|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 
|
politics issue Leaving
the wound unhealed Epicentre
of “great game” Change
we need Time for
education emergency Indo-Pak
Cold War in Afghanistan
Challenges of political transition As the nation heads for next elections, political leadership faces many questions in finalising the contours of the caretaker governments and the rules of the game By Raza Rumi As Pakistan
prepares for the next general elections, several questions loom large on
the political horizon. There will be major tests for leadership among the
political elites in the next few weeks with respect to finalising the
contours of a caretaker government as well as the rules of game in the
forthcoming election. It is worthwhile to
mention that these elections will be the first of their kind when the
civilian forces would take charge of the transition at hand. Throughout
Pakistan’s history, the civil military bureaucracy has been the arbiter
of democratic transitions and the only time when the civilian authorities
under the leadership of ZAB attempted to transfer power, the country had
to face a coup de tat and live with it for the next eleven years. Pakistan’s noisy and
multifarious media is highlighting various issues with respect to the
electoral preparations, as well as the eligibility of candidates who will
be running for the next election. The debates are sometimes informative,
but on most occasions the intent is to sensationalise the difficult issues
relating to the impending political transition. It is critical to inform
the public opinion and build sufficient pressure on elected and unelected
institutions to take the necessary steps which lead Pakistan to a fair and
free election. There are seven main
challenges which need to be addressed by the political parties, especially
the government and the opposition. The sooner these are dealt with, the
more likely that a legitimate political process would make history. Caretaker governments: We know that the current
parliament will end its term on 16th of March. However, the election
schedule and the caretaker governments are still matters of much
speculation, political point scoring and conspiracy theories. It would be
vital for the major political parties to agree on the names for a
caretaker prime minister and chief ministers. Instead of bickering
over individual names, the government and opposition would have to tilt
the balance of power in favour of the political forces rather than leaving
such decisions to the unelected institutions. In case the PPP and the PML-N
fail to agree on the names then the ECP would take the decision and that
may just surprise all and sundry. In any case, we need to develop healthy
parliamentary traditions and a culture of bipartisan consensus on matters
of national interest. Given that there are
political forces that remain outside the parliament, the government and
opposition need to consult the PTI and such other groups which boycotted
the 2008 elections. That consultation must be undertaken now and should be
concluded as soon as possible. If the politicians have agreed on the 18th
Amendment and other vital political compacts, then this should not be a
difficult endeavour. Compliance with the
Election Commission scrutiny process: It would be
counterproductive for the political parties to indulge in a
confrontational game with the ECP. In fact, after the conclusion of a
democratic tenure and the public concerns over the quality of politicians
who enter the legislatures, the political parties would be doing
themselves a big favour by undertaking a cleanup process within their
ranks. Awarding tickets to men
and women of dubious credentials hardly favours the image of the political
parties and the future of democracy. Exaggerated or not, the perception
that most parliamentarians don’t pay taxes or they are defaulters of
national banks needs to be addressed by the political parties themselves.
Sections of media may be delegitimizing the politicians, but the political
parties must address these concerns instead of sweeping them under the
carpet. This may be the best time for internal screening mechanisms where
the electoral strength of a candidate may be tested against his or her
eligibility as per the ECP rules. The third challenge
pertains to intra-party mechanisms for adherence to the electoral code of
conduct. The parliamentarians
have now amended the electoral code of conduct and formally accepted most
of what the ECP had suggested. The code is ambitious for it asks the
political parties to avoid display of weapons, regulate election
expenditure, streamline the process of advertising through hoardings and
billboards and above all set out an overall framework for peaceful
elections. The code is well conceived; however the real challenge is its
enforcement. The code of conduct
cannot be implemented without the full ownership of the political parties
and effective sensitization measures within the party ranks whereby all
candidates are made to adhere that and any violation should be treated as
undermining the party discipline. The evidence of the parties’
willingness to undertake the required measures seems lacking thus far. Shunning extremism: Perhaps the most
disturbing reality of our times is kowtowing to the militant outfits by
the political parties for electoral gains. Most notably, the PML-N has
entered into local, unwritten, agreements with the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat
(ASWJ). Such an alliance may favour the PML-N in the short term but it
would cost dearly in terms of the overall direction of Pakistani society. In a democracy, all
shades of political orientation coexist with each other. However, when
violence as a justified means to uphold a particular ideology or world
view is legitimized then the brutalisation of society cannot be arrested.
By giving leeway to militant organizations, political parties, including
the ruling PPP, are setting most dangerous precedents and this may lead to
a long term undermining of the constitutional democracy as the radical
groups do not recognize the Pakistani state or its constitution. There is
no alternative to building public pressure on the political parties and
ensuring that the ECP checks such practices and holds them illegal. Access to polling
booths: My recent interactions
with the political parties have underlined one key concern; the number of
polling booths is way too small to cater for a country of 200 million
people. For instance, in Balochistan the dispersed polling booths are
immediate hurdle in the way of maximum electoral participation. Similarly,
to increase women’s participation the polling booths have to be
enhanced. The paucity of polling
booths also necessitates heavy transportation of voters to the place of
polling. This reality leads to a situation where the richer candidates
gain an edge over those who cannot afford such major investments into
electioneering. There are thousands of government buildings available
across Pakistan which could be used as polling booths and there is no
reason why adequate planning cannot handle the additional demand. The ECP
has already assured Pakistanis that 25000 new polling booths would be
added thereby creating 90,000 booths in total. Women’s participation: The reasons of low women
participation in Pakistan are well known. There are certain areas of the
country where women are discouraged from voting. We cannot afford to let
half of the electorate face challenges to its participation in such an
important exercise. The ECP must take the political parties and candidates
to task which are complicit in agreeing with the conservative forces to
deny women their right to vote. Similarly, the political
parties at their end must look at the electoral roles and maximize their
chances of gaining support. In light of their constitutional obligations,
they must not allow the bigots to dictate terms of political engagement. Media responsibility: Thus far, certain
worrying trends can be observed in terms of media’s attitude to the
electoral process. First of all the corporate and the commercial override
the imperatives of sound editorial filters and journalistic ethics. In
recent months, the two controversial characters Malik Riaz and TUQ have
been receiving inordinate coverage on tv channels. Paid content is evident
and media responsibility at best is tenuous. These are dangerous
trends for the electoral campaigns may be unnecessarily influenced by
money, thereby putting into question the ‘fairness’ of the election.
