Archive for January, 2010

Faustian deals-Gibran Peshimam

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Faustian deals

Sunday, January 31, 2010
Gibran Peshimam

Like it or not, the PPP government, more specifically the president, has, it would seem, climbed out of a pretty deep hole. They have scrapped and scratched, jousted and hustled, and have managed to fight through the December deadline that most gave them — shaken but still alive.

And they haven’t done anything nearly as drastic as what was being labelled as ‘necessary for survival’. The president is still the president. Rehman Malik still has his job. Babar Awan is still at his conniving best. Raja Perwaiz Ashraf continues to predict an imminent end to loadshedding. Which of course means Qammaruzaman Kaira continues to wax lyrical.

The MQM has toned down its frenzied rhetoric given the seeming resolution of the local government issue in Sindh. The armed forces seem content for the time being after being allowed to run the war and relations with the US on their own terms. The PML-N threat is minimal at the moment with their leader seemingly content to wait his turn as well as on the 18th Amendment.

Even the fall-out of the court’s NRO verdict — expected to serve as the impetus for the government’s downfall — has been less drastic than forecasted. The immunity discourse is puzzling, and will certainly be prolonged. The lawyers movement, what little is left of it, has postponed its strike given the recognition of their embarrassingly low support.

The apparent divide between Messers Gilani and Zardari seems now like a pretty silly rumour given the PM’s all-out support for his co-chairman on the floor of the national assembly as well as outside. To boot, they have a political and legal prize-fighter in Aitzaz back in their corner.

There are no mobs of disgruntled awam out on the streets baying for blood — as much as certain quarters may want this to be the case.

No sir, the end never came. The decade ended as anticlimactically for conspiracy lovers as it began (remember the Y2K bug?).

You can feel the anxiety that was in the air late last year dissipate.

December-smishember.

The new exit discourse is desperately imaginative. The new ‘deadline’ is now March (or around that time) when the COAS and the ISI chief will want an extension in their tenure. Apparently, the president will not oblige, and that will be that for him and his government. This theory seems more the wish of some disappointed people than it does reality. If the President and his party have compromised on so many other things, why should anyone expect them to take a moral stand on an issue pertaining to the tenure of a COAS? In any case, it’s not as if picking your own army chief earns you political safety (remember Zia and Musharraf?). The President surely knows that.

So that’s it then?

No quite. You see, the biggest threat to the PPP is from within. It is long-term. Nothing has been done to address this threat.

In fact, in the desperate effort to continue in power, the party has worsened this problem. They have sacrificed their future for a little extra time in power.

Faustian deals. They never turn out well.

In placating the MQM, the PPP has committed many faux paus. First off, they have angered their traditional vote bank of Lyari by capitulating, via Rehman Malik, to the MQM’s demand that a group of people in Lyari be declared terrorists during the height of the target killing spree in Karachi. That was when the MQM was threatening to quit the government.

Now, whatever the case, the PPP has never, ever, been so brazen in its categorisation of the elements operating from there. In doing so, they have pleased the MQM, and alienated their vote bank.

Secondly, the capitulation in terms of the local government issue is still unclear, but not even the staunchest PPP supporter can deny that the party appears feeble and weak in the face of a smaller party — one that it does not even need to keep its provincial government afloat. How long will the MQM remain silent for before it makes new demands?

The effort to calm the armed forces, and associated agencies, down has led them to shed their commendable democratic stand of determining the nature of relations with foreign forces — most importantly the US. The PPP has not exactly been the model of resistance in the face of intrusion by the army – but they certainly were historically the vanguard here in Pakistan in this regard. This, too, has been timidly compromised.

Nawaz could play a vital role in felling the government. But he waits silently on the sidelines, as agreed, realising that, left to itself, the Zardari-led PPP will do more than just run themselves out of power. The PPP will actually harm itself to a point where Nawaz will benefit in the long run.

For example, the PPP’s foray into exploiting the ‘Sindh card’ was and is an exercise in self-destruction, and, more importantly, will act as a near-critical blow for national-level politics. The chief benefactor of this, ironically enough, will be the PML-N, which will benefit from political provincialism given its already diminished presence on the national stage. The playing of the Sindh card was a desperate attempt to remain in power, even though the PPP faces no political threat in the province. But in doing so, they have compromised their across-the-board political presence, particularly in Punjab — the bastion of power in the country.

The PPP has bought itself time through Faustian deals. The party may have saved its present, but is now faced with the task of making up plenty of ground lost in the effort to do so.

The NRO and associated problems continue to play themselves out, slowly, despite all these compromises. If the PPP government is to be dismissed a few months later than expected, it will go with its reputation having been critically damaged. And for what?

Yes, December has come and gone. The obituary that was written for the present government may have turned out to be premature. But, if the PPP is not careful, this obituary may have to be converted into one for the party itself.

The writer is city editor, The News, Karachi. Email: gibran.peshimam@ gmail.com

Two’s company: Fear or respect – S.M. Shahid

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, 31 Jan, 2010

“I have this feeling that the United States is turning into a great story of failure,” Babboo said.

“What a silly thought, and how can you say that! The US is the richest, the most democratic, powerful and resourceful country in the world. It is the only super power and the greatest success story of all times,” I said.

“Not when you define ‘success’ honestly and understand what success really is.”
“What is your definition of success?” I asked.
“I consider a country successful if it has respect in the comity of nations.”

Both Babboo and I have this tendency of going through a sudden surge of morality and honest soul searching. A friend described this weakness in these words: “After all, you two are human!” To this, Babboo and I could not figure out if he meant ‘you too’ or ‘you two’! But both of us were not amused by his remark.

“So you think that the US is not getting the respect it deserves from nations of the world?” I asked.

“How can it be, after so much interference in the affairs of other nations, after so much bullying, even threatening, to dispatch them to the Stone Age?”

