New solutions for Afghanistan? by Zeenia Satti

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

Thursday, March 11, 2010
Zeenia Satti

The Pentagon’s seemingly wise new solutions for Afghanistan are divorced from reality and likely to suffer the fate of Obama’s pre-election slogan of change. It is being said about Marjah that “we cannot win this war, but we can help the Afghans win it.” The question is: which Afghans and what kind of help? The footage of troops interacting with the locals showed a mere five to six dust-covered old men carrying blankets given by US Marines. The town-hall-style meeting with Afghan civilians showed forty to fifty elderly Afghans whose spokesmen sang praise of corruption-free Taliban rule. In a blockaded combat zone, there were no mobile camps run by the Marines for wounded civilians or captured Taliban. With three Marines to every Afghan soldier, only 2 per cent of army and police recruits from the south, and Dari as the language of training, the political conciliation of Marjah is ill-conceived. At the national level, the Karzai government is born of massive electoral rigging and violates the core principle of democracy: respect for individual vote. It carries no legitimacy whatsoever with the Afghans, though he is acceptable as the “lesser evil” to America and India.

There is thus a tension between the local control of democracy and the American control of democracy in Afghanistan. This tension is hardwired into America’s Afghan venture. Any government in a box that the US generals are ready to roll out after “clearing” an area will be a government that is not born of legitimate political practices–i.e., is not a democratic government. Going by the Afghan tradition of dealing with illegitimate governments, there is every reason to expect the Taliban will return once the Nato troops move out of Marjah and other areas of operation throughout the country.

The ideal solution would be for the US troops to leave Afghanistan, followed by fresh and fair elections under UN auspices. With foreign troops gone, combat fatigue will make the Afghans turn to nation-building. Just a fraction of US war capital could help a truly elected government build schools, hospitals and infrastructure with the same sincerity which galvanises the amazing Afghan resistance. There has been no Stinger missile display in Afghan resistance that would point to foreign hand equipping it. That is why the American media has started talking about the Afghan resistance with respect. The media’s focus on Afghans’ commitment to their independence has now replaced the focus on latter’s stupid involvement with Osama bin Laden ten years ago.

The departure of US troops can only be facilitated through a dialogue. Unfortunately, the Afghan resistance lacks a sophisticated leadership capable of handling the complexities of dealing with the US to Afghanistan’s benefit. Already, a very auspicious moment has been missed. The first six months of Barack Obama’s ascent to office, followed by Washington’s acknowledgment that 70 percent of Afghan Taliban were not US enemies, was a propitious time for the Afghan resistance to start negotiating, with the caveat of resuming combat in case of unacceptable terms. This would have strengthened Obama’s position vis-à-vis the Pentagon-CIA-Corporate nexus, raising his domestic stock, versus the neocons who got America stuck in a quagmire in Afghanistan, with no exit strategy. The nexus has now prevailed over Obama’s promise of change.

Afghanistan stands a historic opportunity to prosper due to being a potential hub of energy supply from Central Asia to Pakistani, Indian and Euro-American markets. The emergent and advanced economies have an ever escalating demand for the ever diminishing fossil fuels. Central Asia is rich in its deposits but is landlocked, except through transit via Russia, China, Iran, or Afghanistan-Pakistan. Given regional and international political realities, Indian and Euro-US markets are vying for the Afghan-Pakistan route.

In the offing is lucrative pipeline links to Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours to the west, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (through which all of the rest of Central Asian energy supply can flow through Afghanistan) and in the east to Pakistan and through it to India.

If the US had not invaded Afghanistan and thereby destabilised the whole region, Afghanistan stood an unprecedented chance of economic cooperation and integrated infrastructure development, leading to prosperity for all its inhabitants. India and Pakistan would have had incentive to resolve their outstanding issues through dialogue. Afghanistan would have integrated into regional and world markets, which in time would bring progress functionally related to such integration. Pakistan could have risen as the new regional hegemon, offering military protection through defence pacts to Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and dealing with India on equal terms.

The fallout of American intervention weakened Pakistan and turned India into a bully. The religious radicalisation of the region now augurs ill for India’s long-term security. Afghanistan, instead of enjoying cultural exchanges and integrated infrastructure development with Central and South Asia, is engulfed in war, terrorism and misery. The American economy crashed, which made its military ventures far more destructive to its population’s welfare then ever before. No good has come of the neocons’ venture into Afghanistan.

If such a situation is not reversed through a meaningful dialogue in Afghanistan, the logical progression of events points to local genocide. Washington has decided to sustain its otherwise unsustainable suburban lifestyle through military means, deployed for securing competition-free access to fossil fuels. By the time the US has taken its Afghan surge to a logical conclusion, the Pakhtuns will most likely be wiped off the region, and what is left of them will be a diaspora of biblical tragic proportions. Their women could be faced with starvation or prostitution (as did Iraqi women), their children sold into slavery. The US will try to change the ratio of ethnic composition of Afghanistan to produce a state with a majority Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik and Hazara mix, which can be integrated into Central Asian region in a politico- economic framework. One of the most heroic people on earth, and one of the most honorable cultures in human history are faced with extinction at the hands of Western forces in Afghanistan because the former lack wise leadership and the latter thinks it can kill without accountability. The precise number of dead in the region has never been released by the Pentagon.

