On a road to nowhere
The latest spate of violence in Swat and Shangla districts has hit the common people the most, as over one third of them have already fled leaving behind most of their belongings
By Delawar Jan Banori
A large number of people fleeing the troubled Swat district have blamed both militants and the Pakistan Army for their increasing woes and problems, saying that the latter's gunship helicopters are pounding their houses with bombs while the former has invited the wrath of security forces by challenging the writ of the government. The local people started migrating from their native villages to safer places following an all-out assault by the Pakistan Army against the Maulana Fazlullah-led Taliban. The tourists had stopped visiting the scenic valley of Swat -- known for its lush green fields, forests, rivers, beautiful waterfalls and cataracts, and statues of Gautama Buddha -- much earlier, causing a loss of billions of rupees to the exchequer.

The battle for basic freedoms in this country is nothing less than epic. After 60 years, the fundamental precepts of bourgeois democracy -- freedom of expression, association and dissent, as well as various individual liberties -- cannot be taken for granted. This is the consequence of Pakistan's genesis as a national security state and the attendant instrumentalisation of Islam by the powers-that-be. The major protagonist in this perverse stage production is the military -- the self-proclaimed guardian of an ideological project designed in the Muslim-minority provinces of British India; and enacted on hapless Muslim majorities with different histories, cultures and conceptions of freedom.

The recent death of Balach Marri is testament to how 60 years of military-led 'nation-building' has progressively alienated peripheral populations in Pakistan, rather than bringing them within the fold of the majority.

A little over a year after the death of the iconic Nawab Akbar Bugti, Balach Marri's death has only reinforced the widespread belief amongst the Balochs -- and particularly its alienated youth -- that there can be no reconciliation between their aspirations and of those occupying the corridors of power in Islamabad. As with Nawab Bugti, Balach Marri was a hero to many Balochs who believe that it is impossible to negotiate peace with a state that treats Balochistan as if it were a colony.

To those sitting in the General Headquarters (GHQ), Bugti, Marri and many more like them are 'traitors', liable to be tried for sedition, as they are challengers to the supremacy of their ideological project. Bugti and Marri's deaths were greeted with relief and even celebration in official circles, while mourning and retaliation was the response in Balochistan.

It is difficult to see how the level of resentment that prevails amongst the Balochs due to 60 years of systematic subjugation by the Centre can be redressed, at least so long as the modus operandi remains the use of force alongside the manipulation of the political process so as to install 'clients' in positions of power. The government has repeatedly acknowledged the injustices meted out to Balochistan in the past, and has also claimed that it wants to reorder the relationship between the province and the Centre. However the events of the past few years, beginning with the capture of the Sui gas plant and the consequent bombing of civilian populations, have proven beyond a doubt that such claims are little more than hollow rhetoric.

More generally, the military's decision to directly take control of large parts of Balochistan's landmass confirms in the Baloch psyche that the Baloch people factor into Islamabad's calculations only insofar as they act as obstacles in the way of conquest of strategic territory and the province's considerable mineral resource deposits.

It is no surprise that when thousands of professionals and political activists in other parts of the country are up in arms about the government's actions in the aftermath of November 3, the Balochs comment that they have been subject to martial law for 60 uninterrupted years. It should not be forgotten that the Baloch youth have been subject to arbitrary arrest, torture and killing for years. It is also a fact that most of the 'missing people' are Balochs.

Meanwhile even in cities like Lahore and Islamabad, which have been the nerve centres of the agitation against the Musharraf junta, the vast majority of the population remains silent. When demonstrations of lawyers, journalists and political activists take place in crowded areas, most people stand around and watch rather than join in. This is not to say that they support the ruling regime, but neither do they directly throw in their lot with the dissidents.

Indeed if one were to peer into Pakistan's political history, the composition of the present movement is unique. It is spearheaded mainly by professionals with no direct link with processes of production and is centred on issues that do not resonate directly with working people's daily lives. For example, there has been little done or said about the fact that prices of basic commodities continue to shoot through the roof, something that is undoubtedly more of a concern for working people than the rather nebulous notion of 'rule of law'.

This is not a failing of those who have been at the forefront of the agitation since March 9 nor should one take this to mean that the lawyer-led movement is not an incredibly important one. But as with the Baloch people's relative distance from the rest of Pakistan, the distance of working people from lawyers, journalists and political activists is a reflection of the major shortcomings in Pakistani politics. The so-called 'legal' and 'political' issues appear to be distinct from 'economic' and 'social' ones, as the people struggling for freedom from a colonial state in Balochistan are separated from those struggling for an end to military rule in the urban centres of Punjab.

Those who believe in the need for serious politics to take on an obsolete state and dominant social forces have a lot of thinking to do about the viability of the Pakistani nationalist project and possible alternative bases for a collective vision. A complete reconfiguration of the Centre-province relationship, reconstitution of the very ideological foundations of the state and reordering of the relationship of the state with external forces are the bare minimum requirements. Genuinely democratic control over productive resources is necessary for any such alternative project to be sustainable.

There is no question that the objective conditions for change are ripe in Pakistan. But how much cohesion exists between those social forces that want to bring about a change? Do they even want the same thing? These are real and serious questions; and, as has been noted so often recently, there is no representative political party that is seriously interested in trying to answer these questions with the objective of articulating popular politics that can mobilise people and then take on the incumbents.

Once upon a time the National Awami Party (NAP) represented progressive and ethno-nationalist trends of all varieties, and was arguably the most popular party in the country. The NAP was characterised by all sorts of inconsistencies, but still remains the only example of a (relatively) representative party that left a mark on national politics by pulling together working people, oppressed nationalities and the professional middle class on a broad collective platform, with a view to not only acquiring power but actually reconfiguring the state.

The days of the NAP are now a thing of the past. If and when a new political party emerges to fill its long vacated shoes, it will inevitably be very different from the earlier version. Some might argue that the mainstream political parties remain contenders for people's power, but they are now too tarnished by years of manipulation and intrigue to do what is required. They have not only to move away from a military-dominated political system, but also fashion a new raison d'etre for the state and a structure to match. In any case, if the present political vacuum is not filled, the Pakistani state -- as we know it -- remains a contender for an ugly and unseemly implosion; and, as always, it will be the people who will bear the brunt of the burden.

When President George W Bush signed an executive order in September 2001 freezing the US financial assets of corporations that his administration claimed were sending money to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organisation, he described the order as a "strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network."

That was the sound byte for the evening news: America standing tall against the bad guys, as some redneck Yanks like to say, having never really progressed beyond the good guys versus bad guys comic-book stories of their teenage days. "If you do business with terrorists, if you support or succor them, you will not do business with the United States," said Bush.

