May 5, 2012
Our fake values
Spare the teacher
Higher education in India
Sonia Gandhi’s uphill task
Jan 1, 2012
Hormuz flashpoint
The announcement on Thursday of a major arms deal between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States comes at a time when regional tensions centred on the Straits of Hormuz, are rising by the day. There is no direct linkage between the $30 billion sale and the current crisis as the deal was planned over a year ago, but Iran will see the symbolism. The origins of the problem lie in the Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to oil-carrying traffic if the USA tightens sanctions still further against it; as a part of the American response to what it sees as an emerging nuclear capability on the part of Iran. The American response to the ‘Iranian threat’ is that it is a reflection of the ‘irrational’ behaviour of the Tehran government. This is not the first time that this vital seaway has been the focus of international tension. Both Gulf Wars saw increased naval activity by coalition navies, and the USA, Britain and others maintain standing patrols to protect the Straits which see an average of 13 tankers a day passing through carrying 33 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipment, representing 17 percent of all oil traded worldwide.
The Iranian threat to close the Straits as easily ‘as drinking a glass of water’ may be bravado as the Iranian navy would be no match for the forces quickly deployed against it – but the Iranians have naval assets which could severely interdict traffic. To strengthen their point the Iranians in the last week carried out naval exercises and deployed a surveillance aircraft to monitor a US carrier passing through the Strait. On Saturday there were conflicting reports regarding the firing of a long-range missile by the Iranians – with the semi-official ‘Fars’ news agency saying a missile was fired, but an Iranian navy spokesman saying it had not – but would be in the coming days. The seriousness of the situation must not be underestimated. From the Iranian perspective they are surrounded by hostile states bent on their overthrow or destruction. This is not mere paranoia, and although Iran is militarily no match for any of the states ranged against it, there is a real possibility that conflict could break out if Iran judged the threat to itself to be existential. America will aggressively protect its interests in the region, and will support Saudi Arabia which is the historic enemy of the Iranians. There may be a sense of desperation in the Iranian threat as the sanctions begin to bite, and the situation is on a hair-trigger. The Straits of Hormuz are one of the few places in the world which has the potential to spark major conflict. Cool heads rather than hot words are the need of the hour.
Over the top
Masood Hasan
So 2011 has slipped away without a trace. An entire year gone over into the abyss like a large ship that is one moment on the horizon and then slips over the rim and is gone without even a wake. Today is the first day of yet another year and it has become increasingly hard to call it by the usual ‘Happy New Year’ tag that we were once used to. What has really happened? Is time actually flying or are we getting senile? And why is it that when you look back on an entire year, 365 days and all, it is but a blur? Yes you remember the highs and the lows but for the rest of the many days that make up the year, there is not much to hold on to.
Life is time passing, is it not? And in the words of T S Eliot with those evocative lines that open Burnt Norton ‘Time present and time past/Are both perhaps present in the future,/And time future contained in time past,/If all time is eternally present/All time is unredeemable’. In our own lives and in these days it is the growing realisation that time past is not redeemable. Thus a feeling of loss and a brooding sense of pessimism pervades. An American friend of mine with a wicked sense of humour used to say about Pakistan, ‘The situation is hopeless but not serious.’ While it almost always evoked laughter I have often thought what these clever lines really meant other than the obvious cynicism they reflected. I don’t really know. All I do know is that it somehow, aptly describes the human condition that afflicts Pakistan from end to end. And that is sad.
There is not much to be cheerful about. The mood that grips us is much like the gloom that descends on our cities when the sun absconds after a fruitless battle all day. The gathering dusk and creeping shadows overpower, with few lights to challenge them. There is no sunshine here. It’s gone. Vanished. In these days of eternal gas, power and water cuts we are just about existing. We are a depressed nation. No songs of joy here. Those bleating about the promised ‘change’ do so for such obvious motives that even a log of wood would see through the charade. The downside of all years gone and the promises that were never kept have shaken to the core even the most diehard ones. This is not what we came here for? This is a parody. We have missed the bus, the last train out, the departing ship.
The sense of squandering opportunities prevails now like the fog on the motorway. In terms of lives of nations, maybe 60 years is nothing but a mote in the eye but what have we really done with these years is shameful. First the many leaders who have climbed to great positions of power most undeservedly and once there have systematically plundered the country and its assets assimilating wealth beyond belief. Then the generals who have always held sway, backed by an organised and armed self-serving system. The ‘servants’ of the people who have robbed us day and night. The police, a world full of criminals deadlier than the criminals they seek. The rank and file of society out to make a fast buck, stab everyone on the way and live beyond the reach of the law. We all love money especially when there is plenty of it. We pray to it because it is the only god we know, but how much can you accumulate?
Among thousands of instances of gross corruption shine many nauseating gems. Some time back reports emanated that the current prime minister’s spouse who didn’t bat her professionally made-up eyelids cleaned out the inventory at London’s Harrods store. The VIP loot, crates of it, arrived and were whisked away in special trucks from Chaklala to her favourite city infested by poverty, flies and beggars. No one raised an eyebrow heaven forbid. Other stories abound. There are reams about the president, endless ones about the clout-wielding brass and conniving civil servants but relax. No heads are rolling or ever will.
But she is not the only one or the first one. Literally everyone has done the same and worse. We have some of the most enviable laws crafted by mankind but neither do they exist nor ever practiced. We carry out the most shameful acts while shamelessly swearing our utter commitment to such laws. When the laws aren’t suitable, they are simply broken or cast aside. Tinpot dictators, insincerity dripping from every pore in their bodies trashed the Constitution, a serious offence yet they grew even more powerful. That line of our rogue’s gallery is a very long one and just about most of those the Almighty thrust upon this hapless nation have come and gone leaving Pakistan, in worse circumstances.
Today we don’t even have the basic necessities that are the bare minimum requirements of any society – but perhaps this is not a society after all? Even if it is an apology of one, what right has any group of individuals to stay in power, make stupid speeches, lie daily and do nothing tangible in the way of this basic duty? That is of course a very silly and naïve question because we all know what is what. Between that great commando and the current dispensation and 15 precious years, we are starved of power. It is a matter of great shame. This is the year 2012 and we could well be in the Stone Age or thereabouts. What are the people expected to do to fight the cold, cook food and survive? Burn fruit crates? Cut trees down? But nothing shakes the capital and the focus is that this vile set-up must complete its five years and Inshallah, they will. Hallelujah! Revenge is the best democracy indeed!
But this is an old story and it is a poor variation of a bedtime story where the prince eventually arrives, kills the giant and rescues his darling. Unfortunately this princess will soon be an ugly hag. She is already over 60 and time hasn’t been too kind to her. Those rallying to rescue her need to be first rescued themselves. But no one is going to pull Pakistan out of the terrifying mess it is now. Every ill that besets any society now has its death like tentacles over everything – touch anything and you see it is rotten to the core. Rules don’t apply, principles don’t matter and the illiterate roughnecks have the day. With ill-gotten money they have raked in and rake in all the time, they are ensuring their offspring, perhaps louts today with money to throw around, will soon be at the learning centres of the world, acquire sophistication, return and marry into other power wielders. The die is thus cast. You need a revolution but most of us cannot spell the word and those who can, don’t have a clue what it is all about. 2012, please go away.