“But you should not be ungrateful. You should remember that the US has done much for many deprived nations of Africa and Asia. It has helped them in every way — economically, financially and militarily. What is still more creditable is that the US has helped them bring democracy in their countries,” I said.

“Also brought military dictators to enforce democracy!” Babboo sounded sarcastic. After a few moments he continued: “You see, my friend, despite all those good deeds that you have mentioned, they still hate the US for various reasons: the Japanese hate it because the US dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the Arabs because the US asks Israel to sort Arabs out whenever they talk of Palestine; the Africans because of the humiliation suffered by them as slaves of the Americans; Pakistanis because the US did not send its seventh fleet when Pakistan was at war with India in 1965; also because they abandoned Pakistan following the withdrawal of Russian forces from Afghanistan — and yes, because of the drone attacks. China and North Korea too do not have any love for the Americans. What is strange, even the Europeans are wary of America because of NATO’s interference in their affairs, particularly with respect to the US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Only India — with the exception of Arundhati Roy — has of late started liking America.”

“I am sorry I don’t agree with you. And I’m going to be the devil’s advocate and support America — not just for the sake of argument, but because this great country has produced some of the world’s greatest thinkers, writers, musicians, painters, scientists, statesmen and humanitarians. It has fought against Fascism and apartheid, broken new grounds in the field of science and technology. It has reached the moon and is ready to go beyond.”

“Then why did someone once say: ‘When good Americans die they go to Paris’— and why did Oscar Wilde further add: ‘When bad Americans die they go to America’?” asked Babboo.

“Does this mean there are only ‘bad Americans’ inhabiting this planet waiting to join their Creator?” I was getting fed up with this conversation. I thought I should now steer the debate from sublime to the ridiculous. “Looks like you have been either refused an American visa or have been stripped at one of their airports.”

“Shuroo ho gaye?” He retorted, and went on to narrate something even nastier that 19th-century French statesman, Georges Benjamin Clemenceau had said about America: ‘America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation’.

“You had opened the conversation with the premise that you found the US turning into a failure story and look, where you have brought the discourse to. You also called a country successful that commanded respect in the comity of nations. What is new? Everyone knows about it,” I reminded Babboo.

“There is also a delicate point hidden in this which you perhaps will not understand,” Babboo said.

“What?”

“That when you become truly great and powerful, people do not have to respect you. They generally don’t, and you do not need their respect either. What is required is that they should fear you. If you want to please yourself and feel good, you may call it respect. A wise man has advised: “The ocean has millions of small fish. Dear children, try to become big fish, this way you will reap a lot of benefit.”

shahidsm34@gmail.com

The bakra doth protest-Masood Hasan

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

The bakra doth protest

Sunday, January 31, 2010
Masood Hasan

Perhaps the only thing worse than being an Ahmedi in modern-day Islamic Pakistan is to be a bakra, particularly the black variety. If a report emanating from Islamabad is to be believed, they are having the devil’s own luck – no not the Ahmedis; their goose is as good as cooked – but the four-legged black goats.

It seems that there is a cycle of procurement, blessing and deletion that is working far better with bakras than it is with the under siege government of President Zardari. According to this report, the village of Saidpur which I thought was going to be developed into an arts and crafts village, is where the presidential staff are to be found, selecting the best black bakras which are then transported (bullet-proof Suzuki van?) to the Presidency. Here the lucky one for the day is led up (the garden path?) and presented to the president who touches his forehead (the bakra’s) and off the chap goes to the president’s private home, where knives await.

I have no idea if the black ones are given a long weekend or not. Maybe they do three (magical number) on Thursdays (magical day). This, if true, is obviously not the kind of news that the bakra community will receive with shouts of happiness and throwing of turnips in the air, and since they do not have any protection under the law, have no association or chamber of commerce, are not personally known to the CJ, I am afraid the second decade could well be a matter of life and death for them.

Being a bakra is bad enough as it is. Being consigned to Planet Pakistan is really bad luck. This is a country where cannibals could obtain citizenship overnight, but a good, decent law-abiding bakra has the script cut out for him. If he is a black one it is curtains for sure, and pretty soon. If he is lucky and not black, perhaps a few days or weeks more with the turnips, and then over to the chopping mills. A good Pakistani will under dire circumstances even forsake his beloved booze but take his meat away, and you have the making of a demented and ferocious suicide bomber.

The Islamabad report, which I keep hoping – if for nothing else than the bakra’s sake – is a piece of flighty imagination, goes further to say that the Presidency is on the lookout for all things black that can be used to ward off the evil eye. In this connection, various birds have also played a part in the R&D section; although the report suggests that when a live wire fell on the black partridges (or was it crows?) and fried them to a cinder, it was seen as an omen from the heavens that partridges were not acceptable. This, if true, could be just about the luckiest break the partridges have had in Pakistan where they have had one hell of a time dodging the predators. As they say, one man’s loss is another partridge’s gain.

If the country eventually runs out of black bakras, is there a contingency plan in the pipeline? If not, what in heaven’s name is the Planning Commission up to? Since we all know that the last thing they understand is planning for a country, can we ask them instead to concentrate on bakras? This is not too difficult. All you have to do is get a bakra and gaze with great concentration in his eyes. It gives the right results, particularly if the bakra is not dead.

Personally I think it is only a matter of time before we will be importing bakras who would have to first embrace Islam and then be slaughtered. The reason is that apart from the president there are the faithful who find great percentage in making animal sacrifices on a scale that even Prophet Abraham would find disturbing. From the early days of our creation – 1947 not 1482, please – ritual sacrificing has been in great fashion. But if memory serves me right, cows, buffaloes, camels and suchlike were hardly a part of it.