The warning was voiced with a characteristic smirk. Bush is a compulsive smirker, a sort of Smirker-in-Chief of the United States of America. I wonder whether any member of the White House staff has ever told him just how silly his smirk makes him look.

What Bush didn't say anything about, however, was doing business with Osama's brother -- or his wealthy financier. Nor did he tell the American people that Osama's late brother was an investor in Bush's former oil business in Texas.

In the six years since 9/11, Bush also still hasn't told the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters allegedly involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling and terrorist networks.

"Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family," said a report published in American Freedom News (AFN). "Much of the Bush family's wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Several business operations managed by Prescott Bush -- the president's grandfather -- were seized by the US government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act." On October 20, 1942, the US federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director of the corporation. Bush, E Roland Harriman, two Bush associates and three Nazi executives owned the bank's shares, the AFN report noted.

Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organisations for Hitler's Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the US federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler.

"Doing business with the bin Laden empire, therefore, is only the latest extension of the Bush family's ties to unsavoury individuals and organisations," the AFN report said.

Salem bin Laden, Osama's older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy -- the Texas oil company started by George W Bush. Arbusto means 'Bush' in Spanish. Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1998.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Laden, the family patriarch and founder of its construction empire, also died in a plane crash. Upon his death in 1968, he left behind 57 sons and daughters. About a dozen brothers manage Bin Laden Brothers Construction Co -- one of the largest construction firms in the Middle East.

"Fresh out of business school, young George W Bush returned to Midland, Texas, in the late 1970s to follow his father's footsteps in the oil business," said the AFN report. Beginning in 1978, he set up a series of limited partnerships -- Arbusto '78, Arbusto '79 and so on -- to drill for oil.

According to the AFN report, one of President Bush's earliest financial backers was James Bath, a Houston aircraft broker. Bath served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. "Bath has a mysterious connection to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)," said the AFN report.

Actually, this "mysterious" connection doesn't appear all that mysterious given the fact that Bush's father, George H W Bush, served as director of the CIA in the 1970s.

According to a 1976 trust agreement, Salem bin Laden appointed James Bath as his business representative in Houston, Texas. Bath's relationship with the bin Laden financial empire and the CIA was made public in 1992 by Bill White, a former real estate business partner with Bath. White informed US federal investigators in 1992 that Bath had told him that he had assisted the CIA in a liaison role since 1976 -- when George H W Bush was director of the CIA.

"During a bitter legal fight between White and Bath, the real estate partner disclosed that Bath managed a portfolio worth millions of dollars for Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis," said the AFN report.

A powerful banker in Saudi Arabia, Mahfouz was one of the largest shareholders in the now defunct Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded by the late Pakistani banker, Agha Hassan Abedi.

When international regulators shut down BCCI's worldwide operations in July 1991, the scandal implicated some of the biggest political names in Washington -- both Democrats and Republicans -- during Bush Senior's administration. The bank was accused, among other things, of "laundering money for drug cartels".

It is another matter that the $14 million in "drug money" allegedly laundered by BCCI's branch in Tampa, Florida, in a 1988 sting operation set up by the American authorities to entrap the bank's officials, represented only a drop in the ocean compared with the billions of dollars in drug money that continue to be laundered through the American banking system. No American bank has ever been shut down for money laundering -- yet another example of US double standards.

The chief of the US Justice Department's criminal division under President Bush Senior was Robert Mueller. Because the major Washington players in the BCCI affair came out of the scandal only with slaps on the wrist, many critics accused Mueller of botching the investigation.

So what happened to Mueller? Was his career ruined? Not a bit of it. In 2001, President George W Bush appointed Mueller as the director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. Smirk, smirk!

(To be continued.)

It has become customary to speak of Pakistan as a post-colonial state that achieved independence from an imperialist power after the end of World War II. The assumption underlying such a characterisation in political and academic discourse is that, like other countries of the Third World, Pakistan emerged from the rule of foreign masters, and achieved independence and attained sovereignty. It is time to examine the use of such a characterisation, given the nature of the state in Pakistan that is neither sovereign nor ruled by the will of its own people. It is important, however, to first examine the concepts of a colonised country and a post-colonial state, to see if Pakistan fits the classic definition of a sovereign country.

A colonised country

A colonised country is ruled by a distant foreign state that establishes control over it through military and other means. Such a country is not governed by the will of its own people, expressed through their elected representatives. All policy-making is centralised in the colonising state, which exercises total control over the colonised country's economy, law, politics, business, education, as well as the social and cultural lives of the natives or subjects, who are not considered citizens and therefore do not have any fundamental rights. Any attempt aimed at resistance by the subjects of a colonial state is crushed violently by the use of brute force. The most noteworthy example in this regard was the suppression of the uprising of 1857 by the East India Company, which wreaked havoc on the Indian people.

The economy of the subjected people, in particular, is totally controlled by the foreign power, which uses the colonised country as a raw-material producer for its industry and a potential market for its finished products. The circle of production, circulation and distribution -- which enables capital accumulation -- is completed only through the colonising state and does not remain in the ambit of the local economy. For several centuries, the enhanced trade and the resulting wars led to national economies becoming increasingly global, with control over economic decisions shifting increasingly to the rich countries of the North and a consequent impoverishment of the colonised countries.

A post-colonial state

In sharp contrast to a colonised country, a post-colonial independent state is characterised by political and economic sovereignty. A post-colonial state, at least in theory, is ruled by its own people who govern themselves through their elected representatives. These people can periodically change their rulers, who are accountable to them for their actions as well as inactions. This accountability is established through an independent judiciary, which ensures that the rule of law, and not the rule of force, prevails. The basic law of the land, the constitution, is considered a sacred document, as it is believed to reflect the sentiments and aspirations of the population of the country. All other laws follow from it and the country is governed in conformity with the fundamental principles laid down in this document.

All institutions of the state -- the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the military and the bureaucracy -- function under the constitution and in accordance with the rules of business laid out in it. The judiciary, by safeguarding the constitution, defends the basic rights of the people to be governed according to law and agreed upon principles. The people are the fountain of sovereignty, which is expressed through the parliament. The mechanisms for ensuring popular sovereignty are periodic elections and every citizen's right to vote in national, provincial and local elections. The military and the bureaucracy are subservient to elected governments, and implement their orders in accordance with the constitution.