Coup d’état
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Over the past four years, the balance of power has moved in favour of a civilian government. In the past, a civilian prime minister or a president could not survive without the army’s support – Gilani and Zardari have. The mere postulation that the generals are now relying on the courts to undermine a civilian government is indicative of the army’s strategic diminution. Over the past six decades, the army had a near monopoly over Pakistan’s political-economy; no more.
Over the sixty-two year period since Independence, the army has been the major stakeholder sometimes allowing the PPP and PML to take turns. Operation Fair Play, the coup d’état that brought down the elected civilian government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, could not have been successful without two things: the PML’s support and Justice Anwarul Haq’s ex post facto validation. General Mirza Aslam Baig brought down Benazir Bhutto’s elected government with Nawaz Sharif’s political support and Justice Afzal Zullah’s upholding the dissolution. In 1993, General Waheed Kakar forced Nawaz Sharif to resign. General Musharraf’s coup d’état was validated by Justice Irshad Hasan Khan while Benazir Bhutto had issued a statement in support of the coup (the PPP workers had distributed sweets).
Almost all Pakistani coup d’état were supported – either immediately or within a few months – by the US. In essence, all of Pakistan’s coup d’état had an internal and an external dimension. The internal half had two components: support of a major political entity and a reasonable assurance of an ex post facto validation by the superior judiciary. This time around, both Nawaz Sharif and Iftikhar Chaudhry seem to have learned lessons from history.
As far as the external dimension is concerned America will – and always has – only focus on its own immediate strategic interests. In the past, the Pakistan Army has always been of strategic value to the US – and thus American support for coup d’états. On the face of it, Pak-US military-to-military relations have soured but Pak Army could still be instrumental in achieving US strategic objectives in the region. The PPP government, having failed to deliver domestically, now looks up for US support to survive.
The really good news out of Pakistan is that the Supreme Court – even for the generals – is taking centre-stage. To be certain, PPP’s worst enemy right now is neither the Supreme Court nor the GHQ. The PPP’s worst enemy is neither corruption nor America. Its worst enemy is its sheer incompetence and the failure to manage the economy in the interest of Pakistani voters. And that is why a large segment of the population is craving for a change – military induced or otherwise.
If the civilians don’t change Pakistan’s direction the military would have to. A classic coup d’état is sudden, illegal and sometimes violent. A ‘smart coup d’état’ is slow, legal and nonviolent. To be sure, moving from overwhelming domination of the military to complete civilian supremacy is a generational issue provided the political leadership develops wisdom as well as vision. President Asif Ali Zardari celebrated his 56th birthday on the 26th of July but I feel that the ‘older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom’.
Truths and half-truths
Jumping on the bandwagon of Imran Khan is the latest fad in Pakistani politics. On his part, the erstwhile skipper is willing to admit to his “XI” anyone who matters.
Until quite recently, a common criticism of Imran Khan was that his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was a one-man show and that it didn’t boast of a single political heavyweight other than the leader himself. In order to become a significant force, the argument went, a political party must have a critical mass, and since the PTI was well short on that account it remained a non-entity in national politics. Whether Mr Khan himself had been selective in choosing his team or frontline politicians just shunned him is open to debate. But the criticism held water.
However, now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Notable political leaders are making a beeline for the PTI and the former speedster, to borrow idioms from his own dictionary, is claiming one prized scalp after another after his fiery spells in Lahore and Karachi. Thanks to him, erstwhile rivals from Multan as well as Kasur have sunk their differences and become friends, at least on the face of it. And it seems more surprises are in store. The PPP and the PML-N, watch out!
One can hardly find fault with Imran Khan’s swelling the size and muscles of his party. In a democratic dispensation, if a political party is to capture power, it must win the electoral race; and in order to do so, it needs to field candidates who have a sizeable vote bank. The PTI fought electoral battles in 1997 and 2002 and on each occasion was routed. The reason: the party didn’t have winning horses. But now it has several, whose number is on the increase. The novelist E M Foster classifies characters in a work of fiction into flat and round. The former remain what they are, while the latter change in the course of the story. Mr Khan has also matured as the plot of the Pakistani political drama unfolded itself during the last few years. Kudos to him.
Imran Khan is running the gauntlet of criticism of his adversaries for being the new political face of the establishment-a charge that he denies vehemently. The validity or otherwise of this allegation aside, the same charge is being levelled by those who themselves owe their rise to power and glory in the past to the backing and blessings of the establishment. If selling one’s soul to the power behind the throne in Pakistan’s political system is a sin, easily the majority of notable politicians, including some of the celebrated icons of democracy, are sinners.
The PTI leader is also under fire for welcoming turncoats from other political parties to his fold. But, again, change of loyalties has been a common practice in Pakistani politics and parties not only keep their doors open to defectors but also encourage defections. Most of the men and women who have thrived on the political scene, past and present, were turncoats. Several persons who grace the present federal cabinet were important members of the Musharraf government. And, but for the turncoats, the PML-N government in Punjab would have fallen apart.
That said, one may point out some contradictions in Imran Khan’s avowed programme. To start with, he talks about bringing about a revolution in Pakistan. Nice. But revolution is not mere regime change. It’s complete overthrow of the existing social and political order. Electoral politics has seldom, if ever, ushered in a revolution. Elections, at best, are a means of reforming the socio-political order; they are not meant to replace it. Worse, Imran Khan has joined hands with those who have the highest stakes in the preservation of the status quo. These people are opposed even to political reforms, to say nothing of revolution. The skipper’s claims of effecting a revolution with the help of such people is as ridiculous as MQM leader Altaf Hussain’s call on the generals sometime back to lead a revolution.
Imran Khan wants to make Pakistan an Islamic welfare state. Again, a nice promise to make. But the devil lies in the details. The welfare state is essentially a Western concept born after the Second World War in response to the challenge posed by the growing threat of communism then. Assuming that the notion of an Islamic welfare state, like that of Islamic socialism, is not self-contradictory, some questions need to be answered. What type of Islamic state does the PTI leader want to construct? Would he follow in the footsteps of Gen Ziaul Haq and inject another heavy dose of religion into politics? In a multiethnic society like ours, religionisation of politics is a dangerous game to play, in that it enthrones one creed over the rest, which leads to the latter’s alienation. In case of Pakistan, which is already facing the menace of religious militancy on a horrendous scale, marriage of religion and politics will spell only disaster.
As for the welfare state, it is on the eclipse, if it has not already passed away. The fundamental problem in creating and sustaining a welfare state is how to finance its expenses growing out of its multifarious role. At a time when governments across the globe are struggling to contain the burgeoning budget deficits, a promise of establishing a welfare state seems to be a very bold one-to say the least-even bolder in case of Pakistan with a persistently narrow fiscal space.
