Shades of intolerance

By I.A. Rehman

Public complaints received by the judiciary, government functionaries and human rights organisations reveal an alarming decline in the moral values observed by our society.

In particular we are witnessing new forms of intolerance and there is little evidence of any effort to deal with this deadly social disease.

The other day an organisation calling itself the Baloch Students Action Committee (BSAC), Punjab, set up by Baloch students studying at different institutions in the province, held a press conference at which they made extremely grave allegations against a students’ body.

According to the Baloch students’ spokesmen, five of them studying at the Government Technical College, Sahiwal, were attacked one night in January this year. All five students received serious injuries.

The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken by them. The attackers were reported to be angry at the victims’ refusal to join the organisation supported by them.

Further, the BSAC said, a series of attempts were made on the lives of Baloch students at the Multan Technical College during the current month. Pistols were used in one of the attacks and ten students are alleged to have been seriously injured as a result.

The Baloch students withdrew themselves from the institution and returned to Balochistan. They are said to have briefed the media in Quetta and met some parliamentarians but they received no satisfaction.

Baloch students at Faisalabad Technical College also were attacked and seven of them received injuries.

It is possible the facts are not exactly what the BSAC has presented but the authorities cannot possibly ignore the explosive nature of the matter. The youth in Balochistan are already in an angry mood and reports of any maltreatment of Baloch students in Punjab are bound to alienate them further.

The public in Balochistan could interpret attacks on their students in Punjab as attempts to punish the Baloch community for demanding their political and economic rights.

Unfortunately, there is another dangerous aspect of the matter. The targeted killing of non-locals in Balochistan — many of them settlers from Punjab — is no secret.

Some young persons in Balochistan have accepted responsibility for these killings and they could treat attacks on Baloch students in Punjab as acts of retaliation.

The danger that this may start a vicious cycle of violence must not be ignored. Apart from the loss of life and limb that young persons from both sides are likely to suffer, the task of persuading the people of Balochistan to end their alienation from the federation will become harder.

The presence of students from Balochistan in educational institutions in other provinces offers the host federating units a good opportunity to promote national cohesion through these young guests.

For success in this direction the authorities of the institutions concerned will be required to pay extra attention to these students’ academic and extracurricular needs. The basic issue they have to deal with is intolerance.

Some days ago a nurse found two newborn babies at a garbage dump outside a large hospital in a Punjab town. She picked up the babies and took them to a few childless couples belonging to her Christian community.

When some conservative Muslim clerics heard of this matter they promptly issued an edict that the infants were Muslim and as such they could not be offered to non-Muslims for adoption. The nurse who probably saved the luckless newborns from death found herself in conflict with the law of adoption.

What should be done to her will be decided by a court and nothing should be done that might affect the course of law. But is it impossible to take note of the conduct of the fatwa producers?

How could they determine that the babies were born to a Muslim mother? And if the religion of their parents had somehow been ascertained, what did the self-appointed custodians of the Muslim community’s interests think of the members of their flock whose cruelty to two new lives was manifest?

Was any attempt made to inquire whether the babies had been abandoned out of fear of the clerics, assuming that they had been born out of wedlock, or whether the parents were too poor to bring them up?

Every year scores of unwanted babies are left at hospitals and offices of social welfare organisations. They are discreetly given over to foster parents.

One has never heard of the mullahs’ interference in these matters on the basis of belief, except for that dreadful incident of the stoning to death of an abandoned newborn in Karachi some years ago. This incident is another example of the community’s growing intolerance of the other.

The Sindhi people are legitimately proud of their tradition of tolerance. Their capacity for observing interfaith harmony can be seen in the ordinary villagers’ deference to one another’s beliefs.

Even today, after all the havoc caused by communalised politics over almost a century, one can find shrines where people belonging to different religious groups come in search of peace and deliverance.

But one cannot say how long this tradition will survive for the conservative preachers of hate and conflict seem to be enlarging their operations.

One of their latest campaigns is the demand that the remains of a non-Muslim girl, reportedly belonging to a gypsy tribe, be exhumed and thrown away because they cannot be allowed to pollute the sacred soil of the graveyard.

It is said that the non-Muslim girl had been buried in the Muslim graveyard in accordance with a centuries-old practice.

However, the standard-bearers of the new brand of militant Islam cannot be expected to respect what they denounce as heathen. This matter too is reported to be in court and no comment can be made on the merits of the case.

One should like to ask the Sindh government and also the federal government whether they will wait for matters to be decided in courts — if they can ever be decided in this manner. Do they realise their duty to take stock of the various manifestations of intolerance?

Do they have any plans to curb the monster of intolerance by promoting an adequately strong social force capable of building a tolerant society?

To say that the rise of militant groups who slaughter innocent people has had an adverse effect on the clerics is merely stating the obvious.

Whatever the causes of deviation from the tradition of tolerance, the process needs to be checked and reversed. Otherwise our society will not be able to survive the heavy dose of intolerance it is receiving.

Kashmir deserves permanent solution

DR. GHULAM NABI FAI

Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s assertion that “there can be no redrawing of borders in Jammu and Kashmir”, and former Indian Supreme Court judge Saghir Ahmad’s recommendation “to restore the autonomy to the extent possible” need to be supplemented by some observations from the viewpoint of the people of Kashmir. These deserve to be borne in mind by all those who wish the conflict to be justly resolved once and for all.

When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States took the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution on April 21, 1948 which was based on that unchallenged principle. So the issue in Kashmir is about the right of self-determination which was agreed upon by both India and Pakistan, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and accepted by the international community.

The concept to convert the existing line of control into a permanent international boundary is a non-existent solution. Any such suggestion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Kashmir. One cannot imagine a better formula for sowing a minefield in South Asia that will lead them to a nuclear disaster.

The people revolted against the status quo and status quo cannot be an answer? Also, Kashmiris wish to emphasise that their land is not a real estate which can be parcelled out between two disputants but the home of a nation with a compact and coherent history. No settlement of their status will hold unless it is explicitly based on the principles of self-determination and erases the so-called line of control, which is in reality the line of conflict.

The idea of autonomy for Kashmir is an absolute fallacy. Here one has to rely on a provision of the Indian constitution. All constitutions of the world are subject to amendments and Indian constitution is no exception. If not now, in the foreseeable future, the Indian legislature can delete this provision in the constitution and the move will not even need a debate in Parliament.

Secondly, Kashmiris have had the experience of a limited autonomy, which was first practised under a personal understanding between Prime Minister Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah and later provided for by Section 370 of the Indian constitution. Kashmir was granted autonomous powers over all sectors excluding communications, defence and foreign affairs. It was eroded and eventually whittled away by the forces of circumstances.

My opinion was confirmed by a poll conducted jointly by major news outlets on August 12, 2007: CNN-IBN and Hindustan Times in India and two Pakistani newspapers. A majority of those polled in Kashmir Valley (87 percent to be precise) preferred freedom (Azadi). The Azadi means both the rejection of line of control into an international border and rejection of concept of autonomy.

However, there is but one fair, just, legal, and moral solution to Kashmir which was provided by the UN. The procedures contemplated at early stage of the dispute at the UN for its solution may be varied in the light of changed circumstances but its underlying principle must be scrupulously observed if justice and rationality are not to be thrown overboard. The setting aside of the UN resolution is one thing; the discarding of the principle they embodies is altogether another. So the settlement has to be in accordance with the wishes of the people; impartially ascertained; in conditions of freedom from intimidation.

With good faith by all parties common ground leading to a final settlement of the Kashmir tragedy can be discovered. An appointment of a special envoy by US President Barack Obama, like Bishop Desmond Tutu will hasten the way of peace and prosperity in the region of South Asia.

On an upward curve

By Talat Masood

The military to military relations between the US and Pakistan seems to be gradually improving. There is a greater level of mutual confidence and less talk of “do more”. This has been achieved by enhanced cooperation at operational and intelligence level and is benefiting both sides. It seems sharing is taking place even at the planning stage to ensure greater synergy and to make sure that the operations undertaken by the US on the Afghan side do not have a negative fallout on Pakistan or vice-versa. The importance the US attaches to Pakistan is demonstrated by the frequency of visits by the US military leaders as well. General McChrystal, Commander of the US and ISAF forces, must have visited his counterpart no less than three to four times in one month alone. In addition, General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, too, are keeping close contacts with General Kayani and other military and civilian leaders. This has resulted in expanded cooperation on a broad front. There is cooperation in training on new equipment and sharing of counter-insurgency doctrines and practices. Our army, although professionally capable, is constrained by the past and it is only through extensive training that we can prepare for the conflict that we are currently facing. This is even more relevant to the training of Frontier Corps whose role in counter-insurgency operations is expanding. Supply of weapons and equipment from the US has somewhat improved, but still there are shortages in critical areas like helicopters, surveillance equipment and specialised vehicles.

Similar momentum is being maintained by the US at a broader political and diplomatic level. General Jones the National Security Advisor has had meetings with the top civilian and military leaders in Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s concerns about India’s involvement in Afghanistan and the renewal of India- Pakistan dialogue process. Ambassador Holbrooke has also made several visits and Senator John Kerry must have been to Pakistan about three times since the inception of the democratic government to see how civilian projects could be expedited.