The major economic decisions -- how revenues will be collected, spent and accounted for; the terms of trade; with whom to trade; what to export and to whom, what to import and from whom, etc -- are all made by the elected representatives. In other words, the country enjoys economic sovereignty despite its commercial ties with other countries. Any decision that may harm the people, and endanger their resources and livelihoods, is not permitted by the parliament. In addition, people's right to their resources and livelihoods is defended by an independent judiciary. The executive branch cannot barter away people's basic right to their resources and enter into agreements with other countries that may impact this right in a negative way. The main purpose of a sovereign economy is to ensure the provision of basic rights and services to people through a bureaucracy that implements the government's decisions on the ground.

A colonial state

If we examine the characteristics of an independent, post-colonial state, we cannot but conclude that Pakistan does not fit the definition. The deviations are far too many for us to even imagine that we live in a free country. Firstly, our history shows that the military and the bureaucracy, the two non-elected and non-representative institutions of the state, are more powerful than the elected ones like the legislature. The institution of the military, in particular, is much more powerful than others; and has on several occasions dismissed elected parliaments, packed up the judiciary, and suspended fundamental rights and the Constitution.

The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of force, and people's recourse to justice has been denied. Elections, the flawed but only mechanism of including the people in governance, have been rigged, engineered and manipulated to achieve results desired by the military and the bureaucracy, as well as their civilian collaborators. The people's rights to freedom of speech, expression, conscience, religion, assembly, movement and association have been abrogated, so that they cannot even protest against the denial of their sovereignty. Most importantly, in line with the colonial tradition, people's resistance against the usurpation of their rights has been crushed by using the most violent means of state repression.

When it comes to the economy, once again the citizens have no control over the decisions made by the unrepresentative rulers. Public assets like the Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM), the Pakistan Telecommunications Limited (PTCL) and Diamond Bar Islands have either been or are expected to be sold to foreign and local companies without people's consent. The judges that tried to protect these public assets from being robbed have packed on the grounds that they were 'meddling in the affairs of the executive'. Protection of people's rights and safeguarding them against price-hike and poverty have been defined as 'meddling', as the executive wants the right to play havoc with public resources the way it wants to without being questioned.

All powers have been concentrated in the person of President Pervez Musharraf, who keeps transferring power from one part of himself to another part of himself. The people's right to have a say in the state affairs has been usurped on the pretext of fighting extremism, which in fact can best be done by seeking their support rather them disillusioning them. Moreover, unrepresentative governments are notoriously amenable to the economic and political agendas of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other foreign powers, as they are easier to manipulate than the governments that are answerable to the electorate. The strong emphasis of the previous government on privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation is ample evidence that it did not represent the people of Pakistan, but the global elite.

History suggests that far from being a post-colonial independent state, which is both politically and economically sovereign, Pakistan in fact is simultaneously a colonial and a colonised state. It is colonised because of the massive external debt of $41 billion. This money was never borrowed by the people of Pakistan but by the country's ruling elite, and was squandered on wasteful projects. The poor people of Pakistan, however, will have to pay back this debt through increased taxes, both direct and indirect; an emphasis on export-led growth; privatisation of public assets; opening of local markets for cheap foreign products; deregulation of the labour and other markets; and inflation, especially in the prices of essential food items and basic commodities.

In the past, it was believed that colonialism had a centre and periphery. The centre used the peripheral countries as raw-material producing hinterlands and controlled their economies. In contemporary times, there are multiple centres and multiple peripheries. The main centres of the colonialism of our times are the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) that, through their multilateral institutions and loans, control the major decisions regarding the world economy. At the second level, they have their collaborators in poor countries of the South, who gain personally by enforcing the policies of the main centres on local populations. These second-level centres are represented by the ruling elites in the South.

Looked at through this lens, Pakistan is also a classic form of a colonial state. It is highly centralised and brutally suppresses dissent against government policies, which more often than not emanate from the US and/or the EU. The colonial character of the state dates back to the country's inception. The language riots of the 1950s, the multiple uprisings in Balochistan from the 1950s to the 1970s, the violent separation of former East Pakistan in 1971, the crackdown in Sindh during the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) of the 1980s, and the current suppression of the movement for rule of law and judicial independence make Pakistan the epitome of a centralised, authoritarian state that has failed in upholding the principles of federalism. In short, the relationship between the centre and the periphery has remained one of colonial-style political and economic exploitation.

The way forward

If the country has to be rescued from the current mess, it is imperative that state reverts to a democratic and representative form of self-government. The Constitution needs to be restored, judicial independence ensured, the media freed and the right to information established. The elections must reflect people's genuine aspirations and not be engineered to produce results desired by a few. The people's genuine grievances need to be addressed by an independent judiciary and the military needs to perform its constitutional role of defending the country against any external threat by disentangling itself from the business of ruling the country. The grievances of the federating units need to be urgently addressed or the country may slip into an abyss from which it may never emerge. The state needs to shed its colonial character -- and move towards becoming modern, democratic and representative -- by fulfilling the fundamental needs of its citizens and ensuring their basic rights.

A large number of people fleeing the troubled Swat district have blamed both militants and the Pakistan Army for their increasing woes and problems, saying that the latter's gunship helicopters are pounding their houses with bombs while the former has invited the wrath of security forces by challenging the writ of the government. The local people started migrating from their native villages to safer places following an all-out assault by the Pakistan Army against the Maulana Fazlullah-led Taliban. The tourists had stopped visiting the scenic valley of Swat -- known for its lush green fields, forests, rivers, beautiful waterfalls and cataracts, and statues of Gautama Buddha -- much earlier, causing a loss of billions of rupees to the exchequer.

The exodus of local people on a mass scale has brought economic activities in the Swat district to a standstill. Most of the people who have fled for safety reasons hailed from poor backgrounds. In the wake of violent clashes between security forces and militants in the area, they were forced to leave behind whatever they had -- their houses, fields, cattle, jobs and businesses. Moreover, these people had to bear the expenses for shifting their families to safer places and renting houses there.

The ongoing military operation has so far forced more than 0.6 million people (or 35 per cent) of the Swat district's total population of 1.7 million to migrate to other areas in the NWFP, while thousands more are waiting for relaxation in the curfew to move to safer places in order to save their as well as their family members' lives. The number of people who have already migrated from the Swat district alone is equal to the total population of the adjoining Upper Dir district. Similarly, more than 60,000 people have so far migrated from the Shangla district that is experiencing increasing violence with each passing day. Swat District Coordination Officer (DCO) Arshad Majeed, however, put the number of people who have migrated from both Swat and Shangla districts at 0.5 million.

