By Rahimullah Yusufzai
It is the fate of the people of our province to have long and hyphenated names. Upon its creation by the British rulers of India in 1901, it was named the North-West Frontier Province having 25 characters, or 26, if one were to include the hyphen. If all goes well and the constitutional reforms package is approved by parliament, as expected, the province will become known as Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. That is 18 letters, or 19, if the second name were spelt “Pakhtoonkhwa.”
As Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is a long name, its abbreviation KP is likely to be commonly used. Besides, those who don’t like “Pakhtunkhwa” would simply call it “Khyber.” The majority in the NWFP, though, would ensure that the usage of Pakhtunkhwa, for which the nationalists have been campaigning all these years, becomes common because it asserts their Pakhtun identity.
Pakhtun ultra-nationalists are angry with the ruling Awami National Party (ANP) for conceding the PML-N’s demand for “Khyber” being prefixed to Pakhtunkhwa and thus diluting a name that was finally going to give an identity to their Pakhtun-majority province. Some Pashto poets and intellectuals are accusing the nationalist ANP of compromising its principled position on the renaming issue and wasting a historic opportunity to give the 109-year old province a proper name. The ANP was also accused of giving up its long-held stance that the NWFP Assembly resolution favouring only “Pakhtunkhwa” be honoured.
Maulana Fazlur Rahman didn’t miss the opportunity to embarrass the ANP and belittle its achievement. The Maulana, whose own party supported “Pakhtunhkwa,” entered the fray by saying the new name had come from “Takht-e-Lahore,” or throne of Lahore, as agreement on “Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa” became possible only after it had been accepted by the PML-N leadership belonging to Punjab.
Like the ANP, the PML-N, which presented the hyphenated new name as a victory vindicating the party’s stance in the renaming issue, also faced criticism from supporters. In particular, in its Hazara stronghold the PML-N is now confronted with a combined challenge by all rival political parties and candidates who were defeated by its nominees in the last general elections or who are hoping to seize this opportunity and win the next polls.
The PML-Q, which was the only party in the parliamentary constitutional reforms committee to oppose “Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa,” insisting on the meaningless name of “Sarhad” for the province, is spearheading the agitation in parts of Hazara. Obviously, the PML-Q has to oppose anything done by the PML-N, but in this case there was an opportunity to snatch Hazara from it, as well as use the renaming issue to seek votes from those opposed to “Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa” elsewhere in the province and in the country.
The PML-N was apparently mistaken if it thought that, because of the “Khyber” prefix, it could sell “Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa” to its electorate in Hazara. While it earned the resentment of Pakhtuns who wanted an undiluted Pakhtun name for their province, it is losing the respect and support of many Hazarawals and other non-Pashto-speaking people in the province for failing to protect their identities.
One is at a loss to understand why the name of a mountain pass was prefixed, because it cannot confer an identity on any ethnic group, and certainly not the people of Hazara. Still, certain PML-N leaders are claiming it as an achievement since “Khyber” will precede “Pakhtunkhwa.” This is a negative approach aimed at political point-scoring, instead of giving an appropriate name to a province where 74 per cent of the population speaks Pashto, and many others are ethnic Pakhtuns who speak Hindko and other languages in place of their original mother tongue.
The PML-N could have insisted on “Afghania” as the new name, which some of its leaders had hinted was acceptable. Afghania was certainly more appropriate than Khyber and was also one of the three names suggested by the ANP, besides Pakhtunkhwa and Pakhtunistan. Though no opinion survey in Hazara or elsewhere has been carried out to find out if Afghania was acceptable, there are reports that many Hazarawals would have preferred it to Khyber and Pakhtunkhwa. As someone pointed out, even Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah didn’t object to Afghania, as he must have known that Chaudhry Rahmat Ali had suggested this name for NWFP when he coined the word “Pakistan” for the new Muslim homeland in India. The ANP had reasons to be happy with the renaming of the province even if it had to accept the addition of Khyber to its preferred name, Pakhtunkhwa.
At the same time, the proposed constitutional amendments will accord all the provinces unprecedented provincial autonomy. In fact, these have been the cherished goals of the ANP, together with the rejection of the Kalabagh Dam project and more recently the battle against religious militancy. The party is hoping to cash in on these achievements in the next general elections. Each election, though, has its own dynamics and the outcome is determined by the situation at that particular time. However, it was felt that the ANP and its government in NWFP overdid its celebrations on the renaming issue. It is possible that this provoked opponents of “Pakhtunkhwa” to mobilise likeminded people and start a movement for a separate Hazara province.
The PPP didn’t arrange any celebrations in the province or elsewhere, despite the fact that its support was crucial in getting the province renamed. In fact, President Asif Ali Zardari ensured that Pakhtunkhwa was part of the new name even if that meant annoying some of his NWFP party leaders. He overruled all opposition in his party to Pakhtunkhwa and almost sealed the name by mentioning it in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly session in New York.
Celebrations by ANP members and supporters were visible, and at times they were spontaneous. But there wasn’t much excitement among ordinary people that their province had been renamed Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Mostly preoccupied by the daily struggle to survive amid the terrorism, insecurity, displacement, inflation and unemployment, ordinary people in many cases have other priorities.
The strongest reaction to “Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa,” as expected, has been in Hazara division, particularly in its headquarters, Abbottabad. There have been some protests in Mansehra, the second-biggest city in Hazara, and Haripur, and apparently none in Battagram, where more than 80 per cent of the population is Pashto-speaking, and in Kohistan, where Kohistani is the dominant language and many people also speak Pashto.
The demand of protestors in Hazara is for provincial status for their region. Even the JUI-F has joined the movement, and so have local leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and other parties. Some PML-N leaders too are being compelled to back the demand for Hazara province in view of the growing support for the idea.
Creation of a new province isn’t going to be a priority in a present-day Pakistan plagued by serious security and economic problems. However, a popular movement cannot be ignored for long. The agitation in Hazara hasn’t reached the stage of a movement and the ruling political parties are hopeful that the protests will subside. Rather than making an effort earlier to seek support for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in Hazara and elsewhere, the ANP-led government in the province is planning to do so now. Already, there have been demands that the net hydel-generation profits the province is receiving from Tarbela Dam should be given to Hazara, where the project is located.
Some serious political work needs to be done to control the damage and keep the province intact by listening to those offended by the name Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. For years the demand for Hazara province had been being championed by fringe political elements, but the bigger parties and known politicians now demanding it cannot be ignored for long.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Minimising nuclear risks
By SYED MUHAMMAD ALI
US expert David Albright’s latest book, Peddling Peril warns that theft of nuclear material by terrorists poses a serious risk to international peace and security.
In order to cope with this challenge there is a need for international cooperation and relocation, where necessary, of nuclear arms storages and watchful care of nuclear technology sources that are spread in well over 40 countries. At their 2002 summit, G-8 leaders committed to spend $20 billion over a decade to secure the weapons of mass destruction in the world. But that effort appears to have lost its way and only $3.5 billion have been spent, said Robert Einhorn, co-author of a CSIS report and former assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB), more than 250 incidents of unauthorised possession and related criminal activities, theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials, and unauthorised disposal of radioactive materials had been reported to the UN till 2008. With 20 of the 28 Indian states ablaze with Naxalites insurgency across the length and breadth of the nuclear-armed India, the Maharashtra police arrested three people for stealing around 5kg of uranium from Mumbai last December. Last November, according to daily Indian Express, an incident of tritium leak took place at the Kaiga Nuclear Plant in Karnataka’s north Kannada district. It left 55 of its employees with radiation poisoning after they drank water from a water cooler in the operation area. Till the last reports, they were still under treatment. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is used in thermo-nuclear weapons.
Coming to Europe one finds that in Georgia, 79.5 grams of 89 percent-enriched uranium was seized in February 2006. The US Department of Energy’s Intelligence office Chief, Rolf Mowatt Larssen, testified before the US Congress in April 2008: “Beyond some basics, we do not know what a terrorist nuclear plot might look like.”
It is unfortunate that Albright’s book, despite the hype that it has received, is not devoid of technical inaccuracies and reflects either a personal bias or a motivated agenda of maligning Pakistan’s nuclear programme. He has expressed the concern that the terrorists are more likely to use an implosion device as compared to a gun-type nuclear weapon. Most nuclear design experts are aware that implosion type nuclear weapon design is extremely sophisticated and requires complete mastery over more than dozen different high-tech and diverse technologies such as theoretical physics, chemical engineering, diagnostics testing, solid-state physics, metallurgy, radioisotopes, geology, enrichment and reprocessing techniques, electrical and mechanical engineering, high-speed electronics, computers, advanced explosives design, machining and manufacturing facilities.
And then, only highly-trained and professional manpower consisting of hundreds of scientists and thousands of technicians working over many years can put together a system, which has been mastered by nine out of 192 UN member states has been in the past seven decades. When even Iraq and Libya despite massive investment could not produce nuclear weapons, makes it extremely improbable for a non-state actor to have the resources to put together a nuclear weapon.