The two regulators — ECP and PEMRA — must sit together to devise an
elaborate framework on balancing the corporate needs of tv channels with
those of electoral transparency. Since 1988, the superior
judiciary, toeing the line of the military establishment, was interfering
in the electoral process. For instance, in 1988 it declared Zia’s
dismissal of Junejo government as illegal but did not restore the
government and decreed that fresh elections should take place. In the same
year, the restriction of ID card to be presented at polling stations
disenfranchised millions of Pakistanis and worked against the PPP. Through
the 1990s and even under Musharraf the court decisions were a major hurdle
to the conduct of fair elections. Luckily, in 2013 we have a SC that is
independent and wants to support a free election. We hope that the court
stays the course and helps in changing the direction of Pakistan’s
fractured and endangered democracy. The influence of the
military and intelligence agencies is a different subject altogether and
the fact that civilians have been minimising space for the interference is
a major step forward. It would be in the interest of the military to allow
for a legitimate election to take place given that it finds itself
threatened by terrorists inside the country, regional powers outside the
country and its battle for survival can only succeed when it has the
support of elected representatives. The recent statement of
the military spokes person that elections on time are favoured by the
security establishment is a welcome move and we hope that the bitter
experiences of the 1990s would not be repeated by the rogue elements
within its fold. caption Consultation is the only
way forward. caption CEC bracing for the
gigantic task ahead.
issue The Supreme
Court of Pakistan, in suo moto Case No. 26 of 2007 and Human Rights Case
Nos. 2698/06, 133, 778-P, 13933 and 14072-P of 2009, while questioning the
authority and jurisdiction of State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to waive off
loans, constituted a three-member commission on June 3, 2011 to prepare a
report in respect of recovery of written off loans from 1971 onwards. The commission, headed
by Justice Syed Jamshed Ali, former judge of apex court, submitted its
report in Supreme Court and hearing was held on February 20, 2013. The
court in its order of the same date ordered: “The report of the
commission to be made public, which is available for inspection according
to the rules to all and sundry. However, the procedure for allowing
inspection of the report shall be regularised by the office. The locked
iron boxes are ordered to be kept in safe custody along with their
keys”. Notice was also issued to all the learned counsel appearing in
the case and all concerned for March 15, 2013. The commission,
according to press reports, has revealed that loans worth Rs2.38 billon
were waived off between 1971 and 1991 whereas loans worth Rs84.62 billion
were waived off between 1992 and 2009. The commission, while holding
bankers responsible for extending short-term or long-term loan facility to
borrowers on inadequate securities, has recommended action against willful
defaulters who took benefit of SBP’s Circular BPD No. 29, which expired
on April 14, 2003 although the banks continued writing off loans till
2011. The commission also has
given the names of companies and directors who were beneficiaries of
waivers of loans(http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/business/25-Feb-2013/sbp-says-rs256b-commission-claims-rs87b-loans-waived-off-in-38-years).
The commission could only probe 740 cases and has proposed that 222 more
cases should also be probed as Rs35 billion has been waived off in these
cases. The report found serious
irregularities in loans given to politicians, civil and military
bureaucracy, but could not get proofs about waiver on political basis, as
bank officials allegedly “concealed the facts because they were afraid
of the influential persons.” The bankers, it is said, have given only
“business reasons for the writing off the loans.” The report consists
of three volumes — Volume I (report of the commission), Volume-II (parts
I to VII, synopsis of individual cases), Volume-III (annexures of Volume
I) — and the supplementary paper book (containing different
correspondence). The commission has
suggested four steps: (i) principal amount should be recovered less
payment already made, if any (ii) tribunals comprising the on duty or
retired judges of High Courts should be set up for the recovery of amounts
(iii) legislation for the recovery of written off loans should be made and
(iv) action should also be taken against the credit committees. It is expected that the
powerful vested interests will resist all the steps proposed by the
commission — they will not easily surrender ill-gotten wealth amassed
through loan sharking and this money is their main weapon to capture state
power. The privileged classes, despite all their differences, are united
as far as corruption, tax evasion, and plundering of national wealth are
concerned. They feel threatened whenever a public debate takes place in
media about their tax declarations and amounts of written-off loans. During the
Musharraf-Shaukat era, the loan write-offs in just seven years (2000-2006)
crossed the figure of Rs125 billion, whereas in the much-publicised
“corrupt eras” of elected governments (985-1999) it was just Rs30
billion. This comparison speaks for itself and does not require any
further comments. The country’s banks
and other financial institutions wrote off an amount of over Rs30 billion
during the governments of Muhammad Khan Junejo, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz
Sharif. During the two tenures of Nawaz Sharif (1990-93 and 1997-99) total
loans of Rs22.35 billion were written off — in his first tenure, a total
of Rs2.39 billion were written off and during his second, the amount went
up to Rs19.96 billion. The written off loans during the two tenures of
Nawaz Sharif constituted approximately 74.5 per cent of the total of
Rs30.18 billion, written off between 1986 and 1999. During the two tenures
of late Benazir Bhutto, a total of Rs7.23 billion loans were written off,
constituting 24.2 percent of the total written off loans — Rs494.97
million in her first tenure and Rs6.74 billion in the second term. The corrupt business
houses owned or backed by ruling elite during the Musharraf era skilfully
engineered the amnesty scheme from SBP to get the benefit of loan
write-offs and a consequential concession in tax law, whereas their
personal wealth kept on increasing [see details in Who are beneficiaries
of loan write-offs? The News, April 22, 2008]. All these beneficiaries of
loan write-offs still possess assets worth billions of rupees and are in
politics. Though, they have been exposed by the commission now, it is
still not certain whether they will be disqualified from contesting
elections. The episode of loan
waivers in Pakistan unveils many “big names” that control entire state
apparatus through money power. The country lost billions of rupees in the
form of revenues because of non-taxation or bad debts written off by the
banks on the directions of SBP. The successive governments, SBP and
Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) never considered the report of Auditor
General of Pakistan issued in 1992 showing loss to public exchequer of
Rs120 billion. It is a matter of record
that FBR, in the presence of this audit report, issued on February 4, 1993
another letter No. 13(26)/IT-1/79 giving further concessions to the banks
[Politics of loan write-offs, The News, February 23, 2008]. The
unscrupulous landed aristocrats and businessmen (most of them are elected
members), state functionaries and corrupt bankers joined hands to deprive
this nation of billions of rupees and colossal public revenues. The big bosses of SBP
and FBR should be taken to task by the Supreme Court to explain who asked
them to issue “administrative instructions” in gross violation of law
for loan write-offs and giving tax benefits to the beneficiaries. The inquiry into loans
write-offs by the commission has revealed the modus operandi used for
looting public money by the powerful segments of society. It is time that
the plunderers of public funds are punished and money squandered by them
is recovered as suggested by the commission without any further delay. It
is essential for establishing true democratic polity and transparent
public and private institutions. The writers, lawyers and
authors of many books, are members Visiting Faculty of Lahore University
of Management Sciences (LUMS).
