Side-effect Harris Khalique Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=39300&Cat=9

Punjabis understand what a shareeka is. Your first cousin who shares a claim to property and family land. If you happen to be a Muslim, he could become your brother-in-law as well. There is a Sindhi word kaandhi, idiomatically used for kith and kin who you may like or dislike but they are so close that they would be the ones to carry your coffin on their shoulders. If that sounds a bit morose, there is another word in Punjabi, jaanji. Those relatives who will be a part of your wedding procession anyway because the grandmother or the eldest uncle in the family has sent them a sadda (invite) to attend your marriage. It doesn’t matter whatsoever if you are personally at odds with them. Pakistan and India besides other countries in South Asia are each other’s shareekas, kaandhis and jaanjis.

Here, I use the term ‘South Asia’ rather than ‘Indian subcontinent’ because that’s considered politically correct and mutually acceptable to all foreign offices in the region. My preferred term would be the latter one though. Why? Because the word India comes from the river that is the bloodline of Pakistan, the mighty Indus. And the Republic of India is one of successor states of the great civilisations and empires that flourished in this part of the world not the sole successor. The sovereignty of the states is not undermined if we own up to a common civilisation, accepting its variations and choosing to prefer one trend over the other in shaping our social preferences. What is more important is to learn from both the rights and wrongs committed by powers that be in our shared history.

Mohali was a success. The Indian Prime Minister’s generous invitation was graciously accepted by the Pakistani Prime Minister and a deadlock at the highest political plain was broken. Talks had resumed at the foreign office level recently but this show of mutual respect by heads of governments was necessary to realise a rapprochement between the two countries. No harm in repeating here that the premise of partition of British India was to bring peace to the region, not a constant state of war. But yes, there are wounds inflicted on each other by both India and Pakistan over the last 63 years. These wounds have to be healed. Just, equitable and peaceful solutions to all outstanding problems have to be sought and implemented. For this, we need statesmanship, trust and patience. Most periods of our history have seen more than one kingdom or states in the region, both feuding and cooperating. But they traded goods and exchanged knowledge all along. That is where we begin.

Pakistan has to sort out its internal issues surrounding shabby economic performance, unbridled religious extremism, rising political violence and mediocre governance. India must also not retract from its diplomatic overture now. They need to understand well that an unstable South Asia can bring them down as quickly as they are going up. With 400 million living below the poverty line in their country, the Indian leadership has to be more sagacious. The dream of becoming a super power is a little distant still. SAARC countries have to be taken along and the trust deficit that they have with countries other than Pakistan has to be removed as well.

As far as the cricket match is concerned, when you drop Tendulkar four times, convert doubles into boundaries, have both the dodgy Akmal brothers in the side, and let Misbah-ul-Haq bat with a cigar in his mouth, what else would you expect?



The writer is an Islamabad-based poet, author and public policy advisor. Email: harris. khalique@gmail.com

EDITORIAL: Mohali: winning hearts and minds - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_1

March 30 was a day everyone in the subcontinent and cricket lovers all over the world had been waiting for. The semi-final between India and Pakistan lived up to the cricketing hype. It was a match full of twists and turns. When India made 260 runs after batting in the first innings, many people thought the target was ‘gettable’ while others predicted that Pakistan’s batting would collapse as has happened many times in the past. The latter prediction came true. Even as our bowlers did their job well in restricting the solid Indian batting to an achievable target, our batsmen could not deliver the goods. This is not to say that the fault lies with the batsmen alone. Our main strike bowler, Umar Gul, did not fire on the day; in fact he misfired and gave away too many runs. Our spinners did a great job of containment and getting wickets while Wahab Riaz outshone everyone with his excellent bowling. Our fielding was perhaps the worst in this match. While dropping catches and misfielding is a norm for our team, dropping four catches of an ace batsman like Sachin Tendulkar perhaps cost us the match. As far as the batting goes, our top and middle order failed yet again. The Indian team certainly played better cricket and thus came out as the winners of this crucial match. Their bowling was tight and they fielded extremely well.

