The assassination of Imran Farooq Rahimullah Yusufzai Tuesday, September 21, 2010

http://www.thenews.com.pk/21-09-2010/opinion/5864.htm

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement leader Dr Imran Farooq died in London on September 16 in tragic circumstances, but one common reaction to his murder was that there were greater chances of identifying and punishing his killers because the incident happened in the United Kingdom and not in Pakistan and that the well-regarded Scotland Yard was leading the investigations. One heard people commenting that the case would have been politicised or hushed up on the basis of political considerations had the 50-year old politician been murdered in his homeland.

There are reasons for this kind of sentiment because past murders of politicians in Pakistan have mostly remained unresolved. Besides, there is the matter of poor credibility of our police and other law-enforcement and investigating agencies. In fact, many Pakistanis were hoping that the issue of the allegations of spot-fixing against Pakistani cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Aamir and others would be properly and professionally handled by the British police. There was a strong belief that the scandal, described by the International Cricket Council as the sport's biggest for a decade, would be unearthed and the matter worked out by the generally competent British cops and investigators. These hopes may not materialise, but that is the perception most Pakistanis have primarily due to the lack of trust in the working of their own police and investigating agencies.

It has now become the responsibility of British authorities to deal with and resolve cases involving Pakistanis. For this they need to understand the intricacies of Pakistani politics and other aspects of life such as cricket, and one is sure they already know a lot about these issues and would pick up other necessary details as the investigations into Dr Imran Farooq's murder and the cricket-betting scandal proceed further. Britain and Pakistan, part of its former colony of undivided India, have had close ties and the British authorities are required to remain updated on Pakistan's situation due to their concerns about extremism and terrorism emanating from within its borders. Besides, crimes of this nature taking place on British soil are not only a challenge but also an embarrassment to the authorities in the UK and, therefore, every effort would be made to work out these cases. This would also be important due to the fact that many Pakistani politicians prefer to stay in London whenever they are wanted or persecuted at home and more political assassinations in the UK following that of Dr Imran Farooq could take place. Right now former military ruler General (r) Pervez Musharraf is living in the UK and preparing for a political comeback by holding a meeting of his supporters there. 

The MQM and its leader Altaf Hussain, living in self-exile in the UK since his 1992 escape from Pakistan due to the threat to his life, are likely to be asked many questions by the British investigators in Dr Imran Farooq's murder case. This is inevitable because the deceased had served at top positions in the MQM and was its de facto deputy leader as the convener of the party's coordination committee until two years ago. The fact that he was removed from this post in 2007 and had become largely inactive in the MQM could prompt the investigators to try and get to the bottom of all matters. So close was Dr Imran Farooq to Altaf Hussain that he fled to the UK to join him in 1999 after remaining underground in his hometown Karachi for seven years. Altaf Hussain celebrated Dr Imran Farooq's safe arrival in London and described him as a 'hero of the nation', which apparently meant the Mohajirs. 

This indeed is a mystery as to how someone like Dr Imran Farooq, who was among the founders of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement in 1984 and its predecessor, the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation in 1978, lost his position in the party leadership and stopped taking part in active politics. Twice in the past, he was reportedly suspended from senior posts in the MQM, but was then allowed to come back and resume his work as the party convener. As everyone knows, Altaf Hussain has maintained a firm grip over MQM affairs even while leading the party from London and appointing and removing party leaders from their offices has always been his prerogative. 

The assassination of Dr Imran Farooq, described by some MQM members as a 'poet and philosopher', would have political ramifications because he wasn't an ordinary party leader. The doctor-turned-politician had in recent years almost faded from public memory for most Pakistanis because he had been away from the country for 11 years, but at one time he was quite well-known even outside the MQM circles and his native Karachi. Twice elected as an MNA, he was the parliamentary leader of the MQM when he announced in 1989 that his party was ending its alliance with the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto's PPP government. He served as secretary general of both the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation and the MQM. His father Farooq Ahmad also won election as a National Assembly member in the 1997 general election when Dr Imran Farooq was living incognito in Karachi following the military crackdown against the party. His wife also served as a MPA and their status made them privy to many a matter of the MQM. The police will like to go into those details. 

According to media reports, the Scotland Yard's counterterrorism command unit is investigating Dr Imran Farooq's murder from different angles including a mugging that went wrong to a politically-motivated crime in view of eyewitness accounts that the man who stabbed him to death appeared to be Asian. A report even mentioned that the Pakistani Taliban could be involved in the murder, though the militants would likely target Altaf Hussain if they could because everybody knows who controls the MQM. Internal party rifts were also mentioned in media reports from London as an aspect that would be probed by the police to find clues to the murder. On his part, Dr Imran Farooq in the early years after his escape from Pakistan continued to voice concern that Pakistani intelligence agents could harm him. In fact, many MQM supporters would want this aspect also to be probed. Altaf Hussain has refused to return to Pakistan because he cannot feel safe in Karachi where some of his close relatives and many party colleagues were murdered. Dr Imran Farooq's murder would effectively close the chapter of Altaf Hussain's return to Pakistan.

