Aaj key KAALAM 18 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Mal-Icky Security



The Pakistan report card

Thursday, June 18, 2009
Fasi Zaka

Mal-Icky heads security in a troubled nation. Gill-Lonely is the isolated premier.

Mal-Icky: I have solved the problem of the lethal drones.

Gill-Lonely: Good, no more needless deaths.

Mal-Icky: Yes, both Sher Afghan Niazi and Wasi Zafar have promised never to speak on television again.

Gill-Lonely: What on earth have you done! I was speaking of the American drones. What incompetence!

Mal-Icky: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. At least what you just called me is not as bad as the name they would shout out at me in England.

Gill-Lonely: What was that?

Mal-Icky: Waiter!

Gill-Lonely: What were you doing working in a restaurant?

Mal-Icky: I was gathering intelligence.

Gill-Lonely: What did you learn?

Mal-Icky: That pakoras don't cook well in canola oil.

Gill-Lonely: Why did you go into exile, was it a matter of principle?

Mal-Icky: Yes, the principles of NAB.

Gill-Lonely: So what are you doing about Pakistan's most dangerous enemy?

Mal-Icky: PML-N?

Gill-Lonely: No! No! No! The Taliban!

Mal-Icky: Oh them, yes I am doing everything right now to defeat them.

Gill-Lonely: OK. So who is battling the Taliban?

Mal-Icky: The army.

Gill-Lonely: And who is fighting the expansion of the Taliban into new areas?

Mal-Icky: The locals.

Gill-Lonely: Where do we get our intelligence about the Taliban from?

Mal-Icky: The Americans.

Gill-Lonely: And pray tell what is it that you can do if everyone else but you are fighting them?

Mal-Icky: I can make you a nice pakora. Wait! Wait, stay still! I see a foreign hand in this room!

Gill-Lonely: Don't worry about that. It's just the president pulling his puppeteer strings on me.

Mal-Icky: Sir, I don't like the tone of this conversation, it seems you are suggesting I have done nothing.

Gill-Lonely: Well, what have you done?

Mal-Icky: I have provided jobs to the poor IDPs.

Gill-Lonely: Nonsense. Give me one example.

Mal-Icky: Sir, I have reinstated all of our displaced illegal appointments to the IB under our previous tenure removed by Nawaz Sharif.

Gill-Lonely: Well done! So what is your long-term policy?

Mal-Icky: Strategic depth.

Gill-Lonely: Explain.

Mal-Icky: I want us to build huge underground bunkers to hide from the Taliban.

Gill-Lonely: We have captured all these terrorists, why aren't you releasing any sensitive information to the public?

Mal-Icky: But I already have, Shoaib Akhtar has genital warts.

Gill-Lonely: Listen, do you have any special qualifications for this job?

Mal-Icky: Yes, in class two I came second in the hundred-metre race.

Gill-Lonely: How on earth is that helpful?

Mal-Icky: It's how I escaped justice last time around.

Gill-Lonely: And now?

Mal-Icky: It's how I escape the anger of the people.

Gill-Lonely: You don't take this security business very seriously.

Mal-Icky: I do, I have 64 guards at my house.

Gill-Lonely: But what about the people of this country?

Mal-Icky: For them I have the most powerful force in the country.

Gill-Lonely: Which is?

Mal-Icky: Allah.



And so they decide not to eat more pakoras, because they will be hard to find in Dubai.



The writer is a Rhodes Scholar and former academic.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Education and the growth of extremism



Thursday, June 18, 2009
Kamila Hyat

The writer is a former newspaper editor and joint director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

At forums everywhere, most notably since President Barack Obama made his speech early this month to Muslims around the world from Cairo, appealing for a new era of cooperation, there has been intensified discussion on how to tackle extremism.

In Washington, in Paris, in London and perhaps most usefully in Cairo there have been discussions on what tactics are required; on why extremism has waned since the Bali bombing of 2002 in Indonesia but grown in another non-Arab state, Pakistan and how issues of development play a part in this. The decision taken to launch an Islamic TV channel presenting a 'moderate' view of Islam by the Al-Azhar University seems to have stemmed from this new world focus on rooting out extremism and the terrible violence that has come with it. The channel, to be called 'Azhari', which is scheduled to go on air mid-August, could play some part at least in opening minds to less hard-line interpretations of Islam. At present, ideas presented by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's centre of Sunni learning, send even 'liberal' believers in our country into shock so unaccustomed are we to thinking outside the narrow box imposed by incomplete religious education from clerics coupled with the dominance of orthodox thought, promoted by the state through the 1980s.

Of course in recent years a still harsher order has come under the Taliban. The assassination in Lahore of Dr Sarfraz Naeemi a scholar who had dared to criticize the Taliban is an example of the means they use to silence dissent. The tactics have had their impact, even though the prospect of defeat for the militants is bringing more people out in the open against them.

One of the common themes emerging from conferences and discussions on extremism is the emphasis on promoting education as a means to challenge it. Experts in particular emphasize the importance of promoting science education, as a means to encourage rational thinking and fuel progress. This would, at first glance at least, make sense. Science and orthodoxy in many ways stand at diametrical opposites; the story of Galileo, or of Darwin whose theories remain a source of controversy in US classrooms come to mind.