Thus, though a welfare state is a goal worth pursuing, its creation will require both a quantum leap in public revenue and a drastic cut in non-productive public expenditure. If it comes into power, would the PTI be able to achieve that? Would the party, for example, cut back significantly on defence spending or introduce agriculture income tax, given that many of its frontline leaders come from the feudal class? Come on, skipper, you need to be more honest with the people.
Imran Khan is a staunch critic of drone strikes, because they are a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and kill innocent people. Hardly anyone will question this. But what about the activities of foreign militants in Pakistan? Don’t their clandestine activities violate our sovereignty? By the same reasoning, what about the death of soldiers and civilians at the hands of the militants? Don’t these deserve to be condemned with as much force as the predatory raids? But the PTI leader seldom, if ever, speaks against the activities of alien militants and suicide attacks. All he does is to attribute these to Islamabad’s alliance with Washington. Bewailing at drone strikes and winking at suicide terrorism is at best speaking only half the truth.
NEW YEAR 2012
Hundreds of thousands of people crammed into New York's Times Square to bid farewell to the old year and watch Lady Gaga trigger the famous drop of a crystal ball marking the start of 2012.
A raucous crowd that New York police said was expected to reach up to a million people enjoyed unusually warm weather, screaming and cheering in front of a top-drawer line-up of entertainers including Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber before midnight Saturday.
The crowd spilled from the "Crossroads of the World" into adjacent avenues in the biggest US public celebration of New Year's, which climaxed with the slow slide of a huge crystal-encrusted ball.
Gaga, dressed in a huge silver mask and matching dress, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pressed the switch to send the glittering ball on its descent. Confetti poured over Times Square and elaborate fireworks lit up the sky over Manhattan.
Times Square has hosted the Big Apple's biggest party since 1904, with the ball drop starting in 1907. The fact that New Year's Day fell on a Sunday and relatively balmy temperatures for winter helped boost this year's turnout.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said there'd be huge security for what he expected to be a record crowd. Backpacks and alcohol were banned and many revelers were forced to wait for hours behind penned-off areas.
Thousands of police officers, including 1,550 newly minted graduates of the police academy, were deployed, along with bomb sniffing dogs, sharp-shooters and anti-terrorism units.
"Our helicopters will be up in the air and checking the 200-block area around Times Square," Kelly told the CNN television network on Friday.
"We have heavy weapons response teams that are in, you know, appropriate locations," Kelly said.
"On New Year's Eve if you see something suspicious, there should be a police officer pretty much within arm's reach."
In addition to pop diva Gaga and teen sensation Beiber, New York saw rock veteran Chuck Berry perform at a club, and opera great Placido Domingo, 70, sing at The Metropolitan Opera.
The celebrations were also an excuse for some innovative spin-offs and marketing gimmicks, not least the "Bytox Hangover Prevention Remedy" promising to stop the new year's headache.
Oct 20, 2011
The Jewish question
Uri Avnery
Right from its founding, the state of Israel became the Holocaust-state. But we are not a helpless ghetto anymore – we have powerful armed forces, we can indeed do unto others as others have done unto us.
The old existential fears, mistrusts, suspicions, hatreds, prejudices, stereotypes, sense of victimhood, dreams of revenge, that were born in the Diaspora, have superimposed themselves on the state, creating a very dangerous mixture of power and victimhood, brutality and masochism, militarism and the conviction that the whole world is against us. Can such a state survive and flourish in the modern world?
European nation-states have fought many wars. But they never forgot that after a war comes peace, that today’s enemy may well be tomorrow’s ally. Nation-states remain, but they are becoming more and more interdependent, joining regional structures, giving up huge chunks of their sovereignty. Israel cannot do that.
The vast majority of Israelis believe that there will never be peace. They are convinced that “the Arabs” are out to throw us into the sea. They see mighty Israel as the victim surrounded by enemies, while our “friends” are liable to stick a knife in our back any time. They see the eternal occupation of Palestinian territories and the setting up of belligerent settlements all over Palestine as a result of Arab intransigence, not as its cause.
They insist that Israel be recognised as the “nation-state of the Jewish people”. This means that Israel does not belong to the Israelis (the very concept of an “Israeli nation” is officially rejected by our government) but to the worldwide ethnic-religious Jewish Diaspora, who have never been asked whether they agree to Israel representing them. It is the very negation of a real nation-state that can live in peace with its neighbours and join a regional union.
I have never laboured under any illusions about the magnitude of the task my friends and I set ourselves decades ago. It is not to change this or that aspect of Israel, but to change the fundamental nature of the state itself.
It is far more than a matter of politics, to substitute one party for another. It is even far more than making peace with the Palestinian people, ending the occupation, evacuating the settlements. It is to effect a basic change of [or “in”] the national consciousness, the consciousness of every Israeli man and woman.
It has been said that “you can get the Jews out of the ghetto, but you can’t get the ghetto out of the Jews.” But that is exactly what needs to be done. Can it be done? I think so. I certainly hope so.
Perhaps we need a shock – either a positive or a negative one. The appearance here of Anwar Sadat in 1977 can serve as an example of a positive shock: by coming to Jerusalem while a state of war was still in effect, he produced an overnight change in the consciousness of Israelis.
So did the Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn in 1993. So did, in a negative way, the Yom Kippur war, exactly 38 years ago, which shook Israel to the core. But these were minor, brief shocks compared to what is needed.
A Second Herzl could, perhaps, effect such a miracle, against the odds. In the words of the first Herzl: “If you want it, it is not a fairy tale.”
Degrees, doctorates and dishonesty
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
The text of the citation was read out at the Karachi University where a beaming Mr Rehman Malik, clad in a green and gold robe plus of course the traditional mortar cap, could easily be mistaken as the work of a comic writer, commissioned to produce a script for a stage play.
The text describes Mr Malik – now of course ‘Dr’ Malik, as a former ‘brilliant student’ of the university. Without access to academic records, we of course have no way of ascertaining whether this is true.
But certainly most citizens have been left stunned by other aspects of the citation, which states among other extraordinary claims that as Pakistan faced the brunt of terrorist violence, Rehman Malik “with his leadership qualities and dedication strategised the operational plans and led the war on terror to contain Taliban throughout the country.
The terrorists’ network stands broken due to his aggressive management of law-enforcement agencies with singular and extraordinary leadership skills and qualities”, these feats apparently going a long way to boost the morale of the nation.
Beyond this, Mr Malik is credited with providing “strategic and operational support to the government of Sindh to combat and contain the miscreants operating in Karachi which helped to root out the menace of anti-social elements and thus maintaining a stable law and order situation in Karachi.
It has since been improved considerably and normalcy has retuned in Karachi. He has been pleading the national cause and the unmatched sacrifices of Pakistan in war on terror in UN, Interpol and other international forums very effectively and professionally.”
