More incursions in the offing?

Pakistan is already in enough trouble politically and economically. Terrorism has added to our woes and it seems like that in the coming days, more trouble may follow. According to a report published in the New York Times (NYT), “senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas”. It is plain that this proposal has more to do with military strategy than with politics. Pakistan has been stalling a military operation in North Waziristan for some time now. Our argument is that the military is already stretched in Swat and South Waziristan, that we fear more IDPs, and we do not have enough money to conduct a large-scale operation. This delay has not gone down well with the US military commanders based in Afghanistan. The US-led NATO forces are running out of patience with us because of the safe havens that have been provided to the Afghan Taliban on our soil, particularly in North Waziristan. The military commanders now want to hit the Taliban in their rear base areas to make life difficult for them.
The NYT reports that the “Afghan militias backed by the CIA have carried out a number of secret missions” in our tribal areas. Although NATO forces have denied these reports, Pakistan’s military establishment should understand the gravity of the situation. NATO’s denial is due to the political sensitivity involved. Pakistan is the frontline ally of the US/NATO in the war on terror and the Americans want to keep us on their side rather than push us away. On the one hand the withdrawal date of foreign troops from Afghanistan is looming large and on the other hand, the frustration of military commanders is growing. Will they be held back by political considerations is a question worth pondering. Already there is outrage in Pakistan against the increase in drone attacks, which WikiLeaks has confirmed are with the tacit approval of Pakistan’s government. The political fallout of more clandestine operations can be seriously damaging, but under the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the Americans might opt for it if our military establishment keeps up its dual policy.
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, has ruled out ground operations and asserted that our military is quite capable of handling the terrorists within our borders. With all due respect to Ambassador Haqqani, our military is definitely capable of doing this, but does it really want to? Our military establishment must understand the limits to which we can push this dual policy because great danger lies ahead now if we keep on with our misadventures.

Towards maturity

The near-unanimous approval of the 19th Amendment bill by the National Assembly has set a precedent of restraint, wisdom and mutual respect among various institutions of the state in Pakistan. The need for this amendment was felt when the Supreme Court (SC), while deciding on identical petitions challenging the 18th Amendment, made recommendations to parliament regarding the procedure for the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) accepted all but two recommendations. It increased the number of judges from three to five in the judicial commission (including the Chief Justice of Pakistan), agreed to the holding of the parliamentary committee’s meetings in camera, and made it mandatory for the parliamentary committee to give reasons in writing in case it rejects a nomination made by the judicial commission. These changes have increased the serving judiciary’s power in the appointments process. The PCCR, however, did not accept the proposal that rejected nominations will be sent back to the judicial commission for reconsideration and if the commission reiterates its decision, it would become final. It did however, adopt a provision that any rejection by a three-fourths majority of the parliamentary committee would have to record its reasons in writing, to be forwarded to the judicial commission through the prime minister. Nevertheless, parliament and its committee would have the last word, a befitting reiteration of parliament’s sovereignty over and above all other institutions of state.

Another important feature of the 19th Amendment is the empowerment of the judicial commission in the appointments of ad hoc judges. An amendment to Article 182 of the constitution binds the chief justice to appoint ad hoc judges in consultation with the judicial commission. Experience shows that leverage in the hands of one person, even one as competent as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, laid these appointments open to accusations of bias or personal likes and dislikes. There is an inherent risk of bias in favour of retired judges or advocates who might be considered close to the court because of frequent interaction. The broadening of decision-making powers will make the appointment of ad hoc judges less likely to become controversial.
The SC’s verdict on the 18th Amendment petitions shows its respect for parliament. By passing the 19th Amendment, parliament has reciprocated that gesture of respect. The PCCR examined the SC verdict on merit and incorporated most of the recommendations made by the SC. This is the spirit of institutions working within the boundaries set by the constitution, which can make democracy work. A clash only becomes inevitable if institutions intrude onto one another’s turf. Despite provocations by certain sections of the media, parliament, the judiciary and the executive have all observed their boundaries. Better sense prevailed on all sides. It shows that institutions are beginning to learn to work in cooperation with each other, not at cross-purposes. This is no mean achievement.
Pakistan had to wait so long for this to happen because of frequent military coups. The democratic process has been interrupted so many times that systems could not evolve. Every time there was an intervention, the question of how to govern the country went back to the drawing board. How can the various constituents of the system work together in such an environment? The history of democratic experience stands witness to the fact that continuity strengthens a system and ensures its success. Developed countries have taken centuries to evolve their systems. Continuity, reform and wisdom are the key factors in institutionalising democracy. This was the first such instance of this happening in Pakistan. It must be welcomed. It is hoped that this tradition will be upheld in future too.

US Afghan war review

US president Barack Obama will announce his annual review of the Afghan war today (December 16, 2010). A successful legal challenge to Mr Obama’s healthcare plan and hectic congressional activity to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts had pushed this review off the US media radar, but the death of the Special Representative Richard Holbrooke has managed to put it back in the news-cycle, at least for the time being. What was expected to be a low key affair will still remain a whimper but more questions are being asked about the shape of the things to come as a larger-than-life member of Mr Obama’s Pak-Afghan team made his exit from the diplomatic and world stage.