But does this hold true in Pakistan? There is a need to think harder about the issue and understand it better at a time when we need to think about pushing back extremism on all fronts. The reality is that, since the 1950s, religious forces have focused on establishing a hold on education, concentrating on institutions of learning at all levels and on the bodies that devise curriculums. At places like the Punjab University, their influence remains visible everywhere, despite some effort over the last decade to challenge it. The realization that schools, colleges and universities hold the key to creating mindsets has proved a powerful tool for these groups.

One would imagine that to push forward their line of thinking, such elements would discourage science and see a contradiction between the logic of, say, chemistry and the metaphysics involved in religion. Instead we have created a situation where at every level, science is promoted as 'superior' to the humanities; unfortunate boys and girls with no talent for physics or interest in anatomy are pushed towards a future in medicine, or engineering or computer science. Children as young as six or seven seem aware of this unsubtle pressure the notion that science means success, and must be pursued at all costs. Older pupils suffer hours of tuition in the hope they will find their way into a medical college. Parents scoff at subjects they see as a waste of time, such as literature or politics or philosophy.

Oddly enough, our religious elements seem to have encouraged this hierarchy of learning. In many science and technological fields we see a growing dominance by people with strong religious leanings. Many excel in their fields, and deserve to be where they are, but they presence indicates a nexus between science and religious extremism. The absurd attempts made under the late General Ziaul Haq to organize science along 'Islamic' lines and present papers at moots on harnessing the energy of Jinns marked the pinnacle of such efforts in our republic.

In the past doctors and engineers have been accused of links with extremist forces. At institutions of higher education, these subjects are strongly emphasized.

What then are the lessons here? Is the fact that almost all of the 15 young men all but one of them from Saudi Arabia who blew themselves up in skies above the US on September 9th, 2001 had a background in science or technology in any way significant? Perhaps it is nothing more than a coincidence. But then perhaps, on the other hand, it is something to ponder over just a little more.

There are academics in the Arab world who have pointed out that science education, with other subjects omitted from the school level on, discourages wider reading, wider thought. They argue that a person who has studied literature, or another subject offering a variety of argument and of belief, is less likely to fall in the hands of extremists then someone who has little exposure to materials that lie beyond the pages of a textbook on mechanics or biology. In other words, science, within a flawed education system that discourages thinking or reading, could be encouraging the closing down of minds rather that promoting an open, more inquisitive view of the world.

Of course this is not universally true. It is without doubt something of a generalization. We have among us many women and men of science who stand out in terms of their ability and their willingness to speak for the cause of humanity and their nation. But nevertheless, as we hear people call for more focus on science in countries like Pakistan, we need to think more about the issues involved. Forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, with their websites and communication systems, have used science to their advantage. This of course in no way suggests we should discourage it. At its best, all science is creative and has a great deal to offer to the human mind. But perhaps we need also to address the bigger issues in education, the distortion that has led to an irrational focus on science and the tendency that comes with this to discourage debate and the process of thinking that should be the focal point of education.

It is time to initiate a discussion on the many aspects of extremism in our society. The fact is that it is in many ways deeply rooted within it; ideas of morality have become more and more confused; fewer and fewer people are exposed to other philosophies and other modes of thinking. If we are to change the future we are headed towards, this is a sphere that needs to be thought harder about. Otherwise we will eventually fail to halt the growth of extremism and the threat it poses to our society.

 

[arshad_lahore]

N-strategy for dummies



Thursday, June 18, 2009
Rabia Akhtar

Nuclear weapons are weapons of the weak because they embolden the weaker state through security that nuclear deterrence provides. There is enough evidence in history to reveal that deterrence as a strategy with its various phases from flexible response to mutually assured destruction (MAD) held value for the two Cold War rivals, the United States and the Soviet Union, only to deny the other 'nuclear superiority' or 'nuclear advantage'. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, the unipolar world order emerged and the US, being the mightiest, moved away from MAD to the doctrine of pre-emption which made much more sense because there was no point anymore in threatening the enemy when it could be beaten ten times over. The powerful state will not rely on deterrence as much as it will rely on pre-emption (either through conventional or nuclear means) because it can afford to. But for the weak states, nuclear weapons are power personified.

However unfortunate the situation might seem, there is simply no comparison of states like Pakistan with the United States where an overwhelming conventional capability is absent thus deterrence through MAD seems not only plausible but the only rational doctrine to adopt. For those who do not respect deterrence for what it is worth for the weak and think of the bomb as a liability, history needs to be read backwards. While the critics of deterrence may like to believe that deterrence failed to prevent Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Egypt-Israel conflict, Kargil crisis when one or the other parties involved were nuclear-weapon states, the lesson learnt is that deterrence works best when it is direct and mutual. In all the cases cited above with the exception of Kargil, blaming the bomb or deterrence is simple ignorance about the facts of Cold War history. For instance, had Egypt possessed even a small nuclear force at the time of the Suez crisis, Anglo-French involvement in the conflict would have been on different grounds altogether; Czechs possessing a few nuclear weapons would have seen a different Russian response and North Korea and Iran have already brought the superpowers to the 'negotiating table'. For Pakistan and India where deterrence is direct and mutual, I believe that it is the minimalist form of MAD coupled with a credible minimum deterrence doctrine that has helped prevent escalation between India and Pakistan and has denied India escalation dominance in every crisis.

