Capital suggestion - Dr Farrukh Saleem - Sunday, July 25, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

On July 18, I was at the PIA check-in counter at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport intending to board flight PK 784 bound for Islamabad’s Benazir Bhutto International Airport. The PIA staff asked me to provide them with the credit card on which I had bought the ticket. I tried to explain to them that the original credit card was upgraded by RBS, the issuer, and that I no longer had the card on which the ticket was bought (but I did provide them with the new, upgraded card). I was refused boarding. Lucky me because my brother-in-law works for the bank and I had him confirm to the PIA staff that my card had been upgraded.



Once onboard, I shook hands with Javed Khan (not his real name), a resident of Mardan, sitting right next to me. And then began the story of a genuine welfare state. Javed, trained an engineer at the University of Peshawar, told me that the government of Canada granted him permanent resident status some five months ago. Javed tells me that he along with his wife and three minor children immediately flew to Toronto and then moved to Mississauga, a Toronto suburb.



Javed had four dependents and no job. Imagine; five Pakistanis 10,951 kilometres away from Mardan and the sole earner without a job. Imagine; five Pakistanis in a city which was incorporated in 1974, a city 27 years younger than the homeland they had left behind.



For Javed that’s when the welfare state kicked in. First, to help out the minor children. Imagine; the first to help out Javed’s children was the federal government with its Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), a “tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18.” The basic benefit is $112.33 a month for each child under age 18. Then there is a supplement of $7.83 a month for each additional child.



The federal government also funds the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS). One-child family gets $174 a month. Two-child family gets $154 a month. Three-child family gets $146 a month. For Javed next comes the (provincial) government of Ontario with its Ontario Child Benefit (OCB) in the amount of $250 per month for each child under the age of 18.



Imagine; the welfare state has an Automated Benefits Application which is a partnership between the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Vital Statistics Agency (VSA) whereby as soon a birth is registered with the VSA the CRA comes into action. The CRA actually recommends families to enrol for a direct bank deposit “prior to giving birth to your child in order to reduce delays in receiving your payments.”



On July 1, the eight per cent Ontario Sales Tax and the five percent GST were combined into a single 13 per cent value-added sales tax. But look what the welfare state did for families earning less than $160,000 a year: “As part of the sales tax reform, cash payments will be provided to Ontario tax filers in each of June and December 2010 and June 2011.” Eligible families will receive three payments totalling $1,000 and eligible individuals would get three payments totalling $300.



With the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the National Child Benefit Supplement and the Ontario Child Benefit Javed rented out a basement for $850 a month with at least $800 a month left for groceries. Last month, Javed found a job that pays $15 an hour.



Remember, Javed is a mechanical engineer but most of what the University of Peshawar taught Javed is not recognised in his adopted homeland. Javed wants to work in Canada and Javed wants to work as an engineer. Imagine; the Ontario Student Assistance Programme (OSAP) has informed Javed that by August he would become eligible for a $36,000 grant to upgrade his engineering credentials.



Imagine; 50 million Pakistani children are food insecure and 50 per cent of all child deaths are attributed to poor nutrition while our leaders remain long on hair, short on brain.



The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

How To Loose Weight! 5 Easy Steps

Fat is a growing concern for whole of the world, especially for the developed countries. To loose weight has been become of prime concern for people having extra pounds on the body. This articles contains simple and most important ways to loose extra fat without depositing any heavy fees in some weight loss institutions. You can do it yourself in your own home and environment. Just a complete will to accomplish this task is needed. We may also rephrase this article as how to burn daily the additional calories that we engulf through our mouth into our stomachs.Remember diets, pills or those weird fitness gadgets that promise instant success have a lot of counter productive results. The true secret to weight loss is this: Make small changes each and every day and you'll slowly (but surely) lose those extra pounds. The key is to forget about instant results and settle in for the long run.

Rules of Weight Loss

To lose one pound of fat, you must burn approximately 3500 calories by doing something additional to what you are already doing daily activities. That sounds like a lot of calories and you certainly wouldn't want to try to burn 3500 calories in one day. However, by taking it step-by-step, you can determine just what you need to do each day to burn or cut out those extra calories. Below is a step by step process for getting started.