This is all the more tragic because for once in history, the Afghans stand a chance at rapid economic development. They can enjoy border-free trade with Central Asia in the northwest to Pakistan in the east. Afghanistan can establish a free trade zone at the very centre of its land, between Mazar-e-Sharif in the north to Qal’eh Now in the south, and between Kabul and Kandahar in the east. The Afghan free trade-zone could be the hub of international economic activity on the one hand and a source of national integration on the other. It could provide the Afghans livelihood and service the emerging Asian economies with their largest pool of the world’s rapidly enriching population. Every major energy corporation in the world is waiting to put up shop in the region once peace is established. The Pakhtun habit of hard work could make them the most coveted local work force for corporate ventures. Jobs with lucrative salaries to tremendous business opportunities could make the Pakhtuns of the area thrive instead of dying in dust for the honour of their land and the love of their religion.

The US is not telling that it wants control of an energy corridor through Afghanistan. It is presenting. instead, fake goals such as dismantling of Al Qaeda, because it has pitched its oil seeking wars of aggression as “defensive.” If Washington spoke the truth, instead of being funny and offering money to the fighters to capitulate, maybe the Afghan resistance would acquiesce to an arrangement of mutual benefit.

If violence continues, genocide is the only logical conclusion of Obama’s Afghan surge. If resistance starts to prevail, B52s will roll in. Any other goal setting by Pentagon is a delusional venture into imaginary successes denied by reality.

The tragedy can be averted but for lack of local leadership.

The writer is a Washington-based consultant on geopolitics.

Email: zeenia.satti@yahoo.com

The ides of March again by Ikram Sehgal

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

Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ikram Sehgal

Democracy of sorts came back into being in Pakistan on Feb 18, 2008. The 1973 Constitution, hamstrung by its principal author himself within hours of its enactment, had been systematically disfigured over 25 years of manipulation by those who excel at circumventing the laws of the land and adapting it for that of the jungle. Conspiracy theories abound about the 17th Amendment’s promised repeal (the March 23 date pledged by the prime minister has now been moved to the end of the month).

Will the proposed amendments suit the ground realities in this country? History has shown that there is good reason for Pakistanis to hold their breath in and around the Ides of March, or shortly thereafter. This season seems to be no different!

Feb 18, 2008, was also a good day for the armed forces of Pakistan. Within 90 days of taking over as chief of the army staff, Kayani took the army (and the intelligence services thereof) away from the electoral process, thus ensuring a fairly free and transparent elections. The army spent 2008 reorganising and training for counter-insurgency, sometimes on-the-job, but, above all, instilling and inculcating the motivation to take on militants running riot in vast areas along our north-western borders. When in May 2009 the “clear and present danger” threatened by Sufi Mohammad provided the “casus belli,” the army was ready for action. Swat became a defining moment, South Waziristan followed within months.

During a recent trip abroad there were moments one came close to tears listening to praise (at times given grudgingly) for the Pakistani army’s magnificent performance in battle, for someone used to constant disparagement of the uniform, this turnaround in perception was overwhelming. That the success was possible because of the shedding of precious blood by our officers and jawans was not lost on the intelligentsia, in contrast, a motivated Western media has been niggardly in recognising this. Alarmed detractors, both inside and outside the country, initiated an obnoxious campaign to tar and feather the army’s success. A Newsweek cover story blatantly touted the Indian canard of an ISI-supported Lashkar-e-Taiba “looking west.”

Three years ago Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry stood his ground in the face of a uniformed “show of force.” Hopefully, the affect of the superior judiciary coming into its own will permeate downwards to the lower courts, with greater pressure than the present trickledown effect. The justice the common man requires is the purview of lower courts, which are presently wallowing in corruption. Similar to the cleansing of the superior courts, action must be taken to get rid of corrupt and/or ill-motivated judicial officers down the line. The chief justice and his fellow justices in the Supreme Court and the provincial High Courts should bone up on Clausewitz’s first “Principle of War,” the “selection and maintenance of Aim.”

What the Supreme Court faced down in February was only one of many “dirty tricks,” of which there will be plenty in future. What are the Honourable Justices doing about those who function as upholders of the rule of law? What has been exposed recently on TV was abhorrent. When criminals function in the name of justice, justice becomes a crime.

The 1973 Constitution is weighted heavily in favour of the prime minister’s authority. There must also be sufficient balance between the president and the prime minister. Mian Nawaz Sharif’s many accomplishments, such as the nuclear explosion, energising Pakistan’s economy and making it business-friendly, came to naught when he tried to take on the armed forces and the judiciary.

If the president’s special powers are clipped under the 17th Amendment, will things change? Separation of the powers defined in the 1973 Constitution notwithstanding, the personality of the individual and the perception of his authority also matter. Technically, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee is the superior officer. However, who carries greater clout, he or the chief of the army staff?

Gilani must be commended for not allowing things to get out of hand on one issue after another with the opposition, the superior judiciary and the army. He often plays the good cop to Zardari’s bad cop, and both manage the charade well. In matters of critical importance the man from Multan has virtually no say. If one day he should discover his self-respect and self-esteem, politically he is non-consequential, too weak to attempt even a “Leghari.” Loss of 17th Amendment powers notwithstanding, Asif Ali Zardari can consign Gilani to the political dustbin whenever he wants. If his own party revolts against him, could Gilani depend on the opposition to stand by him in a vote of confidence? So why should Zardari care about his powers being taken away by the 18th Amendment?

