EDITORIAL: Joining forces against the floods - Monday, August 16, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have joined forces to “set up an independent commission, comprising impartial, non-controversial and principled individuals to raise funds for rehabilitation of flood victims and to monitor the damage assessment process for judicious distribution of resources to the provinces”. This is indeed a welcome development given the situation on the ground. Pakistan has been hit by the worst-ever floods in living memory with more than 14 million people affected according to UN estimates while Prime Minister Gilani said that the floods have “affected some 20 million people, destroyed standing crops and food storages worth billions of dollars, causing a colossal loss to the national economy”. Mr Gilani might be right and the toll could actually be around 20 million given the fact that a lot of villages have been wiped off the face of the earth and we may never know how many people have lost their lives until the floods subside and a thorough survey is then conducted. The situation looks grim and one cannot help feeling helpless under the circumstances.

The response of the government, army, local people and international community has not been as good as it could have been but slowly and surely it has dawned on everyone how grave these floods are. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in Pakistan to appeal for more aid from the world. No province has been left unaffected; after Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Punjab, there have been fresh floods in Balochistan. What the world community now needs to do is rise to the occasion and help Pakistan in this critical time. There has been a swirling storm of suspicion about the transparency of aid given for the flood victims, which may be one of the reasons the international community as well as the domestic audience has not opened their purse strings till now. Thus, PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif’s idea to set up an independent and credible body to raise funds for the flood affectees is commendable. Prime Minister Gilani has shown wisdom by accepting Mr Sharif’s proposal. A credible commission would ensure that the aid reaches the flood victims and there is no corruption while distributing the aid money and relief goods. The huge damage to the infrastructure, crops and livestock cannot even be imagined. Food security is an issue that would have to be looked at seriously given the fact that most of the crops have been destroyed. The number of displaced people runs into the millions. To relocate them and later on send them back to their native places will take months, but till then they have to be taken care of with as much resilience as possible. Malnutrition and water-borne diseases would lead to more deaths in the coming months, thus we must be prepared to cope with both issues on a war-footing.

Having said that, deciding to set up a credible body will not end all our problems. Much thought has to go into how the commission will function and deal with the issues at hand. The commission must maintain its credibility because unless that is done, citizens or the international community would not be willing to pitch in. These floods may have been unprecedented but we must not let the huge relief and rescue operations discourage us. Millions of people are looking for our help and we must not let them down. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: Drowning our debt

A press conference at the Lahore Press Club the other day sent a strong and decisive message to the government on how to make the best of this bleakest of situations. Under the umbrella of the Labour Relief Campaign, three forward-thinking organisations — the Campaign for the Abolition of Third World Debt, the Labour Party of Pakistan and the National Labour Federation — came together to urge the PPP-led government to seriously take stock of the flood situation and demand the international community write off the enormous external debt owed by Pakistan. Our debt currently stands at $ 54 billion, with the country having to pay $ 3 billion in annual instalments.

Considering the emergency state of crisis Pakistan is deeply submerged in, a complete repudiation of loans ought to be on the cards. If some of the aid coming in to Pakistan at this time of need is in the form of loans, we will be in even deeper water. A case in point is February’s write off of debt owed by Haiti by the rich G-7 bloc of countries in the wake of the Haitian earthquake. If it is recognised that a “nation covered in rubble must not also be covered in debt”, what makes a nation covered in water any different? In 2005, the G-8 Summit cancelled some $ 40 billion of African debt, urging the industrialised nations to spare a thought for the poor.

Pakistan is not just poor; it has been ravaged. Floods, political instability, military interventions, economic downturns and standing tight as the front-line state in the war on terror have crushed the nation. The fact that we are diverting so much of our funds and budget to a war largely based on the US’ directives ought to have served as reason enough to, if not cancel our loans, then at very least reschedule them.

Our leaders are terrible negotiators. The past nine years have given them ample time and opportunity to shake off this terrible monetary burden. Now that Pakistan is drowning under the weight of its own mistakes, it is time the government made this argument strongly to lending countries and institutions, so that we can look forward to rebuilding a devastated Pakistan without fear of sinking further into debt.

Quaid’s view of minorities - I.A Rehman - August 14, 2010

Source : www.dawn.com

Quite a few groups and individuals wish to resurrect what they describe as Jinnah’s Pakistan. The argument in support of the effort is that decades of disregard for the Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan has landed the country into one crisis after another and its future cannot be guaranteed without a return to its foundational premises.