The Washington Post has reported that Mr Holbrooke’s last words, spoken to his surgeon, were: “You have got to stop this war in Afghanistan.” Incidentally, Mr Holbrooke’s surgeon happened to be a King Edward Medical College-educated Pakistani. Of course, neither the surgeon nor the common Pakistanis have much to do with the war in Afghanistan but given the Pakistani establishment’s massive involvement in favour of the Taliban, Mr Holbrooke’s last words seem almost surreal.
Mr Holbrooke, however, was not the only one calling for ending the war in Afghanistan. On the eve of the Afghan war review, a 25-member group of experts on Afghanistan, which includes respected names like Ahmed Rashid and Professor Antonio Giustozzi, has published an open letter to Mr Obama, calling on him to authorise a formal negotiation with the Afghan Taliban and seek a political settlement. However, buried in the text of the 1,030-word long plea to talk to the Taliban is the key sentence: “With Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban, it is not realistic to bet on a military solution.”
Mr Obama is very likely to claim progress in his statement (no speech is expected) and declare that the strategy he announced a year ago at the West Point Military Academy is working. However, he has very little to show in terms of tangible progress, especially in dealing with the continuous Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan. He may reiterate what he had told the US troops on his recent visit to Afghanistan: “We said we were going to break the Taliban’s momentum. That’s what you’re doing.” The idea being that the use of military force to change the political landscape of Afghanistan will continue as planned. The only addition anticipated is a prominent mention of the year 2014 as the withdrawal date for the NATO troops and security handover to the Afghan national forces. But the start of the troops’ drawdown in July 2011 will still remain as one of the objectives, albeit more as a rest stop rather than a milestone.
However, it is erroneous to make a claim about breaking the Taliban momentum during the winter months, which is literally the ‘down time’ of the war. During the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s one could tell by the drop in price of a Kalashnikov in Peshawar that the winter lull in fighting was about to start. But then again nobody claimed Mr Obama to be an expert on Afghanistan.
In fact Mr Holbrooke, along with his boss Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, had vociferously criticised the president when the latter was putting together his Afghan strategy, commenting: “It cannot work.” However, all of them and General David Petraeus did sign on to Mr Obama’s flawed plan. At the time I had noted in an article ‘The Alsatia of FATA’ written for the Aryana Institute that “the American and NATO planners need a paradigm shift in their approach to handling the mess in FATA. Without setting up metrics for specifically measuring the Pakistan Army’s efforts in dismantling its jihadist assets, the US will be setting itself up for failure.”
The White House is saying that Mr Obama will talk about the al Qaeda’s senior leadership, Afghanistan and Pakistan and, more specifically, about increasing cooperation with the Pakistani government. How Mr Obama fleshes up this last agenda item is what would determine the future shape of things in Afghanistan — and Pakistan. I agree with Ahmed Rashid and Professor Giustozzi et al that with Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban, a military solution is not possible. However, I maintain that without the US confronting the Pakistani establishment on its continued support for the Taliban, a political solution to the Afghan imbroglio will remain elusive as well. Mr Holbrooke had told Bob Woodward that he saw a 1 in 10 chance of a good outcome in Afghanistan. I would say that it is a safe bet to make it a 1 in 1,000 chance.
The word victory has never featured in Mr Obama’s speeches in the Afghan context and is unlikely to pop up now. We will hear a lot from him about the build-hold-clear-stabilise-handover process and the long term US ‘commitment’, but there will be hardly any reference to nation-building or even sustained counterinsurgency. At the risk of eating crow tomorrow, I submit that there would not be any reference, even in fine print, to setting up any benchmarks for measuring the Pakistani establishment’s cooperation in helping evolve a political solution to the Afghan morass.
With Mr Holbrooke’s demise, General Petraeus will be lugging many aspects of coordination with the civilians in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in the short term. He, along with Robert Gates, has a much more realistic view of the ground realities than their commander-in-chief. In fact, the Lisbon agreement on the 2014 withdrawal timetable was very much a result of their efforts. They are also cognisant of the fact that while al Qaeda has been neutralised in Afghanistan for now, even a semblance of a jihadist victory will effectively revive the Islamists’ fortunes not only there but in Pakistan as well. In fact a US debacle in Afghanistan will give the turban, jeans or khaki-clad Pakistani jihadists a morale boost that will dwarf the post-Soviet withdrawal euphoria.
Like the 25 experts on Afghanistan, Mr Obama’s Afghan war review is likely to miss the potential logarithmic growth of jihadism in Pakistan that a negotiated settlement with the Taliban will entail. This will leave Pakistan’s moderate voices and the centre-left political forces out in the cold. While Petraeus et al will provide a cushion of time to the Pakistani political forces, counting on the US would be a mistake that the latter will regret at their peril. What they need is a Pak-Afghan policy review of their own.

Women, but not weak

International Women’s Day has been celebrated annually on March 8 ever since the early 1900s when 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights. Presently, it is an official holiday in most countries of the world. Initially, this day was a reminder of all the negative aspects of women’s status in society, however, with great improvements having been made in the past century, it is now more of a celebration of women’s achievements.