Zardari’s dominating input as president will continue to remain. Take the example of Nasim Beg, a superb technocrat who would make an excellent finance minister. Unfortunately, he carries the Zardari tag. Can Gilani even dream of appointing his own man instead of Beg in this critical slot? Indeed, can he take a stand or critical issues and tackle some influential advisors? Undercutting the reputation of the government, these dubious characters only pay lip-service to the prime minister’s authority because they well know Asif Ali Zardari will never play second fiddle to Yusuf Raza Gilani.

The real (indeed, only) reason for the present apprehension about the 17th Amendment is about the selection of the next COAS. Because of the special circumstances prevailing and the success achieved by the army under his watch, Kayani commands tremendous respect, both within the armed forces and with the US and Coalition partners, and we cannot afford to lose this potential. Moreover, he has still some miles to go to rid the army of all the undeserving individuals who were promoted by Musharraf, as well as correcting other anomalies that have been tarnishing the army’s image.

However, giving Kayani an extension will upset the schedule of career planning carefully crafted to ensure a smooth and equitable process. The many extensions Musharraf gave to himself destroyed this system. While an extension must remain a possibility in the present situation, Kayani could be elevated to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, with priority being given to his choice as successor as COAS. A father figure is needed not only as a calming influence but to maintain the continuity of military non-intervention. Let’s face it: democracy is being sustained despite provocations today because of Kayani’s single-minded commitment to the process. Remember Murphy’s Law, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Hopefully this month of March will be unlike others, and we will have a smooth transition from what presently is a presidential system in all but name to, theoretically at least, parliamentary democracy. The ultimate question is, does this parliamentary system, where legislators do everything under the sun but legislate, really suit Pakistan?

The writer is a defence and political analyst. Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com

Ho Jemalo Ki Yaad Mien by Fazal Haq

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

The radio talk by Mir Jamilur Rahman

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

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Mir Jamilur Rahman

A few days ago, Prime Minister Gilani addressed the nation through the medium of radio. In his speech he told the people what his government had done in the last two years and what it intended to do in the remaining three years of its tenure.

Addressing the nation through radio on a regular basis could be a very useful means of building rapport with the people. It can reduce the distance that exists between the government and the people and can also help in narrowing the perennially existing trust deficit.

The practice of talking directly to the people was first introduced in 1933, during the Great Depression, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt came on the radio – there was no TV yet – and spoke directly to the people to explain the causes of the economic depression and what steps his government had proposed to overcome it. The people believed what he said because they could see the practical manifestation of his economic programmes on the ground. He gave details of the New Deal, which was a series of economic programmes. The programmes focused on what historians call the three Rs: relief, recovery and reform; relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent more such disasters from happening. It has been 76 years, but the key elements of the New Deal, especially social security, still exist today.

In his speech, the prime minister promised to address the nation every first Friday of the month. However, one fact should be kept in view that the monthly talk will bear fruit only if the subject which is discussed in it is chosen carefully. There are hundreds of subjects or rather issues which the nation wants to understand and all the issues can’t be encompassed in one talk. The duration of the talk should be of 10-15 minutes and it should focus on discussing one issue at a time. The prime minister’s research staff should provide all the necessary information regarding the issue being discussed in order to enable him to discuss it honestly and with full confidence that what he is saying is the truth. If the prime minister wants to keep his listeners’ attention, he should talk about what interests them and not what interests the lawyers or the politicians or the bureaucracy.

Mr Gilani’s statement that the government has taken measures to bring down the prices is not correct. It has not happened. The very same day that the prime minister talked on the radio, the nation heard that the price of electricity had gone up by one rupee a unit. The fact of the matter is that the prices that go up, never come down, with the only exception being the telecom sector that has reduced its charges so far. The prime minister talked about many other things but I wish he had mentioned the sprinter Nasim who brought honour to Pakistan early this month.

To sum it up, the idea of radio talk can be a splendid one, especially in a country like ours where interaction between the rulers and the masses is almost none. So, the announcement by the prime minister to talk to the people through a medium which can be truly termed as a medium for the masses is a welcoming news and the people are anxious to hear their prime minister. A word coming from him will be more important for them than the unending rhetoric of the opposition leaders.

Email: mirjrahman@hotmail.com


The star that failed to shine by Javed Jabbar

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

Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Javed Jabbar

On February 8, Zia Mohyeddin and Amitabh Bachchan participated in a poetry recitation at the open-air Bandra Fort theatre in Mumbai, under the laudable initiative called Aman ki Asha launched by the Jang group of Pakistan in cooperation with The Times of India group to promote peace and friendship between the two countries.

By coincidence, this writer was in Mumbai at that time and was cordially invited to the event by the organisers through the courtesy of the Jang group.

With admission on the basis of invitation cards taken in advance from The Times of India office, about 500 people waited in long queues to gain admission and to get seats on a first-come-first-served basis. They represented a cross-section of the citizens of Mumbai and to some extent a cross-section of India itself, though the dominant majority appeared to be from western and northern parts of India.

In his inimitable manner, Zia Mohyeddin recited poetry from the pen of Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Zia Mohyeddin’s resonant voice, his clear and lucid diction, his careful selection of poems and his calm and assured presentation did full justice to the subtlety, the sensitivity, the sub-texts and the sheer beauty of Faiz Sahib’s poetry. Both the poet and the presenter made one proud to be a Pakistani.

From the polite and periodic applause it was clear that only about 30 per cent of the audience grasped the nuances and the shades in Faiz’s rich Urdu. Even this semi-literate writer did not always comprehend the meanings of certain words and phrases.

What followed thereafter was virtually a passage from the sublime to the shameful.

At the conclusion of his recitation, Zia Mohyeddin thanked the audience and the hosts and promptly left the stage.