As a party that evolved from a students' organisation, the MQM developed into a force that was often accused of involvement in violence with and against rival political and ethnic groups. It was more often identified with political violence than getting credit for its grassroots support among the people of the middle class. The turf battles between the mainstream MQM and the Haqiqi group of Afaq Ahmad and Amir Khan and the MQM's ethnic warfare with the Pakhtuns, Punjabis and Sindhis reinforced its image as a party that employed strongarm methods to retain its control of Karachi. The murder of Dr Imran Farooq and, before him, the deaths of other party stalwarts such as Azeem Tariq, S M Tariq and Haji Jalal, could be seen as manifestations of the violence that has continued to haunt and, at times, define the MQM. 



The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar.

Email: rahimyusufzai@yahoo.com

ROVER’S DIARY: Has democracy failed in Pakistan? —Babar Ayaz Tuesday, September 21, 2010

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\21\story_21-9-2010_pg3_4

The beauty of the system is that governments are criticised and exposed for their mistakes and shortcomings till the next elections. There is no shortcut in the evolution of democratic systems, as desired by some impatient politicians and journalists

The magnitude of problems faced by Pakistan is gigantic. The present success or failure of an elected government should be analysed in that perspective. It is through this analysis that one can reach an unbiased conclusion whether the present government should be changed or not. The process of change however, has to be within the normal constitutional framework and not outside as demanded by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) or a section of the media.

The positive news is that it seems after many mistakes political parties have matured at least by one notch. Unlike the 90s, they are not inviting the khakis to change the government. Even the recent statement of Nawaz Sharif is clear that if a change has to happen it has to be within the parameters provided in the constitution. The MQM is isolated in parliament for pleading to ‘patriotic generals’ to step forward for supporting a revolution. History has now shown that all revolutions led by an army in the world ultimately degenerated into dictatorships and are anti-people.

I would even urge the honourable judges of the Supreme Court not to fall into the trap of those who want to bring the army in at the court’s request. Such a move would be counter-productive for the judiciary and its supporters, who worked hard to bring down a military government, but not without the support of the political parties. Those who want to give the sole credit of bringing down the Musharraf government to the restoration of a sacked judiciary are only misreading history and distorting the political process that the country went through.

When this government came into power in 2008 it was evident that what lay ahead is a rough ride and that they will have to face political, economic, internal security and foreign policy challenges of no ordinary nature. And more recently, as if other major challenges were not enough, the worst floods in the country’s history have exposed the government to all the just and unjust criticism.

Before I move to analyse the mistakes and achievements of the democratic forces in the country that includes the government, a disclaimer is necessary: no government and democratic process delivers 100 percent. The beauty of the system is that they are criticised and exposed for their mistakes and shortcomings till the next elections. There is no shortcut in the evolution of democratic systems, as desired by some impatient politicians and journalists.

Let us now analyse the challenges faced by the government and other elected parties when they landed in Islamabad and how they have fared so far. The first political challenge before the political parties was to accept the election results or to reject them as rigged. The parties by and large accepted the results in true democratic spirit.

The second challenge was how to cobble a coalition to the satisfaction of all the partners. The good sign is that Benazir’s reconciliation ideology helped in building a government. It was the right approach set by Ms Bhutto, who had the vision and sagacity to understand Pakistan’s serious internal and external problems. This is no time for one party to take a heavy burden of solving the problems single-handedly.

The third challenge was how to get President Musharraf out. The democratic forces led by the government tactfully got him out without creating any major commotion in the country.

The fourth challenge was how to handle the issue of the restoration of the judiciary to its rightful place. An independent judiciary is one of the three pillars of the state. Though belatedly, and after some pressure from the opposition, the judiciary was restored. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) dragged it out for its own ulterior motives, as it was afraid of the chief justice. Subsequent developments proved that they were taken to task by the newly independent judiciary.

The fifth challenge was how to manage the economic difficulties such as high prices of food items, inflation and the energy crisis. So far they have failed to meet this challenge even halfway. But again the government’s advocates may say that just when the economy had started to stabilise and a 4 percent growth rate was in sight, the floods washed away all the gains. As far as the energy shortage is concerned, it is mainly mismanagement by the government that failed to remove the bureaucratic red tape and control the losses, which results in circular debt.

The sixth challenge was regarding the most serious issue of internal security, which is directly related with our foreign policy. Here the General Headquarters (GHQ) makes all the important decisions. Historically all the important foreign policy issues related to India, Afghanistan, Iran and the US are decided by the GHQ. The political government did try to claim its rightful place, but we have seen that they were hounded to concede this right to the establishment. As our establishment is not willing to accept that the policies followed by them since the early 50s were wrong, there can be no rethinking and correction of the mistakes. For this the leading political parties are on the same page and want to have a fresh approach to our national security policy. But they are helpless because this domain is a no-go area for them.

