All this focus on Karzai by Zafar Hilaly

15 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Monday, March 15, 2010
Zafar Hilaly

Sophistry and illusion is what Mr Karzai peddles on his visits abroad. Politics for him is the art of dissimulation. It is not that he lies; he just does not tell the truth. His description of India as a “close, good friend” in contrast to Pakistan, which he described as a “brother,” nay “conjoined, inseparable twins,” may have endeared him to his Pakistani audience. But it did not explain why the two brothers opt for fratricide rather than brotherly love when it comes to settling their differences.

Or, perhaps for a change, Mr Karzai did mean what he said when he described Pakistan and Afghanistan as twins; because separating “conjoined, inseparable twins,” so that both may have an independent existence, is a very difficult medical procedure leading, more often than not, to the demise of one twin or the other. And that of Pakistan, as presently constituted, has been an old Afghan demand and is what Mr Karzai in the dim recesses of his mind must dearly want.

Of late Mr Karzai has been eager to distance himself from America. His cabinet appointments and those to the Election Commission, in defiance of American opinion, reinforce such a perception. So too the welcome he afforded Ahmadenijad in Kabul last week. And the platform he provided the Iranian president to pummel the Americans, even as Robert Gates was telling his forces in Marjah why they should risk their lives to keep Mr Karzai ensconced in Kabul. All this must have irked Washington. As does Mr Karzai’s outspoken willingness to talk to Mullah Omar, who has a multimillion bounty on his head.

But much of Mr Karzai’s utterances are posturing. And indeed, to many at the press conference in Islamabad, his responses sounded as if he believed that half of his audience were fools and the other half hypocrites. Nevertheless, his remarks throw into relief the very contrasting approaches of Karzai and the Americans to the question of engaging with their adversaries.

To Karzai, and many in our part of the world, merely because Mullah Omar has committed or condoned unspeakable crimes does not render him beyond the pale. For the West to go on prattling about what is or is not acceptable when peace and reconciliation is the goal appears hypocritical. As Albert Camus asked, “How many crimes has (the West) committed merely because it could not endure being wrong.”

Perhaps what scares the Americans more is Karzai’s “reconciliation and reintegration” initiative. They fear that in his enthusiasm to reconcile with the Taliban he may end up appeasing Al Qaeda and giving the two second wind in Afghanistan. But Washington need not worry. Karzai desperately wants to keep his job; nor does he want to forfeit his life. The fact is that Obama and Karzai are stuck with each other. It’s far too late for either to disown or forsake the other.

What was surprising during the visit was the importance our government attached to a leader who is, after all, an American satrap. Turning out the entire cabinet to receive him at the airport, along with the chairman of the Senate, seemed excessive. Why bother about Mr Karzai whose power does not extend beyond the porch of his presidential palace in Kabul when Pakistan has ready access to his masters? Or, was this because Mr Zardari is enamoured of Mr Karzai, who like him, is an accidental president and both have the same mentor. Or, merely that Mr Zardari, wanting to appear hospitable overdid it? The answer is none of the above.

From the very inception of his presidency Mr Zardari has made it a point to show special regard for Mr Karzai. By inviting Karzai, the only foreign leader to share his joy on the occasion of his oath-taking, he sent a powerful message to Karzai and his own establishment that he had not only discarded Musharraf’s distaste of Karzai but also, more importantly, that he meant to ensure that the establishment’s very manifest suspicions of the Karzai regime would no longer influence Pakistan’s Afghan policy. This was probably part of the deal that allowed Benazir Bhutto to return, and Mr Zardari wants to live up to it.

Had Mr Zardari not been under such an obligation, new to the job or over-confident about his ability to bring about change, and less prone to act first and think later, he would have known better. Mr Zardari seems to have developed a fetish to become wise after the event.

He will soon discover that our establishment shares not a mite of Mr Zardari’s enthusiasm for the Northern Alliance coalition that Mr Karzai leads. And when it becomes known that the awarding of contracts to Indian firms for the construction of strategic highways bordering Pakistan are exclusively due to Mr Karzai’s personal intervention, and contrary to the advice of his own counsellors about riling Pakistan further, their suspicions will grow and harden.

To make matters worse, there exists in Pakistan the profound and widespread conviction that India has been targeting Pakistan from Afghanistan with the express or implied concurrence of Mr Karzai. And, frankly, it was difficult to believe, as Mr Karzai claimed, that he is ignorant of India’s antics. When Mr Karzai, as he once said, can keep abreast of the going rate charged by the handlers of suicide bombers through his intelligence chief, he must surely have tapped the same source for an inkling of what India is up to in Balochistan.

Shorn of verbiage and nuance, the driving force of Indian and Pakistani foreign policy has been the maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr Karzai, who holds an Indian degree in political science, did not need help to arrive at the conclusion that his very pronounced Indian tilt would drive Pakistan towards his adversaries, including the Afghan Taliban. It is another matter that India, ah! perfidious India, abandoned Mr Karzai and supported his rival Abdullah Abdullah in the Afghan presidential polls. But, then, that is India’s wont.