Of course, all that is changed, and once we have decimated this lot we could consider elephants, hippos, giraffes and the entire cat family. The monkeys will have to be kept at bay since we have a philosophical falling out with them, which may be bad news for the bloodletting nutters but jolly good news for all monkeys.

But if black is the favoured colour, why stop at living things? We could sacrifice black ballpoints – they are not much use in a country where the literacy rate is going in the other direction – hairclips, socks, shoes, neckties, shirts, trousers, and so on. The list is endless, and one can see the headlines already. “Pakistan sacrifices 64 million black shirts with great fervour.” The possibilities are endless as the man said.

Of course, the president is not alone in all this. At least on this one count, the country is with him; because public piety and the blind adherence to ritual has found a passionate response here, leading to mass slaughter of livestock quite, forgetting the real intent of that ancient rite. Since lip service and worship of the obvious are far more important than the essence of all things, our record speaks well for itself. Blind yourself to the ritual and hang reason or good sense, for that is a waste of time.

Of course, the president is not alone even amongst the long list of those who have ruled this country since 1947. I doubt that Mr Jinnah was into this ritual slaughter, as I have yet to see a picture of him kneeling with a particularly sharp knife poised for the kill, or read a riveting account of the deed. But by and large, the track record recovered fairly well after that, and although I personally have no knowledge how many animals were given the chop by Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, Mr Bogra or Mr Suhrawardy, Mr Zardari, one hears, is well-versed in these occult arts. He may speak to us from very select, non-people places and thunder that he does not fear death, but it is death that fears him – all this from behind a bullet-proof screen, and the irony not lost on the people. But when it comes to a black bakra to ward off the evil eye, he is the last man who will say no. Not realising that even at that moment, Mr. Sharif may be carving up a black one to jinx Mr Zardari’s black one and the MQM’s Telephone Man of the Year carving up two black ones to get rid of Messrs Zardari and Sharif.

All this is rum stuff. I can only add that had we sacrificed one black bakra before each match in Australia, we would have been leading 3-0 instead of 0-3. When will they learn?

The writer is a Lahore-based columnist. Email: masoodhasan66@gmail.com

Herodotus, and the Parsis at Thermopylae-Aakar Patel

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, January 31, 2010
Aakar Patel

In 480 BC, Persia’s emperor Xerxes attacked and defeated Greece. He bridged the Hellespont, the slim neck between Europe and Asia now called the Dardanelles, and marched his army of Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians and Indians across to Macedonia and then south into Greece. Most Greek states on his path surrendered to him. Sparta lost one skirmish against his army and then refused to fight. The people of Athens abandoned their city to Xerxes and fled to an island in the south called Salamis.

Xerxes had invaded in anger, after Athens interfered militarily in one of his colonies on the west coast of Turkey. Reaching Athens, he burnt all of it down, including the Acropolis. Then, realising that the Athenians would not defend their state, took his army back to Asia.

We know all this because it was recorded by a Greek historian, Herodotus, who was born a few years before the invasion. It’s a simple and conclusive story. But over the centuries, one part of the invasion, that skirmish with the Spartans, has been used by Europeans to tell a different story. This is the story of freedom-loving individuals (Europeans) defending themselves against slavish barbarians (Asians). And this brave stand of the Spartans, according to the movie ‘300′ and a recent BBC Radio 4 programme called ‘In Our Time’, “saved civilisation”.

It is a bold claim to make, because it assumes that civilisation is entirely European and there was no civilisation on the Persian side. It is also a factually untrue claim on two counts. The first that the skirmish, the battle of Thermopylae, was fought between 300 Spartans and 5.2 million Persians. The second that Xerxes lost the war.

Xerxes is Greek for the emperor’s Old Persian name, which was Kshayarsa, from the same root as Sanskrit Kshatriya and the modern caste name Khatri.

Herodotus says Xerxes had 2.6 million fighting men with that number again in support. A total, according to him, of 5,283,220 men (more than the modern armies of China, America, India and Pakistan put together). Even if it were possible to transport such an army 2,500 years ago, there would have been no food in the surrounding countryside to feed so many and so this number is difficult to believe. It is taken as true by a lot of Europeans, including scholars.

The first inaccuracy that we are referring to, however, is not the number of Persians; it is the number of Greeks. Popular history, as can be seen from the title of the famous Hollywood movie, says the Greeks numbered 300.

Herodotus says the Greek force at Thermopylae was made up of 5,200 men, whom he lists by state including 300 from Sparta, plus “all the men that the Locrians of Opus could send”. We do not know how many those were. And there are more. Herodotus says each Spartan had Helots assigned to him, who also fought and were killed. These were Greeks from Helos enslaved by Sparta. We are not told how many Helots there were at Thermopylae, but Herodotus tells us that at a later battle, at Plataea, there were seven Helots to a Spartan, which would correspond to 2,100 Helots at Thermopylae. So the Greeks numbered 7,300 men plus the Locrians. This is not an insubstantial force to defend the Thermopylae pass which was, according to Herodotus, one wagon wide at its narrowest and 50 feet at its widest, with a stone wall behind which defenders could stand.

It did not really matter how many men the Persians had: the Greeks had a man opposite each attacker. Herodotus says the Greeks were better armed. They were armoured in bronze with helmets, and their spears were longer than those of the Persians. The Greeks had bronze-faced shields, the Spartan ones being three feet across. The Persians had wicker shields. The battle lasted two days, at the end of which the Persians found a way around the pass and obliterated the Greeks. However, many of the Greeks had fled by then, according to Herodotus, and the deserters included Spartans, so all 300 did not sacrifice themselves. Herodotus says in the end there were 4,000 Greek dead meaning there were at least 3,300 deserters. There were 1,000 Persian dead, but Herodotus says these were only the ones displayed by Xerxes and the rest were buried so that his army would not lose heart at the sight. This might not be true given that it would have been in violation of the Persian manner of disposing the dead in the open, fed to vultures.

