envisage a just and egalitarian social order, in practice, arbitrary rule prevails. Existing set-ups pamper the privileged few and quash legitimate expectations for a better life of the many.
Finally, governance gaps in Muslim state systems and moral failures of ruling elites breed frustration and fury. This has given space for violent militancy, with its appeal to zealous piety, to flourish. The core obstacle to overcome lies within. It has to do with the narrow interests of parasitical ruling classes.
1400 years ago, Hazrat Ali gave this advice:
"Remember, the privileged few will not rally round you in moments of difficulty; they will try to side-track justice, they will ask for more than they deserve and will show no gratitude for favours done to them. They will feel restive in the face of trials and will offer no regret for their shortcomings. It is the common man who is the strength of the State and of Religion."
It remains a salutary reminder today.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Nepal
Published: June 12, 2009
Brig (Retd) A.Q. Anjum
Nepal, a country of 18 million people comprising a variety of races and groups, is the only Hindu country other than India. Protected by the Great Himalayas in North, and vast mass of India in the South.
In 1846, there were palace intrigues which resulted in a bloody massacre and put an end to Shah Dynasty. Another Royal massacre happened in Kathmandu Palace on 1st June 2001 King Birendra who was the prime target of 2001 Massacre is the grandson of king Tribhuvan. In 1961, Nepal signed an agreement with China on mutual boundaries and in 1969, Nepal secured the withdrawal of the Indian military mission in Kathmandu. Nepal thus tried to keep a non-satellite status in relation with India.
Nepal, being land-locked country depended on India for economic growth. In 1989, there was a great economic famine imposed over Nepal when all entry points agreed jointly were blocked by India. They say it was the worst economic blockade by a neighbouring country in the history of peace, in South Asia.
On 1st June 2001, a catastrophe took place in the Kathmandu Royal Palace where, in a matter of a few minutes, the entire Royal family present in the palace was massacred, leaving none to wear the crown. The Royal King Birendra was first to be shot allegedly by the Crown Prince who later, turn by turn, killed his mother, the Queen, then sisters and brothers-in-law. The Crown Prince, Dipendra, the successor to the throne, was named the killer, the author and the executor of the drama on the night while the Palace was under the protection of the then Prime Minister, G.P. Koirala, and leader of the pro-India Nepali Congress Party. The drop scene of the drama has not yet come. The Prince is said to have then gone to his room, changed his uniform and the weapon and returned to the sanctuary of the dying royalty and joined them by killing himself. It is indeed a queer story and an unbelievable fable like a page from the thousand "Arabian Nights". It, however, did happen before the eyes of the custodians of the Palace who did not allow anyone else to see the proceedings of this gory bonanza of 'blood and fire'.Prince Gyanendra, the younger brother of the dead King Birendra was holidaying somewhere in India on that fateful night. He was dispatched by India and installed as a new monarch of Nepal. In those days some papers wrote, "India is the main conspirator behind the Nepalese Royal family massacre", while the protestors chanted in Kathmandu, "we do not accept the thief Gyanendra".
King Gyanendra took over the reins of the government of Nepal and worked quietly to regain normalcy in the disturbed country. Then, all of a sudden, in February 2005, he declared emergency and assumed power on the excuse that the government had failed to quash an anti-monarchy Maoist movement that has killed about 13000 people since 1996. The king removed the Parliament, took control in his own hands through brute force. This sudden shock move made the docile youth come out to protest against the high-handedness of the King. The protests gained heat as the time passed. King Gyanendra was pressured to reinstate parliament and hand power back to the government. A short spell of violent reaction in the impoverished nation of the Himalayas appears to be a harbinger of a new Nepal that forced the monarch to give in. Nepal's Parliament passed the historical resolution by a verbal vote. The proclamation took away the title of Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the military from the King. His government was no longer "His Majesty's Government". It ceased to be a Hindu nation any longer and became a secular state. The elections were held on 10 April 2008, the first in the last nine years, Maoists have captured 202 seats out of 605 seats, likely to form the next government, as the Maoist Deputy Leader, Baburam Bhattarai said, "We will declare the country a republic, and then notify the King to leave the Palace". Maoist top leader, Perchandra succeeded to form the Government, but the newly elected Prime Minister has been removed after 8 months of rule only. The PM had asked his C-in-C, General Rookmangud Kalawal to enlist the Maoist youth in the Nepal Army. The Chief disobeyed the orders of his Prime Minister who then wished to remove the C-in-C. The President of Nepal backed the Chief instead of the Prime Minister. The newly crowned PM, the Maoist leader, was made to resign, On May 26, 2009 Mudhev Kumar Nepal, 56 year old political veteran, has taken over as the PM of Nepal.
