`
|
` |
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
economy The real
issues Political
pragmatism debate A
forgotten crop analysis Newswatch firstperson Divide
we stand
After years of believing that the economy is finally improving, it has come as a rude shock to the people to know that the situation on the ground is otherwise By Ambreen Saadat Since the beginning of
the Musharraf era, the people of this country have been made to believe
that Today, amidst incessant power breakdowns, sky-rocketing food prices and shortage of basic commodities like flour / wheat, we find that the only thing that has taken off is Shaukat Aziz' plane bound for London, while the country's economy is skidding off the runway and is about to crash into barricades. It would not be an overstatement to say that our flight towards prosperity has been aborted. The first quarterly report (July-September 2007) of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) delivers the ominous message that the exports have fallen short of and the imports have exceeded the targets; the GDP growth is stalling at 6.6 per cent; and the rate of inflation is more than nine per cent. According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report, every fourth Pakistani lives in abject poverty. And the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP's) Human Development Index, an indicator of well being of citizens, ranks Pakistan at number 136, out of 177 countries. Stunned at this, the people of Pakistan are slowly beginning to realise the mess. Why the oft promised "take off" has eluded us once again? How do we explain the robust figures that had been cited ad nauseam? Cynics would promptly claim that much of the acclaimed growth never actually took place and it was all a statistical illusion. It is true that statistics have been wangled in the past in Pakistan in ingenious ways, for instance by amending the 'consumer price basket'. The people in charge of the economy will complacently tell us that the present crisis is a painful, but necessary, off-shoot of globalisation -- a result of integrating the local markets with the global market. Indeed, this is the excuse Economic Minister Salman Shah has been furnishing to justify the high flour / wheat prices. His theory is inherently flawed, as how can the local prices of flour / wheat be in sync with global prices when the cost of cultivating the crop is much lower in Pakistan? Besides, most of the negative effects of globalisation could have easily been averted had our policy-makers been imaginative, and had they devised an economic model based on our particular socio-political conditions and needs. But they proved to be orthodox capitalists, Adam Smith's star pupils. They formulated policies on the premise that the 'invisible' hand corrects all economic imbalances, though Keynes had argued more than 50 years ago that the economy could not be left alone to the 'invisible' hand. Our policies have been that of mass surrender to the neo-liberal economic regime, propagated by the West and grounded in the Washington Consensus (a set of economic prescriptions, such as liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation, minimal government intervention, etc), with which our policy-makers seem to be obsessed. Our economic managers do not seem to recognise the fact that the countries which have benefitted the most from globalisation have been those that did not adhere to the Washington Consensus' 'one-size-fits-all' nostrum of liberalisation and privatisation. As documented in the World Bank's research report entitled The East Asian Miracle, the countries in the region have been successful because their governments played sophisticated interventionist roles and because none of them had anything very close to free trade. Most of them continue to have substantial tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies and other policies to mange their trade that are not in all line with the Washington Consensus' prescriptions. On the contrary, Pakistan is one of the least protected countries in South Asia, especially after the 2001 trade reforms when maximum tariff rates were reduced from 65 to 25 per cent. The move to wholesale liberalisation was driven by the assumption that free markets are efficient, and efficient markets lead to economic growth. This view is being increasingly questioned by researchers even at the World Bank, who argue that the best way for a country to boost its economy is to protect its own markets while exporting as much as possible. Our policy-makers, however, have failed to realise that opening up the local markets to foreign competition would result in moving our producers from low productivity to zero productivity in areas in which they did not have a competitive edge. To expect that the 'displaced' workers -- coming from a workforce marked by illiteracy, inadequate access to micro credit and lack of skills -- would successfully move to other jobs or would somehow participate in the global expansionary process was to live in a fool's paradise. The net result of this unimpeded globalisation has been the eating away of existing jobs before the creation of new ones. It is interesting to note that developed countries -- such as the United States, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands -- had fully protectionist policies during their phase of development, and they chose to open their markets to foreign manufactured goods only after they had built an unbeatable competitive advantage. On the other hand, markets of most developed countries are still closed in areas like textiles, construction, services and agriculture, in which developing countries have a competitive edge. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has to date failed to compel the US and the European Union (EU) to stop subsidising agricultural products in clear violation of its own rules. The EU, on the other hand, is quick to punish other countries that it suspects of breaching the WTO's rules. For instance, in 2004 it quickly slapped anti-dumping duties on eight Pakistani textile manufacturing companies (after a long delay of two years and a loss running into millions of dollars, the companies eventually succeeded in convincing the European Commission that they were not involved in dumping). Harping on about the GDP growth rate proves that our economic managers have not learned any lessons from the Ayub era. It is insignificant whether the size of our national economy grows by seven per cent or by 12 per cent; what is significant is that all classes of society should participate in the economic growth. Increasing the size of our economic pie is not an achievement, while making sure that the fruits of growth are divided equitably is. The bottom line is that economic development has to be converted into human development for a country to progress. When we sift the reality from the rhetoric, the conclusion is that our economic managers have got it all wrong, once again. Just because more people have cell phones, the automobile industry has flourished and chains of fancy restaurants have swept the big cities does not in any way mean that the economic policies have been successful and the economy has flourished. On the contrary, this is an evidence of a sick economy plagued with inequitable distribution of wealth. Our economic managers would do well to take a cue from those who believe that the 'trickle down' effect is nothing more than an artificial belief. To conclude, Pakistan's current economic situation reminds one of what Keynes said in 1923: "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead."