The Persians of course were Zarathushtrians, and their descendants are the Parsis of Bombay, Surat, Navsari and Karachi.

It is strange to think that one of our communities fought and defeated Europe, but it is true and the Parsis went on to become the greatest community of India.

After this defeat, the Spartans refused to fight Xerxes, and the Athenians fled. Herodotus says there was a naval battle off Salamis that the Persians lost, but the Persians were not a naval power and the spearhead of the Parsi army, the Zhayedan or the Immortals, were infantry not marines.

At the time, 2,400 years ago, naval battles would not have been conclusive because there was no firepower. Ships, called triremes, were slow and powered by oarsmen on three decks. Fighting was carried out by ramming a ship on its side, immobilising it and, if the ship sank, drowning those soldiers who could not swim. This is not an efficient way to do battle and the Greek naval victory would have meant little. Incidentally, the Greek tragedian Aeschylus fought at Salamis and later wrote the play, The Persians.

Having spent his anger, Xerxes returned to Asia, where he would rule successfully before dying 15 years later, in 465 BC.

He left behind a force headed, according to Herodotus, by his step-brother, which lost a battle against 115,000 Greeks at Plataea the following year. In this battle, 1,300 Indians fought on the Persian side. Herodotus says the Indians, who might have been from Punjab, were dressed in cotton and carried cane bows and cane arrows tipped with iron.

After this defeat, the second Persian force also left for Asia. European history says this sequence “saved civilisation”, because in the coming decades Athens would produce the great Plato and Aristotle and the rest of Greek’s classical culture that all Europeans now claim. But there is nothing to say that Plato and Aristotle would not have flowered even under Persian occupation.

The war of 480 was not fought between democrats and despots: the Spartans were also led by a king, Leonidas, and they were hardly democratic. They enslaved their own people, the Helots. They killed two Persian ambassadors sent by Xerxes’s father Darius, throwing them into a well when they asked for a fistful of earth and water as a sign of submission. The Athenians also misbehaved with Darius’s ambassadors, locking them up. Herodotus disapproves of such Greek behaviour and he is himself never prejudiced against the foreigner. He says much of Greek civilisation, including their gods, came from Egypt and he could be right. He thinks the best looking people in the world are Ethiopians. Not once does he refer to people with dark skin as being different. His book is the first work of history ever written. It comprises of nine chapters, each between 50 and 70 pages long and it is over 600 modern pages, beautifully written and very entertaining.

The Persians are shown by him often as merciful. Their rule is never to execute a man for one mistake, and whenever apportioning punishment, to remember the good he did along with the crime. Emperor Darius is shown by Herodotus as grieving after a man who betrays him, a Greek, is beheaded without his knowledge. This is not the behaviour of barbarians. Herodotus uses the word to represent those who, according to Greeks, speak a language that goes ‘bar-bar’, instead of polished Greek. Hindi also uses ‘barh-barh’ to indicate gibberish.

Today, all that remains of the Persians who fought at Thermopylae are the Parsis, who still name their sons Xerxes, Darius and Cyrus. Uniquely among Indian corporates, of Tata Sons’s stock, 65.8 per cent is held by charities. Ratan Tata only holds 0.84 per cent. Last year Tata Sons, which owns Indian’s biggest software firm, one of the world’s biggest steel firms and the automobile manufacturer Jaguar-Land Rover, made a profit of Rs3,780 crore ($800 million), giving much away to India’s poor.

Herodotus would not have thought them uncivilised.

The writer is director with Hill Road Media in Bombay. Email: aakar@ hillroadmedia.com

Open letter to Obama-Dr Farrukh Saleem

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, January 31, 2010
Dr Farrukh Saleem

Dear President Obama,

Question 1: Sir, you have doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan and, at the same time, given a withdrawal timeline beginning June 2011. The militants swiftly adapted and have now begun declining combat. Close to 80 per cent of marine casualties are now from roadside Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). How would you now define American victory when your Afghan opponents are simply declining combat?

Question 2: Sir, your Plan A is to transfer security duties to the Afghan National Police (ANP) and the Afghan National Army (ANA). Officers of ANP continue to fire at westerners and officers of ANA penetrated FOB Chapman killing seven CIA officers. What if Plan A fails? Admiral Mullen does not have a Plan B. General Petraeus does not have a Plan B and neither does General McCrystal. Do you have Plan B?

Question 3: Sir, 2010 is election year for America; 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 36 in the Senate and 38 gubernatorial elections. Your war, therefore, has a definite political time-line while your opponents have no time-line. Do you feel that time is on the side of your opponents?

Question 4: Sir, America wants to maintain stability in Pakistan and at the same time wants Pakistan to ‘do more’. Aren’t those mutually contradictory goals?

Question 5: Sir, Democrats have lost Massachusetts for the first time in half a century. Sir, what would happen to your agenda of ‘change’ if you loose your majority in the House in November 2010?

Question 6: Sir, the Afghan National Army is 80 per cent illiterate and America has been unable to recruit from the Pashtun belt. Sir, ANA, by any standard, is not a national army. Can the ANA ever be an effective partner?

Question 7: Sir, your opponents in Afghanistan are denying combat. Your opponents are fighting a war of exhaustion. Most American causalities are not from combat but from IEDs. How would the surge help? Wouldn’t the surge provide your opponents with more targets?

Question 8: Sir, the Pakistan Army has deployed two infantry divisions in Swat. Pakistan Army’s XI Corps, with both its divisions, is in South Waziristan. The Pakistan-India border is tense and the army is spread too thin. Who will then take on the Haqqani network?

Question 9: Sir, General McCrystal has a $1.5 billion special fund to buy Taliban and make them talk. What if the Taliban, brimming with the sweet smell of victory in the immediate future, take your money and wait for 2011?

