|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
On political
violence Is it enough to simply say that anyone that confronts the state can be branded a 'terrorist'? By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar In this age of 'terror' it is easy to forget that political violence has been a constant in history virtually since the earliest human settlement, and particularly so in the modern era. The totalitarian discourses of states and corporate media have gotten us believing that there is something uniquely grotesque about 'terrorism' in its current manifestation.
It's about home
firstperson
In the red
reforms By Raja Muhammad Ali Saleem Most of the people will be surprised that this
question is being asked. After all, starting from constitution of 1956,
Pakistan has been clearly defined as a federation.
aman ki asha Amartya Sen has popularised the notion of the argumentative Indian with his book of the same name. Given that Sen has never allowed himself to be constrained by arbitrary divisions, and the fact that his family origins are in Dhaka, we can safely assume that he is referring more generally to the argumentative South Asian. So, although this post pertains to India, the question I would like to pose for discussion is: What is it that the argumentative South Asian argues about today? Human rights groups, labour organisations, and common people have realised the importance of cooperation By Shujauddin Qureshi South Asia is home to one-fifth of world's population, making it both the most densely populated geographical region in the world. Despite having considerable human and natural resources, this region is still backward as a majority of its population lives below the poverty line. On political violence Is it enough to simply say that anyone that confronts the state can be branded a 'terrorist'? By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar In this age of 'terror' it is easy to forget that
political violence has been a constant in history virtually since the
earliest human Contemporary non-state political movements that employ violence may be different from those that preceded them in terms of ideology, scope and even goals. But their use of violent methods -- the one feature upon which most of us dwell -- is hardly novel. The famous anti-imperialist political philosopher and ideologue of the Algerian struggle against French colonialism, Frantz Fanon, wrote in the late 1950s about the imperative of revolutionary violence. A psychologist by training, Fanon insisted that colonised peoples were subject to a deep-seated inferiority complex and that breaking the chains of mental slavery was only possible by matching and even surpassing the violence of the colonizer. The Algerian war of independence featured the use of
urban guerilla tactics and specifically attacks on white settlers
(non-combatants). Some commentators assert that the near-eulogizing of
violence during the anti-colonial struggle may have forced the French out
but left a deep imprint on the minds of Algerians -- hence violence became
a distinctive characteristic of post-colonial politics. According to these
critics, Fanon was correct in identifying the psychology of violence but
erred in his insistence that there is a symbiotic relationship between
violence and liberation. Having said this many contemporaries of Fanon shared his belief that revolutionary violence was a necessity in the face of deeply entrenched cultural and political hegemony. Mao Tse-Tung famously noted that 'revolution grows out of the barrel of a gun'. Guerilla wars were fought against imperialism and ruling classes throughout Asia, African and Latin America throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Throughout this heady period political violence may have been criticized but there was nothing like the consensus that has been concocted in today's world vis a vis 'terrorism'. This is not to suggest that relatively peaceful anti-colonial movements did not exist, or that such movements were unsuccessful in forcing the colonizers to leave. Gandhi was of course not just the leader of the Indian independence struggle but also distinguished himself as a philosopher of non-violence. His primary contribution was to blur the binary of means and ends; for Gandhi physical liberation meant nothing without spiritual liberation and the latter could only be achieved by renouncing violence in all its various forms. Gandhi and his ideas still carry great weight in
Indian politics, and I would argue that his influence extends to all
resistance movements that struggle with questions of means and ends. In
recent days debates on revolutionary violence have been reinvigorated by
Arundhati Roy who has written about her experiences wandering the jungles
of Andhra Pradesh with the infamous Naxalite -- also known as Maoist --
rebels that the Indian prime minister has repeatedly called the country's
biggest security threat. By some accounts Naxalites control up to 25
percent of India's landmass and in years to come this figure could go up
further.
Roy's writings verge on the celebratory; she personalizes the daily heroism of the rebels, lauds their historic resistance against the predatory corporate mineral companies that seek to pillage India's bauxite and iron and thereby destroy an age-old eco-system that sustains millions of people, and slams the draconian violence of the state. Without mincing her words, Roy argues that the forest people of central India have been forced into a corner, that their resort to violence, even if not justified, cannot be condemned in the same breath as that of their oppressor. If nothing else one has to salute Roy for writing so candidly about the rebels in the midst of a campaign of unprecedented state propaganda. Gandhians and liberals alike are aghast at her polemic yet the ethical and political questions that she raises cannot simply be dismissed because one objects to her personal politics. Arundhati's writings do not reveal anything new, they simply force us to confront realities that have been trivialized and caricatured to the point of farce in the age of 'terror'. For us in Pakistan it is vital to move beyond the rhetoric of state and media. Among other things it surely must be admitted that the causes of those who pick up guns are not all the same. Do we simply give the state a mandate to treat the insurgency in Balochistan and the political violence in the Pakhtun areas in the same way? Is it enough to simply say that anyone that confronts the state can be branded a 'terrorist'? Why is it that people do pick up guns? Were they born with a genetic defect that made them weapon magnets? Mao, Fanon and Gandhi, for all of their disagreements, were all clear that throughout history it has been dominant powers, state and imperialism foremost amongst them, that have killed and maimed subordinate classes and groups at will, that violence is almost always the preserve of the rich and powerful. If society is dehumanized it is those who control it that are primarily responsible. Thus even when the perennially oppressed rise up and
challenge their oppressors, they do so as the weaker party; their violence
is When Arundhati asks whether there are other means of resisting the alliance of state and corporate capital 'in the face of overwhelming odds', she is restating an age-old question. That there is no simple answer to this question is beyond doubt. But we live in an age where to even ask this question is tantamount – if I may be allowed to digress into George W. Bush-speak – to 'aiding and abetting the terrorists'. In the name of (re)establishing the 'writ of the state' and the 'rule of law', are we providing a mandate to the already powerful to consolidate their power? 'Revolutionary' violence may not transform society into what the visionaries want, but that does not mean that it will go away because it should. Those who claim to speak in our name would do well to keep their violence to themselves. If they choose not to, then they will ultimately be to blame for the cycle of violence that follows.