The seventh challenge was establishing the writ of the government in the terrorist-infested areas in the north. The operations in Swat and South Waziristan have been successful. The khaki supporters may say the army did this. Yes, they led from the front and many soldiers lost their lives. But then many politicians and journalists also lost their lives. And the operation was given full political support by the democratic forces and financial backing by the government.

The eighth challenge was amending the constitution and creating a consensus on the division of powers and economic resources between the federation and the provinces. The democratic government came out with flying colours on this, while the military government had failed in this regard.

Lastly, the latest challenge is to rehabilitate the people affected by the floods and the reconstruction of the flood-affected areas. This is a colossal job. I think for this all the democratic forces should first decide that this is not the time to squabble about change. This is the time where the entire nation has to work hard, honestly and with only one focus — rehabilitate the 20 million affected people. All moves to destabilise the democratic process at this stage would only add to the misery of the people. The government’s focus would be diverted to saving itself instead of saving the flood victims. The transition to the new government, even if it comes through constitutional means, would slow down the rehabilitation process, something the people cannot afford. But this does not mean that the government should have license to continue making petty mistakes of cronyism and allow corruption. If the government can gear up and perform even to 50 percent of the people’s expectations it would not need to worry about its public image as it has done previously.

The writer can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com

VIEW: Is misery Afghanistan’s destiny? —Lal Khan Tuesday, September 21, 2010

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\21\story_21-9-2010_pg3_3

The imperialist propaganda that presents the spectre of a ruthless obscurantist rule and the Talibanisation of Afghanistan as the only alternative to imperialist occupation is absolute nonsense. Thirty-two years ago Afghanistan was the only country in South Asia where landlordism and capitalism had been overthrown

“The geographical position of Afghanistan and the unique character of its people taken together confer on this country such political significance in Central Asian affairs that it is impossible to overestimate” — Fredrick Engels (1820-1895).



As in several other ‘flashpoints’ around the planet, the geo-strategic significance of Afghanistan has become a curse, rather than a blessing. A narco-economy run by treacherous warlords, brutal imperialist aggression, universal corruption and the savagery of the obscurantist Taliban: this is the reality of today’s Afghanistan.

The present war did not begin with the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This aggression spans more than 32 years. 

On April 27, 1978, a revolutionary council and a new government was formed through a revolutionary takeover, led by Noor Muhammad Tarakai, secretary general of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA).

The Revolutionary Council totally banned the prevalent buying and selling of women. All debts to landowners and money lenders were cancelled. Over 11.5 million people — 80 percent of the rural population — were no longer held to ransom. Feudal land was expropriated and granted to more than 300,000 landless peasants. Radical steps were taken to improve healthcare, housing, education, food supply, and to wipe out unemployment. Large swathes of capital were expropriated.

The new revolutionary government was seen as a threat by the imperialists. The radical steps taken in the first months after the revolution had an enormous impact in the region. That is the real reason why the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was unleashed against the Afghan Revolution. It is also when the present phase of the war began.

The Washington Post wrote on February 15, 1980:

“Key committees of Congress responsible for overseeing covert activities have been kept informed of the actions by the State Department and the CIA.” The ‘Islamic jihad’ was launched by none other than US President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in the autumn of 1978 at the Khyber Pass. He was the one who recruited Osama bin Laden to this ‘holy war’.

However, the ideological inadequacies of the PDPA hindered the formulation and execution of a revolutionary internationalist class policy to defeat the insurgency. The ideology of the PDPA leaders was dominated more by nationalist tendencies rather than Marxist internationalism. 

As the pressure of the insurgency mounted, infighting broke out amongst the PDPA leadership. Tarakai was killed and the Russian tanks rolled into Afghanistan, crossing the Oxus River and moving through the Salang Pass. This transformed the whole dimension of the conflict.

The aftermath was predicted only by the Marxists. Ted Grant wrote in June 1978 just weeks after the Saur Revolution:

“If they (leaders of the PDPA) temporise, possibly under the influence of the Russian regime, they will prepare the way for a ferocious counter-revolution based on the threatened nobility and the mullahs. If successful, counter-revolution would restore the old regime on the bones of hundreds of thousands of peasants, the massacres of radical officers and near extermination of the educated elite.”

This extraordinary prediction has been carried out to the letter in the subsequent period. The Taliban took Kabul in 1996 with Pakistani and US assistance. The main person, who orchestrated the “conquest of Kabul” by the Taliban under Mullah Omer, was the former US under Secretary of State, Robert Oakley.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet troops in 1989, the Americans abandoned Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the forces of reaction they had created. But in 2001 the Frankenstein’s monster they had built turned on them with a vengeance. This was what led to the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan.