It has become rather fashionable for analysts at home and abroad to find parallels between the Cold War and the two South Asian rivals instead of founding new theories about crisis behaviour of Pakistan and India. The Cold War history of deterrence witnessed the shift from MAD to the discourse on defence. The cornerstone of the US nuclear security strategy remained reliance on MAD and Robert McNamara, the then US secretary of defence, articulated it well by stating that quantitative improvement in strategic weapons other than those required by MAD was not necessary simply because there was no longer any such thing as nuclear superiority, thus rendering defence useless. As bizarre or uncomfortable the notion might be for the peace nicks; for the weak states nuclear weapons still make sense. The very fact that Pakistan has the capability to threaten the Indians to escalate the conflict by 'threatening' to use nuclear weapons, denies the Indians the advantage of launching and fighting a conventional war in South Asia. This is the 'stability' that MAD provides between Pakistan and India which borders on rationality from the weaker states' perspective. The key, however, to sustain credible deterrence in a hostile crisis-prone environment for Pakistan is to continue to deny Indians the nuclear advantage they are seeking by gradually strengthening its nuclear deterrence.



The writer is defence analyst.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Revolution of a different colour
By Jawed Naqvi
Thursday, 18 Jun, 2009

Giving colourful labels to greed and plunder is an old European habit. The Wars of the Roses of the 15th century, for example, were a series of bloody dynastic campaigns for the throne of England that went on for decades.

The ongoing post-electoral turmoil in Iran has precedence elsewhere in Eurasia. The West bequeathed to similar turbulences it helped foment in Georgia and Ukraine, among other venues in the hydrocarbon-rich Caspian region, names such as Orange Revolution, Rose Revolution and so forth.

For the record, Iran, though projecting the Wests problem in the Middle East, is in fact a greater source of discomfort to its detractors for its enormous influence in the Caspian region. What is being televised from Tehran today, therefore, is of a piece with the orchestrated moves that changed the definition of sovereignty in other parts of Eurasia, from Belgrade to Kiev and beyond. Listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carters national security adviser, who started the related business of jihad in Afghanistan. Heres Brzezinski in the Foreign Affairs journal of September/October 1997:

Eurasia is home to most of the worlds politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The worlds most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the worlds overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 per cent of the worlds population, 60 per cent of its GNP, and 75 per cent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasias potential power overshadows even Americas.

Eurasia is the worlds axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the worlds three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to Americas global primacy.

This weeks summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Council in Yekaterinburg brought in nearly all the dramatis personae that would influence the future course the region takes. The ferment in Iran has little to do with the so-called quest for transparent democracy that TV anchors never tire of mouthing. For, if democracy meant anything to them it would have been allowed to thrive in Algeria and occupied Palestine, whose popular will was annulled by global consensus. Ergo: inconvenient democracies are not welcome. Nor, strangely enough, does the Iranian strife identify a verifiable western candidate although former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi is being projected as one.

Actually, Mousavi faces two choices: either the full force of the Iranian state will crush him now or his presumed supporters would discard him a bit later. Neither course allows for a further test of the much-hyped will of the people. A similar fate befell Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia not too long ago. He was a hero of the western media but only as long as he helped break up the Soviet Union. And when his time came he was thrown into oblivion just as cynically. The popular coup against him was named the Rose Revolution.

The real power play being witnessed in Iran thus has little to do with an agreeable candidate for the West or otherwise. Just consider the people ranged against each other. On the one hand is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has the blessings of Irans supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is accused of calling for Israels destruction. A correct translation of his comments belies the claim, but that is a separate point.

What has to be seen is who are the people with Mousavi and how were they different in their stance towards Israel or the West when they were in power. Two of Mousavis main supporters are former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani. As Ahmadinejad said on TV: Today it is not Mr Mousavi alone who is confronting me, since there are the three successive governments of Mr Mousavi, Mr Khatami and Mr Hashemi (Rafsanjani) arrayed against me.

I had occasion to observe Rafsanjani from close quarters when he was the speaker of the Majlis. He would lead the Friday prayers at the Tehran University in those days and his sermons were notable for the Kalashnikov rifle he kept firmly clasped with his left hand. Four standard slogans that echoed through the sprawling prayer grounds were: Death to Israel, Death to (the United States of) America, Death to Saddam (Hussein), and Death to the Soviet Union (Shauravi in Farsi). Two of those wishes have come true and perhaps Rafsanjani too would be sanguine that it really is quite sufficient.

And yet Rafsanjani is projected in the western media as a moderate. Perhaps he is, but the reasons offered to support the claim are not so compelling. Khatami is another story. I was in Tehran on the day in February 1989 when the Iranian government banned Salman Rushdies book and all hell broke loose. Like it or not, it was Khatami, the minister of Islamic Guidance (Ershad-i-Islami), who orchestrated the call for Rushdies head. I met him at Tehrans Mehrabad airport where he was locked in a deep conversation with Kalim Siddiqui on the day of the ban. Siddiqui, though a Sunni of Pakistani origin, was Irans publicity agent in the West.