It's about home Human activity has divided the world into an Eco-World (natural world) and Techno-World (built environment) ![]() By Mohammad Niaz World Earth Day is celebrated on April 22nd each year with a focus on different themes. Earth Day 2010 is a prime opportunity for providing a common platform to individuals, corporations and governments to sit together and create a global green economy. The 40th Earth Day anniversary will be celebrated with a theme the Green Generation Campaign that started on April 22, 2009 with major focus to create a carbon-free future based on renewable energy, to secure individuals' commitments to responsible, sustainable consumption, and to create a new green economy to upset poverty by creating millions of green jobs and transform the global education system into a green one. Every year the state of the earth resources is experiencing a downward trend even besides global environmental initiatives and concern. The earth is an abode for not only human beings but also millions of other biological entities interwoven in the complex web of life that benefit one another through their vital interaction directly or indirectly. Since we are using the earth resources for obtaining a wide range of benefits, therefore, it's our moral obligation to ensure the wise-use philosophy and perpetuate the resources for sake of our future generations. Human activity has divided the world into an Eco-World (Natural World) and Techno-World (Built Environment). The Eco-World refers to the mountains, forests, oceans, rivers, deserts, birds, animals, and insects. The Techno-World includes roads, industries, automobiles, buildings, and means to fulfill needs of advanced life style. As such the Techno-World is in conflict with the Natural world, because it's the man who brings radical changes and causing damage to the natural assets. Hence the impact of human has far reaching adverse affects on the natural resources; similarly the raw material for technological development depends on the eco-world and the ill planning of development results in enormous pressure on the natural resources. Rationally speaking, the Eco-World is shirking fast. Given the contemporary world scenario the earth resources are at stake due to multifold indicators. Rapid increase in human population, livestock and their requirements has doubled utilization and exploitation of the natural resources. Carrying capacity of the Earth can be affected by the size of the human population, consumption of resources, and the level of pollution and environmental degradation that results. Given the current human population of the world 6.81 billion, the earth resources are depleting fast coupled with the process of alteration, consumption, and degradation. The land is neutral and it's the people who cause the problem. Human settlements in and near the Eco-World has degraded wilderness once the abode of wildlife which has shrunk their pristine habitat and threatened many wildlife species due to the human-wildlife conflicts. Agricultural practices in the fragile ecosystems of the mountainous areas have vitalized erosion threat. Deforestation being one of the forefront problem results in biodiversity loss, threatens fragile ecosystem, disrupt vital and essential ecological services, and change hydrological processes. At the global level this has further attributed to the global warming scenario. Recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, excluding peatland emissions, contribute about 12 percent of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The glaciers of the world are losing mass due to the intensifying global warming scenario. An estimated 1.5 to 2 billion people in Asia in the Himalayan region depend on river systems that are fed by glaciers. Without the water from mountain glaciers, serious socio-economic repercussions are inevitable and the UN's Millennium Development Goals for fighting poverty and improving access to clean water will be jeopardized. The Earth has a finite supply of freshwater stored in aquifers, surface waters and the atmosphere. 97.5 percent of all water on Earth is salt water, leaving only 2.5 percent as fresh water. Nearly 70 percent of that fresh water is frozen in the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland; most of the remainder is present as soil moisture, or lies in deep underground aquifers as groundwater not accessible to human use. Less than one percent of the world's fresh water (0.007 percent of all water on earth) is accessible for direct human uses in the form of lakes, rivers, reservoirs and those underground sources that are shallow enough to be tapped at an affordable cost. However, the water pollution factor makes the water quality and quantity worse due to carelessness and mismanagement. Urbanization also leads to resource depletion. The global proportion of urban population rose dramatically from 29 percent (732 million) in 1950, to 49 percent (3.2 billion) in 2005 which will is projected to rise to 60 percent (4.9 billion) by 2030. It will promote slum dwelling, solid waste and sanitation issues and inequitable distribution of resources. There is a saying that we shape our buildings and latter the buildings shape our world. If we do not learn to build, expand and design our cities with a respect for nature, we will have no nature left anywhere. Let spare a moment and look into what is being done to the Earth and its resources. More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times greater than normal. The rate at which arable land is being lost is increasing and is currently 30-35 times the historical rate. The current rate of deforestation is 160,000 square kilometers per year, which equates to a loss of approximately 1 percent of original forest habitat each year. Over 35 percent mangrove ecosystems worldwide have been destroyed. Only 10-20 percent of the world's dry lands have been somewhat degraded. Current studies indicated that a total of 15,845 km of wetlands have been irreversibly lost during the past 14 years. The growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions has been more than double till the end 1990s. From 2000 to 2005, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 percent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than one per cent per year. Atmospheric CO2 levels have climbed by more than 35 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat to the extent that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. However, for short term gains, across the globe, human activities have resulted in deterioration of landscapes, forests, wetlands, and rangelands; wilderness, natural areas, and wildlife resources have declined; habitat has been fragmented; and pollution has increased, all due to growth in the human population with technological and economic development and unwise use of resources. As a result, environmental concerns and programs are also growing with the passage of time with the goal of raising environmental awareness leading to ecological action. The threats to the earth resources are of prime concern for mankind that can be mitigated through awareness and education for wise use. There is a dire need to adopt the strategy of "reduce, re-use, and recycle", if we are sincere with a healthy future of the world. One of the essentials for promoting appreciation of nature among people is to connect people to nature through various means and techniques and promote conservation of resources for human beings. This evokes interest, passion, and enthusiasm among masses as the prerequisites of the Green Generation Campaign. The policy makers, institutions, and organizations as well as individuals need to adopt do-it-now approach to save the planet earth and its resources in a cobweb of coordinated efforts. If we consider the World as a Global Village, we need to act now to maintain its pristine entity. World Earth Day is observed on April 22.
