A disgusting offer by the PPP (20-12-2008)

According to Nawaz Sharif, head of PML (N), an offer was made by a government’s representative that should he refrain from highlighting the case of the illegal awarding of marks to the daughter of the de facto Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the cases pending against him and Shahbaz Sharif in the Supreme Court regarding their eligibility to hold public office would be decided in their favour. The name of the messenger was not disclosed.

The Minister of Information, Sherry Rehman has denied that any such offer was made. However, recognizing the veracity of the word of the leader of PML (N) who has in the recent past through his words and actions displayed greater maturity and truthfulness in the political field, Senior PPP leader and Minister for Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis, Sayed Khurshid Ahmed Shah during a television talk show stated that although he does not doubt the word of Nawaz Sharif, the offer must have been made by a ‘nobody’ of the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose word matters little. If that is the case, it is imperative that the PPP takes to task its rogue member lest the man is deemed to be too close to President Zardari or top party rank which revolves around him. In that probable scenario, the ‘messenger’ must have had the mandate to deliver such a message with a blanket indemnification from the head of the PPP.
It seems probable that this is the case otherwise Nawaz Sharif would not have made such a damning allegation against a member of PPP who was a ‘nobody’ and could have instead ignored the offer as inconsequential. This is so since as party head, he must have applied his mind to the fact that revelation of the act of this ‘nobody’ and possibly namely him subsequently, if need arose, would have led to an embarrassing situation for him since then it would have been absurd to affiliate the ‘nobody’ to the PPP. The disclosure would have been unjustified then to risk straining his party’s relations with the PPP any more than they are presently. Since the day the PML(N)’s government in Punjab has been formed, it is being continuously threatened and blackmailed, over its support for popular and constitutional issues, through the Governor Punjab, Salmaan Taseer who has been blocking key appointments by the Punjab Government as well as hampering its zest for reviving the good governance days under the administrative leadership of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

The news of Abdul Hameed Dogar’s daughter and the award of extra marks to her came as a shocker for everyone. If indeed such manipulation could have been conducted by a man who is supposed to be a beacon of justice and hold an office which carries sanctity- delivering justice which is also a religious belief by most religions-may God bless the future and the present generations of this nation. Indeed, a system without justice is like a body without soul and the survival of the body of the nation is in peril if those who head the judicial system show utter disregard of rules and laws and principles of equity and justice.

If one were to objectively examine the case of Farah Dogar and the allegation of the awarding of extra marks to her at the instance of Justice Dogar, the de facto Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar had the onus of proof on him to substantiate his somewhat clumsy defense that he had nothing to do with the awarding of extra marks to his daughter by the Federal Board. If he is to be believed and he had nothing to hide, why did he not take suo moto notice of the infamous case and tried to go to the heart of the matter as to how an illegality was conducted in the case of the daughter of a functioning Chief Justice? Would it not then have raised his stature as well as that of the judiciary as well as proved his claimed ‘aloofness’ from the whole matter (a claim which seems unbelievable at the outset nonetheless)? Was it not the only hounourable way ahead by the ‘Honourable Chief Justice’ to exonerate himself of the charges if he was innocent? Would it not have revived our faith in our educational system as well as the merit system which is the cornerstone of every society in pursuit of progress and prosperity? Why would the Supreme Court stay the proceedings of the Education Committee examining the case of the award of extra marks to her when it is well established convention and law that Parliamentary proceedings cannot be stayed? Have the Judges of the Superior Court become incompetent and ignorant of the British Common Law as well as its indoctrination into the system of the tracheotomy of power via Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan which explicitly prevents the inquiry of parliamentary proceedings when it comes to investigating into the affairs of their abuse of power? How could one justify the staying of proceedings by the Supreme Court of the Parliamentary proceedings unless the judges who issued the stay order were trying to protect their Chief and tainted themselves in the process? Is this how our Supreme Court wants the people to look at it? As Protectors of the wrongdoer if he happens to be from amongst them, how can Judges be watchdogs of the rights of the citizens in a just manner?

After going through the circumstances of the case as well as the attempt to ‘cool’ down the matter by trying to influence Ansaar Abbasi subsequently, who broke the news for the first time, it becomes quite clear that Abdul Hameed Dogar had influenced the Board into awarding the marks to his daughter. When one gets caught red handed with ones hands in the cookie jar the worst possible excuse could be that it was someone else who had put ones hands in the jar in the first place.