After almost nine years of direct occupation, defeat is now staring the Americans in the face. The think tank Stratfor, set up by former CIA staff, in its latest report of September 6 makes the following astonishing admission:

“(It) is particularly stark given the fundamental reality that America is not going to bring about a victory in Afghanistan in any conventional sense.”

Sensing the weakness of the US-dominated coalition, Afghanistan’s controversial President Hamid Karzai has been transformed from a puppet of Washington to an open critic of the US. He is prepared to accept Taliban control over some of its local strongholds. The Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA are bitterly divided on this projected ‘negotiated’ settlement.

The White House is seeking a graceful exit. The US commander, General Petraeus, has pressed hard to delay any serious troop withdrawal until well beyond July 2011 and Obama apparently is backing away from the deadline. The US strategists and armed forces are in a mess of their own making. As Howard Hart, a former CIA area chief, told Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: “The very presence of our forces is the problem.”

What the western media conceals is the rising tide of mass demonstrations on social and economic issues across Afghanistan. Numerous Left tendencies are involved in the national resistance against foreign occupation.

The Loya Jirga (Grand Council) will be a farce. It is intended to provide some kind of justification for an adventure that has gone terribly wrong. The only choice before the Afghan masses in these elections was between different warring warlords who have made millions out of this war through the drug trade, kidnapping for ransom and blackmail based on changing loyalties. Reconstruction, development and prosperity are pipe dreams that bear no relation to reality. In this morass of explosive contradictions, there is no way out. The dark forces of fundamentalism and the corrupt liberal democrats have no appeal for the masses. But there are the beginnings of a significant revival of Left forces. The memories of the gains of the poor peasants, workers and youth after the 1978 Revolution have been passed on to the new generation.

The imperialist propaganda that presents the spectre of a ruthless obscurantist rule and the Talibanisation of Afghanistan as the only alternative to imperialist occupation is absolute nonsense. Thirty-two years ago Afghanistan was the only country in South Asia where landlordism and capitalism had been overthrown. 

Internationalism is the key to the success of the future Afghan Revolution. Today more than ever the fate of Afghanistan is linked to what happens in Pakistan and Iran. History has decreed that this region will either descend into the abyss of barbarism, or else leap over the different stages of capitalist development by means of a socialist revolution. That is the only way forward.

The writer is the editor of Asian Marxist Review and International Secretary of Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign. He can be reached at ptudc@hotmail.com

VIEW: The Turkish referendum: a step forward or backward? —Ishtiaq Ahmed Tuesday, September 21, 2010

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\21\story_21-9-2010_pg3_2

The constitutional court has thus far been dominated by judges and jurists strongly committed to secularism. Following the recent referendum, the government will have the power to enlarge the membership of the constitutional court. Secularists fear the government will place judges on the bench who may be sympathetic to an Islamist agenda

The referendum on constitutional reforms held in Turkey on September 12, 2010, gave a clear majority — 58 percent in favour and 42 against — to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government headed by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan. Turkish liberals, the European Union (EU) and the Obama administration have welcomed the outcome of the referendum as an important step in the direction of democracy and establishment of civilian hegemony over the Turkish polity. The market has responded favourably and, as a consequence, economic growth is expected to receive a boost. The constitutional reforms are important also to facilitate Turkey’s membership in the EU as the government structure will now correspond more closely to the basic format applicable to EU members. Prime Minister Erdogan has declared the verdict of the Turkish people as a milestone that will ensure that Turkey will not have to suffer any more military coups. 

The AKP descends from a long pedigree of Islamist parties whose bids to capture power were frustrated by the Turkish military and the constitutional court, two institutions that have been the stronghold of the fiercely secular legacy bequeathed by the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Realising that they stood no chance of capturing power on an Islamist agenda, some of the more pragmatic members of the Islamist movement broke away and formed the AKP as a conservative Muslim party. The AKP wants itself to be considered as a Muslim equivalent to the Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe. It denies it is against secularism. 

In any event, the constitutional reforms that the voters have approved include a long list of 26 items, of which the two most contentious relate to the autonomy of the Turkish military and the composition of the constitutional court. With regards to the military, after the constitutional reforms it will be possible for officers who have been dismissed from their jobs by a military court to appeal against the decision in a civil court. Moreover, the immunity granted under the 1982 constitution to the military officers who carried out the 1980 coup has been withdrawn. All such changes are viewed with dismay by the secularist elite that considers the military to be the custodian of Kemalism and secularism. 

The second worrisome reform from the secularist point of view is about the Turkish Constitutional Court. Its main function has been to ensure the laws passed by parliament are compatible with the constitution. The constitutional court has thus far been dominated by judges and jurists strongly committed to secularism. Following the recent referendum and the reforms approved by the people, the government will have the power to enlarge the membership of the constitutional court. Secularists fear the government will place judges on the bench who may be sympathetic to an Islamist agenda.