The writer is Deputy Conservator NWFP Wildlife Department firstperson "We have a policy of multi-culturalism" They are focusing on Islam being a religion of peace and democracy and saying it is not a problem being a Muslim living in Sweden By Zaman Khan Blue-eyed blonde and energetic Susanne Olsson is a
senior lecturer, research fellow, and Head of Department of the Study of
The News on Sunday: Please tell us about your background and education. Susanne Olsson: I have mainly done research on 'piety movements' in Islam. I have been working lately on a poet, Egyptian scholar called Umair Khalid and his televised shows on Islam. I wrote my PhD thesis on the Egyptian philosopher Hassan Hanafi. He is not a Sufi but he is an intellectual Muslim writer, writing about Islam and ideology and methods for Muslims to be a Muslim but not to lose their identity when they want to work in the global village. TNS: What influenced you to do research on Islam? SO: I always found religion very interesting. People who were religious got motivation from religion to do things. When I started at the University in the beginning of the nineties that was after the Gulf War. I was very interested in (knowing) how Islam was used as a political force in political situations and in conflict situations. Even if a conflict has a cause, it does not have anything to do with religion. It can be expressed in a religious language. And I found that very interesting. I also found, as earlier I was reading Arabic poetry and a lot of poetry was influenced by religion. I also listened to recitation of the Quran, I thought it is beautiful so I tried to learn Arabic. TNS: What made you turn to Arabic poetry? SO: Earlier in life, I read a Syrian poet, Niza Qabani. He wrote love poetry that I really liked and then I realised that he also wrote political poetry. Then I read Sufi poetry which I like very much. I also studied Islamic 'shahria'. TNS: Have some religious or Sufi works translated into Swedish language? SO: No, unfortunately not. We have some translations of Rumi. Normally, we have to read in English. In Sweden, some poets are trying to translate Pakistani poets. There is one of the Swedish delegates in Islamabad who says he is trying to find some poems to be translated into Swedish language. A lot of people don't want to read poetry in English because it is complicated for them. We need it in Swedish. TNS: Throw some light on your PhD thesis? SO: I have analysed the philosophy of Hanfi. His philosophy deals with what he calls 'Maqadma'. He studied European philosophy from Islamic point of view and tried to show that what was in European philosophies could also be found in Islam. In a way, he was trying to develop a new way of interpreting the religious sources in Islam with the help of European philosophy. He was showing that this method was authentically Islamic. He wanted to show that there are many similarities between cultures. He was trying to make a dialogue between religions, between people of different cultures, between different political systems, ethnicities and so on. TNS: Has your thesis been published? SO: Yes, it has been published in Swedish language by a Swedish publishing house. It was also published in English in 2006. TNS: What are your current research projects? SO: I am completing a manuscript on the teaching of M. Khalid which I mentioned earlier and this is an analysis of some discourses such as his views on gender and Western world. TNS: Some people say Islam was used against communism in Afghanistan. What is your opinion? SO: Well, I think that in general if you look all over the world religion has been used in many political cultures. That does not have to do only with Islam. TNS: After 9/11, there is a lot of concern in the West about Muslims. What do you think of that? SO: I think after 9/11 people are afraid of Muslims in general. The climate in Europe and America has been difficult for Muslims. It is like each Muslim has to take this huge responsibility and defend Islam all the time. I think it is something very difficult for everyone to answer "what do you think about Osama bin Laden?" In Europe, what we have seen in the last ten years is Islamic interpretations. They are focusing on Islam being a religion of peace and democracy and saying it is not a problem being a Muslim living in Sweden and other European countries. And that is becoming stronger everyday. When governments in Europe want to work with Muslims, they try to cooperate with Muslims. I mean this open-minded interpretation of Islam will probably become stronger in Europe as well. In Sweden, for instance, we have a democratic society. You can express your religiosity in a different way and in Sweden it is forbidden to use it in your identity cards. You are never allowed to write what religion you belong to because that is a private matter and people are allowed to keep it to themselves. TNS: How do you compare the situation of Muslims in Sweden before and after 9/11? SO: I think it has become difficult. We have strong political parties to the right. They are racists and they have more members or sympathisers now. It is more difficult to live in Sweden if you have an immigrant background. It will be more difficult to get a job, many people complain about that. It has been worst in the last ten years. Lot of people think Islam is the cause of all trouble. Some people speak about the immigrants. TNS: Do you hope that Sweden and the West would revert to a society as it existed before 9/11? SO: I have hope because, for example, in my country Sweden the democratic movement is very strong and we are working hard against the right wing parties. We also have what you may call multi-culturalist policy which is very open-minded. If you look at the media in Sweden, like main newspapers and T V, they are trying to show that not all Muslims are Osama Bin Laden and most Muslims are like any other Swede. Muslims are doing ordinary things in media and I think people see. So, Muslims living in Sweden are like other Swedes. We have elections in Sweden later this year. So the political debate has started about the issue of multi-culturism also because of the right wing parties. There is a strong movement against them. I hope it will benefit the Muslims. We have Muslims taking part in political discussions which is very good. I am hopeful, I have to be. TNS: Have Muslims fortified themselves in Sweden or is there more interaction between Swedes and Muslims after 9/11? SO: It is both ways. Among the Muslims in Sweden we have many groups, one group calling themselves 'peace agents'. They are Muslims working for peace and we also have some Muslim associations that are trying to spread information about Islam in society and they have lot of space, and people know about them and they are also in newspapers. They are also in the media and they all have the policy of showing that Muslims should integrate in society, learn the language and work. But we also have some segregated groups and I think their interpretation of Islam is more conservative. But they are a very, very small minority. Many immigrants come to Sweden and they choose to live in the suburbs and then they do not get integrated and they do not learn the language and they only meet people who speak their language belong to the same ethnic group, have same religious interpretation. Politicians have to take it as a serious problem and help them. TNS: How do you relate this with the European Union? SO: In the European Union, when it comes to immigration policy, it is very different between the countries. In Sweden, we have a policy of multi-culturalism which means we accept the people looking different, believe differently and behave differently and so on. But in France they have a different opinion, like they forbid religious symbols in public places and so on. And they want people to be more alike. So, France is a secular country in a very different way from Sweden. They can't really be compared. The situation is very different in the European Union as well. And some countries are like Switzerland. They wanted to forbid minarets. In France they discussed if they could forbid 'burka'. It has been discussed in Sweden. But it never became a political issue because I think it is only two hundred women in Sweden who wear the 'Niqab'. So it is not an issue in Sweden. TNS: What is the education policy in Sweden? Do Muslim students get their own education? SO: Education policy in Sweden is like community schools, all have to study the same subjects. We study religion from comparative, non-confessional perspective. We also allow free schools. We have eight Muslim free schools in Sweden and the free schools have to do the same like community schools but they can add hours for teaching Islam and Arabic. The teacher can be someone who studied Islam and can present it from Islamic point of view. In Sweden, we have nine million people only. We don't know the population of Muslims because it is illegal but we estimate that it may be from 350,000-500,000 people, so they are not so many.
