A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Re: Aagahi 08 June 2009
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Re: Aagahi 08 June 2009
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Re: Aagahi 08 June 2009
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The unnecessary war
Monday, June 08, 2009
Roedad Khan
Somehow, our history has gone astray. We were such good people when we set out on the road to Pakistan. What happened?
Marx once said: Neither a nation nor a woman is forgiven for an unguarded hour in which the first adventurer who comes along can sweep them off their feet and possess them. October 7, 1958 was our unguarded hour when democracy was expunged from the politics of Pakistan, perhaps forever, with scarcely a protest. The result is the mess we are in today.
Liberty once lost, Adams famously told his countrymen, is perhaps lost forever. We Pakistanis lost our liberties and all our democratic institutions in October 1999. Sadly, Pakistan also lost her honour and became a rentier state on General Musharrafs watch when he capitulated, said yes to all the seven demands presented to him at gunpoint by Secretary Colin Powell and joined the Coalition of the coerced. Regrettably, this situation remains unchanged even though the country is now under a democratic dispensation!
A lesson to be drawn from the works of Gibbon is that Romes enemies lay not outside her borders but within her bosom, and they paved the way for the empires decline and fall first to relentless barbarian invaders from the north, and then, a thousand years later, to the Turks. Many early symptoms that heralded the Roman decline may be seen in our own nation today: concentration of power in one person without responsibility and accountability, contempt for the constitution and political institutions, absence of the rule of law, high-level corruption and greed and last but not least, periodic military intervention in the affairs of state and prolonged military rule. When the history of Pakistan comes to be written, the verdict of history will almost certainly be that military rule, more than anything else, destroyed Pakistan.
If you want to know what happens to a country when unbridled ambition of its rulers flourishes without proper restraint, when absolute power enables the ruler to run the country arbitrarily and idiosyncratically, when none of the obstacles that restrain and thwart democratic rulers stand in his way, when parliament is cowed, timid, a virtual paralytic, well: visit Pakistan. Today it is like a severely blinkered cart horse painfully pulling a heavy wagon on a preordained track to nowhere.
All the philosophers tell the people they are the strongest, and that if they are sent to the slaughterhouse, it is because they have let themselves be led there. Authoritarianism is retreating everywhere except in Pakistan. Why? In other countries there are men and women who love liberty more than they fear persecution. Not in Pakistan. Here the elite who owe everything to this poor country do not think in terms of Pakistan and her honour but of their jobs, their business interests and their seats in a rubber-stamp parliament. Surrender rather than sacrifice is the theme of their thoughts and conversations. To such as these talk of resisting autocracy is as embarrassing as finding yourself in the wrong clothes at the wrong party, as tactless as a challenge to run to a legless man, as out of place as a bugle call in a mortuary.
How can you have authentic democracy in a country where de facto sovereignty highest power over citizens unrestricted by law resides neither in parliament, nor the executive, nor the judiciary, nor even the constitution which has superiority over all the institutions it creates? It resides, if it resides anywhere at all, where the coercive power resides. It is the puvois occult which decides when to abrogate the constitution, when to dismiss the elected government, when to go to war and when to restore sham democracy.
Are people anxious? Dejected? Fearful? Angry? Why wouldnt they be, considering the daily barrage of rotten news assaulting them from every direction? We live in a country that is terribly wrong and politically off course. What is worse, it is no longer a sovereign or independent country. It is a lackey of the United States. When will this tormented country be whole again? When will this sad country be normal again? The engine is broken. Somebody has got to get under the hood and fix it. President Zardari is so swathed in his inner circle that he has completely lost touch with the people and wanders around among small knots of persons who agree with him. The country is in deep, deep trouble. An uncertain future leaves us stranded in an unhappy present with nothing to do but wait. Eventually, the cup of endurance runs over and the citizen cries out, I can take it no longer. A day will soon come when words will give way to deeds. History will not always be written with a pen.
In the backdrop of this gloom and doom, President Zardari, under American pressure, unleashed the hounds of war, turning the beautiful valley of Swat into a vale of tears. As a result of army action, millions of innocent people, men, women and children, young and old, were uprooted, rendered homeless and forced to flee. Was army action unavoidable? Was it absolutely necessary? Did the people of Swat have to pay this terrible price? And what for? All these questions remain unanswered.
One day, Churchill wrote, President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what World War II should be called. I said at once the Unnecessary War. Today Pakistan is at war with itself. The country is tearing itself apart. Why? One thing is clear. There never was a more unnecessary war, a war more easy to stop, a war more easy to prevent, a war more difficult to justify and harder to win than that which has wrecked Swat.
Let me state clearly that the war in Swat, like the war in FATA, is not our war. Its a proxy war imposed on us by our corrupt rulers who owe everything to Washington. It is perceived in the Pakhtun belt as genocide, part of a sinister American plan for the mass extermination of Pakhtuns on both sides of the Durand Line.
With temperature rising, living conditions in the camps and elsewhere, fast deteriorating, the army operation has morphed into a war that is hard to win and harder to justify to the people affected by it. One thing is clear. While the Pakistan army wields a large hammer, not every problem is a nail. The lesson of history is: never fight a proxy war, never deploy military means in pursuit of indeterminate ends and never use your army against your own people.
No army, no matter how strong, has ever rescued a country from internal disorder, social upheaval and chaos. Army action can never quash the insurgency in Malakand division or FATA. It can only be managed until a political solution is found. No one can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. The Taliban can be deterred militarily for a time but tanks, gunships and jet aircraft cannot defeat deeply felt belief.
President Zardari is playing with fire and acting like Conrads puffing gunboat in Heart of Darkness, shelling indiscriminately at the opaque darkness. The enemy is nebulous and the battlefield is everywhere. He has no address and no flag, wears no uniform, stages no parades, marches to his own martial music. He requires no tanks or submarines or air force. He does not fear death. As the Soviets found in Afghanistan, the enemy doesnt fight in conventional ways, but from behind big boulders and from concealments. He doesnt have to win. He just has to keep fighting. Asymmetrical warfare is what they call it now.
The wars end remains far out of sight but the battle for the hearts and minds of the people seems to have gone awry. If you want to know how the displaced persons feel, go to Mardan and listen to the wretched of the earth. You will hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger.
The writer is a former federal secretary.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Roedad Khan
Somehow, our history has gone astray. We were such good people when we set out on the road to Pakistan. What happened?
Marx once said: Neither a nation nor a woman is forgiven for an unguarded hour in which the first adventurer who comes along can sweep them off their feet and possess them. October 7, 1958 was our unguarded hour when democracy was expunged from the politics of Pakistan, perhaps forever, with scarcely a protest. The result is the mess we are in today.
Liberty once lost, Adams famously told his countrymen, is perhaps lost forever. We Pakistanis lost our liberties and all our democratic institutions in October 1999. Sadly, Pakistan also lost her honour and became a rentier state on General Musharrafs watch when he capitulated, said yes to all the seven demands presented to him at gunpoint by Secretary Colin Powell and joined the Coalition of the coerced. Regrettably, this situation remains unchanged even though the country is now under a democratic dispensation!
A lesson to be drawn from the works of Gibbon is that Romes enemies lay not outside her borders but within her bosom, and they paved the way for the empires decline and fall first to relentless barbarian invaders from the north, and then, a thousand years later, to the Turks. Many early symptoms that heralded the Roman decline may be seen in our own nation today: concentration of power in one person without responsibility and accountability, contempt for the constitution and political institutions, absence of the rule of law, high-level corruption and greed and last but not least, periodic military intervention in the affairs of state and prolonged military rule. When the history of Pakistan comes to be written, the verdict of history will almost certainly be that military rule, more than anything else, destroyed Pakistan.
If you want to know what happens to a country when unbridled ambition of its rulers flourishes without proper restraint, when absolute power enables the ruler to run the country arbitrarily and idiosyncratically, when none of the obstacles that restrain and thwart democratic rulers stand in his way, when parliament is cowed, timid, a virtual paralytic, well: visit Pakistan. Today it is like a severely blinkered cart horse painfully pulling a heavy wagon on a preordained track to nowhere.
All the philosophers tell the people they are the strongest, and that if they are sent to the slaughterhouse, it is because they have let themselves be led there. Authoritarianism is retreating everywhere except in Pakistan. Why? In other countries there are men and women who love liberty more than they fear persecution. Not in Pakistan. Here the elite who owe everything to this poor country do not think in terms of Pakistan and her honour but of their jobs, their business interests and their seats in a rubber-stamp parliament. Surrender rather than sacrifice is the theme of their thoughts and conversations. To such as these talk of resisting autocracy is as embarrassing as finding yourself in the wrong clothes at the wrong party, as tactless as a challenge to run to a legless man, as out of place as a bugle call in a mortuary.
How can you have authentic democracy in a country where de facto sovereignty highest power over citizens unrestricted by law resides neither in parliament, nor the executive, nor the judiciary, nor even the constitution which has superiority over all the institutions it creates? It resides, if it resides anywhere at all, where the coercive power resides. It is the puvois occult which decides when to abrogate the constitution, when to dismiss the elected government, when to go to war and when to restore sham democracy.
Are people anxious? Dejected? Fearful? Angry? Why wouldnt they be, considering the daily barrage of rotten news assaulting them from every direction? We live in a country that is terribly wrong and politically off course. What is worse, it is no longer a sovereign or independent country. It is a lackey of the United States. When will this tormented country be whole again? When will this sad country be normal again? The engine is broken. Somebody has got to get under the hood and fix it. President Zardari is so swathed in his inner circle that he has completely lost touch with the people and wanders around among small knots of persons who agree with him. The country is in deep, deep trouble. An uncertain future leaves us stranded in an unhappy present with nothing to do but wait. Eventually, the cup of endurance runs over and the citizen cries out, I can take it no longer. A day will soon come when words will give way to deeds. History will not always be written with a pen.
In the backdrop of this gloom and doom, President Zardari, under American pressure, unleashed the hounds of war, turning the beautiful valley of Swat into a vale of tears. As a result of army action, millions of innocent people, men, women and children, young and old, were uprooted, rendered homeless and forced to flee. Was army action unavoidable? Was it absolutely necessary? Did the people of Swat have to pay this terrible price? And what for? All these questions remain unanswered.
One day, Churchill wrote, President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what World War II should be called. I said at once the Unnecessary War. Today Pakistan is at war with itself. The country is tearing itself apart. Why? One thing is clear. There never was a more unnecessary war, a war more easy to stop, a war more easy to prevent, a war more difficult to justify and harder to win than that which has wrecked Swat.
Let me state clearly that the war in Swat, like the war in FATA, is not our war. Its a proxy war imposed on us by our corrupt rulers who owe everything to Washington. It is perceived in the Pakhtun belt as genocide, part of a sinister American plan for the mass extermination of Pakhtuns on both sides of the Durand Line.
With temperature rising, living conditions in the camps and elsewhere, fast deteriorating, the army operation has morphed into a war that is hard to win and harder to justify to the people affected by it. One thing is clear. While the Pakistan army wields a large hammer, not every problem is a nail. The lesson of history is: never fight a proxy war, never deploy military means in pursuit of indeterminate ends and never use your army against your own people.
No army, no matter how strong, has ever rescued a country from internal disorder, social upheaval and chaos. Army action can never quash the insurgency in Malakand division or FATA. It can only be managed until a political solution is found. No one can be bombed into moderation. This is a false and dangerous notion. The Taliban can be deterred militarily for a time but tanks, gunships and jet aircraft cannot defeat deeply felt belief.
President Zardari is playing with fire and acting like Conrads puffing gunboat in Heart of Darkness, shelling indiscriminately at the opaque darkness. The enemy is nebulous and the battlefield is everywhere. He has no address and no flag, wears no uniform, stages no parades, marches to his own martial music. He requires no tanks or submarines or air force. He does not fear death. As the Soviets found in Afghanistan, the enemy doesnt fight in conventional ways, but from behind big boulders and from concealments. He doesnt have to win. He just has to keep fighting. Asymmetrical warfare is what they call it now.
The wars end remains far out of sight but the battle for the hearts and minds of the people seems to have gone awry. If you want to know how the displaced persons feel, go to Mardan and listen to the wretched of the earth. You will hear the thrumming, the deadly drumbeat of burgeoning anger.
The writer is a former federal secretary.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Learning to stand on our own feet
Monday, June 08, 2009
Nadeem Ul Haque
It is budget time and everyone is expecting big things of the government. After 62 years of poor economic management, failed policies of bankers and bureaucrats, and failed budgets, we continue to expect wonders from our budget.
I say forget the budget! It is only a speech full of promises that are forgotten the day after the speech has been delivered. In our history no budget has been adhered to for more than a few weeks. The budget document has no sanctity.
But the economy is in a deep recessionper capita income is by all estimates going to decline. Poverty is on the rise. When per capita incomes go down poverty will increase! There is going to be pain among the dispossessed.
What should we do? The policymakersbankers and bureaucratsare going to do what they do best-beg some more and follow the masters (donors) advice.
But for the rest of us we should think some more and raise our voices for change. Those who have the privilege (not the skill) of making policy keep intact the system of rent seeking, privilege and corruption.
The rest of us who are ashamed of our continual begging must look to alternatives. Surely a nation of 200 million with a nuclear bomb can have a little more self-respect and be turned off by our policymakers panting for aid in every corner of the world. They even beg from tiny UAE and Qatar!