He was the main campaigner for an Islamic parliament in Britain, and it was this that led to his rivalry with Londons less enthusiastic Muslim groups. That is what led to Irans Rushdie fiasco. How else were the Iranians to know the first thing about anyone called Salman Rushdie? And yet, Khatami has been projected in the western media as an agreeable moderate leader. As for Mousavi, this is what he had to say in a 1981 interview about the hostage crisis when young Iranian revolutionaries kept American diplomats in custody: It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look western policy in the eye and analyse it the way they had been evaluating us for many years.

It is already very difficult to tell precisely at what point in their metamorphosis revolutions turn into bedrock of reaction. The question is best left unanswered though. Iran has so often proved the pundits wrong.

The writer is Dawns correspondent in Delhi.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Colombos new tasks
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 18 Jun, 2009


Last week, it was heartening to find Colombo largely the cosmopolitan city it had been before being caught up in a swirl of violence. However, beneath the euphoria created by last months victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, concern regarding the new tasks Sri Lanka faces is growing.

Colombos celebratory mood has to be seen to be believed. Organisations and individuals, foreigners and locals, compete with each other in devising ways of showering praise on the countrys president and military leaders. Thanksgiving parties and the distribution of awards are daily affairs. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is being described as a king comparable in stature to the legendary monarchs who had unified and consolidated the island state centuries ago. One enthusiastic supporter proposed that he should be allowed another term in office without the formality of re-election. A move has already been made to elevate the army chief to a higher command.

Nobody should be surprised at this high-pitched jubilation at the end of a 25-year-long civil war that claimed thousands of lives, rendered hundreds of thousands homeless, caused colossal losses to the economy and condemned a whole generation to the devastating effects of living in fear and uncertainty. Police check-posts are still there at several key points in Colombo. Not only vehicles but pedestrians (especially foreigners and haggard-looking Tamils) too are questioned about their identity, and Sri Lankans going abroad are grilled at immigration counters. But these are considered minor irritants that cannot spoil the festive mood.

What is surprising, however, is the view expressed in various quarters that the Sri Lankan government does not particularly welcome suggestions to resolve the problems that led to the Tamil insurgency and initiate a process of reconciliation with the Tamil community. It is reported to be especially sensitive to calls for the proper care and rehabilitation of the 300,000 or so internally displaced persons.

The plight of these IDPs is by all accounts extremely grim. It is alleged that they cannot move out of the camps where living conditions are poor and facilities inadequate. There are many cases of families being split up and living in different camps. Aid-givers are said to be facing difficulties in extending help to the most vulnerable categories. The governments anxiety to guard against violence by any LTTE remnants or the latters bid to conceal themselves in IDP camps is understandable but the response to this problem is said to be quite exaggerated.

At the same time, public opinion at home and abroad has stepped up its campaign for inquiries into excesses committed by any side during the protracted conflict, especially in the final phase that closed with the killing of LTTE chief Prabhakaran. Only the other day, Amnesty International called on the Sri Lankan government to use the opportunity created by the end of military operations against the LTTE to provide accountability for serious violations and abuses committed by both sides during the last months of fighting. As an immediate priority, AI has called for the establishment of an independent international commission to investigate allegations of serious violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides in the recent military operations.

Several Sri Lankan groups committed to democracy, the rule of law and human rights have spoken out and held demonstrations in favour of accountability, checks on militarism and respect for human rights. This is encouraging evidence that the trauma of war and its brutalising effects have failed to suppress the forces of sanity in Sri Lankan society.

A notable example of such forces of sanity is the University Teachers for Human Rights,

Jaffna (the territory once under LTTE control). It recently released a detailed report on the last phase of the civil war in which it described the hazards faced by the civilians in the small area where the LTTE high command was holed up, the exemplary individual conduct of Sri Lankan soldiers and what it considered avoidable loss of life and human suffering. In this report the teachers listed a series of measures, long-term as well as urgent, for the Sri Lankan government to take to avoid being swept off the path of democracy, reconciliation and peaceful coexistence.

These teachers are on record for having experienced and challenged the negative aspects of narrow Tamil nationalism, which permitted the rise of LTTE and its ability to paralyse the community through internal terror and created an illusion of strength among the Tamil community founded on transient military success. In the absence of broader humanity, it failed miserably in uniting the people. They are prominent among the groups that have protested against the deportation of Canadian parliamentarian, Bob Rae (who had landed at Colombo airport armed with a visa issued by the Sri Lankan High Commission in Ottawa). They said the deportation reflected an unhealthy xenophobia despite the end of the war and it bodes ill for the minorities and the democratic rights of the Sinhalese.

The teachers represent many civil society groups when they say the priority now is a transitional process bringing together different segments of society to focus on resettlement of the IDPs, broader humanitarian concerns and normalisation. Among the longer-term issues they have given priority to accountability on all issues pertaining to the war, demilitarisation of the northeast, return of lands acquired for security purposes, reopening of schools and public institutions, repeal of the emergency and the anti-terrorism law, and serious attention to the issue of impunity. All friends of Sri Lanka wish the dialogue between its government and civil society to proceed constructively and in a climate of mutual goodwill.

All these are matters of interest for Pakistan (and other Saarc members) for two reasons. Firstly, Pakistans friendship with Sri Lanka has deepened as a result of its widely acknowledged contribution to the latters war effort. Now Pakistan has a moral duty to extend to Sri Lanka whatever help it can to meet its post-conflict challenges, particularly in relation to the proper treatment and rehabilitation of the IDPs.