Moreover, after winning the referendum, Prime Minister Erdogan has announced that the government will now embark upon the formulation of a new constitution. There can be no doubt that the referendum brought forth very vividly the polarisation in Turkish society. The coastal cities and towns of Western Turkey, described by some observers as the Aegean rim, voted overwhelmingly against the constitutional reforms while the small towns of the Anatolian hinterland came out strongly in favour of them. The AKP’s support base comprises largely of the upwardly mobile businessmen, traders and entrepreneurs who are socially and culturally conservative Muslims. 

Democracy is a game of numbers and the numbers are undoubtedly with the AKP. One can only hope that the secularists will accept the verdict of the people with grace and equanimity. The secularists were in power for more than 70 years and had ample opportunity to accommodate the aspirations and interests of the rising middle classes from the countryside. They did not. Thus these neglected sections of society turned to the AKP, which represents a conservative social and cultural outlook.

As for the suspicion that the constitutional reforms are a sinister first move in a grand conspiracy to undo the secular foundations of Turkey, nothing can be said for certain. My wife is Turkish and we both have more than the usual curiosity about what happens in that secular republic. I can testify that Turkey is a case of quite successful modernisation and secularisation. The greatest gift of the Kemalist revolution was the liberation and emancipation of Turkish women from the tutelage of the harem culture of the Ottomans. In modern Turkey it is possible for a young woman to undertake all alone a night journey by bus from one part to another of the country without fearing molestation and harassment. 

There are some indications that the populist cultural practices of the AKP tend to promote a conservative standpoint on the rights and status of women. There has been considerable controversy about young females wearing the headscarf on university campuses. The argument given in favour of headscarves by a dear Turkish friend of mine, who is an ardent supporter of the constitutional reforms, is that conservative families allow girls to go to university only if they wear the headscarf. That actually proves my point that the headscarf controversy has less to do with the free choice of women and more with the dictates of the male members of the family. 

In any case, if the constitutional reforms do establish a vibrant and pulsating democracy then the freedom of choice debate can continue on this and related issues. As long as the Turkish constitution remains democratic and secular, it should be possible to accommodate different lifestyles. The Islamic revival is a fact and all states have to adopt different strategies to handle it. It would be a tragedy if the AKP were to act as the Trojan horse of an Islamist counter-revolution. I was greatly perturbed when, in 2008, the visiting President Ahmadinejad of Iran refused to visit the mausoleum of Ataturk and the AKP government acquiesced in that breach of protocol. That would be unthinkable if the government was truly respectful of the founding father of the nation. This and many other such moves of the AKP do give reason to suspect its intentions. It is therefore important that Turkish secularists continue to demand that the AKP comes out clean on its declared policy of remaining faithful to secular democracy.

The writer is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com

EDITORIAL: Support for democracy Tuesday, September 21, 2010

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\21\story_21-9-2010_pg3_1

EDITORIAL: Support for democracy

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has vowed to support democracy though he would not support the government blindly. The opposition’s role is to keep a check on the transgressions of the incumbents. Mian sahib therefore has taken a stance well within the constitutional ambit. For an opposition to criticise the government for bad management and incompetence is within the ambit of a democratic system. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gilani has said that there is no harm in a democratic intervention to make things better but that a change through undemocratic means would be dangerous. Mr Gilani also offered to make way for any parliamentarian who wanted to lead the country.

Right now, the premier’s slot is a crown of thorns and not a bed of roses. No one in his right mind is willing to destabilise the system and take charge. The arithmetic of parliament is such that no political party has a clear majority and would need the support of other parties to form a government. The PPP settled for a coalition government because of these reasons, though even before the elections it had taken a reconciliatory approach. If any party wants to get rid of the PPP-led government and take charge instead, to get the support of such disparate allies would be a tough task. Keeping this reality in mind, Prime Minister Gilani has made an open offer to the parliamentarians. As for the rumours about mid-term elections, it would not be wrong to say that even if they do take place, the results would not be very different from that of the 2008 general elections. Thus, it does not make sense to waste time and money on such a useless exercise.

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s support for the democratic system is quite reassuring. An active and critical opposition is part of a democracy. If a government cannot take healthy criticism, then it has no right to be in power. Rumours of threats to the PPP-led government have been in the air for quite some time now but recent events suggest that these may just be some people’s pipe dreams. In Pakistan it is said that no change can occur outside the democratic process without the army and the US agreeing to such change. The army and the US at the present conjuncture appear to be on the same page as far as the democratically elected government is concerned. In his recent visit, US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said that the government is not ‘drowning’ and that it is doing a good job under the circumstances. The army too is aware of the ground realities and has its hands full with fighting the terrorists on Pakistani soil and carrying out the flood relief efforts. No other government, including a dictator’s regime, took ownership of the war on terror like the PPP-led government has done. We can see that the normal concatenation of forces, i.e. the US and the army, are not inclined towards any change in the near future.

