A
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Changing the way we have been
Islamabad diary
Friday, June 05, 2009
Ayaz Amir
The stakes couldn't be higher nor the opportunity hidden in this hour of seeming distress more promising. Provided we don't prove exceptionally unlucky once more -- or exceptionally stupid -- the crisis in which we find ourselves is an opportunity to change the face of Pakistan, change our direction and our established modes of thinking and make up for all the lost years -- years lost to mediocre leadership, both civil and military.
It is not us who have created this moment of opportunity. Indeed it lay not in our power to do so. It has come our way through a combination of factors: America's presence in Afghanistan; the growing Taliban threat within Pakistan; and Barack Obama as US president.
It is Obama's approach to Afghanistan which has enhanced Pakistan's importance -- whether Pakistan's inept leadership understands this or not. Crucial to any American success in Afghanistan -- anything that enables the US to make a half-dignified exit from there -- is Pakistan's role or, specifically, the role of its army.
On its own, the US is in no position to commit the kind of resources and troops that could bend Afghanistan to its will. For that it needs the active engagement of Pakistan's 600,000 strong army. Which should explain the Obama administration's desperation to get the Pakistan army involved in seriously fighting the Taliban.
For reasons we need not go into here, the army was reluctant to take on the Taliban. And this is how things would have remained had it not been for the Swat Taliban's ineffable stupidity. Their aggressiveness, when a quieter posture would have suited their interests better, left the army with no choice but to shake off its lassitude and commence serious hostilities.
American pressure also played a part. But by itself this pressure, without the unerring folly of the Swat Taliban, would not have created the tipping point which led to the Swat operation.
The leadership of the Swat Taliban can now rue the consequences of their overreaching belligerence. A thousand drone attacks could not have done to them what an aroused Pakistan army is now doing. If the Pakistan army's will to fight which it had sadly lost, now stands restored, it is because of these bearded warriors. The Pakistani nation owes them a debt of gratitude. As does the CIA and the Pentagon.
But we will be kidding ourselves if we think that what we are in is a passing storm. The Swat Taliban are on the run but they haven't been eliminated. They have taken to the mountains and will remain a threat unless they keep being pursued. Which means that the army will have to remain in Malakand division for a long time.
FATA, especially the two Waziristans, remain no-go areas. Sooner or later the army will have to take them back. Everything is negotiable except Pakistan's unity and integrity. There cannot be space in Pakistan for any independent emirate, which is what South Waziristan to all intents and purposes presently is.
So we are in this for the long haul. This is not going to be a summer's campaign. The Taliban are not about to vanish overnight and the US too is not about to disappear from Afghanistan in a hurry. In truth, Pakistan is the new Cambodia, which requires some explaining.
At the height of the Vietnam war, the Americans said that there was no defeating the Viet Cong unless Cambodia, through which Viet Cong supply routes passed, was secured. The Americans went into Cambodia but the Viet Cong were not defeated. Forty years later Cambodia has still not recovered from what the US did to it.
Pakistan is not a soft state like Cambodia. Still, those at the helm of affairs will need to be extra careful, and its leaders will have to be a whole lot better than they are, to ensure that Pakistan doesn't go Cambodia's way.
Ideally, the civilian government should be in effective control of events. Actually, not least because of the vacuum resulting from Zardari's inadequacy and Prime Minister Gilani's various limitations, it is the army which is calling the shots, making the army chief, Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani, the first among equals in the present setup. Small wonder if the Americans increasingly turn to him in important matters.
This is not Gen Kayani's fault. Even so, it bears remembering that we have paid dearly for Bonapartism before and there is no reason to think the consequences are going to be any different if we succumb to its temptations once again. Even with inadequacy a hundred times greater than Zardari's, the truth still holds that the Pakistan army acts best when it remains within its own sphere. The moment it steps outside that magic circle it invites disaster and ignominy. There is no more enduring lesson in our history than this.
There's more to nation-building than merely seizing power. And there's more to war than merely being on the winning side. In the present context, defeating the Taliban will never be enough unless the causes which led to their rise in the first place are eliminated.
The army has to be re-educated. Pakistan's strategic depth lies not in the spaces of any other country but in its own capacity to build a functioning nation. If our streets and cities are clean, if we learn the virtues of public transport, if our schools and hospitals deliver, if we learn to treat the environment with respect, we will have all the strategic depth that we need.
With India for the foreseeable future we will have an uneasy relationship. It is not easy living with an elephant as your neighbour. But the old notion of India being enemy number one has been overtaken by events. In fact both countries need to grow up. There is no sense any more in keeping our strike formations pointed at each other. India's tanks are only good for Pakistan. Our tanks are only good for India. There's no sense in this deployment. Both countries have nuclear weapons. What more do we need for deterrence?
In the new Pakistan that we should be creating there should be no room for armed warriors dedicated to the liberation of Kashmir by force. Thus Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hafiz Muhammad Saeed may have had their uses, or relevance, once upon a time but not any more. Their time is past.
The 'jihadi' mindset cannot be divided into separate categories. It is of a piece. 'Jihad' can't be good for one border and bad for another. It doesn't happen that way. It was the genie of 'jihad' which mutated into the Taliban. If we are now up in arms against the Taliban, we will have to bid a final farewell to the original genie.