In the red Pakistan needs to develop indigenous resources to cope with its economic problems By Hussain H. Zaidi While the government is taking credit for forging consensus among political parties on the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the economy is largely on the debit side of its balance sheet as shown by major macro-economic indicators. The State Bank of
Pakistan (SBP) projections (2nd Quarterly Report FY10) put the real GDP
growth for the current fiscal year The economy will thus continue to register lackluster growth for the second consecutive year. What is worse, slow economic growth will be accompanied by persisting inflationary pressures. Average consumer price index (CPI) inflation for FY10 is projected to be in the range of 11-12 percent at least 2 percentage points higher than the 9 percent target. However, it is significantly less than that during FY09 when it was 21.7 percent. Average inflation (CPI) had dropped to 13.6 percent at the end of December 2009 compared with 20.3 percent a year earlier. The fall in inflation has been due to price deflation caused by recession and weaker domestic demand. However, inflationary pressures are likely to be sticky in the downward direction partly due to surge in international commodity prices in the wake of global economic recovery and partly due to increase in cost of doing business caused by power shortage, increase in utility charges and the precarious security environment. The combination of slow growth and high prices, stagflation as it is called, does not bode well for the economy. Usually, there is a trade-off between high GDP growth and low inflation. However, sometimes, the economy reaches a stage where this choice is no longer available. The result is increase in prices accompanied by contraction of output growth and consequent fall in employment and incomes. In FY08, GDP growth went down from 7.0 to 4.1 percent, while inflation went up from 7.8 to 12.0 percent. In FY09, GDP growth further slipped to 2.0 percent, while average inflation was around 22 percent. The stagflation can be attributed in the main to three factors: One, stabilisation policies pursued by the government reflected in restrictive fiscal and monetary policies on the one hand slowed the pace of the economy and on the other contributed to inflation due to reduction of subsidies and increase in energy prices. Two, the war on terror has had negative economic repercussions and together with the global recession affected investment level and export performance. Three, the energy crisis has increased the cost of doing business and discouraged investment. The injection of capital inflows from the IMF has saved the country from having to default on debt re-payment, made it possible to pay for imports and helped improve balance of payments (BoP) position. However, the IMF assistance is a bailout and not a development package. The purpose is to help the country service its debt, make payment for imports and build up its reserves. It can be of little use in saving the country from stagflation. Instead, IMF conditionalities have aggravated the situation by making for restrictive fiscal and monetary policies. As in the last year, the government is likely to miss the fiscal deficit target of 4.9 percent of GDP for the current fiscal year as well. During July-December FY10, fiscal deficit was 2.7 percent of GDP compared with 1.9 percent for the corresponding period of FY09. SBP projections put fiscal deficit between 5 and 5.5 percent of GDP. During FY09, fiscal deficit was 5.2 percent of GDP. Despite reduction in development spending, fiscal deficit will increase partly due to surge in security related expenditure and partly due to snags in revenue collection. For FY10, development spending estimates were Rs763.1 billion, which were revised to Rs616 billion and are now projected to be only Rs510 billion. During the first half of FY10, the actual development spending was Rs116 billion, which suggests that even Rs510 billion projections are on the higher side. On the other hand, current expenditure in FY08 was Rs1.86 trillion. The actual expenditure during FY09 was Rs2.04 trillion against the budget estimates of Rs1.86 trillion. For FY10, budgetary current spending estimates were Rs2.10 trillion, which were revised upward to Rs2.26 trillion and are projected to be 2.40 trillion. There has been improved performance on containing current account deficit. During July-Feb FY10, the current account deficit was 2.2 percent of GDP compared with 6.8 percent for the corresponding period of FY09. According to SBP forecasts, for full FY10, current account deficit will be less than 4 percent of GDP -- substantially lower than 5.3 percent during FY09. The improved performance on the current account is partly due to 8.2 percent negative growth of imports (during July-Feb FY10) and remittances of $5.8 billion (during July-Feb FY10). On the other hand during the same period exports grew by merely 2.7 percent compared with 3.5 percent during the corresponding period of FY09. When economic growth shrinks, investment level goes down, jobs are lost and incomes fall. Consequently, unemployment and poverty levels rise. The rise in unemployment and poverty further reduces the aggregate demand, resulting into lower investment demand and thus slower GDP growth. Increased poverty and unemployment have enormous social cost, because the affected people can become a convenient tool in the hands of destabilising forces. This is particularly relevant to Pakistan, which is facing an insurgency in its northwestern part. Economic development requires sustained growth in the economy. Contraction of growth hampers development efforts, and makes it difficult for a country to break the shackles of underdevelopment and backwardness. Sluggish growth, especially lackluster performance of the commodity-producing sector, increases supply-side inflation. To ward off supply-side inflation, a country needs to import more, which puts additional pressure on the balance of payment (BoP) position. This places a country like Pakistan in a dilemma. If imports are restricted (by increasing applied tariffs, for example), inflation goes up. But if increased imports are allowed and exports do not go up significantly, current account deficit increases. Finally, as economy slowdowns, revenue receipts fall. To steer the country out of this difficult situation, the government needs generous foreign assistance. Mere re-adjustment of policies, though important, will not be enough. In the long run, Pakistan needs to develop indigenous resources to cope with its economic problems. In the short run, the country needs cash inflows in the form of either foreign investment or economic assistance. reforms Monetary mismanagement The internal and external debt will keep on rising unless we go for all-out economic revival By Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq Former Finance Minister
Shaukat Tarin, on assuming charge, issued an official communiqué to all