Women and children, in particular, have been affected by the spiralling violence in the two districts. According to official estimates more than 0.6 students have stopped going to schools, as many of them have already migrated to other areas with their families in view of the unpredictable situation. The women suffered the most when forced to leave their homes, as most of them observed purdah. Government officials, contractors, businessmen and people from other walks of life have also migrated from the Swat district for safety reasons, thus crippling the routine life in the area. The seriousness of the situation can be gauged from the fact that even the district nazim of Swat and teshil nazim of Matta have migrated to safer areas. Informed sources have also disclosed to The News on Sunday that the elite of the Swat district was forced by the local Taliban to leave the area.

Thousands of distressed people can be seen moving out of the troubled areas every day, and buses, vans, pickups and other vehicles leaving the Swat district are filled to the capacity. The people who have been forced to migrate because of the ongoing violence are facing multiple problems -- shortage of transport, food and shelter besides frequent impositions of the curfew to name a few -- while moving from their native villages to safer areas.

A resident of Chakdara informed TNS on phone that thousands of families pass through the town every day to go to other parts of the province. Dozens of families moving to safer areas had to spend sleepless nights in the open in the cold weather due to the curfew, he added. "In hurry to shift to safer places, the migrating people left behind their cattle and other belongings, and could only bring with them some clothes and valuable items like jewellery. Some of the vacated houses were also plundered in the Matta tehsil," a local journalist informed TNS on phone from Chakdara. He further said: "More than 20 civilians each have so far been killed by security forces' shelling in Swat and Shangla districts. This has caused panic among the local people, resulting in mass migration from both the districts. Similarly, the people in Kabal are stranded, as petrol and food supplies are not reaching them because of violence in the area."

A top government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, fears that more people may leave their homes, as the Taliban are gaining ground in remote areas of the district. "The residents of Daras were not affected by the ongoing unrest in the district, but now the Taliban is creating problems there as well. These people will also have to migrate from the area if situation deteriorates further," he believes. The official also accused the Taliban of extortion and of snatching vehicles. "They snatched vehicles from transporters and used them for their own purposes. All the victims have fled to save their lives and businesses," he added. The official also lamented the fact that the ongoing violence had displaced thousands of schoolchildren, putting their future at risk.

Government officials and locals said Koza Banda, Bara Banda, Nigwalai, Maluj, Galug, Akhun Khel, Dagay, Dewlai, Shakar Dara, Sher Palam, Bamakhela, Khariri, Tutkay, Pir Kalay, Sambat, Bedara, Charbagh, Kalam and Madian in the Swat district, and Alpuri in the Shangla district had been affected the most in the ongoing battle between the Pakistan Army and the Maulana Fazlullah-led Taliban. The people of these areas have migrated mostly to Mingora, Peshawar, Mardan, Lower Dir, Buner, Malakand Agency. Some of them are believed to have migrated even to Lahore.

Swat DCO Arshad Majeed informed TNS that seven government schools had been vacated in Mingora to accommodate the displaced people. He said 2,500 registered displaced people from the Shangla district had been accommodated on the premises of these schools. Most of the displaced people had taken shelter with their relatives in Mingora, the district headquarters of Swat that remains a bit peaceful, Majeed added. On a positive note, the local population of Mingora is generously offering cash, food, shelter and other necessary items to the displaced families. "Even houses and hotels were vacated to accommodate the people who had to flee their native areas for safety reasons," a local of Mingora informed TNS.

It may be mentioned here that all the displaced people, in particular children, are vulnerable to the chilling cold. A senior government officer admitted to the TNS that chest diseases had erupted among the displaced people, but added that they were being treated. The government, in order to facilitate the displaced people, set up a camp at Barikot but no one went there. The caretaker NWFP Minister for Information Imtiaz Gilani said the Barikot camp could not be populated due to some shortcomings.

However, he added, the government would now set up four camps for the victims of Swat violence -- at Dargai, Mardan, Bisham and Risalpur -- and all facilities will be provided there. The Risalpur camp has already started functioning and the Pakistan Army is looking after the displaced people. "The army even arrange buses and vans to safely transport the displaced people to Risalpur," Majeed said, dispelling the impression that the government is not helping them.

The DCO of the Dir Lower district got vacated the building of a college in Gul Abad and a school in Asbanr to accommodate the displaced families, after hundreds of them were forced to live in the open for two days due to the curfew. The DCO told the media that the administration is trying to establish a camp in Gul Abad where people could stay overnight before leaving for a permanent camp. Despite the hardships unleashed on the local people by the continuing violence in Swat and Shangla, there are heartening reports that some displaced families have started to return to their homes in Kanju, Dheri and Ali Grama following restoration of peace in these areas.

It is only a matter of time now that we should see, as they say in cricket, the back of General (r) Musharraf. This piece is intended for all those who would matter in the imminent, post-Musharraf era -- political parties; the judiciary and the legal community; civil society; businesspeople; the academia; the military (in particular, the army); the bureaucracy; and the media. The aim of this piece is to invoke rethinking about certain basic concepts that matter greatly in the national life of a Pakistani. In this scribe's view these are not mere concepts, as collectively they promise a life of dignity to the common people without prejudice to their gender, class, religion, age or any other factor.

Most of us who heard General (r) Musharraf after he took oath as a so-called 'civilian' president, from a so-called 'chief justice' on a Constitution that he twice abrogated, have had involuntary smirk at the audacity with which he abused concepts like 'independence of the judiciary', 'freedom of the media', 'democracy', 'development', 'insecurity' and 'national harmony'. Later, in his address to the nation, he reinforced his misunderstanding while reiterating some of them. It was obvious that the meaning of these concepts that General (r) Musharraf was implying and manifesting was at odds with the standard meaning of these concepts.

History tells us that there are certain essential inputs that, when religiously adhered to, yield popular, common good which is embodied in desired outcomes in national life of a society, such as justice, rule of law, progress, social harmony and well-being of people. Here is some food for thought for those who pretend to think on behalf of the silent majority and also for those who dare to think differently to be dubbed as the 'recalcitrant' minority.

State and government are two different entities: In Pakistan, any government of the day effortlessly (read mindlessly) assumes that the government (executive) is the state. State is a set of institutions that a society gives to itself for managing its affairs relating to social and economic transactions between individuals and amongst groups that collectively form that society. Executive or the government is a mere sub-set of such institutions. There is need to recognise that any state is because of the society and people that form it; it is not the other way round, as we are made to believe in General (r) Musharraf's Pakistan.