The PPP government’s support for his case exposed its bias in his favour when the right thing for it to do would have been to distance itself from the issue and let the Parliamentary Committee on Education reach a finding after investigating the matter thoroughly. It could have also appropriately filed a reference against Abdul Hameed Dogar J in the Supreme Judicial Council and let the law take its due course. It is pertinent to mention that a pending reference against the same judge has borne no proceedings. Instead, various ministers of the PPP defended Dogar’s case as his personal lawyers and in the process also demanded that the case of the abuse of power by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to get top position in the police department for his son should also be investigated. Such is the state of neglect amongst them or perhaps the eagerness to defend Dogar J that they forgot that the Supreme Court has already ruled by 10 to 3 exonerating the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on 20th July, 2007 of all charges by nullifying the reference filed against him by the Musharraf administration. The reference had included the allegation of abuse of power amongst others but the Honourable Supreme Court, as it were then, had after thorough deliberation and hearing all the sides declared that he was deemed to be the Chief Justice at all times and he was exonerated of all the charges.

It is thus the discussion of the case of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry which is prohibited under the law and not the discussion of a new matter which has arisen over the conduct of Abdul Hameed Dogar as Judge. It is also not a decision of the court which is the subject matter of the discussion which is normally prohibited, lest some misconduct or gross illegality transpires. Instead of rectifying the wrong and moving a reference against Abdul Hameed Dogar J., the PPP has become party to his cause just as Abdul Hameed Dogar became a party to the personal cause of PPP’s leadership by giving legitimacy to the unconstitutional and ultra vire National Reconciliation Ordinance which legitimized corruption for the first time ever perhaps in recorded history. Now going a step further, political parties are being coerced into submission through the judiciary and the sanctity of judiciary has been lost. To give an example of the perception of ordinary people, ‘contempt of court’, which once used to sound like a crime of the highest degree is devoid of any meaning anymore. When the Chief of the Judiciary has been tainted with criminal allegations, ‘contempt of Court’ is a mere phrase, full of dichotomies and internal contradictions. Which Court? People ask ominously. When a noun itself has become disrespectful and questionable, no suitable adjective can restore its meaning.

The present PPP leadership has not accepted the judgment reinstating Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry despite the pledges of its leader Benazir Bhutto, whose first death anniversary is just round the corner. To the contrary it has provided legitimacy and continues to provide legitimacy to the martial law imposed by General Musharraf. The subsequent renewing of the pledge by President Zardari have been interpreted as sinister political moves rather than being promises which should have been honoured for the sake of reversing the assaults on the judiciary by Musharraf. By continuously supporting Abdul Hameed Dogar as Chief Justice and denying Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as the de facto and de jure Chief Justice despite the understandings reached with the PML (N), the PPP has supported the martial law of Musharraf and it seems that the remnants of that martial law would never be eliminated until the PPP is in power at the center.

The contempt for the Constitution as well as abetting its violation by PPP does not end here. A power struggle is being waged in the province of Punjab and the constitution is being flouted once more. The latest tussle with the PML (N) government in Punjab is an example when despite the fact that the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly was under the Constitution bound to take oath as Governor, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court took oath when Salmaan Taseer left the country. It is pertinent to state here that the superior members of the judiciary had, when Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry been reinstated, vowed not to indulge in administrative and executive activities and ex officio positions to reinforce and assert the path towards independence of the judiciary but a shameful departure was made from that path. The oath was administered by the patron of Salmaan Taseer, President Asif Zardari and therefore the President’s participation in the whole conspiracy is conspicuous. It is a pity that the PPP recommended to the PML (N), knowing fully well that PPP in effect controls the judiciary, that it should go before a court of law or contact President Zardari if it had any reservations over the issue. The appointment itself should have been made in accordance with the Constitution rather than issuing such a remark which is nothing but a bluff.

Fortunately, the speaker of the National Assembly is from PPP and therefore we would not witness a situation if one is to draw an analogy from this bizarre act, that Abdul Hameed Dogar J., would one day take oath as President of this country in case Mr. Asif Zardari left the country, although with retrospect it can be said with confidence he would not mind doing so.
The PPP has, during its short tenure shown utter disrespect for the constitution of the country and is quickly losing support, especially amongst the intelligentsia and the civil society who do not believe that things would improve from here. The sad part is that the dissolution of the PPP controlled National Assembly in the past by former President Leghari on the pretext that governance in accordance with the Constitution was not possible during the PPP’s previous tenure, has not led the party to improve on its shortcomings. It is perhaps the incompetence of the PPP present leadership, in the absence of the guiding ability of Benazir Bhutto, who despite being a controversial figure in other respects, had the ability to perhaps prevent the party from repeating its past mistakes. To the contrary, the present PPP seems bent upon flouting the constitution and seems to have forgotten that it had united the opposition during Musharraf’s regime on the grounds of being unconstitutional yet is following in its footsteps and has failed to reverse any significant act during that unconstitutional rule. The PPP must repent its past performance in this regard and start following the very Charter of Democracy that Benazir Bhutto had proudly announced as being the result of her party’s struggle and initiative. For the moment, Nawaz Sharif continues to rise in the popularity charts by sticking to the basics- regard for the Constitution and abiding by past promises.