Our brush with military interventions in the past has resulted in major disasters. Despite a considerable opinion tilting towards a military or autocratic intervention, the majority still supports democracy. There is no doubt that even the worst democracy is better than the best military rule. As a society struggling to establish a democracy with deep roots, we have to be patient instead of getting the usual two-and-a-half-year itch that we witnessed in the 90s. We might have to muddle through for some period of time until we get a better government or leadership. All democratically elected governments must be held accountable and this government is no exception. Prime Minister Gilani should ensure that his government pulls up its socks before things get worse. *

More terror in India

Two weeks before the much-awaited Commonwealth Games in New Delhi are slated to begin, the ominous shadow of militant terrorism has struck the Indian capital. A tourist bus was targeted on Sunday by two masked gunmen outside the Jamia Masjid, the city’s largest mosque. Two Taiwanese tourists were injured and one is in critical condition. This is a decidedly bad omen for an India that has aspirations to be recognised as one of the world’s rising powers. The games were intended as a showcase for India’s new status.

The Indian Mujahideen, a homegrown militant group that allegedly has links to the Pakistani banned outfit Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, claimed responsibility. The Indian Mujahideen were responsible for a series of synchronised attacks in New Delhi in September 2008, when markets and commercial areas were targeted, killing some 30 people. In an e-mail sent to the Press Trust of India, the group has said that if the Commonwealth Games are not cancelled, they will do all they can to wreak havoc on the occasion. Thousands of international sporting stars and officials are to attend; any attempt at terrorism could spell a nightmare for Pakistan-India relations. Still reeling from the aftermath of Mumbai, if any terrorist organisation, whether indigenous or not, commits an act of terrorism, India might not wait for the burden of proof before retaliating against Pakistan, especially if its image is sullied as the host country for a major international sporting event.

If the militant group is completely autonomous and abides by a self-created agenda — one that aims at pitting the two countries against each other — there is plenty to be worried about. India and Pakistan share a contentious and chequered history, still rife with suspicion and mistrust. After the carnage in Mumbai where Pakistan’s intelligence establishment stands accused of supporting terror acts, it will not be difficult for any rogue outfit to start a war between the two neighbours by sabotaging these games.

The leaders of both countries must exercise extreme diplomacy, wisdom and patience before, during and after these games. The militants aim to hold both countries hostage to their agenda — an all out Armageddon in the region. It is hoped that the security arrangements for the games are adequate and that Pakistan and India can come through this test without being waylaid by the militants. *

India’s free-market mantra By Jawed Naqvi Monday, 20 Sep, 2010

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/jawed-naqvi-has-the-freemarket-mantra-corroded-indias-democracy-090

The legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the media are described as the four pillars of India’s fabled democracy. The question is: Has Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s drive for a free-market economy, replacing decades of subverted populist dreams, adversely affected democracy’s core institutions.
Let us take the legislature, or India’s hallowed parliament. It was the first point of impact for Dr Singh’s economic worldview. The fact is that for better or worse there would be no reforms today — not the kind Dr Singh had piloted as finance minister from 1991 — had the legislature not fallen prey to the guiles of lucre, a close associate of free-market enterprise the world over.

A trust vote was required to install Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s minority government in which Dr Singh was his chosen economic wizard. The Congress bribed a clutch of tribal MPs to win the vote. The MPs were later jailed but only after the government finished its five-year term, of which free-market reforms was the main programme.

The rot in the legislature was again on display recently when opposition MPs offloaded bundles of currency notes in the Lok Sabha, alleging that the money had come from Dr Singh’s party to enable him to win a vote on his nuclear tie-ups with the United States. His Left Front allies tried to block the vote and so they were eased out in the second UPA government.If the lure of lucre could corrupt ordinary MPs we can only imagine the devastating consequences it would have for the executive. There was a time when Indian ministers were cited as examples of probity. With committed activist-politicians like Feroze Gandhi keeping vigil, scams were unearthed promptly and punishments meted out instantly. Nehru’s cabinet minister Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh was jailed as early as in 1949 for accepting a mere 25,000 rupees for forging a mining document.

In 1958, Finance Minister T. T. Krishnamachari resigned for helping place state-owned insurance funds with a private banker. The businessman, Haridas Mundra, was jailed. Other tycoons were punished with regularity those days. In 1959, Ramakrishna Dalmia, head of Bharat Insurance Company, was jailed for two years for misappropriating 22 million rupees from the company. Businessman Dharam Teja siphoned 220 million rupees for a spurious shipping company. He was arrested in Europe and jailed for six years. The father of the current chief minister of Orissa was forced to resign for favouring his own company in awarding a government contract. That was the system which today is denounced variously as populist, socialist and inefficient.