Winning or losing is part and parcel of the game. What mattered was the spirit in which it was played. It was heartening to see the camaraderie between the Indians and the Pakistanis — on the field by our players and off it between the spectators. Generally it can be viewed as a match played not to the best of their abilities by the Pakistani players but it was played in the best of spirits for sure. Despite our disappointment with the end result, it was taken in good spirit on both sides. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Gilani’s discussions went well. Mr Gilani has invited Mr Singh and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi to Pakistan. Both prime ministers are determined to take the peace process forward.

The excitement this match created led to some post-match anger but thankfully it was restricted to a few people only. The media went overboard in creating such hype about this match when it was just a game that had to be played as a game only. The good thing is that this match and the ongoing dialogue process have restarted the process of normalisation of relations between the two neighbours. Captain of the Pakistan cricket team, Shahid Afridi, who rules the hearts of Pakistanis, was able to win millions of hearts across the border. His post-match speech and press conference was not just graceful and full of sportsman’s spirit but his charm and wit bowled over many a heart. Afridi congratulated the Indian team and their nation. He did not need to do it but he also apologised to the Pakistani nation. “I want to say sorry to my nation. We tried our level best but could not make it,” said Afridi. Pakistan is proud to have reached the semi-final in the World Cup and Afridi and our Men in Green have made us all proud.

Now that the World Cup is over, we must start the process of rebuilding our cricket team in preparation for the impending revival of international cricket on our soil. Shoaib Akhtar has bid adieu to cricket; other old warhorses should also give way to fresh blood. Our team should not be selected on past laurels but based on merit and form. PCB Chairman Ijaz Butt said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has given the go ahead for the Indian team to visit Pakistan for a cricket series. This would truly be a welcome initiative. Cricket is a passion that unites Pakistan. Let’s bring it back to our soil! *

SECOND EDITORIAL: Fazlur Rehman targeted

Even though terror attacks in Pakistan have become routine, their shock remains a fact of life. The latest attacks, though, have reached new heights. The target of two attacks in less than 24 hours is none other than the ‘father’ of hardline and militant Islam in Pakistan: Maulana Fazlur Rehman. On Wednesday, the convoy of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F) was ripped through by a suicide bomber on the Peshawar-Islamabad motorway near Swabi in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The JUI-F leader got away unharmed but 13 died and 21 were injured. Yesterday, this same convoy — which was on a contact drive — was targeted by another suicide bomber in Charsadda, killing another 12 people. Again Fazlur Rehman survived the attack but he has now been made painfully aware of the fact that someone has it in for him.

At first glance, it seems quite inconceivable that the militants would target a leader and his party whose ideas are congruous with those of the terrorists. Maulana Fazlur Rehman has always supported the ideology and cause of the militants who have been attacking Pakistan’s security establishment, minorities, shrines and people of liberal views. However, it is slowly becoming apparent that the extremists are a breed apart, one that is now beginning to turn on its benefactors of yesteryear. Colonel Imam, who was at one time known as the ‘godfather of the Taliban’, was brutally executed some time ago by the same militants he had helped nurture in the 1990s. Now, it seems as if the Maulana is in their crosshairs.

It is the classic case of the rebellious child turning on its ‘parents’. The latter too are beginning to realise that the monsters they have nurtured are now challenging the writ of the Pakistan state instead of confining themselves to the struggle in Afghanistan. The child of militancy belongs to no one and will continue to bite the hand that once fed it if concrete action is not taken to wipe it out. These two assassination attempts on JUI-F’s chief — even a hardliner like Fazl might be considered too soft by the militants — are proof that the terrorists are now turning on their masters; it is up to the fathers and godfathers to obliterate the Frankenstein monsters they have created. 

VIEW: Arab Revolution and social networking sites —Lokesh Vishwakarma - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_6

VIEW: Arab Revolution and social networking sites —Lokesh Vishwakarma

As the crusade for democracy and basic human rights rages on, today’s youth have a lot of tools at their disposal which the earlier crusaders did not possess. The internet has become a conduit for disseminating the idea of democracy, which was till now alien to the Arab civilisation

From Morocco to Yemen, the Arab world is burning, and fuelling this fire of change is the 21st century panacea, i.e. ‘the social networks’. These agents of change helped the Arab civilisation achieve what they could not for decades in just a few days or weeks. Be it Facebook, Twitter, Google or the blogosphere, they have found themselves central to the action in an unprecedented way. Let us take a look at how some of these new found tools have spurred the actions on the ground.