The unknown, and unacclaimed, individual who wrote out the flowery phrases of the document which continues at length along the same vein clearly has a big future ahead of him or her as a fiction writer.
But moving beyond the surreal and coming back to reality, it is obvious no one believes what has been stated in this document. Mr Malik is widely regarded as a buffoon, what with his comments about aggrieved girlfriends or wives being behind target killings in Karachi.
The doctorate will not change this image. All it really does is highlight the wider issue of academic dishonesty, even at the most prestigious institutions in our land.
The fierce debate raging at KU, where 307 members out of the academic staff of 550 have questioned the award and the manner it was made, with the university’s vice chancellor and Sindh Governor Dr Ishratul Ebad apparently using his influence to grant the degree without consulting the University Syndicate as required as per the usual protocol.
Perhaps Dr Ebad will consider retrieving the degree and the sycophancy which underlies it, following the latest threats of a PPP-MQM fracas following the decision by the Sindh PPP leadership – under pressure from dissenters backing Dr Zulfikar Mirza – to take back a decision to restore the controversial local bodies system to the province, as the MQM had demanded.
Of course this is not the lone example of academic controversy surrounding doctorates and other degrees. Senator Babar Awan refused, despite the pages of printed information put out, that his ‘doctorate’ was received from a ‘degree mill’ college in Hawaii, forced to shut down by the US authorities several years before he claimed to have obtained his degree from it by correspondence.
The existence of a degree held by the president is equally dubious, since the UK authorities have no information whether the college he says he attended and from where he obtained what he thinks is a BEd degree even exists anywhere on the British Isles. But in many ways all this is irrelevant.
Whether or not a person holds a degree is in some ways unimportant; it makes no difference as far as their standing as a legislator goes. And of course the 2009 Supreme Court ruling, followed by legislation to eliminate the essentially undemocratic decision made by a dictator is welcome. What is far more disturbing is the dishonesty inherent in attitudes towards academic degrees – and of course so much else in our lives.
This was highlighted by the 2008 drama as the Higher Education Commission declared degree after degree put forward by the legislators to be fake.
Perhaps the distortions in our sense of morality were exemplified by the comments made by Balochistan Chief Minister Aslam Raisani who sagely remarked at the height of the debate that a “degree was a degree”, whether it was fake or authentic. This of course raises a quite unique philosophical debate, with one tempted to ask Mr Raisani if we have reached a point where distinction between truth and false has become so blurred that it is indistinguishable.
Coming back to the fierce controversy raging at KU over the Malik doctorate issue raises new questions about the state of higher learning in our country. It seems degrees and other academic honours have lost their worth.
Universities around the world are increasingly reluctant to accept academic qualifications from Pakistan, and PhD theses sometimes contain material that one would expect an eighth grader to produce with ease.
This of course is not the fault of the student but of the system that produces such people and determines the limited scope of our educational system. Plagiarism is commonplace with entire paragraphs stolen off the internet. At the Punjab University, even professors have been found guilty of such academic dishonesty.
We need to find ways to save our institutions of higher education. The farce permitted at KU must not take place again. In the past our institutions were respected. And they produced scholars, thinkers and scientists and didn’t pandering to political needs.
The HEC, the future of which remains dubious, has made some attempt to stem the slide towards disaster. Universities are losing esteem among the people because of the way important decisions are made and the manner in which events take place especially when someone who hardly commands any respect in the eyes of citizens steps down from the academic stage clutching the gilded scrolls of academic excellence.
The flyover frenzy
Tasneem Noorani
It is not only that the urban population of Pakistan is on a sharp increase. Every year, 134,000 cars and 835,000 motorcycles are being added to Pakistan’s increasingly congested roads, not to mention the numberless rickshaws, to enable urban commuters to travel to workplaces and homes. The main response of the government, whether in Islamabad or provincial capitals like Lahore or Karachi, is to build flyovers and widen roads, even if this involves cutting old roadside trees. The provincial governments think this “progress” is going to get them votes while it incidentally eases traffic: the resulting relief in traffic is merely temporary and the impact on their vote banks at best remains doubtful and to be proven in the future.
Like the population increase, the maddening traffic is growing exponentially in our cities, becoming such a scourge that it makes one wish one were living in a village.
Countless billions of rupees are spent on flyover-building and road-widening projects, even though they only benefit the owners of cars, not the less fortunate Pakistanis who have few other means of viable transport in the absence of functioning public transport, like buses. The motorbikes and rickshaws used by those who can afford them in the latter group only serve to clutter the roads still further.
All over the world, governments spend far more money on betterment of public transport, rather than on flyovers and wider roads. London, whose public transport we admire so much, is a fine example of this. London was spending £4 billion in subsidy on public transport every year until two years back when I had the opportunity to interact with its top public transport body, Transport for London (TFL). In Delhi, the government spent $4 billion on making the subway, apart from putting 3,000 state-of-the-art buses on city roads.
Less than a decade ago, the city government in Karachi started 50 CNG buses with great fanfare, but because the model was unsustainable, they were discarded not too long after the launch. The government introduced a scheme of 8,000 CNG buses and even allocated money in the PSDP, but so far not a single bus has come onto the road.
Similar headlines have been made in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the Islamabad administration has been making promises for the improvement of public transport in the country’s capital. But there are no additional vehicles on the roads there.
In Punjab the government introduced the concept of exclusivity of routes and franchising. That experiment is in tatters. This was partly because of a court order striking down exclusivity and partly because the government was incapable of managing and supervising such a fleet even if it were owned by private operators. So after six decades public transport in all cities consists of the crudest buses driven by untrained drivers.
In Faisalabad an experiment in organisation of public transport with the involvement of the community and owners of public service vehicle was started in 1993. A legal entity was created by the commissioner (your truly was the incumbent), which laid down the rules of plying PSV (public service vehicles) in the city. The FUTS (Faisalabad Urban Transport System) provided support to the owners of vehicles to make sure their investment gave them good returns.
It was a smashing success. But it was deliberately undone by the-then government in Lahore, which wanted to introduce the franchising system all over the province. Because the model of FUTS was sustainable and realistic, it still limps along in Faisalabad and provides the bulk of public transport, without government support.
In 2008, when the new government in Punjab came into power, a task force was set up to find a solution for public transport in the province. I was made chairman of that task force because of my Faisalabad experience. After due deliberations, it was decided to set up a company which would handle all matters pertaining to regulating and organising public transport in Lahore, while the ownership of vehicles would be private. The Lahore Transport Co (LTC) was the first organisation after the demise of the PRTC more than 20 year ago which provided the capacity to the government to run public transport.
In all the provinces, public transport is expected to be managed by the transport department, which is actually manned and trained to make policy rather than regulate and run buses. Unlike other countries we have no organisation with specialists like transport planners, fare specialists and public transport engineers. The LTC was the first in this respect.
The LTC started with great promise, by finding urban transport specialists (a rare commodity in Pakistan), making systems and setting up an electronic surveillance system to track and monitor buses. We offered an attractive subsidy package to investors to bring new buses and run them and the LTC was to regulate the investor’s buses, with the guarantee that he would make a 20 percent return on his investment.