The role of the United
Nations in the Kashmir dispute is undeniable. Recent statements made by
the government of India about disregarding the role of the UN in Jammu and
Kashmir and reducing the Kashmir issue to a bilateral one, between the
governments of India and Pakistan, are quite distressing. Several nations are
signatories to the United Nations Charter and have committed themselves to
uphold that charter in word and deed. India, which has often invoked moral
superiority on other international issues, is now, without batting an
eyelid, talking about disregarding world judgments on a very important
issue close to home. Disputes are not resolved by violence, but they are
not resolved by the blatant disregard of an important body of world
opinion either. The United Nations
cannot simply be written off. This is a “truth” that even mainstream
politicians in the NC and PDP need to realise. The security of Jammu and
Kashmir cannot be guaranteed without the unconditional support of all the
neighbouring states, superpowers, and the United Nations. That is the
reality of global politics. I found a letter written
by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to the United Nations Security Council in
1957, while he was in incarceration, in which he invokes the moral, legal,
and constitutional authority of the people’s voice. Sheikh Mohammad
Abdullah’s credo is now, sadly and painfully, non-existent. The
“leaders” of today in Jammu and Kashmir use the slogans of
“plebiscite,” “autonomy,” and “self-rule” just for rhetorical
purposes. In 1949, the president
of the UN Security Council, General A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada,
endeavoured to outline proposals to resolve the dispute. He proposed a
programme of gradual demilitarization and withdrawal of regular Indian and
Pakistani forces, which were not required for the purposes of maintaining
law and order from the Indian side of the cease-fire line. He also
proposed disbandment of the militia of J&K, as well as of forces in
Pakistani-administered “Azad” Kashmir. McNaughton recommended
continuing the administration of the Northern Areas (NA) by the local
authorities, subject to UN supervision. He recommended the appointment of
a UN representative by the secretary general of the UN, who would
supervise the process of demilitarization and procure conditions necessary
to holding a fair and free plebiscite. Although McNaughton’s
proposals were lauded by most members of the Security Council, India
stipulated that Pakistani forces must unconditionally withdraw from the
state, and that disbandment of Pakistani-administered Kashmir troops must
be accomplished before an impartial plebiscite could be held. In the
interests of expediency, the UNCIP appointed a single mediator, Sir Owen
Dixon, the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan,
Australian jurist and wartime ambassador to the United States, to
efficiently resolve the conflict. A meeting of Sheikh
Mohammad Abdullah’s National Conference was convened on 18 April 1950,
in order to pass a resolution expressly warning the United Nations to take
cognizance of Pakistan’s role as the aggressor. Even as Abdullah was
aware of the infeasibility of withdrawing the Kashmir issue from the UN,
the NC reiterated its commitment to securing the right of
self-determination for the people of Kashmir. It was suspicious of the UN,
which was subservient to the hegemony of the United States and the United
Kingdom and flinched when it came to holding a plebiscite in Kashmir. Abdullah declared that
if a plebiscite was held in Kashmir and the people of Kashmir did not
validate the accession to India that would not imply that, “as a matter
of course Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan. . . . It would regain the
status which it enjoyed immediately preceding the accession [i.e.,
independence]” (The Hindu, 26 March 1952). In 1949, Abdullah candidly
told Michael Davidson, correspondent of the London Observer, that,
“Accession to either side cannot bring peace. We want to live in
friendship with both the Dominions” (quoted in Saxena 1975: 33). The distrust that
pervaded the Kashmir political scene was outlined by the Communist paper
People’s Age, which assessed the report of the United Nations Commission
to the Security Council as an instrument of the political intrigues and
machinations of imperialist powers against the engendering of democracy in
J&K. It was critical of the complicity of Pakistan with these powers
to destroy the beginnings of a democratic mass movement. It evaluated the
attempt of the United States and the United Kingdom to preside over a
purportedly “free and fair” plebiscite that would be held “under the
direction of the military and political agents of American imperialism,
masked as the UNO Commission officers,” as a strategy on their part to
create and secure war bases on the subcontinent against the Soviet Union
and China (Krishen 1951: 38). As a placatory measure,
in 1949 the UNCIP declared that “the Secretary-General of the United
Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite
Administrator who shall be a person of high international standing”.
Needless to say, the plebiscite was never held. The inability of the
Indian government to hold a plebiscite is regarded by the Pakistani
government and by pro-independence elements in Kashmir as an act of
political sabotage. The Indian government has been rationalising its
decision by placing the blame squarely on Pakistan for not demilitarizing
the areas of J&K under its control, which was the primary condition
specified by the United Nations for holding the plebiscite. Josef Korbel, the Czech
UN representative in Kashmir, observes that ten weeks after the Security
Council had passed an injunction calling on both India and Pakistan to
demilitarize the Kashmir region within five months, Sir Owen Dixon found
that not an iota of work had been done in that regard. Although both
parties had agreed to hold a plebiscite in the state, they had failed to
take any of the preliminary measures required for a free and fair
referendum. Sir Owen Dixon, therefore, decided to take matters into his
own hands and asked for the unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani troops.
This was followed by a request to both countries to enable the
demilitarization of Kashmir. The then prime minister
of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, agreed to initiate the process by calling
for the withdrawal of his troops. But this request, which would have
enabled the maintenance of law and order, was denied by India (Korbel
2002: 171). The rationale that India provided for its denial was the
necessity to defend Kashmir and maintain a semblance of order. India
vehemently opposed any proposal that would place Pakistan on the same
platform as India, and that would not take into account the incursion of
Kashmir territory by Pakistani militia and tribesmen. In order to neutralize
the situation, Sir Owen Dixon suggested that while the plebiscite was
being organised and held, the entire state should be governed by a
coalition government, or by a neutral administration comprising
nonpartisan groups, or by an executive formed of United Nations
representatives. But his proposal did not meet with the approval he
expected. In a further attempt to resolve the conflict, Sir Owen Dixon
propounded the trifurcation of the state along communal or regional lines,
or facilitating the secession of parts of the Jhelum Valley to Pakistan. Despite the bombastic
statements and blustering of the governments of both India and Pakistan,
however, the Indian government has all along perceived the inclusion of
Pakistani-administered J & K and the NA into India as unfeasible.