As the present operation driven by the US surge splutters on and months elapse before the next one targeting Kandhahar gets under way, it seems best for Pakistan to maintain a correct rather than an effusively close relationship with the Karzai regime. If we are to have any leverage with the Afghan Pakhtun, as we claim and at times boast we do, how does showing our considerable affection for the Karzai-led Tajik-dominated regime help? Moreover, it is impossible to envisage the participation of the Taliban in a Karzai-led setup, which is presumably why, as rumour has it, we are contemplating a future coalition being headed by Mustafa Shah, the son of the late King Zahir Shah. For us, Mr Karzai has no future, only a doubtful past. And, if truth be told, Afghanistan needs his services as much as Italy needs the mafia.

At the cost of appearing repetitive, one should stress that the present is the opportune time for Pakistan to forge friendly relations with all the players of the Afghan domestic scene, rather than to identify with one or the other. We, no doubt, made a decisive contribution to the outcome of the anti-Soviet jihad. But we lost the peace and, in the process, as we now discover, spawned the rise of a phenomenon that, if victorious, would be as destructive (politically, morally and ideologically to our way of life and to progressive Islam) as the Mongol hordes that swept into Mesopotamia in the early 13th Century were to Islam and Arab civilisation.

Rather than focus exclusively on Karzai we should support people and processes that can unite Afghanistan. “How is it possible,” the late King Zahir Shah once asked me in Italy, “that a country like Pakistan with a sophisticated state structure supports a one-eyed, uneducated and barbarous mullah?” And, were he alive today, he may well ask, “How can you support an Afghan quisling in preference to the legitimacy that my lineage offers?” One had an answer of sorts then, but would have no answer today.

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

Peace is what the people wish for

15 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Monday, March 15, 2010

For many decades, peace activists of Pakistan and India have known — and some recent surveys carried out by the Jang group of Pakistan and the Times group in India have confirmed — that very large majorities of the peoples of India and Pakistan ardently long for a state of permanent peace between the two countries.

I have been actively promoting peace between Pakistan and India for the last twenty-one years and can solemnly state that the peoples of the two nations would like to move freely from one country to another. If the visa restriction cannot be done away with immediately, they would like visas to be given at the border just as it is done between Nepal and India and Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The easing of the visa regime would not be doing something remote from the mind of the two governments. Only a few years back India had introduced procedures to issue visas at the Attari border. However, the scheme was abandoned because Pakistani citizens couldn’t cross the border on foot without permission from the ministry of interior.

Nearly a decade ago, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif once told the Indian high commissioner at Islamabad that Pakistan would like to do away with the formality of visa between the two countries. According to the high commissioner, when he related the prime minister’s wish to the foreign secretary of Pakistan, the latter’s reaction was “I hope you tried to dissuade him”. I also remember the Indian prime minister, late Mr Chandrashekar telling me that he had promised Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif at their meeting in Chennai (or perhaps Colombo) that if the Pakistani prime minister were to announce the end of the visa regime on reaching Pakistan, as he said he would like to do, India would do the same the next day.

It’s not only the peace-desiring leaders of the two countries, but also the large majorities of the people of India and Pakistan who want freedom of means of public transport, for example, buses, cars and trucks etc. to ply from one country to another on showing international carnet, as persons do by showing the passport. They long for the freedom to buy and sell from and to the other country, the unrestricted exchange of books, newspapers, films etc. between Pakistan and India, the freedom to artists to perform in the each other’s countries and the freedom to enroll, teach and carry out researches in the educational and technical institutions of the other country.

Last month, I travelled from Lahore towards Wagah via GT Road to cross the border on foot and saw the road to India being widened to an amazing width with service roads on the two sides, a green belt in the centre along with a modern drainage system. From Wagah to Amritsar I witnessed identical activity on the Indian side of the border on the same grand scale as I had seen in Pakistan. Apparently, the two countries seem to be investing tens of billions of rupees in the development of road networks and in acquiring large chunks of land on the border for building customs enclosures and other facilities for trading on a grand scale.

On the one hand we observe concrete preparations going on for normalisation of relations in not too distant a future, but on the other hand it is sad that the decision-makers in both countries seem hesitant to take any substantial steps towards implementation of their declared aim to achieve durable peace. They seem willing but remain indecisive.

The two governments do not seem to realise that if they were to concede to their people the facilities of free travel, permission to trade freely, use transport etc as described above, the Indians in Pakistan and the Pakistanis in India would be just like visitors from other countries of Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. They will be no more dangerous than the mischief-makers and terrorists of their own countries. In any case the terrorists from foreign countries do not enter the target country through visas.

Every student of Pakistan-India relations is convinced that the leaders on the two sides fully realise that for India and Pakistan to prosper peace is the only option. They cannot afford to settle their differences by going to war or by remaining belligerent on a long-term basis. They have little scope of solving their appalling internal problems and at the same time nourishing their disputes with each other. Ignoring the siege of the pressures of narrow, short term national interests, they have to cease acting like nationalist political leaders and take the plunge like the great statesmen of a great subcontinent.

The writer is a former finance minister.