Mr. Kuldip Nayar, a renowned Indian writer has called it a parallel situation to the one when INA men, on return to India, were not accepted by the Indian Army, after WW2. However, he has not endorsed the C-in-C's act to disobey the elected PM. Nepal is likely to erupt into another scene of fireworks in the South Asia, thanks to India's hegemonic ambitions.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Writing in English
By Wajahat Latif | Published: June 12, 2009
Islamabad to Doha is not a long haul, but the direct flight from Doha to Washington is 14 hours. That is a long flight! Hard as the airline staff may try to keep you in good humor, you do feel a kind of travel anxiety. I do not mind long train journeys as the train rolls on its tracks on the ground and you see the landscape on both sides. But when you fly for hours and see nothing out of the window but the silver clouds or the ocean for hours, the experience can be tiring.
Yes, you are lucky if you find a good film: that takes away a couple of hours. And if you are lucky a second time, another couple. I saw Sandpiper, an Elizabeth Taylor-Richard Burton masterpiece and a black and white Humphrey Bogart-Lauren Becall mystery from the fifties. I had read about both but not seen.
But my mainstay for long journeys has been and is a good book. Reading kills boredom best. The book I read was George Orwell's critical essays compiled by George Packer: All Art Is Propaganda. Orwell, an officer of the Imperial Police (IP) in Burma for a short while after finishing university, pursued finally a career as a journalist and a writer; dying of tuberculosis at the rather young age of 46 in 1950. The finest prose writer in the English language, he wrote prolifically and kept at it even on his death bed as he lay there with tuberculosis. This is a recent book that contains some of his unpublished writings as well. Most known for his "1984", he was the author also of great works like "Animal Farm" and "Down and out in Paris and London". Although Orwell commented on diverse subjects from literature to film through his career as a writer, critics acclaim him essentially as an essayist.Writing in 1946 George Orwell noted and lamented the deterioration of English prose. In his brilliant essay "Politics and the English Language" written in April, 1946 he quotes from Professor Harold Laski's Freedom of Expression as an example of bad English: "I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience even more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate."
Bemoaning five negatives in these 53 words, Orwell finds "One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip alien for akin, making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness."
After giving a few more examples of bad writing he suggests six rules of writing English. Rule (iii) is the most famous. "If it is possible to cut a word", he says, "always cut it out." In rule (ii) he says, "Never use a long word where a short one will do." But his golden rule is (v) in which he says, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." This today should be law.
In the same essay he advises four questions that a "scrupulous" writer should ask himself on every sentence that he writes. "What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?"
"Political language," George Orwell regrets, "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment", Orwell continues, "but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn out useless phrase- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse- into the dustbin where it belongs".
I conclude by quoting the opening paragraph of Orwell's Confessions of a Book Reviewer, a five page essay he wrote in May 1946: "In a cold but stuffy bed-sitting room littered with cigarette ends and half empty cups of tea, a man in a moth-eaten dressing gown sits at a rickety table, trying to find room for his type writer among the piles of dusty papers that surround it. He cannot throw the papers away because the waste paper basket is already overflowing, and besides, somewhere among the unanswered letters and unpaid bills it is possible that there is a cheque for two guineas which he is nearly certain he forgot to pay into the bank...".