Likewise, the government of Pakistan has all along either implicitly or
explicitly acknowledged the impracticality of including the predominantly
Buddhist Ladakh and predominantly Hindu Jammu as part of Pakistan. The
coveted area that continues to generate irreconcilable differences between
the two governments is the Valley of Kashmir. Sir Owen Dixon
nonetheless remained determined to formulate a viable solution to the
Kashmir issue and suggested that a plebiscite be held only in the Kashmir
Valley subsequent to its demilitarization, which would be conducted by an
administrative body of UN officials. This proposal was rejected by
Pakistan, which, however, reluctantly agreed to Sir Dixon’s further
suggestion that the prime ministers of the two countries meet with him to
discuss the viability of various solutions to the Kashmir dispute. But
India decried this suggestion. A defeated man, Sir Dixon finally left the
Indian subcontinent on 23 August 1950 (Korbel 2002: 174). There seemed to be an
inexplicable reluctance on both sides, India and Pakistan, to solve the
Kashmir dispute diplomatically and amicably. Sir Dixon’s concluding
recommendation was a bilateral resolution of the dispute with India and
Pakistan as the responsible parties, without taking into account the
ability of the Kashmiri people to determine their own political future. After Dixon’s
inability to implement conflict mitigation proposals, Frank Graham was
appointed as mediator in 1951. Graham proposed the following: a
reaffirmation of the ceasefire line; a mutual agreement that India and
Pakistan would avoid making incendiary statements and that would reassert
that Kashmir’s future would be decided by a plebiscite; and steady
attempts at demilitarization. But he was unable to
dispel the doubts raised by the governments of India and Pakistan on
securing the approval of both governments on a strategy for withdrawal of
forces from the state, and agreement of both governments on a plebiscite
administrator. Given the unviability of its proposals, the UN soon bowed
out of the political quagmire, leaving an unhealed wound on the body
politic of the Indian subcontinent: the Security Council resolutions
affirming that the future of the state should be decided by its denizens. (The writer is Visiting
Professor Department of English, Gittinger Hall 113, University of
Oklahoma USA) caption The shuttered held
Kashmir.
Lying at the crossroads of South Asia, Balochistan remains in the grip of targeted and sectarian killings By Alauddin Masood Some events move
everyone, creating tons of sympathy for affected people while building-up
strong hatred against villains and a national consensus for deterrent
action against the evil forces. The Hazara Town (Quetta) incident of
February 16, 2013 is one of such catastrophes. The tragic incident left 89
citizens dead and some 200 injured. The massacre caused rage
among the Hazara Shia community and countrywide protests and mourning. To
assuage the nation, particularly the Hazaras, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz
Ashraf assured that his government would go to every possible extent to
fight the terrorists and bring the culprits of this carnage to justice.
“The people who committed this atrocity will get effective
punishment,” the prime minister stated at the end of a debate in the
National Assembly on February 18. Angry MPs agitated in
both the Houses of Parliament against the second act of sectarian carnage
against the Hazara community within a span of 40 days. The lawmakers from
all political parties condemned the attacks on the Hazaras. In a
hard-hitting speech, Sheikh Waqas Akram, Minister for Education and
Training, called upon all political parties to confront rather than
befriend terrorists groups for electoral considerations. He said: “This
is no time for speeches, we need action. This is the time to go against
these outfits with full force. If they come to kill us, they should be
killed first.” Balochistan and Sindh provincial assemblies condemned the
Hazara Town attack and called upon the security outfits to nab the
offenders. Some elements are busy
destabilising Pakistan by promoting sectarianism, stated Interior Minister
Rehman Malik. Speaking in the Senate on February 20, the interior minister
said that strong evidence is available that indicate a nexus between al-Qaeda,
Balochistan Liberation Army and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, adding 31 operatives of
banned outfits have been arrested so far. Quetta, Karachi and Peshawar are
still under threat. The Balochistan government had been issued three
alerts on possible acts of terrorism. In a report presented in
the Supreme Court on February 20, the Defence Secretary contended that the
ISI had conveyed to the quarters concerned that huge quantity of chemicals
was transported from Lahore and there was likelihood of a suicide attack. This leaves one
wondering what the authorities are doing to prevent such acts from
happening. Given gravity of the situation, merely point scoring, pointing
fingers at others or relaxing after passing on information to others will
not serve much purpose. There is urgent and pressing need to take action
and concrete measures to eliminate the scourge of terrorism in keeping
with practices elsewhere. It is in everyone’s knowledge that after 9/11,
the USA made foolproof arrangements to ensure that such an act does not
occur again. The same can be said about Britain, Spain and the rest of the
developed world. Knowledgeable circles
believe that the carnage of Hazaras could have been prevented had the FC
and police made concerted efforts to arrest a coterie of terrorists
belonging to Usman Saifullah Kurd faction of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, as
recommended in a secret dossier. The dossiers contained details about the
planners and attackers responsible for the January 10 killing of over 100
Hazaras in double suicide bombing on Alamdar Road in Quetta. The anti-Hazara pogrom
has taken a toll of 3,000 people in a span of ten years. According to
Hazara community sources, some 200,000 Hazaras have been impelled to
migrate within or outside the country. The recent incident in Quetta
happened at a time when Gwadar Port’s operation was being handed over to
China Overseas Port Holding Authority, which reflects that some powers do
not want a progressive Pakistan. Amongst them, India has publicly
expressed her anxiety at handing over administration of the Gwardar Port
to China. Actually, India had been
expressing her concerns right from the times when Pakistan had started
building Gwadar deep seaport. On January 21, 2008, Indian Naval Chief
Admiral Sureesh Mehta, while delivering T. S. Narayanswamy Memorial
Lecture at Chennai, stated that Gwadar Port has “serious strategic
implications for India.” Being only 180 nautical miles from the exit of
Straits of Hormuz, Gwadar Port would enable Pakistan to “take control
over the world energy jugular and interdiction of Indian tankers.” This brings to one’s
mind broad features of India’s Pakistan-specific war strategies,
including its current “96 Hours Rapid Thrust Strategy.” Under its
first phase, India has plans to incite, encourage and patronise
large-scale terrorism in Pakistan. During the second phase of its Rapid
Thrust Strategy, India has plans to take Pakistan Army unaware by
launching a massive surprise attack, with a force of 200,000 soldiers, and
return to its borders within 96 hours after hitting targets and
accomplishing the mission. Under this doctrine,
India’s South-West Army Command might strike Pakistan at an opportune
time, say when the Pakistan Army is intensely involved in tackling
internal problems, like foreign engineered Sindhi-Mohajir or Shia-Sunni
riots. It may be noted that
during the last two decades, India had drawn-up many strategies to hit
Pakistan, but these failed due to Pakistan’s nuclear capability or its
strategy of nuclear deterrence. India had styled its earlier war