Renaming the Northern Areas is important, but there are more pressing issues at hand By Ghulam Nabi Wani For quite some time now,
there has been a debate about renaming the region currently called the Till 1977, the Northern Areas were known as Gilgit-Baltistan; it was only after Ziaul Haq came to power that the current name was adopted for reasons best known to those concerned. In all historical documents, including the famous Karachi Pact, the name used for the region is Gilgit-Baltistan. Administratively the Northern Areas have been divided into six districts, though only two races -- Balti and Shina -- have been living here since ancient time. In the districts of Gilgit, Chilas, Astore and Ghizir, most of the people speak Shina; while in Hunza as well as some parts of Ghizir, Brushishki is spoken. In the Baltistan region -- comprising Skardu, Shigar, Kharmang Khaplu, Rundo, etc -- most of the people speak Balti. It is also important to remember that almost 30 per cent of the territory of Baltistan -- including Kargil, Suru, Nubra, Zankskar, Hardas, etc -- is under Indian occupation. Most of the people living here speak Balti, as historically these territories were a part of Baltistan. Considering these factors, Gilgit-Baltistan seems to be the most appropriate new name for the Northern Areas. Also, there is an ongoing dispute in the United Nations between Pakistan and India over the possession of the Northern Areas. As Gilgit-Baltistan has been mentioned as the region's name in the official documents, changing its name to something else would be a clear deviation from our past stance on the issue. This is another valid reason for the concerned authorities to rename the Northern Areas as Gilgit-Baltistan. However important a new name may be for the Northern Areas, the real issues confronting the population of these areas are poverty, lack of educational and health facilities, and unemployment. In the last two decades, the overall socio-economic situation in the region has been unsatisfactory to say the least. For instance, almost 75 per cent population of the Northern Areas is dependent on agriculture for its livelihood, but the government has not paid any attention to this sector. As a result, poverty has increased manifold and more and more people have become unemployed. The farmers in the Northern Areas are unaware of the modern techniques of cultivation. Especially in Baltistan, they can cultivate only one main crop due to the extreme climatic conditions. The farmers, therefore, have nothing to do for the rest of the year. If the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can make plans for the development of agriculture and forestry in the region, these farmers may be able to realise their full potential. The second important issue facing the Northern Areas is that of lack of educational facilities. From 1997 to 2002, the World Bank loaned more than Rs 80 million to the Pakistani government for improving the standard of education in the region. However, nothing practical was done to achieve this end -- most of the loan was spent on organising seminars in posh hotels and on purchasing expensive vehicles. Moreover, the recruitment policy was not transparent. Subsequently, non-professional and untrained people entered the teaching profession. In short, the educational system was much better in the 1970s and the 1980s than it is today. The lack of health facilities is the third important issue facing the people of the region. For example, Skardu's District Headquarters (DHQ) Hospital does not have the equipment for even the basic diagnostic tests. Similarly, the people of Baltistan have been demanding the appointment of a female gynaecologist for more than five years, but the concerned authorities are yet to do so for reasons best known to them. The DHQ Hospitals in Skardu and Gilgit are the only health facilities available to the entire population of the Northern Areas, but their combined budget is less than even that of a single government hospital in any big city. The next important issue facing the region is that of unemployment -- an outcome of the poor educational system and the flawed socio-economic planning. In the Northern Areas, there is not even a single technical institute for either boys or girls. Two IT colleges and a university were established in 2001, but the region needs first and foremost basic educational facilities. As mentioned, due to the lack of technical institutions in the region, unemployment is increasing day by day ñ further compounding the problems of the people of the region.
While extremists may not be weeded out, would-be supporters must be encouraged to join the mainstream rather than remaining on fringes By Syed Nadir El-Edroos With general elections
drawing closer and closer, a lot rides on their outcome. It is being
claimed The problems Pakistan faces are not only from without, but more importantly from within; the building blocks of which were laid well before 9/11 or the Musharraf regime. Events in Waziristan, Swat and Balochistan point to the marginalisation of Pakistani citizens by the successive governments, as well as lack of an alternative path to settle their genuine grievances. One may wonder why people of a country would take up arms against their own government and security forces! In Waziristan, it is due to the fact that tribal loyalty and customs are more potent than the ideology of Pakistan. In Swat, people turned towards the sermons of religious extremists as they offered a better life or perhaps a more just life. In Balochistan, the various tribes have never been co-opted into the Pakistani mainstream politics. In all the three above-mentioned cases, regardless of the motives, the parties feel aggrieved. They search for an alternative to the status quo, as they hope that it will lead to a better and more just life. The rise of religious extremism is in part due to the anti-American sentiment. While the everyday arguments about the causes of militancy are valid, the mass support that such movements have elicited may be interpreted as a search for an alternative. While the current setup is viewed as corrupt, unjust, immoral and exploitative, the alternative that extremists offer is moral, just and promises a better life. Those who propagate extremism and anti-government policies have one major advantage -- while evidence of the state's failure is evident to all, the extremists can promise a better life since it is essentially only a promise! Policies made by the government of Pakistan and its allies in the 'war on terror' must take this into account. Rather than making martyrs out of those who may hope to destroy the state, avenues must be created to allow for non-violent communication to highlight issues of concern rather than resorting to violence. Alternatively, one may argue that the hardcore extremists -- with no regard for life and property of others -- do not want to be a part of a positive change; and would rather die hoping to bring about a change than living and seeing that change happen. Considering that the hardcore anti-state groups gain strength from popular support, policies must be formulated accordingly -- those who propagate violence must be eliminated, but it must be ensured that the death of one militant does not become a source for recruiting 10 others. While those propagating violence may never be persuaded to shun their policies, the views of those who support such groups must be changed. In short, those who support the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Waziristan and Swat or the insurgents in Balochistan must be co-opted to support the state. When referring to the state, one must distinguish between particular governments and the nation-state itself. While those supporting such groups must be co-opted, this does not suggest in any way that they should become Musharraf's supporters, which would be counter-productive. What is required instead is to instill in them a greater sense of belonging to the Pakistani state. In short, all the marginalised groups -- whose number, unfortunately, runs into many -- must be encouraged to develop a sense of belonging to the Pakistani state. Various factions within the Pakistani state must agree to disagree, while recognising that the life, property and security of all citizens are equally important. Unfortunately the perverted ideology in our nation seems to be that the lives of certain ethnic, provincial, political and economic groups are somehow more valuable than others. The forthcoming general elections will usher in a new government with policies of its own. These policies, however, are unlikely to stem the tide of violence, as elections in themselves will not address the underlying issues. What is required instead is a degree of flexibility from the government and the elite of the country, who must display a willingness to engage with the aggrieved groups. The state must take the initiative, as the military-industrial-feudal establishment has had a monopoly over resources for such a long time that it would have to offer much more than vague promises of increasing development funds to the marginalised groups. To integrate these aggrieved groups into the mainstream political process, they should be made to feel as if they are part of the decision-making process rather than mere recipients of the consequences of these decisions. Today, regardless of the government in power, the relationship between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' remains largely unequal, and one may expect violence to continue.