History and economics (skills considered useless in government) show that we can use our dead capital to generate growth, revenues and jobs at home. Dead capital can be defined as potentially valuable assets that are currently not being used productively. Some examples:
1. Governors Houses (I can count about ten around the country) which are now occupying city centre space tax free and at huge budgetary cost. We can convert the governors mansions to high-end hotels and make some money while using their extensive grounds for commercial development. I can envisage at least two billion dollars if we were to allow better utilisation of these properties and 3,000 jobs.
2. City centre government property should be immediately privatised and made available for big-time mixed use development ranging from hotels, shopping malls to apartment blocks. Areas such as Mayo Gardens and the three GORs in Lahore, government housing, parts of F-6/3 and the whole sector above the Marriott in Islamabad could be developed into expensive revenue yielding high class commercial developments.
To this should be added the land that army VIPs are enjoying such as their various houses and messes in the middle of the city. Many of the provincial cities too have considerable land the government is occupying for non-commercial purposes, such as housing bureaucrats both civilian and military. My crude estimate is that sales of these properties could fetch is upwards of six billion dollars and 8,000 jobs.
3. Then there are large tracts occupied by government training institutions. NDC, Staff College, Naval War College, NIPA. The Civil Service Academy in Lahore all come to mind. Why can they not be moved to Quetta or Kohat and this land freed once again for serious development? I can easily see about a billion dollars from this and 2,000 jobs.
4. Then of course there are the stadiums which occupy huge tracts and are not used for entertainment. Instead their walls are being used for shops. Neither a stadium nor a shopping mall, this is a most egregious waste of resources. If we were to merely demolish Fortress Stadium in Lahore and make a multipurpose facility to include hotels, shopping malls and a convention centre, the exchequer could gain by a billion dollars and 3,000 jobs. Better utilisation of our other stadiums as well as the convention centre in Islamabad could generate revenues of about 50 million dollars annually and 2,000 jobs.
5. A large part of city centre land is given over to the elite for their entertainment at subsidised rates. This includes the polo grounds, golf courses as well as clubs such as Sindh Club and the Punjab Club. If the peasants land can be acquired for DHA, why not take over these rich man facilities for serious commercial development that relieves our debt burden. This could be a bonanza of well over four billion and 10,000 jobs. We could even build libraries and community centres on this land.
6. Creative destruction could yield a huge bonanza too. Take Gulberg Market, Liberty in Lahore, Jinnah and Super Market in Islamabad! If we merely find a way to turn these relics of another time into modern assets, dead capital can be converted into gold. For example, Liberty is a huge area which could house a beautiful modern multilevel shopping mall as well as hotels, apartments, offices and parking. I can easily see a half a billion dollars plus and 5,000 jobs from this project alone. Use of this concept in other places could mean more output, revenue and jobs.
7. Strangely enough, we still have anachronisms like the CSD on the Mall Road of Lahore in an age when we have hypermarkets coming into town.
8. Still more creative destruction! Our cities look dated and decrepit because our silly bureaucracy does not allow renewal. Housing stock has normally an average age of 20 to 30 years. Zoning also needs renewal each generation. Yesterdays suburb or housing could be todays commercial hub leading to large valuation gains. As I have been arguing for many years, our zoning laws are antiquated and anti-development. Allowing our housing stock to be renewed from low slung kothis to high rise flats and commerce in all our cities from Karachi to Kohat could be a big bonanza. I think this could be huge leading to an acceleration of growth of about two percent per annum for about 20 years.
There is more but I am limited in space. With so much dead capital lying around, why do we beg with dishonour? My calculations suggest with these simple changes we could double our GDP in less than a decade! Of course our rich and famous would be a little uncomfortable!
Let us be clear to keep the party going for our rich and famous including out policy makersbankers and bureaucratswe are forgoing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Poverty persists because of their failed policies which do not address dead capital.
Indeed not only are we forgoing earnings we are shamelessly begging for more debt! Will someone educate our policymakersbankers and bureaucrats? Or could it be that we do need some learning and research in policymaking?
The media could give this demand the headline instead of announcements of the alms that we get!
The writer is a former vice-chancellor of the PIDE.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Nadeem Ul Haque
It is budget time and everyone is expecting big things of the government. After 62 years of poor economic management, failed policies of bankers and bureaucrats, and failed budgets, we continue to expect wonders from our budget.
I say forget the budget! It is only a speech full of promises that are forgotten the day after the speech has been delivered. In our history no budget has been adhered to for more than a few weeks. The budget document has no sanctity.
But the economy is in a deep recessionper capita income is by all estimates going to decline. Poverty is on the rise. When per capita incomes go down poverty will increase! There is going to be pain among the dispossessed.
What should we do? The policymakersbankers and bureaucratsare going to do what they do best-beg some more and follow the masters (donors) advice.
But for the rest of us we should think some more and raise our voices for change. Those who have the privilege (not the skill) of making policy keep intact the system of rent seeking, privilege and corruption.
The rest of us who are ashamed of our continual begging must look to alternatives. Surely a nation of 200 million with a nuclear bomb can have a little more self-respect and be turned off by our policymakers panting for aid in every corner of the world. They even beg from tiny UAE and Qatar!
History and economics (skills considered useless in government) show that we can use our dead capital to generate growth, revenues and jobs at home. Dead capital can be defined as potentially valuable assets that are currently not being used productively. Some examples:
1. Governors Houses (I can count about ten around the country) which are now occupying city centre space tax free and at huge budgetary cost. We can convert the governors mansions to high-end hotels and make some money while using their extensive grounds for commercial development. I can envisage at least two billion dollars if we were to allow better utilisation of these properties and 3,000 jobs.
2. City centre government property should be immediately privatised and made available for big-time mixed use development ranging from hotels, shopping malls to apartment blocks. Areas such as Mayo Gardens and the three GORs in Lahore, government housing, parts of F-6/3 and the whole sector above the Marriott in Islamabad could be developed into expensive revenue yielding high class commercial developments.
To this should be added the land that army VIPs are enjoying such as their various houses and messes in the middle of the city. Many of the provincial cities too have considerable land the government is occupying for non-commercial purposes, such as housing bureaucrats both civilian and military. My crude estimate is that sales of these properties could fetch is upwards of six billion dollars and 8,000 jobs.
3. Then there are large tracts occupied by government training institutions. NDC, Staff College, Naval War College, NIPA. The Civil Service Academy in Lahore all come to mind. Why can they not be moved to Quetta or Kohat and this land freed once again for serious development? I can easily see about a billion dollars from this and 2,000 jobs.
4. Then of course there are the stadiums which occupy huge tracts and are not used for entertainment. Instead their walls are being used for shops. Neither a stadium nor a shopping mall, this is a most egregious waste of resources. If we were to merely demolish Fortress Stadium in Lahore and make a multipurpose facility to include hotels, shopping malls and a convention centre, the exchequer could gain by a billion dollars and 3,000 jobs. Better utilisation of our other stadiums as well as the convention centre in Islamabad could generate revenues of about 50 million dollars annually and 2,000 jobs.
5. A large part of city centre land is given over to the elite for their entertainment at subsidised rates. This includes the polo grounds, golf courses as well as clubs such as Sindh Club and the Punjab Club. If the peasants land can be acquired for DHA, why not take over these rich man facilities for serious commercial development that relieves our debt burden. This could be a bonanza of well over four billion and 10,000 jobs. We could even build libraries and community centres on this land.
6. Creative destruction could yield a huge bonanza too. Take Gulberg Market, Liberty in Lahore, Jinnah and Super Market in Islamabad! If we merely find a way to turn these relics of another time into modern assets, dead capital can be converted into gold. For example, Liberty is a huge area which could house a beautiful modern multilevel shopping mall as well as hotels, apartments, offices and parking. I can easily see a half a billion dollars plus and 5,000 jobs from this project alone. Use of this concept in other places could mean more output, revenue and jobs.
7. Strangely enough, we still have anachronisms like the CSD on the Mall Road of Lahore in an age when we have hypermarkets coming into town.
8. Still more creative destruction! Our cities look dated and decrepit because our silly bureaucracy does not allow renewal. Housing stock has normally an average age of 20 to 30 years. Zoning also needs renewal each generation. Yesterdays suburb or housing could be todays commercial hub leading to large valuation gains. As I have been arguing for many years, our zoning laws are antiquated and anti-development. Allowing our housing stock to be renewed from low slung kothis to high rise flats and commerce in all our cities from Karachi to Kohat could be a big bonanza. I think this could be huge leading to an acceleration of growth of about two percent per annum for about 20 years.
There is more but I am limited in space. With so much dead capital lying around, why do we beg with dishonour? My calculations suggest with these simple changes we could double our GDP in less than a decade! Of course our rich and famous would be a little uncomfortable!
Let us be clear to keep the party going for our rich and famous including out policy makersbankers and bureaucratswe are forgoing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Poverty persists because of their failed policies which do not address dead capital.
Indeed not only are we forgoing earnings we are shamelessly begging for more debt! Will someone educate our policymakersbankers and bureaucrats? Or could it be that we do need some learning and research in policymaking?
The media could give this demand the headline instead of announcements of the alms that we get!
The writer is a former vice-chancellor of the PIDE.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The battle against militancy In the national interest
Monday, June 08, 2009
Kamal Siddiqi
The writer is editor reporting, The News
We are still waiting for our government, its intelligence agencies and the various outfits that operate in one guise or another, to find for us the people behind the attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore earlier this year. These bold men not only attacked at will but their brazen attitude could be seen from the manner in which they left the scene of the crime.
It was amazing to see on tapes extracted from CCTV footage of how these men walked away, using motorcycles and rickshaws. Soon after the attack, the usual noises were made. Some said it was India, others said it was the Taliban. But in the end, we will never know.
Such an operation at this level cannot be conducted without local support. This is what Pakistan has been saying about the Mumbai attacks. In this, too, we have stopped short of finding who the local partners were of this dastardly act.
Despite the fact that we spend billions of rupees on law and order and there seems a policeman standing at every corner, these men who caused our country irreparable damage walked away unchallenged and vanished into thin air.
It is not the first time such an incident took place. Regrettable, there are few who will say that it will be the last. In some instances it seems that some sort of clue is at hand. But the question remains whether we have the will and the ability to trace whoever is responsible for killing so many innocent Pakistanis.
In the attack at the police academy in Lahore, and then more recently at the emergency services headquarters, we are told suspects have been apprehended. But we are still in the dark as to who these suspects are, whether they have been charged and, if so, what have they been charged with. Were the arrested to appease growing public anger over the uselessness of our intelligence agencies?
Does anyone know who was behind the Marriott Hotel blasts where over 70 innocent Pakistanis died, many of them burnt alive. In the Marriott blast case, Interior Minister Rehman Malik was quick to blame the Taliban. His usual statement is, We have information. But how credible is this information and why is it that after some stray arrests, there is not much else to show for.
We are not even sure who killed Benazir Bhutto and we have decided to make political gains out of that murder too by inviting the UN to conduct an inquiry. Despite the millions of dollars we will spend in that inquiry, the terms of reference do not guarantee that the UN will point out those behind the killing.
Almost every day in Pakistan, innocent people are killed by suicide bombers and terrorists or are victims of the violence that has taken over many parts of the country. The death toll from the Swat operation has still not come through. We are sure to uncover some horrors on that account. We seem to be blissfully unaware of what is happening around us. No one is asking the question of who we are fighting, and more important, who it is that is fighting us?
Lets face it. Our law-enforcement agencies and our intelligence outfits are more adept at digging the dirt on innocent persons or political animals. But when it comes to terror outfits, they are at seaas much as we are. This is worrisome, given that we are engaged in a full-fledged war with insurgents within the country. The usual suspect is India. Over the last couple of years, however, the interior ministry and other leaders have also started to blame the Taliban and religious groups based in the tribal areas. On one occasions, Interior Minister Rehman Malik also blamed Russia. But then there was silence. Do we not think twice before assigning blame?
If one looks at this issue from a larger perspective, we should be looking for answers at home. Some say that it is our political leadership that is partly to blame. But, then, so is our military leadership, contend others. Sizeable amounts are spent in the law enforcement apparatus but the average Pakistani is much less safer today as compared to a decade back. Why is this so? Part of the reason is the rising incidents of terrorism and part of the reason is the rising crime.
Focusing on terrorism, one is seeing that our courts are consistently acquitting people seen to be involved in terror acts in one way or another. Some high-profile cases that have been talked about in the media are those of Hafiz Saeed and Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid fame.
By and large, a considerable number of people have been let off. This is in addition to those that were given back under swap deals in return for hostages taken. These swaps have also cost us dearly. They do not have legal sanction and are the reason why kidnapping is rising in the tribal areas since this has now become a good way to secure the release of arrested militants.
However, many Pakistanis are perturbed at the manner in which this trend of letting off terror-tainted persons is taking shape. They say that even after all these attacks and violence, people who are prime suspects in one way or another, should not be allowed to go scot-free.
Given the number of casualties in the Lal Masjid siege, one can only wonder why the government dropped all charges and let Maulvi Abdul Aziz walk out free. What would have been going through the minds of those killed in this battle, especially the families of law enforcers and army personnel, when Aziz was given a heros welcome in Lal Masjid.
But there is a larger issue here that needs to be addressed. It is that of proper police investigation. In many cases, both high-profile and otherwise, police investigation techniques leave a lot to be desired.