Governance is not what government of the day does: This is the second fatal misconception governments in Pakistan have been indulging in. Governance is the outcome of inter-relation of various institutions of the state. It is not the output of proclaimed efforts of a government, as is projected by army of ministers at any given time. The government needs to realise that output is never outcome and a claim is not a success.

Democracy is not ritual of elections or a (dummy) parliament: Democracy is a complex entity in the sense of its concurrently being multi-faceted and multi-layered -- a process and an actor; a practice and an attitude; means and end. Democracy ensures that opinion of a majority is recognised and respected in the letter and spirit; in form and substance; and in theory and practice. It also demands that there are transparent, collectively and popularly-endorsed mechanisms to garner that opinion. In Pakistan what Musharraf regime demonstrated (and it seems bent upon a repeat show) is that to engineer election to put in place a divided parliament with artificially cobbled together majority is the 'true' form of democracy.

Constitution is not a mere document: The bruised, battered, and disregarded 1973 Constitution reflected popular aspirations of the living, diverse and dynamic people of this country. It embodied their collective will regarding how they wish to be governed by the institutions of the state. Their aspiration and will were collated through representative and participatory political processes; and their interest was aggregated through legitimate balancing act, whereby competing demands of varied groups were harmonised through debate and deliberation. It is not a whim of one person or desire of one dominant group, as is the incumbent Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO).

Justice is not sum-total of translucent verdicts of compliant courts: Justice is a result of process and procedure that conform to truth, fact and sound reason, which are in accordance with laws that spring from the Constitution and which premise on moral righteousness and ethical standards that govern the social contract between citizens and the state. In simple words, justice is delivering just and fair treatment to any and every citizens aggrieved by any institution of the state, in accordance with laws which are universally applicable to all. And in simple words, justice is denied when a person or a dominant group gets to decide who should get what, by whom, how much and in what form.

National security is not having a strong army and brutal police: If we (in particular, the powers-that-be) think of a very basic, seemingly naive, question: Whose security? The reflection in the process of possible answers may open a vista or two in our minds. Is it security of the status quo or those who are benefitting from the status quo? Is it security of a physical land mass of a country from an imagined or constructed foreign enemy (who could be a state or a non-state actor)? Is it security of the dominant interests in a state? Or is it security of the people, in whose holy name, all the unholy acts are committed?

Sovereignty is in flux: The fatal combination of advancements in communication technology, the forced globalisation (favouring the developed and the powerful countries and their MNCs), the bulldozing sales by the international military-industrial complex and the encouraged free flow of capital in the face of restricted movement of labour have severely impinged both the autonomy and the sovereignty of states like Pakistan.

Stability is not a substitute for inalienable, fundamental rights: General (r) Musharraf's excuse that emergency (read martial) was imposed to ensure stability is as paradoxical as it gets. The question is who defines stability and against which set of parameters? Secondly, stability for whom and at whose cost! In my pursuit to want things my way, if I resort to silencing all the opposition and start killing everyone who challenges and disagrees, it is very likely that I would eventually shoot myself to silence an alternate thought in my head.

Growth is a false indicator of development and progress: The outgoing government managed to show 'high annual growth' and 'decline in poverty', both of which were duly contested by economists of repute and conscience inside and outside the government. We should remember that Dr Pervez Tahir, who used to be chief economist in the Planning Commission of Pakistan, was removed from service when he stated that the official claims of poverty reduction needed rethinking. Growth is very opaque claim; it is not development. Economic development ought to be assessed and measured by factors like who participated in the so-called growth, who got the major share of benefits, who remained outside the cycle of economic activity, and if any heed was paid at all to ensuring equitable distribution of economic opportunities and benefits! The core aim of the economic development must be well-being of the people. The so-called economic growth and material progress are only means to collective well-being; they are not an end unto themselves.

Production of knowledge matters: No progress in the comity of nations is possible without ensuring means of production of competitive knowledge. The only thing that would give edge to individuals and nations in the times to come is how competitive they are in knowledge that matters; and generation of knowledge demands redefining and redesigning of education and schooling.

In the wake of the above, please rethink the following 'fundamatters' as they really matter:

1. State is because of the citizens and all its institutions are subservient to the will of the people.

2. In upholding the rule of law and delivery of justice, legitimacy of means is as important as is the validity of verdict.

3. Agitation and protest are symptoms of public unrest; they are not cause of instability. Citizens resort to agitation when their right to raise their voice is denied; when oppression is sustained to silence them.

4. National harmony is result of encouraged and sustained interaction of recognised diversity of opinion and thought. History tells us that most moderate societies have been those where extremes could co-exist. Social harmony cannot result from a project of hegemony or homogenisation.

5. However turbulent the waters may seem apparently from ashore, it is an independent and assertive judiciary, along with a free and vocal media, that could ensure smooth sailing towards true democracy in Pakistan.

6. Let democracy replace 'selectocracy'! Let us purge the Constitution of all distortions and also work to obviate any potential abrogation by the army.

7. Let us conceive alternate, more relevant ways to articulate and ensure security, policing, justice and stability, progress, harmony, and generation of knowledge.

General elections are around the corner. As per the announcement by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the polling will be held for both the National Assembly and the four provincial assemblies on January 8, 2008. This announcement has taken many a political wizard by surprise, and political parties have started making frantic efforts to forge new alliances and devise innovative election strategies.

As the elections approach, worries of the common people are increasing. Their major concern is that the violence during elections would make it impossible to conduct usual business of life without any rupture. These fears are not ill-founded, as proved by the past experience of closure of educational institutions, blockade of main roads and thoroughfares, intermittent strikes and agitation, and armed clashes between rival political parties during elections. The affected humans remain traumatised for long, while normal business continues to suffer.

For instance, the victims of the Pakistan People's Party's (PPP's) welcome rally on October 18 shall continue to face trauma due to the loss of life and limb in that carnage. When emotions and temperatures run high, communication of sanity falls on deaf ears. Despite these constraints, it is binding on the government in particular and people in general to exercise restraint and display accommodating attitudes. There can be no better way for smooth transition in the country.

All concerned stakeholders shall have to shoulder the emerging responsibilities. The foremost among them are the caretaker governments, which have been installed in the Centre and the four provinces. They are entrusted with the task of managing the mechanics of elections as per the terms of reference assigned to them. While this is no easy job to carry out, it is equally important for them to ensure that the routine working in the country is not affected. The outgoing government had worked out a 10 point security plan for ensuring safe conduct of political activities. It had some useful suggestions, though they require endorsement by all the political parties.