federal government ministries, Our rulers should realise that Pakistan cannot afford wasteful spending. We need to downsize our mammoth governmental machinery and reduce spending on "elected" representatives. Expenditure on the staff and household of the President has registered an increase of over 400 percent in the last ten years -- from Rs75 million in 1999 to Rs390 million in 2009. Ten years back, the army of ministers, advisers and special assistants cost the exchequer Rs24 million; now they cost Rs3 billion, that is an increase of 12400 percent. In 1999, total expenses for the National Assembly were Rs250 million which have now jumped to many billions. Interestingly, the traveling allowances alone come to Rs645 million. In 2008-09, the Prime Minister was allocated Rs958 million for foreign travels alone, but ended up spending Rs1.2 billion. In 2008-09, the President's foreign travels cost Rs760 million. For his "security reinforcement", a hefty amount of Rs200 million was spent by the President House and Rs40 million for personal residence. Senators spent over Rs45 million on foreign trips in 2009. According to holders of public office, any cut in their expenses will not improve the health of economy substantially or positively. They plead for more taxes but are not ready themselves to pay any. They speak about big reform agendas for long-term fiscal stability, sustained economic growth, rapid industrialisation and social mobility for deprived segments of society, but have no idea to implement them. The other day, Fauzia Wahab, spokesperson of PPPP, in a TV talk show, pleaded for more expenditure for the "welfare" of civil-military bureaucracy and public office-holders. She said that "in a cash-starved economy, the measure of reducing non-development expenditure of federal government departments will have an insignificant effect of around Rs150-200 billion". It is shameful that our current expenditure for 2008-09 was Rs1493 billion (74.3 percent of total budget outlay) This year it will cross the figure of Rs1700 billion. For Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP), which is already less than Rs550 billion, the government is willing to go for more cuts. It should have been the other way around. This could only be possible if we reduced the size of government machinery by one third and monetize all the perquisites and benefits of civil servants. Successive governments -- both civilian and military -- have never bothered to go for down-sizing of the gigantic administrative set-up. For civil-military clique, any cut in expenditure makes no difference as higher echelons are enjoying extraordinary perquisites in kind while the poor clerks and police constables are forced to perform duties under very pathetic conditions. The government is ready to borrow more and more to meet its day to day current expenditure, largely meant for foreign tours and lavish lifestyle. A big chunk of the borrowed money is spent for generals' comfort. Slow economic growth coupled with lavish government spending is pushing Pakistan deeper and deeper into debt-trap. Our domestic debt is now over Rs5 trillion while external debt has reached to over $50 billion. Even if the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) manages to achieve the target of Rs1380 billion, it will be offset by much faster growth of 30 percent in current expenditure. More taxes are thus not a plausible solution to solving the existing problems. The internal and external debt will keep on rising unless we go for all-out reforms, blue-prints of which have been elaborated by Nadeem ul Haque, former Vice-Chancellor of PIDE in his article, "Reform or face fundamental ascendancy". Haque has aptly emphasised that "the state must first provide the social contract, i.e. good law and order and security of life. It must dismantle the rent-seeking that protects the rich... Rent-seeking relies on three main components: state subsidies, licensing and regulation; special perks and privileges for ministers and army and civil service employees and land distribution system that allows the poor man's land to be acquired for the elite, especially the army and civil service". Dr. Hafeez Pasha, Chairman of a panel of economists appointed to advise the government should consider the points raised by Nadeem ul Haque while preparing report for budget for 2010-11. The new economic policy, besides curtailing non-development expenditures, should also emphasise reforms for economic growth and social justice. In the new budget, the government must do away with all the perquisites and benefits of government servants by monetising them, sell off all the state land for industrial and commercial purposes, reduce the size of defence budget by 30 percent between 2010 and 2014 and cut down the number of posts entailing pension in the government and semi-government departments from 350,000 to 120,000. Our governments have failed to bridge the gap between current expenditure and tax collection. We can never overcome revenue deficit unless rulers drastically cut wasteful expenditure. Erratic taxation at the expense of the poor is not a solution but part of the mega-problem. It is an established fact that despite resorting to all kinds of highhandedness and unjust withholding taxes, the FBR has failed to improve tax-GDP ratio, which is hovering around 9 percent for the last 10 years. The burden of taxes since 1991 has been shifted from the rich to the poor. The sole stress on indirect taxes has destroyed our economic growth, besides widening income inequalities. The have-nots are the ultimate sufferers of these despotic tax measures; proposed VAT is a classical case in point. There is no will to tax the income and wealth of the rich and mighty and reintroduce progressive taxes, abolished by the military dictators. The men in power argue that 63-year-old problems cannot be solved in a few months or even in 5 years' term for which they have been elected. Their main problem is failure to deal with powerful bureaucratic machinery, which is not only inefficient but is a self-perpetuating corrupt apparatus. The bureaucrats control and guide the ministers and politicians at large. On their recommendations, the parliamentarians pass bills for increase in their emoluments and benefits. Through this method bureaucrats ensure the continuity of luxuries like government-maintained houses, vehicles for family, domestic servants and what not. Unscrupulous businessmen, with the 'help' of their political and bureaucrat friends, indulge in massive tax evasion but escape punishment. This triangular of corrupt politicians, powerful bureaucrats, and greedy businessmen has made Pakistan a rent-seeking state. Bureaucrats please their political masters who, in turn provide protection to them and overlook their administrative excesses and corruption. No positive change can ever be possible unless all the untaxed assets of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and others are confiscated. The public auction of such ill-gotten-untaxed assets would eliminate the state's debt burden once and for all. If the ruling trio is taught a lesson, the rest of the nation would follow suit. The big absentee landowners should be brought into the tax net. Instead of VAT of 15 percent -- most hurtful to the poor -- we should go for single-stage simple sales tax of 2 percent across the board. It will yield more tax and close all the doors of corruption. If we stop wasteful expenditure, bring total expenses to the level of Rs1500 billion and collect taxes of Rs4 trillion, which is our real potential, there will be budget surplus instead of a deficit.