There are so many other jihads, more real than the ones consuming our energies in the past, awaiting our attention: against poverty, ignorance and disease. The Pakistan of our dreams will not be realised unless these are fought.
General Ziaul Haq's Islam was a homage to hypocrisy. Pakistan's soul can never be at peace unless what he wrought in the name of a spurious religiosity, including the Hudood laws, is not rolled back. The muck of the Augean stables was nothing compared to the garbage pitch-forked into our Constitution. We need to go back to the Constitution as it was in 1977. We don't need to turn Pakistan into any kind of permissive Babylon. That just won't do. But in social terms we need to make Pakistan a freer place. Too many taboos, too many social restrictions, are not good for the spirit of any nation.
All this needn't remain a utopian ideal. Just as steel is forged in the heat of fire, in the stress and storm of the present conflict against the Taliban our best minds should be thinking about how best to rethink the direction of Pakistan.
Islamabad diary
Friday, June 05, 2009
Ayaz Amir
The stakes couldn't be higher nor the opportunity hidden in this hour of seeming distress more promising. Provided we don't prove exceptionally unlucky once more -- or exceptionally stupid -- the crisis in which we find ourselves is an opportunity to change the face of Pakistan, change our direction and our established modes of thinking and make up for all the lost years -- years lost to mediocre leadership, both civil and military.
It is not us who have created this moment of opportunity. Indeed it lay not in our power to do so. It has come our way through a combination of factors: America's presence in Afghanistan; the growing Taliban threat within Pakistan; and Barack Obama as US president.
It is Obama's approach to Afghanistan which has enhanced Pakistan's importance -- whether Pakistan's inept leadership understands this or not. Crucial to any American success in Afghanistan -- anything that enables the US to make a half-dignified exit from there -- is Pakistan's role or, specifically, the role of its army.
On its own, the US is in no position to commit the kind of resources and troops that could bend Afghanistan to its will. For that it needs the active engagement of Pakistan's 600,000 strong army. Which should explain the Obama administration's desperation to get the Pakistan army involved in seriously fighting the Taliban.
For reasons we need not go into here, the army was reluctant to take on the Taliban. And this is how things would have remained had it not been for the Swat Taliban's ineffable stupidity. Their aggressiveness, when a quieter posture would have suited their interests better, left the army with no choice but to shake off its lassitude and commence serious hostilities.
American pressure also played a part. But by itself this pressure, without the unerring folly of the Swat Taliban, would not have created the tipping point which led to the Swat operation.
The leadership of the Swat Taliban can now rue the consequences of their overreaching belligerence. A thousand drone attacks could not have done to them what an aroused Pakistan army is now doing. If the Pakistan army's will to fight which it had sadly lost, now stands restored, it is because of these bearded warriors. The Pakistani nation owes them a debt of gratitude. As does the CIA and the Pentagon.
But we will be kidding ourselves if we think that what we are in is a passing storm. The Swat Taliban are on the run but they haven't been eliminated. They have taken to the mountains and will remain a threat unless they keep being pursued. Which means that the army will have to remain in Malakand division for a long time.
FATA, especially the two Waziristans, remain no-go areas. Sooner or later the army will have to take them back. Everything is negotiable except Pakistan's unity and integrity. There cannot be space in Pakistan for any independent emirate, which is what South Waziristan to all intents and purposes presently is.
So we are in this for the long haul. This is not going to be a summer's campaign. The Taliban are not about to vanish overnight and the US too is not about to disappear from Afghanistan in a hurry. In truth, Pakistan is the new Cambodia, which requires some explaining.
At the height of the Vietnam war, the Americans said that there was no defeating the Viet Cong unless Cambodia, through which Viet Cong supply routes passed, was secured. The Americans went into Cambodia but the Viet Cong were not defeated. Forty years later Cambodia has still not recovered from what the US did to it.
Pakistan is not a soft state like Cambodia. Still, those at the helm of affairs will need to be extra careful, and its leaders will have to be a whole lot better than they are, to ensure that Pakistan doesn't go Cambodia's way.
Ideally, the civilian government should be in effective control of events. Actually, not least because of the vacuum resulting from Zardari's inadequacy and Prime Minister Gilani's various limitations, it is the army which is calling the shots, making the army chief, Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani, the first among equals in the present setup. Small wonder if the Americans increasingly turn to him in important matters.
This is not Gen Kayani's fault. Even so, it bears remembering that we have paid dearly for Bonapartism before and there is no reason to think the consequences are going to be any different if we succumb to its temptations once again. Even with inadequacy a hundred times greater than Zardari's, the truth still holds that the Pakistan army acts best when it remains within its own sphere. The moment it steps outside that magic circle it invites disaster and ignominy. There is no more enduring lesson in our history than this.
There's more to nation-building than merely seizing power. And there's more to war than merely being on the winning side. In the present context, defeating the Taliban will never be enough unless the causes which led to their rise in the first place are eliminated.
The army has to be re-educated. Pakistan's strategic depth lies not in the spaces of any other country but in its own capacity to build a functioning nation. If our streets and cities are clean, if we learn the virtues of public transport, if our schools and hospitals deliver, if we learn to treat the environment with respect, we will have all the strategic depth that we need.