Now that the caretaker setup is in place, the contents of the said plan need to be revisited. However, no plan can achieve its objectives if it is not backed up by strong implementation capacity and approved by the mainstream political parties. There is a need to devise such a code of conduct for the forthcoming elections that ensures that loss of time is minimised. This task can be realised after certain pre-requisites are fulfilled.

Identification of spaces suitable for political congregations, demarcation of routes and alternative routes for movement of public / political workers, demarcation of spaces for corner meetings and election offices, assurance of security for common people and political workers, procedures for obtaining temporary connections of power / other infrastructure, and timing of political activities are some of the essentials that must be followed up by the recently-installed caretaker governments. Conflict resolution between and among rival political parties, and protection of public and private property from direct or indirect harm are other important factors that need to be taken into account.

It is noted with regret that zealots of the PPP defaced many a public and private building in Karachi with wall chalking and graffiti during the welcome rally for Benazir Bhutto in October. They did not spare even the office of Quaid-e-Azam Mazar Management Board, which is the custodian of the Quaid's mausoleum. Besides, in the aftermath of the blast, three petrol stations, several shops and vehicles were set ablaze. Several public transport and goods carrier vehicles were torched during the various rallies protesting against the imposition of emergency. This also gave a bad name to the peaceful protestors. The incoming governments must make it a point to prevent such damages in the times to come.

The political parties happen to be the guiding force in a usual political process. As such, they have many important responsibilities. In practice, however, they care the least about the norms of life while pursuing their narrow political objectives. Clashing with rivals, creating hurdles in the way of political rallies, harassing common people, and coercing them to join moots and processions are normally attributed to them. Similarly, they have been accused of master minding eliminations, bomb attacks and other criminal activities.

In an ideal scenario, a political party is a group of disciplined folks who tend to win over opponents and proletariat by arguments, logic and communication skills. They act as a learning ground for the uncouth recruits and transform them into law-abiding citizens. The onus of maintaining peace, calm and civilised behaviour rests with the political leadership. Now that we have many political stalwarts who have spent considerable time in the civilised world, the hopes for display of rational behaviour by them have rightfully increased. Given the smoky political environment and the present strategic importance of Pakistan as an ally in the 'war on terror', many US missions operate unabated in both overt and covert manners. In these challenging times, when our sovereignty has been eclipsed by foreign influences, the caretaker regime shall have to ensure credible conduct of the electoral process. History is a witness to the fact that poor governance during and after elections caused irreparable damage to our state edifice in the past.

The electoral process will be undertaken with district and tehsil / town / taluka administrations in place. All of them have political affiliations and origins. To minimise their interference in the political and administrative matters, the ECP has issued a notification to restrict any possible impact on the usual electoral process. Political support to candidates of choice notwithstanding, these tiers of administration have the core responsibility of managing the routines within their respective areas. The real test of performance for the local bodies is their unflinching commitment to the day-to-day work.

Some political parties have also given hints to dismantle this tier when they would assume the government. If the local governments successfully deliver at this crucial juncture of our political history without fear or favour, they would surely enhance their credibility. The trademark of healthy, progressive and democratic societies is that they run their tough moments without rupturing normal routines of life. No civilised nation participates in political activities at the cost of stagnating business, commerce, healthcare and education. If our political leadership and establishment succeed in ensuring a peaceful, trouble-free and smooth electioneering, leading to a dignified transition of power, history will surely remember them.

The Ministry of Defence on Wednesday notified the retirement of Pervez Musharraf as the chief of the army staff after he handed over the symbolic baton of command to new army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. The notification said that on relinquishment of the office of chief of army staff, Musharraf would stand retired with effect from November 28, 2007.

Not surprisingly, this notification was followed by another one by the Establishment Division on Thursday, announcing the appointment of General (r) Musharraf as the president of Pakistan. He was administered the oath of office on the same day by a chief justice who is himself an outcome of the emergency (read martial law). Rumours are circulating in the capital that the former army chief has chosen presidency as a part of his pension package, and the incumbent army chief has helped him pack and transport his luggage from the Army House to the Presidency. What package in pension would the incumbent army chief choose -- when he would hand over the baton of command -- for himself is anybody's guess.

According to the rules, the appointment of army chief is made for three years. Considering that he had 'served' for nine years in the office, one wonders why General (r) Musharraf had tears in his eyes when he handed over the baton of command to the incumbent army chief. The most obvious reason is that power is irresistible and parting with it is even more painful for those who have usurped it in the first place. Also, how difficult it is to be a 'civilian president' in Pakistan is something General (r) Musharraf will soon learn.

On the political front, the presidential oath has not provided General (r) Musharraf with legitimacy in the real sense of the word. This is the tide he would have to swim through, now being a retired -- and not a serving -- general. Despite this, it appears that he still would have a substantial hold on power and the army would back him during turbulent times that lie ahead. Some changes, however, are expected in the administrative setup.

First, the international negotiations and transactions on providing a military cover to the oversold concept of 'war on terror' would now be steered by General Kayani. As president, General (r) Musharraf might volunteer to give his peer advice, but international forces would like to cultivate the incumbent army chief not only as their key strategic partner but also as a core team member. This is considered important against the background of ongoing military operations in parts of the NWFP and Balochistan. Since the direct command of operations would now lie with the new army chief, it would not be essential for the international community to keep General (r) Musharraf in the loop, who would be more occupied grappling with the issues plaguing his presidency.

Second, General (r) Musharraf would now have to wage a different kind of war at the domestic front. The comparative advantage of uniform in his political manoeuvering during the last eight years had created a false self-image, as he started to believe that he is indispensable for the country. His 'political clients' had time and again assured him -- perhaps wrongly -- that he enjoyed popular support. It is also becoming crystal clear now why the Chaudhrys of Gujrat wanted to see General (r) Musharraf in uniform for all his life -- even in their so-called 'stronghold' of Punjab, their closest aides are parting ways with them. The people who left Mian Nawaz Sharif in times of trouble can also part ways with General (r) Musharraf, whenever they feel the need to do so. Knowing that the powers of their patron have been slashed, a sizeable number of electoral stalwarts are expected to shift their political affiliations.

Third, lawyers have no intention of leaving General (r) Musharraf in peace even after he has doffed off his uniform. In all probability, the 'massacre of judiciary' and the use of brute force against peaceful protestors would remain the rallying points for lawyers inside and outside the courtrooms. After their release from detention, the icons of the lawyers' movement are showing more defiance. The judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) have conveyed their sense of insecurity to the concerned authorities, as angry lawyers have plans to resort to physical violence against them. The peaceful movement of lawyers can turn violent if the 'judiciary' continues to serve the regime unilaterally.