Pakistani women have struggled hard for their rights and have been able to achieve larger presence in the public sphere, as exemplified by reservation of women’s seats in parliament and women’s quota in public service. In urban areas, girls have outshined boys in education in almost every field and are giving them tough competition in job market. Pakistan has seen women in key positions such as prime minister, governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, Speaker of National Assembly and president of Supreme Court Bar Association, which is the envy of women of the entire Muslim world. However, women of Pakistan still have a long way to go and also deal with emerging challenges.
While women of urban and semi-urban areas have progressed somewhat, their counterparts in rural areas are lagging far behind. Despite improvement in Pakistan’s literacy rate, the educational status of Pakistani women is among the lowest in the world. There are very few women who have control over their properties and other financial resources. In addition, they have to fight off different forms of violence, such as female infanticide, childhood and forced marriages, rape, honour killings, domestic violence and risk of being sold off to settle disputes of family men. These are the result of patriarchal attitudes and a particular brand of Islam in our society that can be traced back to the Zia era when he tried to push back women in the name of Islamisation. Legislations enacted during that period, such as Hudood Ordinances, Law of Evidence, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, and later legitimised by elected governments made Pakistani women more vulnerable to violence. Later, the democratic regimes of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif failed to address gender inequalities due to the gap between policy making, legislation and implementation. Zia’s legacy has been given a new lease of life by the ongoing terrorist activities targeting women’s education. But Pakistan women must unite and raise high the banner of their rights and defeat these elements with steely determination.

Reconciliation policy and some hard truths

When the Charter of Democracy (CoD) was signed between Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif back in 2006, both parties decided to adopt a policy of reconciliation. The PPP and the PML-N played a game of musical chairs from 1988-99. We witnessed four governments during these 11 years — two terms for the PPP and two for the PML-N. Both parties were not able to complete their five-year term even once. In the end, the military got rid of Mr Nawaz Sharif’s last government by toppling it. That was the end of a democratic era in Pakistan for nine long years. When the PPP formed a coalition government after the 2008 elections, it adopted a policy of reconciliation in the same vein as had been envisioned by the party’s late leader, Ms Bhutto. Prime Minister Gilani was unanimously voted to lead the government. The PML-N initially joined the federal government apart from forming a coalition government in Punjab with the PPP. Both coalitions came to an end; the PML-N left the coalition at the Centre quite early but ousted the PPP from the Punjab government only recently. Mr Sharif has now vowed that his party will not play the role of a ‘friendly opposition’ anymore and will take a hard stance on the government’s failures.

It is in this backdrop that Prime Minister Gilani has once again expressed his government’s desire to ask all parties to join hands together in order to discuss and find a solution to the security and economic crisis our country is facing. As far as the economic issue is concerned, there is no denying that this government is not the root cause for our situation. General (retd) Musharraf and his so-called economic ‘wizard’, Shaukat Aziz, are far more responsible for our economic mess than anyone else. The economic mismanagement in the previous regime broke all barriers. On top of it, the global financial crunch created further problems for the PPP-led government. But the incumbents should not blame everything on the previous regime and the economic meltdown worldwide for our economic woes. This government too has not been able to manage our economy as well as it could have under the circumstances. Allegations of corruption against the government are at an all-time high. International donors are not willing to bail us out because of these allegations. The IMF’s programme has now basically come to a standstill after the RGST fiasco. Even though the RGST is a step in the right direction as it will lead to documentation of the economy, the PPP did not do enough spadework on it and were not able to persuade other political parties about it either. Before presenting it to parliament again, the PPP must bring all parties on board and make them understand how imperative the IMF programme is for Pakistan’s financial survival.
As far as the issue of terrorism and security situation is concerned, there has been a contradiction in the PPP’s posture. On the one hand, the PPP was able to form a consensus in the war against terrorism and the military campaigns in Swat and FATA. On the other hand, it was not able to come up with a successful counter-terrorism plan. Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer and federal minister Shahbaz Bhatti are only the latest examples of the government’s failure in curbing terrorism. The PPP’s appeasement of the religious right further weakened it and strengthened the terrorist networks. The government needs to do more in terms of intelligence and police work so as to fight terrorism. Infiltration of terrorist networks is imperative for this to be successful. Past policies concerning Afghanistan and Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK), which have apparently led to a rise of a domestic terrorist movement, need to be revisited and recast to deal with this looming menace.

Economic growth strategy being worked out

Planning Commission of Pakistan is working out an economic growth strategy by focusing on economic discipline and productivity.