1.      Calculate Your BMR (basal metabolic rate). Your BMR is what your body needs to maintain normal functions like breathing and digestion. This is the minimum number of calories you need to eat each day.

2.      Calculate your activity level. Use a Calorie Calculator to know how many calories you burn throughout the day. You could even wear a heart rate monitor that calculates calories burned, or can adopt other ways.

3.      Keep track of How many Calories You Eat. You can use a food journal to write down what you eat and drink each day. Be as accurate as possible.

4.      Add it up. Take your BMR number, add your activity calories and then subtract your food calories from that total. If you're eating more than you're burning, (your BMR + activity is 2000 and you're eating 2400 calories) you'll gain weight. If you're burning more than you eat, you'll lose weight.

5.      Ahow much to exercise. Exercise is an important weight loss tool, but how much you need varies from person to person. The ACSM's weight loss guide lines suggest at least 250 minutes per week, which comes out to about 50 minutes, 5 days a week. If you're a beginner, start small (3 days a week for 20 to 30 minutes) to give your body time to adapt. Don't forget, things like walking, taking the stairs and household chores can burn more calories as well. 

6.      Water, Water and Water. Use maximum water in life. This is a very important factor to cut down the fat from your body. You should use this as much as you can and it will have a magical impact if above mentioned instructions are also followed at the same time.

ANALYSIS: Failing...still? —Salman Tarik Kureshi - Saturday, July 24, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

In terms of corruption of elites, history of military rule, use of nationalistic rhetoric and intervention by external political actors, Pakistan’s rankings are amongst the worst. And, on one score, that of secretive, unaccountable security services, Pakistan’s appalling 9.7 is exceeded only by Somalia

The problem with state failure is that it is not necessarily a terminal condition. After all, whatever the flags flown over them or the borders drawn around them, there are human beings involved: the people of the state that has become critically dysfunctional. They continue to live, by whatever means they find possible, while the structures of their societies collapse into anarchy around them. The problem is that once states start failing, all too often they remain dysfunctional for a very long time.

Consider the failed states that the Fund for Peace lists periodically. The 12 most failed states on that list have been substantially the same ones, year after year, for quite some time now. And, of course, our own beloved ‘fortress of Islam’ has featured prominently. The fact that, in the most recently released report of the Fund for Peace, we find Pakistan to have moved ‘up’ from ninth place to tenth place, is scarcely cause for comfort. Are you listening, Prime Minister Gilani, Chief Justice Chaudhry, COAS General Kayani?

But did we not believe we were now on the road to stability, having rid ourselves of the arrogant Musharraf, re-established democratic, constitutional rule and begun cleansing Pakistan from brutal extremists? Yes, very positive, all this and more. Arguably, more fundamental steps forward have been taken in the last two years than in the last two decades. But let us for a moment look at how the Fund for Peace has evaluated us now.

The Red List of the Failed States Index (FSI) for 2010 comprises 37 countries out of a total of 177. The bottom (top?) of this list, the 12 most failed states, unsurprisingly features Somalia — with its Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’ — in the place of honour, followed in order by Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Central African Republic, Guinea, Pakistan, Haiti and Ivory Coast.

The FSI rankings are based on 12 indicators of state vulnerability: two economic, four social and six political. The economic indicators are: (i) uneven economic development along group or regional lines; and (ii) sharp and/or severe economic decline.

The social indicators are: (i) demographic pressures relative to food supply and other resources; (ii) massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples; (iii) legacy of atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities or dominant groups; and (iv) chronic and sustained brain drain of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents.

The six political indicators are: (i) endemic corruption of ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation; (ii) deterioration of public services, including failure to protect citizens from crime, terrorism and violence, and collapse of essential services like health, education, sanitation and public transportation; (iii) widespread violation of human rights, emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution; (iv) security apparatus as a ‘state within a state’; (v) use of nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites in terms of communal irredentism or of communal solidarity, e.g. “defending the faith”; and (vi) intervention of other states or external political actors.