The lady making the announcements took the stage, thanked Zia Mohyeddin briefly and then went on to say that she was getting goose-pimples just thinking about who was coming on next. There was no prize offered for making the correct guess. After all, it was reasonably easy to guess a major film actor who has dominated the screens in India and elsewhere for over 30 years, particularly if his name was mentioned on the evening’s programme.

Instead of showing due courtesy to a visitor from Pakistan who had specially flown in to Mumbai for the recital, Mr Amitabh Bachchan deliberately waited for a few minutes for Zia Mohyeddin’s exit. He then made his appearance to the expected applause, mumbled a few innocuous words and sentences about the Aman ki Asha initiative and then devoted the remaining 60 minutes plus to a fine recitation of his distinguished father’s poetry which received frequent applause. It was immediately obvious that from fear of criticism from racist and religious fascists like Mr Bal Thackeray and the Shiv Sena, Mr Amitabh Bachchan had made sure that he would not be seen simultaneously on stage with the distinguished visitor from Pakistan.

This one facet alone struck a sharp, discordant note that jarred with the central theme of Aman ki Asha, which is to bring people and public figures from both the countries together and to demonstrate a mutual capacity to transcend real or imagined schisms and conflicts of the past and the present.

It was disappointing to note that The Times of India had agreed to this arrangement by which the two personalities making their respective presentations of poetry were deliberately prevented from being seen together.

Granted that the tragic deaths of over 150 people in the atrocious Mumbai attacks in November 2008 have left pain and bitterness in India in general and in Mumbai in particular due to the real or alleged involvement of elements belonging to Pakistan. But all those … strangers and acquaintances alike … that this writer met in Mumbai during the brief stay expressed no discord or ill-will or bad manners. In fact, every person – be it the immigration or customs personnel at Mumbai Airport or the taxi drivers who ferried me from place-to-place in the city for four days – clearly showed a largeness of heart and friendliness on coming to know that I was a Pakistani.

In vivid contrast, a person who should have risen above the grooves of paranoia and prejudice and fulfilled his duty as a public figure abysmally failed to show courtesy, grace and courage. About the same time, an Indian friend in New Delhi informed me by e-mail that singers and musicians from Pakistan were warmly and heartily welcomed at concerts on stage, by prominent Indian hosts who practised the gentleman’s code of conduct expected in any host country.

Fortunately, the spirit of Aman ki Asha is far greater than the physical reach of some of those who participate in this process.

May the Jang group and The Times of India group continue to make their respective valuable contributions for peace and friendship between Pakistan and India.

The writer is a former federal minister of information and senator of Pakistan and also the writer-producer of the international award-winning film Ramchand Pakistani which featured Indian actor Nandita Das with a Pakistani cast.

The next finance minister by Mosharraf Zaidi

9 March, 2010 (1) Comment   |   Print This Post   |   Email This Post   |    Share on Facebook

Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Mosharraf Zaidi

Like the achingly beautiful brunette bombshell that every man wants but no man has the courage to approach, it seems the finance minister’s job has become a victim of its own grandness. There are many ways to interpret the desperate difficulty that the present government is experiencing in finding someone that is willing to be finance minister for this country. Perhaps people worry that if Shaukat Tarin (not a man to shirk a good challenge) couldn’t handle the job, nobody really can. Perhaps a bad economy is scaring good people away from the job. Perhaps the allegations of unparalleled corruption within this PPP government are causing smart people to want to stay away from the job.

Of course, it’s important to remember that not everything that is broken today was handed to this government in any kind of usable condition. The intense opposition that President Asif Ali Zardari inspires may or may not always be fair, but a deeply problematic economic management paradigm goes far beyond this government. After all, we are less than three years removed from an era in which Pakistan’s economic managers were claiming the status of the new Asian Tiger for the country.

Experience must have made an entire generation of greying economic and financial savants truly wise men. From Ishrat Husain to Hafeez Pasha, not one of them wants to be finance minister. Indeed, anyone with professional pride seems to not want to touch the most powerful job that an apolitical shehri babu could ever aspire to in Pakistan. Begging the question, why do men for whom the apex of professional achievement is the finance minister’s job suddenly have cold feet?

The real answer has very little to do with the incompetence of the PPP government that is sometimes being lead by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, sometimes by President Zardari, and most times by nobody at all. Smart economists know that one could replace this government with a PML-N government today, but the fate of the finance minister in such a government would not be much better than Shaukat Tarin’s. The problems inherent in the job of managing the Pakistani economy are not restricted to one kind of political party or another. Nor are those problems linked only to the performance of the global economy, or the prices of commodities like oil. The fundamental problem is much deeper, and worrying, and it is simple.

The traditional model of economic management is unsustainable in Pakistan.

This young and tortured country has only a very slim cadre of economic managers for as long as anyone that is old enough to be finance minister can remember. Since July of 1977 Pakistan has had 13 different men and women serve the country as ministers of finance. Of these 13, four had the chance to serve more than once–Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto herself, Sartaj Aziz, Naveed Qamar and Ishaq Dar.

Of the 13 different folks that have been finance ministers, only three can legitimately be called serious politicians, capable of winning an election in Pakistan without the need to depend on the endorsement of any single family, group, or entity–the late Mian Yasin Khan Wattoo, Shaheed Mohtarma and the always classy Naveed Qamar. Many would argue that Ishaq Dar (a decent and competent man) qualifies as the fourth, but Mr Dar cannot win an election without the endorsement and strong support of the Sharif family.