Networks by Chris Cork

15 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Monday, March 15, 2010
Chris Cork

There is more that works here than doesn’t. Somebody had put the wrong cheque in an envelope addressed to a colleague – so she got mine and I subsequently got hers. We talked on the phone and emailed and agreed to exchange envelopes via courier rather than send the cheques back from whence they came. Problem sorted in minutes flat and cheques in the right hands within twenty-four hours. Twelve days ago I lost a key part of a model aircraft I was building. It was not a part I could make for myself from scratch so I threw myself on the mercy of the manufacturers – who are in New Zealand. A week after contacting them there arrived a letter with the part safely taped inside it. Problem sorted rather quicker than anticipated. If nothing else, the internet, telephone, courier and regular postal services all appeared to be working rather well. And then there was the matter of children’s literature.

Like many of my colleagues, I have the Facebook site running all day in the background. It gets used to update breaking news and pass bits of gossip around, but also for occasional serious discussion. Amongst recent discussions has been one about the paucity of locally produced books for children, particularly in English. Go into any English medium school and the children in the kindergarten classes will almost always be using imported storybooks, imported nursery rhymes and an imported set of cultural references that are almost entirely irrelevant or just plain meaningless. Go into the school library and look for teenage fiction in either Urdu or English that is written by local authors – you will struggle to find any. Look even harder to find locally-written books in the library aimed at the five-to-eight age group. There will be any number of ‘foreigners’ in the library, many of them familiar like Enid Blyton, but how many of you can off the top of your head name a popular Pakistani children’s author writing in either English or Urdu?

Enter the Facebook network. My first impression of Facebook (…or ‘FB’ as we like to say) was that it was a ‘kids’ thing. Zippy teenagers exchanging trivia. Wrong. So long as you are careful about whom you select as your ‘friend’ – and there is another debate to be had about the nature of cyber-friendships/relationships – you can meet and interact with a diverse and interesting group. My family in UK are mostly there, as are long-term friends in the ‘real’ world, but it is the ‘friends’ I will never really know or meet that form the bulk of my rarely-added-to list of cyber mates. To get through my personal firewall you need to be a print or electronic media practitioner and it was a contact with a well-known TV ‘face’ that pricked my ears – and days later turned into what I expect to be an interesting friendship because the person in question is a writer – who writes for children.

Other networks were quickly deployed and a couple of days after our first interaction I was in possession of a book of contemporary children’s poetry (which I will review elsewhere) that pressed all the right buttons culturally and in terms of relevance to the world that the children of Pakistan live in. In less than a week the networks I am a part of or whose services I employ had ensured that I got paid, rescued my latest symphony in plastic and put in my hands what is potentially a valuable educational tool. Pretty good going for a failed state, don’t you think, Dear Reader? Tootle-pip!

The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.

Email: manticore73@gmail. com

Over the top by Masood Hasan

14 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

ilikum and the Lahore Zoo

By Masood Hasan
The tragic death of whale-trainer Dawn Brancheau a few days ago at Seaworld, Orlando, USA has made news globally. Tilikum, a 30-year-old, 22 foot, 12,000 pound killer whale, to whom Dawn was devoted, suddenly and without reason whipped his trainer round and round and then plunged with her to the bottom of the pool emerging with Dawn trapped in his mouth. He kept thrashing Dawn around till the trainer was dead of drowning – all this in front of a stunned house of visitors who were ushered away but not before they had seen some unbearable sights of death in slow motion. Dawn was 40. It seemed at first she did not realise what was happening. She had been busy rubbing Tilikum by the poolside and apparently her swinging ponytail either caught Tilikum’s attention or annoyed him or perhaps he thought it was a game – whatever it was, it prompted him to catch it in his mouth and yank her off into the deep pool. Minutes later she was dead. She was only 40 and one of the few trainers allowed to work with Tilikum.

Many people believe that when you cross that unwritten line and get far too close into the world of animals, you should be prepared for the worst. There are scores of incidents – thousands to be more accurate, where people crossing the boundaries have paid heavy prices, often with their lives. Advocates of this thinking caution that wandering into unchartered waters can be fatal. Tilikum is cute as a button but is nevertheless a killer whale. Aussie naturalist and TV film-maker Steve Irwin wandered too far, taking crazy chances and died off the Australian Coral Reef, a barb through his heart delivered more by sheer instinct than anything else. But while the stingray swam on, absolutely without remorse of any kind, Irwin was dead. A healthy respect for the codes of wildlife are well worth remembering, but then man must adventure, must explore the unknown, go where no one has gone before to quote from that immortal Star Trek line.

The death of Dawn has of course evoked debate and a torrent of comments. A video of the attack has been quickly taken off the net and both ordinary people and experts are looking at this macabre incident from different and obviously conflicting perspectives. This is not Tilikum’s first brush with death. There have been two other serious incidents associated with him – one trainer survived with 200 stitches and one man who broke into the pool aquarium was found dead the next morning lying on Tilikum’s back as he floated without a care in the world.