strategies as NBC, Hot War, Hot War Pursuit, Cold Start, etc. According to
General Deepak Kapoore, who was chief of the Indian Army from 2007-2010,
operations under “96 Hours Rapid Thrust Strategy” would be completed
before Pakistan Army could gear-up even to raise its initial battle cry of
Allah-o-Akbar. Deepak’s successor, General Bikram Singh, is all praise
for this war strategy and has announced to keep it operative. Rich in minerals,
Balochistan is the least populated but, area-wise, Pakistan’s largest
province, which is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia
and the Middle East. Due to its geo-strategic location, Gwadar Port and
rich potential in natural resources (particularly oil, natural gas,
uranium, gold, copper and marble), Balochistan has become a regional
epicentre of “great game.” While Balochistan’s
backwardness, in terms of socio-economic development as compared to
Pakistan’s other provinces, has created a sense of deprivation and
frustration among the Baloch, the vested interests remain engaged in
efforts to create disturbances by exploiting their feelings. Bad
governance, weak writ of the state, poor law and order situation,
corruption, marginalization of the people, vociferous political demands
and foreign involvement have made the situation in this province
precarious and complicated. In addition to turf wars
by states involved in the great game, targeted killings and political or
sectarian killings by local actors, Balochistan remains in the grip of
inter-tribe strife and a wave of crime. While Baloch nationalists blame
state security institutions for murders, the government agencies deny
this. Absence of a strong opposition further adds to the woes of the
people. Perhaps, it is the only government in the world where all
legislators, with the exception of two or three MPAs (including Bakhtiar
Domki and Yar Mohammad Rind), are part of the executive. The last aspect
brings to the fore the need for enacting a law to fix the number of MPs
who could be inducted as ministers or assigned executive jobs. The terrorists are
either playing in the hands of inimical forces or furthering the agenda of
anti-Pakistan forces unwittingly. Given the situation, the government
needs to take the citizens into confidence on the threats facing the state
and with their help and cooperation deal with the terrorists with an iron
hand, if these elements refuse to surrender and place them at the mercy of
law. Alauddin Masood is a
freelance columnist based at Islamabad. E-mail: alauddinmasood@gmail.com
Roots of governance The issue of
form and content of local government system has become a bone of
contention in the politics of Sindh. The MQM left the treasury benches to
sit in the opposition. The repeal of Sindh People’s Local Government
Ordinance 2012, among other reasons, is cited as a core factor. Despite the orders of
the Supreme Court to hold the local government elections a few months ago,
no heed was paid to it. The other political parties also made local
government a rallying point. In his public address in
Naushahro Feroze during the second week of February 2013, Nawaz Sharif
informed an emotionally-charged audience that his party was against the
Sindh Peoples Local Government Ordinance 2012 which he termed an act
synonymous with the division of Sindh. While discussing issues of related
importance, the learned political leader stopped short of informing about
the alternative model. According to some
commentators, there seems to be a remarkable similarity between the stance
of the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz on
this count as both are not interested in the local governance! But the
urban dwellers, especially in larger cities, know it very well that
without a politically elected and administratively empowered local setup,
there will be no letup in their day-to-day woes pertaining to law and
order, development and maintenance. It is sad to note that
while the federal and provincial governments tend to collaborate, the
local tiers are left out in the chill. This dissension is especially
spread by the henchmen who control provincial tiers of respective parties.
It is correct that the local government systems have been bolstered by
military dictators for their own vested interests, but this fact does not
undermine the merits and opportunities inbuilt in it. Foremost in this
respect is the creation of a legitimate avenue for leadership development.
In an arena where
dynastic and aristocratic claims to leadership overtake merit at every
end, the only option which can enable future political leadership to
emerge is local government. There are hundreds of case studies pertinent
to ordinary councilors, women/labour councilors, union council nazims,
town/tehsil/taluka level leaders and district level representatives who
were able to win their offices purely on merit and later proved their
popularity through re-election. Even in the most dangerous labyrinths of
the province, these dedicated public representatives made tireless efforts
to address pressing problems related to education, health, social welfare
and area management. Some of them were even devoid of any political
affiliation and had to face the wrath of both right and left wing parties.
The two elections during
2001 and 2005 were reasonable tests for their performance evaluation,
mal-functioning of electoral process notwithstanding. Real political
culture cannot be nurtured without frequent practice of voting process
along the party cadres, local, provincial and national assemblies.
Needless to say those roots of democracy can only germinate if allowed to
do so at the lowest level of governance. If one examines the
level of association of common folks with local councilors and other
representatives, it constitutes the baseline of political interactions.
Besides, people need an efficient service delivery mechanism and complaint
redress system, such as attestation, verification and certification of
various kinds. Local institutions and their elected members are normally
forthcoming in such tasks. Small scale development
schemes, maintenance and repair projects are also important works that
require immediate attention. If the decision-making apparatus is
centralised in Karachi and in the person of chief minister, very little
progress can be expected. Expectation from bureaucrats alone to be
sympathetic to the local issues may not be very realistic. A well
functioning local government system in urban and rural domains has to be
strengthened after removing the various handicaps that it has faced Problems identified
during the past several years include poor quality of human resource,
paucity of operational budgets, weak mechanism of monitoring, absence of
effective audit and accounts procedures and financial dependence on the
provincial/federal government. One finds more developed cities like
Karachi struggling with shortage of funds to strengthen vital services
such as water supply. Many other sectors are even worse in service
delivery outreaches. The current breakdown of
law and order is also a crucial matter that needs attention of the
political parties. The relationship of local scale policing and
maintenance of peace and harmony among the ranks of various interest
groups can be facilitated through an efficient local government. While the provincial
status of the police department may remain intact, some local autonomy can
be negotiated among the politicians and civil society to carve out a
workable solution. For residents of Karachi, this is more important who
have been held hostage to target killings and turf wars that has claimed
more than 5000 lives between 2003 to 2011. The number is only rising
without any respite. As obvious, a political solution in the form of a
local governance formula could be an effective answer. Politicians may not be
allowed to run away from the problems that became grave due to their
differences, greed for clandestine power and pelf and criminal inaction.