Deputy chairman (DC) Dr Nadeemul Haq at a conference on Dialogue on Economic Growth, Challenges for Pakistan said unnecessary regulations, distorted taxes and subsidies had destroyed domestic commerce, and therefore, the commission’s strategy would be suggesting a reduced government influence on the economy for an efficient reformation of all sectors.
“We need to have responsible fiscal and monetary policies, besides restructuring all 22 public sector enterprises eating up Rs 300 billion annually as well as rationalizing Public Sector Development Programme and above all, a cut in heavy bank borrowing by the government,” he added.
He said market reforms were the key to enhance productivity that was a prerequisite to economic growth, as the lack of incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship has pushed us to the wall.
He said he had always criticized the International Monetary Fund (IMF) even having been its representative in the past, adding now Pakistan formulates programmes at its own and the IMF just extends support in this regard.
He said India had disassociated itself from the IMF in 1984 and “We also want to say goodbye to the IMF by depending on local resources to address economic problems.”
Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry senior vice president Sheikh Mohammad Arshad stressed the need for development of a whole new mechanism to get rid of issues like bad governance, deteriorating law and order situation, heavy government borrowings and low tax-to-GDP ratio.
Former economist Saqib Sherani said the economy would continue to face boom-bust growth cycles until institutional development issues are resolved for which accountability at all levels is indispensable.
He said some vested interests are not in favour of a change, therefore, society would have to exert its pressure to bring about the necessary change.
Dr Qais Aslam said the biggest challenge that is about to come is environment and the government and private sector would have to make elaborate arrangements to cope with the challenge by introducing greener technologies.

Who can check them?

Recently General Ashfaq Kayani while inaugurating the Kassa Hills Marble Project said that there was “no military operation in Balochistan”. The fact is that such projects demand extensive and multi-tiered army involvement and if that is not “operation of the army in Balochistan” then what is? Does this involvement in typically civilian and business ventures not give rise to much more perturbing and deep-rooted involvement of the army in Balochistan and consequently exceedingly serious misgivings in the minds of the Baloch about the role and intentions of the army in Balochistan? It certainly does and has led to increased resentment and naturally more resistance, which has resulted in more repression and more abduction-cum-killings on which civil society and most of the media is culpably silent.

The ‘establishment’ with its ‘solution by force policy’ has created irresolvable resentment among a majority of Baloch. ‘Balochistan: Waiting for justice’ editorial in Daily Times on February 28 has put the matter in proper perspective, “Pakistan’s security establishment has dealt with Balochistan in a very heavy-handed manner. The largest province of Pakistan has seen little development over the last six decades. Lack of education, infrastructure and political power has alienated the Baloch from the rest of the country, particularly Punjab, which they see as their ‘enemy’. The recent policy of eliminating moderate nationalists, who are in open national politics, is a dangerous trend. Thousands of Baloch have disappeared under mysterious circumstances or have been picked up by unknown elements. They are not only tortured but many of them are killed brutally and their bodies are later found from different parts of Balochistan. This policy adopted by our security establishment is leading to an increase in separatist sentiment among the Baloch.
“It is no secret that neither the federal government nor the provincial government has any real say when it comes to Balochistan. The real power lies with our security establishment, which has a narrow and non-political repressive policy. It is time that they understand that force, repression and killing cannot resolve this issue. A political solution is needed and for that the democratic government needs to run the show. The Baloch have been waiting for justice for decades now. It is time to address their grievances.”
Significantly even Balochistan’s Advocate General (AG) Salahuddin Mengal stated in Supreme Court that, “We are recovering dead bodies day in and day out as the Frontier Corps (FC) and police are lifting people in broad daylight at will, but we are helpless. Who can check the FC?” Who would know better than him about perpetrators of brutal killings of which my old student Faiz Mohammad Marri is the latest victim. Only the iron-will and determination of the people can check the oppressors because history moves relentlessly however brutal the repression.
The much-resented FC is overseeing the project for exploitation of Musakhail coal reserves and expected to make it operational soon. That coal has been exploited since 1980; this involvement of FC in purely economic activity is aimed at further entrenching its role in Balochistan.
The Balochistan AG also told the Supreme Court that the Balochistan governor had requested chief of army staff to launch a military operation in the province. What is beyond comprehension is that why it has to be the army or the FC, which has to develop, oversee and manage purely commercial projects? The army settled the intra-tribal disputes in Chamalang and Kassa to expedite exploitation and this by itself speaks volumes of the absolute impotence and utter uselessness of the political and civilian authorities in Balochistan and the Centre and exposes pervasive and omnipresent army influence there. This idiosyncrasy and aberration is very Pakistan-specific.
The increase of violence in Balochistan has been noticed, but it has not been noticed or at least not mentioned in proportion to the increase in economic stakes of the army in Balochistan. This is no trivial matter as with it is eventually tied, if ever it comes about, the political solution to the problems of Balochistan. This very important aspect has been conveniently overlooked by the politicians as well as intellectuals. This deep-rooted army involvement in the economic life of Balochistan has to end forthwith if solution to the increasing Baloch resentment is genuinely sought.
Unfortunately, no one bothers to mention the fact that the higher the economic stakes of the armed forces in Balochistan, the more repressive is the treatment meted out to people, because eventually all politics is about economics and wealth. They probably believe that if a problem is ignored, it does not exist.

Brazil’s economy ends 2010 on high note, grows 7.5 percent

Brazil’s economy grew at its fastest pace in 24 years in 2010, gaining steam at the end of the year on strong consumer demand while industry struggled in one of the world’s hottest emerging markets.