Despite all kinds of allurements, the investor was reluctant to come forth because of apprehension on account of the government’s track record on paying subsidy in time. He needed assurance of at least five years for the recovery of the cost of his vehicle. Only one foreign investor, with a promise of 200 buses, showed interest and reportedly is now bringing 110 buses.
We pleaded with the government to place the budgeted money with the LTC, or in any arrangement where the investor would know that if the government changed his investment would be safe. But we were told that the government resources did not allow it to withdraw such a large amount in one go. However, a few weeks later the flyover of Kalma Chawk was launched, where about the same amount of money that the LTC required to bring buses on the roads was spent on brick, mortar and cement.
There is no hope for public transport in cities without the government paying out substantial subsidies. If subsidies are needed in any sector, it is in public transport; as evidenced by experience in the rest of the world. But in our country the politicians’ priority seems to be infrastructure expenditure like flyovers, underpasses, wider roads rather than subsidised public transport through a transparent and sustainable system which a special purpose company like the LTC is capable of providing.
It is time we stopped pampering and subsidising the motorist by building roads and flyovers and started channelling that money into public transport to enable affordable decent, comfortable transport to the public so that the mad rush to add more cars, motorcycles, and Quingqi would abate, and a modicum of order can return to our roads. The alternative is sick cities with clogged arteries in the next five years.
Glow of hope
Sadaf Shahid
“Tonight is the night of power. Angels descend on earth and all prayers are answered”, said a friend of mine to her 22-year-old undergrad son, home for the summer break. “What should I pray for?”Asked Hamza, switching the television off. “Anything you like – happiness, success, forgiveness and a long healthy life” replied my friend. “Do you pray for me, Amma?” He asked pensively. “What kind of a question is that Hamza, mothers may forget to pray for themselves, but they always pray for their children and a mother’s prayers are always answered”. To which he replied, “What about all those boys who were kidnapped, tortured and killed? Didn’t their mothers pray for them? Does anybody deserve to die such a terrible death?”
My friend was taken aback but maintained her composure. “Hamza, God has given man the power to choose between right and wrong. He has given us free will. This was not their ordained destiny but they became victims of people who chose to be wrong”. She was quite surprised at this new side to the young man known for his carefree attitude and cheerfulness.
This was a different Hamza, made grim by what he saw around him. “You know what disturbs me most when I am in college? People only know Pakistan as the land of death; no one talks about our hospitality, our resilience and many wonderful qualities that we have. I feel as if we have crossed the Rubicon – we neither recognise nor fight our enemies, but have declared war against our own countrymen, our brothers in faith. There seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. I am very scared; I have never felt this fear before. I want to go back, ALIVE!”
Terrorism has occurred throughout history but today the world is experiencing its global rebirth. Writer Boaz Ganor highlights in his book “Modern warfare and the psychological trauma” that the purpose of terror is not only to destabilise the government but also to wage psychological warfare. It undermines the sense of security among the targeted population and disrupts everyday life, harming not only the economic machinery but also the individual’s ability to function in everyday life.
It is indiscriminate and the identities of the victims, in most cases, are irrelevant to the perpetrator. The use of modern equipment has made this easier. In comparison to the damage done to property and economy, the resounding echo by the media, magnifies the message undermining people’s morale, reducing their confidence and sense of personal security, spreading panic, anxiety and depression, especially amongst the children and the youth. The perpetrators are aware of this and use this strategy effectively.
Ganor further states that these terror traders don’t seem to be interested in the number of deaths; it could be three, thirteen, thirty-three, three hundred or even three thousand. They are more interested in the psychological impact. Whether their aims are political, religious or military, the psychological damage they inflict has far reaching consequences. In order to destroy a country, it is sufficient to paralyse its backbone i.e. its economy and the confidence of its people.
The feeling of fear has become real to the extent that we feel stalked by the spectre of violent death, kidnapping, carjacking, mobile snatching etc. Constant fear traumatises the brain and creates excessive anxiety.
The society is fragmented into frightened individuals unable to go about their daily lives. Security outweighs all other concerns. The attacks are mostly targeted at places a common man identifies with, so that the immediate reaction is “I was there just yesterday”; “My brother works in the next block”; “I take the same route everyday”. The tendency to personalise works to the criminal’s advantage. The message that is conveyed is imminent and dangerous – ‘It could have been me’. This was the overriding fear after the bomb blast outside schools in Karachi’s Saba Avenue that “It could have been my children!”
The prevailing situation has successfully conveyed the message that life is no longer sacred. Women constantly call their husbands and children for no apparent reason. What they are actually confirming is that they are safe. Terrorism has become a global phenomenon. No country is unaffected. Take the example of the recent riots in England. The damage to property and looting was immense but the death toll was less as compared to other regions. Three unfortunate Pakistanis lost their lives. I don’t have the details of this incident but one can make out from the visuals that it was ‘almost’ a carnage. Imagine if the same incident occurred in our country.
Hamza left for his college after the summer break. Before leaving he turned to his parents with a gleam in his eyes, his face glowing with hope. “Amma, I am still hopeful. I will fight my fear. How many of us can leave our homeland, and why should we? I will come back and then together we will cross yet another Rubicon. And this time the war we wage will be an open war, against illiteracy and poverty and inefficiency; a war which will not be fought with weapons of destruction, but with education and hard work. I don’t know what dreams the Quaid dreamt, I only know the dreams of the youth of today. Things have gone so bad, they can’t get any worse. We will bring light to this darkness, together”
When the world says, “Give Up, ‘Hope whispers, “Try it one more time’’. – Anonymous
Media and the masses
Shahid Lateef
The recent protests in all big cities of the country by infuriated mobs who ransacked public property were unfortunate. The protesters were demanding an end to the long hours of load-shedding. When the public pressure became intolerable, the government put a temporary lid on the boiling cauldron. The potentially precarious situation was defused by the Rs10 billion injected into the cash-starved power generation industry. However, it is anticipated that the monster of power deprivation will be back soon.
There are innumerable examples of the leadership’s non-serious attitude towards the serious problems facing the country. We are groping in the dark with no light visible at the end of the tunnel. Pakistan must be the only country that exists without a clear definition of its national interests.
Seriously perturbed about the rapid slide of our country into crisis, I embarked upon a series of articles to present an analysis of the situation and offered solutions based on the initiative by the judiciary (the only credible institution in the country and trusted by most people), for the enforcement of its judgments. The judgments were being blatantly defied by the government.
In my article in The News titled “Inviting the army: the judiciary should come clean” (Aug 11), I had written, “At this crucial juncture of our history, the higher judiciary and supporting agencies (the army) bear a large responsibility, to stem and turn the oppressive tide in order to help the hapless nation. It is by fulfilling this obligation that they can be truly portrayed as the guardians and saviours of people, as well as the custodians of their legitimate rights.”