In Tilikum’s case, he is the star on show and brings in millions to the owners. He is their prize exhibit and they cannot do without him. Yet the backlash of public horror, outrage and questioning is going to be difficult to fend off. Clearly, they have to re-evaluate their strategy when they work the killer whales through what are indeed spectacular routines. The dilemma of course is that without a trainer, there really is no show – it is the interaction between animal and man that brings out the dramatic element. Sending Tilikum back into the wilds is like killing him anyway because he is no longer able to survive on his own. That part of his life we have quietly taken away from him and he is dependent on human beings to survive. That leaves not much room for his future other than a transfer to another facility, but then his current hosts may not wish to lose their star and the millions he brings in.

And last of all is the question of putting down Tilikum. While, unlike here where the first demand would be to eliminate Tilikum, (remember the stupid father who thrust his child’s flawed arm into the bear’s cage to heal it and the child eventually died leading to an outcry that the bear should be put down. Mercifully he was not) – there is little demand for that. People who matter understand the larger issues here and in any case this possibility has been firmly taken out of the equation by none other than Dawn’s family. Grief stricken and shattered as they are, the family has categorically stated that Tilikum will not be put down. That they have shown compassion at a time like this is simply amazing and says much for Dawn’s family. Thousands of miles away from that tragedy, we are without remorse busy exhibiting cruelty to animals on a scale that defies description.

Last week there have been cries of anguish from some truly God fearing and animal loving people in Karachi who have raised public alarm over the inhuman treatment of animals in the Karachi Zoo. This is not the first time stories of abject horror have emerged from that den of infamy. Sadly, this is also not the last time. There will be public outrage and it will die because the authorities who can change this will not, for reasons that we can guess. It is not important – these are only animals and they are being looked after reasonably well. It is not a priority and it is not going to win an election and lastly, how can you change something that is now firmly anchored in our mindset?

The stories surface and then die down. Till some other facet of our bestiality to our fellow travellers on this great journey, comes to light. More outrage from ordinary people. Almost like a well-choreographed script, the same parts are played and the same results show up. Nothing changes. It is not just the Karachi Zoo but all zoos in Pakistan that need drastic and ruthless surgery if we so wish it. But we really don’t; animals are expendable. Those of us who live here in Lahore have been campaigning what I can only call stupidly and hopelessly for a quantum change in the entire structure of how the zoos are managed and why this must change through effective and swift laws that are implemented without fear, favour or discrimination.

The chief minister of Punjab, a thoroughly decent and hard-working man, even granted more than one audience to a group that volunteered to examine the state of affairs at the Lahore Zoo and recommend sweeping changes. That preliminary report is decaying somewhere in one of the many secretariats. Will it see the light of day? I doubt it. It was not a complicated document, it did not demand the setting up of an infrastructure that would be the talk of the world – all it did offer was a complete change in the way zoos are run and a rethink on our collective attitude towards animals. As one fears, zoos are not a priority. This is not a by-election. This is just a zoo with some animals who will not be able to stage a protest in front of the Governor’s House or the CM’s secretariat.

Life will go on and animals will die of neglect and incompetence. Our cruelty to animals inside our zoos, at the shameful kennels, on the roads and streets, will continue. I see that the Lahore Zoo has celebrated the birth of yet two more lion cubs – can they announce their pedigree so that our doubts can rest? Even if they are not descended from Leo the one lion whose progeny still continues at the zoo, they have a dismal future ahead of them – that much we can all be sure of.

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

Mechanism of change by Ameer Bhutto

13 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Saturday, March 13, 2010
Ameer Bhutto

What we have is not democracy but only its pale reflection thrown up by the NRO. The stability some wish to preserve is the calm of the graveyard imposed by foreign powers to achieve their own objectives. If real democracy is to be resuscitated, a deep-rooted change is unavoidable. But is such a change likely and how will it come? Mr Ayaz Amir in his article (March 5), quoting Faiz Ahmed Faiz, makes the point that nothing much will change. Given the prevalent state of complacency among the people, one can see how he might have arrived at that conclusion. However, it is one thing to say that the prospects of change are dim, but quite another to embrace the status quo as a fait accompli and be reconciled to the view that change is unnecessary. That amounts to a fateful resignation to continue stewing in this vat of stagnation without any prospect, or even desire, for improvement. That is unacceptable.

It is true that the soothsaying pundits, from politicians to journalists to armchair philosophers, have had to continuously revise their schedules for the much-yearned end to the horror show unfolding before our eyes. Their real fault is not that they got the schedule wrong, but that they based their projections on the mistaken assumptions that truth, honour and principles still hold some value in this country and that people would consider it an unalloyed aberration to be ruled by those with tainted pasts, who stand accused of heinous crimes and who, instead of clearing their names, take refuge behind immunity and use their powers to tamper with evidence against them.

Is the working class really dead and the students too confused, as Mr Amir contends in his article, to ignite any meaningful change? If they are not, they are certainly doing a good job of playing possum. Their total apathy and redirection of focus from national interests and common good to narrow selfish goals and objectives, giving those in positions of authority carte blanche to do as they please, is the prime cause of the country’s slide down the slippery slope to ruin. A television channel recently aired video clips of police officers beating people, causing outrage all over the country. But how conveniently everyone ignores the fact that many of these beatings were carried out in public places with throngs of morbid onlookers standing by as idle spectators. Let the police attempt something similar in public in New York or Paris and see what happens.