Although the Quaid’s views on Pakistan’s ideal (he usually avoided the expression ‘ideology’) have not escaped controversy, there is substantial agreement among historians and analysts that he stood for a constitution framed by none else than the representatives of the people, a system of government that he described as people’s democracy, and full citizenship rights for the minorities.

These conclusions are mostly derived from the Quaid’s Aug 11, 1947 address to the Constituent Assembly after he had been elected its president. While conscious and democratically-minded citizens have always held that in this speech the Quaid defined the essential and unalterable features of Pakistan’s polity, a few elements have tried to minimise its importance.

They have argued that the Quaid’s Aug 11 speech was not in harmony with the ideas he had consistently advanced. The Quaid-i-Azam had himself pointed out that he could not make “any well-considered pronouncement at this stage” and had said “a few things as they occur to me”. Through these observations he defined the priority tasks for the government: maintenance of law and order, “so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state”; elimination of the poison of bribery and corruption; eradication of black-marketing; and suppression of the evil of nepotism and jobbery.

These views had not been expressed by the Quaid for the first time. They had inspired his frequent attacks on the colonial administration in the course of his long and illustrious career as a parliamentarian. What followed his observations on governance was new because he was speaking about the state of Pakistan that was to come into being three days later. And what he said was this:

“Now if we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor … If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.”

These words and his reference to the Muslims’ ceasing to be Muslims and the Hindus’ ceasing to be Hindus in the same speech, constituted the Quaid’s solution to the issue of religious minorities that had undermined the struggle for the subcontinent’s freedom for many decades.

Although communal differences had been accentuated during the 1857 uprising, the minority question acquired a new shape when Muslim leaders, Sir Syed in particular, gave vent to their fears of rule by elected representatives. For several decades they sought safeguards to which they were entitled as a minority. The failure of these attempts led the Muslim League to abandon the status of a minority and claim the rank of nationhood.

However, the formulation of the demand for a new nation-state called Pakistan did not end the minority issue. The authors of the Lahore Resolution of 1940 had themselves realised this when, after asking for the creation of independent states in Muslim-majority areas, they said:

“That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units (provinces) and in the regions (i.e. the Muslim zones) for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where the Musalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for them and other minorities, for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.”Soon after the Lahore Resolution was adopted questions about the fate of non-Muslims in the Muslim-majority provinces (zones) began to be raised. A group of Sikh representatives met the Quaid, and what did he tell them? Besides assuring the Sikhs of all the protection a religious minority was entitled to in a civilised state he offered them the status of an autonomous region within Punjab and told them that they would be better off in Pakistan than in India.

Those who argue that the Quaid’s defence of the non-Muslims’ right to equal status with Muslims in his Aug 11 speech was not a well-considered formulation may read the account of his press conference in Delhi a month earlier.
Asked to make a brief statement on the problem of minorities as Pakistan’s governor-general-designate, he said: “I shall not depart from what I have said repeatedly with regard to the minorities. Every time I spoke about the minorities, I meant what I said and what I said I meant. The minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion or their faith or belief will be protected in every way possible. Their life and property will be secure.

“There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life, their property and their culture. They will be in all respects treated as citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste, colour, religion or creed. They will have all their rights and privileges and also the obligations of citizenship. Therefore, the minorities have their responsibilities also and they will play their part in the affairs of the state. As long as the minorities are loyal to the state and owe true allegiance to it and as long as I have any power, they need have no apprehension of any kind.”

When pressed further on specific issues, such as separate electorates, he said: “I cannot go into these details. The actual provisions with regard to protection and safeguards can only be discussed in the two constituent assemblies in which the minorities are represented.”

The Quaid was asked to comment on the recent statements and the speeches by certain Congress leaders to the effect that if the Hindus in Pakistan are treated badly, they will treat Muslims in Hindustan worse. The answer was:

“I hope they will get over this madness and follow the line I am suggesting. It is no use picking up the statements of this man here or that man there. You must remember that in every society there are crooks, cranks and what I call mad people in every part of the world, and this is hardly the place where we can say, ‘what about this man’s statement and what about that man’s statement’.”

It was at this press conference that the Quaid-i-Azam was asked: “Will Pakistan be a secular or a theocratic state?” His reply was: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means.”

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic state meant a state where only people of a particular religion, for example Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslim would not be full citizens.

The Quaid said: “Then it seems to me that what I have already stated is like throwing water on a duck’s back. For goodness sake, get out of your head the nonsense that is being talked about. What this theocratic state means I do not understand.”

Another correspondent suggested that the questioner meant a state run by maulanas. The Quaid replied: “What about the government run by pandits in Hindustan?” When you talk of democracy I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learnt democracy 13 centuries ago.”

It should not be difficult for any independent observer to conclude that even before Aug 11, 1947 the founder of Pakistan had a clear thesis on the rights of the minorities. The core elements of this thesis were:

— The Lahore Resolution called for mandatory safeguards drawn up in consultation with them.

— In July 1947 the Quaid made a pledge to the effect that the Constituent Assembly, in which the minorities are represented, will lay down safeguards in the constitution.

— Democracy is not incompatible with Islam, hence belief cannot be invoked to curtail the rights of the minorities.

In his Aug 11 speech the Quaid-i-Azam took a radical step beyond unexplained safeguards and called for excluding religion from the affairs of the state and offered the non-Muslim citizens complete equality with their Muslim compatriots. This may well have been the result of his reflection on what had happened between July 13 and Aug 11, 1947, especially the madness of communal slaughter and the exchange of population between the Indian and Pakistani Punjabs, a course he had ruled out in July.

The greatest irony about this address of historic importance is that it is generally believed to have addressed only the minorities’ rights. This is only partly true. The Quaid’s words were directed at all citizens of Pakistan; the progress of the entire population depended on burying the past (communal politics). What he clearly meant was that discrimination against the minorities would impede Pakistan’s progress. Thus, in Jinnah’s Pakistan the rights and interests of the minorities will be protected by the constitution and the law not only as something due to them but also as an insurance of the state’s integrity.

Wishing the deluge away - Talat Farooq - Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

Flooding of this magnitude would be a daunting challenge for any country but for Pakistan, already submerged in terrorism and poverty, such a natural disaster quickly transforms into a catastrophe that grows with every passing day and whose social and economic repercussions will continue to haunt the country long after the waters have receded.



Those of us who remain untouched by this calamity cannot even begin to comprehend the plight of the victims. Losing your home is like losing a limb; it paralyses you physically and emotionally. Losing your loved ones is like losing your eyes for there is nothing to look forward to; a part of you dies with them, never to be resuscitated. Losing your self-respect is like losing faith in both God and humanity; it kills your will to carry on.



Each one of these calamities is a life-shattering experience; to suffer the onslaught of all three combined is beyond expression. A sudden transition from the familiar to the unknown; from the security of a roof to the fear of imminent danger -- from the sense of happiness that springs from a human relationship to the irreparable loss and cessation of all joy -- from the humble self-sufficiency of a lowly abode to the pain and shame of subsisting on charity -- not even the most compassionate soul in the world can empathise with such experiences unless it has experienced it firsthand. A great deal is being said about governmental ineptness and inadequacy to deal with the problem, Zardari's visit abroad, his chateau and the old man's shoes. Does public opinion, the feeling of the common man or the plight of the flood victims really matter to the president? We all know the answer to that.



Since 2008 the prime minister has been talking himself hoarse emphasising the supremacy of parliament. Under the present circumstances when immediate steps are required to evacuate, house and feed the victims, shouldn't the parliamentarians sit down and discuss the situation and come out with doable solutions and supervise their implementation? Instead they postpone the National Assembly session and go into hiding, unable even to show their faces in their own flood-hit constituencies; wishing the deluge would go away and people would move on. This time around the moving on may not be that simple and the sooner the government and its allies realise it the better. But will they? We all know the answer to that too.



In an environment of growing anarchy the disconnect between the state and society is a foregone conclusion. Angry words condemning the politicians, who are immune to all such criticism, will not help the flood victims. Let us instead appreciate and augment the ongoing private efforts undertaken by religious and secular organisations, individuals and the media. Let us do our best and try and alleviate the suffering and persist in our efforts even after the novelty has worn off. Disasters have a way of uniting people by tapping into their collective goodwill. The earthquake of 2005 proved this point. The sentiment wore off only after the government bureaucracy stepped in to take over. As citizens of a weak state we have to believe in our own power to make the difference. Expecting the elite to do it for us is a mirage.



Let those with the material means and management skills join hands and coordinate with private organisations already in the flood-ravaged areas. Employing the internet for coordination and encouraging the youth within and outside Pakistan to join in the effort could yield fruitful results. Synergy has its own dynamics. Pakistan's common men and women are endowed with the limitless capacity to do good. Any call for help brings out their innate humaneness. It happens because it is one of the possibilities. On the other hand, expecting the feudal elite to care for the downtrodden is to expect a dead rock to turn into a human being; it is against the laws of nature. Demanding compassion from them is like talking to the deaf. They will not hear for they cannot. Their genetic make-up and exclusive environments that shape their worldview render it impossible. Their minds are trained to dehumanise people in order to rationalise their own excesses, to justify their own imagined superiority and that of their offspring. Judging from this perspective, the president's visit to the United Kingdom is nothing out of the ordinary.



History tells us that poverty itself may not breed violent reactions against the powerful elite but the flaunting of power and ill-gotten wealth, that adds insult to injury, surely does. It turns apparent apathy into gushing anger, much like the floodwaters of the Indus and Chenab. The Goliath in Pakistan may appear to be well-entrenched because David is nowhere to be seen; but then David is by definition unassuming and unpretentious; his power becomes visible only after he has struck. Feudal rulers in democratic garb possess the robust ability to fool themselves into believing self-created myths, and the myth of invulnerability tops the list. Again, history belies such confidence; where people do not rise to protest injustice against the weaker segment of society, change may take longer. But eventually nature has its own way of restoring balance and when it does, kings, queens, courtiers and bystanders are swept away indiscriminately.



Like all natural occurrences the recent floods are meant to teach us lessons at the temporal as well as the spiritual levels. Let not the powerful in high palaces and the smug watchers of flood-shows on television ignore the allegory.


The writer is a PhD student at Leicester, UK. Email: talatfarooq11@gmail.com

A hyperactive cocktail - Mosharraf Zaidi - Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

The devastating floods across the country, the lethal violence in Karachi and the agony associated with President Asif Ali Zardari's trip to Europe, all seem to have been rolled up into a hyperactive cocktail--a lethal intoxicant that dulls the senses while it kills us. We're all drinking this strange "Rooh Afza." Since the holy month of Ramazan is upon us, let's put the glass down. Just for a few minutes.



Sure, the floods are a natural catastrophe that no government could have prepared for. Governments should, however, respond in a timely manner. Sure the military is heavily involved in the relief operations. When is there ever a natural disaster in the world that doesn't require the military? Still, why is the military leadership (that means Gen Kayani) acting like politicians?



Sure the violence in Karachi may be terrorism, or it may be ethnic warfare, or it may be engineered chaos, or it may be all of those things at once. But where is the police? And where are the leaders of the MQM and the ANP? And where are the leaders of mosques, the imams and the ulema? Why aren't they taking bold decisions to diffuse this time-bomb that keeps going off, with warning, without warning--it hardly seems to make a difference.



And sure President Zardari seems totally detached from reality. The president's inner circle, to a man and woman, was against this visit. Still he went. The mood in the UK and here was against making any mention of the word storm. Still he fell over himself to reinforce how close the UK and Pakistan are, by saying, it will endure, while "storms will come, and storms will go." But what idiot would mistake the president for his wife, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto? Those expecting Churchillian timing, Obama-esque rhetoric or Manmohan-istic wisdom from President Zardari should pause. Really? Seriously?



The floods are killing us. The government is either doing everything it can, or nothing at all. The military is perfect, or it is evil incarnate. Mohajir blood-lust is epic. Pakhtun blood-lust is epic. Shias are victims. Sunnis are victims. And the TTP and Al-Qaeda are behind every goblin in Pakistan. President Zardari should have stayed, or he should have gone. And all of this is on repeat mode. Over and over and over again. The same mind-numbingly ineffectual conversation. So, perhaps, it really is time to take a moment to pause and ponder, what's really happening here? As crass as it may be to try to reduce complex social, political and economic phenomena to small digestible bits of information, it's important to single out the key drivers of the problems Pakistan is currently enduring.



The impact of the floods can be captured by the word confidence. Or, rather, lack thereof. Within government, the NDMA doesn't enjoy the confidence of Interior, which doesn't enjoy the confidence of the GHQ, which doesn't enjoy the confidence of the KP provincial government. The people don't have any confidence in government--no matter what turf issues they might have. International donors don't have any confidence in the federal government, and little confidence in the provinces. The provinces don't have the confidence to deal independently with the international donors, or the INGOs. They also don't have the confidence to cede a reasonable degree of their executive authority to the NDMA.



Disasters are the worst possible place to begin to get into jurisdictional turf wars. This flooding disaster has hit just as Pakistan has entered the most intense turf war--exacerbated and energised by the 18th Amendment--ever to have hit centre-province relations. Civil society, including, but far from limited to, elements that pose a clear and present danger to Pakistan's standing in the world, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba spin-offs, confidently deliver aid to flood-affected people. Meanwhile, the government's and the military's lack of confidence makes them seem even more incompetent and cold than they really are. And their overconfident assertions to journalists and in front of cameras seals the deal.



The solution to the confidence problem is not swagger. It is, in fact, competence. In Pakistan, the government's competence requires urgent reform of the standard operating procedures that have gone untouched for decades. In a post-18th-Amendment administrative context, clear guidelines establishing the domain of federal authority and delimiting that same authority is an urgent requirement. Failing such reform, Pakistan will continue to seem like a very large platter for the Taliban's taking. No matter that such depictions are the fantasy of imperial analyses. The truth is that those depictions are rooted in kernels of very scary truths. Transforming both the perception and reality of tomorrow's Pakistan requires an urgent reconfiguration of the coordination interface between federal and non-federal authority.



The situation in Karachi can similarly be captured in one word: subsidiarity. And this word is inextricably linked to the reform of federal-provincial interactions. While some functions, like the coordination of disaster-relief and reconstruction, need to be centrally managed, most local issues require local solutions.



The principle of subsidiarity is simply that the smallest, most agile and most representative level of a managing structure should be assigned all the functions it is capable of fulfilling, leaving only the big, macro issues to be dealt with by higher levels of management. In plain English, Karachi may well be getting torn into pieces by street-level thugs and gangsters--driven by emotions, by profits and by pride. But those sentiments are rooted in legitimate issues of ethnicity, or economic opportunity and of grievances not unfounded--Pakhtun or Mohajir--Karachiites aren't crazy.



Genuine subsidiarity in Pakistan would mean directly elected mayors in Pakistan's cities, and directly elected council members at the gali-mohalla levels. Urban anger needs a seat at the table, and local government is the only way to provide that seat. Pakistan may be lucky to have a decidedly non-extremist MQM ruling Karachi--but in urban Punjab, over the next decade, the absence of that seat will almost certainly be addressed by a right-of-centre political force. How far to the right is anybody's guess.



Finally, there is the inescapable anger about President Zardari. This is old hat. The real engine that drives the rage of Pakistanis around President Zardari is a little Urdu word called izzat. Pakistan's urban middle class--disengaged from politics, partly because of the stark absence of local issues in the political discourse--wants their country to be strong and proud, like they are. This moral class in Pakistan will employ both fact and fiction to validate how it sees the world. This is the Pakistan where Jinnah, Nehru, Churchill and Obama are all viewed through one lens: collective national pride. For many, the blind nationalism and religious commitment of the moral class is a problem. It may or may not be, but we know this much. Future economic growth and the future of Pakistani politics are vested deep within this moral class.



One certain way to diffuse the sense of outrage at the nation's izzat being at stake is to enable the moral class to engage in issues that actually matter. Their streetlights and parks. Their schools. Their hospitals. Their cops. To do that, Pakistan needs local government that genuinely adheres to democratic, administrative and fiscal subsidiarity. An insecure Islamabad (and Pindi) doesn't have the confidence to cede provinces their rights and responsibilities, therefore the provinces don't have the confidence to do the same for districts and beyond. And so goes this cycle of tragedy, incompetence and breaches of izzat.


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

Disaster management - I.A Rehman - August 5, 2010

Source : www.dawn.com

The colossal loss of life and property caused by heavy rains and floods in all parts of Pakistan, especially Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has raised quite a few distressing questions regarding the state of governance that cannot possibly be ignored.

Everybody knows that no country, however powerful or developed, has been able to develop total protection against natural calamities. Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, flooding by rivers and excessive rains or snowfall have been taking their toll throughout the world. The only relevant question in such situations is whether a state can keep the losses to the minimum possible through a mix of measures adopted before and after a natural disaster.

It is doubtful if the people have become aware of the exact magnitude of the disaster that has struck Pakistan over the past couple of weeks. In fact, what the people in the rural areas, especially in the relatively inaccessible parts of the country, suffer as a result of a natural calamity is never fully documented or reported even.

However, it is quite clear that the situation is pretty grim. Over 1,000 people are reported to have perished in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone. Thousands of people were reported marooned in the mountainous regions of the province on Sunday. The infrastructure, particularly roads and bridges, has been ruined, thousands of houses have been washed away and crops on thousands of acres have been destroyed. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister may well be right in saying that his province has been pushed back by almost 50 years.

The loss of life in Punjab and Sindh has not been as high as in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but the economic losses, in terms of destruction of dwellings and standing crops, has been far heavier. Balochistan too has suffered heavy losses but as in the past the travails of that province have not been adequately reported. Were all these losses wholly unavoidable?

Pakistan is not unfamiliar with heavy rainfall and flooding by rivers after every few years. Did the authorities responsible for taking precautionary measures attend to their task? Was anybody looking after the maintenance of river beds and embankments? Could the loss of life and property be minimised by checking the growth of settlements in river beds or encroachments on katcha lands on a massive scale?

Experience has convinced us of the need to question the disaster-management agencies’ ability to comprehend their responsibilities. The government is reported to have taken the National Disaster-Management Authority (NDMA) to task for its undisclosed lapses but similar missiles should be fired at the Cabinet Division, Wapda, the provincial irrigation departments and the Civil Defence authorities. Quite a few minds need to be disabused of the notion that their duties begin only when a natural calamity has taken place. We are living in an age when great strides have been made in weather and climate forecasting. This year’s monsoon precipitation and the consequent swelling of rivers were not wholly unexpected. The people have a right to know as to what measures had been adopted to deal with the situation that had been, or should have been, anticipated.

The success of disaster-management steps depends to a considerable extent on the efficiency of early warning systems. Some improvement in this area was noticed after Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had been devastated. The evacuation of the people from the areas threatened by flood waters improved as huge bodies of water flowed downstream. But a large number of people in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan were caught unawares. At many places, such as Malakand Division, the unavailability of reliable means of communication added to the population’s misery.

Unfortunately, the need for short-range radio transmitters in the mountainous region that was felt during the 2005 earthquake was not seriously addressed. Such services could have helped in saving quite a few lives in 2005. The story seems to have been repeated after last month’s rains. The efforts made by the TV channels to keep their audience informed about the flood situation and the adequacy or otherwise of relief measures are no doubt commendable but they cannot fill the role of an early warning system beyond a certain point.

A network of wireless reporting centres in non-urban settlements is what we urgently need in order to ensure an effective warning system. The fact that FM radio channels have been employed by some militant groups for terrorist activities should not be used as an excuse for denying licences for radio transmitters in remote areas.

At the moment all efforts must obviously be concentrated on mitigating the ordeal of the flood-affected population, on a careful assessment of losses suffered by the agricultural community and on developing a rehabilitation policy that pays due attention to the revival of economic activity. But as soon as the state of emergency eases, a high-powered inquiry should be conducted into the organisation of disaster-management services.

The present calamity has exposed the dangers Pakistan invites by ignoring the principle of public-private collaboration in the field of disaster management. The defence services play their traditional part in rescue and relief operations. Everything else is in the hands of civil bureaucracy whose efficiency is declining in direct proportion to the burgeoning cost of its maintenance. Civil society organisations have done something but perhaps not enough to merit honourable mention in dispatches. Barring a few signs of activity here and there, by and large political parties have not carried the burden they are expected to. They must realise that their long-term interests can only be served if they share the concerns of ordinary people and lay the foundations of their popularity by extending succour to communities in distress.

Throughout the present phase of the nation’s trial, the absence of dynamic local government institutions has been acutely felt. Local bodies by their very nature are best suited to deal with natural disasters and it will be a great pity if the consequences of messing up the local bodies’ affairs are not realised even now. One of the foremost lessons of the latest natural disaster is that Pakistan will create enormous problems for itself by resisting the logic of decentralisation of power and genuine empowerment of communities at as low a level as possible.

PENSIEVE: Democracy, good, bad and ugly! —Farrukh Khan Pitafi - Thursday, August 05, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

Is it our misfortune or that whatever we commission as our strategic weapon, may it be our nukes or our non-state actor pals, it turns against us and proves to be our weakness, not strength?

I am speechless and I am disillusioned. Somewhere someone is trying to prove how democracy can go wrong and here am I who has spent countless light years perpetuating the view that democracy is the cure for all our ills. What is there left to prove? We have an entire country sinking under water and a prime minister (PM) who does not even show his face on this sad occasion.

But perhaps the actual problem is the lack of democracy and not its presence. Remember last week I told you how disappointed I was that when we appealed to the government for relief in Barkhan in one of my shows, the same night the prime minister came on television, announced General Kayani’s extension and left without even mentioning floods or relief. The PM and his cabinet along with uncountable members of parliament (MPs) were troubled by the degrees issue and the widespread criticism of the political class. So the PM did what was most logical. He brought one of the ultimate powerbrokers on board. And now since the General Headquarters (GHQ) is with him, he can afford to be as arrogant as he likes.

I have said a million times that democracy does not mean that we only elect our leaders but also that we have the final say in sacking them. Unfortunately since, sparing the last assembly, none in the recent decades has completed its term, the MPs and the government have grown accustomed to the idea that in order to ensure completion of their tenure they have to look anywhere but towards their voters. True accountability can come when we tolerate the system to continue till the end, wait for the time when these leaders come back to ask for our votes and remind them of their flaws and sack them. The media too then will have to stop issuing deadlines for a government’s imminent fall.

And here is the real problem. I have said it once and I have said a million times that we media people have been taken way too seriously. Had it not been the case no politician would have complained in the Punjab Assembly that the media was violating their rights. In reality we are only but one of the many outlets of public opinion. Had we not bombarded the current set-up with our bile, I am sure it would have been more sensitive to our concerns. But neither are we going to change our attitude, nor is the government.

A clear example is our reaction to the president’s British tour. I have repeatedly heard people demanding that the tour be cancelled. While apparently this appeal is made in the name of compassion and concern for the flood victims, the actual reason is the statement of the British prime minister. It is said that with the exception of a few conscientious ones who must have asked the president not to go for better reasons, most are so emotionally attached to our intelligence community’s strings that they forget that the president is after all the president.

The president of the Islamic Republic after the passage of the 18th Amendment is nothing but a figurehead. So his presence can hardly mean anything substantial for relief operations. It is our empowered PM who is answerable in this case. And as for our ghairat on Prime Minister Cameron’s statement, we can put it where it goes when we beg the countries of the world for more money. Do you want to hear something from one of your own fellow citizens? Okay I think you do.

Friends, the truth is that we have never forgotten the Taliban and other such terror groups as our ‘strategic assets’. And there are people — powerful people at that — who we meet every day who refuse to accept that any such group actually poses any threat to us. As someone who loves this country and, trust me, can give his life for this nation, I believe that the only way forward is to put an end to our doublespeak on such crucial issues. The only way to win Afghanistan over is to win the hearts and minds there. If there is any part of Afghanistan we want to colonise, it should be the hearts of our Afghan brethren. Similarly, Pakistan needs to stop its regional pipedreams and think of reforms at home. And there goes your strategic asset with a poof. Is it our misfortune or that whatever we commission as our strategic weapon, may it be our nukes or our non-state actor pals, it turns against us and proves to be our weakness, not strength?

So our actual problem is the lack of democracy and not its presence. The PM however needs to act more cautiously because while he may think that he has played his cards well by extending the tenure of the army chief and there is no demand for better performance from him, you never know about any bolt from the blue. While at present he might be stronger than any prime minister in the last two decades, his actual strength comes from his democratic credentials, not the support of Rawalpindi or Takht-e-Lahore. Remember even when his own post is getting stronger by the day, his democratic credentials and of course the image of democracy in the minds of the people is getting weaker every single moment. A more aggressive desire to resolve the problems of the people can hardly kill anyone. And it is not about the seat of power alone. Many think that the PM is acting boorishly because he knows he is never to be the PM again. Be that it as it may, the fact is that he belongs to this country and even after retirement he will stay here. And even if he takes the usual course of leaving the country after retirement, he will still be approachable by the citizens of this country. Apart from power, the desire for leaving behind a legacy also plays a crucial role in politics. I am banking on the hope that the PM will not forget this positive element either.

The writer is an independent columnist and a talk show host. He can be reached at farukh@gmail.com

COMMENT: Afghanistan: a labyrinth —Ali K Chishti - Thursday, August 05, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

All groups in Afghanistan have been linked with al Qaeda, one way or the other. Moreover, al Qaeda’s ideological virus has already spread and not talking would mean the US would be bogged down in Afghanistan indefinitely, something no one wants

The New York Times recently reported, “Despite deepening pessimism back home and disarray in the top American military ranks, officials insist that the build-up of soldiers in Afghanistan is beginning to show results.” It gave an example of a number of top Taliban leaders being caught (130 over the past 120 days) and the increasing number of the Taliban reconciling with the army. Apparently, the newspaper forgot the new counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy adopted by the NATO and ISAF in Afghanistan. COIN involves rebuilding society and keeping the population safe, while boosting the local government’s efficacy, training a national army and fighting off insurgents. ‘Killing’ and ‘capturing’ insurgent’ leaders is hardly the main focus of COIN. In fact, it was General McChrystal who was reported in The Washington Post, September 21, 2009, as saying that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasise protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling the territory. He said, “Inadequate resource will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.” Interestingly, General Petraeus, who was the architect of COIN strategy, is now in charge of Afghanistan where his emphasis would not be ‘killing’ but ‘build-talk-restore-leave’. An American friend at the Department of Defence (DoD) has another view, that the targeted killing is “somehow part of COIN and not an alternate”. According to him, the effort has been alive and goes back to 2007. The number of drone attacks has now tripled compared to the Bush years and signal that the White House is pursuing a ‘kill-talk-kill-rebuild’ strategy. In fact, it was Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation who made a similar argument that although we cannot shoot our way to victory, it does not mean we ignore the kinetic dimension and our advantages: air superiority, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) technology and fusion. COIN, as the new civilian hawks at DC think, “is not just about passing out soccer balls, it is also about taking scalps...selectively”.

On our side, the doctrine of ‘strategic depth’ is being revived. It seems we have not learnt any lessons from the past. There were reports (Al Jazeera) that President Karzai, for the first time, allegedly had direct talks with Sirajuddin Haqqani, our ‘strategic asset’ in North Waziristan. However, CIA Director Leon Panetta rejected the assertion that any of the main components of the insurgency are ready for “meaningful reconciliation”, something Hilary Clinton agreed with. It would be great if Mr Panetta defined what ‘meaningful reconciliation’ is. The perception in Washington and Kabul seems to be that the more senior and dedicated Taliban they take out, the more they increase the Taliban’s desire to reconcile, a flawed theory which needs to be corrected in light of the Pashtunwali, which stipulates revenge.

The US’s problem with the newfound love between Karzai and GHQ is, ‘Why are we not in the middle of things?’ Previously, it was Pakistan’s complaint. Reports that Mullah Omar has been in Pakistan’s custody since March were somewhat validated by a top US investigator and military journalist, Carl Prine, who commented that “he [Mullah Omar] had always been on ISI payroll”. Hilary Clinton on her visit said similar things about bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan, a perception that holds weight, although it shows how much mistrust there is between the two nations that had been allies since the 1950s. Then there are Pakistan’s strategic assets, the Haqqanis, whom the GHQ wants to keep as part of its sphere of influence in eastern Afghanistan, something the US disagrees with, since the Haqqanis have traditionally been close and more embedded with al Qaeda.

All groups in Afghanistan have been linked with al Qaeda, one way or the other. Moreover, al Qaeda’s ideological virus has already spread and not talking would mean the US would be bogged down in Afghanistan indefinitely, something no one wants. Setting up preconditions before the talks might not solve problems too. Traditionally, the approach of seeking unconditional surrender had never worked, as you cannot expect the militants to lay down their arms and suddenly agree to an Afghan constitution, nor could the Haqqanis, who had been around in Afghanistan since the 1970s, fade away. It has to be give and take (minus al Qaeda) that everyone would agree upon. CIA Director Leon Panetta recently estimated the strength of al Qaeda to be around 60 to 100 only. Remember, the two main goals of the US in Afghanistan were: i) to prevent al Qaeda from re-establishing safe havens; ii) to make sure Afghanistan does not undermine Pakistan’s stability. Bear in mind that all counterinsurgencies had ended through talks and the whole perception that targeting and thinning out the best Taliban and making a deal with the accidental guerrillas would never work in Afghanistan, nor could a ‘meaningful reconciliation’ ever take place within the timeframe after the start of direct action.

Remember, the Taliban and the Haqqanis have demands too: a) an end to foreign military forces presence in Afghanistan; and b) a new constitution draft. The US should understand that any talks have to start by talking with people in power, and being willing to make concessions about governance issues. Something has to come out soon as the clock is ticking and the US has only a year left before the start of withdrawal. With the recent fate of Operation Marjah, the US needs to understand that an out-of-the-box settlement has to emerge, where all stakeholders have to be part of the solution under one Afghan government that could keep the nation ‘neutral’ or we are back to 1991 and 1997.

The writer is a political analyst and can be reached at akchishti@hotmail.com