Question 10: Sir, you won on an agenda of ‘change’. Afghanistan has surely changed. In 2007, there were half a dozen Afghan provinces with shadow Taliban governors. In 2008, there were a dozen and last year 33 of the 34 provinces had shadow Taliban governors. Sir, how would this war end?

P.S. According to The Economist, Obama is “the man who fell to earth.” According to Time magazine Obama’s “agenda is on life support.” Would the real Obama please stand up? I read somewhere, “sorry, but there is no real Obama. There never was and there never will be. The ultimate empty suit?”

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

Going somewhere, or nowhere? by Ardeshir Cowasjee

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

The one major, most powerful, richest and most disciplined institution of state, the Pakistan Army does not regularly appease us or assure us that all is tranquil. – Photo by APP.

Day in, day out, week after week, since this wonky and dysfunctional government has been with us we read that there is no conflict between what are known as ‘institutions’ and no conflict between the disparate political parties whose members make up our assemblies.

Of late, the two most vociferous ‘institutions’ are the executive and the judiciary, the foremost members of which go to great pains to assure us gullible citizens that the relationship between the two is fine and dandy.

We must ask, is it? We think that both sides do indeed protest too much. Were there no differences there would be no need for the daily assurances.

The one major, most powerful, richest and most disciplined institution of state, the Pakistan Army does not regularly appease us or assure us that all is tranquil. Rocky as may be the relations between it and the executive, in the form of the head of state, its chief keeps his reservations to himself.

This happy situation may not persist in face of the executive/judiciary upcoming NRO stand-off and a case now being heard in the Supreme Court. The former may involve yet another bout of military interference, while the latter may provoke the military ‘agencies’ to dig in their substantial heels.

Now that the court has done its best to deal with a seriously dishonest and unconstitutional piece of legislation, the NRO, and has handed down its orders, orders with which the executive is expected to comply but is doing its best to wriggle its way out of, it has moved on to other matters, amongst them none so important as the case of the missing persons which has been hanging fire long before that March 2007 day when Gen Musharraf made his irredeemable error in taking on the chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry.

A three-member bench, headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, is doing its best to trace the missing persons, allegedly ‘lost’ by the ‘agencies’ of the past military government. It is hearing the petition of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and that of the former senator, now transformed into a pliant presidential spokesperson lacking credibility, Farhatullah Babar.

There is some confusion as to the number of citizens still missing, but whatever be the number they must be traced and their fate disclosed. The agony of their families has been prolonged for far too long.

We must hope that the two-week deadline given by the court to the government to finally come up with numbers and names is not flouted and that this case will be decided as announced. It is a tough call — the ‘agencies’ are set in their ways. Can they afford to and will they agree to come clean?

What must be asked is does any government have the right to whisk its citizens away in the dark of night and make them disappear? On this, in the present and past circumstances with the curbing of terrorism and its perpetrators being one of the country’s foremost predicaments, there may be differences between the ‘agencies’ and the people, but it is up to our adjudicators to now heed the people rather than those who rule in the name of democracy but have little to do with that happy form of governance.

The adjudicators have a tough job as no ruling clique of this country, past or present, has been able to tolerate an independent judiciary as their tactics and mindset are geared towards the bully-boy form of dealing with matters political. Having great respect for the third editorials of this newspaper of record, that of Jan 28 dealing with the subject of the missing persons is a must-read. The subject is the present conflict taking place in the Peshawar High Court over the non-cooperation by the ‘agencies’ in providing information to the court relating to the missing persons. What is written applies equally to the Supreme Court.

“The court felt that its authority was being defied when some people allegedly held by the intelligence agencies were not produced before the judges on their orders. In the eyes of the judiciary this is a constitutional transgression.” Such was the situation under the former military government and such is the situation now that democracy has found its way into Pakistan.

“Now that the judiciary has, after a concerted struggle, won its independence it is disturbing to see a tussle brewing once again.” Disturbing indeed, particularly as it was the mighty army that came to the rescue of the embattled judiciary with the culmination of the ‘lawyers’ movement’.

Yes, it is often necessary in these fraught times to detain and interrogate suspects, but, as ends the editorial “laws and procedures have been prescribed for this and there is no justification for not observing them fully, as the judiciary is trying to emphasise.”

There is much palaver from all sides about the supremacy of parliament and the supremacy of the constitution, notwithstanding the glaring fact that both are at extreme odds with the other. No interpretation of the constitution will justify a government condoning the disappearance of its citizens caused by its intelligence agencies albeit they are controlled by a body of men which is out of control of the government.

If this government wishes to persist on a collision course with the judiciary by ignoring the Supreme Court NRO decision, and by not, as is constitutionally demanded, coming to the aid of the court in the matter of the missing persons, so be it. It will only have itself to blame if it falls apart — and as things stand it will be largely un-mourned by the populace, even by those who voted it in.

arfc@cyber.net.pk

A nation takes off -Huma Yusuf

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, 31 Jan, 2010

Urban theorist Michel de Certeau famously wrote that the only way to “see” New York City was from the 110th floor of the World Trade Center. At the city’s summit, lifted away from the hustle and bustle of the crowds, traffic, and street corners, one can start to make sense of the city’s complexities, he argued. From a bird’s eye view, the city becomes readable, and the practices of those who inhabit it are laid bare for one to consider.

This argument is even truer for one looking down on the world from a plane. As flights land, passengers look down on cities that suddenly seem orderly, expansive, and inevitable. Familiar places take on new identities, and their proximity or similarity to other landmarks is revealed. Coming in for a landing — suspended in that liminal space between here and there, leaving and arriving, past and future — one enjoys a fresh perspective on what has long been known.