Shahid Afridi is caught munching on a cricket ball but is greeted back after serving his paltry ban with placards saying “we missed you”. Younis Khan mercilessly drags an over-enthusiastic supporter to the dressing room in the middle of a cricket match and gives him a thrashing, but he remains a national hero. Zardari’s security arrangements obstruct a woman in labour from getting to a hospital in time and she ends up giving birth in a rickshaw. But instead of being incensed, the child’s father says the baby was a blessing because it brought them five lac rupees from the government coffers (what a wonderfully effective anesthetic money is for honour!) and they name the child Asif. With a nation such as this, what do those in power need to fear? Why should they not indulge in record-breaking corruption when the people will swallow anything and do nothing about it?

The opposition too is bound by foreign sponsored deals and have its own interests to attend to. As for the judiciary, it can only go so far. It can convict but cannot be the executioner. Nor should we rush to light the torch of triumph for the much-heralded constitutional amendment package, even if it is passed. The rot permeates from the Aiwan-e-Sadar downwards. The whole system is hostage to one man’s ego. Even sans powers, Zardari will continue to exercise overbearing influence over this government as long as the Peoples Party bows to him in the interest of expediency. Gilani will not suddenly sprout wings and learn to fly with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and Article 58-2(B). What initiative has he shown thus far in matters that were not affected by these draconian laws?

A significantly altered international atmosphere characterised by political correctness notwithstanding, this being Pakistan, military intervention in its varying shades and hues can never be wholly ruled out. Yes, the troops have their hands full in the northern areas, but do not discount the crucial significance of the fact that they claim to be victors in this war, unlike 1971 when they stood defeated. If it took a defeated army no more than a few years to muscle its way back into power, what can impede a victorious army from rolling into the corridors of power in much lesser time? The reluctance on the part of the foreign powers to condone military adventurism can be dealt with. But, firstly, there is no certainty that the army would step into politics in a full-fledged coup. It could just as well affect change yet stay behind the scenes. Secondly, even if it were to take control of the government, the foreign powers, who are more concerned with their own objectives than anything else, can be convinced that their interests are better served by such a change.

Besides, Richard Holbrooke has already announced that economic and energy uplift was now the US priority vis-à-vis Pakistan. The United States has a history of using its allies to achieve its objectives and then dumping them. It remains to be seen how much sleep is being lost over our economic and energy crises in Washington DC, but it looks like we are in the process of being dumped again. This is proved by the fact that whereas Holbrook might feel confident that the Taliban have been hit hard enough not to pose an immediate threat to America anymore, he remains unconcerned by the danger the militants still pose for Pakistan for fighting America’s proxy war. America seems to be losing interest in Pakistan, in which case the local political scene will go through a significant overhaul.

Mr Amir says that this government’s survival may be bad for those who are frothing at the mouth for its collapse but is good for democracy and parliament. I will never understand how democracy and parliament, or even Pakistan’s image around the world for that matter, are served by being led by those with tainted reputations who stand accused in criminal cases at home and abroad. If calling for national cleansing and jettisoning bad blood amounts to frothing at the mouth, then the sooner the whole nation starts frothing at the mouth the better.

The writer is vice-chairman of Sindh National Front and a former MPA from Ratodero.

He has degrees from the University of Buckingham and Cambridge University.

Zardari khappay by Anjum Niaz

13 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Saturday, March 13, 2010
Anjum Niaz

Governor Salmaan Taseer says the whole system will implode were Asif Zardari to go. “Nawaz Sharif too will suffer collateral damage. The economy will take a nosedive because US will withdraw aid to Pakistan. Hillary Clinton told me that her biggest selling point to the US Congress was undiluted democracy in Pakistan, with the press being free and a multi-ethnic functioning parliament in place. She has told the khakis not to derail democracy, otherwise America will slap sanctions.”

The bottom line: Asif Zardari will not only complete his term but will be in the saddle until 2018! “Why should he step down?” Taseer asks me in an interview at his Islamabad home. “Some media people, you included, like to manufacture stories of his exit. He’s the head of the largest political party in Pakistan; he’s the one who spoke of ‘Pakistan khappay,’ he’s the one keeping the federation together.”

The 17th Amendment will go by the end of this month. “The president has told me himself,” says Taseer. “He has the support of his coalition partners, except the PML-N, who keep coming up with new demands.”

Asked will the president become a mere figurehead with all the powers vested in the prime minister, Taseer dismisses my question. “The 58 (2) (b) is already defunct. The president is not going to dissolve the National Assembly. As for the ‘appointments and disappointments’ (Taseer’s coinage) of judges and army chief, the president is not interested. Mr Zardari derives his power from being the head of PPP. The prime minister is never going to be more powerful than the president because he cannot move without the party and its chairman.”

Hush! There’s a tacit agreement between the two: while the president plays the bad cop, Gilani plays the good cop!

