Arif Nizami
A case of two Pakistans by Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Arif Nizami
Just when the perception was gaining ground that the state was finally getting a handle on the existential threat from terrorism, Lahorites have received repeated rude shocks. On Monday a suicide bomber blew up an explosive-laden vehicle outside a “safe-house” located in Model Town, an affluent residential locality, killing 12, including a woman in a nearby house. This was to be followed four days later on Friday with an even more bloody suicide attack in the cantonment area of Lahore, which claimed at least forty-five lives, and four more explosions on the night of the same day in another Lahore area.
This is the first attack of its kind in the province this year, but second within two years in the same locality targeting an investigating agency. Despite protestations to the contrary, it says volume about the scant respect our elected leaderships have for the life and property of the ordinary citizen.
The devastating attack came just a week after Maj-Gen Tariq Khan, one of the most experienced commanders in the war against terrorism, boasted to a correspondent of The London Times that because of the kind of hits the TTP has taken (in recent weeks), it is no longer significant. He said in the same interview: “It (the TTP) has ended as a cohesive force. It doesn’t exist anymore as an umbrella organisation that can influence militancy anywhere.” The general might be right in the strategic sense, but so far as the long arm of the terrorist network is concerned, it retains the capacity to inflict collateral damage on the hapless common man, as it amply demonstrated in Lahore the other day.
The incident is not the first of its kind in a residential area of Lahore. Twice in the past two years the FIA building on Hameed Nizami Road was targeted by a suicide squad of the TTP, and last year the ISI headquarters and the Civil Lines Police Station located on Shahrah-e-Fatima Jinnah was struck in a daredevil attack. Instead of simply relocating such offices, which are prime targets of the terrorists, the authorities simply closed the busy commercial thoroughfare to traffic. The road was reopened by an order of the Lahore High Court, but only after the ISI had rebuilt its provincial headquarters into a fortress immune from further terrorist attacks.
That the intelligence agencies’ offices and their so-called safe-houses are located in residential areas despite their posing a clear danger to people’s lives shows utter disregard for the safety of the common man. Residents living in the vicinity of the Monday blast in Lahore confided to the media that the facility had been there for the past three years and blindfolded persons were often brought there. Security in the form of barriers, checkpoints and policing is stifling for the whole neighbourhood.
Adding insult to injury for the citizen is the manner in which our so-called VIPs move around in vast state-provided fleets of SUVs and police and security escorts. The ailment not only afflicts politicians, government and police functionaries, officers of law including judges of the superior courts but also many opposition figures. It has become a status symbol for many to demonstrate their importance in society in direct proportion to the size and quality of their security detail.
Frequent traffic blocks to facilitate “VIP movement” not only results in delays and collateral traffic congestion, it creates resentment among those who have to wait in long traffic jams. It is indeed a humiliating experience to see our VIPs’ motorcade moving at almost supersonic speed while a policeman is blocking you and your vehicle’s way. Another innovation which has been added to VIP culture is in the form of a vehicle leading the VIP motorcade, warning motorists to clear the way for speedy movement. The Punjab chief minister’s senior advisor, Zulfiqar Khosa, moves in this fashion. The other day the Sardar from Dera Ghazi Khan scolded a journalist for addressing him as “sahib” rather than as “sardar.”
Punjab chief minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif has warned the Lahore traffic police, in his trademark admonishing style, to improve the traffic system in the city. Perhaps he is not aware that between him and Prime Minister Gilani, both living in DHA Lahore, the residents of the locality have to suffer delays and inconvenience, precisely owing to their movements.
The federal government is spending huge amounts on the import of bullet-proof vehicles for ministers and government functionaries. Former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, who ordered a number of purpose-built bullet-proof Mercedes Jeeps not only for his own use but also for some key ministers, started the trend. Now with the security threat heightened, virtually every federal minister is demanding a bullet-proof vehicle from the government. Interior Minister Rehman Malik, whose job description is protection of citizens’ security, has distinguished himself for his detailed and well-equipped security escort in Islamabad.
At a time when the country’s economy under an IMF programme is in the doldrums, the VIPs’ regal perks and privileges are not confined to the ground. Moving around in luxury jets at state expense in the name of improving efficiency and better security has become the norm rather than the exception. Apart from the president and the prime minister, the governors and chief ministers of the provinces and heads of defence institutions and intelligence agencies enjoy the luxury of having planes at their disposal.
During the tenure of Mr Aziz, who was ostentatiously fond of private jets from his Citibank days, the federal government went on an ordering spree of modern aircrafts and helicopters. The fleet now includes two Gulfstream jets G4 and G45, purchased at a price of 65 million dollars, and five brand-new Agusta helicopters, purchased for 15 million dollars apiece. Qatar Airways, in exchange for some lucrative routes, donated a luxury-fitted Airbus 310 to the-then prime minister’s fleet. Too expensive to fly, it is rarely used, and is idle on the ground.
The Punjab government bought a Beachcraft three years ago for six million dollars. There is a tug of war between the governor and the chief minister over who has primacy over its use. The Sindh government, not to be left behind, bought a Learjet two years ago for 12 million dollars. The Balochistan government owns a five-year-old Learjet, while the NWFP has distinguished itself for owning an old turbofan.
It is only in a poor country like Pakistan that the concept of leaders flying about in assigned private planes at the taxpayers’ expense is in vogue. Singapore and Sri Lanka rely on time-sharing and charter to economise. Even the Queen of England, despite owning an old royal jet, relies on charter or scheduled airline for air travel.
According to a source well versed in commercial and private aviation, Pakistan is second only to the USA and Saudi Arabia, with the possible exception of India, for having the largest fleet of passenger jets in the public sector, all at the taxpayer’s expense.