Although terrorism continues to be a major challenge to the stability of this region, its capability should be viewed from an objective and realistic perspective. In this age of Google Earth, independent media and remote sensing satellites, no country can hide its nuclear infrastructure. It is unlikely that the required infrastructure could be hidden by groups like Al-Qaeda in the caves of Afghanistan or the deserts of Yemen. Writers who continue to talk about the possibility of proliferation by Pakistan need to realise that with the employment of strict legal, physical, financial and personnel-based control mechanism that is enviable for even the US Department of Energy, it is simply not likely. The complex and multi-layered safety, security and reliability protocol based systems, which Pakistan has evolved, is being considered worthy of emulation by senior officials of US Department of Energy, the authority charged with the custodial control and maintenance of nuclear weapons.
It is ironic that despite President Barack Obama’s desire for a Nuclear Zero and end of cold war, the fact remains that, the US continues to maintain tons of weapon-grade fissile material stockpiles and most massive and deadly nuclear weapon arsenal in various parts of the world, including Turkey, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, certain parts of Asia and US aircraft carriers afloat in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. According to International Panel on fissile Materials (IPFM), the US declared: “As of May 2009, the United States had 2,126 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads, which meets the limits set by the [2002 Moscow] Treaty for 2012.” In addition, it currently has an estimated 500 non-strategic weapons and more than 6,500 inactive weapons in reserve or awaiting dismantlement, bringing the total US inventory to about 9400 warheads.
But what will really be shocking for most readers is the news that during the past six decades, only the US and Russia have lost at least 92 nuclear weapons in 15 different parts of the world, which still remain unaccounted for. With a safety record like this and availability of a massive nuclear arsenal clearly disproportionate to the current global security architecture and availability of sensitive and dual-use technology and materials in over 40 countries, to raise alarm over the possibility of terrorists choosing only Pakistani nuclear weapons for attacks, is not a convincing argument.
In the forthcoming much talked-about Nuclear Security Summit and Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Pakistan must present a confident and responsible posture, consistent with its commitment to international non-proliferation, its resolve to fight terrorism and desire to pursue international cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy to meet its economic, industrial and domestic requirements. Most importantly, it must express a clear determination not to be browbeaten by those states, whose own nuclear safety record needs major improvement, and which aspire to regional or global hegemony.
US expert David Albright’s latest book, Peddling Peril warns that theft of nuclear material by terrorists poses a serious risk to international peace and security.
In order to cope with this challenge there is a need for international cooperation and relocation, where necessary, of nuclear arms storages and watchful care of nuclear technology sources that are spread in well over 40 countries. At their 2002 summit, G-8 leaders committed to spend $20 billion over a decade to secure the weapons of mass destruction in the world. But that effort appears to have lost its way and only $3.5 billion have been spent, said Robert Einhorn, co-author of a CSIS report and former assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB), more than 250 incidents of unauthorised possession and related criminal activities, theft or loss of nuclear or other radioactive materials, and unauthorised disposal of radioactive materials had been reported to the UN till 2008. With 20 of the 28 Indian states ablaze with Naxalites insurgency across the length and breadth of the nuclear-armed India, the Maharashtra police arrested three people for stealing around 5kg of uranium from Mumbai last December. Last November, according to daily Indian Express, an incident of tritium leak took place at the Kaiga Nuclear Plant in Karnataka’s north Kannada district. It left 55 of its employees with radiation poisoning after they drank water from a water cooler in the operation area. Till the last reports, they were still under treatment. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is used in thermo-nuclear weapons.
Coming to Europe one finds that in Georgia, 79.5 grams of 89 percent-enriched uranium was seized in February 2006. The US Department of Energy’s Intelligence office Chief, Rolf Mowatt Larssen, testified before the US Congress in April 2008: “Beyond some basics, we do not know what a terrorist nuclear plot might look like.”
It is unfortunate that Albright’s book, despite the hype that it has received, is not devoid of technical inaccuracies and reflects either a personal bias or a motivated agenda of maligning Pakistan’s nuclear programme. He has expressed the concern that the terrorists are more likely to use an implosion device as compared to a gun-type nuclear weapon. Most nuclear design experts are aware that implosion type nuclear weapon design is extremely sophisticated and requires complete mastery over more than dozen different high-tech and diverse technologies such as theoretical physics, chemical engineering, diagnostics testing, solid-state physics, metallurgy, radioisotopes, geology, enrichment and reprocessing techniques, electrical and mechanical engineering, high-speed electronics, computers, advanced explosives design, machining and manufacturing facilities.
And then, only highly-trained and professional manpower consisting of hundreds of scientists and thousands of technicians working over many years can put together a system, which has been mastered by nine out of 192 UN member states has been in the past seven decades. When even Iraq and Libya despite massive investment could not produce nuclear weapons, makes it extremely improbable for a non-state actor to have the resources to put together a nuclear weapon.
Although terrorism continues to be a major challenge to the stability of this region, its capability should be viewed from an objective and realistic perspective. In this age of Google Earth, independent media and remote sensing satellites, no country can hide its nuclear infrastructure. It is unlikely that the required infrastructure could be hidden by groups like Al-Qaeda in the caves of Afghanistan or the deserts of Yemen. Writers who continue to talk about the possibility of proliferation by Pakistan need to realise that with the employment of strict legal, physical, financial and personnel-based control mechanism that is enviable for even the US Department of Energy, it is simply not likely. The complex and multi-layered safety, security and reliability protocol based systems, which Pakistan has evolved, is being considered worthy of emulation by senior officials of US Department of Energy, the authority charged with the custodial control and maintenance of nuclear weapons.
It is ironic that despite President Barack Obama’s desire for a Nuclear Zero and end of cold war, the fact remains that, the US continues to maintain tons of weapon-grade fissile material stockpiles and most massive and deadly nuclear weapon arsenal in various parts of the world, including Turkey, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, certain parts of Asia and US aircraft carriers afloat in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. According to International Panel on fissile Materials (IPFM), the US declared: “As of May 2009, the United States had 2,126 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads, which meets the limits set by the [2002 Moscow] Treaty for 2012.” In addition, it currently has an estimated 500 non-strategic weapons and more than 6,500 inactive weapons in reserve or awaiting dismantlement, bringing the total US inventory to about 9400 warheads.
But what will really be shocking for most readers is the news that during the past six decades, only the US and Russia have lost at least 92 nuclear weapons in 15 different parts of the world, which still remain unaccounted for. With a safety record like this and availability of a massive nuclear arsenal clearly disproportionate to the current global security architecture and availability of sensitive and dual-use technology and materials in over 40 countries, to raise alarm over the possibility of terrorists choosing only Pakistani nuclear weapons for attacks, is not a convincing argument.
In the forthcoming much talked-about Nuclear Security Summit and Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Pakistan must present a confident and responsible posture, consistent with its commitment to international non-proliferation, its resolve to fight terrorism and desire to pursue international cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy to meet its economic, industrial and domestic requirements. Most importantly, it must express a clear determination not to be browbeaten by those states, whose own nuclear safety record needs major improvement, and which aspire to regional or global hegemony.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
State, politics and mass media
By Shafqat Mahmood
It is not easy to find heroes among contemporary politicians. Clean image is a rarity and incompetence seems to be a shared trait. The exceptions in this unsavoury milieu stand out like a beacon of light.
Yes, flowery language is being unashamedly used because it requires an iron will to spurn opportunities of corruption in this environment. And keeping one’s sanity or inherent abilities intact in a sea of mediocrity is no joke either.
One person who has done this in style, ever since he entered politics is Senator Raza Rabbani. The much used word “integrity” does not do justice to him. He is truly above the sordid world of wheels and deals and money-making.
He is also immensely gifted: a bright mind, steady determination and great interpersonal skills. It is these qualities that helped him steer the inter-party committee towards a broad constitutional overhaul. As a shepherd of the historic 18th Amendment he is truly a hero.
Accolades also need to be shared around, because every party made a contribution. The PPP as initiator of the process deserves congratulations, as does the PML-N for not only pushing the repeal of the infamous 17th Amendment but also showing flexibility when things got difficult in the end.
The relatively smaller parties, such as the ANP and the MQM, while having reservations on many clauses, still went along in a spirit of national conciliation. They agreed to ground rules that allowed dissent to be recorded, without derailing the process. The historic result is a tribute to the entire political class.
While much mutual praise is in order, the role that mass media has come to play in the process is relatively unrecognised. Nawaz Sharif was probably only reflecting misgivings in his party when he expressed some last-minute reservations. But the media truly took him to task.
The PML-N grandees kept protesting that this was no crisis and issues will soon be resolved. But the media would not let up. The explanations given did not make logical sense to it and seemed bereft of any moral content. This created so much pressure that it literally pushed the PML-N across the finish line in haste.