Today the honest Dr Singh can’t get rid of a telecommunications minister who is widely accused of large-scale corruption, because if he did his government would fall. From Harshad Mehta to Satyam, the journey of Indian financial sandals has dotted the reforms agenda. The defence deals scandal of the Vajpayee government is not entirely unconnected to the lure of lucre. A former socialist, the then defence minister had to resign though all too briefly. He signalled a new brazenness in blunting public outcry by shooting the messenger. Tehelka.com was shut down for exposing the defence deals and its journalists hounded by various agencies.

However, the free-market genie was to get even with the prying eyes of the media. It simply co-opted the main players. Thus we recently saw the income tax department naming two of India’s most popular TV anchors — a man and a woman — for involvement as lobbyists for a tainted minister. That rules governing conflict of interest were bent to allow newly set up as well as older media houses to perform their sleight of hand is by now axiomatic. One day the hub of India’s free-market architecture — the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) — realised that its business was getting mired by spurious reporting.

SEBI shot off a curious note to the Press Council of India seeking “mandatory disclosures by the media of its stake in corporate sector”. Too little too late, but the toothless council was helpless even if SEBI’s concerns, rooted in its free-market philosophy — were genuine.

SEBI chided the “practice of many media groups entering into agreements, such as ‘Private Treaties’, with companies. Typically, such arrangements are with companies which are listed or which proposes to come out with public offerings. These, in general, entail a company giving stake in it (shares, warrants, bonds etc.) in return for media coverage through advertisements, news reports, advertorials etc. in the print or electronic media.”

The punch line followed: “It was felt that such agreements may give rise to conflict of interest and may, therefore, result in dilution of the independence of press. This may consequently compromise the nature, quality and content of the news/editorials relating to such companies. Needless to say, biased and motivated dissemination of information, guided by commercial considerations can potentially mislead investors in the securities market. Such journalism would not be in the interest of securities market.”

SEBI was of course not concerned about countless other ways in which the fourth pillar of democracy was commandeered to plant stories by a host of other parallel parties. At an individual level, how journalist X, with undisclosed shares in a company, was going to be prevented from shaping the course of the company’s business with his or her reporting remains a million dollar question not easy to answer.

With three of its four institutions wilting before the reforms juggernaut — once prescribed by Dr Singh but now the favourite mantra of most parties — the judiciary was naturally going to be saddled, even overloaded, with the responsibility of insulating the fair name of Indian democracy from market marauders. How far has the judiciary been successful in keeping itself sequestered from the onslaught? To a large extent it is the only institution that still commands a degree of respect among democracy’s key institutions. But there have been lapses.

A serious campaign for judicial accountability led by a group of public-minded senior lawyers has prepared dossiers on several former chief justices of the Supreme Court alleging various kinds of corruption. For stating his case bluntly in an interview, the leader of the lawyers’ group, Prashant Bhushan, was slapped with contempt notice. He responding last week by disclosing to the apex court the names of some of the former judges together with material evidence he claimed was the basis of his charge against them.

Not surprisingly, the free-market juggernaut seemed to have found an echo in the alleged transgressions of some of the judges. Referring to the Vedanta/Sterlite case involving clearances (now proved to have been wrongly) given to the mining company by a judge, Bhushan told the Supreme Court:

“I would not have mentioned this case as an example of the judicial process getting corrupted, had I not believed that the orders passed in the case were unconscionable and had led to a gross miscarriage of justice particularly for the local tribal population who would have been displaced and whose lives and livelihoods would be destroyed as a result of these orders. The unconscionable nature of the orders have become even clearer from recent developments in that case, where successive expert bodies appointed by the Ministry of Environment have pointed out exactly what the Court’s own Centrally Empowered Committee had warned about in 2005 itself, when it advised the court to reject Forest Clearance to the Vedanta/Sterlite project.”

Former law minister Shanti Bhushan also impleaded himself in the contempt case last week saying it would be his honour to serve the nation if he was jailed in the course of insulating the judiciary from a few corrupt judges.“There was a time when it was almost impossible even to think that a judge of a High court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt,” Shanti Bhushan said in his prayer to the Supreme Court. “Things have changed drastically during the last two or three decades during which corruption has been growing in the Indian judiciary. So much so that even a sitting Chief Justice of India had to openly admit that 20 per cent of the judges could be corrupt. Very recently in March 2010 a sitting Chief Justice of a high court openly made a statement. The statement of the sitting chief justice was published by the Times of India in its issue of 6th March 2010 with the headlines “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat chief justice”.