Mumbai blasts and the Indian media (06-12-2008)

I had, during a seminar held in Karachi more than a week ago on the role of media in South Asian politics, hailed the Indian media for its role in promoting peace in South Asia and defusing tensions between India and Pakistan in the past. However, I had also highlighted instances when the Indian media had behaved irresponsibly, on occasions such as the Samjhauta Express blasts about two years ago, when Pakistan was blamed for the bomb explosions as per Indian government’s stance, and the media of that country did not adopt an objective approach in trying to analyze the possible hands behind the attacks. It was discovered after some time that the Indian media was wrong and Indian army officers were behind the attack. Nevertheless tensions were high between the neighbours for some time after the Indian media’s false reporting and the peace process was derailed.
In one such instance mentioned by me where the Indian media had played a positive role and helped avert a major confrontation between the nuclear-armed foes was the tabooed Kargil affair. During the early hours and days of the conflict, the Pakistani media, thanks to a rogue general heading the armed forces, was reporting that Kashmiri freedom fighters were in fact holding Indian territory. However, the Indian media reported correctly, aided by the Indian surveillance, that it was in fact the Pakistani army that had occupied the key region. This led to an international pressure on Pakistan which eventually led to the pull out of the troops from the region. India, was tested on this occasion and had it not been for the international diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, she may have invaded Pakistan’s territory at other points or could have possibly carried out aerial strikes to cut off the supply route or destroy strategic areas of Pakistan’s infrastructure. Possessed with one of the highest number of fighter aircrafts as well as a standing army which is in the top five in terms of troop size, India certainly had the capacity to do so. However, it choose to stand in the comity of nations as a responsible state and also weakened the Kashmir cause by furthering the case of Pakistan being labeled as a terrorist and rogue state. Nevertheless, a possible confrontation was avoided through this process and for that the Indian media certainly stood out vis a vis its Pakistani counterpart.
However, just as wars can be averted through the power and leverage that the media enjoys today as arguably happened in the Kargil affair, the Mumbai blasts and the role of the media is a stark reminder to us all how wars can be imposed through the sheer pressure and power of media in preparing the people for a war that may not be as imminent as it may appear. The Iraq war and the role of the media of the United States is an example in this context. It is clear now, thanks to revelations by people close to the Bush administration as well as CIA intelligence officials, how false intelligence intercepts were provided to the media to state that Saddam Hussain’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as well to prove his alleged links to Al-Qaeda. The media of the United States by and large carried such stories without any verification on its part and the people of the United States were convinced that an Iraqi invasion was inevitable lest the United States security was threatened. It is clear now, post-2003 invasion, that the intelligence was false and even overwhelmingly manipulated to make out a case for an Iraqi invasion, which was a decision that Bush and his close circle had already made. Even when Colim Powell was making out a case for Iraqi invasion at the United Nations, the Bush administration knew fully well that the evidence and information he was relying upon for the U.S. case was deeply flawed. Today, the U.S. media is acknowledging its shortcomings but it is too late for corrections and the loss of lives cannot be compensated.
In a somewhat similar fashion, the Indian media behaved irresponsibly post-Mumbai blasts. However, going a step forward, unlike the U.S. example, it started blaming Pakistan much before the official Indian government started to move in this direction and thus possibly made the government’s task easier in this respect to cover its own shortcomings and blaming Pakistan in the conventional fashion. This was also the case in the Kabul embassy bombings as well as in the Samjhauta Express blasts and rather than helping the government probe into the matter and highlight the deficiencies in the Indian intelligence, the easy task was to blame Pakistan outright.
The aftermath has had huge consequences for the peace, stability and trade in the region. What was achieved in years of slow and meaningful negotiations and confidence building measures has been reversed with the snap of fingers. Relations between the two countries have reached their lowest ebb and each country is looking at the other with suspicious eyes and wary of the next move of the other. Relations aside, even talks of war are being openly heard on both sides of the border. Pakistan, on its part has made the right move in offering full cooperation and even asked for evidence against its nationals, if indeed they are involved in the incident. The initial blunder of agreeing to send the top intelligence official has been overcome thanks to a wise policy of building a national consensus over the matter and summoning an all parties conference in this regard.
India must not allow itself to be dominated by hawks as well as its media and allow the peace process to derail in this manner. It must act rationally and understand that statements and steps designed to appease the local media or capture domestic audience would achieve nothing but short term glory and perhaps some votes. The larger interest for the region is peace as well as cooperation to unveil the elements behind the attacks. Such elements neither serve India nor Pakistan. They are the enemies of humanity and for this reason alone can neither be termed as state or non-state actors but can definitely be classified as terrorists. For once, the Pakistani media has played a better role its Indian counterpart but it much desist from advocating and propagating too robust an approach which may move towards justification of these attacks as certainly there can be no justification for such cowardly, barbaric and inhumane attacks. Pakistan is no Iraq and India must understand that. As a nuclear state, we must seek co-existence and avenues for cooperation in incidents such as these rather than seek to pressurize or dominate the other. Since the consequences of nuclear fallout are catastrophic, even talks about war should be out of the question.
I had also suggested during the seminar that Pakistan, being a smaller country having limited conventional capability, must not have announced a No First Use Nuclear Policy in the way that President Zardari did during his address to the Indian people via Hindustan Times. This policy would, as many experts agree, nullify the deterrent effect that we hold against India, which is far ahead in conventional means and it is for times like these that we must never surrender that advantage. Otherwise, the whole point of conducting the nuclear tests on 28th May 1998 becomes an absurdity.