Let us see how Pakistan has been evaluated against each of these indicators.

First, the good news. On the basis of the two economic criteria, Pakistan stacks up as something short of disastrous. Our score of 6.2 on the count of economic decline suggests that we have so far managed to avoid economic collapse, despite the ardent efforts of people like Shaukat Aziz. In fact, Pakistan’s rating here is better than most of the other 36 countries on the Red List and ranks us in the same range as Iran, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Georgia. However, on the score of relative evenness of development along group or regional lines, Pakistan is rated at 8.4, better only than the nine worst case states.

If we now look at the four social indicators, Pakistan’s rating of 8.1 on demographic pressures in relation to food supply is better than most of the countries in the Red List but is a poor score nevertheless, pointing to the kind of undernourished but not yet starvation-level situation here. On the other hand, given our extraordinary rate of population growth, it may not take very long to reach nutritional crisis levels. We know, for example, that we have already reached a crisis situation regarding the power resource.

In terms of movement of refugees and displaced persons, Pakistan’s rating is unsurprisingly bad — exceeded only by such disastrous cases as the Central African Republic, D R Congo, Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan and, of course, Somalia. It is sobering to recall that such massive movements of people have taken place twice before in our history, viz. in 1947, when Pakistan broke away from India, and in 1971/72, when Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan.

As regards the other social indicators, Pakistan’s score of 7.9 on the brain drain is not as bad as many other lands. But our score of 9.4 for group paranoia and violence against groups is one of the very worst, exceeded only by Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad and Somalia.

This now brings us to the six political indicators. Pakistan has extremely poor ratings for most of these. In terms of corruption of elites, history of military rule, use of nationalistic rhetoric and intervention by external political actors, Pakistan’s rankings are amongst the worst. And, on one score, that of secretive, unaccountable security services, Pakistan’s appalling 9.7 is exceeded only by Somalia.

To conclude these rankings on a positive note, Pakistan’s score of 7.9 on deterioration of governmental services is not only better than the other bottom 12 countries, it is better than most of the countries on the Red List, other than Iran, Lebanon, Uzbekistan and Georgia. It seems that the rebirth of institutions like an elected parliament, an independent judiciary and a free press, by bringing public services under some kind of systemic scrutiny, has given Pakistan a boost right out of the mire of state failure on at least this score.

In fact, what is it indeed that is saving Pakistan from a state failure as frightful as that in Somalia, Afghanistan, etc? It is precisely the presence of these institutions of a free and civilised society, however incompetently or foolishly we may run them. As the Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen has repeatedly averred, it is a democratic soil that fosters economic growth. Not the other way round.

The writer is a marketing consultant based in Karachi. He is also a poet

The day of degree-fakers - Iftekhar A Khan - Friday, July 23, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

When a degree-faker passes Matric to MA in reverse order and leaves his peers way behind, it's time to announce that the art of forgery has reached its summit. People have witnessed commotion inside and outside the houses of parliament against the public reps with faked degrees. Recently, amid cacophony in the Punjab Assembly the good members in a rare gesture of solidarity passed a resolution against the media for pointing out degree-fakers. The chief minister who one thought was somewhat prudent was in his chambers at the time. By tacitly supporting the fakers, he has gone down a few notches on the public moral scale.



The Punjab chief minister didn't support the fakers in public. Did he censure them behind the scene for forging degrees? Perhaps he didn't because of political expediency and because of the crucial numbers game in the assembly that keeps him in power, which he doesn't want to lose for the sake of principles. And principles are expendable when they begin to impinge on one's self-interests.



However, regarding fake degrees, Prime Minister Gilani outdid all others. When the court deprived Jamshed Dasti of his National Assembly seat for faking his degree, Mr Gilani not only gave the party gem a fresh ticket but also brazenly led his political campaign to get him re-elected. Mr Gilani left no room for dichotomy on the reprehensible act of faking degrees. Henceforth, nobody is likely to ask him embarrassing questions. Propriety suggested that Mr Gilani had better keep a safe distance from Dasti after the court verdict. Instead, he chose the same candidate for the same seat and campaigned for him. Mr Gilani in fact denigrated the status of the honourable court that he doesn't tire of claiming to hold in high esteem. Herein is the dichotomy in what the prime minister says and what he does. End of debate.