Notwithstanding the need for foolproof security measures for our leaders in these turbulent times, the common man feels increasingly alienated when the state fails to take even a modicum of safety measures for the people. According to media reports, both the federal and provincial governments plainly refused to entertain repeated written requests from provincial and federal intelligence agencies to move their offices from residential areas in Lahore.
Ironically, lack of funds was cited as the reason. On the other hand, the exchequer is spending billions on bullet-proof vehicles, helicopters, airplanes and elite security forces to protect the VIPs. The pertinent question to ask is: are there two Pakistans? One for the rich and the famous and the other for the wretched common man, who in any case cannot make two ends meet!
It is sickening to note that while the people of Punjab are under constant threat from terrorism, our provincial leaders are too busy settling political and personal scores on the behest of their masters. The recent exchange of harsh statements in the media between Governor Salmman Taseer and provincial law minister Rana Sanaullah, followed by an exchange of equally rude letters between the governor and the chief minister, are totally out of sync. It is time the higher leaderships of both the PPP and the PML-N put their proxies on a tight leash, instead of patting them on the back.
It should be more than a charade by Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Arif Nizami
If the events of the past week are any indication, our policymakers have to be delusional to harbour any hope of a meaningful dialogue with India on Kashmir or on the incrementally desperate water dispute. As if the cold shoulder given to Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir by his Indian counterpart, Nirupama Rao, was not enough, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recently concluded visit to Saudi Arabia was the mea culpa.
It has become abundantly clear that we might consider Kashmir to be the core issue to be discussed with New Delhi, the Indian leadership considers “Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists” its core concern. The resumption of composite dialogue has been predicated with “Islamabad’s response over combating terrorism.”
Washington’s pressure on New Delhi to resume a meaningful dialogue with Islamabad, stalled since the Mumbai attack in November 2008, has been cleverly deflected by the Indian prime minister’s recent sojourn to Riyadh, the first by an Indian leader since 1982. Manmohan Singh sweet-talked his way in his meeting with King Abdullah. While addressing Saudi Arabia’s quasi-parliament, the Shura Council, he made the right noises about ties with Pakistan, with the caveat that Islamabad acted decisively against terrorism.
In response, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal urged the Pakistani leaders to forge unity amongst themselves to thwart the menace of terrorism. It is indeed ironical that the main patron of Islamic fundamentalism in our region now lectures Pakistan on how to “thwart the designs of the extremists.” The unkindest cut for Islamabad is the fact that this hectoring was done during a meeting with Indian journalists accompanying their prime minister.
It is an open secret in Islamabad that since the present government took over two years ago, Pakistani-Saudi relations have been downhill. At the outset the Saudis felt annoyed and humiliated when a tract of “shikargah” was awarded to members of the UAE royal family which they considered to be theirs. Incidentally, the Saudi hosts made no mention of resolving the Kashmir issue during the visit of the Indian prime minister.
A perception has been created that since the Bhuttos spent their years in exile in Dubai and the Sharifs in Jeddah, President Zardari has tilted in favour of his UAE benefactors at the expense of Islamabad’s traditional friend. Islamabad’s failure in getting oil from the kingdom on deferred terms and Riyadh’s lack of enthusiasm to contribute to the “Friends of Pakistan” is another indicator of Pakistan’s diminished influence over the Saudis.
There has been a storm in a teacup over Indian minister of state for external affairs Sashi Tharoor’s reported statement that New Delhi had sought “mediation” by Saudi Arabia to urge Pakistan to check cross-border terrorism. The junior minister who was accompanying Manmohan Singh understandably backed off to save his job.
New Delhi has consistently stuck to its novel stance that the Simla Accord precludes third-party and multilateral mediation over Kashmir. It is owing to this reason that New Delhi successfully persuaded the US to exclude India from the agenda of President Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. Hence the US is euphemistically referred to as a “facilitator” to bring India and Pakistan close, albeit with mixed results.
Notwithstanding the Pakistani army’s recent successful onslaught against the Taliban, wiping out not only the TTP but also half the Quetta Shura, it still considers India as an existential threat. It is in this backdrop that Washington has been urging New Delhi to resume the composite dialogue with Islamabad. But under no pressure or in a hurry to start meaningful talks the Indians have very successfully put the whole onus on Islamabad to deliver on their self-serving interpretation of terrorism.
Islamabad states ad nauseam that as a victim of terrorism itself, its army has fought valiantly to combat the menace. During the past year the Taliban and their allied groups carried out 87 suicide attacks inside Pakistan, killing at least 1,300 people, mostly civilians. But New Delhi is not amused. Its media pins every terrorist incident inside India on Pakistan-based militant organisations. The Taliban consistently targeting the Indians in Afghanistan, especially its army personnel, is also somehow pinned on the much-feared and much-maligned ISI.
The Indians have handed over three dossiers to Pakistan regarding alleged anti- India activities by militants operating from Pakistan. In this context there is a consistent demand to arrest Hafiz Saeed, the leader of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT). Islamabad, on the other hand, claims that there is not sufficient evidence to arrest, let alone try, Hafiz Saeed. And the rub lies in Pakistan’s sincerity coming under increasing doubt in dealing with India- and Kashmir-specific militants.
The Taliban regime’s last ambassador to Islamabad has recently published a book. My Life with the Taliban makes startling revelations about relations with the ISI. According to Zaeef, late in 2001, as the US prepared to attack Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, the ISI’s then commanding general, Mehmud Ahmed, visited him, wept in solidarity and promised: “We want to assure you that you will not be alone in this jihad against America. We will be with you.” Ironically, it is the same general who, on a visit to Washington at the time of 9/11, readily agreed to all the preconditions of the US, even without consulting his boss General Musharraf in Islamabad.