Just as Zardari’s exit is but a dream, Salmaan Taseer’s departure as Punjab governor is but a fantasy. Taseer categorically states that the Swiss cases are closed forever. So we should forget about them. As for the Sharifs’ demand that the Punjab governor should quit, he gives out a laugh.

What is most endearing about Taseer is his spirited audacity, that uncurbed usage of words which typify Taseer. Since school days (yes, one’s known him for half-a-century), ‘Billo’ as he was called because of his green eyes, gravitated in his own swagger. He has changed little since then. As a chartered accountant, he accumulated his wealth through hard work; not corruption. He drives his own car without hooters, tooters and footers. He lives in his own house, not the Governor’s House in Lahore.

Today Taseer is Zardari’s biggest acolyte. He watches over him like a hawk, preventing the Sharifs from encroaching into the PPP domain. “The president can only remove me; no one else,” says Taseer. Naturally, why would AZ move him when he has one of the loudest and most loyal spokesmen in Pakistan’s biggest province?

Taseer’s psychological warfare against the chief minister is proving unnerving not for the Sharifs but for the province.

“They ran a torture cell under the guise of an FIA investigative unit in Model Town which was recently bombed. Rogue operators like Maj (r) Mushtaq and Rana Maqbool, the former IG police, Sindh, notorious for AZ’s tongue slashing incident, and now a Grade-22 secretary prosecutions, were running a parallel intelligence outfit outside the purview of ISI and IB.”

Taseer’s nitpicking against the Sharifs is unending. “Look at the kind of people being voted into the assemblies on PML-N tickets. They belong to qabza groups, are accused of molesting women, are fraudsters and barbaric law- breakers…they are the dregs of the earth! Daily we hear their MPA or MNA featuring in the press for breaking the law.”

Isn’t Asif Ali Zardari too breaking the law, employing jailbirds, bank defaulters, outlaws, villains, NAB convicts to sensitive posts? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Email: anjumniaz@rocketmail. com

Pakistan needs rescuing by Sardar Mumtaz Ali Bhutto

12 March, 2010 (4) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Friday, March 12, 2010
Sardar Mumtaz Ali Bhutto

Among the many vicissitudes faced by Pakistan in its short history, the NRO has been one of the most damaging. It has ushered in a bogus democracy which is nothing short of a disgrace. It is the ill-conceived consequence of a deal between Musharraf and Shaheed Benazir, very obviously brokered by the Americans and the British, for the paramount purpose of escalating the civil war raging in the North-West of the country.

The collateral damage has been the murder of the most popular leader of the country, the return to government and the assemblies of corrupt and absconding politicians, and an inconceivable political dispensation, with a man like Zardari in the presidential chair who has failed on all counts to give the desperately needed leadership. On Feb 18, 2008, the people voted for roti, kapra, makan, together with the promise to avenge Benazir’s murder. They have betrayed them on both counts.

It started with the decision to place the ISI under civilian control, and then a quick retraction of the decision. Next came the refusal to restore the sacked judges followed by complete surrender under pressure, together with the rapid reversal of the impositions of emergency and governor’s rule in Punjab. Then it was the pushing of the NRO through a parliamentary committee but backing out when the time came to bring it to parliament. Finally, confronting the Supreme Court on the appointment of the judges and then backing down.

These are some of the ventures which highlight the alarming truth of a man in the presidential chair who neither has the capacity nor the calibre to be there. As if all this is not disturbing enough, we are now heading towards yet another crisis on non-implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court to restore the Swiss and other corruption cases against Zardari and his gang. The outcome will be either another humiliating retreat for him, or action by the Supreme Court under Section 190 of the Constitution. This will draw the armed forces into the fray, which may lead to undesirable consequences.

The question of Zardari’s eligibility under Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution has already come up and been rejected by the Election Commission, but it will not end there. The Lahore High Court has already ceased the hearing of the matter on a separate petition. Also, Zardari’s being certified as mentally unfit by three American specialists is too significant a matter to remain ignored. Then there is the restriction on holding public and political office at the same time, imposed by Section 17(2), which will also spring up.

But above and beyond all else is the big question of presidential immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution. Is the president above the law and free to commit with total impunity any crime he fancies? This question will have to be answered by the Supreme Court, bearing in mind the sacred principle that no one is above the law. Recently, Musharraf was refused such immunity by the Supreme Court.

The nation cannot be allowed to live in a state of chaos, uncertainty and backwardness merely so that the accidental president may continue to have a ball at the cost of the people. Of course, there is no question of Zardari quitting. He has already said that he can only be removed from the Presidency in an ambulance. and no doubt he means it. For a person like him even ten minutes more in office is worth all the humiliation that comes his way.

Therefore, the powers that be may have to step in to adopt one of the following courses:

1. Hold a referendum, supervised by the Supreme Court, for a yes or no vote on “Zardari Khappe.”

2. Hold similarly supervised general elections, as the mandate of the people has been betrayed and withdrawn. They must have a chance to decide again.