With India for the foreseeable future we will have an uneasy relationship. It is not easy living with an elephant as your neighbour. But the old notion of India being enemy number one has been overtaken by events. In fact both countries need to grow up. There is no sense any more in keeping our strike formations pointed at each other. India's tanks are only good for Pakistan. Our tanks are only good for India. There's no sense in this deployment. Both countries have nuclear weapons. What more do we need for deterrence?
In the new Pakistan that we should be creating there should be no room for armed warriors dedicated to the liberation of Kashmir by force. Thus Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hafiz Muhammad Saeed may have had their uses, or relevance, once upon a time but not any more. Their time is past.
The 'jihadi' mindset cannot be divided into separate categories. It is of a piece. 'Jihad' can't be good for one border and bad for another. It doesn't happen that way. It was the genie of 'jihad' which mutated into the Taliban. If we are now up in arms against the Taliban, we will have to bid a final farewell to the original genie.
There are so many other jihads, more real than the ones consuming our energies in the past, awaiting our attention: against poverty, ignorance and disease. The Pakistan of our dreams will not be realised unless these are fought.
General Ziaul Haq's Islam was a homage to hypocrisy. Pakistan's soul can never be at peace unless what he wrought in the name of a spurious religiosity, including the Hudood laws, is not rolled back. The muck of the Augean stables was nothing compared to the garbage pitch-forked into our Constitution. We need to go back to the Constitution as it was in 1977. We don't need to turn Pakistan into any kind of permissive Babylon. That just won't do. But in social terms we need to make Pakistan a freer place. Too many taboos, too many social restrictions, are not good for the spirit of any nation.
All this needn't remain a utopian ideal. Just as steel is forged in the heat of fire, in the stress and storm of the present conflict against the Taliban our best minds should be thinking about how best to rethink the direction of Pakistan.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The silent terror
Urban/urbane
Friday, June 05, 2009
Ahmad Rafay Alam
World Environment Day was established by the UN General Assembly in 1972 to mark the opening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Commemorated every year on this day, it is one of the principal vehicles through which the UN Environment Programme stimulates worldwide awareness of the environment and enhances political attention and action. A good time, then, to take stock of the environmental issues and challenges facing this Islamic Republic and its Ashraful Mukhluqat.
2009 is the National Year of the Environment. The federal ministry of environment has put together an ambitious yearlong calendar of events aimed essentially at raising awareness about the environment. Even though environmental degradation and climate change are challenges our country and its system of administration have never had to cope with, the fact is that altogether too many people still think "the environment" is a euphemism for their immediate surroundings. And perhaps a dolphin somewhere. The environmental problems of our country are far more complex than the solutions offered by, for instance, the arboreal and, therefore, the ministry's efforts are a big step in the right direction.
Pakistan's Initial National Communication on Climate Change was issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2004, and is our first official assessment of the effects climate change will have in our country. Based on an assumed, but expected, increases in temperature and changes in climate, glaciers are expected to melt faster, and less and less snow is expected to form in the mountains where our freshwater comes from. This will change the flow of our rivers and any system which depends on them. Our country's breadbasket will be affected. The increase in temperature will also put heat stress on crops, including "severe stress" on our cash crops: cotton, wheat and sugar. Any affect on crop yields will have the obvious effects on our food supply. It will also wreak havoc in rural society, where families have no other means save the fruit of the soil that they till. The Communication also expects that deforestation, coupled with shifting water resources, will cause landslides. The fragile ecosystems, flora and fauna sustained by what remains of our forest resources are also under threat. Changing water resources and crop patterns are also expected to result in mass migrations as rural populations follow better climactic conditions. Remember, these scenarios come from an official government report. They are not the worst-case scenarios of some hysterical tree-hugger
LEAD Pakistan has done excellent work on climate change. Dr Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, the CEO of LEAD Pakistan, has written, in this paper ("The Climate Change Challenge," Dec 30, 2008, and Jan 3, 2009), the best assessment so far of the challenges climate change will bring to our doorstep. In other research, LEAD Pakistan has highlighted the following seven major climate related threats facing our country: i) water stress; ii) food shortages; iii) energy stress; iv) a rise in epidemic diseases; v) increased disaster risks; vi) ecosystem degradation; and vii) mass migration. The poor and poverty-stricken, a substantial proportion of our population, are disproportionately at risk from these threats as they do not have the means to adapt to or mitigate the effects that will be visited upon them. Nor do they have a government structure capable of dealing with this issue. The effects of climate change should not be thought of challenges of the future. The displacement of people near the coastline in Sindh, flooding elsewhere, for example, are both the effects climate change is visiting upon us now. Last year's monsoon rain was the earliest in recorded history, and God knows what a shift in the rains will spell on crop productivity or the ecosystem. This is exactly why climate change has been referred to as "The Silent Terror."
The federal government Rules of Business and the four provinces' Rules of Business are the legal documents that set out the responsibility of ministries, divisions and departments. It is the document which sets out how our bureaucracy handles things and, embarrassingly, it they were compiled before I was even born. This means that our government is hardwired to handle things the same way it was in the early 1970s, even though they are more things in heaven and earth, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that are thought of in its philosophy.
In "A Ministry of Climate Change?" (July 13, 2008), I had written that the Rules of Business need to be overhauled and our system of government redesigned to meet the challenges of climate change. I had proposed, and still stand by the idea, that a Ministry of Climate Change be created that would integrate our climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. It would have to connect all policymakers at every level, from international to union council and coordinate hitherto disparate issues, such as our canal irrigation system and agricultural productivity to things like our energy mix, trade policies and our international obligations.