Fourth, General (r) Musharraf would need a vote of confidence from the new assemblies. For this, he would have to engineer the forthcoming general elections in such a way that he gets the required support. He may also create a situation where political parties boycott the elections. Another option available to him is postponing the elections for an indefinite period. It is expected that the secret agencies would work on creating a rift among the mainstream political parties on the issue of boycotting the elections -- some of them will take part in the elections, while the others will boycott it. The contesting parties would later be used to seek legitimacy for the elections and in-house manoeuverings would be done to get the vote of confidence for General (r) Musharraf as the country's president.

Fifth, the coming days and months would bring new and more complicated challenges for the president to be dealt with. However, the political parties represented in the new parliament would hold the key to this. The validity of General (r) Musharraf's election as president, assault on the dissenting judiciary, the imposition of emergency and the use of brute force against the rightfully protesting crowds would continue to resonate in the sound-proof presidential palace in Islamabad. Most analysts believe that the shift of residence for General (r) Musharraf might not bring respite in his sleepless nights and he would remain engaged in a self-defeating struggle to survive in power. How the new army chief looks at the forthcoming stormy periods and how he behaves as a "professional soldier", as termed by his former boss, remains to be seen in the days to come.

In its general meaning, the term market access describes the extent to which foreign goods can compete with domestically manufactured or produced goods. In the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), market access refers to the sum total of government-imposed conditions under which a product can enter a foreign market. These conditions are technically called barriers to market access. In the case of goods, these barriers refer to the measures applied at the border; while in the case of services, government regulations inside the local market constitute these barriers.

Market access barriers in respect of goods can be classified as traditional and non-traditional barriers (NTBs). Traditional barriers include tariffs, import or export prohibition and quantitative restrictions. Tariffs are taxes or duties applied at the border. They are generally imposed on imports, but can also be imposed on exports. The purpose of export tariffs is to raise revenue, check the export of scarce or essential commodities and promote value addition. Similarly, import tariffs serve three basic functions: revenue, industrial policy and protectionism. In the case of developing countries, import tariffs or custom duties are the principal source of revenue.

A country's tariff regime also reflects its industrial policies. For instance, if the government wants to promote downstream industries, the level of tariffs will increase with the increase in the processing of imported goods. This will ensure supply of cheaper inputs to downstream industries, thus bringing down their cost of production. This phenomenon is called tariff escalation. Finally, tariffs are a classical instrument of protectionism. The industries that need to be protected have higher tariffs for similar imported products. At times, these tariffs are so high that they effectively cut off all imports. Such tariffs are called prohibitive tariffs.

The most pronounced effect of tariffs is that they reduce foreign competition in the domestic market. Tariffs increase the final price of imported goods and, thus, make them less competitive. The higher the tariffs, the greater the effect on foreign competition! Tariffs have a mixed effect on domestic producers. For producers of similar and directly competitive goods, high tariffs on imports are a blessing as they boost domestic production. However for producers who use imported products as inputs, high tariffs push up the cost and, thus, discourage production. Whatever the case may be, high tariffs result in increased prices for consumers.

Tariffs can also be classified as most favoured nation (MFN) tariffs and preferential tariffs. MFN tariffs are a fundamental principle of the WTO regime, which prohibits a member country from discriminating among similar products of two or more other members exported into it. Thus MFN tariffs for a particular product are uniform, no matter who is the exporting country. Parallel to MFN or non-discriminatory tariffs exist preferential tariffs, which may be reciprocal or non-reciprocal. Reciprocal preferential tariffs are applicable to the members of a bilateral or regional trading arrangement (RTA). The WTO allows the members of an RTA to give more favourable treatment to its other members in terms of tariffs than that given to non-members. For instance, Malaysia and Indonesia are members of the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA), while Pakistan and Iran are not. Therefore, Malaysia can impose lower tariffs on exports from Indonesia than it imposes on the export of similar products from Pakistan or Iran.

In some cases, there is not much difference between MFN tariffs and preferential tariffs; while in other cases, the gap is huge. In the latter case, a market offering preferential tariffs has greater potential than the one offering only MFN tariffs. This is a crucial fact because it affects price competitiveness of exports. The principal example of non-reciprocal preferential treatment is the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), under which developed countries give discriminatory tariff treatment to exports from developing countries. The purpose of trade restrictions is to limit the quantity of imports. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now part of the WTO, in principle prohibited quotas on industrial products with the exception of textile and clothing. Textile quotas were subsequently phased out by December 31, 2004, under the Agreement on Textile and Clothing. However, later GATT allowed quotas on agricultural products, which severely restricted market access for related items from developing countries.

Tariff rate quotas (TRQs), which represent a blend of tariffs and quotas, are another example of traditional trade barriers. Under TRQs there are lower tariffs for a specified quantity of imports, but as the quantity of imports increases tariffs also go up. As in the case of quotas, TRQs are not disallowed by the WTO. In the wake of the WTO, traditional barriers to trade have considerably declined. However, these traditional trade barriers are being replaced with NTBs, which include anti-dumping and countervailing duties, and health, environment and social standards. The basic purpose of health and safety standards is to protect human, animal and plant life, as well as preserve the environment. The problem arises, however, when these standards are used to distort trade.

The health and safety standards are covered by two WTO agreements: the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). The TBT agreement deals with regulations or standards pertaining to product characteristics, process and production methods having a bearing upon product quality, and product packaging and labelling. Member countries of the WTO are entitled to adopt the standards they deem adequate to protect life or environment or safeguard consumer interests, and to adopt measures to ensure that their standards are met. Though the agreement encourages countries to adopt international standards, the same are not binding. A distinction is made between mandatory and optional standards. The former embody government regulations, while the latter embody requirements of customers. However, in practical terms, the distinction is not much relevant -- all suppliers have to fulfil the requirements of their prospective buyers, failing which they may be driven out of the market.

The objectives for which countries can enforce technical regulations include national security; prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human, animal and plant life; and preservation of the environment. However, the agreement makes it a point to ensure that these standards or regulations do not become an obstacle to international trade. Moreover, these standards have to be applied in conformity with both MFN and national treatment principles, so that there is no discrimination against imported products on the basis of origin, or between imported products on the one hand and those produced domestically on the other hand in terms of regulations. The regulations, as much as possible, should have a scientific basis and they must not unnecessarily obstruct international trade.