Perhaps for that reason it is apt to view the history of Pakistan from that same vantage point, from the cockpits of the innumerable flights that have landed — or crashed, or been diverted, hijacked, or shot down — on this nation’s tarmac. After all, planes, and those they have carried, have changed the course of Pakistan’s political history, shaped its national identity, enabled foreign policy, determined the outcome of wars, spurred immigration and exile, and even inspired art and fiction.

Any mention of planes in Pakistan, and most people are transported to an open space on the outskirts of Bahawalpur, on August 17, 1988, where the scattered and smoking parts of a C-130 Hercules announce the death of everyone on board, including General Ziaul Haq.

By going into a near-vertical dive, that plane ended 11 years of military rule, ushered in a tumultuous ‘decade of democracy,’ and chartered a new course for General Zia’s process of Islamisation. The plane crash also forever altered US-Pak relations, once robust, now tainted with suspicion and conspiracy theorising as many in Pakistan’s intelligence agencies believed that the CIA had masterminded the crash by spiking a crate of mangoes on board with VX gas.

Accident or assassination? That question prompted Mohammed Hanif to write A Case of Exploding Mangoes, one of the most popular English-language novels from this country. It also enshrined cynicism, suspicion, and irony as the bases of Pakistani identity. As a nation we learnt unforgettable lessons from the remains of that C-130: that obvious circumstances (such as a plane crash) have sinister origins; that there is no such thing as absolute truth in politics; and that those who fly high will eventually come crashing down.

For a complete history of the plane in Pakistan, log on to www.dawn.com on Monday, February 1.

View from US: If only it cared enough!-Anjum Niaz

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, 31 Jan, 2010

“Thank you for calling PIA,” says an American (his accent is unmistakable) on the other side of the phone line followed by music. “Your call will be answered momentarily.” A few minutes later, the same voice rolls on ,“We invite you to the land of majestic mountains, 5,000 year old rich heritage and culture. Assistance is only moments away.” More minutes pass and message #3 comes on “We know you’re holding and we’ve not forgotten about you. A representative will be with you shortly.” Soon the tape runs out and the caller is kicked back to square one. The recorded message starts all over again! In the end you’re told to leave a message for the station manager at New York.

I’m a ‘frequent flyer’ crossing the Atlantic twice a year. Never have I seen a gora on our national carrier. It’s just us Pakistanis traveling back and forth. So why is PIA wasting its breath on enticing foreigners to visit the “land of majestic mountains”? Better it would be if it concentrated on assisting people like us who give the airline business despite the step-motherly treatment we get from their end — be it Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore or New York.

“Getting through to you is like asking for the moon,” I tell station manager Ali Uddean Ahmad when I see him at the PIA counter at JFK airport. “I’ve been trying to get in touch with you and must have left a ‘zillion’ messages, even wrote an email hoping you’d respond, but you’re rare as a white tiger!” Ali has recently been posted to the most difficult job of his career — dealing daily with Pakistani travellers like myself with all kinds of requests, some bizarre, some doable. I’ve been chasing him for weeks requesting for a bulk head seat in the cramped economy class as I return home! My journey from New York to Islamabad is sending butterflies in my stomach already. Why? First I cover 14 hours of direct flying from JFK to Lahore. Take my baggage and pray to God that PIA puts me up in a decent place for the night. The manager at Lahore Syed Zulfiqar Ali Naqvi or Rizvi (he refuses to give me his card) is holed up in his cabin somewhere at the airport. He refuses to entertain my request for sending me to a ‘decent’ hotel even if I pay the difference from my pocket. “No that’s not possible.” So off I’m sent to a place reserved for economy class layovers.

If only PIA cared enough.

Six hours later, we’re being ferried to the airport to catch a morning flight to Islamabad. Lahore’s fog is thick as a thief. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. What if I can’t reach my final destination for another few days? I do manage to reach in one piece but the journey takes its toll. It’s simply ridiculous, horrendous, and preposterous for PIA to plan this route. Why can’t we travel direct to Islamabad — darn, it’s the capital of the country, not Timbuktu!

The airline can yet come out of the red by making smart changes. Pakistanis no matter of which country will always prefer to travel PIA. Get this. So give us direct routes; give us good ground and air service; be more caring of our little needs; don’t discriminate between us and the VIPs – seats must be allocated on first come first served basis; don’t fritter away money on cheap gifts for the business class passengers like watches and Rexene cases (some PIA biggie must make thousands in mark up prices); improve the quality of food and last but not the least be good to your own employees who deserve recognition.

Ali, my hard-to-reach contact, is an example of professionalism. The man is always at JFK at the time of PIA’s arrival and departure flights. He’s hands down making sure his ground staff is equally expeditious. But do get him some secretarial help — someone who picks up his phone and passes the message on, for God’s sake! Mirvat Omar works at the sales office in Manhattan. At the second ring, she picks up her phone. She’s efficient but wants to quit. Why? “I’ve been a ticketing agent ever since 1986. I moved over to PIA 23 years ago. They will not promote me nor will they sack me. I’m tired, frustrated and very angry, but if I resign today, I lose everything but if they fire me, PIA will have to pay all my dues!” She gets paid a minimum wage of $2,000 a month. Most of it goes in her long commute out of New Jersey. “I’m a single mom and need to work to run the home.”

This is most unfair. It’s gender discrimination. The woman, an Egyptian by birth who joined PIA only because she could say her prayers at her workplace, has no backing or support from a power horse at the headquarters in Karachi. Mirvat has sat at the same seat and done the same work every day of the year without any promotion. She holds an MA in archaeology and a degree in management and tourism.

Mirvat knows all the top bosses who have come and gone, some of them rotten to the core. Once a black American colleague of her’s was warned not to demand her rights because her Pakistani boss could “fix her real good!” The company, that’s what she calls PIA, has spent millions of dollars in fighting class action lawsuits filed against them by their lowly paid employees. “Instead of paying the lawyers such hefty fees, they could have rectified the situation by paying us more than the minimum wages that they pay.”