The political parties should evolve a fresh strategy by using elected
local government to serve their clearly pronounced manifestoes. There are many
institutional arms, think tanks and nongovernmental organisations that
have garnered enough experience to transform the political objectives into
a proper workable blueprint for the future form of local government. In
the spirit of democracy and fair play, any such blueprint should be
debated threadbare with each stakeholder, party and group that matter in
Sindh. The local government should bring peace and harmony to the
province, not generate further schisms in the already divided ranks in the
society.
The nexus of feudal politicians, the military and the bureaucracy must be done away with so that democracy, morality and justice survive By Farooq Sumar Pakistan’s
chequered road to democracy is now finally being considered as the main
reason for most of its ills. People at large are expressing the need to
get away from the sham democracy of today and the khaki autocracy of
yesterday. To bring about a change, it is necessary to identify the
mistakes and the factors responsible. In order to discuss
Pakistan’s failure to instill and develop democratic norms and
traditions in its pursuit of nation building, one must begin with Mr.
Jinnah’s Muslim League and its leadership at first. If a rational
discussion is to take place, it is necessary to accept that nobody is
beyond criticism. To err is human and the best of us also err. However,
criticism must not be personal, it should be factual and honest. Democracy was jolted and
its values ignored by the Quaid when he refused recognition to Bengali as
a national language. The country’s majority (54%) was Bengali speaking
but only Urdu and English had national status. The people of East Pakistan
were denied their democratic right by the decision of one man who they had
come to respect and love. Here were the first
seeds of things to come: disrespect of democratic rights, autocratic
decision making, a hint of colonial approach towards East Pakistan and
harbinger of divisions as the Bengali people had a major grievance around
which other genuine grievances related to discrimination would take root.
Even a man of Mr. Jinnah’s stature, his outstanding leadership qualities
and deep understanding, could make such a mistake. One must consider his
failing health in that last year of his life, the immense pressures of
governance in those chaotic times and the absence of good advice. Besides the Quaid-e-Azam,
the Muslim League had no other statesman, nobody of stature or vision came
even close to him. Surely the Quaid would be aware of this, so why did he
not try to remedy it earlier particularly when he was well aware of his
own illness since quite some time? Liaquat Ali Khan was a
loyal lieutenant, sincere and honest but lacked the leadership qualities
required for a newly independent country to take path breaking decisions.
As a result, grave mistakes were made. His biggest mistake was his failure
to provide a Constitution to the country. Before he was assassinated in
1951, he had almost four years to do so. It is correct that there was
deadlock in the Constituent Assembly between members from East Pakistan
and those representing the provinces of the western wing, but then it is
always the job of the leader to provide the leadership to resolve issues
through compromise and persuasion, to use the carrot and the stick. Why
did he drag his feet? Why did he not see the urgency to provide a
constitutional framework as quickly as possible so that the undemocratic
forces could be silenced and the job of nation building could be attended
to in haste? He had seen that Mr. Nehru and the Congress party had already
provided India a constitution in 1950; did that not pressurise him to get
his act together? Was it just that he did not possess the leadership
qualities required or were there some personal considerations?
Unfortunately this delay became the biggest blow to democracy and
development in Pakistan from which it has still not recovered. As we finally got a
Constitution after 26 years of Independence in 1973, lot of water had
already flowed under the bridge. Colossal damage had been inflicted on the
socio-political culture, bureaucratic control was established, feudal
stranglehold was all pervasive and most importantly the military was now a
party in the power game. The Martial Laws of 1958 and 1969 provided a
pattern of intervention and a culture of autocratic rule in a
sans-constitutional jungle, the aftermath of 1965 war with India, the
shameful acts of Yahya and Bhutto which denied the East Pakistani majority
to take legitimate power and forced their secession all disfigured the
nation. The 1973 Constitution
has not proved to be a deterrent to or eliminate the undemocratic culture
thereafter. Immediately after its adoption in 1973, the clauses pertaining
to fundamental rights were suspended by Bhutto and in 1977 the elections
were rigged by the authors! These unconstitutional steps were Bhutto’s
biggest blunders, he killed the democracy that he had just given life to
and the country went to the wilderness. Martial Laws and deviations of Zia
and Musharraf (sanctioned by a gutless judiciary) proved inasmuch, as did
the murder of Prime Minister Bhutto and the “civilian rule” of the
90’s where the military pulled all the strings and the civilian
“rulers” were happy filling their pockets — a clear case of
subversion of the constitution. This situation still continues with a
greater vengeance. The fault certainly is
not of the 1973 Constitution, it is of those who abrogate, suspend,
disfigure and violate the constitution. It is the fault of all those who
actively supported and upheld these unconstitutional actions and continue
to do so. What about those “electable” who change partners like
prostitutes every time the wind changes? What about the great majority of
ministers and legislators who are tax evaders, looters and plunderers as
the various scams have shown and some also carry serious criminal charges?
What about those who hide behind immunities to avoid prosecution? Who can
accept that a person indicted by the Supreme Court would continue as
Cabinet Minister and then be elevated to the post of Prime Minister? In any self respecting
society, once a public official is charged or even there is a hint of
wrong doing he or she immediately resigns to allow the law to take its
course. Here there is no shame, no conscience and no democratic
upbringing. How does an officer of the military break his oath when he
agrees to uphold and implement the orders of a usurper? How does a serving
general accept unconstitutional orders from a president to interfere in
the formation of political parties and another set of serving generals
agree to collect funds in order to rig elections? We call this charade
democracy? How can democracy, morality and justice survive at the mercy of
these marauders? This is nothing but the nexus of feudal politicians, the
military and the bureaucracy; in recent decades one must add the crime
syndicates. Pakistan has not produced a single statesman after Mr. Jinnah,
with vision, democratic principles and sincerity. There can be no real and
workable democracy and there can be no constitutional rule in this country
if these crooks of the past and present come back to power. They have
plundered to acquire chateaus in France and Mayfair properties in London
and much too much more. Hope and wish as much as
we may, a real change will be difficult to achieve with the next election.
The Election Commission and the Supreme Court are making a herculean
effort to cleanse the filth and clear a path for fair elections but even
if they succeed where are the fair and honest candidates to elect? The
system has been so evolved and controlled by the captivity mechanism of
biradaris and feudal landlord’s stranglehold on their enslaved peasants;
while in the cities, particularly Karachi, the various mafias including
the ruling mafia hold the population at ransom with the connivance and
support of the police, rangers and other governmental agencies.