#Sidibouzid, a Twitter hashtag, gave rise to a movement that toppled not only the Ben Ali regime but also inspired a dozen other mutinies. The picture of Mohammed Bouazizi, the youth who set himself on fire in the Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid in protest against unemployment and official harassment spread like wildfire on YouTube and other social media. This was for the first time that the internet spawned a feeling of enough is enough among the Tunisians.

Soon after Tunisia happened, Egypt was getting ready to herald in a new dawn of democracy, the first salvo being the “We are all Khaled Said” Facebook page. Khaled Said was the young Egyptian man who was beaten to death by the police in June 2010. The online activists began protest groups with Khaled as their ‘martyr’. Some anonymous activist also came up with the Arabic version of the Facebook page, who was later revealed as Google executive Wael Ghonim. #Jan25 made its presence felt on Twitter, the day Wael called for young Egyptians to take to the streets. Twitter was abuzz with videos, pictures, data and links tagged with #Jan25, which became an effective way to group together online information about the protest. The influence of social networking was such that an Egyptian man named his newly born child “Facebook”. By now one thing was very clear: the social networking websites had become a force to reckon with.

The events in Tunisia and Egypt inspired a whole generation and Yemen was no different. The “Yemeni Anger Revolution” group has almost 20,000 members on Facebook; those who were not bitten by the social network bug were encouraged to pass on the word via traditional methods like SMS and cards. After the Yemeni government cracked down on the internet, many Yemenis settled outside Yemen shared their contact numbers with their friends and relatives in Yemen in the wake of the internet shutdown to help them share news about Yemen. They tweeted and re-tweeted news and links with the international media.

The hashtag #Feb17 has categorised the Libyan movement and given a fresh identity to the Libyan protest amid unrest across the Arab world. February 17 is the date when the Libyan protest against Colonel Gaddafi began. Information — what little is accessible from the country — has been pouring in on Twitter and YouTube, where activists are uploading news the minute they are able to get online. A dedicated Facebook page for the Libyan Revolution has more than 82,000 members and another key Facebook page by the name of ‘RNN Libya’ has 22,000 members. Libya has caught the fever of internet-driven dissent passed on from their friends in Tunisia and Egypt, as young Libyans are being exposed to the power of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter to voice their opposition to the Gaddafi regime.

Just like the #Feb17 Libyan protest, the Bahraini activists have #Feb14 as their identity on Twitter. Internet providers were shut down and Facebook accounts were deleted across Algeria as thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators were arrested in violent street demonstrations. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s government first cracked down on the internet to nip the protest in the bud.

In Morocco, the Facebook group “Movement of freedom and democracy” has attracted more than 90,000 members. The Iraqis had their own Twitter tag as #iq4c but many of them tagged news of protest in Iraq with #Feb25 so as to reach a larger audience of the internet by linking their cause with other popular revolts.

In Syria, the case is a bit different; people are still learning about the Arab revolution through Facebook, media, Twitter, newspapers and blogs. The Facebook page “Syrian Revolution 2011” has received more than 25,000 followers. People in Syria have slowly started to come out in the open against the Syrian authorities.

As the crusade for democracy and basic human rights rages on, today’s youth have a lot of tools at their disposal which the earlier crusaders did not possess. The internet has become a conduit for disseminating the idea of democracy, which was till now alien to the Arab civilisation. For a change the internet is applauded for its power to influence and change history for the better.