The 7.5 percent expansion last year, not far behind growth rates in China and India, is likely to have been as good as it gets for Latin America’s largest economy for some time as higher interest rates and tighter public spending cool growth to a more sustainable pace this year.
Fourth-quarter growth of 0.7 percent marked an acceleration from a revised 0.4 percent in the third quarter, but fell just short of the 0.9 percent median forecast of 20 analysts polled by Reuters.
Household consumption, which has been a main pillar of Brazil’s economic boom in recent years, rose a brisk 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter from the previous three months as Brazilians continued their shopping spree.
But industrial output contracted 0.3 percent, highlighting the burden of a strong national currency on Brazilian businesses, while agricultural production in one of the world’s main breadbaskets slipped 0.8 percent.
Neil Shearing, an economist at Capital Economics in London, said the data confirmed a “modest pickup” towards the end of the year that was driven largely by consumers.
“The bigger concern is that it’s a two-speed growth story: consumers remained the key driver of growth and exporters are lagging behind in this recovery,” he said.
The rapid growth last year, driven by record-low unemployment and a confident new middle class of consumers, crowned the presidency of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who bowed out last year with an approval rating just shy of 90 percent. His hand-picked successor Dilma Rousseff now has to deal with inflation running above 6 percent annually and a fiscal mess that was largely caused by loose government spending under Lula that helped her get elected last year.
Her government has pledged to cut spending by around $30 billion this year to ease demand pressures in the world’s 8th biggest economy. Meanwhile, the central bank hiked interest rates for the second time in three months on Wednesday, raising the benchmark rate to 11.75 percent from 11.25 percent, in line with market expectations.
Growth rate unsustainable: The full-year expansion compares with 10.3 percent growth in China last year and expected growth of around 8 percent in India, highlighting the health of emerging economies compared to their still-struggling European and US counterparts.
Economists and government officials agree, though, that such torrid growth is not sustainable in Brazil, whose economy suffers from severe infrastructure problems as well as heavy bureaucracy and a complex tax code that stifles business.
Strong domestic demand, record employment and rises in global food prices helped push inflation to a six-year high in 2010, forcing Rousseff to rein in heavy public spending that had become a serious concern for investors.
“Brazil’s potential growth rate is around 4.5 to 5 percent at the most, so this is not sustainable,” said Julio Hegedus, chief economist at Interbolsa brokerage in Sao Paulo.
“Growth will be lower this year because inflation is at 6 percent and Brazil will adopt a tighter monetary policy.”
 Capital spending, a gauge of investment, rose 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter from the previous quarter. The central bank said that figure indicates that businesses are confident in Brazil’s economic outlook for coming years.

Euro near key resistance

The euro hovered near a four-month high and a key resistance area against the dollar on Thursday, supported by expectations that the European Central Bank is set to pave the way for rate rises later in the year. The ECB left interest rates on hold as expected at its monthly policy announcement, with attention centred on ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet’s press conference at 1330 GMT. The euro was flat against the dollar at $1.3858, hovering near a four-month peak of $1.3890 hit on trading platform EBS on Wednesday. It triggered short-term downside stop-losses through $1.3840 in the European morning but traders said persistent Middle East demand kept the currency well cushioned. Strong demand was expected on approach to $1.3800. It was within sight of the 76.4 percent retracement of its fall from November to January at $1.3947, as well as its 200-week moving average at $1.3959. The euro has traded below the 200-week average since mid-November. Options traders reported Asian offers ahead of $1.3900 option barriers, with more significant option structures highlighted at $1.3950, said to be expiring March 10. The dollar index was steady on the day at 76.722, near a four-month low of 76.529 hit on Wednesday. Trendline support connecting its record trough and its 2010 low lies in the 76.15-25 area. The US currency also hit a one-month low of 81.57 yen on Wednesday, though thick bids around 81.50 yen were likely to limit further losses in the near term.