Similarly, the case built up from the governments side is usually full of holes. As a result, with a few precise questions and submissions, the court is left with no option but to acquit the defendants. There are those who argue that in the public interest, the court should take the view of not letting such persons go. This is up for debate.
If we are to believe some international media channels, the government does this by design. This mere insinuation can prove disastrous for Pakistans image and standing. We need to move quickly on this. As a first step, the various arms of government need to work hard to provide watertight cases for the judiciary.
Then comes the judiciary itself. There are several instances where courts are reluctant to sentence terror suspects. Cases are delayed, time is gained. Judges ask for transfers. This is clearly because our judiciary feels unsafe in such testing times. In all this, the people of Pakistan suffer.
Whenever there is trouble in our jails, particularly Hyderabad Jail, our leaders silently pray that there is no jailbreak. Many of our high-profile terror suspects who have been in jail for several years are mostly under-trial prisoners. No one is willing to bell the cat and sentence them.
A combination of sloppy government work, incompetence, inefficiency and fear has meant that we are not even able to effectively investigate and punish those who have killed our people. In this, all the pillars of the stateincluding the media are to be blamed.
Instead of more government servantswhich many fear will be announced by the government in the budget, we need better performance from those who are paid to do the job. Is that expecting too much in these uncertain times?
Monday, June 08, 2009
Kamal Siddiqi
The writer is editor reporting, The News
We are still waiting for our government, its intelligence agencies and the various outfits that operate in one guise or another, to find for us the people behind the attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore earlier this year. These bold men not only attacked at will but their brazen attitude could be seen from the manner in which they left the scene of the crime.
It was amazing to see on tapes extracted from CCTV footage of how these men walked away, using motorcycles and rickshaws. Soon after the attack, the usual noises were made. Some said it was India, others said it was the Taliban. But in the end, we will never know.
Such an operation at this level cannot be conducted without local support. This is what Pakistan has been saying about the Mumbai attacks. In this, too, we have stopped short of finding who the local partners were of this dastardly act.
Despite the fact that we spend billions of rupees on law and order and there seems a policeman standing at every corner, these men who caused our country irreparable damage walked away unchallenged and vanished into thin air.
It is not the first time such an incident took place. Regrettable, there are few who will say that it will be the last. In some instances it seems that some sort of clue is at hand. But the question remains whether we have the will and the ability to trace whoever is responsible for killing so many innocent Pakistanis.
In the attack at the police academy in Lahore, and then more recently at the emergency services headquarters, we are told suspects have been apprehended. But we are still in the dark as to who these suspects are, whether they have been charged and, if so, what have they been charged with. Were the arrested to appease growing public anger over the uselessness of our intelligence agencies?
Does anyone know who was behind the Marriott Hotel blasts where over 70 innocent Pakistanis died, many of them burnt alive. In the Marriott blast case, Interior Minister Rehman Malik was quick to blame the Taliban. His usual statement is, We have information. But how credible is this information and why is it that after some stray arrests, there is not much else to show for.
We are not even sure who killed Benazir Bhutto and we have decided to make political gains out of that murder too by inviting the UN to conduct an inquiry. Despite the millions of dollars we will spend in that inquiry, the terms of reference do not guarantee that the UN will point out those behind the killing.
Almost every day in Pakistan, innocent people are killed by suicide bombers and terrorists or are victims of the violence that has taken over many parts of the country. The death toll from the Swat operation has still not come through. We are sure to uncover some horrors on that account. We seem to be blissfully unaware of what is happening around us. No one is asking the question of who we are fighting, and more important, who it is that is fighting us?
Lets face it. Our law-enforcement agencies and our intelligence outfits are more adept at digging the dirt on innocent persons or political animals. But when it comes to terror outfits, they are at seaas much as we are. This is worrisome, given that we are engaged in a full-fledged war with insurgents within the country. The usual suspect is India. Over the last couple of years, however, the interior ministry and other leaders have also started to blame the Taliban and religious groups based in the tribal areas. On one occasions, Interior Minister Rehman Malik also blamed Russia. But then there was silence. Do we not think twice before assigning blame?
If one looks at this issue from a larger perspective, we should be looking for answers at home. Some say that it is our political leadership that is partly to blame. But, then, so is our military leadership, contend others. Sizeable amounts are spent in the law enforcement apparatus but the average Pakistani is much less safer today as compared to a decade back. Why is this so? Part of the reason is the rising incidents of terrorism and part of the reason is the rising crime.
Focusing on terrorism, one is seeing that our courts are consistently acquitting people seen to be involved in terror acts in one way or another. Some high-profile cases that have been talked about in the media are those of Hafiz Saeed and Maulvi Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid fame.
By and large, a considerable number of people have been let off. This is in addition to those that were given back under swap deals in return for hostages taken. These swaps have also cost us dearly. They do not have legal sanction and are the reason why kidnapping is rising in the tribal areas since this has now become a good way to secure the release of arrested militants.
However, many Pakistanis are perturbed at the manner in which this trend of letting off terror-tainted persons is taking shape. They say that even after all these attacks and violence, people who are prime suspects in one way or another, should not be allowed to go scot-free.
Given the number of casualties in the Lal Masjid siege, one can only wonder why the government dropped all charges and let Maulvi Abdul Aziz walk out free. What would have been going through the minds of those killed in this battle, especially the families of law enforcers and army personnel, when Aziz was given a heros welcome in Lal Masjid.
But there is a larger issue here that needs to be addressed. It is that of proper police investigation. In many cases, both high-profile and otherwise, police investigation techniques leave a lot to be desired.
Similarly, the case built up from the governments side is usually full of holes. As a result, with a few precise questions and submissions, the court is left with no option but to acquit the defendants. There are those who argue that in the public interest, the court should take the view of not letting such persons go. This is up for debate.
If we are to believe some international media channels, the government does this by design. This mere insinuation can prove disastrous for Pakistans image and standing. We need to move quickly on this. As a first step, the various arms of government need to work hard to provide watertight cases for the judiciary.
Then comes the judiciary itself. There are several instances where courts are reluctant to sentence terror suspects. Cases are delayed, time is gained. Judges ask for transfers. This is clearly because our judiciary feels unsafe in such testing times. In all this, the people of Pakistan suffer.
Whenever there is trouble in our jails, particularly Hyderabad Jail, our leaders silently pray that there is no jailbreak. Many of our high-profile terror suspects who have been in jail for several years are mostly under-trial prisoners. No one is willing to bell the cat and sentence them.
A combination of sloppy government work, incompetence, inefficiency and fear has meant that we are not even able to effectively investigate and punish those who have killed our people. In this, all the pillars of the stateincluding the media are to be blamed.
Instead of more government servantswhich many fear will be announced by the government in the budget, we need better performance from those who are paid to do the job. Is that expecting too much in these uncertain times?
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Obamas new approach
Monday, June 08, 2009
Talat Masood
After the events of 9/11, relations between the US and the Islamic world suffered a serious setback when the neo-cons prevailed on the Bush administration to pursue a policy that was justifiably perceived by the Muslims as highly aggressive, prejudiced and unilateral. Americas invasion of Afghanistan to punish Al Qaeda and Taliban, followed by the war of choice against Iraq and blind support of Israel widened the cleavage. Moreover, Bush administrations hostile policy towards the Islamic regime of Iran and the treatment of Muslim prisoners further heightened the discord. From the American perspective attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and subsequent acts of violence by radical Islamic militants on civilians in other parts of the world reinforced the belief among many Americans and the West that Islam was a religion that was hostile towards them.
President Obama wants to radically transform this relationship and develop a better understanding with the Muslim world. Having been born to a Muslim father and lived in Muslim countries and the goodwill he enjoys among them he clearly considers himself better equipped to open a new chapter in their relationship. The speech in Cairo was a deliberate attempt and an initiation of a process of reconciliation. His clear differentiation that US is not at war with Islam but is fighting the militants who are killing innocent civilians was meant to give clarity to the new policy and to gain confidence of the Muslims. And his reiteration that force alone is not the answer was a reference to the dialogue he was initiating with the Muslim world and with certain groups and countries hostile to US.
President Obamas categorical support for democracy must have gone extremely well with the people as was obvious by the response of the audience but would have made the rulers especially of Arab countries somewhat uneasy. He did qualify his remarks to mollify the rulers that US has no intentions of imposing democracy on any country and it is for the people to decide what type of system they want to adapt. Nonetheless, he gave a clear message that rulers of Muslim world should promote policies that should give a voice and dignity to the people and move away from authoritarianism and repression. There appeared a definite effort at building a relationship not only with the regimes but as much with the people of Muslim countries so as to counter Americas negative image. The other striking feature of his address was its focus on the younger generation and on womens rights.
As expected, he also extended his hand of friendship to Iran and was willing to accept its right to acquire civil nuclear power, provided it does not proceed with the weapons programme. Although Iran has courageously withstood sanctions and attempts at isolation but in the process its economy has been badly hurt. Moreover, its nuclear programme raises paranoia not just in Israel but as much in the Arab world. For these reasons Iran is likely to reciprocate to Obamas overtures. US administration too needs support of Iran to stabilise Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Once relations are normalised, United States is likely to resume interest in Irans oil and gas market. As both countries need each other it is possible that they may move at a faster pace to resolve their differences after Iranian elections are over.
On issues of nuclear disarmament and arms control President Obama was forthright and encouraging. The United States and Russia have already started negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to reduce nuclear weapons below levels set in the START treaty of 1991. His endorsement of a world free of nuclear weapons and the inequitable nature of the NPT were indeed heartening. But one has see, how the US and Russian talks on disarmament progress and the ideal goal of Global Zero is realised.
Most significant was his policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he categorically supported establishment of a two-nation state and strong opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. He made no mention of the status of Jerusalem but said that it was a holy and revered place for the three Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, indicating that Israel will have to accept and accommodate this reality. If President Obama is really able to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution, withdraw to 1967 borders and stop building settlements then it would dramatically transform the relationship between US and the Islamic world and weaken Al Qaedas ability to capitalise on the injustices that the people of Palestine continue to suffer.
President Obamas acknowledgement of Hamas being representative of a section of Palestinian people was a major departure from the Bush administration policy of branding them as terrorist. There were clear indications that his administration would be more equitable and retain a balance in its relations between Israel and Palestinians. Doubts however linger in the minds of many if Obama would be able to implement this new policy on Middle East in view of the hard line attitude adopted by Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu and the strong pro-Israeli lobby that exists in the United States.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Talat Masood
After the events of 9/11, relations between the US and the Islamic world suffered a serious setback when the neo-cons prevailed on the Bush administration to pursue a policy that was justifiably perceived by the Muslims as highly aggressive, prejudiced and unilateral. Americas invasion of Afghanistan to punish Al Qaeda and Taliban, followed by the war of choice against Iraq and blind support of Israel widened the cleavage. Moreover, Bush administrations hostile policy towards the Islamic regime of Iran and the treatment of Muslim prisoners further heightened the discord. From the American perspective attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and subsequent acts of violence by radical Islamic militants on civilians in other parts of the world reinforced the belief among many Americans and the West that Islam was a religion that was hostile towards them.
President Obama wants to radically transform this relationship and develop a better understanding with the Muslim world. Having been born to a Muslim father and lived in Muslim countries and the goodwill he enjoys among them he clearly considers himself better equipped to open a new chapter in their relationship. The speech in Cairo was a deliberate attempt and an initiation of a process of reconciliation. His clear differentiation that US is not at war with Islam but is fighting the militants who are killing innocent civilians was meant to give clarity to the new policy and to gain confidence of the Muslims. And his reiteration that force alone is not the answer was a reference to the dialogue he was initiating with the Muslim world and with certain groups and countries hostile to US.
President Obamas categorical support for democracy must have gone extremely well with the people as was obvious by the response of the audience but would have made the rulers especially of Arab countries somewhat uneasy. He did qualify his remarks to mollify the rulers that US has no intentions of imposing democracy on any country and it is for the people to decide what type of system they want to adapt. Nonetheless, he gave a clear message that rulers of Muslim world should promote policies that should give a voice and dignity to the people and move away from authoritarianism and repression. There appeared a definite effort at building a relationship not only with the regimes but as much with the people of Muslim countries so as to counter Americas negative image. The other striking feature of his address was its focus on the younger generation and on womens rights.
As expected, he also extended his hand of friendship to Iran and was willing to accept its right to acquire civil nuclear power, provided it does not proceed with the weapons programme. Although Iran has courageously withstood sanctions and attempts at isolation but in the process its economy has been badly hurt. Moreover, its nuclear programme raises paranoia not just in Israel but as much in the Arab world. For these reasons Iran is likely to reciprocate to Obamas overtures. US administration too needs support of Iran to stabilise Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Once relations are normalised, United States is likely to resume interest in Irans oil and gas market. As both countries need each other it is possible that they may move at a faster pace to resolve their differences after Iranian elections are over.
On issues of nuclear disarmament and arms control President Obama was forthright and encouraging. The United States and Russia have already started negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to reduce nuclear weapons below levels set in the START treaty of 1991. His endorsement of a world free of nuclear weapons and the inequitable nature of the NPT were indeed heartening. But one has see, how the US and Russian talks on disarmament progress and the ideal goal of Global Zero is realised.