The writer is the National Service Scheme (NSS) leader of KC College and an IT graduate from Mumbai University

COMMENT: IWT 1960 is not delivering —Abdul Basit Khan - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_5

The ‘fairness’ of the Indus Water Treaty is being questioned now. Experts are questioning whether it can address India’s growing use of shared waters and Pakistan’s increasing demand for these waters for agricultural purposes

The US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on Water in South and Central Asia released a stunning report on February 22, 2011, in which it is stated that India is building 33 projects in occupied Kashmir that could enable her to store enough water to limit the supply to Pakistan at “crucial moments” in the growing season. New Delhi is building two hydropower projects — Chutak and Nimoo Bazgo — contested by Pakistan for being constructed in violation of the Indus Water Basin Treaty (IWT) of 1960. These two developments have prompted Islamabad to order three ‘investigations’ into how India was able to secure international credit incentives from the UN for the construction of two hydropower projects on Indus River tributaries in the disputed region of Kashmir. Water has become a growing source of tension between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is a one-river-basin country and all of its hydroelectric power projects come from the Indus. The construction of dozens of additional dams by India — Dulhasti, Dugar, Gondhala, Reoli/Dugli, Sach Khas, Tandi, Teling Tinget, Sawalkot, Seli, Raoli and Kirthal hydropower projects — has tremendously decreased the flow of the western rivers allocated to Pakistan through the IWT. India has commenced work on two other controversial dams on River Chenab named Uri-1 and Uri-2. This is a flagrant breach of the IWT. “There is a high amount of anxiety, and it is not misplaced,” said a senior American official in Islamabad.

Water issues between India and Pakistan arose because the hydraulic system was disrupted by partition (1947) as irrigated areas remained in west Punjab while the main headworks on the rivers and canals irrigating these lands were handed over to India in the newly divided arrangement. The sources of all the five tributaries of the Indus — Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej — remained in India. An understanding on water sharing between the two neigbouring countries formed by partition was clearly necessary. Prolonged negotiations between the two governments, assisted by the World Bank, led to the signing of the IWT in September 1960. According to the IWT, India has exclusive control over the waters of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, whereas Pakistan controls the waters of the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The IWT barred the upper riparian (India) from storing any water or constructing any storage works on the western rivers that would result in reduced flow of water to the lower riparian (Pakistan).

The IWT has acquired a reputation internationally as a successful instance of conflict-resolution and has maintained stability in the region over water for decades. The treaty has been working well despite the difficult political relations between India and Pakistan. Nonetheless, the ‘fairness’ of the treaty is being questioned now. Experts are questioning whether the IWT can address India’s growing use of shared waters and Pakistan’s increasing demand for these waters for agricultural purposes. The treaty barred India from interfering “with the water of these rivers except for domestic use and non-consumptive use, limited agriculture use and limited utilisation for generation of hydro-electric power”. India has interpreted the clauses of the IWT in a way that shows that no single dam along the waters controlled by the IWT will affect Pakistan’s access to water. Indian water experts rationalise their water conquest by saying that, as Pakistan has no proper system for water storage, India has a right to produce power and irrigate its lands. Whether the IWT adapts to these changes or not depends on India. In an article ‘War and peace on the Indus’, published in South Asian Idea, John Briscoe, an expert on South Asia’s water issues at Harvard University, puts the onus on India, demanding that India should be more accommodating and considerate as the upper riparian.

India’s 12th five-year plan (2012-2017) envisages 10 power projects on the Chenab, including the Bursar project, with an installed capacity of 1,020 MW of electricity and a dam height of 829.08 feet. Under the five-year plan, 30,000 MW of hydroelectric power is to be generated. Additional 190 sites having a gross potential of 33,382 MW on the Indus basin falling in the area of Jammu and Kashmir have been identified. Nonetheless, Pakistan has raised the construction of the two hydropower projects — Chutak and Nimoo Bazgo projects — at the Permanent Indus Commission. Under clause 37(b) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it was mandatory for India to get approval from Pakistan before it started getting carbon credits for two controversial hydropower projects. Under the UNFCCC mechanism, carbon credits cannot be granted for a project having cross-boundary environmental impact unless cleared by the relevant countries. India must get the trans-boundary environment impact reports (TEIR) ratified for all upcoming and ongoing projects including hydroelectric dams. The clauses of the IWT are being interpreted based on India’s own national interest.