symbolic strike in Pakistan (22-11-2008)

Yet another dastardly attack by a CIA operated U.S. drone in the settled area of Bannu demonstrates sheer defiance of international laws by the U.S.. This was so despite the recent election of Mr. Barack Obama as president. It is unlikely that the Bush administration, which is wearing out its last weeks in office, could have approved a strike inside an ally’s territory beyond FATA, which borders Afghanistan, without taking into confidence the incoming President, Barack Obama. This is so because any lame duck administration in the U.S., which the Bush administration presently is, cannot burden its successor with a major shift in war policy without prior consultation, which in the case of Pakistan appears to be in the direction of ignoring calls of restraint by its ally over prior strikes in FATA, and extend the war horizon beyond the troubled FATA as well.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson was summoned yet again and had to hear out the latest bit of criticism from the government of Pakistan. Another instance of condemnation by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was witnessed, which seems to have lost its efficacy now that the U.S. has chosen to ignore its ally’s stance of respect for its territorial integrity by upping the ante and hitting deeper into Pakistan this time round. It is wishful thinking by the Prime Minister that Mr. Obama’s ascendancy would change the policy of striking inside Pakistan by the U.S. as his silence over the issue and his growing impatience with Pakistan’s ability to fight the war during the election campaign, suggests the opposite. Mr. Obama no doubt would like more such strikes which would be dictated on U.S.’s terms and intelligence without any coordination by its so-called-ally.

Pakistan has always stressed, at least if the government is to be believed that no agreement or secret pact with the U.S. exists to carry out such attacks, that such strikes are counter productive in that it signifies the impotency of the government the territorial borders of the country from outside strikes. It also negates the international norms and are somewhat horrific reminders of all previous instances where the U.S. has evaded international and national laws in pursuit of its goals and ambitions as it deems fit. Be that the Laos bombings, the Afghanistan missile attacks in the Clinton era or the invasion that followed it, or the horrific invasion of Iraq which has cost thousands of Iraqi lives, which would have never been taken away had Saddam still been in power. They are also reminders of the gross violations by successive American administrations of the foundations of the American system of governance which is based on justice and rule of law and fairness. Facts have been manipulated and evidence has been created to fool the world in Iraq and elsewhere. The American ideal of democracy is used as a tool to justify invasions and strikes.It is time that the Barack administration which will soon take over in a few weeks time corrects this image and in the context of the war in bordering Pakistan where a sovereign country with its own legitimate and popularly elected government in place, use of force is abandoned by the U.S. forces. Only the Pakistani government, which unlike the undemocratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan should carry out any strikes in its territory as it deems fit. The Pakistani government, for its part must come up more strongly opposing such attacks, which includes taking the issue to international forums such as the United Nations where it would hopefully receive support and it is unlikely that the new Democrat President, unlike his soon-to-be-predecessor, would be able to disregard international support for Pakistan’s case. It is time to move to the next stage since summons to the U.S. ambassador as well as direct complaints to the U.S. have fallen on deaf ears each time.

A change in the White House

Mr. Barack Obama, the first Afircan-American and the 44th President of the United States, has finally made it to the White House thus ending the debate regarding the readiness of America to elect a non-white President. The unprecedented turnout during the Election Day is a signal of his support and strength which makes his ascendancy, full of euphoria, unseen since Kennedy’s election to the presidency.