debate Isn't it time we look more closely at the donors and create more comprehensive control systems? By Atle Hetland The World Economic Forum
-- held in Davos, Switzerland, this week -- did not come up with many Perhaps we should not expect an economic meeting like the Davos Forum to lay the foundation for the world's overall development, including economic transfers from the rich to the poor countries. In essence, all development issues are political and humanitarian in nature. They are moral and ethical issues, with economic growth as a tool towards human development. But since the world is becoming increasingly interdependent, there is also a need for both public and private sector leaders in the rich countries to consider the poor countries and their populations. There was more focus on development aid some years ago, especially at the G-8 meeting led by Britain. It seems it has not yet been realised that to focus on security and terror without paying attention to the fundamental issues of human dignity and development is futile. Still, it is realised that without transfer of substantial development aid from the rich to the poor countries, any move towards economic integration is going to be slow and cumbersome, with severe burden on the poor countries and the poorest people there. The ongoing wars and the invasion of developing countries by the rich countries and military alliances are problematic. Unless the poor countries are assisted, not invaded, there are likely to be more conflicts and internal unrest in them, resulting in larger numbers of refugees and undocumented emigrants reaching the West. Some may be involved in smuggling and other crimes, even terrorism. All this is mainly caused by failed poverty reduction efforts and lack of opportunities for the poor, though sometimes it will have the face of ethnic conflicts. However, social and economic differences; access to educational and health facilities; and a decent income and life for all will be the real causes of internal conflicts. Class differences and class conflicts are not at all history. As a matter of fact, differences are growing in the midst of an interdependent world, making the role of development aid even more important. In this article, we shall mainly focus on three aspects of development aid: one, the basics of development and the importance of increasing aid; two, the shortcomings of aid policies and practices, including direct corruption and mismanagement; and three, ways ahead to ensure improvements in volume, quality and relevance of aid. The importance of aid is only growing; therefore, we need to scrutinise the 'aid industry' much more closely. We need a watchdog, or perhaps many watchdogs, to help monitor aid and other development activities. That is in everybody's interest in the South and the North, and at all levels of the ladder. Development aid is influencing many developing countries in major ways through financial transfers, policy guidelines, and various types of technical and professional advice. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the world has become mono-polar, with one main economic and political model. The development aid must fall under this general 'world order'. Perhaps that is why the type and form of development aid is often not in the true interest of the majority of the people in the recipient countries. Moreover, many aid organisations have their own internal problems. Staff and consultants live in their own 'aid-created worlds'. Often there is intellectual corruption and heavy-handed behaviour from the donors' side, especially the larger aid organisations and the development banks. The United Nations organisations listen more to the recipient countries, which are indeed the majority of their members, but then they often have limited funds because the rich countries still control the purse. Often UN staff is not appointed because of competence, but for all kinds of other political or private reasons. Still, we are generally positive to the UN, not least because it is 'owned' by the recipient as well as the donor countries. The current 'one UN' idea has both its merits and demerits. Only a couple of decades ago, it was unacceptable that all agencies and donors "ganged up", as we called it. They wanted more cooperation and contact with other agencies, but not necessarily making the donors a massive 'block' against the weak recipient countries. As a matter of fact, parliamentarians rarely have a real opportunity to influence selection and content of aid projects, programmes and policies in most recipient countries. They are at best informed about activities only after the Ministry of Finance had signed agreements with the donors. Yet, all donors, including the international and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which often implement projects and programmes, need to be controlled and projects discussed to develop the famous 'ownership' of aid interventions. The donor as well as the recipient governments must be controlled much more tightly than they currently are. Aid activities are indeed not politically neutral. They are particularly important in countries where aid constitutes a large proportion of the recipient countries' budget. But aid is never more than a few percent of a country's gross domestic product (GDP). There is an urgent need for a special control body -- a watchdog or several watchdogs -- to ascertain optimal integration of aid in the recipient countries' government structures, or, if it is so agreed, the non-governmental sector. The current volume of development aid is not high enough, yet the amounts are often quite substantial with many possibilities for corruption and mismanagement. Transparent and good accounting and auditing, therefore, are important. Aid activities and other development activities must always pay attention to relevance and quality. It does not help if everything is done right if we actually do the wrong things! This may sound a simple slogan, but I believe it is a key point in improving development aid -- we must agree on doing the most important things and doing them rightly. Until now, most development aid projects, as evaluated by the donor organisations themselves, with some participation from the recipients, show that the majority of aid projects are good, more than two-thirds actually. However, the impact of all aid put together is not impressive at all. The impact does not in any way become the sum of the many good (small) projects and programmes. Developing countries have a right to receive aid for many reasons, notably to 'help correct' their colonial and exploitative history, and to cushion the unjust North-South relations and the unfair world trade arrangements under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Neither during the colonial period nor during the current WTO era human rights seem to occupy a central position. It should be noted that aid is not something the the rich countries give out of kindness, though there are solidarity aspects to it, especially to emergency and humanitarian aid. In general though, development aid is given because it is in everybody's interest that the poor countries get included in the world economic and social system. In the process, we must watch out for the interests of the poorest countries, and especially the poorest people in these countries. Watchdogs must keep an eye on the human rights in the poorest countries, in particular of the marginalised groups like those who live below their country's poverty line, refugees and other forced migrants, orphaned children, exploited women and men, etc. We must ensure that every person has the opportunity to livelihood, and be able to fend for himself or herself and the immediate family. It is a sad fact that in our time, when the world's total wealth is at its peak, the level of rich countries' government transfers of aid is as low as in the early 1960s, adjusting for the GDP growth in the donor countries. These are official figures for development aid cooperation (DAC), prepared by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which comprises more than 20 donor countries in Europe, America and Oceania. The level of aid has declined for several reasons; one of them is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union there are fewer checks and balances between the competing world powers. The other major reason is a greater belief that trade can be a vehicle for poor countries' development. The latter may be true in