Since then a lot has changed. The military under its present leadership has achieved spectacular success against the Taliban in the past one year. In some ways, no matter how much things change they remain the same. There are still amongst our ubiquitous establishment who insist upon maintaining the myth of good and bad Taliban. They also stick to the antiquated doctrine that Afghanistan is our strategic depth.
The Pakistani army is unapologetic about maintaining an India-centric policy. Nor does New Delhi’s aggressive posture give Islamabad any reason to alter its strategic paradigm. Perhaps the only way forward is to resolve outstanding disputes through meaningful talks, rather than belligerency and clandestine wars. There is the lunatic fringe in both the countries that still thinks that a war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours is still an option.
The Indian political establishment is bent upon bleeding Pakistan’s already emaciated economy by keeping the pot boiling, and to further intimidate Islamabad the Indian generals have recently unveiled their cold start war strategy. In this scenario, barring a miracle, nothing much is going to be achieved in future talks. The only silver lining on the horizon is that no matter how meaningless it is, both sides have agreed to continue with dialogue. The Indian foreign secretary has been invited to Islamabad, while the prime ministers of the two countries will meet on the sidelines of the SAARC summit due next month in Thimphu, the capital of Bhutan.
But these talks, in the absence of a framework and without the political will, are going to be nothing more than a charade to keep the facilitators of the process at bay. In the meanwhile an economy-driven agenda to bring prosperity to the hapless poor of the subcontinent will remain a pipedream to be continually sacrificed at the altar of the myopic thinking of the hardliners and hawks on both sides of the divide.
The writer is a former newspaper editor.
Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
For the good of the people by Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Arif Nizami
The judicial crisis that had engulfed the entire nation in the past few weeks has finally come to an amicable end. Thanks to the statesman-like approach of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s consensus-building skills and President Asif Ali Zardari rising above his ego, an unmitigated disaster has been averted. The chief justice’s recommendations have been accepted in toto, including the elevation of Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Nasir Khosa to the Supreme Court and appointment of Justice Khalil Ramday as an ad hoc judge of the apex court.
Prime Minister Gilani’s dramatic appearance at the dinner hosted by Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to bid farewell to Justice (r) Khalil Ramday was the first indication that the government was seeking ways to end the impasse created by its gross misreading of the situation. Although it is being claimed that the prime minister came unannounced and without an invitation, it is most likely that the drama had been scripted beforehand with the tacit approval of the stakeholders.
It is no coincidence that at the dinner the chief justice was flanked by Yusuf Raza Gilani on his right and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan on his left. Barrister Aitzaz was the lawyer-strategist, driver and scriptwriter of Justice Iftikhar after Gen Musharraf had unceremoniously sacked the chief justice. Hence, apart from being an old guard PPP man and member of the CEC, Aitzaz also enjoys the confidence of the chief justice.
Backdoor efforts to diffuse the crisis could have still come to naught if all parties concerned had persisted with their respective egos. The judicial crisis started when, contrary to the advice of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the president elevated the chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khwaja Mohammad Sharif, to the Supreme Court and appointed Justice Saqib Nisar as the LHC’s acting chief justice. A bench of the apex court hastily suspended the notification the same evening.
The very next day PML-N supremo Mian Nawaz Sharif suddenly woke up from his slumber and not only declared President Zardari as the biggest threat to democracy but also demanded that he bring back his money stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Both the PPP and the PML-N taking to the streets and making vitriolic statements literally provided fuel to burn effigies of each other’s leadership. It seemed that the fragile democratic institutions still transiting from long period of military dictatorship would be the first casualty.
Notwithstanding different legal interpretations being given to the process of appointing and elevating judges of the higher judiciary under the Constitution, there is wide consensus among the legal fraternity that the chief justice of Pakistan is the final authority in appointing and elevating judges and his advice is binding on the executive.
On the one hand, in the famous Judges’ Case of 1996, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah ruled that the senior-most judge had the legitimate expectancy to be elevated and that consultation between the executive and the chief justice should be meaningful. However, much later, in 2002, a five-member bench of the apex court, contrary to its earlier judgment, ruled that the principles of legitimate expectancy and seniority did not apply to appointment of Supreme Court judges. Hence, as the law stands today, the chief justice of Pakistan, being the sole arbiter, enjoys a virtual veto in the matter.
This naturally puts the executive at a disadvantage on the issue of appointing judges according to its whims and wishes. The constitutional crisis had its genesis in the mistaken perception shared by the presidency and the governor of Punjab that Justice Sharif, being “more Sharif than the Sharifs,” was trying to pack fresh judicial appointments with his cohorts. Hence, come what may, he must be kicked upstairs.
It was also naively assumed that Justice Saqib Nisar, known to be a man of integrity, would somehow be more flexible and amenable to the blandishments of the PPP. Under the Constitution, the governor of Punjab had the option of giving cogent reasons for not accepting the names of some of the judges. But perhaps being aware that even that process is justiciable, he decided to simply sit on the files.
It has been proved beyond doubt that the government was either deliberately misled by its legal eagles or once again they simply rose to their level of incompetence. Reportedly, Law Minister Babar Awan informally proposed that the chief justice should agree on a common list of appointees to high courts in a spirit of give-and-take, little realising that under the Constitution the judiciary is under no compulsion to agree to a cherry-picking process.