Pakistans donation of six vehicles to Sri Lankas IDP project was reported quite prominently in the media despite the fact that it was much smaller than donations from other countries. But more important than making its own donation to the IDPs relief and rehabilitation will be Pakistans role in mobilising broader international support to Sri Lanka, including help in dealing with problems of impunity and human rights violations. We owe this much to the country that sent its cricketers here when the whole cricketing world had declared us pariahs and then quickly got over its shock at our failure to ensure these players security.

Secondly, there are quite a few things Pakistan can learn from the consequences of fighting a bloody insurgency, facing apart from the IDP problem which is a much larger issue in Pakistan. The task of post-conflict rehabilitation and reconciliation in the tribal areas will put Pakistan to test and it needs to learn from wherever it can about how to carry out humanitarian tasks and what actions to avoid.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Martyrs don't die
By I. M. Mohsin | Published: June 18, 2009

All known religions/cultures highlight the special status conferred by God Almighty on martyrs. No wonder literature produced by various societies stands stuffed with accolades for this peerless trait in human beings when they "die fighting fearful odds." By exercising this stupendous option, man makes history. He is promised Heaven by the Creator which glorifies such a sacrosanct sacrifice here and in the Hereafter.
Pakistan is faced with a terrible situation. While the police is always the first line of defence against any kind of mayhem in any country, even the army has been launched into action to establish the 'writ of the government' in Malakand Agency, as the interior minister emphasised at the function held by the Islamabad police last Monday. The ceremony was held to pay tributes to the martyrs of police in their fight against terrorism in the capital. It was indeed a very inspiring account of our police officers falling as heroes or getting horrible wounds in the course of performing their lawful duty and living up to their oath of office. Some would have fully qualified to be a part of those immortalised by Tennyson in the 'The Charge of the Light brigade'. A performance of this type would be a wonderful homage to any society but it is more so to one like ours. It also reflects the leverage the religion enjoys with the people, generally, despite the ground realities.
The government appears to be conscious of the problems faced by the Islamabad police and the stated policy shows a sense of direction on the part of the major actors. Such a sentiment dominated the speech of the interior minister as well as others in the loop. Paying rich compliments to the shaheeds, he used extensive eulogies which are a popular part of our lingo and culture. He also announced awards in recognition of the oblations rendered by the police officers recently. Dilating on the threat to Pakistan, he reiterated the government's resolve to fight on till the extremists were 'flushed out' of our country. He also lavished praise on the shaheeds among the armed forces who embraced martyrdom for the cause. The bureaucrats who spoke also gave a good account of their commitment to their objective.
As the taste of pudding lies in eating, one can safely say that Pakistanis, generally, have the capacity to act bravely despite degradation of institutions caused by special interests. It is not difficult to imagine what a country we could be if the rule of law/transparency ensuring integrity of the processes and personalities could prevail. Yet, despite some flashes of public welfare, we have toed a furtive line to thwart the development of a genuine democracy which broke the country in 1971 with a humiliating surrender in Dhaka. Now starting on a new search for democracy after dislodging General Musharraf whose cost was mainly borne by Bibi shaheed, we face new dangers. The police, like the army, have the courage to try to prevail against the daunting odds. However, the government has to ensure that its training, equipment is updated to facilitate its achievement of the defined mission at a viable cost. While increase in force and modernity was promised by all concerned for Islamabad police, the following steps if taken would yield high dividends.First, training culture has to change. The focus on discipline, sanctity of procedure and focused performance of duty has to be inculcated. Such a way of working tends to promote a disposition whereby correct reflex actions to an unexpected threat become routine. It can only be acquired by dedicated practice to enhance personal safety of the person as well the chances of success of the mission. To add to our training techniques, the Punjab police switched over to using some army instructors for training the Punjab constabulary. This force per se has a supportive role when deployed to help the district police in maintaining law and order while public protests etc pose some danger. It has nothing to do directly with investigation and prosecution of offences which is the primary role of police in any society.
The fight against extremists is a complex matter. It puts a high premium on preventive practices wherein alertness, marksmanship and business-like way hold the key. We have to infuse these traits to perfection among our police. To facilitate the attainment of our goal we must get foreign help as we enjoy considerable sympathy abroad as per the minister. During Bibi shaheeds second tenure, we had started, inter alia, exploring the options for modernisation of the police. On being invited to UK as secretary interior I visited Belfast in mid-1996 to learn about the Irish constabulary's compendium of training and working in their fight against the IRA. Their procedures were as impressive as was the final result. The-then PM approved my proposal that we should work out some arrangement whereby initially we should get some trainers from IC for our police training schools. After acquiring enough competence, the government should get the new situation evaluated by a panel of experts. Similar overtures were pending with other countries in Europe when Farooq Leghari struck in cahoots with his abettors. The interim PM, Mairaj Khalid, though a gentleman, had neither the capacity nor the wish to chase such initiatives. Nawaz Sharif on taking over just buried the file alongwith others. It is time the government pursued it.
Second, micro-management of police by political elements must stop. The minister claimed that he was trying to tender advice to his colleagues to finish this mal-practice which is writ large in our country. Unfortunately the social milieu has been geared to ensure, generally, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The National Public Safety Commission set-up by the last regime amid great fanfare has done precious little which illustrates how we make laws/institutions and then undermine the same by appointing 'understanding' people. We'll be gambling ruthlessly if even now we do not reform our system. Such malfeasance undermines discipline, promotes corruption and damns accountability. An emergency like we are facing can't melt away with our current system of values as reflected in the institutions.
Third, there appears to be a comical process of appointments and transfers in the police particularly, generally, without consideration of the security of tenure etc. This may be due to inexperience, political manipulation etc. However, this also erodes the decision-making process as well the discipline and morale. Despite facing devastation, Punjab saw the drama of wholesale changes on the return of Shahbaz Sharif's government. No country in a war situation can take such risk as these could seriously impair our future.
As loss of life remains a trifle consideration, generally, with the status quo, the above aberrations rule the roost, generally, even now. It is time we heeded the call of conscience to save our country as Pakistanis. Only aid, if and when received as per pledges, can't do everything. We have to brace for winning the peace which appears to be under all kinds of clouds. Wake up Pakistanis lest you let your shaheeds and country down. A famous Latin proverb presses home: "Better late than never."
The writer is former secretary interior.