3. Form a national government composed of clean people with unblemished records who are not affected by the provisions of Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

It has become dangerous to maintain the status quo. The false promises and hollow claims of the government have exhausted the patience of the people. All the evils of the Musharraf era have grossly multiplied since the advent of this government. The shenanigans of ministers, advisors, jiyalas, hangers-on and jail mates cannot be projected as support of the people, or the Sindh card.

The war on terror has cost the nation thousands of lives and a large number of innocent people have become its victims, while its cost in monetary terms has been above Rs850 billion. Foreign debt has increased from $35 billion to an all-time-high of $56 billion, while local debt has gone up to Rs500 billion. Poverty has increased to 40 per cent and the prices of basic commodities have more than doubled in the past two years, so much so that mothers are forced to sell their infants in bazaars to buy flour.

This does not deter Zardari from taking junkets abroad, which cost people Rs700,000 per day, while the upkeep of the presidency costs Rs1 million per day. Even the much trumpeted Rs70 billion to be handed out to make beggar of the people through the Benazir Income Support Scheme (which should be invested in projects to increase production and job opportunities) have mostly disappeared and only 17 billion have been handed out.

The fear in which the rulers live necessitates elaborate security arrangements for all, right down to the level of their private servants, costing the people Rs160 billion per year, which comes out of the development outlay of Rs700 billion. Even greater damage is caused by the drastic reduction of personnel for combating crime and providing protection to the people.

The patience of the vanquished masses is wearing thin. The lava is boiling, and once it erupts, the damage will be huge. Therefore, sanity must prevail and the right steps taken to prevent the destruction of the country.

The writer is chairman of the Sindh National Front.

Side-effect by Harris Khalique

12 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Mai Jori

Friday, March 12, 2010
Harris Khalique

Habib Jalib wrote a poem for Benazir Bhutto when she came back to Pakistan in 1986 to lead the struggle against General Zia’s rule of darkness. It was titled “Aik Nihatti Larki” (One unarmed girl). He highlighted the fears of the powerful, the omnipotent dictator and the coterie of undignified men who surrounded him. They were fearful of a frail young woman, physically frail but mentally stronger than mountains in her resolve to bring change to her country. It was a replay of an earlier struggle launched by the political workers of this country led by the sister of the founder of Pakistan, Fatima Jinnah. The otherwise weak, old woman stood up to take on General Ayub Khan, the man responsible for sowing the seeds of military dictatorship in the country. The status of both these women transcends their party affiliations and many of us consider them our common heroes. For the same reason, Mai Jori, the peasant woman who ran for PB 25, Jaffarabad-I, the provincial assembly seat in Pat Feeder’s command area of eastern Balochistan, the only place irrigated by a canal from the Indus in the otherwise arid province, chose to launch her election campaign from Benazir Bhutto’s tomb in Ghari Khuda Bakhsh.

Mai Jori was a candidate of Awami Party Pakistan, the newly established political organisation of workers, peasants, middle-class professionals, youth, women and common citizens of the country. Earlier, for NA-55 Rawalpindi, the party fielded Abdul Sattar, a trades-unionist who was forcibly retired from Pakistan Railways some years ago due to his struggle for the rights of workers. Talib Hussain, a young, enthusiastic political worker who trained as a chartered accountant, ran for NA-123 on party ticket. All three of them lost. They had no money to match their competitors to invest in the campaign, they were far less known to the constituents and the vernacular media completely ignored Sattar and Talib. Mai Jori was an exception. But the statement these three candidates give out is loud and clear. Enough is enough. Commoners are finally showing their will to take charge. They are in the process of organising themselves and reaching out to people at large. They are very much in the political arena. Even after use of coercive measures by the feudal contestants in the area, disinformation disseminated among the voters, life threats to the candidate herself and massive rigging, Mai Jori stood by her commitment to fight the polls. She said in her last press conference, “Whoever sits in the assembly now doesn’t bother me. I have done what I had to. I am from the people. They will also realise one day that they can win. And that day will come sooner than most of you realise.”

Her party officials also held a press conference in Islamabad to highlight threats to her life and the failure of the Election Commission and the Balochistan government to ensure the security of the candidate and her supporters. One of the journalists with a flash of arrogance asked them why the party had given ticket to Mai Jori Jamali, an uneducated peasant woman. “What contribution could she make to the assembly?” “What contribution to the betterment of people has been made by the Harvard-, Oxford- and Cambridge-returned sons and daughters of feudal lords and capitalists, or how well have the highly qualified bureaucrats served us?” they responded. Our parliament and assemblies need true representatives of people who could seek solutions to our deep-seated problems.

The writer is a poet and advises national and international institutions on governance and public policy issues. Email: harris@ spopk.org

Dehshet Gerdi Aur… by Masood Asher

11 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

How a new chapter opened by Saleem Safi

11 March, 2010 (0) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Thursday, March 11, 2010
Saleem Safi

The misunderstandings between Pakistan and Afghanistan should not be attributed to the wrong policies of Kabul alone. The monumental mistakes of our own policymakers in tackling the situation in Afghanistan after the US attack and the subsequent fall of the Taliban have contributed in equal measure to the Afghans’ hostility towards Pakistan.