The silent majority is aghast at how resourceful lawmakers have raised the level of fakery to an art form. Some shysters in the legal profession have done one better. They've even faked PhD degrees. A leading legal light who after a court appearance had acted as Al Capone returned victorious even wangled a PhD from a dubious American university unauthorised to confer it. Another such luminary briefly appointed a federation lawyer and relieved, when quizzed by a reporter about his PhD, retorted, "I am not obliged to answer your query". Why not, sir? Haven't you been addressed 'Doctor Sahib' for decades? Although it took long but you stand exposed, Doctor Sahib.



Had all these villains lived in a civilised society and exposed, they would promptly end up in gaol and forgotten. But in our dear land, they not only prosper but also hold the system hostage to their wicked ambitions. It's not as much about faking degrees that irks as it is about the collective mindset and integrity of the fakers, and more so, of their associates in parliament who strive to bail out the guilty by passing resolutions. It speaks of the decadence of the class that rules us. While the Pandora's box of fake degrees seems bottomless and new fakers crawl out by the day, what should be the next step? Isn't a midterm election the only option to clear out the scum? But not without first banning the fakers for at least a decade. Nevertheless, the ensuing battle is between the judiciary and vested interests of the politicians, which have nothing to do with public interests. The silent majority has thrown its full support behind the judiciary, praying for it to succeed, and waiting to see how the situation unfolds.



The writer is a freelance contributor based in Lahore. Email: pinecity@gmail.com

HUM HINDUSTANI: Words and deeds —J Sri Raman - Friday, July 23, 2010

Source : www.dailytimes.com

We have come a long way from the days when one could wonder whether the BJP was for more work or words. Under Gadkari and his revered RSS gurus, the deeds of the BJP and the parivar have now begun to match words, and vice versa. It is time for India's far-right watchers to fasten their seat belts

As a young reporter decades ago, I covered elections in Delhi and around, when rallies of the parent of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) resounded with the slogan: “Jan Sangh ke badhte kadam, kaam zyada baat kam (Jan Sangh marches forward, with more work and less talk).” India’s far right and its political front have, finally, achieved a fine balance between words and deeds.

The recent spate of words from Nitin Gadkari, into his seventh month as the BJP’s supposedly new-style president, supplies a wonderful example. The latest of his verbal salvos to attract wide attention was directed at the leadership of the ruling Congress for its refusal to listen to a BJP-led lynch mob crying hoarse for a hanging. Mohammad Afzal of Kashmir, better known as Afzal Guru, on death row following conviction in the case of an attack on India’s parliament in December 2001, has been awaiting a long-delayed decision on his wife’s petition for a ‘presidential pardon’ to be given on the government’s advice.

Decrying the delay and demanding an immediate hanging at a rally earlier this month, Gadkari asked: “...Afzal inka daamaad hai (Is Afzal their son-in-law)?” Amplifying on the point, he added: “Isko ladki di hai kyaa (Have they given their daughter to him)?” The supplementary raised much more of a storm than the main question. The Congress thought it had cause for serious offence. Sonia Gandhi’s daughter Priyanka Vadra was happily married, after all, and so were the three daughters of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The party leaders’ families did not have to go for unbecoming matrimonial alliances, far less for dangerous liaisons of the kind Gadkari mentioned derisively.

The hail of brickbats from the Congress and the rest of the country hardly made the BJP chief budge. He did not stop with persisting with the posers. He proceeded to pose a similar question to Congress veteran and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh. Was Singh, asked Gadkari, “Aurangzeb ki aulad (the son of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb)?” or “Shivaji ya Rana Pratap ki aulad (the offspring of anti-Mughal Shivaji or Rana Pratap)?” “Mein to Virbhadra ki aulad hun (I am the son of Virbhadra)”, said Singh in answer to the communalism-loaded question, but the answer did not leave Gadkari abashed.