If recent history is any guide, confrontation with the judiciary has never paid off, especially in the case of civilian governments. Ms Benazir Bhutto, when she was prime minister, made a scathing speech in the immediate aftermath of the 1996 Judges’ Case, bitterly criticising the higher judiciary under Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. The chief justice subsequently did not spare her and sanctified her dismissal by Farooq Leghari in a manner that clearly favoured her opponent Nawaz Sharif.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, heady with his “heavy mandate,” took on Sajjad Ali Shah within a year after coming into power. He almost lost his government after his goons stormed the Supreme Court Building. The situation was only saved by tacit intervention by then-COAS Gen Jehangir Karamat. Much later, Musharraf was victim of his short-sighted decision of unceremoniously sacking Chief Justice Iftikhar. This proved disastrous not only for him but also for his quisling Muslim League, which lost badly at the hustings.
There are lessons to be leant for Mr Zardari as well. Notwithstanding the acts of commission and omission of the judiciary in our chequered political history, confrontationist mode with the higher judiciary is neither in his interest nor in the long-term interest of the country. Apparently, the PPP’s coalition partners, including the MQM, were not in favour of continuing with the state of confrontation with the judiciary. This is the message that was conveyed to Prime Minister Gilani when he left the meeting of the coalition partners at the Presidency to “gatecrash” Chief Justice Iftikhar’s dinner.
The recent impasse has amply demonstrated that the present system of appointment and elevation of judges of the superior courts is indeed flawed. To say the least, the process leaves grey areas, which tempts the executive to block appointments or elevation of certain judges in order to pack the courts with its favourites. On the flip side, the higher judiciary can skew the process in a manner that can create hurdles for the executive.
The obvious casualty in such a tug of war is the hapless common man who had hoped that an independent judiciary would deliver justice at his doorstep. The lawyers’ movement was as much about the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar and his colleagues as about establishment of rule of law and access to justice for all. These lofty goals, however, remain elusive.
The judges, who are only supposed to speak through their judgments, with the exception of a few, now act like politicians making public utterances and hobnobbing with the executive as a rule rather than the exception. And the lawyers’ bodies that were the vanguard of the movement are too divided and embroiled in their turf wars even to give a cursory thought to much needed legal reforms.
The Charter of Democracy signed with much fanfare by Mian Nawaz Sharif and the late Ms Bhutto while they were in exile in London, clearly lays down a bipartisan approach for appointments to the superior courts. Mr Athar Minallah, a close associate of the chief justice and his former spokesman, in a recent television interview termed the CoD as the most important document in the country’s history, second only to the Quaid-e-Azam’s historic speech to the Constituent Assembly on Sept 11, 1947, and the 1973 consensus Constitution.
According to media reports the PML-N has recently disassociated itself from the Raza Rabbani Committee drafting the 18th Amendment. It will be in the fitness of things for the PML-N to go back in the deliberations and insist upon. including the process of appointment of judges in accordance with the CoD in the agenda of the committee. It’s time our politicians put their heads together for the good of the people rather than merely fighting their turf wars.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Midterm elections by Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Arif Nizami
The absence of Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif at a recent meeting held at the Presidency to decide the fate of the local bodies is another indication of the fast deteriorating relations between the PPP and the PML-N. While the chief ministers of the other three provinces were present, the coalition partner in Punjab, was not even invited.
It is obvious that the PPP does not approve of the Punjab government’s move to delay the local bodies elections and in the interim run the local governments’ affairs through bureaucrats. It fears that the Punjab government has its eyes set on the huge funds in the Nazims’ kitty. The other day, Punjab senior minister Raja Riaz, who is from the PPP, bitterly complained to the chief minister of his consistently being kept out of decision-making. Mian Shahbaz Sharif was kind enough to form a committee to look into the complaints of the PPP ministers.
The rumpus created in the aftermath of the attack on Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who is contesting a by-election from Rawalpindi, a constituency considered to be a bastion of the PML-N, is another indication of the deteriorating environment. Fishing in troubled waters, Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, who has distinguished himself by his acerbic attacks on the Sharifs, rushed to Lal Haveli, the abode of “Sheeda Tulli,” the very next day. The chief minister, however, did not find it appropriate to visit Rashid, a former colleague and party stalwart.
While the PPP and PML-N are slugging it out in the media PML-N supremo Mian Nawaz Sharif is pretending to be above the fray. Ensconced mostly in his Raiwind estate, he blows hot and cold in his occasional and far-apart forays in active politics. The other day, in Bahawalpur en route to a grand shikar, he announced that his party would stage another long march if the Supreme Court verdict on the NRO were not implemented in letter and spirit. He also demanded that tainted federal ministers should quit the cabinet.
While claiming, on the one hand, that he is not in favour of rocking the boat and wants to strengthen the system, Mian Sahib is rather reluctant to enter the corridors of the National Assembly and play his role as leader of the opposition. He would rather relax and lead a lifestyle more akin to a Saudi prince than an active grassroots politician. Predictably, he has opted out of contesting the by- election from his home constituency in Lahore due next month.
According to some political pundits this decision emanates from a cynical calculation that the Zardari regime is going to crumble under its own weight of incompetence, and owing to its troubles with the establishment and the apex court. Hence, the best policy under the circumstances will be to wait it out for midterm elections to usher the PML-N back into power.
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani has been confiding with his friends that if President Zardari was hounded out of office he would quit and sit in the opposition, instead of becoming a Shaukat Aziz or a Jamali. The PML-N has decided that in such an eventuality it will not even try forming a government with the support of its ninety-odd members of the National Assembly. As no party will be in a position to form a government, this move will automatically precipitate midterm elections.
The only flaw in this strategy is that it is based upon too many ifs and buts. First of all, despite his being beleaguered and in all kinds of troubles, it is not axiomatic that President Zardari will be forced to quit. Secondly, even if that happens, what is the guarantee that midterm elections will take place? And, finally, if midterm elections do take place, how can the PML-N be so sure of winning them and be able to form a government solo?