For the last eight years our policymakers ignored the importance of courting Hamid Karzai. With the exception of Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Afzal Khan Lala, who have a good understanding of Afghan politics and society, no one supported the idea of developing close contacts with the Afghan president.

However, the emergence of Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, two staunch anti-Pakistan political leaders, as opponents of Karzai in the recently held presidential elections came as a rude shock to our policymakers.

Pakistan had established secret contacts with Abdullah in the initial stages of the presidential campaign. Pakistan even promised to support him and Dr Abdullah was keen to get this support. However, later good sense prevailed in Islamabad and the policymakers decided to favour Karzai.

For two years preceding the presidential elections, the United States, with the firm support of Britain, was making all-out efforts to get rid of Karzai. Initially, Karzai was subjected to a smear campaign in the Western media. But this strategy failed to pay dividends. Then the US tried in vain to introduce, test and support other personalities against Karzai. In this endeavour, the US and its allies went to the extent of supporting even Gul Agha Sherozai, governor of Nangrahar province. But every effort met with failure, and ultimately the alliance of those opposing Karzai chose Dr Abdullah as their favoured candidate.

The United States itself demanded that Pakistan support Abdullah. Every American diplomat in Islamabad insisted on this, but Pakistan did not oblige and stood by Karzai to the end. Knowing that Saudi Arab and Turkey supported him in the re-election bid due to Pakistan’s efforts, Karzai was grateful to Pakistan for its support in his victory.

In opposition to Pakistan, India and Iran extended all-out support to Abdullah. Kabul’s intelligent chief, occupying this position thanks to US support, also openly supported Abdullah against Karzai. This situation pushed Karzai away from these countries and towards Pakistan.

Before the elections, the United States had been certain that Karzai would be unable to secure more than 50 per cent of the votes in the first phase. But Karzai exceeded this percentage. After the initial election results, the powers opposing him decided to make the election results controversial. In this phase, Pakistan again stood by Karzai while the US was firmly behind Dr Abdullah. It was the first occasion that Pakistan did not listen to American dictates regarding its policy towards Afghanistan.

In the whole scenario, the work done by Pakistan’s ambassador to Kabul, Muhammad Sadiq, was important. Pakistan for the first time has the right man to lead its mission in Kabul. Being a Pakhtoon, Sadiq knows well the intricacies of Afghan traditions. Therefore, he changed the traditional bureaucratic approach and pursued an open-door policy to exploit all avenues and opportunities. He changed the past practice of exclusive diplomatic focus on the eastern and southern Pakhtoon belt and gave equal importance to the leaderships of northern and western Afghanistan.

His endeavours evoked unexpectedly good response from leaders of western and northern Afghanistan. Additionally, during his long stay in the United States, for education and for diplomatic assignments, Mr Sadiq developed a thorough understanding of US thinking and policies and as such was well-equipped to deal with all players.

While the eastern and southern leaderships of Afghanistan traditionally have good relations with Pakistan, the real spoilers hailed from the north and west of the country. If any leader from the east and south ever became anti-Pakistan, his attitude was either the result of Pakistan’s persistent blunders or of pressure from the power-wielding northern leadership.

Pakistan seems to be in a positive fence-mending role with the central and northern leaderships of Afghanistan for the last few months. These efforts were bolstered by the fact that almost all powerful northern leaders were Karzai’s allies. The Uzbek Rasheed Dostam and the important Hazara community’s leadership supported Karzai in the presidential elections. At the same time, Karzai nominated the most powerful Tajik leader, Qasim Faheem, as vice president to chip away Tajik support to Abdullah Abdullah.

The rapprochement between Pakistan and Karzai has had a positive influence on his anti-Pakistan allies. Therefore, this leadership came closer to Pakistan due to Karzai’s active role as a peacemaker. Karzai’s efforts for the patch-up continue.

The aforementioned factors ultimately transformed Kabul’s attitude towards Pakistan. And this trend may very well continue if Islamabad and Kabul avoid future blunders. To avoid any problems, Afghanistan and Pakistan must discuss all issues on bilateral level, without any third-party mediation. Such a policy will push the United States, India and Iran out of the equation and pave the way for durable friendship between the two countries.

Afghanistan’s problem stems from persistent foreign interventions. Karzai needs to hold direct talks with the Taliban and must satisfy their demands, including the demand for ouster of foreign forces from Afghan soil. The Taliban and other Islamist forces must reciprocate Karzai’s positive overtures. The realignment of these opposite camps will bolster Karzai’s confidence to deal with foreign forces from a position of strength.

Pakistan has legitimate interests in Afghanistan and, as such, Karzai should heed Islamabad’s calls for the protection of Pakistani interests. Reciprocally, instead of exploiting Karzai’s weaknesses, Pakistan must play a positive role in the development of reconciliation between the Taliban and Kabul.

Unity among Afghans is a recipe for peace in their country. Intervention by foreign elements will always ignite fires, instead of helping to end internecine wars in that country. A durable peace between Islamabad and Kabul can only be ensured through direct bilateral talks by pushing out India, the United States and Iran from the equation.

The writer works for Geo TV. Email: saleem. safi@janggroup.com.pk