Mr. Obama has won the election riding on his slogan and promise for a change that America needs at this hour to replenish its poor record which has diminished U.S. credibility and its ability to lead the world due to a weakening economy and two successive terms of outgoing President Bush, whose contempt for international law and rash behaviour has largely isolated U.S. from its tested friends as well as greatly polarized the world in a way not witnessed since the Cold war and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Mr. Obama must work fervently to restore the pride of a superpower, which had the moral authority to lead the post-Communist world, built upon the strength of its capitalist system, which is itself feared to be on the verge of collapse and is already being studied as a failed model by economists who are revisiting the socialist model and appreciating the strengths of a hybrid system such as China’s, which has survived the economic plague of the capitalist models adopted by countries influenced by the success of U.S. and the other Western countries based on the capitalist economy.

The credibility of the U.S. has suffered in other ways as well, pertinently its role as a guarantor of peace and arbitrator during conflicts due to its failure to play the role of a neutral player. It is impossible to perceive a settlement for the Palestinians in the Middle East in the immediate future due to the pro-Israeli stance embraced by the Bush administration and refusal to exert pressure on Israel to settle its territorial disputes, most importantly over Golan Heights vis a vis Syria and the dispute with Egypt over territory seized during the 1967 war. Worse still, the U.S. administration acquiesced in the Israeli settlement and demolishing of the Palestinians’ houses in additional territory and also nodded with approval over the grueling bombing of Beirut by the Jewish state which was an unjustified response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, which were never recovered despite the barbaric bombing and killing of innocent civilians. The blockade of Gaza is yet another inhumane act of Israel, supported by the U.S. in a rather illogical manner.

The nuclear standoff with Iran and Bush’s personal hate for the Islamic nation has also not met with much approval in the world, with the European leaders preferring a ‘dialogue’ approach as opposed to the diplomacy of issuing threats and pleasing the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and intimidating Iran by talks of pre-emptive strikes on the ‘suspected nuke sites’ in that country. It is not surprising that the U.S. has been unable to garner much support over this mode to resolve this issue given its past history and the false case it made out of Iraq’s nuclear capability to support an invasion, which had been planned regardless of the fact that whether Iraq possessed such weapons or not. In fact, when Mr. Powell, the then Secretary of State was making a case in the U.N. for supporting the war, the U.S. intelligence and White House officials were already aware that there were no such weapons, as Mr. Ron Suskind, a prominent journalist disclosed earlier this year in his book.

The Iraqi leadership is demanding a quicker withdrawal then previously anticipated and Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw would therefore increase the possibility of disengagement of the U.S. forces from the region in the foreseeable future. The Iraqis, like most Arabs are highly patriotic and fiercely independent. Their patience has withstood U.S. engagement in the region and the present peace in the region must not be allowed to break down, especially since election season is not far away and reduction of U.S. forces, a longstanding demand by most Iraqis, must be expedited. Amongst other factors, it would pave the way for stability in the region as well as decrease the possibility of strikes in violation of international law, as happened during the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces some days ago.

Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. were based on relations between two individuals, President Bush and General Musharraf. Due to the dictatorial rule of General (R) Musharraf, who looked at the U.S. for support and control rather than his own people, as is the norm in a democracy. The Bush administration did broker a deal between the PPP and General (R) Musharraf but it was only when the restoration of the judiciary movement shook the power structure in Pakistan that progress over the deal was hastened and General (R) Musharraf was convinced to hold free and fair elections and step down. Stability in the region and democracy for Pakistan became a U.S. interest only because its own engagement in the neighboring country as well as Pakistan’s ability to conduct the war within its borders felt threatened as the military’s popularity in this country recorded a new low. Even under democratic rule and in an allied position, Pakistan’s protests over territorial violations fell on deaf ears and relations reached a critical level when in September, a ground incursion was carried out which took away the lives of innocent people. Even though a moratorium on such violations seems to be in place, violations of territory by drones and missiles are taking place uninterrupted and in the absence of a ‘secret arrangement’ as is being alleged by certain quarters between Pakistan and U.S., it is hard to imagine that relations would not further deteriorate if Pakistan choose to suspend supplies to the U.S. instead of summoning the U.S. Ambassador, which seems to have no effect at the moment.

It is hoped that under Mr. Obama’s leadership, all these trends would be reversed and a credible American leadership, which is in the interest of even its enemies for the U.S. alone has the sole ability to change the complexion of a country’s politics through a combination of, or separate application of, entangled and complicated set of diplomatic tricks as well as brute force. Much work needs to be done to better the perception of the United States in the world by the incoming administration.

Balochistan- a ray of hope for reconciliation?

The news of the devastating earthquake in Balochistan which killed hundreds and made thousands homeless brought to the international spotlight, a glimpse of a province which has been exploited rather than rewarded for the benefits that it has accrued upon us all, with pictures of the weak-structured houses sprawled across the newspapers worldwide.