In another article, “Behind the violence in Karachi” (Sept 7), I had stated, “It is heartening to see the formerly dormant judiciary spring into action, and taking suo motu notice of the killings of innocent citizens, by the hundreds, in Karachi. The people of this city had been clamouring for the higher judiciary to come to their rescue, by invoking Article 245 of the Constitution. They want the army to bring durable peace, by undertaking surgical operations against the barbarians who have been unleashed upon them.”
The objective behind my campaign is to seek a constitutionally legitimate joint action by the judiciary and the army to pull the country out of the dire straits it is in, and formulate a national government to put it back on track, before another election is held, for the resumption of our march towards the democracy.
There was a reason behind this desire for a pause so that we can get our act together and put our house in order. While we witness feverish political activity being launched in the form of protests by the main opposition party to dislodge the present government, the motive is purely selfish. People have suffered badly from unprecedented corruption, poverty, unemployment, inflation, load-shedding and out-of-control terrorism during the three-and-a-half years of the present regime.
While they have been groaning under unbearable pain, no political party has come to their rescue by putting up joint resistance in alliance with the other parties to mitigate the miseries of the masses. Now that the Senate elections are getting closer and there is fear that the sitting government will secure a majority in the upper house, which would further help it win the next general elections, the politicians have again turned to the masses for support.
Let us briefly analyse whether elections at this point in time are a viable option. If we really want to avoid a bogus exercise, a lot of work needs to be undertaken in their preparation.
First of all, the Election Commission needs to be made independent and the criteria for eligibility of candidates to be subjected to scrutiny, particularly in the light of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. Second, there is a constitutional requirement to hold elections under a caretaker setup, whose members are to be nominated by the president. Can he be trusted to form a non-partisan team to accomplish this onerous task? Third, the system of elections to the Senate is flawed and needs to be corrected through debate, and to be based on proportional representation. Fourth, it is common knowledge that there were as many as 35 million bogus votes cast in the last elections due to false voters’ lists. This will need revision, which is a time consuming activity. Fifth, the security situation in the country is simply non-conducive to an election, and how long it would take to get normal is anybody’s guess.
If the elections are held without the system being revamped, the same faces will appear that have repeatedly let us down in the past.
The conclusion is very clear. In the absence of any other saviour, the media and the masses have to join hands once again and rise to the occasion. It was this winning combination that performed historic feats in the past, first by forcing the restoration of the judges twice, and more recently, compelling the authorities to terminate the long inflicted load-shedding.
Encouraged by the efficacy of street power against an incorrigible and intransigent leadership, they have to stand up and act as agents of change. This change must lead to the formation of a national government which should stabilise the country, clear the mess and create suitable conditions for transparent, fair and free elections, to resume our march towards true democracy.
The media has to clearly define its objectives, whereby instead of wasting precious TV time on useless discussions in talk shows that only facilitate political actors settling of personal scores with each other, it should focus on programme that increase the masses’ awareness and focus on events that form the big picture. At this crucial juncture, destiny has carved out a key role for the media and the masses. Let it not be said that they did not prove equal to the task.
Let’s get angry in the right way
Zafar Hilaly
The New York Times carried an article by Bruce Reidel, on October 14 titled ‘Containment - a new policy for dealing with Pakistan’ and followed it up only three days later with yet another front page report captioned ‘Suspicions of Pakistan grow with attacks’.
Bruce Reidel, once a key Obama adviser on South Asia, now works for Brookings, one of the numerous ‘think tanks’ that abound in Washington DC and vie for influence on policy making. These institutions promote their brand of politics and many of them who work in those elite outfits are not really scholars but publicists. Reidel, a former CIA sleuth, is one of those so-called scholars, while the New York Times often doubles up as an apologist of Israeli foreign policy.
Both Bruce Reidel and the New York Times seem to have launched on a twin crusade to get the Obama administration worked up sufficiently to teach Pakistan a lesson for blocking the United States from making an honourable exit from Afghanistan if not for denying an outright military victory.
Reidel’s article is the work of a publicist. Had it been the work of a scholar, it would have been less jagged, more rounded and much better informed. Nor is it a serious re-examination of the present US policy. Reidel’s basic contention is that the only recourse left to America is ‘containment of the Pakistan Army’s ambition until real civilian rule returns’ to Pakistan.
For a start, this is puzzling because Pakistan cannot really ‘return’ to ‘real civilian rule’ since it has never existed before. A scholar would have known, for instance, that the Constituent Assembly, elected prior to partition, was supposed to draft a constitution and although it subsequently acted as a legislature, it failed on both counts and was dissolved.
Subsequent attempts by Major General Iskander Mirza and Field Marshal Ayub Khan to give Pakistan a durable constitution also failed. The latter’s bespoke constitution fitted him but not the country. The ‘civilian’ interlude which followed under ZA Bhutto was an aberration since Bhutto assumed power as a martial law administrator, being the only civilian in the world to have enjoyed that dubious distinction.
Admittedly Bhutto did give Pakistan a constitution in April 1973 but the very next day he suspended provisions of the constitution that granted citizens the right to approach the courts. Not a democrat by instinct, Bhutto finally fell victim to his own vanity. Thereafter the military has seated and unseated governments much as it has wished. Hence, for Washington to wait out the military ‘until real civilian rule returns’ would be like mistaking a mirage for an oasis in the desert.
Reidel’s second piece of advice for Obama is equally impractical. He suggests a policy of ‘containment’ towards the Pakistani establishment which is not aimed at ‘hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable’.
Implicit is such advice is the belief that the Pakistani public is averse to the army’s involvement in politics. That might have been true for a while but not after the mess created by the Zardari-Gilani duo. They have mired the country in governance issues, corruption has soared to unprecedented heights under their watch and the country is assailed on all sides by terrorists, while their political opponents and a disgruntled public are now hollering for their removal. Once again, sadly, many are looking to the army to act as the proverbial deus ex machina. Ironically if the current dispensation is still in power it is because of the army’s restraining influence.
Furthermore, even a cursory reading of Pakistan’s history will show that it is the military that has had a soft spot for the US albeit, as many believe, for selfish and ill-advised reasons. The people have never been able to work up a similar enthusiasm for the US or its policies.
Thus, it was the military that pushed for Pakistan’s membership of Cento and Seato in the 1950s when the foreign office advised caution; and it again prodded the government of the day in 1956 to support the western intervention in Egypt, during the Suez crisis which infuriated the public.
Moreover, two recent parliamentary resolutions calling for a military response to the US drone and ground attacks, which the military has repeatedly ignored, shows that left to parliament, the US-Pakistan relations would have been a lot worse by now. So much for Riedel’s notion that with the ‘return’ of real civilian rule, all would be hunky dory between Washington and Islamabad.