If the recent by-elections in Manshera are an indication, the PML-N emerged as a poor third in the results. In a constituency long considered a safe haven for the party, the PML-N took solace from the fact that it managed to beat the PPP, which came fourth in the race. Sheikh Rashid being a political turncoat lost from this Rawalpindi constituency. But in the by-election he is giving the PML-N candidate a run for his money.
Despite being in complete control in Punjab, the PML-N-led government in the province is not exactly a bastion of good governance. According to a recently released World Bank report, the fiscal health of the province is deteriorating fast. The report strongly recommends that the provincial government take urgent measures to reverse this alarming trend and minimise non-development expenditures and make concerted efforts to generate own-source revenue.
The internal report laments that the province that had cash balances with the State Bank amounting to Rs43 billion by end-June 2008 now owes the Bank Rs62 billion. It further accuses the Punjab government of “fiscal imprudence” as a result of which provincial finances that were well managed since 1997 have come under a lot of pressure.
Has Mian Shahbaz Sharif, a role model for good governance in his previous stint, has lost his magic touch. Or is circumstances which have led to the present state of affairs? Flawed schemes like “sasti roti” leading to heavy subsidies on wheat flour and expenditure on mega projects that were originally based upon public-private partnership, have virtually brought the province to financial ruin.
Perhaps the way forward for the ruling PML-N in Punjab would have been to stick to its original constituency instead of dabbling in populist schemes which were the hallmark of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP in the ’70s. Demolishing high-rise buildings in Lahore under whatever pretext is a flawed policy that not only gives the provincial metropolis an ugly look, it hurts the very constituency that is the PML-N’s traditional support base.
Ironically the replacement of Chief Secretary Javed Mehmood by Tariq Khosa, an able bureaucrat, will do the province some good. Administration under the ousted chief secretary was an unmitigated disaster marred by frequent reshuffling of bureaucrats, which resulted in lowering of morale and esprit de corps amongst civil servants.
In this backdrop the PML-N should make a concerted effort to make the system work smoothly, instead of wishing for divine intervention to bring it into power. No doubt it takes two to tango and, the PPP being the ruling party, the onus is primarily on the PPP-led coalition to make a concerted effort to bring all stakeholders on board.
The prime minister, addressing his parliamentary party’s meeting the other day, acknowledged the right of the opposition to criticise, and declared that he would happily entertain any strategy presented by the opposition. Being a natural consensus-builder, he has an excellent rapport with all political forces in the country, including the Sharifs.
However, he has to walk the talk by advising his party colleagues, including the Punjab governor, to follow the same agenda of live and let live. The much delayed repeal of the 17th Amendment should take place sooner than later as a wide consensus on virtually all matters relating to the proposed 18th Amendment already exists in parliament.
The PML-N should also reconsider its policy of non-cooperation with the PPP-led government. By omitting to give proper protocol to President Zardari on his last visit to Lahore, the Sharifs ill-served the cause of democracy. No matter how much they may detest the PPP and the Zardari style of politics, they cannot wish their political opponents away. The PML-N maintains its support base is central Punjab, whereas rural Sindh remains the bastion of the PPP.
The days of “bhari mandate” are a thing of the past and hence, come what may, any future dispensation based upon elections will be a coalition government. Instead of their pursuing a divisive agenda, there is need for all major parties to practice consensus politics. Meanwhile, Mian Shahbaz Sharif should take a good look at the manner in which Punjab has been run in the past two years. He is capable and hardworking. All he needs is to get his old mojo back.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Kayani’s glasnost by Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Arif Nizami
Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has embarked on a glasnost rarely seen among our military commanders. Within a span of two days he separately briefed foreign and Pakistani media at the GHQ with the aid of power- point presentations on the army’s strategic paradigm, its views on Afghanistan and the successes it achieved against the Pakistani Taliban.
During the session with the Pakistani media, the chain-smoking general looked relaxed and quite satisfied with the results achieved in a war which is quite different from any of the ones fought with India. He rightfully claimed that perhaps the Pakistani army is the only success story in the region against the war on terror, at a cost in terms of human lives much more than that of the NATO and allied forces in Afghanistan. He said that the officers of the army were leading from the front as, for every ten soldiers, we had lost one officer.
Despite preoccupation with fighting the war on terror, for Gen Kayani and the institution he leads the major worry remains India. He said that he had made it clear to Nato commanders in Brussels that the Pakistani army would remain “India-centric” owing to the threat perception from India and the unresolved issues between the two nations. He highlighted Kashmir and the water dispute in this context.
The main concern of the Pakistani army is India’s “Cold Start” doctrine, according to which, contrary to the traditional way, war precedes mobilisation. In this backdrop the Pakistani army has not taken lightly outgoing Indian army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor’s recent statement about starting a two-theatre war with China and Pakistan.
Gen Kayani reiterated the view, one he also expressed earlier, that the armed forces have to plan on capability rather than intentions. Hence, the blandishments of the West that the badly stretched Pakistani army should shift its focus from its eastern borders to the western borders cannot be complied with.
Dialogue with India remains stalled since the Mumbai attack in November 2008. At the time both Mr Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif were euphoric about starting a new chapter with India based upon free trade and a visa-free regime, with the Kashmir issue put on the backburner.
Now with the PPP-led coalition considerably weakened, it is in no position to run contrary to the strategic paradigm spelt out by the army. President Zardari’s recent statement on a visit to Muzaffarabad that Pakistan is willing to fight a thousand years’ war with India over Kashmir must be read in this context. New Delhi has made some half-hearted gestures to resume dialogue. But it will come to naught, given the present state of distrust between the two adversaries.