Most significant was his policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he categorically supported establishment of a two-nation state and strong opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. He made no mention of the status of Jerusalem but said that it was a holy and revered place for the three Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, indicating that Israel will have to accept and accommodate this reality. If President Obama is really able to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution, withdraw to 1967 borders and stop building settlements then it would dramatically transform the relationship between US and the Islamic world and weaken Al Qaedas ability to capitalise on the injustices that the people of Palestine continue to suffer.
President Obamas acknowledgement of Hamas being representative of a section of Palestinian people was a major departure from the Bush administration policy of branding them as terrorist. There were clear indications that his administration would be more equitable and retain a balance in its relations between Israel and Palestinians. Doubts however linger in the minds of many if Obama would be able to implement this new policy on Middle East in view of the hard line attitude adopted by Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu and the strong pro-Israeli lobby that exists in the United States.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Swat operation & beyond
Monday, June 08, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
The aim of any counterinsurgency is to eliminate insurgents. While securing and holding territory is certainly a prime consideration, unless the insurgents are killed or captured, mainly their principal leaders, an insurgency has the capacity to build on itself. In Swat the Army has done a splendid job in quickly establishing its presence in almost the entire territory, and in killing a substantial number of insurgents. Despite its commendable sacrifices, particularly by the officers corps, it has fallen way short of its principal mission, eliminating the insurgent threat. In fact, one may even be anxious about the future. Enough insurgents have escaped to threaten a long-term guerrilla war. That leads us straight to the humanitarian question, are conditions now conducive to the return of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) be created?
Even though time was of the essence, it is clear that the consequences of the military action in Swat (and adjoining territories) was not well thought out, either in civilian or military circles. The inherent weakness of the civil administration, both at the federal and provincial line, to cater for the humanitarian crises was not anticipated. Not only intelligence but media reports had indicated that the militants were using terrain where heights give them physical domination of the area. Also, the military should have been in no doubt that the fighting would create a major civilian exodus.
According to a military briefing at the highest level, the operation was conducted from four difficult directions. The concentric nature meant to occupy vital ground and force the militants to abandon their fortified positions in built-up areas, and come and fight the military on the ground of their choosing. This was brilliant, it worked because it spared tremendous collateral damage to the towns. However, it had a very fatal flaw. The militants believed in the classic guerrilla theory propounded by the Godless Mao Tsetung: He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. By avoiding the elimination of their top leadership and a considerable portion of their cadres, the stage has been set for a classic guerrilla compaign. The initiative is therefore now passed into the hands of the Taliban despite the grievous losses inflicted upon them by the Army in field combat, the Army is now on the defensive and the guerrillas have the capacity for hit and run tactics on static posts and along the lines of communication. What have the Army learnt from the sorry experience of FATA?
While the government has to be commended for immediately created the Strategic Support Group (SSG), and appointing a veteran from the Earthquake Relief and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) to lead it, what are the resources allocated to the SSG to cater to the catastrophe? Given that an Army Engineer Brigade is mending the rounds and relevant infrastructure of Swat, including electricity, water and sewage, it is quite likely that with increased guerrilla activity, the IDPs go back only partlyi.e., send back only able-bodied men to reclaim their hearths and home and livestock (or whatever is left of it) and leave most old people, women and children in the camps, as was the case in the Afghan refugee camps, in exist once now for nearly three decades later. While it is good news that permanent Army cantonments are planned in Swat, what is needed is far more dynamic military thinking that takes in air mobility as the prime instrument of countering military guerilla activity. Regretfully, the answer to a direct question about heliborne capacity was extremely disappointing.
Something is clearly deficient if any military commander cannot understand that enhanced air mobility is vital in any counter-insurgency, both during battle and afterwards.
One must counter civilian guerilla activity by winning over the hearts and minds of the local population, in the present insecure circumstances that will be a hard sell. The prime mission must be to restore the civil administration as soon as possible. One is heartened by the fact that the Army has handed over the names of 4000 ex-servicemen locally from NWFP to be employed as policemen. This is a tremendous government indicative and must be commended. Why not go further and induct retired ex-servicemen from the NWFP in the civil administration on contract? They could be employed to fill the vacuum created for various reasons, but this decision is required immediately. While in theory the prime responsibility for dealing with the populace is that of politicians, these are special circumstances. We need to extend the mandate of the Special Support Group akin to that of a civilian administration working in tending with the military till full normalcy in administration is restored, we cannot afford to take chances.
If I remember correctly, the correct military teaching is that you do not win a war only by occupying territory. You win a war by eliminating the threat completely. A counterinsurgency is something like a fumigation of a building, equating bad governance to the cockroaches in the nooks and corners within the building. You have to block off all exits and prevent the cockroaches from exiting. While on the ground, the troops have performed above and beyond the call of duty in the tactical sense, in the strategic sense we may have created conditions that spell a disaster in the looming.
We are in trouble. No, let me correct that, we are in deep trouble. Islamabad, we have a problem!
The writer is a defence and political analyst.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
The aim of any counterinsurgency is to eliminate insurgents. While securing and holding territory is certainly a prime consideration, unless the insurgents are killed or captured, mainly their principal leaders, an insurgency has the capacity to build on itself. In Swat the Army has done a splendid job in quickly establishing its presence in almost the entire territory, and in killing a substantial number of insurgents. Despite its commendable sacrifices, particularly by the officers corps, it has fallen way short of its principal mission, eliminating the insurgent threat. In fact, one may even be anxious about the future. Enough insurgents have escaped to threaten a long-term guerrilla war. That leads us straight to the humanitarian question, are conditions now conducive to the return of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) be created?
Even though time was of the essence, it is clear that the consequences of the military action in Swat (and adjoining territories) was not well thought out, either in civilian or military circles. The inherent weakness of the civil administration, both at the federal and provincial line, to cater for the humanitarian crises was not anticipated. Not only intelligence but media reports had indicated that the militants were using terrain where heights give them physical domination of the area. Also, the military should have been in no doubt that the fighting would create a major civilian exodus.
According to a military briefing at the highest level, the operation was conducted from four difficult directions. The concentric nature meant to occupy vital ground and force the militants to abandon their fortified positions in built-up areas, and come and fight the military on the ground of their choosing. This was brilliant, it worked because it spared tremendous collateral damage to the towns. However, it had a very fatal flaw. The militants believed in the classic guerrilla theory propounded by the Godless Mao Tsetung: He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. By avoiding the elimination of their top leadership and a considerable portion of their cadres, the stage has been set for a classic guerrilla compaign. The initiative is therefore now passed into the hands of the Taliban despite the grievous losses inflicted upon them by the Army in field combat, the Army is now on the defensive and the guerrillas have the capacity for hit and run tactics on static posts and along the lines of communication. What have the Army learnt from the sorry experience of FATA?
While the government has to be commended for immediately created the Strategic Support Group (SSG), and appointing a veteran from the Earthquake Relief and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) to lead it, what are the resources allocated to the SSG to cater to the catastrophe? Given that an Army Engineer Brigade is mending the rounds and relevant infrastructure of Swat, including electricity, water and sewage, it is quite likely that with increased guerrilla activity, the IDPs go back only partlyi.e., send back only able-bodied men to reclaim their hearths and home and livestock (or whatever is left of it) and leave most old people, women and children in the camps, as was the case in the Afghan refugee camps, in exist once now for nearly three decades later. While it is good news that permanent Army cantonments are planned in Swat, what is needed is far more dynamic military thinking that takes in air mobility as the prime instrument of countering military guerilla activity. Regretfully, the answer to a direct question about heliborne capacity was extremely disappointing.
Something is clearly deficient if any military commander cannot understand that enhanced air mobility is vital in any counter-insurgency, both during battle and afterwards.
One must counter civilian guerilla activity by winning over the hearts and minds of the local population, in the present insecure circumstances that will be a hard sell. The prime mission must be to restore the civil administration as soon as possible. One is heartened by the fact that the Army has handed over the names of 4000 ex-servicemen locally from NWFP to be employed as policemen. This is a tremendous government indicative and must be commended. Why not go further and induct retired ex-servicemen from the NWFP in the civil administration on contract? They could be employed to fill the vacuum created for various reasons, but this decision is required immediately. While in theory the prime responsibility for dealing with the populace is that of politicians, these are special circumstances. We need to extend the mandate of the Special Support Group akin to that of a civilian administration working in tending with the military till full normalcy in administration is restored, we cannot afford to take chances.
If I remember correctly, the correct military teaching is that you do not win a war only by occupying territory. You win a war by eliminating the threat completely. A counterinsurgency is something like a fumigation of a building, equating bad governance to the cockroaches in the nooks and corners within the building. You have to block off all exits and prevent the cockroaches from exiting. While on the ground, the troops have performed above and beyond the call of duty in the tactical sense, in the strategic sense we may have created conditions that spell a disaster in the looming.
We are in trouble. No, let me correct that, we are in deep trouble. Islamabad, we have a problem!
The writer is a defence and political analyst.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A life online
Monday, June 08, 2009
Chris Cork
Visits to the doctor when you are in your sixties can be a bit fraught. You never know what all this modern technology might show up. I remember doctors when all they had was a leather bag inside which was a stethoscope and a little rubber hammer for hitting your knees. Nowadays you find yourself plugged into the mains electric supply if you go for a bit of a chat with your friendly medic about the state of your feet which was what I had done. In a trice there I was flat on my back with Da Doc whizzing a scanner all over me with me wondering when he was going to ask about the feet.
Hmmmm good kidneys about as good as the average thirty-year old. Lungs fine. Heart fine. Liver hmmm yup, excellent. Prostate mmm slightly enlarged giving you any problem? Errr no. My feet its my feet. Smoking and drinking yes to both but nothing he was worried about. Errr the feet? Now one last question how long do you spend in front of the computer every day? Feet!
We had by now returned to his office for a post-examination analysis with me particularly interested in why the word feet had not been part of our conversations thus far. And then the blood analysis results arrived and we finally got around to my feet. Feet a bit swollen are they? (Like bloody balloons) And a bit painful? Nodding and affirmative noises from me relieved that we had got to the bottom of things so to speak. And how long did you say you spent in front of the computer every day? Mmmmup to twelve hours sometimes. Fine says the doc. (Doc pauses, purses lips.) Well not fine, actually; you see you have a problem with uric acid retention and this is why your feet are swollen and painful but it doesnt help matters that you are sitting in front of a monitor for as long as you do. And then we got into the nitty-gritty of a life online.
Heres how it goes. Up between 5.30 and 6, put the kettle on, boot the computers and TV (if there is power) make first cup of tea and then settle into the day. When made to think about it and the doctor did make me think we discovered that around 80 per cent of my waking hours were spent in front of the monitor. I calculated that work time was about half of my time either online or word-processing. So what was I up to for the rest of the time? A picture emerged of a man who has many friends but has met few of them. A member of a variety of clubs and groups none of which I have ever attended a physical meeting of. A contributor to several heavyweight discussion forums talking to people who may never hear my voice.
And then theres Skype. For those of you unfamiliar with it, Skype is a clever little programme that allows voice and video linkage between any two people who have a computer connected to the internet. Skype came into my life at the end of last year and it will take major surgery to disconnect me from it. Not only is a clever use of the Internet, its free! Genuinely free. I use it for virtually all of my international calls, I video-conference for some aspects of my work and chat for hours with other makers of little plastic models.
Add in Facebook which I had pooh-poohed as being for kids it isnt and I use it to stay in touch with friends and colleagues throughout the day, the thirty-two newspapers that I at least glance at if not read comprehensively every day, time spent browsing hobby-related sites and the time I have to spend clearing the junk and clutter out of my computers at the end of every day and there you have it a life online.
Back in my office-cum-lounge I looked at the workstation. Put something to elevate your feet slightly had said the Doc. Elevator was duly installed the next morning, new pills taken. Yes, but how are your feet, you ask? Much better, and kind of you to mention it.
The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Chris Cork
Visits to the doctor when you are in your sixties can be a bit fraught. You never know what all this modern technology might show up. I remember doctors when all they had was a leather bag inside which was a stethoscope and a little rubber hammer for hitting your knees. Nowadays you find yourself plugged into the mains electric supply if you go for a bit of a chat with your friendly medic about the state of your feet which was what I had done. In a trice there I was flat on my back with Da Doc whizzing a scanner all over me with me wondering when he was going to ask about the feet.
Hmmmm good kidneys about as good as the average thirty-year old. Lungs fine. Heart fine. Liver hmmm yup, excellent. Prostate mmm slightly enlarged giving you any problem? Errr no. My feet its my feet. Smoking and drinking yes to both but nothing he was worried about. Errr the feet? Now one last question how long do you spend in front of the computer every day? Feet!
We had by now returned to his office for a post-examination analysis with me particularly interested in why the word feet had not been part of our conversations thus far. And then the blood analysis results arrived and we finally got around to my feet. Feet a bit swollen are they? (Like bloody balloons) And a bit painful? Nodding and affirmative noises from me relieved that we had got to the bottom of things so to speak. And how long did you say you spent in front of the computer every day? Mmmmup to twelve hours sometimes. Fine says the doc. (Doc pauses, purses lips.) Well not fine, actually; you see you have a problem with uric acid retention and this is why your feet are swollen and painful but it doesnt help matters that you are sitting in front of a monitor for as long as you do. And then we got into the nitty-gritty of a life online.