the longer run, but there are many obstacles to reaching that level, and there is need for massive aid in order for the private sector to develop too so that it can reach a competitive level and get a fair share of the domestic and international markets. Besides, there are many things that the private sector cannot do, such as establishing social services and building and maintaining infrastructure. In Pakistan, which is a large country and is by no means a least developed country (LDC), the private sector is very small. Unless it is provided with government help, it cannot develop fast enough to avoid being overtaken by other countries in the region and elsewhere in the world. We can wish for more fairness from the WTO, but re-negotiation of its regulations is not likely to happen any time soon, except for possibly in the areas of labour and migration, where the rich countries too are interested in better and more realistic regulations. It is a sad fact that regulations concerning people's movements come after regulations concerning goods and capital. Yet, all economic development is meaningless unless it benefits people. Most development issues are political and humanitarian in nature, and not economic or military. They are moral and ethical, with economic growth and security as tools towards human development. The same reasons are fundamentally also the reasons for the rich countries giving development aid to the poor countries. They are based on a belief that all human beings are equal with the same rights and the same needs. Aid is granted to show solidarity with brothers and sisters who are in need, within countries and across borders. Aid is also in the interest of the donors. Yet, there is a long way for us to go to reach the goal of donor countries granting 0.7 per cent of their GDP in development aid. Only the Nordic countries and The Netherlands have reached these goals. Some of the larger OECD countries give less than 0.3 per cent and others somewhat more. The volume of aid is important in order to assist the recipient countries achieve real development goals, such as education and health for all, employment and decent housing for all, and all the other fundamental human rights. Indeed there is major work ahead for watchdogs to make sure that all the rich countries fulfil their international obligations and give public aid. The policy influence and large volume of development aid (and currently its stagnation) calls for concern and a need for control of the 'aid industry'. The many cases of misguided and heavy-handed policy advice are a cause for concern, as they are often more in the rich countries' trade interests than the poor countries' poverty alleviation and development interests. They also have unwarranted effects, which the ordinary taxpayers in the rich countries are unaware of. The lack of democratic influence on aid policies in donor countries is a serious problem. It is an even greater problem that the recipient countries often have little say in development aid activities. Thus, we call for greater democratisation of all development aid. Unless we get active and competent watchdogs, the likes of Amnesty International, democratisation of development aid is unlikely to happen soon. Some aid policies are directly harmful to the recipient countries, and the bilateral donors claim diplomatic immunity and thereby operate outside the recipient country's legal systems, business practices and the political system. These structural malpractices can be dated back to the early years after independence of most of today's recipient countries of aid, but that is half a century ago so we ought to have corrected it by now. There are also major needs for corrections within the multilateral system, with the World Bank group and the regional development banks as the most self-righteous and arrogant in their policies. It is always easier to discover and take measures against concrete wrong-doings by aid agencies, such as direct abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement, but much more difficult to identify structural mistakes and shortcomings. Yet, the latter are often more severe and have a long lasting effect on the recipient countries. One particularly serious case of wrong policy advice was the World Bank's structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) in the 1980s and the early 1990s, leading to deeper impoverishment of hundreds of millions of already poor people, denying them access to education and health if they could not pay the user fees which were introduced. The international donors instigated all this, with the World Bank as the lead agency, but legally implemented by the developing countries themselves since they had to follow certain conditionalities in order to receive credits and aid. And when its failures began to become clear, the World Bank had the guts to join the 'Education For All' (EFA) movement, though it had actually worked against EFA for a long time. As a result, the World Bank went free of serious criticism and is today considered a particularly credible partner by most donor countries, which are providing their funds for grants to add up to the Bank's own loans or credits. The only way to improve the development aid, its relevance and quality, its policy advice, and indeed its volume, is through creating a much more thorough control of existing practices in all fields of the aid industry and overall development activities. We probably need one central watchdog agency and many other control organisations, and we need the media and researchers to expand and deepen their work. (The
writer is an Islamabad-based consultant and researcher. Email.
atlehetland@yahoo.com)
A forgotten crop Sugarcane has no more remained a good prospect for the farming community of Sindh By Adeel Pathan At a time when the
entire nation is focusing on the wheat / flour crisis, the sugarcane crop
is The crushing season for sugarcane, which was notified to start on October 1, 2007, was delayed by almost two months due to sugar millers' stance, putting the growers in great difficulty and inflicting huge financial losses on them. The crisis of sugarcane is not new one for the growers and the government, but despite this the latter did not intervene timely to ensure the implementation of its own notification about the price of sugarcane and the timeframe given for the commencement of the crushing season. The outgoing Sindh government fixed the minimum price of sugarcane at Rs 67 per maund after consultation with both the growers and the millers. The growers, however, were not paid the minimum price for their product. Moreover, the sugar millers also delayed the crushing season to add to the growers' miseries. A number of meetings were held to resolve the dispute over the price of sugarcane, but to no avail. Also, the crisis prolonged owing to the imposition of emergency and other political developments in the country. In order to raise their voice, the sugarcane growers of Sindh sent many letters to the concerned authorities, both at the provincial and the federal level, but to no avail. The situation took an ugly turn in December, when the growers decided to stop supplying sugarcane to the mills, since the millers were not willing to pay them more than Rs 57 per maund -- Rs 10 per maund less than the minimum price set by the provincial government -- for their product. Representatives of the growers put the entire blame for the sugarcane crisis on the federal government, which according to them is paying no heed to the agriculture sector and is adopting wrong policies one after the other. A leading agriculturist Ghulam Nabi Morai, who is also president of the Sindh Farmers Association (SFA), told The News on Sunday that, in comparison with other crops, the regulatory authority has a very important role to play in setting the minimum price of sugarcane as well as ensuring that it is being paid to the growers. He opines that the price of sugar should also be fixed on the pattern of sugarcane, as sugar millers are not willing to pay Rs 67 per maund to the growers because the price of sugar has fallen down to Rs 21 from Rs 29 per kilogram since the fixation of minimum price for sugarcane. "There is a role of regulatory authority to intervene and allow the sugar millers to export available stocks of sugar, so that they can purchase sugarcane at the minimum price from the growers," he explains. Morai, who also attended government meetings after the sugarcane crisis as a representative