Climate Change is now much more than just personal obligations. Far too often, I am asked what one can do to "stop" climate change; whether turning the lights off before we leave a room or turning the tap off while brushing our teeth will arrest what our race has done to its planet. Conservation habits like these should now be thought of as par for the course, and anyone not practicing them should be socially ostracised.
But more than personal obligations, we need to do things like address our dependence on the fossil fuels. We have to ask how we can adapt our transport infrastructure (the trucks, the trains, the planes and the cars) and make them more environmentally friendly.
We need to ask whether we can afford to continue with automobile-dependant urban development when smaller cities and public transport are viable options. We need to explore economic policies aimed at this goal. We have to ask questions about the efficiency of our energy use. Twenty-four percent of all the electricity generated in Pakistan is lost in transmission and distribution. Can we afford such inefficiency when there's an electricity crisis? We need to ask whether we can continue to rely on energy inefficient building techniques. We need to examine the way we use our water resources. We have to ask whether we can continue with the inefficient system of flood irrigation at a time when there is a water crisis and, moreover, there are almost no cooperative farming or irrigation practices. We need to ask ourselves whether we can continue without adding water reservoirs to our already meagre water resources.
These are big questions and pressing issues that need immediate attention and require citizens like you, dear reader, to raise them at every opportunity.
There's also this notion that Pakistan's contribution to global climate change is minute compared to developed countries and that, therefore, it's unfair to expect us to bear equal responsibility (and cost) for mitigation and adaptation measures. This is true, as Pakistan's per-capita carbon footprint is less than a ton a year, whereas the average US Citizen emits over six tons a year. Also, since the Industrial Revolution, the industrialised "West" has emitted just over half the carbon dioxide of the world (India and China combined account for just 10 percent). It's true that climate change raises equity issues, both international and historical, but this must not distract from the fact that, at this time, environmental degradation is killing Pakistan and Pakistanis.
According to an environment assessment the World Bank conducted of Pakistan in 2005, an estimated 20,000 infants die prematurely each year because of our polluted air. Far more are expected to die as a result of impure drinking water. An estimated 45 million respiratory diseases are reported annually. Earlier this year, Federal Minister for the Environment Hamidullah Jan Afridi disclosed that pollution costs the exchequer an estimated Rs1 billion every single day. These should be arguments enough to put a red alert on the environment and to place it at Top National Priority.
The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning.
Urban/urbane
Friday, June 05, 2009
Ahmad Rafay Alam
World Environment Day was established by the UN General Assembly in 1972 to mark the opening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Commemorated every year on this day, it is one of the principal vehicles through which the UN Environment Programme stimulates worldwide awareness of the environment and enhances political attention and action. A good time, then, to take stock of the environmental issues and challenges facing this Islamic Republic and its Ashraful Mukhluqat.
2009 is the National Year of the Environment. The federal ministry of environment has put together an ambitious yearlong calendar of events aimed essentially at raising awareness about the environment. Even though environmental degradation and climate change are challenges our country and its system of administration have never had to cope with, the fact is that altogether too many people still think "the environment" is a euphemism for their immediate surroundings. And perhaps a dolphin somewhere. The environmental problems of our country are far more complex than the solutions offered by, for instance, the arboreal and, therefore, the ministry's efforts are a big step in the right direction.
Pakistan's Initial National Communication on Climate Change was issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2004, and is our first official assessment of the effects climate change will have in our country. Based on an assumed, but expected, increases in temperature and changes in climate, glaciers are expected to melt faster, and less and less snow is expected to form in the mountains where our freshwater comes from. This will change the flow of our rivers and any system which depends on them. Our country's breadbasket will be affected. The increase in temperature will also put heat stress on crops, including "severe stress" on our cash crops: cotton, wheat and sugar. Any affect on crop yields will have the obvious effects on our food supply. It will also wreak havoc in rural society, where families have no other means save the fruit of the soil that they till. The Communication also expects that deforestation, coupled with shifting water resources, will cause landslides. The fragile ecosystems, flora and fauna sustained by what remains of our forest resources are also under threat. Changing water resources and crop patterns are also expected to result in mass migrations as rural populations follow better climactic conditions. Remember, these scenarios come from an official government report. They are not the worst-case scenarios of some hysterical tree-hugger
LEAD Pakistan has done excellent work on climate change. Dr Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, the CEO of LEAD Pakistan, has written, in this paper ("The Climate Change Challenge," Dec 30, 2008, and Jan 3, 2009), the best assessment so far of the challenges climate change will bring to our doorstep. In other research, LEAD Pakistan has highlighted the following seven major climate related threats facing our country: i) water stress; ii) food shortages; iii) energy stress; iv) a rise in epidemic diseases; v) increased disaster risks; vi) ecosystem degradation; and vii) mass migration. The poor and poverty-stricken, a substantial proportion of our population, are disproportionately at risk from these threats as they do not have the means to adapt to or mitigate the effects that will be visited upon them. Nor do they have a government structure capable of dealing with this issue. The effects of climate change should not be thought of challenges of the future. The displacement of people near the coastline in Sindh, flooding elsewhere, for example, are both the effects climate change is visiting upon us now. Last year's monsoon rain was the earliest in recorded history, and God knows what a shift in the rains will spell on crop productivity or the ecosystem. This is exactly why climate change has been referred to as "The Silent Terror."