The government has in the past provided little resources towards social welfare of its inhabitants in comparison with other provinces. People in Balochistan rightly blame the federal government for their plight and point out that the benefits derived from the province's natural wealth have not been returned to it. This province is the richest in natural resources, including gold, silver, copper, oil, natural gas, iron ore and uranium. It supplies natural gas to the whole of the country yet three quarters of the province does not have the access to natural gas. Sui is the area from where natural gas is being supplied but Sui is the one of the worst affected areas of military operations since long. The Government of Pakistan pays a meager percentage of the total income from natural resources as royalty to Balochistan, much of it ending up with the few but powerful chieftains, many of whom are oblivious of the plight of the ordinary people and social development and uplift of Balochistan and spend little for this cause.

Baloch people also suffer from poverty. According to the Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC), poverty levels are the highest in this largest province. Every second person in Balochistan lives below the poverty line. Only 50 percent of the province's seven million people have access to clean drinking water, only half the children attend primary schools and only a third of children between 12 and 23 months are immunised, according to the SPDC.

Due to constant resort to military operations by civilian and military rule alike, thousands have disappeared since their arrest and languish in jail which adds to the sense of desperation in the province. Although there is much debate over the Indian involvement and support to separatist groups but not much research is conducted over how to alienate these groups and reconcile Balochis into Pakistan by removing their genuine grieviences and force is so often chosen as an easy option, only for a return to the negotiating table once more with even greater polarisation and resentment in the minds of ordinary Balochs. The allocation of area to the military in the province has increased the sense of hatred for khakis in the minds of many Balochs.

There are many other issues over which the Balochs have raised their concerns in a civilized way but no lasting solutions have been provided to many. To state a few, the federal government’s policy of issuing licences to domestic and international trawlers for fishing in Balochistan’s waters has been alleged to harm the interests of local fishermen in the province. Similarly, it was alleged by members of Balochistan Assembly in 2006 that the management of the Gwadar Seaport Authority had shifted the assets of the Gwadar port to Karachi, without informing the provincial government. It was unfortunate that what was guaranteed under the constitution had to be stated in the form of a resolution in the same year when the Balochistan Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on Friday demanding royalty for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline.

The setting up of the Balochistan Reconciliation Committee by President Asif Ali Zardari can prove to be an important step to reverse the excesses of the past. Although all political elements, both inside Balochistan and outside, may be suspicious of this move at present but if, as pledged by Mr. Zardari on Thursday during a meeting held under the auspices of the special committee that Balochs would be provided their due rights including the first right to its resources is indeed implemented, it would be hard for these elements to stay away from this positive initiative by a man, who unlike his predecessor, is a representative of a political party which has roots in the other three provinces. It was encouraging that Mr. Zardari followed up on his apology to the province for its sufferings by setting up such a committee but his real challenge lies in how he devolves a plan to resolve this difficult issue which has years of historical tensions behind it not least the growing acrimony he may have to face from the ‘establishment’ as well as the other provinces who may not be as forthcoming in this regard. This would be the crunch issue for him and if he is able to reach a consensual decision with most of the stakeholders (as there would certainly be dissenters), it would be a momentous description of his tenure and silent his critics.

The name of the committee is self-explanatory- there is a need for reconciliation between the largest, yet most neglected province of the motherland. These candid admissions, apologetic tones and concrete steps are crucial as time is running short and the enemies at the gate would be the ones to benefit the most if attempts to mend our fence fails. Deterrence is not merely achieved through nuclear tests, long-range missiles, strong international coalitions or even a sustainable economy. Only if a country is strong from within with harmonious relations between different ethnic groups and provincial factions can it continue to subsist as a single enterprise and face hostile borders and survive economic meltdowns.

Accord in the Parliament

The joint session of the two Houses adopted a ‘fit for all’ resolution which somewhat encompass the government’s present strategy of continuing with the military operations as well as the opposition’s stand, led by PML(N), which calls for seizure of operations and negotiations leading to a peace settlement. It needed no Pirzada or constitutional expert to figure out a way to break the deadlock between opposing views on the policy on tribal areas and militants. Both the government’s view and the opposition’s were included in the final draft by a Committee which was formed specifically for this issue. Whether it can be called a consensus or a document full of contradictions would be determined through the political bickering which would follow soon afterwards, the focal point of which would be as to the ‘real intent’ of the vague and broad resolution.

It was surprising to note that the House fell in line and voted unanimously in favour of a resolution when all signs of discord over policy issue were visible between the PPP plus its coalition partners on one hand and the PML(N) headed block, which had threatened to move its own resolution just a few days ago on the other. An editorial had captioned the session: ‘A dangerous lack of consensus’, just a day earlier.