The most pressing problem for the Americans is ensuring full cooperation for their current operations in Afghanistan. The spate of recent arrests of some top leaders of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda including Mullah Ghani Baradar, Ameer Muawiya in Karachi and other parts of Pakistan is another strong indicator of the growing US-Pakistan cooperation. Whether this is going to be a transient phase of their relationship or a permanent inflexion in Pakistan’s policy paradigm may be early to determine. In all likelihood it appears that there is a growing realisation in Pakistan’s security establishment that the previous policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds may have run its course. The huge paradox of closely collaborating with the US, receiving substantial economic and military assistance from it on the one hand, and, at the same time being supportive of Afghan Taliban, is no more a viable policy. Besides, the lethal cocktail of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadi organisations such as LeT, LeJ etc. that were erstwhile considered strategic assets are turning out to be an existential threat to the state. When viewed in this context stakes in the success of the US and ISAF in Afghanistan for Pakistan are fairly high. In the event of US failure, civil war would surely follow and it will immediately trigger off a proxy war accompanied by a humanitarian crisis of great proportions. The last thing that Pakistan would like to see is a chaotic Afghanistan, needless to mention that the success of Afghan Taliban will create a reverse ideological and strategic depth in Pakistan. We do not have to remind that Taliban’s extremist ideology would be a huge setback for our modernisation and relevance to the world. For this reason it is not surprising that arrest of such a large number of Afghan Taliban is taking place in Pakistan. This could weaken Afghan Taliban and may induce them to agree to a negotiated settlement.

It is time a serious policy reappraisal is undertaken for reasons of our internal stability as well as for benefiting from a long term strategic partnership with the US. Pakistan’s military with the consent of Afghan government could use its unique position to persuade Afghan Taliban to agree to President Karzai’s reconciliation offer. A negotiated settlement would provide the US with an exit strategy and help in stabilising Afghanistan which is crucial for Pakistan’s own fight against militants. It is likely that Mullah Baradar could become a collaborator and help in the reintegration policy of the US and the reconciliation efforts of President Karzai. Islamabad’s interests are best served if it widens its engagement and interests with other power centers in Afghanistan and not confine it to only Taliban as was the case in the past. Taliban, too, have to grasp the reality that even in the event of their military victory, a war torn Afghanistan will not have peace or economic viability without support from the international community at least in the foreseeable future.

A subtle shift in the US policy is also discernable. Instead of blaming Pakistan it has started appreciating its contribution in the fight against insurgency. The best part is that several strands of relationship between them are gradually being made to match the set of expectations. If this trend continues, current relationship which could be characterised more of a coalition can be transformed into an alliance.

It seems Washington has played a discreet role in persuading India to recommence bilateral dialogue. This, however, does not imply that the US in any way would subordinate its vital strategic partnership with India to meet Pakistan’s concerns. To expect Washington to immerse in conflict resolution will not be compatible with its larger and more immediate objective of bringing stability to Afghanistan. It will nonetheless continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to engage bilaterally to find solutions to issues.

Pakistan’s Universities: The New War Within

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

Dark clouds are gathering over Pakistan’s universities, portending a conflict that is likely to be long, bitter, and uncertain in outcome. On one side are those who say that individuals to be awarded PhD degrees must have, at the very minimum, undergraduate level knowledge in the relevant discipline.
On the other side are PhD aspirants, together with their supervisors, who demand unearned degrees. They hold that passing examinations and taking courses is unnecessary and an affront to their dignity.

The first volleys have already been fired. Earlier this month about one hundred students, registered for the PhD degree at Quaid-e-Azam University, angrily mobbed the executive director of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) as he entered the campus. Their demand: cancel the current requirements of passing the international Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) as well as taking and passing graduate level courses. They say that producing research papers entitles them to receive the highest degree in their chosen discipline.

To his credit, the HEC officer stood his ground. He pleaded that removing essential graduation requirements would make their degrees meaningless, that they really did need to know subject basics before doing research, etc. But these obvious and sensible arguments cut no ice with those who believe that PhD degrees are a birthright. Rhythmic cries “hum nahin mantay zulm kay zabtay” (we will not tolerate tyranny!) reverberated across the campus. This leads one to wonder: for how long can the HEC withstand such pressures? What if the floodgates give way?

Some background: a tidal wave of cash hit Pakistan’s universities between 2002-2008. The 10-12 times budgetary increase set a new world record while the accompanying hype touched the skies. Advised by the HEC’s newly appointed chairman, Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, General Pervez Musharraf grandly declared that the annual production of PhD degree holders would be boosted from 150 per year to 1500 per year. Incentive schemes encouraged teachers – often of doubtful academic merit themselves – to take on PhD students by the score. Academic quality, already low, nose-dived.

In 2006, pressed by persistent critics to include at least some minimal quality checks, the authorities finally made the right decision. They declared that a PhD candidate must “pass” the international GRE undergraduate-level subject test administered by the Education Testing Service, Princeton. But the meaning of “pass” was a hot potato that was not touched upon for another two years. Finally, in 2008, passing was declared as achievement of 40 percentile or better in the subject test.

Even this ludicrously low pass mark drew howls of protest. PhD students saw their degrees endangered while their supervisors saw their incomes threatened: every single registered Ph.D. student was a cash cow worth Rs 5000 per month. The money went into the teacher’s pocket. Banded together by common interests, teachers and students lobbied to get the pass mark reduced still further. Others demanded that if testing was to be done at all, let it be done locally. Proponents of international testing were dubbed as "foreign agents" and passionate arguments of national ghairat (honor) being at stake were thrown around.

But international tests of subject competence are simply indispensable. First, science is a global enterprise and rules for assessing competence in a particular discipline are universal. Local evaluations and testing mechanisms cannot compete in validity and quality. Second, in a society where ethical standards in the teachers’ community are no higher than among politicians or shop-keepers, the impartial and cheating-free nature of international testing is absolutely vital.

There is nothing particularly difficult about these international tests. As some readers may know, they are pitched at the bachelor’s level (i.e. 16-years of education). Chinese, Indian and Iranian students easily score in the 80-90 percentile range. American universities use them as entrance requirements, with medium-quality universities requiring results in the 70-80 range and the very good ones in the 80-95 range.

But achieving even 40 percentile has proved to be too difficult for most Pakistani PhD students even at the end of their PhD studies. This is especially alarming since they have had the advantage of 3-4 years of additional study. The pathetic quality of undergraduate education in Pakistan is surely responsible for this unfortunate fact. The intensity of the opposition to testing becomes understandable.

Better equipped Pakistani students, however, welcome international testing. Faced with a meaningful challenge, some of our students have labored long and hard – and increased their scores spectacularly. About 15 students from my department have cleared the 40 percentile hurdle, and the best have scored around 80. This shows that Pakistani students too can compete – if pushed in the right direction.

For the first time in their lives our students are being confronted head-on with a hard fact: science is all about problem solving. They have to shape up if they want to play ball. For a change, cheating in examinations is impossible and cramming does not help. The heartening thing is that most students, whether they do well or otherwise, say they learned a great deal of subject matter in preparing for this challenge and felt more educated. Surely this by itself is enormous success.

After years of criticizing trends in higher education and the shenanigans of the HEC’s former leadership, I feel that the HEC is now doing the right thing. Now it needs to stand by its guns. Of course, there is much more to be done than to merely raise the bar from time to time. A different direction is badly needed.

Broadly speaking, higher education reform must prioritize improvement of teaching quality, particularly in colleges. Numbering about one thousand, they are in a desperate condition. Instead of pampering universities, the government must help colleges improve their infrastructure and teaching quality. The previous model of rewarding so-called “research” in universities must be drastically revised. This policy has resulted in a flood of papers, the bulk of which are worthy of the trashcan even if published in some “international” journal.

The fact is that students need sound basic knowledge of their subject if they are to benefit from higher education, as well as to do meaningful research. Genuine research must not be confused with data gathering; it requires strong skills and solid comprehension. For this, the next generation of university students must have good teachers at the college and school level. This, in turn, needs improved teacher recruitment and training.

Hence there is an urgent need to create large, high-quality, degree-awarding teacher-training academies in every province. Established with international help, these academies should bring in the best teachers as master trainers from across the country and from neighboring countries. Rather than waste precious resources on frivolities, this is the direction to go.

Separation of powers

By Sania Nishtar

The potential standoff between government and judiciary has finally been averted. Process-related concerns notwithstanding, the saga’s culmination appears to be a product of sound technical advice, heed to provisions of the constitution and a process of consultation. These attributes of governance will surely pay dividends whenever they are mainstreamed in decision-making in matters of state.

There is a lesson to be learnt here. But as always, reflections are becoming centered on conspiracy theories, power struggles, personal rivalries and institutional divides–in other words, power politics. By contrast some systemic considerations related to the implications of the averted standoff for state governance and its determinants have not featured prominently in discussions. This comment aims to underscore the importance of these factors.

The matter was centered on prerogatives of institutions, which brings to the fore the question of ’separation of powers’. The purpose of separation of powers is to foster institutional checks and balances, as it is only through these that safeguards can be built against potential abuse of power. Failure to institutionalise these simply creates opportunities for tyranny–whether it is in the shape of traditional dictatorship–military rule–or absolutism in the guise of democratic rule.

There are many examples over the course of the last 63 years where the authority of decision-making has been in the hands of one person in Pakistan, both during military and civilian reigns. In these situations, power has been deliberately and/or inadvertently abused and the legitimacy and sustainability of power grabbed by the executive could not be hindered, as a result of lack of separation of powers. This trend continued to prevail because powers have traditionally been ‘fused’ and the checks and balances, which could act as safeguards against abuse of power could not be asserted and in many cases, stood blurred.

We need to understand why this has been the case in the past, why this pattern appears to be changing now and where the impediments to change stand. Understanding the concept of separation of powers in Pakistan’s context is important in this regard.

In Pakistan as in any other constitutional democracy, the powers of the government are meant to be divided so that the legislature makes laws, the executive authority carries them out and the judiciary operates independently. In any constitutional democracy, a system of checks and balances is inherently implicit, and that is why powers are meant to be separated.