Heres how it goes. Up between 5.30 and 6, put the kettle on, boot the computers and TV (if there is power) make first cup of tea and then settle into the day. When made to think about it and the doctor did make me think we discovered that around 80 per cent of my waking hours were spent in front of the monitor. I calculated that work time was about half of my time either online or word-processing. So what was I up to for the rest of the time? A picture emerged of a man who has many friends but has met few of them. A member of a variety of clubs and groups none of which I have ever attended a physical meeting of. A contributor to several heavyweight discussion forums talking to people who may never hear my voice.
And then theres Skype. For those of you unfamiliar with it, Skype is a clever little programme that allows voice and video linkage between any two people who have a computer connected to the internet. Skype came into my life at the end of last year and it will take major surgery to disconnect me from it. Not only is a clever use of the Internet, its free! Genuinely free. I use it for virtually all of my international calls, I video-conference for some aspects of my work and chat for hours with other makers of little plastic models.
Add in Facebook which I had pooh-poohed as being for kids it isnt and I use it to stay in touch with friends and colleagues throughout the day, the thirty-two newspapers that I at least glance at if not read comprehensively every day, time spent browsing hobby-related sites and the time I have to spend clearing the junk and clutter out of my computers at the end of every day and there you have it a life online.
Back in my office-cum-lounge I looked at the workstation. Put something to elevate your feet slightly had said the Doc. Elevator was duly installed the next morning, new pills taken. Yes, but how are your feet, you ask? Much better, and kind of you to mention it.
The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Two + Two = Four
By Dr James Zogby | Published: June 8, 2009
DR JAMES ZOGBY
There are times I am struck by how fortunate we are that Barack Obama was elected president on November 4, 2008. This is one of those times. Having spent the last 30 years of my life working to bridge the divide between the US and the Arab World, I became increasingly concerned, during the past eight years, as I watched that divide grow into what I feared might develop into an unbridgeable chasm. The damage done by the alternately reckless and neglectful policies of the last administration had taken an enormous toll.
How could we change direction? Watching the president addressing the Muslim world from a podium at the University of Cairo provided an answer.
One can only marvel at the sweep of history that brought this man to that place at this moment. I speak here not only of his personal narrative, so quintessentially American, but of his determination to face down overwhelming odds in making this brave effort to restore America's image, reclaim our values and restore frayed relationships.
President Obama's speech covered a great deal of ground - evidence of how many problems we must solve in order to heal the deep divide.
It was, by any measure, a "big speech". More like a "State of the Union" address than the Philadelphia "Race speech" or his remarks on abortion at Notre Dame. It was an agenda-setter, a menu designed to address a wide range of problems across a broad region.
The president opened by recognising Islam's contributions to the world and the role the Muslim community has played in America. And then he shifted to address the many sources of tension that have plagued our relations. He spoke with firmness and clarity of his resolve to continue to confront extremism, end the war in Iraq, close Guantanamo and ban torture. He then turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, displaying remarkable sensitivity to the histories of both peoples. And if that wasn't enough, he addressed the need for a nuclear free Middle East, the importance of the rights of women in the region, spoke of democracy, the need for religious pluralism and laid out a partnership agenda for economic development. More striking than the range of issues covered was how little the president needed to say in order to delight some, while angering others. An early mentor, Daniel Berrigan, once noted that "when saying two plus two equals four becomes an act of courage, you know you're in trouble." And so when President Obama respectfully quoted from the Quran or used terms like "dislocated" (to refer to the Palestinian Diaspora), "intolerable" (to describe the conditions of occupation) or "Palestine" (to refer to the future state) and this elicited cheers from friends and scorn from opponents, we know we are in trouble. Trouble, because of the self-imposed constraints that define what is acceptable in American political discourse, and trouble, because, as Arabs, have come to expect so little.
The day of the speech, I appeared on a number of TV shows debating the president's speech with those who had a stake in defending the failures of the past, or those who, for reasons of partisan politics, sought to pick around the edges of his speech looking for some advantage. Some were troubled by the respect he showed to Islam and upbraided him for the sympathy he displayed with the plight of Palestinians. Some expressed concern that Obama wasn't tough enough. I asked: did they really want him to deliver another "axis of evil" speech? Others waxed indignant at the president's criticism of torture or his attempt to change our discourse with Muslims by using the terms "violent extremism" instead of their preferred "Muslim terrorists". Still others expressed outrage at what they termed his "moral equivalency". In all of their criticisms, however, they missed the point that this president wasn't posturing, talking "at" Muslims, he was working to engage us in a conversation with them.
All of these critics missed the central contribution made by Barack Obama's historic speech in Cairo - and that was to create more "open space" in our discussion of Arab and Muslim issues. This was the president's challenge to Americans. Unlike his predecessor, he understands that if we are to repair the divide, then Americans must also change. As we seek to have Muslims understand us, it is equally important that we learn more about Islam, its contributions to our collective history, our relationships with the many parts of the Muslim world.
All of this, as I noted at the outset, made me so thankful that we have Barack Obama in the White House, at this critical juncture in our history. No one else could have delivered that speech in Cairo, and no one else would have had the vision or the courage to create the space that will allow more political leaders to be able to affirm that "two plus two is four."
The writer is the president of the Arab American Institute, Washington DC
By Dr James Zogby | Published: June 8, 2009
DR JAMES ZOGBY
There are times I am struck by how fortunate we are that Barack Obama was elected president on November 4, 2008. This is one of those times. Having spent the last 30 years of my life working to bridge the divide between the US and the Arab World, I became increasingly concerned, during the past eight years, as I watched that divide grow into what I feared might develop into an unbridgeable chasm. The damage done by the alternately reckless and neglectful policies of the last administration had taken an enormous toll.
How could we change direction? Watching the president addressing the Muslim world from a podium at the University of Cairo provided an answer.
One can only marvel at the sweep of history that brought this man to that place at this moment. I speak here not only of his personal narrative, so quintessentially American, but of his determination to face down overwhelming odds in making this brave effort to restore America's image, reclaim our values and restore frayed relationships.
President Obama's speech covered a great deal of ground - evidence of how many problems we must solve in order to heal the deep divide.
It was, by any measure, a "big speech". More like a "State of the Union" address than the Philadelphia "Race speech" or his remarks on abortion at Notre Dame. It was an agenda-setter, a menu designed to address a wide range of problems across a broad region.
The president opened by recognising Islam's contributions to the world and the role the Muslim community has played in America. And then he shifted to address the many sources of tension that have plagued our relations. He spoke with firmness and clarity of his resolve to continue to confront extremism, end the war in Iraq, close Guantanamo and ban torture. He then turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, displaying remarkable sensitivity to the histories of both peoples. And if that wasn't enough, he addressed the need for a nuclear free Middle East, the importance of the rights of women in the region, spoke of democracy, the need for religious pluralism and laid out a partnership agenda for economic development. More striking than the range of issues covered was how little the president needed to say in order to delight some, while angering others. An early mentor, Daniel Berrigan, once noted that "when saying two plus two equals four becomes an act of courage, you know you're in trouble." And so when President Obama respectfully quoted from the Quran or used terms like "dislocated" (to refer to the Palestinian Diaspora), "intolerable" (to describe the conditions of occupation) or "Palestine" (to refer to the future state) and this elicited cheers from friends and scorn from opponents, we know we are in trouble. Trouble, because of the self-imposed constraints that define what is acceptable in American political discourse, and trouble, because, as Arabs, have come to expect so little.
The day of the speech, I appeared on a number of TV shows debating the president's speech with those who had a stake in defending the failures of the past, or those who, for reasons of partisan politics, sought to pick around the edges of his speech looking for some advantage. Some were troubled by the respect he showed to Islam and upbraided him for the sympathy he displayed with the plight of Palestinians. Some expressed concern that Obama wasn't tough enough. I asked: did they really want him to deliver another "axis of evil" speech? Others waxed indignant at the president's criticism of torture or his attempt to change our discourse with Muslims by using the terms "violent extremism" instead of their preferred "Muslim terrorists". Still others expressed outrage at what they termed his "moral equivalency". In all of their criticisms, however, they missed the point that this president wasn't posturing, talking "at" Muslims, he was working to engage us in a conversation with them.
All of these critics missed the central contribution made by Barack Obama's historic speech in Cairo - and that was to create more "open space" in our discussion of Arab and Muslim issues. This was the president's challenge to Americans. Unlike his predecessor, he understands that if we are to repair the divide, then Americans must also change. As we seek to have Muslims understand us, it is equally important that we learn more about Islam, its contributions to our collective history, our relationships with the many parts of the Muslim world.
All of this, as I noted at the outset, made me so thankful that we have Barack Obama in the White House, at this critical juncture in our history. No one else could have delivered that speech in Cairo, and no one else would have had the vision or the courage to create the space that will allow more political leaders to be able to affirm that "two plus two is four."
The writer is the president of the Arab American Institute, Washington DC
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A lease of life
By Khurshid Akhtar Khan | Published: June 8, 2009
The May 26 decision of the six-member Supreme Court bench in the case of election eligibility of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif sprang no surprises. Justice was seen to be done. Some may argue that the judiciary has once again upheld the law of necessity. The verdict, nevertheless, is redeemed this time as it has not been exercised under coercion by a military dictator to provide cover to illegitimate executive orders or to the abrogation of the constitution. Further, it was received favourably by an overwhelming majority of the Pakistani public, political parties, various organisations and the government, construed as a step towards national harmony. Our leaders and the establishment have been provided yet another lease of life to straighten its chequered history of democracy that has been intermittently interrupted by military dictatorships. The Bar and the Bench of the legal system must live up to the expectations of an unprecedented responsibility to deliver what they preached by never again allowing the law to be bent.
The PML-N leadership merit recognition for playing its cards well since the February 2008 elections by not wavering on its stated stands or succumbing to the temptation of short-term gains, despite being outmanoeuvred by Asif Zardari, who significantly consolidated his political hold over the PPP and the government. Nawaz Sharif's patience and consistent policies have however paid dividends, as he has emerged as a preferred alternative to the present set-up. The Western powers that control our money and arms supply lines have gradually accepted him as a moderate from an earlier dreaded image of a sympathiser of extreme religious parties. President Zardari, on the other hand, has fast exposed himself as being out of depth to handle intricate matters of state and appears non-serious. He has routinely absented himself for long periods from the country that has been confronting crises on all fronts threatening its very existence and where his presence and attention is most needed due to concentration of power in the office he holds. He has chosen to sideline the better recognised giants of his party that has resulted in a general perception of poor governance.
A recent survey shows the approval rating of the president falling to 17 percent as against 79 percent for Nawaz Sharif. Popularity graphs may alter numerous times during a government tenure that is hardly alien to a democracy and all of us must learn to accept them as a guideline and not as an indicator to throw out the regime. The government is elected for five years and it must complete its designated term if democracy is to take roots, unless a change, if inevitable, is brought about as prescribed in the constitution. The Chief Justice of Pakistan heading an independent judiciary whom the whole nation supported, all political parties, media, the civil and military establishment and our people all in tandem must bear the collective responsibility to ensure that democracy is not derailedThe nation presently is entangled as the unwilling pawn in a war imposed under a well thought out long-term American strategy to control the region in collaboration with Israel and India, militarily weaken Pakistan by promoting internal dissent and discrediting our armed forces by engaging them to fight against our own misguided elements that are funded and supplied through their intelligence agencies. Our geographical location as a gateway to the resource rich Central Asia and the long coastline that we considered assets have become our liability. Their agencies are facilitating indirect funding, supplies of arms, resources and high tech equipment to recruit parts of our population that have been disgruntled due to deprivation and isolation from national affairs. Some of these have developed over the last couple of decades into treacherous forces that are manipulated to kill their own countrymen, destroy public properties and create terror to destabilise the system. Our leaders have a responsibility, as never before, to set aside their internal differences and unite the nation to defeat these external conspiracies.
We have scored a political victory by creating a national consensus on the military operations in Swat and FATA and cultivating a public opinion against extremism almost simultaneously as the massive deployment of the army with considerable air cover was fully mobilised. Although the innocent population is far more adversely affected and more of their lives are lost than the militants, this desperate effort for survival as a last resort cannot be allowed to fail and commands general public approval despite unprecedented human suffering. We must now carefully plan and depend on our indigenous resources to take care of the fallout of these operations and the rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes.
The frontier people have risen to the occasion by extending hospitality to about 80 percent of the displaced families according to AIRRA and must be included in the government support programmes. The relief camps sheltering the other 20 percent must be developed as self-sufficient units on self-help basis and given full responsibility to run the affairs of the camps themselves. There is no better way to restore their honour by making them fully incharge of the disbursement of subsistence allowance, preparation and distribution of food, maintenance of civic amenities and to cater for their miscellaneous needs while the government restricts itself to provide the expertise, supplies and resources and to overseeing the operations. These proud people in temporary distress must not be robbed of their self-respect and reduced to act like beggars. They must be made to feel in control of their destiny as their right and not by way of charity.
It is equally humiliating to see our president trotting all over the world and the prime minister imploring all visiting dignitaries begging for aid (that is unlikely to materialise when needed), in a dismal exhibition of our incapability to take care of our own, while our elite live extravagantly. How can we build confidence and pride in the nation if we extend our hands towards others before exhausting our own potential? We must begin preparations to put an effective civil administration in Malakand Division. A strong and well equipped security force will be required to substitute the army after their mission is accomplished to preserve order and to repel any minor assaults by the remnants of the militants that are bound to regroup in some way. It is imperative to recruit a fresh contingent of security personnel, civil administrators and technical people, preferably from local or adjacent areas, put them through short intensive training programmes and install a comprehensive administrative structure ready to implement the anticipated development programmes. Similar programmes must also be devised in the seven tribal agencies to bring them at par with the NWFP.