Everybody’s war chests are full to the brim with looted funds;
staggering resources will be put to work. Change does not come in
a jiffy, especially when the rot of sixty five years and solidly
entrenched vested interests are involved. Moreover a dedicated, sincere
and wise leadership is required to precipitate change, which does not
exist. Also the media is still in the learning mode of investigative
journalism. One election, therefore,
will not bring complete change, it may partially change the makeup of the
assemblies where more honest voices would pressurise the rulers. The use
of public protests, like Dr Qadri’s march, is a must in order to
pressurise and create awareness. In addition, if the Supreme Court and ECP
continue to reform and improve their control and management of the
electoral process including the threadbare scrutiny of the candidates and
eliminate intimidation over the next five years, then we could hope for a
meaningful change in the 2017/18 elections. The question is do we have
even that much time? The writer is a known
Pakistani industrialist based in Karachi
Time
for education emergency The Pakistan
Tehreek–e-Insaf (PTI) has recently announced a comprehensive education
policy which is called the party “Education Vision”. The party leaders
claim a lot of time, research, comparative studies of international
educational systems and input from various quarters has gone into this
whole exercise. Once it comes to power, the PTI plans to implement this
policy in letter and spirit. Stating categorically
that the country needs to impose an educational emergency to overcome most
of its woes, the PTI believes it’s time the priorities should be
redefined and maximum possible funds directed to this sector. In the first phase,
spanning five years, there are plans to lift the allocation for education
sector from 1.8 per cent to 5 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). If things go as foreseen by the optimistic party leaders,
this allocation may go up to 10 per cent of the GDP in the second phase,
also spanning five years. Critics claim it is
unrealistic to increase the budgetary allocation to this tune in one go
— requiring an additional Rs 2.5 trillion. But the party’s economic
team seems quite clear on how to generate these financial resources. Other salient features
of the policy are “one education system for all” where mother tongue
and/or Urdu will be a medium of instruction till class 8 and a new uniform
curriculum will be devised for all, impetus on provision of adult
literacy, decentralised governance in education where education service
delivery and management will be devolved to district and sub-district
levels, improvement in the quality of teaching and teacher training, and
maximum use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for
learning. The announcement of this
policy has come at the right time with all political parties gearing up
for the coming elections and finalising their manifestos and slogans. In
this context, the PTI has distanced itself from other political rivals
saying while others focus on what should be done, it is quite clear on how
it would be done. However, the opponents
choose to question what they call the party’s obsession to reverse
everything just for the sake of it. For example, they find it hard to
believe that a party one of whose leaders runs elite school systems in the
country will be able to implement a uniform school system and that too
with mother tongue as the mode of instruction. The PTI Central Senior
Vice President Asad Umar, who presented the party’s economic policy and
reform agenda months ago, clarifies their education policy is
well-planned, and not at all a move aimed at political point-scoring. He
tells TNS the different policies announced by the PTI are all interlinked
and nothing is done in isolation. He says the PTI is not
worried about how to generate additional funds for the education sector.
“It’s simply a matter of priority. We’ll have to be clear on whether
to import bulletproof cars, conduct missile tests or do something else
with the resources available with us.” The PTI thinks there are
different sectors from where funds can be directed to this sector where
they are needed the most. For example, the estimated Rs 400 billion that
is wasted in the faulty management of state-owned enterprises could be
saved by streamlining their systems and that money spared for education
sector, he adds. The party also hopes to add trillions to the exchequer by
taxing the powerful, who have so far managed to remain out of the tax net,
claiming it has started the exercise by making their leaders declare their
assets and tax returns. On the revision of
curriculum, Umar says they believe it should be in conformity with what
their goals as a nation are and must suit the vision of a Pakistan they
need. “We cannot discard our history and at same time must not forget we
are living in the 21st century.” Umar says that madrassa students will
also be brought into the mainstream and imparted education that can earn
them jobs in the market. They should not remain suitable only as
custodians of mosques. PTI Chairman Policy
Committee Jahangir Tareen, who announced the education policy on Feb 20,
justifies the proposed imposition of educational emergency in the country
and paints a bleak picture of the situation on ground. The literacy rate,
he laments, is only 58 per cent, and even worse in rural areas, and as low
as 46 per cent among women. Out of a total 44 million children who fall in
the age bracket of 5 to 16 years, only 25.7 million are enrolled in
schools. Only 1.1 million out of the total population of the country go to
university. The six-point agenda the
party has floated, he believes, caters to the need of qualified teachers,
strong and an accountable governance model and use of ICT such as mass
availability of tablet computers to enable use of distance education
facility and so on. Asad Umar defends the
idea of mother tongue as the medium of instruction. He says it has been
proven in studies all over the world that this is the best way to teach
young people in the formative phase of their lives. English can be learnt
separately as a language but should not be considered the only key to
success in pursuit for education. Citing his own example,
he tells TNS he studied for his Bachelors of Commerce (B. Com) at the
prestigious Government Commerce College whose graduates became country’s
leading chartered accountants later. “I remember the students who had
come from Urdu medium background were the strongest. Their concepts were
very clear, they were hard-working and they had learnt English with
rigorous study and mastered it over the years.” * Lifting allocation for
education sector from 1.8 per cent to 5 per cent of the
country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
* One education system
for all * Mother tongue and/or
Urdu will be a medium of instruction
* Impetus on provision
of adult literacy * Education service
delivery and management will be devolved to district and sub-district
levels * Improvement in the
quality of teaching and teachers training
* Maximum use of
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for learning
* Funds to siphoned off
from resources meant for bullet proof cars, missile tests The News on Sunday is
pleased to be a part of the Zara Sochiye campaign launched by the Jang
Group to highlight the harsh realities of Education that prevail in
Pakistan. It is aimed at creating awareness and taking the first step
towards reforming education by identifying the problems. This is a subject
close to our hearts. From this week, we start a series that looks at how
all the major political parties in the country plan to achieve the goal of
Education for All.
Indo-Pak
Cold War in Afghanistan Pakistan and
India are in the midst of a Cold War to influence developments in
Afghanistan. Since the fall of Taliban regime in 2001, both have injected
their confrontation into Afghan affairs. They follow a zero sum game in
which gain of one is the loss of the other. This equation is further
fanning bilateral Cold War. Their economic, financial, political, defense
and geopolitical interests clash there and hence prevent each from gaining
an edge over the other. Such Cold War is a stumbling block to bring
development, peace and security in Afghanistan. India has adopted a
two-pronged approach in Afghanistan. It wants to secure and strengthen
Afghanistan. Strong Afghanistan would mean weak terrorists who normally
plot terrorist acts while keeping their safe havens in Afghanistan. This
would also mean safe Indian trade routes to Central Asian Republics. New
Delhi also wants to keep a check on Islamabad’s influence. This would
mean India’s growing regional power and interests vis-à-vis its arch
rival Pakistan. On the other hand,
Pakistan sees India’s growing influence in Afghanistan as a detrimental
fact to its security from its geographical ‘soft belly’. In case, a
strong and anti-Pakistan alliance between New Delhi and Kabul takes place,
it will be a two-front war for Pakistan (East-India, West-Afghanistan).