The judiciary is meant to exercise checks on the parliament. The power of judges to review public laws and declare them in violation of the nation’s constitution serves as a fundamental check on any potential abuse of power by the government. The constitution has a supreme status, which means that any law that violates the constitution or conducts that conflict with it can be challenged and struck down by courts. This prerogative of the judiciary has not been widely exercised in the past. However, with increasing trend towards judicial activism, the judiciary has increasingly made use of this privilege. So in its ruling on the legal validity of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and terming it void ab initio for being ultra vires of the constitution, the judiciary exercised a fundamental check. Striking down the recent notifications as being in violation of the constitution is also a check on the executive’s authority and must be perceived in the same spirit.

The judiciary can also exercise similar checks on the executive. However, some of the recent ‘checks’–e.g. the suo moto actions with regard to setting sugar prices–are controversial, as there are many economic considerations determining price increase. Shortcomings in governance, though a proximate cause, are not a violation of the constitution, per se.

This aspect notwithstanding, the recent trend towards independence of the judiciary is a positive trend and one that holds promise of impact with regard to institutionalising checks and balances, provided ‘impendence’ does not transcend into ‘judicial imperialism’, as an expert has recently emphasized. Additionally, in order to fully realise its impact in a sustainable manner, two things must be ensured. One, de-politicising the superior judiciary and two, elimination of graft at all levels through reform of the judicial system.

The other system of checks and balances relates to the check of the legislature on the executive. There are two complicating factors in this regard–one generic to Pakistan and the other inherent to parliamentary forms of government, in general. Each of these creates a separate imperative for systemically ingraining checks and balances in Pakistan’s context.

Firstly, the power of the executive has been vested either in the president or the prime minister at different times in Pakistan. The 1973 Constitution and the 13th and 14th Amendments greatly empowered the prime minister whereas the 8th and 17th Amendments shifted power to the president’s office. Striking the right balance has therefore been a major bone of contention. Having a presidential chief executive in a parliamentary system creates a level of complexity and undermines the ability of the legislators to exercise checks on the executive. The solution to this lies in fashioning structural provisions of the constitution to separate powers.

Secondly, the other complicating factor with regard to separation of powers is inherent to the differences between presidential and parliamentary forms of government, which are the two ways in which executive authority is organised in constitutional democracies. Separation of powers, also known as trias politica, a model for governance in democratic states, is a feature inherent to the presidential system whereas ‘fusion of powers’ is characteristic of parliamentary systems. In the latter, the executive which consists of the prime minister and the cabinet are drawn from the legislature. Given this fusion, the role of an independent judiciary becomes all the more important in a parliamentary system.

The solutions to the lack of parliamentary oversight on the functioning of the government are not confined to amending the constitution. Overall systems of accountability need to be revamped to ensure that institutional instruments and arrangements are in place to enable direct and indirect political, administrative and financial accountability–both ways, involving the legislators and the executive. In doing so decision makers must scope beyond the current narrow ambit of accountability, as is being envisioned in the Accountability Bill. In order to ingrain appropriate checks and balances, many relevant institutions and instruments need to be restructured to address administrative dysfunction, mismanagement and political manipulation–all of which are pervasive in the system.

In sum therefore, two key instruments need to be reshaped in order to institutionalise a system of checks and balances between the three pillars of the state; one, the Constitution and two, a holistic accountability framework. The potential within these norms–if appropriately cascaded into implementation–to shape the destiny of this country must not be underestimated.

Failure yet again

By Saleem Safi

The much-talked-about London Conference has brought another failure for the Obama administration and its allies as the Taliban instantly rejected the talks offer, which lacked incentives for the combatants who are already achieving successes in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the allied forces are yet to learn lessons from the mistakes committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror. Throughout the London moot, Prime Minister Gordon Brown kept elaborating on the speech delivered by Obama only two days back, the US president’s State of the Union Address. Since there was no incentive for the Taliban, they rejected the conference outright.

Why did one of the most prudent politicians of Afghanistan – Hamid Karzai – not spell out the contradictions in the new US policy on Afghanistan? Also surprising is the failure of the proficient Shah Mahmood Qureshi in convincing his US and UK counterparts on mending the confusions in the new Afghan strategy. Even the so-called shrewd and futuristic Western think tanks have failed in preventing their governments from a policy which would bring nothing to Afghanistan but bloodshed.

The new US policy is supposed to encourage initiation of talks with those Taliban elements which denounce terrorism. Prior to any talks, you have to create a conducive environment, and confidence-building measures are a must for bridging the gulf between the warring factions. The Taliban and Hekmatyar are clubbing talks with the exit of allied forces from Afghanistan while on the contrary the Western states are dispatching more troops to Afghanistan to take the battle temperature to new highs.

The icing on the cake is the covert efforts launched by the allied forces to divide the Taliban. Under the plan, $500 million have been allocated to win the loyalties of Taliban elements in order to isolate the Taliban leadership. This means that the US is not willing to hold talks with Mullah Omar, only with those who would be willing to ditch the influential Taliban leader.

Irrespective of the fact that neither were such efforts successful in the past nor would these bear fruit now, it is hard to believe that the Taliban would agree to sit at the dialogue table. Only an insane person would expect talks in such high temperature with increasing doubts between the warring factions.

The new US policy on Afghanistan is based on an assumption that the Karzai government would acquire stability. To the contrary, the US policy is further destabilising the Karzai regime. Due to the same policy, even the election of Karzai became much controversial. Now the allied forces have made the provision of aid to the Karzai government conditional on eradication of corruption. The question to be asked is: if the elimination of corruption by the Afghan government was so easy, could it not have achieved this target to restore its credibility in the comity of nations in the past? Keeping in view the fact that the Karzai government was made so frail that the president had to seek support from Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum and Qasim Faheem in the recent elections, how would a feeble and meek government consisting of people like Qasim Faheem and Dostum be able to achieve the ambition of corruption-free governance? So neither will this government be able to abolish corruption within its ranks nor the Western nations provide the Karzai administration the required financial assistance. Thus the dream of the stability of the Karzai government will never materialise.

Moreover, the sincerity of the US administration to Afghanistan and Pakistan could be gauged from the fact that the Afghan election commission had to delay the Afghan polls for six months due to the non-provision of a few hundred million dollars. In such a situation, it is hard to believe that the Karzai government would be stabilised by 2011.

The premature announcement of the Afghan exit plan has also given a new life and hope to the combating militant forces and the morale of the Taliban and Hekmatyar groups is now sky high. Since they are foreseeing success, it has become more difficult to get them to the dialogue table while they are winning on the battlefield.

The stability and peace in Afghanistan is linked with direct talks with Mullah Omar and Golbadin Hekmatyar. It would be prudent to form a government in Afghanistan based on national consensus, in consultation with the neighbouring states. Not only could that bring peace to the country but it could also protect and ensure the interests of the international and regional players.

It seems that Hamid Karzai has realised this reality and his efforts to strengthen his ties with Pakistan and Iran are an indication of that. However, ever since the new US policy has been made public, the gulf between the US and Pakistan is widening by each passing day. This is a bitter truth that both the friendly states today are at daggers drawn vis-à-vis the Afghanistan issue.

Neither is Pakistan willing to accept any role for India in Afghanistan nor does it agree to the notion that India is a stakeholder in this regard. On the other hand, for the first time Iran has boycotted any international moot on Afghanistan, and the absence of an Iranian delegate from the London Conference reflects the disagreement of the Iranian establishment with the new Afghan policy.

The issue of a missile defence system for Georgia has also warmed the temperature between Russia and the USA. The US media is also issuing reports on increasing Chinese investments in the Afghan province of Logar – clearly reflecting US concerns over the increasing influence of China in Afghanistan.

Since the allied forces are once again failing to focus on efforts to address the concerns of the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, it could be safely said that no formula can hold its ground until the concerns of the regional players and neighbours are not fully redressed.

For the good of the people

By Arif Nizami

The judicial crisis that had engulfed the entire nation in the past few weeks has finally come to an amicable end. Thanks to the statesman-like approach of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s consensus-building skills and President Asif Ali Zardari rising above his ego, an unmitigated disaster has been averted. The chief justice’s recommendations have been accepted in toto, including the elevation of Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Nasir Khosa to the Supreme Court and appointment of Justice Khalil Ramday as an ad hoc judge of the apex court.

Prime Minister Gilani’s dramatic appearance at the dinner hosted by Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to bid farewell to Justice (r) Khalil Ramday was the first indication that the government was seeking ways to end the impasse created by its gross misreading of the situation. Although it is being claimed that the prime minister came unannounced and without an invitation, it is most likely that the drama had been scripted beforehand with the tacit approval of the stakeholders.

It is no coincidence that at the dinner the chief justice was flanked by Yusuf Raza Gilani on his right and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan on his left. Barrister Aitzaz was the lawyer-strategist, driver and scriptwriter of Justice Iftikhar after Gen Musharraf had unceremoniously sacked the chief justice. Hence, apart from being an old guard PPP man and member of the CEC, Aitzaz also enjoys the confidence of the chief justice.

Backdoor efforts to diffuse the crisis could have still come to naught if all parties concerned had persisted with their respective egos. The judicial crisis started when, contrary to the advice of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the president elevated the chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khwaja Mohammad Sharif, to the Supreme Court and appointed Justice Saqib Nisar as the LHC’s acting chief justice. A bench of the apex court hastily suspended the notification the same evening.

The very next day PML-N supremo Mian Nawaz Sharif suddenly woke up from his slumber and not only declared President Zardari as the biggest threat to democracy but also demanded that he bring back his money stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Both the PPP and the PML-N taking to the streets and making vitriolic statements literally provided fuel to burn effigies of each other’s leadership. It seemed that the fragile democratic institutions still transiting from long period of military dictatorship would be the first casualty.