Gen Kayani is an enlightened man. While lamenting that Pakistan’s defence budget, as a percentage of the GDP and in real terms, has gone down, whereas India’s defence budget is seven times bigger, concedes that defence and development go hand in hand. He said that while he was all for peaceful coexistence with India, as army chief it was his job description to match Indian capabilities. Keeping in mind the Indian mindset and the Pakistani army’s strategic paradigm and its suzerainty over other institutions, peace with India will remain an elusive goal
The chief of the army staff was of the view that peace and stability in South Asia should not be hostage to a single terrorist incident. He was critical of US defence secretary Robert Gates’ recent statement in New Delhi that if there was another Mumbai-style incident India would be justified to attack Pakistan. He said that he told Gates when he called on him later in Rawalpindi that this was giving a carte blanche to India to attack Pakistan and at the same time encouraging non-state actors to conduct such terrorist acts to trigger a war between India and Pakistan.
Gen Kayani delved at length on the strategic viewpoint of the Pakistani army on the Afghan conflict and how it impacts upon Nato in conducting operations in Afghanistan. He said that, being Afghanistan neighbour, Pakistan has long-term goals and interests in that country. ”Afghanistan is my past present and future,” he added. He was of the view that when the West eventually leaves Afghanistan, Islamabad will be left in the lurch if it does not take a long-term view of safeguarding its strategic interests. Earlier, while briefing the foreign media, he had clearly stated that Pakistan wants a strategic depth in Afghanistan without the desire to control it.
Translated in simple language, while fighting the Pakistani Taliban, Pakistan has no desire to take the fight to the Afghan Taliban, whom in the long run it considers a strategic asset. In the context Gen Kayani clarified that, although the Pakistani army has deployed one division of its troops in North Waziristan for search operations since the local Waziris are cooperating, minimum force will be applied. However, he did not entirely rule out going after the Jalaluddin Haqqani network in the future, reiterating that a successful operation in South Waziristan has helped in the North, which is now isolated.
Islamabad is keen to train the Afghan National Army and police, a task which the Indians are undertaking with the blessings of the US and Afghan president Hamid Karzai. Gen William B Caldwell, commander of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan, is in Pakistan on a second visit. However, there is stiff resistance to this proposal from the Afghan government, that perhaps feels that soldiers trained by Pakistan will be infiltrated by ISI agents. The killing in Dir of three American soldiers ostensibly on a training mission could make this goal even more elusive.
From Islamabad’s strategic point of view, a 250,000-strong Afghan army hostile to Pakistan would put it into a nutcracker situation with both its western and eastern neighbours. Pakistan has drawn a redline, stating that predominant Indian influence in Afghanistan is not acceptable.
Gen Kayani also briefed the media on the cost Pakistan is paying for its role in the war in terror in terms of loss of life, infrastructure and to its fragile economy. He confirmed that there have been more terrorist attacks in Pakistan during the past year than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. He conceded that despite vigilance and military successes this problem couldn’t be wished away. “We cannot go on like this forever, we have to find a remedy,” he said in an emotional tone, conceding that ultimately the war cannot be won without winning hearts and minds.
He explained that the contribution of the army was building schools and mosques. During his interaction with high-ranking civilian and military visitors from the US he impressed upon them the need to invest in projects that make a qualitative difference in the lives of the people of Pakistan. Reportedly, he even asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her recent to Pakistan for the US to invest in a 1,000-megawatt power project. Ironically, the $1.5 billion a year earmarked under the Kerry Lugar Bill, $300 million will be spent on a monitoring mechanism alone, and in the end not much will be left for economic development with a visible impact.
There has been a lot of talk about the ISI facilitating talks between the US and the Afghan Taliban. Gen Kayani made it clear that in order for that to happen, the US must first be clear about its own priorities and strategy regarding whom to talk to and at what stage, as without a proper framework nothing could be achieved. The US has changed its vocabulary about the Taliban, as instead if making no distinction between the so-called good and bad Taliban, now it speaks in terms of “reconcilable and irreconcilable” Taliban. But the army does not view this change in nomenclature as enough to work upon.
Gen Kayani declined to answer a question about recent insinuations by President Zardari that some elements in the military were destabilising his government and that there was a nexus between the courts and the army to oust him. He said, “Since we are not doing it and are fully supportive of the system, I refuse to be drawn in.” While he said this, however, his body language was a mixture of anger and disappointment. Clearly he is not happy about the aspersions cast.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Conspiracy theories-Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Arif Nizami
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 287-page detailed judgment declaring the NRO unconstitutional, Mr Zardari’s presidency is perceived to be in all kinds of trouble. Nevertheless, the president is defiant and has vowed to fight all the way. His legal options limited, he has apparently decided to meet the challenge politically. He claims, with some bravado, that as an elected president and head of the largest political party of the country, he would give his opponents their money’s worth.
Despite such bluster, President Zardari has been bitterly complaining of conspiracies against him. A few days after the judgment, while launching a dam project in Chakwal, he lamented that, “we cannot be killed by conspiracies of pens or bayonets.” He has been consistently blaming a section of the media for targeting him. But despite broad hints, he had refrained from naming the army as part of the so-called conspiracy.
On the same occasion he lamented the role of “political actors who consider themselves politicians.” Whether this was a broad hint at the judiciary or the army, or at a nexus between the two, it certainly takes Mr Zardari’s threat perception to a critical level. PPP circles have been complaining privately about the ISI or part of it as conspiring against their party’s rule.
There have been numerous meetings between the COAS, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and President Zardari and the prime minister. The president was assured that there were no conspiracies afoot to dislodge him by the military or its intelligence apparatus. Nor was there a nexus between the army and the judiciary to dislodge or destabilise the government.