Meanwhile, the Ayodhya case is expecting a verdict on September 24. It will form a hand smokescreen for the free-market agenda to prosper. That’s the way it has worked for Dr Singh’s reforms since 1992 when the Babri mosque was demolished and everyone was riveted to the mayhem.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Surprise, surprise By Kamran Shafi Tuesday, 21 Sep, 2010

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/kamran-shafi-surprise,-surprise-190

Surprise, surprise, that the case of journalist Umar Cheema’s late night kidnapping from Islamabad the Beautiful, his violent beating; crudely shaving his head and eyebrows; hanging him upside down, and dropping him off after a several-hour ride, most of it on the motorway, 120 kms away from Islamabad by thugs of an intelligence agency has reached the usual dead-end. 
Well, what’s new? Yet another dastardly and cruel act by the Deep State shoved under the humongous filthy carpet, maintained with loving care for more years than I care to remember, by our venal and heartless establishment. 

To the matter, however: the motorway authorities say that they do not have CCTV cameras mounted at the entry and exit points of the motorway so they have no way of knowing which type of vehicle might have been used in the kidnap. But what about the toll booth records? 

Since in all likelihood the vehicle in which Cheema was transported entered the motorway at Islamabad (or Fatehjang) and exited at the Chakwal/Talagang exit, the records of these three points should suffice to at least get the registration numbers of all the vehicles that used that section during the approximate hours of his kidnapping. 

So why in heavens name can’t the motorway authorities be made to hand over the record to the much-vaunted Islamabad traffic police who can then try to find the offending vehicle? Surely even the traffic police should know the registration numbers of the vehicles in the use of the brutes that go by the name of ‘intelligence agents’ in the capital of the Citadel of Islam? 

Surely they would, for they must notice these yahoos race about dangerously, following and harassing peaceful and law-abiding citizens who might have chanced to, say, go to a diplomatic mission or to a diplomat’s house. 

As a matter of fact, even the lay police should know these vehicles by sight because they do not even slow down at the various check-posts erected all across the city, check-posts where an ordinary mortal can get shot dead if one does not stop, as happened to a poor lad some time ago. 

But no, of course not. We will never find out what happened to poor Umar Cheema because the Deep State does not want us to find out. It is a law, a country, a nation, and a state unto itself all rolled up in one, independently sprung as it is due to the billions of rupees it forcibly purloins from the hapless government of Pakistan on pain of imminent death and worse. 

No police force in the country dare stand up to it, let alone nominate it on well-investigated and well-founded suspicions of grave wrongdoing. 

The above we already knew, those of us who have dared to even murmur opposition to its stupidities in the mistaken belief that Pakistan does not only belong to the Deep State, it belongs to all us Pakistanis. And that all of us must put our shoulder to the wheel to move our country forward. No! roars the Deep State ... do what I say otherwise I shall teach you a lesson you will never forget. (Witness Umar Cheema’s tribulations, dear reader). 

But by far the more frightening part of the Deep State’s recent exertions is that it is now targeting innocent citizens who have nothing whatsoever to do with the press, or writing, or admonishing it in any way. 

Recent letters to the editor of this newspaper of record state that at least two readers have in the most recent past experienced harassment at the hands of unnamed people speaking from ‘Private Number Calling’. 

In one case, a letter writer complained that his SIM was being used by someone else, probably someone from the Deep State, who else? 

A reader of mine has been complaining by emails to me for some time now of calls from ‘Private Number Calling’ during which the person on the other side asked this gentleman if his SIM was being used by someone else. When this gentleman said it wasn’t and could he know who was calling, the caller traced his ancestry and told him he had better watch out lest he get hurt. 

What in the world is going on? Is this an attempt to ripen and prepare unsuspecting people for a shakedown after threatening them of dire consequences? 

Are these rogue elements who are out to make money through blackmail to finance their dark doings? What in the world is going on? 

This is a situation that simply cannot be allowed to go on, Deep State or no Deep State. There should be no ‘private numbers’ whatsoever. All users of the mobile/landline networks should be treated equally when it comes to the identification of the number calling a certain telephone. We know we live in the dark shadow of the establishment, growing darker all the time, but it is time we the people stood up and said, “Enough!” 

The shadows are growing ever darker because the two main political players, the PPP and the PML-N, are slowly but surely being hijacked by hard-hearted hawks on both sides, who little realise that united they stand, divided they (both) fall. 

An aside here: how silly Babar Awan looked when asked if the federal government would charge Musharraf under Article 6. “The Punjab government should charge him since it was the PML-N government that he dismissed and the same party now rules Punjab which is 60 per cent of the country”, or words to that effect said Babar. I ask you. And I thought that whatever else he was, the man was clever. How wrong one can be! 

In the end, a call to the hardworking and good Shahbaz Sharif: have the seemingly stupid and cooked-up story to harm the Hon’ble CJ of the Lahore High Court looked at most closely. If it is indeed so, isolate the person(s) who have misled you and punish him/them most severely. It is giving Punjab a very bad name indeed.