This is just one example of the context that mass media has created for our governance and politics. It is no longer possible for individuals, institutions or political parties to get away with actions that do not pass the bar of logic and morality.
And there are no consistent heroes either. It is entirely possible for one individual or an institution to get total media support on an issue and then lose it if the context changes. Individual writers and commentators may consistently support a party or an institution, but the media in totality will order its responses according to a given situation.
The mass media reflects mainstream norms of the society. These are in essence based on a code of morality derived from religion, culture and history. Some parts of this value code are obvious: family and country are revered and democracy is good. Corruption, cheating and lying is bad.
Similarly, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and military are valued, but any transgression of authority beyond the prescribed mandate is not tolerated. Leaders are to be respected because they represent the people but pursuit of individual or political interest without an ethical content is not acceptable.
It is this value structure that has subliminally become a framework for mass-media responses. Institutions and individuals in the public eye understand this and try to cover, or spin, their actions to fit this code of morality. Those that do not, suffer a media backlash.
There is no better example of this than the perceptions regarding Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the judiciary. On March 9, 2007, Mr Chaudhry became a media and public hero. This happened because of the perception that Musharraf dismissed him illegally and then mistreated him and his family.
Thus began the lawyers’ and people’s campaign for an independent judiciary. This was not individual adulation, although it seemed so. The chief justice symbolised society’s protest against a wrong done. And the lawyers who were in the forefront of the struggle were champions of liberty and freedom.
Fast-forward to 2010. There are increasing voices in the media that the superior judiciary is transgressing its mandate and at times behaving like a political institution. By frequently visiting the bars, it seems to be cultivating lawyers and often senior advocates and bar officeholders speak on its behalf.
Serious transgressions by lawyers are also ignored. For a lawyer to slap a judge and for the superior judiciary to arrange a rapprochement is just not right. This man should have been behind bars.
But congratulatory sounds emanating from all levels of the judiciary indicate as if a great conclusion to the crisis has been arrived at. Earlier, too, the judiciary had ignored lawyers beating up policemen and media representatives.
This is not about the NRO or Asif Zardari. The media welcomed the NRO, and Asif Zardari does not pass the bar of morality as far as society is concerned. The problem is that the PPP’s charge of one-sided accountability is beginning to get resonance. And the language and attitude being shown in open court by the judges is creating a backlash.
Enough about the judiciary. A few words about another national institution, the military. Musharraf had brought the image of the army down because in the eyes of the media and the public his actions did not pass the bar of morality. Gen Kayani has resurrected this by daring campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan and by staying away from political wrangles.
The sacrifices given by officers and men in this war against militancy have evoked deep appreciation among the society and the mass media. It is therefore unfortunate when an incident like the Rangers kidnapping a police official happens.
Policemen are often rude and poorly trained. There is little doubt that this constable would have misbehaved. But the Rangers’ hierarchy should have lodged a complaint. The law of the land does not permit a paramilitary organisation to detain anyone, let alone law enforcement officials.
The reaction in the media was thus not unexpected. None of the explanations coming forth from the Rangers were either logical or based on any moral code. This is the key. In the age of the mass media all actions have to be justified. They have to appeal to logic and to the ingrained moral code of the society.
Of course, this does not mean that the media itself is above any code. There always has been serious criticism of individuals and institutions in the media that go beyond what is acceptable by the society. The moves by the electronic media to regulate itself have come about because of such a pressure.
As our democracy matures, every institution will find adjustment within a framework of social morality. Until such time, everyone in the public eye will have to watch each step taken, carefully.
It is not easy to find heroes among contemporary politicians. Clean image is a rarity and incompetence seems to be a shared trait. The exceptions in this unsavoury milieu stand out like a beacon of light.
Yes, flowery language is being unashamedly used because it requires an iron will to spurn opportunities of corruption in this environment. And keeping one’s sanity or inherent abilities intact in a sea of mediocrity is no joke either.
One person who has done this in style, ever since he entered politics is Senator Raza Rabbani. The much used word “integrity” does not do justice to him. He is truly above the sordid world of wheels and deals and money-making.
He is also immensely gifted: a bright mind, steady determination and great interpersonal skills. It is these qualities that helped him steer the inter-party committee towards a broad constitutional overhaul. As a shepherd of the historic 18th Amendment he is truly a hero.
Accolades also need to be shared around, because every party made a contribution. The PPP as initiator of the process deserves congratulations, as does the PML-N for not only pushing the repeal of the infamous 17th Amendment but also showing flexibility when things got difficult in the end.
The relatively smaller parties, such as the ANP and the MQM, while having reservations on many clauses, still went along in a spirit of national conciliation. They agreed to ground rules that allowed dissent to be recorded, without derailing the process. The historic result is a tribute to the entire political class.
While much mutual praise is in order, the role that mass media has come to play in the process is relatively unrecognised. Nawaz Sharif was probably only reflecting misgivings in his party when he expressed some last-minute reservations. But the media truly took him to task.
The PML-N grandees kept protesting that this was no crisis and issues will soon be resolved. But the media would not let up. The explanations given did not make logical sense to it and seemed bereft of any moral content. This created so much pressure that it literally pushed the PML-N across the finish line in haste.
This is just one example of the context that mass media has created for our governance and politics. It is no longer possible for individuals, institutions or political parties to get away with actions that do not pass the bar of logic and morality.
And there are no consistent heroes either. It is entirely possible for one individual or an institution to get total media support on an issue and then lose it if the context changes. Individual writers and commentators may consistently support a party or an institution, but the media in totality will order its responses according to a given situation.
The mass media reflects mainstream norms of the society. These are in essence based on a code of morality derived from religion, culture and history. Some parts of this value code are obvious: family and country are revered and democracy is good. Corruption, cheating and lying is bad.
Similarly, institutions such as parliament, judiciary, and military are valued, but any transgression of authority beyond the prescribed mandate is not tolerated. Leaders are to be respected because they represent the people but pursuit of individual or political interest without an ethical content is not acceptable.
It is this value structure that has subliminally become a framework for mass-media responses. Institutions and individuals in the public eye understand this and try to cover, or spin, their actions to fit this code of morality. Those that do not, suffer a media backlash.
There is no better example of this than the perceptions regarding Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the judiciary. On March 9, 2007, Mr Chaudhry became a media and public hero. This happened because of the perception that Musharraf dismissed him illegally and then mistreated him and his family.
Thus began the lawyers’ and people’s campaign for an independent judiciary. This was not individual adulation, although it seemed so. The chief justice symbolised society’s protest against a wrong done. And the lawyers who were in the forefront of the struggle were champions of liberty and freedom.
Fast-forward to 2010. There are increasing voices in the media that the superior judiciary is transgressing its mandate and at times behaving like a political institution. By frequently visiting the bars, it seems to be cultivating lawyers and often senior advocates and bar officeholders speak on its behalf.
Serious transgressions by lawyers are also ignored. For a lawyer to slap a judge and for the superior judiciary to arrange a rapprochement is just not right. This man should have been behind bars.
But congratulatory sounds emanating from all levels of the judiciary indicate as if a great conclusion to the crisis has been arrived at. Earlier, too, the judiciary had ignored lawyers beating up policemen and media representatives.
This is not about the NRO or Asif Zardari. The media welcomed the NRO, and Asif Zardari does not pass the bar of morality as far as society is concerned. The problem is that the PPP’s charge of one-sided accountability is beginning to get resonance. And the language and attitude being shown in open court by the judges is creating a backlash.
Enough about the judiciary. A few words about another national institution, the military. Musharraf had brought the image of the army down because in the eyes of the media and the public his actions did not pass the bar of morality. Gen Kayani has resurrected this by daring campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan and by staying away from political wrangles.
The sacrifices given by officers and men in this war against militancy have evoked deep appreciation among the society and the mass media. It is therefore unfortunate when an incident like the Rangers kidnapping a police official happens.
Policemen are often rude and poorly trained. There is little doubt that this constable would have misbehaved. But the Rangers’ hierarchy should have lodged a complaint. The law of the land does not permit a paramilitary organisation to detain anyone, let alone law enforcement officials.
The reaction in the media was thus not unexpected. None of the explanations coming forth from the Rangers were either logical or based on any moral code. This is the key. In the age of the mass media all actions have to be justified. They have to appeal to logic and to the ingrained moral code of the society.
Of course, this does not mean that the media itself is above any code. There always has been serious criticism of individuals and institutions in the media that go beyond what is acceptable by the society. The moves by the electronic media to regulate itself have come about because of such a pressure.
As our democracy matures, every institution will find adjustment within a framework of social morality. Until such time, everyone in the public eye will have to watch each step taken, carefully.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The case for Pakhtunkhwa
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
The debate on renaming the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is serious business because it concerns the identity of its people and their place in the federation of Pakistan. However, the direction it has taken is sometimes comical, and at best uninformed and politicised. Coining a new name for the province has become a favourite pastime for many people and, surprisingly, even those not belonging to it appear keen to select, if not impose, a name of their own choices.