The writers, tax advisers and authors of many books, are visiting Professors at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)
Is Pakistan a federation? By Raja Muhammad Ali Saleem Most of the people will be surprised that this
question is being asked. After all, starting from constitution of 1956,
Pakistan has The preamble of the 1956 Constitution, among other things, states, 'Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan should form a Federation, wherein the Provinces would be autonomous with such limitations on their powers and authority as might be prescribed'. Article 1 (1) further clarifies that 'Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and is hereinafter referred to as Pakistan'. The preamble of the 1962 constitution also precludes any form of government, other than federation by stating, 'And whereas the territories now and hereafter included in Pakistan should be a form of federation with the Provinces enjoying such autonomy as is consistent with the unity and interest of Pakistan'. However, article1 (1) omits the word 'Federal' and calls Pakistan only a 'Republic'. The statement about federation in the preamble and article 1(1) of the 1973 constitution are exactly the same as in 1956 constitution, thus reinforcing that Pakistan is a federation. So, theoretically, legally and constitutionally, Pakistan has always been a federation but what actually has been the case. According to Robert Inman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading expert of federal systems, constitutionally-based federal systems have independently elected provincial governments. In Pakistan case, we should also make elected provincial chief executives as an additional requirement as executive has been historically more powerful than other branches of government and nominated chief executives have circumvented the independence given to the provinces in Pakistan. After setting this criteria, we can now analyze for how many years there were independent provincial governments in each province of Pakistan. During the sixty-three years of Pakistan's existence, for eighteen years, there was military rule or martial law. The Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army or the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) ruled Pakistan, with possibly some consultation with core commanders and principal staff officers at army's general headquarters. There were no elected governments in Centre or provinces. So, for these eighteen years __ around one-third of its existence __ Pakistan worked as a unitary state. Pakistan's time as unitary state can be extended by another eight years, when there was constitution, courts, elected governments at Centre and provinces but president was a serving COAS, thus retaining the __ more or less __ same power of coercion as before. After this addition, Pakistan's working as a unitary state increases to more than forty one percent of its life. If we add three years as the total time between two elections, when there are interim governments in Centre and provinces, appointed by the president, we can safely say that for around half of the time of Pakistan's life, it worked as a unitary state, all the three federal constitutions notwithstanding. The next step is to look at the other thirty odd years, when there were proper constitutional governments in Pakistan, and analyze for how many years, there were elected provincial governments (with elected provincial executives) in each province of Pakistan. If we apply this criteria, we come to the conclusion that Pakistan under 1962 constitution cannot be designated as a federation. There were provincial assemblies but all the powers were with the governors, who were appointed/ nominated by the Centre and served at the will of the president. Therefore, Pakistan functioned as a unitary state from 1962-1969 and there was no provincial autonomy during all those years. Our conclusion is supported by many scholars and the subsequent events of 1971. Even the makers of the 1962 constitution knew that that they are not envisaging a federation. Notice the absence of the word 'Federal' in Article 1(1) and watering down of federal principle in 1962 constitution as compared to 1956 and 1973 constitutions. Adding the time from 1962-69, the total time when Pakistan was not a federation increases to fifty seven percent of its life. Until now, we have analysed Pakistan working as a federation collectively i.e. from the point of view of all provinces. However, this approach maybe camouflaging the real issues as sometimes only one provincial government is dismissed and governor rule is imposed, while other provincial governments keep on functioning. So, for that specific province, Pakistan has worked as a unitary state for a longer period. To analyze these individual differences, the following section looks at each province's history individually. Punjab remained under governor rule for only two years. In 1949, the government of Nawab Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot was dismissed. For the next two years, there was governor's rule until new elections were held in 1951 and Mian Mumtaz Daultana became chief minister. Sindh remained under governor's rule for three years. The first instance happened in 1951 when the government of Muhammad Ayub Khoro was dismissed and assembly was dissolved. The second instance of the dissolution of provincial assembly came in 1998 after the murder of Hakim Muhammad Said. Another instance when centre (army) was controlling Sindh, although a provincial assembly was in existence, was in 1991-2 when army action was launched in 1992-3 to fight urban terrorism and rural banditry. Pakhtunkhwa only remained under governor rule for half a year. This is the least time for a province to remain under governor rule in Pakistan. In 1975, governor rule was imposed after the assassination of PPP leader Hayat Sherpao. The second instance of governor rule happened in 1994 when imposition of governor rule allowed the PPP leader Aftab Sherpao cobble a coalition, with the assistance of Centre, and replace PML (N) leader Pir Sabir Shah as chief minister. Balochistan remained under Centre's rule for the longest period of time as before the formation of One-Unit, there was no provincial assembly. Balochistan was a chief commissioner's province before independence and it remained so till 1955, with the chief commissioner nominated by the Centre. Even after the introduction of political reforms and election of a provincial assembly, Balochistan remained under governor rule for around three years in the 1970s. Moreover, in 2006-7, although there was an elected chief minister and assembly, most of the province was under Centre (army)'s control. It is surprising that all of the provinces have spent close to 60% of their existence under direct rule of the Centre in this federation. This means that for around two-thirds of Pakistan's life, people of Pakistan are living in unitary state, despite what the constitutions and founding fathers said. Balochistan, however, has suffered the most. For three-fourth of its association with Pakistan, it was denied any autonomy. First, through the proxy of chief commissioner and then of governor, Centre kept this resource-rich province under its thumb. Looking at the table above, the question which comes into mind is not why Baluch are up in arms but how Centre was able to keep thing under control in the 1980s and 1990s. Coming back to the question posed at the start, it is clear that Pakistan has been working as a unitary state for around forty of its sixty three years and here we are discounting the role of federal services, like CSP/DMG and Police, which have been governing at the district level and occupying the highest echelons at the policy-making level in all provinces. If we also consider this issue, we can safely say that Pakistan has never been a federation. Clap with both hands April 15, 2009 Dear Beena, Rejuvenated by a few days tramping in the hills, I return to our fray, if that's the word. Let me be frank, I think we Indians have messed up in Kashmir. Whatever the reasons are, here are the outlines of the mess today: one whole section of the population driven from the state and forced to live in squalid refugee camps in Delhi and Jammu; plenty of others in the state turned almost implacably hostile to India; an army presence there that anyone from anywhere else in India would find startling and disturbing; daily bloodshed of soldiers and civilians; need I go on? A gorgeous part of the world has turned into a tense killing field: Indians can hardly pretend that we are completely blameless. Yet I know that your country is hardly blameless either. And while I can see and understand all that has happened in Pakistan over the years -- the dictatorships, the role of the army, the influence of religious extremists -- what I struggle to understand is why thoughtful Pakistanis have not had greater success in taking your country back from these malevolent pressures. I mean, I know of enough names in Pakistan who have stood up to them -- Asma Jehangir, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Zia Mian, Beena Sarwar all come to mind -- but why is it still so easy, for example, for shadowy military types to dictate your country's approach to Kashmir? I realise that when I say this I open myself up to similar questions about India. We've had no