 

[arshad_lahore]

A belated realisation
By Mohammad Jamil

United News of India (UNI) quoted unnamed sources as saying that the US asked India to 'close or prune' its consulates in Afghanistan especially in Jalalabad and Kandahar following allegations by Pakistan that it was fomenting trouble in the border areas of NWFP and Balochistan. "Senior US diplomat William Burns has given Indian officials a 'wish-list' or a terse and cryptic 'directive' on Thursday to shut down Indian consulates in Afghanistan, reduce presence in Kabul, stop sending mercenaries across the Durand Line and resume dialogue with Pakistan," says another report. But India seems to be in a defiance mood, as after release of the above news India once again reiterated that it would not start the stalled composite dialogue unless Pakistan takes action against those behind the Mumbai blasts.
It appears that the US has accepted the evidence provided by Pakistan about India's involvement in Balochistan, Swat and FATA through latter's consulates in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact there is no justification for India to have consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar because there is hardly any Indian community settled at these places. Normally, consulates are established in various cities to facilitate trade and commerce, but these cities are not commercial hubs or business centres to justify maintaining consulates there. Finally, Pushtuns of these areas do not often visit India, and this can be verified by the number of visas issued by these consulates. Now the question is that what America can do if Delhi does not listen to its suggestions or advice? The US could tell India that the NATO and ISAF will stop providing the security to the consulates in Afghanistan, which Pakistan claims are nests of Indian spies and agents.
Reportedly, envoy Richard Holbrooke on one hand tells Pakistan to expedite trial of those involved in the Mumbai blasts and on the other hand asks India to resume dialogue to resolve the issues so that Pakistan single-mindedly focuses on the western border. Briefing reporters during his visit to Pakistan and Gulf Arab states last week Holbrooke indicated that US diplomat William Burns delivered the letter after arriving in Delhi but declined to divulge its contents. "This administration believes that what happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is of vital interest to our national security, and that India is a country that we must keep in closest consultation with," Holbrooke said. After launching military operation in Malakand Division, there is indeed change in the American attitude. The world also seems to be convinced that Pakistan and its security forces are determined to take the operation to its logical conclusion this time.Pakistan has proved the sceptics wrong by giving practical demonstration of its ability, capability and willingness to accept the challenge posed by terrorists. And in a short span of time, they have done more than what the US, NATO and Afghan forces put together could not do in Afghanistan. In fact, inept and stupid think tanks and members of the US administration have brought America to the present pass whereby it is losing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the US, NATO and Afghan forces have not been able to control more than 30 percent of Afghanistan with all the resources and gadgets at their disposal. The fact remains that whenever they feel the heat of mounting pressure by the Taliban fighters, they start accusing the Inter-Services Intelligence of supporting, aiding and abetting them. American officials had also alleged that midlevel ISI operatives occasionally cultivate relationships that are not approved by their bosses. But these conjectures could be described as puerile nonsense.
There is a perception that had the US administration addressed Pakistan's concerns and given Pakistan at least an equal opportunity to help in reconstruction of Afghanistan and not pampered India, America would have been in much enviable position than it is today. In other words, Pakistan could have contributed much more to the War on Terror provided its eastern border was safe and secure. It is therefore imperative that the core issue of Kashmir between India and Pakistan is resolved, as Pakistan can never leave the eastern border unguarded, and sacrifice everything to ensure the US wins the War on Terror. However, US President Barack Obama's address at Cairo University had evoked guarded optimism in the Muslim World, as analysts and critics were sceptical on two grounds vis--vis the US would continue to consider security of Israel as cornerstone of its policy, and secondly it will not displease its strategic partner India come what may. In my last week's article after Obama's landmark address, I wrote that litmus test of his sincerity would be how he translates his noble sentiments into action.
After having made tremendous gains by flushing out militants from Dir, Buner and Swat, Pakistan Army has moved simultaneously into Waziristan. The question is being asked by the critics and analysts as to what took Pakistan so long to decide and to move. Rupee News had a story that the Pakistan Army and the ISI have been developing a militia to eliminate the 10,000 strong anti-Pakistan force of Baitullah Mehsud. It has been training, arming and supporting a counter-TTP force under the auspices of Qari Zainuddin Mehsud who is loyal to Pakistan and against the anti-Pakistan Baitullah Mehsud. "The army struck Swat and Waziristan when the Indians thought that their proxy in Swat was safe and had an upper hand. The Delhi sponsored TTP overplayed their hand, and tried to move into Buner. This was not acceptable to the army brass who had given Baitullah Mehsud enough rope to hang himself with. The statement of Sufi Muhammad denigrating the constitution, the Parliament and judiciary was not well received by the masses. And his live interview was the last straw that broke the camel's back," the report said.
In 1980s, it was the US proxy war against Communism, but now war against terror has become Pakistan's war. And when US officials and government functionaries act 'graciously' and give a pat on the back of Pakistan and its armed forces for having started military operation, the impression is conveyed as if it is being done at the behest of the superpower, which can be counterproductive. On seeing the success of the Pakistan's armed forces in Malakand Division, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently said that she is impressed by the army's assault on Taliban militants who had captured much of Pakistan's Swat Valley. But such condescending remarks by members of the Obama administration, government functionaries and generals could prove counterproductive as people of Pakistan in general are wary of America for its treatment meted out to Pakistan and the Muslim World at large.
The writer is a freelance columnist