of the growers, reveals that the government is earning more than Rs 18 billion by levying General Sales Tax on sugar. "Giving Rs 2.5 billion in rebate to the sugar millers on export of the commodity is not going to be difficult for the government, but will definitely boost the industry," he believes. There is uncertainty as far as the government's policy on the issue is concerned. Despite repeated protests and calls for intervention by the growers, the federal government has failed to assure them that will get the minimum price of sugarcane. The minimum price of sugarcane and the date of commencement of the crushing season were agreed upon in the presence of all stakeholders, including representatives of the provincial and the federal government. It was agreed that the mills would start crushing by November 1, but their owners did not fulfil the commitment. Instead, only after 10 days of crushing, they reduced the minimum price of sugarcane to Rs 60 per maund. "This is not only a blatant violation of the law, but also against the ethical trade practices," says Mahmood Nawaz Shah, general secretary of the Sindh Abadgar Board (SAB), a representative body of the growers of the province. He informs that according to the millers the minimum price of sugarcane is exorbitant, but a new sugar mill in Ghotki is paying Rs 67 per maund to the growers and is still running in profit. "It is strange that mills in close proximity and southwards are showing lower recovery, even though weather there is more suitable for sugarcane growing," Shah says. He further argues that the rate of sugarcane in Sindh should be same as in Punjab: "According to the latest annual report of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA), the data of last 12 years shows that Sindh has been producing 0.48 kilogram more sugar than Punjab per maund of sugarcane." Therefore, Shah adds, SAB is of the view if the rate of sugarcane in Punjab is Rs 60 per maund, then in Sindh it should at least be Rs 70 per maund. This is also in line with the PSMA's demand of linking the price of sugarcane with that of sugar. However, PSMA Chairperson Shunaid Qureshi told TNS that "the crushing season started well, but the price of sugar dropped from Rs 29 to Rs 21 per kilogram meanwhile; therefore the millers are not in a position to pay the minimum price of Rs 67 per maund of sugarcane." One feels it is high time for the policy-makers to devise a strategy to overcome this crisis, in order to avoid shortage of sugar in the country. The heaping of blame on Shaukat Aziz for all the crises confronting the country is a somewhat predictable ploy By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar In a quite remarkable,
if not altogether surprising development, former Punjab Chief Minister
Pervaiz But the rot does not stop there. For some time now -- even before the postponement of the general elections in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination -- PML-Q candidates have reportedly refused to use the election paraphernalia that bears President General (r) Pervez Musharraf's image. Notwithstanding the obviously close association of the PML-Q with the retired general, the party seems to have realised that their patron-in-chief is deeply unpopular, and that there is a need to establish some distance between the party and Musharraf, at least for public consumption. The PML-Q's antics are
not dissimilar to that of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who seems to have It is small wonder then that ordinary Pakistanis lament the sad state of political parties. The two mainstream parties -- the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) -- that have been more principled in their politics as compared with the PML-Qs and MMAs of the world at times seem willing to depart from the now two-decade old practice of sharing power with the establishment in favour of a comprehensive democratisation of the state. But the lucidity on display when they forcefully condemn military rule is not matched by organisation and mobilisation. If ever the military establishment was vulnerable to organised people's power, it is now. A concerted effort to mobilise the people around the genuine crises of wheat and other basic utilities by the PPP and the PML-N would surely produce a groundswell of public support for them. But the question arises: why do those who actually rule this God-forsaken country not get as much stick as our political parties? In the age of live talk-shows, we revel in the roasting to which politicians are subjected by TV anchors. If one were to take a poll of the average dinner conversation amongst our chattering classes, it would not be a surprise if Asif Zardari-bashing were top of the list. Yet generals, brigadiers and colonels have never been subject to public scrutiny of this kind. They are never on TV talk shows, do not suffer as much in our living room banter; in a nutshell, they are never put on the spot. At best General (r) Musharraf has to face the heat from the international press during his once-in-a-while briefings; op-eds in newspapers do not hold back either. But when was the last time that a man in uniform was actually subject to the grilling to which politicians are subjected on an almost daily basis? There was no last time because it has never happened. The official explanation is quite simple. The military is an institution charged with the most important responsibility of all -- protecting the physical integrity of the state as well as defining its 'ideological frontiers' -- and it, therefore, cannot be subject to wanton public criticism because this is tantamount to undermining the security of the state. In recent times, the most cogent exposition of this simple argument came from Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain himself, who insisted that anyone criticising the military should be tried for sedition. Even if one were to agree with this line of thinking, which itself is highly dubious, the problem is that the issue of the military's 'other' activities tends to be completely ignored. Most importantly, the military has been nothing short of an armed political party for as long as one can remember. Additionally, it has developed independent economic interests. How can one possibly argue that the military should not be subject to public scrutiny in light of its 'other' preoccupations? Of course there is no argument here. There is only lathi, goli and the Martial Law. And when this is the language of communication, arguments, logic and plain common sense cease to matter. But this is not all there is to the matter. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Pakistan's living in cities and in the Punjabi heartland (remember that most Sindhis, Balochs and Pakhtuns have never bought into the myth of the military's infallibility) have internalised the illogic of subjecting politicians to all sorts of public censure, while accepting that generals, brigadiers and colonels simply do not have to appear in the 'public court'. This is a reflection of the military's success in institutionalising a political system in which it calls the shots on virtually all fronts and yet avoids public scrutiny. In the firing line step politicians who deserve their fair share of criticism, but surely cannot be expected to answer for the failures of the state given that they have very little control over its posture and priorities. It is a good thing that there has been criticism of the military's various roles in Pakistan in newspaper columns and on the streets over the past 11 months. But what is really required is for military men to face up to the kind of public scrutiny that all politicians know comes with the territory. If the military and its supporters believe that they do have a role to play in Pakistani politics, or that there is nothing wrong with their becoming property dealers and absentee landlords, then why do they not trust themselves to answer the kinds of questions that their 'preoccupations' merit? Perhaps more importantly, why do all Pakistanis not demand that the military be subject to public scrutiny? Why not have corps commanders stand account for the way in which they exercise power, spend our money, jail our judges, bomb our villages and make a mess of our economy. A large number of Pakistanis are currently without electricity, gas and, in the worst cases, food. Who has ruled this country for the past eight-and-a-half years and brought us to this point? Who says they are not answerable?