Torture theology in the devil’s republic

It has now become clear that what the Iranian intellectual AbdolKarim Soroush had remarked is becoming a reality. A society which lacks religious intellectuals who can freely and unashamedly be critical in the public sphere and call to task fundamentalists and conservatives will inevitably decline into a form of tribalism with a veneer of religious piety. What has come to be in Pakistan is the full evolution and logical conclusion of the new generation of fundamentalism.
Our minister for religious minorities Shahbaz Bhatti was brutally slaughtered at the altar of a cruel and inhuman fanaticism, which is eating away, consuming the very soul of Islam in Pakistan. The philosophy of the Sufis, scholasticism of the jurists and the intellect of the theologians have crumbled under the weight of a new theology — a theology of torture.
It is the radical religious movements in Pakistan that control the grassroots of religious education, not liberals, moderates or even traditionalists. The scholastic genius of classical Islam has been displaced, destroyed by the onslaught of colonialism, authoritarianism and new dynamics of the nation state, only to be replaced by a crass fundamentalism.This form of barbaric extremism is no longer confined to acts of random violence, but is spreading, becoming sharper and being actively marshalled and mobilised to drive out liberal and moderate voices from all spheres of public life, from the legal culture to the political culture. That is the frightening thing. Educated and well-spoken individuals are being seduced by the hatred and bigotry of this new insane form of extremism.
We suffer from a crisis of religious and moral authority. We can count Javed Ahmad Ghamidi as the only religious scholar who has taken a different view on the whole tragedy. Slowly but surely, over the years, whether it was in opposition to the Women’s Protection Bill, land reforms or any other piece of progressive legislation, a theology of torture has been instituted in Pakistan.
This theology of torture rules in Pakistan, making life hell for women, minorities and ‘lesser’ Muslims. This theology of torture has been sponsored by the state and indeed been given a clearance by other institutions such as the army. The fact is the extremism that was being fostered for purposes of ‘strategic depth’ is now taking on a life of its own. It is becoming intelligent, ruthless and dynamic. It adapts and widens its influence from the media to the judiciary to the extent of ruling over the religious discourse unchallenged and emboldened.
This ‘Islamic’ republic has turned into an instrument for the devil where ‘men of faith’ carry out hellish deeds and turn ‘God as Lover’ into ‘God as Killer’. The very meaning of ‘faith’ in Pakistan has changed in populist religious discussion from something connected with love and reason to something synonymous with hatred and arrogance. This must change.
First, on a more personal level, we can confront the domestic abuse of women in our own families, and consider the Christians of Pakistan (who are socio-economically marginalised, condemned to a life of servitude) as fellow citizens and human beings. The issue of women and minorities is not far removed from our daily lives. In our own dealings and families, we should take note of how unfairly we treat women and minorities, whether it is humiliating and demeaning the Christian servants kept in Pakistani households across the country or the women abused and tortured by gutless husbands. Countless times we have heard about the abuse of women in torturous marriages or the gross maltreatment of Christian domestic servants. We can make a difference just by treating fellow Pakistanis, be they women (our own daughters, mothers and sisters) or Christians, with dignity and respect. We as a society cannot claim to be innocent of this new and violent radicalism because we have condoned and encouraged the mistreatment of women and minorities. This radicalism and extremism did not emerge overnight — it was simply a logical extension of our own cultural practices.
The question of religion in Pakistan is too important and too volatile to be left in the hands of semi-literate ‘clerics’ but it is too dangerous for individuals such as Ghamidi and the late Mr Muhammad Farooq Khan (the liberal Islamic intellectual brutally murdered last year) to work alone. The state has to step up to support the bravery of intellectuals and politicians.
Professor Bayat in a paper talked about the emergence of a post-Islamism in the Iranian context: “In contemporary Iran, post-Islamism is expressed in the idea of fusion between Islam (as a personalised faith) and individual freedom and choice; and post-Islamism is associated with the values of democracy and aspects of modernity.”
The future discussion should be, in the words of author Ali Eteraz, shifted towards: “Structural and political discussions — for example, about separation of mosque and state, the making of a Muslim Left, the ideas of Muslim secularists, the debate over Islamic liberal democracy and the emergence of a post-Islamist Islam.”Throughout the 19th century, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan heralded just such a movement with his Aligarh initiative and educational reforms. Sir Syed’s reforms influenced a generation of Muslim intellectuals and helped foster liberal religious thinking. Just such a series of initiatives is needed in modern-day Pakistan today, because it is apparent that the isolated works of religious and political reform need to be institutionalised and bring about structural reform.
But there is hope for those wishing to see an alternative — Islamic liberalism. By combining liberal values and religious thinking, this type of politics will appeal to a broad audience and will bring about consensus in the hopelessly useless and polarised ‘secular vs religious’ debate in many Muslim societies. The best example of this is Rachid Al Ghannouchi and his An-Nahda party. The An-Nahda party maintains a synthesis between progressive politics and liberal interpretations of Islamic law, hence combining democracy with suitably liberal moral foundations.
The hope is that Islamist politics in Pakistan (though unfortunately our religious parties are perhaps the most radical in the whole Muslim world) becomes liberalised or undergoes major reform as is the case in the greater Arab world (due to the recent transformative revolutions) combined with a re-imagined democratic Left, after the consistent wretched failures of the PPP, MQM and other parties.
But for this democracy to work as a buffer against radicalism, serious questions have to be asked of our army and its generals.

Petroleum prices dilemma

The political commotion over the recent increase in prices of petroleum products has put the PPP-led government in a very difficult situation. If it withdraws this increase, it faces the spectre of a yawning fiscal deficit and failure to meet international financial institutions’ conditionalities for loans. And if it does not, it faces a hostile political reaction, which will further weaken its already weak position after the PPP’s ouster from the coalition in Punjab. Like in January, when the government was ultimately forced to withdraw oil prices as part of its efforts to implement PML-N’s 10-point agenda, response from the entire political spectrum has been very negative. The PML-N, PTI and JI have openly expressed their displeasure, while the PPP’s coalition partner, the MQM, not only rejected Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority’s (OGRA’s) decision, it has given the government three days to withdraw the raise. Granted that the hike in prices of petroleum products will have a cumulative effect on the prices of all other commodities and further burden the public, nevertheless, it is very difficult for the government to avoid this raise in view of the hike in international markets. Political crisis in the Middle East has affected oil supplies from countries like Egypt and Libya and disturbed the balance of demand and supply, inducing inflationary trends in oil markets. Pakistan has linked domestic prices of petroleum products with those in the international markets. If in coming months, international rates decline, OGRA will automatically revise the price accordingly in its monthly review. However, it is more likely that rival parties would not listen to this logic and try to take advantage of the PPP’s difficult position. It is not just Pakistan’s government that is facing this dilemma; other countries too are calculating the risks of the gap in demand and supply of petroleum. After disruption of oil supplies from Libya, Saudi Arabia has pledged to boost production, but it will take some days before it could stabilise the market. Also, there is no guarantee that this will continue in the long-term if the situation so demands. A country like Pakistan, with the economy teetering on the brink, has few choices.