This will also end the concept of ‘Strategic Depth’ policy propounded
by its security establishment. By playing its active role in Afghanistan,
it also wants to obstruct India’s ability to support separatists in
Balochistan. India has always been seen as an existential threat to
Pakistan thereby strengthening defense policy stronger than the foreign
policy of the country. India and Afghanistan
have always been on hostile terms with Pakistan since 1947. There have
been short breaks of peace with both countries. However, territorial
disputes like Durand Line and Kashmir have always maligned the bilateral
relations. Over and above, Pakistan’s military is focused on internal
security concerns of the country which mostly border with Afghanistan.
Hence any hostile or cautious power exerting influence in Afghanistan is
perceived a direct threat to Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Sharing
2200 KM long porous and unguarded border with Afghanistan is making it a
‘soft belly’ of Pakistan from where terrorists and spy agents of
hostile countries can sneak in to play havoc with Pakistanis. Hence, for
Pakistan, Afghanistan will always be dealt with a fine blend of defense
and foreign policies which may be called “Defreign” policy. Kabul is in quest of
non-political security. It wants to have trade, economic and financial
relations for its development. Generally speaking, Afghanistan is a rural
society which bred terrorism and extremism in the country. It’s the high
time that Kabul is focusing on urbanizing the Afghan society for bringing
an end to war psyche once and for all. War psyche will be over once people
are integrated into business and economic cycles. This was what happened
with Europe after the Second World War. It was such spirit that resulted
in the formation of European Union. Hence, President Karzai of Afghanistan
is more interested in trade relations with the neighbours than talking
anything that may produce controversy for his shabby regime. The Afghan
determinations of trade and economy are supported by India wholeheartedly.
India has a democratic polity, institutionalised decision-making process,
internal stability, large consumer base, and growing world economy. Thus
New Delhi suits Kabul’s agenda. Delhi along with Washington is spending
more and more in Afghanistan to strengthen its hold and play an active
role in the post-2014 Afghanistan. However, Karzai’s government has also
played, very often, India and Pakistan against each other to serve its own
interests. At times, Kabul distanced himself from Islamabad and moved
closer to Delhi for its cooperation and assistance. On the other hand,
Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan comes from two aspects. One, it has been
the victim of terrorism that sneaks inside its territory from Afghan
border. Two, being an immediate neighbour, it wants to play an active role
in the post-2014 Afghanistan. Developing internal
security dynamics and external threats have kept Pakistan entangled
domestically. However, due to a synergy of Afghanistan and India,
Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan is marginalised which frustrates its
territorial security from the 2200 KM long border. We need to understand
that Pakistan is the frontline ally of the Allies in the War on Terror and
hence is not only fighting against terrorists in the Fata region but also
in the settled areas of the country. It is also containing the spillover
of terrorism to India and other countries in the South. Hence, a
comparison between India and Pakistan for their economies and stability is
out of question. Had India been that proactive in fighting war on terror
and had it been an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan, the picture would
have been completely different. According to
Pakistan’s finance minister, the war on terror has cost Pakistan’s
economy a lavish sum of $79 billion (this was stated in the year 2011).
Though Pakistan is not positioned well to boost trade, it has demonstrated
its strong willingness to take steps designed to improve the lives of
ordinary Afghans. However, Pakistan’s any such goodwill gesture has been
neutralised by the Indian hostile propaganda against Pakistan in
Afghanistan. If India perceives
influence in Afghanistan to advance its broader domestic and regional
interests; Pakistan views much of its Afghan Defreign policy through an
Indo-centric prism. However, Pakistan has its objectives beyond Indian
role in Afghanistan. It has to ensure that a post-2014 Afghanistan will
not lash the dead horse of ‘Pashtunistan’. This has been witnessed in
history that the moment Afghanistan experiences a friction of stability,
it starts creating unrest and instability in Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa
in the name of ‘Pashtunistan’. Afghanistan may also
raise the issue of Durand Line. Hence Pakistan has to adopt a policy by
which it may ensure and enforce the sanctity of the border between the two
countries. While keeping Kabul’s attention away from such
‘fair-weather issues’, Pakistan needs to move gingerly to muster
Afghan friendship to establish a medium for enhancing trade and commercial
links with Central Asian Republics (CARS). Pakistan must watch the
peace process between the Taliban, the US and the Kabul regime. Any
brokered peace between them must not be at the cost of Pakistan’s
regional interests. Indeed, it’s a fact that without peaceful
Afghanistan, Pakistan will never be peaceful. However, it’s also a
reality that without Pakistan’s cooperation, peace process will not see
a broad day light. Whenever Pakistan was neglected in peace process, the
policy lashed back. Having said that, this
cooperation must not be for the pro-Pakistan regime in Kabul. We need to
accept that Afghanistan is an independent sovereign country and hence it
has all the rights to have an independent and indigenous foreign policy.
But it must be kept in view for Afghanistan that ‘a fish can swim only
in a friendly sea’. Hence, Afghanistan has to develop friendly relations
with Pakistan which is sharing a long in-defendable border. Pak-India relations are
very important for peace and stability in Afghanistan. Till their hostile
relations, it is highly unlikely that there will be a fundamental shift in
their policy bias. The trust deficit between the Pak-Afghan governments
needs to be repaired. The mistrust between the two countries has played to
India’s advantage by deepening Indo-Afghan partnership. Pakistan also
has to take concrete steps to develop cordial relations with Afghanistan.
Afghan stability and economic growth would equally benefit Pakistan and
India. However, a Cold War in Afghanistan will not only be detrimental for
Afghans, but it will also have negative and grim effects on India and
Pakistan. As the US draws down its
troops from Afghanistan in 2014, it must not encourage any regional
country to fill the potential vacuum which may hurt other neighbouring
countries. The growing Indian influence in Afghanistan is indeed a threat
for Pakistan. This would mean Pakistan would be a sandwich between its
eastern borders (India) and western borders (India-influenced
Afghanistan). This will never be acceptable to Pakistan’s political and
security establishment. Understanding regional sensitivities is
prerequisite to peace in the region. (The author teaches at
the department of International Relations University of Peshawar.
syedshaheed@hotmail.co.uk)
|
|