Notwithstanding different legal interpretations being given to the process of appointing and elevating judges of the higher judiciary under the Constitution, there is wide consensus among the legal fraternity that the chief justice of Pakistan is the final authority in appointing and elevating judges and his advice is binding on the executive.

On the one hand, in the famous Judges’ Case of 1996, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah ruled that the senior-most judge had the legitimate expectancy to be elevated and that consultation between the executive and the chief justice should be meaningful. However, much later, in 2002, a five-member bench of the apex court, contrary to its earlier judgment, ruled that the principles of legitimate expectancy and seniority did not apply to appointment of Supreme Court judges. Hence, as the law stands today, the chief justice of Pakistan, being the sole arbiter, enjoys a virtual veto in the matter.

This naturally puts the executive at a disadvantage on the issue of appointing judges according to its whims and wishes. The constitutional crisis had its genesis in the mistaken perception shared by the presidency and the governor of Punjab that Justice Sharif, being “more Sharif than the Sharifs,” was trying to pack fresh judicial appointments with his cohorts. Hence, come what may, he must be kicked upstairs.

It was also naively assumed that Justice Saqib Nisar, known to be a man of integrity, would somehow be more flexible and amenable to the blandishments of the PPP. Under the Constitution, the governor of Punjab had the option of giving cogent reasons for not accepting the names of some of the judges. But perhaps being aware that even that process is justiciable, he decided to simply sit on the files.

It has been proved beyond doubt that the government was either deliberately misled by its legal eagles or once again they simply rose to their level of incompetence. Reportedly, Law Minister Babar Awan informally proposed that the chief justice should agree on a common list of appointees to high courts in a spirit of give-and-take, little realising that under the Constitution the judiciary is under no compulsion to agree to a cherry-picking process.

If recent history is any guide, confrontation with the judiciary has never paid off, especially in the case of civilian governments. Ms Benazir Bhutto, when she was prime minister, made a scathing speech in the immediate aftermath of the 1996 Judges’ Case, bitterly criticising the higher judiciary under Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. The chief justice subsequently did not spare her and sanctified her dismissal by Farooq Leghari in a manner that clearly favoured her opponent Nawaz Sharif.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, heady with his “heavy mandate,” took on Sajjad Ali Shah within a year after coming into power. He almost lost his government after his goons stormed the Supreme Court Building. The situation was only saved by tacit intervention by then-COAS Gen Jehangir Karamat. Much later, Musharraf was victim of his short-sighted decision of unceremoniously sacking Chief Justice Iftikhar. This proved disastrous not only for him but also for his quisling Muslim League, which lost badly at the hustings.

There are lessons to be leant for Mr Zardari as well. Notwithstanding the acts of commission and omission of the judiciary in our chequered political history, confrontationist mode with the higher judiciary is neither in his interest nor in the long-term interest of the country. Apparently, the PPP’s coalition partners, including the MQM, were not in favour of continuing with the state of confrontation with the judiciary. This is the message that was conveyed to Prime Minister Gilani when he left the meeting of the coalition partners at the Presidency to “gatecrash” Chief Justice Iftikhar’s dinner.

The recent impasse has amply demonstrated that the present system of appointment and elevation of judges of the superior courts is indeed flawed. To say the least, the process leaves grey areas, which tempts the executive to block appointments or elevation of certain judges in order to pack the courts with its favourites. On the flip side, the higher judiciary can skew the process in a manner that can create hurdles for the executive.

The obvious casualty in such a tug of war is the hapless common man who had hoped that an independent judiciary would deliver justice at his doorstep. The lawyers’ movement was as much about the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and his colleagues as about establishment of rule of law and access to justice for all. These lofty goals, however, remain elusive.

The judges, who are only supposed to speak through their judgments, with the exception of a few, now act like politicians making public utterances and hobnobbing with the executive as a rule rather than the exception. And the lawyers’ bodies that were the vanguard of the movement are too divided and embroiled in their turf wars even to give a cursory thought to much needed legal reforms.

The Charter of Democracy signed with much fanfare by Mian Nawaz Sharif and the late Ms Bhutto while they were in exile in London, clearly lays down a bipartisan approach for appointments to the superior courts. Mr Athar Minallah, a close associate of the chief justice and his former spokesman, in a recent television interview termed the CoD as the most important document in the country’s history, second only to the Quaid-e-Azam’s historic speech to the Constituent Assembly on Sept 11, 1947, and the 1973 consensus Constitution.

According to media reports the PML-N has recently disassociated itself from the Raza Rabbani Committee drafting the 18th Amendment. It will be in the fitness of things for the PML-N to go back in the deliberations and insist upon. including the process of appointment of judges in accordance with the CoD in the agenda of the committee. It’s time our politicians put their heads together for the good of the people rather than merely fighting their turf wars.

Secrets, spies and lies

By Irfan Husain

OBTAINING the truth from governments is not unlike yanking out healthy teeth firmly attached to the jaw: both cause acute pain and resistance.

Take the recent judgment in Britain that forced the government to reveal details of the torture that Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, went through following his arrest in Pakistan after 9/11. Held in American custody in a number of countries for seven years, he ended up in Guantanamo from where he was finally released last year without being charged.

The British government argued that revealing such sensitive information might endanger the intelligence-sharing arrangement it has with the United States. However, for once their lordships were not having any of this routine foot-dragging, and ordered the release of the information.

In Pakistan, the state routinely classifies the most mundane documents as ‘secret’, and insists on keeping the public in the dark. Loftily, government functionaries inform us that while we must foot the bill, we are not grown up enough to know the truth. More often than not, these clandestine policies blow up in our face, and ordinary Pakistanis are left paying the cost in money and in lives.

For years, the Pakistani establishment has played a double game in Afghanistan, and when the Taliban genie escaped from the bottle and began slaughtering innocent Pakistanis, we blamed everybody but our own army and intelligence services. Every country has secrets, but we have raised the art of denial to new levels of dissimulation.

Take the American policy of taking out their Taliban and Al Qaeda foes in Pakistan by using highly advanced drone technology. This has been going on for the last several years with the clandestine knowledge and approval of both the Musharraf and Zardari governments. And yet, every time a drone launches a missile that kills militants (and civilians, unfortunately), there is a hue and cry in Pakistan. The government lodges a complaint with the US, and the media goes into a frenzy of American-bashing.

Nobody is willing to face the fact that more often than not, these drones are launched from a base located within Pakistan. This was publicly declared by an American senator who is a member of the Senate intelligence committee. No Pakistani official contradicted her, and yet everybody from Zardari downwards keeps protesting every time a drone attack takes place.

Similarly, we have American Special Forces training units of the Frontier Corps in counter-insurgency tactics, but the public remains largely unaware of this programme. It was only when three American soldiers were killed in Fata that the media reported their presence.

Recently, when Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second-in-command of the Afghan Taliban, was captured in Karachi, the interior minister referred to the report as ‘propaganda’. The question of how long our government was aware of Baradar’s presence has gone unanswered as we denied that the Quetta shura even existed on our soil.

These lies and contradictions have served to confuse the Pakistani public, and to whip up anti-American sentiment. After 9/11, Musharraf did a public U-turn and denounced the Taliban, offering the Americans help in toppling them. Much of the framework for covert joint operations was laid down in those early days, but fearing a backlash from his clerical allies in the coalition that supported him, Musharraf chose to keep most of this military and intelligence cooperation secret.

Under the army’s pressure, Zardari has chosen to continue with Musharraf’s policy of secrecy and prevarication. By insisting that Pakistan plays no part in the drone campaign, for instance, the government seeks to deflect criticism for any civilian casualties to the Americans. This is both shameless and irresponsible. The reality is that the death-by-drones of so many militants in the tribal areas is something that is to our advantage.

By not owning up to a policy in which we are both partners and beneficiaries, we have made it clear that we are unable or unwilling to exercise control over our soil. Indeed, by playing victim instead of a state defending its own people against terrorists, we send out a signal of weakness.

How would we be any worse off by adopting a more open posture? The received wisdom in both Washington and Islamabad is that somehow, public knowledge of Pakistan’s complicity in the drone campaign would destabilise the civilian government. While this may be true today, it surely was not so under Musharraf when the army was very much onside, as it is today.

The reality is that both Musharraf and Zardari have been heavily criticised by the Islamic parties and politicians for their pro-American policies. How would anything change if Zardari were to take the public into confidence? Such a policy of openness would enable the government to proceed without having to go into contortions each time a drone attack is launched.

Currently, the public perception is that the Americans are acting unilaterally, and ignoring Pakistan’s sovereignty. Understandably, this whips up anger each time a Predator or Reaper missile kills militants, as well as the women and children they were hiding behind.

We have seen this anti-Americanism flourish in our media over the years. At the time of the debate (or what passed for one) over the Kerry-Lugar bill, many TV anchors and guests on Urdu channels joined the army-led chorus against this legislation. In a barely literate society where the electronic media plays a key role in forming perceptions, our Urdu TV channels have much to answer for.

By refusing to acknowledge the degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistani army and intelligence agencies, we end up only confusing our people as well as looking incompetent and hypocritical in the eyes of the world. The drone campaign is a solid success by any yardstick. In fact, apart from our army operations in Swat and South Waziristan, it is the only military riposte to have kept the militants on the run. Surely, we should take part of the credit for locating many of the targets.

We need to know who our friends and foes are. And anybody condoning the actions of the terrorists who have killed thousands of innocent Pakistanis is not our friend.