success punishing plenty of malevolent types in this country, and in fact they have plenty of political and popular support that lauds this lack of success. But at least our military has stayed away from interfering with governance in this country. Considering our two countries grew from the same stock of people, how have we Indians managed to resist the charms of military dictatorships? Of sundry quasi-autonomous agencies that follow their own odious agendas? India is the bigger country, but I think the argument about a "larger heart" goes only so far. We are both large and powerful enough that we can dispatch each other into a nuclear lala-land -- such is the power of the weapons we possess. I think the more productive way to consider each other is as equals: no arrogance, no condescension, no grovelling, but just mutual respect and willingness to live and let live. So yes, I do recognise the fear among ordinary Pakistanis that India has the power to block Pakistan's access to water. But if India ever contemplates such a block, I will shout as loudly as I can to prevent it. It would be unconscionable of my country to do something like that and unconscionable of me not to speak out if it happens. I don't know if you see it as equivalent, but plenty of Indians have just as real a fear of continuing terrorist attacks directed by men in Pakistan. Can you in Pakistan acknowledge that fear and shout loudly to punish folks in your country who have directed such attacks in the past? yours always, dilip
April 15, 2010 Dear Dilip I'm glad you had a good holiday. Hills sound good in this hot and muggy weather. I appreciate your acknowledging how badly India has messed up in Kashmir and other places. I believe that I am among many Pakistanis who feel the same way about Pakistan having messed up on our side. So we both agree that our countries have messed up. Our exchange isn't a fray -- we agree on far too much. But I have to admit being stumped by your perception that the Indians' fear of terrorist attacks from men in Pakistan can be equated with Pakistan's fear of water being blocked. They sound vastly different to me. A terrorist attack on any given area will yield limited casualties. Take away a population's water supply, and everyone dependent on that water will die. You can shout away if that happens, it won't stop you government from doing whatever it is doing. No amount of shouting on either side prevented the nuclear tests of 1998 -- a totally unnecessary and dangerous move initiated by India. Having said that, yes, we can and we do acknowledge your fear of terrorist attacks. But remember that some of those people (not all, because India has her share of indigenous insurgencies and disgruntled troublemakers too) carrying out attacks in India are the same as those attacking us here in Pakistan. In fact, they've been at it since the 1980s, after the war in Afghanistan ended. Thousands of trained, ideologically conditioned 'mujahideen' (as they were then known) turned their guns towards targets in Pakistan -- minorities and non-mainstream Muslim communities. Haven't we already talked about this before? We've discussed India's superior democratic credentials and almost uninterrupted political process, and I even admitted (reluctantly) to being jealous of this tradition (which implies the military non-interference you mention). I think I also mentioned some of the factors behind the military's interference in politics in Pakistan, which include the geo-strategic factors and pressures that Pakistan faces. Knowing all this surely provides at least a partial answer to your question about how Indians have avoided military dictatorships and the role of the "quasi-autonomous agencies" as you put it. So it seems that we're going round in circles, coming back to the same point. Indian smugness, Pakistani defensiveness. Why can't we move forward? You bring up a crucial point, about the nuclear armed status of both our countries, which you believe brings us to par. Perhaps it does. But India is still the bigger, more powerful country. And it has border disputes with all its neighbours. There is clearly a need to examine why. It can't all be the fault of the other countries. No arrogance, no condescension would be nice. There's far too much of that on both sides at the moment -- and forgive me for saying this, but it seems to me that most of it is on the Indian side, particularly the condescension. Of course, no grovelling either -- but who's grovelling? Do you see seeking peace as grovelling? I'll sign off on that note. Am off to Berlin tonight to participate in a 'trialogue' between Indians, Afghans, and Pakistanis. On returning, I'll be plunged straight into a 'strategic seminar' in Lahore being organised by Aman ki Asha. One last thought: so many such initiatives have taken place over the past years. Why can't India move beyond the 'do something about terrorism and then we'll talk' line to a realisation that dialogue between our two countries IS one way to counter terrorism? Best beena
Amartya Sen has popularised the notion of the
argumentative Indian with his book of the same name. Given that Sen has
never The occasion for this question was attendance at a recent presentation by the Indian Foreign Secretary. In the course of a long discourse covering many topics the Foreign Secretary articulated the position of her government on relations with Pakistan. This position came across to me as overly hawkish even after allowing for the fact that a Congress government has to protect itself against BJP accusations of being soft on Pakistan. By itself, I did not have a problem with the position expressed by the Secretary. The evidence of problems created by Pakistani agents was real as was the accusation that not enough was being done to restrain them. No one could doubt the frustrations that resulted in India as a consequence. The question that arose in my mind was a more general one: Had there been a debate in India regarding the options that could be adopted vis a vis Pakistan? And had the hawkish option emerged as the one likely to be the most effective? The question occurred to me because I am not aware of such a debate. Perhaps it has taken place behind closed doors in strategic think tanks but that is not a substitute for public debate. I recall the Secretary mentioning that the position on Pakistan reflected the will of the Indian population. How has this will been manifested and communicated to the decision makers for whom this is a critical issue? Here one is faced with a conundrum because one hears all the time that asides from a segment of the Delhi and Mumbai elites and a section of the media, the majority of Indians do not give much thought or importance to the issue of Pakistan. This would suggest that the official Indian position on Pakistan really reflects the choice of the Indian government of the time. This could reflect prejudice and bias or narrow self-interest as much as it could reflect an intelligent choice from a set of strategic options. The flip side of this assertion is that Indian governments might be able to sell to their citizens any one from a number of feasible alternative policies regarding Pakistan. This issue assumes importance in my mind because I am not convinced that the hawkish position as articulated by the Foreign Secretary is really the one that would deliver the best outcome for India or for South Asia. Rather, it is one that could perpetuate antagonisms for a considerable period into the future. Personally I feel there are smarter options available to India and would like to see a serious discussion of the alternatives. I am aware, of course, that there are variations in the positions taken on Pakistan by the Congress, the BJP and the parties of the Left. But these are more or less stereotypical positions that have become fossilized over time. Just as one does not observe a national debate on the issue, one does not see a vibrant debate reflecting new developments within the individual parties. And this brings me back to the question I had asked in the beginning: What exactly does the argumentative Indian argue about today? Pakistan is, of course, not the only foreign policy issue that calls for debate and discussion. India's involvement in Afghanistan to the point of losing lives there also calls for an argument. And, how many people are discussing the Indian flip-flop on Burma? Is the will of the argumentative Indian reflected in these policy positions? At the end of the presentation by the Foreign Secretary I was struck by the fact that a shift in the Indian position on Pakistan was abetted by the war on terror launched by the USA. It was mentioned that just as the US was the target of terrorism, so was India. And just as it was justified for the US to take retaliation to the lairs of the terrorists, so was it for India. The parallel is certainly there without forgetting the fact that the US can withdraw and retreat into its borders ten thousand miles away if its strategy fails to deliver. Such a luxury would not be available to India. This is yet another issue within an issue that calls for the argumentative Indian to start arguing. The Pakistani state has proactively silenced the argumentative Pakistani or indoctrinated him/her into arguing in a particular way. Is the argumentative Indian silent by consent? Or is the argumentative South Asian a myth dreamt up by Amartya Sen?