More importantly, Mr Dar, rather than being a part of the thin group of politicians who have been finance minister, is clearly a member of the dominant club of Pakistani finance ministers that have limited autonomous political clout, but oodles of professional chops.

Since the summer of 1977, ten of the 13 ministers have either been career bureaucrats or finance and/or economics professionals. Often they have been both within the same career, including Sartaj Aziz, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Shahid Javed Burki, and Mahbubul Haq.

The quintessential Pakistani finance ministers are the two that have enjoyed the longest tenures. Ghulam Ishaq Khan was finance minister from July 1977 to March 1985, and Shaukat Aziz was finance minister from November 1999 to November 2007. Both men served for approximately eight years. The most important common strain across these two was that neither would, even in their most courageous and brazen moments, have considered taxing the hands that fed them. The left hand being that of the feudal landowners that help sustain a skewed narrative of economics in Pakistan, and the right hand being that of the Pakistani military, whose appetite for fiscal expansion has never been institutionally challenged, or checked, in Pakistani history.

Simplistic derivations of why Aziz and Ghulam Ishaq Khan enjoyed sustained tenures as finance ministers will always produce a causal link between pure GDP growth and economic success. But the real measure of success in managing the economy has to be the citizen’s bottom line. Stock market and real-estate brokers may have enjoyed inflated profits during the Zia and Musharraf eras, but the dramatic falloff in economic performance upon the demise of each military strongman (and their trusted munshis) is the greatest proof of the myth of the GIK and Aziz economic success stories. The only real institutional success these finance ministers had was that they kept Pakistan from imposing the two most important kinds of taxes that this country now desperately needs to impose: a major tax on the wealth of large landowners, and a major “tax” on the unsustainable growth of the defence budget.

The reason that so many of Pakistan’s finance ministers have been ex-World Bank or IMF and ex-Citibank professionals has very little to do with the institutional success of the World Bank, the IMF or Citibank. It has to do with the raison d’etre of the finance ministry–whether it is being run by a military dictator or a legitimate government of the political elite. The finance ministry is the articulator of Pakistani financial need. Its primary function is to promote a narrative of Pakistan’s economy that will increase the flow of foreign funds into Pakistan. What better spokespersons than those that are straight from the belly of the beasts themselves?

During the GDP growth heyday of the Musharraf era, the fictional narrative was that Pakistan was an emerging market superpower. This was then marketed to investors so that they would pump money into the various Eurobonds and sukuks that helped ramp up Pakistan’s debt liabilities. During the GDP growth dog days of this PPP government, the fictional narrative has been that the Taliban are “60 miles from Islamabad,” and that Pakistan will be taken over by those Taliban. Unless, of course, wealthier countries begin to throw bigger bones Pakistan’s way.

By any means necessary, the bedrock of the management of the Pakistani economy has been to attract foreign money into Pakistan. This is ironic and stupefying, because those very managers, whether times are a-boomin’ or a-bustin’, stash their own wealth in banks outside Pakistan with alarming consistency.

The traditional model of economic management is unsustainable in Pakistan for two reasons. The first is that there are no more cons left to try. Serious security risks weaken the prospects for major FDI or portfolio investments into Pakistan in the near future. Concurrently, donor fatigue, and the exposure of the potential Taliban/Al-Qaeda domination of this country as a myth, means that the chapter of begging-bowl economics has come to a close. In short, Pakistan will actually have to begin looking at domestic economic supply-and-demand as the starting point for Pakistani macroeconomic analysis.

The second is that since there are no more cons left to try, there are no more decent, educated and serious babus left to take the finance minister’s job. Whatever poor soul does take this job will be saddled with an emotional (and most probably legal) toll that far outweighs the glamour of a black Corrolla and World Bank Spring Meetings. Shaukat Tarin is not alone in raising his hands to the sky, in prayer for the poor soul that is the next finance minister, whoever it is.

The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy.

Taqat Ki Kemzori by Ghazi Salahuddin

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

Women through the governance lens by Sania Nishtar

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

Governance

Monday, March 08, 2010
Sania Nishtar

Although effective governance—or the lack thereof—has an impact on every aspect of our societal, social and economic lives, nowhere is its imprint more vivid than in determining the status of women in a society. This comment uses the International Women’s Day, which is being globally observed today as a peg to briefly outline the linkages. This year’s theme of the International Women’s day, “Equal rights, equal opportunities: progress for all”, is particularly relevant to governance, since upholding women’s political, economic and social rights and striving towards achieving equity and equality of opportunities in a national political context cannot be ensured without effective governance.

Before we examine the relationship, let us be reminded that the status of women in Pakistan is fraught with an ironic and highly polarised paradox, implicit within which are many inequities and inequalities. These are evident in many areas. On the one hand, women are well-represented in parliament, but on the other, exceptions notwithstanding, this largely represents an extension of elite and feudal capture. The professional institutions of higher learning have 50 per cent or higher enrollment of women, but at the same time, there is a literacy gap of 45 per cent between men and women and educational opportunities for rural women remain elusive. Similarly, we see a growing number of women in the traditional, male-dominated professions such as engineering, law, medicine, business, the police and the military. But alongside this trend, the nationally representative labour market statistics speak of gender discrepancies, under-remuneration, systemic impediments to mainstreaming women into the country’s workforce and restricted employment options outside of the informal sectors for socially marginalised and disadvantaged women. Furthermore, it can be argued — and correctly so with reference to a segment belonging to the higher social stratum — that women appear freer than ever to express themselves in the choice of appearance, speech, clothing, arts and entertainment and that they are becoming increasingly progressive, empowered and globalised. However, many others in their close geographic midst are relegated to the strictest confines of purdah, isolation and disempowerment. Moreover, many Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most of the Middle Eastern women. But at the same time, these trends, which are true for a minority, haven’t changed some of the deep-seated social behaviours and fundamental prejudices against women, which translate both into discrimination as well as some of the severest forms of violence.