By Kaleem Omar Funology is the science of having fun. Yes, apparently it's a science now; which probably explains why very few people have any fun anymore. Or if they do, they do so in secret. Rumour has it that some US colleges are now even offering courses in funology. But 'Fun 101' doesn't sound like much fun. It reminds me of the story about an American college student of many years ago who sent a telegram to his father saying, "Dear Dad, No Mon, No Fun, Your Son." To which, his father replied, "Dear Son, How Sad, Too Bad, Your Dad." Then, there was that Hollywood actress who liked her tenth husband so much that she decided to keep him for an extra fortnight. It is said that a week in politics is a long time. But how much time in marriage constitutes a long time? Well, that depends. I mean, there was one lady I knew who said she'd been happily married for three years -- which wasn't bad, really, considering that she'd been married for thirty. There are hypochondriacs and hypochondriacs. Remember Jacqueline Susaan's best selling 1960s novel Valley of the Dolls? Everyone in the story was constantly popping pills -- uppers, downers, yellow pills, blue pills, you name it. Even Susaan, however, wouldn't have known what to do with a husband who was such a hypochondriac that he refused to kiss his wife until she bought lipstick with penicillin in it. Then, there was the husband who believed so devoutly in reincarnation that his will left everything to himself. On the subject of wills, though, my favourite story concerns a 1950s New York socialite named Tommy Manville. His multimillionaire father's will left all his money in a trust that entitled Tommy to a regular income but to none of the principal amount, with one exception: Tommy was to get a million dollars in cash when he got married. So what happened? Well, since the will, through a lawyer's drafting oversight, had failed to specify that Tommy was to be paid a million only when he got married for the first time, Tommy (taking full advantage of the lacuna) kept getting married and divorced and married and divorced -- collecting a cool million dollars each time he tied the knot with some willing young lady (willing because Tommy always promised to share the loot with the lady in question and faithfully honoured his promise). If memory serves, he got married ten times in all. Every now and then, New Yorkers would see a headline in the tabloids saying: "Tommy Manville gets married yet again". Below the headline would be a picture of a beaming Tommy and a deliriously happy young lady -- both ecstatic at the thought of sharing a million dollars. Yes, those were the days when you didn't need a degree in funology to have fun. Not anymore, though. Now, the new science even has its own website: www.funology.com! "Funology is fun by the ton," it says, billing itself as a site for "Kids ages 1 to 101". There's that 101 figure again. "Hey Kids!" says the site. "We have tons of awesome stuff for you to explore! We have jokes, games, magic tricks, trivia, recipes. You name it, we've got it! Presto is our mascot, and he is one cool dog that is always looking for fun stuff to do!" That's the other thing about fun these days: it always comes equipped with exclamation marks. As in FUN!!! I belong to the pre-exclamation mark generation, however. In my book, fun is fun, with or without exclamation marks. Gertrude Stein once famously remarked, "A rose is a rose is a rose." In the same way, it could be said, "Fun is fun is fun." Art critics, however, don't seem to have much fun nowadays, as the following conversation amongst three critics at an art gallery suggests. Art Critic 1: "I think the neo-plasticism of the abstract design proves the mystical, metaphysical and non-humanistic approach to the objective concept of abstraction." Art Critic 2: "Yes, you may well have a point. In fact, it's obvious even from a casual glance that this painting was created by paranoiac-critical activity, brought about by spontaneous dynamic sensations, sometimes made by somnambulistically inclined camponologists, who create a picture of transcendental non-curvilinear and curvilinear objects expressing subjective feelings in a cubistic manner." Art Critic 3: "I fully agree with you both -- it's a rubbishy painting." In another piece of news, the scientific community, having run out of things to clone (with the unfortunate demise of Dolly, the world's first cloned sheep) is now trying to identify the World's Funniest Joke. This is a project called Laugh Lab, being conducted by Dr Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom. Dr Wiseman has set up an Internet site, www.laughlab.co.uk/home.html, that has reportedly received more than 10,000 jokes, which have been rated by more than 100,000 people, most of them wrong. Laugh Lab has also had people rate jokes that were generated by a computer. Unfortunately, the highest-rated joke that the computer produced was this: Question: "What kind of murderer has fibre?" Answer: "A cereal killer." If that's the best that funology can do, count me out. I think I'll head for the hills -- some place without an Internet connection (if such a place still exists) -- where I can spend my time contemplating nature, listening to the sound of the wind soughing in the pine trees and watching silvery trout negotiating a tricky path through rushing mountain streams, instead of wasting my time reading email messages prefixed with the words "you've got mail." On the subject of jokes, though, here's one I heard recently: Joe Bloggs, a small-time jewel thief in England, came home after robbing a nearby country house and began to saw the legs off his bed. When his wife asked him what he was doing, he said that he wanted to "lie low for a while." firstperson For the love of one's country The foremost challenge we face today is that of defining ourselves as a nation. By Zaman Khan The family of Prof Dr
Mohammad Nizamuddin migrated from Hyderabad Deccan to Karachi after the Dr Nizamuddin was selected by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to work at University of the Punjab, where he ran the PhD programme in Sociology. In 2006, he was appointed vice-chancellor of University of Gujrat. He is rated among the leading sociologists of the country. Dr Nizamuddin is a rare breed in the academic circles of Pakistan, because he believes in bold and plain talk without the fear of loosing his job. The News on Sunday interviewed him on the sidelines of the History Conference on the theme of Revisiting 1857, organised by Tareekh in Lahore. Excerpts follow: The News on Sunday: Academics are leaving for abroad, while you chose to return to Pakistan from abroad. What were the reasons for this decision? Mohammad Nizamuddin: I had always a vision of coming back to and working in Pakistan, because I feel more comfortable here. Also, I feel more useful in Pakistan, as I can do more work -- more productive work -- here. There are more challenges -- and, as a result, more chances of satisfaction -- in Pakistan. I still go to the United States in summers to teach. There I can teach a class of 30 people, mostly youngsters, who will take the course and go away. Here, I can make a difference by talking to young Pakistanis about the real issues and challenges facing the country. So, in short, I feel happier here. TNS: Did you make this decision before or after 9/11? MN: on 9/11, I was in New York, but my