 

[arshad_lahore]

Fear...
By Shazib Hameed

The ongoing operation in Swat was envisaged during the Bush regime. Masses in general and political analyst in particular failed to read the writing on the wall that this was bound to happen. The US political sustenance remains in a conflict that is away from their shores. They have always kept their public hostage to a 'fear' that is far and yet accomplished their goal by 'selling fear'.
Our political pundits have failed to question Musharraf who supported Bush and helped his government create an enemy in the present shape of Taliban. The Musharraf regime looked on the other side and pretended that all is well. Indeed his regime created a new potential election campaign for the Bush administration. Whether Republicans or Democrats the situation would have been similar as they would have taken a tough stand against Pakistan. Pakistan only played the role of a subordinate to create an environment that would have kept the Americans hostage to fear.
These tactics raise questions: Why Pakistan would help US in creating an environment that could spin out of control for both and create a menace for the world? Why US and Pakistan were so slow in going after the insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why did it take so long to send more troops to Afghanistan? All these question point to one direction that the sole superpower is involved in creating an enemy that took eight years in maturing, who were indirectly funded by like-minded state and non-state actors, and suddenly the world was insecure in the presence of these groups. This is an old cat dressed up in new clothes.
The US politics revolve around the 'fear' appeal and the world believes and follows it. Henceforth, it should be understood that this is a drama and if, God forbid, it carries on it can really bring devastation to the world.
The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Tax holiday for feudal lords
By Aziz-ud-din Ahmad

The brave talk of taxing the big landlords who have turned agriculture into industry and are rolling in sugar has turned out to be no more than smoke and mirrors. The government has deprived itself of considerable revenue at times of extreme monetary crunch by continuing to exclude from the taxation net a section of the super rich. It has instead decided to depend on uncertain external financial inflows failing which it says it would knock at the door of the IMF. This could lead the country to accept more crippling conditionalities.
The big landlords are a politically powerful group that has withstood demands for genuine and thoroughgoing land reforms and farm tax for the last sixty-two years. It has once again succeeded because of its dominating position in the Assemblies and the Establishment.
All major parliamentary parties like the PPP, PML-N, Q League and ANP depend on support from big landowners. As feudal families have been represented in all governments, elected or led by military dictators, they have succeeded in ensuring that no government harms their interests. The tactics they have evolved have really worked. While one family member joins the government, the others support the parties opposing the government. Similarly, as one faction of a party stands by a dictator, the other sits in the opposition. It is thus ensured that irrespective of who is in power the interests of the class are preserved. Thus in spite of the two land reforms, one under Ayub and the other under Bhutto, the landlords have managed to keep their hold on land and their grip on politics.
Agricultural income could not be taxed under the military rulers who being not accountable to anyone are in a position to take unpopular decisions needed for the good of the country. But military rulers cannot afford to ignore their own peculiar constituency. The army holding over 100,000 acres of agricultural land constitutes a major interest group opposed to farm tax. What is more, over the decades military officers who have been awarded agricultural land have turned into a part of the landlord class, further adding to its political clout. According to Ayesha Siddiqa, agricultural land owned by individual members of the armed forces is approximately 6.8 million acres. This explains why while Zia and Musharraf played with the idea of introducing land reforms both subsequently dropped it on account of the opposition they met from within the military Shaukat Tarin's views about the agricultural tax which he expressed soon after his induction into the administration sent alarming bells ringing among the farmers' lobby. The opposition to the idea started from Punjab where in November last year, the assembly passed a near unanimous resolution against the agricultural tax tabled by a PML-N MPA. Law Minister Rana Aftab and PPP's Raja Riaz infact vied with each other in the resolution's support. Losing self-control, PPP's Nazim Hussain Shah said he was willing to go to jail or face gallows while opposing farm tax.
Later in May 2009, the Chamber of Agriculture and Sindh Abadgar Board rejected the tax and termed it illegal and unconstitutional. The leaders of the two major representative organisations of Sindh growers said that the farmer were already heavily taxed.
Similarly the resolution passed by the Punjab Assembly claimed that farmers paid a number of direct and indirect taxes and it was therefore injustice to levy farm tax on them. The facts however tell a different story.
The current share of agriculture in GDP stands at 20.9 percent but its share in taxes is only 1.2 percent. Compared to it the share of the manufacturing sector in GDP is 18.9 percent while its contribution to taxes is 50.8 percent The share of agriculture in taxes is derived not from farm income but from land tax levied by the provinces. Even this meagre contribution is on continuous decline. In 2000-01 tax collection from Sindh Agricultural sector was Rs 444.77 million. In 2001-02 it fell to Rs 397million and in 2002-03 to Rs 251million. Sindh landowners had paid only Rs 7 million till November 2008 while the government target was Rs 336 million.
With the big landlords enjoying a tax holiday, and the government unwilling to cut down its expenses, the common man is being fed on empty promises, the emptiest of them being the development budget described as the highest ever. We are told that a part of it would come from the commitments made by the foreign donors. This is risky as the pledges made are rarely fully met, as the example of the commitments made to the earthquake victims would bear out.
While the big landlords earn extra billions on account of the rise in wheat procurement prices, the common man is to be the main suffer. The looming massive cut in power subsidy would hit him hard. So would the replacement of petroleum development levy with carbon tax which would increase the price of oil for end consumers. Inflation that hits the poor hardest may further go up. The budget safeguards the interests of a rapacious ruling elite while it provides little succour to the poor.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Misplaced priorities
By Nauman Asghar