Some may argue that violence against women is globally pervasive. Indeed, it may come as no surprise that 70-90 per cent of women in Pakistan encounter domestic violence and that there are an estimated eight cases of rape every 24 hours. However, what is unfortunately unique to Pakistan is the prevalence of some horrific crimes.

We generally tend to attribute all these abhorrent practices to our tribal and feudal traditions and norms and to the systemic subordination of women vis-à-vis men. That may well be the case to some extent. However, what is not fully appreciated is the role that many other systemic factors play in perpetuating these traditions. Poverty, illiteracy, and social exclusion have a chicken and egg relationship with organised vested interests, of which feudalism is a part, and which promote state capture. A democratic dispensation should be able to break through the strongholds of vested interests, but unfortunately, it sometimes helps to strengthen them.

If the state was governed effectively over the years and Pakistan had sped on the road to development with its economic and social benefits accruing to its population, as has been the case with many Asian countries; if the state had delivered education universally to its population and if an honest government had weakened the organised vested interests that form the bedrock of undesirable tribal and feudal traditions, perhaps heinous crimes such as honour killings and burying alive, would not be condoned as social customs and tribal traditions today. In the absence of these fundamental attributes, which determine the status of women in a society, the impact of legal reforms to improve the status of women introduced by successive governments has been, at best, marginal. Similarly, standalone gender empowerment programmes, measures to enhance the access of women to financial services, and others for skill enhancement have had limited impact whilst the adverse fundamentals remain unchanged. This is the first, and perhaps the most illustrative of the pathways through which failure of governance can be shown to impact the lives of women. Here, it must be appreciated that the term governance is the subject of many interpretations, but in the current sense it is being scoped to the policy making and implementation realms and use of public resources and regulatory power.

The status of women and issues implicit within it, also underscore the importance of another governance impediment — one that relates to ensuring compliance with stated policy norms and standards and enforcement of the laws. In theory, Pakistan ensures respect for women’s rights and fundamental freedoms, as is evidenced by the ratification of many global conventions and declarations. These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence. Pakistan’s constitution has many provisions, which stipulate that “All citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law” and that “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone” – Article 25(1) and 25 (2) respectively. Also, Article 35 specifically states that “steps shall be taken to ensure full participation of women in all spheres of national life”.

Several laws are additionally in place, including the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act 2006. The experts are of the opinion that although all the discriminatory provisions embodied within earlier statutes were not addressed through this statute, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. Recently, the Women at Workplace Act 2009 has been enacted which aims to “protect women from harassment and (is intended to) make them feel more secure”. In addition, laws are in place to ensure women’s right to inheritance — an important element in the socio economic and political empowerment of women.

However, there are two issues with the implementation of these laws. One set of issues is generic to the implementation of laws in Pakistan. Secondly, the fact that regardless of what the statutes may stipulate, these are conditional on social norms and traditions, which the vast majority of women in the society have to bear with. These issues are further compounded by the biases against women in the criminal justice system — but more important than that, poor performance of the justice system and the relative intransigence with which it dispenses justice to women.

In sum, the status of women is deeply linked with many elements of the society — legal, political, religious, economic, and cultural. Governance can play a key role in shaping most if not all of the societal characteristics through ensuring respect for women’s political, economic and social rights.

So, whilst the enlightened women’s groups draw attention to horrific crimes and discriminatory practices against women — honour killings, live burials, disfigurement by acid, stove deaths, and other undesirable practices, such as childhood marriages, watta satta, vini, marriage to the Quran — to mark the International Women’s Day, we should be reminded that quantum leaps in addressing these challenges can only be made with slow and steady structural solutions.

The writer is the founding- president of the NGO think-tank, Heartfile.

sania@heartfile.org

March 8 for Afghan women by Sahar Saba

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

Monday, March 08, 2010
Sahar Saba

Dr Anahita Ratebzad was leading women on March 8, back in 1965, when International Women’s Day was celebrated for the first time in Kabul under the auspices of the Democratic Organisation of Afghan Women (DOAW). The arrival of feminists on the Afghan stage coincided with the emergence of left factions like Parchamis, Khalqis and Sholais. Campaigning against child marriage, bride price and women’s illiteracy, the DOAW was launched by Parcham sympathisers.

In 1977, Meena Kishwar Kemal, a Sholai, founded Jamiat-e-Inqelabi-e-Zanan-e-Afghanistan (Revolutionary Organisation of the Women of Afghanistan), or RAWA.

Given Afghanistan’s present image, it is hard to imagine that, had the reform programme of King Amanullah (1892-1960) been implemented, the country would have been one of the first to grant women the right to vote. Inspired by Kemal Ataturk, King Amanullah, who ruled from 1919 to 1929, encouraged women to receive education, abandon the veil and organise themselves. His sister Kobra founded Anjuman-e-Himayat-e-Niswan (Women Protection Organisation), while Queen Soraya started a women’s magazine Irshad-e-Niswan (Women’s Voice).