Media pundits and experts had predicted a deadlock over the issue since the session was being criticized for being more of a military debriefing affair rather than outlining the policy of the present government in detail on how it sought to put up its case of ‘ownership of the war’ by Pakistan as well as detailed progressive approaches it had planned to achieve the desired objectives, which were also to be defined by the government itself. Sherry Rehman, Information Minister had to participate in the session, having been chosen by the government for the purpose, to dispel this impression and clarify the position of the government over the matter. She reiterated that the government was following a three pronged strategy, namely political dialogue, socio-economic uplift and the use of military force.

However this missed the important points requiring the scrutiny of key questions by an elected body for the first time since our alliance with the U.S. in the so-called ‘war on terror’; some of which being: Who in fact are the Taliban and like-minded militant organizations some of whom are not so well-organized? Why were they ‘Pakistan’s enemies’? Whether we were fighting them at our own behest or at someone’s instance? This latter question requires an in-depth analysis of the Taliban movement as well as the role of the government in promoting the cause it stood for during the 1980s as well as throughout 1990s. Crucially, the role of these elements leading up to 9/11 and the early period beyond it when Afghanistan was invaded needed detailed presentation. The period which was most important namely when a decision was made to break links with the Afghani Taliban required a studious debriefing and analysis including its repercussions to date.

Since the government now has access to classified documents and meeting minutes which reveal the extent and nature of the American interaction with the Musharraf regime and the concessions and approvals it bestowed upon it including extradition of its nationals to Guantanamo, the time was more appropriate than ever to reveal the agreements and concessions, including the alleged tacit approvals in favour of NATO and American drone attacks across the Durand Line. It should have been clarified which of the agreements are still in place or were renewed since the PPP-led government took power. Rather than condemning territorial violations, the resolution calls upon the government to ‘deal with it effectively’.

At a time when the world has since long looked down at the offensive and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and revelations of inhuman interrogative methods used upon them like water boarding surfacing, the time was apt for a call for a return of Pakistani citizens who await justice in this ‘prison’. The deeply flawed system has been criticized by even former prosecutors who accept that the much evidence which has substantial bearing upon the defence of the detainees is suppressed during trials and subsequent reviews which makes a conviction or upholding of a conviction upon review highly likely. Yet the Pakistani parliament had no mention of it in the resolution and the Government Minister had overlooked this important point. It would be too optimistic to suggest that the Pakistani detainees may have returned as a result of such a resolution passed by our Parliament but the families of the missing people would have been relieved somewhat upon hearing that the representative body had started owning the prisoners who were sold for a few million dollars and for a change those at the helm of affairs were not turning their backs on them as if they are a ghost from the past, never to be heard from.

The contents of the resolution passed is more like a promising opinion of the Parliament that in the future, politicians from opposing factions would dilate upon a phase oriented policy. One hopes that the formation of the Special Committee for follow up could lead to such a move in the future. A study should also be commissioned which focuses on the geo-strategic conditions leading up to the participation of Pakistan in events which eventually led to the inflammation to the militant organizations who easily identified any abettor to American designs in the region as their enemy much like the Taliban who ruled Kabul declared us when we allowed our intelligence services and airbases to be used for the successful overthrow of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. It is imperative that the longer term implications of our continued participation be gauged and monitored with recourse to outcomes. It would not be a bad start to define our objectives emphasizing our interest in the conflict of ideologies and exploring the prospects for reconciling those who feel disillusioned or forced to join extremism and use of violence substantially aided by the pro-Israel and imperialist policies of the U.S. which seem inequitable to many Muslims.

There is a need to improve upon the dangerous law and order situation which makes the common man insecure, further imperils our already weak economy and shatters the confidence of investors. The level and expertise of security and intelligence services should be markedly enhanced and brought at a level to cope up with the increase of suicide and bomb attacks in the major cities of late.

Merely providing Chinese AK-47s to the rifle-bearing tribesmen or ‘lashkars’ as they are more fondly called will not do to the trick since the tribesmen have limited influence and following in their sphere and are in a weak position against the well organized and well supplied Taliban who brandish latest weapons systems. The hesitance of the U.S. to provide the logistical and military support in the way that it used to do in the past is a severe handicap (and quite recently as happened in Iraq) is a stark reminder of the issue-based ‘friendship’ of the U.S. with Pakistan which has more often been self serving for the U.S. and corrupt leaders of the past. An independent foreign policy, as urged in the resolution must be pursued and relations must be expanded with other countries to counter the increasing influence that the U.S. asserts over us due to our over-dependence on it for aid and military supplies.

An economic meltdown- no questions asked?