The federal government Rules of Business and the four provinces' Rules of Business are the legal documents that set out the responsibility of ministries, divisions and departments. It is the document which sets out how our bureaucracy handles things and, embarrassingly, it they were compiled before I was even born. This means that our government is hardwired to handle things the same way it was in the early 1970s, even though they are more things in heaven and earth, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that are thought of in its philosophy.
In "A Ministry of Climate Change?" (July 13, 2008), I had written that the Rules of Business need to be overhauled and our system of government redesigned to meet the challenges of climate change. I had proposed, and still stand by the idea, that a Ministry of Climate Change be created that would integrate our climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. It would have to connect all policymakers at every level, from international to union council and coordinate hitherto disparate issues, such as our canal irrigation system and agricultural productivity to things like our energy mix, trade policies and our international obligations.
Climate Change is now much more than just personal obligations. Far too often, I am asked what one can do to "stop" climate change; whether turning the lights off before we leave a room or turning the tap off while brushing our teeth will arrest what our race has done to its planet. Conservation habits like these should now be thought of as par for the course, and anyone not practicing them should be socially ostracised.
But more than personal obligations, we need to do things like address our dependence on the fossil fuels. We have to ask how we can adapt our transport infrastructure (the trucks, the trains, the planes and the cars) and make them more environmentally friendly.
We need to ask whether we can afford to continue with automobile-dependant urban development when smaller cities and public transport are viable options. We need to explore economic policies aimed at this goal. We have to ask questions about the efficiency of our energy use. Twenty-four percent of all the electricity generated in Pakistan is lost in transmission and distribution. Can we afford such inefficiency when there's an electricity crisis? We need to ask whether we can continue to rely on energy inefficient building techniques. We need to examine the way we use our water resources. We have to ask whether we can continue with the inefficient system of flood irrigation at a time when there is a water crisis and, moreover, there are almost no cooperative farming or irrigation practices. We need to ask ourselves whether we can continue without adding water reservoirs to our already meagre water resources.
These are big questions and pressing issues that need immediate attention and require citizens like you, dear reader, to raise them at every opportunity.
There's also this notion that Pakistan's contribution to global climate change is minute compared to developed countries and that, therefore, it's unfair to expect us to bear equal responsibility (and cost) for mitigation and adaptation measures. This is true, as Pakistan's per-capita carbon footprint is less than a ton a year, whereas the average US Citizen emits over six tons a year. Also, since the Industrial Revolution, the industrialised "West" has emitted just over half the carbon dioxide of the world (India and China combined account for just 10 percent). It's true that climate change raises equity issues, both international and historical, but this must not distract from the fact that, at this time, environmental degradation is killing Pakistan and Pakistanis.
According to an environment assessment the World Bank conducted of Pakistan in 2005, an estimated 20,000 infants die prematurely each year because of our polluted air. Far more are expected to die as a result of impure drinking water. An estimated 45 million respiratory diseases are reported annually. Earlier this year, Federal Minister for the Environment Hamidullah Jan Afridi disclosed that pollution costs the exchequer an estimated Rs1 billion every single day. These should be arguments enough to put a red alert on the environment and to place it at Top National Priority.
The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The bogey of war on Pakhtuns
Reality check
Friday, June 05, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood
Why are we so wary of giving praise? This is true not only of those who write but of the readers. There seems to be a strange consensus that if something bad has to be said about a person or an institution, say it loudly. If there is some good to say, mute it down.
Cynicism is the prevailing ethos and considered much safer. If things don't work out, as they wont many a time, it is better to be a critic than an enthusiast. Fervour is seen as naive and scepticism, a sign of wisdom. A jaded world-weary image of having seen it all, been there, done it, what's the big deal; is the persona of choice.
This leaves little room for praise. Take the case of operation in Swat and Buner. It is obvious that the military campaign has been a brilliant success. The throat-cutters are on the run and many are being picked off in adjoining districts. But, how many in the writing or commenting business are ready to say it?
Yes, this is just a phase or one battle in a larger war and these people will most likely regroup and fight another day. And it is true, that this campaign is going to be a long drawn out affair, with successes and failures. But, is there any reason not to give praise when praise is due?
Our soldiers have fought bravely and many have given the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve our gratitude. The planning for the operation has also been a success. I have little knowledge of military strategy, but it is obvious that the terrorists were divided by a multi-pronged attack.
Their important base of Peochar was targeted through commandoes as pressure was exerted in Malam Jabba, Matta and, finally, Mingora. This led to a panic and probably the Taliban commanders melted away. Many of those left behind were killed.
Also, by launching simultaneous operations in Buner and Dir and threatening a campaign in Waziristan, other throat-cutters were not allowed to flock to Swat. In this the military took advantage of its numbers and kept the militants engaged in different areas. This was good planning and a job well done.
War is never pretty and this one too has had some very bad consequences. A large number of people have been displaced and some have been killed in the crossfire. This is indeed tragic. But what choice did the civil and military leadership have? Allow these barbarians to take over the country!