The number of dams under construction and their management is a source of significant bilateral tension. Currently, the most controversial dam project is the proposed 330 MW dam on the Kishanganga River, a tributary of the Indus. The decrease in flow of water during the sowing season will adversely affect crops. Most hydrologists are of the view that sharp water decline in the flow of the river at Head Marala in Pakistan is due to unauthorised direct water withdrawal by farmers in Jammu with the support of the Indian authorities who had especially subsidised electricity for direct pumping in Jammu and Himachal Pradesh and diversion of the Ravi-Tavi link canal.

In order to resolve these challenges, India must reconsider its decision of suspending the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan. Any major upstream alteration in a river system should be negotiated, not imposed as in the case of Indian water overtures on the rivers Chenab, Jhelum and Indus. As the Salal Dam issue of 1978 was resolved through talks, given the will, the Kishanganga, Bursar and two controversial projects at Chutak and Nimoo Bazgo, can be settled amicably. Once the issues related to water are discussed and settled, it can assist in easing tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. A breakdown in the treaty’s utility could have serious ramifications for regional stability. Therefore, Washington must act as a mediator between the two countries in coaxing India to follow the true spirit of the IWT, which is so critical for the stability of South Asia.

The writer is a freelance columnist

VIEW: Indo-Pak: the obvious road never taken —Zaair Hussain - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_4

VIEW: Indo-Pak: the obvious road never taken —Zaair Hussain

The states, being by their nature rational entities, have no reason to forgo peace, and not only because there is no profit from war. More quality works on the economic, strategic and diplomatic values of Pak-India cooperation have been ignored than perhaps any other subject in recent history

As I wrote the bulk of this article, a humble game of cricket — called the mother of all matches — was bringing the Pakistani and Indian heads of government together for the first time in India since the attacks in Mumbai. The semi-final (with all due respect to Sri Lanka and New Zealand, THE semi-final) loomed just beyond the break of morning. Two nations were electrified with emotion, with excitement and nerves. You could feel it ground itself in the street, and the drawing room, and the workplace. It flashed in every conversation, on every broadcast channel, in every nervous bout of laughter. But no voice lusted after blood. There was a mob — or rather, two mobs, across the impossibly large stretch of the subcontinent — but they were calling for runs and wickets. Commentators and pundits from our two shockingly biased media industries came together, to snipe at each other with words. But only with words.

And as I apply the last touches to this piece, Pakistani hearts were broken and we vowed vengeance — the vengeance of supporting Sri Lanka, and the vengeance of “next time!” We supported and support still our team of ragtag misfits and sports pariahs, and especially our impossibly good natured and charismatic captain, Shahid Khan Afridi, who fulfilled his incredible promise of bringing a battered team to the semi-finals. All in good fun, and not in bad taste. Sometimes serious, never deadly. No fights, no broken ties. Millions across the border — and thousands across the stands in Mohali, split into blazing green and sky blue — had their hearts in their mouths for the best part of a day. A victory, and a loss. No harm, no foul. We make for tragic enemies, but excellent rivals.

Cricket diplomacy works because it plugs into what we have in common, what is a mad everyday passion for us. And indeed, what we have in common in our daily existence is not nearly so split as the far chasm of our abstract grievances.

We glutton ourselves on the same ridiculous fare of Bollywood movies, which often sidestep the brain and go straight to the heart through the gut. Our spices are sharp, our policemen corrupt, our politicians shady. We are fiercely devoted to our parents and yet define our adulthood in rebellion to them. We sprang from the same land and believe in the same herbal remedies, some the distilled wisdom of the ages, some of them the sort of superstitions that would make a voodoo doctor chortle.

We welcome the monsoons like an old and wild friend, and beat a tactical retreat from the advance of summer, that most terrible and regular of invasions.

Our languages are so alike they could be twins, our English — or more often, Minglish — is tinted with a charming lilt that is all our own, we wear saris and kurtas and western clothes with equal aplomb, we hate colonialism but love colonial leftovers and make them our own.

Our cities and villages have stood, in some cases, for thousands of years. Buildings from the Rajas, the Mughals and the British rub shoulders in a proud but easy stance. They are tapestries of history, each age with its own distinct thread, the whole creating something unique.