decision to come back to Pakistan has nothing to do with it. I made this decision entirely out of my desire to work in Pakistan. TNS: What kind of challenges Pakistanis face today? MN: The foremost challenge we face today is that of defining ourselves as a nation, as different people have been presenting different scenarios, offering different interpretations. According to one interpretation, we are Muslims first and Pakistanis later. This interpretation is based on the premise that we have much more direct relations with Central Asians than we have with the Indians. But my question is that whoever we are -- Sindhis, Punjabis, Balochs, Pakhtuns, etc -- what are we going to do as a country, as a nation? What are our guiding principles? This debate has been raging for the last 60 years, but we have failed to evolve a consensus, because different people have been interpreting the same principles differently. The 1973 Constitution was passed unanimously, but it seems that this document did not work either. Intellectuals and politicians, both, have not been able to bring the nation together and have not put it on the right path. In fact, they are pulling the people in different directions. Unfortunately, the old progressive element is also dying away and the forces of extremism are occupying the center stage, which is very unfortunate. Historically speaking, extremism has never been positive in any part of the world as it has always brought along with it negative forces. Extremism, intrinsically, derails a nation from its natural path and this is exactly what is happening in Pakistan nowadays. Today we are faced with religious extremism, but there can be other kinds of extremism as well -- for example, ethnic or racist. In my view, it is extremism that is hindering the progress of our country the most. When extremism rules the roost, the nation is divided because of lack of security and cohesion. In addition, the people become scared -- they cannot say what they want to because of the fear of being misinterpreted, for which they could be punished. Taking my own example, as a teacher I cannot teach my students what I should, because I fear that I will be harassed and may be killed. As far as I know, other teachers also think along similar lines. TNS: You have taken a very pessimistic view, but the question is whether this situation can be changed? MN: I stress that I do not see any signs of a positive change. I see the signs of economic progress, but without national cohesion and unity it is useless. You have to establish the rule of law, ensure justice and provide a sense of security to the people. This is necessary to bring about a positive change in the situation, which has become so worse that the people do not feel free even on university and college campuses -- they cannot express themselves openly and honestly. The same goes for the media. There has been a lot of talk about freedom of the media, but journalists are being targeted for their dissenting views. Freedom of the media means that you have a system in place where nobody can be targeted on the basis of what he or she has said in a television programme or written in a newspaper. TNS: How can the rule of law be ensured in Pakistan? MN: For that you have to make certain decisions, very solid policy decisions, with consensus, based on our national priorities. Our priority today is to ascertain why extremism is spreading so rapidly. How can you allow two groups of people, both forces as well as militants, to continue killing each other as well as innocent people? The situation is so grave that in many parts of the country people cannot even come out of their homes. They have no clue what would happen next. So, there is no rule of law in the country. I wonder how a state can tolerate something as unacceptable as this! TNS: But who will bell the cat? MN: Of course, the people will have to bell the cat -- but they are divided along different lines right now and lack even a basic understanding of issues. Basically, unless the progressive forces in Pakistan join hands to launch a very concerted movement, it may actually take years before we witness any change for the better. Of course, there shall be difficulties initially followed by chaos, but something will surely emerge out of that chaos. If you have it there, such a movement is bound to creep up. In fact, it is already creeping up, both in big cities and small towns. We have heard a lot about President General (r) Pervez Musharraf's idea of 'enlightened moderation', but he has not done anything concrete to implement it. Take the example of the madrassa reforms. After the clerics refused to cooperate with Musharraf, he did not take any action against them and instead made a compromise with them. Though he did not want to deal with the clerics, he could not avoid them either. The more he delays these reforms, the more bloodshed there will be in the country. TNS: You have said the progressive forces are in disarray. Who will unite them and is it possible to evolve consensus among them? MN: I agree that this is the most difficult thing, but someone has to take the responsibility of bridging the gap between the progressive forces in Pakistan. Take the example of Kolkata (previously Calcutta) in India, where the progressive forces are in power. They can shut the whole city with one strike call, as they are organised. They believe in their ideology and are sincere with it. I am not sure such elements exist in Pakistan any more. Even if they do, they are hidden due to the fear of persecution. They are not as afraid of the government as of their opponents, such as the extremists. TNS: You have cited the example of India, but in Pakistan the ruling elite has always been anti people. So how could there be a change? MN: I would not blame the ruling elite, but the feudal class and a few political parties. In fact, there was confusion right from the beginning. The legislative assemblies took about 11 years and could not agree on a constitution. They wasted time in debates, but could not come up with something concrete. These assemblies should have been able to achieve something. They could even have adopted some other constitution till the time they came up with their own, but their members kept on debating. This provided Ayub Khan with an opportunity to intervene. Also, many new political parties entered the fray in the meanwhile. One can credit Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for at least bringing the different elements together and giving the country a mutually agreed upon constitution. TNS: But didn't Bhutto himself amend the 1973 Constitution six times? MN: Yes, he did and it was a mistake. After evolving consensus on the 1973 Constitution, he should have amended it in a democratic way and only if there was a genuine need for doing that. TNS: As a sociologist, how do you look at the current Pakistani society? Do you have any hope that it will emerge as a strong nation some day? MN: Nations do survive, but I do not know in what form the Pakistani state will survive. Of course, the people will survive, as they have done for thousands of years. But I do not see any progress towards the emergence of a strong Pakistani nation in the near future. I do not see the foundations of one nation, which stands together with one vision. To be frank, I am not so optimistic that a strong Pakistani nation will emerge some day soon.