Some people are saying that negotiations should have been carried out to the bitter end. Well, they were and we are seeing the consequences of endless, fruitless negotiations. Just yesterday a resident of Bajaur wrote in this paper about the advantages militants have taken of cease fires and negotiations to regroup and consolidate.
There is strong evidence that during the period of ceasefire and Nizam-e-Adl negotiations in Swat, the militants were able to build up their defences and increase their fighting capability. There are also reports that the Taliban leadership of Swat, Bajaur and Waziristan were able to meet during this period and coordinate their strategy. This kind of command and control link is crucial in the conduct of a war. Negotiations and ceasefires made this possible.
And, what about the foreign fighters? They are not here to negotiate, they want to control territory. Their linkage with Pakistani militants is part of the Al Qaeda agenda, and this has been established by writers like Saleem Saafi. He is not a so-called liberal but proponent of a dialogue with the militants.
If the locals have indeed adopted the Al Qaeda agenda, they will negotiate only to buy space/territory and time. They have no desire to lay down their arms or become good citizens of the state of Pakistan. Nizam-e-Adl or the slogan of establishing Sharia is just a smokescreen.
Writing in this paper, Mr Rustam Shah Mohmand says that what if 25 or 30 people had driven into Buner; this was no reason to launch an operation. He has been a senior colleague and I have great respect for his experience. But I would only ask, if they were indeed 25 or 30 people, who has the military been fighting in Buner for the last six weeks?
Also, if you look at the preparations of the militants in Swat and the sophistication of their arms, it is clear these were no Nizam-e-Adl fanatics. Sufi Mohammad is a different category, a zealot, but not a militant. The mission of Baitullah Mehsud and Fazalullah and Faqir Mohammad and other such people is control of territory. They obviously do not recognise Pakistan, its Constitution or its democracy.
An unfortunate inference has also been drawn by some people that this is a war against the Pakhtuns. There is little evidence to support this outlandish claim. Unfortunately, this war is taking place in areas that are inhabited by Pakhtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the militancy has all sorts of people in it.
Many of them are Punjabis or people from Karachi whose mother tongue is Urdu. Then there are the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Afghans, Arabs and Chechens. Like the international brigade fighting the Spanish Civil War, many in the Muslim world have gravitated to this area to fight what they consider to be the good fight.
They have been joined by Pakhtun groups which were radicalised during the war against the Soviets. It is important to remember that war on Pakhtun territory began in the eighties when the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was being resisted with American help. However, it did not end when the Soviets left.
Ethnic groups including the Pakhtuns, led by Hekmatyar and others, were active participants in the fight to control Afghanistan between 1989 and 1996. This was a civil war and not due to the Soviets or the Americans. Much of this fight also took place on Pakhtun territory.
The Taliban of Afghanistan are almost completely a Pakhtun group and thus most of their battles have taken place on land inhabited by the Pakhtuns. When they and Al Qaeda were ousted by the Americans, they took refuge in the Pakistani tribal area. This brought war to Pakistan and specifically to Pakistani Pakhtun areas.
After consolidating themselves in the tribal areas of this country, Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani groups aligned to them started to attack allied forces in Afghanistan. They also decided to extend their control over other tribal agencies and parts of the NWFP.
This enlarged the war and engulfed many areas in Pakistan that had a Pakhtun population. This has caused a huge suffering and it is indeed tragic. But is it the Pakistani state that is waging war against the Pakhtuns, as has been implied?
Pakhtuns are an integral part of this nation as indeed are people of other ethnicities. It is sad that the part where they live has become a war zone. The only way to end this suffering is to drive out the foreign elements and make the local throat cutters accountable.
This is what the Pakistani government and the army are doing.
Reality check
Friday, June 05, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood
Why are we so wary of giving praise? This is true not only of those who write but of the readers. There seems to be a strange consensus that if something bad has to be said about a person or an institution, say it loudly. If there is some good to say, mute it down.
Cynicism is the prevailing ethos and considered much safer. If things don't work out, as they wont many a time, it is better to be a critic than an enthusiast. Fervour is seen as naive and scepticism, a sign of wisdom. A jaded world-weary image of having seen it all, been there, done it, what's the big deal; is the persona of choice.
This leaves little room for praise. Take the case of operation in Swat and Buner. It is obvious that the military campaign has been a brilliant success. The throat-cutters are on the run and many are being picked off in adjoining districts. But, how many in the writing or commenting business are ready to say it?
Yes, this is just a phase or one battle in a larger war and these people will most likely regroup and fight another day. And it is true, that this campaign is going to be a long drawn out affair, with successes and failures. But, is there any reason not to give praise when praise is due?
Our soldiers have fought bravely and many have given the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve our gratitude. The planning for the operation has also been a success. I have little knowledge of military strategy, but it is obvious that the terrorists were divided by a multi-pronged attack.
Their important base of Peochar was targeted through commandoes as pressure was exerted in Malam Jabba, Matta and, finally, Mingora. This led to a panic and probably the Taliban commanders melted away. Many of those left behind were killed.
Also, by launching simultaneous operations in Buner and Dir and threatening a campaign in Waziristan, other throat-cutters were not allowed to flock to Swat. In this the military took advantage of its numbers and kept the militants engaged in different areas. This was good planning and a job well done.
War is never pretty and this one too has had some very bad consequences. A large number of people have been displaced and some have been killed in the crossfire. This is indeed tragic. But what choice did the civil and military leadership have? Allow these barbarians to take over the country!