The federal consolidated budget of Rs 2.897 trillion for FY2009-10 was announced by the minister of state for finance on June 13. The economic growth has been projected at 3.4 percent with fiscal deficit as 4.9 percent of GDP. To meet the budget deficit the government has relied on aid from the 'Friends of Pakistan' consortium and in case of failure either the development expenditures will be slashed or the borrowing from SBP will be the final resort that will give a boost to the soaring inflation. The expectations of the people that the democratically elected government will take effective steps to ease the economic burden on their lives remain unfulfilled. It transpires from the budget that it will add to the woes of the poor and exacerbate their sufferings on the one hand while income inequality gap in society will widen on the other.
To begin with, no effort has been made to alter regressive taxation policy by reforming it on modern lines. The ration of direct to indirect taxes has not been changed. In this way the tax-to-GDP ratio, stagnant during the previous years, is unlikely to increase. The hike in sales tax with no exemption for essential commodities like food, medicine etc will squeeze the fixed income groups already ground down under intense inflationary pressures. Overdependence on indirect taxes vis--vis reluctance to widen the tax gap leads to erosion of the purchasing power of the low-income groups who have to pay proportionately higher incidence of tax.
Agriculture is a dominant sector of our economy as it accounts for the 22 percent share of GDP. But it contributes only 1 percent in the country's revenues and this dismal scenario has been perpetrated in the present budget. Not only the big landlords benefit from subsidised agricultural inputs and easy credit loan schemes but the cultivation intensity has been found inversely proportional to farm size in the absence of tax on agricultural income. The property mafia, stock brokers and big agriculturists retain immunity from taxation as they are able to wield their political clout to influence formulation of tax policy. In view of such circumstances, the revenue targets set by the government seem unrealistic as the situation will be compounded if the sluggish economic growth is not turned around. The lax tax policy benefits the elite class and results into over-exploitation of the existing tax bases without extending tax net to untaxed classes. The ailing industrial sector has been largely ignored and the cosmetic measures to improve its performance will not bear fruit. During last year, the large-scale manufacturing sector has shown negative growth and there are no prospects of change in near future in presence of continuous power outages.
The education and health sectors have once again failed to receive their due share and in the present budget. An amount of Rs 36.6 bn has been allocated to both sectors registering an increase of 60 percent as compared to the previous year which pales into insignificance if population growth and inflation hovering around 20 percent are adjusted. Of total amount of Rs 31 bn, a paltry sum earmarked for education, only 25 percent goes to the basic education indicating the authorities' myopic vision of reforming education from above overlooking the significance of a large dropout rate at early stages. It is a pity that education at the primary level remains the most neglected area in the educational system.
In respect of agricultural policy, the government has aimed at ensuring food security and enhancing farm profitability but no substantive measure has been announced to achieve these objectives. It is no surprise that despite the agrarian base of our economy, we have received more than fair share of food crises at various times. The high prices of agricultural inputs and the absence of modern equipment have resulted into low agricultural production. The present budget has not delineated an agricultural policy framework that seeks to revitalise agricultural sector realising its full potential. The poor farmers have been left rubbing hands as the increase in prices of electricity will increase the cost of production of agricultural outputs. The government must have announced the writing-off of loans of small farmers and taken steps to ensure them fair return of their products.
On the whole, the budget is far from 'poor-friendly' and presents claims completely divorced from reality. The myth of macro-stabilisation and its consequent trickle-down affects has shattered and the lot of the poor has not changed. The misplaced priorities coupled with shotgun approach to allocations have worsened the economic crisis confronting the country in recent years.
The writer is an advocate