Names such as Neelab, Nuristan and Darul Islam have been proposed for NWFP. People with fertile imaginations and unconcerned that the issue was to provide identity to its majority Pakhtun population came up with still more bizarre names that don’t even deserve to be discussed. Abaseen and Khyber were pushed into the limelight after receiving backing from the PML-N and PML-Q. Abaseen is a name used for River Indus that runs not just through the NWFP but also Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab and Sindh, while Khyber is the name of a mountain pass that links Afghanistan with Pakistan.
Khyber Pass is the most famous of them, but we also have the Gomal, Tochi, Khojak, Nawa and other passes that connect the two countries. Naming educational institutions, banks and other institutions after Khyber has been a popular option because it is non-controversial and possibly also for want of more suitable names. But neither Abaseen nor Khyber could confer the identity that most people in NWFP seek in demanding the renaming of their province.
Lately, compound names have been proposed for NWFP as a compromise to overcome the deadlock between the two major parties to the dispute, the Awami National Party (ANP) and the PML-N. Hyphenation to “Pakhtunkhwa” of names including “Abaseen,” “Khyber,” “Hazara” and “Afghania” have been suggested as a way out of the stalemate. But not only will this make the new name long, but there will be no end to demands by other parts of NWFP, including Dera Ismail Khan and Chitral, seeking the addition of the names of the own regions. Certain politicians from Dera Ismail Khan even suggested “Pakhtunkhwa-Dera-Hazara.” One didn’t hear Gandhara, the old Buddhist-era name of the Frontier, as a possible new name, or part of a compound name. Gandhara is certainly better in the historical context than, say, Khyber and Abaseen.
It is understandable if politicians with an eye to their respective vote banks adopt unreasonable attitudes on the issue. But it is disappointing if respected people such as Air Marshal (r) M Asghar Khan and retired civil servant Kunwar Idris don’t check their facts before commenting on the question. Writing in a newspaper on March 28, Asghar Khan commented that “in a province in which the Pakhtuns are a little over half its population, insisting on renaming it Pakhtunkhwa could prove a divisive one.” He also proposed Sarhad, which means “border” and is already used in reference to the province in Urdu, as the new name. In the same paper, Dawn, the same day, Kunwar Idris wrote that “most Punjabi- and Hindko-speaking inhabitants of the province (who, perhaps, outnumber the Pashto speakers)…” He also said that Pakhtunkhwa would carry a ring of Pakhtunistan for the devout Muslim Leaguers opposed to the ANP, which is spearheading the campaign for the name Pakhtunkhwa.
For the information of Asghar Khan, Kunwar Idris and others, the 1998 census showed that 73.9 per cent of NWFP’s population spoke Pashto, 3.86 per cent, largely in Dera Ismail Khan, spoke Saraiki, 0.97 per cent Punjabi, 0.78 per cent Urdu, 0.04 per cent Sindhi and 0.01 per cent Balochi. A significant 20.43 per cent people listed in the “Others” column obviously included speakers of Hindko (believed to around 18 per cent), Chitrali, Gojri and other languages. The next population census must have separate columns for Hindko and the other languages to avoid future controversies.
73.9 per cent Pakhtuns in the census mentioned Pashto as their mother tongue, though there are many others in Dera Ismail Khan, including the Jadoons, Tarins, Mashwanis and Swatis in Hazara region and Miankhels, Gandapurs and Kundis, who are Pakhtuns but have forgotten Pashto. Challenge them that they aren’t Pakhtun, and there is a chance they might come to blows with you.
The census figures for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), which are geographically and politically part of NWFP, are even more revealing in terms of the Pakhtun identity of the population. In 1998 an overwhelming 99.1 per cent of the 3.176 million population of Fata, to which the change of name will also apply, declared Pashto as their mother tongue. Even though the tribal areas have a largely separate administrative setup, it is headed by the governor of NWFP. If the Fata figures are added to those of the settled areas or districts falling under NWFP, the percentage of Pakhtuns and Pashto-speakers will rise even further.
In opposing the renaming of the province to Pakhtunkhwa, the two Muslim League factions led by Mian Nawaz Sharif and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain are driven by the fear of losing votes in certain non-Pashto-speaking areas. These are the only two significant political parties represented in parliament that object to the name Pakhtunkhwa. The Jamaat-e-Islami and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — lacking representation in the parliament after unwisely boycotting the 2008 general elections and now keen to contest every by-election to get back into the assemblies — also have reservations about Pakhtunkhwa and would likely support a provincial referendum on the issue. Almost all other political parties support Pakhtunkhwa, or in case of a stalemate, the alternative names Pakhtunistan and Afghania.
If democratic norms are to be followed, then the wishes of the majority need to be respected in the renaming. The NWFP Assembly, reflecting the will of the people, a passed resolution in favour of Pakhtunkhwa by majority vote in November 1997, with only the Saifullah brothers, Salim and Humayun, opposing it, and lawmakers from the PML-N, which was then a coalition partner of the ANP in NWFP, abstaining from the vote.
Abstention isn’t opposition and the decision not to oppose the resolution was taken to save the coalition government from collapsing. Politics rather than principles was behind this decision by the then PML-affiliated chief minister Sardar Mahtab Ahmad Khan, Pir Sabir Shah and other Hazara politicians now in the forefront of opposition to Pakhtunkhwa. It is intriguing that the PML-N, according to Pir Sabir Shah, was willing to accept Afghania as the new name for NWFP. Though the ANP leadership too appears ready to agree to Afghania, it is difficult to understand how this name would protect the identity of non-Pakhtuns in Hazara or elsewhere who believe Pakhtunkhwa would wipe out their identity. Abaseen, Khyber and other names too cannot give an identity to the non-Pakhtun populations, but they would certainly deprive the majority Pakhtuns of their identity.
The argument against Pakhtunkhwa that it is ethnic-based is neutralised by the fact that all other provinces in Pakistan carry names that identify the majority ethnic groups living there. Even if Punjab is named after its five rivers or Sindh after the River Indus, the majority populations in the two provinces have come to be known as Punjabis and Sindhis. Balochistan is obviously named after the Baloch, the majority ethnic group in the province along with their Brahvi cousins.
Controversies would erupt if Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan were to be renamed today. The number of Saraiki-speakers in Punjab are 17.36 per cent of its population, compared to 75.23 Punjabis; in Sindh only 59.73 per cent of the population speaks Sindhi, while 21.05 per cent speaks Urdu; 6.99 per cent speak Punjabi and 4.19 per cent Pashto; in Balochistan, not more than 54.76 per cent of the population name Balochi as their mother tongue, compared to 29.64 per cent naming Pashto, 5.58 per cent Sindhi, 2.52 per cent Punjabi, and 2.42 per cent Saraiki. In fact, Pashto-speakers in NWFP and Fata form the largest group of a single ethnicity in any province in Pakistan.
Ignoring the aspirations of the Pakhtun people (15.42 per cent), who form the second-largest ethnic group in Pakistan after Punjabis (44.15 per cent) and refusing to provide them an identity in the renaming of their province, would be both undemocratic and unjust.
The debate on renaming the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is serious business because it concerns the identity of its people and their place in the federation of Pakistan. However, the direction it has taken is sometimes comical, and at best uninformed and politicised. Coining a new name for the province has become a favourite pastime for many people and, surprisingly, even those not belonging to it appear keen to select, if not impose, a name of their own choices.
Names such as Neelab, Nuristan and Darul Islam have been proposed for NWFP. People with fertile imaginations and unconcerned that the issue was to provide identity to its majority Pakhtun population came up with still more bizarre names that don’t even deserve to be discussed. Abaseen and Khyber were pushed into the limelight after receiving backing from the PML-N and PML-Q. Abaseen is a name used for River Indus that runs not just through the NWFP but also Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab and Sindh, while Khyber is the name of a mountain pass that links Afghanistan with Pakistan.
Khyber Pass is the most famous of them, but we also have the Gomal, Tochi, Khojak, Nawa and other passes that connect the two countries. Naming educational institutions, banks and other institutions after Khyber has been a popular option because it is non-controversial and possibly also for want of more suitable names. But neither Abaseen nor Khyber could confer the identity that most people in NWFP seek in demanding the renaming of their province.
Lately, compound names have been proposed for NWFP as a compromise to overcome the deadlock between the two major parties to the dispute, the Awami National Party (ANP) and the PML-N. Hyphenation to “Pakhtunkhwa” of names including “Abaseen,” “Khyber,” “Hazara” and “Afghania” have been suggested as a way out of the stalemate. But not only will this make the new name long, but there will be no end to demands by other parts of NWFP, including Dera Ismail Khan and Chitral, seeking the addition of the names of the own regions. Certain politicians from Dera Ismail Khan even suggested “Pakhtunkhwa-Dera-Hazara.” One didn’t hear Gandhara, the old Buddhist-era name of the Frontier, as a possible new name, or part of a compound name. Gandhara is certainly better in the historical context than, say, Khyber and Abaseen.