When Britain incited a rebellion against Amanullah, the liberties the king had granted to women were used to incite conservative tribal chiefs against the government. The leader of the rebellion was Habibullah, commonly known as “Bacha-e-Saqao.” A Tajik bandit, he was an extremist Muslim. His short-lived regime that replaced Amanullah’s enlightened rule, was a forerunner to the puritan tyranny of the Mujahideen and the Taliban (1992-2001). He rolled back all the reforms. Women’s education was banned. Burqa became mandatory, and women were confined to the home once again.

Bacha-e-Saqao’s early departure did not revive Afghan women’s fortunes. Zahir Shah’s long reign (1933-1973) was not inimical to women. After years of struggle, women were able to carve out a place for themselves in public life, at least in large towns. For the first time, in 1959, women were allowed to unveil. As in Saudi society, the dress code has been an important battle for the women’s rights movement in Afghanistan. In 1964 the constitution acknowledged women’s right to vote and participate in politics. By the early 1970s, women were visible on the Afghan scene in the urban centres. When the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) captured power in a coup in 1978, a few radical reforms were introduced. Bride price was abolished. Child marriages were outlawed And compulsory education for girls announced.

However, although the PDPA regime continued to pay a lip service to women’s liberation in order to maintain a socialist facade, women opposing it were jailed and tortured. Student leader Nahid, who helped organise a demonstration against Soviet occupation, was killed. In 1987, RAWA’s founding leader, Meena, was murdered.

Meantime, life for millions of women at refugee camps in Pakistan was becoming particularly harsh. Run by seven Mujahideen groups, these camps served as laboratories for the future Talibanisation of Afghanistan. It was in these camps that women set a fine tradition of resistance, particularly during the 1990s. Despite a regime of terror, underground schools for girls, vocational centres for women and study circles for women activists were run at these camps. Brave activists were able to mobilise hundreds of women for demonstrations at Islamabad’s Constitutional Avenue, Peshawar’s Press Club or outside the Chief Minister’s House in Quetta.

These actions in exile during the Mujahideen-Taliban period were the only expressions of women’s resistance. Kabul’s new masters from 1992 onwards excluded women from public view.

While the Taliban’s anti-women agenda is well documented and has been widely publicised, amnesia takes hold of the global media when it comes to the Mujahideen era. It was these Mujahideen warlords who declared girls’ education as a “gateway to hell.” Under the pressure of Abdul Rasool Sayyaf (who is now a vital ally of Hamid Karzai), women were banned on television, a medium the Mujahideen denounced as “aina-e-Shaitan” (Satan’s mirror).

During this period, the Mujahideen arrested men who were clean-shaved or wore moustaches as communist sympathisers. These very Mujahideen, now themselves clean-shaved, were accommodated in the US-formed cabinet to rule post-Taliban Afghanistan. Some of these warlords have been designated as war criminals by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The same war criminals responsible for women’s kidnappings and rapes now preside over March 8 functions in Kabul organised by Western-funded NGOs.

No doubt, even symbolic changes introduced in the post-Taliban period are a welcome step in Afghan society. However, the sustainability of these cosmetic changes, like women’s seats in parliament, limited unveiling, professional and educational opportunities available in big towns, is questionable. Afghan women shudder at the thought of the Taliban’s return. Secondly, US dependence on the warlords for sustaining its occupation only helps perpetuate women’s oppression, even if the Taliban do not descend on Kabul. The warlords know they can preach women liberation on March 8 in Kabul while they implement Sharia in their provincial fiefdoms, of which a recent flogging episode in Ghor province last month is evidence.

According to reports in Afghan media, two Afghan women were publicly flogged on charge of elopement under the orders of a local warlord called Fazal Ahad. In the light of a decree issued by local clerics, the two women were subjected to 45 lashes each in public. The footage of the flogging was aired by some local Afghan TV channels.

It is, therefore, understandable that, depressed by the deteriorating situation of Afghan women, Ms Ratebzad (b. 1930), the pioneer of March 8 events in Kabul, went insane a couple of years ago.

The writer is an Afghan activist.

Email: saharsaba@yahoo.com

Zia Mohyeddin and Amitabh Bachchan in Bombay by Aakar Patel

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

Aakar Patel

Last month, we had the opportunity to listen to Zia Mohyeddin. He had been invited here as part of the Aman ki Asha programme that Jang and the Times of India have organised. It’s an excellent initiative because in the absence of trade, and given that we can hardly agree on anything else, culture is the one thing we can share comfortably.

A few years ago I had read about Mohyeddin’s famous annual recitations in Pakistan. A friend from Lahore then sent three compact discs of his performances recorded at what I think were functions of Pakistani-Americans.

The recordings included an irreverent one about different Pakistani communities and their cultural traits. There was one funny story about Chinioti traders. There was also a smoothly delivered dialogue in English between man and God about the nature of woman. I had read about Mohyeddin’s readings of Ghalib’s letters, but those were not included in the recordings.

These were the sort of things I had wanted to listen to from Mohyeddin. I read that Mohyeddin had revived the more traditional style of reciting Urdu poetry. This had been eclipsed 50 years ago by the hammy style of Z A Bokhari, brother of humorist Patras. I looked forward to understanding what that meant.

The event was at the Bandra fort, built by the Portuguese in 1640, and overlooking the Mahim bay. The fort has been restored partly, from funds provided by actress and legislator Shabana Azmi, and an amphitheatre has been built in it where cultural events are frequently held.