Divide
we stand By Syed Asad Hussain Pakistan is now headed for a situation where the very existence of the federation is at stake. Crisis after crisis, created by the establishment, has tarnished the image of the country beyond repair and there is no end insight. The year 2007 was perhaps the worst year in the country's history. Pakistan's foreign policy aimed at pleasing the West, especially the United States, has pushed the country into a deep abyss. Like every government in the past, the Musharraf regime crafted the foreign policy aimed at making more enemies at home than friends. After counting more than
1,000 bodies of Pakistani troops and over 3,000 innocent citizens, who Pakistan's history suggests that the nation has never taken into confidence regarding any important decision. Even elected governments struggle to get a clue about what is going on behind the scenes. There are always so-called 'wise', 'genius' and 'intelligent' individuals sitting at the top to decide the destiny of this deeply-divided nation. For these individuals, an average Pakistanis has no value. Pakistan, unlike Iran, has been quite unlucky that its leaders (in uniform or without) have always struggled to convince the nation about the decisions that they take in isolation. In most cases, the magnitude of difference between the thinking of our nation and its leadership is of 180 degrees. The truth is that the priorities of the nation and those of the establishment have always been in sharp contrast to each other, thus we see complete chaos in the country. There is a definite trust deficit between the two. As a result, the nation on the whole does not believe what the establishment wants to feed to them, even if there is truth in that. Our 'wise' men believe that American support is vital for Pakistan, in order to survive in these difficult times. Ironically, the policies of the Musharraf regime have made the country highly vulnerable to any outside influence. The country is now unable to withstand any outside political pressure, especially coming from the United States, which has been interfering in our internal matters, both covertly and overtly. Pakistan's foreign and defence policies have been bent with the wind to such an extent that the country now has been literally 'invaded' by the US. As a result, America's national interest now has become Pakistan's national interest, while the regime seems to be busier in counting the dollars provided by the US to help fight the 'war on terror'. This is being done at the cost of dividing the nation. Is that what we call a successful foreign policy? There is some truth in the argument that 9/11 proved to be a turning point for America, as did the Lal Masjid operation for Pakistan. We never have had suicide bombers and extremist elements within the society until the operation started in the tribal areas of the country. The Lal Masjid incident fuelled the fire further and it became a catch 22 situation for Pakistan -- damned it if we do it, damned it if we don't! At the same time, one must also strongly condemn the acts of suicide bombers who are misguided by their mentors. They are killings innocent Muslims in the name of Islam, a religion which in no way condones such cowardly and barbaric acts. On the contrary, Islam advocates severe punishment for killing innocent people, even if they are non-Muslims. One would have to agree that Pakistan was never ever threatened by the extremist religious forces till 9/11. Even when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, Pakistan was never near falling into the hands of the extremist group. The US did not care about Pakistan at that time, except issuing warnings against the rising influence of the Taliban. Then, why this sudden sharp turn in the policy of the US and the Pakistani establishment? The history of the tribal areas is a witness to the claim that their people were never involved in any anti-state activities or violence in Pakistani territory before. Why now? Why are they getting hostile towards the Pakistani establishment? The ground reality suggests that the nation is really struggling to accept the establishment's point of view on the 'war on terror'. An average Pakistani believes that the religious extremists are in no position to set the destiny of this nation and, therefore, pose no threat to Pakistan's stability. A vast majority of Pakistanis are progressive and moderate Muslims. A nation of 160 million progressive and moderate Pakistanis would neither allow this to happen nor can it afford to do so. It is only a propaganda campaign, jointly run by the Pakistani establishment and the US, that Pakistan soon will be falling into the hands of extremists. One may wonder why this did not happen after the Afghan War! Notwithstanding who will win or lose in the forthcoming general elections, there are no encouraging signs -- strikes, agitation and protests, which will push the country into further chaos, are very much on the horizon. An average Pakistani is getting more and more concerned about the future of the country after the elections. It is a pity that the nation has been made hostage in the hands of a few powerful people, who turn the table upside down if things do not suit them. The country currently needs a team of honest, dedicated and committed professional technocrats; honest and sincere political leaders; and an efficient bureaucracy to come out of the abyss. The nation surely will stand behind such a team whose priority would be to initiate war against poverty and illiteracy, provide access to justice and improve the economy. The 'war on terror' was never our war and it never will be. One must accept the reality, whether it is sweet or bitter, that we have only been made scapegoats in the 'war on terror' in return for a few billion dollars. (The
writer hosts TV talk shows on private channels and is an Islamabad-based
freelancer. Email:
syed311@hotmail.com)
|
|
things are finally improving; and with an imported economic minister --
who later became the prime minister -- at the helm of affairs, the economy
is about to join the ranks of other high performing economies of Asia.
Rising foreign exchange reserves had national coffers overflowing; the
fiscal deficit was down; the exports had stabilised; the Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) had reached an all-time high; the gross domestic product
(GDP) was growing rapidly at more than seven per cent per annum; and 'the
land of the pure' would be overflowing with milk and honey before we knew
it. The economic managers kept on repeating this mantra -- the Pakistani
'miracle', just like the East Asian 'miracle', was about to happen.
Northern Areas. Some nationalist organisations have proposed that its new
name should be Baluristan, while there are others who are in favour of
Gilgit-Baltistan. There are still others who want the Northern Areas to be
renamed as Aurz-Gulistan. Whatever new name the policy-makers may
eventually choose for the Northern Areas, one thing is for sure -- the
region's current name is not reflective of its culture, values and
traditions; it shows only its direction. Therefore, the concerned
authorities should not forget the culture, values and traditions of the
region before deciding upon a new name for it.
that democracy shall return to the country and normalcy will follow;
however, it is hard to believe that this will actually happen. While the
present government's policies laid the foundations of instability, the
opposition is also wrong in assuming that the current spate of violence
would come to an end with a reversal in national policies. Put simply,
calling on President General (r) Pervez Musharraf to resign and hoping
that the problems that our nation faces will dissipate as he exits office
is short-sighted to say the least.
exiting new promises for the developing world. Probably that was not to be
expected either. But at least discussions continue, and Pakistan's
President General (r) Pervez Musharraf and the outgoing former Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz were among the participants. Also, it seems that the
developed countries and multi-national companies (MNCs) have a genuine
desire to include all countries in the global economy and the current
world order, for good and for bad.
becoming the latest victim of political turmoil, especially in Sindh. The
province produces the finest quality of sugarcane and, therefore, sugar,
but this crop has not remained a good prospect for its farming community
-- facing a deadlock over the per maund (40 kilograms) price of sugarcane
-- as no sincere effort has been initiated by the government and relevant
quarters so far.
Elahi has said the policies of the Shaukat Aziz government have given rise
to the wheat, electricity, gas and various other economic crises that have
befallen the country. Aziz is now out of the country, and it appears that
the once blue-eyed boy of the West and the General Headquarters (GHQ) is
not likely to play any role in what remains of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid's
(PML-Q's) election campaign. Thus heaping the blame on him is a somewhat
predictable ploy.
perfected the art of hypocrisy. He proclaims himself the righteous
defender of Islam against America and its Pakistani military stooges, all
the while remaining a willing ally of the establishment in its attempts to
prevent a transfer of power to the people. For that matter, the entire
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) is singularly responsible for facilitating
the constitutional tinkering that allowed the Musharraf junta to survive
past 2003. But that does not prevent the MMA from otherwise articulating
what appears to be an uncompromising position on dictatorship.
Indian subcontinent's partition in 1947. He got his master's degree from
University of Chicago, the United States, in 1968, came back to Pakistan
and worked as director of Research Centre, Lahore, Government of the
Punjab, for six years. Thereafter, he got a Ford Foundation fellowship to
do his doctorate, following which he worked with the United Nations in
various capacities for 24 years, of which 15 were spent in New York. In
2002, he joined the Social Sciences Department of the University of
Columbia.
have died in the ongoing violence, the West is still not pleased and is
demanding from us to do more in the 'war on terror'. As a result, an
average Pakistani is now asking that why and at what cost are we fighting
the war of others?