It is understandable if politicians with an eye to their respective vote banks adopt unreasonable attitudes on the issue. But it is disappointing if respected people such as Air Marshal (r) M Asghar Khan and retired civil servant Kunwar Idris don’t check their facts before commenting on the question. Writing in a newspaper on March 28, Asghar Khan commented that “in a province in which the Pakhtuns are a little over half its population, insisting on renaming it Pakhtunkhwa could prove a divisive one.” He also proposed Sarhad, which means “border” and is already used in reference to the province in Urdu, as the new name. In the same paper, Dawn, the same day, Kunwar Idris wrote that “most Punjabi- and Hindko-speaking inhabitants of the province (who, perhaps, outnumber the Pashto speakers)…” He also said that Pakhtunkhwa would carry a ring of Pakhtunistan for the devout Muslim Leaguers opposed to the ANP, which is spearheading the campaign for the name Pakhtunkhwa.
For the information of Asghar Khan, Kunwar Idris and others, the 1998 census showed that 73.9 per cent of NWFP’s population spoke Pashto, 3.86 per cent, largely in Dera Ismail Khan, spoke Saraiki, 0.97 per cent Punjabi, 0.78 per cent Urdu, 0.04 per cent Sindhi and 0.01 per cent Balochi. A significant 20.43 per cent people listed in the “Others” column obviously included speakers of Hindko (believed to around 18 per cent), Chitrali, Gojri and other languages. The next population census must have separate columns for Hindko and the other languages to avoid future controversies.
73.9 per cent Pakhtuns in the census mentioned Pashto as their mother tongue, though there are many others in Dera Ismail Khan, including the Jadoons, Tarins, Mashwanis and Swatis in Hazara region and Miankhels, Gandapurs and Kundis, who are Pakhtuns but have forgotten Pashto. Challenge them that they aren’t Pakhtun, and there is a chance they might come to blows with you.
The census figures for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), which are geographically and politically part of NWFP, are even more revealing in terms of the Pakhtun identity of the population. In 1998 an overwhelming 99.1 per cent of the 3.176 million population of Fata, to which the change of name will also apply, declared Pashto as their mother tongue. Even though the tribal areas have a largely separate administrative setup, it is headed by the governor of NWFP. If the Fata figures are added to those of the settled areas or districts falling under NWFP, the percentage of Pakhtuns and Pashto-speakers will rise even further.
In opposing the renaming of the province to Pakhtunkhwa, the two Muslim League factions led by Mian Nawaz Sharif and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain are driven by the fear of losing votes in certain non-Pashto-speaking areas. These are the only two significant political parties represented in parliament that object to the name Pakhtunkhwa. The Jamaat-e-Islami and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — lacking representation in the parliament after unwisely boycotting the 2008 general elections and now keen to contest every by-election to get back into the assemblies — also have reservations about Pakhtunkhwa and would likely support a provincial referendum on the issue. Almost all other political parties support Pakhtunkhwa, or in case of a stalemate, the alternative names Pakhtunistan and Afghania.
If democratic norms are to be followed, then the wishes of the majority need to be respected in the renaming. The NWFP Assembly, reflecting the will of the people, a passed resolution in favour of Pakhtunkhwa by majority vote in November 1997, with only the Saifullah brothers, Salim and Humayun, opposing it, and lawmakers from the PML-N, which was then a coalition partner of the ANP in NWFP, abstaining from the vote.
Abstention isn’t opposition and the decision not to oppose the resolution was taken to save the coalition government from collapsing. Politics rather than principles was behind this decision by the then PML-affiliated chief minister Sardar Mahtab Ahmad Khan, Pir Sabir Shah and other Hazara politicians now in the forefront of opposition to Pakhtunkhwa. It is intriguing that the PML-N, according to Pir Sabir Shah, was willing to accept Afghania as the new name for NWFP. Though the ANP leadership too appears ready to agree to Afghania, it is difficult to understand how this name would protect the identity of non-Pakhtuns in Hazara or elsewhere who believe Pakhtunkhwa would wipe out their identity. Abaseen, Khyber and other names too cannot give an identity to the non-Pakhtun populations, but they would certainly deprive the majority Pakhtuns of their identity.
The argument against Pakhtunkhwa that it is ethnic-based is neutralised by the fact that all other provinces in Pakistan carry names that identify the majority ethnic groups living there. Even if Punjab is named after its five rivers or Sindh after the River Indus, the majority populations in the two provinces have come to be known as Punjabis and Sindhis. Balochistan is obviously named after the Baloch, the majority ethnic group in the province along with their Brahvi cousins.
Controversies would erupt if Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan were to be renamed today. The number of Saraiki-speakers in Punjab are 17.36 per cent of its population, compared to 75.23 Punjabis; in Sindh only 59.73 per cent of the population speaks Sindhi, while 21.05 per cent speaks Urdu; 6.99 per cent speak Punjabi and 4.19 per cent Pashto; in Balochistan, not more than 54.76 per cent of the population name Balochi as their mother tongue, compared to 29.64 per cent naming Pashto, 5.58 per cent Sindhi, 2.52 per cent Punjabi, and 2.42 per cent Saraiki. In fact, Pashto-speakers in NWFP and Fata form the largest group of a single ethnicity in any province in Pakistan.
Ignoring the aspirations of the Pakhtun people (15.42 per cent), who form the second-largest ethnic group in Pakistan after Punjabis (44.15 per cent) and refusing to provide them an identity in the renaming of their province, would be both undemocratic and unjust.
We must never forget Ziaul Haq
By Kamran Shafi
We are told that Ziaul Haq, yes the very same Ziaul Haq at whose door the responsibility of unleashing the demons responsible for most of our present travails can and should be placed, is to be excised from the nation’s history by his name being struck off the list of Pakistani presidents.
One has to immediately ask if this act will also take away the spectre of religious extremism that the man gave birth to and nurtured until it became a scourge that we Pakistanis have to face every moment of our lives; or that the baradari (clan) politics he (re-)introduced will simply go away; or that it will automatically rid the country of his horrendous Hudood Ordinances under which tens of poor women have been horribly violated and hundreds of our minority brothers and sisters have been murdered and tortured and jailed?
No, a thousand times no. Instead of removing his name from the squalid history of our poor country, Ziaul Haq’s name must be kept alive so that succeeding generations are reminded of the tyrant and his doings that so completely destroyed Pakistan and its social fabric.
Statues of the dictator, resplendent in his general’s uniform gongs, ribbons, medals, sashes, toshdans and all, should be raised in all the major cities of Pakistan with his crimes against the people inscribed in large letters on marble plaques at the base of the statues.
Rather than forgetting the man, the government should periodically run paid advertisements in the newspapers and on television stations enumerating his acts that have brought the country to near ruin.
Indeed, these ads could be run immediately after another heartrending bombing carried out by the religious terrorists who can rightly be called ‘Zia’s grandchildren’; bombings that kill and maim and terrorise even women and children. No, friends, we must never forget the dictator and what he did to us.
On to other matters; first to the NRO. Enough already, as the Americans say. I was absolutely against the NRO when it was first mooted as a way that would facilitate Benazir’s return to the country, as also the return of others from her party who had been charged with wrongdoing by Musharraf’s dictatorship.
It was akin to throwing the dictator a lifeline I thought, when he was weakened by the lawyers movement against the dismissal of the superior judiciary. In hindsight I was wrong: if there hadn’t been an NRO, Musharraf would still have been sitting at the top of the heap; the political parties would still have been out in the cold, and let alone being restored, the judges would still have been under house arrest.
No NRO, no giving up his uniform (his ‘second skin’, remember?), no political parties; no political parties, no elections; no elections, no parliament; no parliament, no political manoeuvring; no political manoeuvring, no long march; no long march, no restoration of judges, and so on and on and on.
Seriously, does anyone think that Musharraf could have been dislodged by the lawyers backed by a handful of ‘civil society’? On deep reflection, I think not. So, enough already on the NRO. The point has been made that it was a bad law: can we just let go of it now; give elected people the chance to complete their terms and the people the chance to vote them out in the next election? As I have said before, if this government does not complete its term, neither will the next.
And another thing. Will everyone stop hounding the so-called ‘NRO beneficiaries’? Everyone and Charlie’s Aunt knows that in most cases trumped-up charges were made against their detractors by successive Pakistani governments, dictatorships and others.
However, if those who are demanding action now that the NRO has been declared null and void feel they must go on regardless, it is their moral duty to also demand that the armed forces and the judiciary be made accountable under the same accountability laws too. Let us have no holy cows.
Enough already on the Kerry-Lugar Bill, now law, too. Look at it this way: since the army high command which started it all (‘furious’ was a term used to describe the feelings of the brass hats), has just been to Washington D.C. and sued (as in beg for something) for this and that and the other, is it not time that others who thought that the Kerry-Lugar law took away Pakistan’s ‘sovereignty’ stopped criticising it? It is a perfectly worded law, may it live long.