This, of course, is not the first time the party used a pejorative aulad in its political discourse. Sadhvi Ritambara, one of the saffron-clad women leaders of the Sangh Parivar (the far-right ‘family’), made liberal use of the word in the campaign leading to the Babri Masjid demolition of December 1992. Her taped speeches, in which she assailed the ‘Babar ki aulad (the offspring of Babar)’ who defended the mosque in danger, were played everywhere in the run-up to the general election of 1991. No party leader of his level, however, had ever got so personal as Gadkari in questioning the opponents’ parentage.

The BJP helmsman was quick to apologise, however, after his earlier exhibition of verbal vulgarity. The targets then were the two Yadavs — Lalu Prasad (of Bihar and the Rashtriyta Janata Dal) and Mulayam Singh (of Uttar Pradesh and the Samajwadi Party). They had enraged Gadkari by promising to back the BJP in a move to vote out the government in parliament and going back on their word subsequently. Condemning their betrayal, the BJP president compared them to “dogs licking Sonia Gandhi’s feet”.

The parivar’s prominent dog-lover and Sonia-hater, Maneka Gandhi, chose not to demur, no doubt putting the country above the canines. Other party colleagues, however, would appear to have persuaded Gadkari to proffer an apology. The BJP, in their view, could not afford to burn all bridges with the Yadavs, especially Mulayam, with whom it had done profitable business before.

Meanwhile, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), patriarch of the parivar, which had put Gadkari in his elevated place, was not very happy with all the verbals. It stood for action — as its documented role in so many communal riots demonstrates. So it set an example by going for some action, with the BJP hastening to back it.

The occasion was provided by a ‘sting operation’ on a television channel, which purportedly showed some known RSS and BJP personalities plotting big-scale communal violence, the top billing going to a plan to assassinate India’s scholarly Vice-President Mohammad Hamid Ansari. The parivar struck on the morrow of the programme. On July 16, around 600 of its men and women stormed the offices of the channel in New Delhi and ransacked it as the local police, by most accounts, looked on. The BJP rushed to the mob’s defence, stating in a circuitous language that the attack was a befitting answer to the channel’s anti-RSS blasphemy.

The same day saw a second attack on a television channel. A battalion of Bal Thackeray’s Shiv Sena invaded the Kolhapur station of another channel, airing a live programme on a border dispute between the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka. Viewers were later to watch shocking footage of a fierce assault on an unarmed participant in the programme from Karnataka under the BJP’s rule. The party has still not condemned the musclemen of the Sena, its staunch ally in Maharashtra.

We have come a long way from the days when one could wonder whether the party was for more work or words. Under Gadkari and his revered RSS gurus, the deeds of the BJP and the parivar have now begun to match words, and vice versa. It is time for India’s far-right watchers to fasten their seat belts.

The writer is a journalist based in Chennai, India. A peace activist, he is also the author of a sheaf of poems titled At Gunpoint

The Afghan conundrum - Shafqat Mahmood - Friday, July 23, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

They came to Kabul from seventy countries last week. Some of them are doing the fighting and the dying in the dusty valleys of Afghanistan. Others are playing their part by throwing money on the problem. And then there were those, like Pakistan, who cannot wish their geography away.



In this meaningless media extravaganza, they were told myths that they were desperate to believe. Among them that Afghan forces will take over the security of the country by 2014. Like a medieval storyteller in the village square, President Karzai spun a web of sweet talk that brought a smile to every face. What it was in truth is pure fiction.



The grim reality of the Afghan state is that without American and Nato support it would collapse in a day. Its ragtag army is poorly trained, ill disciplined and divided by history of conflict between its different ethnicities. Its police is no better and has shakily been put together by attracting recruits with heavy doses of American money. At the first sign of trouble, it melts away.



The governing structure is based on patronage and corruption that flows from the centre to the provinces, with Mr Karzai holding the ultimate pot of foreign-inspired gold. The announcement at the conference that more donor money will be funnelled through the Afghan government would have been music to his ears.



There is hardly any functioning bureaucracy beyond Kabul, and even there the meaning of the word functioning would have to be stretched. The provinces are run, if run is the word, by a governor with a small band of loyal retainers.