Courtesy: TheSouthAsianIdea http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/what-does-the-argumentative-indian-argue-about/
By Shujauddin Qureshi South Asia is home to one-fifth of world's population,
making it both the most densely populated geographical region in the
world. A history of conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and other regional conflicts have marred efforts aimed at regional cooperation. The creation of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 had raised hopes for regional cooperation but the performance of this regional block has not met expectations. Other regional blocks like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and European Union (EU) have made huge progress as regional groups. Dr. Moonis Ahmar, Chairman Department of International Affairs, University of Karachi, says there has been no sincere effort to increase regional cooperation, which reflects in statistics, "Internal trade among SAARC countries is only 5 percent and SAARC countries' contribution to the world's GDP is only 1 percent." Dr. Ahmar says SAARC has always refrained itself from interfering in the internal matters of its member states, which has resulted in ineffectiveness of SAARC. The Secretary General cannot take decisions because of veto status of each country – that means if one country disagrees on an issue it cannot be taken up. The political confrontation between India and Pakistan has always put the peace of region at stake. The recent conflict that flared up after Mumbai attacks in 2008 increased the arms race between the two countries, thus the funds which are meant for people were diverted to buy weapons. "India and Pakistan have placed orders of weapons worth 20 billion dollar after Mumbai attacks," says Karamat Ali, Executive Director of Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER). He says Pakistan has recently reduced its development budged by 30 percent and that funds have been used to acquire weapons for the army that is doing a military operation in Swat and South Waziristan. Human rights groups, labour organisations, social activists, and common people have realised the importance of regional cooperation. Therefore, they have got together and established people-to-people contacts. One of the initial platforms for regional discussion was the 'Conference on Trade Union, Human and Democratic Rights' held in Colombo in March 1991. Organised by International Trade Secretariats of three international trade unions, the Conference in the Sri Lankan capital brought together 60 labour and human rights activists from five SAARC countries, including India and Pakistan. The Colombo Conference was followed by the Pakistan Conference held in Karachi in 1992. These two events led to informal discussion among activists for the need to devise a South Asian civil society mechanism for a collective voice on regional issues. The idea of a mechanism on the pattern of SAARC was put forward during this time. Efforts towards realising a people's SAARC continued for a couple of years through informal meetings of South Asian activists. The last meeting of this process was held in Kathmandu in 1994, the year the official SAARC Summit did not take place. The year 1994 also witnessed the founding of yet another crucial South Asian network – the Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy. In July 1995 the People's SAARC meeting was held in New Delhi parallel to the official 8th SAARC Summit. The process of the 'People's SAARC' suffered constraints in the following years and the gatherings parallel to the 9th and the 10th SAARC Summits at Male (Maldives) and Colombo (Sri Lanka) could not take place. In 1999, the South Asian groups and activists made an effort and reinstituted the gathering at the South Asian People's Summit. However, due to the deteriorating Indo-Pakistan relations, SAARC Summits were not held from 1999 to 2001. A South Asian Citizen's Commission was formed to pressurize SAARC member states to get the SAFTA 'Framework Treaty' by late 2001 but to no avail. In December 2000, the South Asian People's Summit was held in Colombo with the slogan "Listen to the Voice of the People". Though the organizers -- the South Asia Partnership-International -- called it the first South Asian People's Summit, it was yet another link to the same chain -- the process of people's consultation parallel to the official SAARC. The second People's Summit was held simultaneously with the 11th SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. The third People's Summit was held in Islamabad in 2003 with the slogan, "Even if leaders cannot meet, people can meet" because the official 12th SAARC Summit was not held as per schedule that year. The fourth People's Summit was held parallel to the 12th official SAARC Summit in 2004 in Islamabad. The South Asian civil society held its gathering in 2005 in Dhaka parallel to the 13th official SAARC Summit, this time re-naming the event as the People's SAARC. The 2007 People's SAARC was held in Kathmandu in late March, a week earlier than the 14th SAARC Summit held in New Delhi on 3-4 April 2007. The shift in the venue country was deliberate as Nepal is the country with a friendly visa-regime, compared to India where visa processing, particularly for Pakistanis, is long and tedious. In 2008, the South Asian People's Assembly was held in Colombo, parallel to the 15th SAARC Summit held in the city, bringing together some 2,500 to 3,000 civil society organisations and groups, and 5,000 participants, of whom 1,000 were from across the SAARC region. By now, at the time of the 16th SAARC Summit, scheduled to be held in Thimphu, Bhutan, on April 28-29, 2010, the People's SAARC Assembly would be held in New Delhi on April 22-23, a week before the official summit to force the governments of SAARC to bring people's agenda in their decision-making. Civil society activists from all eight countries of SAARC are scheduled to meeting in the Indian capital to discuss matters of mutual cooperation, including Climate Justice and Economic Cooperation, Impacts on Livelihoods, the Discrimination and Human Rights, Politics of Hate, and Terrorism and Militarism.
Home|Daily Jang|The News|Sales & Advt|Contact Us| |
|