Side-effect

by Harris Khalique

There is something good in what is happening in Pakistan. While elite-dominated state institutions are playing a chess game with each other, and where pawns don’t work they try bishops and rocks to reach out to the ranks of their adversaries, they keep telling the spectators that the game is being played according to the rules of the game. In this case, the rules being the Constitution of Pakistan, the supreme law of the land. And supreme law of the land it should remain, however weak or confusing some of its parts may be. It is and should always be only the prerogative of the legitimately elected parliament to revise, amend and improve it. Or at some stage in future a new constitution is written and endorsed by a constituent assembly as some of us feel who believe in the redefinition of the state of Pakistan, a people-centred economy, full provincial autonomy and realisation of rights of nationalities, inclusion of women and non-Muslims in the mainstream and creation of a modern, rational and educated society.

But the good thing is that the Constitution is being referred to, and nobody has the gall to say anymore like Gen Ziaul Haq that the Constitution is nothing but a disposable piece of paper. In the past couple of years, Articles 2, 6, 19, 58, 62, 63, 177, 243, 246, 247, 248, etc. have been either invoked, referred to or discussed in parliament, courts of law, legal fraternity, intelligentsia, print and electronic media and political party meetings. Those from the left continue to object to the Objectives Resolution being made the substantive part of the Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq in 1985.

When he restored the disposable piece of paper in his own words, he got the word ‘freely’ removed from the clause in the original draft of the Objectives Resolution where religious minorities were given the right to practise and profess their faiths. There are other articles as well introduced by the dictator which are considered discriminatory and draconian for women and non-Muslim Pakistanis particularly relating to evidence, hudood and blasphemy. All said and done, it is parliament which should look into getting rid of such articles and clauses that create an inherent bias in the Constitution.

But there is an article seldom mentioned by those in positions of influence and authority, neither those who claim to be people’s representatives nor those who consider it sacrosanct to observe the Constitution in letter and spirit. That is Article 38. I have mentioned it before also but when a third of the country is malnourished, half of the children of school-going age are seen and treated as street urchins, young girls kept as maids by the affluent are either starved or burnt alive by their employers, there is a need to remind the state of Pakistan and its sovereign parliament of this article. It is a commitment of those who govern to the citizens of this country.

The space I use is insufficient to quote the full text but part (a) of the article says, “The state shall secure the wellbeing of the people, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, by raising their standard of living, by preventing concentration of wealth and means of production in the hands of a few to the detriment of general interest…” Part (d) ensures the provision of basic necessities of life including food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief. Let’s see who discusses Article 38, the courts or parliament.

The writer is a poet and advises national and international institutions on governance and public policy issues.

Good result, bad process

by Shafqat Mahmood

All card players know that it is easy to play a strong hand well. The real test is making the best of a weak hand. By getting the chief justice to come over to his house, Prime Minister Gilani has demonstrated that he is a very astute political player indeed.

The basics are obvious. The government had absolutely no case. One can quibble over who should have the right to appoint judges, but as the Constitution stands today, the advice of the chief justice is binding. By going against it, the president and the government had put themselves in a very awkward position.

It was also obvious to Gilani, if not to the president and his incompetent legal advisers, that if these notifications are not reversed, a clash with the Supreme Court was inevitable. And if that happened, the government, and perhaps even the democratic system, would be in jeopardy.

This is as weak a position as it can get, but this is where Gilani’s sharp political mind came into play. On Monday, he deliberately made an unusually hard-hitting speech in the National Assembly. Those who know him well were surprised at its tone and the threats that he hurled at the judiciary.

But this was all calibrated. He wanted to raise the ante, harden his position, so that when he gives in, it floors the other party. It is not clear whether any preliminary softening up was done by Aitzaz Ahsan or not, but when the prime minister decided to publicly eat the humble pie and gatecrash the judicial dinner, it had an enormous impact on the chief justice.

This was obvious from the visuals of this meeting. The chief justice was the most gracious of hosts. His beaming smile and ritual words of welcome made the prime minister feel completely at home. It was then that Gilani played the masterstroke. He invited the chief justice to the Prime Minister’s House for tea the next day. The chief justice was presumably so overwhelmed by the prime minister’s unexpected, uninvited and non-egotistical entry that he could not say no.

This invitation was a sharp, crafty, almost wily, move, because the ruling party had already decided to withdraw the notifications of Justice Khwaja Sharif and Justice Saqib Nisar. It had also decided to give in to the chief justice’s recommendations regarding judicial appointments. A face-saver was all that was needed. This was provided by the chief justice going over to the Prime Minister’s House.

This was not the only success. There was another, much deeper and hidden, agenda. It was to reduce the stature of the Honourable Chief Justice among the legal community and the public.

Let us not forget that the main strength of this judiciary has been the wide support it has among the people. This came about not because of the personal charisma of any one individual. In fact, on a personal level, not everything was perfect. The admiration was only due to the courage shown by the chief justice and his colleagues for not bowing before a military dictator.

This raised the stature of the entire institution and reinforced its image of independence. It also made it stand apart from political wheeling-dealing and reversed the judiciary’s historical trend of mixing up with the executive. More importantly, it put the chief justice and the judges on a pedestal far above conniving politicians.

This anointed the entire institution with a sanctity that was a throwback to earlier times, when the judges would not be seen or heard and only spoke through their judgments. The oft-repeated story of a chief justice in the 50s refusing the prime minister’s invitation because the government was a party in cases before the Supreme Court, illustrated this.

Unfortunately, the chief justice’s three-hour tea party with the prime minister has dealt a blow to this image. It looked like unseemly bargaining, a negotiated give-and-take. Par for the course as far as politicians are concerned, not particularly appropriate for the chief justice.

And Gilani is too shrewd a person not to have known this. That is why the way he has played his cards is a masterstroke. He got an honourable face-saver to reverse a bad decision and save his government from further troubles. He was also able to bring the chief justice to the level of a mere mortal, who got what he wanted, but at a cost.

Let there be no mistake. It is good that the government has finally given in to the Constitution and rule of law. It is also a relief that a full-blown crisis has been averted. The only way forward for Pakistan and its democracy is that all institutions work within their assigned spheres.

It is also true that this storm was of the government’s creation. It has repeatedly shown an ability to wade into trouble and then run back helter-skelter. But the process through which this particular crisis has been resolved leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

I so wish that the person for whom I have the highest regard, Mr Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, had refused an additional year as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court. I know that he was very reluctant and has been persuaded against his will, but this was one time where he should have transcended his innate politeness.

There is much speculation about what was discussed during this long meeting between the prime minister and the chief justice. It is not difficult to guess that Mr Gilani would have talked about his concerns, and he has many. Over two months have gone by and the NRO judgement of the Supreme Court has not been implemented. A possible contempt of the court hangs over his head. Did he give his point of view?

The very fact that this is being mentioned suggests what was wrong with this meeting. The government is a party in a number of cases before the court. In some of them, the prime minister himself is being challenged, such as the promotion of civil servants and implementation of the NRO decision. There may be others. It would thus be fair to presume that judicial appointments was not the only thing discussed over three long hours.

Democracy is a process, not an end that is suddenly reached. There is thus a need to show flexibility and give latitude to the principals involved. But now all eyes would be on the Supreme Court. After having its primacy affirmed on judicial appointments, will it go easy on other matters before it?

In particular, the implementation of the Dec 16 NRO judgment becomes a test case. This is said not because there is a desire for another clash between the government and the court. Only that the credibility of the apex court is at stake. It should either review its earlier decision or insist on its implementation.

Acting irresponsibly

by Dr Masooda Bano

Prime Minister Gilani has acted wisely to help reduce the tension between the judiciary and President Zardari. The government has given in to the demands of the judiciary and has conceded that senior judges should be appointed in accordance with the advice of the chief justice. The hype that resulted from President Zardari’s sudden move on Saturday to appoint senior judges to the Lahore high court in direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, as well as the responses from the oppositions both indicate display of irresponsible behaviour. It is still less than two years that political parties came back to power after eight years of Musharraf rule but it is clear that they are already forgetting the lessons as well as their pledges.

If there was one good outcome towards the end of Musharraf rule, it was the growing recognition within the political parties that they need to stand together if they are to consolidate democracy in the country. The Charter of Democracy signed by the two main parties, the PPP and the PML-N, pledged to prioritise institutionalisation of the democratic process over pursuit of short-term political interests. They pledges that, rather than undermining each other and siding with the establishment to get one party out of power, they will prefer to give each other a fair chance at running the state affairs and would stand by each other to minimise chances of military take over in future. It is true that it is the PPP, which first deviated from the Charter of Democracy and it is also true that President Zardari soon lost the trust of the opposition and the public by his habitual behaviour of defaulting on major commitments such as reinstatement of the senior judges.

However, to start calling Zardari the biggest threat to democracy, as was done by Nawaz Sharif amid the recent tension between the judiciary and the PPP, is also risky. Taking such a personalised approach to politics will again undermine the political parties as a whole and create justification for another intervention for the military. This for sure will not be a healthy development. President Zardari might be involved in cases of corruption, and might abuse public power, but he can by no means be a bigger threat to democracy in Pakistan than a military general staging a coup. This response of the PML-N to the recent crisis is thus worrying, as it suggests a reversion back to very personalised politics rather than politics of principles.

The Sharif brothers had undoubtedly gained a great deal of public respect in the last period of the Musharraf regime by standing steadfastly with the lawyers in the demand for reinstatement of the senior judges. Even after the 2008 election, Nawaz Sharif definitely stayed committed to many important issues. The party’s decision to withdraw from the coalition government when President Zardari used delaying tactics regarding reinstatement of the judges and repeal of the 17th Amendment all won the party and its leadership popular respect. It is therefore disappointing to see the party slip back to politics of personal vendetta. The Sharif brothers had promised that they have risen above that and the public appreciated them for this. To retain their image of being committed to greater public good, it is important that they refrain from making statements that risk marginalising the political process and give the military an excuse to again disrupt the political process.