 

[arshad_lahore]

Obama's metaphysics
By Dr A.h. Khayal | Published: June 12, 2009
Obama has claimed that the Iraqis are now more prosperous than they ever were under Saddam. How has he come to know this? One can't help assuming that he must have held a secret referendum in Iraq to know the reality. And he must be grateful to the Iraqis for their cooperation.
Bush kept relentlessly bombing Iraq during his entire tenure. He destroyed whatever he fancied to destroy. Virtually, he left nothing destroyed, which was worth destroying. Bush has done a great injustice to Obama. He has left nothing for Obama to destroy. Obama must be dismayed. No wonder, he has declared that America will soon be out of Iraq. Obviously, there is no fun in occupying a country if there is nothing to be destroyed.
Obama has asserted that killing innocent human beings is a crime against humanity. America has killed innumerable innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Are not these killings crimes against humanity? Not at all. Here is the reason. There are two supreme powers in the universe: Natural Disasters and America. Since man's birth, Natural Disasters have been killing human beings non-stop. Can Natural Disasters be accused of having committed crimes against humanity? Never! They can't be thus accused because there is no power in the world, which can put them in the dock.
There is a second supreme power in the world. It is America. Like Natural Disasters, America can want only kill innocent human beings. And like Natural Disasters it cannot be accused of crimes against humanity. Moreover, America does not regard Iraqis and Afghanis as genuine human beings. It regards them as fake copies of human beings.
Obama has advised the Palestinians to be patient. He has warned them that the problem cannot be solved overnight. Obama must know that the Palestinians have been struggling for their liberation for the last forty-two years. Forty-two years mean more than fifteen hundred nights. What does Obama mean by his 'overnight'? Let's ask Obama: "Please Obama, kindly tell us how many more nights will be required for the problem's solution?"Obama has accused the Palestinians of being violent. The Palestinians are waging a war of liberation. For every single Israeli casualty, Israel has killed a whole tankful of Palestinians. Obama means that the Palestinians should stop fighting for their liberation. Rather they should start loving the Israeli occupation. Being the occupying power, Israel has every right to be as violent as suits its occupational interests. And being an occupied community, the Palestinians have no right to insult the occupiers by being violent.
Obama has suggested that for establishing peace in the world, weapons of mass destruction should be completely destroyed. Was the world peaceful when there were no atomic weapons? Never. Man has loved weapons more than himself. Even if all sorts of weapons, nuclear as well as conventional, were to be destroyed, even then there would be no peace in the world. Man would use his fists as weapons.
Animals are weaponless creatures. Is there peace in the jungle? Not at all. But there is a fundamental difference. A war with weapons is far more destructive than a war with bare hands.
If Obama honestly desires to establish peace in the world then he must ensure that man is stripped even of his hands. Only completely handless human beings can be peaceful human beings.
Obama has revealed that he is a student of history. The statement is somewhat doubtful. Had he really loved history, he would have long ago flown to Gaza and stayed there for a few days seeing with his own eyes the destruction inflicted by Israel on Gaza. Since the World War II, the world has not seen human sufferings like the sufferings of the residents of Gaza. Had Obama really loved history, he would have seen the history of his own time with his own eyes. But no. He hates to see history. He only loves to read history.
According to an Arab newspaper, King Abdullah has told Obama to solve the Palestine stalemate by imposing a solution. For the last forty-two years, Israel has been chopping off the Palestinians' necks. Actually, Israel does not want a solution. A solution would deprive Israel of its necks-chopping revelry. By imposing a solution, Obama would risk his own neck.
Israel and India are great friends. Their friendship is the creation of a common passion. Israel has been killing the Palestinians who have been protesting against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. India has been killing the Kashmiris who have been protesting against the Indian occupation of Kashmir. Had there been no freedom fighters in Palestine and Kashmir, Israel and India would never have become passionately friendly.
Obama has accepted that Palestine is a dire international problem. But he kept mum about Kashmir during his Cairo address. The Kashmiris have been fighting a war of liberation against the Indian occupation for over half a century. A Security Resolution has asked India to hold a referendum in Kashmir. India is adamant. Obama is silent. What does it mean? It means that Obama loves joking about peace in the world.