Regulations enforced under the SPS agreement are meant to protect human, animal and plant life from food-born diseases, humans from animal- or plant-carried diseases, and animals and plants from pests and diseases. There is some difference between SPS and TBT regulations: One, the former are applicable only to agricultural products, whereas the latter apply to both industrial and agricultural products. Two, SPS regulations cannot be introduced without sufficient scientific evidence. In the case of TBT regulations, the use of scientific evidence is contingent upon the objective. If the purpose is to ensure health and safety, the regulations have to be based on scientific evidence. However, if the objective is national security or protection against deceptive practices, the condition of scientific evidence is not mandatory. Three, whereas TBT regulations have to be applied on the basis of MFN principle, in the case of SPS regulations a departure can be made from this principle -- subject to the level of prevalence of specific diseases in the exporting country. However, SPS regulations about food safety have to be applied on the basis of MFN principle.

Member countries of the WTO can restrict imports to preserve the environment, provided such restrictions are applied on MFN or non-discriminatory basis. When it comes to complying with standards or regulations, developing countries face two types of problems: first, it is difficult for them to keep track of the fast-changing standards; and second, they by and large lack the capacity to comply with standards, particularly when their export markets are developed countries. The result is that the revenue they earn from exports is seriously affected.

The environment and safety standards are becoming a serious obstacle to international trade, particularly to market access for developing countries. Under the garb of protecting their environment, the rich, industrial countries have found a new tool for protecting their domestic industries, which is against the very spirit of free trade espoused by the WTO. Developing nations either do not have the means to conform to these standards or, where they do conform, the cost of conformity becomes so high that it affects their price competitiveness. It is not that developing countries are less concerned about the environment than developed countries, but the former lack the means to preserve it. Penalising them, by denying them market access, because their products do not measure up to the difficult environment standards of developed countries will further reduce their capacity to preserve the environment. What developing countries need instead is technical and financial assistance from developed countries to beef up their capacity to grapple with environment issues.

The TBT and SPS agreements have special significance for Pakistan. About 55 per cent of the country's exports are destined to the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), which have very high health and safety standards. With the reduction of tariffs, these standards, along with anti-dumping, are likely to become the most serious barriers to Pakistan's attempts to increase or even maintain its market share in the US and the EU. Therefore, greater awareness is needed among domestic exporters about the importance of complying with health and safety standards in their existing and target export markets.

The ongoing judicial and political crises have turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Imran Khan, whose stature as a committed and uncompromising politician has risen in the eyes of the general public. His party, the Tehreek-i-Insaaf, had been around for many years without creating any major impact and had shown dismal performance in the two general elections held since its inception. However, now in a span of a few months, it has become a force to be reckoned with. Similarly, more and more people have started taking Imran Khan seriously. His popularity among the country's youth is especially noteworthy.

Interestingly, there have been many different facets and phases of Imran Khan's life. As a player, he left his mark on the game of cricket for all times to come. At the peak of his youth and popularity, he was the heartthrob of many a woman all across the world. When he turned to philanthropy, after bidding farewell to a successful cricket career, he was able to build the largest and most sophisticated cancer hospital in Pakistan. Imran Khan's next stint as a politician was not so successful initially, but through his perseverance, uprightness and commitment, he has finally been able to carve a niche for himself in the murky fields of politics. Now that he had a flavour of prison as well, he must have become a more mature politician than before.

Imran Khan was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had never seen darker side of the life till his mother was diagnosed as having cancer. It was during the days of his mother's illness that he realised that there was no hospital offering treatment solely for the deadly disease in Pakistan. Those who could afford had the option of going abroad for treatment; but for those who could not, cancer meant death.

Imran Khan's mother did not survive, but her death gave life to many others in the days to come -- as the playboy of the yesteryears vowed to build a cancer hospital in Lahore in the memory of his late mother. It was indeed a gigantic task, as millions of dollars were required to realise this dream. Imran Khan went to every part of Pakistan as well as abroad to raise funds for the project, and was finally able to build a hospital that is now virtually the last hope for many cancer patients across the country.

As Imran Khan travelled across Pakistan to raise funds for the hospital, a large number of common people insisted that he should join a political party to bring about a change. Though he finally agreed to enter into politics, Imran Khan was not willing to join hands with those who had already been tried by the masses and had failed to come up to their expectations. Therefore, he decided to launch his own party -- the Tehreek-i-Insaaf -- in 1996. The party failed to woo voters in the next two general elections. The judicial crisis that started in March this year, however, turned out to be a blessing in disguise for both Imran Khan and his party. More and more Pakistanis, who had hitherto kept themselves aloof from politics, started taking keen interest in the happenings around them and found that the cricketer-turned-politician was talking sense.

Imran Khan was also benefitted by the fact that the two leading politicians of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, were abroad and there was a vacuum of leadership in the country. He formed an informal alliance with right-wing parties and started opposing President Pervez Musharraf's military regime and seeking Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry's reinstatement. The chief justice was finally reinstated, but the regime -- fearing an independent judiciary with Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as its head -- imposed emergency (read martial law) in the country and held in abeyance those provisions of the Constitution that pertained to basic human rights.

In the following days, a massive crackdown was launched against politicians, lawyers, social activists and media personnel. Incidentally, Imran Khan succeeded in evading arrest and went into hiding. He started sending messages to the youth of Pakistan from his hideout, and urged them to rise against the incumbent government and put up a united front. The youth, especially the students, who had already started feeling restless on the unfolding of events and were protesting in their respective campuses, were responsive.

When Imran Khan finally felt that the time was ripe for him to give up his hiding and to lead the movement that was gaining momentum with every passing day, he surfaced in Lahore's University of the Punjab on November 14. The biggest university in the country had always remained under the influence of student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami, an ally of Imran Khan in the struggle against the regime. The Tehreek-i-Insaaf chief was accorded a warm welcome by almost all the students, but to the utter surprise of the whole nation the office-bearers of student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami physically mishandled him, dragged him from collar, made him hostage and then finally handed him over to the police. Imran Khan was thereafter dispatched to Dera Ghazi Khan, where he was kept in the jail alongside hardened criminals.

Imran Khan has now been released from the jail, but he has gained a lot from the incident. His arrest generated intense furore in the whole country, and was condemned by all and sundry. The stature of Imran Khan has further risen in the eyes of the masses. Those who were still sitting on the fence have come out in the open to support him. After his arrest, Imran Khan was charged under a variety of sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), Maintenance of Public Order and Anti-Terrorism Act, some of which had no relevance with the case. In short, the whole episode has turned out to be immensely counterproductive for the present regime, as the people have already started lauding Imran Khan's selfless commitment and sincerity to the cause. His support among the masses has increased manifold. Thanks to the regime, Imran Khan has achieved in days what he would not have otherwise achieved even in years.