A word on the judicial crisis. The slapping of a senior civil judge (in court, mark) by a lawyer in Faisalabad, and before that the thrashing of journalists and police officials by other lawyers in the Lahore courts, should make it very clear to My Lords of the superior judiciary that the sense of conquering all before them is turning very ugly indeed.
It ought to be realised that lawyers are not storm-troopers, ready to attack all comers, even judges sitting on the bench, at the slightest provocation. This will not happen unless it is realised that lawyers, as also the judiciary, are mortal too, that they are not all-powerful. And this will not happen unless the judiciary sets parameters for itself and says clearly that there are matters of governance that should be left to the elected parliament and the government that comes from parliament.
The judiciary should look back and see the trials and tribulations it has come through, the many ups and downs it has seen, mainly downs. It should look back and see the many episodes that did not exactly paint it in a kindly light, more than anything else the judicial murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto at the behest of the man we must never forget.
It needs to understand more than anything else that it was only a civilian dispensation that gave it back the freedom so cruelly taken from it by an army dictator. The very best start to this will be My Lord the Chief Justice immediately recusing himself and his office from any committee set up to appoint judges. If he sends the message that parliament, which embodies the peoples will is supreme, he will go down in history as a truly great man.
We are told that Ziaul Haq, yes the very same Ziaul Haq at whose door the responsibility of unleashing the demons responsible for most of our present travails can and should be placed, is to be excised from the nation’s history by his name being struck off the list of Pakistani presidents.
One has to immediately ask if this act will also take away the spectre of religious extremism that the man gave birth to and nurtured until it became a scourge that we Pakistanis have to face every moment of our lives; or that the baradari (clan) politics he (re-)introduced will simply go away; or that it will automatically rid the country of his horrendous Hudood Ordinances under which tens of poor women have been horribly violated and hundreds of our minority brothers and sisters have been murdered and tortured and jailed?
No, a thousand times no. Instead of removing his name from the squalid history of our poor country, Ziaul Haq’s name must be kept alive so that succeeding generations are reminded of the tyrant and his doings that so completely destroyed Pakistan and its social fabric.
Statues of the dictator, resplendent in his general’s uniform gongs, ribbons, medals, sashes, toshdans and all, should be raised in all the major cities of Pakistan with his crimes against the people inscribed in large letters on marble plaques at the base of the statues.
Rather than forgetting the man, the government should periodically run paid advertisements in the newspapers and on television stations enumerating his acts that have brought the country to near ruin.
Indeed, these ads could be run immediately after another heartrending bombing carried out by the religious terrorists who can rightly be called ‘Zia’s grandchildren’; bombings that kill and maim and terrorise even women and children. No, friends, we must never forget the dictator and what he did to us.
On to other matters; first to the NRO. Enough already, as the Americans say. I was absolutely against the NRO when it was first mooted as a way that would facilitate Benazir’s return to the country, as also the return of others from her party who had been charged with wrongdoing by Musharraf’s dictatorship.
It was akin to throwing the dictator a lifeline I thought, when he was weakened by the lawyers movement against the dismissal of the superior judiciary. In hindsight I was wrong: if there hadn’t been an NRO, Musharraf would still have been sitting at the top of the heap; the political parties would still have been out in the cold, and let alone being restored, the judges would still have been under house arrest.
No NRO, no giving up his uniform (his ‘second skin’, remember?), no political parties; no political parties, no elections; no elections, no parliament; no parliament, no political manoeuvring; no political manoeuvring, no long march; no long march, no restoration of judges, and so on and on and on.
Seriously, does anyone think that Musharraf could have been dislodged by the lawyers backed by a handful of ‘civil society’? On deep reflection, I think not. So, enough already on the NRO. The point has been made that it was a bad law: can we just let go of it now; give elected people the chance to complete their terms and the people the chance to vote them out in the next election? As I have said before, if this government does not complete its term, neither will the next.
And another thing. Will everyone stop hounding the so-called ‘NRO beneficiaries’? Everyone and Charlie’s Aunt knows that in most cases trumped-up charges were made against their detractors by successive Pakistani governments, dictatorships and others.
However, if those who are demanding action now that the NRO has been declared null and void feel they must go on regardless, it is their moral duty to also demand that the armed forces and the judiciary be made accountable under the same accountability laws too. Let us have no holy cows.
Enough already on the Kerry-Lugar Bill, now law, too. Look at it this way: since the army high command which started it all (‘furious’ was a term used to describe the feelings of the brass hats), has just been to Washington D.C. and sued (as in beg for something) for this and that and the other, is it not time that others who thought that the Kerry-Lugar law took away Pakistan’s ‘sovereignty’ stopped criticising it? It is a perfectly worded law, may it live long.
A word on the judicial crisis. The slapping of a senior civil judge (in court, mark) by a lawyer in Faisalabad, and before that the thrashing of journalists and police officials by other lawyers in the Lahore courts, should make it very clear to My Lords of the superior judiciary that the sense of conquering all before them is turning very ugly indeed.
It ought to be realised that lawyers are not storm-troopers, ready to attack all comers, even judges sitting on the bench, at the slightest provocation. This will not happen unless it is realised that lawyers, as also the judiciary, are mortal too, that they are not all-powerful. And this will not happen unless the judiciary sets parameters for itself and says clearly that there are matters of governance that should be left to the elected parliament and the government that comes from parliament.
The judiciary should look back and see the trials and tribulations it has come through, the many ups and downs it has seen, mainly downs. It should look back and see the many episodes that did not exactly paint it in a kindly light, more than anything else the judicial murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto at the behest of the man we must never forget.
It needs to understand more than anything else that it was only a civilian dispensation that gave it back the freedom so cruelly taken from it by an army dictator. The very best start to this will be My Lord the Chief Justice immediately recusing himself and his office from any committee set up to appoint judges. If he sends the message that parliament, which embodies the peoples will is supreme, he will go down in history as a truly great man.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Brave new world or the past revisited?
By Ayaz Amir
If there’s a cross on which Pakistan has found itself frequently crucified, it is the one carrying the legend ’strategic’. What follies have we not committed in the pursuit of strategic goals? Even our present preoccupation with terrorism is a product of our strategic labours in times past (hopefully, never to return).
So when a fresh batch of graduates out of higher strategy school speak of a ’strategic dialogue’ with the United States — our principal ally and, often, the cause of our biggest headaches — there is reason to be wary.
We have been here before, travelled down this route many times, our obsessive insecurity driving us time and again into American arms, each time to be left high and dry when the initial enthusiasm, or necessity, had passed. But we never seem to learn and each time begin our quest for the holy grail — of permanence in our American connection — as if there were never any heartbreaks before.
Barely six months ago the US viewed Pakistan through sceptical, even distrustful, eyes. The army had yet to go into South Waziristan and the phrase Quetta Shura was on the lips of every half-baked security analyst across the Atlantic. South Waziristan, the unspoken acceptance of drone strikes and greater cooperation with the CIA in nabbing shadowy Taliban figures in Pakistan changed all this. American faces now light up at the mention of Pakistan, no smile more beaming than on the face of Gen David Petraeus.
As part of this mood swing, the Americans have taken to lionizing Pakistan’s army commander, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, who is very much the flavour of the moment, just as — frightening thought — Pervez Musharraf was once upon a time. It is sobering to remember that when Musharraf signed on with the US post-Sept 11, conceding far more than anyone in the Bush administration was expecting, no leader on earth was more feted than him.
So we should try and keep things in perspective. The Americans may be gushing over us now but that’s only because we are crucial, perhaps indispensable, for the success of their mission in Afghanistan. Or even for a face-saving exit from that quagmire. There are two fronts to this war, the one in Pakistan being by far the most important.
The ’strategic dialogue’ is thus not pegged to any abstract love for Pakistan. It arises from the grim necessity of the war in Afghanistan. We should be under no illusions about the window of opportunity that this dialogue offers. This window will remain open and serviceable only up to the moment when the Americans begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. To assume otherwise, and give way to misplaced euphoria — something at which we are rather good — is to court the ways of folly and set ourselves up for another ‘betrayal’ at American hands.
The wish-list Pakistan has carried to Washington has Kayani’s thumbprint all over it. It has not been lost on anyone that in the driving seat as far as our delegation is concerned sits not the foreign minister or anyone else but him. It would also not have been lost on anyone that the brief prepared by our side for the talks was put together not in the prime minister’s office or anywhere else but in General Headquarters, with key federal secretaries in attendance and Kayani, not the prime minister, presiding.
Kayani is a smart man, very articulate and extremely good at putting his point of view across (his presentation at Nato Hqs in Brussels has been widely talked about). But what is this we are hearing about the shopping list prepared under his aegis? Which world are we living in? Which planet does GHQ still inhabit?