People to people contact, what is known in the oddly dramatic language of bureaucracy as “Track-II” diplomacy, is required for both countries to move forward. This is not a matter of building bridges, but of tearing down walls. There is an important distinction. Bridges are manmade devices to knit people across a natural crevice. Walls are manmade devices to split people across a natural unity.

The states, being by their nature rational entities, have no reason to forgo peace, and not only because there is no profit from war. More quality works on the economic, strategic and diplomatic values of Pak-India cooperation have been ignored than perhaps any other subject in recent history.

Democracy in Pakistan — unbroken democracy, suffering as many fools as the ludicrously corrupt parties throw at us — must be allowed its painful growth; what is good for the state may not be in the interests of the near omnipotent army, whose ideological power rests on having a blank cheque issued by the people of Pakistan, out of fear and hate for our neighbour.

But we are no longer tribes or city states, who have the luxury of enmity in seclusion, on a whim. Our enmity on a person to person level makes little sense, and benefits only the worst of us, the Shiv Sena and our own extremists (and their sympathisers), small men who can gain power only through spreading a hateful pack of lies that, for all the differences the groups would claim between each other, are near perfect replicas: that the “other” is unclean, impure, inhuman, that difference is enmity, that infinite violence is eternal justice, that the “they” are all the same, and that there exists no corridor, but only a line, between “with us” and “against us”.

If we cannot be friends, let us at least do business. I do not ask anyone to open their hearts to love — that is their own business — but to open their minds to opportunity.

A basic first step has to come from the independent media of both countries, which, stunningly, are more jingoistic than their state counterparts. “The other” is a pathetically easy target, playing to the worst instincts of the domestic audience. For the most ephemeral short term gain, we do ourselves the most grievous lasting injury. They have to talk to one another, even if the conversation is pointed and jeering.

In the worst times, anti-other hysteria domestically reaches McCarthyism levels and liberals, who would be the balance, have the centre shift beneath their feet and are looked upon with disgust, and face accusations of unpatriotic thinking.

A patriotism defined by exclusion — “I am X because I despise Y” — is by its nature weak. A true patriot may lay down his life for his country, but never as first resort, for armed conflict beggars and butchers all, including our own, whom we claim to love.

All it took was a cricket match to melt our enmity and reveal the rivalry beneath. Perhaps because the borders between us, hewn out of hate, are far more fragile than our worst would have us all believe.

The writer is a Lahore-based freelance columnist. He can be reached at zaairhussain@gmail.com

VIEW: Democracy and addressing public issues —Nizamuddin Nizamani - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_3

Inflation, price hike, electricity load shedding and the extreme energy crisis all seem to be worsening day by day but, unfortunately, the media is too busy with cricket and a debate over the legitimacy of the release of Raymond Davis, utterly ignoring issues faced by the poor masses

As part of the volatile political scenario in Pakistan of late, we have witnessed a growing number of protests by the masses, especially by specific organisations, demanding the implementation of different promises and pledges committed by the coalition government in Islamabad in general and Sindh in particular.

The protesters have been demanding an increase in minimum wages, as announced by the federal government, e.g. for the lady health workers (LHV), implementation of agreed negotiations for the Sindh Professors and Lecturers’ Association (SPLA) and an increase in wages for the lower staff of the education department. These protests have, unfortunately, been responded to with violence, baton charging, tear gas and mass arrests. The provincial governments in Sindh and Punjab are crushing every agitation and registering cases against the peaceful protesters under the Terrorism Act. They might be afraid of the revolutions being led by the people in the Arab world. Hunger strikes in front of the press clubs in big cities are the order of the day. Bankers associations and the families of missing persons dominate the screen. However, all that hue and cry seems to be falling on deaf ears.

The SPLA demands a time scale at par with other provinces as negotiated and agreed to by the Chief Secretary of Sindh, Mr Ghulam Ali Pasha, and Ms Sharmila Farooqi, who was then the advisor to the chief minister of Sindh, on November 11, 2010. However, the government reportedly backed out. The SPLA was compelled to press for the demand peacefully but the government crushed their protests with water guns, injured senior male and female professors, arrested 36 professors and vengefully transferred 412 professors to far-flung areas. The lower staff in the education department met with a similar fate. The teaching community blames the minister for education who they cite as being stubborn and involved in malpractices. The teachers’ demands seem to be parked at the Secretariat due to the wrangling between the secretary and minister for education.