Some people are saying that negotiations should have been carried out to the bitter end. Well, they were and we are seeing the consequences of endless, fruitless negotiations. Just yesterday a resident of Bajaur wrote in this paper about the advantages militants have taken of cease fires and negotiations to regroup and consolidate.
There is strong evidence that during the period of ceasefire and Nizam-e-Adl negotiations in Swat, the militants were able to build up their defences and increase their fighting capability. There are also reports that the Taliban leadership of Swat, Bajaur and Waziristan were able to meet during this period and coordinate their strategy. This kind of command and control link is crucial in the conduct of a war. Negotiations and ceasefires made this possible.
And, what about the foreign fighters? They are not here to negotiate, they want to control territory. Their linkage with Pakistani militants is part of the Al Qaeda agenda, and this has been established by writers like Saleem Saafi. He is not a so-called liberal but proponent of a dialogue with the militants.
If the locals have indeed adopted the Al Qaeda agenda, they will negotiate only to buy space/territory and time. They have no desire to lay down their arms or become good citizens of the state of Pakistan. Nizam-e-Adl or the slogan of establishing Sharia is just a smokescreen.
Writing in this paper, Mr Rustam Shah Mohmand says that what if 25 or 30 people had driven into Buner; this was no reason to launch an operation. He has been a senior colleague and I have great respect for his experience. But I would only ask, if they were indeed 25 or 30 people, who has the military been fighting in Buner for the last six weeks?
Also, if you look at the preparations of the militants in Swat and the sophistication of their arms, it is clear these were no Nizam-e-Adl fanatics. Sufi Mohammad is a different category, a zealot, but not a militant. The mission of Baitullah Mehsud and Fazalullah and Faqir Mohammad and other such people is control of territory. They obviously do not recognise Pakistan, its Constitution or its democracy.
An unfortunate inference has also been drawn by some people that this is a war against the Pakhtuns. There is little evidence to support this outlandish claim. Unfortunately, this war is taking place in areas that are inhabited by Pakhtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the militancy has all sorts of people in it.
Many of them are Punjabis or people from Karachi whose mother tongue is Urdu. Then there are the Uzbeks, Tajiks, Afghans, Arabs and Chechens. Like the international brigade fighting the Spanish Civil War, many in the Muslim world have gravitated to this area to fight what they consider to be the good fight.
They have been joined by Pakhtun groups which were radicalised during the war against the Soviets. It is important to remember that war on Pakhtun territory began in the eighties when the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was being resisted with American help. However, it did not end when the Soviets left.
Ethnic groups including the Pakhtuns, led by Hekmatyar and others, were active participants in the fight to control Afghanistan between 1989 and 1996. This was a civil war and not due to the Soviets or the Americans. Much of this fight also took place on Pakhtun territory.
The Taliban of Afghanistan are almost completely a Pakhtun group and thus most of their battles have taken place on land inhabited by the Pakhtuns. When they and Al Qaeda were ousted by the Americans, they took refuge in the Pakistani tribal area. This brought war to Pakistan and specifically to Pakistani Pakhtun areas.
After consolidating themselves in the tribal areas of this country, Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistani groups aligned to them started to attack allied forces in Afghanistan. They also decided to extend their control over other tribal agencies and parts of the NWFP.
This enlarged the war and engulfed many areas in Pakistan that had a Pakhtun population. This has caused a huge suffering and it is indeed tragic. But is it the Pakistani state that is waging war against the Pakhtuns, as has been implied?
Pakhtuns are an integral part of this nation as indeed are people of other ethnicities. It is sad that the part where they live has become a war zone. The only way to end this suffering is to drive out the foreign elements and make the local throat cutters accountable.
This is what the Pakistani government and the army are doing.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Balancing priorities
Dissenting note
Friday, June 05, 2009
Dr Masooda Bano
The government and the military high command have made it clear that the current military operations won't be short despite the intensity of these operations. The operations are expected to carry on for at least seven months. This raises two important issues: one, will the military be able to sustain such intensive operations for that long?; two, the issue of internally displaced people will require serious attention as many of these people would not be able to return to their homes in the near future. Most important of all, the decision to opt for such an extreme military strategy has left Pakistan with very limited choices. If the military fails this time to quell the so-called "Taliban" movement, however the government or the military defines it, the consequences will be devastating.
Apart from posing the threat of resurgence of an even stronger resistance, the failure of the current military operations will erode all level of public confidence in the Pakistani army. It would also dramatically reduce its authority externally. Pakistan is a country, which has invested in military at the cost of human development. In the annual budgets, education, health and other social services have historically received less than 10 percent allocation because of the high investment in the military. This investment has been defended overtime due to the alleged threat of a hostile neighbour, namely India. However, the military is now being tested for its abilities within Pakistan's own territory. If the military fails to achieve what Gen Kayani has made it set out to achieve--i.e., eliminate the Taliban leadership in the NWFP--then the military will have little to boast about.