As I mentioned in my last article we are undergoing a slow revolution observed in the shape of judicial reforms, enhanced self-accountability in the glare of the relentless media and abhorrence to extremism and misinterpretation of Islamic injunctions by ignorant self-styled reformers. The rulers do not have a carte blanche anymore to do as they please, as their actions are subject to close scrutiny by the people. The nation has learned to take a stand and change the course of events. These are the fruits of democracy that are coming our way slowly but surely.
The writer is an engineer and an entrepreneur
By Khurshid Akhtar Khan | Published: June 8, 2009
The May 26 decision of the six-member Supreme Court bench in the case of election eligibility of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif sprang no surprises. Justice was seen to be done. Some may argue that the judiciary has once again upheld the law of necessity. The verdict, nevertheless, is redeemed this time as it has not been exercised under coercion by a military dictator to provide cover to illegitimate executive orders or to the abrogation of the constitution. Further, it was received favourably by an overwhelming majority of the Pakistani public, political parties, various organisations and the government, construed as a step towards national harmony. Our leaders and the establishment have been provided yet another lease of life to straighten its chequered history of democracy that has been intermittently interrupted by military dictatorships. The Bar and the Bench of the legal system must live up to the expectations of an unprecedented responsibility to deliver what they preached by never again allowing the law to be bent.
The PML-N leadership merit recognition for playing its cards well since the February 2008 elections by not wavering on its stated stands or succumbing to the temptation of short-term gains, despite being outmanoeuvred by Asif Zardari, who significantly consolidated his political hold over the PPP and the government. Nawaz Sharif's patience and consistent policies have however paid dividends, as he has emerged as a preferred alternative to the present set-up. The Western powers that control our money and arms supply lines have gradually accepted him as a moderate from an earlier dreaded image of a sympathiser of extreme religious parties. President Zardari, on the other hand, has fast exposed himself as being out of depth to handle intricate matters of state and appears non-serious. He has routinely absented himself for long periods from the country that has been confronting crises on all fronts threatening its very existence and where his presence and attention is most needed due to concentration of power in the office he holds. He has chosen to sideline the better recognised giants of his party that has resulted in a general perception of poor governance.
A recent survey shows the approval rating of the president falling to 17 percent as against 79 percent for Nawaz Sharif. Popularity graphs may alter numerous times during a government tenure that is hardly alien to a democracy and all of us must learn to accept them as a guideline and not as an indicator to throw out the regime. The government is elected for five years and it must complete its designated term if democracy is to take roots, unless a change, if inevitable, is brought about as prescribed in the constitution. The Chief Justice of Pakistan heading an independent judiciary whom the whole nation supported, all political parties, media, the civil and military establishment and our people all in tandem must bear the collective responsibility to ensure that democracy is not derailedThe nation presently is entangled as the unwilling pawn in a war imposed under a well thought out long-term American strategy to control the region in collaboration with Israel and India, militarily weaken Pakistan by promoting internal dissent and discrediting our armed forces by engaging them to fight against our own misguided elements that are funded and supplied through their intelligence agencies. Our geographical location as a gateway to the resource rich Central Asia and the long coastline that we considered assets have become our liability. Their agencies are facilitating indirect funding, supplies of arms, resources and high tech equipment to recruit parts of our population that have been disgruntled due to deprivation and isolation from national affairs. Some of these have developed over the last couple of decades into treacherous forces that are manipulated to kill their own countrymen, destroy public properties and create terror to destabilise the system. Our leaders have a responsibility, as never before, to set aside their internal differences and unite the nation to defeat these external conspiracies.
We have scored a political victory by creating a national consensus on the military operations in Swat and FATA and cultivating a public opinion against extremism almost simultaneously as the massive deployment of the army with considerable air cover was fully mobilised. Although the innocent population is far more adversely affected and more of their lives are lost than the militants, this desperate effort for survival as a last resort cannot be allowed to fail and commands general public approval despite unprecedented human suffering. We must now carefully plan and depend on our indigenous resources to take care of the fallout of these operations and the rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes.
The frontier people have risen to the occasion by extending hospitality to about 80 percent of the displaced families according to AIRRA and must be included in the government support programmes. The relief camps sheltering the other 20 percent must be developed as self-sufficient units on self-help basis and given full responsibility to run the affairs of the camps themselves. There is no better way to restore their honour by making them fully incharge of the disbursement of subsistence allowance, preparation and distribution of food, maintenance of civic amenities and to cater for their miscellaneous needs while the government restricts itself to provide the expertise, supplies and resources and to overseeing the operations. These proud people in temporary distress must not be robbed of their self-respect and reduced to act like beggars. They must be made to feel in control of their destiny as their right and not by way of charity.
It is equally humiliating to see our president trotting all over the world and the prime minister imploring all visiting dignitaries begging for aid (that is unlikely to materialise when needed), in a dismal exhibition of our incapability to take care of our own, while our elite live extravagantly. How can we build confidence and pride in the nation if we extend our hands towards others before exhausting our own potential? We must begin preparations to put an effective civil administration in Malakand Division. A strong and well equipped security force will be required to substitute the army after their mission is accomplished to preserve order and to repel any minor assaults by the remnants of the militants that are bound to regroup in some way. It is imperative to recruit a fresh contingent of security personnel, civil administrators and technical people, preferably from local or adjacent areas, put them through short intensive training programmes and install a comprehensive administrative structure ready to implement the anticipated development programmes. Similar programmes must also be devised in the seven tribal agencies to bring them at par with the NWFP.
As I mentioned in my last article we are undergoing a slow revolution observed in the shape of judicial reforms, enhanced self-accountability in the glare of the relentless media and abhorrence to extremism and misinterpretation of Islamic injunctions by ignorant self-styled reformers. The rulers do not have a carte blanche anymore to do as they please, as their actions are subject to close scrutiny by the people. The nation has learned to take a stand and change the course of events. These are the fruits of democracy that are coming our way slowly but surely.
The writer is an engineer and an entrepreneur
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Poor concept of development
By Nadeem Syed | Published: June 8, 2009
For the provincial government the utilization of development funds is probably most important thing for its movers and shakers. The politicians and bureaucrats alike are not much interested whether these funds are spent judiciously or wastefully. Main thrust is the maximum utilization of funds even if that required jugglery of figures, as has been the case under most of the governments. This is one of the barometers to judge the government performance.
So, as the financial year is closing, one witnesses development activity all around in Punjab whether it is justified or not. Much to the surprise of everybody watching the city's planners and developers in order to post a higher percentage of utilization of development funds started carpeting roads that were not broken. Some of these roads were newly built. In other cases, we witness apatchwork being done on newly built roads. This provides us a glimpse of how budget making is done and how planning is done and development is executed in the province and what is the end product.
Over the years it seems that development has been made without any method or making any real assessment of the needs of a certain area. Most of the time it is old wine in new bottle, lacking imagination and purposeful development, hardly promising anything to improve the lives of the people. It seems that in our city the development agencies and bureaucrats concerned have a very myopic definition of development. Building roads, streets and drain is what they call development, as if they are easy pickings for the planners. This is one reason why the development makes little impact on the lives of the people despite billion of rupees being spent under this head.
For example in the last 30 years we have witnessed in our area (Township) same roads being built and rebuilt over and over again. It seems that once a road is developed the development agencies and developers started praying for its demise. Sooner the better for them. In this sort of development it is the officials and people associated with the development that are its real beneficiaries and not the area people which should have been the case. Interestingly, we see their prayers being realized sooner than latter and just in couple of years or slightly more we are preparing for the rituals once again. Interestingly, there is hardly any mechanism to challenge such a wasteful practice to check how come a road has such a short span of life. In the last eight years since the advent of the new Local government system huge funds have been allocated to different tiers of the local bodies. Yet we do not see any improvement in the lives of the people or impact of the development carried out during these years. With cities grown in size and population and localities within cities going through a massive expansion this kind of development approach is hardly affordable for political governments. While the roads are being built again and again, we see a very little happening in other sectors including health, education transportation. For example, in our area no new school or college has been established for the last 30 years though the area has expanded a lot with increasing population. Likewise, we never have come across any new dispensary being set up for the good of people who otherwise have to cover quite a distance to visit a hospital. Similarly, the young kids have to go to schools in areas outside their localities to go to school.
Unfortunately, such a pattern of development is hardly affordable when we have financial constrains and we bankroll our deficit through a begging bowl. The money spent on useless schemes could be diverted to schemes that are much more relevant to the needs of the people. But for this we need a new mechanism of development. We do not know how our development agencies at the moment assess the requirement of a certain areas. We need also to think beyond this road, street and drain syndrome.
By Nadeem Syed | Published: June 8, 2009
For the provincial government the utilization of development funds is probably most important thing for its movers and shakers. The politicians and bureaucrats alike are not much interested whether these funds are spent judiciously or wastefully. Main thrust is the maximum utilization of funds even if that required jugglery of figures, as has been the case under most of the governments. This is one of the barometers to judge the government performance.
So, as the financial year is closing, one witnesses development activity all around in Punjab whether it is justified or not. Much to the surprise of everybody watching the city's planners and developers in order to post a higher percentage of utilization of development funds started carpeting roads that were not broken. Some of these roads were newly built. In other cases, we witness apatchwork being done on newly built roads. This provides us a glimpse of how budget making is done and how planning is done and development is executed in the province and what is the end product.
Over the years it seems that development has been made without any method or making any real assessment of the needs of a certain area. Most of the time it is old wine in new bottle, lacking imagination and purposeful development, hardly promising anything to improve the lives of the people. It seems that in our city the development agencies and bureaucrats concerned have a very myopic definition of development. Building roads, streets and drain is what they call development, as if they are easy pickings for the planners. This is one reason why the development makes little impact on the lives of the people despite billion of rupees being spent under this head.
For example in the last 30 years we have witnessed in our area (Township) same roads being built and rebuilt over and over again. It seems that once a road is developed the development agencies and developers started praying for its demise. Sooner the better for them. In this sort of development it is the officials and people associated with the development that are its real beneficiaries and not the area people which should have been the case. Interestingly, we see their prayers being realized sooner than latter and just in couple of years or slightly more we are preparing for the rituals once again. Interestingly, there is hardly any mechanism to challenge such a wasteful practice to check how come a road has such a short span of life. In the last eight years since the advent of the new Local government system huge funds have been allocated to different tiers of the local bodies. Yet we do not see any improvement in the lives of the people or impact of the development carried out during these years. With cities grown in size and population and localities within cities going through a massive expansion this kind of development approach is hardly affordable for political governments. While the roads are being built again and again, we see a very little happening in other sectors including health, education transportation. For example, in our area no new school or college has been established for the last 30 years though the area has expanded a lot with increasing population. Likewise, we never have come across any new dispensary being set up for the good of people who otherwise have to cover quite a distance to visit a hospital. Similarly, the young kids have to go to schools in areas outside their localities to go to school.
Unfortunately, such a pattern of development is hardly affordable when we have financial constrains and we bankroll our deficit through a begging bowl. The money spent on useless schemes could be diverted to schemes that are much more relevant to the needs of the people. But for this we need a new mechanism of development. We do not know how our development agencies at the moment assess the requirement of a certain areas. We need also to think beyond this road, street and drain syndrome.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Soft revolution on fast track
By Syed Ali Zafar | Published: June 8, 2009
Do you, fellow countrymen, sometimes feel helpless to change what is going on in our beloved country? Do you also sometimes think that our elected governments are (i) moving on the wrong path (ii) not doing enough (iii) acting too slowly or (iv) all of the above? If so, do you feel frustrated? Do not worry. According to statistics many people in the world feel this way about their governments. The wiser ones have however found a solution which is to embrace the "Non-violent path".
One option, and which has been used effectively by many, to bring about social or political change is through "violent revolution". The French Revolution is one example where ferocious mob successfully overthrew King Louis XVI's regime and installed France's first Republic. The Russian Revolution which destroyed the Tsarist aristocracy and led to the creation of Soviet Union is another example of victorious use of force by people. The latest example is the Iranian Revolution which overthrew the monarchy of Raza Shah Pahalvi. During and after the revolution there have been massive and large scale killing sometimes in the name of purge and/or to deal with the counter revolutionist.
Where there is a political set-up and tools of democracy howsoever weak they may be or as the political scholars have quaint the phrase where there is low density democracy, the process to seek desired action by the government must be through non-violent means. However one may dislike the policies of the government, armed struggles are not the answer. No one should or can advocate that every time a government acts contrary to the wishes of a large number or even majority, people should take up arms against them and overthrow government.
In any case the preponderance of insurrections involving violence has either been unsuccessful or has merely resulted in replacing an older despotic regime with a new dictatorial ruler. Many armed struggles, even those based on claims for independence, may not borne fruit. The case of the surrender by Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka being one example. More importantly armed revolution is never alluring, particularly because of the moral revulsion against violence.