Lady health workers demanding minimum wages were brutally treated and baton charged, and 180 of them were arrested. Surprisingly, one coach full of lady health workers and their innocent children was hijacked by police on March 25 and directly taken to Sukkur Central Jail instead of some women’s police station.

On the other hand, the law and order situation has become abysmal in the interior as well as urban centres. The writ of the state seems to be nowhere. Only during March, 190 people fell victim to the latest wave of target killings in Karachi. In Balochistan, target-killing victims are common people, the central command of Baloch nationalist parties and young students, specifically from the Balochistan National Party, which is the Mengal group. The people’s government has shocked people by adopting the violent and oppressive tactics they themselves suffered during dictatorial regimes.

Inflation, price hike, electricity load shedding and the extreme energy crisis all seem to be worsening day by day but, unfortunately, the media is too busy with cricket and a debate over the legitimacy of the release of Raymond Davis, utterly ignoring issues faced by the poor masses. Despite having a few major and macro political achievements like the NFC Award, end of the 17th Amendment and introduction of the 18th Amendment, the people’s government seems to have failed in delivering on micro-economic issues.

The PPP leadership used to complain that, in the past, they were not given enough time to deliver on their promises and were ousted after the completion of just two years. In the beginning of their current tenure, they kept imploring the people to wait and allow some time to the government for sustainable development. What should the public expect after the completion of three years of their current tenure?

Dr Marvin Weinbaum, Scholar-in-Residence at the Middle East Institute, a think-tank based in Washington, and an expert on Pakistan, opines that the coalition government in Pakistan is not addressing public issues. This supports the arguments of the pro-military school of thought, which says that democracy in Pakistan cannot deliver and that the naïve politicians waste time and resources either by internecine conflicts or fall prey to the artful bureaucracy. He does not believe in the negotiations made among coalition partners to continue with the process until and unless they address the overriding issues, as without this the whole process seems worthless. He bemoans that, apart from Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, there has been no collectively acceptable leadership in Pakistan. For a brief period, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto appeared as a leader but, after him, our leaders have a limited pocket following; as a whole, the Pakistani public seems leaderless. He argues that the people reaching the power corridors in Pakistan, from Ayub Khan to Yahya, Zulfikar Bhutto to Generals Zia and Musharraf, all start believing that they are indispensable. He warns of grim consequences in case democracy fails to deliver. He does not support any rapid change being invoked by some sectors, impressed by the political upheavals in the Middle East. He says that because of different circumstances, the situation can very easily be hijacked by illiberal elements in Pakistan. He recommends choosing competent people who enjoy the support of the masses, and that they be made accountable to the same public.

Three years are enough proof and the public craves the fulfilment of the thousands of promises and rosy pictures that were presented to them during the election process.

We need to support the democratic process, we need to make it accountable and address the macro and micro issues of public relevance for the literal survival of the citizenry. A namesake democracy breeds only new generations of dictators who might already be waiting in the wings.

The writer holds a master’s degree in social sciences and is a professional trainer, researcher and peace activist. He may be contacted at nizambaloch@gmail.com

VIEW: Dealings with the devil —Gulmina Bilal Ahmad - Friday, April 01, 2011

Source : http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\04\01\story_1-4-2011_pg3_2

VIEW: Dealings with the devil —Gulmina Bilal Ahmad

In the garb of freedom of speech and promotion of opinion and ideas, the militant media has been brainwashing our people. They openly promote the activities of banned outfits and terrorist organisations in the print and electronic media. These groups are conveniently given the spotlight by airing and publishing their statements and promotion of their so-called philanthropic activities