In addition to increasing prices of various petroleum products, such as motor spirit, kerosene, high speed diesel, light diesel oil, high octane blending content, etc, by 9.9 percent, the government has also increased the rate of petroleum levy in a bid to raise revenues. This is where the trap lies because opponents of this move argue that instead of taxing petroleum products, which constitute almost 50 percent of the pump price, the government should check corruption in its ranks and collect revenue from alternate sources. In fact, the ‘subsidy’ on petroleum prices is a misnomer, because when the government does not collect a certain tax on petroleum products, it is called subsidy. However, we have to admit that this is an inescapable reality. The government cannot survive without imposing these taxes. The situation has been complicated due to protests by Pakistan Petroleum Dealers Association against reduction in the margin of their commission in sales. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has threatened to launch another long march and might use the increase in petroleum prices as a plank to launch his anti-government movement. Politically, the government is stuck and if not handled carefully, the situation might explode.

Spy versus spy

The first round match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan was a delight for all Pakistani fans, and their wishes for a great match topped by a win for Pakistan were granted. However, this is just the beginning, but our 11 men have no doubt shown their ability to fight right to the last ball, as opposed to the roll over rover of old when they gave up without a whimper. Captain Shahid’s energy on the field was reminiscent of Miandad of old, exhorting his teammates to try harder, spurring them on, unlike Inzimam who looked fast asleep even when running. The battle is just beginning, and Pakistanis have shown their willingness to fight. Shoaib has shown that he can bowl 10 overs and Ijaz Butt can keep his mouth shut. If these factors continue in this vein, we have a good chance. Now with Nawaz Sharif in an assertive mood, we can be sure that no idiotic instructions can emanate from the chairman’s box, having brought Pakistan and its millions of fans to a ‘TV only’ place at the table. Butt’s ridiculous and insulting behaviour resulted in our being isolated, hurting only the Pakistani public. Repeated appeals to President Zardari and Minister of Defence Ahmed Mukhtar went unheeded for lack of interest or understanding of the game. Not realising the intense passion for cricket in the rank and file, they have ignored the fans at their own risk. Not that they care. They are content with their bulletproof limousines, a must have for the newly inducted ministers, who insist on this as an important perk, not realising that a truly popular leader is one who finds himself safe in crowds. The others are manifestations of manipulated polls, with the political machines of the various parties going into high gear at election time, and conveniently forgetting their voters after the polls.

The Raymond Davis affair is taking a sinister turn, for the depth of the CIA network is only now beginning to unravel, with the alleged nexus of our ambassador in Washington having granted 500 plus visas directly without any reference to ISI or Intelligence Bureau. This huge number of agents was reportedly operating without any supervision, and had cultivated contacts independently with the madrassas, fielding their own agents to do their own bidding, which may or may not run in our favour. We have already seen our beloved Benazir being assassinated so cruelly when the same US perceived a shift in her policy from an earlier avowed plan. The interests of governments rise above the accepted norms of society, which makes these acts much more dangerous as they are out of sight of the public eye. With Nawaz Sharif finally entering centre-stage, we hope he will ensure that no underhand deals will be undertaken while he is around.

The shocking accusation by Shahbaz Sharif that the gas shortages in the Punjab are artificial, and have been created at the behest of the PPP in Islamabad, is enough of a bombshell to destabilise any PPP dreams of a thrust into the Punjab, and may even let the housewives of the Punjab rise to the defence of their kitchens. If this accusation is indeed true, then a very dangerous level in politics is being breached, and explanations are demanded for the misery being faced by millions of households by the deliberate cutting down of gas supply, for a political whim is certainly not acceptable in any condition. Our people have a difficult life as it is, and to send our women to gather wood to burn in our stoves is taking our country back 50 years. The PPP government has shown its inability to address the problems of the people with prices climbing out of the reach of the common man. However, when the politicking starts to impact in the form of ‘artificial’ gas shortages, then other issues will pale in comparison, creating a very dangerous situation. This would need an immediate clarification.

Coming back to the Raymond Davis affair, another American has been arrested in Peshawar with an expired visa, and with the Pakistani authorities on a high alert, are doubly so with the two intelligence agencies eyeballing each other. The Pakistani officials will be looking to push back the arrogance that was being displayed of late, with the matter being referred to the courts. But Imran Khan and his party jumping into the fray can raise the temperature considerably. And Imran, with his impeccable reputation here and abroad, brings a new dimension to any dispute, especially when the integrity of Pakistan is concerned. And especially at the involvement of a covert CIA agent whose cover has been blown by his own act.

A pound of flesh from the US

Will the multi-dimensional case of trigger-happy Raymond Davis be the game changer in Pakistan? Will the case of Salmaan Taseer’s killing by Mumtaz Qadri test the government’s will to implement the rule of law amidst religious frenzy? These questions are being debated in the media and by almost everybody. Much of the discussion is emotional. The media and the opposition politicians are whipping up the sentiments of the people in the name of violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and religion.