With declining foreign currency reserves estimated at around $ 7.5 billion and a rupee which is weakening itself against the dollar at a staggering pace, Pakistan has all eyes on lenders and client states for deferral of payments to avoid a default-like situation. The trade deficit is alarmingly high at just over $ 2 billion (recorded for September). At this pace, around a billion dollar is required per month out of the dwindling foreign reserves to help meet the balance of payment. With State Bank intervening to control the fall of rupee against the dollar precipitously, the repercussions in terms of state borrowings should not be discarded whilst studying any rescue plan or aid package to which we have become accustomed to over the last two decades in particular. Increase in the global oil price has been virtually passed to the consumers which have added to the cost of transportation, production as well as the cost of living for many. The energy shortfall has certainly not helped matters much and the longer term implications on our productivity are believed to be severe.

For an ordinary man, at the end of the day it is the inflation rate, at a whooping 25 percent, which matters the most since it severely limits the decisions that he makes for himself and his family. With capital outflows and reduction of expenses and manpower by settled entrepreneurs, SMLB’s (small, medium and large businesses) and industrialists becoming apparent in many sectors it is likely that many people have added, with many more to follow, to an unacceptable proportion of the population that is unemployed. Add to this, the worsening law and order situation and the increase in the crime rate in urban and rural areas with different degree over the same period of the year regardless of these economic conditions that we face and we may see a percentage of those who face unemployed engaged in illicit and violent activities and it will be an instance of failure by the society and the state in general to provide them with a better future which they deserve or at least what they thought they so deserved.

If the government is to be believed, the financial woes of the state, which it has a legitimate claim to govern, were inherited and a result of the dubious economic policies of the Musharraf era with rampant corruption and nepotism. However, all talks of accountability and an effort to evaluate his policies fall on deaf ears or met with the ‘defence’ of ‘reconciliation’ by the government as has the most recent one by the opposition, although it was in the context of his ‘secret agreements’ with the U.S. and concessions he granted to NATO forces without conducting any comprehensive policy appraisals or benefiting the state of Pakistan in a manner which may have been the outcome of a just and equitable negotiation rather than a simple surrender to demands unconditionally without recourse to the effect in the longer run.

‘Reconciliation’ or whatever it seems to suggest, has been used as a blanket cover to protect Mr. Musharraf and his team from the process of accountability which in turn strengthens democracy and promotes transparency as well as provides a check against ‘bad governance’ and corruption. The government’s answer: Mr. Gillani’s ‘forward-looking’ approach which in essence implies: “Forget all past malpractices, lets start afresh”. The question that begs an answer then is: “Is this not a vicious cycle that would never stop and hence no one would be deemed to be accountable as public official over bad governance ever?” A leading English daily’s editorial on Friday lends support to Mr. Gillani’s view, albeit on a different and a worrisome argument. In essence it suggests that since the opposition had rejected Musharraf as a legitimate ruler, it was estopped from questioning his conduct as the ruler! There is a difference between a de facto and de jure ruler for a start and it is amazing how such crude distinctions are overlooked. To put it a slightly different way rather simply, would be to understand that one can oppose one’s legitimacy to rule as well as the actions one took whilst doing so. There is no contradiction in such a view but to the contrary they are supplementary in nature.

In the present economic context for example, had some initiatives been undertaken to promote industrialization and boosting exports during the Musharraf-era instead of for example spending billions in failed campaigning and wasted expenditure in the run up to the elections of 2008, the falling rupee may have been a blessing in disguise for the introduction of our goods in the international market (keeping apart the present international financial crises in some rich markets which is limiting the spending spree of those countries).
As if this was not enough, Pakistan has now complained to the heads of international financial institutions and development partners that the economic cost caused by the war on terror in Pakistan is unbearable level with the major portion of the war being born by it alone. Mr. Tareen, the new Finance Adviser has stated that Pakistan might be amongst the few countries that had successfully adjusted to the unprecedented increases in the prices by eliminating nearly all the subsidies. He stated that the country was fighting a rising inflation by adjusting the interest rates and by containing the monetary growth. However he failed to mention that the revised growth rate for next year, which is down by more than half of the predicted level, had severely limited our capacity to meet the inflation challenge through adjustment of interest rate alone.

On one hand we state the ‘war’ is Pakistan’s own- intended audience is domestic. Yet we seek aid from the global community and the West, particularly the U.S. crying that we are conducting this ‘war’ doing it as an ally and therefore the cost must be shared. What we suggest is either that the people are foolish enough to believe different things at different times or that we are not bound by our own words, which may be changed at different times. The question of policy over the ‘war’ which the joint session of parliament seems to focus and address is secondary. We must first locate and eliminate the contradictions from within ourselves. More urgently, we must await once more that the international loans from ‘friends’ and ‘friendly organizations’ would profit once more through increasing their stake in Pakistan and we are rescued by them to avoid yet another ‘default’. Without conducting ourselves transparently backed by the threat of accountability, the ‘economic meltdowns’ are likely to recur.