As for President Zardari, his erratic behaviour and sudden moves, such as the decision to impose governor’s rule in Punjab at one point or later his attempt to appoint senior judges without consultation of the chief justice, are definitely worrying. They show a tendency for highly irresponsible behaviour, which is driven purely by his personal interests rather than those of the democratic process. This raises questions about his advisors as well as his own credentials. The PPP as a party has completely failed to present a vision of development forget about actually implementing one.

The party and its senior leadership, including President Zardari, indeed need to be put under pressure to deliver to the public. The opposition certainly needs to play a role in that as does the media. However, it is important to build this pressure in a way that creates pressure on the government to deliver rather than creating opportunities for the military to once again disrupt the democratic process. The balance between fighting for democracy and playing into the hands of the military has to carefully worked out.

A promise unfulfilled

by Muhammad Umer

Two years back, the Pakistani nation went to the polls. February 18, 2008, was pregnant with the promise of a future where democracy would resume breathing and public good would be preferred to personal gain. The day also brought the promise of a Pakistan where the rule of law would be respected, corrupt elements culled, economy put back on the right track and quality health care and education ensured. Not that people were expecting a paradise overnight but change was in the air. Hope feeds on pragmatism. Such is the nature of hope.

And the hope for change was not without reason. The people had seen several key changes in the past year, all of which were born out of a civil society movement spearheaded by lawyers and later joined by some political parties for the restoration of judges sacked in March 2007 by then army chief and president Musharraf. It was because of that movement that Musharraf doffed his military uniform, lifted the emergency rule he had imposed on the country on November 3, 2007, and allowed Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to return from exile. As the February general election drew closer, the nation saw in it a chance to rid itself of a military dictator who had stolen from it as well as from democracy well-nigh a decade. The signing of a Charter of Democracy by Bhutto and Sharif, the archrivals of the 1990s, in 2006 had also given the impression that the country’s political leadership had finally come of age.

But things are still as bad — if not worse — as they were two years ago. The government of the PPP, which came to power by riding the wave of sympathy generated by the assassination of Bhutto, has failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It’s a party bent on destroying itself. It has already squandered a golden opportunity to revive its credibility, which was ruined by corruption charges in Bhutto’s two terms in office. President Zardari and his cronies may be shrewd enough to achieve short-term gains, but they are certainly well qualified for failure that is likely to haunt the PPP for years to come. The government’s economic performance is pungently pathetic. Almost every other commercially viable state institution is reporting losses. The country’s foreign debt has swelled past the $50 billion mark. Who will repay all those billions? Certainly not the rulers who appear to have learnt only to borrow, not to repay. Then there is the curse of cartels profiteering and proliferating at the very behest of the government whose primary job it is to ensure fiscal transparency and just distribution of resources. And don’t forget the gift of rental power projects that will make electricity, already a rare commodity in Pakistan, expensive by up to 70 per cent. Price hikes continue to break the backs of the poor as the government’s own statistics of the past two years show that living has become 50 per cent costlier. Who says the PPP leadership has an economic plan?

Zardari never tires of promising to fulfil the mission of his slain wife but he has made a mockery of the Charter of Democracy by reneging on the very promises she had made to the nation through that document. Parliament remains wreathed in the notorious 17th Amendment and reserved for political theatrics. The Supreme Court has passed several landmark judgements, including the one against the NRO, but the government is dragging its feet on implementing them. It even attempted to undermine the authority of the judiciary on February 13 when Zardari rejected the chief justice’s recommendations for the appointment of judges and appointed two judges of his own choice instead.

Two days later, Prime Minister Gilani issued a not-so-veiled threat to the judiciary when he told the National Assembly that the executive order signed by him in March last year for the restoration of the deposed judges needed parliament’s endorsement! Ludicrous he may have sounded, but wasn’t he essentially trying to threaten the judiciary that the executive order could be withdrawn if Zardari and his cronies facing corruption charges were not let off the hook? It was only after the Supreme Court had suspended the president’s notification of the appointment of judges and lawyers took to the streets in protest that the government realised its folly and withdrew the notification.

The country is therefore bleeding from not only terrorism and militancy but also disrespect for institutions and rule of law. It is an irony that in her article “Pakistan on the brink”, published in The Guardian newspaper’s online edition on July 24, 2007, Bhutto had criticised a similar sorry state of affairs in the Musharraf regime. She wrote: “The suppression of democracy in my homeland has had profound institutional consequences; the major infrastructural building blocs of democracy have been weakened, political parties have been marginalised, NGOs dismantled, judges sacked and civil society undermined.” But now her own party seems to be doing the very things that are inimical to democracy.

The government may have averted a disaster on the issue of judicial appointments, but pressure is growing on Gilani to achieve an uphill task – to help Zardari and his myrmidons stay in power. So we have a president, a prime minister and their ministers who are willing to do anything to cling on to power even if that requires bringing down the whole democratic system. To describe their situation, let me borrow a few words from Sir Walter Scot’s novel Kenilworth: “…he has the more need to have those about him who are unscrupulous in his service, and who, because they know that his fall will overwhelm and crush them, must wager both blood and brain, soul and body, in order to keep him aloft.”

What conclusions should we draw from this mess? That democracy doesn’t deliver and we had better be content with dictatorship? Not at all. Dictatorship has been a hemlock which has so badly stunted the growth of the plant of democracy that it would require a sustained and careful nurturing to be able to flourish on its own. We also need to broaden the concept of democracy in the context of Pakistan where it has come to mean merely elections and assemblies. The democracy we have seen so far is political democracy and that too is very limited. We need to move beyond it. We must introduce social democracy which is incomplete without a culture of tolerance and constructive criticism and economic democracy which advocates a society with equal employment opportunities and a just distribution of resources as its hallmarks. Political parties which fail to convince the electorate of the soundness of their economic plans must not be voted into parliament.

But before we reach that stage, we need to get to grips with the current mess. Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif has finally spoken against the government’s onslaught on the judiciary and its bad governance, calling Zardari as the biggest threat to democracy. We may expect some protests and an intense blame game between the PML-N and the PPP in the days to come, but Sharif’s party is too risk-calculating to go for any radical movement. It’s high time the people, especially the civil society, took the initiative to steer the course of things in a direction that will benefit the cause of democracy. They can no longer afford to remain indifferent to the ongoing political process. Their active participation in this process can make all the difference. They must act first to decide their own future before the ruling elite steals even this opportunity from them.

The Lahore that was

by Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

“He sat, in defiance of municipal orders, astride the gun Zam-Zammah on her brick platform opposite the old Ajaib-Ghar–the Wonder House, as the natives call the Lahore Museum. Who holds Zam-Zammah, that ‘fire-breathing dragon,’ holds the Punjab, for the great green-bronze piece is always first of the conqueror’s loot.”

–Rudyard Kipling, Kim

All I wanted to do was go to the northern-most building of the Old Campus of the Punjab University, the so-called largest and the oldest seat of higher learning in Pakistan, established in 1882 by none other than our good old colonial masters–gentlemen from the British East India Company, who came as beggars of trade concessions and left as despotic rulers of a vast and uncontrollable subcontinent–in front of the Zamzama gun made famous by Rudyard Kipling. I just wanted to go to that building, which used to be my first home (certainly not second) during 1971-76, and sit in the quietness of its lawn on a certain bench and gaze at the old Bodhi tree in front of what used to be the Institute of Chemistry in those days, because that tree had a magic spell on me the very first time I saw it in the heat of the summer of 1971.

Even the thought of just being able to sit on that bench in the lawn, where I used to spend hours with friends discussing all things under the sun, was soothing. But, when I finally finished my errands in the area, I found myself at the back of the University and that added the additional attraction of being able to walk by the old library building–the General Library of the Old Campus–whose numerous shelves are still etched in my memory with all the books they used to hold in the semi-darkness of the large hall and its surrounding rooms. Looking at the red building with a certain sense of nostalgia, I was about to enter the brick-laden path from the metal gate when I had to confront, one more time, the rude awakening call of visiting Pakistan in 2010: the guards at the entrance wanted to know why I was going in the public building that used to be my first home and which was now filled with hundreds of students of a new generation whom I could see from the gate but who were unaware of the little discussion now in rapid progress at the entrance.

When he finally comprehended the purpose of my visit, the guard at the gate had to call his supervisor, who asked me the same questions, and who then went back to seek permission from some higher authority, someone who happened to be in a meeting at the time, but the supervisor let me go through the narrow opening of the gate, without further investigation. Once on the brick-laden wide path at the back of the library, I quickly walked toward the old café, our one-time haunt, now populated by another generation. The familiar trees, the left-over remains of the old memories, the old majestic buildings with their colonial trappings, the high ceilings of the hallways, a new masjid under construction on the site of the old registrar’s office, the small single-storey which used to be the university bookstore now being used for some other purpose, the still recognisable bus stop with the blue university buses ready to go to the New Campus, and beyond the metal gates, the Ajaib Ghar, the House of Wonders as Kipling would have us natives call it.