In the case of Davis, immunity is being claimed by the US administration. In Mumtaz Qadri’s case, impunity is claimed on religious grounds by his supporters. In both cases, the sanity and sagacity required to manage this crisis is missing in the government and the opposition. When Raymond Davis shot dead two young men in Lahore, the public outrage was natural, as it would have been in any other country. But all governments are expected to manage their crises in a much more organised way.

Conflicting messages came from government officials, which show that there is no mechanism to manage crisis communication in the government. A well-established crisis management practice is that in such a situation all the important people who deal with different stakeholders get together in the crisis control room. The first step then is to decide the policy and key messages. Then the number of spokespersons is decided, who are kept informed from the crisis control room about the messages they should relay. In such a case, only the foreign minister, interior minister and information minister should have been authorised to speak, but with one voice.

Worst probable questions are prepared by the media advisors and their replies are decided. Now there is a catch here for which the government cannot be blamed. Foreign policy is decided by the military leaders and not the civilian government, so the difference of opinion between the two on this fiasco came out in the public. As the power is being shared with the military establishment, the government should debate these issues with them privately and then come out with an agreed response. In such cases where national interest is at stake, an emotional or aggressive response is not what the country needs.

Much of the differences within the government (read political and military establishment) are on the issue whether Raymond Davis has diplomatic immunity or not. Minor technicalities of the Vienna Convention apart, the fact remain that he carried a diplomatic passport and the visa was issued on the same. This shows that Pakistan accepted that he is a diplomat. The US State Department in its latest briefing has said that the US Embassy in Islamabad had included the name of Raymond Davis (most probably a fake name) in the list of diplomats furnished to the Pakistan Foreign Office on January 20 — days before the Lahore killings.

For a moment, let us accept that he has diplomatic immunity, but does that mean that a diplomat can kill in the host country with impunity? Will the US government and public opinion allow a diplomat to kill their citizens with impunity? No. The record shows they pressurise the country whose diplomat had erred to lift immunity.

The stance taken by Raymond is that he killed them in self defence. Now this is being challenged by the media in the light of available evidence that the boys were shot in the back. Here I think one should give Raymond the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because we have to face the fact that Pakistan is a dangerous country to live in — even for its citizens — leave alone for foreigners and that too an American. Every day people are robbed by young men riding motorbikes and sometimes muggers also kill. So if some people are chasing a foreigner and are carrying guns, he is expected to become nervous. Most people here in Karachi get nervous when the same motorbike with two people stops near their car a couple of times. The fear is natural because in every family one or two persons have been robbed at gunpoint.

So far two versions have come out about Raymond’s victims: one, that they were petty muggers and had snatched the phone and wallet from a doctor on the same day; and two, that they were our intelligence operatives who were chasing Raymond. And perhaps the intention was to scare him so that his activities are curtailed. Chasing diplomats is the normal intelligence practice, particularly where counter-intelligence agencies have doubts about the activities of a diplomat. In this case, according to the International Herald Tribune, Raymond was keeping tabs on the jihadi organisations that work for our intelligence on contract and are a sacred cow.

Thus the fear factor cannot be ruled out. It should also not be mixed up with the fact that Raymond is a CIA contractor and was carrying guns and equipment, which a normal diplomat does not use. For the purpose of dispassionate analysis, these two factors should not be mixed up. Even the hysteria why a CIA spy or their contractor is claiming immunity is irrational. Every country’s intelligence agents, who are posted in other countries, usually carry diplomatic passports. I am quite sure our sleuths posted in other countries of importance have diplomatic passports and visas. This does not mean that they should act like James Bond.

Agitated anchors and columnists question why CIA and its agents are operating in the country. My friends, we invited them by interfering in Afghanistan after the 1978 revolution. Pakistan started intervening in that country and made itself a frontline for covert activities. All major countries’ intelligence services are operating in Pakistan now for over 30 years and it is our own doing because we follow one of the most dangerous national security policies. So why blame others?

Now the question is, what is the solution to this problem? Can we hang Raymond Davis and still sleep in the same bed with the Americans as we have done for the last 63 years? The military establishment has to find the answer to this billion-dollar question. In 1979, after the siege of Makkah by an extremist Muslim group, the propaganda was that the Americans were involved in it, although they moved their fleet in support of the Saudi royal family. Pakistani dictator General Zia, who had killed Bhutto and but continued with his nuclear programme, was not in the good books of the US. So, taking advantage of the God-sent opportunity, he decided to take a cycle ride in Rawalpindi while some students and his men in civilian clothes burnt the US Embassy in Islamabad. This managed to impress upon the Americans how unpopular they were in Pakistan in spite of billions of dollars in civilian and military assistance. Afghanistan then offered him another opportunity to lure the Americans to beat the Soviets and get even for Vietnam.

Our Afghanistan oil well has still not dried up and Raymond Davis has given another opportunity to our establishment to get a bigger pound of flesh from the US. As a side effect, the victims’ families might also get blood money and maybe a bloody passport, which most anti-American Pakistanis yearn for.