We have just a year and a half, not eternity, to get what we want from the US. It behoves us ill to ask the US to help restart our composite dialogue with India. If India is playing hard-to-get on this count, we should be able to keep our cool and wait for India’s attitude to change. Even if the composite dialogue doesn’t get going for the next two years, the glaciers will not melt and the Himalayas will not march down to the seas.
We should be mature enough to understand a few things clearly. America is not going to ask India to talk Kashmir with us. It is not going to solve our water problems with India. It is not going to give us the kind of nuclear deal it has concluded with India.
To go by the hype generated in official quarters, it almost appeared as if we were expecting a string of nuclear power plants from the US. And what happens? Hillary Clinton announces a gift of 125 million dollars to set up thermal power plants. A colder splash of water on the fires of our misplaced ardour could not have been poured. What Burke said of England in the context of America’s war of independence: “Light lie the dust on the ashes of English pride” — we can use to define our predicament: light lie the dust on the embers of our strategic relationship.
Sooner or later we will have to discover the reasons for this talent for selling ourselves cheap. We have always behaved thus in our dealings with the US, assuming obligations unthinkingly, never asking for the right price and then moaning about betrayal and the like when the Americans, taking us at our word, leave us with very little.
Mobarak got Egypt’s American debt (7 billion dollars, and this was in 1991) written off when he joined America’s first Gulf war. The Turks asked for 25 billion dollars to allow American troops territorial passage prior to the Iraq war in 2003. That the US refused is beside the point. The Turks did not allow themselves to be taken for granted. We settle for peanuts and call it a ’strategic relationship’.
Kayani, as I have said, is a smart man. But there is too much of India and Afghanistan in his world-view. More than with the US, we need to be conducting a strategic dialogue with ourselves. Why can’t we rid ourselves of the fixation of managing things in Afghanistan? We can’t manage ourselves, yet we want to fix the neighbourhood. Managing Afghanistan may be a worthy ambition. But it is poor compensation for mismanaging Pakistan.
GHQ is aghast at the thought of the Indians training the Afghan army. In Kayani’s phrase, even when trainers depart, they leave their mindset behind. Given the vehemence of our position on this point, maybe the Americans give us ground on this. And we will hail it as a major victory. But we should be playing for higher stakes instead of tilting at windmills.
We should have been gunning for something tangible. We are a debtor nation, strapped for cash. It is money we should have been asking for. In concrete terms, a writing off of all our debt. A one-point agenda, clearly stated and firmly put, without all the mumbo-jumbo of a ’strategic relationship’. Water, energy, India and Afghanistan were best left out of our wish list, more an exercise in fantasy than anything to do with the real world.
This government is too scatterbrained and too preoccupied with other problems to have been able to get things right and concentrate on the essentials of this ’strategic dialogue’ right. The vacuum created by its ineptitude was filled by a GHQ pluming itself on the laurels won in Swat and FATA. But for all its slickness under Kayani, GHQ, alas, remains trapped in the morass of its old conceits and prejudices.
So the old questions remain: how to emerge from the darkness into the light? How to manage Pakistan’s affairs better? Most important of all: whence will come the liberation of the Pakistani mind? One thing is for sure: not from GHQ.
Afterthought: the army had denounced the Kerry-Lugar Bill. What’s so great about the ’strategic dialogue’?
If there’s a cross on which Pakistan has found itself frequently crucified, it is the one carrying the legend ’strategic’. What follies have we not committed in the pursuit of strategic goals? Even our present preoccupation with terrorism is a product of our strategic labours in times past (hopefully, never to return).
So when a fresh batch of graduates out of higher strategy school speak of a ’strategic dialogue’ with the United States — our principal ally and, often, the cause of our biggest headaches — there is reason to be wary.
We have been here before, travelled down this route many times, our obsessive insecurity driving us time and again into American arms, each time to be left high and dry when the initial enthusiasm, or necessity, had passed. But we never seem to learn and each time begin our quest for the holy grail — of permanence in our American connection — as if there were never any heartbreaks before.
Barely six months ago the US viewed Pakistan through sceptical, even distrustful, eyes. The army had yet to go into South Waziristan and the phrase Quetta Shura was on the lips of every half-baked security analyst across the Atlantic. South Waziristan, the unspoken acceptance of drone strikes and greater cooperation with the CIA in nabbing shadowy Taliban figures in Pakistan changed all this. American faces now light up at the mention of Pakistan, no smile more beaming than on the face of Gen David Petraeus.
As part of this mood swing, the Americans have taken to lionizing Pakistan’s army commander, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, who is very much the flavour of the moment, just as — frightening thought — Pervez Musharraf was once upon a time. It is sobering to remember that when Musharraf signed on with the US post-Sept 11, conceding far more than anyone in the Bush administration was expecting, no leader on earth was more feted than him.
So we should try and keep things in perspective. The Americans may be gushing over us now but that’s only because we are crucial, perhaps indispensable, for the success of their mission in Afghanistan. Or even for a face-saving exit from that quagmire. There are two fronts to this war, the one in Pakistan being by far the most important.
The ’strategic dialogue’ is thus not pegged to any abstract love for Pakistan. It arises from the grim necessity of the war in Afghanistan. We should be under no illusions about the window of opportunity that this dialogue offers. This window will remain open and serviceable only up to the moment when the Americans begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. To assume otherwise, and give way to misplaced euphoria — something at which we are rather good — is to court the ways of folly and set ourselves up for another ‘betrayal’ at American hands.
The wish-list Pakistan has carried to Washington has Kayani’s thumbprint all over it. It has not been lost on anyone that in the driving seat as far as our delegation is concerned sits not the foreign minister or anyone else but him. It would also not have been lost on anyone that the brief prepared by our side for the talks was put together not in the prime minister’s office or anywhere else but in General Headquarters, with key federal secretaries in attendance and Kayani, not the prime minister, presiding.
Kayani is a smart man, very articulate and extremely good at putting his point of view across (his presentation at Nato Hqs in Brussels has been widely talked about). But what is this we are hearing about the shopping list prepared under his aegis? Which world are we living in? Which planet does GHQ still inhabit?
We have just a year and a half, not eternity, to get what we want from the US. It behoves us ill to ask the US to help restart our composite dialogue with India. If India is playing hard-to-get on this count, we should be able to keep our cool and wait for India’s attitude to change. Even if the composite dialogue doesn’t get going for the next two years, the glaciers will not melt and the Himalayas will not march down to the seas.
We should be mature enough to understand a few things clearly. America is not going to ask India to talk Kashmir with us. It is not going to solve our water problems with India. It is not going to give us the kind of nuclear deal it has concluded with India.
To go by the hype generated in official quarters, it almost appeared as if we were expecting a string of nuclear power plants from the US. And what happens? Hillary Clinton announces a gift of 125 million dollars to set up thermal power plants. A colder splash of water on the fires of our misplaced ardour could not have been poured. What Burke said of England in the context of America’s war of independence: “Light lie the dust on the ashes of English pride” — we can use to define our predicament: light lie the dust on the embers of our strategic relationship.
Sooner or later we will have to discover the reasons for this talent for selling ourselves cheap. We have always behaved thus in our dealings with the US, assuming obligations unthinkingly, never asking for the right price and then moaning about betrayal and the like when the Americans, taking us at our word, leave us with very little.
Mobarak got Egypt’s American debt (7 billion dollars, and this was in 1991) written off when he joined America’s first Gulf war. The Turks asked for 25 billion dollars to allow American troops territorial passage prior to the Iraq war in 2003. That the US refused is beside the point. The Turks did not allow themselves to be taken for granted. We settle for peanuts and call it a ’strategic relationship’.
Kayani, as I have said, is a smart man. But there is too much of India and Afghanistan in his world-view. More than with the US, we need to be conducting a strategic dialogue with ourselves. Why can’t we rid ourselves of the fixation of managing things in Afghanistan? We can’t manage ourselves, yet we want to fix the neighbourhood. Managing Afghanistan may be a worthy ambition. But it is poor compensation for mismanaging Pakistan.
GHQ is aghast at the thought of the Indians training the Afghan army. In Kayani’s phrase, even when trainers depart, they leave their mindset behind. Given the vehemence of our position on this point, maybe the Americans give us ground on this. And we will hail it as a major victory. But we should be playing for higher stakes instead of tilting at windmills.
We should have been gunning for something tangible. We are a debtor nation, strapped for cash. It is money we should have been asking for. In concrete terms, a writing off of all our debt. A one-point agenda, clearly stated and firmly put, without all the mumbo-jumbo of a ’strategic relationship’. Water, energy, India and Afghanistan were best left out of our wish list, more an exercise in fantasy than anything to do with the real world.
This government is too scatterbrained and too preoccupied with other problems to have been able to get things right and concentrate on the essentials of this ’strategic dialogue’ right. The vacuum created by its ineptitude was filled by a GHQ pluming itself on the laurels won in Swat and FATA. But for all its slickness under Kayani, GHQ, alas, remains trapped in the morass of its old conceits and prejudices.