Is help on its way for Mirvat? Probably not. If only PIA cared enough!

Playing the Sindh card-Zafar Hilaly

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Saturday, January 30, 2010
Zafar Hilaly

When it comes to discussing discrimination practised against those who belong to the smaller provinces, many who are domiciled in Punjab prefer to avoid the subject. They seem to forget that however fair they may want to be, by refusing to acknowledge what is a widespread feeling in the smaller provinces, or by passively accepting and acquiescing in the discrimination, they allow those responsible to salve their conscience by believing that they have the acceptance and concurrence of their fellow Punjabis. When told that an excellent officer was being ignored merely on account of his provenance, a senior Punjabi colleague brushed it aside with the remark, “Actually, all life is about discrimination.”

Alas, it is not so simple. Pakistan was dismembered because for decades, the Bengalis felt that they were targets of rank discrimination till a point was reached when it no longer became tolerable. It is that feeling, that hurt, which gave rise to the possibility of secession rather than foreign machinations or the “traitors” of the Awami League.

Sadly, the same feeling is now in the air. Of course, in Balochistan it has caught on to an alarming extent. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has a separate flag, a distinct national anthem, an army and a manifesto that brazenly calls for independence. Thankfully, in the other provinces that was not the case till Mr Zardari played the Sindh card during his visit to Larkana, following the Supreme Court’s short order earlier this month.

And now what was once viewed as a tactic by him to escape the likely consequences of the judgement, the dirge of a harassed president, the last throw of the dice, as it were, is increasingly seen as brave, righteous and justified indignation against discrimination practised by institutions manned mostly by Punjabis against a regime and its leader who belongs to Sindh.

Only time will tell whether or not it was wise to play the Sindh card; of greater interest is why he should have had recourse to it and why the sense of alienation that exists in Sindh should continue 62 years after independence.

The bed rock of Pakistan’s formation was and will always be the 1940 Pakistan Resolution. That seminal document called for a Pakistan comprising “sovereign” and “autonomous” states with the centre retaining only defence foreign affairs, and currency. In contrast, Pakistan’s first Constitution (1956) contained 36 entries in the federal legislative List. This number was increased to 67 in the 1973 Constitution. Subsequent amendments changed the entire basis of the constitution. It was transformed into a unitary instead of a federal instrument. Police, railway, gas, etc, which were actually provincial subjects were retained by the Ccntre. “Such misuse of the concept of the concurrent legislative list,” Sindhis say, “was deeply resented by Sindh.”

Similarly, the smaller provinces felt short-changed by a lack of representation in the Central Superior Services (CSS). In the case of Balochistan, there is a glaring shortfall. Likewise, the amount and pace of development in Punjab, especially Lahore, is so strikingly greater than that in the other provinces or provincial capitals that comparisons are invidious and hurtful.

Yet neither the drift from a constitutionally weak to a super strong centre is the main cause for anger. Constitutional amendments that will be tabled once the Rabbani proposals are finalised, should hopefully reverse the trend towards centralisation. Similarly, additional recruitment will be able to address the shortfall in officers belonging to the smaller provinces. Proportionately more funds to the provinces than Punjab will enable them to begin the long journey of catching up with the former. The real problem is the attitudes of leaders, bureaucrats and the elite of Punjab towards those of their ilk from another province. Punjabis look condescendingly on others, not as younger brothers but more like poor cousins.

In the case of political leaders, the marked contrast in this regard between the mien of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto are revealing.

Nawaz Sharif is has surrounded himself with fellow Punjabis. Very few, if any, of those that form his coterie are non Punjabis. And their preferred mode of communication is often Punjabi. It is probably not a conscious decision to exclude non-Punjabis but rather, and more alarmingly, a natural and instinctive preference. Mr Sharif’s actions too belie his claim to be an all-Pakistan leader. Thus, it is not that he has no time for Sindh or Balochistan; it is just that he seems averse to leaving Punjab unless it is to go to London, Dubai or Jeddah. Besides, he seems to feel that until it becomes absolutely necessary to attend to the tiresome business of soliciting votes, why visit the other provinces? His beat extends mostly from Lahore to Murree, hence the Raiwind-Islamabad highway was built by him much before it was an economically viable proposition. Even today, it is probably a white elephant.

One recalls a World Bank missive written in the mid-90s stating precisely why the Raiwind highway was a profligate waste of money at the time. This so riled Benazir Bhutto that she sent a delegation to Turkey to prevail on President Demirel to ask the Turkish firm awarded the contract to stop work and forego the stiff penalty clause in the contract because otherwise “Pakistan will go broke.” Ask him to do us a favour, were her instructions in so many words. One also recalls the look of utter horror on Demirel’s face when confronted by such a request. After a long lecture on why “business is business”, he let it rest. Needless to say, he refused to intervene.

Nawaz Sharif’s action in persuading businessmen from Karachi to relocate to Punjab in the wake of the disturbances in Karachi in the mid-90s was probably not of his own making. After all, he could hardly force them to do so. However, the avid glee with which he canvassed such a move and the welcome they received in Punjab is still recalled vividly by many businessmen in Karachi. They view it as a parochial move that illustrated his unconcern for Karachi and the welfare of its citizens who obviously did not have the means to relocate to the Punjab and hence lost their only means of livelihood.

Against Benazir Bhutto, on the other hand, no such accusation was ever proffered. Around her were men and women from every province, religion, vocation, sect, and gender. And, more often than not, the language of communication was English. Her biases, such as they were, had everything to do with her liking, regard and respect for the individual and never for his or her province of domicile. She did little to develop her hometown Larkana which bears signs of government neglect to an extent that is clearly inexcusable. And although that may have been mere thoughtlessness, one suspects not. It is simply that she looked at all of Pakistan as her constituency, hence favouring one city or province in preference to another made absolutely no sense to her.