The programme had two items: Mohyeddin reciting Faiz and Amitabh Bachchan reciting the verse of his father, Harivanshrai.

The amphitheatre seats about 500 and it was packed. In the front row were Jaya Bachchan and also a couple of other people from Bollywood. I recognised the actress Vidya Balan, who is beautiful, and the director Imtiaz Ali.

Zia Mohyeddin came out to applause, wearing a dark suit and tie. His jacket was elegantly cut, with his cufflinks showing. He was trim, with a full head of hair and looked senatorial, younger than 77. He has a superb, deep voice and the moment he began, the crowd knew it was in the presence of something superior.

The passes to the event had been free. When this happens in India organisers tend to print more passes than are seats. This is because Indians often pick up free passes and then do not show up. This evening, most people did and that meant that many were left out.

Moments into Mohyeddin’s recitation, the ones left outside began shouting a chorus of “hai hai”, demanding to be let in. Mohyeddin stiffened for one moment and many of us thought it might be the Shiv Sena or some such group trying to oppose Aman ki Asha.

This protest carried on for a few minutes and disturbed the atmosphere irrevocably. It drew attention away from the recitation, and attention was needed because Mohyeddin was reading Faiz, a difficult poet.

It isn’t clear whether he chose Faiz or the organisers asked him to read Faiz. I think the latter is more likely, though Mohyeddin often reads him and one of my discs is called Faiz Sahab Ki Mohabbat Mein.

Perhaps 20, and my guess is fewer, people in the audience could appreciate the poetry. Faiz’s poems often have many Persian words and phrases. I imagine he is also a difficult poet for most Pakistanis. In this case his quality was wasted because Aman ki Asha is about peace through familiarity of culture. What Mohyeddin recited actually accentuated difference.

Faiz is thought to be a poet of protest and I’m not sure why his writing wasn’t simpler, like the verse of Jalib. Mohyeddin said that Faiz was not only a political poet (“siyasi sha’ir”) and that some of his poems were also purely on romance.

There are easy Faiz poems, and those are his apolitical ones, like Gulon mein rang bharay. Mohyeddin was witty and a couple of times interrupted his recitation to introduce a particular poem. Though he did not recite Gulon, he said of it that at mushairas Faiz would refuse to recite it saying “Woh to Mehdi Hasan ki ho gayi”. Similarly, he would say of Subh-e-Azadi that “Woh to Zia ki ho gayi”.

This was the one Faiz poem many in the audience were familiar with, and its opening lines (“Yeh daagh daagh ujaalaa, yeh shab-gazida sahar…”) were applauded. I think Indians have misread the poem. We assume this is a rejection of Partition, but it’s not. It’s actually a pining for another form of government. He is referring to what happened after 1947 and what should have been. This is in line with his communist principles. Faiz’s famous translator is Victor Kiernan, also a communist.

Is the problem of South Asians that we don’t have the right sort of government? Faiz thought so as did the other poets of the Progressive Movement. It is difficult to understand why they thought this when the problems of India, for instance, are so clearly the result of our culture and self-inflicted.

Mohyeddin recited for about 40 minutes, in which time mobile phones went off only three times which is quite good by our standards. After this, the organisers asked Jaya Bachchan to speak, introducing her so fawningly and acting so familiarly with her that it was embarrassing. She was surprised to be asked to speak and came on stage to call out her husband, muffing her lines.

Amitabh Bachchan came on with a large band. He wore a theatrical costume, a bright red kurta with a black design.

His father was famous for one particular poem called Madhushala (maikhana/tavern). I bought a copy of it last year and after reading it I couldn’t understand why it was famous. It is a mediocre poem, and the poet was 27 when he wrote it. The poem is introduced in the edition I have by a former professor of Benaras Hindu University. This man was present at one of the poem’s first readings in the 1930s at the university. His introduction is quite revealing, and it’s disturbing that someone of such mediocrity should have been in the position of influencing students.

He says that he wrote a parody of the poem to entertain his students while Bachchan rested between verses (it is a long poem). The verse he offers as a sample is: “Lakh piyein, do lakh piyein, par kabhi nahin thaknewala: Agar pilanay ka dum hai tau jari rakh yeh Madhushala”.

Harivanshrai’s verse is in similar vein, with forced rhyme and lines of no particular merit. So dull is the thing that when the singer Manna De set it to song he had to reach out to verse 66 for a decent line because what goes before it is unrelentingly banal.

Bachchan, like Mohyeddin, is an orator of quality. However, he does not recite his father’s poem. Instead he insists on singing it, and he cannot sing well. He has picked the wrong key, and it’s too high for him. His modulation is poor and he surrenders the control that he otherwise has when he talks.

The singing was to a weak melody, and the band’s interventions were dreadful. The performance took on the mindless quality of a satsang, a religious gathering, and many around me were waving their arms about as Indians are wont to do.

Bachchan had the grave persona that he wears so well but what he produced was not of comparative quality. He says he is becoming increasingly contemplative of the writings of his father, who passed away a few years ago. This came through quite clearly.

I think the event was a good thing and we should have more exchange of this fashion. But the programme should have been thought through a little. Faiz was chosen because he is thought to be a unifying poet; what was the point to picking Harivanshrai’s poetry? That is not clear.

Zia Mohyeddin could have entertained the same audience with something simpler in Urdu and also in English. I hope we have another chance to listen to him, more relaxed and offering us something similar to what he offers Lahore every year.

The columnist is writing a book on the changing world of servants in India, to be published by Random House.

Email: aakar.patel@gmail. com