So the old questions remain: how to emerge from the darkness into the light? How to manage Pakistan’s affairs better? Most important of all: whence will come the liberation of the Pakistani mind? One thing is for sure: not from GHQ.
Afterthought: the army had denounced the Kerry-Lugar Bill. What’s so great about the ’strategic dialogue’?
Turning a new page
By Ayesha Siddiqa
That Pakistan needs an alternative vision and leadership is beyond doubt. Any forward movement will depend on our national ability to recreate ourselves in our own eyes before we can have an impact on how people think about us or what they are willing to offer.
Such were my thoughts as I stood in the company of some 300 Pakistani expatriates at the US State Department. We were all there at a reception during the US-Pakistan strategic talks.
The Pakistani embassy staff was jubilant about the positive atmospherics. They believe that the US is being positive and forthcoming in dealing with Pakistan. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke about bilateral relations turning a new page where ties would not be focused on military security but would involve socio-economic development as well. Washington hopes to cooperate in areas such as water, energy, education, health and larger social development. Apparently, both sides also agreed to use a better framework for communication to build confidence at all levels, especially with reference to fighting the war on terror.
One of the new dimensions of this strategic dialogue is that it will bring in the private sector to collaborate with the public sector and take on board the Pakistani expatriate community to share its rich experience and capital for the development of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who spoke next, also endorsed that the strategic dialogue was about a new chapter in bilateral relations. He also implored the Pakistani expat communicate to use its expertise and resources to build Pakistan.
There was definitely a lot of positive energy in the room and one could have a sense of the US turning the page. But the million-dollar question is whether Pakistan is ready to do the same. We must bring about change at two levels: bilateral and domestic.
From the standpoint of US-Pakistan ties the major question is whether we are willing to deliver more to the US in exchange for a broader role in the region than what we delivered before. The US is back to talking to the military as well. The fact that the army chief received greater attention and better treatment than visiting army chiefs from other states normally get in Washington, indicated the Obama administration’s desire to take both the civilian and military leadership together.
For Senator David Lugar, who was present, the US couldn’t do much if the Pakistanis wanted a lame civilian government. America’s demand is for Islamabad to clamp down on all terror networks including those we are fighting and others that we have links with. This demand is linked to the US concern about rabid elements taking over weapons of mass destruction after assuming control of the Pakistani state.
We have been keeping some of the ‘strategic assets’ because of the Pakistani military’s concern for India’s nefarious activities in Afghanistan. Let’s say that we manage to convince the US to give us a role in Afghanistan where we could ensure our larger strategic interests. Would we then be willing to shut down the jihad machine?
These are tough questions which we cannot answer without, as my friend Sabira Qureshi pointed out, starting a strategic dialogue inside Pakistan.
The conspiracy theorists will naturally question America’s logic for treating Pakistan fairly this time. Perhaps, political realism buffs may understand that in this changing world no country can afford to adopt neo-conservative tools and attitudes any more. Washington might have realised that it will have to listen to Pakistan and feel concerned about Pakistan’s inherent insecurity vis-à-vis India’s role in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan problem cannot be solved without the US, India and Pakistan abandoning their neo-conservative approach and adopting realism, which is not about the use of force all the time, but that involves measured movement.
This means using both force and negotiations depending on a particular situation. It also means understanding the inherent limitations of the use of force. Brute power cannot be advantageous all the time nor is overestimating one’s strength. Pakistan’s internal dialogue would require an assessment of how far it can go in using force to draw benefits and estimating strategic benefits and costs. While it must aim for gaining a foothold in Afghanistan to secure its position, a policy to force other neighbours out would prove counter-productive. It would help if Islamabad combined the acquisition of a role in Afghanistan with multilateral assurances that India or any other country would not threaten its core interests.
Furthermore, an internal dialogue entails building and strengthening institutions at all levels. The foreign minister spoke of the expat community investing in Pakistan. However, he did not mention improving accountability and ensuring transparency in governance. Perhaps that was not the right forum to give guarantees of improving the state system. Nevertheless, nothing that he said demonstrated a willingness to do so.
A glance at the audience indicated that those present might be very intelligent and successful, but they were also part of a crowd that eventually didn’t allow reforms to happen and opportunities to reach a larger group of people than the most affluent and well-connected.
The bottom-line is about the need to change our mindset first and adopt a new framework that will help in maximising our gains domestically, regionally and internationally. Realism is not about muscle power but about the sense to make a good bargain. We will not be able to force our competitors out of South Asia even if we wanted to. The best option, hence, would be to learn to coexist and make gains by adding to the peace initiative. So, when the US seems prepared to broaden the nature of the relationship the question we must ask ourselves is whether we are ready to turn a new leaf.
That Pakistan needs an alternative vision and leadership is beyond doubt. Any forward movement will depend on our national ability to recreate ourselves in our own eyes before we can have an impact on how people think about us or what they are willing to offer.
Such were my thoughts as I stood in the company of some 300 Pakistani expatriates at the US State Department. We were all there at a reception during the US-Pakistan strategic talks.
The Pakistani embassy staff was jubilant about the positive atmospherics. They believe that the US is being positive and forthcoming in dealing with Pakistan. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke about bilateral relations turning a new page where ties would not be focused on military security but would involve socio-economic development as well. Washington hopes to cooperate in areas such as water, energy, education, health and larger social development. Apparently, both sides also agreed to use a better framework for communication to build confidence at all levels, especially with reference to fighting the war on terror.
One of the new dimensions of this strategic dialogue is that it will bring in the private sector to collaborate with the public sector and take on board the Pakistani expatriate community to share its rich experience and capital for the development of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who spoke next, also endorsed that the strategic dialogue was about a new chapter in bilateral relations. He also implored the Pakistani expat communicate to use its expertise and resources to build Pakistan.
There was definitely a lot of positive energy in the room and one could have a sense of the US turning the page. But the million-dollar question is whether Pakistan is ready to do the same. We must bring about change at two levels: bilateral and domestic.
From the standpoint of US-Pakistan ties the major question is whether we are willing to deliver more to the US in exchange for a broader role in the region than what we delivered before. The US is back to talking to the military as well. The fact that the army chief received greater attention and better treatment than visiting army chiefs from other states normally get in Washington, indicated the Obama administration’s desire to take both the civilian and military leadership together.
For Senator David Lugar, who was present, the US couldn’t do much if the Pakistanis wanted a lame civilian government. America’s demand is for Islamabad to clamp down on all terror networks including those we are fighting and others that we have links with. This demand is linked to the US concern about rabid elements taking over weapons of mass destruction after assuming control of the Pakistani state.
We have been keeping some of the ‘strategic assets’ because of the Pakistani military’s concern for India’s nefarious activities in Afghanistan. Let’s say that we manage to convince the US to give us a role in Afghanistan where we could ensure our larger strategic interests. Would we then be willing to shut down the jihad machine?
These are tough questions which we cannot answer without, as my friend Sabira Qureshi pointed out, starting a strategic dialogue inside Pakistan.
The conspiracy theorists will naturally question America’s logic for treating Pakistan fairly this time. Perhaps, political realism buffs may understand that in this changing world no country can afford to adopt neo-conservative tools and attitudes any more. Washington might have realised that it will have to listen to Pakistan and feel concerned about Pakistan’s inherent insecurity vis-à-vis India’s role in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan problem cannot be solved without the US, India and Pakistan abandoning their neo-conservative approach and adopting realism, which is not about the use of force all the time, but that involves measured movement.
This means using both force and negotiations depending on a particular situation. It also means understanding the inherent limitations of the use of force. Brute power cannot be advantageous all the time nor is overestimating one’s strength. Pakistan’s internal dialogue would require an assessment of how far it can go in using force to draw benefits and estimating strategic benefits and costs. While it must aim for gaining a foothold in Afghanistan to secure its position, a policy to force other neighbours out would prove counter-productive. It would help if Islamabad combined the acquisition of a role in Afghanistan with multilateral assurances that India or any other country would not threaten its core interests.
Furthermore, an internal dialogue entails building and strengthening institutions at all levels. The foreign minister spoke of the expat community investing in Pakistan. However, he did not mention improving accountability and ensuring transparency in governance. Perhaps that was not the right forum to give guarantees of improving the state system. Nevertheless, nothing that he said demonstrated a willingness to do so.
A glance at the audience indicated that those present might be very intelligent and successful, but they were also part of a crowd that eventually didn’t allow reforms to happen and opportunities to reach a larger group of people than the most affluent and well-connected.
The bottom-line is about the need to change our mindset first and adopt a new framework that will help in maximising our gains domestically, regionally and internationally. Realism is not about muscle power but about the sense to make a good bargain. We will not be able to force our competitors out of South Asia even if we wanted to. The best option, hence, would be to learn to coexist and make gains by adding to the peace initiative. So, when the US seems prepared to broaden the nature of the relationship the question we must ask ourselves is whether we are ready to turn a new leaf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)