However, Riedel is spot on when he says the strategic interests of the US and Pakistan ‘are in conflict and not (in) harmony’. Indeed the two countries stand on opposite sides of the fence. Our enemies are different; our thoughts and plans for what is best for the region are poles apart; the roles we envisage for each other are in stark contrast; our respective positions on controversial matters of international law as much as on current world issues such as Palestine, Kashmir, Iran, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, nuclear and disarmament, etc, are very different if not completely at odds. How can a return to ‘real’ civilian rule make a difference when there is so much divergence?
Riedel is right to ask why Pakistan seems so obstreperous and why it has not yet buckled under. But his answer (that ‘they seem to think they are invulnerable because they control Nato’s supply line from Kabul to Karachi and have nuclear weapons’) is far too simplistic and irresponsible, not being based on facts and hard analysis.
Admittedly, the nuclear shield does help Pakistan to deter India and hence generates a sense of confidence within the country. It ended Pakistan’s perennial need for allies, like America, to offset India’s conventional military superiority. In that sense American goodwill for Pakistan though important is no longer essential. But that is by no means the only reason why the Pakistani worm finally turned.
Poor American diplomacy made worse by some crass insensitivity towards Pakistan has played a bigger role. Obama callously bypassed Pakistan during his visit to India; the US-India civil nuclear power deal is estimated to vastly augment India’s ability to multiply its stockpile of nuclear warheads; the opening of America’s armories to India; the failure to push harder on Kashmir after initial promises to do more; the Raymond Davis matter and Obama’s personal assurance that that the violence prone murderous CIA thug was a diplomat and scores of niggly incidents that remain unreported but take place almost daily in dealings between their respective officials. All these have accelerated the decline of the US-Pak relations.
Other developments have also done further damage, sometimes dramatically, like over the Bin Laden raid and Mullen’s diatribe in the Congress against the ISI and that, too, just after he had a constructive session of talks with Kayani. The latest bone of contention is, of course, the safe haven granted by the US-Afghan forces to the murderous Fazlullah gang whose attacks into Pakistan from across the border have resulted in the death of nearly a hundred Pakistani soldiers.
No wonder then many Pakistanis too are willing to throw caution to the wind and risk ending a relationship that is still, in some important respects, clearly in the interests of both countries.
Currently the US really has very little to offer given the mood prevailing in the Congress and the dire warnings and threats that have been pouring out of Washington. These are identical in many respects to Riedel’s own advice to consider sanctions, hot pursuit, targeted killing of ISI officials and who knows perhaps also an invasion eventually.
Far from reducing the army’s role in the country’s political life these ill-conceived threats will make it more intrusive even as politicians clamber over each other, for their own reasons, to come to the defence of the armed forces, thereby postponing even further the inception (not the return) to real civilian rule in Pakistan.
Aristotle’s words seem to apply aptly to the current US-Pakistan imbroglio: If you have to get angry ‘let’s get angry at the right things and with the right people and in the right way and at the right time and for the right length of time’.
Oct 13, 2011
India and the Gulf
Tayyab Siddiqui
While Pakistan is caught in the vortex of political anarchy and economic instability, India is making rapid strides in the Gulf as the most influential regional power. India’s emphasis is on economic relations with the countries of the region where two-thirds of its oil imports originate.
There has been a phenomenal increase in India’s relations with Saudi Arabia, in particular, which meets 36 percent of India’s energy needs. Its trade with Saudi trade has risen threefold over the last five years and its investment there doubled in the same period. India is Saudi Arabia’s fifth-largest trading partner, and the fifth-largest market for Saudi exports. There are huge opportunities of Indian-Saudi cooperation in the oil, power and IT sectors.
Before Dr Manmohan Singh became prime minister in May 2004, India’s relations with the region had largely suffered from neglect. Dr Singh designed a vigorous strategy to make up for this. In January 2005, less than a year after he came into power, Dr Singh articulated India’s policy approach towards the Gulf. “Besides energy imports, there is also ample potential for India to evolve broader long-term economic relations with the region. This could include expanding our contacts with the Gulf Cooperation Council and other regional bodies into an enduring institutional relationship.
We could also examine a more proactive strategy of seeking investments from West Asia (India’s preferred official term for the Middle East), given India’s emergence as an exciting and safe destination for foreign direct investment.” He visited Qatar and Oman in 2008.
Another initiative was his invitations to heads of states from the Gulf countries as chief guests on India’s Jan 26 Republic Day ceremonies. These included then-president Hashemi-Rafsanjani of Iran and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi king’s visit in 2006 visit was far from ceremonial, however. King Abdullah was accompanied by a 300-strong delegation, including 12 princes of the House of Saud. The emphasis was on closer economic partnership through investments and trade agreements. Energy was at the top of the agenda.
Dr Singh’s three-day return visit to Riyadh last year, from Feb 27 to March 1, was a landmark in bilateral relations, in terms of both protocol and substance. (The previous visit to Saudi Arabia by an Indian prime minister had been Indira Gandhi’s trip in 1982 to Jeddah, where the Saudi government was then based.) The Indian prime minister was welcomed at the airport by the entire Saudi cabinet led by Crown Prince Sultan. During the visit, as many as ten agreements and MOUs were signed. Saudi Arabia agreed to double the supply of crude oil to meet India’s growing requirements.
The process of expanding bilateral relations and intensifying cooperation between New Delhi and Riyadh is also manifested in terms of defence ties. Last week a delegation from the National Defence College visited Saudi Arabia.
The NDC is one of the Indian military institutions where Saudi officers have participated in training programmes. India has enhanced its military ties with other Gulf states as well. This includes exchange of visits by service chiefs and naval ships.
Another important instrument of India’s diplomacy in the region is the presence of Indian expatriates, including an estimated 1.8 million in Saudi Arabia. Their total number in Gulf states is estimated as six million. Their annual remittances to India are a major source of Indian foreign reserves, exceeding $50 billion.
For Pakistan Saudi Arabia is its closest friend and “natural ally.” But while fraternal feelings do reinforce mutual friendship on the political level too, mere sentiments cannot be a strong-enough basis for sustainable bilateral relations.
India’s aggressive diplomacy in the Gulf region can have serious affects on our national interests.
Intolerance in the curriculum
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
There have been several shocking incidents over the past week or so that go only to highlight the kind of intolerance we are facing in our society and the manner in which this is spreading. Worst of all the spirit of hatred has also seeped into classrooms, and is being used to poison the minds of children.
This process will of course lead to the emergence, even before our watching eyes, of yet another generation persuaded that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of beliefs or other factors, or that minority groups are inherently inferior to the majority – deserving no place in mainstream society.
Just a few days ago, 10 Ahmadi children, seven of them girls, were expelled from a school in the Hafizabad area, simply on the basis of their religious identity. The incident took place soon after preachers promoting anti-Ahmadism had visited the town and lashed out with familiar vitriol against a religious group that has been thrust out of the mainstream and then subjected to years of vicious discrimination.
The feeble plea by the principal of the private school, that he did not wish to turn away the children from the school doors but had no choice in the face of threats made by villagers, just goes to show how weak we have become.