And this may well hold the secret to the huge response that Sindhis of all vocations and classes gave to Mr Zardari when he played the Sindh card. It is not that he is popular or greatly liked. On the contrary, few Sindhis hold him in high regard. However, they seem to sense that with the death of Pakistan’s last truly national leader, they have been absolved of their responsibility to the federation. It is as if they are saying “that’s it; we have done our bit and now we mean to look out for themselves,” like their Punjabi compatriots. They are not overly concerned of what is fair or just when it comes to dispensing resources or favours. They expect Mr Zardari to oblige Sindh in spades in return for their support.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

Damsel in distress-Ghazi Salahuddin

31 January, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Sunday, January 31, 2010
Ghazi Salahuddin

On Friday, President Asif Ali Zardari signed the Women Protection Bill into law. This law, passed by the Senate and National Assembly about a week ago, relates to harassment of women at workplaces. It amends both the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to enhance punishment for the crime to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs500,000.

Considering the overall status of women in our society, particularly of the women of the under-privileged sections, the Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Bill 2009 may be seen either as being revolutionary or just cosmetic. But these measures do underline the imperative for a progressive social change that will have to focus on the emancipation of women.

Incidentally, the alleged murder of the 12-year-old maid Shazia in the house of a well-known lawyer of Lahore has recently attracted a lot of media attention and a number of demonstrations have been held by political and civil society activists. Irrespective of the circumstances in which the poor Christian girl lost her life, we are again reminded of how domestic servants are treated and how children who ought to be going to schools have to work almost like slaves.

Anyhow, while signing the Women Protection Bill at the Chief Minister house in Karachi, President Zardari said that it was a major step to protect women from harassment and make them feel more secure. On the same day, however, and in the same city, a seminar was organised by the Aurat Foundation and the National Commission on the Status of Women on ‘Crimes in the name of honour and a parallel legal system’. It particularly condemned political parties for not allowing the women to vote in the Swat by-elections.

Now, I had not intended to write about the plight of women in this week’s column. Instead, I wish to raise the subject of another damsel in distress — democracy. This is so because on different occasions this week, I was engaged in discussions that relate to the status of democracy in Pakistan. And this has truly been a mystifying experience. What we have in the country at this time is surely to be defined as democracy, even if it is as adulterated as some of the medicine that is dispensed at government hospitals.

At the same time, we have to be wary of the conflicts that are building up in the context of a possible threat to the present democratic process. Or is the crisis only about the person of the president who, somehow, personifies some of the darkest shades in which the portrait of democracy can be painted in a country of low political culture? Many difficult questions also arise about the linkages that a democratic system must establish with the oppressed masses of Pakistan.

First, I may be excused for an analogy between our democracy and a damsel in distress. Obviously, I hit upon it while using the news report as a peg. Perhaps it is not entirely inappropriate because our democracy does look harassed and apparently unable to defend itself. I made a hasty reference to Wikipedia and this is what I have: “The subject of a damsel in distress or a persecuted maiden is a classic theme in world literature, art and film. She is usually a beautiful young woman placed in a dire predicament by a villain or a monster [the establishment?] and who requires a hero to dash to her rescue.” Our democracy may be likened to a damsel in distress because she deserves to be vindicated, at least in the fictional sense.

When I say that I have been rather preoccupied with thoughts about democracy, it is not the media that has made me do that. The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) has constituted a Democracy Assessment Group and I happen to be one of its 25 members. The group had its first meeting on January 13 but this week, on Monday, PILDAT held a national workshop on the Framework for Democracy Assessment in Islamabad and representatives of various political parties were also there to deliberate on the seemingly esoteric subject of how to assess the quality of democracy in Pakistan.

It was an educational and detailed exercise in which the entire range of emotions, happy and sad was expressed. Largely, it was a matter of pining for what is not. Incidentally, there is also this initiative to make a quantitative assessment of democracy by scoring a long list of questions between one and five. Naturally, a score of five would denote a “very high, very good” response and one would be “very low, very poor”.

As a sample, try this: How far is the rule of law operative throughout the territory? It would be interesting how the ardent supporters of the present government would mark this questionnaire, which consists of more than 70 questions on such sectors as Citizenship, Law and Rights; Rule of Law and Access to Justice; and Civil and Political Rights. As for the harsh critics of this government, we can imagine what the score would be.

Then, on Thursday, I was on a panel to discuss ‘internal dynamics’ with reference to human rights and religious issues at the National Institute of Management, formerly NIPA, in Karachi. The audience, of course, was a batch of senior government officers selected for promotion to grade 19. It was good to have Justice (retired) Nasir Aslam Zahid also on the panel and we could not avoid a debate on the prevailing state of governance and the administration of justice.

On Friday, I was in Lahore to participate in the national conference on “Institutionalising Democracy in Pakistan”, sponsored by Strengthening Participatory Organisation (SPO). Again, the idea was to not just analyse the present conditions but also identify the kind of structural reforms and political institutions that are needed to negate the idea that democracy cannot survive in Pakistan.

Attending this conference were social activists from all parts of the country and one can imagine the shrill voices that would be raised at such a gathering, reflecting the anger and the alienation of activists who belong to various regions that are under-developed. I sometimes feel that these grievances have become so antagonistic that a meaningful dialogue, the essence of a democratic process, is becoming almost impossible.

So, how would I sum it up? That our democracy is a damsel in distress may not be disputed. Does this mean that we are yearning for a saviour — the thought that is associated with a dictatorial dispensation? Or can the people, the ‘awam’ play a heroic role and rescue democracy from its many adversaries? Unfortunately, the lives that are led by the awam offer little scope for either hope or struggle.

The writer is a staff member. Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail .com