Could Bilawal and Rahul step in? - Jawed Naqvi - January 13, 2011

Source : www.dawn.com

CONSIDERING the dire straits that India and Pakistan are in today with their respective versions of religious insanity, who can deny the urgent need to sink mutual differences and bail out together before the gathering storm swamps both.

The religious right in both countries has nurtured a hidden alliance and each half screwdriver turn of madness by one has given vital oxygen to the other. Both need to be rooted out before they take over.

Call it desperation or realism, but there is no denying that the conventional secular leadership on both sides has had its say on approaches to combating terror and they have landed us in an untenable mess. That`s reason enough to risk a radical if uncertain change. That`s why Rahul Gandhi and Bilawal Bhutto might do well to exchange notes for a badly needed joint approach to fighting religious terror and other barbaric traditions that stalk both countries.

It is not as though their elders did not make any effort to confront the menace of medieval violence. In fact, the last serious effort in this regard was subverted by their respective intelligence agencies. Other entrenched interest groups too feared losing their monopoly over the conduct of bilateral relations to civilian governments on either side.

Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani offered the most promising agreement in July 2009 in Sharm el-Sheikh when both leaders had “agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries”. And they had “affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end”. For daring to make the pledge they were condemned by their respective `systems`.

Inevitably, the only significant hope to row back from the Mumbai terror-linked standoff was abandoned. The tail wagged the dog, which it pretty much still continues to do.

There is a compelling logic to the need for Rahul Gandhi and Bilawal Bhutto to undo the damage and move on from there to build a secular, liberal and just society their forebears had promised but, for a variety of reasons — including exigencies of the Cold War — failed to deliver to their people.

On the face of it, the idea to park hopes on two rather young and relatively inexperienced men to step in to plug the haemorrhage may seem preposterous. But time is slipping. And they have spoken with unusual clarity to kindle hope. Both have lost a parent and a grandparent to bigotry, which they had indulged and only later, when it was too late, tried to challenge. The lesson is too obvious to be lost on either of the young scions.

The task at hand is not a straightforward secular versus communal or democratic against extremist confrontation. The problem may be more complex. Still, Rahul Gandhi`s assessment that Hindu terror is a serious threat to India could form a solid basis to work out a strategy to fight a decisive fight. Extremism nurtured by religious minorities should be similarly dealt with. Bilawal Bhutto`s earnest promise to defend Pakistan`s minorities is a good starting point for his country.

How, then, are they going to go about their tasks? The murder of Salman Taseer by a religious zealot has prompted an old question in my mind to surface again. Why are there two teams dominating Pakistan: one that wants to join the Americans to fight the Taliban and the other that seeks to fight the Americans with the help of the Taliban? Why can`t there be a third force that deters both? After all, the whole world knows that foreign military presence in Pakistan works to the disadvantage of those who genuinely wish to cast the country in the image of Jinnah`s liberal ideals.

Rahul Gandhi too needs to share his thoughts with the people of India and not whisper them into the ears of a foreign diplomat. Did he not know that sharing his fear of Hindu terror as a threat at par with Muslim extremism with the American ambassador was potentially self-defeating? Going by the flourishing alliance that has consolidated between India`s Hindu right and Israel`s Jewish right, is there any reason to realistically expect the Americans to sympathise with Gandhi`s implicit secularism?

As with Pakistan, where the Taliban`s widening terror imprint is used to consolidate America`s military presence in the country, the Indian middle class has become accustomed to taking sides between the twin threats of corporate vandalism and religious terrorism without acknowledging that the two go together. There is a tendency to turn a blind eye to the threat callous corporate culture poses to India`s democracy. That Ratan Tata and the Ambani brothers, among others, have explicitly endorsed the main suspect in the Gujarat communal carnage as prime ministerial material has been indulged as a workable possibility by the middle classes.

In their hurry to `develop` somehow on the debris of an inclusive society, Indian analysts ignore similarities between the gruesome murder of an Australian Christian missionary and his two sons by the Hindu right, for example, and the condemned Christian woman that Taseer spoke up for.

Curiously in India extremism of the minorities — the Sikhs and Muslims, for example — is readily described as terrorism, but the illegal demolition of a mosque or a massacre of Sikhs, Dalits, Muslims, Christians or tribespeople by the Hindu right is explained euphemistically as misplaced nationalist zeal.

The arrest of a group of activists of the Hindu right in an alleged conspiracy to attack Muslim targets across the country has lent credence to Rahul Gandhi`s fears. That this group and not any Muslim suspect was responsible for a spate of attacks, including the murder of Pakistanis passengers on the Samjhauta Express, is not the only reason for the two countries to come together. There is already the pending matter of Pakistani terrorists inflicting unspeakable carnage in Mumbai.

Bilawal Bhutto will not be able to go about defending Pakistan`s minorities if the zealots who attacked Mumbai roam free. Rahul Gandhi can start looking at ways to tackle the Kashmir dispute frontally. It is an enabling factor in terrorism in India. He should of course do so with a resolve that is not deterred by a rightwing Hindu backlash. Is it too much to ask of our young leaders?

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com

COMMENT: Salmaan Taseer: the content soul —Dr Mohammad Taqi - Thursday, January 13, 2011

Source : www.dailytimes.com

To let these hordes be the judge, jury and the executioner would be the exact opposite of what Salmaan Taseer stood for. They have succeeded in killing Salmaan Taseer but must not be allowed to lynch him posthumously

They were jubilant. They were celebrating. They had come to admire, congratulate and fete the killer. And they want him set free. Not because they think he is innocent of any guilt but because they believe he did actually kill the ‘guilty’. Guilty of what and tried by whom, one may ask. The response comes from their leaders rooting from the pulpit: “guilty of supporting the blasphemer and impugning the divine law — the infidel!” I certainly felt queasy at the pronouncements of these clerics but it was really appalling to notice that it was the lawyers — the professionals educated and trained to apply the law — who were leading this frenzy of joy at killing someone. But worse than the rank and file of lawyers has been their leadership. After remaining in the limelight for almost four years, the top leadership of lawyers has disappeared into thin air when the situation demanded their presence and opinion the most. Some have declined to be quoted on or off the record and others have made wishy-washy statements about how those who support the anti-blasphemy law should have proceeded against Salmaan Taseer under the law (rather than assassinating him). I could not help but recall La Nausée. Jean Paul Sartre had accurately written: “The Nausea is not inside me…I am the one who is within it.”

However, to let the clergy and its cohorts in the media and lawyers’ community define what Salmaan Taseer’s faith was, if he is martyr or not and whether or not section 295(C) of the Pakistan Penal Code applied to him, would be an injustice to the departed soul and the cause he died for. To let these hordes be the judge, jury and the executioner would be the exact opposite of what Salmaan Taseer stood for. They have succeeded in killing Salmaan Taseer but must not be allowed to lynch him posthumously.

Over the last week, Salmaan Taseer’s many interviews given to both the print and electronic media have been reproduced. Not once did one hear him make any other claim about his own faith save to profess his belief in Islam and the Prophet (PBUH). But what is faith or imaan in the context of religious beliefs? All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that there are two aspects of imaan, i.e. iqrar bil-lisaan (to profess one’s faith verbally) and tasdeeq bil-qalb (to feel this conviction of faith in one’s heart). Unless any of the mullahs who called for Salmaan Taseer’s blood are willing to claim divine attributes and know what was in his heart, we only have his word to go by. And that word has been nothing but an affirmation of his faith.

So where does that leave Salmaan Taseer’s killer, Mumtaz Qadri — who has formally confessed to a court, the lawyers showering rose-petals on him and the media covering the sordid episode? Not in a very enviable situation, as far as the Holy Quran is concerned. The Quran says very clearly in Surah an-Nisa (4:93): “Anyone who kills a believer on purpose, his retribution is Hell, wherein he abides forever, Allah is angry with him, and condemns him, and has prepared for him a terrible retribution.”

But sections of the media keep egging Qadri and his ilk on. Writing for an Urdu language contemporary, Mr Ansar Abbasi claims that the Holy Quran prescribes harsh or capital punishment for blasphemy. He has used the Arabic word Nusoos (singular nus) or clear injunctions for the verses he has cited in support of his claim. I submit to Mr Abbasi and his kind that according to Hazrat Ayesha Siddiqua’s (RA) count, the Holy Quran has 6,666 ayaat (verses), out of which 514 are muhkamaat or straightforward verses. But in the context of Islamic jurisprudence, the muhkamaat (verbal noun in plural) mean more than just straightforward, as these verses essentially are judgements and decisions. The term is applied to all clearly decided verses of the Quran, especially those concerning legal rulings, which prescribe or proscribe the conduct of the believers. The verses that are allegorical or not agreed upon are called mutashabihaat. The Holy Quran does not contain one single ayat about punishment for blasphemy but does say something in Surah Aal-e-Imran about who twists the Quran’s word (3:7): “He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses — which constitute the essence of the scripture — as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbour doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except Allah and those well founded in knowledge. They say, ‘We believe in this — all of it comes from our Lord.’ Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.”

The Quranic term in the above noted verse, used for those with well-founded knowledge of the Quran, is Rasikhoona-fil-ilm and it certainly does not allude to those chaos-mongers who are writing columns in support of a murderer. The relationship between the fascists and the media is very old. In 1948, the Indo-Pakistan Islam League of Allama Mashriqi had offered to pay Rs 3 a pop to the columnists who would support its cause. Incidentally, this cause included an agenda similar to the present-day religio-political outfits of Pakistan. Many journalists have been embedded with the Taliban and their antecedents for quite some time but, perhaps, the difference today is that the forces opposed to their hate mongering now have weak knees. It has fallen upon the shoulders of Bilawal Zardari, who is not even in practical politics, to be the saving grace of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). To him one must say well-done, young man. And to Salmaan Taseer one would say that you took a principled stand and died a proud man. He is not just shaheed (martyr) but a content soul for whom the Almighty Himself says in Surah al-Fajr (89:27-30): “As for you, O content soul. Return to your Lord, pleased and pleasing. Welcome into My servants. Welcome into My Paradise.”

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com

The blasphemy law - Ikram Sehgal - Thursday, January 13, 2011

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

Blasphemy laws in the South Asian Subcontinent are nothing new. While there was no concept of blasphemy in Hinduism, such laws in practice during the Moghul Era were repealed by the British colonial to allow Christian missionaries to proselytise. However, in 1860 the commission chaired by Lord Macaulay made the law again part of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as Section 295, which gave protection to places of worship, scriptures and personages of all religions of India. Sections 295-A and 295-B were inserted in 1927. These prescribed punishment for outraging the religious feelings of any class or religious group with deliberate and malicious intentions. On independence in 1947, this became part of Pakistan’s Penal Code (PPC). While blasphemy laws exist in many countries in the world, Pakistan perhaps has the strictest blasphemy laws even among Muslim-majority states.

Seeking to secure support among the middle class, and mainly among religious radicals, Gen Ziaul Haq accelerated the Islamisation process. Several new sections relating to religious offences were added to the PPC, almost all made by presidential decree. Inserted in 1980, Section 298-A made the use of derogatory remarks in respect of persons revered in Islam an offence punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment. This law was amended further in 1982, as 295-B, by presidential ordinance. The amendment extended it to defilement of the Holy Quran. “Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran, or of an extract therefrom, or uses it in any derogatory manner for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.”

In 1986, anything defiling the person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was mad a criminal offence. Article 295-C read: “Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled in October 1990 that “the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet...is death, and nothing else,” and directed the federal government to effect the necessary legal changes in accordance with the ruling. (The decisions of the FSC, under Article 203-D of the Constitution, are binding on the government, which may, however, appeal against such decisions to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, whose decision is final.) When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif did not file an appeal against the FSC decision, the death penalty became mandatory for blasphemy.

Following protests by national and international human-rights organisations against what they perceived to be abuses of the blasphemy laws, Benazir Bhutto’s government intended in early 1994 to introduce two procedural changes to lessen the possibility of abuse of Section 295-C, a formal authorisation by a judicial magistrate being required before a complaint of blasphemy could be registered and arrests made. A false allegation of blasphemy would itself be made a criminal offence to be punished with up to seven years’ imprisonment.

Ms Bhutto, and later President Pervez Musharraf, were unable to bring even slight changes to the law. Hard-line religious leaders organised street protests and issued dire warnings against making any changes. Ms Bhutto, amid widespread strikes and protests across Pakistan against any changes to the blasphemy laws, backtracked on May 28, 1995, declaring that her government had only envisaged procedural changes, and added: “We will not amend the law.”

Controversy over the law flared up after MNA Sherry Rehman of the Pakistan People’s Party tabled a bill in November calling for end to the death penalty for blasphemy after Aasia Bibi, a Christian, was sentenced to hang. Aasia Bibi was arrested in June 2009 after Muslim women labourers refused to drink from a bowl of water that she was asked to fetch while working in the fields. Days later, the women complained that she made derogatory remarks about the Prophet (PBUH). Aasia Bibi was set upon by a mob, arrested by the police and sentenced. Sherry Rehman has been receiving death threats for speaking out. Politicians and conservative clerics have been at loggerheads over whether Aasia Bibi should be pardoned. Following Salmaan Taseer’s assassination, Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani announced on Jan 9 that “we have no intentions to amend this law.”

There is nothing wrong with the blasphemy law, since it keeps our society from disintegrating into vigilantism. Moreover, it does not target non-Muslims alone, of the 647 or so brought to trial since 1991, less than 50 per cent were non-Muslims. Only a handful have been condemned to death, and no one has been executed. However, some have been murdered, being victims of “vigilante justice.” Unless the laws for bearing false witness are made stronger and effective, vigilante incidents like the brutal murder of Salmaan Taseer at the hands of his security guard will increase.

The PPC must introduce draconian punishments for bearing false witness. My article, “Perjury” (Feb 12, 2010), said that “giving false statements under oath is perjury plain and simple, and perjury is a punishable offence. The Oxford Dictionary defines perjury as ‘an act of wilfully telling an untruth when on oath,’ and goes on to use the words, ‘lying, mendacity, mendaciousness, falsification, deception, untruthfulness, dishonesty, duplicity.’ In simple terms, a perjurer is a criminal and must be treated as one.” In most countries, perjury carries exemplary punishment, ruthless enough for people to try and avoid giving a statement under oath lest that statement (or part thereof) be detected to be false.

To quote my article “Targeting perjury” (July 15, 2010), “in Pakistan the militants used the facade of religion in Swat... If the whole system is taken to be corrupt and the justice meted out to be unjust and unfair, frustration forces those seeking justice to take the law into their own hands. Loss of faith in the judicial system can become a very potent breeding ground for vigilantes. Social upheaval turning violent can spill over into the Pakistani heartland. In criminal trials, the punishment should be exactly what the accused would have got if the evidence had been held to be correct. If based on the statements of the witnesses committing perjury the accused would go to the gallows, shouldn’t those giving false evidence face the gallows themselves? The judge (or judges) must decide each case of perjury on merit and come down with a heavy hand against perjurers, as well as their manipulators and abettors.”

The punishment for perjury should be the same as the accused would have to face if the he (or she) were found guilty. We must avoid polarising society by fuelling the controversy of amending/changing the blasphemy laws. If the laws are made strong against bearing false witness, miscarriages of justice will not take place, and it will not be confined to blasphemy alone.



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

The rising debt burden - Dr Muhammad Yaqub - Thursday, January 13, 2011

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

According to the Annual Report (2009-2010) of the State Bank of Pakistan, Pakistan’s total public debt increased from Rs4,896 billion at the end of June, 2007 to Rs9,106 billion at the end of June, 2010, almost doubling in three years. Assuming that the total population of Pakistan is 166 million, every Pakistani citizen was burdened with government debt of Rs54,855, about 44 per cent of which was due to be paid in foreign exchange to foreign governments and agencies.

On debt servicing the situation was even bleaker. Debt servicing has become the largest single item of expenditure in the government budget reflecting the combined impact of increase in the volume of domestic and foreign debt, rise in domestic interest rates and depreciation of the rupee. Debt service payments constituted about half of the total current expenditure and consumed about three fourths of gross tax revenues. The amount spent on debt servicing was about three times larger than defence expenditure. It is obvious that debt servicing has now risen to such a high level of current expenditure, and tax revenue has sunk to such a low proportion of GDP, that there is not much manoeuvrability left with the government to effect improvements in the social and economic welfare of the people or to undertake vital development projects except through further resort to borrowing.

The political leadership and public have not as yet grasped the gravity of the situation partly because the Ministry of Finance has kept them in the dark through window dressing of budget documents. For example, external and internal borrowing is labelled in the budget as “external resources” and “internal resources” respectively, and the budget does not explicitly show that government current expenditure is by now far in excess of total revenue, requiring borrowing even to carry out its day-to-day activities.

From an economic point of view, borrowing in itself is not good or bad. It is the use and level of it that make it so. If, like in the private sector, borrowing is kept within manageable limits and used to build capital base and increase production, it could generate enough income to pay back the debt as well as to leave a surplus. However, public sector borrowing is wasted on unproductive consumption expenditure, and some of it is siphoned off through corruption and misappropriation.

Increase in debt burden without a corresponding expansion of the revenue base and of exports has lead to a high rate of inflation and balance of payments difficulties. More borrowing will only extenuate these problems. Therefore, it is imperative that a sensible debt management strategy is adopted to address this growing menace. Such a strategy needs to have the following elements:

First, the present practice of rubber stamping by legislators of the budgets produced by the executive branch must be replaced by their careful scrutiny and approval. The executive branch of the government, both at the centre and in provinces, should be bound through legislation by respective assemblies to keep their internal and external borrowing within the annual limits carefully set by them. The assemblies should set such limits after proper scrutiny of the revenue resources and expenditure plans at all government levels and the balance of payment outlook for the country. More importantly, governments should make a quarterly report to their respective assemblies and to the public in general to confirm adherence to such limits. Additionally, resort to inflationary financing of the budget should be limited by the SBP by using effectively its existing legal authority to determine and enforce government borrowing from it – and this authority should not be taken away from the SBP under any pretext, giving Ministry of Finance more elbow room to force the SBP to print more currency notes.

Second, the government at all levels must cut its wasteful consumption expenditure to create space for development activities financed from public savings. There is no justification for keeping on government pay role a herd of ministers, advisers and ambassadors whose marginal productivity is negative for the country. Careless spending on foreign trips, lavish parties and extravagant inauguration functions at government expense need to be stopped. Similarly, import of expensive bullet proof cars and other equipment for the protection of those at the helm of affairs cannot guarantee their security as much as a serious effort to eradicate poverty, reduce unemployment, and minimise frustration and anger of the rest of the population against the conspicuous life style of the ruling elite.

Third, the government should undertake major tax reform to improve the direct tax base, increase tax elasticity and improve tax equity. At present, the government relies heavily on indirect taxes which are inflationary in their impact and regressive by their nature.

The government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich has not been willing to broaden the direct revenue base where taxes can be collected according to the ability to pay and can be so restructured as to promote horizontal and vertically equity. Horizontal equity means that people at the same income level must pay similar taxes regardless of the source of their income. Vertical equity means that marginal rates should rise with rise in income so that richer people pay proportionately more taxes than the poor ones. In Pakistan both of these sound taxation principles are violated, making it one of the most regressive and inelastic tax system in the world. At the same time concrete policy measures may be adopted to reduce the size of the underground economy which is reported to have become equivalent to about 55(of what?????) of recorded economy and remains beyond the reach of tax net.

Fourth, all proceeds from the sale of national assets should by law be mandated to be used only for retirement of the expensive domestic debt and not wasted on additional expenditure. If privatisation proceeds were used for this purpose in the last two decades, domestic debt serving would have declined significantly opening up fiscal space for larger development programs financed from own resources.

Fifth, inflation has contributed to rising debt servicing both through higher nominal interest rates and depreciation of the rupee. Control on inflation is essential not only to protect the poor but also to spare the budget from rising debt servicing that is caused by inflation.

Finally, the government should throw away its begging bowl and replace it by austerity in expenditure and sound economic planning to achieve self reliance and restore national pride. The country should use its frontline status in the war against terror to seek debt relief, debt write off and grants from donors who benefit from sacrifices of the people and soldiers of Pakistan, rather than to get more interest bearing loans which add to the long run debt servicing and balance of payments problems.

Whatever combination of measures is adopted one thing should be clear. Unlike in the past, debt servicing cannot, and should not, be “financed” by incurring more debt if further damage to the economy and stability and sovereignty of the country are to be avoided.



The writer is a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan

Routed by choiceI. - A Rehman - January 13, 2011

Source : www.dawn.com

POLITICS in Pakistan is more unpredictable than a game of cricket, even that of the local variety. The affair of Mian Nawaz Sharif`s ultimatum to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and the latter`s celebration of his capitulation is fit to be included in the legends.

Barely a week ago, Mian Nawaz Sharif gave Mr Gilani two ultimatums. First, the prime minister was asked to say `yes` or `no` to the PML-N chief`s 10-point plan, drawn up by him in his discretion. In case the answer was not in the affirmative, the PPP was to be thrown out of the Punjab government. Secondly, if the prime minister said `yes`, he was to fulfil the PML-N demands, artfully described as a “reform package”, within 45 days. Failing this he was to suffer, in the words of an over-excited reporter, “political liquidation”. Jo chahay aap ka husn-i-karishma saz karey.

The moment the prime minister threw his hands up in surrender, the PML-N chief was reported to have said that no ultimatum had ever been issued by him because the word `ultimatum` was never used by him. Indeed, he is quoted as saying that this word does not figure in his dictionary. Further, now that Mr Gilani has said `yes`, the PPP can stay in the Punjab government.

However, the PML-N leader`s part in the skit has been overshadowed by the prime minister`s haste in handing the challenger a complete walk-over.

One does not know to what extent the two leaders were free agents in the final phase of this affair but assuming that they were reasonably free, they could have reduced the cost to their political reputations.

There is much to be said in favour of a government`s attempts to build democracy through dialogue with all opponents. The government`s willingness to establish a process of consultation with a three-member PML-N panel can also be welcomed because it could be presented as a move towards governance under a bipartisan understanding. But politics is not that simple an affair. It may not be long before the prime minister realises that he has struck a one-sided bargain against himself and his party. Now, the PML-N will get the credit for any progress on realising the 10 objectives listed by its chief while it will not be liable for any failures — for these, the government alone will be blamed.

The only explanation for the prime minister`s press conference last Sunday is that Mian Nawaz Sharif threw a bouncer at him and instead of having the stamina to stay at the wicket, he panicked and declared himself out. In the event, the prime minister reinforced the impression that his government is weaker than it appears to be and that his party is mortally afraid of losing ministries, not only at the centre but in Punjab also.

It is difficult to imagine why the premier chose to expose his loss of nerve instead of exercising the options that were available to him. To begin with, he might have tested the PML-N`s capacity to carry out its threat and its possible consequences. Then, he could have held a proper consultation with his parliamentary party and the coalition allies. Neither the telephone calls he made before the press briefing nor his conversation (if any) with President Asif Zardari could be held as a substitute for consensus-based decision-making in a parliamentary form of government, which is different from both the presidential and prime ministerial systems.

A little reflection should have brought home to Mr Gilani the advantage of informing Mian Nawaz Sharif that the latter`s 10 points were part of the PPP`s, and indeed all democratic groups`, broader agenda, which included another 10 or more people-friendly reform items. Why should the government create the impression that popular ideas cannot originate from its councils?

The ruling party`s acrobatics for saving its government at any price and the way it is soliciting support from anyone who challenges it call for a discussion on political parties` fear of fighting an election while outside the chambers of power. The regularity and diligence with which elections have been manipulated have convinced the political elite that a party can win elections only when it is in power. It was this conviction that led to the demand that a general election must always be organised by neutral caretakers, although neutral caretakers have never been found. This is something all political parties, especially those who signed the Charter of Democracy, should address. They should sign a compact that they will jointly struggle to make any election manipulation impossible and that a party that is out of power today can hope to capture power at the next elections.

The response to the PML-N`s ultimatum apart, the prime minister`s other observations on Sunday should have caused concern. His statement on the blasphemy law might have been understandable in the prevalent situation but could easily have been accompanied with a firm policy announcement that the government will not tolerate lawlessness and that those guilty of violence or instigation to violence will be dealt with severely.

Further, the prime minister`s reference to expediting the privatisation of some property to meet the financial crunch suggests that the government is still following a bad feudal`s ways of generating resources: by selling land or family heirlooms, or borrowing from the moneylender. There is no reference to any plan to cut down the state`s non-productive expenditure, or to any move to control the profligate among the political and bureaucratic bigwigs. Money that is raised or borrowed will again be thrown into a bottomless pit and the crisis will worsen.

It is perhaps time the government tried to be a little unselfish and looked at the worst victims of the economic crisis — the millions of self-employed machine-users, petty vendors and other workers whose life has been destroyed by the disruption of their work due to fuel shortages. Let the wastage of scarce resources on the import of cars and luxury items be stopped and oil and gas imported so that the underprivileged can make a modest living and also contribute to the revival of the national economy.

Nobody will blame the government for making up with its political opponents so long as it does not ignore the interests of the ordinary citizens — the real masters of the fate of the government and the opposition both.

Hate crimes and their aftermath - Mahir Ali - January 12, 2011

Source : www.dawn.com

LATE last year, a 22-year-old by the name of Jared Lee Loughner walked into a store that sold hunting equipment and picked out a semi-automatic handgun.

A record of mental instability apparently did not stand in the way of that transaction in Tucson, Arizona. Last Saturday, Loughner took the weapon to where his local congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was informally meeting constituents.

He shot Giffords through the head, then turned his attention to the small crowd around her. By the time he ran out of bullets, six people lay dead or dying and another 14 had been injured. At the time of writing, Giffords was still fighting for her life. The fatalities included a federal judge and, most poignantly of all, nine-year-old Christina Taylor Greene. Christina was born on Sept 11, 2001. She had been elected to her school council, and her mother had arranged for her presence at the congresswoman’s public appearance in order to afford her a glimpse of democracy in action.

Recriminations have flowed freely in the wake of the bloodshed, with the Tea Party and associated politicians and media personalities being accused of contributing to random acts of lunacy such as Loughner’s through their bitter and twisted invective against the Obama administration and Democrats in general. The fact that Giffords’s congressional district was among those depicted through crosshairs as targets last year on one of Sarah Palin’s webpages has inevitably occasioned a great deal of comment.

Not even the vilest talk-show host in America, however, has thus far hailed Loughner as a hero or blamed Giffords for tempting fate by supporting Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation. Palin and various other prominent Republicans have issued statements saying they are praying for Giffords and her family. They haven’t apologised for their role in poisoning the political discourse, but hints of contrition could arguably be read into their defensiveness.

Nothing of the sort was on display in Karachi at the weekend when Maulana Fazlur Rahman — whose party until recently was a member of the ruling coalition in Islamabad, and who not long ago sought the US ambassador’s imprimatur as a potential prime minister — told a rally in favour of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws that “Salman Taseer himself is responsible for his assassination.”

It would have been possible to ignore the odd unsound mullah, but a veritable confederacy of dunces has emerged in this particular context. Perhaps it still wouldn’t have mattered that much had it been only the mullahs. But a vox pop by the BBC on the streets of Karachi in the immediate aftermath of the Punjab governor’s murder last week revealed little or no sympathy for the victim. Outside a court in the federal capital, meanwhile, his killer was showered with rose petals by a crowd of seminary students and lawyers.

That’s right, lawyers. Who are supposed to have gained some sort of education in the process of acquiring that nomenclature. Who are supposed to have some sort of respect for the universally uncontroversial law against murder. In comparable circumstances in most parts of the world, it is sometimes a bit of a task to track down a legal practitioner willing to defend the perpetrator. In Obscurantistan, no public prosecutor could be found to grace the preliminary hearing.

Then there were all those Facebook pages that cropped up in support not of the fallen governor, but of the bigot who slew him, and the numerous users of the social networking site who switched their profile pictures to Mumtaz Qadri’s unpleasant visage. Compare that with the reaction to the massacre at a Coptic church in Alexandria in the early hours of New Year’s Day, which reportedly prompted a considerable number of Egyptian Muslims to change their profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent.

That wasn’t all. It has also been reported that a campaign based on the slogan ‘We either live together or we die together’ instigated thousands of Muslims to turn up at Coptic Christmas services throughout Egypt last Thursday night amid tight security precautions by the authorities. There is some cause for scepticism: virtually all references to this event are sourced to a single website, Ahram Online. One would have thought such an event would be much more widely covered. I nonetheless hope it’s substantially true, if only as a partial antidote to the increasingly toxic approach towards minorities in predominantly Muslim countries, most notably Egypt and Iraq.

And, of course, Pakistan, where Taseer faced a fusillade from one of the men assigned to protect him (while the latter’s colleagues — possibly confederates — evidently made no attempt to stop him), ostensibly for his very public support of Aasia Bibi, a poor Christian woman condemned to death on a blasphemy charge. It was a courageous stance to adopt in a clearly hostile milieu. Taseer’s designation of the blasphemy legislation as a black law apparently sufficed for the controversial governor to be portrayed as a blasphemer himself. That this ridiculous conclusion could be reached by such a large proportion of Pakistanis provides profound cause for despair.

There are, of course, vast differences between the political situations of Pakistan, Egypt and the US, and one would not expect hate crimes to provoke identical reactions in all three countries. Yet the revulsion deficit — not to mention the blatant triumphalism of fear-mongering fundamentalists — is extremely alarming indeed.

The likes of Imran Khan point most of the blame to the American military presence in Afghanistan and attacks on Pakistan’s northern areas. That isn’t complete nonsense: post-9/11 developments have undoubtedly exacerbated tensions and served as a recruitment tool for all manner of jihadist outfits. But let’s not forget that the latent fundamentalism was there to be exploited. Or that Gen Ziaul Haq found fertile soil in which to sow his noxious seeds, which were bound in time to bear a strange and bitter crop.

So let’s stop making excuses. External factors cannot be discounted, but Pakistan will sink or swim on its own strengths. And weaknesses. For the moment, the overpowering stench of fear does not bode well at all.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Rebuilding lives - Zubeida Mustafa - January 12, 2011

Source : www.dawn.com

THE year 2010 will go down in history as the year of the great deluge when the fury of the Indus devastated large tracts of land, sending 1,600 people to a watery grave.

Unlike the earthquake of 2005 the worst wasn’t over after the floods peaked in September. Problems lingered on as greater misery followed.

How did Pakistan cope with this crisis? We got partial feedback on the question at the eleventh Akhter Hameed Khan Forum held recently in Karachi to honour the memory of the great social activist whose legacy lives on. It is heartening that four institutions — the Orangi Pilot Project-Research and Training Institute, the Orangi Charitable Trust, the Karachi Health and Social Development Association, and the Rural Development Trust — continue to spread the message of their founder.

These institutions help to provide service to the people on the basis of self-reliance and the principle of work with dignity. The forum focused on the experiences of OPP’s partners — more than 150 community-based and non-government organisations — in flood relief and rehabilitation operations.

The participants had many stories to tell; stories that inspire and also stories that sadden. What gives hope for the future are the accounts of the resilience of flood survivors. They incurred huge losses but continue to fight back. They still have to be rehabilitated fully while life has not been normalised since many of the survivors lost their source of livelihood. Many lessons emerge from this calamity, not just in disaster management but also about human nature.

When disaster strikes, people have learned not to wait for the government agencies to come to their rescue. The victims draw on their own reserves of energy and initiative to tide over the crisis. The immediate relief and assistance they have received has been from fellow citizens and not the slow-moving official agencies that have bureaucratic red tape to cross before they reach the people on the ground. Then there are middlemen diverting a chunk of the funds, which only makes the operation resource-starved.

The fact is that people have learnt to manage in these dire times. But the government is still needed because there are not enough resources on the ground and the bigger projects that cater collectively to the needs of a community require massive funding that individuals do not possess. It has been seen that when the community displays self-reliance and tries to help itself, private donors have stepped forward to extend a helping hand. In fact this holds true for any development project undertaken with integrity and which is feasible. One would, however, prefer it if an honest government that cares were to be the saviour.

It also emerged from the speeches at the forum that relief and rescue work at the grassroots can be undertaken if a community service infrastructure is already in position when disaster strikes. Volunteers simply expand their operations to undertake more duties. This exercise enhances their confidence and helps them test their potential. But it is simply not possible for anyone to create a structure out of nothingness to provide assistance at short notice.

That is why in any area where the administration barely exists or is ineffective not much can be achieved. This also shows why the local government is so important for a country as expansive as Pakistan. A good local government provides the structures at the grassroots.

The most worrying message to emerge from this exercise was that there is a disconnect between the community and the state. The latter is simply not responding to the needs of the people and is not in a state of preparedness to meet the needs of the population.

Why is this a seminal issue that requires Pakistan to seriously rethink its approach to public governance? By leaving people in isolation with no links to the state we have yielded public space to extremist, orthodox elements that are playing havoc with the nation. They are attempting to fill the vacuum by providing services such as healthcare, education, shelter, etc. By interacting continuously with the people their charities have penetrated a large section of the population to win hearts and minds.

The liberals — they are not insignificant in number — have responded overwhelmingly to the state’s failure not by providing alternative options to the people but by adopting an advocacy role that seeks to push the state into reforming itself, which it does not have the capacity or the will to do. This creates space for the fanatics who gain ground by default.

The OPP, however, also has something to teach us. By engaging with the people on the popular level with dignity and providing them support in their developmental efforts, organisations can show them the path of enlightenment. When I asked the OPP-RTI director Parveen Rehman about the reaction of her community workers to the horrendous killing of the Punjab governor last week and the vociferous debate on the blasphemy law that has ensued, she told me that there was not a single one of the CBOs who she worked with that approved of this fanatical act. The consensus among the stakeholders is that everyone has the right to hold his own opinion on any issue and no one has the right to kill another person.

All partners who work with the OPP-RTI may not see eye to eye with one another on every issue, but extremism of any kind is totally unacceptable to them. Busy as they are rebuilding the lives of people drowned in poverty in this world, they have learnt the values of compassion and humanism that leaves them no time to enter into arguments on questions that seem so irrelevant to their day-to-day problems. Moreover, someone who is investing his energies in sustaining life would not want to destroy it.

zubeidam2@gmail.com