When I finally reached the desired building, now taken over by the College of Pharmacy, and entered the lawn where I wanted to sit quietly, two gentlemen arrived from nowhere and asked why I was sitting there. I was not ready for them as I was still recovering from the shock of the disappearance of my favorite Bodhi tree, which had been ruthlessly cut down from its rightful place where it had stood for over a century. When they were satisfied that I was not going to blow myself or anyone else, one of them attached himself to me “to show me the building,” whose every brick I knew. It took considerable effort to finally get rid of my self-appointed tour guide and only then I was able to take in all the changes in one big sweep: the natural wood staircase banister, which used to have a soothing affect in the semi-darkness of the hallway leading to the library, was now painted over in cheap yellow shade, the hallways were randomly filled with Iqbal’s portraits, the old chemistry laboratory still had the same Bunsen burners and the same glass acid bottles which used to be there some thirty years ago. This laboratory, where I did research for my Master’s thesis, and which used to have a metal plate on the door indicating that it was the laboratory of a British chemist, whose name I now forget, who later won the Noble Prize, was now the office of a professor.

I went out to the back of the building from the hallway close to my old laboratory to the small open area adjacent to another historic institution of the city: the Government College. I looked back on the high windows of what used to be my laboratory and saw two pigeons perched on the window-sill, just as they had remained sitting there in my memory all these thirty years.

The Lahore that was

by Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

“He sat, in defiance of municipal orders, astride the gun Zam-Zammah on her brick platform opposite the old Ajaib-Ghar–the Wonder House, as the natives call the Lahore Museum. Who holds Zam-Zammah, that ‘fire-breathing dragon,’ holds the Punjab, for the great green-bronze piece is always first of the conqueror’s loot.”

–Rudyard Kipling, Kim

All I wanted to do was go to the northern-most building of the Old Campus of the Punjab University, the so-called largest and the oldest seat of higher learning in Pakistan, established in 1882 by none other than our good old colonial masters–gentlemen from the British East India Company, who came as beggars of trade concessions and left as despotic rulers of a vast and uncontrollable subcontinent–in front of the Zamzama gun made famous by Rudyard Kipling. I just wanted to go to that building, which used to be my first home (certainly not second) during 1971-76, and sit in the quietness of its lawn on a certain bench and gaze at the old Bodhi tree in front of what used to be the Institute of Chemistry in those days, because that tree had a magic spell on me the very first time I saw it in the heat of the summer of 1971.

Even the thought of just being able to sit on that bench in the lawn, where I used to spend hours with friends discussing all things under the sun, was soothing. But, when I finally finished my errands in the area, I found myself at the back of the University and that added the additional attraction of being able to walk by the old library building–the General Library of the Old Campus–whose numerous shelves are still etched in my memory with all the books they used to hold in the semi-darkness of the large hall and its surrounding rooms. Looking at the red building with a certain sense of nostalgia, I was about to enter the brick-laden path from the metal gate when I had to confront, one more time, the rude awakening call of visiting Pakistan in 2010: the guards at the entrance wanted to know why I was going in the public building that used to be my first home and which was now filled with hundreds of students of a new generation whom I could see from the gate but who were unaware of the little discussion now in rapid progress at the entrance.

When he finally comprehended the purpose of my visit, the guard at the gate had to call his supervisor, who asked me the same questions, and who then went back to seek permission from some higher authority, someone who happened to be in a meeting at the time, but the supervisor let me go through the narrow opening of the gate, without further investigation. Once on the brick-laden wide path at the back of the library, I quickly walked toward the old café, our one-time haunt, now populated by another generation. The familiar trees, the left-over remains of the old memories, the old majestic buildings with their colonial trappings, the high ceilings of the hallways, a new masjid under construction on the site of the old registrar’s office, the small single-storey which used to be the university bookstore now being used for some other purpose, the still recognisable bus stop with the blue university buses ready to go to the New Campus, and beyond the metal gates, the Ajaib Ghar, the House of Wonders as Kipling would have us natives call it.

When I finally reached the desired building, now taken over by the College of Pharmacy, and entered the lawn where I wanted to sit quietly, two gentlemen arrived from nowhere and asked why I was sitting there. I was not ready for them as I was still recovering from the shock of the disappearance of my favorite Bodhi tree, which had been ruthlessly cut down from its rightful place where it had stood for over a century. When they were satisfied that I was not going to blow myself or anyone else, one of them attached himself to me “to show me the building,” whose every brick I knew. It took considerable effort to finally get rid of my self-appointed tour guide and only then I was able to take in all the changes in one big sweep: the natural wood staircase banister, which used to have a soothing affect in the semi-darkness of the hallway leading to the library, was now painted over in cheap yellow shade, the hallways were randomly filled with Iqbal’s portraits, the old chemistry laboratory still had the same Bunsen burners and the same glass acid bottles which used to be there some thirty years ago. This laboratory, where I did research for my Master’s thesis, and which used to have a metal plate on the door indicating that it was the laboratory of a British chemist, whose name I now forget, who later won the Noble Prize, was now the office of a professor.

I went out to the back of the building from the hallway close to my old laboratory to the small open area adjacent to another historic institution of the city: the Government College. I looked back on the high windows of what used to be my laboratory and saw two pigeons perched on the window-sill, just as they had remained sitting there in my memory all these thirty years.

The latest climb-down and related matters

by Ayaz Amir

Incompetence of this high order may not be against the laws of nature. It is certainly against all known laws of politics. The credibility of this government was already poor. Now after this latest debacle over the appointment of judges it stands shot through and through. Its word already carried little weight. Who will believe it now?

Just days ago Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani had shown a touch of steel while speaking in the National Assembly, injecting thereby a spark of life into a virtually demoralised and lost party. But all in vain because his defiance was tied to a lost cause: the appointment of judges. Differences of interpretation there may be on this score but the bulk of legal opinion maintains that in this regard the final word is that of My Lord the Chief Justice.

A climb-down from the high position the government had taken was thus inevitable. But it is the manner of the climb-down — akin more to capitulation — which is likely to exact a heavy political price in days to come. Even on the one point where the government could have stood its ground — Justice Ramday’s ad hoc re-appointment — it has beaten a retreat. If extensions are not a good thing — there being a near-consensus in the country that we are better off without them — the Chief Justice could pertinently have been asked why Justice Ramday was so indispensable.

But by Wednesday afternoon when the CJ came calling on the PM — in itself an unusual event — any notion of standing up to anyone or for anything seemed to have deserted the PM, defiance transformed, almost miraculously, into all-out conciliation. Speaking in the National Assembly that evening, the PM was a subdued man, like someone roughly chastened by the hand of immediate experience.

Right from the start questions were asked about this government’s capacity and competence. In the wake of this latest debacle they are bound to intensify. It is not that conciliation should not have been attempted. But why the necessity in the first place to get into a mess from which the only way out was abject surrender?

Reinforcing folly is no good thing. This mantra every army recites. But self-created folly, that too repeatedly, inevitably raises questions about one’s ability and understanding.

Starry-eyed souls, no doubt clutching at straws, had convinced themselves that the PM’s stature had risen in recent days, especially when set against the ineptitude radiating from the Presidency. Alas for short-lived hopes. After this spectacular climb-down Gilani stands reduced to his original size. And it’s going to remain like this, politics being a cruel business where blown credibility is never easy to restore.

But Gillani has had his moment in the sun. Two years is about the average span of Pakistani prime ministers and he will soon be completing two years in office. What more can he have hoped for?

To his credit, he hasn’t been a Farooq Leghari to Zardari, standing staunchly by his benefactor in the storm unleashed by the NRO judgment. But standing by Zardari, because of the baggage he carries and the reputation for unrivalled skill in high financial matters he holds, is an impossible undertaking. Angels would have failed in this endeavour. How could a mere mortal have succeeded?

Any hopes of this government changing its stripes or reforming itself must now be buried. President Zardari has proved many things, none more conclusively the notion that he is incapable of change. In his praise it is said he is loyal to his friends. His record shows he is also loyal to his failings. His reputation, as mentioned above, is testimony to his skill in matters of high, and arcane, finance. But his ineptitude for government stands fully exposed.

Last February he had set out to conquer Punjab when taking advantage of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s unseating at the hands of the Dogar judiciary he imposed governor’s rule in the province. We know how that adventure ended. It might have been supposed that proper lessons had been learnt. But this February, almost as if to commemorate the memory of last year’s discomfiture, we saw a fresh adventure unfolding: this time an attempt to take on the Supreme Court, with what results we all know.

On many counts Zardari is a lucky man. Only luck could have brought him thus far. Only luck explains his rise to the presidency, no small matter even in a third world country. But his luck seems to be wearing thin. He is now in waters too deep for him and how long he manages to remain afloat is now a matter of intense speculation.

We know his legal advisers, faces virtually, all of them, out of a rogues’ gallery. Will they face any music? Not likely, given the President’s loyalty to his acolytes. Which almost makes this a Greek tragedy. You know where certain things will lead. But you cannot escape their shadow.

It wouldn’t much matter if this were just a personal tragedy. But this is also tragedy for the nation. We know the President’s proclivities, his strengths and weaknesses and where he comes from. But we are prisoners of the dynamics which have brought him to his present position. It was Hugo who said there was nothing worse than an incurable destiny.

Turning to related matters, Iftikhar Chaudry is already the most unusual Chief Justice in our history. Other high jurists have stood up to military dictators but for all their rectitude and adherence to principle they fell by the wayside and their names are only dimly remembered. Chaudry is one high judge who stood up to a dictator and not only survived to tell the tale but has been twice restored to his position. Which makes him the Pakistani Muhammad Ali. Ali won his heavyweight crown thrice. So it has been with My Lord the CJ.

In the museum of his triumphs hang many trophies, the Zardari/Gilani climb-down the latest in the list. He has still much to do and the way ahead is long and, given our national troubles, full of pitfalls. But the responsibility on his shoulders relates as much to what he should do as to what he should refrain from doing.