No one has answered the question of the distraught father of three of the girls driven away from school who asks how his daughters will now receive an education. Beyond the representatives of the Ahmadi community in Rabwah and some human rights groups, no one has spoken out in their support.
The issue has not been discussed by furious media anchors, even though the Constitution of our land lays down in unequivocal terms that every citizen has a right to education and cannot be denied this under any circumstances.
Such silence is perhaps the most dangerous element of all. The streets and other public places have been left to bigots, such as those who have been on the streets demanding the immediate release of Mumtaz Qadri, the man sentenced to death for the murder of Salmaan Taseer.
Precisely the same silence prevailed after yet another horrendous incident at a school a few weeks ago when an eighth-grade Christian girl was turned out of a POF-run school in the town of Havelian after making a minor spelling mistake in an Urdu paper.
Her teacher interpreted the mistake as an act of blasphemy, publicised the matter – which essentially revolved around one dot in a paragraph about a ‘naat’ – and as clerics staged protests the powerful POF management chose not only to expel the girl, but also to transfer her mother, a nurse at a hospital.
Such incidents have occurred elsewhere too. Ahmadi children have been punished in schools, their faith ridiculed and admission denied simply on the basis of their religious beliefs. Amidst all this, we talk of ‘the silent majority’. But do we really know what people believe and think?
It is true that many, indeed most, do not agree with the rabid views of the extremists. We would like to believe this is true. But popular thinking has been warped over the years by all kinds of factors that began essentially with the deliberate and evil distortions initiated in the early 1980s when our society first began its most serious transformation into an uglier, nastier place.
Discrimination is not based on religious beliefs alone. At an elite Lahore private school, a child from a different ethnic background was mocked and subjected to continuous ridicule for his appearance. It seems that the school management didn’t do very much to check this behaviour or persuade the majority of students who had resorted to uncivilised conduct towards the student to correct their ways.
Racism and bigotry of course need to be stopped using some degree of force within an environment in which the two have spread quite far and grown deep roots. African students based in colleges in Lahore and other cities will no doubt testify to the kind of treatment they face, solely on the basis of their skin colour.
One question that we all need to ask is why the government sits by as a silent spectator while all this happens. It needs to play a far more proactive role. We stand where we are today as a result of carefully thought out behaviours and policies put in place in the past. They succeeded in twisting minds and creating an atmosphere in which hatred, distrust and intolerence could blossom.
The need now is to begin an immediate reversal of this process. In the first place, the relevant authorities need to take notice of the instances of expulsion from schools on the basis of open and undisguised discrimination; this would put in place a good example of what should be done and where right separates from wrong, like oil from water.
There is no time to lose. It is quite obvious that things are growing worse and worse virtually by the day. Our only hope for the future lies in nurturing a generation that is able to think more openly and adopt an approach which is different to the destructive one that has become a normal part of our society today.
The provision that all citizens are equal needs to be turned into reality and not just a clause in a document that fewer and fewer people seem to be very bothered about.
How do we begin this? Schools are a good place to start. Government schools are perhaps the best, given the number of children attending them and the control the administration should have over them. Through curriculums and training for teachers, both children and those entrusted with the delicate task of educating them need to learn to think differently.
This is not an easy task of course. But it has been done elsewhere; Ireland, where Protestants and Catholics were deeply divided in the north for so many years, is one example where attempts towards greater harmony through schools have met with some success.
There are other examples in the world. We need to emulate them and move towards building a place where people are ready to speak out for what is right and refuse to allow extremist elements – who attempt to validate their intolerant ways by citing a distorted version of religion – to dictate how we live and what we do.
As Kabul and Delhi edge closer
Zafar Hilaly
It would be like riding the proverbial tiger. If we think we can somehow play the kingmaker and reap the harvest, that would be like Alice in Wonderland. Even the Taliban are no longer a cohesive force and some of them have developed their own agendas and are in cahoots with the TTP. In other words, the forces we can mobilise against the Northern Alliance and their external allies cannot be expected to serve as our strategic instrument. Indeed, given our internal and external situation, especially if there is a major rift with the US and others, the balance of power between us and the Taliban will shift in favour of the Taliban. And we may end up becoming their instrument. So much for strategic depth.
The balance of power will not only shift in favour of the Taliban. Our own extremist groups that want renewed confrontation with India will also seek to force the pace of events by provoking India into retaliatory strikes if there is another Mumbai-type operation by them. What happens then: we have a war on our western border and also a dangerous war-like situation on our eastern border, both at the same time. The TTP would do all it can to seize territory as they did a few years ago, but this time with the additional advantage of our military being stretched too thin. And it would not take much for the TTP and Lashkar-e-Taiba to weaken the government and military further by stoking sectarian and other forms of violence inside the country. Nor would external forces opposed to our strategic depth hesitate to weaken the military by doing their bit to destabilise the country. Prolonged regional stalemate and progressive domestic degeneration might even undermine the military’s stature, making it more vulnerable to the machinations of our extremist groups. We saw a bit of that over the Osama bin Laden episode. So the TTP and other groups would be the real beneficiaries if we tried to put the Quetta Shura back in the saddle and threw caution to the wind.
During the ten years that have elapsed since the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, the nature of the Taliban has changed in some respects. It has become a decentralised force consisting of commanders who have been operating more like warlords with their own sources of funds and areas of local dominance, some with close links to Al-Qaeda’s lucrative connections and to its regional ambitions. In other words, there are now various localised power centres, and their connection with the TTP as well makes the situation much more complicated. There are many foreigners too that are embedded with local Taliban outfits in a common cause not only to regain Kabul but also to pursue Al-Qaeda’s regional agenda encompassing Pakistan and Central Asia. Nor should Al-Qaeda be written off simply because it has weakened at the top. In a protracted conflict it will find new opportunities that might see it bounce back and the Af-Pak border might become more important than prospects in Somalia and elsewhere.
Clearly, then, there seem to be two courses of action open to Pakistan. To go down the old route and risk further conflict with the US, India, et al, and international isolation; or continue cooperating with the US and, rather than frittering our energies and attention in closing off the wiggle room Karzai has provided India, to do a better job in securing their lives and property and growing the economy.
Besides, in my opinion, India is not the issue. That’s a secondary thing. It’s the dysfunctional relationship between the US and Pakistan, more than anything else. And there are questions about their respective ambitions. Unless those ambitions are trimmed and brought into some balance, there is little hope of ending a war that seems interminable. That hurts Pakistan more than it does Afghanistan, which is already a failed state, or America, which is far away. Any peace settlement, unless underpinned by the US and Pakistan, has little hope in getting off the ground. We should be taking the lead on this, rather than allowing the deteriorating situation to overwhelm us.
The bilateral and trilateral diplomatic mechanisms are not enough as the past three years have shown. A more multilateral approach is required, if only to keep the main players (the National Alliance, the Taliban, Pakistan and the US) on the path to a negotiated settlement. Right now we are in a dangerous limbo, all the main players sharpening their knives for yet another decade of mayhem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)