Pushing one's military into such a tight spot is not a wise strategy. However, since the government and the military leadership have willingly plunged into it, it is their responsibility now to ensure that this strategy pays off. The alternative will have devastating consequences for Pakistan. A long-prolonged war against your own people, where causalities on both sides are Pakistanis, and where the Pakistani soldiers keep having to give their lives in fighting a vague enemy is a self-defeating strategy. At the same time, hosting large number of internally displaced people not only means enormous difficulties for these people; it also means additional challenges to government development planning. The energy of the government and the international development agencies is now bound to be diverted towards addressing the problems being faced by the displaced people. This is a very costly diversion for a country where the state is badly required to focus on mainstream development concerns, most importantly of all, the education sector.
Under the present government, there has been very limited effort made to advance policy and planning for development of the social sectors. The education sector needs additional resources; it also needs revamping of existing administrative methods to better utilise the resources it has already been allocated. Currently, between 30 to 50 percent of the development budget within the education sector remains unspent at the province or district levels because of delays in release in finances and also due to weak absorptive capacity. This is just one example. To systematically address the problems within the education sector and other social service ministries, which need serious attention of the government, requires serious attention and above all the political will. But a government whose entire energy is absorbed in planning military interventions in its own territory and dealing with the people displaced as a result of those operations is in no position to devote the financial resources or demonstrate the political commitment required to implement reform strategies within the social sector ministries.
This shift from focusing on mainstream development reforms to developing ad hoc programmes to address immediate needs of the displaced people is also visible within the priorities of the development donors. If these military operations are to become a regular feature of life in Pakistan then the donor attention will for sure get primarily fixated with the displaced people. The result is that the strategy of going for an extreme military strategy does not only place Pakistan's army into a tight position, it also dramatically enhances the challenges in way of moving towards development reforms. It is therefore critical that the present government takes these military operations extremely seriously. Neither the civilian governments nor the military can afford the luxury of keep repeating these military operations without showing tangible results. So far, there is little evidence to support claims of the success of the current military operations apart from the statements by the military spokespersons. The government needs to be more accountable to the public by sharing details of these operations and explaining how these military interventions fit in its long-term strategy--the actual fear right now is that there is none.
The writer is a research fellow at the Oxford University.
Dissenting note
Friday, June 05, 2009
Dr Masooda Bano
The government and the military high command have made it clear that the current military operations won't be short despite the intensity of these operations. The operations are expected to carry on for at least seven months. This raises two important issues: one, will the military be able to sustain such intensive operations for that long?; two, the issue of internally displaced people will require serious attention as many of these people would not be able to return to their homes in the near future. Most important of all, the decision to opt for such an extreme military strategy has left Pakistan with very limited choices. If the military fails this time to quell the so-called "Taliban" movement, however the government or the military defines it, the consequences will be devastating.
Apart from posing the threat of resurgence of an even stronger resistance, the failure of the current military operations will erode all level of public confidence in the Pakistani army. It would also dramatically reduce its authority externally. Pakistan is a country, which has invested in military at the cost of human development. In the annual budgets, education, health and other social services have historically received less than 10 percent allocation because of the high investment in the military. This investment has been defended overtime due to the alleged threat of a hostile neighbour, namely India. However, the military is now being tested for its abilities within Pakistan's own territory. If the military fails to achieve what Gen Kayani has made it set out to achieve--i.e., eliminate the Taliban leadership in the NWFP--then the military will have little to boast about.
Pushing one's military into such a tight spot is not a wise strategy. However, since the government and the military leadership have willingly plunged into it, it is their responsibility now to ensure that this strategy pays off. The alternative will have devastating consequences for Pakistan. A long-prolonged war against your own people, where causalities on both sides are Pakistanis, and where the Pakistani soldiers keep having to give their lives in fighting a vague enemy is a self-defeating strategy. At the same time, hosting large number of internally displaced people not only means enormous difficulties for these people; it also means additional challenges to government development planning. The energy of the government and the international development agencies is now bound to be diverted towards addressing the problems being faced by the displaced people. This is a very costly diversion for a country where the state is badly required to focus on mainstream development concerns, most importantly of all, the education sector.
Under the present government, there has been very limited effort made to advance policy and planning for development of the social sectors. The education sector needs additional resources; it also needs revamping of existing administrative methods to better utilise the resources it has already been allocated. Currently, between 30 to 50 percent of the development budget within the education sector remains unspent at the province or district levels because of delays in release in finances and also due to weak absorptive capacity. This is just one example. To systematically address the problems within the education sector and other social service ministries, which need serious attention of the government, requires serious attention and above all the political will. But a government whose entire energy is absorbed in planning military interventions in its own territory and dealing with the people displaced as a result of those operations is in no position to devote the financial resources or demonstrate the political commitment required to implement reform strategies within the social sector ministries.
This shift from focusing on mainstream development reforms to developing ad hoc programmes to address immediate needs of the displaced people is also visible within the priorities of the development donors. If these military operations are to become a regular feature of life in Pakistan then the donor attention will for sure get primarily fixated with the displaced people. The result is that the strategy of going for an extreme military strategy does not only place Pakistan's army into a tight position, it also dramatically enhances the challenges in way of moving towards development reforms. It is therefore critical that the present government takes these military operations extremely seriously. Neither the civilian governments nor the military can afford the luxury of keep repeating these military operations without showing tangible results. So far, there is little evidence to support claims of the success of the current military operations apart from the statements by the military spokespersons. The government needs to be more accountable to the public by sharing details of these operations and explaining how these military interventions fit in its long-term strategy--the actual fear right now is that there is none.
The writer is a research fellow at the Oxford University.