In the light of these assurances Mr Zardari seemed reassured and promised to publicly correct the damage done by the Naudero speech a month ago on the occasion of Ms Benazir Bhutto’s death anniversary. Apparently the Chakwal speech has vitiated the atmosphere again, widening the chasm between the army and Mr Zardari.
This unfortunate situation has arisen at a crucial time, when high-level talks to chalk out a strategy to engage the Taliban for joining a future Afghan dispensation are afoot. Islamabad’s role in such talks is seen to be pivotal. On the sidelines of the Brussels summit meeting with NATO commanders, Gen Kayani is meeting the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, the commander of the US Central Command, Gen David Petraeus, and the head of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal. These high-level contacts will determine Islamabad’s role in deciding the future course of action in Afghanistan.
The army, with its hands full fighting the Taliban internally as well as dealing with the increasingly threatening posture of the Indians, is hardly in a position to successfully intervene in domestic political conflicts. It has a dismal record of leaving the country in a bigger mess every time it has intervened. Unfortunately, in the present scenario, not entirely of Mr Zardari’s making, it might have to intercede again to prevent a complete deadlock as a result of the standoff between the government and the apex court. Prime Minister Gilani has already hinted that a clash of institutions may again lead to military dictatorship in the country.
The detailed judgment has opened three kinds of challenges for President Zardari that could possibly destabilise the system in days to come. As a result of the judgment the president might be compelled to approach the court regarding whether he enjoys legal or constitutional immunity from being tried for any criminal offence during his term of office.
Another possibility opened by the judgment is whether, under Article 62(F) of the Constitution, Mr Zardari was eligible to be president at the time of his election. Interestingly, this clause, which was inserted by Gen Ziaul Haq, judges the candidate on the touchstone of whether he is “sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen.”
It will be a supreme irony if Mr Zardari was disqualified on the basis of this controversial and arbitrary clause. Few elected members of the assemblies can fulfil this subjective criterion, and this is why some prominent jurists, including Ms Asma Jahangir, are openly critical of its invocation.
The potential for trouble lies under Article 190, under which all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are to act in aid of the Supreme Court. This is being interpreted by some as giving the apex court the option to ask the army to intervene to get its NRO verdict implemented. Back in 1997, President Farooq Leghari tried his hands at it when Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah wrote to the COAS, Gen Jehangir Karamat, to intervene to protect the Supreme Court from Nawaz Sharif’s goons. Gen Karamat refused to oblige, on the basis that the request should come from the competent authority. As a result, Leghari had to resign.
Firstly, it will indeed be a negation of the successful and protracted struggle of the lawyers’ movement against the Musharraf dictatorship for the restoration of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, if the apex court invites the army to move against an elected government, on whatever pretext. Secondly, neither is the government likely to make such a request nor can the military take the unusual step of moving against an elected government, because that will amount to subverting the Constitution yet again.
Fears have been expressed that, if forced to quit, Mr Zardari could use the Sindh card. With Balochistan already on fire, this could be a big blow to the country’s integrity and stability. In practical terms it is unlikely that the biggest national political party of the country would retreat to Sindh and abandon national politics. In the ultimate analysis, even if Mr Zardari is unable to retain the presidency there is no reason that the PPP, along with its coalition partners, does not remain in power.
It is another matter if the establishment considers the PPP a “security risk” and is actually conspiring to end its rule. If so, it will indeed be a tragedy for survival of democratic institutions of the country. To obviate such a possibility, no matter how unlikely, Gen Kayani should closely re-examine what is happening on his watch. Notwithstanding the shenanigans of our political elite, there is little philosophical appreciation and understanding for civilian rule within our polity including the intelligence agencies.
Thankfully, Mian Nawaz Sharif, despite goading from some of his hawkish party men and vitriolic statements emanating from the PPP leadership, has resisted the temptation to destabilise the system. The enormous trust deficit that exists between him and Mr Zardari needs to be bridged, and for that to happen the ball is squarely in the president’s court. Foot-dragging on scrapping the controversial 17th Amendment has become counter-productive, not only for the system but for his credibility as well.
Mr Sharif should play his role to strengthen the system by entering the parliament, instead of remaining ensconced in his Raiwind estate. He should not miss the opportunity of contesting by-elections due in March. His present detached attitude perhaps emanates from the perception that ultimately power will fall in his laps like a ripe apple and all he has to do is wait. This is wishful thinking, since, if the system goes, Mian Sahib will be the biggest loser.
Mr Zardari, as president, owes the nation and his party to give a clean and lean government free of corruption and cronyism. Six months back he was provided a list of corrupt ministers by the ISI chief. No action was considered necessary on the basis of the list. According to a media report the prime minister has advised the president that now is the time to act by removing some key controversial figures from their offices. He should heed the advice of his prime minister.
President Zardari, instead of lamenting the real or perceived conspiracies against him, should be seen to be mending fences both with the pen and the bayonet. So far as the media is concerned, he should not be overtly worried about its role, as a large section of both the print and electronic media is giving a balanced, if not actually supportive, picture of his regime. Public airing of grievances with the army and the ISI hinting at a nexus between them and the courts could prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in the ultimate analysis. Hence the need for opening a frank dialogue before it is too late!
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
The Ugly American’-Arif Nizami
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
‘The Ugly American’
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Arif Nizami
Despite the Pakistani army’s crushing offensives against the Taliban in Swat, Malakand and, more recently, in South Waziristan, serious policy differences persist between Washington and Islamabad. The pressure on Pakistan to take the fight to North Waziristan to neutralise the Jalaluddin Haqqani network is mounting since the nexus between the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban is becoming increasingly obvious.