It is a fact that frustration in governance is growing even in democracy. Parliaments are not seen as effective champions of change because of the extremely slow process and manner in which laws are made. Quite often governments in power have to compromise on many matters with the opposition and before a law is promulgated, it has to go through an endless exercise of debates. By the time laws are passed, the social practices for which it was designed to change get further entrenched. The governments' failure to fix proper priority of dealing with problems that need immediate attention is another source of frustration. One answer is to wait for the next election. But in countries where there is low density democracy even waiting for the next election does not provide a real solution because elections are generally managed or sometimes even rigged. Be as it may whether it is full democracy or low density democracy armed struggle is not the answer. In place of a revolution which generally is violent the answer is in "Soft Revolution". Pakistan has witnessed this phenomenon recently when people from all walks of life continued to protest peacefully, culminating in the long march and eventually succeeded in bringing about the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad ChaudhryNon-violent action campaigns have not been unknown. They have been used effectively to challenge abuses by authorities and in waging unarmed struggle for rights, eliminating discrimination, and even in overthrowing colonial regimes.
The world is witnessing these unarmed struggles as we have seen in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine where nationwide protests, civil disobedience, sit-ins and general strikes resulted in the original run off vote to be annulled, holding of free and fair elections and victory of Yushchenko. In fact since the early 2000 this revolutionary wave of "Colour Revolutions" has become a phenomenon in Central and Easter Europe and Central Asia where non-violent resistance to protest against governments seen as corrupt and authoritarian has been undertaken. These movements have adopted a special colour or flower as their symbol (Siberia adopted the Bulldozer Revolution; Georgia the Rose Revolution; Kyrgyzstan the Tulip Revolution; Velvet Revolution of the Czechoslovakia; the Seeder Revolution in Lebanon for the withdrawal of Syrian troops or the Blue Revolution in Kuwait in support of women suffrage).
The key to success of non-violent movements, whether it is the American Revolution in the 1700s when people boycotted British imports and organised committees of correspondence, published pamphlets and newspapers; or the Egyptian Revolution and Irish non-corporation movement of the 1990s; the non corporation movement of Gandhi in the 1920s; Pakistan movement through constitutional means by Muhammad Ali Jinnah; the African-American Civil Rights Movements of 1950s and 60s; the protests against the Vietnam War; the Monday Demonstrations in East Germany; is to win support from the undecided. Where the warfare by PLO could not succeed, the Intefada in Palestine has tilted world opinion in favour of the Palestinians. The South African struggle against Apartheid brought down discriminatory regime in South Africa. With the withdrawal of public support resulted in defeat of Marcos in Philippines.
Pakistan falls in the category of low density democracy. Parliaments do come into existence and most of the time through manipulation of elections. Some of the institutions are not adequately functioning. However the election of February 18, 2008 has been accepted as comparatively a fair and independent election resulting in the unanimous election of the prime minister, which in a parliamentary form of government is a rare phenomenon. To my mind Pakistan is a fertile ground for soft revolutions.
Soft revolution or non-violent movements use simultaneous multifarious strategies to target the mass of undecided majority. It is this that makes non-violent acts extremely powerful actions and ensures success. There is a whole study contained in various publications relating to the tactics for non-violent social change. The tactics include public speeches, letters of opposition or support, declarations, group petitions, human chains, leaflets, communications in newspapers, radio and TV, flags, symbols and paint, haunting officials, projection through dramas and movies, marches and parades, honouring of heroes, public assemblies, withdrawals, walkouts, ostrization of individuals among others. Often one theme can catch imaginations of the people. "No taxation without representation" was the theme that brought the American soft revolution.
One of the most effective tactics of this century is building up support through the internet. This technology implied to great advantage by US President Obama, which was perhaps one of the main reasons for his success in winning the US presidential election.
As mentioned earlier, the people of Pakistan have also learnt that the power of mass protest. People in the streets are feeling more powerful and groups are beginning to resort to peaceful demonstrations, walks and protests to force governments to take actions. When the chief justice and judges were restored the people of Pakistan rejoiced in the restoration because this was a proof that the government can be made to accede to the public demand through peaceful means. However the movements in Pakistan are still unorganised. What we need is to use the tactics and institutionalise the show of people power. Once Pakistanis realise that their voice, which is currently drowned in the corridors of democracy can be heard and will be effective, this will be a new beginning.
These unarmed resistance movements if carried out effectively, are successful because no democratic government wishes to resort to violence to repress a peaceful movement because that creates greater sympathy for the movement. Not knowing what to do, people within the government start disagreeing, and as the movement gathers momentum, the government often gives in to the genuine demands. Sometimes even the officials involved in implementing law and order and security do not take action against the non-violent protests.
At the end I shall like to enter an important caveat. The soft revolution must be moral based. It must be ethical and it must concentrate on one issue at one time. Soft revolutions are the fastest way to improve by transforming the bad governance into good governance, by putting revolution on a fast track and thereby avoiding the bloody and violent revolution.
The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
By Syed Ali Zafar | Published: June 8, 2009
Do you, fellow countrymen, sometimes feel helpless to change what is going on in our beloved country? Do you also sometimes think that our elected governments are (i) moving on the wrong path (ii) not doing enough (iii) acting too slowly or (iv) all of the above? If so, do you feel frustrated? Do not worry. According to statistics many people in the world feel this way about their governments. The wiser ones have however found a solution which is to embrace the "Non-violent path".
One option, and which has been used effectively by many, to bring about social or political change is through "violent revolution". The French Revolution is one example where ferocious mob successfully overthrew King Louis XVI's regime and installed France's first Republic. The Russian Revolution which destroyed the Tsarist aristocracy and led to the creation of Soviet Union is another example of victorious use of force by people. The latest example is the Iranian Revolution which overthrew the monarchy of Raza Shah Pahalvi. During and after the revolution there have been massive and large scale killing sometimes in the name of purge and/or to deal with the counter revolutionist.
Where there is a political set-up and tools of democracy howsoever weak they may be or as the political scholars have quaint the phrase where there is low density democracy, the process to seek desired action by the government must be through non-violent means. However one may dislike the policies of the government, armed struggles are not the answer. No one should or can advocate that every time a government acts contrary to the wishes of a large number or even majority, people should take up arms against them and overthrow government.
In any case the preponderance of insurrections involving violence has either been unsuccessful or has merely resulted in replacing an older despotic regime with a new dictatorial ruler. Many armed struggles, even those based on claims for independence, may not borne fruit. The case of the surrender by Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka being one example. More importantly armed revolution is never alluring, particularly because of the moral revulsion against violence.
It is a fact that frustration in governance is growing even in democracy. Parliaments are not seen as effective champions of change because of the extremely slow process and manner in which laws are made. Quite often governments in power have to compromise on many matters with the opposition and before a law is promulgated, it has to go through an endless exercise of debates. By the time laws are passed, the social practices for which it was designed to change get further entrenched. The governments' failure to fix proper priority of dealing with problems that need immediate attention is another source of frustration. One answer is to wait for the next election. But in countries where there is low density democracy even waiting for the next election does not provide a real solution because elections are generally managed or sometimes even rigged. Be as it may whether it is full democracy or low density democracy armed struggle is not the answer. In place of a revolution which generally is violent the answer is in "Soft Revolution". Pakistan has witnessed this phenomenon recently when people from all walks of life continued to protest peacefully, culminating in the long march and eventually succeeded in bringing about the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad ChaudhryNon-violent action campaigns have not been unknown. They have been used effectively to challenge abuses by authorities and in waging unarmed struggle for rights, eliminating discrimination, and even in overthrowing colonial regimes.
The world is witnessing these unarmed struggles as we have seen in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine where nationwide protests, civil disobedience, sit-ins and general strikes resulted in the original run off vote to be annulled, holding of free and fair elections and victory of Yushchenko. In fact since the early 2000 this revolutionary wave of "Colour Revolutions" has become a phenomenon in Central and Easter Europe and Central Asia where non-violent resistance to protest against governments seen as corrupt and authoritarian has been undertaken. These movements have adopted a special colour or flower as their symbol (Siberia adopted the Bulldozer Revolution; Georgia the Rose Revolution; Kyrgyzstan the Tulip Revolution; Velvet Revolution of the Czechoslovakia; the Seeder Revolution in Lebanon for the withdrawal of Syrian troops or the Blue Revolution in Kuwait in support of women suffrage).
The key to success of non-violent movements, whether it is the American Revolution in the 1700s when people boycotted British imports and organised committees of correspondence, published pamphlets and newspapers; or the Egyptian Revolution and Irish non-corporation movement of the 1990s; the non corporation movement of Gandhi in the 1920s; Pakistan movement through constitutional means by Muhammad Ali Jinnah; the African-American Civil Rights Movements of 1950s and 60s; the protests against the Vietnam War; the Monday Demonstrations in East Germany; is to win support from the undecided. Where the warfare by PLO could not succeed, the Intefada in Palestine has tilted world opinion in favour of the Palestinians. The South African struggle against Apartheid brought down discriminatory regime in South Africa. With the withdrawal of public support resulted in defeat of Marcos in Philippines.
Pakistan falls in the category of low density democracy. Parliaments do come into existence and most of the time through manipulation of elections. Some of the institutions are not adequately functioning. However the election of February 18, 2008 has been accepted as comparatively a fair and independent election resulting in the unanimous election of the prime minister, which in a parliamentary form of government is a rare phenomenon. To my mind Pakistan is a fertile ground for soft revolutions.
Soft revolution or non-violent movements use simultaneous multifarious strategies to target the mass of undecided majority. It is this that makes non-violent acts extremely powerful actions and ensures success. There is a whole study contained in various publications relating to the tactics for non-violent social change. The tactics include public speeches, letters of opposition or support, declarations, group petitions, human chains, leaflets, communications in newspapers, radio and TV, flags, symbols and paint, haunting officials, projection through dramas and movies, marches and parades, honouring of heroes, public assemblies, withdrawals, walkouts, ostrization of individuals among others. Often one theme can catch imaginations of the people. "No taxation without representation" was the theme that brought the American soft revolution.
One of the most effective tactics of this century is building up support through the internet. This technology implied to great advantage by US President Obama, which was perhaps one of the main reasons for his success in winning the US presidential election.
As mentioned earlier, the people of Pakistan have also learnt that the power of mass protest. People in the streets are feeling more powerful and groups are beginning to resort to peaceful demonstrations, walks and protests to force governments to take actions. When the chief justice and judges were restored the people of Pakistan rejoiced in the restoration because this was a proof that the government can be made to accede to the public demand through peaceful means. However the movements in Pakistan are still unorganised. What we need is to use the tactics and institutionalise the show of people power. Once Pakistanis realise that their voice, which is currently drowned in the corridors of democracy can be heard and will be effective, this will be a new beginning.
These unarmed resistance movements if carried out effectively, are successful because no democratic government wishes to resort to violence to repress a peaceful movement because that creates greater sympathy for the movement. Not knowing what to do, people within the government start disagreeing, and as the movement gathers momentum, the government often gives in to the genuine demands. Sometimes even the officials involved in implementing law and order and security do not take action against the non-violent protests.
At the end I shall like to enter an important caveat. The soft revolution must be moral based. It must be ethical and it must concentrate on one issue at one time. Soft revolutions are the fastest way to improve by transforming the bad governance into good governance, by putting revolution on a fast track and thereby avoiding the bloody and violent revolution.
The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
White Lies
Published: June 8, 2009
DIOGENES
Word has it that a group of women are really flexing their muscles at the Lahore Gymkhana Club's gymnasium. In the process they are tearing the authority of its Convenor, literally to pieces. The story goes that this group, consisting of some high-grade bureaucrats' wives, invaded the gymnasium facility some time back. They treated it more like a home away from home, their kind of home, where they could spend most mornings and evenings with friends, working out having long chats, carrying out loud conversations which involve shouting across the room. Apparently they bully attendants into playing music CDs of their choice. The attendants are treated like domestic help. Unfortunately serial complaints about their behaviour have fallen on deaf ears. We hear the matter has now become so unbearable that it was taken up with the current gym convenor, who after an initial enquiry into the allegations, served the group a formal notice.
Now that has really got these ladies up in arms. Witnesses say that on receiving the notice, they were outraged and in a ceremony designed to show everyone that no convenor had the power to discipline them, they tore up the notice in the club foyer in full view of many members and club employees. To ensure that everyone got the message loud and clear, one of the ladies declared that the torn paper should remain on the floor. "Let the convenor come and pick it up himself. We will see who stops us from using the gym". Word has it that this misconduct was referred to the club's management committee, which in turn passed it on to the three-member disciplinary committee. Now the husband of one of the ladies is on the disciplinary committee and this bureaucrat has not found it necessary to hand in his resignation in order to give a semblance of fair play to the process. Not surprisingly the disciplinary committee has taken no decision for the last many months and these ladies continue to use and abuse the club at will. When asked, a septuagenarian club member declared, "The membership quality has deteriorated dramatically, so you have such lady members". They say self-made men prefer self-made sir names. Add a Syed, a Khan, a Shiekh, a Chaudhry, an Arbab and they feel the family image has been garnished and a social climb achieved. But now it seems that some young men with dynastical names also like to change their names for whatever reason. A recent publicity glare on Rahul Gandhi has revealed that when he joined Cambridge University after the assassination of his father, he chose to drop the famous Gandhi name and opted for Vinci, a throwback to his mother Sonia Gandhi's less glamorous Italian origin. Balawal Zardari, a student at Oxford University, still carries her mother's heavyweight Bhutto sir name.