With all the hype about counter terrorism these days, the formulation of winning strategies and how we have curtailed extremism successfully, there is still a lot of doubt if this is the real situation on the ground. If one only takes a stroll through any sector in the federal capital of Islamabad, the horrors of the prevalent circumstances dawn upon us. The capital is filled with posters and placards put there by Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), calling for a “Caliphate” and overthrow of a legitimate and democratic regime. For anyone not familiar with HuT, this is an internationally banned organisation. The eerily long time these placards have stayed on display gives the impression that no one is ready to challenge them. This is all taking place in a city where no banner can be displayed without administrative approval. Similarly, the donation box at a grocery store, in which customers generously donate their loose change, may on careful examination belong to some banned outfit or an organisation affiliated to it. The blood of Shahbaz Bhatti and Salmaan Taseer is still fresh, along with the numerous other innocent Pakistanis who die every day due to terrorist-related violence and our citizens themselves seem to be arming them with their money. Our state and policy circles are unaware that the extremists have not been curtailed in northwest Pakistan but have actually infiltrated the capital under the guise of saviours.

With millions of dollars of international aid flowing into the country in the name of countering terrorism, it is surprising that our country is standing at the same juncture where it was a decade ago. Our people still believe that we have been fighting a war sponsored by the US and the west against our own brethren. Our people blame “hidden hands” and “foreign powers” for any untoward incident (including the floods and earthquake), rationalising that they are out to destabilise Pakistan. We are still distinguishing between terrorists, even at policy level, and categorising them as friendly or controllable and non-friendly or uncontrollable. Our policy is still based on dealing with the devil and considering some terrorist groups as a lesser evil. These groups are still being pampered for some future utilisation. The mullah-militant nexus is out there for everyone to see. Religious political parties are hand in hand taking out rallies with the open support of these outfits, aiming to acquire the limelight. Unfortunately, even the mainstream parties are either cosily accommodating them or are preferring to stay silent. Let me rephrase: the prevalent situation is not of that of a decade ago, it has actually worsened.

What have our policy circles been doing since this war on terror began? Were we ever sincere while coming into this war? Why are fingers being pointed at us in the international arena, questioning our intentions? It is getting difficult by the minute to defend Pakistan on the global platform. While at every forum, we try to reach out and list down our sacrifices and efforts against terrorism, our international partners are concerned about the outcomes and rightly so. Two of the main figures of our federation have been assassinated only in the last three months in the name of religion and there has been no outcry over it. Every sphere of our lives has been infiltrated by religious extremists, who exploit religion every chance they get. They have, most importantly, infiltrated the media as it is a tool that can be used to shape public opinion. In the garb of freedom of speech and promotion of opinion and ideas, the militant media has been brainwashing our people. They openly promote the activities of banned outfits and terrorist organisations in the print and electronic media. These groups are conveniently given the spotlight by airing and publishing their statements and promotion of their so-called philanthropic activities. The anchorpersons on various news channels also seem to be promoting their viewpoints.

It is evident that throughout these years we have been fire fighting and that also with the wrong tools. It was only when the militants came too close for comfort that military operations were launched. So far there has not been a single decision taken during this conflict that has been accepted across the board. This accounts for the half-hearted attempts being made by the state. Our efforts have not only been half-hearted but are only reactive, rather than attempting something proactive and turn the tables by forcing the extremists on the back foot. Our policy makers have been so far looking to triumph in this conflict only by force, but there are other aspects as well that have to be looked into. The root causes and the main elements involved in the rise of extremism within the country are not being addressed. The Taliban apologists in our midst and the right-wing religious parties have always looked towards sabotaging any sincere effort to curb terrorism. They have been able to successfully convince the ignorant masses that this war has been imposed on us and we are falling prey to an imperialist plan.

It is imperative that while there is still time, we should retrace our steps and implement a multifaceted policy to counter the extremist insurgency at every level. Our media, education sector and our politics should be cleared of these elements. Instead of political parties bowing down to these elements for electoral point scoring, they should face them and help the general public in identifying and rejecting these radicals. The policy based on strategic depth and vague ideologies should be abandoned for good, as the resulting fallout has proved to be the biggest threat to the sovereignty of Pakistan. Perhaps it is time that the progressive sections, which have kept their silence in the face of the onslaught of the extremist quarters, should come out with force. This is a crucial stage and if the progressive sections do not take a stand, then the extremists will flourish and flood the minds of the masses with their poison.

The writer is an Islamabad-based development consultant. She can be reached at coordinator@individualland.com