A fount of justice and hope for the deprived and downtrodden he must remain, and officialdom must continue to quake at the prospect of being summoned in his presence. He must remain a friend of the environment and of trees (about the most threatened things in our Republic) as he has always been. Of all wrong-doers, no matter how highly placed, he must remain the scourge.

But the time may also have come for a slave, even if an invisible one, to stand by his side and whisper into his ear, according to the Roman custom, “Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.” Power and popular acclaim can go to anyone’s head: general, popular demagogue or even a judge. If there was a time, as his critics maintain, when he had a weakness for publicity, he is now far above the need for publicity to prop up his self-esteem. Through courage and grit, he has already carved out a unique place for himself.

One of the hallmarks of greatness is the ability to concentrate on the essential and ignore or do away with the non-essential. There are important matters before the superior courts. They should concentrate on those. It should be none of their business to fix the price of sugar or petroleum products. If the judiciary’s is to be the last word as regards judicial appointments, does it not follow that the executive authority’s word should be the final word as far as higher bureaucratic appointments are concerned? To each its own. That is the principle on which a federation runs.

It might also help to take to heart Bacon’s admonition, in his essay ‘Of Judicature’: “Judges ought to remember that their office is…to interpret law, and not to make law or give law: else will it be like the Authority claimed by the Church of Rome…” There is also much to be said for the related caveat: “An over-speaking judge is no well tuned cymbal.”

Pakistan’s Jinnah

By Ayesha Siddiqa

Some time ago, I had a chance to read veteran columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee’s article ‘Bring back Jinnah’s Pakistan’ in which he talked about the founding father’s liberal vision for the country.

Mr Cowasjee’s argument was that the state envisioned by Mohammad Ali Jinnah would have been governed by a different set of social norms than the one in place today.

I would like to inform the respectable writer that while he is searching for Jinnah’s Pakistan, we might be threatened with the eventuality of losing Pakistan’s Jinnah.

A journalist friend was recently presented with a historic photograph of the founding father in which he was holding his pups.

I am glad it was given to a friend rather than a foe because there is always the possibility these days that the person presenting the photograph would be accused of being a foreign agent for distributing such photographs of Jinnah.

We shouldn’t be surprised if in a few years’ time we come across a doctored photograph of the founding father in a turban and a beard to prove a certain point.

There are now devious elements who are tinkering with Jinnah — the person — and his narrative. We are being told that all those details which describe the Quaid-i-Azam as a man with western liberal habits are but a conspiracy and a figment of the imagination of enslaved minds.

We are being told that Jinnah never had a lifestyle that might not get the approval of the puritanical-religious crowd in the country. The purpose behind altering details of Jinnah’s personality is the first step towards changing the national narrative.

The next step will be to argue that Jinnah wanted a state where only a certain school of thought could live. Others would have the status of second-class citizens or be shunned, or put in jail for their alternative identity.

But why is a liberal Jinnah unpalatable to these people? Mohammad Ali Jinnah could have hidden his identity as a liberal as he concentrated on the legal case of getting a separate state for the Muslims of India.

He didn’t hide his reality or make an effort to adapt to what the majority of the people followed because in his mind the new state could allow for all creeds, castes and religions.

The Muslims of India had not struggled to move away from the dominance of one culture to the dominance of another. This would be a country where people of different religions could proudly become equal citizens.

In a speech in 1948, Jinnah had said: “We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.

We have many non-Muslims — Hindus, Christians and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

Having access to modern forms of media, these characters seem to be assisted by ‘ghost warriors’ in creating a new national narrative formulated on the basis of a post-modernist agenda.

The country’s survival, hence, does not any longer depend on the struggle of its citizenry to make its political system work, but on establishing an imagined political system which these people guarantee their followers will rid the state of all its evils. Based on puritanical norms, the new political system, which they call the ideal khilafat, can do wonders.

These people are not the Taliban, nor are they even a single bunch of people. There are several layers operating at various levels and in different forms.

There are those that market the traditional religious identity and then there are others who appeal to the secular. Not to forget those who sell high doses of what they term ‘nationalism’ while pursuing a very western, liberal kind of lifestyle.

Very few people realise that the country’s national narrative is being strategically and cunningly reorganised and rewritten. The underlying norm of the new narrative is a puritanical version of religion and history.

In the process, the nation-state is being stretched and society adjusted to meet the challenges of the new version of nationalism.

What goes without saying is that there is probably very little space for those who do not conform to the description of an ‘ideal’ citizen. The description not only extends to those condemned as ‘enemies of the state’ but also others who cannot fall into the category of this description due to their peculiar caste, creed, faith, ethnicity, or other factors.

So, it is with a heavy heart that I would like to inform Mr Cowasjee that the new perimeters of citizenship define a citizen and give him/her rights on the basis of their putative relationship with religion as interpreted by a certain set of people.

This is no longer about a pluralistic state and a multi-polar polity. Therefore, the new narrative makes it imperative for this ‘gang’ of people to kidnap Pakistan’s Jinnah.

Can the honourable columnist and citizen do something about getting the founding father back? Surely, there will be those willing to fight for his recovery or even a pay ransom to do so.

Morality and atheism

by Irfan Husain

Consider this demographic projection for the UK, and ponder its implications for a moment: within five years, the majority of babies will be born to unmarried parents.

However, before you put this down to yet another example of Western immorality, just remember that all these babies will have the same legal rights as those born to married couples.

This trend is part of the wider decline of marriage as an institution. According to a recent study, the figures for people getting married in Britain is at its lowest ever since these statistics began to be compiled nearly 150 years ago.

In 2008, only 21.8 per thousand adult men of marriageable age actually took the vow. At 19.6, the figure for women was even lower. And the average age for men getting married for the first time was 32, and for women it was nearly 30.

These figures reveal not so much disillusionment with the institution of marriage, as much as they do a widespread rejection of religion.

Church marriages are still favoured by the middle classes, but more for the pomp and glamour of the wedding dress worn by the bride, and the finery sported by the guests. Indeed, attendance for church services has fallen steadily, and most Brits only go to church for weddings and funerals.

A glance at the European table reveals that the belief in a god is generally quite low in all the major countries.

Sweden, with only 23 per cent of the population believing in a deity, is the least observant, with the UK at 38 per cent. Germany and France are similarly atheistic or agnostic. Interestingly, Catholic countries seem to be more staunchly Christian, with Poles, Spaniards and Italians being among the most fervent of believers.

Indeed, a lack of belief in a supreme being has long been the hallmark of Western intellectual thought since the Enlightenment of the 18th century.

Hence, lawmakers have tried to separate religion form politics, few more so than the Founding Fathers of the United States. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were fiercely agnostic in their views.

Scientists, too, have tended to question the belief system they were born into, as revealed by this quotation from Albert Einstein: “Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Many have condemned modern Western civilization for its ‘godless’ ways, pointing to widespread cohabitation between men and women, men and men, and women and women. Alcoholism, nudity and drug-abuse are also frequently cited.

All these lifestyle choices are mentioned in arguments over the superiority of Eastern religions and societies. Yet the firm belief in religion and an afterlife in our part of the world do not necessarily translate into better societies.

In the Transparency International table for global perceptions of corruption for 2009, there is not a single Muslim country in the twenty most honest states. However, seven Muslim countries figure among the ten most corrupt states.

Interestingly, Sweden, the most godless state in Europe, comes in at joint third with Singapore as the least corrupt country in the world.

There is an argument that corruption is a function of poverty, and once societies have acquired a measure of economic well-being, they tend to become more honest and accountable. While there is some truth to this assertion, how to explain the fact that Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, is listed as 63rd by TI?

And Kuwait comes in at 68. Clearly, then, there is little direct linkage between religion and morality.

Nevertheless, billions around the world continue to believe deeply in the faith they have grown up in. They derive comfort from following the belief system of their forefathers, and most of them have never felt the need to question it.

Indeed, the poor obtain solace for their wretched condition with the promise of compensation in the afterlife. And the rich in our part of the world try and assuage their guilt by giving alms generously, thereby hoping to buy a place in heaven. If only they would pay their taxes with the same zeal, we might be able to make a better world in this life.

In religiously inclined societies like Pakistan, we are fond of criticising Western materialism, while holding up our supposed spirituality as being superior.

Even the millions of Muslims who have chosen to migrate to the West make the same assertion. However, I have not noticed any of these people denying themselves the conveniences and the advantages of these same ‘materialistic’ societies. And frankly, I do not see too much evidence of our vaunted ‘spirituality’ in our behaviour or attitudes.

These differences have been sharpened after 9/11, with more and more people in the West now seeing Islam and Muslims as being behind the rise in extremist violence in much of the world. Muslims, for their part, see themselves as victims of a rising Islamophobia.

Interestingly, the trend towards atheism and agnosticism is far less marked in the United States than in Europe. Well below five per cent of Americans assert they do not believe in any god.

Indeed, some Evangelical Christians in America think they have more in common with Muslims than the ‘godless Europeans’.

One reason it is so difficult for many Muslims to become assimilated into the societies they have chosen to live in is the huge cultural differences they encounter.

Generally coming from deeply conservative backgrounds, they are shocked with the free and easy lifestyle they encounter.

Rather than encouraging their children to integrate, they seek to insulate them from Western values, thus causing a state of mild schizophrenia in second- generation immigrants.

Some of these young people become quickly radicalised, and seek clarity in the black-and-white world of religious extremism.

Unfortunately, too many of them lack the education to realise that ultimately, no set of beliefs or values is inherently inferior or superior to another.

Morality, as we have seen, is not the monopoly of any faith: an atheist can be more ethical than a religious person. At the end of the day, what matters is that humans behave with consideration and decency, and avoid imposing their beliefs on others.