This is not a structure that corresponds to any modern definition of a viable state. Vigorous efforts are being made by the Americans and others to make it better, but the results are not very encouraging. How this will change in four years, and to the extent that Afghan forces will take over security duties in the country by 2014, is difficult to comprehend.



And Mr Karzai knows that. He is only telling this fiction to his Western backers because they want to hear it, or at least said publicly. In private, they know, or the realists among them know, that this is unlikely to happen. They just don't want their people to hear it.



The problem for the Americans and their Western allies is that support in their countries for the war in Afghanistan has virtually collapsed. With dead bodies coming home every week, most people cannot understand what their armed forces are doing in Afghanistan. Or, why so much money in these difficult economic times is being spent there.



It is for this reason that President Obama announced the start of a withdrawal in July 2011 and new British prime minister David Cameron has forcefully declared that British forces will be out of the country by 2015. The Europeans and others have already begun to phase out.



The conundrum that Obama faces in particular, and to an extent others too, is how to leave with a modicum of dignity intact. What they are looking for is any fig leaf that will allow them to declare mission accomplished, or to at least avoid a retreat in dishonour and defeat.



The exit strategy devised to accomplish this has two pillars based on the presumption that no military victory in this conflict is possible. One, to negotiate a solution with the Taliban that ends the fighting, and brings them, or at least their acceptable faces, into the Afghan power structure. And, two, to build the Afghan state to an extent that it can stand on its own feet after the Westerners withdraw.



Both are doomed to failure. But this will not bother the Americans or their allies as long as there is a decent interval between their retirement from the fighting and whatever happens next in Afghanistan. Shades of Vietnam again, and probably with similar results?



The first pillar, that of finding a negotiated solution with the Taliban, is problematic because of contrasting timelines. The Americans want this to happen within a year or so, and to force the Taliban to agree have a ramped-up foreign military presence. They are getting ready to launch a major assault on Kandahar to drive the message home.



This is unlikely to work because, as the previous campaigns have shown, such as in Helmand, the Taliban melt away and return to fight at a time of their choosing. They can wait, while the Americans and the British have deadlines. This was captured best by a Taliban leader who is supposed to have remarked that they have the watch and we have the time.



The more desperate Nato becomes to withdraw, the stronger the Taliban get. They may have a medieval worldview, but they are not idiots. They also understand the internal dynamics of the Western countries. They are ready to wait out their adversaries.



This is where Pakistan's role has become crucial. The Americans want it both to pressure the Afghan Taliban militarily and use its influence to bring them to the negotiating table. This apparently contradictory demand is particularly targeted at the Haqqani network, which is alleged to have close links with the ISI.



It seems that Pakistan is willing to help out, provided its concerns are met. Pakistan wants a friendly Afghanistan, as Gen Kayani has repeatedly emphasised. It wants a neighbour that is not a problem for its security and, if possible, provides opportunities for mutual economic benefit.



The recent warming of relations between the two countries is an indicator that Pakistan's concerns have been to an extent acknowledged by the Americans and the Afghans. Of particular significance is the training of Afghan military officers scheduled to begin in Pakistan soon.



This was one area where the Indians were keen to get in and that was troubling for Pakistan. Military training builds bonds between the armed forces and Pakistan was keen for it to take place here. The fact that it will start to happen is interesting, and an important indicator of warming relations between the two countries.



This will lead to the next step; for Pakistan to deliver the Taliban. It will not be easy. The Taliban may go through the motion of talks but will want to wait out the Americans. If they are wise, though, they should give a fig leaf to the West so that it can withdraw with some honour intact. Trying to rub an enemy's nose in the dirt can have unforeseen consequences.



The second pillar of the Western strategy, that of building up the Afghan state, I have already stated has little chance of success. Thus, both parts of the American exit plan are problematic, to say the least. How its different elements play out over the next year would be interesting to see.



Afghanistan has seen a thirty-year war already, and no end is in sight. Whether the West remains there or not, peace among its diverse people will remain a fond dream. This will keep its neighbours on the edge and Pakistan has potentially much to lose and much to gain.


Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

Walking away from peace - Kamila Hyat - Thursday, July 22, 2010

Source : www.thenews.com.pk

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor



The men and women who draft headlines have been having a field day.


Clever phrases have appeared in English, Urdu, Persian and no doubt other languages to describe the farcical talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan which led nowhere at all despite prolonged bouts of dialogue.



Attempts at damage control in the immediate aftermath of the debacle are somewhat pointless. They cannot hide the fact that very little, if anything at all, was achieved when Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Mr S M Krishna met in Islamabad.



The clumsy attacks launched on his Indian counterpart by an obviously angry and embarrassed Qureshi only made things look worse.



The suggestions that Mr Krishna was taking instructions from somewhere other than the prime minister's office are attempts to poke fingers where they have no business to be. Diplomacy demands greater grace and more maturity.



But we need to understand the dynamics of what went wrong.



There can be no doubt at all that Pakistan, most urgently of all, but also India has no real choices but to move towards peace. Unless this can be built militancy will continue. New Delhi should keep in mind the kind of unrest we currently see in Indian-Held Kashmir has been a key factor in triggering the rise of militant groups which today threaten both countries.



The Pakistani side has alluded over and over again to India's focus on terrorism as a key factor in the Islamabad stalemate. There could indeed be some truth in this. But there are also facts that have to be faced up to. The disclosures by David Coleman Headley pointing to links in the context of the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai are unsettling.



There are other aspects too that cannot be ignored.



During recent raids in the Punjab, as police rounded up dozens of activists of banned militants outfits, the Jaish-e-Muhammad of Maulana Masood Azhar was left untouched. Like Hafiz Saeed, Azhar too is said to have had a long relationship with the ISI. It is a bit difficult to believe that the fact his group was left alone is purely a coincidence. Logic dictates that there is a pattern and that almost everyone follows its distinct lines. It is this pattern that needs to be change if a new relationship between India and Pakistan is to be established in the future. Suspicion on the part of New Delhi that this is the case is damaging.



The Indian government and its advisers are not alone in this thinking. There are many in our own country too who are equally convinced of this, though self-imposed restrictions within the media bring a reluctance to mention secret agencies that persists even in an age of far greater freedom for the Press. The issue is rarely talked about openly or freely.



But in many ways the thinking that at least some elements adhere to determines the nature of our state. The idea of a security paradigm stands at the centre of it and determines much of what happens. The notion that India is an enemy state is deeply-rooted in our psyche. Small children imbibe the ideas that underpin this from peers, from teachers and from elders. For those who benefit from keeping alive the idea of a giant dragon breathing down our necks from the East there is of course still more temptation to keep tensions high and prevent the monster from being tamed. This temptation alone could be enough to keep intact the mindset of hatred constructed over many decades.



The same modes of thinking exist too within India. The identification of the LeT as the primary force behind the terrorism in that country ignores the fact that this force was conjured up in response to Indian actions in Kashmir. New Delhi too needs to engage in exercises aimed at loosening fixed thought if it is genuinely committed to the peace process.



If they are to safeguard their future, both countries must find this commitment. The need to invest in people is essential to both countries. They can do so only if they recognize that security interests cannot be served through military means. The failure to do so is evident in the fact that some six decades after the military build-up began on either side of the border dividing them, the two countries are today more insecure than ever. Militancy threatens people in all their largest cities, instability across the region is higher than ever and the issues that fuel it remain unresolved. Clearly a change in tactic is needed.



The latest failure leaves behind debris which can be gathered up and used to build success. The evidently harsh exchanges between the foreign ministers that took place from time to time in Islamabad have at least made it clear what the central issues are for both sides. Pakistan's focus on Kashmir is apt in that militancy cannot fully be overcome until that issue is addressed; at the same time levels of trust necessary to do so can be created only if efforts are made to tackle the terrorist threat and the factors behind it.



It is necessary to move on. It is unlikely that there will be any sprint towards peace. But like a well-planned middle-distance race, a careful strategy needs to be devised to finally reach the winning line – even if this is possible only after a great deal of jostling and shoving through the course of a steadily run race.



Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com