Published: June 8, 2009
DIOGENES
Word has it that a group of women are really flexing their muscles at the Lahore Gymkhana Club's gymnasium. In the process they are tearing the authority of its Convenor, literally to pieces. The story goes that this group, consisting of some high-grade bureaucrats' wives, invaded the gymnasium facility some time back. They treated it more like a home away from home, their kind of home, where they could spend most mornings and evenings with friends, working out having long chats, carrying out loud conversations which involve shouting across the room. Apparently they bully attendants into playing music CDs of their choice. The attendants are treated like domestic help. Unfortunately serial complaints about their behaviour have fallen on deaf ears. We hear the matter has now become so unbearable that it was taken up with the current gym convenor, who after an initial enquiry into the allegations, served the group a formal notice.
Now that has really got these ladies up in arms. Witnesses say that on receiving the notice, they were outraged and in a ceremony designed to show everyone that no convenor had the power to discipline them, they tore up the notice in the club foyer in full view of many members and club employees. To ensure that everyone got the message loud and clear, one of the ladies declared that the torn paper should remain on the floor. "Let the convenor come and pick it up himself. We will see who stops us from using the gym". Word has it that this misconduct was referred to the club's management committee, which in turn passed it on to the three-member disciplinary committee. Now the husband of one of the ladies is on the disciplinary committee and this bureaucrat has not found it necessary to hand in his resignation in order to give a semblance of fair play to the process. Not surprisingly the disciplinary committee has taken no decision for the last many months and these ladies continue to use and abuse the club at will. When asked, a septuagenarian club member declared, "The membership quality has deteriorated dramatically, so you have such lady members". They say self-made men prefer self-made sir names. Add a Syed, a Khan, a Shiekh, a Chaudhry, an Arbab and they feel the family image has been garnished and a social climb achieved. But now it seems that some young men with dynastical names also like to change their names for whatever reason. A recent publicity glare on Rahul Gandhi has revealed that when he joined Cambridge University after the assassination of his father, he chose to drop the famous Gandhi name and opted for Vinci, a throwback to his mother Sonia Gandhi's less glamorous Italian origin. Balawal Zardari, a student at Oxford University, still carries her mother's heavyweight Bhutto sir name.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Is India spawning a street grammar of bias?
Jawed Naqvi
Monday, 08 Jun, 2009
That economic prowess spawns supremacist ideologies is a lesson best learnt from 19th century colonialism in the Afro-Asian region and in Europes conquest of the Americas. The Chinese on their part were forever prone to believing that non-yellow races were barbarian. Their recent economic prosperity has not brought any perceptible shift in that belief. Has Indias chosen neo-liberal economic model set it on a road to deepening social rifts with a matching new grammar of bias?
In the Dantewada district, in Indias heartland state of Chhatisgarh, the picturesque beauty of the Indrawati River is smeared with an alien language of prejudice. The northern banks of the river have come to be called Pakistan, not that they are home to Muslims but because they shelter suspected Maoist guerrillas, known otherwise as Naxalites. Whatever other religion they may profess, if they ever had one, Naxalites are usually not Muslim.
There could be a few possible explanations for why or how the idiom of hate came to be planted in a region that is safely couched in a remote, inaccessibly dense forests, that too thousands of miles from any foreign border, by land or sea. It is probable that some paramilitary men who carried with them the notion of the enemy within when they migrated from their punishing duty in Kashmir brought the idiom to meandering banks of Indrawati.
Which of course would raise a set of tricky questions? It may be asked, for example, why the paramilitary men who seemed to be able to crush (though not tame) with relative ease a foreign-backed movement against Indian rule found it difficult to curb the onslaught of another set of rebels, who did not have the wherewithal that links with a foreign government brink. Is there a different measure of force that is allowed for each case depending on the native or foreign quotient of the enterprise?
Let us assume for a moment that the reference to Pakistan that the security forces use (and which seems to have found a grudging acceptance among a section of the local people they claim to protect) was not planted by them. Let us grant that the virus is just as likely to have been injected into the everyday grammar of the unsuspecting tribespeople by Hindutva ideologues that rule Chhatisgarh. How would that help those that seek to foment the implied hatred? The simple answer would be that it helps their mentors big Indian corporations and their multinational allies.
Communalism has proved to be a most used and effective weapon in the states quiver to help dissipate, even pre-empt, any threat of economically driven unrest. Such threats were initially understood to emanate from the industrial workforce in urban hubs. Be it the Shiv Sena in Mumbai or the BJP in Gujarat, they made excellent partners with Indian business clubs to thwart industrial bargaining by diving the workers into parochial rivals. However, the same antidote to workers solidarity has found new use to dissipate rural strife.
Salwa Judum or Purification Hunt was begun in Chhatisgarh on the model of the Ikhwan-uI-Muslimoon, Kashmirs notorious vigilante militia that were propped up by the state. In June 2005, a section of the tribal elite, led by Congress Party leader Mahendra Karma, who else, -- Congress innovates, the BJP imitates -- started organising the Judum to eliminate Maoist influence from several villages. The state government immediately threw its forces behind this effort to pit tribals against each other, arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers to conduct raids on villages that had been identified as Maoist-affected. During these raids, villagers were ordered to leave their homes, which were burned, and make long forced marches to dozens of resettlement camps.
The Frontline magazine made the following starling connection. In an instance of truly Orwellian coincidence, the Memorandum of Understanding for the Tata steel plant was signed on June 4, 2005, two days after the formal launch of the controversial Salwa Judum programme in the Bastar and Dantewada districts, and marked, in the eyes of many, the point of coalescence of the administration, industry and the security agencies. The State government also signed a MoU with the Essar group the same day.
Meanwhile, the Tata proposal had kicked off a controversy in Raipur, the state capital, with the issue being raised in the assembly too. Soon after the deal was signed, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Chhatisgarh government refused to share the details, claiming that disclosure was specifically prohibited by a clause in the MoU.
It refused to give copies of the MoU to members of the opposition in the house. The MP for the constituency encompassing Lohandiguda the area earmarked for the project went on record stating that he had no detailed information about the project.
Copies of the MoU were leaked over a period of months and by the time the documents became easily available a full-scale protest was under way in the 10 villages earmarked for the project. While Europe became prosperous by plundering distant lands, India, which prides itself as never harbouring imperialist ambitions, seems to have turned upon its own people.
Maoist guerrillas come with their own frequently compelling worldview, one that is not always easy to challenge in secular terms. The tribespeople of Chhatisgarh thus needed to be divided into separate entities with an instilled notion that the two sides thus formed harboured mutually hostile interests. Calling the Maoists Pakistanis seems to do for the region what the description of Gujarats Muslims as children of Mian Musharraf had done for Narendra Modi.
However, the malaise no longer exists merely as a divisive strategy to keep the normal troublemakers busy with a self-perpetuating digression. The scourge presented itself most palpably in a new and worrying avatar in the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai terror attack, when the nations thinking classes turned into a mob, calling variously for the destruction of Pakistan and also for the surrender of Indias parliament to the military. They saw democracy as weak-kneed and prone to indecisiveness, which was a hindrance to fighting the menace of terror.
A perspective given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a meeting with Gen Pervez Musharraf in Havana would have been handy. He had said that Pakistan was now (by its own suicidal policies) as much a victim of terrorism as India was. There were no takers for that view in Mumbai. TV channels that thrive on a middle class viewership are given to routinely spewing hatred of Pakistan. There it goes, its about to fall. Thats the kind of glee that comes with every terror attack that takes place across the border.
Arrogance brings its own quandary though. The argument for not starting talks with Pakistan until it stops terrorism against India has proved to be a double-edged sword. If Pakistan is fomenting terrorism in India, then an American travel advisory to its citizens to take evasive action against lurking attackers in the country should not be ignored. However, Indian officials believe that the US embassy advice had overstated the fears. They insist that India is as safe as any country for tourists to feel comfortable to visit. Clearly both opinions cant be right. Somethings got to give. And hopefully its the prejudice.
Jawed Naqvi
Monday, 08 Jun, 2009
That economic prowess spawns supremacist ideologies is a lesson best learnt from 19th century colonialism in the Afro-Asian region and in Europes conquest of the Americas. The Chinese on their part were forever prone to believing that non-yellow races were barbarian. Their recent economic prosperity has not brought any perceptible shift in that belief. Has Indias chosen neo-liberal economic model set it on a road to deepening social rifts with a matching new grammar of bias?
In the Dantewada district, in Indias heartland state of Chhatisgarh, the picturesque beauty of the Indrawati River is smeared with an alien language of prejudice. The northern banks of the river have come to be called Pakistan, not that they are home to Muslims but because they shelter suspected Maoist guerrillas, known otherwise as Naxalites. Whatever other religion they may profess, if they ever had one, Naxalites are usually not Muslim.
There could be a few possible explanations for why or how the idiom of hate came to be planted in a region that is safely couched in a remote, inaccessibly dense forests, that too thousands of miles from any foreign border, by land or sea. It is probable that some paramilitary men who carried with them the notion of the enemy within when they migrated from their punishing duty in Kashmir brought the idiom to meandering banks of Indrawati.
Which of course would raise a set of tricky questions? It may be asked, for example, why the paramilitary men who seemed to be able to crush (though not tame) with relative ease a foreign-backed movement against Indian rule found it difficult to curb the onslaught of another set of rebels, who did not have the wherewithal that links with a foreign government brink. Is there a different measure of force that is allowed for each case depending on the native or foreign quotient of the enterprise?
Let us assume for a moment that the reference to Pakistan that the security forces use (and which seems to have found a grudging acceptance among a section of the local people they claim to protect) was not planted by them. Let us grant that the virus is just as likely to have been injected into the everyday grammar of the unsuspecting tribespeople by Hindutva ideologues that rule Chhatisgarh. How would that help those that seek to foment the implied hatred? The simple answer would be that it helps their mentors big Indian corporations and their multinational allies.
Communalism has proved to be a most used and effective weapon in the states quiver to help dissipate, even pre-empt, any threat of economically driven unrest. Such threats were initially understood to emanate from the industrial workforce in urban hubs. Be it the Shiv Sena in Mumbai or the BJP in Gujarat, they made excellent partners with Indian business clubs to thwart industrial bargaining by diving the workers into parochial rivals. However, the same antidote to workers solidarity has found new use to dissipate rural strife.
Salwa Judum or Purification Hunt was begun in Chhatisgarh on the model of the Ikhwan-uI-Muslimoon, Kashmirs notorious vigilante militia that were propped up by the state. In June 2005, a section of the tribal elite, led by Congress Party leader Mahendra Karma, who else, -- Congress innovates, the BJP imitates -- started organising the Judum to eliminate Maoist influence from several villages. The state government immediately threw its forces behind this effort to pit tribals against each other, arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers to conduct raids on villages that had been identified as Maoist-affected. During these raids, villagers were ordered to leave their homes, which were burned, and make long forced marches to dozens of resettlement camps.
The Frontline magazine made the following starling connection. In an instance of truly Orwellian coincidence, the Memorandum of Understanding for the Tata steel plant was signed on June 4, 2005, two days after the formal launch of the controversial Salwa Judum programme in the Bastar and Dantewada districts, and marked, in the eyes of many, the point of coalescence of the administration, industry and the security agencies. The State government also signed a MoU with the Essar group the same day.
Meanwhile, the Tata proposal had kicked off a controversy in Raipur, the state capital, with the issue being raised in the assembly too. Soon after the deal was signed, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Chhatisgarh government refused to share the details, claiming that disclosure was specifically prohibited by a clause in the MoU.
It refused to give copies of the MoU to members of the opposition in the house. The MP for the constituency encompassing Lohandiguda the area earmarked for the project went on record stating that he had no detailed information about the project.
Copies of the MoU were leaked over a period of months and by the time the documents became easily available a full-scale protest was under way in the 10 villages earmarked for the project. While Europe became prosperous by plundering distant lands, India, which prides itself as never harbouring imperialist ambitions, seems to have turned upon its own people.
Maoist guerrillas come with their own frequently compelling worldview, one that is not always easy to challenge in secular terms. The tribespeople of Chhatisgarh thus needed to be divided into separate entities with an instilled notion that the two sides thus formed harboured mutually hostile interests. Calling the Maoists Pakistanis seems to do for the region what the description of Gujarats Muslims as children of Mian Musharraf had done for Narendra Modi.
However, the malaise no longer exists merely as a divisive strategy to keep the normal troublemakers busy with a self-perpetuating digression. The scourge presented itself most palpably in a new and worrying avatar in the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai terror attack, when the nations thinking classes turned into a mob, calling variously for the destruction of Pakistan and also for the surrender of Indias parliament to the military. They saw democracy as weak-kneed and prone to indecisiveness, which was a hindrance to fighting the menace of terror.
A perspective given by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a meeting with Gen Pervez Musharraf in Havana would have been handy. He had said that Pakistan was now (by its own suicidal policies) as much a victim of terrorism as India was. There were no takers for that view in Mumbai. TV channels that thrive on a middle class viewership are given to routinely spewing hatred of Pakistan. There it goes, its about to fall. Thats the kind of glee that comes with every terror attack that takes place across the border.
Arrogance brings its own quandary though. The argument for not starting talks with Pakistan until it stops terrorism against India has proved to be a double-edged sword. If Pakistan is fomenting terrorism in India, then an American travel advisory to its citizens to take evasive action against lurking attackers in the country should not be ignored. However, Indian officials believe that the US embassy advice had overstated the fears. They insist that India is as safe as any country for tourists to feel comfortable to visit. Clearly both opinions cant be right. Somethings got to give. And hopefully its the prejudice.