One manifestation of that was the visit of US special envoy Richard Holbrooke to the region in the wake of the successful suicide attack on a CIA base in Afghanistan on Dec 30, conducted with the joint support of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban.
Apart from doing the usual meetings with the president, the prime minister and the army chief, Mr Holbrooke met a select group of parliamentarians belonging to different political parties. During the meeting with the parliamentarians the special envoy sounded more like the fictional “Ugly American” who in real life represents a stereotypical perception of loud, arrogant, demeaning and overbearing attitude of most members of the US administration when they interact with their Third World clients.
Although President Zardari in his meeting with Mr Holbrooke termed the surge in US drone attacks and the new US screening regime for Pakistani citizens as “cause for concern,” the US envoy was least impressed. In his meeting with the parliamentarians he termed the issue of profiling of Pakistani citizens at US airports as a routine matter. With scant regard for the humiliation caused by profiling on the basis of religion, he reportedly remarked: “What are a few extra minutes for the sake of safety of our citizens?” He brushed aside the issue of drone attacks and their immense collateral loss of innocent lives in a similar perfunctory manner.
When one of the parliamentarians pointed out that US-Pakistan economic ties could greatly benefit if Washington removed restrictions on textile imports from Pakistan, Mr Holbrooke evasively responded that it could take years as it involved the interests of textile businesses in South Carolina. Obviously, winning votes for the Democrats is as important, if not more, than winning the hearts and minds of the people of Pakistan.
Notwithstanding the serious divergence of views, Mr Holbrooke thought that Pakistan-US relations have vastly improved in the past one year. In the same breath, however, he lamented the visa problems being faced by the US diplomatic and aid missions in Pakistan. He claimed that owing to inordinate delays in granting of visas to American personnel the disbursement of $1.5 billion aid earmarked under the Kerry Lugar Bill is yet to take place. He added: “If you do not want this money it is up to you.”
Mr Holbrooke, on the eve of his visit to New Delhi, also made it plain that although Washington welcomed better ties between India and Pakistan, it had no plans to mediate between them. On the other hand, US defence secretary Robert Gates, while visiting India, praised New Delhi’s “restraint” after the Mumbai attacks. It is obvious that in sharp contrast to their attitude towards Pakistanis, most visiting US dignitaries are extremely cautious not to ruffle any feathers while engaging the Indian leadership.
Our parliamentarians, including luminaries like Asfandyar Wali, Ishaq Dar, Salim Saifullah, Farooq Sattar and Tehmina Daultana, did not care to counter him, or simply walk out, when they were being given a dressing down by a relatively junior-level US diplomat. Military strongmen lacking legitimacy can be forgiven for tolerating the “suck up and kick down” approach of overbearing Western diplomats. An elected leadership is expected to behave differently. But in actual practice all norms of protocol are thrown to the winds when US diplomats are received.
The red carpet is generally rolled out for Mr Holbrooke whenever and wherever he visits Pakistan. A consummate partygoer, he claims personal friendship with Mr Zardari since his days in exile in New York. The president is so fond of Mr Holbrooke that reportedly he once chided his prime minister and foreign minister for not having adequate diplomatic skills in dealing with the special envoy.
Islamabad has rightly rejected the idea of a regional contact group which goes beyond the immediate neighbours of Afghanistan. However, at the London conference on Afghanistan scheduled at the end of the month, in which India is also participating, US efforts to include New Delhi in a regional group could gain impetus. It is strange that on the one hand India rejects any third-party mediation over its disputes with Pakistan, but on the other it is keen to fish in troubled waters in Afghanistan and seeks a regional role for itself.
With President Zardari, increasingly embroiled in legal battles in the light of the detailed Supreme Court verdict on the NRO, Islamabad is bound to face increasing pressure form Washington to do its bidding. Senator John McCain, after his recent visit to Islamabad, has already spelled it out by giving the verdict that President Zardari has been weakened as a consequence of the apex court’s verdict while Prime Minister Glani is satisfactorily pro-US, in his opinion.
Some US diplomats based in Islamabad have been openly briefing media persons and opinion leaders since the Supreme Court verdict on the NRO that Mr Zardari has been weakened to the extent that in his dealings with the army he is longer of any use for Washington. They also do not see him lasting beyond March.
Like numerous times in the past, such pundits’ soothsaying might be pure humbug. But it is obvious that the US is already looking beyond the Presidency as the fulcrum of power to implement its agenda in the region. Optimistic projections of some military analysts that there is no longer a trust deficit between the COAS and senior US military and visiting officials and that Washington fully understands Pakistan military’s concerns are noteworthy in this context.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely the US is giving up its mantra any time soon of asking Pakistan to do more in pursuit of its strategic goals in the region. Given the recent belligerent rhetoric of the Indian army chief, the Pakistani military has no cogent reason to change its strategic paradigm. Weak political institutions and a failing economy dependant upon US largesse and IMF bailouts is a recipe for disaster. Squabbling politicians who refuse to rise above their narrow interests have made matters worse. In this scenario the hapless Pakistani people can see impending disaster looming on the horizon.
President Obama after his first year in office increasingly sounds like his predecessor George W Bush, whose post-9/11 policies had made the world a far less safer place to live. As the Spanish newspaper ABC recently commented in an editorial: “After all, this is the president who ramped up the bombing of Pakistani villages and ordered another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.” In the wake of increased profiling of Muslims Obama’s much-touted dialogue with Islam has come to naught. Nearer home, thanks to a manifold increase in suicide attacks, a sense of insecurity pervades amongst the Pakistanis compared to a year ago.
The writer is a former newspaper editor. Email: arifn51@hotmail.com
Loading ...